Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[Maram]

A Kalam ji,

Keynesian economics dictated Europe economy since the second world war.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics)
The problem with keynesian theory with the entitlement programs grow out of proportion, with the result folks putting money into the pot decreases over a period of time and folks taking out of the pot increases over a period of time.This eventually leads to huge budget deficits and over bearing debt. Portugal,Ireland,Greece are the worst examples, I suppose.

American policy of "free market economy"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics) where state is non interventionist(tea party folks,Beck,Palin,Paul Rand,Bachman voters/watchers) state failed spectacularly in 2008Crash.excessive corporate greed,individual profits over collective prosperity when taken to the extreme leads to bankers playing casino roulette with human lives,ponzi schemes ala Benie Madooff variety.

Both t heories have their advantages and disadvantages. To the best of my knowledge, folks are try to get somewhere in the middle nd have not been succesful so far. David Cameron's adviser(British PM) Phillip Blond of the Respublica think tank have come up with an idea called "Red Tory".Its a wek idea at best.

Society Vs Individual is an age old arguement.Ayn Rand onwards the fight goes on. New Economic theory must emerge. Tea Party economics are disastrous, but so are keynesian economic proponents.(Jawaharlal Nehru was deeply impressioned by Keynesian Economics and so he started 5 year plans,state take over of industry... he studied in the UK)
JMT..

[Advait]

brihaspati and RajeshA, both of you are again falling in the fallacy of going into too much details. Let me give you an analogy. Suppose if Nazi Germany had not been totally defeated and Israel was still created 1948. Now imagine Jews whose relatives had been killed in concentration camps teaming up with unrepentant Nazi Germany to attack US and UK. And Jews claiming that Nazi Germany were their brothers with whom they shared an ideological and cultural connection. Sounds crazy doesn't it. Well its not crazy if you substitute Israel with BD and Nazi Germany with Pak and US/UK with India.
As for your figures, why don't you ask our friend Kalam if there are really even 50% Muslims of his age group who are pro-India. After all he will have a much better idea about the ground reality.
I hope I am not hurting anybody's feelings.



http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... =24&t=5884

[RamaY]

While I presented a possible future scenario from our Bangladeshi camp, the Pakjabis on the other hand may propose a different scenario (despite the fact that it may be self defeating for them in the long run), where everything pretty much remains the same except that India will be replaced with Sinic. I think you can see now where I am getting at, Sinic already has some head start in this area, as everyone is aware, but I think in the long run they have limited prospects, but of course much depends on India's willingness and interest to participate or facilitate or at the minimum the maintenance of a neutral stance, in this sphere, where NAM can be used as a useful past point of reference.

What is the vision of such Islamic Bloc? Why that vision cannot be achieved in the absence of Islam?

What steps are required to use Islam/Islamism to unite Bangladesh and Pakistan into a working, active political, economic union? What are the pitfalls?

[brihaspati]

brihaspati and RajeshA, both of you are again falling in the fallacy of going into too much details. Let me give you an analogy. Suppose if Nazi Germany had not been totally defeated and Israel was still created 1948. Now imagine Jews whose relatives had been killed in concentration camps teaming up with unrepentant Nazi Germany to attack US and UK. And Jews claiming that Nazi Germany were their brothers with whom they shared an ideological and cultural connection. Sounds crazy doesn't it. Well its not crazy if you substitute Israel with BD and Nazi Germany with Pak and US/UK with India.
As for your figures, why don't you ask our friend Kalam if there are really even 50% Muslims of his age group who are pro-India. After all he will have a much better idea about the ground reality.
I hope I am not hurting anybody's feelings.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... =24&t=5884

Not at all - at least on my side! If you read my post carefully, the 50-50 split I mentioned is between die-hard Islamism and not-so-die-hard Islamism. I said nothing about pro-anti-India split. India is a different ball-game altogether. It is very hard to assess realistically, but I can hazard a guess of at least 3/4 anti, and the remaining 1/4 non-committed. Behind it all is more of anti-Hindu/not-anti-Hindu [which does not mean pro] dynamics - which in turn is fueled by fear of having to return captured Hindu property or being cornered or cheated out of the land grab that went on in various phases in East Bengal.

If you can look up my previous posts on the issue in the previous version of this thread, you will probably see that I have gone into this in details. Moreover, in spite of the possibility of possibly hurting AKalam bhai's sentiments, I have mentioned this openly before and even now - that I think IG's "eastern campaign" was a tactical superb success but a strategic blunder.

What IG has done is to provide an excuse for Islamism to survive in a region of India, even if in 30 years time India manages to overrun and finish off the Paki Occupation Government of Western India, and "sanitize" the area, with a systematic erasure of Islamic networks and institutions, and multi-generational modernization and re-integration of the population.

BD will take cover under its formal democratic claims and this is where then the Islamists will take cover. If we left them intact, that faction of the "nationalists" who were basically Islamists but simply using the liberal/linguistic/cultural nationalism as a cover to take control over the East Bengal resources for themselves [a kind of Congress elite versus Brit fight over the kursi] would have been weakened, and the liberal section would be either cleaned up in genocide or escaped and lived in India as emigre. Over time this section would have been able to pursue a path free of Islamic influence and dominance.

East Bengal would have remained a difficult hotbed for slumabad to control and we would have been able to eat away at Paki power base slowly and surely by a thousand cuts.

But most importantly, we could have wiped out the base of Islamism in a single stroke by defeating Pak when both its different regions would revert to India by succession - and that Islamists would not have had an escape route.

[brihaspati]

Advait ji,
my apologies if I had not been explicit - but I took off from the last line of your post which was about attitudes towards Islamism.

BD is still slightly different from Pak, and we have a larger number of people there compared to Pak who would like to be out of mullahcracy control. Not the majority but still significant, and there are other geo-strategic considerations for them to think so too. I am just suggesting that we use this "ground reality" to our best advantage.

My long term objectives have been stated very clearly before - that is removal of institutional, religious networks of Islamism that maintains connections to and identifies with cultural and imperialist centres outside of India - from the subcontinent. All compromises are temporary towards that direction.

[brihaspati]

Maram ji,
There are opportunities that will arise in the future in the IOR, but unless we prepare from now - we may not be able to take the opportunities when they come. Euro and USA capacities will get limited - and they will need to share the costs of maintaining presence in IOR strategic points.

I would be in favour, of cajoling, pressurizing, arm-twisting, flattering, buying - to get hold of those geographical assets.

[Maram]

Bji,
I have mailed [email protected] and [email protected] and got daemon failure. can you repost ur e-mail id again please??

[brihaspati]

Maram ji, apologies, use at gmail please!

[RamaY]

Bji,
Some times it helps to be as clear Ast you were a couple of posts above.

God bless you!

[brihaspati]

Rama Yji,
paranoid, obsessive, caution. A fault, I acknowledge.

[Advait]

brihaspati, I have been following your posts for a while, but your interactions with Kalam left me a little confused. Glad to see we are of one mind on the important issues. Thanks for clearing up my doubts.
I agree that BD janta is better than Pak's, but not by a huge degree or scale.

[Samudragupta]

brihaspati, I have been following your posts for a while, but your interactions with Kalam left me a little confused. Glad to see we are of one mind on the important issues. Thanks for clearing up my doubts.
I agree that BD janta is better than Pak's, but not by a huge degree or scale.

Well Advait ji, just thought quoting the great KS.....Bangladesh is still East Pakistan...It will take some time to bring it back to the indic fold and all the Gurus in this forum are actually burning the midnight oil to chalk out the best solution for this....

just quoting Bi ji, we need to follow iron hand with velvet gloves,still now we are only showing the velvet,definitely in the future, we will have a time when the iron hand will be shown...till that time we have to use our resources to solve the Afpak...because that is where the solution to liberate the subcontinent from the external forces lie...

[Arjun]

In this process, the US has managed to weaken its middle/working class, the bed rock of any democracy, while enriching the top 1-2% beyond the wildest imaginations - so much so that now top 1% earns almost 25% of national income:

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/featu ... ntPage=all

The US at the end of world war II had a fairly egalitarian society with a far more equitable distribution of wealth. War torn Europe, helped by the Marshall plan rebuilt in the image of the US, with strong labor unions. Many European countries, specially in Nordic areas, today have stronger middle class, better labor union participation in management, higher tax bracket for the rich, govt. run health care, almost free education etc. while the US has declined in all these areas, in the name of privatization and small govt. Thankfully with the recent attacks on the govt. workers collective bargaining rights, there is a rising tide of general public mood that the Republicans and their corporate masters have over reached. How well it turns into a movement to remove this unhealthy influence of corporate and financial sectors in both political parties, is still too early to tell, but by 2012 election, we may have some good idea.

A key aspect of egalitarianism, other than just the distribution of wealth, is also the opportunity for mobility across class sectors - ie for an individual in the bottom / middle class to move to the top 1% within one's lifetime.

Giving a hypothetical example - would you rather live in a European nation where the richest individuals say earn 30 times more than the average middle-class Joe but where there is no hope in hell of our average Joe of ever moving to the top echelon - or would you want to live in the US where the richest earn say 200 times more than our average Joe - but Joe has a shot at actually moving to that league? A comparison of the rich lists of the US and that of Europe speaks volumes for which continent has more of 'ossified' 'old wealth' that will likely remain immutable, and where there is a chance for creation of 'new wealth'. Not too many nations that match up to the American dream in this aspect - though China and India are giving it a shot now.


Having said this - I also do think there is a case for higher taxes for the wealthy to support the fiscal stimulus in times of trouble.

[abhishek_sharma]

Giving a hypothetical example - would you rather live in a European nation where the richest individuals say earn 30 times more than the average middle-class Joe but where there is no hope in hell of our average Joe of ever moving to the top echelon - or would you want to live in the US where the richest earn say 200 times more than our average Joe - but Joe has a shot at actually moving to that league? A comparison of the rich lists of the US and that of Europe speaks volumes for which continent has more of 'ossified' 'old wealth' that will likely remain immutable, and where there is a chance for creation of 'new wealth'. Not too many nations that match up to the American dream in this aspect - though China and India are giving it a shot now.

Sorry. This aspect of "American dream" is only a dream at this stage (particularly when compared to other countries of Western Europe and North America.)

[svinayak]

The US at the end of world war II had a fairly egalitarian society with a far more equitable distribution of wealth.

A key aspect of egalitarianism, other than just the distribution of wealth, is also the opportunity for mobility across class sectors - ie for an individual in the bottom / middle class to move to the top 1% within one's lifetime.

With segregation still in the society after WWII how can it be called egalitarian. Income distribution may be more equal for access to wealth is still restricted.

[Arjun]

Sorry. This aspect of "American dream" is only a dream at this stage (particularly when compared to other countries of Western Europe and North America.)

Are you saying there are more wealth creation opportunities for first-generation entrepreneurs in Europe and Canada than in the US? Or that a talented individual would find higher paying jobs in those countries than in America? I can understand if you said China / India has more opportunities currently - but Europe ??

[abhishek_sharma]

Devesh, don't know why you are mixing WTO with IMF. But all of what you describe about the IMF is fairly standard material that would be obvious to anyone who has a passing understanding of finance. How do you think corporate loans function ? Lenders, whether private or public, are primarily concerned about the ability of the borrower to repay and all lenders impose conditions / covenants on their borrowers. The IMF is a lender of last resort - which is typically approached by countries in trouble - and any institution with any amount of fiduciary responsibility would be duty-bound to impose tough conditions on a borrower who has a troubled history !! It is also in the correct scheme of things for the primary funders of any lending institution to be controlling the fund, in order to ensure safety of their capital.

...

The only reason countries go for IMF borrowings is because they have been irresponsible with their public finances, and have gotten into a situation where they have no other alternative source for obtaining funds. Obviously, the key learning is to never get into such a situation in the first place!!

Now, does IMF pander to a larger "Washington consensus" worldview? Of course it does - it panders to the wishes of its largest "shareholders", if I may...But then, what is IMF's mandate? It is to provide strucutral financial support to sovereigns - midn you IMF does not fund companies/projects, unlike World Bank, but sovereigns - in times of crisis...If a country is so broke that it has to approach IMF, it needs to be clear under what conditionalities it is getting that support...Which includes a heavy dose of Western thought processes..If it doesnt like it, dont go to IMF!

...
Stigtiz's work i interesting, and just to complete the readings, also read his follow-on "Making globalisation work"...In his book, Stiglitz's gripe isnt against globalisation per se, it is primarily against IMF! And he sings hosannas about the other Bretton Woods institution, the World Bank...He is right in many respects..IMF has tended to take a very technical financial view of situations, forgeting the political economy...But then, why get into a mess in the first place?

IMF's policies during the East Asian crisis were not "fairly standard" at all. In fact, even IMF has accepted that many (but not all) recommendations pushed by it were wrong/bad.

The overall point is:

(a) If IMF is like a typical lender then it should not dictate internal policies. It could demand an interest on its loans. That is all.

(b) If IMF dictates policies, then those policies should work. Right? Its mandate is not to recommend bad policies. There is more than sufficient evidence that IMF's policies made things worse during the East Asian crisis. (As devesh said, see Stiglitz's book on "Globalization and its discontents."). Actually very few economists support IMF's actions during that episode. (I guess only people who were involved support it.)

It is also interesting that IMF and US were worried about "moral hazard" during bank bailouts in Indonesia. During the 2008 financial crisis, those worries were pushed aside. Why this asymmetry?

[abhishek_sharma]

Are you saying there are more wealth creation opportunities for first-generation entrepreneurs in Europe and Canada than in the US? Or that a talented individual would find higher paying jobs in those countries than in America? I can understand if you said China / India has more opportunities currently - but Europe ??

In a study of 8 North American and European economies, the US had the lowest intergenerational income mobility. So the chances of a poor American reaching the top are lower than in those 8 countries of N. America and Europe (don't know about India/China).

[Arjun]

(a) If IMF is like a typical lender then it should not dictate internal policies. It could demand an interest on its loans. That is all.

My comparison was to a typical corporate lender. Banks and lenders in the corporate world don't just take at face value the borrower's declaration that the loan would be repaid, but very commonly impose certain constraints on the balance sheet of the borrower (aka 'covenants'). These covenants get tougher depending on the type and balance-sheet condition of the borrower. The extreme-end lenders, ie 'distressed debt' investors - make a business of just lending to firms that are in extreme distress - and you can be sure they would extract their pound of flesh not just in terms of interest rate but also in completely taking control of the running of the firm. Why do they do this ? - because the whole business model of banks and lending firms are completely predicated on the loans being repaid - in case even one of two of these loans have to be written off - that can completely knock out the lender...so the key point from a borrower's perspective is to NEVER get into a situation where your only recourse is some of these 'vulture investors'. Now the IMF is a 'lender of last resort' and countries come to it only when the situation is dire and they have NO other alternatives. One understands that lending to countries should be treated somewhat differently from lending to firms - but the point is that imposing conditionalities in itself cannot be termed a conspiracy...Who is funding the IMF today - primarily the developed world. At some point if India becomes a major funder - don't you think the IMF has a fiduciary responsibility to try and ensure that India's money in the IMF is reasonably safe ?

Imposing conditionalities on the balance sheet of the borrower is actually intuitively a good idea....when you are in trouble obviously you can't take on more debt or start spending like crazy. But then Keynesian economics does call for doing just that when the economy is in trouble. So, this is fundamentally an argument between Keynesian supporters and free-marketers, rather than any conspiracy by the US. Stiglitz is a Keynesian, and also extremely left-leaning in his views. Actually I agree with some his views - that the East Asian crisis and Russian crises were mismanaged by the IMF - but I attribute these to incompetence / inadequate learnings than anything else.

As far as India goes - please remember that the answer is NEVER to be in a situation where one needs to borrow from the IMF - & if it comes to that situation then one can't then complain that the conditionalities are too stiff ! There is some amount of MORAL HAZARD in allowing countries to be profligate, with the expectation that there is always a lender who would bail them out. The way India is doing, it has never borrowed from the IMF post the early -nineties difficulty and hopefully will never need to again !

It is also interesting that IMF and US were worried about "moral hazard" during bank bailouts in Indonesia. During the 2008 financial crisis, those worries were pushed aside. Why this asymmetry?

I agree there is way too much asymmetry between the treatment of the developing world and the developed. Calling for Portugal and Ireland to throw off the banker's shackles seems to be a popular idea today (even on BR) - but I don't see anybody commenting on the irony that much of the developing world has passed (mostly succesfully) through the same austerity with less of posturing. The developed world needs to bite the bullet in order to put its house in order - just as the emerging economies have done in the past.

[abhishek_sharma]

Now the IMF is a 'lender of last resort' and countries come to it only when the situation is dire and they have NO other alternatives. One understands that lending to countries should be treated somewhat differently from lending to firms - but the point is that imposing conditionalities in itself cannot be termed a conspiracy...Who is funding the IMF today - primarily the developed world. At some point if India becomes a major funder - don't you think the IMF has a fiduciary responsibility to try and ensure that India's money in the IMF is reasonably safe ?

Imposing conditionalities on the balance sheet of the borrower is actually intuitively a good idea....when you are in trouble obviously you can't take on more debt or start spending like crazy. But then Keynesian economics does call for doing just that when the economy is in trouble. So, this is fundamentally an argument between Keynesian supporters and free-marketers, rather than any conspiracy by the US. Stiglitz is a Keynesian, and also extremely left-leaning in his views. Actually I agree with some his views - that the East Asian crisis and Russian crises were mismanaged by the IMF - but I attribute these to incompetence / inadequate learnings than anything else.

Five points:

1. Due to the conditions of loans imposed by the IMF, the economies of those countries contracted significantly. On one of the islands of Indonesia (Java), 40% of the citizens were unemployed. This recession (apart from imposing significant pain) surely did not improve the chances of repayment of loans.

2. Repayment of loans is not a huge factor at all. Otherwise how would Pakis continue to get loan after loan. They are tied to strategic goals. (See China's attitude towards the loan for Arunachal Pradesh).

3. People who were pushing those policies (Larry Summers) at that time were not right-wing economists (they were democrats). They were warned about the ill-effects of their policies by Stiglitz. They ignored it. I don't think they were ignorant/incompetent.

4. IMF was not the 'lender of last resort' during the East Asian crisis. Japan offered to give $100 billion for forming an 'Asian Monetary Fund' but the US stopped it. Later they accepted $30 billion from Japan, but insisted that the money must be used to bailout foreign creditors (People generally forget their "free market" mantra while saving their own banks/firms). (There were riots in those countries for food but food subsidies were not allowed.). Why would a benevolent/neutral character support such policies?

(Is it surprising that Stanley Fischer went to Citigroup after working for IMF during this crisis?)

5. In some cases, austerity is needed. But the conditions in East Asia were different. From page 121-122 of Stiglitz's book:

Sometimes, as in Latin America, in Argentina, Brazil, and a host of other countries during the 1970s, crises are caused by profligate governments spending beyond their means, and in those cases, the governments will need to cut back expenditure, or increase taxes--decisions which are painful, at least in the political sense. But because East Asia had neither loose monetary policies nor profligate public sectors --inflation was low and stable, and budgets prior to the crisis were in surplus -- those were not the right measures for dealing with East Asia's crisis.

There is no real desire to suggest good policies to other countries. Note that I am not asking for aid/interest-free loans. I would be very happy if IMF could lend money at a reasonable rate of interest and not offer evil advice. (There are more than enough first-rate economists in academia who can offer very good advice.). Unfortunately, we can't expect this from the US govt.

[somnath]

Abhishek-ji, If the point is about IMF and its less-than-optimum role in dispensing "advice", then its a very different discussion...As I said before, no reason why IMF should behave differently to the strategic imperatives of its major "shareholders"...All those who have approached IMF in the past, from Latam to Asia to Africa, did that with their eyes open..A couple of corrections to your thesis:

1. The Chinese objections to the AP loan is in ADB, not IMF - IMF does not do project financing..
2. All so-called "bailouts" are always to "banks"...after all, when a sovereign has been "profligate", it has borrowed that money from some financial institution, right? So when it is being "bailed out", what is meant is that its lenders are repaid, so that the sovereign can again approach the bond markets...True for all crisis..Whether East Asia or the Ireland or Greece...The bigger issue is whether "senior unsecured" bond-holders, or basically bank lenders, need to partake in the "pain" of restructuring - that is the big debate on today...Frankly, there are no easy answers...But its a different discusion..
3. The Asian Monetary Fund idea ws not scuttled by some "American conspiracy" alone - there were lots of angularities, India itself wasnt all that keen..

But really, a discussion on IMF, at least with relation to Asia, is a bit passe today..Till the financial crisis, the big question realy was whether IMF itself was relevant anymore, what with Asian countries running large forex reserves...

IMF is a leftist bugbear that does not hold scrutiny anymore - not for Asia...None of the Asina countries, least of all India, have anything but a strengthening position vis a vis IMF...Recently India contributed 10 billion dollars to IMF as capital...If anything, in the next couple of decades, IMF will increasingly be dominated by the G20, rather than the G7 that is the case now...

[somnath]

The entire "clash of civilisation" thesis is sometimes taken too seriously by people, especailly wrt India...Anyone who has read the book would know that India is but a footnote to the entire narrative...

While I do not quite subscribe to AKalam's narrative of an Islamic bloc owing allegiance to India, the theses being propounded on the basis of precise proportions of jehadis/islamists in Bangladesh (50:50, 1/3:2/3) are equally preposterous - did anyone do a survey of this? Or is it one of those pseudo-philosophical axioms translated into precise numbers with elliptical prose?!

The fact is that leaving aside Pakistan, India has had neutral to good relationship with the entire muslim world...Some of the reactions of the muslim world from time to time have gotten influenced by Paki demands, but fundamentally India doesnt have too many bones with the greater pan Islamic issues - whether its Palestine or US influence in the Middle East, India is really a fringe player, and one that has tended to support the Islamic bloc, in rhetoric at least...

There are opportunities for India in the muslim world..Indonesia for example is our "near abroad" - hardly 150 kms from the farthest corner of India...The country is strewn with hindu influences....And an economic and political relationship with Indonesia fits in perfectly well with the requirements of both countries - China, market, technology, pretty much everything...similarly, Bangladesh, regardless of history, can become a huge opportunity to integrate India's NE to the heartland...With greater linkages through BD, Guwahati will be much nearer Calcutta than it is today...And BD itself has proven Kissinger spectacularly wrong - in many HD indicators, it is higher than even India, and clearly showing an upward trend...

For BD really, the big issues, that of illegal immigration and pockets of unresolved borders, can be resolved through imaginative polciies..For the former, I have often thought of a programme of legal work permits for BD citizens looking to work in India...Legalising the process will reduce incentives for illegal migration, will per froce set up a monitoring infrastructure, and increase pressure on BD to take steps on illegal migration in order to preserve the facility of legal permits..Soemthing similar to what Singapore has for Malaysia, US for Mexico.....An economically integrated BD will be a win-win for both BD and India...

A last point on the islamist influences in BD...It has gone up, no doubt...But at the end, the "bengali-ness" of the Bangladeshi trumps..Anyone who saw the World Cup opening ceremony - it was Tagore all the way...Given the history of BD, whatever little there is, for the nation to be Islamist will go against the grain of the separatist mvoement against Pak...But this is merely pop-sociology attempts by me..Principally, the economic potential of an integrated BD with India can work wonders for both Idnia's NE and BD...

[RajeshA]

While I do not quite subscribe to AKalam's narrative of an Islamic bloc owing allegiance to India

I don't think that was quite what he proposed!

[devesh]

Somnath:

India has always tried to have "neutral to good" relations. the problem is we try to have that even while bending over backwards. Saudis have oil, yes. but there is no need to take their funding of terror lightly. we can destroy these networks if we have the will and in the end, Saudi can't do shit about it. they won't stop oil to us. there are many countries which would be more than happy to cooperate in destroying Saudi wahabi networks outside of KSA. but India has never taken that seriously.

what many are saying in this forum is that, India might be willing to give up on security issues, other countries are not. KSA thinks spreading Jihadi mentality is good for them, so they do it. no matter what India's good gestures might be. this is what people are saying. and therefore, India should respond in kind. i don't think there is any doubt KSA funding/encouragement to Islamists in India is a bad thing.

we can still have "neutral and good" relations with KSA. but underneath the glam sham, we'll be squeezing their networks and opening a direct road for Islamists to get their 72

or at least that's what we should be doing, while still keeping a good relationship for external world.

[somnath]

^^^Well, at least thats the impression I got from his articulation of SAARC as an alternative larger "Islamic" bloc with "Indic influences" and working in tandem with India...If that was not his narrative, then I guess I have missed the point there..And so have a number of people jumping on the "islamist" nature of BD and hence its inability to align with India..

[somnath]

we can destroy these networks if we have the will and in the end, Saudi can't do shit about it. they won't stop oil to us. there are many countries which would be more than happy to cooperate in destroying Saudi wahabi networks outside of KSA. but India has never taken that seriously

The Saudi network of wahabi jihad is a global menace...And obviously groups like LET have taken advantage of that...But not sure which countries have offered to cooperate with us in dismantling it and we have refused..Can you elaborate?

[RajeshA]

^^^Well, at least thats the impression I got from his articulation of SAARC as an alternative larger "Islamic" bloc with "Indic influences" and working in tandem with India...If that was not his narrative, then I guess I have missed the point there..And so have a number of people jumping on the "islamist" nature of BD and hence its inability to align with India..

I believe he meant that India can make use of the Islamic bloc of which BD would be a member, for the various large regional organizations like ASEAN, SAARC, Central Asian Union, Arab League, African Union can join together through their Muslim members in a wider Islamic bloc which would also include individual countries like Iran and Turkey, and being member of a member regional bloc of the bigger Islamic bloc, India can avail of various benefits which could come with such membership, e.g. markets and natural resources!

It was not a question of allegiance as such!

[devesh]

^^^ Iran will gladly join us. they have much experience in covert planning and support of front organizations. they have expertise in just the right area. and they wouldn't shed a tear if Sunni networks go down the drain. India has but to make an offer and Iran will join us in the effort gladly.

Russia is another option. they might not be involved in day to day activities, but their own intelligence agencies probably have a lot of info and tactical experience with this stuff. they've been involved in MENA politics for decades now. i'm sure they've done their homework on Saudi Wahabi networks.

India and Iran actively working together to take them out with Russia, perhaps, playing some role as and when required.....that is all we need. with will, it can be done.

[somnath]

I believe he meant that India can make use of the Islamic bloc of which BD would be a member, for the various large regional organizations like ASEAN, SAARC, Central Asian Union, Arab League, African Union can join together through their Muslim members in a wider Islamic bloc which would also include individual countries like Iran and Turkey, and being member of a member regional bloc of the bigger Islamic bloc, India can avail of various benefits which could come with such membership, e.g. markets and natural resources!

Thats not how it came through, at least to me...References to "Indic influences" etc...BTW, market access and natural resources are hardly a function of religion...Many successful economic (or political) blocs are pretty "secular" - ASEAN is the best example, NATO would be another...EU isnt, very lcearly so - but EU isnt just a bloc, it is a far "higher level" philosophical construct (one that is coming off!)..Anyways, economic blocs need not necessarily have Islamic linkages...

India and Iran actively working together to take them out with Russia, perhaps, playing some role as and when required.....that is all we need. with will, it can be done

Oh well, so things that "can be done"...I thought India has already refused overtures by people interested in doing things...To be honest, if there is stuff happening, we wouldnt know one way or the other...But strategically, taking sides in the Sunni-shia conflict in ME isnt a great idea...India is one of the few powers (the other is China) to have a sort of equilibrium level of relations with both sides..Its important to preserve that position...

[somnath]

Funny, while we were talking about the Indo-Japanese equation, some new developments around the same..A "strategic dialogue trilateral" - India - US - Japan...

http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 628673.ece

[devesh]

Somnath:

1. India "can do" it b/c it is very much possible. India hasn't done it yet. this is what BRFites are criticizing, on the part of Indian leadership.
2. Iran has already done this wrt their own country. and they've gone the extra mile and created their own front organizations. Iran has experience and will for this stuff. India, if the will is found, can easily dismantle these networks.
3. the proposal has nothing to do with present chaos in ME. chaos or no chaos, we must do it, b/c our national security demands it. it has nothing to do with allying with Iran. we will keep our feet in both camps. but will take help from Iran in dismantling Wahabi networks.

[RajeshA]

I believe he meant that India can make use of the Islamic bloc of which BD would be a member, for the various large regional organizations like ASEAN, SAARC, Central Asian Union, Arab League, African Union can join together through their Muslim members in a wider Islamic bloc which would also include individual countries like Iran and Turkey, and being member of a member regional bloc of the bigger Islamic bloc, India can avail of various benefits which could come with such membership, e.g. markets and natural resources!

Thats not how it came through, at least to me...References to "Indic influences" etc...BTW, market access and natural resources are hardly a function of religion...Many successful economic (or political) blocs are pretty "secular" - ASEAN is the best example, NATO would be another...EU isnt, very lcearly so - but EU isnt just a bloc, it is a far "higher level" philosophical construct (one that is coming off!)..Anyways, economic blocs need not necessarily have Islamic linkages...

Okay I can't speak for AKalam ji.

But Muslims tend to see Islam as a gluey gluey thing, especially the Subcontinental Muslims, and they feel that an Islamic bloc is ideologically possible.

Then one comes to the question of what good should it do? Is it some bloc where all the Muslims can come together, sing together and pray together, or is there something more to it? And the something more to it, that I inferred from his ideas, was the economic opportunities - market and natural resources!

[Arjun]

Before one finalizes how India deals with the Muslim and the Christian world, I believe it is critical that there be a defining 'idea of India' that every government and all citizens relate to...That idea of India would then form the basis or charter on which India deals with and forms relationships with external entities.

France and the US for example are identified by their value systems - that their constitutions and civilizations hold dear, such as 'individual rights', 'liberty' and 'democracy'.

Among the defining and differentiating values that India stands for could be-

1. A reverence for and promotion of knowledge and truth
2. Affording wealth creation opportunities for all, irrespective of background
3. In matters of faith - an active belief in pluralism at the individual level & and strong stance against religious dogma

There may be others as well - but these (& especially #3) would be critical to enunciate and be upfront about. On some international matters - other considerations and benefits can play a dominant role - but the Indian GOI itself as well as external countries that India interacts with need to be aware that these are immutable ideas that India is serious about evangelizing globally.

These would form fundamental Indic axioms / principles that amongst other things would also be a driver for our international relations....JMT

[RajeshA]

I believe it is critical that there be a defining 'idea of India' that every government and all citizens relate to...That idea of India would then form the basis or charter on which India deals with and forms relationships with external entities.

There was a thread somewhere "The Idea of India" which was heavily criticized.

[Arjun]

There was a thread somewhere "The Idea of India" which was heavily criticized.

Because it was started by a Chinese, with the intention of questioning India's basis as a nation...

I am talking of Indian ideals that are identified with us as a country - just as the US and France have identified and wrapped certain concepts indelibly around theirs.

[Klaus]

^^^ There is this archived thread, which should be good for starters.

[somnath]

But Muslims tend to see Islam as a gluey gluey thing, especially the Subcontinental Muslims, and they feel that an Islamic bloc is ideologically possible

Thats a very broad sweeping generalisation...Forget the cliched "no Indian in the ranks of Al Qaeda"...How many Indian muslims went and joined the intifada in Palestine all these years? Or the "resistance" movement in Iraq? One hasnt seen such a global pan islamic fervour for many decades now...

My hypothesis is that the pan islamism of the Indian muslim died with the failure of the Khilafat movement in both practical and ideplogical terms...In practical terms when Gandhi withdrew the movement itself...In ideological terms when Turkey converetd itself into a secular, western nation, a far cry from the leadership of the islamic ummah...

Since independence, the Indian muslim first was too worried about his own security in a post-partition India, and since then local/national variables have taken over...

BTW, the concept of an "idea", or ideology influencing foreign policy, its all bunkum..The French have had cozy relationships with generations of African despots, even Gaddafi was feted a couple of years ago in Paris..US of course has a long history of bedding some of the nastiest characters around the world....

[RajeshA]

There are many colors of Pan-Islamism. Not every color has to do with Al Qaeda

[abhischekcc]

There was a thread somewhere "The Idea of India" which was heavily criticized.

Because it was started by a Chinese, with the intention of questioning India's basis as a nation...

I am talking of Indian ideals that are identified with us as a country - just as the US and France have identified and wrapped certain concepts indelibly around theirs.

Yeah, and he did it after I had written that for most of known history, India has been the largest economy in the world, and China was second.

The racist freak got so incensed that a nation of brown coloured people could call into question the middle kingdom's self absorbed sense of importance.

[Klaus]

^^^ Quite a few threads have been created to support dissent in the artificial creations, PRC and TSP. We can thus have a measure of retribution against the poster who tried out that "Idea of India" stunt.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... f=1&t=5721

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... f=1&t=5721

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... f=1&t=5721

As mentioned by another post on the philosophy thread, the internet is a wonderful tool for the purpose of venting out emotions, particularly revenge.

Request to fellow posters to post in all of these threads as well so that they stay relevant in the public memory of BRF, else they languish in the dark corners like files facing government apathy.