3 ms·

> I still don't understand why US decided to support horrible unstable dictatorship in Pakistan instead of biggest democracy in the world in the past. Current

> I still don't understand why US decided to support horrible unstable dictatorship in Pakistan instead of biggest democracy in the world in the past. Current India was born as the Socialist democratic Republic of India and had closer relations to the former USSR than the US, so naturally, the US aligned itself with Pakistan. > Unless I am mistaken India was always a victim in aggression of its neighbors You are mistaken. India has been an aggressor as much as a victim. Of course that's not to say the scale of aggression was like colonial powers but India is definitely not doodh-ka-dhula. > If India put their sht (economy) together, toughened/equipped up their military I think this behavior would stop. No. India needs to get its basics right -- Food, health care, education. The problem is /not/ the economy. If the so called 'educated' population of India actually made use of their education to participate in their democracy they would realize that economically speaking, India is not in a terribly bad state, however, the standard of life is sht as you put it, because very less focus has been put on the basics. In the history of the world there hasn't been any single successful empire or country which got to where it was while ignoring the health, nutrition and education of its people.

setum 8y ago
> Current India was born as the Socialist democratic Republic of India and had closer relations to the former USSR than the US, so naturally, the US aligned itself with Pakistan. Not true. In-fact just the opposite. India started non-aligned movement and tried to remain non-aligned to the extent possible. Pakistan joined SEATO in 1954[1], India-Russia relations started a year later in 1955[2] Also, India was not born Socialist, although it may have socialist policies - much like any other country. First mention of socialism was in 1976 [3] > You are mistaken. India has been an aggressor as much as a victim. I think you could easily have add examples to support your claim rather than making statements [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organiza... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Russia_relations#Soviet_Union_and_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Russia_relations... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Current_countries_with_constitutional_references_to_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Curre...
- devnonymous 8y ago
  > Also, India was not born Socialist, although it may have socialist policies - much like any other country. First mention of socialism was in 1976 OK, I grant you that the words Socialist made it into the constitution later, but Nehru (and the post independence polity in general) had socialist leanings since well before Independence[1] In the context of my assertion about Indo-US relationship, it is only semantics of whether India was born Socialist or not. > I think you could easily have add examples to support your claim rather than making statements https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Dadra_and_Nagar_Haveli https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Dadra_and_Naga... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Sikkim#Annexation_by_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Sikkim#Annexation_b... .. And this is not even a list of the princely states that were ^liberated^ soon after independence. Like I said earlier, this sort of aggression wasn't like colonial aggression but it was aggression nonetheless. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_India https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_India
  - setum 7y ago
    > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Dadra_and_Naga.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Dadra_and_Naga.... > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Sikkim#Annexation_b.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Sikkim#Annexation_b.... None of these examples are of aggression. Goa and 'Dadar and Nagar Haveli' were Portuguese occupied territories (much like rest of India was a British territory before independence). India got independence from Britain, but the Portuguese territories remained occupied. Watch this interview (video) of an Indian officer (Mr. kaul) from during the time of Liberation of Goa to get some perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRWTzp3RlJk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRWTzp3RlJk

setum 8y ago

> Current India was born as the Socialist democratic Republic of India and had closer relations to the former USSR than the US, so naturally, the US aligned itself with Pakistan. Not true. In-fact just the opposite. India started non-aligned movement and tried to remain non-aligned to the extent possible. Pakistan joined SEATO in 1954[1], India-Russia relations started a year later in 1955[2] Also, India was not born Socialist, although it may have socialist policies - much like any other country. First mention of socialism was in 1976 [3] > You are mistaken. India has been an aggressor as much as a victim. I think you could easily have add examples to support your claim rather than making statements [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organiza... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Russia_relations#Soviet_Union_and_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Russia_relations... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Current_countries_with_constitutional_references_to_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Curre...

devnonymous 8y ago
> Also, India was not born Socialist, although it may have socialist policies - much like any other country. First mention of socialism was in 1976 OK, I grant you that the words Socialist made it into the constitution later, but Nehru (and the post independence polity in general) had socialist leanings since well before Independence[1] In the context of my assertion about Indo-US relationship, it is only semantics of whether India was born Socialist or not. > I think you could easily have add examples to support your claim rather than making statements https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Dadra_and_Nagar_Haveli https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Dadra_and_Naga... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Sikkim#Annexation_by_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Sikkim#Annexation_b... .. And this is not even a list of the princely states that were ^liberated^ soon after independence. Like I said earlier, this sort of aggression wasn't like colonial aggression but it was aggression nonetheless. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_India https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_India
- setum 7y ago
  > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Dadra_and_Naga.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Dadra_and_Naga.... > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Sikkim#Annexation_b.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Sikkim#Annexation_b.... None of these examples are of aggression. Goa and 'Dadar and Nagar Haveli' were Portuguese occupied territories (much like rest of India was a British territory before independence). India got independence from Britain, but the Portuguese territories remained occupied. Watch this interview (video) of an Indian officer (Mr. kaul) from during the time of Liberation of Goa to get some perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRWTzp3RlJk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRWTzp3RlJk