Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[brihaspati]

The question always will be about how fine and tight a control we can maintain over such a war of attrition between two groups - both of whom we ultimately want destroyed? We need to finish off both Jihadis and PRC - how do we ensure that that they destroy each other and there is no clear and surviving winner?

From practical political experience I have seen the results first hand. A long time ago, a senior leader had drawn me aside and remarked - as an advisory - that for a party to function, one needs both the corrupt as well as the orthodox uncorrupt ideologues/idealists. If "you do not allow the frontline comrades to indulge in a bit of haath-safaai how can you maintain them....beta?" "those comrades are never going to be given top leadership responsibilities - we maintain firm control at the core, and no corruption is allowed there, but we simply use such corrupt people as well as goons who join us from the opponents in a thorn-against-thorn policy - thats all. If you do not loosen up on the indulgence bit we will lose such elements...!"

I know what the results have been. All those pious wishes of being in firm control - ultimately boils down to nothing. This is where I would be worried. I would be okay with allowing a degree of encouragement to the Talebs or allowing them to proceed against PRC, but I would be most wary of actually helping them increase their own strength in that process.

[RajeshA]

The question always will be about how fine and tight a control we can maintain over such a war of attrition between two groups - both of whom we ultimately want destroyed? We need to finish off both Jihadis and PRC - how do we ensure that that they destroy each other and there is no clear and surviving winner?

From practical political experience I have seen the results first hand. A long time ago, a senior leader had drawn me aside and remarked - as an advisory - that for a party to function, one needs both the corrupt as well as the orthodox uncorrupt ideologues/idealists. If "you do not allow the frontline comrades to indulge in a bit of haath-safaai how can you maintain them....beta?" "those comrades are never going to be given top leadership responsibilities - we maintain firm control at the core, and no corruption is allowed there, but we simply use such corrupt people as well as goons who join us from the opponents in a thorn-against-thorn policy - thats all. If you do not loosen up on the indulgence bit we will lose such elements...!"

I know what the results have been. All those pious wishes of being in firm control - ultimately boils down to nothing. This is where I would be worried. I would be okay with allowing a degree of encouragement to the Talebs or allowing them to proceed against PRC, but I would be most wary of actually helping them increase their own strength in that process.

brihaspati garu,

Why I do not worry about the Jihadis too much is, simply that the Jihadis receive their support from societies who have little productive capacity of their own. Right now Oil is still flowing, but how long? Right now, the Muslims in Western societies are still remitting money to the pious back home, but with Europe not being able to support their welfare societies, from which many Muslims derive their income, and because of rising Islamophobia in West, those remittances will also take a hit. The other source of income is drugs, but that is a problem I think can be solved technically through bio-warfare, better intelligence, and more freedom to strike with drones where ever one wants.

The other source of income for Jihadis would be powers that use them - the Americans, the Chinese. With Afghan War coming to a close, American funding could dry up a bit. PRC would keep on channeling money to them through the Pak Army, as things stand.

So basically because of zero productive contribution and inability to control world trade as in the days of old, Islam and Jihadism are a dying breed, only not many are willing to accept it. Chaos or no chaos, everybody needs resources and money.

So the last true source of income for the Jihadis would be Chinese money, funneled through TSPA, to intimidate the West and India and Russia (may be) and keep everybody else off balance, while buying for itself an amnesty. TSPA can do the propaganda and create the boogey men for Islam. So even as Islam dies, the highly radicalized Islamists would be let loose on India.

However this option is also available to India. India too can finance the Jihadis and let them loose on China. In order to do that, Pakjabi Army would have to either change sides or be defeated. Whichever way we do it, we will need a middleman - it could be the Pakjabis or it could be the Pushtun. We would have to give some thought how we could play it. The badlands of Waziristan can be turned into a East Turkestan/Uyghur training ground.

The thing is, either India does it, and if we don't do it the Chinese would do it, and if they don't do it, the West may try some games.

What we need is to be on top of the propaganda game with the Islamists, and to have a strong and reliable middleman.

So much for Islamists. The Chinese are a whole different cup of coffee. They are technologically advanced and they have money, and they play with their heads. They are not putting their kids in a race to the most illiterate person alive.

[brihaspati]

I would rather not underestimate the Jihadis. They know exactly how to compensate for their lack of resources with psychological insights into their enemies. The greatest advantage that they have is that they are not committed to "liberalism" or "humane" values, and they have no problem in using such sentiments within their enemy.

This makes for the opposition to jihadis almost always divided, if not self-restricted - a fact noted as early as the founding days of the theology and advised by the founder as the key point of advantage for that "faith".

If we are going to use them, how do we guarantee that some among us will not melt in "kindness" when the time comes to finish them off after they have done their bit?

[RajeshA]

I would rather not underestimate the Jihadis. They know exactly how to compensate for their lack of resources with psychological insights into their enemies. The greatest advantage that they have is that they are not committed to "liberalism" or "humane" values, and they have no problem in using such sentiments within their enemy.

This makes for the opposition to jihadis almost always divided, if not self-restricted - a fact noted as early as the founding days of the theology and advised by the founder as the key point of advantage for that "faith".

If we are going to use them, how do we guarantee that some among us will not melt in "kindness" when the time comes to finish them off after they have done their bit?

Values are good at home as long as nobody is challenging the system's foundation or core national interests. I am also in favor of fighting intolerance with even more intolerance. Outside the country, I am in favor of changing our vocabulary and thinking.

I am in favor of both enforcing the Indian ethos upon the Indian Muslims, while not contesting their right to remain Muslims, but also empowering them to consolidate the Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent under their leadership and for them to being at the forefront at building bridges to the Islamic World, establishing peace between India and them. We need peace at home for other projects abroad.

I believe we have discussed in the past, how we should restrain the natural tendencies of Islam in India.

I am also in favor of exploiting our next door neighborhood in the West for the only commodity they have in abundance - the capacity to create anarchy and channeling that virtue into influencing the destinies of our rivals.

I just believe Islam is something PRC is hopeful about using in India to tie us up in knots. In the race with PRC, every lost year counts for India. Islam is something to work on once the Han challenge has been dealt with. Now would not be the right time.

[Carl_T]

I think using peripheral ethnic groups like Uighurs and Tibetans etc are of limited value strategically and in the case of promoting Islamism among the Uighurs, will probably blow back on us sometime or other.

If we want to weaken China, we have to create divisions among the heart and soul - the Han majority, we can fund religious or pro democracy groups opposed to the CPC among the Han majority and weaken their resolve and confuse their policy. The true believers are the same everywhere but we need to be careful where they are placed and what ideology they will follow.

[brihaspati]

Mayeb we have to distinguish between the Tibetans and the Uyghurs. Tibetans, culturally and faithwise will always have a minimal positive identification with India. Whereas any population that has submitted to Islam will potentially give rise to a Mullahcracy and use classic Islamist strategy and doctrine to strike "when opportune". So Uyghurs may yet use our support but later on join hands with other Islamist nations to try and damage us.

Long ago I had proposed playing with the idea that we force the Jihadis of AFPAK with the option that either they move to Uyghuristan and we will help them move with their men and even provide conveyance, or we liquidate them and their supporting networks and communities from which they draw recruits - opium to trade - and support. They become a problem of PRC then, Russia may not like it entirely, but we at least do not add to the strength of the Jihadis while we clear that land for "specialized" settlements.

[brihaspati]

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news- ... gages.html

Afghan peace negotiations gain pace; US engages

All three main insurgent groups -- the Afghan Taliban led by Mullah Omar, the Haqqani network and the Hizb-ul-Islami Gulbuddin (HiG) led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar -- are involved in informal talks on how to open a more structured peace process.

Significantly, non-US sources say Washington has given a far higher level of endorsement to talks with insurgents -- held either by Afghans or through third parties -- than before. “The thing that’s changed this time round is the American knowledge of what is going on and an increased appetite from the actual insurgency to engage,” said a UN source with knowledge of the talks. “The Americans are not sure whether to call it endorsement or engagement,” said one non-American official. “Nevertheless they are now convinced about the utility of engagement.”

Washington has acknowledged the need for an eventual political settlement as a war increasingly unpopular at home drags into its 10th year. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told a news conference on Thursday that the alliance was willing to facilitate talks -- although it was important to keep up military pressure on militants.

Despite the strength of the Taliban, who have a foothold in more of the country than any time since 2001, the US focus is still on the reintegration of individual fighters and commanders, to try to split the insurgency rather than broader reconciliation or power-sharing, another non-US official said. The sources, however, also speak of a parallel, lengthy and fluid reconciliation process of trying to agree on the ground rules under which all Afghan factions could be brought together into peace talks with the help of regional players. While Washington and Pakistan are -- at least in part -- working together on this, various other countries, including the United Arab Emirates, were cited as possible mediators. “It’s a team effort,” said another source with knowledge of the talks, adding there were mediators from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and a role was also being played by Turkey.

Instability in Pakistan

Some sources speak of a greater willingness by Pakistan to compromise on finding a peace settlement in Afghanistan to end a war which is increasingly threatening its own stability. Islamabad is currently accused of covertly backing some insurgents to counter the influence of India in its neighbor. “We don’t insist on a stable and friendly Afghanistan,” said one Pakistani security official. “Friendly you can interpret in your own way. We have gone down to peace and stability.”

One senior Western official in Kabul also said there appeared to be a change in tone in conversations with Pakistan’s military, unnerved by radicalization in the country’s heartland Punjab....That has forced its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency to work more with other parties in trying to nudge insurgents -- many of whom use Pakistan as a safe base -- into talks.

One source close to the talks said it was clear Pakistan had the power to destroy the process if it wanted to, but equally Pakistan recognized it could not create a settlement on its own.
[...]
Official sources say they could now perhaps be persuaded to accept a timeline for withdrawal. The details of this are likely to be a major issue of dispute, but Obama’s commitment, combined with pressure from Pakistan and a fear that without a political settlement Afghanistan could descend into anther bitter civil war, is seen as underpinning a willingness to engage in talks.
[...]
Yet despite the skepticism, analysts and official sources agree there has been a step-shift in recent months towards the idea involving insurgent leaders in a settlement in Afghanistan. That has been highlighted by what non-US sources see as a new willingness by Washington to consider including the Haqqani network, based in Pakistan’s North Waziristan and seen as close to al-Qaeda, in any eventual settlement.

Non-US sources said that while Mullah Omar’s Taliban remained strong in Kandahar and southern Afghanistan, the Haqqani network had been increasingly threatening Kabul, making both insurgent groups necessary to any settlement. “The principle is whether you are ready to talk, and after much nudging, the Americans have accepted,” said one official.

17 October 2010, Sunday
REUTERS LONDON/KABUL

its the endgame. - where each side is trying to gain the maximum military and "control on ground" assets to use for leverage in negotiations. Its the timeline issue thats crucial now. The report is obviously not necessarily ascribing real motivations that openly to the parties - especially the Pak and Taleb groups, because of obvious leanings apparent in general in this Turkish newsgroups other reports. However, we can ignore the ingenuous ascriptions and look at the essence of the report - that is that part of the military moves can be explained by the ongoing underhand negotiations.

India needs to prepare for the eventuality :

(1) once USA withdraws there will be clamour and sanction for funds for "reconstruction" of AFG and perhaps by association more also for Pak.
(2) AFG will be practically split between a small north and large south, and a low intensity or high intensity civil war is most likely where north is likely to retreat unless sustained by external forces
(3) the funds obtained by AFG and Pak will mostly be used by the Taleb-Pak combine to prepare for expansive military adventures and export of terror - and for the moment such efforts will be towards non-western targets like India to use the non-involvement movements currently going on in "west".
(4) PRC and PLA will solidly back AFPAK moves and Iran will remain neutral if not covertly supportive in order to use AFPAK Sunnis as an obstruction for US presence.

[TonyMontana]

I say, India needs to harness the forces of Jihad to finish off PRC and any other major power that arises against us. I even think, India is well endowed for such a policy.

You give the Jihadist too much credit. You're looking at it from the western point of view. Let me say this. The Jihad problem exist because you allowed it to exist. Think about this statement very hard.

Besides, we'll just pay them out.

I just believe Islam is something PRC is hopeful about using in India to tie us up in knots. In the race with PRC, every lost year counts for India. Islam is something to work on once the Han challenge has been dealt with. Now would not be the right time.

Let me say this to you. For India, the Chinese is a disease of the skin. Islam, is a disease of the heart.

If we want to weaken China, we have to create divisions among the heart and soul - the Han majority, we can fund religious or pro democracy groups opposed to the CPC among the Han majority and weaken their resolve and confuse their policy. The true believers are the same everywhere but we need to be careful where they are placed and what ideology they will follow.

As we Chinese would say, like "putting out a fire with a cup of water".

[svinayak]

I just believe Islam is something PRC is hopeful about using in India to tie us up in knots. In the race with PRC, every lost year counts for India. Islam is something to work on once the Han challenge has been dealt with. Now would not be the right time.

Let me say this to you. For India, the Chinese is a disease of the skin. Islam, is a disease of the heart.

India will make Islam as a fatal disease for Chinese people

[TonyMontana]

India will make Islam as a fatal disease for Chinese people

I just don't see how this could happen? How could you terrorise the people that wrote the book on terrorism? The CCP would out terrorise the muslims.

[ramana]

India has one of the five major schools of Islam in India. Its the only non-Arab country to have that. Even the Wahabi school is subservient to another school. The whole Wahabi project by the Brits was to re-Arabise Islam and prevent it from getting Indianised.

[brihaspati]

Tony Montana ji,

Paying off "Jihadis"! In case of China, historical experience shows that the so-called "barbarian hordes" took tha payment only to increase their own strength and ultimately successfully invade the northern areas. Modeling Jihadis by historical "steppe hordes" may not be accurate. Jihadis have an ideological drive to spread and impose a particular faith system and destroy those parts of the invaded civilization that prove beyond their capacity to handle complexity.

Jihad does not survive because it has been allowed to. It survives because once it emerges, it can live on using the liberal or humane values of non-Jihadis. Further they appeal to that part of the human psyche that is attracted to S&M. It is not simply a question of "allowance". It is a self-contradiction to declare that "all men are created equal and have inalienable rights" and then deny that right to a group of who look, speak, talk, eat and reproduce like humans. It was partly at least on this self-contradiction [apart from mundane economic and industrial reasons and some key Constitutional issues] that USA was forced into the Civil War. Jihadis actually force societies who declare as above to either contradict their own principles or succumb to Jihadis.

Let us not trivialize the issue.

[TonyMontana]

Paying off "Jihadis"! In case of China, historical experience shows that the so-called "barbarian hordes" took tha payment only to increase their own strength and ultimately successfully invade the northern areas. Modeling Jihadis by historical "steppe hordes" may not be accurate. Jihadis have an ideological drive to spread and impose a particular faith system and destroy those parts of the invaded civilization that prove beyond their capacity to handle complexity.

Indeed, it is inaccurate to compare the Jihadis to the Golden Horde. The Horde was a conventional military force, where as at best the Jihadis is an insurgency. Insurgency need some form of local population support. And China is not above "population relocation".

Jihad does not survive because it has been allowed to. It survives because once it emerges, it can live on using the liberal or humane values of non-Jihadis. Further they appeal to that part of the human psyche that is attracted to S&M. It is not simply a question of "allowance". It is a self-contradiction to declare that "all men are created equal and have inalienable rights" and then deny that right to a group of who look, speak, talk, eat and reproduce like humans. It was partly at least on this self-contradiction [apart from mundane economic and industrial reasons and some key Constitutional issues] that USA was forced into the Civil War. Jihadis actually force societies who declare as above to either contradict their own principles or succumb to Jihadis.

Luck for us we never had that problem. The Confucius school of thought is that "all men are born equal, but grew up different". That's why the historical focus in China on self-culturvation and learning. Don't worry about Liberaltards staying China's hands.

[brihaspati]

Tony Montana wrote
Luck for us we never had that problem. The Confucius school of thought is that "all men are born equal, but grew up different". That's why the historical focus in China on self-culturvation and learning. Don't worry about Liberaltards staying China's hands.

"grew up different" even under almost three generations under the CPC and its ideology and practice of which the Chinese commons are so fond of as per your claims?

I think you may need to really think hard too. China once turned itself inwards and froze - and stamped down on liberalism. There was no end of executions and suppression of any "deviation" - and you know where it led to under the Dowager. Liberal-tards also include a minority of people who are innovative and who are initiators of necessary changes in a stagnant [a society can be stagnant in spite of material wealth] society.

I think you confirmed a statement I made sometime ago on this forum, that the problem with the Chinese civilization was that singular suppression of innovation and submission to bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is the haven of mediocracy everywhere, and might have stalled that continuous process of civilizational evolution.

But I am willing to hazard an alternative scenario for China - as a bet with you. In 25 years time, China's CPC-PLA regime will be gone. China will reinvent its bureaucracy maybe. But that will take some time. And it will be parts of that CPC-PLA that will join in or be a key factor in that transition and help liquidate the other parts of itself. Religion will become fashionable again.

I hope we can meet then personally and exchange our winnings!

[harbans]

One cannot use untruth as a weapon and want truth to win ultimately. I agree with TM ji, the Chinese will handle Jihadi's much better than India has in the past. Want the Chinese off your borders..persist with the truth. Hence India's national motto..trust it and do verify if it works in real life.

[TonyMontana]

"grew up different" even under almost three generations under the CPC and its ideology and practice of which the Chinese commons are so fond of as per your claims?

Not quite sure what you mean here? We still like learning if that's what you're asking.

I think you may need to really think hard too. China once turned itself inwards and froze - and stamped down on liberalism. There was no end of executions and suppression of any "deviation" - and you know where it led to under the Dowager. Liberal-tards also include a minority of people who are innovative and who are initiators of necessary changes in a stagnant [a society can be stagnant in spite of material wealth] society.

Oh no. You misunderstand me. I'm a strong supporter of moderates (liberals by Chinese standards). All I'm saying is that we don't have to worry about people marching for the rights of Jihadis.

I think you confirmed a statement I made sometime ago on this forum, that the problem with the Chinese civilization was that singular suppression of innovation and submission to bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is the haven of mediocracy everywhere, and might have stalled that continuous process of civilizational evolution.

I think it's more the current acadamia set up that stalls innovation. We're good at taking ideas tho. That's a plus. We don't have to come up with the idea, as long as we benefit from it. I'm hoping that
Chinese renaissance I wished for will re-kick start Chinese innovations. We were quite innovative for a while when the conditions were right.

But I am willing to hazard an alternative scenario for China - as a bet with you. In 25 years time, China's CPC-PLA regime will be gone. China will reinvent its bureaucracy maybe. But that will take some time. And it will be parts of that CPC-PLA that will join in or be a key factor in that transition and help liquidate the other parts of itself. Religion will become fashionable again.

I hope we can meet then personally and exchange our winnings!

How about a year subscription to a magazine of your choice? Popular bet when I was back in uni.
I don't know if the CCP would be there in name or in part or in whole. But I think the bureaucracy in principle would not change. It could be stream lined etc. But the Emperor and his court will still be here.

[Airavat]

Complete history of Islam in China

[Christopher Sidor]

We forgotten our experience with LTTE so soon. We paid a very heavy price, human and economic, for our support to LTTE. In spite of this, we see Indians advocating support to terrorist groups just so that we can check China or get even with Pakistan. We only have to look at Pakistan and Grozny to realize how terrorist groups can wreak havoc.
Terrorist groups are like two headed snakes. One head bites its intended victim. The other head bites the hand holding the snake.

Let us not confuse inaction with cowardice. We don't have to respond to every provocation. This way we only dance to our enemies tune.
For example we should respond to Mumbai incident, not by supporting Terrorist organisations, but by cutting off Pakistans economic lifeline. We should actively work to stop Pakistan from becoming a transit hub for Central Asia. Make Pakistan a somalia, so that it becomes a live nightmare for Jinnahs dream. Reiterate our position, "we don't believe that partition was final or irreversible."
Whereas China is concerned, the fitting reply would be to grow faster, in a more sustainable and more equitable way than China did. If we have an economy bigger, deeper and more equitable than China's, then we will be able to say to the China, "F*** you and whatever you believe in."

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from Waging war for geopolitical gains

I am coming to the opinion, that there is a lot of smoke and mirrors that has been put up by China:

1. Kashmir: The 'Azadi' movement in J&K has been in full force since 1989. We have had the Hurry-Rats and so many groups all fighting for 'azadi'. Pakistan has been using proxies and non-state actors, and claiming plausible deniability for the Western press. The disturbance in Kashmir has diverted India's attention to other problematic areas, like Naxalism.
2. Pakistan: All this has been taking place under the shadow of Pakistani nukes, gifted to them by China. The vehemence shown by Pakistan, the daring shown by Pakistan has all been due to the protective hand of PRC. In fact PRC has used Pakistan's tendency to be open and vocal about its enmity with India, to mask that PRC is responsible for the consistency in Pakistan's attitude. More importantly Pakistan has succeeded in diverting India's attention away from other major areas in our periphery which are sliding out of India's influence, chiefly Nepal and Myanmar.
3. Nepal: Nepal would be used to divert India's attention away from Sri Lanka.
4. Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka would be used to divert India's attention away from Maldives.
5. ityadi, ityadi....

India's enemies have forced India's security forces to become fire-fighters, but the job of arsonists is infinitely more easy than that of fire-fighters. No country which is constantly in fire-fighting mode would ever think of consolidation of its periphery, much less entertain geopolitical ambitions.

Therefore India's desire for national consolidation would fail unless we stop the routes, the arsonists use to supply more oil to those fires, raging in India. When China set out to do nation building, first and foremost China consolidated and hardened its periphery and then the middle, which is still work in progress. India on the other hand tried to do it the other way round, to harden the middle before venturing into our periphery. India's North-East is still a forgotten region. This strategy has however allowed external forces to take over our periphery, and then continue their drive to sabotage our national consolidation project, as we have both a shrunk core and a weak peripheral defense. This allows others to walk through our outer gate and attack India in the living room.

We have to change this paradigm. Only if we reassert control over the periphery, would we have a chance at national reconciliation.

[Pratyush]

Indian subcontinent is India, that ought to be our goal.

[Manishw]

I have trouble understanding what India stand's for? With all the semantics going around are we really sticking to the constitution or grounds are being prepared for the eventual caliphetization of India via the back door by our representatines.

[ramana]

X-post....

India eyes common trade bloc

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101017/j ... 066245.jsp

India may have spent $8 billion in organising the Commonwealth Games this fortnight, but compared with the $93 billion it trades annually with the Commonwealth members, that spending is small change.

Top Indian officials said India had long advocated turning the “club” into a trade bloc where members enjoyed exclusive tariff advantages but has been thwarted by the British who preferred an euro-centric trade policy. However, it intends to use the former British colonies’ club to strike trade and investment deals to its benefit over the next few years.

Indian officials said, “Britain and Canada, which are the only two nations whose trade with other Commonwealth nations is in single digits, are also keen to turn the Commonwealth to their trading advantage … the reason of course is the economic weakness in European and American markets.”
“We do not envisage a Commonwealth trade pact in the near future but do visualise using the club to catapult FTAs (free trade agreements) and economic pacts. We are working on FTAs with Australia, Bangladesh and have similar deals with two other members — Sri Lanka and Singapore,” the officials said. A trade pact with Canada is also on the anvil.

Welcome to Indian Comonwealth Empire or trading bloc. England, Scotland and Ireland can be part of Far Western India with regional autonomy. The Queen will be the Raj Pramukh of the region. Canada can be North American Satrapy.

[Carl_T]

Mayeb we have to distinguish between the Tibetans and the Uyghurs. Tibetans, culturally and faithwise will always have a minimal positive identification with India. Whereas any population that has submitted to Islam will potentially give rise to a Mullahcracy and use classic Islamist strategy and doctrine to strike "when opportune". So Uyghurs may yet use our support but later on join hands with other Islamist nations to try and damage us.

Long ago I had proposed playing with the idea that we force the Jihadis of AFPAK with the option that either they move to Uyghuristan and we will help them move with their men and even provide conveyance, or we liquidate them and their supporting networks and communities from which they draw recruits - opium to trade - and support. They become a problem of PRC then, Russia may not like it entirely, but we at least do not add to the strength of the Jihadis while we clear that land for "specialized" settlements.

Which jihadis though?

Your first paragraph is right, but your second paragraph assumes that for the jihadis, Islamism and the Islamic state is the aim the way it was for Khomeini. Rather I think it is better to characterize Islamism as the "means" with the aim as being "securing Paki strategic interests". As the kashmir jihadis are backed by Pakistan, a deviation from that aim would be a non-starter.


Now if you were specifically referring to the Pashtun nationalists whose agenda is in opposition to the TSP, creating a Pashtunistan may be realistic.


I think the route you are proposing is feasible for other nations to follow. Iran could potentially try to convince Balochis to make a Balochistan out of Pakistan in exchange for giving up claim to Iranian Balochistan.

[TonyMontana]

We forgotten our experience with LTTE so soon. We paid a very heavy price, human and economic, for our support to LTTE. In spite of this, we see Indians advocating support to terrorist groups just so that we can check China or get even with Pakistan. We only have to look at Pakistan and Grozny to realize how terrorist groups can wreak havoc.
Terrorist groups are like two headed snakes. One head bites its intended victim. The other head bites the hand holding the snake.

Let us not confuse inaction with cowardice. We don't have to respond to every provocation. This way we only dance to our enemies tune.
For example we should respond to Mumbai incident, not by supporting Terrorist organisations, but by cutting off Pakistans economic lifeline. We should actively work to stop Pakistan from becoming a transit hub for Central Asia. Make Pakistan a somalia, so that it becomes a live nightmare for Jinnahs dream. Reiterate our position, "we don't believe that partition was final or irreversible."
Whereas China is concerned, the fitting reply would be to grow faster, in a more sustainable and more equitable way than China did. If we have an economy bigger, deeper and more equitable than China's, then we will be able to say to the China, "F*** you and whatever you believe in."

A agree with you entirely. But let me throw some common response at you if I posted this.
You can't develop economy without securing borders. And that means active defence against China.
India should be the party pooper and respond in kind with the same tactics. Cost on China will be greater.

[brihaspati]

Carl_T wrote
Your first paragraph is right, but your second paragraph assumes that for the jihadis, Islamism and the Islamic state is the aim the way it was for Khomeini. Rather I think it is better to characterize Islamism as the "means" with the aim as being "securing Paki strategic interests". As the kashmir jihadis are backed by Pakistan, a deviation from that aim would be a non-starter.

Now will not "Islamism" itself define and have influence on what is then seen as "strategic interests"? Strategic interests as interests of whom? Paki elite? Does that include any foreseeable Paki elite interest in modernizing their education system or give up their feudal land holding patterns? I mean even at the minimum a "strategic interest" ultimately has to have some connections for objectives of people and forces internal to the "country". Even based on pure "trading/commercial" interests it would have been in the stratgeic interest of Paki elite to foster more normal economic exchanges with India [ as it is they lose out on the revenue due to smuggling - and even if you say that they benefit from the black-economy, macroeconomic standard and basic wisdom will say that - that is disastrous for their material strategic interests in the long run].

But what modifies that "strategic interest" is the viewpoint of Islamism itself - by which only a dominance-submission relationship with the non-Muslim and capture of land or enslavement of people - that imposes itself on Pak. Strategic interests are shaped both by material considerations as well as ideology.

Now if you were specifically referring to the Pashtun nationalists whose agenda is in opposition to the TSP, creating a Pashtunistan may be realistic.

Even here, the "Pashtun nationalism" itself could simply be a means or tool to harness forces and support ultimately for an Islamist goal. A wide-spread movement is joined by various groups each of whom may hope to advance their own agenda using some pretended or real overlap.

Pashtun nationalims is no longer a pure nationalism, but it has now had long overlays and interlays with a broader Islamist target for Asia because of nurturing by the west and Pak during and after the Cold War. Pashtuns did not have such a strong cultural and military resistance that they could resist Islmics in the first place. Which is an indication that they may not have the cultural resources to provide an independent basis for nationalism - strog enough to withstand manipulation by Islamists. This is exactly what has happened - through the gradual shift of power from Mujahideen to the Talebs.

[brihaspati]

TonyMontana ji,

You can't develop economy without securing borders. And that means active defence against China.
India should be the party pooper and respond in kind with the same tactics. Cost on China will be greater.

The problem is the demand that only one objective is pursued to the neglect of the other. The clamour for GDP chasing appears to be strongly bent on preventing resources being used to "secure borders" and simultaneous preparations for potential military encounters or use of military means to intervene in the neighbourhood to secure a wide variety of objectives - that may also include economic ones.

I have strongly objected to this underlying stress on mutual exclusivity of both objectives and methods.

India's past experience has shown that neglecting to build in potential military encounters as well as military initiatives to take out potentially rising hostile forces have had to be paid dearly - ultimately even at the cost of material and economic prosperity.

Any school of thought that wants India not to look into the military aspect of pre-empting intensely hostile and looting groups or regimes around its neighbourhood, is either self-deluded at best or working for the benefit of such hostile forces, at their worst.

[Manishw]

^ B Ji this point has been made countless times to this drone by myself, you and perhaps others but he still derives some sadistic pleasure in continuing with the same crap of "grow economy, forget everything else", whenever he seems to be cornered he just runs off and starts the whole argument someplace else with somebody else.Sigh , have to put up with him till the mods decide otherwise.

[TonyMontana]

^ B Ji this point has been made countless times to this drone by myself, you and perhaps others but he still derives some sadistic pleasure in continuing with the same crap of "grow economy, forget everything else", whenever he seems to be cornered he just runs off and starts the whole argument someplace else with somebody else.Sigh , have to put up with him till the mods decide otherwise.

Holy moly! Look! Someone that don't agree with my opinions! And look! He keeps agreeing with people that agrees with his opinions! Arg! If only we can put people like that in some sort of camps so he would agree with me! Rage! Rage!

[Manishw]

First you post this playing the victim

Why is everyone so mean to me?

then you proceed with your piskological analysis.

Holy moly! Look! Someone that don't agree with my opinions! And look! He keeps agreeing with people that agrees with his opinions! Arg! If only we can put people like that in some sort of camps so he would agree with me! Rage! Rage!

Anyway continue my friend but it is not rage rage from my side but some strange infatuation on your side which drives you here.Better see a shrink.

[TonyMontana]

Anyway continue my friend but it is not rage rage from my side but some strange infatuation on your side which drives you here.Better see a shrink.

Someone has to like the M in S&M.

[Manishw]

What is M and S&M?

[TonyMontana]

What is M and S&M?

If you don't get the reference, forget I said it. Don't google it! For the love of all that is holy! I'm serious.

[Manishw]

^ fine.

[naren]

Manishw ji,

You dont think internet is only for BRFing, do you ?

[Manishw]

Naren Ji could not understand the question.Could you kindly expand?

[naren]

S&M== sadism and masochism. A form of violent "love" where the couples beat the sheet out of the other. Depicted in many "educational" videos in the internet. Most internet users, being very academically motivated, are very well versed in such educational videos. That, according to most experts, is the primary usage of the internet.

[Manishw]

Got your point Naren Ji. Thanks

[TonyMontana]

That, according to most experts, is the primary usage of the internet.

85% of all internet traffic. Google Stats don't lie.

[brihaspati]

Can we have this most enlightening discussion somewhere else more appropriate if necessary to do within the forum - like Nukkad/L&M within GDF - please?

Googling for it itself is not a crime, and google does not blow up and expand all the links that it finds. None of the websites are automatically started up if you merely google it. Searching for information should be a fundamental right of all human beings, and let us not hear calls for "not looking up" something. There are very clear, really clinical and academic discussions and papers on the subject - available, and one need not choose lurid representations only to know about the area.

[RajeshA]

Continuing from Waging war for geopolitical gains

AKalam ji,

The question of SD and BMs is thus. I do not object to whatever religion Bangladeshis follow. It is their prerogative. I wouldn't show green flag or red flag depending on the specific religion.

My issue with Muslim majority countries merging with India is just that it has not been proven that Muslim countries in the Indian Subcontinent can manage themselves well and establish a mature society. I concede and to much satisfaction that Bangladesh is far ahead of Pakistan on this question. I fear that politics of religion would again rear their ugly head should such a merger take place.

A separation of people allow both societies to progress unhindered (or less hindered) by religious issues. We can both develop together. I am fully in favor of India doing its most to see to it, that Bangladeshis too develop along with India.

What the inheritors of the Indian Civilization, India and Bangladesh and others in the Indian Subcontinent, need to do is to develop a consensus around the civilization interests of the people of the Indian Subcontinent - equitable upliftment of our people, law and order, technological development, environment, better management of our water resources, infrastructure, single market, single currency, etc. but also other issues as well. The Indian Subcontinent ought to have a single foreign policy and joint defense, where we maximize the profit ensuing from international cooperation but we do not allow any outside power to hurt any country in the Indian Subcontinent.

I am in favor of some EU type arrangement, but without Pakistan, because with Pakistan inside, nothing would move forward, and with India out, there would be little glue. However it is not just up to India to build this family. Family means one stand for each other and do not allow some enemy to take advantage, or create friction in the family.

If something like this comes up, I too will be happy. But as things stand today, Bangladesh has pushed millions of Bangladeshis into India against our wishes. India can claim a right to have this redressed by Bangladesh. If Bangladeshis do not leave India, India should retain the option of claiming land as well from Bangladesh and not just the population. By this demographic invasion of so many economic refugees into India, Bangladesh has given scant respect to India's sovereignty and territorial integrity. India is under no compulsion to make one sided concessions.

It is like this. China is India's enemy. My enemy's friend is my enemy also. It is - you are with us or you are with them. Mind you, this is neither India's official position, nor is it really a realistic position. But for the sake of our argument, the issue can be assumed to be so formulated. Bangladesh has nothing to fear from India by itself, but inviting China in, make Bangladesh a target for Indian wrath.

So the question is one of: should we allow Bangladesh to invite an enemy into our family house or should we not? Bangladesh does not take India's concerns into consideration in giving Chittagong to China, then India can choose to take a harder position and claim compensation for the demographic invasion, perhaps by invading Chittagong.

Earlier I suggested a sort of Indian Subcontinent Doctrine:

India considers herself as the caretaker of the cultural, political and demographic heritage of the Indian Civilization, which has prospered in the Indian Subcontinent and its periphery. This civilization has been ruled by the Mauryas, Guptas, Mughals and Britain, among others. Even as India understands that multiple states can be the inheritors of a civilization and India accepts the sovereignty of the current ones, India would not allow that any political enemy of India or of the Indian Civilization gains a foothold on the Indian Subcontinent, either through deceit or through some agent. India retains a veto in this regard. Also any efforts of any other inheritors of the Indian Civilization to undermine the security interests of India, the main inheritor of the legacy, will not be tolerated.

The ball is in Bangladesh's court, because Bangladesh is precipitating the issue by giving Chittagong to China (for use). Bangladesh is changing the status quo existing on the Indian Subcontinent.

As I mentioned earlier, I would certainly support some EU type solution, but I think the power elites in the neighboring countries are already in China's pockets, especially in Nepal, Sri Lanka and Maldives, not to speak of Pakistan, so they would not allow this confederation. I don't know how much influence the Chinese have in Bangladesh, but I think it is not little.

RajeshA ji,

I understand your points why India would be unhappy with this situation.

Bangladesh had been vacillating between a pro-India and anti-India see-saw since 1971. Awami League led by Mujib and his daughter Hasina, had been leading the pro-India faction, while Zia and his wife Khaleda leading the anti-India faction. Both are powerful and have deep roots among the population. When one comes to power and displays its nepotism, corruption and incompetence, the other waits till the silent majority gets tired and throws the incumbents out of power just to start this cycle again. A third alternative to break out of this cycle has not yet materialized for Bangladesh.

What Hasina govt. is doing is some balancing act, after providing transit facility to India, by also enthusiastically working on the Chinese link road, to show that it cares for the future of Bangladesh and its economy, even if it makes India unhappy.

It is alright to play hypothetical war games in web forums, but any serious moves by India for invasion of Chittagong will have tremendous consequence within the political scene of Bangladesh. Some the scenarios that might develop:

- anti-India camp will finally come out with the convincing argument that India broke Pakistan into pieces so it can weaken both parts and then swallow them whole (an outcome I would like very much, but obviously India does not want it, which BD aam janta's will not understand anyways, as ironically to them its big bad India wants to revive Ram Rajya in Akhanda Bharat)

- Hasina and AL will be defeated and the others will come to power with a land-slide

- there will be increasing common security alignment with PRC and in the worst case scenario with Pakistan as well

Please note also, that Shanti Bahini disturbance in Chittagong hill tracts had the end result of settlement of Bengali population in those areas and making them a numerical majority, as after all Chakma's are migrants as well to these areas, I believe not too far back in history, so for them to claim a territory is not considered legitimate.

Most part of Chittagong were a part of Arakan and was taken over during Mughal times to stop Mogh pirates intrusion to neighboring areas. One remnant of that era are the indigenous Rohingya (Indic Arakanese Muslims) population in Rakhine state of Myanmar (Burma) who the Burman majority rulers consider as Bengali's and not Burmese citizens, hence the periodic purges by the Burmese army and the resulting spillover into Chittagong, across the Naf river.

Bangladesh and Myanmar are not friendly neighbors, lately we had a tense situation in the sea about gas exploration on disputed space that both countries claim as their exclusive economic zone.

The link road is happening at PRC insistence and the end result is by no means guaranteed, because of unstable situation within Myanmar. So we will have to wait and see what comes of it eventually.

But it is a potential political hot patato within Bangladesh and it seems for India and India-Bangladesh relations as well.

AKalam ji,

I appreciate the compulsions of Bangladesh's internal politics, and I sympathize with Awami League's compulsions for balancing.

I think from India's PoV and perhaps from the PoV of Bangladeshis themselves, the argument of Bangladesh's national consciousness has not been decided one way or the other.

Bangladesh ought to look for a much stronger anchorage in its Indic past, even as it seeks a social harmony between its minorities and its Muslim identity. However the question of identity is not just a question of providing a philosophical and ethnic belief system, but it is also to be seen as a struggle, a process, which requires deft political maneuvering.

Though I am not that knowledgeable about Bangladesh, my hunch is Awami League has not exploited all the possibilities available in Bangladesh's historical narrative to decide the national identity issue in their favor for once and for all. I don't think, any political party needs to build its political manifesto on being pro-India as such. It would be much more easier to build the political ideology on the question of nationhood and patriotism, but Awami League should proceed to define that patriotism in a way, they feel best suits their political leanings.

What I am trying to get at is, that Awami League needs to harness the stories of genocide committed by Pakistan on Bangladesh, also Muslim on Muslim violence. Awami League should keep on pursuing those who collaborated with Pakistan in 1971 and earlier. Many documentaries need to be made on the subject. Children should be taught in school about what happened during those dark days. In Bangladesh's History no quarter should be given to the collaborators and everything should be brought out in the sunlight.

Many nations use their sense of historical victimhood to strengthen their sense of nationhood. One needs to just say Japan and people would come on the streets in China. This victimhood has bonded the Chinese together. Pakistan is far away from Bangladesh, so there is little danger that this victimhood would go overboard and cause wars. But this victimhood can be used to build Bangladesh's sense of nationhood also. A nationhood based on that historical enlightenment would be favorable to Awami League and help it retain power despite the current Bangladesh's relations with India.

There are other historical events which can also help - The Great Bengal Famine and those responsible.

The point the more video coverage and photos of those days that are shown, the better it is for nationhood. If video coverage is not available, then one can always make films on the issue and try to claim historical accuracy.

Perhaps Chinese and Indian position during the Bangladesh War of Independence can also be highlighted.

What I am saying is that if Islam in Bangladesh binds Bangladeshis to Mecca, then it is one thing, but Bangladesh need to build its nationhood on a platform of anti-Pakistaniyat, just as Pakistan has built its national identity on anti-India. The stronger the platform of anti-Pakistaniyat, the more difficult it would be for BNP and Islamic Parties to act similar to Pakistanis, the closer would be the friendship between Bangladeshis and Indians, which would allow Bangladesh a far better political and economic alignment with India.