Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby RoyG » 06 Aug 2014 12:17

Arvind Gupta is the new Deputy NSA. Heard he hates giving speeches and has a sharp mind.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 06 Aug 2014 22:26

Something to ruminate on!

n his book Rashtram (2011) Dr. S. Kalyanraman, Director of the Sarasvati Research Centre (Chennai) has this to say in the section titled ‘Early Reference to Rashtram (Rashtri femm.):

“What is a Rashtram in Hindu thought? Early explanations are provided in the world’s oldest human document, Rigveda in the Vak sukta (RV 10.125) by Rishika Vagambhrini who renders the sukat in atmasthuthi (first person narrative) with the famous words: aham Rasthri sangamanii vasunam (I am the Rashtra, moving people together for wealth creation or abhuydayam, general welfare).”

She is the daughter of Rishi Ambhrini. The sukata is repeated at the end of Devi Mahatmya.

This is what Chanakya espoused the re-creation of the Bharata Rashtra and Sardar Patel followed and Modi is following.

MMS should be told it was not the British who gave the idea of India but the Rig Veda itself.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 10 Aug 2014 02:25

Looks like Doordahrshan is reviving the Chanakya serial

The Machiavelli of Indian Politics speaks .....DON'T MISS #Chanakya every Sunday at 10 am only on @DDNational... pic.twitter.com/4iaBVdpoi2

BRF Oldie
Posts: 9985
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby Yagnasri » 10 Aug 2014 04:22

ramana wrote:Looks like Doordahrshan is reviving the Chanakya serial

The Machiavelli of Indian Politics speaks .....DON'T MISS #Chanakya every Sunday at 10 am only on @DDNational... pic.twitter.com/4iaBVdpoi2

Dont you have the serial full set with you??? I got it. See it from time to time. Lot of wisdom there and quite close to reality. Forced to make it a short end at the end due to Govt presure. Even the songs were written by Atalji.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 10 Aug 2014 05:32

I do have it. Its interesting that the serial is being re-telecast.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 14 Aug 2014 02:23

A relatively recent appraisal of Chankaya's Arthasastra

Roger Boesche on Kautilya's Arthasastra

To return to Machiavelli's The Art of War after reading the military writings of Kautilya is jolting. It becomes readily apparent that Machiavelli is not even trying to tell us something new about warfare, because he believed the ancient Greeks and Romans knew it all—aside from such [End Page 36] things as artillery. What did Machiavelli want to resurrect from ancient Rome and transport to Renaissance Florence? He wanted Rome's battalions and legions and cohorts, and maybe Scipio once again arrayed across the plain from Hannibal. And thus compared to Kautilya and Sun Tzu, Machiavelli's writings on warfare are tired and tedious, filled with nostalgia for long-dead legions that once gained glory. He wanted the public battlefield, the grand spectacle, fame for some and cowardice for others. Sun Tzu and Kautilya did not care a whit for glory and fame. They wanted to win at all costs and to keep casualties—on both sides—to a minimum. Said Sun Tzu, "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." 189 They were also prepared to win in ways Machiavelli would regard as dishonorable and disgraceful—assassination, disinformation, causing quarrels between ministers by bribes or by means of jealousy over a beautiful woman planted as a secret agent, and so on. Machiavelli—who offers no systematic discussion of even guerrilla warfare—would have been easily outmatched by generals reading either Sun Tzu or Kautilya.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby Atri » 22 Aug 2014 13:55


The Perspective

The Indian Constitution was created under extremely difficult circumstances. In the initial phases of the work of the Constituent Assembly it was not clear whether the Muslim-majority areas of the country shall remain within the Indian Union or not. After formalisation of the Partition of the country, the Assembly worked under the shadow of the chaos and violence associated with this climactic event in the history of India. This, along with the prevailing uncertainty about the position of the princely states, created fears about the unity and stability of the country.

Under the circumstances, keeping the administrative machinery intact became the main concern of the makers of the constitution. This perhaps was the major reason why the Government of India Act of 1935, under which the colonial administration was functioning, became the basis of the constitution of free India. The concern with keeping the machinery of colonial administration intact is strongly reflected in the debates that took place on those parts of the constitution which went beyond the Act of 1935, especially the parts relating to fundamental rights and federal structures. In the debates on these aspects of the constitution, the members seem to be constantly worried that granting various freedoms and rights to citizens and the states of the Union may weaken the administrative apparatus inherited from the colonial administration. They seem to be constantly hedging the rights of the individuals and the states with a variety of provisos and limitations.

Besides the fear of loss of administrative control, the other major concern that informed the makers of the constitution was their firm belief that the Indian people needed to be guided towards economic and political maturity through the intervention of the state. This belief was partly a hangover of the arguments advanced by the British, who had always pretended that they were in India to provide a paternalistic administration since the people of India themselves were incapable of governing and improving themselves. The belief was reinforced by the socialist milieu of the times. Those were the times when almost everyone in the world believed that the economic and political development of nations was the responsibility of national bureaucracies.

This fear of the political and economic immaturity of the Indians led the makers of the constitution not only to provide constitutional protection to the colonial administrative machinery, but also to give extraordinary powers to the judiciary to oversee the functioning of the political legislatures. The makers of the constitution, it seems, were not sure that the legislatures chosen by the people of India, who they believed were largely illiterate and politically immature, would always act wisely. So they created a judiciary that is known to be more powerful than any other judiciary in the world.

The concern with keeping the colonial administrative machinery intact combined with the fear of the immaturity of the Indian people led to the emasculation of the political executive. The constitution first placed all initiative in the hands of the central government. And then the initiative of the central government was so hedged in by the sanctity accorded to the bureaucratic structures and the all-pervasive judicial overseeing that the political executive at the Centre itself became powerless to initiate anything substantive. The government that came into being under the constitution was thus a caricature of the colonial government; the colonial administrative machinery remained intact but the power and initiative that vested in the Viceroy and even the provincial governors to direct and purposely utilise this machinery evaporated.

The emasculation of the central political executive did not become too tangible till men like Patel and Nehru, who were looked upon as respected peers by the bureaucracy and judiciary, led the government. Though even for Nehru and Patel the struggle to defend political legislature and executive from judicial intervention began from almost the beginning. But, later Prime Ministers of India and their governments felt the lack of constitutional space for any political initiative at every step. The situation has deteriorated further and further, and today the political executive seems to have ceded much of its authority to the various bureaucratic and judicial structures created by the constitution. This is how India has come to be the proverbially soft state of the world.

The makers of the constitution also seem to have believed, along with the colonial British administrators, that India is not one nation, it is a conglomerate of numerous minorities placed alongside an uncaring and orthodoxy-ridden caste-Hindu majority. Therefore there was a deep concern to provide extraordinary constitutional protections for the minorities on the one hand, and on the other hand to give powers to the state to act in order to “reform” the Hindu majority. The provisions regarding the minorities were fortuitously kept under some control because the partition had made it imperative for the leaders of diverse minorities to be somewhat accommodative. But, the concern of reforming Hindu society through the intervention of the state remained strong.

Many of the concerns and beliefs that we have outlined above perhaps were inherent to the process that was adopted for making the constitution. The constituent assembly was chosen by an electorate that constituted less than one third of the adult population of India. The members of the assembly largely came from the section that was familiar and conversant with the functioning of the colonial administrative and legal machinery. At that time there were probably a few thousand Indians who had acquired such familiarity with the colonial apparatus, and the assembly was drawn mainly from these. The constituent assembly further left the detailed working out and drafting of the constitutional provisions to a select group of legal and administrative luminaries of the time. There were perhaps about 21 experts who directed all facets of the making of the constitution, ranking members of all significant committees of the constituent assembly were drawn from these. Of these 21 experts, 12 were lawyers, another 4 were career administrators, and one had been a medical doctor. At least 6 of this select group had never had any relation with the Congress, and several of them were known to be opposed to the spirit of the freedom movement. It seems that from the beginning the making of the constitution was taken not as a political task, but as an exercise in legal and administrative expertise.1

The concerns that informed the making of the Indian constitution have become irrelevant today. Though there continue to be some fissiparous tendencies on the borders of India, the unity and integrity of India is hardly in doubt. The people of India have shown extraordinary political maturity and sagacity in most circumstances. And, the belief that national bureaucracies would guide the nations to economic and political strength has become outdated all over the world.

India today is strong enough to let the different constituents take the initiative in matters of political, social and economic development. The times, in fact, demand that such initiative is encouraged at all levels. Through the process of economic liberalisation, we are trying to squeeze some economic initiative out of the clutches of the bureaucratic machinery. But, in the absence of thoroughgoing changes in the colonial administrative and judicial arrangements enshrined in the Indian constitution, the political executive at the national and lower levels is likely to remain emasculated. And the initiative of the Indian people at all levels is likely to remain tied down in the maze of bureaucratic and legalistic rules and regulations. There is therefore an urgent need to review the constitution from this perspective.

In the following, we outline some of the fundamental changes that, we believe, are minimally required to restore some dynamism into the constitutional arrangements.

Preamble of the Constitution

A constitution is not meant to merely create the legislative, administrative and judicial structures and establish the necessary balance between these institutions. The larger objective of a constitution is to remind the nation of its civilisational genius, urges and seekings. By thus reminding the nation, a constitution motivates the people to make the necessary effort so that the genius of the nation may find a forceful expression and the urges and seekings may be abundantly fulfilled in the present day world. The legislative, administrative and judicial structures that a constitution creates are mere mechanisms to facilitate such expression and fulfilment of the national genius and urges. This mechanism of course has to be made powerful and appropriate to the seekings of the nation. But the main objective of the constitution is to define the seekings and to give expression to the national resolve to fulfil these.

The preamble of a constitution is the appropriate place for defining the civilisational genius, urges and seekings of a nation. Thus, the preamble of the modern Chinese constitution makes lofty references to the history, culture and geography of China. “China”, the preamble begins, “is one of the countries with the longest histories in the world. The people of all nationalities in China have jointly created a splendid culture and have a glorious revolutionary tradition.” And it states that, “Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People’s Republic of China. It is the lofty duty of the entire Chinese people, including our compatriots in Taiwan, to accomplish the great task of reunifying the motherland.”2

The Japanese, while promulgating a modern constitution for themselves in 1898, went to great lengths to relate their new constitution with the deepest past of Japan. The promulgation of the new constitution was made to coincide with the 2549th anniversary of the supposedly mythical founding of Japan. On the morning of that day, the Emperor presented himself in front of his imperial ancestors to assure them on oath that the new constitution was being promulgated to “the end of preserving the ancient form of government bequeathed by them to the country.” Later, a Shinto priest delivered this message to the “myriad gods” at the palace shrine. And, special imperial messenger, who had been previously dispatched, reported the message to the Ise shrine and to the spirits of Emperor Jimmu, the founder of Japan, and Emperor Komei, father of the then Emperor Meiji. Only after thus informing the gods and the ancestors was the Constitution of Japan published for the world in a glittering secular ceremony held in the afternoon. And, even this secular ceremony was designed to convey and preserve the mythical significance of the promulgation of the constitution.3

The preamble of the Indian constitution, unfortunately, makes no such effort to relate itself to the civilisational history or the sacred geography of India. It makes no reference to the genius, urges or seekings of the Indian people. On the contrary, it refers loftily to the concepts of Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity derived from the French revolution. These sentiments can raise no resonance in the hearts of the people of India, who are hardly expected to be acquainted with the history of Europe or to be moved by the European ideals.

If the Constitution of India is to strike a chord in the hearts of the people of India, the preamble must be amended to include appropriate references to the deepest urges of our civilisation. Much thought shall have to be given to the appropriate phrasing of this part of the Constitution. But it shall have to include words to the effect that: “The Republic of India is dedicated to the service of the sanatana civilisation of India. The Republic is founded to preserve and project the great glory of the sanatana Indian civilisation in the modern times. Keeping this objective in view the Republic shall persistently endeavour to further develop the unmatched spiritual and material capabilities of the Indian people. The Republic shall endeavour to ensure that all people of India get the opportunity to exercise these capabilities of theirs and thus to powerfully manifest their civilisational genius, urges and seekings.”


Citizens constitute the basic units of a nation. Constitutions of different nations expect those who would be citizens to have a certain commitment to and faith in the civilisational genius, urges and seekings of the nation, and to acquire virtues appropriate to the spirit of the nation. Most nations impart training in citizenship and patriotism to their young in diverse ways.

Soon after the promulgation of the Constitution in 1889, the Emperor of Japan issued a Rescript on Education, which sought to lay down the personal and moral virtues expected of a citizen of Japan. Issued in 1890 after much deliberation and extremely careful drafting, the Imperial rescript was soon enshrined at the core of moral education. Bowing before the Rescript and ceremonially reading it out became part of the morning ritual in the schools. The Rescript arouse such interest and devotion amongst the people of Japan that by 1940 there were as many as 595 book-length commentaries interpreting and explaining its intentionally terse and heavily meaning-laden phrases.4

Meiji Japan, of course, pursued the task of patriotism training, nation building and inculcation of virtue extremely vigorously. Other nations however do not neglect the task. The Constitution of India is probably unique in not expecting any particularly Indian commitment or virtue from the citizens. The main clause regarding citizenship in the Constitution (Article 5(c)) laid down that every person who had been ordinarily resident in India for not less than five years immediately preceding the commencement of the Constitution was entitled to be a citizen of India. According to this clause almost all of the British persons in India at the time of Independence could have chosen, if they so wished, to stay on as citizens of Independent India, and probably continued to occupy the administrative and other positions they were holding.

Except for providing such guarantees of citizenship to various classes of persons, the Constitution makes little provision regarding citizenship. Most of the matters concerning citizenship are left to the discretion of the parliament and future judicial interpretations. The chapter on fundamental duties (Article 51A) introduced through the much maligned 42nd amendment of 1976 does lay down some expectations from the citizens, but these are in the nature of common platitudes and hardly anyone seems to pay any attention to these duties.

The citizenship provisions of the Constitution need to be tightened up so that being a citizen of India becomes both a high honour and a deep responsibility. We can probably add words to the effect that, “It is expected of the citizens of India that they shall have faith and loyalty towards the sanatana civilisation of India and shall be ever ready to sacrifice all for defending the glory and greatness of India and the Indian civilisation.” The exact virtues to be defined and the words to be used shall of course have to be selected after much thought and discussion.

But it is not merely a matter of adding a few high-sounding words to the constitution. Having made the enabling provisions in the Constitution, we must introduce proper citizenship and patriotism training in our schools, so that the future citizens begin to realise the glory and the responsibility of being an Indian.

States of the Union

Just as the Constitution makes little attempt to define the specific virtue of being an Indian citizen, similarly it gives little recognition to the specific identity of the Indian states that together constitute the Union. As far as the Constitution is concerned the States of India are such amorphous entities that the Parliament has been given the right to increase or diminish the area of a State, alter its boundaries or change its name. And for doing all this, the Parliament needs to only ascertain the views of the legislatures of the concerned State or States; their consent to the changes is not necessary. The Parliament can effect such far-reaching changes in the boundaries and names of the States under its normal legislative powers; such changes do not even have the sanctity of a constitutional amendment. (Articles 3 and 4).

At the time the Constitution was promulgated, it was perhaps necessary for the Parliament to be given such overriding powers concerning the States. After the princely states were merged into the Union, reorganisation of state boundaries drawn by the colonial administration and renaming of many states had become essential to accommodate the legitimate regional identities and aspirations. But, there is no justification for the Parliament to retain this untrammelled right to reorganise and rename States after fifty years of independence. There is a need to seriously review these provisions.

The States of India are not mere administrative units. Indian civilisation has manifested in diverse linguistic, historic, literary and cultural forms in the diverse regions of India. One of the greatest achievements of the Indian civilisation is in having kept these diverse forms together within the umbrella of an overarching and essentially unified Indian-ness. Therefore the greater glory of Indian civilisation is best sought in the further development and blossoming of the diverse forms in which it manifests in the different regions of India.

We should therefore now endeavour to provide constitutional stability to the boundaries of the States of India so that their specific identity receives formal recognition. The responsibility of accommodating sub-regional cultural or linguistic aspirations of groups within the States can then be legitimately left to the States themselves. In this context it should be recalled that Mahatma Gandhi, had always insisted that the boundaries of the Indian States are not a matter of mere administrative convenience; there existed natural cultural boundaries, which he felt were best determined on a linguistic basis. And, in the first Constitution of the Indian National Congress that he drafted in 1920, he provided a list of Provinces on the basis of language.5 How can we keep such natural boundaries administratively fluid after fifty years of independent functioning?

There are several provisions in the Constitutions that regulate the relations between the Union and the States, and most of these tend to vest the Union with overriding powers. Articles 249 to 254 vest the Union with the power to legislate on subjects in the States list under various circumstances. Article 256 and 257 give the Union executive the power to issue directions to the States on various subjects. Articles 268 to 280 make provisions for the distribution of resources between the Union and the States, and these provisions establish an explicit ascendancy of the Union over the major sources of revenue. All these and related provisions need to be reviewed, so that the States may acquire the greatest possible responsibility in legislative, judicial, administrative and fiscal matters.

The list of subjects in the so-called Union List, State List and Concurrent List also need to be reviewed. These lists originated in the Government of India Act of 1935. The British delegated certain subjects to the States, and then circumscribed the responsibility of the States by creating several provisions that vested in the Union the authority to intervene in these matters. In addition, they created a Concurrent List of subjects in which the responsibility of the States was made explicitly subject to the higher control and supervision of the Union.

We should arrive at a clear assessment of what issues and subjects may be handled by the States, and then the entire responsibility for these should be placed on them. Central intervention in such matters should then be restricted only in case of clear and imminent emergency. Duality of responsibility in most matters, as is the case today, seems only to breed irresponsibility all around, with the States blaming the Union for their failures and the Union doing likewise.

Making the States thus clearly and solely responsible for matters that fall within their domain shall help the States contribute effectively to the development of the Indian civilisation in its diverse forms. This shall also greatly reduce the burden on the Union executive, and thus give it the freedom to energetically pursue the larger national and international objectives that necessarily fall within the domain of the Union. Vesting the States with such clear and well-defined responsibility is particularly apt in the current international situation, when there is intense pressure on the Union to cede larger and larger areas of national sovereignty to multilateral control, supervision and direction. With the States becoming solely responsible for matters falling within their domain, the Union shall be forced to effectively consult the States before opening any new area of national economy and polity to global access. This shall help the Union withstand pressure in multilateral negotiations. For this strategy to succeed, it is important that the States should have no power to deal directly with foreign or international agencies. States ought to be autonomous within India, but their economic or other dealings with the rest of the world must take place only through the Union. The current tendency of allowing the States to seek and negotiate foreign collaborations directly needs to be curbed immediately.

Provisions Concerning the Minorities

Every self-confident nation makes provisions for the protection of minority groups. Such protection is accorded so that the diverse cultural, linguistic and other capabilities of minority groups may contribute to and thus enrich the national mainstream, which naturally is constituted of the majority. Section 29 of the Constitution that guarantees protection of the minorities, however, almost invites diverse groups to claim special rights in the name of their distinct language, script or culture. The other provision regarding minorities, Article 30, gives the minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice and thus creates an invidious distinction against the majority. The right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice is a natural right of all communities, whether constituting a minority or a majority. The article does not in fact give any special right to the minorities, but takes away a valuable natural right from the majority.

These two articles together have created a premium upon various groups to break away from the national mainstream. Groups that would have been happy and proud of being distinct yet inseparable parts of the mainstream have therefore begun to discover and claim separate identities. These constitutional provisions, instead of providing protection to the minorities, have had the effect of creating new minorities and vitiating the integrity and depth of the national mainstream.

There is an urgent need to seriously review both these provisions. The minorities of course must be provided guarantees of protection. But such guarantees must be such as not to create pressures on diverse groups to separate from the mainstream. Article 29 certainly needs redrafting. And, the protection of Article 30 needs to be equitably extended to all people of India.

Provisions Concerning Freedom of Religion

Article 25 grants “freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.” Freedom to profess and practice the religion of their choice is of course a natural right of all citizens in a secular state. But, the freedom to “propagate” that has been included in this clause is highly unusual. No secular state guarantees the freedom to propagate and convert people from other faiths. This freedom has been fortuitously circumscribed by the judicial interpretations of the term “propagate”, which have held that “propagation” does not mean “conversion”. But the phrasing of the original clause leaves much scope for intense proselytising activity on behalf of various religions and sects.

The second clause of the Article makes two provisos to the freedom of religion. The first proviso gives the State the authority to regulate or restrict “secular activities” associated with religious practice, and the second proviso vests in the State the power to make laws for “social welfare and reform” of Hindu religious institutions.

The first of these provisos is applicable to all religions, but in practice has been used to control and regulate the functioning of only the Hindu institutions. The second proviso is specifically aimed at Hindus and their institutions alone. Judicial interpretations of these provisos have so extended the definition of “secular activities associated with religious practice” as to allow the State to take over control of all aspects of the Hindu religious institutions, and directly interfere with the established rituals and customs. In several States, especially in the South, under the protection of these provisos, temple properties have been frittered away, temple incomes are being applied towards the salaries of highly paid government officers, and temples are being run more or less as departments of the State government. The States do even claim and exercise the right of not only prescribing the qualifications and conditions of service of the priests, but also the language and form of the ritual.

This certainly amounts to invidious interference in the religious affairs of the majority of the Indian people. Religion is at the core of Indian civilisation. Provisions concerning religious freedom in the Indian constitution should therefore be the ideal for the world. India ought not to restrict or control the religious practice of any group, whether that of the majority or minority. The first clause of Article 25 already makes the freedom of religious practice subject to public order, morality and health. The only other proviso we need to add is that such practice may not interfere with the security and integrity of the nation; and that the religious affairs and religious institutions of no religion in India may be subject to foreign control or domination.6 The right to freedom of religious practice ought not to be circumscribed by any other provisos. People of India ought to be left free to organise, institutionalise and practise their religious affairs themselves, neither the State in India nor any foreign agencies or bodies need have any say in it.

The current provisions of Article 25 instead of granting religious freedom have the effect of taking away the right of the Hindus to run their own religious institutions and affairs. These also give the State the right to aggressively interfere with the custom, rituals and beliefs of the Hindus in the name of social reform. This article therefore needs to be reviewed seriously.

Judiciary and Administration

The Constitution of India is perhaps the longest constitution in the world. This extraordinary length of the Indian constitution arises in large part from the detailed provisions it makes regarding the public services and the Judiciary. The Constitution records in great detail the structure of administrative and judicial institutions, and the rights, privileges and also the salaries and allowances of public and judicial officers at various levels. Most democratic constitutions of the world record only the fundamental principles of governance, and leave such detailed working out of the administrative and judicial arrangements to the wisdom of the Parliaments. Such institutions are almost always created by legislative acts of Parliaments, not by constitutional fiats.

The leaders of the Constituent Assembly deliberately chose to include detailed administrative and judicial arrangements in the Constitution of India. One reason for this decision was that in the prevailing circumstances, the leading founding fathers were keen to retain intact the administrative and judicial arrangements of the colonial administration. And therefore they found it necessary and expedient to provide constitutional guarantees to the high administrative and judicial officers that their domain of authority as well as their salaries, perquisites and privileges would remain unaltered in independent India. But perhaps even a more pressing reason was that many of the leading founding fathers had little faith in the wisdom and maturity of the people of India and the Parliaments chosen by them. They were afraid that Parliaments might chose to make drastic alterations in the administrative and judicial structures of the colonial administration, which many of them believed were ideal for the governance of India.

Dr. Ambedkar, known as the father of the Indian Constitution, expressed his fears openly, declaring that the details of administrative and judicial arrangements must be enshrined in the Constitution because ‘it is perfectly possible to pervert the Constitution without changing its form by merely changing the form of adminstration’.7 Dr. Ambedkar in fact was of the view that independent India does not need a new constitution, the Government of India Act of 1935 could itself form the Constitution of India.8 Eventually, as we have mentioned earlier, the Act of 1935 did become the basis of the Constitution of India.

The extraordinary sanctity provided to the administrative and judicial structures in the constitutional arrangement has served to severely restrict the initiative and authority of the Indian people and their elected representatives. That these arrangements were going to so restrict the initiative of the political authorities in carrying out any fundamental changes in the social milieu left behind by the British became clear at the very beginning. Several judgements of the various High Courts and the Supreme Court in the very first year of the coming into force of the Constitution challenged the authority of the Parliament and State Legislatures at a level that leaders of the stature of Patel and Nehru began to feel frustrated. And they felt the need to effect the first amendment of the Constitution to get around judicial pronouncements rather soon. The process to carry out the amendment was initiated in October 1950 and the amendment was passed by the provisional Parliament in May 1951, even before the first election under the new Constitution was held.9

It is possible to read the constitutional history of India as a tug of war for supremacy between the judiciary and the political authority, as a meticulous scholar of Indian Constitution seems to do in a recent study of the working of the Constitution during the first four decades.10 This tug of war gave rise to traumatic events in the current history of the nation. But more than anything else it has diverted the attention and energies of the nation from the primary task of nation-building to legalistic debates that have occupied the centre stage in the life of the nation.

The same level of controversy has not arisen about the constitutionally sanctified public services. But, clothed with constitutional protection, the administrative services, have continuously expanded their areas of influence, and curbed the initiative of the people at all levels. Only recently, under the influence of the global tilt towards free-market principles, has some effort been begun to lessen the rigours of the all-encompassing bureaucratic apparatus.

Whatever the reasons of the Constituent Assembly for enshrining the colonial administration and judiciary in the Constitution of free India, these arrangements cannot be allowed to be permanent. It is probably now high time to begin altering these arrangements and making them appropriate to the genius and seekings of the Indian people. As a first step towards this restructuring of the administrative and judicial apparatus of India, we need to bring these arrangements out of the Constitution and recreate these through legislative acts of the Parliament and the State Legislatures, as is done everywhere in the world.

We need to remove the constitutional protection provided to these arrangements, even if we chose to keep the arrangements entirely intact and unaltered at this stage. Such changes in the Constitution shall probably change nothing immediately, but it shall restore the dynamism to the development of administrative and judicial structures, and open the way for far-reaching changes in the future.

Sources for Rethinking the Constitution

The constitutional changes that we have suggested above are the minimal changes that we need to undertake to alter the colonial ways and structures that we inherited. Even after all these and similar other changes the resulting Constitution shall remain European in content and spirit; its basic structures shall remain unaltered. But it shall at least be an indigenously adapted European arrangement, which shall give due respect to the identity, dignity and initiative of the Indian people and their civilisation.

In order to bring the Constitution in consonance with the Indian sensibilities and the classical Indian ways of governance, we shall have to draft a new Constitution. That exercise is probably far in the future. Meanwhile we can certainly carry out an intensive study to the various sources that may be of help in moving in that direction.

One of the major sources of such rethinking about the Indian Constitution is the life and works of Mahatma Gandhi. Indian freedom movement under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi was aimed at restoring initiative in all matters to the people of India and to the basic political and economic unit of grama around which they were organised. Mahatma Gandhi was not much enamoured of the European and socialist ideal of state taking the responsibility for social and economic revolution. He preferred to leave the initiative in such matters with the people and their gramas. Mahatma Gandhi gave much consideration to how the grama was to be revived and restored to its central position in the Indian polity. It is indeed tragic that the leading founding fathers, entrusted with the task of drafting a Constitution that was to formalise the freedom won under the leadership of the Mahatma, gave so little importance to gramas and their panchayats. The first draft of the Constitution did not even include the term grama or panchayat. And, when several members vociferously objected to the omission, a single clause desiring the States to “take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government” (Article 40) was included amongst the ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’.11

The Gandhian thought on polity was to a large extent derived from the basic principles of Indian civilisation concerning polity and governance. There is a vast corpus of classical Indian literature on these issues. And this literature is unanimous on the basic principles of political and social organisation.

In addition to the Gandhian and classical Indian thought, the experience of other nations of the world can also be of help in rethinking about the Indian Constitution. Many other countries of the world during the last couple of centuries have tried to build modern nations through the constitutional process. Some of these, like Japan in 1890, created a modern constitution with the deliberate intention of protecting themselves from the colonial influences that had subdued most nations around them. Other countries, like China in the 1980’s, have created constitutions to celebrate the revival of their civilisational greatness at the end of a couple of centuries of submission to alien civilisations. It shall be of help to look into these various constitutions. Within Europe, countries like Germany have created modern constitutional arrangements that continue to protect the traditionally high status and role of the local communities in the functioning of the polity. Scholars like Solzhenitsyn have also meditated on the constitutional arrangements that are likely to suit the traditional community-based organisation of Russia.

We need to study and comprehensively examine these sources to begin moving towards the creation of a Constitution that shall be Indian in content and spirit and express the national resolve to restore the civilisational glory of India in the modern times. But the minimal changes that we have suggested earlier in this paper and many other similar changes shall have to be undertaken immediately, to open the path for this larger restructuring.

Dr. J. K. Bajaj
Centre for Policy Studies, Chennai
044-8474352, 011-2714144, e-mail: policy@vsnl.com

BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby RoyG » 31 Aug 2014 01:51

I think we need to construct a personality profile of Modi.

Where do we place him on the personality spectrum?

What are his strengths?

What are his weaknesses?

What is his strategy? (Internal and External)

Is there a particular type of thought process, personality, etc. which is suitable to Indian conditions during different time periods?

What do our texts say? Do we have an indigenous psychology which specializes in personality spectrum? I feel this topic may enrich this thread.

Overall, the Japan trip is going well. However, I noted a few things when he first met Shinzo Abe. He seemed a bit desperate to be friendly to him and he seemed a bit aloof and excited at the same time. Perhaps, he may need a bit of time to acclimate to the workings of foreign visits. I could be completely wrong but its just a thought.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby RamaY » 31 Aug 2014 02:50

RoyG wrote:I think we need to construct a personality profile of Modi.

Where do we place him on the personality spectrum?

What are his strengths?

What are his weaknesses?

What is his strategy? (Internal and External)

Is there a particular type of thought process, personality, etc. which is suitable to Indian conditions during different time periods?

What do our texts say? Do we have an indigenous psychology which specializes in personality spectrum? I feel this topic may enrich this thread.

Overall, the Japan trip is going well. However, I noted a few things when he first met Shinzo Abe. He seemed a bit desperate to be friendly to him and he seemed a bit aloof and excited at the same time. Perhaps, he may need a bit of time to acclimate to the workings of foreign visits. I could be completely wrong but its just a thought.

Asking the same question differently

What action/perspective/attitude of Abe made him to be trusted by Modi? How/what can Xi or Obama learn from Abe that will make them more respectable/trustworthy to Modi?

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 31 Aug 2014 20:19

Atri said this eloquently

Where NaMo scores and PraMa did not was in following the dasha-lakshana dharma of Manu Maharaj...

१. धृति - DhRti - Patience
२. क्षमा - Kshamaa - Forgiveness
३. दम - Dama - Self control (i.e. control over mind, intellect and ego - Mana-buddhi-ahamkaara (मन/बुद्धी/अहंकार)
४. अस्तेय - Astéya - Non-stealing - no corruption
५. शौच - Shaucha - Cleanliness (of actions by all egos) - This is what Gandhiji called Saadhana Shuchita (साधन शुचिता) - Cleanlines of means
६. इन्द्रियनिग्रह - Control over 5 organs and desires they are associated with (Shabda-Sparsha-Roopa-Rasa-Gandha शब्द/स्पर्श/रूप/रस/गंध)
७. धी - Dhee - A good memory and reservoir of information
८. विद्या - Vidya - Knowledge to use the above mentioned vast reservoir of memories and information timely and appropriately
९. सत्य - Truth
१०. अक्रोध - Non-involvement/Staying emotionally neutral towards and unaffected by the decisions being taken. To use modern lingo - being professional.

NaMo scores on all ten points (may be no.2 is weak, but that is required IMO). PraMa's undoing was primarily due to lack of No. 6...

Also MB's Shanti and Anushashan Parvas give the template for the 'Just' ruler who believes in the right handed way.

Abe could have seen these qualities as he is also from Indic Shinto mould.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 05 Sep 2014 01:06

Putting things in Roman context, India's Augustus has arrived!!!!

NaMo is completing Baji Rao's unfinished work of reforming Mughalai Delhi culture!!!

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/ ... nd-radical

Right and Radical

The understated revolution of Prime Minister Narendra Modi


Cover story: 100 Days of Modi

When Barack Obama completed his first 100 days in office as President of the United States of America, historian Robert Dallek reportedly said, “I don’t think you can point to anything at the end of 100 days that will give you a clear indication of how we’re going to see the President’s performance at the end of four years.” Prime Minister Narendra Damodardas Modi’s critics maintain that no signals of ‘big-ticket’ reforms, political epiphanies or landmark decisions have emerged so far from his government as it completes 100 days in office, so how can it be effectively judged?

However, in his deliberately understated, macro objective-driven governance style—this is a contrast from his highly vocal electoral quest for high office—lies the clues to Modi’s personal vision for the nation’s future over the next five years. Calculatedly toning down the 24X7 media vuvuzelas that worked to his advantage at the hustings, Modi has chosen a different style of functioning as Prime Minister. This involves precision rather than broad-sweep communication as a key tool of governance.

Says Suresh Prabhu, who was a minister in the earlier NDA Government and has now drawn up a power sector roadmap for the Modi regime to work on: “This is a government led by a leader who has extraordinary oratorical power, something that made him Prime Minister. But having become one, he believes in the adage ‘Speak less, work more’. And he leads on this from the front, working 17 hours straight every day. He has kept all [elements of the] government machinery, ministers and bureaucrats on their toes since the day he took office. He takes daily meetings not just with his ministers but also with secretaries in all key departments.” Prabhu, a seasoned Modi watcher adds, “Now, he is preparing for the next extensive performance review of his men and women in the ministerial council: the first 100 days of governance have been earmarked for planning. The next 300 are for execution of planned projects. The following four years will be for new initiatives and action and course correction, where there is need. This will be especially so in core sectors and areas, including sanitation, water, energy, jobs and the economy— and about how to optimise delivery in all these through effective governance.”

Opting for a low-key approach, among the first things Modi did as Prime Minister was set a tone of modesty for his government to follow. The bill for refurbishing the three-house complex at 7 Race Course Road was, at a mere Rs 70 lakh, less than half the sum his predecessor Manmohan Singh spent on his new residence at Motilal Marg. That he was earnest about putting an end to ostentation and clearing the capital’s power corridors of cobwebs and deadwood in order to implement his new work style and philosophy was patently clear when, one hot afternoon, close to 42 trucks of rotting files, furniture and rusting gadgetry were moved out of the Ministry of External Affairs alone.

That real winds of change had swept that key arm of the Union Government so closely connected to the PMO was apparent when bureaucrats—used to living it up—were inculcated with a new work ethos, one of shramdaan, of work as a measure of goodwill for the people. Apart from punctuality, this meant a toning down of fancy foreign terminology and greater use of regular Hindi for broad communication and a finger on the pulse of all issues related to domestic governance and foreign policy. Notes a party insider: “It was the Prime Minister’s decision to build strong new bonds with the BRICS nations and strike out boldly in new directions, and it was his decision to not indulge in a media cirque while it was being negotiated. It was also a deliberate decision to use the official media to communicate achievements. The decision to proactively communicate each step of the Government in the evacuation of Indian nurses from Iraq through the minister and ministry, minimising the prevalent and pronounced occidental jargon and attitude and mindset, was part of the same rubric.”

According to a senior official of the Ministry of External Affairs, “The decision to call off the talks [with Pakistan] despite everything was taken by the PM himself.” Explains the official, “If an accredited diplomat is asked by the host country to desist from a particular action, he should pay heed. Hurriyat leaders may have been meeting the Pakistan High Commissioner on the eve of Indo- Pak talks for more than a decade, but that is a practice that won’t be allowed any longer. Naturally, the Government sent out a strong signal to Pak: ‘either meet us or talk to marginalised separatists’.”


Politically, Modi’s signals have been just as strong. He made it amply clear to the Congress that it cannot afford the vanity of a big player after having won a mere 44 seats in the Lok Sabha. The Government first signalled that the erstwhile ruling party would have to beg for the post of Leader of the Opposition, since it had no constitutional claim, and then pushed it to seek legal refuge. Critics have called this stance churlish, pointing to the importance of a vibrant opposition in a democracy to take the Government on over its policies and programmes. But armed with the rulebook and more concerned about revitalising the economy, this is a trade-off that Modi and his men appear to have accepted.

The message to the bureaucracy from the new political head of government was straightforward and hard hitting: ‘Shape up, or else!’ There would be no more leisurely golfing during work hours, no prolonged lunches at the Gymkhana Club, and strictly no cosying up with power for plum postings. Further, making it obvious to bureaucrats across the board that they would be empowered to take informed decisions on key issues—consulting the PM directly if need be on complex matters—Modi swiftly dismantled the 62 EGoMs and GoMs set up by the UPA II. Effectively, that put a full stop to the governance machinery’s attempts to use ‘policy paralysis’, institutionalised by the Singh regime, as an excuse to delay decisions. More importantly, say observers, the move to rid the system of these groups of ministers boosted the flagging morale of bureaucrats, since their inputs would be actively sought once again for crucial decisions. In turn, this has rejuvenated multiple mechanisms of governance down the line.

Points out a Union minister, “In fact, the PM has empowered bureaucrats amply. They have also been asked to use their negotiating skills and knowledge base to the optimum, so that issues in different sectors are resolved outside the red tape and only crucial problems are entered as notations on files.” In short, he says, Modi has told bureaucrats that a red carpet welcome instead of red tape barriers should define the theme in key sectors. Backed by informed bureaucrats in a crackling new regime with well-identified objectives, ministers have been empowered to take decisions in new ways as well. Modi has directed that only projects over Rs 1,000 crore should be decided upon by the Union Cabinet. Otherwise, the concerned sector’s ministry may take the call on approvals and suchlike.


Like Obama, :rotfl: Modi was a commander-in-chief in the making who was raring to go and driven by the challenge of fixing a government rocked by myriad corruption scandals, a weak leadership and an economy dangerously teetering at the edge of a precipice. Once in power with an overwhelming mandate, his style and optics changed in response to perceived needs of the time. As with Obama, his assumption of power was an extraordinary moment “full of peril and full of possibilities”. Running a tight ship as a captain firmly in command and with a clear navigation map for the nation was not one among many options; it was the only way ahead.

Obama in his first term was described by one author as the ‘explainer-in-chief, advocate-in-chief and initiator-in- chief’ for his diverse political and economic agenda. When he took over, he told his council of ministers that each one’s100-day agenda was to begin from day one. Prime Minister Modi, although an ‘outsider’ to New Delhi’s political corridors, was a highly successful three- time Chief Minister of Gujarat.

“Modi exudes an energy and urgency to get things done that leaves his ministers inspired and fuelled. It is something he has carried through to the PMO from Gandhi Nagar. He believes in hitting the ground running where work is concerned and works long hours every day, all year round. That is leading by example,” says a Cabinet minister.

Even before Modi took oath, he was obsessed with fixing the Government. “Barely hours after taking office, he asked his ministers to prepare a 100-day agenda with work cut out for bureaucrats,” the minister says. That is borne out by a blog on his personal website, Narendramodi.in, which asserts that the focus for the agenda was on governance and delivery systems—the fourth revolution—rather than the optics.

The dismantling of EGoMs—once seen to assure decision making a measure of sancitity—has speeded up decisions and put vested interests and sneaky lobbyists in trouble. Among the big issues muddled by the previous government was the pricing of gas; with an EGoM involved, the decision had dragged on inordinately. To resolve it expeditiously, Modi set up a Committee of Secretaries (CoS) comprising stakeholders and relevant ministry representatives (including of the Power and Fertiliser ministries). Again, on sugarcane pricing, the old EGoM has been dispensed with and the Cabinet and Principal secretaries are now authorised to iron out problems should they arise after the Agriculture Ministry took its decision. For the resolution of complex problems in key interlinked sectors such as infrastructure, energy and power, all relevant factors are to be monitored by the National Litigation Data Grid, which is expected to speedily resolve legal hassles.

On the food inflation front, the short-term price rise of essentials is being tackled by measures spelt out in the Union Budget, while for longer term solutions to the problem, the Government has given shape to a National Food Grid to rein in agri-commodity market speculators even while pursuing a hard line at the WTO on the right to stockpile foodgrains (which buys the Centre time to switch to cash transfers as a mechanism to provide food subsidies to the eligible). The latter was done, says one bureaucrat involved with earlier WTO negotiations, “only after shunting out Congress retainers from the forum”.

Plans to amend the Land Acquisition Bill are afoot in order to give a fillip to the economy through the revival of the real-estate sector. Together with swifter industrial clearances, the easing of access to large tracts of land for big projects is expected to set off a new cycle of large investments.

That Modi is determined to revitalise the manufacturing sector in order to exponentially boost jobs and strengthen the country’s economic core has been apparent in both word and action over the past 100 days. From his ‘making India’ sound bite to his urging World Bank President Jim Yong Kim not just help the country in mass production but in production by the masses, generating jobs galore, Modi’s government has, since taking charge in May, let few opportunities go to strengthen the manufacturing sector. Within just 45 days of its taking over, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman wrote to states to switch either to a third-party system of inspection or self assessment of industry, except in the case of those involved with hazardous stuff.

Under Modi’s baton, the Government has also set itself a specific goal of easing the regulatory environment for the corporate sector in order to improve the country’s rank (it is at No 134 right now on a list of 189 nations) on a globally recognised survey of ‘Ease of Doing Business’. The areas covered, in particular, will be the Tax Department (labour, central excise, VAT), where Small and Medium Enterprises complain of being at the receiving end of the ‘hostile attitude’ of various government agencies.

“He’s a man who puts his money where his mouth is,” says a senior BJP leader, citing the instance of the manufacturing sector. Gas Authority of India Ltd (GAIL), which gets shale gas from the US, did not have sufficient ships to ferry it home—till his intervention ensured that new vessels were put at GAIL’s disposal.

As an intrinsic part of his governance style, PM Modi has made sure that most key decisions with long- and medium- term implications in core sectors are being taken steadily and firmly, if quietly. Recently, he cleared an infrastructure project pegged at Rs 250 crore in 2006 that had ballooned to Rs 1,400 crore this year. However, he appended a note that authorised an immediate probe of how the estimate had expanded so much.


How effectively Modi has managed to plug all media and government leaks on key long-term decisions, a sharp departure from the UPA’s norms, was patently clear on the disbanding of the Planning Commission. Announced by the Prime Minister in his Independence Day address, the bold decision to move away from the era of Central Planning as an economic model, by eliminating its last vestige, came as a surprise to most. It was a response to the current economic reality of India. It also signals a federalist spirit that would mean India’s states do not have to play second fiddle to the Centre on core issues. Modi’s breakthrough on this has been welcomed by everyone barring unreconstructed Nehruvian socialists.

According to Arvind Panagariya, economics professor at Columbia University, “There is need to rethink the need for institutions such as the Planning Commission … I think planning has become our habit. We should break that habit. We are in a market economy. It has to be planned but not by the Planning Commission but by the ministries. Even in China, the National Planning Commission is now called National Reforms Commission.” That body is now to take shape.

The decision was taken at a Cabinet meeting before 15 August. Insiders say that the Prime Minister sent out a categorical signal at that meeting that prematurely giving out information on the Government’s decisions to the media or anyone else would not be brooked. At that same meeting, Modi is believed to have shot a direct look at the corner of the conference table while stressing—without taking names—that he saw no need to rush to the media each time a biofuel came up at a Cabinet meeting.

Meanwhile, the rumour industry within the party and outside has painted him as an iron-fist dictator, pushing his colleagues to their limits. One such was that he called up Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar to change into traditional attire after seeing him on TV wearing a T-shirt and jeans at the Indira Gandhi International Airport just as he was about to take an overseas flight. Javadekar has denied travelling abroad recently. According to another, the Prime Minister ticked off a Union minister for being seen with a corporate chief at a five-star hotel. One particularly controversial rumour has been about an alleged case of misconduct by Pankaj Singh, son of Home Minister Rajnath Singh; the national capital was rife with gossip that Pankaj was admonished by Modi over a financial misdemeanour.

The PMO has rubbished such news reports and rumours. A statement issued by it said: ‘This has reference to reports appearing in a section of the media over the past several weeks, mentioning the Prime Minister, and referring to the conduct of some Union Ministers, and alleged misconduct of the Home Minister’s son. The reports are plain lies, motivated and constitute a malicious attempt at character assassination and tarnishing the image of the Government. Those indulging in such rumour-mongering are damaging the interest of the nation. These reports are strongly denied.’

Rajnath Singh, former party president, had been accused of pitching for his son’s candidacy from Noida for the 13 September bypoll in Uttar Pradesh. Instead, the BJP named Batham, an industrialist, as its candidate, triggering rumours that Singh’s clout within the BJP is on the wane.

This has been among the only signs of unease within the party. The Home Minister has chosen to go public with a complaint to the Prime Minister and BJP President Amit Shah on a Central Hall-generated rumour. “I had brought it to the notice of the Prime Minister and the BJP president,” Rajnath Singh told the media, and added that he was willing to quit politics if there were any allegations against him or any member of his family.

The “I believe in clean politics” assertion of the Home Minister comes in the backdrop of the PMO assuming a larger role in steering national security issues and firming up of the bureaucracy. Unlike in the past, top bureaucrats are now handpicked by the PMO and sent to the Home Ministry only for endorsement.

Singh’s outburst comes close on the heels of a generational change in the BJP. Earlier this week, Shah revamped the BJP’s Parliamentary Board after removing LK Advani and MM Joshi from the panel. “The Advani camp, which is virtually defunct now, may find a new recruit,” says a party insider.

The truth is that the proverbial camp politics is dead, and what is in its place is a new imperium of the Right presided over by India’s most popular administrator and managed by his most trusted aide. The first hundred days of Prime Minister Modi show how Right and radical it could be.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 21196
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby Prem » 08 Sep 2014 05:28

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinio ... kistan/99/
Boxed in by Pakistan
Written by Raja Menon |

Five years after the nuclear tests, India published its doctrine, which spoke of “no first use”, minimum credible deterrence and implied a massive retaliatory strike if attacked with nuclear weapons. Although Pakistan’s doctrine is still unwritten, there is no ambiguity in New Delhi that Pakistan intends its nuclear arsenal to deter India’s conventional forces by nuclear first use. Since 1998, there have been three Indo-Pak crises in what might be called a nuclear environment. They are the Kargil conflict, the post-Parliament attack mobilisation and the attack on Mumbai in 2008. It was, however, Operation Parakram after the Parliament attack scenario that led to much theorising on the salience of nuclear weapons. The inability to mobilise the Indian army’s strike corps quickly enough led to talk of a “cold start” as a possible course of punitive action. Although cause and effect can only be speculated upon, Pakistan in 2012 deployed short-range nuclear-tipped missiles that could be used as battlefield nuclear weapons.Between 2002, when Operation Parakram was executed, and 2012, an argument has been conducted in a shadowboxing kind of manner between India and Pakistan. The Indians have held that Pakistan’s ongoing strategy of abetting terrorism in India will lead to reprisal using India’s conventional superiority, and Pakistan’s nuclear weapons will not deter it. Delhi and the three Indian armed forces did nothing, however, to implement any change in strategy or hardware to execute this punitive reprisal, apart from what had already been designed for a regular state-to-state conflict. Words such as “war below the nuclear threshold”, “space for conventional war below the nuclear threshold” and “full spectrum deterrence to close the threshold gap” were used. Normally countries that rely on nuclear deterrence resort to what is called “nuclear signalling” to convey nuclear intentions to the other side. Signalling should, over time, create stability, thereby avoiding nuclear crises. In South Asia, Pakistan has resorted to more and not always measured nuclear signalling, while India has been over-reticent in conveying nuclear intentions. The result is that there is deep nuclear instability in the Indo-Pak relationship, which unfortunately resembles no other bilateral nuclear relationship of the Cold War. There are no precedents to go by, particularly in the use of terrorists by Pakistan as an instrument of state policy, along with nuclear weapons.The result is that there is a tactical imperative on India to resort to a conventional punitive strike which, in a stable nuclear environment, would be hazardous. A couple of army chiefs who declared that India has the ability to wage a conventional war below the nuclear threshold were silenced by an obstructive defence minister, signalling Indian confusion to the Pakistanis. Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) have been seen by India as a signal that the window for a conventional strike has been closed, thereby boxing India in between terror and TNWs.
India needs to respond, either practically or by signalling. The establishment has so far preferred to do nothing, implying that India’s nuclear doctrine is meant to perpetually signal its intentions of massive nuclear retaliation. The BJP manifesto speaks of “revisiting” the nuclear doctrine. This is eminently sensible after 16 years because the circumstances have altered. What options does India have? The first is to adhere to the existing doctrine and signal that intention as India’s response to Pakistan’s changed inventory. It is important that India disregard Pakistan’s nuclear threshold in its determination to punish it for a major terror strike by resorting to an overland armoured strike. This option is better than doing nothing, because a reinforced nuclear signal is sent that we consider the doctrine to be adequate against Pakistan’s TNWs. A second option is to remove all references to “massive”, substituting it with “punitive”. This is of huge consequence. First, it reinforces India’s intention to punish terror with conventional war. Second, it deters the use of TNWs at the perceived nuclear threshold to fight “past” it. Third, it signals the readiness to fight an escalatory nuclear war and therefore the threat not to go there. The second option certainly has advantages over the first.
A third option is to signal readiness to punish terror by “means not necessarily limited to army action”. This option requires much homework by the navy and air force, which have to provide better answers than normal attritional warfare. War-gaming is called for. The government should also hasten the setting up of a long-overdue, strong special operations command. A fourth option is to threaten to fight “through” TNWs by overtly preparing to fight an armoured battle “through” a nuclear attack which, incidentally, has already been gamed by the Americans as producing negligible tank casualties. Appropriate nuclear signalling is also required. So getting out of the box is not difficult, with many options available to India in facing simultaneous threats from terror and TNWs.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 10 Sep 2014 22:08

I don't think the 'massive' should be substituted with 'punitive' for it lessens the threat. If any one recalls, it was the re-iteration of massive retaliation by Shyam Saran that triggered howls of protest by TSP chatteratti.
They don't like jahannum and can live with anything less than that. Having found their 'sweet'/hard spot India should not tone it down.

Also MND was an opening stance to get accepted as a SNW.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby RoyG » 10 Sep 2014 23:56

I disagree. By using 'massive' we limit our options and they can use it to promote alarmism. Punitive suits us but we only if we can give them a few demonstrations like hitting hitting their embassy in Sri Lanka if they hit ours in Afghanistan or bumping off a high level "non state actor" who lives in an ISI safe house. They know that we won't cross the border anyway, especially when our economic and cultural aspirations are very high. The only way the IB is ever going to be crossed in a big way is when they get de-nuked.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 11 Sep 2014 01:34

Massive is the only option they fear. Deterrence is about what they fear. Not what we can or should do.

Punitive is when they become more civilized. Lessening it reduces the threshold.

MAD was the starting point between US-USSR. Slowly it changed.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby Shreeman » 11 Sep 2014 03:23

There is still very little evidence of the apna haath, jagannath spirit -- pride in manufacturing -- that is evident or emerging in strategic thought. If anyone sees relevant recent/current developments of establishment of not just indigenous productipn but why one should proudly pick local over rebased, that would be appreciated.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby RoyG » 11 Sep 2014 09:44

It's going to be led by the private sector in a big way in a few years after the economy opens up a bit more. It needs a bit of foreign investment, espionage, infrastructure, and involvement of research centers and universities.

We need our own servers, chips, and operating systems to ensure that we remain independent from China and the West.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 22 Oct 2014 20:25


Atri wrote:
AjayKK wrote:After looking at all the constituencies in MH, it is calculated that NCP+INC lost 31 seats by fighting separately.

After BJp and SS split, had the NCP+INC contested together, they would have bagged 31 extra seats, the BJp losing 18, SS 12 and 2 independents would have lost as well.


Now, when you face 15 years of anti-incumbency, you do not fight separately and split the votes. If people like us know this, then Pawar etc know 100 times better. The split was caused by NCP pulling out few minutes after BJP SS split.

Most likely, this split has been engineered from Delhi. So, NCP seems to be on board with a quid pro quo deal. Also, 20-25 sleeper cell candidates of NCP migrated to BJP before the elections.
Thus, it seems that while BJP will succeed in forming the gov ( few NCp/Sena men may defect and fight elections on BJP ticket after few months), the force behind mercantile mafia seems to have invested themselves with the BJP. Apart from pressures within, will be difficult to deliver Vidharba. Maybe, Namo-AS and BJP will surprise us on this, but looks somewhat difficult.


Read my posts on Mumbai, and you will get the hint of this.

International powers have latched on to Modi to save their musharrafs from impending crisis. This is an article I wrote in 2010.

China and its Options - Implications for India

USA and PRC desperately want India to develop and empower her domestic market and abide to rules of WTO faithfully and buy their goods. They will control the demons created by them (Pakistani Army, Taliban and ISI) so that India spends more on development and defense. And India is doing that. But, it is frustratingly slow and also, India's efforts for total indegenisaton and hunger for Transfer of Technology is what is pinching them.

Within 15 years, If current growth rate continues, India will be powerful enough to assert her dominance over Indian Ocean and Indian subcontinent. That will be the time when the need of oil will start becoming dire and India is geopolitically well placed to extract the benefit. It is not long before India will remove this thorn in her leg, called Pakistan and start running.

Hence, they don't want India to become too powerful and start projecting her power beyond her boundaries. In other words, PRC and Unkil are looking for a decent girl who will become an ideal house-wife. Kaaryeshu Daasi, Karaneshu Mantri, Bhojyeshu Maata, Roopeshu Lakshmi, Shayaneshu Rambha, Kshamayeshu Dharitri, Satkarma Naari, Kuladharma Patni as described in Neetishaastram !!

Middle East is firmly under USA's grip and they won't tolerate anybody else's presence, especially of the one who is perceived as friend of Islamic nations due to Israel.

The love which blossomed between Manmohan Singh (MMS) and Bush was strictly business. The asset which dubya liked in Indya was her economy and market.

If India can work out her internal problems and develop the rural component, she will be able to project her Mohini Roop (economy and market) and Durga Roop (military) at will.

Mohini Roop of Bharati can deal with jolted asuras who were running for Amrita-Kumbha and are now distressed. It is this Mohini Roop that can potentially contribute significant;y in pulling the world out of recession. Beauty is, in strange manner, extremely powerful. Even Durga is described as so incredulously beautiful that Shumbha-Nishumbha fell in love with her. A beautiful intelligent woman with stable mind can achieve lot more than man. Her soft power is extremely potent. Just that, under UPA govt led by MMS, this Mohini became a dumb-blonde.

For people who listen to reason (PRC, USA et al), Mohini can persuade them to fall in line. For dick-heads like Shumbha-Nishumbha, Chanda-Munda and Mahishasura (Pakistani Army, ISI, Taliban et al), Durga-Roop is more than enough.

Modi has made asuras (west and china) fall for Mohini Roopam of Desh. Once Mohihi made the proposition to asuras about distribution of amruta, she was committed (until the coup-moment when they started fighting for amruta kumbha).

Similarly, Modi is now committed to create avenues in India for rotting paper-money of west to increase its value.

I have mentioned it earlier here - All the investments are going to be parked in western India. There was a video of Brookings institute post modi's victory (sadanand dhume was part of delegation that spoke). One of the speakers spoke about impending BJP (nDA) victory in HR and MH and how winning these two states will create a contiguous region which will be business-friendly..

No body (speaking about FDI investors) wants to put their money in eastern India. Eastern India has to depend on govt for keeping things going.

It is western India that is the driving engine fo India..

As investments pour in, bulk will be parked in western half of India (AP to some extent for no further).

There will be huge migrations from rest of INdia to western Indian states. This will create an imbalance. It will question the very foundation of the concept of nation-state and linguistic organization of states.

Gujaratis have not yet experienced this so far. MH has. As Gujjus start experiencing the huge influx of migrants, it will enter a phase that MH and Mumbai in particular entered in 70s and 80s. With all its development etc, GJ is THAT FAR BEHIND of Maharashtra. I will not be surprised if Sena type parties emerge in GJ. MP, RJ, HR will not have these problems.

MH, on the other hand, will enter a crucial phase which none of us here have gamed. The influx of migrants in MH will be HUGE as business starts flourishing in BJP govt's era. Hindu migrants - no problem. But development brings in Muslims as well, which are a very big problem. It will screw up the very basis of Marathi-language based Maharashtra state. As I have explained in my articles, Marathi-parochialism is nothing like Tamil parochialism - i.e. the insistence of Sena-types is not on language per se, but on jobs of those who's surname sounds maharashtrian. Most maharashtrians are very good at Hindi.

All those who are going to put money in India - want stable western India. Most importantly, they want stable MH. If I am not mistaken, unless India and Modi wants to piss of French, Shivsena will have to give-up their opposition to Jaitapur Nuclear power-plant by Areva. There is huge pressure on "Mohini" Modi to make sure that their money is safe. Unstable MH means bulk of India's money vanished. This pressure is far far beyond any party politics that sena-types indulge in.

Sharad Pawar understands this. BJP is beginning to understand this. Sena will never understand this (but then they need not understand this anyways). All this realignment is for that.

There are other pre-requisites (GST being one of them). But foremost is political stability in western half of India. Otherwise everything that Modi is selling will go bye bye.

The need is of both parties (west and desh). The west now understands the problem of Islamic chutiyapa than it did decade ago. Now I doubt whether world will react similar to the way it reacted to gujarat riots. The world will mostly be indifferent. public consciousness has been constantly bombarded by islamic barbarism. Any counter-attack will not register.

It is very dangerous game that Mohini (i.e. VishNu) played in Samudra-Manthana. We all hail him because she was successful. But it was a very elaborate and delicate game. India is attempting similar game now. The future I modeled in article cited above is beginning to fructify now.

Of course, there are petty political issues - Pawar wants safety for himself and future for his daughter against his nephew etc. Modi/BJP is INCAPABLE of taking on Dawood-bhai. Yes, they will in all probability unleash police on petty gaanDus and make Mumbai again a safer city. may be one or two riots to take care of Muslims. They may even bring back Dawood-Bhai himself (or kill him in action like osama) and earn brownie points - Dawood-bhai has served his utility now. But the mafia that operates in Mumbai and which has now gone legitimate, will not be touched (rather cannot be touched) in a way that will threaten its existence.

which brings me to the larger philosophical question - Is what we call as black-money, red-money, mafia etc - is that really aasurik? or is it the all-controlling govt (or govt hell-bent on controlling everything) the real asura? :)

Posts: 188
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby member_28797 » 04 Nov 2014 23:04

Also posted in Bhartiya Identity and Vision thread

Old but worth the read, explains why the left is hell bent on namecalling and banning National pride and why Indian Nationalism has pretty much been reduced to Nehru-Gandhi worship

Why is Narendra Modi Opposed?
[ Editor's Note : The author of this post is a research scholar from JNU. But he would like to remain anonymous due to considerations about the left leaning culture in his centre and especially the hatred for Modi prevalent there.]

Narendra Modi has been the victim of the longest running defamation campaign in India’s political history. It’s more than a decade since 2002 when media,left-liberal mafia,Islamists & communists and Congress propaganda machine started their hate campaign against Modi.If one looks at the propaganda we find that same lines are being repeated every time. Not only this but same propaganda has been going on for the last 60-70 years against nationalist forces! But opposition to Modi and the systematic mis-information campaign and slandering against him is the most shrill ever seen in India. It is therefore, necessary to analyse why Modi has attracted so much hostility that opposing forces have abandoned even the basic precautions of wearing the masks this time. The opposition to Modi stems mainly from following factors-

Hinduphobia- The Hinduphobia is so engrained in the minds of leftist brigade that it is perplexing some times. In their eyes Hindus are inherently fascist, communal and inferior people who have no right to self governance and empowerment. In fact they have no right to survival or to preserve their culture and spiritual traditions. That is why genocide of Hindus during Islamic invasions when some 80 to 100 million people were butchered is whitewashed and praises are written for the barbarians who did that, that is why religious prosecution of Hindus in Pakistan, Arab countries and even in India is ignored or labelled a communal topic, that is why ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kashmir is blamed on Hindus themselves or ethnic cleansing of Bodos in Assam is dismissed with a straight face. Needless to say that this attitude is inherited form the colonial masters, after all what the communism is all about? Nothing but a strand of western imperialism and hegemony and on that a failed and disastrous one.So strong is the Hinduphobia that they have woven a whole fantasy world of ” historical and social” analysis to “prove” how evil Hinduism has been and the only way out is total annihilation of Hindus. So anybody who talks about one of the the largest ethnic cleansing in world in Pakistan and Bangladesh is shouted down as a fascist and communal because victims were Hindus and Sikhs. What is logic of Hindus in Muslim lands anyways, goes the Hinduphobic thought process! Hinduphobia has eaten up their brains to such an extent that they even side with the most regressive and barbaric forces of Islamofascism and shower praises on Taliban and feel “secular” in company of like of Jilani and Bukhari!

It is, therefore, intolerable for them to see a leader who is proud of being a Hindu and can rise to great heights without resorting to Hindu bashing. It is intolerable that he refuses to wear skull cap or splashes his pictures of throwing Iftar party unlike seculars like Mulayam who is only seen in the pics wearing skull cap and making dua at Iftar parties but never in a temple or performing puja! It is blasphemy that Modi refuses to believe that all burden of Hindu-Muslim unity is only on Hindus. After all when do we see any Muslim politician ever accepting Tilak on his forehead or throwing party on any Hindu festival? Of course it never occurs to Modi bashers that a Hindu too can have religious rights and sensitivities like others and horror of the horror a Hindu can have right to reject.Modi has demolished the anti-Hindu propaganda and stereotypes by showing the world the meaning of Hindutva through his developmental works and achievements.He has revived the Hindu administrative ethos of the old-honesty, loyalty, hard-work, impartiality and entrepreneurship. It is the spectre of the return of the Gupta-Chola administrative culture, splendours of Vijyanagar and dedication of Maurayans which is haunting leftist-congressi mafia. And they are leaving no stone unturned to malign Gujarat and Modi.

Casteism- It gives nightmares to casteist-communal-communists, Congressi elites and upper caste Muslims that Modi does not belong to the so called upper castes but to a caste which lies low in the casteist hierarchy. But he has broken the glass ceilings and threatens the little cosy world of the traditional elites by his mantra of mass prosperity and equality. And that he has done so without evoking caste politics is something which has shaken the whole political dispensation and the leftist “academia” (in fact less of academia and more of propaganda machine).

In the casteist-communal-communist pseudo history Hinduism is the religion of some invading “Brahmin-Baniya” aryan invaders who imposed it on the indigenous people. Therefore, all others should not follow Hinduism (and convert to other foreign religions!)

They mean that Dalits, tribals and the masses of India had no history, culture, religion and civilisation but all they think is theirs is actually imposed on them by invaders. In true casteist mentality they believe that people never had any brains of their own and were not capable of creating their own culture,spirituality apart from what some Aryans imposed on them. And even today they are incapable of deciding good from bad and must,therefore, follow what the comrades tell them or evangelists feed them. By propagating this myth they have sought to systematically de humanise the Dalits, tribals and others to create a rootless and alienated people which can be used as the cannon fodder in their “revolution”. In this they are enthusiastically joined by evangelists and Islamists who are sensing spoils for their schemes.

It is this game which has been upset by Modi’s Hindutva -A proud assertion of people’s Dharma and willingness to stand up for the spiritual freedom and rights of Dalits and tribals and other oppressed sections of society and not to let them become a hunting ground for predatory religious organisations or to be tortured for being Hindu by castist-communists.

This is beyond belief for mostly upper caste, mostly rich, mostly urban leftist mafia, congressi Rajas, mediapersons and “intellectuals”. The upper caste Muslims, the promoter of Islamism and admires of foreign Turks and Mongol overlords of India, are insecure about their power and wealth to which they have grown accustomed to while muslims masses lived in deprivity. When was the power in the hands of the Indian muslims in the much glorified “Muslim rule”? Irani, Turani, Mughalani aristocrats schemed for power while Hindustani Muslims with their Hindu brethren worked in fields and paid taxes to fill the coffers of these invaders! Modi by refusing to buy in the distorted version of the history and calling Delhi sultanate what it really was-a barbaric military occupation of India by fanatic and often psychic overlords-threatens the hold of dogma of religion and pseudo history of past glories over the Muslim masses. By championing the mass prosperity without paying homage to religious identity he has become a headache for Mullahs and Maulavis who are rightly sensing the ground slipping under their feet.

That a so called low caste person can be the fountainhead of so much dynamism, efficiency and intellect is intolerable for casteist leftist and media establishment and thus these two are hostile to him to the extent of insanity.

Communalism- Modi by his straight forward refusal to do politics of communal appeasement and symbolism has become target of all the communal elements in the country. He has focused on development and prosperity rather than caste and communal mobilisation. And by this he has enhanced its appeal across the religious, regional and caste divides. This upsets the game plan of those who seek to keep India permanently fractured along communal lines and gives sleepless nights to the old political guard who simply cannot imagine a post communal politics.

Development- Modi’s politics of development and not of emotions and identity challenges the status quo of the political culture in India. He offers no Muslim reservation, no free laptops, no subsidies and no other freebies but his work record and developmental agenda. Gujarat has grown under him as the dynamic hub of opportunities, business and entrepreneurship. It is attracting not only investments form India and abroad but also the talents. He has promoted a liberal and market friendly economic policies and thus increased prosperity, jobs and social mobility. The caste system is based on the two foundations-endogamy and denial of economic freedom. People are trapped in their respective professions which they have inherited by the accident of the birth. The central point in the caste system has been the denial of the economic freedom often enforced by the perpetuation of the violence. And it is on the economic freedom that all our other freedoms rest. The caste system can be broken only by providing antidote-economic liberty-to the fundamental reason that sustains it. Modi by following this policy has rattled the socialist brigade who see the lifetime of their work collapsing like a heap of card. Caste system cannot be overcome by socialism as many people falsely believe. In fact, caste system is very much like socialism as it imposes the dictate of the society on the individuals, reduces the scope of individual entrepreneurship & choice and places the society above individual. People are told what they should think rather than what they actually think. Socialism can only strengthen caste system and identities as can be seen in communist dominated states of W.B, Kerala or heartland of socialist politics i.e. U.P, Bihar etc.

The double digit industrial and agricultural growth in this global recession is envy of the whole India. Modi has proved that the decisive and visionary leadership can deliver results and that he is the most efficient and visionary political leader in the country. This gives cold feet to the Samajwad typos who never want people to come out of casteism and poverty otherwise who will be fooled by their Samajwadi utopia? The Likes of Mamta, Mulayam, Commies and Congressi are sensing the coming rebellion in the states they continue to oppress as the Gujarat model convinces more and more people that things can change for better and Hindutva is that change.

National security-Modi’s no nonsense approach to the internal and external security stands in sharp contrast to the manipulative and cowardly approach by the opposition. In the ten years of the Modi’s rule Gujarat has seen no communal riots (with the exception of the 2002 riots after a Muslim mob burned train coach at Godhara and when Modi had just assumed power). Where as U.P is burning under communal riots under “secular” Samajwadi Sarkar, In Assam illegal Bangladeshis are doing ethnic cleansing of the helpless tribals, In Hyderabad fascists and communal elements like MIM’s Owasi are having the free run! But of course no body is calling Mulayam-Akhilesh or Tarun Gogai fascist or communal. It is clear Modi is being targeted for very different reasons which have nothing to do with 2002 riots or concerns for minorities. Modi’s refusal to even entertain question of religious or ethnic identity of the terrorist worries those who ask for mercy for Afzal Guru and Kasab or LTTE terrorists. The prospect of Modi in charge has rattled the powers that be who could count about weak and reptilian politicians to save their pets in the name of minority or majority grievances and manufactured dissents. It is clear that Modi will not tolerate these sinister forces like those behind Kundankulan protests, Maoist vandalism or aggressive evangelism wearing the mask of human rights and anti- caste discourses which seek to install a sense of alienation among different sections of the society. These forces have not found any foothold in Modi ruled Gujarat and they fear that their free run in rest of India will come to an end if ever Modi assumes the national role. Hence, the massive and unprecedented international campaign by ” rights” groups and lobbying with foreign governments by shadowy groups against Modi.

But despite these shameless efforts by sinister elements to malign Modi his popularity has risen across the country and sections of the society. His recent interview to Shahid Siddique ( which drove seculars to silly theatric, even expelling Siddique from S.P) and Google hangout broke the siege the Media had built around people and Modi. Modi’s work and track record speaks for it self and that is why people have given repeated mandate for him and his government. That is why he is the most preferred candidate for the top post in the country. Nothing can stop the awakening of the people who are desperate to get rid of corrupt-castist-communal-communist political culture to which India has descended

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby JE Menon » 09 Nov 2014 16:52

^^link please. Put the link when you post a text from some other site on the web.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby abhischekcc » 10 Nov 2014 09:48

While we rightly praise Sardar Patel for forging India, we must also remember that the Indian Kingdoms played an important part in the same by accepting the opinion of the people of India and subsuming their identities and destinies into that of the nation readily. Truly they have fulfilled their duty towards their motherland at the end.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 25065
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby chetak » 10 Nov 2014 23:58

Much like the selfish, shortsighted and wholesale damage caused by vested interests responsible for the gifting of airline rights to some gulf countries for the "sake of the jet airways deal"

Dubai ports world seems to have conflicting interests in this area and will just look to maximizing it's own revunue and the devil take the hindmost.

China's maritime threat: How India let its best bet Vizhinjam be sabotaged

by Rajeev Srinivasan Nov 10, 2014

India’s maritime interests are under threat – mostly from China. There were three news items this week of some significance, both commercial and military. The first was that, despite a strong warning from National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, a Chinese submarine, Changzheng 2, docked at Colombo, along with warship Chang Xing Dao, according to the Times of India (Chinese submarine docking in Lanka ‘inimical’ to India’s interests: Govt).

The second was the sinking of a naval vessel off Vishakhapatnam and the loss of life of Navy personnel. Preliminary reports seemed to indicate that the ship was over 30 years old, which would mean it is older than what a military vessel should be. Besides, given the catastrophic failure of the ship, it is not clear that sabotage can be ruled out. Given the previous tragedy of the Kilo-class submarine INS Sindhurakshak, which sank with all hands in Mumbai, we have to worry about our Navy ships. The INS Sindhuratna, another submarine, also had an on-board fire.

The third event was the series of intelligence warnings that the airport and seaport in Kolkata were under serious threat of an attack by un-named terrorists. According to the Hindustan Times (Kolkata port on high alert after terror threat), two Indian warships, INS Khukri and INS Sumitra, were moved out of the port where they had been for routine visit, with an open house scheduled for 5 and 6 November.

In light of an attempt by Al Qaeda terrorists to capture a Pakistani Navy frigate at Karachi in September, the threat of an attack in Kolkata is credible. In Karachi, the intent was to capture the frigate and then attack American and Indian vessels in the Indian Ocean. Although far-fetched, the idea has merit, and it was purely through good luck that the attack was foiled and no rogue Pakistani ship loomed on the horizon.

For some years, India has under-invested in its Navy, and also in its commercial port infrastructure. These mistakes are now coming back to haunt the country, as our trade capability is affected, and there are long-term strategic holes that our adversaries are looking to exploit. One such is the lack of container ports and the concomitant dependence on the kindness of strangers.

To go back to the appearance of Chinese submarines in Colombo, this is an explicit statement by Sri Lanka that it prefers China to India. It may also well be a subtle Chinese warning against India getting too close to Vietnam. Apparently the previous visit by Chinese submarines to Colombo took place in secret at the very time the President of India was in Vietnam earlier this year.

Last week I wrote about how the Vietnamese premier’s visit to India could be considered part of a setting up of a 'reverse string of pearls' against China; and this could well be a veiled threat. But in fact it is tit for tat the other way: China infiltrating into India’s neighborhood is encouraging India to seek out friends on China’s periphery.
The 'Maritime Silk Road' idea that China talks about includes a number of ‘pearls’, such as Chittagong in Bangladesh, Sittwe and Cocos in Myanmar, Hambantota in Sri Lanka, potentially Spratlys and Paracels in the South China Sea, Karachi in Pakistan, some possible facilities in the Maldives and the Isthmus of Kra in Thailand, and most significantly, the Chinese-built and controlled port of Gwadar in Baluchistan at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. Taken together, these can draw a cordon sanitaire around India.


Source: The Economist, June 2012

Geostrategist Brahma Chellaney suggested that it was a big mistake on the part of Lanka to ignore the stern warning from India’s NSA. However, from Sri Lanka’s point of view, they may simply be paying off debts incurred during their civil war, when China, free of considerations about human rights and so on, supplied them with military equipment. Besides, China has built a major port at Hambantota in Sri Lanka’s far south.

If you look at the big picture, then, it is essential for India to respond to Chinese aggressiveness with its own: thus it makes even more sense as I suggested to lease part of Cam Ranh Bay and to have the Indian Navy make Haiphong a port of call, so that India has some presence in the South China Sea as well. It’s not just India, it turns out that Japan is getting quite worried about Chinese naval aggression in the Senkakus and elsewhere, as they fear a vacuum when American aircraft carriers will be absent for four months.

But in addition to the military angle, there is a significant commercial or civilian cargo issue as well. This has to do with India’s lack of container ports. There are only a few ports with container handling capabilities: Mumbai, Mundra, Chennai, Kochi, Vishakhapatnam, etc. There are few, if any, container trans-shipment ports capable of handling large motherships. This leads to a situation where most of India’s container traffic is diverted to the large trans-shipment ports at Dubai, Colombo, or Singapore, from where the containers are transferred to smaller vessels to bring them to India.

Colombo has just constructed a second trans-shipment container terminal, which is expected to account for fully 28 percent of all of India’s container traffic! Furthermore, this terminal has been built and operated by the Chinese! According to The Economist from June 2013 this will make Colombo one of the world’s top 20 container ports. Apparently it is also being positioned for a new generation of super-sized container ships. Says the article, "Colombo is deep enough for ships with an 18-metre draft. Its cranes can cope with ships 24 containers wide. Nothing in India compares with that."

Now what could be wrong with this picture? 28 percent of India’s container traffic flowing through Colombo, through a terminal controlled by a Chinese entity? Let me remind you of what happened a while ago when China, which has a near-monopoly on rare-earth metals, imposed an undeclared embargo on Japan, in the wake of tension about sudden Chinese claims to the Senkaku Islands.

Without declaring that there was an embargo – which would have run afoul of WTO regulations – Chinese ports suddenly stopped clearing rare-earth cargo bound for Japan, bringing its electronics industry to its knees. So much so that Japan has now contracted with India for a second source of the same minerals.

Such a scenario could easily happen with India’s container traffic through Colombo. Therefore it is a significant national security angle, not to mention trade angle: a vulnerable chokepoint in the hands of a commercial and military foe.

What should India do in such a situation? The Economist suggests, helpfully, that "should Sri Lanka ever succeed in dominating India’s trade while being a close Chinese ally, India would surely improve its ports enough to be independent". Yes, one would think so. But what is the reality?

The one trans-shipment port nearby is in Vallarpadam near Cochin. Unfortunately, this is a poor location, because it is in a bay with limited depth. Furthermore, this port, run by Dubai Port World, is notorious for labor trouble, and it is running at only 1/3rd of capacity, even though cabotage rules have been relaxed to make it more competitive.

Vallarpadam was a political decision by the UPA government to please a section of its voters. While the port of Cochin benefits from being in a sheltered bay at the mouth of a river, the draft is too shallow even for merchant ships. A master navigator I spoke to described how he had great trouble steering his ship through the narrow channel without running aground.

As for the container terminal at Vallarpadam, this means that even with constant dredging, it will never be a viable trans-shipment hub, because it simply cannot accommodate large vessels. On its web site, the port boasts that in July 2011, yes, three years ago, "the largest container ship ever to visit a South Indian port" docked there. It had a capacity of 6478 TEUs (roughly speaking, TEU = container). Compare this to the latest container ships being built with 16,000 to 18,000 TEU capacity. It is impossible for these to dock at Vallarpadam, essentially reducing it to a secondary terminal.

There is an alternative, the proposed container trans-shipment port at Vizhinjam in Trivandrum. This, an ancient port dating back to Roman times, has the deepest draft (72 feet) in India, is rocky and does not need any dredging.

Vizhinjam port is now in the final stages of tendering, but it has been sabotaged several times previous by vested interests. One group are the political heavyweights and godfathers of the UPA/UDF, whose base is Cochin – and thus they do not want Vizhinjam challenging Vallarpadam, now that they have gone to all the trouble to hoodwink the government of India to invest some Rs 4,000 crore there. Besides, Vallarpadam dredging contracts are an annuity: they can make money on them every year. In a way, Vizhinjam's greatest handicap according to them is that it doesn't need dredging!

The second group is more intriguing: fishermen, instigated by Christian clergymen. Much like the Koodankulam agitation which was intended to benefit European countries at the expense of Russia, and also spearheaded by Christian clergy, the Vizhinjam agitation may well be an end-run by resort owners who have illegally encroached the neighboring coastal areas (quite possibly in violation of coastal zoning regulations).

A third group is Dubai-based, as Vallarpadam is run by Dubai Port World. There are also accusations about Dubai elements with interests in Colombo and Singapore.

A fourth group is attempting to protect the Tamil Nadu port of Tuticorin, although it would actually make great sense for Vizhinjam and Tuticorin to be connected by a freight and industrial corridor. This will be the topic of a future column.
Recently, the Government of India decided to guarantee viability gap funding to Vizhinjam to the tune of Rs 800 crore, which will certainly help in meeting the capital costs in the proposed public-private partnership.

But the most recent news about Vizhinjam is quite bizarre: there is an environmental clearance petition being heard by the National Green Tribunal. The petitioner, a fisherman named Marydasan, withdrew the complaint and accused a local Christian priest of giving him, an illiterate in English, a piece of paper to sign, which he did without knowing what was in it!

Thus, in the face of grave threats, Indians are playing games with each other to protect vested interests. A classic case of local optimization to accommodate petty interests, with the net result being a strategic disaster for the whole country – much like the responses to all the invaders that came over the Khyber Pass or by sea

BRF Oldie
Posts: 21196
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby Prem » 11 Nov 2014 04:36

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinio ... balance/2/
India and the Middle East: Finding a New Balance

Last week saw the unfolding of a more balanced policy towards the Middle East under the government of Narendra Modi. Home Minister Rajnath Singh was in Tel Aviv in a demonstration of India’s new warmth towards Israel. Meanwhile in Delhi, the Ministry of External Affairs unveiled an effort to intensify the engagement with the Arab world.Conservatives in India’s foreign policy establishment might find the new approach to the region somewhat disconcerting. Realists, however, would say the the government of Narendra Modi is bringing pragmatism and transparency to India’s Middle East policy. About time. Consider, in contrast, UPA government’s self-defeating policies towards the region. Yielding to domestic political considerations, the Congress leadership sought to limit political engagement with Israel and undermined the new political consensus on Israel that had emerged under Prime Ministers P.V. Narasimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. But the Congress President Sonia Gandhi, under pressure from Prakash Karat of CPM, frowned upon the relationship with Israel. Fortunately, the UPA government did not scuttle the security cooperation that had developed in the previous decade.The UPA government’s schizophrenia made India’s relationship with Israel look clandestine. Cynics in Israel would point out that Delhi was treating Tel Aviv as a “mistress”–engage in private but refuse to be seen with in public.The Modi government is having none of that. It has renewed open and transparent engagement with Israel. Overruling opposition in the foreign policy establishment, Modi met the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the margins of the United Nations, during his visit to the United States in September.This has been followed by the visit of the Israeli National Security Adviser to Delhi last month and home minister Singh’s trip to Tel Aviv last week. The two sides have agreed to intensify bilateral security cooperation.Israel’s elder statesman Shimon Peres, was in Delhi to renew contact with the Indian political leadership. He met Modi as well as Sonia Gandhi. If all goes well, Modi could soon visit Israel and become the first Indian Prime Minister to do so.It is tempting to see the Modi’s government’s outreach to Israel through an ideological lens. There is no denying the special warmth for Israel within the Hindutva parivar. But the record of the BJP in power, has been anything but ideological.
Modi is acutely conscious of India’s expansive stakes in the Arab Gulf–as the principal external source of India’senergy imports, the most important desttination for India’s labour expatriate labour and a major market for India’s goods.He is also aware of the significance of the partnership with Iran in securing India’s interests in Central Asia and the stabilisation of Afghanistan after the withdrawal of American troops from there.Modi’s foreign minister Sushma Swaraj has already traveled to Bahrain and is scheduled to visit the United Arab Emirates soon. Modi, will hopefully, travel to the Middle East, early on in the new year. The Foreign Office is also preparing the ground for the first ever ministerial meeting between India and the members of the Arab League in 2015.The stage then is set for an open and vigorous engagement with the Middle East under the Modi government. The UPA government voluntarily constrained the relationship with Israel in the name of Arab sensitivities. At the same time it was unable to deepen the strategic partnerships with key countries in the Middle East including Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.T


Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 20 Nov 2014 23:34

Something to think about....
anmol wrote:
India’s Joint Andaman and Nicobar Command is a Failed Experiment

In October 2001, with much fanfare, India announced the creation of a joint command
in the Andaman and Nicobar island chain, which dominates the western approach to
the Malacca strait. From the perspective of jointness and from what was originally
envisaged by its architects, the Andaman and Nicobar Command (ANC) has turned out
to be a failed experiment. However, this episode sheds light on the Indian military, its
higher defense management and also provides insights about India’s Look East policy
and its military engagements and capabilities in the South China Sea.

India’s model of civil-military relations leaves operational and organizational matters
almost entirely to the military. The ANC was India’s firstjoint command, but the
individual services were opposed to the idea as they feared a loss of power and a
cutback on senior officer billets. They did everything they could to prevent this
experiment from succeeding. This was done mainly by denying service assets to the
ANC. The only major assets it gained in its 13 years of service were an amphibious
landing ship, INS Kesari, and a naval offshore patrol vehicle, INS Saryu, a few fast attack
boats and some Dornier aircraft. Other problems included a bitter inter-service dispute
over land and a failure to agree upon a common military code. The peculiar system of
rotation of the command among the three services resulted in a rapid turnover in the
post of the commander-in-chief, Andaman and Nicobar command (CINCAN), with 12 of
them appointed since 2001, averaging a little over a year in command. To better
appreciate these difficulties, one has to analyze the motivation of individual services.

Due to its maritime imperative the Indian Navy has historically claimed ownership of
the island chain and until 2001 all military units stationed there functioned under a
naval commander. In 2001, in an act of magnanimity, the Indian Navy willingly offered
this post for the joint command "experiment." The leadership at that time believed
that the success of this initiative would lead to otherjoint operational commands. But,
over time, the Navy came to see this decision as a mistake as no more joint commands
were formed. According to reports the navy is currently lobbying the government to
revert this command back to them. While denying assets to the ANC, the Indian navy
has strengthened Eastern Naval Command (ENC), based in Visakhapatnam, which has
emerged as India’s most important naval command. Indeed, the strategic dimensions
of India's Look East policy-in terms of visits and exercises of the Indian Navy in the
South China Sea-are conducted by elements from the ENC instead of the
geographically proximate ANC.

The Indian Air Force was initially enthusiastic about the ANC and went about enlarging
its bases on the islands. After the 2004 tsunami which devastated Car Nicobar air base, leading to the loss of 116 air force personnel and their families, their enthusiasm
waned. The air force has since discarded plans to permanently base aircraft on the
islands and has currently designated Kalaikunda air force station, more than 1000
kilometers away on the Indian mainland, to provide air cover. The impracticality of
this arrangement is seemingly lost on defense planners. The army has little role to
play and few platforms to deploy on the islands. Notably, it has added only a
Territorial Battalion to the ANC while building up an amphibious brigade capability in
Thiruvananthapuram on the mainland.

The Andaman and Nicobar Joint Command therefore has been a “grand failure" in
terms of what was envisaged by its architects. Not only has it failed to usher in more
joint commands, but the experience might be cited by those within the military
community who are opposed to this idea. Among former Commanders in Chief of the
ANC the common refrain was that the experience represented not only a missed
opportunity but an overall “sad story." Significantly, civilians have played no role in
either building up the ANC or pushing for more joint commands. In fact, as noted by a
report of the standing committee on defense, civilians did not even fill up mandated
posts in the ANC, including a diplomatic post, as “no one wanted to go there."

This is not to say that no capabilities have been built up on the islands. In terms of
infrastructure development, there has been some steady progress. A naval air base
was established at Campbell Bay and runway extensions planned for another naval
base at Shibpur. There are plans to build Operational Turn Round (OTR) bases at
Campbell Bay, Dighpur and Kamorta while facilities at Port Blair, including a second
floating dock, are being upgraded. These initiatives, though welcome, do not address
the lack of assets under the ANC. The current CINCAN, Vice Admiral PK Chatterjee,
recently stated that the ANC needs “Command and Control Ships and submarines...we
require an entire fleet."

The failure of the ANC also reflects on the ongoing debate about India’s ties to
broader East Asia. Some analysts argue that ANC will continue to suffer from neglect
unless a considered, and strategically significant, decision is taken to economically
develop the island chain. Currently, only 7% of the land, spread over 570 islands, is
available for revenue purposes as the rest consists of protected forests and water
bodies. There are no international flights to Port Blair, thereby constraining tourism.
Environmental concerns, including protection of indigenous tribes, therefore have
trumped economic development due to which the islands, despite obtaining 30% of
India’s total Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), depend upon the central government for
its fiscal outlays. One of the big ideas that could transform the region has been
debated for a while-the creation of a transhipment hub at Car Nicobar. If
implemented this can be a strategic game changer, as it could rival the ports of
Singapore and Colombo and give India enormous economic and strategic leverage.
Naturally, such an investment will need to be protected and so ANC will be
strengthened, giving it the capability to dominate the sea lanes of the Indo-Pacific. On
the other hand, some in India oppose such a vision not just on environmental grounds
but also argue that having a low military footprint in the Andaman and Nicobar islands
is diplomatically advantageous so that other countries in Southeast Asia do not feel
threatened. Resolving this debate will offer some clues to the outlines of the Indian
counter-reaction to China’s foray into the Indian Ocean and more assertive stance in
the South China Sea.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 4021
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby deejay » 21 Nov 2014 11:08

ramana sir, without delving in to details, the above article has factual inaccuracies. To me the author seems unaware of the role of ANC. Some points are valid and the three Services have different opinions but the facts are not as stated.

The difference of opinion of the Services is on expected lines and would happen. Post Tsunami, a lot of development work had to be redone. The IAF still maintains what it did pre Tsunami on CarNicobar but it is not a family station any more.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 24269
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby SSridhar » 21 Nov 2014 12:17

India must be prepared to use might if need arises: President Pranab Mukherjee - ToI
Cautioning against various threats facing the subcontinent, President Pranab Mukherjee on Friday said it was imperative for India to have an effective deterrence and strong defence to promote development and it must be prepared to use its "might" if the need arises.

"Today, our nation is on the path of growth in all fields. While the nation grows and develops in all realms, the subcontinent also faces varied threats especially from non-state actors.

"To preserve peace and harmony and promote all round development, it is imperative for us to have an effective deterrence and a strong defence,"
Mukherjee said at the Tezpur Air Force base.

The President, who is also the supreme commander of the armed forces, said though as a nation India was "firmly" committed to peace, "we must be prepared to use our might to safeguard the sovereignty of our nation, should the need ever arise."

"We are a nation which believes in equality in all realms. The men and women who stand before us today epitomise our grit and determination towards this underlying cause. I am immensely proud of our armed forces for leading the path in this respect," he said.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 22 Nov 2014 21:33

Ajit Doval says India must be ready for two front war at HT summit....
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 88902.aspx

Its a sad commentary on the 10 years of MMS rule that even after nuke tests, Operation Parakram that nearby adversaries think they can wage conventional war on India.

Unless India breaks the papradigm of regional war far away powers will keep egging TSP to be their foil. And as long as Wagha Kandle Kissers (WKK) dominate Lootyens Dilli the PAkis will keep thinking they can needle India.

Need to disabuse them of this notion.
They need to understand they and their backers will pay a heavy price.

That is the deterrence needed.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby svinayak » 23 Nov 2014 08:47

ramana wrote:Ajit Doval says India must be ready for two front war at HT summit....
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 88902.aspx

Its a sad commentary on the 10 years of MMS rule that even after nuke tests, Operation Parakram that nearby adversaries think they can wage conventional war on India. .

Also he says that India should focus on economy and build a strong economy

This is the biggest failure of the this generation which guided India for the last 30 years
With India growing its population from 500M to 1.25B the economy should be the top most focus for the last 30 years

But the political class ended up as mercenary class in the last 30 years and wasted the future of the next gen

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 08 Dec 2014 00:22

Brihaspati Sutram in Sanskrit with English Translation.


i have a couple of volunteers who will read to ensure translation is right and give synopsis for modern readers.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 17 Jan 2015 09:24

Chanakya Arthasastra



About 2300 years ago the Greek conqueror Alexander the Great invaded the Indian sub-continent. His offensive upon the land's patchwork of small Hindu empires proved to be highly successful due to the disunity of the petty rulers. It was Chanakya Pandit who, feeling deeply distressed at heart, searched for and discovered a qualified leader in the person of Chandragupta Maurya. Although a mere dasi-putra, that is, a son of a maidservant by the Magadha King Nanda, Chandragupta was highly intelligent, courageous and physically powerful. Chanakya cared little that by birth he should not have dared to approach the throne. A man of acute discretion, Chanakya desired only that a ruler of extraordinary capabilities be raised to the exalted post of King of Magadha so that the offensive launched by the Yavanas (Greeks) could be repressed.

It is said that Chanakya had been personally offended by King Nanda and that this powerful brahmana had vowed to keep his long sikha unknotted until he saw to the demise of the contemptuous ruler and his drunken princes. True to his oath, it was only after Chanakya Pandit engineered a swift death for the degraded and worthless rulers of the Nanda dynasty that this great brahmana was able to again tie up his tuft of hair. There are several versions relating the exact way that Chanakya had set about eliminating the Nandas, and it appears historians have found it difficult to separate fact from folk legend as regards to certain specific details.

After the Nanda downfall, it became easy for Chandragupta to win the support of the Magadha citizens, who responded warmly to their new heroic and handsome young ruler. Kings of neighbouring states rallied under Chandragupta's suzerainty and the last of the Greeks headed by Alexander's general Seleucus were defeated.

With the dual obstacles of the Nandas and Alexander's troops out of the way, Chanakya Pandit used every political device and intrigue to unite the greater portion of the Indian sub-continent. Under the Prime ministership of Chanakya, King Chandragupta Maurya conquered all the lands up to Iran in the North west and down to the extremities of Karnataka or Mysore state in the South. It was by his wits alone that this skinny and ill-clad brahmana directed the formation of the greatest Indian empire ever before seen in history (ie. since the beginning of Kali-yuga). Thus the indigenous Vedic culture of the sacred land of Bharata was protected and the spiritual practices of the Hindus could go on unhampered.

Although many great savants of the science of niti such as Brihaspati, Shukracharya, Bhartrihari and Vishnusharma have echoed many of these instructions in their own celebrated works*, it is perhaps the way that Chanakya applied his teachings of niti-sastra that has made him stand out as a significant historical figure. The great Pandit teaches us that lofty ideals can become a certain reality if we intelligently work towards achieving our goal in a determined, progressive and practical manner.

Dr. R. Shamashastry, the translator of the English version of Kautilya's Artha-Sastra, quotes a prediction from the Vishnu Purana fourth canto, twenty-fourth chapter, regarding the appearance of Chanakya Pandit. This prediction, incidentally, was scribed fifty centuries ago, nearly 2700 years before this political heavyweight and man of destiny was to appear. The prediction informs us: "(First) Mahapadma then his sons - only nine in number - will be the lords of the earth for a hundred years. A brahmana named Kautilya will slay these Nandas. On their death, the Mauryas will enjoy the earth. Kautilya himself will install Chandragupta on the throne. His son will be Bindusara and his son will be Ashokavardhana." Similar prophecies are also repeated in the Bhagavata, Vayu and Matsya Puranas.

In presenting this work I have traced out and referred to two old English versions of Chanakya Niti-sastra published at the close of the last century.*2 However, these apparently were translated by mere scholars (not devotees) who seem to have missed many subtleties of Chanakya's vast wit and wisdom. Another unedited and unpublished manuscript Chanakya Niti-sastra with both English translation and Latinised transliteration produced by the Vrndavana ISKCON Centre was also referred to. It was however the learned Vaisnava pandit and Sanskrit scholar Sri V. Badarayana Murthy, of the South Indian Madhva School, who helped me see the depth and import of these verses from the original Devanagari. A very few slokas which were perhaps irrelevant or otherwise not useful for our Vaisnava readers have been omitted.

I have been told that our blessed spiritual master His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada had expressed a desire that Sri Chanakya Niti-sastra be properly translated into English. It is hoped that our present rendering will be at least useful if not instructive to the reader. Let us examine now in a few words on the science of niti, or common sense, from the pen of Srila Bhaktivinoda, the great 19th century devotee-pioneer of the worldwide propagation of Lord Caitanya's divine message.

Taking the two words "common sense" right up to their highest level, he has written:

"Man's glory is in common sense,

Dictating us the grace,

That man is made to live and love

The beauteous Heaven's embrace"*3

In other words, the real goal of niti, indeed the goal of life, is to realise one's eternal position of Krishna consciousness. The Bhagavad-gita confirms Srila Bhaktivinode's view in the final line of its last sloka: dhruva nitir matir mama. A translation of that full verse runs: "(Sanjaya said) Wherever there is Krishna the master of all mystics, and wherever there is Arjuna the supreme archer, there will also be opulence, victory, extraordinary power and morality (niti). That is My opinion."

I would especially like to thank Sri Raju Whabi (Rukmini Krishna dasa) of Bombay for his generous financial contribution. I am also grateful to Srimati Rani Lila Ram Kumar Bhargava of Lucknow, a prominent ISKCON Life Member, and her twin sons Lava and Kush of Raja Ram Kumar Press, for speedily bringing out this volume.

Miles Davis (Patita Pavana dasa)

Makara Sankranti Day

Pausa Shukla Navami

14th January 1981

Lucknow, India

Rest in the link

BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby Vipul » 27 Jan 2015 01:01

At 192, India has 5th most think tanks in the world.

India has the fifth most number of thinktanks in the world at 192, with six of them among the global top 150. The US tops the list with 1,830 such bodies, followed by China (429), the UK (287) and Germany (194), the recently released Global Go To thinktank Index Report (GGTTI) 2014 has said.

The six Indian thinktanks in the global top 150 list are the Centre for Civil Society (CCS, rank 50), Institute For Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA, 100), Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (105), The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI, 107), Observer Research Foundation (ORF, 114) and Development Alternatives (129).

Seven Indian organizations made it to the list of top 80 thinktanks to watch out for. These are ORF (rank 14), IDSA (20), CCS (26), Vivekananda Institute of Technology (32), Centre for Policy Research (41), Gateway House (53) and Council on Energy, Environment and Water (71).

The annual rankings are compiled under the auspices of the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) at the University of Pennsylvania.

The report highlights the valuable role of thinktanks in society: "Today, many politicians choose to focus on short-term issues and crises, rather than addressing the large looming crises that are just ahead... like aging or declining populations, climate change, and sovereign debt... (Politicians) put their nations at risk because they would rather dodge and defer the issue in order to ensure their re-elections.

"Thinktanks can alter their tendency for short-termism by determining realistic measurable targets for combating long-term transnational problems. In conjunction with NGOs, they can also function as watchdogs and apply more pressure to governments to act in the long term by producing reports that discuss the grave consequences of inaction."

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 24 Feb 2015 05:06

Varun Gandhi, Sanjay Gandhi's son writes in Outlook on Intel reform

Coven of spooks.

Ussually coven is used for witches. Wonder why he used that term.


A Coven Of Spooks

Our security agencies need reform, and from the ground up

Varun Gandhi

Espionage in India has a long pedigree. Rigvedic hymns invoke Agni as the deceiver of foes, with spies detecting and catching criminals. Kautilya classified nine different types of spies—a fraudulent disciple (kapatikachhatra), a recluse (udasthita), a householder (gri­ha­paitika), a merchant (vaidehaka), an ascetic (tapasa), a colleague (satri), a firebrand (tikshna), a poisoner (rasada) and a mendicant woman (bhikshuki). Five of these (sanstha) were to be deployed for internal intelligence, collecting intelligence in sleeper capacities. Four of these (sanchaar) would be transitory, deployed for short terms, potentially outside the realm. Female spies were to serve as the coordinating link between the two arms.

European observers were awe-struck by the efficiency of Mughal intelligence (J.J.L. Gommans), with Manucci citing spies as the best means for regulation of the Mughal kingdom. Mir Jumla, the greatest of Mughal generals, was often found “replying to his handful of espionage letters”; a data processing commander. Shivaji kept more than a 1,000 spies in his service, with Bahirji Naik harassing the Mughals through raids on Surat, Burhanpur, Ujjain and Pune. The British Raj set up the Department of Criminal Intelligence (CID) (which later transformed into the Directorate of Intelligence Bureau, IB) in April 1904 to conduct domestic and foreign intelligence operations. With the 1962 war debacle and a cry of “not enough intelligence” in the 1965 war, Indira Gandhi decided to set up the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW).

Connecting the Dots: In September ’08, Zarrar Shah, the technology chief for the Lashkar-e-Toiba, roamed around Pakistan building an operational plan for the Mumbai 26/11 attacks. He and fellow terrorists used Google Earth to determine routes to targets in the city. Unbeknownst to him, his activities were being tracked by MI6, India and the CIA, scrutinising his internet searches and messages. On September 24, the IB, acting on information provided by the CIA, issued an alert about a Lashkar threat to Mumbai. State police issued a bulletin highlighting six targets including the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel. RAW shared information about a ship moving down the coastline, passing it to the partially operationalised Multi Agency Centre (MAC). And yet, no one was able to put together a complete picture. “Intelligence failure,” as a hyper media implied, was apparently rampant.

Such sweeping assertions need to be drawn with great circumspection. As B. Raman notes (2004), despite “an unfortunate awareness” amongst the general public about Kargil being an “intelligence failure by RAW”, the Kargil review committee made no mention of this. With terror bombings rampant (Mumbai, 26/11/2008; Guwahati, 2009; Pune, 2010; Varanasi, 2010; Mumbai, 2011; Delhi, 2011; Pune, 2012; Dilsukhnagar, 2013; Bangalore, 2013; and Bodh Gaya, 2013), political responses advocated wholesale intelligence reorganisation. Subsequent investigations actually determined that the Intelligence Bureau was short of 2,000 personnel, with a capacity to hire just 200 a year. Given such institutional apathy towards espionage, “intelligence failures” are inevitable and natural.

A successful incursion or terrorist attack cannot immediately be correlated with catastrophic intelligence coordination failure, particularly in “connecting the dots”. Impo­ssible odds haunt the intelligence apparatus in this heterogeneous society of ours. In an era of multiple transient threats from individual entities, our espionage agencies face a “dearth of intelligence”. Facing significant information asymmetry, our intelligence professionals find a preponderance of probabilities harder to establish with intangible inputs. A “vacuum cleaner” approach, hoovering up vast amounts of big data through entities like NATGRID, is more suitable to technically superior governments like the US.

Unfinished Reformation: Our intelligence community has borne continuous proposals of reformation over the past decades—the Kargil 1999 GoM, the Ram Pradhan committee of 2008 and Pradhan Haldhar Narasimhan committee of 2009—and they have all made useful recommendations. The Ram Pradhan committee, in particular, identified “systemic loopholes” in intelligence processing and sharing, a neglect of local intelligence and insufficient inter-agency coordination as the primary causes of Maharashtra’s ineffectual terrorist containment. Most were focused on top-driven institutional causes, aiming to improve intelligence coordination while ignoring systemic concerns. Little focus has been given to paucity of talent that can cope with transnational terrorism. India has failed to implement any meaningful reforms on this front since 1947.

The CISF-based anti-hijacking squads, as suggested by the IB in 1972, were only approved after the 1999 IC-814 hijacking. A separate maritime BSF-like force, deemed necessary by the Rustamji Committee (1974), was ignored until 26/11.Following the 26/11 attacks, proposals for the creation of a National Investigation Agency (NIA), a National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) and the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) were defined, while the MAC was strengthened. Our policymakers tinkered with meta-institutional reforms, delaying ground-level reformation.

Of Reasonable Expectations: India’s intelligence consumers need to rethink what they seek from such providers. Intelligence can never be complete, with immediate issues and events harder to predict than long-term views on China or Pakistan. Not all intelligence failures can be marked up to the producers. The consumers—policymakers and law enforcement agencies—need to bolster their capacity to process intelligence and act accordingly. Any intelligence apparatus will usually suffer from two organisational deficiencies—strategic analysis and information-sharing. Int­elligence reform can have three main priorities—strategic intelligence analysis, recruitment of skilled personnel and intelligence coordination.

IB is rooted in an unreformed colonial era policing system, its primary focus domestic, counter-intel.

The IB is rooted in the unreformed colonial policing system, and regularly comes under the scanner for terror attacks or internal security threats. Its pri­mary focus remains domestic and counter-intelligence activities, along with unf­ort­u­nate mis­use as political mac­h­i­nery against opposition lea­ders. Out­dated surveilla­nce equipment, inefficient onl­­ine surveillance, infrastruct­ure and sho­rtage of tra­ined man­power continue to be a bane. Between 2008-13, for its 19,000 bench strength, the IB recruited fewer than 50, with just a few hundred focused on counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism.

The NCTC was to be an integral part of the Intelligence Bureau, focusing on preventing and containing terrorist attacks. Facing concerns about the over-centralisation of intelligence agencies and bowing to state demands, NCTC has been left in abeyance. With security compartmentalised across India and an atmosphere of Centre-state mistrust prevailing on law and order issues, moves towards establishing a legal framework for intelligence gathering and coordination have languished. Without a push for an NCTC, a lack of capacity to process intelligence will remain.

Expertise Recruitment: The capacity at ground levels needs to be radically improved. The Kargil Review committee proposed a Joint Task Force on Intelligence (JTFI) to str­e­n­g­then local intelligence. Local authorities have an overdep­endence on central agencies for intelligence gathering while state intelligence, with their grassroots-level linkages and connections with state police, have been left to languish. The colonial era chowkidar system can’t be allowed to go extinct.

Working for the secret service should be a badge of honour. Intelligence gathering and processing is a highly specialised task which requires systematic professional training, lang­uage skills, in-depth country analysis and technological skills. Such skills cannot be developed on a temporary basis and require a lifetime learning platform. Reforms aimed at imp­r­oving the intelligence curriculum, promotion policies, hiring processes and lateral recruitment can be constituted. Vetting must not take a full year prior to recruitment. Useful statistics about the MAC should be circulated, highlighting its effective functioning and its accountability to the intel apparatus.

The agencies must set high standards for recruitment and insist on special interpretation and language skills. The UPSC can be utilised to create separate exams for entry, with a focus on international relations, military knowledge, history and economics. Experts from varied backgrounds like internatio­nal finance can be hired on iss­ues such as money-laundering. Compen­sation cannot be a bar.

Long-Term Coordination: The culture of intelligence must also change. Serving the government must be replaced by service to the nation, a strategic framework and a tool to build comprehensive national power.

At present, discussions on nat­ional security in the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) tend to focus on immediate or emerging security issues, with little focus on developing long-term strategic options or acco­unting on previous intelligence uptake. Seamless cooperation between intelligence producers and consumers has improved, but needs to be institutionally established. A dialogue between intelligence producers like RAW and IB, disseminators (MAC and MHA) and consumers like the states should elucidate the input’s importance, its utilisation and subsequent follow-up. Discretion and risk-taking must become second nature to our institutions.

Accountability should matter. Post-event audits could be conducted to help assess intelligence abilities and accuracy. A sound system of checks and balances, enforced by Parliament, the legislature, intelligence agencies and external review bodies might be instituted to avert repeated intelligence failures. Intelligence priorities can be redefined with a focus on asymmetrical threats, along with traditional great power politics. The obsession with secrecy cannot be a barrier for embracing the digital age.


(Feroze Varun Gandhi is the BJP MP from Sultanpur, UP)

Maybe CCS should have a set weekly agenda where regular topics are discussed and special issues on certain days.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 26 Feb 2015 05:59

Thanks to RamaY for x-posting...
X-Posting. This is the Socio-Political-religious time-wrap I was referring in the post regarding Puri Sankaracharya's utterings. Many Thanks to Atriji for putting it succinctly.

Atri wrote:
Atri wrote:they very identity of "Hindu" came into existence as opposition to abrahmic monotheistic marauders. Before that there was no such identity - there was shaiva, vaishnava bauddha, jaina etc. and there were jaati based identities.

shiv wrote:Atri, klnmurthy said this
"My political thought inspired by your political question is: it is spoken of in a pejorative sense because Indians don't own and control the discourse, and the owners have chosen to make it pejorative."

There is a big difference between what he says and what you have said.

klnmurthy says that the terms ("Hindu" and "nationalism") are not owned by Indians and the owners are doing what they want

You are saying that the term Hindu was coined specifically as a reaction to invaders.

In klnmurthy's viewpoint "hindu nationalist" is pejorative because others choose to describe in in whatever way they like

But according to you, Hindu nationalism is anti-Muslim/Christian and this corresponds, for example, to Wendy Doniger's viewpoint

The implication from both meanings is that you cannot be a Hindu and a nationalist without admitting to be anti-minority. For example we dissect statements from Muslims and ask if they say "I am an Indian" first or whether they say "I am a Muslim first" A similar choice is being offered to the Hindu. If he says that he is Hindu first, then he is anti-minority. He has to say "i am Indian" first unless he does not object to the anti-minority tag.

In other words, for Indians, nationalism has to come in different flavours for different people. But the choice of being Hindu and nationalist is removed for all Hindus unless they admit to being anti-minority.

शिव जी,

May this be the time and you be the medium through which I will manage to utter what I have been thinking subconsciously for years and was not able to (or not allowed to by saraswati) regurgitate those thoughts with certain degree of coherence.

First, when we say "nationalism" or "nationalist" or "Hindu-nationalist" etc, we have to ask one basic question - what is this "nation" thingy? Does nation here means Republic of India - a westphalian nation-state which emerged on world-stage on 26th January 1950? Or do we mean raashtra of Bhaarata which Vedas proclaim पृथिव्यै समुद्र पर्यन्तया एकराळिति (this land until the oceans is one raashtra).

They very construct of westphalian nation-state is very illogical according to me. It was designed to stop wars from ravaging europe, but in fact, westphalian nation-state has ravaged Europe much more. In fact, lasting peace of in Europe was achieved when post WW2, the seeds of European Union were sowed and with Yugoslavian war and fall of Berlin war, we now have a peace in Europe which seems to be organic, sustainable and lasting. Last 70 years have been most peaceful for Europe and this they achieved by moving away from west-phalian nation-state's rigidity.

However while they did this post WW2, they already had shaped the world in their image. Hence creation of nation-states all over the world.

Now this construct is diametrically opposed to very nature of human societies to naturally expand and shrink in geography. What is a citizen? All german citizens are equal, as per German constitution - irrespective of his race, religion, creed and background. In exchange, all german citizens are expected to owe allegiance to germany (which in weird way refers to a book with words "german constitution" written on its cover). While this is technical expectation from a german citizen, the expectations from ethnic germans are however very human and basal - all german citizens should consider themselves german. But an arab immigrant or a paki does not feel that way. He has german passport alright, but he openly says he is not german and will never be a german. Thus the very construct is fundamentally flawed which will soon reveal itself in ugly manner in peaceful Europe.

More or less, this is the fate of all other so called "nation-states".

In dharmik civilization, raashtra is separate from raajya which is also separate from desha. Dharma is not limited to geography (desha) of Indian subcontinent - Dharma is universal. Raashtra in our narrative is linked with geography (desha) - hence the Rigvedik Richa that I quoted above. Our narrative acknowledges existence of other raashtras (varshas) on earth. The varsha or rashtra which we live in is called "bhaarat-varsha". Raajya or state on the other hand is not liked with rashtra, nor necessarily with desha. the raajya of Saatavaahana-VaakaaTaka-chaalukya-raashTrakuTa-Kakatiya-hoysaala-yaadava-vijaynagar-marathas-maharashtra/AP/Karnataka - all have existed on same "desha", belong to same "raashtra" (which ran as per dictats of dharma), but were/are vastly different "Raajyas".

Thus raashtra-raajya-desha segregation and interlinkage in dharmik (in post islamic times, Hindu) polity is understood and inherent. This is not the case in Abrahmic polity and its successor westphalian nation-state based polity.

IN Abrahmic polity, deen and daulat (religion and state) cannot be separated. In westphalian nation-state model, while they separated state from religion to an extent, they linked it to geography and identity (vaguely - rashtra). To make things complicated, they froze the borders.

This is so much different from our way of organizing the polity. But we were overcome post 1805 and our attempt to revert back to pre-1805 polity in 1857 was crushed by English. Thus we were forced to swallow this pill of formatting our identity (raashtra), our way of organizing polity (raajya) and our desha (geography in form of partition) in British occupation.

This was tried all over the world.

Islamic world has Quran which preserves its "deen-daulat" model and since it is word of god (same god as European christians worship), it was safeguarded. Look what happened to non-abrahmic cultures and their world-view. Look at China - they have given up (or so it seems, I hope they too have preserved the core in some form) that. We had to adapt to this. The era of nation-state had arrived and no matter how conflicting it is to our understanding, we had to find a way to preserve our core while preventing further loss of raashtra-raaajya-desha and dharma. This is where the theory of Hindutva arose.

It has its origins in Hindavi-swarajya of maraThas (which was an Indian or Indic response to Islamism) which in turn had origins in Vijaynagara movement and Early rajputs. Hindavi swaraya of Marathas (for sake of simplicity, we must understand that all non-islamic, non-christian political entities which existed in India in past 1000 years are "hindavi swarajya") was a socio-politico-economic rebellion of those native brown skinned Indians against Islamism and its socio-politico-economic dominance on people and geography of India. In other words, it was a dharmaarthik response.

now as far as the word "Hindu" goes, as I said earlier, it was a collective umbrella term for all brown, Indian origin people following Indian adhyatmik paths. So it has an ethnic undertones to it. As I said in my article, Julia Roberts is a VaishNava woman, but she is not a Hindu. APJ Abdul Kalam is a Hindu.

Hindu has always been a socio-judicio-politico-economic (dharmaarthik) term. British fused it with alien concept of "religion" and gave this term "religions" connotations. I do not even understand what religion means, anymore - thankfully. I have managed to detoxify myself to some extent.

So, in summary, we have terms Hindu and Hindutva. Hindu is an identity based term (raashtra) and Hindutva is dharmaarthik theory which deals with Hindu-polity in era of nation-state.

Imagine for a while a time when this very edifice of nation-state has collapsed. Hindutva will collapse with it. It is a survival adaptation of Hindus. After few years/decades or collapse of Hindutva, when the very concept of "religion" collapses (or becomes irrelevant or non-interfering), the term "hindu" too will drop off.

I do not know what Wendy Doniger agrees with this or not. But this has preserved our way of life in past 1000 years. Without this, in my opinion, dharma would have been relegated to museums like zoroastrians and egyptians. And since this adaptation, although uncomfortable, is a protective shield it is hated by those who wish to homogenize the world. Hence all this conflict.

shubham astu..

BRF Oldie
Posts: 2304
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby gandharva » 26 Feb 2015 17:12

BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby Atri » 16 Mar 2015 14:25

Following is a post I wrote two years ago on BRF when Modi had won Gujarat elections and had just begun his rise on the political horizon as potential prime-ministerial candidate of the BJP. This article is very important (from my point of view) for two reasons. Firstly, it shows a structured syntax of applying different pramaaNas and other Dharmik-concepts relating to power and how to use that syntax to arrive upon a conclusion which can be tested and verified.

Secondly this post is very important with respect to Indrashakti theory of mine which has predicted dire scenario for India from 2015 to 2018-22. We have just entered the critical phase of Indrashakti. Against what I wished two and half years ago, Narendra Modi is now a prime-minister of India and thankfully he has solid majority in the lower house along with many key states in BJP's kitty to make some moves which will have lasting effect.

Yet, the strike of Indrashakti will be hardest and NaMo will have to fight an extremely uphill battle to see himself and India through this turbulent phase. Analysis of Sonia is important in this perspective. Indrashakti that is striking India is three-pronged trident which is interconnected. The economic prong, the Jihad prong and the China prong. Now we are beginning to see the onset of Economic prong of Indrashakti.

Fortunately, NaMo witnessed sharp fall in crude-oil prices which eased pressure on our economy in this year balancing to an extent our fiscal deficit. Yet, given the cautious budget that Jaitley presented along with constant tussle of Jaitley with Reserve Bank of India and refusal of leading banks (SBI in particular along with others) to pass on the rate-cuts by RBI to end-users tell us that something is amiss. Although picture is much more clearer than the time I wrote this article and now we know that SBI (State-Bank of India) along with other public sector banks are in big trouble due to their large share of Non-performing assets. It is due to the dead loans that were distributed at behest of political interference which have now gone rancid along thus threatening the very existence of SBI (Most notable being Kingfisher airlines). All this is going to have huge impact on the growth story of India that Narendra Modi promised and is earnestly working towards achieving.

This critical state of banking sector in India due to bad loans is the first wave of Indrashakti that this ghaTotkacha (NaMo) has to face. At this backdrop, I found it essential to visit this particular post of mine where I structured a syntax of viewing at an illusive problem using vedantik glasses.


Atri wrote:The entire chain of ideas for you to do puravapaksha analysis on me are in this post. I am not playing on pratyaksha OR Shabda pramana. I am viewing things not through Saamkhya darshana (window) this time, but through Vedanta and hence am playing on Anumaana (inference), Upamaana (comparison), Arthapatti (postulation) and Anupalabdhi (Non-Cognition) pramanas. Samkhya is not robust to process my this model.

All the arguments, postulates, comparisons and non-cognition (as to why is BJP behaving like this since 2009 - that "Maayaa" factor) are int he posts cited in the post above in chronological order. I am not Shruti so my statement cannot be considered as shabda-pramana. Nor am I direct OR indirect witness to things happening - hence I do not have Pratyaksha pramana (in all three flavors) to present. Yet, I feel something is amiss. So, I have to drop my regular world-view (saamkhya-yoga) and adopt vedaanta to allow me to use three new pramaNas which are unavailable in former.

It may seem laughable if we do not see it through vedantic window. Hence I said, Samkhya-Yoga is not useful here - It is out of scope for them. What if she is not really that much invested in INC and all she (or her handlers) want is a channel to exert their influence in India for short and mid-term? What if bringing down OR saving INC was never her interest - her primary interest was to save her life and that of her children and make sure they did not suffer the fate of their father, uncle and grandmother? If you have read GRR Martin novels of "Song of Ice and Fire" series then Sonia is like Cersie Lannister.

If not, it becomes slightly difficult metaphor to explain. Thus, in absence of pratyaksha pramana to validate this, and lack of data and material enough for anumaana and upamaana to lead the charge, one has to seek refuge of Bhagvatpaada Adi Shankara, and make use of Anupalabdhi and then Arthapatti pramanas.

While applying Anupalabdhi pramana, we understand that something is amiss. A rational player of game will not behave as Sonia has in your scenario. Yet she is behaving. Thus applying Arthapatti pramana here, we "assume" or "postulate" that she IS a rational player and that there are other drives OR forces which are being neglected in the course of our study. So, given these two pramanas firmly in place, we then can start cautiously using Anumaana.

What is her background? Where she comes from? What is her chitta-vritti? what is her education? What kind of people is she AND was she surrounded by, when major life-events happened? what were their motives? What was her response? How did she rise to power? What kind of people she usurped the power from? What price did she pay? What kind of people surround her now? what is their character?

Shakti OR Power exists in eight forms according to Hindu Dharma and Artha Shaastras.

1. Tapobala - power owing to long struggle and accumulated experience and gained goodwill
2. Gnyana bala - power of sharp intellect
3. Artha Bala - Power of resources, finances, acquaintances.
4. Shastra bala - Power of weapons - muscle power
5. Jana Bala - Power of public support and popularity
6. Sthaana Bala - Power owing to position
7. Aatma bala - power of one's strong will and resolution.
8. Mitra bala - POwer of allies and friends

Think, how many balas she had in 1998 at her side when she miraculously rose to power and lime-light? Apparently, only Sthaana bala (gandhi dynasty) alone. Was it enough to so spectacularly rise to power? No.. Was there any other bala? - Pratyaksha, Anumana and Upamana pramanas say "Don't know !!". But again some is amiss here - Here again comes Anupalabdhi (acknowledging something is amiss and incomplete and hence it is blocking complete cognition). Then applying Arthapatti pramana we narrow down upon some external and invisible but powerful artha-bala and mitra-bala supporting her, making all this happen. Why? Anumaana and Upamaana says, "Don't know". Again Arthapatti needs to be employed.

This explains just the complexity of situation. (this also explains, why I prefer Nirishwar-vaadi Saamkhya-yoga over theistic vedanta with three pramanas onlee). I implore you to abandon samkhya and take refuge of vedanta for grasping this sort of inquiry.

As a corollary, similar modus operandi can be applied to Lal Krishna Advani and his weird behavior prior to rise of Narendra Modi. History and Anupalabdhi tells us that he is today a rational player with tapobala, gnyaana bala, aatma-bala and sthaana-bala at his disposal. Yet he behaved like this. He may have lost jana-bala to NM (or one can say NM inherited LKA's jana-bala and added his own), but yet has other balas at his disposal. Yet his actions in past few days looked irrational. Bring in anupalabdhi and arthapatti here as well. Why did he do it? To become PM? - But he categorically stated that he is OUT of PM race in 2011 and DOES NOT want to be one. So he cannot revert from his stated position (being a rational player) without public demand (jana-bala). But NM had already accepted the LKA's jana-bala in his quiver, so LKA (being a rational player) knows that he won't have a jana-bala and hence won't be able to revert from stated position.


Kaalaay Tasmai namaH.

Something is amiss and understanding and correctly appraising Sonia's bala-profile now is seriously essential towards deciphering it. Because all the recent attempts of everyone belonging to AIF camp to derail parliament sessions (from congress to BBC rape-documentary) and power realignment happening in Ganga-valley and Delhi shows an activation of some sort of system which was lying dormant since 1761.

While we know the broad strokes (AIF Vs PIF, Panipat etc), it is now time to understand the finer undercurrents and ascertain and correctly appraise the ashTa-bala profile of AIF and PIF.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 16 Mar 2015 22:57

Atri, Two other extra factors contributed to Soniaji's bala:

- NDA under LKA was essentially a token opposition and at best useless for whatever reasons.
I guess you can put this under category of collapse of enemies adds to her bala.
- There was an unanimity of opposition to NDA in pseculars, officialdom, media, mercantile class led by Ambani brothers. This also added to her bala without her own efforts.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby svinayak » 17 Mar 2015 00:15

Atri wrote:
Secondly this post is very important with respect to Indrashakti theory of mine which has predicted dire scenario for India from 2015 to 2018-22. We have just entered the critical phase of Indrashakti. Against what I wished two and half years ago, Narendra Modi is now a prime-minister of India and thankfully he has solid majority in the lower house along with many key states in BJP's kitty to make some moves which will have lasting effect.

What if she is not really that much invested in INC and all she (or her handlers) want is a channel to exert their influence in India for short and mid-term? What if bringing down OR saving INC was never her interest - her primary interest was to save her life and that of her children and make sure they did not suffer the fate of their father, uncle and grandmother? If you have read GRR Martin novels of "Song of Ice and Fire" series then Sonia is like Cersie Lannister.

What is her background? Where she comes from? What is her chitta-vritti? what is her education? What kind of people is she AND was she surrounded by, when major life-events happened? what were their motives? What was her response? How did she rise to power? What kind of people she usurped the power from? What price did she pay? What kind of people surround her now? what is their character?

Let me explain in a different way. The entire gen from the Baby boomers till 1968 have been under the modern media spell and also leadership psy ops for a long time. This was used to prop up all the major ruling parties in the world including INC

Sonia is part of that generation and INC was propped up in 1998 by all that new generation who subscribe to the psy ops - psuedo secularism.
psy ops - psuedo secularism is a new generation 4G weapon used again the Indian population and the carriers of this psy ops is the same generation who are leftist, seculars, commies, athiests, westernized, anti-... etc, Most of them were born after 1940 and grew up in the global world media of 70, 80 and future.
The reality of this gen was moulded on psy ops and maya.

The support for this leadership is the westernized media control and Indian gen who beleive in the INC fake ideology.
Think, how many balas she had in 1998 at her side when she miraculously rose to power and lime-light? Apparently, only Sthaana bala (gandhi dynasty) alone. Was it enough to so spectacularly rise to power? No.. Was there any other bala? - Pratyaksha, Anumana and Upamana pramanas say "Don't know !!". But again some is amiss here - Here again comes Anupalabdhi (acknowledging something is amiss and incomplete and hence it is blocking complete cognition). Then applying Arthapatti pramana we narrow down upon some external and invisible but powerful artha-bala and mitra-bala supporting her, making all this happen. Why? Anumaana and Upamaana says, "Don't know". Again Arthapatti needs to be employed.

This explains just the complexity of situation. (this also explains, why I prefer Nirishwar-vaadi Saamkhya-yoga over theistic vedanta with three pramanas onlee). I implore you to abandon samkhya and take refuge of vedanta for grasping this sort of inquiry.

Both LKA and ABV understand this 4G psy ops operation against India right from when IG was assassinated.

As a corollary, similar modus operandi can be applied to Lal Krishna Advani and his weird behavior prior to rise of Narendra Modi. History and Anupalabdhi tells us that he is today a rational player with tapobala, gnyaana bala, aatma-bala and sthaana-bala at his disposal. Yet he behaved like this. He may have lost jana-bala to NM (or one can say NM inherited LKA's jana-bala and added his own), but yet has other balas at his disposal. Yet his actions in past few days looked irrational. Bring in anupalabdhi and arthapatti here as well. Why did he do it? To become PM? - But he categorically stated that he is OUT of PM race in 2011 and DOES NOT want to be one. So he cannot revert from his stated position (being a rational player) without public demand (jana-bala). But NM had already accepted the LKA's jana-bala in his quiver, so LKA (being a rational player) knows that he won't have a jana-bala and hence won't be able to revert from stated position.

Connect all the dots and you will understand that INC is target of the western psy ops.
Something is amiss and understanding and correctly appraising Sonia's bala-profile now is seriously essential towards deciphering it. Because all the recent attempts of everyone belonging to AIF camp to derail parliament sessions (from congress to BBC rape-documentary) and power realignment happening in Ganga-valley and Delhi shows an activation of some sort of system which was lying dormant since 1761.

While we know the broad strokes (AIF Vs PIF, Panipat etc), it is now time to understand the finer undercurrents and ascertain and correctly appraise the ashTa-bala profile of AIF and PIF.

Keep the final goal of the external forces against India always in focus

Final objective:

Target all the national level political parties and national level organization so that country becomes fragmented and there is no one nation.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 21196
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby Prem » 17 Mar 2015 01:03

svinayak"[quote="Atri wrote:
Something is amiss and understanding and correctly appraising Sonia's bala-profile now is seriously essential towards deciphering it. Because all the recent attempts of everyone belonging to AIF camp to derail parliament sessions (from congress to BBC rape-documentary) and power realignment happening in Ganga-valley and Delhi shows an activation of some sort of system which was lying dormant since 1761. While we know the broad strokes (AIF Vs PIF, Panipat etc), it is now time to understand the finer undercurrents and ascertain and correctly appraise the ashTa-bala profile of AIF and PIF.Keep the final goal of the external forces against India always in focusFinal objective:Target all the national level political parties and national level organization so that country becomes fragmented and there is no one nation.

IMHO, last battle between AIF and PIF is on now and AIFs are running out of ammunition. Accommodation might be offered but Indic should press on to reshape the global economic, political order and most Important, value system because the current language, waty and methods of this 21st Century diplomacy are now once more steeped in 17-18th Century era equations. only the rise of India can save ASEANA, ME and Africa from predatory forces.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 11 May 2015 19:40

India needs strong navy to cutoff reinforcements from sea for Pakistan. Same time need strong airforce to prevent paki back-up/reserve forces from joining the land battle.

Same with China. Carry naval battle to SCS.

Hence no option but build up forces.

And due to nuclearization need to keep missile forces.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 55406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought-1

Postby ramana » 13 May 2015 20:45

X_post with highlights....
SwamyG wrote:
Ambar wrote:{quote="SwamyG"}
It is part of the Defensive Offensive policy, or the 4th generational warfare...take everything that this Sarkar does as a Chess game. The government is not bent on dissolving Pakistan, it is interested to tackle Pakistan in a way Pakistan is not a problem. We think emotionally, MAD think strategically. It takes time for us to adjust. Sabar ka fal meeta hota hain.{/quote}

Would we have explained it away the same way had MMS/UPA made such a decision ?

A valid question.
Such an explanation is applicable/possible on any government or politician subject to their credibility that is based on some past or immediate actions; or based on the inference of their policies, ideologies and stance. Removing the fact that past performance is no guarantee for future performance; or that only actions count than ideologies - because that will not lead to any meaningful discussion; we are left with dissecting Modi's Sarkar's past performance or stated objectives.

Considering Modi has been just an year into the office, and no major events have occurred to base our discussion we have to look at the stated objectives. While Modi is a politician, and we have to take a politician with a pinch of salt we have to look at who exercises major influence on Pakistani relations. One person springs to the mind - Ajit Doval. I urge you and others to go to Youtube and search his name, there are still remnants of SASTRA university talks (I do not want to link those here for obvious reasons). Pakistani 'experts' have gotten hold of his speech and they have discussed this considerably on some of their TV talk shows. In that speech Doval ji enunciates what needs to be done with Pakistan. Pakistani experts feel Doval is the major influencer as far as the Pakistani relations go, and MEA does not interfere much. His stated objectives and pans w.r.t Pakistan is crystal clear.

And that is where the credibility of this government comes for having picked him for his role, and giving him the necessary room to perform his work. The messenger is as important as the message. Who would you believe, a person with a stick or a person without stick threatening to hit you? Obviously the person with the stick carries more weight and is far more dangerous than the person without. Congress/UPA did not give us the same assurance of conducting any action.

Based on the youtube videos, it seems Pakistani establishment not only is cognizant of Doval and his plans, but have come out saying they had a role in Khalistani movement and their support to Kashmiri militants. While I am not a keen Pakistani affairs followers like some of the BRF gurus, I was definitely surprised the Pakistani establishments' admission. One 'expert' even goes on to say they found Doval's speech by googling. I am not yet ready to say "unki to ***** phat gayi re"; however it is clear that the game has changed. If 1998 was key year, then 2014 also is a key year.

Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sachin, vera_k and 81 guests