Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Feb 2009 07:57

Isnt the Islamic concept of millat for the minorities?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Feb 2009 08:33

I am loath to re-start the subject on here. This originally appeared in one of the Islamism threads, but since we have been talking about identities and the borders between identities, I will lift a quote from Brihaspati and post my take on the "oil droplet"/cell theory of Islamic identity as it has panned out over centuries.

Microidentities can commonly form out of perceptions/interpretations of visible differences, or by reductions of absorbed macroidentities,

and

Microidentities cannot escape mutative processes that affect any society, which stem from <snip> complicated cultural processes. Internal and external, economic and technological pressures also stress microidentities, <snip> Mutation can lead to a new microidentity which opposes its own initial features simply as an optimal strategy over time

The following diagrams that I had drawn some years ago and posted on here show the micro-identities that have formed out of Islam in response to stress. Please read before looking at the diagrams.

Core Islamism (dark green) is always at war with those who are different - but when those who are different are too powerful, a strategy is developed to allow survival. This creates "assimilated Muslims" (Pale Green)

Another reason for the creation of assimilated Muslims that many people on BRF do not acknowledge is simply dissatisfaction with the most demanding dictates of Islam and the need fro an excuse to stop being wholly Islamic. The role of "assimilated Muslim" (moderate Muslims?) stands well on the shoulders of this group. Many Hindus tend to believe that these moderates are fifth columnists and traitors who are doing a Hudaibiya, but in the interest of saytameva jayate it is important to understand that this group also contain a proportion of people who are genuinely moderate because they do not want to be part of Islamism most excessive demands. Claiming that such people are all fifth columnists and that Islam has a firm grip on everyone is an act of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Microidentities cannot escape mutative processes that affect any society, which stem from <snip> complicated cultural processes. Internal and external, economic and technological pressures also stress microidentities, <snip> Mutation can lead to a new microidentity which opposes its own initial features simply as an optimal strategy over time

Furthermore, Islamism's worst fear comes from brihaspati's statement

Microidentities cannot escape mutative processes that affect any society, which stem from <snip> complicated cultural processes. Internal and external, economic and technological pressures also stress microidentities, <snip> Mutation can lead to a new microidentity which opposes its own initial features simply as an optimal strategy over time

From moderate/assimilated Muslims we get a breakaway layer of "Muslim world citizens".(Magenta)

The structure of the oil droplet and a detailed description occur in Figure 1 and 2

Figure 1

Figure 2

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Feb 2009 08:47

I would like to add a corollary to the post above

Some things about my description will seem blindingly obvious and clear to many of us on here, but it is likely that Muslims by and large do not see clear cut divisions like I have made.

In the same manner it can be shown that non Muslims, specifically Hindus also form similar "mirror image" layers of "assimilated" people or "world citizens" who help in the interaction with Islamists. We tend to give them different names here - usually "dhimmi", "pseudosecular" or "fake liberal"
What is true for Muslim society is equally true for Hindu society. The main difference lie at the core.
The peripheral layers are formed in response to a need to "get along" and live life and rejct parts of the core that the periphery of each side do not like.

It is interesting that "core Hindus" consider assimilated Muslims as fakes and the also consider Liberals and dhimmis as fakes. Core Islamists consider assimilated Muslims as a problem, but do not reject them. The world citizens are probably despised by the core.

However each core has a uitility for its periphery. Society avoids conflict by the formation of these layers with modified behavior.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Feb 2009 22:16

I think shiv, brihaspati and Rudradev should combine forces and bring out a booklet or pamphlet about this subject and make it available for wider dissemination.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Feb 2009 06:06

ramana wrote:I think shiv, brihaspati and Rudradev should combine forces and bring out a booklet or pamphlet about this subject and make it available for wider dissemination.

ramana - as far as I am concerned - the work is still incomplete. There's some stuff here that will go on to the geostrategic modeling thread after I can think of a suitable simulation model.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Feb 2009 19:38

ramanaji, shivji - maybe we can each contribute to a sequence of interrelated and linked articles that work on the theme of "strategic future - analysis and projections for India".

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 06 Feb 2009 04:32

Shivji,
I have similar views as to the differentiation within "Muslims" under stress due to external interactions. This is the reason I consistently insist on targeting the theologians/and their networks, and not the entire community without distinction or discrimination. I also try to speak about retrieving these populations for Bharat, for I strongly feel that they belong to our roots, and only their ideological component has to be removed. If I did not think that such removals are possible I would not have said this. Humans are malleable - and in this particular case, as some will agree, it needs ideological/economic/cultural/charm offensive to "reintegrate" through a carrot-and-stick policy that also clearly recognizes the dangers from theologian inspired resistance, and therefore the need for state repressive forces to neutralize any "violent reaction".

From family background, I have seen examples of the effects on Muslims of close cultural and economic dependence on "majority" structures. I have the experience of working for almost a decade among various levels of Indian Muslims as part of organizational work from my early student days. I understand what you are saying since I came to similar conclusions not only from a theoretical angle but also from personal empirical observation long ago.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 Feb 2009 04:30

The AL gov in BD is pushing seriously for the "transit" agreement with India. They are also pushing for regional security task force, at least for anti-terrorism operations. Unkil has given its blessings thru Bahuchara. Th opposition mentions a curious faux-pas: they claimed that NE Indian "extremists" could target the Indian transit containers inside BD, not realizing that it shows that at least some quarters within BD find it quite normal that such extremists can operate freely within BD. A curious but not unexpected development for eastern India.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 Feb 2009 21:01

Bahuchara now proposes US naval participation in joint operations on BD territorial waters to protect and keep an eye on BD oceanic borders. An astute move to have a permanent excuse to be present in the Bay of Bengal. Sometime ago I have tried to bring up the strategic weakness of Indian naval presence in the Indian Ocean, where at least 25 bases are operated/shared by Unkil and UK. India should try and renegotiate/buy/pressurize to have access or control to at least some of these bases. The strategic scenario is getting worse for Indian core while its enemies are getting unified and linking up together and the country is getting ready to inaugurate a scion of the royal family of republican India, a family whose children need to go out of the country to learn how to "alleviate poverty" from societies and cultures with completely different parameters.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 09 Feb 2009 01:16

Brihaspati, do you have a link for the proposed US-BD naval coalition?

I fail to understand why the US Navy in subcontinental waters is a smart move?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 Feb 2009 01:26

Keshavji,
just read it off the english blurb on a BD daily news channel called NTV, today. I meant astute move on Unkil part. They were thwarted during the '71. But now by offering this they step in as big-brother/mediator in the territorial water disputes BD has with Myanmar and India. This will be a good excuse for them to place a small force with backup deeper in Indian Ocean on a semipermanent basis in the Bay. They can carry out all sorts of surveillance from their carriers.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 09 Feb 2009 01:57

brihaspati wrote:Keshavji,
just read it off the english blurb on a BD daily news channel called NTV, today. I meant astute move on Unkil part. They were thwarted during the '71. But now by offering this they step in as big-brother/mediator in the territorial water disputes BD has with Myanmar and India. This will be a good excuse for them to place a small force with backup deeper in Indian Ocean on a semipermanent basis in the Bay. They can carry out all sorts of surveillance from their carriers.

I actually forgot to read the last part of your comment. Haste truly is waste.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 Feb 2009 02:21

Keshavji,
I sometimes too write in haste!

However, it does concern me quite a lot to realize that Indian navy is perhaps overstretched, and does not even dominate the Indian Ocean as it needs to. Indian naval presence should be made to be felt at least in its "home" ocean. Sri Lanka can perhaps be a key in this direction for the future.

There is a lot of pressure possible within BD against the transit agreements. US could be stepping in to manipulate this opposition not to allow India to gain uncontested influence in the area. Access to the Chittagong port is something that is also going to be played up. US could assume the role of assuring BD as a permanent presence in the port to counterbalance Indian movements through it. Thus India could itself be used by US to gain toeholds in the eastern side of the Bay.

An immediate but long term strategic plan should be to help Myanmar in transition to democratic setup, and build up relations with Thailand. India should negotiate to have a corridor through Myanmar and invest in developing port facilities with agreements for joint bases.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 09 Feb 2009 02:32

brihaspati wrote:Sri Lanka can perhaps be a key in this direction for the future.

Sri Lanka is a toss up. GOI has given them a "carte blanche" (for a variety of reasons, people have speculated) to deal with the LTTE, but the entire deal with Rajiv Gandhi has made it difficult to negotiate with Sri Lanka. As others have reported in the technology forum, Sri Lanka has boosted its sales of Chinese and Pakistani weapons. The fact that they've sidelined India is a clear sign that there is a severe lack of trust from GOSL.

There is a lot of pressure possible within BD against the transit agreements. US could be stepping in to manipulate this opposition not to allow India to gain uncontested influence in the area. Access to the Chittagong port is something that is also going to be played up. US could assume the role of assuring BD as a permanent presence in the port to counterbalance Indian movements through it. Thus India could itself be used by US to gain toeholds in the eastern side of the Bay.

How would the US provide BD with permanent access to the port? With what forces?

What is the strength of the US navy in that region now? What kind of strength would you expect if BD invited them over?

What can India do to make this an issue?

An immediate but long term strategic plan should be to help Myanmar in transition to democratic setup, and build up relations with Thailand. India should negotiate to have a corridor through Myanmar and invest in developing port facilities with agreements for joint bases.

There are many tradeoffs to this. Burma had been instrumental in removing many terrorists from the North East border. Whether its held now with further BD involvement is something the experts on the board could possibly help with.

However, experimenting with democracy in Burma might provide a blueprint for exporting it to Bangladesh and Pakistan who are a far more constant source of trouble.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 Feb 2009 03:17

Keshavji,
Yes, GOI has goofed with the GOSL. But there have been overtures from time to time. A serious and determined GOI of the future can go a long way towards bringing SL into fold.

How would the US provide BD with permanent access to the port? With what forces?
What is the strength of the US navy in that region now? What kind of strength would you expect if BD invited them over?
What can India do to make this an issue?

US can simply have port facility use rights for the moment, and military agreements to enhance such rights. The modalities will be cleared once BD agrees. US has island bases in the Indian Ocean, and I think also agreements with Thailand. Actually US bases are further down with forward one in Diego Garcia. It is the Chinese who have a much greater presence all around India. Chinese presence in the Coco Islands, in Chittagong, in south Sri Lanka, Maldives, and of course around coastal Pakistan is of grave significance.

India can subtly use this Chinese threat to stake a share in the controlling of Indian Ocean, and no longer allow non Indian Oceanic powers to maintain hostile bases around India unchallenged. If a country allows this, then India should make it clear that India should also be given access to the same ports. This means a much greater proactive presence in Myanmar and Thailand, and call for regional collaboration stressing on local powers rather than those coming from outside. India can also increase its presence in the Pacific and join with Japan in its "ring of containment".

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 09 Feb 2009 04:05

brihaspati wrote:US can simply have port facility use rights for the moment, and military agreements to enhance such rights. The modalities will be cleared once BD agrees.

As in, "I give you weapons to fight India, you give us space in Chittagong"? Those kind of military agreements?

The idea seems slightly conspiratorial. More likely, the USA would simply use Bangladesh as a proxy in the same way Pakistan is being used and how Afghanistan was used during the Cold War.

Actually US bases are further down with forward one in Diego Garcia. It is the Chinese who have a much greater presence all around India. Chinese presence in the Coco Islands, in Chittagong, in south Sri Lanka, Maldives, and of course around coastal Pakistan is of grave significance.

Source?

This means a much greater proactive presence in Myanmar and Thailand, and call for regional collaboration stressing on local powers rather than those coming from outside. India can also increase its presence in the Pacific and join with Japan in its "ring of containment".

What does it mean to have a proactive presence? Do we increase business with them? Help build up their infrastructure? Include them on Shah Rukh Khan's next concert tour stop? Include defense contracts?

Combination of soft and hard power or concentrate on soft power with friendly states?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 Feb 2009 04:37

Keshavji:

sources: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=5564
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5330033/Forei ... dian-Ocean

Well, not just weapons, but the promise to use US influence on GOI to maintain power balance and ensure favourable terms in trade and other disputes. There is still the unfinished business of the arms shipment that got "caught" while passing through the Chittaging port. What US could simply be heading for is a more political and economic justification for its more durable military presence in the area.

Proactive: This can be region specific. For Myanmar, India could negotiate for transition to democracy, reinforce cultural connections through Buddhist institutions, and essentially invest economically. By being involved in the political transition, India could undermine the PRC involvement in Myanmar as connected to support of authroitariansim and anti-democracy. For Thailand, the cultural connection as well as joint concerns and operations against Islamic terror which plagues the south could come up. Increasing trade relations, investments, infrastructure development, educational and healthcare expertise - packaged with joint military operations, and presence.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 09 Feb 2009 05:49

Time to divide Pakistan?

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 09 Feb 2009 07:03

Instead of wasting time and energy dividing it, India should:

1) Beef up its internal security to prevent future terrorist attacks.

2) Stop the flow of American money to Pakistan

3) Watch it dissolve to a state/non-state, where it continually hovers above collapse. The people will fight one another and India can have progress.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 11 Feb 2009 02:51

Brihaspati -
A source to back your claim of US intervention in the Indian Ocean.

http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=75060

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Feb 2009 03:34

Keshavji,
Thanks for the link. By the way, a BRfite has reminded me of the loss of initiative about oil-gas explorations in Myanmar to PRC. There was the possibility of PRC political support to the Myanmar military junta leading to this favour. Here is a critical question thats very relevant as far as strategic policy is concerned. On the one hand, delaying to have initiatives in the peripheral countries, could lead to PRC or other pseudo-friendly powers to move in. However, when we have an authoritarian and regressive regime at power in that peripheral country, do we still negotiate and participate in economic military initiatives with such repressive regimes? India's role has to be seen as initiator of progress. In Myanmar's case, by getting associated with the repressive junta, India's image gets lowered in the commoner's eyes - or perhaps what is practically more relevant, in the eyes of the vocal minority of middle-upper-middle "class" groups. This is a tricky question. But a relatively ethically acceptable policy could be formal continued negotiations and relations with the "junta", but allowing a third "political/military" grouping to form within India and Myanmar that aims for restoration of democracy and progress. The GOI can then act as a mediator between two sides to an acceptable transition. As a side effect, PRC's anti democratic attitude and role should be clearly highlighted and used.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Feb 2009 17:39

George Cloony to be the first First Gentleman of an Independent Sindh.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Feb 2009 17:57

On Sindhi aspirations for a free Sindh

The Sindh Story by K.R. Malkani

Jiye Sindh

First the so-called Islamic State of Pakistan''. It is altogether un-Islamic. There has never been an Islamic State --- and there never can be one. It is ridiculous to say that the Koran is the last word in wisdom or knowledge. And in any case there is nothing in the Koran on which you can base a modern polity --- or build a modern economy.

Muslims have been divided into various schools from the first day. There are 350 different sects of Islam. There is no provision for a Khalifa in the Koran; but a Khalifa was fabricated nevertheless --- on the model of the Pope. Religion and politics were also mixed up in Islam --- again on the model of the mediaeval Church. Christians, however, had the good sense to separate the Church from the State centuries ago. Muslims continue to mix up the two --- and muddy both.

Islamic principles are fine; but ``Arab Chhaap Islam'' (``Made in Arabia Islam'') has always been intolerant, aggressive and imperialist. The Arabs invaded Sindh in the name of Islam, sacked it in the name of Islam, sold 20,000 Sindhi men, women and children in slavery, again in the name of Islam. We have no use for that kind of Islam. Even tyrannical rulers such as Timur and Aurangzeb had been hailed as ``great Islamic leaders''.

Also much of what passes for Islam is pre-Mohammedan Arab tribal customs. Qaaba, says Syed, is believed to be an old Shiva linga. Hajis still throw stones to kill old Arab goddesses Manaat and Laat. They run between two hills, Marru and Safaa, because that is what Ibrahim's slave-girl Hajran did in search of water when she was about to deliver a baby. These are primitive Arab customs which have nothing to do with Islam. The water of the Indus is not less holy than that of the Arab well of Zam Zam.

The people here want to be buried in Arabia for a favourable position before Allah on the Day of judgement. They do not know that some time after burial, the Arabs take out their bodies and throw them into a cave. What kind of schools and colleges can be established by people who have been burning libraries? Can the people, who have been warring on music and dancing, ever do justice to radio and television?

Pakistan is a denial of Indian geography and history. It goes against the grain of Ashoka and Akbar. In any case, if the Arabs who speak the same language and swear by the same Allah can have separate states, why cannot the Sindhis, the Punjabis, the Baluchis and the Pakhtoons have separate, sovereign states of their own? To keep them together against their wishes is to give them a common funeral.

Pakistan is a sinful state, founded on the ashes of all sound principles. It is a thieves' kitchen. It is led by kafan-chors (people who would steal even coffins). Even as a ``bhangi'' (scavenger) does not become ``great'' by being called mahtar, this randi-khana [house of (political) prostitution] does not become ``holy'' by just being named ``Pakistan''. The Sindhis do not want to have anything to do with such a state.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 11 Feb 2009 21:33

From the Sindhi link above:

http://indus.usask.ca/~jamali/sindh/story/node19.html

Iqbal himself admitted that he had come out in support of Pakistan because ``Lord Lothian, Under Secretary of State for India, assured me that India would be partitioned.''

Anyone know more on this? Which year was this assurance given? Was the TSP movement already public at that point?

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 13 Feb 2009 07:04

The link provided about the "Story of Sindh" and "Jiye Sindh" should probably be researched before its claims are taken at face value.

The man is an RSS worker and bound to have prejudices of his own. I honestly don't know any Sindhis besides L.K. Advani and the few excerpts I've read of his memoirs.

It would probably be best to read translations of the other Sindhi writers to confirm or deny the claims he makes.

He referes to a G. M. Syed. Maybe someone could find his book and find out if such Hindu and Muslim interaction occurred before Partition?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Feb 2009 20:07

The question of what happened before the Partition is perhaps not so important - as lots of things changed after the Partition. Many who would have perhaps otherwise identified with or fought for an indpendent Sindhi identity have either migrated out or they and their progeny no longer feel that sure of what that Sindhi identity will mean currently after demographic changes - partial ethnic cleansing of "Hindus" etc. Islamization has been tried out in earnest, and a lot of fuedalism is sought to be protected behind increasing Islamic radicalization. Also Ashoka and Akbar in the same bracket - that sounds highly dubious! It is time we stop romanticizing Akbar.

After the early Arab raids and some settlement, there were indications that Arab culture retreated a bit from the Sindh area, and what remained was more an adaptation on Arab settlers of Sindhi customs rather than the other way around. This of course was gradually turned around under various Islamic state repression to the other direction and egged on by the Ulemas imported from the ideologically and economically arid middle east.

What exists now in Sindh, if allowed to gain an independent identity will simply accelerate towards a strongly Arabic Wahabi Islamic identity - for centuries of Islamic state machinery has ensured that almost all cultural memory of pre-Islamic alternative thinking has been erased or denigrated and destoyed through propaganda and brian-washing. The Ulema and the Islamic clergy - the main poisonous breed of human-serpents have been allowed to flourish - and if Sindh is cut adrift - it will go into the hands of these serpents. For Islamic theologians have no shame or self-restricting ideological components that will hold them back from ruthless search for power and the sadistic enjoyment of pain in non-Muslims - while all other non-Muslim ideologies will have various self-imposed restrictions and therefore never a match for Islamic theologians.

Sindh has to be secularized and placed under tight secular state control - this is absolutely necessary to eliminate the Ulema, dismantle its educational system, see to it that the Arabic wahabi faith gets no support or protection from the state, and preserve and let its non-Muslim component grow sufficiently to regain confidence in their own existence. I see no good alternative in doing this except incorporation as a centrally administered territory for at least a generation by India.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Feb 2009 20:14

There are speculations in threads now about the possibility of US promoting an independent Balochistan and bifurcate TSP. I had speculated all along about the desirability of giving Baloch independence and using such independence as condition for other plans for TSP. In the beginning my thought on this came about while thinking of alternative viable means of supplying Indian presence in AFG as well as NATO. Well it just might have worked for the US if it was taken say about an year ago. Not anymore.

What can US gain from an independent Balochistan that is also willing to cooperate ?
(a) Indian Ocean passage to AFG (b) independence from Islamabad, CAR, Rus (c) possibility of encouraging Iranian Balochs across the border against Teheran.

Disadvantages : The Talebjabis have already formed the nucleus of their Caliphate in the NWFP and FATA, and they are simply consolidating now for their next expansive push. If the US has to achieve its supposed targets it has to do it very very quickly, probably within weeks or at most a couple of months. Pakjab and PA is almost ready to go the Taleb way, and the US will have the greatest of difficulties to push through to establish a safe overland route to AFG. Isolated from the US support route after the rest of NATO retreat quickly through CAR and RUS, Karazai will only have one option- that to side with the RUS. Which means a virtual splitting of AFG into a northern Tajikistan and a southern hydra that is more Taleb-Caliphate than a Pashtunistan.

For Indians, all romantic thought of sitting and enjoying how the dried cowdung of TSP burns could turn out to be the proverbial case of being the wet cowdung itself. In the end, what has always succeeded against ruthless terror is a thousandfold more intense and ruthless counter terror. All that the Talebs carry out on others should be returned a thousand times on the Talebs themselves. In this struggle there is no quarter. Unless the psychological aspect of terror methodologies are understood and applied back on the Talebs - no grounds will be gained, and all progress acheived at huge economic and human cost will be frittered away through the self-imposed moral and ethical restrictions that hold back all forces against Jihad.

A future LOI (leadership of India - not mere Government) must plan to take initiative of all possible kinds to destroy not only the Talebs but all possible sources of their future regeneration - which means liquidation of theologians and their networks and all possible supporting sections for such theologians. This can never be done unless we have state control over these areas and populations. The legal aspects of moving a resolution at the UN for removing human rights accorded under the Geneva convention from those who themselves by their actions and declarations have proved to be against such rights for others, should be looked into. This is a serious constraint that prevents counter-terror operations against Sharia touting forces of the required nature. A future LOI has to declare Talebs as non-humans, and that any means can be undertaken to exterminate them as pests. This is the task of the hour, the minute, and the second. Waiting and delaying will be fatal. This has to be done, with the US or without the US - but it has to be kept in mind that the US is simply in it for power - we have to be in it for it is our home we are fighting for.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Feb 2009 04:54

The time is now drawing near to test the hypothesis that TSP will implode, from subnational, economic and other conflicts and collapses. I have all along maintained that TSP is unlikely to implode into what many hope will be a many splintered fractured scenario, busy fighting each so much that they cease to be a threat to India.

My main contention was that Jihadi Talebjabi Islam will hold the pieces together. They will achieve this by ruthless application of terror. Moreover, populations faced with systematic terror and already preprogrammed to accept the Sharia type of systemic terror will be unable to resist such onslaught. For many such a theologian led state apparatus will be more attractive because it will be at least more consistent and predictable than the conflicting, unstable and inconsistent behaviour of the TSP state pulled into contradictory directions by the PA, political extensions towards pretensions of democracy, and international powers. Such a theologian state will appear more native and "natural" for these populations compared to the alien concepts of modern liberal democracy - concepts completely antagonistic to the Sharia.

All the so-called subnational conflicts many pin their hopes on will succumb before the Talebjabi onslaught. The theologians are simply calling a halt to their expansion programme to consolidate their current holdings. They will form the basis of their new state in the frontier areas between current TSP and AFG. Pakjab and most of PA are almost ready to welcome expansion of this state into their own. PA has hardly any other alternative, as probably most of its lower ranks are already "converted". Also the Islamic state cultivates submission to the "winner" and before the fusion of state-political-military-theologian authority. What the British started as the evil programme of revival and consolidation of the most retrogressive features of Islamic theology in the middle east and in India has now matured fully.

This is a new conglomerate entity where, Taleb theologians and TSP state and military authority have each transmuted each other to form a single body, where the theologians are currently showing more the "theologian" aspect and the TSP state is showing the more conventional "state" aspect. In reality they already function as extensions of the same entity which we can dub the neo-Caliphate. The reason most international powers are failing to realize the trend is because they do not understand how Islam treats the question of power - and how it fuses state-theology-military-proselytization into a single entity and framework. When Islam gets weak its theologians pretend to separate themselves from military-state power so that military attacks and the physical destruction of the theologians' networks can be avoided. But the main agenda of ultimately getting strong enough to regain the fusion is always there.

The blind and mad imperialist ambitions of the PRC, Russian desire to reach the middle-eastern oil fields and NATO presence in the tropical Indian Ocean, and the US one-up manship and typically extremely shortsighted European statesmanship, have all been cleverly used by the theologians to play off against one another and thereby neutralize each other. This allows them the political military space where they can survive and grow. Their next formal expansion will be into Pakjab, Sind and POK. This will take place under the cover of imposition of the Sharia and so-called strict Islamization of these areas. Once these areas are firmly under the Caliphate control, the next phase of expansion will target India and northern AFG. India is a soft target for the Caliphate. To resist a ruthless Jihadi entity like the Caliphate, one needs an equally ruthless ideologically motivated hardline movement which understands the psychological aspects of Jihadi terror and has the determination to return the favour through a thousandfold counter terror. It has become now obvious that Indian society has sufficiently strong internal forces to neutralize and prevent the formation of such resistance - as it has done in the case of the only potential such grouping - the so-called "Hindu right". India has allowed the Islamic theologians to survive and flourish within its borders who have never been subjected to the criticism, denigration and delegitimization that have been concentrated on the leadership of the "Hindu". Thus the Islamic theologians within India have managed the classic Islamic subterfuge of pretending to separate from the state-political-military ambitions until the time is ripe enough, and all the while managed to consolidate and preserve their authority over Muslim populations.

When theologians will give the call, all formal claims of giving precedence to "India" over Islam will vanish - for ultimately the theologians have managed to keep their educational ideological hold where the authority of the core texts remain supreme. In spite of recent protestations we see no persistent society wide attempts by Muslims themselves to delegitimize, denigrate and undermine the authority of the theologians. This Indian society which is psychologically completely unprepared to counter Jihadi Islamic terror, will not be able to counter the Caliphate if the Caliphate can mount its expansionist moves quickly enough. The Caliphate also knows that giving India longer time could endanger its agenda as right wing could grow stronger in the future. This is why we will see a lull and even a pretension to retreat from aggressive attacks on India until a favourable GOI retruns to power. We will see formal tokens of "retreat" and "submission" from the neo-Caliphate so that the pro-Islamic factions can appear "strong" and the "winner" in front of the electorate.

The Caliphate crucially needs modern weapons and ammunitions, which at the moment it is being supplied through the PA mechanism. But continued supply will depend on the PRC and probably indirect and covert input from EU and other international arms producers. The Caliphate will do everything possible to delude the PRC to maintain this supply and possibly help PRC to occupy more parts of India preferably to the east where the Caliphates agents and infratructure within BD has not benn shown to have been completely dismantled.

Only way forward for India to save itself - pre-empt, and seize the initiative.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 17 Feb 2009 05:20

Brihaspati -

I generally dislike one-liners in response to long thought-out pieces, but of all the people, I expected this the least from you - can you say conspiracy theory/wet dream?

And just to play Ravana's Advocate to myself:
Whose to say Pakistan is as what you say currently? Doesn't the PA already call itself the "Army of Islam"?

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 17 Feb 2009 06:27

Brihaspatiji:

Much as I would like to see the US (or whomever) back the formation of an independent Baloch state, there is one reason I don't think such a state would be viable.

That reason is the Baloch themselves. I don't think it's a practical effort to build a Baloch nation (in the sense of a modern day Westphalian nation-state) because you'd be building it out of essentially nothing and on no available foundation. It would be such an enormous and expensive effort that convincing a potential backer that it was worthy of their support would be difficult in the best of times. At times like this, when Robert Gates pinches pennies and furiously narrows the scope of even the Afghan mission; I'd say it's pretty well impossible.

There are peoples in the world who do not fit the classic definition of "civilized" i.e. who have not perfected the art of living in cities. I hesitate to use the term "civilized" because it has been imbued by rhetoric with the onus of qualitative judgement (civilized being the "good" antonym and savage being the "bad" one). But I cannot think of a better one.

I speak of peoples like the North American, Australian or New Zealand aboriginals in the 19th Century. Peoples who were never compelled to evolve the art of living in cities because it provided no significant survival advantage (until far too late!) Peoples who have subsumed themselves into the wider land because there was so much of it, and so few of them.

This is in contrast to river-valley people (the classic example of "civilized" folk) for whom settling down into farming units and agglomerating these over the centuries into cities, presented an obviously advantageous strategy.

I don't think you could any more build a Baluch nation state, in practical terms, than the Soviets could have managed to construct an independent Inuit nation state in Alaska. It's not that the Balochis are primitive... just that they have really no precedent of cohesion into larger urban units than individual strongholds dispersed in the wilderness. Even though they might use GPS systems and Land Rovers and Stinger Missiles, they have no civilizational heritage of bourses and aqueducts and universities to lay the foundations of a nation on.

This does not mean that a Balochi nation has zero chance of viability if backed strongly enough and nurtured with enough resources and expertise from outside. Like any people, they could even today nucleate a "civilized" period in their own evolution. After all this is exactly what the Marathas did some 350 years ago, when they went from being hill people of the Western Ghats to laying the foundation of a subcontinental empire in Poona. However, those are what Ramana likes to call "Black Swan" events when they happen spontaneously and autonomically. The thermodynamics of nation building do not favor the manifestation of a Baloch nation in the same way as they do, say, a Mesopotamian one.

The Pashtuns are similar to the Balochis in this regard but historically a little bit closer to the "city dweller" end of the spectrum. Though they have built no great cities of their own, they have proved able governors of cities built by others. They are perhaps more comparable to the Scots, in demonstrating both Sarkari (like the Campbells during the Jacobite uprisings) and Highlander behaviour in different instances.

It is the ambition of the Pakjabis, who see themselves as the inheritors of the Mughal Empire (plains-Mussalmans), to use the Pashtuns as imperial servitors, governing their frontier possessions in Afghanistan. Today the Pashtuns have turned on the Pakjabis and we are faced with what you call the "wet-cowdung" quandary

I only wonder if the Pashtuns might surprise us by sending forth a Sher Shah Suri where we expected only Ghoris and Ghaznavis?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 17 Feb 2009 14:12

Keshav wrote: Doesn't the PA already call itself the "Army of Islam"?

The motto of the Pakistani Army reads: "Iman, Taqwa, Jihad fi Sabilillah". Translated into English, it means "Faith, Piety, to strive in the path of Allah ...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Feb 2009 20:51

Brihaspati -
I generally dislike one-liners in response to long thought-out pieces, but of all the people, I expected this the least from you - can you say conspiracy theory/wet dream?
And just to play Ravana's Advocate to myself:
Whose to say Pakistan is as what you say currently? Doesn't the PA already call itself the "Army of Islam"?

Keshavji,
please don't put me on a pedestal.

However my conclusions are not based on fantasies or conspiracy theories. I have spent a long time trying to understand how the Mulsim theologian's mind works. It is a fascinating study of the search for power in individuals who are deeply insecure. One of the greatest of ours shortcomings is that we try to model the other by what we believe is "natural" in ourselves. This is why most of the time non-Muslim's fail to model the theologian power structure within Islam. In the context of the TSP-Talebjabi neo-Caliphate, I have written before on this also in this forum in various threads. I have always maintained that the best parsimonious model (Occam's razor) explaining Talebjabi behaviour is the mutual transmutation of the Talebs and the PA (the latter thinks of itself as the whole Pakistani state) into a new core patterned along the classic Islamic model of politics-faith-military power fused together in a theocracy led state apparatus. I have also patiently tried to explain the motivations for this neo-Caliphate to expand into the fertile lands of India and subjugate its populations.

If you are referring to my hints of India expanding into TSP, etc, then it is not a wet dream. I have reasoned about this with my reasoning many times before in these threads. However I had expressed my doubts about the feasibility of incorporating the Balochs, but was rather in favour of tactically assuring them independence to secure strategic advantages from a positional military viewpoint about securing the flanks while moving north through Sind to Pakjab and secure northern bank of the Indus against the neo-Caliphate.

Rudradevji has a point about the non-urban character of most of Balochis. However, more than that what makes it less viable as an independent entity is the pressures it will be subject to in balancing AFG, Iran, US, PRC and RUS pressures. Mere "rural"ness does not impede formation of "independent nations" in the modern era - if powerful patrons are available - think of the samll South Pacific republics and the recent formation of East Timor.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 17 Feb 2009 21:15

brihaspati wrote:
Rudradevji has a point about the non-urban character of most of Balochis. However, more than that what makes it less viable as an independent entity is the pressures it will be subject to in balancing AFG, Iran, US, PRC and RUS pressures. Mere "rural"ness does not impede formation of "independent nations" in the modern era - if powerful patrons are available - think of the samll South Pacific republics and the recent formation of East Timor.

It's not mere ruralness... even the Iraqis of Anbar may be "rural" but throughout history, they've had the civilizational experience of integrating economically, culturally and socially with a larger national unit as represented by Mesopotamian cities. By contrast, Quetta for most of its existence was just a provincial fort garrisoned by whichever foreign general was marching through the region... and in the 1400 years of its existence, never became a nucleus of indigenous civilization. The Khans of Kalat might have changed that if they'd been able to join India but were never given the chance. So it remains an imperial outpost to this day.

As for the South Pacific republics or East Timor... one thing that has helped them in becoming viable sovereign nations and maintaining an independent existence is that they are small, hence easily governable and fairly densely inhabited even by their small populations. Another is that, as islands they are protected by geographical isolation in a way that an independent Baluchistan would never be.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Feb 2009 21:31

Baluchistan should be a full member of the Indian Union.

It is one of the most strategic piece of real-estate lying around, and if we don't go for it, somebody else will. Then we will cry for it for the next century, the way we do for Northern Areas, Chittagong and less openly for Tibet.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Feb 2009 21:55

RajeshA ad Rudradevji,
My main hesitation in incorporating the Balochs was in the fact that they already think of themselves as an independent nation and the sparse population and wide arid wasteland makes it too expensive and inefficient to maintain. An independent Balochistan will be treated as a thorn by Iran, and will be kept under pressure from that side. Compared to that the more populated, intensely cultivated and settled Pakjab and to a lesser extent Sind itself are easier to control, especially for our purpose. Having Sind serves the purpose of securing the Indus seaboard to the Indian Ocean, and we do not immediately have to manage Balochistan. In the future all the factor mentioend by Rudradevji can very much come to bear. In fact I think I have commented before in this forum, that sooner or later many of the so-called independent entities may have very little option left other than joining the Indian union. So in that sense in the long run Balochs may not be able to maintain an independent existence - but I was in favour of getting them as allies rather than one more insurgent "freedom" seeking area to "subdue" in the intitial crucial phase of securing the south of TSP for India and a buffer to protect the left flank of Sind while moving up north towards Pakjab.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Feb 2009 22:07

The book on the great game by Chuck Brobst says the US always had its eyes on Balochistan since the days of Gen Curtis Lemay who charted a direct route to heartland of SU from there. That was one motivation for the Khanate of Kalat to be incrop into TSP. Balochistan was never in the "India" of Caroe's plans.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Feb 2009 22:45

Brihaspati Ji,

The Baluchis like to think of themselves as independent, and that is to be appreciated. What I don't understand from your comments is

but I was in favour of getting them as allies rather than one more insurgent "freedom" seeking area to "subdue" in the intitial crucial phase of securing the south of TSP for India

I am not talking about subduing the Baluchi people. I am talking about presenting them with a Maharaja Hari Singh alternative.

If the Baluchis do not accept being a part of the Indian Union, they have the alternatives:

1. Being run over by the Taliban and being forced to obey their diktat. Pushtunistan Maps already consider Baluchistan a part of Pushtunistan.

2. Being gobbled by Iran, a Shia Theocracy.

3. Being constantly attacked by future Pakjabi Army, to subdue them.

4. Become a playground for foreign armies: Arabs, Americans, Russians, Chinese, Iranians.

5. Become or remain a failed state, without infrastructure, where nobody sends any development money.

None of these alternatives is really inviting.

An Indian State willing to invest in infrastructure in Baluchistan and advancement of the Baluchis would be a thousand times more appealing, as long as one gives them the respect and the autonomy. India has the multiethnic politic to take care of ethnic diversity, something Pakistan never had, and never will.

Incorporating Pakjab or Sindh, according to my opinion, is an exercise, for which nobody in India, really has the stomach. Your prescription of Reindicization of the Pakjabis and Sindhis is to my view, overly ambitious and unrealistic, because in order to do that, India would have to first change herself, and the mentality of her elite would have to change. That my friend, makes the project unrealistic, simply because, that would be too much of a leap of faith, too many spots would require an excisional biopsy.

I am not saying, it cannot be done, or one should not do it, all I am saying is, that one should go for the low-hanging fruit first.

Ramana ji,
You have to forgive me for still being not very knowledgeable on the intricacies of the Great Game, BUT

I am sure, America would be more willing to consider Baluchistan as part of India, if India promises the Americans the use of Gwadar for the next 20 odd years, as a military base, as well as secure supply lines on great highways and railroad all the way to Afghanistan. I think, the strategic benefits to India are sufficiently worthwhile, that such an obnoxious offer can be made. Secondly even USA needs India to bear some of the burden of development of a strategic area and its neighborhood. Thirdly India has to first make a solid claim on Baluchistan and of our vital interests there before somebody takes us seriously.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Feb 2009 23:55

RajeshAji,
I appreciate your proposal and the logic behind it. I have thought of it myself. Its just that I have had some interaction with people connected to the issue, and I would be most careful in raising such a proposal with them directly. Some of the factions involved are fingered by the Saudis, Unkil and even TSP underlings. They could jump on to raise the being-swamped-by-Indian-imperialism bogey. Strangely, Kashmir still resonates ina section of the Baloch populace in the wrong way for India. I would prefer not to discuss more here.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Feb 2009 00:36

RajeshA, look at the map. How do you propose Baloch can get Indian protectorate status without Sindh also being in the mix? And my ideas are to do that irregardless of the Anglo-Saxon interests. Why would US agree to India taking over Baloch when they are the successor state to the British Imperial state whihch created TSP to ensure Central Asian 'stability'?

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

Ramana wrote
RajeshA, look at the map. How do you propose Baloch can get Indian protectorate status without Sindh also being in the mix? And my ideas are to do that irregardless of the Anglo-Saxon interests. Why would US agree to India taking over Baloch when they are the successor state to the British Imperial state whihch created TSP to ensure Central Asian 'stability'?

I agree. From a positional viewpoint, even a protectorate status to be meaningful will need not only sea-board support but land support as well. I think we have discussed this before, but without Sind under Indian presence, the nascent Baloch state will be at the mercy of Talebjabis and Iranians from three sides, and Indian navy will have to cross TSP naval extensions through Sind to support and prop up the Baloch regime. In fact Unkil will not like it at all if the shortest corridor to AFG and CAR is not under its primary sphere of influence. However, all this time GOI has been only reacting and never taken seriously any initiative for the long term incorporations. That is the task of a proper future LOI (leadership of India) if and when it appears. India's plans cannot be dependent on crucial inouts from Unkil or any such force, there has to be plans for incorporation where even Unkil opposition should be taken into consideration.