Well, I think that a lot of Indian in this forum like to compare to others. For example, Indian in ths thread is comparing Indian arm forces to Pakistani one. Why tell the Pakistani that India has a bigger arm force or a superior arm force? Is this kind of comparason even necessary? If someone ask me to describe how their military is #### better than the US military, I would just ignore as comparasons are generally useless. Unless if the two country is about to engage in a war and the forces are about even. Would you say the Indian force is about as even as Pakistani force?
US generally has shown deeds that leaves too much for suspicion about its interests with India. An alliance of US, as you see has to go through sour spots like current President Obama which seems to be pushing the clock back.
Do you think Mr. Singh went to Russia to get another nuclear deal for no reason or was it some of sign of "increased co-operation" with US. I am assuming President Obama is not too happy with 1-2-3 deal terms. Time and time again this is proved. In early part of Indian history after independence, India spent far less on defence just about 1.5% of GDP and used the resources for development. The result was 1962 war with China - another country with no resources but a huge army that fed on back of communist propogonda. India lost this war and hence "Asin Chin" region is with China. President Kennedy started supporting India at that time. Then just 3 years later, Pakistan attacked India apparently for no good reason. US discontinued military supplies to India. India was facing Pakistan with far more advanced weapons that was supplied to it by US until 1965.
In 1971, India was able to winddown Pakistan to substantial degree. US President's covert operation of sending US aircraft to India's Bay of Bengal was a direct threat to India. They also supplied weapons to Pakistan during the war covertly through Syria and Egypt.
Later during US's Afghanistan gave birth to Taliban and its related Islamocrazy factions which is fueling India's Kashmir terror with Pakistan's "moral" support.
When you see a pattern of on-again off-again relationship along with strong support to Pakistan and China that causes India to spend larger percentage of GDP (2.5% - eventhough that is less than our neighbors) on military, you got to admit it installs lot of trust deficit.
Indians started slowly trusting US in late 90's with President Clinton followed by dramatic help from President Bush. President Bush gets more than 50% ratings in India even though in his home country he can hardly get 20%. President Obama seems to working his way and winding down the relationship. This has become classy in itself.
Regarding your comment on Pakistan, it is apparent to most Pakistanis - I am talking about the sensibles ones that India-Pakistan parity is tilted far in India's favor as far as conventional power is concerned. But that was not always the case. US gave Pakistan F16's during 1980's whereas India had cheaper Mig21. India used numbers to counter that threat. Pakistan's support of terrorists was not met with force but rather India is fighting the war with bomb explosion all over Kashmir for 2-3 decades. If Pakistan had no support from US, India would have decided the matter long back and India would not be bleeding all these years. Thankfully with sanctions on Pakistan from 1990's by US and no more weapons and money to its armed forces and India's leap into higher growth, Pakistan is left behind - far far behind. That is the only reason Pakistan is spending more on nuclear weapons and missile because that is only defence it sees it can do to counter India's threat. India is also not attacking only because of it and hence prefusely bleeding through terror. I personally feel this matter has to be dealt with once India's grows overwhelming stronger - ie can stop China from attacking India when Pakistan's moral support can be eliminated through force.
India's GDP was growing at 2-3% GDP whereas its population was growing at 1.8% roughly from time of independence till 1991. After 1991 liberalization process, India started averaging about 6% growth rates , with growth rates as high as 9% three years prior to the start of this recession. There was another economic thesis that is getting widely popular in economic circles. Optimists persume that India can grow upto 15% if it can create SDZs like the ones in China because India's growth basically so far had been more or less domestically driven with increasing share of IT exports. With SDZs, India can compete like China using the export-based model as well. Indian govt had started the process but thanks to democratic way of governance it takes time to show results.
Anyways, the summary is that India is growing to become second largest economy according to Goldman's research. Many other research papers like Pricewater and Deusche puts India third largest economy by 2050 and still growing at 6%.
You seem to claim why shouldn't India join US camp? I think India has done well without joining any camp, why should India join any camp. What benefits can it get? Giving its sovernity to be with increasing whimps of respective US Presidents who will short change India's interests for its own benefits. Thanks but no thanks!
Anyways looks like more INDIANS watch his programs then PAKISTANIS LOL
