Managing Pakistan's failure

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by devesh »

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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

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".
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Agnimitra »

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
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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

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
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:
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.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

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.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

shiv wrote:
Thanks. But the people quoted in the link are not thinking about me. :(( :oops:
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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

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.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

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.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Agnimitra »

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.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by devesh »

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.
Arav
BRFite
Posts: 141
Joined: 03 Aug 2011 15:38

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Arav »

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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

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
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

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.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Agnimitra »

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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

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.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Agnimitra »

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.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Agnimitra »

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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

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
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.
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Satya_anveshi »

^^^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.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by svinayak »

Post it in Geo politics thread also since it is relavant.
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
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

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.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Lalmohan »

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.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

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!
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

shiv wrote:What actually happened when the Portuguese "opened up" the sea route was that they took control of the spice trade.
OT, but there is some evidence that Portuguese became rich from their trade between India and Europe, not just because of spices, but because of trade in medicines.

India was far more developed in medicine than the Europeans then, and Portuguese benefited immensely from its trade.

Often 'spices' are used to speak of the trade, in order to deflate the importance of India as a scientific and technological power of the past. That is the piskology of spices!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

Here is another one from the archives
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2002
THE TIMES OF INDIA
Albion’s Kashmir Perfidy

British officers commanding Indian troops subverted India’s efforts to free the entire territory of Jammu & Kashmir from Pakistani raiders, contends C Dasgupta, career diplomat and author of ‘War and Diplomacy in Kashmir, 1947-48’. In an interview with Rashme Sehgal, Dasgupta discusses the dramatic events, whose repercussions are being felt to this day:

What made you want to focus on just one year (1947-48) in the whole history of Indo-Pak relations?
  • The Indo-Pak war of 1947-48 was unique in modern military history because it is the only war fought by two modern armies, which were both commanded by British generals.
Did this have any discernible effect on the outcome?
  • The commander-in-chief (C-in-C) of the Indian army was the British general, Sir Roy Bucher, and his Pakistani counterpart was General Douglas Gracey. All three services in India and Pakistan were commanded by British officers. With the army not under its control, the Indian government did not possess an element of sovereignty that is essential to governance. India’s first C-in-C in January 1949 was General Cariappa. One of the things that greatly concerned the British at the closing stage of this war was that General Cariappa was taking initiatives that his C-in-C could not control.

    Are you implying that the British army did not obey the Indian government?


    The British did not want an Indo-Pak war. They had apprehended that hostilities would break out and had issued secret orders to all British officers ‘to stand down’ in the event of a war. These officers were told they could resign their commission or function in an advisory capacity. These orders were first tried out in Junagarh in September when the three joint chiefs of staff together threatened to resign if India took any measures that might lead to hostility in this state.
Why were the British prejudiced against India?
  • The British clearly did not want the whole of J&K to go to India. There was a widespread feeling in London that if India was in control of areas contiguous to Pakistan, the latter would not survive. If the Indian army was within close striking distance of Pakistan’s military centre, Rawalpindi, then Pakistan would face a major security problem.

    India’s objective was to free the entire state of J&K from raiders. But by 1948, Nehru had come around to the conclusion that this was not an immediately feasible proposition. The C-in-C, General Bucher, advised him that militarily it was not possible to establish control over the entire territory of J&K.
With the British supporting Pakistan, why did they send raiders to J&K in the first place?
  • Raiders were sent on October 22 to the valley because Pakistan would not accept the Maharaja’s decision. Pakistan suspected the Maharaja wanted to accede to India and tried to pre-empt his decision by forcibly seizing the state.

Didn’t Nehru make any efforts to pre-empt the Pakistani decision?

  • Both Nehru and Sardar Patel expected that Pakistan would make such an attempt. In December 1947, Nehru had decided to send the army to strike at the bases of the raiders, located in Punjab. In fact, Nehru wanted to chase them out of Muzaffarabad but the British did not support the move.

    At a defence committee meeting of the cabinet on December 20, 1947, Nehru proposed that the army should be prepared to strike at these bases but governor-general Mountbatten opposed this.

    He proposed that India should seek a peaceful resolution by going to the United Nations. Nehru made it clear that nothing would come out of going to the UN.

    As a compromise, it was decided that action would be taken simultaneously, with the army preparing attack plans and a reference being made to the UN. Nothing was done by the army on this score.

Why did the Indian officers go along with this plan?

  • Except for a few officers, the rest of the army had no idea of what was going on at the highest level. They did not know of the role being played by the C-in-C in subverting the Indian government’s efforts to play a decisive role in 1947-48.

    The top-secret cables exchanged between the British missions in India and Pakistan, and Whitehall, tell the true story. The C-in-C was receiving instructions from the British High Commission in New Delhi on what advice he should give to Nehru.

    For example, Lockhart (the new Indian C-in-C) was alerted beforehand that tribal raiders were on their way to Kashmir. Lockhart did not inform the Indian government of this. This was discovered in December 1947 and Lockhart had to hand in his resignation.
Why did Lockhart not deem it fit to inform Nehru?
  • Lockhart’s reasoning was that since J&K had not acceded to India at that time, it was not part of Indian territory. Still, Lockhart knew India had a vital interest in J&K. He had been instructed to provide military equipment to the Maharaja’s forces to enable them to withstand the raiders but he chose not to carry out these instructions.
Was he following a ‘great’ British gameplan?
  • The British did not have a gameplan. They were playing it by ear. In fact, Noel Baker, minister for the commonwealth, was reprimanded by prime minister Attlee for following a totally pro-Pakistan policy. Attlee had asked Baker to lean in favour of Pakistan but Baker went overboard in the most grotesque manner in his unqualified support for Pakistan. So much so that the Americans felt his position was unjustifiably pro-Pakistan. Even John Foster Dulles took objection to his stance.

What was the basis for this pro-Pakistani tilt?

  • It had its basis in Britain’s west Asian policy. The struggle between the Jews and the Arabs had reached violent proportions. The Arabs were strongly critical of the British and the latter were scared of alienating the whole of the Muslim world. This was a fallacious conclusion because the Arab movement was not part of the Muslim movement.
What role did the Soviets play in this dispute?
  • They kept a low profile. India, at that stage, was too dependent on the Britain/western world. The agitation for Telengana had started in 1948 and Moscow was suspected of having a hand in promoting it.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

shiv ji,
OT but if you are keen on knowing onlee the pre-Islamic pre-Christian "slavery" in India you can perhaps start with the wikipedia page on History of Slavery in India and look at the earlier paragraphs. I assembled most of the material there, so I can vouch for the historical source materials referred to. The organized "slave procurement and trade and foreign export" as a state enterprise coincides with the advent of Islamics on the subcontinent, and the CAR slave market being inundated by Indian slaves exported from predominantly non-Muslim Indian populations under direct Islamic state interventions - is pretty well recognized. That this was a substantial portion of Indian "exports" under beneficient Islamic regimes from India - is also well recognized academically.

In fact Sufi slave-owner's documents in CAR were the beginnings of research into this and a pointer to the export from India.

Apart from the "Dasa==slave" dispute there is also a dispute about confusing labour contracts with limited liabilities on both sides and mutual dependency relations with the 19th and 20th century European interpretation of "slavery". A lot of what has passed for "slavery" in pre-Islamic India has been "European" mis-translations of labour relations that existed.

Given the reality of the trade under Islamics to CAR
(1) having actually decreased from before the Islamics
(2) promoted non-Muslims exported from India as slaves for CAR consumption
(3) deliberate measures undertaken to destroy Indian productivity and foreign trade capablities [including special privileges given to imprts from CAR]

I find it really strange that anyone finds the drying up of Islamic Indo-CAR trade as a "loss" for India. I understand that from the currently prevalent pure-profits motives onlee - that justifies any sleeping-with-enemy policies - even the slave trade was good for India ! Anything that brings profits! But even profits were not helping or increasing. So even from the pure mercantle viewpoint destroying the productive capacity of a labour intensive economy is not profitable over the long run.

Yes, perhaps in the drive tos core points - we forget the very basic human values we pride ourselves on - that even the sale of Indians for the pleasure or profit of a gang of murderers and thieves and rapists on a state-mamaged scale becomes acceptable as long as it yields monetary profits.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote:Yes, perhaps in the drive tos core points - we forget the very basic human values
Honesty and accuracy are values that both you and I should attempt to promote. The statement above was completely unnecessary and merely fluffed up your post and added no meaning. I think you are mature enough in this form of discussion not to show your obvious irritation in this way.
brihaspati wrote: I find it really strange that anyone finds the drying up of Islamic Indo-CAR trade as a "loss" for India. I understand that from the currently prevalent pure-profits motives onlee - that justifies any sleeping-with-enemy policies - even the slave trade was good for India ! Anything that brings profits! But even profits were not helping or increasing. So even from the pure mercantle viewpoint destroying the productive capacity of a labour intensive economy is not profitable over the long run.
Brihaspatiji, let me say up front something that you are doing with my posts. It is either a genuine error or a deliberate mistake of the point scoring genre.

For example, when I speak of Christian slavery, it does not mean that I am "forgetting" Islamic slavery. If you accuse me of doing that, you are only scoring a point. No more. Just a point that you are allowed to score. Not a value addition. But I digress

In this case I think you have changed the subject from the fact that you made what I thought was a Euro centric viewpoint post by describing the European control of sea lanes as an "opening up" while I see it as a closing down for India. That closing down has been somewhat negated after 1947.

However the closing down of the Silk Route is a loss that is only getting worse. That loss IMO is something that I feel is acute now, even if it was not acute when it was actually closed down. The Central Asian republics have oil and minerals that India could tap, and Indian trade could go through that way. This is what I have been saying from the beginning. If you see the lack of access to CAR as "no loss" that is your viewpoint, but no more than that. My opinion is that it is a loss.

India has been made an "island" of sorts where goods to India and from India can be controlled by all sorts of external powers. The closure of a land route is particularly ironic, because land routes were always the way humans traded and travelled in the largest numbers. You may see it as no loss. But it is a loss.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Lalmohan »

shiv, the economics of maritime trade, particularly modern maritime trade are far more attractive than land based modes of trade transportation. that is a far bigger driver than the risk of wild and wooly tribesmen
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

Lalmohan wrote:shiv, the economics of maritime trade, particularly modern maritime trade are far more attractive than land based modes of trade transportation. that is a far bigger driver than the risk of wild and wooly tribesmen
Lalmohan I am not arguing with that.

But let me state my perspective here and I am dead serious - otherwise I would not spend so much effort explaining myself.

1. For whom exactly is sea trade more economical? It is more economical when the sea is the major barrier to cross. For example, for goods to travel from the West coast of the US to the East coat, the sea route does not make sense. Transport from Mumbai to Kolkata, the sea route does not make sense.

2. The Chinese have charted out a highly independent course because they have realized that their main vulnerability is in their sea routes. hence their focus is on building land routes as well

3. For the Americans too, the sea route is in trouble when it comes to resupply in Afghanistan. They are basically struggling and begging and bribing the Pakis to help them.

To my mind "strategic independence" of India means working on all possible routes. The land route must not be ruled out on the basis of flimsy excuses and rationalizations in the "grass does not grow" genre.

But if you look at the nitty gritty of how we reopen a land route there are politico-military hurdles rather than physical ones. Sitting right next to India, boxing India in and allowing the US and China to meddle is Pakistan. I would like to see a land route though Pakistan. The first step is getting into Pakistan. there is no alternative to India somehow "getting into Pakistan" for some reason or other. We cannot stand by saying 'Let it fail more", "Some more "Still some more", without planning some sort of future course of action.

People have suggested "retaking PoK" saying that PoK has minerals that the Chinese will otherwise use. But even for retaking poK we will have to go via Pakistan. If we ask "What is there in CAR that we cannot do without" the same applies to PoK. There is nothing in PoK that we cannot do without. So that is not a valid excuse. It is worth it even if we get only so far as Afghanistan.

I am basically talking about turning history back a long time. I do not believe that it is impossible. But if it is to be done it should be done by deft diplomacy and selected military moves. We cannot seriously blast a military route all the way. The US too is clearly incapable of that. The alternative I am told are the horrors of accommodating Islamists. The choices India faces are stark, but we have to make the choice to lead not follow.

Most suggestions that I am hearing are those that restrict us to a two way "Indipakistan" "HinduMuslim" struggle or one that follows the lead of the USA. Or both.

I have a different opinion. A different dream if you like. We have to plan for a post USA subcontinent. The question of "following the US" does not arise unless we miscalculate badly. The other warning I will formally make here is we are definitely on collision course with the US the way the USSR was and China is. No other go. When it comes to the crunch, the USA will not want any nation to do anything but play second fiddle and India simply will not do that.

Might as well start thinking about it now. Not a happy thought, but not one to be avoided IMO.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

shiv ji,
you raise several issues that are of direct professional interest to me, so I will bypass the fluff issue.

(1) Your original argument started off with a historical justification and point-of-origin hypothesis : that the source of Paki violence on India has been sustained by US munificience. This in itself is hardly disputed. What made it historical, ideological and philosophically speculative was the added hypothesis that the USA as a nation acted as a single-person decisionmaker guided only by colour-religious biases.

It was interesting for me to note that while you are willing to concede a much more complex and heterogenous decision-making composition of the Paki state - you were unwilling to consider that for US, and in some sub-debates even among the broad category of AS.

If you are willing to consider the SDRE-Islamic as a heterogeneous, and malleable entity that can be ideologically split in favour of our tactical goals, why do you refuse to see the same possibility of heterogeneity and malleability in the white-Christian?

Do you realize that the arguments you use to justify this skewness of approach to the two "cultures", you are drawing on a perceived historical experience whereby the AS appears to you as a greater evil of sorts for Indians compared to the Islamic? Since you used history to justify this perception I objected to your ignoring of the reality of that history.

(2) The other approach is - forget history [which I can show is not a sound approach either] and think on a day-to-day basis. This is the approach of the western world increasingly over the 20th century [even if we think they are still playing the grand 19th century long term Grand Games], and stems from an increasing stress on quantification of information and quantified models of human society. There is a huge lot of discourse on the implications of the "ratio" and the "rational" in western approach - and I do not want to go into that.

In doing this short term approach what happens is that often over simplification takes place, failure to recognize cognitive biases and predispositions, and not working out fully what the long term consequences can be.

There are three issues you are conjoing into one [if we forget the history]:
(a) approach as a single-minded focus on creating a rift between USA and Paki state/elite
(b) the assumption that this rift if successful will clear a peaceful and sustainable way to open up a trade route to CAR
(c) land-trade with CAR is "profitable"

Each of these impressions can only justified based on an assumption that lies in a certain perception of the history of the inter-relations between the west-Pak-ME-Iran-CAR and India.

First - if you are rejecting the reality of the history of the Indo-CAR trade then you cannot use historical impressions to project (a)-(c).

By historical experience, there is no causal link between US support and protection of Paki arbitrariness in thwarting and damaging Indian interests - and - any Paki biting back of the very hands that it feeds from. Similarly there has been no historical precedence of a sustainable trade between CAR and India beneficial for India when the in-between-lands west and north of Indus and especially the mountainous approaches to the plains were not directly under the sovereignty of dominant empires in north India.

Finally, historical exploitations of the natural resources of CAR and the prosperity of CAR have not correlated well with increasing security and prosperity of India. If Indian trade brings greater inflow of wealth into India without direct Indian military control of the frontiers to CAR - it has inevitably been followed by invasive and predatory forays from CAR which for various reasons northern Indian regimes failed to stop.

Not only the attraction of accumulated wealth but the greater danger consistently appears to have been the development of overlapping financial and mercantile interests from the Indian side which had subverted political or military attempts at subduing the growth of threats from CAR.

Already we have the logic that Islamist icons from the Gulf countries have to be allowed to influence and have a community leadership presence from time to time on Indian soil because of our "financial/energy/expat" interests there.

In many many ways, this was exactly the sentiment that prevailed in the centuries when Islamics broke down the centres of resistance in India - slowly, one by one - and the greatest subverters were those Indians connected to the "trade" over land and by "coasts" to ME.

This subversion cannot be allowed to grow - even ideologically - as an acceptable mindset.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

What made it historical, ideological and philosophically speculative was the added hypothesis that the USA as a nation acted as a single-person decisionmaker guided only by colour-religious biases.
Your conclusion. I never said that. I find that you are arguing against things you thought I said. You never bother using quotes. Please take the trouble to locate where I said what you allege " USA as a nation acted as a single-person decisionmaker guided only by colour-religious biases.". That is nonsense sir. I deny having said any such thing. I said that the US is continuing a White christian racist imperialist policy that was set into motion by the Europeans, specifically the British. My posts still exist. Go back and find the post where i said that.
you are drawing on a perceived historical experience whereby the AS appears to you as a greater evil of sorts for Indians compared to the Islamic?
Nonsense. Your conclusion. I have never said anything of the sort. Please take the trouble to quote my post so I cannot deny it. I never said AS (whatever AS might mean) is a greater evil than Islamism.
The other approach is - forget history [which I can show is not a sound approach either]
Sure. But you quote history when it is convenient for you. I will use that facility when it suits me.
By historical experience, there is no causal link between US support and protection of Paki arbitrariness in thwarting and damaging Indian interests
I disagree and I think you are wrong
Finally, historical exploitations of the natural resources of CAR and the prosperity of CAR have not correlated well with increasing security and prosperity of India.
This is specious argument coming from you given that the very previous paragraph you asserted:
there has been no historical precedence of a sustainable trade between CAR and India beneficial for India
Naturally, your own argument follows from, your own assertion.
Finally, historical exploitations of the natural resources of CAR and the prosperity of CAR have not correlated well with increasing security and prosperity of India.
Hold your horses sir. You were the one who said:"forget history" It may be possible to do this better in future.
Already we have the logic that Islamist icons from the Gulf countries have to be allowed to influence and have a community leadership presence from time to time on Indian soil because of our "financial/energy/expat" interests there.

In many many ways, this was exactly the sentiment that prevailed in the centuries when Islamics broke down the centres of resistance in India - slowly, one by one - and the greatest subverters were those Indians connected to the "trade" over land and by "coasts" to ME.

This subversion cannot be allowed to grow - even ideologically - as an acceptable mindset.
This has nothing to do with me or anything i said. You could have posted the last few lines alone without having to allege that I said things that i did not say.

You say that what i say is of "professional interest" to you. Your profession is of no interest to me because clearly you reveal only those parts of your identity that you wish to reveal. That is your prerogative. So unless you volunteer to say what your profession is the statement that what I say is of "professional interest" to you is a meaningless sentence that adds no value to the post.
Last edited by shiv on 14 Mar 2012 20:12, edited 1 time in total.
member_20617
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by member_20617 »

1. We need to undertake cost – benefit analysis for CAR.

What can we have from CAR and at what cost (not just money but potential loss of lives from terror attacks as well as political/military blackmail)?

Does the cost outweigh benefit or vice versa?

Could this change over a period of time?

What are the risk factors and are we in a position to mitigate them?

What are our alternatives? How do we tackle political/military blackmail?

We need to be careful about overhyping CAR.

Are we giving more power to Pakis by doing that?

Pakis may allow us to build roads initially and they can then stop the cargo movement. They can then use these roads for their benefit, leaving us high and dry!

2. If USA, the superpower, is ‘struggling and begging and bribing the Pakis to help them’ then what chance do we have considering that Pakis hate us more than anyone else?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

Shankaraa wrote:
2. If USA, the superpower, is ‘struggling and begging and bribing the Pakis to help them’ then what chance do we have considering that Pakis hate us more than anyone else?
The US is wrong and is doing the wrong thing. Do you believe that India cannot do better than the US?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

shiv wrote:
What made it historical, ideological and philosophically speculative was the added hypothesis that the USA as a nation acted as a single-person decisionmaker guided only by colour-religious biases.
Your conclusion. I never said that. I find that you are arguing against things you thought I said. You never bother using quotes. Please take the trouble to locate where I said what you allege " USA as a nation acted as a single-person decisionmaker guided only by colour-religious biases.". That is nonsense sir. I deny having said any such thing. I said that the US is continuing a White christian racist imperialist policy that was set into motion by the Europeans, specifically the British. My posts still exist. Go back and find the post where i said that.
When you say "US" is "continuing" - a certain policy - it automatically linguistically implies that here US is acting as a single-person decisionmaker. In particular there is no division of opinion within that decisionmaking process. What is striking is that you have many times referred to possibility of non-extremists within Pak whose influence on Paki decisonmaking you obviously hope for as otherwise there is no point in referring to the possibility of dissent within the Paki states uniform submission to USA. So in the case of Pak your model is not similar to US.
you are drawing on a perceived historical experience whereby the AS appears to you as a greater evil of sorts for Indians compared to the Islamic?
Nonsense. Your conclusion. I have never said anything of the sort. Please take the trouble to quote my post so I cannot deny it. I never said AS (whatever AS might mean) is a greater evil than Islamism.
AS - Anglo-Saxon: saw it used on several threads so used the short.
The other approach is - forget history [which I can show is not a sound approach either]
Sure. But you quote history when it is convenient for you. I will use that facility when it suits me.
I am discussing two possible approaches - if you care to read my posts carefully too. I am not saying sir, that I want you to forget history or that I want to forget history. In fact just in case you care to twist this sentence I have included within brackets my personal opinion of this approach.
By historical experience, there is no causal link between US support and protection of Paki arbitrariness in thwarting and damaging Indian interests
I disagree and I think you are wrong
I can understand the need to accuse others of selective quoting or non-quoting - but this? cutting out the rest of the sentence which gave the other part of the alleged causla link ? The connection was between the so-called US support for Paki damaging of Indian interest AND Paki biting back of US hand that fed it - THAT has no historical causal link. USA goes on supporting Pak even if Pak kicks and bites US.
Finally, historical exploitations of the natural resources of CAR and the prosperity of CAR have not correlated well with increasing security and prosperity of India.
This is specious argument coming from you given that the very previous paragraph you asserted:
there has been no historical precedence of a sustainable trade between CAR and India beneficial for India
Naturally, your own argument follows from, your own assertion.
Similarly you "honestly" cut off the remaining part of my sentence in your quote so that you can ignore the context of the first part - which links the unsustainability with those situations and periods when northern Indian empires did not have military control and soverignty over the approaches to India and frontier to CAR.
Finally, historical exploitations of the natural resources of CAR and the prosperity of CAR have not correlated well with increasing security and prosperity of India.
Hold your horses sir. You were the one who said:"forget history" It may be possible to do this better in future.
Honestly - I specifically said - this was another approach. This is not "my" approach.
Already we have the logic that Islamist icons from the Gulf countries have to be allowed to influence and have a community leadership presence from time to time on Indian soil because of our "financial/energy/expat" interests there.

In many many ways, this was exactly the sentiment that prevailed in the centuries when Islamics broke down the centres of resistance in India - slowly, one by one - and the greatest subverters were those Indians connected to the "trade" over land and by "coasts" to ME.

This subversion cannot be allowed to grow - even ideologically - as an acceptable mindset.
This has nothing to do with me or anything i said. You could have posted the last few lines alone without having to allege that I said things that i did not say.
This has everything to do with what you say - because I drew similarity to the arguments forwarded by mercantile and foreign-trade interested Indians who can be shown to have collaborated with Islamic interests from regions in the neighbourhood during the process of Islamic expansion.
You say that what i say is of "professional interest" to you. Your profession is of no interest to me because clearly you reveal only those parts of your identity that you wish to reveal. That is your prerogative. So unless you volunteer to say what your profession is the statement that what I say is of "professional interest" to you is a meaningless sentence that adds no value to the post.
Knowing full well that this is not going to add any value to any post I do enjoy the frustration of people extra keen to know the identity of a person rather than what the person's thought or relevant opinions are. Identities help prejudices and sometimes egos. Maybe even attempts at manipulation and intimidation to enforce submission. This is often thrown around in many circles - oh we know about you, and we can get at you etc. I have been through all that ploy in politics, so its sort of amusing when I see it beneath the surface. Do not worry. Those who have the power to intimidate already know me quite well, and we know each other sufficiently not to be worried about such intimidation.

I suppress my identity because I do not want my words to be looked at through the lens of prejudices.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by devesh »

shiv,
you have yet to actually post some evidence that long distance trade by land is less expensive than naval transportation. you have a peculiar penchant for treating Islam as a puppy, sometimes with sarcasm, sometimes with feigned "anger"/"realism", but your belief that Islam/Pakistan is a fluffy little bunny comes out no matter what you try.

I think part of the confusion is the thread's title itself. "Pakistan's Failure" is a very vague concept. "failure" in what sense? our "strategists" and "planners" might be giving themselves self congratulatory pats about the steady economic decline of Pak. they might believe that economic/financial bankruptcy is an evidence of "pakistan's failure". it undoubtedly is. but only in a limited sense. a super-duper economy has never been a claim of the Pakis, although they like to pretend so. that county wasn't created to be economically sustainable or to be an economic role model for other countries. so, "economic decline", ultimately does not contribute to "pakistan's failure".

all this talk of trade routes, Pakis with AK's guarding Indian transportation, etc is because of our blindfolds that we end up analyzing Pakistan from the profits/economic POV. Paki existence was never defined by that POV. this is a huge cognitive dissonance for us Indians. on one hand, we claim that Pak only exists to beat us, and on the other we insist on analyzing Pak with the profits/economic POV....
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by abhishek_sharma »

>> Pakis with AK's guarding Indian transportation

What kind of threats will Indian transportation face? There are not many gora racists between India and Central Asia.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by devesh »

^^^
good question! ask the hakim sahab!
Post Reply