Must this treaty be submitted to the Senate? If so, how will the Democrats react to it? Their reaction will say a lot about the party's future: whether they want to lead, or merely obstruct.

Will this effect our relationship with Pakistan?

This liberal, at least, would be very much in favor of a military and trade alliance with India. It makes sense in so many ways that I'm not sure how someone could oppose it.

I see this as constituting pressure an Pakistan. It will have been very much in their interest to have shown themselves cooperative in the War on Terror come such time as the conflict over Kashmir heats up.

This is why I wish we could have stationed our 150,000 soldiers in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. We would then be in a position to squeeze Pakistan a bit. Our no fly zones would have kept Iraq, and by extension, Iran, in check. Also would have set up a Palestinian state with US border police to protect Israel.

Just in case anyone wanted to know what I would have done. Probably not.

Horatio, I for one appreciate the thought, seeing as it's a reasonable, feasible and refreshingly "blood-for-oil!"-free opinion.

The USA- India alliance is critical: as a wedge AGAINST BOTH China and Pakistan.

I've posted on it several times since last year.

Well, a few days back the latest PEW survey noted that India was one of the few countries where a majority liked America and George Bush and believed that Saddam gone was a good thing!

Joe, indeed you cannot emphasize how important this is, nor what an immense shift in the global world this represents.

There was some warming between India and the US during the Clinton administration, but the Bush administration has made immense strides in the relationship. India had been a pretty close Soviet near-client for many decades - as evidence by the fact that India was licensed to build military equipment that only Warsaw Pact countries had been licensed to build. India had led the misleadingly named "Non-Aligned Movement" specifically to oppose Western and US interests in the third world.

This is a huge foreign policy accomplishment by the Bush administration.

The phrase "that vision thing" comes to mind first thing while reading this wonderful post to get this information.

There are a lot of people in the U.S. that wonder if they have done the correct thing electing and reelecting President Bush. This action by his administration does help to convince me that I have made the right decision. If I think back to the 2004 campaign I had an eerie feeling that Democrats, both office holders and constituents, held ill will toward Indians, labeling them as "job stealers". I believe that we can and should work together with other nations, as productive trading partners, rather than become protectionist and isolationist, thus my vote.

This alliance certainly can lead to peaceful and productive times. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement to engage and act upon the "...economic & cultural trends, historical and geopolitical logic, and moral sense behind such an alliance."

I think that the administration's push for CAFTA can also lead to a positive alliance with Central America. There are similarities in the administration's vision of a strategic alliance in the Indian ocean, as well as in Central America. Both stem from "...economic & cultural trends, historical and geopolitical logic...". I have worked with an emigrant of El Salvador. A very good man. I know that he exports the idea of "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to his family and friends in El Salvador. I am hopeful for positive change in Central America.

In due fairness to the previous Democratic administration (I am a bit young to remember), were there any such actions or treaties similar to the NFDR? If so can we see the effect of such actions today? Would they be a model to help see how the NFDR will help us in future relations with India?

Horatio, I appreciate the thought but such a large Afghanistan force would probably have turned the Afghans against us and a US border force in Palestinian Authority would be an immense disaster as Islamic Jihad and Hamas began a wave of suicide bombings against us as large or larger than those in Iraq. The difference would be that quickly, the US electorate would hate the Palestinians as a whole so much as to sabotage what's left of our ability to mediate between Israel and the PA. We'd probably have to reoccupy the PA with Israel too. Huge disaster.

ah nertz ,the latest grand thing ,a treaty with the former country that was in bed with the soviets...a fine demonstration of "a country only has interests,not friends"

Horatio, Not to mention the no-fly zones were getting less and less support from allies like France as a result of Oil for Food kickbacks. So by now, we'd now have no no-fly zones, Saddam cranking his nuke program back up with Dr. Kahn, the Afghans P. O. ed for a Soviet style occupation, the Pakistanis threatened with the ISI trying to get a hold of one or two bombs so they could face down Perv and make Pakistan into the new Taliban host.

Things didn't go great, but there were no great options. Things have gone well enough and the war probably convinced the Indians that we were sufficiently serious over the long term to enter into this agreement. We now have an emerging alliance on Anglosphere lines that will be of historic import. The French and their minions are going to have to choose whether they want to throw in with the Chinese and Muslims or play on our side. Not attractive alternatives for them, but Zappy has read the tea leaves, the Germans are about th throw out Schroeder and Sarko is going to make life miserable for Chiraq. Not bad things either.

Ken (#2) asks if this will affect Pakistan-US relatons. Somewhat.

Back on May 27, 2002, in Kashmir: Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock..., I wrote:

"...there's also another 3-pronged game afoot here, in which the US buys off India, India agrees to be bought to keep a lid on things, and the USA uses the bogeyman of an attack to pressure Pakistan into more anti-terrorism compliance."

That's still true - except that the US-India side of the triangle has evolved into something deeper. It's a bad analogy, but imagine 2 high schoolers who pretend to go out to make an impresson on someone else, then find real sparks between them.

The USA will continue to be friendly to Pakistan, and indeed there's another $1.3B weapons purchase underway. A USA wholly aligned with India is their worst nightmare, so it's important to keep things pleasant and do as much as they need to deflect US pressure.

Long-term, Pakistan is hedging its bets as much as it can, stepping up defense ties with Turkey recently, for example. I expect Pakistan to edge a bit closer to China (they're already extremely close), and sidle up to Russia and maybe even Europe as alternative weapons suppliers in some areas.

e m butler (#12), the USA has lots of relationships with countries who were in bed with the Soviets. Iraq, for example. Afghanistan. Egypt. Poland. I could go on. It's called "the world changes."

Maybe you were out when this went down, but the Soviets stepped out for a vodka about 15 years ago and don't appear to be coming back any time soon....

I think the time may well have come for the US and India to become allies. Both nations face similar challenges in Islamic Fundamentalism and Chinese expansionism.

I say this with a bit of sadness- I was always a big supporter of Pakistan over India. It is my belief that Jammu & Kashmir would have Joined Pakistan or became Independent if they had been given the opportunity, and India was a big part of the Anti West crowd in the Cold War.
Pakistan was always a pretty Loyal ally, who stood with us against Soviet expansion in Afganistan. Musharraff still does, but I sense the country is leaving him.

India and the US both stand a lot to gain and little to lose in alliance- India has a fast growing economy, strong military, and is well situated to be a stabilizing force in a troubled part of the world. The growing influence of China in the region (particularly in Neighboring Myanmar) is would be effectively neutralized by an Indian-US alliance. Additionally, planning for the worst, should Pakistan succumb to fundamentalism, India could well be the next frontline of our current war on terror.

"...should Pakistan succumb to fundamentalism...."

Or should Bangladesh slide further, Gary. Or should a mega-terrorist attack on India base out of Bangladesh. Which are even easier to imagine.

But India is already on the front lines of the war on terror, if you look at the record of attacks etc. They're building a security fence like Israel's (to silence from the rest of the world), fer cryin' out loud.

They're also quietly benefitting from US action. I'm told that one reason things are quieter in Kashmir these days is that the jihadis in the region are involved with Iraq....

As W. noted recently, it's One War. Multiple enemies, I might add, on multiple fronts - but One War.

Here's a post from my blog about the positive agency of the Iraq War. This from me who did not support the Iraq War in itself.

About the no-fly zones losing their teeth, I'm not so sure I buy that one. We could have stepped them up if we wanted to. Even made a bit of coalition of the willing to support them.

You could be right about US soldiers in Palestine, but I think if borders were established, peace was impartially kept, elections supported, and so on, Palestinians would see that we were serious about their getting a country. This is different from the we'll be "greeted as liberators" thing because we'd have a government on the ground already, as opposed to us creating one, in Palestine that would no doubt work with us if we promised them a state.

Yes, Robin, you may be right about what you say, and my plan might have been a disaster. But I do think it would have gotten overwhelming support from the American people if we had proposed it way back when. In addition, I'm not sure how your saying my plan might be a disaster is any different from me saying that the Iraq plan might be a disaster back in 2002. Except that I was roundly castigated for my opinion.

Vidushak: no sane-minded person has said that Saddam gone isn't a good thing, but to suggest that India supported the war in Iraq, which is what I think you're implying, is false. There was widespread opposition to the war during 2002 and 2003, which was the primary reason why India did not offer any troop support.

Neil, a majority of the war-opposers were the politicians and the communist party of India. My parents still live in India and the average person on the street doesn't feel any ill-will towards the US and a majority were in support of the war.

Pretty soon some sad-eyed Chinese politician will have to campaign for election on a platform of being "stronger at home, and more respected abroad." Oh... right. Nevermind.

zing. Great piece, Joe.

The French and their minions are going to have to choose whether they want to throw in with the Chinese and Muslims or play on our side. Not attractive alternatives for them, but Zappy has read the tea leaves, the Germans are about th throw out Schroeder and Sarko is going to make life miserable for Chiraq. Not bad things either.

This is most certianly true.

Horatio,

I think you are a bit naive if you think the Palestinians would have accepted us, regardless of how earnest or good our intentions. The issue is that the powers that be in the Arab world, do not want democracy, they want theocracy, preferably with them as the head theocrat.

Even if Palestine accepted our help, insurgents from Syria, Jordan, S. Arabia, and Egypt would have provided the homocide bombers or IED's.

Do you not recall the PR campaign being waged in 2000-2002 about how our No-Fly zones and trade restrictions (henceforth referred to as "containment) were responsible for 100's of thousands of dead Iraqi children? Do you just ignore the fact that Saddam was funneling money into France and Russia (that we know of), for the express purpose of removing the containment without them having to conform to the terms of thier surrender in Desert Storm?

You seem to ignore the fact that the main obstacle to forward motion toward peace in Israel was buried with Arafat, which would have been the case if we followed your path or the one Bush went down.

I could continue with certain historical facts you seem to overlook or disregard to promote you plan, but space and time dissuade.

The issue is that the powers that be in the Arab world, do not want democracy, they want theocracy, preferably with them as the head theocrat.

Sort of undercuts our mission in Iraq, don't you think?

In any case, I am a foreign policy dilletante at best and do not profess to have considered all the ramifications of my method for establishing an independent Palestine. I agree that Arafat was a terrorist at worst and a fool at best, but I think after how things turned out when he rejected outright the deal he was offered in '98, he might be persuaded to try again.

I'm just trying to follow good ol' Pope Paul's advice: "if you want peace, work for justice." If anywhere needed justice, ON BOTH SIDES, it is the Israel/Palestine conflict. Of course Israel's existence is non-negotiable, but neither is it in anyone's interest to keep the Palestinians in permanent, stateless poverty. Someone could come back and say "but if they would just stop blowing people up..." but that is a chicken/egg thing and really doesn't get us anywhere.

But you're right, the Palestinians and Arabs in general might have rejected every last overture about statehood that we made to them. But aren't we supposed to be optimistic that regular Arabs can govern themselves in a free and open society? After all, if we think that's impossible, might as well just leave Iraq tomorrow and let the inevitable theocracy ensue.

Horatio... undercut our mission in Iraq? Yes, it's an obstacle.

It's also, if you think about it, a solid reason for tackling the broader mission this way - instead of expecting "diplomacy" and "engagement" to produce cooperation with people who have a multi-billion financial interest in keeping Arab societies unfree, hate-filled, backward, economically and socially broken breeding grounds for terrorists. As long as they get to keep their gold-plated bathtubs and 72 real virgins flown in regularly from South Asia.

In short, many are unwilling allies who need to have the issue forced. They need to see that force against them is possible - thus ending their gravy train (vid. Khadafy's response), that we may unite with their enemies explicitly against them if they don't play bal (vid. Pakistan, who worries about India). And they need to have an example in their midst that makes their citizens say "if they can have that, why not us?" - preferably an example that shows the classic Islamist response of wholesale or piecemeal mass murder to be beatable (there are a lot of Saudi Shi'ites in the oil regions, who live under a Sunni regme that doesn't respect them - sound familiar?).

Closer cooperation with India, and encouraged expansion of India's geopolitical ambitions, raises the possibility of the same "watch the big stick" approach used with Pakistan on a broader geographic scale. Myanamar is a problem area, so is Indonesia, so is Bangladesh - and East Africa has problem areas of its own that are filtering into countries with sizable Desi communities.

Now, India won't start sending troops all over the place, any more than America did after the Monroe Doctrine. But the Royal Navy quietly backed you guys for many years, and everyone from the other Great Powers on down got the message. And when you were ready, you delivered a few messages in person to underscore the point.

To be a lasting global Great Power, you need to be a naval power. Land powers have historically not done all that well. One of Britain's brightest moves ever, and one that would ultimately save not only the realm but the world, was putting the bygones of 2 wars aside with a growing young naval power that shared its values and (despite some disagreements) had both personal-economic ties and cultural affinities.

India is currently a land power, but its global interests will ultimately force it to become a naval-centric power. It has the shared values of the Anglosphere, personal-economic ties via the influential American Desi community and Silicon Valley, and is an exporter of "Bollywood culture".

There have been too many Dark Ages. If we don't smarten up, we're headed toward another. I want Western civilization to endure. I want it to last beyond America, and brings in the best of Eastern philosophy and thought to create an enduring global model with the strengths of both. Europe isn't the answer. The best civilization in human history, plus a modern heir to (arguably) the best civilization in ancient history, together, to create a livable future... now THAT'S seriously cool.

This is going to be The Millennium War, or as Abizaid calls it The Long War. I believe the final-phase targets will be Saudi Arabia, and SE Asia. It's time to start preparing for that - and for what's beyond, too.

The Palestinian goal is one state from the river to the sea.

How you square that with an Israeli State is not exactly clear.

In addition the Palis are not acting like a State. The PA is not in control of the major violent elements of Pali society. i.e. the Palis as they exist are a failed state. Warlordism reigns.

Why giving such a condition official recognition is a positive move is beyond me.

Make a wall. Defend it. Keep the barbarians out.

It's also, if you think about it, a solid reason for tackling the broader mission this way - instead of expecting "diplomacy" and "engagement" to produce cooperation with people who have a multi-billion financial interest in keeping Arab societies unfree, hate-filled, backward, economically and socially broken breeding grounds for terrorists. As long as they get to keep their gold-plated bathtubs and 72 real virgins flown in regularly from South Asia.

We agree completely on the problem (same thing going on in Africa too) but we'll have to agree to disagree on the solution. I think we would have needed to deal with Iraq eventually, it's just that I think it was a lower priority than it was made out to be. "It's as good a place to start as any" doesn't resonate with me. I don't think it was, and I think it's unfortunate for our country's interests and the progress in the war on terror in general that Iraq may have been bumped up a few slots on the list due to some ulterior motives.

Bottom line: Alliance with India is about the most intelligent thing this administration has done. If you ask me, that's not a very long list, but I must give credit here for a farsighted move.

M. Simon: This isn't my blog so I'm not sure how things usually go around here, but as far as I'm concerned, your hateful, racist and shortsighted rhetoric has no place in a sober discussion on foreign policy.

They're building a security fence like Israel's

Also on pakistani land? Doubt that.

Horatio, I'm a Palestinian, but I don't find anything M. Simon said to be hateful, racist or shortsighted. The only thing I object to, and that only mildly, is the term “Palis”.

No matter how hard the Bush administration wishes and hopes, wishing ain't gonna make a Palestinian state a reality. Israel's biggest mistake was ever readmitting the Tunisian gangsters and allowing them to play the role of the leaders of the Palestinian people. Their support and money had always flowed from outside Palestine itself, from Arab oil satraps and diaspora Palestinians. Their money, their rules, and they wanted Israel wiped out, and the Palestinians kept impoverished and full of hate. Israel's best move would have been to make peace with the defeated Palestinian population's leadership after the first intifada, not to import Arafat's Soviet-trained terrorist gang and hand them the keys to the bank. After the tactical victory of defeating the first intifada, the strategic mistake of dealing with terrorists and legitimizing them has cost countless Israeli lives and will continue to do so for a long time.

When Israel occupied Palestine completely and the PLO was still tramping around from Lebanon and Jordan to Tunisia, it built universities and hospitals, Palestinian GDP rose every year, and a Palestinian civil society was starting to arise. Bringing in the terrorists and their gangs put the kibosh on all that.

Isn't selling anti missile defense one of the dumbest things to do. Now India and pakistan are of even power because of the nukes but India is much stronger than Pakistan outside nukes. Besides India main opposition party is way to brown to be trusted

Evariste,

Thanks for your comments. Reading them shows me how little I really know about the situation on the ground over there.

I objected to the dismissal of an entire ethnicity as barbarians worthy of nothing more than to be shot at from the top of a wall. That did and does strike me as hateful, racist and shortsighted.

a,

what is with the "brown" comment?

a., do you ever even use Google to check the most elementary things? Obviously not.

Pakistan considers the line of partition in Kashmir to be temporary rather than legitimate, and has a large part of its identity wrapped up in the idea that all of Kashmir should be part of Pakistan because it was "stolen" from them.

Now, add a little logic (a stretch for some, I know): therefore, it would consider any security fence built by India, in Kashmir, to be.... yes! On its territory.

(RANGE OFFICER: "Target drone hit! Target drone hit! she's going down....")

And RE: #33... Joe U's question is mine, too. What's with that?

The UN see kashmir occupation by India and Pakistan as temporary rather than legitimate.

brown == fascist (and not only as a four letter word)

The psychological effect of this agreement is huge. Recently Israel wanted to sell anti-ship missiles to China. When the US objected, the Israelis countered that they should be able to at least sell them to India because we had no looming beefs with India. But you can be certain that this deal was a major blow to Pakistanis and may be first step in souring relationships between them and the US.

India’s 800 million people and it’s emerging industrial growth should provide a balance to the US-China equation.

Gerry Owen in comment #16 says

"I say this with a bit of sadness- I was always a big supporter of Pakistan over India. It is my belief that Jammu & Kashmir would have Joined Pakistan or became Independent if they had been given the opportunity, and India was a big part of the Anti West crowd in the Cold War.
Pakistan was always a pretty Loyal ally, who stood with us against Soviet expansion in Afganistan. Musharraff still does, but I sense the country is leaving him."

Yup, Pakistan was a pretty loyal ally of the US, all right.

This very ally

-- founded, supported and helped the Taliban and Al-Qaeda -- overtly till 9/11 and covertly (ongoing).

-- is where all the Al-Qaeda terrorists have turned up, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11.

--was busy supplying nuclear arms to all and sundry, until a year ago. If you buy the story that AQ Khan could run his nuclear arms bazaar individually, there's a bridge in NYC that I'd like to sell you.

Not quite a "loyal ally"..

I'd like to add to Joe's point in #25
Now, India won't start sending troops all over the place, any more than America did after the Monroe Doctrine.

That is perhaps the most pertinent part of this alliance, the one that is most relevant to countries in India's larger vicinity. It allows India and the United States to increase their stake in the regional security situation without unduly ruffling feathers.

If America were to try to play this alone, it would only have raised hackles in many Southeast Asian capitals.

Next step: Tightening of India-Japan relations. But this one will be more controversial in Southeast Asia.

Annoy Mouse, India's population exceeded a billion years ago, and with no one-child policy like China's, they're not too far off from overtaking China's population.

"a", your comments get more baffling as you explain them as you end up farther and farther from reality. Calling India "fascist" is really quite bizarre. Certainly some of their political parties run pretty socialist and some of their parties are fairly nationalist, but fascist is quite excessive.

Evariste, thanks for that post.

It is unfortunate, but I do not think we will see any peace deal in the forseeable future. The biggest mistake that the Israelis and US made after initially letting the 'gangsters' back in, was then ignoring the fact that they were doing the opposite of preparing their people for peace. Like so much of the 1990s, everything was on autopilot, noone wanting to rock the boat and pretending that everything was just groovy.

A Soviet created terrorist attracted the entire world's sympathy, even as he and his Arab backers exhorted and used the Palestinians for all their were worth against Israel. And in most of the world, he's still a 'hero.' Possibly the most telling monument to the insanity of world opinion.

Robin,

a. referred to India's opposition - the BJP, who lost the elections to the Congress Party. If you look into them and read their statements, they're a bit beyond "nationalist".

The term "fascist" is questionable on economic grounds, but "Hindu supremacists" would not be wrong.

Joe,
I appreciate the correction with respect to "a"s referent, you are correct that I missed he was refering to just BJP, but as you say while they are strongly Hindu nationalists, fascist or "brown" is not appropriate.

I wonder if we are being too generous in assuming "a" meant no double entendre with the color.

Horatio,

Your response ignored the context of my comment, but J. Katzman addressed that somewhat.

When you say, "work for justice", that is correct, but you cannot work for justice if you ignore injustice. So punishing terrorists and those who would use them such as Arafat, Syria, Saddam, etc. is just as critical.

There is a certain demographic in our country who would resist someone so arrogant as to try to make Arabs conform to our view of justice.

The accomplishments, and the potential changes that the Bush Administration's doctrines have created are amazing to me. To denigrate them seems to be either nitpicking or political opportunism.

Is it a real wind of change scenario? Just put this pact besides the wording of the Soviet India pact done during Late Mrs. Ghandhi era and find it the entire schemism behind both the approaches is the same? Then via Soviet, and Iraq of Albaker Pakistan was made to loss East Wing now Bangla desh to India and now probably this US India approach is gone to wipe it out...But what will be the day after? Massive destructions, anarchy and unsound future? Do you believe so? Let us talk?

Yeah, brown is not the appropriate color. Saffron is. ;)

Anyway, fascist is an inappropriate description of the BJP. There are affiliated organizations operating under the RSS banner that should be considered Hindu supremacists and ultranationalists. BJP draws upon them, but also draws upon other elements in Indian society. BJP has been known as a party of shopkeepers and has historically been less than enarmored with the socialist policies of Congress and has been more pro-market. This, of course, is not true of fascist and Nazi economic governance.

ATM;
Nope, saffron is Buddhist. Keep studying, you'll eventually know at least a little bit.

Pakistan's government is pretty much a shell over a bubbling Islamist state, including most of the military. If strengthening and modernizing India forces it to do a reality check, it may gradually evolve into something sane. As it is, it is only valuable as a PR partner, which can occasionally be coerced into doing something to offset the hugely subversive activities mentioned previously.

Iraq has a future if it can become the first predominantly Muslim state to explicitly foreswear and abandon theocratic politics, and make it stick. Pakistan is nowhere near that stage, IMO.

Future - A very strong US and India Bond

Only A Strong Democracy can help a Strong Democracy and can remain as genuine allies !

Agreements such as these are merely pretexts for the continued containment, by both economic and military means, of the PRC. Though such agreements surely increase ties with India, and firmly anchor US interests in region, they do so only ephemerally, with the cost of Chinese cooperation with both Washington and New Delhi. In terms of the overall relationship between Beijing and Washington, such moves are readily transparent and will almost certainly invite Chinese anger. It is within this context that US has, until recently, attempted to pressure the PRC diplomatically, economically, and (though often guised in friendly alliances with neighboring states) militarily.
Though the Bush administration has historically attempted to enhance their relations with New Delhi in a fashion that avoided Chinese anger,such attempts are often little more than platitudes. Take, for example, the pre-9/11 claims of the State Department regarding enhanced US/India ties:
bq. "Third, our relationship with India is not contingent on that with any other country. The U.S. can have relations in Asia that are win-win, not a zero-sum game. We intend to expand, intensify and improve our relations with India for a host of good reasons. We want to do the same with others in the region."
While these are encouraging words, the Chinese seem uninspired and still fear a resurgent US/Indian alliance. This is especially troubling now, as Sino/Indo relations have been enhanced into "close ties of mutual benefit." China's reluctance to accept US criticism fundamentally translates into counterwieghting elsewhere when it feels threaten by the US, and agreements such as these provide the CCP with the ability to view even innocuous diplomatic suggestion by the US as another example of US encirclement--to say nothing of the outrage felt when threatened with actual economic or military pressure.
In the current climate, US pressure on Beijing to clean up its act, either environmentally, in the field of human rights, or over North Korean negotiations can only be interpretted as an effort to negate its growing power, and in all likelihood, ensure poor cooperation with the US, and by extension, the Indian government on regional security matters like terrorism, narco trafficking, piracy, and border disputes,and the continued spread of weapons.
As Judith Latham recently reminded us, "the United States needs to begin seeing India, and other emerging nations, as independent actors on an expanding world stage, and not simply as counterweights to each other in a zero-sum alliance system."

Look at it from India’s point of view. The aggression china shows (here in the subcontinent) towards providing all of India’s neighbors military technology at the slightest pretext, while marinating a policy of aggressive patrolling and constantly playing diplomatic games through statements like “China has only recognized Nathula pass as a trading pass not a part of India�, “Chinese citizens (people from Arunachal Pradesh) do not need a visa to enter china�, are not making things any easier, the border issues seem to have no solution in sight
This hypocrisy can easily be tested if India offers Mongolia any sort of military aid . As the situation stands India will have to compete with a economically superior China for energy resources all around this world even though Indians and Chinese talk of cooperating in the energy field they are still at it 24X7, Myanmar is an example, add to that Russia and China partnership in Central Asia, I think India is looking for stronger allies and slowly responding to the Military aid diplomacy, US might be an unlikely ally however as of now India stands alone.