Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Apr 2013 09:28

I am a slimy bugger and my points are deliberate. Leave out Islam and NeP fully and look at Pakistan's people and projected behavior. None of the points I have made will be untrue. There are secular, non Hindutvadi reasons for what I am saying. Dealing with NeP can be postponed forever if WKKs so desire - as long as we understand that a state of war will be with us for a minimum of 25 years from today.

It is important for all supporters of the survival of Pakistan, and supporters of friendship with Pakistan to understand this reality. While I understand the need for what you say - I am asking that your point not be clubbed as a co-passenger along with the point I am trying to make. Your point is easier to understand but can also be used to derail the thread completely. If necessary, I request you to cross post your brilliant original post as a separate thread because it merits discussion. But here as I see it as something that will inevitably colour my "secular" thread with accusations of a communal twist which is just the excuse Pakistan lovers wait for.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Apr 2013 09:30

I think I have proposed for a long time now - that the existence of Pakistan is crucial for the ruling interests of India. There are some simple hypotheses that can explain observations on the ground for the last 60 years:

(1) the rashtryia ruling interests have a regional perception of "center" - somewhere abstractly in UP. The further you go from this imaginary centre of the world - all else becomes periphery simply by distance. Other factors that define periphery - are language, perceived cultural differences, and of course independent political thinking.

Any and all regions that have historical tendency to challenge the "centre" from dominating all the trade and demographic flow of the northern plains - are "enemies". In that sense Pakistan is "periphery". So Pakistan must be "kept out". The border is as much to keep India away from Pakistan as it is to keep Pakistan away from India. Pakistan and BD helps in keeping the two main challengers of UP-centre in GV - Punjab and Bengal - pre-occupied.

(2) Pakistan fortunately concentrates "islamism". This helps in not having to show the deep distrust and hatred of Muslims as "people" openly - and the hatred for "Muslim", not Islam which is admirable for its seamless integration of totalitarian control, can be kept covered up within pseudo-nationalistic antagonism between "nations". Indian rulers can safely go on pretending their love of "Islam" while hiding their hatred of "Muslims" - possibly out of identification of the majority of muslims as having been converted "lower class" Indians - under a hatred for Pakistan.

(3) Pakistan as an antagonistic ideological opponent of India - as an unchanging religiously motivated "enemy", helps in internal politics of India. The sole arbiter of power at the "centre" can threaten the Muslims in India with the imaginary threat of non-Muslims swallowing them up, while they can raise the threat of Pakistan and Indian Muslims joining hands together against the non-Muslim Indians. The sole arbiter can therefore play neutral and be safe in power. They can also threaten Pakistan in the same way the MKG/JLN line blackmailed the Brits in the 45-47 period - if you do not walk with us, the "others" would take over reigns of power - and then you will have it much harder.

(4) Making "peace" with Pakistan helps in keeping the uncertainty and the threat - permanent.

Opposite of "peace" - escalation into war - forces the rashtra to go for "conclusions". More militant or more "give-in == mergers/unions" - extreme parties are morel likely to become stronger. That is a disaster for the current cozy equation in power. Apart from due potential pressure from external forces interested in keeping Pakistan's existence - the internal reason is the strongest one.

So "peace" attempt is a kind of not-so-subtle tactic of postponing the inevitable.

However, from Pak view point - "peace" is a disaster. India has to me made to see the need for both "peace" and the "price of peace" - by which some resource transfer takes place that keeps the pak state living. If there is too much of peace - the economic and other "concessions" needed to keep Pak afloat cannot be justifiably demanded by Pak - nor given by Indian rulers in the eye of the Indian electorate.

So a perpetual state of non-peace, not-war that is decisive, is beneficial for both ruling elites. What the more fanatical brethren not yet elitized in pakiland [after all there are onlee a limited number of ashraaf hoors and zamindaris to share] think of the strategy is an entirely different ball-game.

I feel that Pak will increasingly come repeatedly to the point of war. But it will need a very determined not-hating-Muslims but determined to wipe off the ideology - leadership, to break this everlasting cycle of mutual blackmailing.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 12 Apr 2013 23:47

As shiv ji says let's leave alone Islam out of TSP and see them as the evil rival to disrupt
The pluralistic democratic India
Islam is only a mask the real Intent is to destroy India

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 Apr 2013 00:05

pentaiah wrote:As shiv ji says let's leave alone Islam out of TSP and see them as the evil rival to disrupt
The pluralistic democratic India
Islam is only a mask the real Intent is to destroy India

To remove the mask, (TOP) Trasfer of population ought to be made Top agenda in dealing, negiotiation , CBM with Pakistan. Let Paki say Yes or No.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Apr 2013 00:11

Jhujar wrote:(TOP) Trasfer of population ought to be made Top agenda

Just ToA (Transfer of Ashrafs) may suffice!

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 13 Apr 2013 01:30

Here are different ways which could bring peace with pakistan. I do not see any other Pappi-Jhapphi options. W

1. Indian army destroys the Pakistani army and make it a protectorate (like Nepal, Bhutan).
or
2. Majority of Indians convert to Sunni Islam of Deobandi variety and thus nullifying the existence of Pakistan along with Ashrafs in charge.
or
3. Majority of Pakistanis leave Islam and/or become Hindus (Sanatan Dharm) thus nullifying the existence of Pakistan. Ashrafs do not matter.
or
4. Nuclear War decides who remains (chances are 90% for Indians to win) in control of subcontinent.
or
5. India forces economic embargo of Pakistan through external pressure on Arabia, USA and China., eventually which leads to disintegration of Pakistan into various small states (easily manageable).
or
6. please add to the list.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Apr 2013 01:35

Rudradev ji

Finally caught up with your peaceful post. I asked Mehdi N^3 a simple question. What was the difference between Indian and Pakistani Muslims (Ashraf or otherwise) on August 13, 1947?

Are Taliban and LET Ashraf?

Still waiting for the answer.

akashganga · Post by **akashganga** » 13 Apr 2013 01:36

pentaiah wrote:As shiv ji says let's leave alone Islam out of TSP and see them as the evil rival to disrupt
The pluralistic democratic India
Islam is only a mask the real Intent is to destroy India

When some says Islam is only a mask he is trying to say Islam is not the cause. The root cause is islam itself. Islam is inconsistent with dharmic values and Islam uses all means to destroy. Islam is out to destroy India and not just the wearer of islamic mask.

akashganga · Post by **akashganga** » 13 Apr 2013 01:51

SBajwa wrote:Here are different ways which could bring peace with pakistan. I do not see any other Pappi-Jhapphi options. W

1. Indian army destroys the Pakistani army and make it a protectorate (like Nepal, Bhutan).
or
2. Majority of Indians convert to Sunni Islam of Deobandi variety and thus nullifying the existence of Pakistan along with Ashrafs in charge.
or
3. Majority o witf Pakistanis leave Islam and/or become Hindus (Sanatan Dharm) thus nullifying the existence of Pakistan. Ashrafs do not matter.
or
4. Nuclear War decides who remains (chances are 90% for Indians to win) in control of subcontinent.
or
5. India forces economic embargo of Pakistan through external pressure on Arabia, USA and China., eventually which leads to disintegration of Pakistan into various small states (easily manageable).
or
6. please add to the list.

My 2 cents. Islam in indian subcontinent survives only because of support from arabia from were it comes. Without support from arabia islam cannot survive among dharmics. Islamists cannot debate dharmics as there is no spirituality in islam. Peace with pakistan will depend to a large extent what happens to islam in its birth place of arabia. There is good chance that current status quo will be maintained even after 25 years. What India should do is to strengther itself economically, be on par with the most advanced countries in science/technology, be militarily at least 5 times stronger than pakistan/bangladesh put together, make sure percentage of muslim population inside india does not cross 15%, etc.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Apr 2013 02:00

shiv wrote: The point here is that even if Islamism were declared by everyone including all of us on BRF to be a harmless bunny that requires love and understanding, it is a practical impossibility to have peace with Pakistan simply because you cannot change Pakistani hate propaganda and anti-Indian anti-Hindu mindsets, and you cannot wind down the military. This is part A of my thesis.

I think this part of the thesis falls on its face for one reason.

Assuming Islam is a harmless bunny that requires love and understanding, what other reason Pakistanis have to hate India or Hindus?

Let us assume all Pakistanis were Hindus on 13th August 1947. Then why would they want to separate from India? They are not Dravidians like Tamilians who want to save themselves from Aryan persecution.

If you can identity a reason for Hindu Pakistanis to demand separate nationhood, we can take the discussion from there.

I understand you intention to separate Islam from Pakistan. But that would just be a mental masturbation for the sake of it. If that is the case, I request you to spend your time and energies on Out-Of-India thesis than this.

More over you are committing Blasphemy by trying to separate Islam from Pakistan. I recommended you put a couple of Buddhist Burmese as security guards at your home.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Apr 2013 02:34

pentaiah wrote:As shiv ji says let's leave alone Islam out of TSP and see them as the evil rival to disrupt
The pluralistic democratic India
Islam is only a mask the real Intent is to destroy India

The intent to destroy "India" comes from Islam. There is never a lasting friendship between "nationalism" and "imperialism". The theology is a version of imperialism. It therefore can never tolerate "nationalism" -e specially one that is not majority Muslim. It only tolerates and uses "nationalism" in "intra-Muslim" conflicts as cover for coveting leadership of the empire. But all of them are seeking the throne of the emperor - and thereby control all the hoors and zamins obtainable under the force of the imperial onslaught.

Pakistan was merely a safe haven to obtain the strength and nuisance value of a protected base - to sustain the campaign for eventual subjugation of the resources of India for further contests against more ashraaf claimantS within the Ummah - for the top-cat post of the ummah.

Pakistan's hatred of India cannot be understood if separated from Islam. Pakistan is nothing in the round table of the Ummah - unless it can control the resources of the entire subcontinent.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Apr 2013 06:47

The problem that I am trying to address here is that Pakistan's behavior (whether it is caused by Islam or brain fever or inbreeding) requires an Indian response. I am trying to point out that the Indian response should be to two separate entities: 1.Pakistan's actual behaviour,and 2. to the root cause of that behaviour

What I mean here is that we, in our discussions, mix up two very different beasts. I am defining those two different beasts as follows:

1. Pakistan actual behaviour - hostility, inculcation of hate and co-option of Islamic allies (like ummah) and non Islamic allies like USA and China against India. Addressing Ashrafs or local Islamic factors does nothing to Pakistan's allies. I am suggesting a continued development of the military and industry for continuous hostility without pausing for a mythical peace which will not come. The reason that peace cannot come so soon is because the issue has gone beyond mere Islamism. It has now become a geopolitical force that is seen as a "secular problem" by Pakistan allies. Even if we mollycoddle and embrace Islamism we cannot get peace. India Pakistan issues are not seen as a problem of Islamism by shitland's allies no matter how much we bash our heads. That is a problem that we must face head on.

Pakistan's Islamism is not seen as a problem to anyone else - it is seen as an entity that has a right to survive by allies like USA and China and Pakistans suffering is sen in part as Hindu bigotry. Hence Pakistan's quest is secular and just. Indians are bigoted. We tend to ignore this when we bash Islamism which we insist is the root cause. Even if it is the root cause it does not help us because we are seen as the root cause by others.

2. The second, older and more insidious beast is Islamism. In the subcontinental context issues of Islamism have been addressed both by Rudradev and by Brihaspati and an entire new thread has been started for beast number 2.

That thread is here
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... f=1&t=6563

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Apr 2013 07:01

^

If we are to do this hypothetical exercise of a conflict between a Hindu India and an Indic Pakistan we can see the possible course of actions using the examples we have seen in independent India

1. If Pakistan were to be a communist state that is at odds with India, it would have behaved something like Nepal. It would have played China against India. But such a Pakistan would never have been a Nuclear state. in the worst case of war, India would have no qualms in occupying such a Pakistan, unless China does the honor like it did with Tibet.

2. If Pakistan were to be a Sikh state, at the most it would have been a Khalistani state. Even if it went to war with India to take Indian Punjab (a.l.a Hindu Kashmir), India would have given such a Pakistan a bloody nose and kept its Punjab within India.

3. If Pakistan were to be a Buddhist SriLanka and tried to hurt the Sikh/Hindu population the Indian response would be similar to it's handling of Tamil Eelam issue.

In all the above scenarios China along with west would have played key role.

But the game changer would have been -
1. An Indic Pakistan would not have been allowed to be a nuclear power, overt or covert.
2. An Indic Pakistan would not use "terrorism as a state policy"
3. An Indic Pakistan would not be a spoiler of India's geopolitical games in international fora
4. Most importantly the existence of an Indic Pakistan would have resulted in an Indic Afghanistan to be the western-Bhutan (With entire Kashmir in Indian control, the western Bhutan would be a protectorate of India)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Apr 2013 07:32

RamaYgaru forget the "If my aunt had a d*** she would have been my uncle" arguments

1. Pakistan is Islamist
2. Pakistan is hostile to India

You know (or you accuse Pakistan) that the hostility is because of Islam
Pakistan accuses you by saying that your hostility is Hindu bigotry

Who is correct? You say you are correct. Shitland say they are correct.

Unfortunately for you
1. China agrees that Pakistan is correct. It is Hindu bigotry that causes Pakistan trouble
2. US agrees with Pakistan. Hindu bigotry against secualr Pakistan is a problem. Pakistan's quest is just
3. KSA and Japan agree with Pakistan

Not even one of these countries blame Pakistan behviour towards India on Islam. they blame it on the danger to Muslims from Hindus.

That is your problem.

You may want to live in denial but by constantly harping on Islam's danger to you, you are only aggravating the impression that China, USA and other already have of Hindu bigotry.

Whatever preparation we make for hostility against Pakistan are dubbed as Hindu bigotry against Muslims of the subcontinent. I am saying that "Peace with Pakistan" is a reaction to this international criticism. People in India heve fallen for this international crap and think that peace with Pakistan can occur.

Leave Islam or Hindutva out of this:
1. Pakistan has 180 million people who hate India
2. they hve Chinese, US and French weapons to hit India

Whether Hindus are bigots or whether Muslims or bigots hardly matters. Pakistan is set to hit us for decades. Therefore our hands are tied we must prepare for continued hostility and must prepare for war against China supplied, US supplied and French supplied weapons.

Peace is not an option we have. Islam or no Islam

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Apr 2013 09:44

^ you are switching the goal posts - you wanted to study if Pakistan would be an enemy of India if it were not an Islamic state. Since this is your thesis, I will leave it to you.

If Pakistan is not an Islamic country and a Hindu country, it would in fact be helpful to extend Indin Interests.

Islam is the real enemy of India. Whether it is inside or outside of India is irrelevant.

Since Pakistan is Islam and Islam is Pakistan, it is good that India has Pakistand and the war can continue until Islam is defeated.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Apr 2013 10:02

RamaY wrote:^ you are switching the goal posts - you wanted to study if Pakistan would be an enemy of India if it were not an Islamic state. Since this is your thesis, I will leave it to you.

In fact I wanted to study no such thing. That part or your post is a misunderstanding. However you have understood clearly that my thesis is not what you would like to discuss, and I appreciate that.

Yes, do please concentrate on fighting Islam, which is your special interest. This thread is to provide a rationale for fighting Pakistan and opposing or neutralizing the actions of its allies, Islam or no Islam. I hope you understand that your special interest now has a separate thread of its own where you can continue your illuminating posts and valuable insights.

I shall eagerly look forward to them in that thread.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 13 Apr 2013 17:11

Shiv ji: TSP lost the geo-political game in 1965. It was their last chance, if there was one, for Bhutto did calculate it right. Since then they have been licking at their wounds and throwing weak punches. Peace has to be thrust upon Pakistan and what we need most is not a waffling leadership but a consistent and forceful one. If we are going to depend on TSP to get our goats up and react to a T-80 or F-16 purchases then all we will have is a T90 and a Mig 29 to show for it. A defense industry built in reaction to a threat 7-8 times less powerful than us by size of economy is laughable. No wonder many still go equal-equal of us. Let us at least choose our adversaries right to react to. Of course, it should not be lost on anyone that a strong defense is essential to keep the peace.

While "peace" may be unlikely in next 25 years and you may well be right, is my fear, I and many, many Indians (including the morons at all the "think tanks") certainly hope that you are wrong for India's sake. IOW: This so called "peace" maybe less than perfect is the best expectation, amongst a set of bad options. Peace and a strong defense are not mutually exclusive. Peace is a worthy goal with TSP and can be achieved but strong defense is an essential characteristic of such a peace, for it cannot be built on platitudes.

No matter what, a nation of 180+ million occupying a geo-strategic location cannot be wished away. Whether we make war to make peace or peace is achieved at the back of strength, one thing is clear, peace shall not be achieved by weak measures. Even war is a tool to achieve the goals of the Indian nation. Can war achieve this peace? In context of TSP, it occupies a geo-stratetic rental space that is used by third parties to screw our nation repeatedly. It is in Indian interests to control this space and its political contours. If great power commensurate with our "intrinsic capabilities" is our objective, then control of and a stable geo-political environment in the neighborhood, is a necessity. The ability to use all four measures of sama, dana, bheda and danda by a leader(s) can transform the relationship to achieve at the very least detente, if not entente.

I will posit this as an alternate to the thread. If peace is not achieved within the next 25 years then, India and the next 3-4 generations can forget about being citizens of a powerful and wealthy nation. When our grand kids turn around and ask why, they can look to us and rightly say, we were fools and worse.

PS: I am glad you do not want to discuss Islamism in this thread.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Apr 2013 17:16

shiv saar,

Pakistan can be brought to its heels and finished within a decade, IFF there is a government in India willing to show consistent resolve, despite 3½ friends. Islam too can be finished from Pakistan within 40 years, using the right tools.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Apr 2013 17:28

ShauryaT wrote:
I will posit this as an alternate to the thread. If peace is not achieved within the next 25 years then, India and the next 3-4 generations can forget about being citizens of a powerful and wealthy nation. When our grand kids turn around and ask why, they can look to us and rightly say, we were fools and worse.

No Shaurya - we need to go beyond the obvious. Peace cannot come, so we must make a virtue of non peace or war. We need to build up a military industrial complex that employs hundreds of millions and a nation that makes it costly for those who do not wish us peace.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 13 Apr 2013 17:31

shiv wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:
I will posit this as an alternate to the thread. If peace is not achieved within the next 25 years then, India and the next 3-4 generations can forget about being citizens of a powerful and wealthy nation. When our grand kids turn around and ask why, they can look to us and rightly say, we were fools and worse.
No Shaurya - we need to go beyond the obvious. Peace cannot come, so we must make a virtue of non peace or war. We need to build up a military industrial complex that employs hundreds of millions and a nation that makes it costly for those who do not wish us peace.

Peace cannot come, if we do not build a MIC.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 13 Apr 2013 18:40

RamaY wrote:
shiv wrote: The point here is that even if Islamism were declared by everyone including all of us on BRF to be a harmless bunny that requires love and understanding, it is a practical impossibility to have peace with Pakistan simply because you cannot change Pakistani hate propaganda and anti-Indian anti-Hindu mindsets, and you cannot wind down the military. This is part A of my thesis.
I think this part of the thesis falls on its face for one reason.

Assuming Islam is a harmless bunny that requires love and understanding, what other reason Pakistanis have to hate India or Hindus?

RamaY ji,

A case of friendly fire kya?

Anyways, I was trying to find a good reason to post on this thread and was failing to, besides off course the financial closure time. But now I believe I have at least one good reason.

Prima facie it seems fantastical to even suggest that Pakistan can be seen outside of its Islamic Zaheniyat. A country where 75% of the people want to describe themselves as Muslims when presented with the twin option of Muslim/Pakistani....Well mere baap ka kya jyata hai. You say you are muslims, I say you are muslims. But that is a very reductionist application of the basic Hindutva thought that most Indians are exposed to from a young age. If you really are invested in the idea that a Karmic understanding can explain your, self, plus the world around, then it would be wrong to exclude Pakis from this understanding. That would amount to abandoning of your investments.

It is difficult to believe that temporally speaking, a man is not his karma, rather is his claim. Claim is an amoebaic, maleable, negotiable, mutable thing, on its own. It is sonorous but ultimately tied by tenuous strings of ‘faith’ to a persons existence. A tight slap nearabout kanpatti/temples and the faith shakes and so do the claims. It is the Karm that provides the scaffolding for raising a true claim. A karm done actively &/or passively that demonstrates ones ‘faith’ in ones ‘claim’. If Islam says ‘kill the kaffir and abuse his women and take his children for slaves’ and the Muslim in question is not applying himself to that task, he can hardly claim to be a muslim. OTOH, it is equally true that if Islam is a ‘Religion of Peace and knowledge’ or something else entirely, and a Muslim in question fails to work in this direction then again his claim to being a Muslim fails. In both cases it is the Muslims deciding about, what the plucking bell, Islam really is. They too decide what level of Karm they are going to put into their claim of, what Islam really is. IOW they have sovereignty in matters of Islam. But the net output of their actions will decide what if they would retain that sovereignty.

Until now I had said a true claim is a claim with a belief in it. Now I think I can say further that a true existence is a belief that actuates action in the claimed direction.

..............................

Shivji,

you already have one thesis on Paki matters, which is course material for all BRF wale log. The title of this thread does not reflect the intent which I guess is that for next 25 years we cannot have peace with Pakistan. But it does seem under ambitious compared to your own earlier output.

Much before Pakistan was conceived by interested parties, there were Islamic invasions of India, from that part of Jambhudivpa. Before Islam, Ashoka too had quelled one of the two revolts in that region. The more obstinate revolt actually, the one his father could not handle. Even before that one of the Rajas (Ambhi) from that part actually worked with an Invader (Alexander). The OIT thread suggests that even prior to the Invader these areas were being contested upon by people who had walked off, even before they actually took up the contest (Achaemenids). Walked off something like ~8000 ybp ie. before/around Mahabharat. Contested probably because these areas at that time held substantial Bharatiya populations. Even prior to that I suspect the Assyrians were attacking the suspected Bharatiya populations of Mitanni and Elam. There are suggestions that after the ingress of Islam these contested places had people who walked over to Islam with full razamandi. Till today there are people who would rather suggest that these war mongering did not affect the Indics since Indics are still present in the scene. I am sure this logic would remain workable in future too if it is correct.

So why should the present not be seen as a mere extension of the past and if the past was negotiable for the Indics why cannot it be negotiable again. After all, Pakis of the Islam sanitized kind that become part of your Thesis, are much less dangerous to us than many other threats.

Equally what goes against using the argument that ‘past performance is no guarantee for future returns’. A universally accepted truism. Which brings us to one likely conclusion that whatever the Pakis do, we should not react. Rather we should have our own strategy to deal with the full bundle of threats presented to us. In which case Pakis may not even be at the top of the priority list.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Apr 2013 18:59

There is a certain strand of management dogma that tries to ignore factors that a manager cannot deal with - and project that some other factor must be considered and tackled - even if the "ignored" and the "to be considered" factors are inseparable. Net result - efforts and resources put into moves that become ineffective down the line. The manager will claim later on that he /she acted or projected based on available info at the time of projecting - and everyone can criticize based on hindsight.

This has happened too many times in Indian history over the last century. The "nationalist" leadership who expressed their "shock" and surprise at the violence with which large chunks of British Indian Muslim society condoned, or did not lift a single finger to obstruct if not always necessarily actively participating - in the violence and genocidal cleansing of non-Muslims from territories they were in numerical superiority - while remaining inactive and passive where they had the possibility of being wiped off in reaction had they moved at all - had been repeatedly warned about the dangers and eventuality of these very same "nationalist" leaderships' promotion of Islamists and islamist demands/themes decades before the genocide. At that time, these leaders had simply shouted that "Islamism" was not a factor of relevance in calculations. Later on they always excused themselves by saying - that they did not know it would come to such violence, they were surprised, yadda yadda - conveniently suppressing their own history of denial and whitewashing.

The Pak problem cannot be seen as separate in tactical or strategic plans from the problem of Islamism in the subcontinent. Any measure that does not build into it ways and means of dealing with Islamism - will fail in bringing either "peace" or "war" initiatives to desired for conclusions.

The apparent fear or weakness in GOI's in dealing with Pak - even militarily - comes partially from the historical memory of the Partition violence, but as well as a partially accurate assessment of numerically significant concentrations of Muslims as being potential battalions in a future jihad. The fear - which might not be entirely realistic - is that the Paki Muslim and Indian Muslim will make common cause. There is also the fear that the wider Gulf based Islamist networks will come up in support of Pak - in case India takes military steps, and India has to face the prospect of an Afghanistan.

The UK-US axis also uses the same prospects to keep their canine Pak alive and kicking. The unreliability of India - in spite of all possible attempts claim otherwise by "secularists", "congressites" and even portions of supposed "right-wing", leftists - in the eyes of Islamic countries and of Christian foundation nations - is the large "pagan" population of India. Hence both Anglo-Saxon and their Islamist allies fear the fall of Pak into Indian hands. It is not only about oil and oil and oil and mineral resources made out by vulgar-Marxian pontiffs. At the moment - they are dumping money and not making any profits in AFPAK.

So in order to have the non-peace solutions - India

(1) will have to isolate Pak from its UK-US and Gulf support, and in relation also China. Indian policy at the moment to "make friends" with these three - is more going towards appeasement that they do not "increase" their support. While it is in the interest of the three to increase support to Pak if India reacts by trying to please them more. Naive "strategic thinkers" claim that the Gulf investments or association with USA will make India a "sooper" power - [coming from perhaps a very conveniently selective and more accurately none-whatsoever-knowledge at all of th real history of super-power trajectories] and then India will be able to crush Pak. That will be the stupidest daydreaming ever. It is in US-UK and Gulf interests to preserve and strengthen Pak as much as possible - all the while lovey-dovey things go on between them and India.

They will never trust India - because of its large non-Abrahamic culture and society.

(2) Islamic governments have a special angle in their mindsets - stemming from the general theological culture - that is usually conveniently not modeled in "secular" treatment of the problem. This is their complete freedom from guilt in betrayal of agreements with non-Muslims. Further they have no problems in maintaining completely deceptive stances to lull suspicions of non-Muslims and any "friendly" gesture is essentially about buying time for the day when the Islamist entity feels it will be able mount a successful jihad against their ally or "friend". Pakistan and its Islamist backers in the Gulf as well as further down in IOR will continue in this mode. If India relies on any promises or even apparently improving gestures from Pak or its International islamist supporters - then it will be living in a fools deadly paradise.

(3) There are only two forces which have a cultural constraint in allying with the Islamists - and hence are more reliable - within constraints of their own respective geo-political weaknesses. These are Israel and Russia. This is a tricky combination as Russian orthodoxy has always had a thing or two about Judaism. But India needs to build up a way to steer between and with the two.

(4) Development of India's indigenous MIC is against UK-US and their Gulf allies' interest. It is also not in China's interests - but with China there is less of a rosy blush in Indian strategic thinking. Moreover MIC does not develop without actual participation in war or semi-wars. Its the pressures of war that drives exposure of weaknesses and leads to developments. But for GOI and the Indian state - the overwhelming promotion of the dynasty model - made it easier for [or perhaps that was exactly the reason it was initiated for] carrot and stick of assassinations and/or "investment prospects" to make it clear to Indian "heads" that if they make any show of military power projections beyond the box the UK wanted Hindu India to be restricted to militarily, those "heads" will roll.

The lesson seems to have been quite effective. So as long as the dynastic basis of GOI continues - India will be prevented form projecting military dominance and even participation in conflicts which may trigger internal forces demanding greater MIC-ization.

"Peace" is a desperate need for some in India, and it gets traction - because it coincides with two external interests. The UK-US interest [as well as Scandinavian] in hogging the global weapons supply industry, as well as to protect all the "sovereign" counterweights devised by the Brits to keep the unreliable pagan dominated country within a tight box. The second interst is of course that of the international islamist forces - which need the time to gain sufficient strength to overwhelm India with a combination of demograpic and jihadi techniques.

The window to solve the Pak problem is very short - another 20-30 years. The global trend otherwise is an expansion of Islamist influence in, if not complete Islamization of the European sphere.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 13 Apr 2013 19:39

B, very good post.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Apr 2013 19:45

ravi_g wrote: So why should the present not be seen as a mere extension of the past and if the past was negotiable for the Indics why cannot it be negotiable again. After all, Pakis of the Islam sanitized kind that become part of your Thesis, are much less dangerous to us than many other threats.

The present should always be seen as an extension of the past. Given that assumption how long into the future should I suggest a plan for given my lifetime and experiences?

I can play wise philosopher and say that Islamism will have been digested/dissolved/dissipated in 1000 years so no worry. But that is not my intent. My intention is merely to point out circumstances that are true today and the action that will be beneficial for the next 25 years.

What is true today?

1. The chances of unmitigated hostility from Pakistan for the next 25 years
2. The fact that allies and friends of Pakistan are supporting action that will keep Pakistan stationed as an implacable enemy of India for at least 25 years
3. We have a population (in India) of maybe 200 million under 15 years, In 5 to 20 years time all will need to be usefully employed.

What employment should we plan for them today?

I say that putting these young people into lines that help Indian security in the next 25 years and beyond would be useful.

What I mean is as follows. We must have a plan to employ our 200 million under-15s.

a. Let the smartest and physically fit and mentally suitable ones join the armed forces. Let us have no plan of cutting down armed forces even if some temporary toilet paper peace agreement is reached with shitistan. Let us not be thwarted by pea brains who say "peace looks likely", let us cut down our armed forces.

b. Let the smartest who do not enter the forces but do science have, when they pass out, universities and industries that are created and funded for research and production for defence related industries - metallurgy, electronics, chemicals. Make employment in such industries available widely and make salaries good. Let there be incentives for working in defence related industries' Invest in university departments to teach military history and strategy

c. This will still leave more than a hundred million youngsters - some less capable than others of getting the coveted top lines. They need to have opporunities open as security men in private security led by retired armed forces people to man security at all the areas that will need security because we have a Pakistan next to use spewing terrorists

The reason I mention the above three points is that they must not be left to chance and our current demography must be seen as an asset that can be used for the twin purpose of employment and security. We need to plan thrust areas actively now so they are mature in 10-15 years leading to a country that others should be scared to mess with.

At this point in time I am making no plans beyond 25 years and no predictions

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Apr 2013 19:53

brihaspati wrote:So in order to have the non-peace solutions - India

(1) will have to isolate Pak from its UK-US and Gulf support, and in relation also China. Indian policy at the moment to "make friends" with these three - is more going towards appeasement that they do not "increase" their support. While it is in the interest of the three to increase support to Pak if India reacts by trying to please them more. Naive "strategic thinkers" claim that the Gulf investments or association with USA will make India a "sooper" power - [coming from perhaps a very conveniently selective and more accurately none-whatsoever-knowledge at all of th real history of super-power trajectories] and then India will be able to crush Pak. That will be the stupidest daydreaming ever. It is in US-UK and Gulf interests to preserve and strengthen Pak as much as possible - all the while lovey-dovey things go on between them and India.

The window to solve the Pak problem is very short - another 20-30 years. The global trend otherwise is an expansion of Islamist influence in, if not complete Islamization of the European sphere.

A popular way of creating trouble for India for the West and Islamists is simply to increase the entropy in our periphery as well as within India. The less India can control the developments the more tied up India becomes and cannot project any amount of control and global power.

We can use a similar method against the 3½ friends.

The whole machine works because there is coordination and cooperation between key TSPA/ISI people and Western intelligence and political leadership. This is the weak point because it is the nexus where the whole power of the West and Saudi billionaires meets the topsy-turvy world of Jihadis. This nexus point needs to be taken out, and one can use Jihadis themselves to do the job, but somebody needs to run these Jihadis.

Also one needs to increase the power of the Arab Shia to take on the Saudis, so basically Basra should have our biggest "embassy".

brihaspati wrote:They will never trust India - because of its large non-Abrahamic culture and society.

They will trust India once we make them Dharmics!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Apr 2013 20:24

Shivji

I understand your thought behind this thread. You want to convince Indians that peace is not likely between Indian and Pakistan even if we ignore the Islamist nature of Pakistan.

Peace is unlikely is because in order to convince Pakistan that India doesn't have any ill intentions towards them, India will have to do the following
- India converts to Islam. Even that is not sufficient because a 1.2+ billion strong Islamic India will have a stronger say in Ummah, thus undermining Pakistani national interests.
- That islamic India must splinter into 300-400 pieces so that not a single splinter can be larger than the smallest Pakistani state/province
- No single Islamic splintered Indian region should have any economic or military activity that can threaten even the smallest Pakistani province

And so on...

For India to achieve all those CBMs to satisfy Pakistani national interests, it will take at least 200-300 years (ref: it took the great 7th century Islamic warriors more than that time to defeat and convert Pakistan).

Thus even if India goes full steam on this Indo-Pak peace process, it cannot fulfill all Pakistani requirements in 25 years.

So peace is unlikely for next 25 years. Of course that doesn't mean WKKs should stop their project in islamicizing and breaking India.

Hope this makes you happy

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Apr 2013 20:34

The problem in thrashing out a solution to Pakistan has been that we have depended on the 3½ friends to withdraw support to Pakistan, hoping that they would see Pakistan's deviousness and how much harm Pakistan causes them.

That is really a useless strategy.

Instead we should take the help of Jihadis and finish off Pakistani Army and ISI. Then Pakistan becomes completely useless to the 3½ friends.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Apr 2013 20:41

RamaY wrote:
So peace is unlikely for next 25 years. Of course that doesn't mean WKKs should stop their project in islamicizing and breaking India.

Hope this makes you happy

RamaY you need not be concerned about my happiness, and I am unconcerned about yours.
I believe that there is a section of people in India who do not buy the Islamism argument that is being made on BRF. They do not see an Islamist threat. The raisin dieter of this thread is simply to point out to such people that there are secular reasons for being prepared and working towards unassailable military strength.

Even if you think that Islamism is no threat, that is not an excuse for winding down preparation for increased military power projection.

To me it is unfortunate that people such as yourself who are able to see the Islamist threat and have no objection to Indian preparendess confuse my argument and imagine that I am saying Islamism is NOT a threat. All I am saying is that Pakistan remains a threat even if you think that Islamism is a bunny. This is for the consumption of all secular people.

Why are you so scared that I am somehow trying to let Islamism get away? You seem unable to read my intent and insist on scoring self goals.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Apr 2013 20:50

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 13 Apr 2013 20:54

shiv wrote: 3. We have a population (in India) of maybe 200 million under 15 years, In 5 to 20 years time all will need to be usefully employed.

What employment should we plan for them today?

An MIC is an important generator of employment for people with varying capabilities. However, doubt if it alone can generate anything close to 200 million type of numbers. You are touching on employment matters here, which is an entirely different story and OT directly. But, it is all connected. If we are successful in an MIC, it automatically would mean that our economy would also become largely industrial and it is such an industrial economy that will generate employment for 200 million. If the threat from Pakistan alone ensures this for us then I am all for war forever with TSP. But, doubt that trajectory.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Apr 2013 21:21

ShauryaT wrote:If the threat from Pakistan alone ensures this for us then I am all for war forever with TSP. But, doubt that trajectory.

+1

Precisely. The threat is NOT from Pakistan alone. Pakistan's Islamism is supported by vested interests. One of the reasons why I did not want this thread to degenerate into one of the myriad therads we have had about Islamism is that we are so soo busy in trying to solve 1300 year old Islamism that we forget that Islamism in Pakistan gets it support from non Islamist forces who can be opposed and thwarted long before Islamism is brought under control.

It is for all those extra forces outside of and in addition to Pakistan that we cannot do anything but work towards an MIC as we work towards and industrialised society. That is what I am trying to point out. Pakistan is not our only threat and people who imagine that solving Pakistan will somehow result in peace need to understand what is really going on.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 13 Apr 2013 21:25

Those who give cover of secularism/pissism/dhimmism are part of the problem, without that cover Nazara-e-anti-hinduism can do nothing.

There should be a clear logic well defined to get these slaves/friends of barbarians too. A simple example could be tit-for-tat, or judging by same same standards, etc. Say why burning of Christian school in Kashmir is not an issue. These dhimmis/slaves/pissniks should be fair game to be dragged to courts and judged in courts frequently and their lies and duplicities must be exposed repeatedly.

member_23692 · Post by **member_23692** » 13 Apr 2013 21:28

I profoundly disagree with the thesis, in the following way.

First of all, all this talk about destroying Pakistan in a military sense has no place in any serious discussion. Why ? In order to understand why, we have to first understand what Pakistan is. Pakistan is merely a forward extension, a front line arm, an expeditionary mission base of the overall Islamic imperialism and expansion. This assertion of mine presupposes that Islam is at least some kind of minimally cohesive entity which has a common vision and can think strategically and tactically to achieve that vision. Some people may argue that Islam does not meet the test of being a minimally cohesive entity that has a common vision and can think strategically and/or tactically. To support this argument, they will point to the fact that Islam itself is divided into many different sects, has many different ethinicities and clearly is politically and territorrially divided. All this is true, but I still argue that Islam is at least minimally a cohesive entity which has a common vision and can think strategically and tactically. Why do I think so ? Because the operative word here is "minimally". It is not necessary for an entity to be "absolutely" cohesive to achieve results, it is enough for an entity to be merely "more cohesive" than its competition. In other words, in real world, it is all about relative strength and not absolute strength, because in real world, no one can be without weaknesses and all powerful and Godlike. Cultures, ideologies, nations and societies get on top and dominate, despite their weaknesses, because others are even weaker and are not able to realize their full potential. Another very profound and subtle point to note is that in most cases, certainly a lot of cases if not most, there is nothing inherent that makes another society relatively weak, in fact, most societies have great potential to come out on top, but what makes them inherently weak is not some genetic weakness or lack of potential, but just actual collective and individual acts within those societies on the ground over a period of time that prevent those societies from realizing their full potential. I believe very strongly that Islam is more cohesive and has been so, since its inception in relation to all others, with the exception of a two hundred year period when not only Islam but the whole world was blind sided by the renaissance induced age of exploration and the resultant industrial revolution in the West. The resulting superiority of the West during those 200 years is practically coming to an end now in the early 21st century, re-establishing Islam as the "most cohesive" force in the world once again, as it has been from the 7th Century AD through the 18th century and perhaps even the 19th century.

Despite its internal contradictions due to sectarianism, fractured politics, territorial separation, and multiple ethnicities, Islam is unified at its core by the ideas of Quoran and to a large extent by the supporting Hadees (Hadiths ? or Hadis ?). I believe the entire thesis of Quoran and its supporting books is an ideology that promotes and glorifies 1) exclusivity, 2) demonizing of the people not of the book(the kafirs) to the point of branding them less than human, 3) conversion of the kafir by force and/or deception, 4) Killing of kafirs that refuse to convert by force and/or deception and 5) grabbing of as much territory and resources by force in the name of Islam as possible and create "holy lands" (Pakistans, not one but many) there (holy lands mean in Islam, where the word of Allah as manifested in Qoran and Quoranic law in the form of Sharia prevails). So at its core, all the different political entities, sects, ethnicities and nations within Islam believe in the above and are united in promoting the above. "The above" can be in simple terms be encapsulated in one idea, namely "make the whole world islamic, by hook or by crook". Now the question arises, how despite all the differences within Islam itself, where some within Islam are bitter enemies of each other, Islam can manage to be a cohesive enough entity to be able to be superior(in relative terms, of course) to all others in achieving their goals of "making the whole world Islamic, by hook or by crook" ? This, I think is the crux of the matter and is not given much thought to by anybody, including the intellectuals on this forum. I think the reason why people on this forum have not given this question much thought, despite possessing superior intellect, is that Hindu intellectuals have a blind spot in their minds about one thing. They equate good results with good morality. They cannot imagine that an evil ideology, an inferior philosophy which contains nothing but violence, destruction, and "un-civilization" can win out. But sometimes it does. There is nothing in the laws of logic that states that only the "good" wins or should win. "Good" is a subjective terms, logic is objective. So, once we free ourselves of the notion that only the "Good" wins and the "bad" is inevitably doomed to extinction, will we be able to get out of the state of denial that we are in, and then we will be able to see very clearly that Islam, despite its differences has superior organization or has organized itself in a superior way than others. How ? To understand how Islam has organized itself in a superior way, let us do a small case study and then extrapolate it into the larger Islamic world. Take the case of Al-Quaida or even Laskhar-e-Toiba or JAish-e-Mohammed or even theTalban as a whole or even look at organizations as disparate as Dawood Ibrahim's D company and the ISI. Look at their strategy and tactics. They have been successful in achieving their goals way beyond their resources (again in relative terms, they have not achieved 100% of their goals). How ? they are past masters and expert practitioners of "independent cell" strategies and tactics. They long ago created and put into practice the idea of independent, disjoint and sometimes sleeper cells, that do not need to stay in constant communications with each other and do not need to coordinate with each other in any detailed manner. Each cell has very simple and limited goals and ideology, which is to destroy the non-Islamic, create as much havoc in the non-Islamic world as possible, using the crudest, simplest and cheapest of all weapons and not be bound or curtailed or constrained by any "good" civilizational aspects of humanity, and if it results in self destruction of that particular cell, so be it, that cost should be acceptable to all, including those members of the cells that are being destroyed. So, this cell concept has been highly successful, because it gives the organization a non linear and non tangible structure. There is no head to cut, no body, no tail. There are just cells that are independent, destruction of one doesnt affect the other and these cells are easily reproducable and replacable. Islam as a whole is like that. Iran and Saudis may be divided sect wise and politically and may be totally distinct cultures, but they are like larger cells within the body of Islam, which sometimes harm each other, but stay completely true to the idea of "creating as much havoc" in the non_Islamic world and spreading "Islam by hook or crook".

So, now we circle back to Pakistan, with which we started this discussion and this post. Pakistan is merely another "cell" in the larger body of Islam. It may be different from other cells, in that it is located in the front lines of Islam today, at its borders. Because it is located at its borders, its next and immediate target and focus and area of operation is the area that happens to be right across the border from it, ie., India. And because it is located at the frontier of Islam, it has to be by nature more lethal, because it has to serve the dual purpose of defending Islam against non-Islamics and attacking non-Islamics in order to advance the larger goal of the organism called Islam, of which it (Pakistan) is merely one cell. Now this cell has armed itself with nuclear weapons, so it has almost made itself indestructable by outsiders(US or India) using military means. In fact, even when it was not armed with nuclear weapons, India was not able to destroy it (we can get into a whole lifetime of discussion why, but the fact remains that India was not able to destroy this cell), now it is that much more difficult. And even, if by some miracle, this cell called Pakistan does get destroyed, so what ? It is only a temporary and inexpensive setback for the larger organism called Islam. Cells are replaceable and killing of one cell does not wound the organism seriously anyway. In any case, undue focus on destruction of just one cell, no matter how lethal focussed it is on India, is extremely counter productive. Let us not forget, if it was not Gaznavi, it was Gauri, if it was not Gauri, it was Abdali and on and on. Undue focus on one, to the exclusion of others is not wise.

So, what is the answer ? How do we destroy the whole organism and not just cells ? Is killing cell by cell the best strategy (I think not) ? So, what is a good strategy ? Well, we can discuss this here. I would like to hear what others think. But I can lay out two suggestions.

1) Stop living in denial and use logic as much as possible, as that is the greatest weapon of the relatively weak, to find logical contradictions in the enemy and exploit them and to not allow the enemy to find contradictions within us. Once we are able to face reality and get our head out of the sand, we are smart enough to come up with the answers.

2) To strengthen ourselves internally.

Why I profoundly disagree with the thesis ? Because, there is no question of any partially civilized society to ever have any peace with Islam. And Islam is not going away in the next 25 years (we all can take that to the bank) and hell, not even the one cell, Pakistan is going away anywhere in the next 25 years. Until Islam disappears there will never be any peace in the world, leave alone the subcontinent which is the current front line battle ground for Islamic expansion. And Islam, like I said is not going away anywhere in the next 25 years. In fact, if I use logic, all indications are for there to be a totally Islamic world within the next 250 years (250 years seem like a long time, but is not even a blip even in human history).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Apr 2013 21:41

rsangram wrote:
First of all, all this talk about destroying Pakistan in a military sense has no place in any serious discussion.
<snip>
Why I profoundly disagree with the thesis ? Because, there is no question of any partially civilized society to ever have any peace with Islam.

Sangramji. I have no disagreement with your thoughts except to point out that you have, like many others simply misunderstood the reason for the thread and made 3 errors about what i am trying to say. You have merely reiterated points about Islamism and Pakistan that are well known on BRF

Mistake 1: There is nothing in this thread about destroying Pakistan militarily
Mistake 2: There is nothing in this thread that denies that islam is a problem. The request is that Islam be discussed in a separate thread
Mistake 3: imagining that there is no problem other than Islam and Pakistan. Pakistan's Islamism has non Islamist supporters who would like to see us busy fighting Islam permamently. Or submit. We need to take care of that extra challenge beyond Pakistan and Islamism. Endless discussions of Islamism and Pakistan do nothing to address that.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Apr 2013 22:06

There seems to be a gap in understanding one of the points that i am getting at and I believe it is an important point so I will try and explain it again.

For a minute (for the time it takes to read this paragraph) imagine that Pakistan is not an Islamic state and then look at Pakistan's behavior towards India over the last 60 years. You will realize that Pakistan's behavior has been bad, even if you were to blame its bad behavior on something other than Islam. Pakistan is an ill behaved state that does not deserve to survive. This last statement is something that few people on BRF disagree with.

Now let us pull in fact that Pakistan is an islamic state and we are truthful people and we point out the truth that Pakistani behavior towards India is motivated by Islam. It is Islam that is at war with India and not simply some secular state with grievances.

If you agree that this second paragraph is the truth, what does it indicate?

It indicates that India is fighting Islam, or at least India has been fighting islamist forces from Pakistan for the last 60 years.

If you agree with the above statement, let me shift to what Pakistan accuses India of doing. Pakistan accuses India of being anti Muslim and anti-Islamic.

All of us have just agreed that india has been fighting Islam for 60 years. Pakistan is saying the same thing. Pakistan is right. India is anti-Islam. We are fighting war against Islam while pretending to be secular.

The US and China agree with that. The US and China do not think Pakistan is islamist. They think Pakistan is a normal secular state with a huge India problem. An India that threatens Pakistan's existence because India is anti-Muslim and anti-Islam. Since we have already agreed that India is fighting Islam, the US and China are right. They are well within their rights to arm Pakistan. They are well within their rights to describe India as an anti-Muslim state.

Under these circumstances should we cop out and say "Heck we are not anti-Islam" or should we prepare to fight everyone who disagrees with us, including the US and China?

member_23692 · Post by **member_23692** » 13 Apr 2013 22:12

shiv wrote:
rsangram wrote:
First of all, all this talk about destroying Pakistan in a military sense has no place in any serious discussion.
<snip>
Why I profoundly disagree with the thesis ? Because, there is no question of any partially civilized society to ever have any peace with Islam.
Sangramji. I have no disagreement with your thoughts except to point out that you have, like many others simply misunderstood the reason for the thread and made 3 errors about what i am trying to say. You have merely reiterated points about Islamism and Pakistan that are well known on BRF

Mistake 1: There is nothing in this thread about destroying Pakistan militarily
Mistake 2: There is nothing in this thread that denies that islam is a problem. The request is that Islam be discussed in a separate thread
Mistake 3: imagining that there is no problem other than Islam and Pakistan. Pakistan's Islamism has non Islamist supporters who would like to see us busy fighting Islam permamently. Or submit. We need to take care of that extra challenge beyond Pakistan and Islamism. Endless discussions of Islamism and Pakistan do nothing to address that.

No disagreements. I think we understand each other well.

1. Not you, but others have spoken not only on this thread but other threads on this forum about destroying Pakistan. In fact, that seems to be a recurring theme on this forum. To me, this is a "shekh chilli" thought.

2. I agree, you have not made the point that Islamism is not a threat. But I suppose, the idea of Pakistan being merely a "cell" in the overall Islamic challenge is more firmly entrenched in my mind than perhaps yours ( I dont know, but it doesnt really matter much whether you believe in it only 100% and I believe in it 200%). So, no disagreement on this point as well.

3. On point three, you misunderstood me. Nowhere in my post do I remotely come close to suggesting that there are no problems that we face other than Islam and Pakistan. Of course we face other problems. There will always be problems. Even if we wake up tomorrow to find out that Islamism was just one bad dream that we all had and doesnt really exist, we will still have other major problems, not the least of which are problems that exist within us and self created. In fact, we have the benefit of actually knowing from pre-Islamic history that we had problems even then. An example, although some people think that it was relatively benign, was Alexander's invasion, which was certainly a problem, in my mind and had nothing to do with Islam. Islam was not even born yet. And Alexander's invasion was in my mind, merely a symptom or manifestation of problems we created as a people for ourselves, rather than the problem of Alexander being more powerful than us. Therefore, no disagreement on this point either.

As far as your effort to convince people who do not see Islamism as a threat, by using secular arguments, I do have a disagreement with you. While your attempts are laudable, you are merely attempting to convince fools and idiots and perhaps retards. While I agree that Islamism is not the only threat, it certainly is the largest and our most immediate threat. Those who do not see Islamism as a threat are like people standing on the moon and not seeing Earth or people standing on Europa and not being aware of Jupiter. Why would you waste your time with such morons ? You will never be able to convince them. Even if you are able to convince them on this one issue, these people will always be a civilizational drag on our culture. The only solution for such people is to either convert to Islam or if and when we get a nationalistic ruling structure, to send them to "re-education" camps.

And if you are referring to non-Indians such as the Americans and the Brits or the Europeans who you are trying to convince, as according to you, they dont believe that Paki is part of the Islamic threat, then you are wrong again. Either, they actually think that Paki and/or Islamism is not a threat to them (leave aside India) or they just pretend to think so, since they dont have the stomach to fight this threat or the intellectual smarts to be able to fight it successfully and therefore prefer to bury their heads in the sand (which I believe is true about them), your arguments, in either case, are unlikely to move them. They are also idiots, if they think like that (either way), and you are wasting your time on them too.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Apr 2013 22:15

rsangram wrote:While your attempts are laudable, you are merely attempting to convince fools and idiots and perhaps retards.

Here I disagree. It is easy to dismiss 70% of the population as fools and retards. I do not wish to do that.

Besides, with so many non fools and non retards looking after the fight with Islamism so competently on a multitude of threads and fora, I see the opportunity for one person to speak separately to the fools and retards without the usual reminders about Islam and how anyone who cannot see the Islam threat is a fool.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 13 Apr 2013 22:28

shiv wrote:One of the reasons why I did not want this thread to degenerate into one of the myriad therads we have had about Islamism is that we are so soo busy in trying to solve 1300 year old Islamism that we forget that Islamism in Pakistan gets it support from non Islamist forces who can be opposed and thwarted long before Islamism is brought under control.

True, the capabilities (material and psychological) of these non-islamist forces act as force multipliers for TSP, prolonging its delusions at the minimum and costing Indian lives directly or indirectly. India ought to have its own version of the monroe doctrine, if it ever seeks better control of her own security. IMO, this is an essential step and something, that can and should be done in the next 25 years. Shame on us, if ever a third party seeks to sail into our waters or send any forces anywhere close to the subcontinent.

dada · Post by **dada** » 13 Apr 2013 22:29

rsangram

congratulations for a good exposition of yr idea !

Cancer Analogy is particularly very useful to understand this phenomena

The main reason cancer can be difficult to cure is that it can spread to a different part of the body from where it started.
The cancer that grows where it first started in the body is called the 'primary cancer'
The place a cancer spreads to and then starts growing is called the 'secondary cancer' or 'metastasis'.

How a cancer spreads
To spread, some cells from the primary cancer break away & travel to another part of the body and start growing there
Cancer cells do not stick together as well as normal cells do.
They also may produce substances that stimulate them to move. But how do cancer cells travel through the body?

There are three main ways a cancer spreads
Local spread : cancer grows directly into nearby body tissues
Through the blood circulation : detached from the primary cancer tumour , move through the wall of a blood vessel into the blood stream until it stuck somewhere & start multiplying
Through the lymphatic system

We do not have deterministic solution to this problem todate ! Not likely to evolve either !
What is clear is that the cancer of the patient dies with the death of the patient !
Does it gives us an inkling as to where we are headed ?

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 13 Apr 2013 22:50

Folks try to understand where shiv is coming from!
Islam drives TSP hatered of India is known to one and all atleast the one who are in this forum
Pakjabi insecurity and hence superiority feeling of the right to rule from Delhi a la moghs is a dream that they nurture is known
We as Indians care two hoots if they want to worship satan for all we know
The issue or opportunity on hand and in discussion ought to be sans Islam how can India develop itself with getting to BS talks of peace and common heritage
When they say they have nothing in common and went their ways

So put your energies and creative solution opportunities
With out the baggage of religion which is not prone to reform or evolving as time goes on .
For all the bravery touted by followers if the pure don't have enough guts or balls to be inclusive and diverse.

So the discussion should be to educate Indians the need to be ready for war through self reliance and clear military manufacturing superiority
As you guys know some the most innovative technologies came about during intense war periods
If not for 1948 1962 1965 we would not be successful in 1971

So no peace except on our unilateral terms