Q.
India is a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Did this bring any tangible benefits to India?. Is so how?
Asked by George Mathew,
10 May '08 09:33 pm
Earn 10 points for answering
Answers (3)
1.
Well it kept India out of the Cold war officially ...though we gradually leaned towards the Soviet Union in order to keep our left parties happy and to ensure the Soviet Union's veto at the Security Council whenever the Kashmir issue was raised.
It also prevented the USA from establishing military bases on Indian soil and it protected us from becoming an American lackey.
Otherwise economically I don't think it helped us much.
Answered by joyoti sen, 10 May '08 09:37 pm
It also prevented the USA from establishing military bases on Indian soil and it protected us from becoming an American lackey.
Otherwise economically I don't think it helped us much.
Report abuse
Useful
(0)
Not Useful
(0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
2.
It had IMMENSE benefit to. But we didn't follow through on it.
Several leaders like TIto of Yugo, Nasser of Egypt (who had SAUDI ARABIA SUPPORT- ala OIL), Kim Il Sung of DPR Korea banked on it and they were core members. But when our chief ally- Nasser- got attacked, we just sat on the sidelines and let him fall.
In that regard, our position and conduct in NAM sort of made us a laughing stock and a junior partner for hire in world politics :)
Whereas whenthe US & the WHOLE UN attacked Norht Korea, the Chinese intervened w/o USSR help, and so did the Soviets in Vietnam. Nasser was our ally.
Had we manned up and send in a good 300,000 of our brave fighters, and some tanks, artillery and pilots, we would've had a LOT more influnce in the MIDDLE EAST- read.....PETROL!
Nasser had a LOT of regional support and was 100% pro India, through NAM. And we just let him die that way. That is poor form. I think that dented our ability to get allies.
And then we CHOSE TO ...more
Answered by A Moin, 10 May '08 10:01 pm
Several leaders like TIto of Yugo, Nasser of Egypt (who had SAUDI ARABIA SUPPORT- ala OIL), Kim Il Sung of DPR Korea banked on it and they were core members. But when our chief ally- Nasser- got attacked, we just sat on the sidelines and let him fall.
In that regard, our position and conduct in NAM sort of made us a laughing stock and a junior partner for hire in world politics :)
Whereas whenthe US & the WHOLE UN attacked Norht Korea, the Chinese intervened w/o USSR help, and so did the Soviets in Vietnam. Nasser was our ally.
Had we manned up and send in a good 300,000 of our brave fighters, and some tanks, artillery and pilots, we would've had a LOT more influnce in the MIDDLE EAST- read.....PETROL!
Nasser had a LOT of regional support and was 100% pro India, through NAM. And we just let him die that way. That is poor form. I think that dented our ability to get allies.
And then we CHOSE TO ...more
Report abuse
Useful
(0)
Not Useful
(0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received
3.
Yes, just after independence it was necessary for India and the world as a whole
Answered by Apurba Nandi, 10 May '08 09:38 pm
Report abuse
Useful
(0)
Not Useful
(0)
Your vote on this answer has already been received