India India - US Relations

M

Maximilian Veers

Guest
If
"US needs India more than India needs US."

They are not going to
"This entire episode is a response of the US, to India refusing to play ball with them in the Russia-Ukraine war."

32 countries have abstained from voting in the UN. 6 have supported Russia. The sanctions have set a price limit on crude per barrel. India is abiding by that.

An indictment is not a hogwash. They are going to produce Gupta in court and he is going to confirm all that is in the report. We will find out then how idiotic RAW agents are.

There are multiple assassinations of anti India individuals going on in various parts of the world. This could only be possible from an Indian government agency.

You have admitted that Gupta is a drug dealer. The Gujarat police have checked and there is no file on him. The Americans are going to tell the Indian govertment exactly which police station has the file on him. They will get the information from Gupta. Then they are going to ask to interact with the DCP controlling that police station.

The Pacific islands may be one of the concessions we are having to make. Maybe not because of this case since the Fiji health cooperation predates this. Do we really want to be there. Those islands are almost halfway around the world and have nothing to do with our interests.

US needed complete sanctions on Russia and Russian energy, when that did not work out for obvious reasons, they decided to pull out the Price cap. It helped us as we bought the oil cheap and resold the same oil to European markets.

Again, Gupta is a drug dealer who will admit to anything, it is up to you if he is to be taken seriously. The Russian sanctions have failed BECAUSE India and China decided to outright ignore it. There is a reason the Global south is looking up to us.

The Pacific Islands is an entirely different ball game, the Chinese are heavily invested in that area. Countries like Fiji are already using Chinese funds to develop and upgrade Ports and shipyards. The Chinese are also heavily involved in Solomon Islands, to the point that the Islands police and security is probably shifting from Australia to China. The Chinese for years claimed they were only developing ports in Djibouti until within 1.5 years they ended up with a military port and infrastructure. India has FIPIC organization to deal with Pacific Island Nations, The US needs to work WITH India to counter/remove Chinese influence there. There is no way US will ask concessions from India when it comes to Pacific Islands. If Chinese succeeds in enslaving the Pacific Island nations there through Debt Trap, then Australia will be f**ked. The US needs the Indian economy and Industry to invest there to counter China.
 

KamBhakth

Active member
Messages
49
Reactions
46
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
US needed complete sanctions on Russia and Russian energy, when that did not work out for obvious reasons, they decided to pull out the Price cap. It helped us as we bought the oil cheap and resold the same oil to European markets.

Again, Gupta is a drug dealer who will admit to anything, it is up to you if he is to be taken seriously. The Russian sanctions have failed BECAUSE India and China decided to outright ignore it. There is a reason the Global south is looking up to us.

The Pacific Islands is an entirely different ball game, the Chinese are heavily invested in that area. Countries like Fiji are already using Chinese funds to develop and upgrade Ports and shipyards. The Chinese are also heavily involved in Solomon Islands, to the point that the Islands police and security is probably shifting from Australia to China. The Chinese for years claimed they were only developing ports in Djibouti until within 1.5 years they ended up with a military port and infrastructure. India has FIPIC organization to deal with Pacific Island Nations, The US needs to work WITH India to counter/remove Chinese influence there. There is no way US will ask concessions from India when it comes to Pacific Islands. If Chinese succeeds in enslaving the Pacific Island nations there through Debt Trap, then Australia will be f**ked. The US needs the Indian economy and Industry to invest there to counter China.

US needed complete sanctions on Russia and Russian energy, when that did not work out for obvious reasons, they decided to pull out the Price cap. It helped us as we bought the oil cheap and resold the same oil to European markets.

Again, Gupta is a drug dealer who will admit to anything, it is up to you if he is to be taken seriously. The Russian sanctions have failed BECAUSE India and China decided to outright ignore it. There is a reason the Global south is looking up to us.

The Pacific Islands is an entirely different ball game, the Chinese are heavily invested in that area. Countries like Fiji are already using Chinese funds to develop and upgrade Ports and shipyards. The Chinese are also heavily involved in Solomon Islands, to the point that the Islands police and security is probably shifting from Australia to China. The Chinese for years claimed they were only developing ports in Djibouti until within 1.5 years they ended up with a military port and infrastructure. India has FIPIC organization to deal with Pacific Island Nations, The US needs to work WITH India to counter/remove Chinese influence there. There is no way US will ask concessions from India when it comes to Pacific Islands. If Chinese succeeds in enslaving the Pacific Island nations there through Debt Trap, then Australia will be f**ked. The US needs the Indian economy and Industry to invest there to counter China.

Let us agree to disagree. Hopefully the court case is a damp squib and not a big bang.
 
M

Maximilian Veers

Guest
Let us agree to disagree. Hopefully the court case is a damp squib and not a big bang.

its up to the US, they can turn this into what ever it wants. If sanity prevails, this will die down. If not, they will ensure the damage between India-US relations will be close to permanent as long as BJP is in charge.

Personally, I think we should continue talking with Xi and Iron out the differences slowly. Let the Chini/Russia and NATO blow themselves to bits.
 

Jackdaws

Experienced member
Messages
2,757
Reactions
1 1,579
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
its up to the US, they can turn this into what ever it wants. If sanity prevails, this will die down. If not, they will ensure the damage between India-US relations will be close to permanent as long as BJP is in charge.

Personally, I think we should continue talking with Xi and Iron out the differences slowly. Let the Chini/Russia and NATO blow themselves to bits.
The US Govt generally gives a free hand to their prosecutors. Remember that desi guy who created the entire fiasco with Devyani and then she had to be given UN credentials and brought back home. Am sure Obama administration didn’t want it but they don’t generally interfere
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,197
Reactions
94 18,623
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
The US Govt generally gives a free hand to their prosecutors. Remember that desi guy who created the entire fiasco with Devyani and then she had to be given UN credentials and brought back home. Am sure Obama administration didn’t want it but they don’t generally interfere

The US does these things by the book given clear separation of powers between legislative, judiciary and executive in what you describe as the "US govt".

The executive branch (normally by way of state dept spokespeople) can comment on an ongoing case (regd foreign affair dimension intersection with them), but it will be measured succinct way given the task is clearly delineated for judicial branch to begin with (and later there might be extradition request that then the state dept will have to take up from its end, but only then).

i.e It wont reach the white house unless it really festers and boils over for some reason downroad involving what the executive is there for.

You can even read the court case document from SDNY court regarding this. Professional and by the book, no excessive language or conflation potentials.....something grossly lacking in Indian court system.

Canada also has much of the same process in place. Things would have happened regarding the Nijar assassination case similar way if say Harper (or a competent equivalent from liberal party) were in power now. But we have Trudeau instead who short circuited this in a really stupid way (assertions before legal case allowed to play out by the book with the evidence on hand, if any etc...getting ducks in line with those actually competent on the matter instead of frontloading to trumpet yourself in narcissist self absorbed way and damage relations for no reason).

Trudeau was advised on these matters (Canada's foreign service and justice dept are no joke) and didn't heed that advice. Shrug. Unfortunately he has done much of the same internally with Canadian provincial matters (poking his nose into it for "political brandishing" instead of delegating the proper process first for comms on this issue between federal and provincial govt). Its all blowing back on him, he has really plummeted in the polls, below 30% approval now. Thats way worse than Biden, as bad of job Biden has done on a number of things too (relative to how American people would prefer results on).
 

Jackdaws

Experienced member
Messages
2,757
Reactions
1 1,579
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
The US does these things by the book given clear separation of powers between legislative, judiciary and executive in what you describe as the "US govt".

The executive branch (normally by way of state dept spokespeople) can comment on an ongoing case (regd foreign affair dimension intersection with them), but it will be measured succinct way given the task is clearly delineated for judicial branch to begin with (and later there might be extradition request that then the state dept will have to take up from its end, but only then).

i.e It wont reach the white house unless it really festers and boils over for some reason downroad involving what the executive is there for.

You can even read the court case document from SDNY court regarding this. Professional and by the book, no excessive language or conflation potentials.....something grossly lacking in Indian court system.

Canada also has much of the same process in place. Things would have happened regarding the Nijar assassination case similar way if say Harper (or a competent equivalent from liberal party) were in power now. But we have Trudeau instead who short circuited this in a really stupid way (assertions before legal case allowed to play out by the book with the evidence on hand, if any etc...getting ducks in line with those actually competent on the matter instead of frontloading to trumpet yourself in narcissist self absorbed way and damage relations for no reason).

Trudeau was advised on these matters (Canada's foreign service and justice dept are no joke) and didn't heed that advice. Shrug. Unfortunately he has done much of the same internally with Canadian provincial matters (poking his nose into it for "political brandishing" instead of delegating the proper process first for comms on this issue between federal and provincial govt). Its all blowing back on him, he has really plummeted in the polls, below 30% approval now. Thats way worse than Biden, as bad of job Biden has done on a number of things too (relative to how American people would prefer results on).
The prosecutors are officers of the court but are Govt appointed, no?
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,197
Reactions
94 18,623
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
The prosecutors are officers of the court but are Govt appointed, no?

Indeed, they (US attorneys) are appointed by the president and remain part of the executive branch (the DOJ) given it is the executive branch that is tasked with enforcing the law (and thus immediately also concerned with matters that have breached the law).

However the federal court system themselves are the judicial branch (i.e how this prosecution matter is handled and resolved)...whichever level of it (district, circuit, supreme).

The state court system (for cases concerning state jurisdiction) is a different one though they do recognize the supreme court as the highest court of appeal for them too (when this concerns federal law but state jurisdiction). The individual state has its own highest court when only state law and state jurisdiction is concerned.

Back to the federal court system, the DOJ you can say are tasked with representing the executive branch in the judicial branch. But there needs to be resolving of the case under the judicial body appropriate for it before another organ of the executive branch may become relevant for any further law enforcement task stemming from results of the case.

The lever and discretion the president has upon this goes through the Attorney General (i.e directions, initiations, judicial policy as the president may elect to prioritise...all of which are ongoing debate if these means are excessive and a potential systematic flaw)....but all of this hits the checks and balances w.r.t the judicial branch being independent in the end.

Going to get @Saiyan0321 and @Joe Shearer to have a look over this if I got anything wrong (its not my field, though I am a big fan of a number of courtroom/legal series) or if they want to add their thoughts to anything on this developing topic too.
 

KamBhakth

Active member
Messages
49
Reactions
46
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
The prosecutors are officers of the court but are Govt appointed, no?

Prosecutors are mostly quite ambitious. Either politically or to move into private practice. In both cases, high profile cases with a good chance of winning is manna from heaven. This case has the capacity to give TVs some amount of TRP boost. Israel and Russia should prevent this from going too high and getting the America public from baying for our blood.

In case of Canada, Trudeau creates headlines once a week. So our case gets buried deep quite soon.
 

KamBhakth

Active member
Messages
49
Reactions
46
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Indeed, they (US attorneys) are appointed by the president and remain part of the executive branch (the DOJ) given it is the executive branch that is tasked with enforcing the law (and thus immediately also concerned with matters that have breached the law).

However the federal court system themselves are the judicial branch (i.e how this prosecution matter is handled and resolved)...whichever level of it (district, circuit, supreme).

The state court system (for cases concerning state jurisdiction) is a different one though they do recognize the supreme court as the highest court of appeal for them too (when this concerns federal law but state jurisdiction). The individual state has its own highest court when only state law and state jurisdiction is concerned.

Back to the federal court system, the DOJ you can say are tasked with representing the executive branch in the judicial branch. But there needs to be resolving of the case under the judicial body appropriate for it before another organ of the executive branch may become relevant for any further law enforcement task stemming from results of the case.

The lever and discretion the president has upon this goes through the Attorney General (i.e directions, initiations, judicial policy as the president may elect to prioritise...all of which are ongoing debate if these means are excessive and a potential systematic flaw)....but all of this hits the checks and balances w.r.t the judicial branch being independent in the end.

Going to get @Saiyan0321 and @Joe Shearer to have a look over this if I got anything wrong (its not my field, though I am a big fan of a number of courtroom/legal series) or if they want to add their thoughts to anything on this developing topic too.

Welcome to my thread. Khanbaba2 here.
 

Saiyan0321

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,209
Reactions
99 1,888
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Indeed, they (US attorneys) are appointed by the president and remain part of the executive branch (the DOJ) given it is the executive branch that is tasked with enforcing the law (and thus immediately also concerned with matters that have breached the law).

However the federal court system themselves are the judicial branch (i.e how this prosecution matter is handled and resolved)...whichever level of it (district, circuit, supreme).

The state court system (for cases concerning state jurisdiction) is a different one though they do recognize the supreme court as the highest court of appeal for them too (when this concerns federal law but state jurisdiction). The individual state has its own highest court when only state law and state jurisdiction is concerned.

Back to the federal court system, the DOJ you can say are tasked with representing the executive branch in the judicial branch. But there needs to be resolving of the case under the judicial body appropriate for it before another organ of the executive branch may become relevant for any further law enforcement task stemming from results of the case.

The lever and discretion the president has upon this goes through the Attorney General (i.e directions, initiations, judicial policy as the president may elect to prioritise...all of which are ongoing debate if these means are excessive and a potential systematic flaw)....but all of this hits the checks and balances w.r.t the judicial branch being independent in the end.

Going to get @Saiyan0321 and @Joe Shearer to have a look over this if I got anything wrong (its not my field, though I am a big fan of a number of courtroom/legal series) or if they want to add their thoughts to anything on this developing topic too.
yeah its all cool.

Basically prosecutors are one of the groups of lawyers that represent the state. In theory, every criminal act has two prosecuting parties. The first is the injured party and the other is the state. The injured party is the prosecuting authority because he is the victim and the state is the prosecuting authority because any crime committed is an attack against the state. Thus we have xyz vs sarkar in cases but here is the thing. Prosecutors represent the state in criminal cases but they cannot represent departments because they are part of the Public Prosecuting Department aka where you get the Assistant District Public Prosecutor or the Deputy district public prosecutor or the deputy prosecutor general and you can see there syllabus are also different where the former two have criminal law based subjects and english language in their examination, the latter has the additional constitutional law added in his syllabus. So they all represent the state where a criminal activity has taken place but what about other groups.

So the state is not aloof from the courts and courts have jurisdiction on the affairs of the state which means that there will be times where the state will have to face litigation against it that may not be of criminal nature or even of civil nature. That is where the trichotomy of power comes in. The make sure the executive is not an unanswerable authority, court has extraordinary jurisdiction over the affairs of the executive. Extraordinary is used here to state that the power is different from its ordinary jurisdiction. It is a special power that must be used responsibly because it pulls the chain of the balance within the trichotomy when one branch has to be judged by the other branch. To defend the executive and the parliament in these cases, such as policy decisions, legislative issues, land acquisition is a very common case and writs ofcourse, there the state needs to have a retained lawyer and that is where attorney generals come in and they dont function under the public prosecuting department but the law and parliamentary affairs department.
Then we have another group of lawyers called departmental lawyers. Now as i said that courts have jurisdiction on state affairs but you cant have an AAG or AG representing each and every department in pakistan. If somebody's electric meter has been wrongly removed, would an AAG go there to defend wapda? No. So for that we have the other group of lawyers called departmental lawyers. Their appointments are done by the executive under the Punjab Public Service Commission through the said department and they can only represent their department. For example if a department employee was unjust removed or ignored for seniority then that department lawyer will defend the department and that is all he can do.

Then we have the prosecutors not part of public prosecutors aka the prosecutors in military courts or in anti corruption court called nab prosecutors. specialized prosecutors. A NAB prosecutor will not appear before a district judge prosecuting 302. Thats just wont happen.


So hopefully this explanation along with nilgiris explanation helped shed some light to the question
 

Joe Shearer

Contributor
Moderator
Professional
Advisor
Messages
1,107
Reactions
21 1,922
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Indeed, they (US attorneys) are appointed by the president and remain part of the executive branch (the DOJ) given it is the executive branch that is tasked with enforcing the law (and thus immediately also concerned with matters that have breached the law).

However the federal court system themselves are the judicial branch (i.e how this prosecution matter is handled and resolved)...whichever level of it (district, circuit, supreme).

The state court system (for cases concerning state jurisdiction) is a different one though they do recognize the supreme court as the highest court of appeal for them too (when this concerns federal law but state jurisdiction). The individual state has its own highest court when only state law and state jurisdiction is concerned.

Back to the federal court system, the DOJ you can say are tasked with representing the executive branch in the judicial branch. But there needs to be resolving of the case under the judicial body appropriate for it before another organ of the executive branch may become relevant for any further law enforcement task stemming from results of the case.

The lever and discretion the president has upon this goes through the Attorney General (i.e directions, initiations, judicial policy as the president may elect to prioritise...all of which are ongoing debate if these means are excessive and a potential systematic flaw)....but all of this hits the checks and balances w.r.t the judicial branch being independent in the end.

Going to get @Saiyan0321 and @Joe Shearer to have a look over this if I got anything wrong (its not my field, though I am a big fan of a number of courtroom/legal series) or if they want to add their thoughts to anything on this developing topic too.
No, AFAIK, right on target.

The state may have its own prosecution apparatus - I am a little uncertain about this, as there are elected district attorneys who are not part of the federal department of justice.

So in effect, state laws and regulations have a parallel structure, with a prosecution service, part elected, part nominated, and a State Attorney General, who heads up the prosecutorial branch, but has no control over the State Supreme Court, that is the highest court within that state, but still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court when the laws of the state and the laws of the Union intersect.

For instance, on the question of abortion being permitted, each state may have its own legislation, but all of it is subject to the ruling of the United States Supreme Court on such matters; the recent overturning of Roe vs. Wade in the US Supreme Court reportedly impacted every state's legislative regime, some seizing the opportunity to make it more difficult to get an abortion, others staying with their prevalent regime without change. This, obviously, can have electoral repercussions, and did; most of the electorate gave the rejection of Roe vs. Wade a very poor rating, and the Republicans faced damaging losses.

Going back to the State system, and to the federal system, first, the system of law enforcement within the state, for the normal regulatory and legislative framework - what happens if you speed in a limited speed zone, what happens if there is a burglary, or an armed robbery, or an assault or battery. This is administered by a chain of independent police departments, in some states part of the county (Indian district) system, in some states devolved even further down, with an elected or appointed chief of police, and his/her own police force, replete with officers, sergeants, lieutenants and captains, and in some larger and worse crime-afflicted towns, even a SWAT team. They issue indictments, called 'tickets', on the spot, generally for misdemeanours, minor breaches of the law, or felonies, more serious; whether they involve physical detention or not is generally dependent on the judgement of the Law Enforcement Officer on the spot, his/her direct supervisors and the laws of the state, interpreted by the individual police department through standing instructions and written or verbal standard procedures.

Some states continue to maintain a Sheriff's Department at county level, that differs in power from state to state. In the most devolved, the Sheriff only ensures service of court documents; in others, it is a full-fledged police force of its own, co-existing with town police departments, and with Highway Patrols if these exist.

The federal system of prosecution that @Nilgiri outlined has its own 'muscle', a set of law enforcement departments that supervise the entire nation to detect specific breaches of Union law, and arraign those investigated and apparently guilty of breaches, at which point the Department of Justice comes into the picture.
 

Hari Sud

Active member
Messages
41
Reactions
1 22
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Diplomatic Maneuvers Unfolding Between US and India

Diplomatic tensions between the US and India have become increasingly apparent, as evidenced by Prime Minister Modi's recent interview to a British Newspaper, expressing displeasure with U.S. actions. While stopping short of admitting guilt, Modi acknowledged the necessity of a domestic investigation into U.S.-levied charges, subtly conveying dissatisfaction by highlighting perceived allowances for anti-Indian elements in the U.S. and Canada.

To underscore India's strategic independence, Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar is visiting Moscow for a broad dialogue on global power dynamics and regional conflicts, serving as a reminder to the U.S. of India's other diplomatic options.

The U.S.'s recent emphasis on an alleged plot involving an Indian resident in the Czech Republic added strain, despite the lack of substantial evidence. Additionally, extending honors to the Pakistani military chief heightened tensions, suggesting displeasure with India's reliance on Russian oil. Simultaneously, warming relations with Pakistan signaled potential consequences for India's neutrality in the Ukraine conflict.

Consequently, the fallout included the White House declining President Biden's invitation to visit India, potential congressional restrictions on MQ-9 Drone exports, and reconsideration of GE engine technology exports for Indian production. Notably, US is upgrading its relationship with Pakistan irrespective of historical betrayals.

In response, India strategically positioned itself by dispatching its Foreign Minister to Moscow and inviting French President Macron to its 26th January celebrations, subtly shifting focus from the U.S.'s Pacific policy. This move aimed to underscore India's diplomatic flexibility and signal to the U.S. that alternatives exist.

As these diplomatic maneuvers unfold, it is anticipated that the U.S. will recognize India's strategic autonomy and understand that India is not limited in its global diplomatic options. The ongoing developments highlight a complex interplay of geopolitical factors shaping the relationship between these two nations.
 

Hari Sud

Active member
Messages
41
Reactions
1 22
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Who will win elections in US and Canada

In both the United States and Canada, political landscapes are undergoing significant shifts, raising questions about the future leadership of the two nations. In the U.S., President Biden is facing a decline in popularity, partly due to the prolonged conflict in Ukraine and a perceived lack of success. Similar challenges confront Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, with pressing issues like inflation, law and order, and immigration eroding support for his minority government.

The complexity of their situations is exacerbated by perceived self-assurance and extravagant expenditures, leading to backlash from the electorate. While it is premature to definitively predict successors, indications point to the possibility of a comeback by former President Donald Trump, whose popularity has risen despite legal challenges. A recent setback in Colorado, declaring Trump ineligible based on the Constitution's insurrection clause, is under appeal with expectations of a reversal.

Comparing the potential leaders, Trump's presidency saw the conclusion of the Afghanistan conflict and stricter controls on Chinese imports but faced turnover challenges. Biden, on the other hand, withdrew from Afghanistan swiftly but faced criticism for the handling of the conflict in Ukraine and perceived competence issues. In Canada, Trudeau's extended tenure is a concern, and the opposition Conservative Party is gaining momentum, suggesting a potential victory in the upcoming elections.

In summary, both the U.S. and Canada may experience leadership changes, with uncertainties about who would be more effective in addressing the challenges each nation faces.
 

Hari Sud

Active member
Messages
41
Reactions
1 22
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Navigating the Risks in US-India Relations: A Call for Prudent Diplomacy

In the current landscape of US-India relations, the recent Pannu affair threatens to disturb the delicate balance between the democratic values cherished by India's 1.4 billion people and the democratic ideals advocated by America's 300 million affluent citizens. Speculation surrounds the involvement of certain elements within the U.S. State Department, along with anti-Indian Democrats and political pundits linked to think tanks and lobby groups, in undermining the previously robust and amicable ties between the two nations.

The potential consequences of this deterioration are manifold, with both India and the U.S. facing significant risks.

Dangers to India:

Military Agreements and Negotiations: Anticipate disruptions to existing military agreements and ongoing negotiation processes.

Economic Constraints: Be vigilant for potential economic constraints from the United States, including a possible slowdown in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and other economic considerations.

Misinformation Campaigns: Prepare for a wave of misinformation targeting India's religious freedom, particularly concerning Christian conversion, with claims emphasizing alleged restrictions and the suspension of financial incentives.

Focus on Pakistan's Narrative: Expect increased focus on the Pakistani narrative surrounding human rights violations in Kashmir and other regions.

Shift in Alliances: Anticipate a shift in U.S. alliances towards Pakistan, including potential military aid.

Officials within the U.S. State Department, often at the level of Assistant Secretary, may actively seek and amplify such issues as part of their critique of countries they wish to scrutinize.

Concerns for the U.S.:

Strategic Partnership: India plays a crucial role in U.S. Pacific policy, and its strategic partnership is vital for maintaining American influence in the Pacific. Without India, there is an increased risk of China pressuring the U.S. out of the Pacific.

Indian Ocean Stability: India's active presence in the Indian Ocean is essential for addressing local issues and conflicts in the region. Without India, the U.S. would find it challenging to contribute effectively.

Nuanced U.S.-Russia Relations: India's nuanced approach to U.S.-Russia relations serves as a central axis, providing stability amid escalating tensions triggered by the Ukraine conflict.

Role of Indian Technologists: Indian technologists are integral to U.S. systems development and modernization, and without them, the U.S. would struggle to access a highly qualified manpower pool.

Alternative Manufacturing Base: India serves as a potential alternative manufacturing base to China, offering the U.S. a viable option for maintaining a stable and diversified source for essential products.

In light of these potential ramifications, there is a call for prudence and diplomatic intervention to diffuse tensions and restore the equilibrium in U.S.-India relations.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
3,785
Reactions
62 6,706
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
In India-USA relation, both party need each other for their strategic interests.
However, in this relationship dynamic USA holds the leverage. It was unwise of current government to attempt political assassination on US soil. Specially, when India and USA just started to make meaningful progress in defence cooperation.
 

Hari Sud

Active member
Messages
41
Reactions
1 22
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
In India-USA relation, both party need each other for their strategic interests.
However, in this relationship dynamic USA holds the leverage. It was unwise of current government to attempt political assassination on US soil. Specially, when India and USA just started to make meaningful progress in defence cooperation.

‘Good point; except it was unwise for US to offer space for anti-Indian terrorists to operate freely in U.S. The said terrorist was plotting to blow up commercial planes, kill diplomats and others. Bringing the subject up to U.S. government notice was of no avail. hence before he kills anybody, he is to be eliminated. Lucky, that it only a plot. No harm done. To me it appears to be US government plot to pressure India not to buy cheap Russian oil.
 

KamBhakth

Active member
Messages
49
Reactions
46
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
‘Good point; except it was unwise for US to offer space for anti-Indian terrorists to operate freely in U.S. The said terrorist was plotting to blow up commercial planes, kill diplomats and others. Bringing the subject up to U.S. government notice was of no avail. hence before he kills anybody, he is to be eliminated. Lucky, that it only a plot. No harm done. To me it appears to be US government plot to pressure India not to buy cheap Russian oil.

The US judicial system is quite independent and cannot usually be used by the US government to forward their foreign relation policies. They may try to use it only in really important cases, and this is really not an important case for the US.

We should perhaps have tried to get him declared a global terrorist. That would have been an embarrassment to the US government. Information about his doings could have been leaked. It would have shown the US that we really cared about giving him what is due to him.

The US has actually been on a terrorist killing spree for the past few decades. With 'collateral damage'. So they cannot really behave like they are holier than thou.
 

Hari Sud

Active member
Messages
41
Reactions
1 22
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
The politics behind US/Canada's actions against India.

India has done nothing to upset either the US or Canada except that both countries have decided to find excuses to fight with India. Two main reasons are India's purchase of cheap oil from Russia, and India's neutrality in the Ukraine war. They have been urging India to give up on both of these issues. But for India's own interest, India refused to comply. Excuse(s) have to be found to punish India. These excuses were manufactured to get India’s attention.

Canada, without any basis, accused India of assassinating a Khalistani terrorist who was enjoying Canadian hospitality. In the United States, no crime has been committed on its soil. It is alleged that India was the principal in organizing an assassination attempt on another Khalistani terrorist through a Czech resident. The said terrorist was organizing murder of Indian diplomats and blowing up of an Indian commercial plane; reminiscent of 1984 bombing Air India flight over the North Atlantic.

Both these charges are flimsy but good to mount an anti - Indian campaign.

Unable to take these charges lying down, India sent its Foreign Minister to Russia, not to support them, but to let US/Canada and the rest of the West know that India has alternatives.

Both US and Canadian politicians face an uphill battle getting re-elected in 2024; whereas the Indian Prime Minister will have an easier time winning with more than two thirds of the vote. The future relationship will be determined by those results.

Right now, these relationships are at the lowest point in last 40 years. Initiative for ending this unhappy status lies with the US.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
3,785
Reactions
62 6,706
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Your theory seems far fetched. US and Canada are not third world counties that do false flag. They may use existing crisis to their advantage but that does not mean they outright manufacture crisis.
 

KamBhakth

Active member
Messages
49
Reactions
46
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
The politics behind US/Canada's actions against India.

India has done nothing to upset either the US or Canada except that both countries have decided to find excuses to fight with India. Two main reasons are India's purchase of cheap oil from Russia, and India's neutrality in the Ukraine war. They have been urging India to give up on both of these issues. But for India's own interest, India refused to comply. Excuse(s) have to be found to punish India. These excuses were manufactured to get India’s attention.

Canada, without any basis, accused India of assassinating a Khalistani terrorist who was enjoying Canadian hospitality. In the United States, no crime has been committed on its soil. It is alleged that India was the principal in organizing an assassination attempt on another Khalistani terrorist through a Czech resident. The said terrorist was organizing murder of Indian diplomats and blowing up of an Indian commercial plane; reminiscent of 1984 bombing Air India flight over the North Atlantic.

Both these charges are flimsy but good to mount an anti - Indian campaign.

Unable to take these charges lying down, India sent its Foreign Minister to Russia, not to support them, but to let US/Canada and the rest of the West know that India has alternatives.

Both US and Canadian politicians face an uphill battle getting re-elected in 2024; whereas the Indian Prime Minister will have an easier time winning with more than two thirds of the vote. The future relationship will be determined by those results.

Right now, these relationships are at the lowest point in last 40 years. Initiative for ending this unhappy status lies with the US.
The US does not use it's judiciary for punitive measures against other countries. It uses sanctions.

It is clear to all that elements in the Indian government are on an assassination spree against enemies of the state. The US has for decades made it clear that if anyone kills is citizen, there will be repurcussios.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom