The USA guy was at a loss of words. He had no idea what a Hakencruz is. He wanted to stick to the Nazi symbol being a tilted Swastik, but if he was actually wrong, his newspaper will loose trust.
Instead, the he focused on the 'Cold War' that will happen between USA and USSR as she talked about.
But, it was now time for USSR guy to ask question.
"Miss Saraswati, you talked about a 'Cold War' happening between USA and USSR just now. With conviction. Can you tell us about that?"
"It's nothing really if you think of history patterns. When France abolished and became a semi-democracy, a different form of government, all monarchies, even allies of France against British, became cautious.
A communist nation and a capitalist nation are different forms of government. So of course both USA and USSR will try to influence the world, especially the emergence of countries that have been fighting the colonisers.
Like hey, you have just taken back your country from this evil coloniser? You want some advice on running the government?
Be a communist!
Be a capitalist!
Then media manipulation, bribes behind the back, bribes upfront in the name of loans, assassinations, and arming separatist groups.
It will most likely start in Korea. And then, hey country X just gained independence. If we don't try to fold them into our influence first, then the other will do it first.
You know, like a pre-emptive strike?
The thing is, USA and USSR are the most powerful country at this moment. And though it isn't necessary that two top powers will collide.
Take India and China for example, since humanity started to around 1700s. Two most powerful nations. At no point of history having each having less that atleast 25% of the world's wealth. Taking 1st and 2nd richest nations title alternatively.
But India also China never had bad relations. First is that Himalayas and Tibet separated them, and no one really wanted to fight over those lands.
But I doubt USA and USSR will be able to achieve that. Even though they are separated by an ocean. Both countries will be smart enough to not start a war against each other and devastate their own countries, leaving themselves vulnerable for the others.
Instead, they will make profits by increasing tensions and then selling weapons.
Their glorious purpose will be either spreading 'equality' to the people who have suffered inequality or 'freedom' to the people who have been enslaved.
It may be genuine at times, and other times a farce for getting natural resources, but foreign interference will only lead the country which is interfered with to have heavy loses. Most of the time.
So I think it's best for India, and all countries that will get their freedom from the colonisers to try to remain as away from the conflict as possible and maintain relationship with both countries.
I mean, both capitalism and communism have their pros and cons.
Capitalism leads to profit based competition, meaning better things for the majority, i.e., consumers. But if the competition decides to join hands behind the scenes, the people get exploited.
Communism, land redistribution is good. Having large farms to increase productivity is also good. And unions to make sure factories and companies don't exploit you is also good.
But under the guise of land redistribution, some relatives of the person in power may get more. Huge farms may lead to decreased efficiency and more exploitation of land as well because the farmers don't own them. Unions which are to protect employees may become gangsters who charge protection money, and make unreasonable demands so the factories and companies shut down or move to a different place, leading to every employee becoming unemployed.
It's not maths, such that I will say 1+1=2 and it will be absolute correct. The pros can easily become cons.
Again, as an example, let's say healthcare sector is capitalistic, the competitors are secretly connected behind the doors. A normal middle class person, much less poor, wouldn't be able to afford it.
If healthcare is communist, free healthcare. Free doesn't always mean good. If hospitals won't get some money, the doctors wouldn't too. And they wouldn't have the incentive. In the end, poor government healthcare.
People need to understand that nothing is absolute in the universe.
I said that 1+1=2. It's not necessary that it holds true in different space.
I had a theory published in my university, the (Brahma-Vishnu-Shiv) Universal Set Theory.
The universe has been expanding since it's birth. I don't know if the scientists have gotten significant proof of that yet.
But, it must have started somewhere. I call that Brahma point. Where universe started. It may not be observable to us, because it could, and most probably is 4th or higher dimensional point.
And if it is starting somewhere, spreading in all directions in this 3D universe that is according to our perception, and not reflecting of an end point, it can be either that there is no end point or there is an end points that is opposite of Brahma point. Destroying everything. Making it NULL. Including the reactions.
I call it Shiv Point.
And there may be multiplie Brahma and Shiv points. We, are in the Vishnu space.
Where various concepts remain true.
Wait, sorry! I started going off in a completely different direction.
The thing is, we are 3D creatures. We can interact with our environment, our space. We can see that doing what is keeping country safe. What is bringing in wealth and prosperity to our people.
But, we aren't 4D creatures. We can't know the time dimension of our actions. But, we have history. Not entirely correct, but we can look back through it and see what action led to what overtime.
Humans are not the intelligent creatures on the planet just because we have a superior brain or something. We can't determine that an earthquake is coming. We don't have any sort of superior reflexes. We have come this far because we started to record things.
Our ancestors were inferior to monkeys. But we started drawing on stones, recording hunting skills. Someone got idea that instead of hunting and gathering, why not grow plants ourselves and breed animals to have a continuous supply to eat?
If our ancestors at that time had a close mind, just like trying to have people divided on Capitalism, Communism, religion, and whatever, we would have still been an inferior hunter species. Lower than monkeys.
Tigers won't just be king of jungle, but the world.
That's why, I believe both USA and USSR should try to understand each other and have some sort of open mind. And all countries in the world, especially those who will get freedom, should try that too.
This will lead to less conflict and development of all parties involved.
At the end of the day, I am not optimistic enough to believe that we will not be caught in the nonsensical crossfire.
India is too big. Too important.
Pakistan will attack sooner or later. Pakistan is Sunni Muslim Nazi. It will kill the Shia, and all others. It will kill itself, fail as a country, and then to distract people, attack India.
While I am sure, even though I am not the Foreign minister, actually majority of the congress party is sure, that we would remain neutral in the USA-USSR cold war, both countries should not try to get cozy with Pakistan.
This will push India into the other camp. Afterall, we are flexible enough to understand what is better for us.
You may say that it is hypocritical for India to remain neutral and expect others to not do the same between India and Pakistan.
But that's not it. Remaining neutral in our conflict is completely fine. It's better even. Don't interfere.
But if you consider supplying weapons to Pakistan as being neutral, you are a neo-Nazi supporter. There is a difference between supporting one of two enemy countries.
But it's completely different to support a genocidal terrorist country in a conflict between a country which doesn't want war, and a country whose foundation is war, hatred and genocide and can't survive without it.
I am sure that India and Pakistan will be huge subjects of concern during Cold War, but we would like everyone to stay out of it and not poke their nose. Especially UK which created Pakistan."