The lack of our own rifle is the reason why we can't win medals in the Olympics. All the players are corrupt and work for MoD.
Line of Actual Control (LAC) : India & Tibet Border Updates
- Thread starter Shashank
- Start date
The lack of our own rifle is the reason why we can't win medals in the Olympics. All the players are corrupt and work for MoD.
Don't deflect, answer the question : How come not having enough money is the reason that India does not have a decent service rifle for more than 30 years?
Alternatively, say that you are wrong and don't know a jack about what you are writing.
We concentrate Our Human and Financial Resources in those Areas and Fields , which are prone to Restrictions and Sanctions
Therefore we have focused on Nukes , Space sector , Missiles
The Talented personnel are available in limited numbers
Let them make Missiles and Aircrafts
Rather than Rifles
Dunno man, but certainly there is more to the story of Indian defence equipment and supplies (or lack thereof) than just "We do not have enough money".
Last edited:
India is NOT lacking in human resource. Thats one resource we have in plenty. Especially in mech. engineering or related.
BTW, India DID invest money in a rifle in 1980s. The design turned out to be a lemon and implementation even a bigger lemon. What we didn't do was to fix that or adapt another working design. We kept on manufacturing it till very recently. And even that manufacturing was pathetic.
We forced our soldiers to carry a broken and worthless service rifle for 30 years and counting.
That my friend is a waste. A waste of money spent in manufacturing a broken design into a broken product. A waste of precious lives of our soldiers.
Sir , my understanding of India is like this
Either we Respond To Crises ( Plural ) OR If GOOD changes have to happen
They have to be Driven By the PM himself
We can go back all the way to 1947 to see How India has evolved
Whether it was crises of 62 , 65 , 71
Or Economic crises of 1991
Things like Green Revolution or Setting up of Heavy Industries --- it is the Leadership that makes the difference
Dont expect much from Bureaucracy
For things like Toilets , Bank accounts
Roads , Gas Connection ,clean cities
Everything REQUIRED PM's intervention
If Today Everyone in the Govt is talking of Atmanirbhar Bharat , it is because of
Corona Crisis which has Hit the economy Badly
So elect a Good PM if you want Good Progress
Sure I do.
PM is just one man. He only knows how to be popular. Thats all the skill he needs. He is there in PMO because it will be inconvenient for all 1.5 billion of us to be there and signing off on policy decisions. The nuts and bolts of administration, policy forging, implementation are JOB of government employees. If they cann't do it, they need to be replaced. If they cannt be replaced, then India is doomed.
What about gilgit baltistan then.. Imo it is more likely that western command troops are redirected to LoC.
I completely agree with all your points. The thing is that the present leadership are not cucks. They do have a spine and have balls to do the difficult stuff. Our people have slave mentality and I feel Hindutva is the way to undo the years of social engineering done by the Congress (a personal opinion) so if the alliance is carefully managed by competent people we can handle the Americans. If it was under congress era I would have been completely against the alliance because most of them are useless gora boot polishers but I have some hopes with the BJP...
The reality is we never had strategic autonomy. Nehru's non-alignment was dead on arrival and was as useless as Gandhi's pacifism..
Indeed! You can be non-aligned with blocs but that does not mean that you are immune to influences and actions of blocs. We saw it first hand during 1965 war and even earlier during 1962 war.
We faced all the ill-effects of these blocs but got no advantages till 71 atleast. Thats when we aligned with Russia.
I'm not talking about what will happen in a few years from now. If an alliance is in the works, it will actually take Modi's entire term just to stitch it. I'm talking about what will happen over the course of many years, where the Americans slowly start creeping into your system while giving you a false sense of security. They will make concessions now only in order to take their pound of flesh later. It's because no matter how weak we are today, we are definitely going to be richer and stronger than they are in the future. So the best way for them to deal with us over the long term is to break us up, which will be their main goal in the alliance. The biggest problem with an alliance is, allies begin to interfere in your domestic policies. There is a system of interference built into such alliances and it's difficult to avoid it.
And the biggest sacrifice when entering an alliance is you no longer have an independent foreign policy. For example, our relationship with Iran and Myanmar will become the first casualties. One can imagine how our security environment will become when two friendly countries on either side of our borders become our enemies overnight. But that's how alliances function, you choose sides. And dealing with one enemy, you end up creating two more, which means your one enemy now has two new friends overnight. And this works out great for the Americans because for them there's been no change in what they consider as enemies, whereas they have gained a friend, while also immediately suppressing that friend at the same time. So right from the beginning, an alliance with the US has started working only in the favour of the US.
What we get in return is merely promises of assistance during an all-out war, not limited war, but an all-out war, and an all-out war with China is very, very unlikely to happen since neither side is capable of prevailing over the other with current levels of technology that humanity possesses at this time.
Alliances have a lot of terms of conditions where you can escape providing any sort of armed assistance even during a war, which is why SEATO failed so badly. For example, alliances generally do not cover disputed territory, only sovereign territory. So even if the Chinese invade J&K and push us out, the US won't step in because they consider the entire state to be disputed. Only if China makes serious attempts at taking Himachal Pradesh or Uttarkhand will the US enter the war. Even at that point, it will have to be a serious breach into what is considered to be our sovereign territory, which is definitely not J&K, as far as the US is concerned.
Here's an example:
Russia’s Security Guarantees for Armenia Don’t Extend to Karabakh, Putin Says - The Moscow Times
Russia's commitments to Armenia as part of a Moscow-led regional security bloc do not include the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region where fighting is raging between Armenia and Azerbaijan, President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday.
Considering the fact that it's unlikely for China to push us out of Ladakh let alone J&K with current technological limitations and our force levels in the region, an alliance with the US becomes totally worthless. Basically, we can defend our own land ourselves.
Because we are yet to buy that technology or get trained by some other country. We are just good at assembly, cant even maintain well post production on our own.
India is not well educated but well trained.
You think Americans are not creeping in our system?
Or for that matter British (and hence Americans too) are not influencing our policies?
The question is not of stronger or richer. The question is of "strong enough" or "rich enough". If anything, the gap vis a vis China is going to increase from now on. Much faster. The massive advatage of a large economic base coupled with a well oiled and non-hesitant Chinese leadership and bureaucracy will mean this : China will keep on gaining bigger and bigger edge over India for any foreseeable future. There is nothing we can do to stop it.
Qualify "break us up". That sounds far fetched.
I should remind you that US had had many even more powerful allies : like UK. In terms of technological prowess and diplomatic support, we are no where in that league.
Last but not the least, what makes you think that alliance is the critical enabler for "break us up" conspiracy? They can do it without alliance too. I heard Indians sell cheap. Indians in government jobs cheaper.
As if so called allies don't do it right now or they have not been doing it for long time.
Independent foreign policy? The same policy that has been built in fear of sanctions?
Remind me, why we are not buying cheaper oil from Iran right now?
Remember, both of these countries lean towards China at the first sight of $$$. Remember, Bhutan, our closest "ally", didn't exactly asked for help in Dokhlam plateau. Heck, they were not thrilled by Indian action there.
Remember, Sri Lanka sold its land to allow China to build a port at first sign of investment.
Remember, Nepal? They jumped on Chinese bandwagon faster than you could say ally when China dangled money.
If some place needs money, its our foreign policy even more than our defence production and procurement.
How being non-allied and non-aligned worked out for us in 1962 again?
And yet all our so called allies are aligned with our mortal enemy: China. This includes Russia, Burma and soon Iran too. B'desh is buying chinese weapons too.
By being non-aligned and non-allied you end up in a situation where you don't have any "friends".
Oh?
Lets see...
It depends upon how and what you negotiate. If US is not giving you explicit promise in favour of your interest, there can be no alliance.
Remember, entire Taiwan is a disputed territory and not even allowed to join UN. What do you think will US do if Taiwan was attacked by China?
Here is a counter example :Here's an example:
Russia’s Security Guarantees for Armenia Don’t Extend to Karabakh, Putin Says - The Moscow Times
Russia's commitments to Armenia as part of a Moscow-led regional security bloc do not include the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region where fighting is raging between Armenia and Azerbaijan, President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday.www.themoscowtimes.com
1971 War: How Russia sank Nixon’s gunboat diplomacy
With the help of the USSR, India once won a famous victory over Pakistan due to its resilient soldiers, tough political leadership, and strong...
Remember, in 1971, India was NOT being attacked. India was the attacker on East Pakistan. Russia could have walked away. But they didn't. Why so?
Why current Russian decision different from USSR decision during 1971?
I will leave it as an exercise for you. Hint : Its always interests.
They dont need to push us. WE need to retake our lost territory and stop Chinese nibbling.
I guess you confuse optics with interests.
@randomradio @Saaho
The Simple Answer to whether we Need an Alliance with USA or NOT lies in the Following Question , which is
" HOW MUCH money we need in the Coming Ten years to create an Effective Two Front Security Architecture "
And even if we have lost some Territory in Pangong Tso , that territory is not Going Anywhere
We can retake it in future
The Simple Answer to whether we Need an Alliance with USA or NOT lies in the Following Question , which is
" HOW MUCH money we need in the Coming Ten years to create an Effective Two Front Security Architecture "
And even if we have lost some Territory in Pangong Tso , that territory is not Going Anywhere
We can retake it in future
Lol Iran literally takes us for granted. I would be happy if we ditch the Iranians if it helps in getting a closer relationship with the Americans. And we profit more by allying with the Arabs than the Iranians who are as snake-like as the Chinese. Those jokers are too cocky for their own good. Myanmar is itself balancing us with the Chinese. Myanmar needs us more than we need Myanmar and the dharmic angle is slowly being played by Modi. The Congress regime never gave the Burmese the respect they deserved which ended up resulting in the Chinese getting closer than us even though they are in our backyard.I'm not talking about what will happen in a few years from now. If an alliance is in the works, it will actually take Modi's entire term just to stitch it. I'm talking about what will happen over the course of many years, where the Americans slowly start creeping into your system while giving you a false sense of security. They will make concessions now only in order to take their pound of flesh later. It's because no matter how weak we are today, we are definitely going to be richer and stronger than they are in the future. So the best way for them to deal with us over the long term is to break us up, which will be their main goal in the alliance. The biggest problem with an alliance is, allies begin to interfere in your domestic policies. There is a system of interference built into such alliances and it's difficult to avoid it.
And the biggest sacrifice when entering an alliance is you no longer have an independent foreign policy. For example, our relationship with Iran and Myanmar will become the first casualties. One can imagine how our security environment will become when two friendly countries on either side of our borders become our enemies overnight. But that's how alliances function, you choose sides. And dealing with one enemy, you end up creating two more, which means your one enemy now has two new friends overnight. And this works out great for the Americans because for them there's been no change in what they consider as enemies, whereas they have gained a friend, while also immediately suppressing that friend at the same time. So right from the beginning, an alliance with the US has started working only in the favour of the US.
What we get in return is merely promises of assistance during an all-out war, not limited war, but an all-out war, and an all-out war with China is very, very unlikely to happen since neither side is capable of prevailing over the other with current levels of technology that humanity possesses at this time.
Alliances have a lot of terms of conditions where you can escape providing any sort of armed assistance even during a war, which is why SEATO failed so badly. For example, alliances generally do not cover disputed territory, only sovereign territory. So even if the Chinese invade J&K and push us out, the US won't step in because they consider the entire state to be disputed. Only if China makes serious attempts at taking Himachal Pradesh or Uttarkhand will the US enter the war. Even at that point, it will have to be a serious breach into what is considered to be our sovereign territory, which is definitely not J&K, as far as the US is concerned.
Here's an example:
Russia's commitments to Armenia as part of a Moscow-led regional security bloc do not include the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region where fighting is raging between Armenia and Azerbaijan, President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday.Russia’s Security Guarantees for Armenia Don’t Extend to Karabakh, Putin Says - The Moscow Times
Russia's commitments to Armenia as part of a Moscow-led regional security bloc do not include the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region where fighting is raging between Armenia and Azerbaijan, President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday.
Considering the fact that it's unlikely for China to push us out of Ladakh let alone J&K with current technological limitations and our force levels in the region, an alliance with the US becomes totally worthless. Basically, we can defend our own land ourselves.
Also no we can still be close with the Russians that's what a good alliance management would be that's where I hope the bjp knows how to balance the relationship with the Americans and keep it exclusively anti-Chinese.
And why are we getting in the circlejerk of American boots on Indian grounds. The whole objective of the alliance should be to take as much tech and introduce it in our economy and military. We don't need the Americans to fight our wars we only need American tech. We have 1.3 billion people to fight our wars. The whole objective of quad is the have equal partners who maintain Freedom of navigation in the high seas. And Trump is similarly less intrusive in internal matters compared to the previous regimes of bush and Clinton dynasty. You are being too pessimistic just for the sake of it.
I will say more than money, what policy change, what effectiveness we need in our security effort and diplomatic effort.
The problem is not purely of money. We have seen that since the beginning. Its that of weird policies. Policies like agreeing to a treaty with word "LAC" without ever defining what is LAC. The Chinese are now pushing LAC as 1959 Chinese claim line because they used the word LAC back then. This kind of stupidity cann't be fixed with money. This is not a money problem. This is simply poor diplomacy. Just like our non aligned stance.
Stupidities like NOT building border infra. Stupidity like NOT sabotaging chinese efforts in building roads etc. Stupidity of placating China. Stupidity of "Na koi ghus aaya hei na koi ghusa beitha hei".
None of the above is a money thing. They all are poor planning and poorer implementation.
Lets face it. Russia is firmly in bed with China. And yet it is supposed to be our ally. By the same token, India can be allied with USA and manage Russia.
These alignments are more based on "Who opposes who" rather than "Who will support me". It is in our interest to keep China at bay and it is in US interest to push Chinese influence away from Indian ocean region. We both are opposing China so we can by allies.