Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 18 Feb 2009 01:53

RajeshA,

To add to what Brihaspatiji and Ramana have said: What will you do with that particular low-hanging fruit once you have plucked it? How do you control and assimilate such a territory as Baluchistan, even if it joins the Indian Union?

It is not as simple as raising an Indian Flag in Quetta and claiming the land cartographically.

This is a mostly-undeveloped, zero-infrastructure land the size of Germany. It has only 10 million people over all that area, of whom only about 6 million are Balochis. Of those Balochis, surely very few have the skills to organize the building of a nation (and who knows how many have the desire to live in any kind of different nation than they have now). So all that work and expense will fall to us.

While we're doing all the work and undertaking all the expense, we will be constantly bled and harrassed by Pakjabis, Sindh-based Tanzeems, and of course the 3-million-odd Pashtuns who want to claim Baluchistan for their own Pakhtoonistan. Very likely by the Iranians as well. Yes, Baluchistan has immense natural resources and mineral wealth; but nobody has ever tapped it. How are we going to build the infrastructure to tap it, when we can't build infrastructure in large parts of present-day Indian territory (without the hindrance of deadly enemies)?

The thing about Baluchistan is, it's always going to be an easier place to deny someone else control, and bog down someone else, rather than try to control it ourselves. It makes for a better buffer state, or no-mans-land, than an actual province (at least given our present power-projection abilities and resources).

If the Pakis keep it, we can make sure they never get to tap its mineral riches... for every foot of road they construct, rebels can knock out twenty feet. Meanwhile the Pakis have to bear the day-to-day, year-to-year expenses of administering it, bleeding their wealth and resources. It's the best sort of territory to wage a war of strategic denial. However, it's immensely difficult to assimilate and control, and without controlling Sindh and Pakjab first it's probably impossible.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Feb 2009 02:54

Rudradev,

the difficulties you described are indeed valid, and I am not going to dispute them, but I'll rather try and bring something else to your attention.

Baluchistan's sparse population is actually its big advantage. We do not need to integrate vast hordes of Muslims into the Indian Union. It does not disturb our democracy too much. That is why, EU has second thoughts on including Turkey, but expanding into Rumania, Bulgaria, Croatia, etc. was a no brainer. Moreover there is space in Baluchistan, for the bulging Indian population to move into.

The Chinese walked into East Turkestan, into Tibet and domesticated the land. They used force where necessary, locals as labor where possible. The area they brought under their control is an area greater than present day India maybe. They just did it.

The Russians did it in the Far East. The Americans did it in the Wild West.

When I suggest, India moves in into Baluchistan, I make the suggestion in a particular context.

1. Pushtunistan under Taliban has been created.
2. Pakjabis are having to fight with the Taliban to save Pakjab against also falling under the yoke of Taliban and Taliban-Sympathizers in TSPA.

IMO, before the next 5 years, Pakjab will be under immense pressure from Pushtuns/Taliban, and would not have the nerve to continue to subdue the Baluchis.

I am pretty sure, the Iranians will be pretty quiet on this score. Their own Baluchistan is not really pacified. They at the moment see their border with Pakistan as sacrosanct. If they try expanding eastwards, they will be violating that sacrosanctity, and may lose out that what they already have. They will also be more happy having India as a neighbor, with whom they can trade, rather than the Taliban, who have no respect for international borders.

The main pressure on Baluchis will be coming from the Pushtuns, or rather from the Taliban. That is the fight we need to help the Baluchis with.

The Talibani Tanzeems putting the pressure from Sindh would also have to be fought off, but India does have some experience in fighting against the kabila. We can have our own gangs in Karachi fighting against these. Indians could get the Barelvis, or the Sindhis, who oppose the Taliban, or the Mohajirs, who are fighting for their hold on Karachi against the Pushtuns. There is sufficient diversity there, to use it for our ends.

In the end, we have to fight the Taliban, one day or another. We better fight the Taliban allied to a local population, with whom Indians never had any quarrel, and who can be visibly be differentiated from the Pushtun, than fighting them in Kashmir. In Baluchistan, it will be the good war. In Kashmir, it will be the murky war.

As far as funds are concerned, they can be forthcoming from non-Indian sources as well. If you are offering USA basing facilities in Gwadar and a transit route all the way to Afghanistan, there will be funds flowing in.

In the end, my simple message is, Baluchistan is doable.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 19 Feb 2009 17:30

I guess, this will be an appropriate thread for this post. X-posting from 120,000 troops thread.

Chiron wrote:IMHO, until India is militarily capable of handling Pakistan and China simultaneously, US should and will stay in the region. Of course, I am not claiming that they will stay for us, they have their own reasons.

India is in amidst of modernising the army, navy and air-force. She would be ready by 2020. It is my guess that if current trends continue, India will try and avoid getting in any hassles till 2020 AD. My gut feelings say, it will be between 2020-2025 that India will be ready to exercise her hard-power to solve her problems to their logical ends.

Until then, the West and TSP will suffer attrition. Somehow, from current responses of India, it seems that she is not sure about her capabilities. In case of war, it should be and perhaps will be an all-out war with defeat and assimilation of Pakistan, completely or substantially. Pakistan has nothing to lose right now, whereas India has achieved quite a lot. Until we develop a technology to comprehensively protect everything that we have achieved, we won't go for direct war.

The policies and measures needed to be implemented in the process of readying India for her launch as global power are -

* Rural empowerment so that many people can stay in villages and earn respectably - (helpful in case of nuclear war) - India and Hinduism have historically been de-centralized entities. The village makes up the fundamental structural and functional unit of Indian civilization even today. If villages in most of India are provided with 24x7 electricity supply, investment in sustainable and renewable energy sources in rural India, access to water for drinking and irrigation, Roads and education, banking, insurance, basic consumer goods (FMCGs) rural India will fuel the growth of nation at much faster pace than world could ever imagine. For the sake of record, it must be known that for 4800 years out of 5000 years of Indian history, India has been among the largest of all economies in world. India lost her prosperity when institution of village was destroyed by British. This needs to be reversed. This is where vision of Gandhi regarding village empowerment can do miracles.

Also, since the population will be scattered around, there won't be many casualties in case of nuclear fall-out. Also, the burden on cities like Mumbai will decrease a bit and economy won't be hit as badly as it will be now.

* Navy strong enough to assert dominance over Indian ocean - From Malacca to Hormuz/Suez. Atleast 4 aircraft carriers, 5 SSBN's required.

* Functional missile defence shield with extensive coverage.

* Functional coverage of Indian navigational satellites over entire Indian subcontinent - From Afghanistan to Myanmar.

* Ability to strike first with conventional weapons and strike hard in blitzkreig fashion of warfare so that TSP never gets a chance to retaliate. Ability to destroy most of its military infrastructure in a simultaneous strike on an unprecedented scale. Something like 2000 missiles (mixture of prithvi, agni, and others) with huge conventional bombs launched for different military and strategic destinations simultaneously immediately followed up by massive air strikes and infantry and marine invasions.

* Complete operationalisation of MCA, FGFA, LCA-mk2, GTRE-Kaveri and her subsequent improved versions, F-INSAS, and other programs which are still in pipeline.

* RAW functioning in subcontinent with at least 90% efficiency of Mossad and/or CIA with extensive network in Baloochistan, Afghanistan, Sindh, Myanmar, BD and Nepal.

* Reformation in Indic religions and assimilation of Islam into mainstream Indic society. This is expecting too much in such short time, but at least the awareness should be present among Hindus about the need of assertion of Hindu identity.

* Meanwhile, invest in friendship with Afghanistan, Iran, Myanmar, Vietnam. Create sufficient good-will for India in Northern Afghanistan and Myanmar. Increasing the bilateral ties with Vietnam. There was a plan of Vajpayee government to build a railway-line from New-Delhi to Hanoi. I guess, that would be an excellent means of increasing presence and influence of India in south-east Asia. Liberal use of her soft-power in Afghanistan to make afghans and Iranians perceive Indians as good guys with power.

* Gradually increasing exertion of power by Saam, Daam, Danda and Bheda in Nepal and Bangladesh.

I guess, until objectives somewhat similar to these are met, India will avoid starting an all-out war with Pakistan. I guess looking at current rate of development, India will be ready by 2020. Hence time is running out for Pakistan and China to lure India into open combat when she is not ready. India should keep on building up her powers and inhibit the growth of Pakistan by maintaining a constant pressure. This is ensured by US presence in Afghanistan. They won't be able to solve the problem because they do not know what the problem is. If trends continue, they will continue to be present in Afghanistan for at least 10-12 more years and continue to suffer slow attrition. But, they will buy India precious time.

I only hope that India has better leadership in next 10 years, unlike MMS. I guess, this will be the last chance India will get to rise to the position of her former glory. If we mess these 10 years, we will be doomed to suffer for next 50 years.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 20 Feb 2009 22:25

Chironji,

One aspect of a future strategy is definitely clear. The comprehensive socio-economic restructuring that makes India better prepared for Islamic or PRC onslaught. I have also tried to raise the issue of reformulating the basic policy towards settlements. We have big urban sprawls which are a nightmare for military operations against terrorists, and a plum target for hostile military attacks. Having said that the benefits of concentrated urbanization cannot be denied. So my suggestion was to consider developing urban-rural agrarian-industrial complexes, that are more or less self-sufficient in food, and energy. These will prevent migrations to large urban centres and in fact we should probably reverse the trend in a moving away from sterile urban cesspools which are practically dependent for biological survival entirely on the outside. Ideally each of these new plannedunits should have everything, they should include productive agricultural land and industrial units, processing capacity, energy generation all within the same spatial framework. Local markets will ensure more efficient and healthy consumption and new ways of social thinking can be developed where everyone participates in both food production as well as technological production, and share the same habitat.

Utopia perhaps, but what are dreams for - unless to sow seeds of reality!

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 20 Feb 2009 23:37

Brihaspatiji,

I would like to add a biological perspective to this as well, don't know how relevant will it be...

Human being is evolved to live in small groups, not bigger than 1000 people. Urbanization curbs lot many basic instincts of human beings.

* The social security of a closely knit community of a village is higher than nuclear families in city.

* Since everybody knows everybody ( or rather most of the people know most of the people), it is rather difficult to do something bad and go unnoticed. The Log Kya Kahenge (LKK) syndrome is higher in rural communities, and hence higher degree of righteous behaviour which is ultimately good for person, community and species.

* The cost of living is very low

* India has a very well developed concept of Panchayat Raj which was practised for centuries making every village an autonomous entity.

* Curiously, the oppression of untouchables must be less in small villages as compared to urban India in medieval times. Not many cities after Indus Valley civilization showed the vision of sanitation in India until british times. Some forts, some big cities like Vijaynagar had sewage system. But 99% of cities in India did not have sewage system and hence the need of maintaining large number of untouchables to do the menial jobs.

* In villages, people usually defecated in fields, which was beneficial for agriculture as humid and hot climate of India ensures that manure decomposes in not more than 1-1.5 days. Also, since the population was low, it was in synchronisation with nature. No need of maintaining high population of untouchable community and thus, not as high degree of Dalit Oppression as compared to one happening in cities. In fact, if we look at small villages of 100 people to slightly larger villages of 1000 people, the caste system, at least in early medieval ages, might have worked in benefit so that every body was assured job and means of survival.

* The point I want to convey is, rural empowerment will not only increase our economic abilities, but also decrease social tensions - both religious and caste-based.

* And I do not think it is that utopian ideal. All we need to do is supply every village with electricity, good schools until 10+2 level (higher secondary). Before British intrusion, every village had a lake OR set of wells. They had code about usage of water (qualitative and Quantitative). And last thing is Roads. If we provide good road access and uninterrupted power supply to every village, every thing else will follow. Banks and insurance companies will open their offices in villages. Telephone companies will bring internet. A city educated graduate could earn respectably in spite of living in his village, and would not need to live in crowded city. Software programmers from villages can write softwares, thus keeping the cost low and maintaining the edge of India in IT. Same goes with BPO and KPO industry.

* Small scale production plants will arise everywhere. More money to spend, boost to economy.

* Banks can inculcate the e-banking among majority of people in villages, thus making it popular mode of transaction. This will decrease the black money in the system. More black money is tapped, lesser needs GOI has to apply indirect taxes. When indirect taxes are lifted, the prices of commodities will go down.

* Most importantly, village empowerment will make it easier to have and efficiently maintain personal identification number system and Social security system in India.

* Common village biogas plants can make almost every village a self sustaining entity in terms of cooking gas and fertilizers. If we add to this utilization of Solar energy, the sustainability will further increase.

* Of course Urbanization is essential and as you pointed out, has some salient features which cannot be denied at all. Just that, not every one wishes to live in crowded human jungle. In rurally empowered India, only those who need to live cities will live in cities. There won't be large scale migrations from villages to cities due to lack of opportunities to earn money in villages. Whoever will choose to leave his village will do so out of choice and not out of compulsion. Thus, the overall happiness in the society will increase.

* Demographically, the communities which most probably live in urban India after rural empowerment are Muslims and Brahmins. Brahmins, especially those in western India, have left villages long ago. Still, I am not sure about brahmin community; they might prove me wrong as well. Muslims of urban India will not move back to villages as easily as they came. of course this is my humble opinion.

There are millions of small things which I dream of.. and nothing utopian about them, very much doable in span of 10 years.

In words of Ghalib -

हजारों ख्वाहिशें ऐसी कि हर ख्वाहिश पे दम निकले.....बहुत निकले मेरे अरमाँ, लेकिन फिर भी कम निकले...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Feb 2009 00:07

Chironji,
good to see at least another dreamer!

I endorse almost all of your observations. In this however I could be personally biased. Since my first few years of life were spent near the rural foothills of my state, where I was packed off to live with my grandparents away from the closing intensification of extremist violence in the city in the fag end days of emergency. You can say, I hate cities!

Having said that, we do need to seriously think about modernization of sanitation systems, and they can be essentially done retaining all the eco-advantages you mention. Urban facilities within agrarian productive microeconomies are definitely worth following up. This is also important froma strategic viewpoint. Such less dense populations will be less at risk from the fallouts of potential WMD attacks. Local scale reproductibility of economies makes the whole system more robust to disruptions of both economic and military nature.

One thing of course I am yet to come to a definite conclusion. Nation formation and consolidation of the core needs communication. An information superweb connecting all settlements within India is a big step forward. And investment in this projecting maybe a billionfold of future capacity, could actually make India itself a crucial information processor for the globe. However, such superwebs also make us vulnerable to external attacks.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 22 Feb 2009 00:36

brihaspati wrote:One thing of course I am yet to come to a definite conclusion. Nation formation and consolidation of the core needs communication. An information superweb connecting all settlements within India is a big step forward. And investment in this projecting maybe a billionfold of future capacity, could actually make India itself a crucial information processor for the globe. However, such superwebs also make us vulnerable to external attacks.

This was present in India since ages. Adi Shankaracharya establishing 4 Peethas and 4 Dhaams in four corners of India was a part of this process of increasing communication. The 12 Jyotirlingams, other holy places are scattered all over India, encouraging people to visit them and in the process communicate and see rest of India. This has worked in spite of all odds for thousands of years.

Roads, telephone, television (DTH service) and internet will suffice this in modern era. I do not see how will these interconnections will make us vulnerable to external attacks. On the contrary, they will have reverse effect. They will make the services like core-banking, core-insurance, uniform taxation much simple from any part of India without any hassles. Plus it will make all the outsourcing cheaper. Not only from abroad, but jobs will be outsourced within the country itself. A executive from mumbai can hire a guy from some village in MP to do his taxes OR to fix the bug in program he installed OR to prepare his legal documents. Thus money will spin and multiply within country.

This is what I understood by your usage of term information superweb. If you meant something different, please elaborate.

China has created its own version of closed national internet. Should India go for such version of closed internet OR boost the free internet is matter of choice. IMHO, India should go for free internet and information exchange with rest of the world. This is in sync with our philosophical and democratic framework.

Govt just needs to connect villages with roads and provide electricity. Everything else will follow automatically. Remember that India grows in the night, when government sleeps...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Feb 2009 00:54

Chironji,
I was thinking along lines of high throughput fibre optics

I would rather that there are two parallel subnetworks, one closed and the other open to the world. However I think you realize the possible security threats from an open network. Even an internal closed network could be used by terrorists or anti-national forces for their advantage. Processing capacity of the network backed by powerful computational throughput could make India a crucial bidder for global IT services. Such near-instantaneous communication could actually hugely improve governance, economic and market efficiency. More importantly, inter-regional collaboration and cooperation could get a huge boost and go a great way towards eventual unification.

LokeshP · Post by **LokeshP** » 22 Feb 2009 01:11

when you divide all the different forces such as the Pushtuns, Pakjabis, Sindhis, Tanzeems, and not to mention Balochis themselves, yes it is true that all of these forces have something against the other and can be manipulated to fight each other ensuring that they are kept distracted from India. But what we haven't taken into consideration is what the presence of a Kufr force in Islamic territory could do to the rest of them? Pakjabis have repeatedly used this strategy every time there was internal strife to direct peoples' attention to the Kufr Hindus/India. the Pakjabis and Pushtuns, for all their differences, could look at Indian forces in Balochistan and go "holy s*** what the hell are kafirs doing in Islamic territory" and the next thing you know, you have thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, who will become the next martyrs for the cause of Islam. and don't discount the PA. for all their meakness, Pakistani Army will not sit around and watch while Indian forces have their own merry way in any part of Pakistan....if anyone thinks the PA will bend backwards and salute the mighty Indians, you are on more crack that what is healthy for you. and let's not forget the ISI. sponsoring terrorism is a strategy for the ISI in dealing with India. and this has been deeply ingrained in ISIwallahs for the past several decades. does anyone here think the ISI will just sit and do nothing as the Indians enter their territory???

as said above, the cost of assimilating Balochistan is too high (financially and in many other aspects). the only use that place can have is as a possible distraction to keep the Islamist forces and PA and ISI busy in that area and not India. beyond that, any high-minded jingoistic, however well planned, adventure into Balochistan can be a colossal disaster. i would equate it to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. the Soviets went back disgraced and heads bowed and became a laughing matter for Western countries. they never expected that bunch of cave-men could cause the mighty (and yes, the Russians at the time were mighty) Soviets army to retreat. what they never took into consideration was the ferocity with which the Mujahideen would fight back with. let's not make the same mistake of underestimating them, especially when we have an army and an intelligence agency whose biggest priority is to make our lives as hard as possible as added forces to deal with.

i might get a lot of flames for posting this, considering the members here are already dreaming of building huge settlements for Indians, urban-rural establishments, repopulation, and what not (

) but i seriously do believe we are dreaming not in the 7th but perhaps in the 77th heaven....

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 22 Feb 2009 01:19

Brihaspatiji,

Your feelings are delivered...

Thomas Friedmann in his book, The World in Flat, touches upon this issue. The primary investment of laying high throughput fibre-optics cables in Indian ocean was done by USA. India was the secondary buyer who benefited by investment done by somebody else for his own benefit. It was urban and corporate India which benefited due to this investment by US.

But I guess, it will take hell of a lot money. Plus, unless people from all settlements know how to use a computer, it won't be a fruitful.

In my opinion, this project of connecting all the villages with high throughput fibre-optics cables should start about 10 years after completion of rivers-interlinking project in the particular region. By the time river project is over, it is safe to assume that electrification and road networking will be over as well. Till then, information has to be by telephone lines and satellite. I guess this project is about 25 years in future. Since every thing happens in stages, by the time river project will near its completion in farthest areas of India, the regions where it started will already be connected excellently by means of roads, fibre-optics and other modes of real and virtual communication modes.

They should invest heavily now in roads and rivers and electricity. This is very time-tested way of tackling recession. Eisenhover did it, Stalin and Hitler did it. Plus, it pays off very generously. Vajpayee started the process with roads. Current govt ****** up with with roads project but invested heavily in energy. lets hope the next govt carries on both of these policies.

LokeshP wrote:when you divide all the different forces such as the Pushtuns, Pakjabis, Sindhis, Tanzeems, and not to mention Balochis themselves, yes it is true that all of these forces have something against the other and can be manipulated to fight each other ensuring that they are kept distracted from India. But what we haven't taken into consideration is what the presence of a Kufr force in Islamic territory could do to the rest of them? Pakjabis have repeatedly used this strategy every time there was internal strife to direct peoples' attention to the Kufr Hindus/India. the Pakjabis and Pushtuns, for all their differences, could look at Indian forces in Balochistan and go "holy s*** what the hell are kafirs doing in Islamic territory" and the next thing you know, you have thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, who will become the next martyrs for the cause of Islam. and don't discount the PA. for all their meakness, Pakistani Army will not sit around and watch while Indian forces have their own merry way in any part of Pakistan....if anyone thinks the PA will bend backwards and salute the mighty Indians, you are on more crack that what is healthy for you. and let's not forget the ISI. sponsoring terrorism is a strategy for the ISI in dealing with India. and this has been deeply ingrained in ISIwallahs for the past several decades. does anyone here think the ISI will just sit and do nothing as the Indians enter their territory???

as said above, the cost of assimilating Balochistan is too high (financially and in many other aspects). the only use that place can have is as a possible distraction to keep the Islamist forces and PA and ISI busy in that area and not India. beyond that, any high-minded jingoistic, however well planned, adventure into Balochistan can be a colossal disaster. i would equate it to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. the Soviets went back disgraced and heads bowed and became a laughing matter for Western countries. they never expected that bunch of cave-men could cause the mighty (and yes, the Russians at the time were mighty) Soviets army to retreat. what they never took into consideration was the ferocity with which the Mujahideen would fight back with. let's not make the same mistake of underestimating them, especially when we have an army and an intelligence agency whose biggest priority is to make our lives as hard as possible as added forces to deal with.

The cheque of hatred towards kufr India can be easily encashed in Pakjab, PoK and now a days, NWFP and Swat. The ease with which this idea can be cashed upon decreases as we go away from Pakjab. Sindh is comparatively less vitriolic towards India than Pakjab. I said with respect to Anti-Indian diatribe in Pakjab. Baloochistan in current scenarion is not as anti Indian as other areas are.

Furthermore, IA should not go just like that and invade pak. Extensive RAW infiltration is required in Paki system for 2-3 years before planning the direct action. If that is there, most of the problems which you mention will decrease in intensity considerably. Soviets were noticeably, identifiably and literally outsiders. This is not the case with Indians.

LokeshP · Post by **LokeshP** » 22 Feb 2009 02:33

even though the US fought a war with Iraq in the early 90s, the Iraqi people were never as vitriolic or antagonistic towards the US compared to the people in many other Arab countries. yet the insurgency that rose post-invasion shocked the entire world. nobody expected civilians the rag-tag group of believers to take up arms again a vastly superior US armed force. yes, the insurgents were relentless in their attacks and caused quite a bit of pain for US forces. just b/c Baloochis aren't so rabid in their anti-Indianism at the present doesn't mean that won't change in the space of a heartbeat. that is one of Islam's greatest strengths: their ability/penchant to cry foul at anything and everything.

also, the definition of "outsider" by a common Indian is white skin, weird accents, and an abundance of tissue papers. for Islamists, the definition is anybody who is non-Muslim, no questions asked. unless we are ready to enforce our rule like say Russia or China, we can never hope for anything constructive there. no matter how much you infiltrate the entire Pakistani region, no matter how many roads/hospitals/schools/dams/bridges/highways/houses/hotels/restaurants/MOSQUES etc you build, a MUSLIM MAJORITY WILL NEVER ACCEPT NON-MUSLIM RULE. the bottom-line is unless we are willing to acknowledge this fact, unless we are willing to learn lessons from Russia or China (especially Russia) in how to control Islamic hard-line militants/guerilla forces, we shouldn't venture into the region.

vishnua · Post by **vishnua** » 22 Feb 2009 02:34

LokeshP wrote: i would equate it to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. the Soviets went back disgraced and heads bowed and became a laughing matter for Western countries. they never expected that bunch of cave-men could cause the mighty (and yes, the Russians at the time were mighty) Soviets army to retreat. what they never took into consideration was the ferocity with which the Mujahideen would fight back with. let's not make the same mistake of underestimating them, especially when we have an army and an intelligence agency whose biggest priority is to make our lives as hard as possible as added forces to deal with.

Read the book charlie wilson's war and don't go by the movie. By 1983-84, Agfhans were done. They were seriously contemplating accepting Soviets. That is when couple or few Amerikhans used their brians and rest is history.

Read Doc's ( Shiv) prescription to handle these guys which is what Soviets did. The prescription is Kill,kill,kill.....

LokeshP · Post by **LokeshP** » 22 Feb 2009 02:49

vishnua: no i haven't read the book. but what you are saying is US smuggled in arms and ammunitions and the rest is history. the same can happen in Baloch. Pakjabis/Pakistan can easily do what US did. and as i already said, Islam's definition of outsider is anything non-muslim. in such circumstances, the pushtuns and pakjabis will collaborate in tackling Indian forces. they will do whatever they can to kick us out. they will produce arms by thousands if they have to (even if that means money has to be diverted from something else to this sector) and then will supply them to balochi rebels (who will be termed freedom fighters by the entire world).

also, we have yet to discuss the global reaction to such an action by India (sorry if it was already discussed in previous pages; i have read the last 5 pages of this thread). images will be broadcast all over the West and Middle-East as to how the Indians are invading a free people and robbing their rights. are we ready to tackle the diplomatic ramifications of that? unless there is tacit approval of US, our diplomatic efforts will take a bashing.

West will have one over-riding objective to any possible division of Pakistan:
keep some part of Pak out of taliban's hands and actually have a pro-West or at least a neutral buffer zone in the region

the US must believe that Indian takeover is the only way or at least the best chance at achieving the above goal. if the West doesn't believe that, then India will become isolated from the rest of the world very very quickly.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 22 Feb 2009 02:59

LokeshP wrote:also, the definition of "outsider" by a common Indian is white skin, weird accents, and an abundance of tissue papers. for Islamists, the definition is anybody who is non-Muslim, no questions asked. unless we are ready to enforce our rule like say Russia or China, we can never hope for anything constructive there

Things are much more complicated than that definition of outsider which you suggested for a Muslims. It varies with space-time. And in baloochistan in current times, the definition as simple as that does not hold completely true. It does so in Swat and NWFP now, but not Baloochistan.

Furthermore you yourselves have answered your doubt. Enforcement somewhat similar to that of USSR and China. Thats why complete profiling of region by intelligence agencies to check the mandate of Baloochis towards India and Pakjab and USA. That will give us the base and the idea of how much the magnitude of enforcement should be. If local population is favourable or neutral towards Indian interference, the magnitude can be like the one in Kashmir. Or else, it can be like that USSR and China in Afghanistan and Tibet respectively.

Elementary Chanakya....

LokeshP wrote:the same can happen in Baloch. Pakjabis/Pakistan can easily do what US did. and as i already said, Islam's definition of outsider is anything non-muslim. in such circumstances, the pushtuns and pakjabis will collaborate in tackling Indian forces. they will do whatever they can to kick us out. they will produce arms by thousands if they have to (even if that means money has to be diverted from something else to this sector) and then will supply them to balochi rebels (who will be termed freedom fighters by the entire world).

also, we have yet to discuss the global reaction to such an action by India (sorry if it was already discussed in previous pages; i have read the last 5 pages of this thread). images will be broadcast all over the West and Middle-East as to how the Indians are invading a free people and robbing their rights. are we ready to tackle the diplomatic ramifications of that? unless there is tacit approval of US, our diplomatic efforts will take a bashing.

West will have one over-riding objective to any possible division of Pakistan:
keep some part of Pak out of taliban's hands and actually have a pro-West or at least a neutral buffer zone in the region

the US must believe that Indian takeover is the only way or at least the best chance at achieving the above goal. if the West doesn't believe that, then India will become isolated from the rest of the world very very quickly

.

There is difference. One who was supporting Mujahideens against Soviets was Unkil and it was very active support. Pakjab does not have that many resources to fund the insurgents indefinitely, when we will building pressure from east as well as the rivers flowing in pakistan flow through our lands.

Regarding image of India.. Bro, if you got to clean the gutter, you got to enter it and dirty your hands. or you have to hire someone who does that for you in exchange of money. Or keep on bearing the stink until somebody else decides to clean it up because it became intolerable to him. But he won't do social service. He will clean as much as it is necessary for him to feel good. We don't have that money to ask someone else to fight for us. Nor can we rely on unkil to clean the whole gutter and then hand it over to us. If they clean it completely (which they won't) they will stay here and be pain in our ass.

Of course, all this not without thorough intelligence infiltration and knowledge.

Don't worry about the west. India is largest democracy with big huge free market.

... how huge? Really huge...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Feb 2009 03:29

The question is no longer about whether we can afford to wait and hide behind non-intervention. Even if India does not intervene, the consolidation and expansion process of the Islamic caliphate based on the gray zone between AFG and TSP will continue relentless. Just because India did not intervene, did not stop TSP and BD terrorists attacking India continuously. I agree with Shivji, that we give too much credit to Islam to hold its own. In none of Islam's military history, it has gone to the point where it is on the point of complete extermination. The theologians of Islam are too clever to go to that brink. When faced with overwhelming counterretaliation that shows determination to wipe it out, they typically detach themselves from the Islamic state which they had originally driven to Jihad and save the Jihadi core - the educational and ideological training networks. They also bend over backwards to do this. The point is to show sufficient ruthless determination to exterminate the theologian leadership.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Feb 2009 05:06

brihaspati wrote:The question is no longer about whether we can afford to wait and hide behind non-intervention. Even if India does not intervene, the consolidation and expansion process of the Islamic caliphate based on the gray zone between AFG and TSP will continue relentless. Just because India did not intervene, did not stop TSP and BD terrorists attacking India continuously. I agree with Shivji, that we give too much credit to Islam to hold its own. In none of Islam's military history, it has gone to the point where it is on the point of complete extermination. The theologians of Islam are too clever to go to that brink. When faced with overwhelming counterretaliation that shows determination to wipe it out, they typically detach themselves from the Islamic state which they had originally driven to Jihad and save the Jihadi core - the educational and ideological training networks. They also bend over backwards to do this. The point is to show sufficient ruthless determination to exterminate the theologian leadership.

They maintain the concept of "us vs Them".
If there is no "them" then Islam does not have any direction.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Feb 2009 09:37

brihaspati wrote: For Indians, all romantic thought of sitting and enjoying how the dried cowdung of TSP burns could turn out to be the proverbial case of being the wet cowdung itself. In the end, what has always succeeded against ruthless terror is a thousandfold more intense and ruthless counter terror. All that the Talebs carry out on others should be returned a thousand times on the Talebs themselves. In this struggle there is no quarter. Unless the psychological aspect of terror methodologies are understood and applied back on the Talebs - no grounds will be gained, and all progress acheived at huge economic and human cost will be frittered away through the self-imposed moral and ethical restrictions that hold back all forces against Jihad.

Excellent analogy and wisdom.

People have spoken about Pakistan's "implosion". The word implosion suggests some kind of end - a conclusion. That cannot happen. Pakistan will merely become chronically failed with multiple intractable insurgencies.

American support of the Pakistani army has been the main bulwark that kept one of the power brokers of Pakistan (the army) as the most powerful entity controlling events. A withdrawal of US aid leads to interesting effects - but I will not post that here - as it is OT. But China will be involved in a way that can never be similar to American involvement.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Feb 2009 13:42

brihaspati wrote: In none of Islam's military history, it has gone to the point where it is on the point of complete extermination. The theologians of Islam are too clever to go to that brink. When faced with overwhelming counterretaliation that shows determination to wipe it out, they typically detach themselves from the Islamic state which they had originally driven to Jihad and save the Jihadi core - the educational and ideological training networks. They also bend over backwards to do this. The point is to show sufficient ruthless determination to exterminate the theologian leadership.

Brihaspati - in the "expansionist" phase of Islamic history there always was a non Islamic group who could be fought and subjugated, reducing the the attention of the theologians in internal impurity.

But when fundamentalists face each other - they try to clean up contradictions and remove impurity (such as Ahmedis and Shias.) This leads to enough internal strife that allows the emergence of a strong despot, which is a stable end state. All stable pure Islamic states are led by despots who impose strict Islamic rules on their population while they exempt themselves from those rules. The despots typically are not necessarily theologians themselves - but military people more often. They are superb examples of how to keep Islamic theologians in check - at the point of a sword/gun.

I recall a story of an LeT run camp for earthquake relief on PoK during Ramzan. Food was being cooked in broad daylight and a mullah came up and demanded that the cooking (for victims of the earthquake in mid-winter) be stopped. An AK 47 pointed at the mullah convinced him that it was quite OK to cook for for victims of the earthquake in daytime during Ramzan.

Fundamentalist Islamic theologians do see reason, especially when reason is backed by a credible threat ("You toucha my car - I smasha your face"). However - when the threat comes from a Muslim they shut up. If it comes from from non Muslims they howl "discriminatioooooon". But that is no reason to be hesitant to show these fundoo theologians their place. Only lack of balls stops us - no point blaming Islam or Muslims for lack of cojones among non Muslims.

The biggest fault of Indian secularism is the assumption that it is OK for fundamentalist Muslim theologians to have a say. A change of mindset is required.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Feb 2009 20:13

Shivji,
I agree with you. I have not seen anything close to the degree of deconstruction and delegitimization of Hindu theologians, from among Muslims against Muslim theologians and fundamentalist Ulema. There are concrete reasons as to why IM does not show such tendencies overtly, and I think they need a little "prompting". The best way is to strip the intellectual and ideological authority of the Ulema by exposing their essentially retrogressive and narrow selfish agenda, and how they are preventing IM from progress. This necessarily needs a great deal of unabashed exposure and deconstruction of the ideology itself to delegitimize its claims. I agree, Indian version of "secularism" gives in to this claim of immunity by the fundamentalist Ulema, and unless they are legitimized by us, Muslims themselves are not in an ideological position to do it themselves. This delegitimization will be met with fierce threats of violence for the Ulema are not fools. But I would consider this very much part of our moving forward, and important for the strategic future of our nation - and threats of violence have to be met with a firm commitment that makes them understand that the nation will not flinch from neutralizing such violence with appropriate physical counter-measures. They have to fight it out ideologically and try and defend themselves ideologically - but if they turn to physical Jihad that will be an opportunity we will simply be waiting for, just give us an excuse

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Feb 2009 22:57

Brihaspati ji,

Such a program can also help getting insight into the Muslim society to see which ones from the Ulema are in favor of a collision course with the other Indians, which ones are in favor of violence. It is very important, that we be able to categorize the strongmen according to their level of danger they represent.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Feb 2009 23:43

Shiv wrote:

I recall a story of an LeT run camp for earthquake relief on PoK during Ramzan. Food was being cooked in broad daylight and a mullah came up and demanded that the cooking (for victims of the earthquake in mid-winter) be stopped. An AK 47 pointed at the mullah convinced him that it was quite OK to cook for for victims of the earthquake in daytime during Ramzan.

Fundamentalist Islamic theologians do see reason, especially when reason is backed by a credible threat ("You toucha my car - I smasha your face"). However - when the threat comes from a Muslim they shut up. If it comes from from non Muslims they howl "discriminatioooooon". But that is no reason to be hesitant to show these fundoo theologians their place. Only lack of balls stops us - no point blaming Islam or Muslims for lack of cojones among non Muslims.

The biggest fault of Indian secularism is the assumption that it is OK for fundamentalist Muslim theologians to have a say. A change of mindset is required.

The bolded part is what Ziauddin Barani a notable in the court of Firuz Shah Toghlaq wrote about the importance of Zawabit- "The ruler must mkae rules".

After fall of Mughals the Mullahs got to have their say without regnal interference and their antediluvian/literal interpretations of Koran and Shariat were codified as the Anglo-Mohammedean law under the British. Even the creation of TSP did not curb the mullahs who have had a free rein for all these centuries.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Feb 2009 23:59

Ramanaji,
following on from your comment, Islamic theologians had a mutual back-scratching relation with the Islamic ruler. They both used each other and kept each other in check - but the theologians have contnuously tried to gain state authority. They were most flourishing, when their fishing out of Quranic justifications for what the ruler wanted, like in Maulana Barani's time. Without having to fight the state, the Ulema have gained complete control over their flock.

I guess one way could be bypassing them altogether and approach the IM directly. For example, why not have a referendum which asks Indian women if they want to retain right to polygamy by men, (the reverse question does not arise I think, except perhaps in some remote ethnic groups -so men in general need not be included in the referendum) - this could even be asked separately of IM women. Asking for IM opinion in referendums about specific reforms and targeting strategically important segments could be a possibility.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Feb 2009 00:17

LokeshP wrote: i would equate it to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. the Soviets went back disgraced and heads bowed and became a laughing matter for Western countries. they never expected that bunch of cave-men could cause the mighty (and yes, the Russians at the time were mighty) Soviets army to retreat. what they never took into consideration was the ferocity with which the Mujahideen would fight back with. let's not make the same mistake of underestimating them, especially when we have an army and an intelligence agency whose biggest priority is to make our lives as hard as possible as added forces to deal with.

we buy too much of the propaganda that was fed to western audiences about soviet defeat at the hands of ferocious freedom loving fighters.

fact is soviets were not defeated, but they were not prepared to pay the cost of winning a country that provided few tangible benefits. and a failing economy didn't help matters.
in virtually every battle the mujahidin were beaten all ends up. as a purely military performance, soviets performed better in afghanistan than US did in vietnam.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Feb 2009 06:45

brihaspati wrote: I guess one way could be bypassing them altogether and approach the IM directly. For example, why not have a referendum which asks Indian women if they want to retain right to polygamy by men, (the reverse question does not arise I think, except perhaps in some remote ethnic groups -so men in general need not be included in the referendum) - this could even be asked separately of IM women. Asking for IM opinion in referendums about specific reforms and targeting strategically important segments could be a possibility.

Let me suggest a reason why this will never be done - but my reason will be hated by many. However that never prevents me from saying what needs to be said. The treatment of women by non Muslims in India is no better than the treatment of women by Muslims in India. In fact there are parameters in which the status of Muslim women is better, but this is balanced out by other parameters in which the status of non Muslim women is better. The problem here is neither Islam nor Hindus - it is men and a patriarchal, male dominated society.

Surprisingly - the latest Social Studies textbook for CBSE has the following suggestions for political reform in India

1) Disallow defection (already a law)
2) Demand financial and criminal record transparency for candidates standing for election (already a law)
3) Implement intra-party democracy (not done)
4) Draw up and publish lists of party members (not done)
5) Give 1/3 of seats to women (not done)
6) The government should fund political parties so that corrupt and rich people do not dominate the scene (Hell will freeze over first)
6) Public petitions.movements to fight political corruption/sloth (some have started)
7) Increasing involvement of public in polls - more people must enter politics (not many in sight)

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Feb 2009 03:14

Shiv wrote
Let me suggest a reason why this will never be done - but my reason will be hated by many. However that never prevents me from saying what needs to be said. The treatment of women by non Muslims in India is no better than the treatment of women by Muslims in India. In fact there are parameters in which the status of Muslim women is better, but this is balanced out by other parameters in which the status of non Muslim women is better. The problem here is neither Islam nor Hindus - it is men and a patriarchal, male dominated society.

Well, I had brought this up firstly as a referendum where all eligible Indian women vote, and as a subsidiary context mentioned that issues involving the IM could be targeted. This is an indirect way of bypassing the Ulema, surreptitiously undermine authority of religion over subgroups, and by not distinguishing between different subgroups and forcing different identities crossing faith boundaries to come to decisions affecting them in common. Of course some men will oppose and give devil's logic - I think the MSY gang had something similar to object to reforms that affect women based practically on excuses. But I would see the referendum type of moves as a great way of bypassing electoral politics in issues that should affect the whole nation uniformly, and gradually move towards acceptance of uniform practices across communities where it is crucial to have uniformity - a key towards consolidation of the nation.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Feb 2009 03:58

shiv wrote:
brihaspati wrote: For Indians, all romantic thought of sitting and enjoying how the dried cowdung of TSP burns could turn out to be the proverbial case of being the wet cowdung itself. In the end, what has always succeeded against ruthless terror is a thousandfold more intense and ruthless counter terror. All that the Talebs carry out on others should be returned a thousand times on the Talebs themselves. In this struggle there is no quarter. Unless the psychological aspect of terror methodologies are understood and applied back on the Talebs - no grounds will be gained, and all progress acheived at huge economic and human cost will be frittered away through the self-imposed moral and ethical restrictions that hold back all forces against Jihad.

Hari Singh Nalwa and East Punjab 1947

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 24 Feb 2009 15:47

Rajinder Puri in the Outlook...
Full here.

"There is virtual civil war in Afghanistan. There are three million Pashto speaking Afghan refugees in Pakistan. If the Afghan crisis is prolonged, both Afghan and NWFP Pashto speaking tribes might be expected to make common cause and revive the call for a Pashtunistan comprising areas of present day Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"If that happens, Sind and Baluchistan will not lag behind. Already there are incipient freedom struggles in both states.

"A war between Pakistan and Afghanistan, or even civil war within Pakistan, were it to come, would not remain confined to Afghan and Pakistani territories. Inevitably, it will spill over and involve India. In that unfortunate event, the painful process of war will confront the leaders of South Asia with the same challenge that they stubbornly refuse to face during peace: how to restructure the subcontinent and undo the legacy of a most unnatural Partition, and to establish in its place a new arrangement more natural to the character and genius of Hindustan.

"Let us understand that the day of reckoning is not far. If not by the wisdom of our leaders, then despite their follies, if not by peaceful negotiation, then by painful war, the artificially contrived and grotesquely maintained fragmentation of the subcontinent must end. Nature has already begun to re-assert itself.

"The people of India, most particularly the people of the Punjab, must prepare for the change. The best among them must work for it. Revolutionaries can create history only if they first learn to anticipate it."

This passage was published twenty years ago in a book authored by this scribe. The intervening period condemned him to isolation, criticism and ridicule. Now, at long last, may one dare hope that the restructuring of the subcontinent has begun? Consider recent events in Pakistan.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Feb 2009 23:23

Pashtunistan will not form under these circumstances. The Talebjabis are aiming for expansion based on the dual identity of Taleban and PA, centred exactly on lands deemed "Pashtunistan". In this there are bigger hands like that of the PRC, or the Saudi Wahabis for whom it is important to push out US from the area. The redrawing of the borders will depend on under whose authority it is being redrawn. If under Talebjabis, it will mean redrawing definitely - but the state will be Shariatic. So it is not sufficient to have redrawing of borders but to state under whose authority that redrawing will be done.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Feb 2009 00:52

Another way of saying it is that TSP's core area is shifting from Pakjab to Pashtun area. In other words a future Pashtunistan will encompass all of TSP but without that name.

The Talebjabis are aiming for expansion based on the dual identity of Taleban and PA, centred exactly on lands deemed "Pashtunistan". In this there are bigger hands like that of the PRC, or the Saudi Wahabis for whom it is important to push out US from the area. The redrawing of the borders will depend on under whose authority it is being redrawn. If under Talebjabis, it will mean redrawing definitely - but the state will be Shariatic. So it is not sufficient to have redrawing of borders but to state under whose authority that redrawing will be done.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 25 Feb 2009 00:55

ramana wrote:Another way of saying it is that TSP's core area is shifting from Pakjab to Pashtun area. In other words a future Pashtunistan will encompass all of TSP but without that name.

That means, in effect, Pakistan will have the strategic depth that they were aiming for, in the form of an Afpakia amalgamation, albeit with the balance of power differently aligned than the Pakistanis originally imagined.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Feb 2009 01:01

KVRgaru,
I have spent the good part of last three years studying TSP in all aspects and talking about it.

The thing that stares at you is that a new Pashtunistan will lead to break up of Aghanistan also. So it appears one way to keep TSP together is to let the new Pashtunistan takevoer all of TSP but retain the old name. And the bonus is it will be reversion to Ghorid times. I think uncle also threw in the towel once the Democrats came to power. BTW they have track record of enabling Islamists to take charge- Iran etc.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 25 Feb 2009 04:35

If this Talijabistan come to reality, Uncle will have no friend left in the Area. India , Russia and China will woo Iran and Uncle will be left watching as onlooker. Iran will be the major benifitiary having influence in IRAQ and courted by all. Then they will play OIL and NUKE game with WEST and the rest .

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Feb 2009 04:40

On the contrary its uncle thats enabling/midwifing this entity as a realist goal.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Feb 2009 08:22

Obama's ambit is to stabilize rather than expand or contract. He will be full of bluster and thunder in foreign policy because he cannot afford to be seen as weaker than Bush. However economic and other pragamatic considerations will make him aim for stabilization rather than expansion. He is not removing US presence immediately from AFG. But at the same time he needs to buy time to make the withdrawal not seem like a rout or abandonment when US actually makes the exit. However losing AFG completely means the Iraq presence also comes under threat - and US then ultimately loses the crucial startegic depth to protect its Saudi oil interests and hold over the Gulf. The neo-Caliphate then strecthes through AFG+PAK right through to Baloch into the mouth of the Gulf. But US may yet be forced to do this.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Feb 2009 05:52

Unkil's main problem is now that AFPAK is proving to be a very very hot potato. Unkil cannot withdraw with unseemly haste since that will not only undo all its investments in the area, but also create a strategic retreat from this crucial arena which it may never recover ever again. A long time ago, in the geo-political thread we had talked about the US need to push in the general direction of North East up from the Gulf into Central Asia and the corresponding South Western thrust of Rus+PRC+Iran towards the Indian Ocean and the Gulf. The two sides create reason for each other to mobilize - each wants to prevent the other from gaining geo-strategic grounds. But on the other hand, Unkil's own manipulations and PRC contribution has now played into the Talebjabi hands to create a new hostile centre of power on its flank, probably sutained also by the PRC as a flanking move to keep India and US geo-strageically separate in positional terms. So Unkil needs a cost-effective method to balance this flanking attack.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 27 Feb 2009 02:01

The BD attmpt at mutiny by sections of BDR is in one sense significant. However, looking at Jihadi Islam over the subcontinent, this BD incident matches the pattern thats more prominent in TSP. The TSP representative's request that the AL government drop initiative on moving forward with the war-crimes trial of the Rajakar's and Albadrs' came a few days before this incident. Is the pattern of Jihadization of the younger recruits emerging also in BD? It is possible, that the hand of the Jihadis and that of TSP were active in exploiting the perhaps genuine grievances of the BDR and activated their cells when the motion to expose and try the genocidic Muslim organizations for atrocities committed during '71, went through and showed signs of actually being in the process of implementation?

The BDR revolt will not go far unless sections of the military backs it up. At this stage it is not advantageous or the BD military to step in. However, this could be a sign of coordination by the Jihadis acroos the subcontinent between Talebjabi power centres and scattered pockets of Islamic dominance. The Caliphate will not tolerate any regime that does not align with its agenda of Jihadization. To a great extent, this is actually advantageous for us. This forces the IM and other subcontinental Muslims to make their allegiances explicit. Moreover, they will now come increasingly under pressure to opt for an India like system or even joining up with India, where Islamic Jihad cannot be seen as a natural basis of the state. The more such dancing by the Jihadis, the better for their eventual complete erasure.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Feb 2009 19:59

A discussion has emerged on the "overt to covert Mullah rule" thread around Shivji's posts and others including myself: soem of the issues raised by Shivji are very pertinent but cannot all be discussed in that thread - so I am going to split them up between this one and the leadership thread in a sequence of posts.

Shiv wrote
If it is true that Islam rejected Hinduism while Hindus absorbed Islamic tendencies, is this not a sad commentary on the effete Hindus? Either Hindu tenets could not withstand the superior ideology of Islam (which had all the answers) or Hindus were just badly defeated by Islam centuries ago.

Are we not looking to "avenge that defeat" now? But to avenge defeat you must have a superior set of rules. What is that superior set of rules we have developed now that can roll back time? If the superior rules were non existent back then when Hindus were defeated, we do not want to go back to that era do we?
If someone were to insist that "Pakistan" was an admission of Islam's defeat and Islams vulnerability are we not arguing the exact opposite here saying that Hindus were weaker and more vulnerable while Islam was stronger and better? That means we still fear and worship Islam as a fearful superior force just as our ancestors did and are still struggling after 1300 years for a solution. Is it so difficult then to admit that Islam must have something superior about it - for having defeated us physically and mentally?
Can anyone explain these contradictions? Or is there a more credible explanation than the one we are used to on BRF in which we say Islam is stronger and better and is winning all the time and remains uncontaminated.
How about considering the possibility that Hindu culture did give Islam a biggish kick up its backside and made Indians out of tent-wearing Arabs? A few Arabs opted out and formed Pakistan.

Although framed in context of history, this is an important question of future - especially when it comes to deciding on what goes into the core of India around which the periphery and the subcontinent should consolidate. There is no denying the fact that the "Hindu" of the period of advent of Islam in the subcontinent ultimately failed to stop Islamic rule over large parts of India although they resisted and managed to slow the spread of Islam down and in some cases even reversed the process. The causes of their retreat are yet a matter of debate. Could such a situation repeat in the future? The question becomes relevant now since the possible transformation of the Pakistani Army and the Taleban into an extended interim structure which is a proto-Islamic state authority, in the sense that in ideal Islamic concept the state is a manifestion of religious, political and military authority fused into one could be manifesting. I have speculated elsewhere in these forums that thsi is the core of a neo-Caliphate centred geographically in the border between AFG and TSP and that it will try to expand both into AFG and the rest of TSP.

I will come to the superiority/inferiority debate later. But Taking on from Shivji's last comment, even if the Hindus gave a big kick and some "Arabs" opted out to form TSP, the fact remains that the Hindus failed to prevent the formation of TSP. Even after getting the kick, Islam on the subcontinent still managed to milk sufficient sympathy from the west to form an independent nation that it could use to launch reconquering attempts. Howmuch ahs changed from the early medieval to now in the "Hindu" that prevents a repeat of that "conquest" - this is a crucial question, and more importantly what needs to change if any? There is no point in not acknowledging past faults, and no point in returning to past behaviour if that has been shown to be a failure.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Feb 2009 21:13

What are the different theories of the initial retreat of the Indians before Islamic armies and regimes - and are any of them relevant again in facing the prospect of a collapse of the older form of TSP and formation of a neo-caliphate that wants expand and encroach on India again from the North-West? Broadly the various theories are (1) worsening climatic conditions that destabilize the sophisticated economies of Indian states and make them vulnerable to more robust nomadic armies that can subsist on less (2) mutually destructive and weakening competition among regional Indian powers (3) superior military strategic and tactical ability as well as hardware in the hands of invading armies - such as deception, horses and mounted archers etc (4) probable complete non-resistance by certain Indic religious groups such as Buddhists (5) prior groundwork by Sufis that misrepresented the essentially militarist exapansionist agenda of Islam and kept Indian powers unprepared (6) trade dependence on Arabs. It could be one or more of these factors acting simultaneously or complementing each other.

If we think carefully, we can see that perhaps all the factors mentioned above still remain in a different more modern form. Climatic conditions or depredations on the economy can still affect India, there still are stiff and acrimonious power contests among the various Indian regional power centres - so much so that some of them would allow illegal immigration and legitimize that for electoral and therefore political power considerations. We still the state of paralysis in Indian regimes for fear of TSP nukes. We will now have large groups following ideologies of non-Muslim origin that may prove non-resistant to Islamic invasion, and we have plenty of misrepresenting religious or so-called secular groups misrepresenting Islam that confuse and paitnt the ideology as non-hostile and not potentially dangerous or fatal for non-Muslims. Instead of trade, middle eastern oil could be a significant factor even now.

Many of the factors mentioned historically could be disputed and debated for eternity. However, it is also possible that we are looking to find explanations in these factors because we have been trained to only look at materialistic factors in determing outcomes of collective human action. We almost never look at or consider the role of "ideas" that give the edge in contests or conflicts. Along the questions raised by Shivji, I would rather that we do not flinch from agreeing that it is possible that the "Hindu" at the time of the advent of Islam were not sufficiently "cruel" or ruthless in their treatment of Muslims, or not sufficiently imperialistic to have the forseight to pre-empt developments in the gulf or central Asia that ultimately threatened the "Hindus". To start with, their possible lack of awareness of distinctions and differences and treating Islam as just as one more sect that could be modeled and fit in into the "Dharmic" structural multiplicities, could be a source of great ideological paralysis - you have to identify sufficient differences with your enemy to take proper actions to neutralize that enemy - where if your identities overlap your resolution weakens.

The question of "Dharma" could be a thorny one here! I think the escape route is through the clause of "reciprocality" - that Dharmic restrictions are conditional on responses that are "Dharmic" - and are not to be applied towards those who take advantage of "dharmic restraints" to annihilate or repress "dharmic"s themselves. It is this crucial freedom from self-imposed restraint agiant those who themselves are never ever restricted with such strategic and tactical burdens that is worthwhile to consider.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Mar 2009 06:52

brihaspati wrote:A discussion has emerged on the "overt to covert Mullah rule" thread around Shivji's posts and others including myself: soem of the issues raised by Shivji are very pertinent but cannot all be discussed in that thread
...
I will come to the superiority/inferiority debate later. But Taking on from Shivji's last comment, even if the Hindus gave a big kick and some "Arabs" opted out to form TSP, the fact remains that the Hindus failed to prevent the formation of TSP. Even after getting the kick, Islam on the subcontinent still managed to milk sufficient sympathy from the west to form an independent nation that it could use to launch reconquering attempts. Howmuch ahs changed from the early medieval to now in the "Hindu" that prevents a repeat of that "conquest" - this is a crucial question, and more importantly what needs to change if any? There is no point in not acknowledging past faults, and no point in returning to past behaviour if that has been shown to be a failure.

It really is difficult to choose which thread to put a reply - because there is overlap. The second paragraph above neatly sums up why the discussion was pertinent in the covert to overt Mullah thread.But there is stuff for this thread as well.

i will reply when my thoughts have gelled enough to decide where the reply can go

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Mar 2009 07:23

brihaspati wrote:What are the different theories of the initial retreat of the Indians before Islamic armies and regimes - and are any of them relevant again in facing the prospect of a collapse of the older form of TSP and formation of a neo-caliphate that wants expand and encroach on India again from the North-West? Broadly the various theories are (1) worsening climatic conditions that destabilize the sophisticated economies of Indian states and make them vulnerable to more robust nomadic armies that can subsist on less (2) mutually destructive and weakening competition among regional Indian powers (3) superior military strategic and tactical ability as well as hardware in the hands of invading armies - such as deception, horses and mounted archers etc (4) probable complete non-resistance by certain Indic religious groups such as Buddhists (5) prior groundwork by Sufis that misrepresented the essentially militarist exapansionist agenda of Islam and kept Indian powers unprepared (6) trade dependence on Arabs. It could be one or more of these factors acting simultaneously or complementing each other.

brihaspatiji - it is my belief that ancient India - right up to about 1000 years ago was basically a libertarian society. The word libertarian has become commonly known only recently, and there was no way in which this English word could have been used to describe ancient Indian society whose characteristics were unknown to the people who coined and used that word.

India was "libertarianism gone wild". Only this can explain the different cults and traditions that were openly allowed in this society. Libertarianism demands, and accepts individual liberty and goes beyond liberalism. A libertarian society does not necessarily support a particular form of government. Governance is primarily from within the society based on libertarian principles. Even if you look at what is defined as "dharma" you find libertarian principles enshrined in that what is "mandatory" in dharma is what is fundamentally required to hold up that libertarian society.

But a libertarian society is not a united, fascist society. Any band of hoodlums, or any fascist group can take over and rule a libertarian society. As long as the ruler leaves the majority (in far flung areas) untouched, or affected minimally, both the fascist hoodlum gang and the anarchic libertarian society can survive. This IMO would have been partiuclarly true in a huge land mass with a relatively sparse population as was the case in India say 1500 years ago.

If you look at moder India and its schisms, and the stubborn refusal of a whole lot of Indians to do anything but what pleases them rather than cooperate the in the way we enviously see other countries cooperating - it is a remnant of that libertarianism. I am coming around to celebrate and admire that libertarianism. That was this society's strength and of course its weakness. Unity and conformity of thought and action are NOT libertarianism, especially if they are imposed. but unity and conformity of thought are essential for the nation state. Unity and conformity of thought and action are the fundamental pillars on which a religion such as Islam exists. No unity and no conformity - no Islam. Libertarianism is an anathema to Islam. Once you force conformity on a libertarian society - you are forcing that society to choose between alternative forms of conformity and rigidity - such as one of the religions, or communism.

Are you not implying that conformity is necessary among Indians? Even if you are I do not oppose that - but I would like to see w very wise selection of ideals for conformity - ideals that do not destroy the libertarian nature of Indian society.