Is Russia still our friend? Poll

[Mad Indian]

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.

Its not my problem that you dont understand what I am talking about. But anyway, you are free to live in your lala land.

 

[Mad Indian]

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

If Pakis had not joined Seato, they would have already balkanised by now.

 

[pmaitra]

If Pakis had not joined Seato, they would have already balkanised by now.

Balkanized? You mean disintegrated? They are already balkanized. I see your point though. Yes, they might have disintegrated.

 

[Mad Indian]

Balkanized? You mean disintegrated? They are already balkanized. I see your point though. Yes, they might have disintegrated.

I am genuinely surprised:shocked:.

 

[pmaitra]

I am genuinely surprised:shocked:.

I am not irrational.

 

[Ray]

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.

Start a thread.

Actually it is not what type of '-ism' a country followed after its Independence from colonial powers. It is basically dependent on the structure and integrity of its democratic institutions that made it a success or failure.

On the Indian Army, here is a book review. I do not totally subscribe to the views, but they are independent views that might interest you.

At arm's length

Srinath Raghavan

ARMY AND NATION: THE MILITARY AND INDIAN DEMOCRACY SINCE INDEPENDENCE By Steven I. Wilkinson, Permanent Black, Rs 795

Travelling around India ahead of the fourth general elections in 1967, the correspondent of The Times (London), Neville Maxwell, reported widespread apathy towards democracy. He claimed that "the great experiment of developing India within a democratic framework has failed...." this would be India's "fourth - and surely last - general election". Maxwell also felt that "the army will be the only alternative source of authority and order." Enamoured as he was of the Maoist revolution in China, Maxwell was a jaundiced observer of Indian democracy. But he was far from being alone in thinking that India would sooner or later slip under military rule. After all, by the late 1960s many of the first nationalist governments across the newly decolonized world were being replaced by military dictatorships.

Five decades on, such prophesies about the future of Indian democracy seem risible.Yet to understand the durability of our democracy, we need to explain why India never came close to experiencing military rule. This is the question that Steven Wilkinson sets out to answer in this brilliant book.

The Indian army is one of the largest standing voluntary armies in the world. It played a key role in sustaining colonial rule in India and remains one of the most important public institutions in the country. Yet the Indian army remains curiously understudied. The number of good books -and scholars - on the subject can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Part of the problem appears to be a general, and unexamined, attitude that studying the military is a conservative enterprise - one that doesn't fit with the self-identified radicalism of much of our historical profession. This is patently absurd. For instance, the Indian army was and continues to be overwhelmingly drawn from the peasantry. Does the peasant in uniform who works for the State cease to be a subaltern?

Although a political scientist by training and orientation, Wilkinson has trawled deep and wide in a range of archives. In consequence, the book speaks as much to historians as political scientists. His presentation, however, is very lucid and easily accessible to the general reader. Indeed, his answer to the question posed above should command the attention of all thinking Indians.

Wilkinson starts by pointing out that relationship between the army and the independent state was potentially fraught not just because the army had huge coercive power at its disposal. Rather, the Indian army - like many other colonial armies - was overwhelmingly composed of ethnic minorities: the so-called "martial classes" of Northwest India and Nepal. Minority-controlled militaries often present a threat to democracy because they believe that democratic majorities would undermine their privileged position. The experience of several post-colonial countries bears out this point.

Wilkinson argues that the existing explanations for why the Indian army has remained subordinate to the democratic system are unsatisfactory. The most common explanation is the inheritance of a professional and apolitical military from the British. This appears to fit well both with the institutional legacy of the army and the self-image of the first generation of Indian officers after independence. This explanation, Wilkinson rightly argues, breaks down as soon as we compare the experiences of India and Pakistan. After all, the Pakistan army came out of the same colonial institutional structure and drew on the same norms of professionalism.

He may have made two further points that undermine this argument. First, studies by such eminent historians as Hew Strachan have underscored the fact that the British army (at home) was hardly an apolitical actor. Second, the institutional structure of the raj actually gave the army a large role in matters of policy. The commander-in-chief was also the defence member of the Viceroy's council: imagine the army chief being the defence minister today. This institutional position enabled the army to claim up to half of the government's budget, and so turned the raj into a garrison State.

The second explanation offered by some scholars is that the Indian army underwent considerable expansion during the Second World War - an expansion that brought in a range of groups which did not belong to the "martial classes". This process of "nationalisation" was supposedly accentuated in the early years of independence, resulting in an ethnically-balanced army. Drawing on a range of data, Wilkinson argues that neither the Indian army's expansion during the Second World War nor the recruitment policies pursued after independence made much of a dent on the proportional representation of certain ethnic groups in the army.

These data, it bears emphasizing, are by no means easily available. The army does not make them public, for one thing. Wilkinson has painstakingly collected them from a range of sources. And his superb analysis and presentation of quantitative material is one of the signal accomplishments of this book.

Wilkinson's answer to the question is at once nuanced and convincing. Three factors in combination explain India's ability to control its military since independence - in contrast to Pakistan. First, India's socio-economic, strategic and military inheritance in 1947 was much better than that of Pakistan. Among other things, Partition worsened the ethnic balance in the Pakistan army while improving it somewhat in the Indian army. Second, the Congress party - unlike the Muslim League in Pakistan - was strongly institutionalized and had a political reach and presence that was difficult to replicate, let alone dislodge. Third, during the first decade of independence the Indian government took specific "coup proofing" measures: "new command and control structures, careful attention to promotions, tenures, and balancing ethnic groups at the top of the military, and attention to top general's career pathways after retirement."

Wilkinson also examines how successive governments responded to the requirements of military modernization. In the wake of the 1962 defeat against China, the Indian armed forces underwent a considerable expansion in size and equipment. But this period also witnessed the formation of paramilitary forces that indirectly served as a "hedge" against the army's increasing coercive capacity. Similarly, after Operation Bluestar, when some units of the army actually mutinied, the army was asked to experiment with mixed infantry battalions drawing on different ethnic groups. Concerns about handing the military overwhelming power also lie behind the political leadership's continuing reluctance to appoint a chief of defence staff, a single-point military advisor to the government.

Wilkinson notes that the measures to secure political control may have come at an operational cost by diminishing the military's voice in strategic matters. While this may be true today, it does not hold for the early years. In fact, in the first two decades after independence, the top military leadership displayed a sad lack of grasp of the higher management of war. This was largely due to the delayed Indianization of the officer corps under the British, which implied that top posts in the army were manned after independence by relatively junior officers.

One can quibble with Wilkinson about such matters. But this book is a major contribution to the study of the Indian army and the making of India's democracy. Everyone should read it.
At arm's length

 

[Samar Rathi]

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.

1)Everyone has their own perspective about looking certain things ,from my point of view USA helped China when it was against USSR so it's not about china opening it's market but USA allowing the FDI flow in China to counter USSR. (suppose we both are saying the same thing very differently )

2)Now again blaming USSR for supporting/funding/nourishing CPI, CPM is over my head as every country has their ideologies and of course if those ideologies submerge then their is a opportunity for cooperation. you have to understand USSR wasn't helping India out of charity but it was helping itself by helping India and it was our duty to help India not the other way around.

Blaming USA for Bhopal is as absurd as blaming USSR for socialism.

Losers blame everyone for their demise while winners just blame themselves.

 

[Mad Indian]

1)Everyone has their own perspective about looking certain things ,from my point of view USA helped China when it was against USSR so it's not about china opening it's market but USA allowing the FDI flow in China to counter USSR. (suppose we both are saying the same thing very differently )

2)Now again blaming USSR for supporting/funding/nourishing CPI, CPM is over my head as every country has their ideologies and of course if those ideologies submerge then their is a opportunity for cooperation. you have to understand USSR wasn't helping India out of charity but it was helping itself by helping India and it was our duty to help India not the other way around.

Blaming USA for Bhopal is as absurd as blaming USSR for socialism.

Losers blame everyone for their demise while winners just blame themselves.

1. But you are missing an important fact- China became an ally of USA as early as 1971 , under Nixon administration. But it took Deng Xioping in power in 1978 to open its markets, because Deng was a reformist. And he was able to do it because , a) China was not in the socialist camp, b) He himself was a reformer in that he saw that Socialism was taking China nowhere. China's market reforms would not have happened if either of (a) or (b) was false. India was in socialist camp even in 1991 and if USSR was still around, India would not have reformed even in 1996 or something

2. You are basically saying the same thing I was saying from the start.

 

[Mad Indian]

Start a thread.

Actually it is not what type of '-ism' a country followed after its Independence from colonial powers. It is basically dependent on the structure and integrity of its democratic institutions that made it a success or failure.

On the Indian Army, here is a book review. I do not totally subscribe to the views, but they are independent views that might interest you.

China is a massive failure if we go by this logic

 

[Ray]

China is a massive failure if we go by this logic

China had no democracy.

it has its dictatorial 'institutions' - the Commie Party and the Commie cadres who made their so called Army.

Mao enunciated it all - POWER GROW FROM THE BARREL OF A GUN.

And so the Chinese kowtowed and are kowtowing even now.

 

[Mad Indian]

China had no democracy.

it has its dictatorial 'institutions' - the Commie Party and the Commie cadres who made their so called Army.

Mao enunciated it all - POWER GROW FROM THE BARREL OF A GUN.

And so the Chinese kowtowed and are kowtowing even now.

Yes and so since your logic is that Democratic nature of the nation is what determines success or failure, China is a failed state - compared to us since their institutions have no democracy, correct?

 

[Stalinet]

Crazy rote from western bollocks. So the country that possess one of the largest gas and hydrocarbon resources should not leverage on the same?

Should I laugh or cry at your statements. Building new rockets, cutting edge 5th Gen planes is it from Soviet Era. Armata is coming out shortly. But then for some people building an IPHONE 6 is an epitome of cutting edge technology.




For all practical purposes please check Pm b1tch (aka vassal state)akistan to understand the consequence and concept of being Uncle Sa

it is true that russia has one of the largest oil reserves on the face of the earth but the fact remains that russian economy will collapse if oil prices stay this low while the us has trouble with dealing with its junk bonds quite simply for russia it is a matter of life or death so every time the oil prices fall russia is in trouble as of now we really dont need a fragile economy by our side but a stronger one aka USA

pakistan is in such a mess because of its own naive policies dont bring uncle sam into this that is exactly what happens when your policy is to make an imaginated enemy of a country with massive resources

 

[Khagesh]

it is true that russia has one of the largest oil reserves on the face of the earth but the fact remains that russian economy will collapse if oil prices stay this low while the us has trouble with dealing with its junk bonds quite simply for russia it is a matter of life or death so every time the oil prices fall russia is in trouble as of now we really dont need a fragile economy by our side but a stronger one aka USA

pakistan is in such a mess because of its own naive policies dont bring uncle sam into this that is exactly what happens when your policy is to make an imaginated enemy of a country with massive resources

It will be you by the side of USA. Actually in front of it take all the bull that gets thrown the American way.

Jinnah actually was very happy about the 'strategic position' of Pakistan and had similar misgivings about Pakistan's importance for the West. Rules do not change for different countries.

Also last time the world Oil prices fell drastically the Russians did not stop production. In fact I think they increased it. Arabs did cut their production. Arabs still rue that decision because they never quite caught back their missing market share. Arabs today remember those days and that is why they too will not cut production this time (though there are other things too).

And all countries have got to come out of their dependence on Oil in time. Oil is meant to be consumed only so long as the alternative is not there. Ergo make alternative.

Russians will in time come out their dependence on Oil exports. In any case this crisis is good for Russia. The Crude to Refined ratio needs to be corrected for Russian Oil. And just as the Russian establishment (under Putin) pulled Russia out of 'Shock Therapy' days they can turn this to their advantage.

Right now they are focused on Ukraine. And rightly so. Oil can be managed later too.

 

[Ray]

Yes and so since your logic is that Democratic nature of the nation is what determines success or failure, China is a failed state - compared to us since their institutions have no democracy, correct?

Yes, no democracy.

Just like our Military.

Deliver or get sacked. No legal safety net. Check Army Rule 13 - at the pleasure of the President.

That is why even when child falls in a bore well, the military is called to rescue when it is the Fire Brigade who should do it.

 

[sgarg]

Its not my problem that you dont understand what I am talking about. But anyway, you are free to live in your lala land.

I want to know which land you live in. I am happy in my lala land.

Show me (and prove your knowledge). Pore through GOI press communiques of last 5 decades. Go to Parliament's library if you need to.
People like you are there to only spread lies. You are painting a picture which never existed.

USA aligned with Saudi Arabia because Anglo American empire was found on the principle of controlling natural resources. This objective always remained the empire's most important objective, not some egalitarian democratic society. The "democracy" as practiced in the West is not a true democracy - it only allows to vote but keeps the control firmly in the hands of the elite.

USA continues to support Pakistan almost unconditionally while India receives some "goodies" in return of "major conditions". Yes India can get more from USA if India gives up its sovereignty.

I doubt even the worst MPs of India will buy your political philosophy. I do not know about soldiers so much but I can assure you India's politicians are not as big fools as you assume.

 

[sgarg]

India does not have much political support in the USA. This is a fact. The awareness about India has improved manifold in American public about Indians after major migration of Indians into the USA; but to think this translates to major political gain in terms of USA's institutional framework is a mistake.

India with its large population and strategic position will always be seen as a competitor by the empire rather than a friend.

Some revisionists now dream of an American-Indian military alliance. People forget the history and the fact that such an alliance has never been proposed, even in intellectual discourse between the two countries.

The Indian military yearning for Western weapons is no more than nice foreign trips, and exploring opportunities to settle family abroad.

It is a fact that Russian weapons are more cost effective. GOI knows this very well and military knows this very well after operating both types of weapons for decades.

 

[Zebra]

India does not have much political support in the USA. This is a fact. The awareness about India has improved manifold in American public about Indians after major migration of Indians into the USA; but to think this translates to major political gain in terms of USA's institutional framework is a mistake.

India with its large population and strategic position will always be seen as a competitor by the empire rather than a friend.

Some revisionists now dream of an American-Indian military alliance. People forget the history and the fact that such an alliance has never been proposed, even in intellectual discourse between the two countries.

The Indian military yearning for Western weapons is no more than nice foreign trips, and exploring opportunities to settle family abroad.

It is a fact that Russian weapons are more cost effective. GOI knows this very well and military knows this very well after operating both types of weapons for decades.

All the points in your post are wrong.

Most funny part is we talked about it many time on DFI in past

Still people try to spread illusion here on DFI.

And they get success too.

The reason for this is Modi govt didn't sign those three most basic agreements with US for some mysterious reason.

And that provides enough room for people to spread their lies about US-India.

So they must sign those agreements ASAP.

 

[sgarg]

And what are these so called "mysterious reasons"? Please elaborate?

 

[sgarg]

There is no genuine engagement between USA and india at the political level. Please show me instances to prove me wrong?

 

[sgarg]

The fact is that military cooperation between USA and india is an illusion created by some who are only interested in India's paltry military budget tied up in a few very expensive (but militarily insignificant) procurements. This is best and cheapest way for the empire to cut india down to size.