Hacker News Reader

Comment by pdx | Hacker News Reader

Substitute "large democratic power to balance China" with "large power to balance China", and I think it makes more sense.

U.S. foreign policy seems to be to hinder the expansion of other large powers in an attempt to keep them small enough to not be an existential threat at some point in the far future.

You send money and aid to whom ever is in a position to hinder those who are growing too powerful, whether the group you are sending that money and aid to is democratic or not.

This is not about right and wrong. It's about long term strategy, aimed at preserving the status quo for as long as possible. If you hinder your competitors, that keeps them from becoming even more of a threat to you.

View on HN

I had written something similar but you put it much more succinctly. The only things I'd add to this explanation

1) Democracy is the US rallying cry, our allies are more defensible when we do so in the name of democracy.

2) The powers that be are highly adept at manipulating a voting population so making an ally a democracy will likely turn it into a predictable/manipulable Plutocracy of sorts.

*fixed implication that India wasn't a Democracy, was simply stating a motive for the "Democratic" part of "Democratic Power"

"Make" India a democracy?

I just want to remind everyone that India is already a democracy and has been like that ever since her Independence from British colonialism. In general, I can understand the speculation that US is pushing money to India to balance China. US's perception of India has changed recently after their unsuccessful collaboration attempts with Pakistan. But in this particular case, I think the successful launch of a Mars orbiter at a budget price is a story that NASA would like to emulate too. I don't see political motivations behind this collaboration.

Something to note regarding recent US and Indian history - During the cold war, India supported Russia (Not much of real support, mostly supporting in words and buying technology from Russia in turn). So US ended up supporting Pakistan and China. Pakistan continuously tried different ways to discourage India's development.

Not sure if all that had any major effect on the cold war, but it certainly had serious repercussions in current Middle East wars and soured US relationships with India.

With China and Russia as a threat now, US may be trying to appease India to balance out the powers here. Plus India no longer closely associates with Russia.

Seperately, India is trying to stand up on its own feet with a strong economic growth and there is political and public will to support India's growth with the rise of Modi, AAP and the young educated/worldly generation.

> Plus India no longer closely associates with Russia.

I don't know how serious it is (I think some members consider it more important than others) but India and Russia are two of the five members of the BRICS group, so there's definitely still some degree of cooperation beyond just trading partners.

Russia is still a huge partner in Indian military procurement. Whether it's the Brahmos missile or the T50 fighter, Russia still has incredible influence in India.

You have got everything backwards.

My read is that India was pushed to USSR's arms by USA's policy during cold war of, you either support us or you are our enemy. To hell with Non-Alignment. Who remembers NAM here. Then USa goes, aaaahh, see your neighbour Pakistan supports us, so we are going sell them a sh1tload of arms and turn a blind eye to their N-weapon tie-ups with China and NKorea.

India had no other option than buy arms from USSR to balance out the Pak arms build up.

And hence the relation between India-USSR/Russia continues to this day. USA is getting a slice of the arms pie but the high cost of American arms hasn't helped to break the past ties.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com