Indian Interests

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 28 Dec 2009 01:39

Appreciate the sarcasm Hari Seldon ji, but I have been associated with the forum for a long time. BRF was first off the mark to get Pakistan and Islamism sussed out. But now the world has caught up. BRF has little new to offer as far as I can tell. I will stay on here because I have no place else to go. But I am guessing a smarter, and possibly younger and mentally unfettered bunch will be able to come up with a more representative and forward looking forum that is capable of reading India with all its warts and suggest ways of moving India forward. Pakistan was easy.

Nepal/China would be something to look at...the CT theorists have driven the quality of the analysis into the shitholes...except for Stan, nobody has anything worthwhile to write about on Nepal.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 28 Dec 2009 01:39

Appreciate the sarcasm Hari Seldon ji, but I have been associated with the forum for a long time. BRF was first off the mark to get Pakistan and Islamism sussed out. But now the world has caught up. BRF has little new to offer as far as I can tell. I will stay on here because I have no place else to go. But I am guessing a smarter, and possibly younger and mentally unfettered bunch will be able to come up with a more representative and forward looking forum that is capable of reading India with all its warts and suggest ways of moving India forward. Pakistan was easy.

Nepal/China would be something to look at...the CT theorists have driven the quality of the analysis into the shitholes...except for Stan, nobody has anything worthwhile to write about on Nepal.

High level analysis will work well particularly for Nepal and put an end to the Muharram processions on that thread. Singha and Vivek Ahuja and others have done an excellent job understanding the geogrphical of Tibet and this needs to be expanded.

To further understand Pakistan, we need to understand the geography/ethnic break up and put the CT theorists to pasture for now. Unfortunately nobody has a good understanding of the Punjab/NWFP border and what is going on there. All discussions are centered on urban areas for the most part.

I tend to agree with Shiv....I have been part of BRF for 11 years, and have picked up everything I need to know.

Unless we clearly focus on new areas of vital interests to India's security, this forum will lose it's value.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Dec 2009 04:49

Shiv and Paul,
There is a limit to serious analysis from a "distance". None of the analysis we do, about areas outside the country, are going to be relevant and perceptive, unless there are actual living connections with the analyst to those regions. All analysis is based on other claimed "authentic" reportings etc, which carry the risk of looking through agenda driven lenses of the reporters themselves.

To demand such high level analysis, for Nepal or NWFP, then we require who are regularly physically in touch with those regions. Otherwise we are not able to check up on the pulses on the ground.

But on the other hand I find this assumption that just because someone is present on the spot, he/she is likely to be spot-on as to "representative" trends in the society - rather presumptious. Even in India for example, a resident Indian may very well be talking the language and impressions he shares with his own small social network. Many of such networks will be socially "closed". In the sense that perceptions on issues will be so different to those outside that network, that there is no common ground.

How many of resident analysts actually go out and cross social barriers and jump closed networks? How many reach the level of trust and communication while still retaining the trappings of a closed network?

Honestly, I have found quite a broad spectrum of analysis on this forum which bear unmistakable signs of impressions and ideas formed within typical elite social networks. So they usually overshoot in ascribing features to the broad sections of society that they themselves are fed by the media or various propaganda mechanisms.

It is not for nothing that serious transitions in societies or revolutions are rarely caught in the elite speculatory literature of all ages. The ground realities of India are changing. And it is changing in a different direction from that appearing in the supposed consumerism or that demanded by political correctness. This is where BR is perhaps falling behind.

But I disagree, that BR has nothing new to offer. It is a great mirror to understand the type of thinking that is most likely to come from the establishment - those who are already in rashtryia power. Actually, certain things never clicked before for me, as to the difficulties of "changing things" in India. From personal experience, I thought the obstacles I had faced on the ground were due to "ideological fossilization". BR taught me that it is a feature of elite in general and driven by fears of loss of social station/personal power/esteem. So it also shows what needs to be done to release the forces of real change.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Dec 2009 06:44

ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote: BRF is predominantly a forum of highly educated forward community English speaking Hindu males with a healthy sprinkling of NRIs in which it is easy to be sarcastic or scathing about SC/STs and Muslims and where sarcasm about Hindus is not considered funny. On the ground in India this type of crowd usually means cocktail circuit of a particular restricted number of communities. I am guessing this will change when a different type of Indian gets empowered.
Is there another forum out there, which is predominantly resident Indians, that represent more diverse walks of life?

Shaurya "internet fora" are themselves dated beasts. They have a place but they no longer attract everyone as they used to. The Internet is now fractured into blogs and Tweets in addition to fora. I have found Twitter to be too fleeting and uninformative for my needs. Fora and blogs are better - but blogs tend to be one sided. However blogs are very informative because a lot of opinions that cannot be put on a forum could appear on a blog.

In that sense blogs are more like the lay media with a one sided information flow. A one sided flow has the advantage that an opinion cannot be beaten down by a majority or a clique. So India information and Indian opinions are now appearing on TV, in the print media and in blogs. All of them collectively represent India reasonably well. A forum such as BRF suffers from the drawback that it can be captured by a special interest group and opinions that are valid and need to be heard are drowned out.

Pakistan was easy because all BRFites were able to see Pakistan clinically and it was only necessary to point out Pakistan's faults and weaknesses - because anything about Pakistan was being advertised as a great strength by Pakis.

But when we speak of India it is much more difficult. We face situations and information in which we have to face up to the possibility that opinions that we have long held about India are either not shared by all, or may be just plain wrong. It is much more gut wrenching to talk about India and none of us can really come to grips with India as a whole because it really is huge and diverse.

The media, some of whom we automatically diss on this forum as biased or "anti-national" in some way are accurate pointers to what is happening in India. The media cannot give a sense of reality - they only make statements. The media are divided up into the HAL-BEL type PSUs (Doordarshan) and the Tata, Infosys, Microsoft type private players (mulitinationals) like NDTV and CNN-IBN apart from others. The PSUs are better for some things and are invisible to NRIs in the West while the multinationals must make profits at the expense of reality if necessary.

This structure has a peculiar effect on BRF that often does not reflect ground realities. Doordarshan for example will present national news of one type while the Multinationals will present news designed to get viewership of the English speaking elite of India. For example the Swine Flu Hype was entirely a creation of the Private TV media. They dropped the issue and BRF lost interest.

Another classic example of how the private multinational media pick up news items for highlighting and getting viewership is an issue like a Muslim father in law raping his daughter in Law or a Mufti issuing a Fatwa. When highlighted by the media these events appear like earth shaking events in which Sharia is flooding across India in an unstoppable surge. And BRF tends to react in that way. In reality, sitting on the ground in India one finds that some local minor Mullah of zero consequence outside a small group in some neighborhood has said something idiotic and finds that the media attention he gets is more than he bargained for. He too (the Mufti with the Fatwa) is a small Indian with a narrow outlook with some power over a small group. He says something stupid and suddenly finds himself in the eye of a storm, wishing that he had not opened his mouth in the first place. This is hardly sharia sweeping the land but the media attention sounds like that if you are unable to feel the reality of India around you.

India is a collection of millions of small interest groups. The sum total of the demands of those interest groups represents India. You cannot eliminate those interest groups and India may not be able to meet the demand either. But the least that Indians can do is to accept that interest groups exist and that they too must be heard for what it is worth. Hearing them out does not mean handing over power to them. Power is transferred in a different way and BRF plays no role, although people somehow start believing that BRF is a power broker.

And when BRF becomes representative of a narrow interest group rather than being a dispassionate observer of India (as we achieved with Pakistan). BRF then makes itself smaller, more parochial and blinkered and less visionary.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Dec 2009 06:58

brihaspati wrote: But on the other hand I find this assumption that just because someone is present on the spot, he/she is likely to be spot-on as to "representative" trends in the society - rather presumptious..

You mean to say that an Indian living in America (or Europe) does not have a better grasp of American (or local European) ground realities than an Indian living in India and that the latter (the Indian living in India who perhaps visits America/Europe occasionally) is as qualified and up to date with what is happening abroad as the person living there?

That is an interesting viewpoint because your view is not shared by many people on here. I find that Indians living abroad are not only capable of educating (and correcting) resident Indians about ground realities in their chosen foreign country of domicile, they also seem to find it equally easy to assume intimate knowledge of what is happening in India - a country that they have visited for 3 weeks a year for the last 10 years - ie 30 weeks out of 520 weeks. They resent any corrections that are made to their possibly mistaken impressions of India even as they dish out clarifications about local realities in the country to which they have chosen to emigrate. You too are resenting correction by finding my statement "presumptuous." That of course is laughable.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 28 Dec 2009 07:05

shiv wrote:India is a collection of millions of small interest groups. The sum total of the demands of those interest groups represents India. You cannot eliminate those interest groups and India may not be able to meet the demand either. But the least that Indians can do is to accept that interest groups exist and that they too must be heard for what it is worth. Hearing them out does not mean handing over power to them. Power is transferred in a different way and BRF plays no role, although people somehow start believing that BRF is a power broker.

We have so many thread in four different forums. I don't understand why we cannot cover all such India interests? I understand a given single thread many not cover as much diversity as you are presenting here. As a senior member try starting few of those interests in the appropriate forum as an experiment and let us see how it goes. Put a DOs and DON'Ts at the start of such threads. I assumed that you stay in desh 90% of the time in a given year.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Dec 2009 07:15

Muppalla wrote: We have so many thread in four different forums. I don't understand why we cannot cover all such India interests? <snip> Put a DOs and DON'Ts at the start of such threads.

Well if you mix all Indians in a bag thoroughly and completely and then pick out 100 random Indians from that bag you will find about 12-15 Muslims, 80 Hindus and a smattering of Sikhs, Jains and Christians. About 20-30 may be forward caste. Maybe 10 will know some English. 25 will be "scheduled Caste/Tribe". 80 will not have toilets to defecate or urinate. Less than one will be a doctor or a software engineer or a member of the armed forces. Maybe 40 will know Hindi. 4-5 may know Kannada. How many will know Punjabi or Assamese? How many Manipuris will be there in the group?

Contrast this "average Indian" group with us who populate BRF. It requires a special effort for us to claim that we can represent the average Indian or claim to know what the Indian thinks.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 28 Dec 2009 07:28

It will better and much efficient if these small groups dont work collectivly as there is no compulsion to do so. Working separately will reflect their individual charachters openly , provide more liberty as well less competion . Basically why have this collection when all you are different. Dissolve the collective and redeem the individulaity. Let there be millions mutnies.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 28 Dec 2009 07:31

shiv wrote:
Muppalla wrote: We have so many thread in four different forums. I don't understand why we cannot cover all such India interests? <snip> Put a DOs and DON'Ts at the start of such threads.
Well if you mix all Indians in a bag thoroughly and completely and then pick out 100 random Indians from that bag you will find about 12-15 Muslims, 80 Hindus and a smattering of Sikhs, Jains and Christians. About 20-30 may be forward caste. Maybe 10 will know some English. 25 will be "scheduled Caste/Tribe". 80 will not have toilets to defecate or urinate. Less than one will be a doctor or a software engineer or a member of the armed forces. Maybe 40 will know Hindi. 4-5 may know Kannada. How many will know Punjabi or Assamese? How many Manipuris will be there in the group?

Contrast this "average Indian" group with us who populate BRF. It requires a special effort for us to claim that we can represent the average Indian or claim to know what the Indian thinks.

Shiv ji ,
Are these the categories representing various interests which form the collective call India?
Also want to know if India Arm Forces and Ruling Elites reflect the above nature of Indian makeup.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Dec 2009 07:41

Prem wrote: Are these the categories representing various interests which form the collective call India?
Also want to know if India Arm Forces and Ruling Elites reflect the above nature of Indian makeup.

Anything simplistic cannot be accurate. Even my interest group list is laughably simplistic. Adding a layer of "influence of elite on X or Y interest group" only amplifies the initial inaccuracies of assumptions.

There is no easy solution other than accepting that we may be wrong and what someone else is saying (for example "Darkha Butt") may be right. The corruption of the name itself is a pointer that tells the reader to be ready to laugh. This is wrong, although it is a fundamental premise on BRF. We can only learn if we do no dismiss views and opinions under some excuse or the other.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 28 Dec 2009 07:54

shiv wrote: Well if you mix all Indians in a bag thoroughly and completely and then pick out 100 random Indians from that bag you will find about 12-15 Muslims, 80 Hindus and a smattering of Sikhs, Jains and Christians. About 20-30 may be forward caste. Maybe 10 will know some English. 25 will be "scheduled Caste/Tribe". 80 will not have toilets to defecate or urinate. Less than one will be a doctor or a software engineer or a member of the armed forces. Maybe 40 will know Hindi. 4-5 may know Kannada. How many will know Punjabi or Assamese? How many Manipuris will be there in the group?

Contrast this "average Indian" group with us who populate BRF. It requires a special effort for us to claim that we can represent the average Indian or claim to know what the Indian thinks.

You may have a point as I consider myself as not knowledged in comparision with you. However let me try.

Not knowing English is an impediment. However, not being able to communicate across still keeps them away from thinking about India. The 25 SC/ST and 80 who do not have toilets to urinate may not have an oppurtunity to think about larger India interests. Their interests are immediate one like how can they make their day and progress to the next day. It is simply not possible to think about India and its interests even to persue their own intersts as part of India interests. For them it may be a waste of time to in organizing and discussing some India Interests in whatever the level they know. In which country/society it is/was possible for including economically/socially under privileaged folks to create a forum and discuss some larger national interests even if it is a norrower one. Even if you form one such, the discussion will be about creating the next toilet. What that is like an NGO group and not about getting some views and collective-minds.

Any single group even outside internet/elitist side cannot be a representative of India that you are intending to create one because I am afraid such thing is impractical. One thing that may be possible is try brininging in folks who have worked/ have experience in dealing with issues of such groups.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 28 Dec 2009 07:55

shiv wrote:India is a collection of millions of small interest groups. The sum total of the demands of those interest groups represents India. You cannot eliminate those interest groups and India may not be able to meet the demand either. But the least that Indians can do is to accept that interest groups exist and that they too must be heard for what it is worth. Hearing them out does not mean handing over power to them. Power is transferred in a different way and BRF plays no role, although people somehow start believing that BRF is a power broker.

Most of these "groups" are scattered and the members of these groups themselves dont know who/where and how many other members are. If they are heard, then networking inside the scattered group will increase and soon that group will become powerful. A 100% pro-India person like myself will say : let these group become strong if the may, and if a group becomes anti-India, we will destroy it by colliding head on. But many selfish groups will like to ensure to that members of other groups get minimal hearing in public medium, lest they strength would increase. These selfish groups are often successful. SO the members of groups which did not get chance to put their views on public media then join some other group, which can cause sometimes bigger damage.

eg Dalits (and non-anti-Dalits like myself) have been complaining that they are denied entry in Puri temple and casteist HCjs of Orissa High Court are deliberately not punishing temple trustees. Many Dalits and non-anti-Dalits tried to put this message across media. Now the pro-judge mediamen and pro-missionary mediamen ensured that this defunctness of HCjs remains hidden by ensuring that voice of Dalits and non-anti-Dalits does not come. Result? Out of frustrations, some dalits will join missionaries and some dalits will join naxals. But if our voice had come, then chances are high that HCjs who supported temple authorities would have got expelled, and next one would take some action out of sheer fear of expulsion.

Some "chankians" believe that it is good to have a strategy which will reduce communication of the thoughts they dislike and promote the spread of thoughts they like. The chankians want a tight control on number of thoughts that should be in public media, and believe that too many voice will create confusion and chaos. I belong to opposite camp : let million flowers bloom. i.e. Create a mechanism for EVERY of the million thoughts spread as fast as citizens of India want. I believe that majority of citizens of India are pro-Indian and so if all thoughts are allowed to spread, the anti-India thoughts will automatically die out and only pro-India thoughts will gain momentum.

====

Now one major problem is : those in-charge of media are hell bent in ensuring that only voices of the people who pay mediamen should come, and rest voices should not appear at all. NGOs are no different. And most neta-babu-judges etc are no different. So what can we BRites do to reduce the barriers so that groups, members of whom may be scattered all across India, can put the draft of the legislations they want, put their other demands and to prove their numbers to whole of India?. IOW, we need a law that would ensure that people who dont have money to pay mediamen can also put their demands (including laws they demand) across everyone with a probability better than now.

One such law I propose is known to all, and I wont repeat it hear.

What laws do YOU all propose to reduce communication barriers amongst citizens and various group's members?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Dec 2009 08:56

Rahul Mehta wrote: What laws do YOU all propose to reduce communication barriers amongst citizens and various group's members?

Rahul Mehta - that was a good post. You and I share many thoughts but your aims are far more ambitious than my limited aims.

My aim is restricted to BRF where I would like to see a group of people who are open to all information and who are well aware of all the pitfalls that you mention and who do not themselves contribute to those pitfalls. My aims are miniscule - perhaps in envisioning a one ten millionth scale of India in which a group of a thousand aware individuals are able to first see India in its seething and conflicting diversity before proposing solutions. Your personal ability to propose solutions is based on your (IMO realistic) assessment of India. People who propose solutions must first have a realistic picture of India and its internal dynamics and how they are changing over time.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Dec 2009 09:21

Muppalla wrote:... may not have an oppurtunity to think about larger India interests. Their interests are immediate one like how can they make their day and progress to the next day. It is simply not possible to think about India and its interests even to persue their own intersts as part of India interests. For them it may be a waste of time to in organizing and discussing some India Interests in whatever the level they know.

This is correct, but even if we ignore them, they are capable of making things difficult for the entire country. Rahul Mehta has said this well:

Rahuk Mehta wrote:SO the members of groups which did not get chance to put their views on public media then join some other group, which can cause sometimes bigger damage...result? Out of frustrations, some dalits will join missionaries and some dalits will join naxals.

So it is essential that we try and read the internal dynamics of India and not try and take a short cut with assumptions, or, if we do take the short cut, we must be ready to change our views when we find that India has moved beyond where we thought it was.

Muppalla wrote: One thing that may be possible is try bringing in folks who have worked/ have experience in dealing with issues of such groups.

Another thing is not to dismiss selected sources and authors as wrong. We build a construct in which certain people in certain media are all biased. Paradoxically the same media are utilised to support certain other opinions when those opinions are convenient and comforting.

The thoughts I am expressing here go right back to one of the earlier "signs of degeneration" of BRF - the nuclear deal discussions in which BRF opinions were way off the mark and BRF was nowhere near "ahead of the curve". When you take media and other public personalities and give them labels "This newspaper is owned by the Vatican" or "This man is a commie" you are setting up a stage in which the Vatican owned medium and communist writer can be dismissed as wrong the minute he says something that YOU don't like. If you like what is said - you are reserving the right to agree. In the same way the forum has allowed "pre-classification" of people as liars, traitors anti nationals etc so that we have a huge bunch of people and media whom we no longer believe. We shut out all opinions and information that comes from those sources and restrict ourselves only to what suits us no matter what the source.

Once we do this we cocoon ourselves in cloud cuckoo land; we do not admit reality and gradually our ability to be ahead of the curve becomes a joke. This is the way BRF is headed as far as I can tell.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 28 Dec 2009 09:44

So how much bargain to be allowed in " Collective called Indian "to the Indian like this man and his group.

In history, farce and tragedy often come in pairs
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... -pairs-829

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Dec 2009 18:20

Shiv wrote
You mean to say that an Indian living in America (or Europe) does not have a better grasp of American (or local European) ground realities than an Indian living in India and that the latter (the Indian living in India who perhaps visits America/Europe occasionally) is as qualified and up to date with what is happening abroad as the person living there?

That is an interesting viewpoint because your view is not shared by many people on here. I find that Indians living abroad are not only capable of educating (and correcting) resident Indians about ground realities in their chosen foreign country of domicile, they also seem to find it equally easy to assume intimate knowledge of what is happening in India - a country that they have visited for 3 weeks a year for the last 10 years - ie 30 weeks out of 520 weeks. They resent any corrections that are made to their possibly mistaken impressions of India even as they dish out clarifications about local realities in the country to which they have chosen to emigrate. You too are resenting correction by finding my statement "presumptuous." That of course is laughable.

I meant exactly what I had written. Each commentator's views are limited by social networks the commentator belongs to. It applies equally to Indians resident in India commenting about American society, as to their commenting about their local conditions. I think you are resenting yourself my reduction of the resident "claim" to have a better understanding - because that impacts on special status for Indians residing in India commenting about India.

You are a very perceptive person, and I guess by your profession someone who comes into contact with a certain segment of society that is wider say than an IT professional is likely to. However, how much time would you have to be absorbed into segments not your own, socially, culturally, contextually - to gain suficient trust to be able to get their honest opinions? How far would you be able to shed the trappings of your own social subgroup and network to break barriers of image?

More importantly, how do you make sure that what you are interpreting their voice as - is not coloured by the views you are subjceted to through your own small social network - or subgroup you identify with?

Do you remember that once you strongly reacted to my using "Kanarese"? I apologized, but pointed out that in academic parlance it is still used. However you yourself have used "Bengali" for the language casually, without applying a similar resentment towards using an Anglicized/colonial construct. In the language itself, there is no "Bengali" - it simply does not exist. In this, you show that in cirles you move, you may have "Bengalee"s but you are not "part" of "them" or their social networks.

This is what I meant as a caution for anyone who claims "greater knowledge" simply because he is on-spot. My own experience of India, says that most of us live in closed social networks in India. We may interact with other networks, but the language of that interaction is across a subtle or not so subtle barrier.

The danger I find on BR is a similar "smugness" about views held - simply because people are "on spot" in India, or even more dangerously, an attempt at imposing a "politically correct" viewpoint irrespective of ground realities. So that what is seen and trashed as a "dangerous ideological agenda" could very well be dubbed so out of an equally dangerous ideological blindness. It shows disconnect from both sides. Problem is, in trashing either side, the insights from each side are also rejected outright.

I will not go too much into your examples on paranoia about "sharia" in India from smalltime theologians. You are both correct and wrong. You are correct when you focus on the previous context of the small time theologian. The media report makes it looks like also that it is one theologian who spoke so. Question is, whether that theologian is a "representative" one? In spite of his "small time" and "local reach", are there many like him, scattered over much larger regions, who might be making similar comments privately and in gatherings day in and day out - but whose views do not get reported in the media?

But then someone who knows only his local theologian, is not in a position to know about what happens within the internal workings of such communities outside his "local reach" - is he?

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 28 Dec 2009 18:34

It is no great secret that being constant proximity to action can sometimes cause one to 'lose the woods for the trees'. An outside perspective can, with caveats capture aspects of society one may oneself be blind to. I for one would be cautious about dismissing some POV based solely on domicile status. I thought the enlightened ones arguing for inclusiveness, diversity, broad-basedness etc etc (and by extension, the lack of the same among mango BRFites) would agree.

Or maybe my understanding of the 'debate' thus far is totally flawed only. If so, apologies.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Dec 2009 18:54

brihaspati wrote: The danger I find on BR is a similar "smugness" about views held - simply because people are "on spot" in India, or even more dangerously, an attempt at imposing a "politically correct" viewpoint irrespective of ground realities. So that what is seen and trashed as a "dangerous ideological agenda" could very well be dubbed so out of an equally dangerous ideological blindness. It shows disconnect from both sides. Problem is, in trashing either side, the insights from each side are also rejected outright.

Oh there is clearly a double standard at work Brihaspatiji. Political correctness is very deeply connected to one's place of residence - no more so than America where the same NRI who would happily claim patriotism by calling an Indian leader a traitor would never dare to call Bush a murderer for fear of having his happiness shaken by the FBI.

The need for political correctness is also dependent on how much of oneself one chooses to show.

Because I have made my place of residence, name and profession pubic I choose to be politically correct about people whom I have to live with. That is my choice. If I were to compare myself with you - I don't know who you are, where you live or what you do. You have carefully hidden that from the public. You can be much more free about not being politically correct because nobody knows who or where you are. As long as you do not set the FBI or some such agency on your trail on the internet by saying "Kill Obama" you are free to say the most egregious things and claim some kind of superior truth telling ability while the truth about yourself is unknown to all. That is both your prerogative and choice but it remains a mealy mouthed double standard if you choose to judge my political correctness and that of others others by your standards.

The difference is significant in your way and I will use an example.

if you are walking down a street and a voice from inside some building calls you by name and says you are a ba$tard - you may never know who has said it and the person who called out is safe in his anonymity. But if a person identifies himself and calls you that to your face, you would hold him accountable. Your anonymity is your defence and your protection. You cover your own ass while you question others' political correctness. That is ludicrous insincerity. Take the previous example posted by member Prem above. That egregious article is by an Indian - but he identifies himself and makes himself accountable for a politically incorrect article. You do not do that and as such do not have any grounds to claim that you are anything but a random voice shouting out from under a Burqa of anonymity. Your words, weighty and wise as they may sound - remain a random voice shouting from a hiding place reaching judgement on all and sundry without the risk that identification and accountability entail. You can say anything you like and claim that others are being too politically correct. In this context that is plain trolling.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Dec 2009 19:45

I am getting curious about the definition and characterization of "trolling". It seems to be applied now to anything that represents dissent from one's own views.

Shiv ji, I don't think the "political correctness" debate needed to be extended to such a direction. But you of course may have different views. I do not see why everything about a persons' personal details are necessarily relevant for each and every discussion that the person engages in. There are sufficient details scattered around the forum, to give a very good outline of what I do professionally, my approximate geographical location, my educational background, my early upbringing, my family background, my childhood and formative experiences, as well as reasons behind and attitudes towards "indefinite" migration, as well as my intention and setting in motion plans to return. These are relevant to give context to what I say and where my position on things come from. Greater personal details are irrelevant. In fact I think I have given details of personal experiences to a much greater extent than I have seen from others, with a few exceptions.

What strikes me as significant is that you connect "political correctness" so strongly with "local existence". America is usually dubbed as paranoid, but is not India a very balanced and tolerant of diverse views - country? The Indian rashtra is tolerant of diversity and diverse viewpoints - as long as they are not calling for overthrowing of the rashtra, the Constitution, or calling for genocide and bloodshed (well almost always - depends on who exactly is calling for the head of whom). Are you saying that opinions that differ from the supposedly "politically correct" one, even if not crossing boundaries above, can still land you in serious trouble in India - if your identity is public and your thoughts/views can be traced to you?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 28 Dec 2009 19:54

I tend to agree with Shiv....I have been part of BRF for 11 years, and have picked up everything I need to know.

Unless we clearly focus on new areas of vital interests to India's security, this forum will lose it's value.

Paul,

A valid observation.

We tend to meander, missing the wood for the trees!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Dec 2009 20:07

RM,
I have had a running battle with parts of the "Puri" vested group you refer to, especially over the rights to enter and "touch". Interesting thing is that, some non-Hindus do enter and "touch" - but without identifying themselves. We can take the issue up again, and in fact make it a much wider issue of entry into other temples too. Consultation with legal experts told me that there were specific clauses in the laws about "religion/administration of religious sites" that are used to carry this on. The media will not highlight the issue - because it will be seen as a political undermining of the project to represent "Hinduism" in a certain way. A senior journalist told me this right to my face - over chai-biscuit.

However, this can be turned around - and the game can be played equally. What is your reading of the "Dalit" leadership's reaction to proposals to allow "entry"? My last contact gave the impression that they need not be very enthusiastic. They too interpret this as a political undermining.

But I can try to do my best in such an effort from you, if you want. Some international pressure points can also be sought to be activated.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 28 Dec 2009 20:52

ShauryaT wrote:Yogi_G: A 26/11 every three years will ensure that the chanakian dream of riding it free and coming out on the top economically, will never succeed. Security is paramount to economic progress, one way or the other. There is no other way.

Also, please do an economic analysis (presuming there is a will and vision) of what this type of security will cost us and can India afford it.

Err... you make it sound as if I implied that we throw security to the dogs and only concentrate on economic growth. My point is that we do not need a super power military at the moment because our only immediate threats at least conventionally are the Pakis and the Chinese. To be specific their border mischief and terrorist support. The Mumbai attacks dint necessitate a super power military to stop it, what was actually needed has been discussed to death in BR. Again, precious money needs to be invested in the right equipment, training and other resources to keep the borders safe and eliminate the internal security threats like terrorism and naxalism. India does not need 6-7 super carrier battle groups now. It needs to lift its remaining poverty stricken masses out of the woods and then concentrate on becoming a military superpower.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 28 Dec 2009 23:11

Yogi_G wrote: Err... you make it sound as if I implied that we throw security to the dogs and only concentrate on economic growth. My point is that we do not need a super power military at the moment because our only immediate threats at least conventionally are the Pakis and the Chinese. To be specific their border mischief and terrorist support. The Mumbai attacks dint necessitate a super power military to stop it, what was actually needed has been discussed to death in BR. Again, precious money needs to be invested in the right equipment, training and other resources to keep the borders safe and eliminate the internal security threats like terrorism and naxalism. India does not need 6-7 super carrier battle groups now. It needs to lift its remaining poverty stricken masses out of the woods and then concentrate on becoming a military superpower.

Yogi_G: Either you have misunderstood the article and/or have not read and followed Bharat Karnad enough. Nowhere does he make a case for a "super power" with 6-7 carrier battle groups. Au contraire, one of his biggest criticism of the Indian armed forces is the procurement of expensive foreign equipment, without a strategic plan. India's strategic vision from the days of Nehru has been to be counted as a great power along with the US, China and Russia. BK's view is our will and what is needed to get there has been badly executed.

If you get the time, lookup BK's works on council for policy research, seminar, IDSA, his books and other Indian publications to form a comprehensive view of what the man is saying.

Some other time on what it would take to stop a 26/11.

Added:
The below is the thrust of the article's message.

He said, "The US was first a great military power before they acquired great power status. Look at any great power in the past -- Napoleonic France [ Images ]. So, military power comes first and historical evidence proves that. India has always been doing things from the other side."

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Dec 2009 23:42

ShauryaT wrote: Again, precious money needs to be invested in the right equipment, training and other resources to keep the borders safe and eliminate the internal security threats like terrorism and naxalism. India does not need 6-7 super carrier battle groups now. It needs to lift its remaining poverty stricken masses out of the woods and then concentrate on becoming a military superpower.

Yogi_G: Either you have misunderstood the article and/or have not read and followed Bharat Karnad enough. Nowhere does he make a case for a "super power" with 6-7 carrier battle groups. Au contraire, one of his biggest criticism of the Indian armed forces is the procurement of expensive foreign equipment, without a strategic plan.

Also the Indian need to secure its trading lines and global economic interest needs a military backed power projection. This cannot be avoided

Also US was an economic power due to its trading relations with Europeans for several centuries. These trade was protected by the Europeans and their military power. Hence US had no need to invest much in military power until the late 1800s.

When US removed its isolationist policy it was already the strongest naval power and Wilson created the global agenda for the US.

India does not have the luxury of other countries protecting its trade and SLOC. It has to invest in military power as it develops its trade.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 29 Dec 2009 00:38

ShauryaT wrote: If you get the time, lookup BK's works on council for policy research, seminar, IDSA, his books and other Indian publications to form a comprehensive view of what the man is saying.

Some other time on what it would take to stop a 26/11.

Added:
The below is the thrust of the article's message.
He said, "The US was first a great military power before they acquired great power status. Look at any great power in the past -- Napoleonic France [ Images ]. So, military power comes first and historical evidence proves that. India has always been doing things from the other side."

I think BK should study a little bit of economic history before he pontificates. The US became the largest economy in the world around or just after the turn of the 20th century. Also in 1913 AFAIK for the first time, US exports surpassed those of the UK which had been till then the dominant economy. The US built its military inventory in the late 1930s and more especially after it formally entered WW2 in 1941. By then it was by far the largest economy in the world. In the period between say 1900 and 1935, it could be said that the UK had the greater capacity to deploy its forces around the world than the US, although the US was the larger economic power.

And so the US was first a great economic power, before it became a military power before it became a great power. What is great power other than an amalgamation of economic and military power. But economic power is a prerequiste for military power. It cannot be the other way around, otherwise you end up the way of the USSR or even the the way the US is conceivably headed right now. And therefore I think that India is doing the right thing by concentrating on expanding its economy as its first priority. After all the US did not become the foremost military power arguably for almost 40 years after it become the foremost economic power.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 29 Dec 2009 02:41

And where did the Monroe doctrine come from in 1824? Also, if memory serves me right, US had the largest navy by the turn of the century. Do lookup the number of US navy expeditions of the 19th century.

The issue here is not one or the other but both together. Not one at the expense of another. Not one over the other. The issue here is not what we desire, but what we need to secure ourselves. The issue is not what we should spend, but what we can afford to spend.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 29 Dec 2009 03:09

Goodness...
PPle disappointed with forum. Please speak for yourselves - you represent the elder Hindu male, cocktail circuit demographic.
Many of us don't.
And sorry, but you guys are part of the problem of the ossification of this forum. One can only communicate within several constraints otherwise vigilantes like you will come and blow-off pple from the forum.
Regarding representing various groups across India - Pleeeeeeaaase can we not have affirmative action on this forum. No one is stopping anyone from participating. It might be news to you, but the forum is in ENGLISH so obviously the english speaking folks will participate.
If increased participated is required, the forum needs vernacular options. For those cribbing, please feel free to start vernac options - Hindi would be a natural choice.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Dec 2009 03:25

It might be difficult to separate out military action to fuel economic growth in the early parts of US expansion. They bought and fought for land and resources. All in the 19th century long before the WWI.

In the lesser known 1812 war, Britian could not defeat the US forces, and the US actually won naval battles agains the Brits. http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.1812.html

There were numerous campaigns by US forces, in the so-called -westward expansion into native American territories, and with European powers to gain resourceful territories. There are quite a few research works that connect this initial military expansion into new regions with fuel for subsequent "industrial revolution".

Even before the 19th century was over, Teddy Roosevelt then not yet a President, pushed for war on Spain and gained overseas territories. With just 385 American battle deaths (1/20th the number lost at Gettysburg), at a cost of $250,000,000, U.S. acquired Puerto Rico, Guam, Philippine Islands (100,000 sq. miles, 10 million people) for $20 million. The Teller Amendment pledged that U.S. would guarantee self-rule to Cubans, while Platt Amendment restricted Cuban foreign policies and gave U.S. land for coaling or naval stations. This was in 1898.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Dec 2009 03:40

brihaspati wrote:It might be difficult to separate out military action to fuel economic growth in the early parts of US expansion. They bought and fought for land and resources. All in the 19th century long before the WWI.

Local wars are different and there is no large powers near the region to support these rebels.

Even before the 19th century was over, Teddy Roosevelt then not yet a President, pushed for war on Spain and gained overseas territories. With just 385 American battle deaths (1/20th the number lost at Gettysburg), at a cost of $250,000,000, U.S. acquired Puerto Rico, Guam, Philippine Islands (100,000 sq. miles, 10 million people) for $20 million. The Teller Amendment pledged that U.S. would guarantee self-rule to Cubans, while Platt Amendment restricted Cuban foreign policies and gave U.S. land for coaling or naval stations. This was in 1898.

At this point US was already a first world naval power. See the influence of Mahan in US naval strategy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan

To a modern reader, the emphasis on controlling seaborne commerce is a commonplace, but, in the nineteenth century, the notion was radical, especially in a nation entirely obsessed with expansion on to the continent's western land. On the other hand, Mahan's emphasis of sea power as the crucial fact behind Britain's ascension neglected the well-documented roles of diplomacy and armies; Mahan's theories could not explain the success of terrestrial empires, such as Bismarckian Germany.[7] However, as the Royal Navy's blockade of the German Empire was a critical direct and indirect factor in the eventual German collapse, Mahan's theories were vindicated by the First World War.

Ideologically, the United States Navy initially opposed replacing its sailing ships with steam-powered ships after the Civil War, however, Mahan argued that only a fleet of armoured battleships might be decisive in a modern war. According to the decisive-battle doctrine, a fleet must not be divided; Mahan's work encouraged technological improvement in convincing opponents that naval knowledge and strategy remained necessary, but that domination of the seas dictated the necessity of the speed and predictability of the steam engine.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Dec 2009 03:47

yes, the point is that US history cannot be used to justify the model of economic growth first and then military empowerment and then imperialist expansion.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Dec 2009 03:48

brihaspati wrote:yes, the point is that US history cannot be used to justify the model of economic growth first and then military empowerment and then imperialist expansion.

I agree and that was my point

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 29 Dec 2009 05:45

brihaspati wrote:I am getting curious about the definition and characterization of "trolling". It seems to be applied now to anything that represents dissent from one's own views.

Shiv ji, I don't think the "political correctness" debate needed to be extended to such a direction. But you of course may have different views. I do not see why everything about a persons' personal details are necessarily relevant for each and every discussion that the person engages in. There are sufficient details scattered around the forum, to give a very good outline of what I do professionally, my approximate geographical location, my educational background, my early upbringing, my family background, my childhood and formative experiences, as well as reasons behind and attitudes towards "indefinite" migration, as well as my intention and setting in motion plans to return. These are relevant to give context to what I say and where my position on things come from. Greater personal details are irrelevant. In fact I think I have given details of personal experiences to a much greater extent than I have seen from others, with a few exceptions.

What strikes me as significant is that you connect "political correctness" so strongly with "local existence". America is usually dubbed as paranoid, but is not India a very balanced and tolerant of diverse views - country? The Indian rashtra is tolerant of diversity and diverse viewpoints - as long as they are not calling for overthrowing of the rashtra, the Constitution, or calling for genocide and bloodshed (well almost always - depends on who exactly is calling for the head of whom). Are you saying that opinions that differ from the supposedly "politically correct" one, even if not crossing boundaries above, can still land you in serious trouble in India - if your identity is public and your thoughts/views can be traced to you?

Just some thoughts inspired by this exchange:

Seems to me that the whole purpose of having a forum is so that we can get a comprehensive picture from people with different perspectives, interests and styles, that complement each other. Having one perspective or style doesn't mean that others are invalidated. 'PC' can be derided as much as we want, but we should also ask ourselves, what is the benefit in disrespecting and / or antagonizing one segment or other of society if the goal is to bring about change in thinking? I don't mean that one should resort to dishonesty, or refrain from challenging abhorrent doctrines / mindsets, but surely if one wants to have some influence among people that one comes directly into contact with, "honey" aka PC will work better than "vinegar" aka hostile or hectoring tone?

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 29 Dec 2009 06:04

brihaspati wrote:yes, the point is that US history cannot be used to justify the model of economic growth first and then military empowerment and then imperialist expansion.

The India-Pakistan conflict is a direct parallel to the US civil war. The only difference is that the American nationalists were able to come out on top defeating the South and their imperial supporters, while Indian nationalists have folded their cards when presented with the same option.

And in fact, the start of the Gilded Age that built the modern industrial economy coincides almost exactly with the reconstruction that followed the civil war. So, I don't see how American history can be used to justify a economy first, military second model.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 29 Dec 2009 06:18

^^^ Interesting analogy. However, the divergance between India and Pakistan is extremely sharp.
The American North and South had severe points of contention but the scale of divergance was less

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 29 Dec 2009 06:39

Jarita wrote:^^^ Interesting analogy. However, the divergance between India and Pakistan is extremely sharp.
The American North and South had severe points of contention but the scale of divergance was less

The South was a secessionist movement similar to Pakistan, wasn't it? Plus, if India-Pakistan differences are so sharp, why do Indian nationalists like to claim that India and Pakistan can be friends?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2009 07:20

Jarita wrote:Goodness...
PPle disappointed with forum. Please speak for yourselves - you represent the elder Hindu male, cocktail circuit demographic.

One of the aspects of wisdom that comes from being an elder Hindu male is that becoming an elder Hindu male is inevitable for all Hindu males unless one kicks the bucket prematurely - so your relief from that situation will not last long. The cocktail circuit will come too - despite your current drought situation.

Either way the forum consists of the ability of its members. If its members are short sighted or are unable to see what is inevitable beyond a few short years the utility of the forum as an English speaking Hindu male timepass place will remain unparalleled. So BRF is still a leader of sorts.

The argument that anyone is allowed to come here is an old one - but you may not want to know what is old, which is yet to come for you. Muslims who come to this forum are driven away by the Hindu males on here by two factors

1) Any Muslim on this forum is held answerable for all of Islam's excesses from pederasty to murder
2) Any chirp of criticism of the Hindu male's favorite gripe (eg reminders of defeats) is responded to by a fusillade of angry posts

And then when the forum is silent, all is calm, all is bright we have the Hindu male preening himself and saying "Why? We aren't stopping anyone from coming here and saying anything". Of course this hilarious excuse has been advertised on BRF for a decade now as we pat ourselves on the back for sussing Pakistan out.

The problem is that Hindus in India have to live with Muslims and Muslims in India have to live with Hindus. So by and large, whatever their feeling of distaste they live and do business together and do not openly create conditions where violence can occur. But this is only for Indians in India. Once the HIndu male or the Muslim male goes abroad, the need to tolerate either Hindu or Muslim Indian fades. And then all the grievances can come to the fore. And they pour out easily on the internet where anonymity allows the brave Hindu male and the courageous Muslim male to visit the forum of his choice and say what he cannot say when he lives in India.

This in fact leads to a curious NRI dynamic that I have observed developing over decades - since I come from the cocktail class culture where my numerous NRI relatives and friends (a bigger circle than BRF) overwhelm me with the best whiskies money can buy each time they come for a riotous holiday in India with me every July and December. (How silly to think that summer is in July. July is monsoon, not summer, but I digress)

Over the years one finds that the elder NRI is gradually receding into a cocoon of Indianness that is 3 to 10 years out of date. He holds on to Indian habits that he left behind when he emigrated, and brings his kids up with mixture of outdated Indian mores and the local mores of his country of adoption. He loses touch with how people of various communities and religions relate to each other in India and retains memories of his childhood in college as the idyllic India that still exists. It does not. India moves on and the NRI is usually behind times once he is out of India for 3-4 years.

The elder NRI has a deep love for India and believes he has Indian interests at heart, but because he has lost touch a lot of things he says and does are outdated. The Indian in India cannot go around shouting "Mohammad is a pederast. All Muslims are potential murderers". The NRI on the internet is able to do that behind the anonymity he has and believes that he is being patriotic in saving India and Hinduism. He is not. He is only making an ass of himself from the viewpoint of people living in India. BRF has not figured this out yet.

Am I "disappointed" with this?

No I think it is funny. But BRF won't go anywhere via this route.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 29 Dec 2009 07:25

Err Shiv,

Jarita (Sanskrit: जरित) was a certain female bird of the species called Sarngika, whose story is told in the Mahabharata

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2009 07:36

vera_k wrote:Err Shiv,

Jarita (Sanskrit: जरित) was a certain female bird of the species called Sarngika, whose story is told in the Mahabharata

Well young Hindu females become old Hindu women - no avoiding that. But this is another example of the courage that anonymity on the Internet bestows along with withdrawal of any hope of relating to reality on the ground for Indians living in India. Hinduism will survive on the internet, but Hindus and Muslims in India are unlikely to get provoked into a civilizational battle in India because both groups do not see any advantage in fighting. So the battle to defeat Indian Muslims is largely an NRI motivated internet battle with BRF being one of the safe havens where the filth of Islam is kept at bay.

But India is not the Internet. Hindus are living in India with the filth of Islam and Muslims are living with the glory of Hindus in India. Both are coping as best they can. But on the Internet Islam is claimed to be winning and a battle rages with characters from Hindu epics being at the forefront of that battle.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 29 Dec 2009 07:59

^^^^ Did not mean age in a chronological sense

Humans born post 2010 are purported to live till 110...
And may not have been ref to you.
And no one desires a civilizational battle. One desires the harsh truths to be encountered if India has to move ahead. If we can sit and debate the vagaries of the dowry system till we are blue and thereafter implement a whole slew of policies, we should also be able to discuss 4 weddings and several infants with equal ease.

Also, if we see India as the whole world we will miss the big picture. This was the shortsightedness which in part led to the British takeover of India. Only if we see India as part of the world will we be able to forstall future threats and seize opportunities

PS: Cannot deduce gender/age/religion etc from names

That as Shiv said is the beauty of the internet
It provides incredible anonymity to pple who take on names of gods of destruction and do tandav nrtiya on the forums

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 29 Dec 2009 08:11

ShauryaT wrote:And where did the Monroe doctrine come from in 1824? Also, if memory serves me right, US had the largest navy by the turn of the century. Do lookup the number of US navy expeditions of the 19th century.

The issue here is not one or the other but both together. Not one at the expense of another. Not one over the other. The issue here is not what we desire, but what we need to secure ourselves. The issue is not what we should spend, but what we can afford to spend.

I am posting below an excerpt from Wikipedia. It gives some idea about the state of the US Navy in the 1880s and 1890s:

By the time the Garfield administration assumed office in 1881, the Navy's condition had deteriorated still further. A review conducted on behalf of the new Secretary of the Navy, William H. Hunt, found that of 140 vessels on the Navy's active list, only 52 were in an operational state, of which a mere 17 were iron-hulled ships, including 14 ageing Civil War era ironclads. Hunt recognized the necessity of modernizing the Navy, and set up an informal advisory board to make recommendations.[48]

Also to be expected, morale was considerably down; officers and sailors in foreign ports were all too aware that their old wooden ships would not survive long in the event of war. The limitations of the monitor type effectively prevented the USA from projecting power overseas, and until the 1890s the USA would have come off badly in a conflict with even Spain or the Latin American powers.[49] One of the low points came in 1879, when the US attempted to intercede in the War of the Pacific between Chile, Peru, and Bolivia - the Chilean admiral threatened to send the American ships to the bottom of the ocean, and with two new British-built battleships in his fleet, he was well able to deliver on the threat.[citation needed]

[edit] The "New Navy"
[edit] The Rising Influence of Sea Power
At the beginning of the 1880s, a few naval officers were raising the alarm about the vulnerability of the nation, but were criticized or ignored. But by 1897 the Navy included a half-dozen large modern warships, with more on the way - a transformation so sudden that it has come to be called the New Navy.

See it is fine and dandy to have the majestic Monroe Doctrine. And how would the US have enforced it in 1812 if the Spanish had decided to call their bluff? I wonder if most of continental Europe was even aware that the Americans had issued a proclaimation called the Monroe doctrine? Furthermore even by 1897 with just half a dozen modern warships in its fleet, the US navy could hardly be called the world's largest. Britain, France, Russia had much larger fleets.