India begins uphill journey with Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

[yashchauhan]

I seriously think we should follow the role model of France.
The way they maintain their independent stance...its amazing...No other country except US or to a certain extent Russia can match them in this regard.

+1 france is the best country as a role model but not in the context of banning burqa.....they need a bit more secular lessons........and such policies cannot work in a diverse country like India.

 

[KS]

^^^^^

i din go into that topic mate...jus on the issue of neutrality...

every country does wat is good for its ppl...if the french think that banning burqa will do them good..so be it.
we should be no judges of them.

 

[r3alist]

+1 france is the best country as a role model but not in the context of banning burqa.....they need a bit more secular lessons........and such policies cannot work in a diverse country like India.

but france can afford to be independent because its in europe.

i believe that no nation in eurasia bar china/russia can afford to be neutral, its a whole different scenario

 

[KS]

but france can afford to be independent because its in europe.

i believe that no nation in eurasia bar china/russia can afford to be neutral, its a whole different scenario

ur wrong mate.....any country that is economically mighty can afford to be neutral.
pls dont tak im speaking out of vanity...but pls say if any country in the world has special relationship with Palestinians and supports them but also a very deep stratgic relationship with Israel.
Good buddies with USA nd Russia simultanoesly without offending them.

If india addressess some social problems nd develops its economy,then it has the potential to be there.

 

[ramu]

Lol, imagine Pakistan taking the Mujahideen for reconciliation to Moscow, everyone from Hekmatyar to Mullah Omar and Haqqani Network.

Putin and Medvedev will $hit in their pants and run away.

Do you even have a hint of what is Putin's background ?

Putin joined the KGB in 1975 upon graduation from university, and underwent a year's training at the 401st KGB school in Okhta, Leningrad. He then went on to work briefly in the Second Department (counter-intelligence) before he was transferred to the First Department, where among his duties was the monitoring of foreigners and consular officials in Leningrad, while using the cover of being a police officer with the CID.

 

[r3alist]

ur wrong mate.....any country that is economically mighty can afford to be neutral.
pls dont tak im speaking out of vanity...but pls say if any country in the world has special relationship with Palestinians and supports them but also a very deep stratgic relationship with Israel.
Good buddies with USA nd Russia simultanoesly without offending them.

If india addressess some social problems nd develops its economy,then it has the potential to be there.

yes true, but the game is changing and the pressure cooker is getting tighter.

already the signs are there

if india had its choice would it have voted against iran on the nuclear issue or stayed neutral - india chose to upset iran.

if india was thinking with its head would it not have already signed the IPI deal? i think probably so.

will india stay against iranian sanctions or will it change its mind - lets see, i think only will time will prove either of us wrong.



then theres the other question - are the US willing to accept a multi polar world which has a heavy presence in the east?


will the us really favor a truly independent india - if it does then it basically has no control over any major eastern power

condoleeza rice has stated that a multipolar world is a theory for revalry, just something to think about..

 

[KS]

yes true, but the game is changing and the pressure cooker is getting tighter.

already the signs are there

both true

if india had its choice would it have voted against iran on the nuclear issue or stayed neutral - india chose to upset iran.

at that time India was negotiating for the nuclear deal and it was a good move by India to vote against Iran so that Bush trusted India nd give them the nuclear deal wich ultimately came true.
see pro-iran or anti-iran doesnt mean much ..only Pro-India comes first.We wanted the deal so we used that Chance.Nothing wrong in that.

if india was thinking with its head would it not have already signed the IPI deal? i think probably so.

even in this issue India is thinking with its head.with the level of trust deficit running between India-Pak do u seriously expect the pipeline will not run into problems at the slightest hint of discomfort..? nd another thing that IPI is scheduled to run thru some of the most insurgency prone regions in PAK..Is it good for India.??..-NO-

will india stay against iranian sanctions or will it change its mind - lets see, i think only will time will prove either of us wrong.

this is the rigidity im speaking abt..u needn be either pro-iran or anti-iran.We should change according to situations.
we voted against Iran,but at the same time PM has said sanctions are not the solution only a dialogue is.That is diplomacy my friend.

then theres the other question - are the US willing to accept a multi polar world which has a heavy presence in the east?
will the us really favor a truly independent india - if it does then it basically has no control over any major eastern power

It is not for the US to decide for India..It is for us,1 billion Indians to decide. nd we have demonstrated that ample times.

condoleeza rice has stated that a multipolar world is a theory for revalry, just something to think about..

watever...

 

[aimarraul]

india will choice a side sooner or later,with it's expanding influence,india is no longer the country which can always gain advantage from both sides,france is also not that independent as it used to be,they are trying to get back to NATO.making a clear-cut voice will even help india playing a more importance rule in the international stage,no one really likes the grass on the top of a wall,it only works when you are irrelevant

 

[yashchauhan]

ur wrong mate.....any country that is economically mighty can afford to be neutral.
pls dont tak im speaking out of vanity...but pls say if any country in the world has special relationship with Palestinians and supports them but also a very deep stratgic relationship with Israel.
Good buddies with USA nd Russia simultanoesly without offending them.

If india addressess some social problems nd develops its economy,then it has the potential to be there.

you got it right mate...neutrality is the basis of becoming a superpower.....its called SMART DIPLOMACY!

 

[Abhiras]

the clase btw india & usa POV is that USA just want india to counter china....but india want friendly relation wih China....

 

[luffy]

I think we should go for SCO. For thausands of years we had the closest relations with the east asian civilizations be it china, japan or the empires in south east asia, this is where we were influential and culturally close. Only after the british invaded india did we look towards the west, and have been looking towards the west.

Unfortunately the west simply CANNOT be trusted. East is where our future is.
And you need allies near you to succeed. We can't do an Israel where it has enemies around and allies in west and America. Almost all the countries in south asia are against the america. We must do what is necessary to develop good relations with the countries near us which includes all neighbours, iran, china etc.

 

[Prometheus]

India should join SCO...........That will reduce our burden for defence .

 

[burn_fire]

yaar kuch bhii karo ....india ko kuch milne waala nahi hai SCO join karne se...

 

[Kinetic]

We should make a separate group with

India + Russia + Brazil + France + Iran

No need to carry baggage of china. As their bad reputation and works will effect us.

Thats a good idea. But countries like France have to work a lot. They are the only one have very good relation with Russia being inside NATO. They are the one talking against US hegemony in Europe and NATO.

All these countries have to work a lot. Actually to make such kind of bond you need a common enemy just like NATO had USSR. Who will be our common enemy?

 

[Kinetic]

Well sir i surely do not agree with you, but let me outline my view:

Firstly the so called west has been friendly with us for a short period (i.r bush presidency)

The west doesn't exclusively mean USA, yes during Bush regime US and India came closer but they also came closer to Pakistan as well tough it was completely different from Indo-US relation. It was natural way of two countries coming closer when they have common interests. It started way back in early nineties and just halted because of the nuke test but due to geo-political scenario they had to come closer resulting close ties. If Obama admin doesn't realize that its upto them but they will.

Broadly speaking the West was not against us as well! We were much closer to USSR and it was our own 'choice'. I am not going into details of whether we have gained or loosed from that 'choice'.

If u could see the winds of change blew strong when obama took up the presidency and our recent debacle at western afghan conference is the perfect manifestation of this.

Obama took some unwise decisions regarding India, Afghanistan and many others. Well, that may harm India's relation with US but did really US gain from that? Indo-US relation was not one way or one sided relationship, it meant to be beneficial fr both. If we loose something, they are also loosing something.

You have to note that India did not take anti-China stand though many thought it was the future implication of Indo-US relationship nor we put aside Russia or Iran.

A independent country never tries to keep its eggs in a single basket.

Thats what I mean. We should gain from everyone. Russia, US, Afghanistan, Europe, Japan, Africa, Latin America, Middle East, ASEAN, SAARC, BRIC, IBSA, BIMSTEC, G8+5, G-20, G-4, SCO, China, Tibet, even if possible from Pakistan as well. We should do 'business' with everyone.

Also regarding SCO out of the present members except china we have very good relationship with others. Also its high time we and china brought our differences down.

When you have one of your adversary in an org than it will not be best beneficial to you. This was one of the main reason India stayed away from SCO. I am not saying India has to be against China but India will not gain strategically. India looses both sides.

U can argue regarding technological advancements and our need of west, but u should remember that in russia we have a time tested friend. In other areas also we are moving ahead so its the right move to jump on this bandwagon.

I know that Russia is a time tested friend but there are many differences between Russia and USSR. I am not in favor of the west or US but I don't think it will be better for India to suddenly jump into SCO. My idea is, go as we did, keep good relations with all of them until our interests are not against one side, then join any one of them depending on appropriate scenario.