Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

[harbans]

entry points could be cut off but with how many causalities?in what manner will be the chinese retaliation?

Chinese retaliation is there in the form of the 2nd Art corps and will be pretty devastating on the Indian mainland, precisely because it aims there. India is all 'mainland'. China is not. China is really far from Tibet and those provinces. One cannot play Afghanistan in Tibet simply because Tibets total population even today is just 3 million. It's land area is 2/3rd of India's almost. For sourcing in high altitudes one has to rely on population centers. They are far off for the Chinese.

Here i am not talking about really attacking Tibet. But i am about taking the War into Tibet if China do something funny on Arunachal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal or along the KKH. I am talking about openly making them aware they will be on a sorry footing, if and a BIG IF..Indian planners concentrate on blocking ALL of Tibet from the Chinese. We can reach more troops and more ammo and more logistics from our 'mainland' inside Tibet than the Chinese can do from their 'mainland' bases.

I am saying we can take all of Tibet militarily from the Chinese if at all push comes to shove. And there must be mental conditioning in the planning/ war gaming divisions for this scenario.

[ramana]

Harbans, Please take a look at Aviation & Space Weekly circa 1986 on reinforcing the PLA arifields with planes and radars in light of 'aggressive' moves by India. Google might get you some links too. Old isues of Mil Technology from FDR might also help out.

[Tilak]

Just an Idea of which way the winds are blowing (David J Rothkopf is from Carnegie Endowment)

Three short takes.....
The second most important person in the State Department
Mon, 05/18/2009 - 5:11pm

What a good week for the subcontinent. India's elections are breathtaking in scope and their re-election of the government of Manmohan Singh, one of the world's wisest and most qualified heads of government, is heartening. That he is only the second Indian leader since independence to be re-elected after serving a full term suggests an India that is entering a phase of stable growth that should be appealing to those investing in its future and comforting to those, like the United States, who are increasingly dependent on it as an ally. But the success of this democratic experiment at such scale also sends a powerful message to countries like China who have long argued that such a system cannot work in nations of such scope and complexity.

Also, as to China, the position of U.S. Ambassador to China may be the second most important in the State Department after the Secretary's job. It has taken the Obama administration a long time to make their selection for this vital post. Their choice, Jon Huntsman, is an excellent one. He has almost all the traits needed to be the first envoy to that country since the general acknowledgement that it is our partner in the G2, our first, most important counterpart in the community of nations. He has extensive regional experience (from service as a missionary in Taiwan to that as an Ambassador to Singapore). He has very high-level U.S. and state government experience which not only gives him familiarity with a wide range of issues but also sends a message to the Chinese that only someone of high stature would do for the post. He speaks Chinese. And while some might quibble that he is not particularly close to Clinton and Obama, this is a small issue.

I have met with him a couple of times, once having had the opportunity for a long dinner time conversation with him a number of years ago, and I was struck with his intelligence, accessibility and political gifts. That he is legitimately seen as a potential Republican presidential candidate also will help with the Chinese and sends a message too about Obama's confidence as a chief executive.

[harbans]

Ramana Ji i am aware of PLA airfields and such in Tibet. Airfield locations in these provinces will be known to Indian intel for sure. I have seen 1 sq km scale models for Aksai Chin on Google. My contention is that India should'nt put up with a defensive posture and talking maps when Chinese raise Arunachal. If they do so, India should talk about legitimacy of Tibet as part of China in the first place. And if the Chinese make military maneovers in the area India should leak plans (fake ones) about isolating Tibet militarily from mainland China. The geography is much too against China. If China then chooses to use massive strikes on Mainland bases, we talk blocking Chinese oil in the Indian Ocean and militarily isolating Xinjiang too. If they threaten nukes then we talk of putting 3 subs in the South China sea that will devastate China.

Take the nuke scenario out and we have the Chinese getting blocked Indian Ocean. Thats where the desperation for them to arm Pukistan, BD, Myanmar, bases in SL..the entire Ocean pearls strategy is in place to prevent Tibet and Xingiang being broken away from them by the Indians. The Chinese know it. Time India knew this too. Sometimes the Elephant does'nt know it's strength and the Hyenas initially surprised start knawing away.

[brihaspati]

The Iran, Russia, India triangle is being neglected. Even if GOI does not mean it sincerely, threat of its potential activation can serve as a leverage for the original problem posed by ramanaji about the dissolution of TSP. Thus if USA leans too much towards PRC and does not heed India's strategic interests, it should be prepared to hold forth the possibility.

I still think, more investments should go into internal defence R&D. It can be thought of also as economic investment into "infrastructure" for the nation. It will spawn many ancillary efforts, which will and can have non-military civilian applications. This is also at the same time a bargaining element for restrictive conditionalities on defence items sourced from outside, as waiting too much or putting too high a "price" buy outsiders will be jeopardized from simple economic calculations - that such sales tactics by outsiders can lead to ultimately their merchandise not being sold at all because of indigenous substitutes.

[shiv]

One of the things that India needs to do is to break away from America centric thinking. We are especially vulnerable because of our anglophone "Commonwealth" connections. I believe that China, Russia, Iran and even North Korea (and the US of course) effortlessly display "self-centric" thinking.

This is not just the Indian government - but a large section of opinion makers in India including the class that brihaspati has termed the "controllers" in India. That includes many of us on this forum indulging in US-centric thinking - and hampering India-centric thought.

Our opinions are moulded by the anglophone press because we fall under the shadow of the English press. Subliminally we tend to start thinking in the way the US thinks and wants others to think. This has been termed at various times as dhimmitude or the psyche of subjugation. All such terminology is not fully accurate nor fully fair - but is not without some basis.

One "respected" American mouthpiece (Like NYT, W Post, Discovery/NatGeo) is the wall Street Journal.

My thoughts were sparked off by an article that hurts my sensibilities greatly

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329222810852389.html
Pakistan's Struggle for Modernity
The country's voters have never endorsed religious extremism.

Just see the crap we have to swallow when foisted on us by Yamerkas mouthpiece with tongue firmly in cheek

We should not underestimate the strength of the Pakistani state, and of the consensus that underpins it. The army is a huge institution, and its mandate is like that of the Turkish army, which sees itself as a defender of secular politics.

The leaders who opted for separation from India were a worldly, modern breed who could not reconcile themselves to political subservience in a Hindu-ruled India. The Muslims had fallen behind in the race to modernity, and Pakistan was their consolation and their shelter.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, was secular through and through.

The sub-text here of course is that "S-word" - "secularism".

Has anyone ever seen Pakistan described as "Islam ruled" or "Muslim ruled"?

Has anyone ever seen Britain or Denmark described as "Christian ruled"?

Oh but India is Hindu ruled and therefore not "secular" like Pakistan. India is a Hindu fundamentalist state. This is the subtle text that is being pushed here. Having a Christian or Islamic ethos means people are still "secular" but not if you are speaking of India, which is "Hindu ruled". The word secular is a prostitute that can sleep with many meanings and we are weighed down by having to defend our version of secular against the US/Paki version of "secular" in a way that has obvious geopolitical implications.

The author of the above article is raping that word himself and it is published without any qualification by the Wall Street Journal - a journal that carries the clout of the name of wealthy "Wall Street" behind it. We have seen time and again that writing protest letters to these idiotic American mouthpieces makes us pawns to their game. This game can only be changed by us being our own mouthpieces, and referring to the biased western media only to trash their opinions.

[svinayak]

One of the things that India needs to do is to break away from America centric thinking. We are especially vulnerable because of our anglophone "Commonwealth" connections. I believe that China, Russia, Iran and even North Korea (and the US of course) effortlessly display "self-centric" thinking.

This is not just the Indian government - but a large section of opinion makers in India including the class that brihaspati has termed the "controllers" in India. That includes many of us on this forum indulging in US-centric thinking - and hampering India-centric thought.

India centric is called nationalistic view point. India never had nationalism in its policy making to take care of security or economy.

[shiv]

One of the things that India needs to do is to break away from America centric thinking. We are especially vulnerable because of our anglophone "Commonwealth" connections. I believe that China, Russia, Iran and even North Korea (and the US of course) effortlessly display "self-centric" thinking.

This is not just the Indian government - but a large section of opinion makers in India including the class that brihaspati has termed the "controllers" in India. That includes many of us on this forum indulging in US-centric thinking - and hampering India-centric thought.

India centric is called nationalistic view point. India never had nationalism in its policy making to take care of security or economy.

You can imagine "thoughts" to be like a huge pit into which all sorts of thoughts will flow. In the absence of your own thought, the pit gets filled with whatever thoughts are available and heard the most/loudest. If Indians were able to read only Afrikaans - our thoughts would be full of opinions from South Africa,

But Indians in power read English and their "thought pits" are filled up with the stuff regurgitated by the dominant English media of the world. This is true for you and me too.

When we think "strategy" we think of strategy in the way Americans/the West think of strategy. When an Indian thought occurs in the corner of our minds - it is always subservient to the dominant American thought.

But the average Indian (80%) is generally uncontaminated by such thoughts. His "strategies" are truly Indian, but they are mostly local and are hardly global.

The only model that the Indian has to think of global strategy is the only one that has filled his thought pit - i.e an American/Western view. If we could take the uncontaminated Indian view and apply it to Indian strategy I am certain we should get some surprises. Some would be pleasant and some would be nasty shocks (for others?). But one thing is certain - the so called "world order" we see today will not exist if Indian thoughts are used to change the "world order". A lot of the stuff that is currently recognized by our America/West-filled mind-pits as "diplomacy" and "civility" and "morality" would be discarded.

For example - it is Western thought that says that nuclear weapons are only safe in a few hands. The Chinese pretend to subscribe to that but what they do is to spread nukes everywhere as an equalizer. Chinese morality is different from US morality. On the issue of nukes India has displayed a degree of independent thought, but I am not sure all of us on the forum are able to display a unique Indians version of independent thought uncontaminated by the Western worldview.

[svinayak]

India centric is called nationalistic view point. India never had nationalism in its policy making to take care of security or economy.

But Indians in power read English and their "thought pits" are filled up with the stuff regurgitated by the dominant English media of the world. This is true for you and me too.
When we think "strategy" we think of strategy in the way Americans/the West think of strategy. When an India thought occurs in the corner of our minds - it is always subservient to the dominant American thought.

Fractal recursivity plays an important role in the world view of english speaking Indians.
Arthashastra and other indian texts and 'Indian' history from antiquity is needed to have a clean nationalistic view.

Indian thought cannot be seperate from 'Indian' history.

[shiv]

Fractal recursivity plays an important role in the world view of english speaking Indians.
Arthashastra and other indian texts and 'Indian' history from antiquity is needed to have a clean nationalistic view.

Indian thought cannot be seperate from 'Indian' history.

Acharya - I will state my frank opinion of the word "nationalism" as it is currently used on this forum. That word is yet another word that is used loosely like "dhimmintude" and "pseudosecularism". It just adds to the number of words without adding clarity because "nationalism" like "secularism" is a much raped word.

I would like to see the contours of "nationalism" to be defined and fleshed out after which it can be said "this is what nationalism means". Otherwise the word will be misused and raped.

[John Snow]

deleted in view of probing thoughts on what is nationalism.

[ramana]

So its going off track again? Good going. Will eventually lead to thread getting locked up.

[Prem]

SO after all Prem Chopra is indeed correct

"Yehi tho maar ka gaya Hindustan"

Name Hindustan itself reveals the "Core" of Nationalism suitable for India

[shiv]

So its going off track again? Good going. Will eventually lead to thread getting locked up.

ramana - what, in your opinion, constitutes this thread being "on track"?

"Future strategic scenario"

What does it mean to you?

Am I allowed to have a different opinion of its meaning from you?

[John Snow]

OK I think I have an answer after thought.

"Nationalism, Patriotism,thoughtfulness, knowledge etc" are Abstract nouns hence can only be perceived but
cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled or touched

[svinayak]

I would like to see the contours of "nationalism" to be defined and fleshed out after which it can be said "this is what nationalism means". Otherwise the word will be misused and raped.

It is the english speaking Indian mind asking the meaning of nationalism. An "Indian" would know instinctively what it means.

[John Snow]

BUt Shiv ji 's question is entirely valid a definition itself need to be concerete with meta data and context otherwise, it will be like shree B Raman's strategic understanding Of BRF as "Hindutva forum, a tag which many of Mav seeking chelas jump in glee when attached to BRF"

Yes we need a definition.

[Samay]

to Acharya ji ,and other jis ^^as well

One of the things that India needs to do is to break away from America centric thinking. We are especially vulnerable because of our anglophone "Commonwealth" connections. I believe that China, Russia, Iran and even North Korea (and the US of course) effortlessly display "self-centric" thinking.

This is not just the Indian government - but a large section of opinion makers in India including the class that brihaspati has termed the "controllers" in India. That includes many of us on this forum indulging in US-centric thinking - and hampering India-centric thought.

India centric is called nationalistic view point. India never had nationalism in its policy making to take care of security or economy.

exactly, western,middle/far eastern pov was always to dominate 'Hind' as they had never done before and to extract all its natural resources and to teach it a lesson on its crime of not being barbaric, the thing mao mentioned himself, that Indians are too proud of their culture and their principles and thats why china taught them a lesson (for not being a barbaric prototype).

things that are part of the core India philosophy are the things they never liked ,not because it presents a competitive religion or culture but because it proves the religions,beliefs of others as minuscule in front of its grand existence and its purpose as a religion or cultural combo(SANSKRITi) to not to dominate but to live and let live others
this principle is lying hidden but always comes forward when people decide dos and donts.
the areas and the population of west are dominated by such religions that have a dominating tendency ,which is well known,but this is also the essence of their existence,just opposite to what is the basis of core Indian values,. such values on which western religions are based are doomed to sacrifice each other in the name of GOD ,and it is readily visible in their own religious texts.
that was the reason we see three state sponsored religions > judaism,christianity,islam ,as being propagated rigorously one way or the other.,who had been fighting each other since their advent from same geography.
if they hate their own brothers , then what about those religons(vedic,buddhism,jainism,etc) which their barbaric traditions cant invent.?

the reason I am discussing religion in between is because it still decides foreign policies or ideological policies of many nations,specially those who we face.
and at that time some Indians (dhimmies) criticize their own culture, which weakens the root cause of a national existence.
but whether we like it or not ,we fear to hear it or not, state policy of usa,china,pigs, uk,etc will always be what many people don't wish to hear.
it could be as ugly as can happen against humanity,or anything like that.
anyone believes it or not but this fact will never change.
usa will continue to support pigs,blindly,west wont change and chinks wont understand the common human values, so what should be the policy of India?
I should say veni,vidi,vici

[Samay]

Some angel smiled upon India and NK conducted a new underground nuclear tests.

Does India use this window and test 20 nuclear tests to validate its TN design for sure? If pakis follow suit, we will know who controls what and how much inventory people have.

Let us see how our leadership responds.

the fact that n.k. can test a nuclear device on richter scale 4.5+ proves that pigs have got a valid nuclear weapons program, as if pigs have themselves tested,
only this argument could lead to a possible thermo nuke test by India or by .........

[Sanku]

Whats BRF but an answer to the question "what is nationalism in Indian context" -- the problem is that answers get unpalatable very soon -- sigh...

[brihaspati]

Another request for people to ponder.

I think I can guess what is going on within the admin. This is deja vu for me, from my "party" days. It also gives important clues as to what are the political commitments and affiliations, or ideological commitments that are not typically revealed. Lots of people claim to be neutral, unbiased, etc, but the way they react or the steps they take can reveal where their heart lies. There are almost always subtle differences in the way "neutral" people react to two different examples of say the same category. If one example is reacted against more often than the other, we then understand, the affiliation of the "neutral".

Another request to all: please do not put those among the "controllers" who are sympathetic to alternative viewpoints being raised and discussed, under too much pressure from those who are not sympathetic. In this particular case the latter group dominates. In political parties, usually, those who aggressively take initiative in using their power to eliminate opponents and nip oppositions in the bud, succeed initially. For illustration of the basic methothodology, it is enough to look at the internal twists of the Congress, even from the days of MKG, and the power struggles within the CP(I-M-ML). Typically personal dislikes, and search for personal power and dominance takes the form of overt polemical battles, and every opportunity is taken to delegitimize and denigrate the person rather than his/her arguments. At this point it is an indication of extreme jealousy and fear from those who can clearly recognize their own faults, and incapabilities, or blunders, but are still reluctant to acknowledge as such.

Do not repeat the mistake that SCB made in "leaving" or "giving in" or making too much of "gurus". Please try to understand the essential political commitments that go behind phenomena that you are fretting at. Do not consider the "rulers" as an uniform bloc - there are bound to be differences of opinions among them, and please do not make it more difficult for those who are sympathetic to your views and objectives.

Those who apparently do not let you voice your conclusions and the results of your searches for answers, realize very well the power of ideas to which the majority appear to converge. That in itself should be sufficient consolation. If the idea is powerful and true enough, gradually it will prevail, whether you can speak about it or not. If it is not, it will peter away. Ideas never completely die, neither can they be ever killed, if they have any relevance.

Please understand the root causes of "takleef" with a particular term, and why it is considered so dangerous and powerful, and also realize that you really do not have to discuss explictly an idea which is already considered so contagious and potent.

I am still waiting for enlightenment on the Russia-Iran-India track!

[RamaY]

Some angel smiled upon India and NK conducted a new underground nuclear tests.

Does India use this window and test 20 nuclear tests to validate its TN design for sure? If pakis follow suit, we will know who controls what and how much inventory people have.

Let us see how our leadership responds.

the fact that n.k. can test a nuclear device on richter scale 4.5+ proves that pigs have got a valid nuclear weapons program, as if pigs have themselves tested,
only this argument could lead to a possible thermo nuke test by India or by .........

That is the idea.

[RamaY]

self deleted as promissed.

[samuel]

China is gathering an immense amount of fire power.
The string of pearls is now becoming real.
The US is a stone's throw away in our neighborhood.
India lives in a violent subcontinent.
It is not in control of its lands.
There is too much history and plausible sh*tty consequences.

What would you like the geopolitical and geostrategic scenario in the subcontinent to look like? How do we get there?

Sodarullara, focus cheyyandi konchamu. Page 38 vacchaka, asalu nationalism ante amiti ante, pichhi patindi, crack aiyyaru, lepote balasindo ani anukuntaru.

Idi na deshamu; adi nationalism. OK?
S

[RamaY]

s-ji mee and ramanaji's sahananiki sasthanga pranamalu

In the meantime, the baton is being passed-on like you predicted.

U.S. appeals to China to help stabilize Pakistan[/b]
Updated at: 0925 PST, Monday, May 25, 2009

[ramana]

Shiv, If it werent for your earlier status as a Forum Admin and your penchant to experiment/play wihh members minds (aka pisko games, btw I object to it as I honor/value the members who have taken the commitment to register in their nationalist Forum and they are not any lab inmates), I would have surely thought you were trying your best to derail this thread. As evidence I point to the fact you brought in corruption in this thread and made it sound like its endemic to India. There is a whole forum now to discuss such topics. In the Hindutva thread you posted links to Hindu organizations blurring the lines between Hindu and Hindutva and the admins were forced to lock it up.

Next you bring/come up with what is nationalism and what is India centric thinking? The latter is a geographic term which denies India is a nation-state. While the earlier is political discourse term. The latter is chosen by those who dont believe in India as a nation state.

BTW, the reason why this is off topic is I have a thread on Indian National Interests for last five years. If you were really serious about your question, you would have posted there. See it has India, national and interests. A perfect trifecta of topics for your proposition. Yet you want to post here and we lost this whole page to patter and members are forced to resort to vernacular in their frustration.

Ian Fleming in Goldfinger writes "Once is happenstance, twice is conicidence and thrice is enemy action!"
So where are you on this path?

[Keshav]

We already had a discussion about what nationalism means a little while back and no one could come to a conclusion, primarily people were divided on whether or not Hindu culture was the bedrock of Indian nationalism.

I don't remember in what thread that conversation took place but there lots of good ideas in it.

I think that's where
1) Brihaspati first put out is core/periphery theory.
2) No one could agree on whether or not Hindu culture was the bedrock of Indian culture
3) Whether India is a nation or a political union of multiple nations

It would nice if moderators could find that discussion and archive it.

Shiv-
Don't worry too much. The Wall Street Journal is well known to take neo-conservative stances on foreign policy.

The author is man named Foud Ajami, who despite being Lebanese, supports the Iraq war and Bush's neo-conservative stance on using force to push democracy into autocratic Muslim lands. Read this article for more information on his opinion about Obama (incidentally, from the WSJ once again).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310499999722371.html

[svinayak]

2) No one could agree on whether or not Hindu culture was the bedrock of Indian culture
3) Whether India is a nation or a political union of multiple nations

It was never discussed this way

[Keshav]

2) No one could agree on whether or not Hindu culture was the bedrock of Indian culture
3) Whether India is a nation or a political union of multiple nations

It was never discussed this way

We may be thinking of two different discussions, but I remember at least RayC was one of the few people who didn't agree with the idea that Hindu culture was the basis of Indian culture. Needless to say, that spiraled into a whole other irrelevant discussion about religion and other nonsense. But it happened nonetheless.

My point was that we were unable to define nationalism before after many pages of talking and people above were asking for a one post definition.

Plus, Ramana doesn't want us talking about it, so I'm officially ending OT.

[svinayak]

My point was that we were unable to define nationalism before after many pages of talking and people above were asking for a one post definition.

You were the one who posted that India is many countries and will end up like that.
Lot of liberal forums have discussion on such topics including questioning nationalism. Those forums may be appropriate for that.

[Samay]

Another request for people to ponder.

I think I can guess what is going on within the admin. This is deja vu for me, from my "party" days. It also gives important clues as to what are the political commitments and affiliations, or ideological commitments that are not typically revealed. Lots of people claim to be neutral, unbiased, etc, but the way they react or the steps they take can reveal where their heart lies. There are almost always subtle differences in the way "neutral" people react to two different examples of say the same category. If one example is reacted against more often than the other, we then understand, the affiliation of the "neutral".

Another request to all: please do not put those among the "controllers" who are sympathetic to alternative viewpoints being raised and discussed, under too much pressure from those who are not sympathetic. In this particular case the latter group dominates. In political parties, usually, those who aggressively take initiative in using their power to eliminate opponents and nip oppositions in the bud, succeed initially. For illustration of the basic methothodology, it is enough to look at the internal twists of the Congress, even from the days of MKG, and the power struggles within the CP(I-M-ML). Typically personal dislikes, and search for personal power and dominance takes the form of overt polemical battles, and every opportunity is taken to delegitimize and denigrate the person rather than his/her arguments. At this point it is an indication of extreme jealousy and fear from those who can clearly recognize their own faults, and incapabilities, or blunders, but are still reluctant to acknowledge as such.

Do not repeat the mistake that SCB made in "leaving" or "giving in" or making too much of "gurus". Please try to understand the essential political commitments that go behind phenomena that you are fretting at. Do not consider the "rulers" as an uniform bloc - there are bound to be differences of opinions among them, and please do not make it more difficult for those who are sympathetic to your views and objectives.

Those who apparently do not let you voice your conclusions and the results of your searches for answers, realize very well the power of ideas to which the majority appear to converge. That in itself should be sufficient consolation. If the idea is powerful and true enough, gradually it will prevail, whether you can speak about it or not. If it is not, it will peter away. Ideas never completely die, neither can they be ever killed, if they have any relevance.

Please understand the root causes of "takleef" with a particular term, and why it is considered so dangerous and powerful, and also realize that you really do not have to discuss explictly an idea which is already considered so contagious and potent.

I am still waiting for enlightenment on the Russia-Iran-India track!

hey brihaspati dont be offended , bot I could not understand even a single terminology that why u have written what u have written leaving aside what u didn't wanted to write,

please enlighten us new bees about what it is all about
is it related to a future strategic scenario???

[brihaspati]

The US asking of China is part of the projection that I had consistently maintained about the Obama admin's basic plan to first stabilize their position in AFG and then gradually withdraw militarily from AFPAK without appearing to do so. In fact Obama will always be under the political compulsion not to be seen as weaker compared to Bush in foreign policy. However, their basic thrust, for the entire "democrat" spectrum, which is more aligned to thinking along the European, especially UK thought pattern, is a fundamental distrust and looking down upon of all those races, nationalities, ideologies, faiths - that are outside of Anglican/Catholic Christian, non-white-European, imeprialist ambits.

In this type of thinking, out of solid, semi-feudal, Abrahamic, TFTA leaning British thinking, the faith system of TSP is actually preferable to that of the majority in India. The TFTA of AFPak (well at least the north!) is preferable to SDRE of peninsular India. This Euro-origin attitude is basically a primitive, tribal and simplistic one - that of worship of force and of the victor, and hatred of the weak and repression of the defeated - something that probably matures into a strongly S&M type of drive as their civilization gets more materially sophisticated.

It is this thinking, and not perhaps without some prodding by UK interests itself, which will look upon coming to an understanding with China much more preferable to strengthening India's hands.

A really unbiased, shrewd and long-term thinking statesman would have actually taken the option of strengthening India itself to such an extent that even the hope of rescue by PRC would not have appeared attractive to TSP feudal-military-theologian nexus. In such a case, as with each and every such theology driven, TSP's dominant faith ruled, regimes in history, they would have quickly comromised to preserve hope of future recovery from the core of theology still maintained under compromise.

The logic given in the referred article as to China's counterinsurgency experience during its civil-war, is pure and unadulterated BS. Cadre having direct experience during that time is mostly gone. Moreover, the 8th route army was itself an "insurgent" one. (there were not 7 other armies, but a likely hypothesis is that 8 is considered "subhalaksman" by the Chinese). Its only experience of tackling such "faith" based insurgency was with the Muslim tribes roaming in the NW border province, where Mao led his army after the "Long March". The tactic used by Mao was drawing parallels and similarities between the "Sinified Marrxism/Communism" and the "Islamic faith" (around 1937) - published in Collected Works, vol 2. Without such acknowledgements, Mao's much weakened 8th route army, which was later joined by the remnant stragglers of the 4th route army, would not have been able to set up base in this remote and not very productive area. It was only much much later, that the CCP felt strong enough to crush the "theologians" and institute tight control over religious practice here (this was only after the civil war was one, the majority Han populations were brought under cintrol, and KMT escaped to Formosa, and Stalin finally decided to back Mao properly).

Fact is the Chinese do not have experience of dealing with AFPAK type Islamic Jihadi insurgency, that too without state-authority and direct state-control. PRC is too clever not to know this. They will simply try to divert the Jihadis on to India once US allows them have some kind of legal status in TSP.

But for any Chinese lurkers here, to a certain extent I would welcome your "party" and military in TSP! The more you stretch out in your paranoid attempts to encircle India, the easier it is for a determined GOI to chew you up in pieces. Every regime, yes, every regime of non-Muslim origin that has tried to shower kindness and largesse on Islamic expansion, have ultimately retired hurt, broken and in tears. Yours will be no exception. In fact the more initial success you have aginst the existing pattern of elite dominance and government in India, the quicker you destroy the best possible setup you could have had to indulge in your imperialism.

[ramana]

He is saying keep engaged in the topic and dont leave the discussion as it will leave the field open to those who drive away their opposing viewpoints. And the topic is Future strategic scenario for the Indian sub-continent and not anything else.
Kapische?

Thats Polish for samjae?

[brihaspati]

Samayji,
I hope ramanaji's post answers the question. If you look back a couple of pages on this thread and "strat-leadership" thread you will find another similar post with a "Buddhist" parable in it. The discussions immediately preceding it should make it clear.
Regards!

[ramana]

The US asking of China is part of the projection that I had consistently maintained about the Obama admin's basic plan to first stabilize their position in AFG and then gradually withdraw militarily from AFPAK without appearing to do so. In fact Obama will always be under the political compulsion not to be seen as weaker compared to Bush in foreign policy. However, their basic thrust, for the entire "democrat" spectrum, which is more aligned to thinking along the European, especially UK thought pattern, is a fundamental distrust and looking down upon of all those races, nationalities, ideologies, faiths - that are outside of Anglican/Catholic Christian, non-white-European, imeprialist ambits.

In this type of thinking, out of solid, semi-feudal, Abrahamic, TFTA leaning British thinking, the faith system of TSP is actually preferable to that of the majority in India. The TFTA of AFPak (well at least the north!) is preferable to SDRE of peninsular India. This Euro-origin attitude is basically a primitive, tribal and simplistic one - that of worship of force and of the victor, and hatred of the weak and repression of the defeated - something that probably matures into a strongly S&M type of drive as their civilization gets more materially sophisticated.

It is this thinking, and not perhaps without some prodding by UK interests itself, which will look upon coming to an understanding with China much more preferable to strengthening India's hands.....

This is a core driver for the Anglo-Saxon foreign policy. Its amazing that the US does not want the help of India which has the most of the CS experience but wants to give the PRc a wedge in the AF-Pak region. A charitable view would be they want to engage PRC in that region to develop further bondages. If anyone recalls teh PRC was on 9/11/2001 announcing their new engagement with the Taliban and were blind-sided by what happened next!

If any one watched or read "Jewel in the Crown" the author Paul Scott, makes the same point that the British found it easier philosophically to be closer to Allah than Brahma!

[svinayak]

This is a core driver for the Anglo-Saxon foreign policy. Its amazing that the US does not want the help of India which has the most of the CS experience but wants to give the PRc a wedge in the AF-Pak region.

A charitable view would be they want to engage PRC in that region to develop further bondages. If anyone recalls teh PRC was on 9/11/2001 announcing their new engagement with the Taliban and were blind-sided by what happened next!

US has been engaged with China and PRC since 1850s. Why should there be surprise if US makes PRC as the pivot in the Asian strategy.

[Samay]

Samayji,
I hope ramanaji's post answers the question. If you look back a couple of pages on this thread and "strat-leadership" thread you will find another similar post with a "Buddhist" parable in it. The discussions immediately preceding it should make it clear.
Regards!

thanks,
the problem was not linking it backwards,in a slotted manner, it's rectified.

[Prem]

So ,once gain , we are back to 90s when BR came to conclusion that the road to right kind of understanding in this Kalyugi world is paved with chopped heads. True to their nature ,Indics will be last ones to pass this manhood test . No conincident, Mahabharat happend right before the creeping of Kalyug but lessons of the war is forgotton by "Indicians", hence the peril.

[Samay]

This is a core driver for the Anglo-Saxon foreign policy. Its amazing that the US does not want the help of India which has the most of the CS experience but wants to give the PRc a wedge in the AF-Pak region.

A charitable view would be they want to engage PRC in that region to develop further bondages. If anyone recalls teh PRC was on 9/11/2001 announcing their new engagement with the Taliban and were blind-sided by what happened next!

US has been engaged with China and PRC since 1850s. Why should there be surprise if US makes PRC as the pivot in the Asian strategy.

I think it will be highly impractical, the cause and effect relationship cannot contradict each other.

In this case ,this was a possibility a decade ago,but not after 9/11., things are changing,faster than they could be predicted,.

[svinayak]

d with China and PRC since 1850s. Why should there be surprise if US makes PRC as the pivot in the Asian strategy.
I think it will be highly impractical, the cause and effect relationship cannot contradict each other.

In this case ,this was a possibility a decade ago,but not after 9/11., things are changing,faster than they could be predicted,.

Can you give me any evidence of the change