Actually you are quoting instances and drawing inferences not realizing the Political and Economic costs we paid. for each of the above. When you sell your soul to the devil - he owns it.
We didn't sell our soul to any devil. This is nothing but plain and simple rhetoric.
You need to research the fine print of that plant and why only now have Advanced Steel making been introduced by private players.
You mention private players. Why don't you talk about something that existed when India gained independence? What private players w.r.t. industries did India have immediately after independence? Looking at India today, it feels like we have always been like this.
Quoting from a PDF i have.
". India’s beneªt from Soviet friendship until then had been mainly economic and symbolic—a giant steel mill and other icons of Soviet-style industrialization donated by Khrushchev. Soviet aid to India lagged behind that to Indonesia and Egypt—the main targets of Khrushchev’s arms diplomacy—but he was trying to expand it."
The Soviet Union’s Partnership with India - Vojtech Mastny
So after the Mill -1959 to 1962 both India and SU relations with the PRC declined. To expand Soviet help to India Soviet union gave us a line of credit for Non Military supplies and made us buy their weapons (Saudi Arabia anybody?) -
I did not follow the Saudi Arabia correlation.
By 1968 we were firmly in the Soviet Camp by necessity. American's found more traction to their world view in Pakistan while we continue to harp on our Non Aligned Status but in reality were just toeing an Anti-Capital line that ironically was pro-soviet. Russia found an Easy ally (guinea pig) in India. We had just fought a war with China - the Soviets were having their own border issues with china. We Were anti Pakistan (another American vassal) and we had deep ties to the Middle East. Russia used us with remarkable astuteness in all of the above for over 4 decades.
Yes, by necessity. This has nothing to do with us being guinea pigs. Nobody forced India to go into the Soviet camp. We could have remained aloof while Pakistan was part of SEATO, and we would gotten whacked by PRC, Pakistan, and the US, several times already. Sorry, emotional mumbo-jumbo doesn't make for good statescraft.
Post WWII with the NAM India vied for Respect in a Western World Order. The Western world ofcourse refused to give this respect to its former colonies. The Soviets did. So we went to bed with them.
Good point. Precisely what I said in the previous post.
Yes they helped us with our nuclear reactors, Military and Missle program - But lets not be delusional they did it for themselves. Arming India threw another counter balance into world politics - and because of the above they continue to hold us by the balls and squeeze.
You cite missile programme and then say that they did it for themselves? How does it benefit the USSR if India develops the capability to target Soviet cities? I suppose this "argument" makes sense to you. I doesn't make any sense to me.
We did Eventually get an HDW line hook line and sinker with TOT deeper than ANYTHING the soviets ever gave us. Research why we never expanded that production line and why it went to waste. The Soviets actively lobbied to kill any other product that was in active competition to theirs. in 2017 the same old story can be seen with the Arjun, The above quoted book is a very miopic romantic mental masturbation of the actual ground REAL-POLITIC that pervaded throughout the Cold war and into the 2000s
I would try to figure out who helped India miniaturize India's nuclear reactor for our Arihant before using the HDW as an argument. There is no comparison.
What the brits did with the Hermes is nothing short of the what the Russians have pulled with the Gorshkov, T-90, Su-30, etc etc today and every weapon system over the past 20-30 years.
When cost escalation happened with the Gorshkov, the Russians offered to pay back the money India had paid because the Chinese were also interested in it. India chose to go forward with the escalated cost. The Russians provided everything we asked of them. They even modified an
Aviation Cruiser into an
Aircraft Carrier in their Severodvinsk Shipyard.
- What the Russians did with Gorshkov was an improvement.
- What the British did with Hermes was a degradation.
Sorry the absolute opposite. Indian Politicans were not just bribed they were owned. When IG lost the election the head of the KGB had to resign as it was seen as one of the biggest failure of the SU's foriegn policy efforts. the Story is just as grotesque on a state by state basis.
Please re-read what you are responding to. You might as well suggest that the Soviets bribed the French, the British, and the Americans to snub India so that India could approach the USSR for submarines. This is sounding more and more like a conspiracy theory.
Oh, by the way, it was not only with respect to submarines that India was snubbed by the west.
India was snubbed by the west when India was staring down a famine in 1951. After being snubbed by the US, it was the USSR that sent wheat as aid to India. With the US, it was meant to be a
loan. With the USSR, it was a
gift. Big difference. Sorry, Mitrokhin may not have told you this, but that does not mean this did not happen.
Sorry but that does not mean anything By 71 we were a Soviet Vassal. The above is simply additional CAPEX to protect an investment. Do you mean to say everytime the Americans funded an insurgency (SFF (India), Anti communists in South America, Asia, Africa) they did it out of love and goodwill?). Hell in Kargil the Israelis provided more support to us than the Russians.
Disagree.
I can understand the USSR had its interest when it supported India during India-Portugal War of 1961 because Portugal was a NATO member and Goa could have been a NATO Naval Base.
Coming to 1971, how did the USSR benefit from it?
- Did it get Bangladesh as a vassal? No.
- Did it get a Naval Base in Bangladesh? No.
- Did it get lucrative trade deals with Bangladesh? No.
So, how did they benefit from it? Please give me a cogent explanation with respect to the 1971 war. Please don't tell me about Africa and South America. We are talking about 1971 War, so stick to Bangladesh. How did the USSR benefit by having an independent Bangladesh?
Suggest reading the chapter on India and IG.
Another suggested Area of research would be the life and impact of the policies of Krishna Menon. - He was by far the biggest Soviet fanboy in India. Almost every pro soviet paper/opinion every written including well into the 90s is the same mental masturbation from the "Menon School"
We also have a lot of America fanboys in India today, and many of them champion globalization, but the fact is, the US, under Trump, will do exactly what Nehru did back in the day, i.e.,
Import Substitution. Globalization is not always beneficial. It can hurt, and it is hurting the US.
If the US decides to isolate itself from global trade, which in my opinion it should, people won't have the luxury to indulge in mental acrobatics. They will have to end up in the paddy fields and work hard. Excessive dependence on foreign countries for sustenance is not good. We need to build our own economy that is self-sufficient. When a significant chunk of it is service based and dependent on foreign companies, we have a big problem.
The ONLY reason the India-Soviet ties are considered a success story today was that they was simply no Conflict of Interest between the two countries and hence the ties sustained.
There was no conflict of interest and there were congruence of interests in a few cases, like I mentioned, the Indo-Portuguese War of 1961. In some cases, it was philanthropic.
Ofcourse my loathing of the Soviets/Russians is due to many reasons that i have learned through my personal connections of people involved during that time. that is my Myopia - and is at the opposite end of the spectrum to your view. The reality most likely lies in the middle.
I am not interested in
prima facie claims. What I say is available as open source. Personal experiences cannot be corroborated, so I would go into that territory with trepidation.
