West Asia News and Discussions

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 31 Mar 2011 04:32

^^ We have already agreed to deploy but only in the event of matter hitting the fan. The "protesters" targeted Indians. They made a major mistake by targeting our people. India will deploy to protect the Indian population. Period.

We already have agreement with our closest allies in the GCC - Oman and Qatar. The mission will be to protect the royalty and our people. The list of nations ith agreement has expanded thats all.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 31 Mar 2011 04:56

brihaspati wrote:Well the more the Pakis go there to fight local anger - the better! We want the fundamental backbone on which Pak rests, and which is its theology combined with claims of racial superiority, to be erased and utterly destroyed. What better opportunity than make it face another delusional framework of "purest" theology and uncontaminated "racial superiority" in a murderous fight!

Also about the money. The money flowing from the region to Pakistan has to be stopped and the shock has to enter the Pak establishment.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 31 Mar 2011 05:00

^^ Acharyaji, problem is that what happens if all the money and aid stops. Lets say the system collapses, we'll have another Iraq on our hands. At least this would be the arguement amongst many incl. GoI probably.

Bahrain appreciates Indians' contribution

Bahrain on Wednesday assured India of the safety and security of over 3.5 lakh Indians on its soil and appreciated their contribution to its progress and development.

With his country having faced unrest in the recent months, visiting Bahrain Foreign Minister Shaikh Khalid Bin Ahmed Bin Mohammed Al-Khalifa told External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna that last Saturday he met nearly 200 members of the Indian community in Manama.

Mr. Krishna thanked him for the assurance on the Indian community's well-being and expressed the confidence that the law-abiding members the community would continue to be partners in Bahrain's growth story in future too.

The Ministry noted that both countries enjoyed traditionally friendly relations, which were based on historical and civilisational ties.

Later, in an exclusive interaction with The Hindu, the visiting dignitary said he also held discussions with Deputy National Security Adviser Vijaya Latha Reddy on issues of bilateral interest.

Bahrain, he said, cannot envisage security architecture in the region without India, considering the country had people of different communities and religions living together in harmony and progressing in a democratic manner.

Mr. Khalid said his country envisaged a role for Pakistan on one side and Iran on the other. “We want Iran to be part of it [security architecture]…we want it to prosper and be as active as in the past as a responsible country in the region…” he said.
West Asia situation

The Bahrain Minister said that winds of transformation were sweeping across the region. Unlike other countries, the human development index in the six Gulf Coordination Council countries – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudia Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar – was much higher.

The people who were on the lower end of the scale in other parts of the region were vying for a change, he said, stressing on the need for true transformation in many parts of the area. His country recognised the need for changes in the political system, but unfortunately the movement was “hijacked and took a sectarian turn” between Sunnis and Shias.

Referring to the action against protesters, the Minister sought to justify it on the grounds that the intervention was aimed to prevent the movement from escalating into a civil strife, since it had increasingly acquired a sectarian tone.

Mr. Khalid said political dialogue would be the way forward; but that would be in the future, while current focus was to maintain law and order.

Countering the impression that the forces present were from Saudi Arabia, he clarified these belonged to the Peninsula Shield Force and would stay as long they were needed, while stressing these troops were not directly dealing with the people of Bahrain.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 31 Mar 2011 09:56

shyamd wrote:^^ Acharyaji, problem is that what happens if all the money and aid stops. Lets say the system collapses, we'll have another Iraq on our hands. At least this would be the arguement amongst many incl. GoI probably.

It is about the money to the military and aid which helps in the military purchase

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Mar 2011 10:40

Please think over the meaning of the rush visits to India from KSA, Bahrain and who else in recent weeks and the above Al Khalifa statement. There is realignment going on and we need to think about it.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 31 Mar 2011 17:36

The seeds of this were sown back in the early 1990s (believe it or not) in our exploratory talks with the Americans IIRC. In other words, we are, broadly speaking, not working at cross-purposes here. And in still other words, we and they have been thinking of this for a while. Do not assume that all this strategic partnership-shmartnership with the GCC has been happening without Washington's nod to the Gulf side and sometimes nudge and gentle push to the Indian side - in some instances it appears we were less enthusiastic than they. But going by the situation now, it doesn't look like they were wrong.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 31 Mar 2011 20:59

Has China now been kicked out of ME as a rival player to Uncle? They seems to be awfully quiet while their energy security takes the hits.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 31 Mar 2011 21:30

Prem wrote:Has China now been kicked out of ME as a rival player to Uncle? They seems to be awfully quiet while their energy security takes the hits.

Uncle finding too many things to handle in various hot spots. India is an ally to lessen that burden. also more dependable than china, less of a competitor to uncle for the next 20-30 years, more malleable than china to handle. recall the deep reach of uncle in Indian set up compared to china.
guess uncle takes India for its own purposes to help shut out china as need be. India also looking at ways in this game to help itself.
china will be looking for ways to enter here as economy will splutter to a grinding halt if its energy security is harmed.This will threaten internal stability as well cpc itself. their moves not well known at present.(at least to me for now)
Recall it is having extensive oil lines across west to central asia, ties to africa, middle east including iran, venturing into south america cocking snook at monroe doctrine.

Interesting times ahead.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 Mar 2011 22:33

Looks like the game plan seems to be -

GCC doesn't want to push the public into the hands of al-keeda types by pitting Muslims against Muslims. A [sic] secular Indian force will be viewed as a genuine attempt to bring calm.

India might be moving in on the pretext of protecting Indian expats.

Would be interesting to see if india makes any gains in geopolitical space. I still do not think this nonsense is worth the $b we hope to get.

W.r.t Pakistan what is the gaurantee that GCC doesn't behave like unkil - running with hares and bunting with hounds.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 Mar 2011 22:36

Regarding the cooperation being in plans since 90s...

We have many events that prove that this change of direction hasn't happened. Unkil went to the extent of letting 11/26 happen to protect just one of their operatives. A alliance at this scale requires much larger compromises on unkil's side.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 31 Mar 2011 23:10

This dhaga has reached its magnificent century. So, IB4TL. Time for a new inning.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 Mar 2011 23:27

As I have tried to point out, the very presence of Prince Bandar as an envoy in India indicates that US could be involved form behind.

Prince Bandar has long associations with the US, and is possibly also either involved directly or is seen as a potential threat by other factions within the Saudi royalty. He has been accused of plotting to overthrow the Saudi monarch, or organizing and helping terror funding and perhaps even organizing such activities - in Iraq, Jordan, etc. This could be an accusation sourced from Iran, but also from Nayev - the one considered likely to succeed the present monarch [age as well as succession considerations] and who is in charge of the ministry of interior. Note that, the recent small-scale demonstrations from within Saudis - took place in front of the interior ministry. Nayev is known to hold ultra-conservative views , who dismissed or found no necessity of electoral representation and reforms on womens' rights.

Thus Bandar could be more closely tied in with US interests and state orgs, and at the same time a pawn in both internal as well as external factional fight to control the Saudi monarchy.

The questions that need to be explored are :

(1) with the recent excuse given that India does not take sides in conflicts whose outcome is uncertain, how is the GOI sure that in this case - that is about the stability of the monarchy and the current overt gestures are going to be long term?
(2) Is India being forced into propping up a feudal or monarchical regime that US has doubts about but is too deeply tied to abandon quickly?
(3) Does India intervene militarily in countries to strengthen the "arms" of the gov of that country where Indians face attacks? So far not many examples of interventions too - except three around the subcontinent/IOR. But none of them happened because "Indians" were attacked. Has this policy then changed suddenly only with respect to GCC? Can we have a demographic profile of the Indians in GCC compared to elsewhere? What is it about Indians in GCC that makes the GOI abandon all its legendary caution and policy of non-intervention?
(4) what are the concessions, in religious, and cultural sphere that GOI will have to give, or has already given but not made public - which will have to be allowed to the Saudi sourced funding of Dawa networks in India? At least one sign is already obvious - with As-Sudais being brought over to lend weight to the Deobandis, Vastanvi debate, and in spite of initial doubts about GOI being at all involved - it seems that a leader of a legislative body of India hosts Sudais and the honb'l PM greets him at the dinner.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Apr 2011 00:58

Prem wrote:Has China now been kicked out of ME as a rival player to Uncle? They seems to be awfully quiet while their energy security takes the hits.

Do you think China has an independent policy in ME or they are guided by Uncle in their policy in ME and south asia. Think about it and look at the facts

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 01 Apr 2011 02:18

shyamd wrote:^^ We have already agreed to deploy but only in the event of matter hitting the fan. The "protesters" targeted Indians. They made a major mistake by targeting our people. India will deploy to protect the Indian population. Period.

We already have agreement with our closest allies in the GCC - Oman and Qatar. The mission will be to protect the royalty and our people. The list of nations ith agreement has expanded thats all.

Oman and Qatar are fine but KSA- the exporter of wahabbi radicalism should not have been supported. I sincerely hope some serious concessions are solicited in exchange for this including long term soft loans, co-operation in reducing passport confiscation issues of our labour force, KSA self-curtailing the travel of its religious clerics to India etc

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 01 Apr 2011 04:31

^ the interesting thing is we condemn the rabid dog (poor animal) Pakistan while thinking unkil and KSA the owners of the rabid dog who encourage it to harm India as (natural) allies.

So we are acknowledge that we are nothing but a bunch of cowards who kick at a sick dog but are incapable of standing against the real villians.

I was reading usatoday and they talk about the 'other nations' that are suppressing their citizens; Bahrain, Yeman, Syria and Ivorycoast (yay! India and pakis are not there) and we want to gang up with other bullies and kick another blow at Libyan dog.

And we think that is heroism, valor and national interests.

Sigh!

Maram · Post by **Maram** » 01 Apr 2011 05:18

Interesting developments. Increasingly, India is joining the decision makers group, atleast regionally. we are being enlisted into decision making stake holder groups. There is a price to pay.

Saudi engagement will create strategic space for India to counter the funding of madrassas in TSP.Saudis lean on Nawaz Bhai/Kiya nahi etc...

It depends on how we manage the game. My worry is MMS will sharm al sheikh this too!

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 Apr 2011 19:25

Acharya wrote: It is about the money to the military and aid which helps in the military purchase

But don't you see that it is for use by the GCC too.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 Apr 2011 19:34

brihaspati wrote:As I have tried to point out, the very presence of Prince Bandar as an envoy in India indicates that US could be involved form behind.

Yes and No on this count. Bandar is the King's emissary and he handles discreet files such as Iran, parts of the washington stuff he shares with Jubeir.

The questions that need to be explored are :

(1) with the recent excuse given that India does not take sides in conflicts whose outcome is uncertain, how is the GOI sure that in this case - that is about the stability of the monarchy and the current overt gestures are going to be long term?

India has taken sides.

(2) Is India being forced into propping up a feudal or monarchical regime that US has doubts about but is too deeply tied to abandon quickly?

US can't drop them and this episode proved it to them.

(3) Does India intervene militarily in countries to strengthen the "arms" of the gov of that country where Indians face attacks? So far not many examples of interventions too - except three around the subcontinent/IOR. But none of them happened because "Indians" were attacked. Has this policy then changed suddenly only with respect to GCC? Can we have a demographic profile of the Indians in GCC compared to elsewhere? What is it about Indians in GCC that makes the GOI abandon all its legendary caution and policy of non-intervention?

We have I think close to 5 million in the region?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Apr 2011 20:25

^^^If number alone is important a similar military protectorate should have been undertaken for Malaysia-Myanmar-Singapore region - as roughly same number of expats are there too. Malaysia is the most consistent offender in terms of attacks on Indians or violations and state sponsored squeezing.

Would you dismiss the long connections of Bandar with USA, and that fact of allegations against him about being complicit in "Islamist terror" that I mentioned - which even if not true still makes him a rather dangerous emissary just by sheer possibilities of the factional infighting within the monarchy?

The question about "sides" was not about whether India has already taken it or not - but what made the GOI so sure and "confident" or certain about the outcome of the "conflict" over the long run in the GCC? I thought this was the logic typically given not to take sides that "outcomes" were uncertain!

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 Apr 2011 21:51

brihaspati wrote:^^^If number alone is important a similar military protectorate should have been undertaken for Malaysia-Myanmar-Singapore region - as roughly same number of expats are there too. Malaysia is the most consistent offender in terms of attacks on Indians or violations and state sponsored squeezing.

Complicated. Totally different issues involved.

The question about "sides" was not about whether India has already taken it or not - but what made the GOI so sure and "confident" or certain about the outcome of the "conflict" over the long run in the GCC? I thought this was the logic typically given not to take sides that "outcomes" were uncertain!

Time will reveal to you. Can't answer. Maybe if more comes out in the media.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Apr 2011 21:58

Well, one immediate and obvious difference between the "East" and the "west" is that in the east, it is more Indians of "Hindu" origin - whereas in the Vanayu Pradesh it is more of the cherished Islamist kind. Perhaps also a much larger cash hoard in the west compared to the east [as well as willingness] - trickles of which could potentially be flowing into party coffers?

What you are hinting at will not come out in the media.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Apr 2011 07:43

Top 10 Youtube videos of the revolutions

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... evolutions

A Libyan worst-case scenario: 13 steps from now to a Middle East disaster

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20 ... t_disaster

11. Pakistani ISI and TTP move with impunity across the FATA and begin
retaking Afghanistan (sounds like May 2002 - summer 2003)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Apr 2011 08:02

Also recall that SSM the NSA went to Iran and had praised Ahemdinejad jus before all this GCC crisis broke out.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 02 Apr 2011 08:33

ramana garu, The reason for Menon to be in Iran.

To free two reporters, Germany helped India pay Iran

Germany had facilitated the clearance of India’s outstanding oil bill with Iran in February this year in return for the release of two German journalists held in custody by Tehran, a German news magazine has reported.

The online edition of Der Spiegel today reported that India’s payment of about $ 1.5 billion to Iran through a bank in Germany, the European-Iranian Trading Bank (EITB), was “facilitated” by the German government as part of a deal to get its journalists released.

Germany’s central bank, Bundesbank, cleared the transaction, the magazine quoted sources as saying.

India was wary of making a direct payment to Iran because of the prevailing global economic sanctions against that country for running an allegedly illegal nuclear programme. As such, New Delhi, which imports a huge amount of oil from Iran, was looking for another other route to transfer the money and Germany offered to help in a quid pro quo arrangement that would ensure that the two journalists, in custody for about 130 days, would be freed by Tehran.

These two reporters, belonging to a weekly newspaper Bild am Sonntag, had entered Iran on tourist visas and were arrested in October last year after interviewing the son of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, an Iranian woman who had received global attention after being sentenced to death by stoning on charges of committing adultery. Both of them were given a 20-month jail sentence.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle had personally travelled to Tehran in February and brought these two reporters back to his country.

Spiegel Online said the German government’s official response to its queries in this regard had been “reserved.”

“A connection was neither confirmed nor denied. When asked what role the Indian-Iranian deal played in the release of the two prisoners (journalists), a spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry said: ‘The federal government became active at the very beginning of the detention of the two German journalists in October 2010, so that they could be brought back to Germany as soon as possible’.”

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Apr 2011 09:33

It might be true but how does it makes sense?
India wants to pay Iran for the oil already purchased. But cant due to embargo etc.

Meantime Germany has two citizens imprisoned in Iran. So they become a conduit and in return Iran releases the to.

What does India get?
And then why did SSM praise Ahemdinejad for being right etc?

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 02 Apr 2011 09:57

ramana wrote:It might be true but how does it makes sense?
India wants to pay Iran for the oil already purchased. But cant due to embargo etc.

Meantime Germany has two citizens imprisoned in Iran. So they become a conduit and in return Iran releases the to.

What does India get?
And then why did SSM praise Ahemdinejad for being right etc?

IMHO it may have been an attempt to bring in Iran from the cold, with tacit support of the US.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 02 Apr 2011 16:51

Pranav, IMO you are not far off. Basically there is a list of authorised countries.
Turkey and Oman. But some nations wanted to be on the list.
E.g. India and Qatar. Qatar acts independently of GCC regarding Iran.

India was never really authorised - re: hyde act.
However Bahrain did build up relations with Iran as they needed gas.

Just my 2 cents

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 03 Apr 2011 00:06

UAE Armed forces - Anti terror special unit conducted an operation to free a boat from Pirate control East of Oman. Operation conducted with the support of UAE Air Force and in coordination of US 5th Fleet.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 03 Apr 2011 17:52

>>We have I think close to 5 million in the region?

Yeah, something like that. Apart from the sheer numbers of the Indian population there (mainly Hindus btw, although the percentages may not reflect that in India), the issue why we have apparently "taken sides" with such alacrity is also money. The remittances from this region into India is ridiculous

... assume $100/month average by the 5 million. It's probably more, double that even. We have no interest in instability of any kind in the GCC, nor do we have any illusions about any magical emergence of a sustainable democratic impulse. Nor are the monarchies in any hurry to get rid of the Indians. They are a known, reliable, untroublesome and highly productive community which does not make a noise (apart from now and then when there is a misunderstanding about the extent of labour activism that will be tolerated).

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 03 Apr 2011 21:18

Thanks JEM ji. There are people on this thread that say Indians in GCC are mostly IMs. Is this true?

--------------------------
Confirmation that Qatari's and Omani's are recruiting heavily from our retired Navy crew.

Omani's want: Marine Engineers, Fleet servicing engineers and naval architecture type people to take care of refit/refurbishment/maintenance of fleet. Also petty officers for royal naval fleet. Radio, engine room technicians and so on.

Qatari's: As posted earlier. There is now an additional requirement of COMMUNICATION & ELECTRONIC WARFARE, RADAR, seamenship Instructors. Additionally they want people involved in Naval operations, Underwater warfare specialists, navigation instructors, Naval engineers etc

Here is the old advert:

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Apr 2011 21:43

JEM,
do you have some up to date figures on the distribution (by faith) of Indian expats in GCC? The previous estimate for Indians in UAE was roughly 1.75 million. (2005 census?) At the same time there was a report of a gathering of Keral Muslims honouring Sheikh Zayed of around 1.5 million. That would leave some 0.25 millions only for the others. The "power list" estimated about only 20% of IM among Indian expats among the top 100 "most influential". But thats about only 100 people after all. Just curious. On a short break so cannot access census data.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Apr 2011 21:45

Do we really want Indians with experience of Indian naval systems take up jobs with Omanis and Qataris?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 03 Apr 2011 22:01

Omani's are out closest partner in the region.
----------------------------------
A pretty good article and is pretty much on the money as to what is happening in the region from the GCC perspective.

Containing Iran, a GCC strategy

Mishaal Al Gergawi writes: Gulf states must realise that they are not up against a 32-year-old republic but a civilisation that is more than 2,500 years old
By Mishaal Al Gergawi, Special to Gulf NewsPublished: 00:00 April 4, 2011
0Share

Image Credit: Supplied
Abdul Latif Al Zayani
The GCC's new Secretary-General, Abdul Lateef Al Zayani, takes office during one of the most turbulent periods in the recent history of its six-member bloc. Al Zayani is the council's first secretary who comes from the military establishment.

Statements from sources close to the body have emphasised the importance of strengthening the GCC's military progress. For the foreseeable future, regional security and internal stability are the GCC's priority.
Like the Americans and the Soviets in the second half of the last century, the GCC and Iran are locked in a geographically smaller yet equally polarised, cold war; and Bahrain has, unfortunately, become this war's Berlin.
As I've outlined in a previous article, the GCC Peninsula Shield's (GCCPS) entry into Bahrain was a move the Iranians did not expect, at least not that fast. And it certainly was a strategic outmanoeuvre about which they could only protest.

The Iranians are used to being in the opposing position. They have been the ones who have built a strong alliance with Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas under the pretext of supporting resistance to the Israeli occupation.
Seeking Chinese, Russian, Turkish and Brazilian support, they have continued to develop their nuclear programme under limited observation from the IAEA. They have built a delicate alliance with southern Iraq's Shiites and their re-emerging clergy.

They have, covertly, supported the Al Houthi rebels in north Yemen — a thorn in Saudi's south. Geopolitically and socio-culturally speaking, the Iranians have been the net gainers over the past three decades.
GCCPS moved into Bahrain as a reaction to the anxieties over the back-to-back loss of Hosni Mubarak and Sa'ad Hariri, two GCC allies, making opposition calls for the fall of Bahrain's monarchy a red line. But the question now is what is the Gulf's next move?

Like the Americans, the GCC must develop a containment policy towards Iran. However, for the policy to be effective it would have to recognise a fundamental issue: the driver for Iran's regional policy isn't sectarian at all but rather ethnic.
Considering the complex history of Persian-Arab relations, the sectarian identity is a recent phenomenon. The Iranians view themselves as a distinguished civilisation that was recognised as an equal by the likes of the Greeks and the Romans who, under the pretext of Islam, came to be ruled by Arabs of the desert.

It is from this perspective that the GCC must recognise what drives the Iranian psyche. Ten years ago, a World Values Survey ranked Iranians at first place when it came to nationalism; 92 per cent claimed they were very proud of their nationality, 72 per cent and 50 per cent of Americans and Britons surveyed, respectively, felt that way.
So when it comes to attaining nuclear weapons, they don't look at Israel, but rather India — an ancient civilisation cum emerging economic powerhouse whose attainment of nuclear armaments caused temporary panic, which has now largely subsided.

In other words, the GCC (which turns 30 next month) isn't at war with a 32-year-old republic, but a civilisation that's more than 2,500 years old.

And so, while the Americans were attempting to contain an ideology eventually leading for it to implode, the GCC should attempt to redefine the geopolitical landscape of Iranian sphere of influence forcing it to recognise new realities of coexistence.

Complex situation
To put it bluntly, Islamic or not, the Iranians need to be forced to play nice. The Gulf states must recognise that Iran must be contained with intermissions of detentes and rollbacks to its spaces of influence as required.
So when it came to Syria, following its $15 billion (Dh55 billion) FDI plan in 2007, the Gulf's sovereign wealth funds could've invested their way into a new Syrian foreign policy. This would've been especially likely since Syria's main reason to gravitate towards Iran was the latter's war with its ideological arch rival, Iraq.

A new Syrian foreign policy could've forced Hezbollah to act in national interest and assimilate its militia into the Lebanese national army and its leadership into a political party. It could've also helped limit terrorist attacks in Iraq from their borders and even pressured Hamas to uphold its reconciliation with Fatah.

When it comes to Bahrain, the situation is becoming complex. While the official rhetoric is committed to establishing stability and a return to normality, there is an emerging undertone of sectarianism, questioning national loyalty that is also spreading to other Gulf countries. This is exactly the kind of atmosphere that the Iranians can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Exercising self-restraining realpolitik, the Gulf must avoid alienating citizens but rather improve relations with them and address their socio-economic grievances.
Should there be proof of espionage then those cases can be used to emphasise individual treasons, which do not represent the rest of the community. Such policies would reinforce the national fabric and weaken Iran's argument for regional Shiite custodianship.
Iran plays an important role in the region and should be recognised for it. However, the GCC should work actively to clearly define, limit and counter this role by its own. A multi-polar world is taking shape, our region is no exception and more then ever, the world is run by those who show up.
Mishaal Al Gergawi is an Emirati current affairs commentator

Thanks Mishaal. It vindicates my view that Iran organised themselves on the lines of India to attain nuclear weapons and they watched India closely! Thank you!

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 03 Apr 2011 22:40

>>There are people on this thread that say Indians in GCC are mostly IMs. Is this true?

Boss, I don't know more than I said in my initial post which is that the majority are Hindus but the religious breakdown is not likely to reflect the percentages in India. I would venture to say that the representation of both Muslims and Christians would be higher, but this is speculation. I don't think there are reliable open source numbers on this, but it might be that I just haven't seen them.

>>do you have some up to date figures on the distribution (by faith) of Indian expats in GCC?

Brihaspati, pls see above.

>The previous estimate for Indians in UAE was roughly 1.75 million. (2005 census?)

I would say that's about accurate plus or minus a bit.

>>At the same time there was a report of a gathering of Keral Muslims honouring Sheikh Zayed of around 1.5 million. That would leave some 0.25 millions only for the others.

Bullshit. Although there are a humongous number of Mallus in the UAE. I was there myself as a kid for a couple of years, and one year in my teens. So I know the place well enough, and have been visiting Dubai over the past decade regularly - maybe 30 times or so. Tatooine lite.

>>The "power list" estimated about only 20% of IM among Indian expats among the top 100 "most influential".

Possible.

>>Do we really want Indians with experience of Indian naval systems take up jobs with Omanis and Qataris?

There are advantages and disadvantages. I think the calculation probably is that the former outweigh. You can surely guess why.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 03 Apr 2011 22:43

>>Legal non-property remittances according to RBI were up to 25-30% of $56bn (so between $14-18bn). Double that for hawala transactions, and it is a fairly substantial $30-35bn from that rather small but highly productive population.

And let's not forget regular trade

- I think that's in the range of something like $33-35 bn/year.

So you can begin to get an idea of the scale of this clusterfu(k.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 03 Apr 2011 23:01

JEMji, thats a very similar experience to me, I think maybe 60 or 65% were hindu's. Like in school and stuff, most I recall were hindu's although there was a significant number of IMs and christians. Almost totally forgot remittances, thanks for reminding.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 03 Apr 2011 23:06

Sorry should have clarified the $33-35 bn was just for UAE - IIRC.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 03 Apr 2011 23:11

JEMji are you sure legal remittances from GCC are that high?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 03 Apr 2011 23:12

>>If official statistics only claim 2.5mn emigrants from Kerala to the Gulf, would the rest (2mn folks) be from other states or are the stats a little "skewed"? Malappuram alone claims to have a million workers in the Gulf! About the religious breakup, if Kerala itself is 25% Muslim, 20% Christian, and given that Malappuram sends more folks than any other district (20% of Kerala emigrants!), it seems likely that at least half 40% would be Muslim.

While Mallus definitely form a significant chunk of the Indians in the Gulf, about the numbers you've given above I just don't know boss. That's the only honest answer here. Maybe 40% are Muslim (in all the GCC) but I don't know. I would say less myself, say 30-35% - but it's pure speculation.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 03 Apr 2011 23:14

Shyamd,

Boss which number are you referring to? $33-35 bn? That's regular trade in goods/services, not for employee remittances.

Remittances I assumed $100 average/month per Indian, which comes to about $6bn/year with a population of 5m. I think it's probably double that, the remittances I mean.