Understanding the Great Game and role of India & Asian stability

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 16 Jul 2008 10:56

As far back as June 28, 1935, when he was Deputy Secretary, Caroe wrote to the Secretary of State for India about "the new political forces... at work in Eastern and Central Asia". He was appalled at the "typical British and British Indian apathy" towards issues of security. In 1942, he set up the "Viceroy's Study Group". In a major paper dated April 26, 1942, he wrote that "a realisation is needed in the highest places that India cannot build a constitution unless the frontiers are held and the ring fence in some manner kept standing". It was entitled "Whither India's Foreign Policy". Two others he wrote bear mention. They are "Some Constitutional Reflections on the Landward Security of the India of the Future" (August 18, 1944) and "The Essential Interests of the British Commonwealth in the Persian Gulf and its Coastal States, with special reference to India" (1944). The Planning Division of the MEA set up in 1966 has been a joke from the inception.

In 1942, Caroe noted that intelligence assessors at the Foreign Office had "with a few exceptions in relation to Japan, been able to give little thought or study to the problems of Asia and none at all to India". India apart, he said, "the countries on the Indian Periphery all the way from the Middle East to Malaya are conspicuous by their absence". As a result, Caroe had "been considering means whereby we in India might be able to do something to fill this lacuna".

Lord Linlithgow was Viceroy then. Even this wooden man felt the need for "some reflection to be undertaken", an exercise which India's leaders and diplomats find irksome and unnecessary. Prof. Brobst rises to the challenge of analysing the material. Archival discoveries supplement his own able research. Unlike some, he does not simply dish out the discovered documents, prefacing them with a perfunctory introduction.

The study group comprised senior officers from both the ICS and the Indian Army. General Sir Alan Hartley, Deputy Commander in Chief of the Indian Army; Major-General Walter Cawthorn, Director of Military Intelligence; Sir Theodore Gregory, an economist; and Sir Everlyn Wrench, in the Finance Department. Sir Maurice Gwyer, C. J. of the Federal Court and one of the principal draftsmen of the 1935 India Act, participated actively. So did Peter Fleming, Ian Fleming's older brother who had travelled extensively in Chinese Central Asia in the 1930s and had come to India in 1942 to organise strategic deception operations. Among the founding members was H.V. Hodson, Constitutional Adviser to the Government of India, who became Editor of The Sunday

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2309/ ... 908300.htm

Need to get hold of that paper and develop an understanding of who all those people.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Jul 2008 20:13

anupmisra wrote:It is interesting to note that the English and other commonwealth (read white) officers continued to serve in both Indian and pakistani armies long after 1947. Did they not imagine that one day they could be potentially at war with each other (English vs. English) ? Or the fact that they were represented in both armies kept the two nations away from war until 1965 (1948 - was it really a war?). Remember that famous incident when the English officer commanding some Porki scouts (I forget the proper name) called his Indian counterpart and alerted him to the potential infiltrators from NWFP moving towards Kashmir in 1948?

Anup, the British officers served the Pakistani Armed Forces for far longer than they served in India. Douglas Gracey served as Pakistan's C-in-C until circa 1951. India saw the British officer's perfidy very quickly and decided to replace them eventhough they hinted that the Indians were not experienced enough to take over etc. For example, HMS Achilles which was transferred to India as INS Delhi was done with the hidden agenda that it will prolong the presence of British officers in India.

While Britsih officers were serving both Armies, Auchinlec had issued a 'stand-down' order which meant that in case of conflict, the British Officers should withdraw. During the early period of the Kashmir conflict, there was also a Joint Defence Council between India and Pakistan that Mountbatten used to chair ! Even in the case of Junagadh, Mountbatten strongly advised Nehru & Sardar Patel not to take any action and precipitate an international opprobrium. The three service chiefs, Gen Lockhart, Admiral Hall and Air Marshal Elmhirst sent a memorandum to the Government of India that for a 'variety of reasons' the Indian Army should not be involved in the Junagadh/Babariawad/Mangrol situation. GoI took it as gross insubordination and it was then withdrawn.

Then, Mountbatten had another trick up his sleeve. In order to prevent such unpleasant situations, he suggested to Nehru to constitute a Cabinet Defence Committe, for which he nominated himself as the Chair ! This was accepted too by Nehru. That was how, during the entire Kashmir issue, Britain misdirected India. Lockhart, Auchinlec, Mountabatten continued to paint a dismal picture of the Indian Army and how they could not take up large-scale operations etc., to the Indian Defence Committee.

The Stand-Down order was later modified to the effect that while British officers cannot directly take part in field operations, they can assist in planning etc. Later, Cariappa kept Roy Bucher in dark about his planning as he feared information was being leaked to the Pakistani army thro Messervy by Roy Bucher.

I have posted this OT info here just to show the huge British planning & perfidy in matters military and intelligence.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jul 2008 21:48

Someone was wondering if the Internet age is causing a dumbing down. I disagreed. I can now point to this thread to show how the internt has anabled us to dig up facts quickly and sort them for signal to noise and develop a picture which was hidden hithertofore for most of us.

All along the story was the Pakis were so belligerent that they stole POK from a incompetent GOI which namaged to hang on to remaining J&K by the slenderest margins when all along the Brits were doing g(o)a(t)ddari all along and planning an executing the takeover while giving the credit to the duffers in jihadi fauj.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 Jul 2008 22:33

ramana wrote:Someone was wondering if the Internet age is causing a dumbing down. I disagreed. I can now point to this thread to show how the internt has anabled us to dig up facts quickly and sort them for signal to noise and develop a picture which was hidden hithertofore for most of us.

All along the story was the Pakis were so belligerent that they stole POK from a incompetent GOI which namaged to hang on to remaining J&K by the slenderest margins when all along the Brits were doing g(o)a(t)ddari all along and planning an executing the takeover while giving the credit to the duffers in jihadi fauj.

The information was hidden because it was deliberately done so.
For Indians internet is the place to get back all the history of colonialism and other hidden info so that the full story can be told.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 16 Jul 2008 23:36

The level of out of box thinking that Caroe put into this effort is simply stupefying. I read just a few sentences of this article and am completely at a loss for words.

To give a concrete example, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 was, as Olaf Caroe, the VSG’s
director put it, the predictable (and predicted) “after-effect” of India’s partition in 1947. By creating two mutually
antagonistic successor states in India and Pakistan, the partition effectively turned the subcontinent’s power potential
in on itself.

Viceroy's studygroup

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 Jul 2008 23:54

Need to understand the architecture before and after independence.
There is a road block now and they are unale to extrapolate the great game to the next level.
But they are seeing the situation from the same box. The old architecture has broken down

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 17 Jul 2008 00:40

From Caroe's statement it is clear that they were waiting for the soviets to come into Afghanistan for 35+ years...It is since 1979 that the flow of events is falling apart.

COuld be for two reasons:
1. Shah's overthrow.
2. Inability to manage Pakistan.

In the second chart what does "Secure Kashmir" mean? There is an indirect arrow (Pakistan -> princely states -> Kashmir.

Looks like this did not happen as anticipated.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jul 2008 00:43

Paul, In Feb., 1979 I was in a small rural town(Dothan) in Alabama when the news came about the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. I went on a rant on Carter and how he lost the great game and he was unfit to lead the US as the inheritor of the mantle of British Empire. My comapanions all Americans were at a loss as to what I was talking about and I gave them the whole story of the great game (or history of Europe after Napoleon) and ended it saying that if you were not ready to play it dont seize the mantle.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 17 Jul 2008 00:46

Ramana: You are right, when I said they...I meant the brits (they waited for this long to draw the Bear into a trap, kept Afghanistan backward). Caroe had difficulty convincing Americans of the importance of the "Great Game"

It is Unkil who is not showing finesse in executing the task at hand.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Jul 2008 00:50

Paul wrote:From Caroe's statement it is clear that they were waiting for the soviets to come into Afghanistan for 35+ years...It is since 1979 that the flow of events is falling apart.

COuld be for two reasons:
1. Shah's overthrow.
2. Inability to manage Pakistan.

Go back to historic Britian Russia rivalry to control the heartland of Eurasia from 1750. All books on the British Empire will have chapters on that. That made Russia seek the warm waters of Indian ocean. Russia setup an embassy in Bombay in 1900 itself.
Caroe was only giving details of what they already knew.
Geo-political balance changed very much after 1971 and things started falling apart. After the fall of SU there is no more threat to Afghanistan.
Fragmentation of states, anarchy has created deep holes in the security setup

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jul 2008 01:56

Actually the chart is a compliation by the authro of what he precieves the goals and the agents to achieve them are. Also enumerated are the skills, values and the locations. We need to read the actual papers to see how the VSG looked at things.

A few thoughts that are racing in my mind.

- Indian states accession was a critical thing to ensure stability of modern India. - Immendiate within 3 years.
- The next thing was to reduce the contentious issues as far as possible- eg. States Reorganization etc. ~ Ten years after Independence.
- Economic development still going on.

- The PRC threat to Tibet and India was a historical instituional/departmental myopia inherited from the British India office which was focussed on the threat fro the West. During British it was the fear of the bear and post independence it was the fear of the invaders through the passes. The East was neglected as was during the British days leading to Imperial Japan pushing in.

If you go back to ancient times the greater abroad for sub-contiental India is Middle East in the West and IndoChina and the island nations upto Phillipines in the East. I would also add East& Southern Africa and Central Asia as areas of interest to this formulation.

- In the authors description of leaving the seas to the Russians, it looks like its the US that controls the seas.

- The VSG studied the world with India as the center. I know understand why BRF was able to attract so many so quickly as the methods despite odd hiccups was the same - Look at the world thru Indian eyes and discuss all possiblitites and rule out the implausible ones. Unlike the the process is open here and folks can critique here, even if they have other preferences.
- The importance of Ayni to support Indian efforts in Afghanistan reveals itself. The air power aspect. So need to press for Herat airfield.
- And lastly Bangla Desh is a key component of India's Eastern defence whether anyone likes it or not.

I got to buy this book and meanwhile see what elese we can find out. The book review is there in the book review folder archived.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jul 2008 02:06

Chapter one of the book

This book is his PhD thesis from UT Austin.

Brobst, Peter John, The official mind of the Great Game: Sir Olaf Caroe, Indian independence, and world power, 1939-1954, Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, 1997, AAT 9824874. Brief summary.

“This dissertation examines the strategic outlook of the British Raj …. in the dual context of decolonization and the rise of air and mechanized warfare. The vantage is that of Sir Olaf Kirkpatrick Caroe … (s)trategist, proconsul, and pamphleteer…. Caroe served as Foreign Secretary to Britain's Government of India throughout the Second World War and afterwards became Britain's last Governor of India's North-West Frontier Province…. Caroe left a substantial archive of confidential as well as published writings that uniquely embodies the official mind of Great Game--the vision of world power shared collectively by the British soldiers and civil servants who ruled India over the century-and-a-half from the Napoleonic Wars through the Second World War. Where historians conventionally stress money, markets, and manpower, Caroe's thought helps to elucidate a geopolitical interpretation of British imperialism that emphasizes the intrinsic importance of Indian space in relation to power based in Central Asia. It suggests the lasting utility of the Great Game as a frame reference for both the Cold War and a much anticipated Pacific Century.” From the abstract.

BTW he is a prolific writer who thinks India is the key to Asian stability. Dont know if any one listens to him. Look up Orbis may 2008 issue.

mayurav · Post by **mayurav** » 17 Jul 2008 02:22

ramana wrote: - The VSG studied the world with India as the center.

India is the geographic center of the Old World (including Australia). 80E longitude running through Mt. Kailas, Kanpur, Chennai and Colombo pretty much bisects the Old World. It was the economic and cultural center also.

IMHO, the New World still needs to be remade in the image of the Old World demographically and politically. Maybe US cannot understand and play the Great Game well because it is not part of the Old World.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 17 Jul 2008 03:03

Wow.

The best-est thread in the strat forum in a very long time. And its dripping Strategic storylines in Bold Capitals (both literally and figuratively).

Gyan here is worth its weight in Plutonium. Perspective changing, head-spinning, game-changing gyan! Verily it is Tamasoma Jyotirgamaya!

Tks ramana garu and others for making it happen!

Sincerely,
VS

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jul 2008 03:14

You s till have a task that you promised acharya you would do. Also never edit out own thoughts for it might be still valuable. There is a Western philosopher who says that once the word is out, its a living breathing soul indepenent of the writer and to edit it is to kill it. So dont do that again.
And thanks for the positive comments.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Jul 2008 03:18

ramana wrote:
- In the authors description of leaving the seas to the Russians, it looks like its the US that controls the seas.

- The VSG studied the world with India as the center. I know understand why BRF was able to attract so many so quickly as the methods despite odd hiccups was the same - Look at the world thru Indian eyes and discuss all possiblitites and rule out the implausible ones. Unlike the the process is open here and folks can critique here, even if they have other preferences.
- The importance of Ayni to support Indian efforts in Afghanistan reveals itself. The air power aspect. So need to press for Herat airfield.
- And lastly Bangla Desh is a key component of India's Eastern defence whether anyone likes it or not.

India centric views were always part of the British strategic thought and also of Viceroy Lord Curzon.
Only western educated Indians started looking at the world through the eyes of the west and pst independence the media made several generations look at the world from the western eyes and NOT from the Indian centric eyes. This is the power of media indoctrination. We see the effect in the discussion on the nuclear deal.

Jaswant and Lord Curzon's legacy
By C. Raja Mohan

NEW DELHI, JAN. 27. Is Lord Curzon of Kedleston back in political favour? Two very different men recently invoked his ideas to define India's new standing in the world.

The first was Henry Kissinger, a former American Secretary of State who was talking about India's role in the region stretching from Aden to Singapore. The second was none other than the External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh.

At a conclave organised by the India Today magazine last week, Mr. Singh quoted extensively from Lord Curzon's celebrated 1907 Romanes lecture on `Frontiers'. Taking off from Lord Curzon's discussion on the diplomacy of fixing physical frontiers among competing powers at the turn of the 20th century, he was leading to a discourse on the new frontiers that Indian diplomacy must conquer.

Lord George Nathaniel Curzon, Viceroy of India (1898- 1905) and British Foreign Secretary (1919-24), might only be mentioned in our text books as the man who partitioned Bengal. But within the foreign policy elite, he is recalled as the man who outlined the grandest of the strategic visions for India.

* * *

Why should the imperialist vision of Lord Curzon - outlined nearly a century ago for British India - be of any significance to New Delhi's foreign policy? Some diplomatists suggest that the political context might have changed, but geography has not. If geography is destiny, India has a pivotal role in the Indian Ocean and its littoral, irrespective of who rules New Delhi.

While many strategists lament that New Delhi has failed to live up to the potential of Lord Curzon's vision, others insist it is outmoded. They argue that his ideas were drawn with reference to the imperial extension in India of the world's then sole superpower, Britain. New Delhi's strategic condition, they suggest, is not that of London in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

While Indians disagree on the value of the Viceroy's legacy, many in the neighbourhood, in particular Pakistan, have always accused the Indian foreign policy of Curzonian ambitions. For them, independent India's foreign policy has always been a continuation of the British imperial legacy. They believe Jawaharlal Nehru and his successors have only couched the ambition in different words.

The challenge for New Delhi, in balance, is to retain the essence of Curzon's vision that is rooted in India's geography while discarding the hegemonic aspects of it. As India grows stronger, it will inevitably called upon to play a larger role in the Indian Ocean littoral. The real question is not whether but what kind of a role?

* * *

In his book `The Place of India in the Empire', published in 1909, Lord Curzon talks of India's geopolitical significance. ``On the West, India must exercise a predominant influence over the destinies of Persia and Afghanistan; on the north, it can veto any rival in Tibet; on the north-east and last it can exert great pressure upon China, and it is one of the guardians of the autonomous existence of Siam,'' he wrote.

However, much one might dream about India's strategic future, this is not the kind of role India can play now. Nor is the world going to parcel out the Indian Ocean littoral to India. New Delhi can, however, significantly contribute towards the advancement of the region through political cooperation with other great powers.

That precisely is what Mr. Kissinger was talking about when he referred to the ``parallel interests'' of India and the United States from Aden to Singapore. These shared interests include energy security, safeguarding the sea lanes, political stability, economic modernisation and religious moderation.

* * *

Lord Curzon's emphasis on the value of fixing boundaries, conceived in the context of expanding empires, remains very relevant for India. Settled boundaries can make India's frontiers into zones of economic cooperation rather than bones of political contention.

The assessment that ``frontiers, which have so frequently and recently been the cause of war, are capable of being converted into the instruments and evidences of peace'' is even more true in a globalising world. By leaving territorial and boundary disputes with its key neighbours - Pakistan and China - unresolved for so long, India has tied itself down.

Lord Curzon seems to have been aware of the tendency to avoid boundary settlements. ``In Asia,'' he wrote, ``there has always been a strong instinctive aversion to the acceptance of fixed boundaries arising partly from the nomadic habits of the people, partly from the dislike of precise arrangements that is typical of the oriental mind, but more still from the idea that in the vicissitudes of fortune more is to be expected from an unsettled than from a settled frontier.''

Can India take Lord Curzon's advice on frontiers and seek a final resolution of the Kashmir problem with Pakistan and the boundary dispute with China? There may be a historic opportunity for the Government of Atal Behari Vajpayee to move decisively on both the fronts.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002/01/28/st ... 280900.htm

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 17 Jul 2008 03:21

I have reached the conclusion that the key to understand partition and the Bristish motivation in keeping the subcontinent on the boil is to understand Caroe and his thinking.

Need to read up his books. Till now, the only book I read was the Pathans - 20 years ago. It helps sometimes to go back and read up again with the new gyan accumulated since then.

Need to continue these discussions in a separate thread - this thread is for a different purpose relating to more recent events.

Added later

Acharya wrote:After the fall of SU there is no more threat to Afghanistan.
Fragmentation of states, anarchy has created deep holes in the security setup

In my perception, one of the objecives of the great game is to keep India secure but under control (systemic instability as the article puts it).

It will be presumptive to assume Caroe was blindly anti-indian like Churchill (there were significant differences amongst brit statesmen on this as evidenced by the thumbs down to some of his ideas from the india office), he was not!

He was in favor of India annexing sikkim in 1970.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jul 2008 03:36

I think Caroe was a British Indian.

I have split the topic so that the topics can be studied in depth.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 17 Jul 2008 03:41

This nugget shows the difference in the finesse demoed by the ustad and his and the ignorance of the shagird.

In contrast, as shown in Figure two, the Great Game following partition
inserts new agents into the game, most importantly Pakistan, split into the unwieldy federation bifurcated by another
new agent, India. The United States also appeared on the scene as a great power, but they lacked the focus on the
goal of maintaining Indian stability that had animated the British in India. Pakistan and India had territorial goals
that forced competition between them, especially in terms of which princely states the Imperial successors would
control, with the Kashmir region still a thorn. Post independence, the Great Game now had actors concerned with
the type of social organization in the region, with Pakistan organized as an entity protecting Islamic values of some
undetermined form in a social polity. The differences between these two models illustrate Caroe’s emphasis on
systemic instability that left the Soviet Union room for maneuver to bring troops in the region. & get clobbered! wah wah!.

From the first post: No wonder Noorani says this

The Planning Division of the MEA set up in 1966 has been a joke from the inception.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jul 2008 03:46

If US experts are reading this thread they will realize that they have to give up on the old million mutinies project all those sub-altern studies and the SL destabilization support to LTTE iva proxies or they will lose all of Asia and evangelizing China wont cut the mustard as they will come after them to save them.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 17 Jul 2008 05:43

Ramana wrote:I think Caroe was a British Indian.

He had danish ancestry.

I was always puzzled by his first name as it is scandinavian

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 17 Jul 2008 05:50

ROAD TO YANGON
- India is unable to wed economic self-interest to strategic vision
Swapan Dasgupta

It’s never easy to balance ethics and expediency in foreign policy. Throughout the month-long anti-junta stir in Myanmar, India was at the receiving end of domestic and overseas criticism for being indifferent to the struggle for democracy. The land of the Mahatma was taunted for suggesting a moral equivalence between Senior General Than Shwe and Aung San Suu Kyi, the woman who has replaced Nelson Mandela as the living personification of Gandhi. Most damning of all, India’s attitude to the upsurge in Myanmar has been compared to the self-serving cynicism of China — a country with an impressive track of bolstering rogue regimes in North Korea and Sudan.

Viewed in terms of pure self-interest, India’s refusal to come out decisively in favour of the Buddhist monks and National League for Democracy is understandable. In the early-Nineties, New Delhi found itself cut off from the loop in Yangon for its open expressions of solidarity with the popularly-elected leader who was never allowed by the military to assume power. The collateral damage that arose from supporting democracy in Myanmar was profound. The Tatmadaw (as the junta is known) wilfully turned a blind eye to groups like the United Liberation Front of Asom and the National Socialist Council of Nagalim, which used camps inside Myanmar as springboards for operations in northeast India.

It took a great deal of patient diplomacy for Indo-Myanmar relations to be restored to a somewhat even keel. By 2000, India was successful in enlisting Yangon’s cooperation in meeting the threat of the northeastern insurgent groups. Not only did the Tatmadaw close down many of the camps inside its territory, it actually facilitated some cross-border operations of the Indian army. The camps that remained were in areas over which the writ of the Myanmar state did not run.

For a military regime that had become excessively dependent on China, it made sense to clutch India’s hand of friendship, if only as a hedge. India extended valuable assistance in upgrading the old Burma Road that links Manipur to Mandalay. Egged on by the state governments in Assam and the Northeast, India mooted a joint project to restore the famous 1,000-kilometre Stillwell Road which began at Ledo in Assam, ran through the Hukawng Valley in Myanmar, before finishing at Kunming in the Yunan province of China. Since a 300-km stretch of the road passes through an inhospitable Kachin belt, a subtext of the proposal was Indian assistance for Myanmar’s domestic anti-insurgency operations.

It is important to acknowledge that India’s engagement with the military regime in Naypyidaw, the new garrison town which is officially the capital, actually stems from a position of utmost weakness. Ideally, it would be in New Delhi’s interest to have an economically vibrant, democratic Myanmar headed by Suu Kyi, who has a deep, personal association with India. The deep involvement of China with the Tatmadaw in both the military and economic spheres has added to India’s fears of Chinese “encirclement”, fears that have grown with the turbulence in Nepal.

Yet, there is a recognition that the democratization of a society caught in a time-warp is unlikely to be trouble-free. Convinced that it is the sole guardian of the country’s traditional values, the Tatmadaw has so far resisted all moves to enlarge the decision-making process. It nurtures the belief that democracy will unleash fissiparous tendencies and undermine Myanmar’s existence as a united, Buddhist nation. In particular, it is fearful that the ethnic insurgencies along the borders will get out of hand with a federal, democratic constitution.

These are familiar concerns of self-serving cliques who believe they alone can safeguard national interests. That, however, does not mean that every fear is based on paranoia. India has reason to be grateful to the Tatmadaw for its success in containing the spread of the insurgencies, particularly those which blend sub-nationalism with Christian evangelism. A weakening of the central authority in Myanmar — unavoidable in the transition to democracy — will inevitably have a bearing on India’s internal security.

If India’s anxieties with the military junta stem from fears of growing Chinese influence, there is the corresponding apprehension that democracy could throw Myanmar into temporary chaos and lead to a free-for-all. The West genuinely wants democracy in Myanmar but this desire does not stem from the worship of ideals. It reflects a pragmatic desire to regain some influence in a country that has chosen to live in isolation from 1962.

For the Anglo-American alliance, the restoration of democracy is also the instrument to contain China’s “hegemonism” in Asia. Tarring China with the brush of encouraging human rights abuses is also a good way of deflating the hype around next year’s Beijing Olympics.

There is a happy convergence between Western designs and Indian wishes. Yet, the problem with Indian foreign policy is its inability to marry the pursuit of strategic and economic self-interest with a larger strategic vision. The mismatch is all the more pronounced since India acquired a new self-confidence rooted in the success of its private corporate sector.

The West, needless to add, would love India to take the lead in implementing a common agenda in southeast Asia — the other candidate, Thailand, has its own junta problems. But where does Myanmar fit into India’s larger scheme of things? If a stable Myanmar is all that India should hope for, it makes more sense to accept in the short-term the certitudes of the Tatmadaw rather than the uncertainties of the well-meaning Suu Kyi. However, if curbing China’s growing influence is the prime objective, how is that to be achieved?

It is interesting that many of these issues were discussed in considerable detail by the Viceroy’s Study Group, established in 1942 under the chairmanship of India’s foreign secretary, Sir Olaf Caroe, a man who combined his fascination for the Great Game with a Curzonian belief in the destiny of India. These deliberations have been dissected in detail by American historian, P.J. Brobst, in The Future of the Great Game.

Caroe envisaged a pivotal role for an independent India, strategically linked to Britain, “at the centre of an Asiatic system”. The defence of India, he argued, had to be based on an “outer ring” that extended to Iran, Tibet, Malaya and Thailand and an “inner wall”, which included Baluchistan, the North-West Frontier Province, Nepal and the North-eastern hill tracts. In Caroe’s mind, the biggest threat to India in the east was a China that “makes no secret of its ambitions to reassert its sway over its former territories; it recalls that it once claimed suzerainty over Nepal and Myanmar… and though in the past it has…had little interest in India, today the shrinkage of distance… may well turn the attention of Chinese imperialists to new and dangerous paths.”

The containment of Chinese imperialism, he argued, depended on establishing buffers all along the “outer ring”. The first was Tibet which gave several hundred miles of depth to India’s frontiers. The second was Myanmar. According to him the neutrality of a small state like Myanmar was impractical. “Any conception of the future of Myanmar,” he wrote, “must be related to a larger international order, to be guaranteed by some greater powers or power.” The buffer roles of “Myanmar, Malaya and Indo-China will depend entirely on the prestige of the sovereign power set against the acquiescence of other powers”. In plain language, it would not do for India to submit meekly to China.

Some six decades later, despite regime changes and the topsy-turvy of frontiers, Caroe’s understanding of Indian imperatives hasn’t lost relevance.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1071005/a ... 398140.asp

For crying out loud, if all our major threats wre identified for us 67 years ago, what have we been doing all this time?

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 17 Jul 2008 06:07

x-posted.

1. Britain, a tiny island ruled India - the richest and most advanced of the ancient civilizations, and reduced it to beggary. India's and Indians' faults in allowing this sorry episode to occur cannot be excused or overlooked. The Brits though, had every reason to believe their proxy in the region - TSP - could just as well and just as smoothly dominate free India post 1947. India in any case was a wounded civilization and it wasn't then clear it could rise again.

2. The Brits learnt well that a potential power whose energies were not diverted into unwinnable feuds would soon learn to weild and project power. So a feud/feuds had to be fanned if extant, excerbated if dormant and created if nonexistant. The example carries over to how the Brits handled the defeated Ottomans and carved up the caliphate. The seeds of that SNAFU proved propitious down the line post WWII. The Arab-Jewish feud provided lasting fuel decade after decade for the West in general and the Brits in particular to egg on two regional rival sides against each other (so beautifully worded in the post above as 'exhaust power potential fighting against itself'). Of course, one side (typically, the bigger one) winning the feud would do the great-gamers no good. So The balance was sought to mainted decade after decade through changing times, climes and governments by supporting the weaker side just enough to counter balance the other.

3. Is PRC a power rising uncomfortably rapidly and at peace? Perhaps. But what exists to dissipate PRC energies inwards preferably or within Asia? Tibet? India? The recognition that the balance of power in Asia is wellon its way to being lost may have prompted, perhaps, a belated desire to support India for 'feuding/feudal balance' to be restored? Possibly. Too bad India refused to bite the plain bait - preferring not to be counted upon to balance PRC, officially. Did the game change then? Possibly, again.

4. Of course, really large, continental sized powers need extra divertions to be kept preoccuppied. So one TSP against an India can't possibly be sufficient. Faultlines inside India can and will be exploited where extant, created where not. Rumor mongering? Consipratorial? Maybe, maybe not. But the weight of great gaming history, the will to power, the amorality of and the incentive of powerplay all point to one inference only. India's faultlines too are nothing to brush away. The issue of 'dailts'/indigenous peoples/tribals etc, the influence of the church in NE insurgencies, the aiding and abetting of Maoist insurgencies (Yup, the Purulia arms drop among countless others was carried out by UK spooks), the influence peddling vis-a-vis media and work-permits/greencards, univ education abroad etcare cogs in the wheel. Every other violent insurgency, organised criminality, and outright fugitives from our justice system ahve been given asylum in UK - from Isaac Muiviah to musician Nadeem. Brazenly and openly. And yet, the Brits manage to claim a desire for friendship with India with a straight face. For now.

5. The US, UK's inheritor of the global empire didn't quite inherit the great game tendencies to the same extent. After the SU's demise, it was but a matter of time before the inevitable would be attempted, regardless of official spin. Niall Ferguson's lessons in Empire were warmly received by the neocon project. Where it stands now remains unclear. But the creation of Kosovo as an independent state, trouble sown in Burma, Iran, Nepal, Ceylon - all point to the same old strategy in play.

5. The law of unintended consequences and the weight of accumulated bad karma cannot be underestimated. The gamble that saw the west back the wahabi horse has metastasized into the radical islam genie and come back to haunt the world and their home countries also. The truth getting out and the elites in these countries recognising the same are serious risks for the USUQ tagteam. Similarly, if a PRC and India were indeed to normalize relations, if a TSP were to collapse despite the best efforts of its sponsors, what reason or chance does UQ have to continue to smile and claim friendship with these civilzations?

JMTs etc.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Jul 2008 07:04

Great, Thanks.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jul 2008 07:31

Essential reading of history IMO:

The shadow of the great game - the untold story of India's partition - by Narendra Singh Sarila

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jul 2008 07:34

Paul wrote:
For crying out loud, if all our major threats wre identified for us 67 years ago, what have we been doing all this time?

We have been trying to make Indian Muslims the poster boys of Islam in India so that we can prove to Pakistan that the two nation theory was wrong.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jul 2008 09:28

\The problem was that India was trying to fight with one hand tied to appeal to the syncretic appeal of the IM with the stick in the background. All the moves were to restore stability and the geographical unity. However consistently the TSP got better offers from West and PRC to not sync up.

I bought the Brobst book from Uty of Ohio at Akron. ~ $16

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jul 2008 15:08

My friend,the late Anura Bandaranaike,for years used to rue the wasted opportunities of India in exercising its legitimate diplomatic interests within and without the region.A few years ago he said that China had woken up to its potential and had started flexing its muscles to its benefit,while India still "retained its colonial-era inferiority complex".India's stature in world affairs had slipped enormously since the era of Mrs.Gandhi and Rajiv's tenure had been too brief,cut short by the LTTE.

Barring the P-2 tests conducted by the BJP led govt. and the achievements by our corporate maharajahs,there has been little of any note by India,with its billion+ population making its presence felt on world affairs.We continue to remain stuck as "colonial slaves",thanks to the mendacious and utterly untrustworthy govt. of snake-oil Singh & Co.All that the good doctor can envisage for India is to be an Asian poodle to replicate that of Blairist Britain, to tail-wag ever loyally at the heels of a US president.That too, under its worst ever president George Bush,perhaps the most hated figure on the world stage since Adolf Hitler.

Post-independent partitioned India woke up to the harsh realities of a new phase of the "Great Game",this time taking its rules from the Cold War conspiracies and proxy wars being fought by NATO and the Warsaw Pact.It was the blade of Mrs.Gandhi which cut the proverbial "Gordian knot" in the subcontinent,by dismembering Pakistan.The eastern half with US support survived the catastrophe and was rejuvenated by a copious flow of funds and arms thanks to the Soviet misadventure in Aghanistan.Brezhnev's mistake was showing his cards so to speak,instead of playing the game through proxies.This allowed Pakistan as a "frontline state" in the Cold War,to attempt to control Afghanistan through its own proxy ,the Taliban and gain strategic depth to replace its lost eastern half and also,to project itself and "Islamist fundamentalism" into the Central Asian region on behalf of its generous benefactors,Saudi Arabia and the US.This was a plan to destabilise the Soviet Union,which however surprisingly fell in different manner.Mrs.Gandhi,though very critical of the Soviet move, never criticised the Soviets in the open,because she knew about the covert CIA led operations to destabilise the Afghan govt. that brought in the Soviet troops.The rulers of Pak consumed most of the funds and arms meant for the Afghans to fight the Soviets into successfully funding its covert nuclear and missile programme.

India's seemingly weak diplomatic response to Afghanistan and the "Great Game", stems from the fact that we have never challenged Pak's meddling in Aghanistan.We allowed Pak to make all the moves and remained for most of the time impotent,even when an Indian aircraft was hijacked to Kandahar and in servile fashion we released some of the worst terrorists from our jails.Instead of that country being left to exist as a relatively peaceful state of tribal groupings,extra-regional interference resulted in it becoming the HQ of Islamist terror,"blowback" for the US's myopic Cold War strategy.This terror has also deeply hurt India over the last two decades and continues to do so.Our country has had countless acts of terror committed on our soil,including the attack on parliament and the latest outrage in Kabul.How have we reacted to this?
We have also not coordinated our efforts with Russia,our most loyal friend and the other Central Asian states (who have far greater influence with the people of the region and legitimate interests than the US who currently want AlQ and the Islamists defeated) in evolving a strategy for Afghanistan to contain the efforts of Pak & Co.,more surprisingly at this time,when virtually the entire global community ,including the US is on the side of the Afghan regime.Sadly,the complicating factor is the US's utterly insensitive military operations,the latest where a wedding party was bombed and 47 innocents,mainly women and childrem were killed.This only strengthens the hands of the ungodly and deefats honest efforts at supporting Karzai.Tieing ourselves so publicly to the US 's foreign policy,as MMS did at Tokyo,only arouses derision and suspicion in the minds of the locals,who have started to suspect our motives.

Geographically we dominate the IOR and a weak unstable India allows for extra-regional powers to enter in and exert their malevolent influence.We are seeing such a situation right now,with NATO forces far removed from their Atlantic theatre right at our doorstep! The US has no intention of leaving the region.It has ruined Pak utterly in cahoots with Pak's misguided military rulers,who have played an equal part in destabilising their very own land.Under Dr.Singh,India has shown little iniative in establishing a pan-Indian independent foreign policy that protects Indian interest in the region,while allowing the US to begin the integration of the Indian armed forces into the US's overall strategy,through high profile military exercises,especially naval,wiht the US's closest allies.India's US tilt has provoked the expected Chinese reaction,which is to accelerate its own plan for entering the region into the Gulf,through its "string-of- pearls" strategy,using Pak,Burma and Bangladesh as allies.

This calls for a strong independent India with adequate military power and strategic deterrent to deter extra-regional powers.Sadly,the route that the current regime is taking us is to the slaughterhouse to be emasculated and castrated and to serve the cause of neo-imperialism as before like servile bullocks.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 17 Jul 2008 18:23

Ramana wrote:However consistently the TSP got better offers from West and PRC to not sync up.

TSP got better deals because they want to keep the subcontinent unstable but not of control. For last 300 years, it is standard british policy to support the second most powerful land power to keep the more powerful land power imbalanced. New players to this game lack the finesse of Russia or Britain.

Even if we succeed in making IMs a poster child for stability, there are other ways of keeping the subcontinent unstable.

I think there may have been a civil - military sort of divide on how to continue the game (shades of Kitchener-curzon feud). There were differences between Caroe and Churchill, Wavell etc. They were probably were not receptive to his ideas and they had their way. Game rules may changed between 1942 and 1946. However, integration of the princely states was not welcomed by anyone.

We are probably covering just the IIIrd chaper of this game. I need to buy that book as well.

JMT...

Offshore balancing

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 17 Jul 2008 19:24

Vow a timely thread. Something was on my mind too. (Said something to ramana about a week back). Recently finished Mahendra Sairilas book on the issue.

I do think the game is changing though and entering version 3.

Version 1 was about retaining colonial power over India, THE source of British imperial power. Blocking Russia from reaching warm waters and using India as a base to control the middle east was part of the goal. This period lasted roughly from 1857-1935.

Version 2: Starting 1930's the game began to change. The discovery of Oil in the Middle East and the increasing use of oil in industrial life made the Middle East more important. Correspondingly the ability to hold on to India and the exploitation of colonial resources were reaching its limitations. The second world war accelerated this process although even there Indian resources played a critical role in the defense of Asia and Africa. Hence the British, even as they were leaving India ensured the use of the strategic NW of India (Pakistan) including POK/NA. About the only region they wanted from a defense perspective that did not go to them (purely due to the efforts of the Indian military) was the Poonch area in J&K.

I think the game is changing again. The factors for version 3 of the great game are:

- The need to replace oil as the key energy source
- The globalized nature of trade and industry
- India’s proven ability to stand on its own two feet and be increasingly counted as an emerging power (Human Capital, economic, military, strategic – in that order)
- The need to ensure the domination of the west in the changing dynamics of global economic power, moving away from the west to the Asian region
- The rise of Islamic fundamentalism
- The realization that the most optimal way for the west to control the rising powers is through the use of its soft power, backed by hard power (especially for large nations)
- The need to find an Asian anchor (look at what has occurred in the recent past)
o IUCNA
o The American quest for India to participate in Iraq and Afghanistan
o The opening up of defense and technology doors

Also, the imperial power playing this game has changed from the UK to the US.

I hope, I can find the time to dewlve on this more and participate as this is a worthy issue. We should not only look at the past game but also explore how this game is changing and its most likely impact.

I agree with Phillip. With Jai Chand’s ruling our nation (All of EU is for the IUCNA quote by MMS, made me puke), we have little hope but BR can hopefully be a refuge, where matters of Indian Interests can be debated in an open manner.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jul 2008 19:36

A Lankan view of the situ by "Gamma",a veteran editor.
http://www.themorningleader.lk/20080716/world.html

Indo-Pak tussle over Afghanistan

By Gamini Weerakoon

The human bomb that killed 41 persons at the gates of the Indian Embassy in Kabul last week has brought into open the simmering embers in Pakistan-Afghanistan relations and high tensions in Indo-Pakistan relations. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has openly accused the Pakistan defence establishment of being responsible for the attacks which Pakistan has strongly denied. The traditional Indo-Pakistan recriminations have not burst into the open like before but there is no doubt of serious concerns.

Whether repercussions of the Kabul bombing will come into the open when the eight heads of state of the of South Asia will meet in Colombo in two weeks time will be anxiously watched.

The clash of Indian and Pakistani interests in Afghanistan is not a new development. Pakistan being an Islamic state saw Afghanistan as an ally and being in its sphere of influence while India’s interest in this strategically important state were subject to vicissitudes depending on changes of regimes in Kabul. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, India did not join the chorus of condemnation of the Soviet Union which considered India as its ally. Pakistan on the other hand participated actively in opposing the Soviet occupations along with the United States, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic states. Pakistan was the home to millions of Afghan refugees and suffered much in any aspects such as environmental degradation but was also the beneficiary of American assistance of billions of dollars for its support to Afghan resistance. Before the Soviet invasion Pakistan was being looked at with a jaundiced eye by America and the west because of its nuclear programme.

Nursery for terrorism

However the end of the Soviet occupation resulted in adverse fallout not only for Pakistan but India as well. The freedom fighters — mujahideen, as they were called — after the insurgency infiltrated into Pakistan as well as Kashmir. For Pakistan it resulted in great political instability and is still suffering from the adverse effect of the presence of militant groups and the spread of fundamentalist varieties of Islam. The anti-Indian insurgency in Indian held Kashmir increased significantly with India accusing Pakistan of promoting cross- border terrorism which Pakistan denied. Meanwhile Afghanistan became a nursery for Islamic terrorism with that like bin Laden who had been in cahoots with the Americans against the Soviet Union, now turning against the west.

Thus when the United States after 9/11 took the war to Afghanistan to hound out bin Laden who was being given sanctuary by the Taliban regime and drove out the Taliban from the cities and villages into the high mountain ranges, India welcomed it. India saw a grand opportunity not only to end the flow of insurgents into Kashmir but also to pursue its interests which has escalated into a global scale into Afghanistan.

Reverse gear

Pakistan had to change directions under the directions of President George Bush. The Pakistani government under the leadership of General Pervez Musharraf had been supporting the Taliban regime. After the departure of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan America dropped its faithful and loyal ally and even imposed sanctions once again for its nuclear programme. But the Americans threatened the Musharraf regime of ‘bombing Pakistan back into the Stone Age’ if they did not back America against the Taliban and Musharraf was compelled to go on reverse gear. The plus side was that billions of American dollars once again flowed into Pakistan.

Delighted India

Meanwhile India having changed into a free economy had its economy spurting. Indo American ties had warmed up and America was prepared to permit India to become a nuclear power forsaking the nuclear non proliferation policy it has pursued for decades. India’s Congress government values friendship with America and is developing a strategic alliance even at the risk of a defeat in parliament. Last week Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared that his government would proceed on pursuing the Indo-US nuclear deal by presenting it to the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEA) even as the Communist Parties that has supported Congress in parliament declared they were withdrawing support. The Congress risks defeat unless it can successfully work out a horse deal with the Samajawadi Party which was earlier an adversary.

Relevance of Afghanistan

It is in this context that India’s progress into Afghanistan has to be viewed. Backed by the sole superpower India is now projecting its influence into Afghanistan much to the detriment of Pakistan. Already $ 750 million aid has been pledged by India to Afghanistan and massive investment projects are being implemented. India is now the largest regional donor to Afghanistan.

Political analysts point out that for India, Afghanistan is the gateway to Central Asian Republics of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan rich in energy and mineral resources. Power lines from these countries across Afghanistan could transmit electricity to energy starved India. An oil and gas pipeline is being planned from Iran to India which has to run through Afghanistan. An Indian-Iranian joint venture is being planned in the Gulf of Oman and the road to it would pass through Afghanistan. Roads, schools, hospitals, power and communication networks in addition to training of police personnel and bureaucracy are now being undertaken. There are said to be thousands of Indian experts who have moved in.

What is of serious concern to Pakistan is the opening of a number of consulates such as in Jalalabad, Kandahar, Heart, and Mazara-i- Shariff which Pakistanis say are being used by Indian intelligence personnel to infiltrate operatives into neighbouring Baluchistan to destabilise it.

What should be galling Pakistan is that Afghanistan was considered to be their sphere of influence and it is an Islamic country. However, Indian interests will not have an easy ride because the fundamentalist Taliban oppose India tooth and nail. They are now coming back from the mountains and making their deadly presence felt in cities and provinces. The assassination attempt on Hamid Karzai in Kabul, the daring jail break in Kandahar and Monday’s attack on a NATO outpost that killed 9 American soldiers inuring many more is a deadly reminder that Afghanistan from the British colonial times does not tolerate foreigners.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jul 2008 19:37

Paul, I too read the ref you posted. Gives a lot of food for thought. The US platitudes about making India a great power are moves to shore up the economic and political power for the stability that is being sought, without the requiste military power(dominance in nukes) which they will retain. Its the old imperial strategy with new players. Old Guy Wint was rignt air power makes bases redundant in strategic sense but essential for regional or tactical dominanace. Hence those limits on ICBMS <5000km etc.

Maybe select excerpts from that can be posted to make the case for the new game.

I found a java program called FreeMind which allows mindmapping. We need something like that to map out complex ideas and share whats in the mind without writing reams of text. I am encouraging the kids to learn to use it.

I think the MEA and its retired experts are remiss in not selling the idea to/educating the public. It doesnt matter how brilliant they are while in service, if they dont carry the public along for they will be the outliers. JN Dixit was the only one to try to write op-eds and give a window on whats going on. But he also would open a few port holes whereas a window was needed.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 17 Jul 2008 19:44

We have covered lot of ground in the last few days...

1. Uncovered the changes in the game - objectives and modus operandi since the mantle passed to the US from Britain.
2. Uncovered British perfidy by exposing their double dealing in J&K in 1948. While I understand their geo strategic compulsions in the great game ( after all every body has their interests), their actions in J&K is hitting below the belt.

We need to keep plugging away to see what else can be uncovered.

Ex MEA officials like Parthasarthy, Rajiv Sikri or Ashok Mehta need to improve the quality of their writings by moving up beyond the moaning and groaning on the hopeless situation we find oursleves in. Khaled Ahmed or Ahmed Rashid's writings are much better better in analsis of geo-political issues than these ex-diplos. Indian columnists articles show a lot of bitterness in their articles as their opinion is not taken seriously in western circles on similar issues.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Jul 2008 21:05

ramana wrote:Paul, I too read the ref you posted. Gives a lot of food for thought. The US platitudes about making India a great power are moves to shore up the economic and political power for the stability that is being sought, without the requiste military power(dominance in nukes) which they will retain. Its the old imperial strategy with new players. Old Guy Wint was rignt air power makes bases redundant in strategic sense but essential for regional or tactical dominanace. Hence those limits on ICBMS <5000km etc.

They are fixing what they had destabilized for the last 50 years. The Great Game is being updated for the new era of global oil trade under the monopoly of the US for a long term. Geo-political importance of the Indian ocean has increased and they dont want destabilized states in the region.

In rationalising its de facto support for
Pakistan in south Asia during the cold war
the US often spoke of parity of treatment
for Pakistan and India. Parity and beyond
parity, tilting toward Pakistan denied India
the possibility of becoming the regional
hegemon, a role which India’s size, population,
endowments and capabilities made
possible. In effect the US acted as an
“offshore balancer” for the south Asia
region. Selig Harrison put it this way:
“During the cold war...American policy
assigned a clear priority to relations with
Pakistan by providing a total of $3.8 billion
in military aid to Pakistani military
rulers that was nominally directed against
the communist powers but was in practice
used to strengthen Pakistan relative to
India.”7 Weighing in support of Pakistan
had the effect of destabilising the region.
Parity and the military support to Pakistan
that it entailed bear a good deal of the
responsibility for regional instability in
south Asia, including three of the four wars
that destabilised the region between 1948
and 1999.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 17 Jul 2008 21:24

Interesting posts. Paul, I read your citation to the U. of Chicago paper.

While we discuss the whole impact of this strategy, we shoud also discuss the answer to the question "What should India do now & what could India have done to out-maneovre this Offshore Balancing strategy?"

What would Chanakya do?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jul 2008 21:27

Chanakya would first find out how deep the waters are and whats going on before plunging in. Thats what we are doing.

The end goal is to articulate a new India centric vision. I hope we weill see new authors come up just like the GOAT watching threads inspired our members to go mainstream.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Jul 2008 21:50

ramana wrote:Chanakya would first find out how deep the waters are and whats going on before plunging in. Thats what we are doing.

The end goal is to articulate a new India centric vision. I hope we weill see new authors come up just like the GOAT watching threads inspired our members to go mainstream.

Also he would find out what would happen in the near future and in regions near India such as - ME, CAS, SEA etc

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 17 Jul 2008 21:59

I want to xerox couple of pages from a book and post here, which is relavant. How do I do that?

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 17 Jul 2008 22:00

What would Chanakya do? should become our mantra (similar to the What would Jesus do?)

We should collect all possible evidence, but at the same time not conclude with merely having done that. We should dileneate what is the anti-dote to this strategy. Like Abhimanyu had learned how to break the Chakravue, there has to be a torr for this.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Jul 2008 22:03

surinder wrote: we shoud also discuss the answer to the question "What should India do now & what could India have done to out-maneovre this Offshore Balancing strategy?"

What would Chanakya do?

If you are asking this question it is already answered. India removed socialist control and increased GDP and increased military strength. It needs more of this and the nuke deal has surfaced now.