American Jewish Commitee dismayed by India-Iran ties.

[Developereo]

Nobody's denying that India has used diplomacy much better than Pakistan. The point here is that the major powers are not stupid. They are working with India, not because they are fooled by Indian diplomacy, but because India is not perceived as a threat to their dominance.

 

[Yeti]

Nobody's denying that India has used diplomacy much better than Pakistan. The point here is that the major powers are not stupid. They are working with India, not because they are fooled by Indian diplomacy, but because India is not perceived as a threat to their dominance.

Not to mention the strong Indian economy and the fact that they want to sell India weapons and nuke plants

---------- Post added at 05:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 AM ----------

India needs to increase it's supplies from Iran now that the western powers have put sanctions, there is no better time to do business as the chips are with India.

 

[Zabaniyah]

India's increased ties with SU were a direct consequence of Pakistan firmly sitting in the US camp all those years. However India gave up on NAM when Nixon and his cronies openly threatened India, instead of merely supporting and arming Pakistan.

Pakistan, even given that they had very limited resources and industry unlike the larger mainland India, their diplomacy certainly played well with the Americans.

Let's just say that Nixon was a retard.

His arrogance became his own undoing.

End of story.

Some may find it hard to believe, but India has long had a tradition of not bending to foreign powers and of pursuing an independent policy.

Agreed. History clearly showed that, and even today.

SU did not support India in the sino-Indian war, nor did it India oblige by signing any Soviet support treaty like Cento and seato although that would have opened up more aid for India like US was giving to Pakistan. India openly protested against SU intervening in Afghanistan, again not bending to the relationship.

Well, India and the USSR signed their friendship treaty on 1971. That was way before the Sino-Indo war.

And you are wrong about the last part. India never protested the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
BBC NEWS | South Asia | India renews historic Afghan ties

It is interesting to note that India also supported the previous Communist puppet regimes that ruled Afghanistan for a short period of time. Those guys met a bloody end at the hands of the tribal fanatics.

Here's an interesting read:

Early Indo-Pakistani Competition in Afghanistan

Despite Pakistan’s physical proximity to Afghanistan, the two have not always enjoyed the most cordial relations thanks to differences over the Durand Line. Indeed, during the long rule of King Zahir Shah (1933-1973), India actually had better relations with Afghanistan than did Pakistan, barring a brief rupture during the 1965 Indo-Pakistani conflict.

Even after Zahir’s overthrow in 1973, India managed to maintain close ties with the subsequent communist regimes. Contrary to popular belief, India was less than pleased with the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.1 Nevertheless, after failing to engage Pakistan with the prospects of a regional solution to the Soviet invasion and faced with substantial American military and economic assistance to Pakistan ($3.2 billion for six years), India avoided any public censure of the Soviet occupation. It chose instead to work with successive Soviet puppet regimes in Afghanistan because it cared little for the Islamist ideological orientation shared by a bulk of the Afghan mujahideen groups that Pakistan was supporting on behalf of the United States.2 India was also loath to cede its military superiority over Pakistan and relied on the Soviets to provide advanced weaponry at bargain-basement prices.3 During the course of the Afghan war, India came to support Ahmed Shah Massoud’s Northern Alliance because of its hostility toward the Pakistani-supported mujahideen groups. Moreover, a long-standing rivalry over the Afghanistan-Pakistan border had exacerbated the tensions between the two countries since the end of British rule in India. The ethnically Pashtun and Baluch belts straddling the Durand Line made that demarcation illegitimate in the eyes of many in the tribal areas. India was soon able to exploit this rivalry following partition. Pashtun nationalists, who had already been advocating for a “Pashtunistan,” took the matter to a loya jirga in 1949. The jirga believed that Pakistan, being a new state at the time, was not an historic extension of British India, and therefore all treaties signed prior to independence were nullified. This included the demarcation of the Durand Line and thus Pakistan’s putative annex of tribal areas more closely aligned with Afghanistan. Throughout the Cold War, India would be able to pay lip service to the idea of a “Pashtunistan” with the goal of keeping Pakistan’s army occupied on its restive western border.4

India’s ability to maintain good relations with Afghanistan drew to a close with the Pakistani-aided and abetted Taliban victory in 1996.5 The Taliban victory finally gave Pakistan’s politico-military establishment a long-sought goal: namely, what they believed to be a pliant regime in Afghanistan, one that would grant it strategic depth against India. India, on the other hand, was forced to abandon its embassy and withdraw its diplomatic personnel from Afghanistan. It was during this period that Pakistan managed to bolster its ties with the Taliban regime until after the tragic events of 11 September 2001.

Given Pakistan’s close ties to the Taliban regime, India did not abandon its links with the Northern Alliance. In early 2001, as the Northern Alliance was engaged in battle with Taliban forces, India reportedly provided Massoud’s forces with high-altitude warfare equipment, defense advisors and helicopter technicians. Indian medical personnel also apparently treated wounded Northern Alliance members at a hospital in Farkhor in Tajikistan near the Afghan-Tajik border. It is also believed that India supported anti-Taliban attacks from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.6

India-Pakistan Rivalry in Afghanistan | Journal of International Affairs

Another one:

India, on the other hand, was slow to condemn the invasion and that gave more fuel to the United States’ rationale in pouring aid into Pakistan and also making it appear that India had a Soviet tilt. India was upset with the United States’ decision to funnel arms via Pakistan and accused it of starting an arms race in the region. The U.S., however, did make attempts to give India a similar deal to the one that was made with Pakistan. In fact, Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington attempted to persuade Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that India faced a greater threat from Soviet forces in Afghanistan than from the U.S. attempting to strengthen Pakistan's defense. Nevertheless, India and the U.S. differed over how to react to the invasion — “the Indians refused to condemn Soviet policy, urged restraint, and told Carrington they were more worried about an American arming of Pakistan than about Soviet troops in Kabul” (Rosenbaum, 1992, p. 21). Throughout the period of Pakistan and U.S. alignment, India has always had a concern that money and arms that were being given to Pakistan would ultimately be used against her (Chary, 1995, p.164). For Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the issue of arming Pakistan was a higher concern than the effect of the Soviet role on India's security.

Another concern for India was how the U.S., during this timeframe, turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. The United States had an on-off relationship with Pakistan in terms of helping with her pursuit of nuclear weapons. When India first tested its nuclear weapon in 1974, Pakistan became adamant about becoming nuclear itself. From the 1950s into the 1970s the U.S., under the “Atoms for Peace” program, provided Pakistani nuclear scientists with technical training (Weiner, 1998, p. A6). Later as the Chinese assisted Pakistan in the development of nuclear and missile technology, the U.S. knowingly watched on: “It is also reported, but not confirmed, that China may have assisted Pakistan in its development of nuclear and missile technology” (Baxter, 1998, p.397).

Afghanistan's Impact on the Triangular Relationship of India, Pakistan and the United States

Call it a matter of 'mutual interests'. Especially against Pakistan.

I think the main point is that 1971 was a very bad year for Pakistan that may have taken decades to repair that damage. It partly explains their support for the various splinter groups that operated in the region, including the various factions of the Afghan Mujaheddin. It was a stunning victory for the US and its ally, Pakistan.

But at what cost?

Have you seen the movie, Charlie Wilson's War? (it is actually based on a true story)

At the near end of the movie?

Gust Avrakotos: There's a little boy and on his 14th birthday he gets a horse... and everybody in the village says, "how wonderful. The boy got a horse" And the Zen master says, "we'll see." Two years later, the boy falls off the horse, breaks his leg, and everyone in the village says, "How terrible." And the Zen master says, "We'll see." Then, a war breaks out and all the young men have to go off and fight... except the boy can't cause his legs all messed up. and everybody in the village says, "How wonderful."

Charlie Wilson: Now the Zen master says, "We'll see."

Another Congressman: We always leave.
Charlie Wilson: But that ball, though, it keeps on bouncing.
Charlie Wilson: What? The ball keeps on bouncing.
Another Congressman: Yeah, we're a little busy right now reorganizing Eastern Europe, don't you think? We've spent billions.
Charlie Wilson: Let's spend a million on H.R.118 and rebuild a school.
Another Congressman: Charlie, nobody gives a **** about a school in Pakistan.
Charlie Wilson: Afghanistan.

Last:

"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world...
Title card: ...and then we fucked up the end game." - Charlie Wilson

And now, we are all paying the price.

Iraq was a bloody story.

Afghanistan still ongoing.

Much of the economies of the Western World are now screwed. And of-course, we as developing countries are being affected.

Pakistan at present? Oh boy....

 

[iajj]

Have you seen the movie, Charlie Wilson's War? (it is actually based on a true story)

At the near end of the movie?





Last:


And now, we are all paying the price.

Iraq was a bloody story.

Afghanistan still ongoing.

Much of the economies of the Western World are now screwed. And of-course, we as developing countries are being affected.

Pakistan at present? Oh boy....

people act as if anglo-americans screwed up the war in iraq, in afghanistan (twice), in pakistan.

bullcrap!

you think the u.s. government spends billions of dollars on grants to sociologists, anthropologists, language experts, political scientists to stay ignorant of the consequences of their imperialistic policies?! they didn't screw up! they just screwed us up - by design! they profit and murder and always murder in order to profit. they have done this so many times and in so many countries - if they had meant good, even if these white pigs elected only dogs into the white house the dogs would have learned, but they never harbored good intentions and never had anything to learn from the failed states, the carnage and deaths they caused because these are what they wanted all along.

 

[Zabaniyah]

people act as if anglo-americans screwed up the war in iraq, in afghanistan (twice), in pakistan.

bullcrap!

you think the u.s. government spends billions of dollars on grants to sociologists, anthropologists, language experts, political scientists to stay ignorant of the consequences of their imperialistic policies?! they didn't screw up! they just screwed us up - by design! they profit and murder and always murder in order to profit. they have done this so many times and in so many countries - if they had meant good, even if these white pigs elected only dogs into the white house the dogs would have learned, but they never harbored good intentions and never had anything to learn from the failed states, the carnage and deaths they caused because these are what they wanted all along.

So you are saying that they wanted 9/11 to happen on purpose?

As far as screwing up goes, it's called politics

 

[bandit]

Pakistan, even given that they had very limited resources and industry unlike the larger mainland India, their diplomacy certainly played well with the Americans.

Let's just say that Nixon was a retard.

His arrogance became his own undoing.

End of story.

Diplomacy would have been good if they had managed to atleast be on equal footing. Pakistan went into the lap of USA at the first opportunity available, even to the extent of giving out their air bases to the US in exchange for money and weapons. SU did threaten to bomb Pakistan after the U-2 Incident.

Agreed. History clearly showed that, and even today.

And you are wrong about the last part. India never protested the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
BBC NEWS | South Asia | India renews historic Afghan ties

It is interesting to note that India also supported the previous Communist puppet regimes that ruled Afghanistan for a short period of time. Those guys met a bloody end at the hands of the tribal fanatics.

Here's an interesting read:


India-Pakistan Rivalry in Afghanistan | Journal of International Affairs

Another one:

Afghanistan's Impact on the Triangular Relationship of India, Pakistan and the United States

I stated India protested to soviet invasion, uptil the point US wasn't hostile to it, your both links state the same.

Contrary to popular belief, India was less than pleased with the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.1 Nevertheless, after failing to engage Pakistan with the prospects of a regional solution to the Soviet invasion and faced with substantial American military and economic assistance to Pakistan ($3.2 billion for six years), India avoided any public censure of the Soviet occupation.

India, on the other hand, was slow to condemn the invasion and that gave more fuel to the United States’ rationale in pouring aid into Pakistan and also making it appear that India had a Soviet tilt. India was upset with the United States’ decision to funnel arms via Pakistan and accused it of starting an arms race in the region

.
.
.
.
...

But at what cost?



And now, we are all paying the price.

Iraq was a bloody story.

Afghanistan still ongoing.

Much of the economies of the Western World are now screwed. And of-course, we as developing countries are being affected.

Pakistan at present? Oh boy....

I doubt Indian diplomacy has anything to do with wests ailing economy, personally i wouldnt care much, recessions are an inherent part of capitalism and this will go away like the others.

Pakistan's desire to be seen as India's equal has let it into bed with one power after another, personally, i can't think of how India could have done a better job of screwing Pakistan than Pakistan itself.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Diplomacy would have been good if they had managed to atleast be on equal footing. Pakistan went into the lap of USA at the first opportunity available, even to the extent of giving out their air bases to the US in exchange for money and weapons. SU did threaten to bomb Pakistan after the U-2 Incident.

It is possible that American wanted something from Pakistan. And that something is access to its territory for conducting U-2 flights over the USSR (it was one big*** country).

There are always political strings attached to anything American. Hell, they mostly flew American warplanes, and still do fly a healthy number of them.

Pakistan couldn't have done it alone given that it had very limited resources, and India gained much of the military gear after the partition.

Hence, it partly explains the support Pakistan needed.

I doubt Indian diplomacy has anything to do with wests ailing economy, personally i wouldnt care much, recessions are an inherent part of capitalism and this will go away like the others.

Never said that Indian diplomacy is to blame.

It is both the US and Pakistan who mismanaged the whole thing after the fall of the USSR. I guess those morons partied too hard too soon. Never get too excited too soon before the egg hatches as they say. Now they are pointing fingers at one another

And trust me, the war in Afghanistan is far from over. They can't even end the whole drama quickly. It'll go on for a long time. Those guys at the Taliban and AQ are like a poisonous snake with no head to cut off!

Capitalism or not, war is bad for business.

The one key mistake I can say that Pakistan made was that it brought the very tentacles of the Cold War toward our region. Remember, we never had ANY stake in the Cold War whatsoever to begin with. Who knows? Maybe it was inevitable.

Their leaders wanted too many 'quick' solutions, especially over the Kashmir issue. This sort of mindset is what caused them to lose East Pakistan.

It was fortunate that the 71 Indo-Pak War was ended quickly. If two the superpowers collided, many would've died.

 

[53fd]

Misled by its own politically correct notions, Delhi has never confronted the complexity of the Middle East

When it comes to the Middle East, Delhi has had a long tradition of paralysis, misjudgement and posturing. Much of it, critics of India’s regional policy would argue, has to do with the logic of the nation’s domestic politics.

Consider, for example, the Indian vote in the United Nations Security Council in favour of peaceful dialogue and political transition in Syria last Saturday. Pakistan, which voted with India and 11 other countries to form a majority of 13 in a council of 15, has found no political need to justify its decision. China, which voted with Syria, is now holding talks with the Syrian opposition backed by the Arab League. In contrast, India seems under compulsion to explain itself on why it went against Syria and point to the minutiae of the diplomatic negotiation preceding the vote. While Delhi might have done the right thing in following its interests and siding with the Gulf Arab states, it is unable to hide its political discomfort.

Although domestic factors are important in understanding Delhi’s Middle East contortions, the problem is a deeper one. It is rooted in India’s premises about the Middle East that are way out of sync with ground realities. The Indian insistence on using the term “West Asia” when the region calls itself “Middle East”, is indeed a reflection of Delhi’s reluctance to approach the region on its own terms. Delhi would rather impose what it thinks are politically correct constructs on the Middle East.

Read the full article here:

Seeing Syria straight - Indian Express

 

[Punjabbi Munda]

Nobody's denying that India has used diplomacy much better than Pakistan. The point here is that the major powers are not stupid. They are working with India, not because they are fooled by Indian diplomacy, but because India is not perceived as a threat to their dominance.

India,China- 2 countries.
One is growing a bit faster than the other.That doesn't mean the other doesn't stand anywhere.Both countries don't have the best of relations,so its obvious that the west will support India.But that in no logic means what you say,because among 2 countries one has to be ahead and the others will be support the relatively weaker one.But that doesn't mean that the same country doesn't possess the capability.

 

[Developereo]

India,China- 2 countries.
One is growing a bit faster than the other.That doesn't mean the other doesn't stand anywhere.Both countries don't have the best of relations,so its obvious that the west will support India.But that in no logic means what you say,because among 2 countries one has to be ahead and the others will be support the relatively weaker one.But that doesn't mean that the same country doesn't possess the capability.

In politics, like in sports, being number two is often the best position. Let the front-runner tackle the headwind. China's rise is probably the best thing that happened to India.

 

[rockstarIN]

Nobody's denying that India has used diplomacy much better than Pakistan. The point here is that the major powers are not stupid. They are working with India, not because they are fooled by Indian diplomacy, but because India is not perceived as a threat to their dominance.

India supposed to be a economic power house behind USA and China. There is no so called dominance of any power unless until it is militarily. Everybody compete in the international arena be it economical or soft power. India is not perceived not as a threat mainly because of its democracy. After all you do not like to get fooled by even a friend.