"India has been implementing a kind of “Monroe Doctrine” in South Asia to maintain its regional hegemony. It projects itself as a future global superpower. What does the disgraceful exit from Afghanistan mean for India in the region and beyond?

"First, as the humiliating US withdrawal from Afghanistan has tarnished its global credibility and eroded global dominance, India also lost its regional credibility and dominance in South Asia. India’s claims that it has a strategic role in rebalancing global power has been proved to be psychedelic hubris by the Afghan episode.
....
Second, Indian strategists claim that India has forged a strategic partnership with the US and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue to counter China. However, any claim that India is exercising strategic autonomy in global affairs has been proved to be an exaggeration.
....
Third, after the Afghan fiasco, New Delhi’s regional dominance in South Asia is confined to Bhutan, a de facto Indian protectorate. Although India has also dominated another landlocked country, Nepal, that domination has been eroding. Kathmandu signed many agreements with Beijing ending India’s control of Nepal’s trade and transit and access to the high seas.
....
Fourth, India has lost Afghanistan as a strategic location from which to contain its traditional enemy, Pakistan.
....
Fifth, and most important, India has lost access to West and Central Asia because of its strategic alliance with the US. Pakistan has replaced India in the region. India will also lose the opportunity to be a part of the economic and strategic alliance that will develop the Eurasian landmass in the future. China, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan are planning to establish an economic and strategic partnership in the region."

("Bhim Bhurtel is visiting faculty for a master's in international relations and diplomacy, Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu, and faculty for a master's program of Development Economics, Nepal Open University. He was the executive director of the Nepal South Asia Center (2009-14), a Kathmandu-based South Asian development think-tank.")

https://asiatimes.com/2021/08/indias-afghan-pullout-epitomizes-modis-foreign-policy-ineptitude/

The withdrawal from Afghanistan is not humiliating, but the sudden
stand-down by the 330,000 Afghan soldiers is.

On hearing the remaining 2,500 US troops is withdrawing quickly in a few
week's time, the Afghan soldiers lost confidence and threw in their towels,
too. They brought out their US visa to join them to leave for US.

The sudden stand down further caused panic situation as Taliban swiftly
moved in fast toward over cities and provinces. In 7 days, 34 of the 35
provinces were ran over by Taliban. By the 9th day, Taliban arrived in
capital, Kabul.

The president of Afghanistan on seeing fled the country. By the 10th day,
the war was over, as Taliban was already sitting in the presidential office
taking picture of themselves for the world to know.

"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:e774c8d5-3227-48b2-a642-dcd9d922d6c4n@googlegroups.com...

"India has been implementing a kind of “Monroe Doctrine” in South Asia to
maintain its regional hegemony. It projects itself as a future global
superpower. What does the disgraceful exit from Afghanistan mean for India
in the region and beyond?

"First, as the humiliating US withdrawal from Afghanistan has tarnished its
global credibility and eroded global dominance, India also lost its regional
credibility and dominance in South Asia. India’s claims that it has a
strategic role in rebalancing global power has been proved to be psychedelic
hubris by the Afghan episode.
....
Second, Indian strategists claim that India has forged a strategic
partnership with the US and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue to counter
China. However, any claim that India is exercising strategic autonomy in
global affairs has been proved to be an exaggeration.
....
Third, after the Afghan fiasco, New Delhi’s regional dominance in South Asia
is confined to Bhutan, a de facto Indian protectorate. Although India has
also dominated another landlocked country, Nepal, that domination has been
eroding. Kathmandu signed many agreements with Beijing ending India’s
control of Nepal’s trade and transit and access to the high seas.
....
Fourth, India has lost Afghanistan as a strategic location from which to
contain its traditional enemy, Pakistan.
....
Fifth, and most important, India has lost access to West and Central Asia
because of its strategic alliance with the US. Pakistan has replaced India
in the region. India will also lose the opportunity to be a part of the
economic and strategic alliance that will develop the Eurasian landmass in
the future. China, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan are planning to
establish an economic and strategic partnership in the region."

("Bhim Bhurtel is visiting faculty for a master's in international relations
and diplomacy, Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu, and faculty for a master's
program of Development Economics, Nepal Open University. He was the
executive director of the Nepal South Asia Center (2009-14), a
Kathmandu-based South Asian development think-tank.")

https://asiatimes.com/2021/08/indias-afghan-pullout-epitomizes-modis-foreign-policy-ineptitude/

On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 1:34:04 AM UTC-4, moses wrote:
> The withdrawal from Afghanistan is not humiliating, but the sudden
> stand-down by the 330,000 Afghan soldiers is.

The issue raised by the Nepali writer is India's foreign policy, or its lack of.
India could benefit from both China and the US if it maintains strategic
ambiguity on as many issues as possible. Even India wants to hold on to
America's coat tail on Afghanistan, it should make sure it gets some benefit .
It did not.

"India has invested more than US$3 billion in Afghanistan since 2001. Indian investment looks like “pouring water into the desert sand.” That money could have been invested in food, health, and education for Indian children suffering from hunger, malnutrition, and lack of education. Instead, New Delhi squandered the money to fulfill the hubris of senior officers of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) to portray themselves as global strategic players."

According to the author, the "Indians were under the illusion that China would be afraid of the Indo-US strategic alliance and act as India wants. But the situation did not develop as the Indians anticipated. They took a calculated risk, but it looks like Jaishankar is poor in math, and he miscalculated. India’s risk-taking turned into a bad bet. The result is the current Indian isolation and stature shrinkage."

>
> On hearing the remaining 2,500 US troops is withdrawing quickly in a few
> week's time, the Afghan soldiers lost confidence and threw in their towels,
> too. They brought out their US visa to join them to leave for US.
>
> The sudden stand down further caused panic situation as Taliban swiftly
> moved in fast toward over cities and provinces. In 7 days, 34 of the 35
> provinces were ran over by Taliban. By the 9th day, Taliban arrived in
> capital, Kabul.
>
> The president of Afghanistan on seeing fled the country. By the 10th day,
> the war was over, as Taliban was already sitting in the presidential office
> taking picture of themselves for the world to know.
>
>
>
>
> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:e774c8d5-3227-48b2...@googlegroups.com...
> "India has been implementing a kind of “Monroe Doctrine” in South Asia to
> maintain its regional hegemony. It projects itself as a future global
> superpower. What does the disgraceful exit from Afghanistan mean for India
> in the region and beyond?
>
> "First, as the humiliating US withdrawal from Afghanistan has tarnished its
> global credibility and eroded global dominance, India also lost its regional
> credibility and dominance in South Asia. India’s claims that it has a
> strategic role in rebalancing global power has been proved to be psychedelic
> hubris by the Afghan episode.
> ...
> Second, Indian strategists claim that India has forged a strategic
> partnership with the US and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue to counter
> China. However, any claim that India is exercising strategic autonomy in
> global affairs has been proved to be an exaggeration.
> ...
> Third, after the Afghan fiasco, New Delhi’s regional dominance in South Asia
> is confined to Bhutan, a de facto Indian protectorate. Although India has
> also dominated another landlocked country, Nepal, that domination has been
> eroding. Kathmandu signed many agreements with Beijing ending India’s
> control of Nepal’s trade and transit and access to the high seas.
> ...
> Fourth, India has lost Afghanistan as a strategic location from which to
> contain its traditional enemy, Pakistan.
> ...
> Fifth, and most important, India has lost access to West and Central Asia
> because of its strategic alliance with the US. Pakistan has replaced India
> in the region. India will also lose the opportunity to be a part of the
> economic and strategic alliance that will develop the Eurasian landmass in
> the future. China, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan are planning to
> establish an economic and strategic partnership in the region."
>
> ("Bhim Bhurtel is visiting faculty for a master's in international relations
> and diplomacy, Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu, and faculty for a master's
> program of Development Economics, Nepal Open University. He was the
> executive director of the Nepal South Asia Center (2009-14), a
> Kathmandu-based South Asian development think-tank.")
>
> https://asiatimes.com/2021/08/indias-afghan-pullout-epitomizes-modis-foreign-policy-ineptitude/

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 3:49:54 PM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 1:34:04 AM UTC-4, moses wrote:
> > The withdrawal from Afghanistan is not humiliating, but the sudden
> > stand-down by the 330,000 Afghan soldiers is.
> The issue raised by the Nepali writer is India's foreign policy, or its lack of.
> India could benefit from both China and the US if it maintains strategic
> ambiguity on as many issues as possible. Even India wants to hold on to
> America's coat tail on Afghanistan, it should make sure it gets some benefit .
> It did not.
>
> "India has invested more than US$3 billion in Afghanistan since 2001. Indian investment looks like “pouring water into the desert sand.” That money could have been invested in food, health, and education for Indian children suffering from hunger, malnutrition, and lack of education. Instead, New Delhi squandered the money to fulfill the hubris of senior officers of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) to portray themselves as global strategic players."
>
> According to the author, the "Indians were under the illusion that China would be afraid of the Indo-US strategic alliance and act as India wants. But the situation did not develop as the Indians anticipated. They took a calculated risk, but it looks like Jaishankar is poor in math, and he miscalculated. India’s risk-taking turned into a bad bet. The result is the current Indian isolation and stature shrinkage."

What the Nepali author did not mention is that India and the US are both Islamophobic. This is why US media does not make a lot of noise over Indian Hindu-nationalism. In return, the US also knows very well that from India's point of view, Kashmir is the primary concern with India facing Pakistan and China. This makes India needs the US than the opposite.

> >
> > On hearing the remaining 2,500 US troops is withdrawing quickly in a few
> > week's time, the Afghan soldiers lost confidence and threw in their towels,
> > too. They brought out their US visa to join them to leave for US.
> >
> > The sudden stand down further caused panic situation as Taliban swiftly
> > moved in fast toward over cities and provinces. In 7 days, 34 of the 35
> > provinces were ran over by Taliban. By the 9th day, Taliban arrived in
> > capital, Kabul.
> >
> > The president of Afghanistan on seeing fled the country. By the 10th day,
> > the war was over, as Taliban was already sitting in the presidential office
> > taking picture of themselves for the world to know.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "ltlee1" wrote in message
> > news:e774c8d5-3227-48b2...@googlegroups.com...
> > "India has been implementing a kind of “Monroe Doctrine” in South Asia to
> > maintain its regional hegemony. It projects itself as a future global
> > superpower. What does the disgraceful exit from Afghanistan mean for India
> > in the region and beyond?
> >
> > "First, as the humiliating US withdrawal from Afghanistan has tarnished its
> > global credibility and eroded global dominance, India also lost its regional
> > credibility and dominance in South Asia. India’s claims that it has a
> > strategic role in rebalancing global power has been proved to be psychedelic
> > hubris by the Afghan episode.
> > ...
> > Second, Indian strategists claim that India has forged a strategic
> > partnership with the US and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue to counter
> > China. However, any claim that India is exercising strategic autonomy in
> > global affairs has been proved to be an exaggeration.
> > ...
> > Third, after the Afghan fiasco, New Delhi’s regional dominance in South Asia
> > is confined to Bhutan, a de facto Indian protectorate. Although India has
> > also dominated another landlocked country, Nepal, that domination has been
> > eroding. Kathmandu signed many agreements with Beijing ending India’s
> > control of Nepal’s trade and transit and access to the high seas.
> > ...
> > Fourth, India has lost Afghanistan as a strategic location from which to
> > contain its traditional enemy, Pakistan.
> > ...
> > Fifth, and most important, India has lost access to West and Central Asia
> > because of its strategic alliance with the US. Pakistan has replaced India
> > in the region. India will also lose the opportunity to be a part of the
> > economic and strategic alliance that will develop the Eurasian landmass in
> > the future. China, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan are planning to
> > establish an economic and strategic partnership in the region."
> >
> > ("Bhim Bhurtel is visiting faculty for a master's in international relations
> > and diplomacy, Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu, and faculty for a master's
> > program of Development Economics, Nepal Open University. He was the
> > executive director of the Nepal South Asia Center (2009-14), a
> > Kathmandu-based South Asian development think-tank.")
> >
> > https://asiatimes.com/2021/08/indias-afghan-pullout-epitomizes-modis-foreign-policy-ineptitude/

India wants to portray themselves as global strategic players by ways of
portraying with the no. 1 superpower. If one stands side by side with a big
power, the standing will stand tall, and will rise and will shine out fine.

India does not have the means to sustain that fake kinds of "portraying",
meaning they can be "punctured" because deep down they do not have any means
to support it. It will sooner than later fizzle out and fallen sideway.

In short, India does not have the military fire power, economic power,
sanitation power, tourism power, agriculture power, financial power, talent
power, global business power, and global influential power.

So, how long can India stand out and maintain a shoe-shined image of being a
"global strategic player", will depend on US to support their image.

India also needs to show its people how the economic will play out to them.
They have to show their people that "portraying" of themselves in faked up
manners will bring export jobs for them.

India's export of its labour at all levels is dependent on their good
relationships developed with other countries that imported them.

"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:78db4c59-8159-4b6e-97b3-57a5f2c5fcc1n@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 1:34:04 AM UTC-4, moses wrote:
> The withdrawal from Afghanistan is not humiliating, but the sudden
> stand-down by the 330,000 Afghan soldiers is.

The issue raised by the Nepali writer is India's foreign policy, or its lack
of.
India could benefit from both China and the US if it maintains strategic
ambiguity on as many issues as possible. Even India wants to hold on to
America's coat tail on Afghanistan, it should make sure it gets some benefit
..
It did not.

"India has invested more than US$3 billion in Afghanistan since 2001. Indian
investment looks like “pouring water into the desert sand.” That money could
have been invested in food, health, and education for Indian children
suffering from hunger, malnutrition, and lack of education. Instead, New
Delhi squandered the money to fulfill the hubris of senior officers of the
Indian Foreign Service (IFS) to portray themselves as global strategic
players."

According to the author, the "Indians were under the illusion that China
would be afraid of the Indo-US strategic alliance and act as India wants.
But the situation did not develop as the Indians anticipated. They took a
calculated risk, but it looks like Jaishankar is poor in math, and he
miscalculated. India’s risk-taking turned into a bad bet. The result is the
current Indian isolation and stature shrinkage."

>
> On hearing the remaining 2,500 US troops is withdrawing quickly in a few
> week's time, the Afghan soldiers lost confidence and threw in their
> towels,
> too. They brought out their US visa to join them to leave for US.
>
> The sudden stand down further caused panic situation as Taliban swiftly
> moved in fast toward over cities and provinces. In 7 days, 34 of the 35
> provinces were ran over by Taliban. By the 9th day, Taliban arrived in
> capital, Kabul.
>
> The president of Afghanistan on seeing fled the country. By the 10th day,
> the war was over, as Taliban was already sitting in the presidential
> office
> taking picture of themselves for the world to know.
>
>
>
>
> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:e774c8d5-3227-48b2...@googlegroups.com...
> "India has been implementing a kind of “Monroe Doctrine” in South Asia to
> maintain its regional hegemony. It projects itself as a future global
> superpower. What does the disgraceful exit from Afghanistan mean for India
> in the region and beyond?
>
> "First, as the humiliating US withdrawal from Afghanistan has tarnished
> its
> global credibility and eroded global dominance, India also lost its
> regional
> credibility and dominance in South Asia. India’s claims that it has a
> strategic role in rebalancing global power has been proved to be
> psychedelic
> hubris by the Afghan episode.
> ...
> Second, Indian strategists claim that India has forged a strategic
> partnership with the US and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue to counter
> China. However, any claim that India is exercising strategic autonomy in
> global affairs has been proved to be an exaggeration.
> ...
> Third, after the Afghan fiasco, New Delhi’s regional dominance in South
> Asia
> is confined to Bhutan, a de facto Indian protectorate. Although India has
> also dominated another landlocked country, Nepal, that domination has been
> eroding. Kathmandu signed many agreements with Beijing ending India’s
> control of Nepal’s trade and transit and access to the high seas.
> ...
> Fourth, India has lost Afghanistan as a strategic location from which to
> contain its traditional enemy, Pakistan.
> ...
> Fifth, and most important, India has lost access to West and Central Asia
> because of its strategic alliance with the US. Pakistan has replaced India
> in the region. India will also lose the opportunity to be a part of the
> economic and strategic alliance that will develop the Eurasian landmass in
> the future. China, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan are planning to
> establish an economic and strategic partnership in the region."
>
> ("Bhim Bhurtel is visiting faculty for a master's in international
> relations
> and diplomacy, Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu, and faculty for a
> master's
> program of Development Economics, Nepal Open University. He was the
> executive director of the Nepal South Asia Center (2009-14), a
> Kathmandu-based South Asian development think-tank.")
>
> https://asiatimes.com/2021/08/indias-afghan-pullout-epitomizes-modis-foreign-policy-ineptitude/

India needs US to elbow India's power shoves on neighbouring countries such
Pakistan and China.

In return, India will give their elbow power to support US in whatever in
the region and international arena.

They will take eye cues from US and will elbow behind US whenever needed to.

India needs to partner US to show the world how military powerful India is.

In reality, India is living in perception to the world.

"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:2437bfd1-d960-4afa-9e83-1e64a09177c5n@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 3:49:54 PM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 1:34:04 AM UTC-4, moses wrote:
> > The withdrawal from Afghanistan is not humiliating, but the sudden
> > stand-down by the 330,000 Afghan soldiers is.
> The issue raised by the Nepali writer is India's foreign policy, or its
> lack of.
> India could benefit from both China and the US if it maintains strategic
> ambiguity on as many issues as possible. Even India wants to hold on to
> America's coat tail on Afghanistan, it should make sure it gets some
> benefit .
> It did not.
>
> "India has invested more than US$3 billion in Afghanistan since 2001.
> Indian investment looks like “pouring water into the desert sand.” That
> money could have been invested in food, health, and education for Indian
> children suffering from hunger, malnutrition, and lack of education.
> Instead, New Delhi squandered the money to fulfill the hubris of senior
> officers of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) to portray themselves as
> global strategic players."
>
> According to the author, the "Indians were under the illusion that China
> would be afraid of the Indo-US strategic alliance and act as India wants.
> But the situation did not develop as the Indians anticipated. They took a
> calculated risk, but it looks like Jaishankar is poor in math, and he
> miscalculated. India’s risk-taking turned into a bad bet. The result is
> the current Indian isolation and stature shrinkage."

What the Nepali author did not mention is that India and the US are both
Islamophobic. This is why US media does not make a lot of noise over Indian
Hindu-nationalism. In return, the US also knows very well that from India's
point of view, Kashmir is the primary concern with India facing Pakistan
and China. This makes India needs the US than the opposite.

> >
> > On hearing the remaining 2,500 US troops is withdrawing quickly in a few
> > week's time, the Afghan soldiers lost confidence and threw in their
> > towels,
> > too. They brought out their US visa to join them to leave for US.
> >
> > The sudden stand down further caused panic situation as Taliban swiftly
> > moved in fast toward over cities and provinces. In 7 days, 34 of the 35
> > provinces were ran over by Taliban. By the 9th day, Taliban arrived in
> > capital, Kabul.
> >
> > The president of Afghanistan on seeing fled the country. By the 10th
> > day,
> > the war was over, as Taliban was already sitting in the presidential
> > office
> > taking picture of themselves for the world to know.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "ltlee1" wrote in message
> > news:e774c8d5-3227-48b2...@googlegroups.com...
> > "India has been implementing a kind of “Monroe Doctrine” in South Asia
> > to
> > maintain its regional hegemony. It projects itself as a future global
> > superpower. What does the disgraceful exit from Afghanistan mean for
> > India
> > in the region and beyond?
> >
> > "First, as the humiliating US withdrawal from Afghanistan has tarnished
> > its
> > global credibility and eroded global dominance, India also lost its
> > regional
> > credibility and dominance in South Asia. India’s claims that it has a
> > strategic role in rebalancing global power has been proved to be
> > psychedelic
> > hubris by the Afghan episode.
> > ...
> > Second, Indian strategists claim that India has forged a strategic
> > partnership with the US and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue to
> > counter
> > China. However, any claim that India is exercising strategic autonomy in
> > global affairs has been proved to be an exaggeration.
> > ...
> > Third, after the Afghan fiasco, New Delhi’s regional dominance in South
> > Asia
> > is confined to Bhutan, a de facto Indian protectorate. Although India
> > has
> > also dominated another landlocked country, Nepal, that domination has
> > been
> > eroding. Kathmandu signed many agreements with Beijing ending India’s
> > control of Nepal’s trade and transit and access to the high seas.
> > ...
> > Fourth, India has lost Afghanistan as a strategic location from which to
> > contain its traditional enemy, Pakistan.
> > ...
> > Fifth, and most important, India has lost access to West and Central
> > Asia
> > because of its strategic alliance with the US. Pakistan has replaced
> > India
> > in the region. India will also lose the opportunity to be a part of the
> > economic and strategic alliance that will develop the Eurasian landmass
> > in
> > the future. China, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan are planning to
> > establish an economic and strategic partnership in the region."
> >
> > ("Bhim Bhurtel is visiting faculty for a master's in international
> > relations
> > and diplomacy, Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu, and faculty for a
> > master's
> > program of Development Economics, Nepal Open University. He was the
> > executive director of the Nepal South Asia Center (2009-14), a
> > Kathmandu-based South Asian development think-tank.")
> >
> > https://asiatimes.com/2021/08/indias-afghan-pullout-epitomizes-modis-foreign-policy-ineptitude/

"Hiroko" wrote in message news:sh243a$nr5$1@dont-email.me...
>
> India needs US to elbow India's power shoves on neighbouring countries
> such Pakistan and China.

It doesn't need our nukes to obliterate both...

India invested US$3 billion in Afghanistan is one of the largest regional
donors to Afghanistan.

It is more than China's investment of US$660 million. India wants to show
support to Afghan government that It does not support the terrorist,
Taliban.

Pakistan hide and breed and shelters the Taliban. The aim of India's
investment is to use Afghan to prevent Taliban from sneaking into India.

Now of course they lost the bet. India's US$ 3 billion investment is in
infrastructure such as in building of highway, roads, dams, electricity
production, schools, libraries, and projects

"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:78db4c59-8159-4b6e-97b3-57a5f2c5fcc1n@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 1:34:04 AM UTC-4, moses wrote:
> The withdrawal from Afghanistan is not humiliating, but the sudden
> stand-down by the 330,000 Afghan soldiers is.

The issue raised by the Nepali writer is India's foreign policy, or its lack
of.
India could benefit from both China and the US if it maintains strategic
ambiguity on as many issues as possible. Even India wants to hold on to
America's coat tail on Afghanistan, it should make sure it gets some benefit
..
It did not.

"India has invested more than US$3 billion in Afghanistan since 2001. Indian
investment looks like “pouring water into the desert sand.” That money could
have been invested in food, health, and education for Indian children
suffering from hunger, malnutrition, and lack of education. Instead, New
Delhi squandered the money to fulfill the hubris of senior officers of the
Indian Foreign Service (IFS) to portray themselves as global strategic
players."

According to the author, the "Indians were under the illusion that China
would be afraid of the Indo-US strategic alliance and act as India wants.
But the situation did not develop as the Indians anticipated. They took a
calculated risk, but it looks like Jaishankar is poor in math, and he
miscalculated. India’s risk-taking turned into a bad bet. The result is the
current Indian isolation and stature shrinkage."

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 2:46:05 AM UTC-4, kawaga wrote:
> India invested US$3 billion in Afghanistan is one of the largest regional
> donors to Afghanistan.
>
> It is more than China's investment of US$660 million. India wants to show
> support to Afghan government that It does not support the terrorist,
> Taliban.
>
> Pakistan hide and breed and shelters the Taliban. The aim of India's
> investment is to use Afghan to prevent Taliban from sneaking into India.
>
> Now of course they lost the bet. India's US$ 3 billion investment is in
> infrastructure such as in building of highway, roads, dams, electricity
> production, schools, libraries, and projects.

Not a lot of coverage on how India had invested in Afghanistan. China was
supposed to invest US$ 660 million in a mine operation. But that was stopped
for several years. Have no idea how much money had already invested. The
same could apply to Indian investment.
Concerning US "nation building" in Afghanistan, there is not much to show for.
WSJ has an article today entitled
"U.S. Left Afghanistan Littered With Decaying Factories, Schools, Offices."

Needless to say, Indian investments assumed US military assured stability.
Hence the Indian did not reach out for the Taliban. Will India involve in the
rebuilding of Afghanistan again with Taliban playing host? Time will tell.

On a longer time horizon, the US does need a lot of bright Indians to supplement
its STEM labor force. One intriguing question is whether Indians immigrants
would dominate US High Tech like Jews dominating US Finance today in the next
10 to 20 years.

>
>
> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:78db4c59-8159-4b6e...@googlegroups.com...
> On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 1:34:04 AM UTC-4, moses wrote:
> > The withdrawal from Afghanistan is not humiliating, but the sudden
> > stand-down by the 330,000 Afghan soldiers is.
>
> The issue raised by the Nepali writer is India's foreign policy, or its lack
> of.
> India could benefit from both China and the US if it maintains strategic
> ambiguity on as many issues as possible. Even India wants to hold on to
> America's coat tail on Afghanistan, it should make sure it gets some benefit
> .
> It did not.
>
> "India has invested more than US$3 billion in Afghanistan since 2001. Indian
> investment looks like “pouring water into the desert sand.” That money could
> have been invested in food, health, and education for Indian children
> suffering from hunger, malnutrition, and lack of education. Instead, New
> Delhi squandered the money to fulfill the hubris of senior officers of the
> Indian Foreign Service (IFS) to portray themselves as global strategic
> players."
>
> According to the author, the "Indians were under the illusion that China
> would be afraid of the Indo-US strategic alliance and act as India wants.
> But the situation did not develop as the Indians anticipated. They took a
> calculated risk, but it looks like Jaishankar is poor in math, and he
> miscalculated. India’s risk-taking turned into a bad bet. The result is the
> current Indian isolation and stature shrinkage."

The US $3 billion could be just a bull shit number given by India foreign
service. A lot of countries also like to bull shit their spending number
when comes to it.

They bull shit number on their own internal infrastructure spending too. So
not every country has the ability to produce a truthful report of their
spending at all.

"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:f6578cae-6e9b-4ede-8ed5-b34e77ef92e4n@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 2:46:05 AM UTC-4, kawaga wrote:
> India invested US$3 billion in Afghanistan is one of the largest regional
> donors to Afghanistan.
>
> It is more than China's investment of US$660 million. India wants to show
> support to Afghan government that It does not support the terrorist,
> Taliban.
>
> Pakistan hide and breed and shelters the Taliban. The aim of India's
> investment is to use Afghan to prevent Taliban from sneaking into India.
>
> Now of course they lost the bet. India's US$ 3 billion investment is in
> infrastructure such as in building of highway, roads, dams, electricity
> production, schools, libraries, and projects.

Not a lot of coverage on how India had invested in Afghanistan. China was
supposed to invest US$ 660 million in a mine operation. But that was stopped
for several years. Have no idea how much money had already invested. The
same could apply to Indian investment.
Concerning US "nation building" in Afghanistan, there is not much to show
for.
WSJ has an article today entitled
"U.S. Left Afghanistan Littered With Decaying Factories, Schools, Offices."

Needless to say, Indian investments assumed US military assured stability.
Hence the Indian did not reach out for the Taliban. Will India involve in
the
rebuilding of Afghanistan again with Taliban playing host? Time will tell.

On a longer time horizon, the US does need a lot of bright Indians to
supplement
its STEM labor force. One intriguing question is whether Indians immigrants
would dominate US High Tech like Jews dominating US Finance today in the
next
10 to 20 years.

>
>
> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:78db4c59-8159-4b6e...@googlegroups.com...
> On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 1:34:04 AM UTC-4, moses wrote:
> > The withdrawal from Afghanistan is not humiliating, but the sudden
> > stand-down by the 330,000 Afghan soldiers is.
>
> The issue raised by the Nepali writer is India's foreign policy, or its
> lack
> of.
> India could benefit from both China and the US if it maintains strategic
> ambiguity on as many issues as possible. Even India wants to hold on to
> America's coat tail on Afghanistan, it should make sure it gets some
> benefit
> .
> It did not.
>
> "India has invested more than US$3 billion in Afghanistan since 2001.
> Indian
> investment looks like “pouring water into the desert sand.” That money
> could
> have been invested in food, health, and education for Indian children
> suffering from hunger, malnutrition, and lack of education. Instead, New
> Delhi squandered the money to fulfill the hubris of senior officers of the
> Indian Foreign Service (IFS) to portray themselves as global strategic
> players."
>
> According to the author, the "Indians were under the illusion that China
> would be afraid of the Indo-US strategic alliance and act as India wants.
> But the situation did not develop as the Indians anticipated. They took a
> calculated risk, but it looks like Jaishankar is poor in math, and he
> miscalculated. India’s risk-taking turned into a bad bet. The result is
> the
> current Indian isolation and stature shrinkage."