Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 03:45

Shivji and Rudradev,

Chaliand's article I referred to above contains one casual passage on the role of diaspora in sustaining "separatism". The "Indian Hindu" diaspora is a matter of passionate obsession for the Thaparite School of Indian History and their Western compatriots which has been blamed for all "the evils" of modern India's jeopardized "secular" agenda. Reversing Chaliand's implication and the Thaparite claim, it is possible to think of the diasporic Indian thinking as becoming more conscious of the entirety of India as the centre, simply out of necessity. Shivji's point about having to cross continents to gain an understanding of the "centre/core" is satisfied by the "diaspora". The historical diasporic communities that had maintained strong cultural identities have always been instrumental in helping re-formation of nations - the Jews, Chinese expats in Japan, Vietnamese in France, Indians in Europe, the Irish in America, etc. It is quite likely that their distance from the "uhrheimat" actually reconstructs the uhrheimat in a stronger, unified vision. A similar role could be played by the modern Indian diaspora too.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 07:04

Vsudhirji,

Over 200 yrs of rule, they systematically plundered and took away more than the primitive jihadist excursions managed to in the preceding 600.

I would be very much obliged for any study/ref you have on the relative sizes of the Islamic/British economic exploitations. The British is quite well documented but disputed - the Islamic is less documented, especially because some of the capital extraction processes, like export of slaves to central Asian markets, cannot be "mentioned" or studied as per demands of the Thaparite School.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jan 2009 07:22

brihaspati wrote:Shivji and Rudradev,

Chaliand's article I referred to above contains one casual passage on the role of diaspora in sustaining "separatism". The "Indian Hindu" diaspora is a matter of passionate obsession for the Thaparite School of Indian History and their Western compatriots which has been blamed for all "the evils" of modern India's jeopardized "secular" agenda. Reversing Chaliand's implication and the Thaparite claim, it is possible to think of the diasporic Indian thinking as becoming more conscious of the entirety of India as the centre, simply out of necessity. Shivji's point about having to cross continents to gain an understanding of the "centre/core" is satisfied by the "diaspora". The historical diasporic communities that had maintained strong cultural identities have always been instrumental in helping re-formation of nations - the Jews, Chinese expats in Japan, Vietnamese in France, Indians in Europe, the Irish in America, etc. It is quite likely that their distance from the "uhrheimat" actually reconstructs the uhrheimat in a stronger, unified vision. A similar role could be played by the modern Indian diaspora too.

Jupiter, Its well known in Western sociological circles that the expatriate who returns is the cause of revival of nationalism : Mahatma Gandhi, Edward Maseryak and many others. An even bigger issue is the non-native who settles in the midst and pushes the nationalist agenda - eg. Eamon De Valera who led Irish nationalism was a descendant of the Spanish sailors from the Armada.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 07:53

Talk roils in other threads about an impending 120k troop deployment to Afghanistan. India needs a fourth military wing for long distance power projections. A marine wing of our own. Our foreign legion.

Yes, a lot of serious debate going on about the modalities of logistics. However, the question I would like to pose is, whether it is at all possible for the core to sustain itself if it does not expand into current Pakistan area - especially the Pakjab and Sind in the western periphery? Pakistan is a conduit and focus for most of the violent separatist movements in the subcontinent. It is the crucial link in the ring around the core through the periphery that is used by Islamic as well as Chinese sourcers. It is also the blackest in the so-called "black hole" states (failed or weak states that cannot prevent or allow out of necessity, international criminal networks to converge with violent ideological/ethnic/separatist movements for mutual benefit) that serves as the exchange market for drugs/Afghan heroin/arms between international suppliers and ideology/ethnicity driven insurrectionist/terrorist groups. It has a crucial positional advantage in connecting Central Asia, China, the Islamic oil-wealth and Jihadi ideology with the Indian Ocean. Pakistan is the key and cornerstone in Islamic and Chinese startegy to create a ring network of states around the core of India which can act as a wide belt for "mobile" warfare. The ring starts in POK, goes through Eastern Afghanistan, Pakistan, coastal and off-coast Arabian sea routes into the Maldives, through to Northern Sri Lanka, round the coastal-off coast Bay of Bengal routes to BD. Here there is a smaller ring that goes through SE BD, into northern Myanmar and into China, and comes in again through Tibet, Nepal across the porous thin neck of Indian bridge to its NE, again into BD. The larger circum-India ring continues through Tibet and Nepal into the Karakorum highway and goes on to complete the ring in POK.

Expansion of the core into Pakjab and Sind disrupts this ring effectively and will be hotly obstructed by both the Jihadi forces as well as China. Without disrupting this, China and Jihadis can continue to move around their war of attrition - a death by a thousand cuts from unexpected and newer positions on the ring directed at the core. China is now probably at a military preparation level in which it can follow its Tsun Zu's doctrine - make a noise in the west while attacking the east - it has its fingers firmly on both side of the ring. The core can actually use this ring to its advantage - it can play the game as well. For the moment it can pretend to amass in the Ladakh area threatening the Karakorum supply line to Pak. while playing the Tsun Zu game in Pakjab and the NE.

What can be the fallouts for such an action on the rest of the periphery?

Ramanaji,

Jupiter, Its well known in Western sociological circles that the expatriate who returns is the cause of revival of nationalism : Mahatma Gandhi, Edward Maseryak and many others. An even bigger issue is the non-native who settles in the midst and pushes the nationalist agenda - eg. Eamon De Valera who led Irish nationalism was a descendant of the Spanish sailors from the Armada.

Sense of alienation or non-acceptability and therefore over-enthusiasm to reconstruct a nationalism that has a place for self or to which one can identify with? Very reasonable, but do we have many a example in India? except Sister Nivedita (I am rather doubtful of the role of Annie Besant)? To a certain extent Sri Aurobindo (better his French disciple) perhaps fits the bill - his early life is almost completely alienated from the Indic...and I don't think the most tempting modern candidate is a "nationalist" - she is a devoted wife and mother beyond doubt, but an Indian "nationalist" in the image of De Valera?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jan 2009 07:54

brihaspati wrote: http://www.kadirgamarinstitute.lk/html/ ... aliand.pdf

I believe that a demand for independence by a minority, whatever it may be, cannot
be willingly granted by a State. This has been, in my own view, the original mistake in
the 90's of the Chechens and in the 80's of the Kurds of Turkey. The Kurds of Iran, more
wisely, asked for autonomy in the 80's.

I would tend to agree with this guy, and at the risk of digression a bit I would just like to post (again) a few thoughts about the evolution of human political systems that I believe are relevant.

"Borders" between states were originally set up by clan chieftains, rajas, kings and pharaohs These borders were often porous to ordinary people (visas not required) and the borders were dependent on the ability of the raja/king to maintain that border. This system was inherently unstable and unsatisfactory and inevitably gave way to a newer system

Religions like Christianity and Islam themselves became political systems that did not respect borders and led to the downfall of many a king but instead set up "super-tribes" of Christians or Muslims basically ruled by an oligarchy who were often ignorant despots. "Welfare" was only for the followers and fighters of the religion. Others could be killed. This discrimination based on "My God is the only God" was again unstable and murderous and with an increase in world population - the way was paved for two newer political systems - democracy and communism.

If you look at democracy, it completely replaces "god/raja/king/pharaoh/sultan" with a constitution. But democracy is completely subservient to borders, visas and all. You cannot (at this time in world history) have a borderless democracy. Democracies inherently have borders, and within those borders the people are subservient to a constitution - which they can change based on a consensus set of rules.

Religion, monarchies and oligarchies all come into conflict with democracy in trying to break down the border and consensus system of democracy. Democracy is currently the only system known to man that can sink ethnic, linguistic and religious differences and break down micro-borders to encompass and govern huge numbers of humans never before governed successfully by any other system. No religion and no raja has managed to do or can possibly manage to do what democracy has demonstrated itself to be capable of doing.

The point I am getting at is that the "state border" that a democracy has is a very important feature. An attack on the borders defining a democratic state is an attack on the democratic state itself because it is an attack on a system that is designed to give the largest variety of people a say in governance. That is why it is absolutely important to stoutly defend the borders of a democracy - by military and other means. Defence of such a boundary essentially requires the recognition of all possible threats from older or less fair political systems. Attacks on democracies come from religions as well as oligarchies. Communism was a serious threat to American style democracy, by communism itself gets diluted in other democratic systems.

Islam and Christianity cannot protect democracy. Hindutva will remain a threat to democracy as long as Hindus are fighting with each other to define what Hindutva means. The word "Hindutva" is better known and more popular than any effort to allay fears that Hindutva is not "just another religion" that seeks to replace all other political system just like Christianity and Islam.

Part of India's "external fight" is the effort of Islam as a political system seeking to regain entry into India by its usual mix of violence and howls of victmization. (Pakistaniyat) Democracy is a more stable and inclusive system to fight Islam and Hindutva was never ever a political system despite the efforts of Hindutvadis. Hindutva has IMVHO zero experience in strategic thought. islam and Christianity are light years ahead of Hindutva in the analysis and responses to opposition and the ability to think "faraway" - "across borders'. Hindutva's strength actually lies in certain fundamental human values - including selflessness, truth, modesty and acceptance of variation. Hindutva lacks strategic thought. In a democratic India the experience of both Islam and Christianity in strategic thought have been useful fro strategic thinking in the form of leaders and generals who have given shape to the concept of India the nation state.

Part of the process of sinking of differences involves the suppression of religion and acceptance of diversity (which Hindutva is good at) within a democratic boundary which is ruled by a constitution that seeks to be fair to all.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 08:25

Shivji wrote
Hindutva will remain a threat to democracy as long as Hindus are fighting with each other to define what Hindutva means. The word "Hindutva" is better known and more popular than any effort to allay fears that Hindutva is not "just another religion" that seeks to replace all other political system just like Christianity and Islam.

Maybe a digression on my part, because my premise is that of India as the core - and the Persian/Mesoptamia/Arabia as near/distant periphery - may I request to use the term Bharatyia darshan instead of "Hindutva"? The Hindu is definitely a term given to us by the Arabs or Persians - we never called ourselves Hindus before the middle ages. Bharatyia also gives us the subtle spatial identity and connects to concepts of nationhood based in the geo-political space of India hinted at in the Mahabharatam.

Part of India's "external fight" is the effort of Islam as a political system seeking to regain entry into India by its usual mix of violence and howls of victmization. (Pakistaniyat) Democracy is a more stable and inclusive system to fight Islam and Hindutva was never ever a political system despite the efforts of Hindutvadis. Hindutva has IMVHO zero experience in strategic thought. islam and Christianity are light years ahead of Hindutva in the analysis and responses to opposition and the ability to think "faraway" - "across borders'. Hindutva's strength actually lies in certain fundamental human values - including selflessness, truth, modesty and acceptance of variation. Hindutva lacks strategic thought. In a democratic India the experience of both Islam and Christianity in strategic thought have been useful fro strategic thinking in the form of leaders and generals who have given shape to the concept of India the nation state. Part of the process of sinking of differences involves the suppression of religion and acceptance of diversity (which Hindutva is good at) within a democratic boundary which is ruled by a constitution that seeks to be fair to all.

This is also a crucial factor I was a bit shaky in bringing up because of general forum policies. In this thread the question of religions and cultural identities playing a crucial role in core-periphery relationships as well as strengthening or weakening of the core has come up. Russia, UK, USA, and modern EU all have formed in the background of "unifying" religions. Russia, ruthlessly Christianized under Vladimir, Europe ruthlessly and bloodily Christianized under Constantine and Carolus Magnus, UK bulldozed by Henry, Elizabeth and Cromwell under Protestantism, USA already colonized by the Christianized, - all appear to have rather agreed after all (in spite of wars and civil wars) to become "unified" as a core - behaving for all practical purpose as a single determined unit in international interactions. Even Islam has failed in its dreams of an unified Umma and Caliphate.

The Bharatyia darshan as pointed out by you accepts diversity, and is thus more a meta-religion - a framework and theory of all religions rather than a religion itself. Can it serve a "binding" purpose for a "nation"? or is such a framework always going to leave space for "destructive dissonance" - such as the most vocal supporters of protection of "Islam" have always come from within "Bharatyias" themselves - almost always leading to historical disasters for the historical society. Don't you think we need to specify certain common values we identify with and we require of anyone who wants to be part of the nation - just as we need to specify what we cannot accept as belonging to the nation? Christianity paved the way for unification of peoples and regions from periphery into a core, by being quite categorical about the necessities of commonly accepted values.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 01 Jan 2009 08:36

Brihaspatiji,

Apologies that I am unable to provide any scholarly sources to what was essentially an opinion on the relative destruction caused by desert brigands on the one hand and systematic plunder by a foreign corporation with its own army followed by an imperial government on the other.

Have been an avid reader of your views. Agree for the most part with you on most subjects, I guess. Hope to join the seed of reawakened nationalism that R2Is are posited to be bringing back with them this new year.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 01 Jan 2009 08:39

"Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent"

Does this assume India as active external looking nation or just a super soft power SSP nation that is content in status quo of election after election in the country with less and less governance from center as well as sates with in the current constitutional frame work.

Based on the record since 1991 ( the last single party majority ruling at the center) we are receding into a 800 AD India with vulnerability to simple external jolt of terror state sponsored, home grown (Naxals and Mafia).

If India is to take its rightful place in the comity of nations, we should have a Strategic Vision for India which is accepted, adhered to by all political parties, which in simple terms "India and Indians Come First" Our people are our best resources where ever they are, what ever position they are in, what ever their economic standing is.

For its size, economic resources talented and mostly patriotic people we have played at best a miniscule role in international affairs and that role too is a diminishing one since 1991.

For starters We should (aim to) have complete say through exertion of our (soft) power in our neighborhood governments that get elected or conduct of those government.

A good start would be a sort of Monroe doctrine, ( actually we had for a long time one such where in we resisted the dueling super powers not to meddle directly in IOR region, the TSPaki ******** and PRC messed it up after Russian invasion and US also with bases in Diego Garcia bases) to enunciate and the successive central governments follow through with that.

Nationalism is not against any religion, creed or state with in the Indian Union; Nationalism defines the personification of what India stands for and aspires for.
If this is accepted followed by good governance by non interference in the administration of rule of law, then we can project and achieve the strategic goals of India, which is never in contradiction of international laws.

All IMVHO.

We can then talk our sphere of influence.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jan 2009 08:51

brihaspati wrote: Christianity paved the way for unification of peoples and regions from periphery into a core, by being quite categorical about the necessities of commonly accepted values.

IMO this needs parsing.

Upto a point Christianity did this. But after human populations under Christianity became larger, Christianity's killer streak caused so much death that it was sidelined and all its faults laid open, paving the way for secularism and democracy.

Christianity is recognized to be dead as a system of governance in the West, and remains so despite Dubya's best efforts.

It is only Islam that imagines that it can control and Islam is just getting into the killing phase that Christianity went through in the middle ages.

You are dead right in your recognition of the name "Hindu" as being a case of fractal recursivity in which the label applied by observers has been accepted and internalized by the observed. Hindutva is NOT a political system. Both Christianity and Islam are political systems. Hindutva has never governed nations. it merely governs individual conduct. It also never attempted to act politically to suppress others and replace others with a particular dogma.

It follows that a training in Christian or Islamic history and dogma automatically brings political awareness and a knowledge of the strategic implications of the politics of the religion. But a training in Hindu thought brings no political training along with it. All "Hindu" strategy and politics was secular, like Chanakya and Thirukkural, not religion based. This reflects in the ay Hindu politicians think (no strategic thought) and in the way politicians with an islamic training may think.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 08:53

Vsudhirji,

no, no I was just curious - I am currently trying to accumulate material on exploitation and export of Indian capital out of India - gone through a fair bit now, and at least covered the Mughal, and late Turko-Afghan. I was just hoping to get some reference out of you!

My current hypothesis is that from 700 C.E to 1757 C.E. the total extracted capital from the subcontinent far exceeds that managed by the British. In fact another conjecture of mine is that this Islamic (Arab+Turko Afghan+Mughal) extraction weakened the core so much that it was unable to resist peripheral disintegration and colonial/imperial aggression. My heartfelt and deepest wish of success for your endeavours as RTI - Jai Bharat! (Forum moderators - just replaced the Hind in the INA salutation - if objectionable let me know!)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jan 2009 08:59

brihaspati wrote: - Jai Bharat! (Forum moderators - just replaced the Hind in the INA salutation - if objectionable let me know!)

Nothing fundamentally wrong.

Karnataks's state song ( a beautiful song when sung well) goes:

"Jaya Bharata jananiya tanujaate
jaya hey Karnataka maatay"

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 09:10

John Snow wrote
Does this assume India as active external looking nation or just a super soft power SSP nation that is content in status quo of election after election in the country with less and less governance from center as well as sates with in the current constitutional frame work.

I was looking to the future - which includes what we want India to be, and what needs to be done to make India what we want it to be.

Do we need to commit ourselves to only one tool or tactical weapon? at the moment definitely we have more soft power than "hard power", but that should not prevent us from working out scenarios where a combination of "hard and soft" powers can be used.

A good start would be a sort of Monroe doctrine,

I have been lamenting this several times - we dont have a Pakistan doctrine, we don' have a Kashmir doctrine - in fact we have no doctrine for our periphery at all. It is an indication of the lack of clear long term vision for the whole of the subcontinent. Someone wise may suggest that it is a kind of "mantragupti" but it looks more like a secret doctrine that never existed - freeing any givernment from having to break any promises made to the "nation".

Nationalism is not against any religion, creed or state with in the Indian Union; Nationalism defines the personification of what India stands for and aspires for.
If this is accepted followed by good governance by non interference in the administration of rule of law,

Here can be a problem, the rule of law may mean accepting different types of law based on religious claims for different people - a fundamental contradiction to the modern concept of all nationals being equal before the law. I would rather think of such characteristics as a fundamental flaw in the fabric of the "nation". To resolve the problem of nationalism, don't we need a certain core set of values applicable to all nationals uniformly that supercedes all other claims of distinction? and this means not everything we now protect under claims of religion/culture/practice can be guaranteed protection - otherwise we have many nations within a "ghostly nation" - each nation means different things to each adherent.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 09:31

Shivji,

IMO this needs parsing.

Hindutva is NOT a political system. Both Christianity and Islam are political systems. Hindutva has never governed nations. it merely governs individual conduct. It also never attempted to act politically to suppress others and replace others with a particular dogma.
It follows that a training in Christian or Islamic history and dogma automatically brings political awareness and a knowledge of the strategic implications of the politics of the religion. But a training in Hindu thought brings no political training along with it. All "Hindu" strategy and politics was secular, like Chanakya and Thirukkural, not religion based. This reflects in the ay Hindu politicians think (no strategic thought) and in the way politicians with an islamic training may think.

Agree with your detailed expansion about Christianity. Having accepted that Bharatyia Darshan is nort explicitly political - and the disputes about the "Hinduness" of Chanakya's theories - I would rather avoid all that, and go back to the Mahabharatam for the early seeds of a concept of the "nation". My reading of the Mahabharatam goes to point that this was a political treatise about early nationhood very much within the framework of Bharatyia darshan. The Mahabharatam agonizes over the central questions about nationhood we agonize now : briefly

it consciously or subconsciously assocaties a territory as the core of something which is not merely defined by the king or hereditary rulership, not strictly bound by permanent borders, not simply defined by conquests or particular peoples or races rsiding within it - for all of these conditions are broken one point or the other. But through it all what matters most is the attempt at preservation of certain basic "principles" - which includes the relation between the "state" and its "members/subjects" - not always successful but still the guiding principle. The very beginning shows Bharat disinheriting his biological heir and replacing them as ruler by someone not directly connected to royalty - for it would be better for the "state/people" - it could not have been "hereditary kingship" whose welfare was being looked after, this marks an important clue to what was held supreme (its reverse now I know, with us waiting for Prince Nehru II, but the non-political Bharatyia writing the epic shows much greater political sense than the Islam/Christianity trained modern Indian "princely" family). I would slightly disagree with you that the Bharatyia did not think politics - he did, but in a different, far into the future sort of way.

By the way, that was a beautiful song! Thanks.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 09:50

Just continuing on my older theme:

Expansion of the core into Pakjab and Sind disrupts this ring effectively and will be hotly obstructed by both the Jihadi forces as well as China.

The failure of India to be the core can be seen in one significant "rumour" from the Pak side - that the LET handler of Mumbai terrorists could at most be handed over to the Americans since US citizens died but not to India. Much greater than all the rants and rails we will shower if it proves true - it shows a crucial failure of the core - the surrender to third party arbitration. Even mere presence on the Afghan side of the border will not be sufficient unless India moves along the "terror" peripheral ring to occupy POK and block Karakorum. More so, should we not actually follow this up in "forcing" safe passage for the Talebs into NE China reducing our own casualties ? for that divides the attacking Red Army into two if Tibetan resistance is armed. Unless the ring is unravelled at least as far as China in the Paksitan-China arc of the ring, the western periphery cannot be disinfected for relative safety to the core.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Jan 2009 10:33

Few districts of Pakjab are the key, head of the snake . Remove the head and rest falls automatically.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 19:17

Quote:
Breaking news: Serial blasts in Guwahati
CNN-IBN
New Delhi: Three blasts rocked Guwahati on Thursday. According to initial reports the blasts are of low intensity.
Union Home Ministeer P Chidambaram was expected to arrive in Guwahati on Thursday evening.
and so we begin 2009 - low intensity blasts are the trade mark of IM but I thought that their back was well and truly broken. Any blast in the NE and the first suspect are the autonomous militant groups operating there.

Some time ago I had speculated that the next attempt by Jihad will be on the east after Mumbai. This was a not so devastating blast in Guwahati, so not a serious level attempt. However, what to watch for is the gradual activation of the "peripheral terror ring" around India. This is increasingly beginning to look like a combined Jihadi and Chinese military doctrine. The Chinese military doctrine had always followed mobile warfare strategies. I would rather explore the possibility that the natural mobile warfare techniques adopted by the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Russians was further exploited and developed by the Chinese with the Talebs and the ISI sponsored terror groups against India. China and the Jihadi alliance will manifest their mobile warfare strategy all around the "ring". This also rings of Tsun Zu - make a noise in the west and raid the east. After the attack on Mumbai in the west was succesfully carried out the Jihadi-Chinese thinking would now test by attacking on the east. This is to stretch the resources, reaction, and generally stress out the Indian core. I would also guess, that there would now be serious attempts in the North and South of India - and both looks ripe. In the North there will be militant frustration with the results of the recent Kashmir elections, in the South LTTE is under severe pressure and would be amenable to pressures from teh Jihadi-Chinese combine to distract India.

This movement of terrorist probes moving around along the peripheral network around the core is simply testing and stretching core's reaction patterns in a gradual escalation. It is possible that the Chinese are already putting in place their long term military plans to catch the core of India in a pincer - one arm moving through the Karakorums down into Pakistan to the Indian Ocean - and the other coming in through the NE.

The Congress government is likely to try and shift the blame on to ethnic separatists rather than explicitly implicating Islamic extremists. ULFA or Boro extremists could in fact be in league with the Jihadis, in a common network handled by Pakistan and China, but Congress will persist in covering up the Islamic angle for electoral reasons. ULFA is unlikely to implicate themselves in India after AL victory in BD - as this can lead to BD collaboration with the India to flush them out, this will have to be sourced by Jihadi pressure which is more confident of continued societal support from certain sections within BD.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 19:55

Writing about Balochi independence in another thread, made me think that our concern in this thread about RSDP is critical for the Balochi cause. Should the Balochis qualify for RSDP? I think they should, for almost any part of a failed state or more appropriately a "black hole" state like Pakistan has the right to exercise RSDP as long as it is not opting for even more retrogressive forms compared to the mother "black hole" state.

If the Balochis agree to have a constitution that guarantees basic human rights like equality of all before the law, gender equality, right to free speech, right to education etc., India should recognize a free and independent Baloch nation. Balochis will also have to undertsand, that at least for formation they will have to restrict their territorial claims to the Pakistan side of their region and not include Iranian components. Iran has to be kept out of this whole process and this restriction is important for keeping Iran out of doing mischief.

But the Balochis have to understand that to make this nation feasible and sustainable, Pakjab has to be neutralized, and to do this India has to expand to protect Sind from Pakjab and ultimately incorporate Pakjab as part of India. Only this will ensure safety of the Baloch nation from the North.

This is in keeping with the need to unravel the terror ring around the core of India being sought to be put in place by Jihadis and the Chinese, and a coordinated followed through move up the Indus valley into POK and finally to forward positions into the Karakorums. Unless the entire subcontinental startegic scenario is kept in mind, bits and pieces of this plan executed alone will be disastrous.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 01 Jan 2009 20:28

If the Balochis agree to have a constitution that guarantees basic human rights like equality of all before the law, gender equality, right to free speech, right to education etc., India should recognize a free and independent Baloch nation.

We ARE discussing the Paki province where Quetta is the center of civilization?

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 01 Jan 2009 21:02

and to do this India has to expand to protect Sind from Pakjab and ultimately incorporate Pakjab as part of India

Brihaspati sir, one question here, you mean incorporate the Wahhabi-minded Porki Muslims region into India? Don't you think it will be counter-productive...maybe I have not understood your point here, could you please elaborate?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 21:27

Narayanan wrote
We ARE discussing the Paki province where Quetta is the center of civilization?

I specifically wanted to make basic human rights a precondition and constitutional guarantee. I explicitly mentioned gender equality etc. The constitutional provision at least gives some chance to bring in international pressure for compliance. For that matter, is the picture anywhere much different in the rest of Pakistan?

Incorporating Balochs into India is not a feasible option even in the medium term strategic view.
Incorporation would have allowed greater protection of women's rights. For that matter, the grand incidents about women's rights being upheld for (1) honour killings (2) shariati hudud - show a great advancement in India too - isnt it, like a wife choosing to be dictated/aand allowed to be dictated by Shariati after being allegedly raped by the father-in-law, or hunting down a couple for having broken village tradition in marrying and the whole village standing by the right of the family of the couple to carry out honour-killings as it is their "tradition"?

Yogi-ji wrote
Brihaspati sir, one question here, you mean incorporate the Wahhabi-minded Porki Muslims region into India? Don't you think it will be counter-productive...maybe I have not understood your point here, could you please elaborate?

Sind has a considerable Hindu population, as per newspaper reports whose women, land etc are targets of Jihadi greed. Pakjab, I agree is the most "infested" one. But who says that Pakjab gets all the liberties of a mature Indian province right after incorporation. It has to be under military occupation for some time, then under deputed government, "cleaned" properly - which means "war crimes" trials, long term prison sentences, public exposure of past "activities", and then a reunification with Indian Punjab. I am sure our Sikh brothers would love to visit their homeland, and see to it that Porkistan is "forgotten". Well and not to forget a proper "exploration" of madrassahs and charitable institutions for "irreligious" activities, and complete audit and regular control of all religious institutions.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 01 Jan 2009 21:47

I am trying to see the connection between the first post of this thread, and the present meanderings. Is this about "FUTURE" or about past 1,700,000,000 years of atrocities, lootings etc? Just curious... or is it about the plan for administering Occupied Pakjab by GeorgeJi's tea-drinkers headquartered at RYK?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 22:18

Narayanan wrote
I am trying to see the connection between the first post of this thread, and the present meanderings. Is this about "FUTURE" or about past 1,700,000,000 years of atrocities, lootings etc? Just curious... or is it about the plan for administering Occupied Pakjab by GeorgeJi's tea-drinkers headquartered at RYK?

I think I am trying to keep on track about the future. There have been some posts explaining personal views of a more general nature. But to reiterate it is about thinking about the strategic future keeping the entire subcontinent in mind, and giving less importance to existing political boundaries but rather see the entire region as a block with broad and dynamic divisions into core and periphery. Historical roots come in only in context, and we should not dwell on historical experience as the final one.

For example, going back to the Baloch angle, Baloch independence should not be seen in isolation. It should be a general part of overall strategy for solving the TSP problem.

Here are the reasons why looking at this in isolation will be different from the entire core-periphery future strategic model.

If we look at Baloch nation as an isolated case, the questions of ensuring social/gender justice cannot be ignored. On the other hand, Baloch independence can be supported merely to put diplomatic pressure on TSP. But this then does nothing to take care pf the fact that such a nascent structure will be at the mercy of Pakistan state machinery, and we will land up at most in having to defend militarily the borders of Baluchistan on an extended front in the North facing Pakjab and in the east facing Sind.

Whereas, if Balochistan is seen as part of a more comprehensive north-north-east upward through Indus valley, policy - occupation of Pakjab and liberation of Sind or moving further up to POK cannot ignore the "problem" of Balochistan. If you leave it unorganized and unallied on your left, it can be occupied/manipulated by escaping units of Jihadis and Pakis to mount flank attacks. Ifyou try to incorporate it, and try to tackle gender equality - you have a whole wide belt of tribal insurgency on your hands. Only if you make it an indpendent nation with diplomatic/military ties can you secure the left flank and move up for the main strategic objective of erasing TSP and then moving on to neutralize the Chinese threat.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 01 Jan 2009 22:27

I am kind of sick of pompus strategies while India is under attack. All Indians do is speculative, imaginative, highly theoritical, intellectualy mesmerising discussions!

Have you heard the latest score yet?

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 01 Jan 2009 22:31

Honestly, the re-alignment and the future of the subcontinent, especially the region of the present day Pakistan must be the most complex subject matter for analysts...all complicated by 2 factors -- Radical Islam and the concept of nationhood based on a religion.

The Indians have the most to worry about for we are promised with low-level conflict permanently, why do I say this, see below,

1. Lets say Pakistan breaks up into smaller states -- Sind, Punjab, Baluchistan etc etc, for sure they will head in the direction of Bangladesh, friendly during break-up and some years later, hostile from then on (in case of BD to some extent based on government)...As long as radical Islam exists rallying cries for Ummah to re-unite and form the "true" Pakistan will be prevalent...for this they will need an enemy, the convenient enemy is of course Kafir India...we will see onset of poor unemployed youth being guns and sent across to India to claim their 72 virgins...If not from Sindh, definitely from Pakjab, let there be no doubt about it, no matter how many concessions or appeasement we throw at them, the very hatred towards of Kafirs will be the driving factors....a low-level conflict thus...

2. Lets take up the other scenario, accession to India of Pakjab and Sindh under controlled circumstances with the extermination of the extremists...for sure we cant kill/detain all of them without international "secular" outcry could we? also such acts would strike at the roots of the conscience of the nation that we so very much proudly cherish...our "Secular" media and politicians would resort to appeasement of the minorities to achieve "balanced reporting" for the former and "vote-bank" for the latter....we will see "Shariyat" governance in the newly acquired areas. The reason would be that the Mullahs of the region would say that Paki nationhood failed because they dint adhere well enough the concept of Islam and only Shariat and Islamic banking would be the way forward, the Indian government's attempt to stop such things would again lead to popular outcry to the likes seen in Amarnath, not comparing both but an example of how doing Kufr stuff in Daru Ul Islam can lead from one thing to another....If we give up and agree to the implementation of Shariyat etc in these newly acquired areas what stops the Ummah in the other parts of the country from asking the same? More Shah Bano type popular cries and more communal tensions....in other words low level conflict again

In other words folks, low intensity conflict and state of tension will be the future ahead for the subcontinent as is currently happening with the still intact but crumbling Pakistan....Radical Islam will ensure that there is always conflict and hence development will be very difficult to come by again leading to a cycle....

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 01 Jan 2009 22:41

If we breakn up pakistan, then we might have multiple enemies and India itself may break up under such attack? No?
Example we broke Pakistan into BDesh now they are toying vwith India like a small kitten , we cantv even bite a country that can hardly feed its people. So better not break Pakistan any more as we may endup with a percupine shooting quills at us kittens.

(I have stopped calling TSP and call Pakistan in proper terms as per PM MMS observation that Pakistan is a victim of (Indian) terror , the small print was lost in his mumble squeek.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 22:49

John Snow wrote:
I am kind of sick of pompus strategies while India is under attack. All Indians do is speculative, imaginative, highly theoritical, intellectualy mesmerising discussions!
Hve you heard the latest score yet?

Rightly so! But then, we are all supposed to be law-abiding, democracy worshipping, religion-nonbashing, peaceful, non-militarist, jingo hating folks. This is the best we can do without breaking one or more of the above conditions. Sarcasm apart, ideas can seem stupid and too ambitious sometimes when we face them for the first time - but ideas are like seeds, they simply wait for the right "seasons" and "soils" to flourish into trees. Of course some will turn into weeds, but some may grow into fruitful trees. If present and future generations can take these ideas up, and think of them as realizable with appropriate modifications - nothing wrong in it I suppose? I am as much frustrated as you are with our ineffectiveness. But given our self-censorship we can only talk our heads off.

I am simply trying out a psychological motivation for people to think along lines of concrete long term objectives and goals, even in positional, military -political terms, that is simply not reactive but thinks of taking initiative, and forcing our opponents hands. This is why I had suggested on 27th Dec, that we should join the war against terror from the Afghan side - and listed out a whole bunch of strategic reasons to do so. I had not much response then, on the thread concerned - probably because of similar reactions - a daydream on lot of gas perhaps was the silent conclusion.

Is it day-dreaming at this point of time, just like what I have been trying to discuss as a comprehensive strategy not for just this or that terrorist organization but seen as a subcontinental strategic necessity? Yes, for the moment. But some may find it feasible in the future! thats my hope.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 01 Jan 2009 22:54

John Snow wrote:If we breakn up pakistan, then we might have multiple enemies and India itself may break up under such attack? No?
Example we broke Pakistan into BDesh now they are toying vwith India like a small kitten , we cantv even bite a country that can hardly feed its people. So better not break Pakistan any more as we may endup with a percupine shooting quills at us kittens.

(I have stopped calling TSP and call Pakistan in proper terms as per PM MMS observation that Pakistan is a victim of (Indian) terror , the small print was lost in his mumble squeek.

There is very little India can do to prevent the self-induced break-up of Pakistan when it happens...we have very little strategic influence inside Pakistan...Hence India need not make an active and conscious effort to break up Pakistan, in its current course Pakistan is headed for implosion...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 22:59

Lets take up the other scenario, accession to India of Pakjab and Sindh under controlled circumstances with the extermination of the extremists...for sure we cant kill/detain all of them without international "secular" outcry could we? also such acts would strike at the roots of the conscience of the nation that we so very much proudly cherish...our "Secular" media and politicians would resort to appeasement of the minorities to achieve "balanced reporting" for the former and "vote-bank" for the latter....we will see "Shariyat" governance in the newly acquired areas. The reason would be that the Mullahs of the region would say that Paki nationhood failed because they dint adhere well enough the concept of Islam and only Shariat and Islamic banking would be the way forward, the Indian government's attempt to stop such things would again lead to popular outcry to the likes seen in Amarnath, not comparing both but an example of how doing Kufr stuff in Daru Ul Islam can lead from one thing to another....If we give up and agree to the implementation of Shariyat etc in these newly acquired areas what stops the Ummah in the other parts of the country from asking the same? More Shah Bano type popular cries and more communal tensions....in other words low level conflict again

The military strategic move suggested of incorporating Sind and Pakjab, cannot be carried out under a government as described. Such a government would have already died a thousand times before actually dying and like the current UPA gov would have shaken like a leaf (perhaps even paid out a whole lot of publicists to build up all the frightening possibilities in the media to justify that the gov does not have to act). The religious clergy will not move a little finger if it realizes that the government is dead serious and simply waiting for an excuse to wipe them out completely. No one is suggesting that all normal provincial mechanisms come into operation right from the time of coccupation - it will have to undergo a preparatory stage centrally administered when the social/educational/legal setup is dismantled and rebuilt. No compromises can be made with media/"secular" fronts about this. Don't worry about "mass casualties" on the Islamic side - they have always shown extreme opportunism and conformity when faced with real prospects of liquidation.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 01 Jan 2009 23:05

When I first started reading the contents of this thread, which by the way has yielded some very good thoughts and analysis, I remembered the future subcontinent scenarios by the naval war college in US...this study has also been mentioned in the "possible Indian military scenarios" thread...I thought it would be useful to present the link now...

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=593282

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 23:10

John Snow wrote
If we breakn up pakistan, then we might have multiple enemies and India itself may break up under such attack? No?
Example we broke Pakistan into BDesh now they are toying vwith India like a small kitten , we cantv even bite a country that can hardly feed its people. So better not break Pakistan any more as we may endup with a percupine shooting quills at us kittens.

BD can play so because India has allowed USA+UK previously, and now China to surround India strategically. India has not played an active role in Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia. India has not cultivated Indian Ocean dominance in naval and strategic terms. BD sees an escape route through Myanmar and have Chinese help. India has lost out on Nepal, and now China is geo-strategically closer to BD through Nepal. Dissolution of Pakistan, and formation of an independent Tibet would drastically change BD tones.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 01 Jan 2009 23:11

Yogi_G wrote:
John Snow wrote:If we breakn up pakistan, then we might have multiple enemies and India itself may break up under such attack? No?
Example we broke Pakistan into BDesh now they are toying vwith India like a small kitten , we cantv even bite a country that can hardly feed its people. So better not break Pakistan any more as we may endup with a percupine shooting quills at us kittens.

(I have stopped calling TSP and call Pakistan in proper terms as per PM MMS observation that Pakistan is a victim of (Indian) terror , the small print was lost in his mumble squeek.
There is very little India can do to prevent the self-induced break-up of Pakistan when it happens...we have very little strategic influence inside Pakistan...Hence India need not make an active and conscious effort to break up Pakistan, in its current course Pakistan is headed for implosion...

It is in the best interest of United States that a unified and vibrant Pakistan (crawling with terrorists) It would never allow Pakistan to disintegrate on the contrary it is in the best interest of US to see India disintegrate. One does not need huge theisis to prove the above. (just revist Shiv ji's Pakistan and US thread)

SO any thoughts of Paakistan imploding or Indian action terror is a wishful myth.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 01 Jan 2009 23:12

brihaspati wrote:
Lets take up the other scenario, accession to India of Pakjab and Sindh under controlled circumstances with the extermination of the extremists...for sure we cant kill/detain all of them without international "secular" outcry could we? also such acts would strike at the roots of the conscience of the nation that we so very much proudly cherish...our "Secular" media and politicians would resort to appeasement of the minorities to achieve "balanced reporting" for the former and "vote-bank" for the latter....we will see "Shariyat" governance in the newly acquired areas. The reason would be that the Mullahs of the region would say that Paki nationhood failed because they dint adhere well enough the concept of Islam and only Shariat and Islamic banking would be the way forward, the Indian government's attempt to stop such things would again lead to popular outcry to the likes seen in Amarnath, not comparing both but an example of how doing Kufr stuff in Daru Ul Islam can lead from one thing to another....If we give up and agree to the implementation of Shariyat etc in these newly acquired areas what stops the Ummah in the other parts of the country from asking the same? More Shah Bano type popular cries and more communal tensions....in other words low level conflict again
The military strategic move suggested of incorporating Sind and Pakjab, cannot be carried out under a government as described. Such a government would have already died a thousand times before actually dying and like the current UPA gov would have shaken like a leaf (perhaps even paid out a whole lot of publicists to build up all the frightening possibilities in the media to justify that the gov does not have to act). The religious clergy will not move a little finger if it realizes that the government is dead serious and simply waiting for an excuse to wipe them out completely. No one is suggesting that all normal provincial mechanisms come into operation right from the time of coccupation - it will have to undergo a preparatory stage centrally administered when the social/educational/legal setup is dismantled and rebuilt. No compromises can be made with media/"secular" fronts about this. Don't worry about "mass casualties" on the Islamic side - they have always shown extreme opportunism and conformity when faced with real prospects of liquidation.

Brihaspati ji, my only concern is that "doing stuff" under "emergency-like" situation will effectively lead to Iraq and Afghanistan like situations wherein even with an iron will, inadequate military power and the war bleeding economy there has not been much progress to "de-terrorize" the areas, only we have seen more dissent and never ending violence...I doubt we will be able to bring in economic stability in an atmosphere of violence....

The question is even if say in the next 10 years, will India have the financial and military muscle to accomplish such a garangutan task....I agree the US has geographical constraints in Afghanistan and USSR had to face a super-power in proxy...but still the very anti-India hatred could be a crippling factor :-( your thoughts...?

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 01 Jan 2009 23:12

submitted in duplicate as involves GOI (format) deleted

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 01 Jan 2009 23:14

Once upon a time there used to be a Yogi Patel who resolved theoritically all the possible options for India, but you see we have a big impedement called GOI babus and leadership who are more susseptable to Chai biscoot and Samosas.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 01 Jan 2009 23:27

BD can play so because India has allowed USA+UK previously, and now China to surround India strategically. India has not played an active role in Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia. India has not cultivated Indian Ocean dominance in naval and strategic terms. BD sees an escape route through Myanmar and have Chinese help. India has lost out on Nepal, and now China is geo-strategically closer to BD through Nepal. Dissolution of Pakistan, and formation of an independent Tibet would drastically change BD tones.

India lives in Past tense

"India has not played an active role in Myanmar, ...."

Then we jump to future tense

"Dissolution of Pakistan, and formation of an independent Tibet would drastically change BD tones"

In between Present is Tense

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 01 Jan 2009 23:35

John Snow wrote:Once upon a time there used to be a Yogi Patel who resolved theoritically all the possible options for India, but you see we have a big impedement called GOI babus and leadership who are more susseptable to Chai biscoot and Samosas.

Yogi Patel

John garu, if you see my second scenario I mentioned these very characters who are pretty much a handicuff for us as a nation...

SO any thoughts of Paakistan imploding or Indian action terror is a wishful myth.

I will readily agree with you on the Indian inaction on terror

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 23:45

Yogi_G wrote
Brihaspati ji, my only concern is that "doing stuff" under "emergency-like" situation will effectively lead to Iraq and Afghanistan like situations wherein even with an iron will, inadequate military power and the war bleeding economy there has not been much progress to "de-terrorize" the areas, only we have seen more dissent and never ending violence...I doubt we will be able to bring in economic stability in an atmosphere of violence....

The question is even if say in the next 10 years, will India have the financial and military muscle to accomplish such a garangutan task....I agree the US has geographical constraints in Afghanistan and USSR had to face a super-power in proxy...but still the very anti-India hatred could be a crippling factor :-( your thoughts...?

Iraqis cannot see any justification in US presence and attack - for they cannot see any direct connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. Further by no stretch of imagination could the US soldiers pretend to be even remotely "regional". Initially the Iraqis did rejoice a bit (for various reasons including getting rid of Saddam). Same happened in Afghanistan, and we can see that even after all this some groups do collaborate with the US. India, if careful, can project its injured neighbour face with justified "anger" because of Pak behaviour. The Afghans will definitely understand the concept of "badla".

Sind, I estimate will be less of a problem, as we will have and will be able to use the non-Muslim sections. Pakjab will be the hardest problem - but I think we should be able to turn the demographics of "greater Punjab" to our advantage. Should not elaborate - should we?

Economic growth is going to be affected anyway with resources being diverted into fighting terror. The military move by India has to be swift, to minimize costs. India perhaps should begin thinking of "soft" systems managing missiles to tackle and destroy Pakistani nukes before they can be used. From now on, India has to prepare and invest for war anyway in preparation for escalation by Pakistan. So it is better to use this purposefully in conjunction with an active plan to engage and dissolve TSP forever.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jan 2009 23:54

John Snow said In between Present is Tense

Someone has said that the present is the imaginary boundary between the past and the future - it is continuously being imagined by those who are scared of the passage of time inexorably from the past into the future, and is continuously being proved non-existent.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 02 Jan 2009 00:09

Someone has said that the present is the imaginary boundary between the past and the future - it is continuously being imagined by those who are scared of the passage of time inexorably from the past into the future, and is continuously being proved non-existent.

I like it
Now we are talking Atma Bodha which is easier to understand than to imagine the past or future,.
Well because Atman is eternal

(Aaadi Madhya antra rahita, not rytha)

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Jan 2009 00:11

John Snow said :
It is in the best interest of United States that a unified and vibrant Pakistan (crawling with terrorists) It would never allow Pakistan to disintegrate on the contrary it is in the best interest of US to see India disintegrate. One does not need huge theisis to prove the above. (just revist Shiv ji's Pakistan and US thread)

SO any thoughts of Paakistan imploding or Indian action terror is a wishful myth.

That looks very suspicously to me as "living in the past" !

Yes, that is one scenario for the US. But the US is never known for long-term, forever persistent, almost fanatical/ideological commitments. It is sort of medium-sighted, neither long nor short - and changes or makes U-turns when it sees it as opportune within the horizon the Americans have their sights on at that moment. Pakistan is less likely to implode on its own, I agree - not just because of the US but because of China or in a changed world scenario, even by an alarmed Russia allied with China. But the task is not to live in the past (as you rightly point out) behaviour of the US, but see to it that it "behaves" in a "different" way for the future. If the US can be made to see that it is more costly to maintain Pakistan, and more profitable to help India expand into Pakjab, I am sure the Americans will "see reason"