QUAD; The Concert of Democracies for Trade, Security & Diplomacy

[Indrajit]

Murican bleeding hearts in murican society is not same as US Gov policy. murican bleeding hearts were vocal during events preceding 1971 war too, that didn’t stop US Gov from sending seventh fleet.

I am not going to spoonfeed you Indian history. either support your assertion with a documented proof, or quit derailing this thread.

@asianobserve is not wrong in his statement that there was American pressure. Roosevelt's dislike of the British Empire was well known and there were reports that he told Churchill as early as 1942 to grant immediate Dominion status to India followed by full independence later. In 1943 the British Foreign secretary was told in a series of meetings with American officials that reorganization of the colonies and independence for them was an explicit goal of President Roosevelt. While it may not be the only factor or even the most important one, it certainly did add to the pressure on the British.

 

[Maharaj samudragupt]

@asianobserve is not wrong in his statement that there was American pressure. Roosevelt's dislike of the British Empire was well known and there were reports that he told Churchill as early as 1942 to grant immediate Dominion status to India followed by full independence later. In 1943 the British Foreign secretary was told in a series of meetings with American officials that reorganization of the colonies and independence for them was an explicit goal of President Roosevelt. While it may not be the only factor or even the most important one, it certainly did add to the pressure on the British.

Plus gadar party was probably formed in usa if i remember ( I mah be wrong)

 

[ezsasa]

@asianobserve is not wrong in his statement that there was American pressure. Roosevelt's dislike of the British Empire was well known and there were reports that he told Churchill as early as 1942 to grant immediate Dominion status to India followed by full independence later. In 1943 the British Foreign secretary was told in a series of meetings with American officials that reorganization of the colonies and independence for them was an explicit goal of President Roosevelt. While it may not be the only factor or even the most important one, it certainly did add to the pressure on the British.

is there a corresponding resolution from white house, US senate or congress declaring it as their foreign policy?

sure, leaders have conversations, and their durbaris make it seem as if one conversation changed the world.
Obama in 2012 apparently said to his staff once "afghanistan?, is it still going on?", and as we know that chapter closed on 2021.

 

[Indrajit]

is there a corresponding resolution from white house, US senate or congress declaring it as their foreign policy?

sure, leaders have conversations, and their durbaris make it seem as if one conversation changed the world.
Obama in 2012 apparently said to his staff once "afghanistan?, is it still going on?", and as we know that chapter closed on 2021.

The British were their allies and there were never going to be any resolutions of the kind you mention but those conversations existed regardless of what opinions we may hold of their import.

The creation of the United Nations Trusteeship Council was to further the American view and to pressure colonial powers to set a timetable for independence.

 

[Indrajit]

@ezsasa - articles of interest possibly, the second one(downloadable) more supportive of your opinion on the talking versus the walking.

American Pressure on the British Empire for the Independence of India: American Financial Leverage on the Decolonisation of the British Empire. - Dr. Moussavizadeh

moussavizadeh.com

https://journals.openedition.org/etudesafricaines/214?file=1

Roosevelt's `Grand Strategy' to Rid the World of British Colonialism: 1941-1945

 

[ezsasa]

The British were their allies and there were never going to be any resolutions of the kind you mention but those conversations existed regardless of what opinions we may hold of their import.

The creation of the United Nations Trusteeship Council was to further the American view and to pressure colonial powers to set a timetable for independence.

For clarification, not saying such a conversation has not happened. i am saying impact of that conversation is exaggerated by narrative builders.
let contemporary "non-durbari" indian historians/academics take this up, and validate the claim and prove there is a link.
we are not in a hurry, we can wait.

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

@asianobserve is not wrong in his statement that there was American pressure. Roosevelt's dislike of the British Empire was well known and there were reports that he told Churchill as early as 1942 to grant immediate Dominion status to India followed by full independence later. In 1943 the British Foreign secretary was told in a series of meetings with American officials that reorganization of the colonies and independence for them was an explicit goal of President Roosevelt. While it may not be the only factor or even the most important one, it certainly did add to the pressure on the British.

Which pressure What pressure when did this "pressure" came in 1942 when amreekunts started making guns on their own? Nice larp.

Lets be factually correct.

BHARAT was the largest gunpowder production system – in the history of the world, till the 20th century. Specifically Bengal and Bihar regions. Operated by a caste of peoples called the nuniah, saltpetre beds supplied the most vital element in gunpowder – saltpetre. And India produced virtually all of it.
You should not forget after ww1 britfags was in huge debt and therefore coomers financed that debt viz Bhartiya Gold untill all our reserves dried out.

Make no mistake about this it was BHARTIYA Gunpowder and Ship Building that funded the vermin existence of britfags.

Now I will cite you that another coomer whos george washington himself. Even those amreekunts had no gunpowder and were getting gunpowder off BHARAT.

You might be wondering what is saltpeter? Its potassium nitrate – an essential ingredient in gunpowder. Indians had perfected the method of preparing potassium nitrate (KNO3). The other two ingredients in gunpowder being charcoal and sulphur – easily and freely available and cheap.

What exactly did roosevelt exactly did? 1 cent of lip service?

With the end of African slavery between 1830 in britfags and 1865 in amreekunts , the focus of slavery shifted. Bharat’s indentured labour fed the sugar colonies and the building of infrastructure across Africa railways, telegraph networks. And when this labour too was withdrawn coomers britfags were no longer able to build anything on the backs of labour and britfags got routed out.


And I have not even mentioned about the revolts and freedom struggle of Bharat.

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

The outcome of Waterloo can be gauged from a forgotten statistic – “In the year before the battle of Waterloo (1815) the East India Company exported 146000 cwt. of saltpetre to England.” 146,000 cwt is 7300 tons of saltpetre. Subhuman coomers britfags Ordnance Board powder mills in 1809 produced 36,623¾ ninety pound barrels of powder and private contractors using government supplied saltpetre a further 24,433 ninety pound barrels. Some of munitions output was supplied to allied governments- Portugays received in the years 1796-1801 … 10,000 barrels of powder, 500 tons of saltpetre as well all from BHARAT.

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

Now tell us @asianobserve how much of gunpowder did roooooosevelt supplied to BHARAT?

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

@ezsasa the britfags gave up those confused amreekunts allowing them to focus their efforts against wars raging across BHARAT.

 

[BON PLAN]

From the submarine to the ridiculous

The old plan was to build a conventionally powered version of a nuclear-powered French submarine. It was crazy. The new plan – to buy a nuclear-powered submarine instead – is worse. It will make the replacement of the Royal Australian Navy’s fleet of Collins-class boats riskier, costlier and...

www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au

 

[Indx TechStyle]

India has to sort out its priorities. Is it containing the US or containing China? If it's China then India must work with US and its allies. India, like the US, cannot effectively contain China alone. The dragon is already out of the cage.

India isn't an imperialist power with aims to subjugate any specific country.
Both US and China have undertaken policies counter-productive for Indian interets. They both still do it and it's spammed over everywhere in this forum.

I don't think it's in US' (or any country's) national interest to destroy Pakistan. It has nuclear weapons and a collapse of the current Pakistani state is going to be a major disaster for the entire World.

Collapse of Soviet Union didn't blew up a nuclear war. It depends upon how nukes are managed.
India has faced intervention from west against annexing Pakistan even when Pak wasn't a nuclear power.

It certainly is not in India's interest to see the collapse of Pakistan (be careful what you wish for).

Pakistan was created to contain India to prevent rise of another USSR or China, not to serve Indian interests. 1971 turned the tables. So, both China and the US at least turned blind eyes if not entirely assisted them to acquire nuclear weapons.

The collapse of first Pakistani state in 1971 made India relieve its forces from eastern front building a big expeditionary military and focus on China. The collapse of second will end absolute intervention of US and China in South Asia.
Pakistan is only South Asian country which isn't dependent on India but seeks others to contain India. India has grip on all others.

And I think the signals from Washington is clear (since the 1950s and 1960s actually), the US wants a closer relationship with India (it's India that has been trying to occupy the middle "high" ground).

Signals never lasted more than a lip job and Indo-Soviet treaty of friendship was signed much later. Even after collapse of USSR when India literally joined the capitalist bloc, it was always pushed under heavy sanctions while China used to get away for same set of actions.

In other words, the US does not "love" Pakistan over India. By strategic necessity and due to India's reluctance to work closer with the US, the US has to work with what it has, Pakistan.

AfPak belt had Iran in West, USSR in North, China in East and India in South which is sufficient reason to work with those states.

It's anyway US opposition to India's reintegration projects and not India's reluctance which pushed India away from them. They were imperialists and we are a rebellious former colony of one of those countries. It's quite obvious that our politics in this regard is different.

Annexation of Goa - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Pakistan was an essential tool to contain India. They were protected by P5 by imposing Tashkent treaty on India but did lose half of country leaving no local power to contain India in IOR. Somehow, industrial, technological and economic advantages started in appear in India after 1980s which earned India some "acceptance in western public". It didn't change the western governmental attitude towards much even till 2000s.

Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Onus of cooperation never lied on India. It has only struggled to survive and now is being invited by west to fight China.

Alas! Times also reported that US Pres even called Chinese counterpart to take a large-scale military offensive against India to save Pakistan. But China was already engaged with Soviets in North!

What the US and India can agree on is China. China is threatening both US and Indian interests. Here the confluence of national interests is clear. India and the US therefore should be working on the China issue.

Both Indian and US interests and policies converge there very well. In case of a world war, India and the US might fight alongside and use each others' bases too.

For the time being till then, India maintains a huge military unlike other US allies and doesn't need US troops onboard. So, India doesn't need to go beyond where it is sitting today as far as Indo-US relationship is concerned. India just has to maintain its influence in Indian ocean region and continue to grow itself in all aspects.

Since it's the question of regional status and not frontiers, India's informal alliances with Australia/UK/Japan/US/France/Israel/Russia are fine. Engaging with west in the way west wants India to do only has more losses for India.

 

[Abdus Salem killed]

From the submarine to the ridiculous

The old plan was to build a conventionally powered version of a nuclear-powered French submarine. It was crazy. The new plan – to buy a nuclear-powered submarine instead – is worse. It will make the replacement of the Royal Australian Navy’s fleet of Collins-class boats riskier, costlier and...

www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au

Can you actually post the article

 

[Optimistic Nihilist]

India isn't an imperialist power with aims to subjugate any specific country.
Both US and China have undertaken policies counter-productive for Indian interets. They both still do it and it's spammed over everywhere in this forum.


Collapse of Soviet Union didn't blew up a nuclear war. It depends upon how nukes are managed.
India has faced intervention from west against annexing Pakistan even when Pak wasn't a nuclear power.

Pakistan was created to contain India to prevent rise of another USSR or China, not to serve Indian interests. 1971 turned the tables. So, both China and the US at least turned blind eyes if not entirely assisted them to acquire nuclear weapons.

The collapse of first Pakistani state in 1971 made India relieve its forces from eastern front building a big expeditionary military and focus on China. The collapse of second will end absolute intervention of US and China in South Asia.
Pakistan is only South Asian country which isn't dependent on India but seeks others to contain India. India has grip on all others.

Signals never lasted more than a lip job and Indo-Soviet treaty of friendship was signed much later. Even after collapse of USSR when India literally joined the capitalist bloc, it was always pushed under heavy sanctions while China used to get away for same set of actions.

AfPak belt had Iran in West, USSR in North, China in East and India in South which is sufficient reason to work with those states.

It's anyway US opposition to India's reintegration projects and not India's reluctance which pushed India away from them. They were imperialists and we are a rebellious former colony of one of those countries. It's quite obvious that our politics in this regard is different.

Annexation of Goa - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

View attachment 112721View attachment 112722

Pakistan was an essential tool to contain India. They were protected by P5 by imposing Tashkent treaty on India but did lose half of country leaving no local power to contain India in IOR. Somehow, industrial, technological and economic advantages started in appear in India after 1980s which earned India some "acceptance in western public". It didn't change the western governmental attitude towards much even till 2000s.
Onus of cooperation never lied on India. It has only struggled to survive and now is being invited by west to fight China.

Both Indian and US interests and policies converge there very well. In case of a world war, India and the US might fight alongside and use each others' bases too.

For the time being till then, India maintains a huge military unlike other US allies and doesn't need US troops onboard. So, India doesn't need to go beyond where it is sitting today as far as Indo-US relationship is concerned. India just has to maintain its influence in Indian ocean region and continue to grow itself in all aspects.

You nailed it. The problem with USA and its lackeys is they always want someone else to do the dirty work for them, but in return they offer either contempt or disdainful moral lectures and at best, inconsequential amounts of "aid".

They want us to help them "destroy China". Just one word: Why? For what? We have our problems with China and IF push comes to shove, we will deal with them in whatever way is most effective for securing our future.

Why should we help the US destroy China? What do we get in return, what does a destroyed China give us, what will be the unintended consequences of that, why should we subjugate another country? They are free to do their own dirty work.

 

[HitmanBlood]

My thoughts on future of QUAD under uncertainty of CAATSA.

The success of QUAD depends on US India relationship, especially after India's S400 deal with Russia. If US decides to punish India with sanctions it will create trust issues between US and India. Also it would be difficult to justify Indian engagement with USA to a domestic audiance by Modi gov.

India is an importer of technology. If sanctioned by USA, India can go further towards Russian technology for its need creating more rift in Indo-US relationship.

6 months ago US sanctions on India seemed nearly impossible because of QUAD and other areas of partnership. However with new AUKUS deal made between Anglo-Saxon countries, it has cast some shadow on future of QUAD.

If AUKUS is made to replace QUAD in Asia, Americans will definitely care less about Indian sensitivity regarding sanctions. If AUKUS and QUAD are meant to complement eachother then we will see Americans being careful about their relationship with India.

Now we are at the crossroads. USA can give a CAATSA waiver to India and prove that it is serious about QUAD and Indo-Pacific. Sanctions on India will mean surrendering Asia to Chinese hegemony.

US has already sanctioned its NATO ally Turkey for buying S400. This could possibly mean trouble for India as well. If US doesn't sanction India for same reason it sanctioned a treaty ally, it will definitely complicate relationship within NATO.

Also there is question of Nord Stream 2. That project will also attract sanctions under CAATSA. Is USA going to sanction Germany? If US decides to selectively punish countries and give waiver to India and Germany is yet to be seen.

India has a strong case that it purchased S400 before CAATSA was made a law. Still, There is no mention from new Biden administration about Indian CAATSA waiver. Even Gen Austin, when he visited India said buying S400 would trigger sanctions. So its not generating any confidence.

US may use CAATSA sanctions waiver as a bargain tool for something they want. Like a military base in India or some policy relaxations to American companies doing business in India.

 

[asianobserve]

Three-Eyed AUKUS An Augury For Change?

With all of the ink spilt on French pique over the future sale of nuclear submarines to the Australians, there was one other French-speaking nation left out — our neighbor up north.

AUKUS, the new alliance between the US, Australia, and the United Kingdom was a shock to France who merely lost a $66 billion submarine contract, but to a supposedly close Five Eyes intelligence cooperation partner, it appears Canada has lost something more — its standing among its allies.

O No Canada: Is A Three-Eyed AUKUS An Augury For Change? - Breaking Defense

When Australia, the US and UK announced a new pacific-focused defense agreement last month, it was hard not to notice that the deal excluded the other two members of the Five Eyes intelligence agreement. Local media in Canada certainly seized on it to raise questions about Ottawa’s standing in...

breakingdefense.com

 

[MonaLazy]

this just in from the Department for Announcements and Photo Opportunities..

 

[FalconSlayers]

 

[asianobserve]

Taiwan won't 'bow' to China, says President Tsai

In her National Day speech, Taiwan's president called on Beijing to respect her country's sovereignty. The remarks came one day after China's Xi Jinping reiterated his desire for reunification.

Taiwan won't 'bow' to China, says President Tsai – DW – 10/10/2021

In her National Day speech, Taiwan's president called on Beijing to respect her country's sovereignty. The remarks came one day after China's Xi Jinping reiterated his desire for reunification.

www.dw.com

 

[Tshering22]

Taiwan won't 'bow' to China, says President Tsai

In her National Day speech, Taiwan's president called on Beijing to respect her country's sovereignty. The remarks came one day after China's Xi Jinping reiterated his desire for reunification.

Taiwan won't 'bow' to China, says President Tsai – DW – 10/10/2021

In her National Day speech, Taiwan's president called on Beijing to respect her country's sovereignty. The remarks came one day after China's Xi Jinping reiterated his desire for reunification.

www.dw.com

You know. the CCP is known to do something least expected for quite some time. The creation of artificial islands in the South China Sea; the sudden sneak attack on 20 Indian soldiers; flying routine spy UAVs in Taiwanese ADIZ, et al.

Right now, everyone is expecting them to send PLAN marines on amphibious assault missions against Taiwanese forces. However, what would the world do if:

1- PLA was to directly revert to using long-range artillery and rocket forces?
2- Use their satellite network to target critical government buildings with long-range cruise missiles and conventional ballistic missiles?

Both these attacks could be against the Taiwanese parliament, presidential palace, stock market building, Taiwanese military GHQ, and military factories that manufacture weapons?

No one has discussed this scenario at all; the world would be too shocked for a week at least, giving PLA the time to enter a leaderless Taiwan.

Thoughts here?