Just curious, before I jump to conclusions. Is it that British media writes such articles about all countries or some countries or targeted countries?
Anyone who has tracked this topic is welcome to answer.
As Indians it is natural that we bother only about articles written about india, I want to find out if there is pattern to what British media reports.
They write such articles only about targeted countries. Russia was their pet favourite. After India picked the Rafales over the Typhoons, they have started squealing about India.
This entire aid thingy is a massive racket, a sophisticated bribe so that we buy their Typhoons. They won't worry about India's poverty if we spend our money buying these Typhoons. Only when we pick something else, they seem to begin to get concerned about India's poverty.
All the money for aid is taken from British taxpayers, which is less than even the fertilizer subsidies given by the Indian government. Most of this tiny amount of money is recycled back to Britain. A very little of this actually reaches the end recipient. The British government continues to feed its population the Kool-Aid that its aid money is helping poor countries. The Brits have perfected the art of debauchery.
Is it any wonder the Brits begged us to continue to take their aid when we said we didn't need it? It is not because the Brit politicians want to help us. It is because they want to help
themselves.
Then, there is posterior inflammation that occurs every time India launches a satellite. It is all from Brit aid money, we are reminded. If Brit aid money were indeed good enough for a space programme,
what on heaven or earth stopped the Brits from launching their satellites themselves? Haven't we heard enough of this "we could launch" drivel? How about we see it actually being done, without the Brits riding the coat-tails of the French via the ESA?
