India-US Strategic News and Discussion

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 28 Jul 2010 20:46

surinder wrote:Interesting that the US expert now openly admit, what BRF has always said, that "'Since a stable Pakistan is more important to the United States than a victory in Afghanistan ... If Pakistan collapsed, then India would be the sole regional power, not something the United States wants,' Friedman said."

The DDM reporter who interviewed him should have asked why? After all, USA enjoys lot of support among the Indian public. We, at least I know the answer, too SDRE, contempt for Hinduism etc; but it would have been interesting to see what Friedman's response would have been.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 Jul 2010 20:46

surinder wrote:Interesting that the US expert now openly admit, what BRF has always said, that "'Since a stable Pakistan is more important to the United States than a victory in Afghanistan ... If Pakistan collapsed, then India would be the sole regional power, not something the United States wants,' Friedman said."

Khan accepts TSP behaviour because it keeps India in check. This is just about as simple as it gets and as close to truth as any statement can be. This is, incidently, version 2.0 of the Balance of Power theory used quite effectively by British.

This simple logic doesn't go into MMS-isq WKK brains.

Given this info, how can any Indian leader want to talk to Pakistan? If at all, they have to talk to USA; as a source of indirect (non-state actor) terrorism. Can they do it?

I also hope the so-called liberal posters of this forum see thru this perfidy.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 Jul 2010 20:51

Carl_T garu,

We don't need to reason or justify USA actions. We all know everyone acts in their best interests. Bringing USA's self-interests into the discussion every time they phuck India will divert the focus.

The question is why USA thinks a stronger India is not in its best interests? That is what CRamS is saying and we all should be pondering about. If there is a fundamental difference between USA and India then we should turn extremely chanikyan and ensure that USA pays for its bad karma.

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 28 Jul 2010 20:54

Brad Goodman wrote:This article sums up the answers to my question

Pakistan's India obsession behind its double game: US experts

So India is the problem. As mushy said, "look at the cause of the problem".

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 28 Jul 2010 20:59

chetak wrote:
Why not start earlier?

We already have foreign military cadets at the NDA.

Surely we should, in a spirit of co operation, offer a good number of seats to our paki "friends"

does not make sense to invite enemy to our camp,
your intention may be good
but the enemy will surely use it for spying and intruding in our systems.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 28 Jul 2010 21:00

RamaY wrote:Carl_T garu,

We don't need to reason or justify USA actions. We all know everyone acts in their best interests. Bringing USA's self-interests into the discussion every time they phuck India will divert the focus.

The question is why USA thinks a stronger India is not in its best interests? That is what CRamS is saying and we all should be pondering about. If there is a fundamental difference between USA and India then we should turn extremely chanikyan and ensure that USA pays for its bad karma.

A good idea of US self interests has to be realized before we think about India-US relations.

As to why the US thinks a strong India is not in its interests - I think it is simply because any emerging power that doesn't toe the US line is a danger to US plans. We've seen Turkey and Brazil, if Israel and Japan start following a less US centric policy surely the US will have a major problem with that. On the other hand, unlike these India has never been an ally of the US, and has gone from being a cold war target to a serious future rival that can harm US interests in the region.

sum · Post by **sum** » 28 Jul 2010 21:03

IMHO Chetak-saar was being sarcastic, onlee

satyam · Post by **satyam** » 28 Jul 2010 21:13

Nobody but India is to be blamed for this. Why don't we have trade with South America ?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... -says.html

Only USA and EU . These are the only 2 countries worth trading for us. Pathetic.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Jul 2010 21:21

Brad Goodman, Surinder, CRS and RamaY,
Dont mind lekin, are you all familiar with Isaac Asimov's Foundation series? If not please read the wiki part atleast and we can discuss any insights from that "science fiction".
In particular pay attention to the begining and the role of the Mules. And see if you can draw any parallels.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Jul 2010 21:35

sameer_shelavale wrote:
chetak wrote:
Why not start earlier?

We already have foreign military cadets at the NDA.

Surely we should, in a spirit of co operation, offer a good number of seats to our paki "friends"

does not make sense to invite enemy to our camp, your intention may be good
but the enemy will surely use it for spying and intruding in our systems.[/quote]

================

sheeeesh!!

A long time ago some senior cadets were killed at the NDA by their juniors. The reasons are not important now.

May our guests suffer a similar fate onlee

My intentions are decidedly evil!!!!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 Jul 2010 22:16

Carl_T wrote: As to why the US thinks a strong India is not in its interests - I think it is simply because any emerging power that doesn't toe the US line is a danger to US plans.

Don't you think that is a too simplistic world view?

It would make a huge == between all great imperial powers across the world throughout the history, despite their geographical, ideological, and political compulsions. Are all imperialist nations bad?

In a hypothetical scenario where India were to become an imperialist nation, is it a bad thing for the world?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 Jul 2010 22:22

ramana wrote:Brad Goodman, Surinder, CRS and RamaY,
Dont mind lekin, are you all familiar with Isaac Asimov's Foundation series? If not please read the wiki part atleast and we can discuss any insights from that "science fiction".
In particular pay attention to the begining and the role of the Mules. And see if you can draw any parallels.

Heard of Isaac Asimov but never read his books. Now I know where "Hari Seldon" came from

naren · Post by **naren** » 28 Jul 2010 23:03

RamaY wrote:The question is why USA thinks a stronger India is not in its best interests?

Lets see. Who was the last global empire to dominate the world ? Which country did they control to achieve this ?

Central Asia being the pivot for global domination is all Bull S. Its India. US is the successor of British empire. Naturally, they would not want strong India. Nor stable subcontinent. This policy is very clearly visible since WW2.

US aggressively promotes democracy as a ploy to weaken those states. Think about it. Has any democratic country ever acted aggressively in geo politics ?

Kamboja · Post by **Kamboja** » 28 Jul 2010 23:23

surinder wrote: Khan accepts TSP behaviour because it keeps India in check. This is just about as simple as it gets and as close to truth as any statement can be. This is, incidently, version 2.0 of the Balance of Power theory used quite effectively by British.

This raises two immediate reactions from me -

1) USA pays too cheap a price today to prop up and support Pakistan to keep India in check. If they continue to pay the nuke-armed Pakis to menace and trip up India, they do it because they are (relatively) safely out of range of the nuclear menace of Packeeland, both direct (TSPA) and indirect (LeT etc). India's approach, if we want to be vengeful, should be to raise the price of this support to the US.

The situation that makes the US happiest: Pakis continue to cultivate and spawn terrorists, but those terrorists are India-centric. LeT is the perfect example. US becomes unhappy when these terrorists become global Islamists, and start to focus on the 'Zionists and crusaders', as AQ did.

Therefore, India should strive to create the opposite of the happy scenario for the US: ensure that Islamic terrorists focus on the west, and further, enhance their ability to inflict damage on the west. The extreme variation of this would be to start proliferating nukes to groups like AQ, Iran, Palestinian groups, Somalia, Libya, etc. If the US has no problem encouraging the rabid Islamism of Pakistan, then make them feel the threat of that rabid Islamism. Make them feel the pinprick of the nuclear dagger that currently points at our throats.

Only question is: to what extent would we be hurting our own interests? Less than/ as much as/ or more than the US' interests?

2) India should reduce trade with the US to a minimum. Throw them out of the bidding process for the MMRCA Tender, refuse to allow them to build any nuclear reactors for us -- do it all nicely though, after all we are brahmin/banias. Meanwhile, we should be working actively to improve relations, trade, and defence cooperation with powers that are aligned against the US or show tendencies to be so - Russia, Brazil, Turkey, Iran, hell even China, especially China, and we should take the building of these relationships seriously and assiduously, making compromises if need be (but never incurring too high a price, whatever that may be).

Increasingly I am coming to realize that the US will not readily welcome the emergence of India as a great power -- in fact, it will go out of its way to curb our growth as far as possible. I don't know if our leadership has grasped this fact, but if they have our economic policy that increasingly looks to the US and EU for trade - incidentally leaving long-time relationships with Iran and Russia in the dust - does not reflect that awareness.

In short: the Americans can go stuff themselves, we should be looking to play our own game of balancing anti-American powers and building up a new 'concert of the world'.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Jul 2010 23:32

Brad Goodman wrote:Attached is the link to the original stratfor article by friedman
WikiLeaks and the Afghan War

...
What it does raise is the question of supply lines and sanctuaries. The most important charge contained in the leaks is about Pakistan. The WikiLeaks contain documents that charge that the Pakistanis are providing both supplies and sanctuary to Taliban fighters while objecting to American forces entering Pakistan to clean out the sanctuaries and are unwilling or unable to carry out that operation by themselves (as they have continued to do in North Waziristan).

Just as important, the documents charge that the ISI has continued to maintain liaison and support for the Taliban in spite of claims by the Pakistani government that pro-Taliban officers had been cleaned out of the ISI years ago. The document charges that Gul, the director-general of the ISI from 1987 to 1989, still operates in Pakistan, informally serving the ISI and helping give the ISI plausible deniability.

Though startling, the charge that Islamabad is protecting and sustaining forces fighting and killing Americans is not a new one. When the United States halted operations in Afghanistan after the defeat of the Soviets in 1989, U.S. policy was to turn over operations in Afghanistan to Pakistan. U.S. strategy was to use Islamist militants to fight the Soviets and to use Pakistani liaisons through the ISI to supply and coordinate with them. When the Soviets and Americans left Afghanistan, the ISI struggled to install a government composed of its allies until the Taliban took over Kabul in 1996. The ISI’s relationship with the Taliban — which in many ways are the heirs to the anti-Soviet mujahideen — is widely known. In my book, “America’s Secret War,” I discussed both this issue and the role of Gul. These documents claim that this relationship remains intact. Apart from Pakistani denials, U.S. officials and military officers frequently made this charge off the record, and on the record occasionally. The leaks on this score are interesting, but they will shock only those who didn’t pay attention or who want to be shocked.

Let’s step back and consider the conflict dispassionately. The United States forced the Taliban from power. It never defeated the Taliban nor did it make a serious effort to do so, as that would require massive resources the United States doesn’t have. Afghanistan is a secondary issue for the United States, especially since al Qaeda has established bases in a number of other countries, particularly Pakistan, making the occupation of Afghanistan irrelevant to fighting al Qaeda.

For Pakistan, however, Afghanistan is an area of fundamental strategic interest. The region’s main ethnic group, the Pashtun, stretch across the Afghan-Pakistani border. Moreover, were a hostile force present in Afghanistan, as one was during the Soviet occupation, Pakistan would face threats in the west as well as the challenge posed by India in the east. For Pakistan, an Afghanistan under Pakistani influence or at least a benign Afghanistan is a matter of overriding strategic importance.

It is therefore irrational to expect the Pakistanis to halt collaboration with the force that they expect to be a major part of the government of Afghanistan when the United States leaves. The Pakistanis never expected the United States to maintain a presence in Afghanistan permanently. They understood that Afghanistan was a means toward an end, and not an end in itself. They understood this under George W. Bush. They understand it even more clearly under Barack Obama, who made withdrawal a policy goal.

Given that they don’t expect the Taliban to be defeated, and given that they are not interested in chaos in Afghanistan, it follows that they will maintain close relations with and support for the Taliban. Given that the United States is powerful and is Pakistan’s only lever against India, the Pakistanis will not make this their public policy, however. The United States has thus created a situation in which the only rational policy for Pakistan is two-tiered, consisting of overt opposition to the Taliban and covert support for the Taliban.

This is duplicitous only if you close your eyes to the Pakistani reality, which the Americans never did. There was ample evidence, as the WikiLeaks show, of covert ISI ties to the Taliban. The Americans knew they couldn’t break those ties. They settled for what support Pakistan could give them while constantly pressing them harder and harder until genuine fears in Washington emerged that Pakistan could destabilize altogether. Since a stable Pakistan is more important to the United States than a victory in Afghanistan — which it wasn’t going to get anyway — the United States released pressure and increased aid. If Pakistan collapsed, then India would be the sole regional power, not something the United States wants.

The WikiLeaks seem to show that like sausage-making, one should never look too closely at how wars are fought, particularly coalition warfare. Even the strongest alliances, such as that between the United States and the United Kingdom in World War II, are fraught with deceit and dissension. London was fighting to save its empire, an end Washington was hostile to; much intrigue ensued. The U.S.-Pakistani alliance is not nearly as trusting. The United States is fighting to deny al Qaeda a base in Afghanistan while Pakistan is fighting to secure its western frontier and its internal stability. These are very different ends that have very different levels of urgency.

The WikiLeaks portray a war in which the United States has a vastly insufficient force on the ground that is fighting a capable and dedicated enemy who isn’t going anywhere. The Taliban know that they win just by not being defeated, and they know that they won’t be defeated. The Americans are leaving, meaning the Taliban need only wait and prepare.

The Pakistanis also know that the Americans are leaving and that the Taliban or a coalition including the Taliban will be in charge of Afghanistan when the Americans leave. They will make certain that they maintain good relations with the Taliban. They will deny that they are doing this because they want no impediments to a good relationship with the United States before or after it leaves Afghanistan. They need a patron to secure their interests against India. Since the United States wants neither an India outside a balance of power nor China taking the role of Pakistan’s patron, it follows that the risk the United States will bear grudges is small. And given that, the Pakistanis can live with Washington knowing that one Pakistani hand is helping the Americans while another helps the Taliban. Power, interest and reality define the relations between nations, and different factions inside nations frequently have different agendas and work against each other.

The WikiLeaks, from what we have seen so far, detail power, interest and reality as we have known it. They do not reveal a new reality. Much will be made about the shocking truth that has been shown, which, as mentioned above, shocks only those who wish to be shocked. The Afghan war is about an insufficient American and allied force fighting a capable enemy on its home ground and a Pakistan positioning itself for the inevitable outcome. The WikiLeaks contain all the details.

We need to look at India addresses these realities:

Power, interest and reality define the relations between nations, and different factions inside nations frequently have different agendas and work against each other.

India too survives if it holds together and quells the million mutinies inside it.

satyam · Post by **satyam** » 28 Jul 2010 23:33

This is what i said earlier.

satyam wrote:Nobody but India is to be blamed for this. Why don't we have trade with South America ?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... -says.html

Only USA and EU . These are the only 2 countries worth trading for us. Pathetic.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Jul 2010 23:34

satyam, Those countries have the markets and the money.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 Jul 2010 23:35

China is nothing but Pakistan V2.0 as far as India is concerned. As and when China gains enough economic/military power it will focus on areas where it will hurt the western kabila more than India. As far as PRC is concerned India is already locked-in-the-box by Pakis.

It is not that difficult to be a pain in the a$$ to USA. There are many smaller nations who are doing that. Some of them are even successful economically.

India has to strategize the following:
- Covertly create/sustain tools to check USA
- Identify the ways to grow economically and technologically without as little dependence on west as possible
- Create a coalition of willing (there are many nations/civilizations that are hurt by west)
- Identify ways to hurt and weaken the mad dogs from within

satyam · Post by **satyam** » 28 Jul 2010 23:37

ramana wrote:satyam, Those countries have the markets and the money.

South America have gdp of 2.4 triliion $. We can atleast have a trade of $ 30 billion with them instead of paltry 6 billion $

satyam · Post by **satyam** » 28 Jul 2010 23:38

RamaY wrote:China is nothing but Pakistan V2.0 as far as India is concerned. As and when China gains enough economic/military power it will focus on areas where it will hurt the western kabila more than India. As far as PRC is concerned India is already locked-in-the-box by Pakis.

It is not that difficult to be a pain in the a$$ to USA. There are many smaller nations who are doing that. Some of them are even successful economically.

India has to strategize the following:
- Covertly create/sustain tools to check USA
- Identify the ways to grow economically and technologically without as little dependence on west as possible
- Create a coalition of willing (there are many nations/civilizations that are hurt by west)
- Identify ways to hurt and weaken the mad dogs from within

India should provide nukes to Venezuela, Myanmar, Cuba and Iran.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Jul 2010 23:42

RamaY wrote:China is nothing but Pakistan V2.0 as far as India is concerned. As and when China gains enough economic/military power it will focus on areas where it will hurt the western kabila more than India. As far as PRC is concerned India is already locked-in-the-box by Pakis.

It is not that difficult to be a pain in the a$$ to USA. There are many smaller nations who are doing that. Some of them are even successful economically.

India has to strategize the following:
- Covertly create/sustain tools to check USA
{Non-starter as it will waste the limited resources. Better develop Indian people and strength}

- Identify the ways to grow economically and technologically without as little dependence on west as possible

{Open up the internal economy as much as possible to create the large market that India always was.}

- Create a coalition of willing (there are many nations/civilizations that are hurt by west)

{Non starter. Will create blowback.}

- Identify ways to hurt and weaken the mad dogs from within

{More Maharishi Yoga and spirtualism to make them realize the wrong path they are on.}

naren · Post by **naren** » 29 Jul 2010 00:04

[quote="RamaY"][/quote]

- Covertly create/sustain tools to check USA

LTTE could set up a base in Lakshadweep, go Somali piratey and harm the shipments to Diego Garcia, while poor India says "oh we are helpless onlee".

- Identify the ways to grow economically and technologically without as little dependence on west as possible

Economy is kinda tied. But there is a degree of independence too.

- Create a coalition of willing (there are many nations/civilizations that are hurt by west)

First step I could envision is the creation of "Dharmic Axis" - neither "West" nor "Islamic", but building on the Indian spiritual values. A strong relationship need to be cultivated with all the Buddhist countries. India must actively promote "spiritual tourism". Unfortunately, our public is obsessed with "shared ideals" with the West

, forgetting the fact that many democratic qualities already existed in India for thousands of years (religious freedom, secularism, rule of law, decentralized governance...).

- Identify ways to hurt and weaken the mad dogs from within

As Ramana ji said, promoting the soft power of Indian spirituality. Will gradually strengthen this "dharmic axis" over time.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 29 Jul 2010 00:46

For those who know India US friendship group moderator, Ram Narayan, I'd urge you to send this Strafor analysis and ask him to publicize it among think tanks, law makers, Indian Americans who have access to law makers etc. At least this thing must be publicly disseminated so US big wings comment on it. It should not be a side note so US bigs wings as they routine do, just dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory". We on BR can do a good service by spreading this untol US policy and briging it out in the open. Better still, if someone has access to Wikileaks' Julian Asanga, send this to him, and ask him to put it out with more supporting leaks. For e.g., how much US knew about Mumbai, espcially TSPA/ISI involvement, and when.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jul 2010 00:54

Knowing RamN, He might have already sent it along for comments. there is another group called Indo-US Strategic Dialog which might also be circulating it.

BTW, Early on folks on this forum had dubbed those who figured it out as CTists!

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 29 Jul 2010 01:16

I recall during the round the clock coverage of Mumbai on CNN, Zain Verje and other mouthpiece beauties on CNN were doing what they were told to do, concentrate on the graphic images, but not deviate from the equal equal or India alleges, TSP denies theme. The CNN TSP correspondent dork, Raja Seya (or whatever his name is) would start and end with every report saying India routines alleges TSP involvement, but TSP is looking for "proof". The babe Zain Verjee would every 2 hours when asked who could be behind was deafeningly repetitive that would do even an ISI spokesman proud: She would list everyone from to Indian Muj to "Hindu extremists", you name it, with LET only as "Indian allegation"; well, she is state dept reporter for CNN and so you can get the drift. But there was one ex CIA officer who in the thick of it had the courage to bring out the truth, albeit obliquely: he said, this kind of a massive operation is not run of the mill, it takes a lot of planning, and requires massive state support including a well endowed intelligence agency. Of course he did not mention eye yes eye by name

.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 29 Jul 2010 01:24

ramana wrote:Knowing RamN, He might have already sent it along for comments. there is another group called Indo-US Strategic Dialog which might also be circulating it.
BTW, Early on folks on this forum had dubbed those who figured it out as CTists!

But these folks dont live in India !
Still J &K aspect is missing . The curreny Hulla Gulla by Uncle Sam's lap dancer Hoorirats done to assure Poaks their fingres in K valley wont get chopped off and Why big O is going there ? Sing lullaby to Singh so Poaks can steal his house.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Jul 2010 01:42

- Identify ways to hurt and weaken the mad dogs from within

{More Maharishi Yoga and spirtualism to make them realize the wrong path they are on.}

Yep. More religion this side, and more yoga that side.

BTW, SwamyG garu - this might interest you http://www.powhatan.org/pocc.html. Remember our discussion on American Bisons?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 29 Jul 2010 02:10

Akbar drew a line on the floor and asked Birbal to shorten the line without touching it. We all know what Birbal did , MMS trying same in regard to Poak without touching them and convince the world about the irrelevance of Poakland in civilized affairs.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 29 Jul 2010 02:43

Rama garu, mucho gracias for thinking about that conversation

But, I am missing your point, if you had any.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 29 Jul 2010 02:56

RamaY wrote:I also hope the so-called liberal posters of this forum see thru this perfidy.

I ask "What has liberal posters got anything to do with how USA handles other countries?"

Since a stable Pakistan is more important to the United States than a victory in Afghanistan — which it wasn’t going to get anyway — the United States released pressure and increased aid. If Pakistan collapsed, then India would be the sole regional power, not something the United States wants.

Why does USA think this way? What are they scared off India?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 29 Jul 2010 03:24

SwamyG wrote:
RamaY wrote:I also hope the so-called liberal posters of this forum see thru this perfidy.
I ask "What has liberal posters got anything to do with how USA handles other countries?"
Since a stable Pakistan is more important to the United States than a victory in Afghanistan — which it wasn’t going to get anyway — the United States released pressure and increased aid. If Pakistan collapsed, then India would be the sole regional power, not something the United States wants.
Why does USA think this way? What are they scared off India?

Indians are original pagan and Pagan ideas can kill many irrational , absolutist theories practiced in WEST as religious dogma.
The Second coming of real Aryans keep Anaryans apprehensive. Spiritual freedom is still mainly absent and looked down upon even now and this rational century will see the clash and collapse of many dogmatic idols. Rich, powerful and solid India will deliver greatest message to humanity than ever given before. At least 4 billions will be freed from the threat of imagined Hell and wrathful lord.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 29 Jul 2010 04:12

^^^
You seriously think, the powers-would-be are thinking about religion and spirituality when making foreign policy decisions?

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 29 Jul 2010 08:36

Let us say Pakistan ceases to exist as of now. How will it benefit India and how will it harm US?

Well, I can think of a few points which show how it can help India.

- Pakistan has 600K regular and 300K paramilitary personnel. In addition, it has about 500K reserves. So, it brings about 1.5 million personnel to the table. Once Pakistan is gone, India does not have to worry about this particular factor. So, India can use this troop to bolster its border with China. But how does this harm US?

- Pakistan has about 50 nuclear warheads. So, we do not have to worry about those either once Pakistan is gone. We can deploy those 50 warheads targeting someone else. Let us say it will be against China. Again, how does this harm US?

It is China who is going to lose out big time once Pakistan is gone.

But, I am not saying that US has no interest in propping up Pakistan against India. It clearly does and history is a testament to that. Even if Pakistan is gone, US will have China to play against India. So, why US has not faith in China while all this faith in Pakistan? Is it because Chinese are not as stupid as Pakistanis?

At any rate, Pakistan advantage that US currently has over India is not very well pronounced. And, it is only matter of time before India will neutralize this streaked advantage called Pakistan.

My humble opinion.

Mauli · Post by **Mauli** » 29 Jul 2010 10:01

On TSP thread CramS wrote:

The root of USA's India containment policy is the intellectual contempt and disdain western intellectuals have for Hinduism.

here is an attempt to analyze this phenomenon

The Source of Bias against Hindus - Part I
By: George Thundiparambil, Germany

http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_030409.htm

The bias of western agencies against Hindus is also shared by the western mainstream media as well as the Muslim media who act in a similar way as the Amnesty International. The obvious reason is that religion plays a big role in the western psyche, despite its professed secular ideology, as much as it does in the Muslim psyche which at least have no false pretensions. The roots of modern western culture are still embedded in Christianity, whereas its secular ideals of human rights and democracy form the superficial skin that have been shaped by the French Revolution and Napoleonic reforms. The problem for the so-called "secular" western psyche is that it has not been able to replace its fundamental belief (which is Christian belief) with anything else. And Christianity as a religion is fundamentally flawed for the reason that it is not based on experience and knowledge. Therefore when it comes to making an instinctual judgement, the western psyche cannot escape its prejudicial response, like the Amnesty, like many other agencies.....................
................

My point is - western agencies and institutions (I'm not talking of individuals) can never be unbiased or true to their ideals when Hindus are involved, because of this vital flaw in their collective psyche. Now one might ask me, why should a Christian be biased against a Hindu? The answer is - a true Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ as the "only way". To believe in Jesus Christ one has to baptise, which means you also believe in "original sin". This ideology is the foundation of the western collective unconscious. Religion as we all know is a powerful force. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan calls it the deepest part of our being. A western commoner professing secular ideals and no longer a church-going Christian, but bereft of a deeper basis to support his new-found attitudes, would respond from his deeper "baptised" self when making an instinctual judgement. For a Christian, a non-baptised human being is less than a baptised one. A circumcised human being (Jew or a Muslim) though lesser than a baptised one, is more than a non-circumcised one because of their father Abraham's covenant with Jesus Christ's father god. That is the basis of the western bias against anything Hindu, or for that matter any pre-judaic religion. The pope while apologising to the Jews, refused to do that to the Hindus. This Abrahamic affinity is reciprocal if there is no material or egoistical stake in it. The pope visited a mosque in Syria recently. Mohammed Khatami in an effort to win western support, recently proclaimed the unity with the west in the belief in one single god. An issue of the Time magazine last year had the Abrahamic ancestry as its cover story, suggesting that the common roots of the Jews, Christians and Muslims in Abraham could heal the wounds in Palestine.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 29 Jul 2010 10:14

^ It makes sense because Pakistan does not constitute any demonstrable advantage for US over India. So, there has to be something else besides geopolitics. Is it our Dharma? May be. I do not know. But something is surely strange about US - Pakistan tango.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Jul 2010 10:20

SwamyG wrote:
RamaY wrote:I also hope the so-called liberal posters of this forum see thru this perfidy.
I ask "What has liberal posters got anything to do with how USA handles other countries?"

I see that Prem-ji already answered the other question. We have discussed it threadbare in civilizational dhagha.

Coming to this question -

Oftentimes we see the liberal posters (I named them so in order to identify that group of POVs with a common meme) looking at each and every problem from others' perspective (in this scenario - why US did/said so?) and justify the harm caused to Indian interests (USA must have done what it has done to protect its national interests onlee).

This approach only serves one's academic/intellectual purposes but is of no value to Indian interests. The problem with trying to see an issue with other players perspective is that the observer will soon lose his own POV/purpose. This is exactly what happens with WKKs and Leftists as they try to understand the motivations (which often are termed as root-causes) of other players' actions instead of analyzing the qualitative and quantitative impact on their own kind.

IMHO, it is more purposeful to spend our time in strategizing preventive/corrective measures against the perpetrators.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Jul 2010 10:22

SwamyG wrote:^^^
You seriously think, the powers-would-be are thinking about religion and spirituality when making foreign policy decisions?

Why not? Religion and spirituality are the most potent weapon/shield (depending upon the usage) in human history.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 29 Jul 2010 10:28

^ I agree. If not our Dharma then what else could it be? I tried to think of any harm that loss of Pakistan would bring to US but I could not think of a single potent one. In absence of that, the tango between US and Pakistan seems sinister.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 29 Jul 2010 10:33

Ramayji -

According to you it is ok to explain away US actions towards India as "hatred for Hindus" as someone posted in page 6, but not ok to explain away US actions as "self interest". Why is that?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Jul 2010 11:36

Because I am analyzing others actions based on their impact on Bharat. Nothing else!

1/ Good intentions - Bad results
2/ Bad intentions - Bad results
3/ Good intentions - Good results
4/ Bad intentions - Good results

One of US's strategic community clearly stated their thought process (with good/bad intentions giving good/bad results for India). My root cause analysis starts from the consequences, not from other players' world-view or interests.

Given the consequences of Pakistan vis-a-vis India, USA stands in scenarios 1 & 2. Now Stratfor's article says it is definitely not scenario 1 (India as a regional power is not in the interests of USA). That leaves scenario 2.

neti, neti, neti: