Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

[svinayak]

Raji, Education cant be the cohesive factor. And the education that is crammed is not the right kind due to its empahsis on alien precepts. So it has to be enlightenment and not just education. For an enlightened one might not be an educated one in the recognized manner.

The elders used to say "Uthistha Bharata!" ie arise/awake oh son of India!

Education with true historical context is what is important.
Indian history is being distorted with colonial nonsense. This has to change if consensus has to be achieved.

[ramana]

Education comes from the Greek root "educato" ie to bring out. True education will bring out the inherent dharma latent in the person and leads to enlightenment. Without this its just a cloak.

[RayC]

The major players affecting India’s strategic insight vis a vis the neighbourhood are the US, China and Pakistan.

In so far as the US is concerned, it is focussed on Afghanistan for its strategic reasons, on Pakistan because it can be a spoiler to the US aims, India for its markets and a balance to China and China since it is the closest competitor to US supremacy.

Global Warming or Alternative Energy notwithstanding, oil shall still play an important role for a decade at least. The US economy is oil fuelled and so US will continue to be dependent on oil. Hence, the Middle East and the CAR are important, CAR having the largest untapped hydrocarbon resources. Therefore, CAR and the Middle East (ME) are very much in the US strategic view. The US has to have a base to address upheavals in the Middle East and hence Iraq, which is the centre of ME and is neighbours to most, was selected as the focal point to ‘influence’ the ME nations. Having a lien on the sweet oil and has the second largest oil reserves in the world. (US Energy Information Administration (EIA), "Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional and international security issues.") This was also to ensure that the blackmail of OPEC over oil prices and supply control was destroyed. Therefore, troop withdrawal or otherwise, Iraq will continue to be in the US strategic scheme of things. That is why the largest US base outside the US is in Iraq i.e. the Balad Airbase and the largest US embassy at Baghdad!! Iraq also protects the southern flank of the oil pipeline from CAR to Ceyhan. Iraq also plays an important part in the US gameplan of squeezing Russia from the South and West along with Georgia and Ukraine. The CAR nations had come on board, but then the Shanghai Five apparently has prevailed on the CAR nations to remain ambivalent. China is to have a pipeline running from CAR into Xingjian and onto the mainland.

Afghanistan remains an important cog since it practically ‘peeks’ into China through the Wokhan Corridor. It also covers the northern flank of Iran, which is inimical to the US. Therefore, Afghanistan is ideal as a ‘listening post’ as also as launch pads for military or covert action against Iran. In so far as China is concerned, apart from it being a listening post, with India ‘in the bag’ (India’s reluctance is a bother to the US), the US game of encircling China would be in place. That is also one of the reasons why Vietnam is being given a sympathetic ear by the US (and Vietnam’s animus to China is well known). Thailand is already with the US. As is Japan and South Korea. Afghanistan is also the route to Gwadar port in Pakistan’s Balochistan where the US pipeline from CAR is to terminate. This is also the reason why Karzai was made the head of Afghanistan since he was a Unocal man and Unocal was to build the pipeline and supply the oil to India and China, the modern oil guzzling industrial nations that will shore up the US economy! Balochistan is also important to the US strategic perspective. Apart from opening up the CAR – Afghanistan – Balochistan – Gwadar pipeline, it also squeezes Iran from the East, having done so from Iraq and Afghanistan! Having access to Gwadar also eliminates the Chinese listening post at Gwadar which is monitoring US activities in the ME, as also ruins the Siring of Pearls strategy of the Chinese. Gwadar, is also close to Diego Gracia which is so important to the US that the population there has been shifted and it is only inhabited by the US military personnel!!

Therefore, to assume that Afghanistan is not paramount to US interest and that they will pack up and go would be incorrect. It is a part of the encirclement of inimical states programme. One should read Cheney’s DPG and NEP to realise the same.

This aspect is more important to the US for the moment than encircling China through India, even though that will also be pursued with vigour and more so now with a favourable government of Man Mohan Singh who claimed that Indian loves Bush. I am sure he will not hesitate to say that India also loves Obama. Once Iraq and Afghanistan stabilises, the second phase will start.

Pakistan, the immediate concern for India since it is a fanatical and mercurial neighbour with instability writ large is a problem. It is a fallacy to feel that the world will allow Pakistan to become a Taliban headed state. If it were so, then why was Afghanistan taken to task? Taliban with its repressive ways brought Afghanistan to order, even if it a crude way. The US is pouring in money just to avoid it as also to ensure that Pakistan survives in the comity of nations. If Pakistan is Talibanised, then pop will go the weasel as far as the world is concerned.

So long as Pakistan keeps her terrorists in check, India can rest. If not, the US and the international community should be ready for the Cold Start turning a Hot pursuit, come what may! Yes, some of us will perish, but Pakistan would not exist! They are well aware of this!

At this juncture, I would leave it to the reader to judge if the US in not interested in having Balochistan boiling, why allow seven consulates of India in Afghanistan when the US calls the shots?

China requires to be encircled. China is no friend of India, no matter how much of pious platitudes they spew. India perforce has to shake hands with the US on this count. India’s overture with Vietnam is in the correct direction. Thailand. Cambodia and other nations of Indo China have to be brought on board. If India can give such huge assistance to Sri Lanka, then India is capable of the same in these areas.

Sri Lanka requires being isolated. If they do not give the Tamils their due, then there are good reasons to put them on the spit.

Bangladesh should be taken on board since the govt is not inimical to India. All assistance should be given including a justified water treaty as also indicating India’s and hence Bangladesh’s concern of China planning to divert the Brahamaputra water for China! It is enough to scare the living hell out of Bangladesh.

Nepal requires India to promote the Madeshis and control the Marwaris who run Nepal’s economy.

Myanmar’s military has existed for years. It would be naïve to feel that the west has not tried to topple it. Since it has not toppled and may not be possible to topple, it is better to work with them and get the best bargain.

[raji]

Ramana/Acharya,

You are absolutely right. One has to be enlightened and educated with a historical perspective.

The problem is that if we wait for a sufficient number of people to become enlightened, then we will wait until our culture dies. 5000 years of Hindu history has not yet produced a critical mass of enlightened individuals, what makes you think we will get to that point in the forseeable future, particularly in this day and age, where we are in general as a population, moving away from enlightenment far more than ever in the past (not to glorify the past, but if enlightenment is the yardstick even our imperfect past was better than the present, despite in the best of times, as I said, we failed to produce a critical mass of enlightened people).

We have to come up with a more practical and effective and functional organizational principle, than one where people coalesce around enlightenment. Because the problem is numbers. While we are getting enlightened slowly, the barbarians are annihilating our culture. We have to address the issue of how to gather enough numbers of us around cohesive but simple ideas of self-preservation and perhaps some self-enhancement. This will also give us time, space, opportunity and the right climate to enlighten ourselves.

[raji]

RayC,

You have made a great analysis on your previous post. I disagree with you on certain aspects, but that is not important.

The important take away is this. Your entire argument relies on US strategic interests to keep India safe. So, you argue that US cannot withdraw from AFPAK because of their strategic interests. What if they are forced to, desite their strategic interest ? US has been forced to withdraw before, because of domestic compulsions. Or what if their perception of their strategic interests change ?

The point is, we cannot rely on everybody else's strategic considerations to bail us out, time and again. In your argument, India should only be this passive state with sit back and watch attitude. Thats where I disagree. We should always have a proactive strategy of our own, backed by a tactical plan for every possible scenario, at least in our neighborhood. In other words, if the Americans finish off the Taliban, great......we will all sing Hail to the Chief and go to disney land. If not, however, India should be prepared to act. I just dont see Indians even close to be prepared to act or even close to exercising any kind of strategic thinking or even playing out some "if then else" scenarios and simulating our responses to them.

And our track record of tackling our neighborhood is dismal. We have snatched defeats from the jaws of victory many times. Other times, we have been plain defeated.

[Virupaksha]

Therefore, to assume that Afghanistan is not paramount to US interest and that they will pack up and go would be incorrect. It is a part of the encirclement of inimical states programme. One should read Cheney’s DPG and NEP to realise the same.

This aspect is more important to the US for the moment than encircling China through India, even though that will also be pursued with vigour and more so now with a favourable government of Man Mohan Singh who claimed that Indian loves Bush. I am sure he will not hesitate to say that India also loves Obama. Once Iraq and Afghanistan stabilises, the second phase will start.

Pakistan, the immediate concern for India since it is a fanatical and mercurial neighbour with instability writ large is a problem. It is a fallacy to feel that the world will allow Pakistan to become a Taliban headed state. If it were so, then why was Afghanistan taken to task? Taliban with its repressive ways brought Afghanistan to order, even if it a crude way. The US is pouring in money just to avoid it as also to ensure that Pakistan survives in the comity of nations. If Pakistan is Talibanised, then pop will go the weasel as far as the world is concerned.

So long as Pakistan keeps her terrorists in check, India can rest. If not, the US and the international community should be ready for the Cold Start turning a Hot pursuit, come what may! Yes, some of us will perish, but Pakistan would not exist! They are well aware of this!

No issues with your above post. Though you seem to be suggesting India and US will intersect a lot in the medium term.
You said US will not leave afghan in the medium term. Yes, I agree with that - but the approach of how they will not leave will be different. I do not think US has any issues with the taliban and co as long as it doesnt attack the west. The unsaid part is, US doesnt care/will assist if the attack is directed towards India.

There could be many models where US is still in afghan but with respect to issues with India, not in afghan at the same time - the US bases in Saudi being a good indicator where they want afghan to go.

and apart from China encircling India, I will say even India is being encircled by US, apart from its proxies. It has bases in Pakistan, not to forget diego garcia.

[svinayak]

There could be many models where US is still in afghan but with respect to issues with India, not in afghan at the same time - the US bases in Saudi being a good indicator where they want afghan to go.

and apart from China encircling India, I will say even India is being encircled by US, apart from its proxies. It has bases in Pakistan, not to forget diego garcia.

What if India is the real target.
If Taliban, all the jihadi outfits, Nato and US could join possibily to attack India

[brihaspati]

raji wrote
You seem to be saying that all of India's problems arise out of lack of will.......political, which really arises out of social will to think and act strategically (correct me if I am wrong). I am not trying to put words in your mouth, just paraphrasing so that I understand. So, all that you suggest should be done by India such as "drawing out PRC on its flanks", military action in POK etc (which by the way, I totally agree with), will not be possible without the collective will of our society to think strategic and act that way.

Now here is where you and I disagree. I find you a little reluctant to dig deeper into the causes of this lack of will within our society, which prevent us from being strategic. Again, correct me if I interpret your posts incorrectly, but I have read them carefully and my understanding of your position is that yeah, there is lack of will, but economic progress with some kind of self enlightenment within each Hindu coupled with some return to institutionalized retro Hindu practices and awareness of first and then rejection of our own Macaulyism will somehow manage to generate this will at some point in the future.

I am aware of the causes of this lack of will. In fact scattered over many posts in different threads, I have placed my own perceptions of this. Perhaps I am reluctant to say more, because certain ideas need reality to catch up from the popular perception. I have perhaps not directly made such a "Marxist" satement as that economic changes will automatically lead to changes in "consciousness". In searching for methods of unification and consolidation I suggested the track you have outlined.

Without going into the debate which you are pointing at, I will sum up simply as follows.

Our major error is in treating "symptoms" which crop up repeatedly, but we desperately try to avoid facing the "root cause" of the "disease". For example we verbally bash up "TSP", but TSP is a symptom. We, or those who are in a position to control information flow to the public, be it in education, media or elsewhere, aggressively prevent any chain of arguments that leads to the real persistent driving motivators behind TSP's atrocious behaviour, from being made obvious to the general public. Why do controllers of information do this? This has also been discussed many times in this forum - and the common culprit is probably named DIE.

I would rather look at the social origins of these controllers, and some consistent patterns emerge. Be it in political parties all over the spectrum to media or else, they are most likely to have been brought up in exclusive social groups, clans, families with exceptional insistence on superiority by birth. These individuals are taught and believe, that they are somehow by birth superior to the majority of the "commons" in their birth society, and that they deserve power. Because of their disjunction from their birth society they psychologically denigrate or hate the practices or faiths of these "commons", realizing at the same time that they cannot obtain their main desire, "power", without these very same "commons". So it is important for them, to prevent the "commons" from getting united on their own, on the basis of ideas and concepts easily accessible to the "commons". It is an overwhelming fear and sense of vulnerability that drives overwhelming desire to obtain "command" and "total control".

If you think of this line, perhaps, you can see, that the problems are likely to intensify within the "dominant" groups, and the "educated" ones. These controllers can be bypassed, but that is the language of mass movements from scratch and mass organizations. A "leftist" technique driven by "rightist" ideology and principles.

[brihaspati]

Myanmar's military junta's mythic survival capacity against supposed western attempts, are not that difficult to work out. There simply has been no serious attempt at all by the West to destabilize the junta that capture power in 1988. Coups are not new to Burma. General Aung San first used the Japanese to drive out the British when Japan seemed ascendant, and then invited the British to drive the Japanese out when the Axis was obviously getting weak. There were earlier that 88 coups, for example 62. The basic reason was the complex interplay of Cold War interests of the US and UK. They backed up the KMT units who entered the northern Shan province after being defeated by the Communists in mainland China. The CPB itself was infiltrated and split into the two "flags", and groups within the military then prompted to get involved.

Business and financial links have continued to flourish with military junta, from the west. UK maintains huge investments in Mynamar. Others within the Western sphere have sold vital military hardware. Japan, post war, US-tied Japan, was the first to restore ties with Myanmar after the junta took over, and for a long long time, remained the biggest donor (at least until 2005-7 - afterwards I do not have data to compare with China, which has forwarded huge loans against arms purchases). The drugs trade follows through Chinese borders into Hong Kong and other Chinese dissemination points in SE Asia (probably a poetical justice of a reverse Opium War). It is only very recently, US has moved against the junta, primarily under the cover of anti-drug initiatives, and roped in Thailand which has longs tanding disputes with Myanmar.

[ramana]

Brihaspati, I laugh at the replay of history. Hemachandra Ray Chaudhri recounts this every exact sequence in his book "Political history of India from Parikshit to Later Guptas!" This sequence led to the creation of the 16 mahajanapadas from the chaos of the decline of monarchies and which existed for a few centuries till the rise of Bimbisara in Maghada. the monarchies were declining in moralfiber and consisted of scalawags. So the people took power.

The wheel set in motion culiminated in the large empire under Ashoka.

[raji]

There could be many models where US is still in afghan but with respect to issues with India, not in afghan at the same time - the US bases in Saudi being a good indicator where they want afghan to go.

and apart from China encircling India, I will say even India is being encircled by US, apart from its proxies. It has bases in Pakistan, not to forget diego garcia.

What if India is the real target.
If Taliban, all the jihadi outfits, Nato and US could join possibily to attack India

Et tu Achary-e...........conspiracy theorist ???....

[brihaspati]

ramanaji,
astute observation. Only now, increased population density and faster rates of communication means the centuries can get compacted into decades.

[raji]

raji wrote
You seem to be saying that all of India's problems arise out of lack of will.......political, which really arises out of social will to think and act strategically (correct me if I am wrong). I am not trying to put words in your mouth, just paraphrasing so that I understand. So, all that you suggest should be done by India such as "drawing out PRC on its flanks", military action in POK etc (which by the way, I totally agree with), will not be possible without the collective will of our society to think strategic and act that way.

Now here is where you and I disagree. I find you a little reluctant to dig deeper into the causes of this lack of will within our society, which prevent us from being strategic. Again, correct me if I interpret your posts incorrectly, but I have read them carefully and my understanding of your position is that yeah, there is lack of will, but economic progress with some kind of self enlightenment within each Hindu coupled with some return to institutionalized retro Hindu practices and awareness of first and then rejection of our own Macaulyism will somehow manage to generate this will at some point in the future.

I am aware of the causes of this lack of will. In fact scattered over many posts in different threads, I have placed my own perceptions of this. Perhaps I am reluctant to say more, because certain ideas need reality to catch up from the popular perception. I have perhaps not directly made such a "Marxist" satement as that economic changes will automatically lead to changes in "consciousness". In searching for methods of unification and consolidation I suggested the track you have outlined.

Without going into the debate which you are pointing at, I will sum up simply as follows.

Our major error is in treating "symptoms" which crop up repeatedly, but we desperately try to avoid facing the "root cause" of the "disease". For example we verbally bash up "TSP", but TSP is a symptom. We, or those who are in a position to control information flow to the public, be it in education, media or elsewhere, aggressively prevent any chain of arguments that leads to the real persistent driving motivators behind TSP's atrocious behaviour, from being made obvious to the general public. Why do controllers of information do this? This has also been discussed many times in this forum - and the common culprit is probably named DIE.

I would rather look at the social origins of these controllers, and some consistent patterns emerge. Be it in political parties all over the spectrum to media or else, they are most likely to have been brought up in exclusive social groups, clans, families with exceptional insistence on superiority by birth. These individuals are taught and believe, that they are somehow by birth superior to the majority of the "commons" in their birth society, and that they deserve power. Because of their disjunction from their birth society they psychologically denigrate or hate the practices or faiths of these "commons", realizing at the same time that they cannot obtain their main desire, "power", without these very same "commons". So it is important for them, to prevent the "commons" from getting united on their own, on the basis of ideas and concepts easily accessible to the "commons". It is an overwhelming fear and sense of vulnerability that drives overwhelming desire to obtain "command" and "total control".

If you think of this line, perhaps, you can see, that the problems are likely to intensify within the "dominant" groups, and the "educated" ones. These controllers can be bypassed, but that is the language of mass movements from scratch and mass organizations. A "leftist" technique driven by "rightist" ideology and principles.

Very well said.........couldnt have said it better myself. Either a mass movement from scratch and you make a very subtle point (leftist technique driven by rightist ideology.......I would just correct "rightist" slightly to "moralist" ideology, so it is not confused with fascism or nazism).

But just exactly what would such a, what you call "rightist" and what I call "moralist" ideology look like ? The ideology cannot just be an after thought, it is the key. What do you propose it look like ? Something that can move hundreds of millions of people ?
This is what I have been trying to discuss in this forum. What should be the organizing principles for us going forward, or in other words, the components of an ideology that can bring the masses together and create a movement......

The only other alternative is some kind of a benevolent authoratarianism..........but please.....lets not consider that......in fact, I cant believe I said it..........

[brihaspati]

rajiji,
please do not even try to flesh the "ideology" out on this forum. I have already explained the psychology of "control".

[raji]

rajiji,
please do not even try to flesh the "ideology" out on this forum. I have already explained the psychology of "control".

If you cant discuss THIS......then everything else is superflous........everything else doesnt matter.......

ITs like, if you are suffering from cancer.........and you cant discuss the cure for cancer........but talk about headaches, genital warts, hair loss, wrinkles.......over weight problems etc......and pain caused by cancer......lots of pain...but not about the fundamental cure for cancer.......

[brihaspati]

raji-ji,
mobilization is possible, and the language is available. But BR is not a "mass front". There is no point trying to convince BRfites that much if you are interested in moving "millions". Many here are "converts" already to the essentials of what you would be saying, and some of course would reflect the "control" mentality.

Reflect on MKG's inexplicable twists and turns in in the early 20's. His decision to take his message to the "commons" over and above the "elite" was a result of all out attempt to obstruct his message. This is where elite "controllers" typically fail. Their disjunction from the "commons" limits their vision and sense of "future".

[raji]

raji-ji,
mobilization is possible, and the language is available. But BR is not a "mass front". There is no point trying to convince BRfites that much if you are interested in moving "millions". Many here are "converts" already to the essentials of what you would be saying, and some of course would reflect the "control" mentality.

Reflect on MKG's inexplicable twists and turns in in the early 20's. His decision to take his message to the "commons" over and above the "elite" was a result of all out attempt to obstruct his message. This is where elite "controllers" typically fail. Their disjunction from the "commons" limits their vision and sense of "future".

Well said.

In such a case, lets go and activate the group that Pranav formed. Since I dont know who would be the likely contributors, why dont you invite a core group there.

[svinayak]

A manifestation of the lack of common goals is the fact that only the educated and the so called ex forwards seem to have this strategic nationalistic agenda as their goal, no other dominent group in our society seems to embrace it.

Can you explain this ex forwards business.

Et tu Achary-e...........conspiracy theorist ???....

We need to change the thinking of people who keep looking at only at one direction

[brihaspati]

raji-ji,
sent an email to you.

[Prem]

After B Raman mentioned the Hindootvadis here, i am afraid Controllers in GOI circle are going at make serious effort to shut BRF in India and all the forward looking /falling dreams of Range De are gonna end up in naught.

[brihaspati]

There is definitely going to be a thrust on neo-Keynesian public spending to counter recession in India. But given the political parties involved, this can mean a massive regeneration of corruption and corrupt entities. The consequences of this, as well as the economic drain and possibility of failing to reach targets, can have long ranging consequences for the strategic future. The economic moves can also affect a whole range of equations with the peripheral countries and strategic alliances or "enmities". Internal reaction and response by the "big bourgeosie" can also be a fascinating study.

This is an important line to flesh out. Any thoughts?

[RayC]

RayC,

You have made a great analysis on your previous post. I disagree with you on certain aspects, but that is not important.

The important take away is this. Your entire argument relies on US strategic interests to keep India safe. So, you argue that US cannot withdraw from AFPAK because of their strategic interests. What if they are forced to, desite their strategic interest ? US has been forced to withdraw before, because of domestic compulsions. Or what if their perception of their strategic interests change ?

The point is, we cannot rely on everybody else's strategic considerations to bail us out, time and again. In your argument, India should only be this passive state with sit back and watch attitude. Thats where I disagree. We should always have a proactive strategy of our own, backed by a tactical plan for every possible scenario, at least in our neighborhood. In other words, if the Americans finish off the Taliban, great......we will all sing Hail to the Chief and go to disney land. If not, however, India should be prepared to act. I just dont see Indians even close to be prepared to act or even close to exercising any kind of strategic thinking or even playing out some "if then else" scenarios and simulating our responses to them.

And our track record of tackling our neighborhood is dismal. We have snatched defeats from the jaws of victory many times. Other times, we have been plain defeated.

Raji,

I think you have not read my post in the correct context of what I was mentioning.

The US strategy is basically for its own interest and not for any other country, including India.

The issue is that the sole country that can pose the US a challenge is China. India is only being dragged into the issue so that the US can pursue its strategic interest and any benefit any other country accrues is incidental. Much that it may appear reprehensible, the strategy of countries around the region is pressured by the US activities here.

The fact that the US is the sole superpower cannot be denied. Right now, owing to the global meltdown, it has taken a softer view of the world affairs, but once the economy stabilises, the true colours will emerge. No matter who is the President, the US will continue (or try it level best) to dominate the world. The Cold War was a product of the same even though both the US and USSR were Allies in WW II. All its Presidents have been aggressively following the concept of US uber alles, some maybe more diplomatically, like JFK and now Obama. Reagan and Bush are the true 'face' of the US, and like it or not, they have done a yeoman's service to their country. Reagan crushed the USSR and Bush has got the outposts necessary to keep China and Russia in check!

The US has, for the first time, an unfettered ‘home run’ and they are busy building outposts which will contain those who are inimical to her interests and who can challenge her in the future. China and Russia alone can challenge the US and none else. That is why the bogey of Communism was manufactured and made into a mantra with high level of propaganda. I am no fan of Communists, but then the question that begs an answer is how did it matter to anyone as to what is the form of governance another country adopts so long as its people accept the same? Yet, the ‘fear’ of Communism was manufactured so that it united the country (US) and at the same time allowed the US military industrial nexus to grow, not only in the US, but also in the international arena and thereby boosting the US economy and political interests. As an example take the case of India and Pakistan. The British (as in every case where their colonies got independence) they left a contentious issue (and I feel it was done deliberately with the future in mind where the western interest would still prevail, which some call neo colonialism). Nehru played into their hands by calling for a ceasefire and the US and western powers purposely and very meticulously constructed the deep fissure amongst the two countries i.e. India and Pakistan. This divide kept the military industrial nexus going full steam ahead and the Cold War alive and active and the ‘third world’ mired down with conflicts and not being able to build a future for its people due to defence spending.

I don’t think that there will ever be the strains of Hail to the Chief or visits to Disneyland. If and it is a big if, the Taliban is crushed, a new ‘fear’ will be manufactured. Already, one is there – human rights! While the US and the West merrily violate human rights, they sneer on others for lesser perfidies. Take the issue of Iraq. How in the name of Iqbal, Saddam posed a threat to the US? Yet, the US public voted Bush in as the President, not once, but twice. He used the age old alchemy – Fear!! And made the fear appear the Known Unknown!!

The US has got its toehold in Asia – the power engine of tomorrow and it has to be tweaked to serve US interests!

It maybe correctly argued as to how and why should the US strategy affects India. It really does not, but then if the US sneezes, the world catches a cold! US is in a meltdown phase and so why should that affect India? But it does!!

Our track record with our neighbours is dismal is indeed true. It is because we want to be Big Brother without having the wherewithal to be so or the political will or even the political chicanery necessary to be so! For instance, in SL we are sending military assistance in the form of medics. Good. But if India was clever enough, the bogey of LTTE resurfacing should have been played hard and the UN Peacekeepers demanded (covertly) and a Lebanon type of situation created as the West has done to keep the Hezbollah in check!

It is been argued in some posts here that we should take over (or have the US to do so) a route of CAR oil through Pakistan’s Northern Areas. Take over? Wishful thinking. Drawing red and blue lines on the map. Reminds me of the Pink Floyd song Us and Them:

Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died
And the General sat, as the lines on the map
moved from side to side
Black and Blue
And who knows which is which and who is who

(Pink Floyd makes and error the lines are not Black and Blue, but Red and Blue. It is only after the war, that all are black and blue!)

The terrain in POK and the Northern Area is not a cakewalk. I have tried to explain many a time that ‘grand sweeps’ that one envisions is not feasible in High Altitudes or even Mountains. It takes a 3:1 ratio in the plains and 12:1 ration in HAA. And there is always not one more river to cross but ‘one more HAA ridgeline to cross’. Further, the Lines of Communication i.e. roads are minimal which stalls all forward movement of artillery and supplies to keep up with the Infantry success. If it were not so, then the Paksitanis would still be sitting on the Kargil Heights! Also, what HAA is and how much time it takes can be gauged with the time the IA took to re-capture the areas infiltrated (not held in the classical way) by Pakistan. Therefore, to feel that POK and the Northern Area can be captured in a grand sweep remains an illusion!

[RayC]

Therefore, to assume that Afghanistan is not paramount to US interest and that they will pack up and go would be incorrect. It is a part of the encirclement of inimical states programme. One should read Cheney’s DPG and NEP to realise the same.

This aspect is more important to the US for the moment than encircling China through India, even though that will also be pursued with vigour and more so now with a favourable government of Man Mohan Singh who claimed that Indian loves Bush. I am sure he will not hesitate to say that India also loves Obama. Once Iraq and Afghanistan stabilises, the second phase will start.

Pakistan, the immediate concern for India since it is a fanatical and mercurial neighbour with instability writ large is a problem. It is a fallacy to feel that the world will allow Pakistan to become a Taliban headed state. If it were so, then why was Afghanistan taken to task? Taliban with its repressive ways brought Afghanistan to order, even if it a crude way. The US is pouring in money just to avoid it as also to ensure that Pakistan survives in the comity of nations. If Pakistan is Talibanised, then pop will go the weasel as far as the world is concerned.

So long as Pakistan keeps her terrorists in check, India can rest. If not, the US and the international community should be ready for the Cold Start turning a Hot pursuit, come what may! Yes, some of us will perish, but Pakistan would not exist! They are well aware of this!

No issues with your above post. Though you seem to be suggesting India and US will intersect a lot in the medium term.
You said US will not leave afghan in the medium term. Yes, I agree with that - but the approach of how they will not leave will be different. I do not think US has any issues with the taliban and co as long as it doesnt attack the west. The unsaid part is, US doesnt care/will assist if the attack is directed towards India.

There could be many models where US is still in afghan but with respect to issues with India, not in afghan at the same time - the US bases in Saudi being a good indicator where they want afghan to go.

and apart from China encircling India, I will say even India is being encircled by US, apart from its proxies. It has bases in Pakistan, not to forget diego garcia.

The US is encircling. China is encircling. True.

They are following their national interests.

However, the point to note is that the US and Chinese interests do not coincide.

India can also play the game, but it does not have the wherewithal to do so.

[RayC]

Brihaspati, I laugh at the replay of history. Hemachandra Ray Chaudhri recounts this every exact sequence in his book "Political history of India from Parikshit to Later Guptas!" This sequence led to the creation of the 16 mahajanapadas from the chaos of the decline of monarchies and which existed for a few centuries till the rise of Bimbisara in Maghada. the monarchies were declining in moralfiber and consisted of scalawags. So the people took power.

The wheel set in motion culiminated in the large empire under Ashoka.

Unfair.

You purposely used the name.

You are well aware that I am handicapped in knowledge and otherwise to take that on.

[brihaspati]

raji-ji,

it may help if you look at the maps Samuelji referred to, carefully. The Indian thrusts to the north are represented to the west of Srinagar, in a general NNW direction. Towards the beginning of the thread, we had discussed cutting off the entrance to the Kashmir valley from TSP, so in general at a greater spatial resolution, this reduces to a more western thrust at the thin "neck" connecting the valley to TSP. Subsequent moves are through the valley and further up along the KKH. On the map this is the thrust that then turns east. Going straight North up, is extremely difficult, because of the way the Himalayan block mountains are aligned in North Kashmir. Having said that, the KKH is built across and along this barrier and forms a military transport network connecting TSP through North Kashmir, TsinKiang, Aksai Chin and Tibet.

[RayC]

The trade of UK with Myanmar.

The UK Government discourages trade and investment with Burma. UK Trade & Investment provides no support for commercial dealings with the country.

The UK Government would prefer that UK businesses should source goods from markets other than Burma in sectors which particularly aid the ruling elite. Timber, gems and precious metals in particular are businesses that have links to the regime.

In terms of total imports of goods from Burma, the UK currently ranks second in the EU after Germany. However, the value of imports from Burma to the UK halved between 2004 and 2005. In the eight months to August 2007 UK imports of goods from Burma were £19m and exports totalled £2m.

The UK has been working hard with its partners in the EU on further restrictions on commercial engagement with Burma to reduce funding sources available to the regime. EU Foreign Ministers met on 15 October and agreed to strengthen measures against the regime. The new measures include an export ban on equipment to the sectors of logs and timber and mining of metals, minerals, precious and semi precious stones; an import ban of products of the sectors mentioned before; and an investment ban in these sectors.
https://www.uktradeinvest.gov.uk/ukti/a ... eId=/burma

US trade

Trade with Burma (Myanmar) : 2009
NOTE: All figures are in millions of U.S. dollars, and not seasonally adjusted unless otherwise specified.
Month Exports Imports Balance
January 2009 0.3 0.0 0.3
February 2009 0.8 0.0 0.8
March 2009 0.4 0.0 0.4
TOTAL 1.6 0.0 1.6
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5460.html

That much for the West supporting Myanmar (Burma)!

[RayC]

Raji,

Maps are no answer to 'thrusts'.

If maps were to go by, then Skardu and Kabul too would be in our pocket.

One must understand how an 'Appreciation' is done.

First of all we look at the Aim.

Then we look at the Terms of Reference.

Then, the Ground or Terrain

Then the Relative Strengths

And sometimes the Weather

Then we find the Courses of Action

And then the Plan.

Please, check the Ground and the Relative Strength. These speaks volumes!!

[RayC]

British principles of war

The UK uses 10 principles of war, as taught to all officers of the Royal Navy, British Army, and Royal Air Force:

Selection and Maintenance of the Aim
Define the end state and ensure that all strategy is directed toward achieving it.

Concentration of Force
Make the best use of military power to achieve the commander's aims by overwhelming the enemy's military capacity.

Economy of Effort
Make efficient use of forces, conserving energy and materiel to prevent unnecessary depletion.

Maintenance of Morale
Prevent one's own forces from losing the will to fight.

Offensive Action
Maintain operational tempo by attacking the enemy.

Flexibility see adaptability
Be able to respond to unexpected changes or attacks and be able to modify one's plans accordingly.

Co-Operation
Ensure that the maritime, land and air components work in unison to achieve the end-state.

Security
Prevent the enemy from benefiting from lapses in operational security at all stages of the military process.

Surprise
Seize the initiative by attacking the enemy when, where and how he least expects it.

Sustainability
Support, fuel and guide forces to maintain operational capability.

These principles of war are commonly used by the armed forces of Commonwealth countries

[samuel]

I wonder if China has stopped working towards retaking Taiwan and Arunachal because their opposite numbers are "too strong." They have been working and will continue to work on it for a very long time. When they can, they will.

Of course it is senile to want to take PoK now, given terrain and force levels. No one wants a "misadventure."

On the other hand, if we never stop looking for "competitive" advantage, then things will start to line up. The issue is one of scale; time scale.

Once a goal makes strategic sense, reorganize the world and relationships to get you the "advantage" that it can happen. Are we ready to eliminate strategic objectives based on what is or is not possible today? I am not so sure, though i would certainly understand reprioritizing. As long as we are choked NW, we are at Pak/China's mercy. We don't have control of the passes that lead to our plains.

ChoDna mat.

S

[RayC]

Retaking anything is a question of pragmatic assessment. Desires cannot always be translated in real terms.

That is the reason why there was a thought that the LC should become an IB.

China can take over Southern Tibet as they call Arunachal and Taiwan when they can. However, the issue will always remain if their adversaries in such areas allow them to do so. And if the adversaries have no will, political and military, then China will. Fortunately, none have given up the ship.

POK would be a tough nut to crack, but dissension in the Northern Area is feasible since it is Shia dominated and Pakistan is trying to change the demography by planting Afghan/ Pashtun Sunnis there.

We cannot formulate strategic policies on the impossible.

The passes in Kashmir are all quite guarded.

Which access is not guarded?

[brihaspati]

The cumulative approved investment from the UK (including BVI, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands) in 2006 was US$ 1,591.0 million in 43 projects. Source: JETRO table 1988-mid 2006. Since 1990 Western countries disbursed more than 80% of investment that they committed, accounting for about 65% of actual FDI. The Premier Oil Investment, which was withdrawn in 2003 only, alone was in the region of US$ 600 million, or probably over half of all disbursed UK investment. The BAT investment, on the other hand, would have been recorded (as BCUK) as a Singapore, and not a UK investment. Indirect UK investments is difficult to estimate, but are likely to be the more common form now due to political exigencies. On the other hand, Japanese investments continue and hugely overshadow the EU ones, and we cannot consider Japan out of the western axis.

[RayC]

Connection with Myanmar and India's strategic interest?

[brihaspati]

last post for tonight: can't reply if the circular logic starts again :

brihaspati wrote : India has several options, if it realy wanted to take initiatives.

Intensive political campaigns. One of this is to draw out PRC in its flanks. In SE Asia, start campaigning for return to democracy in Myanmar, which will force PRC, which backs the junta, on its backfoot. Strengthen ties with all the countries flanking China, right up to Vietnam. Offer soft support to bypass the military-competition angle. Strengthen IO presence with increased navy, own carrier fleets, and ultimately push nuke capable ones including subs into the pacific in range for PRC cities.

RayC wrote Myanmar’s military has existed for years. It would be naïve to feel that the west has not tried to topple it. Since it has not toppled and may not be possible to topple, it is better to work with them and get the best bargain.

brihaspati wrote Myanmar's military junta's mythic survival capacity against supposed western attempts, are not that difficult to work out. There simply has been no serious attempt at all by the West to destabilize the junta that capture power in 1988. Coups are not new to Burma. General Aung San first used the Japanese to drive out the British when Japan seemed ascendant, and then invited the British to drive the Japanese out when the Axis was obviously getting weak. There were earlier that 88 coups, for example 62. The basic reason was the complex interplay of Cold War interests of the US and UK. They backed up the KMT units who entered the northern Shan province after being defeated by the Communists in mainland China. The CPB itself was infiltrated and split into the two "flags", and groups within the military then prompted to get involved.

Business and financial links have continued to flourish with military junta, from the west. UK maintains huge investments in Mynamar. Others within the Western sphere have sold vital military hardware. Japan, post war, US-tied Japan, was the first to restore ties with Myanmar after the junta took over, and for a long long time, remained the biggest donor (at least until 2005-7 - afterwards I do not have data to compare with China, which has forwarded huge loans against arms purchases). The drugs trade follows through Chinese borders into Hong Kong and other Chinese dissemination points in SE Asia (probably a poetical justice of a reverse Opium War). It is only very recently, US has moved against the junta, primarily under the cover of anti-drug initiatives, and roped in Thailand which has longs tanding disputes with Myanmar.

RayC wrote The trade of UK with Myanmar.

The UK Government discourages trade and investment with Burma. UK Trade & Investment provides no support for commercial dealings with the country.
The UK Government would prefer that UK businesses should source goods from markets other than Burma in sectors which particularly aid the ruling elite. Timber, gems and precious metals in particular are businesses that have links to the regime.
In terms of total imports of goods from Burma, the UK currently ranks second in the EU after Germany. However, the value of imports from Burma to the UK halved between 2004 and 2005. In the eight months to August 2007 UK imports of goods from Burma were £19m and exports totalled £2m.
The UK has been working hard with its partners in the EU on further restrictions on commercial engagement with Burma to reduce funding sources available to the regime. EU Foreign Ministers met on 15 October and agreed to strengthen measures against the regime. The new measures include an export ban on equipment to the sectors of logs and timber and mining of metals, minerals, precious and semi precious stones; an import ban of products of the sectors mentioned before; and an investment ban in these sectors.
https://www.uktradeinvest.gov.uk/ukti/a ... eId=/burma

US trade
Trade with Burma (Myanmar) : 2009
NOTE: All figures are in millions of U.S. dollars, and not seasonally adjusted unless otherwise specified.
Month Exports Imports Balance
January 2009 0.3 0.0 0.3
February 2009 0.8 0.0 0.8
March 2009 0.4 0.0 0.4
TOTAL 1.6 0.0 1.6
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5460.html
That much for the West supporting Myanmar (Burma)!

brihaspati wrote The cumulative approved investment from the UK (including BVI, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands) in 2006 was US$ 1,591.0 million in 43 projects. Source: JETRO table 1988-mid 2006. Since 1990 Western countries disbursed more than 80% of investment that they committed, accounting for about 65% of actual FDI. The Premier Oil Investment, which was withdrawn in 2003 only, alone was in the region of US$ 600 million, or probably over half of all disbursed UK investment. The BAT investment, on the other hand, would have been recorded (as BCUK) as a Singapore, and not a UK investment. Indirect UK investments is difficult to estimate, but are likely to be the more common form now due to political exigencies. On the other hand, Japanese investments continue and hugely overshadow the EU ones, and we cannot consider Japan out of the western axis.

RayC wrote
Connection with Myanmar and India's strategic interest?

brihaspati wrote last post for tonight: can't reply if the circular logic starts again :

......................

[RayC]

Hardly an answer.

Avoiding reality and asking people to go on a needle in a haystack chase, as if some Sermon from the Mount has been given and all should have heard it!!

US and Britain supporting Myanmar Junta?

Fact prove otherwise!

That has been given.

Not surprising it is the last post for the night!

The issue is very simple.

Has the West not tried to topple the Mynamar junta?

If not, why not?

If they have done so, they have not succeeded.

If they with all their resources have failed, what is India's chances?

Let's not daydream as we are day dreaming of putting POK and Northern Areas in our pocket, by just looking at maps!

Get real!!!!

Between the four wall and me, I would like the World at India's feet!

Indeed, if that were so, I would be on Afghanistan's best!

[RayC]

The cumulative approved investment from the UK (including BVI, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands)

How is that connected with Myanmar?

What circular logic are you alluding to?

[RayC]

Strategy is not a reactive knee jerk visualisation of events and then chalking out a survival course. It is a perspective analysed in time continuums – short, medium and long and each complementing each other and merging in seamlessly.

Strategy is based on threat evaluation and the national goals.

Therefore, what is India’s threat and national goals?

Are we to be regional players or global players?

Or should the rise of the Taliban and the like upset our apple cart in such a way that we are frozen in mind? Or should we only be Pakistan and China centric?

There are those who feel that POK and the Northern Areas should be captured. Ideal. But is it feasible?

What can one do to China and Tibet or Xingjian?

What can be done by India to Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Sri Lanka or even Maldives?

There are those who feel that the US is encircling India. Maybe.

Can we do a thing about it?

Too much of map gazing and hyperventilating with 'intellectualism'.

JNU.

Let us pragmatically analyse.

Weaving cobwebs of fantasy and grandeur may not be the answer.

[Atri]

National goal should be

1. Supremacy dominance of no other power except Bhaarat in Indian subcontinent, from Baloochistan-TSP-Nepal-Bhutan-BD-Myanmar-Srilanka. Bhaaratiya writ should run supreme in this region and any coercive effect and influence of any other nation in this region should be eradicated. By Indian writ, I will prefer it to be Indic writ, in terms of cultural aspects of this region. In long term, the Non-Indic civilizational memes which are dominant in some parts of region must be Indianized or eradicated.

2. Complete domination of Indian ocean from Malacca to Hormuz-Suez-Cape Town by Indian navy. That dominion can be shared with US navy in short and medium term. IN long term, eradication of coercive influence of US navy on Indian ocean as well.

These two points force us to be PRC-centric in short and medium term.

Bhaarat and China were never in conflict with each other, until they became Republic of India and People's Republic of China. The conflict is between ROI and PRC and not between Bhaarat and China. Hence just one border-war in 4000 years of coexistence. If something can be worked out in mid-term future (50-75 years), then this problem can be solved.

In my opinion, the greatest point of conflict is energy supplies. If importance of middle-east decreased with exhausted oil supplies, then the Sino-Bhaaratiya conflict will decrease as well. Secondly, what can be done is joint investment in massive energy infrastructures by China and Bhaarat for China and Bhaarat. Like huge off-shore wind energy projects. It is very much feasible in certain areas where winds blow at high speeds 24x7x365 every year. The initial investments will be quite monumental, but within few years, the cost will be recovered and electricity will become almost free. The total costs involved in the process can be easily shared by these two giant economies and virtually free unending supply of electricity can be ensured for both these countries. The point is increasing their mutual stakes in each other and decreasing their points of conflict.

If Bhaarat and China can convince each other that they both can prosper and rise to pinnacle if they leave each other alone like they have for past 4000 years. These two nations occupied first two slots of largest economies for at least 2000 years at a stretch until 1800 AD. There is no reason why this cannot be repeated.

[Pranav]

A fairly good analysis - will give some comments:

The major players affecting India’s strategic insight vis a vis the neighbourhood are the US, China and Pakistan.

In so far as the US is concerned, it is focussed on Afghanistan for its strategic reasons, on Pakistan because it can be a spoiler to the US aims, India for its markets and a balance to China and China since it is the closest competitor to US supremacy.

Yes, pretty sound. China can also be a spoiler to the aims of the Western block - the Chinese do have a history of nuke proliferation.

Global Warming or Alternative Energy notwithstanding, oil shall still play an important role for a decade at least. The US economy is oil fuelled and so US will continue to be dependent on oil. Hence, the Middle East and the CAR are important, CAR having the largest untapped hydrocarbon resources. Therefore, CAR and the Middle East (ME) are very much in the US strategic view. The US has to have a base to address upheavals in the Middle East and hence Iraq, which is the centre of ME and is neighbours to most, was selected as the focal point to ‘influence’ the ME nations. Having a lien on the sweet oil and has the second largest oil reserves in the world. (US Energy Information Administration (EIA), "Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional and international security issues.") This was also to ensure that the blackmail of OPEC over oil prices and supply control was destroyed. Therefore, troop withdrawal or otherwise, Iraq will continue to be in the US strategic scheme of things. That is why the largest US base outside the US is in Iraq i.e. the Balad Airbase and the largest US embassy at Baghdad!! Iraq also protects the southern flank of the oil pipeline from CAR to Ceyhan. Iraq also plays an important part in the US gameplan of squeezing Russia from the South and West along with Georgia and Ukraine. The CAR nations had come on board, but then the Shanghai Five apparently has prevailed on the CAR nations to remain ambivalent. China is to have a pipeline running from CAR into Xingjian and onto the mainland.

As regards global warming, there is a dissenting view that says that the global warming scare is politically motivated, and has the ulterior aim of making development difficult for developing countries. This film is well worth seeing:
The Great Global Warming Swindle: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0655100870

Afghanistan remains an important cog since it practically ‘peeks’ into China through the Wokhan Corridor. It also covers the northern flank of Iran, which is inimical to the US. Therefore, Afghanistan is ideal as a ‘listening post’ as also as launch pads for military or covert action against Iran. In so far as China is concerned, apart from it being a listening post, with India ‘in the bag’ (India’s reluctance is a bother to the US), the US game of encircling China would be in place. That is also one of the reasons why Vietnam is being given a sympathetic ear by the US (and Vietnam’s animus to China is well known). Thailand is already with the US. As is Japan and South Korea. Afghanistan is also the route to Gwadar port in Pakistan’s Balochistan where the US pipeline from CAR is to terminate. This is also the reason why Karzai was made the head of Afghanistan since he was a Unocal man and Unocal was to build the pipeline and supply the oil to India and China, the modern oil guzzling industrial nations that will shore up the US economy! Balochistan is also important to the US strategic perspective. Apart from opening up the CAR – Afghanistan – Balochistan – Gwadar pipeline, it also squeezes Iran from the East, having done so from Iraq and Afghanistan! Having access to Gwadar also eliminates the Chinese listening post at Gwadar which is monitoring US activities in the ME, as also ruins the Siring of Pearls strategy of the Chinese. Gwadar, is also close to Diego Gracia which is so important to the US that the population there has been shifted and it is only inhabited by the US military personnel!!

Therefore, to assume that Afghanistan is not paramount to US interest and that they will pack up and go would be incorrect. It is a part of the encirclement of inimical states programme. One should read Cheney’s DPG and NEP to realise the same.

This aspect is more important to the US for the moment than encircling China through India, even though that will also be pursued with vigour and more so now with a favourable government of Man Mohan Singh who claimed that Indian loves Bush. I am sure he will not hesitate to say that India also loves Obama. Once Iraq and Afghanistan stabilises, the second phase will start.

Pakistan, the immediate concern for India since it is a fanatical and mercurial neighbour with instability writ large is a problem. It is a fallacy to feel that the world will allow Pakistan to become a Taliban headed state. If it were so, then why was Afghanistan taken to task? Taliban with its repressive ways brought Afghanistan to order, even if it a crude way. The US is pouring in money just to avoid it as also to ensure that Pakistan survives in the comity of nations. If Pakistan is Talibanised, then pop will go the weasel as far as the world is concerned.

So long as Pakistan keeps her terrorists in check, India can rest. If not, the US and the international community should be ready for the Cold Start turning a Hot pursuit, come what may! Yes, some of us will perish, but Pakistan would not exist! They are well aware of this!

Mostly agree with all this. Paki nuke development was supported by not just the Chinese, but also by the West, so as to provide a check on India. Now, the Pakistanis have become recalcitrant and the Paki nukes have become an inconvenience to the West.

At this juncture, I would leave it to the reader to judge if the US in not interested in having Balochistan boiling, why allow seven consulates of India in Afghanistan when the US calls the shots?

RayC Saar, firstly the counsulates are only 4 in number, of which only 2 are anywhere close to the Paki border. Surely you are not endorsing the Paki position that there are huge numbers of Indian consulates, all fomenting trouble in Pakiland with Amreeki support?

China requires to be encircled. China is no friend of India, no matter how much of pious platitudes they spew. India perforce has to shake hands with the US on this count. India’s overture with Vietnam is in the correct direction. Thailand. Cambodia and other nations of Indo China have to be brought on board. If India can give such huge assistance to Sri Lanka, then India is capable of the same in these areas.

I think China requires a more nuanced understanding. Yes, they did help the Pakis with their nukes, with the connivance of the West. But they also unilaterally withdrew from Arunachal Pradesh post-1962. Given the history of the western block supporting the Pakis, is it wise to assume that western intentions towards India will always be benign? As you noted, China is the only power that has the capability to balance the western block. IMHO, India needs to be friendly with the West, but also fairly cordial with China. If India can do both, then there is a better chance of the Pakistani problem being resolved. And India also needs to keep building up indigenous defense capability. [BTW, it's really shocking how India is short of 155mm guns and is still cannot indigenously manufacture 155mm shells. Is it mere criminal negligence or is it something more malignant?]

It is also important to guard against deliberate, false-flag efforts to set off an Indo-Pak war. Recall the phone call to Zardari by somebody claiming to be Pranab Mukherjee. It could have been the ISI that did it but we don't know for sure. Who would benefit from an Indo-Pak war, and would such beneficiaries actually conspire to set off such a war? These scenarios need to be thought about.

Sri Lanka requires being isolated. If they do not give the Tamils their due, then there are good reasons to put them on the spit.

They have done well to get rid of the LTTE, which they believe was getting western support. The LTTE are as noxious as India's Maoists or Naxalites. Note that the Sri Lankans received support of the Chinese. Now, they need to be encouraged to do the right thing for their Tamil minority.

Bangladesh should be taken on board since the govt is not inimical to India. All assistance should be given including a justified water treaty as also indicating India’s and hence Bangladesh’s concern of China planning to divert the Brahamaputra water for China! It is enough to scare the living hell out of Bangladesh.

Nepal requires India to promote the Madeshis and control the Marwaris who run Nepal’s economy.

Don't know what issue the Madhesis have. As regards the Marwaris, they are good at business, and one should be careful that one is not vilifying them because they make an easy target. Others are always welcome to compete. Govt of Nepal should, however, encourage indigenous enterpreneurship - that would be good for the long-term health of their economy.

Myanmar’s military has existed for years. It would be naïve to feel that the west has not tried to topple it. Since it has not toppled and may not be possible to topple, it is better to work with them and get the best bargain.

The Myanmar case is similar to Sri Lanka in some respects. The western powers have been hostile, and the Chinese have been supportive. What happens in Myanmar is not our business while we are beset with so many problems of our own. They are helping us deal with the NE militants, and that is something that we can be happy with.

[brihaspati]

RayCji,
you deliberately ignore logical consistency when you decide to trash up others arguments. You are basically used to constantly try and shift terms of reference in any discussion, and your main target is the individual behind a line of argument that upsets your sense of control or power or authority. We live in different time zones, and I have no obligation to continue answering your deliberately provocative posts losing my sleep, as I too have to work for a living.

The connection to strategy started because I had mentioned the possibility of India taking up the pro-democracy cause as a humanitarian intervention strategy, which will force the Chinese hand behind support of the junta to be exposed, as PRC will have to run the extra mile to bolster the junta.

The whole line of arguments started because you tried to defend the "past non-interventionist" stratgey of the West, as being something specially difficult and resistant in the Burmese junta, and therefore India should also copy the "West".

I tried to show that the West has long term intersts from the Cold War period as well as continued "investments" until recent times to have no sincere interest in "intervention" and removal of the junta from power.

No, but you had to go on and quote trade data claims by UK, in very recent times, as proof of total opposition by the West to the junta. To which I had to quote investment data to show that in spite of all such talk, investments had continued until very recently, and that even now the West can invest indirectly.

After all that you of course, true to to your typical tactic, had to ask where is the connection to strategic interests comes from. The circular logic was coming from you yourself trying to discount intervention by India on the basis of supposed non-intrevntion in the past by the West, and then forgetting it all why the whole discussion started.

I have no interest in personal assessments. But I do find your lack of preparation in topics like this rather odd. Before you talk smugly about West and Myanmar, you need to spend some time tracking the detailed politics of this region from colonial period, right through the KuoMinDang incursions, and the consequent Cold War posturings including the history of the Communist Party of Burma, its splits, and the connections of the West to the rise of the military in power, as well as close business interests that continue, directly and indirectly.

I have said this before, and I repeat : our areas of professional expertise do not overlap. I do not question your knowledge of the "military" and military experience, but I do not think you are used to wider historical, geo-political analysis. This latter is not my main academic expertise, but I collaborate academically with experts in the area, and I have been part of collaborations resulting in peer reviewed papers. We have to be extremely thorough in preparing arguments as otherwise they would be thouroughly "trashed" in much more impersonal fashion than you are capable of.

Military doctrines are also products of the times and source by which they are created, and depend on political perceptions, technological limitations, and political strategy. There are essential continuities as well as significant departures depending on context, and this is one area which is also not static.

If you cannot manage impersonal discussions, and prefer to waste your energies on personal "digs" and attacks, please do not engage in any discussion with me. It worries me then, for I begin to wonder, whether there are more mentalities like you populating the command structure of the army, who are driven by a need to gain personal authority and cannot psychologically handle any imagined challenge to that authority.

[samuel]

POK would be a tough nut to crack, but dissension in the Northern Area is feasible since it is Shia dominated and Pakistan is trying to change the demography by planting Afghan/ Pashtun Sunnis there.

We cannot formulate strategic policies on the impossible.

You just formulated a strategic objective to crack PoK. That's a great first step.
Should one ask why you are trying to "crack" it? What happens on the other side of LOC, "better if it were IB", is none of our business, isn't it?

You don't need to get into semantics of what a strategic objective is or should be. We lost PoK, we lost Aksai chin. This wasn't a "partition" loss even. The idea is "Don't forget and don't let go." NOT "no regrets!"

And the excuse of an answer "we were weak then, try it now" isn't convincing! With pressures via pak, bd, myanmar, sl and nepal only increasing (NOT decreasing), a situation can arise where the country is compelled to fight economically and militarily on enough fronts to lose Arunachal.

Our nation collectively will certainly have an excuse and continue defending our posts after that, with full determination!

So! Please make it easy for this to NOT happen by preventing it from coming to us! Take it to them!

So!! I think we understand where the strategic objective to "crack pok" comes from and we realize it is a tough one.

Step two. What will have to happen to accomplish it.
- How can we weaken Pak's hold on PoK.
- How can we better treat and integrate our J&K.
- How can we militarily box PoK?
- How can we create pressure elsewhere for Pakistan?
- What can we trade with other more powerful nations to gain a good posture for us towards PoK.
- Can we create awareness and sentiment among our own people of the plight and necessity for PoK reintegration?
- Can we get "strategic" assets to run through it. Pipeline diplomacy for a pipleine to CAR in which we will have a stake defending?
- Can we bring PoK up at every meeting and ask that Pakistan vacate it.

As a general way, first control the "boundary conditions" and then create the pressure. Solutions will start to emerge where they once seemed remote or impossible. Don't give up, don't forget!

Thanks
S