India Foreign Policy Thread

[Ak01]

We didn't recommend him for Nobel prize. Like it or not, modijis endorsement would have meant a lot to him.

you did worship him though...

 

[Alex]

Technically you’re not wrong, even Jinnah objected to the name India because he knew how the perception game works. But perception does matter. The British left behind one administrative unit called India, the world recognised it as India, and the successor state carried the name forward. That’s how international continuity works.

You can debate medieval maps forever, but modern legitimacy comes from who inherited the mantle and that wasn’t Pakistan.

---

Once again, you are historically incorrect. The British never left one administrative unit called India.
India has carried out plenty of illegal occupations after being granted independence. Kashmir, Deccan and Junagarh are some of them. The whole of the northeast is illegally occupied too. The British didn't include those places in the administrative unit India.

 

[Just Another Indian]

you did worship him though...View attachment 161615

1 guy did. What's your point?

 

[PakistanLVR]

There is a dire need to correct the course before hitting the iceberg!
Pakistan must reorient its priorities... drop English like cancer... reintroduce Persian(which was the lingua franca for centuries), bring in Turkish and Arabic to resettle back in our own region and accommodate what is Pakistan's backyard.
A consequence of a bureaucratic state is emphasis on processes, procedures and standards... it is meant to keep each to their own silos... providing a tunnel vision. Which is essentially what worked best for the colonizer. A bureaucrat is loathe to break from SOPs but a ruler SETS them... orders and grants what is only for the machine to FULFILL!

To take on the one with an agenda is to disarm them on their own propaganda. Both zionists and hinduvadis have drank their own koolaid first... they're evil by choice! Condone violence and deception as a rite of passage.

I will also add that English along with Liberalism and progressiveness (pushed by the US at the highest down Pakistan's throats) - now we understand why - The Zionists were running the US institutions and very cleverly poisoning the minds of the women in the Islamic world. I used to wonder why they always tied aid with liberal and progressive ideas (if you do x we will give y). I want to see the numbers of all the visas handed out to women from Pakistan to the West. I'll guarantee that its majority of these liberalized females who proudly call themselves feminists (another Jew idea to divide and destroy its enemies), destroying the "patriarchy" - they very cleverly point to traditional Islam and hence its a problem. They've destroyed Pakistan's society so they do not fear those nukes as the people are already off the track of Islamic values.

Aside from resettling dumb f**ks Arabs amongst our midst, I'd rather Pakistan develops its Persianate roots - away from the H0mo-Global-Feminist Agenda which has ravaged Western societies.

 

[Master Chief]

Once again, you are historically incorrect. The British never left one administrative unit called India.
India has carried out plenty of illegal occupations after being granted independence. Kashmir, Deccan and Junagarh are some of them. The whole of the northeast is illegally occupied too. The British didn't include those places in the administrative unit India.

Goa, Hyderabad...

The Delhi regime is an aggressive imperialist nation state that chooses violent annexation of regions that do not belong to it as its preferred modus operandi. And yet, it perpetually cries "victim of monotheists"

 

[vasanthm]

Once again, you are historically incorrect. The British never left one administrative unit called India.
India has carried out plenty of illegal occupations after being granted independence. Kashmir, Deccan and Junagarh are some of them. The whole of the northeast is illegally occupied too. The British didn't include those places in the administrative unit India.

The British Raj was administered as one unit for external affairs, defence, and sovereignty. That’s exactly why, on 15 August 1947, the international community recognised India as the legal successor state. Pakistan had to apply for recognition separately because it was treated as a new state carved out of the existing one. This is basic constitutional history, not a debate.

Princely states like Kashmir, Junagarh or Hyderabad weren’t occupied, they acceded under the same legal framework Pakistan used for its own accessions. If you call those illegal, you end up calling your own territorial map illegal too.

As for the northeast, the British administered those regions under the Governor General as part of India. Pretending they weren’t part of the Raj doesn’t magically create a case.

 

[Baibers_1260]

Indians pull the same trick with their perpetual "total GDP victory" by avoiding discussions on GDP per capita.

They don't understand what a denominator is, despite Arabs having tried really hard to teach them basic mathematics

India's foreign policy is based on the refrain:
We have the money or we are the biggest Banyas.
Famous Indian Foreign Policy statements:

• USA will always be pro-India, and anti-Pakistan because the USA is the largest trading partner of India with $131.84 billion trade in 2024-25, with India maintaining a trade surplus with the US. Pakistan doesn't come close,
  • Result : "Dunkey deportation" , 50% tarrifs, Operation Sindoor Ceasefire, 7 planes shot down insult, H1-B visa fees. choking off cheap Russian oil.
• China will always be pro-India and anti-Pakistan because China is India's second-largest trading partner, with trade totaling $127.71 billion., we do more business with China than Pakistan
  • Result: JF-17 and J-10 C fighter jets, PL-15 missiles, HQ-9 air defenses, Hangor class submarines for Pakistan.Intelligence sharing. "One front two enemies " Lt.General Rahui Singh Vice Chief of Army Staff. 20 Indian troops killed in Galwan
• Russia will always be pro-India because India buys Russian Oil and has the time tested Soviet Union era military economic relationship.
  • Result: Russia supplying Mig 35 Helicopters, RD-93 and RD-93 MA improved fighter jet engines for JF-17 fighters.. Also supplied IL-76 tanker aircraft. 185 JF-17 fighter jets built using RD-93 family of Engines,
• Saudi Arabia will always be pro-India and anti-Pakistan because Saudi Arabia has invested billions of dollars in India
  • Result: Mutual defence pact between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
• Turkey will always be pro-India and anti-Pakistani because hundreds of thousands of Indian tourists visit Turkey and spend billions of dollars supporting the Turkish industry
  • Result: Turkey supplied combat and surveillance drones and naval frigates to Pakistan. Turkey and Pakistan collaborating on building the KAAN 5th generation fighter,

The list goes on.. Qatar, UAE, Kuwait Malaysia, Canada, etc, .. all are supposed to be pro-india because "India has the money"
The results are always different.
@Master Chief @PK781 @SoulSpokesman @DAVIDBENGURION @TAC @Corax @hnn

 

[Alex]

The British Raj was administered as one unit for external affairs, defence, and sovereignty. That’s exactly why, on 15 August 1947, the international community recognised India as the legal successor state. Pakistan had to apply for recognition separately because it was treated as a new state carved out of the existing one. This is basic constitutional history, not a debate.

Princely states like Kashmir, Junagarh or Hyderabad weren’t occupied, they acceded under the same legal framework Pakistan used for its own accessions. If you call those illegal, you end up calling your own territorial map illegal too.

As for the northeast, the British administered those regions under the Governor General as part of India. Pretending they weren’t part of the Raj doesn’t magically create a case.

I think I had provided the map of the subcontinent. Pakistan and now Bangladesh had never been part of India. I have already said that the British created an artificial entity called India. India historically didn't exist.

You are purposefully ignorant and insistent on pushing your lies. Like I said, the British left plenty of independent states, not under Indian rule. India is occupying them illegally. Why do you think there are independence movements in so many areas of India?

You are forgetting the whole country of Burma, now Myanmar. A huge part of it was under British rule, but it is another country now, exactly like Pakistan and what is now called Bangladesh are. All of them were never part of India.

 

[El Sidd]

The British Raj was administered as one unit for external affairs, defence, and sovereignty. That’s exactly why, on 15 August 1947, the international community recognised India as the legal successor state. Pakistan had to apply for recognition separately because it was treated as a new state carved out of the existing one. This is basic constitutional history, not a debate.

Princely states like Kashmir, Junagarh or Hyderabad weren’t occupied, they acceded under the same legal framework Pakistan used for its own accessions. If you call those illegal, you end up calling your own territorial map illegal too.

As for the northeast, the British administered those regions under the Governor General as part of India. Pretending they weren’t part of the Raj doesn’t magically create a case.

Why not Mughlians? Why Indians?

 

[Alex]

Why not Mughlians? Why Indians?

Good question. Why do you think the Indians are trying to erase all evidence that there was ever a Muslim rule in India? They are trying to rewrite the history.
The argument never holds ground when we apply that to the British Empire. India was part of the British Empire for 200 years, which is acceptable. India being part of Islamic empires 1000 years is not acceptable. Hypocritical Indian logic.

 

[Baibers_1260]

I think I had provided the map of the subcontinent. Pakistan and now Bangladesh had never been part of India. I have already said that the British created an artificial entity called India. India historically didn't exist.

You are purposefully ignorant and insistent on pushing your lies. Like I said, the British left plenty of independent states, not under Indian rule. India is occupying them illegally. Why do you think there are independence movements in so many areas of India?

You are forgetting the whole country of Burma, now Myanmar. A huge part of it was under British rule, but it is another country now, exactly like Pakistan and what is now called Bangladesh are. All of them were never part of India.

Additionally, Nepal has deep mythological (Pashupatinath, Janakpur) and historical roots (Kapilvastu) with India but it emerged as an independent nation and has refused to succumb to Indian hegemony and merge into India.
Apart from brief periods of consolidation under one or two dynasties or monarchs the sub-continent of India has inevitably dissolved into smaller kingdoms engaged in centuries long bloody warfare. The most stark example is the era after the passing away of King Harshavardhana in 647 CE . End of the "golden age": Harsha's death marked the end of a powerful, unified empire in North India and the beginning of a new era characterized by fragmented power and continuous conflict between regional powers.
It was the Delhi Sultanate that unified most portions India in 1206, and ruled for 320 years until the Mughals took over in 1526. The Mughals ruled for an additional 181 years ( effectively until 1707) years.
By contrast the "Republic of India" geographically a fraction of the size of the Delhi Sultanate has existed for only 79 years

 

[Thinking]

Why not Mughlians? Why Indians?

Why a nation of mostly non-muslims was not named "mughalian" when it's history is older than many faiths and these "mughals" were just a blip on that timeline and were destroyed before British even took over? Sorry, I inserted myself into a weird discussion.

 

[r3alist]

Why a nation of mostly non-muslims was not named "mughalian" when it's history is older than many faiths and these "mughals" were just a blip on that timeline and were destroyed before British even took over? Sorry, I inserted myself into a weird discussion.

How can you say they are a blip?

The legacy is in crystallised via Pakistan and Bangladesh.

I'm sorry but things do change, there is no default .....once upon a time etc etc

It just becomes history


You have the odd European pagans who say Christianity was a mere blip for Europeans, they play dungeons and dragons, and go to comic conventions

 

[Thinking]

How can you say they are a blip?

The legacy is in crystallised via Pakistan and Bangladesh.

I'm sorry but things do change, there is no default .....once upon a time etc etc

It just becomes history


You have the odd European pagans who say Christianity was a mere blip for Europeans, they play dungeons and dragons, and go to comic conventions

It is "blip" from out perspective. Our history spans many thousands of years. It has Indus valley, it has kushans, it has greeks, ..all the way to modern era. I am glad that less than 200 years of history is what matters so much to Pakistan and Bangladesh but I am just talking about India. Pakistan and Bangladesh can call themselves Mughalistan. Why would India and Indians?

 

[r3alist]

It is "blip" from out perspective. Our history spans many thousands of years. It has Indus valley, it has kushans, it has greeks, ..all the way to modern era. I am glad that less than 200 years of history is what matters so much to Pakistan and Bangladesh but I am just talking about India. Pakistan and Bangladesh can call themselves Mughalistan. Why would India and Indians?

You have more visible evidence of the last few hundred years.

History is not linear, what can happen in 100 years can supersede 1000 years.