Is India Serious About Its Defence?

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 16 Nov 2013 18:56

We have some of the smartest minds in India active on this Board.

So I want to throw a provocative thread at them.

Defence of a country is the sum total of economic, technological, political, and historical aspects of the country. It is much more than just defence services.
I would examine some of it in subsequent posts.

India stands at a cross-roads today - after completing 66 years of its independence, a time when the country faces unprecedented security challenges.

China's rise and Islam's resurgence are huge challenges for India. I feel that India is ignorant of these security challenges and is largely unprepared.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 16 Nov 2013 19:10

Garg wrote:We have some of the smartest minds in India active on this Board.

I will write more later, if thread lives long

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 16 Nov 2013 19:15

I shall start will challenges.

The Islam's challenge - The growing radical Islam is a serious challenge to the benign Indian democracy. This problem is not limited to some areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan but is now spread throughout the Muslim world - about 1.4 billion people. This issue affects India strongly, as it sits right in the middle of major Islamic populations.

China's Rise - China's economic rise is accompanied by massive military modernization. China has acquired means of force projection much quicker that the world anticipated. The acquisition of technology by China from diverse sources and its effective utilization for military purposes has been stunning. China is now challenging the pre-eminent position of USA rather openly. Why this matters to India? Because India has unresolved issues with China, and these issues are used by China as an opportunity to arm-twist and contain India. As India grows, India needs natural resources and thus gets in direct competition with China for these resources.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Nov 2013 19:21

Garg, perhaps you would like to migrate to the strat forum and leave this one free of hi-funda strategy stuff.
mil forum is for mil stuff, I would keep it that way.

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 18 Nov 2013 13:27

I started this topic in Mil forum. Admin advised to move the topic to Strat forum.

I simply could not find any way to move the thread to Strat forum.

Need Admin's help to move the thread (and unlock the thread).

Thanks.

Promise to bring very good and vital material to the thread.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 18 Nov 2013 14:40

This is redundant with several other threads and thereby unnecessary. the thread title is rather tabloidy and not objective.

For starters define 'India' and define 'defence' ...both are rather vague terms that can mean anything.. India can mean the landmass,the Indian civilians,the Indian armed forces , the elected central government or the bureaucracy ....If you have issues pertaining to any of the above , there are threads where these can be presented in each specific thread...

hence IB4TL...

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 18 Nov 2013 14:52

Agree with you Kakkad ji. One has to know what exactly one is defending to defend strongly and with conviction. The way we are going, in another 40 years all our defense equipment, progress will be in defending sharia and an Islamist nation. Don't count me then defending India.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 18 Nov 2013 14:52

sorry Garg ji, for all of India's political warts and all, at the end of the day most Indians and India as a whole are very serious about defence. If not this forum would have been in Arabic or Chinese language by now.

IB4TL.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 18 Nov 2013 14:54

This is a relevant although nebulous issue . So my view is to see how this thread material develops.

Mukesh.Kumar · Post by **Mukesh.Kumar** » 18 Nov 2013 15:31

Super Mario style- IB4TL

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 18 Nov 2013 15:36

Guys,

Be nice, let's give him a chance.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Nov 2013 15:45

Garg, can you explain the objectives of this thread ? Set the outline for the discussions.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 18 Nov 2013 15:54

Could not resist

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 18 Nov 2013 15:58

Yogi_G wrote:sorry Garg ji, for all of India's political warts and all, at the end of the day most Indians and India as a whole are very serious about defence. If not this forum would have been in Arabic or Chinese language by now.

IB4TL.

No hard evidence that this is actually the case, sirjee.

MOD is not serious, politicos are myopic and disinterested, babus are incompetent and purely tenure driven with a real anti Forces bias.

Think tanks are agenda driven and clueless about strategic interests. Fai is more interesting than national interests.

India and most Indians are easily swayed by burkha type TV channels without the ability for even simple analysis and introspection on defence issues. Ignorant people question the need for a long term stance against rogue neighbors, opting instead for bollywood type pappi jhappis and prefer the sort of meaningless gestures that mms seems to be overly fond of making.

It looks like a cultural failing. Our desperate desire to be liked probably outweighs all other considerations. Just saying, in exchange for a couple of buildings, the amrekis flattened countries. Yes,I do know what happened afterwards but at least everyone knows no to screw with the amrekis.

Here cut heads don't seem to matter and cut onions have more importance with onions predominating and even bringing down governments.

Let Garg ji have a go....

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 18 Nov 2013 16:00

As we used to say in the old days, we are going to have a old whine in a new thread.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 18 Nov 2013 16:57

RSN Singh at the IBTL forum (Pun intentional), but you do have your answer here, do watch

[youtube]0DSrg3TLufs&feature=youtu.be&t=20m[/youtube]

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Nov 2013 18:09

Unfortunately the thread has been started with a rhetorical question. The short answers would be either yes or no.

My answer is yes, since that is all the thread requires me to decide.

As far as I can tell the only way to squeeze any information out of this thread is to answer with a yes or no and give a series of long winded arguments explaining the answer. I have always found such threads to be unfair to anyone who posts a reply that the topic starter disagrees with because the person who posts a reply takes all the trouble to write a few paras on a question that would take an entire book worth of information as reply. And anyone who disagrees - or the topic starter can simply sit and take pot shots at the reply saying "No that is wrong" "No this is wrong"

I believe that it is incumbent upon a person who starts such a topic to put his or her opinion down in the form of an answer which can be debated. No wonder there are so many IB4TL reactions. If the person believes that India is serious about its defence, then the question would not have been asked. Clearly there seems to be a background suggestion that India is not serious about defence - a hidden attitude that can simply be used to tear into anyone who takes the trouble to commit an opinion contrary to the hidden opinion of the topic starter.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Nov 2013 18:21

I'm merging garg's original thread in mil to this one. it will be allowed to stay or not depending on how well the discussion progresses.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 18 Nov 2013 18:27

Not sure an additional thread is needed, but so far, the good thing about this thread: DocJi is back

.

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 19 Nov 2013 08:19

I have no intention to criticize anybody. I shall only present evidence and back it up sometimes with quotes from scriptures.

Yes, I feel that India is NOT serious about defence. What I mean about India is the political entity called 'India' which is a country on the planet earth. I hope this definition clarifies the scope of the topic.

Many words are used interchangeably for India - Like 'Bharat' and 'Hindustan'.

Let me make it very clear - 'India' cannot be 'Bharat'. It is impossible. 'Bharat' refers to a kingdom founded by King Bharat, an ancestor of Arjun. The current India has no resemblance to Bharat in any respect. Yes there are many descendants of Bharat's citizens that live in India. But in terms of political beliefs, cultural makeup, and ethnic and social aspects, there is no similarity.

Next is 'Hindustan'. I have been studying Sanskrit scriptures for around seven years now and I have never found the word 'Hindu' anywhere. Veda nowhere mentions the word 'Hindu'. So the question is what is 'Hindu' and what is 'Hinduism'? Can Hinduism be a political basis of a country?

I put that question to a great seer who said that Hindu merely refers to population that lived in Sindh (Sindhu-desh) at the time of Arabic invasions. Arabs could not pronounce 'Sindhu', so they converted it to 'Hindu'. Of course India is much larger than 'Sindhu-desh', so it is not clear if the entire local population (except foreigners who came during invasions) should be branded 'Hindu'. But anyway, the word Hindu in general can be taken as local population of India that existed in pre-Islamic time. The way India has evolved in pre-independence and post-independence period is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country. So I feel the word 'Hindustan' does not describe India appropriately.

So for me, it is India, a name given by Britishers to South Asia, and borders given by British empire.

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 19 Nov 2013 08:23

I shall limit myself to two posts per day, as it is not possible for me to write more that that.

I shall also refrain from criticizing any poster by name, and only write about issues and topics.

I hope this will help in keeping a high standard in this thread.

disha · Post by **disha** » 19 Nov 2013 10:32

@IB4TL. For the word "South Asia". Doc'ji has a tamil word for it. I will let doc'ji speak.

Garg'ji., there is no place called "South Asia". If you mean the Indian Continent (includes Pakistan, Bangladesh and parts of Afghanistan and Iran)., they yes., Britishers had some control over the Indian Subcontinent. But South Asia is an LSD driven concoction.

Mukesh.Kumar · Post by **Mukesh.Kumar** » 19 Nov 2013 15:36

Wherever the thread goes from now is not that big a point. But I think we really owe Garg for at least bringing back hakim saab into the forum.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 19 Nov 2013 16:53

Sub questions:
1) Effects of failed state that is allowed to spread pakistaniyat by compromised polity.
-Israel knocked off nuke reactors while Chinese/USA/Arap/EU ignored proliferation of nuke in face anti-India specific weapons and outright terrorism under nuke umbrella and open support by backers of pak.
-Genocide of Hindus in Bangladesh, ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus ignored merely as tactical issues

Who is to blame for hiding all these issues for decades while forcing pappi jhappi sessions to make such behaviour with failed state as civilized.

2) External powers allowed to pass policies and call it international or some other labels.
-USA passing balance in south Asia policy and pass it off as civilized behavior as latest example.
-No reference to call bluff of such policies by referring to UN standards.

3) Owning Cultural traditions
-Misinterpreting cultural traditions
-Selective secularization and complete silence on absence of secularism elsewhere.
-Absence of uniform civil code, uniform standards while lecturing Hindus on traditions

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 19 Nov 2013 18:31

Garg wrote:Yes, I feel that India is NOT serious about defence. What I mean about India is the political entity called 'India' which is a country on the planet earth. I hope this definition clarifies the scope of the topic.

Many words are used interchangeably for India - Like 'Bharat' and 'Hindustan'.

Let me make it very clear - 'India' cannot be 'Bharat'. It is impossible. 'Bharat' refers to a kingdom founded by King Bharat, an ancestor of Arjun. The current India has no resemblance to Bharat in any respect. Yes there are many descendants of Bharat's citizens that live in India. But in terms of political beliefs, cultural makeup, and ethnic and social aspects, there is no similarity.

Next is 'Hindustan'. I have been studying Sanskrit scriptures for around seven years now and I have never found the word 'Hindu' anywhere. Veda nowhere mentions the word 'Hindu'. So the question is what is 'Hindu' and what is 'Hinduism'? Can Hinduism be a political basis of a country?

The misconception about Bharat is well and alive.
Any serious "student of Sanskrit who has studied for seven years" would have atleast made efforts to understand what is the root of the word "Bharat" and what it means and why that particular word would have been chosen for land mass (jambudivpa) and its people for many centuries. Merely saying it is because a king happened to have the name Bharat and he founded (?) that kingdom exposes lack of seriousness and depth towards the subject.

Well be that as it may, Bha - root refers to 'light' / 'brightness' - of what?. Bharat varsha has been the beacon of knowledge or 'light' or that ~~supports~~ landmass and its people that facilitates and actively shines forth knowledge and wisdom, and hence the word 'Bharat" is used capture that essence from times immemorial. It is a different matter if India of today fully lives upto its namesake. But the idea is - it definitely can be with the effort of Bharatvasis.

Well 'Hindu/hinduism' is co-opted and Bharat vasis have owned it whether it is derived or originated in Bharat varsha itself. It could be limited understanding by outsiders or derogatory reference by outsiders, but that word has been co-opted and has been owned. So, there is no need to get things in a knot.
(Maybe talking to some 'yankees' could help in understanding what co-option or owning means.)

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 19 Nov 2013 18:41

The biggest challenge to India is resurgence of Islam in its violent, radical form.

I hope people have not forgotten the tales of Muslim armies that steamrolled into India a few centuries ago and caused un-measurable grief.

The incidents on India's western border is a symptom. It is important to understand the cause.

The cause very much relates to the very nature of Islam (live by the sword) and the fact that India was once conquered by Muslim warriors.

Islam does not differentiate between combatants and non-combatants, the only difference being 'believers' and 'non-believers'.

Muslim concept of war is 'total war', that is to wage war on society rather than army. This is quite different from Vedic/Indian concept of war where warfare was limited to army.

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 19 Nov 2013 19:13

JwalaMukhi wrote: Any serious "student of Sanskrit who has studied for seven years" would have atleast made efforts to understand what is the root of the word "Bharat" and what it means and why that particular word would have been chosen for land mass (jambudivpa) and its people for many centuries. Merely saying it is because a king happened to have the name Bharat and he founded (?) that kingdom exposes lack of seriousness and depth towards the subject.

Maharishi Yaska in his book Nirukta 8/13 has stated the meaning of Bharati: "BHARAT AADITYASTASYA BHAHA" i.e., Bharat means aditya i.e., sun. The meaning of 'bha' is light. So the Bharat means sun and its light bha is Bharati. Therefore the lusture (view of) of sun is Bharat and the light of Bharat is Bharati. Bharati means culture. Therefore according to the Vedas the culture of Bharat (Indian culture) is Ved, shastra, upnishad, Bhagwatgeeta, etc.

Source : http://www.vedmandir.com/content/questi ... ember-2007

Note: The nation of 'Bharat' adopted Vedic culture. A nation is defined by its people. If current India has adopted Vedic culture (???), then sure it can be called 'Bharat'. I hope you get the point. Beyond that, there is nothing in a name and you call call this country by whatever name you like.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Nov 2013 23:10

Garg, the short answer is yes. The whole strat and mil forum are repositeries of the many ways that India takes to defend itself.
In strat forum we try to see the why of it and the mil forum the how of it.

But do continue as it might lead to better knowledge for all of us.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 19 Nov 2013 23:23

The "Bhartiya" Part of India is serious of defense of Indian values, people, economy and infrastructure. Rest are just biding their time to

1. Take over the country to colonize it for their vested interests.
OR
2. Divide the country into various countries for their myopic political gains.

So! people need to be told the dangers of politicians in Congress, SP, JD, BSP, AAP, etc.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 19 Nov 2013 23:26

by Garg
The biggest challenge to India is resurgence of Islam in its violent, radical form.

The people who vote the "Secular" parties to power is the biggest challenge.
We need a nationalist government in power for at least 10-20 years and good economic growth.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 19 Nov 2013 23:41

Plus regimes that doesn't let development of industrial tech/fuel/innovation that can make India independent of foreigners, especially key areas. This even after suffering decades paki terror. Paki on the other hand threw rabid dogs into India from day 1 along with genocides, ethnic cleansing and now nuke blackmail besides outright wars.

Current issues in AP dragged on for decades while open vote bank politics and using various B teams is an example.

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 20 Nov 2013 18:10

The current turmoil that is happening in Egypt, Syria etc., and the issues affecting Israel all have a lot to do with pan-Islamism.

I do not need to write much about this topic. Wikipedia now has a category called 'pan islamism' which covers a lot of aspects of this phenomenon.

Muslim population has grown very fast in the last 60-70 years throughout the world. A lot of this mass of people suffer from lack of education and employment opportunities. These people are easily swayed by call of the Mullahs.

For India, we are more affected by countries standing with (or collaborating with) Pakistan. So I made an effort to understand the source of economic or military aid to Pakistan that is arriving from Muslim countries.

On this basis, I have found Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Turkey as the most likely candidates to contribute materiel and manpower to Pakistan in case of conflict with India.

So we can compare the combined military strength of these countries versus India.

Military Expenditure (Billion USD) - Significant Muslim Countries vs India
Turkey 18.2 India 45.78
Pakistan 7
Saudi Arabia 56.7
UAE 17.5
Total 99.4 45.78

Active Military Manpower - Significant Muslim countries vs India
Military Para-military Military Para-military
Turkey 410418 378700 India 1300000 1100000
Pakistan 617000 513000
Saudi Arabia 233500
UAE 51000
Total 1311918 891700 1300000 1100000

The objective of the above tables is to show that while manpower and military expenditure of Pakistan is much lower than India as stand-alone; the situation is not very comfortable due to pan-Islamism.

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 20 Nov 2013 18:23

The modern world is a time when military power of nations is significantly increased by alliances.

So while Pakistan's military power is seriously increased by alliance with other Muslim nations, I do not find if India has created any alliances that increase its military power.

India practically stands alone due to its isolationist political philosophy.

The isolationist politics is very demanding on military, as it forces the country to rely exclusively on internal military and economic strength. So it demands relative higher emphasis on size and expenditure on military. However that does not seem to be the case with India either.

A good comparison is Switzerland which has a similar isolationist political stance.

Switzerland has soldiers per capita (active + reserve + para-military) of 36.3 per 1000 people. For India, the same ratio is 3.9.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 20 Nov 2013 21:31

We in BR can at least start telling our own people (journos and people influenced by POaki propaganda) to at least

1. Stop calling Indian Subcontinent "South Asia". (Dish network still calls "south asian" channels after my repeated emails and threats to them. Other subscribers can also do the same.

2. Start calling our own Indian cities by their original names i.e. Karnavati for Ahmadabad, Prayag for Allahabad, Bhagyanagar for Hyderabad and so forth.

3. Let people remind again and again that millions of years ago India was a continent close to Africa since then it has traveled up to the Asia and is pushing against Asia (It is not South Asia as US state dept. calls), due to the push the Himalayas have risen and continue to rise. Indian Subcontinent and Indian Ocean are the correct terms to be used everywhere ( electronic, print, tv, etc)

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 21 Nov 2013 06:53

SBajwa: Renaming cities or land-mass does not solve fundamental problems. We must understand the problem first before jumping to solutions.

The pan-Islamism is a massive challenge for India as there are sympathisers and adherents of this political philosophy within India's considerable Muslim population.

So this becomes both external and internal challenge. However I dislike the tendency of politicians to blame many violent incidents on external factors immediately. Each incident should be meticulously investigated. The conclusion should be drawn only (and discussed and acted secretly in view of sensitiveness of the issue) after a thorough investigation.

The next issue which is also very worrying is the dispute with China.

The dispute with China arose out of folly of India, that is to side with imperialists (US/UK) on the issue of Tibet.

If not for Tibet, India and China relationship would have been cordial.

Although Mongols were large part of Mughal armies, we must not equate China with Mongols. China was also subject to Mongol terror over the centuries. China has been a place of development of civilization and has considerably influenced science and culture of the world.

China has been influenced by Indian thought (40% of Chinese population is Buddhist). This should have been taken by India as an opportunity.

Unfortunately, India's policy towards China has been short-sighted, which has created a number of problems.

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 21 Nov 2013 07:26

The Chinese consolidated their political power post-civil war. Even India consolidated its political power post-independence by merging large number of princely states.

The issues involving Xinxiang and Tibet are complex and beyond India's ability. The best course for India was to keep away.

However India decided to give shelter to Dalai Lama who formed a Tibetan government in exile. This breakaway Tibetan government remains an issue of contention and a source of mistrust between India and China.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 21 Nov 2013 11:07

Garg wrote:We have some of the smartest minds in India active on this Board.

So I want to throw a provocative thread at them.

Defence of a country is the sum total of economic, technological, political, and historical aspects of the country. It is much more than just defence services.
I would examine some of it in subsequent posts.

India stands at a cross-roads today - after completing 66 years of its independence, a time when the country faces unprecedented security challenges.

China's rise and Islam's resurgence are huge challenges for India. I feel that India is ignorant of these security challenges and is largely unprepared.

Certainly not.

Many of the "smartest mind" Maulanas on BRF are quite comfortable with going into the 2014 election with opaque non-verifiable EVMs.

I try to tell them that their state on mental enslavement is in fact worse than outright colonial rule, because pre-1947, people were at least aware of their slave status.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Nov 2013 11:28

it's been 5 days since this thread started.

there is a remarkable confusion of topics in the discussions that have gone on, it has ranged from sanskrit etymology to international alliances to islamic extremism without any overarching thought process tying them all into one coherent idea.

there already exists specialized threads for all the issues touched in this thread and those do a much better job at developing such ideas than this one. IOW, it's hard to see how this thread adds value to BRF.

therefore, thread locked. please continue these discussions in the relevant existing threads.

Bharat Rakshak