Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jan 2009 22:50

Jupiterji, Please add all yoour thoughts to the blog that you maintain.

Rudradev you need to do the same.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Jan 2009 22:55

Brihaspati ji,

Democracy does not help, but democrats in poor places often have a price tag, and if approached by the right person with the right purse can help put in place the various bombs, which can bring down a whole state.

The reason, it has not worked as yet in India, is simply because the plan to bring down the place would have to be too elaborate for a smooth implementation, and too many politicians would have to be puppeteered by a single hand.

In Pakistan however it could work. A multiplication of power centers and fragmentation into sub-nationalisms can be helpful for weakening the nation. These sub-nationalities need not be forced to come together through outright threat of war by us, their enemy.

Once separated into separate states, often the tendency to collectively rise and take up arms diminishes. The US and Israel have been able to play divide and rule in the fragmented Arab World for so long. India too banished the two front threat from Pakistan in 1971.

So all weaknesses in the Pakistani system needs to be exploited, including those which democracy or pseudo-democracy brings about.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Jan 2009 23:02

In Pakistan however it could work. A multiplication of power centers and fragmentation into sub-nationalisms can be helpful for weakening the nation. These sub-nationalities need not be forced to come together through outright threat of war by us, their enemy.

Once separated into separate states, often the tendency to collectively rise and take up arms diminishes. The US and Israel have been able to play divide and rule in the fragmented Arab World for so long. India too banished the two front threat from Pakistan in 1971.

I am sure you realize, that this will only work under the assumption that (a)Pakistani commons model democracy the same way as you do (b) that democracy works in a vacuum - that is there is no existing movement/ideology/organization that will not use the space to focus hatred on India itself. When the commons have been brainwashed, the expression of popular will only concentrate the hatred.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Jan 2009 23:11

brihaspati wrote:
In Pakistan however it could work. A multiplication of power centers and fragmentation into sub-nationalisms can be helpful for weakening the nation. These sub-nationalities need not be forced to come together through outright threat of war by us, their enemy.

Once separated into separate states, often the tendency to collectively rise and take up arms diminishes. The US and Israel have been able to play divide and rule in the fragmented Arab World for so long. India too banished the two front threat from Pakistan in 1971.
I am sure you realize, that this will only work under the assumption that (a)Pakistani commons model democracy the same way as you do (b) that democracy works in a vacuum - that is there is no existing movement/ideology/organization that will not use the space to focus hatred on India itself. When the commons have been brainwashed, the expression of popular will only concentrate the hatred.

That space will be used to focus hatred on India regardless of whether there is democracy there or not. As far as the commons are concerned, I believe they need a few other things as well like jobs, etc. other than hatred towards India. Democracy also mean that there will be a multiple of groups, and through their rhetoric, they will try to differentiate amongst themselves in more ways than just through the level of hate for India.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Jan 2009 23:21

I am not suggesting that things will only eveolve along the "hatred" line, but we should keep in mind that internal dissensions may not be reflected in changing attitudes towards India, thats all -

For me, a democratic shell will give TSP more legitimacy, and more protection from international forces, under which it can carry on its basically ideologically motivated (and biologically driven) agenda against India. TSP needs to be dissolved before it can recover and gain more legitimacy. Democracy will only be successful in achievement of modernization agendas, if and only if the retrogressive factors like ideology, theologians, theological networks and institutions have been eliminated. This in turn can only be done, undemocratically - for at the moment the theologian networks have complete dominance over the "commons" - and it is this dominance that will show up in elections or through democracy. Thus, occupation of Pakjab and Sind with a firm objective to eliminate and liquidate the theological networks and institutions completely and re-education for a generation or more will create a level playing field for democracy proper to start crawling.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Jan 2009 23:23

Ramanaji,
will do as per suggestions. what about copyright issues on BR? I mean reproduction of posts elsewhere or even in summary form?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jan 2009 03:17

brihaspati wrote:
We need to move our capital from New Delhi.
Yes I think did mention this once before! glad to see another one thinking same. Actually Delhi made sense in undivided India, not anymore. Also from a security point of view, capital should be as far as possible from hostile neighbours subject to admin/communication capabilities. Under current and immediate future scenario, a more "central/southern" location should be preferable. Just beware that many may green-man you citing Muhammad bin Tughlaq. But his domain was really centred in the northern plains, so it was not optimum to move.

I dont agree. Delhi has a place of its own in Indic mind. Through the early ages it had various names (Hastinapura, Indraprastha und so weiter) and was the seat of power of the heartland of India. The big mistake that was made in the transition from the epic age to the historical age was the shift of political power from Delhi region to other areas and thus losing the sense continuity of nation state.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Jan 2009 03:27

Well one problem seems to have been the creation of Delhi as a nation within a nation. We could see, that Delhi itself does not identify with the rest of India - as evidenced by its electoral behaviour recently - it refused to brutally penalize a regime that has failed the nation as a whole but simply managed to oil-up Delhi proper. Any other nation would have thought of this capital as "self-centred" and a betrayer of the nation.

For most part of known history, I think Pataliputra was the most widely known capital. Capitals shift according to political centres of gravity - don't you think that that centre is now wandering more to the west, and south and east?

Given the existence of regional distrust, Delhi as capital is more identified with regional Punjabi-UP interests and dominance with cooption of some of the top brains from the other regions. Is it wise to provide a single site as national focus - so that if this is destroyed, the entire nation feels psychological defeat? We should see more of Delhi's attitudes that it does consider itself a part of the larger nation and not simply as a ruler which extracts surplus form the rest of the country to enjoy.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jan 2009 03:29

The seat of political power has nothing to do with the state of Delhi. the two should not be considered as together even thoguth they exist together. One is national the other is local.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Jan 2009 03:41

Ramanaji,
I agree that the two should be separated. But I can see that historically, the only time it was prominent within the last 2500 years, was when Prithviraj III's ancestor Krishna began to use it as a base of his operations to subdue the locality. Soon after, the Chahamana dynasty was destroyed by Ghori. From this time onwards, until the expulsion of the last Mughal emperor, Delhi was the seat of a brutal, predatory, foreign regime that has been the cause of untold misery and bloodshed for the Indians. Its preeminence returned again at the hands of a foreign invader in 1911. It has been designed to be and still proudly bears only symbols of colonial repression of two types - and both foreign. After Prithviraj's brave attempts no regime which has ruled India from this seat of power has ever served the Indian nation and Indian populations well. I have sometimes wondered whether the spirit of Prithviraj has taken its revenge by making any regime which settles there ultimately evolve as a betrayer of the nation.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Jan 2009 10:23

Change of regime in the USA and its implication for the strategic scenario for the subcontinent:
Obama's takeover could actually be a dampener for all those hoping to see more positive action in favour of India. His primary concern will be restoration of the US economy. US strategic interests in Asia will therefore be intimately tied in with strategies for growth of the US economy. In spite of rhetoric, economic calculations will impose restrictions on where and how far Obama will go.

It seems most unlikely that Obama will increase overseas military commitments and war or surgical strikes against Iran is most unlikely unless Iran deliberates provokes US into a position where it will be embarassed internationally if it does not retaliate. Obama will try to hold the "line" rather than expand or contract. His main tactic will be to retain the bluster to outshine Bush in foreign affairs but basically do nothing. He will try to achieve more with bluffs and diplomatic pressure and nerve wars rather than do anythinng that escalates military commitments. He will be under pressure to be seen not to retreat compared to Bush's legacy, which will be a dampener for those within and outside US who hope that Obama will reverse many of the aggressive Bush moves.

For the subcontinent, Obama's main strategic steps will be to reassure and to a certain extent increase cooperation with India mainly in the economic arena. Obama will also see to it that Indian regimes are not penalized at the elections by not taking aggressive retaliatory measures against Pakistan. Obama's tactic will be to increase public visibility of military collaboration with India, and a declared programme of strengthening defence capabilities of India, and maybe even some kind of enhanced NATO type guarantee of alliance/protection in case of thrird party aggression. Similarly Obama will see to it that any Pakistani regime is not penalized by the people, by holding off India from POK. If India can bargain here properly, it can wrangle out an agreement to station troops on the eastern border of Afghanistan as part of a strategy of anti-terror and disruption of Taleban supply lines to the POK. The key here again will be to stabilize rather than expand. This is here where Obama and US policy will begin to unravel. The situation in the Afghan+Pakistan front needs expansion and dynamic rather than stabilization. Stabilization of control would mean the beginning of loss of initiative on NATO part and the turning point of the campaign. The reason static war would be disastrous for the US, is because of the peculiar ground situation.

So far the anti-US forces have been fighting Chinese Red army style mobile warfare. Such war style can only be matched by continuous positional movement and encirclement of mobile warriors. As soon as this movement is lost, the mobile warriors gain advantage. For now, in an unfamiliar and unaccustomed territory, positional static NATO can be picked off at ease by its opponents. Obama's concentration on economic affairs out of necessity, is likely to lead to less stress on foreign affairs that are seen to be expensive and without direct long term benefits. This in turn is likely to lead to less clarity on strategic military objectives, and a corresponding confusion in the military command over operations. It will not be as if Obama himself will be directly responsible, but his preoccupation with internal affairs and priority to world economic manipulation will lead to a neglect of military expansion and stop-gap stabilization tactics.

Obama will try to get India onboard for the US economic recovery programme, and formulate joint policies to counter China. Strategically, this can benefit the entire Indian subcontinent, especially those economies in a position technologically and educationally to benefit from such US-India relationship - especially India, Bangladesh and SriLanka. But this will also be a great opportunity for India to push through in strategic initiatives of its own about the central Asian republics. India can shrewdly play around to force US acceptance of Indian military presence, if India offers to provide substantial military and economic help directly to the Afghan government. Most diplomatic pressures are only effective when the other party realizes that the pressurizing party will go ahead and do something anyway - and that it is better to join in before it is too late to appear to be a reliable "friend".

US current needs coincides with India's on the economic front, primarily againsy Chinese capture of world markets, and I think there will be no problems in the evolution of collaboration here. But overall this economic movement will subtly and in a very complex way, leave its mark on the military/political strategic scenario, whereby the US and the NATO will ultimately retreat from the Afghan front. This is both a danger as well as an opportunity for India, if it has the correct leadership.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Jan 2009 02:05

UK's continuing economic crisis and looming elections in the horizon can cause a subtle twist in its approach to the TSP. UK will be more amenable to Saudi pressure, for export markets and capital injection. In the route towards the elections, Labour would not like to prick its remaining Muslim support, which could also be part of a pressure from the Saudis who indirectly control a lot of Muslim mobilization in the UKthrough the various Islamic institutions and Saudi trained theologians. In addition, as some have speculated in this forum, some of the dead attackers of Mumbai could potentially be really traced back to Londonistan. The TSP authorities could also falsely try this out as a pressure tactics on UK.

This means for the future, UK's hope of getting middle-eastern markets and oil-capital, will continue to dictate its soft line towards the TSP. UK will support the TSP state machine to thwart any Indian move against TSP. A change of government to the Conservative one could slightly change the situation in favour of India, but the economic realities may not leave much room for flexibility. India may have to seriously rethink its strategic planning to counter the effect of UK's pulling its weight in favour of TSP. Economic penalties should not only be considered for TSP but for fence-sitters like UK too, who want "both the tree as well as the fruit".

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 20 Jan 2009 06:14

From Rudradevji's quotation of D.S.Rajan's summary, in the PRC thread: about a possible PRC psy-ops

* Looking from the viewpoints of history, law, national sentiment and custom and tradition, Southern Tibet (Zang Nan in Chinese) is a region, which is inhabited in a concentrated way by China’s Tibetan nationality people. Border tensions like what was seen in 1987-89 and India’s stepping up of its war preparedness as in recent period, cannot lead to any wavering on China’s part in its resolve to recover that region. The PRC has no reason to abandon its claim on Southern Tibet.

*Though China has had a long period of development resulting in increase in Comprehensive National Power, the attitudes of the Western world towards issues concerning Tibet and Southern Tibet can still affect it. India is courting the West and Russia and the strategic demand of all of them is to restrict and balance China. Japan’s ‘Arc of Freedom and Democracy ’ concept, is nothing but one aimed at containing China, joined by the West and India. The West including France and Germany intend to seize the last opportunity to exploit ‘Dalai’ and they ‘shamelessly’ supported the March 2008 Tibet unrest. Overall, judging from Western attitudes, it is clear that once a war happens, the West will once again come to the support of India forcefully. This pressure needs to be paid attention by China if it wants to fight against India.

* For reasons of nationality and India’s stubbornness, it would be difficult for China to avoid a war with India on the Southern Tibet issue. What can be said in certain is that China has completed its military preparations to solve that issue. Its economic strength, technological expertise, military power and logistics support capability, will help the country in completing a military attack on Southern Tibet. Also, as a point of certain significance, China has attained ability to deal with a possible nuclear conflict with India. The best for China would be its ‘direct dismemberment’ of India and make the latter to ‘spit what it has swallowed’ – making Sikkim independent, rejuvenating Pakistan and restoring freedom of choice to Bhutan and Nepal.

* In principle, if vital interests of countries clash, there is no scope for a compromise among them and war is the only remedy. Russia’s action against Georgia in August 2008 is an example; Moscow could utilize that opportunity to stop the US-led NATO expansion in Europe. China must attend to the Southern Tibet issue in the same way. It should be done considering the overall strategic situation in Central Asia, the target for US infiltration and in the South Asian Sub-Continent. While, in this regard, Pakistan and Iran are specifically important for China, Myanmar also needs the PRC’s attention as, if a war with India erupts, Indian troops may try to enter and attack China’s Yunnan province. 14th Army of Chengdu MR should be stationed in Kunming, Yunnan’s capital. The position that 80% of China’s strategic bomber force is in Lanzhou MR, may not be ideal. India cannot win a war with China in view of latter’s military preparedness and especially the superiority in armoured and rocket forces. It is estimated that once a war on the Southern Tibet issue starts, 80 percent of India’s deployed troops in northern part can become targets for the Chinese army. Beijing should grasp opportunities for attacking and hitting India to recover Southern Tibet. If India is clever, it should stop depending on the US support and sit for sincere talks with China.

So far, in this thread, we have not paid much attention to PRC as a significant pivot in the periphery who comes into immediate direct military conflict. But these sort of psy-ops does make us think. Maybe it is also time to think of neutralization of the PRC military threat as part of a comprehensive strategy to deal with TSP. PRC's main advantage is in its occupation of the Tibetan plateau and the Karakorum highway into the north. PRC banks on its land forces mainly, to "dismember" India and bolster TSP. It will also heavily rely on its missile technology to soften up and distract India from a distance before it makes its land moves.

How can India effectively match up PRC?

Economics : India probably needs to seriously think of occupying niches where it is ahead of China, and a key factor could be IT, health, and education. India can strategically target a major portion of the world's information processing capacity and need. India can also try out acquisitions globally (a strategy already being used by PRC). But India will need to begin to divert global trade to itself.

Militarily, India needs alliances with other nnuclear forces, like Russia, to have mutual agreement for third-party deterrence. Especially, with Russia, for that gives a good coverage of PRC nerve centres. On its own, Indian navy has to be built up for visits to the Pacific. Nuclear weapons capable submarines as well as surface vessels stationed in the Pacific can bring a wide area of PRC under "severe hurting" range.
India has to actively seek dissolution of TSP and incorporation as much as of that as feasible, especially all the northern parts leading up to the Karakorums to stop access by PRC. India's east has to be strengthened, including the "outreach" which means building up bonds with the countries bordering PRC. Long term, liberation of Tibet as an independent nation and creating conditions whereby Talebs are encouraged to move towards NE China as an alternative base to spread their "revolution" are achieveable.
Basically India has to be clear about its determination and intention, and take the initiative in strategy to take the fight to the enemy. So far we have been good at playing Kutuzovs or Wellingtons, probably it is time to play early Napoleon.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Jan 2009 01:08

While looking at the naval side of the strategic future, came up against the presence of US, UK bases in the Indian Ocean. Military gurus here, please update me if I am wrong, but US has roughly 25 bases in the Indian Ocean. US/UK have bases on the islands of Hun, Diego Garcia, Masirah, and the Bahrains, on the NW Cape, Cockburn channel - beside military agrrements and therefore base facilities with South Africa, Mauritious, Malaysia, and Oz. If Indian naval power fails to neutralize this presence, India will always be under pressure. Having such a large coastline, India can be particularly vulnerable to such US/UK pressures. In 1980, Carter had declared (State of the Union address) that "Any attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America. And such an assault will be repelled by any means including military force".

Any future move against TSP will need sealing off the sea-lanes to Karachi. What should be the long term strategy to tackle this? Insist on sharing bases? Could that jeopardize Andamans?

satya · Post by **satya** » 22 Jan 2009 01:41

The current rot in Delhi as capital of India needs to be understood with vast influence of immigrants from 1947 partition from Pakistan and the influence of many of its people on the corridors of power specially as assistants to both babus & netas and their rise as power brokers irrespective of party in power for they have remained the same . Indians from other states be it from Tamilnadu or AP or from any other region though in substantial numbers have never been able to wield such influence even now with DMK in power , there will always be a hand of a Delhite with ancestors from present day Pakistan as a power brokers in every Govt. related work be it policy directives or new tenders or monthly payment arrangements . Somehow this small group has affinity for good old days their ancestors had in present day TSP where they swear all of them were either multi-millionaires if not billionaires and all had hidden gold in kilos in ground b4 coming to India which none of TSPians ever found out . So to understand the workings of NCR , understand this psyche of this immigrant community and you will understand what drives them and till today the nitty gritty of GoI .

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Jan 2009 20:30

So to understand the workings of NCR , understand this psyche of this immigrant community and you will understand what drives them and till today the nitty gritty of GoI .

Satyaji,
this is a question of consolidation of the core. Now we have not really worked on the sociological angle of it, but what you mention does again bring up the problem of peripheral representation in decision making. What you are indicating is that one peripheral region seems to dominate political representation at the federal level. It is possible that immigrants after two three generations do tend to try hard enough to overcome bias against them by putting up for power positions and jobs. We can see that in the west now, at least in the USA or in France.

I would think, that one of the main reasons opportunism sourced from regional power interests can survive in Indian system, is because there are so many regional and linguistic fissures. Whoever is in federal power would like to maintain and encourage these divisions, so that they can play the role of unavoidable "arbitrators" or middleman. This is a key obstacle to unification and crystallization of nationhood. Recognition of divisions makes them more long-lasting - refusing to acknowledge their existence on the other hand can go a long way towards eventually erasing such divisions.

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 24 Jan 2009 06:14

This news is little uncomfortable.

White House change may lead to Karzai ouster

I am sure India would have looked into the prospect of after-Karzai Afghanistan. Does gurus here have an idea about what post-Karzai India-Afghanistan look like?

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 24 Jan 2009 06:28

Abdullah is more favorable to India than Karzai. His family was in India throughout the Taleban times and he was close associate of Masood.

kasthuri wrote:This news is little uncomfortable.

White House change may lead to Karzai ouster

I am sure India would have looked into the prospect of after-Karzai Afghanistan. Does gurus here have an idea about what post-Karzai India-Afghanistan look like?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Jan 2009 08:28

Kasthuri wrote
This news is little uncomfortable.
White House change may lead to Karzai ouster
I am sure India would have looked into the prospect of after-Karzai Afghanistan. Does gurus here have an idea about what post-Karzai India-Afghanistan look like?

Afghan tribal chiefs unite against a common devil. USA has a tricky prospect. If it removes the Taleban threat, it removes unifying factor of the Mujahid revenge. And then the Mujahids will break apart, weakening whatever regime the USA sought to put in place. Once the regime weakens, the Talebs will move forward again (As long as they are able to derive covert support from the Ummah). The Talebs may actually appear to be the "stable" evil compared to many small unstable "evils" - to the Afghan people after several such see-saw movements in Afghan politics.

A single central authority should be promoted, otherwise factional infighting and tribal rivalries will preserve niches for the Talebs - who will draw the marginalized and the dispossessed of the Afghan society who otherwise would have turned to street crime to survive. Any continuance of the Talebs, or power sharing agreements by which Talebs take part in Afghan government is a danger signal for India. Obama's plans, in this direction can spell disaster for India.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jan 2009 08:33

The idea is to get Zalmay Khalilzad to run for President. The ground rule is the President has to be Pashtun since Ahmed Shah Durrani. US prefers there variety of Sarkari Pashtuns (US trained). I don't know the pecking order if Khalilzad is a Durrani or not. Will check the runes!
Its sad for Khalilzad can run the NSC for the US.

Abdulla is Tajik so no dice.

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 24 Jan 2009 08:45

ramana wrote:The idea is to get Zalmay Khalilzad to run for President. The ground rule is the President has to be Pashtun since Ahmed Shah Durrani. US prefers there variety of Sarkari Pashtuns (US trained). I don't know the pecking order if Khalilzad is a Durrani or not. Will check the runes!
Its sad for Khalilzad can run the NSC for the US.

Abdulla is Tajik so no dice.

And how good it is for India if Khalilzad is chosen?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jan 2009 08:46

Depends on Khalilzad is a Durrani or Ghilzai?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Jan 2009 09:08

The Sarkari Pashtuns will not carry the weight (and probably only those Pashtuns will be chosen by the USA who are weak enough to need US patronage) required to be a publicly accepted power centre. I am worried that USA's strategy will lead to a strengthening of the pro-Taleb forces. This can only mean bad news for India. TSPA will also desperately try to activate its own networks within the Afghan portion of the Talebs to utilize dislike for anyone who sides with the "foreigner".

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 24 Jan 2009 09:34

X-posting from "India to consider sending 120,000 troops to Afghanistan"

----------------------------------x----------------------------

Interesting to note that Russia is now keen in getting into Afghanistan.

Russia ready to cooperate with Obama on Afghanistan

----------------------------------x----------------------------

I think Russia is now concerned with the post-Karzai scenario that it wants to enter the foray asap. First, it (Russia) has quite easily accepted the logistics route that US was desperately seeking, which initially seemed to be a daunting task. Second, it was ready for the defense cooperation with Kabul upon Karzai's request. And now, this news along with the info that Medvedev is in Uzbekistan soon after Petraeus visit (not even a week had past). Also, if one had noticed, India of late seems to pitching the slogan that there should be a global cooperation on fighting terror.
With all these things, I am suspecting that there could be some joint Afghan project (with India and Russia) than India alone sending the troops. I think this kind of strategy is really necessary at this moment if there is going to be a post-Karzai debacle.

Added later: US also seems to be not averse to a joint mechanism as it says it wants to engage regional players in Afghanistan (including Iran and Russia).

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Jan 2009 09:45

Agreed, and we have spculated about this before that India can bring in Russia to force US hands in accepting Indian presence. But India has lost the initiative. To be effective, India has not only to colaborate with other "giants" but also take independent initiative. This is a continuing blunder for which India may yet have to pay dearly. Both US and Rus presence is actually going to help the Taleb cause - they are both equally hated. But going entirely through US and Russian representation, India will share the image of a puppet in the hands of a hated enemy - with whom the Afghans are being forced to make temporary compromises. Something to show that India is capable of independent initiatives would be a long term insurance against sharing the eventual disaster of retreating US and Rus forces.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Jan 2009 21:08

Kasthuri wrote
With all these things, I am suspecting that there could be some joint Afghan project (with India and Russia) than India alone sending the troops. I think this kind of strategy is really necessary at this moment if there is going to be a post-Karzai debacle.
Added later: US also seems to be not averse to a joint mechanism as it says it wants to engage regional players in Afghanistan (including Iran and Russia).

One of the dangers of US+Rus moving in from the north is that the Talebs and Qaeda will simply retreat back into Pakistan more and move more towards the east into Kashmir and India. Since India has proven its lack of will and determination to destroy Pakistan, they have greater chance of succeeding to the East.

In India there is a persistent refusal to see the roots, driving motivations in the ideological history of the main religion of the militants. A careful study of that would have revealed, that the Talebs and Qaeda have followed exactly their collective religious "wisdom" which is primarily concerned with political-military expansion. All their strategic behaviour and tactical practices have been entirely consistent and predictable based on their ideological beliefs. Without going into the details, the main tactics is deception, temporary pretensions of alliances with "other" groups until they have been fully utilized and then destroyed, but always expansion. This expansion is chiefly directed at fertile and irrigated lands and trade routes. This ideology is not very comfortable with modern science and technology (as the methods of enquiry can jeopardize theological authority) and relies more on agriculture and trade as the dominant economic force.

India has proved to be a divided house over its understanding of this basic ideological agenda, and this will continue to be used shrewdly by the militants. Pakistan's regime is in full ideological consonance with the Talebs and Qaeda. Militants can use the existing confusion within India over the real targets and driving factors to find softer and easier bases along the borders of India and maybe even across the border inside India. If hard pressed they can simply appeal to the existing propaganda inside India that it is not ideology but ethnic grievances only. Militants by this time realize, that there can be large and influential groups inside India whose "ideas of religious tolerance" can be utilized to protect themselves inside India. The real danger would be the gradual takeover of vast areas within the country where the authority of GOI will not run. That this can be done has already been shown by the Naxalites.

Historically, pressure from further north, have been instrumental in the Afghans moving down deeper south into India during various phases of the Islamic expansion into the subcontinent. They have only been stopped when Indian regimes have quickly reacted to crush them at the "gates".

It is most unlikely that in the future India will be able to avoid confronting Afghan militants, even if it tries to hide behind an independent Pakjab. Just like Indians, Americans make the mistake of modeling "others" by thinking that their self-model will apply to "others". This is the source of compromise, tolerance, and fatal delay in liquidating lethal sources of destruction.

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 25 Jan 2009 21:29

Thinking about the ideological perspective of things, I view the radical Islam is in the same league as that of the medieval Christianity when thousands of people were prosecuted in the name of religion. There too Italy and other European countries were the sponsors of 'terror' - only on a very broader scale than what Pakistan is doing. By broader scale I mean prosecuting its own people in the name of religion. TSP is more into prosecuting other countries than itself. The main difference I think is the 'information age' which has lead to a bit greater understanding of the problem world-wide. I foresee an age when Islam (which offers ample scope for misinterpretation) too would be tamed to an extent of modern Christianity.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Jan 2009 22:09

Kasthuriji,
it took nearly 800 years for Christianity (violent expansion on "others" by Constantine and Charlemagne to the Crusades to Renaissance). We may not have so much time left.
India should have immediately taken the initiative to offer military cooperation with Afghanistan without holding onto the tail of other forces. Unless India takes independent initiative it cannot have any leverage in the situation. Such unilateral moves would bring in more competitive inputs from worried US+RUS+PRC, and India can subtly convey this potential to the Afghan regime. India is not seizing thye strategic initiative which is a blunder.

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 25 Jan 2009 22:34

brihaspati wrote:Kasthuriji,
it took nearly 800 years for Christianity (violent expansion on "others" by Constantine and Charlemagne to the Crusades to Renaissance). We may not have so much time left.
India should have immediately taken the initiative to offer military cooperation with Afghanistan without holding onto the tail of other forces. Unless India takes independent initiative it cannot have any leverage in the situation. Such unilateral moves would bring in more competitive inputs from worried US+RUS+PRC, and India can subtly convey this potential to the Afghan regime. India is not seizing thye strategic initiative which is a blunder.

Brihaspatiji: This brings us to an interesting question which I am wondering about. How independent is our foreign policy with regards to the west? First, will we be allowed to take such unilateral decisions? Of course, this depends on the sovereignty of Afghanistan. The way in which Karzai is pleading for control over the US/NATO forces makes me think that finally it is the US call that decides the things in the region. The only hope of taking unilateral decision is to first have some kind of alliance with countries like Russia.

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 25 Jan 2009 22:39

Sorry, a rejoinder. It would be of no use if India unilaterally offers troops just to be rejected by the US/NATO. It will not only be an embarrassment to our nation but a big blow on our standing in the world as well. It is better to work with Track II diplomacy in these cases and come to a conclusion - which is what India is doing I guess. So, cooperation is essential at least initially.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Jan 2009 23:08

Kasthuriji,
there are always dependencies. Between just the two -US and India, India has to go through the NATO, yes, but when it becomes three - US+RUS+IND, things do change dramatically. This was why so many countries flourished during the Cold War. There are many ways of conveying this message across, and under the given circumstances, it will not be good for the US/NATO if India then starts mentioning RUS favourably once too often.

Moreover, see how far Pak can go by believing in itself. If India as a nation believes in itself it can go a long way. There are weaknesses on the side of the Afghan regime that can make India's task easier, and also the potential of more competitive offers from others should be pointed out by India to the Afghans.

Akshut · Post by **Akshut** » 25 Jan 2009 23:32

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2009/jan/22 ... urohit.htm

Reveals a serving army officer, who is one of the 452 witnesses in the September 29 Malegaon blast case

In a shocking revelation, an army officer, one of the 452 witnesses in the September 29 Malegaon blast case, has revealed in his statement that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had a grand design to split India into smaller independent countries by 2015.
According the statement, the officer had attended one of the meetings held by the Malegaon blast accused on April 12, 2008 at the Ram temple in Bhopal. The officer from the Army Education Corps said that he was shocked by the proceedings.

He added that an ex-Raw personnel, who was present in the meeting, divulged these sinister plans of splitting the nation, based on a similar operation in the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

The witness added that the ex-Raw official also revealed that the CIA had managed to penetrate several departments in India. The officer cautioned the witness that the meeting was being observed by the Intelligence Bureau.

Sinister plans

The officer met Lt Col Shrikant Purohit in an official dinner at the Officers' Mess of AEC training college and centre in the second week of December 2007 at Deolali. He told Purohit about a plan to take premature retirement to develop his village, and establish an old age home.

On January 26, 2008, Purohit asked him to come to Faridabad and meet a few people for his project. There he was introduced to Sameer Kulkarni and the other accused in the Malegaon blast case. Then on April 12, 2008, Purohit called him for a meeting at Ram Mandir. He met all the Malegaon accused and another 20 people, along with the ex-Raw officer and the IB source.

The former RAW officer spoke about the USSR and Purohit spoke about his plans to bring Abhinav Bharat to the fore. Purohit also spoke about Hindu fundamentals and his contacts in Israel and Thailand.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Has unkil gone mad or has ISI got links with our print media?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Jan 2009 23:51

Has unkil gone mad or has ISI got links with our print media?

It is not directly obvious, why it would be advantageous for Unkil to splinter India into many states, unless it wants to help Pakistan by getting Kashmir. Also, India is not its primary enemy now, it has much more to worry about from China and Russia - in which a favourable unified India is a potential asset. This smacks of more Cold War speak - when India was seen as a camp follower of Russia. It could also have been released to put subtle pressure on GOI not to think of leaning slightly towards Rus.

But what could be real, in this particular case, was a typical honeytrap - in which CIA could have participated. This was to convince someone to take steps towards political or military extremism, and use this to attract all individuals with similar tendencies - so that they could all be collected in one scalping operation. It could also be an operation to preempt any formation of frustration in army officers serving and facing Jihadi terror. It could be quite crucial for many quarters that no retaliatory tendencies develop within the most effective section in India against Jihad - the army. At least here some of the establishment within Unkil could have a stake. But it appears to be more an entrapment case (if with Unkil then with full connivance of GOI and hence elements from Indian equivalents) with a possible motivation to silence Purohit who probably knows too much.

Akshut · Post by **Akshut** » 26 Jan 2009 00:04

brihaspati wrote:But it appears to be more an entrapment case (if with Unkil then with full connivance of GOI and hence elements from Indian equivalents) with a possible motivation to silence Purohit who probably knows too much.

And what that "too much knowledge" can be?? Any idea guruji??

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 26 Jan 2009 00:20

I am quoting from the book 'India's Century' by Kamal Nath.

Page 45. Chapter: There and Then

Commenting on the draft of the Second Five-Year Plan (1956), the British scientist and intellectual J.B.S.Haldane wrote:
Even if one is pessimistic, and allows a 15 per cent chance of failure through interference by the United Stats (via Pakistan or otherwise), a 10 per cent chance of interference by the Soviet Union and China, a 20 percent chance of interference with civil service traditionalism and political obstruction, and a five percent chance of interference by Hindu traditionalism, that leaves 50 per cent chance of success which will alter the whole history of the world for better.
Haldane knew the India of the Nehru era well, and had assigned, shrewdly perhaps, a somewhat higher weight to the risk of interference by the Americans than to the Soviet camp.

So people have been predicting and commenting on America's intentions. My simple mind does not grasp the things clearly. So what is in it for America? Why are folks saying America is bent on containing India or splitting India. Was USA not helping Pakistan because it did not want Soviets to reach the sub-continent and warm waters? At the time of independence what did India show to others, especially USA, for them to have such plans?

I am sure this must have been discussed at BRF, if anyone can point me to the threads it will be great. I am looking for pointers on why USA would work against India, and continue to work against India even in these times.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Jan 2009 01:18

I am looking for pointers on why USA would work against India, and continue to work against India even in these times.

It may not be so much as working-against-India from their viewpoint, but rather the question of keeping it under control. Weakening ensures control at least in the short term. Unkil's main problem is lack of foresight and modeling other cultures by its own. Look at how Unkil expanded form the narrow coastal strip of 13 colonies, war, bluster, bluff, buyout, war, bluster, bluff, buyout.... It has a good deal of experience in recasting narrow selfish motivations like say smuggling profits/or taxation into an icon of liberation and freedom. So it thinks that every desired object can be taken by force, and what cannot be taken by force can be bought, and it always pays to cast selfish motives in the garb of sufficiently innocent high principles or ideals. This in itself has no problems. US experience with the two WW's only served to reinforce this belief. But it starts to go wrong, when Unkil thinks that every culture in the world has similar beliefs. This is why it struggles with China, India, Pakistan, Iran, and the Middle East. And what bewilders it, it thinks of as dangerous potential enemy unless fully under control.

Akshutji, the exact nature of this knowledge can only be speculative - it could be as trivial as the Indian side operatives who set him up to actual international interconnections between gencies that might have worked under joint political instructions to prevent retaliations against Jihad. Or he could be one of those Hollywood famous victim of inter-agency rivalries. (pro and anti-Jihad)

Akshut · Post by **Akshut** » 26 Jan 2009 01:46

brihaspati wrote:
I am looking for pointers on why USA would work against India, and continue to work against India even in these times.

Akshutji, the exact nature of this knowledge can only be speculative - it could be as trivial as the Indian side operatives who set him up to actual international interconnections between gencies that might have worked under joint political instructions to prevent retaliations against Jihad. Or he could be one of those Hollywood famous victim of inter-agency rivalries. (pro and anti-Jihad)

You are right it is very complicated to have a direct pointer to the core planning in place.

But Purohit reveals that CIA has "Grand Design" in place.

What else can be expected from the forefathers of the jihadis. I just hope our intelligence agencies and govt. dont let some blunder happen.

But then again, I also remember a book by some ex-RAW member, in which he revealed that RAW and IB have been massively infiltrated by the CIA. And then was the case of a britisher air-dropping the ammunition supplies for the Naxals. The area under the naxalite influence has almost doubled between 2003 and 2005, as according to the available data.

So the dirty game is on, and as expected dirty unkil is the captain, of both the teams.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Jan 2009 02:30

And then was the case of a britisher air-dropping the ammunition supplies for the Naxals.

Oh these are "non state actors" -

Seriously, a lot of ex-service and special forces personnel from NATO countries hire themselves out as independent "consultants". This is a good front for the security agencies of the West to continue their activities under complete deniability.

Akshut · Post by **Akshut** » 26 Jan 2009 03:23

brihaspati wrote:
And then was the case of a britisher air-dropping the ammunition supplies for the Naxals.
Oh these are "non state actors" - Seriously, a lot of ex-service and special forces personnel from NATO countries hire themselves out as independent "consultants". This is a good front for the security agencies of the West to continue their activities under complete deniability.

Then they must also should not have any problem if we hang these non-state actors.

But alas! CIA's and MI6's contacts worked and he was transferred home from his VVIP jail.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Jan 2009 03:52

brihaspati wrote:
I am looking for pointers on why USA would work against India, and continue to work against India even in these times.
It may not be so much as working-against-India from their viewpoint, but rather the question of keeping it under control. Weakening ensures control at least in the short term. Unkil's main problem is lack of foresight and modeling other cultures by its own. Look at how Unkil expanded form the narrow coastal strip of 13 colonies, war, bluster, bluff, buyout, war, bluster, bluff, buyout.... It has a good deal of experience in recasting narrow selfish motivations like say smuggling profits/or taxation into an icon of liberation and freedom. So it thinks that every desired object can be taken by force, and what cannot be taken by force can be bought, and it always pays to cast selfish motives in the garb of sufficiently innocent high principles or ideals. This in itself has no problems. US experience with the two WW's only served to reinforce this belief. But it starts to go wrong, when Unkil thinks that every culture in the world has similar beliefs. This is why it struggles with China, India, Pakistan, Iran, and the Middle East. And what bewilders it, it thinks of as dangerous potential enemy unless fully under control.

Akshutji, the exact nature of this knowledge can only be speculative - it could be as trivial as the Indian side operatives who set him up to actual international interconnections between gencies that might have worked under joint political instructions to prevent retaliations against Jihad. Or he could be one of those Hollywood famous victim of inter-agency rivalries. (pro and anti-Jihad)

brihaspatiji,
What is your email. I think your contribution is excellent and fresh. I want strategic thinking and history to be also part of your analysis. There are things missing especially WW and history of the last 200 years. I want to send something for your reading. One of the basic foundation reading is this work. http://indiaresearch.org/India_at_Strat ... _eBook.pdf