Indian Interests

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jun 2009 02:10

One of my grand uncles was former Principal of DAV college Lahore before Partition.

munna · Post by **munna** » 03 Jun 2009 02:23

ramana wrote:One of my grand uncles was former Principal of DAV college Lahore before Partition.

It was the germination ground for new ideas of freedom and progress, unlike DU Panjab University Lahore and its colleges (especially DAV college) were hotbeds of Indic Centred scholarship and freedom movement, an institution par excellence.

DAV has touched so many lives! I am Glad to hear about your family links to DAV.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 Jun 2009 05:53

More i think of it and more i am convinced Pakjabis rightfuly deserve the fate of Banu Quraiza tribe. We can have Maulana Sufi Muhamamd or Meshud to pass the judgement for Pakjabis have sinned against the fair name of Islam.

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 03 Jun 2009 22:30

munna wrote:
ramana wrote:One of my grand uncles was former Principal of DAV college Lahore before Partition.
It was the germination ground for new ideas of freedom and progress, unlike DU Panjab University Lahore and its colleges (especially DAV college) were hotbeds of Indic Centred scholarship and freedom movement, an institution par excellence.

DAV has touched so many lives! I am Glad to hear about your family links to DAV.

munnaji,

Incidentally, my little daughter was to start schooling this year. I had to fight a barrage of snobbery and misconception regarding DAVs.

And finally, I was able to admit my kid in the neighborhood DAV school. However, it helped that scores of my colleagues are from DAVs, and also that 4-5 of them are from the particular school that I shortlisted for my kid (they vouched for the academic performances).

munna · Post by **munna** » 03 Jun 2009 23:50

DAVs are known for their disciplinarian approach and strict focus on academics, rest assured DAV-ites rule many a fiefdoms in all spheres of life. Congratulations on the admission of your child to a DAV, god bless her with good values and persistence to be able to handle the challenges faced by the coming generation of the nation. Hope they inherit a stronger and better India when they graduate.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2009 00:25

Coming back to topic:

R Vaidya wrote:Why must we always live our lives to western standards?

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1260928

Why dont folks ennumerate answers to his question?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 Jun 2009 02:45

A very interesting issue. I support the indigenous standards development effort. In some other threads I have been trying to pitch for extreme efforts on "indigenous capacity" development. It is easy to see why there has been no Indianization of standards. This is because, technologies were not developed by Indians on their own from scratch. I am not saying that we have to rediscover everything from Daimler, Benz and Ford to get our Indianized car. But getting the broad idea and the basic principles of automobile engineering, why cannot Indian brains develop or try to develop a car entirely on their own, with all parts and tecgnologies developed indigenously. There will be mistakes, errors, failures, but from that we will develop a solid base of technology and maybe even surpass what we now borrow at great cost. Why are we so much afraid to fail? That intense fear of failing, of being laughed at, is perhaps the most pitiable and debilitating character trait we have developed for ourselves.

Fear that we will "fall behind"? We can keep up, if we reduce that "production cycle time", meaning we intensify our experiments, our trials, we do 1000 trials in the time others do 1 trial, so that we compress the errors made by the current "advanced" ones over many years into only a couple and still catch up.

Sizes are easy to change - what is more difficult to change is the attitude. The clothing example reminds me of my teenage years. My family had a fixed tailoring establishment where all our family clothes were made. I had extreme discomfort, because they always made my shirts too narrow at the shoulders, and too wide at the belly. So in a couple of months, the seams at the shoulders began to split. Even after repeated complaints, I was told, that the "format" was the one appropriate for Indian shapes, and that the "cutters" would not cut anything else. They can make the shoulders wider, larger, but that would proportionately increase the "belly". So when I first bought a shirt off a street market that was "reject" from "export", I was overjoyed that for the first time "shoulders" appeared to fit and not too much cloth at the belly that balooned over the top of the trousers. My fear is that standardization may land up in a rigid copying without developing key capacity of adaptability. Hopefully, a really representative survey would not exclude people like me from the Indian "standard" - as I belong to the 72/6 category.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 08 Jun 2009 04:12

Regarding the standards, we are kind of "catching up" to the West. Hence it is easy to take the least resistance path.

aryank · Post by **aryank** » 08 Jun 2009 06:24

Church vows to pull down Kerala's Left Front govt

Thiruvananthapuram: When the Left Democratic Front (LDF) came to power in Kerala in 2006 with a decisive majority, CM VS Achuthanandan and colleagues claimed legacy of the first communist government of 1957. Now, after the Left's rout in the parliamentary polls, the Catholic Church wants to seal its fate, like that of the EMS Namboodiripad government in 1959.

Commemorating the infamous "liberation struggle" that eventually led to the dismissal of the first-elected communist government in 1959, the Syro-Malabar Church has called the just-concluded Lok Sabha poll, in which the LDF failed to retain 15 seats, a "silent liberation struggle".

A pastoral letter from cardinal Varkey Vithayathil says Marxist ideology is incompatible in a pluralist society. "It's doubtful if it [CPM] recognises multi-party democracy.

Marxist ideology has to be revamped. They negate the constitution and challenge the courts," says the letter being read out in churches under the Ernakulam-Angamali diocese of the Syro-Malabar Church amid Sunday mass.

The circular castigates the LDF government's attempts to reform primary and professional education. "After all these years, the LDF government's reforms in the education sector are a negation of faith and moral values," the cardinal says.

The Church went on the warpath after the education department tried to regulate the self-financing professional education sector and reform the primary education sector. The Church, the Nair Service Society and several Muslim groups ganged up to defend their privileges and openly campaigned against the LDF in the parliamentary polls.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1262930

---------------------------------------------------------

To,

The whole world

I am an idiot. No one can save me.

We youths don't want democracy. We want Mommee to give us everything we want. Of course I speak only for myself.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 08 Jun 2009 06:41

aryank wrote:Church vows to pull down Kerala's Left Front govt

Thiruvananthapuram: When the Left Democratic Front (LDF) came to power in Kerala in 2006 with a decisive majority, CM VS Achuthanandan and colleagues claimed legacy of the first communist government of 1957. Now, after the Left's rout in the parliamentary polls, the Catholic Church wants to seal its fate, like that of the EMS Namboodiripad government in 1959.

I am not sure I got the message you are trying go convey. The Syrian Christian church has been around for a *LONG* time and not some recent evanJehadis. They have been a part and parcel of India through the centuries. If they want to get rid of the communist well and good.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 08 Jun 2009 06:46

Although, this could have easily gone into the good governance and/or the new corruption thread, I am posting it here, as Bhanu Pratap Mehta is someone, who does not miss the forest for the trees.

Our Bureaucracy, Our Selves

Pratap Bhanu Mehta
Posted: 2009-06-05 22:51:13+05:30 IST
Updated: Jun 05, 2009 at 2251 hrs IST
A recent survey finding by Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy that India’s bureaucracy is the stiflingly worst in Asia comes as no surprise. Our debate on bureaucracy reform gets nowhere because it rests on simplistic assumptions. Much of the focus tends to be, paradoxically, very bureaucratic, focusing excessively on corruption and less on efficiency. And there is the illusion that reform is largely a matter of new rules, more oversight, new institutional designs and getting incentives right. But this is only a small part of the story. It ignores the fact that sometimes more and more oversight makes the system less efficient. Even more egregiously, it ignores how bureaucratic behaviour is embedded in larger socio-economic structures.

First, the relationship between growth and bureaucratic reform is complicated. It is no accident that in the survey, all countries that rank higher than India also have higher per capita GDP. Which way does the causality run? There is good reason to think both ways. Contrary to popular perception, India does not invest enough in its state. While we can draw on horror stories of overstaffing, in most departments that matter the Indian state is understaffed, underequipped and undertrained. This leads to the syndrome best captured by the brilliant novel Raag Darbari, that there is often so much work that all work comes to a standstill. Arguably, some growth produces the kind of resources that allows states to invest in themselves and make reform possible.

Second, the link between corruption and growth is complicated. If one can put the matter bluntly, the problem in Bihar and Orissa is not that they have more corruption than Tamil Nadu or Andhra Pradesh. It is that poorer states have fewer opportunities to be intelligently corrupt. Much of the corruption comes out of programmes that affect the poor. Whereas in states like Haryana or Tamil Nadu, rents can be extracted more efficiently from areas like real estate, telecom, roads, or be disguised under the new euphemism: public private partnerships. In short, they have forms of corruption that affect the poor less. Paradoxically, it gives politicians an incentive to do more development.

Third, the real problem with the Indian state is its social location in three different ways. Quite frankly access to state power is seen as an instrument of social mobility and this legitimises all kinds of uses of state power. Second, in a deeply hierarchical society, the attraction of state power is precisely that it gives you power over others; it is the intrinsic delight of the exercise of power that animates individuals more than any idea of reciprocity. Third, the internal social hierarchies within the state are severely debilitating. Where else in the world do old caste-like norms of who can sit in whose presence etc still exist? How can you expect a low level official to act on ideas of reciprocity when he has never experienced it? Even more egregiously, when were the lower levels of the state ever given ownership of its decisions? Is it any wonder that they don’t understand the objectives of the state in any terms other than more rules? Too much is spent on exposing the IAS, very little on giving a sense of professional identity to lower level officials. As the classic study on American anti-corruption measures The Pursuit of Absolute Integrity pointed out, a sense of professional identity is far more productive of integrity and efficiency than rules or incentives. Reforming the state will require nothing less than a social revolution.

Fourth, there is a reason why there is little pressure on the state to reform. Frankly, big business in India can get away with almost anything. It has the resources to manipulate the system and can absorb the costs of government rules. It is small business that really suffers. But the result is that big business has never been a serious lobby for genuine bureaucratic reform. It is a lobby for special exemptions for itself and will never put collective pressure on government to reform.

Finally, there must be ideological clarity in the state. The bureaucracy confuses ends with means, rules with outcomes, control with efficiency because we do not often ask the question: what is the state for? The more tasks that are indiscriminately given to the state, the more distorted its priorities and functioning. If the question of objectives is confused, the level at which decisions are taken is even more confusing. We are still amongst the most centralised states in the world. If we are serious about bureaucratic reform we need to ask questions about the character of our state and society; merely having more commissions will not do.

Published in the Financial Express.

aryank · Post by **aryank** » 08 Jun 2009 07:01

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 08 Jun 2009 07:10

aryank wrote:Don't quote Aryank, pls. Thx. Mod-e-Mod

Due to rising corruption in SCjs, HCjs, PM, CMs, Ministers, IAS, IPS etc and resulting mess, many youngmen *are*becoming pro-dictatorship. Some yearn for Military rule, some want NaMo as dictator etc.

Too many wise men want activists to ignore corruption and instead want us to cherish "8% growth, IITs, IIMs, highway, flyway, airports etc". These pro-corruption growth-vaadies wise men are the reason why India may actually degenerate into dictatorship.

aryank · Post by **aryank** » 08 Jun 2009 07:19

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 08 Jun 2009 07:57

aryank, please stop calling for dictatorship. We might not be a perfect democracy, but that doesn't mean we need to have dictatorship. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And corruption is universal, whether it is a dictatorship, communist, democracy or monarchy. Show me one system of governance where there isn't any corruption.

raji · Post by **raji** » 08 Jun 2009 08:03

RaviBg wrote:aryank, please stop calling for dictatorship. We might not be a perfect democracy, but that doesn't mean we need to have dictatorship. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And corruption is universal, whether it is a dictatorship, communist, democracy or monarchy. Show me one system of governance where there isn't any corruption.

Saudi Arabia

{And with that

idea, pls end discussion of aryank's calls. Thanks! For a detailed exposition of non-corrupt-Saudi-admiring practices, pls consider visiting the BENIS thread.

And to think that some ppl consider these sorts of threads and discussions 2 b more "serious" than the BENIS..

}

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jun 2009 08:09

brihaspati wrote:A very interesting issue. I support the indigenous standards development effort. In some other threads I have been trying to pitch for extreme efforts on "indigenous capacity" development. It is easy to see why there has been no Indianization of standards. This is because, technologies were not developed by Indians on their own from scratch. I am not saying that we have to rediscover everything from Daimler, Benz and Ford to get our Indianized car. But getting the broad idea and the basic principles of automobile engineering, why cannot Indian brains develop or try to develop a car entirely on their own, with all parts and tecgnologies developed indigenously. There will be mistakes, errors, failures, but from that we will develop a solid base of technology and maybe even surpass what we now borrow at great cost. Why are we so much afraid to fail? That intense fear of failing, of being laughed at, is perhaps the most pitiable and debilitating character trait we have developed for ourselves.

Fear that we will "fall behind"? We can keep up, if we reduce that "production cycle time", meaning we intensify our experiments, our trials, we do 1000 trials in the time others do 1 trial, so that we compress the errors made by the current "advanced" ones over many years into only a couple and still catch up.

Sizes are easy to change - what is more difficult to change is the attitude. The clothing example reminds me of my teenage years. My family had a fixed tailoring establishment where all our family clothes were made. I had extreme discomfort, because they always made my shirts too narrow at the shoulders, and too wide at the belly. So in a couple of months, the seams at the shoulders began to split. Even after repeated complaints, I was told, that the "format" was the one appropriate for Indian shapes, and that the "cutters" would not cut anything else. They can make the shoulders wider, larger, but that would proportionately increase the "belly". So when I first bought a shirt off a street market that was "reject" from "export", I was overjoyed that for the first time "shoulders" appeared to fit and not too much cloth at the belly that balooned over the top of the trousers. My fear is that standardization may land up in a rigid copying without developing key capacity of adaptability. Hopefully, a really representative survey would not exclude people like me from the Indian "standard" - as I belong to the 72/6 category.

Brihaspati - this is happening (to an extent) but

a) We need to recognize it and
b) we need to have pride in our thought process rather than derision

Let me use your car example, but I will color it with my views.

History is beginning to show that the car is a wasteful invention that has taken over the world. The "standard car" invented in the US which spread like wildfire though the rest of the world is a space hogging monster that lugs around about 1500 kg of weight to transport 100 Kg of human with a power plant that can technically move 5000 kg. The ratio of weight moved per human is 15:1 and the engine capacity (cc) per human moved has been something like 2000:1. Yet the car remains a vital aspect of "development" in its ability to transport goods and people with ease and comfort

What India has done (for decades) is to modify the concept of "car" to a lesser monster which literally "sips" fuel compared to the original paradigm. On average India has "evolved" cars to have a weight moved per human transported to 10:1 or even less (sometimes 3:1), and the engine capacity per human is often less than 500:1. (100:1 if you include bikes). The TVS 50 - 50 to 60 cc engine ) is commonly seen transporting weights up to 150 kg which is utilization or power far more efficiently than a pick-up truck.

In the guise of being "cheap" and "crude" India has gradually modified the concept of car to something that is less wasteful than the average American/western vehicle. Innovation exists (powered by need) in ways that we do not want to acknowledge and that innovation may not always be "new" but it is certainly "different". Indigenization is not always invention, but redefinition.

There are many Indian "systems" - not necessarily machinery that are worth looking at without either derision (tending towards discarding) or sentimentality (tending towards blind preservation). One is the "joint family" system which serves as one of the most efficient social security nets ever invented that transcends all systems of government. It has its drawbacks and the "core family" of "parents plus children" has certain efficiencies and certain deficiencies. Blind moving towards "core families" (or worse) on Western models of efficiency will need an honest re-look. The number of jobless people I find living with extended family in times of recession without any state support is a reminder of the robustness of the system.

The "chaos" of Indian roads and traffic intersections has been shown in some analyses to be the fastest and most efficient way of allowing movement of the largest volumes of traffic that varies greatly in size and speed (pedestrians, hand drawn carts, motorcycles, buses) , unregulated by relatively "stupid" laws of rigid lanes and lights. (There is a cost that is paid of course.) But this is an innovation of necessity which is usually derided as chaos and inefficiency.

But while we "re look" at Indian systems it is important not t allow blind sentimentality to preserve systems that aid plain criminal behavior. We have a separate thread on corruption, but I will point out an Indian system that is efficient but aids criminal behavior - i.e "hawala" which is a system of trust and family-friendship values that cane be used to bypass laws.

When we look at "Indian values" and "Indian innovation" we often look at it from the "machinery and automation" viewpoint. Machinery and automation has no doubt revolutionized the world but the "Indian way" often involves the human chain and the ability of humans to interact do things for each other in ways that are typically rejected as useless by the the blindly Westernized mindset. I find dozens of examples on this forum. Some of them end up becoming philosophical battles where (I kid you not) a Western-Abrahamic ethic of life and death is sought to be imposed or superimposed on a pre existing Indian way. These attitudes come to the fore in medicine as well as in the actions of armed forces and the reactions of people to catastrophe. But educated Indians are attuned to rejecting one type of attitude as "good and progressive" and another set of attitudes as "retrogressive and outmoded"

We cannot speak of "Indian interests" without reconciling fundamentally contradicting values. The word "interest" itself is a personal attribute, and a collective group interest like "Indian interest" is always a sum-total of many individual interests and that sum total remains a reflection of a very human desire indicated by the word "interest".

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jun 2009 08:15

aryank wrote: To,

The Whole World

I am idiot. No one can save me.

We youths don't want democracy. We want Mommee to give us everything we want. Of course I speak for myself, who else matters?

Moorthy Muthuswamy was thrown out of this forum for less than this. All the best Aryank. The internet is a big place.

aryank · Post by **aryank** » 08 Jun 2009 08:29

{Gentle suggestion: When shiv tries to tell u something,

1. shut off mouth and AutoPiloted typing fingers.
2. turn on brain. Thx.}

raji · Post by **raji** » 08 Jun 2009 08:33

Shiv,

I terribly disagree with you. This forum will welcome any retired "Babu" from GOI and the sycopaphancy is to be seen to be believed. Chances are that Babu is corrupt to his teeth........I mean not even a hair on his body is free of corruption.

But this forum will not tolerate a genuine outpouring and a genuine cry from {idiots who call for the destruction of the greatest democracy in the history of humankind. Absolutely right, glad you caught that fact, brilliant! Thx.}

You are doing a tremendous disservice to everyone but also your country by scuttling voices like these, and I dont know why you cant counter his ideas with better ideas, instead, Shiv ?

{Aryank has received a warning. If you want one, pls. continue to keep brain switched off and fingers doing your thinking as you keep "terribly disagreeing" with shiv's kind advice born of long experience. The rest of us little Pol Pots don't want competition, so we tend to be rather harsh on upstarts who call others to become dictators, thank you.

- Moderately Enlightened and Extremely Dictatorial ModeraDictator }

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 08 Jun 2009 10:05

RaviBg wrote:aryank, please stop calling for dictatorship. We might not be a perfect democracy, but that doesn't mean we need to have dictatorship. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And corruption is universal, whether it is a dictatorship, communist, democracy or monarchy. Show me one system of governance where there isn't any corruption.

RaviBg,

30 years ago, when I was 10 years or younger, I had many elderly men around me who said "British police, British courts were less corrupt and unfair than today". While that generation passed away, the new one has too many asking for dictatorship. The corruption is big eroder of respect and legitimacy. To give an example, many people were terribly frustrated when they saw MMS purchasing MPs to kill no-confidence motion. If next day, a dictator had come, not many would have run for restoration for Parliament. Those who want democracy to go on should better START fixing it. Citing plus points of democracy alone wont help.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 08 Jun 2009 16:43

{Nonsense deleted}

raji · Post by **raji** » 08 Jun 2009 17:42

raji wrote:Shiv,

I terribly disagree with you. This forum will welcome any retired "Babu" from GOI and the sycopaphancy is to be seen to be believed. Chances are that Babu is corrupt to his teeth........I mean not even a hair on his body is free of corruption.

But this forum will not tolerate a genuine outpouring and a genuine cry from {idiots who call for the destruction of the greatest democracy in the history of humankind. Absolutely right, glad you caught that fact, brilliant! Thx.}

You are doing a tremendous disservice to everyone but also your country by scuttling voices like these, and I dont know why you cant counter his ideas with better ideas, instead, Shiv ?

{Aryank has received a warning. If you want one, pls. continue to keep brain switched off and fingers doing your thinking as you keep "terribly disagreeing" with shiv's kind advice born of long experience. The rest of us little Pol Pots don't want competition, so we tend to be rather harsh on upstarts who call others to become dictators, thank you. - Moderately Enlightened and Extremely Dictatorial ModeraDictator }

A voice from the sky.......

I get it.........oh Lord Moderately Enlightened Extremely Ditatorial Medradick Idi Amin Dada......

I am willing to sign anything..........anything.........please just dont water board me anymore.......

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 08 Jun 2009 19:50

Don't know who warned Aryank, but Aryank should have enough common sense to know that this tired nonsense of wishing for a dictator is just that - tired nonsense. People will always want a knight on a white horse to "save the country". But there is no reason to presume that a dictraitor is going to be better than a democratraitor - since all governments are traitorous anyway. At least you can kick out the democratraitor in an election.

Or come up with a lesser evil than democracy and articulate it. If not don't waste admin time and bandwidth. Its nothing more than flamebaiting.

"People" are beginning to say dictraitor is better than democratraitor? When did they not do that? "People" have always been doing it...

And guess what? They get to look up (to) Musharraf.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Jun 2009 20:16

Rahul Mehta wrote:Due to rising corruption in SCjs, HCjs, PM, CMs, Ministers, IAS, IPS etc and resulting mess, many youngmen *are*becoming pro-dictatorship. Some yearn for Military rule, some want NaMo as dictator etc. .

They can yearn for fauji rule all they like.

They are not free to do that here. It will not be tolerated.

Raji has been banned for that seditious post. Others with similar inclinations may soon join him.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 Jun 2009 21:09

There is probably an incomplete understanding of dictatorships and how and why they arise and their complex relationships with democracy, that gives rise to paranoid "untouchability" in even analyzing dictatorship as a phenomenon on the one hand, and deification of "democracy" on the other hand. Dictatorship is not possible without democracy, and democracy is not possible without dictatorship. Dictatorial regimes always arise when there is a transition of society from one socio-economic stage to another where there is a fundamental change in economic relationships. There is a period when the older forms are still not weak enough and the newer forms are not strong enough, when dictatorial regimes fill up the blanks. It is a lack of understanding of history that disjoints dictatorships and democracies as completely non-overlapping. There are always elements of dictatorships in democracies and deteremined minorities can hijack democracies, and no dictator can stay in power without the support of a large deteremined group.

Democratic elections can always, always be rigged - EVM or paper trail or coercion or corruption. By a division of votes, a small determined minority can impose its will on the remainder majority, in spite of all the shout about "ability to change regimes". The most famous dictatorial regimes always had their start in democracies, and were supported by either internal democracies or by other states whose givernments were elected democratically. And most successful democracies almost always made that first transition to democratic practice under a dictatorial regime. To fight older autocratic/non-democratic/dictatorial regimes and put in place a newer/better democracy - temporarily a dictatorial regime developed.

Britain - Cromwell, France - Jacobins under Robespierre. It is the tyranny of previous regimes that allows legitimate anger and frustration to accumulate by ignoring, suppressing, and manipulating through rashtryia machinery, that needs equally ruthless treatment to be overturned. If a democracy goes on managing elections in such a way that increasing portions of legitimate grievance simply gets swept under the carpet by official results, a breaking point comes where "oh so peaceful" expression of dissatisfaction are no longer possible. Such a democracy will be ripe for the rise of a dictator. This is also the reason, sometimes, "revolutions" seem thunders out of the blue sky, and we need to paint the extremes of reaction as evil and dictatorial.

However, anyone who is asking the military of a country to take over is showing equal ignorance of history. The army concentrates, out of professional necessity, a certain type of mentality - that looks at order, imposition of command and will, and discipline as an end in itself in individuals belonging to the army. Society does not run as a mailitary camp, except under abnormal conditions and very short periods of time. Few societies tried it long term out and they have been wiped off in that form. Such mentality also makes them vulnerable to temptations of enjoying "absolute power" and "dominance" over bodies and minds of people. Every military dictatorship we know of, inevitably show, extreme fondness for S&M type behaviour towards not only whom they perceive as threats but also on the common man and especially, woman. Keep that in mind before asking the military to take over.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 09 Jun 2009 08:50

>>>However, anyone who is asking the military of a country to take over is showing equal ignorance of history.

ALL the people posting in this forum have enough common sense to realise that a military rule in India is impossible. Even in the case of AryanK, after reading his post, I felt he was venting his frustation on the abuse of democratic values, instead of wanting military rule.

Adminullahs would do a lot better if they read the posts carefully before passing judgements - and browbeating the members by banning them or deleting posts as nonsense are just futile exercises.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jun 2009 09:04

geeth wrote:>>>However, anyone who is asking the military of a country to take over is showing equal ignorance of history.

ALL the people posting in this forum have enough common sense to realise that a military rule in India is impossible. Even in the case of AryanK, after reading his post, I felt he was venting his frustation on the abuse of democratic values, instead of wanting military rule.

Adminullahs would do a lot better if they read the posts carefully before passing judgements - and browbeating the members by banning them or deleting posts as nonsense are just futile exercises.

geeth, The admins don't act in an arbitrary manner. Decisions are debated and action taken. And to do that the posts are read and understood. BTW if people are frustrated they need to seek other channels and not vent here.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 09 Jun 2009 09:19

>>>geeth, The admins don't act in an arbitrary manner. Decisions are debated and action taken. And to do that the posts are read and understood.

Fine, thank you.

>>>BTW if people are frustrated they need to seek other channels and not vent here.

Next time when people vent their frustration over the non-delivery of Gorshkov and ask for immediate purchase of Kitty Hawk (an almost impossible proposition like the military rule), please care to ban them too.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 09 Jun 2009 22:01

Geeth, while I applaud any illumination of the quality of posts on the MIL aka Mijjile Groupies Forum, I don't think your analogy is fair or anywhere close to being accurate.

"Expressing frustration" over delays in military purchases and suggesting alternative sources, however impractical, is nowhere comparable to posting an Open Letter to the Chief of Army Staff asking for a military dictatorship in India.

Since you don't seem to be able to see this distinction, that itself disproves your contention that "ALL postors who post here" have the ability to see anything. Some may be, as they claim, "idiots". Quite possible, and there is no reason to clutter up the forum with idiotic posts.

There IS a problem when people use blatantly false analogies to present their version of "logic". IMO you are needlessly

As for people being "frustrated", sure, and a good way to overcome that is to release one's fingers from the need to do one's thinking for a month or two until one's brain can resume control of that operation.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jun 2009 22:23

SwamyG wrote:Regarding the standards, we are kind of "catching up" to the West. Hence it is easy to take the least resistance path.

I am afraid here to "catching up" strategy. A lot of things can be just dumped on to us by way of standards compliance. Is it our interests btw, that we all agree to it, then its ok. for example, the recent inspection raaj that the a-khan laws would thrust our strategic and defence minds once we start buying, leasing or even smiling with unkill mil folks and equipments.

To become pally, we could keep it at documents and artifacts level. To implement and follow would be the place where it would test our intelligence and the practices has to correct the flaws.. hence no standing standards must be enforced upon us, is my thought of on our interests.

Every process when standardized, would give rise to stagnation of thoughts to even upto economy drivers. It is important, that we have standards that keeps getting inputs and enhanced, and perhaps changed entirely to our requirements, such that it can be still called Indian Standards.

Looking into details, and analysing by enforcing mock standards can really help rather just importing them because unkill standards are fab, and coolest thing to follow. BTW, there are many standards that can be kept as study material and applied. Also, lots of investments and money is required to upkeep the standards. Are we ready? take for example, if we want American Standard Roads?

Standards should be driven by Indian interests and requirements., imho.

AbhishekD · Post by **AbhishekD** » 10 Jun 2009 02:06

All this talk of peace process and establishing peace with pakistan has to do with something going on behind the scene. I think Congress leaders and even MMS dont think that there can be any peace with Pakistan.

Pakistan's conduct in the last decade has been so full of it that any right thinking person cannot believe that peace in its usual sense can exist between India and Pakistan and I do believe howsoever liberal MMS maybe there has to be a limit to nonsense that the peaceniks talk. The critical question is that what is India trying to pre-empt. I am sure all these pronouncements about peace have an audience and it looks like that audience is specially US. It is a position that India will take with US regarding talks with Pakistan. India will simply say we are all for peace, but we want action on terrorism front from Pakistani side. Now that is an opening that India has with respect to USA. India can make demands that may get delivered or maynot get delivered. So there is value in engaging US to get some critical issues thrashed out. But I think it is a fundamentally weak position to take. India is itself playing the cat and mouse game with US and Pakistan. These pronouncements clearly shows that India and MMS is not taking the bull by the horns. India needs to create its own capability to inflict damage on Pakistan and if needed US interests in the region for some tactical gains. Also strategically speaking there is a very clear divergence of Indian and US interests within the region. US wants to contain the islamist problem within the region and India wants to eliminate the problem from the region. So both tactically and strategically India's interests dont align with that of US.

First lets spell out the gains that India can make in this cat and mouse game. The substantial gains will be handing over of critical terrorists to India or the dismantling of terror network directed towards India within pakistan. If any of these gains are realized India should immediately get to the negotiating table. But this is not going to happen. What are the other gains that will make India sit down. One critical gain can be an understanding on the Kashmir issue to make LOC and International Border. Obviously all the terrorist network is for the Kashmir issue so keeping the terrorists intact and giving up the cause does not make sense for the pakistanis. So what can pakistan offer as concession that will make India talk to Pakistan. There is another critical thing that can make India sit down and talk. The dismantling of terror network within India. ISI and LeT have a vast recruiting network within India. Recent events may point to that manner of engagement. The recent arrest of Madani and the arrest of Dawood's men in Bangladesh may be key pointers to that. There maybe more arrests that we maynot know of. Such an engagement will serve both Pakistan military's purpose and Indian Political establishment's purpose. India will be able to avoid terrorist incidents for the next few years and pakistan can keep the pot boiling till it can handle the situation in NWFP, keeping the India threat to the minimum.

I think clearly the contours of engagement will be containment of the terrorism problem directed towards India and the continuation of the use of terrorism as a state policy by pakistan. India is a status quo power and this government and MMS do not want to stir the pot. They just want to ensure that there is no more terrorist incident against India except for the odd one that the Indian people will be willing to forgive. Unless Pakistan really rachets up the terrorist pressure on India to the next level nothing is going to happen. India and Pakistan and to some extent the US will be engaged in this cat and mouse game without any substantial breakthrough. Till India becomes a really dominant power in the region to completely threaten Pakistani existence or tharwt any counter attack from Pakistan in the event of a strike from India, we are going to see this frustrating level of cat and mouse game.

Is such a situation good thing for India, certainly not. India is under constant threat from Pakistan and we need to keep our powder dry and be ready to attack pakistan if required, but if containment is possible then that option should certainly be explored. The policy of containment has been followed since the attack on the parliament. Have we been successful in that policy. I think we have been unsuccessful and a lot needs to be done to make this policy successful. It can be another topic of discussion as to what should be done to make this policy successful. But I think in the coming decade India needs to pursue a policy of containment and set up a limit to what constitutes a change of tactics in the event of increased terrorist pressure from Pakistan

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jun 2009 02:21

Good thinking AbhishekD.

One critical gain can be an understanding on the Kashmir issue to make LOC and International Border.

If you read the interview with Mushy he says that India did offer that but he wanted to keep it fluid so he can stake claim later. So even if India agress TSP wont. And all those terrorist netwroks in India are their assets to pressure India. So they wont do anything to dismantle them.

The MMS govt's biggest task is to keep the US engaged while the TSP races down hill. The US seems to be fully determined to make India give up Kashmir. And that cant be done for it negates sixty years of existence and that force and deceit will triumph.

So the task at hand is to support MMS in this endeavour.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 10 Jun 2009 03:16

As much as I agree that LoC == IB is the best option and India can live with it, it also exposes India's weakness in that having revealed its maximalist position, there is no reason for TSP to budge especially since their trump card is terror and nuke blackmail and USA support; all albatrosses around India's neck. In contrast, TSP's position is duplicitous; right of self determination BS, while their actual goal is the annexation of the valley.

An interesting revelation from Mush is that India offered Loc == IB, while TSP wanted LoC irrelevant (meaning TSPA/ISI/LeT can establish a caliphate in the valley). But in all public pronouncements, MMS himself said he preferred LoC's irrelevance in line with Mushy's demand. Thus, what led to India's official position? Others in Indian govt overruled MMS-Mush formula?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 10 Jun 2009 03:17

^^^ no pak leader can ever accept a solution to kashmir, since to have one - even if it means taking all of it, there is no longer a reisen d'either for them to exist. no wonder GOI offers it repeatedly, just to stick ungli in their face

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jun 2009 03:25

CRamS wrote:As much as I agree that LoC == IB is the best option and India can live with it, it also exposes India's weakness in that having revealed its maximalist position, there is no reason for TSP to budge especially since their trump card is terror and nuke blackmail and USA support; all albatrosses around India's neck. In contrast, TSP's position is duplicitous; right of self determination BS, while their actual goal is the annexation of the valley.

An interesting revelation from Mush is that India offered Loc == IB, while TSP wanted LoC irrelevant (meaning TSPA/ISI/LeT can establish a caliphate in the valley). But in all public pronouncements, MMS himself said he preferred LoC's irrelevance in line with Mushy's demand. Thus, what led to India's official position? Others in Indian govt overruled MMS-Mush formula?

LOC=IB is a feasible option and not the best option. The best option for India is the whole state of J&K including POK. The reason is that negates the two nation theory etc which are rooted in the concept of Dar-ul-Islam and Dar -ul- Harb. Basically what TSP is saying is due to its Islamic nature lands that have Muslim majority and in contiguity of it, have to be part of it. And India is saying because of its secular nature if the GOI act of 1947 gave the rulers of Princely states the right to accede to India or Pakistan then that right is paramount and the ruler of Kashmir has acceded to India and hence case closed. So if TSP gets Kashmir then the GOI act of 1947 is negated and its open season.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 10 Jun 2009 03:25

If the assertion that every PM has gone with LoC == IB solution is true,
then India should quit dreaming of holding a country together leave alone any regional ambitions!

Basic bargaining that every desi who has visited a sabzi mandi knows -
If you offer Rs. 90 for something listed @ Rs. 100, but the vendor is prepared to go down to Rs. 30 - your luksan onlee!

Perhaps a PM who goes with LoC < IB <= Iranian Border may have better luck

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Jun 2009 04:00

archan wrote:I was once not too long ago told by a retired IFS officer that every Indian PM has sent that message to the pakis. It seems that at the govt. level, India finds it to be an acceptable solution, especially when the other option is a possibly nuclear war for that piece of land.

Please do not take me wrong Archan-ji! That is pure Nehruvian logic you had there.

He too thought a war was too costly an option for the piece of land where not even grass could grow. Later, that very piece of barren land was used by PRC and TSP to move nuclear maal. Now POA/NA became “that piece of land”. We do not know its strategic value in next 20-50 years. Tomorrow it will be another “piece of land”.

What right India has to acquire nuclear weapons if it cannot accept the consequences? Now you see why some nations became super-powers and others didn’t?

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 10 Jun 2009 04:17

Lalmohan wrote:^^^ no pak leader can ever accept a solution to kashmir, since to have one - even if it means taking all of it, there is no longer a reisen d'either for them to exist. no wonder GOI offers it repeatedly, just to stick ungli in their face.

Too many greenhorns on the forum these days, bringing down even old hands like you Lalmohan. It has nothing to do with Kashmir. Is Bombay in Kashmir? Punjab has an international border. There hasn't been a militancy for well over a decade now, almost two. Yet, the moral and diplomatic support for the second "Land of the pure" continues from Pakistan.

There has never been a "raisin" for anyone to eat in the land of pure.
Nor will there ever be. Short of tearing a new continent away from the land of pure, there is no other solution, and given the inbreeding, never will be.

Every government tries to find an external problem to focus on, to move away from the difficult internal ones. So the babu and every nai sarkar tries chai biskoots. more empty boots - devoid of the good people - is all it has ever resulted in, and all it will ever result in. Bangladesh, Punjab, Sri Lanka, none had chai biskoots in their solution. create a new mile wide river at the border. will solve a lot of problems.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Jun 2009 04:41

The dismantling of terror network within India.

Cannot happen. That would mean that the Islamists have no intentions of Islamizing India. The days when they created terrorist group to deal with the Kashmir issue IMHO are gone.

I do not think "terrorism" (as we know it today) can be eradicated until there is some give from the "Islam" camp.