Strategic Importance of the Quadrilateral

About Bharat Karnad

Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, he was Member of the (1st) National Security Advisory Board and the Nuclear Doctrine-drafting Group, and author, among other books of, 'Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security: The Realist Foundations of Strategy', 'India's Nuclear Policy' and most recently, 'Why India is Not a Great Power (Yet)'. Educated at the University of California (undergrad and grad), he was Visiting Scholar at Princeton University, University of Pennsylvania, the Shanghai Institutes of International Studies, and Henry L. Stimson Center, Washington, DC.
This entry was posted in arms exports, asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific, Asian geopolitics, Australia, China, China military, Decision-making, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, India's China Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian ecobomic situation, Indian Navy, MEA/foreign policy, Military/military advice, Myanmar, Northeast Asia, SAARC, society, South Asia, South East Asia, Strategic Relations with the US & West, United States, US., Vietnam, Weapons, Western militaries. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Strategic Importance of the Quadrilateral

  1. sanman says:

    US also has a lot to lose from China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative. If China is able to establish a single continuous market extending up to the oil-rich Middle East and even Europe beyond, then China could marginalize the US economically and even supplant the US dollar as the global reserve currency.

    Instead of just turning up our noses at the possibility of alliance with USA, we should consider trying to convince them of the utility of joining hands with us in liberating Balochistan. This would surely stop China’s “One Belt, One Road” in its tracks. The United States would get multiple benefits from this (block China, neutralize Iran, gain access to Central Asia), while India would also get multiple benefits (block China, neutralize Pakistan).

    I find that our conservative and aloof Babu class are very quick to turn up their noses at external tie-ups, and meanwhile the agile Pakistanis are able to outmaneuver us, like a mouse running around a slow lumbering elephant. For example, our Nehruvian Babus were so busy keeping aloof from the US, that they never foresaw Nixon’s coming tilt towards China, in which Pakistan played a midwife role.

    Given the unique non-traditional characteristics of the Trump Whitehouse as well as their unique foreign policy leanings, I think that they might be more amenable to the idea of intervention in Balochistan as an efficient and economical way to thwart China’s rise towards hegemonism.

    Please see the following:

    • Kya says:

      This kutta will go on barking fir america and will justify his barking with quote from right wing anglo racist rag tag like breibart !
      India needs to eliminate actively jaychand dogs amongst her.

      • sanman says:

        This Pakistani calling himself “Kya” should be banned from the site. All he does is post spam while advocating positions contrary to India’s national security. He’s either a Pakistani or a rabid commie. None of his posts prioritize India’s security and instead propagandist rabidly anti-India stances. He adds much heat and no light.

    • sanman says:

      Even if India can’t seriously hope to have more than a transactional relationship with the US, then alright – let’s find out how to make transactionalism work for us to get more out of it Transactionalism and Alliance aren’t necessarily a binary stochastic either – there can be a wide spectrum of possibilities in between these 2 opposites. Even if we can only have transactional relations instead of alliance, maybe we need to find ways to create bigger transactions that will get us larger benefits. While the liberation of East Bengal put a big crimp in Indo-US relations, let the liberation of Balochistan become the opposite – ie. a landmark in mutually beneficial cooperation between India and the USA. Such a transaction would provide only benefits to both parties, and no downside to either.

  2. Kya says:

    Oh. Pretention of the Indians!
    Pacifuc has become Indo pacific now !!
    All because the maguc wabd of usa says so.
    Just like indianns have become south asians because us state department says so.

    • sanman says:

      Ban this rabid commie. He is anti-India, like those parasitic JNU students who boasted they’d break India into pieces.

      • Kya says:

        Any commie is better than mir jaffar and jaychand dogs of today.
        Btw – i have been jan sanghi voter since 70s.
        Such traitor dogs barking for angloamerucans must be gassed.

  3. Kya says:

    Written 10 years ago.

    WSWS : News & Analysis : Asia : India
    US “coerced” India over Iran
    Former Bush appointee boasts
    By Kranti Kumara
    20 February 2007

    Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

    In a public speech Stephen G. Rademaker, a former US Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation and International Security, boasted in New Delhi last week that the United States “coerced” India into voting against Iran at recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meetings and warned that Washington may soon present India with an even starker choice.


    On the neoconservatives, Stan van Houcke says that one of their goals is to get ahold of the oil: ‘Right now the price of oil is determined by OPEC. In the future, 77 percent of the oil will come from 11 OPEC countries, all of which – with the exception of Venezuela – are predominantly Muslim. 67 percent of all oil reserves on the planet can be found in 5 countries in the Middle East. In the meantime the demand for oil has grown dramatically, especially from China and India, with their overwhelming economic growth and populations numbering over a billion.

    If the U.S. wants to hang on to its hegemony and maintain its extremely wasteful ways, then it’s going to have to control the sources of oil, the world’s most important natural resource – the neoconservatives let this be known over a decade ago in official papers. ‘We’re going to have to get our hands on the Middle East’, is what the neocons thought. Up until 1970 America was self-sufficient in oil, and today they must import more than fifty percent of what they consume. And the majority of that comes from OPEC countries, including Venezuela, which is an OPEC country. This also explains why they’d like to get rid of Chavez. It’s not so much that they want to grab the oil for themselves, they just want to control it. They want to be able to say: ‘We’re going to turn off the flow of oil’. China, which is what this is really all about, is the new power in the world, and they need Middle Eastern oil urgently. That’s why the U.S. has encircled China with several bases, just like it did before with the Soviet Union – containment policy is what that’s called. That way they can say to China: ‘Look, you are going to have to play by the rules that we make, otherwise we’re going to turn off the oil spigot’.’ Van Houcke: It’s also a way that the U.S. can determine the price of oil. The first and only thing that American soldiers guarded once they reached the center of Bagdad was the Ministery of Oil. The neocons had said that the oil was going to pay for the occupation. At the same moment less than a kilometer away, some of humanity’s oldest art treasures were being looted without the American authorities giving the slightest thought to protecting the archeological museum.

  4. Kya says:

    Taken Power In South Asia?

    By Jawed Naqvi

    28 March, 2007

    Last week the Indian government plainly told parliament that it was no longer pursuing its promise to bring back the remains of Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last Mughal emperor who died in Rangoon in exile and was buried there, carefully hidden from public gaze after leading the failed 1857 uprising against British colonialism. “It was decided that the proposal need not be pursued,” Culture Minister Ambika Soni tersely told parliament, without elaboration. There was no news of any MP protesting the outrage.Last week was also the 75th anniversary of the hanging of three South Asian heroes who valiantly sought to organise yet another armed revolt against British rule. Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev were hanged in Lahore on March 23, 1931. To mark the anniversary of the heroes last week, India’s ministry of information inserted a quarter page ad in newspapers and that was that.

    But people still have not forgotten Bhagat Singh and his comrades. About 200,000 assembled in Delhi alone in memory of the martyrs. Old and young, men and women, many of them impoverished landless labourers from far away Jharkhand or Andhra Pradesh or West Bengal travelled in packed suffocating trains to the Indian capital to salute those who had gallantly fought colonialism. Not surprisingly, though, there wasn’t a word in any of the major newspapers, much less on TV, of this amazing rally of the poor — the marginalised comrades of Bhagat Singh. Interestingly, to many of these seemingly uneducated and impoverished visitors to Delhi an instructive aspect of Bhagat Singh’s life was that born a Sikh, he had died an agnostic. His letters from prison, many of which reflect a misty-eyed dream for a free, secular and equitable India are well recorded in two remarkable books by Messrs A.G. Noorani and Kuldip Nayyar.

    So why do you suppose the Indian government decided to abandon its own widely awaited project to retrieve Bahadur Shah’s remains from Rangoon? The answer is not far to seek. The memory of Bahadur Shah Zafar should haunt our rulers, not just in India alone but also in Pakistan and Bangladesh, if not also Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, like Banquo’s ghost had stalked his usurpers. Zafar’s tragedy has too many close resemblances with what is happening in Iraq or in Afghanistan, and is being planned for Iran today, to be of comfort to our rulers.

    In fact the cruelty perpetrated by British colonialism in India in the aftermath of 1857 remains in many ways unmatched even by the measure of the brutality witnessed in occupied Iraq. At least 27,000 Indians, mostly Muslim Indians, were hanged by trees in and around Delhi alone. Many times more Hindu sepoys were similarly hunted or blown up with cannons across the northern Indian region. The city of Delhi was levelled to the ground with nearly its entire population driven from the precincts of the fallen Mughal capital. Only a very few were left behind to witness the carnage, among them Mirza Ghalib, by then a heart broken poet, one of Zafar’s favourites.

    If there is any confusion in our heads therefore about the origins of today’s racist ideology of neo-con marauders pillaging Iraq or Afghanistan, lessons of 1857 should help remove the more intractable cobwebs.

    It is incontrovertibly recorded that after the British assembled a force of Pathans and Sikhs, and exploited the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur a hundred years earlier to sow seeds of hatred against the Mughals (much like what they are doing with Shias, Sunnis and Kurds in Iraq) the royal family surrendered peacefully. Yet most of the emperor’s sixteen sons were tried and hanged, while three were shot in cold blood, having first freely given up their arms, then been told to strip naked: “In 24 hours I disposed of the principal members of the house of Timur the Tartar,” Captain William Hodson wrote to his sister the following day. “I am not cruel, but I confess I did enjoy the opportunity of ridding the earth of these wretches.” There is even a greater irony in the fact that many of India’s current rulers, both in politics and within the steel-framed bureaucracy, have been educated at the exclusive La Martiniere College in Lucknow and Calcutta. One of the four school houses — Hodson House — is named precisely after this
    primeval neo-con pervert. A second school house is named after Lord Cornwallis, the man who ordered the killing of valiant Tipu Sultan over half a century before 1857.

    I saw a bit of this colonial servility at Karachi’s prestigious Sindh Club, where I had the opportunity to stay for a few days earlier this month. The entire etiquette of the club revolves around the few British officers whose names are inscribed on its main hall, possibly the founders of the club. Similarly the Madras Club till recently had the picture of the British monarch in its main hall, not the Indian head of state. These are but mere reflections of the wider servitude that continues to mark South Asia’s former British colonies. For one, there is today an unambiguously pro-west “interim” ruler in Bangladesh, backed to the hilt by its military. Sri Lanka too has signed a landmark agreement to become a virtual base to American warships. Not many years ago India was screaming its head off because Colombo had allowed the United States to set up a small transmitter supposed to be meant for the Voice of America. Today all those protests sound so unbelievably unreal. With India, Pakistan and Afghanistan held securely in the talons of the United States, economically, politically and militarily, next month’s summit of South Asian countries in Delhi looks all set to be an occasion to consolidate the neo-con world view in the region.

    In the late 12th century in India, Afghan invader Shahabuddin Ghauri had raised thousands of slaves like his sons. It is said that Ghauri had the habit to buy every talented slave he came across. He would then train them in the way royal children were trained. During his regime, slaves occupied all key positions in the government machinery. Ghauri never nominated his successor but it was obvious that he was to be one of his slaves. Given the revolving doors that link our rulers with the World Bank and IMF, it is fair to ask: is there a new slave dynasty straddling across South Asia today?

    Writer Arundhati Roy said in an interview last week that at least India’s growing middle class was reared on a diet of radical consumerism and aggressive greed. “Unlike industrialising Western countries, which had colonies from which to plunder resources and generate slave labour to feed this process, we have to colonise ourselves, our own nether parts. We’ve begun to eat our own limbs.”

    That is why perhaps the memory of Bahadur Shah Zafar is proving to be such an embarrassment to our ruling elite, not only because the man symbolised Hindu-Muslim unity, or that he stood up steadfastly against a foreign occupation of India, but also because he was waylaid by some of his very own people, people who still continue to collude and conspire against their very own.

    Jawed Naqvi can be reached at

    • Kya says:

      Stupids amongst indians will never learn. They are not even chasing and exposing and destroying the moles of usa inside india.!

      In the immortal words of New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman in his 1999 book The Lexus and the Olive Tree: “McDonald’s cannot flourish [in the Middle East or anywhere else presumably] without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the U.S. Air Force F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”

      In the immortal words of Clinton’s Albright on another occasion: “What’s the point of having a superb military…if we can’t use it?”

      In the immortal words of former President George H. W. Bush: “What we say goes.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.