Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Defining Reliable Friends in India's Strategic Defense Relations

Discussion in 'International Relations' started by santosh, Apr 3, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    here I would like to share my ideas/previous discussions with other nationals/ key strategic issues etc. it is also intended to get any new idea, experience from others on these crucial defence strategic issues/topics i raise in this thread. I was told that experience defence professionals participate on this forum and I would welcome their contribution in this thread :tup:
     
  2. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    Non-Aligned Movement

    [​IMG]
    (Leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement: (L to R) PM Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Pres. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Pres. Gamal Abdel Nasser of United Arab Rep., Pres. Sukarno of Indonesia, & Pres. Tito of Yugoslavia.) :india:


    [​IMG]
    Speaking at the Seventh Non-Aligned Summit in New Delhi in 1983, Indira Gandhi declared:

    "Non-alignment is national independence and freedom. It means equality among nations and the ‘democratization’ of international relations, economic and political. Nationalism does not detach us from our common humanity.…...Injustice and suffering can and must be diminished." Our world is small but it has room for all of us to live together and to improve the quality of the lives for our peoples in peace and beauty. The destructive power contained in nuclear stockpiles can kill human life, indeed all life, many times over…. The arms race continues because of the pursuit of power and desire for one-upmanship, and also because many industries and interests flourish on it…. Development, independence, disarmament and peace are closely related. Can there be peace alongside nuclear weapons? Our plans for a better life for each of our peoples depend on world peace and the reversal of the arms race.

    India's Rulers and India's National Interest | Global Political Economy

    =>

    The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is a group of states which are not aligned formally with or against any major power bloc. As of 2012, the movement has 120 members and 17 observer countries.[1]

    The organization was founded in Belgrade in 1961, and was largely conceived by Yugoslavia's president, Josip Broz Tito; Indonesia's first president, Sukarno; Egypt's second president, Gamal Abdel Nasser; Ghana's first president Kwame Nkrumah; and India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.:india: All five leaders were prominent advocates of a middle course for states in the Developing World between the Western and Eastern blocs in the Cold War. The phrase itself was first used to represent the doctrine by Indian diplomat and statesman Vengalil Krishnan Krishna Menon in 1953, at the United Nations.[3]

    In a speech given during the Havana Declaration of 1979, Fidel Castro said the purpose of the organization is to ensure "the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries" in their "struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics".[4] The countries of the Non-Aligned Movement represent nearly two-thirds of the United Nations's members and contain 55% of the world population. Membership is particularly concentrated in countries considered to be developing or part of the Third World.[5] :cheers:

    Members have at times included the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Argentina, Namibia, Cyprus, and Malta. While many of the Non-Aligned Movement's members were actually quite closely aligned with one or another of the super powers, the movement still maintained cohesion throughout the Cold War. Some members were involved in serious conflicts with other members (e.g., India and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq). The movement fractured from its own internal contradictions when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. While the Soviet allies supported the invasion, other members of the movement (particularly predominantly Muslim states) condemned it.

    Because the Non-Aligned Movement was formed as an attempt to thwart the Cold War,[6] it has struggled to find relevance since the Cold War ended. After the breakup of Yugoslavia, a founding member, its membership was suspended[7] in 1992 at the regular Ministerial Meeting of the Movement, held in New York during the regular yearly session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.[8][9] The successor states of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have expressed little interest in membership, though some have observer status. In 2004, Malta and Cyprus ceased to be members and joined the European Union. Belarus remains the sole member of the Movement in Europe. Azerbaijan and Fiji are the most recent entrants, joining in 2011. The applications of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Costa Rica were rejected in 1995 and 1998, respectively.[9]

    The 16th NAM summit took place in Tehran, Iran, from 26 to 31 August 2012. According to MehrNews agency, representatives from over 150 countries were scheduled to attend.[10] Attendance at the highest level includes 27 presidents, 2 kings and emirs, 7 prime ministers, 9 vice presidents, 2 parliament spokesmen and 5 special envoys.[11] At the summit, Iran took over from Egypt as Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement for the period 2012 to 2015.[12] The 17th Summit of the Non Aligned Movement is to be held in Caracas, Venezuela, in 2015.

    [​IMG]
    Member countries, Observer countries

    Non-Aligned Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
    omya likes this.
  3. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    Neo-colonialism (also Neocolonialism) is the geopolitical practice of using capitalism, business globalization, and cultural imperialism to control a country, in lieu of either direct military control or indirect political control, i.e. imperialism and hegemony.[1] The term neo-colonialism was coined by Ghanaian president Kwame Nkrumah, to describe the socio-economic and political control that can be exercised economically, linguistically, and culturally, whereby promotion of the culture of the neo-colonist country facilitates the cultural assimilation of the colonised people and thus opens the national economy to the multinational corporations of the neo-colonial country.
    In post-colonial studies, the term neo-colonialism describes the domination-praxis (social, economic, cultural) of countries from the developed world in the respective internal affairs of the countries of the developing world; that, despite the decolonisation occurred in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), the (former) colonial powers continue to apply existing and past international economic arrangements with their former colony countries, and so maintain colonial control. A neo-colonialism critique can include de facto colonialism (imperialist or hegemonic), and an economic critique of the disproportionate involvement of modern capitalist business in the economy of a developing country, whereby multinational corporations continue to exploit the natural resources and the people of the former colony; that such economic control is inherently neo-colonial, and thus is akin to the imperial and hegemonic varieties of colonialism practiced by the empires of Great Britain, the United States, France, and other European countries, from the 16th to the 20th centuries.[2] The ideology and praxis of neo-colonialism are discussed in the works of Jean-Paul Sartre (Colonialism and Neo-colonialism, 1964)[3] and Noam Chomsky (The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, 1979).[4

    Neocolonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    The non-aligned world

    “Neo-colonialism” became the standard term for Non-Aligned Movement, describing a type of foreign intervention, because of its practical and historical application to the internal affairs (economic, social, political) of the countries of the Pan-Africanist movement :tup:

    Neocolonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    =>

    [​IMG]

    Speech delivered by India’s Prime Minester, Shri. Rajiv Gandhi, addressed to the United Nations General Assembly session on June 9, 1988.

    "We cannot accept the logic (of NPT) that a few nations, (P5s), have the right to pursue their security by threatening the survival of humankind. It is not only those who live by the nuclear sword who, by design or default, shall one day perish by it. All humanity will perish.

    Nor is it acceptable that those who possess nuclear weapons (P5s) are freed of all controls while those without nuclear weapons are policed against their production. History is full of such prejudices paraded as iron laws: that men are superior to women; that the white races are superior to the colored; that 'colonialism' is a civilizing mission, that those who possess nuclear weapons are responsible powers and those who do not are not."

    "Nuclear deterrence is the ultimate expression of the philosophy of terrorism: holding humanity hostage to the presumed security needs of a few.”:india:


    Rajiv Gandhi Speaks Against Nuclear Weapons



    => [​IMG]


    Smiling Buddha

    Smiling Buddha,[a] (MoEA designation as Pokhran-I), was an assigned codename of India's first nuclear weapon explosion, which took place on 18 May 1974.[1] The device was detonated by the Indian Army in the long-constructed army base, Pokhran Test Range, at the Pokhran municipality, Rajasthan state, under the aegis of several key Indian army personnel.[2]

    The Pokhran-I was also the first confirmed nuclear test by a nation outside the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.[3]Officially, Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MoEA) claims this test as peaceful nuclear explosion, but it was actually part of an acceleratednuclear program.[1] The weapon yield remains uncertain, with estimates of up to 8kt.[2]

    On 7 September 1972, near the peak of her post-war popularity, Indira Gandhi authorized the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) to manufacture a nuclear device and prepare it for a test.[5]Although, the Indian Army was not fully involved in the nuclear testing, the army's highest command was kept fully informed of the test preparations.[8] The preparations were carried out under the watchful eyes of Indian political leadership, with civilian scientists assisting the Indian Army.[2]

    Throughout its development, the device was formally called the "Peaceful Nuclear Explosive", but it was usually referred to as the Smiling Buddha.[2] Detonation occurred on 18 May 1974,Buddha Jayanti (a festival day in India marking the birth of Gautama Buddha).[10]:coffee:Historical accounts found out that Indian political leadership, under Indira Gandhi, maintained tight control of all aspects of the preparations of the Smiling Buddha.[2] This test was conducted in extreme secrecy; besides Indira Gandhi, only two of her advisers Parmeshwar Haksar and Durga Dhar were kept informed.[2] Scholar Raj Chengappa asserts that Indian Defense Minister Jagjivan Ram was not provided with any kind of knowledge of this test and came to learn of this test only after it was conducted.[11] The Minister of External Affairs Swaran Singh was given 48 hour advance notice.[12] The Indira Gandhi administration employed no more than 75 civilian scientists while only General GG Bewoor, Indian army chief and the commander of Indian Western Command were the only military commanders who were kept informed.[2]

    Smiling Buddha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
    Zeus_@21 likes this.
  4. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    Nam’s Relevance in the Emerging Multipolar World and India
    September 1, 2012 Nam

    The 16th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has kick-started at Tehran amid an intense debate about the Movement‘s relevance after the end of the Cold War and bipolar world. The media and public discourse about the NAM’s utility and relevance has intensified in the backdrop of stiff US opposition to the Movement as a whole and questioning Tehran’s right to host it in particular.

    When you look back at the more than five-decade-old history of the NAM, you will find that the US was always opposed to the Movement which stood in the forefront of the fight against manifestations of neo-colonial and imperial designs of that country. While the former socialist countries lauded the objectives of the Movement and extended moral-political support to it, the US treated it as its foe saying “those who are not with us are against us”. :usa: When the NAM stood for political and economic independence of the newly-liberated countries, its member-states across the globe—be it in Asia, Africa or Latin America—were thoroughly destabilised in the most brazen manner, of course with US connivance.

    The NAM was conceived as a grouping of countries that did not wish to be aligned with any of the two major military blocs—the NATO and Warsaw Pact—that emerged in the post–War world. People who question the relevance and utility of the NAM should ponder over the justification and relevance of the continuity of the NATO, which was set up to allegedly prevent export of communist revolution, while its rival, the Warsw Pact, has long disappeared from the global scene. The relevance and utility of the NAM is rightly justified by the neo-colonial policies manifested in the form of regime change across continents by the NATO headed by the arrogant sole superpower, the US.

    The NATO’s unilateral military intervention in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now its possible military action against Syria should not leave anybody in doubt that sovereign independent countries would be destabilised further if they do not fall in line with the US policy. If the 20th century would be remembered in history as the century that witnessed national liberation from colonial yoke, the 21st century is fraught with the danger of establishment of neo-colonial rule by the same old colonial powers headed by Britain, France and the US unless they are stopped on their tracks.

    The NATO’s unilateral military interventions, gunboat diplomacy, blackmail and arms-twisting policies cannot be stopped unless a powerful movement stands up to halt it. :facepalm: The NAM has that potential though it has been weakened over the years. This is precisely the reason why the US is so irritated with the Movement. Washington questioned the right of Tehran to host the NAM Summit, and asked UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon not to attend it. It is commendable that the UN-Secretary General, using his independence of mind, is participating in the Tehran Summit. This is a double slap on the US’ face. The Summit is being attended by 35 heads of state and government, and Minister-level delegations from almost 80 countries. The only countries which are absent at the Summit are the US puppet regimes of the Gulf monarchies.

    While the rationale of the existence of the NAM was called into question after the end of the bipolar world, many member-states, including India, a founder-member of the Movement, very judiciously argued against disbanding the organisation and pleaded in favour of continuing with the Movement.

    The term non-alignment was coined by our first Prime Minister, Pandit Nehru, in his speech in 1954 at the Colombo conference, which became a milestone event toward building the Non-Aligned Movement in subsequent years. Nehru’s concept of non-alignment brought this country significant international prestige, particularly among newly independent states, that shared India’s concern about military confrontation between the two superpowers and enhanced our position in global affairs. New Delhi effectively used non-alignment to ensure a major role for itself as a leader of the newly independent world in multilateral international bodies such as the UNO and NAM.

    Non-alignment presupposes participation in international politics by countries having no bloc affiliation. At the same time it does not mean passive neutrality or equidistance from the military blocs. It is neither a policy of silence for fear of the big brothers nor a policy of isolation from world affairs. But it is rather a strategy to take judicious decisions on all important issues according to one’s own independent judgement of right and wrong. In this connection it is worth recalling Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s words at the Seventh NAM Summit held in Delhi in 1983. Mrs Gandhi emphatically said: “Non-alignment is not negative, not neutral; and we cannot risk any shadow on our freedom of judgement and action. We have no quarrel with any group of nations, But we speak out against injustice.” India under Indira Gandhi attempted to reassert its prominent role in the NAM by focussing on the relationship between disarmament and economic develop-ment. By addressing the developmental issues of developing countries, Indira Gandhi and her successors exercised a moderating influence on the NAM, by diverting it from some vexed Cold War issues.

    Nam’s Relevance in the Emerging Multipolar World and India - Mainstream Weekly
     
  5. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India


    Fiftyone years after the NAM’s foundation in Belgrade, the world may have survived the spectre of mutually assured destruction of the Cold War period. But in the unipolar world that has since emerged and is led by the sole super-power, the US, what we witness is a grotesque rebirth of neo-colonial wars, aggression, regime changes through use of brute force, destabilisa-tion of sovereign, independent nations, return to arms-twisting, gunboat diplomacy, black-mailing tactics and, ironically, a renewed threat of nuclear war—the very causes of malevolence that had motivated the formation of the NAM in the early 1960s. Neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism, manifest in the brazen interven-tions of the US and its NATO allies, have started hitting the sovereign countries where it hurts the most.

    International laws, all benign international organisations, including the UN and its Security Council, have fallen victim to US hegemony and unilateralism. The post-Cold War era has seen more brazen interventions in the internal affairs of sovereign countries than before. And these have happened in the name of humanitarian interference, defence of democracy and human rights. It has seen more wars, more aggressions, more intimidations, more violence than in the bi-polar world of the Cold War era. The NAM may have lost some of its lustre, strength and momentum over the years but certainly not its purpose, goals and relevance. It still remains the largest world body (with 120 members and 17 observers)—the “biggest peace movement” in the global arena, to use Indira Gandhi’s words—after the UN General Assembly. It represents nearly 55 per cent of the world’s population and two-thirds of the UN body. :thumb: Of course, a new lease of life has to be breathed into the Movement through a strong leadership and a new vision but surely the Movement should not be disbanded or thrown into the dustbin by using the bogey of ‘lost relevance and outlived utility’.

    The NAM is not just the brainchild of India along with some other states, it stands for principles which India since independence has always espoused and pursued in international affairs: sovereign equality of states, respect for territorial integrity, a just, democratic, equitable world order and progress of the developing countries through accelerated socio-economic development. As a founding member of the NAM India has relentlessly and consistently worked to ensure that the Movement moves forward on the basis of cooperation and constru-ctive engagement rather than confrontation. India’s broad approach to the Movement in general and to the Tehran summit in particular should be oriented towards channelling the NAM’s energy to concentrate on issues that unite rather than divide its diverse and disparate membership so that the Movement can continue to serve as an effective mechanism for addressing the genuine concerns of the developing countries.

    India’s foreign policy with non-alignment as its cornerstone, shaped by Jawaharlal Nehru, has been diluted to some extent over the years. India’s autonomy in foreign policy-making has been eroded during the last several years, which is reflected in numerous cases starting from our vote in favour of taking Iran’s nuke issue to the UNO, the abandonment of the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project under US pressure to its voting pattern in the UN Security Council on a host of issues. India is tailoring its policy taking the possible US reaction into account and under its close watch. It is sacrificing the cardinal principles of our foreign policy in the name of ‘pragmatism and realism’. Our first Prime Minister and the architect of independent India’s foreign policy, Jawaharlal Nehru, once spoke with clarity on the issue as far back as in 1946 when he emphatically said: “I am not prepared even as an individual, much less as the Foreign Minister of this country, to give up my right of independent judgement to anybody else in other countries. That is the essence of our policy.“ India needs to do some introspection on the issue of making independent judgement in matters related to foreign policy articulation without the fear of the big brother or global hegemon.

    We should no doubt strengthen our ties with the US. But this should not happen at the cost of our relations with other states, more so at the cost of Iran—our declared strategic partner. We need this strategic partnership with Iran for meeting our energy requirements; for resolving important issues concerning Afghanistan, Pakistan; for getting easy access to Afghanistan, Central Asia and other countries of the CIS and Middle East. We can ill-afford to spoil this strategic partnership for the sake of our relations with some other country, howsoever important it might be. In this connection it is worth mentioning the well-argued document prepared by some eminent foreign policy experts under the title “Non-alignment 2-0: A Foreign and Strategy Policy for India in the Twentyfirst Century”. The document rightly stresses that the core objectives non-alignment were to ensure that India did not define its national interests or approach to world politics in terms of ideologies and goals that had been set elsewhere, that India retained maximum strategic autonomy to pursue its own development goals and that India worked to build national power as the foundation for creating a more just and equitable global order. The document further says that our objective should be to enhance India’s strategic space and capacity for independent policy-making which will create maximum options for our own internal development. This should be taken note of seriously by our foreign policy-making experts and officials.

    The US has been publicly urging India to leave the NAM. In this backdrop it is welcome that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is attending the Tehran NAM Summit, which gives us an opportunity to reassert our position in the Movement and impart new guidelines and a fresh vision as well as renewed momentum to the NAM while reinventing our strategic partnership with Iran.

    Nam’s Relevance in the Emerging Multipolar World and India - Mainstream Weekly
     
  6. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    Three Steps of Western Democracy

    we first have to address the 'bottom-line" facts behind SU-India alignment during Cold War, which was then supported by all the NAM members. that is the "Neo-Colonialism", as explained below too, which formed the basis of formation of NAM......

    many people here are are often confused with communism and democracy. but they are lost with the bottom-line facts behind NAM, the "Neo-Colonism". sometimes they don't understand that if there is a dispute in Vietnam's area Oil then its not because Chinese communists are not trying for their own pockets and Indian Democratic Champions are trying for Democratic people of whole world..... but, whether communists or democratic, all are trying for the good of their own civilians only ......

    I try to explain it in a simple way for the young people, in few points as below:

    1st, Developing countries dont want P5s as 'Police' of the world who would keep Nuclear Weapons and do whatever they want to do in World, regardless any right or wrong. as, if a country has nuclear weapons then it can't be attacked but it can do whatever it wants to do with rest of the world. and NAM countries strongly opposed this condition of 'democracy' :disagree:

    2nd, US/West want us to accept UN as "World Government" whose every system is a slave of US/West itself. P5s, the winners of WW2, want to keep Veto Power to block/stop any movement of UN, whenever P5s want. mean they have the Supreme Status in UN and then they want rest of the world to follow UN????? sorry, we dont want this type of "World Government" :wave:

    3rd, US/West are right to interfere in the internal matters of other countries, to break it down on cultural level/financial level, under their White/Christian/Western belief, with a sense that they just dont recognize 'State' of a developing country. and with that, they want to buy all the corrupts of developing countries, as obviously poor countries would have high corruption.... and then they blame the developing countries itself that they in fact deserve to be 'Ruled', as this is how they are corrupts/wrong etc?????? like how I asked one American member one day, AA on Indian Defence Forum, "do you know anything 'good' about India" and he couldn't answer :tsk:. as, Western Nationals are told only wrong about a developing country like India, poor/corrupts/wrong/high crime rates etc......:facepalm:

    and the similar other things which can be read in different articles. we may just go through the concept of Neo-Colonialism, what it means and how it became the basis of NAM...........
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2014
  7. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    Three Sides of World Politics

    Western nations use Pakistan as an arm against India, like how pakistan served its purpose since 1947, as guided by the Britain/US/West, including during Cold War by full support of Western arms for Pakistan. when we talk to a pakistani nationalist, he/she would only be concerned with good of pakistan while the people like Mr Musharraf are of the purpose to help the Western nations first, and then try for the Good of Pakistan along with it, if possible.......

    Three Sides of World Politics: there are three type of people/sides in world in 'Power Game', the 1st one who is defending itself and the 2nd one the aggressor and then we find a third side, the 'Beneficiary' of any type of war/conflicts etc. and I would say that Pakistan has been aggressor with India since they lost East Pakistan in 1971, by terrorism in Punjab in early 80s, then it switched to Pakistan's support to militancy in Kashmir in between 1989 to 2007, and India only defended itself since 1972. while the 3rd side, British and its allies, always try to get benefit out of any type of conflict between India and Pakistan by keeping Pakistan's rulers in their pocket. and since India qualified with China among the BRIC, the new big powers of world, India is now on the target of Western War Champions, similar to China and Russia. and here, you can't ignore 'Role' of US/UK in any type of conflict India may face, either from Pakistan or China :nono:. you always need to understand that if US can't control India then you are on their target, same as China and Russia :pop:

    =>
    In fact, if we have a look on the history itself, then Pakistan's Father of Nation, Mr Jinnah, always served as the purpose to oppose Mr Gandhi efforts of "Non-Corporation Movement" "Quit India Movement", "Boycott of British Products" etc, as an arm of Britain. when India got freedom in 1947 as a Republic of India, Mr Jinnah was serving as a Governor General of Britain as Pakistan remained a Dominion of UK till his life. (like a federation of Britain and Mr Jinnah was serving Britain for the purpose, as a Governor General of UK.) and again, if you have a look on the wars between India and Pakistan in Past, since 1947 itself, then it were always the wars between US/Western arms of Pakistan against the Soviet/Russian arms of India........
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2014
  8. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    Can Emerging and Developed Economies be Friends?

    China and US can never be friends, only enemies they can be of each others, why, I explained many times as below. here I would like to ask other strategic think tank of this forum, how the same isn't true in case of India???? :tup:

    1st, China wants to have every technology which US has, and superior to US also, which will bring US to the level of Africa , if it will get happen, which looks like going to happen within just 5 to 15 years from now. as, if US will have lost production lines of High Tech Products to China and if China will then introduce these products in world at much cheaper prices, then how US/EU will maintain earning? it will bring US to stone age, if it will ever happen, and China is determined to have all the techs of US, with higher than US also, and US wants to resist these efforts. only Indian High Qualified professionals US have, which helped US have high techs, and in future also, which may face competition with China....:coffee:

    2nd, China wants to have higher techs in defense arms which may help them win over any enemy including US/West, and Western nations definitely dont want this, including EU. :no: US wants to put missiles in space and when China also wants to do the same, West has a problem. US want to form a 'World Government', which would govern the whole world including China, and China doesn't want this to happen when a White/Christian/Western government start governing China and other developing nations.

    3rd, in western view, Chinese has been an inferior race for a long period of time while Chinese wants to prove it a superior race, the superior Chinese culture than the Western ones. hence, there is a clear cultural clash between West and CHina

    4th, US/West believe in 'grading' of nationality, with putting Western on higher place and Asians on lower national identity/grade, which is a clear clash between 'Chinese Proud' for being a Chinese and American proud to be an American.........
    India also has the same clashes with US/West but India is blessed with CHina who first take an attempt on these above '4' Western aggressions... :india:


    and here we find China in world as below. and we do know that China may only go high from here :tup:

    => High-technology exports (current US$) | Data | Table

    => List of countries by patents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    .
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2014
  9. Himanshu Pandey

    Himanshu Pandey Don't get mad, get even. STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    10,210
    Likes Received:
    4,220
    Country Flag:
    India
    No nations can be friends they can be ally for time being. Finding a place in any allaince is not good for india. Only way forward is by creating own bloc but with teeths not like toothless NAM.

    2nd thing is india need to fight its own battle rather then waiting for someone else.

    We need a complete diffrent set of forign policy with clear aim of making india a superpower rather the. A good nation and reginol power
     
  10. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    Common Geo-Political interests of India, Russia with China factor
    (as explained in the next post as below about China's importance on defence side also)

    Defining Reliable Friends

    few things are always very simple while discussing Indian-Russian friendship. for example of SU-India friendship which then continued till now as India-Russia friendship. India was made in the position to sign NPT while SU/Russia firmly supported Indian stand on NAM and its nuclear holding on the ground of its non-signatory of NPT. India got enough support from SU/Russia in terms of having Space Research techs while US simply doesn't want anyone else to challenge them in space technology. and similarly SU/Russia helped India in many Industrial development side. for example we talk about Chinese best J10/JF17 aircrafts whose even engine was supplied by Russia till 2010, as Russia was heavily industrialized till 1990 and again they have covered up the losses due to fall of SU. as we do talk that J10 is the best Chinese aircraft while the similar capable Mig29s were developed by SU/Russia by even 80s and India got full access of its techs. I just talked few days before that first ever Aircraft Career of China is in fact the Russian made which they gave to Ukraine in early 90s. Indian first man visited Space in 80s, Rakesh Sharma, while the first one of China did the same by last decade. Space Station MIR etc were nothing but the milestones which made US on the side of always being Jealous with SU/Russia. India enjoyed a long time of Military Superiority over China as India did have the next generation military equipments through SU/Russia while the same was not available for China, while being on opposite side of US/NATO also. for example of 5th gen PAK FA, with which India is involved from design to production with sharing all the key techs of Russia while Russia didnt do this type of favor with any other country of world. Indian first manned moon mission is also confident because of the facts of Russian assistance too. :coffee:

    and about the recent incidents happened on different defense deals between Russia and India, with India's willingness of buy US's arms. then still the same questions remain on the table even right now, which Mr Nehru and Ms I.Gandhi faced in 60s, 70s when they formed NAM. and I would like to ask other members here to make sure they do have answer of these few questions as below, the questions which made Indian rulers understand meaning of Russian friendship in 60s, 70s:

    1st, are you getting military arms from US with full technology transfer? I mean, India got the Russian best SU30mki with 100% tech transfer from Raw to product, and full involvement in PAK FA project from design phase with sharing all the key techs of Russia. including full techs of Russian best T90 tanks, Russian best submarines are also offered in the same way for the Project 75I. is it the same while buying arms from US? even if not the same, does India get even 50% technology of the military arms they buy from US? :what:

    even if you are buying Rafale for MRCA deal, will it be easy to get even 70% tech transfer, even if Frnce does have a past of military co-corporation with India?

    2nd, we do know that few Apache, Transport aircraft etc, the US is supplying which is very superior than other customers. then also, I remember that even if China had hardly 2nd/3rd generation aircrafts by early 90s but they were capable enough to give a 'clear' warning to UK/US to hand over Hong Kong. and even right now also, China is unarguably more powerful than India, despite India get these best arms of Russia, and now from US also? then here, why we always find that Indians are so scared of military preparation while we find Gorakha Rifle/Rajputana Rifles are much more capable to win any war by just 2-3 arms of hands? why cowardness is always justified by Indian side and they always look unsecured while being threatened with China? its in fact a shame that Russia has offered every key techs to India, which were always a dream for China and they have been trying to copy those russian tech in fact. but still India try for few arms from US as they are always threatened with China? http://*********************/images/smilies/tsk.gif

    3rd, we do know that recent defence deals between India and Russia are troubling. but here, why would Russia lose its market of India if they themselves dont face problems? and if they also face problems in supplying key defence arms to India then it has a simple meaning that we have to short out those problems. as we do have these production lines of defense arms which still need to be improved otherwise, buying arms from US simply means for a customer-supplier relation with keeping dependence on US forever, isn't it? we always need to make sure that we may build key arms, have key technologies by our own, and we must always be willing to work in this direction other than surrendering to US for military dependence/other technologies http://*********************/images/smilies/Indian_flag.gif

    meaning of my this long post has a simple question, "India needs to 'rely' on itself and try for those reliable friends who may help you being able to rely on yourself. you need to be capable enough to think to the level that 'reliability' is only means for being 'independent' on yourself for every technology http://*********************/images/smilies/ranger.gif."
    and Im a strong fan of Chinese stand in this regard, that, even if they have inferior arms than US, but they are making these arms by themselves and I would like to see India also doing the same http://*********************/images/smilies/Indian_flag.gif


    => Supply of few faulty Missiles to IAF and IN resulted in loss of few lives, a question raised one time....

    I would like to state this side of defence also, a question raised one time. here, do we know, how many lives are compromised by Russian side also for making different arms, we get so easily? do you know that their own Nuclear submarine Akula-2 killed all of them during a test, while you got this same as 'secret' deal, the current Top Gun of Indian Navy? as we do know that US won't simply let get these key arms from Russia easily. do people know, how much US made noise when Russia wanted to transfer even Cryogenic engines to India in 90s, which Russia finally helped India to develop by itself? while among other missiles, the Brahmos missiles are the finest and fastest missiles of world. things are always complicated while considering many issues altogether......
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2014
  11. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    here, I responded to the news of the above posts that IAC-1 may cost upto $3.0bil with delivery now extended to 2018, while we had too much discussions about cost escalation and delays of INS Vikramaditya for last 4-5 years. Indian members have been making heavy noise on the delivery and cost of INS Vikramaditya, which was initially signed for around $800mil and was to be delivered by 2008, as per the contract signed, if i remember. and now it has final cost at $2.3billion and would come in operation by 2013, has already completed its flight tests of Mig29s....... but it will now be interesting to see how India itself ends up with their home made IAC-1 and 2. IAC-1 was itself to be made for $1.0billion and was to be delivered by 2012, but now I find its cost to be at least $2.5bil, if not more, and to be delivered by 2018, as above, if not more......

    => in fact the big defence projects have history of high cost escalation and delays. for example of HMS Queen Elizabeth, which was also offered to India at one time. it was also proposed for hardly £950million for each in beginning and was to be delivered by 2012 in beginning, but it would now cost at least £3.5 billion (around $6.0 billion) each, and would now be delivered by 2020, as estimated right now. but with our experience, I may say that its cost would escalate to at least $10billions and would be delivered by at least 2020+, if not more. and with my knowledge in economics also, I would say that chances are hardly 50% that Britain would remain financially capable enough by 2020 to complete this project also http://*********************/images/smilies/tsk.gif

    and its aircraft to be delivered by 2023, if not more? better Britain is handling this shiit for its own Navy http://*********************/images/smilies/wave.gif
     
  12. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    and here we have topic of discussion, why can't any part of the world complete big defense projects within time line, with proposed cost? and also, how this so much discussed INS Vikramaditya offered higher cost escalation and time delay, as compare to Indian own IAC project, and also while comparing it to British's HMS which was also offered to India one time???? and here, you at least got this Vikramaditya by 2013, for $2.3billion, while your own IAC would now come in operation by 2018, for at least $3.0billion, if not more, and IAC and that British HMS both would now come in operation by 2020+, as per the recent news of the above post? so how opting INS Vikramaditya reduced Indian strength this way, considering cost escalation and delays as per your question. and hence, how Indian own IAC project or British HMS could enhance Indian strength this way, for so high cost and proposed induction by 2020+???????

    lets find out, how exactly Indian Air Force and IN suffered reduction in their strength due to delays and cost escalation of key defence deals......

    1st; Navy: many people here might be hardly in 20s and I remember Vajpayee government signed Project 75I for 6 Scorpion Submarines deals for $1.9billions with France in 2004, which was to be supplied from 2008, as per the deal signed in 2004. and today its Cost has gone well above $5.0billions, and many doubt that you would get them for even $8.0bil also..... France has shown its unwillingness of transferring key technologies of these Submarines in late 2000s, and you would now get these Submarines from 2015 onwards, if not more, and full tech transfer would never be possible. and the result is, India is now on the stage of having the lesser submarines than Pakistan by 2015, after retirement of few old submarines, this biggest arm of Navy, the submarines. and even right now, your Top Gun submarine is Akula-2 which was signed with Russia as secret deal, with hopefully 3 more of this type, with russian upgrades of Indian old submarines to keep them working till end of this decade to keep IN maintain superiority over even a small country like Pakistan till 2020 ...... http://*********************/forum/images/smilies/facepalm4.gif

    2nd; Air Force: similarly, about aircrafts, then check how things worked for this M-MRCA deal? it was proposed for $10billion for 126 aircrafts as per its tender in 2010 itself, but now this whole project will cost has been escalated to over $20billion+ for Rafale within 2 years, if not more, the lowest bidder itself. while SU30mki for hardly $100mil each is fit in comparison to Rafale, with full tech transfer from raw to product, and it works for IAF as mainly Air Dominance while Rafale will do its work as Multi Role, but both are fit in comparison, both 4++ front line aircrafts of world. while Mig29Ks for hardly $40mil each is possible only from Russia...... and about delays? this M-MRCA deal is open from 2008 and even if you get Rafale by even 2016 onward, you will be lucky. ....... also I remember, this M-MRCA deal was opened since 2008, when only Mig29VOT and Mirage 2000-5 mk2 were under consideration, while this deal would now be signed by 2014, and these aircrafts would be delivered from 2016 onwards, if not more, as IAF is more willing to negotiate for a Rafale F4 or at least Rafale F3+ type upgraded model, more stealthy than the current Rafale F3 proposed for the Brazilian tender....... IAF wants it at least as much stealthy as Super Sukhoi Su30mki...... http://*********************/images/smilies/ranger.gif

    => Army: if we discuss Tanks, the main arm of army, then have a look on the capabilities of Indian front line tanks as compare to T90? T-90s are the best Russian tanks, and India did get enough tech transfer of it, and hopefully 100% tech transfer by end of this decade. otherwise see how even 70% tech transfer of Rafale is appreciated by India. while from US, there is just 'no' technology transfer http://*********************/images/smilies/wave.gif

    (and yes military strength is more than tanks, aircrafts, submarines, ACs etc. like missiles like Brahmos and proposed S-400 for India, which we heard that India has already got it in over 6 regiments, as confidential deal, same as S-300. bla bla.....)

    then how Russia, as an arm supplier, was behind any reduction of Indian Military Strength and cost escalation, and how the same could be improved/enhanced by having more reliance on other defence suppliers including on France, this way???????
     
  13. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    again, to to discuss delays and cost escalation issues, we first need to find out how exactly this happens and why Russia would lose its biggest defence market for no reason? and these points are always raised, while giving example of Scorpions of Project 75, M-MRCA, IAC including the western own projects like US's F35/JSF, Rafale, EFT Typhoon, British HMS etc, to state how they have been delayed for over 10 years, with 3-4 times cost escalation than previously estimated. we do need to find out, why exactly cost and time of big russian defense rise and why the same is not seen in case of other suppliers, to sort out those issues. But if this type of cost escalation and delays happens every where then there is no God in world, to use any miracle in case of Russian projects only http://*********************/images/smilies/pray2.gif)

    and in fact there is just one country of world which may supply 'in-use' defense arms on time, the USA, as they have 50+ customers world wide and running production lines. but there are four main points, why I dont find it a wise step to have closer defence deals with US, as below:

    1st, US use defence contracts to bargain on the foreign policy side. here we have example of Pakistan and other US's customers, like how US delayed supply of F16s in 90s, and during last decade to bargain with Pakistan's foreign policy side. and the same we saw in case of other US's non-Western customers for different US's defense deals..........

    2nd:, US has nothing to offer other than Transport Aircrafts, P8I, GE F414 or hardly Apache also. even during the trials of M-MRCA deal, Super Hornet and F16s were rejected during performance tests and it was found that its better IAF would buy more Mig29s which may also deliver the similar works, more or less, and no extra infrastructure or training will be required in case of Mig29s also, like how IN is buying Mig29Ks for its ACs. and US's Top Gun, F15SE is fit in comparison with Super Sukhoi Su30mki. while we find F22 for hardly 'strategic' purpose during 90s and last decade, better the prototypes of PAK FA we have got till now........

    even in case of F35, the new Top Gun of US, this project is well delayed till 2020, if not more, single engine and now less likely to be as effective as PAK FA, as below. while we do know that there will be hardly 0% to 5% tech transfer for F35, if India ever think for it, while India is involved from design to production phase of PAK FA, which will help their home projects, mainly AMCA http://*********************/images/smilies/thumb.gif


    3rd: there is just 'no' technology transfer from US's side on any defence contract. you would understand that its only a supplier-customer relation while India needs its own defence infrastructure. and more India have deals with Russia like PAK FA, its more likely that India will then have got all the key expertise of Russia this way at the end, by involvements from design to production phase like in case of PAK FA, making India's own credible defense infrastructure, including of all missile, missile defence, T90 tanks, aircrafts, stealth submarines etc and thats what we would like to see http://*********************/images/smilies/thumb.gif
    like how we do know that russian Stealth Submarines, which are offered for Project 75I, would bring all the key russian techs which we won't get from either German or Spanish one.....http://*********************/images/smilies/ranger.gif


    4th, right now US has only transport aircrafts, P8I, GE engine and hardly Apache also to offer but they charge India very high price than what they ask from Australia, Canada and its other customers like Pakistan, and in fact very less of its price it required for making these arms in US. I think, India would keep kicking US for the defence arms India buy from US, to always make US understand that its India who feeds them......

    like, India is paying $410mil each for C-17, while Australia is paying around $350mil each for C-17. while for US, its just around $250mil each for C-17 to make it in US for themselves. http://*********************/forum/images/smilies/facepalm4.gif
    (prices of Australian, Canadian and US's is mentioned in the last paragraph of this news as below.


    similarly I have read on many places that US charge India with much higher prices for the same aircrafts/ missiles etc than what they got from their other customers. for example of Harpoon missile price for India and much less was charged from pakistan

     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2014
  14. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India

    and Im among the Indians, who always sideline with Russia for the following reasons :tup:

    =>
    Russia's Multipolar World Vs US's World Government

    Efforts to Establish a "BALANCE" in world

    Further to the above discussion, today i was making a clear difference between my side with Russia, against the US's World Government, which wants to rule the world, but it doesn't share the "Equal Voting Rights" with those rest of the world including Indians, on whom the leaders of those 310million US's civilians want to 'Rule'......

    the government of US, backed by EU, want to form that World Government which doesn't have "equal" voting rights with Indians in their parliamentary election, but they want to have every interference in India, to serve those US's civilians who have their leaders like Mr B.Obama......

    and at the same time we have Russia on the other side, which favor Multi-Polar World, and support India and China both. we find Indian members making noise when Russia is going to sell its best Su35 aircraft to China, while the same type of noise we hear from Chinese members also when Russia not only sell its best arms to India, but it also comes with full technology transfer to India.........

    and its all about dealing with two sides of politics of world. one about the US's World Government, which doesn't share "equal" voting rights in their general election by rest of the world like India, while the Russia on other side which favor 'equal' rights for Every Government on the world platform......

    and one day i also reminded that, even if China and Vietnam have conflicts on oil search, then its not because Chinese communists are trying for their own pockets while Indians are trying for the democratic people of whole world. but whether China or Vietnam+India, both of these groups are trying to secure best stake in that area for good of their own people, who elected their leaders in these 3 countries to secure common interests of the people belonging to their countries.........

    here, i also remember my one talk with few senior Russians in Sydney, when one senior once said that, "we would learn Chinese language, Mandarin, now." and i asked with surprise, "Chinese language?" and he said, "yes Chinese." and it again gave me a straight meaning from my Chinese friends from Malaysia+Singapore, that, "English is sign of our colonization..."

    and yes, neither English is home language of India nor US Dollar is Indian currency, but if we may have Yuan as a world currency and Mandarin as a world language for the next 20 years, say, then it will definitely help of maintain a "BALANCE" in this world, which is quite important :tup:

    IIMs' tryst with Chinese: Mandarin emerges as popular course at IIMs | Indian Defence Forum

    =>

    the above statement of the article is fit with my experience too. those who want to interfere in India believe,

    "if they may buy General Manager of a firm, then they have got the whole firm this way." :rofl:

    "if you may buy those who have influence on the society, then you may control the whole society somehow/ someway." :tsk:

    "to handle Fate of the people of a country, if you may buy all those people who own high positions/ have proper influence on the society then this way you have got a level of control on that certain country this way." :facepalm:

    and hence, i have made my above post in this thread, with demanding, "only those can handle fate of a society/ country, who are elected by that certain society. hence, until Mr B.Obama ensures 'equal' voting rights for the common Indian citizens in the general election of USA, he can't interfere in the internal matters of India." :nono: :disagree:
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2014
  15. venureddy

    venureddy Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    686
    Country Flag:
    India
    in my opinion israel and russia is our only reliable friends that we can trust at all times.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page