India-US Relations
- Thread starter Butter Chicken
- Start date
Readout of U.S.-India 2+2 Intersessional Dialogue
Department of Defense spokesperson John Supple provided the following readout:Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs Dr. Ely Ratner co-chaired the seventh U.S.-India 2+2 Intersessional Dialogue today in Washington, D.C., alongside Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu, Additional Secretary Vani Rao of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, and Joint Secretary Vishwesh Negi of the Indian Ministry of Defense.
The 2+2 Intersessional Dialogue advanced a wide range of ambitious initiatives across the breadth of the U.S.-India partnership, including defense and security, emerging technologies, people-people-to-people ties, clean energy, and supply chain resilience. On the defense side, Assistant Secretary Ratner and his counterparts reviewed the progress the two countries have made on implementing the Roadmap for U.S.-India Defense Industrial Cooperation; they welcomed progress on new co-production initiatives and committed to expeditiously conclude negotiations on Security of Supply Arrangement and Reciprocal Defense Procurement agreements. They also discussed opportunities to further strengthen interoperability and logistics cooperation, including through combined maritime engagements in the Indian Ocean region, as well as expanded cooperation in the space and cyber domains. The officials also discussed regional security developments and strategic priorities across the Indo-Pacific region.
The officials underscored the transformative momentum in U.S.-India relations and reaffirmed that a strong U.S.-India partnership is essential to upholding security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region. Assistant Secretary Ratner reaffirmed the Department’s commitment to working with India to advance our shared vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific.
Readout of U.S.-India 2+2 Intersessional Dialogue
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs Dr. Ely Ratner co-chaired the seventh U.S.-India 2+2 Intersessional Dialogue in Washington, D.C.
www.defense.gov
Press Statement on the Substantial Conclusion of IPEF Supply Chain Agreement Negotiations
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, May 27, 2023
Today, the 14 partners of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) –Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, the United States, and Viet Nam – announced the substantial conclusion of the negotiations of a first-of-its-kind international IPEF Supply Chain Agreement at the IPEF Ministerial Meeting in Detroit, Michigan. The proposed Agreement aims to increase the resilience, efficiency, productivity, sustainability, transparency, diversification, security, fairness, and inclusivity of their supply chains through both collaborative activities and individual actions taken by each IPEF partner.
Following the launch of IPEF in Tokyo, Japan on May 23, 2022, and since the release of the IPEF Ministerial Statements on September 9, 2022, the IPEF partners have worked constructively, including through four rounds of in-person negotiations, several virtual intersessional meetings, and numerous bilateral meetings. The IPEF partners will undertake the necessary steps, including further domestic consultations and a legal review, to prepare a final text of the proposed IPEF Supply Chain Agreement. Once finalized, the proposed Agreement will be subject to IPEF partners’ domestic processes for signature, followed by ratification, acceptance, or approval.
The IPEF partners are committed to working towards early realization of the cooperation envisioned under the proposed IPEF Supply Chain Agreement. This includes engaging with businesses and utilizing technical assistance and capacity building to increase investment in critical sectors, key goods, physical and digital infrastructure, transportation, and workforce projects.
Under the proposed IPEF Supply Chain Agreement, the IPEF partners seek to:
In support of these efforts, the proposed IPEF Supply Chain Agreement contemplates the establishment of three new IPEF Supply Chain bodies to facilitate cooperation among the IPEF partners on supply chain issues:
- provide a framework to build their collective understanding of significant supply chain risks, supported by each partner’s identification and monitoring of its own critical sectors and key goods;
- improve crisis coordination and response to supply chain disruptions and work together to support the timely delivery of affected goods during a crisis;
- ensure that workers and the businesses, especially micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises, in the economies of IPEF partners benefit from resilient, robust, and efficient supply chains by identifying disruptions or potential disruptions and responding promptly, effectively, and, where possible, collectively;
- better prepare businesses in the economies of the IPEF partners to identify, manage, and resolve supply chain bottlenecks, including by strengthening supply chain logistics and infrastructure;
- facilitate cooperation, mobilize investments, and promote regulatory transparency in sectors and goods critical to national security, public health and safety, or the prevention of significant or widespread economic disruptions;
- respect, promote, and realize, in good faith, labor rights in IPEF partners’ supply chains, in recognition of the essential role of workers in achieving greater supply chain resilience;
- ensure the availability of a sufficient number of skilled workers in critical sectors and key goods, including by upskilling and reskilling workers, promoting inclusivity and equal access, and increasing comparability of skills credentials frameworks;
- identify opportunities for technical assistance and capacity building in strengthening IPEF partners’ supply chains; and
- respect market principles, minimize market distortions, including unnecessary restrictions and impediments to trade, and protect business confidential information.
The IPEF partners are committed to operationalizing this landmark Agreement as soon as practicable, including starting preparatory work, to bolster resilient supply chains while recognizing the different economic and geographic characteristics of the partners.
- The IPEF Supply Chain Council: The proposed Agreement would establish a mechanism for the IPEF partners to work collaboratively to develop sector-specific action plans for critical sectors and key goods to enhance the resilience of IPEF partner’s supply chains, including through diversification of sources, infrastructure and workforce development, enhanced logistics connectivity, business matching, joint research and development, and trade facilitation.
- The IPEF Supply Chain Crisis Response Network: The proposed Agreement would establish an emergency communications channel for the IPEF partners to seek support during a supply chain disruption and to facilitate information sharing and collaboration among the IPEF partners during a crisis, enabling a faster and more effective response that minimizes negative effects on their economies.
- The IPEF Labor Rights Advisory Board: The proposed Agreement would establish a new advisory board, consisting of government, worker, and employer representatives, as well as a subcommittee composed of government representatives, to support the IPEF partners’ promotion of labor rights in their supply chains, promotion of sustainable trade and investment, and facilitation of opportunities for investment in businesses that respect labor rights.
Press Statement on the Substantial Conclusion of IPEF Supply Chain Agreement Negotiations
Today, the 14 partners of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) –Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, the United States, and Viet Nam – announced the substantial conclusion of...www.commerce.gov
morons who still believe in buying US weapons should get their brains checked.
There is a consistent plot by west to harass India for its Independent foreign policy.
There is a consistent plot by west to harass India for its Independent foreign policy.
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.
(Please do read and offer honest comments. These are purely my views.)
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.
(Please do read and offer honest comments. These are purely my views.)
sooner the better, instead of pretending all is well and ignoring the issue will only cause more damage.
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.
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.
Defogging the Confused US Mind about India
Americans must reflect on their overseas actions, particularly targeted killings like those of the Iranian general, Osama Bin Laden and his deputy orchestrated thousands of miles away. Also the Israelis who recently orchestrated the assassination of the deputy head of HAMAS in Lebanon. In the seventies, Canadians played a role in the FLQ leader's assassination in Paris. Instances of terror and political assassinations, conducted by the U.S. and other countries with apparent impunity, are marked by denials.
As elections approach, President Biden and the Democratic Party emphasize a value-based global order, intending to punish those diverging from their directives. In this context, India faces scrutiny for choosing affordable Russian oil and dissenting from the American stance on the Ukraine conflict. Despite no harm done in the Pannu Affair, they portray themselves as global order defenders, selectively enforcing it for domestic voter appeasement.
The term "selectively" highlights their oversight of Pakistan's double-game strategy during the Afghan War, now overlooked for artillery shells in the waning days of the Ukraine conflict. Pakistan’s human rights abuses in Afghanistan and Balochistan are ignored, signaling the abandonment of their purported value-based global order.
Examining Bangladesh, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, facing baseless human rights abuse accusations. She has revitalized the economy, curtailed religious leaders' influence, and rebuilt neglected infrastructure. Despite achievements, shadowy lobbyists in U.S. allegedly funded by Pakistan target her for regime change, aligning with Khalida Zia, favored by Pakistan. This aligns with their interests, purportedly influencing key figures within the U.S. State Department & Congress for a leadership change.
Geopolitical maneuvering extends beyond Bangladesh; nations not aligning with U.S. interests, like some in Latin America and even Pakistan, face complexities. Pakistan saw Imran Khan sidelined, ostensibly ousted with U.S. support.
India isn't a U.S. target for regime change, but underlying currents seemingly support the Khalistani movement or Manipur violence, lacking genuine local support, yet the West has perfected remove Modi tool kit. In next few months before the elections, it will be operationalized. It may work or not, nobody knows. The ruling party, led by Prime Minister Modi, unifies the country through democratic values hence it is difficult for any tool kit to work.
Therefore, the U.S. must introspect on how a flawed constitutional amendment prevents Donald Trump from participating in the presidential race. Allegations of a Democratic Party conspiracy holds weight, revealing the U.S. State Department as a breeding ground for unscrupulous officials.
Americans must reflect on their overseas actions, particularly targeted killings like those of the Iranian general, Osama Bin Laden and his deputy orchestrated thousands of miles away. Also the Israelis who recently orchestrated the assassination of the deputy head of HAMAS in Lebanon. In the seventies, Canadians played a role in the FLQ leader's assassination in Paris. Instances of terror and political assassinations, conducted by the U.S. and other countries with apparent impunity, are marked by denials.
As elections approach, President Biden and the Democratic Party emphasize a value-based global order, intending to punish those diverging from their directives. In this context, India faces scrutiny for choosing affordable Russian oil and dissenting from the American stance on the Ukraine conflict. Despite no harm done in the Pannu Affair, they portray themselves as global order defenders, selectively enforcing it for domestic voter appeasement.
The term "selectively" highlights their oversight of Pakistan's double-game strategy during the Afghan War, now overlooked for artillery shells in the waning days of the Ukraine conflict. Pakistan’s human rights abuses in Afghanistan and Balochistan are ignored, signaling the abandonment of their purported value-based global order.
Examining Bangladesh, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, facing baseless human rights abuse accusations. She has revitalized the economy, curtailed religious leaders' influence, and rebuilt neglected infrastructure. Despite achievements, shadowy lobbyists in U.S. allegedly funded by Pakistan target her for regime change, aligning with Khalida Zia, favored by Pakistan. This aligns with their interests, purportedly influencing key figures within the U.S. State Department & Congress for a leadership change.
Geopolitical maneuvering extends beyond Bangladesh; nations not aligning with U.S. interests, like some in Latin America and even Pakistan, face complexities. Pakistan saw Imran Khan sidelined, ostensibly ousted with U.S. support.
India isn't a U.S. target for regime change, but underlying currents seemingly support the Khalistani movement or Manipur violence, lacking genuine local support, yet the West has perfected remove Modi tool kit. In next few months before the elections, it will be operationalized. It may work or not, nobody knows. The ruling party, led by Prime Minister Modi, unifies the country through democratic values hence it is difficult for any tool kit to work.
Therefore, the U.S. must introspect on how a flawed constitutional amendment prevents Donald Trump from participating in the presidential race. Allegations of a Democratic Party conspiracy holds weight, revealing the U.S. State Department as a breeding ground for unscrupulous officials.
Potential U.S. Sanctions against India for Procuring Cheap Russian Oil
India faces trial in a New York court, with the focus not just on Nikhil Gupta's conviction (Pannu Case*), but on the broader issue of the U.S. attempting to hold Modi/India accountable for disregarding U.S. advice and halting oil purchases from Russia. Additionally, there are concerns about India's neutrality in the Ukraine war. The U.S. will eagerly await the trial verdict, aiming for a swift resolution. Upon a favorable verdict, the U.S. plans to promptly impose sanctions on India, utilizing the legal process related to the Pannu case, primarily relying on electronic intercepts as evidence. This development jeopardizes a decade-long mutually beneficial relationship, framing the sanctions as a punitive action against India. Conversely, an unfavorable verdict would force the U.S. to eat a humble pie.
(* Pannu of his own has mounted a verbal assault on India to kill its diplomats and blow up planes)
However, amidst the impending sanctions, it is essential to acknowledge the positive contributions the U.S. has made to India over the past 75 years. From 1954 to 1981, the U.S. provided substantial financial support for India's development through direct grants, IMF and World Bank loans, totaling $4 to $6 billion. The U.S. also played a pivotal role in addressing India's food crisis in the late 1960s by delivering 10 million tons of grain through PL-480 food grain aid, averting a potential starvation crisis.
Despite these contributions, historical U.S. policies have at times conflicted with India's interests. Forming the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) in the 1950s, the U.S. armed Pakistan with significant military aid, later used against India in various conflicts. During the 1971 war, Kissinger and Nixon sought to prevent the creation of Bangladesh by deploying the U.S. 7th fleet to the war zone, a move thwarted by Soviet intervention.
Previous Sanctions on India
The U.S. imposed sanctions on India for its nuclear tests in response to China's nuclear threat in 1974, lasting 20 years. During this period, U.S. refused to supply fuel to the Tarapur Nuclear power plant, if India persisted with its nuclear program. It later relented. Meanwhile, the U.S. reportedly overlooked Pakistan's nuclear technology theft, contributing to its nuclear capabilities and its spread.
In 1998, after India conducted nuclear weapons tests, the U.S. imposed stringent sanctions, even impounding an LCA Aircraft prototype. Despite positive sentiments expressed by Presidents Bush (Jr) and Obama of full support against threats from China yet it continued to arm Pakistan with better fighters and guns.
Upcoming sanctions
The current geopolitical landscape suggests that the U.S., engaged in an indirect conflict with Russia in Ukraine, seeks to weaken Russia through sanctions. Potential sanctions on India over the Pannu affair are perceived as a strategy to cut off Russian oil sales to India. India, however, appears more resilient in the face of sanctions than in previous decades, signaling a readiness to withstand and respond with countermeasures until a shift in U.S. policy or a change in administration through upcoming elections, occurs.
Hence, it will be unwise to sanction India and choose Pannu Affair as route to do that.
India faces trial in a New York court, with the focus not just on Nikhil Gupta's conviction (Pannu Case*), but on the broader issue of the U.S. attempting to hold Modi/India accountable for disregarding U.S. advice and halting oil purchases from Russia. Additionally, there are concerns about India's neutrality in the Ukraine war. The U.S. will eagerly await the trial verdict, aiming for a swift resolution. Upon a favorable verdict, the U.S. plans to promptly impose sanctions on India, utilizing the legal process related to the Pannu case, primarily relying on electronic intercepts as evidence. This development jeopardizes a decade-long mutually beneficial relationship, framing the sanctions as a punitive action against India. Conversely, an unfavorable verdict would force the U.S. to eat a humble pie.
(* Pannu of his own has mounted a verbal assault on India to kill its diplomats and blow up planes)
However, amidst the impending sanctions, it is essential to acknowledge the positive contributions the U.S. has made to India over the past 75 years. From 1954 to 1981, the U.S. provided substantial financial support for India's development through direct grants, IMF and World Bank loans, totaling $4 to $6 billion. The U.S. also played a pivotal role in addressing India's food crisis in the late 1960s by delivering 10 million tons of grain through PL-480 food grain aid, averting a potential starvation crisis.
Despite these contributions, historical U.S. policies have at times conflicted with India's interests. Forming the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) in the 1950s, the U.S. armed Pakistan with significant military aid, later used against India in various conflicts. During the 1971 war, Kissinger and Nixon sought to prevent the creation of Bangladesh by deploying the U.S. 7th fleet to the war zone, a move thwarted by Soviet intervention.
Previous Sanctions on India
The U.S. imposed sanctions on India for its nuclear tests in response to China's nuclear threat in 1974, lasting 20 years. During this period, U.S. refused to supply fuel to the Tarapur Nuclear power plant, if India persisted with its nuclear program. It later relented. Meanwhile, the U.S. reportedly overlooked Pakistan's nuclear technology theft, contributing to its nuclear capabilities and its spread.
In 1998, after India conducted nuclear weapons tests, the U.S. imposed stringent sanctions, even impounding an LCA Aircraft prototype. Despite positive sentiments expressed by Presidents Bush (Jr) and Obama of full support against threats from China yet it continued to arm Pakistan with better fighters and guns.
Upcoming sanctions
The current geopolitical landscape suggests that the U.S., engaged in an indirect conflict with Russia in Ukraine, seeks to weaken Russia through sanctions. Potential sanctions on India over the Pannu affair are perceived as a strategy to cut off Russian oil sales to India. India, however, appears more resilient in the face of sanctions than in previous decades, signaling a readiness to withstand and respond with countermeasures until a shift in U.S. policy or a change in administration through upcoming elections, occurs.
Hence, it will be unwise to sanction India and choose Pannu Affair as route to do that.
@Innominate @RASALGHUL
Here's Trevor Noah explaining the concept of anti-incumbency that's lacking in American politics.
The American system is extremely harmful to its society, and that's why we are seeing the repercussions play out. People treat the party they support like their team instead of a leader that has control over their lives.
Here's Trevor Noah explaining the concept of anti-incumbency that's lacking in American politics.
The American system is extremely harmful to its society, and that's why we are seeing the repercussions play out. People treat the party they support like their team instead of a leader that has control over their lives.
For a big cntry & having population of 300 million just having 2 parties shows the quality of democracy. These 2 parties are like yellow banana and green banana, after elections you will hardly know which one is which.
True. The issue with the American system is it's very easily susceptible to communism on the left and extremism on the right. People were sensible enough until the 90s to not breach the crazy line, but it appears the left was the first to breach it.
The only way to fight back is a minimum 12 years of Republican rule, but by the 16th year, the right will breach the crazy line. From leftist stupidy, America will move to militant nationalism, then we will see protectionism, over-the-top policing of civilians, self-sabotaging migrant controls and so on.
The primary system is even more stupid. They create rock stars out of their leaders even before the leaders prove themselves. All they have to do is delude the masses, the one who deludes the most, without any substance, wins. All you need to do is stick to a particular script and you get supporters en masse. The correct way is to punish failure, ie, anti-incumbency. In such a system you are pro-country, not pro-party, America's the opposite.
This article explains why wealth and education are important for democracies to thrive.
Why tyranny could be the inevitable outcome of democracy
From the earliest days of democracy, thinkers have warned that letting the people rule could work out badly.
theconversation.com
Americans have become victims of their own democracy, 'cause truth is dead, and there's no third or fourth power to bring balance to the structure.
The Rebbe on How to Handle a US Secretary of State
While, not directly related with India-US relations, I feel we can learn from it on how to deal with US pressure and the way US thinks on issues once you cave in. Very informative 5 mins.
More on this Rabbi from wiki: Menachem Mendel Schneerson - Wikipedia
@Parthu @vstol Jockey @randomradio @Hari Sud @Saaho