Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 01 Aug 2009 00:46

We also keep electing many buffon politicians as leader , in fact too many oldies from 40s and 50s. Till we acheive the strength to avoid preassure and capability to pay /push back Paki 3 and1/4 Masters, buying time seems to be the best options in our politician ( not leaders) mind.

The problem is that, for many reasons, the reins of power in India after independence passed into the hands of traders, academicians and intellectuals. This is a violation of the natural law of how human societies should be organised.

It is the people with a warrior bent of mind (kshatriyas) who should always rule. Others should be mere advisors. Anyone who has an intutive understanding of military and strategic matters is fit to be a ruler.

But there was a deliberate set up against such military-minded leaders in India. The British actively connived to prevent them from coming anywhere near the throne.

Subhash Chandra Bose, Aurobindo Ghosh, Patel, Savarkar -- these were the warriors. The Brits sensed danger from them, so they did two things: (i) crushed these military-minded Indians ruthlessly, on one hand, and (ii) promoted the leftist/liberals/peace makers in the form of Gandhi and Nehru, on the other.

The Indian leftist liberals and the British, both scratched each other's backs. Gandhi's favouring of Nehru over Patel as the PM of India was a leftist-liberal coup against the nationalists. (I have a feeling Gandhi was implementing British instructions in this matter.) Gandhi delivered the final blow to nationalists and planted Nehru on top despite opposition of all prominent Congress leaders and state committees who rejected Nehru overwhelmingly.

The country has never recovered from this nasty coup by Gandhi. Political power of India, Nehru onwards, has firmly been in the hands of Hindu leftist liberals. These people are determined not to let power go away from their hands. In this, they are actively helped by the Anglo-Saxons. (Such as nominating MMS to be the PM and visa denial to Modi.) It is the same British strategy of keeping Hindu nationalists and warriors at bay, that is still continuing. The Indian leftist liberal class is even today a co-conspirator with the Anglo Saxons in this game. (I read reports that Congress leaders actively campaigned with the US embassy to deny Modi a visa.)

Nobody has ever accused these Indian leftist liberals (the Jhappi Pappi crowd) of having any understanding of strategic matters. It is a cowardly group. Their enduring slogan is "war is not an option." They have squandered away every strategic advantage and have been outsmarted at every turn. The country is paying a heavy price for this monopoloy of leftist liberals over political power in India. In short, Gandhi is still ruling India from his grave.

"Leaders" like Nehru, MMS, IK Gujaral, A.B. Vajpayee, etc. have to be seen in this light. All of them are traders, academicians and intellectuals who are essentially usurpers of political power. They are also determined not to allow Hindu warrior class to come to power. The result is blunders and howlers such as at Sharm al Sheikh, China war, POK, gift of Coco islands to Burma, Maoist coup in Nepal, string of pearls around India, bomb blasts after bomb blasts, etc. etc.

The country will keep bleeding and Indians will keep getting killed even in peace time as long as this militarily-blind group of leftist liberals keeps ruling India with active Anglo Saxon patronage. The Anglo Saxons are ultimate guarrantor of their rule in India. This is the reason why they come like a ton of bricks on people like Subhas Bose and Narender Modi.

Who is MMS? He is an economist -- essentially he has aquired knowledge about how trading activity takes place. He is absolutely unqualified to rule over the destiny of India because he is strategically blind. But he has been planted on the chair by the same powers who are determined not to allow Hindu nationalists to come to power.

Ever wondered why Russia, Israel, US, etc are all ruled by warriors in the shape of ex-intelligence chiefs from CIA, KGB, Mossad, etc. or of leaders who have actually been army commandos or figher pilots? These countries have understood the essence of the varna system -- the natural order by which human societies automatically get organized if left on their own.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Aug 2009 01:12

sanjaychoudhryji,
Our "Great" western neighbour has been ruled by Military minded people (half the time by army generals) for the past 60 years. How has it helped them?

You don't have to be 'military minded' not to be a buffoon. The restrictive socialistic economic policies followed by our leaders till 1991 have hurt us far more than TSP ever can.
MMS certainly showed his naivete at S-e-S. But that isn't because he isn't 'military-minded'.
I think you are confusing strong level-headed political leadership with a warrior mindset.

And I'm confused as to why you have clubbed ABV together with Nehru and Gujral? Pokhran-II happened when he was the PM didn't it?

Edit: spelling error

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 01 Aug 2009 01:21

^^^
Good summary Sanjay Choudhry garu...

People who focus on Economy only as a source of national strength are destined to fail. Like B-ji and others summarized, Economy is just one aspect of national strength.

I observed that this tendency is prevalent in the current generation of youngsters who are making easy money without producing anything tangible. Hopefully the current economic doom will reset some realities in Indian middleclass.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 01 Aug 2009 01:24

nachiket wrote: Our "Great" western neighbour has been ruled by Military minded people (half the time by army generals) for the past 60 years. How has it helped them?
...

nachiket-ji,

Our "Great" western rulers are not militaristic. They are yet to win a war, even against a rag-tag jihadi group. They are ruling that pure nation thru the very ideology that enslaved their lands, women, and intellect.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Aug 2009 01:24

RamaY wrote:^^^

I observed that this tendency is prevalent in the current generation of youngsters who are making easy money without producing anything tangible . Hopefully the current economic doom will reset some realities in Indian middleclass.

Could you please clarify the part in bold? What did people of earlier generations produce that is not being produced by current generations

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Aug 2009 01:36

RamaY wrote:
nachiket wrote: Our "Great" western neighbour has been ruled by Military minded people (half the time by army generals) for the past 60 years. How has it helped them?
...
nachiket-ji,

Our "Great" western rulers are not militaristic. They are yet to win a war, even against a rag-tag jihadi group. They are ruling that pure nation thru the very ideology that enslaved their lands, women, and intellect.

I was referring to sanjaychoudhry's contention that we should be ruled by 'military minded' people. bhutto,General Zia, Musharraf and co. were militaristic. Why do you say that they weren't? They did start wars against us didn't they? Its another thing that their grand plans were proved to be half baked schemes. I never said they were military geniuses.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Aug 2009 01:42

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
The problem is that, for many reasons, the reins of power in India after independence passed into the hands of traders, academicians and intellectuals. This is a violation of the natural law of how human societies should be organised.

It is the people with a warrior bent of mind (kshatriyas) who should always rule. Others should be mere advisors. Anyone who has an intutive understanding of military and strategic matters is fit to be a ruler.

But there was a deliberate set up against such military-minded leaders in India. The British actively connived to prevent them from coming anywhere near the throne.

After independence DIE group was coopted by the western handlers to suppress nationalism and reduce central authority. THey used various methods including boosting the image of Gandhi and "peaceful existence" to lull the Indian masses and Indian intellectuals. Combination of media and education was used over 40-50 years to make sure no military experienced leadership ever takes charge of the country and its foreign policy.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 01 Aug 2009 01:47

nachiket wrote:
RamaY wrote:^^^

I observed that this tendency is prevalent in the current generation of youngsters who are making easy money without producing anything tangible . Hopefully the current economic doom will reset some realities in Indian middleclass.
Could you please clarify the part in bold? What did people of earlier generations produce that is not being produced by current generations

Current economic meltdown happend in 3.5Gen economic structures. See who got affected by it and you will understand what I mean.

P.S: I am one of them

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Aug 2009 01:48

Also the use of atomic bombs on Japan made the DIE think that war was a way of the past and wouldnt happen in their lifetimes or near future.. This led to hubris and talking down of nationalism which was considered a relic of the past. this muddled view is aka as the JNU jhollawallah worldview. They cannot think that others might want to do them harm even if its far from their own minds.

Read Nirad Chaudhri's chapters on S C Bose.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 01 Aug 2009 01:49

nachiket wrote: I was referring to sanjaychoudhry's contention that we should be ruled by 'military minded' people. bhutto,General Zia, Musharraf and co. were militaristic. Why do you say that they weren't? They did start wars against us didn't they? Its another thing that their grand plans were proved to be half baked schemes. I never said they were military geniuses.

A Thug is different from a Kshatriya. But both live by their sword.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Aug 2009 01:50

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
The Indian leftist liberals and the British, both scratched each other's backs. Gandhi's favouring of Nehru over Patel as the PM of India was a leftist-liberal coup against the nationalists. (I have a feeling Gandhi was implementing British instructions in this matter.) Gandhi delivered the final blow to nationalists and planted Nehru on top despite opposition of all prominent Congress leaders and state committees who rejected Nehru overwhelmingly.

The country has never recovered from this nasty coup by Gandhi.

You have to read Modern Times by Paul Johnson to get the real picture of this Gandhi publicity in the 60s-70s-80s and who promoted it.

Gandhi after his death was not in control of his image. Gandhi and his policies can be argued but it is beyond this discussion. He outsmarted the British in many ways.
This has more analysis on MKG
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... topic=2011

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 01 Aug 2009 01:56

shravan wrote:Pak moves troops away from India to take on Taliban
So, is Pakistan finally walking the talk?

It's commitment to take on the Taliban, which it fathered, is clearly on test.

This is a very significant move, at once promising and dangerous.

If pakis thin their troops and SDREs dont attack, fire, conduct artillery duels or provoke the pakis at the LOC, then it deflates the argument of the Paki army that India is enemy no 1. This idea is bound to percolate into newspaper articles, editorials, analysis, politicians, chaterati and mid level army officers as well. If everything goes well, expect more US pressure to move more troops and spiral from there as more and more troops are shifted out.

The unkil angle is unmistakable here. To use the paki army to stabilize A'stan, the lack of Paki army in the east will restrain pakis from doing funny things in cashmere and India (what if the SDREs mount a lightning attack when paki defences are not in position yet ?).

There are two ways going forward
1. Paki army is convinced that this is a short/medium/long term move and is resigned to do Unkil's bidding
or the more likely scenario, because every organization has huge amounts of inertia
2. Pakis are working out brilliant schemes to somehow reverse this move, wear out Unkil's patience or provoke India

Remember that after 26/11 when India was making conciliatory statements, Pakis were mobilizing....

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Aug 2009 02:05

Anujan wrote: This is a very significant move, at once promising and dangerous.

If pakis thin their troops and SDREs dont attack, fire, conduct artillery duels or provoke the pakis at the LOC, then it deflates the argument of the Paki army that India is enemy no 1.

Ceasefire violations and Artillery duels can be started by paki army as well and then claim that the SDREs did it. Paki civvies will obviously believe their own army.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 01 Aug 2009 02:06

shravan wrote:Pak moves troops away from India to take on Taliban

Observers see a US push in this development.

They are also linking the redeployment to the Indian climb-down at Sharm-el-Sheikh and the controversial inclusion of Balochistan in the joint statement with Pakistan.

The redeployment is seen as preparation for an offensive against Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud in South Waziristan.

So, is Pakistan finally walking the talk?

It's commitment to take on the Taliban, which it fathered, is clearly on test.

possibly the joint-statement helps convince the faithful that attacking Balochistan is like attacking in the East onlee ...didnt MMS say there was interference..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Aug 2009 02:06

Anujan wrote:

2. Pakis are working out brilliant schemes to somehow reverse this move, wear out Unkil's patience or provoke India

In theri tactical brilliance this is what is driving them to this. The thinking is if Af-Pak stabilises, uncle will leave small presence and then it can be fun and games for strategic depth.

However it might backfire for if they go after the jihadis the TSPA whose motto is 'Jihad-e- sabillah" or jihad in god's name will have its fractures. Lets see how this will play out.

If you think deeper its clear India has a card that US doesnt want played: Indian forces.

I would like to see the TSPA move against the Haqqani faction, L-e-T and the J-e-M more that the Pakiban.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 01 Aug 2009 02:12

Anujan wrote:(what if the SDREs mount a lightning attack when paki defences are not in position yet ?).

We can't do that. I am praying for 1971 in Baluchistan.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Aug 2009 02:21

Some of the most "militant" and "persistent" users of violence and military coercion successfully as leaders were themselves academics and intellectuals - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, Lev Davidovich Bronstein, Yossif Vissarionovitch Jugashvili (less of an academic than the first two but had an incomplete student career at a theological seminary), Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro - none had formal military training. Not that their military abilities are necessarily top-notch or that they excelled as field commanders.

Academics or intellectuals can be quite dogged, persistent and tough on behalf of their nations - Eamon de Valera was a lecturer in mathematics when he was caught up in the Easter uprising and carried on a guerrilla civil war with his ex-colleague Michael Collins afterwards officially at least on the point of "capitulation to the British".

We cannot disqualify poeple by their apparent professions - by that notion we should ban practising barristers and lawyers from any leadership position - the trimurti of Congressite claims to sole ownership of the freedom movement, were all barristers. As a "trader", Jamshedji did more for the nation economically than JLN.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Aug 2009 02:24

brihaspati wrote:Some of the most "militant" and "persistent" users of violence and military coercion successfully as leaders were themselves academics and intellectuals - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, Lev Davidovich Bronstein, Yossif Vissarionovitch Jugashvili (less of an academic than the first two but had an incomplete student career at a theological seminary), Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro - none had formal military training. Not that their military abilities are necessarily top-notch or that they excelled as field commanders.

Academics or intellectuals can be quite dogged, persistent and tough on behalf of their nations - Eamon de Valera was a lecturer in mathematics when he was caught up in the Easter uprising and carried on a guerrilla civil war with his ex-colleague Michael Collins afterwards officially at least on the point of "capitulation to the British".

We cannot disqualify poeple by their apparent professions - by that notion we should ban practising barristers and lawyers from any leadership position - the trimurti of Congressite claims to sole ownership of the freedom movement, were all barristers. As a "trader", Jamshedji did more for the nation economically than JLN.

Well said sir! I was actually trying to convey something similar regarding the 'military-minded' comment but could not put it into words as well as you did.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Aug 2009 02:26

No the TSPA can simply make a move to the West-NW, while allowing the irregulars under Talebs to filter in to the east and vacated territories. They will make a move on India, but this would be by the irregulars. Meanwhile the TSPA also needs to carry the hardware and resources into Taleb hands - the Talebs have to deal with the impending AFG elections. This is another reason they have to move west into Taleb lands again - the best way to hand over resources and re-equip the Talebs.

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 Aug 2009 03:00

Its a matter of time TSPA will have to engage and confront the same ideals which they have stood for; today they are forced to fight the Taliban tomorrow it might be even L.e.T; however that does not mean they will have any love lost for India .

The movement of troops was inevitable as the pressure from US was overwhelming ...but...but watchout for the next arms cache or a sizeable aid from GOTUS to TSP as a token of appreciation.

The statement in S.e.S will be used by the PA and the GOP to calm down public anxiety and this troop movement will be explained a response to the India conceding ground on 'terror' and endorsing the former's stand on 'Balochistan'.

Having said that there are reports of TSPA building fortified bunkers on the other side of the LOC and I am sure they might be manned by the combo of PA-L.e.T personnel .

The only positive for India is we can expect a momentary respite from terrorist attacks and of course more CBM,CD and other forms of chai biskoot.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Aug 2009 06:19

Anujan wrote:
shravan wrote:Pak moves troops away from India to take on Taliban
So, is Pakistan finally walking the talk?

It's commitment to take on the Taliban, which it fathered, is clearly on test.
This is a very significant move, at once promising and dangerous.

If pakis thin their troops and SDREs dont attack, fire, conduct artillery duels or provoke the pakis at the LOC, then it deflates the argument of the Paki army that India is enemy no 1. This idea is bound to percolate into newspaper articles, editorials, analysis, politicians, chaterati and mid level army officers as well. If everything goes well, expect more US pressure to move more troops and spiral from there as more and more troops are shifted out.

The unkil angle is unmistakable here. To use the paki army to stabilize A'stan, the lack of Paki army in the east will restrain pakis from doing funny things in cashmere and India (what if the SDREs mount a lightning attack when paki defences are not in position yet ?).

There are two ways going forward
1. Paki army is convinced that this is a short/medium/long term move and is resigned to do Unkil's bidding
or the more likely scenario, because every organization has huge amounts of inertia
2. Pakis are working out brilliant schemes to somehow reverse this move, wear out Unkil's patience or provoke India

Remember that after 26/11 when India was making conciliatory statements, Pakis were mobilizing....

The "pregnant possibility" that I am looking forward to here (maybe my own "high hopes") is the fact that the troops who have been entrenched in the East and not doing any fighting are actually going to see some operational deployment in Pakistan's West and might even have to fire off a few rounds in the direction of fellow pure Muslim Pakis whom they are told are "controlled by India"

Pakistan has hitherto used only its paramilitary forces against the Talibunnies. The troop movement to the West does not mean the troops will actually get "used" for fighting - but sooner or later, fighting will come. For all intents and purposes there are two aspects to "clearing out" areas in Pakistan's NW. One is the actual clearing and the second is "holding" what has been cleared. These troops may serve that "holding role" now that the Talibunnies have probably been requested to lie low. The longer these troops spend in the NW the more likely they are to see action against fellow Pakis.. And even moving 20,000 troops means moving a whole lot of support infrastucture. For example lrs written by Pakarmy cadres to their families will no longer be going "down the road" to a Pakjab village - but several hundred km East of where they get deployed.

Ironically I see the karma of two different countries being intertwined here. The first is the US - whose fate it is to be rich and influential enough to drop Pakistan at will and then pick the bustards up again at will and to get them to do their bidding. The second is the karma of Pakis to remain beggars who will sell themselves to anyone as long as they do not have to kowtow towards India.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Aug 2009 06:31

negi wrote:
Having said that there are reports of TSPA building fortified bunkers on the other side of the LOC and I am sure they might be manned by the combo of PA-L.e.T personnel .

You know negi - if the LeT takes over the role of the conventional Paki army it's no skin off our balls. We have handled the Pak army before and the LeT are regularly being "handled and fondled" at the borders. They will have their butts ripped open.

India' problem has been the shalwar kameez wearing ideologues hiding in Muslim communities in India, recruiting people and conducting terrorist attacks. One possible sign of hope is that until 4-5 years ago - we noted on BRF that all calls for Indian Muslim accountability with regard to terror cells were being met with denial even as Indian Muslim politicians joined "global" ummah causes like the Danish cartoonist.

Pakistani terror groups took advantage of this and became increasingly brazen. The horrific scenes of 26/11 may have helped teach Indian Muslims to under stand that they too have a stake in India the nation and they cannot remain in denial about the way Islamic groups in Pakistan are using Islam to create support for Mumbai like murders. By blindly protesting against the Indian state or majority community in the face of such terror attacks clearly encouraged and perpetrated by Pakistan and accompanied by "Allah ho Akbar" chanting terrorists, Indian Muslims are making their own position more tenuous. India is one of the few nations in the world that allows its Muslims to both wear burkhas and sit in parks necking, squeezing and fondling - freedoms that are unavailable in most Muslim countries and many Western countries.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 01 Aug 2009 06:44

sanjaychoudhry wrote:Nobody has ever accused these Indian leftist liberals (the Jhappi Pappi crowd) of having any understanding of strategic matters. It is a cowardly group. Their enduring slogan is "war is not an option." They have squandered away every strategic advantage and have been outsmarted at every turn. The country is paying a heavy price for this monopoloy of leftist liberals over political power in India. In short, Gandhi is still ruling India from his grave.

"Leaders" like Nehru, MMS, IK Gujaral, A.B. Vajpayee, etc. have to be seen in this light. All of them are traders, academicians and intellectuals who are essentially usurpers of political power. They are also determined not to allow Hindu warrior class to come to power.

This seems a bit over the top. If the leftist liberals are so cowardly and the Hindu warrior class is so brave, why is India still in one piece? Why has not the Hindu warrior class rebelled like the Muslim warrior class to get their own country in the subcontinent? There is not even a single secessionist movement along these lines in India.

I tend to think things are the way they are because neither side has a better plan.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 01 Aug 2009 06:49

^^ It is worthwhile to remember the solomon's story to determine the motherhood of the child. Of course why did the real mother not agree to divide the child in half? Just wondering onlee.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 01 Aug 2009 06:58

^^

So for all their supposed strategic brilliance, the Hindu warrior class defers to the leftist liberal class and is satisfied with not being in control.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Aug 2009 07:05

Perhaps the Hindu warrior class is learning from the Chankyan tactics emulated in Sharm el Sheikh?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Aug 2009 07:37

With respect all this talk of "warrior class" versus traders, academicians etc is iffy at best. I suspect it comes more easily to us Indians because we have an ancient tradition of classifying people into vocation linked categories.

There is a plus side and a minus side to such a classification. As long as you restrict the classification to "expected skills" for each class you are likely to be staying within the bounds of what is credible. But when you extend that classification to suggest that a given individual of a given class (say "priest class") completely lacks the skills required for some other class (say "warrior class") one is not only beginning to talk crap - but one is also classifying people into the very stereotypes that eventually cloud sound reasoning. "oh this guy is a Jain - a non violent trader class individual. What would he know about war?" "Oh this guy is a sardar - a warrior class guy - what would he know about aerodynamics?" "The bloody Brahmin - he can only chant from the vedas - how can you expect him to conclude a business deal of this magnitude?"

Unfortunately we have no "rules of engagement" regarding the use of such classification on BRF. As Indians we take it for granted that it is OK to classify individuals a from a group as having charcteristics of the group but we are unable to draw a line and avoid extrapolation.

One question that comes to mind is "Is this unique to Indians?" Was Clinton intellectual class or warrior class? Was Bush warrior class or business class?

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 01 Aug 2009 07:58

Quite correct. I missed reading the "class" part, and misread and interpreted vera's post as why Hindus did not have any movement to secede while being compared to bakis. Class is improper classification and have argued about impropriety of that classification earlier too. Sorry for the misread.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 01 Aug 2009 08:06

ramana,

From the word go I have been stating exactly what you have posted. The resumption of talks with Pakistan is not in India's interest. Even if we have to acknowledge the US pressure, it did not have to result in this kind of Joint Statement. That is plain incompetence of the PM or a diabolical sell out by the PM of India. You can take your pick, but either way it is not acceptable.

Indian interests have to be paramount for Indian PM. Not marching to someone else's tunes. That is something that cannot be blamed on corrupt defence officials or so called "duds" by scientists. That is just not a valid excuse. An India that was a lot weaker in the past has been successful in maintaining its sovereign options and promoting its interests. No American pressure or warship could convince India to back off and it was astute enough to use the then prevailing super power rivalry to neuter such gun boat diplomacy. India was served by a congress PM then.

What was done in S-e-S was an unmitigated and unpardonable blunder. The GOI has realized this and is trying to undo the damage. At least now, we here should not try and defend or explain the blunder, but look to see how the GOI is able to retrieve back from the situation that they find themselves in.

Now on that count, there are two distinct paths available. One could be to take a leaf out of PVNR approach and get an unanimous resolution passed in the Indian Parliament that sets out clearly the conditions that Pakistan should deliver before any talks can begin. This should include handing over of all confessed and clearly proven terrorists to India for trial. This should be backed by a series of well choregraphed moves of military exercises that show case retributive options available, diplomatic pressure, financial clampdown on sources of funding, boosted anti-terror capabilities to detect and prevent terror attacks.

The other approach is taking a leaf out of ABV's approach of talking to Pakistan but not giving them room to wriggle out, banking on the USG to pressurise pakistan to go after with same vigour on India directed terror machine and deliver key conspirators of at least the Mumbai attack to India for trial and punishment, go after terror modules inside India, try to strike a deal with which ever faction is ruling pakistan etc.

Now, one would hope that the GOI does a combination of both approaches. I feel that it is best to focus now on how GOI minimises the damage done and hopefully not commit more blunders.

As for BR, the real issue now emerging is the question raised by shiv, Is Pakistan in India's interest - stable and prosperous or otherwise? The majority opinion in BR at least seems to be that it is not. The majority opinion in India seems to be that it is possible to have peace with a stable and prosperous pakistan and that it is a realistic goal that serves India's interest best.

This is what we have to debate and move on from defending an undefensible act of the PM. Even his party is not with him and the statement in the parliament is as realistic an acknowledgment of the blunder that one can expect.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 01 Aug 2009 09:08

Sharm El-Sheikh and Appeasement: a Lesson in History ---- Chaitanya Kalbag ---- Khaleej Times

<SNIP>
Leader after leader of the world’s biggest democracy is standing up to be counted with words that can only be described as desperation wrapped in dementia inside dyslexia.
<SNIP>
Manmohan Singh made an admirable speech on Wednesday. It was a good speech from a man of peace. But the genteel negotiators of Delhi’s South Block must contend with the stomp and swagger of the denizens of Rawalpindi’s Army HQ. And the ever-hopeful Indians need to remember what Canada’s Lester Pearson said a long time ago: “Diplomacy is letting someone else have your way.” Not the other  way round.

Chaitanya Kalbag is a New Delhi-based writer. chaitanya.kalbag@gmail.com

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 01 Aug 2009 10:42

Shekhar Gupta on SeS :

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/two-p ... a/496639/0

“Everybody wants to go to war. The armed forces are so angry. But ek samasya hai (there is a problem). You can decide over when you start a war. But once started, when it will end, how it will end, nobody knows. That is a call leaders have to take,”

War is too important a business to be left to generals?!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Aug 2009 10:55

It is all big talk this going to war and all that.

First, the govt should formuiate the Grand Strategy, which unfortunately, till today is conspicuous by its absence and then talk of going to war.

One wonders why the powers that be that move the Nation's policy machinery so timid and to whom the very word 'War' appears as a hoary bogeyman wherein they are afraid to pen down a national Grand Strategy!

It is humorous to find them sabre rattling without a clue or so it appears!

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 01 Aug 2009 11:22

Some of the most "militant" and "persistent" users of violence and military coercion successfully as leaders were themselves academics and intellectuals - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, Lev Davidovich Bronstein, Yossif Vissarionovitch Jugashvili (less of an academic than the first two but had an incomplete student career at a theological seminary), Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro - none had formal military training. Not that their military abilities are necessarily top-notch or that they excelled as field commanders.

You are unable to rise above the British interpretation of verna system. Your premise is that varna equals profession. This is wrong. An individual belongs to a varna on the basis of qualities he is born with (in modern times it is called "aptitude"), even though he may be doing something else to make a living. Lenin may have been an academic or Patel may have been a lawyer, but these are merely their professions. They have nothing to do with their varna.

They could be the most "militant" and "persistent" users of military force precisely because they were born with an intutive understanding of military matters, had insight into strategic affairs, could organise men into an army and could use violence if need be to capture political power. This makes them kshatriyas, even if they may have been flipping burgers to make a living. By that token, a man doesn't become a kshatriya merely by donning a military uniform.

As long as you people keep insisting that one's profession decides which varna he belongs to, you will not undersand the essence of the varna system. Varna is based on the qualities and temparament one is born with. (In other words, you are born into a particular Varna based on the characteristics you have brought with you.) Profession or "class" is immaterial and is a British misinterpretation of ancient Indian social system. So arguments such as "Lenin was a professor" and "Patel was a lawyer" are invalid.

Viv Sreenivasan · Post by **Viv Sreenivasan** » 01 Aug 2009 11:45

Dunno the exact reasons why but current generation of leaders dont compare with the older generation leaders of the 1960s and 1970s. The current generation appear to be lazy and apathetic to India's strategic interests. This is not very promising for a country aspiring to the a world power. Where is India going to get the next generation of great leaders from??

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Aug 2009 13:35

Neither the earlier generation nor the new generation have any clue.

They are scared to even formulate a national Grand Strategy!!

We move from crisis to crisis!

If there was a national Grand Strategy, then MMS and the Congress Party would not have to eat crow in the Parliamentary debate and MMS would know where to draw the line at Sharm al Sheik!

He has no such guidelines and so he did what his heart told him to do and things went into a tailspin!

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 01 Aug 2009 13:51

“Diplomacy is letting someone else have your way.”

Beautiful quote. I still maintain that this is exactly what happened at S-e-S. Look at it this way:

Day b4 S-e-S: no one even paid attention to indiapakistan yadayadayada. I frankly do not know if BEFORE S-e-S India was
a) TALKING with Pakistan but no CBMS
b) Not Talking but Yes CBMs
c) Not Talking but Most Favored Nation Status
d) Talking only to demand extradition of Dawood and Hafeez
or what else. All irrelevant

AFTER S-e-S, I still don't know the answer to the above. But I do know something:

There is a genocide going on in Balochistan, and the Balochistan Freedom Movement is getting stronger every day, to the point where Pakistan itself is Internationalizing it.

Now add on the statement from the leaders of the Baloch,
And Holbrooke's major kick to the Paki H&D

And you have a MAJOR booboo for Pakistan. They haven't got anything out of this. Any notion that India is doing anything in Balochistan was exploded by the Balochis, who ASKED India to start meddling, and by Holbrooke, who basically called the Pakis liars. YAWN and DAILYCRIMES were left holding the stinking bag marked "Balochistan Dossier" which turned out to be empty.

Did MMS and Menon INTEND for this to happen? I have no idea. Maybe their "gut instincts" produced better results than reading a Planned Position Paper.
If they DID intend it, should they gloat about it in Parliament? I don't think so. Humility and contrition is the right public attitude, with the

in private.
Should the Opposition scream and yell? ABSOLUTELY!

Should BRF ppl continue to make fools of themselves by jumping up and down about a no-account "Joint Statement"? Well.... I said what I thought a few posts before.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Aug 2009 15:14

sanjaychoudhry wrote

You are unable to rise above the British interpretation of verna system. Your premise is that varna equals profession. This is wrong. An individual belongs to a varna on the basis of qualities he is born with (in modern times it is called "aptitude"), even though he may be doing something else to make a living. Lenin may have been an academic or Patel may have been a lawyer, but these are merely their professions. They have nothing to do with their varna.

Where did I mention "varna" here? What I wrote was in response to your following categorization :

All of them are traders, academicians and intellectuals who are essentially usurpers of political power. They are also determined not to allow Hindu warrior class to come to power.

It is actually you who are saying that because of certain professions that these people have they are disqualified from having military bent - you connected "varna" with "profession". Actually it is I who delinked profession from "bent" in trying to point out to you that professional background was irrelevant.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Aug 2009 16:08

Crossposted in the Iran thread,evidence that both Britain and the US have been conducting covert terrorist attacks inside Iran for which Iran has blamed Britain in particular for some of them.There is a reference to Baluchistan activities too by Seymour Hersh.

It is a well known fact that in fact,US special forces have been infilitrating Iran from Baluchistan and conducting anti-govt. terror attacks there for decades.Pakistan would do well to look elsewhere to find its pro-Baluchi separatists elsewhere and the GOI as well should realise that it was being made the patsy at S-al-S signing referring to Baluchistan thanks to alleged US pressure,to help conceal the US's own terror activities in Baluchistan!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 65891.html

"

But the Iranians had a second motive for targeting the British, says the source who, as a member of Mr Sadr's movement, is well-informed about Asaib al-Haq and its supporters. He says Iran was convinced Britain was backing Arab separatist groups in the Iranian oil province of Khuzestan which had made a series of bomb attacks on civilian targets, killing 28 people and wounding 225 in the two years before the kidnapping of the five Britons in Baghdad. Khuzestan has an Arab minority of two million.

These bombings attracted little attention outside Iran, but were taken very seriously by the Iranians who furiously denounced the US and Britain for supporting small gangs of anti-government militants planting the explosives. The attacks included four blasts in a single day in Ahvaz, the Iranian city across the Shatt al-Arab waterway from Basra, on June 2005, which killed 11 people and wounded 87.

The bombs were planted near government offices and a television station. Targets were evidently chosen without regard for civilian casualties. Iran blamed Britain, and British forces in Basra in particular, for the bombings in Ahvaz. These incidents have never really stopped, the latest being the discovery in May this year of an explosive device in the toilet of an Iranian plane flying out of Ahvaz with 131 people on board which was defused before it blew up. After two bombs exploded in Ahvaz in October 2005, killing six people and wounding at least 100, Iran's Deputy Interior Minister, Mohammed Hossein Mousapour, said: "Most probably those involved in the explosion were British agents who were involved in the previous incidents in Ahvaz and Khuzestan." The Foreign Office publicly denied any British involvement for which Iran produced no evidence.

But at the time Mr Moore and his four security guards were kidnapped, America was escalating its own covert war against Iran. It was revealed last year by the US newsletter Counterpunch that President George W Bush had asked Congress for $300m (£180m) to destabilise Iran by funding dissident groups.

"The covert activities involved support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organisations," added the journalist Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker magazine. He said US special operations forces had been conducting cross-border operations into southern Iran during 2007, seizing members of the al-Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and bringing them back to Iraq for interrogation.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 01 Aug 2009 16:15

Philip wrote:.There is a reference to Baluchistan activities too by Seymour Hersh.

the GOI as well should realise that it was being made the patsy at S-al-S signing referring to Baluchistan thanks to alleged US pressure,to help conceal the US's own terror activities in Baluchistan!

Iran is also involved in terror activities inside Baluchistan (Pakistan)....

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Aug 2009 17:51

"Shiver me timbers"! Is history going to repeat itself?

The strnge similarities between Nehru and his Menon and our dearly beloved MMS and his Menon,come at a time when we on BR are warning along with other knowledgable analysts,that China might very well take advantage of India which has a very weak leadership that little understands military matters.Even a small spat in which the advantage is seen to lie with China will send our stock plummeting in the international arena,especially when we are trying to garner a rightful place on the UNSC.The news that Hillary was reportedly "lukewarm" on this score,as well as Obama's statement in the US that the "US and China would lead the world in the 21st century" indicates that India is way down on its list of importance,only a nation that can easily be armtwisted to do Uncle Sam's bidding.

As Stalin famously said,when you find steel stop pushing,but when you find mush,push harder with your sword."King-Cap" is all mush and so is his party.The great Indian giant could not deal with little Lanka on equal terms and cannot even punish Pak for its terrorist rape of India.Where now are Prabnab's famous words after 26/11,that "we've won a great diplomatic victory over Pak" in the aftermath of the surrender at S-al-S with the Baluchistan bombshell?