Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3746
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Rudradev » 29 Mar 2009 12:20

surinder wrote:Rudradev wrote:
In all of these ways, Britain seeks to reverse the "West-vs-Islam" course that the "clash of civilizations" has taken over the past decade, and bring southern Central Asia back into the Western orbit at the least possible military cost to NATO

Rudradev,

While I agree with most of what you say, there is one thing I think is important. I do not think UK is fighting for "Western" interests, it is fighting for UK's interests. UK would like to see other European and US slightly neutralized and subdued. It would not mind a low-intensity confict to sap European and US energies and keep them down, but would like to see themselves rise above. This is, if we look carefully, same as the old "Balance of Power" game. It wants to India balanced by TSP+PRC; US+Europe balanced by Islaemessts/Jeahadis, US balanced by PRC. Just like in the 18 & 19th century UK encouraged European conflict to maximize its power and remove competetors.


Surinder,

I don't think there's any contradiction.

If you look at how the British have fashioned a mythology around their own historical narrative, you will see that they consider themselves the inheritors of a continuous Western Imperium, that protects *all* Western Civilization, that represents and expands *all* Western Interests. They see themselves as the legates or civilizational descendants of Imperial Rome (obvious in such actions as co-opting the Roman Lion as an Imperial symbol, as well as in the works of a variety of authors from Gibbon to Macaulay). Interestingly, the Roman patricians in turn saw themselves as the inheritors of Ilium (the Kingdom of Troy)... so the idea of a continuous Western Imperium goes back at least as far as the Homeric epics.

This British Exceptionalism is no different from the Pakis seeing themselves as inheritors of a Mughal legacy, of course... but in the case of the British, it is fed into by a millenium of propaganda constructed around a myriad half truths, such as:

-Nobody has successfully invaded the home island of Great Britain, EVER, since 1066.

-The sun never set on the British Empire. The British were able to carry the influence of that Anglo-Saxon/Judeo-Christian/Greco-Roman amalgam known as "Western Civilization" to territories and peoples around the known world, including many who had never encountered it before.

-British culture internalizing Kipling's ideas of the "White Man's Burden" and the manifest destiny of Britain to assume it.

-Of all the major European colonial powers, only the British were never kicked out by humiliating military defeat from a former colony since 1776 (unlike Spain from the Philippines and Cuba, France from Algeria and Vietnam, the Netherlands from Indonesia, the Portuguese from Goa etc.)

-The British believe they were the "leader" of Allied Europe during WW2, as the only European nation that didn't get invaded during that conflict, and as the chief arbitrators who successfully persuaded America to intercede against Germany during that war.

-Even today as a tiny island nation, they remain aloof from the European Union, believing it is their place to lead rather than to cooperate.

-They are still, despite their tiny size, a permanent member of the UNSC, and hold a submarine-based strategic nuclear arsenal capable of striking anywhere on earth.

-They share more cultural and civilizational values in common with the American "Hyperpower" than with any of their European neighbours. (The Americans, for their part, have a tendency to worship all things British with a nauseating obsequiousness. You might have seen this American "deference" manifest even at the popular level, as a servile fascination for anyone with a British accent, if you've spent time in the USA).

-They share a "special relationship" with the Americah Hyperpower, which they believe translates into great influence over Washington's foreign policy. In the case of the CIA and the State Department, this is at least partially true.

So when Britain wants to be the guy who deals with the Saudis and Taliban so that NATO can go home from Afghanistan and Central Asia returns to the Western orbit etc.... they aren't doing this out of any altruistic purpose. They want to claim credit for carrying forward the leadership role in Western Civilization that Imperial Rome once assumed. However, for all their hubris they are well aware that they need the Americans to be their muscle, and to punch in the same weight class as Russia or China. So they're unlikely to do anything that directly weakens or exercises detrimental effects on America, IMHO.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2774
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby darshhan » 29 Mar 2009 17:21

They share more cultural and civilizational values in common with the American "Hyperpower" than with any of their European neighbours. (The Americans, for their part, have a tendency to worship all things British with a nauseating obsequiousness. You might have seen this American "deference" manifest even at the popular level, as a servile fascination for anyone with a British accent, if you've spent time in the USA).


I don't think Americans have any deference towards any accent as such including british.Yes there is a fascination but it is usually for fun and parodying aspects.In fact americans make fun of almost any accent including british.The accent of southern US is used for similar purposes.But the accent which is most parodyed is french.No doubt about that.

Also by the way among white americans it is not british-american subgroup which is the largest.The largest white group is of german-americans.However they have completely taken english as their language.Other important groups are Irish-americans and Italian-americans.As such they are no fans of british.Remember IRA's base and funding sources were in USA.

While it is correct to say that American and british govts have had same geopolitical goals throughout the 20th century like fighting nazis, cold war etc it does not mean American public is enamored of british society.Rather many Americans might even get offended if equated with british or any other European group.After all britain has been the most dangerous enemy USA has ever known.

So I don't think that one can generalize the American-British relations so easily.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3746
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Rudradev » 30 Mar 2009 00:26

Comedy Central is one thing, real life is another. Yes, American humour does include caricaturing various kinds of accents. On the other hand, I've worked in the US media and pharmaceutical industries for over a decade and the deference that comes up among my American colleagues when dealing with UK individuals is astonishing.

A British-accented person without necessarily having any superior qualifications, is simply assumed to be better educated, and considered to have worthier opinions, than a white American of equal stature (forget about other foreign races). Of course if he eventually turns out to be a gasbag or a mooch (as many Brits do), he will finally end up getting ignored... but with all else being equal, there's no doubt that the guy with the British accent has a distinct advantage in making a first impression.

Regardless, that is something I am sure everyone can draw conclusions about from their own experience. I can only say that from what I have seen... and from what several Americans have in fact admitted to me... deference to the British is a fact of life. They're considered classier, wiser, smarter, and better educated, even on the first impression they make.

The deference towards the British has nothing to do with "largest subgroup", but rather cultural presuppositions and traditions established by centuries of interaction. You should realize that most white Americans today are mutts... particularly those of Northern European stock whose ancestors arrived over a century ago. The vast majority of them have a variety of different European ancestries in their hereditary makeup.

The descendants of English, Scottish, Dutch, German etc. immigrants who arrived before the mid-19th Century fall under four major ethnic categories: Quaker, Puritan, Cavalier and Borderer. Upto Barack Obama, ALL presidents of the US derived from one of these categories! Puritans were the earliest category, mainly English in origin, who settled around New England eg. George H.W. Bush. Quakers were Dutch and Germanic stock who settled around Pennsylvania. eg. Dwight Eisenhower. Cavaliers were English and French, who settled in the South, eg. Harry S. Truman.

Borderers were from a variety of different Northern European nationalities, including Scandinavian, Scottish and Irish besides German/Dutch/English/French. They were typically from working-class origins, and settled the "borderlands" as the United States began to expand Westwards. They were the group who intermarried between nationalities the most, and it is their descendants who compose the bulk of "white people" in Middle America. The Borderers far outnumber the Quaker, Puritan and Cavalier groups today. An example of a Borderer President would be Ronald Reagan.

The lingua franca of the Borderers was English, and the origin of the Puritans (who had most influence in the political emergence of the United States) was likewise English. Thus at both the mass and the elite levels, American connections to the UK were unparalleled by connections to any other European nation.

The other set of "white" immigrants who arrived after these original four groups, include the second-wave Irish (those who came after the great famine of 1840), plus the Italians, Poles, Russians, East Europeans etc. who came in the early part of the 20th century. These groups, at least in parts, retain a degree of ethnic insularity even today, at least in their core communities such as Sunnyside, NY for the Irish and South Philadelphia for the Italians. They have had their local pockets of political influence, and occasionally someone like a Rudy Giuliani will appear on the national stage as well... however, by and large they don't compare to the original four groups in terms of institutional political influence. And as I've described, the two most politically influential of the original four groups have connections to England that are unmatched by their ties to anyone else.

As for the IRA's funding base, it did indeed exist among the twentieth-century Irish immigrants who lived in relative ethnic isolation. However, descendants of the Borderer-era Irish immigrants (whose arrival in the US far predated the founding of the Irish Republic) did not support the IRA. It was this Borderer Irish group, including the Kennedys, who commanded real influence on the national level. You only have to look at the outcome of the UK-IRA conflict, to see who the really influential classes in America actually supported.

While it is correct to say that American and british govts have had same geopolitical goals throughout the 20th century like fighting nazis, cold war etc it does not mean American public is enamored of british society.


That is not a conclusion I am drawing. There are vastly more connections between the American and British ruling classes, and British influence over American foreign policy far predates the 20th century. The geopolitical conflicts of the 20th century advanced the relationship because of shared goals between the UK and the USA, but they were hardly the origin of the relationship.

As for the American public being enamoured of British society... this is not even debatable.
http://books.google.com/books?id=uqqp-s ... &ct=result

You will see consistently similar results every time American public opinion of foreign nations has been polled. Only Australia (88% favourable) comes out ahead of Britain (87% favourable) in this poll.

Rather many Americans might even get offended if equated with british or any other European group.


Who is "equating" the Americans to anything? I am simply saying that the UK has more civilizational connections to America than it has to any other European country.

After all britain has been the most dangerous enemy USA has ever known


You mean because of 1776 and 1812? Well by that token, we might say Afghanistan and Uzbekistan are the most dangerous enemies India has ever known because that's where the Mohammed Ghauri and Babur came from. Political realities, however, dictate that we enjoy rather good relationships with the modern countries known as Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. Today, even if it came to a military conflict, the US has as little to fear from the British armed forces as we might have to fear from the Afghan National Army.

So I don't think that one can generalize the American-British relations so easily.


What I have described in the portion of my quote you posted, refers to a socio-cultural attitude that I've seen in action many times. With due respect, it appears that you are the one who is extrapolating from this and making generalizations about American-British relations.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2774
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby darshhan » 30 Mar 2009 01:10

Well what I said is based on my own observations.Currently I am staying in west coast and I don't see many Americans who are particularly influenced by british.

Infact it is the Indians who are in awe of britishers.Our prime minister MMS has said on record that british rule was better for India and trust me there are lot more people in India like that.The english we speak is closer to british english than american english will ever be.

Canada,australia and new zealand have much more in common with britain being part of commonwealth and having some loyalty towards the queen.But not in the case of America.Atleast what I have observed.

Yes currently they are allies but now it is the Americans who call the shots.Operation Iraqi freedom is one example.

But you are entitled to your opinion.

Keshav
BRFite
Posts: 633
Joined: 20 Sep 2007 08:53
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Keshav » 30 Mar 2009 03:11

Rudradev -
I respect your scholarship but in America almost no one differentiates between Caucasians. There are only a few ethnicities that continue with any sort of pride or tradition and that also depends on whether they grew up in an area where those people are concentrated (Jews in New York, Irish in Boston, Italians in New York, Russians, Chaldeans, etc.)

While I do see the affinity for the British accent which conjures up American images of well dressed, liberal, tea drinking, obnoxious, holier-than-thou types, I don't understand the apparent deference that you feel your American co-workers showed. With the exception of cars, I feel there is a scorn for European items which conjure up images of cheaply made products.

Americans see themselves as down to earth while Europeans are seen as charming, slick, and new.

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

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby brihaspati » 30 Mar 2009 03:53

Just to get back to the main topic, it is perhaps important to keep in mind that what concerns us in the strategic scenario for the subcontinent is that how the supposedly different entities of USA and UK behave with respect to Indian interests. The thing is that they may have n-number of differences and conflicts between themselves, but do they differ where it concerns India? When thinking of the three, what is the relative "distance" in their minds of the three?

Europeans, just like other late urbanizers, or later entrants into civilizational complexity - tend to go by models that are simpler on the cognitive load. So visual and anthropometric features are more important for them on which they base "proximity". Next comes in order of complexity, audio - or vocal charavteristics - languages and accents. By these two counts they form themselves into a tighter more homeogeneous cluster compared to the Indian which is more distant in their minds.

Yes, I have tried to indicate a possible subtle rivalry between them over control of Asia, but UK is not going to weaken USA so much that it is left facing the daunting task all alone. It simply wants to weaken USA sufficiently that makes USA more dependent on the UK and allows the UK to play its own private games for the subcontinent. Greater power and success to UK in this inner game means danger for India.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2774
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby darshhan » 30 Mar 2009 19:01

Yes, I have tried to indicate a possible subtle rivalry between them over control of Asia, but UK is not going to weaken USA so much that it is left facing the daunting task all alone. It simply wants to weaken USA sufficiently that makes USA more dependent on the UK and allows the UK to play its own private games for the subcontinent. Greater power and success to UK in this inner game means danger for India.


Brihaspatiji, it is no longer possible for british to control asia or for that matter any part of the world on their own.They are completely dependent on USA for any kind of power projection.For example they cannot even produce their own ICBMs.They have to import it from USA(Trident systems).Even the nuclear submarine that they are constructing have to be supported by American expertise.Another example is BAE systems which is supposed to be a british employs more people in USA.NATO's burden is shouldered almost completely by US.I think they have to be delusional to be even trying for global or asian control.

Even after all this if britain tries to weaken USA then it will be digging its own grave.However I have to concede that trusting any european country including Britain can be fatal for US.America has and will come for Europe's help during times of crises(for eg. against nazis,communists etc) but europeans are selfish.When America needed them in Afghanistan they turned their backs.

I do agree with your point that UK wants to play a role in subcontinent which will be detrimental to India.For example recently british foreign minister linked mumbai terrorist attack with kashmir.I don't believe for a second that this was a gaffe.This was a deliberate attempt to undermine India.The shameful thing is that he got no befitting response from India's ruling elite which includes our PM who is instead thankful for centuries of british rule.

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

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby brihaspati » 30 Mar 2009 19:18

Darshanji's reminder about the visiting British "dignitary'"'s "gaffe" is a timely pointer. I think increasingly, from MMS's speech at Oxford, where he sniggers that many an Oxonian went out to "rule" India, to the thundering silence of the MMS government at this "gaffe" all exposes the real character of the Indian state that has finally evolved from the time of Independence. This is a state apparatus, in its permanent, unelected services, and its elected legislative components, which over all has evolved into a state machine that is more keen to protect potential British or EJ or Islamic theologian interests (not necessarily that of the common followers of these faiths or the common nationals of the country referred to) and strives to be more anti- what it tries to dub as the "Hindu".

This would be the charecteristic of any state machinaery that acts in the interests of a "minority". Such a state apparatus cannot rely on internal support only, and desperately panders to external forces that it hopes will neutralize the danger from disjunction from the majority. The elite in India have always used external repressive forces to cover up for their own alienation from the majority. They managed to stay on in power by utilizing the highly developed "tolerance" philosophies that paralyzed the majority from taking remedial action. They also kept one-step ahead of the "dharmic" majority, for the "dharmic" majority could not imagine that one of their own could turn so sadistic, cunning and brutal in their pre-emptive strikes on their own populations.

Just read agains perhaps Kalhana's Rajatarangini and his description of Harsha - and other kings of Kashmir towards the fag end of pre-Islamic, how they employed Turuskas to carry out their programme of denudation of the native cultural centres and how soem even used Muslims as part of their armies. These armies later on supported adventurers who not only simply "ruled" but made it a point to convert the natives brutally.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Samay » 30 Mar 2009 19:42

A very good article on china-porki ties, explains a lot about cia as well, cant resist posting in full :)

Manipal, India — After decades of denial, the U.S. military – though not yet the State Department – has begun to admit that the Pakistan military, a major “non-NATO ally,” is the source of much of the capability of the Taliban thugs that are now sending NATO into a panic in Afghanistan.

Individuals within the Pakistan military claim that no fewer than 30,000 jihadists are presently being trained by regular officers and army men, who are, of course, officially "on leave to visit family." Of the trainees, no fewer than 2,000 are being imparted proficiency in high explosives and in the commando-style operations that enabled a handful of operatives to hold off the Indian security establishment for three humiliating days in Mumbai from Nov. 26 to 28 last year.

The purpose of such assistance is to "ensure that Afghanistan, Kashmir and Central Asia emerge as allies of a rejuvenated Pakistan" and to see that "the Indian economic dream becomes a nightmare," the army sources say.

This second objective is of value to China, which is visibly uneasy at the accelerating pace of development in India, despite intense efforts by its communist allies in the ruling establishment to reverse economic reforms. It’s no wonder that almost all the sensitive communications links of the Pakistan army – including the unrecorded "ghost units" that guide terror operations – are provided by China.

Unless those in authority in Beijing are as credulous as their counterparts in the CIA and in the U.S. State Department – a difficult proposition to accept – the Chinese vendors of the communications, explosives and other lethal equipment that ultimately reaches jihadists in Afghanistan, India and elsewhere must be aware of the unconventional nature of the end-users of the goods and services they dispense.

An increase in terrorist activity in India would surely lead to a decline in that country's growth prospects. Therefore, if the activities of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence units cause a spike in terror activities in India, it is not sufficient reason for China to cut off its gifts to the army of force-multipliers that end up in jihadist hands.

It is not only in Pakistan that China has, in effect, become a reliable ally of what are euphemistically known as "unconventional forces." Equipment and services from China flood into states such as Sudan, Iran, Syria and Somalia. In none of these states are the authorities squeamish about separating regular operations from those conducted by terror groups.

During the years when the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan, China was among its biggest benefactors, together with Pakistan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Of course, in the cause of showering largesse on the Pakistan army, few can rival the United States. Days ago, U.S. President Barack Obama announced the gift of a fresh US$7.5 billion to Pakistan, supposedly to build schools, roads and other infrastructure.

What Obama apparently failed to pick up from his intelligence briefings was the fact that these schools, with their poisonous curricula and fanaticized staff, are the breeding grounds for jihad. Or that the Pakistan army has – according to information available even to the civilian government – diverted about 63 percent of the funds given to it by the United States "to fight terror" to operations that are India-specific, hardly a contribution to the War on Terror.

Until the toxic content is removed from school curricula in Pakistan; unless jihadist elements within the teaching community are weeded out and replaced with genuine moderates; and unless religious schools confine themselves to the training of imams rather than to seeding the entire Pakistan civil and military structure with their products, most assistance given to Pakistan is a contribution to jihad.

What the U.S. government should do is impose immediate travel restrictions and financial sanctions on individuals and entities that aid terrorists such as al-Qaida and the Taliban. It is ironic that the sons, daughters and relatives of the very military officers that are assisting the Taliban are teeming in U.S. campuses and corporations, courtesy of successive indulgent administrations.

Amazingly, the very "experts" who in the 1990s called for help to what became the Taliban, and who in the post-9/11 phase advised the defanging of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to benefit the Pakistan military, have remained the dominant voices in U.S. policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan in both the George W. Bush and the Obama administrations. It appears that, in the wonderland of U.S. policy, nothing succeeds as well as failure.

The "new" policy announced by the Obama administration, unless accompanied by a push toward structural reforms in Pakistan's military and education system, will also end in failure. Not surprisingly, after Obama advisor Colin Powell and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton generously gave their support to the "Punjabi plot" – the scheme of Pakistan army chief Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan Muslim League (N) chief Nawaz Sharif and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani to marginalize President Asif Ali Zardari – there was an immediate spike in terrorist activity on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

With cash from the United States and sophisticated equipment from China, the jihad-friendly Pakistan military is on a roll. Its allies in terror groups around the world will be delighted.

As for the rest, all they can do is brace themselves for the terror attacks that will follow the consistent China-U.S. policy of allowing the Pakistan army to continue unmolested on the jihadi path initiated by the late Islamist President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq nearly four decades ago.

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

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby brihaspati » 30 Mar 2009 20:14

The above post by Samayji, even if indicating "partial" truths, still supports my main concern that as long as US, UK or China remains economically viable enough to sponsor and bolster Pakistani Jihad, all the dreams and hopes in many BRFites that TSP will implode on its own will be meaningless.

These forces have to be drawn away from TSP and engaged elsewhere. Flanking moves against PRC, militarily, low-intensity warfare-wise, and diplomatically, economically is important to take back the initiative by India. Development of the SE Asia as proxy combat zone in economic as well as military terms forces PRC to defend turf much closer to their vulnerable centres on the eastern seaboard. If India at all moves, this will be one area where it can pin down, expend, and make PRC imperialist designs extremely costly. Simultaneously Tibet should be taken up seriously, and Chinese occupied territories in the North should be "reactivated".

If I were an Indian strategist, I would be prepared to risk being dubbed "adharmic" to negotiate with Islamists in North Eastern China. PRC has to be forced to overspend on its defence and imperialism, drawn out into hostile territories for the plains Han, and forced to spread out its forces in multiple theatres.

Geo-strategically, the extended bulging western end of PRC is a disadvantage for it - it spreads its forces thin. Thei much touted Tsun Zu principle of making noises in one direction and attacking in the opposite when applied to the frontiers of PRC is going to be etremely costly for the Chinese communists.

For Indians, it is time to clearly recognize and accept that the time has come to prepare to finsh off TSP once and forever, remove the basis of TSP in its claims of a two-nation theory, and by pushing Indian borders upto current TSP western borders prevent the opportunities that current gamers like USA, Uk or PRC use to bleed India. Any regime or party or ideology that prevents this step is actually acting in favour of TSP and its handler's interests.

This need not be a single-lifetime task. Many of us here probably are no longer in our prime. But that should not prevent us from preparing the forces that can achieve this task.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Samay » 31 Mar 2009 03:22

on zaid hamid's emergence in porkiland...

i guess you remember from irani revolts (khatami)that such figures are necessary when a society is transforming....
so the the isi spectra needs a figure who is first postered as an ideological hero on the national tv, then he swiftly takes on talibani infused mindsets, leads them and finally takes them to another proportionate condition where such leaders balance a situation between extremists and extremely moderates,.
such thing was also seen in India before 1947, when MK gandhi's voice was considered supreme , not only by congress,but evenly by brits,
which later on was helpful to solve uprising issues like bhagat singh brigade(brits' reffered internal terrorists) and a bigger uprising of INA(analogous to taliban in porkiland) which was not supported by congress in the end.

so isi has found an embedded islamic solution for this problem of balance between pak's moderate needs as well as extremist influence,
so ZZH is a supported hero in making, who will be used as an ideological solution in porki geopolitics, if ZZH is unable to do his role, they will find someone else, say imran khan

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3746
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Rudradev » 01 Apr 2009 04:09

brihaspati wrote:Just read agains perhaps Kalhana's Rajatarangini and his description of Harsha - and other kings of Kashmir towards the fag end of pre-Islamic, how they employed Turuskas to carry out their programme of denudation of the native cultural centres and how soem even used Muslims as part of their armies. These armies later on supported adventurers who not only simply "ruled" but made it a point to convert the natives brutally.


Brihaspatiji,

This reminds me of an occasion when a well-known left-wing documentary film maker of India was holding forth, loudly bashing the Ram Mandir movement in the aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition. He declared that the Muslims were being scapegoated by the forces of "Reactionary Brahminism", because in fact many temples all over India had been demolished by the official sanction of Indian rulers even in the pre-Muslim era. In his view, by focusing on the Babri Masjid, the Ram Mandir movement was unfairly singling out Muslims for victimization and distorting history so as to profit from anti-minority sentiment, as fascists will often do. In this context he cited the fact that Harshavardhana had a court official with the title of "destroyer/breaker of Temples".

It struck me then that the entire leftist point of view in India, especially that espoused by the English-speaking whiskey-drinking leftists, centers entirely on a one-hundred-percent negation of everything Hindu or Bharatiya. It is only when a civilization has absolutely zero value in your worldview, that the greater context of events can be so utterly abnegated. This fellow was trying to say that temple-breaking was a time-honoured form of revolution against Brahmin dominance, a natural progression of subcontinental dialectics, and that Babur or Mahmud Ghazni or Malik Kafur were not doing anything different from Harsha!

It is our good fortune that we can see a continuum of barbarity between the denudation of native cultural centres by local monarchs, and the onslaught of Islam that followed. To people like that film-maker, those native cultural centres were only part of the barbarity, detritus to be swept away by the entropic gusts of history.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2774
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby darshhan » 01 Apr 2009 13:21

Rudradevji , you are absolutely right.

To give you an example recently according to newspaper reports there were many temples demolished in gujrat.One hundred years from now leftists/communists(if they are still there) will try to justify breaking temples on the grounds that narendra modi also did it.

What these morons don 't get is that there is a difference between breaking religious structures for development and breaking them because of religious fanaticism.

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

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby brihaspati » 01 Apr 2009 21:12

I guess the thing about Harshvardhana+Leftists is about the absence of people who can catch such leftists trousers-down. These sort of public or media events are orchestrated in such a manner that knowledgeable dissent would be absent. On the other hand, the leftist "intellectuals" favoured by the "party" are usually the type who genuinely lack the fundamentals of Indian history and culture. Most shout about Indian philosophy without knowing even the rudiments of Sanskrit, let alone having covered the core texts. They also severly lack cross disciplinary knowledge, to really assess historical processes now you need a wide variety of expertise from exact sciences to observational ones taht cross check each other.

I have had "intellectuals" trying to prove to me that "Nimai" became a "sanyasi" because there was a student uprising against his teachings in Navadwipa. Another great "student leader" of 60 years age tried to preach me about Aurangzebs deep concern for the honour of "Hindu" women which led him to demolish "temples". Neither knew much about the narrative sources of the epriods and incidents they were referring to. In the second case the "leader" had no knowledge of the different versions of narrative texts about Alamgir's life, his letters, his firmans. And yes he drank whiskey, kept in a opaque bottle that could pass for drinking water bottle.

But why is all this relevant for our strategic future? Because this reveals a fundamental process of alienation in our elite from the native culture. My observation is an inborn or cultivated from childhood sense of "superiority" over and above the "commons". They are taught by their immediate family consciously or subconsciously that they are somehow in a superior "class" by birth, detached and separated in capability and intellect from the vast dirty, producers - probably an inherent long standing culture of awareness of "pollution/purification".

The extremes of such social education land up in and stick to the Leftist camp. There are a certain type which goes there by example - tradition, family inspiration, feeling of altruism, "doing something for the people" - probably a hint of guilt here. But if they are really not that detached from the "people" they cannot stay on within the Left. The greatest nemesis of the Left will be the ex-Lefts.

Mayavati and others of her persuasion have taken on the task of making the "lower" aware of this alienation from the elite in a reverse direction, but in the process simply inverting the alienation. Here she strives to and ends up emulating exactly the elite behaviour. Ultimately the commons will see that they have replaced the old "alienated elite" by a new "alienated" one.

What is needed is a total rejection of alienated elite as non-Bharatyia, not the creation of new ones. This is a crucial battle that has to be fought for the revival of the core. Once again I primarily mean targeting the ideological constructs, the attitudes of "alienation" and not necessarily the individuals unless they persist in violently perpetrating their damaging work.

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

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby brihaspati » 02 Apr 2009 02:18

Rudradevji,
just as a post-add, as far as I remember, Kalhana describes Harsha of Kashmir's actions in despoiling temples was like that of the "Turushkas". He does not describe it as a common action of "Brahmins" or "Buddhists". So such behaviour was not seen as natural for the non-Muslim. Kalhana is touted as "very reliable" by the Leftist camp - I have found many times that they do so because they have never read it.

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

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby brihaspati » 02 Apr 2009 02:53

A significant development that is perhaps taking place now is the exposure of the weaknesses of Indian state institutions. The story being placed now by the Dutt-Singh duo could be true or need not be true. However the significance of the accusations or insinuations go far beyond a game of political one-upmanship.

We are seeing the beginning of the final peeling off of the legitimacy and authority of the core elements of the Indian state apparatus. The Parliament has already been discredited to a great extent through the antics of the MP's elected to it - bribery, misuse of power and status, trade of support on the floor through material and political "cash", we have seen all. Even if not based on "facts", the very fact that such insinuations could be made imply a loss of prestige, authority and hold on the psyche of the MP's and the other components of the system.

The other pillar of the Indian state and constitution from the legislative side was the Supreme Court. So far the Supreme court has remained above and beyond such delegitimization. Although we could have searched for patterns of behaviour in Supreme Court judges who take up some kind of public role after retirement. What they write or express on various occasions can be quite revealing, and can raise questions as to whether their professional decisions could have been subtly coloured or affected by their mindsets.

The SD-AS hints of collusion between the elected governmental machinery and the courts is a potential nuclear explosion, even if it is not based on facts. What is more important is that already people deep in the political apparatus or used to political games feel confident enough to start the process of delegitimization of their own "institutions".

I would see this as a long term process starting to reveal the character of the Indian state that has evolved so far - in whose favour the state apparatus works. Has it ever really worked in favour of the majority of Indian populations right from its inauguration at Independence? I am inlcined to think of it more as a continuation of the colonial machinery which was handed over to Indian born selected leadership, but which never really lost its colonial character. This is why its organs behaved with the common Indian as the colonial rulers did - with supreme arrogance and disdain.

But now, the fractures of the ruling elite is showing up in competition for control of these state organs in their factional favour - they are so much used to employing these organs for their individual gains that now exclusive use by one faction is giving rise to open resentment. The elite factions are themselves no longer confident of the power and utility of these organs and are taking their grievances to the "public". The colonial character state-organs are going to lose their only source of legitimacy - the unity and convergence of elite interests.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2774
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby darshhan » 02 Apr 2009 13:06

The SD-AS hints of collusion between the elected governmental machinery and the courts is a potential nuclear explosion, even if it is not based on facts. What is more important is that already people deep in the political apparatus or used to political games feel confident enough to start the process of delegitimization of their own "institutions".


Brihaspatiji,another instance of collusion is coming to light.Just before elections Jagdish Tytler has got a clean chit in anti-sikh riots case from CBI.Shows how CBI is being used for political purposes.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55419
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby ramana » 02 Apr 2009 21:13

brihaspati wrote:Rudradevji,
just as a post-add, as far as I remember, Kalhana describes Harsha of Kashmir's actions in despoiling temples was like that of the "Turushkas". He does not describe it as a common action of "Brahmins" or "Buddhists". So such behaviour was not seen as natural for the non-Muslim. Kalhana is touted as "very reliable" by the Leftist camp - I have found many times that they do so because they have never read it.



brihaspatiji, Kalhana wasnt a contemporary of Harsha but quite latter. And his comparison to Turushkas would be a latter idea isnt it? BTW, is Kalhana's Rajatarangani on line?

Also who is SD-AS? Please expand acronyms on first use. Thanks,ramana

I think the Tytler exoneration is a great travesty of justice. This guy was a known mobster who killed innocent Indians. The CBI officers who did this should be ashamed of how low they crawled.

I think the INC is in last stages of an elected coup.Its undeclared Emergency going on in India.

SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1938
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby SRoy » 02 Apr 2009 21:36

brihaspati wrote:I would see this as a long term process starting to reveal the character of the Indian state that has evolved so far - in whose favour the state apparatus works. Has it ever really worked in favour of the majority of Indian populations right from its inauguration at Independence? I am inlcined to think of it more as a continuation of the colonial machinery which was handed over to Indian born selected leadership, but which never really lost its colonial character. This is why its organs behaved with the common Indian as the colonial rulers did - with supreme arrogance and disdain.

My point of view is that is correct explanation and a very accurate observation. I have a feeling that potential Naxalites too reach this conclusion and the Leftist then exploit this angst to further their gameplan.

I recall, Rudradev saying, that with respect to the Naxalite, there is a case of looking at the movement separate from the ideology. There is merit in the reasoning and it perfectly agrees with what you are saying.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2774
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby darshhan » 02 Apr 2009 22:44

Also who is SD-AS? Please expand acronyms on first use. Thanks,ramana


SD-AS.I think Brihaspatiji is pointing towards Sanjay dutt and Amar singh.

Please confirm Brihaspatiji

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Sanku » 03 Apr 2009 01:19

ramana wrote:I think the INC is in last stages of an elected coup.Its undeclared Emergency going on in India.


Do you think it will succeed or will it end up as the previous one?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55419
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby ramana » 03 Apr 2009 01:40

Last time also it was Ram Pyare who saved India while the elite was busy electing the thugs. So this time I still have faith that they will be thrown out. But that doesnt mean its freed ride for the winners to misgovern.

Thanks darshan. Yes it has to be that.

Folks read the HRC book on Political History of India that I liked in the Distorted History thread. it will reveal everyting to you how the nation state revives itself.

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

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby brihaspati » 03 Apr 2009 01:55

Ramanaji and Darshanji,
yes I was referring to Sunjay Dutt and Amar Singh. Oversight. Thanks. No I dont think Rajatarangini is online now, but I could be mistaken. Yes Kalhana would be later, but his comment shows that he as a narrator did not consider such behaviour normal for the "Indic" and more appropriate for "Turuskas" - a generic name seemingly applied to Muslims in general. Noteworthy is the general credence given to Kalhana as a narrator in spite of his writing about periods long before his lifetime - such a feature would immediately disqualify any narrator as reliable if he did not provide ammunition (after proper selective representation) in favour of "professional historians".

My 90 year Indian history cycle hypothesis indicates 2007 to be an approximate point for dissolution of the political force that started around 1917. The 1917 is a point around which essentially MKG's bramd of politics emerges on India. The last strains of that thread dies around 2007. The dynastic/coterie/comprador political force that started around 1947 spends itself around 2037. So the next 30 years could be most interesting - an entire structural/regime change possible. We would probably see a gradual emergence of new political forces and trends. Trying to point out more patterns of cyclical nature will be sensitive. But people can try to compare situations around say 1677,1767,1857,1947, and the immediate 30 years before these years to draw their own conclusions.

This is just empirical exploration, please don't read any esoteric component into it.

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

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby brihaspati » 03 Apr 2009 02:38

SRoy wrote
I have a feeling that potential Naxalites too reach this conclusion and the Leftist then exploit this angst to further their gameplan.
I recall, Rudradev saying, that with respect to the Naxalite, there is a case of looking at the movement separate from the ideology. There is merit in the reasoning and it perfectly agrees with what you are saying.


The Naxalite leadership definitely come to this conclusion - their literature abounds in "comprador bourgeoise" "mutsuddi/banyia" "dependent colonialism/neo-colonialism" etc. What I find problematic with the Naxalite view of this however is that they put the entire Bharatyia civilizational entity with this "comprador" in the same bracket and propose replacing all of the Bharatyia with a construct essentially speaking European with Russian and Chinese expressions. So in a sense, they will replace one colonial construct with the image of another foreign experiment.

The Chinese placed great stress on the "Sinification of Marxism" from the very early stages of communism in China. We see no such trends in the Indian communist movement (except in some now almost extinct branches of socialist thought) - who seem always desperate to seek an external sun to turn to like the eternally sun-seeking sunflower, as much as it wants to distance itself from the Bharatyia. Almost as if subconsciously transferring the "untouchability" to the whole of Bharatyia civilization. In this sense I find that great disease of the Indian elite classes - who predominate in the upper echelons of the communist movement, that lack of confidence and sense of alienation from the "Bharatyia".

I have a theory of why - prompted by a comment by Vadiveluji about exclusivity in the "civilizational" thread today, but probably OT here. But no movement that goes too far away from the "Bharatyia" will stay long in state power - that cultural basis is too much of a leviathan to be ignored and still retain state power unless there are foreign elements for support.


Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21200
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Prem » 03 Apr 2009 08:00

Giving seats to Sajjan and Tytler is very shameful act by Kangress . Both belongs to Afjal Guru category. If there are any sane Kangressmen , they should either hang their heads in shame and bury themselves or take banishment.

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4147
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby pgbhat » 03 Apr 2009 09:25

didnt know where to post this article ........... so here goes
Getting in arms way
by Thomas Mathew of Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.

The whole article is an interesting read.
excerpts
For how long can we afford this sort of Gandhigiri? There is little doubt that if there is a repetition of a Mumbai-style attack, we will have to throw the ‘soft power’ approach to the winds. But would India then have the capability to deploy its hard power quickly and effectively? Unfortunately, it may lack the capability to mount such a retaliatory response as its conventional superiority has been eroded over the years. :roll:

While we have been floundering and trying to get world opinion on our side, China has quietly been building up Pakistan’s military might, and determinedly adding military muscle to its own growing economy. When military budgets around the world shrank after the Cold War, China feverishly augmented its defence forces. In the decade ending 2007, its defence budget grew at an average rate that was more than three times that of India’s. :evil:

But India can’t increase its military budget without first revamping the existing defence acquisition system. It’s ironical that the existing one cannot effectively handle higher defence allocation, supported by India’s poor track record of not being able to fully spend its defence budget every year since 2000-01. This is a sorry statement about a country virtually under siege. The present system has also hampered the optimum development of a vibrant and indigenous military-industrial complex. :roll:

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

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby brihaspati » 04 Apr 2009 00:28

For how long can we afford this sort of Gandhigiri? There is little doubt that if there is a repetition of a Mumbai-style attack, we will have to throw the ‘soft power’ approach to the winds. But would India then have the capability to deploy its hard power quickly and effectively? Unfortunately, it may lack the capability to mount such a retaliatory response as its conventional superiority has been eroded over the years.

Gandhigiri would be slightly different in this context - it would be total non-cooperation with Jihadi forces. The GOI however is doing everything possible to appease Jihadis, both internal as well as external. Internally the Ulema organizations are the basis which holds the the IM together on the path of orthodoxy and Wahabification. Almost all the current officially recognized political groupings with the excpetion of the BJP bend over backwards to curry favour with the Muslim vote.

We talk a lot of the "vote bank" politics in the sense of it being a creation entirely of the Congress/British. However, we should realize that this vote bank politics was more an opportunistic compromise based on Congress failure to breakdown Islamic consolidation while at the same time failing to win over or subdue forces of "Hindu nationalism" entirely. The Islamic comnsolidation was possible because no systematic plan to "remove" the Ulema and their theological networks was implemented. It is this structure that holds the IM together as a distinct entity and its consolidation then can be used by the Ulema to negotiate for share in the state power. This then becomes a vicious cycle - more power implies greater motivation for consolidation and distinction - greater distinction and consolidation translates into greater negotiating power.

This fundamental weakness of the current evolution of Indian political thinking paralyzes the state in taking action against the external sponsors of Jihadi terror from TSP and its backers, imagining possible negative repercussions in the IM. Neither can it become harsh on the internal setups for fear that it will help consolidate the IM further. It is not only a paralysis to liquidate the Islamic Jihad - but also a paralysis to face up to the non-Muslim forces or groups within India that thrive on "symapathizing or overtly supporting Islamic agenda". This includes the media, so called intellectuals and activists, etc. These latter probably simply take a cue from the Congress type rhetoric and just like proper "lubricator" coutiers they outdo their "master". The result is a reinforcement of the trap Congress has setup for itself.

The "hard power" is not so difficult to turn around. The IA has been known to work miracles with not-the-best of logistics and armament. What is more important is targeted and determind political leadership that has a clear vision of what it wants and where it wants to go with a military action. I have stated this before many times and will state it again - whats needed is a clear-sighted LOI (leadership of India) that has concrete targets of consolidation of territory on the subcontinent, dissolution of TSP, recovery of areas and populations lost due to the Partition in the "western sector", and to foreign powers like the PRC, and clear commitments to establish independence of Tibet, and democracy in Myanmar. Do anything and everything necessary to achieve this, with a singleminded determination and ruthlessness. Set these goals in concrete terms to the IA and ask them what they need to achieve them. Once that requirement is satisfied let the IA do their job without interference.

At the moment all the problems mentioned by the article appears because the group or class in formal power has no concrete plans for the future of Indian power and the nature of its existential/ideological projection. Once that vision is clear, the rest is bitter and hard but also most doable.

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

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby brihaspati » 04 Apr 2009 20:12

VinodTK wrote
From Asia Times Online:
"China has secured an important alternative route for its Middle East oil supplies, bypassing the Malacca Strait, with an agreement with Myanmar to pump oil and gas from the Bay of Bengal to Yunnan province. The energy coup, while benefiting Myanmar's generals, will doubtless upset India"

This actually frees India from trying to stay neutral with respect to the military junta. We have talked in these threads before about India forcing the hand sof the international community as well as that of the miliutary junta. India could take the sides of the restoration of the democracy movement actively, and no power in the world except the Islamic world and PRC will have the temerity to denounce democracy. None of the Western powers which have so far played ball with military regimes that suited their interests, will similarly be able to grumble loudly against India for standing in favour of democracy in Myanmar. This is the opportunity to disjoin the PRC from the common people of Myanmar and expose PRC's role in the bolstering up of the junta. Further PRC's main resaons for such relations with the junta, the occupation of resources in Myanamar could be exposed to its population as that of a looting, colonial foriegn power.

The GOI is without any principle and has no doctrine in its foreign policy. It has no plans for the future about its surroundings and neighbourhood. It probably simply feels too unsure of continuance in power to plan anything concrete. Moreover the regime behind GOI could be so alienated from the concept of India that they would not want anything to happen that can
strengthen the hands of the common Indian.

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

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Atri » 04 Apr 2009 23:11

BHUTAN: Maoists Getting More Active

BHUTAN: Maoists Getting More Active- Update No. 75
Dr. S.Chandrasekharan.


In a major ambush of a vehicle carrying forest guards, in Sarpang, four were killed and two injured. The forest guards were returning to their camp at Phibsoo when an IED device blew up the tractor on which they were travelling. The occupants were also fired at. The militants also took away two SLR rifles with 40 rounds and a Motorola hand set. Spent bullets of AK 47 were recovered from the scene of the incident.

The United Revolutionary Front of Bhutan has claimed responsibility for the attack. According to the Bhutanese authorities, this front is one of the two militant arms of the Bhutan Communist Party ( Maoist) with the other being the Cobra Force.
....
...
...
Refugees:

Though exact figures are not available, so far over 10,000 refugees have been sent for third country settlement. By the end of this year it is believed that another 16,000 refugees will be taken by other countries. One welcome move is the decision of the Canadian Government to take 5000 refugees for resettlement.
...
...
...
Border Talks with China:

The issue of border talks was raised by the Haa MP, Ugyen Tenzin, who expressed the deep concern of the people of Haa over increasing activities carried out by the Chinese along the border.

The foreign minister briefed the Assembly frankly on the progress of the talks. He said as follows-

The first four rounds had focused on discussions regarding the guidelines for boundary negotiations, based on the five principles of peaceful coexistence: mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non aggression, non interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful co existence.

In the fifth round of May 1988, the Chinese side made known their perception of the Bhutan-China border line, while the Bhutanese side noted their presentation. The 68th session of the National Assembly was presented, showing the Bhutanese claim based on Martham Chem, patrolling limit and traditional usage and Chinese claims in the fifth round. It was thoroughly discussed in the house, which eventually endorsed the Bhutanese claim line.

In the sixth round, there were more discussions with maps of Bhutan on 1:500,000 scale, depicting the claim lines of both sides being exchanged. There were maps exchanged and discussion on the Western Bhutan and China's borders.

In the seventh round in 1990, the Chinese side made some additional offers on the Luling valley sector, the acceptance of which would forego their claim in the middle sector.

In the eighth round, the Bhutanese delegation proposed further territorial adjustments in the Western Sector, however there was not much progress in the next four rounds of talks.

In the twelfth round, the Chinese side brought the draft of a proposed interim agreement on the maintenance of peace and tranquillity along the Sino-Bhutan border areas, which was later signed by the two foreign ministers after discussions.

In the thirteenth round in September 1999 in Thimphu, the Chinese side came up with a policy on Bhutan, with proposals for settlements of boundary, establishment of diplomatic relations and trade. The Chinese side proposed that the two sides might concentrate on preparation of descriptions and confirmation of border alignment, adding a new dimension to talks.

In the fourteenth round in 2000, as China was a larger country, the Chinese side was asked to show greater consideration on the Bhutanese perception of the traditional boundary in Doklam, Sinchulumpa, Dramana and Shakhatoe areas. The Bhutanese side also proposed cartographic discussions.

In the fifteenth round, the two sides agreed to continue discussions at the expert level groups, to focus mainly on maps and other areas to enhance official talks.

In the sixteenth round, maps made by the expert group showing claims of both sides were exchanged. In the seventeenth round in April 2004, it was decided to first narrow down the differences at the expert group level.

However in 2005, the maps were examined but could not be exchanged due to the vast differences between the two claim lines. The Chinese side had differences in areas amounting to 1300 sq km, of which they were ready to consider giving 900 sq km.

In the eighteenth round in Beijing in 2006, the Bhutanese side stressed that the package solution offered by the Chinese in 1990 during the 7th round was not favourable to Bhutan, since the offered Pasamlug already belonged to Bhutan.

The importance of pasture lands in the western sector to the livelihood of yak herders in northern Bhutan was explained. The Chinese side maintained that the basis of further negotiations must be acceptance of the package deal and that China was ready to make minor adjustments within it.

The Chinese side during this round submitted three draft proposals for Bhutan's consideration.

It is clear from the statement that the Chinese are in no mood to settle the issue in the near term. They are also seen to be shifting the goal posts and is now insisting on a "package deal." The Indians understand them well!

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2774
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby darshhan » 05 Apr 2009 03:32

Interesting news about maoists operating in Bhutan.I was not aware of such a threat.

It seems Maoists are working to a plan.First nepal then Bhutan.

By the way thanks Chiron for a real eye opener

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Chinmayanand » 05 Apr 2009 04:25

brihaspati wrote:or Indians, it is time to clearly recognize and accept that the time has come to prepare to finsh off TSP once and forever, remove the basis of TSP in its claims of a two-nation theory, and by pushing Indian borders upto current TSP western borders prevent the opportunities that current gamers like USA, Uk or PRC use to bleed India. Any regime or party or ideology that prevents this step is actually acting in favour of TSP and its handler's interests.


Brihaspatiji,
For a moment,keeping the gallantry of our criminal,corrupt and lowly politicians aside, i assume that India's borders end at pakistan's western borders. Won't it be a bloody nightmare? Given our pseudo-secular aka anti-hindu democratic setup where everything belongs to muslims because they are in minority and after the said scenario because they will be in majority, where will the poor hindus go? why do you want to massacre the hindus in the quest of muslim votes? Let pakistan remain in its boundaries or nuke it completely before marching on to its western borders.
I always thank the Brits and Jinnah for taking the nomads to one corner. I think , India is better that way.

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

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby brihaspati » 05 Apr 2009 04:30

durgeshji,
keeping our lowly, etc. politicians in a GOI will never take India tos tage of marching to the "western" borders. I meant automatically the preconditions like such clearance of the "stables" before such a march to be at all possible. On the other hand continuing as we are doing now, will simply bewaiting for the Talebjabis to come increasingly closer to the current "western" borders - and subsequent massacre of Hindus anyway.

Viv Sreenivasan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 23 Mar 2009 16:29

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Viv Sreenivasan » 05 Apr 2009 04:53

You guys have WAY to high expectations of the Indian State. We will continue as before to do nothing and continue to suffer from terrorist attacks every couple of months. Do you guys really think that MMS is really ready to go to war with Pakistan? Answer: HELL NO. :((

Viv Sreenivasan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 23 Mar 2009 16:29

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Viv Sreenivasan » 05 Apr 2009 04:55

India's politico-beuro-legal-police nexus once actually served the interests of India's people. Not any longer now it is choking them.

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Chinmayanand » 05 Apr 2009 04:56

Brihaspatiji,
To everything that you write strategically is true.After reading all that i think if it is possible and if it is, when?The people are too poor and too busy in making their ends meet.Give them a green pataka and take their vote.Centuries of slavery has done such damage that they have lost their identities.As far as politicians are concerned , we will never get the ones who think of bharat.Politics is just like a business.You are in it to make profits quarter after quarter.It's a means of living to a politician or a refuge from the police to the criminal.politics is not for deshprem and desh sewa anymore.Even if someday, GoI starts thinking strategically, it will be to save the politicians assets not for India itself.
As far as Hindu massacre at the hands of Islam is concerned.It's inevitable. History has a habit of repeating itself. Hindus are too fragmented to unite even for their survival. Mandal has destroyed Kamandal for eternity.

Viv Sreenivasan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 23 Mar 2009 16:29

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Viv Sreenivasan » 05 Apr 2009 05:03

Howevery alluring what brihaspati writes it is unfortunately a pipe dream. Its like suddenly expecting all african countires to give up conflict for peace- its simply not going to happen.

Brihaspati its better for you to know this to save you years if not decades of dissappointment. There is close to zero chance for your vision to come true.

Viv Sreenivasan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 23 Mar 2009 16:29

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Viv Sreenivasan » 05 Apr 2009 05:07

We have been spending so much on defence purchases and our conventional superiority has eroded vis a viz Pakistan according to Matthew in the above article.

WTF is going on? How could this be the case?

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

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Atri » 05 Apr 2009 05:14

Viv Sreenivasan wrote:Howevery alluring what brihaspati writes it is unfortunately a pipe dream. Its like suddenly expecting all african countires to give up conflict for peace- its simply not going to happen.

Brihaspati its better for you to know this to save you years if not decades of dissappointment. There is close to zero chance for your vision to come true.


Srinivasan ji,

If I may express my opinion on this post of yours...

If you check the history of Bhaaratiya civilization, you will see that it is not the first time, Bhaarat is facing such conditions. Similar conditions of choice and demand for evolutionary leap existed during times of Alexander, Seluecus, Demetrius and Menander's invasion, Kushan-invasion, Scythian invasion, Hunnic invasion, Arab Invasion, Islamic invasion.

At each of these stages, Bhaaratiya civilization took a phenomenal evolutionary leap. The struggle with Islamic civilization was been a very long drawn one. Islam could not convert India, therein lies its biggest failure. Bhaaratiya civilization was on verge of defeating Islam during times of Dara Shikoh. However, Sirhindi and Aurangjeb brought about Islamic revival. Today, yet again, we are moving on that path.

Bhaaratiya history is a history of series of revivals. This is not a dream, but a trend which we have shown since beginning of our civilization. And there is no reason why we won't follow that trend again. Things are changing... Can't you hear the rumblings? Feel the unrest in mind of Bhaaratiya youth.

Yada Yada hi dharmasya, Glaani: Bhavati Bhaarat: ...
Abhi Utthaanam Adharmasya, tad aatmaanam Srjaanyaham...
ParitraaNaay Saadhunam, Vinaashaay cha Dushkritaam,
Dharma Sansthaapan arthaay, Sambhavaami yuge yuge


And I am not quoting this from religious context, but the context of historical revival that I am talking about.. This verse has been followed by various characters throughout Bhaaratiya history. Right from Chandragupta Maurya to Mahatma Gandhi, this verse has been followed time and again.. Bhaaratiya people have unwavering faith in this verse... It is this connection and faith which produces the reformists and revives Dharma and Bhaaratiya society time and again..

Everybody who is contributing towards this impending revival is fulfilling this eternal prophecy of Krishna which is held so close to heart by every Bhaaratiya. Brihaspati, just like countless others, is a part of that chain.
Last edited by Atri on 05 Apr 2009 05:48, edited 2 times in total.

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Postby Chinmayanand » 05 Apr 2009 05:33

Viv Sreenivasan wrote:Howevery alluring what brihaspati writes it is unfortunately a pipe dream. Its like suddenly expecting all african countires to give up conflict for peace- its simply not going to happen.

Brihaspati its better for you to know this to save you years if not decades of dissappointment. There is close to zero chance for your vision to come true.


Brihaspatiji is a great thinker, strategist and a knowledgable man.Gandhi and others did not think of Indian independence as a pipe dream.Let us add to his optimism.India needs Him!He is doing his part by awakening some souls that he could,he shows the past and weaves the future.He maybe showing pipe dreams but dreams are powerful.Dreams Die Hard!

I for one hold high regards for gentlemen like SSridhar,Brihaspati and Vsudhir.They spend so much time in making great posts and increasing our awareness in different arenas.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 82 guests