Is Russia still our friend? Poll

[Mad Indian]

We needed an external kick else there was small chance of change.

Although there were some reforms at the beginning of 80s by Rajiv Gandhi govt.

But would we have got the external kick if USSR was still around?

 

[pmaitra]

@Mad Indian, if USSR has to be held responsible for socialism in India, which is an absurd assumption which you have failed to back up, then one has to thank those that embraced socialism, and along with that, the USSR in the first place. While it is true India should have started a gradual transition at least a decade before it actually did, a capitalist approach right from 1947 would have turned India into another Pakistan.

The fundamental flaw in the capitalists argument is that it would have benefited India from 1947, just because today, what is perceived to be capitalism has spurred economic growth.

I say perceived, because, India is still a mixed economy, and while it has more traits of capitalism than before, it still has even more traits of a free market economy. Let's give credit where due.


@Sakal Gharelu Ustad, would you care to share your thoughts on the recent meeting between IMF and World Bank honchos? Here is the link: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ctually-abandoning-dollar-14.html#post1030876

 

[Khagesh]

But would we have got the external kick if USSR was still around?

Bhai, if somebody is willing to take a kick then there would be more than enough people to deliver it. Mera Vishwas Kariye.

Beside you are invoking Mitokhin and Kalugin as quoted in The Hindu and Outlook to support your case. You have got to read deeper who and what these people were and see how this information is being organized to conflate Maoists and Naxals and Ford Foundation leftists with other normal run of the mill Commies.

BTW would you have problem with appreciation for Bose and Bhagat Singh also. These people were also leftists.

And yes as pointed out by others 76-78 period both India and China began tentative reforms.

 

[Mad Indian]

Bhai, if somebody is willing to take a kick then there would be more than enough people to deliver it. Mera Vishwas Kariye.

Beside you are invoking Mitokhin and Kalugin as quoted in The Hindu and Outlook to support your case. You have got to read deeper who and what these people were and see how this information is being organized to conflate Maoists and Naxals and Ford Foundation leftists with other normal run of the mill Commies.

BTW would you have problem with appreciation for Bose and Bhagat Singh also. These people were also leftists.

And yes as pointed out by others 76-78 period both India and China began tentative reforms.

Whatever you say boss.

 

[Khagesh]

Whatever you say boss.

Kamal hai bhai. I thought you would never give up.

But seriously once a man is in intel of his own country and then has betrayed his own country, he becomes essentially a used condom. I would advise the same for Manning Bradley also and the whole wikileaks charade. Its not like I would limit myself to only Mitrokhin and Kalugin. In any case I would rather rely on facts instead of kiss and tell stories.

If these people (Mitrokhin and Kalugin) were so convinced of their own leaders being wrong then they should have stayed put and fought against them in their own countries. Despite risk to life. By joining up with US and UK they cannot raise themselves to the level of Vibhishan and elevate the West to the level of Shri Ram.

 

[Mad Indian]

Kamal hai bhai. I thought you would never give up.

But seriously once a man is in intel of his own country and then has betrayed his own country, he becomes essentially a used condom. I would advise the same for Manning Bradley also and the whole wikileaks charade. Its not like I would limit myself to only Mitrokhin and Kalugin. In any case I would rather rely on facts instead of kiss and tell stories.

If these people (Mitrokhin and Kalugin) were so convinced of their own leaders being wrong then they should have stayed put and fought against them in their own countries. Despite risk to life. By joining up with US and UK they cannot raise themselves to the level of Vibhishan and elevate the West to the level of Shri Ram.

So essentially you are disregarding their claims based on a charecter assasination you just pulled on them. Yeah very valid thing to argue on.

 

[Khagesh]

So essentially you are disregarding their claims based on a charecter assasination you just pulled on them. Yeah very valid thing to argue on.

Sir ji character is everything.

Apparently for them it was not the standard to bear.

Beside you failed to notice but I am not willing to give benefit of doubt to both sides. Even the US cables were exposed by their own military employees.

But once in intel we outsiders can never know when the lie starts and when the truth gets nailed.

My solution is to avoid the whole deal.

If somebody has to change sides then there must first be an establishment of character - the way Shri Ram and Vibhishan ji did.

I am sure they could have fought for truth. These were after all truthful people right till the very end .

 

[Zebra]

What would we achieve by staying away from Russia ?

While we can achieve a lot by doing business with them but that doesn't mean we can't be USA strategic ally in the same time.We have experience in that regard as look at Israel and Iran as we are strategic partner with Iran and natural partnership with Israel.

Weak nation has to choose but strong doesn't ,it's about time we start acting like one.

At-least India can stay free from carrying unnecessary burden of being anti American.

 

[Mad Indian]

Both have a points but here the issue is Psyche of Indians created or brainwashed by Nehru-Gandhi clan.Blame everything on Capitalism/British

Poverty..... India is Rich in past ... brit made us poor
Hindu-Muslim riots/partition..... Muslims are benevolent rulers,pissfull..... this is all due to Brit divide&rule

Of-course British are not angels but compared to Muslims I call them as humans at least.We were brainwashed by textbooks/policies capitalism is bad so we must follow Socialism.And the credit goes to nehru-gandi clan. This is why I hate distortion of History or hiding the truth.On brand Satyameva jayate we made a country on LIES&Propaganda

Even today we subconsciously hate capitalism (old gen).

There is a reason I stopped debating socialists - there is just no point in it, just like how there is no point in debating feminists.

Exposing their hypocrisy and nonsense is much easier.

 

[power_monger]

I agree. India is getting more ToT from Israel than it is getting from Russia. These are the only two countries that are willing to share ToT.

Israel knows India's potential in future. With Islamic terrorist as common enemies our friendship can only improve from here onwards.I was talking to DRDO employee who says India and israel are jointly executing many secret projects which is not much known even within DRDO itself. With BJP in power for two more terms will definitely make India and israel best friends.

 

[Ray]

@Mad Indian, if USSR has to be held responsible for socialism in India, which is an absurd assumption which you have failed to back up, then one has to thank those that embraced socialism, and along with that, the USSR in the first place. While it is true India should have started a gradual transition at least a decade before it actually did, a capitalist approach right from 1947 would have turned India into another Pakistan.

The fundamental flaw in the capitalists argument is that it would have benefited India from 1947, just because today, what is perceived to be capitalism has spurred economic growth.

I say perceived, because, India is still a mixed economy, and while it has more traits of capitalism than before, it still has even more traits of a free market economy. Let's give credit where due.


@Sakal Gharelu Ustad, would you care to share your thoughts on the recent meeting between IMF and World Bank honchos? Here is the link: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ctually-abandoning-dollar-14.html#post1030876

USSR is not responsible for socialism in India.

It is in the genes and psyche of people to 'share'. One example is that mendicants were respected and given food or money. And it was normal act to give beggars some alms.

One cannot state that capitalism after Independence would make India a Pakistan.

Pakistan became a sorry state because it sold itself to align with a superpower and not because of capitalism. Further, it was confused as to its identity. Jinnah having achieved his aim to be a supreme leader, gave way to secularism (Aug 11 speech), but the Mohajirs, who were rootless and were apprehensive of the 'sons of the soil' used Islam as their weapon to find some relevance.

This led to the tussle for supremacy between the Mohajirs, who were the educated elite apart from being in the administration, legal profession, commerce and business and the sons of the soil, who were the feudal satraps and the Military.

Kashmir came as the saviour of the 'sons of the soil' since the military was entirely staffed by them. Cleverly, they, the 'sons of the soil' overturned the table as the sole frontrunner and the saviour of Islam (the rationale Mohajirs used successfully to obliterate the fact that they were rootless outsiders). Slowly, the Army clawed its way into ascendancy with Ayub Khan's coup being the coup de grâce.

The see saw for power began thereafter.

The Indian military was and even still is wedded to the supremacy of the civil power. India had an identity unlike Pakistan. Thus, India would have never been a Pakistan, no matter what system it followed.

If India were to be a Pakistan, would the military not have had a coup in the manner in which Nehru emasculated the Military and degrade its potential and status?

 

[Peter]

Thats not how technology sharing works - US would not have curtailed any invention/innovation for long without suffering from losses, atleast the losses from omission/loss of opportunity to monetise the innovations/inventions. US must share its technologies if it wants to remain profitable and sustain its development.

Yes I agree that US must share its technology if it wants profits but it does not have to share its technology with countries like India,Africa,SE Asia etc. Most of the profits of American software companies come from Europe and North America. You may have noticed that some video gaming companies never release their products in Asia/Africa etc.

 

[Samar Rathi]

You dint answer my question. How about I make it easier with two questions?

1. Would India still opened its market if USSR was around

2. Would India with socialist system of economic policy still grown at 8% p.a like it is growing now, if India had not opened its market. Lets see how much intellectual honesty you guys have

1) Yes it would have

2)Socialism suck and i am against it. (My main problem was blaming USSR for Socialism in India while it was our leader who chose it.)

 

[Mad Indian]

1) Yes it would have

2)Socialism suck and i am against it. (My main problem was blaming USSR for Socialism in India while it was our leader who chose it.)

1. No we would not have. China opened its market when it was anti USSR. India would have required something along that line for opening its market and even it there had been "some reforms", it would not have been as big as that of the 1991 reforms

2. Of course Indians is to be blamed for Socialism, but USSR cannot be absolved of its crimes of supporting/funding/nourishing CPI, CPM and the ilks and planting the socialist intelligentia in the Indian soil. Again, the question is not whether of not USSR helped India or whether socialism in India was due to USSR, but rather whether USSR was altruistic in its intentions. Also, note this is similar to how the Russophiles here bitch about Bhopal gas tragedy and how it is the fault of USA. If you want to hold US responsible for Bhopal, then you should hold USSR as well responsible for Socialism and the subsequent poverty it caused and vice versa.

 

[sgarg]

At-least India can stay free from carrying unnecessary burden of being anti American.

Who told you India is "anti-American". India is a neutral country which cultivated a neutral image among the nations of the world by neither joining NATO nor Warsaw pact.

You saw today that India was able to extract Indian citizens as well as some foreign citizens from Yemen because India could use ports and airports close to Yemen.

India has remarkable reach despite not maintaining foreign bases. Mauritius actually wants Indian naval base but Indian government has not obliged.

You forget you live in a country of 1.2 billion people that is more than the combined population of NATO countries.

 

[sgarg]

1. No we would not have. China opened its market when it was anti USSR. India would have required something along that line for opening its market and even it there had been "some reforms", it would not have been as big as that of the 1991 reforms

2. Of course Indians is to be blamed for Socialism, but USSR cannot be absolved of its crimes of supporting/funding/nourishing CPI, CPM and the ilks and planting the socialist intelligentia in the Indian soil. Again, the question is not whether of not USSR helped India or whether socialism in India was due to USSR, but rather whether USSR was altruistic in its intentions. Also, note this is similar to how the Russophiles here bitch about Bhopal gas tragedy and how it is the fault of USA. If you want to hold US responsible for Bhopal, then you should hold USSR as well responsible for Socialism and the subsequent poverty it caused and vice versa.

You have no knowledge of history. There was a USSR/China spilt in sixties which was taken advantage of USA. USA opened its markets to Chinese goods as a plan/trick to use China to defeat USSR.
However China is a jinn that is hard to control once let out of the bottle.

Socialism is very much a valid political thought, and is prevalent in all Western countries. Your accusation that USSR foisted socialism on India is completely false.
Socialism and communism are different. USSR was communist country and China is communist today.

 

[sgarg]

The biggest problem for India is that India did not join Western alliance at the right time. Now the moment has passed. The technological development of India is far behind the West, and there is no way West will allow India to close the gap.

The West-loving Indians forget that West DOES NOT NEED INDIA. West has ALWAYS BYPASSED INDIA. Even today the Western involvement in strategic sector is quite small despite constant effort by India since early nineties to improve relations with the West.

 

[pmaitra]

USSR is not responsible for socialism in India.

It is in the genes and psyche of people to 'share'. One example is that mendicants were respected and given food or money. And it was normal act to give beggars some alms.

One cannot state that capitalism after Independence would make India a Pakistan.

Pakistan became a sorry state because it sold itself to align with a superpower and not because of capitalism. Further, it was confused as to its identity. Jinnah having achieved his aim to be a supreme leader, gave way to secularism (Aug 11 speech), but the Mohajirs, who were rootless and were apprehensive of the 'sons of the soil' used Islam as their weapon to find some relevance.

This led to the tussle for supremacy between the Mohajirs, who were the educated elite apart from being in the administration, legal profession, commerce and business and the sons of the soil, who were the feudal satraps and the Military.

Kashmir came as the saviour of the 'sons of the soil' since the military was entirely staffed by them. Cleverly, they, the 'sons of the soil' overturned the table as the sole frontrunner and the saviour of Islam (the rationale Mohajirs used successfully to obliterate the fact that they were rootless outsiders). Slowly, the Army clawed its way into ascendancy with Ayub Khan's coup being the coup de grâce.

The see saw for power began thereafter.

The Indian military was and even still is wedded to the supremacy of the civil power. India had an identity unlike Pakistan. Thus, India would have never been a Pakistan, no matter what system it followed.

If India were to be a Pakistan, would the military not have had a coup in the manner in which Nehru emasculated the Military and degrade its potential and status?

One cannot state that India would have turned into another Pakistan? Ok, fair enough.

Let me retract that and present it in a different way.

Some countries who emerged free from colonialism became socialist, while other became capitalist. How are some of these countries doing these days? We might as well have a separate thread for this, but this is something I'd love to debate.

 

[pmaitra]

The biggest problem for India is that India did not join Western alliance at the right time. Now the moment has passed. The technological development of India is far behind the West, and there is no way West will allow India to close the gap.

The West-loving Indians forget that West DOES NOT NEED INDIA. West has ALWAYS BYPASSED INDIA. Even today the Western involvement in strategic sector is quite small despite constant effort by India since early nineties to improve relations with the West.

Pakistan joined a western alliance called SEATO. I doubt that benefited Pakistan.

 

[sgarg]

Pakistan joined a western alliance called SEATO. I doubt that benefited Pakistan.

The fact is no alliance was on offer to India. What I wrote is just for the sake of an argument.
The British always had healthy contempt for Hindus. I believe that contempt is there today as well. British practically shaped US policy towards India.