West Asia News and Discussions

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 03 Apr 2011 23:31

JEM Saar, my confusion onlee. Apologies. Yes, Hawala is pretty big too.

Trade - our trade is mainly re-export no?

Should we continue to strengthen our relations with GCC or isolate ourselves a bit from them? What do you think saar?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 04 Apr 2011 00:00

>>Should we continue to strengthen our relations with GCC or isolate ourselves a bit from them? What do you think saar?

Boss, is this a trick question?

You know the answer as well as I do.

Why kill a golden goose? And one that's promising to lay two eggs a day!!!

But we simply need to be careful that the goose does not crap inside our property. This will take some managing, but is possible. The problem is our own "secularism at the cost of reason" nut-cases. Prime example: Mani Shankar Aiyar...

The other day he told Chandan Mitra on NDTV, We The People, "We don't kill Muslims in Ahmedabad". Mitra was shocked and stutterring and couldn't formulate a response properly. What he should have said was "No you kill Sikhs in Delhi" and that would have shut that idiot up, and garnered a laugh from the crowd.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Apr 2011 00:38

Okay gurulog,
2005 estimates of religion breakdown of populations for UAE stands at 15% for "other" including Hindus+Buddhists+Sikhs+Bahais+Parsis. Allocating all of that quota to "Hindus" with mid-cycle estimated total population of UAE at approximately 4.6 million, gives us 0.69 million. Using the lower and conservative estimate for total Indian expat population at the mid-cycle range to be around 1.6, this gives us roughly 0.9 million Indian Muslims. Since 0.9 > 0.69 I guess, "more Hindus" than Muslims of Indian origin is unlikely.

Remember this is a rough calculation based on allocating all of 15% to "Hindus" - but the "others" category will include other categories including "Buddhists" which includes possible misallocation from China and other non-Indian origins.

Some estimates like that of the older State Dept., "religious freedom" estimates and later 2003 tentative estimates from UAE gov sources limit Hindus to less than 5%. With such a lower proportion, figures would come to ratios of 1.46 for Muslims to 0.23 for Hindus. So even if all those who gathered to honour did not amount to 1.5 million or were perhaps not all Kerala Muslims, the estimated numerical strength seems to be close enough!

Of course the higher estimate of 1.75 for total increases proportion further. But "Hindus">>"Muslims" in UAE at least is difficult to support based on trawling census figures.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Apr 2011 00:43

It seems "eye" estimators in the studies reported that I could access, all report disproportionately high numbers of "Hindus" among Indian expats [including state Dept report of "local eye estimate"], but not greater than 25%-30%. It could be biased because of possible social circle bias, or since more "Hindus" appear at the higher-socially-influential-visible sector, this gives a skewed proportion for the population in general.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Apr 2011 00:48

Additionally roughly 9% are supposed to be Christians, but almost all of it comes from the West and Philippines. So that does not substantially lower the rough estimates for IM in UAE.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 04 Apr 2011 02:13

On german help Tom mark payments Tom iran

Howcomeit is ok for germany to make payments to iran but not ok for india to do same?

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 04 Apr 2011 15:20

My visual anaylsis for 3 months in the Gelf (UAE) says that the Indian Hindu and Muslim population break down is half half. Anecdotal 'evidence' suggests IM population % is higher in KSA.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Apr 2011 17:34

Well, as my claculations above show, that even in UAE, Indian Muslims are almost surely substantially greater in number than the Hindus. The next round of census data should be available soon. At present I am on break and cannot access some databases. But the proportion of Muslims to Hindus are only going to increase in exact calculations even higher.

Eye impressions can be deceptive - and is a fact known well in sociological studies. We are biased by personal experiecne, ambience, and our social circles. I have heard this line of "Hindus are more in ME than Muslims from India" many times recently. At first it was puzzling for me. Then I realized that underlying there was this psychological need to prove the supposed "secular" nature of ME Islam and more importantly the "tolerant" nature of Islam in general. On hindsight it appears it was also a necessary counterpoint to support the future upcoming closer alliance with the GCC royals and Sunni clerical setup - to neutralize "Hindu" opinion.

But we should check out data as available before giving in to such propaganda.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 04 Apr 2011 17:47

brihaspati wrote: Allocating all of that quota to "Hindus" with mid-cycle estimated total population of UAE at approximately 4.6 million, gives us 0.69 million.

UAE population appears to have risen exponentially based on this report, mainly on account of expats. Mid 2010 figure is 8.2 Mil....UAE population

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 04 Apr 2011 17:52

Keep in mind the illegal immigrants too and also the politics surrounding population there.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Apr 2011 18:05

Arjun ji,
the growth rate is fast because of immigration. I had to use 2005 estimates because the religion estimates were based on estimates between 2003-2005. So I used population estimates also from projections of the same period. This was why I suggested that 2010 estimates [not complete yet and public domain in all aspects] would likely increase the ration in favour of IM.

As for illegal immigrants, we should keep in mind the standard observation used to estimate - that illegal migrants are likely to be less qualified, less literate, and coming from weaker economic sections. Hence since the common wisdom in India [given formal legitimacy by media and Commissions] that IM are poorer, less literate, and less qualified than their Hindu counterparts - they are likely to be represented more among illegal immigrants than Hindus.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 04 Apr 2011 19:45

Total number of NRI/PIO in UAE: 1.2 million (Ministry of Overseas Indians) - http://moia.gov.in/pdf/UAE.pdf
Total number of hindus in UAE: ~ 0.9 million (UAE Census and US govt estimate) - 15% of 6 million http://dubai.usconsulate.gov/uae_irf_2010.pdf

Hence, total # of Indian muslims: ~ 0.3 million...............

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Apr 2011 20:05

It is refreshing to see some school-boy arithmetic back again after so many years! We learn every day we live.

So we must use 1982 estimates of 1.2 million total Indian immigrants. But then we must use 2003-2005 estimates of total Hindu population [it is prefereabl to reject the government census report since it clubs Hindus into "other" brackets and hence lowers the number of Hindus which we must try to show as high - and use "unofficial" sources to peg the number at a higher value] - as 15%.

But hey, we must not stop there, we must use that percentage on the 2010 estimate of total population nearing 6 million(?) which is much higher than the roughly 4.6 million of circa 2005, so that we can push up the number of Hindus further, and then subtract all that from the 1982 estimates of total Indian expats!

Admins, seriously, should we open a new BRF maths uni? Perhaps start with a refresher course in basic logic first?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 04 Apr 2011 20:08

aw c'mon b-ji, its not bad as a back of the cigarette packet calculation

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 04 Apr 2011 21:11

^^^Its amazing how elliptically obtuse users of the queens language can be oblivious to even basic reading comprehension!

So an estimate of 1.2 million Indians in UAE by the Ministry of Overseas Indians is deemed to be a 1982 estimate! Never mind that the Ministry estimates it to be the "current number"...The fact that this data is vintage at least 2006 (or later) can also be discerned by even a cursory reading...

then a US government estimate of the total numbers of hindus in UAE is deemed to be a manipulated, overstated number! Maybe the demographic composition of Indian expats have magically altered in 3-4 years time! Better still, must be an American conspiracy...

Great, but really not surprised...Precisely the sort of comprehension skills that result in self styled academics to declare grandly that East Asian ccies were pegged to European ccies (based on their own, but non-referenceable works)

Maybe the sort that only did elementary maths in life managed to become "such" academics - the better ones did a little more

Anyway, last post on the topic...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Apr 2011 21:23

Lalmohan ji,
it is about illogicallity of assumptions. If you use 1982 totals in 2010, it means you are holding the total Indian expat population static. Anywhere in "core" "academic" practice over such statistics, people will burst into laughter. What is insidious is the manipulation and gradual inching forward of the "Hindu" percentage as much as possible. So the percentage of Hindus are calculated based on the latest estimate of total UAE population which are known to be much much higher than 1982, and in fact very rapidly increasing over the last 10-15 years.

All interim estimates between 2005, and 2010 [are not based on census - but projections based on various models, and therefore appear different in different reports.

Actually, taking the proportions argument - a logical approach would have been either restrict calculations to as close a time frame as possible for all three estimates (total/Indian/Hindu), or use proportions on all to compensate for time. Which means roughly 0.325 of total are Indians - and if that proportion does not change substantially then it gives us estimated out of 6 (2008-2009 by some projections - 7 by some others and nearly 8 by some others) 1.95. Retaining the 15% slot gives 0.9 which still leaves 1.05 for IM.

Of course we assume here that IM and Hindus have identical growth rates etc. Dicey, dicey therefore to use such projections longer term for such fast changing societies. I was wondering whether this type of projection magic played a part in the financial meltdown!

Taking the argument to 1.2 in 2005 - the calculation of Hindu figures should still then have been based on 2005 total population which was definitely not 6! Roughly 4 million would give 0.6 and not 0.9 million as is wished for and hence the proportions calculated on 2010 projections. With 0.6 that would still give only 0.6 for IM and not 0.3. etc!

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 04 Apr 2011 21:30

i don't disaprove of your rigour, just that i've been trained to do quick n dirty estimates therefore i am comfortable with that estimate with the usual error banding

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 04 Apr 2011 21:35

The 1.2 Mil figure appears to be pretty old - all other sources give numbers between 1.6 - 2 Mil...and that is excluding the very recent growth in expats that seems to have occurred over the last couple of years.

Btw, here is a wiki source that actually puts the Hindu % of Indian expats to be as low as 16% - but that seems to me to be the other extreme. There are no references in regard to the numbers....Indians in UAE

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Apr 2011 21:41

The religious freedom report from th State Department quotes UAE official sources as giving 15% for "others" including Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais, Parsis etc. It then adds "unofficial sources" which they do not reference as quoting the possibility for higher percentage for "Hindu". In fact they also quote local "estimate" as high as 25% etc. They state this in the context of non-census populations. But the that means a lot of assumptions that Hindus over represent the floating population etc. We need even sample surveys to confirm that impression.

Even after that I still allocated full 15% -all of the quota allocated officially by the UAE to the "other" - to Hindus!

I guess it is not about that much of not knowing maths but being dishonest and hypocritical in surreptitiously using higher total population so that as a percentage the totral number of Hindus can be shown to be much higher - and then the trick is to use a lower older total population figure which can then reduce the number of IM.

Good - the greater the exposure of such hypocrites the better!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Apr 2011 22:24

Let us see what the MOIA actually says about the figure 1.2 millions :

The inflow of Indian professionals and workers increased steadily until it peaked at 1.2 million persons by 1996. Most of the Indian migration to the UAE is from the state of Kerala.

Assuming that the "Queens English" here implies by association that "Indian professionals and workers" means "all Indian immigrants" - this is still a 1996 figure and NOT a 2006 figure. I guess making such claims about passing off 1996 figures as 2006 figures with supreme arrogance comes from a long lifetime of chicanery. Or it could be be a problem of comprehension too - not being able to distinguish between "199" and "200".

Where does it mention 2006 in connection with populations?

The population growth is estimated to be 1.52 percent in 2006. The net migration rate is 0.66 migrants per thousand populations in the year 2006, which proves that the out-migration is slightly higher then the in- migration.

This is not about total population in 2006. Any census data mentioned is quoted with 1982 in reference. In fact "2006" only occurs twice on the article, on page "1" and as quoted in the above.

The word "current" occurs in the context of oil :

Current oil production is around 2.2 million barrels per day (Proven oil reserves 98.8 billion barrels and natural gas-reserves – 212 trillion cubic feet).

The word "estimate" occurs only in the "growth" passage I quoted above.

I am not sure - may be other posters can figure out the deep code within Queen's English that has a different meaning assigned to "oil" in the context of "current" perhaps - maybe in that syntax it means oil==Indian expats? Will 2.2 in that case mean 1.2 and barrel==immigrant?

hmm.............................................................................

Of course all this could be symbolic.

To be fair - the lens of "comprehension" was not turned on the doc itself. For example "inflow" "peaked" in 1996 could mean the rate of influx peaked. But then that would be rather imprecise in Queen's English. Rate would be per unit time - does the doc mean 1.2 millions per year around 1996? I am sure the "peaked" word would be ceased upon as a straw - but it is in the context of "inflow" - not total population - to be precise as per the sentence.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 04 Apr 2011 22:33

I now know why there is a english comprehension test for most elite unis...

So a report in 2006 (or later) that says that the population of Indians "peaked" @ 1.2 million in 1996 is using only 1996 numbers?!! The Queen will be shattered to know !

And of course, diligence is never a virtue with certain kinds of academics! From the same report, in a later section:

About 1.2 million Indians (majority from Kerala) are living in UAE –
working in various fields ranging from managerial positions, senior executives
and professionals to labourers.

Maybe this is also 1996, or worse, 1982 data passed off as the latest...Somehow a report prepared in post-2006 uses dated data on NRIs, circa 1996 and 1982, but not on things like oil production and reserves! Not bad...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Apr 2011 22:37

Sure only supreme comprehension skills will endorse a document's claims - that the Indian population in UAE has remained static at 1.2 millions from 1996 to 2006. Not bad. But then precision would find the word "now" and not the much shouted "current estimate" in the same sentence! More examples of comprehensions perhaps. Wonderful!

Problem is that the 15% is still maintained within the State Dept report based on 2003-2005 data - when the total population was still of the order of 4 million and not 6 million as projected in 2008-2009 calculations. But of course if the agenda is to show Hindus outnumber IM in large numbers, honesty can easily be the casualty. That still only gives by elementary school arithmetic to at most equal equal and not the 3:1 ratio of 0.9:0.3. Agenda......agenda.....and "bold and brave" lies perhaps!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Apr 2011 23:23

Thanks for indepth examination of the issue B-ji; so it does appear to be a typical case of observer bias amongst "Indians like us".

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Apr 2011 00:11

somnath wrote:Total number of NRI/PIO in UAE: 1.2 million (Ministry of Overseas Indians) - http://moia.gov.in/pdf/UAE.pdf
Total number of hindus in UAE: ~ 0.9 million (UAE Census and US govt estimate) - 15% of 6 million http://dubai.usconsulate.gov/uae_irf_2010.pdf
Hence, total # of Indian muslims: ~ 0.3 million...............

Wow!!! what a mathematical inference

From the http://dubai.usconsulate.gov/uae_irf_2010.pdf link

The country has an area of 32,300 square miles and a population of 6 million. An estimated 85 percent of the country's residents are noncitizens. Of the citizens, more than 85 percent are Sunni Muslim and an estimated 15 percent or less are Shi'a. Noncitizen residents predominantly come from South and Southeast Asia, although there are substantial numbers from the Middle East, Europe, Central Asia, and North America. According to the most recent Ministry of Economy census (2005), 76 percent of the total population is Muslim, 9 percent is Christian, and 15 percent is "other." According to unofficial data, at least 15 percent of the resident population is Hindu and 5 percent is Buddhist. Groups that constitute less than 5 percent of the population include Parsi, Baha'i, Sikh, and Jews. These estimates differ from census figures because census figures do not take into account the many "temporary" visitors and workers while also counting Baha'is and Druze as Muslim.

This translates into

Code: Select all

Total Population	6,000,000
Muslim (76%)	4,560,000
Christian (9%)	540,000
Other (15%)	900,000
	
Citizens (15%)	900,000
Sunni (85%)	765,000
Shia (15%)	135,000

Non-Citizens (85%)	5,100,000

***	
Unofficial	1,500,000
Hindus (15%)	900,000
Buddhists (5%)	300,000
Really, really Others (5%)	300,000

So the closet (unofficial) Yindoos are more than entire NRI contingency (1.2 Mil per first link). That means some of Pakis already converted from RoP to Others

The percentage of Yindoos to the non-citizens is 18% (0.9 mil out of 5.1 mil).

*
**
***
P.S: Yesterdin I went to the grocery story and what I see

99% of american population are Indians and 90% of them are Yindooosss

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Apr 2011 01:14

The GCC-Pakistan relationship

04.04.2011 · Posted in Afghanistan, Balochistan, Energy, Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, Gulf, Indian Ocean, Iran, Israel, Middle East
By The Middle East Analysis blog

Pakistan and GCC countries enjoy close bilateral relations. Although all GCC nations have fairly close relations with Pakistan, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) stands out as having the closest relations with Pakistan. Successive Saudi leaders have visited Pakistan from time to time. King Saud visited Pakistan in 1954, King Faisal in 1966 and 1974. King Khalid in 1976. Similarly, King Fahd as Crown Prince visited Pakistan in 1980 and King Abdullah went to Pakistan as Crown Prince in 1984, 1997, 1998 and 2003.

What are the fundamentals of this relationship?
What keeps the bonds strong is the significant economic aid that Pakistan enjoys, dynasties in the Arabian Gulf enjoy protection from the Pakistani military and lastly religious affinity.

Economic Aid

The First and foremost problem with Pakistan is that, it is a country that survives on economic aid to sustain the functioning of the country. If it were not for this aid, Pakistan would be close to economic collapse as was seen in the balance of payments crisis in 2008. The 2 major contributors to this are the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Other GCC countries also contribute to the coffers of the Pakistani government, but none to the tune of KSA. The United States since 9/11 have contributed close to $17 billion in aid to Pakistan according to statistics recently published. In late 2009, the US Congress agreed to a package of $7.5 billion in civil aid over 5 years as well as an additional $2billion in military aid agreed in October 2010. There are no public figures to aid offered by KSA however; many have mentioned that contributions are significant – for example when oil prices reached their peak of $147, the Pakistani government had received a $300million grant from KSA in order to provide a budgetary cushion (in order to fill the fiscal gap) to the high oil prices.

In May 1998 when Pakistan was deciding whether to respond to India’s test of five nuclear weapons, the Saudis promised 50,000 barrels per day of free oil to help the Pakistanis cope with the economic sanctions that might be triggered by a counter test. The Saudi oil commitment was a key to then Prime Minster Nawaz Sharif’s decision to proceed with testing. It cushioned the subsequent U.S. and EU sanctions on Pakistan considerably. The post-1998 economic support by KSA was maintained for 3 years with deferred payments which were written off at the end of the term. In early 2008, they again agreed to deferred payments.

As one can see, Pakistan’s corrupt and security-phobic mindset squanders away its finances without investing in developmental activities and is hence highly reliant on economic aid from the US and the KSA in particular. Pakistan greatly relies on the support provided by the KSA in order to survive. Pakistan spends more money on military expenditure (estimated to be $5billion, of course Pakistan receives aid in addition to this which mostly is military) than education (estimated to be just 2.2% of GDP – i.e. $3 billion).

Military Relations

One of the major components to the Pakistani – GCC relations is military cooperation. Due to the economic situation of Pakistan, Pakistan has relied on other nations footing the bill for defence requirements. Most of the Pakistani defence requirements are provided under the guise of military aid to combat terror. However, it is acknowledged that much of the military aid is actually being diverted to being used to fund weapons purchases in order to be used against India – Former president Pervez Musharraf admitted that US military aid given to Pakistan during his tenure was used to strengthen defences against India.

What about cooperation between Pakistan and the GCC?

Pakistan has provided military aid and expertise to the kingdom for decades. It began with help to the Royal Saudi Air Force to build and pilot its first jet fighters in the 1960s. Pakistani Air Force pilots flew RSAF Lightning’s that repulsed a South Yemeni incursion into the kingdom’s southern border in 1969. In the 1970s and 1980s up to 15,000 Pakistani troops were stationed in the kingdom.

As recently as late 2009/early 2010, during the Saudi conflict with the Houthi rebels, Pakistani forces had been deployed. This author understands that Pakistani Air Force pilots were operating missions in support of Saudi forces fighting the Houthi rebels. Some unverified sources have suggested that the Pakistani Air Force were paid per mission undertaken in the conflict.

During the visit of Assistant Defence Minister of KSA Prince Khaled bin Sultan to Pakistan in 2004, a tighter military cooperation was made between the two countries. For the first time a discreet visit to Kahuta was also made. Kahuta is home to Khan Research Laboratories which houses Pakistani nuclear arms facilities.

Here are some highlights of the defence relations between the 2 countries:
- Increase in training of the number of Saudi nuclear physicists at KRL, Kahuta
- Support Pakistani defence industry by purchasing Al Khalid tanks and offering sub-contractor work for the $7billion Saudi MIKSA border protection program to Pakistani government contractors.
- Stationing of a 1000 pakistani soldiers in KSA, with the option to increase to 80,000 in the event of a major conflict.
- A joint military Command in Saudi Arabia with pre-positioned arms dumps.
- Possible integration with the Peninsula Shield in Hafr Al Bateen along with allied states such as Egypt.
- Saudi pilots will travel to Rawalpindi for training along with Pakistani Air Force pilots.
- There are persistant rumours that Pakistan acted as a conduit for nuclear capable missiles to Saudi Arabia.

Any close watchers of the region can see that Pakistan co-ordinates military purchases closely with the GCC. It is also a well known fact that Pakistani defence purchases are partly paid for by the KSA. Purchase of French Agosta submarines as well as US F-16D’s were some of the examples. This is done so that the GCC can call upon the services of the Pakistani armed forces when needed.

The author understands that Riyadh relies on Pakistani personnel to fill in gaps in personnel in the Saudi military – mainly the Air Force which flies similar aircraft to the Pakistani Air Force. The agreement is that in exchange for bankrolling Pakistani purchases of defence equipment, in return Pakistan provides some of its more experienced pilots/naval officers to be seconded to the Saudi military.

The Downsides to relations with Pakistan

It is apparent today that most major terror plots involve Pakistan in some way or form – usually training and other support. Muscat was made the target of attacks in 2007. Lashkar sympathisers in Oman had plans of targeting prominent landmarks in Muscat, among them a British Broadcasting Corporation office, the Golden Tulip Hotel, and a spa in the upmarket Nizwa area. No final operational plans were made, but Oman authorities found enough evidence to sentence suspects to life in prison. [Related Links: 1 2 3 4]

Members of the AQAP (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) are also known to be very active in the Af-Pak region and evidence suggests that these individuals receive support from the Pakistani ISI (Inter Services Intelligence). It is also noteworthy to remember that the head of the Al Qaeda’s military wing Brigade 313 is Ilyas Kashmiri – A former member of the Pakistani Army’s Special Services Group (SSG). A well known fact is that the Pakistani army is known to use the services of ex-servicemen for supporting jihadi/terror activities targeting India and ISAF troops (of which Bahrain and the UAE militaries also have a presence) in Afghanistan.

It is also not a coincidence that the Saudi ministry of interior recently released names of 47 most wanted terrorists, of which the majority (27) were located in the Af-Pak region. Majority of these leaders are likely to be living under protection of Taliban and their allies such as the Haqqani network. Many of these groups are armed and trained by the Pakistani military. It is also well acknowledged that the Taliban and its leadership are under the control of the ISI. A question GCC security officials need to ask themselves is, is it worth supporting a nation that continues to harbor/support individuals that are trying to topple their governments?

The GCC officials should also be reminded that one of the gravest threats they face today – the Iranian nuclear threat – was caused directly by Pakistan. Evidence has emerged that the “father of the Pakistani bomb” Abdul Qadeer Khan had sold equipment/know how in his nuclear black market to Iran. There are also indications that AQ Khan was aided and abetted by Senior Pakistani military and intelligence officials. In fact AQ Khan himself claimed that Musharraf was aware of the nuclear black market trade and approved deals.

It’s no secret that GCC officials are worried about the threat emanating from Iran as we have all read in the wikileaks episode. Again, the question needs to be asked, Is this the partner that GCC wishes to rely upon for its security?

Why is this relevant today?

Many analysts have completely missed the significance of recent high level visits from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to Pakistan. Prince Bandar (A royal emissary for HM King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia) had visited senior leaders in Pakistan including the Pakistani Army Chief General Ashfaq Kiyani. Sources have confirmed that Prince Bandar is said to have requested Pakistani troops to be deployed if the internal unrest continues in Yemen, Bahrain and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.
The Foreign Minister of Bahrain HRH Shaikh Khalid bin Ahmed bin Mohammed Al Khalifa also paid a visit to Islamabad shortly after Prince Bandar had departed for New Delhi. We expect similar discussions on security coordination to have taken place.

Conclusion

Pakistan army is being utilized as cannon fodder or mercenaries for the Gulf Kingdoms, in return Pakistan gains significant economic support that it requires for its very survival. How long will this relationship continue and also how reliable is this support if Pakistan continues to harbour or indirectly/directly support the AQAP as well as a Nuclear Iran? Is it time for the GCC to start imposing conditions on Pakistan for its continued aid?

I leave you with a quote from the book (My Life with the Taliban) of Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, Taliban regimes Ambassador to Pakistan:

”Pakistan, which plays a key role in Asia, is so famous for treachery that it is said they can get milk from a bull. They have two tongues in one mouth, and two faces on one head so they can speak everybody’s language; they use everybody, deceive everybody. They deceive the Arabs under the guise of Islamic nuclear power, they milk America and Europe in the alliance against terrorism, and they have been deceiving Pakistani and other Muslims around the world in the name of the Kashmiri jihad.”

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Apr 2011 01:31

shyamd ji,

Many analysts have completely missed the significance of recent high level visits from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to Pakistan. Prince Bandar (A royal emissary for HM King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia) had visited senior leaders in Pakistan including the Pakistani Army Chief General Ashfaq Kiyani. Sources have confirmed that Prince Bandar is said to have requested Pakistani troops to be deployed if the internal unrest continues in Yemen, Bahrain and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.
The Foreign Minister of Bahrain HRH Shaikh Khalid bin Ahmed bin Mohammed Al Khalifa also paid a visit to Islamabad shortly after Prince Bandar had departed for New Delhi.

this is interesting. Does it mean now that in case of emergency - if called - Indian troops will fight side by side with TSPA to protect Saudi and Bahraini monarchies? [Since India is supposedly already on board with such invitation-only military cover provision]. Does KSA need the combined strength of the IA and TSPA to tackle their domestic threat? Or is it really about joining up to thrash Iran? It will be most interesting to see IA fight alongside TSPA against Iranians to prop up Saudi monarchy!

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Apr 2011 01:41

brihaspati wrote: this is interesting. Does it mean now that in case of emergency - if called - Indian troops will fight side by side with TSPA to protect Saudi and Bahraini monarchies? [Since India is supposedly already on board with such invitation-only military cover provision]. Does KSA need the combined strength of the IA and TSPA to tackle their domestic threat? Or is it really about joining up to thrash Iran? It will be most interesting to see IA fight alongside TSPA against Iranians to prop up Saudi monarchy!

B-ji. Wait some more time. So far the high level decision is taken. Modalities will be worked out later - and probably to what extent our involvement will be. AKA is due in Riyadh this month or next month - probably to dash out modalities and India's offer on the table.

Its basically to join up to thrash Iran - not directly to do with internal issues. Tensions are heavily escalating. With or Without us, Iran is going to be taken out. Today UAE announced they are teaching troops Farsi, iranian politics history etc - just to scare Iran even more. Once this is all over, the TSP jihadi's are going to come after us all guns blazing.

Next 4 years till the jihadi heat is going to be turned back on us with something bigger than 26/11.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Apr 2011 01:44

Bji,
I think what KSA wants from India is not to lean on TSP if they are called for duty in the desert. In other words to refrain form gving the TSPA their just deserts!

Anyway GOI is not interested in anyone just or unjust deserts. So its par for the course.

Even though ShyamD's article talks of AQAP (which is intra Arab), the current crisis is due to sectarian Sunni-Shia and Arab-Persian issues.

Not yet Iranian.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Apr 2011 02:02

Only Iran explains why there would be need to engage India. Just enough to try and keep India neutral or not siding with Iran. TSPA for domestic brow-beating. But too long an equation, and too many variables that can go wrong for GCC. How does Rus see a battering of Iran and in case of defeat possible penetration of "enemies" closer to home through Iran?

2014-15. India. Agreed - to a certain extent. But not bad for the long run. Maybe need to downplay the 4-year bit.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Apr 2011 02:22

Bji, If we look back in time as to when did we see something similar to the Arab uprising, I think of the late 18th century.
We saw the American Revolution when Colonists overthrew the English Crown, and the French people overthrew the French crown.

Is AlQ a similar political de-monarchizing movement for Middle East? The odd thing is Iran is able to leverage these guys to destabilize the host countries. Its acting like the Revolutionary Council in France before Nappy.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Apr 2011 04:38

ramana wrote:,
I think what KSA wants from India is not to lean on TSP if they are called for duty in the desert. In other words to refrain form gving the TSPA their just deserts!

That would be the worst reason for India to join sunni-alliance. Is this the secret ShyamD garu is holding off? And we are to believe that somehow it is in Indian Interests (I am going to outline my definition of what Indian interests are very soon)??

And we are expected to wait for four years to return to normalcy?

shyamd wrote: Next 4 years till the jihadi heat is going to be turned back on us with something bigger than 26/11.

OK I will attempt to see some Sakunian-strategy (His excesses resulted in complete destruction of Kaurava evil forces

) in all these geopolitical maneuvers!!!!

Imagine a scenario where the Sunni-alliance destroys the Shia power projection capabilities once and for all. What comes out of those ashes?

One possibility is Persian nationalism that is devoid of Islamism (I said one possibility).

Hopefully India switches the side at the right moment.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Apr 2011 05:52

Rule 101 : Never shoot the messenger
Rule 102 : Every thing is data
Rule 103: Never forget rule 101.

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 05 Apr 2011 09:19

RamaY wrote:
ramana wrote:,
I think what KSA wants from India is not to lean on TSP if they are called for duty in the desert. In other words to refrain form gving the TSPA their just deserts!
That would be the worst reason for India to join sunni-alliance. Is this the secret ShyamD garu is holding off? And we are to believe that somehow it is in Indian Interests (I am going to outline my definition of what Indian interests are very soon)??

And we are expected to wait for four years to return to normalcy?

shyamd wrote: Next 4 years till the jihadi heat is going to be turned back on us with something bigger than 26/11.
OK I will attempt to see some Sakunian-strategy (His excesses resulted in complete destruction of Kaurava evil forces ) in all these geopolitical maneuvers!!!!

Imagine a scenario where the Sunni-alliance destroys the Shia power projection capabilities once and for all. What comes out of those ashes?

One possibility is Persian nationalism that is devoid of Islamism (I said one possibility).
Hopefully India switches the side at the right moment.

RamaY ji,

There are people in India more than willing to make the bolded statement of urs to happen....can we send some of the "NGO's"

to defend and espouse the cause of the AR root word...while the GOI milk the GCC

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Apr 2011 09:32

Is there some inflexion point when the Persians get fed up of Islam in whatever form and turn away from it back to the roots?

Isn't the GCC+USA+TSP taking a chance on that?

A regime collapse in Iran, brought about by Sunni attacks, would simply mean that Persian nationalists would have a strong argument against Islamic brotherhood, and the Revolutionary Guards remnants would have to concur, tipping the country away from Islam altogether!

For India a rather interesting development, cutting off the Islamic crescent, allowing an Indic consolidation to the East of it!

Also a possibility I alluded to in the ebook!

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 05 Apr 2011 09:58

brihaspati wrote:shyamd ji,
Many analysts have completely missed the significance of recent high level visits from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to Pakistan. Prince Bandar (A royal emissary for HM King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia) had visited senior leaders in Pakistan including the Pakistani Army Chief General Ashfaq Kiyani. Sources have confirmed that Prince Bandar is said to have requested Pakistani troops to be deployed if the internal unrest continues in Yemen, Bahrain and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.
The Foreign Minister of Bahrain HRH Shaikh Khalid bin Ahmed bin Mohammed Al Khalifa also paid a visit to Islamabad shortly after Prince Bandar had departed for New Delhi.
this is interesting. Does it mean now that in case of emergency - if called - Indian troops will fight side by side with TSPA to protect Saudi and Bahraini monarchies? [Since India is supposedly already on board with such invitation-only military cover provision]. Does KSA need the combined strength of the IA and TSPA to tackle their domestic threat? Or is it really about joining up to thrash Iran? It will be most interesting to see IA fight alongside TSPA against Iranians to prop up Saudi monarchy!

And all in the name of democracy and freedom onlee

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 05 Apr 2011 10:06

RajeshA wrote:Is there some inflexion point when the Persians get fed up of Islam in whatever form and turn away from it back to the roots?

There is no inflexion point as things stand today because it would need a credible alternative. There is no alternative in Iran to the Islamic way of life. Hence, creation of an inflection point needs creation of this alternative as a prerequisite. And India already has such an alternative - Parsi religion

.

We need to encourage Parsis to go and setup some temples in their mother country, and we need to encourage the mother country to welcome such reculturization efforts.

Injecting Parsi religion back into Iran has multiple advantages:
1. It is uniquely Iranian, hence it would fit Iranian nationalism like a glove fits a hand.
2. It gives Iranians a different identity than the Muslim world. This would help wean them away from the Islamic world. This would further tone down some of their aggresive policies, such as support for Hezbollah or pusuit of nukes.
3. It gives Hinduism a good instrument to fight the two imperialistic monotheistic religions without becoming imperialistic or monotheistic itself (most imp reason).
4. Most importantly, it sets a good example of reculturization in the face of aggresion from those two religions.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 05 Apr 2011 10:15

^^^In the category of "cultural engineering meets hindu nationalist dreams" ideas, this would rank pretty high in terms of ingenuity...Of course, matters of details are just that, matters of detail..

1. How many parsees are left in India..
2. How many of them would want to go back to Iran!?
3. Does Iran want to become "less Islamic"?
4. Why should/would Iran welcome back a bunch of non-muslims?
5. Of course, the reasons why parsee came to India in the first place are all moot now..

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 05 Apr 2011 11:59

The anti Yahduudi rhetoric has started in egypt. Mohammed El Baradei kicks off with " we would go to war with the zionist regime if they did anything to Gaza". Essentially, expect Israel to have total hands off policy and to lay low for a while until things settle down.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Apr 2011 12:30

abhishekcc ji,

The credible alternative is secularism, downplay of all religiosity, and Persian nationalism! This is there even now amongst the millions of Iranians who are spread around the world, and the even more millions of Iranians who were born post-Revolution and are frustrated with the current system.

The current system will not budge, except through a GCC+USA+TSP War on Iran!

As far as re-Parsiing the Persians go, I think we should simply encourage tourism on a big scale from Iran to India for the moment - you know, for shopping and beach-going.

If there is war between the GCC and Iran, and Turkey inclines towards the GCC, then pretty much all the watering holes of Iranians would dry up. Then it is up to Incredible India to provide respite!

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 05 Apr 2011 14:34

Somnath,

1. How many parsees are left in India.. Enough for this project
2. How many of them would want to go back to Iran!? Depends on how they perceive this idea
3. Does Iran want to become "less Islamic"? The correct question is - are there sufficient number of people who would be willing to relook Zoroastrianism? The whole nation does not have to want to become non Islamic immediately, only sufficient numbers to get a momentum.
4. Why should/would Iran welcome back a bunch of non-muslims? They have a large number of non muslims, including Jews, living with them.
5. Of course, the reasons why parsee came to India in the first place are all moot now. No they are not. And this is the only irritant, but not insurmountable.

--------

RajeshA ji,

I am not a fan of secularism, it is too easily penetrated by westernisation, which leads to deculturization, loss of identity, and eventual recolonization.

Iran's adherence to radical Islam has a strong element of defiance built in. IOW, the society becomes more radical in the face of external threat. However, if Iran is allowed to open up properly, they would be more inclined not to take extreme positions in everything - from Israel to the bedroom. Helping them open up would enhance the security environment for everybody in the region, except USA. Even KSA should welcome a less radical Iran.

Turkey really is a wild card in the region. Apparently western, but increasingly radical Islamic. They take positions that raise hackles in the west, especially wrt Israel. I won't speculate on how that country tilts.