Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by 38321003thrw 943 days ago
This ex Indian diplomat analyses the recent Indian affair in context of BRICS and US’s views on the matter, and Modi’s “security state”:

https://www.indianpunchline.com/nijjar-affair-poses-an-exist...

”All in all, the Nijjar affair takes the lid off the acute contradictions in India’s foreign policies. The assumptions driving the foreign policy’s China-centric thrust turn out to be delusional; the “westernist” trajectory has landed in a cul-de-sac; the assiduously propagated larger-than-life global image of India turns out to be a mirage; foreign policy built on personality cult and opportunism rather than rational and consistent principles attuned to the world in transition got battered; and, most important, the hubris in India’s diplomacy boomeranged.

The Nijjar affair poses an existential dilemma. Surrendering to the US diktat will make India look a surrogate state and a laughing stock in the Global South. Indians won’t approve of it.

On the contrary, ignoring the diktat will be hugely consequential. Make no mistake, Five Eyes had a gory history against the Soviet Union; in the post-cold war era, it all but destabilised Hong Kong, and is today an active player in Myanmar and Thailand in India’s neighbourhood. Its entry in the subcontinent is ominous.“

And then (strangely more vigorous)

https://www.indianpunchline.com/india-wont-be-bullied-in-mul...

1 comments

I wouldn't dig too deep into M. K. Bharadkumar's views. He was part of the Indian Attaché to the Soviet Union and later Russia and Uzbekistan, and worked closely with both them when supporting the Northern Alliance during the Afghan Civil War in the 90s [0][1]

He leans pro-Russia and anti-American.

[0] - https://valdaiclub.com/about/experts/341/

[1] - https://new.thecradle.co/columns/mk-bhadrakumar

Clearly, since India had warm relations with USSR and it was an important diplomatic portfolio and the diplomats top caliber. That simply means he was one of their top diplomats.

> He leans pro-Russia and anti-American

Good for him. It’s a free world and he’s entitled to his views and preferences. Regardless, he is intelligent, highly experienced, and provides a fresh (“oh no”) perspective on these matters.

So? Why would being pro-some country or anti-some other country mean he should be ignored?