India's Best Friend

[Stradlater]

There's this age old saying that 'in international relations there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests' .

But if we disregard that and have to choose India's best ally who would you go with?

I would choose Bhutan. They seem to be really loyal to us and are only people with whom Indians had little to no controversies.

[Gollum]

Bhutan...perhaps our only all weather friend.

 

If you want to factor in major powers, has to be Russia (which also dominated erstwhile USSR). I agree they had their own reasons (OP's age old saying is apt) but because of the unflinching support they gave us for so many decades, Mother Russia will always occupy a special place in my heart. USA has been our biggest enemy discounting our neighbors. When Nixon sent the 7th Fleet to Bay of Bengal in 1971, it was Brezhnev who sent the Soviet nuclear submarines and destroyers on the tails of USS Enterprise led Task Force 74. Similarly when Royal Navy parked itself in Arabian Sea to intimidate India, the USSR formed a naval wall between them and Indian coastline, giving us green signal to launch attacks on Pakistan.

 

Hate the pro US tilt we are seeing since 2008. Ayub Khan (Pak military dictator in the 60s) once said something along the lines of it being dangerous to be enemy of USA but even more dangerous to be their friend. I concur 100%, they will use us and throw...India is just one giant toilet paper in their minds.

[sandeep]

There's a lot of simmering discontent amongst the Bhutanese with regards to India - there's a build up of resentment of Indian 'big brother' attitude towards Bhutan.  

 

Some of that is natural, a smaller neighbor who is heavily influenced by a larger one is not going to have 100% positive experiences or attitude.  But the potential exists for Bhutan to go the Nepal route.  

 

 

[Gollum]

50 minutes ago, sandeep said:

There's a lot of simmering discontent amongst the Bhutanese with regards to India - there's a build up of resentment of Indian 'big brother' attitude towards Bhutan.  

 

Some of that is natural, a smaller neighbor who is heavily influenced by a larger one is not going to have 100% positive experiences or attitude.  But the potential exists for Bhutan to go the Nepal route.  

 

 

Yup, agree. Last year they pulled out of the BBIN motor vehicle movement pact, that too coming on the back of Modi's keen interest to get this project completed.

[Stradlater]

2 hours ago, Gollum said:

Bhutan...perhaps our only all weather friend.

 

If you want to factor in major powers, has to be Russia (which also dominated erstwhile USSR). I agree they had their own reasons (OP's age old saying is apt) but because of the unflinching support they gave us for so many decades, Mother Russia will always occupy a special place in my heart. USA has been our biggest enemy discounting our neighbors. When Nixon sent the 7th Fleet to Bay of Bengal in 1971, it was Brezhnev who sent the Soviet nuclear submarines and destroyers on the tails of USS Enterprise led Task Force 74. Similarly when Royal Navy parked itself in Arabian Sea to intimidate India, the USSR formed a naval wall between them and Indian coastline, giving us green signal to launch attacks on Pakistan.

 

Hate the pro US tilt we are seeing since 2008. Ayub Khan (Pak military dictator in the 60s) once said something along the lines of it being dangerous to be enemy of USA but even more dangerous to be their friend. I concur 100%, they will use us and throw...India is just one giant toilet paper in their minds.

Agreed about USSR. Although it was more of a strategic partnership to counter the increasing US hegemony in South Asia, they did well to back us in the tough times when we needed our friends the most. This is precisely the reason why, inspite of so much Anti Russia sentiment in global media, I can't bring myself to hate them. Dunno why but them Russkis have always seemed like the people you could always count upon. Like one of your drunken friends despised by your family but always have your back whenever **** hits the fan.

Americans otoh are in complete contrast. They almost always have their sole interests in mind whenever dealing with a foreign power and wouldn't flinch to give you to the wolves in case their interests got threatened. Almost all Global problems post WW2 era can be traced backed to them. A bunch of sanctimonious pricks in whose blood hypocrisy runs deep and whose actions have resulted in millions getting slaughtered or displaced from their homes.

 

I am not a fan of India's increasing tilt towards America either. The way we succumbed to their pressure to stop trade with Iran when sanctions were imposed in 2005 was despicable to say the least. It was a classic case of bullying and we meekly surrendered which was taken advantage of China who by virtue of their strong global position refused to bow down and used the time period to develop their bilateral relations with Iranians when virtually every major power was in US camp.

The result is now they are one of the biggest trading partners of Iran with billions of investment in the country while we whine about losing the golden opportunity to consolidate our position further in the middle east. Our leaders have been so disappointing that I can't remember when was the last time I felt proud of India's diplomatic overtures which yielded significant gains for us.

[someone]

3 hours ago, Gollum said:

If you want to factor in major powers, has to be Russia (which also dominated erstwhile USSR). I agree they had their own reasons (OP's age old saying is apt) but because of the unflinching support they gave us for so many decades, Mother Russia will always occupy a special place in my heart. USA has been our biggest enemy discounting our neighbors. When Nixon sent the 7th Fleet to Bay of Bengal in 1971, it was Brezhnev who sent the Soviet nuclear submarines and destroyers on the tails of USS Enterprise led Task Force 74. Similarly when Royal Navy parked itself in Arabian Sea to intimidate India, the USSR formed a naval wall between them and Indian coastline, giving us green signal to launch attacks on Pakistan.

That's actually wrong. Russia and India is more transactional based friendship than actual reality. Here is one interesting article today.

Quote

https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/it-s-time-india-got-real-about-its-ties-with-russia/story-bHptwdAhJwTeDQ5DKwjwXO.html

But despite this growing bonhomie, Moscow’s support for India was never unconditional. After some hints of neutrality, the USSR eventually leaned towards Beijing during the 1962 India-China war, in part to ensure its support during the Cuban missile crisis. After 1965, the Soviet Union positioned itself as a neutral broker between India and Pakistan, hosting the summit at Tashkent and even supplying military assistance to Pakistan in 1968.

Later, in the 1990s, Russia initially joined the United States and China in condemning India’s nuclear tests. Today, the relationship has become one-dimensional, centred on arms sales by Russia to India.

 

 

[zen]

The policies of our politicians and babus ensure that Ind does not really have a true friend .... Tibet could have been a great friend if India had supported it but the likes of Nehru looked the other way when it was being plundered .... Fiascos such as “Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai” makes me wonder whether Ind can be its own friend 

 

On Bhutan, the country is reliant on India so it keeps good relationship. Bhutan policies and goals are different from India’s where it has metrics such as “happiness index”. Its policy makers care for environment and cleanliness (Indians in general litter Bhutan too). Bhutan also appears to be more self disciplined. On the negative side, Bhutan is not as inclusive of all communities as Ind is. Which may not really a negative if the country wants to preserve its heritage .... Ind can learn a lot from Bhutan rather than try to merely ape the west 

 

PS

 

https://youtu.be/ZLkjDVLYVo4 

 

To me, Bhutan is a leader in its domain. It is a proud country that cares for itself as seen from policies such as keeping at least 60% forest cover! 

Edited July 30, 2018 by zen

[Gollum]

40 minutes ago, someone said:

That's actually wrong. Russia and India is more transactional based friendship than actual reality. Here is one interesting article today.

 

 

The author Dhruva Jaishankar is s/o Subramaniam Jaishankar.

 

Subramaniam Jaishankar = ex Indian ambassador to USA and chief negotiator from Indian side in the India-USA Civil Nuclear Agreement, also known as the 123 agreement. The son is a part of many US think tanks which aim to promote American systems, influence and values.

 

Dude don't expect me to swallow whatever he says. I know how these things work, better to think independently than treat agenda driven op-eds as divine truth. 

 

From a cursory glance at those 4-5 lines I can tell you that the author is paid by the Americans to write ****. Russia never condemned our nuclear tests. Russia was far from neutral and supported India over Pakistan. Russia was neutral in early stages of 1962 but later on request supplied arms to India and also mobilized its troops along China border to divert the PLA and enforce peace. It was the American scumbags who first made false promises and then refrained from helping in that war against communists. 

Edited July 30, 2018 by Gollum

[Stradlater]

3 hours ago, sandeep said:

There's a lot of simmering discontent amongst the Bhutanese with regards to India - there's a build up of resentment of Indian 'big brother' attitude towards Bhutan.  

 

Some of that is natural, a smaller neighbor who is heavily influenced by a larger one is not going to have 100% positive experiences or attitude.  But the potential exists for Bhutan to go the Nepal route.  

 

 

That's a diplomatic failure on our part.

India's neighborhood policies after Independence have been really questionable and we could never manage to win the trust of our neighboring countries despite having in common so much social and cultural ethos.

 

India's 'big brotherly' stature like you rightly pointed out have been seen with suspicion by everyone thus ensuring there always remained a trust deficit when dealing with our neighbors.

 

We have failed at almost every level, be it political, economical or diplomatic, to generate and sustain pro India sentiments in South Asia thus virtually managing to alienate almost all our neighbors. 

With increasing Chinese intervention in South Asia, The issue has reached at such a point that our 'hard talks' to persuade neighbors to our cause have been increasingly met with strict rebuff leaving us red faced case in point 2015 Nepalese Constitution controversy surrounding Madhesis and Maldives recent cold shouldering to India.

 

Many of these factors mentioned are hard to reverse but the fundamental facts of geography and shared cultures in South Asia are also undeniable and India must focus it's efforts to making the neighborhood first again.

 

A lot can be learnt from ASEAN and how they operate. Like ASEAN, SAARC countries must meet more often informally, interfere less in the internal workings of each other's governments and that there be more interaction at every level of government. Like Indonesia, India too must take a backseat in decision making, enabling others to build a more harmonious SAARC process.

 

Also India should stop this incessant whinging and throwing fit over every Chinese project and must attempt a two pronged approach:

 First, Wherever possible we should collaborate with China in the manner we had over the BCIM economic corridor.

Second, India should coexist with projects that do not necessitate intervention, while formulating a set of South Asian principles for sustainable development.

[Stradlater]

2 hours ago, Gollum said:

Yup, agree. Last year they pulled out of the BBIN motor vehicle movement pact, that too coming on the back of Modi's keen interest to get this project completed.

Although that was a shocker for us, I kind of understand where they were coming from. Remember this is the country which has put the environmental conservation at the topmost pedestal and who are extremely protective of their natural beauty.

The connectivity project would have meant a lot more trucks and vehicles passing over through their Territory thus substantially altering the pollution levels in the atmosphere not to mention the littering and plastic pollution it would have caused.

They simply do not compromise when it comes to protecting Nature, something we can learn from them.

[someone]

33 minutes ago, Gollum said:

The author Dhruva Jaishankar is s/o Subramaniam Jaishankar.

 

Subramaniam Jaishankar = ex Indian ambassador to USA and chief negotiator from Indian side in the India-USA Civil Nuclear Agreement, also known as the 123 agreement. The son is a part of many US think tanks which aim to promote American systems, influence and values.

 

Dude don't expect me to swallow whatever he says. I know how these things work, better to think independently than treat agenda driven op-eds as divine truth. 

 

From a cursory glance at those 4-5 lines I can tell you that the author is paid by the Americans to write ****. Russia never condemned our nuclear tests. Russia was far from neutral and supported India over Pakistan. Russia was neutral in early stages of 1962 but later on request supplied arms to India and also mobilized its troops along China border to divert the PLA and enforce peace. It was the American scumbags who first made false promises and then refrained from helping in that war against communists. 

That's a bad post from you. Attacking the author instead of the content. And no counters against what was written.jHe mentioned clearly support from RUS has never been unconditional. This is the main point and you have to admit it. And there are evidence and records to support that. Just one google search, made me find this article and on their initial reaction

Quote

India's nuclear tests on May 11 and 13, therefore, put Russian policy-makers on the horns of a dilemma. In its official response Moscow unequivocally criticised the tests. President Yeltsin lamented that "India has let us down." The official statement issued by the Russian Foreign Ministry on May 12 expressed "alarm and concern" and "very deep regret in Russia" over the Indian action. The statement urged India to reverse its nuclear policy and sign NPT and CTBT.v

https://www.idsa-india.org/an-aug8-4.html

 

We really have to look at this friendship really from a transactional, business based.

[sandeep]

30 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

That's a diplomatic failure on our part.

India's neighborhood policies after Independence have been really questionable and we could never manage to win the trust of our neighboring countries despite having in common so much social and cultural ethos.

 

India's 'big brotherly' stature like you rightly pointed out have been seen with suspicion by everyone thus ensuring there always remained a trust deficit when dealing with our neighbors.

 

We have failed at almost every level, be it political, economical or diplomatic, to generate and sustain pro India sentiments in South Asia thus virtually managing to alienate almost all our neighbors. 

With increasing Chinese intervention in South Asia, The issue has reached at such a point that our 'hard talks' to persuade neighbors to our cause have been increasingly met with strict rebuff leaving us red faced case in point 2015 Nepalese Constitution controversy surrounding Madhesis and Maldives recent cold shouldering to India.

 

Many of these factors mentioned are hard to reverse but the fundamental facts of geography and shared cultures in South Asia are also undeniable and India must focus it's efforts to making the neighborhood first again.

 

A lot can be learnt from ASEAN and how they operate. Like ASEAN, SAARC countries must meet more often informally, interfere less in the internal workings of each other's governments and that there be more interaction at every level of government. Like Indonesia, India too must take a backseat in decision making, enabling others to build a more harmonious SAARC process.

 

Also India should stop this incessant whinging and throwing fit over every Chinese project and must attempt a two pronged approach:

 First, Wherever possible we should collaborate with China in the manner we had over the BCIM economic corridor.

Second, India should coexist with projects that do not necessitate intervention, while formulating a set of South Asian principles for sustainable development.

Massive failure.  Indian diplomatic corps swing from apathy to grandiose statements, with none of the follow-up and execution required to live up to lofty pronouncements made from time to time.

 

BIMSTEC is a good initiative by GoI - provided they follow through on it.  Call me a cynic, but I think nothing much will come out of it, precisely due to the tendency of the Indian govt to get sidetracked and navel-gaze at best, and corruption at worst.  

[Gollum]

@someone In my 1st post in this thread I said I agreed with OP's mention of the old saying that 'in international relations there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests'. I understand Russia has its own interests in charting its foreign policy just like USSR had its own reasons. But the end result is that it was very beneficial for us and they stood like a pillar during our darkest hour.

 

As per this LINK Russia didn't condemn our action in Pokhran, also if you have subscription with EPW check this out Costs of Economic Sanctions-Aftermath of Pokhran II, same thing is mentioned that Russia was against sanctions on India post Pokhran -II. They may have expressed initial surprise (or even disappointment) but that may have been because Yeltsin was a Western puppet who had been propped up by them. He may have been asked to tone down later by his advisers for all we know. Gorbachev and Yeltsin were responsible for the dissolution of USSR, till Putin came Russia was ruled by traitors for a decade and a half. No wonder the Americans hate Putin and adore their 2 puppies.

 

 

Edited July 30, 2018 by Gollum

[someone]

10 hours ago, Gollum said:

@someone In my 1st post in this thread I said I agreed with OP's mention of the old saying that 'in international relations there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests'. I understand Russia has its own interests in charting its foreign policy just like USSR had its own reasons. But the end result is that it was very beneficial for us and they stood like a pillar during our darkest hour.

 

As per this LINK Russia didn't condemn our action in Pokhran, also if you have subscription with EPW check this out Costs of Economic Sanctions-Aftermath of Pokhran II, same thing is mentioned that Russia was against sanctions on India post Pokhran -II. They may have expressed initial surprise (or even disappointment) but that may have been because Yeltsin was a Western puppet who had been propped up by them. He may have been asked to tone down later by his advisers for all we know. Gorbachev and Yeltsin were responsible for the dissolution of USSR, till Putin came Russia was ruled by traitors for a decade and a half. No wonder the Americans hate Putin and adore their 2 puppies.

So you admit the support was never unconditional, and you were wrong earlier? You see they have also let us down historical, and you can call them western puppets but that doesn't change the facts. And are we sure about the current Russia leadership will side with India at key times? I don't see this as any real friendship between but rather transactional based.

 

Next, today its more about lobby groups, think-tanks, proxies. You can call them whatever you want, ultimately there needs to be a voice of our own in the foreign land. And we really lack that, whereas the superpowers have invested greatly in strong lobbies. I would even say Pakistan has traditional been better than us in this department...

[FischerTal]

i know people won't agree, but France. I'm not talking about on a personal, man-to-man level, but government to government relations. 

[Stradlater]

4 hours ago, FischerTal said:

i know people won't agree, but France. I'm not talking about on a personal, man-to-man level, but government to government relations. 

IIRC they were the first Western power to come in our support when talk of sanctions was in air after 1998 nuclear test.

[Stradlater]

7 hours ago, FischerTal said:

i know people won't agree, but France. I'm not talking about on a personal, man-to-man level, but government to government relations. 

Not to mention the recent signing of the agreement for the provision of reciprocal logistics support between the armed forces of two Nations which allows India to seek access to French military facilities esp in the light of whole string of pearls **** with China.

[Clarke]

11 hours ago, FischerTal said:

i know people won't agree, but France. I'm not talking about on a personal, man-to-man level, but government to government relations. 

The suitable partner in the west. The rest are all too close to United States who always has the "either ur with us or against us" attitude or don't count that much.

 

Surprised no one mentioned Israel, where are the right wingers 

Edited July 31, 2018 by Clarke

[UrmiSinhaRay]

The suitable partner in the west. The rest are all too close to United States who always has the "either ur with us or against us" attitude or don't count that much.
 
Surprised no one mentioned Israel, where are the right wingers 

I was going to mention Israel but forgot to write an answer.

Sent from my CPH1609 using Tapatalk

[sandeep]

On 7/30/2018 at 11:50 AM, zen said:

The policies of our politicians and babus ensure that Ind does not really have a true friend .... Tibet could have been a great friend if India had supported it but the likes of Nehru looked the other way when it was being plundered .... Fiascos such as “Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai” makes me wonder whether Ind can be its own friend 

 

On Bhutan, the country is reliant on India so it keeps good relationship. Bhutan policies and goals are different from India’s where it has metrics such as “happiness index”. Its policy makers care for environment and cleanliness (Indians in general litter Bhutan too). Bhutan also appears to be more self disciplined. On the negative side, Bhutan is not as inclusive of all communities as Ind is. Which may not really a negative if the country wants to preserve its heritage .... Ind can learn a lot from Bhutan rather than try to merely ape the west 

 

PS

 

https://youtu.be/ZLkjDVLYVo4 

 

To me, Bhutan is a leader in its domain. It is a proud country that cares for itself as seen from policies such as keeping at least 60% forest cover! 

This is flawed misinformation - India did a LOT to support Tibet. And it was India's assistance to Tibet that was one of the major reasons China attacked us in 1962.  In the late 50s and 60s, India worked with the CIA to train a Tibetan army in exile.  Once India lost the border war to China, it had no choice but to eat humble pie and wind down its support to the Tibetans.