Conceptual Thread-1

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RayC » 05 Jun 2009 23:55

brihaspati wrote:Yes, those who have a single point agenda will always trash and denigrate all other viewpoints. Constitution of USSR/Russia at breakup!!! But isn't Russia a signatory to the UN charter, as a result of recognition of being the legal successor to the USSR (hence the seat in the Security Council)? So there can be special "things" in individual nations, which allows them to bypass UN charter as and when required? German psyche!!! So psyche can over-rule UN charter too! Good one! Constant shifting of goal-posts tactics again!

One point agenda about subnationalism will always highlight the internal dissent and conflict over internal interests, and use that to hide out the possibility of convergence and submergence of internal conflict, when it is a matter of facing an "external enemy". This is part of an attitude in which there is persistent deliberate refusal to see that both Shia and Sunni Sultanates in India treated Hindus equally badly, while at the same time having conflicts between themselves. Subnational conflicts are fantasmagoria because so far it has never yielded the dissolution or implosion of Pakistan, it has never even gone towards it. One point agenda of denying the fundamental unifying role of Islamic theology in moving/acting against the non-Muslim is at best a mischievous and pernicious hoodwinking from the reality of the driving forces that sustains Pakistan, and which has managed over 60 years to survive and extract requisite support from the global order. It is okay to protect a particular theology and not reveal its strategic role if one admires it too much, but then that should be openly acknowledged, at least from anyone who claims a monopoly over courage.

Political control over Kashmir is slipping, because GOI has been forced to allow Sharia seeping in into the state, and to be imposed at least on civil affairs. "Kashmir simmers" for sixth day is the latest evidence of political control. Political control is slipping because, Kashmiri Pundits can still not return to the valley. Political control is slipping because infiltration continues unabated and the subsequent survival of these militant networks would not have been possible if local populace did not provide them with necessary infrastructure.

It is wonderful to know that in the future we would be able to repeat the assessment about the "Hindus" of 7th to 12 century, about the brave warriors and strategists who by their excellent vision and foresight did their best to cover up the actual nature of an ideology that ultimately drove a reconquest of the north of India under Islam. Yes we also do not find any awareness of the essentials of political Islam, and only recognition of sects who fight with each other, and who are tried to be played against each other from time to time, but in the end always retreating overall. These were all brave warriors, who mostly gave their lives, but failed to protect their country, and their Brahmin advisers. They only recognized "Turuskas" or "Arabs/Vanayu" emphasizing the subnationalisms, and relied on that, some trying to use one against the other.


Indeed those who have a single point agenda – theology - cannot fathom realities beyond their nose!

What has the Constitution of the USSR to with the UN Charter?

It is not a one point agenda of sub-nationalism. It is just another IMPORTANT point. It is surprising that one should feel policies are made with just one point! Juvenile! No shifting goal post old chap, but appreciating the bigger picture beyond the narrow hate of Islam!!

In the contemporary situation in India, it is childish to bring in historical inequalities imposed on India by Islam, though I would like to know of Shia domination of India as mentioned.

It is so unfortunate the people always want ‘instant fixes’. More so, the uninitiated and yet jingoistic! They want Pakistan to crumble like a pack of cards not just because subnationalism is being exhibited in Pakistan! One apparently forgets the worry that the Khalistani movement caused India!

It is unfortunate that there are those who are not aware of how things work!! There are those who feel incompetent sheep are responsible for not ‘conquering’ POK and there are those who feel that theology is the sole unifying factor of Pakistan and that should be worked at to ‘destroy’ Pakistan.

It is utter tripe to suggest that political control over Kashmir has slipped! In fact, given the facts, it is a fifth column view! Was Rome built in one day? Pandits will return and I am sure the political machinery will work to that end, the security forces are always ready to provide it. And those who have no clue of the ground situation, there are Pandit villages being guarded by the SF.

Sharia is in Kashmir? Really? How? That is news to India; forget about it being news to me.

Infiltration will continue. Those who have no idea of the terrain and the resources will always beat their chest as if they are in the Mohurrum procession! Too bad! What a childish comment to suggest that political control is being lost! Of course terrorists will find some sympathisers, can it be eradicated? Is there no Maoist in India? So, how come they are there? It is all about perceptions. Are you suggesting that there be an Emergency and lock the population in jails?

All this Hindu Muslim thing that you talk about is utter nonsense in modern India!

Since from your posts I find some connection to Bengal, here is your wake up call:

Where the mind is without fear and the head held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by Thee into ever-widening thought and action;
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby brihaspati » 06 Jun 2009 00:14

I am not thinking joint TSP -PRC move against India. The reason being by the time this scenario may happen massa will have realized that TSP by itself can not stop terrorism (doesn't matter how many towns TSP's army take). It needs a brand new approach with regional players in lead.

This is a crucial assumption based on "massa" being at all concerned about stopping terrorism if it does not affect its economy and energy supplies. Second, it is also assumption that massa is somehow not obligated to PRC sufficiently to be forced to turn a blind eye to a little imeprialistic adventure by a PRC+TSP combine.


To that end, for my scenario, massa will make sure PRC doesn't move against India, provided
1). We make sure TSP has only enemy to fight i.e. Terrorism not India
2). PRC's territorial integrity is not threatened.

This is separating out TSP and "terrorism". Maintenance of terror is the only secure income and zazia from the rest of the world, for TSP. So TSP will alsways appear to fight terrorism, but "terrorism" itself will continue to flourish, and be directed against India. "Threat" is a matter of perception. What if, for PRC, a visit by an Indian dignitary to AP is a threat to its "territorial integrity"?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53477
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 06 Jun 2009 00:17

RayC, What he referring to is the fact that UN charter on aggression and conquest deters India but does not deter the breakup of USSR which created many new nation states nor the unification of Germany that lost one nation state.

What he is also syaing is that Islamic sub-nationalism gets subsumed when facing an external threat and focussing on fault lines alone wont work.

And this would be a repetetion of the mistakes of our forebears who identified the threats from sub-nationalism but ignored the ummah aspect of it which is the larger identity of normatized people.

The Shia kingdoms were the Bahmani kingdoms of Deccan which got the Shia sect after Persia adopted that doctrine. the Delhi Sultans used to allow these Shia adventurers to man their armies and that led to establishment of shia kigdoms. Aurangazeb spent quite few years in Deccan subduing Bijapur and Golconda Sultans. Despite the Shia -Sunni differeences these kingdoms united against Vijayanagar at Talikota in 1564.

So sub-nationalism and sectarian differences will subsume when faced with and external threat from non ummah.

Quoting Tagore to brishapati is like "teaching grandma egg suction" to parapharse Ralph Waldo Emerson or "Carrying coals to Newcastle" as the Brits say.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3884
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby KLNMurthy » 06 Jun 2009 00:38

ramana wrote:RayC, What he referring to is the fact that UN charter on aggression and conquest deters India but does not deter the breakup of USSR which created many new nation states nor the unification of Germany that lost one nation state.

What he is also syaing is that Islamic sub-nationalism gets subsumed when facing an external threat and focussing on fault lines alone wont work.

And this would be a repetetion of the mistakes of our forebears who identified the threats from sub-nationalism but ignored the ummah aspect of it which is the larger identity of normatized people.

The Shia kingdoms were the Bahmani kingdoms of Deccan which got the Shia sect after Persia adopted that doctrine. the Delhi Sultans used to allow these Shia adventurers to man their armies and that led to establishment of shia kigdoms. Aurangazeb spent quite few years in Deccan subduing Bijapur and Golconda Sultans. Despite the Shia -Sunni differeences these kingdoms united against Vijayanagar at Talikota in 1564.

So sub-nationalism and sectarian differences will subsume when faced with and external threat from non ummah.

Quoting Tagore to brishapati is like "teaching grandma egg suction" to parapharse Ralph Waldo Emerson or "Carrying coals to Newcastle" as the Brits say.


It seems to me that the problem is how to destroy Pakistan's military capability and more importantly, its aspirations without, in the process, getting nuked and/or being invaded by hordes of infiltrators disguised as refugees, or otherwise disrupted in a major way. In doing this, it is important to know history, but we have to then take on an aggressor's mindset, which is more difficult than simply saying the words. We have our own cultural baggage to overcome and it can't simply be wished away overnight.

In the near-term, there is at least one aspect of aggression against Pak that is relatively risk-free, which we haven't taken full advantage of. Namely, intensified propaganda moves designed to reduce Pakistan's self-image to one of moral bankruptcy and general pariah-hood. To the extent that we can discern it, MEA seems to do this in a measured fashion, modulated to suit immediate tactical purposes. But there aren't any indications that this weapon has been taken to a strategic dimension.

To take an example from history, recall how the US went full-court press for decades about the bankruptcy of soviet communism, celebrating dissidents, and so on. To the extent that, when the SU eventually fell, the russians were so brainwashed about the superiority of US capitalism and the worthlessness of their own system (may or may not be true objectively, but the point is that the russians relinquished their power of independent thought and analysis in favor of a kind of collective hysteria in which they blindly followed Jeff Sachs et al like some sort of cult members), and made a lot of stupid decisions on their economy that set them back for a very long time.

My point is that we are neglecting the possibility of actively messing with the collective Paki mind so as to bring them psychologically to their knees. On the other hand, a pretty good case could be made that Muslim conquest of India was accomplished largely by the conquerors messing with Indians' minds.

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RamaY » 06 Jun 2009 01:17

RayC-ji,

Let us move beyond this Hindu-Muslim debate. We will have that discussion at some other place, some other time. Till then, let us hold to our thoughts and conclusions.

Coming back to the topic:

Can India do anything proactively to come out of the geopolitical shackles of Pakistan that were planted by the sheriffs US/UK? If you read various threads on BRF, especially the “Perspectives on the global economic meltdown” and US-PRC threads, we can see the decline of US/UK power with the advent of current economic meltdown. This is the right time for India to get rid of these shacles before the next set of game-rules are defined.

If you study PRC, it didn’t wait till it became a developed nation to invade Tibet, claim Tiwan/AP/Sikkim, and fight a war with US in Korea. It took all these proactive measures irrespective of the national prosperity levels, poverty, lack of infrastructure, terrain and capacity/capability of the opponent. Even today, PRC will have more humans (absolute number) under poverty line than India. But, that poverty is not stopping PRC from pursuing its geopolitical interests.

The same can be done by India too. It is not jingoistic, not childish, not daydreaming. IT IS the essential purpose of national leadership. We do not need leaders for mere survival. We need leaders to achieve greatness and honor. You quoted Tagore. But the first line says “Where the mind is without fear and the head held high”. Can India/Indian say that today? We are laughed-at for our meekness at all (individual/national/social) levels. You might say “destroying” Pakistan is not the solution to achieve greatness. I disagree. Recollect what a Siachin and a Kargil did to our national spirit.

What kind of security we are talking about if SFs are needed to protect Pundits in their villages within India? Is this the honor you are talking about? Is this the leadership you want to continue with? If one group of citizens curtail the fundamental rights of another group of citizens then how can you find fault when their roles are reversed? You might ask me, “is that you want?” and my answer is a strong NO, but I want the first scenario to be solved, IMMEDIATELY. I have been waiting for the past 20 years to hear that news.

That is why I believe Indian political as well as military leadership must cease the moment and recapture POK (I know it is a difficult terrain. But if Pakistan can hold it with their downward skiing skills, Indian Army can take over it.) and destroy pakistan (not because of Islam but because it is a rabid dog that gets used by others against my country). Otherwise PRC will fill in US’s shoes and we are back to square one.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53477
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 06 Jun 2009 01:26

KVR,
I am looking for those soft kill mechanisms like you suggest to be in place. Did you see the TFT article by Sharayar Khan in which Krishan Menon offered to subsidise the Begum of Bhopal just as the Nizam's progeny to live in London to ensure they dont go over to Karachi? That was brilliant. Looks like somehow along the way GOI lost its touch.

US during the USSR heyday used to ensure the defection of high profile defectees. So one of the measures I am putting together states ensure the complete denudation of all thinking types from TSPA.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby brihaspati » 06 Jun 2009 01:30

RayC wrote
What has the Constitution of the USSR to with the UN Charter?

This was in response to
brihaspati wrote
Constitution of USSR/Russia at breakup!!! But isn't Russia a signatory to the UN charter, as a result of recognition of being the legal successor to the USSR (hence the seat in the Security Council)? So there can be special "things" in individual nations, which allows them to bypass UN charter as and when required? German psyche!!! So psyche can over-rule UN charter too! Good one! Constant shifting of goal-posts tactics again!

This was in response to
RayC wrote
The example of the breakaway federations of the USSR is misplaced. It indicates that one is not aware of the USSR Constitution and the economic state when they broke away. As far as Germany is concerned, the statements expressed are ignorant of the German psyche! It is uber alles!! Therefore, these examples are hardly worth scrutiny!

This was in response to
brihaspati wrote

For example two recognized separate nations of the two Germany's became "one", and Russia could ensure "breakaway republics" in CAR.

As usual RayC, who hates living in the past, and asks everyone else to read up before he himself has readup properly, thinks that Russia ensured the breakup of the republics at the demise of USSR. Apart from the facts of the matter being decided jointly only by two other federal republics at the first "breakup", he blissfully ignores the "present" - where Russia has ensured the formation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as new "republics"out of Georgia. For such an elightened person as him, who firmly lives in the present, I thought this example would be the first interpretation to come to mind.

Kashmiri political situation : ?? Yes the grand electoral adventure and success is here, so that Pakistani media can say this without being challenged as lying,
[url]http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\04\10\story_10-4-2009_pg7_1[/url]
The Kashmiri people want ‘azadi’ (freedom) from the Union of India, Indian-held Kashmir (IHK) Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has said.
In an interview with the strategic journal, Force, Abdullah said he would facilitate engagement between New Delhi and the ‘azadi’ sentiment. However, he added that people wanted freedom from New Delhi, not him or Ghulam Nabi Azad or Mufti Muhammad Sayed.


Indeed, it is news for us too that the foremost, government approved strategists with real, on the ground, exclusive knowledge about Kashmir, does not know about the bill passed on the 9th of February,2007, in the J&K Assembly : Jammu and Kashmir Assembly passed the bill bringing the country's only Muslim-majority state in the ambit of Shariat laws. Moved as a private members's bill by Opposition leader Abdul Rahim Rather in the Assembly, the House passed the legislation by voice vote without any dissent. With the Congress-PDP led government supporting the bill, the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Taj Mohideen said "government does not oppose it and the Law Department has not raised any objection to it". Now do not try out your usual shifts by saying that it does not displace the IPC, for I have categorically stated that this was imposed at least on "civil" part. Do not also try to confuse by saying that it is after all a separate Muslim Personal Law bill - because the word "Shariat" has been explicitly mentioned in the heaqding of the bill.

Regarding Shia Sultanates in India, I am sure such an august intelligence and knowledge must have come across the Bijapuri Sultanate history at some stage. Technically speaking even the early Mughals following on from Humayun were Shias.

Those who have no idea of history are bound to repeat the blunders of history. A soldier taking inspiration and quoting from someone who had abhorred war and the military machine all his life is really heartening.

Whether the Hindu-Muslim thing is utter nonsense is a matter for the future to decide.

Further I do not address anyone here as "old chap", "darling" "sweetheart", but I always use honorifics as is standard with Bharatyia culture. RayCji, I am neither your friend, relative, or under your "command". Do stick to my nom-de-BRF only.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby brihaspati » 06 Jun 2009 01:41

ramanaji and KVRaoji,
this type of tactic is indeed brilliant. But, look at the case of Tasleema Nasreen. The internal dependence or identification with the Ummah prevents such extension of "hospitality" to defectors.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53477
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 06 Jun 2009 02:21

brihaspati wrote:ramanaji and KVRaoji,
this type of tactic is indeed brilliant. But, look at the case of Tasleema Nasreen. The internal dependence or identification with the Ummah prevents such extension of "hospitality" to defectors.


Right. So the stage has to be set with low key cultural defectors and then add others. Anyone should be allowed into B'wood if they settle down in India for starters. The current practice of letting the WKK and Bhutt set the agenda should be sidelined.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3884
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby KLNMurthy » 06 Jun 2009 02:32

brihaspati wrote:ramanaji and KVRaoji,
this type of tactic is indeed brilliant. But, look at the case of Tasleema Nasreen. The internal dependence or identification with the Ummah prevents such extension of "hospitality" to defectors.

Two corrections: I am advocating propaganda as a long-term strategy, not limited to tactics. Second, there are factors that make this challenging, it doesn't mean it is prevented.

General observation: Part of what I mean by developing an aggressor's outlook is that once we have clarity of goals and agreement on strategy, we have to be prepared to accept setbacks, learn lessons, make course corrections and so on, but never actually give up or allow ourselves to be prevented or stymied in driving towards our goal. One thing that certainly distinguishes our Paki enemy from us is that they are very focused on the goals and the strategy, whereas we seem, for the most part, limited to making a half-baked attempt here and there, and having been predictably thwarted retire grumbling from the field. In our favor, the enemy is limited by physical and intellectual resources and the overall cultural hubris brought on by their reading of cultural history however. We need to leverage that to crush them.

It occurs to me that, in fact, MEA is pretty good at being consistent in the long haul and getting past setbacks--the 'position play' in a chess game if you will. Where I (we?) part company with them is in the formulation of the goal--their goal and mindset is defensive in nature; if only Pakistan would leave India alone, they would be satisfied. Here on BRF, we have advanced beyond that defensive mindset, having understood that the only way Pakistan will leave us alone is if we were to systematically crush its spirit, i.e., make it abandon its unholy aspirations due to having been physically and mentally crushed. In fact, the mental crushing is the key; physical crushing is only a means to that end.

So, what we have before us is a twofold challenge: on the political level, force a redefinition of the policy goal of India from defense to active hostility aimed at destroying the enemy; on the management front, learn the thought-habits and skills needed to carry out a protracted war of aggression and win.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3732
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby hnair » 06 Jun 2009 06:29

India attracts a sprinkling of peaceful dissidents, but not from China, the country that the US promoted and managed in the past three decades as India's chief rival. Until the dissident flow happens into India, we will never get to address the leverage that US has in armtwisting the Chinese govt nor the chinese in turn exert on the pakis. The chinese people are not even aware that in the matter of core values, they are more nearer to Indians than US. So India as an emminently better choice for exile does not register with them. Rather, as KV Rao-saar states, like in the case of USSR, the chinese are so enamoured by the halo effect of US. Of course this infatuation starts from the very word for US in mandarin - Mei-guo (beautiful country/state)

Then the key problem from our side - the Indian establishment. Will they protect the mainland dissidents as well as they did for Dalai and his followers? Or will they get the Taslima treatment?

Whatever it be, there should be tremendous growth in travel (leisure or business) between India and China. If people of India and China dont talk and listen one-on-one, Rupert Murdoch and his backers win. A few preliminary steps would be increase in consulates, travel visas and a common cultural TV channel with bi-lingual transmissions.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RayC » 06 Jun 2009 12:36

Subnationalism in TSP is the golden fantasmagoria goose that never lays its golden eggs. I was beginning to think that we were getting realistic after fiercely deriding fantasizing or more accurately the individuals who appeared to be fantasizing by our individual criteria. Is it too much reality and practice that blinds us to looking beyond that practical experiential horizon
. For example two recognized separate nations of the two Germany's became "one", and Russia could ensure "breakaway republics" in CAR.


Soon after independence, the leaders of the five former Soviet Central Asian Republics, namely, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan., met in Tashkent and declared that the definition of Central Asia should include Kazakhstan as well as the original four included by the Soviets. Since then, this has become the most common definition of Central Asia Republics. Therefore, one wondered where Russia played a role in breaking them away.

However, if it was meant that it means Abkhazia and Ossetia, then it was not clear since they are not CAR as understood by the world community! But then confusing and open ended statements are the prerogative of some!

Two recognised nations i.e. The Germanys became one not because of any violation of the UN charter. They were united because the USSR had collapsed and it lost its hold over the Warsaw Pact and other factors that led to the reunification of the Germanys. No one invaded anyone.

As far as Abkhazia and Ossetia is concerned if that is what is meant by breakaway republics in CAR, In 1810 Abkhazia voluntarily joined the Russian Empire as a self-governing principality separately from Georgia.

Following the wars in the Caucasus in the second half of the 19th century, some indigenous people left Abkhazia, and its territory became an attractive ground for Georgia's expansion. Georgia's nationalistic circles intensified their activities to establish control over Abkhazia after the break-up of the Russian Empire. In May 1918, the newly established Georgian Democratic Republic, supported by German troops, occupied and annexed Abkhazia.

On 31 March 1921, following the establishment of the Soviet rule, the Soviet Socialist Republic of Abkhazia was proclaimed. Two months later, the new authorities of Georgia recognized its independence.
The Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) of Abkhazia took part in the establishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a sovereign state, and its representative signed the Treaty on the Establishment of the USSR in December 1922.

The fact that the Abkhazians were not Georgian, subnationalism came into play and they broke away. Russian assistance? Maybe.
No violation of UN charter there. Or is there?

If it is to be believed that Russia assisted in the breakaway through covert means without going to war or armed intervention, then it surely indicates that the same can be achieved in Pakistan without going to war or tinkering with theology.

In so far as Ossetia is concerned, in 1774, the Ossetian people with all their lands voluntarily became subjects of the Russian Empire, and in 1843 an Ossetian district of the Tiflis province (gubernia) was established in the southern part of Ossetia, which formed part of the administrative and territorial system of Russia.

Following the break-up of the Russian Empire in 1917, Georgia's leadership made an attempt to annex the southern part of Ossetia by force, in response to its willingness to stay within Russia.

Following the establishment of the USSR, South Ossetia was made part of Georgia as the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast, while North Ossetia was made part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.

Under the Georgian rule after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the minorities like the Ossetes and Abkhazs were harassed leading to the rise of subnationalism. Russia may have nudged.

In both cases, the rise of subnationalism resulted in the breakaway and without armed intervention or war.

Therefore, it is hardly ‘ideological limitation of "idealism and dreaming" that pins all its hopes on subnationalism and the implosion of TSP’ and by the way, all hopes are not pinned. Just another input.

Those who think this way, perhaps do not realize that it is also another blind ideological and idealistic commitment not to see the problem in the ideology of Islam, and its implementation in Islamic theologians.

One wonders how focusing on Islam can dismantle a Nation state!!
Winning a limited objective war in Kashmir only, is not going to encourage subnational conflicts and breakdown of TSP. It will provide the grand excuse for Islamic consolidation and Islamic "nationalism".
Is it being suggested that there can be a full scale war to capture POK?
Subnationalism is to be promoted even without the issue of Kashmir being taken into consideration. It is a fallacy to feel that encouraging subnationalism covertly will coalesce the Pakistanis and Islamic nationalism will burst forth. The example of the Kurds, both in Iraq and Turkey who are also Moslem and majority are Sunni Moslems should be a reminder that ‘Islamic nationalism’ has not stood in the way of demanding a separate Kurdish country called Kurdistan. Pakhtoonistan demand is another example. Therefore subnationalism is surely not idealism or dreaming.

Why rule out the possibility of "mergers" with India in the future helped along by military action? It is either India looks forward and merges the rest of TSP with itself, to eliminate one of its two persistent neighbourly threats, or TSP gradually Islamizes and Jihadizes the North of India, subverting and expanding slowly east and south. Maybe some are too commited to seeing "good" in Islamic theology and everything evil and despised in pre-Islamic culture of India, and much too deeply identifying themselves with the regime essentially in control of India since being blessed with the transfer of power by the British, who cannot think otherwise. But others who have no obvious reason to be solely ideologically committed to the post-Independence Congress, can think of and prepare for alternative possibilities for the future of India.



The answer is simple and it requires no rocket science. It will upset the demographic balance of India. As it is the ‘Bhartiyas’ are upset of Islam in this country and vociferously advocate Hinduvta, one wonders what will be the reaction of the Bharatiyas and Hinduvta lot; it could be explosive. Thus, it would be a case of cutting the nose to spite the face. In fact, the issue of merger is a tad too imperialistic and colonialist and which will make a mockery of the ire against British imperialism and colonialism in India.
Seeing ‘good’ instead of seeing ‘evil’ and fighting windmills like Don Quixote is hardly the way forward. Hating a religion is hardly the way to unite a country. If Islam is evil and Hinduism is perfect, then how is it that even though Hinduism is the Mother religion of this country, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj etc sprouted? Obviously, one would not abandon something good, or would they? Therefore, focusing on Islam alone is not the answer that will conjure the demise of Pakistan.

I do not think the current GOI is so stupid that it believes in its own propaganda. It knows that it is practically losing the political battle over Kashmir. Only tactic left will be to gradually get the public used to the idea of conceding more to the demands of Islamization, and greater access to TSP influence in the valley through "normalization and engagement". It is also not impossible that alternatives have already been placed before the GOI that considers giving up claims/controls over Kashmir in a phased and innocuous manner. The political costs however could not be calculated beforehand, which points to origin iof these ideas outside of India. If we see increasing media campaigns in highlighting the costs of the defence of LOC, of the need for "altruistic concessions", the need to bolster TSP civilian gov, the inherent "goodness" of Islam, the need to "leave the past behind", etc., that will be a confirmation of [i]GOI secret commitments.[/i]

Am I to understand that you are suggesting that the GOI is disloyal and treacherous to India?

Members who have said less anti national things have been banned. I will not initiate a motion on this issue since we are debating, but then you should carefully choose your words!! It is disturbing to read such canard and anti national statements.

I am with you that the demands of Islamisation should not be encouraged and thank you for bringing the Sharia bill to my notice. I was not aware of this. In fact, the Kashmir Valley was ipso facto a Sharia area. Activities like the Muta marriage are prevalent and so on. Is this law applicable to the other communities too? I learn it is a watered down law compared to Pakistan and elsewhere.

I am totally for an India that is beyond the narrow confines of religion.

Constitution of USSR/Russia at breakup!!! But isn't Russia a signatory to the UN charter, as a result of recognition of being the legal successor to the USSR (hence the seat in the Security Council)? So there can be special "things" in individual nations, which allows them to bypass UN charter as and when required? German psyche!!! So psyche can over-rule UN charter too! Good one! Constant shifting of goal-posts tactics again!

Constitution of USSR/Russia at breakup!!! But isn't Russia a signatory to the UN charter, as a result of recognition of being the legal successor to the USSR (hence the seat in the Security Council)? So there can be special "things" in individual nations, which allows them to bypass UN charter as and when required? German psyche!!! So psyche can over-rule UN charter too! Good one! Constant shifting of goal-posts tactics again!


Indeed, if one understands the German psyche, one would understand that the Potsdam Agreement consequent to the Yalta Discussions was an artificial divide forced on Germany by the conquering powers. One may like to read the book – The rise and fall of the German Democratic Republic by Feiwel Kupferberg and the rationale of the current rise of the radical right in Germany.

Notwithstanding, no UN charter was violated when Germany unified as explained earlier! Therefore, the issue of changing goalposts is a pathetic and lame obfuscation to hoodwink!

The Kashmiri people want ‘azadi’ (freedom) from the Union of India, Indian-held Kashmir (IHK) Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has said.
In an interview with the strategic journal, Force, Abdullah said he would facilitate engagement between New Delhi and the ‘azadi’ sentiment. However, he added that people wanted freedom from New Delhi, not him or Ghulam Nabi Azad or Mufti Muhammad Sayed


Kashmir wants Azadi? Indeed, there are those who feel so, but that is not the popular sentiment. It is western media generated and made popular. If Azadi was such a huge clamour, then why should they have voted, when there was the boycott call? And why should Sajid Lone contest? You sound like Ashok Mitra, who thinks he is an intellectual, and who feels India is ‘occupying’ Kashmir!! Maybe you could give the link to the Force magazine so that we could analyse that also!

Regarding Shia Sultanates in India, I am sure such an august intelligence and knowledge must have come across the Bijapuri Sultanate history at some stage. Technically speaking even the early Mughals following on from Humayun were Shias.

True.
However, he became a Sunni, much the same way that Jinnah became one. Therefore, should we say that Pakistan is a Shia state? Logic! Everyone in India, well almost all, was Hindus (or that PC word Sanatan Dharma or whatever). Is India a Hindu State? Intelligence is mutually lacking and none should ride the high horse!!

A soldier taking inspiration and quoting from someone who had abhorred war and the military machine all his life is really heartening.

It is only who has seen death and destruction can really fathom the anguish, grief and sorrow. Armchair self assumed intellectuals in air-conditioned comfort in foreign lands cannot!!

Further I do not address anyone here as "old chap", "darling" "sweetheart", but I always use honorifics as is standard with Bharatyia culture. RayCji, I am neither your friend, relative, or under your "command". Do stick to my nom-de-BRF only.


Will do.

But cut out all this ‘ji’ jazz! No need to soft soap. I am an Indian. Bhartiya and Hinduvta pizzazz can be avoided. Culture is not the prerogative of any religion. It is natural, but it should not ooze with falsehood!

Since Ramana says you are a Bengali, there is a saying – Oti Bhokti ****** lokhon! Nothing personal, just a Bengali saying and I did not invent Bengali!

Catch me being your friend, relative or under my command!!

I want to have a life!!!!!!

Thank you.

I may not agree with you, but I appreciate your views and you inputs like that on the Sharia in Kashmir. I am surprised how that missed me and I am furious with this vote bank politics!

One must read Shah Gaffor the Sufi Saint!

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby brihaspati » 06 Jun 2009 17:39

RayC,

What region in India I come from should not matter. I have spent more time in life out of my birthplace, and almost all over central, north and eastern India.

The central point about Russia and Germany came along becuase of your insistence that as a signatory to the UN charter, India could not think of absorption of TSP. My point was to show that there were ways and means of bypassing "direct" absorption bans as indicated in the UN charter. If you are following the Abkhazia and Ossetia, story, you should not have failed to also honestly report that the recognition of these two as independent republics came from Russia and Nicaragua, after the military occupation of these areas by the Russian Army which engaged in conflict with the Georgian troops and forced the Georgian army to retreat. At the moment we are debating about this, Russian troops are maintaining "border" presence and putting up "border" facilities on the supposed borders of the new entities, inside what for the UN, technically still remains Georgian territory. Both examples were there to show that UN charter is not a restriction if there really is a will.

Limited objective military action to just capture POK was futile, that was the suggestion. No full scale war to capture only POK was being suggested. Some of us have discussed this many times on the strategic scenario thread, and my personal opinion was to incorporate Sind and Pakjab along with POK, but create an independent Balochistan. Sind, to have control on Indus and access to the sea, and occupation of Pakjab to root out the Ulema who continue to provide the basis of terrorism. It was also to prevent the Pakjab area as being a conduit for Jihadis using the Central Asia, AFG route, and linking up with the Valley. We have discussed in details and given our arguments as to why leaving Pakjab, NWFP, Sind etc as independent entities will only allow the US+UK+PRC+Saudis to regrow terror against India in these entities. Unless the supply routes into these areas can be under Indian border control, Jihadi terror against India from these areas used as bases will never stop.

Focusing on Islam is not about dismantling a "nation state" (which according to you cannot be a state because of rampant subnationalisms). It is to keep attention on the fact that Islamic "nationalism" pushes into top gear over and above internal dissent and fight, when the Ulema can represent "Islam khatrein me hain". I think as reported in the media, one of the "terrorists" captured in POK gave his origin as in Balochistan, and that he joined the "struggle" hearing about the "atrocitities on and occupation" of "Muslims in Kashmir" by India. I have also speculated that the Balochis, may be helping the Jihadis out of necessity (smuggling of arms which they themsleves also need) in providing a supply route to the Talebs as a parallel to that supplied by the ISI, but some of them could also be helping the Talebs out of iideological convergence.

I have clearly stated that if certain features are shown by the GOI, then that will be an indication of "secret" commitments. However, whether it is treachery or not will depend on the viewpoint. It is entirely possible that the GOI convinces itself, that what it is doing is for the "greater good" of the country, and from that point it is not a "treachery". India has compromised and given up on territory before, at least de facto if not legally, and the top leadership of then GOI had issued reasons like "nothing grows there". No one called JLN a traitor then! So why do you think that the scenario I described is amount to a treachery? After all, there wil be no dearth of rationalists, who will use reasons practically similar to what you have used many times - of reality, practical limitations, costs, legal restrictions, etc., etc., to justify every such action taken by the GOI. Where does treachery come from!

I would never be your friend, or relative. We would have snapped ties very quickly. I do not appreciate people who hide their real ideological and religious commitments, as reliable. I have a very good memory, and I can see the pattern in your posts, where you have consistently given signs of strong and extreme ideological bias against anything "Hindu", but equally strong and extreme bias in favour of the Abrahamic (remember your story of how and why you abused a "pado"?). I had indeed hoped and tried to have constructive engagement with you, and even asked questions of you in areas where I felt you would be the expert. But right from the beginning, you have been dismissive and denigratory - called me "that Hindutva chap" (in the whine thread).

Which one of us, turns out to be more accurate in understanding of the "real" scenario, will be proved in the future. Until, then, it is better that we do not engage in mutual debate. In politics or "conflict", we will be enemies.

By the way, I have extensive experience of high altitude, above 20,000 ft, (and above 27,000) and extremely difficult terrain. I have served as QM for expeditions too, and brought back dead colleagues at extreme and mortal personal danger. I have also faced and seen how men in uniform do "war" on tribals and villagers during my trekking and camping days, and on many occasions had narrowly escaped being shot or at the receiving end. Do not, boast about your personal courage, or experience of difficult conditions, as your exclusive feature, and arrogantly attribute its absence in others.

You represent the GOI/Congress position on TSP and POK. My counter arguments were to present the alternative views. Both should be there in front of BRFites to draw their own conclusions. Who is right will be proved in the future.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RayC » 06 Jun 2009 23:20

brihaspati wrote:RayC,

What region in India I come from should not matter. I have spent more time in life out of my birthplace, and almost all over central, north and eastern India.

The central point about Russia and Germany came along becuase of your insistence that as a signatory to the UN charter, India could not think of absorption of TSP. My point was to show that there were ways and means of bypassing "direct" absorption bans as indicated in the UN charter. If you are following the Abkhazia and Ossetia, story, you should not have failed to also honestly report that the recognition of these two as independent republics came from Russia and Nicaragua, after the military occupation of these areas by the Russian Army which engaged in conflict with the Georgian troops and forced the Georgian army to retreat. At the moment we are debating about this, Russian troops are maintaining "border" presence and putting up "border" facilities on the supposed borders of the new entities, inside what for the UN, technically still remains Georgian territory. Both examples were there to show that UN charter is not a restriction if there really is a will.

Limited objective military action to just capture POK was futile, that was the suggestion. No full scale war to capture only POK was being suggested. Some of us have discussed this many times on the strategic scenario thread, and my personal opinion was to incorporate Sind and Pakjab along with POK, but create an independent Balochistan. Sind, to have control on Indus and access to the sea, and occupation of Pakjab to root out the Ulema who continue to provide the basis of terrorism. It was also to prevent the Pakjab area as being a conduit for Jihadis using the Central Asia, AFG route, and linking up with the Valley. We have discussed in details and given our arguments as to why leaving Pakjab, NWFP, Sind etc as independent entities will only allow the US+UK+PRC+Saudis to regrow terror against India in these entities. Unless the supply routes into these areas can be under Indian border control, Jihadi terror against India from these areas used as bases will never stop.

Focusing on Islam is not about dismantling a "nation state" (which according to you cannot be a state because of rampant subnationalisms). It is to keep attention on the fact that Islamic "nationalism" pushes into top gear over and above internal dissent and fight, when the Ulema can represent "Islam khatrein me hain". I think as reported in the media, one of the "terrorists" captured in POK gave his origin as in Balochistan, and that he joined the "struggle" hearing about the "atrocitities on and occupation" of "Muslims in Kashmir" by India. I have also speculated that the Balochis, may be helping the Jihadis out of necessity (smuggling of arms which they themsleves also need) in providing a supply route to the Talebs as a parallel to that supplied by the ISI, but some of them could also be helping the Talebs out of iideological convergence.

I have clearly stated that if certain features are shown by the GOI, then that will be an indication of "secret" commitments. However, whether it is treachery or not will depend on the viewpoint. It is entirely possible that the GOI convinces itself, that what it is doing is for the "greater good" of the country, and from that point it is not a "treachery". India has compromised and given up on territory before, at least de facto if not legally, and the top leadership of then GOI had issued reasons like "nothing grows there". No one called JLN a traitor then! So why do you think that the scenario I described is amount to a treachery? After all, there wil be no dearth of rationalists, who will use reasons practically similar to what you have used many times - of reality, practical limitations, costs, legal restrictions, etc., etc., to justify every such action taken by the GOI. Where does treachery come from!

I would never be your friend, or relative. We would have snapped ties very quickly. I do not appreciate people who hide their real ideological and religious commitments, as reliable. I have a very good memory, and I can see the pattern in your posts, where you have consistently given signs of strong and extreme ideological bias against anything "Hindu", but equally strong and extreme bias in favour of the Abrahamic (remember your story of how and why you abused a "pado"?). I had indeed hoped and tried to have constructive engagement with you, and even asked questions of you in areas where I felt you would be the expert. But right from the beginning, you have been dismissive and denigratory - called me "that Hindutva chap" (in the whine thread).

Which one of us, turns out to be more accurate in understanding of the "real" scenario, will be proved in the future. Until, then, it is better that we do not engage in mutual debate. In politics or "conflict", we will be enemies.

By the way, I have extensive experience of high altitude, above 20,000 ft, (and above 27,000) and extremely difficult terrain. I have served as QM for expeditions too, and brought back dead colleagues at extreme and mortal personal danger. I have also faced and seen how men in uniform do "war" on tribals and villagers during my trekking and camping days, and on many occasions had narrowly escaped being shot or at the receiving end. Do not, boast about your personal courage, or experience of difficult conditions, as your exclusive feature, and arrogantly attribute its absence in others.

You represent the GOI/Congress position on TSP and POK. My counter arguments were to present the alternative views. Both should be there in front of BRFites to draw their own conclusions. Who is right will be proved in the future.


I think that it was Ramana who raised your antecedents and not me. Indeed, it is immaterial. Ibn Battuta, though a Moroccan was a globe trotter, but what of it even though the Rihla.is a treatise.


The unification of Germany in no way violated the UN charter..


There was unrest in Abkhazia, the ethnic conflict or the subnationalist upsurge was due to inequalities imposed by Zviad Gamsakhurdia (if I remember correctly). It maybe worth noting that Soviet power was established in Sukhumi, with the formation of the Abkhazian Soviet Socialist Republic (Abkhazian SSR), and this was subsequently recognized by the newly established Communist regime of the Georgian SSR. Therefore, de facto, they are separate from Georgians.


In 1992, the Abkhazia government effectively declared secession from Georgia. Russia thereafter intervened. The historical ties of Russia with Abkhazia should not be forgotten. To fast forward events, even if it is recognised by none other than two countries, does it matter? In fact, such childish (for the want of a better word) attitude of the world (or in other words, the western powers) will only push it further into the Russian ambit.


Ossetia requires no elaboration. It is the Georgian who invaded. Saakashvili is already under threat from his own people and so that proves his incompetence and his handling of the South Ossetian issue was a disaster! Some say he is a US puppet.


Russians, as per my knowledge and that of the West, did not violate the UN charter or conduct a war. The UN mandated Russian peacekeepers.
The cases of Germany, Abkhazia, Ossetia indicates the subnationalism is an important factor to ensure national interests without resorting to war. In India’s case it does not have the same advantage as others had. The closest to this type of a ‘situation’ India experienced was the ‘reluctant intervention’ in East Pakistan because of the ‘economic burden’ of Bangladeshi refugees!


I am totally in agreement with you that Balkanisation of Pakistan is what should be the priority. That is my theme for encouraging subnationalsim, notwithstanding the protestations of many that Islam is the sole soul of an Islamic nation! With all deference I would like to emphasise that they are also as human as we are and have the same aspirations as we have. Therefore, Islam is important, but identity is no less! In so far as Sing is concerned the MQM leader (Mohajir) has stated that the creation of Pakistan was the biggest mistake!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWAj7Awj2ks
Pakistan is a State and do be kind enough to not misquote me to suit your arguments. You accuse me of changing goalposts, may I also use your license? Please do not resort to mischievous chicanery to suggest things I have not said.


All I was stating and continue to do so is that what can be achieved without war, should be what should be done. I am no intellectual, but then Sun Tsu said the same thing and he is a respected person in military circles, even if not in the civil. Could it be presumed that the civilians know more of war than the military? If so, my apologies!
As far as your statement the GOI is capable of treachery, to be frank, upset me. I am not fan of the GOI, but I am loyal. They are the government that was voted in. To suggest that they have an anti Indian agenda is too much to swallow! Therefore, I remain appalled. Some made a monkey of MMS and he was banned and you had the temerity to suggest that the GOI has a ‘secret commitment’ which was anti Indian. I am debating with you and so I will not raise issue, but then this does prove that the Moderators are people who have immense patience, unlike what is felt by many. Personally, I would like you to be here since you are one of the few serious contributor and your posts have always been educative. I may not agree with you, but it is a ‘cleansing’ of the cobwebs when one reads your posts except the Hinduvta claptrap. That bores. Not because it is wrong, but why chase the will o’the wisp. Grasp the reality and work around it. Gen Rodriguez told me that Ray, you want to change the system, you can’t. You can’t change the organization, the weapons and the rules. Work within that system and do what best you can! Great advice! Can we really change the Islamic mindset? I wonder. But we can educate them to see the fallacy of their mindset, can’t we? Notwithstanding your meandering through the minefield, you statement was anti Indian and seditious. The worthy Moderators are your judge! And I shall abstain!


The other day a Muslim BRF and other fora member, who is a Gujarati, visited me. He has voted BJP. He has been ‘hounded out’ of here! Just imagine the harm we are doing to the unity of India, He still continues to root for India in other fora and he is more nationalist than me there! Are we fair to believe all Moslems are suspect? My own orderly in war was a Moslem and I would be damned if I were to suspect him. Go for the scoundrels, but all I request is, spare a thought for the loyal, they are not all in the same basket. Don’t hesitate to execute Afzal Guru! But you i.e. India does!


I am not shocked that you can never be my friend. It does not matter. I too cannot. However, it does not mean that I don’t think your post worthy of my attention. They do. They are not frivolous as many. They make you think and introspect and for that reason, I interact with you. Your posts give me fresh inputs as did the post of Soumitra. You have a different perspective and I have another. I have nothing against Hinduism, as you state I have. I am for a great India. I cannot wish away the aspirations of non Hindus and yet at the same time, I am against their being held as a votebank card! We are all equal and we should all stand on our own two feet and not ask for freebies!


I would be delighted to learn ‘By the way, I have extensive experience of high altitude, above 20,000 ft, (and above 27,000) and extremely difficult terrain. I have served as QM for expeditions too, and brought back dead colleagues at extreme and mortal personal danger. I have also faced and seen how men in uniform do "war" on tribals and villagers during my trekking and camping days, and on many occasions had narrowly escaped being shot or at the receiving end. Do not, boast about your personal courage, or experience of difficult conditions, as your exclusive feature, and arrogantly attribute its absence in others.’ If you done so, who am I to complain? 27000 ft? Wow closer to Everest than us army chaps! You are super. And how many days were you there and where?


I would be damned if I represent any political view as you suggest i.e. the Congress etc. I am me and I am for None of the Above!


Will all respect, can we get back to the topic?

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby brihaspati » 07 Jun 2009 00:27

RayC,
"treachery" was a word used by you, and not by me. I simply said "secret commitments". In many issues, every government of every country undertakes secret commitments that are not immediately made public. I have also repeatedly explained, the conditional nature of my statement. Ramanaji only indicated that I would be knowledgeable about Rabindranath's writings, I am guessing from some of my comments on a particular thread. If he has communicated anything more to you away from the forum, I am not aware of that. Rabindranath had many contradictions, and we all can find things that support our individual views and requirements of the moment. He gives arguments from both sides - for "Hindutva" this comes in "Gora", for violence this comes in Raghupati's speech in Visarjana, "Four chapters/stages", and even "Ghore baire". Even some of his comments about women in "Chaturanga" usually escape notice. The force of arguments on certain sides, compared to the other side, should be more carefully analyzed to get at the complex mentality of the author.

Getting back to the main line of the thread:

I am indeed worried about the gradual collapse of the Valley and Kashmir before Islamization. I am not so sure that USA will prevent PRC if the latter decides to coordinate with TSP forces - regular and irregular. In fact the promise, of a "limited" engagement by TSP+PRC could be tacitly agreed upon by USA too, to bring the right amount of pressure on the GOI to concede more on Kashmir. Here USA could come in at the last moment on the side of India, according to prior plans and agreements with PRC, and thereby gain huge leverage. USA can then play the mediator, but in return, India has to concede Kashmir.

I would say India has to develop indigenous capacity for developing military hardware. But the first transition needed is that of a sea-change in psychology of statesmanship. The vision should be that of expansion - which is not equivalent to imperialism. Expansion of the core of India to the periphery. This has to be a combination of cultural, economic, political and where necessary, military expansion. This vision can drive the engine of economic, policy and military capacity development. Part of this is the soft-strategy posed by KVRaoji and ramanaji. But this statesmanship vision first has to be achieved before that all out, comprehensive effort, which will have a much more preactive policy towards dealing with TSP and its dissolution/absorption.

SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1843
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby SRoy » 07 Jun 2009 01:52

Cross posting from Strat Fora....

brihaspati wrote:RamaYji,
do you envision a common strategy to deal with all the issues you mentioned?


brihaspati wrote:Indians in particular should prepare mentally for a possible loss of parts of the North of India to Islam and Jihad initially and all-out attempts by Jihadis based in TSP to extend their hold to rest of India. I am sure all those who have voted in the Congress, will enjoy this next period of Indian history.


Jupiter,

The time for strategic planning is over, with respect to Kashmir. Kashmir is slipping away is visible to all well informed citizens.

The loss of territories as you say will happen. That's not really important. Some people need to pay.

For us it is the time for planning consolidation. A trifurcated J&K serves our purpose. Separatism will be contained to the Kashmir valley. Consolidation never gaurantees preservation of current boundaries, it should aim for an iron fence around important territories

Two very strong geo-political entities have demarcated corridors over the sub-continent. Please note that one of these corridor is already a reality. These two corridors criss cross over the heartland.

There are some points to ponder:

1. We need to have our "corridor" or "set of corridors". They should be connected. They should include major concentration of natural resources, arable land, water resources. They should not be under threat of demography i.e. the populations there should not under control of external interests

2. Gangetic plains are our heartland, and this where all "corridors" cut across each other and will be flash points for future violence.

3. A right of center (political sense) corridor is taking shape. In the south it needs to extend into parts of Kerala and TN from current base of Karnataka. In the north there is no threat due to demography in UT and HP. The right of center needs to reclaim the Doaba region of UP.

4. Doaba region of UP is the key, if reclaimed then the right of center forces connect right from north of Kerala to Siachen via Ladakh/HP. For such a corridor Haryana is enough to maintain a continuity. But the Western UP in general and Doaba in particular is needed for other reasons.

5. This corridor will defeat Jihadi threat to an extent, such that the heartland cannot be overrun by Jihadis.

6. Another eastward bulge is needed from Chattisgarh, to go via Jharkhand to southern Western Bengal. Add in northern districts of Orissa and this will dismantle/weaken the Maoist-EJ Red corridor.

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7082
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby Muppalla » 07 Jun 2009 08:49

SRoy wrote:The time for strategic planning is over, with respect to Kashmir. Kashmir is slipping away is visible to all well informed citizens.

The loss of territories as you say will happen. That's not really important. Some people need to pay.


We have to add substantial portion of Assam to Kashmir

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RamaY » 07 Jun 2009 09:49

Gen Rodriguez told me that Ray, you want to change the system, you can’t. You can’t change the organization, the weapons and the rules. Work within that system and do what best you can! Great advice! Can we really change the Islamic mindset? I wonder. But we can educate them to see the fallacy of their mindset, can’t we? Notwithstanding your meandering through the minefield, you statement was anti Indian and seditious. The worthy Moderators are your judge! And I shall abstain!


I do not want to get in between the fight of elephants; I am small mouse. But I would like to make a point!

We need to think beyond this "working within the system" mindset. The problem in hand is geopolitics, global terrorism, and civilizational challenges. If we want to think and debate within the system that is defined to rule a peaceful India, we will never be able to find a solution to these problems. For example, we will never be able to find a solution to corruption if we leave it to the corrupt law-and-order mechinary. The change will have to come from the society and must be forced upon the state structure. Similarly we need to think beyond the general day-to-day thought models if we want to get a handle on the problems we are currently discussing.

I have protested before and I would like to record my protest on imposing certain words/thoughts on other posters. People who call others' ideas Hindutva, Genocide, Trecherous must be stopped. If my thoughts are labeled Hindutva, by definition my opponents thoughts become Talibanic/EJ. I request the elders to lead us in having a meaningful debate.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RayC » 07 Jun 2009 10:07

I have protested before and I would like to record my protest on imposing certain words/thoughts on other posters. People who call others' ideas Hindutva, Genocide, Trecherous must be stopped. If my thoughts are labeled Hindutva, by definition my opponents thoughts become Talibanic/EJ. I request the elders to lead us in having a meaningful debate.


Others ideas are not Hinduvta nor others views are Talibanic. It was in the context of the comment on Bharatiya etc. Goodness is not the prerogative of any country, religion, community etc. It is universal. And I sure am an Indian and I have no doubt about it and also know as much of India. Therefore, the use of Bharatiya was out of place unless intended to provoke.

What do you mean elders? Please understand we are all equals in the Moderating team and there is no pecking order.

First of all, small streams go to make the oceans.

Second, your protest is rejected since criticism of the government (as a general rule) with words like 'secret commitments' is NOT acceptable, nor any abusive terminology of political personalities.

Get that straight.

Further, Brihaspati has debated with serious points and that is well taken since they are thought provoking and now that he has clarified, it means that those words were just a slip.

If you have to protest, use the report button.

There are no prizes for maximum posts and so keep to the topic.

I have not replied to your post after my last explanation since you are entitled to your views and I have nothing to add.

I do reply to Brihaspati since I find his post intellectually interesting and worthy of debate. His information on the Sharia is something I had missed and so it helped me update myself.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53477
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 07 Jun 2009 11:21

Can we get to topic instead of each other? I think all of you are here for same reason and bring different perspectives. So without polemics lets think about the task at hand.

thanks,

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RayC » 07 Jun 2009 12:23

While it is important that one should view issues from the Indian perspective, it is also worthwhile to understand how others view us and the misconceptions they have of our intention.

The thoughts of Stephen Cohen of Washington's Brookings Institution, who is said to be a South Asian expert and other US 'thinkers' is in the undermentioned link:

http://www.riazhaq.com/2009/04/indias-h ... kistan.htm

It maybe worth reading them to engineer our security needs.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby brihaspati » 07 Jun 2009 18:22

Sometimes, public statements of what appears to be misconceptions, can be deliberately made. Sometimes it is unintentional, as a result of not really understanding a society. However, with respect to both India and Pakistan, USA does have access to a large number of first generation people from both countries, and they can study and observe communications from such people to get at the driving factors or realities in the respective societies on the subcontinent. We can also see this underhand means of assessment being reflected in the "experts" various assessments - they are primarily based on what the more "elite/middle classes" of these two countries appear to think, (the section being able to migrate for educational or professional reasons) as suitably modified by inputs from operatives on the field.

But such misconceptions can be quite useful, if we decide to use them properly. It can be a great cover for policies that take our own future interests forward, by making others believe in what they have concocted for themselves. Feigning weakness, while building strength, feigning peace when preparing for war, feigning friendship when preparing to destroy, can all be very useful - but they really have to be feints, and not true behaviour. My angst at GOI comes from too many signals that most of the time it has no forward vision. This lack of exapansive ideological drive, prevents taking long term concrete steps that also affect all branches of national life.

So much of our expenditure on HRD is wasted, when we do not have a comprehensive plan to use the skills we produce. We have been clamouring about investments in a recessive climate - but we are not that keen on making domestic developoment of military hardware capabilities a key issue of national agenda. After all it seems we never really plan to go to any intensive, longer than three weeks war, so why the impatience to get external military hardware? It does seem that we are keen on arming ourselves with technologies that keep pace with advanced military powers by borrowing from them, but on the other hand we never really do not think that we will need such technologies - because after all we are not going to war, and no one is really going to wage such a devastataing war on us.

We need to first change this attitude of holding the line - literally, ideologically, and physically, and that too taking care that the "line" is ill-defined, so that if we ever have to give it up, we cannot be blamed for giving in. Expansion, if taken as a foundation of the national vision, will incorporate all elements of economic, cultural and where necessary military expansion - all complementing each other and driving each other. Historical experience shows that technological innovations take a quantum leap when societies prepare themselves for war, which in turn drives a lot of economic changes, as well as social changes - for this is where the vast majority can no longer be hoodwinked as to their power, of numbers, of productivity, and the basis they provide to elite-power. This is how, in every society we can comprehensively study, preparation towards internally sourced military capability and expansion, changed economy, technology, and social relations.

This is not about jingoism, but using a very old concept in theories of civilization - that spectacular transitions in the more organized phases of human civilization, were most likely to have been brought about by the need to prepare for war. The actual war may not need to be fought, but the idea of all encompassing expansion can be a serious engine of growth.

For India this has certain policy consequences. And this needs to be sorted out.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby brihaspati » 07 Jun 2009 18:58

There are three ways of controlling an irregular guerrila type military force.

(a) By keeping a large regular army on field, and attaching numerically much weaker irregular units through a communication network, directly coordinated and given only limited freedom of action. Such a setup does not need very strong ideological affiliations.
(b) By keeping a very small core field army, and a large number of irregular units with wider freedom of action. But keeping each unit small, so that any individual irregular unit cannot get out of hand and control. This sort of setup needs some degree of ideological commitment.
(c) By having no central core army, and all irregular units which can recruit new units and spawn new units. This is totally dependent on a strong ideological affiliation to coordinate to a common objective. Typically this needs a separate political/ideological setup for ensuring convergence.

The Talebs started out with (a), when prepared first for AFG by the TSPA and ISI and switched to (c) because the TSPA could not formally move into AFG. This creates an instability in the Talebjabi dynamic. Most successful irregular movements based on ideology started out from (c), and gradually progresses through (b) to (a). What the ISI-TSPA is trying to do is to go back to (a) directly, and the Taleb leadership is gathering back its (c) formation into (b).

During this attempt at transition on both sides, there will be irregular units from stage (c) who can resist getting incorporated into (b) or (a). Thus what we can see in Swat is this three way struggle, two for control and one for retaining freedom of action (with attendant perks). Could India actually intervene or encourage the (c) ?

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RayC » 07 Jun 2009 21:45

brihaspati wrote:Sometimes, public statements of what appears to be misconceptions, can be deliberately made. Sometimes it is unintentional, as a result of not really understanding a society. However, with respect to both India and Pakistan, USA does have access to a large number of first generation people from both countries, and they can study and observe communications from such people to get at the driving factors or realities in the respective societies on the subcontinent. We can also see this underhand means of assessment being reflected in the "experts" various assessments - they are primarily based on what the more "elite/middle classes" of these two countries appear to think, (the section being able to migrate for educational or professional reasons) as suitably modified by inputs from operatives on the field.

But such misconceptions can be quite useful, if we decide to use them properly. It can be a great cover for policies that take our own future interests forward, by making others believe in what they have concocted for themselves. Feigning weakness, while building strength, feigning peace when preparing for war, feigning friendship when preparing to destroy, can all be very useful - but they really have to be feints, and not true behaviour. My angst at GOI comes from too many signals that most of the time it has no forward vision. This lack of exapansive ideological drive, prevents taking long term concrete steps that also affect all branches of national life.


I presume that China is a good example regarding the issue of 'disarming' the adversary through diplomatic and ideological feints. This mindset , to a great extent, is attributable to their theory of Legalism and honed over time so much so it is a reflex action for them.

The Indian mindset is set in an attitude of high morality and an attitude of being Goody Two Shoes. Whether that is actually practised is another issue, but in public pronouncement and policies much is displayed. The examples: Roti, Kapda aur Makan, Garibi Hatao, etc which actually has really been translated in real earnest and yet high in moral content! Or for instance - No first strike!

Having said that, what feints should India undertake so as to deceive its real intentions? And what should be those intentions?

There maybe grounds to feel that GOI has not pursued a strategy to either develop itself as a major international force, nor done much to strengthen itself internally i.e. in the social, economic, military fields etc. Unless a national is internally sound it cannot be in a position to influence effectively the international opinion and events. One wonders if a start has been made by the current govt to seriously strengthen India, given the pronouncements made in the President's address to the Parliament recently and the fervour which it is appearing to apply itself to showcase its first 100 days in office!

Indeed, there should be a road map that builds up India to be a major player in international opinion making. Merely claiming to be a regional power and a superpower wannabe is not going to make it happen.

So much of our expenditure on HRD is wasted, when we do not have a comprehensive plan to use the skills we produce. We have been clamouring about investments in a recessive climate - but we are not that keen on making domestic developoment of military hardware capabilities a key issue of national agenda. After all it seems we never really plan to go to any intensive, longer than three weeks war, so why the impatience to get external military hardware? It does seem that we are keen on arming ourselves with technologies that keep pace with advanced military powers by borrowing from them, but on the other hand we never really do not think that we will need such technologies - because after all we are not going to war, and no one is really going to wage such a devastataing war on us.


If one is more given to social engineering for votes, then it is a difficult proposition to develop HRD since it is not meritocracy centric. There is no doubt that socially backward should be assisted, but to believe that Meena Kumari or Kanamozhi should also be allowed to benefit is a wee bit odd. In fact, it is those who have already been 'emancipated' who are benefiting and those who should benefit are not getting their share of the cake. The result - poverty and deprivation continues unabated. I have seen this first hand having been in a Scheduled Caste Regiment and having interacted closely with the Mahar politicians. Mr Gawai of the Republican Party accepted this fact. the Then there is the case of economically and socially mobile castes being also clubbed in the OBC category which others, who are economically handicapped are left out in the dark, then HRD is hardly going place. The real poor have to be empowered with quality education so that they find their place in the sun and contribute to India's development.

If the educated leave for foreign lands and there is a brain drain, how can HRD develop. There has to be adequate reasons and opportunity to such individuals to remain in India and contribute to its development. If such opportunities do not present themselves, they will naturally search new pastures which are greener. There was an interesting article in today's Telegraph giving the emotional dilemma of an expat!

This three days window for wars is not only for economic reasons, it is also because politically we cannot afford not to listen to international powers that be for the simple reason that we are dependant on them in many fields and India does not have the wherewithal to operate in the international arena in a standalone mode.

Further, the military about 10 years back had a defensive bent of mind given the Nehruvian policy dictates. It is not so now. However, if POK is to be taken, one of the way is to resort to the airhead concept and it is only the US or the erstwhile USSR who could afford such plans. Can India match economically and have the wherewithal and resources to ensure the same? If we are to undertake the Sunderjee concept of Deep Strike, are we ready to undertake a nuclear war?

One of the problems why the military R&D is tardy is that we want to produce everything and anything that is required and we have not finetuned reverse engineering as the Chinese have done. Also, very little involvement is there with the private sector for reasons of security as also not funding the private sector with govt funds. Military equipment is expensive and if there is no guarantee that the military shall buy, then why should the private sector sink in their money for a lost cause?

In the US, the military industry gets federal support.

We need to first change this attitude of holding the line - literally, ideologically, and physically, and that too taking care that the "line" is ill-defined, so that if we ever have to give it up, we cannot be blamed for giving in. Expansion, if taken as a foundation of the national vision, will incorporate all elements of economic, cultural and where necessary military expansion - all complementing each other and driving each other. Historical experience shows that technological innovations take a quantum leap when societies prepare themselves for war, which in turn drives a lot of economic changes, as well as social changes - for this is where the vast majority can no longer be hoodwinked as to their power, of numbers, of productivity, and the basis they provide to elite-power. This is how, in every society we can comprehensively study, preparation towards internally sourced military capability and expansion, changed economy, technology, and social relations.


The govt's attitude will take time to change. It has taken nearly 60 yrs to change the economic policy and that too it still remain hybrid.

What could be the manner where military expansionism becomes a govt intent? Once again, it has to be remembered that India's adversaries are nuclear powers and the latest news is that Pakistan has a second strike capability. Indeed, military expansionism is feasible, but at the cost of a nuclear war. The govt and the people should be ready to accept this cost. Are they ready?

Currently the military can undertake a war as enunciated in the Sunderjee doctrine of striking deep and make a through job of it. But is the govt ready for a nuclear war?

That is the question.

There are three ways of controlling an irregular guerrila type military force.


I have not understood this post in its exactitude.

Could you amply?

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RamaY » 07 Jun 2009 22:43

RayC,

I understand that you believe in work-within-system philosophy. Bharat Parliament passed an unanimous resolution proclaiming entire POK+NA+Aksaichin as part of Bharat. Is this resolution part of IA strategy? What measures IA has taken in the past decade and half (this resolution was passed in 1992) to fulfil this mission, if and when the political leadership gives go ahead?

In your opinion, what will be GOI's response and IA's recommendation if for some strange reason - Pakistan decides to concede POK +/- NA to PRC to gain some financial + military help (something related to 2nd strike capability)?

Let us assume GOI and Indian public are ready to accept the costs associated with a full scale war on Pakistan. Do you think indian military has the necessary equipment and strategies in place? Did it wargame such possibilities? Or is it counting on GOI's inaction?

Just curious to know alternative thoughts...

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RayC » 08 Jun 2009 00:13

What are the threats/ disputes to India that requires resolution?

POK.
Aksai Chin
Tibet
Chinese String of Pearls strategy.
Insurgency sponsored by Pakistan in Kashmir.
Terrorism in hinterland India.
Maoists or Naxals.
British double game of appeasing Pakistan and yet pretending to be concerned of Indian sensitiveness.
The US double game Pakistan vis a vis India and the US immediate strategic interest.
China vs India and using Pakistan to suit its purpose.
Bangladesh and the Islamists and the refugee/ illegal immigrants.
Sri Lanka and the Tamil Question and its effect in Tamilnadu and hence India.
Maldives and its cosying up to China and Pakistan.
The Chinese interest in the Indian Ocean.
And other issues.

How do we resolve this and what should be the strategic White Paper?

Request answer in concrete terms.

Ramana,

how about some insight from you to know how you wish this thread to proceed?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53477
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 08 Jun 2009 00:18

RayC, Seven of the items you have listed have TSP at the core or the periphery. Hence this thread is to focus on its dissolution.

Some folks can work on how to make it happen within the system and others without the system. Ans most likely the Goldilocks option will be a mix of both. So can we all get to that phase?

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RayC » 08 Jun 2009 00:20

ramana wrote:RayC, Seven of the items you have listed have TSP at the core or the periphery. Hence this thread is to focus on its dissolution.

Some folks can work on how to make it happen within the system and others without the system. Ans most likely the Goldilocks option will be a mix of both. So can we all get to that phase?


Dissolution of Pakistan?

What is your way to do it?

Goldilocks is a fairy tale!

Guide us to the conclusion that you desire since this is your thread, interesting and intellectually exciting that it is!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53477
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 08 Jun 2009 00:28

Goldilocks is indeed a fairy or folktale to show us the need for the 'just right' option. Folktales summarize the collective wisdom of the people.


What I want in this thread is to develop a mix of policies and actions that India can take to make possible the dissolution of TSP with measures to mitigate the risks and fallout.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RayC » 08 Jun 2009 00:41

ramana wrote:Goldilocks is indeed a fairy or folktale to show us the need for the 'just right' option. Folktales summarize the collective wisdom of the people.


What I want in this thread is to develop a mix of policies and actions that India can take to make possible the dissolution of TSP with measures to mitigate the risks and fallout.


God said there be light and there was light.

I am aware that you are not God, but you sure can guide since it was your idea to start this thread.

Lest we meander into other issues that are not relevant, I am sure you could spell out the matrix.

The thread does excite and so requires your guidance to prevent going down the same way as many others have gone.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby brihaspati » 08 Jun 2009 01:31

GOI should in any case prepare the country to face the consequences of a nuclear attack by TSP and PRC. This has two excellent strategic values. First it shows that India is not afraid of nuclear blackmail. Second, it sends a clear message that India is okay with MAD. It also provides a clear propaganda opportunity to paint TSP and PRC in their actual colours. India can and should call TSP-PRC nuclear bluff, basically, if necessary goad them to go ahead. Both TSP and PRC knows, that the first one to use the nukes may score initially, but lose politically completely. War is not just about winning field actions and battles, but being able to win politically as a result of that military action too.

What we can see in Swat is the three way struggle, two for control and one for retaining freedom of action (with attendant perks). Here Taleb leadership wants to change from the completely decentralized model (c) to model (b) in its attempt to take back control over its military power away from ISI-PA. Eventually, once they can establishment territirial government they will move to model (a).

For the moment, because the Talebs have now reentered territory where the PA can move freely, PA+ISI wants to go back to the formative stages of Talebs - model (a), where irregulars were trained within the army infrastructure, organized, and supplied by the PA and ISI. This is trying to take back control over units which had been forced to go over to independent self-sustaining model (c) in AFG as here the parent PA could not operate as the main controlling army on field.

But by this time some of these self-sustaining semi0independent units have gained the experience and pleasures of operating on their own, and may not want to go back either the (a) or (b) model. So they may resist both Taleb top leadership's attempts at control, as well as ISIPA attempts to control. These could be relatively small in proportion to the total Taleb force. However, my question was if that leaning towards independence of (c) type, could be encouraged.

Could India actually intervene or encourage the (c) - that was the question. In that case, both Taleb leadership as well TSPA+ISI gets bogged down, and Taleb as a whole cannot do much either.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby brihaspati » 08 Jun 2009 02:02

Maoist/Naxalite/internal terror-separatism threat versus external TSP+PRC+USA+BD+SL threats, reminds me of an interesting phenomena that led to the ultimate defeat of the "Nationalist" KMD in China. When Japan had attacked, the official gov was by the KMD. After the defeat of the Left KMD faction based in Wuhan, and liquidation of the CCP elements in urban areas, the CCP portion under Mao+ChuTeh escaped to the Chingkangshan mountains and began to develop their fluid-base-area strategy. This expanded over time. Then the KMD under Chiang turned more of its attention to liquidating the "internal threat" of CCP, and at least 5 annihilation campaigns were mounted. Meanwhile the nationalist army retreated continuously before the Japanese. The fifth annihilation campaign began to show signs of success (the military reasons and CCP internal factors are OT here), when the communists decided to break out and abandon the base. The slogan they gave was that they were marching "North" to fight the Japanese while the KMD was retreatinga nd abandoning China.

This was the "Long March" - but more importantly, the "nationalist" slogan brought them more people and support and really helped them grow, while KMD's fall started. Maybe, the "nationalist" factor appears not to be strong now for India. But in dealing with the Naxalites, we cannot leave the "nationalist" factor to be used by them.

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RamaY » 08 Jun 2009 03:05

^^^

This is why Naxal problem is no less threat than Talibani threats to Indian national interests.

From a nationalist view point all these different issues have a single source. Lack of acceptance to a nationalistic-worldview as an alternative ideology in Independent India. In someways pre-independence India has more tolerance to this nationalistic world view than post independence.

That doesn't mean we should abandon nationalistic approach to nation building and preservation. I think IA, as an institution, will obay Indian constitution without any question. So the strategy should be around making the constitution a nationalistic idea of India. To achieve that we need a social movement by presenting Indian nationalism AS IS and encourage the public to support that vision.

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2583
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby Chinmayanand » 08 Jun 2009 03:12

GOI should in any case prepare the country to face the consequences of a nuclear attack by TSP and PRC. This has two excellent strategic values. First it shows that India is not afraid of nuclear blackmail. Second, it sends a clear message that India is okay with MAD. It also provides a clear propaganda opportunity to paint TSP and PRC in their actual colours. India can and should call TSP-PRC nuclear bluff, basically, if necessary goad them to go ahead.


Well said , brihaspatiji. I hope important data such as banking, stock market and else is saved in a proper manner to sustain nuke strikes on major cities. Most important is the survival of political,military and industrial leadership.The big brains of India need to be saved too.Once a nuke missile is launched, perhaps we will have about ten minutes to do so.But i think , GoI is sure
that such scenario will not take place.If such threat arises , they plan to GUBO and avert the crisis. :oops:

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16102
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby SwamyG » 08 Jun 2009 04:28

Identifier: External
Area: Social and Cultural.
What: Evangelism money pouring in from abroad. Top donor country in 2006-2007 was USA 2971.29 crores (source: http://www.mha.nic.in/fcra/annual/ar2006-07.pdf)
Possible Solution: Restrict or monitor money flowing from outside the country for religious purposes.

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RamaY » 08 Jun 2009 18:47

SwamyG wrote:Identifier: External
Area: Social and Cultural.
What: Evangelism money pouring in from abroad. Top donor country in 2006-2007 was USA 2971.29 crores (source: http://www.mha.nic.in/fcra/annual/ar2006-07.pdf)
Possible Solution: Restrict or monitor money flowing from outside the country for religious purposes.


I was thinking about this. We cannot convince the public as well as GOI in leaving temple management business. What if the demand is for govt control and management of places of worship and service organizations belonging to the other faiths?

Is there a possibility to convince our leadership about this move?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53477
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 09 Jun 2009 00:21

What is the PRC grand strategy and where does India fit into that?

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby brihaspati » 09 Jun 2009 01:33

PRC's main geostrategic weakness is its "Kursk" bulge into Central Asia. Since bulges have high circumference exposure, they can always be vulnerable to encirclement. The south-plains regimes were always vulnerable to such land penetrations that flanked the Chinese power centres, from the north-west. Even the CCP saved and regenerated itself in the north-west badlands during the civil war and then move east and south to finish off the KMT regime. So to pre-empt such moves, the PRC is compelled to turn the bulge into an extended triangle, with corners to the north of Pamirs, east of Mongolia, and north of Myanmar-Laos-Kampuchea.

The Himalayas remain a problem for PRC. To preserve the triangle, they have to maintain advance points of strength on the two sides of the Himalayas beyond and in front of these two corners. They understand, that equally, India could be used by PRC enemies to turn around the two corners of the Himalayas, and collapse the pivots of preserving the bulge. This is why, it wants India's access to these extremities cut off. Hence the moves to detach NE India, and Kashmir.

Secondary factors are of course, the capability to economically source military capabilities and the eocnomic clout to dominate politics in the region to contain the possible use of India against PRC. This naturally falls into trying to keep India destabilized and economically behind. This is also important to ensure that India appears not attractive by both smaller powers to latch on to, and larger powers to invest in strategically against PRC.

Naval dominance of the IO and protective ring in the Pacific is also important in modern times for PRC. Acces to the energy resources on IO rim and at the same time controlling them to see to it that India is denied comparable access, are therefore important parts of this strategy.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53477
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 09 Jun 2009 03:36

My question is PRC is hemmed with US naval assets n pacific. Is it seeking its Eastern ports via TSP, BD, and Myanmar? Has it taken over the old Russian warm waters search which is euphemism for a sea ports in the south to escape the frigid Arctic ports? If the answer is in the affirmative then this is the new great game and not the old one playing out in Central Asia.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby brihaspati » 09 Jun 2009 04:39

I had projected the shift of "contact" point from Central Asia along the NW-SE axis to SE Asia. But I was voted down about this. My projection still remains the continuing shift to SE Asia - and therefore PRC anxiety to penetrate BD,MY, SL. As before for millenia, IO remains the ElDorado. More so now.


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests