Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 16 Apr 2014 09:22

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3152 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 ... 79  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2012 20:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 13592
Central Asia has basically four uses:

1) Source of Energy and Minerals
2) Route for Trade
3) As pivot to control political turmoil in the soft underbellies of all powers in Asia.
4) As target region for imperial expansion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2012 20:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43
Posts: 6691
There is a theory that whoever controls Eurasia controls the world. I recall reading something along those lines in Brezinski's book


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2012 20:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 29 Nov 2011 00:42
Posts: 194
Dear Rakshaks,

Please search for ‘fifteen largest trading partners of India’ on Wiki. I wanted to paste the information but the correct formatting is not taking place!

I think CAR is important for India but NOT as important as it has been made out. CAR is not one of the top 15 trading partners of India.

Acharyaji
Both the sea routes as well as land routes are vulnerable

RajeshAji
The current game being played in Af-Pak region will NOT allow India any access to CAR for the foreseeable future. Even if we are allowed by Af-Pak governments to trade with CAR by some magic, I still see Islamists torching up our lorries like they do to NATO supplies. If they don’t torch up then they will blackmail us!

This is the reason why we did not go ahead with Iran/Pak/India oil/gas pipeline


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2012 21:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 3945
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
Pakistan's failure to protect its minorities, especially their women

Response to Brihaspati ji's postfrom the Islamism & Islamophobia thread
----------------

brihaspati wrote:
what have the current Sufi spiritual masters have to say on Rinkle? Was the act anti-Islamic or simply un-Islamic or no comments?

B ji, I'm not knowledgeable at all. AFAIK, not a peep from any Sufi types. I have also gone out and put the question to some, but have not heard back yet.

brihaspati wrote:
do you see hopes of any moderation in the police escorts, the judges, the state, the journalists, the madrassah which has custody of the girl over and above the state ? Do you think we can turn these potential moderates against the USA?

Its interesting that the Paki media has decided to focus on this one case of Rinkle. The madrassah walas who have her in captivity are in the spotlight. Let's see what comes of this - though I doubt anything will happen because there is no strong lobby that really has the balls to stand up for Rinkle herself. No Akal Sena to rescue her.

Some reports say that one out of every two non-Moslem women in TSP are pressured to convert to Islam. Moslem women are the strongest suggestors to their non-Moslem female friends. We see in TSP that when Christian women there are harrassed or preached to by their Moslem friends, they tend to talk back more boldly. There have been very high profile 'blasphemy' cases illustrating this. IMHO, the reason Christian women in TSP seem to be more bold is because the West will stand up for them. "Moderate" RAPEs like Taseer were also posing as defenders because they wanted to look good to the West. But no such help for the Hindu women there. Will India say anything? Will even our Tejos do anything? Some retaliatory strikes?

Maybe women are a uniquely attractive target for a religion like Islam, with its theme of intimidation, alienation and insecurity, and it offers a dominance-slave form of 'security' which becomes an attractive cultural idiom in the aftermath of disgust and breakdown of individual freedom (due to oppression, as in the East, or due to overstretched hedonism as in the West, where certain types of men and women are also attracted to Islam). Women in such a situation develop a mental intolerance of randomity (of thought, and culture) and become ripe for simplistic ideologies and are prone to the power of suggestion, or coercion. In fact, they will be cowed down or even offer themselves as a self-sacrifice to create 'peace' of some sort.

Paki Hindus must be offered asylum and mass migration into India, after making an international hue and cry about all this that has been happening there. In full international media attention, Pak Hindus, and perhaps a few Christians must be given asylum. Then once that is done, retaliatory strikes should begin within TSP.

brihaspati wrote:
Such determination might come in very handy in a determined resistance against the USA perhaps?

Where it affects Christians in TSP, it is to India's benefit that the TSP-Western relationship fractures more and more.

brihaspati wrote:
Or is it possible for India to make friends with them? Since none of the populations seem to have come forward to resist or protest this peaceful conversion - we can assume that the height of moderation was being shown by these custodians of the girl and they have the support of every other moderate in Pakistan.

I don't see ball-less Indians being able to create a lobby of Hindophile "moderates" in TSP directly. Taseer types stood up against the blasphemy laws only because the cases highlighted were against Christians and their West-funded missionaries. India should at least hook one issue with the other. Apart from screaming bloody murder for injustices against Hindus in TSP and other places, Hindus also need to create an international image of being highly sympathetic to 'Christ' - i.e., Christ's personality and teachings minus Paul's additions and the Old Testament. This puts us equidistant from Jews, Christians and Moslems, but still leans towards the West.

Highlighting these issues we should also loudly offer citizenship and resettlement of Pak Hindus into India. then once that is done we should unleash some fireworks on the qabila.

brihaspati wrote:
Since we desperately need to create a class of moderates in Pakistan who will see eye to eye with Indians on common issues like the need to bash up USA for example, should we start seeing eye to eye with these moderates on such conversions for example as a first gesture?

I know you are being sarcastic. Obviously, we need to highlight this phenomenon much much more, making it an international issue, and offering asylum to Pak Hindus. Apart from that we should conduct retaliatory strikes within TSP (not at IMs).


Last edited by Agnimitra on 13 Mar 2012 22:54, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2012 21:42 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06
Posts: 1534
@shiv you keep talking about making pakis hate the US as if (a) that is not already happening (b) pakis are stupid and don't know how to apply good cop-bad cop formula.

US is being made to hug pakis tight exactly because the public hates the US so much that they have to be bought off lest nukes fall into "wrong" hands. By your own thesis, PRC is just as impotent as USA and so we can expect that all the halchal in sinkiang will make no difference.

You also keep harping that those who want India to be tough on Pak are nothing but america-loving NRI kafirs. You had a valid point to make a long time back, but now that's getting old, and more to the point, does it make any sense to not take India's TSP policy on its own merits? Paki antipathy to India is swayambhu and has nothing to do with america and you know this, so what is the point of this harping?

There is such a thing as being too clever, with all this, let's be cunning panchatantra-pasand banias and separate pak from its allies by being nice to them business. In case you are an RK Narayan fan, I suggest you re-read Swami & Friends, the episode where Mani tries to get Swami's money back from the slum kid is a propos.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2012 23:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12039
Lalmohan ji,
Southern Afghanistan :
As far as we can tell - that region suffers from its geographical location in between the major classical concentrations of sustainable populations and civilizations. It was perhaps once naturally productive in the immediate greater hydration period from 8000-3000 BCE. A part of the region might already have been also known in the ancient world for mineral wealth - especially copper and some speculate, sulphur, from which the southern region might have taken its name. Agriculturally the area had once produced "sugarcane"(!!?) apparently and an alternate but bogus Persian derivation of place name is attributed to the production of sugar/molasses. That it might really have once been productive agriculturally when greater rainfall took place in the post glacial period - is shown by the fact that 20th century irrigation works instituted by the Americans in the south made the area quite fertile, and eventually landed up the area into the more profitable opium cultivation.

But as the area dried up post 4000-3000 BCE, agriculture perhaps declined, and sustaining of the pre-existing culture became dependent on the trade that flowed through the region between other more sustainable economies.

Since then they became pawns in the recurrent triangular struggles that broke out between Indian subcontinental powers and the Mesopotamia and Iranian highland-Caspian powers.

Indus - as a natural boundary seems always to have been a vague civilizational frontier. Ethnically even the female DNA differs. Thus the parts west of Indus formed a buffer zone and a wide frontier between Gulf powers and Iranian powers. For example the Persian Cyrus led "invasions" claimed Sindh as a satrapy yielding tonnes of gold dust as tax. (Wast it the 22nd satrapy?) But when Alex comes, Greeks seem to meet resistance from the north, and independent kings. Even if Bactria/northern Afghnaistan is claimed in the Persian lists!

So there must have been vagueness politically right from the times described or hinted at in MB [the Kuru contest against the Gandhars] and Sudas' war. They were always torn in between the orbits of Iran or Mesopotamian pulls and Indian pulls.

In such frontier civilizations, a class of opportunists will arise which will be permanently looking for swinging with the tide and flow of profits. They switched to Persian Magi/Zoroastrian forms under Persians, switched to Buddhism under pressure from Asoka, switched back to mixed Indo-Greek "pagan" forms when Mauryas retreated under the consequences of Asokas policies, switched back to Buddhism under Kanishka [who needed Buddhism as a binder of imperialism just as Asoka used it], became followers of Mani [Christo-Buddhist-zoroastrian fusion proto-Islam], and switched to Saivism and Surya when Hindus replaced Buddhist overlords, and switched to Islam when Islamic armies succeeded.

These regions try to balance oout affiliations to the dominant theme in the Gulf and to the east in India in the southern part of the region [to the sea]. In the northern part they try to balance out affiliations between Persian/Caspian/CAR and South-East to India and GV.

The calculate as to who will control the trade flows immediately to their west and north, and establish connections with such forces. This stranglehold gave power to the Islamists once they could defeat the weakened Parthians and claimed control of the western reaches - and in turn the SOB's you mention saw wisdom in switching over. I have mentioned the role of the rich urban Buddhist merchant/sramans in Sindh in collaborating with Islamist armies from the Caliphate. [Thaparites gloss over those details to paint a picture of aam Buddhist support for Islamists - in reality the aam had begun to turn Saivite as part of the general Indian reaction turning against Buddhist elite].

To keep them on the straight and narrow path, they need to be firmly controlled under a central Indian "empire" - as in the days of Chandragupta Maurya and his son Bindusara.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2012 23:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 11026
Location: Beneath the pleasure dome of the great khan
b-ji, thank you for the insights


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2012 23:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12039
This whole Islamist policy of living off by controlling the land route of trade between the two economic powerhouses of the south and East versus Europe and the Med -unravelled when the sea-routes bypass was opened up. This was one of the key reasons Islamic power fell.

The land routes are important. But their devlopment now without equal or greater dominance of the sea-routes under Indian hands - implies Islamic power's revival chances increase, based on CAR trade.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2012 23:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12039
Lalmohan ji,
no mention please!

One persistent characteristic to add is that - the northerners will resist tooth and nail - but once they are defeated overwhelmingly [crushed in near genocidic brutality] they switch over. The Kabul and Zabul "Hindu" Shahyia elite resisted vehemently the Turks and Caliphate. But when Sabuktigin finally defeats Jayapala we already see that some Afghans have already joined him. By Mahmud's time they are all part and parcel of the Yaminian adventure against Indian plains. But they are also intensely fatricidal - it was an Afghan clan which destroyed Mahmud's descendants.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 00:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 13592
brihaspati garu,

that is one reason, I support some weakening of Iran. Iran would resist the Arabs regardless of whether it is as Shi'a or as Persians, so we need not be afraid that the whole region would become one black region under the sway of singular power in Mecca. A weak Iran would allow India to expand into the region, and draw the region into an Indian orbit, and even Iran may end up in the Indian orbit.

This time India should draw our civilization frontier in Kurdistan, and not in Afghanistan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 03:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12039
RajeshA wrote:
brihaspati garu,

that is one reason, I support some weakening of Iran. Iran would resist the Arabs regardless of whether it is as Shi'a or as Persians, so we need not be afraid that the whole region would become one black region under the sway of singular power in Mecca. A weak Iran would allow India to expand into the region, and draw the region into an Indian orbit, and even Iran may end up in the Indian orbit.

This time India should draw our civilization frontier in Kurdistan, and not in Afghanistan.


Sam Harris in The End of Faith [p 45]:
Quote:
Religious moderates are, in a large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed.


Internecine struggles for the blackest of positions within a uniform black swathe can co-exist with trying to use that uniform black for common black purpose.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 06:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 21667
Location: I have principles, and if you don't like them, I have others
KLNMurthy wrote:
@shiv you keep talking about making pakis hate the US as if (a) that is not already happening (b) pakis are stupid and don't know how to apply good cop-bad cop formula.

As far as I am concerned "Pakistani hating the US" means Pakistan attacking more American targets. It's not enough to hold posters and shout slogans and burn flags. Not enough Americans are being attacked by Pakistanis, which suggests that the Pakis have a tight leash on the violence. Actually - it is America's ally, the Pakistan army that has a tight leash on the violence that can be inflicted on American targets.I have never wavered from my demand that the Pakistan army and USA need to fall apart. That Pakisan army is the single most dangerous entity that has been armed and enriched continuously by the USA. And that army has sponsored the deaths of more Indians than any other entity after 1947.


KLNMurthy wrote:
You also keep harping that those who want India to be tough on Pak are nothing but america-loving NRI kafirs.


I guess I will report your post for what it is worth. This is a false accusation. I have never ever said that those who want to be soft on Pak are america loving NRI kafirs. And I would like admins to note that you are once again bringing up this bogey. I have time and again pointed out that it is the "going soft on America" is being done by America Rakshaks. I have never accused NRIs in general and you have brought up this lie enough times for an admin to believe it and caution me imagining that I had done that. That was unfair and you are being unfair. Anyhow I will report your post for making fake accusations immediately after this post.


KLNMurthy wrote:
There is such a thing as being too clever, with all this, let's be cunning panchatantra-pasand banias and separate pak from its allies by being nice to them business. In case you are an RK Narayan fan, I suggest you re-read Swami & Friends, the episode where Mani tries to get Swami's money back from the slum kid is a propos.


Thanks for the reading suggestions. You want me to read what you read so that perhaps I start thinking like you do? Perish the thought. Just let me be myself. I am not sure why my posts bother you so much. Now you want me to read what you read If I want to be too clever why should it bother you? I think it's odd that you get so much discomfort from what I write. You have the option of ignoring me.


Last edited by shiv on 14 Mar 2012 07:04, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 06:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 21667
Location: I have principles, and if you don't like them, I have others
brihaspati wrote:
This whole Islamist policy of living off by controlling the land route of trade between the two economic powerhouses of the south and East versus Europe and the Med -unravelled when the sea-routes bypass was opened up. This was one of the key reasons Islamic power fell.


Brihaspati, pardon me for saying this. I mean no personal affront so please don't take it as one.

You see the statement that the control of trade routes "dried up" when sea route were "opened up" is a Euro centric statement which is typically the sort of statement that one reads from Europe based history books. The net result of the sea routes "opening up" (by northern and western Europeans) made Europe independent of those routes and the sea power helped them dominate the sea. The Islamists kept their power on the routes anyway although the traffic was reduced. The net result was that India and China were the losers.

As Indian sea power increases, I believe that India must open up the land routes as well. The nations of Islam who represent the most stupid and most violent forces in recent years sit astride those routes and i would like to use all that power that I can muster have to tell members of the ummah that they are stupid gits who don't know good from bad. Among the nations I suspect that Afghanistan and the Central Asian republics will be amenable to reason, but the problem countries are Pakistan and Iran in the near term.

It is the control of the sea route that helps the US control Pakistan. India's problems with Pakistan started with the British control of the sea route. If we are talking of a future "economy of the world" the whole of Africa needs "opening up" and integration with all of Asia right up to Singapore. A land route must be opened up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 07:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27
Posts: 4567
^^^
shiv,

actually, the Islamic states didn't really control the land routes anymore, once the sea empires of Europe started rising. it might be a western boast that their sea empire crushed the Middle Eastern land routes based imperialism, but it is also true. if you look at the Ottomans and Persians, you'll notice that as European sea power rose, their control of land routes dwindled. Russia from the North, and later on direct British intervention from the Persian Gulf, made sure that ME states no longer had any capacity to control these land routes. one particular episode which illustrates this: Napoleon tried to establish a link with Iran via land route, and eventually plan an invasion into India; Russia swatted this plan into the dustbin simply by the fact that the land route was controlled by them, not Iran.

the precedent is clear. once the Europeans began their imperialism on the seas, the relative cost of trade by land routes suddenly skyrocketed. this directly led to the eventual power bankruptcy of the ME states, including Iran. Russia took advantage of this expanded over a vast area, especially the mineral rich Central Asia. another thing to note: Russia had a unique opportunity to build a huge road from CA to Europe proper, but they didn't do it. Russia was not a naval power. so, they wouldn't have any incentive to waste a good profit making opportunity on land that they controlled. yet, Russia chose not to any such thing. there might just have been a good reason for that.

"opening roads" is a great idea, but ultimately, somebody has to travel on them. they have to be used. otherwise, it is the PRC strategy of building ghost towns. pumping 100's of billions into a "silk road" is a useless waste if there is no need for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 07:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27
Posts: 4567
it's not yet clear what all the recent clamor about "silk road" is. unless we see some solid numbers suggesting that this silk road can reduce the cost of exporting/importing goods compared to shipping transport, we should be careful in wagging our tail to the dog's tune.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 07:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 21667
Location: I have principles, and if you don't like them, I have others
devesh wrote:
"opening roads" is a great idea, but ultimately, somebody has to travel on them. they have to be used. otherwise, it is the PRC strategy of building ghost towns. pumping 100's of billions into a "silk road" is a useless waste if there is no need for it.

I think you are buying into my tactic of planning too far ahead as an aspirational goal. The first step in opening the road is access for Indians to Pakistan. Going beyond Pakistan happens later. Indian access into Pakistan is for the noble goal of "re energizing the silk route and for the good of all people of the subcontinent".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 08:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 3945
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
devesh wrote:
it's not yet clear what all the recent clamor about "silk road" is. unless we see some solid numbers suggesting that this silk road can reduce the cost of exporting/importing goods compared to shipping transport, we should be careful in wagging our tail to the dog's tune.

Looks like some people have already done the math - This was posted on the Iran thread:

Iran, India to build International North-South Corridor
Quote:
The project envisages a multi-modal transportation network that connects ports on India's west coast to Bandar Abbas in Iran, then overland to Bandar Anzali port on the Caspian Sea; thence through Rasht and Astara on the Azerbaijan border onwards to Kazakhstan, and further onwards towards Russia. Once complete, this would connect Europe and Asia in a unique way -- experts estimate the distance could be covered in 25-30 days in what currently takes 45-60 days through the Suez Canal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 08:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 21667
Location: I have principles, and if you don't like them, I have others
Carl wrote:
Looks like some people have already done the math - This was posted on the Iran thread:

Iran, India to build International North-South Corridor
Quote:
The project envisages a multi-modal transportation network that connects ports on India's west coast to Bandar Abbas in Iran, then overland to Bandar Anzali port on the Caspian Sea; thence through Rasht and Astara on the Azerbaijan border onwards to Kazakhstan, and further onwards towards Russia. Once complete, this would connect Europe and Asia in a unique way -- experts estimate the distance could be covered in 25-30 days in what currently takes 45-60 days through the Suez Canal.


Thanks. But the people quoted in the link are not thinking about me. :(( :oops:
Quote:
Second, with Pakistan in a state of almost chronic instability, India can never hope to access Central Asia through Pakistan. Its best bet remains Iran. Building a big-ticket infrastructure corridor is a reaffirmation of Indian commitment to the relationship with Iran.

Meena Singh Roy, senior fellow at IDSA, who is closely connected with the project, said, "The potential of this corridor will be manifold with India, Myanmar and Thailand getting linked by road. This will boost trade between Europe and South East Asia as well."

The North-South Corridor, which can be described as part of the "new great game", is now a battle for "power, hegemony, profits and resources", as a senior official put it. Quite apart from opening up new markets for India, the corridor could also be used to transport energy resources to India -- from oil, gas to uranium and other industrial metals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 08:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12039
shiv wrote:
brihaspati wrote:
This whole Islamist policy of living off by controlling the land route of trade between the two economic powerhouses of the south and East versus Europe and the Med -unravelled when the sea-routes bypass was opened up. This was one of the key reasons Islamic power fell.


Brihaspati, pardon me for saying this. I mean no personal affront so please don't take it as one.

You see the statement that the control of trade routes "dried up" when sea route were "opened up" is a Euro centric statement which is typically the sort of statement that one reads from Europe based history books. The net result of the sea routes "opening up" (by northern and western Europeans) made Europe independent of those routes and the sea power helped them dominate the sea. The Islamists kept their power on the routes anyway although the traffic was reduced. The net result was that India and China were the losers.

As Indian sea power increases, I believe that India must open up the land routes as well. The nations of Islam who represent the most stupid and most violent forces in recent years sit astride those routes and i would like to use all that power that I can muster have to tell members of the ummah that they are stupid gits who don't know good from bad. Among the nations I suspect that Afghanistan and the Central Asian republics will be amenable to reason, but the problem countries are Pakistan and Iran in the near term.

It is the control of the sea route that helps the US control Pakistan. India's problems with Pakistan started with the British control of the sea route. If we are talking of a future "economy of the world" the whole of Africa needs "opening up" and integration with all of Asia right up to Singapore. A land route must be opened up.


The fact of the matter is that Indian and Chinese central Asian land route trade decreased substantially from the mid 1300's onwards, and coincides with the maximum extension of the ME Islamic regimes - as well as the onset of the medieval dry period as manifested in effects over IOR monsoon. From the 1000-1300 the constant intra-Islamic wars, rise of Turks and subsequently the Mongols disrupted traditional routes although Chinghiz briefly revived the east-west trade.

There are well known records [from Chinese sources and indirectly from Indian, Ceylonese, and Arab/persian records] as to how Muslims on the frontiers of India increasingly prevented Indian [and non-Muslim] traders from penetrating into the regions they traded in person before. Chinese sources like Chou ju kua distinctly refer to the troubles the Muslims placed in the way of Chinese traders - so that a bulk of the land trade between Chinese and Indians diverted to the Assam corridor and SE Asian sea trade to Canton. The China India circuit formed a separate loop cut away from the NW frontier for more than a century - until Indonesia fell to Arabs.

One of the things that seems to be forgotten in discussions on this land+sea route thing is that we ignore the increased piracy from Persian and Yemeni Muslim seafarers that increasingly cut off Indian sea-trade across the Arabian Sea to the Med. This happened almost immediately in the first century after Muhammad and that Indian sea-trade presence was quickly reduced to agent-presence around Socotra and the eastern parts of the Gulf.

Thus Muslim power in ME meant not onlee cutting off of land trade from India and China, but also Muslim piracy cutting off Indian sea trade to the west.

If we start gloating over the glorious trade that happened from India under Muslim occupation through land routes, and as some claim - reaching its golden heights under the Mughals - then we prove ourselves extremely callous to the memory of those countless Indian men women and children who formed a bulk of the exports along with fine cloth and steel. There is substantial proof that Muslim occupiers of India increasingly resorted to raising revenue for their excessive consumption by selling the aam Indian - literally as slaves into CAR markets. This trade - like almost every other Islamic practice in trade - denuded India not only of its people but in a time of labour intensive technology - transferred net productive capital out of India.

The Brits for their own reasons - blasted the Islamic pirates, and even found excuses to blast the ancestors of some modern Gulf royalties in their pirate safe havens. Brits and Portuguese were pirates too - but at least they freed up one arm of the east west trade away from the choke hold the Muslims had. Again for their own benefit and inter-imperialist competition the Brits abolished slavery and slave transport - both by sea as well as land, which to an extent dried off the slave drain from India. In the long run - the weakening of CAR Islamic economies meant the weakening of Islamic hold on India because - the Mughals depended heavily on CAR farriers, horses and mounted archers.

In our eagerness to down the white-man and up the Islamic [who have their own colour based racism] we should not distort the historical reality of the consequences of one pirate replacing another, and in the process weakening the replaced pirate - while also stopping the abduction and sale of your children practised in the past by the now weakened pirate.

Mere pointing out the reality of the effects of European skullduggery on Islamic systems in the ME and CAR as having some speific beneficial effects for India - is not Eurocentrism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 08:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 21667
Location: I have principles, and if you don't like them, I have others
brihaspati wrote:

One of the things that seems to be forgotten in discussions on this land+sea route thing is that we ignore the increased piracy from Persian and Yemeni Muslim seafarers that increasingly cut off Indian sea-trade across the Arabian Sea to the Med. This happened almost immediately in the first century after Muhammad and that Indian sea-trade presence was quickly reduced to agent-presence around Socotra and the eastern parts of the Gulf.

Thus Muslim power in ME meant not onlee cutting off of land trade from India and China, but also Muslim piracy cutting off Indian sea trade to the west.

<snip>

In our eagerness to down the white-man and up the Islamic [who have their own colour based racism] we should not distort the historical reality of the consequences of one pirate replacing another, and in the process weakening the replaced pirate - while also stopping the abduction and sale of your children practised in the past by the now weakened pirate.


In fact this proves my point. The "opening up" of sea routes was for Europe to exploit its power. And Europe not only exerted its power over the Islamics, but over india as well.

From an Indian viewpoint it was hardly an "opening up" as you describe it.

In our eagerness to absolve the white man of all liability because of a personal preference to see the faults of Islam alone, we must not forget that India has to "open up"" both routes for Indians and not derive comfort and satisfaction from routes that were opened up by white man for his own benefit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 08:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12039
shiv wrote:

Thanks. But the people quoted in the link are not thinking about me. :(( :oops:
Quote:
Second, with Pakistan in a state of almost chronic instability, India can never hope to access Central Asia through Pakistan. Its best bet remains Iran. Building a big-ticket infrastructure corridor is a reaffirmation of Indian commitment to the relationship with Iran.

Meena Singh Roy, senior fellow at IDSA, who is closely connected with the project, said, "The potential of this corridor will be manifold with India, Myanmar and Thailand getting linked by road. This will boost trade between Europe and South East Asia as well."

The North-South Corridor, which can be described as part of the "new great game", is now a battle for "power, hegemony, profits and resources", as a senior official put it. Quite apart from opening up new markets for India, the corridor could also be used to transport energy resources to India -- from oil, gas to uranium and other industrial metals.


But then by this conjecture, even Iran has an interest in keeping Pakistanis anti-Indian.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 08:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 21667
Location: I have principles, and if you don't like them, I have others
brihaspati wrote:
But then by this conjecture, even Iran has an interest in keeping Pakistanis anti-Indian.


Possibly. But if Pakistan was stablilized, they would realise that an India-Iran alliance and direct trade route via Pakistn would kick the US in the butt - just the place where Iranians would like to kick the US.

A stable Pakistan would make the US irrelevant - so it is the US that stands to gain most by an unstable Pakistan, dependent on the US and beholden to the US.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 08:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12039
shiv wrote:

In fact this proves my point. The "opening up" of sea routes was for Europe to exploit its power. And Europe not only exerted its power over the Islamics, but over india as well.

From an Indian viewpoint it was hardly an "opening up" as you describe it.

In our eagerness to absolve the white man of all liability because of a personal preference to see the faults of Islam alone, we must not forget that India has to "open up"" both routes for Indians and not derive comfort and satisfaction from routes that were opened up by white man for his own benefit.


Well I try to state facts and do not hesitate to call the pirate a pirate regardless of whether the pirate was a white-man or a gloriously considerate Islamic. I clearly say what both sides do. You seem to forget the Islamic kindnesses specifically.

If you were ignorant of the increasing component of export of enslaved Indians in the trade under Islamic occupation with CAR - through land routes - then that would be rather strange. If you persist in insisting that India "lost" out in trade with CAR because of Brit take over of sea-trade - after knowing that the land-trade was also about trade in Indian slaves under Muslim [one way onlee - and the gloriously considerate Mughal emperors Sha Jehan and Jehangir specifically ordered in ways that ensured that Hindu peasants would be enslaved and sold or sold to Muslim buyers onlee] - then that would be stranger indeed, and would be reaaly smeling of becoming totally blind towards the reality of Islamic Indo-CAR trade.


Last edited by brihaspati on 14 Mar 2012 08:48, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 08:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 3945
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
shiv wrote:
A stable Pakistan would make the US irrelevant - so it is the US that stands to gain most by an unstable Pakistan.

Shiv ji, yes the US would become "irrelevant" in the region if Pakistan was "stable and prosperous". But India will also be left at the short end of the bargain with the Middle Eastern beast. All alone.

What we want is for the US-TSP marriage to divorce...followed by the US realizing that it has no option but to accept the inevitability of becoming a civilizational ally of India. So then the US may get kicked out of Af-Pak, but after some soul searching it can return and swoop down into Asia - but under Indian aegis this time. However, if India ingratiates itself with Iran and its satellites, and offers itself as a partner just to spite the US, then the US is unlikely to become a strong strategic ally in the future. They have many other levers they can use against us.

Think of the US 800 lb gorilla as an entity with great vigor and potential for destruction - but it has a Hanuman complex. As the story goes, Hanuman was causing a lot of chaos and problems for the devas, not realizing his true destiny, not helping actively work against the demoniac forces. As a solution, he was first placed under a mild curse, and then later he was made aware of his potential and true purpose and role, and became the great ally of Dharma. India needs to treat the US a bit like a Hanuman who needs to be first put in place by a mild curse, and then made aware of true purpose and potential. Fracturing the US-TSP relationship and dislodging it from the region will be like the mild curse, which will send the American gorilla back across the oceans. But then the US needs to come back after realizing its unbreakable strategic interest in India - stronger than even what it has had so far with Israel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 08:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27
Posts: 4567
shiv wrote:

Possibly. But if Pakistan was stablilized, they would realise that an India-Iran alliance and direct trade route via Pakistn would kick the US in the butt - just the place where Iranians would like to kick the US.

A stable Pakistan would make the US irrelevant - so it is the US that stands to gain most by an unstable Pakistan, dependent on the US and beholden to the US.



what is the meaning of "stabilized"? does it mean a "secular" Pakistan? an Islamic but "peaceful" Pakistan? :roll:
a non-Islamic Pakistan? what is the meaning of this stabilized Pakistan? in 65 years of history, we have never seen this mythical "stable" Pakistan. I want to know what exactly you mean by it, before I waste precious forum space in some long winded answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 08:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Aug 2011 15:38
Posts: 139
We need to have a thread to focus on Central Asia, we are missing the picture in what West is doing in trying to integrate them with Europe and alienating with Asia.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 09:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 21667
Location: I have principles, and if you don't like them, I have others
Carl wrote:
shiv wrote:
A stable Pakistan would make the US irrelevant - so it is the US that stands to gain most by an unstable Pakistan.

Shiv ji, yes the US would become "irrelevant" in the region if Pakistan was "stable and prosperous". But India will also be left at the short end of the bargain with the Middle Eastern beast. All alone.

What we want is for the US-TSP marriage to divorce...followed by the US realizing that it has no option but to accept the inevitability of becoming a civilizational ally of India. So then the US may get kicked out of Af-Pak, but after some soul searching it can return and swoop down into Asia - but under Indian aegis this time. However, if India ingratiates itself with Iran and its satellites, and offers itself as a partner just to spite the US, then the US is unlikely to become a strong strategic ally in the future. They have many other levers they can use against us.

Think of the US 800 lb gorilla as an entity with great vigor and potential for destruction - but it has a mild Hanuman curse. Hanuman was causing a lot of chaos and problems for the devas, or he was under a spell and not realizing his true destiny, not helping actively work against the demoniac forces. Then he was made aware of his potential and true purpose and role, and became the great ally of Dharma. India needs to treat the US a bit like a Hanuman who needs to be first put in place by a mild curse, and then made aware of true purpose and potential. Fracturing the US-TSP relationship and dislodging it from the region will be like the mild curse, which will send the American gorilla back across the oceans. But then the US needs to come back after realizing its unbreakable strategic interest in India - stronger than even what it has had so far with Israel.


Carl, call me a dreamer and let me state what I want. I do not want my dreams to be upset by reality. In fact I don't want my dream to be upset by "partial reality" which is worse than real reality.

Let me explain that

The dream is India and Iran (and nations beyond Iran) having free trade via Pakistan with no US ability to stop that.

Partial reality is a "stable Pakistan with US allied to India alone or India and Pakistan".
Partial reality is "unstable Pakistan with the US allied to India"

Real reality is the US is an 800 lb Gorilla sitting in Pakistan and seeking to stay there so that the US can dominate Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan and basically thwart any change of the "world order" by either India or China

The world order will change, but as i have stated time and again the world order will change when US aims are defeated either by the US becoming too weak or by other means when it will stop supporting the one ally that allows it to stay in the region - the Pakistan army.

The Pakistan army is rabidly anti-India. The US is pro Pakistan army. This is a fundamental fact that no amount of squirming and reasoning can change.The day the US loses influence over the Pakistan army, its influence on Pakistan ceases.

Once the US has no influence on Pakistan, there is no reason for India to even think about the US when we deal with Pakistan. And if the US loses influence over the Pakistan army, its ability to control events in Iran will decline dramatically.

So the US will never stop supporting the Pakistan army.

Any "alliance" that India might want with the US will have to come with the hope that the US can work for India's benefit and influence the Pakistan army not to be so anti-India. As usual India will be totally at the mercy of the US and as a result any Indian initiatives for trade with Iran and beyond will depend on US goodwill.

What we are seeing today and what we are discussing is not about continuing the world order that was set up by European imperialist powers and handed over to the US at the end of WW2. we are seeing the possibility of a fundamental shift in world order with a massive decline in US power and influence. It will happen IMO. but I would like to see it happen relatively peacefully for India. The US is a declining power but retains a massive military capability. I was struck by someone's comment that no matter how run down some parts of the US look, its military establishments are fantastic. Just like Pakistan. As its soft power and economic power decline, the "Kabila" factor of the USA remains intact. A declining power may be tempted by small minded inadequate US leaders to get into massive wars to exert dominance. The US too needs to be given an opportunity for a "soft landing" where the US retains some dignity and wealth. I am not sure the US will do that. But it is certain to lose its place. the world order is changing. And as it changes India must take up positions that the US loses - positions that India lost centuries ago


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 09:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 21667
Location: I have principles, and if you don't like them, I have others
devesh wrote:
what is the meaning of "stabilized"?


A stabilized Pakistan is a Pakistan in which Kalshnikov armed Paki chowkidars protect roads carrying lorries and buses transporting Indian goods and tourists rather than protecting US interests in the world and harming Indians.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 09:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 21667
Location: I have principles, and if you don't like them, I have others
brihaspati wrote:
If you were ignorant of the increasing component of export of enslaved Indians in the trade under Islamic occupation with CAR - through land routes - then that would be rather strange. If you persist in insisting that India "lost" out in trade with CAR because of Brit take over of sea-trade - after knowing that the land-trade was also about trade in Indian slaves under Muslim [one way onlee - and the gloriously considerate Mughal emperors Sha Jehan and Jehangir specifically ordered in ways that ensured that Hindu peasants would be enslaved and sold or sold to Muslim buyers onlee] - then that would be stranger indeed, and would be reaaly smeling of becoming totally blind towards the reality of Islamic Indo-CAR trade.


No Brihaspatiji. It was a trade route. What was traded is another matter. In an earlier era the Greeks and Romans were taking slaves across the Mediterranean. And once the sea routes were "opened up" slaves were taken from Africa to America. Humans were the commodity.

What actually happened when the Portuguese "opened up" the sea route was that they took control of the spice trade. They continued with the slave trade though, which benefited them economically

So the term "opening up" that I pointed out was hardly an opening up as far as India was concerned. it was a further blow towards "closing down" the sea route for Indians, in addition to the earlier loss of land route.

The opening up for India lies in the future. If the commodity to be traded in future is slaves - then so be it. Let the route be opened up for India (hopefully by Indians) first.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 09:35 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 3945
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
shiv wrote:
What we are seeing today and what we are discussing is not about continuing the world order that was set up by European imperialist powers and handed over to the US at the end of WW2. we are seeing the possibility of a fundamental shift in world order with a massive decline in US power and influence.
[...]
the world order is changing. And as it changes India must take up positions that the US loses - positions that India lost centuries ago

So the s.o.p. of an incoming power is to pit the outgoing power against its active enemies, and then use the power on the backfoot as an ally. That's how India must behave with the US. We have tremendous technological and even some cultural memes to harvest from the US, and we need to maintain affinity with the US. So even as we "allow" the US to be dislodged from Asia, we need to make the idea clear in Western minds that what we are against is not the US per se, but their alliance with the Islamist qabilah and the UK/Euro rascals. We want to break Uncle's idiotic slavish relationship with, both, Auntie and the Ishmaelite qabila, who respectively flatter them through "American exceptionalism", or challenge them in Faustian bargains. They need to be clear that India's objective is not to humiliate them, but to straighten them out civilizationally, dharmically, however we want to put it across.

Secondly, your dream of free Indian trade access right through to the Mediterranean can happen after the US licks its wounds, does some soul searching and becomes an ally of India. Together the US and India then need to clip Iran's wings and pull ethnicities like Iran and the Kurds out of the Islamist orbit. This is a crucial bit of surgery, and India cannot do it alone IMHO.

See, one way or another, the US and India are going to converge in terms of purpose. Either we can usher in this alliance skillfully as a conscious partnership, or we will be thrown together as bedfellows when the proverbial hits the fan.


Last edited by Agnimitra on 14 Mar 2012 09:40, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 09:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 21667
Location: I have principles, and if you don't like them, I have others
Both the Quran and the Bible explicitly support slavery unless I am mistaken. Could someone set my qibla right if I am wrong? Please feel free to point me to textual references that support slavery in India before Christianity and Islam.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 09:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 21667
Location: I have principles, and if you don't like them, I have others
Carl wrote:
See, one way or another, the US and India are going to converge in terms of purpose. Either we can usher in this alliance skillfully as a conscious partnership, or we will be thrown together as bedfellows when the proverbial hits the fan.


It may be in India's interest to converge. But what's in it for the US? Unless the US feels attracted towards India it is only going to be an adversary and must be treated as an adversary when necessary. US support of the Pakistan army is definitely adversarial towards India. Anyone who says that support of the Pakistan army is "not anti India, just pro US" is hiding the point that US interests are anti-India.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 09:48 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 3945
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
shiv wrote:
It may be in India's interest to converge. But what's in it for the US? Unless the US feels attracted towards India it is only going to be an adversary and must be treated as an adversary when necessary. US support of the Pakistan army is definitely adversarial towards India. Anyone who says that support of the Pakistan army is "not anti India, just pro US" is hiding the point that US interests are anti-India.

When the US thinks with its nose to the ground then the anti-India tactics seem obvious. But if it thinks at a higher civilizational level then the idea of "natural allies" has already been mooted before. Its just that some of the "lower" factors need to align with that intuitive recognition that is already present.

India's economic growth will be one factor that can be in the US' interests if the economies are dovetailed. Secondly, the US has tremendous goodwill amongst the Indian people, unlike in the Islamist countries, or even China. The reverse is also true and needs to increase, as Indic dharmic memes find greater penetration and recognition within the US. I personally know even my redneck friends who are members of Christian militias (effectively process extensions of the US military-industrial qabilah) who realize this and run around telling their buddies that "Indians ain't Ayrabs". Thirdly, India is turning out to be a cog in the wheel for US plans in Syria, Iran, etc. So it will dawn on the Pentagon nutheads sooner or later that without having India as an unequivocal ally, the US can't move past the Iran Block. Then there is the question of balancing out China. Etc, etc. There are many things, complementarities as well as threats, that the Us could neutralize from India by befriending India rather than trying to tie India down using TSP. That's what we need to sell as a civilizational package to the US - that the way for the US to neutralize India is ONLY by commiting to a civilizational relationship and not by strategic containment - by friendship (maitra) not by covert or overt hostility (sama, bheda, danda, etc).


Last edited by Agnimitra on 14 Mar 2012 09:54, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 09:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 3945
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
shiv wrote:
Both the Quran and the Bible explicitly support slavery unless I am mistaken. Could someone set my qibla right if I am wrong?

You're right, they're explicit.
shiv wrote:
Please feel free to point me to textual references that support slavery in India before Christianity and Islam.

Some hard left Indian sources have been peddling the idea that slavery is an open fact in the Vedas and that it is not exclusive to Islam or Judeo-Christianity. I would like the comments of knowledgeable members here on this. They cite the following: A slave was considered a property, and (s)he was even allowed to be destroyed just for the benefit of the Aryans - Rig-Veda 1.19.8, 5.34.6, 6.25.2, 8.40.6. Also cite an incident of a ruler who gifted about a thousand slave-girls to his clergy - Aitareya Brahmana 39.8.


Last edited by Agnimitra on 14 Mar 2012 10:24, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 10:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 21667
Location: I have principles, and if you don't like them, I have others
This article, from my archives may be relevant here. It's nearly a decade old now.
From the Times of India Tuesday June 4 2002

Quote:
Superpower retreat: Bowing to N-blackmail

[ TUESDAY, JUNE 04, 2002 11:56:27 PM ]
K SUBRAHMANYAM
May 31, 2002 is likely to turn out as fateful a day in history as September 11, 2001, when the superpower was attacked on its home turf.

On the former day, the sole superpower virtually yielded to nuclear blackmail by Pakistan (conveyed by its ambassador to the UN). Instead of taking Pakistan to task as was done in 1990, the US chose to keep silent on the issue. Worse, the US administration obliged Pakistan by recalling its staff from the subcontinent.

Whether this was a momentary loss of nerve on the part of Washington or a permanent cerebral stroke incapacitating the superpower, the next few weeks will tell, as deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage and defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld visit the subcontinent.

The advisory of US and western powers to their nationals verged on utter panic. It also brought out two factors which will affect the future, irrespective of any policy reversal by the United States and possible recovery of its confidence. First, in spite of the non-proliferation treaty, the counter-proliferation strategy and the Security Council summit resolution of January 1992, the US and its nuclear allies are in no position to impose nuclear discipline on Pakistan.

The message is loud and clear to other potential rogue states that if they could clandestinely acquire nuclear weapons, then the US and the rest of the international community would keep off. It would confirm the potent role of nuclear weapons in international relations.

The western leaders praised General Musharraf for more than four months for his speech of January 12, 2002 and his commitment to stop cross-border terrorism. Then, on May 31, 2002 they spoke about the possibility of an Indo-Pak war consequent upon the continuing cross-border terrorism. In other words, the sole superpower and its allies were not able to prevail upon Pakistan to abide by its commitment and invoke Security Council resolution 1373 (which mandates states not to support terrorism).

Further, Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and the leadership cadres of the Al-Qaida and the Taliban are today in Pakistan and regrouping their forces. In spite of Pakistan being an ally of the US, the terrorists were able to move from Afghanistan to Pakistan in November-December 2001 before the Indo-Pak border stand-off began and while the Pakistani army fully manned the Afghan border.

Out of 22 leaders of the Al-Qaida, only two are accounted for. Most of the high profile operations of the elite US and British forces on Afghan-Pakistan border have been futile.

The US vice-president and the director of FBI have asserted that new terrorist threats are inevitable and cannot be stopped. Yet, they seem oblivious of the fact that today the epicentre of terrorism is Pakistan, from where the Al-Qaida is busy plotting new attacks on the US.

The Al-Qaida used to proclaim that they had defeated one superpower (the Soviet Union) and they would surely defeat the second (the US). The US’s current indulgent behaviour towards Pakistan would appear to validate their claims.

Lastly, by giving in to Pakistani nuclear blackmail, the US has allowed the nuclearisation of terrorism, thereby encouraging the Al-Qaida and the jehadis to continue their terrorist activities behind the shield of Pakistani nuclear capability. Today, the Al-Qaida and the Taliban may have lost Afghanistan, but they have successfully established themselves in the safe haven of Pakistan, thanks to General Musharraf’s brilliant strategy of claiming to be an ally of the US, while in practice supporting and sustaining the operation of the terrorist groups.

This strategy is derived from the one successfully practised by the Al-Qaida and the jehadis in the eighties in Afghanistan. They derived their weapons, skills and other resources from the US for the purpose of overthrowing Soviet occupation and used them successfully against the US itself. Similarly, using General Musharraf’s professed alliance with the US, the Al-Qaida will derive the necessary wherewithal to wage its war of terrorism.

In this respect, General Musharraf has been hunting with the American hound even while running with the jehadi and Al-Qaida hares.

In these circumstances, the world, as well as India may have to adjust themselves to a new international security paradigm in which the sole superpower does not have the will to commit itself to a war against terrorism or towards effective countering of nuclear blackmail. The present Indian strategy is based on certain assumptions of superpower behaviour.

The May 31 events call for a radical reassessment of our assumptions. The possibility of the US not pursuing the war against terrorism or countering nuclear blackmail has to be factored in our calculations. Many may rejoice in the sole superpower losing its nerve and abdicating its responsibility.

Others may be disoriented by it. For the Al-Qaida and the jehadis, this will be a morale booster and it will be logical to expect them to initiate more terrorist attacks both against India and the US.

The former is far more vulnerable than the latter. It is also possible the Americans may treat this as a temporary loss of nerve and return to their normal superpower behaviour pattern. In that event continuity will be restored, though at significant cost to the US image and credibility.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 10:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37
Posts: 2193
^^^wow! much has transpired between then and now but the fundamentals of that analysis was true then as is now.

US's willingness to accept defeat against rabid islamists who have global ambitions, loss of image, staking credibility to stand by free world/democratic values just to keep alive the force bugging India (short and long term) makes clear what its priorities/objectives are.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 11:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 12901
Post it in Geo politics thread also since it is relavant.

Quote:
In these circumstances, the world, as well as India may have to adjust themselves to a new international security paradigm in which the sole superpower does not have the will to commit itself to a war against terrorism or towards effective countering of nuclear blackmail. The present Indian strategy is based on certain assumptions of superpower behaviour.

The May 31 events call for a radical reassessment of our assumptions. The possibility of the US not pursuing the war against terrorism or countering nuclear blackmail has to be factored in our calculations. Many may rejoice in the sole superpower losing its nerve and abdicating its responsibility.

Others may be disoriented by it. For the Al-Qaida and the jehadis, this will be a morale booster and it will be logical to expect them to initiate more terrorist attacks both against India and the US.


This action by the US was a geopolitical move to let the India Pakistan problem fester which is their objective.
This has paid dividend for the US in the last 20 years and they want to continue

Even Chinese now refer to the problem as an opportunity to keep India down. No matter what this circus was good for a long time and now it cannot contine since in the process it has damaged the internaitonal system


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 13:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 13592
brihaspati wrote:
Internecine struggles for the blackest of positions within a uniform black swathe can co-exist with trying to use that uniform black for common black purpose.

Agree, but we should still use their internecine struggles to advance our cause.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 14:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 11026
Location: Beneath the pleasure dome of the great khan
my reading suggests that western european sea adventures began when the venetian/genoan monopoly on the trade across the black sea region into the asian hinterland began to become too expensive. and this significantly due to the breakdown of stable governance in central asia due to the breakup of the mongolian empire into warring factions which ebbed and flowed with the likes of timur and others. given the political chaos and lack of guarantee of goods flowing through from china and india, the western europeans started actively exploring for maritime routes to india and china. let us be clear - the sea route was in those days (for the europeans) a voyage into the unknown, a mars mission if you will - but economically preferable to paying the italian city states, the ottomans and the assorted khans and emirs bloodily scrabbling over central asia, protection money and exorbitant rents to import silk, porcelain and spices

the central asian landmass has limited intrinsic economic value, like the american great plains. irrigation allows it to temporarily support crops such as wheat and cotton, but the soil is not very fertile and the ideal condition for it is to be wild grassland. grasslands support buffallo and horses - and hence the natural stability of prairies and steppes (bounded by massive inhospitable deserts and mountains) is with pastoral nomadic thin populations. Their only other value is if they have natural resources, like minerals and hydrocarbons.

it is a resource play, not a people one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2012 14:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 13592
Carl wrote:
shiv wrote:
Both the Quran and the Bible explicitly support slavery unless I am mistaken. Could someone set my qibla right if I am wrong?

You're right, they're explicit.
shiv wrote:
Please feel free to point me to textual references that support slavery in India before Christianity and Islam.

Some hard left Indian sources have been peddling the idea that slavery is an open fact in the Vedas and that it is not exclusive to Islam or Judeo-Christianity. I would like the comments of knowledgeable members here on this. They cite the following: A slave was considered a property, and (s)he was even allowed to be destroyed just for the benefit of the Aryans - Rig-Veda 1.19.8, 5.34.6, 6.25.2, 8.40.6. Also cite an incident of a ruler who gifted about a thousand slave-girls to his clergy - Aitareya Brahmana 39.8.


Off-Topic here!

Carl ji,

As I understand is, often the word used for slave is "Daas". However many are of the opinion that the word means "destructive person" and not a slave. In many other places, the term 'daas' has been used to refer to destructive tendency. For example, Shudras are not referred to as 'Daas', but simply as a professional category. It is possible that at some stage some powerful people deemed it right to force oppressed jaatis to use the term for themselves, so as to feel free to treat them as they liked, and thus 'Daas' came to refer to 'humble servant' or 'slave'!

So when Rigveda says the 'Daas' has to controlled or destroyed or whatever, it is referring to controlling or eliminating "destructive people". It need not be that Rigveda sanctions slavery at all.

-----

All future discussion on this we can take elsewhere!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3152 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 ... 79  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austin, Google [Bot], mahadevbhu, SanjayC, sum and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group