nForce
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2010
- Messages
- 8,910
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
The USA under Einseinhower (1957-1960) gave more aid to India than to Pakistan; If Kennedy decided to economically help Pakistan instead of India, it was after the Nehru's visit (November 5-15th 1961), who, already a part of the Non-Aligned Movement, was the 'worst Statesman' that Kennedy has even witnessed, being 'de-connected from reality'. It was not until 1962, because of diverse reasons (Indian forces attacking Goa's Portuguese colonies, buying Soviet's MiG-21, ...), that the USA stopped its pro-India aid policy.
The funny thing is that it was Nehru who was literally begging for the money, because 'he couldn't do without' (read Sarvepalli Gopal's biography on the man.) Ayyub Khan just, naturally, said that this money is given in a war-paradigm against the Soviets, and not freely; thus, the USA had to view Pakistan as a helped partner, not a feed slave.
And 'aid', in a developing-country where feudal system prevails doesn't mean a direct contribution to the nation's wealth; there's a detailed study in the book 'Delivering aid differently: lessons from the field', and that's what is said about Pakistan: '... has historically received large volumes of aid in support of its development into a lower-middle-income country. Yet it has also faced the increasingly difficult task of aid coordination. In 2007 Pakistan received more than 2.2 billion dollars in official development assistance (ODA), ranking the country as the sixth-largest recipient of official aid in the world. This overall sum, however, amounted to only 1.5 percent of gross domestic income, translating into a per capita aid of 14 dollars - much smaller than the amount received by countries with similar levels of income, such as Sudan (55 dollars), Kenya (34 dollars), and Vietnam (29 dollars.)'
Concerning the US aid about WoT specifically, we all know how much they gave us and how much we had to spent.
Yeah,talk about being a bad statesman and a leader disconnected with reality.Now that those events have started to show their effects,we all can now clearly see,who was the better leader.The decisions made by Carter/Kennedy and their likes have brought US in such a mess that they are still cleaning it till this date,along with Pakistan.While the Indian choice of being a part of NAM may not have paid off immediately but we can now rip the benefits of it.We maintained being a friendly nation to the entire World,without any bias,not being in the basket of any super-power.
Thats called foresightedness.Now tell me,who is a better leader??one who thinks about achieving short-term goals and ends up in a bigger and recurring trouble later,or the one who takes decisions that have long-term benefits???