Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 10 Mar 2009 06:06

The root cause of our weakness is economic i.e capital accumulation/formation denied till 1991 in our own country. This is why its imperative to bring the Indian capital back home from foreign banks . Cash is King in current economic mess. The hidden capital as well as hoarded gold inveted wisely can be our ticket to big league . Had GOI been sitting on trillion $ reserves , many sahibs will have been taking turn to do Salam in Delhi and no one will dare to mention Kashmir , Conversion or Daleets .

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Mar 2009 06:40

brihaspati wrote: There have been suggestions about a possible collaboration between India and PRC or that India can consider veering towards PRC in global politics. How far is this feasible and advisable?

What are the main geo-strategic aims of PRC? Economically, PRC pinned its growth potential, quite naturally on the capturing of markets with the highest purchasing power and inclination to be "consumer" societies, where politics or ideology have less influence on consumer choice. But PRC's main infratructure to generate "capital" remains in place unless there is a "social revolution" driven by worsening employment conditions against already raised expectations.

PRC's next main concern will be to capture both the oil as well as the still intact consumer capacities of the middle east. It also needs convenient access to and presence in the Indian Ocean to dominate the Indian ocean rim economies, some of which belong to the "emerging" category. In this its main thorn in the side is India.
It is also therefore important for PRC to extend these two flanks right up to the Indian Ocean. Through Pakistan, it can then isolate India from the current NATO presence in AFG, as well as from Russia. In the east, it can threaten to join up with Myanmar and BD to isolate Indian eastern wing, in conjunction with Nepal.
There is another route - where PRC is made to realize the extreme costs of this flanking attempt at isolating and weakening India. And a potential threat that such flanks could be turned inside out to surround Tibet from the sides. PRC may be more amenable to Indian "overtures" only then.

To secure the Oil routes by PRC it has a large/major power backing its strategy. It could be possible that the PRC foreign policy towards India and the subcontinent is being directed by this major power. You need to explore this combined strategy which has a common goal.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 10 Mar 2009 06:47

Policy of do hajar Diwali patakas can fix any allignement againts Bharatvarsh. OTOH, i think Chinese are doing on their own as simple truth is no one trust them . Besides India, Japan, Russia and Europe will be effected by Chicom domination of energy sources.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Mar 2009 08:48

I am not able to follow few ideas advocated in this thread. Request clarification from gurulog …

For example: The idea of India as a cultural melting pot -

We say that today’s India is a mixture of various cultures such as Santana Dharma (Hinduism), Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and what not, and the India’s future strategic direction must be built upon this jumble culture.

If future India is built upon this mixed culture, how much of Indic culture will be left in future India?

In my childhood, I was taught “Desamante matti kadoyi… desamante manushuloy” = The nation is not the land but the people…

for example… by grace of Allah the merciful; let us assume all the Saudi residents woke up in USA one fine morning… what culture they will follow? Saudi/Islamic or USA/Secular?

Another example (may not represent all IMs) is that few IMs visit SA and think that all that wealth and glitter was due to Islamic culture. Their argument being if thrown unlimited funds, even Pakistan can become like another SA. Islam is not the reason for the backwardness of a nation, it is lack of natural resources (lots of money). What I wanted to point out here is that the affinity and admiration towards a distant culture even after 40-50 generations living and dying in India. The same goes with any other religious group living in India.

Will this be the case with Hindus as well? Do they associate with India? For example how do Thai and Cambodian Hindus (not the recent migrants, but the original migrant population) think?

Is it not in India’s (the nation) purpose to protect and preserve the native Indic culture? Why should current or future India care about absorbing other cultures? Indian society had to do it in the past because foreign rulers ruled it for more than 1000 years. Why should future Indian strategic scenario account for this?

What is the purpose of the Future India (as a culture, I am not talking about minority groups) if it is a mixture of all known and unknown cultures of the world? We are not UN, right! Are we putting the cart in front of the horse?

I can see few glimpses of this here and there…but am confused and want to make sure that I am following the discussion correctly…

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Mar 2009 09:05

RamaY wrote:
If future India is built upon this mixed culture, how much of Indic culture will be left in future India?

This should be easy to calculate.

Just name the cut off date before which "pure Indian culture" existed, after which mixtures came in.

Then search for what is left in today's generation of what used to be there before the cut off date of your choice. Then check again after 10 years to see how much of that is left.

The only thing to do is name the "Hindu cutoff date"

Hindus do not have a good cutoff date to say what was pure and what is impure. Islam has a good cutoff date @ about 1300 AD.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Mar 2009 09:46

shiv wrote:Hindus do not have a good cutoff date to say what was pure and what is impure. Islam has a good cutoff date @ about 1300 AD.

Shiv-ji,

I do not have any issue if the objective/purpose of India is to survive as a nation state irrespective of what culture it preserves and propagates.

I was asking if the purpose of Indian nation state is to preserve and propagate Indic culture.

You are correct in that we do not have a good cutoff date. But, do we need a cutoff date in the first place?

We have Bhagavad Gita spoken/written in ~3102 BC. It should not sound any more illogical than the old/new testament or Quran to build a culture upon.

That said, as long as we have a constitution based on Veda/Shrutis it should not be that difficult to define and preserve a culture based on that.

Can such a constitution be written and used as the basis for future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Mar 2009 09:56

Shivji, Please dont tease the kunphuced people

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 Mar 2009 19:43

The question of ideological basis of a modern and future nation is always going to be a thorny one. It would be too hasty to jump to conclusions about the particularity of Indic philosophies (philosophies which I am defining here by their acknowledgement of source being within the Indian subcontinent). Indic philosophies prabably had too long a time to evolve, and as I have written here before, should probably be more thought of as framework for exploration of philosophies rather than philosophies themselves. It is in this sense that we should look at Indic philosophical systems as meta-philosophy - a theory/framework fro philosophy. It is the method and not any everlasting final answer that is both the strength and weakness of Indic. The method is the "everlasting quest" and never becoming "stationary". In a modern sense this is the modern exact sciences method - explore, hypothesize, explore again, observe, and conclude - all the while being aware of the limitations of existing and current knowledge. The quest consists of never giving up the search and re-examination of old questions - "charaibeti" of the Upanishads. In Indian astronomy/astrology there is something called "beeja-samskara" - this is practically speaking correction of predictive caluclations by actual obeservations.

Questioning the old, upgrading conclusions based on new knowledge, and rejecting or reasserting old conclusions based on re-examination is the essence of the Indic, and the essential method in most of the Upanishadic literature. This is what distinguishes us from the revealed traditions - which claim that what appeared to work for a particular group, at a particular time, and at a particular position - should be imposed for all peoples, times and places, forever into the future. The Indic does not fear re-examination and drawing new conclusions if necessary. I am saying this simply to request a careful analysis of claims or injunctions in the "shaastra"'s to identify possible "particularities" - specific instances arising out of particular conditions that are being claimed to be universally applicable, before taking these "shaastra"'s blindly as the basis of the future nation. In being so careful, we will be actually remaining true to the fundamental Indic spirit of "charaibeti".

I agree with RamaYji, that we have to look for the basis of the future ideological framework in the "Indic", but we should not lose the wisdom and sagacity of the "Indic" method to filter what has been handed down to us for chaff and garbage. And it is the Indic mind which is brave enough to "refresh" and "renew", or even chart "completely new directions" if necessary - Indians have always led in the past in innovations, even in ideas.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Mar 2009 21:28

brihaspati wrote:The question of ideological basis of a modern and future nation is always going to be a thorny one.
I agree with RamaYji, that we have to look for the basis of the future ideological framework in the "Indic", but we should not lose the wisdom and sagacity of the "Indic" method to filter what has been handed down to us for chaff and garbage. And it is the Indic mind which is brave enough to "refresh" and "renew", or even chart "completely new directions" if necessary - Indians have always led in the past in innovations, even in ideas.

You have not discussed about education. New generation is a product of modern education

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 10 Mar 2009 23:18

Acharya wrote: You have not discussed about education. New generation is a product of modern education

Education itself is not enough.

Too often on this forum, especially with regard to history, people think that just by changing the curriculum, things in India are going to be magically different. History is school. How many of us really enjoy/enjoyed school?

America has a very nationalistic version of its history that it teaches but that has so little impact on the people here. Why do people think it will have the same effect in India?

It is not what you teach the people about, but what the culture promotes. If you read about Shivaji in school and ACK, but grow up in a culture that adores the Mughals, you will continue to think Akbar is the greatest thing that ever happened to India. The adolescent and teenage years are the most important in terms of mental development.

Both times have to be utilized and most teenagers aren't reading ACK or reading textbooks for fun.

It doesn't depend on what you learn in school. Its been shown that people forget most of their pre-college information (except the basics, of course). It's what the songs are about, the movies are about, the popular literature is about, what people say on TV, sites they visit, the festivals, holidays, etc. These are the things that mold a person the most, not school.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 11 Mar 2009 00:01

Obama: Good-Bye To Dalai Lama & Aung San Suu Kyi, Hail Hu Jintao

By B. Raman

"There is a common interest in the US as well as in China in maintaining and strengthening the present economic linkages without letting them be damaged seriously by what a Chinese analyst has called the tumours in the otherwise healthy organism of Sino-US relations which keep appearing from time to time such as the Taiwan, the proliferation, the Tibet and the National Missile Defence (NMD) issues. The political leaderships and the business class in the two countries would see to it that these tumours do not become malignant. One saw that during the Clinton Administration and one would see that during the Bush Administration too. After the present phase of rhetoric and confrontation, moderation would again set in at Washington as well as in Beijing. It would be unwise and short-sighted for India to think that the present confrontation would last for long and that it could strategically take advantage of it."

2. So I wrote on May 14, 2001, in an article titled SINO-US RELATIONS: THE ECONOMIC ASPECT available at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers3/paper241.html. That article was triggered off by a surge in US rhetoric in relation to China after President George Bush assumed office on January 20, 2001.

3. There has been no surge in US rhetoric vis-a-vis China after Barack Obama assumed office on January 20, 2009. On the contrary, the focus of his advisers has been on identifying and expanding the mutual comfort features in the bilateral relations rather than on those features, which tended to cause friction in the past. The references from Washington DC to human rights issues---- whether they be in relation to Tibet, Myanmar or the Chinese role in the Sudan--- have been muted. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, hardly mentioned them in public during her visit to Beijing from February 20 to 22, 2009. She attended a Church service at Beijing apparently to underline continuing US interest in the question of religious freedom in China, but avoided any comments on allegations that the Chinese authorities, while welcoming her visit to a church, took care to prevent any Christian dissenters from having interactions with her at the church. The normal expressions of concern over China's military spending too were equally muted.

4. The focus was on the role which the US and China could play in jointly halting the unrelenting slide-down in the global economy and how the two economies could sink together if they don't swim together. She underlined in benign words the increasing mutual dependence of the two economies----- with the Chinese dependence on the US consumers for a quick recovery of its exports-dependent manufacturing sector and with the US dependence on continued Chinese purchases of US Treasury Bonds to provide the cash flow to fund Obama's stimulus packages.

5. The transformation of the US perceptions of the mutual economic dependence is remarkable if only one recalls that in the 1990s when her husband, Bill Clinton, was the President, US policy-makers and many Congressmen lost no opportunity to express their concerns over the increasing trade surplus in favour of China and over the national security implications of the Chinese cash flow for investment in the US Treasury Bonds and in US stocks. The advisers of Obama do not articulate these concerns. On the contrary, the concern now is, not that the Chinese are buying the US Treasury Bonds, but that they are showing signs of slowing down their purchase because of their own economic difficulties.

6. Mrs. Clinton did not hesitate to openly express the hope on more than one occasion that the Chinese would continue to invest in the bonds. Speaking at the US Embassy in Beijing on February 22, 2009, shortly before her departure from China, she said: "By continuing to support American Treasury instruments, the Chinese are recognizing our interconnection. It would not be in China's interest if we were unable to get our economy moving. We are truly going to rise or fall together. We are in the same boat and, thankfully, we are rowing in the same direction." Responding to her comments separately , Yang Jiechi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, said that China wanted its foreign exchange reserves - the world's largest at $1.95 trillion - invested safely, with good value and liquidity. He said that future decisions on using them would be based on those principles, but added that China wanted to continue to work with the US.

7. Mrs. Clinton's open acknowledgement of the benign aspects of the increasing economic inter-dependence between the two countries was music to the ears of the Chinese. The Chinese policy-makers chose to interpret it as indicating that the Obama administration did not view China as a potential adversary, but it viewed it as a potential partner. Mrs. Clinton said that she felt during her discussions in Beijing it was like the beginning of "a new era" of bilateral relations characterized by "positive cooperation". Addressing a joint press conference on February 21, 2009, Mrs. Clinton and Yang said that the two countries would build a "double-track" strategic and economic dialogue mechanism to discuss concerns of either politics or the economy. She added that she and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner would be involved in it. According to her, a decision on this was expected to be announced when Obama and Hu meet at the G20 summit in London in April. She also said that the US and China would build "an important partnership" to develop clean energy technologies and speed up the transition to low carbon economies.

8. As I had been pointing out in the past, whereas Mao Zedong believed that power grew out of the barrel of the gun, Deng Xiaoping believed that power also grew out of the money purse. Money speaks as eloquently as the gun, if not more eloquently. The bulging Chinese purse at a time when the rest of the world is facing a cash flow problem spoke repeatedly during Mrs. Clinton's visit. Good-bye to the Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi, Hail Hu Jintao----- that is the message from the Obama administration .

9. A spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry announced in Bejing on March 7, 2009, that Yang Jiechi would pay a working visit to the US from March 9 to 13, 2009, as a guest of Hillary Clinton. The spokesman added that the two sides would exchange views on the growth of Sino-US relations in what he described as the new phase and on regional and global issues of common concern.

10. The visit comes less than a month after the visit to Beijing by Mrs. Clinton, which has given immense satisfaction to Chinese policy-makers as marking the beginning of the process of the US coming to terms with the reality of a four-polar world----with the US, China, the European Union and the developing world constituting the four poles of the new world order as seen by China. In the Chinese perception, India's place in this four-polar world is as an important member of the developing world but not as a power by itself on par with the US and China. Japan has no prominent place in this new world order. China projects itself as a developing country despite its galloping economy and huge foreign exchange reserves. At the same time, it views itself as a newly-emerged world power on par with the US and the EU.

11. This Chinese perception of itself and the world became evident in the articles and commentaries of Chinese analysts on the strategic significance of the US economic melt-down and of the US dependence on China for preventing an economic collapse. An article by the "People's Daily" of February 23, 2009, said: "China has grown to be a new heavyweight player and stepped into the limelight on the world stage. And its role in salvaging the plummeting world economy from hitting bottom looms large and active, as the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during her just wrapped-up Asian tour, 'the U.S. appreciates the continued Chinese confidence in the U.S treasuries.' If the Cold War was 'a tug of war' between East and West, and a showcase of hard power, what we have today, for the first time in history, is a global, multicivilizational and multipolar competition, and a display of smart power. To be the winner, one has to seek more cooperation rather than confrontation."

12. The two defining characteristics of the Obama administration are opportunism and pragmatism. Its main priorities for some time to come will be restoring the economic health, preventing another 9/11 in the US homeland by going after Al Qaeda's sanctuaries in Pakistan's tribal belt and any kind of peace in Afghanistan which would avert a Vietnam type disastrous withdrawal of the US forces from Afghanistan. For achieving these objectives, the US relations with China and Pakistan would have greater importance for Obama than its relations with India.

13. It should not, therefore, be a matter of surprise that India figures less and less in the short and medium-term strategic calculations of the Obama administration. The only interest of the Obama Administration in India will be in ensuring that it does not take any military action against Pakistan for its continued sponsorship and use of terrorism against India.

14. The Obama Administration is not going to be interested in building up India as a counter to China. In continuing to develop the USA's military-military relationship with India to which the Pentagon continues to attach importance, it will avoid features which could cause concern to China just as the Kevin Rudd Government in Australia is doing.

15. All India can expect from the Obama Administration is soothing words from time to time to tickle India's vanity. Nothing more. After the euphoria created by the policies of the Bush Administration among policy-makers and in the community of wishful-thinkers in New Delhi euphemistically called strategic thinkers, we are in for a mood correction.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 Mar 2009 00:35

It depends on how the education is imparted on the individual. My own experience is that my character and worldview is shaped by the values my father and mother imparted on me in addition to what I learned from few good teachers in lines of the age-old guru-shishya system in the public schools. A few remnants of the old system were there when I went to school (1976-1985).

This is where the culture kicks in. It not only influences one’s social life but also the learning process (institution of education) itself. This is what makes the Culture that more important in nation building. If we are not sure about what culture we want to preserve and propagate, what values/knowledge we are trying to pass on to our future generations?

Today’s India is standing at the cross roads for this exact reason. No one knows for sure what values they stand for and what knowledge they want to pass on to the next generation. We are trained to believe in X, the world around us behaves like Y, and our traditions are are rooted in Z.

Veda Mata is the root of our ancient culture. We need not replace (by mixing them up with everything we know and don’t know) the roots of this tree to get another crop of same fruits, if that is what we want.

Or are we barking at the wrong tree?

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 11 Mar 2009 00:37

I don't know where is the best place to post this, but here it is:

India seeks rupee status symbol

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7923825.stm

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 11 Mar 2009 01:12

x-post

If US goes down, will china go down too? ( I am speaking not only in terms of economy all the other factors which come related to the economy)

Is it the case that just like Britain chose USA to be its successor in post WW2 world, US is choosing (or rather, has chosen) China as its successor?

Will it slowly hand over all its strategic assets to China and retire like Europe did to live off its Karma and enjoy the life?

If PRC is able to salvage the US economy (since it holds a large reservoir of US money), the leverage for PRC will be immense.. PRC would like to supplant and succeed USA as global superpower.. Perhaps, USA might slowly facilitate this transition, just like UK did with USA after 1945.

This will be in direct contradiction with what USA apparently

stands for (Democracy, capitalism, Freedom of speech), but as Bheeshma Pitamaha said " Arthasya Purusho Daas: " (Man is slave of money)

If this happens, what will be implications for India? Will OR should India step in shoes of USSR?

OR if Russia is resurgent by then, the world will be controlled by four poles. If India manages to accelerate her growth and fix few of her pressing domestic problems and enhance her market and GDP, then world order will be as it should have been. The west controlling Atlantic ocean and half of the pacific ocean. PRC controlling rest of the pacific ocean. India controlling Indian ocean. and if and when north-pole ice-cap melts (Which it will in next 20 years), Russia controlling the Arctic ocean and northern routes..

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Mar 2009 02:52

RamaY wrote:It depends on how the education is imparted on the individual. My own experience is that my character and worldview is shaped by the values my father and mother imparted on me in addition to what I learned from few good teachers in lines of the age-old guru-shishya system in the public schools. A few remnants of the old system were there when I went to school (1976-1985).

Debate on the education in India has been going on for 30-40 years
Check this out
http://www.india-seminar.com/2008/592.htm

http://www.india-seminar.com/2008/592/5 ... _gupta.htm

By the end of twelve years of schooling in a few Kendriya Vidyalayas spread across the country, I had become a directionless adolescent whose performance had gone down to the minimum marks. The load of non-comprehension in all the science subjects of Classes XI and XII along with mathematics, and the failure to satisfy the parental expectation of a seat in a medical college had completely crushed my confidence. My school teachers only taught question-answers in the class to prepare me for the board exams. They made absolutely no attempt to engage me or other students in developing concepts or understanding processes in science subjects.

http://www.india-seminar.com/2008/587.htm

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 Mar 2009 03:43

I think we all are saying the same thing. The education system needs revamping. And it needs to set the direction for future generations.

My only suggestion is that the new education system can take inputs from Sanatana Dharma, in that the purpose of education is not just pursuit of Artha but all four purushardhas (Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha). Once we set the right objective, we can have fusion of new ideas, tools and technologies to implement it. Let us not mistake the tools for solutions.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 11 Mar 2009 04:25

That said, as long as we have a constitution based on Veda/Shrutis it should not be that difficult to define and preserve a culture based on that.

Can such a constitution be written and used as the basis for future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent?

You seem reasonable so I don't know where this came from but determing one's culture from a Vedic standpoint means nothing on a practical scale. What does it mean to be Vedic? Should we interpret certain verses as implementing a caste system?

I would interpret Krishna, the Gopis, the existence of treatises such as the Kama Sutra and temples such as Khujaraho (which I realize is not a sex temple, but just the existence of explicit architecture on a house of worship is unseen in any religion) as proof of India's innate sexual freedom. Do you agree? Even though I imagine its not enforced at all, what would you say making oral sex and sodomy, which are currently illegal, legal?

My main point is - there is no such thing as "perfect religion", even moreso with Hinduism. No matter what it says in the Quran, there are plenty of terrorists who kill innocents in the name of Islam. Hinduism, of course, is not a bookish religion - for us, its more cultural - we learn from stories, festivals, talks with elders/priests/sages, movies, etc. How will you reconcile all the differences?

My original point stands, though. Education alone is one part of the equation and my experience in America makes me feel that way. Take it from someone who is actually still in school - kids don't really care for school or history unless its cool to care about it and that comes from society as a whole.

I'm jumping around here and I apologize but let me bring up another point.

One point I'd like to make is that Hinduism probably survived through the ages because of its cultural approach to religion. Religion is automatically associated with something good - festivals, family, stories, parties, and music. It transcends solemn church services, which is probably a factor in African-American church attendance versus Caucasion church attendance (taking into account the more passionate pastors). In essence, it is all ecompassing and flexible, much like Islam, but which is less flexible. That's why we even talk about something like Hindu culture and Muslim culture and why Americans for example have no such thing as Christian culture - they go to church on Sunday and then forget about it the rest of the week.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 11 Mar 2009 05:00

Russians has role to play and so does Europeans. Dragon and Uncle has to accomodate bothe of these as well as Japan. It will take another 10-20 years before any clear outcome can emerge. Besides its not in the nature of Great Khan to relinquish the control it holds on the destiny of many Poodles. At this time we know onlee one certain thing i.e Economic decline of WEST , we dont know if China will for sure come on top of the power Pyramid. They too have many enemies and distractors.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Mar 2009 05:34

Came in late : so apologies that cannot try to reply to the serious issues being raised. Will try later. Meanwhile here is a shaky attempt at something Ramanaji suggested.
http://dikgaj.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/prc.pdf

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 Mar 2009 07:15

Keshav-ji,

I think I was not clear enough. I was not trying to impose Hinduism on anyone. I was asking few questions on purpose of this nation/race called India.

I have no issues with any specific ideology or religion. I was trying to understand what should be the basis for the future of Indian sub-continent. Is it religion, culture, or mere survival of this nation-state in some form?

Let us assume our objective is survival of India as a nation-state. We do not care how the people live or what they believe-in and how they pursue their intellectual curiosity. If that is the case, are we not there already? Then, why is this nation so uncomfortable with itself? Why is it not successful? Why is it not confident?

If we are not there yet, is Hinduism the reason for it? Can we achieve our objectives by converting amass in to Christianity or Islam? At least we can claim to belong to a more advanced (assume new religions evolve from others) religion. I do not know.

Moreover, if culture is not that important, why are we not able to align 100% with USSR/USA/China or any other nation/culture to achieve our strategic objectives? Because, we do not see much common interests/culture beyond some short-term (compared to our 5000+ yr history) benefits; be it military/industrial assistance from USSR in the past 50 years, current economic/technology alignment with USA, or some tactical military containment of Pakistan when it comes to China.

In my opinion, every society has its distinct culture based upon the environment around it, climatic conditions, flora fauna, and many other subtle factors. Every culture developed a set of belief system(s) based upon its composition and outlook. That is what we are calling a religion in current sense. Thus, a religion called Hinduism is native to our society and culture.

It requires a well-executed purge strategy to uproot a native culture and replace it with a new one. This is exactly what happened with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Communism, and even Capitalism. Imposing every new concept on a native society resulted in unimaginable amount of mayhem throughout the history.

Assuming that the only possible strategy is to move forward, how many of these new cultures brought stability/peace/success to the native societies even after all that sacrifice and sufferings?

On the other hand, taking it back to its natural consciousness (may not be the right word) will be an easier task to achieve (of course there will be few painful phases to pass) but the result will resonate with the psyche of the nation. Once we achieve that harmony, this nation can achieve its objective of being successful, confident, and happy.

If we look at the history (do not constrain yourself with only 5000 yrs of history) of India, we can study every Deva-Danava war in this context. The interesting part is, every time the Devas won the war, they reinstalled the Vedic system/standard on the society. They did not try to find a new dharma. IMO the reason for this is, Vedas are the only natural system/culture/dharma for Indian sub-continent, and only Vedic culture could bring peace to Indian society.

I know it resembles a typical Jihadi ideology. The main difference in my opinion is that while my objective is to preserve my native culture, the Jihadi is trying to impose his ideology, which is foreign to me, on me.

This is what I think. I could be completely wrong in my understanding. I intend to learn from others’ viewpoints.

I hope I have not derailed this thread. My apologies to admins.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 Mar 2009 07:58

self deleted. wrong thread.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 11 Mar 2009 08:26

RamaY wrote:Today I came across a book called "Next Hundred Years" by George Freidman (founder or Stratfor)

He is talking about the new geopolitical power centers of this century. He thinks the new power centers will be Japan, Turkey, and Poland. He does not see much future for Russia and China beyond 2020. The next world war happens between Japan+Turkey Vs USA+Poland during 2050s. A new golden age sets after 2060. I am happy to see that India does not play any role in his predictions.

Do not confuse George Friedman with Thomas Friedman, the noted green advocate and geostrategist. George Friedman's work is comparable to Russian professors projecting the fragmentation of America.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Mar 2009 08:40

Keshav, Its not like that GF is a well known British policy wonk and has credentials in power circles.

RamaY, I think all that was before the meltdown. Am sure GF is updating it now.

BTW all those British 'experts' dont talk of India as they they think India wont be there for two reaosons- they have never seen a civilizational state and second they have set off so many time bombs they hope one will click.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Mar 2009 09:02

Prem , Aamne samne ka waqt aya hai.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 11 Mar 2009 09:04

RamaY wrote:Today I came across a book called "Next Hundred Years" by George Freidman (founder or Stratfor)

He is talking about the new geopolitical power centers of this century. He thinks the new power centers will be Japan, Turkey, and Poland. He does not see much future for Russia and China beyond 2020. The next world war happens between Japan+Turkey Vs USA+Poland during 2050s. A new golden age sets after 2060. I am happy to see that India does not play any role in his predictions.

Here are two videos of this guy.. he mentions India for about 25 seconds in the end of part two. as a token...

Poland

His argument is that any country which is of vital strategic interest to USA and has stable work-force becomes an economic giant and global power. He cites the example of South Korea and Israel which according to him had no hopes of achieving what they achieved without support from USA. Poland is of strategic interest to USA just like South Korea and Israel were in 1950s. This intense strategic interest of USA and hence Poland's bright future, according to him, is based on the fact of ToT of F-16s to Poland by USA along with plans of installation of Missile defence shield.

M :Whilst Poland is promising in (very) long term, I do not know about it becoming a global power centre supplanting PRC, EU giants, Russia, India, Brazil.. Poland was very big nation and was successful in defeating and controlling Germany and Russia at same time in 17th century. USA's interest in Poland will last as long as Russia. If Russia vanishes from global scenario, as this friedman guy says, then USA won't care a damn about eastern Europe.

Secondly, I wonder what great and stable work-force did South Korea have in 1950's. Furthermore, Pakistan too is of utmost strategic importance to USA for quite some time now. I was wondering why Pakistan did not figure out in his prediction of global power in next century

Turkey:

M:Radical Islam is slowly creeping back in Turkey, which was not allowed after Kemalization. It has been power seat of Byzantium empire, Eastern Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire for about 2000 years now. It was at advantage when sea routes for Asia were not discovered. However, in spite of Discovery of sea-routes, Ottoman Empire rose to Zenith for 4 centuries.

Japan:

He says, Japan has imperialistic past. It is second largest economy in world. Largest navy in pacific and army larger than UK. Hence, it is in destiny of Japan to rule.

M : Japan has a major problem with ageing population. And it is pathetic when it comes to dealing with immigrants. It will be interesting to see how Japan manages to emerge and out-compete the rise of BRIC.

India

He says that India was never one country. It was forced together by British. So, India cannot rise because it is not homogeneous. The states will keep on quarrelling with each other. The unifying factor of India was British. After few decades, at the best India will remain a collection of quarrelling states.. or at the worst will disintegrate..

M: The deep-rooted concept of "Bhaarat" is difficult for Friedman uncle to comprehend, eh??

EU

He says that Europe (EU/Western Europe) has no chance because they are too rigid and very bad at handling the immigrants. They stick to their old values, whereas Americans throw away the old values and take up new ones.

USA

And of course, he says that USA stays number one for next 100 years as well, because it is strategically well placed to control Atlantic and Pacific simultaneously..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Mar 2009 10:29

OK. After the meltdown where are all those countries now? What is their relative worth ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Mar 2009 10:38

An e-mail from a margadarshak:

Shyam Saran is a very thoughtful person and as is to be expected has spoken very thoughtfully.He has highlighted that both US and China would cooperate to maximise their respective damage limitation vis a vis the economic crisis.This has been elaborated in some more detail by Nayan Chanda in Global Yale.Nothing startling in that.The real issue to be considered is what will happen beyond that?the Sino-US cooperation for the period of recession will reduce the gap between the two and make China a relatively more weighty power in the international system.Yet the hierarchy of power will not alter and the US will atleast for the next couple of decades still be number one.Surely the international system and international science and technology are not likely to remain frozen.What role the new investments in science and technology will pay ,what results new international alignments can bring about will be subject to policy initiatives of major nations US,China and India too..Shyam's is a call for Indians to start thinking.

and

I recommend strongly the final piece of advice in Shyam's speech.Please let us not think linearly.

We must factor in ,the changes that are bound to take place in domestic consumption pattern,financing of health care and social security in US ,new technologies that will emerge out of the investments now made and possible domestic political and social changes in China.
Once the period of acute mutual dependency is over ,US and China will revert to become tacit rivals.If the US reduces its dependency on China's export surpluses financing its own unlimited credit requirements, the incentive for US entrepreneurs investing in China will somewhat decline. US will be interested in balancing China just as China will be interested in closing the gap with US.
There are vast uncertainties about Russia and European Union.
In my view the growth of powers in the coming decades will be influenced by new technologies that are likely to emerge and in this US still has some advantage and significant stake in Indo-US partnership.
The developments in Pak-Af area will be determined by the willingness and ability of Pak middle class and Army to take a stand against Talibanisation. The US has far to go to develop a realistic understanding of the situation and the problem. India today is in a better position to resist any US pressure than it had in the last 62 years.

I guess India has to develop multiple hedging strategies and invest accordingly while ensuring that no black swan or kala kauvva stops us.

We need to be more focussed in our understanding of the different shades of the relationships.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 11 Mar 2009 10:54

If UPAites are come back to power, India will be in the woods for next few decades . Saran alone cannot wake these old khoosats sleeping at the helm . With no action after Mumbai , our enemies has rightfully gauged the TAMAS in our elites . To bad many millions will make ultimate sacrifice to rectify the mistakes made post 47 . I am just hoping against the hope that India has made enough preparement to sent Dragon back to Dragon age. This will be fuse which will light the fire on Mahabhoomi scale.
Looking at bright side, we will be reincarted again while one Lifer goes eternally extinct .

satya · Post by **satya** » 11 Mar 2009 17:13

I see a silver lining in last days of UPA rule and its the ever increasing sound of 'structural reforms' tht need to be brought in for India to grow consistently above 9% mark. And increasingly almost all major english dailies in one way or another are bringing out this issue to the fore .When we talk of structural reforms , it encompasses all pillars of Governance & Society at large be it education ( National Knowledge Commission's paper on Higher Education with emphasis on quality & autonomy to universities points towards that ), social security reforms ( NPRA's {national pension authority} flagship scheme of pension to be launched shortly is a very good start ) , health care reforms ( health insurance now covers stays in hospital for a start ) & administrative reforms ( at least now people in power have begun to acknowledge that indeed there is a problem & this is the limit in gains they achieved by subverting reforms & accountability in bureaucracy ) , the list can go on & on. And its happening because average person on street acknowledges that something is not correct with the system and things need to change .So for any govt. that may come to power , it will not be a mountain climb to push through some of these reforms and any of these reforms will give us a boost to sustain growth & march towards our destiny.

Terrorism has been a menace but unless it can become something like a internal war a la Lebanon ,its a failure . At bare minimum if we can stop that from happening ,we will do just fine .

Might be reading wrongly but all these terror attacks in India are designed to slow us down not derail us . It might provide us a clue about other Powers in world arena & their intentions .

PRC's stance toward India can be changed sometime in future & it depends solely on the orientation of Politburo's members as till now they see world through western eyes ( might be wrong on this front ) , till that happens no trade number big or small will influence the PRC's leadership to change its stance away from hostility .

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Mar 2009 18:15

Chiron wrote: India

He says that India was never one country. It was forced together by British. So, India cannot rise because it is not homogeneous. The states will keep on quarrelling with each other. The unifying factor of India was British. After few decades, at the best India will remain a collection of quarrelling states.. or at the worst will disintegrate..

M: The deep-rooted concept of "Bhaarat" is difficult for Friedman uncle to comprehend, eh??

He is quite right. India was never one country. It is three right now - and trying to become 4 or 5. And yes - all are quarrelling.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 11 Mar 2009 19:02

shiv wrote:
Chiron wrote: India

He says that India was never one country. It was forced together by British. So, India cannot rise because it is not homogeneous. The states will keep on quarrelling with each other. The unifying factor of India was British. After few decades, at the best India will remain a collection of quarrelling states.. or at the worst will disintegrate..

M: The deep-rooted concept of "Bhaarat" is difficult for Friedman uncle to comprehend, eh??
He is quite right. India was never one country. It is three right now - and trying to become 4 or 5. And yes - all are quarrelling.

Yes, he is right, if we look at 5000 years at one glimpse..

But the point is, there have been many occasions in history where considerable portion (Say 3/4) of Bhaarat (subcontinent) was united for say a century or two and even then, India remained biggest economy in the world.

India is a world in itself. The Indic rulers usually do not try to project their powers beyond Indian subcontinent. At the most in Southern Afghanistan and South-east asia (Once under Rajaraj Chola). Although the culture spread across vast regions on many occasions.

Even the most fanatical of Hindutva-vaadin does not dream of global domination. All he cares about is Undivided India. So, from this perspective, India will never be a global power as USA is today because it is not in the Fitrat or Dharma of Hindus to do so.

Indian subcontinent can prosper and peacefully coexist if Indic traditions are followed here. They won't care about outside world and oceans beyond Indian ocean. So, even at the zenith of her power, India will not control territories outside South Asia and oceans beyond Indian ocean.

This is all India wants. If Indian people following Indic traditions control South Asia and Indian Ocean, it won't matter if subcontinent is politically united or not. The Indic traditions will make sure that the coexistence will be comparatively very peaceful and progress achieved in spite of political disunity. There is too much in common to be ignored. The culture was surprisingly continuous and unbroken even in ancient and medieval days, when means of communication were pathetic. Today, with excellent communication options, that continuity will only strengthen.

The terms of Rashtra and Dharma are different from Nation and Religion. The concept of Nation and Religion do not apply in Indian context. All the western analysts have committed this folly. They ignored the concept of Bhaarat and the phenomenon of Dharma which was obvious to Indians.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Mar 2009 20:59

There is wrong interpretation of modern Indian history. It wasnt the British that made a new united India. It was the post Independence Indian leadership that created the new India which flummoxed the Brits who hoped to leave a divided people so they can still micromanage remotely without the hard face of colonialism.
And those who subscribe to the idea that British created the new India are also the puppets of the British remote control.

THis new India was against the British expectation which was passed on to the US. All those hopeful statements that India will collapse after every major leader all stem from that.

Instead of qubbling ponder over Saran's speech. And how to think non-lineraly.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 11 Mar 2009 21:09

brihaspati wrote:Came in late : so apologies that cannot try to reply to the serious issues being raised. Will try later. Meanwhile here is a shaky attempt at something Ramanaji suggested.
http://dikgaj.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/prc.pdf

Jupiter Ji, Great work!!!

PRC has a base in Maldives now??????? When did that happen? I am shocked!!!!

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 11 Mar 2009 21:18

There is one very real undercurrent that SDREs will face for some time. Very ably planted, institutionalized and nourished by the Brits. That undercurrent was described very aptly by Kaushalji as "loinclothe syndrome". This syndrome needs to be eliminated amongst SDREs, where the SDREs do not suffer from it, to shaft other SDREs (crab mentality). While on the other hand it can help externally,to be under the radar of TFTA west.

India needs to play and up its ante on core competency and natural strengths. Natural resources and geolocation of Indian subcontinent is a dream and envy for many TFTAs who have to endure harsh, rugged and brutal terrians they occupy. Young demographics that need to be channelled to nation building, and not subject to myraid schisms.

Food security, a natural gift in the Indic region needs to be strengthened. Water security, through productive utilization techniques, linking of rivers, etc., if need be, has to be made solid. Less prone to vagaries of monsoon.

Nourish intellectual health, that is going to be very crucial. Education (especially tech and scientific) sector needs to expand with cross pollination. Unfortunately, have aura built around few key institutions and rarely the knowledge, practice and wisdom gets out of these citadels to percolate to wider audience/institutions within India.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Mar 2009 21:44

Jwalamukhi, That loincloth syndrome(LCS) is only among the educated and privileged folks. Did you watch the Filmfare awards and the responses of each of the "SDM" child actors who made everyone aware of the gold among us. And the stark absence of the prominent actor who was hogging the limelight with his cheesy smile at the Oscars. And the silly self wrapped question SRK asks the SDM kid?

My thinking is the LCS happens when there is a comptetion for scarce resources and your share of the pie depends not on how bright your light is but on how dim the others' light is. So there will be an urge to dim the others light at the very start aka crab syndrome.

Fortunately the new Knowledge yuga is not based on a zero-sum game but on win-wi for everyone.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Mar 2009 21:49

Indian Ocean as the pre-colonial Atlantic

• Indian Ocean as the Atlantic of pre-colonial era. Much of the global oil-export supply passes through the Indian Ocean rim region, through two main sealanes— the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman, and Strait of Malacca. The rim also includes “emerging economies” - South Africa, India, Malaysia, Indonesia.
• China, is "seriously considering" adding a first aircraft carrier to its navy. Chinese President Hu Jintao publicly called for rapid naval modernization and the last defense White Paper stated that "the Navy aims to gradually extend its strategic depth".
• China has actively acquired energy and mineral assets in Sudan, Nigeria, Iran, Venezuela, Burma, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia and other states with a history of unstable and arbitrary regimes. Chinese naval threat is hoped to deter repossession of Chinese-held assets, and also targeted at preventing rival powers to stake a claim or use of such resources.

Indian Ocean as the pre-colonial Atlantic

• Energy investments in Central Asia was used by China to justify heavy mechanized corps — with Xinjiang as their springboard. China's growing oil imports from the Persian Gulf and Africa is similarly used to justify Chinese military buildup on the Indian Ocean.
• China will probably deploy a fleet of SSBNs [Jin-class (Type 094) SSBN prototype, with satellite pictures showing one such submarine berthed at the huge new Chinese naval base at Sanya, Hainan Island].

Probable PRC presence in the Indian Ocean

• Gwadar, Balochistan
• Ormara, Balochistan - Jinnah Naval Base (testing ground for Shaheen)
• Karachi
• Marao (Maldives) nuclear submarine base - won by PRC around 2000-2001, should be functional by 2010
• Hambantota, Sri Lanka
• Chittagong, BD
• Great Coco Island, Myanmar

Why PRC wants to crush India in its imperialist mindset

• In a supposedly multipolar world, there are probably now three top "poles" - USA, PRC and Russia. There have been suggestions about a possible collaboration between India and PRC or that India can consider veering towards PRC in global politics. How far is this feasible and advisable?
• What are the main geo-strategic aims of PRC? Economically, PRC pinned its growth potential, quite naturally on the capturing of markets with the highest purchasing power and inclination to be "consumer" societies, where politics or ideology have less influence on consumer choice. Such markets typically lay in the capital rich markets of the "West".
• As supposed Marxists, they must have realized that through this interaction, there will be economic repercussions that could have profound impact on their regime itself. The economic model they followed can usually be characterized as "state capitalism". Now as these markets collapse, PRC has to diversify and capture less lucrative markets. India in this sense will be a secondary but not such a bad choice either.

How does India react?

• If interaction is beneficial for PRC, is it beneficial for India? Already there is discontent at Chinese products edging out the domestic Indian products in toys, silk etc.
• India trails behind the "West" in capital accumulation (although some of the assets in virtual money might have vanished during the recent crash).To compete at PRC levels, India has to enforce enormous rates of capital accumulation which are typical of all early cpaitalist societies, and always created through intensive exploitation of domestic labour, intensive extraction of capital from colonies, capital transfer through unequal trade maintained by military superiority.
• India has no colonies, did not impose intensive "primitive capital accumulation" through state authority, has not shown inclination or capacity to militarily dominate non-domestic markets to carry out unequal trade. The only argument possible is the dollar-reserve Chinese capital will/have devalued, making it fairer for India's capital to compete.

China's next strategic move

• But PRC's main infratructure to generate "capital" remains in place unless there is a "social revolution" driven by worsening employment conditions against already raised expectations.
• CCP has decided its continued authoritarian dominance of China as a key to both its own and China's survival. So far it has managed to convince the Chinese people about this. But once it begins to fail to deliver, and shows signs of failure/weakness - it will be the beginning of the end.
• By aggressively expanding via neo-imperialism, CCP has trapped itself into the same escalating spiral of destruction that USSR and the USA has. It now has to constantly “expand” at increasing costs, for any slowing down will invite both internal and external attacks.

China's next strategic move

• PRC's next main concern will be to capture both the oil as well as the still intact consumer capacities of the middle east. It wants access to and presence in the Indian Ocean to dominate the Indian ocean rim economies, some of which are "emerging". The main thorn in the side is India.
• It is scared that India continues to protect neucleus of Tibetan nationalsim, and a free Tibet would push PRC further away from its strategic objective of reaching the Indian Ocean and the Gulf. From the imeperialistic mindset of PRC rulers, militarily its hold on Northern Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh are important flanking positions to dominate Tibet, and surround it from two sides.
• It is also therefore important for PRC to extend these two flanks right up to the Indian Ocean. Through Pakistan, it can then isolate India from the current NATO presence in AFG, as well as from Russia. In the east, it can threaten to join up with Myanmar and BD to isolate Indian eastern wing, in conjunction with Nepal.

Tentative Chinese Ring of Containment

The blue lines are for the naval rings of containment and the red ones are for possible PLA moves.

China and India - a zero-sum deadlock

• Until PRC can ensure the continued weakness of Indian economy, and weaken its dominance in the region, it cannot ensure continued extraction of capital from the "lesser economies" to maintian its growth curve. If India agrees to this subsidiary role PRC can be happy and accept India's overtures.
• India can on the otherhand represent aggressive Chinese “payouts” and “investments” as a hidden strategy of undermining soverignity of the nations where China enters, and actually simply a “bribe” to the elite of respective nations to possess the country's resources. Against this India should simply offer expertise to develop resources and business of the country from its own soil. Trade balance should be openly and clearly built into this policy.
• PRC can be made to realize the extreme costs of this flanking attempt at isolating and weakening India. And a potential threat that such flanks could be turned inside out to surround Tibet from the sides. PRC may be more amenable to Indian "overtures" only then.

Possible Indian countermove to reverse flanking

The blue lines are for the naval rings of containment and the red ones are for possible PLA moves.

Asian Super Highway and Chinese Military strategy

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Mar 2009 21:52

For starters can we start listing the current interests of the US and PRC and hwo they can reinforce and and antagonaize. We can then see the trade offs and more importantly where they impact India. Add UK as a sub-category of US interests.

Later we can do the same with the Russians and Japanese. I think the new EU will be dominated by France and Germany.

One crucial thing is India owns Sanskrit and can determine the course of AIT. These are two cards for later use. But will bring this up at alter stage. Dont get distracted by it. Its here on the parking lot.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 11 Mar 2009 22:07

ramana wrote:One crucial thing is India owns Sanskrit and can determine the course of AIT. These are two cards for later use. But will bring this up at alter stage. Dont get distracted by it. Its here on the parking lot.

Ramana ji,

How do you know that AIT is truth? There is hardly any reference in Rigveda which conclusively suggests the Aryan Invasion theory.

Rigveda describes the region from Kabul to Ganga Plains and nothing beyond that. Except one or two terse references towards long nights and hence Arctic origin theory. Almost everything described in RV is from South Asia (including Afghanistan).

There is a very probably OIT (Out of India, theory) which suggests that Aryans originated in Sapta-Sindhu region and migrated away from it, spreading Vedic culture.

There might have been migrations of pre-aryan people. But there has not been an invasion or migration of Aryan civilization. Whatever Arya people composed, they composed it in India. Rather, they became civilized and started calling themselves as Arya after coming in India. Hence no memoir of migration route in RV. So, even if we own sanskrit, there is nothing to find there in Vedas if one is looking for the route of AIT.

Interests of PRC in India's vicinity -

1. To strengthen its grip in Tibet and Xinjiang

2. To suppress the separatist movements in these provinces at all costs.

3. Govt in Nepal favouring PRC, more importantly, not favouring India.

4. Contain the rise of Japan and stop from Japan and Taiwan cooperating with each other - antagonistic to PRC interests.

5. Support Pakistan enough to contain India but not to influence Xinjiang (one important possibility for India)

6. Energy routes from middle east to be secured, both land-based and sea based. Pipeline from Iran-Pakistan-China would be very helpful for China..

7. Huge consumer market in middle east hence, one potential importer of Chinese goods.

8. Vietnam - to ensure that Communist dictatorship remains incumbent in Vietnam. People are pissed but cannot revolt.

9. Same is the case with Myanmar.

10. The neighbourhood of China - Myanmar, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan are opportunities for India, if utilized correctly. If democracy is facilitated in these two countries people will favour India. Vietnam can be a long shot, but Myanmar is an urgent necessity.

11. The major concern of PRC is Taiwan and Japan. India comes third. PRC's attention is more fixed towards first two..

12. Before going for Tibet, Myanmar should be our numero-uno priority. Secondly Nepal. Thirdly, Baloochistan (this is tricky). Fourthly, friendship with Iran, Vietnam. Tibet will liberate itself on its own, if Myanmar, Nepal and Baloochistan become pro-Indian.

13. A big chunk of economy of PRC is based upon value addition and cheap labour. The market of ASEAN depends upon PRC, irrespective its repressive policies for cheap labour. Many products of ASEAN are imported in PRC, added the value and exported to the West since labour is comparatively quite expensive in ASEAN. If India is able to convince ASEAN to prefer India over China, they will be more than happy. The Indian system is transparent than that of China and intentions nobler than China. If we could persuade ASEAN to deal with India and that too in Indian rupee, nothing like it...

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 11 Mar 2009 22:12

Ramanaji, thanks that knowledge yuga is right up the alley of SDREs and needs to be played to full hilt.

Chironji chillax maadi.
Course of AIT is different from endorsing AIT.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Mar 2009 23:04

Chiron, Good list. What about global prespective? You have given PRC's Asian prespective.