Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[devesh]

the task seems mountainous. we haven't yet even gained an expansionary direction of thinking even in matters like EJ poaching. this is a purely domestic issue and should be pretty clear what needs to be done. yet, no action on this front. Jihad in Kerala, Bengal, Kashmir, Assam, etc, no answer for that either. and amidst all this, we are looking straight at a demographic genocide in the face of rabid breeding by Pakis and Beedis.

we need to act within the next 2 decades to start gaining control of Pakiland and Beedi so that counter propaganda to Islam can begin, or else we will be bred out of existence....

[devesh]

is it just me or is the word "start", in the above post of mine, hyperlinked to some external popup for everybody? this is the first time I'm seeing this.

[brihaspati]

Well we are in the defensive - mode even on thoughts. There is a theory that if certain issues are kept very long as "unthinkable" they become "unthought". Indians have been told with sometimes red eyes and sometimes in peaceful smiles - that they should not think of certain bad thoughts like expansion, retaliation, or defending their own values, cultures, ideologies against poaching and outright lying or defamatory attacks. They have looked upon it for such a long time as unthinkable that it has all become unthought now.

At least for a start an expansive foreign policy can be a start as a "thought". Moreover, the very dynamics of that thought will force us to think of the internal situation, preparations, strategies, resources and so on.

[brihaspati]

KASHMIR’S SECESSIONIST MOVEMENT RESURFACES Ethnic Identity, Community Competition, and the State by Reeta Chowdhari Tremblay, Asian Survey, vol 49, no. 6, 2009, p950.

Second, as recent events have shown, Jammu is also now at the crux of resolving the Kashmir issue. The united front that Jammu Hindus presented in their recalcitrant response to the Amarnath land decision should be seen as a major cause of concern for the Indian state.
[Now Hindus must be shown as uncompromising]
As mentioned earlier, it is almost axiomatic that demands for azadi in the Valley become more ardent as Jammu residents appeal more insistently to Indian nationalism, Hindu sectarianism, and a history of being discriminated against within the state.
[Thus KV Islamism's is onlee reacting to big bad Hindus of Jammu and the wider nation]
The only lasting solution one can visualize to remedy this explosive disequilibrium is to create autonomous regions of governance within Jammu & Kashmir—a solution proposed by many since the early 1950s—while concurrently offering the state more autonomy within the Indian Union.52 Because the state is multilingual and multiethnic, auton- omy for its three distinct regions could help respond to the demands of the various “communities” within the state. This two-level autonomy—the autonomy of the state of Jammu & Kashmir granted constitutionally by India and the internal autonomy of its three regions—is an attractive solution to break the current impasse exacerbated by a very proactive and hardened Hindu population in Jammu.53 In other words, until the recent land dispute erupted, the Indian government had to deal fundamentally with only the Valley’s Muslim population and could count upon the support of Jammu’s Hindus to endorse its Kashmir policies. The summer of 2008 changed this political environment and shifted the “Kashmir crisis” to a more complex ground where regional polarization within the state will have to be dealt with, along with the Valley’s azadi demands. Unless this is done through negotiation with the various actors involved, the fu- ture does not bode well for the state of Jammu & Kashmir.

Here is an acknowledgment that the one-sided goals that the KV Islamism were scoring - have now been soured by the emergence of a credible tit-for-tat from "Hindus" in Jammu and the Amarnath agitation forced the tactical hands of the valley islamists.

[brihaspati]

In my models of potential Paki tactics, for some time, a curious blip has been occurring. This is a section of TSPA related sources trying to play up to Russia. Here is an example from public domain, with various interesting aspects of who has published it, and what such a publication implies more than the content.

http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas ... rld_war-0/
by Nadir Mir, 26 March, 2012.

An Intra European conflict may be brewing for leadership of Europe. Even as US - NATO alliance conflicts with the dialectic alliance Russia - China.

US Geo strategy has been embroiled in Afghanistan and Iraq, but now seeks to extend the war to Iran - Pakistan. Of course the real war is against Russia - China, the opposing alliance.
[...]
American politics for 2012 and the Presidential Elections are upping the war ante (forcing President Obama to strike Iran or support Israel in doing so) or risk losing his reelection. Delhi seeks US Power to denuke, balkanize, deIslamize Pakistan, before US departure from Afghanistan region. Israel is straining on the leash before Iran develops the Nuclear Arsenal. This will change the strategic balance followed by Nuclear Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt etc.

In Afghanistan US seeks to retain a (25000 strong force) SOF/Air Force for denuclearization of Iran - Pakistan. It may seek independence of Baluchistan (with Indian support.) A clash with Pakistan is likely though not inevitable. Delhi wants to use American Power to fight Pakistan (but absurdly believes it can escape the nuclear conflagration). The war with Iran is even nearer 2012. US - NATO may attack Iran followed by Pakistan or both together. An Israeli attack on Iran is even more likely and Indian attack on Pakistan (Cold Start) always remains a possibility.

Russia - China are Allies against US - NATO Geo strategy (Iran and Pakistan are joining this alliance but also the Battle Space.) China is rising economically, Russia is resurgent strategically. After Iraq, Afghanistan, they have seen Libya humbled by NATO power. The US -NATO model of regime change by sponsoring local militants - Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, in Libya (NATO trained anti Gaddafi Rebels), Syria (Syrian Rebels plus ex Libyan Rebels ) In Iran (non Persian ethnic groups, anti regime Diaspora ) in Pakistan (instead of regime change, keeping pliant puppets in power, or sponsoring Baluch rebels against Pakistan.) In Russia, President Putin himself has accused the US of instigating opponents of United Russia. In China, using India for fermenting trouble in Xinjiang, Tibet etc. All this is unifying the alliance of Heart land powers Russia -China and critical Rim land state actors Iran - Pakistan into an Anti US - NATO alliance. But events are moving too fast. The Mayan Prophesy of 2012 catastrophic year approaches. US - NATO-India clash with Pakistan or US - NATO- Israel clash with Iran will lead by default or design to multi regional war going Global.

The combined Geopolitical space of Pakistan - Afghanistan -Iran - Iraq (backed by) Russia - China is beyond the US - NATO reach (It has already over reached) Putin's reported warning to his generals, 'Prepare for Armageddon', must be taken seriously. Putin is a great leader in the tradition of Russian History. China has already alerted its Navy in the Pacific. North Korea can always do the unpredictable, more so now with the young Kim in power!

US - NATO war against Iran could be catastrophic, but against Pakistan it could be dooms day! US - NATO may have Turkish/Saudi support against Syria but in Pakistan's case both Saudi Arabia - Turkey will support Pakistan. In factWar against Pakistan is very complicated plus suicidal!

Note the tone of desperation, and an underlying panic stricken call to Putin in typical Paki bootlicking fashion. The paranoid aspects of TSPA thinking should also be noted - with their paranormal or supernatural beliefs.

Most interesting are the six reasons provided as to why "war on Pakistan" should not be undertaken.

Firstly Pakistan is neither threatening nor attacking anybody. It is on high moral ground, despite US - propaganda on militants to nuke insecurity!

Secondly Pakistan will be defended by its Soldiers and People. (190 million despite US - Indian attempts to divide them on different lines).

Thirdly Pakistan will defend itself at any level - sub conventional (asymmetrical), conventional (armed forces) above conventional (nuclear -WMD)

Fourthly There will be no foreign inspired civil war in Pakistan. Pakistanis are united to defend the mother land. Even militants are on the wane or will fight foreign invaders. A few Baluch rebels are being instigated by Delhi - Neocons. (The Baluch should be appeased by Islamabad). All major and minor political parties and people want an end to the Afghan War and peace in Pakistan.

Fifthly Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia will support Pakistan even for different Geopolitical reasons.


Sixthly A low intensity war in Geopolitical black hole of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq will defeat US - NATO (with war weary public, declining economy at home). A perfect catastrophe! A conventional war, more so on two fronts for Pakistan (US - NATO strike in the west, and Indian Cold Start in the east) will quickly reach nuclear threshold. If Pakistan is being destroyed by enemy fire power plus nukes it will strike back into India and attacking forces / region. Loose nukes from a destroyed Pakistan could explode in Israel - western cities leading to a nuclear retaliation chain cycle. The war going Global, nuclear destructive and radioactive. The Russian view that attack on Pakistan with lead to Thermonuclear War was in this context.

A war the US led NATO cannot win. With hundreds of millions or billions dead only a sick, demented man could term it as a victory. The real winner of the Second World War was USA whose homeland was untouched, and rose to become the sole super power. If there are any victors, it would be Russia - China unless the war involves them directly (something which the globalists hope to achieve - lure Russia - China by attacking Iran).

The Arab Spring - Muslim World would revolt in Anti Americanism as war with Iran - Pakistan and carnage becomes apparent. The western homeland and initiators of attack will be burnt by the flames they help ignite themselves (albeit radioactive fires).

What should be noted is that this article comes from an ex-TSPA man [or claiming to be so], is allowed to be published on pravda.rus website. True to its roots, either a pravda editor has given a Marxian spin by introducing the words "dialectical" [which would be strange since Marxians would rarely use it in this context] but more likely by the Paki himself - which is a curious indication that the pakis will adopt any lingo - commie if necessary to win a new client in its prostitution game.

The TSPA is expecting a war this year, if it does not happen on its own - they would like to precipitate one soon over the next couple of years. TSPA has run out of options, and it needs a war to justify its existence. But at the same time it needs the assurance that its skin will be saved by Russia and China.

Somewhere, this means that TSPA cannot rely on its nukes for survival.

[brihaspati]

Can we track the simultaneous connections of the Saudis to both Pakis and Indians in terms of defence knowledge acquisition?

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/arti ... es-blossom

According to Antony, the joint committee will also seek "to explore the possibility of working together in the area of defense production." Toward this goal there will apparently be a slew of reciprocal visits to each other’s facilities in the course of 2012. The speed at which the two countries move in this arena may serve as an indicator for the sustainability of the new security ties. Any coproduction initiatives in the defense sector must also be understood in the context of the larger bilateral investment initiatives India and Saudi Arabia have been working on since Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit in 2010.

This maturing bilateral economic partnership is also finding traction in the nuclear domain, as the two sides may soon sign a bilateral treaty on civil nuclear cooperation. India’s engagement would help quiet fears among some international observers that the Saudi nuclear energy program is a cover for acquiring a weapons capability facilitated by Pakistani specialists. And in practical terms, India’s tremendous expertise in nuclear-related services will serve to enhance trade as well.

Though previously scheduled, Antony’s visit came in the midst of rising regional tensions over Iran, serving to highlight the value India attaches to the balance-of-interests approach and the positive reception this attitude is finding even in the fractious Middle East. Moreover, India’s vote in the U.N. Security Council in favor of the ultimately vetoed resolution against Syria signaled to the Saudis that India will seek to accommodate the interests of both sides of any Shiite-Sunni conflict, thereby reflecting the makeup of India’s own large Muslim minority. Ultimately, India sees a geopolitical struggle in the Middle East based on sectarian lines as having little to offer for the countries of the region or indeed for those who depend on it for their energy security. Indeed, it is just such a sectarian conflict New Delhi is trying to avoid through its engagement with Riyadh.

the author provides good reasons, perhaps unintended, as to how India can be used for cover.

[devesh]

basically, the Indian establishment is freely whoring itself to provide cover for the Saudis to acquire nuclear capabilities! wonderful. the super duper, strategic minded ones, are to be trusted and are beyond reproach. what is India gaining from this? for giving the Islamic urheimat nuclear cover, what has India gained in return? or what will India gain in return? if there was a parallel compromise extracted from the Saudis that their pet Islamic projects will be stopped, and they will stop their interference with Indian muslims, then perhaps it could be advisable, but even that is not enough. I would say, the same promise needs to extracted wrt to Pak, that the Saudis' funding of Islam in Pak also needs to be on the table....

[Prem]

Can we track the simultaneous connections of the Saudis to both Pakis and Indians in terms of defence knowledge acquisition?

There was rumor that Saudi offered big sum to one well known respected Indian scientist for similar purpose.

[brihaspati]

Increasingly, India is being pushed into the same trap it was pushed into - about BD. A section of elite of the Islamic majority countries - run to India, probably out of promptings from specific sections in the west with whom they maintain very very good connections. They are either in trouble with other factions of Islamists of their countries, or they want to preserve their Islamic pie or want it entirely for themselves.

Now we are seeing the same pattern in Pak and the Gulf states except Iran. The Indian sections which were the masterminds the last time around should be studied. The frontal face of that section were the intellectuals, the "culture" tsars, and proper tickling of "Bengali" sentiments. The same route will be tried now. The intellectuals, the "culture" tsars, and so-called commonalities of language, food, dress, dialect, heritage, yadda yadda. But who were really behind?

We know where BD got us into and how one faction of Islamists took our help and then removed India from the scene so that the Islamization drive could continue and more Hindus could be killed or driven out and more Hindu property appropriated as enemy property and more Hindu women abducted for the pleasures of Islamists. So much so that even now every investment from India gets questioned and often turned around with persistent accusations of Indian "aggression". The latest one to fall to this is the opposition to a power plant installation. But no such questions come up if the investment is coming from an "Islamic" investor like say Malaysia or Gulf Islamic countries.

Nothing will come from helping out Islamist elite factions in any of the Msulim countries the current GOI is hobnobbing with. In fact more damages and future pockets of anti-India Islamism - for this very attempt at getting "close".

[svinayak]

Increasingly, India is being pushed into the same trap it was pushed into - about BD. A section of elite of the Islamic majority countries - run to India, probably out of promptings from specific sections in the west with whom they maintain very very good connections.

Now we are seeing the same pattern in Pak and the Gulf states except Iran. The Indian sections which were the masterminds the last time around should be studied. The frontal face of that section were the intellectuals, the "culture" tsars, and proper tickling of "Bengali" sentiments. The same route will be tried now. The intellectuals, the "culture" tsars, and so-called commonalities of language, food, dress, dialect, heritage, yadda yadda. But who were really behind?


Nothing will come from helping out Islamist elite factions in any of the Msulim countries the current GOI is hobnobbing with. In fact more damages and future pockets of anti-India Islamism - for this very attempt at getting "close".

Good point you have raised and this is open now. We have many faces in the political govt who are trying to give a Islamic face to the Indian govt and trying to connect with every Islamic nations. Unless these Islamic nations respect Indian religions including Hindus and Hindu religious practices India will never be able to help them. Indians will watch all the various jihad movement inside and will also warn others about it.

[brihaspati]

Here is another of the balloons being floated - this time including going soft on both Pak and China: MKB uvacha
http://indrus.in/articles/2012/04/20/si ... 15532.html

Alas, the number of soldiers on both sides killed by Mother Nature over the years in those tangled mountains now needs to be significantly updated from the figure of 8000. The tragedy triggered a flurry of calls in Pakistan on the imperative need for the two countries to resolve the Siachen dispute. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif even proposed a ‘Gandhian’ solution: Pakistan should unilaterally withdraw its troops from this pointless battle, putting India to shame.

India, on the other hand, maintained a stony silence, although it offered help in the rescue work. Thereby hangs a tale. The resolution of the Siachen dispute is a ‘doable’ thing, in principle.
[...]
the climate of India-Pakistan relations has also steadily improved in the recent years and there is a greater willingness today on the part of the adversaries to discuss their intractable differences. The pace of normalization may seem glacial to the eyes of the advocates of peace and harmony, but two things in the most recent months introduced an altogether new dynamics – first, Pakistan’s bold decision to accord ‘Most-Favored Nation’ status to trade with India and, second, growing likelihood of a visit by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Pakistan in the coming months. Pakistan expects reciprocal moves by India and assumes that the Indian prime minister’s visit will be the appropriate occasion for that to happen. What happens if these expectations and assumptions turn out to be misplaced?

Without doubt, Pakistan is strongly pitching that an agreement to demilitarize the Siachen area could be a reciprocal gesture by India. Pakistan’s army chief Pervez Kayani drove this home in a rare statement on Wednesday, when he inserted himself into the India-Pakistan dialogue.
[...]
Kayani called for demilitarization of the Siachen glacier, pointing out, “This is the glacier that feeds our [Pakistan’s] rivers, particularly the Indus. We understand that physical deployment of troops will affect our rivers and water management is needed.” He stressed that Pakistan is keeping its military presence in Siachen not out of choice. Most important, he maintained that peaceful co-existence between the two countries is very important. “We in the Army understand very well that there should be a very good balance between defence and development because ultimately security does not only mean secure borders but the welfare of the people. We would like to spend less on defence, any country should do the same way.”

Kayani’s remarks are spot on. It is futile to argue with his rationale. Coming from the all-powerful figure in the Pakistani leadership, the statement signals the highest importance Islamabad attaches to the resolution of the Siachen dispute. Coming at a juncture when the India-Pakistan dialogue is at a turning point, the timing of Kayani’s statement assumes special significance. In sum, Siachen dispute holds the potential to become a game changer or a deal breaker in the India-Pakistan dialogue.


The heart of the matter is that from Pakistan’s viewpoint, when Indian forces unilaterally occupied the Saltoro Ridge in the Siachen area in 1984, it constituted a major violation of the Simla Agreement of 1972, which expressly forbid either side from using force to alter the ground position to its advantage. The Pakistani military leadership suffered a big loss of face in 1984 when India outwitted it and in a swift military operation created a fait accompli in Siachen. The embarrassment is so profound that Pakistani military is yet to admit even after nearly 3 decades that it has ‘lost’ the access to the Siachen area.


The Indian strategists brood over the terrain slopes down the Saltoro Ridge giving the scope for a grand encirclement of the Pakistan-Occupies Kashmir and the so-called Northern Areas if the need arises – although it requires mind-boggling military capabilities to undertake such a manoeuvre, which is way beyond Indian Army’s resources in a foreseeable future. More important, the control of the Siachen area would give India access to the Karakorum, which overlooks the network of highways and railways that connect China’s western Xinjiang to Tibet. By the way, Siachen glacier feeds the Indus River system, which is Pakistan’s vital lifeline.

Suffice to say, sitting atop the Saltoro Ridge, India has both Pakistan and China in the crosshairs.
[...]
The puzzle that lies ahead is how India and Pakistan can meaningfully move forward on the Kashmir problem and stabilize the overall relationship while the Siachen issue remains a ‘frozen conflict’. It is a catch-22 situation. Indeed, the future of the dialogue between the two countries itself may come to depend on the resolution of the Siachen problem. For the military leadership in Rawalpindi, India’s willingness to move forward on Siachen is a litmus test of its strategic intentions towards Pakistan.
[...]
Clearly, the India-Pakistan dialogue stands at a crossroads. The paradox is that, as Indian pundits agonize, a genuine reconciliation will elude the two countries without the Pakistani military’s unreserved backing for the India-Pakistan dialogue, especially on reaching an understanding over Kashmir, but that cannot happen so long as the Siachen dispute remains unresolved, while the dispute itself has become intractable in many ways today having morphed into a complicated geopolitical tangle from a mere ‘strategic blunder’ committed by the last prime minister Indira Gandhi or a territorial dispute that is the legacy of the Partition.

It is going to be a tough call for the elected leaderships of both sides to bulldoze military strategists and security hawks who root for the sinfully expensive fight to go on.

What galls most particularly,
(1) he clearly recognizes the potential for perfidy and the complete lack of transparency and guarantees on Paki and Chinese behaviour or strategic future moves
(2) he recognizes the advantages India holds in the Ridge, and the deterrent values it places on Chinese and Pakis
(3) he has no criticism to offer on the Paki and Chinese occupations and cumulative records of perfidies and effective genocide that has never given any indication of a fundamental shift from their deceptive agenda of calls for peace while preparing to occupy and kill Indians.
(4) he criticizes onlee India and makes India appear to be the chief obstruction for "peace"
(5) he wants India to leave its deterrence position
(6) he ties the "Kashmir" false claim by Pakis to Siachen settlement
(7) he effectively wants India to cease targeting the Chinese vital interest on Karakorum and Paki consolidation over the area.

So are not people there who think or claim that we must blindly trust our security experts or military officers or rashtryia functionaries when they reassure us or take steps to strengthening or helping out our historically proven consistent enemies- who never ever have deviated from their periodic deceptive pretensions of peace and then supporting or moving against us? Leading most of the costs being paid by the aam - civilian or military?

[abhischekcc]

MKB usually speaks from a pro-Chinese stance. These are Chinese arguments, not pakistani. So the real target of kiyani is the dislodgement of Indian troops from the Saltoro range.

If he is really so keen on saving paki troops, he should unilaterally withdraw from the glacier.

[brihaspati]

^^Officially the peace loving mediators' stance will be that H&D is the single most important thing in Paki framework, and Kayani will lose all legitimacy if he is seen as unilaterally withdrawing against India.

But realistically, Pakis have a problem if India does not move away from the glacier. It is not just the "vantage point" argument, where such high altitude warfare does not really threaten Karakorum Highway, or Paki military position in POK seriously. From their side, the terrain is much more favourable than India once you get down from the glaciers. The real point where India can really threaten them is far far to the south and west.

The Pakis and the Chinese probably had more serious assets at Siachen than the lives of their soldiers which they can throw away easily - since they are dictatorships and not democracies subject to deafening media led "public outcries". If India does not withdraw simultaneously, traces of these assets might be revealed to India as well as to the world, if India decides to use them as propaganda material.

[brihaspati]

Kayani talks of spending cuts on defence and on "development" - but has nothing to say on the Afghan showing of ammonium nitrate consignees, including ISI employees and Taleban. Where does that money come from Gen?

[brihaspati]

Being the devil's advocate:

Many here
(1) do not like Israel because it "represses" innocent Palestinians and denies them their "legitimate" "state" which they always had unlike the Israelis.
(2) do not like Israel and KSA because they supposedly serve as US outposts in Asia, and USA backs Pakistan.
(3) believe that India should maintain strong relations with Iran for cheap oil and counter to the US led front in ME.
(4) [some very strongly] believe that everything must be done to reduce pro-US forces in the ME, because it is US presence and inputs that sustains Paki terror

Now given all that, why should it be bad to facilitate Iranian backed or inspired uprisings in KSA and linked Gulf states? Why is it not in India's interest to see to it that the regimes now occupying Saudi peninsula and say Bahrain be overthrown with all the violence that these regimes have indirectly or directly perpetrated with supposed US help and their own money, in fueling the entire international Islamic terror network - deserve?

That should roll back US influence in the gulf and Pakistan - isnt it? So by our Israel+USA+Paki bashing arguments, it should be in Indian interest to make it so that KSA and Bahrain - its closest mindset kin, or even Qatar - regimes get overthrown in favour of pro-Iranian regimes!

[Sanku]

Being the devil's advocate:

That should roll back US influence in the gulf and Pakistan - isnt it? So by our Israel+USA+Paki bashing arguments, it should be in Indian interest to make it so that KSA and Bahrain - its closest mindset kin, or even Qatar - regimes get overthrown in favour of pro-Iranian regimes!

Why devils advocate? From India's perspective, Iran taking down the GCC a notch is most welcome, and we as few who stood by them get
1) Cheap oil
2) Push for relatively freer society (with ALL kinds of Indians getting and living as they want to with rights of worship and sharing their practices) in places which were till then closed as a mark of gratitude to us and because our intentions are so "pure".

[brihaspati]

Being the devil's advocate:

That should roll back US influence in the gulf and Pakistan - isnt it? So by our Israel+USA+Paki bashing arguments, it should be in Indian interest to make it so that KSA and Bahrain - its closest mindset kin, or even Qatar - regimes get overthrown in favour of pro-Iranian regimes!

Why devils advocate? From India's perspective, Iran taking down the GCC a notch is most welcome, and we as few who stood by them get
1) Cheap oil
2) Push for relatively freer society (with ALL kinds of Indians getting and living as they want to with rights of worship and sharing their practices) in places which were till then closed as a mark of gratitude to us and because our intentions are so "pure".

Whoever comes to power in KSA or Bahrain or UAE, will still have to sell oil and gas.

(1) According to the "finance/economics overrides ideological considerations in international policy for each and every country" - even Jihadis coming to power in the above or a new Khomeini-X generations of Iranian style mullahcracy coming to power there - will still be guided by the above rule. So the excuse that "oil/energy security" will be threatened, contradicts the above rule - in case the current regimes in GCC are overthrown.

(2) Extremism in Islamic societies are loony-fringe phenomena, and whenever such instances are cited one must immediately declare that such loony fringes exist in each and every religion, and hence even if such features could be the due to elements in those other religions - at least for Islamic societies, the religion is not responsible or an indicator for extremism. Therefore the almost totally Islamic society of KSA, and other gulf countries - will still remain tolerant, and India friendly - and there should be no danger to investments - even under a pro-Iranian regime!

(3) If it is suggested that even peaceful and friendly societies can be ruled by an ideologically mismatched dictatorship which is extremist, then in case of GCC countries - we will have to concede that societal/religious core characteristics of Islam have no effect on the ruling regimes of an Islam majority society - or in short that Islam can sustain extremist dictatorships.

Surely we do not want to claim so?

Therefore given the other factors mentioned about the need to roll back US presence to the west of India - and Israel after all being an oppressor of peaceful Palestinians - with no danger to energy supply under regime change in GCC, why should not India help Iran in its supposed objective of overthrow of the GCC autocrats?

[Sanku]

^^^

I fully agree, B-ji,

[A_Gupta]

More Yoginder Sikand
http://www.countercurrents.org/sikand190412.htm

Imagining myself as crusading on behalf of the 'oppressed' and as being a key player in the 'struggle' for 'social justice' for a host of 'marginalised communities' turned me completely blind to every good thing in those whom I began to see as their 'oppressors' (in the Indian context, mainly 'upper' caste/class Hindus) and in what was termed, in the jargon of the 'progressives' whose ranks I so desperately wanted to join, the 'present oppressive system'. There was nothing at all good in Hindu traditions or in America or in Capitalist Modernity, for instance, I convinced myself, for I was hooked onto the 'progressive' and 'radical' rhetoric that 'upper' caste Hindus in general (including most of my own family!) and almost every single American was complicit in perpetuating 'oppression'. If you had to be counted as a 'social activist', you simply couldn't see or find anything worthy at all in 'upper' caste Hindus or in Americans, and, if you did, your sincerity and commitment were gravely suspect. So deep-rooted was this negative mentality among 'social activists' supposedly committed to the 'oppressed' that for a 'progressive' to discern anything positive about 'the present system' or Indic spirituality, for instance, was about the most serious anathema conceivable.

[brihaspati]

He is aging. Age -the enemy and curse of all radicals.

[Prem]

More Yoginder Sikand
http://www.countercurrents.org/sikand190412.htm

. If you had to be counted as a 'social activist', you simply couldn't see or find anything worthy at all in 'upper' caste Hindus or in Americans, and, if you did, your sincerity and commitment were gravely suspect. So deep-rooted was this negative mentality among 'social activists' supposedly committed to the 'oppressed' that for a 'progressive' to discern anything positive about 'the present system' or Indic spirituality, for instance, was about the most serious anathema conceivable.

His RNI friends must be disappointed. In the end he realize that he lost his soul like Dr Faustus.

[Prem]

He is aging. Age -the enemy and curse of all radicals.

Its more like the fear of afterlife. All the Islamists live in the fear and pain of hell.
Not a pretty picture is ingrained in their psyche.

Rove sheikh musaik piir, Aant kaal matt lagge peer=pain

[brihaspati]

So on the eve of Talibanization - Paki topcats want peace with India and to invest in India? Before historical Islamist invasions - there used always to be an Islamist peace and trade offensive! We are supposed to believe that history is never repeated even in its essence?

Taliban threat from AfPak real: Air chief
Story Dated: Saturday, April 28, 2012 17:31 hrs IST

http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/ ... 2&tabId=13

Bangalore: Increasing Talibanisation of Pakistan and shifting of terror focus from AfPak region would pose a serious security threat to India in the next two years, Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne said here Saturday.

"If the American troops and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) withdraw from Afghanistan as planned, 2013-14 are going to be crucial watershed years for India as far as the security of our western border is concerned," Browne hinted.

Noting that the emergence of Pakistani Taliban and Punjabi Taliban would pose a real threat to India, Browne said if the situation in the AfPak region deteriorated after the allied forces withdraw, these (Taliban) elements may shift close to the Wagah border.

"Our fear is that we may have these forces very close to the Wagah border to deal with because the focal point of Al-Qaida and Taliban has dramatically shifted very fast from Afghanistan to AfPak border and North West Frontier Province to the heart of Pakistan," Browne said delivering the sixth Air Chief Marshal L.M. Katre Memorial Lecture at the HAL convention centre here.

Referring to the terror outfit Jamaat-ud-Dawah founder Hafiz Muhammad Saeed's speech at a seminar in Peshwar last week, the Air Chief said the game-plan of Taliban forces and terror elements in AfPak region was to target Kashmir after "liberating" Kabul from allied forces.

"It is Kabul now we are dealing with. The moment we resolve that, we will take over the next phase to liberate Kashmir from Jammu & Kashmir state," Browne quoted Saeed as saying.

[Prem]

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 120425.htm
Guess who's Narendra Modi's latest chela?
It's not been a great week for the prime minister.

Manmohan Singh has been blamed for the Congress's UP debacle.
The UPA government's third anniversary is coming up and it has barely any achievements to showcase.The UPA has discovered why it can no longer depend on the Muslim vote.Hmmm! Politics sees the strangest bedfellows.The latest to buddy up are Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.The two Mukhya Mantris were spotted sharing notes over the Maoist problem that has particularly plagued Patnaik these past months.Patnaik, who had snapped links with Modi's BJP party to project himself as secular, was heard seeking Modi's advice on the Maoist menace in his state.The BJP's resident tough guy responded in a rather 'Main hoon na, don't worry' tone.
One wonders if Modi passed on these tips to a BJP colleague who is also struggling with the Maoists.
The moving finger stops at Dr Singh

Aaj kal Congress Party mein ho kya raha hai? Their bade bade netas are pointing fingers at each other.Everyone knows of the panel that waappointed to find the 'real' reasons behind the party's debacle in the Uttar Pradesh assembly election.The panel's heavyweight members include Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dixit (who oversaw the Congress's disastrous performance in the recent civic polls; she says she takes responsibility for the defeat, but insists it cannot be seen as the voter's reaction to her mis... err... rule) and Power Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde.
Heading the panel is Defence Minister A K Antony.
After much deliberation and analysis, this panel has reportedly revealed that the Congress-led UPA government's failure to cater to the aam aadmi caused the Congress's poor showing in Uttar Pradesh.The All India Congress Committee (read General Secretary Digvijay Singh) has also been criticised for the faulty selection of party candidates, a delay in poll preparations, etc.In other words, Antony has put Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the dock and given Rahul Gandhi -- who had made the UP election a personal challenge -- a clean chit.The report is likely to be submitted to Congress President Sonia Gandhi next week.


Some PMO officials privately admit that there is not much to boast of.
In a scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel bid, the PMO has asked each ministry to furnish details of their achievements.The All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which says it represents various Muslim sects in India, has held the Congress-led UPA responsible for trying to deprive Muslims of their Constitutional rights.At the AIMPLB's 22nd general body meeting in Mumbai, religious heads condemned the UPA for intruding in the Islamic shariat, pushing the Right to Information Act, the Direct Tax Code and Waqf Act 2010.The curt message from Mumbai has stunned the Congress leadership, which had benefited from Muslim votes in both the 2004 and 2009 general elections.Coupled with the recent UP election, these tough words from the AIMPLB have taught the Congress a grim lesson -- minority votes cannot taken for granted in 2014.



.

[brihaspati]

The media has started its batting for the congrez and the mercantiles - by subtly posing the question as to whether the Air Chief's comments about Taleban "at doorsteps" -is alarmist.

The interesting points here are
(1) Rehman Malik promises "help" in case of "spill overs". This can be part of the general plan now : the push for greater trade+financial linkages between India and paK as cover for India-specific future conquest. ISI and TSPA are pushing for the transition from existing form to a more explicitly jihadi statewith and explicit "Kashmir" agenda. The new TTP chief appointed by AQ has Kashmir connections.

Official Pakis will call for greater intel sharing and cooperation on this excuse - so that such intel can be shared with the Talebs.

(2) Paki jarnails are covertly split inside into those gone totally into pan-Islamic jihadism - and these are likely to be the more modern-education, possibly suave, English speaking, even educated abroad, whisky swillers. Think Jinnah.While their opponents would be the more traditional Paki feudals who hate everything not belonging to their own "caste" or "subcaste". they equally have a distaste for the FATA smelly shilwar wearers as they have for their own azlaafs. They see potential loss of their traditional supremacy within Paki society under the Talebs.

This is the group that will behave exactly like the coterie around Sk Mujib in BD - they are Islamists out and out, and they would like to use India to preserve their own power [just as they use other Islamist countries or USA or China] with the additional burden of an intense hatred and genocidic attitude towards India.

India's steps depends on what the rashtryia long term thinking is about the region currently called Pakistan.

India has two options practically speaking with all the various suggestions being grouped into two fundamental ones -

(a) bring the entire region under Indian sovereignty, voluntarily, or involuntarily, in stages or at one go, depending on how related political-military situation in the contiguous regions evolve. This ensures - with huge costs involved - but over the longer term huge benefits to compensate for the initial costs [the costs factor are raised by critics without averaging costs and benefits over the longer time scale]. Sovereignty is crucial to secure western borders with Afghanistan, prevent international covert intervention to maintain the anti-India aggression and encourage mullahcracy and jihad, reduce defence expenditures, clean up jihadists and their sustaining mullahcractic networks, secure trade routes into CAR from which BRICS and the west can both benefit, and restart the process of educational and socioeconomic cleansing that has been neglected under Islam in Pakiland for 60 years. It also permanently solves the Kashmir Valley separatism problem.

(b) OR try and defend current borders and hope for the best. This includes all suggestions of letting Pakiland go to its own dogs, ethno-national conflicts, separatism, Balkanization, or even supporting a rump Paki state shorn of all its outlying regions. All such suggestions are ultimately reducible to strong defence of current Indian borders, and the assumption that centrifugal forces cannot lead to pan-Islamic consolidation of the Taleban type in Pakiland. Or for that matter that existing elements of the Paki state are not going transfer willingly lock stock and barre to the jihadis.

Indian rashtra - because of its own appeasement of so-called minority sentiments, and blanket attack on majority community out of fear of losing the power of its dynasty based ruling structure - is not as fullproof against the Taleb onslaught as may be part of the propaganda now. The weakness is internal and ideological.

[D Roy]

Crore commanders and associated other chutiyas know that the time has come when the TSP army will have to wholesale orient westward.

Compounding their problem is that they don't know how many of their khakhi pantwallahs are actually willing to fight the shilawars.

They therefore want face saving aman ki asha to turn westward.

Despite all suspicion about mercantiles, nobody is that keen to give aman ki asha.

[brihaspati]

Within Islamism - there is no leeway for deceiving each other. Every contesting party within Islamism knows exactly the repertoire of strategies, tactics, and precedences that might be used against them by others. So the contests quickly and inevitably land up in violent blood feuds as any faction that does not eliminate the other, lock stock and barrel - children, grandparents, and unborn ones together - runs the risk of being similarly eliminated with full theological precedences and justifications.

However, as has been attributed to the founding fathers in the ahadith - the theology projects that there will be confusion among the non-Muslim towards the intentions and long term strategy of the Muslims. They recommend that these confusions should be utilized - in a step by step fashion to neutralize most of the non-Muslims while eliminating the most potentially anti-Muslim element - so that ultimately all of the non-Muslim resistance gets eleiminated. Tactically it is recommended that any and every pretension of peaceful intent and mundane, situation specific aggression should be pretended to allay fears and suspicions of other non-Muslims. This is why most Islamist educational processes put great stress on accurately going through the narrative claims of the early foundational battles of genocide and occupation of land.

What the Paki traditional faction within the elite is doing in encouraging the Aman ki asha from the non-Muslim Indian side is a classic leaf taken out of the founding fathers. This is aimed at using the confusion within the Indian non-Muslims based partly on hope and partly on self-delusion.

When faced with the implacable intent of the genocidal "other" - a culture that has established more humanitarian values within itself, tries to latch on to apparent concessions to humanity in the "other" as a psychological prop. Such a latching on protects from facing up to the possible reality that "humanitarian" values need not be universal, and might be a wishful thinking, or an ideal - that need not be respected by the "other". Otherwise the culture faces the equally crushing realization that all their refinements have been in vain.

The earlier we face up to the reality of what lies to our west, the better. The people there are not at fault - they are simply infected by a cunningly coercive theological establishment, whose institutional structure is entirely geared towards imperialistic, economically parasitic and genocidal expansion.

Mercantiles are very much willing to compromise -even if they know the reality on the other side. It is their standard "expected utility maximizing" strategy to hedge for the possibility that the "other" may break in and win, and in that case - they can claim to have been sympathetic and hope for a better bargain than those who did not cry out for aman-ki-asha.

[abhischekcc]

Brihaspatiji,

Could I interest you in writing an e-book (or even printed one) on the Islamic way of waging war? It will be most enlightening a lot of people - BRFites and commoners alike.

[Prem]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare

The simplest definition includes any war in which one of the major participants is not a state but rather a violent non-state actor. Classical examples, such as the slave uprising under Spartacus or the assassination of Julius Caesar by members of the Roman senate, predate the modern concept of warfare and are examples of this type of conflict.As such, fourth generation warfare uses classical tactics—tactics deemed unacceptable by traditional modern thinking—to weaken the advantaged opponent's will to winElementsFourth generation warfare is defined as conflicts which involve the following elements:

Are complex and long term
Terrorism (tactic)
A non-national or transnational base—highly decentralized
A direct attack on the enemy's culture
Highly sophisticated psychological warfare, especially through media manipulation and lawfare
All available pressures are used - political, economic, social and military
Occurs in low intensity conflict, involving actors from all networks
Non-combatants are tactical dilemmas
Lack of hierarchy
Small in size, spread out network of communication and financial support
Use of Insurgency and guerrilla tactics

[ramana]

What fourth generation warfare! Its the Abrahamic way of waging war till they gain a territory.

Read the Old Testament folks.
There are many book on the Bible. They all chronicle the tactics and stratergy to obtain the land.

Old Muhaamad was walking on the same footsteps of ancient Bible heroes: Abraham, Moses, Joshua, a whole bucnh of lesser known folks both men and women.

[brihaspati]

Brihaspatiji,

Could I interest you in writing an e-book (or even printed one) on the Islamic way of waging war? It will be most enlightening a lot of people - BRFites and commoners alike.

Isnt there already some book along that line? I will see what I can do.

ramana ji is right. A lot of what is given in the early texts as records of battles could have been edited with a view to make them consistent with the claimed behaviour of Judaic patriarchs - especially Moses. In fact part of the motivation in the founder could have been trying to emulate and mimic Moses. But there is one significant distinction - Moses did not want - apparently, racial admixture and he wanted the Jews to repent and ritually atone for what they had been forced/ordered to do as part of genocide.

These two aspects in the Judaic narrative stand in stark contrast to what the Islamic founder did or supposedly did according to the texts. For the latter's dispensation women of the defeated were special targets for enslavement and enjoyment, and a huge part of the revelation is devoted to denying any guilt at all in carrying our genocide on the non-Muslim. These two give the edge in combat situations to the Islamic or on the longer horizon the politics that sustains Islamist militancy - there is no guilt in the Islamist for what he does on the non-Muslim. His theology is specially geared to absolve him of any compunction in this regard. Every other predecessor theology in that thread is still burdened with dealing with guilt. Thus they invent racial gradation to assuage guilt.

The fact that racism is so strong in the Paki, and in some case even in BD islamism - is possibly because the imposition of islam in these realms have been from the top, with elements of pre-existing humanitarian theologies not entirely erased. This gives rise to underlying guilt - which is then supported or neutralized by inventing a racial gradation that dehumanizes the non-Muslim - so that the Islamic theological drive for blanket genocide can be implemented.

[brihaspati]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_n ... obama.html
Some first grudging acknowledgments about where things are headed for in AFG.

U.S. intelligence operatives in Afghanistan believe that the Taliban is stronger now than it was before President Obama deployed 30,000 more troops in 2010, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Friday after returning from a three-day visit.

“My biggest take-away from the trip was the huge difference between what the military believes the state of affairs is and what our intelligence community believes the state of affairs is,” said Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.). “Folks on the intelligence side … believe the Taliban is stronger today than it was even a couple of years ago.”

The Taliban’s goal is to avoid major battles with superior U.S. forces until those forces withdraw, Rogers said. He said worsening corruption among Afghan government officials is driving new recruits to the Taliban, which he said now has a shadow governor in every Afghan province.

“We’ve seen a lot more violence in the north that we haven’t seen before,” Rogers said. “There’s been an increase in political assassinations.” The pessimistic intelligence assessments, Rogers said, contrast with sentiments expressed by military commanders, a disconnect that also occurred at times during the war in Iraq.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee and was also on the trip, was less pessimistic about the strength of the Taliban, saying she saw evidence of significant military and intelligence successes.

The Taliban earns as much as $120 million a year from the country’s heroin trade, Feinstein said. “My big concern is that the Taliban ends up as a narco-cartel, candidly,” she said. She acknowledged “a difference of opinion” between the military and the intelligence community over the progress of the war.

Feinstein and Rogers said intelligence and military analysts agree that the Taliban continues to enjoy havens in parts of Pakistan, where extremist networks and factories producing bomb ingredients are beyond the reach of U.S. ground forces.

On Tuesday, President Obama made a surprise overnight visit to Kabul, the Afghan capital, to sign a strategic agreement with President Hamid Karzai, setting the stage for withdrawal of most remaining U.S. troops by the end of 2014. The Obama administration has argued that the Taliban has suffered broad losses and that the Afghan government must take over its own security by that time. On Friday, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said in a speech to U.S. troops at Ft. Benning, Ga., that the Taliban has “been weakened, their momentum has been broken.”

[paramu]

Population growth and youth bulge in Af Pak will stay for another 15 years
This will need taming and containment.

India has a large responsibility

[Atri]

[ramana]

Bji, Consider this.

Early on when Indian civilization the role of the warriors (aka kshatriyas) was important for state formation in the nation.

As these states became firm and established, the role of the trading community(aka vaishyas) became important to enable the economic strength of the states. However the social structure did not accommodate them in the ruling structure.

then we had the Buddhist interlude where the trading groups supported the Buddhist sanga and helped stability.

Next we see Nanda Kumar etc collaborating with the EIC to get rid of Sultanate rule in Bengal. True it led to EIC taking over as they had the guns. If the merchants had raised armies like the Gupta period it would have been different turn of events. They could not as Indian society did not have a place for them in the power structures. It was for the impecunious rajas to rule at that time.

Again MKG worked with the merchant community and got some of their support to end the EIC successor regime.

Considering that the next century will be an economic one, we need to think of new structures to accommodate the trading community in the structures of power or we will have a repeat of the previous millennium.


Right now we see Mukesh Ambani playing the role of Jagat Sheth. However I don't see him having that calibre. And he is bieng undermined by his chota bhai.

We need a hundred Jagat Sheths for the future of the state.

[darshhan]

We need a hundred Jagat Sheths for the future of the state.

Including for future underground groups who protect the Dharmic interests while fighting the Gestapos unleashed by the corrupt govt.

[brihaspati]

ramana ji,
very insightful. I have not thought about this way!

Where I have my doubts are as follows:

I agree that the merchants represented a force of society that was not always accommodated in the ruling power structure directly in terms of power. This perhaps led to aspirations of power on the merchant side, who then wanted to overthrow the existing rulership and bring in an alternative whom they thought would be more accommodating.

But the real problem comes up when we look at the details.
What exactly were their interests which they thought needed accommodating?
With whom and how did they collaborate to bring down the existing regime?

On these two crucial points our merchants had proved themselves more mercantiles rather than mere disgruntled merchants. It is not as if they did not obtain power. For example, in the Jaina and Buddhist political structures - that dominated most of India's populated and fertile zones [which is practically speaking all of the subcontinent except the intra-Himalayan valleys and eastern MP/Maha where the chandellas developed and east-central Deccan] from the post Mauryan period to the advent of the Islamic hordes in the west, it was very nearly a merchant oligarchy that overweighed if not directly ruled the kingdoms.

The kings of the coastal realms were closely allied to, or directly linked to, or stayed in power with the help of - the merchants. But among these, the most damaging effects were from that section of the merchant class which traded overseas and were engaged in foreign trade.

It appears that the foreign trade merchants maintained relationships with powers that were turning hostile and showing signs of imperialist aggression on India. We have no indication that they helped Indian regimes to take measures to counter this aggression, by illuminating their home regimes about the true nature of these hostile powers, especially the ideological nature and mindset that would have clarified the strategic thought of the hostile powers. These merchants stayed among the Muslims, maintained cordial relations with Islamic courts, dined and partied with Muslim elite and merchants, and even after that they failed to grasp the potential dangers and urge steps or measures on their home regimes.

We can see some indication of how exactly foreign tradists of India, both shaped the evolving Buddhist and Jaina ideologies towards where they could use them as ideologically justifying their compromisist methods, as well as using the same ideologies towards emasculating the counter-imperialist methods needed to tackle the foreign powers. For example we have Jaina narratives of "engaging in dialogues" with Mahmud to get Jaina icons returned ultimately by the near magical persuasive powers of Jaina divinities. Note that the whole method revolves around avoiding the violent resistance [that would empower the "other" classes and which in conflict may jeopardize future foreign trade profits], the same shrill insistence on "need for dialogue" and "engaging the other" in "negotiations", with the promise that divine intervention will yield results rather than solid action on ground that requires spilling blood and suffering pain and most importantly the potential loss of profits. We hear of one Indian merchant helping out an Arab/Muslim merchant ["Sayeda"]in attacking an Indian port because of some disgruntlement. We hear of Ghori sparing an Indian Gujarati merchant's assets/family/business/agent at Ghazni after getting defeated in his first expeditions against Gujarat in spite of courtiers urging so. What for? merely to protect merchant class? yes possible. But we cannot rule out the possible other aspects in which Indian foreign traders were useful to Muslim powers.

My favourite example of Sindhi Nirun Buddhist rich urban merchants - who secretly went and pledged their support to the court at Kufa and the Caliphate about Hajjaj's times, shows that these Indian foreign tradists helped shape ideological structures and institutions that had as its supreme interest
(1) trade and profits
(2) avoidance and even subversion of military resistance to foreign forces which in their vision might affect their future trade profits with regions under those foreign powers
(3) supporting, developing, promoting and institutionalizing those ideologies that helped reconcile (1)+(2) with the larger section of society. The aim is to prevent prior suspicion, anticipation of outcome of this merchant collaboration with foreign trades on the society, and when the reversal affects the commons - that the commons do not fight back too hard on the invaders so that any regime change is quick and less confrontational as any prolonged war situation jeopardizes financial flows and profits of the merchants.

The Jagat seths were not thinking of the long term political health of the nation or society. Even in the EIC case they were merely looking after their mercantile interests as the British represented a new opportunity for foreign trade who showed early promise in their gun diplomacy to wipe out competitors. If they were thinking of the nation the same class in Bengal would have collaborated with the emerging Marathas. But they did not because they saw that Marathas were a poor second in offering opportunities in mercantile profits compared to the Brits.

This is the danger that Jgat Seths represent. If they see future potential in China or the Gulf, or Paki looters, they will repeat (1)+(2)+(3).

In the mercantile Red Book of strategy the supreme objective then will become
(1) preserving trade and profits with Paki looters, China and the Gulf
(2) avoidance and even subversion of military resistance to Paki looters, China and the Gulf which in their vision might affect their future trade profits with regions under those foreign powers
(3) supporting, developing, promoting and institutionalizing those ideologies that will help reconcile (1)+(2) with the larger section of society. The aim is to prevent prior suspicion, anticipation of outcome of this merchant collaboration with Paki looters, China and the Gulf on the society, and when the reversal affects the commons - that the commons do not fight back too hard on the invaders so that any regime change is quick and less confrontational as any prolonged war situation jeopardizes financial flows and profits of the mercantiles.

[ramana]

Well they were supporting those who furthered their interests in this case wealth. You have to agree once the kingdoms were conquered what chance any of them have to resist? In the society their place was trading.

I ask you to not shun them but see how they can further Indian national interests. My narrative shows there were nationalist elements who helped India navigate the choppy waters of the last millennium.

Yes they might not have a grand strategy but by their actions they have stabilised the nation state. In the miasma of the janapada era they supported Buddhism and Jainism. In the Gupta era they supported Hinduism and built vast temples. In the dusk of the Mughals they helped the EIC and net effect is they drove the final nail in the Sultanate rule. By supporting MKG for the INC could not have survived without Birla and Bajaj etc., one still needs to funds to struggle, they helped bring back self rule. Yes they might have done all this for their selfish reasons, buth think how much better it would be if they were integrated into the power structures.

If the currency of power is going to be wealth its self defeating to shun the mercantile class that generates wealth.

Are we being "neti, neti" in our criticism?

JLN after getting the throne of Delhi shunned the Indian businessman due to his contempt for them. However the nature of elections is such that one needs money to run in them. This contempt for businessmen lasted till Rajiv Gandhi. The Ambani pere walked into the corridors of power and now the great JLN's INC eats out of his son's hands! If it weren't for them the UPA would be sitting in the Opposition benches.

[brihaspati]

ramana ji,
the regime they brought and they themselves - they deserve each other. Part of the reason for abandonment of what is now Paki [undivided] was because certain setthis thought these were troublesome for biz. I am well acquainted with at least two of the houses. I know what role they played in Partition. You can see that they helped to usher in exactly that regime that will ultimately build up the costlier, low-return initial infrastructural development from public enforced savings and in time reap the benefits from privatization and "opening up". They helped apparently in the transition through independence true - but they also supported and leashed this transition in ways that would keep India stuck with indirect Brit manipulation and an Islamic scorpion and a Communist rat not tackled in proper time. This is a section that from behind holds the reins back when there is a possibility of action to take out those entities in our neighbourhood that needs to be taken out. It is then the millenium spanning standard pattern emerges - that somehow or other actions are prevented that could pre-emptively destroy the agents of imperialism in our neighbourhood. The first suspicion then lands on those with the foreign trade element and long association with the historical successors of the western-ME imperialists.

There is a section of trading community that is not so deeply involved with foreign imperialist interests - and they are deeply patriotic.

It is the foreign trade- investments+financial flows group which I am targeting.

[svinayak]

ramana ji,
very insightful. I have not thought about this way!

I have given this idea before.
Free access to Indian people and Indian merchant is what gave the english the power to change the political situation over centuries.

Indian merchants have to collaborate with the military power to create and sustain markets from now.
Indian merchants have to take care of the national interest