India Blocks Turkey’s BRICS Bid Over Pakistan Ties

[r3alist]

All that India has done is vague statement on Israel's right to defend itself, support for 2 state solution and need for 'peace'. As displomatic as it gets. We don't have any statement on Gaza or Yaahya Sinwar or nasrulla or anyone. India said what anyone from a distance maintaining a distant view says.

Sold weapons as well

And remained quiet on the worst brutality of our era, which translates as support.


You will have your stated reasons, but that's the record.

 

[Joe Shearer]

A lot has changed in this century.

Since the onset of this century, the United States realized that China will be its number 1 rival & challenge for the rest of this century, they could not use Pakistan against it. Even though Pakistan was frontline state / major ally by start of the century as it was providing supply line to NATO in Afghanistan but still when President Bush left the office, his notes were made public years later, that were sent to President Barak Obama the next president. His notes specifically mentioned that India is an ally, Pakistan is not. (see: https://www.firstpost.com/explainer...ld-barack-obama-in-secret-memos-12158982.html) Note, it was said, when there was no Quad, no close military ties.

Whatever followed has proven that US-indo relationship are nothing short of absolute alliance. US did sanctions waiver to india despite buyer of S-400, not even Turkey was spared which was a NATO member. India was included in QUAD, India & US did nuclear deal, India & US signed various strategic agreements between 2017 to 2018. The defense ties are limitless, P-8Is, Apaches, Predator drones, war plane engines, almost everything is accessible to india. Lot of NRIs are in US tech giants and other industries, Lot of NRI's are even coming up in US politics. The US-indo has a lot economic benefits together. That's why I say, india is even more closer to the US than some of NATO members like Turkey.

That collection of facts prove, clearly, that the US was willing to bend over backwards to oblige India. My question is what India did to demonstrate loyalty to the US.

1. We obtained clearances and exceptional relaxations of US statutory bounds set for other countries, including their formal allies; the acquisition of S-400 systems is an example, but how does that establish Indian subservience to the US?
2. We wanted weapons and systems, to replace the dependence on Russian systems (the UK was clearly hostile under the surface, and after an initial period of dependence on their thinking and their suggestions, especially in the Navy and the Air Force, they were never a factor); so how does the US willingness to sell us weapons make us subservient to them?
3. Then there are the NRIs, who now many of them head up large US companies. What is unusual about that, given the level of education and the subsequent further education that they received in the US? Why should a talented and carefully screened for academic and intellectual minority, filtered through the extremely difficult IIT system, not have come to the top in US companies? How does their success prove that India sought to satisfy the US?
4. Bush's notes about India being an ally mean nothing more than the US realisation that the Indians would do what they said they would do; rejecting Pakistan was due to the exact opposite inference. The current shower of anger and resentment, even jealousy, shows nothing more than the hostility towards their ostensible ally that had been built up within Pakistan, in spite of being equipped and trained by the US for 50 years or more. It only means that resentful Pakistanis, as distinct from the aware ones, feel unhappy that their country's double-dealing has been noticed and remarked upon.
5. What about Indians coming up in US politics? Are we being informed that they are voted to positions of respnsibility because someone in the State Department, or in Langley, Virginia, has decided to do that for people descended from an allied nation?

As you have yourself pointed out, there was no Quad, and no military ties, and there are no military ties even today. India continues to buy where she pleases, from fighter aircraft to submarines, including leasing Russian nuclear attack submarines. Only one ship has ever been sold to the Indian Navy, only the P8I planes have been sold, similarly, to the Indian Navy. The Indian Army was not stopped when it sought to buy the M-777; that makes India an ally?

This is frankly a ridiculous statement, and it is not quite clear what motivated the making of it. Was it fear at losing the goodwill of the US, that is the active refuge of so many eminent Pakistanis? Was it envy, that without going to the lengths that Pakistan did, India should now enjoy US attention?

What was it?

 

[Awwad]

That collection of facts prove, clearly, that the US was willing to bend over backwards to oblige India. My question is what India did to demonstrate loyalty to the US.

1. We obtained clearances and exceptional relaxations of US statutory bounds set for other countries, including their formal allies; the acquisition of S-400 systems is an example, but how does that establish Indian subservience to the US?
2. We wanted weapons and systems, to replace the dependence on Russian systems (the UK was clearly hostile under the surface, and after an initial period of dependence on their thinking and their suggestions, especially in the Navy and the Air Force, they were never a factor); so how does the US willingness to sell us weapons make us subservient to them?
3. Then there are the NRIs, who now many of them head up large US companies. What is unusual about that, given the level of education and the subsequent further education that they received in the US? Why should a talented and carefully screened for academic and intellectual minority, filtered through the extremely difficult IIT system, not have come to the top in US companies? How does their success prove that India sought to satisfy the US?
4. Bush's notes about India being an ally mean nothing more than the US realisation that the Indians would do what they said they would do; rejecting Pakistan was due to the exact opposite inference. The current shower of anger and resentment, even jealousy, shows nothing more than the hostility towards their ostensible ally that had been built up within Pakistan, in spite of being equipped and trained by the US for 50 years or more. It only means that resentful Pakistanis, as distinct from the aware ones, feel unhappy that their country's double-dealing has been noticed and remarked upon.
5. What about Indians coming up in US politics? Are we being informed that they are voted to positions of respnsibility because someone in the State Department, or in Langley, Virginia, has decided to do that for people descended from an allied nation?

As you have yourself pointed out, there was no Quad, and no military ties, and there are no military ties even today. India continues to buy where she pleases, from fighter aircraft to submarines, including leasing Russian nuclear attack submarines. Only one ship has ever been sold to the Indian Navy, only the P8I planes have been sold, similarly, to the Indian Navy. The Indian Army was not stopped when it sought to buy the M-777; that makes India an ally?

This is frankly a ridiculous statement, and it is not quite clear what motivated the making of it. Was it fear at losing the goodwill of the US, that is the active refuge of so many eminent Pakistanis? Was it envy, that without going to the lengths that Pakistan did, India should now enjoy US attention?

What was it?

None of my posts suggest that India did subservience to the US. I only pointed out that both are strong allies.

 

[r3alist]

Then there are the NRIs, who now many of them head up large US companies. What is unusual about that, given the level of education and the subsequent further education that they received in the US? Why should a talented and carefully screened for academic and intellectual minority, filtered through the extremely difficult IIT system, not have come to the top in US companies? How does their success prove that India sought to satisfy the US?

Going too far Joe

They are ofcourse plausible candidates, as there always will be numerous in any large organisation, what decides the top guy tends to be internal politics and consensus

Now for that to happen simultaneously at a number of places is quite unprecedented.....or maybe these guys are indeed corporate gods.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Going too far Joe

They are ofcourse plausible candidates, as there always will be numerous in any large organisation, what decides the top guy tends to be internal politics and consensus

Now for that to happen simultaneously at a number of places is quite unprecedented.....or maybe these guys are indeed corporate gods.

Not so.

I am getting the strong impression that this narrative of India becoming a vassal of the US is entirely wishful thinking on the part of Pakistanis, and nobody else at all. There is nothing that does not exist in our recent past that contradicts the normal educated Indian's view that we have been wooed by both sides, first, the liberal west and the Soviet bloc, and now, by the liberal west reduced to Europe and the Anglo-Saxon sphere and, on the other hand, Asia and Asian-aligned powers (Asian-aligned to accommodate Russia).

That's all there is to it.

Those who wish can keep manufacturing gauzy fabrics, as sadly has been their habit in the past, as it is today, proving that India is in the US camp and is a creature of US-liberal Western plots and plans. A lot of it comes down to a combination of resentment of the unequal treatment in advanced countries of India and citizens of her neighbours, of a need to affirm the transcendent fastenings of a group that has so often described itself as a world-wide community, and of a need to assert the impossibility of India playing the role that she has played so long, in her own way of thinking, because they themselves have been unable to do this.

This whole cheesy, ridden with holes edifice will be rejected by any rational Indian (and, considering the Sanghis, the irrational ones as well) may also find themselves in this group and their thinking about the situation.

I don't know why we are discussing India through the lens of another group's feelings of inadequacy.

 

[Hussain]

1. Bush's notes about India being an ally mean nothing more than the US realisation that the Indians would do what they said they would do; rejecting Pakistan was due to the exact opposite inference.

1. It only means that resentful Pakistanis, as distinct from the aware ones, feel unhappy that their country's double-dealing has been noticed and remarked upon.

Thank You Joe, It's nice of you to compliment Pakistan for having a spine, doing what is in its best interest, and not jumping and accommodating one gora master after another.

I couldn't have said it better my self. Much Obliged.

 

[Guynextdoor]

BRICs is looking more and more messy by the day. none of these countries even remotely get along with each other now because of you Indians . its just bizarre

BRICS was not a grouping for 'getting along' , but a grouping to 'discuss' . Now some countries want to 'expand it' for what reason who knows.

Anyway when someone form a grouping of world's slowest growing non major economies, we will sure recommend Pak's name. You can complain there all you want about how India is messing this up and that up.

 

[Guynextdoor]

Sold weapons as well

And remained quiet on the worst brutality of our era, which translates as support.


You will have your stated reasons, but that's the record.

Our job is not to get involved in every conflict around the world, especially those that we can hardly influence. A lesson you should learn but I suspect you won't

 

[Guynextdoor]

Don’t you have better thing to do than making a post and poking fun of @Pingle post misspelling. We clearly know what he is trying to say is “coalition” and I had a quick chuckle when I read his post. But it’s uncalled for to make a post just to be a spelling czar to humiliate someone.

Indians are genetically spelling czars. You are unreasonable in attacking him.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Cesur]

If Turkiye stops acting against Indian interests, India will also look towards taking care of Turkiye's needs upto an extent. Selling arms to Armenia is just about business.
Russia sells arms to China which is a clear issue with India, but still Russia is a good friend of India.

Turks are not like other nations. They are a hard nut to crack. People who stood by them historically or people who they feel are related to them in some way will be given preference no matter what the circumstances are. Whilst they may be great entrepreneurs, they are the descendants of the Ottomans. They will always aspire to become leader rather than a partner and since India is trying to "compete" for sphere of influence and reduce the share of pie, business becomes personal.

 

[Hussain]

I am getting the strong impression that this narrative of India becoming a vassal of the US is entirely wishful thinking on the part of Pakistanis, and nobody else at all.

To soothe ones inner most fears, and inadequacies our neighbors "knee jerk reaction has been to blame Pakistan for all their ills, yet NOT ONE neighbor can stand them. They have issues with everyone, how sad.....

Now coming to the topic of "vassal state", if one were to look at its definition, it would state something along the lines, that a smaller state jumping into a fight with its neighbor to protect the interest of its white master living thousands of miles away.

Now a certain individual, a few posts back confessed:
"Bush's notes about India being an ally mean nothing more than the US realisation that the Indians would do what they said they would do"

That was a polite way of putting it, In reality what bush said was, they would do what the US told them to do, whereas the neighbor who was part of CENTO and held MFN, would just do what was in its best interest.

Hope you figured out, which one is a vassal state.

 

[Joe Shearer]

None of my posts suggest that India did subservience to the US. I only pointed out that both are strong allies.

That is what I am questioning as well.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Thank You Joe, It's nice of you to compliment Pakistan for having a spine, doing what is in its best interest, and not jumping and accommodating one gora master after another.

I couldn't have said it better my self. Much Obliged.

Some Pakistanis, for having a spine and opposed the shifty tactics of their establishment. That establishment accommodated one gora after another - all were welcome - and taking pride in their record is not the best thing to do.

 

[r3alist]

Not so.

I am getting the strong impression that this narrative of India becoming a vassal of the US is entirely wishful thinking on the part of Pakistanis, and nobody else at all. There is nothing that does not exist in our recent past that contradicts the normal educated Indian's view that we have been wooed by both sides, first, the liberal west and the Soviet bloc, and now, by the liberal west reduced to Europe and the Anglo-Saxon sphere and, on the other hand, Asia and Asian-aligned powers (Asian-aligned to accommodate Russia).

That's all there is to it.

Those who wish can keep manufacturing gauzy fabrics, as sadly has been their habit in the past, as it is today, proving that India is in the US camp and is a creature of US-liberal Western plots and plans. A lot of it comes down to a combination of resentment of the unequal treatment in advanced countries of India and citizens of her neighbours, of a need to affirm the transcendent fastenings of a group that has so often described itself as a world-wide community, and of a need to assert the impossibility of India playing the role that she has played so long, in her own way of thinking, because they themselves have been unable to do this.

This whole cheesy, ridden with holes edifice will be rejected by any rational Indian (and, considering the Sanghis, the irrational ones as well) may also find themselves in this group and their thinking about the situation.

I don't know why we are discussing India through the lens of another group's feelings of inadequacy.

Not so.

I am getting the strong impression that this narrative of India becoming a vassal of the US is entirely wishful thinking on the part of Pakistanis, and nobody else at all. There is nothing that does not exist in our recent past that contradicts the normal educated Indian's view that we have been wooed by both sides, first, the liberal west and the Soviet bloc, and now, by the liberal west reduced to Europe and the Anglo-Saxon sphere and, on the other hand, Asia and Asian-aligned powers (Asian-aligned to accommodate Russia).

That's all there is to it.

Those who wish can keep manufacturing gauzy fabrics, as sadly has been their habit in the past, as it is today, proving that India is in the US camp and is a creature of US-liberal Western plots and plans. A lot of it comes down to a combination of resentment of the unequal treatment in advanced countries of India and citizens of her neighbours, of a need to affirm the transcendent fastenings of a group that has so often described itself as a world-wide community, and of a need to assert the impossibility of India playing the role that she has played so long, in her own way of thinking, because they themselves have been unable to do this.

This whole cheesy, ridden with holes edifice will be rejected by any rational Indian (and, considering the Sanghis, the irrational ones as well) may also find themselves in this group and their thinking about the situation.

I don't know why we are discussing India through the lens of another group's feelings of inadequacy.

I was replying to your specific point, I did not imply India was a client state

That's wrong.

But they a target strategic partner state, described as a century defining one, why should anyone demure from saying this?

 

[Hussain]

Some Pakistanis, for having a spine and opposed the shifty tactics of their establishment. That establishment accommodated one gora after another - all were welcome - and taking pride in their record is not the best thing to do.

Now you are contradicting yourself.
When you quoted Bush, that Indians do what they are told, you are actually admitting your short comings.

Now, no matter how much you grab at straws, that boat has sailed.
BTW thank you for that inadvertent confession.

Post in thread 'India Blocks Turkey’s BRICS Bid Over Pakistan Ties'

Oct 25, 2024

1. Bush's notes about India being an ally mean nothing more than the US realisation that the Indians would do what they said they would do; rejecting Pakistan was due to the exact opposite inference.

1. It only means that resentful Pakistanis, as distinct from the aware ones, feel unhappy that their country's double-dealing has been noticed and remarked upon.

Thank You Joe, It's nice of you to compliment Pakistan for having a spine, doing what is in its best interest, and not jumping and accommodating one gora master after another.

I...

• Hussain