Conceptual Thread-1

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby SwamyG » 09 Jun 2009 04:45

RamaY wrote: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?

At this moment, unfortunately 'no'. Possible solution is to create a lobby with money power that can work the media and politicians. It will take few years to get this going.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5240
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Jun 2009 04:53

ramana wrote: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.
PRC has most certainly NOT given up on its goals of being the pre-eminent power in all of Asia. It continues on this march relentlessly and deliberately. However, it does so with patience and seeks to build capacity and will strike at an opportune time and when its stakes demand it. Vietnam and Korea are examples.

India has already been hemmed in to the level of a "nuisance" as far as PRC is concerned, instead of a strategic competitor or threat. TSP and Myanmar were already under its influence, the moves into BD and Sri Lanka are to further restrict ANY Indian maneuvers.

The Russian warm waters analogy is not apt. PRC seeks to build capacity before mounting a challenge to Unkil, in her backyard.

The great game needs to be redefined from a narrow spectrum view of geo-politics centered around India's NW/CA to a 360 degree view around India.

It needs to be recast in primarily economic terms, then geo-political, then ideological and social, in that order.

If you take the above two views, then the question for the great game becomes:

- Who thinks they can benefit the most, with India's rise and hence seek to control it?
- Who thinks they will suffer the most, with India's potential rise and hence seek to restrict it?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby shiv » 09 Jun 2009 08:47

ShauryaT wrote:
If you take the above two views, then the question for the great game becomes:

- Who thinks they can benefit the most, with India's rise and hence seek to control it?
- Who thinks they will suffer the most, with India's potential rise and hence seek to restrict it?


Shaurya we spend inordinate amounts of time identifying threats and naming entities who control or seek to control India.

How about wording the question differently?

1) How to take down opponents of India's rise?

Look around you and you will find every nation on earth "looking after its own interests" and indirectly or directly impacting on India

a) USA: Economic aid, military aid and indirect nuclear weapons aid to Pakistan, Sanctions against India.
b) China: Nuclear and missile aid to Pakistan. Manufacturing spurious goods (Medicines) and selling them under a made in India label
c) France: selling submarines to Pakistan
d) Sweden: selling AWACS to Pakistan. Transferring an aircraft assembly line to Pakistan (old)
e) UK: Supporting the funding of terrorism in Kashmir
f) Australia: plain racism

We have to first name these countries as offenders. We have not even done that. We are wishy washy about their status.

If you shake my hand once and slap me once are you my friend or enemy? We have a wishy washy attitude about this like "Ravana was part good part bad"

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RayC » 09 Jun 2009 10:16

brihaspati wrote: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.


GOI should prepare the country to face the consequences of a nuclear threat. However, I am doubtful if the country is ready to face the consequences of the nuclear threat and that is a pragmatic view. If we cannot combat the terrorist threat and keep the country safe as the US has done with laws like the Patriot Act or free terrorists because they have hijacked a commercial aircraft and threatened to blow it up because it would endanger the passengers’ lives, one wonder whether there will be a govt who can take the call for a nuclear war or how many citizens would be ready to face the consequence of a nuclear war? A case in point to show the attitude is that while one party criticise the other for freeing and escorting terrorists to Kandahar, the same party fights shy of hanging Afzal Guru. And it takes a Mumbai terror attack to tighten the legal 'niceties' that should have been done long ago.

Therefore, while the idea to steel the mindset of the country to a nuclear war is good, the practicality is a moot point.

MAD is a sure way to deter a nuclear threat, but it also prevents any war of consequence. Thus, this vindicates the move from the Sunderjee Doctrine to the Cold Start Doctrine, though the latter has scope to merge into the Sunderjee Doctrine, if the opportunity arises.

The idea to goad PRC or Pakistan into a nuclear confrontation just to make them lose politically would be too cavalier, unless the situation becomes unacceptable. Given the relative strength and the avenues to mount operations, the options open to China to mount an operation of condequence are only feasible to the West and vice versa. China has a disadvantage in that the operating airfields are in the high altitude and thus capable of smaller payloads than India. Long range weapons platforms can be neutralised via EW and control of satellites and AWACs.

Wars are indeed an intermix of political cum military effort and not exclusive.

The ISI is sustaining the Taliban. It is their strategic weapon and they have ingenuously used it wherein none can pin the blame on the ISI and yet achieving their aim.

While one is not aware if India is assisting or encouraging the Taleban, Pakistan has accused India of encouraging secessionist movements in Pakistan. And now Musharraf has openly stated so as also indicated that ISI has links with the Taliban and by inference AQ.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090609/j ... 083499.jsp

One wonders if R&AW is merely watching the 'show'.

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RayC » 09 Jun 2009 11:34

shiv wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:
If you take the above two views, then the question for the great game becomes:

- Who thinks they can benefit the most, with India's rise and hence seek to control it?
- Who thinks they will suffer the most, with India's potential rise and hence seek to restrict it?


Shaurya we spend inordinate amounts of time identifying threats and naming entities who control or seek to control India.

How about wording the question differently?

1) How to take down opponents of India's rise?

Look around you and you will find every nation on earth "looking after its own interests" and indirectly or directly impacting on India

a) USA: Economic aid, military aid and indirect nuclear weapons aid to Pakistan, Sanctions against India.
b) China: Nuclear and missile aid to Pakistan. Manufacturing spurious goods (Medicines) and selling them under a made in India label
c) France: selling submarines to Pakistan
d) Sweden: selling AWACS to Pakistan. Transferring an aircraft assembly line to Pakistan (old)
e) UK: Supporting the funding of terrorism in Kashmir
f) Australia: plain racism

We have to first name these countries as offenders. We have not even done that. We are wishy washy about their status.

If you shake my hand once and slap me once are you my friend or enemy? We have a wishy washy attitude about this like "Ravana was part good part bad"


Shiv,

A good way to approach the issue – how to handle those inimical to India’s rise.

Notwithstanding all the brouhaha over the strategic relationship with the US, it is obvious that they are protecting their interest by placating Pakistan. Was done during the Bush administration and now being pursued Obama. Militarily and economically India is currently not in a position to challenge the US. Politically, India can to some extent unnerve the Obama Administration by keeping its ties with Russia active and making conciliatory ‘noises’ towards China. Also, to keep the guessing game going have a closer bond with France, notwithstanding the Sarkozy government, is a fiercely proud nation and still nurtures ideas of grandeur and are not well disposed to the USA.

India has to build closer ties with SE Asian countries and give economic assistance as also technical expertise and make the Indian presence in these nations visible. A concerted effort of the ancient historical ties should be highlighted and student exchange programmes initiated. There is nothing better than having impressionable mind to understand your country and that fosters a better understanding when the same foreign students assume positions of authority in their counties. Ideal example is the Patrice Lumumba University (earlier know as Lomonosov University) in Moscow, the Chinese student exchange programme and Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah having studied in India. This would neutralise to a great extent the Chinese influence.

Australia can be sorted out. They can be warned that the billion dollar education industry of Australia would go dry if they don’t mend their ways. This is a stepping stone to warn the western world that India cannot be meddled with. Australia, except for defence cooperation and nuclear fuel, is not that important to India. But Australia is dependent on India for financial support in the form of Indian students. Indian student could go to NZ and that would encourage a rift since NZ does reel under the effect of the Big Brother syndrome of Australia.

UK is not a hard nut to crack. There are enough Indian origin settlers there and they can affect the vote bank and the UK suffers from the Indian malaise of vote bank politics and what is more, Indians are amongst the richest Britons! No cash to the parties can affect UK politics and they are no less prone to cutting corners as it is in India. (Recent scam is a case in point).

Chinese fraudulent ways are legend. If spurious medicine are sold under made in India label, then there should be a global campaign to caution users. Something like the Malaysian ‘Truly Asia’ programme. I am not too sure if holograms can be replicated, but Indian goods should carry holograms if they cannot be replicated for Indian industry’s credibility cannot be undermined by spurious products.

It is time we build up a pro India national entity in peripheral nations to counter the Chinese growing influence. One cannot understand as to how the Chinese are building ports and other infrastructure in Sri Lanka. Federal financing of the private sector to beat the Chinese at the game would have turned the tide. If the Chinese underbid the rock bottom, they would gain politically, but it would be at a huge economic cost. Everywhere the Chinese bids around the world should be challenged so, so that China is forced to underbid at an economically disastrous rate! It must also be remembered that China is having a huge problem over the seaboard vs hinterland economic disparity and have to have funds to appease the hinterland. If China can assist the Naga insurgents, why should India not help the Tibetan and the Uighus?

It only requires political will.

JMT

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby brihaspati » 10 Jun 2009 00:05

RayC wrote
MAD is a sure way to deter a nuclear threat, but it also prevents any war of consequence. Thus, this vindicates the move from the Sunderjee Doctrine to the Cold Start Doctrine, though the latter has scope to merge into the Sunderjee Doctrine, if the opportunity arises.

My idea was to use MAD to neutralize the "blackmail", but the Sunderjee doctrine can still be prepared for underneath. This perhaps needs a great deal of brinkmanship but also to force PA into conventional warfare. I accept reality of situations, but I am also gently trying to suggest that, we prepare to take advantage of situations as and when they develop and even "develop" situations of which we can take advantage of.

The idea to goad PRC or Pakistan into a nuclear confrontation just to make them lose politically would be too cavalier, unless the situation becomes unacceptable. Given the relative strength and the avenues to mount operations, the options open to China to mount an operation of condequence are only feasible to the West and vice versa. China has a disadvantage in that the operating airfields are in the high altitude and thus capable of smaller payloads than India. Long range weapons platforms can be neutralised via EW and control of satellites and AWACs.

No, not to simply make them politically lose, but after full preparation to utilize the "threat" and consequent "hesitation" on PRC part to carry out required operations in our strategic plan.

The ISI is sustaining the Taliban. It is their strategic weapon and they have ingenuously used it wherein none can pin the blame on the ISI and yet achieving their aim.

If Zardari is not bluffing entirely, that "nukes can fall into Taleb hands if democracy cannot be saved", (unless this is also US tactic to justify its continuing suppoort of TSP) he is actually countering US contentions that the nukes are under "US" ensurable "safeguards". This confirms my contention that at least part if not all of TSP nukes are PRC sourced, and perhaps even maintained and in an area where US does not have much penetration - the North Kashmir/Karakorums. In that case it becomes a veiled threat that PRC can be persuaded to allow nuke launches pretending that Talebs are doing it. This is what would be worrying for me, as missiles with nuke warheads can perhaps still be launched easily towards targets in Northern India from this region if PRC has built up the facilities over the years.

I have always strongly pitched for encouraging the Tibetans and the Uighurs. Maybe my suggestion to clandestinely form a Tibetan National/Liberation Army, and help the Uighurs was a bit too ambitious for a non-military person to suggest. But I believe, it can be carried out. This can be part of the entire strategic plan to rewrite a major part of international boundaries and entities.

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby SwamyG » 10 Jun 2009 00:21

>>>b) China: Nuclear and missile aid to Pakistan. Manufacturing spurious goods (Medicines) and selling them under a made in India label
Shiv ji: Is that so? This is the first time I hearing that. Can you elaborate it here or elsewhere? If you do it elsewhere can you give the link here. Thanks In Advance.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 10 Jun 2009 00:25

RayC
It only requires political will


Actually political will reflects people's will.

I think wars of liberation are not feasible in future. The key to PRC is how it transforms itself form a belligerent totalitarian state to a reasonable representative state. I wortoe something in 2001 in BRM:


Challenge of China

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RayC » 10 Jun 2009 11:24

ramana wrote:RayC
It only requires political will


Actually political will reflects people's will.

I think wars of liberation are not feasible in future. The key to PRC is how it transforms itself form a belligerent totalitarian state to a reasonable representative state. I wortoe something in 2001 in BRM:


Challenge of China


Does the political will or ho humming of the MMS govt reflect the peoples' will?

Does the electorate understand much of the issues involved? The sops given by ruling parties and govt to garner votes and thus get votes could hardly be termed as peoples will! Therefore, would the votes really mean the peoples mandate or pure selfish greed?

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby brihaspati » 10 Jun 2009 17:54

Maybe not necessarily a war of liberation from outside Tibet. But a force that can coordinate as and when necessary, to take advantage of overall disadvantage of PRC at crucial time points. Once HHDL passes away, the Tibetans wil be freer to take action.

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RayC » 10 Jun 2009 19:14

More than a war of liberation, the ideal way is to bleed a nation by a 1000 cuts!

And once weakened, bring in the liberation!

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RamaY » 10 Jun 2009 23:14

RayC wrote:More than a war of liberation, the ideal way is to bleed a nation by a 1000 cuts!

And once weakened, bring in the liberation!


RayC-ji :D

You sound so much like ****** with above statement.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 11 Jun 2009 01:33

SwamyG wrote:>>>b) China: Nuclear and missile aid to Pakistan. Manufacturing spurious goods (Medicines) and selling them under a made in India label
Shiv ji: Is that so? This is the first time I hearing that. Can you elaborate it here or elsewhere? If you do it elsewhere can you give the link here. Thanks In Advance.


here:

Rony wrote:


Nigeria: Nafdac Seizes N32 Million Fake Anti-Malarial Drugs

Orhii was emphatic that although the labels on the products indicated they were manufactured in India, the bill of lading showed the port of loading to be Xingang in China, and the exporter as Heihe Cheng Feng Trading co, Ltd. (Shenzhen Shenghetai Trading Co. Ltd).

Laboratory tests by the agency showed that the fake antimalarials which were produced in China but labelled "Made in India," contained only sulfadioxine and no pyrimethamine.

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RayC » 11 Jun 2009 07:17

Pakistan is in total disarray because of repeated violent actions that are taking place in that country.

There is so much of 1000 cuts going on in Pakistan. Swat valley, Mingora, the Army operations, suicide bombers, hotels atttacked and so on and so forth.

The Pakistan govt is at sixes and seven. The US is putting pressure and India hammering away that Pakistan is not serious about being anti terrorists.

Musharraf, who always claimed that the ISI has nothing to do with the Taliban, out of sheer frustration at the events going on, spoke to Der Spiegel and spilled the beans that the ISI had connection with the Taliban and Haqqani.

The chaos and uncertainties are so great there that even the supporters of the Taliban are turning against the Taliban as was the case when the tribesmen took on the Taliban and attacked three Taliban held villages because the Taliban burnt a mosque and 30 were killed inside.

Pakistan bleeds.

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby brihaspati » 25 Jun 2009 02:51

I am sensing a shortening of the timeline of using an attack against India as the soultion to the problems of three countries - USA, TSP and PRC. There may not be a very large time gap between now and such a move. In that case GOI will not be able to play the waiting game anyway. At least psychological preparation of the northern plains for the fallout of nukes could be a good start - which can also serve as good propaganda for associating PRC and TSP as nuclear blackmailers and rogues.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 01 Aug 2009 00:52

ramana wrote:Action plan:
    - Non-war collapse is the best option after taking into account all the constraints
    - Increase Indian economy in order to
    - Increase funds to support other aspects of action plan
    - Increase IM stake in India
    - Stabilize Afghanistan
    A stable Afghanistan will divert Pak resources militarily, economically and culturally.
    Include aid to Afghanistan as line item in Indian budget as part of MEA
    Increase Afghan training in Indian academies- civil and military
    - Create de-facto cordon around Pakistan
    Include the countries in the immediate neighborhood and immediate area and reduce Pakistan influence in the area: Sri Lanka, Bangla Desh and Nepal
    - Take all measures short of war to reduce Pakistan
    Economic (trade, commerce and water, diplomatic and cultural

Action plan contd:

    - Increase Indian military preparedness
    - Increase IBG deployments to 10. Reduce Strike corps mobilization time or relocate in forward areas
    - Increase IAF squadron strength to handle two front war to preclude PRC intervention
    - Increase IN ship strength for enforcing a cordon sanitaire to mitigate fallout
    - Integrate internal security apparatus with military as required
    - Diplomatic offensive to lull and manage a fait accompli
    - Engage US in talks and PRC in other areas
    - Prepare action plan for post-Pakistan region
    Comprehensive and implementable
    Union territory status for broken up areas for thirty years to be reviewed every ten years. Final goal is reincorporation.
    Governors will be appointed with consent
    Reorganize NWFP as Pashtunistan Union Territory with contiguous areas from Baloch and Punjab.
    Reconciliation commission comprised of senior officers from three services of both countries to re-integrate the armed forces

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby Virupaksha » 01 Aug 2009 03:29

ramana wrote:
ramana wrote:Action plan:
    - Non-war collapse is the best option after taking into account all the constraints

I hope this does not preclude option of war after the collapse?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 05 Aug 2009 02:08

X-posted...

csharma wrote:
India believes China will focus on Arunachal after taiwan is sorted out.

Following story shows India's official thinking on China.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/nsc-m ... m/497332/2

NSC meet discusses China, agrees India needs to keep an eye in long term

After virtually agreeing there was no need to “demonise” Beijing as a potential threat, the National Security Council meeting last Saturday emphasised the need to watch China carefully in the context of its recent actions vis-a-vis New Delhi in the Nuclear Suppliers Group on the Indo-US nuclear deal, ADB funds for Arunachal Pradesh and UN action to designate Pakistani Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) founder Masood Azhar a terrorist.

Chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the NSC discussed China for nearly three hours — a broad consensus emerged that Beijing was not a short-term threat to India but its actions needed to be watched from the long-term perspective. The NSC emphasised that India needed to grow at 7-8 per cent in the next decade to become a global economic powerhouse and match up to the challenge posed by Beijing.

The Ministry of External Affairs updated the meeting on China’s behind-the-door action against India while seeking NSG waiver for the 123 Agreement, the impediments it put against India over an ADB loan for development in Arunachal Pradesh and the hurdles it put up in the UN declaring Masood Azhar a global terrorist.

This indicated that Beijing saw New Delhi as a competitor for the high table and would use every opportunity to put India down. Newly appointed Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao spoke at length on China and National Security Advisor M K Narayanan summarized at the end of the meeting.

The essence of the discussion indicated that China would concentrate on Arunachal Pradesh — or South Tibet as it calls it — after it sorted out the Taiwan issue. The meeting noted that progress on upgradation of infrastructure on the Indian side was slow with environment hurdles in building roads in Arunachal Pradesh.

The chiefs of the Armed Forces briefed the meeting on India’s defence preparedness and indicated the need to overcome delays in weapons acquisition. The Army chief made it clear that artillery modernisation was long delayed since the 155 mm Bofors howitzers had been bought way back in 1986. The Air Force talked about the need to increase and modernise the two-decade-old air defence radar network. The Navy spoke on delay in acquisition of the aircraft carrier Gorshkov.

But the Home Ministry made it clear that there was no need to paint China as a threat and demonise it in the public eye. :?: The need was to grow economically so that the country could stand up to any challenge in the near future.

{So Home Ministry is talking about economics and external affairs?}

While decisions on issues discussed at the NSC will be taken in a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security, the apex body was told that out of the $40-billion bilateral trade, China was exporting nearly $32 billion of finished goods to India while the latter was only exporting raw material. The finished goods, basic amenities included, could hit cottage and small scale industries, resulting in large scale unemployment.




I worry if they will get the time to go about liseurely. So there is a huge import imbalance and not doing anything about it. And gratitous remarks about need to grow economically for future. So when do they think PRC will solve its Taiwan problem?

At 7-8 % growth the current $1T doubles in 9-10 years ie 2018-2019..

Suraj what is the old GS(BRIC Report) projection for India in that time period?
-------------

Its not often such a mtg is reported on. Some thing is wrong.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 15 Sep 2009 20:49

X-posted from Jaswant Singh's book thread....

Sanku wrote:
ramana wrote:SUNANDA K. DATTA-RAY

The reviewer has his own pet biases which detract from the review. Faulting him for grammar is the least of the problems. The author is closet separtor. Despite hismodernity he wants to keep the Muslims out. look at his prescription for population exchange. No wonder he is Hindu Fake Liberal.


I met him once on a flight to Singapore, he was rather bitter about how he was forced out of Calcutta by the lefties, apparently you can not be a neutral intellectual in Calcutta anymore.

I think this overwhelming pressure on those who make their living from words in India by the leftist Cabal, (I have die hard and total fraud lefty's in the family in that line) you can not get time of day from a publishing house to even get a book of Children's stories out if you do not in advance spend time with the editors lunching them and convincing how a leftist person you are.

This perpetual pressure muddles up thinking, and creates this fake persona of anti-Hindu and anti-national as a burden to bear for all life.

Even the self avowed Rightists like Mr Ray above cant truly be free of the mental shackles that the above imposes.



Sanku, Isn't this a wonderful opportunity to start a new publishing house with all the new tools like pdf and off-shore printing? Give it some thought. Even if we get half a dozen books printed a year it will be a great achievement. A limited run of 5000 copies at a time and rest by Kindle or E-books/pdf download distribution.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 16 Sep 2009 00:53

X-posted...
Sanku wrote:
ramana wrote:Sanku, Isn't this a wonderful opportunity to start a new publishing house with all the new tools like pdf and off-shore printing? Give it some thought. Even if we get half a dozen books printed a year it will be a great achievement. A limited run of 5000 copies at a time and rest by Kindle or E-books/pdf download distribution.


An appealing challenge, but this is something that will truly require work, hard work.

However an excellent thought, a wonderful excellent thought -- Let me see start thinking about it. Let me talk to some folks locally and see whats the current status. I will then post a current summary on BRF and we can pick it up from there.

I promise to do it in time bound manner (unlike the previous promise on a online book distribution of Indian works, where I started on and drifted away), say by Dipawali for the first cut?

Basically -- Challenges and blueprint for a new (national interest) publishing house.

How does that sound.

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RamaY » 15 Dec 2009 00:31

Has nothing to do. Wrote an alternative model just to get some kick :mrgreen:
***
India total population = 1,160,000,000

Divide India into 200 city states = 5.58 million per city

Urban Area = 400 Sq. KM (~11 KM radius) = 13,950 people per sq. km (Chennai’s current population density, below Mumbai & Kolkata). All residential areas must be minimum 5 Floors increasing the community areas.

City-Rural Area = 5000 Sq KM (~30 KM belt around the city) = Provides ~4 Lakh Acres of arable land for food grains, vegitable etc. Reduces the transportation costs. Per my calculations supports ~1.5 million population (~25% of total population) in Agri sector.

Total populated Areas = 200 cities x 5500 sq. km = 1.08 million sq. km = 33% of Land Area.

Dedicate ~50% of land mass to forests & water catchment areas. = Provides ~ 26,000 TMC of fresh water resources with 45 CM average rain fall. Covers all the water needs of the 1.08 million sq. km area.

Remaining 17% (50% forests + 33% urban areas) is for future reserve.

***
Guidelines for new city states

Each city state sends 1 MP for every million people.

Separation of a state from the union requires 90% vote in that city-state and majority vote in the parliament.

People are free to move from one city to another. Federal representation and funds are adjusted based on population.

All city states are built at least 30KM from nearest sea shore to mitigate global warming impact.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby SaiK » 15 Dec 2009 01:43

What is more realistic solution driven out of?.. is it the possibility or plausible aspects of the solution? 'cause under any plan, one would have to drive certain factors and triggers to execution to make it a realistic solution.

There are M options and N ways. We are jinxed at using none in the spectrum just because of our central politics. If we correct our political system, mend our ways of living for economic growth, strengthen our military strength (for example, even the nuke test is under "x-fingers"), and further our fundamental industrial, civil, ... and all information and transportation infrastructure.

We have to struggle from all aspects to get to something that should have always "ideally done", where in most countries they are not much different from an organic thought flow to near realistic values. In our case, its always we have to play a diverse factor key that applies to all sections of the society, foot the corruption bill, cut-throat politicians and their games, and finally chalta-hai people. Our sense of reality is totally messed up by these actually unrealistic (in ideal sense, for me, corruption is not a real event or that should not happened in relation to say something that can be done to prevent it, and that is preventable).

We can drive at many things to be realistic concepts, when we filter out these aspects, and definitely many of our solutions will succeed if we can get these bad factors out of our ways of living.

Virtually, any concept/method for getting the objectives should work.

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RamaY » 15 Dec 2009 03:13

Saik-ji.

I am doing the root-cause analysis by throwing solutions at it. Some kind of "Neti-Neti" logic if you will :wink:

In the process I hope to arrive at a social model, that is what it is, and possible alternative strategies and the corresponding solution spaces. Once I have those solution spaces defined, I can better understand the motivations of people who do this and that. Once I have those intentions mapped, I can influence them by showing the "evidence" or disturbing the apple cart (or something like that) :mrgreen:

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RamaY » 12 Jan 2010 20:32

XPosting from TSP thread because I would like to understand-

A. Is Islam really strong and an unifying force, when it is faced against a non-islamic ideology or governance system or region?

B. If Islam is not strong and not unifying what united East and West Pakistan during Partition?

C. If Islam is not a unifying force when the opponent is a non-islamic entity, why is Indian leadership afraid of taking a stern action against TSP after 11/26? (The TSP/Pak-Af threads justify Indian inaction to 11/26 on this premise).

D. If Islam is not a unifying ideology when faced against non-islamic entity/region/ideology, why do we see large protests against Danish Cartoons or GBay etc in India?


Thanks in advance.

surinder wrote:Presence of IM's in India, while having a country of former IM's on the West & the East puts India at a disadvantage in contructing a vision & answer to the challenges thrown by TSP.

While it is obvious even to a kid that Pakistan was created because of Islam---in other words, if there was no Islam, there were to be no Pakistan. *ALL* contigous areas that *could* have been parcelled, were cut off. Kashmir was somewhat of an anamoly, probably a British miscalculation which worked in our favor. It is obvious to everyone that if more areas were contiguous with larger populations of IM's, they would have gone to Pakistan; conversely, if Hindu/Sikh population was larger in some Pakistani areas, they would have stayed within India. Islam *is* divider, it is the reason why certain areas stayed or went. But despite such obvious conclusions, we cannot say it because of our consideration for IM's and the resultant damage this would cuase to our unity if such thoughts were to be freely spoken aloud & debated.

Fast forward: Pakistan then morphed into TSP, and has let loose terror on India. Both in 2-4 wars, continous jhagra on Kashmir, Punjab. Nuclear threats and all that. To some (if not most) it is obvious that these threats are neither new, nor inspired by any new ideology. They are a continuation of the mellenium-old push of Islaam into India proper. Now they are being spearheaded by TSP, rather than Turks. But we cannot say this, nor can we fine tune our ideas and dileaneate the real from the unreal threats and open this topic for discussion in the real India (I am not talking of BRF only). The ideas that will come out might cause tremendous hurt among IM's and of course hurt Indian unity.

So the net result is that the fundamental issues that concern India are undebatable. Hence our responses are confused, lack coherence, and any long-term vision or clarity. They are based on whatever the current leader in India is able to do or think. The responses lack the cohesiveness of a Civilizanation thinking in locked steps. Due to the undebatableness (my word) of the issue, historical lessons cannot be drawn, nor historical means to deal with the issue brought out. Or if any lessons are drawn, they are drawn on the sly, not by public debate. We are unable to name the enemy, its motivations, its ideological motivations, its end-game scenarios. Unable to match the enemy in this way, we have no coherent united face. We just deal with tactical moves, not strategic long-term focus. This is a tremenous loss to India, wherein *ALL* the old historical lessons of dealing with the Islamic invasion and its eventual defeat have to be deliberately forgotten.

Of all the countries in the world, that should understand and know Islaam, Islamism, Islamic wars, Islamic methods/aims/tactics, Islamic end-game scenarious, it should be India, India & India. But India is the most confused country in dealing with a 1000 year old threat. Thousand hyears and we still don't have a solution to a problem. If we haven't solved it in 1000 years, how likely is it that we will solve this problem now?

Meanwhile our illustrous ex-countrymen to the West, have no such pangs of conscious or any exagerated self-restrains. Their debate need not take into account Hindu opinion, since there are practically no Hindus in TSP. Their debate is focussed, clear, and unfettered. Their ambitions and tactics and strategy has no self-imposed blindness. Only thing they lack---and we should thank our 33 crore Devtas for that----they lack the ability to accomplish anything. Were it not for the utterly corrupt and incapable people in TSP, they would have made mincemeat of India. Well, even with their unbeleivable cupidity, they have impudently slapped & humiliated a country 7 times its size. That is a compliment to them, if there is one that can be given.


shiv wrote:Surinder - with respect there are so many "debatable" points in your argument that it would only lead to a rehash of a whole lot of discussions we have had. I believe you are yet again promoting Islam as a fearsome and enviable idol on a pedestal making it out to be a millennia old unchanging and relentlessly conquering force that is still winning and using that image of Islam that you have created to say that it needs to be fought. If Islam is not all that you say it is, it does not require the solutions you ask for.

The argument that if there was no Islam there would be no Pakistan is easily countered by a similar equal equal - if there were no Hindus there would be no India. If there was no white man there would be no US of A

In any case this is OT here.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 12 Jan 2010 22:45

Is it possible to set up a news site like this

bombaynews.net?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby negi » 12 Jan 2010 23:04

RamaY wrote:[b]A. Is Islam really strong and an unifying force, when it is faced against a non-islamic ideology or governance system or region?

Any attribute which is shared by a large section of society or country is a unifying force in case of Islamic republics like TSP everything from policy matters to civil laws has to adhere to the basic tenets of Islam so given their obsession with the religion/faith it is the ONLY unifying force/factor .

B. If Islam is not strong and not unifying what united East and West Pakistan during Partition?

Was there any UNITY in first place or it was a more of a compromise as both countries were carved out based on the same ideology and not exactly on the basis of demands of the local population.

C. If Islam is not a unifying force when the opponent is a non-islamic entity, why is Indian leadership afraid of taking a stern action against TSP after 11/26? (The TSP/Pak-Af threads justify Indian inaction to 11/26 on this premise).

I think this is a case of 'jaundiced eye syndrome' why do we have to see Islam everywhere ? GOI's inaction against TSP stems from the following imho of course.

1. The key positions in the cabinet are occupied by individuals who are too 'old' for taking a 'logical' and 'assertive' decision on such matters , there is a reason why there is a definite 'retirement' age in every profession .

2. Politicians at the helm risk loosing a lot of mileage in case an offensive action against TSP leads to a heavy loss in men and material , and of course the MEDIA which will be ready with their sequel to 'AMAN ki ASHA'.

3. Inertia : Every government has a nice and glorious tradition of 'inaction' and 'restraint' being upheld for a period spanning more than 6 decades when it comes to punishing the TSP , also to be honest people at large have accepted such a stance .

4. Peace sells : 'Aman ka tamasha ' and stuff like this will sell during any time of the year and specially between India and Pakistan . Nopel plije winners like President Obama and his poodles have to bell the cat which goes by the name 'Kashmir'.

D. If Islam is not a unifying ideology when faced against non-islamic entity/region/ideology, why do we see large protests against Danish Cartoons or GBay etc in India?

I don't see what is the issue with IMs protesting against the Danish cartoonist of course a fatwa to behead or kill someone is unwarranted but I don't think everyone who protests agrees with the fatwa by and large.

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

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby RamaY » 12 Jan 2010 23:44

^^^

Fair enough!

So it is all the INTERNAL calculations that lead to inaction on Indian side, NOT the expected consolidation is TSP in the event of Indian response to 11/26.

Are you sure?

By the way your response is as jaundiced-eye-response as you balme my question to be. The reality is somewhere in between.

I am willing to change my opinion, if supporting reasoning is provided. Do you think the same way?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby negi » 13 Jan 2010 00:52

Consolidation of Islamists as a consequence of Indian attack on TSP can be a subject of academic study however given the chaos and unorganised structure of talibunnies any mobilisation of Taliban, Al queda alongside the TSPA would have required a considerable time , certainly long enough to render such a development to be of no consequence to Indian decision making (oops ma bad :oops: no one wins with GOI when it comes to thumb twiddling :roll: ).

Also another point to be noted is the fact that a befitting military response to 26/11 most likely would have been a sort of surgical strike on terrorist camps yes the so called 'rationalists','peaceniks' or 'strategy' types would say that it would not inflict much losses to TSPA and the ISI for these camps can be resurrected within a few days/months of notice , however they seem to ignore the point that such a strike would have been 'JUSTIFIABLE' in the world media heck they were even anticipating it ; from there on if TSPA retaliated we had a game on our hands which could have been taken to its logical conclusion and if it did not then again a win win for us.

Pakistanis like any other nation will sink in their differences and unite if another country attacks it what's there to be so concerned about ? Hell a large % of the population in any case has been brainwashed and live under the fear of attack by Indians , the shrill response to General Kapoor's statement is a classic pointer to the state of the affairs in TSP.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 28 Jan 2010 05:10

X-Post..
ramana wrote:Posting in full for Amtiabh Mattoo was member of first NSAB and did a lot of work in this area.

SECURING INDIA
- It is time the national security architecture was overhauled
Amitabh Mattoo


Rarely before in recent history has India had the unique opportunity to help shape the future of the world. Simultaneously, at few times since Independence have the security and strategic challenges been greater than they are today. The new national security adviser, Shiv Shankar Menon, is faced with a world that is taking India more and more seriously, and yet the Indian State still lacks both the will and the capacity to make use of this extraordinary opening. In addition, the open Indian secular, pluralistic democracy is increasingly vulnerable to a range of threats that could potentially undermine the very idea of India. The NSA, in addition to being the principal security adviser to the prime minister, needs to help India face up to an extraordinarily turbulent world while charting out clear policy goals based on a long-term strategic vision, a grand strategy. This will not and cannot happen until virtually a new security architecture is put in place; radical reform, not piecemeal incrementalism, is indeed the need of the day.

With an unsettled neighbourhood, an increasingly aggressive China and an ambivalent Obama-led United States of America, India’s external strategic environment is defined by uncertainty. Nowhere is this clearer than in India’s neighbourhood. Consider this conundrum. India’s military and economic prowess is greater than ever before, and yet India’s ability to shape and influence the principal countries in South Asia is less than what it was, say, 25 years ago. One successful Sheikh Hasina visit, unfortunately, does not make for a harmonious South Asia. An unstable Nepal with widespread anti-India sentiment, a triumphalist Sri Lanka where Sinhalese chauvinism is showing no signs of accommodating the legitimate aspirations of the Jaffna Tamils, a chaotic Pakistan, which is unwilling to even reassure New Delhi on future terrorist strikes, are only symptomatic of a region that is being pulled in different directions.

Do we not need to have a long-term strategic vision of South Asia? Will India really be taken seriously as a global player if it is unable to settle its own neighbourhood? How do we ensure that our South Asia policy based on five principles — bilateralism, non-reciprocity, non-interference, economic integration and irrelevance of borders — will work without effective instruments and expertise? How do we further the prime minister’s vision of a grand reconciliation with Pakistan, so essential also to heal communal relations within the subcontinent? What are the incentives and sanctions that can make Pakistan’s army and Inter-Services Intelligence directorate review its blinkered policy of bleeding India by affecting a thousand cuts? How does one confront radical jihadi Islam and prevent it from spreading its contagion in India? These are critical questions that the NSA cannot afford to ignore.

China’s recent assertiveness, acknowledged even by the prime minister, Manmohan Singh, is symbolic of not just China’s rise, but it also signals that Beijing will be in the future, at best, our greatest challenge and, at worst, a security nightmare. A rising China is, of course, now a challenge for the entire international system. It is being increasingly recognized that there is a new generation of leaders in China who no longer believe in Deng Xiaoping’s 24-character strategy of hiding their light and keeping their heads low. China, as we know from its history, is prone to take risks, especially when it believes that the balance of power is in its favour. At Copenhagen, as Fareed Zakaria reminded us recently, China even “displayed an unprecedented level of disregard for the United States and other western countries.” :eek: A member of the delegation of the prime minister, Wen Jiabao, wagged a finger at President Barack Obama and shouted at him, which was so offensive that the Chinese premier had to ask the interpreter not to translate the words into English. Do we have a strategy for coping with a hegemonic and potentially belligerent China? Do we have a clear alternative vision of Asian stability and the security architecture needed to support it? And do we have the instruments, together with like-minded Asian States and perhaps the US, to ensure a balance in Asia and to prevent it from being submerged by Chinese interests and values?

Unfortunately, precisely at this moment of turbulence, India has to deal with a woolly-headed US, with no clear sense of geo-politics. Not surprisingly, a Heritage Foundation scholar recently described Obama’s first year as the ‘Audacity of Hype’, playing on the title of the president’s autobiography, Audacity of Hope. Notwithstanding the extraordinary reception that the Indian prime minister was given by President Obama in Washington, it is clear that the best outcome over the next few years would be to ensure a consolidation of the gains made during the Bush years. But, increasingly, there will be sparring between Indian and American negotiators over issues ranging from trade to climate change to non-proliferation and disarmament. We need a clear strategy to ensure this consolidation and to prevent, for instance, American back-peddling on the nuclear deal from having a wider ripple effect amongst other members of the nuclear suppliers group.

But security is more than just external challenges. In its essence, the objective of national security is to ensure for the country and its citizens freedom from fear. And the challenges on this road to comprehensive security are manifold: internal insurgencies including Naxalism, energy deficit, environmental decay, pandemics, migration and internal displacement, terrorism and particularly the threat of “nuclear” terrorism. These issues are far too important to be left to individual ministries. Indeed, even counter-terrorism cannot be just the domain of only the home ministry or the proposed National Counter-Terrorism Centre. The NSA must, by definition, be the principal assessor of major national security threats and provide the main security briefing to the prime minister and his cabinet team. It is vital, therefore, that the chiefs of the Research and Analysis Wing and the Intelligence Bureau have direct access to the prime minister through the NSA.

Fortunately, in Shiv Shankar Menon we have an outstanding officer with tremendous experience and a wealth of expertise. Most important, he enjoys the confidence of Manmohan Singh and shares his vision of India and its role in the neighbourhood and in world affairs. But to be an effective NSA, he will not just need to assert himself in unprecedented ways, but will also need to ensure that the moribund national security structure is revitalized. How often has the national security council met as the NSC and not as the cabinet committee on security? How often does the strategic policy group meet, and what has the follow-up been on its deliberations? Has the NSC secretariat not often been used to accommodate superannuating senior officers or to position those who may have missed out on plum postings? Should the NSCS not be restructured in a way that truly reflects India’s aspirations of playing a global role, by including far more area experts? Is there not a danger that the national security advisory board may descend into becoming an ‘old boys club’ of former diplomats, civil servants and superannuated officers of the armed forces? Should the NSAB not, instead, become a vibrant platform for providing the best advice to the NSA by those outside government on critical issues facing the nation? Finally, and most critically, there should be a dedicated cell within the NSCS which provides long-term assessment of the threats facing the nation, which may build on some of the work already done by the directorate of net assessment in the headquarters of the integrated defence staff and the former task force on long-term threats.

The author is professor, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University


Great summary of the challenges that India faces and the rewards. ....



Can we work on developingsolutions for those grand challenges Dr. Mattoo has ennumerated for India?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 23 Feb 2010 03:24

Can we identify the countries around India which have historical Indian influence and still have memories of it?

BajKhedawal
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 10:08
Location: Is it ethical? No! Is it Pakistani? Yes!

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby BajKhedawal » 26 Feb 2010 01:57

A Request (I don't know where else to put this for better visibility)

I want to do an entry level data mining project on state sponsored terrorism (germinating from in and around papistan), but need guidance on where to get academically ACCEPTABLE data.

Data mining works well when you're searching for a well defined profile, pattern, and a reasonable number of attacks per year. But how do you measure indefinable patterns in terrorism?

Some possible examples are:

Phone data
Social network data
Financial transactions
Wire transfers
Border crossings
Public records
Travel records
Illicit drug/arms trade

Again all of the above boils down to academically ACCEPTABLE data, an example

http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct100301_fig9_text.html
Chart compares Opium Production in Afghanistan and Pakistan (respectively) for years 1993 to 2000 as follows
(metric tons):

I need help from the stalwarts here, else I will have to do benign stream flow analysis and drought project. Alternate ideas backed with raw (pun or no pun ?) data are welcome

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 26 Feb 2010 02:05

Try to datamine this site:

posting.php?mode=quote&f=1&p=802153

Its by Ethan De Mesquita on Terrorism.

BajKhedawal
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 10:08
Location: Is it ethical? No! Is it Pakistani? Yes!

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby BajKhedawal » 26 Feb 2010 02:30

Thanks!

link has a number of article linked. this is a semester long project and its introductory, but i want to put this out there under the mango gora's nose.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 26 Feb 2010 03:57

Post in that thread. maybe samuel or RamaY or Brihaspatiji might give some ideas. On face of it your idea looks good. All your sources would be govt databases. A simpler approach is to search the global search agents like google, yahoo, local news papers, now social web2.0 sites, etc and look for obscure appearances of the likely suspects in news reports and social events reports.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 28 Apr 2010 01:07

X-posted from Geo-political thread...

Acharya wrote:
RamaY wrote:Acharya ji

I think the first baby step is POK.

I may have to disagree. It is the population which supports India which is the most important. First India has to get all of them within its fold. Then other will atleast ask for article 370 for their region. One Sindhi Paki discussed with me and expressed interest in article 370 for Sindudesh.


I was proposing UT status for 30 years with review every ten years. One can think of Art 370 as part of regional autonomy for all Indian states with checks and balances.


viewtopic.php?p=709929#p709929

I guess no one saw my plan for there are no comments on it.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 28 Apr 2010 22:37

From Atri in Future Scenarios thread...

In my opinion, to understand India, her history and her civilization, we need to look at the classical concept of Sapta-Sindhu. Although the concept of Sapta-Sindhu has been changing with time, in all the given times, India's civilization along with her production centres, centres of learning, centres for military and political power and economic growth have been along the Sapta-Sindhus of contemporary time.

In Early Vedic times, the Sapta Sindhu means rivers of Punjab, Saraswat and kabul. In later Vedic period, it also includes Ganga-basin as well (Mandala 10, Nadistuti sukta). By the time of Vishnupuran (around 400BC) the pan-subcontinental view of sapta-sindhu was ascertained. It is included in 7 holy rivers of Ganga, Yamuna, Godavari, Saraswati, Narmada, Sindhu, Kaveri.

Image

I think in modern times, the 7 basins which I have marked in map above marks the centre of gravity for India.

1 - Red - Indus Basin
2 - Red - Ganga basin
3 - Yellow - Krishna-Godavari Basin (I think they should always be considered together because people, rulers, and market of this region behaves in similar way with respect to Indo-Gangetic basin and Kaveri basin)
4 - Blue - Narmada-Tapti Basin
5 - Blue - Mahanadi Basin
6 - Blue - Kaveri Basin
7 - Black - Airavati Basin

It is impossible for the people from basin 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 to progress alone without being bothered by people from basin 1 (Indus valley) and without taking care of basin 7 (Irawati valley). With time (in not so distant future), people from basin 1 and 7 will have to be persuaded (forcefully or peacefully) to join in.

The people from Basin 3 overlook the affairs of people from basin 2 and basin 6. The influence of rulers and market of this region spills over to aforementioned basins time and again. During most of the times, basin 4 and Basin 5 play secondary role to the interaction of basin 2 and basin 3.

Basin 6 is comparatively secluded from the affairs of basins 1,2,3,4,5 and thus has acted as perfect incubation facility for sustained growth (of market and produce). Furthermore, substantial parts of basin 6 are blessed with rains for 8 months, thus making Kaveri valley as one of the most fertile regions of India.

Basin 7 has to be taken into consideration as it acts as a sole gate-way to India for another rising power in Asia, China.

The political unification of these 7 river-basins from source till mouth of the major river and their tributaries is the key towards stable India and world. This entire region of all these rivers is needed to be brought back into the fold of Indic civilization, so that even in case of political disintegration, India will stay..

vilayat
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 08 Dec 2009 21:18

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby vilayat » 09 May 2010 16:46

Take an hour out of your life and please listen to this lecture by Mohan Bhagwat...

Part one -


Part two -


Part three -


Part four -


Part five -


Part six -

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 11 May 2010 21:49

X-posted from Af-Pak thread...

ramana wrote:The key to Af-Pak is for India to take back PoK, This will unravel TSP like no other thing. Taking back PoK is a legitimate thing for India. The West and PRC will do whatever it takes to prevent this retaking PoK.


and
Suppiah wrote:
ramana wrote:The key to Af-Pak is for India to take back PoK, This will unravel TSP like no other thing. Taking back PoK is a legitimate thing for India. The West and PRC will do whatever it takes to prevent this retaking PoK.


I sincerely hope you mean the land and not the animals living there.....but in any case, how does it help


and
Pranav wrote:^^^ Inhabitants of Northern areas are mostly friendly. And it helps by giving land-link to Afg.


and
RamaY wrote:
ramana wrote:The key to Af-Pak is for India to take back PoK, This will unravel TSP like no other thing. Taking back PoK is a legitimate thing for India. The West and PRC will do whatever it takes to prevent this retaking PoK.


Tathastu Ramanaji! I have been arguing for this for more than a year (starting with RayC ji).

This is my thought process.

India has legitimate rights on POK+NA. This area is important to protect Jammu & Kashmir's long term interests. Reclaiming POK would pave the way for Aksai-Chin.

With little foresight India can do wonders in Af-Pak area. India must offer additional financial and military aid (ALH, Pinaka etc.,) in return for a permanent military base in Afghanistan facing POK/NA. The Farkhor base in Tajikstan can act as supporting base.

No doubt it will be a costly effort. But will reap more than 100 times economic and strategic benefits to India in next 10-20 years.


and
ramana wrote:RamaY, You are looking at the legitmacy of Indian claim over POK. And benefits to India on re-integration of POK.

Spend some time to think about why its relevant to TSP and the impact on its socio-dynamics.

And then wonder why the West wants to ensure that POK remains with TSP.

Go back and read Kissinger, Dobrynin, Zbig's works.

I will quote all that in summary later on.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Conceptual Thread-1

Postby ramana » 12 May 2010 09:28

Dobrynin's book "In Confidence" page 242 -243

Kissinger made it clear to us that the United States was mostly con-
cerned about the western section of the India-Pakistan front, which
Washington feared would collapse after Pakistan's defeat in the East. As
Kissinger later wrote, he believed Mrs. Gandhi was planning to attack the
Pakistan-held portions of Kashmir, recover them for India, and thus precipi-
tate through a humiliating defeat the disintegration of what remained of
Pakistan in the West. (In the East the White House had to accept that the
war was as good as won by India.)
As part of his maneuver, Kissinger then
asked Vorontsov to assure Moscow that the White House was not in contact
with Beijing over the conflict even though Pakistan was close to China. He
simultaneously proposed referring the matter to the United Nations.

{Liar as seen from the Nixon tapes!}

The tension was broken upon my return on December 12. Moscow
sent a particularly important message to Nixon: "Our contacts with Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi suggest that the Indian government does not intend
to take any military action against West Pakistan." With noticeable relief,
Kissinger said that was good news. At the same time he complained that
Indian assurances lacked clarity and called upon us to continue close consul-
tations in the confidential channel. But what really mattered was that, after
taking Pakistan's side as a payoff for helping open up China, Nixon and
Kissinger had to rely on Moscow's word that India would not attack West
Pakistan.
Thus the Soviet Union's diplomatic intervention helped prevent the
military conflict from spreading to the point where it would have resulted in
a total defeat and breakup of West Pakistan, not just an amputation of its
eastern province fifteen hundred miles away.
I suspect that Pakistan's arro-
gant behavior at the start of the conflict was probably to some degree fos-
tered by manipulative American diplomacy, which left the impression that
the United States would strongly be on Pakistan's side. But—if so—the
Nixon administration failed to fulfill the Pakistani military regime's great ex-
pectations. Pakistan, actually an American ally, lost half of its territory.

The final word came in January when we began work with Kissinger on
the details of the summit.
Admitting that he had been unduly nervous about
Soviet intentions during the Indo-Pakistan War, he virtually admitted that
he had taken some "unreasonable steps" at the time. He acknowledged that
our assurance about India's intentions at the critical moment was a break-
through in ending the war. For him, that was an extraordinary confession—
but not one that he made in public.

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 2010 21:26

A recent statement by MMS that "he will not step down till the task given to him is complete" made me wonder

a.) What is his task?
b.) Who gave him that task?


This lead me to three possibilities.

1.) MMS is an agent of some non-Indian interest group and he is promoted by this interest group to become India's Finance Minister during the 1991 financial crisis after Rajiv Gandhi's assassination. Sonia/Raul's unconditional support for his PM-ship in spite of his clear policy mistakes both internal and external affairs.

2.) MMS is a loyal servant of SG/RG and is a seat warmer for RG. One issue with this scenario is MMS's elevation as FM in PVNR administration or perhaps the external interests did this favor for SG/RG? Another issue is that any/every other congress leader will be more than happy to be the seat-warmer for RG.

3.) MMS is a true Flamigo and has take the reins from PVNR and ABV. Kalam's secret advise to SG during her attempt to become PM of India can be seen in this light. MMS's unfettering focus on economic development of India, even if it means the wealth is accumulated in minority hands, can be a good indicator. Other indicators are the focus on developing qualitative military, economic, and infra deterrence to external influences.

I pray to god that the third scenario is the truth.


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest