India was colonized by Great Britain and also France and Portugal. Sri Lanka was colonized by the Dutch. India went into a short war with Portugal over Goa in 1961. So yes it was the “West”.... but of course you wont know because you are quite ignorant of facts.
“The cold-war “hot bed” contexts of Korea or Vietnam had no parallels with, or in India;”
Nope. It could have very well been India's fate were it not for the strong military, stable democracy &political system and good international diplomacy. People forget there is a significant section of India that is fighting to bring communism. You may not like the Gandhi-Nehru legacy for your obvious bias but fact is they kept a delicate balance. The world was very much polarized by the two super power and their battle for influence and it was mostly the third world that bore the brunt. The threat for India was very real but it was difficult for US to see from her moral high horse.
” if she was believing in that phantom she was getting lots of help and influence for such beliefs from both China and the Soviet Union; “
India had nothing to do with China. India fought a war with China in 1962, that is another fact you are ignorant of. If India was believing in “phantom” it was a good phantom to believe in as worked well for India. Fear is what keeps you alive.
“If anything, India was simply playing geopolitical realpolitic - playing one (or more) foreign power off against another; for her own totally domestic self-interest,”
Yes India WAS playing one power against another. That is what smaller countries do to hold back larger aggressive countries. Nothing wrong with that. You make it sound like only US is right in pursuing her self-interest and other countries are wrong when they refuse to be a sacrificial pawn in America's righteous struggle for the free world. Self preservation is self interest.
First - Britain, France and Portugal = Britain, France and Portugal; individually or even together Britain, France and Portugal does not = “the west”.
Second - France and Portugal were minor players, compared to Britain, in terms of colonization on the sub-continent. The primary actor was Britain.
And with respect to “Nope - It could have very well been India’s fate were it not for the strong military, stable democracy &political system and good international diplomacy.”
Nope - it was never to be India’s fate (as a “Korea” or “Vietnam” type situation). As I said, India never contained the same situational context as either Korea or Vietnam as to the causes of the military situations there.
Neither India’s strong military, international diplomacy or its stable democracy were material to India not being in a “Korea” or “Vietnam” situation - as important as those things are, on their own, to India in general. Regardless of those things, there was no context and no threat of India being in a similar context - in terms of international security issues - as Korea or Vietnam. The threat of that never existed.
“India had nothing to do with China. India fought a war with China in 1962, that is another fact you are ignorant of. If India was believing in “phantom” it was a good phantom to believe in as worked well for India. Fear is what keeps you alive.”
I am not ignorant of the war between India and China in World War II.
I am also not ignorant of indigenous political factions in India with fraternal connections to the Soviets in some cases and to the Communist Chinese in others; and the fraternal influence those factions held and with which they were inspired to help move and support Indian anti-American sentiments, for their (the Marxists) benefit in international issues in the “cold war”.
“If India was believing in “phantom” it was a good phantom to believe in as worked well for India. Fear is what keeps you alive.”
That belief - to the extent it was held - had nothing to do with India not obtaining an either Korea or Vietnam type context; because the threat of such a context never existed.
“Yes India WAS playing one power against another. That is what smaller countries do to hold back larger aggressive countries.”
Yet, it was never the case that it was “U.S. aggression” that hung in the balance, with respect to India. India was simply playing one or more power against another, for what she could gain for herself from it, not because she was threatened by the U.S. if she didn’t.
Maybe you don’t know or realize how much support for India has always existed in this country, in official and unofficial circles, in spite of her participation in the so-called “non-aligned” movement, and the frequency with which she supported mere anti-Americanisms, internationally, most often driven not by Indian self-interest as international Marxist self-interest. Americans still championed India’s great democracy in a part of the world that needed democracy more.
But, if believing in non-existent threats works for you and makes you feel better, then by all means go ahead.