You have pretty strong views on what constitutes vassal state. We would be a vassal state only if Red army had marched in Delhi.
I wonder whether you have been following recent events. The US army marched on the streets of Estonia on Estonia's Independence Day. I call it Estonia's Vasssalhood Day.
@pmaitra
In a way, India exploited the friendship treaty with Moscow more than they could have exploited us. It can also be true due to non-strategic location of India vis-a-vis Soviet international plans else we could have seen any of the above actions you mentioned. But we provided the necessary ego massage to USSR on international forums.
India has always sought what is best for its interests.
India sought GE technology from the US for its diesel locomotives, but GE refused. Another US company, ALCO, agreed, and hence, India bought that technology.
India approached the UK for submarines, but they also refused. Thereafter, India went to the Soviets, and they were more than willing to help us in a way no one else would.
Let's look at local assembly of our defence equipment. Did India have a better choice than what the Soviets offered us?
If India were a Soviet vassal, India would have sought exclusively Soviet products. If India were a US vassal, India would have sought exclusively US products. That has not been the case. Post-1947, India has been a vassal to none, and thus should India remain. We just need to stop whining that Russia does not spoon-feed India the way the Soviets did.
I could list a whole bunch of examples.
Rockefellers will be very happy to see this thread.
Rockefellers are no good, but they are no worse than the Rothschilds, the ones who benefited from India's colonization. It is sad some people in this forum still dance to their tune, intentionally or out of ignorance.