Britain was obviously trying to buy India by giving money in the guise of aid - hoping to snatch a 10-to-20 billion-dollar aircraft deal through what would have been undue influence.
The “aid” given (against the will of the recipient) did not come without strings attached.
Besides, the ‘peanuts’ comment was not addressed to Britain.
Britain is up to its t*ts in debt, and Britain has to beg India to take money we can’t afford to give to a nation that doesn’t want it. WTF is going on?!?!
Is it possible we're making it sound a little too sinister? It's not much different than offering India a sale price or a rebate on the planes, except in this case India is getting the rebate up front and is being asked to use the money to help malnourished Indians. I'm not a lawyer, so maybe there is something terribly wrong with it that I am overlooking, but I simply fail to understand why it is so bad.
As an American, I'm sick of giving tons of taxpayer money to a bunch of perpetually ungrateful foreign countries. So my sympathies almost automatically are with the Brits here -- and I'm not a big fan of Britain nor someone who hates Indians. I'm about as impartial as a person can be.