India - France relations.

I actually advocate for downgrading of relations with France. Have some decency, how can a post-colonial Indian State have good relations with a neo-colonial France? If you have US locked in a strategic partnership, why even bother with such a middle power(FR)? France was always the go-to because India-US relations were bad, now that India-US relations are good, whats the utility of France?
It's not as Black and White as you would like to believe. Yes, France still has some level of control in Africa. They still have Foriegn Legion troops deployed in Mali and even French Polynesia which is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean! Remember that even in the post-colonial world, former colonial powers still hold strategic territories and like to expand their global military influence through this avenue. India and China are both seeking to do the same thing, key difference being that neither have the advantage of being a colonial power with decades of control over far-flung territories.
 

Even Meloni called it out:
book.jpg

:cool:

Scholar narrates how Indians controlled Uganda's economy​

Sunday May 29 2022​

 
Exactly! Transfer of Vikas engine wouldn't have been possible without French govt. approval. And this was cutting edge technology at the time. France will sell us their current tech like the Rafale whereas US govt. wants to pawn off ageing platforms like F18s and F16/21s which are on the verge of being retired from their own arsenal. Hypothetically if the Americans were to agree to sell F35s today, then we could say maybe our co-operation with them is on the same level as with France.
While Vikas tech transfer by the French was by no means perfect and needed work by our scientists to work flawlessly. Yet, it did provide us the blueprint for sophisticated rocket tech.

As for US fighters? We won't buy even if they offer F-22 Raptor. Why? Because we want to fight our wars our way and not by their dictate. Period.

It's really unfortunate that some Indians fail to see this and keep shilling for US fighters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D68
While Vikas tech transfer by the French was by no means perfect and needed work by our scientists to work flawlessly. Yet, it did provide us the blueprint for sophisticated rocket tech.

As for US fighters? We won't buy even if they offer F-22 Raptor. Why? Because we want to fight our wars our way and not by their dictate. Period.

It's really unfortunate that some Indians fail to see this and keep shilling for US fighters.
I'm not shilling for US fighters mate. You will see I have always supported Rafales for IN and am relieved the SH was never really a contender. Rather, I'm not feeling too confident with the pace at which our own fighter programs are progessing. Just hoping we don't reach an impasse where our forces end up wanting to order some F35s as a stop-gap measure in the future.

As for the Vikas engine, I'm not sure how well it stacks up with current LPEs from SpaceX etc. so I will refrain from commenting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
I don't think you understand, this makes you look worse.

What's the 'Karachi affair'?​

Investigations into the so-called "Karachi affair" began after 11 French engineers were killed in a Karachi bombing in 2002.
Pakistani authorities blamed Islamist militants, but there were suspicions that the car bombing, which wrecked a bus, was an act of revenge after then-French President Jacques Chirac ordered the payments of secret arms deal commissions to stop.
Mr Balladur is alleged to have earlier approved payment of the commissions to intermediaries in the sale of three submarines to Pakistan, and that from them so-called "retro-commissions" came back to France to fund his 1995 presidential bid.
The kickbacks are estimated to have cost 13m francs, or almost €2m.
Mr Sarkozy has faced legal scrutiny over the Karachi affair. He has denied any connection to the deal.

A lawyer representing the victims of the deadly Karachi bombing praised the French court's decision on Monday.
Olivier Morice said that "if the families had not lodged a complaint, there would not have been this judgment", adding that families were now waiting for the trial of Mr Balladur and Mr Léotard.
Mr Balladur was the French prime minister from 1993 to 1995. Both he and Mr Léotard were charged in May 2017 with "complicity in misuse of corporate assets and concealment" over the Pakistan deal.




The gravy train of bribery stopped which led to pakistan blowing up 11 french technicians. Otherwise, France had no problems selling pakistan military equipment. So, India-France partnership just a mercantile relationship. Now the use of this relationship is nose-diving as India-US relations are soaring new heights. India should be pragmatic and dump this careful balancing act.

US-India trade: 118 billion

View attachment 29108View attachment 29109


Can you find France in that list? No? So France is not even the 25th largest trade partner for India? Italy,UK,Germany have more trade with india.
So what is India-France trade?

View attachment 29110
source:

Paltry 12 billion euros - as i said hollow relationship like russia, to be thrown under the bus now as India-US relationship have improved. US is the actual global power here that can offer "the deal of the century" as it did to China once (after sino-soviet split). Anyone who says otherwise is a sentimental fool who doesn't wishes india to rise. We should take that deal and industrialise like china did. Rest is noise. If that requires buying american jets then so be it. Cold blooded pragmatism like china is what we need right now.

France (like Russia) is just a tool to be used and thrown.

If we want to come even close to this⬇️ reality, we need to whole-heartedly embrace US like China did once. Sentimentality has no place here.
View attachment 29111

Strategic interests are not based on trade. Or China and the US would be best friends. Business interests are sometimes sacrificed for political interests, with the best example being Europe abandoning Russia over Ukraine. Two enemies can still be very large trade partners.

Our main defence strategic partners today are ranked Russia, France and Israel, with the US coming in at a distant fourth. I think you should check the pre-war trade numbers from these countries. France could take first place depending on how things go with Russia over the decade. At the very least they will be tied 'cause of the AMCA engine deal.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Finland's acquisition of F-35 silenced all the Rafale fanboys anyway.

Too bad the Rafale was kicked out before the tech round 'cause of its higher price. Only the Gripen competed with the F-35 in the tender.

I actually advocate for downgrading of relations with France. Have some decency, how can a post-colonial Indian State have good relations with a neo-colonial France? If you have US locked in a strategic partnership, why even bother with such a middle power(FR)? France was always the go-to because India-US relations were bad, now that India-US relations are good, whats the utility of France?

Nah, we good.

France and India have a lot of mutual interests today which will carry into the future.

I bet 5 years from India will anyway procure F-35, since it would be the only navy in QUAD not having F-35. All other common equipment will work in tandem like P-8s, Sea Guardians, MH-60 but Rafales will stick out like a sore thumb. The whole point of QUAD was inter-operability and joint ops with their navies.

The procurement of F-35, if done, will be separate from MRFA and MRCBF. Although I'd prefer the NGAD or Su-57/PAK DP.
 
book.jpg

:cool:

Scholar narrates how Indians controlled Uganda's economy​

Sunday May 29 2022​


Lol, no facts there. Indians owned 90% of businesses and paid 90% of the taxes and were the largest employers. Nevertheless, while Indians were just 1% of the population, their contribution to the GDP was 20% and continuted significantly to indirect taxes too. The economy basically collapsed after the explusion.

Idi Amin only needed his version of the German Jews.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Amarante
I am pretty sure anyone who has read any history of india - france relations would know that this is just a mercantile partnership. This partnership is to be thrown under the bus at a convinient time. Political chamchas may praise or dance on twitter, but thats just politics. No one takes them seriously. I just read somewhere that French used to spy on indian PMO and pass off intel to the americans as americans didn't have direct/good enough relations with India. That just shows you the reality of Indo-French relationship. India just buys military hardware and France sells it. Thats pretty much the extent of this give and take relationship. On top of that Macron goes out of his way to court China, which is India's geopolitical enemy, but nobody in india cares. That should show you that Indian establishment doesn't have any ideological coherence with France cause if Biden courted Xi, alarm bells would be ringing in south block.
Alright, first things first. France, among the other things:

1. Has an independent foreign policy that is NOT fully linked with USA.
2. Has an independent supply chain of weapons and military hardware.
3. Has access and integration with most of European weapons technologies.
4. Has a veto vote in security council.
5. Has few islands in Indian ocean which serve as naval bases.

So, unlike US and EU (which by proxy is always UK or Germany), France can take independent position and form independent partnerships. Rest of the Europe is essentially a proxy of US. If you have great relationship with US -- which means being a proxy for US; you will have access and support of Europe.

Now,

When India tested bombs in 1998, there was only one western country that neither condemned nor sanctioned India -- France. Heck they even congratulated India, much to the chagrin of USA.
When China brought Kashmir matter in UNSC in 2019, Russia said it will abstain but there was only one country that said we will veto the resolution -- France.

Also, India and France has very little historical baggage like we have with UK and especially USA.

Its pretty transparent! Having good relationship with France is very beneficial and comes at a very low diplomatic cost to India. Russia will tolerate that tie, US cannot decry it. It goes beyond trade, sale of weapons and it goes into diplomatic benefits! India will be a fool to miss it.

And yes, you are wrong when you say "India just buys military hardware and France sells it." -- its more than that as I shown you above. But, EVEN IF it were just buying and selling weapons, I would still like to keep that parternship and promote it because having multiple options for your frontline defence items and access to latest weapons is a GOOD thing.

Now coming to "courting China", if you want to exclude partnership on that basis; you will have to exclude the entire world. Everyone is or has been courting China perhaps with exception of Taiwan. But then I do not know what advantage ties with Taiwan will bring to India. What is MORE important for India is can a country have an independent foreign policy with courting China? France knows how to play this game. It courts China for trade but it also supports India in UNSC. Why? Because unlike China, it can sell weapons to India.

Also, France was quite happy selling weapons to both India & Pakistan(just like sweden, italy, etc) despite pakistan's (NATO backed) multiple invasions of India. It was The Karachi Affair where things between France & Pakistan went sour as pakistanis blew up 11 french technicians to pieces due to "bribing gone wrong". There wasn't any ideological alignment with india that stopped france-pakistan cooperation. Plus they knew they would make more money if they sold weapons exclusively to India as pakistan was open to superior american weapons or chinese weapons if they had no other option.
Let me put it this way, India is not at a position right now where it can demand "exclusives" from countries. US has sold weapons to Pakistan and continues to supply spares, weapons and provide training and exercises to Pakistan. Israel has sold weapons tech to China. For India to demand that "you should not sell this platform to X", it needs to be bigger, much bigger. But then if it is bigger its likely, it will not be importing as much weapons and will be making them internally. OR India joins specific partnerships like Eurofighter where it owns a major portion of IPR and can deny a weapon to those whom it does not want. Again, thats far from being realized. Indian weapons industry is not really mature enough to make those contributions currently.

If you want to take the moral stand of democracy, then why ignore France's Neo-colonialism in Africa? I was appalled when I saw Caspian-Report's video on this topic. How can a post-colonial state like india have friendly relations with the disgusting French State(irrespective of whichever party is in power)? The least Indians could do for africans is to NOT empower/enrich their oppressors.
Not even worth it.

Lastly, the whole point of buying french weapons was india's aversion to american weapons. India bought Rafale because india couldn't buy F-15/35. Rafale was the most competent plane available to india. It wasn't the best plane out there. But as India-America relations are on an upswing, why not just buy F-35? F-35C would be a better fit for Vikrant than Rafale. F-35 is anyday a superior plane. As it turns out F-35 would have been cheaper as well because of larger production order. Why all this drama of avoiding american jets if we are anyways gonna partner with them against China. This would also reduce trade deficit with US , in turn reducing american anxiety. Indo-French trade is paltry in comparison. We are again creating a hollow relationship with France like we did with Russia, just one-dimensional weapons trade. This would again create dependencies on france(like russia right now) with which we don't have any coherence alignment and would bite us in the *censored* one day(like it is doing today).
The whole point of buying french tech is this much : You get the greatest western weapons with little entanglement and much less chance of sanction.

And no, Rafale is pretty much the best plane in its weight class and generation out there. India delayed its acquisition due to our massive negotiation and Indian politicians and beaurocracy's extreme aversion for any report of possible scandal. Rafale was the best plane to acquire in 2009-2013. We should have closed this deal in 2010 itself and bought 118 planes.
 
I actually advocate for downgrading of relations with France. Have some decency, how can a post-colonial Indian State have good relations with a neo-colonial France? If you have US locked in a strategic partnership, why even bother with such a middle power(FR)? France was always the go-to because India-US relations were bad, now that India-US relations are good, whats the utility of France?

I bet 5 years from India will anyway procure F-35, since it would be the only navy in QUAD not having F-35. All other common equipment will work in tandem like P-8s, Sea Guardians, MH-60 but Rafales will stick out like a sore thumb. The whole point of QUAD was inter-operability and joint ops with their navies.
India would be a fool to do so. Why?

Because long term, Indian and American interests are not aligned. Simple as that. The moment India economy grows beyond 10 trillion (and that time is coming before 2040), it will be a threat to USA. And you will be left in the rain if you were depending upon USA for defence needs.

As far as France goes, it has no ambition to be the USA because it knows it cann't be USA. Its a big fish in its own pond and it kowtows with bigger fishes with ease.

Now coming to "neo-colonial" part: Do you know who else is colonial? USA, Canada and UK. Its a criteria not even worth looking into.

India should indeed look into procuring F-35s because China has fifth gen and Pakistan is very likely to get capable fifth gen fighters by 203X and AMCA will not enter production in sufficient numbers before 205X or even 207X. But that deal is a tactical deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Now coming to "courting China", if you want to exclude partnership on that basis; you will have to exclude the entire world. Everyone is or has been courting China perhaps with exception of Taiwan.
No, Taiwan is no exception.
Despite Taiwan's regulations limiting outbound foreign investment, today, over 50 percent of Taiwanese companies' total stock of foreign direct investment remains located in mainland China. This stock increased considerably from 2001 to 2012: In some years more than 75 percent of Taiwan's new outbound foreign direct investment went into mainland China.
 
Too bad the Rafale was kicked out before the tech round 'cause of its higher price. Only the Gripen competed with the F-35 in the tender.
No, at this stage of the selection process, the price was not yet under consideration, as the effectiveness of the weapon system had to be taken into account to arrive at a price for a given result.

The point that eliminated all the aircraft except the Gripen and the F-35 was the Finnish fear that, in the event of war, we would not be able to supply the logistics needed to keep the aircraft flying over the long term. Gripen was not eliminated because of the proximity of Swedish factories.
 
“We know India will be a very difficult superpower—like a big France.” This comment by a former deputy national security advisor of Japanese prime minister Abe Shinzo echoes a widely shared sentiment across G7 capitals. This is also certainly what many think in the United States vis-à-vis these two indispensable, yet volatile partners....

France and India: Two Nuances of 'Strategic Autonomy'

(csis.org, jul.13)

In collective fora, France and India indeed take pride in not being free riders, as nuclear powers with robust national militaries and capacities, as well as in being free thinkers, developing an outlook of their own on global issues. French president Emmanuel Macron’s motto “allied, but not aligned” echoes Indian external affairs minister Dr. S. Jaishankar’s insistence that India is “entitled to have its own side” This posture is best encapsulated in a concept that both countries have regularly been using: “strategic autonomy,” defined as the capability to make decisions independent from external pressure, especially from great powers, in the main policy areas. This commonality is regularly emphasized in bilateral encounters between the two states.

  • The Roots of French and Indian Strategic Autonomy
  • Strategic Autonomy in the Modi and Macron Era
  • Applied Strategic Autonomy

Conclusion:
A shared historical struggle to maintain strategic autonomy in a complex geopolitical landscape has helped both powers develop a degree of trust and a pragmatic partnership. Interestingly, both find the other partner valuable but not enough to develop a relationship of interdependence.
France is strong enough to have something to offer on the diplomatic, military, space, and nuclear sectors to India, but not strong enough to shape international order, norms, or rules, or to balance China if tensions escalate. For France, India is important, but not the most important partner when it comes to trade and defense cooperation in the context of threats like Russian aggression or terrorism in Africa.
Modi’s visit to Paris is therefore another important milestone to consolidate the Franco-Indian special relationship, but the latter remains unlikely to evolve into a proper military alliance. This fits with the objective of both states to maintain some strategic flexibility. Indeed, genuine strategic autonomy implies restrictions even to the closest of partnerships.
 
“We know India will be a very difficult superpower—like a big France.” This comment by a former deputy national security advisor of Japanese prime minister Abe Shinzo echoes a widely shared sentiment across G7 capitals. This is also certainly what many think in the United States vis-à-vis these two indispensable, yet volatile partners....

France and India: Two Nuances of 'Strategic Autonomy'

(csis.org, jul.13)

In collective fora, France and India indeed take pride in not being free riders, as nuclear powers with robust national militaries and capacities, as well as in being free thinkers, developing an outlook of their own on global issues. French president Emmanuel Macron’s motto “allied, but not aligned” echoes Indian external affairs minister Dr. S. Jaishankar’s insistence that India is “entitled to have its own side” This posture is best encapsulated in a concept that both countries have regularly been using: “strategic autonomy,” defined as the capability to make decisions independent from external pressure, especially from great powers, in the main policy areas. This commonality is regularly emphasized in bilateral encounters between the two states.

  • The Roots of French and Indian Strategic Autonomy
  • Strategic Autonomy in the Modi and Macron Era
  • Applied Strategic Autonomy

Conclusion:
A shared historical struggle to maintain strategic autonomy in a complex geopolitical landscape has helped both powers develop a degree of trust and a pragmatic partnership. Interestingly, both find the other partner valuable but not enough to develop a relationship of interdependence.
France is strong enough to have something to offer on the diplomatic, military, space, and nuclear sectors to India, but not strong enough to shape international order, norms, or rules, or to balance China if tensions escalate. For France, India is important, but not the most important partner when it comes to trade and defense cooperation in the context of threats like Russian aggression or terrorism in Africa.
Modi’s visit to Paris is therefore another important milestone to consolidate the Franco-Indian special relationship, but the latter remains unlikely to evolve into a proper military alliance. This fits with the objective of both states to maintain some strategic flexibility. Indeed, genuine strategic autonomy implies restrictions even to the closest of partnerships.
This is what @Innominate and @BMD don't want. They want India to be a vassal of Uncle Sam and not an independent superpower.

Great article. Thanks for sharing(y)
 
(...) Now coming to "neo-colonial" part: Do you know who else is colonial? USA, Canada and UK. (...)
Hello, I appreciate your messages and I'm sorry to truncate it like this, but you're forgetting Russia! Everyone here forgets Russia: the Czarist conquests of Central Asia, Soviet expansionism in Eastern Europe or Afghanistan (this is not the place to talk about Ukraine, there's a dedicated thread), and in recent years, Wagner in Africa.

But I understand the rest of what you're saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RASALGHUL
View attachment 29121
When the hell have I ever given you that impression?

No, we just want a little bit of unbiased common sense and for you to stop being something that rhymes with vassal.
The way two of you are criticizing India from doing business with Russia(buying oil and all other stuff), it's very obvious you two want India to follow Uncle Sam's foreign policy 101.

Boys...ain't gonna happen! We shall continue to pursue our interests(much to your chagrin).
 
The way two of you are criticizing India from doing business with Russia(buying oil and all other stuff), it's very obvious you two want India to follow Uncle Sam's foreign policy 101.

Boys...ain't gonna happen! We shall continue to pursue our interests(much to your chagrin).
Simply recognising that what Russia is doing is wrong would be enough but you make out like it's all someone else's fault.
 
Hello, I appreciate your messages and I'm sorry to truncate it like this, but you're forgetting Russia! Everyone here forgets Russia: the Czarist conquests of Central Asia, Soviet expansionism in Eastern Europe or Afghanistan (this is not the place to talk about Ukraine, there's a dedicated thread), and in recent years, Wagner in Africa.

But I understand the rest of what you're saying.
Let me put it in this way --Bur first, I agree fully that RUSSIA is an expansive colonial power, their history and their present is a testament to it--, most Indians do not know Russians first hand. Its that simple! We have never lived next door to Russia, we have never dealt with Russians as an opponent, nor we have lived through the fear of Russian missiles next door and we have never lived in Russia in sufficient numbers. So, for us, Russia is this mythical figure which is anti america and by extension (to a degree) anti-Pakistan as seen in 1971. Beyond that, most of us will have a hard time commenting on Russia.

I personally after living in Canada for close to 8 years now know its colonial past and present. So do a lot of Indians living in USA. We know UKs colonial past first hand. When I read a news paper title "Times Colonist" --Yes thats a real modern news paper with more than 100 years of history--, I can not help but chuckle. Apparently, Colonialism in North America has not taken a negative connotation as slavery has.

Its funny that we know very less about our closest ally in popular memory!

So when we write about Colonial Powers, name Russia never registers. Its has been out of sight forever and out of mind that way.