Indian Interests

[Prem]

The forgotten temples of Sindh
All in ruins

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... detail12-1

[ShyamSP]

Old link.. maybe posted earlier.. but not sure.

Missionary Agenda of YSR

1. The GO portal is active only from February 2008, hence the data given is only of 1 year (ie., Feb 2008 to Jan 2009). Note that although vast, it is by no means comprehensive (ie., I have shown Govt 263.07 lakhs to Christian institutions. This amount is the minimum spent on them, not the maximum).

2. But even for a single year, an amount of 263.07 lakhs was given as aid to various Christian institutions.

3. More than 258 churches benefited from these grants for construction/renovation of churches.

4. An amount of 1316.54 lakhs was given as aid to various Muslim institutions through Wakf boards.

5. Not a single GO granting any aid to a Hindu temple can be found. This in spite of the fact that in AP, the Hindu temples are managed by the Endowments Ministry (put it simply they take all the money which the temples generate).

6. Govt takes away all the money which Hindu temples generate, but do not grant a single penny to any of its temples. It does not touch the money from Christian and Muslim institutions, but grants them huge amounts of money.

Reference :List of Christian Charities that got funds from Andhra CM

The forgotten temples of Sindh
All in ruins

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... detail12-1

Juxtaposing those two should give you grim picture of self-destructive nature of Hindus without any aggression in taking back what is theirs.

[Pranav]

Juxtaposing those two should give you grim picture of self-destructive nature of Hindus without any aggression in taking back what is theirs.

You should compare with what happened to the orthodox Church at the time of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

Communist executions were published in the Cheka's weekly newspaper. In 1917-18, 1.7 million people were executed. From Jan 1921 to April 1922, 700,000 were executed. Among the victims was the cream of Russian society-bishops, professors, writers, doctors-- all accused of "anti-social thinking." Lina writes that "the eyes of church dignitaries were poked out, their tongues were cut off and they were burned alive...The Bishop of Voronezh was boiled alive in a big pot and monks forced to drink this soup." (pp. 110-112)

Source: http://www.henrymakow.com/communism_zio ... for_w.html (well worth a read)

The forces responsible for the genocide of the ethnic Russians belonging to the Eastern Orthodox Church under the Bolsheviks are the same as the forces responsible for the arrest of the Shankaracharya on Diwali day. They were against the Orthodox Church in Russia, whereas in India they operate through the Church (amongst other instruments, such as the Media). Diverse in appearance, but leading to the same end! Many of the instruments are blind but useful idiots, imagining that they are promoting Christianity or Socialism or whatever. Or they could be driven by lust for power, pelf and sinecures.

IMHO Russia has regained its independence under Putin.

Also,

Last week I stumbled across the answer in a book by American historian Edwin Schoonmaker:

"Fifteen years after the Bolshevist Revolution was launched to carry out the Marxist program, the editor of the American Hebrew could write: "According to such information that the writer could secure while in Russia a few weeks ago, not one Jewish synagogue has been torn down, as have hundreds—perhaps thousands of the Greek Catholic Churches...In Moscow and other large cities one can see Christian churches in the process of destruction...the Government needs the location for a large building," (American Hebrew, Nov. 18, 1932, p. 12) Apostate Jews, leading a revolution that was to destroy religion as the "opiate of the people" had somehow spared the synagogues of Russia." ("Democracy and World Dominion," 1939, p.211)

If the Communists hated God and religion so much, why didn't they destroy synagogues too?

Source: http://www.henrymakow.com/001913.html

[brihaspati]

The synagogue's were not in competition for the hearts and minds of Russians. Communism is of the same basic motivation ideologically as that of the various proselytizing branches of the Abrahamic. Also in 1932, Stalin's antisemitism had not yet any occasion to manifest. That would come much later as part of the pogroms/purges to clean up all potential obstruction to his personality cult beginning 1937.

[Pranav]

The synagogue's were not in competition for the hearts and minds of Russians. Communism is of the same basic motivation ideologically as that of the various proselytizing branches of the Abrahamic. Also in 1932, Stalin's antisemitism had not yet any occasion to manifest. That would come much later as part of the pogroms/purges to clean up all potential obstruction to his personality cult beginning 1937.

It could also have something to do with the disproportionate number of Jews amongst the Bolsheviks. After all, the funds were coming from Schiff in New York, whose family had shared a house with the Rothschilds in Frankfurt's Judengasse.

As regards Stalin, things are complex. Apparently Trotsky was the preferred successor to Lenin, but was out-maneuvered by Stalin. So Stalin had a somewhat uneasy relationship with the controllers in London. His purges of Jews were probably an attempt to resist agents of the Londoners.

[Pranav]

^^^ This discussion probably belongs to the Geopolitics thread. Will post a summary there.

[Neshant]

An attempt to setup a spy base closer to India. There are no terrorists coming through Maldives.

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

Terrorists come and transit through Maldives: US

A top Obama Administration official on Thursday said that occasionally terrorists try to make use of the Maldivian territory, and thus there is need for the US to help Maldives to monitor its territories.

"Maldives faces a number of challenges. First of all there are terrorists that come through the Maldives, transit through the Maldives," Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Robert Blake said a day after US President Barack Obama issued a presidential determination to furnish defence articles and services to island nation.

Blake, who immediately before his current position, was the US Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Maldives, said the presidential determination has put in place a legal framework to help Maldives in this regard, although there is no military assistance to be announced yet to this small nation comprising of several tiny islands.

"There is a particular challenge in maintaining the ability to monitor what is going on in their seas. They also sit stride some one of the major sea-lanes in the world. So it is very very important that they have the ability to monitor activity," he said.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-new ... 52278.aspx

[SSridhar]

Pakistan to train Maldivian police
This is not in India's interests. The above post by Neshant talks about terrorists slipping through Maldives. Whether that is true or not, if the Pakistani Police has influence over the Maldivian police, it will be used to sneak in terrorists, FICN etc into India through that country. I understand that Maldives nationals do not require visas to come to India.

Pakistan on Thursday agreed to train the Maldivian police for the capacity building of the island nation’s law enforcers. The request for the training came during a meeting between Interior Minister Rehman Malik and his Maldivian counterpart Muhammad Shihab at the Interior Ministry. Both the leaders discussed issues of mutual interest. Malik told Shihab that Pakistan attached great importance to its relations with the Maldives. Speaking on the occasion, the Maldivian home affairs minister sought Pakistan’s assistance in training the Maldivian police.

[ramana]

Both US and now TSP are showing interest in Maldives. There is something odd here.

[ramana]

From Ram Narayanan:

http://www.maritimeindia.org/pdfs/Marit ... atives.pdf

Maritime Imperatives of Indian Foreign Policy
(National Maritime Foundation, 11 September 2009)
S.Menon
Admiral Arun Prakash, Chairman NMF, Mr. Raj Lieberhan, Director NMF, Commodore Uday Bhaskar, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Thank you for asking me to speak to you on the maritime imperatives of Indian foreign policy. Since its establishment, your Foundation has done remarkable work to raise awareness and promote a discussion of India’s maritime destiny.
This has not been easy in a country which has developed continental fixations, despite having longer maritime boundaries than those on land. It is an honour and a privilege to speak to you on this subject.
I will not try to tell you what you know better than me, namely, how important the ocean is to India’s future. Our maritime policies will be one of the major determinants of success or failure in our attempt to transform India into a modern, plural, open, advanced country that is both secure and prosperous.
What I would like to do here is to dwell on what our maritime imperatives are, and how they are reflected in our foreign policy. In the process, we might look at some relevant issues and developments, suggest elements for a suitable strategy, and attempt a brief prognosis for the immediate future.
History
History shows that India was most prosperous and secure when she was most connected to the world, and that this connection was mainly by sea. It is well known that we are an ancient sea-faring nation, as the four thousand year old port at Lothal and other Indus Valley finds show. What is less well documented or taught is the extent to which the sea was the major means of our links with the world to the west and the east. “Periplus of the Erythrean Sea” predicts the winds, currents and the monsoons for those sailing to the west well before the time of Christ. While Buddhism’s spread overland in the second half of the first millennium is known, the earliest travel and trade with China was by the sea route, and this was how Buddhism first came to China and East Asia. Satavahana, Chola, Pallava, Chera and Pandyan prosperity and security were based on a maritime strategy that included South East Asia.
Jawaharlal Nehru’s conclusion from our history was that: “We cannot afford to be weak at sea. History has shown that whoever controls the Indian Ocean has, in the first instance, India’s sea-borne trade at her mercy and, in the second, India’s very independence itself.”
Then why did we develop what can only be called a continental mindset in our grand strategy? One reason may have been the closing of the Indian mind after the fourteenth century, particularly in the northern Gangetic plain. In the rest of India the middle centuries of the last millennium saw considerable maritime activity. The construction of spectacular marine forts along both coasts in this period deserves much more study than they have received so far. The continental mindset really set in later, during the centuries of colonial rule. Recognising the significance of the oceans to its control of India, this area of strategic significance was relinquished last even to the British government in India and then to Indians. Curzon was the first (and possibly the last) Viceroy of India to write to London about the importance to India of control of key choke points from the Horn of Africa to the Cape of Good Hope to the Malacca Straits, and of the need to prevent an inimical power from making an entry into the Indian Ocean. He was promptly asked to mind his own business and to leave the Royal Navy and their affairs to the authorities in London.
The result was that the government of free India inherited a limited maritime vision reinforced by severe resource constraints. There were significant objective capacity limitations in the decades just after independence. These included technology denial and lack of indigenous technological capacity, and US arms embargoes in 1965, 1974 and 1998. These constraints meant that even when Indian intent or thought was present, there was a strategy-policy mismatch. (The Army and Air Force generally received allocations twice the percentage allocated to the Indian Navy.)
The Imperatives
But whatever the mindset, the facts of India’s geography and history are inescapable. What was true in history is equally or even more true today. In the midst of the third largest ocean in the world, India’s location is in many ways her destiny. The seas, especially the Indian Ocean, are vital to India’s interests. Transport by water remains the cheapest form available. And even when we speak of cyberspace, 95% of internet traffic is at some stage carried under the sea by underwater cables. Maritime trade and energy supplies are critical to India’s transformation.
Consider some statistics. Today 90% of global commerce and 65% of all oil travels by sea. Of this half the world’s container traffic and 70% of the total traffic of petroleum products is accounted for by the Indian Ocean.
Energy: India depends on oil for over 33% of her energy needs, and imports almost 70% of that. We import coal from ten countries, (including Mozambique, South Africa, Indonesia and Australia), many of which are Indian Ocean littorals. This is also true of our LNG imports (from Qatar, Malaysia, Indonesia and South Africa).
The IEA estimates that global energy demand will grow by at least 45% between 2006 and 2030, and that half that increase will come from India and China. We are both at an energy intensive phase of our development. Between 1990 and 2003, oil consumption in India and China grew by 7% on average, against 0.8% in the rest of the world. By 2050 India could be the largest importer of oil in the world. Thus both India and China face a “Hormuz dilemma”. For China this is compounded by a “Malacca dilemma” as well.
Given the need for energy security, it is therefore natural that Indian companies would operate oil tank farms in Trincomalee and seek a role in oilfields from Sakhalin to Myanmar to Central Asia to Egypt, Sudan, Angola and elsewhere.
Add to this our other maritime interests: almost 5 million Indians work in the Gulf and West Asia and the significance of the remittances they send home cannot be underestimated. Populations of Indian origin are scattered through the littoral states of the Indian Ocean. India also has a mineral rich EEZ which is well over 2 million square km in area.
And then there is security, even in the limited classical military sense of the word. As the events in Mumbai last November 26 showed, the same Indian Ocean that carries our energy and goods is also used by our enemies to attack us. The threats from terrorism, smuggling, piracy, transnational crimes, and proliferation that the Indian Navy’s 2004 Maritime Doctrine warned about have all come true in the last few years. The geostrategic significance of the Indian Ocean is clear from the fact that about 60,000 ships transit through it each year.
Let us look a little more closely at the phenomenon of piracy off the Horn of Africa from the Somali coast. Through ad hoc arrangements, the navies of several Indian Ocean countries, NATO and China and Japan are cooperating in fighting this menace. This experience shows what international cooperation can do to keep the sea lanes open, but also suggests the limitations of military responses to such complex threat phenomena. There are about 20,000 ship transits through the affected area every year. As against this so far this year there have been about 135 pirate attacks from the Somali coast and 28 vessels have been successfully commandeered. My point is simple. One must re-examine the cost effectiveness of conventional military force in dealing with these new threats. This is no longer just a case of dealing with the pirates on the Spanish Main or off the Barbary Coast. Given the stakes involved, and the nature of piracy today, a broader set of comprehensive measures with much wider international participation is essential to deal with this problem. I will return to this aspect later.
Foreign Policy
How do these three major imperatives, of trade, energy and security (even in the limited traditional sense) impact on our foreign policy?
The Indian Ocean is already centre-stage in international politics. When you think of issues that have concerned India in the recent past – the attacks on Mumbai, the end of the Sri Lankan civil war, piracy off the Horn of Africa, the rise of China, energy security and trade, and instability in our periphery—each of them has involved the Indian Ocean or its littoral countries in one way or the other.
Clearly India sits astride key and crucial sea lines of communication for energy security and trade and for the world economy, and especially for China and Japan. Over the last few years we have worked with friendly foreign governments in the Asia-Pacific to enhance our naval cooperation, agreeing OTRs (for operational turn around), conducting joint naval exercises and working with others on issues of maritime security. We, along with other countries, are learning as we go. There is a natural tendency, at this initial stage of this effort, to confuse the formal declaratory parts of such activity, (defence agreements, formal visits and talks and the words of communiqués, for instance,) with the actual substance of these relations. In terms of intensity and content, these exchanges in Asia are still far less than those in the Atlantic or Mediterranean. Because they occur in a regional and global context that is changing so rapidly, and when the relative balance of power in the area is shifting and evolving, we need to be careful of the effect of these formal and informal demonstrations of intent on others.
The other aspect where we are learning as we go is our institutional capacity to make foreign policy and to integrate maritime considerations into foreign policy decision-making. That we have been able to do so in the last few years is due to the informal coordination and understanding that MEA and the IN were able to maintain. This needs to be institutionalised and developed to include the other parts of government which also have a role in such policy formation.
There is no question that there is a much clearer recognition within the government of India of the importance of the maritime factor in our foreign policy choices. India’s active quest for stronger ties with significant Indian Ocean littorals like Myanmar, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Oman and others is proof of this, as is the active “naval diplomacy” that we have undertaken over the last few years. The Indian Navy’s exemplary response to the 2006 tsunami and the Indian Ocean Symposium and IONS initiative are visible examples. And these have been backed up by the issue of two Maritime Doctrine documents for public discussion.
India is now beginning to discuss and act on her responsibilities in the Indian Ocean, whether humanitarian or in terms of providing public goods such as keeping the peace and freedom of navigation and trade. And this is being done in a cooperative manner with other friendly navies and states. The exercises with friendly navies, our discussions in various official and quasi or non-official forums, all reflect this new understanding. And these must continue and be intensified.
This recognition is now also entering the realm of public debate in India, just as it is entering strategic discourse in the rest of the world. Unfortunately, however, much of the debate is framed solely in terms of India-China rivalry. This is especially true of strategists in India and China themselves, though not of their governments. The terms in which the argument is presented are limited and would be self-fulfilling predictions, were governments to act upon them. Nor are they based on an examination of objective interests of the states concerned.
Let us look at the facts. There are no Chinese bases in the Indian Ocean today despite talk of the “string of pearls”, (which, by the way, is a pretty ineffective murder weapon as any “Clue” aficionado will tell you). There is, however, extensive Chinese port development activity in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan, and active weapons supply programmes to the same states. The question is whether and to what extent this improved access and infrastructure will translate into basing arrangements and political influence in future.
There are also Chinese interests involved. For China, as for India and Japan, her energy security is intimately linked to keeping the sea lanes open in the Indian Ocean. The threats to energy flows in the Indian Ocean come not from the major powers, (such as India, the USA, China or Japan), all of whom have a shared interest in keeping these sea lanes working. The immediate threats come from local instability and problems in the choke points and certain littorals, particularly the Straits of Hormuz and the Horn of Africa. These will not be solved simply by an application of military force, just as piracy off the Horn of Africa cannot be. This is a test of wisdom and is where China and other states can choose to be part of the solution rather than of the problem.
My question is therefore: if energy and trade flows and security are the issues, why not begin discussing collective security arrangements among the major powers concerned? Is it not time that we began a discussion among concerned states of a maritime system minimising the risks of interstate conflict and neutralising threats from pirates, smugglers, terrorists, and proliferators? India’s concerns in the north-west Indian Ocean and China’s vulnerabilities in the north-east Indian Ocean cannot be solved by military means alone. The issue is not limited just to the Indian Ocean but indeed is one of security of these flows in areas and seas which affect the choke points.
These arrangements should deal with transnational issues such as piracy, crime and natural disasters. Now that Asian states and powers have evolved the capabilities and demonstrated the will to deal with these questions, it is time that a structured discussion among them and the major littorals took place.
What is proposed here is different from what has been suggested elsewhere, for instance by Robert Kaplan in the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs, namely, that the US act as “sea-based balancer” or “honest broker” between India and China in the Indian Ocean. Which major power would not like to play the role of balancer, given the chance? It is cheaper and easier and leaves the real work to the powers being balanced. For a superpower that is refocusing on Asia but finding the landscape considerably changed while she was preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan, this would naturally be an attractive option. But is it likely that two emerging states like India and China, with old traditions of state-craft, would allow themselves to remain the objects of someone else’s policy, no matter how elegantly expressed? I think not.
Instead, what is suggested is a real concert of Asian powers, including the USA which has a major maritime presence and interests in Asia, to deal with issues of maritime security in all of Asia’s oceans. As Asia becomes more integrated from Suez to the Pacific, none of Asia’s seas or oceans can be considered in isolation. This would be a major cooperative endeavour, and a test of Asian statesmanship.
It will be asked whether this quest is not utopian when the global and regional balance of power is shifting so rapidly, when there is a major build-up of naval strength taking place in Asia, and when each major Asian power is convinced that the future will be better for them, or at least that their relative position will improve rather than worsen in the years to come. It is precisely when uncertainty in the international system is higher than it has been for a long time, when the stakes are greatest, that the need for such an exercise is sharpest and it has the most chance of success. In any case, we will not know until we try, discussing these ideas with others.
Thank you for your patient hearing. I would be most interested in your comments and views, and would be happy to answer any questions.
***************

Good speech. Almost like by a BRF jingo.

[shravan]

India seals bilateral pact with Maldives
September 19. 2009 9:26PM

NEW DELHI: In an apparent attempt to counter China’s growing sway in the strategically important Indian Ocean region, India has signed a bilateral pact with the Maldives, in which the two countries have agreed to bolster defence co-operation that is officially aimed at fortifying the security of the tiny archipelago.

Under the agreement, India will set up a sensitive radar network across the Maldives’ 26 atolls, which will be monitored by the Indian military.

The president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, said last week that “[our] partner and excellent neighbour, India, has stood by Maldives during trying times”.

Brushing aside speculation that India will build naval bases in the Maldives or that New Delhi wants to interfere in its internal affairs, Mr Nasheed said: “India is not trying to influence us. It is we who asked India to provide the radars, apart from seeking co-operation on other security matters.”

But analysts have hinted that India has a big stake in military co-operation with the Maldives.

Siddharth Srivastava, a New Delhi-based India-China relationship expert, said that for some time India had been considering the possibility of “a naval base and a listening post in the Maldives to contain Beijing’s growing muscle” in the region.

<snip>

Mr Nasheed said last week that the installation of some of the Indian radars across 10 atolls was already in progress. As many commentators in the Maldivian media accused the radar plan as Indian encroachment on the Maldives’ sovereignty, Mr Nasheed said the defence engagement with India was mostly in the interest of the Maldives.

The president responded by saying massive poaching of coral and illegal commercial fishing by foreign trawlers taking place in Maldivian waters has had a “deleterious” impact on the country’s marine life and with India’s help the Maldives would curb such illegal activities.

Sources inside the Indian defence ministry also sought to allay fears within the Maldives – which does not have a navy of its own – and pointed out that Indian navy and coastguard warships would patrol the pirate-infested waters around the country and that the deal will also help India secure a significant part of its own territory, including the Andaman and Nicobar chains of islands.
.
.
India seals bilateral pact with Maldives

[negi]

I wish to discuss the subject of 'Minimum Credible Deterrence' and its significance.

With a risk of sounding like an EB (something I take a great pride in ), I would say this entire concept of MCD reeks of Nehruvian (read compromise) decision making.I would not wish to indulge into 'naming one's enemies' but I am of the opinion that India should aim for a nuclear deterrent which can address future/hypothetical threats from ANY nation which our MCD policy in its current form is unable to address.

The reason why I harp on above is the fact that what separates or distinguishes the current members of P-5 from rest of the world is their ability to retaliate and hit any part of the globe with nukes ; imo it is this capability which is the reason for the P-5's current stature and not because some 3 or 4 letter treaty says so.

I am of the view that India's ambitions of being recognized as NWS are meaningless and of little use unless she too develops such a capability . UNSC membership and other forms of token consolation prizes will follow once we actually have the clout to wield the N stick.

As of now GOI has done very well to handle the global pressure as far as signing the NPT and the CTBT are concerned however this might not be the case in future , in fact preparing for a worst case scenario will be a prudent thing to do in matters of such significance.It is hence advisable to develop our strategic strike package based on whatever capability we have demonstrated and have claimed to achieve after POK-II.

[Satya_anveshi]

Pawar is "thinking" of retiring - Jai Ho ( I mean FO) already!!

[Paul]

Bloodsucking Raj

Some home truths about the Raj...contains useful info. Written by a (blasphemy)Paki in Nation.

Bloodsucking Raj

By Basharat Hussain Qizilbash | Published: October 1, 2009

Print Facebook Digg StumbleUpon Text Size
Almost two centuries of colonial rule has created a subcontinental mindset, which, till today, in both - India and Pakistan, enthusiastically defends the alien British rule. These apologists of the Raj are generally educated Indians and Pakistanis, the celebrated Sikh journalist, historian and a former legislator - Khushwant Singh being one of them. In Good things to the Raj times, written in the Hindustan Times some time ago, he nostalgically reminisced that "the British built us telegraph, connected our cities by roads, railways, laid networks of canal.... They started the process of industrialisation. There were fewer riots, bandhs and gheraos." Several liberal Pakistanis offer somewhat similar arguments in support of the white imperialists.
Let's be very clear about this British 'development' in India. Through a thousand threads of steel, the railway network was extended to the interior of India's peasantry in order to supply the needs of the capitalist market, particularly the growing demands of the English industry. The other objective was to fulfil their strategic military policies. Unlike America, where the railroad construction first ushered prosperity to the farmers and eventually contributed in making US a great industrial state, in India, the colonists purposely maintained feudalism to keep the peasants in feudal bondage. Instead of improvement, the plight of peasant became worse because he was forced to cultivate technical crops that were required in the market and thus had to buy even food for his family, which he formerly produced himself. How the railways failed to ameliorate the lot of the peasants can be imagined from the fact that every year the British government prosecuted 30,000 people for travelling without a ticket in the rails.

The laying down of canal network in Punjab - the agricultural heartland - was undertaken for two colonial considerations and not for the welfare of the farmers. As the population of the British industrial centres rapidly increased in the mid-nineteenth century, a need was felt for cheap food products and cotton supply. So rice and wheat were encouraged in Punjab for export to England. Similarly, due to prolonged Civil War in America (1861-65) the British factories could not obtain the American cotton. This made the imperial authority to force Indians to greatly increase the sown area of cotton. Those who boast of big industrial strides under the colonists probably don't know that India did not produce any means of production itself. The sum total of India's heavy industry included railway repair shops, a few kerosene cleaning factories, a handful of machine tool shops from the military point of view, weakly developed coalfields, a large iron and steel Tata mills at Jamshedpur and an American-owned automobile assembling plant.

Through a systematic design the development of India's local industry was held back by the banks that were almost entirely in the British hands. Instead of granting credits to Indian industrial enterprises, the banks financed those commercial ventures related to agriculture and trade, which brought quicker profits and constituted a large part of state's revenue. In plain words, the underlying principle of the entire economic policy of the imperial government with reference to India was to deepen her exploitation, increase her dependence on England and to impede her independent development.

Throughout her colonial existence, Indian exports exceeded imports. Even during the second year (1931-32) of the worldwide great economic depression, India's exports valued £120 million and imports stood at £92 million. A substantial part of her earnings was transferred back to England every year for the payment of wages of the British officers and garrison, for war materials, for pensions and leave allowances to officers of the army and the civil service. According to one conservative estimate, the total annual 'tribute' paid in this way by India to British imperialists was about £15 million in the 1890s but it gradually rose to £35 million in the 1930s. Now, who can say that the Raj was not bloodsucking?
Historically speaking, the people of the sub-continent keep gold and silver in reserve to meet financial crises within families. In the days of the great economic depression, the pound sterling collapsed. To repay the British loans to France and the US the colonial government forcibly exported Indian gold to London to the tune of 118 million dollars in 1931 and 180 million dollars in 1932. The prosperity of the colonial state chiefly rested on the labour of Indian workers, who were exploited to the hilt. No general wage level was set for the workers. Child labourers of ages 4 to 10 years were a common sight on the plantations where almost all of them suffered at one time or the other from malaria, dysentery and tuberculosis. The working day varied from ten to sixteen hours without weekly rest days and yearly holidays. The minimum wage on which a family of six persons had to survive was one rupee a day. In Madras, 25000 one-roomed dwellings sheltered 150,000 persons whereas 80 per cent of the workers used streets to supplement their sleeping accommodation. And the workers did protest against their exploitation. India was gripped by a strike wave in late 1920s and early '30s. In July of 1929, about 408,000 workers went on strike. Earlier on, in 1928, not only that 150,000 Bombay textile workers went on strike but because of 'gheraos' and 'bandhs' in Tata Steel Works, Calcutta jute mills and the Southern Indian Railway, approximately thirty-one million working days were lost in that particular year. Whereas in 1930 and '31, the workers of Bombay, Sholapur, Nagpur and Kalak fought pitched battles with the police.
Sadly, we still sing hymns in praise of the Raj.
Email: [email protected]_________________

The brown sahibs make me retch when I see one of them.

[Sanku]

http://www.dailypioneer.com/206035/A-na ... nesia.html

A nation in amnesia

Hiranmay Karlekar

Why pundits ignore Sri Aurobindo’s vision

Prof Sachidananda Mohanty says in his well-written and painstakingly-researched work, Sri Aurobindo: A Contemporary Reader (Routledge), “I have often wondered why university intellectuals are reluctant to engage with Sri Aurobindo.” To this writer, the answer lies in the fact that most contemporary university intellectuals are unfamiliar with — and/or have no interest in — the Vedas, Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras which constitute the spiritual architecture of the monotheistic philosophy and monist spirituality of the Vedantic view of life. Nor are they acquainted with the Purans, the great epics, Ramayan and Mahabharat, which illustrate the application of the cardinal principals underlying this view to a spiritual and moral universe that includes gods, human beings, and non-human living beings.

There is no point in blaming Thomas Babington Macaulay and the system of Western education through English medium instruction that he introduced. Sri Aurobindo was himself a product of that system, though his exposure to it was in England from his early boyhood. Contact with the ideas generated by the post-Renaissance and post-Enlightenment Western intellectual tradition through the medium of the English language contributed to the emergence of Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay, Iswarchandra Vidyasagar, Michael Madhusudan Dutt, Maharshi Devendranath and his son Rabindranath Tagore, Swami Vivekanand, Jagadish Chandra Bose, Romesh Chandra Dutt, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and a host of other stalwarts. Familiar with the discourse at the heart of Western culture, they used the critical methods and analytical tools that evolved in its matrix, to interrogate and revive their own civilisational heritage in which they were firmly rooted. Two major consequences followed the 19th Century Bengal Renaissance and similar intellectual ferments, albeit on much smaller scales, elsewhere in India, and the reform movements of which the two main — but totally contrary in character — ones were spearheaded by the Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj respectively.

There were, doubtless, others who were dazzled by the military and economic power of imperial Britain, which they attributed to the superiority of Western culture. In a parallel process, they denigrated India’s traditional civilisation which they held responsible for the country’s social, intellectual and moral degradation that led to colonial rule. They, however, constituted a marginal presence thanks to continuing surge of the national sentiment during the struggle. Unfortunately, independence blunted the edge of Indian nationalism which had been sharpened by the humiliating and exploitative character of British rule. From an active presence, nationalism was relegated to the backwaters of one’s consciousness and surged to the fore only in times of national crises like wars with China in 1962 and Pakistan in 1947-49, 1965, 1971 and 1999. The result was a decline of interest in the cultural wellsprings that to a large extent defined the national identity of a vast majority of Indians.

The second reason was the influence of Marxism over a growing body of Indian intellectuals. Marx was not the virulent denigrator of religion that he is made out to be. Apart from the intellectual attraction of his philosophy, his attitude toward religion, however, influenced his Indian adherents. He wrote in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

However carefully nuanced Marx’s critique, his rejection of religion was total; so was that by Marxist intellectuals, whose influence grew in a great measure because of the support of the entire global and Indian Communist movements behind them. On the other hand, the Vedantic tradition no longer had a charismatic leader like Swami Vivekanand and Sri Aurobindo or a stalwart literary and mystical figure like Rabindranath Tagore. Finally, given the growing complexity of modern societies and the increasing importance social, political, administrative and economic activity, subjects related to these commanded precedence in the universities. Growing specialisation in the academic world left one with little time for anything-including one’s own spiritual heritage and its exponents — outside one’s own discipline. This is an absolute shame. Sri Aurobindo’s universal and cosmic vision has much to offer to a troubled world.

[Malayappan]

An interesting article in today's Express by Pratap Bhanu Mehta. For the core BRF beliefs, not much new, but I could categorise his views as 'useful', coming from someone not exactly in our camp! Definitely worth a read and even circulating to our liberal friends, especially in the US!

The liberal paradox
Pratap Bhanu Mehta

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-l ... x/526490/0

Some excepts -

their version of liberalism is not about replacing American hegemony with some equitable conception of world order; it is about using the language of liberalism and multilateralism to preserve and prolong American pre-eminence

rather than owning up to its own limitations and its powerlessness against American double standards, American liberalism needs an object on which to assert its ideological identity. Since they dare not take on China, India is the easier target

India needs to watch out for the fact that the “liberal” construction is likely to gain ascendancy, posing challenges for how we carve a place for ourselves in the world.

[svinayak]

http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article1148.html

MAINSTREAM, VOL XLVII, NO 8, FEBRUARY 7, 2009
India At Crossroads: Instrumentality of the Military
Wednesday 11 February 2009, by S G Vombatkere
India Today

It is a common observation that the levels of discontent and disaffection among most sections of society all over the country are on the increase. There is a feeling of injustice among the people not only at the social level but also at the economic level. This is evidenced by the rising groundswell of social unrest and anger that shows as verbal and physical militancy among unempowered people, rural and tribal people, and people working in the unorganised sector like hawkers and roadside vendors, construction workers, and domestic workers, who constitute over 75 per cent of India’s population. The daily protests at various places across India against government policy measures like SEZs, and large dam, infrastructural, industrial and mining projects are being termed as the “million revolutions”, only some of which continue to be fought on the basis of non-violence. Common people are losing faith in the constitutional executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Governments giving tax breaks to industries and increasing expenditures on governance while pleading insufficient money for education, public health or poverty alleviation only heighten the feeling of injustice and of being neglected. In this situation, in 2006, the Planning Commission of India ordered a study on the connection between poverty and militancy. The Report of the Expert Group on “Development Issues to Deal with Causes of Discontent, Unrest and Extremism”, published in April 2008, shows a close correlation between poverty and militancy or extremism.

In the situation obtaining today, which includes long-standing and ongoing insurgencies and latterly, “terror attacks”, the Prime Minister has very recently made a statement to the effect that he will “not allow terrorism to destabilise the country”. It might appear that the statement is an outcome of the unexpressed fear and anguish that the possibility of destabilisation does exist. It would not be wrong to say that the apprehension of destabilisation is also shared by many thinking people. Most of India’s immediate neighbours are unstable, failing or failed states and India is the sheet-anchor of South Asia as of now. At this critical juncture, instability in the Union of India may result in unpredictable and irreversible internal changes in neglect of the Constitution of India, and day-to-day unpre-dictability as in some Middle East and African countries. As it is, political actors in several States within India are behaving as if there is no Centre. While one says that North Indians are not wanted, another does not want the Railways to recruit applicants from a neighbouring State, yet another refuses to share the river water with a neighbour (while grandiose plans are afoot to interlink all national rivers!), and a fourth demands that only his language must be seen on vehicle licence plates and in public places. Governments are apparently unable to impose the constitutional obligations on them while, in response to Raj Thackeray’s attack on North Indians in Mumbai, a Union Minister is reported to have threatened to stop trains to and from Mumbai.

Conclusion

SOCIOLOGISTS widely accept that conditions of dissatisfaction plus the feeling of injustice plus the feeling of helplessness plus the certain knowledge that many of those in power are callous or corrupt, are a potent social explosive. Such conditions are obtaining today among veterans, especially after the 6 CPC, and the events following it. The government’s continuing refusal to give status parity especially with the police, and refusal of OROP are issues that could well cause any far-seeing person to fear for the Union of India because, as argued above, it is the apolitical and secular Indian military that is holding India together, not the bureaucracy, not the police and not the politicians. A demoralised or fractious military, denied the right to free speech, cannot be in the best interests of the nation. Restoring the izzat of the military and providing faujis at various levels salary commensurate with their onerous duties on a consultative basis appears to be possibly the most important and urgent step that the government needs to take at this juncture, to rejuvenate its instrument of last resort.

Kautalya is said to have advised Emperor Chandragupta as follows: It is my bounden duty to assure you, My Lord, that the day when the Mauryan soldier has to demand his dues, or worse, plead for them, will neither have arrived overnight nor in vain. It will also bode ill for Magadha. For then, on that day, you, My Lord, will have lost all moral sanctions to be King. It will also be the beginning of the end of the Mauryan Empire.

The present situation is not merely a matter of the demands of the military veterans or the needs of the serving faujis who are bound to silence due to Military Law, but a matter of utmost urgency concerning devaluation of the instrument of last resort that affects national integrity and security. This paper is a humble attempt to apprise those in the highest echelons of governance about the seriousness of the situation, in the hope that they will cease rearranging the furniture when the house is smouldering.

Major General S.G. Vombatkere retired as the Additional DG in charge of Discipline and Vigilance in the Army HQ AG’s Branch, New Delhi. He can be contacted at [email protected]

[putnanja]

Alok Prasad made Deputy NSA

Alok Prasad made Deputy NSA

NEW DELHI: Senior IFS officer and India’s envoy to Sri Lanka Alok Prasad has been appointed Deputy National Security Adviser. He will hold the office for two years or until further orders.

— PTI

[SSridhar]

Maldivian President asks India to 'curb illegal activities in IOR'

Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed called on New Delhi to take a more active role in the Indian Ocean Rim to curb illegal activity and dispelled the impression of India having leant on Maldives to install radars on its territory.

Maldives had seven radars bought and installed with Indian assistance but “others might say India has gone there and installed these radar stations. It is not really that. It is simply a question of our asking, they didn’t ask or tell us they wanted to install radars. We took the initiative and we asked the Indian government and they were in a sense fairly hesitant,” Mr. Nasheed told The Hindu in an interview.

“We were good in presenting our case. And if we suffer, it will be a burden on India. It is a question of technology transfer and Indians have been good in supplying technology,” he clarified following reports, in a section of the global media, of Indian ‘expansionism.’

Only on Tuesday, Mr. Nasheed pointed out, did the India-Maldives security partnership lead to the capture of two rogue fishing vessels in Maldives’ waters. “We don’t go into other country’s territories and steal their resources. Everyone else is free to buy our fish but please don’t steal our fish. Thankfully because of arrangements with the Indian military and establishment, we were very successful and the people of Maldives were very happy because of this.”

Drawing attention to the dangers of piracy, Mr. Nasheed felt that India should be “very bold” and ensure that the whole of Indian Ocean Rim is secure since this could prove to be its soft underbelly. “Unless the Indian Ocean Rim countries are secure I don’t think India should feel its landmass is secure,” he said.

The Maldivian President said Male was committed to sharing information with India because “the idea is we are friends. If someone is going to come and rob you and if we know about it, we will tell you. In my mind it is very simple.”

Another red signal for the security of Maldives was coming from Pakistan. Mr. Nasheed wanted the international community including India to help Islamabad “finish” the issue of terrorism. Some people from the Maldives going to Pakistan were getting in touch with Taliban and the Al Qaeda. “As long as that goes on and there is opportunity to recruit people from elsewhere and run a terror network, it is going to be very difficult to put our house in order. So we would like to see the Pakistani military succeed in what they are doing now,” he said. “I hope the Pakistan government will push and finish the issue. And I wish the international community would assist Pakistan in doing this. And I also hope India would also assist Pakistan...”

[SSridhar]

Securing Indian interests in Afghanistan

India expressed support for a ‘national unity’ government. There is also a recognition of the need for a reconciliation process in building a politically inclusive order. In an international closed-door seminar held recently, India’s Foreign Secretary made a specific reference to “reintegration of individuals into the mainstream.”

This could have been construed as weaning away the reconcilable tribal fighters from the ideologically hardened leadership — “separating the fish from the pond” — a classic counter-insurgency principle India has used in its own counter-insurgency campaigns. This could have triggered a response mechanism of attack on the embassy to project the Taliban as not amenable to talks or reconciliation, thus denying India a larger political role in Afghanistan.

Amid talks of U.S. withdrawal, India needs to consider long-term scenarios of its political, diplomatic and military options.

In a revamped diplomatic strategy, India can work towards the creation of a “concert of powers” — a regional grouping including the U.S., Russia, the EU, India, Iran, CAR (Central Asian Republics) and China.

While the American policymakers are looking for an exit strategy, Indian policymakers will have to take bold and innovative ideas of evolving regional mechanisms for anti-terror activities. There is need for seamless information-sharing, joint patrolling, border regimes and confidence-building measures among the regional powers.

At a local level, India needs to widen its web of engagement beyond the Karzai government. Its Afghan policy in the past few years has alienated its traditional support base among the Northern Alliance groups who have increasingly aligned with Iran. There are alienated Pushtun communities in southern and eastern Afghanistan, who are in need of India’s support in building local capacities. These groups can be cultivated as protectors of Indian aid projects by making community participation and local ownership a key plank of the aid policy. On the military front, India can enhance the training for the Afghan National Police in counter-insurgency given its experience in building a COIN grid in Jammu and Kashmir.

(Shanthie Mariet D’Souza is Associate Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.)

[vera_k]

Found a rather detailed history of how colonial policies have stoked much of the discontent we see today.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2 ... 8_3612.pdf

http://wondersofpakistan.wordpress.com/ ... re-part-2/

[Malayappan]

Ramana Sir,

Sometime back, there was a brief discussion on how some people in India foresaw emergence of the US (in early 20th century) and went there to study in preference to the UK.

Found this in ET. Plenty of interesting snippets there -

Remember the time: MIT's link with India Vikram Doctor, ET Bureau, 23 Oct 2009

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Fea ... ms?curpg=1

Some of the snippets -

Kalelkar dealt with the contradiction with equanimity; Gandhi, he once said, was an engineer of human souls

But looking through a list of MIT graduates from its inception in 1861, Bassett was intrigued to find many obviously Indian names. “I counted at least a 100 who had received degrees from MIT before 1947,” he says

Bassett knew that Marshall was an early enthusiast for MIT. This new American institute seemed to be placing an emphasis on both practical and pure scientific research in quite a new way from was being done in the UK. Marshall also felt that Indians were better off studying engineering in the USA because the British had no real interest in training them for anything other than low rank positions in areas like surveying. For real advancement Indians needed to get out of the British influence – and this was a lesson that Parekh imbibed.

...they got their degrees from the US, but came back to India to help develop the country, either by working in large companies or in engineering education. Shah did both, working at the Indian Institute of Science and also at TISCO in Jamshedpur where, to the consternation of the Tatas, he insisted on organising a strike in response to Gandhi’s Quit India call. Shah would spend 18 months in jail for doing this.

When Prabhushankar Pattani set out to visit the US in 1926, including dropping in at MIT to see how his scholarship boys were doing, Gandhi sent him advice for the journey. Ambitiously he suggested Pattani try persuading the ship authorities to let him take along a few goats. If not, Gandhi wrote in a rare brand endorsement , “you get Nestles’ condensed milk, both sweet and plain. can live even on that.”

In any case, Bassett agrees, Gandhi’s position on industry was more complex than common mythology suggests. He was both idealistic and pragmatic – his objection to machines was because he felt their advocates too easily discounted the human costs of their introduction. He did not object where machines were shown to have clear benefits for people

“The development of companies like TCS by MIT trained engineers like Mr.Kohli have provided a new form of competition to the US,” he notes. But then, this is a relationship that will keep developing and changing over time – not least because the roots are so deep, as Bassett’s research has demonstrated.

Worth reading in full!

[ramana]

I have an old book- "Steel Man in India", the bio of the Tata Steel general manager in the formative years from before WWI to middle of WWII. Another astounding thing is how many Indians went to Carniege Institute and studied metallurgy.

BTW, I label the ISRO mfg support group the MIT mafia.

[ramana]

A couple of posts from Nukkad....

AjayKK

Kumarn, welcome to the club

The reaction of your peers are on expected lines. They have read the stuff as it was presented to them and any violation of that is an act of communal uprising.

Thanks for the welcome Ajay bhai. How does challenging the AIT makes me a communalist or a Hindu fundamentalist in such a person's eyes?

If you try and find the correct origins of Indias history it sooner than later get tied up into what is supposed to be Hindoo history, (since anything India in pre Islamic period is Hindoo) and hence anything that shows that the despicable casteist widow burning Hindoos actually were not cow and phallus worshiping ash smeared barbarians cowering in dark places and were hence liberated by the modern and egalitarian Muslim hords, must be a Chaddiwala who's only trip in life is to decry the noble Gandhi family and support the Saffronites...

In short the current idea of India is a carefully constructed falsehood where a whole bunch of shibboleths are carefully woven around each other to keep the falsity going.

The moment you start inquiring on one topic, the thread starts unravelling from one end and the whole grand edifice falls apart.

Thus its only ploy for survival is a complete "take it or leave it" approach which viciously and vehemently defends even the minor encroachment on its territory, and often seeks to quell the concept of questioning itself.

A bit like Mullahs and Islam -- you will find some on this forum too I dare say, though far more erudite and well concealed than Jayanti Natarajan's of the world.[/quote]
\\and

kumarn wrote
Thanks for the welcome Ajay bhai. How does challenging the AIT makes me a communalist or a Hindu fundamentalist in such a person's eyes?

Welcome to the club of "declared to be fundamentalists". My whole journey of historical exploration - especially the politics in the mind of those who accuse of such things, after quite innocent debates with "professional historians". Viciousness has to be met with equal or greater viciousness. I took the "beating" for some time - quite shocked to respond and dazed at where the violent reaction was coming from. Then it dawned on me that it was a combination of slavery, hatred of self and roots, and very retarded development of proper scientific attitude towards data and logic. The person may be "good" - but he or she is intellectually deficient, a mediocre parrot and memorizer of data maybe - but is unable to think clearly and logically on his own. He is completely dependent on "faith" on what "authority" says. Th viciousness comes because by questioning you are pricking his own sense of self-worth and his world-view. If that crashes he does not have the intellectual capacity to build up one on his own.

[Murugan]

India Today Opinion Poll on Whether "National Song is Un-Izlamic" is going haywire

In the morning Pro-National Song were 78%
In the Afternoon they are in minority to 35.5%

Here

[RamaY]

XPosting

A friend of mine who recently completed a “Economic Policy” training for the govts of African nations opined this -

PRC is definitely ahead of India w.r.t investments and influence in Africa. But the African govts lately are realizing that they are receiving negative returns on their natural resource contracts to external powers, when included the social and environmental costs.

Indian products/services are appreciated as having better quality compared to PRC products. However PRC beats India black and blue in project/operational efficiencies.

He gave the example of PRC’s capability to mobilize 100s of thousands of workers and execute a canal construction or highway construction project on time and on budget. He seemed to think such a project is possible only in authoritarian systems.

I disagreed. I think it is more of a project management and project execution expertise. What do you guys think?


My friend is currently in the organization that trains IAS officers and senior babus and is part of Govt of India. He thinks corruption, both state as well as social, reached a level there is no redemption. He gave up hopes on Indian story He told me that he dumped all his knowledge (15 yrs of economic policy and regulatory experience) to at least 5000 babus and hopes that it helps the nation one way or other. I had many high hopes on people like him (young, part of the system, moved around the world type), but looks like people are losing hope.

I invited him to BRF.

[ramana]

Good show.

BTW, Hindu reports that 16 senior IAS officers will retire this year from AP cadre. Thats ~16*25 years experience.

[NRao]

Ramana,

GoI listens.

National Portal of India

How do I? National Portal of India

Hey, GoI is moving!!!!!!

[JE Menon]

Boss, this has been there for at least 3 years or so... It is a revamped version, although the previous one was by no means bad. It is well done in my opinion.

[svinayak]

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article48713.ece

Nehru -

[ramana]

Reducing the role of ex-military in the political system has deprived Indian polity of a very important nationlist group. This has caused the off-shoring of critical national security polices to johlawalas and outside supported think-tanks.

[Stan_Savljevic]

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH - Look East, but look harder
Krishnan Srinivasan
The author is former foreign secretary of India
http://telegraphindia.com/1091118/jsp/o ... 750718.jsp

[ramana]

SS Menon gave an awesome speech at Chitra Tirunal memorial lecture on his "Three years as Foreign Secy". Will post once I go home.

The odd thing is the officialdom is very clear on what India they want to see but while in power they dont get to achieve even a fraction of it.

The business and polticial class is at the root of the problem.

Look at BS Raghavan former Cabinet Secy's advice to MMS on his visit to DC.

[Charlie]

MJ Akbar calls for a seperate Muslim state

Apart from his anti BJP rants and unlimited love for Muslim messaiah and terrorist supporter Mulayam Singh Yadav, he had this to say..

What the Muslims of UP are looking for, but have been unable to articulate, is a defined political space within which they can find food-and-faith security. Given the passions that such a demand could arouse, this quest might surface obliquely rather than directly. On the table is Ajit Singh’s dream of a Harit Desh in western UP. Such a state will have a substantive Muslim population, as well as a string of important Muslim educational institutions, from Aligarh to Deoband. It will become a natural socio-economic magnet for Muslims of the north. The idea is still in an embryonic stage. Whoever articulates it, will have rung a wake-up call.

This is the most dangerous thing that could happen to India far more damaging than any number of Mumbai Attacks. I think our Muslim brothers are slowly introducing us to this idea of a separate state. This discussion might be going on in all corners of Muslim leadership in the country. With our ever-ready Desh Drohi Congress and UP politicians anything could happen. It could in future become a deadly law & order problem.

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... mment-form

[RamaY]

I was talking to a friend who visited India recently to sell some anti-terrorism technology. His feedback is

- There is a tremendous amount of risk aversion in our bureaucracy. No one wants to be the first to implement state-of-the-art technology, unless it is in use in one or the other western country. The delegation tried to convince them by quoting India’s leap into mobile technology from primitive land-line system, but there was little enthusiasm.
- Looks like internal security is being handled by a nodal authority, which appeared to be an advanced strategy, yet to be implemented in other western nations.
- The recurring issue of organization and planning of meetings, demos, and etiquette was mentioned.
- On positive side, the committee appeared well prepared and asked very pertinent questions.

All in all a very happy moment to see the overall policy initiation. But the gut feel is that the senior generation of babudom must go before India can expect to be a technology leader in any sphere of influence.

[RoyG]

Ram Jethmalani's comments anger Saudi ambassador

TNN 22 November 2009, 12:00am IST

NEW DELHI: His middle name is controversy and he is India’s leading enfant terrible. Living up to his image of a self-confessed maverick, Ram Jethmalani on Saturday went where few men have dared to venture. Speaking at a meeting of legal eagles, Jethmalani poured vitriol on Wahhabi sect of Islam, spewed fire at jihadis and poked fun at their idea of god — until finally, the Saudi ambassador staged a walkout. ( Watch Video )

Jethmalani, who is not known for his diplomatic skills, kicked up the row at an international conference on terrorism, by taking on Wahhabism. He criticized the jehadi doctrine, which allegedly propagates, in his words, the belief that martyrs would ‘‘get a place in heaven and the company of the opposite sex there’’. He wondered aloud about the almighty’s ‘‘job in heaven’’.

He went on to warn the government and the international community against trusting god when it comes to fighting terrorism. ‘‘He will not help as he is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease,’’ Jethmalani quipped.

Soon enough, Saudi ambassador Faisal-al-Trad was seen walking out of the conference, apparently offended by the remarks. Adesh Aggarwala, who organized the event, confirmed that the ambassador had walked out but said he returned after law minister Veerappa Moily’s statement that the views expressed by Jethmalani were not the government’s.

In his address, Moily said terrorism cannot be attributed to any particular religion. Later, Jethmalani himself attempted damage-control, saying he was ‘‘a student of all religions, including Islam, and I have read the Quran several times. I find that the Prophet is a man of peace. It (Quran) nowhere preaches hate and violence’’.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 255126.cms

[Hari Seldon]

Nitin Pai at the INI is establishing a Net-based think-tank.

Received over email from INI@facebook:

Subject: We're establishing Takshashila, a networked think-tank

Hi all,

First off: those of you who expressed an interest in subscribing to Pragati in print at http://www.facebook.com/l/21bf6;www.quillmedia.in (before 16 Nov 2009) would have received a complementary copy of the special November issue. If it's not in your hands yet, it should be in the mail.

QuillMedia is working on the online subscription gateway and you'll hear from them soon.

Please do subscribe and introduce it to like-minded friends and colleagues. Your support is important to make print initiative sustainable.

Next, I'm excited to announce that we've established The Takshashila Institution—an independent, non-partisan, non-profit organisation—contributes towards building the intellectual foundations of an India that has global interests.

The ancient city of Takshashila was the site of perhaps the world’s oldest public policy school. It was the intellectual fountainhead not only of Indian statecraft but indeed of all walks of human endeavour.

The Takshashila Institution derives inspiration from that civilisational lighthouse in the pursuit of its contemporary objectives.

Mission & Goals

The Takshashila Institution is registered as a non-profit trust in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. Its mission is to:

-Study and develop public policies with a view towards promoting the well-being, prosperity, happiness and security of all Indians

-Promote responsible citizenship, economic freedom, realism in international relations, an open society and a culture of tolerance

-Provide advisory services for government agencies, non-governmental organisations and corporations on matters of public policy and governance.

-Increase public awareness and education on strategic affairs, international relations, national security and economic policies, through the publication of articles, periodicals, books and online activities.

-Conduct seminars and conferences towards the furtherance of these objectives

-Grant aid or render assistance to other public charitable trusts or institutions having similar objects.

Takshashila is a next-generation “networked” think-tank, connecting individuals and ideas across physical locations.

At this time we are looking for individuals who can contribute either intellectually or financially to help bootstrap the institution. If you identify with Takshashila’s values—or know someone who does—and would like to make a meaningful contribution towards improving the quality of governance in India, please contact me.

V interesting, IMO. Wish the project all luck and success.

[Stan_Savljevic]

Helps understand what guides MEA thinking, in some broad sense ---- The journals they have access to.
http://mealib.nic.in/int.php?var=journalslist1.htm
http://mealib.nic.in/int.php?var=online.htm

[Paul]

Frontier Policy of Delhi Sultans

As submitted before, we are too fixated on the frontier policies of the British Indian empire and ignoring the policies followed by the Mughals and earlier sultanat.

The successful strategy followed by the Khiljis to keep the Mongols off balance should be a case study in Indian power circles. The British strategy is not applicable to India as we do not have to deal with Imperial Russia. The challenges faced by the Turkic Khiljis are not very different from the challenges faced by post 1947 India.

[ShauryaT]

Frontier Policy of Delhi Sultans

As submitted before, we are too fixated on the frontier policies of the British Indian empire and ignoring the policies followed by the Mughals and earlier sultanat.

The successful strategy followed by the Khiljis to keep the Mongols off balance should be a case study in Indian power circles. The British strategy is not applicable to India as we do not have to deal with Imperial Russia. The challenges faced by the Turkic Khiljis are not very different from the challenges faced by post 1947 India.

Interesting book Paul. I have ordered a copy.