State owned india refiners start yuan payments for Russian oil imports

[futureofandhra]

12 hours ago, rushmore said:

India foreign policy ni M gudipindi aa Nehru. Appude US tho vellunte China ki poyina Investments India vocheyvi oka 50% ayina! Ippudu Russia tho friendship nunchi bayataki raavatam antha easy kaadu....It's a decades long process. Modi is at least expediting it but Congress & the Nehru-Gandhi shaped India's foreign policy. They delay the withdrawal process with Russia because Russia knows everything about Nehru family! Congress policy ki vote vesedani kante malli British ni invite chesi take over cheyyamani cheppali!

what a joke man 

ye whatsapp university lo dhi ee info

geopolitics wonot depend on one person 

come to reality situation was different those days

nehru failed on china war n kashmir but not on this case

 

[hyperbole]

8 hours ago, veerigadu said:

Pakistan is one kind of example. And then you can see other countries like South Korea. SK excelled a lot after aligning with vomerica. 
 

I think Pakistan is infested with religious fanatics. They are not keeping themselves updated with technology and globalization. They are isolated and deeply immersed in islamizxxxc extremism. 

Korea and Taiwan are what they are because of the Japanese conquest, japs thought them displine and skills to excel, thet got liberated after the fall of Japan during world war 2. 

They never were US ***** in the region, US aligned status because of N Korea alignment with Russia and China. Also they never went knocking the door but the support was automatic. 

[futureofandhra]

14 hours ago, JackSeal said:

cc: @Telugodura456

congrats for the @paytm post 

russia payments jaggad tho cheyinchu

konchem common sense vadu 

india does not have choice 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, shaktimaan said:

lol you and your senseless comments 

ivanni cnn,bbc lo chepparu like you said 

nuvvu Fox News, NDTV, republic lo chusthava brain dead idiot 

Don't be hurt. It's not your fault that you fell for propaganda of the Congress party. But It's ur fault to still believe whatever they're feeding you. Backing congress party unconditionally is not an antidote for ur BJP hate. U can hate BJP so much but nobody cares because people view 2 parties as which one is a lesser evil. Congress has always had excellent leaders but they were never allowed to call shots or even reach top. Only leaders such as PVNR, Dr Singh ever came close but Dr. Singh was as much a puppet as any other Congress leader. Think independently.

[shaktimaan]

12 minutes ago, rushmore said:

Don't be hurt. It's not your fault that you fell for propaganda of the Congress party. But It's ur fault to still believe whatever they're feeding you. Backing congress party unconditionally is not an antidote for ur BJP hate. U can hate BJP so much but nobody cares because people view 2 parties as which one is a lesser evil. Congress has always had excellent leaders but they were never allowed to call shots or even reach top. Only leaders such as PVNR, Dr Singh ever came close but Dr. Singh was as much a puppet as any other Congress leader. Think independently.

When did I even mention congress ra dhed. Anni nuvve assume chesko inka

ban china lavda china movement annaru ga. malla poyi vadide cheekutunnaru, adi mana gathi 

I had respect for the old bjp party but not for the joke what it is right now.

Stop reading propaganda and open up your eyes 

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, futureofandhra said:

what a joke man 

ye whatsapp university lo dhi ee info

geopolitics wonot depend on one person 

come to reality situation was different those days

nehru failed on china war n kashmir but not on this case

 

Nu anduke antha pedda TDP fan! 

It's true that Geopolitics won't depend on one person, in general sense. 

But Nehru was just any person. He was the first PM of India & his family went on to rule India for the next 40 or so years. 

Some people still don't even admit that Nehru's failure on China & Kashmir! That's how much powerful the propaganda is!

Not realizing that you're a victim of propaganda, you believe others r falling for the propaganda. 

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, shaktimaan said:

When did I even mention congress ra dhed. Anni nuvve assume chesko inka

ban china lavda china movement annaru ga. malla poyi vadide cheekutunnaru, adi mana gathi 

I had respect for the old bjp party but not for the joke what it is right now.

Stop reading propaganda and open up your eyes 

China ni kotte scene India ki ledanna sangathi andariki telusu. If anybody believes anything other than that, they're definitely what u say.

Just like how some people believe that CBN is a visionary & YSR is a "Maha Neta"! 

 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, hyperbole said:

In 1990, the per capita income of China was $318, while that of India’s was slightly greater at $368. US manufacturing outsourcing started only after 1990’s, also China was obvious preference because geographically easily accessible through the  pacific channel. Deng Xiaoping open door policy in 1980/1990’s transformed FDI in China in the 90s/2000 and beyond.

Nehru was long gone by then.

If India sailed with USA India would have ended up as another Pakistan(to date US controls park government through its military and look at how Imran Kahn was sacked). Liaqat Ali Khan Just did that in 1950 and kept knocking the doors of USA who after coming off world war 2 was looking for an anchor region in Asia and since then found its Bakra. Non-aligned stance was required at that time. Be glad Nehru that didn’t sell our future for few dollars 

You need to understand the context first:

Prior to the initiation of economic reforms and trade liberalization nearly 40 years ago, China maintained policies that kept the economy very poor, stagnant, centrally controlled, vastly inefficient, and relatively isolated from the global economy. Then Nixon's tour of China happened. What did they do & why did they do?

Nixon and Kissinger discussed a range of issues with Zhou and Mao Zedong, the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party. China provided assurances that it would not intervene in the Vietnam War, while the United States promised to prevent Japan from acquiring nuclear weapons. Nixon recognized Taiwan as part of China, while the Chinese agreed to pursue a peaceful settlement in the Cross-Strait dispute with the ROC. The United States and China increased trade relations and established unofficial embassies in each other's respective capitals. Though some conservatives criticized his visit, Nixon's opening of relations with China was widely popular in the United States. The visit also aided Nixon's negotiations with the Soviet Union, which feared the possibility of an alliance between the United States and the PRC.

Without this significant historical incident, Deng Xiaoping's opening up of economy & his reforms wouldn't have been possible. He went to Singapore & saw the achievements of Lee Kuan Yew to create an economic success in Singapore which had a profound effect on the CCP leadership in China. Singapore has close historic and military ties to the United States, forged during the Cold War when former leader Lee Kuan Yew took a firm stand against communism in South East Asia.  Deng Xiaoping, to emulate his policies of economic growth, entrepreneurship, and subtle suppression of dissent. Over the years, more than 22,000 Chinese officials were sent to Singapore to study its methods. Later, Deng Xiaoping visited the US in 1979 to forge ties with the US.

2 of the most significant India's future destroying Nehru's foreign policy blunders:

Not at the Cost of China: New Evidence Regarding US Proposals to Nehru for Joining the United Nations Security Council

By the US in August 1950—to assist India in assuming a permanent seat at the UN Security Council has recently emerged. Nehru’s rejection of the US offer underlined the consistency of his conviction that the PRC’s legitimate interests must be acknowledged in order to reduce international tensions. Integrating the PRC into the international community by conceding its(India's) right to the Chinese seat at the Security Council was in fact a central pillar of Nehru’s foreign policy. Nehru’s skepticism about accepting this offer, and thereby disrupting the dynamics of the UN, revealed the reverence he had for the international organization, despite its flaws.  Furthermore, his principled rejection of the US’s suggestion indicates Indian agency in its difficult relations with the US at this time. Finally, Nehru’s sense that India deserved recognition as a great country was made plain, although this was qualified by his refusal to compromise core principles to gain such recognition. That the US made such an approach to India also suggests that the traditional emphasis on the US’s early attempt to pursue an even-handed approach to the subcontinent’s major powers and defer to the UK’s greater experience in the region ought to be reconsidered. Furthermore, this episode enriches our understanding of the US government’s internal wrangling over how to bend the UN to its interests in this early stage of the Cold War.

 

And this:

Relations between the U.S. and India have veered between amity and hostility from the beginning. In October 1949, President Harry Truman dispatched his personal plane, the Independence, to transport Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who was then in London, and welcomed him when he landed in Washington. The red-carpet treatment was a sign of how badly the Truman administration wished to woo the Indian leader on his first official visit to the U.S. As a committed democrat and a heroic figure in the developing world, Nehru was a valuable guest—exactly the friend Washington needed in its expanding contest with the Soviet Union.

Nehru seemed to reciprocate. In an address to Congress, he noted that, with their common political values, “friendship and cooperation between our two countries are ... natural.” Yet differences quickly got in the way. When Secretary of State Dean Acheson hosted Nehru at his home, he invited him, in the words of the readout, “to feel the greatest freedom to tell me about any situation in which he felt that action of the Department had been mistaken or unhelpful.” Nehru proceeded to lecture him until one in the morning. When Acheson expressed concern about a Communist takeover in Vietnam, Nehru said, as the secretary recorded, that the American position “was a misapplication to the East or European experience.” The two also disagreed on recognizing the new Communist regime in China, founded a few days earlier. Later, Acheson described Nehru as “one of the most difficult men with whom I have ever had to deal.”

What set the two at odds was a fundamental divergence in worldview. With the onset of the Cold War, the Americans expected Nehru to take their side. Nehru believed that dividing the world into contending blocs was inherently dangerous. In a speech given at Columbia during the same visit, he described one of India’s main foreign-policy objectives as “the pursuit of peace, not through alignment with any major power or group of powers, but through an independent approach to each controversial or disputed issue.” He continued, “The very process of a marshaling of the world into two hostile camps precipitates the conflict which it [has] sought to avoid.”

Nehru had no wish to play second fiddle to Washington, either. His dearly held principles made him one of the most prominent figures of the Non-Aligned Movement, which was founded in 1961. He had a vision of India’s future as an influential power in its own right, and as a champion of the many new countries also emerging from colonial empires. In that respect, the U.S. was as much a potential competitor as a partner.

More than 70 years later, Nehru’s ghost haunts U.S.-India relations. The world is again splitting into two opposed camps, today centered on the U.S. and China. Once again, New Delhi is being pressured to take a side. And again, the Indians are reluctant to choose—maddening U.S. policy makers as they did during the Cold War.

This time, though, New Delhi’s calculus is somewhat different. Nehru’s position was complicated by his admiration for the Soviet Union, especially its state-led economic model, elements of which he introduced at home. Modi treats China as a threat to India’s national security. That dovetails with the Biden administration’s aim of engaging more with India as part of its wider strategy of contending with China.

 

[JackSeal]

1 minute ago, rushmore said:

You need to understand the context first:

Prior to the initiation of economic reforms and trade liberalization nearly 40 years ago, China maintained policies that kept the economy very poor, stagnant, centrally controlled, vastly inefficient, and relatively isolated from the global economy. Then Nixon's tour of China happened. What did they do & why did they do?

Nixon and Kissinger discussed a range of issues with Zhou and Mao Zedong, the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party. China provided assurances that it would not intervene in the Vietnam War, while the United States promised to prevent Japan from acquiring nuclear weapons. Nixon recognized Taiwan as part of China, while the Chinese agreed to pursue a peaceful settlement in the Cross-Strait dispute with the ROC. The United States and China increased trade relations and established unofficial embassies in each other's respective capitals. Though some conservatives criticized his visit, Nixon's opening of relations with China was widely popular in the United States. The visit also aided Nixon's negotiations with the Soviet Union, which feared the possibility of an alliance between the United States and the PRC.

Without this significant historical incident, Deng Xiaoping's opening up of economy & his reforms wouldn't have been possible. He went to Singapore & saw the achievements of Lee Kuan Yew to create an economic success in Singapore which had a profound effect on the CCP leadership in China. Singapore has close historic and military ties to the United States, forged during the Cold War when former leader Lee Kuan Yew took a firm stand against communism in South East Asia.  Deng Xiaoping, to emulate his policies of economic growth, entrepreneurship, and subtle suppression of dissent. Over the years, more than 22,000 Chinese officials were sent to Singapore to study its methods. Later, Deng Xiaoping visited the US in 1979 to forge ties with the US.

2 of the most significant India's future destroying Nehru's foreign policy blunders:

Not at the Cost of China: New Evidence Regarding US Proposals to Nehru for Joining the United Nations Security Council

By the US in August 1950—to assist India in assuming a permanent seat at the UN Security Council has recently emerged. Nehru’s rejection of the US offer underlined the consistency of his conviction that the PRC’s legitimate interests must be acknowledged in order to reduce international tensions. Integrating the PRC into the international community by conceding its(India's) right to the Chinese seat at the Security Council was in fact a central pillar of Nehru’s foreign policy. Nehru’s skepticism about accepting this offer, and thereby disrupting the dynamics of the UN, revealed the reverence he had for the international organization, despite its flaws.  Furthermore, his principled rejection of the US’s suggestion indicates Indian agency in its difficult relations with the US at this time. Finally, Nehru’s sense that India deserved recognition as a great country was made plain, although this was qualified by his refusal to compromise core principles to gain such recognition. That the US made such an approach to India also suggests that the traditional emphasis on the US’s early attempt to pursue an even-handed approach to the subcontinent’s major powers and defer to the UK’s greater experience in the region ought to be reconsidered. Furthermore, this episode enriches our understanding of the US government’s internal wrangling over how to bend the UN to its interests in this early stage of the Cold War.

 

And this:

Relations between the U.S. and India have veered between amity and hostility from the beginning. In October 1949, President Harry Truman dispatched his personal plane, the Independence, to transport Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who was then in London, and welcomed him when he landed in Washington. The red-carpet treatment was a sign of how badly the Truman administration wished to woo the Indian leader on his first official visit to the U.S. As a committed democrat and a heroic figure in the developing world, Nehru was a valuable guest—exactly the friend Washington needed in its expanding contest with the Soviet Union.

Nehru seemed to reciprocate. In an address to Congress, he noted that, with their common political values, “friendship and cooperation between our two countries are ... natural.” Yet differences quickly got in the way. When Secretary of State Dean Acheson hosted Nehru at his home, he invited him, in the words of the readout, “to feel the greatest freedom to tell me about any situation in which he felt that action of the Department had been mistaken or unhelpful.” Nehru proceeded to lecture him until one in the morning. When Acheson expressed concern about a Communist takeover in Vietnam, Nehru said, as the secretary recorded, that the American position “was a misapplication to the East or European experience.” The two also disagreed on recognizing the new Communist regime in China, founded a few days earlier. Later, Acheson described Nehru as “one of the most difficult men with whom I have ever had to deal.”

What set the two at odds was a fundamental divergence in worldview. With the onset of the Cold War, the Americans expected Nehru to take their side. Nehru believed that dividing the world into contending blocs was inherently dangerous. In a speech given at Columbia during the same visit, he described one of India’s main foreign-policy objectives as “the pursuit of peace, not through alignment with any major power or group of powers, but through an independent approach to each controversial or disputed issue.” He continued, “The very process of a marshaling of the world into two hostile camps precipitates the conflict which it [has] sought to avoid.”

Nehru had no wish to play second fiddle to Washington, either. His dearly held principles made him one of the most prominent figures of the Non-Aligned Movement, which was founded in 1961. He had a vision of India’s future as an influential power in its own right, and as a champion of the many new countries also emerging from colonial empires. In that respect, the U.S. was as much a potential competitor as a partner.

More than 70 years later, Nehru’s ghost haunts U.S.-India relations. The world is again splitting into two opposed camps, today centered on the U.S. and China. Once again, New Delhi is being pressured to take a side. And again, the Indians are reluctant to choose—maddening U.S. policy makers as they did during the Cold War.

This time, though, New Delhi’s calculus is somewhat different. Nehru’s position was complicated by his admiration for the Soviet Union, especially its state-led economic model, elements of which he introduced at home. Modi treats China as a threat to India’s national security. That dovetails with the Biden administration’s aim of engaging more with India as part of its wider strategy of contending with China.

 

Dumbo you are comparing a newly independent nation with widespread malnutrition and avg life expectancy less than 40 with china.

[Joker_007]

light thesuko.. Indian Rupees lo pay cheste manalni dobbadaniki Indians unnaru.. 

[futureofandhra]

6 hours ago, rushmore said:

Nu anduke antha pedda TDP fan! 

It's true that Geopolitics won't depend on one person, in general sense. 

But Nehru was just any person. He was the first PM of India & his family went on to rule India for the next 40 or so years. 

Some people still don't even admit that Nehru's failure on China & Kashmir! That's how much powerful the propaganda is!

Not realizing that you're a victim of propaganda, you believe others r falling for the propaganda. 

 

nee laga hate tho opinion kadhu naadhi

The reason I chose cbn over jagagd is cbn is better whether its companies n infra n irrigation projects 

tell me why ur supporting jaggad please do not say that he improved schools as his achievement 

coming to geopolitics let me put some reasonable points that will give you some idea 

Goa vishayam lo em jarigindho go n search that  evari side super powers vunnayo telusuko n evaru support chesaro telusuko

the list goes so big until china entered to the picture 

hate tho ideology vuntey no use dude 

@rushmore   put your points 

 

 

[futureofandhra]

6 hours ago, JackSeal said:

Dumbo you are comparing a newly independent nation with widespread malnutrition and avg life expectancy less than 40 with china.

dumbo there are countries like singapore n isreal who became economic giants 

u r dumb congi batch n jagagd congress only kept debts

[pakeer_saab]

When one doesn't have the IQ to debate with their ideas, they typically digress to trivial issues to appear like they are winning a debate

[Guest]

1 hour ago, futureofandhra said:

nee laga hate tho opinion kadhu naadhi

The reason I chose cbn over jagagd is cbn is better whether its companies n infra n irrigation projects 

tell me why ur supporting jaggad please do not say that he improved schools as his achievement 

coming to geopolitics let me put some reasonable points that will give you some idea 

Goa vishayam lo em jarigindho go n search that  evari side super powers vunnayo telusuko n evaru support chesaro telusuko

the list goes so big until china entered to the picture 

hate tho ideology vuntey no use dude 

@rushmore   put your points 

 

 

don't try to play victim card here. Don't project your hate on others as being hated by others.

Everybody knows why you support CBN.

So criticizing CBN on policies automatically makes anyone hate CBN & pro-Jagan? This flawed logic makes as much sense as your victimhood!

We all know CBN completed all major irrigation projects during his tenure from 1995-2003 & 2014-19.

His major achievements were completing Polavaram project, Amaravati & all permanent projects! No temporary secretariats! Oh wait! 

CBN had no intention to leave Hyderabad until Vote for Note scam. He had wasted Rs 100 crores on Secretariat in Hyd. He wanted to rule Andhra from Hyd. If not for vote for note scam, he would've never completely relocated to Andhra. When did he actually start building secretariat in Amaravati? In 2016-17. When did he win? 2014! 

Some of the Andhra politicians are not full time Andhra residents. Whoever is in the opposition still continue to choose Hyderabad over Amaravati. 

[quickgun_murugun]

21 hours ago, rushmore said:

India foreign policy ni M gudipindi aa Nehru. Appude US tho vellunte China ki poyina Investments India vocheyvi oka 50% ayina! Ippudu Russia tho friendship nunchi bayataki raavatam antha easy kaadu....It's a decades long process. Modi is at least expediting it but Congress & the Nehru-Gandhi shaped India's foreign policy. They delay the withdrawal process with Russia because Russia knows everything about Nehru family! Congress policy ki vote vesedani kante malli British ni invite chesi take over cheyyamani cheppali!

Modi didn’t do sh!t bro. Just false publicity ichi pabbam gadupukuntunnadu. Poyi poyi china di nakadam endi asalu? Still Ind needs to go with US . They are not doing it. Nehru time lo ante Soviet Union powerful kabatti vallatho unnaru. Tarvatha chala govts ochay they could have easily changed the foreign policies and shifted allegiance to the US. Vallu ee russia China tho unte corruption easy untadi accountability issues undavu ani chestunnaru. Theda osthe russa and China will fully occupy India … anyday US is the best for business dealings !