India US Relations

[srevster]

Pressure tactics. Unless we develop a counter-narrative, or even get a grip on our own narrative, the State Department will keep testing different pressure mechanisms.

Once the narrative is under considerable control, one of the two things would happen:

a) Either they try to entice with a Japan-like non-NATO alliance (subject to "falling in line")
b) They suddenly turn around, in the next 10 years, and brand us as CCP 2.0. Very much possible when (I pray so) Yogi Govt or Himanta Govt takes charge of the nation after PM Modi retires.

Just make more money than every else. Then buy the influence you want.

for that, we need investment in R&D, not screw drivergiri.

 

[Tshering22]

Just make more money than every else. Then buy the influence you want.

for that, we need investment in R&D, not screw drivergiri.

That's what they want us to turn into; we need a smarter way of doing that + retaining the soul of who we are. If we also become empty shells like China, they will win.

 

[Kumaoni]

Pressure tactics. Unless we develop a counter-narrative, or even get a grip on our own narrative, the State Department will keep testing different pressure mechanisms.

Once the narrative is under considerable control, one of the two things would happen:

a) Either they try to entice with a Japan-like non-NATO alliance (subject to "falling in line")
b) They suddenly turn around, in the next 10 years, and brand us as CCP 2.0. Very much possible when (I pray so) Yogi Govt or Himanta Govt takes charge of the nation after PM Modi retires.

B) is already happening, just see the UNs statement a few days back.

 

[Tshering22]

B) is already happening, just see the UNs statement a few days back.

Yeah, I saw that tripe.

We should start taking the step to leave the UN 10-15 years from now and also make sure that we have a lot of countries that follow us out while we leave. This cannot happen without a solid framework that focuses on expanding our relations, trade, and cooperation with ALL the developing countries while emphasizing our narrative into their subconscious. It needs to be communicated so well that they are able to identify their common issues with us and reach out to us more than ever.

Let's see:

The only 4 countries with whom we have tense relations (from mild irritation to downright hostile relations) are Pakistan, China, Turkey, and to some extent Bangladesh).

That leaves 191 countries, out of which, 35 are outright extensions of the United States: 26 EU member states, the UK, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, Singapore, Taiwan, and New Zealand. While all these countries have excellent relations with India, they will most likely do what the US tells them to do.

The other countries apart from these also have good relations with all the big powers, they are just too small to politically do something internationally.

That leaves a good 150 countries across Africa, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Central America, South America, the Pacific, Oceania, etc. This is where India should be flooring the accelerators and reaching out to - double down on mini-laterals such as India-Africa Summit, India-Pacific Islands Forum, India-CARICOM Summit, India-Latin America Conference, India-Central & East Europe Summit, etc.

We need to establish our narrative in the consciousness of the developing world. That is how we build our clout; through cohesive outreach, mutual benefits, and conflict resolutions in different regions.

Now coming to the diplomacy side, we are extremely understaffed in the diplomatic area. 6,500+ staff for all the countries of the world is abysmal. Even the South Koreans have more diplomatic staff than us. Jaishankar needs more lateral-entry professionals; ideally those with experience in foreign trade, contract negotiations, trade policy framework development, and project management, planning & implementation.

In short, we need a serious plan to make sure that the UN becomes useless in the coming decade, by building a narrative that connects with the very leadership of the developing world and being able to materially help them such that they are able to trust us as reliable partners.

 

[no smoking]

That leaves a good 150 countries across Africa, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Central America, South America, the Pacific, Oceania, etc. This is where India should be flooring the accelerators and reaching out to - double down on mini-laterals such as India-Africa Summit, India-Pacific Islands Forum, India-CARICOM Summit, India-Latin America Conference, India-Central & East Europe Summit, etc.

.....

In short, we need a serious plan to make sure that the UN becomes useless in the coming decade, by building a narrative that connects with the very leadership of the developing world and being able to materially help them such that they are able to trust us as reliable partners.

After seeing all these sweet talking, I just didn't find one thing which is the critical basis: MONEY. How much money does India intend to provide?
Here is some figures from

Does India Use Development Finance to Compete with China? A Subnational Analysis (aiddata.org)

Quote:
"Compared to China’s activities, India’s development funds are much smaller, the implementation of projects is much slower, and its projects are less visible (Sato et al., 2011). "
When you can't even compete Chinese on foreign aid (not to mention US, UK, France and Russia), how are you going to convince these countries to follow you to step out of UN?

 

[Kumaoni]

Yeah, I saw that tripe.

We should start taking the step to leave the UN 10-15 years from now and also make sure that we have a lot of countries that follow us out while we leave. This cannot happen without a solid framework that focuses on expanding our relations, trade, and cooperation with ALL the developing countries while emphasizing our narrative into their subconscious. It needs to be communicated so well that they are able to identify their common issues with us and reach out to us more than ever.

Let's see:

The only 4 countries with whom we have tense relations (from mild irritation to downright hostile relations) are Pakistan, China, Turkey, and to some extent Bangladesh).

That leaves 191 countries, out of which, 35 are outright extensions of the United States: 26 EU member states, the UK, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, Singapore, Taiwan, and New Zealand. While all these countries have excellent relations with India, they will most likely do what the US tells them to do.

The other countries apart from these also have good relations with all the big powers, they are just too small to politically do something internationally.

That leaves a good 150 countries across Africa, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Central America, South America, the Pacific, Oceania, etc. This is where India should be flooring the accelerators and reaching out to - double down on mini-laterals such as India-Africa Summit, India-Pacific Islands Forum, India-CARICOM Summit, India-Latin America Conference, India-Central & East Europe Summit, etc.

We need to establish our narrative in the consciousness of the developing world. That is how we build our clout; through cohesive outreach, mutual benefits, and conflict resolutions in different regions.

Now coming to the diplomacy side, we are extremely understaffed in the diplomatic area. 6,500+ staff for all the countries of the world is abysmal. Even the South Koreans have more diplomatic staff than us. Jaishankar needs more lateral-entry professionals; ideally those with experience in foreign trade, contract negotiations, trade policy framework development, and project management, planning & implementation.

In short, we need a serious plan to make sure that the UN becomes useless in the coming decade, by building a narrative that connects with the very leadership of the developing world and being able to materially help them such that they are able to trust us as reliable partners.

I think before looking outward, we have to look inwards. There’s many things that need modernization. We have plenty of years before we can be assertive like China in the geopolitical stage

 

[no smoking]

Iron fist is not the same as a one-man tinpot dictatorship. It is about creating stronger institutions that are immune to external influence. This means curtailing some elements of "freedoms" for officials, media, newspapers, etc., such that there is a clear framework demarcating legitimate negative news from sabotage.

When you ask people to give up part of their freedom, you have to give them a very good reason to make them believe their sacrifice is worthy. Unfortunately, poverty is never a good reason because the first group of people you have to persuade is the elite class and these people are not suffering from poverty at all.

Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, etc., are democracies but there are elements built into the systems that would classify them the same as China, if they were not bending backward for the Americans.

The 3 examples in your list, all have a very good reason to create stronger institutions - national security:
Singapore has been paranoid about the anti-Chinese tradition in South East Asia. Especially her 2 closest neighbors- Malaysia and Indonesia both have bad record since 1950s.
Taiwan - well, theoretically, she is still in the civil war status with mainland China since 1949.
Korea - well, there is only a truce between her and her brother since 1952.

 

[Tshering22]

When you ask people to give up part of their freedom, you have to give them a very good reason to make them believe their sacrifice is worthy. Unfortunately, poverty is never a good reason because the first group of people you have to persuade is the elite class and these people are not suffering from poverty at all.

You are completely mistaken and looking at it the wrong way. These kinds of changes don't come one fine day. They come when:

1) There is some sort of major event; like a war, pandemic, or as such;
2) There is a relentless attempt to keep chipping away at the shaky foundations on which the nation was being governed.

This means using (call it abusing if you may) power for the good to dismantle the narrative that was set since the independence and create a more contemporary narrative.

For example, if PM Modi had not taken the straightforward path of outreach and dialog, he could have created a circle of strong ideological candidates under him who are also loyalists and who know that they will get the power, while also dismantling the MSM nexus that the Western Liberal Elites like Soros gang are creating against him (and other strong global leaders) across various institutions.

The 3 examples in your list, all have a very good reason to create stronger institutions - national security:
Singapore has been paranoid about the anti-Chinese tradition in South East Asia. Especially her 2 closest neighbors- Malaysia and Indonesia both have bad record since 1950s.
Taiwan - well, theoretically, she is still in the civil war status with mainland China since 1949.
Korea - well, there is only a truce between her and her brother since 1952.

And we do not? We have an expansionist communist regime on our right and a nuclear-armed terror factory on our left. Both want to destroy us from in and out and want our land. If anything India should be a spitting image of Israel right now.

National security is more concern to us, a nation that was ripped into 3 on the basis of religion and yet, has the same people who ripped it, in as equal citizens getting a free hand at playing the victim card. Not to mention the opportunists who are just mercs with pens (or laptops) for hire getting bankrolled by the Liberal Elitists.

 

[Tshering22]

After seeing all these sweet talking, I just didn't find one thing which is the critical basis: MONEY. How much money does India intend to provide?
Here is some figures from

Does India Use Development Finance to Compete with China? A Subnational Analysis (aiddata.org)

View attachment 138912

Quote:
"Compared to China’s activities, India’s development funds are much smaller, the implementation of projects is much slower, and its projects are less visible (Sato et al., 2011). "
When you can't even compete Chinese on foreign aid (not to mention US, UK, France and Russia), how are you going to convince these countries to follow you to step out of UN?

I never said that we are perfect or competing right now. You highlighted 3 interesting and absolutely correct points:

1) Smaller aid
2) Slower implementation
3) Less visible

The (1) is obvious here because, well, we are not that big to be giving out massive handouts.

We simply can't even after we cross the $5 trillion mark. But, we can always keep the intent and gradually increase. Looking at how India's real political and policy transformation started only from 1999 onwards until 2004 and after 10 years of scams, corruption & mismanagement under the erstwhile Congress government, we are only getting started.

It will take time; there is no other way to stress this.

Just FYC: When I say "lead other nations out", I don't mean creating NATO/WARSAW PACT 2.0s. The ideais to create a completely new model of international collaboration for these developing countries - called the Minilateral model. What is that? BIMSTEC, ASEAN, QUAD, etc. are all Minilaterals; groups of countries getting together based on shared interests for commercial and/or strategic reasons under a commonly agreed, equally-shared framework of compliance and grievance redressal. The Minilateral model would focus on addressing each group's/region's issue with respect to the conditions of that region rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all model that the UN enforces on its members.

For example, If a Minilateral has India along with saying Pacific Island countries like Nauru, Fiji, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Tonga, PNG, etc., then all the stakeholders get treated the same and all concerns are addressed according to the circumstances of the participating members. It won't mean that they cannot seek financing or other commercial/trade agreements with Japan, Korea, the USA, or Germany. Just that these countries will not have any right to meddle or push their agenda in any political capacity.

While (1) may take time, (2) and (3) can change.

The How
(2) can change through private contracting of international projects management to private companies in India. For example, if India commits to building 10 hospitals in 3 years in a country X, then the contract to manage and implement this project within 3 years should go to a private Indian engineering construction company. Until now, much of the Indian assistance programs are led and managed by government staff and agencies that are too embroiled in their own internal power politics and ego battles. That can change the moment these projects are handed over to private engineering project management groups. And the private sector is pretty ruthless and effective in getting things done.

(3) can change as the Indian government prioritizes infrastructure projects over "cultural connect" and "rural programs". Thanks to the chaos in Afghanistan since 2001, there was a landmark shift in the Indian government's mentality.

India has started focusing more on tangible support than intangible ones in the last few years. Constructing dams, roads, parliament buildings, schools, hospitals, IT training centers, etc.,

Chinese foreign aid FYI is only second to the American one. Other countries don't even come close.

 

[no smoking]

And we do not? We have an expansionist communist regime on our right and a nuclear-armed terror factory on our left. Both want to destroy us from in and out and want our land. If anything India should be a spitting image of Israel right now.

The "nuclear armed terror factory on your left"? - India has more than enough to defend herself;
The expansionist communist regime on your right? - The Himalaya mountain make India feel almost nothing in actual except the military fanboy.

If India really feels that she is facing a threat level need more national resource re-allocated from other sectors, she should greatly increase her military budget. The simple fact is she doesn't. If India, under her most iron fist PM, can't push up the military spending temporally. How can you persuade the whole nation to accept a permanent institutional change?

National security is more concern to us, a nation that was ripped into 3 on the basis of religion and yet, has the same people who ripped it, in as equal citizens getting a free hand at playing the victim card. Not to mention the opportunists who are just mercs with pens (or laptops) for hire getting bankrolled by the Liberal Elitists.

Yet, it proves my point: no one - political group, religions, in India want give up their "freedom" because there is no external threat strong enough to force them to do so.

 

[Tshering22]

The "nuclear armed terror factory on your left"? - India has more than enough to defend herself;
The expansionist communist regime on your right? - The Himalaya mountain make India feel almost nothing in actual except the military fanboy.

If India really feels that she is facing a threat level need more national resource re-allocated from other sectors, she should greatly increase her military budget. The simple fact is she doesn't. If India, under her most iron fist PM, can't push up the military spending temporally. How can you persuade the whole nation to accept a permanent institutional change?

Yet, it proves my point: no one - political group, religions, in India want give up their "freedom" because there is no external threat strong enough to force them to do so.

Oh, there was plenty of threat. India's leadership even under its strongest PM is not "there yet". It will take the next person in line to change it. Actually, there are more political opportunities than you think. In India, we have to say about our people collectively; we do not listen until we get an iron boot up our rears. That's the Indian mentality.

Ever wondered why we are amazing immigrants, law-abiding, high achieving, and top-notch in most developed countries? The incarceration rate for Indians is among the lowest among all the groups? The reason is simple; there are strong rules with little to no wiggle room. An Indian breaking traffic rules in an X country that he migrated to will HAVE TO PAY $Y fine. He cannot do $Y*5% as a bribe to the cop and get away. The stronger the rule enforcement, the better Indians respond. The caveat is that we need to see a change for good; if we don't, then we go into the rebel mode.

 

[prasadr14]

Frankly speaking it's hard to buy into Indo-US friendship.

US is playing us for fools. They use NGO's, their universities and their wokes to have a go at India at every chance.
Even their senators comment frequently on matters sensitive to India.

We should always be wary of US friendship, they are not reliable friends at all.

 

[dbdzzzzzz]

Indian public will never have a good opinion about USA, all blame lies on USA and their retarded media and politicians for that.

Not that above matters much considering our diplomats have done good job of making our viewpoint clear about the situation and despite all the rhetoric that is coming from the american leftist cabal and some NGOs paid by china or pakistan, USA admin has acted more or less maturely over these topics wrt to India. (other than the part where they want us to be part of their war, not gonna happen)


One point should made clear that we are not doing their bidding at any cost, we are not pakistan which was taking gibs from USA, free guns we pay full markup price for every product we buy, american companies invest here not because they are generous rather because they know that every 1 dollar they invest here will give them more returns than anywhere else. USA shouldn't expect India to fight their wars and nor should we expect USA to fight ours, rather stay clear out of it.

 

[dbdzzzzzz]

Frankly speaking it's hard to buy into Indo-US friendship.

US is playing us for fools. They use NGO's, their universities and their wokes to have a go at India at every chance.
Even their senators comment frequently on matters sensitive to India.

We should always be wary of US friendship, they are not reliable friends at all.

USA is a country of what 200 year old, it has nothing to speak of a culture. Its historical monuments are like 50 years old and compared to ours which go to thousands of years and still standing as a testament to a great past and bright future. USA is build upon a stolen land. Anything coming from them as a part of 'american culture express' should be disregarded, it's rotten mess that is destroying societies all over the world.

We should be rightfully be warry of anything coming from them whem it comes to 'society', we should keep things mostly at mere transactions....no other clauses or impositions from them in any other part and they should be made clear about it, they have no role in what happens with in India and they should stay out of our matters.

 

[Hari Sud]

Indian public will never have a good opinion about USA, all blame lies on USA and their retarded media and politicians for that.

Not that above matters much considering our diplomats have done good job of making our viewpoint clear about the situation and despite all the rhetoric that is coming from the american leftist cabal and some NGOs paid by china or pakistan, USA admin has acted more or less maturely over these topics wrt to India. (other than the part where they want us to be part of their war, not gonna happen)


One point should made clear that we are not doing their bidding at any cost, we are not pakistan which was taking gibs from USA, free guns we pay full markup price for every product we buy, american companies invest here not because they are generous rather because they know that every 1 dollar they invest here will give them more returns than anywhere else. USA shouldn't expect India to fight their wars and nor should we expect USA to fight ours, rather stay clear out of it.

All anti Indian stands official and behind the scenes are made by US Assistant Secretary of State Donald Lu who is a bit hostile to India. He is of Chinese decent has mostly pro Chinese stand. Usually he is invisible and operates thru Secretary of State, who is his boss. One very clear slip happened three weeks back just a few days after the start of Ukraine War. ……. India was not in US camp clearly but discussions between Delhi and Washington were on as to how much India supports the American stand. Donald Lu is his official capacity sent a cable to all US embassies that India was in Russian Camp. When this came to the notice of the big boss, he immediately withdrew the cable. Donald Lu learnt a bad lesson and for india it became all the more important to be cautious of this high official.

India is not embroiled in the war. It has no reason to. Only the NATO countries are noisily supporting US effort. Other countries have lukewarm support. India is neutral. We wish to stay like that.

 

[ezsasa]

Make sense of what Biden is trying to say on QUAD here..
it can be interpreted both ways.

 

[Covfefe]

For the "phull support to Putin Saar from India" brigade

 

[Butter Chicken]

For the "phull support to Putin Saar from India" brigade

Everyone knows Russia is a second rate power now.
But Russia is at its weakest now post the 90's, and we can extract much more from them in military tech than befor

 

[Covfefe]

Everyone knows Russia is a second rate power now.

Everyone doesn't. There're still buyers for RIC and Asian brotherhood drama. They're in for a rude awakening when an actual Indo-China scuffle takes place.
And yes, we must get whatever military tech we can get from Russia while we still can

 

[fire starter]