Non-Aligned Movement NAM
Non-Aligned Movement NAM: “India’s legacy of Non-aligned movement NAM and commitment to a policy of ‘strategic autonomy’ is often viewed as a limiting factor for the relationship (between India and the US),” according to a US statement. Therefore, the US wants India to abandon its concept of “strategic autonomy” to make it possible for US soldiers to enter the Indian subcontinent?
Henry Kissinger’s frequently proven prophecy that “any nation that makes friendship with the US would end up in the US occupation of that country militarily” needs to be committed to memory. The only option to protect our national interests without sacrificing strategic autonomy is by following the policy of non-alignment only. Kissenger also stated, “To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.” So India should be cautious and circumspect while dealing with America.
In order to protect their own countries’ sovereignty, Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia, Abdel Nasser of Egypt, and Nehru of India created the Non-Aligned Movement, or NAM. Unfortunately, no Indian political party is currently demonstrating any resistance to the US’s imperial impulses. Either the Congress or the BJP is vying for support and goodwill with the United States. The Indian Nation is saved by God.
- Replies: Agree (6), Disagree (1), Recommend (2), Offensive
There are currently 1,60,000 US troops stationed overseas, including 50,000 in Japan, 40,000 in South Korea, 40,000 in the Philippines, 10,000 in the UK, and so forth. Private contract armies supplied by the United States are not included in these numbers. For instance, around 1,30,000 US soldiers are officially employed in Afghanistan. In contrast, the US employs an equal number of private armies in Afghanistan. These nations are referred to as the United States’ satellite nations. They adhere to US directives on all fronts, both domestic and international, and have no policies of their own. The Indian establishment may be racing to become another US satellite nation.
It should be mentioned that the US favors the BJP over the Congress. The nuclear deal was started by the BJP. Congress is not hostile to the United States. It was Rajiv Gandhi who shifted course, moving away from the concept of a “non-aligned movement” and toward US alignment.
The US and world peace benefit from a partnership with India: Pentagon dt. 10.4.13. In diplomatic terms, a senior US general has advocated for a robust strategic alliance with New Delhi, claiming that this is beneficial for regional and international peace and stability in addition to the US’s own national interests.
(I am happy to tell you that I have another website named: Hindu Religion its cultural heritage which have articles on Sanatana Dharma, Hindu culture, Veda Suktas, Devi devata stuti path, Vedas, etc. Make a visit to this website also and read the articles and express your opinion.)
UN resolution on Sri Lanka
It’s a huge joke! Because of the subsequent UN resolution, India is worried about Sri Lanka’s sovereignty being undermined. We are fully aware that we are unable to see our own faces when we gaze at others. So to see his face, one needs to use a mirror! Is India now a sovereign nation? Not in my opinion. So why should we be concerned about other countries’ sovereignty?
Replies: Agree (6),Disagree (5),Recommend,Offensive
(Watch my Videos on River Saraswati, सरस्वती नदी, Birth place of Hanuman, Location of Brahmavarta, ब्रह्मावर्त and of course truth about Aryanism, आर्याजाती वाद in my YouTube Channel. )
When determining whether to vote on the UN resolution, New Delhi said it will consider the views of Tamil Nadu MPs. Hearing such words is ticklish. Given that Tamil Nadu is a part of India, why cannot New Delhi function freely for the good of Indians?
Replies: Agree (3),Disagree (3),Recommend,Offensive
Regarding the UN vote on Sri Lanka, the US plan puts India in a difficult position (dt. 8.3.13). New Delhi’s attempts to respect the feelings of Tamil MPs while preserving relations with Colombo may be hampered by the US draft resolution against Sri Lanka. By voting against the US resolution on Sri Lanka, Pakistan demonstrated its independence. Reduce the amount of bashing. Despite the US rejecting India’s recommendations, New Delhi voted in favor of the resolution. The subservient mindset of Indian Babus knows no bounds.
Replies: Agree (6),Disagree (6),Recommend (3),Offensive
India voting against Iran on IAEA resolution
India’s reputation as a sovereign nation would be damaged in the eyes of the international community if it voted against Iran in the IAEA resolution. In India’s best interests, the American envoy to India recommends that India vote against Iran (!). The Central Government said that India would act independently of foreign powers in response to nationwide protests over the matter. However, India quickly complied with the US ambassador’s orders and cast a vote against Iran in the IAEA.
Furthermore, if recent remarks made by the Indian government regarding the Iran crisis and the nuclear agreement with the United States are any indicator, it appears that the Indian markets may soon be sold out to Western agricultural products.
In order to protect the interests of Indian farmers, Kamalnath Singh formally declared at the conclusion of the Geneva talks at the WTO that India would not yield to pressure from the United States and the European Union and would not permit farm imports into India. He also promised or argued that India’s emerging industries should be protected from foreign corporations. The purpose of Kamalnath’s speech may have been to distract the people from the true problem.
The national interests are at odds with the Indian elite.
All: The government in New Delhi has deceived politicians, lawmakers, intellectuals, and students, making it seem as though India is no longer a sovereign nation.
Surprisingly, while the identical topics are reported on front pages in the West, print media is relegating news of such national significance to interior pages with brief notes.
In other words, everyone in the establishment is working together to undermine Indian interests, and who would be the first to point this out? The dispute over India’s nuclear agreement with the US is now underway. The current problem is letting foreign organizations into our atomic reactors to keep an eye on the spread of nuclear research.
On the floor of Parliament, the Indian government recently vowed that it will not compromise on India’s security and sovereignty by splitting military and power-generating reactors. India signed the agreement with the USA, committing to the separation of military and electric power-generating reactors by 2014, notwithstanding the government’s remarks in the Parliament. The administration is currently working hard to get ready for the international examination of our reactors.
Strategic alliance with the US
The ramifications of a strategic alliance with the US are comparable to those of the “subsidiary alliance” that the Indian Rajahs and Nawans established with the British mercenaries. Therefore, Modiji’s Indian government must take the required actions to break up this lethal partnership with the United States. I’ve created the following Change.org petition to be forwarded to Prime Minister Modiji. Additionally, I have uploaded this petition to PM’s website.
using Change.org to petition India’s Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modiji. Bharat Thik hai aap ka svacha. Free India from foreign hegemony, Aur Bharat ko svechcha bharat banaaiye.
Strategic alliance
Permit Modi to act independently of his party’s directions. Under the guise of a “strategic alliance,” Modiji ought to start a “svEchcha Bharat” campaign to liberate India from US military incursions. An example of a strategic alliance is the British “subsidiary alliance.” (On theory, a subsidiary alliance pays military duty for British troops supplied by British merchants; in practice, it stripped Indian kings of their power, and in the past, the British effectively controlled India). The same will happen with the “strategic alliance” with the United States.
India loses its independence as a result of its “strategic alliance” with the US. In order to prevent the US from continuing to mistreat India, it is crucial to start the “svEchcha Bharat” movement. Please, Shri Modiji, cease constructing American military bases on Indian soil in order to defend India’s freedom and sovereignty. India loses its independence as a result of its “strategic alliance” with the US. In order to prevent the US from continuing to mistreat India, it is crucial to start the “svEchcha Bharat” movement.
Similar to previous Indian Rajahs and Nawabs who hired British armed retainers under “subsidiary alliances” to protect their lands, Modiji freed the Indian government of its responsibility to ensure the security of the country by entering into a “strategic alliance with the United States.” From now on, Babus and Indian government ministers would dally in extravagance without accountability, and the people would pay in the form of poverty, loss of freedom, and, if not outright dread of death. Let’s examine the history of the subsidiary alliance that previously enslaved India to British trade.
Subsidiary Alliances
The Nizam of Hyderabad originally struck a subsidiary alliance with the British in 1788. Tipu, the Sultan of Mysore, was assassinated in an attack by Nizam and the British in 1799. During the Battle of Mysore, Nizam was a key player. Nizam was forced to invade Mysore and submit to British orders. It is noteworthy that the subsidiary alliance stated on paper that Nizam was responsible for covering the costs of British troops stationed to protect Nizam’s territories, the majority of whom were Indian Sepoys.
The pact also stipulates that Nizam cannot have any trade agreements without the British government’s approval and cannot hire any other European powers (French, Dutch, Portuguese, etc.) for his security.
Nizam’s “freedom or independence” was permanently taken away by these two circumstances. Nonetheless, trade thrived, and the presence of British soldiers equipped with military hardware gave prosperity and peace to both the people and the elite.
It should be mentioned that at the time, India and Indian products were extremely popular worldwide. The British were modest traders at first. Back then, nobody had any suspicions about the British taking control of India.
Approximately 560 kings and Nawabs had formed a strategic alliance with the British by 1947. It should be mentioned that the British hegemony pleased all of these kings and Nawabs. The
However, under the leadership of London-educated individuals, the inhabitants of these principalities and those directly under British rule in India rose up in rebellion against British power.
So, Modiji and the BJP embracing the ” Strategic alliance ” with the US need not raise any eyebrows, given the attitude of the Rajahs and Nawabs of the British days. So it is the prudence and determination of the people that play a crucial role in making Modiji and Co. back track from ” strategic alliance ” and desist from further subjugation of India by the US.