“From Indian perspective, America had an exaggerated sense of righteousness that US represented the free world and every country must join her lead. Nothing wrong with that, except India (and countries following India’s lead)just wanted to stay out of it. And that caused enormous chagrin for the US.”
America’s sense of its place in the world was not exaggerated (1945-1989); it was handed its place by what remained after WWI and WWII, and its “lead” was never about itself; its “lead” was about its senior role in the partnerships of nations that shared its values; nations it had rescued from war, nations it had subdued in war and reformed in its aftermath, nations seeking to build on the same paths of essential freedoms, democracy and free enterprise.
The U.S. was never chagrined by India wanting to chart its own path; a “separate” path.
The U.S. WAS often chagrined by India taking a simplistic view (”correct view “ by Soviet terms) that taking a separate path required taking a path always contrary to the U.S.; as if simply and always being contrary to the U.S. was an essential to being “separate” (not alone in this and often acting as part of the political correctness that dominated the “non-aligned movement”). It was not a “separate” path, but one enjoyed by many and celebrated for the mere fact that it was “anti-American”.
A right idea (a ‘separate path’) based on all the wrong reasons (simply to be contrary to the U.S.) leads to many partnerships with phony allies who share nothing with your essential interests other than that they too are “anti-American”.
It hurt India far more than the U.S., by keeping Indian foreign policy locked in simple anti-Americanism for no good purpose.
And what values did America share with countries like Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey? The line you just parroted perfectly reflects the kind of hyperbole and exaggerated righteous vanity I was referring to. Especially given the enormous contradictions, bending of rules and plain double standards existent in American foreign policy.
“The U.S. WAS often chagrined by India taking a simplistic view (”correct view “ by Soviet terms) that taking a separate path required taking a path always contrary to the U.S.; as if simply and always being contrary to the U.S. was an essential to being “separate” (not alone in this and often acting as part of the political correctness that dominated the “non-aligned movement”). It was not a “separate” path, but one enjoyed by many and celebrated for the mere fact that it was “anti-American”.”
I think your perspective is very tainted by your flawed perception of the Soviets being something of an omnipotent and all pervading influence. While its true that Soviets got a little more mileage by their soft-touch against American haughty righteous-arrogance, it is plain nonsensical to attribute Indian (and NAM) assertiveness to an all pervading and omnipotent Soviet influence. America not being as tactful as the Soviets was the main cause for American chagrin.
“A right idea (a ‘separate path’) based on all the wrong reasons (simply to be contrary to the U.S.) leads to many partnerships with phony allies who share nothing with your essential interests”
.....And America would know nothing about phony allies who don't share any core values or interests right?
“It hurt India far more than the U.S., by keeping Indian foreign policy locked in simple anti-Americanism for no good purpose.”
There was someone in India who once said....
“Chiang Kai-shek, Van Thieu, the Shah, Mobutu, to Mubarak: the US always betrays its friends. Be glad Pakistan is among them.”
Looking back...Indian foreign policy didnt turn out to be so bad after all. Its wasn't exactly “anti-Americanism” as you choose to call it out of your own stubborn bias. It was just Indian assertiveness in favor of her self- interest.
True -- yet remember that this was the same thing that happened to Athens, eventually it was perceived as hubris
you are partially correct that the US was INITIALLY not chagrined by India wanting to chart its own path; a “separate” path. -- this was the Eisenhowever-Kennedy doctrine. nixon changed that.
India tried to take the simplistic "Oh, we are a saintly Gandhi nation" view, shunning realpolitik
and you are correct that It hurt India far more than the U.S., by keeping Indian foreign policy locked in simple anti-Americanism for no good purpose. -- it took a GREAT President like Dubya to change that.... and it's taking a LOSER like Obambi to tear down this relationship