Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[brihaspati]

Krishna ji is visiting BD. Needs a close watch. We have also left off the returned prodigals of ULFA from radar. They could well have developed connections with the BD islamists and the BNP-Jamaat section of the BD establishment. Very interesting times ahead for BD politics too. The cross border connections between both BD-WB, and BD-Assam have been exceptionally quiet.

[abhishek_sharma]

On Mamata Banerjee's recognition of 10,000 madrasas in West Bengal

[brihaspati]

^^^I had predicted that she will be forced to do such things. Neither MB, nor the Left can face up to the Islamists anymore. This was what I had meant as the necessary period of retreat, by which one by one all the alternatives of "secularist" politics will be exposed one by one, in turn, as being hollow shells based on self-delusion and criminal deception. But unless they are exposed fro what they are, alternatives cannot develop. Islamists have a much longer trans-regime planning, and I said they would switch over from regime to regime all the while extracting further concessions towards Islamist infrastructure. The Bengali "Hindu" needs to exhaust all the "secular" options first.

[brihaspati]

The Islamists have called a multi-day hartal on Islamic issues and BNP has supported it.Here is a report from Frontline -but a decade ago.

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1805/18050550.htm
Fighting fundamentalism
[Mar03-16, 2001]

The Opposition in Bangladesh mobilises religious fundamentalists to try and dislodge the Awami League government and the latter takes up the challenge with unprecedented determination.
HAROON HABIB
in Dhaka

POLITICS in Bangladesh took a turn for the worse in the first fortnight of February when fundamentalist forces took to the streets, encouraged by a frustrated Opposition[...]
The immediate provocation for the fundamentalists was a High Court judgment that made the issue of fatwas a punishable offence. The landmark ruling from the country's highest court, which has been stayed on an appeal, would have gone a long way in protecting women, who have been targets of fatwas issued by mullahs, suppressing their legal and social rights. Fundamentalist forces called a rally in Dhaka's Paltan Maidan on February 2, under the banner of the Islami Ain Bastabayan Committee (Committee for the implementation of Islamic Laws), avowedly to wage a jehad (holy war) against the court ruling and also to "wipe out" non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that opposed the regime of fatwas. The mood at the rally was defiant. The speakers tried to provoke the large number of participants, drawn mostly from madrassas (Islamic religious schools), into launching a jehad. They issued death threats against the two Judges (one of them a woman) who delivered the judgment. The Judges were described as murtads, an expletive reserved for secular intellectuals and NGO leaders opposed to fanaticism.[a good twist from Frontline editors to obfuscate the real meaning of "murtad" in Islamic terms]

No wonder the rallyists, mobilised by clerics from all over the country, turned violent. With covert support from the Opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the Jamaat-e-Islami, they clashed with the police. They also announced their intention s to foil a rally called by the Oikya Badha Nagorik Andolon, a combine of the secular intellectuals backed by NGOs, against thefatwa regime on February 3. Interestingly, Khaleda Zia's BNP and Gen. Ershad's Jatiya Party have not commented on the court ruling while the Jamaat-e-Islami spoke against it bitterly.

Concerned at the flare-up and suspecting the hand of the BNP-led alliance in it, the government hit back. This it did, despite the risks involved in attacking the influential mullahs.
[yes things are repeating exactly as 10 years before]

The BNP, which leads a four-party alliance that includes Islamic fundamentalists, kept away from [...] the national parliament, for the past two years as part of a political strategy. Undeterred by criticism from within the country and abroad, the alliance increasingly resorted to hartals, demonstrations, road blockades and so on in an attempt to bring down the government.

[yes Parliament boycott, hartals, demos...going on exactly as 10 years before]

The barrage of allegations against the Hasina government relate to the "deteriorating law and order situation" (for which the Opposition holds some close relatives of the ruling party members responsible); its "pro-Indian policy", "politicisation" of the administration and "persecution" of Opposition leaders and workers by implicating them in false cases. Successive agitations, however, did not pay political dividends. Taking the fundamentalist line, it appears, was their last resort. The latest charge against the Hasina government is that it is "anti-Islamic" and that it is conspiring to close down mosques and madrassas in order to stop Islamic education.
[yes this is the same charge again..]


The Jamaat-e-Islami is among the forces that still dream of a united neo-Pakistan. The Islamic Oikya Jote (IOJ), led by radical clerics, joined the BNP alliance. The alliance makes no secret of its plan in the event of a victory in the elections. It has announced that it would revive the "spirit of 1947"[...], "restore Islamic values" and bring Bangladesh "out of Indian domination".
[yes they are doing it again now - in BD the more things change more they remain the same!]

Independent analysts say that Khaleda Zia might have committed a blunder by openly aligning with and encouraging fundamentalism in her attempt to seek power. The shift from liberal democratic politics to religious fanaticism and communalism would alienat e the moderate, Bengali-speaking sections of Bangladeshi society. It might also lead to the consolidation of pro-liberation, democratic forces against the BNP. Much before the present flare-up, secular thinkers had issued repeated warnings about the impe nding danger of fundamentalism taking centrestage in national politics. The political parties, including the Awami League, the strongest secular power in the country, did not take them seriously.

[It happened exactly opposite to this tall fantasy - BNP alliance won with a thumping majority!]

Even within the BNP the moderates were unhappy about the party high command's decision to boycott Parliament and the induction of the Jamaat-e-Islami, (it had opposed Bangladesh's independence from Pakistan) into the alliance. But the hard line prevailed .
[yes, they are unhappy even now - but the hardline prevails...]

Significantly, this is the first time in the last 30 years that the Bangladeshi state has taken on fundamentalism directly.[well it has already become 2nd/3rd/4th time..]

The fundamentalists, including Jamaat-e-Islami, do not have much popular following. [...] However, their armed cadres, foreign funds and cheap religious slogans are cause for concern for secular-democratic Bangladesh.
[the p-sec sublime logic again - something without much popular feeling is still of concern if they open their mouth!]

There are some here who claim things have moved on in BD! India's gestures have led to a fundamental change - and more "giving" is required. It should be easy for anyone with some access to BD news sources to match almost word by word any current news dealing with the multi-day "hartal" called by the very same combination that went through similar excuses and methods 10 years ago! Nothing much has changed in BD, and our eminent analysts were wrong then in predicting the future outcome. They are likely to prove fantasy peddlers even now.

[Pratyush]

^^^I had predicted that she will be forced to do such things. Neither MB, nor the Left can face up to the Islamists anymore. This was what I had meant as the necessary period of retreat, by which one by one all the alternatives of "secularist" politics will be exposed one by one, in turn, as being hollow shells based on self-delusion and criminal deception. But unless they are exposed fro what they are, alternatives cannot develop. Islamists have a much longer trans-regime planning, and I said they would switch over from regime to regime all the while extracting further concessions towards Islamist infrastructure. The Bengali "Hindu" needs to exhaust all the "secular" options first.

B Ji,

Just one question upon reading your post. Will the Bengali Hindu still be in existence after he has exhausted all the secular options. If yes, then what will be the state of his existence.

[brihaspati]

^^^I had predicted that she will be forced to do such things. Neither MB, nor the Left can face up to the Islamists anymore. This was what I had meant as the necessary period of retreat, by which one by one all the alternatives of "secularist" politics will be exposed one by one, in turn, as being hollow shells based on self-delusion and criminal deception. But unless they are exposed fro what they are, alternatives cannot develop. Islamists have a much longer trans-regime planning, and I said they would switch over from regime to regime all the while extracting further concessions towards Islamist infrastructure. The Bengali "Hindu" needs to exhaust all the "secular" options first.

B Ji,

Just one question upon reading your post. Will the Bengali Hindu still be in existence after he has exhausted all the secular options. If yes, then what will be the state of his existence.

One of the main starting point of interest for me to study Jewish history, was my recognition of uncanny parallels in the social-psyche of the upper-"echelons" from GV society. Any ethnic-distinction claiming subgroup in India will try to claim endogamous origin possibly from the moment of "creation", a language that has been there from before animals appeared and which has not even a shadow of input from any other group, and a God-given ownership of the peice of territory they happen to currently lord over in numbers. Same goes for the Jews, in a figurative way of course. I have no intention of hurting anyone's sentiments here - if felt so, apologies.

The thing is X society elite always shows intensive factional infighting within the upper echelons. They all claim common endogamous origin, hence all feel entitled to the same birthright to lord it over others - irrespective of actual share of qualities inherited. Whicever faction gets marginalized in the power game, or realizes its weaknesses but still unable to give up the desire for power - will criticize/betray/humiliate/ally-with-enemies to obtain power. Some will be clever enough to identify a potential "lower echelon" numerically stronger section and their grievances to channelize against existing ones - and ride to power. Some will fight to the finish and be finsihed, while others will migrate and carry the spark to return one day and reclaim.

Substitute X with Jews, Bengalis, Punjabis, Tamils, Malayalis, "modern" "Marathas" - and so on. I keenly studied the Jewish history to note that those remained in ME and levant in particular were literally "dhimmis" in the worst possible ways, and these are also groups that willingly or under pressure sided with this or that islamist regime, and gave up land/women/biz/property/honour. Those who went "out", had always held the "spark" - at least a significant "minority" among them. This is the section that dreamed of taking back what was their own and they did make it possible to a certain extent. Determined minorities have always carried the day before vacillating and compromising majorities.

[Abhi_G]

Those who went "out", had always held the "spark" - at least a significant "minority" among them. This is the section that dreamed of taking back what was their own and they did make it possible to a certain extent. Determined minorities have always carried the day before vacillating and compromising majorities.

Brihaspati, I have time and again seen you pointing to the model of the Jews coming back after a 1000+ year hiatus in the form of Israel. Sorry,if I understand you correctly, how would you explain that future events would play out in a way for the X-Hindus to reclaim an advantageous position from distant lands, similar to the Jews? Do not misunderstand me, but the level of ideological dilution is much much more severe in some X-Hindus compared the Jewish model. The spark that you speak of may get extinguished in a couple of future generations in distant lands - when the posterity does not associate any value to the lands of their ancestors since they have peace where they are currently. They just do not need to - so why would they do? The Jews needed to because they were subject to discrimination wherever they went except India! Of course, if the fate is like Jews in distant lands, then it is a different story.

For any reclamation to happen, events have to happen in the India itself; where there is some form of geographical contiguity to the land of the ancestors. Reclamation will be possible if retreat is to a place where mother India still appears in Abhay mudra in front of her afflicted sons and daughters. That level of ideological commitment is non-existing at this moment.

[brihaspati]

Brihaspati, I have time and again seen you pointing to the model of the Jews coming back after a 1000+ year hiatus in the form of Israel. Sorry,if I understand you correctly, how would you explain that future events would play out in a way for the X-Hindus to reclaim an advantageous position from distant lands, similar to the Jews? Do not misunderstand me, but the level of ideological dilution is much much more severe in some X-Hindus compared the Jewish model.

I did not say that only distant-land Hindus will guaranteed retain the spark. I think we go to extremes in judging the "Hindu", and we expect what cannot be realistically expected. The level of spark or commitment is not uniform across the entire group. What ignites unified action is a remnant acknowledgment of a connection - which in itself may not spar someone to action. But when the time comes this latent commitment can be mobilized.

The spark that you speak of may get extinguished in a couple of future generations in distant lands - when the posterity does not associate any value to the lands of their ancestors since they have peace where they are currently. They just do not need to - so why would they do? The Jews needed to because they were subject to discrimination wherever they went except India! Of course, if the fate is like Jews in distant lands, then it is a different story.

Well Jews were not that bad off in most places in the west. They were pretty good in UK by the 18th century-19th century, and in US they flourished. In fact US had the least pogroms or discrimination against them - and it were these wealthy or prosperous well-settled US Jews who were the prime drivers behind the renewed search for Israel.

For any reclamation to happen, events have to happen in the India itself; where there is some form of geographical contiguity to the land of the ancestors. Reclamation will be possible if retreat is to a place where mother India still appears in Abhay mudra in front of her afflicted sons and daughters. That level of ideological commitment is non-existing at this moment.

I agree partly. But as you yourself point out, that "retreat" in India is non-existing even at the moment. Sometimes contiguity is a put-off, because the reality could be disheartening. Distance allows detachment to the proper degree to look at from a larger perspective, and allows reconstructions that can provide the skeleton to move forward. In contiguity for example we could have greater seduction risk of the glamorous doctrine of p-secism for example.

Why do you think a lot more of the "right wing" appears to be based "outside" so much so that even the great empress of history and historiography declared as the diasporic fanaticism? She of course in her typical unqualified denigratory style attributed it to some kind of detachment-anxiety - something hypothesized by pseudo-social-scientists-hidden-politicians - but difficult to prove quantitatively. Its the freedom from this contiguity pressure, and access to wider, alternative source information.

[brihaspati]

A long time ago, I had written about the significance of choice of Islamic month/date in attacks on Mumbai or elsewhere in India. What I pointed out for the 26/11 was that it took place very close to the supposed Islamic month/date of the deceptive sudden raid by Muhammad on the Banu Qurayzah - a prosperous Jewish tribe near Yathrib. This was the raid, that specifically targeted the adult Jewish men for culling, and all women were enslaved. Some sold, and the Muslims, including their chief took their pick for their personal pleasures. [Not me, but the Hadiths and Ibn Ishaq report this]. A trench was dug in the marketplace of Yathrib, where the men were taken and decapitated. One woman who had taken part in defence was also executed. Boys were checked for puberty before culling.

This had an uncanny resemblance to what happened in Chabaad House, and the general targets apparent in the attack including its diversionary framework. It was also relevant for interpretation as a confidence building measure for Muslims on the subcontinent - because teh attack on this tribe was undertaken after Muhammad had suffered a rout in the Battle of Uhud [or trench] where he was saved by conveniently falling into a "trench" and the enemy chasing after a "lookalike".

This time too - it is the month of Shaban, and most non-Muslims will perhaps only be aware of its controversial "laylatul barat" or "shabe barat" aspect. But this date/month is again close to another significant surprise raid on a relatively friendly Jewish tribe by Muhammad - the Banu mustaliq. This tribe was again prosperous, and the attack was again deceptive - after a claim of "special" angel-given news of supposed spying/deception by the Jews. This attack is celebrated in Islamic history - because just like the Banu Qurayzah, the Banu Mustaliq were targeted for their relative prosperity - and their women. This battle of Mustaliq often appears because of solid ref in the Quran, and more explicitly in the ahadith - sanctioning automatic annulment of marriages of captive women and permission to rape them at will before being sold off in the market. Married women apparently led to hesitation in the victorious army but Muhammad is said to have reco'd the enjoyment in the presence of their captive husbands [again not me - but Hadith+Ibn Ishaq+Quran in hint standard-ly interpreted by Islamic scholars as supportive]. A likely picture of what took place on the Jewish couple - with one single report appearing indicating torture while still alive - which disappeared subsequently. Our p-sec media and surely political sympathizers too care to suppress any "reason" for exposure of the Islamist attitude towards such things.


The Muslims gained a lot of wealth though by dispossessing the Mustaliq, and virtually expelled and destroyed the tribe. Almost all the women were sold off - but one woman was "parted" from the two-soldiers she was assigned to as loot, and appropriated by Muhammad for himself.

Many at the time I first posted on this decried my finding connections to Islamic history. The thing is - these battles are a common part of the lore that is absorbed by the muslim menas they grow up. These battles symbolize iconic destruction, tactical procedures, and promises of ultimate victory over the hated non-Muslim - who are prosperous/have beautiful women etc., and also their genocidic cleansing. To the non-Muslim they will not be significant - but to the Muslim - it will be immensely significant. It is a propaganda tool, with a psychological angle for preparing for Jihad. Mumbai satisfies this iconic need in the Jihadis.

[brihaspati]

Mumbai could have been a diversion - a kind of low-cost morale booster for jihadis and keeping themselves in the public imagination. But a greater threat probably lies elsewhere. Kolkata or Lucknow or any of the large metro's in the mid to lower GV are unlikely to be targets. Primarily because they are safe havens for Islamist networks - and more so because these states have shown little or no immediate existence of the "saffron" - the most serious obstacle in the way of Ghazwa-e-hind. Islamists know from every past encounter that the non-saffron component will be eager to lick Islamist boots for various masochistic and other psychological deficiencies.

But what is likely to be targeted are the religious centres of the "Hindus". Because the rashtra is now so obviously shy of appearing to protect "Hindu" symbols or icons, and the p-sec pseudo-Hindus make it a badge of honour to distance and disassociate from 'Hindu" religious symbolism, there will be talk of even less "retaliation" if these are attacked. On the other hand, it will boost Islamist morales within India and across the borders. The upper GV and central Indian spots should be game. Deep south spots will not be attacked right now - because they are too close to entreports and safe havens.

[ManishH]

This time too - it is the month of Shaban, and most non-Muslims will perhaps only be aware of its controversial "laylatul barat" or "shabe barat" aspect. But this date/month is again close to another significant surprise raid on a relatively friendly Jewish tribe by Muhammad - the Banu mustaliq.

If they really wanted to choose dates based on historic raids, they would've waited a couple of months for Shawwal when Muhammad marched upon the goldsmith tribe of Banu Qainuqa.

[brihaspati]

Who says they will not?

[brihaspati]

MB has taken some expected but apparently unrelated significant steps - she has "returned" land to the peasants from the ex-Tata-Nano-Nandigram pool, she has "recognized" some 10,000 "madrassahs", and she has got a new more powerful "Gorkhaland" admin signed into existence. Of course the wounded rump licking "Left" had nothing much to shout about the first two steps - but they are up in arms about the third.

A great lesson for the Left actually - because it was the then CPI which first took up the Gorkhaland "cause" in any significant, plains-political tactical manner. Any created subidentity based political mobilization - once started - out of so-called fairness/humanitarian/== reasons - always, always becomes the proverbial Frankenstein, and becomes almost impossible to be tamed afterwards.

No matter how much the Left now shouts, it will never really be able to put the "Gorkhaland" djinn back into its bottle. At most it will get some political traction in the Siliguri sector. The Gorkhaland agitation has possible links to the "reds" in Nepal and hence the chain is long enough in a possible connection all the way back to Dragonland.

MB is a good politician, and she is trying her best to be consistent and persistent and one with integrity. But it also shows that she is not a statesperson who has the vision and clarity to see beyond mere personal integrity. But in this she has not disappointed me - for just as I had once predicted her triumph over the left, I had also suggested, that she will have no political legacy. After her, the political space she has carved out in PaschimBanga, will be up for grabs between the Kongrez and "nationalists".

The question is - what she does leave behind in her integrity? A green-moth-eaten increasingly lost Bangla frontierland? All the way from the Siliguri sector - through Malda+Dinajpur+Kochbihar to Murshidabad and 24-Parganas? A "left" turning "conservative" and "parochial" while the "centre" turns "liberal" and "wide open"? But these are almost impossible to solve contradictions and no amount of political tightrope walking would stabilize the situation in the long run.

She is likely to get a second term, but after that - its darkness for her movement. Interesting times ahead as the Kongrez will not get the jackfruit either - however much foxy it acts. Bengali itching at radicalism will fill up the space - likely through leftist extremism - until it gets emotionally drained and seeks the safety and solace of a pan-Indian affiliation, especially at the "centre".

[abhishek_sharma]

Bias thwarts minority development, say reports

[abhishek_sharma]

Mamata Banerjee: New role, same approach

[brihaspati]

^^^Another prediction from the past from my side. kongrez bolstered MB to weaken CPI(M), but they are actually friends of neither. kongrez ultimate aim is to see a war of attrition between TMC==MB and CPI(M), so that both sides finish themselves off, and kongrez can play its traditional mediator role and extract power for itself eventually. Moreover, I also suggested that the "left" will be "weakened" but not entirely wiped out that they cannot have nuisance value for MB - and will be the outcome kongrez will work towards. I envisaged a longer term future where MB will be forced to part ways with the kongrez.

After the initial honeymoon period is over, MB will face the reality music. The drift away from the kongrez at the centre starts now. She may get a second term, but the left will increase its strength, so that next time around there will be a more "equal" fight. But kongrez cannot get the egg. All the parties involved - cannot solve the Maoist problem, cannot solve the Gorkhaland separatist problem, cannot solve the Islamist problem, and cannot solve the long-term growth problems [the first steps in educational reform, labour org laws and practice, capital flow - will need decades to have an impact - if at all even started right now].

So the next round of elections will be interesting. Midway through her second term - there is an option for the "nationalists" of the hated "right" type, but they will have to present themselves without the current hemming and hawing about being "sikular" and "accommodative of the right of self-determination" too. This posture will not be accepted right now - in fact there will extreme negative reaction - but things will change dramatically in the time framework I am indicating.

[Samudragupta]

the left will increase its strength

Who will lead the left in Bengal now? There is no JB neither Buddhadev nor is the revolutionary zeal of the 60's

But kongrez cannot get the egg

But B ji is there anything called Congress in Bengal now? I remember how the prince was taunted as immigratory bird and recieved zero acceptability....

[brihaspati]

the left will increase its strength

Who will lead the left in Bengal now? There is no JB neither Buddhadev nor is the revolutionary zeal of the 60's

But kongrez cannot get the egg

But B ji is there anything called Congress in Bengal now? I remember how the prince was taunted as immigratory bird and recieved zero acceptability....

The left is undergoing its own purge - which will be apparent in a few months time. So it will recover to a certain extent. Moreover they will have plenty of issues to air public grievances. But I did not say they will "win". It will be more of an equal equal situation or a tie - even though MB may still scrape through to power for a second term. The congrez will do everything in its power to bolster the left to an extent. Left will also align more with the congrez - also in the national scene. MB has only WB presence - whereas Left has a value in the sikular projections that congrez needs for the national as well as international pretensions. Neither of Left/MB will essentially hurt the core policies of Islamophilia, BDphilia, anti-"saffron" parts of the congrez agenda - so only point of choice is about utility - where each is beneficial, bring up that faction.

There is no congrez in WB at the moment - true. A core of supporters remain based on traditional networks. But it is not just political networks that control people;s social lives. In WB, just like most of GV - politically distinct networks may still overlap by some other social network criteria. In a way, the elite hedge its overall "class" benefits by having a finger in all political pies. It is this calculation that determines which way the network pitches at a given point of time in the political life of the state.

[Jaik]

Bri Ji,

"The left is undergoing its own purge - which will be apparent in a few months time. So it will recover to a certain extent."

Agree with you 100%. Rob the rich and feed the poor formula of the proletariat marxists has become lazy thinking.As middle classes burgeon and the working class(poor) reduce, left wing ideology becomes redundant. Worldwide, this is the reason, why Labour in the UK changed/rebranded/remarketted as new labour. In the US both Clinton and Obama in their years of governance has been more centrist in their agenda that has been expected of them.

The central theme is the role of state? Is the government responsible for everything(socialist/communist countries)? are the individuals responsible for everything(free market economies)?Socialism/Communism failed in late 80s/early 90s. Free Market enterprise failed spectacularly. There is a need for fresher politico-economic thing. The left in general and the left in India in particular is full of Oldies. There is need for fresher ideas/thinking . In its absence, Violent Maoism is taking root in Eastern India.

[brihaspati]

Bri Ji,

"The left is undergoing its own purge - which will be apparent in a few months time. So it will recover to a certain extent."

Agree with you 100%. Rob the rich and feed the poor formula of the proletariat marxists has become lazy thinking.As middle classes burgeon and the working class(poor) reduce, left wing ideology becomes redundant. Worldwide, this is the reason, why Labour in the UK changed/rebranded/remarketted as new labour. In the US both Clinton and Obama in their years of governance has been more centrist in their agenda that has been expected of them.

The central theme is the role of state? Is the government responsible for everything(socialist/communist countries)? are the individuals responsible for everything(free market economies)?Socialism/Communism failed in late 80s/early 90s. Free Market enterprise failed spectacularly. There is a need for fresher politico-economic thing. The left in general and the left in India in particular is full of Oldies. There is need for fresher ideas/thinking . In its absence, Violent Maoism is taking root in Eastern India.

Actually they have a lot of young people in. Some of them are quite dedicated especially if they are coming from the plains around the foothills. But the student and youth fronts promoted a lot of self-servers - in turn connected to sycophancy needs of higher ups. There has been a bleeding drain towards Maoists over the last 5-10 years at least. So yes, this was my reason [among some other unmentionables] to conclude an interim fill-in-the-blanks by Maoists in the "east" - which would show its teeth midway through MB's second term [ a high chance].

[abhishek_sharma]

West Bengal: The first strains have begun to show

[Samudragupta]

West Bengal: The first strains have begun to show

This is clearly paid news.....on the part of the dhimmified centre.......She is clearly trying to instill Tagore inspired Bengali Nationalism to take on the multiple problems that have engulfed the state....

[brihaspati]

Bengali nationalism was rather problematic as a concept - and Rabindranath was a rather late entrant into it, and an early quitter too. Remember he quickly dropped out of overtly political engagements after his role in the antipartition movement of 1905 and possible disappointment with both the "insurgent" and "swadeshi" versions. His position on "violence" and "state" are quite ambiguous, and his concept of nationhood is a mass of confusion arising out of clear cut dilemmas in ethics, mystic "humanism", problems in Islamism, and practical needs for a viable state.

Now it is used almost entirely by the BNP portion of Islamism in BD - more as a means of differentiating from India and the "Hindu" Bengal.

MB has to appeal to some sense of "Bengali" cultural pride and will be forced to take the regional semi-dependent semi-independent potentate model rather than the kongrez favoured satrap model. Problem is that MB is doing it out of rather pragmatic political necessities - and she is not a statesperson, because her brand of politics cannot rise above the regionalism that she needs to survive. She knows she is faced by two implacable enemies - the kongrez and the "left". The Maoists are dubious allies and possible allies of other "national"-level and transnational forces. Islamists already dominate the borders of her state, and she can do little about it and the trans-national Islamist network that connects BD islamists with the state and through the GV to Pak.

What can she do? She has to try and appeal to regionalism to hold the fort together. In thsi she will be forced to compromise with Islamists, Gorkhaland separatists, Maoists. To a large extent it has been the result of unstatesmanlike disrciminatory regionalism of the kongrez regimes at the "centre" from even before 1947.

It is a lesson to be learnt for the future. A truly national regime looks at all regions as just geographically unique but has no consciousness of distinctions in people. Only from that comes the moral authority and edge to demand the same from "regionalists" to reciprocate and dissolve their distinction claims.

[abhishek_sharma]

Mamata meets minorities, with sops, thank you

Mamata slams Pranab over bailout

[brihaspati]

^^^It can get worse, because she if finding it difficult to satisfy all expectations. money is going to be the first casualty.

[brihaspati]

http://www.lensonnews.com/news_detail.p ... 6&aID=3616
''Maoists regrouping in West Bengal''

New Delhi, Jul 10 - With joint-security operations virtually at a standstill in West Bengal, Maoists have started regrouping and recruiting cadres in the eastern state, intelligence inputs point. The inputs received by the Home Ministry from three West Bengal districts -- West Midnapore, Bankura and Purulia -- have suggested that the Naxals have been able to lure a sizable number of youths and recruit them for armed training.

The recruitment drive and activities of the Maoists have intensified after Mamata Banerjee took charge as the chief minister since her government favoured talks with the ultras and virtually suspended all operations against them. Besides, the three West Bengal districts have become meeting and shelter points for Naxals operating in neighbouring Orissa, Jharkhand and Bihar, they said.

There have been reports that 'village defence squads' were being formed by Naxal supporters in many villages and extortion notices reportedly served to many businessmen and CPI(M) sympathisers.

Interestingly the "centre" has urged a go-slow on releasing 46 imprisoned Maoists, and MB has also subtly stepped back from the P2P "political negotiations" stance, and suggested her deputy as the one the maoists could talk to.

What is however of further interest is the background of crisis now going on in Nepal. Even after one of the Nepali Maoist high-command apparently admitted "mistakes" in its earlier tackling of India diplomatically, and SMKrishna's supposed complaints of anti-India activities by Maoists and appropriate peaceful noises being mad ein response - recently, the Maoists have burnt down the site office of GMR, [an Indian firm jointly developing a hydel plant with Nepal gov]. Moreover Prachanda, now engaged in a typical communist style internal factional struggle for power against his erstwhile top comrades - has not withdrawn his november, 2010 call for "war on India".

The Maoists have developed their political tactical strength over the last few years. By tactically using MB, they have created a space for themselves where they will get the respite they need to regroup. As far as I know, the cobra-pressure is off now - and the area has gone quickly back to the Maoist underground. But the Maoists will now push further north in the state to widen the corridor that they have to Nepal - in terms of "clearing the path". MB cannot do much either way - it is politically costly for her whichever direction she goes. Nepal Maoists on the other hand may coordinate their moves with the Indian Maoists depending on what they are up against within Nepal.

[brihaspati]

In the TSP and BD threads, the question of "trade" as an instrument of policy - aimed at reduction of conflict - is coming up again and again for a long time. Sometime ago, there was quoting of an early paper on this available on the net which was pushed as "empirically" having proved the supposedly "elementary" "econometrics" based claim that "trade" always reduced "conflict". Unfortunately the quoter did not properly read the paper he was quoting - where the author of the paper himself carefully excused himself from endorsing any such claims.

Moreover, probably a lack of understanding of the difference between elasticity/simultaneity and "causality" created lots of misconceptions. The mere moving toegther in opposite directions of "trade" and "conflict" does not necessarily imply that one "causes" the other to move so. This requires "lagged" analysis - which was missing in earlier studies because of absence of required data.

Because there is this long standing neo-liberalist [and perhaps a touch of insidious vulgar-Marxist European-liberal mixup in political economy] position that "trade" "decreases" "conflict" - a lot our own jingoes appear to have fallen for this hook-line-sinker - and we are joining this confusion bandwagon for pushing such an agenda on India about Pak and BD.

I will therefore try to bring in some contrary trends of analysis in a sequence of posts. Please do excuse me as it may get slightly technical. Closing with the following comment for the moment:

Trade Still Follows the Flag: The Primacy of Politics in a Simultaneous Model of Interdependence and Armed Conflict, Omar M. G. Keshk, Brian M. Pollins, Rafael
Reuveny. The Journal of Politics, vol 66, (4) [2004], Cambridge University Press, Southern Political Science Association

The most important result is that our main findings stand under all alternative assumptions.The effect of conflict on trade is always negative, [even this may stand disputed - my note] while the impact of trade on conflict remains indistinguishable from zero. We do not find genuine simultaneity under any conditions tested here. Political relations are driving commerce, not the other way around as the liberals claim.
[...]
"Trade brings peace" is a claim embraced by liberal political economy since the nineteenth century and trumpeted by many political leaders in our own time. The liberals inherited this claim from Enlightenment thinkers,who took it from early Christian writers, who heard it from classical Greeks. Some researchers today, standing on an impressive body of empirical results,ask us to accept this claim as true and final, and consider the issue closed. Based on our own results, we believe that would be a mistake. Careful specification of a simultaneous model of trade and conflict, exercised under a number of different assumptions, leads us to conclude that political relations affect flows of commerce between nations, and that when this effect is accounted for, the apparent impact of trade on conflict disappears.This is what we refer to as the "primacy of politics" in the trade- conflict relationship.

So do we consider our results to be full and final? Do we consider the issue closed? Certainly not. For us, "trade brings peace" is a claim worthy of further exploration;it is and should remain an open question for some time. The key, we believe, is to begin the search for the boundary conditions, contingencies, and qualifiers under which commerce between nations actually will lessen the likelihood of conflict and when it will not. Such work is indeed beginning. Works cited above find that, interalia, democratic institutions, domestic coalitions, forms and levels of economic development,or membership in specific types of international organizations may change the character of the trade-conflict relationship from negative to zero to positive. We also look forward to studies that consider different aspects of the concept of "economic interdependence"and how different dimensions of that phenomenon may affect the possibilities of conflict quite differently. And "conflict" itself is certainly a complex occurrence that is not captured fully by binary observations on militarized disputes alone. There is still much to be explored regarding ways in which economic interdependence may affect different forms and levels of conflict.

The results reported here underscore the need for continued work on the relationship between trade and conflict. Mainstream ideology and a large body of empirical studies claim that trade brings peace. Our results clearly indicate that trade does not bring peace, and the apparent relationship between them may well result from simultaneity bias. But we, as a research community, will waste our time if we frame this debate by asking merely whether trade brings peace. Instead, we must move now to specifying when and how it does and does not operate as the liberals claim.

Those interested in further exploration of this question can take this from our findings: there is solid reason to doubt that the liberals are always and everywhere correct, and good reason to believe that the politics entwined within the trade-conflict nexus is a central part of that story.

[Samudragupta]

The Chinese interest in the Punjab and Hindukush is following the general Kushan model of interaction...CPC-PLA combine have clearly sensed the impending power struggle with in the middle kinkdom hence trying to find the greener pastures in the Hindukush....

[Atri]

The Chinese interest in the Punjab and Hindukush is following the general Kushan model of interaction...CPC-PLA combine have clearly sensed the impending power struggle with in the middle kinkdom hence trying to find the greener pastures in the Hindukush....

Kushan model was other way round Samudra gupta ji.. This particular behaviour of CPC is beyond any example in annals of history. This will require innovative fixing.

[RajeshA]

X-Posted from West Asia - News & Discussion Thread

Published on Aug 09, 2011
By M.K. Bhadrakumar
Syria lays bare India’s foreign policy: Rediff Blogs

India’s predicament is going to be acute. The plain truth is that geopolitics lie at the core of the Syrian crisis. Turkey has territorial ambitions over its former colony. It also has dreams of reclaiming the Ottoman legacy in the region. The NATO wants to arrive in the heart of the Muslim Middle East, which would be a huge leap out of Europe in its journey to become the premier global security organisation. For the US and Israel, the regime change in Damascus means the weakening of Hamas and it also opens the way to isolate Iran and Hezbollah, which in turn enables Israel to regain its regional dominance. The Sunni-Shi’ite schism provides the ideal backdrop for the US to retain its regional dominance over the strategically important Arab world — ‘divide-and-rule’. The Persian Gulf autocrats are hoping that Syria would divert attention away for a long while from their own rotting parishes.

All-in-all, the decision India takes at any UN Security Council process can only be viewed as ‘ideological’ insofar as it will be about: a) India’s strategic partnership with US and the need to harmonise with US regional policies; b) India’s dependence on the Jewish lobby in the US and the military ties with Israel; and, c) India’s time-tested friendship with the Syrian regime. If India votes with a US-Israeli-Saudi-Turkish move against the Syrian regime, will it bring India closer to UN Security Council membership? No way. Does India have stakes in the Sunni-Shi’ite schism that is going to tear apart the Muslim world? Certainly not. Does India have partisan interests in the Saudi-Iranian rivalry? Unlikely — even making allowance for the Saudi/Wahhabi/petrodollar clout over the ruling Congress Party in India’s domestic politics.

Finally, what happens if there is a regime change in Syria? Will it be any better than the chaos that unfolded in Iraq or Libya? Does India have any clear-cut vision to offer for a post-Assad Syria? Not even a brave heart in South Block will claim it has one. The strong likelihood is the emergence of the Islamist forces in yet another part of the Middle Eastern landscape. In sum, India’s stance on Syria in the UN is going to be something to write home about. It will lay bare the beating heart of India’s foreign policy establishment.

M.K. Bhadrakumar opines that India does not have any strategic interest in West Asia, only ideological reasons to vote one way or the other!

Syria is up for grabs, and the decision is about retaining a Shi'ite Crescent or doing away with it. Either India would end up pissing off the Saudis, with whom our relations have improved, or pissing off the Iranians beyond the little irritation we gave them due to our vote against them in the IAEA. This pissing off would be long term!

Indians should however play our own Great Game in West Asia! And what would that Great Game in West Asia be for India?

• India's Great Game should be to create a contiguous region of influence from India to the Mediterranean, and
• to break up every other power of consequence on the way, and
• to control the dynamics of the Sunni-Shia shism
• to control energy

The powers that need to be broken up are Iran and Turkey. Why Iran? As long as Iran remains strong, Iran would consider itself as the primary power in Central Asia. This India cannot allow! The only power to hold sway in Central Asia can be India, and all other centers of power have to bow to Delhi, including Tehran! Also Turkey needs to be broken up into Turk and Kurdish areas.

The foundation of our power in West Asia should be an Independent United Kurdistan consisting of parts of Kurdistan, today spread over four countries: Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Kurdistan should be today what once the Mittanis were in ancient times.

We should consider a break-up of Syria seriously, as it would help us create Syrian Kurdistan and join it up with Iraqi Kurdistan! That would be one more part of the puzzle solved, leaving us with the part in Iran and in Turkey.

Why Kurdistan?

Kurdish belongs to the Indo-European group of languages. It is closely linked with Baluchi language, and we propose to have Baluchistan as part of India someday. The Kurds are mostly a secular group, subjugated by other Muslim ethnicities - Turks, Persians, Arabs, etc. They will be very grateful for an Indian role in their liberation. So if USA has Israel in the Middle East as its power-base, we should develop Kurdistan as our power-base.

Some day, a much smaller Iran would build the geographical link between India (Baluchistan) and Kurdistan.

We should support the Alawites to create their own country in the North-West of Syria on the Mediterranean contiguous with Syrian Kurdistan. Also Syrian Christians can move to the North-West around Antioch and get some safe haven for themselves.

Thus the Shi'ite Crescent will be broken and the linkage would be through Kurdistan, a place where India would/could have a lot of influence. So we would control how much influence Iran can exert on the Mediterranean - in Lebanon, in North-West Syria. Of course, we would allow some, for North-West Syria would also give Kurdistan access to the sea.

Some day Iran too would throw away the yoke of Theocracy and even Islam itself and embrace its Aryan and Zoroastrian roots. Some day, Iran too may become a part of the Aryan Crescent stretching from India all the way to Mediterranean.

India too should develop long-term national interests in the region! As we grow into a power, we will need all the geostrategic space we can get!

However as many Indians like M.K. Bhadrakumar are still captive to Marxism, they are unable to see any Indian national interest anywhere, and presuppose that Indians will only be sucking up to one or the other power center in the world.

[ramana]

From Nightwatch 9 Aug 2011

Vietnam-India: Comment: In late June, Vietnamese and Indian naval senior officers met to discuss maritime security in the South China Sea. During the visit Vietnamese Vice Admiral Hien offered Indian Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Verma, base rights to the port of Nha Trang. Verma accepted in principle.

The terms of the offer have not been reported in detail, but one news service reported the Indians counter-offered the new Brahmos supersonic anti-ship missile to the Vietnamese navy; the Prithvi short-range ballistic missile which can also be used on ships; plus maintenance support to Vietnam's Soviet-supplied naval ships. India already is providing training to the Vietnamese navy.


Subsequently, the INS Airavat, an amphibious landing ship built in Calcutta, made a port call at Nha Trang between 20 and 30 July. In October 2010, Vietnam offered the Indians access to maintenance and repair facilities and invited more port calls. In 2011, Indian Navy ships have made calls at South Chinese Sea ports and Japan almost monthly since March.


For the record. Nha Trang was the base from which a Vietnamese Supreme Commander led a fleet that defeated a Chinese Yuan dynasty fleet in 1288.


Vietnam's offer appears tailored to appeal to the new Indian Naval mantra:


China rejects that the Indian Ocean is Indian. India rejects that the South China Sea is Chinese.


The Indian Chief of Naval Staff's acceptance of the Vietnamese offer sent Chinese national security pundits into spasms of dismissal. One expert wrote that India will never base ships at Nha Trang because it would be too expensive and India lacks the ability to extend naval power east. The Chinese national security expert accused India and Vietnam of bluffing.

India: Navy. The Calcutta Telegraph reported on 8 August that the government has asked all ports in the east coast, except Visakhapatnam, to give priority to the Indian Navy because a sharp rise in the number of warships is leading to congestion and slowing down operational turnaround. Visakhapatnam is the main base for the Eastern Naval Command.

Comment: According to the Telegraph report the government has decided to strengthen the Eastern Naval Command in reaction to Chinese meddling in the Indian Ocean, including port construction in Burma and in southern Sri Lanka.


As a result the Navy has raised the rank of senior positions in the east and increased its priority for new ship assignments. In the past 5 years the Command has received 14 ships, including five Rajput-class guided missile destroyers that had been assigned to the Western Naval Command at Mumbai. The new additions include the amphibious assault ship, INS Jalashwa, purchased from the US Navy, which is the second largest ship in the Indian Navy, after the aircraft carrier INS Viraat.

India's new indigenously constructed stealth frigates, under construction at Mumbai, will be assigned to the Eastern Naval command. The Navy is scouting at least three new locations for bases in India and seems to welcome the Vietnamese offer of port facilities.

The Indian Navy is unlikely to base ships in Vietnam, but access to a friendly port will increase the frequency of port calls to the South China Sea as well as to Japan and South Korea. India is determined to contain the Chinese in South Asian oceans and and is taking the challenge to East and Southeast Asian seas. Indian Navy ships will be frequent callers in Vietnamese ports.

Sandy Gordon in his book "India a rising power" says that IN planes (TU-124s) routinely patrol South China Sea from INS Rajali in Chennai since mid 80s.

[brihaspati]

We dont like the Islamists, we don't like Yindoos, we don't like Yahudis, we don't like Pakis, we don't like Amrikis, the West, the Brits, the Oiropeans, the Roossies, the Middle Easterners, Iranians, Arabs, Iraqis, Syrians, Dalai Lama, Myanmarese, Sinhalis, Maoists, all Yindoo gurus.

Surely we must like something around us?

What is left for us to like - that we do not criticize one way or the other? The pure ideologies of pure X-tianity, pure Islam, pure Marxism - which are all originally pure, and the bad bad things are all pure deviations onlee.

Kya-baat ji!

[brihaspati]

The Vietnam step is a good thing to at least even acknowledge in this way. Basing is the logical next step. Regardless of criticism, India must go ahead.

[brihaspati]

Almost all our Indian officially enthroned analysts somehow never realize in their confusion - that they yet do not have resolved an inner confusion. They are not yet aware of their own dilemma that they are constantly mixing up "Indian interests" with "global humanitarian interests". India is faced with the impossible task of simultaneously thinking of the "good" for "all human beings" and the "good" of "Indians" as a nation.

Sophistry of "vasudhaiva.." extended to enforce global humanitarian concerns at the cost of "Indian" concerns - or making global concerns Indian - clouds all our official think tanks.

[shyamd]

B ji, now do you believe that our leaders will do what is necessary to defend Bharat

[brihaspati]

^^Oh I have grave doubts about the "leadership" willingly having taken the initiative. it could be part of prompting and go-aheads from the usual suspects across the pond that MKB is always blasting about.

A leadership that is not necessarily sincerely thinking about it, and the consequent expansionary projection of power - but just play-acting as part of mind-games in the hope of squeezing out concessions without having to go through the dirt and mud and trenches, could be even worse saboteurs of national interest than who do not take any steps at all. They will withdraw and falter under pressure at the worst possible moment. We have had this bluster before - posturing without depth and sincere plan to go "beyond", and partly responsible for the 62 fiasco.

[brihaspati]

The current GOI or the political forces behind it will not back up independent Kurdistan movement. In fact India will not back any new independence seeking movement anywhere - that seeks to disassociate from some preexisting nation.

It is a measure or indication of two things : first that the ruling regimes have been convinced by their own components as well as other external forces that centrifugal forces within India are at a dangerous level for the continued hold on power of the regime. This could have been done to box in Indian foreign policy.

The second is that it shows the dangers of vacuum ideologies in running a nation like India. The congrez necessity to have a vacuum ideology as the basis of the nation to preserve dynastic supremacy - means that it cannot forcefully denounce events/actions by foreign governments outside India or support based on clear cut principles of natural justice as a so-called drum-beater of "people's choice" and "democracy". This finds congrez led regimes into the bed of strange bed-fellows - dictatorial regimes as in Myanmar, or Muammar Gaddafi in Libya whose thundering on "Kashmiri independence" can be conveniently swallowed, or now saving Assad. It is more ironic since congrez prides itself on its legacy of "indepndent" but "democratic" mode of thinking!

[shyamd]

^^Oh I have grave doubts about the "leadership" willingly having taken the initiative. it could be part of prompting and go-aheads from the usual suspects across the pond that MKB is always blasting about.

Not really. In fact the US wants us to jump into their bandwagon (desperately). MRCA was a key example and in fact they are begging us. What we are doing is retaining the option to join the US alliance rather than overtly joining the US alliance. hillary's speech in Chennai was another example. Defence min and key mil guys didn't attend meetings that had been arranged even!

A leadership that is not necessarily sincerely thinking about it, and the consequent expansionary projection of power - but just play-acting as part of mind-games in the hope of squeezing out concessions without having to go through the dirt and mud and trenches, could be even worse saboteurs of national interest than who do not take any steps at all. They will withdraw and falter under pressure at the worst possible moment. We have had this bluster before - posturing without depth and sincere plan to go "beyond", and partly responsible for the 62 fiasco.

Going to war is not a nice thing. No one wants to go through it, in our religion war is always last resort. If anything, we are actually critically under prepared for the PRC front still. Part of the reason for htis is some tacit understanding that unkil will back us up. In 1962, Unkil was weak. So PRC took advantage of "securing its borders". Read shyam saran's article and how we learned from that episode and why we are ramping up on the eastern border ASAP! We are expecting PRC to further "secure its borders" at some point. Hence why we are taking the threat seriously.

In the event of war, you will see a regional alliance against PRC form pretty rapidly and PRC knows it.

I urge you to follow the analysis and the defence news and the statements by key decision makers (not the ones that are meant for public consumption). Keep your ears open, you will hear a lot more for the PRC front in the coming year or maybe 2. Some will surprise you.

[brihaspati]

1962 was mentioned by me because of the bluster that went before, the posturings that went before - pin-pricks onlee - without actually preparing for any resultant onslaughts. I simply said - that big words without the long term determination to follow through - should not be repeated in a Nehruvian style bluster about Vietnam or south China sea.

Let us leave "our" religion out of this! What is our "national" religion if any? Why is it only when it comes to restraining retaliations or projection of force into the neighbourhood in the face of direct aggression - that one single religion is picked out to impose and justify passivity? What about the equal-equal other religions of India which have supposedly so immensely contributed, shaped and become inseparable part of Indian civilization [even more than the evil religion you hint at which apparently came from outside and whose onlee apparent contribution is casteist oppression]- and their attitudes towards war and hitting-back? How can a supposedly violently oppressive militant faith existing for thousands of years be used to justify passive swallowing of external aggression as long as that aggression happens on the majority or the non-elite!

[brihaspati]

The regional alliance will not form around the subcontinent - it will only form around Japan-Vietnam axis. Around India, Nepal, BD - yes even after hot love-making, and Pak, will lean towards PRC. Sri Lanka will stay neutral becuase of a different equation even if it has a very strong pro-China lobby.

As for Indian moves against China - or preparations - nothing much will come out of it at this stage, unless USA seriosuly decides to go against PRC, which is unlikely. The Indian camp is divided into two - and there are those who prefer China over USA. At the moment both camps are equal in strength - with the pro-China lobby tipped to increase further in strength [both the anti-US, Marxian, and Islamophile components add to the pro-China camp giving it a marginal edge over the pro-US group].