Talk:Foreign relations of India

Separate foreign policy of India

I think foreign relations of India article has gone large, so I think Foreign policy of India should be separated from the article. Vijay Sai (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Restructured

I thought restructuring is needed and I restructured the whole article.I expanded it to include some other countries and UNO,SAARC.It still needs to expand to include south africa, individual african countries, australia etc Also this article has to expanded with India's official status with the countries.I want some help to do it.Don't crop the article.Foreign relations article should be generally a considerably longer. Vijay Sai (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Arrogant foreign policy

I question the POV of this statement with regards to the apparent 'arrogance' of Indian foreign policy being a potential barrier to gaining a permanent UN security seat. 172.143.187.185 21:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Substantial work required here

A lot of work is required in expanding India's foreign policy, relations, history and its scope, and range, of dealings with various countries.

I've cleaned up a large part of the article. But much more work is required. - Tigger69 August 17 2005

I'm planning on extending this remarkably and how each party feels about the other nations. Any help is appreciated.--Milki 19:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing citations

This article is missing citations. Unfortunately I know very little about this topic myself but the Unreferenced tag will be a good start. Khandes3 08:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

---

It might be missing citations, but it's fairly accurate. But it would be better if the article was more in depth. Like how relations changed during BJP rule or Gujrals time etc etc. 138.88.72.19 17:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir and UNO

Azad Kashmir having separate President and Prime Minister is independent State.

Is there any separate constitution for Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh? vkvora 09:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In International law, what is important is De Facto status and not De Jure status. Does Azad Kashmir have accredited diplomats to other countries and passports accepted by any country? --- Skapur 19:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reservation of seats in Indian Univercity for Azad Kashmir? vkvora 11:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But the person would have to renounce all other citizenships and be accepted as an Indian citizen. University reservations in India are limited to Indian citizens. --- Skapur 14:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To Skapur : Any person who accept citizenship of India from Azad Kashmir means there is no LOC between Azad Kashmir and India. vkvora 15:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

B-class article

There are a lot of gaps in the article. For example, the article doesn't say much regarding India's policies during the cold war era and its role in NAM. Too much info is given on relationship w/ Tajikistan but not much is available for relationship w/ erstwhile Soviet Union. Also, where are the sources? --Incman|वार्ता 06:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I undid what Madhavi456 had changed there was clealy nothing factual about his change , there were no sources, so after eximaning what was written i have concluded it was all opinionized there for it is nothing that sould be on the page03:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)03:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)03:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)03:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandeep 619 (talk • contribs)

The listing of key allies of India looks highly suspect. How come neither Pakistan, Bangladesh or China are considered rivals? How come Kyrgyzstan is a key partner?

Pakistan is marked as an arch-rival in the map while Bangladesh and China are marked as countries with whom India has major territorial disputes. And the country marked as dark green is Tajikistan, not Kyrgyzstan. --128.210.124.67 15:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Russian Relation

Indo-Soviet relation is covered very inadequately in this article given the kind of cooperation between India and USSR (later successor country Russia) over last 50-60 years. --apurv1980 16:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction POV =

"is considered as a major power and a potential superpower. It is India's growing international influence that gives it a prominent voice in global affairs."

Putting "is considered" in front of a subjective, un cited statement does not relieve one of NPOV responsibilities....... Epeeist smudge 13:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Brief History contradiction

"In 1962, India detected Chinese infiltration into Indian territory, which resulted in a brief war between the two. India has remained suspicious towards China since then. China also became a close ally of Pakistan, India's neighbor, adding to the rift between the two. Even though, there has been a significant improvement in trade and diplomatic relations, India remains wary of China."

The quoted paragraph is in direct contradiction with the wiki article on the 1962 Sino-Indian War. The Henderson-Brooks Report itself cites that it was Indian aggression and encroachment of Chinese sovereign territory that sparked the war. (Psychoneko 01:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Opposition of Israel

I suspect it to be vandalism, but if someone has a valid source supporting Mahatma Gandhi's "opposition to the creation of Israel", please present it here... However I highly doubt one will be found. Sumit Desai 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

He was opposed to the creation of Israel on just Palestinian lands only since he believed "that the Palestine of biblical times was not a geographic tract".He also believed that Jews must peacefully agitate for their rights. Here is a link documenting the publication of a book in this regard.

[1]. Here is the link to the reproduced editorial from the Harijan Newspaper of 11 November 1938. [2]Abhishekmathur (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

India escapes U.S. list of worst human traffickers

Thought this might be worthy of inclusion [3]

How is it noteworthy when India DIDN'T make the list? Also please sign your comments with ~~~~ Vishnuchakra 05:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

India's a country of a billion people. Child trafficking numbers may be large, but when compared with our population, the percentage is much smaller than the percents of other traffickers. Hdgcfcf (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

look east policy?

i really think someone has to start asserting topics bout look east policy. No one has, hasnt it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.16.228 (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Cites

The second half of this article lacks cites.

Hdgcfcf (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)--

arch rivals?

first of all, what are "arch rivals?" makes it sound more like a cheesy western rather than international politics...

second, are there any "arch rivals" even shown on the map? I'm removing the term, unless anyone has any objections 70.231.159.158 (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BrahMos.gif

The image Image:BrahMos.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

The section about foreign policy needs to be explained properly. There is a unique isolationist trend in India's foreign policy not found in any other countries foreign policy. It is based on not aligning itself with any power group for the sake of establishing "peace". Examples include India not taking membership of any defence organizations (like Pakistan did for CENTO), not trying to play a role in Palestine etc. If someone (who can access this article or any other good source) elaborates the section, then it would definitely present a more clear picture of India's policy.--Shahab (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Soft power

No mention here of India's soft power that has helped to build plenty of relations with the world? Namely, Africa, E. Europe, S.E.Asia, and C. Asia. Its on the indian embassy bombing page. Lihaas (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "FICCI" :
  • [http://www.ficci.com/international/countries/korea/koreacommercialrelation.htm FICCI info]
  • [http://www.ficci.com/international/countries/iraq/iraqcommercialrelation.htm Iraq Economic and Commercial Relations]
• "VO" :
  • [http://www.financialexpress.com/old/fe_full_story.php?content_id=42065 Realism in India-Myanmar relations]
  • {{cite web |title=India, Vietnam sign MoU for bilateral cooperation on security |url=http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/Economy/India_Vietnam_sign_MoU_for_bilateral_cooperation_on_security/articleshow/2895191.cms |date=2008-03-24 |publisher=[[Times of India]] |accessdate=2008-06-16}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Puff piece

The article reads like a puff piece about India rather than as an encylopedia article analyzing its foreign relations objectively. It relies too much on opinion pieces as sources. Deleting the opening paragraph and weeding out some of the peacock terms would improve the tone. 89.243.212.46 (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Split article

This article is getting rather long and tedious. the sheer size can put off many. Perhaps it can be split taking out the some regions into a generic "bilateral relations" page. Something along the lines of Foreign policy of Hugo Chavez off from the Hugo Chavez page. Lihaas (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Foreign relations of India with European Union and Latin America

hi,it would be useful if we have a separate article on Foreign relations of India with European Union and Latin America nag97 (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing Diplomatic Relations

In the map of countries having formal diplomatic relations with India, several notable countries are missing examples include but not limited to:

• Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador [4]
• Estonia [5], Lithuania, Lativia, Belgium, Croatia, Iceland [6]. Several Provinces of the UK like the Channel Islands, Gibraltar, Falkland Islands etc which should be covered by the British Embassy. Similarly Greenland is covered by Denmark as it only has home rule.
• Djibouti [7], Benin, Liberia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekmathur (talk • contribs) 06:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Countries listed above are added in the map. Please check for discrepancies.Sainath (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Which Side During the Cold War?

It says in the relations with Germany sections that India was on the side of East Germany not West Germany. However was it not on either side as it is part of the non-aligned movement. Should this be removed. Lemonade100 (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2009 (GMT)

Proposed WikiProject - Bilateral relations

There is now a upstart WikiProject to establish a concensus about WP's International bilateral relations articles, including "X-Y (country) relations" articles, at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. Interested parties should add their names at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force if they wish to play a part in the discussions or have an Interest in this going forward. Thank you for your attention. CaribDigita (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Notice

This article includes content merged from articles listed at Talk:Foreign relations of India/Merged content. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tripura and Bangladesh

In the international dispute section its given that Bangladesh disputes the status of Tripura and considers it as a part of the "Chittagonian plains of Bangladesh".

The statement is blatantly false. Whoever wrote this should really have given a reference and I doubt anyone can even find any reference because this is a pure and simple lie.

Bangladesh has NEVER staked any claim on Tripura and there is absolutuely no dispute over the status of Tripura between India and Bangladesh. Plus as a Bangladeshi and an avid follower of south asian politics, I have never heard of Bangladeshis even ever thinking of laying claim on Tripura. So i have removed that sentence.

The only relation Bangladesh has with Tripura is the presence of a 100,000 strong Tripura tribe in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Style issue

First few lines of the second paragraph sound amateurish, and perhaps also have citaion issues

SPat (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)