Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

[ramana]

One way of looking at US-PRC nexus is that US wants PRC help to get out of the mutual mess (Saran's speech). This view is from the angle that US has vast RPC investments and both need to change the dynamic. However as the $ gets stronger and PRC keeps increasing its investment in US. and where is the drawdown? So this is contrary to the above view.

Another view is US rushed at assure PRC of support as it will face tremendous internal turmoil and discontent due to the global meltdown as it will face demand drawdown. Factories will close and workers get laid off. Looked at from this point of view PRC is a paper dragon on external hot air.

Can we look at data to support or rubbish these constructs?

[Atri]

The model of PRC economic growth is such that it has no option but to grow and expand. If PRC economy stops expanding, it will start collapsing even faster.

There sustainability factor is slightly less in PRC economy which India has. The price of existence and expansion has to be paid by salvaging USA out. At all costs. PRC was very well placed until last october. It still is in great position, but the Simhasana has begun trembling. Expansion of economy keeps the people quite because being quietly oppressed and earning a decent livelihood is profitable for common man. It is like a pressure-cooker situation. The virulently expanding economy is the safety valve which PRC cannot afford to loose. If this safety valve fails to work, the pressure will build up and the cooker will explode.

PRC has to generate wealth and invest in US at all costs. because, if dollar falls, the trillions of dollars in Chinese coffers grow worthless. The people in US are democratic and decadent. They have had their share of prosperity and a robust social-security system of US will ensure that people in US won't die of hunger, this is for sure. China does not have such outlets like Social security system and democracy. There is Hunger-problem in PRC which is enormous. So, as days of recession linger, PRC's need to generate money will increase exponentially.

Given the meltdown in west, this safety valve of PRC is most prone for mal-function. If India can snatch one or two big markets from PRC, it will be helpful to us. USA has the backing of Europe for cultural reasons. India and China do not. They have to be self-motivated, when it comes to ideology and civilization.

So, when looking at the global prospects for PRC to continue expanding, we have to look at potential markets. IMO, there few such areas which can be the hotspots for investment and hence chance for aggressive growth. First is Sub-Saharan Africa. Not all Africa is poor. Some nations like South-Africa, Kenya, Sudan can be promising. I guess, PRC has marked the presence in Sudan.

Second Region is South America. I do not know how much is Brazil's clout in South American continent, but lots of commies there, which can be beneficial for PRC to facilitate as growth sectors. Traditionally, it is US back-door. But, US is cash-strapped for investment. So USA might allow PRC's investment in Central and South Asian countries. Chinese anyways like dealing with commies, dictators and Military Junta, which are dozen a dime in South America.

Third Region is Eastern Europe. But, we have Russia sitting over there. Even Russia is cash-strapped. But, I don't know how Russia will deal with the massive PRC investments in eastern europe.Once again, it has to be done with Unkil's blessings.

Fourth is Iran. Unkil cannot do anything here. But PRC is friend of Islamic countries, especially Sunni ones. Iran being a Shia muslim country, it will be tricky job.

Fifth region is Oceania. However, Pacific is the region where two biggest pains in PRC's a$$ dwell - Taiwan and Japan.

Sixth is India. The areas of strategic and economic interest of both China and USA is India... Unkil and PRC desperately want India to develop and empower her domestic market and abide to rules of WTO faithfully and buy their goods. They will control the demon created by them (TSPA, Taliban and ISI) so that India spends more on development and defence. And India is doing that. But, it is frustratingly slow and also, India's efforts for total indegenisaton and hunger for ToT is what is pinching them.

Within 15 years, If current growth rate continues, India will be powerful enough to assert her dominance over Indian Ocean and Indian subcontinent. That will be the time when the need of oil will start becoming dire and India is geopolitically well placed to extract the benefit. It is not long before India will remove this thorn in her leg, called Pakistan and start running.

Hence, they don't want her to become too powerful and start projecting her power beyond her boundaries.

In other words, PRC and Unkil are looking for a decent girl who will become an ideal house-wife. Kaaryeshu Daasi, Karaneshu Mantri, Bhojyeshu Maata, Roopeshu Lakshmi, Shayaneshu Rambha, Kshamayeshu Dharitri, Satkarma Naari, Kuladharma Patni as described in Neetishaastram.

ME is firmly under Unkil's grip and won't tolerate anybody else's presence, especially of the one who is perceived as friend of Islamic nations due to Israel.

The love which blossomed between MMS and Dubya was strictly business. The asset which dubya liked in Indya was her ecOnOmy and market. If India can work out her internal problems and develop the rural component, she will be able to project her Mohini Roop (economy and market) and Durga Roop (military) at will.

Mohini Roop of Bharat-mata can deal with jolted asuras who were running for Amrita-Kumbha and are now distressed. It is this Mohini Roop that can potentially contribute quite a lot in pulling the world out of recession. Beauty is, in strange manner, extremely powerful. Even Durga is described as so incredulously beautiful that Shumbha-Nishumbha fell in love with her. A beautiful intelligent woman with stable mind can achieve lot more than man. Her soft power is extremely potent. Just that, under UPA govt led by MMS, this Mohini became a dumb-blond

For people who listen to reason (PRC, Unkil et al), Mohini can persuade them to fall in line.

For dick-heads like Shumbha-Nishumbha, Chanda-Munda and Mahishasura (TSPA, ISI, Taliban et al), Durga-Roop is more than enough.

India can snatch at least one really huge market away from Chinese, that is Indian domestic market. Of course, its not that easy and there are WTO considerations and India cannot do like this because India will suffer too.. But, it can at least be used as leverage, which India is not doing.

What will happen if India declares that it will not import anything from a nation which helps Pakistan? Guess, who will suffer the most !!!

[ramana]

I guess the Puranas were really buddhi being transferred to the masses.

Good reading. Are you really from Hans Christian Anderson land?
-----------------
X-posting another view of PRC....

quote="brihaspati"]

Liu wrote
well, Dalai can say whatever he want ...but whatever he says can change the fact: " china is on the way to be the next superpower....and .....no country dare "liberate Tibet" from the hand of PRC..."

China is not on the way to be he next superpower. It has already overstretched its imperialistic ambitions. In switching to a superfast economic growth model, it hwas naturally forced to adopt stat-capitalism. But capitalism in any form requires either (1) excessive looting of capital from colonies, (2) or intensive exploitation of domestic labour or (3) extraction of capital from other countries through unequal trade - all of which require physical coercion at some stage in one form or another. To support the CCP ambitions and satisfy the hunger for prosperity of the Chinese people which has been used by the CCP to divert attention from growth of other types of desires - ideological ones along the lines in the West, PRC has embarked on intensive "growth". PRC cannot use (1) except from Tibet which it is colonizing by trying to change the demography through resettlement and relocation of ethnic Hans in Tibet.

Apart from international factors like the collapse of the Western consumer economies on which China relied partly for capital acccumulation, the basic "colonizing" mentality of the Han CCP prevents it from genuinely feeling confident about the Tibetan ethnicity. This imperialistic colonizing attitude of the Han Chinese had also caused problems towards the end of the first millenium whne Tibetans aggressively resisted Chinese expansion, and China sought the help of the then Hindu kingdom of Kashmir to contain Tibet. The Tibetans have been fighting for their "nation" for at least a 1000 years. And now actually whatever PRC does will weaken its hold on Tibet.

The more PRC wants to change the demography by settling Hans it will alienate the Tibetans. The more Tibetans are alienated and pushed to a subsidiary political and economic role, the more will be the nervousness of the PRC - which means increased Han presence for reliability - more infratructure to facilitate coercive state machinery, like the PLA. All this eventually actually helps the Tibetan countermove, since the same infrastructure can also be used by a properly equipped or supplied Tibetan force to wreak havoc on the settled Hans and other establishments of PRC in the region. Eventually all the material development invested in Tibet by the PRC will come in useful for the new Tibetan nation.

If PRC softens its stand, then this will be seen as sign of weakness by the more radical among the Tibetans, and will actually embolden them to increase momentum for their liberation struggle.

Either way, I hope dear Liu realizes the inevitatbility of PRC withdrawal from occupation of Tibet.[/quote]



BTW, are there opposing moves to Tibetian freedom from Western strategy thinkers? Watch UK experts. I think that will be next move.

[Atri]

I guess the Puranas were really buddhi being transferred to the masses.

Good reading. Are you really from Hans Christian Anderson land?

Currently, yes.. as a student... Originally from our very own Jambudwipa...

[JwalaMukhi]

If India can work out her internal problems and develop the rural component, she will be able to project her Mohini Roop (economy and market) and Durga Roop (military) at will.

Mohini Roop of Bharat-mata can deal with jolted asuras who were running for Amrita-Kumbha and are now distressed. It is this Mohini Roop that can potentially contribute quite a lot in pulling the world out of recession. Beauty is, in strange manner, extremely powerful. Even Durga is described as so incredulously beautiful that Shumbha-Nishumbha fell in love with her. A beautiful intelligent woman with stable mind can achieve lot more than man. Her soft power is extremely potent.
For people who listen to reason (PRC, Unkil et al), Mohini can persuade them to fall in line.

For dick-heads like Shumbha-Nishumbha, Chanda-Munda and Mahishasura (TSPA, ISI, Taliban et al), Durga-Roop is more than enough.

That is a good and intersting take. With the ever presence of Shiva (Anthim satya - Dharma) in the background, the combination of Shiva with Durga and Mohini would lead to kumara sambhava and manikanta respectively, to take care of any further tough to crack nut cases.

[Prem]

I guess the Puranas were really buddhi being transferred to the masses.

Good reading. Are you really from Hans Christian Anderson land?

Currently, yes.. as a student... Originally from our very own Jambudwipa...

When my father passed away , i have to go to Kurukashetra for final rites. It is there first time i heard Bharat Bhoomi referred as Jambudwipa . Any idea how ancients knew India was kind of huge Island, i mean were Desi living in Matherdesh when India was floating in the Ocean drifting inch by inch to present location.

[brihaspati]

The reference to the "Mohinee roopa" makes my tongue itch - what have we done to include 50% of Indians in India's strategic future? So few take part in our discussions apparently unless some are masquerading as males! MKG the statesperson realized the crucial importance of bringing the ladies out into India's then "strategic" future, just as the predecessor armed insurrectionists had done primarily in the east. In the "field" I found it was not so difficult to gain their trust but one has to do it very diplomatically and carefully. We should not simply let this image of the nation as a "mother" stick as the end-all and be-all - we need them to partcipate as equals and take initiative. Any thoughts?

[Atri]

When my father passed away , i have to go to Kurukashetra for final rites. It is there first time i heard Bharat Bhoomi referred as Jambudwipa . Any idea how ancients knew India was kind of huge Island, i mean were Desi living in Matherdesh when India was floating in the Ocean drifting inch by inch to present location.

Bharatvarsha is a part of Jambudwipa. Whenever one does a Sankalpa, we say amuk tithye, Amuk Nakshatre, Amuk vaasare, Amuk Graame, Jambudwipe, Bhaaratvarshe etc etc...

According to Agni Purana, the earth is divided into seven concentric island continents (sapta-dvipa vasumati) separated by the seven encircling oceans, each double the size of the preceding one. The seven continents of the Puranas are stated as Jambudvipa, Plaksadvipa, Saalmalidvipa, Kushadvipa, Krounchadvipa, Shaakdvipa, and Pushkaradvipa. Seven intermediate oceans consist of salt-water, sugarcane juice, wine, ghee, curd, milk and water respectively. In ocean of milk (Ksheerasaagara), Vishnu sleeps on bed of Shesha.

Hehehe, the time you are referring to, there were no humans. and I don't think Vedics knew anything about plate tectonics.. But their flight of imagination is so wonderful and many times so strikingly logical that it makes me wonder... was there really a developed civilization earlier than the present one?

[brihaspati]

I will try to expand on the EU+UK+US+PRC+RUS angle. But probably another large data and map churning. One of the angles we should think of is whether we choose to imitate the "colonialists" in directly possessing "resources" in colonies or impose unequal trade by military superiority - or choose another route, that partly followed by the British Empire and which it is still reaping benefits from.
The first route inevitably leads to escalating costs of "empire maintenance" and leads to ultimate unsustainability. The British empire unwittingly actually followed the other route but not as an end itself, rather recognized its value as additional benefits. The reason the British empire ultimately had to withdraw from all its ex-colonies where it had not been successful at near-complete genocidal replacement of native populations and cultures with ethnic stock sourced from "homebase", ultimately lay in the overhwelming predominance of the "direct exploitation" method.

To maintain such "direct exploitation" in favour of "home", any "empire" has to maintain or develop racial supremacist or superiority constructs to justify such exploitative relations. This prevents amalgamation or synthesis of a new successor culture that is comfortable with incorporation of elements from both the native as well as the "colonizer". Humans always learn from their defeat, especially if the "winners" do not withdraw and continue to be observable at close quarters. Thus any defeated colonial society which successfully sustains itself in spite of defeat, faced with racial segregation, will quickly begin to learn the skills from their conqueror and learn to identify and exploit chinks in the winner's armour. In the history of the world, no military technology that could not wipe out all holding the culture of the target, ultimately proved meaningless - for the technology was adopted and modified or surpassed to defeat the winner back again.

On the othethand, the British Empire also realized the sidebenefits of "cultural conquest", especially education and ideology. It is still reaping the benfits of this "conquest". There is a lesson to be learned here by India. India should not try to copy the colonizers of the modern period - UK, USA, USSR, and now PRC. For all of them in due time have proved (PRC yet to but it will ) the futility of the "direct exploitation" method. India on the other hand should restrict its attention to securing its immediate territorial possessions that have been illegally occupied militarily, and consistently offer and encourage external countries and nations to use India's basic strength - its intellectual capabilities, and capacity to educate and transfer skills - on the soil of these countries, to develope their native capacities. This will allow such countries to retain a sense of their sovereignity, allow them to stand on their own feet to resist the "colonizers", and promote "equal" trade. India need not look outside, like China, to fuel its own growth - it has not yet fully released the productive and innovative capacities of its own people, which alone can propel India to sustainable, independent and long term growth.

[brihaspati]

This is going OT, but why can't we think of the observation-inference cycle being also used by ancient Indians? How does modern science know about plate tectonics in the past - by observing current phenomenon, or evidence of past phenomenon and arguing or inferring backwards. There are tantalizing clues to this inference method - so much evident in Indian astronomy. But in the literature, start with the description of the "Dashaavataar", with its uncanny following of "Darwinian evolution". In fact some of the original knowledge might simply be lost, and transformed into a vague memory of the importance or significance of certain items - attached and retold in fantastic narrative forms of religious significance. Anyone ever thought why the priests had to pick on the "Shalagraam sheela" - fossilized ammonites mostly exposed in surface strata in the Himalayas?

[ramana]

Please discuss special topics in some other thread. Thanks, ramana

[RamaY]

IMO – India is not included in the current geopolitical game because it did not reach that stage yet.

It took PRC >50 years of focused geographical expansion (Tibet, parts of Mongolia etc) , industrialization, trade and more than anything shrewd leadership. India cannot come on to the world stage until it develops a strong infrastructure/industrial base, military, and secure borders in addition to strong leadership.

At this juncture India must look inward to setup a strong infrastructural and technological base to sustain its economy and growth. It should send a strong message to its military adversaries (Pakistan, & Bangladesh) even if it amounts to symbolic land grabbing. Once India does that it will be welcomed on to the world stage and will be made part of solution (I mean profit sharing).

It is not just India’s time. All it can do is to avoid exploitation by other powers and focus on building its strengths.

“One strategy to win war is to weaken the opponent. But this strategy will not work when you are faced with a evenstronger enemy. The long term success lies in building and growing your strength irrespective of your opponent” – Arya Chanikya

[brihaspati]

Just a thought - the modern superheating PRC economy only started off after 1979, which makes this phase around 30 years. Prior to this PRC was not doing that great. Maoist propaganda hides a lot of setbacks. The cracks show through even in the highly sympathetic and mesmerized accounts in William Hinton's book "Fan Shen : A Documentary of Revolution in a Chinese Village". Also we have to keep in mind that this "launch" came immediately after the maverick US President Nixon visited Mao in a bid to upstage USSR.

[RamaY]

Devaguru ji

I thought about it before submitting my post.

To learn a lesson for India, I had to bring the cutural and territorial invasions in to the discussion. I have to admit that it was an incorrect comparison.

[brihaspati]

RamaYji,

You have certain important points. The real expansion and assertion of dominance over all of "China" by the CCP came only in 1949. So in that sense, they have been ruling PRC for 60 years. They won power by military means, which is the starting crucial difference from Indian elite who came to power in a similar period. Gaining strength and long introspective preparation is a good strategy, but only if you have sufficient time to be allowed to peacefully execute it. To a certain extent, India has to go for limited aggressive expansion to secure this very "peace" to strengthen further.

[RamaY]

India’s poverty, law-and-order, naxalism, terrorism etc must be separated from its external policy and cannot impede India from projecting its power externally. If Indian leadership is waiting to solve all these internal problems before projecting its power externally, it will never happen.

India, in my opinion, must consolidate its social and constitutional hold on the current federation before projecting its power outwards. This means repealing of Article 370 and further integration NE states with rest of the nation. These are the only two items that are required by India to address before looking outwards. One requires a constitutional amendment (but can rely on 95% of its population) and the other a small amount of monitory investment (<$20B), which India can afford. India can do both with its current capacity.

Independent India has demonstrated its Mohini-Avatar in the last decade and must display the Durga-avatar sooner than later. All the wars it had meant to protect its own territories from land grabbing by outsiders. In 1971 India split Pakistan but did not gain anything for itself either from BD or Pak. A strong India would have bargained for the area south of Chittagang from BD and POK from Pak, but let bygones be bygones.

POK, COK are two of the three areas that I have in my mind as part of this land reacquisition strategy. These areas constitutionally belong to India and it must show its willingness to use military power to get them back, even if other means or possible. Such a power projection will go long way in building India’s hard image.

As of today the world doesn’t know India’s hard power capability and does not take it into its calculation. It could be a wrong calculation by the opponents but as long as India is not taking advantage of opponents' wrong moves, what is the point? Like they say “unwillingness to use power even when needed is impotency”

I strongly believe that once India displays its Durga Avatar all the regional and world players will learn to live with the new India and adjust their strategies to accommodate, not contain, It.

[ramana]

Saving Pakistan from itself - K. SHANKAR BAJPAI

This is a superb article. I think it should be part of the background material introducing this thread. He busts all the myths that TSP and its anti-India supporters like Uneven Cohen peddle. But it may be too little too late. A lie repeated a 1000 times become gospel truth. Thus, it is now cast in stone, even among Indians, that Kashmir is central to India TSP reconciliation, when the fact of the matter is that it is TSP's unflinching hostility to the idea of India itself that is the root cause of what ails TSP and the region. Bajpai Ji makes this point eloquently.

I see a trend after Shyam Saran's speech that GOI is going full throttle to rebut the lies and psy-ops that it has been subjected to. I expect more of the nuke prolif info that GOI has to come out to rip the mask of the sanctimonious attitude of the P-5.

[ramana]

One way of looking at US-PRC nexus is that US wants PRC help to get out of the mutual mess (Saran's speech). This view is from the angle that US has vast RPC investments and both need to change the dynamic. However as the $ gets stronger and PRC keeps increasing its investment in US. and where is the drawdown? So this is contrary to the above view.

Another view is US rushed at assure PRC of support as it will face tremendous internal turmoil and discontent due to the global meltdown as it will face demand drawdown. Factories will close and workers get laid off. Looked at from this point of view PRC is a paper dragon on external hot air.

Can we look at data to support or rubbish these constructs?

In reply to myself here is a X-post from the PRC thread in Tech Forum...

'China may be the world's worst-affected economy'.

The next shock to the global economy, already reeling from recession, could come from China, which witnessed excessive 'malinvestment' during the boom years and where the investment structure is collapsing rapidly, says economist and Asianomics founder Jim Walker. India, on the other hand, will probably grow by 3-5% in 2009, which given the economic contraction or tepid growth elsewhere could possibly be the world's highest, he reckons. Excerpts from the first of a two-part interview that Walker gave DNA in Hong Kong on Tuesday:

Two years ago, you said, 'The butterfly has flapped its wings in subprime USA; the hurricane will be felt in rustbelt China.' Have we seen the worst of the hurricane? Some analysts are flagging a recovery there.
Quite the reverse. I think things are unravelling quite fast in China. Obviously, the export sector has been hit hard, and the trading goods sector is struggling. But when you look at the data in China, what is perhaps even more interesting is how quickly imports are collapsing relative to exports. In fact, China's trade surplus is going up. That tells you that domestic demand is falling faster than external demand.

The biggest problem, we've always felt, is that the signals being sent in China in terms of the industrial sector were that it should be export-orientated and it should be capital-intensive; in other words, the exchange rates were undervalued and interest rates were too low.At this stage, external trade is shrinking; at the same time, the capacity that has been put in place in China by private investment is being shown to be overcapacity and bad investment . The investment structure in China is coming down very, very quickly.The government has underestimated the impact of this on economic growth. Bear in mind that when investment comes down as it always does in a business cycle it doesn't go from 20% growth to 10% growth; it goes from 20% growth to 20% contraction. That's the process we are seeing in China now.

We have the two biggest drivers of the Chinese economy trade (the export sector) and investment absolutely collapsing. It's too early to talk of a recovery in China; we haven't even really got anywhere near the depths of the recession.

Will the 4 trillion yuan stimulus package add to 'malinvesment'?
The biggest danger is that it will go to the wrong industries and the wrong places, not the ones that are not efficient or profitable, which means eventually they will become bad debts in the banking system.

The banking system is perceived to have slack, loans-to-deposit ratios are relatively low, so there's a big push to get banks to lend. The big difference between the mid-1990s and now is that banks are now listed. What you're going to do is use money that's partly owned by investors foreign and local to support economic growth; whether that money will ever be repaid or not is immaterial. Basically, banks are being used as a policy tool. That makes equity investments in China a very dangerous proposition for a long number of years. China is really in danger of making foreign investors disappear for some time.
At the same time, that 4 trillion yuan is enough to raise economic growth rate. Our forecast is that in 2009, China GDP will grow between 0 and 4% GDP growth, with a 30% possibility that it will be negative , and 0% possibility that it will be 8%.
That 0-4% projection assumes a huge effort by the government to spend money. What it has to overwhelm on the private sector side is gigantic. In any case, they are not going to be able to spend 4 trillion in one year; a lot of that is actually not new spending.Work report effectively spoke of 1.4 trillion yuan in new spend. That's about 4.5% of GDP. That should, with a bit of luck, keep them at 0-4%

How will this recession manifest itself in China?
Empty factories, mothballed production lines, increased unemployment.

For what period of time? Where will demand come from when it revives?
These are the hardest questions for China at the moment. It's not too difficult to make a case that China may be the worst-affected economy in the world. And that's still ahead of us.

In 2007-08, China's current account surplus was 10-11% of GDP. That told us that in order to balance domestic supply and domestic demand, China had to export 10-11% of its economy. That is a very big imbalance.Now, with the rest of the world in recession, exporting 10-11% of your economyis not going to happen. It's a question of what percentage of that 10-11% needs to be destroyed in terms of capacity reduction to balance domestic supply and domestic demand. There's still going to be some external demand. This could a very severe problem that takes 2-3 years.

But beyond the next 2-3 years, when the malinvestment gets sorted out, are you bullish on China?
That's always been my hope. But I am more concerned about the policy response in China not just now, but over the past 2-3 years. If anything, China has been going backward in terms of policy management for at least two years. It was unwilling to allow oil prices to find their proper levels when they were rising fast last year, and it's been getting banks to lend in a way that makes them 'handmaidens of national policy' . That's very dangerous because capital is already mispriced, and interest rates are not set by the market. Secondly, the kind of people they want banks to lend to have a bad track record of repaying.So, policy direction in China has not been consistent over the past five years. It was moving strongly in a market direction from 2002 to 2005, but by 2006, they stopped going down that that track, partly by balancing the currency appreciation with all sorts of offsets. (This includes lending to people who they know will default)

Does that influence your long-term view on China?
It's making me more concerned than I was two or three years ago. Unless they begin to reverse their interventionist tendencies, this could be a longer crisis. It would signal to people that China is just too immature to be investing in. For now, however, they're still starry-eyed about China.(What is they say about people wanting a long rope?)

[svinayak]

I think we all are saying the same thing. The education system needs revamping. And it needs to set the direction for future generations.

My only suggestion is that the new education system can take inputs from Sanatana Dharma, in that the purpose of education is not just pursuit of Artha but all four purushardhas (Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha). Once we set the right objective, we can have fusion of new ideas, tools and technologies to implement it. Let us not mistake the tools for solutions.

We are not talking the same things

I am talking about things like this

But what is Central Government’ NCERT gift to Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj ?

• In the text book of NCERT for Standard 7 ‘Our Past – ll’ there are only 5 lines on Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj.
• 60 pages given to Mughal’s history and Mughal rulers who made the Hindus slaves.
• Not even a single photo of valorous Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj is printed. The place for the photograph is left blank.
• While the photos of atrocious, tyrannical Muslim kings, Babar and his descendants starting from 700 AD are printed.
• No mention of Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaja’s ‘Hindavi Swarajya’ but it is just mentioned as ‘local government’.
• No mention at all of Maharana Pratap who had fought with Mughal sacrificed the leisure of royal palace and used to sleep on the grass like ordinary people.

Check the discussion
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... topic=1313

[brihaspati]

Following on from Ramanaji's question, here is a reference :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12824991/CRS- ... Conditions
I will try to collate this and other protected sources of economic data to continue the PRC-India scenario. But I think even though this is mostly an economic paper/summary and therefore partly OT - readers will find useful data relevant for many threads including this one.

[brihaspati]

Education is a part of the ideological leadership question for the nation. Only one particular topic will stand out as a matter of contest - history. There are two ways of doing this, if historians cannot agree to a "proper" history, we can simply remove history before the modern, post-Independence period, as part of the curriculum. I think they do something like this in Germany. A lot of parents, will be delighted sky-high that their progeny can now concentrate on being doctors and engineers onlee and plan to go to "Videsh". History was never really liked by most students - among other such scary and boring topics like "mathematics". In my class of 50 students (sometimes 36), none of my mates understood the ferocity of the debates I had with my teachers, and for them it was something to be "mugged up" and "vomitted" and promptly forgotten. This was an "elite" school - and I have had subsequent experience of briefly teaching over "summer breaks" at non-elite schools at various levels - the picture is the same.

But while we remove "pre-Independence" history from texts, we teach them exact methods relevant for study of history - the basic tools and methods of archaeology, linguistics, paleogenetics, climatology, critical analysis of narratives and we give them long term projects about their own neighbourhood, or other areas and ask them to apply the learned methods to present their findings as research theses in "history". We also make available to them source narratives in accessible but truthful translations if necessary. We let them find out their own "history" without the benefit of "Thaparite reconstructions".

Or otherwise, if historians do not want to get completely unemployed as a profession - they have to prove their unbiasedness. But we have to realize that an effective countermove to the Thaparites can only be carried out by serious, parallel history research, and it may perhaps be very difficult to do unless we have a new generation of students keen to set records "straight" and who enroll and go through the "system" to gain the legitimacy they require to have the first toehold.

[Sagar]

When my father passed away , i have to go to Kurukashetra for final rites. It is there first time i heard Bharat Bhoomi referred as Jambudwipa . Any idea how ancients knew India was kind of huge Island, i mean were Desi living in Matherdesh when India was floating in the Ocean drifting inch by inch to present location.

To add to Chiron's Comments:

The Jamun Trees that you see in New Delhi, were planted under the direction of C Rajagopalchari in 1947(?).

[ramana]

An exchange:

He is bitter as the savant whose advise was rejected when he was near to power. But his heart is in right place. He is not deracinated as some of the chatterati are. Also a wiseman speaks when its time. If he speaks before he is considered otherwise and if he speaks afterwards he will be gifted with 20/20 hindsight. But we are glad we have MKB on India's side. Its like Shalya sarathyam now. We need to glean the useful and pertinent facts from him.

We need an all points of view feedback to understand the picture.

In Bharat rakshak Forum we are doing our own thinking albiet we are all chote muh baadi baat!

Please take a look at this page:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=600

ramana

--- On .. wrote:


Subject: M K Bhadrakumar: India frets over Obama's Chinamania

Dear Ramana:

Ambassador Bhadrakumar is an incisive thinker. Unfortunately, many of his articles (such as this one) exhibit an under current of hostility towards India and exultant pleasure in China supposedly doing better than India. Also he is needlessly viciously anti-America. He is clearly anti India's foreign policy establishment. I strongly suspect that part of his antipathy to India's foreign policy establishment arises from some pent up deeply felt grudge built up during his service days. It's a pity that it has taken the form of being so intensely pro-China and so bitterly anti-India. In private correspondence I was shocked to see that he absolves China totally of any wrong doing with regard to India!!

What do you think?

Warm regards,

Ram Narayanan



http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KC14Df01.html

ASIA TIMES ONLINE

Mar 14, 2009


India frets over Obama's Chinamania
By M K Bhadrakumar

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechen's visit to Washington this week is notable for three reasons. One, Yang is paying a return visit in a little over a fortnight of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Beijing. The intensity of the US-China traffic is indeed extraordinary by diplomatic norms. China seems to have blithely overtaken the traditional allies of the US, such as Germany and Japan.

Two, Yang's visit coincides with the 50th anniversary of the uprising in Tibet. Washington doesn't seem to be bothered at the coincidence. It is actually underscoring its current priorities in the US's relations with China. Tibet is an issue that arouses some animated passion in certain American circles. The US Congress and State Department have paid heed to these public sentiments
while Beijing on its part has duly regretted the US statements, but both sides are confident that life must move on.

Clinton made it clear during her Asian tour last month that neither Tibet nor Taiwan can be allowed to impede the serious business of Sino-US relations in the current world scenario characterized by the economic crisis.

Three, Yang's visit has been envisaged as a significant input in the run-up to the Group of 20 (G-20) summit meeting on April 2 in London. True, the US is widely consulting other countries for opinions on solving the economic crisis. But, again, the criticality of Chinese input for the US is self-evident from the fact that Yang has a scheduled meeting with US President Barack Obama.

But viewed from New Delhi, Yang's visit assumes an entirely different color. The intensity of US-China traffic is in sharp contrast with the virtual absence of high-level political exchanges between the Indian leadership and Obama. So much so that the former director for South Asia in the National Security Council in the George W Bush administration, Xenia Dormandy, penned an article on Wednesday in The Christian Science Monitor precisely focusing attention on the subject.

Dormandy played a key role in coordinating the July 2005 landmark visit of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the US that led to the new US-India strategic relationship. Titled somewhat exaggeratedly - "India: America's indispensable ally" - her article made an impassioned plea that "Obama's team would be wise not to forget it [India]". Dormandy pointed out that in foreign policy, "[The] Obama administration has started with a full sprint. Between the financial crisis and events in Afghanistan, Iran and Russia, and elsewhere, it's had to. But in rushing ahead to confront one crisis after another, it risks forgetting a crucial friend: India."

India's first contact with the Obama administration has been in the nature of Foreign Office consultations, when the Indian foreign secretary visited Washington this week. Reading between the lines, the picture that emerges from the reports of the consultations in Washington is that the US-India relationship is entering a phase of lull.

There seems to be no other way of describing what is afoot. Somehow, the fizz is gone from the relationship in comparison with what Indians became used to during the George W Bush era. In actuality, this is a curious paradigm insofar as the relationship is stable and is arguably irreversible, and there is a broad consensus on both sides about the far-reaching importance of the relationship for the two countries' medium- and long-term interests. Conceivably, Dormandy might have a point when she characterized India as the US's "indispensable ally".

A recent Gallup poll shows that India is the fourth-most popular foreign country in the world for the American public and second only to Japan in the Asian region - way ahead of China and South Korea. India is the country in which opinion is the highest in the world - outside of the US - in its positive regard of America.

So, where exactly lies the problem? The answer points in one direction: the China syndrome. The unacknowledged, delicate geopolitical reality is that Beijing has always been the silent third party to the US-India "strategic partnership" during the past decade.

Indian policy, especially during the term of the present government that is completing its five-year term in May, has been predicated on the assumption that the "containment" of China has been, is and will for the foreseeable future be the cornerstone of the US's Asian strategy. As a result, the US accorded a unique, enduring status to India as a "counterweight" to China and as a "balancer" in the international system.

It is debatable whether the US is to be held responsible if such a weird idea got into the head of the Indians in the first instance. It was plain to see that the US and China were fast developing a relationship of independence and that there was no question of the US confronting China or vice versa.

Probably, it suited the US to let such an impression gather in the Indian mind, while Washington kept working on its relationship with Beijing in the direction of incrementally making the latter a "stakeholder". The result is that the Obama administration's overtures to China for a qualitatively new relationship as a global partner have left Indian strategists with a lousy feeling that they've been had. Some Indian strategists are already pleading that New Delhi may simply have to sit out until the Obamamania dies down and Washington reverts to its good old ways with its hegemonistic instincts intact.

The acuteness of the problem is such that in the present circumstances of the US economic crisis, there is nothing in comparison with China that India can offer as a "counterweight" to what the wizards in Beijing are offering. Yang told Clinton on Wednesday that the China-US relationship was poised at a "new starting point" and that the two countries "share extensive interests and shoulder important responsibilities for world peace, stability and development".

What it means in plain terms is that China, with its financial surplus and growing stature on the world stage, is prepared to lend a hand to help the US in various hotspots, apart from cooperating in tidying over the current economic crisis.

Yang suggested to Clinton that both sides "should cultivate a positive and cooperative relationship, which is of vital importance not only to the benefit of both peoples but to world peace and prosperity as well".

Clinton responded that the Obama administration would be willing to work with China to "deepen and expand" cooperation. Both sides have agreed that the G-20 summit holds "great significance" for US-China ties "at a new phase".

The Indian consultations in Washington this week have revealed, on the other hand, that the Obama administration has its own priorities in foreign policy at this juncture. These require that the further development of US-India ties needs to be based on new forms of cooperation as compared to what the Indian side is used to.

The US State Department spokesman made it a point to downplay the visiting Indian official's consultations regarding Afghanistan - "it wasn't so much as we were asking India to do anything specific, but the secretary [Clinton] wanted to hear the [Indian] foreign secretary's views on the best way forward in Afghanistan from the Indian point of view. And, that was, in essence, the basis of the discussion."

The new buzzword in the US-India strategic partnership is climate change. But the tragedy is that it is simply not sexy enough for Indian strategists who saw the strategic partnership with the US as a roadway to big-power status.

Indeed, former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice was on record that the US was committed to building up India as an influential global player. On the other hand, the Obama administration has virtually put on the backburner the US-India civil nuclear cooperation agreement of October 2008. It has yet to work on its global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament agenda and to determine where the agreement with India fits in with any new global architecture.

The New York Times reported on Monday that Obama had sought Attorney General Eric Holder's views regarding all "signing statements" signed by Bush while in office. New Delhi will be watching Holder's advice with bated breath.

The Indian government has been taking the line that it is only bound by the 123 Agreement with the US and not the US legislation leading to it which place several riders on Indian policies to be worthy of cooperation with the US in the nuclear field - riders and preconditions which are perceived in Indian public opinion as a capitulation of India's right to pursue an independent foreign policy.

Bush favored India with an immensely consequential "signing statement".

Equally, Obama's decision to appoint Robert Einhorn as the under secretary for international security affairs and non-proliferation at the State Department causes uneasiness to Indian strategists. They are highly allergic to Einhorn's earlier opposition to the US-India nuclear deal, so much so that they take pleasure deriding him as a "non-proliferation ayatollah".

Conceivably, Obama administration will revisit the nuclear deal with India in one form or another once he reverses the US stance on the Collective Test Ban Treaty, accelerates a new treaty on capping fissile material production and indeed once he gets talks with Russia going on a new global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament architecture.

The Indian claim that the nuclear deal gives India the status of a nuclear weapon power and that the US tacitly recognizes such a status certainly seems a premature rush to judgement.

The paradox of the US-India strategic partnership is that there is, really speaking, nothing as such to worry about in its trajectory of development. On such vital areas for US global strategy, such as climate change and counter-terrorism and energy security, India will always remain a valuable partner. This alone assures India of a due status in US regional policies.

Again, it may even do a lot of good if the US-India partnership was "demilitarized", philosophically speaking, and turned its synergies instead toward aspects of life which are of immense consequence to India's development, such as public health, agriculture and education.

Obama unwittingly may even do India a great favor by unburdening the US-India strategic partnership of its heavy baggage of the power politics of the Bush era and channel it instead into creative, benign directions more attuned to India's circumstances.

He could indeed make the US-India relationship more predictable and durable and enrich it from a long-term perspective by broad-basing the Bush legacy of an essentially narrow and elitist government-to-government, military-to-military and business partnership to include in his agenda the Indian people and their concerns of day-to-day life.

After all, there is nothing more central to regional stability and security in South Asia than meaningfully addressing the problems of poverty and development.

Such an enlightened approach on the part of the Obama administration would also, fortuitously enough, prompt India to search for ways to diversify its foreign policy, compel it to mend fences with its neighbors more purposively, make it strive to recapture the verve of its traditional time-tested friendships and even address the hugely important subject of coming to terms with China's rise.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

Its debatable if the US will reverse any nuke policies in the uncertain world of geoploitics. My call is they will kick the CTBT call downstream to second term or just before elections. 2010 Congressional elections might return the Repubs into the House as they are understanding the impact of the changes being promoted by current Admin.

[Keshav]

History was never really liked by most students - among other such scary and boring topics like "mathematics". In my class of 50 students (sometimes 36), none of my mates understood the ferocity of the debates I had with my teachers, and for them it was something to be "mugged up" and "vomitted" and promptly forgotten. This was an "elite" school - and I have had subsequent experience of briefly teaching over "summer breaks" at non-elite schools at various levels - the picture is the same.

You hit the nail on the head. School is only one part of the equation. If you want a proud progeny, its not what you do (because kids tend to do the opposite of their parents, anyway), but what the other kids are doing. Nationalism is not a school course, its a culture. The billboards, TV shows, movies, books, poetry, clothing, and of course, music, mean more to the average kid than what they do in school. People tend to separate those parts of their lives.

[brihaspati]

I find this slightly disturbing :

On such vital areas for US global strategy, such as climate change and counter-terrorism and energy security, India will always remain a valuable partner. This alone assures India of a due status in US regional policies.[...]Again, it may even do a lot of good if the US-India partnership was "demilitarized", philosophically speaking, and turned its synergies instead toward aspects of life which are of immense consequence to India's development, such as public health, agriculture and education. Obama unwittingly may even do India a great favor by unburdening the US-India strategic partnership of its heavy baggage of the power politics of the Bush era and channel it instead into creative, benign directions more attuned to India's circumstances. He could indeed make the US-India relationship more predictable and durable and enrich it from a long-term perspective by broad-basing the Bush legacy of an essentially narrow and elitist government-to-government, military-to-military and business partnership to include in his agenda the Indian people and their concerns of day-to-day life.
After all, there is nothing more central to regional stability and security in South Asia than meaningfully addressing the problems of poverty and development.
Such an enlightened approach on the part of the Obama administration would also, fortuitously enough, prompt India to search for ways to diversify its foreign policy, compel it to mend fences with its neighbors more purposively, make it strive to recapture the verve of its traditional time-tested friendships and even address the hugely important subject of coming to terms with China's rise.

A lot of insight but fatally flawed conclusions. I am now beginning to doubt that such insights will not eventually begin to focus on the wrong track entirely.

First, it is not in the long term interests of the US to demilitarize the strategic relationship with India. Even the most rabid anti-US critic must surely recognize from his own portrayal of the US that its in the interest of the military-industrial complex to hold the Indian "defence" market. This will naturally grow into continued or even increasing militarization of strategic relationship. Also no product other than "defence" of the US has any significant market in India (for the hinted at public relationship, how many US products can we think of that are of US origin and have huge consumer market in India?). India has always been and will continue to be part of a military strategic framework within the western gameplan. The reason the British ultimately lost out was because of their retaining the essentially racist/tribal limitation of strategic vision. The US represents the most flexible in terms of racists/tribal constructions within strategic thinking of the Anglo-Saxonic spectrum. It is almost as if the gradual historical movement of the Germanic from Nordland through England onwards to USA, represents increasing strategic flexibility overriding narrowness of racial/tribal thought. The British triumphed over the Germanic becuase it was more flexible than the Germanic, and then lost out in dominance to the USA because the latter was more flexible than the British. The British take a much longer time to change their inherent attitudes and policies compared to the US. UK has always been against India's interests, mainly out of this racist inflexibility and hatred. Compared to this the US is strategically more flexible in its attitudes, and it is for this reason it is also much more likely to include India in its multifarious strategic concerns in Asia.

India is positionally important to prevent the general PRC+RUS+IRAN thrust towards the Indian Ocean and the Gulf. The military component can not be dropped in the short term from US concerns. India has been mending fences since its modern reincarnation in 1947. The more it mends the greater are the holes torn through by its neighbours. In fact a reverse trend of not mending and chopping the arm of the neighbour who sticks his hands through a small hole in the fence to widen it would have been more successful.

This line of thinking only strengthens the collaborators and anti-national elements within the Indian state. While it is important to realize that the US is not doing things from an altruistic motive, this alone should not blind the strategist from reality and a clear understanding of Indian interests.

[brihaspati]

Many on this thread have brought up the crucial point of internal consolidation before/simultaneously while thinking of projecting outwards. A debate aired on NDTV reminded me of an old problem I had faced ages ago - the critical question of regional political parties versus "national parties". My views are briefly that regional forces represent regional elite who realize that they cannot satisfy their ambition of "national domination" and have decided to use and encourage local "concerns" to carve out a niche for themselves and use this to bargain for benefits at the centre. They can gain power because the "central powers" have traditionally been hogged again by certain regional powers masquerading as national ones - from very specific historical and colonial manipulations and legacies. Such regional interests masquerading as "national" either actually or are perceived by other regional powers (or represented so to their electorate), as biased in favour of their source regions. But this dynamic balances out "extremist concentration of power" while at the same time jeopardizes nationalist consolidation, by encouraging and sharpening or maintaining regional sense of distinction in comparison to other regions.

However, I would also see this as positive in the sense that to overcome the problem of regional subnationalisms, we will have to look for commonalities to stress and encourage, and that will lead us to certain very specific directions ideologically, that in the long run will immensely benefit the nation.

Any thoughts on this for the strategic future scenario?

[Sanku]

Any thoughts on this for the strategic future scenario?

If the situation does not go out of hand; I see a very attractive (although completely unintended) off shoot of the third front.

To explain further -- We know that India has traditionally suffered from the lack of cohesion brought about by precisely the reasons that Brihaspati has outlined above. Individual ambitions have triumphed over national reasons, mostly because the protected Indic in this vast motherland forgets that there is an "other" who is out to get him. This cocoon of India's strength also allows for Individuals to seek their glory at the cost of the united.

Time is witness that India never splintered on ideological basis -- the Indic/Hindu ethos held strong -- it splintered primarily on Individualism that is inherent in our philosophy.

Now -- what does that have to do with the third front? For the first time (or one of few times) in Indian history; Regional lords are collaborating with each other to overthrow to large pan-Indian entities. (note that I dont necessarily mean that they will succeed)

This essential collaboration of Indic parts with a view of taking over the center held by Indic parts reminds me of the Chankya era where Nand was defeated by Chandragupta on the basis of alliance formed by Indic sub-powers, or of Ram harnessing the various energies of India for a war again Ravana.

If this model works out and establishes itself yet again we will be lucky -- at the very least this forced as equal interaction will do wonders in building a cross country linkages which are independent of cross country linkages which are often built centrally. That is a good strong leader propounds a vision which is hierarchically spread all over without necessarily a lot of peer level interaction between the constituents.

------

The usual dangers of this process going wrong we are well aware of (and seen before) hopefully this time it will stay within bounds and the churn will be productive without exploding (a harnessed/controlled nuclear reaction)

[Atri]

Any thoughts on this for the strategic future scenario?

If the situation does not go out of hand; I see a very attractive (although completely unintended) off shoot of the third front.

To explain further -- We know that India has traditionally suffered from the lack of cohesion brought about by precisely the reasons that Brihaspati has outlined above. Individual ambitions have triumphed over national reasons, mostly because the protected Indic in this vast motherland forgets that there is an "other" who is out to get him. This cocoon of India's strength also allows for Individuals to seek their glory at the cost of the united.

Time is witness that India never splintered on ideological basis -- the Indic/Hindu ethos held strong -- it splintered primarily on Individualism that is inherent in our philosophy.

Now -- what does that have to do with the third front? For the first time (or one of few times) in Indian history; Regional lords are collaborating with each other to overthrow to large pan-Indian entities. (note that I dont necessarily mean that they will succeed)

This essential collaboration of Indic parts with a view of taking over the center held by Indic parts reminds me of the Chankya era where Nand was defeated by Chandragupta on the basis of alliance formed by Indic sub-powers, or of Ram harnessing the various energies of India for a war again Ravana.

If this model works out and establishes itself yet again we will be lucky -- at the very least this forced as equal interaction will do wonders in building a cross country linkages which are independent of cross country linkages which are often built centrally. That is a good strong leader propounds a vision which is hierarchically spread all over without necessarily a lot of peer level interaction between the constituents.

------

The usual dangers of this process going wrong we are well aware of (and seen before) hopefully this time it will stay within bounds and the churn will be productive without exploding (a harnessed/controlled nuclear reaction)

The leader, Chandragupta, was defined. Although he was weak, there was no ambiguity about the leader. He grew strong only after assassination of Parvateshvara (Porus) by Shweta (the dancer girl). Presumably orchestrated by Chanakya.

Out of all the regional lords helping Chandragupta to overthrow Nanda rule, only Parvateshwara had ambitions for pan-Indian rule, which clashed with those of Chandragupta-Chanakya. Others were in the game for spoils of Magadha.

And, the confederacy had to be dissolved shortly after magadh Conquest. After 6-7 years, when Seleucus Nikator invaded India, he met unified army of Bharat under Chandragupta, not that of Ambhi or Parvateshvar.

The point is, cooperation of regional lords can do only so much. If strong central authority is not imposed after such joint venture, it is injurious to national health.

[Sanku]

^^^

Notice the disclaimers -- I am well aware of 1) the usual pitfalls and 2) the fact that exact comparisons with prior scenario is not a valid idea.

Nevertheless the thrust of my point does not change -- and neither does it mean that I will be voting a regional party. I will vote for the most fav of the parties on BRF here anyway

[ramana]

Continuing the study of PRC as pointed out be Saranji's article..

X-posted...

Boyz, remember what 'ol vina had said long ago, just as the subprime implosion lens went off and started compressing the fissile stage .. The end multi mega ton Tsar Bomba will be set off only when China goes of with a gigantic Kaboom. It is already happening. All the one power plant a week, half the world's use of iron ore, coal etc, half the out put of lot of metals etc, is definitely going to implode. No sir. The Commie Command and Control aint going to be able to fight against the fundamentals like law of gravity . What goes up comes down. The Chinese bubble has well and truly burst. Whichever way you cut it, the gigantic white elephants that were used to put up the Beijing Olympics will go to seed. All those towers that made a mockery of Manhattan in Shanghai are never going to pay for themselves . Those are massive capital write offs. With Unkil leveraging up on Treasurys and finally inflating it's way out of commitments, Chicom are screwed massively. Both externally by Unkil and internally by the collapse of the investment bubble.

When the Chinese Tsar Bomba goes off, Comrades Andrei Sakharov and Igorr Tamm would be envious of the size of the Chinese bum.

Vina,

The question is whether they take US down with them or they patch up for a "united front". They have more than 1.5T treasury bonds. Today if they offload even 25% of it, no bank can absorb them for the next 6 months and the US will be worst affected. But not doing that will mean China not using its own resources. What will be the quid pro which US will offer?

and

Ravi_Ku. My guess is Chinese are not suicidal Packees. The Commie Party has an inherent agenda in the stability of China. The first thing that will get swept away into the dustbins of history is the CPC. That is why this "harmonious society" thing is so big for them. No. They wont be dumping dollars, because that is like plunging a dagger into their bellies , sort of a Chinese version of the Japanese Hara-Kiri / Seppuku /whatever. This is a game where they have no good options and no control.

I think it might play out this way. If the Chinese Tsar Bomba goes off (eventually it will deflate, question is , will it be an "orderly" gradual deflation or the Chicoms by their ham handed meddling and trying to fight gravity manage to set off a Tsar Bomba), there will be a rush of capital out of China. That is where the Chicom Treasury holdings will be useful. All the top CPC thugs and every Panda and his mother-in-law will look to run and hide and try to save value of their holdings they can. And guess what is the "safe currency" ? . Everyone will be buying greenback and dumping RMB like there is no tomorrow. The ChiPanda govt will have no option to sell dollahs then. Such massive currency plunges like what happened in Indonesia in 1998 will hurt the average chinese most and will have "serious disturbances to harmonious society" . Remember, that kind of plunge does not translate immediately into improved export competitiveness. A lot of Chinese exports is highly import intensive as well . What will get killed is the value that is added in China. As usual, it is the usual "serf"/ "abdul" /"Chang" who will get short changed with worthless RMB for his/her labor. The ChiCom party fat cats and apparatchicks will have spirited their wealth away, along with their wives/mistresses and concubines in Yamreeka /Vilayat in greenbacks

A friend of mine in auto wheels business has a facility in PRC to compete in world markets. He has a lot of money tied up with GM in USA. I asked him whats the prognosis? He said he has to pay even lower wages in PRC to break even, IOW the workers will be short changed even further.

[brihaspati]

Chinese state stability traditionally depended on the even balancing out of two pillars of the Chinese state - the bureaucracy and the military. The Chinese state even now has retained this peculiar dynamic. The personality cult around Mao was a necessary part of the CCP strategy to be the buffer authority centre equidistant from the two pillars that made up the then CCP - the Red Army (8th+4th after the Long March) and the party officials who were involved in base area admin. At the moment, its the bureaucracy which is converting into the "idols with clay feet", through incipient corruption. The Army still remains faithful and therefore is holding the PRC state together. When the bureaucracy degenerates further, to distort the balance of power with the military significantly - that is when the real dangers for PRC starts. The Chinese military traditionally have always had strong rural roots, and even within the accelerating urbanization, the lack of hereditary social hierarchies creates a situation where "masses" get well represented in the army. Any economic backlash on the "masses" will have reverberations in the army, and once the younger generation matures into "command" the CCP could face earthquakes. I would hazard a guess that the CCP will increase its military spending not only citing its "threat perceptions" but also to retain its hold on the Army. I think they realize that all those public executions have not fixed the endemic bureaucratic problem of corruption, and its repercussion if seriously taken up by the army will be disastrous.

Indian Army's "exercises" and "contacts" within the Red Army is worthwhile I think, as a long afterthought.

[Sanku]

@above
I dont know if the above postulate of two pillars is completely true right now -- let me explain -- the few GoI sources I have talked to have a interesting observation -- we already know that there is no PRIVATE enterprise in China. All private enterprise is ChiCom govt money funneled through relatives of ChiCom bigwigs. Behind the facade of private the control continues with the chicoms. However this we already know.

One observation which I have not seen on BRF so far is as follows -- ChiComs are actually sending in tons of Red Army personal to the private industry as cannon fodder, both officers and men. A large % of competitiveness of the Chinese comes from the fact that there management and labor pool costs are actually being borne out by the Govt under the defence budget.


A large number of senior and mid-ranking officers also have their hands in the till in this arrangement.

The recession is going to have interesting side effects for their Mil as well now.

[Philip]

A recent piece by Irfan Hussein of the Dawn,on thre Paki "surrender at Swat".His very prescient views on the "mush" that is Pak today and the rampaging ungodly Taliban finding no resistance is a grinm portent for the future of Pak and the subcontinent.

http://letusbuildpakistan.blogspot.com/ ... er-in.html

Saturday, 21 February 2009
Irfan Hussain: Terms of Surrender in Swat

Terms of Surrender
By Irfan Husain
Saturday, 21 Feb, 2009

This is the second time the govt has surrendered to Maulana Sufi Mohammad; the first was under the last PPP administration in the mid 90's.—Reuters
When Gen Niazi and his army of 93,000 surrendered to Indian forces in Dhaka in December 1971, there were angry demonstrations from Karachi to Rawalpindi.

Public fury was directed at the military high command and Gen Yahya Khan for having led the nation to this humiliating defeat.

However, in the wake of another surrender, this time in Swat, there has been no outpouring of grief and anger; just a sullen acceptance of the inevitable. Clerics, barely able to contain their glee, sat across the table from the NWFP’s chief minister, Amir Haider Hoti, and beamed at the cameras.

The federal and provincial governments have tried to put a brave face on this stinging reversal. Everybody from Asif Zardari downwards has protested that far from being a defeat, the imposition of the nizam-i-adl, or Sharia law, is somehow a great blessing for the people of Swat. And it is true that for now, the possibility of peace is what the valley needs after months of bloody conflict that has seen hundreds of civilians killed.

Although the 10-day truce generously announced by the local Taliban led in Swat by Maulana Fazlullah may provide some relief to a hard-pressed government, the insurgency is not going to disappear any time soon. The reality is that we are at the beginning of a very slippery slope. To imagine that the thugs who have been rampaging at will in Swat will meekly lay down their arms when the Pakistani state has rolled over is to delude ourselves.

A couple of years ago, when writing about Swat, I had used one of Lenin’s revolutionary maxims: ‘Probe with a bayonet: if you meet steel, stop. If you meet mush, then push.’ Time and again, extremists, terrorists and just plain criminals have been meeting mush, and they have been pushing. The result of this aggressive probing is that the state’s writ now barely extends beyond the boundaries of Mingora.

Once political space has been conceded to a group, it is very difficult to claw it back. We witnessed a similar surrender to Maulana Sufi Mohammad in the mid-1990s when another PPP government was in (nominal) charge. Then, too, there was an agreement to impose Sharia law in Malakand Division that got bogged down in the courts. But as far as the government of the day was concerned, it was willing to surrender as it was unable to put down the cleric’s revolt then, as it could not put down Maulana Fazlullah’s uprising this time around.

The major difference is that now, the militants who defeated the Pakistan Army are tougher, better armed and strengthened by the presence of Afghan, Chechen and Tajik fighters. Above all, they are far more cruel than their predecessors. They have routinely beheaded innocent people, and blown up approximately 200 girls’ schools. These are the killers the government is abandoning the people of Swat to.

Clearly, the first duty of any government is to protect its people. In this, the PPP and its allies have clearly failed. Despite its secular credentials, the ANP, the leading coalition partner in the NWFP, has cravenly surrendered a large part of its population and its territory to the most benighted elements in the country. To be fair, in the face of the army’s failure to crush the militants despite months of fighting and hundreds of civilian casualties, Hoti had few viable options.

For months now, Asif Zardari has been saying to anyone who will listen that the world should help Pakistan in its fight against the terrorists. But when the Americans offered to train our soldiers in anti-insurgency warfare, they were told we did not need their help. When their drones kill militants in the tribal areas, we lodge protests, and media commentators go ballistic. So how exactly should the world help?

Recently, President Zardari has appealed for a kind of Marshall Plan to support Pakistan’s socio-economic development. He argues that such an initiative would undercut the appeal of the jihadis. But this argument loses sight of the fact that the whole world is currently trying to cope with the economic mess it is in, and there is little spare change around. More importantly, the Taliban slaughter government officials engaged in any kind of development activities in the vast area they now control.

Increasingly, Zardari resembles a man with a begging bowl in one hand, and a gun in the other pointed at his own head. The reality is that for decades, we have sacrificed the bulk of our resources to support a vast defence apparatus we could ill afford. The extremist menace that threatens to destroy us was largely a creation of our own military establishment. And now that we need the army to defend us, we find it is not up to the task.

We need to face up to the fact that a lack of money is not the problem. What we really need is the political will to fight the monster confronting us today. Despite the concern of millions of Pakistanis, a vocal section of the establishment and the media are either in denial, or are cheering on the militants. Some have argued that the deal signed recently in Swat is actually good for the people.

Hoti is arguing that somehow, the ‘quick justice’ promised by Sufi Mohammad justifies his government’s surrender. The truth is that the Islamic courts to be set up are not based on case law and precedents. They rest, instead, on the wisdom and learning of the qazis presiding over the courts. From our knowledge of Pakistani clerics, it would need a brave or foolish person to place much faith in the justice provided by these worthies if they take over the courts.

In most countries, a single body of law governs all citizens. By handing over the people of Swat to the tender mercies of militants, the government has created a dangerous precedent. Now, any group of armed thugs can extort Pakistani territory as their fiefdom. Citizens will then have the choice of suffering their oppression, or fleeing. Soon, no area will be free from the Taliban, and their victory will be complete. Already, they are saying they will turn their attention to the rest of the country once they have consolidated their hold over Swat.

If the Taliban bayonet keeps meeting mush, it will soon be at every Pakistani’s throat. (Dawn)

The writ of Zardari's empire of Pak (from Rawal to Pindi) reminds one of the great verse about Mughal emperor Shah Alam,"whose writ ran from Delhi to Palam".Bahadur Shah's writ, historians tell us,was the distance he could ease himself from the ramparts of the Red Fort!

[brihaspati]

Sankuji,

One observation which I have not seen on BRF so far is as follows -- ChiComs are actually sending in tons of Red Army personal to the private industry as cannon fodder, both officers and men. A large % of competitiveness of the Chinese comes from the fact that there management and labor pool costs are actually being borne out by the Govt under the defence budget.


A large number of senior and mid-ranking officers also have their hands in the till in this arrangement.

This fits in with my conjecture - once the bureaucracy goes down in further corruption, its the other pillar, the army that is sent in to stave up the tottering state - in this case the single concentration of authority in the CCP. But once this happens, and with nothing to balance the army, the CCP is in mortal danger - from the possible corruption in contact (and therefore motivation to overthrow the CCP and remnant bureaucracy whose "cut" can then be enjoyed entirely) or facing mass hostility, switching allegiance and deciding to overthrow anyway.

[ramana]

X-posted..

My first post and I plunge in with some trepidation. Primarily because the level of discourse here is elevated and cerebral and also because my viewpoints may dissent from the popular. Here goes anyway.

The Indian nation as it exists currently does not have an iota of a chance of emerging as a global power, a nation of global import or anything but a mass supplier of intellectual and mundane labor to the peoples of the Western world and moneyed autocracies.

Pakistan, if it is able to shake the yoke of Islamic fundamentalism has a better chance of becoming an Asian superpower rivaling China.

It is my contention that there is a fundamental incompatibility between a pluralistic secular democracy that respects multiple faiths, languages, customs and the ability to emerge as a viable global power. Too many competing interests within the nation will keep the disparate groups in India expending enormous energy maintaining their individual status quo and power blocks. There is no virulent nationalism in Indians – even cricket does not do it as evidenced by the emergence of IPL.

The sole superpower – my country USA – preaches plurality but is essentially a Judeo Christian nation with the pursuit of wealth as the sole motivator. It has only 2 political ideologies and the military industrial complex wields the real power. Most western powers are fairly homogeneous. China’s CCP is ensuring this happens.

There is no glue that holds India cohesively. Pakistan has Sindhis, Punjabis et al but Islam ties them together. If Pakistan can somehow rid itself of its extremist mullahs it has all the ingredients to excel and become a superpower. A big if.

The strategic scenario that India needs to work towards is securing its borders, maintaining harmony with its neighbors and within itself and striving for the economic uplift of its populace. Can the nukes, quit trying to be a regional foil to the Chinese and forget resurrecting past glory. Provide the world with its engineers, doctors, scientists and uplift its masses.

A dhimmi liberal ideology by this Forum standards??

[Keshav]

Vadivelu -
Don't hesitate to throw around new ideas. It's just the Internet. What's the worst that could happen?

Although I don't quite understand your approach to the subject.

You say that Indian will not be a global power. I'm inclined to believe you, at least for the short term, but I can't understand why you think India will remain that way. I suppose if you take BR route and attempt to look at the future as an extension of the past, we might assume that, but there are way too many factors that make the modern Indian asymmetrical with the old Indian. We have the ability to look back and understand our previous mistakes, whereas before, we didn't have any written accounts, libraries, etc. to learn from.

Plus, what's odd is that you completely discount nation building. If you didn't do anything to create a national philosophy or attempt to find some amalgam of national culture, it won't happen. Educating, feeding, and protecting the citizens is a moot point because that it required of us anyway (through schooling, universal health care, etc.) but why can't that occur side by side with nation building?

I understand how hard it is to change the direction of an elephant (India's population) but India is a long term country - people and politicians may think for themselves, but ultimately, India doesn't change much.

Long term nation building is generally what people think here. All the talk about super power this and that is about securing the short term interests for India so it has something to build upon later. Every journey starts with one step and all that jazz.

[vadivelu]

Nation building is precisely what is impossible in India.

To build the Indian nation one will have to subjugate the arrogance of the madarasi, the benevolence of the kannadiga, the dreaminess of the Bengali, the surliness of the Bihari, the machismo of the Punjabi and a whole horde of ethnic eccentricities.

India I am convinced is an accident in history.

[Dilbu]

India I am convinced is an accident in history.

Sounds like Uneven Cohen. What about the concept of Bharat and the 60+ years of existence and growth of India?

[SRoy]

Nation building is precisely what is impossible in India.

To build the Indian nation one will have to subjugate the arrogance of the madarasi, the benevolence of the kannadiga, the dreaminess of the Bengali, the surliness of the Bihari, the machismo of the Punjabi and a whole horde of ethnic eccentricities.

India I am convinced is an accident in history.

Which India?

India the civilization or the India the modern nation state?

[Prem]

Nation building is precisely what is impossible in India.

To build the Indian nation one will have to subjugate the arrogance of the madarasi, the benevolence of the kannadiga, the dreaminess of the Bengali, the surliness of the Bihari, the machismo of the Punjabi and a whole horde of ethnic eccentricities.

India I am convinced is an accident in history.

Vadivelu, what you call yourself when some one ask about your nationality?
Indians think about themselves in Indian terms. When ever i meet a Madrasi, Bengali or Bihari , no one has ever mentioned they aint Indian. The nation builidng is just a small step we need to take and become Bhartiya alongside being Indian in current sense. Shakracharya did that when he walked from Kerala to Kashmir. Guru Gobind Singh was born in Patna when his father was on way to Assam and he passed away in Maharashtra while fighting many battles in Punjab. No one ever required Visa to travel from North to South to East to West.
BRF posters are from various states and they are all indians , ask them if you doubt their indianness.