Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[brihaspati]

Cooling down on the Syrian front means that the employers of jihadis need a new front to be activated. Sudan is a potential. But can we rule out J&K from the game to provide absorption of withdrawal-symptom showing jihadis? Can we rule out Nawaz - whos econenctions to the Saudis and UK [how can the two be separated anyway where such things are concerned!] is pretty well known - now being pushed to activate this front?

Kashmiri Islamists who might have had training now in Syria would be particularly well-adapted to urban warfare conditions more suitable for our western hinterland.

[RamaY]

Bji

If we are to classify the east-India political-economic networks as leftist (Kerala, TN, AP, Orissa, Bengal) and west-India network as rightist (Ktaka, Maha, Guj, Rajasthan, Punjab) then what can trigger a consolidation of these interests?

[brihaspati]

Bji

If we are to classify the east-India political-economic networks as leftist (Kerala, TN, AP, Orissa, Bengal) and west-India network as rightist (Ktaka, Maha, Guj, Rajasthan, Punjab) then what can trigger a consolidation of these interests?

There is no dichotomy. Both are needed in a modern state. One keeps the "gana" happy and committed to the state by a partial redistribution of social surplus. The other is the driver of growth and expansion.

Both can be harnessed best for expansion outside of current borders. The expansion project is the one that will draw both forces together.

[RamaY]

Yes, I didn't see any dichotomy either. My gut felt that there could be a great synergy between these two networks. Hence that question.

Both networks are to some extent penetrated by colonialists. On the left side the penetration is in mind while the penetration is in the pocket for right side.

So it is the Ganga Yamuna network that stole the power from these two networks as part of British to India power transfer? If we are to stretch that GY network further, we get into Northwest-India bad lands? Is it the third network?

It is interesting to note that the parent-orgs of both left and right networks were harassed and banned both by British and later congress.

[harbans]

Please go through this:

Part 1: We are all assuming we can stave off/ assimilate/ reconvert inimical to Dharmic forces with some calculations or right kind of people in power. Yet the truth is what if we do not manage to start all of that. What if we don't get the necessary traction to to do either of them. In 3 decades Islam will be a majority. And India the progenitor and sustainer of Dharma will be finished, if the entire India as we know now is Islamized. The signs are all there. Warped thinking, reasoning..rejection of our ancient meme's and culture, blind respect for predatory meme's. Very high levels of demographic assault. We are losing a few key places in the coming decades or so and these are, if nothing is done:

1. J&K
2. Uttar Pradesh
3. North East (entire) [China will move to ArP and some more, kick the Islamics out]
4. Nepal [China will takeover and Kick the Islamics out]
5. Uttaranchal [China will take over most and kick Islamics out]
6. West Bengal
7. Bihar and Jharkand.
8. Parts of Kerala/ AP

In the scenario that a 2nd partition becomes inevitable, where do the Dharmics consolidate and rally from? Himachal, Punjab, Rajasthan, Chattisgarh, Orissa and south of it Dharmics can hold. Yet if push comes to shove to regain the lost ground, the most strategic ground becomes one area we neglect on these threads and in our analysis in general. Our experts have not put much thought too in this matter.

Part 2: The real core area to rally and hold military presence is Tibet/ Kailash and Mansarover. Holding that in Dharmic hands prevents the loss of Nepal, Uttaranchal, Bodh Gaya, Ladhak and Leh, Arunachal. All these are large areas to rally. Holding Tibet forms a C shape over lost areas and isolates Pakistan from the new emergent Mughalistans. From the North and South we control what happens there.

If we don't hold Tibet, then we lose huge ground and are in the backfoot in Himachal, Punjab and genreally all over the South where we holds the northern boundaries. If we hold Tibet, we control water to the subcontinent, we directly face off from higher altitudes in Ladhak. We take over and control Dharmic soil in Uttaranchal and Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, ArP. We can in general wait till the poison of Islamism boils over or militarily reinforce Dharma on the Gangetic soil. If we don't have Tibet as strategic depth, we lose all. EVen the Southern position we will hold as the Islamists will reinforce close links with China on the North and control supplies of water to the South where Dharmics hold and generally strangulate us by sheer numbers and strategic locational vantage.

If we hold Tibet, we can consolidate Dharmics and hold key Dharmic territory and soil..and live to fight another day..or wait for Islamism to reform. But one thing for sure, Tibet is needed for strategic depth to sustain Dharma and hold out.

[brihaspati]

harbans ji,

On 9th May the previous year, I wrote : http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1280057 "TSP has to be abolished, and its lands and people taken under Indian sovereignty. Tibet has to either be given independence by China or it becomes an autonomous adjunct to India if that gives us the right excuses to intervene."

But the problem with Tibet is that now it is highly controlled and militarily combed thoroughly.If you are thinking of it as a base - most plains Indians would be unable to acclimatize. There are routes into Tibet, but China is rapidly sealing those routes up.

The time to build bases is now. The more time passes, more of these areas would be sealed off. Then there is the problem of supplies. In your scenario, do you realize we would not have supply route left once the GV goes upto BD. Far NE is the only zone which will remain "loose". South China, Tibetan plateau's borderlands [where it crosses through the mountains into the plains], north Myanmar, northern Kampuchea-Vietnam - will remain the zone to supply through. The far South-eastern corner of the Tibetan plateau is the one weak spot that PLA will never really be able to cover up [geography and not just military capacity].

Tibet will be much more of a logistical and practical problem to be used as base unless we are able to maintain the far-eastern supply routes. But even there the problem will be the fall of GV disconnects the remnant south of the Vindhyas [well even there western Maha will be out, and parts of Madhyapradesh have been carefully connected as a corridor connecting UP centres to south and western coastal centres of mullahcracy] - from a supply route to Tibet. Ultimately BD separates the two front until Bay of Bengal.

Getting anything through the northern Myanmar sector will come up against the "Christianist" portion of the Kachins who will be under instruction from their possible international handlers to not let the pagan "Hindus" through.

I would say - if GV falls, Tibet will no longer be an option, and if some group gets entrenched there in remote parts - it will be cutoff. A very good option truly - but I gave up on thsi idea before, because of the supply problem. Mao's dictum of "enemy will carry weapons and ammunition to us for us to fight with", is no longer practicable.

[harbans]

That is what i am saying. If GV falls, Tibet is no longer then an option. But if we try and take Tibet now, we save a lot of land and can consolidate. If Tibet we lose and GV too..we cannot save all the 8 areas. Dharmics will have to recede down south. Capital Bangalore or Chennai and regroup there. But if we have another Mahatma with secularitis..we are again doomed. So the best option is to start with Tibet beginning now! First reverse Chinese claims, claim KM/ Shiv Bhoomi..make things hot in Tibet and expensive to China..internationalize it. We need to attempt to get Tibet back in fold. NE, GV loss to BD Mughalistan will mean complete retreat down South only if no Tibet. It will imply loss of UKh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bodhgaya..every Dharmic sthal up north. Cannot afford to let Tibet just rot with the Han.

[brihaspati]

The key and partial solution is "get" Nepal. Or make a base in the south-eastern corner. But both Sikkim and Bhutan "cooperation" is needed. Both very highly penetrated by "enemies" of what you intend. Displacing the mullah networks and mafia that connects UP [primarily Islamist now] with Nepal through the terai - for the terai - and therefore sit on both sides of the porous border with Nepal is a tangible step. That secures a route to the south-east corner. But this is still doable. Maybe not discussed.

[Agnimitra]

An old one that's been doing the rounds over the past decade:

Ten Reasons Why Nepal Should Join India

“TEN REASONS WHY NEPAL SHOULD JOIN INDIA!”
( Originally appeard in The Nepal Digest – Thu, 30 Jul 1998 )

–Bibhuti Nepal

My immediate reactions to Mr. Bijay Raut’s proposal that Nepal should join the Indian Union were anger and disgust. I thought Bijay Raut was a betrayer and a pro-Indian activist. However, after several thoughts, I have reached conclusions that Mr. Raut has very good points and his hypothesis deserves serious attentions.

Joining India will be unthinkable and unacceptable to any patriotic Nepali. The stories of the alleged Indian attempt of encroachment of the Nepalese territories are still fresh in our memories. However, let’s now put aside those grievances for a while and try to focus, analyze and debate objectively on a single question: Should Nepal make effort to gain statehood in the Indian Union (Like Puerto Rico is attempting to be the USA’s 51th state)? In other words, should Nepal join the Indian Union?

I know many people have and will argue against this proposal. But let me take this opportunity to argue for the proposal.

In my humble opinion, Nepal should join India for the following major reasons:

1. The purchasing power of the Nepalese consumers will instantly INCREASE by 60% since Indian Rs. 100 will no longer be Nepalese Rs. 160. IRs. 100 will be equivalent to NRs. 100. The Nepalese consumers will get the Indian goods for at least 60% cheaper value than before while sell their products to Indians at higher than previous values.

2. Since India is our major trading partner (about 2/3 of the total trade are with India), our economy will largely benefit from the increase in strength of our currency. The current trade deficit will be less painful to our economy then.

3. India is often accused of encroaching not only our land but also our culture, language and values. Now if Nepal becomes a part of India, what will India encroach? It’s own land!! The culture of both Nepal and India will flourish as well as assimilate better than now. India, if nothing else, represents a remarkable example of cultural, ethnic and linguistic assimilation. Furthermore, Nepali is already an official language of India, i.e., Nepali is included in the 8th Schedule of the Indian Constitution.

4. For Hindus, India is “Mecca” and “Madina.” Non-Hindus — Cheer up! The Secular Indian State won’t marginalize your religious rights as they have been in the Hindu Kingdom of Nepal.

5. Nepal will be a separate state of India and not a part of U.P., Bihar or West Bengal. This means Nepal can exercise almost all of her present rights other than the one involving territorial disputes with China or other Indian States, in which case the Federal Government of India (which in turn is not under control of any dominant group in India, but headed by the representatives of all states of the Indian Union) will take the charge. Under Indian Constitution, states are granted vital rights ranging from levying of the taxes to maintaining internal security, as well as deriving own educational and cultural policies. Nepal should be glad to become a part of the larger body. Any achievement of India will automatically be the achievement of Nepalis and vice versa.

6. While state leaders of Nepal will work hard to improve the lives of Nepalis, it will be the responsibility of the Federal government of India to counsel the policies of the states, promulgate federal policies for the whole country, provide the Nepalese state with frequent funds as well as take the immediate charge of the natural emergencies like flood, earthquake, etc. The state leaders of Nepal will have better chance of building the Nepalese nation than now, since there will always be someone at the back for assistance and guidance.

7. The largest natural resource we have is water. Unfortunately, the amount of hydro-electricity generated from it is minimal. The Arun -III, the multi-billion dollar hydro electricity project, was terminated because The World Bank drew off its support, primarily due to the lost of the Bank’s faith in the Nepalese government that was characterized by sharp political instability. The Federal Government of India, with its huge budget and capacity to lure large multinationals and international lending agencies, can easily get several of such Hydo-Power projects going. This will but benefit Nepal and Nepalis in large because the electricity will now be sold not only to China but to several other Indian states with very little hassles.

8. The legendary Gurkha soldiers, who now constitute a significant portion of the Indian Army, are working not for their motherland but for a foreign land. These Gurkhas, in one sense, are not soldiers but just mercenaries (hired army motivated by money rather than love for motherland or national glory). If Nepal were to be a part of India, these brave soldiers would be working for their motherland and their bravery will count as glory and not just paid service.

9. One may argue against the proposal of the unification by saying that India has very little incentive to have Nepal as its state because India will have to guard hundreds of miles of the Nepal-China frontier, which might suck up its already strained military and economic resources. This is not true. India has already been guarding the China-Nepal frontier indirectly. Just imagine when China invades Nepal, do you think India will sit down there and keep watching? Never. Directly or Indirectly, India has and will have to guard the Nepal-China frontier. In case Nepal becomes a part of India, India will have to divert little extra of its military resources to the frontier.

10. Finally, I believe, and many of you will agree, that Nepal lacks resources to function as an independent country. About three quarters of the country’s land is mountainous, and the fertile quarter is over populated and prone to erosion, flood, and other ecological hazards. Two-third of the population is illiterate while over 40% live below poverty line. The majority of educated population is unproductive since they are stuck up in the inefficient government services. Natural resource other than water is rare and tourism sector is on the verge of decline because of the negative ecological impacts as well as polluted cities. Furthermore, Nepal has one of the highest per capital foreign debt despite she gets large sums of foreign grants each year. The remittances of the Gurkha soldiers and that of Non-Resident Nepali are not enough to support economy, and there has been continual migration of Nepali, both seasonal and permanent, to India and other countries in search of work and other economic opportunities. Nepal definitely needs both “guidance” and “assistance” of the Federal Government to boost up its economy and maximize the utility of her limited resources. Only unification with India will bestow Nepal with such power and opportunity.
Please feel free to agree/disagree with my comments.

namaste, Bibhuti Nepal

Source::http://library.wustl.edu/~listmgr/tnd/0273.html

[harbans]

B Ji, i am not looking into a military conquest of Tibet/ Nepal. Being a larger country i am looking to have boots on that soil to protect a Dharmic federation from which we can exert military pressure in case the worst happens in the Indo Gangetic plains. A BD to UP Mughalistan will cut off Uttaranchal, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, ArP, NE and leave no place for the rest of the Dharmic mainland to regroup and take over. If we have boots in Tibet and control KM/ Shiv Bhoomi..we control most of Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, ArP and NE higher reaches. From Tibet we can free Uttaranchal Dharmic sthal and breath down the Gangetic plains from vantage points. We also control the major river systems flowing southwards. Tibet we link up to the main Dharmic lands via Ladhak/ Leh, Himachal, Punjab/ Haryana, Rajasthan routes. We maintain continuity. We lose that continuity if we lose UP-BD Mughalistan..and Ladhak/ Leh. Then there is no way we can get boots to Tibet and hold Nepal/ UKh/ Bhutan/ Sikkim/ ArP and also control of water resources. It would be a matter of time then the East and West Mughalistan smash through Haryana/ Punjab and link up. Than we are permanently holed South..doomed. Tibet/ Ladhak/ Leh becomes extremely strategic in this scenario.

[brihaspati]

harbans ji,
if you want to put boots on the ground that keeps "dharmik" interests in mind, then who is going to put it there? Current setup of GOI will not do it. They have a double take on anything to do with Tibet/China/Nepal. I don't know what the Chinese have on the regime that GOI from JLN's time has played a very strange cyclical bluster/submissive game that is not at all explained by so-called Chinese military superiority or tactical advantages and Indian economic development lag etc.

So no Indian regime [derived from the current setup] is going to do this. I don;t think even a future NDA/BJP type gov will do it either. There will be a whole line of rotfls/sneers/sarcasms as to why the opposite spectra ends of politics converge on something since it is real-politik and that fundamentalists/ideologues fail to understand the reality. Fact is that extreme realpolitik pushers typically lead whole societies towards eventual extinction because they actively prevented longer term considerations and actual realistic assessments of threats/potentials and agenda from enemies due to pushing short term interests.


If you cannot do it from within currently existing national setup - how else do you plan to put boots on the ground? This was teh reason I went into the "base" idea. But both Nepal and India - perhaps is subject to deep Anglo-Saxon penetration of decision making/influencing levels or intel assessment levels. You will see that - British influence in both, especially in Nepal has not diminished much even through Communist transitions. But that in turn brings the other shadows of long-term possible connections between British and Chinese interfaces that were initially based on drugs/imperialist/finance interests and that might have survived communist takeover.

So no move that really gives Tibet "independence" or adjunct [to India] status, and growth of "Indic" military influence/presence in Tibet and Nepal - would be allowed through national institutional setups. If needed, through intensification of communist movements or against "Hindu" aspect of the Indo-Nepali ties.

I dont see ho your plan will have any chance of progress, within the current national setup.

[harbans]

B'Ji current set up we lose completely. So there will be a change from the current set up. The magnitude of change and how fast it is, cannot say. We have less than 20 years time frame to prevent loss of UP to Sharia forces. UP is key. As losing UP we lose Nepal, Uttarkhand. The process can be faster if secularists turn up in UPA 3 and 4. We lose J&K for sure along with Ladhak and Leh. We need a change in dispensation and a Dharmic declaration of types at the center for consensus on consolidation of boots on Dharmic soil to build up. That can only happen if a Dharmic nationalistic setup is at center with about 400 plus seats. One cannot wait for a Hindu Rashtra for 50 years. We will lose. One can hope for a Dharmic one and develop the consensus for Dharmic federation consensus. So if we want to prevent losing what we have now (geographical boundaries) we need to consolidate under Dharma and not any other plank! We have to frame some rules which are acceptable to the majority and declare ourselves as a Dharmic as opposed to a Secular Rashtra. If we don't we will lose all those 8 areas i mentioned in the posts above. We cannot prevent loss of WB, NE, Nepal, Bhutan, Uttarkhand. We at the max can rally sometime 50 years hence south of Vindhyas..that too with large numbers of seculars. So south of Vindhyas we have another max 50 years before we are completely wiped out. Do read my 2039 scenario in that light.

[harbans]

In continuation of the above few posts this is the inevitable future scenario we face.

Cond 1:

1. We do nothing and continue with the UPA kind of pappi jhappi and blindfolds and we are swamped 50% Islamics in 30 years. Result: We lose the entire NE, UP, Bihar, WB. Along with that Nepal, Uttarkhand. Between China and Mughalistani's we lose massive tracts. Even if 10x the 47type partition riots happen, we still lose. Along with that we lose all infra airports, bases, cantonements, waterways, massive natural resources and land. Large chunks of secularized Hindu's will convert in these regions reducing the Dharmic ratio's to near negligible in a few decades whence this happens.

2. Even if Dharmics consolidate South of Vindhya's it will be impossible to ever get back the large northern tracts. South of Vindhya consolidation may not automatically imply Dharmic political consolidation. MKGs of that era will emerge and large numbers of seculars will be present E, W, N and S of the new entity south of Vindhya's. So another route South of Vindhyas will be postponed max another 50 years utmost. Massive military thrusts from North will leave whatever dispensation in South completely weakened.

Result: India is Islamized in 2 stages: 1st in 20-30 years up north. The Southern part in 50 years in case there is consolidation South of Vindhyas as a separate national identity.

Cond 2:

1. We have a nationalistic set up that believes preserving Dharma is our duty. We reverse JLN/ ABV stand on Tibet. Evoke and rekindle the Dharmic spirit. Fire up Nepal and Tibetans. Tell China to vacate Tibet and KM. Keep massive pressure up on China with overt and covert support to operations in Tibet. If China starts democratizing in the interim couple of decades, the pressure to vacate Tibet will increase from within itself.

2. IN the interim the above happens, Seculars in North will be subdues and not as encouraged as with a UPA pappi jhappi set up. Yet it will be difficult to curtail the demographic explosion of seculars. Yet one thing that will happen with a Nationalistic Dharmic set up is that those that want to leave Islamism will have safe exit options. Once that happens , the power of influence of the Mullahs will start to decrease. Freedom to 'Hate' speech must be encouraged so the large swathes of people who think all is hunky dory in secularist doctrine come to know the real truth.

3. If we achieve success in point 1 above in cond 2, and not in point 2, we retain Nepal, Tibet, ArP, Ukh and large northern tracts.

4. If we achieve success in point 2 and not in point 1, then we have managed to stave off Islamization of our present geogrpahic boundaries.

5. Yet i think and the best option is that 1 and 2 will happen in conjunction. We will be able to both stave off Islamization within the context of our present national boundaries and also be able to take in Tibet, Nepal as protectorates in the near future.

[brihaspati]

harbans ji,
I think you are relying too much on the "dharmik" success at the centre - electorally. The signs for me - are disturbing, and I am not so sure of the outcome. Even if some form of "dharmik" dress wearing setup forms, it maybe heavily compromised and forced to act not against the long term secularist/islamist agenda - specifically where it needs intervention - undermining and subverting the mullahcratic institutions.

[prahaar]

harbans ji,
I think you are relying too much on the "dharmik" success at the centre - electorally. The signs for me - are disturbing, and I am not so sure of the outcome. Even if some form of "dharmik" dress wearing setup forms, it maybe heavily compromised and forced to act not against the long term secularist/islamist agenda - specifically where it needs intervention - undermining and subverting the mullahcratic institutions.

Brihaspatiji,
I am a very small fish, when it comes to matters as profound as discussed in this thread. But based on my understanding of your post, you want to go directly for the jugular. Is it foolhardy to think of a consolidation phase where instead of attacking, time is spent on consolidation while maintaining current status in regions where the feasibility of any radical changes seem unlikely?

Mullahcratic institutions have become so powerful that not one media outlet has the gumption to talk about Green-Bakri-Id while they are shouting hoarse about Green-Ganesh, Green-Diwali, etc (some of which I myself agree with). The silence has been too loud to ignore.

[harbans]

A very democratic option for Kashmir for a new say NM dispensation is this for example: Delineate Jammu and Kashmir into separate regions: Valley; Shia rural hinterland; Jammu, Ladhak and Leh. Let each of these regional dispensations democratically elect their leaders and decide on immigration in contravention to Art 370. Don't abrogate Art 370 from the center. Give the locals in the region the right to abrogate it in their region!

No one can say this is some imposition from center alone. No one can say this is undemocratic. No one can say locals do not have a say. Jammu, Ladhak and Leh will dilute the provisions of Art 370 in their region to offset creeping Islamist influences. If the separatists object they will be guilty of not considering local Kashmiri opinion. I can imagine debates on Tines Now with Arnab and others asking why locals cannot decide their own fate regarding abrogation of Art 370! That this is not a central imposition! And if one defines J& K as sacrosanct why is PoK in Pak?

This could be a very basic first step that could democratically start to change the ratio Dharmic to separatist in J&K. This is not going to happen with a UPA kind of setup. It may with a NM having the backup of 400 odd seats in the center. Think about it.

[harbans]

I think you are relying too much on the "dharmik" success at the centre - electorally. The signs for me - are disturbing, and I am not so sure of the outcome. Even if some form of "dharmik" dress wearing setup forms, it maybe heavily compromised and forced to act not against the long term secularist/islamist agenda - specifically where it needs intervention - undermining and subverting the mullahcratic institutions.

B Ji, not really, i just laid out the 2 options. The first one is what you said above. No chance of success. The 2nd condition i posted has a chance. We must give the contours of that option the best possible support.

[brihaspati]

Bringing back a theme very much in my thoughts on the earlier pages of this thread:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... ermination
Geelani asks Taliban to stabilize Afghanistan
M Saleem Pandit, TNN Oct 30, 2013, 06.49AM IST

SRINAGAR: Separatist Syed Ali Geelani on Tuesday urged the Afghan Taliban to stabilize their country "before making any plans for Kashmir" after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan next year.

He said Kashmir will "need the diplomatic support" of the Taliban-led government in future. "We want them to support us diplomatically on the international level. They should raise their concerns for Kashmir after they become successful in making the government in Afghanistan," said Geelani in a statement.

Geelani said the Afghan government must support Kashmir's "right to self-determination". He added Taliban fighters could make Kashmir their next battleground after the NATO forces leave Afghanistan, but "it is enough for us to expect from them (Taliban) to support us diplomatically in future''.

The separatist said Kashmir's "pro-freedom leadership" would not permit interventions of countries like China and the US in Kashmir until these countries support Kashmiris' right to self-determination.

Geelani reiterated his call for election boycott saying they were determined "not to accept any solution to the Kashmir dispute other than the right to self-determination''.

[ramana]

iOW he is telling them they are not yet welcome.

He will be web cutletted one of these days.

[brihaspati]

Premature intervention of the Talebs in J&K will tie the hands of the US and UK - the biggest potential support for the separatists.

[harbans]

Must start a separate statehood movement for Ladhak/ Leh and grant them. Prevent then others buying property etc in the regions..except Soldiers who have served their. Need to get crumbling Dharmic numbers up there as fast as possible. Time running out.

[ramana]

Blogger uses dialectic materialism terminology but he is talking about mercantile class that BJi had mentioned.

http://purpleberets.blogspot.com/2012/1 ... lm-of.html

The blurring of lines between the nationalist and Comprador Bourgeois


Money is more powerful than the military. It is perhaps for this reason that Kautilya, one of India’s foremost philosophers on statecraft had said, “From the strength of the treasury the army is born.” Many scholars belonging to the ‘liberal realist’ school casually equate the strength of Kautilya’s treasury (as it existed in the 4th century BC) with the “comprehensive national power” of the 21st century Chinese state.[1]




The assumption that the key to the treasury is always in the king’s (the one who exercises the monopoly over violence) pocket, leads one to see the state as an omnipotent power that acts in the geo-economic sphere, independent of the non-state actors or the class that controls the purse strings. In fact, what appear to be assumptions are, in “Gramscian terms, the ideological apparatuses”[2] that are invoked by the ruling elite to hide the power that global finance capital exercises over domestic rule.




The powerful thought leaders of the bourgeois brigade use various techniques to control dominant discourse and limit their analysis by merely quoting Kautilya’s “strength of treasury” logic, without actually going into the detail as to who controls the capital and therefore, war. For example, realist foreign policy often omits the impact of HNWIs who own assets equivalent to one-fourth of the Indian GDP and deliberately camouflage the parochial class concerns of the big bourgeois as national interests. This is done to obviate any probe into the comprador character of the national bourgeois. As Karl Marx says in The German Ideology (1845), “The ideas of the ruling class are, in every age, the ruling ideas: i.e. the class which is the dominant material force in society is at the same time the dominant intellectual force."




Post Cold War, the elite consciousness has been shaped by a sense of triumphalism that has emboldened them to institutionalize the bourgeois relations to obliterate all possibilities of a revolution that may result from growing income gaps. We are currently living in a geo-economic environment, where, as Stephen Gill says, “the identification of a nation-state with the material interests of its own 'national capital' is more problematic. In economic terms, this system is increasingly instituted by a deepening interpenetration of capital, both functionally and geographically. At the political level, there is policy interdependence which is the counterpart to the economic internationalization processes, as well as more integral, and more organic alliance structures binding the major capitalist nations together under American leadership”[3]


Using Lenin’s phrase, the “treachery of (bourgeois intellectual) leadership” lies in manipulating discussion and halting analysis at a point beyond which the sources of their power would lie exposed. It is for this reason that the geo-economic narrative refuses “to look more closely at the global capitalist system and the transnational capitalist class, both locally and globally.”[4]






To understand the “treachery” of the comprador class, let us see what happened in 1757, at the Battle of Plassey, where Siraj-ud-Daulah, the independent governor of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa was defeated by the East India Company army, thus paving the way for colonization of the Indian sub continent. The popular primary reason for defeat was the betrayal by Siraj’s trusted force commanders, Mir Jaffar, Rai Durlabh and Yar Lutuf Khan, who were bought over by the British.




Popular history ends with Mir Jaffar attaining the status of an iconic conspirator, thus diverting attention from the role of Siraj-ud-Daulah’s bankers, the chief conspirators, who invited the East India Company to establish their roots in East India. The conspiracy hatched by the money-lenders has largely remained hidden because the class to which they belonged controlled the “material force in society” that had the capacity to monopolize intellectual discourse.




Aakar Patel writes a fairly detailed account of the role that Jain and Hindu baniyas played along with the British to cause a regime change in east and west India. Patel highlights Jagat Seth’s (Siraj-ud-Daulah’s banker) involvement in the Battle of Plassey. Seth lent money to the Nawab, who in turn provided security for business and also collected tax. Out of every four rupees of tax collected by Siraj-ud-Daulah, three rupees went as loan repayment to Jagat Seth. As usual, Siraj-ud-Daulah was facing a cash crunch and Jagat Seth the banker thought it was time for a regime change. History records that Seth paid Robert Clive to defeat Siraj-ud-Daulah and install Mir Jaffar. This marked the first coming together of the Indian capitalist class with transnational capital.






The class to which the likes of Jagat Seth belong continues to be as powerful as it was in the 18th century. Even in the 21st century, their descendants continue to guide the economic and strategic destinies of India. Of the top 60 Indian dollar billionaires, roughly half belong to the Jain and Hindu baniya community, which constitutes just about 1% of the Indian population.[5] Recently Forbes magazine carried a pictorial story on how Indian business elite are interconnected through marriages and business deals.[6]




A more extensive and similar case study is done by Zeitlin and Ratcliff on the dominant class of landlord capitalists in Chile that not only controls politics but also represents foreign capital and this class “has not been a threat to imperialism, but its bulwark”. The study brought out that “within a ‘central core’ of just 137 individuals linked by kinship and intermarriage were found 51 percent of corporate executives belonging to major capitalist families while 82 percent of executives with no capital in their families were outside of this central core.”[7]




This central core in the developing and the under developed world is linked and protected by the chief guardians of capital who occupy the center of gravity in the developed capitalist world. The core of the capitalist world that is as old as capitalism wonderfully combines the power of money and the military. Towards the fag end of the 19th century, the invention of the Maxim machine gun changed the course of African history and British imperial fortunes. Rothschild, the banker, was intelligent enough to understand the power of ‘Maxim’ and the need to monopolize its production capacities. In 1888, Lord Rothschild, the board member of Maximum Gun Company, funded €1.9 million for the merger of the Maxim with Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company. The merger agreement precluded Nordenfelt from producing guns for next 25 years. The result was that in WWI, barring the US, all militaries fought each other with Maxim guns. [8]


Incidentally, when India was reeling under a backbreaking foreign exchange crisis, the Indian government approved the acquisition of one light aircraft carrier in 1955. The first carrier Hercules built by Vickers Armstrong, a Rothschild company for the Royal Navy during the Second World War was dumped on India by the comprador as well as national bourgeois elements both within and outside the government. And the same class sold to gullible Indians the idea of being a great Asian power; the desire to become a great power riding piggy back on American shoulders continues to resonate loud in Indian strategic circles.




Nehru was one of the advocates of India becoming the leader of the under developed world. He probably thought that the communist victory in China had opened the floodgates for India to play the leadership role in Asia that American had envisaged for Chiang-kai-shiek. Nehru was also aware that closeness to Soviet Union could also be used to further his appeal among the anti-colonial movements. Nehru believed that by adopting a non-aligned policy he could possibly be the “proverbial clever calf that could indulge in simultaneous suckling of two udders”[9] as popularized by Polish economist Kalecki.


Nehru’s confidence flowed from the strength of his treasury, which at the time of independence was as strong as £1,134 million (Rs 1,512 crores). Even after payments to British and Pakistan, by 1949, India had £621 million (Rs 828 crores).[10] The nationalist bourgeois that was as aware of the brimming coffers as Nehru was, proposed through the ‘Bombay Plan’ that India rely on extensive imports for rapid industrialization.[11]


The Bombay Plan was compiled by the key members of the Indian industry (JRD Tata, GD Birla, Kasturbhai Lalbhai, Purshottamdas Thakurdas and Shri Ram) and their key directors like John Matthai, Ardeshir Dalal and AD Shroff. The plan inspired India’s first Industrial Policy Resolution of 1948 and subsequently continued to influence India’s five year economic plans till early 1960s.




One of the key members of the Bombay Plan drafting committee was John Matthai, he went on to become India’s first railways minster (incidentally, World Bank’s first loan of $34 million was meant for Indian railways) - and the second finance minister of independent India. Such was the influence of big bourgeois on India’s political economy that Mathai was chosen to head India’s first State Bank of India when it came up in 1955. When Nehru chose his first finance minister, it certainly was not from the socialist ranks, instead he chose, Shanmukham Chetty, an economist who had been awarded the Knight Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire in 1933 and who had served as the Diwan of Cochin Kingdom till about 1941.






Incidentally, in 1944, the Indian delegation that participated in the formation of the World Bank consisted of luminaries who were to play a crucial role in independent India’s economic and trade policy - Sir Jeremy Raisman, Finance Member of the Government of India led the team that had - “Sir C. D. Deshmukh (Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, later to become India's Finance Minister), Sir Theodore Gregory (the first Economic Advisor to the Government of India), Sir R.K. Shanmukhan Chetty (later independent India's first Finance Minister), Mr. A.D. Shroff (one of the architects of the Bombay Plan) and Mr B.K. Madan (later India's Executive Director in IMF).”[12]




These cross connections led EMS Namboodiripad to conclude that Kalecki’s categorization of intermediate regimes did not apply to India because here the classes were aligned differently at the time of dismantling of British empire - “the big business (was not) predominantly foreign controlled (and had) a rather small participation of native capitalists". EMS further goes on to say that power never passed on from the British into the hands of progressive forces. Instead,


“It was the bourgeoisie, headed by big business and in alliance with the feudals, that got into the seats of power…The evolution of the economic and political thought of Indian nationalism from the early pioneers (Ranade, Naoro-ji, Dutt and so on), through the 'moderates' and 'extremists' to Gandhi and Nehru shows that a national (as opposed to comprador) bourgeoisie was emerging and rapidly growing. This bourgeoisie class was systematically forging a two-sided relation - there were conflicts and contradictions, but within the broad framework of friendship and co-operation - with imperialism and foreign capital externally, and princely rulers and feudal landlords internally.” [13]


If the dismantling of the British Empire had opened up opportunities for the big bourgeois in India, it had also exposed them to challenges. Having lived under imperial patronage for over a century, the Indian capitalists were apprehensive of the Congress Party’s ability to keep communism away from Indian shores. During the making of the Bombay Plan, Lala Shri Ram wrote to P. Thakurdas:
“I am afraid that this sabotage may any day start of private property also. Once the Goondas know this trick, any Government … will find it difficult to control it. Today Mahatma Gandhi may be able to stop it, but later on it may go out of their hands too.” [14]


In the early years of independence, Indian business had skillfully cloaked its capitalist concerns and alignments with foreign capital by accepting the state to be in the driver’s seat of the economy. This was done to placate and prevent the looming specter of communism from descending on the subcontinent. Taking lessons from the bourgeois approach to tackling communism, Nehru, too befriended Soviet Union. This unnerved the Indian communists who abandoned B T Randive’s revolutionary approach and adopted a more accommodating tone towards Nehru. This was Nehru’s finest political stroke - he kept the US state secretary Dulles happy by causing confusion within the communist ranks - and also Khrushchev smiling by talking socialism and anti-imperialism.




Contrary to the popular belief, immediately after independence, India followed a free market economy - import licenses were distributed freely- that led to foreign exchange crisis in 1957 - and then we liberalized more because we were forced to seek IMF and US Aid.[15] Since there are no free lunches, India had to pay a price – and the price probably was a war with China. In a December 7,1956 telegram from the US embassy in India to the State department, JS Cooper the then US ambassador to India explicitly stated, “Externally, India almost certainly faces readjustments of policies in which factors within its economy are compelling influences…Nehru, therefore, comes to Washington in a sensitive position of weakness. He and his advisers know that they have fumbled internationally, that UK no longer represents acceptable alternative leadership to US, and that they are in grave economic difficulties. (Latter point driven home during Nehru’s holding finance portfolio this year plus recent indoctrination by planning commission.)” To complete the co-relation between money and geo-strategy, Cooper concluded in his telegrams, “We feel strongly that “moment of history” has arrived which if seized and exploited, can give US much firmer anti-Communist and anti-Red China counterpoise in India.” That moment did arrive for the US when Nehru changed his stance on China and allowed Dalai Lama to reside in India – opening up the avenues of direct confrontation with China.




In just a decade after independence, India had been reduced to a financial state where it was standing with a begging bowl in front of foreign capital. In the first decade after independence India had only got a total amount of $611 loan from World Bank. However from 1960-69, overall the Bank lent India $1.8 billion.[16] It may not be coincidental that India fought three wars with its neighbours during the decade of 1962-1972.






That India followed a socialist track after independence is a myth that has been propagated by the media and intelligentsia. It was only for a brief period in the 1970s that Indira Gandhi tried to rein in capitalist tendencies, else India had always welcomed foreign capital since 1950s in accordance with World Bank’ President Eugene Black’s prescription: “India’s interests lies in giving private enterprise, both Indian and foreign, every encouragement to make maximum contribution to the development of the economy particularly in industrial field.”




Such has been the impact of the myth that even the mainstream communist parties of India have refrained from identifying the comprador tendencies of the Indian national bourgeois and at best called them "dependent" or "collaborationist”. However, the ongoing transatlantic economic meltdown and its impact on the world have exposed the inherent frailties and contradictions of the capitalist world order - bringing to fore the relationships between the global capitalist class.




Take the example of Greece, where the common person is being told to tighten his belt for the country and on the other had you have 2000 odd tax evaders who have been abandoning their sinking nation with impunity-stashing away their wealth in Swiss banks. As Kostas Vaxevanis says, “The crisis in Greece wasn't caused by everyone. And not everyone is paying for the crisis. The exclusive, corrupt club of power tries to save itself by pretending to make efforts to save Greece. In reality, it is exacerbating Greece's contradictions, while Greece is teetering on the edge of a cliff.”[17] According to New York Times, “about 120 billion euros in Greek assets lie outside the country, representing an extraordinary 65 percent of the country’s overall economic output.”[18]


The so-called nationalist bourgeois turning comprador is not limited to Greece alone. This chameleon like behavior of the propertied classes is a worldwide phenomenon; even the Indian elite who top the global “tax dodgers’ corps” and have hidden their money in tax havens like Mauritius, Lichtenstein, Switzerland and British Virgin island could go to any extent, even plunging their nation into war to save their money. Paradoxically, the conservative analysts who denounce the Marxist term comprador bourgeois in relation to American imperialism, use it freely against growing Chinese capitalism; which has yet to turn imperialist by adding a military element to make its money trample over nations across the globe.




Highlighting the new comprador class in Australia, Ashok Malik a, right wing analysts gives the example of Clive Palmers, an Australian businessman who got a $6-billion loan from a Chinese bank and then signed a US$ 60 billion, 20-year coal deal with China. In return Clive gave the Chinese, “US$8 billion EMC (engineering management and construction) contract for the project” and openly blamed the CIA for putting spokes in the contract with the Chinese.[19] The same people who see business transactions with China to be anti-national, justify the increased US military presence in Darwin, Northern Australia as a normal realist option against the Chinese threat.


Economics and politics are about human welfare. “Just as war is too important an activity to be left to generals, the material welfare of peoples is also too important to be left to economists alone.[20] Military’s nexus with mercantilism and markets must be broken. The strategic analyses must not allow the “comprador-cum-financial oligarchy” concerns to be conflated with collective national concerns. It should become unnatural and inconsistent for every government to “allude to the importance of protecting commerce of the country, by means of a powerful navy.”[21] For wars to stop being a continuation of political economy by other means, the multitude would have to stop giving up their lives to establish trading monopolies and financial oligarchies.




[1] Sanjay Baru, “India and the World: A Geo-economics Perspective”, National Maritime Foundation Lecture, India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, October 26, 2012, http://maritimeindia.org/sites/all/file ... 20Baru.pdf

[2] Stephen Gill, “Intellectuals and Transnational Capital”, The Socialist Register, 1990, pp 290-310

[3] Stephen Gill, p.295

[4] Leslie Sklair & Peter T Robbins, Global capitalism and major corporations from the Third World, Third World Quarterly, Vol 23, No 1, 2002, p 83

[5] Aakar Patel, “The peculiar pedigree of the business class: The peculiar pedigree of the business class”, Mint, 14 April, 2011, http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/tDRJXCA ... class.html

[6] Prince Mathews Thomas, How India's wealthiest are connected socially, Forbes India, 6 Nov, 2012, http://forbesindia.com//article/richest ... ly/34077/1
[7] Jeffery M. Paige, “Coffee, Copper, and Class Conflict in Central America and Chile: A Critique of Zeitlin's Civil Wars in Chile and Zeitlin and Ratcliff’ s Landlords and Capitalists, The University of Michigan paper, presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, Illinois, August 20, 1987, http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream ... /1/347.pdf
[8] Niall Ferguson, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World
[9] Sanjay Baru, “India and the World: A Geo-economics Perspective”, National Maritime Foundation Lecture, India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, October 26, 2012, http://maritimeindia.org/sites/all/file ... 20Baru.pdf
[10] The Problems of Plenty, 1947-56,RBI History, Vol II, p.593, http://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/content/PDFs/90037.pdf

[11] Amal Sanyal, “The Bombay Plan: A Forgotten Document”, Contemporary Issues and ideas in Social Sciences, Vol 6, No 1, June 2010, pp1-31
[12] The World Bank In India, published by PRIG, (Public Interest Group) Delhi, http://www.ieo.org/world-c2-p1.html
[13] E. M. S. Namboodiripad, On "Intermediate Regimes" Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 8, No. 48 (Dec. 1, 1973), p. 2134

[14] As quoted by Amal Sanyal, from Shri Ram to Thakurdas, P. T. Papers,
[15] Dealing with Scarcity, 1957-63,RBI History, Vol II, pp.625-656 http://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/content/PDFs/
[16] The World Bank In India, published by PRIG, (Public Interest Group) Delhi, http://www.ieo.org/world-c2-p1.html

[17] Kostas Vaxevanis, “Greece gave birth to democracy. Now it has been cast out by a powerful elite”, The Guardian, 30, October 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... garde-list

[18] Landon Thomas Jr., “In Greece, Taking aim at wealthy tax dodgers”, The New York Times, 11 November 2012.

[19] Ashok Malik, “The New Compradors” The Hindustan Times, 03 September, 2012
[20] Mahmood Mamdani, “State, Private Sector And Market Failures”, Pambazuka News, 29 July, 2012, http://www.countercurrents.org/mamdani290712.htm
[21] Edward P. Stringham, Commerce, Markets, and Peace: Richard Cobden’s Enduring Lessons, The Independent Review, Volume IX, Number 1, Summer 2004, pp. 105-116

[brihaspati]

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-in ... es-1918128
Indian visa granted to Taliban leader after suggestions from intelligence agencies
Tuesday, Nov 12, 2013, 21:33 IST | Agency: PTI

Sources said Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef was granted visa following detailed deliberations in the Home Ministry during which intelligence agencies strongly backed the move arguing that India may have to deal with the Taliban when US and NATO forces leave Afghanistan next year

Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, who attended a conference in Goa, was granted visa following suggestions from intelligence agencies which apparently told the Home Ministry the challenges India may face in Afghanistan after withdrawal of international forces.

Sources said Zaeef was granted visa following detailed deliberations in the Home Ministry during which intelligence agencies strongly backed the move arguing that India may have to deal with the Taliban when US and NATO forces leave Afghanistan next year.

Zaeef, a confident of Mullah Omar who had headed the Taliban government in Afghanistan till 2001 before the US invasion, attended the Think Fest in Goa in last weekend. Pakistan's intelligence agency ISI's continuous influnece over the Taliban might have forced the Indian intelligence agencies to recalibrate approach towards the terror group.

The decision was a complete U-turn of the Home Ministry's stated tough position against global terrorist outfit and stringent background check done while granting visa to nationals of Pakistan, Afghanistan, China and a few other countries, sources said.

So GOI more or less concedes now that Taliban will retake gov in AFG. But then what more in concesssions will the Afghan Talibs demand once they come to power?

[ramana]

Report is odd. MHA doesn't grant visas. And Intel agencies don't report to it. So what goes on? Where is NSA, MEA in the picture?
Now MHA which conjures up/hallucinates visions of saffron terror is issuing visas to certified terrorists!

[panduranghari]

x post

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1540633

A Guide to Colombo for CHOGM 2013
Some excerpts...

Like the rural façades alleged to have been created for the pleasure of Catherine the Great and her foreign ambassadors on their visit to the Crimea in 1787, Colombo has received a major make over for the pleasure of delegates and visitors to Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) 2013. Indeed Gotabhaya Rajapakse, presidential sibling and now Secretary Defence and Urban Development, probably fancies himself somewhat of a Potemkin, astute military leader and ambitious city builder.

At the airport, each Head of Government will be picked up in one of the more than 50 brand new bullet-proof S400 Mercedes Benz cars imported for the summit. This is in addition to a large fleet of brand new Nissan Teanas, 100 forty-one-seater luxury buses and 60 Land Rover Defender jeeps that have also been imported for the use of delegates, officials and security personnel. Naturally, the total costs of all this is unknown but runs into millions of dollars. While all vehicles will bear special CHOGM number plates they will not reveal the fact that Sri Lanka’s public debt has risen alarmingly, to Rs. 3 trillion or nearly 80 per cent of GDP. At a recent meeting of the Sri Lanka Economic Association, economists were reportedly of the view that “the debt incurred was too much, at too high a cost and used excessively on low productive purposes.”

While visitors race into Colombo on the shiny new 26 kilometre expressway, they will not be told that it cost 1.8 billion rupees or 14 million US dollars per kilometre and that it was mostly financed by a loan from China, whose terms are unknown. As they near the city they will come across neatly erected green-coloured screens, these are not sound barriers but visual barriers, to ensure visitors are not disturbed by the sight of low-income settlements.
The primary venue is named after Mahinda Rajapakse himself and to ensure ruthless efficiency it is run by the military. Just in front of the venue delegates can admire the newly redeveloped and spruced up lush green Viharamahadevi Park. However, they will not be told that like much else this was the work of the military not the municipality, and that the daily wage workers employed by the municipality to clean the park lost their jobs when the Navy took over.

One has to wonder how long these small states can really remain independent. They are just a hair lengths away from complete anarchy. How soon until the land mass of SL is absorbed back into India? I see no chance for these small nations to maintain their independence long term. Right now SL is playing India v China. Do they not see China is too far away and oil is not getting any cheaper?

[ramana]

As long as DMK and AIDMK type of ideology is there SL will be kept aloof from India.
One think to create gravitational attraction is to grow the economy of larger India and make it more attractive to be seen with India than with non-India.

[brihaspati]

SL has always swayed with the winds and been opportunistic. As an island nation perhaps it would justify all that it did as for survival. But the fact is that
(1) it always lapped up to whoever controlled the maritime trade routes across IOR.
(2) It always used more distant naval powers like China to the far east and Arabo-Persian navy/pirates, and later the European pirates, [the pioneering European explorers opening up India to the west were practically speaking rogues and pirates] over the last two thousand years as a bulwark to prevent mainland Indian influence.
(3) As long as India does not control its two Eastern and western exists into IOR - SL will quietly hobnob with both ends now out of Indian influence, as it had done on record by collaborating with Islamists of the Caliphate era [peaceful Singhali Buddhists were sending "slaves" for Hajjaj at Baghdad which was allegedly looted by pirates, most likely again Arabo-Persian Muslim ones, and blamed on Sindhi-Deval king as an excuse to launch invasions]. This in its modern avatar persists in the SL ruling elite mindset - with deep relations existing between SL and Paki-BD underlay and China and UK further in distance.

Actually instead of deepening and widening the channel across Rama-sethu, a better long term strategy would have been to do a landfill on that entire zone and reclaim land from the sea on the Indian side, and offer SL a land-bridge. Long term, the economic angle hinted at by ramana-ji would have combined with the loss of territorial distinction to reintegrate.

[Pratyush]

As long as DMK and AIDMK type of ideology is there SL will be kept aloof from India.
SNIP......

I think that the destruction of the Aryan-Dravidian myth will go a long way in that.

[brihaspati]

Lets see how Cameron's slap and Rajapakshe's defiance plays out. Both posturing, and the Christian-Nordic pressures on behalf of the Tamils is less meant for SL than for India.

[member_27847]

Dravid people are very important part of India.

There is no need to place Sri Lanka above Dravids.

There is no difference between Tamil and Sinhal people of Sri Lanka. Both are people of the same stock.

This conflict is unfortunate, but it is not appropriate for India to choose Sinhals over Tamil.

I am a north Indian BTW. However I would not trade my South Indian brethren for any foreigner.

[member_27847]

The north Indians are primarily Arya people and south Indians are primarily Dravid people. However both people are native to India.

Britishers always spread theories to divide people of India. There is no need now for such theories.

The skeletons unearthed at Harappa, Mohanjodaro etc. are similar to North Indian people. This can be proven easily by science.

[Pratyush]

^^^

Sir, the division of the Indians into Aryans and Dravidian is a colonial project and is an artificial construct. It is pure BS. But it continues in this country as too many people are feeding off the bandwagon.

[harbans]

Garg Ji, there's a lot of reading you have to be doing. There is nothing like an Aryan people. Arya meant Noble in Sanskrit. No race connotation. The Dravidian-Aryan divide was based on race theories of the 19th century, much of which has been proven to belong to the garbage bin. Please do go through other threads and discussions here on this matter.

[devesh]

the Iran nuke deal is a signal to Sunnis to patch up with Shias. not good at all for India. the Islamics are consolidating and papering over their rivalries in an attempt to turn "outside". did the Indian "strategists" see this coming?

[RoyG]

the Iran nuke deal is a signal to Sunnis to patch up with Shias. not good at all for India. the Islamics are consolidating and papering over their rivalries in an attempt to turn "outside". did the Indian "strategists" see this coming?

Sunnis and Shias won't be patching up anything. This is the lull before the storm. The Saudis and Israelis will go at it alone and plunge the entire ME into a full blown crisis.

[Agnimitra]

Rajiv Gandhi twice asked Jyoti Basu to become PM: Book

KOLKATA: Rajiv Gandhi had wanted Jyoti Basu to become the Prime Minister and had pleaded with him twice during the politically tumultuous times of 1990 and 1991, former CBI director and Bengal DGP Arun Prosad Mukherjee has revealed in his autobiography.

The recently-released book — "Unknown Facets of Rajiv Gandhi, Jyoti Basu, Indrajit Gupta" — is based on Mukherjee's diary entries, maintained from the time he joined IPS in 1956, and his interactions with Rajiv, Basu and Gupta in various capacities as Darjeeling SP, Bengal DGP, state vigilance commissioner, CBI boss, special secretary in the home ministry, and finally, advisor to the home minister (Indrajit Gupta).

Mukherjee was special secretary, home ministry, in October 1990 when Rajiv informally asked him to arrange a meeting with Basu, says the book. The communist leader said it was not his call and only the party's central committee and Politburo could take such a decision. CPM vetoed it and Chandrashekhar — Rajiv's third choice — became PM with Congress support.

In 1991, when Chandrashekhar turned out to be a failure, Rajiv again approached Basu but he declined and referred the matter to his party leadership. Mukherjee writes that he took Rajiv's emissary for a meeting with senior CPM leaders at former MP Biplab Dasgupta's house. "But my worst conjecture proved right ... and thus ended the second opportunity of putting up the Left Front's best foot forward in the larger interest of Bengal."

Five years later, thanks to a hung Parliament, several local satraps, including Mulayam Singh Yadav, proposed Basu's name again for Prime Minister. And again the CPM central committee voted against it. In an interview at the end of 1996, Basu termed it a "historic blunder". "However, it is not generally known that such blunders had taken place twice in 1990-91... largely because of the unrealistic, short-sighted and 'blunder-proof' mindset of CPM leaders," writes the former DGP.

The CPM leadership has been taken aback by Mukherjee's revelation. Rajya Sabha MP Shyamal Chakraborty, who wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh earlier this year for a commemorative postage stamp on Basu's centenary, told TOI on Monday: "I had no idea about this, so I can't comment on something I don't know of."

Former Lok Sabha Speaker and expelled CPM leader Somnath Chatterjee didn't know of it either. "It (not allowing Basu to become PM) was the weirdest example of democratic centralism. I respectfully agree with Jyoti-babu's 'historic blunder' comment. I wish the blunder hadn't been committed and history would have been written differently. Look what's happened to the party now — it's become politically irrelevant."

Chatterjee agreed with Mukherjee's remark in his book that the country's "murky political and administrative ethos" then would have been transformed with Basu at the helm.

Speaking to TOI, the 82-year-old Mukherjee said: "All three (Gandhi, Basu and Gupta) were different personalities. Jyoti Basu was firm, Rajiv was extremely courteous while Indrajit Gupta was a straight-talker. But they trusted me and allowed me to speak my mind. They knew about my integrity."

About the "blunder" he said, "The CPM leadership refused to see reason and there was no way one could convince them." His writing is more explicit: "All the implications and finer points made out by me in favour of Jyoti Basu accepting Rajiv Gandhi's offer of prime ministership though presumably for a short period of 8-12 months went over the heads of Left Front leaders — thanks to their blinkered vision."

What happened

* 1990: Basu tops Rajiv list of 3 prospective PMs but CPM says no. Chandrashekar, the last name on Rajiv's list, after Devi Lal, becomes PM.

* 1991: Chandrashekar flops. Rajiv again requests Basu. Mukherjee says he will arrange a meet if Rajiv ensures Basu is PM for at least a year. Rajiv agrees. Basu says party must decide. CPM again says no.

* 1996: After the fall of 13-day-old Vajpayee govt, United Front asks Basu to be PM. Yet again, CPM says no.

Shows that the Congress and Jholawallas have together played the Indian people as an axis.

The Congress plays through the ballot, the Commies through the bullet - Naxals, Maoists, etc.

Both use Western, Islamist and other transnational leverage to keep India's Bharata core pinned down.

[darshhan]

the Iran nuke deal is a signal to Sunnis to patch up with Shias. not good at all for India. the Islamics are consolidating and papering over their rivalries in an attempt to turn "outside". did the Indian "strategists" see this coming?

Devesh ji, I disagree. US is trying to switch over to Shia side and dump the Arab sunnis (Saudis, Qatar etc). Shias have proved to be better fighters than Arab Sunnis as has been evidenced by Syria and Lebanon.

[devesh]

Darshan ji, US will not dump Sunnis primarily b/c most Islamics are Sunnis. and dumping Sunnis puts US in a tricky position w.r.t. Indian subcontinent and SE Asia.

I think the agenda is to get the Islamics to stop messing internally in their lands and look outward. it's an extremely short-sighted plan. in the long term (~50 years time frame), this will prove a great boon to Islam in general. and eventually, they will look West again.

w.r.t India, I don't see how the nuke agreement with Iran is any way positive. perhaps it's completely irrelevant and makes no difference. but that's a far cry from saying it's a "positive" development vis-a-vis India.

[brihaspati]

Well for all those who think mughalistan is empty academic dream, the theology is oh-so-peaceful, misrepresented, supremely enriching and contributing towards Indian civilization - and we can understand politics, military situation, by stamping out references to religion in our analysis and discussions :

http://www.libertiesalliance.org/2013/0 ... st-bengal/

The Canning Riots took place in Canning in the Indian State of West Bengal on 21 February 2013. (1) It is clear from the reports that the motivation for what was effectively a kind of pogrom was religious intolerance. The reports create a similar picture to the Hepp-Hepp Riots (2) against Jews in Frankfurt in 1819 that is depicted in the picture above. An article on the website of Organiser (3) a well-established newspaper opens as follows in relation to the events in Canning:

“A well organised and meticulously planned attack on Hindus unleashed havoc in different parts of Naliakhari area under Canning PS in the South 24 Paraganas district of West Bengal on 19/02/13.”

It went on to suggest a definite religious motivation for the acts of violence and disorder that took place. The article goes on to report about the looting, the arson, the wilful destruction of property, and the desecration of temples and religious idols. It referred to inaction on the part of police who were on the scene and the silence of much of the established media. The reaction of the authorities and the press shows much similarity to what often happens in Western countries.

Lalmohan ji,
surely you would understand now why BD was a blunder? We can neither swallow it, nor vomit it. We cannot do anything towards these guys because they will cry persecution of innocent Bangladeshis, which will be used against India - all the while India must "give" to prevent it from becoming more "islamist".

[brihaspati]

We can predict the exact steps that BD, or pakistan and internal islamist groups and regional concentrations will behave - for economy, law-and-order, violence on Hindus, and strategic as well as tactical interaction with the state - onlee by analyzing Islamic moves from their religious ideology, both the parts they highlight as well as the parts they hide.

Those who try to eliminate the religious motivation from studying islamist moves within and around India, could be well-intentioned, but they are crucially and fatally erasing a core tool of the analysis, and in the end helping the islamist agenda : knowingly or unknowingly.