Bharat Rakshak

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

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

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

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

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

brihaspati garu,

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

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

Religious moderates are, in a large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed.

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

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

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

Iran, India to build International North-South Corridor

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, 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.

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.

Thanks. But the people quoted in the link are not thinking about me.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

what is the meaning of "stabilized"?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You're right, they're explicit.

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.