What's new

Friedman: India and Asian nations befriending US to ‘contain’ China?

We are most profitable when we have good relation with china and usa.India is well aware of that and i dont think our policy makers dont form any sort of alliance with usa to contain china.

I believe india is playing its card well... so far so good.... you can not sustain your economic growth without having partnership with China and at the same time giving them a clear signal of assertion that time has changed in their southern border as well... neither you can deny US's technical supremacy... need to do a great balancing act... on which South Block is good at....typical love triangle:cheers::cheers:
 
. .
Well the reality is the western media or rather the goi have to turn the Obama simple direct trade mission into something rather meaningful to justfify to its own people and to make them look respectful ,Or else how they gonna explain spending another few billions of its citizen hard earned cash to buy absolute junks from the usa.
 
. .
And there is a large Chinese community in Canada as well where I lived for some years. In fact Chinese might be the third most spoken language in Canada, after English and French.

I thought it was Punjabi....;) :D
 
.
India didn't exist as a country until the British united it. Of course it would have clean hands.

you are are really mis informed about India...
we were actually united in around 300 AD.... britishers divided us...

when britishers left india we were group of princely states...

and re-unification process which was started after independence in 1947 went till 1960 with the integration of Goa and poducherry


you better see the vedio of CWG 2010 where it was clearly showes that the history of our last 5000 years
 
.
Correction mate!

Republic of India did not exist.

But yeah!,Brits did unit India in a way.

I know right? The Indian subcontinent politics and history is complicated with many many kingdoms and princely states. To say any one particular state represented an incarnation of modern India is a nationalistic stretch.
 
Last edited:
.
you are are really mis informed about India...
we were actually united in around 300 AD.... britishers divided us...

when britishers left india we were group of princely states...

and re-unification process which was started after independence in 1947 went till 1960 with the integration of Goa and poducherry

Can someone knowledgeable either confirm this or correct it? Sounds like a crock to me.
 
.
I know right? The Indian subcontinent politics and history is complicated with many many kingdoms and princely states. To say any one particular state represented an incarnation of modern India is a nationalistic stretch.

China is not remotely as diverse as India and yet countless kingdoms and dynasties ruled different part of China.

J6Gjn.gif


So, should we say China didn't exists before PRC came to power?

A chronological order of different kingdoms of India before Islamic conquest.

capturenp.jpg
 
Last edited:
.
China is not remotely as diverse as India and yet countless kingdoms and dynasties ruled different part of China.

J6Gjn.gif


So, should we say China didn't exists before PRC came to power?

Do you really want to do this? :)
 
. . .
A couple of brief points please feel free to ask for clarification if not everything is clear.

What you are seeing on that animated GIF is a bit misleading if you don't know the history behind the pictures. What it is trying show is the cycle of fragmentation and unification that China has undergone since its founding and how it has kept its cohesion and identity throughout. The periods where it shows many kingdoms in what is now called China proper shouldn't be understood as different country in the sense of Germany and France but rather fragmented Chinese states under Chinese or sometimes foreign rulers.

The origins of China and those founding dynasties are so old that they stretch back into pre-history (before writing), and their records was only passed as legend, the first that we know of being the period of "Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors" 3500 BC to 2000 BC. It is out of this fog of semi-mythology semi-recorded history that China emerges and the idea of China as a nation hasn't faded since. Whatever happens to China, civil war, foreign invasion, foreign rule, the idea of China always remains. Foreign invaders are absorbed and sinoified, Invasions are out lasted, civil war ends when one king is declared China's son of heaven.
 
. .
Grand Obama begging game
By: Arindam Chaudhuri Date: 2010-11-12 Place: Pune


Barack Obama came, he spoke and he conquered. At least that's what some of the biggest media houses would have you believe. Nothing could be more misleading for the Indian public. Here are the reasons why the trip had only of feel-good factor.

>> Obama had a clear-cut mandate. He took away business worth 10 billion dollars and 50,000 jobs. These 10 billion dollars could have been used in India to create 200 times more jobs, because for every American job we create in America, we can roughly create about 200 jobs in rural India.

>> He did speak of the need for Pakistan to bring 26/11 criminals to justice. However, he never spoke of access to Headley or the 2.2 billion dollars military aid to Pakistan. He only used cleverly worded stuff about Pakistan to gain brownie points in India without giving away anything.

>>He did not utter a word about China and its role in supporting Pakistan or its illegal occupation of Indian land. But a few months back, he spoke about the need for China to be the guardian of South Asia, including Kashmir.

>> It was nice of Obama to be so appreciative of Gandhi. But as Americans prepare for a war on Iran ” less for security issues and more to revive their economy, I doubt if Gandhi is what he really believes in.

>>The big Obama announcement is supposed to have been about his support to India for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. It might be noted that Bush has said what he said in the exact words before him and Clinton before that. It's a shame that as a nation, we get so excited by such lip service.

>> Indians were made to believe that we being a growing economic superpower, America needs Indian markets. Obama had come here less for Indian markets and more for the money that the Indian government plans to spend on dual-use technology, nuclear and military programmes etc. He wanted those deals.

>>Finally, outsourcing! Obama didn't say a word about diluting his anti-outsourcing stance. He lobbied for more access to Indian markets ” basically biotech, pharma, retail etc. And as Indians, we did not say a word about our lack of access to their agriculture products' market, where we could make huge gains.

In a nutshell, it can be concluded that just like American typical standards, Obama's current journey to India was a trip to get without giving; to talk about free markets while keeping their markets protected.

A wake up call for india
 
.
Back
Top Bottom