Ramanaji that interview is here: https://www.spiegel.de/international/wo ... 96790.html
Interview with India's External Affairs Minister
'With More Weight Comes More Responsibility'
Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar defends his government's isolation of Kashmir and explains how his country is doing better on climate protection than the Europeans.
Interview Conducted by Laura Höflinger
November 17, 2019
......
This is a good interview and Dr. SJ got his points across splendidly. So, Der Spiegel balanced it out with this article:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/wo ... 96450.html
Deathly Silence
An Inside Look at Kashmir
Kashmir has been largely cut off from the outside world for months and the internet remains cut off. Residents share stories of state violence and terror.
By Laura Höflinger and Sunaina Kumar
November 15, 2019
.....
Gautam
Indian Foreign Policy
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
g.sarkar wrote: This is a good interview and Dr. SJ got his points across splendidly. So, Der Spiegel balanced it out with this article:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/wo ... 96450.html
Deathly Silence
An Inside Look at Kashmir
Kashmir has been largely cut off from the outside world for months and the internet remains cut off. Residents share stories of state violence and terror.
By Laura Höflinger and Sunaina Kumar
November 15, 2019
.....
Gautam
Just a thought on the summary of the above article.In Srinagar, there have always been two camps. One demands independence from India, with some being prone to violence. The other is more moderate, with its followers perhaps not feeling Indian, exactly, but valuing the opportunities the country has made possible. The question now is how many of the latter camp, after months of imperiousness from New Delhi, still see India as their homeland.
Perhaps Modi's hardline approach will ultimately prove successful. Perhaps, he'll manage to do in Kashmir what he has thus far failed to do in the rest of India: revive the economy and reconcile the population. At the moment, though, it seems unlikely.
I consider India as my motherland. It is Gandhi's land. India won its freedom by non-violent means. For many, throughout the world, Mohandas Gandhi stands as the greatest figure of the 20th Century. Thomas Merton selected the basic statements of principle and interpretation which make up Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence (Ahimsa) and non-violent action (Satyagraha) as the means to succeed in world politics. Gandhi taught and led us through the path of "soft power" long before the Harward scholar Joseph Nye coined the term in 1990.
Like communism, nazism, and fascism, terrorism – the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, to pursue political aims – is a type of ideology. An ideology is best fought with a better counter-ideology, rather than by swords and guns alone. As the great American psychologist, Abraham Maslow once wrote, “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” This concept, known as the law of the instrument, is relied on too much in counterterrorism, with the hammer being military might. Today, however, there is ambiguity in how we combat terrorism effectively when facing a multipronged and multifaceted ideological enemy and it demands a new approach to traditional counterterrorist orthodoxy. In the context of India's recent tactical moves in Kashmir, it could technically eliminate some terrorist groups, religious extremists, and hard-core individuals by military might. In the long run, however, we will never be able to destroy ambiguous Islamic ideologies, such as Wahhabism, Salafism, or Jihadism, because terrorism is an offshoot of a radical ideology. It is a mode of communication and thereby came to be a state of mind for those who engage themselves in it. In a nutshell, terrorism springs form the very soul of a grieved man. Terrorism cannot be obliterated violently, because an ideology is better subsumed progressively rather than destroyed violently.
Ethics guide - Non-violence
Non-violence doesn't just mean not doing violence; it's also a way of taking positive action to resist oppression or bring about change.
The aim of non-violent conflict is to convert your opponent; to win over their mind and heart and persuade them that your point of view is right. An important element is often to make sure that the opponent is given a face-saving way of changing their mind. Non-violent protest seeks a 'win-win' solution whenever possible.
In non-violent conflict the participant does not want to make their opponent suffer; instead they show that they are willing to suffer themselves in order to bring about change.
Non-violence has great appeal because it removes the illogicality of trying to make the world a less violent and more just place by using violence as a tool.
It is against this backdrop, I believe what the Indian administration engaging itself in Kashmir today in the name of counterterrorism is absolutely abhorrent.Non-violence is a power which can be wielded equally by all - children, young men and women or grown-up people, provided they have a living faith in the God of Love and have therefore equal love for all mankind. When non-violence is accepted as the law of life, it must pervade the whole being and not be applied to isolated acts.
Gandhi, Harijan, 5 September 1936
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
@Tuan, with all due respect to your philosophy, can you be more specific when you say, what India is doing in Kashmir is abhorrent? Because accusing someone of doing something "abhorrent" only makes sense if they had a realistic choice between the "abhorrent" action, and another, shall we say, "non-abhorrent" action.
Can you spell out what action, non-abhorrent to you, GoI should be taking instead of the present one? I tried to find something like that and failed, maybe you have a better perspective.
Can you spell out what action, non-abhorrent to you, GoI should be taking instead of the present one? I tried to find something like that and failed, maybe you have a better perspective.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
g.sarkar wrote:Ramanaji that interview is here: https://www.spiegel.de/international/wo ... 96790.html
Interview with India's External Affairs Minister
'With More Weight Comes More Responsibility'
Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar defends his government's isolation of Kashmir and explains how his country is doing better on climate protection than the Europeans.
Interview Conducted by Laura Höflinger
November 17, 2019
......
This is a good interview and Dr. SJ got his points across splendidly. So, Der Spiegel balanced it out with this article:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/wo ... 96450.html
Deathly Silence
An Inside Look at Kashmir
Kashmir has been largely cut off from the outside world for months and the internet remains cut off. Residents share stories of state violence and terror.
By Laura Höflinger and Sunaina Kumar
November 15, 2019
.....
Gautam
Gautam,
Thanks for the links. It made me nostalgic to hear Dr. SJS say things which are close to BRF speak over the 20 years of existence.
We hear KS garu talking thru his son.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
To combat terrorism smartly in today’s global information age, nations must backstop and infuse conventional hard power tactics with more flexible and strategic cultural soft power strategies. As Joseph Nye (2008) emphasized, “in the information age, success is not merely the result of whose army wins, but also whose story wins” In other words, countries should apply fused military and non-military strategies. Although nations today embrace both versions in battling counterterrorism, those approaches tend to be distinct and isolated from each other. Since mother India confronting an unconventional and radically ideological enemy, it must plan, prepare, and execute an innovative and creative strategy. This is where the international community must come together to integrate the role of hard power and soft power instruments as a new innovative core of counterterrorist smart power. If this new strategy can be created it will be paramount in winning the hearts and minds of the general populace within the Indian subcontinent that is indeed moderate but is still justifiably fearful to be anything but silent about extremism.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Full text...
So its asking her questions and SJS is replying to her.
Backgrounder: Der Speigel is Angela' Barborossa' Merkel's paper.SPIEGEL ONLINE
11/17/2019 09:34 AM
Interview with India's External Affairs Minister
'With More Weight Comes More Responsibility'
Interview Conducted by Laura Höflinger
Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar defends his government's isolation of Kashmir and explains how his country is doing better on climate protection than the Europeans.
Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, 64, is one of India's most experienced diplomats. He has served as ambassador to Washington D.C., Beijing and Prague and as the high commissioner to Singapore. In May, Hindu-nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi brought him in as India's new external affairs minister. In Jaishankar's office, three pictures are on display that can be found in the offices of many civil servants across India: the president on the left, the prime minister on the right, and above them, the most famous Indian of all: freedom fighter Mahatma Gandhi.
DER SPIEGEL: Three months ago, the Indian government withdrew Jammu and Kashmir's autonomy. It also arrested hundreds of people and the region's population remained cut off from the outside world for weeks. Is India still committed to Gandhi's values?
Jaishankar: I think we have a fundamentally different understanding of what the problem in Kashmir is. Over the past 30 years, 40,000 people have lost their lives due to violence and terrorism. If we hadn't done something about it, the next 30 years would have been just as bad. Surely, none of us, including Gandhi, would have wished that on Kashmir.
DER SPIEGEL: How do you plan to improve the situation in Kashmir?
Jaishankar: Kashmir's autonomy ultimately served only a small elite. It prevented many of India's progressive laws from coming into force. Investments did not materialize. There were too few jobs. The lack of progress led to alienation and separatism, which in turn fed terrorism. Also, bear in mind that there are vested interests out there that want to fight us.
DER SPIEGEL: You're referring to Pakistan?
Jaishankar: Pakistan mostly, but also certain people within Kashmir who have assisted Pakistan over the years and who have worked for their own narrow ends.
DER SPIEGEL: Politicians, such as the former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, have been placed under house arrest. Why?
Jaishankar: Our intention is that politicians do not engage in any activities that could serve as a magnet for violence, as it has been the case in the past. A related issue is that social media and the internet have been used to radicalize. We want to prevent the loss of life.
DER SPIEGEL: So why cut landlines? For a long time, people were completely unable to communicate with each other.
Jaishankar: Because that's how terrorists would have communicated as well.
DER SPIEGEL: But how were people supposed to call an ambulance if they needed one?
Jaishankar: I'm asking you: How were terrorists supposed to be stopped?
DER SPIEGEL: The fight against terrorism justifies all means?
Jaishankar: What kind of a question is that? Terrorists have killed apple traders in the past few weeks. Grenades have been thrown at markets. People have died. Why don't you focus on any of that?
DER SPIEGEL: You feel treated unfairly by the Western press?
Jaishankar: There are people with strong preset views. Kashmir's autonomy was based on a temporary provision. But looking at the Western press coverage, very few acknowledge this aspect. There's a reason for that: It's an inconvenient fact!
DER SPIEGEL: Both Pakistan and China control a part of Kashmir as well. Do you feel it is hypocritical of the West to criticize India but not Pakistan or China?
Jaishankar: I think the world sees Pakistan for what it is. The country openly runs a terrorist industry.
DER SPIEGEL: Which Islamabad would deny.
Jaishankar: Really? Prime Minister Imran Khan speaks openly about it. I must give him that. He acknowledges that he has a terrorism problem.
DER SPIEGEL: You haven't mentioned Beijing. Chinese companies are planning large infrastructure projects in Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka. What is India doing to counter China's influence in the region?
Jaishankar: Whatever we do, we're not doing to counter China's influence. Take China away for a moment: We would be still be investing in Nepal, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka the way we do today. South Asia is lacking regional awareness and I fault India for it, because as the largest country, it shoulders the largest responsibility. For the past five years, we have done our best to correct that mistake. The more connected South Asia is, the better it is for us too.
DER SPIEGEL: Still, China is planning to build the new Trans-Himalayan Railway close to the Indian border. Does that not bother you?
Jaishankar: There are already two rail connections between India and Nepal, and in a few years, there will be five. Nepal's border towards India is open, towards China, not so much. Many Nepalese are coming to India looking for work. How does one compare those things?
DER SPIEGEL: Many in the West see India as a counterweight to China's influence in Asia. How does India see itself?
Jaishankar: I find the idea of being someone else's pawn in some "Great Game" terribly condescending. I certainly don't plan to play the counterweight to other people. I'm in it because of my own ambitions.
{At the Raisiana Dailogues, in March 2019, David Petraeus said "India must choose!" SJS replied "India has chosen and it is with India!" We see the same articulation here.}
DER SPIEGEL: Which are?
Jaishankar: In the next five years, we will likely become the most populous country in the world and, within a decade, the third largest economy. We have a large share of the global human talent, and if I look at the role digitization will play in the future, then I feel this is going to be a world where India can contribute more. It's not just a desire for a higher profile. We know that with more weight comes more responsibility.
DER SPIEGEL: What does that mean?
Jaishankar: Let me give you two examples. First, we have a close and emotional relationship with the countries of Africa and other southern nations. These relations are difficult to understand for people who haven't been through the colonial experience. For example, we run a significant development program in Africa that involves more than $10 billion. Second, a tsunami in the Indian Ocean caused severe destruction 15 years ago. The West responded. But today, it's a different world. Today, we take charge. Whether it's the severe earthquake in Nepal or the civil war in Yemen, the Indian Army went there each time.
DER SPIEGEL: Are you a player in the fight against climate change as well? India has grown to become the world's third largest producer of greenhouse gases.
Jaishankar: We have one of the most ambitious programs for solar energy and we help other developing countries to achieve their goals. In fact, according to the research consortium Climate Action Tracker, there are just five countries whose energy policies can be reconciled with the 2-degree goal outlined in the Paris Agreement: Bhutan, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, the Philippines - and India. We are doing better than Europe.
DER SPIEGEL: Still, researchers also point to the fact that India's emissions rose by 4.8 percent last year. When will India stop building new coal-fired power plants?
Jaishankar: You are putting it in a very absolute way. My answer depends on many factors, such as how quickly India can scale up alternatives such as solar, hydro or nuclear power. It is clear that coal is not our preferred choice. It's just that it's easy for someone from Germany to ask that question because your country has so many alternatives. We don't.
DER SPIEGEL: You'd like us to be more realistic?
Jaishankar: Or more generous. Or more true to your own commitments.
DER SPIEGEL: In Europe, U.S. President Donald Trump stands for a new era of nationalism and protectionism. India, too, has become more nationalistic.
Jaishankar: True, but not all nationalism is the same. Nationalism in Europe is fed by the fear that old privileges may not be viable in the future. Our nationalism is positive and dates back to the independence movement. We are also not turning away from the world. We are embracing it.
DER SPIEGEL: Does India share Europe's concerns that Trump may do permanent damage to international institutions?
Jaishankar: Let me explain the difference between Germany and India: You are in an alliance with the U.S. We are not. We are used to handling different American administrations who in the past haven't been altogether friendly towards us. We approach America as we approach many issues in international politics: with a high degree of realism. At the end of the day, President Trump is President Trump. We Indians are pragmatic people.
URL:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/wo ... 96790.html
So its asking her questions and SJS is replying to her.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Looks like you are really on to something!!! Can you please explain in details how this can be done? It is all rather vague the way you say it.Tuan wrote:To combat terrorism smartly in today’s global information age, nations must backstop and infuse conventional hard power tactics with more flexible and strategic cultural soft power strategies. As Joseph Nye (2008) emphasized, “in the information age, success is not merely the result of whose army wins, but also whose story wins” In other words, countries should apply fused military and non-military strategies. Although nations today embrace both versions in battling counterterrorism, those approaches tend to be distinct and isolated from each other. Since mother India confronting an unconventional and radically ideological enemy, it must plan, prepare, and execute an innovative and creative strategy. This is where the international community must come together to integrate the role of hard power and soft power instruments as a new innovative core of counterterrorist smart power. If this new strategy can be created it will be paramount in winning the hearts and minds of the general populace within the Indian subcontinent that is indeed moderate but is still justifiably fearful to be anything but silent about extremism.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
The whole purpose of a steady stream of terrorist violence is to keep the inflammation and not to give a foothold to winning hearts and minds.
Further the “winning hearts and minds” actions rarely make the news. In fact, if they do make the news they can be cynically dismissed as Public Relations bull-s***.
Further the “winning hearts and minds” actions rarely make the news. In fact, if they do make the news they can be cynically dismissed as Public Relations bull-s***.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Tuan, this is just sophistry if there is no clear action plan. There is no magic bullet to suddenly convince a jaded population with a core of sectarian/religious extremists that a new plan is magically agreeable. Multiple strategies have to be used, simultaneously, against different groups, which is what is being done.Tuan wrote:To combat terrorism smartly in today’s global information age, nations must backstop and infuse conventional hard power tactics with more flexible and strategic cultural soft power strategies. As Joseph Nye (2008) emphasized, “in the information age, success is not merely the result of whose army wins, but also whose story wins” In other words, countries should apply fused military and non-military strategies. Although nations today embrace both versions in battling counterterrorism, those approaches tend to be distinct and isolated from each other. Since mother India confronting an unconventional and radically ideological enemy, it must plan, prepare, and execute an innovative and creative strategy. This is where the international community must come together to integrate the role of hard power and soft power instruments as a new innovative core of counterterrorist smart power. If this new strategy can be created it will be paramount in winning the hearts and minds of the general populace within the Indian subcontinent that is indeed moderate but is still justifiably fearful to be anything but silent about extremism.
India has been doing hearts and minds stuff in J&K for ages. Fact is it (and most other countries) doesnt have the technology to stop internet based apps from being used for insurgent mobilization. That and the fact a significant percent of the population is either radicalized or part of the conflict economy (y rocks for x Rs, z grenades thrown for xx Rs) means that the fight by Delhi has to be over decades, not months. To then take a shutdown of internet services for a couple of months and make a hue and cry over it, is to put it plainly, silly or being done deliberately to ensure India's efforts in Kashmir fail.
India is not mass deploying death squads to Kashmir to take out all its opponents (and it doesnt have any either). Its merely enforcing a gradual policy of transferring power from vested interests to the village level (so that its huge financial outlay to Kashmir is better, if not optimally, spent) and ensuring no mass terror attacks or propaganda plays occur during that transition.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Some thoughts on “Preventing and/or Countering Violent Extremism and Radicalization that lead to Terrorism via Smarter Counter-narratives”.
As you all know, there is a great number of studies have been done on this subject; empirical research, books, and journals that are authored by contemporary academics and journalists.
However, what I am going to talk about is that a sort of comparative analysis of some of our forefathers, such as, Albert Einstein, Friedrich Nietzsche, Mao Zedong, Sun Tzu, Mahatma Gandhi, and Abraham Maslow have foretold in finding solutions to these societal problems.
Before we go further, I would like to shed some light on defining such ambiguous terms as extremism, radicalization, and terrorism.
So, I would like to start by saying that nobody was born a terrorist, or an extremist and/or radicalized. Thus, we must question ourselves what makes some individuals, groups and organizations among our community to have different and opposing views, ideas, beliefs, attitudes and motives against the mainstream society?
I mean, what makes a man terrorist and what finally brings him back to his community? The average age of terrorists is 21 years, with many much younger, which explains why children are kidnapped and radicalized. They are full-grown in stature, but not in maturity; they desperately want to make a ‘difference’ in the world but have no outlets; they are highly suggestible.
So, what is terrorism? Like Communism, Nazism, and Fascism, Terrorism – the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, to pursue political aims – is a type of ideology. An ideology is best fought with a better counter-ideology, rather than by swords and guns alone.
As Einstein said, we must not stop questioning ourselves. So, what does that mean?
Before we identify what, are the best strategies international community needs for preventing or countering terrorism, we must figure out what are the causes of terrorism? It is of paramount importance to reconceptualize our approaches of the past in order to end terrorism and prevent the propagation of such atrocities. We must identify the root causes of terrorism. Terrorism that is rooted in inequality and feelings of injustices, ethnic and religious hatred, denied dignity and freedom, and political exclusion and repression, is best combated politically, diplomatically, economically, socially, culturally, educationally, and religiously rather than militarily alone. Terrorism, mainly driven by political motive, is a form of political violence. Therefore, it can be resolved by answering political grievances. To address political grievances adequately, we need to employ a combination of soft and hard power measures. Former American President Theodore Roosevelt relates to this: “speak softly and carry a big stick”. In referencing foreign policy, Roosevelt explained that this involves: “the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis”.
How do we deal with extremists?
The German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche reminded us that “he who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby becomes a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee”. Simply put, what this means is that if you go after a murderer with the intention to murder him then you are also a murderer. In other words, if you bomb a terrorist who bombed you, then that makes you a terrorist too. This means that you believe in the concept that “terrorism can only be neutralized by terrorism” – a classic ‘eye for an eye, tooth for tooth’ discourse that would eventually have the whole world blind and toothless.
The only way to stop terrorism and to prevent the propagation of further atrocities is to effectively address a grassroots approach, the use of collective action to affect change at the local, regional, national, or international level. Grassroots approaches are associated with bottom-up, rather than top-down decision making, and are sometimes considered more natural or spontaneous than more traditional power structures of countries in need. People who cannot feed or defend their children, much less provide them with an education and a future, people who watch powerlessly as their neighbors and kin are raped and slaughtered, are prey to anyone, be it a government hiding its acts of genocide under a blanket of legitimacy, or an underdog terrorist organization, fueled by righteous fervor. It’s not really rocket science. By and large, we must win the hearts and minds of the people. This is where soft power comes into play. Although hard power is vital to safeguard a nation’s interests, when we are confronted by an enemy with many different faces, we must explore other tools to combat the enemy through non-military means. As Sun Tzu reminds us, the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting; eliminating the will to fight and destroying the spirit of the enemy’s potential to fight is paramount.
So, what are the most notable observations from the past 5 years?
Youth radicalization has acquired renewed momentum in the current age of Daesh. Repeated victories reported by the Iraqi and Syrian security forces are pushing Daesh to rethink survival strategies to live and fight another day. The group is keen on expanding itself beyond the Iraqi and Syrian battlefield and is desperately attempting to infiltrate the rest of the Middle East, Asia, and Europe. Members of the organization continue to disguise themselves as civilians, blending into mainstream society, where they have achieved unprecedented success in planning, preparing, and executing major attacks worldwide. A significant proportion of alleged assailants happen to be youth, some as young as 12. Furthermore, Daesh is also transforming its operational headquarters from a physical space to a virtual platform that is far removed from Iraq and Syria. A key peril of international terrorism, it is against this backdrop that one must acknowledge the national, regional, and global security implications that emanate from Daesh-affiliated threats.
There are a series of imperative dynamics which nonetheless distinguish Daesh from other groups with similar aspirations. Primarily, ‘lone wolf’ attacks, which are inherently inspired but not necessarily orchestrated by the terrorist organization itself; largely a consequence of widespread accessibility to cleverly articulated propaganda promoted via Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. However, while the role of social media is critical in Daesh’s captivation of today’s youth who are congenitally addicted to technology, the internet, as reported by the Homeland Security Institute, is merely a tool through which radicalization is accelerated. Youth radicalization in itself is also a process rapidly unfolding offline, in a real-world context.
How do we prevent refugees and foreign fighters from entering and targeting countries?
We must allow refugees to escape and settle in our countries thereby showcasing the soft power of nations. This highlights a long-term strategic advantage. The new challenge and threat to law enforcement agencies are about distinguishing between refugees’ motives. As influxes in government-controlled areas have occurred, nations are faced with an overwhelming security concern. This forces us to consider how to identify and weed out potential members of terrorists who may infiltrate nations as disguised civilians.
The best way to prevent and deter future terrorist attacks is to separate or isolate the terrorists from the general populace. By weeding the terrorists out of legitimate refugees, we can eventually apply Mao Zedong’s theory that “guerillas are like fish in an ocean of people”. By separating the “ocean” of the general populace from the guerilla “fish”, we will be able to determine the survival of the enemy guerillas or terrorists. So, how does one separate the ocean of people from the guerilla fish? We can achieve separation through the core strategy of the COIN doctrine: if we’re able to win the hearts and minds of the general populace, then the general populace will do the job for us.
Thus we must come up with a strategy on how law enforcement agencies can prevent terrorists from infiltrating and/or exfiltrating nations. Decisively, there is a method called “Spotter Force Multiplier Theory” (SFMT), which is successful tradecraft in human intelligence also known as “Link Analysis”. That is, in any organization, albeit police, intelligence, military or even non-state organizations such as gangs, mafia, drug cartels, or terrorist organizations, you can only identify the members by using the organization’s very own members. As we confront terrorist organizations, state security organizations come across and identify at least one genuine member. This member must be utilized as a “spotter” for governments to identify others. In other words, the member who is arrested and/or defected must undergo a brief rehabilitation process – instilling them with compassion and indoctrinating them with soft power contrary to aggressive interrogation techniques – and in turn, work for the state’s security agencies. As more individuals are found, the “spotter force multiplier” emerges and continues until the “big fish” is caught. The advantage of using SFMT is that we would have a complete picture and understanding of insider information regarding enemy organizations, that is, valuable tactical intelligence.
What push/pull factors between different presentations of radicalization have we identified?
Globally, terrorist activity among the youth has emerged from a rather heterogeneous population, who are seduced into any form extremism for a variety of reasons. A study published by Bizina and Gray in the Global Security Studies journal brought forth a crucial underlying cause for radicalization: economic, social, and political marginalization which, when taken together, cultivate a sense of purposelessness and lack of hope for the future. Nevertheless, it is imperative to note that economic, social, and political marginalization on their own does not make every one susceptible to radicalization. Several people remain poor, voiceless, and frustrated in the West. It is safe to conclude, however, that violence aimed at threatening the core of society is still not commonplace.
Daesh has strategically coined perspectives founded on ‘Islamic ideals’ to inform a pseudo-spiritually inspired congregation, thereby legitimizing economic, social, and political grievances by acting as a catalyst for change, promising empowerment along the way and paradise in the end. However, as Christian Picciolini, a reformed white nationalist, said: “People become extremists not necessarily because of the ideology. The ideology is simply a vehicle to be violent. I believe that people become radicalized, or extremist because they’re searching for three very fundamental human needs, which are intertwined: identity, community and a sense of purpose.” Picciolini’s statement is applicable to much of the Muslim youth in the West, who face relative deprivation compounded by deliberate political and social exclusion in North America and Europe, rendering them invisible and hence susceptible to Daesh’s ideology.
What are the key requirements for success?
Solutions to terrorism that are excessively focused on “hard power” can create more of a problem than they solve, as people inclined towards radicalism can sometimes become even more alienated as a result of intensive methods of surveillance or repression. Although counter-terrorism operations most often involve “hard power” — intelligence, law, policing, and military might — counter-radicalization methods also require “soft power” tools, such as social and cultural involvement, broader policy initiatives on the environment, development, critical infrastructure, migration, humanitarian intervention, and the widespread participation of civil society. Hard power — represented by military strength — is indeed essential to our security; still, modeling soft power measures like good governance, public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development assistance, disaster relief, educational and employment opportunities can be equally important in the long run.
Chinese philosopher whose ideas and sayings were collected after his death and became the basis of a philosophical doctrine known a Confucianism (circa 551-478 BC). One of the great sayings of Confucius is, “Don't use cannon to kill a mosquito”. So what does it mean in countering violent extremism or counterterrorism context? It simply means that you cannot kill terrorists with guns alone. So, how do we completely obliterate terrorism?
What does a best-practice strategy for counterterrorism would look like?
According to a report, “Countering Violent Extremism: Scientific Methods & Strategies”, released by the DTIC (2011), “Music is powerful. It can help build collective identity, enhancing social categorization, dehumanizing others/out-group(s), and influence attitudes, social norms, behavior, and even the inter-group dynamics by the use of various musical elements (lyrical and musical content, rhythm, themes) that leverage the ability of affect to motivate, mobilize, and receive information less critically […] There has been a concerted and sustained effort to use music in the context of recruiting (extremists) both domestically and abroad (Gruen, 2006). […] The value of music for influencing, recruiting, and radicalizing is not lost on those who write, record, and disseminate jihadi-themed music. […] Music has the potential to influence attitudes, social norms, and potentially behavior (Crozier, 1997), especially among adolescents who are more susceptible to peer pressure (Gavin & Furman, 1989; Roe, 1987).”
Taken together, this is a compelling image of music as a force for cultural mediation and social change, showing that music promoting tolerance and reconciliation can be used to reconnect with “at-risk” individuals and groups. Or, as Phyllis Creighton put it in a short film about Toronto’s “Raging Grannies” — a group that protests all forms of social injustice by singing — “We chose songs because songs have power in reaching people, in energizing them, in lifting their spirits. I believe that strongly and I’ve seen it” (https://vimeo.com/311060061).
We will not be successful in countering radicalization to violent extremism unless we can harness the idealism, creativity, and energy of young people, who constitute the majority in an increasing number of countries today. At the beginning of 2012, a UNESCO survey reported that the world population surpassed 7 billion with people under the age of 30 accounting for more than half of this number (50.5%). According to the survey, 89.7% of people under 30 lived in emerging and developing economies, particularly in the Middle East and Africa. These young people globally represent a great untapped resource and therefore, must be empowered to make a constructive (rather than destructive) contribution to the political and economic development of global societies and nations. We must offer them a positive vision of their future together with a genuine chance to realize their aspirations and potential.
As outlined by the UN General Assembly (2015), children and youth constitute invaluable partners in our striving to prevent radicalization to violent extremism. Thus, we must identify better tools to support them to take up the causes of peace, pluralism, and mutual respect. The rapid advance of modern communications technology also means that today’s youth form an unprecedented global community. This interconnectivity is already being exploited by violent extremists; we need to reclaim this space by helping to amplify the voices of young people already promoting the values of mutual respect and peace to their peers.
Why would the strategy be successful?
As empirical evidence above entitled “Countering Violent Extremism: Scientific Methods & Strategies” points out, the majority of the Islamic jihadist organizations, as well as other ethnonationalist insurgent groups, far-right-wing radical organizations, violent white supremacists and skinheads, environmental radicals, and animal rights militants all place a high degree of importance on attendance at mass popular, cultural and social events, music concerts, festivals, debates, motivational speeches, and other large gatherings. They all use their popular cultural music and art to recruit, indoctrinate, train, and mobilize members.
When art, poetry, speech or music ‘hooks and attracts’ its audience or listener with a theme and melody, the underlying message can be repeated and rehearsed quite readily. When lyrics are set to a melody or rhythm, they have the potential to be ‘catchier’ which increases their ability to deliver messages. To the extent that such messages connect with their intended audience, they can be further propagated through social networks and media channels. Therefore, music and other artistic expressions have value to the extent that messages that can be rehearsed, repeated, and remembered in an engaging way. The youth, especially suggestible young men — those most vulnerable to radicalization — can internalize these positive messages that will thereby shape their behavior. We could measure the outcome by conducting monthly and yearly qualitative and quantitative research with our participants, such as their views before participating and their views (changed) afterward.
Let me quote an excerpt by Ambassador Cynthia Schneider from her keynote speech to The Brooking Institution. Ambassador Schneider is a Senior Non-Resident Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at Georgetown University.
Therefore, to counter radicalization and terrorism intelligently in today’s global information age, nations must infuse conventional hard power tactics with more flexible and strategic cultural soft power approaches. The declining enrollment in arts, which is part and parcel of soft power, is a short-sighted strategy that weakens the fabric of society, leaving young people believing they are dependent on external forces to give their lives meaning. Therefore, educational institutions must harness popular and multicultural music and other forms of arts and create opportunities for youth to write and produce music, poetry, film, and debates that resonate citizenry, identity, unity, diversity, equality, and most importantly the value of human life and family. These mediums are not merely entertainment but provide an essential message about the value of all life.
Finally, Gandhi once said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” This great quote by Mahatma Gandhi just refers to the fact that there is always a change. Change is the law of the universe. Change doesn't just set in in a matter of days or weeks, it takes years. But the change has to come from a single individual to actually become a trend. The process of change or rather reform comes from a single individual's step towards change. And others will follow if that change is for a good cause. It's just how our society progresses. So if you want terrorists to change, you must first and foremost be that change yourself.
As you all know, there is a great number of studies have been done on this subject; empirical research, books, and journals that are authored by contemporary academics and journalists.
However, what I am going to talk about is that a sort of comparative analysis of some of our forefathers, such as, Albert Einstein, Friedrich Nietzsche, Mao Zedong, Sun Tzu, Mahatma Gandhi, and Abraham Maslow have foretold in finding solutions to these societal problems.
Before we go further, I would like to shed some light on defining such ambiguous terms as extremism, radicalization, and terrorism.
So, I would like to start by saying that nobody was born a terrorist, or an extremist and/or radicalized. Thus, we must question ourselves what makes some individuals, groups and organizations among our community to have different and opposing views, ideas, beliefs, attitudes and motives against the mainstream society?
I mean, what makes a man terrorist and what finally brings him back to his community? The average age of terrorists is 21 years, with many much younger, which explains why children are kidnapped and radicalized. They are full-grown in stature, but not in maturity; they desperately want to make a ‘difference’ in the world but have no outlets; they are highly suggestible.
So, what is terrorism? Like Communism, Nazism, and Fascism, Terrorism – the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, to pursue political aims – is a type of ideology. An ideology is best fought with a better counter-ideology, rather than by swords and guns alone.
As Einstein said, we must not stop questioning ourselves. So, what does that mean?
Before we identify what, are the best strategies international community needs for preventing or countering terrorism, we must figure out what are the causes of terrorism? It is of paramount importance to reconceptualize our approaches of the past in order to end terrorism and prevent the propagation of such atrocities. We must identify the root causes of terrorism. Terrorism that is rooted in inequality and feelings of injustices, ethnic and religious hatred, denied dignity and freedom, and political exclusion and repression, is best combated politically, diplomatically, economically, socially, culturally, educationally, and religiously rather than militarily alone. Terrorism, mainly driven by political motive, is a form of political violence. Therefore, it can be resolved by answering political grievances. To address political grievances adequately, we need to employ a combination of soft and hard power measures. Former American President Theodore Roosevelt relates to this: “speak softly and carry a big stick”. In referencing foreign policy, Roosevelt explained that this involves: “the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis”.
How do we deal with extremists?
The German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche reminded us that “he who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby becomes a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee”. Simply put, what this means is that if you go after a murderer with the intention to murder him then you are also a murderer. In other words, if you bomb a terrorist who bombed you, then that makes you a terrorist too. This means that you believe in the concept that “terrorism can only be neutralized by terrorism” – a classic ‘eye for an eye, tooth for tooth’ discourse that would eventually have the whole world blind and toothless.
The only way to stop terrorism and to prevent the propagation of further atrocities is to effectively address a grassroots approach, the use of collective action to affect change at the local, regional, national, or international level. Grassroots approaches are associated with bottom-up, rather than top-down decision making, and are sometimes considered more natural or spontaneous than more traditional power structures of countries in need. People who cannot feed or defend their children, much less provide them with an education and a future, people who watch powerlessly as their neighbors and kin are raped and slaughtered, are prey to anyone, be it a government hiding its acts of genocide under a blanket of legitimacy, or an underdog terrorist organization, fueled by righteous fervor. It’s not really rocket science. By and large, we must win the hearts and minds of the people. This is where soft power comes into play. Although hard power is vital to safeguard a nation’s interests, when we are confronted by an enemy with many different faces, we must explore other tools to combat the enemy through non-military means. As Sun Tzu reminds us, the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting; eliminating the will to fight and destroying the spirit of the enemy’s potential to fight is paramount.
So, what are the most notable observations from the past 5 years?
Youth radicalization has acquired renewed momentum in the current age of Daesh. Repeated victories reported by the Iraqi and Syrian security forces are pushing Daesh to rethink survival strategies to live and fight another day. The group is keen on expanding itself beyond the Iraqi and Syrian battlefield and is desperately attempting to infiltrate the rest of the Middle East, Asia, and Europe. Members of the organization continue to disguise themselves as civilians, blending into mainstream society, where they have achieved unprecedented success in planning, preparing, and executing major attacks worldwide. A significant proportion of alleged assailants happen to be youth, some as young as 12. Furthermore, Daesh is also transforming its operational headquarters from a physical space to a virtual platform that is far removed from Iraq and Syria. A key peril of international terrorism, it is against this backdrop that one must acknowledge the national, regional, and global security implications that emanate from Daesh-affiliated threats.
There are a series of imperative dynamics which nonetheless distinguish Daesh from other groups with similar aspirations. Primarily, ‘lone wolf’ attacks, which are inherently inspired but not necessarily orchestrated by the terrorist organization itself; largely a consequence of widespread accessibility to cleverly articulated propaganda promoted via Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. However, while the role of social media is critical in Daesh’s captivation of today’s youth who are congenitally addicted to technology, the internet, as reported by the Homeland Security Institute, is merely a tool through which radicalization is accelerated. Youth radicalization in itself is also a process rapidly unfolding offline, in a real-world context.
How do we prevent refugees and foreign fighters from entering and targeting countries?
We must allow refugees to escape and settle in our countries thereby showcasing the soft power of nations. This highlights a long-term strategic advantage. The new challenge and threat to law enforcement agencies are about distinguishing between refugees’ motives. As influxes in government-controlled areas have occurred, nations are faced with an overwhelming security concern. This forces us to consider how to identify and weed out potential members of terrorists who may infiltrate nations as disguised civilians.
The best way to prevent and deter future terrorist attacks is to separate or isolate the terrorists from the general populace. By weeding the terrorists out of legitimate refugees, we can eventually apply Mao Zedong’s theory that “guerillas are like fish in an ocean of people”. By separating the “ocean” of the general populace from the guerilla “fish”, we will be able to determine the survival of the enemy guerillas or terrorists. So, how does one separate the ocean of people from the guerilla fish? We can achieve separation through the core strategy of the COIN doctrine: if we’re able to win the hearts and minds of the general populace, then the general populace will do the job for us.
Thus we must come up with a strategy on how law enforcement agencies can prevent terrorists from infiltrating and/or exfiltrating nations. Decisively, there is a method called “Spotter Force Multiplier Theory” (SFMT), which is successful tradecraft in human intelligence also known as “Link Analysis”. That is, in any organization, albeit police, intelligence, military or even non-state organizations such as gangs, mafia, drug cartels, or terrorist organizations, you can only identify the members by using the organization’s very own members. As we confront terrorist organizations, state security organizations come across and identify at least one genuine member. This member must be utilized as a “spotter” for governments to identify others. In other words, the member who is arrested and/or defected must undergo a brief rehabilitation process – instilling them with compassion and indoctrinating them with soft power contrary to aggressive interrogation techniques – and in turn, work for the state’s security agencies. As more individuals are found, the “spotter force multiplier” emerges and continues until the “big fish” is caught. The advantage of using SFMT is that we would have a complete picture and understanding of insider information regarding enemy organizations, that is, valuable tactical intelligence.
What push/pull factors between different presentations of radicalization have we identified?
Globally, terrorist activity among the youth has emerged from a rather heterogeneous population, who are seduced into any form extremism for a variety of reasons. A study published by Bizina and Gray in the Global Security Studies journal brought forth a crucial underlying cause for radicalization: economic, social, and political marginalization which, when taken together, cultivate a sense of purposelessness and lack of hope for the future. Nevertheless, it is imperative to note that economic, social, and political marginalization on their own does not make every one susceptible to radicalization. Several people remain poor, voiceless, and frustrated in the West. It is safe to conclude, however, that violence aimed at threatening the core of society is still not commonplace.
Daesh has strategically coined perspectives founded on ‘Islamic ideals’ to inform a pseudo-spiritually inspired congregation, thereby legitimizing economic, social, and political grievances by acting as a catalyst for change, promising empowerment along the way and paradise in the end. However, as Christian Picciolini, a reformed white nationalist, said: “People become extremists not necessarily because of the ideology. The ideology is simply a vehicle to be violent. I believe that people become radicalized, or extremist because they’re searching for three very fundamental human needs, which are intertwined: identity, community and a sense of purpose.” Picciolini’s statement is applicable to much of the Muslim youth in the West, who face relative deprivation compounded by deliberate political and social exclusion in North America and Europe, rendering them invisible and hence susceptible to Daesh’s ideology.
What are the key requirements for success?
Solutions to terrorism that are excessively focused on “hard power” can create more of a problem than they solve, as people inclined towards radicalism can sometimes become even more alienated as a result of intensive methods of surveillance or repression. Although counter-terrorism operations most often involve “hard power” — intelligence, law, policing, and military might — counter-radicalization methods also require “soft power” tools, such as social and cultural involvement, broader policy initiatives on the environment, development, critical infrastructure, migration, humanitarian intervention, and the widespread participation of civil society. Hard power — represented by military strength — is indeed essential to our security; still, modeling soft power measures like good governance, public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development assistance, disaster relief, educational and employment opportunities can be equally important in the long run.
Chinese philosopher whose ideas and sayings were collected after his death and became the basis of a philosophical doctrine known a Confucianism (circa 551-478 BC). One of the great sayings of Confucius is, “Don't use cannon to kill a mosquito”. So what does it mean in countering violent extremism or counterterrorism context? It simply means that you cannot kill terrorists with guns alone. So, how do we completely obliterate terrorism?
What does a best-practice strategy for counterterrorism would look like?
According to a report, “Countering Violent Extremism: Scientific Methods & Strategies”, released by the DTIC (2011), “Music is powerful. It can help build collective identity, enhancing social categorization, dehumanizing others/out-group(s), and influence attitudes, social norms, behavior, and even the inter-group dynamics by the use of various musical elements (lyrical and musical content, rhythm, themes) that leverage the ability of affect to motivate, mobilize, and receive information less critically […] There has been a concerted and sustained effort to use music in the context of recruiting (extremists) both domestically and abroad (Gruen, 2006). […] The value of music for influencing, recruiting, and radicalizing is not lost on those who write, record, and disseminate jihadi-themed music. […] Music has the potential to influence attitudes, social norms, and potentially behavior (Crozier, 1997), especially among adolescents who are more susceptible to peer pressure (Gavin & Furman, 1989; Roe, 1987).”
Taken together, this is a compelling image of music as a force for cultural mediation and social change, showing that music promoting tolerance and reconciliation can be used to reconnect with “at-risk” individuals and groups. Or, as Phyllis Creighton put it in a short film about Toronto’s “Raging Grannies” — a group that protests all forms of social injustice by singing — “We chose songs because songs have power in reaching people, in energizing them, in lifting their spirits. I believe that strongly and I’ve seen it” (https://vimeo.com/311060061).
We will not be successful in countering radicalization to violent extremism unless we can harness the idealism, creativity, and energy of young people, who constitute the majority in an increasing number of countries today. At the beginning of 2012, a UNESCO survey reported that the world population surpassed 7 billion with people under the age of 30 accounting for more than half of this number (50.5%). According to the survey, 89.7% of people under 30 lived in emerging and developing economies, particularly in the Middle East and Africa. These young people globally represent a great untapped resource and therefore, must be empowered to make a constructive (rather than destructive) contribution to the political and economic development of global societies and nations. We must offer them a positive vision of their future together with a genuine chance to realize their aspirations and potential.
As outlined by the UN General Assembly (2015), children and youth constitute invaluable partners in our striving to prevent radicalization to violent extremism. Thus, we must identify better tools to support them to take up the causes of peace, pluralism, and mutual respect. The rapid advance of modern communications technology also means that today’s youth form an unprecedented global community. This interconnectivity is already being exploited by violent extremists; we need to reclaim this space by helping to amplify the voices of young people already promoting the values of mutual respect and peace to their peers.
Why would the strategy be successful?
As empirical evidence above entitled “Countering Violent Extremism: Scientific Methods & Strategies” points out, the majority of the Islamic jihadist organizations, as well as other ethnonationalist insurgent groups, far-right-wing radical organizations, violent white supremacists and skinheads, environmental radicals, and animal rights militants all place a high degree of importance on attendance at mass popular, cultural and social events, music concerts, festivals, debates, motivational speeches, and other large gatherings. They all use their popular cultural music and art to recruit, indoctrinate, train, and mobilize members.
When art, poetry, speech or music ‘hooks and attracts’ its audience or listener with a theme and melody, the underlying message can be repeated and rehearsed quite readily. When lyrics are set to a melody or rhythm, they have the potential to be ‘catchier’ which increases their ability to deliver messages. To the extent that such messages connect with their intended audience, they can be further propagated through social networks and media channels. Therefore, music and other artistic expressions have value to the extent that messages that can be rehearsed, repeated, and remembered in an engaging way. The youth, especially suggestible young men — those most vulnerable to radicalization — can internalize these positive messages that will thereby shape their behavior. We could measure the outcome by conducting monthly and yearly qualitative and quantitative research with our participants, such as their views before participating and their views (changed) afterward.
Let me quote an excerpt by Ambassador Cynthia Schneider from her keynote speech to The Brooking Institution. Ambassador Schneider is a Senior Non-Resident Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at Georgetown University.
American political scientist Joseph Nye coined the term “soft power” to remind us that a viable civil society would help mitigate violence. Nye emphasized that “power in a global information age, more than ever, will include a soft dimension of attraction as well as the hard dimensions of coercion and payment. Combining these dimensions effectively is called “smart power.” For example, the current struggle against transnational terrorism is a struggle over winning hearts and minds, and overreliance on hard power alone is not the path to success. A public diplomacy is an important tool in the arsenal of smart power, but smart public diplomacy requires an understanding of credibility, self-criticism, and the role of civil society in generating soft power. If it degenerates into propaganda, public diplomacy not only fails to convince but can undercut soft power. Instead, it must remain a two-way process, because soft power depends, first and foremost, upon understanding the minds of others.“The words that Thomas Jefferson penned to his friend, James Madison, from Paris in 1785 I think are just as apt today as they were then as guidance for how America could behave in the world, and they’re especially relevant to what the Arts and Culture Initiative is trying to do. Jefferson is also an apt way to begin this evening. I, personally, think he’s an apt way to begin just about any evening, but he’s particularly apt tonight because he shares with the Prophet Muhammad a belief that the pen is mightier than the sword. In Islam, this phrase evokes the hadith or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad: “The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr.”
Jefferson urged Thomas Paine to “Do with the pen what has been done before with the sword.”
Today, when the divide between the U.S. and Muslim World presents one of our greatest foreign policy challenges, leaders from Secretary Gates on down are recognizing the limitations of military power and the need to enhance diplomacy and engagement with other cultures. Within that context, arts and culture have untapped potential as a component of the engagement between the U.S. and Muslim World. This is because, number one, of the power of creative expression to tap into our emotions and to move us and to shape and reveal identities.
It is also true that funding for arts and culture engagement with the Muslim World, sadly, does not begin to take advantage of this potential. In fact, funding from the public sector, from the government, for worldwide cultural engagement –- this is not university exchanges, but sheer cultural engagement –- is only around $11 million. From private philanthropy, at a time when overall numbers have increased, the amount of money that we could figure out that goes to arts and cultural engagement with the Middle East is about 1/10th of 1 percent. At the same time, the unique U.S. ability to create successful commercial culture represents an asset that is not at all, sadly, being strategically deployed….
Therefore, to counter radicalization and terrorism intelligently in today’s global information age, nations must infuse conventional hard power tactics with more flexible and strategic cultural soft power approaches. The declining enrollment in arts, which is part and parcel of soft power, is a short-sighted strategy that weakens the fabric of society, leaving young people believing they are dependent on external forces to give their lives meaning. Therefore, educational institutions must harness popular and multicultural music and other forms of arts and create opportunities for youth to write and produce music, poetry, film, and debates that resonate citizenry, identity, unity, diversity, equality, and most importantly the value of human life and family. These mediums are not merely entertainment but provide an essential message about the value of all life.
Finally, Gandhi once said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” This great quote by Mahatma Gandhi just refers to the fact that there is always a change. Change is the law of the universe. Change doesn't just set in in a matter of days or weeks, it takes years. But the change has to come from a single individual to actually become a trend. The process of change or rather reform comes from a single individual's step towards change. And others will follow if that change is for a good cause. It's just how our society progresses. So if you want terrorists to change, you must first and foremost be that change yourself.
Last edited by Tuan on 21 Nov 2019 03:26, edited 6 times in total.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
The above post appears to be a mishmash of narratives.
some of the stuff seems to be from http://natoassociation.ca/the-role-of-a ... extremism/
some of the stuff seems to be from http://natoassociation.ca/the-role-of-a ... extremism/
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Well, I am the author of those articles.RajeevK wrote:The above post appears to be a mishmash of narratives.
some of the stuff seems to be from http://natoassociation.ca/the-role-of-a ... extremism/
For more visit: https://projectofive.ca/
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
India works to boost ties with Indo-Pacific countries - ToI
As foreign minister S Jaishankar returns from a meeting of G20 foreign ministers in Nagoya, Japan, India is intensifying its engagement with key countries in the Indo-Pacific region.
Jaishankar met his Australian counterpart Marise Payne, one of the numerous occasions India and Australia have met at high levels. Australian PM Scott Morrison will be in India in early January to deliver the keynote address at Raisina Dialogue. In December, foreign and defence secretaries of India and Australia will meet in their 2+2 meetings. In the post-RCEP situation, India is exploring new areas of work with Australia.
The Indo-Pacific focus was retained in his meeting with Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne, French minister of state attached to the minister for Europe and foreign affairs.
On November 30, Jaishankar and defence minister Rajnath Singh will meet their Japanese counterparts, Toshimitsu Motegi and Taro Kono, for the first 2+2 ministerial meeting in New Delhi, where the two sides may sign an ACSA (Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement), which would, among other things, give both sides access to each other’s naval facilities, primarily in Djibouti and Andaman Islands.
On December 18, Jaishankar and Singh will meet US counterparts Mike Pompeo and Mark Esper for the next round of the 2+2 dialogue.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Considering total lack of interest otherwise therefore this thread, just want to know if the industrial revolution is going to miss any of key playersWe will watch the 3rd Industrial Revolution bus go right past us.
* US
* China
* EU
* Russia
And how will it come to us? Last time it was ships from Europe and then we are still lagging. Who will be house negros to control natives, who will melee for resources, who will define standards from afar, and so on.
-
Cain Marko
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5353
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
He should've done a better job here IMVHO.DER SPIEGEL: But how were people supposed to call an ambulance if they needed one?
Jaishankar: I'm asking you: How were terrorists supposed to be stopped?
First, did such a thing actually happen? Second, were there contract points created by the GOI that were accessible to aam Abduls? Third, if such incidents have occurred they should be seen in light of the complexity of the situation, on the one side the constant spectre of terrorism trying to drail anything that might lead to peace and normalcy and on the other, the inherent difficulty involved in executing such a step in a state where efforts to develop infrastructure have been continually stalled by corrupt local government for countless years.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
What does a best-practice strategy for counterterrorism would look like?
According to a report, “Countering Violent Extremism: Scientific Methods & Strategies”, released by the DTIC (2011), “Music is powerful. It can help build collective identity, enhancing social categorization, dehumanizing others/out-group(s), and influence attitudes, social norms, behavior, and even the inter-group dynamics by the use of various musical elements (lyrical and musical content, rhythm, themes) that leverage the ability of affect to motivate, mobilize, and receive information less critically […] There has been a concerted and sustained effort to use music in the context of recruiting (extremists) both domestically and abroad (Gruen, 2006). […] The value of music for influencing, recruiting, and radicalizing is not lost on those who write, record, and disseminate jihadi-themed music. […] Music has the potential to influence attitudes, social norms, and potentially behavior (Crozier, 1997), especially among adolescents who are more susceptible to peer pressure (Gavin & Furman, 1989; Roe, 1987).”
Taken together, this is a compelling image of music as a force for cultural mediation and social change, showing that music promoting tolerance and reconciliation can be used to reconnect with “at-risk” individuals and groups. Or, as Phyllis Creighton put it in a short film about Toronto’s “Raging Grannies” — a group that protests all forms of social injustice by singing — “We chose songs because songs have power in reaching people, in energizing them, in lifting their spirits. I believe that strongly and I’ve seen it” (https://vimeo.com/311060061).
We will not be successful in countering radicalization to violent extremism unless we can harness the idealism, creativity, and energy of young people, who constitute the majority in an increasing number of countries today. At the beginning of 2012, a UNESCO survey reported that the world population surpassed 7 billion with people under the age of 30 accounting for more than half of this number (50.5%). According to the survey, 89.7% of people under 30 lived in emerging and developing economies, particularly in the Middle East and Africa. These young people globally represent a great untapped resource and therefore, must be empowered to make a constructive (rather than destructive) contribution to the political and economic development of global societies and nations. We must offer them a positive vision of their future together with a genuine chance to realize their aspirations and potential.
As outlined by the UN General Assembly (2015), children and youth constitute invaluable partners in our striving to prevent radicalization to violent extremism. Thus, we must identify better tools to support them to take up the causes of peace, pluralism, and mutual respect. The rapid advance of modern communications technology also means that today’s youth form an unprecedented global community. This interconnectivity is already being exploited by violent extremists; we need to reclaim this space by helping to amplify the voices of young people already promoting the values of mutual respect and peace to their peers.
Why would the strategy be successful?
As empirical evidence above entitled “Countering Violent Extremism: Scientific Methods & Strategies” points out, the majority of the Islamic jihadist organizations, as well as other ethnonationalist insurgent groups, far-right-wing radical organizations, violent white supremacists and skinheads, environmental radicals, and animal rights militants all place a high degree of importance on attendance at mass popular, cultural and social events, music concerts, festivals, debates, motivational speeches, and other large gatherings. They all use their popular cultural music and art to recruit, indoctrinate, train, and mobilize members.
When art, poetry, speech or music ‘hooks and attracts’ its audience or listener with a theme and melody, the underlying message can be repeated and rehearsed quite readily. When lyrics are set to a melody or rhythm, they have the potential to be ‘catchier’ which increases their ability to deliver messages. To the extent that such messages connect with their intended audience, they can be further propagated through social networks and media channels. Therefore, music and other artistic expressions have value to the extent that messages that can be rehearsed, repeated, and remembered in an engaging way. The youth, especially suggestible young men — those most vulnerable to radicalization — can internalize these positive messages that will thereby shape their behavior. We could measure the outcome by conducting monthly and yearly qualitative and quantitative research with our participants, such as their views before participating and their views (changed) afterward.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Tuan, that is such a confused mish mash of all sorts of stuff without a clear agenda for a situation like Kashmirs.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
>>I believe what the Indian administration engaging itself in Kashmir today in the name of counterterrorism is absolutely abhorrent.
My understanding of the Indian government's position on similar sentiment worldwide, to the extent that it exists, is "that's OK, you have a right to that belief".
Your move? Because that is what it boils down to. Assume you are as powerful as the US and China combined.
The worst you can do is (a) actively destabilise society in India, with the intent of eventually dismantling the nation state through the steady expansion of internal divisions; and/or (b) actively support Pakistan in its anti-India activities, and/or (c) continue lecturing India on the immorality of its position.
A & C are happening and has been happening as part of the background activity for decades now, and B is only in a (temporary) lull phase.
The question is how does that make India's position less moral than theirs? Further, what's your next move?
My understanding of the Indian government's position on similar sentiment worldwide, to the extent that it exists, is "that's OK, you have a right to that belief".
Your move? Because that is what it boils down to. Assume you are as powerful as the US and China combined.
The worst you can do is (a) actively destabilise society in India, with the intent of eventually dismantling the nation state through the steady expansion of internal divisions; and/or (b) actively support Pakistan in its anti-India activities, and/or (c) continue lecturing India on the immorality of its position.
A & C are happening and has been happening as part of the background activity for decades now, and B is only in a (temporary) lull phase.
The question is how does that make India's position less moral than theirs? Further, what's your next move?
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Cogito, ergo sum
^^^ Go figure...Cogito, ergo sum is a Latin philosophical proposition by René Descartes translated into English as "I think, therefore I am". As Descartes explained, "we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt...." A fuller version, articulated by Antoine Léonard Thomas, aptly captures Descartes's intent: "dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum" ("I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"). The concept is also sometimes known as the cogito.
This proposition became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it purported to form a secure foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception, or mistake, Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence served—at minimum—as proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity—in this case the self—for there to be a thought.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
To find a lasting solution to the crisis in Kashmir, it is imperative to look back. Partition was arguably the bloodiest in history, with over a million people killed in communal riots and ten times that number displaced. Areas directly administered by the British colonial state immediately became part of one of the two new nation-states, but the hundreds of so-called ‘princely states’ ruled indirectly through local royals were given the choice to choose accession to either country – or to neither. The majority quickly fell in line, incorporating into the new nations based on religious demographics, but the princely state of Kashmir held out. A Muslim-majority state ruled by a Hindu Maharaja, Kashmir only acceded to India after an internal crisis led the ruler Hari Singh to seek out the help of the Indian Army. Although Kashmir’s accession to India was predicated on the promise of a future plebiscite in which the Kashmiri people could vote on whether to join India or Pakistan, the plebiscite was never held. Why?Karan M wrote:Tuan, that is such a confused mish mash of all sorts of stuff without a clear agenda for a situation like Kashmirs.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Are you even serious? Do you not even know such basic facts regarding the dispute?
The rationale for a plebiscite was predicated on the Pakistanis withdrawing from all their captured territory and then a plebiscite would be held in the actual territory as it stood with the then population as it was. Those conditions have been completely overtaken by events and are no longer possible!
With religious radicalization of the Valley being implemented by a mix of Pakistani and other actors, to the point significant elements of the Kashmiri population participated in religious cleansing of Hindu pandits and committed acts of extreme violence, it is contingent upon India to think of the rights of various non Muslim groups and also those Muslims who are more moderate. Asking the former group to vote on a plebiscite is legitimizing their use of terror as a method to influence state policy.
Furthermore, Pakistan has actually surrendered sovereignty to China for a huge chunk of land. It has settled extremist, hardline Punjabis and non Kashmiris in occupied Kashmir and also radicalized a significant section if not all, to persecute its religious extremist agenda. Of what use is a plebiscite now, given the conditions under which it was to be originally held are no longer practically possible in any sense!
I am surprised you don't even know these basic facts?!
The rationale for a plebiscite was predicated on the Pakistanis withdrawing from all their captured territory and then a plebiscite would be held in the actual territory as it stood with the then population as it was. Those conditions have been completely overtaken by events and are no longer possible!
With religious radicalization of the Valley being implemented by a mix of Pakistani and other actors, to the point significant elements of the Kashmiri population participated in religious cleansing of Hindu pandits and committed acts of extreme violence, it is contingent upon India to think of the rights of various non Muslim groups and also those Muslims who are more moderate. Asking the former group to vote on a plebiscite is legitimizing their use of terror as a method to influence state policy.
Furthermore, Pakistan has actually surrendered sovereignty to China for a huge chunk of land. It has settled extremist, hardline Punjabis and non Kashmiris in occupied Kashmir and also radicalized a significant section if not all, to persecute its religious extremist agenda. Of what use is a plebiscite now, given the conditions under which it was to be originally held are no longer practically possible in any sense!
I am surprised you don't even know these basic facts?!
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Then all this about heart and mind and music etc. I really wonder how much you even know about the basic facts re: the Indian effort in Kashmir. For 2 decades now, the Indian Army has been running Operation Sadbhavana, wherein it provides services directly to the people of Kashmir, sends kids across India on trips, sponsors their education, sponsors medical camps etc. Apart from this Kashmir receives arguably the highest proportion of central funding as a state, any visitor quickly picks up on the fact there is very little to none of the poverty seen in other Indian states, given the manner in which the Central Govt disburses funds, provides state run employment (and many people moonlight in 2 or more jobs on the side, even).
In fact, much of what you have written viz Kashmir is trite, to say the least. Its a mishmash of contradictory, information which appears to have been googled up and completely ignores the degree to which the Indian effort has overtaken strategems utilized by Pakistan and their local conspirators.
I suggest you read up a bit more before offering suggestions which are a) ridiculously simplistic b ) impractical before pompously dismissing India's efforts at the cost of the blood of its soldiers and civilians as abhorrent.
You have no skin in the game, next to no knowledge clearly, about the lengths to which the Indian Govt has gone to, to avoid enforcing a hardline policy on Kashmiris who freely travel around, enjoy economic opportunities across India, write seditious social media posts, engage in the worst kind of intifada like tactics. Only after casualties of local Kashmiris engaged in security work mounted did GOI even authorize the use of non lethal means to fight back, which too has become a propaganda tool for the seditionists.
In such a milieu, wherein hardline Islamists try to skin "informers" alive, rage against all those whom they consider "impure" whether they be non valley muslims or HIndus or Sikhs, its beyond silly to expect India to withdraw its security forces and be as stupid as what many in the "progressive west" want India to be. They may have some sort of morbid love for radical Islam and its footsoldiers, India doesn't and wishes to ensure Kashmir is pulled into normalcy and not remain a cauldron for vested interests to exploit or pontificate upon.
In fact, much of what you have written viz Kashmir is trite, to say the least. Its a mishmash of contradictory, information which appears to have been googled up and completely ignores the degree to which the Indian effort has overtaken strategems utilized by Pakistan and their local conspirators.
I suggest you read up a bit more before offering suggestions which are a) ridiculously simplistic b ) impractical before pompously dismissing India's efforts at the cost of the blood of its soldiers and civilians as abhorrent.
You have no skin in the game, next to no knowledge clearly, about the lengths to which the Indian Govt has gone to, to avoid enforcing a hardline policy on Kashmiris who freely travel around, enjoy economic opportunities across India, write seditious social media posts, engage in the worst kind of intifada like tactics. Only after casualties of local Kashmiris engaged in security work mounted did GOI even authorize the use of non lethal means to fight back, which too has become a propaganda tool for the seditionists.
In such a milieu, wherein hardline Islamists try to skin "informers" alive, rage against all those whom they consider "impure" whether they be non valley muslims or HIndus or Sikhs, its beyond silly to expect India to withdraw its security forces and be as stupid as what many in the "progressive west" want India to be. They may have some sort of morbid love for radical Islam and its footsoldiers, India doesn't and wishes to ensure Kashmir is pulled into normalcy and not remain a cauldron for vested interests to exploit or pontificate upon.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
A very strange question.Tuan wrote:To find a lasting solution to the crisis in Kashmir, it is imperative to look back. Partition was arguably the bloodiest in history, with over a million people killed in communal riots and ten times that number displaced. Areas directly administered by the British colonial state immediately became part of one of the two new nation-states, but the hundreds of so-called ‘princely states’ ruled indirectly through local royals were given the choice to choose accession to either country – or to neither. The majority quickly fell in line, incorporating into the new nations based on religious demographics, but the princely state of Kashmir held out. A Muslim-majority state ruled by a Hindu Maharaja, Kashmir only acceded to India after an internal crisis led the ruler Hari Singh to seek out the help of the Indian Army. Although Kashmir’s accession to India was predicated on the promise of a future plebiscite in which the Kashmiri people could vote on whether to join India or Pakistan, the plebiscite was never held. Why?Karan M wrote:Tuan, that is such a confused mish mash of all sorts of stuff without a clear agenda for a situation like Kashmirs.
The short answer is that India, at that point in time (1947), had a "leader" (who was not one) who was whiter-that-white. He was out to prove that, somehow, he was the equal of the Western leaders. Even when he had around him very competent leaders - at least as far as India was concerned. We can debate that topic ad nauseam. This leader had no idea how to navigate the times to benefit India. BTW, Ahimsa, etc, were not the answer. The leader did his level best to choose that (Ahimsa) path, by stating that India did not need an army (only to regret it in 1962)(and, on the radio, announce to the nation that his heart was with Assam, fully expecting to lose Assam to the Chinese).
The issue then and the issue today, is not one of logic and history. It is of might. It was so when the Greeks invaded. It was so when the Mongols invaded. It was so when the Muslims invaded. It was so when the British/Portuguese/French/Dutch/etc invaded India. And, it will be so if India gives all these yahoos the same chance. They will impose their might, no two ways. Which is why I do not agree with your question: "Why?"
So, the question to you is, what do you find offensive in India's current behavior (please do not come back with the past - no one from that era is in charge now)? Why should not India impose her will today? (some of us may or may not agree with this imposition, but that is a different matter.)
Today's situation is all that counts. And, within that situation all that counts is what of GoI - the current dispensation - thinks it needs to do. I may disagree. You may disagree. The FM of Sweden may disagree - she does disagree. But, who the F cares?
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Sir,NRao wrote:A very strange question.Tuan wrote:
To find a lasting solution to the crisis in Kashmir, it is imperative to look back. Partition was arguably the bloodiest in history, with over a million people killed in communal riots and ten times that number displaced. Areas directly administered by the British colonial state immediately became part of one of the two new nation-states, but the hundreds of so-called ‘princely states’ ruled indirectly through local royals were given the choice to choose accession to either country – or to neither. The majority quickly fell in line, incorporating into the new nations based on religious demographics, but the princely state of Kashmir held out. A Muslim-majority state ruled by a Hindu Maharaja, Kashmir only acceded to India after an internal crisis led the ruler Hari Singh to seek out the help of the Indian Army. Although Kashmir’s accession to India was predicated on the promise of a future plebiscite in which the Kashmiri people could vote on whether to join India or Pakistan, the plebiscite was never held. Why?
The short answer is that India, at that point in time (1947), had a "leader" (who was not one) who was whiter-that-white. He was out to prove that, somehow, he was the equal of the Western leaders. Even when he had around him very competent leaders - at least as far as India was concerned. We can debate that topic ad nauseam. This leader had no idea how to navigate the times to benefit India. BTW, Ahimsa, etc, were not the answer. The leader did his level best to choose that (Ahimsa) path, by stating that India did not need an army (only to regret it in 1962)(and, on the radio, announce to the nation that his heart was with Assam, fully expecting to lose Assam to the Chinese).
The issue then and the issue today, is not one of logic and history. It is of might. It was so when the Greeks invaded. It was so when the Mongols invaded. It was so when the Muslims invaded. It was so when the British/Portuguese/French/Dutch/etc invaded India. And, it will be so if India gives all these yahoos the same chance. They will impose their might, no two ways. Which is why I do not agree with your question: "Why?"
So, the question to you is, what do you find offensive in India's current behavior (please do not come back with the past - no one from that era is in charge now)? Why should not India impose her will today? (some of us may or may not agree with this imposition, but that is a different matter.)
Today's situation is all that counts. And, within that situation all that counts is what of GoI - the current dispensation - thinks it needs to do. I may disagree. You may disagree. The FM of Sweden may disagree - she does disagree. But, who the F cares?
I understand that the current Indian administration sees through the lens of Realism as means to finding solutions to protect India’s interests because realism has been the dominant theory of world politics since the beginning of academic international relations. Realism has a longer history in the works of classical political theorists including Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Rousseau. Realism argues that states find themselves in the shadows of anarchy and that their security cannot be taken for granted. Although we have seen heightened criticism of Realist assumptions since the Cold War, Realism continues to attract academicians and policy-makers in the dawn of the new millennium.
I would argue, however, that Liberalism is a theory of both governments within states and good governance between states and peoples worldwide. Unlike Realism’s anarchic realm, Liberalism seeks to project values of order, liberty, justice, and toleration into international relations. The peak of Liberal thought in international relations was reached during the inter-war period in the works of idealists who agreed that warfare was an unnecessary and outdated way of settling disputes between nations. Liberals, therefore, disagree on fundamental issues, such as the causes of war and what kind of institutions are required to deliver Liberal values in a decentralized, multicultural international system.
Moreover, it is noteworthy in higher academia that the realist school of thought that emphasizes hard power, especially the hard power of the state, while liberal institutionalist scholars emphasize soft power as an essential resource of statecraft. Hard power — represented by military strength — is indeed essential to our security; still, modeling such values as good governance, public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development assistance, disaster relief, educational and employment opportunities — all soft power measures — are equally important in the long run.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
You should start your lecture with the Swedes. Then Turkey, followed by Malaysia.Tuan wrote:Sir,NRao wrote:
A very strange question.
The short answer is that India, at that point in time (1947), had a "leader" (who was not one) who was whiter-that-white. He was out to prove that, somehow, he was the equal of the Western leaders. Even when he had around him very competent leaders - at least as far as India was concerned. We can debate that topic ad nauseam. This leader had no idea how to navigate the times to benefit India. BTW, Ahimsa, etc, were not the answer. The leader did his level best to choose that (Ahimsa) path, by stating that India did not need an army (only to regret it in 1962)(and, on the radio, announce to the nation that his heart was with Assam, fully expecting to lose Assam to the Chinese).
The issue then and the issue today, is not one of logic and history. It is of might. It was so when the Greeks invaded. It was so when the Mongols invaded. It was so when the Muslims invaded. It was so when the British/Portuguese/French/Dutch/etc invaded India. And, it will be so if India gives all these yahoos the same chance. They will impose their might, no two ways. Which is why I do not agree with your question: "Why?"
So, the question to you is, what do you find offensive in India's current behavior (please do not come back with the past - no one from that era is in charge now)? Why should not India impose her will today? (some of us may or may not agree with this imposition, but that is a different matter.)
Today's situation is all that counts. And, within that situation all that counts is what of GoI - the current dispensation - thinks it needs to do. I may disagree. You may disagree. The FM of Sweden may disagree - she does disagree. But, who the F cares?
I understand that the current Indian administration sees through the lens of Realism as means to finding solutions to protect India’s interests because realism has been the dominant theory of world politics since the beginning of academic international relations. Realism has a longer history in the works of classical political theorists including Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Rousseau. Realism argues that states find themselves in the shadows of anarchy and that their security cannot be taken for granted. Although we have seen heightened criticism of Realist assumptions since the Cold War, Realism continues to attract academicians and policy-makers in the dawn of the new millennium.
I would argue, however, that Liberalism is a theory of both governments within states and good governance between states and peoples worldwide. Unlike Realism’s anarchic realm, Liberalism seeks to project values of order, liberty, justice, and toleration into international relations. The peak of Liberal thought in international relations was reached during the inter-war period in the works of idealists who agreed that warfare was an unnecessary and outdated way of settling disputes between nations. Liberals, therefore, disagree on fundamental issues, such as the causes of war and what kind of institutions are required to deliver Liberal values in a decentralized, multicultural international system.
Moreover, it is noteworthy in higher academia that the realist school of thought that emphasizes hard power, especially the hard power of the state, while liberal institutionalist scholars emphasize soft power as an essential resource of statecraft. Hard power — represented by military strength — is indeed essential to our security; still, modeling such values as good governance, public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development assistance, disaster relief, educational and employment opportunities — all soft power measures — are equally important in the long run.
There is no 370 nor 35A. This means there is no past - it has been erased (which is why your question did not arise). And, as, IIRC the Chief of Indian Army stated: bring it on. IF indeed my recollection is right, he said that on the strength of erasing the past. The past is gone.
India has rebooted. It does not matter what anyone said (past). What matters is what India says. And, here is a sample of what India says:
from Nov 17, 2019 :: 'With More Weight Comes More Responsibility'
That should actually stop all pontification. Focus. Not pontificate.DER SPIEGEL: But how were people supposed to call an ambulance if they needed one?
Jaishankar: I'm asking you: How were terrorists supposed to be stopped?
DER SPIEGEL: The fight against terrorism justifies all means?
Jaishankar: What kind of a question is that? Terrorists have killed apple traders in the past few weeks. Grenades have been thrown at markets. People have died. Why don't you focus on any of that?
But, to drive the nail home (Dec 1, 2019):
I have more to say (and it is not pretty), but between Jaishankar and Doval I think all that needs to be said is said:
1) NO past, only the future, and
2) India will dictate it.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
https://twitter.com/tanvi_madan/status/ ... 0570385410
Tanvi Madan @tanvi_madan
.@GregPoling & the folks at @AsiaMTI
have a new interactive feature: Ports & Partnerships: Delhi Invests in Indian Ocean Leadership
#IndoPacific #India
https://amti.csis.org/ports-and-part
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/pakista ... 2954591198
Is Rabi Pirzada now facing revenge *****?
Singer announces early retirement after backlash includes release of personal videos
November 05, 2019
Karishma H. Nandkeolyar, Web Editor
What was arguably a publicity stunt has turned into a nightmare for Pakistani celeb Rabi Pirzada, who has now decided to take a break from the spotlight. Her absence however is surprisingly making her a greater presence in today’s conversation: the use of revenge *****.
So what happened?
Last month, Pirzada took on the behemoth Modi brand when she posted a video of herself alongside deadly pythons, saying that she wanted to set all manner of reptiles loose on the leader of India’s government. "All these are gifts for PM Modi. My friends will feast on you," she had written alongside the video.
Both vitriol and praise thundered down on social media as Pirzada became a polarizing, meme-worthy representation of what Modi’s Kashmir decision – to revoke Article 370, which granted Kashmiri’s special rights – had born.
Next, Pirzada – who has worked as a TV host and singer – made bold by the viral response, shot another video. She dressed up as a suicide bomber and posted a picture of herself in it with a caption warning PM Modi. "#ModiHitler I just wish huh. #kashmirkibeti."
During her first statement, she was fined by wildlife authorities, vilified by Modi followers and glamorized by detractors. In case number two, there was greater flak, with Twitter users pointing to a lack of sensitivity towards victims of real suicide bombers.
But what really got the world talking was what came next – intimate videos and photographs of the singer were leaked online and as a result of the trolling that ensued, she decided on early retirement …at the age of 30.
.....
Gautam
Is Rabi Pirzada now facing revenge *****?
Singer announces early retirement after backlash includes release of personal videos
November 05, 2019
Karishma H. Nandkeolyar, Web Editor
What was arguably a publicity stunt has turned into a nightmare for Pakistani celeb Rabi Pirzada, who has now decided to take a break from the spotlight. Her absence however is surprisingly making her a greater presence in today’s conversation: the use of revenge *****.
So what happened?
Last month, Pirzada took on the behemoth Modi brand when she posted a video of herself alongside deadly pythons, saying that she wanted to set all manner of reptiles loose on the leader of India’s government. "All these are gifts for PM Modi. My friends will feast on you," she had written alongside the video.
Both vitriol and praise thundered down on social media as Pirzada became a polarizing, meme-worthy representation of what Modi’s Kashmir decision – to revoke Article 370, which granted Kashmiri’s special rights – had born.
Next, Pirzada – who has worked as a TV host and singer – made bold by the viral response, shot another video. She dressed up as a suicide bomber and posted a picture of herself in it with a caption warning PM Modi. "#ModiHitler I just wish huh. #kashmirkibeti."
During her first statement, she was fined by wildlife authorities, vilified by Modi followers and glamorized by detractors. In case number two, there was greater flak, with Twitter users pointing to a lack of sensitivity towards victims of real suicide bombers.
But what really got the world talking was what came next – intimate videos and photographs of the singer were leaked online and as a result of the trolling that ensued, she decided on early retirement …at the age of 30.
.....
Gautam
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Get former IN Cdr.Jadhav languishing in a Paki prison for years out.The Israelis do everything to protect their nationals and their national interest.Sadly India's MEA have not achieved very much in protecting our international interests.We simply ignore the NAM summit where we were once undisputed leader of thf org. Every nation counts anfd has value.In recent times we've been blindly following the US especially with respect to abandoning Iran, Chahbahar port et al, and allowing Sunni Pak to begin wooing Shiite Iran , losing the strategic outflanking of Pak via Iran.This further endangers our Afghan policies and if Pak and Iran cement ties further, imagine the consequences for India's energy supplies from the Gulf with China already in Gwadar, and Pak and Iran on one side against India.Talk about the lack of commonsense and myopia in the MEA.
India today prefers playing second fiddle to the US willing to be counted as a US lackey , part of the " quad" maritime group against China ( a US Congressman has said that we are now the equiv. of a US NATO ally without being a member!), rather than being a sovereign independent state the world's largest democracy.WE should be attracting states to our side based upon our ancient heritage spanning at least ten thousand years, spiritual and cultural heritage that has penetrated globally,plus our military strength and economic potential. We are still unable to get the IOR grouping off the ground or BIMSTEC any teeth. Our Sri Lankan diplomacy has been a disaster for a long time and the return of the avowed pro- Chinese Rajapakses is a catastrophe for our security.The new Lankan pres. will speak with a forked tongue.Watch this space.
It is the Indian military which is performing far more useful diplomacy like leasing a sub to Burma, def. agreements with the Seychelles, Mauritius, Oman, etc. We should further cement military relationships snd bases in Vietnam, the Phillippines,, etc. instead of appeasing China.Indian diplomacy must bd far more aggressive and pro- active. Chinese dumping of their cheap goods resulting in a $60 B annual deficit is the elephant, sorry dragon in the room about which the MEA is silent and speechless.
India today prefers playing second fiddle to the US willing to be counted as a US lackey , part of the " quad" maritime group against China ( a US Congressman has said that we are now the equiv. of a US NATO ally without being a member!), rather than being a sovereign independent state the world's largest democracy.WE should be attracting states to our side based upon our ancient heritage spanning at least ten thousand years, spiritual and cultural heritage that has penetrated globally,plus our military strength and economic potential. We are still unable to get the IOR grouping off the ground or BIMSTEC any teeth. Our Sri Lankan diplomacy has been a disaster for a long time and the return of the avowed pro- Chinese Rajapakses is a catastrophe for our security.The new Lankan pres. will speak with a forked tongue.Watch this space.
It is the Indian military which is performing far more useful diplomacy like leasing a sub to Burma, def. agreements with the Seychelles, Mauritius, Oman, etc. We should further cement military relationships snd bases in Vietnam, the Phillippines,, etc. instead of appeasing China.Indian diplomacy must bd far more aggressive and pro- active. Chinese dumping of their cheap goods resulting in a $60 B annual deficit is the elephant, sorry dragon in the room about which the MEA is silent and speechless.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
My respect for our current Foreign Minister increases every time I hear him. Great clarity of thought and ability to look at the big picture. Hope we can bring in more such professionals to head other ministries, especially where the politicians aren't contributing.NRao wrote:How S Jaishankar set the record straight
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Dec 4, 2019
3 Ex-Foreign Secretaries On India's New Global Role
With Shri Manmohan Singh and FM Jaishankar in the audience.
3 Ex-Foreign Secretaries On India's New Global Role
With Shri Manmohan Singh and FM Jaishankar in the audience.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Gautam, I can only hope that the same treatment gets meted out to the other Pakistani actress who criticized Priyanki Chopra for daring to show support for the Indian military forces.g.sarkar wrote:https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/pakista ... 2954591198
Is Rabi Pirzada now facing revenge *****?
Singer announces early retirement after backlash includes release of personal videos
snip
.....
Gautam
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Great conversation indeed on India's New Global Role.NRao wrote:Dec 4, 2019
3 Ex-Foreign Secretaries On India's New Global Role
With Shri Manmohan Singh and FM Jaishankar in the audience.
In responding to the question, what IK Gujral would have done differently to the challenges India is facing today, all three of them explicitly stated that we should not compare what was happening around the world almost 10, 15, or even 25 years ago to today`s global context. They all agreed that India should respond to the present challenges as each situation arises one by one.
On the other hand, FM Jaishankar repeatedly said in many of his interviews that India is not competing with China and in fact, he stated that China`s Belt and Road initiative, which supposedly should lead to an interconnected world could benefit India as well. It is, therefore, I believe, that India should join hands with China towards a strategic partnership vis-a-vis Belt and Road project since it will mutually benefit both countries. In order to survive and succeed in an interconnected and interdependent world, where global south nation-states are competing with the global north, the only choice the regional actors have is to promote toleration, moderation, and coexistence.
It does not mean that India is weak and thus join hands with a stronger China, rather I envision a united world as one global system. It could be a utopian and idealistic thought, but given the status quo of global affairs, including ongoing and upcoming military conflicts, power projections, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, piracy, cyber-security, climate change, poverty, overpopulation, depletion of natural resources (freshwater, fossil fuel, and arable lands), the only way forward is a peaceful coexistence of one world, IMHO.
Furthermore, much of the Global South, which includes the poor countries of the world are located in Asia, Africa, and South America. This part of the world is home to roughly five billion people, who are living in extreme poverty, and as such, relationships around the world are not balanced (Shah, 2009). Income inequality and poverty involve powerlessness and invisibility, including a lack of money, basic nutrition, health care, education, freedom, personal autonomy. In fact, 80% of global resources are consumed by only one billion who live in the Global North that includes the wealthy industrialized countries of Western Europe, Canada, the United States, Australia, and Japan (World Bank Group, 2010). While most of the industrialized countries are located in the North, there are exceptions; for example, both Australia and New Zealand are wealthy countries located in the South. As a rule, states in the Global North are democratic and technologically advanced, have a high standard of living, and experience very low population growth (Ravelli & Webber, 2015). Is it fair or justifiable that developing countries must try to survive on only 20% of the world’s resources?
"The world has enough for everyone's needs, but not everyone's greed." - Mahatma Gandhi
Excerpts form my article that can be found at https://projectofive.ca/2017/02/10/reco ... art-power/
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Jaishankar in endorsing China's OBOR is in fact accepting defeat even before a skirmish has commenced! He is typical of the appeasement lobby of China in the MEA, a bunch of defeatists in the Neville Chamberlain mould. This is a redux to the great Nehruvian diplomacy that cost us humiliation and territory apart from thousands of precious lives in '62. Unless India's diplomacy is backed up by a strong military force, we will be chicken feed for the dragon who is steadily , relentlessly and inexorably encircling
us.We are NOT doing the same in its own backyard the Indo- China Sea where we should set up bases in Vietnam, the Phillippines,etc. and enter into our own strategic architecture with other nations not by being humble bootlickers of the US.
A far more robust diplomacy from India is required and increased defence budget from the GOI with priority to the IN just as China is doing with its own navy with plans to one day dominate the Asia- Pacific from the IOR to the Pacific.China has in fact even sent its warships into the Meditt. to show the flag to ME and Meditt. European powers.
us.We are NOT doing the same in its own backyard the Indo- China Sea where we should set up bases in Vietnam, the Phillippines,etc. and enter into our own strategic architecture with other nations not by being humble bootlickers of the US.
A far more robust diplomacy from India is required and increased defence budget from the GOI with priority to the IN just as China is doing with its own navy with plans to one day dominate the Asia- Pacific from the IOR to the Pacific.China has in fact even sent its warships into the Meditt. to show the flag to ME and Meditt. European powers.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Can you kindly point me to where the FM has made these statements (underlined above)?Tuan wrote: ................................................
On the other hand, FM Jaishankar repeatedly said in many of his interviews that India is not competing with China and in fact, he stated that China`s Belt and Road initiative, which supposedly should lead to an interconnected world could benefit India as well. It is, therefore, I believe, that India should join hands with China towards a strategic partnership vis-a-vis Belt and Road project since it will mutually benefit both countries. In order to survive and succeed in an interconnected and interdependent world, where global south nation-states are competing with the global north, the only choice the regional actors have is to promote toleration, moderation, and coexistence.
........
Thanks.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
FM Jaishankar used this policy rhetoric in many of his interviews. For instance:NRao wrote:Can you kindly point me to where the FM has made these statements (underlined above)?Tuan wrote: ................................................
On the other hand, FM Jaishankar repeatedly said in many of his interviews that India is not competing with China and in fact, he stated that China`s Belt and Road initiative, which supposedly should lead to an interconnected world could benefit India as well. It is, therefore, I believe, that India should join hands with China towards a strategic partnership vis-a-vis Belt and Road project since it will mutually benefit both countries. In order to survive and succeed in an interconnected and interdependent world, where global south nation-states are competing with the global north, the only choice the regional actors have is to promote toleration, moderation, and coexistence.
........
Thanks.
DER SPIEGEL: You haven't mentioned Beijing. Chinese companies are planning large infrastructure projects in Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka. What is India doing to counter China's influence in the region?
Jaishankar: Whatever we do, we're not doing to counter China's influence. Take China away for a moment: We would be still be investing in Nepal, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka the way we do today.. [...] The more connected South Asia is, the better it is for us too.
Re: Indian Foreign Policy
Posting in Foreign Policy thread since not many are interested about 3rd industrial revolution whooshing by.
National Defense in the Age of Ethical AI
Read it all.
National Defense in the Age of Ethical AI
Read it all.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has proclaimed that the nation that masters AI will “become the ruler of the world.”
..
Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX) believes that a geopolitical contest already is underway.
“It’s a competition and our adversary, our opponent, is China,”