Last December, UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab travelled to meet Prime Minister Modi and External Affairs Minister Jaishankar in New Delhi to make progress towards agreeing a landmark UK-India roadmap for greater joint cooperation, including on defence and security, trade, health and climate change.The UK and India are natural defence partners, particularly in world class research, development and training. The Carrier Strike Group’s collaboration with India will build the foundations for this relationship to flourish even further.
The deployment is a symbol of Global Britain in action, and powerfully demonstrates our commitment to India, the Indo-Pacific region, and confronting threats to international order.
3) It states the UK stands by India diplomatically and considers the instability in Kashmir as Pakistan-made. This signals Pakistan to stop instigating terror in Kashmir as India needs to concentrate on the other front.Srinagar, Oct 28: Chief of British Army General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith on Thursday visited Srinagar-based Chinar Corps of the Indian Army.
View attachment 34683
"General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, Chief of the General Staff, #BritishArmy visited #ChinarCorps and interacted with Lieutenant General DP Pandey, GOC #ChinarCorps and local commanders," the Army said on its official Twitter handle.
There were no details provided about the visit of the British Army Chief to Kashmir.
View attachment 34684
General Carleton-Smith is on a four-day visit to India. On Tuesday, he held talks with Army Chief General M M Naravane in Delhi with a focus on enhancing bilateral cooperation between the two armies.
British Army chief visits Chinar Corps in Srinagar - Greater Kashmir
Srinagar, Oct 28: Chief of British Army General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith on Thursday visited Srinagar-based Chinar Corps of the Indian Army. General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith,…www.greaterkashmir.com
++++
COMMENTS:
Far as I know, this is the first visit (in recent memory anyway) of a high-ranking foreign military official to the 'disputed' region. I won't read too much into the implications, but prominent analyst Prasun K. Sengupta has this to say:
"It can mean 2 things:
1) Whereas previously, only military attaches were allowed by the Govt of India to visit J&K, the allowing of a high-ranking military official to make an official visit indicates that the UK has at last discarded its earlier stance about J&K being a disputed territory & is now actively supporting India’s PoV about J&K being an integral part of India.
2) It can also be seen as a firm signaling by the UK to its PoK-orgin & Pakistan-origin citizens to fall in-line & stop indulging in unlawful acts like stabbing UK MPs & harassing Indian diplomats at the Indian High Commission in London. Lastly, it is also possible that just like the US Special Operations Command, the British Army wants to learn from the IA on the intricacies of high-altitude mountain warfare—something that should come in handy when operating in the northern portions of Afghanistan."
@Nilgiri @Paro @Zapper
Care to elaborate why exactly are we reluctant in this regard?4) This could also be asking India to increase its engagement in Quad from a military perspective which India is reluctant to do.
Care to elaborate why exactly are we reluctant in this regard?
Care to elaborate why exactly are we reluctant in this regard?
As a High Tory (an old English political ideology from the 1600's) I am totally and in all cases opposed to free trade or the lowering of barriers to trade between nations.
However given this is British geo-political strategic to replace EU trade with other nations trade in faster growing area's of the world, why wasn't this the first nation England sort trade agreement with? We have tried to get one with the US, but they want to basically steal our entire economy and bring it back to the US for access to part of their market. The trade agreements with Canada/Australia/New Zealand will be used to flood Britain with things we already produce here and out compete the local British economy, because the British state will be banned from protecting our economy by these agreements, in the same way as the EU. Oh and we are limited trade with Ulster, while create free trade with everybody else.
I would much rather have no external trade agreements, and simply remove limits on trade within the UK, in terms of regulations and businesses, so it is easier for people to create and run companies and work for them. Better, simpler contract laws in Britain and the removal of all the anti-discrimination laws in Britain, which limit free of association.
Totally agree with this and I am trying to fix it. But it requires removing the EU and USA from Britain, totally rebuilding the British armed forces and restoring the English ruling class to power. The Ruling class in Britain hasn't done anything in the interests of the British people since the Napoleonic wars. Trade agreements never help anyone, on a case by case, business basis it can work. Like Sweden has wood, Britain needs wood and we give them sand from the Scottish seabed to build their buildings. But in terms of industry and sector wide trade agreements, they are terrible for Britain and always have been.Boils down to knowing what you are good at and is it worth exchanging stuff for what others are good at.
UK has long been a sea power and trading nation across those seas (marred unfortunately by the colonialism as well).
It ought to have leadership class that is proficient in analysing and negotiating in good faith and best interest of its people (with regards to enriching by voluntary trade with others)
If British leadership class is not good at that, that needs the British people to fix that.