NSG meet on India's membership inconclusive, to be taken up in next plenary in Seoul

[Agent_47]

I think you have perhaps forgotten that starting from '47 till early 60's India ate because US send shiploads of grains, India's food security was developed in large part due to US assistance, Many marquee Indian institutions had US hand-holders, Our military aid dented Chinese aggression when India was literally at it's back.

Exactly, that was till 60. Every good deed you have done has fully reversed by your wrong choices.

So on March 25, 1971, the Pakistani Army launched a devastating crackdown on the rebellious Bengalis in the east. Midway through the bloodshed, both the C.I.A. and the State Department conservatively estimated that about 200,000 people had died (the Bangladeshi government figure is much higher, at three million). As many as 10 million Bengali refugees fled across the border into India, where they died in droves in wretched refugee camps.

As recently declassified documents and White House tapes show, Nixon and Kissinger stood stoutly behind Pakistan’s generals, supporting the murderous regime at many of the most crucial moments. This largely overlooked horror ranks among the darkest chapters in the entire cold war.

Of course, no country, not even the United States, can prevent massacres everywhere in the world — but this was a close American ally, which prized its warm relationship with the United States and used American weapons and military supplies against its own people.

After all this India chose to go with Soviet Union and that was that. Despite the hostilities, aid from US kept flowing, Indian citizens kept getting Visas to US to get higher education and jobs. Once USSR fell, US again played a major role in India's resurgence through it's IT industry.

By 70's pakistan was your close ally. We were only 'pro-Soviet leaning' because of our desperation. Remember Nehru started the non-aligned movement.

Nixon and Kissinger were not just motivated by dispassionate realpolitik, weighing Pakistan’s help with the secret opening to China or India’s pro-Soviet leanings. The White House tapes capture their emotional rage, going far beyond Nixon’s habitual vulgarity. In the Oval Office, Nixon told Kissinger that the Indians needed “a mass famine.” Kissinger sneered at people who “bleed” for “the dying Bengalis.”

It will be up to Bangladeshis to fix their country’s rancorous politics, but their task was made harder from the outset by Nixon and Kissinger’s callousness. The legacy of 1971 still stains the reputation of the United States in India as well. If an apology from Kissinger is too much to expect, Americans ought at least to remember what he and Nixon did in those terrible days.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opinion/nixon-and-kissingers-forgotten-shame.html

So you see, US response has solely been guided by choices India has made notwithstanding humanitarian assistance. Dependability is a two way street, you can't dip your pecker in every empty snatch like India has been doing and expect faithfulness and dependability.

Wrong again, Kissinger chose pakistan when we were nonaligned. Indria was even called "old witch" by nixon.

"The Indians are bastards," Mr Kissinger said shortly before the India-Pakistan war of 1971, it was revealed this week.

"The Indians are bastards anyway," says Mr Kissinger. "They are starting a war there."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4640773.stm

'But Pakistan's slaughter of its Bengalis in 1971 is starkly different. Here the United States was allied with the killers. The White House was actively and knowingly supporting a murderous regime at many of the most crucial moments.'

'There was no question about whether the United States should intervene; it was already intervening on behalf of a military dictatorship decimating its own people.'

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/s...singer-hated-india-indira-gandhi/20131216.htm

These blood stains are hard to disappear. No humanitarian assistance can change the facts. US like to project itself as a good guy figure but in truth you are reason for most the killings after world war. Unless US see India as equals there will be no partnership.

As for US needing India and not the other way around you are sorely mistaken. US is continents apart secure in it's bastion while India has a hungry dragon on it's back gate and a marauders on it's front.

However, India views the burgeoning relationship very differently. Any cooperation with the United States would have to be framed as a partnership of equals, conducted to satisfy immediate Indian security concerns, and designed to involve a transfer of American technology to India that would ultimately abet India’s defence-industrial self-reliance.

The Bush administration learned, sometimes after several missteps, that it would have to temper its expectations accordingly. Enthusiastic rhetoric concerning the “natural alliance” between the two countries—building upon Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee’s use of the term—gave way gradually to more sober and grounded talk of a mutually beneficial “partnership.” This was not merely a minor semantic adjustment, but rather, a conscious realisation that India’s democracy, its size and its sensitivity to its sovereignty inhibit the kind of relationship that the United States has been used to with other friendly countries.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2009/02/india-cohen

As for China, there isn't a single short fired in last 3-4 decades. They are the largest trading partner. We know how to protect our borders as we have done in past. In 60's you send some arms because you hate communism not because you love us. Immigration was only beneficial to US if it hasn't done bad to us.

By 2005, even Kissinger regretted his words because he never thought India would rise.

"The US recognises that India is a global power, that is a strategic partner of the US on the big issues," Mr Kissinger said.

 

[topgun047]

If US wants to seek India's help in prolonging its hegemony than it has to include India in very regimes it created to roadblock India's potential.
Why should India help US over China if both are complicit in denying India it's rightful place one of the leading powers of this century ?

if India can survive in a US dominated world then I am sure it can do the same in a China dominated one too.

 

[Agent_47]

if India can survive in a US dominated world then I am sure it can do the same in a China dominated one too.

There will be no single state dominated future. It will be a multipolar world. India,China,US all will be part of it.

 

[dray]

India should talk to each of these countries to sort out the differences, and/or get USA and other influential friendly countries to pressurize these opposing countries, if any country is opposing us out of any kind of rivalry or enmity, then we should also actively look for ways to screw that country in return. For China, we should immediately start finding toxic materials, hazardous quality standards, etc. in all of their exports to India and start blocking them, their economy is already under tremendous pressure, and their manufacturing is not finding enough demand, it's time to make it a bit harder for them...that's among other things like more improved relations including defence with East Asian and South East Asian countries, more 'humanitarian support' to the oppressed people on our north and west, etc.

 

[dray]

I think you have perhaps forgotten that starting from '47 till early 60's India ate because US send shiploads of grains, India's food security was developed in large part due to US assistance, Many marquee Indian institutions had US hand-holders, Our military aid dented Chinese aggression when India was literally at it's back.

After all this India chose to go with Soviet Union and that was that. Despite the hostilities, aid from US kept flowing, Indian citizens kept getting Visas to US to get higher education and jobs. Once USSR fell, US again played a major role in India's resurgence through it's IT industry.

So you see, US response has solely been guided by choices India has made notwithstanding humanitarian assistance. Dependability is a two way street, you can't dip your pecker in every empty snatch like India has been doing and expect faithfulness and dependability.

Countries have witnessed what happens when the full wrath of US falls on them, India I would say got away with just friendly pat.

As for US needing India and not the other way around you are sorely mistaken. US is continents apart secure in it's bastion while India has a hungry dragon on it's back gate and a marauders on it's front.

That's not entirely true! The Chinese aggression in 1962 was the first reality check for our leaders' delusional pacifists theories where India can live without a credible military on the basis 'assumed' friendships, and when they finally decided to modernize our military for the first time since 1947, guess whom they turned to first? It was America! And it was America who refused us weapons sell and decided to put their bets on our only declared enemy since independence, Pakistan. And since then in every war with Pakistan we faced American weapons, and that is partially true even today. in the 1971 war we had to calculate America also among the threats, along with Pakistan and China, and America did send their 7th fleet against us, it was for Russia that threat was neutralized. And it was Russia who helped us since 60's in our efforts in modernizing our military, industrialization and technological advancements while America was actively working against us.

So you know why we consider Russia as our time tested friend, and they will remain so even when India & America mutually improve relations, we have survived in 60's, 70's, 80's with a hostile America, so now don't expect us to toe the line of America in everything or denounce our time tested friends. Now the relation can only be mutually respectful and mutually beneficial where we will support America only on a case to case basis as a responsible country. Yes America did a nuclear deal that helped us (America had a business interest too), but we also sacrificed our interest to some extent with regard to Iran that helped America to push forward their agenda. Our IT engineers work for American businesses because American businesses find it profitable, we also import things from America, that's business, not charity...see, it is already a two way street! Please do remember that America is also equally interested (if not more) in this relationship, they now know that they chose the wrong partners in 60's in this part of the world. We were not hostile toward America, but it was America that was hostile toward us...and now my friend America need to walk a few extra miles to convince us that they are now genuinely a reliable long term partner whom we can trust. I am sure we are not asking for too much considering the nature of our relations in the past.

 

[mehboobkz]

http://news.rediff.com/commentary/2...-nsg-support/1614719b8f427c370cbdab894aa3913c

After Modi visit, Pakistan reaches out to Mexico for NSG support

 

[Tripoli]

I think you have perhaps forgotten that starting from '47 till early 60's India ate because US send shiploads of grains, India's food security was developed in large part due to US assistance, Many marquee Indian institutions had US hand-holders, Our military aid dented Chinese aggression when India was literally at it's back.

After all this India chose to go with Soviet Union and that was that. Despite the hostilities, aid from US kept flowing, Indian citizens kept getting Visas to US to get higher education and jobs. Once USSR fell, US again played a major role in India's resurgence through it's IT industry.

So you see, US response has solely been guided by choices India has made notwithstanding humanitarian assistance. Dependability is a two way street, you can't dip your pecker in every empty snatch like India has been doing and expect faithfulness and dependability.

Countries have witnessed what happens when the full wrath of US falls on them, India I would say got away with just friendly pat.

As for US needing India and not the other way around you are sorely mistaken. US is continents apart secure in it's bastion while India has a hungry dragon on it's back gate and a marauders on it's front.

Thanks for giving these people a reality check, They desperately needed it.

 

[anant_s]

Things will work out. the good thing is India isn't joining the increasing chorus of painting China Bad. International diplomacy doesn't work in manner media is portraying and any solution will come through diplomatically engaging China. It is important that India communicates with Chinese leadership and puts across its case point. Out of the 4-5 nations still opposing application at NSG, China's voice is probably the strongest and rather than confrontation, convincing is the way forward.

 

[Kal Muah]

http://news.rediff.com/commentary/2...-nsg-support/1614719b8f427c370cbdab894aa3913c

After Modi visit, Pakistan reaches out to Mexico for NSG support

Heres something for you Mr. Pakistani
US asks Pakistan to seek NSG’s acceptance, not individual endorsements

 

[Piper]

That's not entirely true! The Chinese aggression in 1962 was the first reality check for our leaders' delusional pacifists theories where India can live without a credible military on the basis 'assumed' friendships, and when they finally decided to modernize our military for the first time since 1947, guess whom they turned to first? It was America! And it was America who refused us weapons sell and decided to put their bets on our only declared enemy since independence, Pakistan. And since then in every war with Pakistan we faced American weapons, and that is partially true even today. in the 1971 war we had to calculate America also among the threats, along with Pakistan and China, and America did send their 7th fleet against us, it was for Russia that threat was neutralized. And it was Russia who helped us since 60's in our efforts in modernizing our military, industrialization and technological advancements while America was actively working against us.

So you know why we consider Russia as our time tested friend, and they will remain so even when India & America mutually improve relations, we have survived in 60's, 70's, 80's with a hostile America, so now don't expect us to toe the line of America in everything or denounce our time tested friends. Now the relation can only be mutually respectful and mutually beneficial where we will support America only on a case to case basis as a responsible country. Yes America did a nuclear deal that helped us (America had a business interest too), but we also sacrificed our interest to some extent with regard to Iran that helped America to push forward their agenda. Our IT engineers work for American businesses because American businesses find it profitable, we also import things from America, that's business, not charity...see, it is already a two way street! Please do remember that America is also equally interested (if not more) in this relationship, they now know that they chose the wrong partners in 60's in this part of the world. We were not hostile toward America, but it was America that was hostile toward us...and now my friend America need to walk a few extra miles to convince us that they are now genuinely a reliable long term partner whom we can trust. I am sure we are not asking for too much considering the nature of our relations in the past.

You are dead wrong about the history of US-India relationship. As for Soviets, your nostalgia if not laughable is misguided to say the least. Please read about the preferences of soviets when it comes to choosing b/w India and China. If we were not aligned with Pakistan then Soviets would not have given two hoots about India.

 

[dray]

Things will work out. the good thing is India isn't joining the increasing chorus of painting China Bad. International diplomacy doesn't work in manner media is portraying and any solution will come through diplomatically engaging China. It is important that India communicates with Chinese leadership and puts across its case point. Out of the 4-5 nations still opposing application at NSG, China's voice is probably the strongest and rather than confrontation, convincing is the way forward.

You can only convince someone if the differences are based on principles, but for China the only reason of opposition is we are 'India', so we need to convey to them by some way that they stand to lose something by opposing us. I think that's the only way to convince them.

 

[jaunty]

You can only convince someone if the differences are based on principals, but for China the only reason of opposition is we are 'India', so we need to convey to them by some way that they stand to lose something by opposing us. I think that's the only way to convince them.

There is no such thing as principle in international diplomacy. It is always about benefits. Maybe a seat for China in MTCR in exchange of India's NSG membership can be worked out?

 

[dray]

You are dead wrong about the history of US-India relationship. As for Soviets, your nostalgia if not laughable is misguided to say the least. Please read about the preferences of soviets when it comes to choosing b/w India and China. If we were not aligned with Pakistan then Soviets would not have given two hoots about India.

You are free to put forward the history you know.
And America was aligned with Pakistan for America's interest, Russia was aligned with us for their interest, and we were aligned with Russia for our interest, the point is we asked America first, and they chose to align with Pakistan. Diplomatic interests change with time, but there is a trust deficit about America among many Indians including our foreign policy makers. So don't ask us why should you do this or that for India, you need to walk some extra miles to gain our trust, and it remains your choice whether to do it or not. However, your government is showing some interest, apparently genuine, to align with us now.

 

[mehboobkz]

Things will work out. the good thing is India isn't joining the increasing chorus of painting China Bad. International diplomacy doesn't work in manner media is portraying and any solution will come through diplomatically engaging China. It is important that India communicates with Chinese leadership and puts across its case point. Out of the 4-5 nations still opposing application at NSG, China's voice is probably the strongest and rather than confrontation, convincing is the way forward.

By way of playing a BrahMos/Vietnam card?
BrahMos may not be a game changer in SCS, but lethal it is. And when translated, it may add up several more causalities to its adversary.
India has not backed off on Vietnam/BrahMos.
So why would China relent?

John Kerry has shot several letters to several head of states suggesting India should not be thwarted in NSG.
It would be US now who would come with a push towards China to work out a positive.

 

[anant_s]

You can only convince someone if the differences are based on principals, but for China the only reason of opposition is we are 'India', so we need to convey to them by some way that they stand to lose something by opposing us. I think that's the only way to convince them.

A daily newspaper today carried out a story and mentioned the same thing. I'm not sure if Chinese opposition has much to do with NSG accommodating Pakistan rather than asking India for something in return for the support. South China Sea is one area where China wants India not only to stop whatever activities it is doing but also stop supporting the nations which have dispute in the region.
Similarly China may be looking for some trade concessions (removal of anti dumping duties etc) with India.
The leadership in China surely knows these facets that when it comes to Business and Trade, India is a significant nation and ultimately it is in interest of the two nations to remain in sync with each other.
In this context, i wrote my previous reply that if it is a case of negotiations, let our government talk to Chinese counterparts on the same and not blow the issue out of proportion. I'm sure China will see this point!

By way of playing a BrahMos/Vietnam card?

Depends on how much of a threat China sees Vietnam as.
In my reply to @Rain Man , i mentioned that Chinese opposition to this whole issue could be more than that of accommodating Pakistan and might have something to do exclusively with Sino Indian relations including trade issues. Our leadership therefore needs to talk to Chinese government directly and see what they really want and what we can accept. In this diplomatic bargain, it will always be a case of accepting a few demands here and there, but for both India and China, it is important that they keep long terms relations in focus.
as for NSG, India already enjoys almost all benefits to member states (as far as nuclear commerce is concerned), so a membership here will only increase India's say in policy formation. But an opposition here with India may do China more harm as this isn't the only issue between the nations.
Lets see how things pan out in next few months, but clearly neither of the two countries would want this issue to impact long term relationships.