I never said it was, that's a misrepresentation of my argument, but free market capitalism has proven itself to be one of the best economic systems; where as its parallel opposite system, socialism, has yet to show any major success.
It's important that I point this out because some people criticize the socialism of the Nehruvian age, without understanding that free market capitalism would have destroyed the Indian economy in 1947. Domestic Indian industries were virtually non-existent at the time of Independence. Having free markets would mean that India would be flooded with foreign goods, and domestic Indian companies would be unable to compete and driven out of business. In the context of this time period, socialist protectionism was the best way to go, as it allowed domestic Indian companies to grow and build up without fear of external competition. By 1991, when India had opened its markets, there were domestic firms like Tata Group and Reliance Industries who were able to compete directly against Western companies.
Today, in 2011, Indian companies like Tata Steel are found all over the world. Tata Steel is one of the largest employers of workers in Britain and virtually owns the British steel industry. It would be unthinkable to see news like this in 1947:
Steel giant Tata to axe 1,500 jobs from three UK factories | Mail Online
Ignoring the fact the majority of these unsuccessful countries have been engaged in civil wars and destabilization for extended periods of time, but you just simply look at a country like Colombia and say 'well it's a free market US ally that isn't successful.' I could just as easily turn around and claim you know nothing of said countries histories as you seem to have on the same grounds.
It's funny you mention that, when India faces two hostile neighbors (Pakistan and PRC), has been invaded five times since Independence, faces numerous internal insurgencies, and yet somehow still manages to be the fourth largest economy in the world with one of the highest GDP growth rates in the world. The security situation in India is as bad, if not worse, than most present-day Latin American nations (although probably not African ones). Perhaps there is another factor that you are not taking into account?
Anyway, you should study those civil wars and destabilization more closely, and you'll find out that many of them were either caused or supported by the U.S. For example, the U.S. supported the Contras during the Nicaraguan Civil War in the 80s, which destroyed the country.
I recommend you watch the film
War on Democracy by John Pilger. It was made by an Australian, so hopely you won't dismiss it as propaganda.
lol, you ignored the argument and repeated yourself. You stated India would be on the same level as many African/South American countries, yet as I said; India already enjoyed a similar level of poverty without ties to the US. It seems you made the same logical fallacy you tried to highlight.
India's economy is growing faster than any of these U.S. allies, India's land is in the hands of Indians and not foreigners, and India has free and democratic elections and not a U.S.-backed dictatorship or sham elections.
So yes, I would say that India is much better off than any of those African or Latin American allies of the U.S., and it's a good thing we avoided political alignment with America in 1947, lest we become another Haiti or Guatemala.
It's obvious you resort to ad hominems yourself when someone states a fact that doesn't agree with your own political views, and India has been a large benefactor to the liberalization (adoption of free market policies, away from socialism) that have been advocated by people in the west, particularly Milton Friedman. His same policies also helped to make China and Chile successes as well, the latter of which is a Latin American country you have ignored and is a US ally.
Check out what happened in Chile on 11 September 1973, and the subsequent two decades. Americans were showing their love and spreading "freedom and democracy".
Chile's economy, as you probably don't know, is one of the most inequal in the world, where a small portion of the population control most of the output and consumption. Not my ideal of a "developed country".
One more thing I should add: India's government has never been toppled by a foreign coup, which seems to be a requirement for being an American "ally" in the Third World.
I am aware of that, but you ignored the point. Even if they were capable of doing so, why would they given responses by people like you? You've already stated you want to milk them for all they are worth, and engage in colonialism/imperialism yourself.
What, do U.S. policymakers hang around on this forum? lol
All strategic relationships are based on national self-interest. There was absolutely no historical or cultural affinity between India and the Soviet Union/Russia; we pursued that relationship because it was in our interest to do so. We got a steady stream of cheap but effective weapons, and we never had to worry about USSR/Russia placing sanctions on us.
And no, I do not want India to engage in colonialism/imperialism and massacre entire continents like Westerners did. Nor do I want India to annex a single inch of foreign land, not even from Pakistan. What I want is for India to act in its own interest first and foremost. This means pursuing relationships that are beneficial to India, regardless of ideological sentimentality or lack thereof. That's how the U.S. and other great powers rose to prominence, and that's how India will rise to prominence.
It is also interesting to note you have stated on many occasions you would become pro-US if the Americans did this, it appears much of your 'historical knowledge' is grounded in geostrategic nonsense first, and historical accuracy second. While I have many criticisms of US foreign policy in the past and present, and can acknowledge they have behaved in a manner that is contrarian to the spread of democracy and freedom; I can see they have done enormous good in the same token. Russia or indeed the Soviet Union as it was known in the past, is yet to prove they have participated in the spreading of democrary and freedom to the extent of the US, or indeed at all. Indeed over 1 billion people have been liberated since WWII by the Americans, many of which had been under the jackboot tyranny of the Soviets in Eastern Europe. What has Russia done to match this greatness? Nothing. Instead, Russia today is a mafia state.
I don't have much to say to this useless pile of rhetoric, except to laugh at the "1 billion people liberated" remark. From whose posterior did you pull that?
Indeed I do, and I would hope Nehru could have recognized that as well since he was fond of declaring "Hindi Chini bhai bhai" until the CCP showed that their own imperial ambitions for land is much more important than any perceived notion of brotherhood.
Indeed, Nehru should have acted more assertively in this regard. He should have invested more in the military and maintained a proper defence along the Himalayan frontier.
lol, Nehru visited the USSR in the 1950s, and relations could be seen as being developed earlier than the late 1960s, although yes technically India was non-aligned in this period. Even Nehru who co-founded the NAM built those relations, which actually goes to disprove your own statements in this regard towards asianobserve. This will not stop you from using personal attacks towards people who disagree with you, as is the tactics of someone with an agenda and not a quest for knowledge.
In the 50s, India enjoyed equally close relations with both the West and the USSR, so yes India was truly a neutral nation. Unlike Pakistan which was a Western ally from Day 1.
You haven't disproved anything, nor do you have any idea what you are talking about.
