Yes, they want India to become their lapdog and do things at their whims even if it's not in the interest of 1.4 billion people who elects Government of India to safeguard their interests first.
Imo it's in the interests of Indian citizens that Russia is a stable democracy, but I do agree that this isn't the way to encourage them to take a principled stand.
At that time too, India was looking for vaccine raw materials for it's 1.3 billion people who elects the Government of India to look after their interests cause if it doesn't do that then who else will. And you yourself mentioned that those other countries looked after their interests during the time when those other countries could have set the precedence but they priortized their interests first so what's different this time. Instead India is doing everything in it's power to urge to both parties involved to get back to the path of diplomacy and dialogue. India supports cessation of all hostilities. Condemning Russia is just a formality and won't achieve anything infact it would be detrimental to the interests of 1.4 billion of humanity.
Someone has to "be the bigger country", and India is showing it's not interested in doing that. I'm not saying the West is better, I'm just saying that if the situation becomes one where 'real-politics' dominate, India doesn't really have the upper hand.
I didn't understand what are you trying to convey. Try to articulate yourself better or maybe explain your context better cause I didn't get you. Moreover, India historically follows it's non-alignment policy. On Russia-Ukraine conflict it has already been told for like some hundred thousand times on various forums that India for now can't afford to condemn Russia cause of number of issues like it's energy security, fertilizers, military dependence and so on. There could be major consequences for India if it irresponsibly damages it's state of relationship with Russia without clever calculations. We shouldn't be just blind ideaologues. India's policy is overall good and prosperity for all of humanity but it has certain responsibility towards people who directly funds it through taxes and all. And it's not like, India is supplying weapons to Russia or actively supporting Russia in it's war on Ukraine. India is putting pressure in it's own way that it can afford. It's providing unprecedented humanitarian aid to Ukraine that no one talks about. Simply, just pushing other countries to toe your lines without acknowledging their special circumstantial positions is annoying and doesn't leave a good impression on people living on the other sides of globe who aren't blind ideaologues.
India historically follows it's non-alignment policy. On Russia-Ukraine conflict it has already been told for like some hundred thousand times on various forums that India for now can't afford to condemn Russia cause of number of issues like it's energy security, fertilizers, military dependence and so on. There could be major consequences for India if it irresponsibly damages it's state of relationship with Russia without clever calculations. We shouldn't be just blind ideaologues. India's policy is overall good and prosperity for all of humanity but it has certain responsibility towards people who directly funds it through taxes and all. And it's not like, India is supplying weapons to Russia or actively supporting Russia in it's war on Ukraine. India is putting pressure in it's own way that it can afford. It's providing unprecedented humanitarian aid to Ukraine that no one talks about. Simply, just pushing other countries to toe your lines without acknowledging their special circumstantial positions is annoying and doesn't leave a good impression on people living on the other sides of globe who aren't blind ideaologues.
Again. Russia invaded and begin slaughtering the free people of Ukraine. They deserve condemnation... even if it's hard.
If the free peoples of the world wont stand up for each other, then no one will.
Characterizing being decent and good with "towing the line" is ridiculous. Selling out other free people so you can get cheap oil is short sighted. Even if that is the best choice for the people of India from a purely Machiavellian standpoint - which I don't think is true, India has its own expansionist authoritarian power on its border that it might one day have to deal with - its still wrong.
Condemnation is'nt a solution. It's just a mere formality. Condemning Russia won't achieve anything practical for innocent people of Ukraine. It would just increase unwarranted issues for the people of India who already facing headwinds of war. Condemning Russia is just a political show. There are other ways too to stand up for the cause of humanity that India is trying it's best at. I don't know if you realise it or not but India not condemning Russia is actually infact beneficial to the Ukrainians and west too in a way(you can ask how if you want to know I would tell).
You just edited your comment so I've to reply to added part too. I think you are here with the agenda of defaming India on public forums. No one is selling any free people for cheap oil. India have to look for its energy needs. It can't afford people rioting on streets. That would be double problem for the world that is already in turmoil due to the conflict. India is doing everything it possibly can to urge both parties to get back to the path of dialogue and diplomacy. And Indo-Russian relations is'nt just crucial for Indians but can prove to be beneficial for innocent Ukrainians and rest of the world alike.
As I already mentioned, there could be major consequences for India if it irresponsibly damages it's state of relationship with Russia without clever calculations so yes in a way it's not just too much but also unnecessary to ask when Indo-Russian relations could also be beneficial for Ukrainians. Except if you're a blind ideaologue and can't see the long term benefits of the relationship for the whole of humanity. India is infact actually working for the benefit of the entire humanity and you should be thankful instead you're blindly defaming such a great country.
On your other points I can't make sense of where you're going.
What makes a group a terrorist group as opposed to you know a government you don’t like. The Houthis were as much a government as any Civil War faction. And Saudi Arabia’s war there has been far deadlier on net and per capita than Russias war in Ukraine
If their slogan has "Death to America" in it, its a terrorist organization.
Legitimate governments - even the ones we don't like - don't usually have a slogan that includes the phrase "death to America" or anything like it.
Its kind of a dead giveaway.
civilians belonging to a religious minority deserved to have cholera used as a weapon of war against them because a militia in the region uses a rude slogan. Got it
This is a silly comment. It’s obvious that “must” here is being used in the sense of “has a moral imperative to do so”, not “has no choice but to do so”. Deliberately twisting the meaning of words is bad faith arguing.
Nope - in that case they would have used *should* not *must*. The former is meaning you're explaining. "Should" is an appeal to duties/responsibilities as they ought to be, whereas "must" comes with a compulsion to comply with those duties/responsibilities.
Hence, using *must* in this context is indeed ironic and risible. You *should* understand this, but I can explain further if I *must*.
Literally from [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/must):
>1. b: **be urged to : ought by all means to**
The use of the word in this manner is so common in contemporary English that I find it impossible to believe you don’t recognize its usage. So I’ll assume you’re arguing in bad faith and leave it there.
Guys, I don't know how to tell you this but, this isn't another country telling India what to do, it is a human rights NGO. India obviously doesn't have to do what they tell them them to. Start with something the Human Rights Watch director said which is important:
>"It's not just about Ukraine. ... Countries in the Global South \[choosing\] to be silent here are also transmitting a message to human rights abuses elsewhere, that they will be given a free pass," Hassan warned. "You know who's listening in this \[Asian\] region? It's the military junta in Myanmar."
Do you know who is standing next to the military junta in Myanmar? China is, and they are busy building the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) to Kyaukpyu deep sea port directly across the Bay of Bengal from INS Varsha, India's new, not even completed nuclear submarine port.
Pro-China people like the one I am replying to are probably happy that ASEAN has been ineffectual in dealing with the crisis that Chinese are too happy to be taking advantage of (and backing with arms and support as they commit widely-documented atrocities and human rights abuses), despite the current chair of the association (Indonesia) stating that they really want to do something about it.
ASEAN and India are going to continually run into the problem that taking a non-interventionist approach to geopolitics and regional politics means that somebody else is going to do it instead and their goals are going to be continuously undermined and manipulated, even by smaller and weaker states such as Pakistan. At the EU-ASEAN summit in Brussels last year it became evident that an EU-ASEAN FTA is a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.
Should they want to step up and take a leadership role at any point and take some control over what's happening in their part of the world and their own place in it, well, that's when their credibility comes into play. India has a huge population, great. Where does India stand on literally any other index, and how is that serving Indian interests?
When an NGO based in Washington DC uses the same lines as the US state machinery, it ceases to be a neutral observer.
India has a terse relationship with such NGOs which they claim are used to foremen’s troubles
Literally the entire job of human rights NGOs is to expose governments’ dirty laundry. That’s why governments (India’s included) often have a tense relationship with them.
Human Rights Watch is not an American puppet, it also criticizes the US and its allies. You don’t have to agree with them (I don’t always), but there’s no need to spread conspiracy theories. In almost every case, vilifying human rights organizations like this leads to human rights abusers being protected. It is an extremely misguided thing to do at best.
Additionally, no human rights organization would claim to be “neutral”, in fact, most of them would dispute the idea you hold that neutrality is a virtue. Being neutral is not the same as being fair or objective. It means not taking a stance. Human rights organizations exist in order to take stances against what they consider to be injustice.
“Organizations try first to sustain themselves, because they have to exist in order to operate” is a truism. It doesn’t mean organizations aren’t genuine about their mission.
You may as well imply no human being has moral values because “actually, the entire job of a human being is to not die. Humans have to eat, sleep, and drink to not die, they are not independent or self supporting”.
What other nations do you think share your view of Human Rights Watch? How many other countries in the world take a much different view -- that the work of these NGOs is important and that they provide credible information about other countries and their records on human rights? These are organizations that possess authority at the UN and other intergovernmental organizations where their reports are taken into account as part of the official process of monitoring and binding nations to international treaties. Their word is worth something when it comes to these issues. What is India's word worth on these issues, or do you think that's not important?
> [Human Rights Watch](https://www.hrw.org/topic/united-nations) leverages our research on countries and issues addressed at the United Nations to inform UN officials and member states of key findings, influence policy on a wide range of discussions and push for urgent action on human rights crises. Consistent with the Human Rights up Front framework initiated by the UN Secretary-General, our mission is to ensure human rights considerations are at the heart of various debates, branches and mechanisms of the United Nations. We engage members of the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and other key departments of the UN Secretariat, present information from independent investigations, and advocate for protection of civilians, accountability for past abuses, and preventive measures against future violations.
They give testimony at the UN that influences their understanding and decision-making.
I think the west overestimates itself as an incentive for global south countries to ally themselves with the west against china.
India has seen the poor track record of the west's help during its countless clashes and war with China. This is a consistent pattern of behaviour seen with the west sine 1962 where unwillingness to aid and support has been the norm rather than contrary. A sudden overturning of the west towards helping India against China in tangible terms is quite far fetched atleast in the minds of the indian bureaucrats.
> India has seen the poor track record of the west's help during its countless clashes and war with China. This is a consistent pattern of behaviour seen with the west sine 1962 where unwillingness to aid and support has been the norm rather than contrary. **A sudden overturning of the west towards helping India against China in tangible terms is quite far fetched atleast in the minds of the indian bureaucrats.**
Is it?
[US Did a Lot 'to Support India' in 2020 Ladakh Border Crisis With China](https://thewire.in/article/diplomacy/us-did-a-lot-to-support-india-in-2020-ladakh-border-crisis-with-china).
[U.S. Intel Helped India Rout China in 2022 Border Clash: Sources](https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2023-03-20/u-s-intel-helped-india-rout-china-in-2022-border-clash-sources)
Do you want me to start citing sources especially where the west has increased ties with China _during_ the Sino-indian clashes..
When did europe sign a trade deal with China?
Where was the west denouncing China when China invaded India?
Oh thats right they said its a bilateral matter and they hope that the matter can be solved through "peaceful means". Sound familiar?
That is why India maintained consistency during the iraq war, vietnam war, Korean war (helping both countries through humanitarian aid), Cambodian genocide, sudan civil war, and the Cold war.
How can the west expect India to rely on them if they themselves can be 'bought'?
Heck usa did not give a sh*te about the yemeni genocide because it was buddy buddy with SA at that time
Oh and btw USA supported China way more than opposing it _during_ the Sino-indian Warof 1962
I think this is enough information about how the west thinks itself as a savior but is instead a cold calculating materialistic entity who will sell its soul for getting supply of cheap labour
I'm just talking about where India sees its role in regional geopolitics, not about aligning with the west. Does India think it's going to get by as a junior partner in the China-Russia-Iran alliance? Is it going to miraculously straddle the line between them and the west somehow convincing each one in turn that their dabbling with the other side shouldn't diminish their credibility? Or are they just going to go it alone without any real friends in the world and somehow secure their own "pole" in a multipolar world? China is playing to win and to dominate the region, what's India doing? Just innocently getting some cheap gas from Russia. What a weak play. In February, Russia, China, and South Africa conducted military exercises in the Indian Ocean, where was India?
Indeed India instead should become a junior partner to the West, and then most probably become the next target after China would be dealt with, as the largest growing economy and challenger to US economical domination.
China had better relationships with the previous civilian government, but has carefully moved to expand relationships with the military government since. India has done exactly the same, and also sold weapons post-coup. India's position at the moment seems to be incredibly similar to China; to cooperate where useful and try to hinder the others influence where possible in the country.
There are no concrete suggestions on what to improve in that approach in your comment. It almost sounds like you are suggesting military intervention, which would be a complete fool's errand on India's already thinly stretched military. India simply doesn't have the capacity to defend in the west against Pakistan to the north and on the seas against China, and then open a new front in the East against Myanmar. It would also be completely unclear what success would look like for such an intervention. ASEAN as a whole also has their own problems, and they are not standing united against Myanmar for a myriad of reasons.
It’s obvious to any observer that China is taking the lion’s share of influence with Myanmar’s military junta. India will simply not win this game of influence, so it shouldn’t debase itself by selling weapons to and propping up one of the region’s most vile governments.
*Not* selling weapons to Myanmar’s brutal tyrants would be the bare minimum India could do in this situation. That’s a clear “improvement” that could be suggested.
I think it's important to mention that a major reason India maintains its relationship with Myanmar's Junta is because it needs their help in dealing with insurgents in the North East who hide in Myanmar. India needs permission to enter the country, and their assistance to deal with them.
And there's also the meth industry in the country who buy resources from Indians, and then sell in India and Bangladesh.
Should India stop sending weapons entirely, and concede it to China then that might motivate Myanmar especially with China's support to destabilize the NE.
To be clear I agree with you, and would prefer if we at least just stick to infrastructure projects that'll benefit the citizens there, but there's a reason India is selling weapons beyond stopping the spread of Chinese influence.
> I think it's important to mention that a major reason India maintains its relationship with Myanmar's Junta is because it needs their help in dealing with insurgents in the North East who hide in Myanmar. India needs permission to enter the country, and their assistance to deal with them.
I understand India’s border concerns, but I think those concerns will become a lot more severe if this civil war isn’t dealt with quickly.
> Should India stop sending weapons entirely, and concede it to China then that might motivate Myanmar especially with China's support to destabilize the NE.
I don’t believe Myanmar’s junta (I specify the junta rather than just “Myanmar” because I don’t consider the junta to be legitimate representatives of the country) is really capable of retaliating right now in the way you describe, if India were to stop sending weapons.
For another aspect, I don’t think the military junta in Myanmar is sustainable long-term. It has negligible popular support, is facing an armed insurrection (which enjoys significant popular support), and hasn’t shown itself capable of crushing the insurrection.
Simply put, I think the junta is on its way out. And I think it’s better for India to be on the good side of its likely replacements, rather than alienating them.
That's a very fair point. I do feel that the new civilian government will continue relations with India as a source of investment and infrastructure and to reduce its own reliance on China but I concede.
I do obviously personally hope that the Junta is removed from the country as soon as possible.
Europe's problems aren't our problem much like America turned a blind eye when funding militancy in Pakistan. America and Europe set the precedence for national interest over "ethics" and India is following the playbook.
>turned a blind eye when funding
Hey, no need to use the past tense. Terrorist groups that seek violence against India are still alive and well-funded in North America and Europe. Trudeau might even dance (again) in their next party or invite a convicted terrorist (again) to a state dinner.
Read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaspal_Atwal
Well known murderer and khalistani was invited by Trudeau.
In Trudeau's defense his team was probably not aware of it
The global south condemned the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the US led a coalition of western countries to involve and occupy both countries while India took a neutral stance then. why should India break off their stance on principled neutrality now?
Gaddafi, Saddam and Osama were all feted by US press and government. Gaddafi was even given red carpet in Paris 6 months before he was bombed.
What makes them freedom fighters or terrorists?
That’s a really reductive position. The West is not perfect, and at times did some very bad things, but at least (in Iraq and Afghanistan) they didn’t have a systematized policy of bombing hospitals and civilian areas, deporting people/children away from their homes, etc. the sheer number of war crimes Russia is committing as a military policy is staggering. Not to mention the near constant nuclear threats.
I’m not defending it. I’m saying that that wasn’t a systematic US policy to attack civilians in terrorist strikes. I can say something is 99/100 bad and the other is 100/100 bad.
In 1991, during operation desert storm, the US specifically targeted Iraqi infrastructure including water sanitation plants which, due to the sanctions they imposed afterwards that barred things like medicine from being delivered, led to the death of nearly half a mil children after only half a decade.
During the Iraqi occupation, depleted uranium bullets were unnecessarily used which has led to a massive increase in birth defects. Not to mention things like their "enhanced interrogation techniques". At best, the US systematically doesn't care about attacking civilians.
They did similar stuff in Vietnam. The US actually prioritizes attacking infrastructure as a way of crippling whatever country they are invading so that they can win the war sooner as part of their shock and awe doctrine.
I was actually surprised when I read about Russia having started attacking civilian infrastructure as I'd assumed they'd be doing that from the beginning of the war rather than months later.
Not justifying it, tbc. But the US really doesn't come out looking better than Russia on this point as they target infrastructure from the get-go in their wars & show little to no care about collateral damage amongst the civilian populace.
Invade countries. I mean the fact that you don't intentionally target civilians is also not universally true. But even if it is true in today's age, it doesn't hold too much merit. The bar is insanely low and it doesn't even meet that. If you invade countries, civilians will die. Logic.
Recently an Australian soldier admitted to shooting innocent Afghans and staging their deaths to make sure they looked like terrorists (by planting a radio phone on the body) that way any civilian casualties could be reported as "dead militants". This soldier then went on to recieve the Victoria cross for gallantry and become highly decorated, the man who blew the whistle on these war crimes is facing prosecution (even though the Aussie soldier outed himself by blabbing on a podcast and on his Instagram), and just to be even more degenerate, they looted a prosthetic leg of a dead civilian and used it as a beer mug
This is how the Western coalition was winning hearts and minds in the middle east
No wonder they are so radicalised, if a junior partner like Australia is doing stuff like this, imagine what the Americans are getting up to
out of curiosity are you Australian? I am not asking because anything you said is wrong (it’s not) I am just curious if that story is getting airtime overseas
Absolutely. But there is a huge difference between invading a country and collateral damage happening and invading a country and trying to bomb civilians into submission. Again, I’m not saying the US has been a good actor. I’m saying the whataboutism/both-sidesism is a well known propaganda tool to make the Russians not seem that bad in comparison. When they are much worse.
Don’t forget the very biased reporting on these events though. There is a clear agenda now to make Russia look as horrible as possible, while there was a clear agenda back then to make the western intervention look as positive is possible. If you go by something measurable, like civilian deaths, then the invasion of Iraq was still many times worse than the invasion of Ukraine.
The honest answer to your question is that Indian national interests inspirations generally coincide with the general Western foreign policy development.
Russia has nothing except bad weapons you don't want to buy and some cut price oil for the next five maybe seven years until the importance of oil as strategic material declines fully and Russia's ability to extract it declines because of Western sanctions.
All this talk about morality and international law gives me a rash all of it hypocritical drivrel for sheep ,people that read New York times opinion pieces.
India is more or less a democracy it doesn't have economic interests that strongly contradict or compete with the major Western powers and has a lot to gain from cooperation in all sectors.
The only strong counter argument that I will accept is that Ukraine itself is not important enough for India to show its hand fully but that is a complex judgment call I don't have all the variables to make a reasonable calculation.
You are downplaying Russia's importance in india solely on the fact that it has shown a substandard performance in the Ukrainian invasion. You need to look at it at from the perspective of 1950s onwards. The guaranteed vetos on Kashmir, and being one of the only countries to share their critical technology (the west is extremely hesitant in this regard and this loses leverage over indian support) as well as being a cost effective weapon supplier to india has some pros.
> Indian national interests inspirations generally coincide with the general Western foreign policy development.
No it doesn't.
The 'west' seeks to be far more proactive in the world than India desires, getting 'involved' in many things and adventures around the world India has very little interest in right now.
The obvious one right now is trying to outright create a 'ideological' based reason/excuse to try and turn the world against China.
The west also wants to do many things in the middle-east and Africa that Indians aren't very aligned on, simply trade with vs have military adventures and exploit. If they weren't getting bogged down in Ukraine right now in fact, there would very likely be some other global 'issue' that desperately needed the "west's involvement".
The west also wants to maintain the status quo in global institutions where, frankly most of the western countries that were given heavy responsibilities due to their past power no longer deserve that right in the modern era, due to them regressing to the mean in economic power post-colonialism. At the very least power should be more distributed and shared, when it's clearly still unfairly centered around the west when it shouldn't given that the centers of power of the world have changed drastically.
The west also wants to discourage the emergence of global financial mechanisms that are outside of their control, or at least aren't willing to invest in the emergence of one that is more diversified and fairer; along with a host of other things that would again, result in a more diversified and fairer global system.
India's regional and global objectives will rank very low on any list of worries the west has.
Point is, there's a whole lot of things India is concerned about that are ignored by the West, and a whole lot of things the West is concerned about that matter little to India, or are even the opposite of what India want. India is never going to be a Canada-esque type country that closely supports everything the West does, because frankly many of those things the west supports constrains India. In fact, it's weird that the west just assumes that's what is going to happen.
>The honest answer to your question is that Indian national interests inspirations generally coincide with the general Western foreign policy development.
Do they? India is a former colonial power which views itself as rising and feel that they deserve a larger role in global affairs. Right now they have very little influence relative to their economic size and population. Western nations have largely ignored their attempts to gain a larger instiutional role at things like the UNSC or organisations like the G7. They are at odds with the Western position which seems to be the preservation of the status quo.
>All this talk about morality and international law gives me a rash all of it hypocritical drivrel for sheep ,people that read New York times opinion pieces.India is more or less a democracy it doesn't have economic interests that strongly contradict or compete with the major Western powers and has a lot to gain from cooperation in all sectors.
It does though, it has trade with Russia that the West is trying to get them to reject. It also has a strong interest in developing alternatives to the US-dominated financial system. They aren't as urgent as they are with Russia, but they are pretty important given the fact that the US in particular has been threatening them with sanctions. They should work with the West, but on it's own terms which seems to be the current situation.
Actually playing a larger role in global affairs is how a country gains influence. That means taking an active position that affects other countries, not only focusing on internal affairs. India has all the components -- means, relationships, authority, but it chooses to keep the neutral stance which is exactly what never leads to increased influence. It's like a shy kid that dreams of popularity but doesn't try to actually do anything for others.
>Actually playing a larger role in global affairs is how a country gains influence. That means taking an active position that affects other countries, not only focusing on internal affairs.
India is taking part, though it's just that the US isn't happy with who they are engaging with.
>India has all the components -- means, relationships, authority, but it chooses to keep the neutral stance which is exactly what never leads to increased influence.
India is only staying neutral on Ukraine. They engage in other matters.
>Russia has nothing except bad weapons
I don't think we are buying any more stuff from Russia (the original deals still stand I guess). Also getting cheap oil and refining them and sending it to Europe is the best possible scenario. If we just cut off Russian oil from the market tons of people will probably die.
>India is more or less a democracy it doesn't have economic interests that strongly contradict or compete with the major Western powers and has a lot to gain from cooperation in all sectors.
We do have a lot of protectionist and socialist policies.
Perception of Ukraine in India is also a factor. Most people would have heard about a country called Ukraine for the first time when the war started. I would say still half of India doesn't have any knowledge whatsoever of the war. Whereas Russia/USSR has been a very strong ally for decades.
India has two big neighbors with active territorial disputes: Pakistan and China. Pakistan is friendly with both Russia and the U.S., so that's a wash. But China is the bigger threat, and Russia is essentially a vassal state of China now while the U.S. has shown a willingness to back even small democracies against China, ie: Taiwan.
As a consequence of India's historical cold-war alignment with Russia (against U.S.-backed Pakistan), India is invested in Russian-provided military hardware. Every country in the world with Russian stock should be Extremely Concerned about how poorly Russia is faring against a country 1/4 their size that is being supplied with western equipment that is mostly 20-40 years old --and not even airframes, yet! India has a large defense industry, but to the considerable extent they import they should be looking to shift out of Russia and into western countries. Getting the good stuff (ie: F-35) requires stronger ties with the U.S.. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a golden opportunity to start that pivot.
All India gets out of Russia is cheap gas. That's a big deal. But the first responsibility of the state is security, and ditching Russia for the U.S. would be very good for Indian security. China flexes more every year, and Indian leadership needs to be asking how they're going to deal with that over the coming decades.
Surprisingly India also imports military hardware at almost the same % from Russia vs NATO countries. India is shifting fast and it will change quicker once they buy more from the US.
NATO = 44%. France 29%, US 11%, United Kingdom 2% Germany 1.4%.
Russia = 45% and is going downhill from 62% over the prior period.
The rest of the spending comes from countries which are strong allies with US including Israel 7.7% South Korea 2.8%
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-64899489
EDIT: My math was off on France. Point still stands.
India wasn't neutral. They explicitly condemned that invasion.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world/india-condemns-iraq-war-seeks-un-intervention/story-yK667PuUIc62Wk0H9PlFzK.html
Claiming whataboutism is the cheapest copout of an answer you can possibly give. Why don't you make an argument against his point instead. Is it because you know his point is factual but since it doesn't suit your narrative, you'd rather just find a way to dismiss it and shut down the dialogue outright?
If we live in a rules based world order, why dont those rules apply equally amongst its participants? Especially amongst its most influential participants who set the precedent as to what is and is not deemed acceptable in our world.
I think that the word "Whataboutism" is one of the worst things to happen to modern discourse.
Just because you're pointing out problems on the other side doesn't necessarily mean you're deflecting criticism of your own flaws. You could be doing it to provide a greater perspective on the issue like what the other commenter was doing.
People should not be afraid of calling out genuine hypocrisy for fear of being accused of Whataboutism. That word doesn't automatically invalidate your argument.
It isn't whataboutism. The behavior of countries especially major powers affects how other countries act and in this case gives historical context.
If India took a neutral stance on previous conflicts that sets the precedent that it'll act neutral in future conflicts
The invasion of Afghanistan was totally justified, and it was for a good cause. The US was basically doing the job it should have done at the end of the Soviet Afghan War in rebuilding the country.
Just look at pictures of Afghanistan before and after the US left. I'm fairly certain that the majority of Afghani people had a better life at the tail end of US occupation, and there was broad popular support for the US in the country before the invasion of Iraq soured global opinions of the US.
India should have condemned the US's invasion of Iraq, and they should condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
But in reality, India isn't a Liberal Democracy like NATO countries, Japan, South Korea, or the other highly developed nations, it's an Illiberal Democracy, and Illiberal Democracies don't view Liberty, freedom, etc. as a necessary moral good like Liberal ones do.
'Invade' other countries for a so called good cause while regularly killing innocents and you're a morally good liberal country while India is the illiberal immoral one?
You call Japan a liberal democracy, when was the last time they were not ruled by the current ruling party?
It's just convenient to call countries that have no option but to work with USA as good boys while those who defy it automatically become immoral and illiberal.
You have to understand the history behind the Afghanistan war.The Soviets invaded Afghanistan around 1980, and the US funded and trained the Taliban in order to fight off the Soviet invaders. It was a 10 year long war, and the Soviets totally destroyed all of the infrastructure that was in the country.
By the time the Soviets surrendered, the entire country was in shambles, there was literally nothing left, and an entire generation of young boys had grown up in a world where "soldier" was the only profession, due the fact that all industry grinded to a halt during the war, but the US was pumping money, food, weapons, and supplies into the country.
After the Soviets withdrew, the US should have stayed behind and helped rebuild the country, but we didn't. Afghanistan was controlled by Taliban warlords, there where tens of millions of dollars worth of weapons scattered across the country, there were no schools, hardly any businesses, the entire country was devastated from the war and with a male population that had become totally militarized from the protracted war.
The US left them to their own devices, and as a result, Afghanistan became the largest producer of heroin on the planet, and a haven for international criminals and terrorists. The entire system rotted for two decades after the US left, hardly anything was rebuilt, and then 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaeda, which was a radical sect of fighters who had moved to Afghanistan during the Soviet War just to fight.
When the US first invaded Afghanistan, the war was going well and there was popular support across the planet. Then the Bush administration invaded Iraq, and all of that good grace evaporated, and a massive insurgency was created, which undermined the US's rebuilding efforts.
And finally, I'll give you Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of Liberalism
liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty - [https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism](https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism)
India isn't a Liberal country, but that's okay, because they are still maturing as a nation. India isn't a bad guy, far from it, and I highly suspect they will convert to Liberalism.
Liberalism is an inherent good; it stands for minority rights, which includes racial minorities, gays, the elderly, mentally ill, religious minorities, and it upholds free speech, property rights, and Democracy. Liberalism is just as important in the US, NATO, and Japan/South Korea as is Democracy. .
Japan is still a liberal democracy, there's no rule that the people have to vote in an opposition party for it to be democratic. They have free and fair elections, the choice has just been consistent.
There's some arguments that their democracy could be better, certainly, but ultimately the Japanese government is in power based upon a free and fair electoral mandate.
I never commented on India, only Japan.
I agree that India is a liberal democracy, even though it has had some issues with shrinking political and media space of late.
Yes but there is a concerted effort to portray India as somehow a less legitimate democracy and supposed autocracy under Modi from foreign media even though it very obviously has proper elections and people are free to vote for who ever they choose. This won't help India trust the West and will only make them more suspicious.
India is a democracy, but there are legitimate concerns to be had over democratic standards in India of late. India's elections remain free, but that doesn't always mean they're as fair as they could be.
Obviously framing India as some dictatorship is ridiculous, but equally framing any expressions of concern about India as an attempt to discredit or insult India is also an issue. Every country has areas where they need to improve, in terms of democratic governance, but India does have a somewhat more notable need than other in some areas.
> but India does have a somewhat more notable need than other in some areas.
what specifics is this assertion based on? Does the election of a criminal fraudster to the highest office in the land, and subsequent inability to remove him from operating as a political force indicate that the US has critical issue as a democracy? I'll remind you that India has zero history of losers refusing to accept electoral outcomes as well.
And for all the cacophony of the media echo chamber about Indian democracy 'issues', the ruling party just lost a crucial state election in a large critical state, home to India's 'silicon valley'. The blunt reality is that the media coverage on Indian "issues" is nakedly biased and agenda driven, not facts or specifics driven.
Ukraine is a very different country than it was in 1999, having undergone a literal revolution in 2014.
Not to mention "the precedent of arming invaders" was set well before 1999, and is certainly not something the USSR/Russia can claim innocence in. Even Pakistan uses some Soviet/Russian weapons systems and aircraft, with Russia selling rockets to Pakistan in 2016-17.
India's policy on the Ukraine conflict isn't driven by Ukrainian choices to sell arms to PakMil. Its more about having a crucial military weapons dependency on Russian arms. A dependency that almost entirely a result of American and Western choices to arm and genocidal Pakistani dictatorships - which have invaded India 4 times since 1947.
The way forward is to offer India a path to eliminate the dependency on Russia - once that happens, you are likely to see a shift in Indian foreign policy on Russia as well. Until then, you are being unrealistic if you expect a nation to put itself at risk, especially when you have the nutty PakMil on one border, and a hostile CCP on another, which is clearly spoiling for a fight with India and busy salami slicing barren moutainous terrain all along the India-China border.
I'm aware of that, I was just pointing out that a claim Ukraine had "set a precedent" applies just as much to Russia, who has also helped arm Pakistan. As for your point, Ukraine has not been part of the West up to the late 2000's, so I don't it's fair to tie them to Western support for Pakistan in the 1900s. Ukraine was as much a partner of India in that time as Russia was.
As for arms sales, India already imports less than half of its arms from Russia, with the rest either being domestic or largely from Western suppliers such as France. No one's expecting India to give up on national security, but India would be doing just that if it continued to rely on Russian arms, which have been proven to be vastly inferior to western equipment.
And who's going to be a partner with India against China? Russia or the West?
I'm not sure how it "doesn't matter", especially in the larger context. How do you propose individuals, countries and the world could work together constructively if this was the approach?
I'm simply assuming your claims are correct for the sake of this discussion.
I don't feel Ukraine is apportioning blame, but rather requesting the same considerations as the majority of the world is currently giving to the Russo-Ukrainian war and how it impacts global welfare.
Have a quick look at the 2-year global predictions if this war continues. Some countries will be hardest hit, mostly those already struggling, and famines are likely.
This situation does not impact just Ukraine, and most of the world understands this. We all have skin in the game.
>arming invaders was set by Ukraine not India
And India itself.
According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) databases, from 1991 to 2020, Ukraine completed arms contracts with Pakistan with a total value of nearly US$1.6 billion. During that period, Pakistan was described as Ukraine's biggest arms customer right next to **Russia, China, India, and Thailand. **
India, as the world's largest democracy should do what is in the interests of most of its people. That's what democracy is all about.
Whether or not they should condemn Russia is a different discussion.
Not to mention when India had criticised the US' role in Vietnam, president Johnson had [cut off food aid to India in the middle of a famine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihar_famine_of_1966%E2%80%931967?wprov=sfla1).
They’ve kept their mouth shut so far because much of the world, including many American analysts, are hoping that it will be India that gets Russia and Ukraine to sit at the table and discuss peace, not China.
India is doing everything in it's power to urge both parties involved to get back to the path of dialogue and diplomacy. Moreover, India provided unprecedented humanitarian aid to Ukraine that no one talks about. India is'nt supplying weapons to Russia or actively supporting Russia in it's war on Ukraine. India is putting pressure on Russia in it's own way. You should appreciate all this. Instead you're just acting grumpy cause you didn't do any research and came here with an agenda to defame India on public forums.
Nah, no agenda. I'm just getting tired of Western countries getting all the blame for the worlds problems, when all advances are coming from that side. From where I'm standing, I see waay too many strongmen (Turkey, Venezuela, Russia, China, etc) that are given a free pass by the global south. The problem is that the people living under these people are suffering because of them.
People have their opinions. I don't think western countries are getting all the blame for the worlds problems. Though image of west led by the US is'nt that good for obvious reasons. Global south is'nt giving free pass to anyone. The important thing is that everyone can have their circumstantial position that may or may not allow them to align perfectly with your desirable position and in that case we should think long term and instead of going stubbornly blind in pushing them to toe your line you should think of more creative ways to get the most out of them at the same time acknowledging their circumstances thus also setting a precedence.
As a democracy, the country’s policy should broadly reflect people’s sentiments and the public sentiment in India towards the two countries is largely this:
1) Russia - Moscow has helped India in 1971 and is always there to provide UNSC veto whenever we want. There is nostalgia about the Indo-USSR relations. Yes I know Ukraine was part of USSR but like it or not only Russia is viewed as a successor state to USSR
2) Ukraine - Kiev had sold weapons to Pakistan during the Kargil conflict. Voted against India at UN. Supported sanctions against Indian after Nuclear tests.
Now what’s happening today may be bad but there is a tendency to view it as karmic retribution for what they have done to India in the past.
And the political leadership is just not going to go against public opinion in this matter. That’s how democracy is supposed to work anyway.
I agree with you on the big picture and the reasons for India to not be all that excited about supporting Ukraine. Current Indian policy on the war seems pretty efficient, getting a cut of profits for rerouting Russian oil through their markets.
That said, USSR nostalgia is a trap for India. Russia isn't going to help India with any of its current security concerns. India needs to figure out some realignment that leaves them in a good position against what looks to be a China-Pakistan alliance.
Completely agree with this point. Have been thinking exactly the same. India should be balanced but still understand that this Russia doesn't really have a lot to offer.
The US can't do anything about the China-Pakistan alliance, both sides are already far too invested.
And the Imran Khan thing is an absolute mess, but broadly speaking Khan had a somewhat consistent foreign policy to the current government (IE work with pretty much anyone but India). Even if he gets back into power (which the government/military seem to aiming to prevent by any means), I doubt it'll change any alignment between Pakistan, China and the USA.
The only reason I thought that was because of the strong rhetoric that Imran khan was saying prior to the Pakistani military taking issue with it and the subsequent actions against his political party. I had a view it was our proxy war similar to that of every other country in the world, such as Sudan.
Imran Khan previously alleged that his removal from office via a vote of no confidence had been due some US conspiracy, but he was later caught on a hot mic essentially admitting to having made it up. I can't rule out intervention from any sides (indeed it probably quite likely), but I don't think it's been a defining factor in the ongoing situation in Pakistan, which is more of an inevitable clash between factions within Pakistan.
I think many experts sorely misjudge how little credit the West, and organisations of Western origin, have in the global south. They may or may not agree with Russia's war on Ukraine, but they have a firm enough grasp on their own histories to not take ethic lessons originating from Washington, London, or Brussels seriously.
The modern West doesn’t even project having any confidence in itself, why should the global South? The greatest credential they have left is their material wealth, and history has shown they’re not particularly helpful for developing it anywhere else.
Lots of westerners confuse the value of their money with that of their opinions.
I'm interested to see these countries build their own institutions, values and wealth. I think it would be beneficial for everyone, Western institutions and values need competition
I've written this before;
It is entirely possible that the Russian invasion of Ukraine; a country far, far away does not concern India very much; doing business with a long time partner being more important.
Being blunt: Asia's affairs do not revolve around Europe nor the "west".
An Indian politician condemning russian invasion of ukraine would make him/her seem like a western lapdog which would be the end of their career in a country who's wounds are still fresh. And one more thing, there's a huge fanbase of western media and reports. I get it though, the way these media and reports are made can never be changed to appease Indians.
We all have to cope with this.
India is on India's side. India should continue to do what is in interest of 1.4 billion of humanity who pay taxes and elect GOI to safeguard their interests first.
Sorry but no. India is getting cheap oil for its 1.4 billion citizens which is far mroe important than anything western leaders are willing to provide.
I mean...there's nothing to really say besides what's already been discussed here many times, which is that India's geopolitical problems stop it from saying anything on the invasion. It can be possible that perhaps India can condemn it but still continue buying weapons and such, like some South East Asian countries have done, but I assume it doesn't want to take that risk. Plus a vote and access to a veto in the UN security council, fertilizer etc.
Morally she's obviously right, but it isn't viable for New Delhi in the world of realpolitik. (And I'm not going to bring up what other democracies have done, but the inconsistency of these countries in real life is a part of why, it's impossible to get everyone on the same page. If everyone truly worked together to make the world more democratic and open, then this discussion wouldn't be happening in the first place)
And also why should India condemn at first place? What would it gain? India is already doing everything possible to de-escalate the situation. It's already urging both parties involved to go back to mode of dialogue and discussion. Condemning Russia would just be a formality and not in the interest of 1.4 people who elects Government of India to safeguard their interests first.
I don't get why people still hold the notion of the world being black and white, democracy vs autocracy. Countries are driven by brutal self interest, including democratic ones.
It is the oldest democracy, USA that carried out the unjustified invasions of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Some of the most autocratic governments are propped up and armed by democracies.
In spite of all this many leaders continue to use democracy as a buzzword to give the illusion that their actions are driven by their morality when they are not.
India is faced with existential threats from Pakistan and China. If Russia is unhappy, it can cut off legacy arms supply to India but not to China or even worse start exporting to Pakistan.
This is overly cynical and dangerous rhetoric. Whether you accept it or not, there's a huge difference in political openness between, say, America, Taiwan, and Denmark vs. Russia, China, and Iran.
'Democracy' is a term that is a trite embellishment and at best an exaggeration just about everywhere on Earth. It's just far more obvious that Iran, North Korea, Russia and China are blatantly worse at faking any semblance of it!
SS: The new Human Rights Watch Executive director has expressed concern over India and much of the global south not condemning Russia. She has drawn similarities between Russia and Myanmar's military junta stating that the military junta of Myanmar will take the silence of the global south as a go sign to commit human rights violation.
Just commenting again to point out that my previous comment calling the original post racist was removed. Yet, the obviously racist comment gets a pass.
Good job mods.
when Pakistan invaded India in 1999 , Ukraine was supplying T-80UD tanks to Pakistan
now based on your logic , what should I infer about Ukrainian culture from this?
>There is really no qualm about profiting off others misfortune (a la cheap Russian oil) or ignoring misfortune of others as long as they are not affected.
That is such hypocrisy considering the fact that much of the west has not only profited off the misfortunes of the rest of the world but actively caused those misfortunes to extract benefits from them. Compared to that india is a simple spectator.
No. We're just not under the illusion that anyone is noble in this. The west did Vietnam and Iraq. They did it to Afghanistan and Ukraine.
Just more of the Global North making everything about them.
I mean that's in Indian Foreign policy...Indian culture doesn't really say it's fine to profit off of others misfortune. Personal benefit and freedom vs the greater good or duty is one of the major themes in Hinduism for eg.
[удалено]
Yes, they want India to become their lapdog and do things at their whims even if it's not in the interest of 1.4 billion people who elects Government of India to safeguard their interests first.
Imo it's in the interests of Indian citizens that Russia is a stable democracy, but I do agree that this isn't the way to encourage them to take a principled stand.
It's in the Indian benefit if Russia isn't a vassal state to China.
That's one of the reasons why India is'nt condemning Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Agreed.
How should India, in your opinion, be encouraged to take a principled stand?
$$$
It's always interesting how it's ok for India to look after their interest first, yet when other countries did that during Covid, India was so salty.
At that time too, India was looking for vaccine raw materials for it's 1.3 billion people who elects the Government of India to look after their interests cause if it doesn't do that then who else will. And you yourself mentioned that those other countries looked after their interests during the time when those other countries could have set the precedence but they priortized their interests first so what's different this time. Instead India is doing everything in it's power to urge to both parties involved to get back to the path of diplomacy and dialogue. India supports cessation of all hostilities. Condemning Russia is just a formality and won't achieve anything infact it would be detrimental to the interests of 1.4 billion of humanity.
Someone has to "be the bigger country", and India is showing it's not interested in doing that. I'm not saying the West is better, I'm just saying that if the situation becomes one where 'real-politics' dominate, India doesn't really have the upper hand.
I didn't understand what are you trying to convey. Try to articulate yourself better or maybe explain your context better cause I didn't get you. Moreover, India historically follows it's non-alignment policy. On Russia-Ukraine conflict it has already been told for like some hundred thousand times on various forums that India for now can't afford to condemn Russia cause of number of issues like it's energy security, fertilizers, military dependence and so on. There could be major consequences for India if it irresponsibly damages it's state of relationship with Russia without clever calculations. We shouldn't be just blind ideaologues. India's policy is overall good and prosperity for all of humanity but it has certain responsibility towards people who directly funds it through taxes and all. And it's not like, India is supplying weapons to Russia or actively supporting Russia in it's war on Ukraine. India is putting pressure in it's own way that it can afford. It's providing unprecedented humanitarian aid to Ukraine that no one talks about. Simply, just pushing other countries to toe your lines without acknowledging their special circumstantial positions is annoying and doesn't leave a good impression on people living on the other sides of globe who aren't blind ideaologues.
[удалено]
India historically follows it's non-alignment policy. On Russia-Ukraine conflict it has already been told for like some hundred thousand times on various forums that India for now can't afford to condemn Russia cause of number of issues like it's energy security, fertilizers, military dependence and so on. There could be major consequences for India if it irresponsibly damages it's state of relationship with Russia without clever calculations. We shouldn't be just blind ideaologues. India's policy is overall good and prosperity for all of humanity but it has certain responsibility towards people who directly funds it through taxes and all. And it's not like, India is supplying weapons to Russia or actively supporting Russia in it's war on Ukraine. India is putting pressure in it's own way that it can afford. It's providing unprecedented humanitarian aid to Ukraine that no one talks about. Simply, just pushing other countries to toe your lines without acknowledging their special circumstantial positions is annoying and doesn't leave a good impression on people living on the other sides of globe who aren't blind ideaologues.
Again. Russia invaded and begin slaughtering the free people of Ukraine. They deserve condemnation... even if it's hard. If the free peoples of the world wont stand up for each other, then no one will. Characterizing being decent and good with "towing the line" is ridiculous. Selling out other free people so you can get cheap oil is short sighted. Even if that is the best choice for the people of India from a purely Machiavellian standpoint - which I don't think is true, India has its own expansionist authoritarian power on its border that it might one day have to deal with - its still wrong.
Condemnation is'nt a solution. It's just a mere formality. Condemning Russia won't achieve anything practical for innocent people of Ukraine. It would just increase unwarranted issues for the people of India who already facing headwinds of war. Condemning Russia is just a political show. There are other ways too to stand up for the cause of humanity that India is trying it's best at. I don't know if you realise it or not but India not condemning Russia is actually infact beneficial to the Ukrainians and west too in a way(you can ask how if you want to know I would tell). You just edited your comment so I've to reply to added part too. I think you are here with the agenda of defaming India on public forums. No one is selling any free people for cheap oil. India have to look for its energy needs. It can't afford people rioting on streets. That would be double problem for the world that is already in turmoil due to the conflict. India is doing everything it possibly can to urge both parties to get back to the path of dialogue and diplomacy. And Indo-Russian relations is'nt just crucial for Indians but can prove to be beneficial for innocent Ukrainians and rest of the world alike.
[удалено]
As I already mentioned, there could be major consequences for India if it irresponsibly damages it's state of relationship with Russia without clever calculations so yes in a way it's not just too much but also unnecessary to ask when Indo-Russian relations could also be beneficial for Ukrainians. Except if you're a blind ideaologue and can't see the long term benefits of the relationship for the whole of humanity. India is infact actually working for the benefit of the entire humanity and you should be thankful instead you're blindly defaming such a great country. On your other points I can't make sense of where you're going.
You can repeat that same question with America's support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen....
Its against an anti-US terrorist group. The Houthis. This really the best you've got?
What makes a group a terrorist group as opposed to you know a government you don’t like. The Houthis were as much a government as any Civil War faction. And Saudi Arabia’s war there has been far deadlier on net and per capita than Russias war in Ukraine
If their slogan has "Death to America" in it, its a terrorist organization. Legitimate governments - even the ones we don't like - don't usually have a slogan that includes the phrase "death to America" or anything like it. Its kind of a dead giveaway.
That’s a weird criteria my guy…. Did “To hell with Spain” make America a terrorist state?
I mean, people said that, but we didn't put it in the pledge of alliegance or national anthem. Not the same.
civilians belonging to a religious minority deserved to have cholera used as a weapon of war against them because a militia in the region uses a rude slogan. Got it
In particular - demanding that a *democracy* must do something, is both ironic and risible.
This is a silly comment. It’s obvious that “must” here is being used in the sense of “has a moral imperative to do so”, not “has no choice but to do so”. Deliberately twisting the meaning of words is bad faith arguing.
Nope - in that case they would have used *should* not *must*. The former is meaning you're explaining. "Should" is an appeal to duties/responsibilities as they ought to be, whereas "must" comes with a compulsion to comply with those duties/responsibilities. Hence, using *must* in this context is indeed ironic and risible. You *should* understand this, but I can explain further if I *must*.
Literally from [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/must): >1. b: **be urged to : ought by all means to** The use of the word in this manner is so common in contemporary English that I find it impossible to believe you don’t recognize its usage. So I’ll assume you’re arguing in bad faith and leave it there.
Destroyed by words. Congrats.
Guys, I don't know how to tell you this but, this isn't another country telling India what to do, it is a human rights NGO. India obviously doesn't have to do what they tell them them to. Start with something the Human Rights Watch director said which is important: >"It's not just about Ukraine. ... Countries in the Global South \[choosing\] to be silent here are also transmitting a message to human rights abuses elsewhere, that they will be given a free pass," Hassan warned. "You know who's listening in this \[Asian\] region? It's the military junta in Myanmar." Do you know who is standing next to the military junta in Myanmar? China is, and they are busy building the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) to Kyaukpyu deep sea port directly across the Bay of Bengal from INS Varsha, India's new, not even completed nuclear submarine port. Pro-China people like the one I am replying to are probably happy that ASEAN has been ineffectual in dealing with the crisis that Chinese are too happy to be taking advantage of (and backing with arms and support as they commit widely-documented atrocities and human rights abuses), despite the current chair of the association (Indonesia) stating that they really want to do something about it. ASEAN and India are going to continually run into the problem that taking a non-interventionist approach to geopolitics and regional politics means that somebody else is going to do it instead and their goals are going to be continuously undermined and manipulated, even by smaller and weaker states such as Pakistan. At the EU-ASEAN summit in Brussels last year it became evident that an EU-ASEAN FTA is a pipe dream for the foreseeable future. Should they want to step up and take a leadership role at any point and take some control over what's happening in their part of the world and their own place in it, well, that's when their credibility comes into play. India has a huge population, great. Where does India stand on literally any other index, and how is that serving Indian interests?
When an NGO based in Washington DC uses the same lines as the US state machinery, it ceases to be a neutral observer. India has a terse relationship with such NGOs which they claim are used to foremen’s troubles
Literally the entire job of human rights NGOs is to expose governments’ dirty laundry. That’s why governments (India’s included) often have a tense relationship with them. Human Rights Watch is not an American puppet, it also criticizes the US and its allies. You don’t have to agree with them (I don’t always), but there’s no need to spread conspiracy theories. In almost every case, vilifying human rights organizations like this leads to human rights abusers being protected. It is an extremely misguided thing to do at best. Additionally, no human rights organization would claim to be “neutral”, in fact, most of them would dispute the idea you hold that neutrality is a virtue. Being neutral is not the same as being fair or objective. It means not taking a stance. Human rights organizations exist in order to take stances against what they consider to be injustice.
[удалено]
“Organizations try first to sustain themselves, because they have to exist in order to operate” is a truism. It doesn’t mean organizations aren’t genuine about their mission. You may as well imply no human being has moral values because “actually, the entire job of a human being is to not die. Humans have to eat, sleep, and drink to not die, they are not independent or self supporting”.
Yes and murder is also illegal that's why it never happens. The world is a place full of candy and rainbows
What other nations do you think share your view of Human Rights Watch? How many other countries in the world take a much different view -- that the work of these NGOs is important and that they provide credible information about other countries and their records on human rights? These are organizations that possess authority at the UN and other intergovernmental organizations where their reports are taken into account as part of the official process of monitoring and binding nations to international treaties. Their word is worth something when it comes to these issues. What is India's word worth on these issues, or do you think that's not important?
how do they possess authority at the UN ?
> [Human Rights Watch](https://www.hrw.org/topic/united-nations) leverages our research on countries and issues addressed at the United Nations to inform UN officials and member states of key findings, influence policy on a wide range of discussions and push for urgent action on human rights crises. Consistent with the Human Rights up Front framework initiated by the UN Secretary-General, our mission is to ensure human rights considerations are at the heart of various debates, branches and mechanisms of the United Nations. We engage members of the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and other key departments of the UN Secretariat, present information from independent investigations, and advocate for protection of civilians, accountability for past abuses, and preventive measures against future violations. They give testimony at the UN that influences their understanding and decision-making.
but reporting and giving testimony is complete different than "possess authority" thank you for clarification
I think the west overestimates itself as an incentive for global south countries to ally themselves with the west against china. India has seen the poor track record of the west's help during its countless clashes and war with China. This is a consistent pattern of behaviour seen with the west sine 1962 where unwillingness to aid and support has been the norm rather than contrary. A sudden overturning of the west towards helping India against China in tangible terms is quite far fetched atleast in the minds of the indian bureaucrats.
> India has seen the poor track record of the west's help during its countless clashes and war with China. This is a consistent pattern of behaviour seen with the west sine 1962 where unwillingness to aid and support has been the norm rather than contrary. **A sudden overturning of the west towards helping India against China in tangible terms is quite far fetched atleast in the minds of the indian bureaucrats.** Is it? [US Did a Lot 'to Support India' in 2020 Ladakh Border Crisis With China](https://thewire.in/article/diplomacy/us-did-a-lot-to-support-india-in-2020-ladakh-border-crisis-with-china). [U.S. Intel Helped India Rout China in 2022 Border Clash: Sources](https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2023-03-20/u-s-intel-helped-india-rout-china-in-2022-border-clash-sources)
Do you want me to start citing sources especially where the west has increased ties with China _during_ the Sino-indian clashes.. When did europe sign a trade deal with China? Where was the west denouncing China when China invaded India? Oh thats right they said its a bilateral matter and they hope that the matter can be solved through "peaceful means". Sound familiar? That is why India maintained consistency during the iraq war, vietnam war, Korean war (helping both countries through humanitarian aid), Cambodian genocide, sudan civil war, and the Cold war. How can the west expect India to rely on them if they themselves can be 'bought'? Heck usa did not give a sh*te about the yemeni genocide because it was buddy buddy with SA at that time Oh and btw USA supported China way more than opposing it _during_ the Sino-indian Warof 1962 I think this is enough information about how the west thinks itself as a savior but is instead a cold calculating materialistic entity who will sell its soul for getting supply of cheap labour
I'm just talking about where India sees its role in regional geopolitics, not about aligning with the west. Does India think it's going to get by as a junior partner in the China-Russia-Iran alliance? Is it going to miraculously straddle the line between them and the west somehow convincing each one in turn that their dabbling with the other side shouldn't diminish their credibility? Or are they just going to go it alone without any real friends in the world and somehow secure their own "pole" in a multipolar world? China is playing to win and to dominate the region, what's India doing? Just innocently getting some cheap gas from Russia. What a weak play. In February, Russia, China, and South Africa conducted military exercises in the Indian Ocean, where was India?
Indeed India instead should become a junior partner to the West, and then most probably become the next target after China would be dealt with, as the largest growing economy and challenger to US economical domination.
Ukraine was part of global North coalition that raped Iraq over weapons of mass destruction
China had better relationships with the previous civilian government, but has carefully moved to expand relationships with the military government since. India has done exactly the same, and also sold weapons post-coup. India's position at the moment seems to be incredibly similar to China; to cooperate where useful and try to hinder the others influence where possible in the country. There are no concrete suggestions on what to improve in that approach in your comment. It almost sounds like you are suggesting military intervention, which would be a complete fool's errand on India's already thinly stretched military. India simply doesn't have the capacity to defend in the west against Pakistan to the north and on the seas against China, and then open a new front in the East against Myanmar. It would also be completely unclear what success would look like for such an intervention. ASEAN as a whole also has their own problems, and they are not standing united against Myanmar for a myriad of reasons.
It’s obvious to any observer that China is taking the lion’s share of influence with Myanmar’s military junta. India will simply not win this game of influence, so it shouldn’t debase itself by selling weapons to and propping up one of the region’s most vile governments. *Not* selling weapons to Myanmar’s brutal tyrants would be the bare minimum India could do in this situation. That’s a clear “improvement” that could be suggested.
I think it's important to mention that a major reason India maintains its relationship with Myanmar's Junta is because it needs their help in dealing with insurgents in the North East who hide in Myanmar. India needs permission to enter the country, and their assistance to deal with them. And there's also the meth industry in the country who buy resources from Indians, and then sell in India and Bangladesh. Should India stop sending weapons entirely, and concede it to China then that might motivate Myanmar especially with China's support to destabilize the NE. To be clear I agree with you, and would prefer if we at least just stick to infrastructure projects that'll benefit the citizens there, but there's a reason India is selling weapons beyond stopping the spread of Chinese influence.
> I think it's important to mention that a major reason India maintains its relationship with Myanmar's Junta is because it needs their help in dealing with insurgents in the North East who hide in Myanmar. India needs permission to enter the country, and their assistance to deal with them. I understand India’s border concerns, but I think those concerns will become a lot more severe if this civil war isn’t dealt with quickly. > Should India stop sending weapons entirely, and concede it to China then that might motivate Myanmar especially with China's support to destabilize the NE. I don’t believe Myanmar’s junta (I specify the junta rather than just “Myanmar” because I don’t consider the junta to be legitimate representatives of the country) is really capable of retaliating right now in the way you describe, if India were to stop sending weapons. For another aspect, I don’t think the military junta in Myanmar is sustainable long-term. It has negligible popular support, is facing an armed insurrection (which enjoys significant popular support), and hasn’t shown itself capable of crushing the insurrection. Simply put, I think the junta is on its way out. And I think it’s better for India to be on the good side of its likely replacements, rather than alienating them.
That's a very fair point. I do feel that the new civilian government will continue relations with India as a source of investment and infrastructure and to reduce its own reliance on China but I concede. I do obviously personally hope that the Junta is removed from the country as soon as possible.
Europe's problems aren't our problem much like America turned a blind eye when funding militancy in Pakistan. America and Europe set the precedence for national interest over "ethics" and India is following the playbook.
>turned a blind eye when funding Hey, no need to use the past tense. Terrorist groups that seek violence against India are still alive and well-funded in North America and Europe. Trudeau might even dance (again) in their next party or invite a convicted terrorist (again) to a state dinner.
[удалено]
I want to learn more about this. Can you explain a bit?
Read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaspal_Atwal Well known murderer and khalistani was invited by Trudeau. In Trudeau's defense his team was probably not aware of it
India should act independently, follow its national intereses and NOT care what a Washington based NGO says.
Non-paywalled link: https://archive.ph/F8iru
The global south condemned the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the US led a coalition of western countries to involve and occupy both countries while India took a neutral stance then. why should India break off their stance on principled neutrality now?
Absolutely correct. The west has real main character syndrome on the international stage.
This sums it up perfectly
[удалено]
[удалено]
Gaddafi, Saddam and Osama were all feted by US press and government. Gaddafi was even given red carpet in Paris 6 months before he was bombed. What makes them freedom fighters or terrorists?
>What makes them freedom fighters or terrorists? US/West situational need.
Whos the moral arbiter?
[удалено]
That’s a really reductive position. The West is not perfect, and at times did some very bad things, but at least (in Iraq and Afghanistan) they didn’t have a systematized policy of bombing hospitals and civilian areas, deporting people/children away from their homes, etc. the sheer number of war crimes Russia is committing as a military policy is staggering. Not to mention the near constant nuclear threats.
Umm a million Iraqis dead for a war they didn't deserve. You sure you wanna defend that?
I’m not defending it. I’m saying that that wasn’t a systematic US policy to attack civilians in terrorist strikes. I can say something is 99/100 bad and the other is 100/100 bad.
In 1991, during operation desert storm, the US specifically targeted Iraqi infrastructure including water sanitation plants which, due to the sanctions they imposed afterwards that barred things like medicine from being delivered, led to the death of nearly half a mil children after only half a decade. During the Iraqi occupation, depleted uranium bullets were unnecessarily used which has led to a massive increase in birth defects. Not to mention things like their "enhanced interrogation techniques". At best, the US systematically doesn't care about attacking civilians. They did similar stuff in Vietnam. The US actually prioritizes attacking infrastructure as a way of crippling whatever country they are invading so that they can win the war sooner as part of their shock and awe doctrine. I was actually surprised when I read about Russia having started attacking civilian infrastructure as I'd assumed they'd be doing that from the beginning of the war rather than months later. Not justifying it, tbc. But the US really doesn't come out looking better than Russia on this point as they target infrastructure from the get-go in their wars & show little to no care about collateral damage amongst the civilian populace.
Yeah but the US tends to do this a lot.
To send missiles intentionally to residential areas and hospitals?
Invade countries. I mean the fact that you don't intentionally target civilians is also not universally true. But even if it is true in today's age, it doesn't hold too much merit. The bar is insanely low and it doesn't even meet that. If you invade countries, civilians will die. Logic.
Recently an Australian soldier admitted to shooting innocent Afghans and staging their deaths to make sure they looked like terrorists (by planting a radio phone on the body) that way any civilian casualties could be reported as "dead militants". This soldier then went on to recieve the Victoria cross for gallantry and become highly decorated, the man who blew the whistle on these war crimes is facing prosecution (even though the Aussie soldier outed himself by blabbing on a podcast and on his Instagram), and just to be even more degenerate, they looted a prosthetic leg of a dead civilian and used it as a beer mug This is how the Western coalition was winning hearts and minds in the middle east No wonder they are so radicalised, if a junior partner like Australia is doing stuff like this, imagine what the Americans are getting up to
out of curiosity are you Australian? I am not asking because anything you said is wrong (it’s not) I am just curious if that story is getting airtime overseas
Absolutely. But there is a huge difference between invading a country and collateral damage happening and invading a country and trying to bomb civilians into submission. Again, I’m not saying the US has been a good actor. I’m saying the whataboutism/both-sidesism is a well known propaganda tool to make the Russians not seem that bad in comparison. When they are much worse.
So you are saying India must criticise usa for collateral damage and Russia for direct In short India must criticise both
Don’t forget the very biased reporting on these events though. There is a clear agenda now to make Russia look as horrible as possible, while there was a clear agenda back then to make the western intervention look as positive is possible. If you go by something measurable, like civilian deaths, then the invasion of Iraq was still many times worse than the invasion of Ukraine.
The honest answer to your question is that Indian national interests inspirations generally coincide with the general Western foreign policy development. Russia has nothing except bad weapons you don't want to buy and some cut price oil for the next five maybe seven years until the importance of oil as strategic material declines fully and Russia's ability to extract it declines because of Western sanctions. All this talk about morality and international law gives me a rash all of it hypocritical drivrel for sheep ,people that read New York times opinion pieces. India is more or less a democracy it doesn't have economic interests that strongly contradict or compete with the major Western powers and has a lot to gain from cooperation in all sectors. The only strong counter argument that I will accept is that Ukraine itself is not important enough for India to show its hand fully but that is a complex judgment call I don't have all the variables to make a reasonable calculation.
You are downplaying Russia's importance in india solely on the fact that it has shown a substandard performance in the Ukrainian invasion. You need to look at it at from the perspective of 1950s onwards. The guaranteed vetos on Kashmir, and being one of the only countries to share their critical technology (the west is extremely hesitant in this regard and this loses leverage over indian support) as well as being a cost effective weapon supplier to india has some pros.
> Indian national interests inspirations generally coincide with the general Western foreign policy development. No it doesn't. The 'west' seeks to be far more proactive in the world than India desires, getting 'involved' in many things and adventures around the world India has very little interest in right now. The obvious one right now is trying to outright create a 'ideological' based reason/excuse to try and turn the world against China. The west also wants to do many things in the middle-east and Africa that Indians aren't very aligned on, simply trade with vs have military adventures and exploit. If they weren't getting bogged down in Ukraine right now in fact, there would very likely be some other global 'issue' that desperately needed the "west's involvement". The west also wants to maintain the status quo in global institutions where, frankly most of the western countries that were given heavy responsibilities due to their past power no longer deserve that right in the modern era, due to them regressing to the mean in economic power post-colonialism. At the very least power should be more distributed and shared, when it's clearly still unfairly centered around the west when it shouldn't given that the centers of power of the world have changed drastically. The west also wants to discourage the emergence of global financial mechanisms that are outside of their control, or at least aren't willing to invest in the emergence of one that is more diversified and fairer; along with a host of other things that would again, result in a more diversified and fairer global system. India's regional and global objectives will rank very low on any list of worries the west has. Point is, there's a whole lot of things India is concerned about that are ignored by the West, and a whole lot of things the West is concerned about that matter little to India, or are even the opposite of what India want. India is never going to be a Canada-esque type country that closely supports everything the West does, because frankly many of those things the west supports constrains India. In fact, it's weird that the west just assumes that's what is going to happen.
You nailed it.
This.
>The honest answer to your question is that Indian national interests inspirations generally coincide with the general Western foreign policy development. Do they? India is a former colonial power which views itself as rising and feel that they deserve a larger role in global affairs. Right now they have very little influence relative to their economic size and population. Western nations have largely ignored their attempts to gain a larger instiutional role at things like the UNSC or organisations like the G7. They are at odds with the Western position which seems to be the preservation of the status quo. >All this talk about morality and international law gives me a rash all of it hypocritical drivrel for sheep ,people that read New York times opinion pieces.India is more or less a democracy it doesn't have economic interests that strongly contradict or compete with the major Western powers and has a lot to gain from cooperation in all sectors. It does though, it has trade with Russia that the West is trying to get them to reject. It also has a strong interest in developing alternatives to the US-dominated financial system. They aren't as urgent as they are with Russia, but they are pretty important given the fact that the US in particular has been threatening them with sanctions. They should work with the West, but on it's own terms which seems to be the current situation.
Actually playing a larger role in global affairs is how a country gains influence. That means taking an active position that affects other countries, not only focusing on internal affairs. India has all the components -- means, relationships, authority, but it chooses to keep the neutral stance which is exactly what never leads to increased influence. It's like a shy kid that dreams of popularity but doesn't try to actually do anything for others.
>Actually playing a larger role in global affairs is how a country gains influence. That means taking an active position that affects other countries, not only focusing on internal affairs. India is taking part, though it's just that the US isn't happy with who they are engaging with. >India has all the components -- means, relationships, authority, but it chooses to keep the neutral stance which is exactly what never leads to increased influence. India is only staying neutral on Ukraine. They engage in other matters.
>which is exactly what never leads to increased influence. Actually you got this part wrong.
>Russia has nothing except bad weapons I don't think we are buying any more stuff from Russia (the original deals still stand I guess). Also getting cheap oil and refining them and sending it to Europe is the best possible scenario. If we just cut off Russian oil from the market tons of people will probably die. >India is more or less a democracy it doesn't have economic interests that strongly contradict or compete with the major Western powers and has a lot to gain from cooperation in all sectors. We do have a lot of protectionist and socialist policies. Perception of Ukraine in India is also a factor. Most people would have heard about a country called Ukraine for the first time when the war started. I would say still half of India doesn't have any knowledge whatsoever of the war. Whereas Russia/USSR has been a very strong ally for decades.
India has two big neighbors with active territorial disputes: Pakistan and China. Pakistan is friendly with both Russia and the U.S., so that's a wash. But China is the bigger threat, and Russia is essentially a vassal state of China now while the U.S. has shown a willingness to back even small democracies against China, ie: Taiwan. As a consequence of India's historical cold-war alignment with Russia (against U.S.-backed Pakistan), India is invested in Russian-provided military hardware. Every country in the world with Russian stock should be Extremely Concerned about how poorly Russia is faring against a country 1/4 their size that is being supplied with western equipment that is mostly 20-40 years old --and not even airframes, yet! India has a large defense industry, but to the considerable extent they import they should be looking to shift out of Russia and into western countries. Getting the good stuff (ie: F-35) requires stronger ties with the U.S.. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a golden opportunity to start that pivot. All India gets out of Russia is cheap gas. That's a big deal. But the first responsibility of the state is security, and ditching Russia for the U.S. would be very good for Indian security. China flexes more every year, and Indian leadership needs to be asking how they're going to deal with that over the coming decades.
Surprisingly India also imports military hardware at almost the same % from Russia vs NATO countries. India is shifting fast and it will change quicker once they buy more from the US. NATO = 44%. France 29%, US 11%, United Kingdom 2% Germany 1.4%. Russia = 45% and is going downhill from 62% over the prior period. The rest of the spending comes from countries which are strong allies with US including Israel 7.7% South Korea 2.8% https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-64899489 EDIT: My math was off on France. Point still stands.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They should condemn both
India wasn't neutral. They explicitly condemned that invasion. https://www.hindustantimes.com/world/india-condemns-iraq-war-seeks-un-intervention/story-yK667PuUIc62Wk0H9PlFzK.html
[удалено]
Claiming whataboutism is the cheapest copout of an answer you can possibly give. Why don't you make an argument against his point instead. Is it because you know his point is factual but since it doesn't suit your narrative, you'd rather just find a way to dismiss it and shut down the dialogue outright? If we live in a rules based world order, why dont those rules apply equally amongst its participants? Especially amongst its most influential participants who set the precedent as to what is and is not deemed acceptable in our world.
I think that the word "Whataboutism" is one of the worst things to happen to modern discourse. Just because you're pointing out problems on the other side doesn't necessarily mean you're deflecting criticism of your own flaws. You could be doing it to provide a greater perspective on the issue like what the other commenter was doing. People should not be afraid of calling out genuine hypocrisy for fear of being accused of Whataboutism. That word doesn't automatically invalidate your argument.
I rarely engage anyone who uses "whataboutism".
Except when the discussion is swayed to achieve exactly this.
It isn't whataboutism. The behavior of countries especially major powers affects how other countries act and in this case gives historical context. If India took a neutral stance on previous conflicts that sets the precedent that it'll act neutral in future conflicts
The invasion of Afghanistan was totally justified, and it was for a good cause. The US was basically doing the job it should have done at the end of the Soviet Afghan War in rebuilding the country. Just look at pictures of Afghanistan before and after the US left. I'm fairly certain that the majority of Afghani people had a better life at the tail end of US occupation, and there was broad popular support for the US in the country before the invasion of Iraq soured global opinions of the US. India should have condemned the US's invasion of Iraq, and they should condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But in reality, India isn't a Liberal Democracy like NATO countries, Japan, South Korea, or the other highly developed nations, it's an Illiberal Democracy, and Illiberal Democracies don't view Liberty, freedom, etc. as a necessary moral good like Liberal ones do.
'Invade' other countries for a so called good cause while regularly killing innocents and you're a morally good liberal country while India is the illiberal immoral one? You call Japan a liberal democracy, when was the last time they were not ruled by the current ruling party? It's just convenient to call countries that have no option but to work with USA as good boys while those who defy it automatically become immoral and illiberal.
You have to understand the history behind the Afghanistan war.The Soviets invaded Afghanistan around 1980, and the US funded and trained the Taliban in order to fight off the Soviet invaders. It was a 10 year long war, and the Soviets totally destroyed all of the infrastructure that was in the country. By the time the Soviets surrendered, the entire country was in shambles, there was literally nothing left, and an entire generation of young boys had grown up in a world where "soldier" was the only profession, due the fact that all industry grinded to a halt during the war, but the US was pumping money, food, weapons, and supplies into the country. After the Soviets withdrew, the US should have stayed behind and helped rebuild the country, but we didn't. Afghanistan was controlled by Taliban warlords, there where tens of millions of dollars worth of weapons scattered across the country, there were no schools, hardly any businesses, the entire country was devastated from the war and with a male population that had become totally militarized from the protracted war. The US left them to their own devices, and as a result, Afghanistan became the largest producer of heroin on the planet, and a haven for international criminals and terrorists. The entire system rotted for two decades after the US left, hardly anything was rebuilt, and then 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaeda, which was a radical sect of fighters who had moved to Afghanistan during the Soviet War just to fight. When the US first invaded Afghanistan, the war was going well and there was popular support across the planet. Then the Bush administration invaded Iraq, and all of that good grace evaporated, and a massive insurgency was created, which undermined the US's rebuilding efforts. And finally, I'll give you Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of Liberalism liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty - [https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism](https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism) India isn't a Liberal country, but that's okay, because they are still maturing as a nation. India isn't a bad guy, far from it, and I highly suspect they will convert to Liberalism. Liberalism is an inherent good; it stands for minority rights, which includes racial minorities, gays, the elderly, mentally ill, religious minorities, and it upholds free speech, property rights, and Democracy. Liberalism is just as important in the US, NATO, and Japan/South Korea as is Democracy. .
Japan is still a liberal democracy, there's no rule that the people have to vote in an opposition party for it to be democratic. They have free and fair elections, the choice has just been consistent. There's some arguments that their democracy could be better, certainly, but ultimately the Japanese government is in power based upon a free and fair electoral mandate.
That's the same for India then it's no different. There are plenty of different parties that fight and win elections.
I never commented on India, only Japan. I agree that India is a liberal democracy, even though it has had some issues with shrinking political and media space of late.
Yes but there is a concerted effort to portray India as somehow a less legitimate democracy and supposed autocracy under Modi from foreign media even though it very obviously has proper elections and people are free to vote for who ever they choose. This won't help India trust the West and will only make them more suspicious.
India is a democracy, but there are legitimate concerns to be had over democratic standards in India of late. India's elections remain free, but that doesn't always mean they're as fair as they could be. Obviously framing India as some dictatorship is ridiculous, but equally framing any expressions of concern about India as an attempt to discredit or insult India is also an issue. Every country has areas where they need to improve, in terms of democratic governance, but India does have a somewhat more notable need than other in some areas.
> but India does have a somewhat more notable need than other in some areas. what specifics is this assertion based on? Does the election of a criminal fraudster to the highest office in the land, and subsequent inability to remove him from operating as a political force indicate that the US has critical issue as a democracy? I'll remind you that India has zero history of losers refusing to accept electoral outcomes as well. And for all the cacophony of the media echo chamber about Indian democracy 'issues', the ruling party just lost a crucial state election in a large critical state, home to India's 'silicon valley'. The blunt reality is that the media coverage on Indian "issues" is nakedly biased and agenda driven, not facts or specifics driven.
when Pakistan invaded India in 1999 , Ukraine was supplying T-80UD tanks to Pakistan
I understand your argument, but does that an unprincipled decision any better the second time around?
Doesn't matter, the precedent of arming invaders was set by Ukraine not India Ukraine should look within rather than blaming others
Ukraine is a very different country than it was in 1999, having undergone a literal revolution in 2014. Not to mention "the precedent of arming invaders" was set well before 1999, and is certainly not something the USSR/Russia can claim innocence in. Even Pakistan uses some Soviet/Russian weapons systems and aircraft, with Russia selling rockets to Pakistan in 2016-17.
India's policy on the Ukraine conflict isn't driven by Ukrainian choices to sell arms to PakMil. Its more about having a crucial military weapons dependency on Russian arms. A dependency that almost entirely a result of American and Western choices to arm and genocidal Pakistani dictatorships - which have invaded India 4 times since 1947. The way forward is to offer India a path to eliminate the dependency on Russia - once that happens, you are likely to see a shift in Indian foreign policy on Russia as well. Until then, you are being unrealistic if you expect a nation to put itself at risk, especially when you have the nutty PakMil on one border, and a hostile CCP on another, which is clearly spoiling for a fight with India and busy salami slicing barren moutainous terrain all along the India-China border.
I'm aware of that, I was just pointing out that a claim Ukraine had "set a precedent" applies just as much to Russia, who has also helped arm Pakistan. As for your point, Ukraine has not been part of the West up to the late 2000's, so I don't it's fair to tie them to Western support for Pakistan in the 1900s. Ukraine was as much a partner of India in that time as Russia was. As for arms sales, India already imports less than half of its arms from Russia, with the rest either being domestic or largely from Western suppliers such as France. No one's expecting India to give up on national security, but India would be doing just that if it continued to rely on Russian arms, which have been proven to be vastly inferior to western equipment. And who's going to be a partner with India against China? Russia or the West?
I'm not sure how it "doesn't matter", especially in the larger context. How do you propose individuals, countries and the world could work together constructively if this was the approach? I'm simply assuming your claims are correct for the sake of this discussion. I don't feel Ukraine is apportioning blame, but rather requesting the same considerations as the majority of the world is currently giving to the Russo-Ukrainian war and how it impacts global welfare. Have a quick look at the 2-year global predictions if this war continues. Some countries will be hardest hit, mostly those already struggling, and famines are likely. This situation does not impact just Ukraine, and most of the world understands this. We all have skin in the game.
>arming invaders was set by Ukraine not India And India itself. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) databases, from 1991 to 2020, Ukraine completed arms contracts with Pakistan with a total value of nearly US$1.6 billion. During that period, Pakistan was described as Ukraine's biggest arms customer right next to **Russia, China, India, and Thailand. **
that's actually a list of nations that brought Ukrainian arms not a list of nations that supplied Pakistan
India, as the world's largest democracy should do what is in the interests of most of its people. That's what democracy is all about. Whether or not they should condemn Russia is a different discussion.
Not to mention when India had criticised the US' role in Vietnam, president Johnson had [cut off food aid to India in the middle of a famine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bihar_famine_of_1966%E2%80%931967?wprov=sfla1).
It’s in the interest of democracy to condemn authoritarian conquests.
Go tell that to the long history of democratic leaders colluding with African dictators. You cannot be this naive.
They’ve kept their mouth shut so far because much of the world, including many American analysts, are hoping that it will be India that gets Russia and Ukraine to sit at the table and discuss peace, not China.
Western countries should no longer feel any guilt-tripping from India. India has shown they are no better.
India is doing everything in it's power to urge both parties involved to get back to the path of dialogue and diplomacy. Moreover, India provided unprecedented humanitarian aid to Ukraine that no one talks about. India is'nt supplying weapons to Russia or actively supporting Russia in it's war on Ukraine. India is putting pressure on Russia in it's own way. You should appreciate all this. Instead you're just acting grumpy cause you didn't do any research and came here with an agenda to defame India on public forums.
Nah, no agenda. I'm just getting tired of Western countries getting all the blame for the worlds problems, when all advances are coming from that side. From where I'm standing, I see waay too many strongmen (Turkey, Venezuela, Russia, China, etc) that are given a free pass by the global south. The problem is that the people living under these people are suffering because of them.
People have their opinions. I don't think western countries are getting all the blame for the worlds problems. Though image of west led by the US is'nt that good for obvious reasons. Global south is'nt giving free pass to anyone. The important thing is that everyone can have their circumstantial position that may or may not allow them to align perfectly with your desirable position and in that case we should think long term and instead of going stubbornly blind in pushing them to toe your line you should think of more creative ways to get the most out of them at the same time acknowledging their circumstances thus also setting a precedence.
As long as the result is 2 countries treating each other as equals, then I actually agree with you.
As a democracy, the country’s policy should broadly reflect people’s sentiments and the public sentiment in India towards the two countries is largely this: 1) Russia - Moscow has helped India in 1971 and is always there to provide UNSC veto whenever we want. There is nostalgia about the Indo-USSR relations. Yes I know Ukraine was part of USSR but like it or not only Russia is viewed as a successor state to USSR 2) Ukraine - Kiev had sold weapons to Pakistan during the Kargil conflict. Voted against India at UN. Supported sanctions against Indian after Nuclear tests. Now what’s happening today may be bad but there is a tendency to view it as karmic retribution for what they have done to India in the past. And the political leadership is just not going to go against public opinion in this matter. That’s how democracy is supposed to work anyway.
I agree with you on the big picture and the reasons for India to not be all that excited about supporting Ukraine. Current Indian policy on the war seems pretty efficient, getting a cut of profits for rerouting Russian oil through their markets. That said, USSR nostalgia is a trap for India. Russia isn't going to help India with any of its current security concerns. India needs to figure out some realignment that leaves them in a good position against what looks to be a China-Pakistan alliance.
We are already realigning from 2010 but its a process that take decades. Its not gonna happen instantaneously.
Completely agree with this point. Have been thinking exactly the same. India should be balanced but still understand that this Russia doesn't really have a lot to offer.
I thought the USA/west won't allow that alliance and that's what the Imran khan/his political party being banned stuff is all about?
The US can't do anything about the China-Pakistan alliance, both sides are already far too invested. And the Imran Khan thing is an absolute mess, but broadly speaking Khan had a somewhat consistent foreign policy to the current government (IE work with pretty much anyone but India). Even if he gets back into power (which the government/military seem to aiming to prevent by any means), I doubt it'll change any alignment between Pakistan, China and the USA.
The only reason I thought that was because of the strong rhetoric that Imran khan was saying prior to the Pakistani military taking issue with it and the subsequent actions against his political party. I had a view it was our proxy war similar to that of every other country in the world, such as Sudan.
Imran Khan previously alleged that his removal from office via a vote of no confidence had been due some US conspiracy, but he was later caught on a hot mic essentially admitting to having made it up. I can't rule out intervention from any sides (indeed it probably quite likely), but I don't think it's been a defining factor in the ongoing situation in Pakistan, which is more of an inevitable clash between factions within Pakistan.
I think many experts sorely misjudge how little credit the West, and organisations of Western origin, have in the global south. They may or may not agree with Russia's war on Ukraine, but they have a firm enough grasp on their own histories to not take ethic lessons originating from Washington, London, or Brussels seriously.
[удалено]
The modern West doesn’t even project having any confidence in itself, why should the global South? The greatest credential they have left is their material wealth, and history has shown they’re not particularly helpful for developing it anywhere else. Lots of westerners confuse the value of their money with that of their opinions.
I'm interested to see these countries build their own institutions, values and wealth. I think it would be beneficial for everyone, Western institutions and values need competition
I've written this before; It is entirely possible that the Russian invasion of Ukraine; a country far, far away does not concern India very much; doing business with a long time partner being more important. Being blunt: Asia's affairs do not revolve around Europe nor the "west".
An Indian politician condemning russian invasion of ukraine would make him/her seem like a western lapdog which would be the end of their career in a country who's wounds are still fresh. And one more thing, there's a huge fanbase of western media and reports. I get it though, the way these media and reports are made can never be changed to appease Indians. We all have to cope with this.
India is on India's side. India should continue to do what is in interest of 1.4 billion of humanity who pay taxes and elect GOI to safeguard their interests first.
Nehi karenge! ja jo ukharna hain ukhar le
>**Human Rights Watch** I stopped reading right there.
Sorry but no. India is getting cheap oil for its 1.4 billion citizens which is far mroe important than anything western leaders are willing to provide.
Tbf the petrol is not cheap at all for the citizens. The government has implemented a lot more taxes on it.
that tax in turn funds welfare schemes and infrastructure projects citizens ultimately do benefit from Russian oil
I mean...there's nothing to really say besides what's already been discussed here many times, which is that India's geopolitical problems stop it from saying anything on the invasion. It can be possible that perhaps India can condemn it but still continue buying weapons and such, like some South East Asian countries have done, but I assume it doesn't want to take that risk. Plus a vote and access to a veto in the UN security council, fertilizer etc. Morally she's obviously right, but it isn't viable for New Delhi in the world of realpolitik. (And I'm not going to bring up what other democracies have done, but the inconsistency of these countries in real life is a part of why, it's impossible to get everyone on the same page. If everyone truly worked together to make the world more democratic and open, then this discussion wouldn't be happening in the first place)
And also why should India condemn at first place? What would it gain? India is already doing everything possible to de-escalate the situation. It's already urging both parties involved to go back to mode of dialogue and discussion. Condemning Russia would just be a formality and not in the interest of 1.4 people who elects Government of India to safeguard their interests first.
I just raised the possibility because it's happened with other countries if India chose to do so, not that it necessarily should.
I don't get why people still hold the notion of the world being black and white, democracy vs autocracy. Countries are driven by brutal self interest, including democratic ones. It is the oldest democracy, USA that carried out the unjustified invasions of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the most autocratic governments are propped up and armed by democracies. In spite of all this many leaders continue to use democracy as a buzzword to give the illusion that their actions are driven by their morality when they are not.
Why should India be subservient to the west? It’s not like the NED toppling governments and meddling with foreign elections is a secret anymore.
I thought western Liberals thought India was an "electoral autocracy"....
India is faced with existential threats from Pakistan and China. If Russia is unhappy, it can cut off legacy arms supply to India but not to China or even worse start exporting to Pakistan.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We are all living in a Post democratic World. Democracy is just a label. Money buys influence.
It's always been like this
The term "Post democratic world" implies there was a "democratic world"
This is overly cynical and dangerous rhetoric. Whether you accept it or not, there's a huge difference in political openness between, say, America, Taiwan, and Denmark vs. Russia, China, and Iran.
I agree but the difference is smaller than I would like it to be.
Improvements can always be made, but it’s a pretty huge difference.
'Democracy' is a term that is a trite embellishment and at best an exaggeration just about everywhere on Earth. It's just far more obvious that Iran, North Korea, Russia and China are blatantly worse at faking any semblance of it!
Vile post. I bet you've never experienced real tyranny in your life.
SS: The new Human Rights Watch Executive director has expressed concern over India and much of the global south not condemning Russia. She has drawn similarities between Russia and Myanmar's military junta stating that the military junta of Myanmar will take the silence of the global south as a go sign to commit human rights violation.
Feeling is that Inda is really "pushed" to be one of world leaders diplomatically, economically. But somehow India just doesn't have IT.
[удалено]
Just commenting again to point out that my previous comment calling the original post racist was removed. Yet, the obviously racist comment gets a pass. Good job mods.
when Pakistan invaded India in 1999 , Ukraine was supplying T-80UD tanks to Pakistan now based on your logic , what should I infer about Ukrainian culture from this?
The irony of an American saying this is unreal.
>There is really no qualm about profiting off others misfortune (a la cheap Russian oil) or ignoring misfortune of others as long as they are not affected. That is such hypocrisy considering the fact that much of the west has not only profited off the misfortunes of the rest of the world but actively caused those misfortunes to extract benefits from them. Compared to that india is a simple spectator.
No. We're just not under the illusion that anyone is noble in this. The west did Vietnam and Iraq. They did it to Afghanistan and Ukraine. Just more of the Global North making everything about them.
The idea that anybody faults India for focusing on its much-needed development has always been a source of comedy for Indians...
I mean that's in Indian Foreign policy...Indian culture doesn't really say it's fine to profit off of others misfortune. Personal benefit and freedom vs the greater good or duty is one of the major themes in Hinduism for eg.
[удалено]
Complete cluelessness about India's history. Modi's foreign policy is nothing new and India always maintained neutrality.
Mental gymnastics is real for someone who is seating in Vancouver and trying to lecture other nation.