Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 Jun 2009 01:46

I am worried about Bihar and North Bengal, and even Assam. The corridor is vulnerable here. And Bihar can unravel what you are thinking of, because of the Nepal connection.

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 07 Jun 2009 01:57

brihaspati wrote:I am worried about Bihar and North Bengal, and even Assam. The corridor is vulnerable here. And Bihar can unravel what you are thinking of, because of the Nepal connection.

Bihar is a difficult case. This is reason my idea of "iron fence" touches western UP, MP, CHT, JHKD, sourhern WB. This will seal off Bihar.

My geographical model aims for consolidation without getting into clashes due to demographic peculiarities. Only exception is western UP in this model, which is important to have unfettered access to Himalayan waters sources.

Bihar will be a contested area. It will then depend on Bihars inhabitants. They will very soon face the clash between Greens and Reds.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 Jun 2009 02:21

Yes. But I would be reluctant to lose North Bengal, for Assam must be protected, o,w. BD gets half of NE, the other half being given up to Pandamonium. You are correct in assessing about western UP. I think Rajasthan would be quite porous, and Punjabi Sikhs will resist valiantly but that line cannot be held for long. So Doaba does become extremely crucial, in fact pivotal. And as you point out, the green corridor from Kerala, through porous TN, to Andhra needs to be disrupted. This makes Andhra and TN crucial.

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 07 Jun 2009 02:33

brihaspati wrote:Yes. But I would be reluctant to lose North Bengal, for Assam must be protected, o,w. BD gets half of NE, the other half being given up to Pandamonium. You are correct in assessing about western UP. I think Rajasthan would be quite porous, and Punjabi Sikhs will resist valiantly but that line cannot be held for long. So Doaba does become extremely crucial, in fact pivotal. And as you point out, the green corridor from Kerala, through porous TN, to Andhra needs to be disrupted. This makes Andhra and TN crucial.

I'm only thinking in terms of political sense, that we can have nationalist/right of center rules in various areas. The areas pointed out are possible cases by normal political processes (except western UP).

If we wish to break into Bihar, a grassroots level cultural movement needs to start immediately.

For North Bengal and Assam I don't see how they can revert back to nationalist sphere. Assam just fielded a political party for and by BD Muslims. North Bengal won't be far behind. Riots in Assam are just a beginning. This rot is going to spread to Bihar, district by district.

This is geographical expansion DGFI is working for.

The BD Islamists will eventually clash with Maoists in Bihar.

raji · Post by **raji** » 07 Jun 2009 03:01

Sroy,

Please post your response in the Corruption Tracker thread of General Discussion.

Question for you.

What are the chances of getting a Hindu revolt going in India based on the following principles:

1. Creation of a just, fair and non corrupt Hindu Nation within India

2. The guiding principles of this revolt and nation are mentioned by me in the Corruption Tracker post in General Discussion.

What are the chances of getting the armed forces involved ? How can it be strategised to get at least some parts of the armed forces involved in such an endeavor ?

Thanks.

Mod edit: Sir, you can take your linear programming elsewhere on the internet. We appreciate your views on corruption, but this "revolt" business you will have to do elsewhere. You have had many chances now and you are permanently banned for trying to incite activities against Bharat. You are free to disagree, of course, but you are not the one who makes rules on this site.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 Jun 2009 04:37

raji-ji,
there are ways and means of discussing what you are proposing, without being so explicit. Associating "corrupt/uncorrupt" with "Hindu" can be misleading, for then similar associations can be brought up with the Abrahamic etc. Further, what role the armed forces will play, will be clear when the situation arises, and we can avoid speculating. At this point, what you are suggesting, will result in a repeat of Tiananmen Square.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 07 Jun 2009 05:58

Folks,

Is there a "presentation" of the "strategic scenario" that we could use (alternately, I could post one here and you can comment?). The approach I outlined on page 43 seems to be gaining some traction and audience.

Thanks!
S

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 Jun 2009 17:24

Samuelji,
please go ahead and place one here. There are now several versions and lines developing here.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 07 Jun 2009 18:21

Thank you, I will. Turns out, corruption (here, an "out of turn" access) doesn't seem to discriminate by cause. The main story line:

Part 1 (1-3 years of access).
1. Case: Growing Economy and Energy Demands.
2. Advantages of Access to CAR
3. Current Difficulties in accessing CAR.
4. Historic Difficulties in accessing CAR.
5. Developing Influence.
6. Rethinking policy for better influence.
7. Developing national momentum for change.
8. Why that seems nearly impossible.
9. The potential future scenarios, as a consequence.
(and repeat with a different case, the second one is "string of pearls." And of course this strategy will change)

So, in each such "lesson" we start with some significant "economic benefit" and show how it needs bold policies and national momentum, which we lack. After several such scenarios it becomes impossible to ignore the pattern emerging. Then, the next part (part 2) is to ask the person for their solution and setup a debate or discussion they become a stake holder in. I'll articulate that later.

Please note that a phenomenal amount of work is necessary even to get to step (1) of part 1. The best candidate is:
a. close to the choir.
b. receptive to listening.

S

raji · Post by **raji** » 07 Jun 2009 23:02

samuel wrote:Thank you, I will. Turns out, corruption (here, an "out of turn" access) doesn't seem to discriminate by cause. The main story line:

Part 1 (1-3 years of access).
1. Case: Growing Economy and Energy Demands.
2. Advantages of Access to CAR
3. Current Difficulties in accessing CAR.
4. Historic Difficulties in accessing CAR.
5. Developing Influence.
6. Rethinking policy for better influence.
7. Developing national momentum for change.
8. Why that seems nearly impossible.
9. The potential future scenarios, as a consequence.
(and repeat with a different case, the second one is "string of pearls." And of course this strategy will change)

So, in each such "lesson" we start with some significant "economic benefit" and show how it needs bold policies and national momentum, which we lack. After several such scenarios it becomes impossible to ignore the pattern emerging. Then, the next part (part 2) is to ask the person for their solution and setup a debate or discussion they become a stake holder in. I'll articulate that later.

Please note that a phenomenal amount of work is necessary even to get to step (1) of part 1. The best candidate is:
a. close to the choir.
b. receptive to listening.

S

Thats the reason corruption belongs here in this thread. Every strategic scenario will have to be mapped out, with and without corruption and bingo........you will see the difference.

If thats what you are saying, Samuel, old boy.......you are a jolly good fellow.......

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jun 2009 00:13

raji, Enough. I will be forced to think you are trolling. You cannot post the same words in every thread and try to disrupt it. There are threads on that subject dear to your heart. If you persist might have to send you away for contemplation.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 08 Jun 2009 00:25

brihaspati,

are you talking of the Siliguri Corridor when you say you are apprehensive?

raji · Post by **raji** » 08 Jun 2009 00:48

ramana wrote:raji, Enough. I will be forced to think you are trolling. You cannot post the same words in every thread and try to disrupt it. There are threads on that subject dear to your heart. If you persist might have to send you away for contemplation.

Have you read my posts in other threads and particularly the one on corruption ? You think I am trolling ?....

Have you ever heard that song ? "If loving you is wrong, I dont wanna be right " ?

Let me make up a song for you.....

"If my posts here are trolling, I dont wanna be not trolling......"..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jun 2009 01:06

Yes I read your posts in corruption thread and a whole lot.And they make sens there. But when you persist in bringing in non-sequitors in this thread even after being told repeatledly not to do that then I have to assume you are insistent on disrupting it. So ha, ya na? Your choice.

raji · Post by **raji** » 08 Jun 2009 01:13

ramana wrote:Yes I read your posts in corruption thread and a whole lot.And they make sens there. But when you persist in bringing in non-sequitors in this thread even after being told repeatledly not to do that then I have to assume you are insistent on disrupting it. So ha, ya na? Your choice.

You cant do Future Strategic Scenarios without at least some kind of linear programming, with a few variables. You have to create kinda a mathematical model, otherwise it becomes senseless speculation. When you create such a model, you have to feed in multiple variables, which will project different outcomes. What variables other than corruption will make sense to feed into a model ? I am suggesting varying each strategic scenario with the corruption quotient, which is exactly what Samuel is suggesting, which will give different outcomes and it will be for all to see, if this particular variable is relevent or not.......rather than someone's like or dislike for a particular variable........

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 Jun 2009 01:46

linear programming assumes linearity of constraints and objective function, which can hold for the model you are proposing only for very short periods of time. Linear projections for long term futures can be quite misleading.

RayC, yes. I know that perhaps serious attention is continuously being paid there militarily. But the red-green corridor is silently and slowly expanding from Andhra-Orissa-Bihar-Nepal axis to the east, and Murshidabad, Malda seems to be a growing east-west conduit through to BD. Earlier insurrections failed to terminate access points like crossings at Sukhna, but now the northern insurrectionists may not be so "green". Nepal, BD both can now provide bases and wider disruption around Siliguri corridor can provide the vital delay factor that makes defending AP and Assam problematic.

satya · Post by **satya** » 08 Jun 2009 01:55

Need to understand the special emphasis being put on ''inclusive growth'' by GoI . Its a belief in certain circles of governance that attitude of people change once they get share of pie hence inclusive growth .

raji · Post by **raji** » 08 Jun 2009 03:43

brihaspati wrote:linear programming assumes linearity of constraints and objective function, which can hold for the model you are proposing only for very short periods of time. Linear projections for long term futures can be quite misleading.

Well, lets start with linear programming. We can graph the results over various time intervals to glean the trend. Better than guessing and speculating.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 08 Jun 2009 10:40

Why do people believe that high concentrations of Muslims in North India will automatically lead to shifting loyalties? Isn't this the whole Partition argument all over again? I thought Indians were past this... The communists might be a different breed but where is this distrust of Muslims coming from. The Hindi heartland is extremely poor - isn't it possible that this has something to do with radicalization?

It almost sounds like PakDef here with people talking about India breaking up and what not. It's some kind of reverse reverse forward fractivity.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 Jun 2009 17:27

Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat the mistakes of history. There is a certain pattern in Islamic demograhic concentration on the subcontinent. Whenever there is a sufficient concentration of contiguous Muslim populations with overwhelming numerical superiority compared to non-Muslims, and not completely surrounded by non-Muslim populations who have shown unified, determined, militancy against Muslims, almost always shows a certain historical development pattern. This starts with the advent of "political Islam", insistence and gradual imposition of "Sharia" directly or indirectly, then ethnic cleansing of remnant pockets of non-Muslims under various pretexts typically the most common being conflict situations, further "shariaization", and finally a separate "Islamic enclave".

Kashmir is the best situated in this sense. It has managed to push out the non-Muslim successfully, it has started on and gained legal recognition of "shariaization" even within the Indian constitutional framework, it has little geographical contiguity with "militant" non-Muslim population on its "territiorial border". If you continue from Jammu down along the arc of the Indus-Gangetic plains, you can see that expanding using the Muslim base of Pakjab, and Kashmir valley, Haryana+Himachal remains a rather weakly defendable area. It can be flanked both from North and West. Reaching UP we have again the potential for Islamic concentration. UP, Bihar, WB all have non-Muslim concentration with potential for "militancy" only to the South or East. To the North Himalayas act as a protective shield, and with Nepalese current anti-Indian politics - its "Hindu" base need not be a threat for Islam on the Gangetic belt.

This is not about Pakdef style exultation on dreams of break up of India. This is about the potential and risk of deepening of "political Islam" and allowing it to develop by the current political masters of India. India can tackle this quite well if it does not kowtow to the Ulema and the separatists - especially by compromising politically on the essential strategy adopted by "political Islam", of establishing complete immunity from accountability within the Indian framework.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 08 Jun 2009 18:50

^^^
Brihaspati ji,

I was writing a behavioral model to depict this scenario and should be ready in a week or so. Will share the observations.

Will write to you in couple of days for inputs once I get the basics working.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 08 Jun 2009 19:13

Keshav wrote:Why do people believe that high concentrations of Muslims in North India will automatically lead to shifting loyalties? Isn't this the whole Partition argument all over again? I thought Indians were past this... The communists might be a different breed but where is this distrust of Muslims coming from. The Hindi heartland is extremely poor - isn't it possible that this has something to do with radicalization?

It almost sounds like PakDef here with people talking about India breaking up and what not. It's some kind of reverse reverse forward fractivity.

Keshav-ji,

It is not about distrust of sub-continental muslims. The sooner you come out of that ideological cocoon the better for the discussion.

It is this pseudo-liberalistic worldview that is pushing IMs to the “safe” hands of Ummah. Once we provide them security in the nationalistic gambit, IMs understand and participate in Indian success story. It is not about religion and theology, it is about nationalism and national interests. Do you a thought exercise for me. Taslima Nasrin was manhandled and kicked out of secular-india. The editor of a urdu publication was almost killed in Hyderabad for his liberal views. If well-known personalities are treated like this, how can a common man express his liberal views in a secular India. What would you do (if you were a liberal muslim) in such a social setup?

Unfortunately IMs get easily exploited by selfish-leadership. Look at how Jinnah was able to carve Pakistan/BD out of United India with the help of EXTERNAL POWERS, eventhough majority of sub-continental muslims were not convinced about his leadership and vision. The end product is a TSP that became a cancer not only to the neighborhood but for the entire world. And the biggest loser in this game is India and Indian Muslims as a community.

Look how the Hurriyat licks UK and US behinds to get a quick victory over GOI. It is not about getting back at them. But what happens once, god forbid, JK becomes an independent nation? Do you expect an independent Kashmir to be economically viable, and thwart external geopolitical exploitation? The strategic value of JK and POK/NA is not scoring a point against Pakistan or gaining few thousands of Sq. KM land. It is about Indian national security and securing Indian long term interests. What Brihaspathi-ji mentioned above are facts. If the liberal thought leadership cannot learn from the past, their ideas and ideology doesn’t serve Indian national interests because your liberal views weaken the Idea of India further.

The idea is to PROTECT IMs from their PI leadership, which inturn extends India's national security and interests beyond its borders.

P.S: I tried to discuss your thought as much as possible. Advanced apologies for any personal references.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 Jun 2009 19:19

RamaYji,
thanks! Looking forward to it.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 09 Jun 2009 00:22

The idea is can we afford to take the chance and dont think about IMs playing into the hands of power/s inimical to India and it "core" social , cultutural,civilizational ,security interests. I compare this equal to personal family security . No one in the right mind wont have alarm or be lax about securing all possible entry points to his own home while knowing well about the thiefs,scoundrels or as President Bush's said " Evil Doers" residing in the neighborhood.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 09 Jun 2009 21:19

RamaY wrote: The idea is to PROTECT IMs from their PI leadership, which inturn extends India's national security and interests beyond its borders.

This whole post makes sense. I agree that incidents like Taslima Nasreen and Muslims with a liberal worldview have problems - it is certainly a blot on whatever "ideology" "liberals" tend to profess. And your worldview obviously informs those views, but aside from Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh, I don't see how any other area of India is vulnerable to actual, physical separation.

Nothing in the post you just made corresponds to the extremity to which Brihaspati has taken the idea of shifting loyalties. Islamists and Communists make way work together but then shouldn't we be talking about how Hindus and Muslims can work together on this issue and what Hindus (and other religions) can do to bring them on the success story?

What is the need for all this geopolitical posturing to deal with these problems?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 Jun 2009 23:29

Keshavji,
although you have not asked me, since you refer to my post, may I respond?

First, I have never mentioned "shifting loyalties". I have simply said, that a gradual process of Islamization, and separate "Islamic nationlaism/identity" becomes the target of the Ulema and political Islam. India is an ideological vacuum as far as the nation is concerned. So no "Indian" ever really has to answer the question, that if the "nation" and his/her personal "faith" clashes, which one takes priority. This also means the Islamic Ulema do not have to answer this question. In fact the early Congress under JLN has ensured that the only faith which is accountable to the nation, is that of the so-called "majority", and no other recognized faith is really accountable. So, trying to establish a pure faith based society, is not technically speaking a crime in India, if it is not based on the "Hindu". This basic postulate has been accepted from the time, JLN subverted the reco of the Constituent Assembly to establish UCC, and as a continuation of this doctrine, we have had the quiet and smooth legalization of the term "Shariat" in the J&K Assembly.

The same unspoken doctrine worked to allow chasing out or muzzling of Tasleema Nasreen or suppression of "liberal" or essential deviations from political Islam/ Shariati/ as defined by the Ulema. Has this excellent "liberalism" of allowing the Ulema to have their own sweet will, been necessarily rewarded with electoral loyalty? Not at least for the "Left" in WB, and it is not going to be rewarding for the "Left" in God's Own Country.

That the "Left" has not been rewarded in WB, is an indicator, that the essential strategy of the Ulema is incremental slow move towards their separate Islamic target. They have used the "Left" as far as the "Left" could be useful, now they stand to gain more from the Cong+Allies, because the desperate Cong will be prepared and will also have more capacity to "concede" even more authority to the Ulema.

The Islamic Ulema do not have to "shift" any loyalties - they have been and will remain loyal to their target of political Islam, and nothing in the existing Indian framework, forces them to commit and choose between Islamic nationhood and Shariaization on the one hand and India on the other.

Historically, if you look carefully, the Gangetic belt was always the earliest seceder from "central authority". And exactly the provinces I happened to mention, under Islamic regimes - the Sharqis of Jaunpur, and Turko-Afghans in general in Bihar and Bengal.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Jun 2009 02:56

Keshav wrote:Nothing in the post you just made corresponds to the extremity to which Brihaspati has taken the idea of shifting loyalties. Islamists and Communists make way work together but then shouldn't we be talking about how Hindus and Muslims can work together on this issue and what Hindus (and other religions) can do to bring them on the success story?

Keshav-ji,

In addition to what Brihaspati-ji wrote above, I have three examples:

1. Look at sub-continental history. Indian partition has one answer.

2. Look at Partition of Pakistan. Even though BD was separated from Pakistan with immense help from India standing against world powers, BD didn't become part of India.

3. Compare JK Terrorism & Khalistan Terrorism. Both issues started with a demand for separate nation. How Indian leadership dealt with each one of them. How each issue was exploited by external powers. How the solution was implemented. And the after effects.

You have asked me this question in "IM & Demise of Pakistan" thread and I provided you my answer with reference information, including pictures.

In order to get IMs and other religious minorities into nationalistic gambit, first we need to define what India stands for and what It means to be a nationalist. If the majority themselves are uncomfortable with what they are and unable to define what they are, what is the reward for the religious minority in assimilation?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Jun 2009 03:20

I have couple of questions for the learned. Appreciate additional insight.

1. I thought nearly 10m Bangladeshi refugees entered India just prior to 1971 BD liberation war. But I don't see this population growth reflected in Year-on-Year numbers. Any specific reason?

2. The average Annual population growth in United India was around 0.95% (1901-1946). This average annual population growth jumped to 2.05%, more than doubled, between 1947-1998. If Indian population continued to grow at 0.95% annual growth, in 1998 its population should be around 560 millions. I can understand if the average population growth increased over 10-20 years to reach its current level of annual growth, due to increased life expectancy in independent India. But it jumped to ~2% annual growth by 1951 itself.

Thanks in advance.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 10 Jun 2009 06:17

Brihaspati -

The Islamic Ulema do not have to "shift" any loyalties - they have been and will remain loyal to their target of political Islam, and nothing in the existing Indian framework, forces them to commit and choose between Islamic nationhood and Shariaization on the one hand and India on the other.

Historically, if you look carefully, the Gangetic belt was always the earliest seceder from "central authority". And exactly the provinces I happened to mention, under Islamic regimes - the Sharqis of Jaunpur, and Turko-Afghans in general in Bihar and Bengal.

To be fair, shariah law in Kashmir pertaining to Muslim personal law has not been implemented yet. People here are assuming it will be voted into law.

One of my main points of contention is not with the idea that political Islam is a bad thing but that physical separation is possible. BRFites tend to disregard claims that Indians (specifically Hindus) learn from their mistakes, but how would something like Partition really happen with assent from the people?

It is certainly possible that creeping Islamization might happen (but not at the pace you predict) but Partition is conspiracy theory.

I agree that Communists certainly have it in with non-Hindu parties to further their vote banks. Ties between them and groups like ULFA, HUJI, Maoists, and the Church are well known.

And for the record, I do think it somewhat exposes the expediancy of the "leftists" when they did not stand up for Taslima Nasreen.

RamaY -
1) I understand Indian history and the role of Islamic separatism. To be fair, did you even want the cesspool known as Bangladesh? Nehru was the one who told the Hindu refugees to go back there because of their oh so secular Constitution.

2) I'm going to cede your point on Kashmir and Khalistani terrorism. The way it was dealt with did partially had to do with the religion of those involved, but we have to consider that Khalistani terrorism had no international backer. Kashmiri terrorism has/had Pakistan.

No politician wants to be responsible for starting a conventional war with Pakistan and losing. And I say this to show you the other side of the issue - its important to understand what the stakes were/are in each case rather than just focusing on religion as the prime motivator. In this case, for example, MMS personality certainly plays a role in the way he deals with Pakistan.

3) In order to get IMs and other religious minorities into nationalistic gambit, first we need to define what India stands for and what It means to be a nationalist. If the majority themselves are uncomfortable with what they are and unable to define what they are, what is the reward for the religious minority in assimilation?

One point of dissension is the idea that Muslims are not already assimilated, at least in the cities and in some cases more so in rural areas.

But otherwise I agree with you on national identity. There isn't one. The obvious question then arises, what identity are you comfortable with and will others be comfortable with that idea? And will someone elses idea of India be comfortable to you?

This inevitably goes back and forth. You find the same back and forth in places like America. This debate is not likely to end any time soon. At least not in our lifetimes.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 Jun 2009 07:22

Keshav wrote
To be fair, shariah law in Kashmir pertaining to Muslim personal law has not been implemented yet. People here are assuming it will be voted into law.

Keshavji,
very sorry to disappoint you.

On Oct 31, 2008, at Srinagar, the President of Jammu and Kashmir National conference, Omar Abdullah released the 'vision document 2008' of his party. Item 22 of this "vision document" states:

[...]the Leader of the Opposition in the last Assembly Shri A.R. Rather had introduced a Bill namely the Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Personal Law ( Shariat ) Application Bill, 2005. This Bills was passed and has become a Law.

http://www.kashmirtoday.in/det.aspx?q=660

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 10 Jun 2009 10:44

Brihaspati,

South of the Siliguri Corridor, there is hardly any influence of the Maoist, but this corridor which is barely 20 kms in width at some places, does allow the Islamists to interact and plot with their counterparts in Nepal and has been inundated by Bangladeshis, masquerading as Indians. Malda and Murshidabad also plays a role since it has also been Bangladeshified by the Left govt and has been easy because of the national minority population being the majority!

The Red Corridor, as is reported officially, is the one that runs through Bihar, Jharkhand, tribal belts of Bengal and Orissa and into AP, elbowing into Maharastra and Chattisgrah.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 10 Jun 2009 10:47

Defacto Sharia was prevalent in Kashmir Valley.

Now it is a law, but does it apply to all?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 10 Jun 2009 11:02

In order to get IMs and other religious minorities into nationalistic gambit, first we need to define what India stands for and what It means to be a nationalist. If the majority themselves are uncomfortable with what they are and unable to define what they are, what is the reward for the religious minority in assimilation?

Being a nationalist is not the prerogative of any community or religion or even if one does not have a deep insight into culture.

Being a nationalist is the charm and pride of belonging to the entity called India and doing what one can do, even in a small way, to make the country greater and a better place to live in.

Let Naik Anna Hazare be the example of what is nationalism. He showed it as a soldier and now he is showing it as a social activist. To imagine a Naik of the Indian Army was awarded the Magasaysay award as also the following:

# Padmashree award by government of India in the year 1990

# Indira Priyadarshini Vrikshamitra award, by government of India on November 19, 1986 from the hands of Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi.

# Krishi Bhushana award by Maharashtra government in 1989.

# Felicitation by Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation 15 January 1987

# Felicitation by Pune Municipal Corporation.

# On April 15, 2008, Kisan Baburao Hazare received the World Bank's 2008 Jit Gill Memorial Award for Outstanding Public Service: "Hazare created a thriving model village in Ralegan Siddhi, in the impoverished Ahmednagar region of Maharashtra state, and championed the right to information and the fight against corruption."

If he is not a nationalist, what is?

He is Class VII pass, economically backward and is does not discriminate on religion to decide who is working for the nation!!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 Jun 2009 16:33

RayC,
I combined Islamist-Maoist into a red-green corridor. Basically the "redder" part of this runs throughfrom Andhra as we have discussed, SSW-NNE. But the greener part crosses and therefore joins in and south of the Siliguri region, almost perpendicularly from BD into Bihar, UP. At the junction obviously they need to cooperate. Thus this "chow-rasta" provides both the red and the green with alternative connections, supply routes and vital contacts. From the red-side, ideological leanings do not find much problem with "Islamism". Maoists are present in Birbhum, and their base there was retained through the repression in 70's. Because Birbhum remains "quiet", the passage from Murshidabad through to Santhal Parganas, and up North towards Malda, is a route not usually under scanning. The WB red corridor runs through from Siliguri to Birbhum, to Midnapore, using the western parts of these districts mostly. Even in Barddhaman, where the Ugra's are traditionally strongly anti-Maoist, the western part does contain a quiet corridor for the Maoists. Basically they can use the bordering parallel districts of Jharkhand, Bihar and Orissa, where corridor proper through WB is thinner. Getting the Islamists on board provides a broadening of this corridor using the other side - of adjacent districts of BD.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 11 Jun 2009 02:36

raji wrote:seditious nonsense deleted

Angry letter writers, anguished burdened youth and other imbeciles, please take note of these sections of the Indian Penal Code

124A. Sedition

Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

131. Abetting mutiny, or attempting to seduce a soldier, sailor or airman from his duty

Whoever abets the committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, navy or Air Force of the Government of India or attempts to seduce any such officer, soldier, sailor or airman from his allegiance or his duty, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

121. Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the Government of India

Whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

aryank is banned. raji is banned. Those wishing to emulate them will likewise be banned. We will not permit the forum to be abused in this manner. Their camp followers need to find somewhere else on the Internet for their criminal nonsense. Bharat Rakshak Forum is not such a place.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Jun 2009 17:31

But Explanation 3, to section 124A, says “Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section”.

The two other explanations are:

Explanation 1.- The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.

Explanation 2.- Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

124A is still mentioned in the IPC as an 1860 (year) Act. It has hardly changed its form from the "Sedition Act" of Colonial imperialist Britain. It is obviously subject to wide interpretation. So anyone who does not want to face charges of sedition, practically has to keep his/her mouth completely shut about anything seriously wrong with the government. Because "serious wrong" issues are most likely also to bring in feelings of anger, intense hatred, frustration, contempt or disaffection in the non-governmental humans for the humans who as part of the government could carry out such "serious wrongs".

In the case of Manubhai Tribhovandas Patel And Ors. vs State Of Guiarat And Anr. on 28/9/1971, over the use of 124A, regarding the supposed seditiousness of ideas quoted in a compilation of Mao's speeches, I cannot help but quote this passage from the verdict given by Gujarat HC: ( http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1557467/ )

"These passages are intended to acquiant the reader with the principles and practice of Communism as understood and explained by Mao-Tse-Tuns in various speeches delivered by him to the Chinese people over a period of about thirty years. They are not exhortations to our public to resort to violence or create public disorder with a view to subverting Government by law established in India. There is not a word in these passages which even remotely suggests that people should overthrow lawfully established Government in India by force or violence. These passages expound the philosophy of Mao-Tse-Tung with a view to its academic study and they cannot possibly by any stretch of language be regarded as seditious. To condemn them as seditious would be to close the doors of knowledge to ostracise a philosphy because it challenges values cherishable and held dear by our present day society and holds up for acceptance a new way of life vastly different from that to which pur people are presently accustomed. It is not for the Government of the day nor for the Judges presiding over our Courts to decide what doctrine of philosophy is good for our people.

It is for the people to choose what is best for them and in order that they may be able to make a wise and intelligent choice, free propagation of ideas is an essential requisite.

The ideas propagated may be unorthodox and unconventional : they may disturb the complacency of a handful minority or they may challenge deep seated, sacred beliefs and question the most fundamental postulates of our social, political or economic thinking. That should be no ground for anxiety or apprehension, particularly in a country like ours which has always believed in the pursuit of truth and in its unending search for truth, never hesitated to receive new ideas and absorb them, if found acceptable. There can indeed be no real freedom unless thought is free and unchecked, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate. It is only from clash of ideas that truth can emerge, for the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.

If, therefore, the publisher of this forfeited books wants to propagate the philosophy of Communism as expounded by Mao-Tse-Tung amongst the people, there is no reason why he should not be free to do so. Let the people decide what doctrine or philosophy they wish to adopt. We have great faith in the commonsense of our people and we have no doubt that with the sound unerring instinct which has guided them over the years, our people will choose a doctrine or philosophy true to their genius and reject the rest. If the people want to adopt the philosophy of Communism as expounded by Mao-Tse-Tung. confiscation of a book like this is not going to stop them from doing so. The reasons for their choice would be much deeper and if the Government wants to repel the onslaught of Communist ideology, it is to an elimination of these reasons that the Government may well address itself rather than proscribe a book like this which propagates the principles and practice of Communism as expounded by one of its chief exponents, with a view to their academic study by the people."

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Jun 2009 17:38

The honorable judges of Gujarat HC also outline, how to place unconventional ideas - for the people to choose from, in the "marketplace of ideas", that is well within the free Republican Indian constitutional and legal framework. Just my humble pointer for all those who feel "frustrated".

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 11 Jun 2009 23:37

Gerard wrote:
raji wrote:seditious nonsense deleted

Angry letter writers, anguished burdened youth and other imbeciles, please take note of these sections of the Indian Penal Code

124A. Sedition

Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

131. Abetting mutiny, or attempting to seduce a soldier, sailor or airman from his duty

Whoever abets the committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, navy or Air Force of the Government of India or attempts to seduce any such officer, soldier, sailor or airman from his allegiance or his duty, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

121. Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the Government of India

Whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
aryank is banned. raji is banned. Those wishing to emulate them will likewise be banned. We will not permit the forum to be abused in this manner. Their camp followers need to find somewhere else on the Internet for their criminal nonsense. Bharat Rakshak Forum is not such a place.

I thought we got our independence in 1947.I was wrong.It seems these laws have been plucked out straight from british colonial government's playbook whose intent was to suppress the population of India.Not to Talk of free speech.

Guys make no mistake.We are still slaves.Only our masters have changed.Previously it was the british.Now it is the pseudo-secular leftist politician-bureaucrat nexus which lords over us.

Freedom is dead.Long live freedom.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Jun 2009 04:40

There is some speculation now about the future of PRC. One line of thought is inclined towards "organic"/intrincsic dynamics of change within the PRC society that can weaken its "imperialist" attitudes.

Looking at three geopolitical entities of Asia, we can actually clearly recognize a pattern. Russia, China, India. For the first two we know that at least in the more well known, "organized" period of history, the society tended to form unified, centralized, bureaucratic, large empires. Inevitably, there were also attempts at imposition of uniform ideological frameworks, where supreme ideological, political and military authority tended to get concentrated into a small group or an individual. India is quite close the other two in certain periods, but then on other periods it shows distinct and significant departures.

When did the first two societies, Russia and China, go through significant transitions - regime changes, profound changes in political and economic organization? Almost always, such transitions coincide with partial or incomplete defeat/retreat before external aggression or failure in attempt at expansion. Thus, Dmitri Donskoi could form the nucleus of Tsarist Russia only after Russia had been subjugated by the Golden Horde. Same with Peter I. Same in 1905 after the naval defeat at the hands of Japan, or in 1917 after reversals and economic collpase during WWI. The seeds of post Stalinist, Kruschevism also were sown in WWII. Finally, of course the AFG war changed it again.

From each such defeat and retreat, Russia goes back to a reinvention of its format of centralization, consolidation, ideological homogenization, and expansion.

In the case of China, Each of its major transitions are accompanied by a previous "barbarian" invasions or retreat of the regime before it. From Shang, to Zhou, to the first emperor from Qin, etc. The pattern persists in the transition through Kublai Khan, the Manchus, the Japanese invasion etc. But each time they have gone back to a reinvention of the pattern of centralization, bureaucratic control, and ideological homogenization. (The earliest spectacular example of ideological homogenization is that by the "first" emperor, who destroyed the "Hundreds" philosophy culture).

India, shows significant tendency for centralization from time to time. But it also shows departures. It primarily divides into four regions. The Indus valley part, the Bengal delta, the north Gangetic Doab, the south of the Vindhyas.

In order to find a common link in all the above phenomena we start with the following paradigm : a compact and closely interrelated geographical unit characterized by the fertile flood plains of a network of perennial rivers, and natural boundaries which impose a distinct weather and climatic pattern distinguished from adjacent territories. Since the external material, 'natural' components of the mode 'of production was a very dominant one ( at the level of pre-modern technologies then existing), geography exerted a fundamental and extremely significant influence. It was the fertile river plains that alone could sustain a large population and hence society in general. But this vety geographical phenomenon also forced an uniformity in the way society developed - the major crops, production technologies, societal organization and structure could not differ much - the rivers also prevented isolation of any one part - they served as very efficient communication and transportation channels. It is this fundamental unity in the material conditions of production that necessitates and gives rise to the tendency towards centralization and the bureaucratic state.

Repeatedly do we find that large empires tend to form along the great river valleys - and the decline of one is always followed by another ( with a considerable time gap sometimes ). Moreover the empires prosper when the state intervenes in and actively promotes agriculture on a wide scale - with the commissioning of irrigation networks, tax reforms etc., - this also requires the significant presence of a bureaucracy ( explicitly involved for this purpose ) - the economic coordination needed cannot be achieved without a certain amount of integration or unification of all the different authorities, the socio-political and ideological structures existing within the society.

The Indian trajectory differs because regional richness of subsystems of rivers in the four regions I mentioned above, can sustain "sub-empires", when climatic conditions are favourable for such formations. When not, they revert to unified, centralized authorities. This also creates the basic tension and dynamics behind the diversity we see, and the underlying unique Indian approach towardd unification and centralization.

By this line of argument, I would see, fundamental changes in the PRC framework only resulting from defeat or retreat in external aggression or expansion. Not otherwise.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 12 Jun 2009 04:48

Brihaspati ji,

What about Persia/Iran? They too are the important players in Asian geo-politics since antiquity....