no smoking
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2009
- Messages
- 5,021
- Likes
- 2,322
Why would they like India to be in their 'camp' if they didn't need India during that period, not at the price that India was asking.They would have liked India to be in their 'camp', but not at the price India was willing to pay
Making an alliance is two side transaction, asking India to join western side also requires US to pay the price.
Just like what India asks now: you want me to join your Anti-China alliance, you have to pay me.
Let's check the fact, using GDP of 1970 as an example:How would that have been possible for India in the 50s and 60s? And what about Iran, Indonesia, Egypt, did the US-UK have fears of their dominance as well? If not, why not? Why the concern about India, and not Indonesia, Iran and Egypt, none of them tiny countries.
India - $201.53b
Iran - $10.98b
Indonesia - $77.22b
Egypt - $33.21b
Pakistan - $38 b
Bangladesh - $32.89b
Plus India's population size and land size, tell me which one they should worry about.
Well, both of us are projecting the elite class of Anglo-American mindset, aren't we?What sort of 'control'? Don't mindlessly project Anglo- American , or for that matter Chinese motivations and behaviour onto India.
Those economic investment in India in cold war were not big enough to control or influence India's policy.But what was this reputed 'fear of control' if not essentially economic?
Even today's investment can't do that in India.
Isn't that my point? Comparing to India, Pakistan is smaller; comparing to neighbours, Israel is smaller. If you need a proxy state in a region, you choose the smaller one.Pakistan isn't 'much smaller', not in physical size. Israel is 'much smaller' than all of its neighbours except Lebanon. But it is true that Pakistan has been a rent a state country( if country at all) and unscrupulous outside powers, including China, have exploited this to the hilt.