Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years

[Sravan]

I profoundly disagree with the thesis, in the following way.

First of all, all this talk about destroying Pakistan in a military sense has no place in any serious discussion. Why ? In order to understand why, we have to first understand what Pakistan is. Pakistan is merely a forward extension, a front line arm, an expeditionary mission base of the overall Islamic imperialism and expansion. This assertion of mine presupposes that Islam is at least some kind of minimally cohesive entity which has a common vision and can think strategically and tactically to achieve that vision. Some people may argue that Islam does not meet the test of being a minimally cohesive entity that has a common vision and can think strategically and/or tactically. To support this argument, they will point to the fact that Islam itself is divided into many different sects, has many different ethinicities and clearly is politically and territorrially divided. All this is true, but I still argue that Islam is at least minimally a cohesive entity which has a common vision and can think strategically and tactically. Why do I think so ? Because the operative word here is "minimally". It is not necessary for an entity to be "absolutely" cohesive to achieve results, it is enough for an entity to be merely "more cohesive" than its competition. In other words, in real world, it is all about relative strength and not absolute strength, because in real world, no one can be without weaknesses and all powerful and Godlike. Cultures, ideologies, nations and societies get on top and dominate, despite their weaknesses, because others are even weaker and are not able to realize their full potential. Another very profound and subtle point to note is that in most cases, certainly a lot of cases if not most, there is nothing inherent that makes another society relatively weak, in fact, most societies have great potential to come out on top, but what makes them inherently weak is not some genetic weakness or lack of potential, but just actual collective and individual acts within those societies on the ground over a period of time that prevent those societies from realizing their full potential. I believe very strongly that Islam is more cohesive and has been so, since its inception in relation to all others, with the exception of a two hundred year period when not only Islam but the whole world was blind sided by the renaissance induced age of exploration and the resultant industrial revolution in the West. The resulting superiority of the West during those 200 years is practically coming to an end now in the early 21st century, re-establishing Islam as the "most cohesive" force in the world once again, as it has been from the 7th Century AD through the 18th century and perhaps even the 19th century.

Despite its internal contradictions due to sectarianism, fractured politics, territorial separation, and multiple ethnicities, Islam is unified at its core by the ideas of Quoran and to a large extent by the supporting Hadees (Hadiths ? or Hadis ?). I believe the entire thesis of Quoran and its supporting books is an ideology that promotes and glorifies 1) exclusivity, 2) demonizing of the people not of the book(the kafirs) to the point of branding them less than human, 3) conversion of the kafir by force and/or deception, 4) Killing of kafirs that refuse to convert by force and/or deception and 5) grabbing of as much territory and resources by force in the name of Islam as possible and create "holy lands" (Pakistans, not one but many) there (holy lands mean in Islam, where the word of Allah as manifested in Qoran and Quoranic law in the form of Sharia prevails). So at its core, all the different political entities, sects, ethnicities and nations within Islam believe in the above and are united in promoting the above. "The above" can be in simple terms be encapsulated in one idea, namely "make the whole world islamic, by hook or by crook". Now the question arises, how despite all the differences within Islam itself, where some within Islam are bitter enemies of each other, Islam can manage to be a cohesive enough entity to be able to be superior(in relative terms, of course) to all others in achieving their goals of "making the whole world Islamic, by hook or by crook" ? This, I think is the crux of the matter and is not given much thought to by anybody, including the intellectuals on this forum. I think the reason why people on this forum have not given this question much thought, despite possessing superior intellect, is that Hindu intellectuals have a blind spot in their minds about one thing. They equate good results with good morality. They cannot imagine that an evil ideology, an inferior philosophy which contains nothing but violence, destruction, and "un-civilization" can win out. But sometimes it does. There is nothing in the laws of logic that states that only the "good" wins or should win. "Good" is a subjective terms, logic is objective. So, once we free ourselves of the notion that only the "Good" wins and the "bad" is inevitably doomed to extinction, will we be able to get out of the state of denial that we are in, and then we will be able to see very clearly that Islam, despite its differences has superior organization or has organized itself in a superior way than others. How ? To understand how Islam has organized itself in a superior way, let us do a small case study and then extrapolate it into the larger Islamic world. Take the case of Al-Quaida or even Laskhar-e-Toiba or JAish-e-Mohammed or even theTalban as a whole or even look at organizations as disparate as Dawood Ibrahim's D company and the ISI. Look at their strategy and tactics. They have been successful in achieving their goals way beyond their resources (again in relative terms, they have not achieved 100% of their goals). How ? they are past masters and expert practitioners of "independent cell" strategies and tactics. They long ago created and put into practice the idea of independent, disjoint and sometimes sleeper cells, that do not need to stay in constant communications with each other and do not need to coordinate with each other in any detailed manner. Each cell has very simple and limited goals and ideology, which is to destroy the non-Islamic, create as much havoc in the non-Islamic world as possible, using the crudest, simplest and cheapest of all weapons and not be bound or curtailed or constrained by any "good" civilizational aspects of humanity, and if it results in self destruction of that particular cell, so be it, that cost should be acceptable to all, including those members of the cells that are being destroyed. So, this cell concept has been highly successful, because it gives the organization a non linear and non tangible structure. There is no head to cut, no body, no tail. There are just cells that are independent, destruction of one doesnt affect the other and these cells are easily reproducable and replacable. Islam as a whole is like that. Iran and Saudis may be divided sect wise and politically and may be totally distinct cultures, but they are like larger cells within the body of Islam, which sometimes harm each other, but stay completely true to the idea of "creating as much havoc" in the non_Islamic world and spreading "Islam by hook or crook".

So, now we circle back to Pakistan, with which we started this discussion and this post. Pakistan is merely another "cell" in the larger body of Islam. It may be different from other cells, in that it is located in the front lines of Islam today, at its borders. Because it is located at its borders, its next and immediate target and focus and area of operation is the area that happens to be right across the border from it, ie., India. And because it is located at the frontier of Islam, it has to be by nature more lethal, because it has to serve the dual purpose of defending Islam against non-Islamics and attacking non-Islamics in order to advance the larger goal of the organism called Islam, of which it (Pakistan) is merely one cell. Now this cell has armed itself with nuclear weapons, so it has almost made itself indestructable by outsiders(US or India) using military means. In fact, even when it was not armed with nuclear weapons, India was not able to destroy it (we can get into a whole lifetime of discussion why, but the fact remains that India was not able to destroy this cell), now it is that much more difficult. And even, if by some miracle, this cell called Pakistan does get destroyed, so what ? It is only a temporary and inexpensive setback for the larger organism called Islam. Cells are replaceable and killing of one cell does not wound the organism seriously anyway. In any case, undue focus on destruction of just one cell, no matter how lethal focussed it is on India, is extremely counter productive. Let us not forget, if it was not Gaznavi, it was Gauri, if it was not Gauri, it was Abdali and on and on. Undue focus on one, to the exclusion of others is not wise.

So, what is the answer ? How do we destroy the whole organism and not just cells ? Is killing cell by cell the best strategy (I think not) ? So, what is a good strategy ? Well, we can discuss this here. I would like to hear what others think. But I can lay out two suggestions.

1) Stop living in denial and use logic as much as possible, as that is the greatest weapon of the relatively weak, to find logical contradictions in the enemy and exploit them and to not allow the enemy to find contradictions within us. Once we are able to face reality and get our head out of the sand, we are smart enough to come up with the answers.

2) To strengthen ourselves internally.

Why I profoundly disagree with the thesis ? Because, there is no question of any partially civilized society to ever have any peace with Islam. And Islam is not going away in the next 25 years (we all can take that to the bank) and hell, not even the one cell, Pakistan is going away anywhere in the next 25 years. Until Islam disappears there will never be any peace in the world, leave alone the subcontinent which is the current front line battle ground for Islamic expansion. And Islam, like I said is not going away anywhere in the next 25 years. In fact, if I use logic, all indications are for there to be a totally Islamic world within the next 250 years (250 years seem like a long time, but is not even a blip even in human history).

I think this very clearly aligns with my original post on Page 1. The problem is more internal than external. India is not as unified as it should be, so external parties are exploiting this weakness. That attitude has to start from citizenry and bubble up into politics for us to have a strong sphere of influence.

[RajeshA]

I personally think this thread is welcome. Till now many of the governments in India have used the excuse that they cannot make an issue of Islam and as such there is only so much they can do about Pakistan and its rhetoric, that war is not an option.

Perhaps this thread allows "secular" Indians to also develop strategies on how to deal with Pakistan minus the Islam factor.

This thread does not take away any of the "wisdom" one has gained in all the other threads, but there is nothing wrong in producing more "secular" arguments in favor of continuous war with Pakistan!

It is quite likely that India would see more of these "secular" governments coming to power in India, so BRF cannot really afford to have solutions only for the case when the government in India is shuddh Bharatiya and would declare aar-paar ka Dharma-Yuddha on Pakistan. There must be solutions and strategies for the leecharh camp as well, other than "Aman ka Tamasha"! Even if a Bharatiya Nationalist government should come to power in India, who knows how coalition politics and other considerations may stay their hand.

I personally welcome a thread which takes Islam out of the mix and discusses India-Pakistan conflict as a conflict between two Westphalian states in a global order fixed against India.

War should be an option regardless of ideology, simply based on "secular" data!

[member_23692]

We do not have deterministic solution to this problem todate ! Not likely to evolve either !
What is clear is that the cancer of the patient dies with the death of the patient !
Does it gives us an inkling as to where we are headed ?

Thanks Dada, and you didnt do so bad yourself, in relating to how cancer cells work to how Islamist Cells work. Beautiful analogy (if I may use the word beautiful in such macabre context).

In fact, your conclusion is extremely profound and alarming, but is very logical. In fact, you may have answered another recurring question that has confounded Shiv and Shaurya and many others on this forum and had even confounded me until very recently. The question is, if it is true, as most of us believe on this forum, including Shiv and Shaurya, that Islamism is also a threat to the West and China (although in case of India it is far more immediate and urgent), why is it that they keep supporting not only Pakistan (which they do politically, economically and militarily, including condoning their acquisition of nuclear weapons and delivery systems) ? Are they(the West) stupid ? Or are we (Indians) stupid ? Or are the Islamists just smarter than everybody else ? Or are Pakis outsmarting the West ? Or the West actually sees India as a greater threat than the Islamic threat because of our booming economy and inevitable super power status in the near future (this thought I think is the ultmate delusion of grandeur that we Indians collectively allow ourselves)?

Why, after all, why does the West keep supporting the Pakis, when it is so illogical ? Why does it act as a "force multiplier" against us by aligning with Islamist interests?

Well, you answered it, Dada.

I think the majority in the American Policy establishment have clearly come to realize that Islamism is a much larger threat to the West than India ever can be or will be. Their engagement in Afganistan has made them realize two main things, one, the relative strength and advantages that the impoverished, cave dwelling Islamists have over even the West and two, their increased intelligence in India has completely laid bare in their minds, the hollowness and absolute weakness of Indian culture and society. So, they have come face to face with the following facts.

1. That Islamists are organized in a far more superior fashion than even the West and this superior organization is capable of not only defending Islamists against Western incursions (which they look upon as Crusades) but also enables the ISlamists to successfully assume an aggressive posture against the West for the first time in 200 years.

2. The Western (American) policy establishment types have been demoralized completely by their experiences in Iraq but in particular Afghanistan and also by subsequent events of the Arab Spring, which have been nothing but Islamist revivalism, after being under Western domination for almost 200 years and has come to believe in the superiority of the Islamist capabilities vis-a-vis them.

3. The American policy establishment has come to the same conclusion as you, Dada, that the cancer is incurable and the end game of this cancer is the death of the patient itself.

4. Still, till there is life, there is hope, and one would imagine that even given the inevitable a living culture will try to fight it out as long as possible, but like I said, the Western experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Arab Spring over the last decade and its devastating economic effects, has totally demoralized the West into resignation and not fighting.

5. The West which 15 or 20 years ago had some hopes in India assuming great power status to where it could ally with the West to counter Islamism also lost any such hopes of India ever achieving such status and developing credible check to the Islamists, through its engagement with India over the past 20 years. It is not the case that the West is not aware, that it acted as a "force multiplier" in favor of the Islamists in bringing India down to this hopeless level, but it rightly attributes most of the failure to our own internal fissures and our own self goal scoring behaviour. Had it not been for our own self destructive behaviour, we could have withstood even the "Western Force Multiplication" against us. Therefore, an alliance with India to thwart the Islamists in Western minds is also a lost cause and a non starter and will never be powerful enough to counter Islamists.

6. So, what do the Americans do ? They will try a two pronged strategy, both prongs that have been long tried and tested and both failures, but in view of the Americans the only two options available to them. 1) Try short term long distance retaliation in case of direct attacks on Western homelands, akin to chemo therapy and radiation in your scenario, Dada, even though it is not a long term cure and 2) Bribe, bribe, bribe your enemies, which is akin to taking pain killers or even placibo - it makes you think you have done something. It is this second prong, which explains the Western "force multiplier" in favor of Paki and Islamists against India. They are basically throwing India under the bus to bribe our enemies and their enemy too.

This is now. What in the past explained the West's leanings towards Islamists ? The answer is "Hubris". The West until even 20 years ago, particularly after the cold war was over, but also throughout the late 19th and 20th century, thought it was so powerful that it could act as a judge. And as a judge, it chose not to look at the merits of the case, but simply chose to maintain a balance of power among the "heathens", and in their minds, both India and Islamists were heathens and they didnt want to get one ahead of the other, not realizing at the time, that the opportunistic Islamists will come out way ahead, given half a chance. In addition to this "hubris", there was a good amount of "stupidity" that also accounts for the West siding with Pakis and Islamists. The Western policy establishment was prone to flattery and deception, which the PAkis and the Islamists excelled in and the Indians were too argumentative and preachy for their taste. The Western policy establishement was until very recently highly racist and prone to be influenced by skin color, which also favored the Islamists over India and lastly, their religious bias favored a mono-athiestic, Abrahamic ("Judeo-Christian") derived religion (Islam) over the completely heathonistic, pagan and multi-athiestic Hindu religion.

Hubris, stupidity, racism, religious bais, and now resignation and bribery accounts for the Western "force multiplier" in favor of Islamists against India. In the end though, India will be finished, but the cancer will eat up the West too and the ultimate joke will be on them.

[Karan Dixit]

The world is a chess board. On this board we have kings, queens, bishops, knights, pawns, etc. In order to survive/thrive in this world a country has to use these pieces. There are countries which are using Pakistan (and may be Islam) as pawn to further their interests. In order to survive/thrive, India too will have to play the game of chess. Bashing Islam is a very stupid thing to do in this game of chess. This is why I could not understand all the rona dhona about Islamization of UK.

[RajeshA]

OT

In order to survive/thrive, India too will have to play the game of chess. Bashing Islam is a very stupid thing to do in this game of chess. This is why I could not understand all the rona dhona about Islamization of UK.

Just because it may be theoretically possible to use Islam to further India's interests does not mean that Islam stops being a threat to India. The focus on UK was to make Indians aware that UK does side with Islam when Islam undermines India's interests, and that such positions of UK should not come as unexpected for Indians.

Also there are many Macaulayites in India who consider Britain's sense of fairness and justice above any reproach. They should be informed that their ideological God is nothing but a puppet of Islam.

[shiv]

So put your energies and creative solution opportunities
With out the baggage of religion which is not prone to reform or evolving as time goes on .
For all the bravery touted by followers if the pure don't have enough guts or balls to be inclusive and diverse.

So the discussion should be to educate Indians the need to be ready for war through self reliance and clear military manufacturing superiority
As you guys know some the most innovative technologies came about during intense war periods
If not for 1948 1962 1965 we would not be successful in 1971

So no peace except on our unilateral terms

Thank you Pentaiah garu

[shiv]

Perhaps this thread allows "secular" Indians to also develop strategies on how to deal with Pakistan minus the Islam factor.

This thread does not take away any of the "wisdom" one has gained in all the other threads, but there is nothing wrong in producing more "secular" arguments in favor of continuous war with Pakistan!
<snip>

War should be an option regardless of ideology, simply based on "secular" data!

Perfectly assessed Rajesh - as immaculately put as your other brilliant and succinct posts in the sister thread you created

It is blindness to dismiss people who see themselves as "secular" as brainless ignoramuses, thereby placing ourselves, the people who see Islamism as a threat of some sort of higher pedestal for superior beings.

Even if you are secular and see nothing wrong with Islamic Pakistan, you need to learn that there are very powerful scular reasons not to simply make peace but to arm ourselves and be ready for war not just with shitistan, but ith its sponsors.

We have the demography. We have the rationale. We just need to implement the plan to get the infratsructure and use our assets. Too many people forget that a worker in an arms factory in India does not need to hate Pakistan or Islam to do a good job. But we need to understand the rationale for setting up such an industry. This requires planning and forethought and if you think about it all the necessary reasons and preconditions are already there to convince even the "fool/retards" secular people as to the way we can develop ourselves and why we need to do it this way

[Prem]

IMHO, Poaqlastan shall be penalised in 3 ways for its anti India policies . Impose disproportional amount of Economic ,Social and Security cost to them for their crimes against us. Economic cost is the easiest and most direct route India can take by hitting them in export market and by undermining their "industrial" (Lilla bit that exist), manufacturing base.Social cost to be accelerated from current mess by fully exploiting the fissures in different shades of green from Pumpkin Green to Cucumber and Karela Green.
Impose Security cost by making them increase their defese budget. For this we need to start needling them on LOC etc and administer Thappar from time to time in very open manner. Being emotional fools , use all the manipulative methods by playing with their Psyche. Work out plan and allocate budget for actual deterioration of security situaltion on their Western border and in Hindu ocean. NSAs with sophisticated weaponery can harass Paki bound ships . On international level, Isolate them from friends or sow the seeds of suspicion. Also ignore them by refusing to recognize them in so called bilateral foras currenly used by Track P etc , avoid extending any validation or acknowledgement. No more AKA in honest manner , Use it for time pass , Chai Paani suff etc or just shut it.
Internally, It is now becoming imperatives that Paki lobby within Desh must be neutralized using all possible kind means. Owais, Omar types must be death with using appropriate lawful methods. National consensus be build for the destructipon of Evil Kabila campling next door on pririty basis. Peace is impossible with Pakistan as we know of , No fun, no use of keeping wounded animal on the periphery. Every logical conclusion and policy calls for its dissolution and destruction.
Boycott any talk,interaction which refers or come loaded with Allah , Islam or its Prophet by considering them non starters or irrelevant. Keep it strictly secular.

[member_20317]

Ok here is one secular methodology of getting the job done. All power to the Seculars if they can think of ways to exploit this. But the problem with strictly secular solutions has been that they are not cued into strictly secular diagnosis.

Being a self-confessed Hindutva vaadi, I find it strange to witness the half hearted suggestions by Seculars. The world has its black money in Pakiland. Very secular observation. This money they use to horse trade all sorts of Generals, Mullahs, Cricketers, Vaderas and Politicians. A very secular usage of secular money. India getting involved should be a secular idea too. But all we get is a sell on Pakistan. Instead the secular media is used to try to force Indians into a white trade with Pakiland, without there being any explaination as to why good money (mehnat ki kamai) should be thrown at a place where even the black money is not being thrown.

The quote below clearly shows their own assessment of their powerful people, which is not very different from that of ours about ours. We feel threatened by our powerful people. They can also be made to feel that. So why fight with one hand tied. Is it because the monetary considerations that powerful Indians are a part of are linked to 3.5 entities?


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... /?page=all

“Politics and dirty money go hand in hand in Pakistan,” said Dr. Ikramul Haq, a Supreme Court lawyer and a professor on tax law.

“People want to be outside the regulatory framework and outside the tax net.”

The idea of MIC is also just as lackluster. We are already 8 times bigger then Pakis. Have been so for close to 40 years now (Penthiah garu, note after 71). Despite this bigger better of everything, we still could not stop Pakis from meddling in our affairs at multiple places then why is it so easily believable that a still bigger MIC will help us. Does a doctor prescribe 4 aspirin if 1 fails. Everytime we got caught up in a trouble created by our bling bling people we ended up solving it only by a covert intervention in Pakiland, at times winning the contest at times forcing a draw but never loosing it (Outsiders did loose though, sigh!).

Why MIC? And why not Covert action?

[pentaiah]

Discrediting and not giving any platform aka public addressing capability, publicity, coverage in media
Completely ignoring is the best way to shut out anti nationals and their subversive preaching.
This is instead of physical elimination or threats of that nature.

[shiv]

Why MIC? And why not Covert action?

Because the thesis as I see it is not about sorting out either Islamism or Pakistan by fighting either the ideology or covert action.

The thesis is that there cannot be peace; hopes of peace are misplaced. Since all our preparations for war are half hearted, with insufficient investment in our own people and panic imports when needed, I am just trying to point out that there are enough reasons for us to prepare for war with not just Pakistan, but also anyone else especially Pakistan's sponsors who have easily laughed and balanced Pakistan against us.

There is no suggestion whatsoever in any of my posts about specific action against Pakistan. If you say Why not covert action? I would say "Yes why not?" but my intention was never ever to "sort out" Pakistan by war of covert action. It was simply to use the excuse of the hostile environment India faces to convert India into an industrialized military economy. Do you have any specific objection to that?

Incidentally the Indian military is not 8 times bigger than the Pakistan military. I request you to be specific about what is 8 times bigger. How about making our military 8 times bigger?

[member_20317]

My motivation in suggesting Covert action was that it can easily be Secular and all Indians can come support this. Others do that in Pakiland, they are secular. 3.5 entities buying up assets in Pakiland is the same as Indians buying up assets. They too should not have any concerns since everything is on equal footing basis. I also believe secularity can be engaged with by suitable packaging of covert action.

But I respect your concerns since yes any/all actions by a Hindu majority India can be construed as a fundamentalist attack on Pakiland and the 3.5 concerns may be important for certain sections of Indian society. So I will let this drop on this thread.

However that still leaves me unconvinced as regards the relevance of MIC vis a vis Pakis. See a knife missed by an inch is as good as a knife missed by a mile. India does not have to be 8 times bigger to make its presence felt. Viets did it with much less. So did Talipan. Ok these are poor countries and holding out these examples could be of concern for certain other sections of Indian society. But then Germans, Russians, English (not poor countries) have fought wars and taken action on their issues of their national concern at somewhat lesser handicaps (but handicaps nonetheless), at various points in history. Point is how big do you want the Indic MIC to be to be, that could engender some confidence in the Indians to take on the Pakis.

Basically at this point you will have to take the stage and educate us about how a bigger MIC will be of help in taking on Pakis.


Caveats:
1) I also believe in a green hulky menacing MIC for India. But none of the reasons that I supply to justify it have anything to do with Pakiland.

[ShauryaT]

It was simply to use the excuse of the hostile environment India faces to convert India into an industrialized military economy. Do you have any specific objection to that?

Incidentally the Indian military is not 8 times bigger than the Pakistan military. I request you to be specific about what is 8 times bigger. How about making our military 8 times bigger?

The excuse is not needed at all. An honest appraisal of the direct threat from China alone, requires of us to build this MIC at a war footing. The Indian military in theory keeps a 5:1 fire power ratio against TSP. But, in a localized setting this ratio would decrease due to fragmentation of forces on two fronts. We still lack overwhelming fire power against TSP, something which is a by product of not being in control of critical pieces of the MIC.

[shiv]

However that still leaves me unconvinced as regards the relevance of MIC vis a vis Pakis.

An honest appraisal of the direct threat from China alone, requires of us to build this MIC at a war footing.

Together RaviG and Shaurya have conspired to give me the opportunity to explain what I have been trying to say on this thread.

1. A military Industrial complex is not country specific. If you set about building an MIC it is a threat to every nation that may have to take on India. It is wrong to say that we build an MIC because of China or because of Pakistan. An MIC needs to be built because of intertwined threats. China is a threat. Pakistan is armed by the USA and China so US arms and western arms embargoes against India as ell as the recent arms export agreement are all threats that India faces.. An MIC cannot be country specific even if the MIC is built up by naming a specific country. The MIC needs building up because there is no chance of peace at least for 25 years, maybe more. The MIC is a consequence of the overall threat environment.

2. I mentioned China in passing in the first post of this thread. Here is the first sentence of this thread:

As the title states, the thesis of this opinion piece by me is that there is no chance of that mythical "Peace" with Pakistan (or China) for the next 25 years at least.

Why did I concentrate on expanding on the Pakistan threat?

I do not need to tell either Shaurya or Ravi or anyone else on BRF the need for an MIC. The people who need to read about the need for an MIC are the lurkers and fence sitters who believe that
a. Peace with Pakistan is possible
b. When that peace comes "both nations" can wind down their militaries. Since the Indian military is bigger the Indian winding down can be much greater
c. Then all that money saved can be spent towards education, toilets, secularism and condoms

There is pressure from various sources being applied on naive Indians who actually believe this crap. The pressure is being applied both by "reasonable" Pakistanis and western think tanks and Indians. And you know what, these same people who are applying this pressure on India will be the first to call out "Hindutva! Hindu right wing" the minute you bring Islamism into the picture.

That is why I am very keen to leave out the islam question altogether in this thread. There are "secular" reasons for not disarming. In fact those reasons call for the development of an MIC. It is tough shit and bad luck for peaceniks that the secular argument for an MIC creation happens to agree with the Hindutva argument.

When you club the Islamism threat argument here - it is countered by a litany of "Hindu right wing" howls that make it look like it is ONLY a Hindu right wing argument against Islamism that calls for an MIC, as if the absence of a Hindu right wing would obviate the need for an MIC and make "peace" with Pakistan possible.

I hope people are able to see where I am drawing the line. Basically I don't give a damn what you guys on BRF say or think because none of you will disagree with the MIC necessity. But I just want to build up the argument for an MIC minus any reference to Islamism. Islamism is not only used as a tool against India, any protest against Islamism is used as an accusation of Hindu right wing bigotry. All I want to do is to remove the Islam argument and show that we still cannot have peace and we still will have to do some drastic arming. It just so happens that once you have an MIC its products can be used against anyone. An MIC is not country specific or ideology specific.

[harbans]

I think it is pertinent to define what we really imply when we say 'Peace'. Is the US for example at peace even though it's been involved in 2 wars last decade that have cost it around 10k soldiers. Has India been at peace last 65 years as we have lost just about that in all our wars combined. Our boundaries have remained Status quo sort of last 65 years or so, is that peace? We lose 100K plus every year on our roads, does that imply we don't have peace on our roads..much less than all our losses due to terror. Thus it's not just conflict on the border, loss of manpower that may define or not define what peace means in a strategic sense as applicable to this board. When we talk Peace we must imply primarily a status Quo or enhancement of our basic visions within our national boundaries and beyond. Peace IMO is the lack of strategic vision conflict with neighbors. That is why irrespective of our losses we have never had peace in the last 65 years and unlikely in the next 65 or more. The way Pakistan/ China will look at the Indian subcontinent will be at odds with the way we look at it. These odds are what will propagate and seek to enhance faultlines within our national boundaries, tempered only by intelligence and security services.

There will be always as a result 3 ways of looking at the above. After all everyone seeks peace, right. Firstly those that abhor armed conflict of any type as the 'Peace' they cherish. So even an arty exchange between troops is looked down. Such people will not mind seriously thinking about claims on our territory made by neighbors that offer 'peace' in exchange for such compromises. Second group of folks that won't look at changing status quos on the border, but will try and make internal changes that seek to make our system similar to those of our neighbors. Oh look you are like this, we too are like you only. Lets combine together and hey we can show XYZ how powerful South Asia is . A large group of WKKs fall in this category. The 3rd group that has not been fully tried out, is the one that says lets really teach them a lesson Israeli style etc. for the provocations, we will see what happens.

A combination method that is in vogue is that lets mainatain status quo but decrease the inherent strategic conflicts by increasing People to People contact, kissing candles at Wagah, allowing unfettered access, free trade..etc in the hope that people coming closer will make redundant inherent strategic differences in thought and outlook. That is tempered by 'oh look how similar we are' etc. Now this outlook is frowned by hardliners both in Pakistan and India. The Paki hardliners feel they will become 'Bollywoodized', 'Hinduized' etc. The Indian hardliner feels this will lead to more Islamization etc and over time integration will make India islamized faster.

For that matter, lets say Is South Korea at Peace last few decades? IMO Peace comes about only when your neighborhood has the same value systems you cherish. If they are different there will be inherent and explosive conflict kept under wraps by effort, which is not really a state of peace. So to keep the peace we must have a neighborhood that shares the same value systems or is militarily completely inane. As teh 2nd case does not apply to Pakistan, China or NK the only thing that a country like India can do is work slowly towards making Paki/ Chinese value systems similar to what we have. For the future we can have the same peace as those living off vesuvius or yellowstone.

[brihaspati]

Why should an Indian "secular" - strictly "secular I mean and not covering or hiding sympathies for one religion under the garb of being neutral - have any reason to act against non-peace activities from Pakistan?

There is onlee one reason - logically that is - for which they should think so. But that underlying reason itself is non-secular. But there is no "secular" reason for "seculars" to be concerned at all about repeated or continuous breaking of "peace" by Pakis targeting India in the next 25 years.

If people think that there exist "secular" reasons for "seculars" to be concerne d about - please lay out the points!

[member_20317]

Good to be at the service of you guys. Its a yagya. Pls do your aahuti per your shradhaa. We guys got our own thread in the non-burkha section and that is good enough for the time being. In any case most of my gurujan are the non-military kind.

One more hurdle remains for you guys. You failed to provide for the laanchan/accusation of you guys having been pushed towards a hardline by the resident "Hindu Hawks". Life is not going to be easy. This cannot just be brushed aside. How do you guys plan on tackling that part of the criticism directed at your suggestions.

[shiv]

Why should an Indian "secular" - strictly "secular I mean and not covering or hiding sympathies for one religion under the garb of being neutral - have any reason to act against non-peace activities from Pakistan?

The hope that there will be peace and the belief that Pakistanis and western experts who call for peace moves by India as being the most sensible option are correct.

Half my reply is here. the other half of my reply will go in the other thread and I will link it here

The other half
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1439995

[ShauryaT]

Shiv ji: The premise of this thread is a little puzzling. Why 25 years and why the excuse of the outside supporting powers, when the direct threats are so obvious? Our issue is not that we need a bigger excuse or a more urgent one, when real and urgent threats are available in spades.

I have my own theory on what ails this lack of “Strategic security” thinking amongst our corridors of power, resulting in the utter lack to provide basic security features to the state, and the resultant inability to structure an effective MIC.

Muslims see us as a Hindu country and so does the rest of the world. To many in the west, Hindu India is an exception to the Islamic arch in the IOR and hence the odd man out. To them, from their lenses, Hindu India has less credibility as a nation-state than Islamic Pakistan, due to known and verifiable accounts of history – especially one that is understood and recognized by the west. So, to them Indian history is Islamic history. I know this version is not popular anymore but it was till 9/11 and I am inclined to believe the politics of 9/11 was a blip.

If to the entire world we are Hindu India, then why are we the only one’s fooling ourselves and refusing to accept this reality and instead fiercely resist and claim that the rest of the world are fools and we are NOT hindu India but secular – i.e: divorced from Hindu. I know the answer but do question, the rationale of the men, who in their wisdom at that time, chose this path for us.

We do not need an excuse; we need to come to grips with reality. Something that a Kshatriya led polity would know, but not a motley of small minded men out to capture power for their own little jatis, fiefdoms and not for those in it to gain economic leverage for themselves and their minions, with no values to protect and no desire to serve, under a structure that sorely lacks checks and balances and where the competition is to show how much romance can one sell to a drunk electorate (sometimes literally).

This process requires hard work, sweat and sacrifices of the blood – not something that is within the realm of men, who sat back and inherited 85% of a foreign constitution, rubber stamped it as our own and went home. Save for the iron fence, a thankful legacy of the British and the threats in the first 25 years, we did be truly lost. Otherwise, we truly run on ram bharose!!

[shiv]

[quote="ShauryaT"]Shiv ji: The premise of this thread is a little puzzling. Why 25 years and why the excuse of the outside supporting powers, when the direct threats are so obvious?/quote]

1.Why 25 years?

• I could have said 20 to 30 years. Or I could have said 50 years. I would NOT say 10 years because it is too short a period for planning for the entire nation and I think 25 years is a length of time that is sufficient for hanging the course of the country. I am speaking of a demographic bulge of under 15s today. These people, under 15 today will be crucial to India in 25 years. They will be between 16 and 41 years in 25 years time. None of them has finished school today. Some were born yesterday. We have to teach them and make them aware of reality and what needs to be done. We are already building the educational institutions they need We now need to start planing for their employment. We need to plan thrust areas where we will expand to start providing employment to the under 15s of today and my thesis suggests that this plan should favour an MIC

2. Why the excuse of outside supporting powers?

• There is, in my view, too much of an emphasis on believing that solving the Pakistan issue will bring everlasting peace. It will neither get solved nor bring everlasting peace. It is important to recognise the role of outside powers in promoting hostility to India. That expanded threat way beyond the false hopes of peace with Pakistan is what provides the rationale for India to become a military superpowers with a huge MIC ready to rip open anyone's ass in 25 years time, should they mess with India they have done for the last 50 years

[shiv]

For that matter, lets say Is South Korea at Peace last few decades? IMO Peace comes about only when your neighborhood has the same value systems you cherish. If they are different there will be inherent and explosive conflict kept under wraps by effort, which is not really a state of peace. So to keep the peace we must have a neighborhood that shares the same value systems or is militarily completely inane. As teh 2nd case does not apply to Pakistan, China or NK the only thing that a country like India can do is work slowly towards making Paki/ Chinese value systems similar to what we have. For the future we can have the same peace as those living off vesuvius or yellowstone.

+1

[member_23686]

i dont get it. india is already secular. we fight for secular reasons only. no war was ever declared for hindutva. even after this if west considers indo- pak war as hindu- muslim affair then that is their mistake.

what kind of special strain of secularism is being asked here? can anyone explain please?

[pentaiah]

Secularism is not the issue under discussion, it's the state of Indian union that should focus on the development of India into powerful MiC driven economy.

The premise is to detach peace with TSP and PRC from being a factor into India developing into military industrial power with out shame or residual complex of MKG methodology appendages

No overt war does not mean that TSP or PRC have reconciled to peace.
It means we are at war for the near future.
So desist getting to secular, or non secular ideology related context to the thesis proposed.

[Klaus]

Good to be at the service of you guys. Its a yagya. Pls do your aahuti per your shradhaa. We guys got our own thread in the non-burkha section and that is good enough for the time being. In any case most of my gurujan are the non-military kind.

One more hurdle remains for you guys. You failed to provide for the laanchan/accusation of you guys having been pushed towards a hardline by the resident "Hindu Hawks". Life is not going to be easy. This cannot just be brushed aside. How do you guys plan on tackling that part of the criticism directed at your suggestions.

This attitude as represented by the bolded portion is entirely uncalled for. Why the need for segregation within this forum? What is the need for this self-flagellation and divisiveness which will only serve to prove B RAWman's opinion of BRF right? If you cannot learn to co-exist in this sandbox consisting of a couple of hundred active posters, then why talk of big-picture plans for India?

Additionally, why do you necessarily think that covert action by India (inside TSP/UK/Canada or any other entity) needs to be divorced from the indigenous MIC up-scaling and paradigm change that Shiv (and many others before) have advocated on this forum? Dont the covert action plans have necessary pre-requisites in terms of actionable HUMINT on the ground? Do you or dont you know from your readings on the forum as to the extent of penetration of the intelligence and investigation agencies, their unbroken linkages from British era times and their principled stands on these links (and by extension Londonistan financed terrorism/black money laundering and narco-trafficking network linkages) being sacrosanct and 'untouchable' by the Indian services or other national agencies?

Don't you realize that the indigenous MIC idea involves building up of a 2nd rung of intelligence capabilities, which will not be subject to the same shackles as that faced by the Indian state?

Which part of the above dont you realize?

[RajeshA]

shiv saar,

I think one activity we should start considering the no-peace scenario for next 25 years is construction of nuclear bunkers on a massive scale and preparing for nuclear war. We need to be digging tunnels all across India as sanctuary and 2nd strike option.

The day we have a big nuclear bunker program, Pakistan's whole nuclear blackmail would become moot. If the Pakis see us starting to prepare for an "Aftermath of Nuclear Attack and our Civilizational Renewal", they will have second thoughts on continuing with their game of brinkmanship. Then all sub-nuclear strategies come into play.

[Prem]

The digging of Tunnels had added benefit. It will provide employment to many youths as well create sense of nationalism ny keeping them away of PSers. RNI value system. Assuming, the project require manpower of Half a million helthy Indians, give them the proper training in keeping internal security also so it can be used on needful basis.The experiecne of Retired Faujis can be well utilized for this Good Kaaj.

[RajeshA]

The digging of Tunnels has added benefit. It would improve our digging technology, which would help us make dams on our rivers even faster.

Moreover it would prove a bonanza for Archaeological Survey of India, of course under honest leadership. There are treasures over treasures under the surface which will tell the story of Bharat!

[brihaspati]

Why should an Indian "secular" - strictly "secular I mean and not covering or hiding sympathies for one religion under the garb of being neutral - have any reason to act against non-peace activities from Pakistan?

The hope that there will be peace and the belief that Pakistanis and western experts who call for peace moves by India as being the most sensible option are correct.

Half my reply is here. the other half of my reply will go in the other thread and I will link it here

The other half
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1439995

Shivji,
that was not my question : I said, "why should an Indian "secular" - have any reason to act against non-peace activities from Pakistan? "

Even if you hope for peace, you still do not necessarily have to act against "non-peace" moves by Pak. You can think that by opposing such "non-peace" moves you will worsen the situation, and increase violence. This is the logic that in the Indian context found its most sophisticated layout in the argument that by getting violent against an offensive regime [as the Brits] or movement, we play into the hands of cycles of violent retribution [the infamous and much (ab)used "eye for an eye leaves everyone blind"]. This at its current most ludicrous - is the argument used by both regional and central govs in India not to crack down on mullahcracy induced street rioting on religious childishness, or prevent any criticism or exposure of Islamic texts/memes/ on the excuse that it will deteriorate the "law and order" situation.

Given this prevalent thesis - there is every reason for the "secular" logic - not to react negatively, fight against, or prevent or retaliate - any "non-peaceful" move by Pakistan. In fact the more the violence from pak - the greater will be the secular logic not to "escalate" by countering/opposing violence from pakistan.


You need non-secular logic to add the extra motivation to retaliate/prevent/clamp-down on violence from pakiland.

On the other hand if the "secular" logic is just a cover to hide shame in being born a non-Muslim, or secret adoration of Islam and hatred for the "Hindu", then hoping for "peace" from Pakiland is against the interest of the secular. However, giving in to the demand from UK-US to give more love and peace in response to Paki violence - will be part of being such a "secular" - because it will be seen as necessary to eradicate the shame of non-Islam in India.

[harbans]

All I want to do is to remove the Islam argument and show that we still cannot have peace and we still will have to do some drastic arming.

Frankly i have tried expressing the same sentiment in the India interests thread a few months ago. I tried doing so by identifying what 'value systems' we believe in and why these conflict with Pakistani ones at a fundamental level. I laid stress in multiple posts in trying to define those Ideals/ Values core aspects why India and some of it's neighbors will be at odds with it's neighbors. Our interests and those that conflict with Pakistan for example is based on what we want to uphold..

1. We can make a lot of on the fence people agree. Including IMs
2. In the long run we can make a genuine attempt to influence our neighborhood also.

Both these are essential in bringing 'peace' particularly if we define it as having congruence in our core objectives. Many of these values IMO are universal and Pakistani or Chinese values based on parochial chauvinism of religion or clan are temporal. The universality of the values we cherish are what we want to win over with. Yet we don't want:

1. Fence sitters remaining on the fence
2. IMs get more confrontational
3. Neighbors get more rattled

IMO we need an interim phase of development and definition and consolidation of what we Indians of all hues really stand for without recourse to bringing Islam or Hinduism etc in. By doing so we may achieve 1. Getting fence sitters on our side, 2. Get IMs to participate, become on side of our values 3. Get neighbors to understand our stance and possibly start aligning with some aspects of what we stand for. In addition it does not negate the Hindutva constituency.

The tough part is defining in those terms what we really stand for..and these are our interests. As IG in the heady days of nationalization felt Socialism and Secularism are the key values we cherish, i think a course correction is due and possibly NM with his focus on governance and business may correct the contortions that have evolved in the definitions and contexts for both the above.

[RajeshA]

Europe will become Eurabia because of "values"!

[harbans]

Rajesh Ji, no defining what you are does not make one what you think. NM is what he is because of his conviction about some things. Maybe there are some course corrections required, but one has to keep defining oneself. We won't have a conflict with Pakistan if we were not something different. What you get outraged at is some core of your violated and that is your value system time of outrage. All conflicts are rooted in difference in doctrine. Every one since recorded history. We can give them religious hue but if we don;t want to do that, we can possibly express the conflict in other terms as a clash of values we cherish. If we stand for plurality and inclusivity, Pakistani's and Chinese don't in their worldview or internal view. We will remain at odds with them. And Europe is not going to become Eurabia any sooner than India is going to become Mughalistan. There will be course corrections in both nations. The emergence of the right is not a coincidence.

[Prem Kumar]

Yet it seems increasingly obvious to me that there is a constituency in India which is largely comprised of, and held hostage to, the agenda of some members of the Ashraf Caste of Indian Muslims. Ashrafs are the Muslim Castes who proudly claim descent from a "superior" lineage of foreign pillagers. Ashrafs enjoyed special status under British colonialism, and laid the ideological groundwork for the creation of Pakistan. Unfortunately, even after partition, many sections of the Ashraf Caste did not go to Pakistan and transmute into RAPEs. A very large section of them stayed back in India, and for generations since independence, they have milked the system of state patronage and vote-bank appeasement for maximum profit.

Rudradev: a very valuable post. Its very important that we tear apart the veil of "Indian Muslims are largely different from Pakistanis". Its also important that we analyze the Indian Muslim population and identify the strata and faultlines, like you have illustrated above. However, a Ashraf-Ajlaf distinction might be a simplistic one.

Case in point: see the following post from another thread today. This is in TamilNadu:

Muslims want protection, curbs on Hindu processions

SP denies accusations of 'witch hunting' of Muslims and 'kangaroo court'. The president of the Jamaat of V.Kalathur demanded that the Muslims be given protection from the 'deliberate' actions of the police.

The State Minorities Commission was witness to a poignant scene involving the Muslims and the Hindus of V.Kalathur, a village in Perambalur district, on Tuesday. When the commission headed by Bishop M. Prakash had a sitting at the Perambalur collectorate, the president of the Jamaat of V.Kalathur demanded that the Muslims be given protection from the “deliberate” actions of the police. He pointed out that four streets in the village had a predominantly Muslim population and hence all that they wanted was that the Hindu processions avoid these streets.

There are no Ashrafs controlling this behavior. This seems like well organized local behavior. We see this everywhere - Assam, Bengal etc. We need to come up with a good model of understanding Muslims in India.

Is Islam itself a sleeper cell?

[ShauryaT]

Is Islam itself a sleeper cell?

Not the thread for the question.

[shiv]

Pleae. I deliberately want to keep off all dicussion of Islam from this thread.

Assume that my thesis is wrong. Let it be shown by the failure of the thesis on this thread that if Islam did not exist we would not need to have an MIC and become a military superpower. Let it be shown that the need for becoming a military superpower with an MIC is almost wholly dependent on India facing an Islam threat.

My argument is: "Please do not discuss Islam here".

If the arguments for having an MIC in the absence of discussion of Islam are weak as this thread progresses over time we can say that Islam is the main reason for building an MIC.

The entire purpose of this thread was to say why an MIC would be a good idea whether or not Islam is the main problem. Clearly this seems to be more difficult to discuss than Islam with everyone finding it easy to bring in Islam to justify the argument for continued non-peace/war and the building of a powerful military. I request that people please understand this. It is a request.

[Agnimitra]

^^^ MIC is important for India to build. The geostrategic compulsions of the Middle East and C. Asia necessitate that, as they have necessitated it since time immemorial. Islamism is merely a very effective, robust and protean Mayajaal and operating basis created specifically for the Middle Eastern player in this geostrategic game.

[shiv]

^^^ MIC is important for India to build. The geostrategic compulsions of the Middle East and C. Asia necessitate that, as they have necessitated it since time immemorial. Islamism is merely a very effective, robust and protean Mayajaal and operating basis created specifically for the Middle Eastern player in this geostrategic game.

In my view India does not need to build an MIC only because it faces a threat from Islam. There are other reasons. But what are they? I have given a few - some of which have been dismissed as weak reasons for building an MIC. There are thousands of posts on dealing with the threat posed by Islam, but not a single thread on why an MIC might be necessary and not just for Islam. Islam and its threat dominates our discussions and our minds to such a great extent that I would like to see whether the idea of an MIC can be justified in the absence of an Islam threat. I think it can, but maybe I am wrong. But for that I think the Islam topic needs to stay out of this thread to see how creative minds can find a justification of an Indian MIC without bringing in the Islam threat.

[Karan Dixit]

We need immediate involvement of GOI in land consolidation and management to prevent waste of precious agricultural lands. Also agricultural industry needs to be kicked started by GOI which can later be taken over by private sector. Try to manufacture as much arms as possible in India even if it is crappy. Increase the number of armed forces substantially; we can arm the personnel with crappy Indian arms and exported ones. Increase the number of warheads and missiles. Start significant covert operations into Pakistan. Identify the enemy within and eliminate them. Bollywood movie industry should be dismantled. A national workshop should be established where new movie writers/directors/actors of substance can be trained. DDM enfranchise should also be dismantled in favor of new breed trained at a national workshop. I also think parliamentary democracy system is not suitable for a country like India. I think politburo style democracy is more suitable for India.

If we can take care of all of the above, no Islamic or secular forces will be able to shake India.

[Rudradev]

Shiv, but its easy to come up with reasons.

1. We cannot rely on arms imports from countries whose interests may not always align with ours, which includes all arms suppliers in the world.

2. China is and must always be regarded as a threat, no matter how good bilateral relations may get- they have a huge MIC therefore we cannot afford not to have one.

3. Our smaller neighbours must be within our sphere of influence. This is best achieved if they rely on us completely for defense related supplies. On the contrary it is threatened if they source their arms from other powers.

4. Exports. All countries and militias round the world buy arms, even those too poor to buy computers, cars or coca cola. Why not compete for their money with our tech ingenuity, military experience and large talent pool?

So there you have it. What is so difficult about making the case for an MIC without explicitly referring to Islam?

[ShauryaT]

Shiv ji: There are 1001 reasons outside of Islam for an Indian MIC. India's ambition to be a great power cannot be fulfilled without hard power, something which cannot be fulfilled without an MIC. Do we need to now list all the benefits of power on the thread? Secure resources, protect our citizens, defend our state, influence international organizations, dominate the IOR, promote our soft culture, secure Indian business interests, provide employment, retain a sense of pride, influence neighbors, gain allies, threaten enemies, intimidate competitors, end war on our terms, restore our lost territories, gain new territories, we can go on and on. What is the point? I am a little lost.

[shiv]

Shiv ji: There are 1001 reasons outside of Islam for an Indian MIC.

So there you have it. What is so difficult about making the case for an MIC without explicitly referring to Islam?

Thank you.

If reasons exist for developing an MIC that do not involve the Islam threat, I would like to reserve this thread for those reasons.

Trust me, but there will come a time whan there will be powerful people who are eager to point out that all Indian preparations for war are a result of India's bigotry against minorities (meaning Islam). That is why I want all rationale for developing an MIC (other than Islam) to come on this thread as a ready reference.