J & K news and discussion

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 03 Aug 2009 04:57

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 03 Aug 2009 06:03

Politics gets dirty in Jammu and Kashmir ----- Praveen Swami

“Ever since Omar Abdullah took over as Chief Minister,” Mehbooba Mufti told The Hindu, “he started withdrawing security and vehicles from our functionaries. Even my mother’s vehicle and my daughter’s vehicle have been withdrawn, on the pretext that they need to be serviced at a workshop.”

But Jammu and Kashmir Police officials denied the allegations, claiming Ms. Mufti still had the services of seven cars, three escort jeeps and a vehicle equipped with electronic explosives countermeasures — well above her entitlement.

National Conference leaders also say that Ms. Mufti’s complaints about security run contrary to her demands that Jammu and Kashmir be demilitarised, in view of declining levels of terrorist violence.

Back in 2007, Ms. Mufti had written to the Jammu and Kashmir government, demanding that the security detail assigned to her and other key PDP functionaries be withdrawn — a move made to press home the party’s calls for demilitarisation.

However, Ms. Mufti continued to use the services of a police detail assigned to Srinagar businessman Altaf Bukhari. Later, security cover for her, as well as for other PDP leaders, was restored to its earlier levels.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 03 Aug 2009 07:15

On Article 370, the genesis is worth recallling.

In late 1920s, the Kashmiri Pandits launched a movement which is known as "Kashmir for Kashmiris'. This was led by Shankarlal Koul (Kaul is pronounced as Coal)

This movement demanded recruitment of educated sons of the soil for government services, ban on the sale of land to outsiders etc. This forced the Maharaja to enact the State Subject Act.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 03 Aug 2009 07:41

{Pls do not quote entire posts, thnx}
Was kashmir the only princely state which had such act?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Aug 2009 07:47

{snip}

about the logic of having a Central Asian link, do you realise that unless we coopt the entire Pakistan (incl Punjab) then just taking over PoK will only create another Chicken's neck access to Afghanistan? Physical acess is only part of the story these days, "influencive access" is more nuanced than that...India has no physical boundaries with Europe, but we have far better influencive access to the continent than (say) Morocco, and certainly Pakistan or Malaysia...Similarly, we are already building our "access" to Central Asia - Ayni in Tajikistan, the gas exploration contracts in Uzbekistan/Turmenistan, uranium supply ccontracts with Kazakhstan, all the consulates all over Afghanistan, above all, our huge investment in Afghnistan and congruence of strategic interests with Iran and Russia on Af - we are getting there...It is not a reason therefore to try an adventure that creates new Frankensteins for us..

But this is where IMHO you are most mistaken..

Pakistan & Kashmir are the footholds of Islamism in the Indian Continent. Islamism has no reason to make peace with India. It is an aggressive ideology, and no amount of business or business as usual is going to pacify the monster. The footholds have to be neutralized

{snip}

I am not undervaluing the inspirational aspect of an IIT/IIM type coaching centers here and there. What I am trying to say is when a specific ideology that despises and destroys anything remotely associated with rest-of-india, how can one expect such coaching centers to be allowed without threats? So all these actions have to be taken simultaneously.

You get me wrong - I am not referrign to the inspirational aspect of coaching centres...I am referrign to the inspirational element to a bunch of 20 kids going to the IITs in Chennai and Kgp, and the IIMs in Calcutta and Ahd, getting multi million (rupee for now!

) jobs - the media picks this up invariably - imagine the impact on the rest of the kids in Kashmir..All of them would want to get in there rather than waste time in an intifada style protest or go to PoK to join LET..Some will still do, but a vast majority would be coopted in the Indian mainstream...

about doing the "right thing" - refer to the key elements of our Kashmir strategy I posted some time back..We are doign mostly the right things now...I posted some details about the situation in KAshmir in my earlier post (violence, international reaction, civilian writ of the state)...

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 03 Aug 2009 08:26

somnath wrote:Who is Narender Sehgal? what I read in the link was a few sub tactical "civilian help" type ops - nothing to suggest RSS had some huge impact..

Fact that most authoritaive books on Kashmir's accession to India (MJ Akbar's India - the siege within, or Prem Shankar Jha's Origins of a dispute, or Alistair Lamb's Kashmir: a disputed legacy) mention anything about RSS (or at least anythign substantive to merit a mention)..

I couldn't find a bio for the author. Just the fact that the MEA links to his work makes it seem respectable. But my curiousity is now piqued - especially since my grandfather told me about this - so I'll keep looking for more information.

Meanwhile, this is about the only other written source I could find for now -

Sources of Indian Tradition: Modern India and Pakistan By Ainslie Thomas Embree, Stephen N. Hay, William Theodore De Bary

Balraj Madhok, born in Ladakh in 1920, joined the RSS at 18 while still a student. He earned a B.A. and M.A. at Lahore, then joined the faculty at the Arya Samaj's Dayananda Anglo-Vedic (D.A.V.) College in Srinagar, capital of the princely state of Kashmir. When the Pakistan-based invasion of Kashmir began in 1947, he helped organize the civilian defense effort.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Aug 2009 08:35

vera_k wrote: Can you provide more information about this?
W.R.T. India, the Western world seems to have operated on Macaulay's statement that people of the book should be favored over idolaters in any dispute.

Well, look up the "benchmark" - Clash of Civilisations..You will find hardly any reference to Hindu (Indic or anything) clashes with Islam..

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 03 Aug 2009 08:38

^^

But is the Western world in agreement with Huntington? Liberals like Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen (per wiki) have gone to significant lengths to repudiate this thesis.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Aug 2009 08:44

Check all his links and blogs

http://www.janasangh.com/jsart.aspx?stid=194

This is a good book. Original account of the Kashmir history
Kashmir: The Storm Center of the World
http://ikashmir.net/storm/index.html

Accession of India: Role of Pakistan, RSS & Sheikh Adbullah
http://ikashmir.net/storm/chapter6.html

BajKhedawal · Post by **BajKhedawal** » 03 Aug 2009 09:17

RayC wrote:I am not offended at all. I appreciate the RSS for what they are doing. They are so activists (portrayed by the media) that one gets scared.

Let us look at the good things of the RSS. They make people exercise. Good thing. They teach them of morality etc. Good thing! But then they appear aggressive (blame the media if you wish), they scare!!

I find the RSS and BJP very nationalistic. So am I. But my only regret is that they are unable to carry the whole lot of us with them. I wish they could!!

So then, why don't you help your fellow nationalists

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 03 Aug 2009 09:29

somnath wrote:Balraj Madhok's book should be interesting - though he is hardly an impartial observer/analyst - even his account of RSS involvement is hardly anything that looks "material"....I wont hold that against the RSS though - its not meant to be a resistance/military organisation, but claiming stuff out of legends is not warranted...

Got it. What do you think of the Pakistani claim that the RSS and Sikhs triggered communal violence in Kashmir thereby forcing the tribal invasion? Does that hold any water?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 03 Aug 2009 10:01

vera_k wrote: Got it. What do you think of the Pakistani claim that the RSS and Sikhs triggered communal violence in Kashmir thereby forcing the tribal invasion? Does that hold any water?

None of the authoritative sources on Kashmir's accession mention anything like that - so obvoously thats another legend!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Aug 2009 13:34

somnath wrote:RajeshA,

I understand the benefit of the scenario building...The problem is stretched too far, it takes the thread way off the Kashmir issue..(for example, India's possible reaction to a Chinese A-SAT weapon)...Suffice to say that if you scan the strategic landscape, we are doing it as far as our current capabilities allow.. The Sudan example is one, getting a message across at ADB is another, creating alliances (like the ONGC Mittal one) to tap on to traditional support bases (Mittals have huge equity in Central Asia) of China is a third, building up the NE infrastructure, deploying frontline assets there, exercising in China's backyard (South China sea), doing military training deals with "Sinic" countries like Singapore, helping the Vietnamese Navy - all these are definite examples of us taking it on as far as our current capabilities would allow...

Of course currently China has more success in some of these things, like in tapping African resources, than us - the reason is simple - China has more dollars to spare..

All the examples you quote are examples of economic and diplomatic achievements. These exist side by side with economic and diplomatic losses. That is life. But achievements are always good, the more the better.

The hypothetical scenarios I offered, were about India's psychological capacity to play hard-ball, our psychological capacity to play it dirty, when the situation so warrants.

We need to build our psychological capacity to face a situation, when the adversary starts to use the dirty tools in global dealings - espionage, sabotage, arm-twisting, bribery, terrorism, border incursions, false propaganda, support to insurgencies, intervention in internal affairs, proxy-use, conflict-escalation, blockades, containment, plausible-deniability, betrayal, perfidy, duplicity, threats.

India has little capacity or experience in the use of these tools, in sub-violent warfare. This is an area where dirty soft power and hard power meet. In a world where outright military conflict becomes ever more rare, warfare would shift even more to this battlefield. This capacity can only be created over years of baby step actions, and requires a high level of psychological capacity.

Since all these sub-violent forms of warfare, lead to a danger where the adversary could escalate the interaction to a sub-conventional, conventional or unconventional level, India and its banias decide to forgo this option completely, and discourage the build-up of such capacity, lest the temptation arises to use it. However this capacity is vital.

Sub-violence warfare builds up the psychological capacity for the next-level - for sub-conventional warfare. Sub-conventional warfare (special-ops, retaliation, hot-pursuit, assassinations of terror-suspects, proxy-wars) builds up the psychological capacity for conventional warfare. Without this psychological capacity, military capacity has only limited use. Just the knowledge that you have the psychological capacity for sub-violence, sub-conventional, conventional, or unconventional might prove sufficient to thwart an adversary from undertaking any military adventure or even from playing dirty with you.

Banias however for the fear of escalation have discouraged the build up of this sub-violence warfare capacity, sub-conventional warfare capacity and generally the psychologically capacity for any warfare at all.

somnath wrote:For those who sneer at the "bania", we wouldn't be where we are, or where we want to be, by simply "taking action", without the dollars..And we wouldn't be able to achieve our destiny without having many more dollars...the concept of a militaristic state without economic sinews died with the SU (it was never a viable strategy - the British empire was another recent example)..

This is again an old rhetorical tool used by the "bania" to disarm his opposition.

Even UPA keeps on saying "War is not an option", as if it was a binary choice - either war or capitulation packaged as kumbaya.

Nobody who proposes a nationalistic militarily-strong national policy willing to stand up to regional bullies, has ever said let's stop economic activity, let's put the 'bania' in jail. That military capability is dependent on economic strength is a given. There is nothing you can add to it. Everybody is for growth.

"Rush for a few dollars more" pertains to the "bania" subverting the security needs of the country through not allowing the build up of -

sub-violence warfare capacity
psychological capacity for sub-violence warfare through actions
sub-conventional warfare capacity
psychological capacity for sub-conventional warfare through actions
psychological capacity for conventional warfare through actions

It is the "bania" who subverts the "warfare capacity", and not the "nationalist" who subverts "economic activity".

In this case, the "bania" is fundamentally wrong. India's capacity to conduct sub-violence, and sub-conventional warfare would enable us to 'diffuse' a conflict (by winning it) at a much lower level than outright conventional war. A conventional war would entail a much higher cost on India's economy and thereby hurt the "bania" more severely. However in absence of sub-violence and sub-conventional alternatives, a conventional war may look like the only option. Moreover many wars may be 'won' without doing anything, as the enemy would hesitate simply because of his knowledge of our psychological capacity.

The "bania" should stop looking at India only through the lens of "Quarterly Profits" but rather look at her as a "Long Term Investment".

Instead of subverting the "nationalist" agenda, the "bania" should try and come to a common understanding with the "nationalist". The "bania" has already been able to reach an entente with the "soldier". Now he needs to go further, and strike an alliance and entente with the proponent of "sub-violence warfare" and "sub-conventional warfare", and allow all three "sub-violence", "sub-conventional" and "conventional" warfare machinery to build up its logistical but also its psychological capacities.

somnath wrote:About taking "action" continuously (you and RamaY allude to that continuously), maybe you should read Kissinger's Diplomacy - to me the reading 101 for students of geopolitics....Taking action in vacuum is like Don Juan - you flay your hands, but make little impact..Even for the US, they do not usually "take action" before adequate relevant capabilities have been built up..All the psychological capacity is of zero use if one does not have the dollars to execute (and military capacity also needs the dollars to back it up)..

Nobody can accuse the Americans of inaction. The psychological capacity of Americans for sub-violence warfare, for sub-conventional warfare and for conventional warfare are legendary. In fact, Americans are the only ones with a proven record of unconventional warfare, and thereby possessing the necessary psychological capacity for that as well.

As Donald Rumsfeld said, "One goes to war with the Army one has". Same is the case with sub-violence warfare and sub-conventional warfare. If one is not fully prepared, then one chooses to go to war at a lower level.

somnath wrote:about the logic of having a Central Asian link, do you realise that unless we co-opt the entire Pakistan (incl Punjab) then just taking over PoK will only create another Chicken's neck access to Afghanistan? Physical access is only part of the story these days, "influencive access" is more nuanced than that...India has no physical boundaries with Europe, but we have far better influencive access to the continent than (say) Morocco, and certainly Pakistan or Malaysia...Similarly, we are already building our "access" to Central Asia - Ayni in Tajikistan, the gas exploration contracts in Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan, uranium supply contracts with Kazakhstan, all the consulates all over Afghanistan, above all, our huge investment in Afghanistan and congruence of strategic interests with Iran and Russia on Af - we are getting there...It is not a reason therefore to try an adventure that creates new Frankensteins for us..

One does not need whole of Pakjab, only PoK, Chitral, Kohistan and Northern Swat, and Badakhshan (Af). These are all areas which are still sparsely populated. This avoids the "Chicken Neck" situation. Making Pakjab an independent state, would also allow India to improve on our influence on them, much easily forcing them to provide wider transit facilities. This would also provide India with an easier, quicker and independent air-bridge to Central Asia, while cutting off China's land bridge to Pakistan.

"Influencive access" is good, but without an independent (of Iran) and direct route into Central Asia, we would have no "military access" or "quicker goods transit access" keeping us at a perpetual disadvantage wrt China in Central Asia. Competing with one hand tied behind one's arm is no recipe for success.

somnath wrote:But this is where IMHO you are most mistaken..
Pakistan & Kashmir are the footholds of Islamism in the Indian Continent. Islamism has no reason to make peace with India. It is an aggressive ideology, and no amount of business or business as usual is going to pacify the monster. The footholds have to be neutralized
Global Islamism's main enemy is not India - it is the "Western, Christian" civilization -refer to the "benchmark" Clash of Civilisations by Sam Huntington..Its the crusades redux...India is a collateral enemy...Our dealing with global Islam therefore has to be one of intelligent manoevering, not headlong proactive confrontation...Pakistan is a useful buffer state to absorb most of its impact and keep the hordes away, far away from our shores..Therefore, my oft repeated assertion of an unstable Pakistan in "stable disequilbrium"...Not strong enough to really theeaten us, but with enough capacity to keep absorbing the hits from global Islamism....

The West is Islamism's primary rhetorical and ideological enemy. That is true. But India is Islamism's primary geographical enemy. We share those honors with Israel and possible Iran, depending on how one defines Islamism.

We don't need Pakistan as a buffer state. Pakjab suffices for that role. The rest of Pakistan, areas like Chitral, Kohistan, Sindh, Baluchistan can be integrated at different levels, while still keeping the majority of Pakistani Muslims out of Indian Democracy.

somnath wrote:about doing the "right thing" - refer to the key elements of our Kashmir strategy I posted some time back..We are doing mostly the right things now...I posted some details about the situation in Kashmir in my earlier post (violence, international reaction, civilian writ of the state)...

Short-term breather in an area of perpetual vulnerability.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 03 Aug 2009 21:08

BajKhedawal wrote:
RayC wrote:I am not offended at all. I appreciate the RSS for what they are doing. They are so activists (portrayed by the media) that one gets scared.

Let us look at the good things of the RSS. They make people exercise. Good thing. They teach them of morality etc. Good thing! But then they appear aggressive (blame the media if you wish), they scare!!

I find the RSS and BJP very nationalistic. So am I. But my only regret is that they are unable to carry the whole lot of us with them. I wish they could!!
So then, why don't you help your fellow nationalists

No problem at all.

Nationalism I support, but not when it turns to mindless jingoism or dividing and already fractured society.

I hope you understand and appreciate the difference!

I also believe in Unity in Diversity.

BajKhedawal · Post by **BajKhedawal** » 03 Aug 2009 22:31

RayC wrote:No problem at all.

Nationalism I support, but not when it turns to mindless jingoism or dividing and already fractured society.

I hope you understand and appreciate the difference!

I also believe in Unity in Diversity.

Very good! and I say this with all sincerity. Given that you identify with their core value of nationalism, and the fact that you are comparatively an influential (ex-army top brass) and talented individual (as demonstrated on BRF):

Why don’t you help them sharpen their jagged edges (read as all the –tive’s) with your urban elitism? That I believe is the need of the hour.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 03 Aug 2009 22:41

^^^ second that request. We will be doing ourselves a favor by helping a nationalistic organization evolve to suit changing environment.

One question though. Wouldn't it be more logical to address the parties/ideologies that have fractured and are fracturing our society? We should fix the source of the problem. Not the source of solution.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 03 Aug 2009 22:55

BajKhedawal wrote:
RayC wrote:No problem at all.

Nationalism I support, but not when it turns to mindless jingoism or dividing and already fractured society.

I hope you understand and appreciate the difference!

I also believe in Unity in Diversity.
Very good! and I say this with all sincerity. Given that you identify with their core value of nationalism, and the fact that you are comparatively an influential (ex-army top brass) and talented individual (as demonstrated on BRF):

Why don’t you help them sharpen their jagged edges (read as all the –tive’s) with your urban elitism? That I believe is the need of the hour.

I value nationalism.

It is not material who advocates it, provided that it is not coloured.

I can help who are rational!

And if they want my help.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 04 Aug 2009 05:18

Kashmir -- at a crossroads, again? ---- Maleeha Lodhi

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Aug 2009 06:16

Somnath I find you have a persistent penchant for dividing folks and sterotyping. You started the knicker wars and now you call some others banias. Let me lay this down very clearly. No greater purpose is served by denigrating and putting down people on the nationalist side of the divide. All it does is score self goals and detract from the core aim of national progress- desh ki unnati. If you cant make your insights without putting down one people or the others I will have to ask you to leave.

BajKhedawal · Post by **BajKhedawal** » 04 Aug 2009 08:42

RayC wrote: I value nationalism.

It is not material who advocates it, provided that it is not coloured.

I can help who are rational!

And if they want my help.

My own experiences of the sangh has been rather positive on several occasions, natural (Gujarat ’01) and manmade (Indira ’84) disasters amongst others. Wherein they acted 100% on humanitarian bases alone, which I believe is their agenda. Unlike the tainted one portrayed by media biases, you currently seem to be viewing RSS via media’s colour coded lenses.

All they need is proper articulation, they may or may not know it.

I dont know why I mention this, but for what its worth: RSS was invited to march in 1963 Republic day parade (and they did) after General Cariappa was mighty impressed with them when he visited their headquarters in ’62. But of course you would know that.

"Each nation has an identity and destiny. As far as Bharat is concerned,
Hindu is its identity and religion is its way of working" - Swami Vivekananda

This is an unchangeable fact, so we will have to work with it.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 04 Aug 2009 09:22

somnath wrote:
OT, but maybe we should have a separate thread to discuss the RSS (and the other hindutva organisations) - usually their scholarship leaves a lot to be desired, but their actions impact the country (positively or negatively, depending on POV)..

No chance.

As it is, there is enough of problems.

Please don't start this or even suggest.

Thank you.

negi · Post by **negi** » 04 Aug 2009 09:26

^ But what about Jamuriyat ? As long as Somnath has stuff to contribute whats the harm ,it will be enlightening for rest of us on board.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 04 Aug 2009 09:44

This forum is becoming too much of a free for all.

The Moderators have been more than accommodating.

However, liberty is becoming licence.

Therefore, what is being said by Moderators is final. Finito!

I hope that is understood!

No more discussion on this.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Aug 2009 10:24

somnath wrote:RajeshA,

The Potential Kashmir Solution was not fanciful, it is simply undesired by you. If indeed it is fantastic, it because of limitations of your vision.

If there were silver bullet solutions to geostrategic problems, the would have been successful..I dont find such success stories..The one that has been attempted (not as a silver bullet, as a part of a larger initiative, but similar to what you are suggeting) , one that I have alluded to many times now, of Israel, is still a strategic millstone around Israel's neck..

Another time when a sort of silver bullet was attempted - Operation Blue star - was meant to be a "message" of tough Indian response to the Sikhs wasnt it? Get rid of a bunch of terrorists, including Bhindrawale, and send out a message to the Sikhs that the govt would brook no nonosense...WE saw the results...It took a series of incremental steps, constantly innovating as we went and refining, for the problem to have been finally licked (BTW bulk of the Punjab CI model got formulated during the Beantsingh-KPS Gill regime - post 1991...Another success story that PVNR doesnt get credit for)..There was no silver bullet solution - either on the liberal side (The Rajiv-Longowal accord, which was another silver bullet attempted), or on the military side (Bluestar)..

"A Possible Kashmir Solution" is something I proposed. You wish to package it as "silver-bullet" solution and then bring along all the prejudices and historical failures that accompany "silver-bullet" solutions to back up your arguments for its shortcoming, instead of criticizing it directly. But your arguments deal with "silver-bullet" solutions, not with my proposal.

All my proposal does is to transform (redefine) the problem in Kashmir to a different problem. That different problem too would require a solution of its own, a solution based on nuanced approach, incremental progress, innovation and constant refinement.

The difference would be that through the redefinition of the problem on the ground, the ultimate solution one would arrive at after applying the balm of conflict resolution in a democratic society, would produce a far more stable entity in Kashmir. The solution of the current problem as it stands frozen (through Article 370) in Kashmir today is a chimera, it is not long-lasting. The patient can at any time relapse again. Your arguments do not go into the threat of relapse.

somnath wrote:You mention the bania mentality quite frequently - Napoleon once disparagingly called the British a "nation of shopkeepers"...We saw what happened to their relative fortunes since then...

The British were never only a "nation of shopkeepers". They knew very well the benefits of warfare capacity.

But in the later days, they did become more and more "finance" oriented. The financial crisis has proven Napoleon right. Britain's fortunes lie destroyed, while France is still standing.

Britain's warfare capacity right now is there to protect Britain's political standing in the world, not the nation, and not its economic wealth. That is the wrong use for their warfare capacity, which they cannot afford in the long run anyway.

somnath wrote:Fact is that we need to solve existing problems, not create new Frankensteins..

Fact is that those problems that defy a solution, need to be redefined through transformation of the ground realities and be presented anew to our democratic setup, so that a permanent solution becomes foreseeable and feasible.

What one should not create is Chimeras of resolutions of our problems. That is just sweeping our problems under the carpet.

somnath wrote:The destiny of India is to sit at the high tables of the world, solving the world's problems in company of major powers..As usual, the Indian private sector is leading the govt - Indians head global corporations, Indian companies are managing global operations, our private footprint is HUGE..the government is picking up, slowly but surely....

I anticipate a huge jostling for space with China in the future - we need to keep our powder dry for that..And dollars would be single largest component of that powder...And a domestic MIC....

I feel that your constant allusion to warfare, conventional or otherwise, seems to make an objective out of a strategy...However, our job today is not to find new conflicts to join, but find ways of existing conflicts that we are embroiled in to abate...

The constant allusion to warfare, (sub-violence, sub-conventional, conventional, and non-conventional) is all about building such a capacity for India, both material and psychological capacity. In your worldview, you seem to downplay the significance of this capacity as a national asset. Much of this capacity involves honing the skills of human resources, which can be done only through field training and field work. It is also good for the adversary to be aware that India possesses such warfare capacity, and so would restrain itself from adventures.

Dollars would be useful, but if our warfare capacities, especially in sub-violence and sub-conventional warfare, is not up to the mark, then dollars would not suffice. Then we will indeed be only fat pigs. You agree in principle with the introduction of big-ticket items in our arsenal, stuff like aircraft carriers, and subs etc., but I have a feeling that you agree even to that only for prestige sake, as that allows the marketing of the India Story better even in economic circles.

I feel that your constant allusion to "high-table", economic or otherwise, seems to accept the illusion and trappings of power, rather than to aim for really becoming a great power. Without the warfare capacity at all levels, we only would be the fat pig who sits in one of the seats, and others look upon us, with water in their mouths. It is naive to think, that great power can come to someone who either doesn't have the warfare capacity to go along with the economic capacity or one who lacks the psychological capacity to wield the warfare machinery.

somnath wrote:As I mention all the time, Pakistan is a sideshow...It needs to be "managed" - it should not be allowed to grow too big, and its buffer state status should be preserved in some form...Perpetual unstable disequilibrium is the status I would target for Pak..As for Kashmir, there are no bandages on cancer - if you haven't noticed, it is today much more "together" with the Indian Union in many respects (jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, election Commission - BTW all dilution of Art 370, fair elections with large participations, security situation internally)..It has again been a series of steps, innovating as we went along, but it is paying off...It isn't, and shouldn't be the center piece of our strategy on the larger picture..

Pakistan is simply the first hurdle on our path to a great power status. How we ultimately solve this geographical conundrum would decide how we are received at the high-table. India does not want to get into the 'prestigious institutes' of the world through bribery and connections. Pakistan is part of the entrance test.

As a great power, we would have to do some tuning of our own in our neighborhood, to make it more hospitable for us. Every proper mansion needs a peaceful beautiful garden, not a crime-ridden neighborhood.

Give peace a chance, end Pakistan!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 04 Aug 2009 14:34

ramana wrote:Somnath I find you have a persistent penchant for dividing folks and sterotyping. You started the knicker wars and now you call some others banias. Let me lay this down very clearly. No greater purpose is served by denigrating and putting down people on the nationalist side of the divide. All it does is score self goals and detract from the core aim of national progress- desh ki unnati. If you cant make your insights without putting down one people or the others I will have to ask you to leave.

Please read before you comment! I did not start the "bania" conversation...Not that I think its being derogatory by the person who did in any case (and I have been eulogising the bania!)..

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 04 Aug 2009 14:44

RajeshA,

I think the discussion has been interesting, but the POVs on India's destiny are quite wide apart - so I guess we can agree to disagree on that

..

Just a small comment (actually two!):

The British were never only a "nation of shopkeepers". They knew very well the benefits of warfare capacity.

But in the later days, they did become more and more "finance" oriented. The financial crisis has proven Napoleon right. Britain's fortunes lie destroyed, while France is still standing.

Thats rich - so Napolean understood a liquidity induced credit crisis of the 21st century!! and Britain is "destroyed" while France is still "standing"? You need to look at the relative macro indicators - UK has WAAY more influence than France in the global economic system - precisely because UK so globalised, and London is the financeial capital of the world..

Pakistan is simply the first hurdle on our path to a great power status.

It simply isnt - thats way too much respect being given for a failing state...

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Aug 2009 16:32

somnath ji,

I also thank you for a wonderful discussion. It allowed me to flesh out some of my ideas.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 04 Aug 2009 16:57

"A Nation of Shopkeepers" ("L'Angleterre est une nation de boutiquiers") is a disparaging remark supposedly used by Napoleon to describe the United Kingdom as unfit for war against France. The phrase was not, however, original. Napoleon could have found it in The Wealth of Nations (1776) by Adam Smith, who wrote:

"To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers may at first sight appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers; but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers."

Shopkeepers

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 05 Aug 2009 09:40

RayC wrote:In late 1920s, the Kashmiri Pandits launched a movement which is known as "Kashmir for Kashmiris'. This was led by Shankarlal Koul (Kaul is pronounced as Coal) This movement demanded recruitment of educated sons of the soil for government services, ban on the sale of land to outsiders etc. This forced the Maharaja to enact the State Subject Act.

If this is true, is it that Kashmiri Pandits scored a grand self goal for themselves? They tried to act smart when they called the shots, but when Jehadis got an upper hand their own scheme backfired on them? Now their own future generation are "neither there nor here" and have to live out of refugee camps?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 05 Aug 2009 09:48

Sachin wrote:
RayC wrote:In late 1920s, the Kashmiri Pandits launched a movement which is known as "Kashmir for Kashmiris'. This was led by Shankarlal Koul (Kaul is pronounced as Coal) This movement demanded recruitment of educated sons of the soil for government services, ban on the sale of land to outsiders etc. This forced the Maharaja to enact the State Subject Act.
If this is true, is it that Kashmiri Pandits scored a grand self goal for themselves? They tried to act smart when they called the shots, but when Jehadis got an upper hand their own scheme backfired on them? Now their own future generation are "neither there nor here" and have to live out of refugee camps?

It is true since I read it also in Pandit Bazzaz's book.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 05 Aug 2009 10:11

^^^ Not inconceivable..Kashmiri pandits have always been the elites of Kashmir...the 1989 uprising that pushed them away was a rude shock to them...

tripathi · Post by **tripathi** » 05 Aug 2009 12:23

AAjtak reporting 8 terrorists killed in pir panjal in kupwara distt. encounter still going on at 5 different places.one armyman got shaheed.

added later:
J&K: 7 militants killed in 5 infiltration bids

The Army on Wednesday killed nine militants during gunbattles to prevent infiltration bids in six locations across Jammu and Kashmir.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 05 Aug 2009 19:17

Sachin wrote:
RayC wrote:In late 1920s, the Kashmiri Pandits launched a movement which is known as "Kashmir for Kashmiris'. This was led by Shankarlal Koul (Kaul is pronounced as Coal) This movement demanded recruitment of educated sons of the soil for government services, ban on the sale of land to outsiders etc. This forced the Maharaja to enact the State Subject Act.
If this is true, is it that Kashmiri Pandits scored a grand self goal for themselves? They tried to act smart when they called the shots, but when Jehadis got an upper hand their own scheme backfired on them? Now their own future generation are "neither there nor here" and have to live out of refugee camps?

I had a lively discussion with Kaushal on this very point 6-7 years ago on this forum. It is ironic on how every new generation of forumites keep rediscovering the same thing again and again.

Rishi · Post by **Rishi** » 05 Aug 2009 19:19

Paul, belated happy 10th anniversary!

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 06 Aug 2009 03:45

This is a pro seperatist newspaper.

PAKISTAN FOR INDEPENDENT KASHMIR

PRESS TRUST OF INDIA

Islamabad, Aug 5: In a major policy shift on Kashmir, Pakistan today said an “independent Kashmir” could pave the way for long-lasting peace in South Asia.
“We want an independent Kashmir. We want the Kashmir issue to be resolved in accordance with the wishes of its people,” Pakistan foreign office spokesman, Abdul Basit, told newsmen here.
Earlier, it has been a consistent stance of Pakistan that Kashmir issue should be resolved by granting its people the right to self-determination on the basis of United Nations resolutions with the option of joining either Pakistan or India.

My take on this is that this may be a just a tactical move by Pakis. By joining Amirkhan stand they think they can increase pressure on India and get concession from India and once an Independent Kashmir is achieved they will take it over through proxies.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 06 Aug 2009 05:14

Or maybe they realise even the Kashmiris would never join a state with a holy four way civil war, where the chief export is embarrassment, where the average IQ from indoctrination, malnutrition and inbreeding is the same as an Indian Hero bicycle's.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 06 Aug 2009 07:10

Dipanker wrote:PAKISTAN FOR INDEPENDENT KASHMIR

Isnt "Azad Cashmere" already "Azad" ? If you give them independence on top of Azadi will they become 400% independent ?

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 06 Aug 2009 10:07

somnath wrote:^^^ Not inconceivable..Kashmiri pandits have always been the elites of Kashmir...the 1989 uprising that pushed them away was a rude shock to them...

What nonsense. KP's were always the oppressed minority in Kashmir. What gave you this idea that they were elites ?
I am not sure if Pt. Bazaz's book is such a gospel of truth that it is being quoted here by all and sundry. If you go through his book 'Kashmir in Crucible' , he comes across more as a closet Dhimmi.
The terrorist movement of 1989 was a shock to everyone including GOI and the bigger shock was that GOI was/is more interested in pandering to Islamic terrorists rather than Indians, but alas the same story continues till today.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 06 Aug 2009 10:19

You debunk Torrent, Moorecroft, Lawrence and now a Kashmiri Pandit, Pt Prem Nath Bazzaz.

Have you any recommendations for an useful read on Kashmir for those you term as 'all and sundry'?

I can also give a Persian couplet that will indicate what the ancient aggressors thought of Kashmiris, but that is not charitable.

So everyone (writers) is talking through their hat?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 06 Aug 2009 10:30

Maybe this will help to prove that all and sundry are not talking through their hat:

Jammu and Kashmir into the key positions of the state services was held in Jammu and was presided over by Pandit Jia Lal Kilam, a very prominent personality of the Kashmirian Hindu community.

The state subject movement was basically generated and strengthened by the Kashmirian Hindus, who had sailed abroad to invest themselves with modern education prevalent in the West. Fired with new thought and conceptual frame, these youngmen led by Pandit Shankar Lal Koul carried on a relentless campaign in the Indian press for the Kashmirians to be solely employed to man the administrative set-up of the state.

This is from Kashmir net and quite patriotic