Agent_47
FULL MEMBER
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/Captain.jpg)
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,757
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Exactly, that was till 60. Every good deed you have done has fully reversed by your wrong choices.I think you have perhaps forgotten that starting from '47 till early 60's India ate because US send shiploads of grains, India's food security was developed in large part due to US assistance, Many marquee Indian institutions had US hand-holders, Our military aid dented Chinese aggression when India was literally at it's back.
So on March 25, 1971, the Pakistani Army launched a devastating crackdown on the rebellious Bengalis in the east. Midway through the bloodshed, both the C.I.A. and the State Department conservatively estimated that about 200,000 people had died (the Bangladeshi government figure is much higher, at three million). As many as 10 million Bengali refugees fled across the border into India, where they died in droves in wretched refugee camps.
As recently declassified documents and White House tapes show, Nixon and Kissinger stood stoutly behind Pakistan’s generals, supporting the murderous regime at many of the most crucial moments. This largely overlooked horror ranks among the darkest chapters in the entire cold war.
Of course, no country, not even the United States, can prevent massacres everywhere in the world — but this was a close American ally, which prized its warm relationship with the United States and used American weapons and military supplies against its own people.
After all this India chose to go with Soviet Union and that was that. Despite the hostilities, aid from US kept flowing, Indian citizens kept getting Visas to US to get higher education and jobs. Once USSR fell, US again played a major role in India's resurgence through it's IT industry.
By 70's pakistan was your close ally. We were only 'pro-Soviet leaning' because of our desperation. Remember Nehru started the non-aligned movement.
Nixon and Kissinger were not just motivated by dispassionate realpolitik, weighing Pakistan’s help with the secret opening to China or India’s pro-Soviet leanings. The White House tapes capture their emotional rage, going far beyond Nixon’s habitual vulgarity. In the Oval Office, Nixon told Kissinger that the Indians needed “a mass famine.” Kissinger sneered at people who “bleed” for “the dying Bengalis.”
It will be up to Bangladeshis to fix their country’s rancorous politics, but their task was made harder from the outset by Nixon and Kissinger’s callousness. The legacy of 1971 still stains the reputation of the United States in India as well. If an apology from Kissinger is too much to expect, Americans ought at least to remember what he and Nixon did in those terrible days.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opinion/nixon-and-kissingers-forgotten-shame.html
So you see, US response has solely been guided by choices India has made notwithstanding humanitarian assistance. Dependability is a two way street, you can't dip your pecker in every empty snatch like India has been doing and expect faithfulness and dependability.
Wrong again, Kissinger chose pakistan when we were nonaligned. Indria was even called "old witch" by nixon.
"The Indians are bastards," Mr Kissinger said shortly before the India-Pakistan war of 1971, it was revealed this week.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4640773.stm"The Indians are bastards anyway," says Mr Kissinger. "They are starting a war there."
'But Pakistan's slaughter of its Bengalis in 1971 is starkly different. Here the United States was allied with the killers. The White House was actively and knowingly supporting a murderous regime at many of the most crucial moments.'
'There was no question about whether the United States should intervene; it was already intervening on behalf of a military dictatorship decimating its own people.'
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/s...singer-hated-india-indira-gandhi/20131216.htm
These blood stains are hard to disappear. No humanitarian assistance can change the facts. US like to project itself as a good guy figure but in truth you are reason for most the killings after world war. Unless US see India as equals there will be no partnership.
As for US needing India and not the other way around you are sorely mistaken. US is continents apart secure in it's bastion while India has a hungry dragon on it's back gate and a marauders on it's front.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2009/02/india-cohenHowever, India views the burgeoning relationship very differently. Any cooperation with the United States would have to be framed as a partnership of equals, conducted to satisfy immediate Indian security concerns, and designed to involve a transfer of American technology to India that would ultimately abet India’s defence-industrial self-reliance.
The Bush administration learned, sometimes after several missteps, that it would have to temper its expectations accordingly. Enthusiastic rhetoric concerning the “natural alliance” between the two countries—building upon Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee’s use of the term—gave way gradually to more sober and grounded talk of a mutually beneficial “partnership.” This was not merely a minor semantic adjustment, but rather, a conscious realisation that India’s democracy, its size and its sensitivity to its sovereignty inhibit the kind of relationship that the United States has been used to with other friendly countries.
As for China, there isn't a single short fired in last 3-4 decades. They are the largest trading partner. We know how to protect our borders as we have done in past. In 60's you send some arms because you hate communism not because you love us. Immigration was only beneficial to US if it hasn't done bad to us.
By 2005, even Kissinger regretted his words because he never thought India would rise.
"The US recognises that India is a global power, that is a strategic partner of the US on the big issues," Mr Kissinger said.