National Agenda for India, 2010-2050

gandharva · Post by **gandharva** » 30 Nov 2009 22:09

Deleted

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 30 Nov 2009 22:12

My specific question to the gurus who are concerned about this cancer:What can we do to arrest,control and eliminate this cancer?

This question could be OT. Taking the lead from Sri Elst's website -

Close all religious-minority educational institutions. Or allow religious educational institutions by Hindu majority with equal rights.

Bring in all religious-minority places of worship under endowments ministry Or close that ministry, so Hindus can organize and manage their places of worship.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 30 Nov 2009 22:25

Ugh anyway....Brihaspati, I was wondering if you could jump start the land reform issue by elaborating upon the three points you mentioned. I was also wondering if individual landownership or ind/gov ownership as you've suggested can help stem illegal immigration from Bangladesh. My understanding is they squat mainly on open gov land and even construct madrassas which propagate radicalism. Had the citizenry also had a stake in ownership, it'd be easier to swiftly identify illegals and kick them off and destroy their illegal structures. That also brings me to my next point...What do we do about the illegal bangladeshi immigrants who already reside within the country and how would this effect land reform in Assam and other neighboring provinces?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 30 Nov 2009 22:30

RayC wrote:I have served the country through the medium of the Army so that you and your family could sleep well! So, remember I don't hide and I am infantry man!! What are you?

Now how pathetic it is! I shouldn't argue against you 'cause you are an infantry man and joined army to protect my family

Strange way of begging! By the way I thought you joined the army to protect your wiser more intellectual brothers.
As far as the question what am I, I am a citizen of Bharatvarsh who is from Punjab, but a disciple of Raman Maharishi from South India. Loves Hindi more than Punjabi as against Thackreys like you who gets offended if a bengali name is taken in Hindi.

Code: Select all

I could be quite scathing, but then again the ilk of you will cry I am using my shield of being a Moderator!

Scathing???

pathetic is the word. As for your shield of moderator I'll never complain rest assured, even if you issue me a warning. But I assure you I'll never report you like I didn't last time you lost control and STARTED CURSING MY SURNAME, thus breaking forum rule of not making racist castist remarks. Just an example of your frustration at not being able to win an argument.

The same way I brought the example of your objecting to Sam_Kamath's foreign name, while on last page taking high stand "call me by any name Timothy.........

I have to step in 'cause I see there is a certain discussion RayCsharmaji is not allowing to happen, he just picks up half a phrase and starts accusing people using the words Indic, Abrahmic etc.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 30 Nov 2009 22:35

RamaY,

Thanks for your reply. Let me ask you a couple of counter question.

How will "Indic values and culture" be better able to make India self sufficient in energy from now till 2050 as opposed to what India is doing currently in terms of oil and gas exploration, oil substitution and expansion of nuclear energy?

How will "Indic values and culture" be better able to handle the water shortages that urban and rural India face?

Can you name me one organization, company, entity which is following "Indic values" to produce a better product/service for its customers?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 30 Nov 2009 22:37

My brainmap. The RED color items are tactical. The Blue color items are strategic. Dotted lines indicate interconnections/interdependencies.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 30 Nov 2009 22:40

Idev-ji,

I will answer your questions, over time. Pls do not forget them.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 30 Nov 2009 22:41

However, I am thoroughly confused by the expectation that people need to be secular!
Further, that posters need to leave behind their religion and political leans before they
enter the sanctified premises of this forum.
Even the Indian Military does not ask this of her citizens!

Pullekeshi,

I am sure that all of these posters talking about "Indic values" will have no objections if other posters start threads extolling the values of "India's glorious Mughal past" or the "The glorious benefits to India as a result of conversions by Christian evengelists" and how if only followed one or the other, all the problems of corruption and inefficiency in the Indian state would magically disappear.

Sorry for being sarcastic but that is how it would sound.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 30 Nov 2009 22:43

ldev wrote: I am sure that all of these posters talking about "Indic values" will have no objections if other posters start threads extolling the values of "India's glorious Mughal past" or the "The glorious benefits to India as a result of conversions by Christian evengelists" and how if only followed one or the other, all the problems of corruption and inefficiency in the Indian state would magically disappear.

I am glad you brought this thought. I have been looking for these answers for a long time. Really appreciate if you can present some information w.r.t "civilizational contributions" of non-indic religions. You can present it in GDF.

Thanks

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 30 Nov 2009 22:56

RamaY wrote: Really appreciate if you can present some information w.r.t "civilizational contributions" of non-indic religions. You can present it in GDF.

Thanks

I think you missed the point. Please read my last sentence which I again quote below:

Sorry for being sarcastic but that is how it would sound

Which means that I do not believe that one can conclusively prove the claims of any religion trying to claim that following its path alone will lead to something as concrete as say the preferred path to the develoment of national physical infrastructure in the areas of energy, water, urban/rural development etc. and that includes "Indic", "Mughal" or "Christian conversions".

But those are the big challenges facing India to 2050 and IMO it is totally counterproductive to be talking about anyones "glorious past" be it "Indic", "Mughal" or "Christian".

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 30 Nov 2009 22:57

The problem happens as Hinduism is seen as one of the religions like Islam, christianity etc. Before the arrival of Abrahmic religions rulers of Bharat were totally secular.

Surely the path of Tantra being totally different than path of yoga or Sankhya against upanishadas are diametrically opposite paths which can't be found in any other religion. Now chanakya belonged to ajakya religion which disappeared within 100 years of Chanakya's death.

Now when expansionist Abrahmic religions came it is they who brought a nonsecular policy of ruling elites with them. Resulting in forced coversions + no freedom to reconvert. The result is there as we see people lose their freedom to explore other paths in Pak/Afg/Iran. Add to it article 370 in Abrahmic majority Kashmir.

Just in train I met a brazilian few days ago, and he told me that before christians arrived the natives used to have carnivals carrying their gods celebrating. But after christian occupation vatican tried to force them to stop it which met with resistance. So a compromise was made to replace the native gods with Mother mary and event was turned christian.

When people like me are accused of being Hindu brigade what people don't see is that we are fighting for is freedom to choose ones religion. A mother can be radhaswami, son can be hindu and the granddaughter a buddhist and still live in the family. Actually it is happening in India. Ones the abrahmics overpopulate the country then this option will be lost for the future generations just like Pakistanis/Afgans have lost it.

This is very much part of the vision for 2010-2050 and I don't understand why someone's button gets pushed if it is discussed with other issues.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 30 Nov 2009 22:57

RamaY, here in the US it seems like people are slowly moving away from Universal Health Coverage and Universal education and slowly moving toward the free market b/c the competition ultimately leads to lower costs and better service (ex cell phones, computers, etc). It's also my understanding that in ancient india, dharmic political systems were centered around minimal interference in civil society and yet healthcare and other critical services were readily available and affordable (some medical procedures were even free in some areas). I could be wrong tho!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 30 Nov 2009 23:09

ldev wrote:IMO it is totally counterproductive to be talking about anyones "glorious past" be it "Indic", "Mughal" or "Christian".

Yes you cannot distinguish between your Indic or Moghul or Christian past, when you do not know (or make) the difference between your forefathers who owned these lands, the religious-fanatic who grabbed it from them and force-converted some of them, and the mercantilist who occupied it, before your leadership made a land-settlement with both of them.

You are not Indic if you think your life involves only you and your children, but not your forefathers, history, environment, and your culture.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 30 Nov 2009 23:16

RoyG wrote:RamaY, here in the US it seems like people are slowly moving away from Universal Health Coverage and Universal education and slowly moving toward the free market b/c the competition ultimately leads to lower costs and better service (ex cell phones, computers, etc). It's also my understanding that in ancient india, dharmic political systems were centered around minimal interference in civil society and yet healthcare and other critical services were readily available and affordable (some medical procedures were even free in some areas). I could be wrong tho!

RoyG garu,

I too live in the US. My definition of universal health coverage is slightly different from what Ombaaba is proposing. Kindly give me sometime so I can present my thoughts in a comprehensive manner so we can discuss them.

On the Education front, given the Indian situation, my first and foremost objective is to introduce factual history, scientific analysis, and personality development in the primary and secondary education front. At present the govt schools offer little competitiveness (beyond basic reading, writing, and introduction to math/sciences), while the private institutions produce millions of unscientific engineers.

gandharva · Post by **gandharva** » 30 Nov 2009 23:39

Swiss voters back right-wing minaret ban

Fifty-seven per cent of voters in a referendum supported the direct democracy initiative, which ensured international embarrassment for Switzerland and a backlash in the Muslim world, upon which the country depends for exports.

A jubilant SVP insisted that the vote had nothing to do with intolerance, only with the imposition of Islamic politics and culture

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 936802.ece

Some thing Indics of India need to learn from Abrahamics of Eurabia.

Babu Bihari · Post by **Babu Bihari** » 30 Nov 2009 23:44

RamaY wrote:...
You are not Indic if you think your life involves only you and your children, but not your forefathers, history, environment, and your culture...

Sir ji, you have spoken satya vachan and herein lies the rub. Not many moons ago, when it was politically correct to discuss Islamism on BRF, a poster said that Muslims contributed by giving us Tansen and Tabla....his post was shredded for saying so....he offered us tabla in return for killing millions, rape and plunder.

Non-Indics will ALWAYS shy away from the debate of contribution to our civilization. Their ready excuse is that it will not help us in moving forward....they want to white wash their "contributions". Can these guys convince Muslims for one law? I think that will be a good beginning.

Ek rashtra, ek kannon....this is the only way to begin meaningful integration.

/ducking now, back to lurk mode.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 01 Dec 2009 00:03

ldev wrote: Pullekeshi,

I am sure that all of these posters talking about "Indic values" will have no objections if other posters start threads extolling the values of "India's glorious Mughal past" or the "The glorious benefits to India as a result of conversions by Christian evengelists" and how if only followed one or the other, all the problems of corruption and inefficiency in the Indian state would magically disappear.

Sorry for being sarcastic but that is how it would sound.

Where there values or benefits? - I for one would like to know!
Why stop those threads, if there is something to learn from it?

The name is spelt Pulikeshi (thank you very much!)

Indian civilization encompasses Hindu, Buddhist, Huna, Mughal, British, Dutch, French, etc eras.
They all has their contribution to Indian civilization - it is subjective what each did or did not do.

Can one talk of security for Secular India and ignores civilization ethos and security for the Hindu cradle that birthed it?
Notice, I do not have takaleef with anyone, but some may have takaleef with my opinions

Why was this forum not named - Secular India Rakshak Forum!?

Lets get rid of Bharat - it was a name of a great Hindu king and we are considered his progeny:

उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।

(North of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains
The country of Bharat lies and contains his children)

PS: What prevents the forum owners from putting a healthy disclaimer that the opinions of poster are their own, etc. etc. - is'nt that already the case anyway?
My distaste with all this comes from the thought censorship and police state mentality -

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 01 Dec 2009 00:27

Pulikeshi wrote: Bharat - it was a name of a great Hindu king and we are considered his progeny:

उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।

(North of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains
The country of Bharat lies and contains his children)

Pulikeshi, Thank you for posting this, gave me goosebumps just reading it and a feeling of immense gratefulness towards existence for making me part of this great heritage.

gandharva · Post by **gandharva** » 01 Dec 2009 00:46

Sharma Ji this is for you.

Antiquity and Origin of the Term 'Hindu'
http://sarasvati95.googlepages.com/antiquityhindu.pdf

dipak · Post by **dipak** » 01 Dec 2009 00:51

Pulikeshi wrote: उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।

(North of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains
The country of Bharat lies and contains his children)

Thanks Pulikeshi, for bringing out those beautiful lines!

Though, the said region in the verse, from north of ocean to south of snowy mountains is reduced in size - at least two nations are carved out of it already.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 01 Dec 2009 00:53

Not sure if this has been posted anywhere.

Hans Rosling: Asia's rise -- how and when

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiK5-oAaeUs

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tv/ ... 261107.cms

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Dec 2009 01:12

Friends,
Sometime ago, I mentioned about MKG's use of "innocent" issues to show in sharp contrast the severe conflict of interest between the "Brits" and the common "Indian". If we say directly that "self proclaimed secularists" are against the interest of the "people" we need to take up and highlight "innocent" issues that bring out the conflict of interests in sharp profile.

So far all the arguments against an UCC that I have seen are primarily of three types
(a) "Universal Tolerance" : UCC goes against a supposed "Indic" tradition of "tolerance" for everything and everything.
(b) "avoid violence at all costs" : even attempts at initiation of UCC will bring violence/trauma/bloodshed/division
(c) "status quo" : why go into all the trouble, after all it is not harming "us" now as it is

(a) "Tolerance" : This argument depends on a construction that is crucially dependent on the assumption that there exists something called "Indic" that "tolerates" everything and "anything". But then strangely such an "all tolerating", "everything goes" Indic somehow is most intolerant of any opinion that protests such a definition of "Indic"! Apparently even courts have defined something called "Hinduism" and spent the absolute majority of its definition emphasizing "universal tolerance" as the framework for "Hinduism". But even if we accept such a characterization for "Hinduism", we cannot use it as the definition of "Indic" can we - because then we will equate "Hindu" with "Indic"!

Obviously the Courts have not tried to define what "Islamism" or "Christianity" is, in the same framework. Since apart from "revering Vedas", [as referred to by SwamyG] the court judgement spent the rest of its space in emphasizing universal "tolerance" for dissent as the primary characteristic of "Hinduism". If this was so much a distinguishing mark of "Hinduism" it cannot be a characterizing mark of the other religions of India. [ Simple logic : in trying to uniquely define something you cannot give it shared characteristics with others, as necessary defining property]. But then if "Indic" cannot be equated with "Hinduism", then Indic must also contain the other "faiths" in India [ we cannot deny them their place in charaterizing "Indic", can we?] which by the preceding argument do not have "tolerance" as their defining criterion.

So "intolerance" becomes a necessary component of the "Indic". And if any group of Indians protest and say they have the right to dissent from demanded tolerance of "diversity", they must be tolerated from the "Indic" viewpoint.

[I am omitting direct contraditcions of the claims of "universal tolerance" attributed and demanded of "Hinduism"]

(b) "Violence" :This is even trickier and comical. If Indic is about "tolerance", then should not "violence" also be tolerated? Do we say that MKG's philosophy of facing "violence" was non-"Indic"? Moreover, by claiming that the mere attempts at initiation of UCC will bring violence from "minorities", are not we attributing a "violent" characteristic to such "minorities"? If such violent minorities are necessarily part of the "Indic", then are we not accepting that "violent reactions' are an inherent part of the Indic? So violence could be met with violence by the rashtra if necessary - because "violence" after all is an inherent part of Indic! Moreover is it fair to attribute such "violence" to religions which openly declare themselves as "peaceful"?

(c) "status quo" : this, not surprisingly, is the most powerful argument. What is wrong with what we have? Why change it at all? This is a generic problem with questions of social action.

When changes are forced on a society, it means that the society had no power to resist such imposed changes. So the first problem with the "status quo" argument is that such an attitude is not a guarantee of "status quo" - as changes can be imposed from outside.

The second problem come up with "social values". We initiate changes to optimize over values we regard highly. Here there are many possible factors that go against "status quo". Among many, two are

(1) "Efficiency" : efficiency of legal and executive procedures will increase, becuase UCC will reduce complexity compared to status quo.
(2) "universal human rights" : extension of human rights, principles of equality, to all citizens uniformly and our commitment to do so.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 01 Dec 2009 01:17

gandharva wrote:Sharma Ji this is for you.

Antiquity and Origin of the Term 'Hindu'
http://sarasvati95.googlepages.com/antiquityhindu.pdf

Gandharvaji, thank you sooooooooo muuuch for showing me this, never even could dream that word hindu is mentioned in Sanskrit texts. Stupid me I was thinking this name is given by outsiders. Would be great if you could point the way to more such literature. I'm specially looking for stuff like Prayag Prashasti in Hindi or English.
Thanks again

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Dec 2009 01:25

Some have wondered here about the deafening silence in the quest for "contributions" from "Islamism" or "EJ'ism" towards Indian civilization.

The reasons are something very similar to what we observe in the way Americans talk about "Americans". You will hear reference to "Irish-American", "Italian-Americans", "Hispanic-Americans", "American Indians", "native Americans", or "American of X-origin" where [X=country name]. But you never hear of "Anglo-Americans", "German-Americans", "French-Americans", "Swedish-Americans", "Nordic-Americans" in the context of societal "subgroups".

So by default those European nations, whose name do not appear in front of -"Americans" are presumed to be "American American" - American by default.

One of the reasons, why questions of contributions from Islamism/EJism are never asked, is a similar, default assumption that they have contributed everything we know of as India/Indic civilization - and theirs is the Indian civilization by default. All else are sort of addendum - superficial and "inferior/alien" components - like barnacles on the keel of a sea-vessel.

A small minority perhaps also do not ask such questions because they think, that these two have not added anything new, or really contributed anything - so the question itself is meaningless.

I personally belong to one of these two groups, and I have desisted from asking such questions unless in opposing counter-claims. Hopefully, we can get by without discussing this on this thread?

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 01 Dec 2009 02:04

brihaspati wrote: So far all the arguments against an UCC that I have seen are primarily of three types
(a) "Universal Tolerance" : UCC goes against a supposed "Indic" tradition of "tolerance" for everything and everything.
(b) "avoid violence at all costs" : even attempts at initiation of UCC will bring violence/trauma/bloodshed/division
(c) "status quo" : why go into all the trouble, after all it is not harming "us" now as it is

There could be one more - d) the irrelevance of UCC.

I was a firm believer in the UCC - until I read up on some of the nuances.
Ironically, UCC does not exist in India (historically) because of the Dharmics and the British.
Secularist, such as Ambedkar, were not on the winning side of this equation.

The British, could agree upon a common criminal law that applied to them as well.
However, they could not bring themselves to be governed under the Smrithi or the Shariat.
This meant, they borrowed heavily from the Smrithi -

which acknowledges separate laws for different citizens and made it the main stay of the civil law of India.
In this aspect, the Indian constitution and legal framework, is more Dharmic than secular.
Of course, I could argue if this is the true meaning of Dharma of not!

There are many modern legal historians that have now begun to wonder if this is actually,
a better way of governing pluralistic societies. That said, equality under the law demands
that there be some commonality. To this end, some process of to accomplish commonality
should be appreciated. Nevertheless, blindly expecting everyone to follow the same civil
laws is to not recognize the dynamic and complex culture of India.

If you notice, inheritance laws have already converged between Hindu, Muslim and Christian.
The one area of disagreement is in regards to polygamy and has been left alone.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Dec 2009 02:32

RoyG,
the idea of community land trust (CLT) models are quite old. But so far corporatization is usually not seen as a part of the programme for obvious historical reasons. CLT's are usually formed for/by people who do not have sufficient capital to enter the land and property market. Such associations would naturally look suspiciously at the "corporate" and "financial markets" for fear of being muscled out by powerful investors.

But I have been thinking about mechanisms that can ensure to a great deal that such "takeovers" do not take place. While at the same time the structure benefits from market forces. I will try to put up a paper format for this in th near future. The essential features should be:

(a) Joint ownership of Government and residents of the land and private ownership of structures and developments on that land after due allowances for publicly shared resources necessary to sustain the community. Ownership is defined in (b).
(b) residents own units of stock in the land but not the land directly, and they have the right to claim proportionate share of residence rights - i.e., right to develop and reside and use such developments subject to regulations.
(c) A portion of this stock is tradeable on the market as regular stocks. But ownership of stock automatically does not transfer residence rights unless it is exercised by actually being resident. "Absentees" can own financial value but not residence rights by proxy or from outside. Moreover, residence rights are on a per-capita capping basis.
(d) "Sweat equity" is allowed. Obligatory contribution of labour towards general development on the land which will however be compensated by allocation of stock.
(e) Keep provision for economic self-sustenance, land allotments for private and public food productions, compulsory reprocessing of waste, as well as non-agricultural production facilities within the area of the trust. Regulatory and obligatory framework to have at least a minimal contribution and participation in such production. On the other hand the CLT should have public obligation to provide certain services like schools, hospitals, etc.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Dec 2009 02:43

Pulikeshi ji,
I think there are still substantial differences in the inheritance laws. Daughters do not get equal proportions under the Islamic version. And yes consanguinity laws are also different apart from "polygamy". "Den-mohar" as the price of the woman's "private parts" is not obligatorily payable by the groom if the marriage is not physically consummated. However, for "Hindus", "compensation" is subject to the wishes of the court - even if the marriage has not been physically consummated. Etc.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Dec 2009 05:23

a_kumar wrote:

On (3), you're right, Northern Areas is what binds China's and TSP's destinies together more than any other single factor today. Without TSP control in that region the utility of Gwadar to China becomes moot. If we want to influence China to stop backing Pakistani claims on Kashmir, including POK/Northern Areas... what combination of threats and incentives would we have to present to China? Is there any possible combination that would compel/persuade the Chinese, that doesn't cost us too much?
Simple answer is No. There is no combination of incentives that would make them give up NA. Put yourself in their shoes and then ask yourself the question above.

Add into the mix that they are now given the baton for managing the South Asia and soon stepping into superpower socks and in line to becoming the largest economy in next few decades. Do they need India in any of this?

Any step that has some chance is too ambitious for us (an economy that rivals China or establishing in future technologies etc)

a_kumar: Could you shed some light on what do you mean by the bolded statement. The explanation in brackets do not provide the complete context.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Dec 2009 05:36

a_kumar wrote:
Rudradev wrote: The Americans do not want partners, they want subsidiary allies and they want to dictate the terms of any partnership.
One comment on this. If US were that shallow and uni-dimentional, I don't think they would have become the superpower they are now.

Yes, if a "client state" offers (or has the potential to offer) service in return for money, US will welcome (or coerce) it and screw the hell out of that client. This would no doubt be the most preferred way of operating.

But at the same time, they know perfectly well how to deal with a level-headed state (will be quid-pro-quo, grudging, but respectful).

Or a proud state (stoke and cultivate their ego with gestures!)

It would serve us well to appreciate the shades of US diplomacy.

Example, how they dealt with India in 1971? or the active-passive help to make TSP a nuclear power, the slide from J18 to IUNCA or the $15 billion provided to TSP in the past decade, which will invariably kill Indians? Cultivate their ego, you say. Some of our leaders, sh*t in their pants, thinking of what the US might think and are ready to lick their a**es - all the time, our leaders know only one gesture the american one! Our leaders are hooked, booked and cooked by the Americans. However, India is still waiting for its share of sweets, out of this level headed US policies.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Dec 2009 08:09

Good for him. Does it mean he now believes that RSS's ideology is narrow-minded? What did he do to influence that ideology? What was he thinking when joined BJP after his service? Since he chose to join politics what did he do to bring the narrow-minded ideology of RSS's narrow-mindedness?

RamaY,

This is how the Army changed him:

The violence, however, brought out the factionalism in the state unit. Sinha’s rival and Bengal BJP vice-president Sabyasachi Bagchi slammed the “ferocity” of the violence and said the party’s central leaders should condemn it. He blamed the hooliganism on the “outsiders” the state president had allegedly deployed in Calcutta and Howrah.
BJP Bandh in Bengal

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 01 Dec 2009 09:54

ShauryaT wrote: Example, how they dealt with India in 1971? or the active-passive help to make TSP a nuclear power, the slide from J18 to IUNCA or the $15 billion provided to TSP in the past decade, which will invariably kill Indians? Cultivate their ego, you say. Some of our leaders, sh*t in their pants, thinking of what the US might think and are ready to lick their a**es - all the time, our leaders know only one gesture the american one! Our leaders are hooked, booked and cooked by the Americans. However, India is still waiting for its share of sweets, out of this level headed US policies.

ShauryaT
Will get to this first.. Not sure if we are on same page.. let me clarify..

(1) Eg. Pakistan
Yes, if a "client state" offers (or has the potential to offer) service in return for money, US will welcome (or coerce) it and screw the hell out of that client. This would no doubt be the most preferred way of operating.

(2) Eg. Russia/China - Russia could be a small economy now, but is no pushover. China is pretty obvious.
But at the same time, they know perfectly well how to deal with a level-headed state (will be quid-pro-quo, grudging, but respectful).

(3) Eg. India - All you need is Hillary to come praise the oldest democracy or Obama to share Thanksgiving dinner
Or a proud state (stoke and cultivate their ego with gestures!)

(4) Eg. Burma/Iran - Hostile or Closed
Here the formula would be finance coups or let it suffer collateral damage

My point being, as long as a country/regime is NOT hostile, US will engage to "try" to meet its goals. Client state would be preferrable, but Proud/level-headed states are ok too.

India I think graduated from (4) to (3). I would have wished for (2), but well!

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 01 Dec 2009 10:22

ShauryaT wrote:
a_kumar wrote: Any step that has some chance is too ambitious for us (an economy that rivals China or establishing in future technologies etc)
a_kumar: Could you shed some light on what do you mean by the bolded statement. The explanation in brackets do not provide the complete context.

Slightly OT to this thread, but until somebody suggests an appropriate thread..

(1) Trade And Economy : In bilateral trade China enjoys a huge surplus ($17B), 1/3rd of total trade. This needs to be reversed, but that would need economic zones free of corruption and with plenty of support from the Govt. Objective is to bridge the gap between India-China. A weaker India can't resolve issues on its terms.

(2) Own the IOR : India needs to control the IOR region. If India were to own the seas south of India, it would have been in a good place to offer protection that is critical to Chinese shipping lanes. China preempted that with the "String of Pearls" strategy. But, its still not in the clear.

(3) PoK (including NA) needs to be under Indian influence indirectly, if not directly. If this harasses links on KKH, so be it. Indian machinery needs to put a magnifying glass on the issues there and bring them to the media glare.

(4) Get next gen technologies. : They are the money makers for the coming decades and we are far lagging in research as well as manufacturing. Needs massive infusion of cash/incentives into research and FDI. If we don't make them, we will end up importing them tomorrow making other countries rich. Now is the time to stop the bleed tomorrow.

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 01 Dec 2009 20:33

OT, but Col. Bagchi actually says that RSS had inspired him and many others into the armed forces.

http://books.google.com/books?id=TTEEAA ... hi&f=false

The issue of OUTLOOK was in reference to Lt. Col Purohit. Both of Lt. Col Purohit and Pragna have been acquitted by CBI in the Nanded case.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 01 Dec 2009 21:13

RayC wrote:RamaY,
This is how the Army changed him:

Afsaar-sab,

I cannot control my

Did our Colnol sad support violence prior to his Army exposure, that too out of his association with RSS? I doubt it.

I think you got a bad example, in the process of proving a wrong point.

The more we try to prove a non-existent point, the more argumentative we become. So let us leave this topic here. Peace!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Dec 2009 21:41

Any organised cadre inspires, be it RSS or CPM!

Inwardly, I presume all like to have an orderly life!

As far as Bagchi is concerned, I know him personally and he is a very disciplined person and maybe RSS made him so. Good for the RSS.

I have attended one of the meets (BJP) too. Nationalist and no religious overtones!

Abhi,

Thanks.

I will quiz him when he attends the Vijay Diwas celebrations!

As Lt Gen Oberoi says - the language of the Right appeals to those in uniform.

I daresay it does not!

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 01 Dec 2009 22:10

^^^
Please keep in mind that a lot of social conditioning is due to continuous negative portrayal by the media that does not give space to anything related to nationalism remotely related to "Hindu". Just my humble thoughts.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Dec 2009 22:53

a_kumar wrote: Slightly OT to this thread, but until somebody suggests an appropriate thread..

Not. OT, very relevant on how the mind thinks. The context here is what can India do to control her geo-political space in context of our neighbors and their relevant strengths. My view is the US is largely ancillary to this topic.

(1) Trade And Economy : In bilateral trade China enjoys a huge surplus ($17B), 1/3rd of total trade. This needs to be reversed, but that would need economic zones free of corruption and with plenty of support from the Govt. Objective is to bridge the gap between India-China. A weaker India can't resolve issues on its terms.

If you look at the contents of this "gap", one will realize that a large portion of our trade with China consists of us supplying raw materials for the "advanced" Chinese economy, in exchange for finished goods. It mimics the colonial model, and can be easily rectified by India, if the government puts the right level of reforms into place, so that these resources can be consumed in India, creating a multiplier effect. A situation that is entirely feasible and possible, under a decade. It has no bearing on our security preparedness, in the context of China and the region. We spend effectively only a little over 2% of our GDP on defense. This rate can be increased to 3-3.5% and even upto 4%, if needed, without raising addition taxes of deficits, through effective reforms and additional revenues to the state.

(2) Own the IOR : India needs to control the IOR region. If India were to own the seas south of India, it would have been in a good place to offer protection that is critical to Chinese shipping lanes. China preempted that with the "String of Pearls" strategy. But, its still not in the clear.

How many ships did the US have, when President Monroe declared his infamous doctrine? China does not have the capabilities yet, of being a large threat in the IOR region. India owns this space (the only other power, with presence in IOR is the US and its puppets) and the strings should and can be turned around. Nothing stops India from setting up a similar set of pearls in the South China Sea.

(3) PoK (including NA) needs to be under Indian influence indirectly, if not directly. If this harasses links on KKH, so be it. Indian machinery needs to put a magnifying glass on the issues there and bring them to the media glare.

Isharas do not substitute hard power and hard control, and only they provide benefits.

(4) Get next gen technologies. : They are the money makers for the coming decades and we are far lagging in research as well as manufacturing. Needs massive infusion of cash/incentives into research and FDI. If we don't make them, we will end up importing them tomorrow making other countries rich. Now is the time to stop the bleed tomorrow.

The above is independent of and not a replacement to build capabilities that add to our security. Capabilities that are possible, feasible and probable, if there is will.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Dec 2009 23:01

a_kumar wrote: India I think graduated from (4) to (3). I would have wished for (2), but well!

From a US perspective, the US has the best of all. Neither the responsibilities of managing a client, but a client for all critical purposes. Not a likely threat, and not a peer to be managed and work with in any real global situation. It is a truly a friend, where we meet warmly, greet, eat and drink, do business, where it makes sense but where it really matters, go separate ways. A friend only in happy times, not in need.

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 01 Dec 2009 23:55

ShauryaT,

You may have presupposed that I am suggesting the above "in place of" security buildup.

On the contrary, I find the the above points and conventional/unconventional defence forces (as far as need goes) a tag team. Building a potent security apparatus is a must!

Specifically on why I find the below as ambitious...

(1) Trade And Economy : In bilateral trade China enjoys a huge surplus ($17B), 1/3rd of total trade. This needs to be reversed, but that would need economic zones free of corruption and with plenty of support from the Govt. Objective is to bridge the gap between India-China. A weaker India can't resolve issues on its terms.
If you look at the contents of this "gap", one will realize that a large portion of our trade with China consists of us supplying raw materials for the "advanced" Chinese economy, in exchange for finished goods. It mimics the colonial model, and can be easily rectified by India, if the government puts the right level of reforms into place, so that these resources can be consumed in India, creating a multiplier effect. A situation that is entirely feasible and possible, under a decade. It has no bearing on our security preparedness, in the context of China and the region. We spend effectively only a little over 2% of our GDP on defense. This rate can be increased to 3-3.5% and even upto 4%, if needed, without raising addition taxes of deficits, through effective reforms and additional revenues to the state.

Agreed. But the stonewall here is corruption. When a friend inquired about setting up a shop in SEZ, it turns out we will have to spend several lakhs to just get it to a some table. Its a different ball game after that. So for a 1CR venture, you would have spent 10L on "incidentals".

I know one more person who has dealt with the bureaucrats upclose and decided that after all the bribing, it didn't make much business sense in operating in said SEZ. Not to say that is the same in every state and city, but I can tell you that it is a Congress Govt. that contributed to this sorry state of affairs in the said SEZ. Contrast that with countries/cities where job creation is welcome with incentives.

(2) Own the IOR : India needs to control the IOR region. If India were to own the seas south of India, it would have been in a good place to offer protection that is critical to Chinese shipping lanes. China preempted that with the "String of Pearls" strategy. But, its still not in the clear.
How many ships did the US have, when President Monroe declared his infamous doctrine? China does not have the capabilities yet, of being a large threat in the IOR region. India owns this space (the only other power, with presence in IOR is the US and its puppets) and the strings should and can be turned around. Nothing stops India from setting up a similar set of pearls in the South China Sea.

Considering how India projects power, I am stating that it is an ambitious venture.. Doesn't mean impossible. Ambitious things can be achieved by ambitious people. Most of all, it would need an outlook that is outward looking and knows its place in the world and knows where it wants to go.
Can you say that GoI or the people who elect the GoI are that kind?

(3) PoK (including NA) needs to be under Indian influence indirectly, if not directly. If this harasses links on KKH, so be it. Indian machinery needs to put a magnifying glass on the issues there and bring them to the media glare.
Isharas do not substitute hard power and hard control, and only they provide benefits.

Hard power is not always the need. In any case, hard power has to be preceeded with a few softening blows.

You alzo underezteemate ze pover of mizcheef! Why is it that when somebody hears K word in an international fora, they just think J&K and not PoK/NA?

(4) Get next gen technologies. : They are the money makers for the coming decades and we are far lagging in research as well as manufacturing. Needs massive infusion of cash/incentives into research and FDI. If we don't make them, we will end up importing them tomorrow making other countries rich. Now is the time to stop the bleed tomorrow.
The above is independent of and not a replacement to build capabilities that add to our security. Capabilities that are possible, feasible and probable, if there is will.

No contention there. The point was just that, if we think we are at a disadvantage now, then wait till when India will have to import next gen technologies from China. Can we not preempt it? we can, but only with the right policies, which are a shame currently.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Dec 2009 06:13

RAISING OUR AMBITION
- To build a brand, India must be best in making some things
writing on the wall
Telegraph