After effects of Indian Force's actions on Pakistan# 7 - Page 102

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

https://x.com/TimesAlgebraIND/status/1926383270679196125?t=s0Y4xCoAdBbN59gyM_ltLg&s=19

After Operation Sindhoor, it seems like India is facing mounting diplomatic challenges. Many nations, particularly those with vested interests in the region, appear rattled by our bold actions. Unfortunately, this has also led to an increase in open hostility and antagonism towards us, especially from certain quarters of the global stage. It’s evident that India’s rise is seen as a threat by some, and the reactions—whether from the West, particularly the U.S., or from neighboring adversaries—are growing increasingly hostile.One of the most striking examples of this hostility comes from the United States. Under the President Trump, there's a deliberate attempt to undermine India’s trade interests. Now, it seems the situation is escalating with moves to restrict American companies like Apple from manufacturing in India, potentially using punitive measures. Instead of attempting to appease these pressures or continuing a one-sided approach it’s crucial for India to rethink its strategy. The time has come for India to stand firm and adopt a more reciprocal approach, one where we also impose tariffs or trade restrictions on American products, signaling that we will no longer tolerate such tactics of economic sabotage. The global economic landscape is shifting, and India must take a more assertive role in it.

At the same time, we see a deeper geopolitical shift. The U.S. is aligning itself with Pakistan—and we all know China's stance—It is working to undercut India’s influence in the asian region. This support for Pakistan and the growing ties with Bangladesh and Afghanistan are part of a broader strategy to encircle India and undermine its position in South Asia.

In this scenario, India needs to look beyond its immediate neighborhood and take bold steps to strengthen relationships with other global players. There are many nations, especially in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, that have been supportive of India, both in diplomatic and economic terms, but this support has often been underappreciated or overshadowed by our focus on more contentious issues. Now more than ever, India must forge stronger ties with these nations, especially with countries like Russia and Israel, who share similar geopolitical concerns and values. A deeper economic and strategic relationship with these countries will help diversify India’s global standing and create alternative sources of support in case of any further diplomatic isolation.

The situation regarding Pakistan’s inclusion in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) blacklist is another area where India is facing significant challenges. Despite the mounting evidence of Pakistan’s involvement in terror financing, there’s a clear lack of global consensus to take decisive action. The chances of Pakistan being banned from the FATF list seem slim at the moment, as major international players either remain silent or openly support Pakistan in the interest of their strategic relationships. This lack of support for India on the FATF front demonstrates the complex geopolitical balancing act that is taking place. Many countries are either covertly or overtly undermining India's efforts and this global pushback makes it harder to secure meaningful change.

In light of all these challenges, India must recalibrate its foreign policy and focus on strengthening its economic and strategic relationships with countries that value India’s role in global peace and security.

India’s focus must now shift from appeasing adversaries to fostering strategic alliances with countries that align with our broader vision for regional stability and global influence.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Toppers are a few, getting their information is possible, not getting that for thousands of candidates who succeed.you understand there is a difference between 10 and 5000 right.

You had said in a previous post that the person who shared the information had some insider information now you say you meant something else. But the point remains same, if this survey was done by any government agency or by some big private organisation, most people would know about it and everyone would have an access to it. But that's not the case.

None of the government websites have this datasheet, neither it's available over anywhere on the net.

That simply means it's either a fictional survey or by a very small private body.

Although to think of it, if I ever get access to something that's so exclusive that only a limited number of people know about it(and I consider it authentic), I would keep it very cautiously.

You not only don't have any link to that, but also don't remember the body who conducted it, the cities it was conducted in, the research methodology. But only remember the inference

That's because it was two years back. I tried searching for ir, but couldn't find it.

The numbers cannot be as big as 5000 if they were done in a sample size of some universities across a few metros and tier-2 cities.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

SCs have been given reservation for 70 years now, huge number of SCs are in higher positions, but have the ostracization ended?? No, that I guess is a proof that some getting on top doesn't make change to the group as a whole. There are many top class SCs and yet the overall perception towards them doesn't change in bottom.

Not just that, it actually gives an opposite perception. People think that these SCs can't compare to ones from UR class, even if they have same (or at times more) resources. If anything it only leads to further down seeing the group.

Also the SC groups among themselves do ostracize . A Dushad/Chamar for example in Bihar doesn't accept the water from a Mushar.

Let's be practical, the only point to reservation is to have every segment get equal representation. It has no longer anything to do with upliftment (it might have been the original thought but no more)

It is changing, slowly bur gradually. Todat, you’ll see more inter-caste marriages than before. Yes, situation is still pretty bad in some states, but overall things are better than what they used to be, say, 20 years before.

Also, casteism has been practised for thousands of years; 70 years is not enough to de-condition people completely, is it?

Things seem tough in days to come

https://x.com/sidhant/status/1926553075021455738?t=bZnJEsBvY4AA2FV10i7XNA&s=09

Edit

Originally posted by: nightingale1234

After Operation Sindhoor, it seems like India is facing mounting diplomatic challenges. Many nations, particularly those with vested interests in the region, appear rattled by our bold actions. Unfortunately, this has also led to an increase in open hostility and antagonism towards us, especially from certain quarters of the global stage. It’s evident that India’s rise is seen as a threat by some, and the reactions—whether from the West, particularly the U.S., or from neighboring adversaries—are growing increasingly hostile.One of the most striking examples of this hostility comes from the United States. Under the President Trump, there's a deliberate attempt to undermine India’s trade interests. Now, it seems the situation is escalating with moves to restrict American companies like Apple from manufacturing in India, potentially using punitive measures. Instead of attempting to appease these pressures or continuing a one-sided approach it’s crucial for India to rethink its strategy. The time has come for India to stand firm and adopt a more reciprocal approach, one where we also impose tariffs or trade restrictions on American products, signaling that we will no longer tolerate such tactics of economic sabotage. The global economic landscape is shifting, and India must take a more assertive role in it.

At the same time, we see a deeper geopolitical shift. The U.S. is aligning itself with Pakistan—and we all know China's stance—It is working to undercut India’s influence in the asian region. This support for Pakistan and the growing ties with Bangladesh and Afghanistan are part of a broader strategy to encircle India and undermine its position in South Asia.

In this scenario, India needs to look beyond its immediate neighborhood and take bold steps to strengthen relationships with other global players. There are many nations, especially in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, that have been supportive of India, both in diplomatic and economic terms, but this support has often been underappreciated or overshadowed by our focus on more contentious issues. Now more than ever, India must forge stronger ties with these nations, especially with countries like Russia and Israel, who share similar geopolitical concerns and values. A deeper economic and strategic relationship with these countries will help diversify India’s global standing and create alternative sources of support in case of any further diplomatic isolation.

The situation regarding Pakistan’s inclusion in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) blacklist is another area where India is facing significant challenges. Despite the mounting evidence of Pakistan’s involvement in terror financing, there’s a clear lack of global consensus to take decisive action. The chances of Pakistan being banned from the FATF list seem slim at the moment, as major international players either remain silent or openly support Pakistan in the interest of their strategic relationships. This lack of support for India on the FATF front demonstrates the complex geopolitical balancing act that is taking place. Many countries are either covertly or overtly undermining India's efforts and this global pushback makes it harder to secure meaningful change.

In light of all these challenges, India must recalibrate its foreign policy and focus on strengthening its economic and strategic relationships with countries that value India’s role in global peace and security.

India’s focus must now shift from appeasing adversaries to fostering strategic alliances with countries that align with our broader vision for regional stability and global influence.

In a way, this is good for India. More diplomatic adversaries means that we'll have a tougher and more aggressive foreign policy. The time is ripe for that. Also, we won't have to deal with Trump after 2028. Although Democrats were pretty anti-India, but they can be easier to handle since they'll not be unhinged like Trump. China is arming Pakistan, but won't go into a direct conflict with India. Even Russia has been known to engage with arms deals with Pakistan before, and it is weak against China on all global forums. Truth be told, India has no true allies at the moment.

Yes, Pakistan's inclusion in the black list seems difficult and almost impossible at the moment, but it can go into the grey list again as it was for four years before.

Originally posted by: Reeva_Mohan

That's because it was two years back. I tried searching for ir, but couldn't find it.

The numbers cannot be as big as 5000 if they were done in a sample size of some universities across a few metros and tier-2 cities.

You said it was fine in multiple universities in multiple cities nlw you changed to few universities.

And about it an average batch size of a government engineering college is around 500, so even 10 colleges will take the number to 5000.

If you go by IITs or NITs (the ones mostly affected, this number will be further higher.

And 2 years back isn't a huge time. Also you said that at the time this research happened, the reservation percentage wasn't that high (when I calculated using Central government reservation percentage of 49.5%), but since 2020, every state in India has a minimum of that reservation percentage as cited by state government. So if at all this survey of yours considered the reservation to be in a number lesser than this, it was a clear cut fake one.

Originally posted by: Reeva_Mohan

It is changing, slowly bur gradually. Todat, you’ll see more inter-caste marriages than before. Yes, situation is still pretty bad in some states, but overall things are better than what they used to be, say, 20 years before.

Also, casteism has been practised for thousands of years; 70 years is not enough to de-condition people completely, is it?

The supposed changes are only in urban centres. Rural areas are still the same. Don't judge the things by few instances of urban centres

Also the intercaste marriage is still not acceptable by most.

As per the PEW research of 2019-2020, the percentage of people feeling against intercaste marriages was over 70% across groups(general, OBC, ST and SC) and I can properly share that research with you.

Also OBC were most reluctant in having intercaste marriage

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

You said it was fine in multiple universities in multiple cities nlw you changed to few universities.

And about it an average batch size of a government engineering college is around 500, so even 10 colleges will take the number to 5000.

If you go by IITs or NITs (the ones mostly affected, this number will be further higher.

And 2 years back isn't a huge time. Also you said that at the time this research happened, the reservation percentage wasn't that high (when I calculated using Central government reservation percentage of 49.5%), but since 2020, every state in India has a minimum of that reservation percentage as cited by state government. So if at all this survey of yours considered the reservation to be in a number lesser than this, it was a clear cut fake one.

I meant few universities each in a few cities. And many surveys are done by handing out forms asking students to fill up with their details. So it could be something like that. That's also how big surveys are often carried out.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

The supposed changes are only in urban centres. Rural areas are still the same. Don't judge the things by few instances of urban centres

Also the intercaste marriage is still not acceptable by most.

As per the PEW research of 2019-2020, the percentage of people feeling against intercaste marriages was over 70% across groups(general, OBC, ST and SC) and I can properly share that research with you.

Also OBC were most reluctant in having intercaste marriage

Do you mean PEW research institute of the US?