Strategic leadership for the future of India - II

[svinayak]

Thsi group consists of all shades of US elites but the single uniting factor is a distrust of India . Recall Bin Powell and his actions.

What explains this though? Here we have an India willing to Gubo at the slightest opportunity. Polls have consistently shown that US enjoys the trust & warmth of Indian public at large compared with other allies. So what explains this distrust?

Cold war ideology. These cold warriors are still there in the US establishment.

[KLNMurthy]

Thsi group consists of all shades of US elites but the single uniting factor is a distrust of India . Recall Bin Powell and his actions.

What explains this though? Here we have an India willing to Gubo at the slightest opportunity. Polls have consistently shown that US enjoys the trust & warmth of Indian public at large compared with other allies. So what explains this distrust?

Well, if a country has the capability to strike back and assert itself, and fails to do so at every occassion, that would be hard for any normal person to believe; therefore they have to imagine that there is some deep and devious motive behind it.

Or at a more mundane level, can you trust the morality and honor of someone who consistently refuses to take care of the safety and security of his own family and children? Would you do business with such a person? Can you trust him to stand by you as a partner?

[harbans]

What explains this though? Here we have an India willing to Gubo at the slightest opportunity. Polls have consistently shown that US enjoys the trust & warmth of Indian public at large compared with other allies. So what explains this distrust?

That's what GWB asked his advisors in his 2nd term, why are we not closer to this nation? Luckily Colin Powell and his cold war team were gone from the administration. Moreover Americans have been fed a diet of India a poverty stricken land mass with Caste problems bull from vested Islamist and Xian sources from time immemorial. It does'nt matter India's per cap GDP is more today than China's was in 2004. But China was never referred to as such in that time.

There is hypocrisy and falsehood in the way people have seen India and it has been portrayed. Another reason is Paki's themselves. With the == and typical Paki mentality visible across the streets in the West and elsewhere, people equated India and Indians too with the same mentality falsely.

[Rudradev]

Thsi group consists of all shades of US elites but the single uniting factor is a distrust of India . Recall Bin Powell and his actions.

What explains this though? Here we have an India willing to Gubo at the slightest opportunity.

Today we do. Ten years ago we had an India which, despite the quiescent cordiality of Jaswant to his friend Strobe, had recently conducted nuke tests and would soon threaten to upset US applecart in Afghanistan by mobilizing for an apparent invasion of Pakistan.

In the decade before that we had all shades of lefties in various "Third Front" governments who made no secret of their love for Unkil. In 1991 we had a Chandrashekhar regime which initially allowed Iraq-bound USAF aircraft to refuel in Indian bases, and then withdrew the offer mid-war because of pressure from the Congress (I), pandering to its communal vote-bank.

This dizzying dance of non-alignment vs. semi-alignment vs. opposition was repeated over and over again in every decade since we became independent. Nehru and Krishna Menon defied the West at every turn and then sought their help over the Chinese invasion of 1962. Indira defied Nixon in 1971, was briefly replaced by a Morarji Desai whom some say was on the CIA payroll, and then returned to power again.

Trouble is, we're a democracy (for all our faults of strategic vision or lack thereof). US elites from the Cold War school of thought (even if they're not old enough to be Cold Warriors themselves), don't want alliances with democracies who aren't committed to poodle-dom across the political spectrum (as the British are). Not good for the imperium. Unreliable for the maintenance of Pax Americana.

The TSPA/ISI despite everything post 9/11 remains an ideal partner for these folks, whether against India or anyone else.

Our best hope lies in the rules of engagement changing. So far Pax Americana was enforced in the 20th century manner of overwhelming military force used by a superpower to support proxy regimes and intimidate recalcitrant ones. Iraq and Afghanistan have seriously undermined that approach... they have shown that even in the absence of a rival superpower (as was the case in Vietnam), relying on overwhelming military force can eventually drag you into a quagmire and bleed you white.

The illusion that was shattered in Vietnam, and built up again with the hubris following the Soviet-Afghan war and 1991 Gulf war... has now been shattered yet again.

The Cold-Warriors and their progeny have yet to figure this out (cognitive dissonance). However, the emerging class of elite that has grown up on the principles that drove post-Cold-War globalization, is of a different view. These folks are currently too busy figuring out the domestic economic mess of the US to pay much attention to foreign policy... but sooner or later, when the US economy stabilizes, they will come out in opposition to the Cold-War philosophies that aggravated the economic collapse by over-borrowing to finance unwinnable wars.

This, coupled with the rise of China (a nation that cannot be defeated by the same means used to humble the USSR) will force a re-evaluation of foreign policy principles that the GOTUS had adopted as gospel truth for the last 65 years.

Will that mean an increased likelihood of the US elite deciding to trust and ally with India? Too early to say. Will our having a strong economy place us in a favorable position when the re-evaluation happens and is followed by a search for new foreign policy lynchpins by Washington? Probably... and if it does, I would definitely give MMS his share (though not all) of the credit.

But of course, if Paki terrorism continues to grow in impact, which is likely given the inaction of MMS on that front... all our economic progress may very well turn out to have been in vain.

[svinayak]

That's what GWB asked his advisors in his 2nd term, why are we not closer to this nation? Luckily Colin Powell and his cold war team were gone from the administration. Moreover Americans have been fed a diet of India a poverty stricken land mass with Caste problems bull from vested Islamist and Xian sources from time immemorial. It does'nt matter India's per cap GDP is more today than China's was in 2004. But China was never referred to as such in that time.

The image of India has been severely manipulated in US and Americans have the least knowledge of India and its culture. The images of India/Indians which Americans are familiar are "Green", "pro-soviet union", "poverty", "IndiaPakistan", "British did good things inside India- such as railroad, civilized Indians, Christianity", "no meat eating- strange people", "dot people", "exotic".

Some get great pleasure in be-letting India- "If there is global warming the country which will be most effected will be India"
"India is mired in strife and Islamic extremists"

Need to support Pakistan and save it from India and other bad countries is very strong with Americans. They will support any Paki leader which the US establishment and US military supports - for the stability of Pakistan.

[CRamS]

Thanks for all the explanation guys. But one issue is worth mentioning and something Pakis and their supporters point out ad nauseum. There is no doubt that after Soviets withdrew from Afganisthan, US dropped both Aghans and TSP like a used Charmin roll. Even defense seceratray Gates acknowledges this. Then there was the Pressler amendment that put TSP under sanctions. How is it that the pro-Paki cold warriors allow this to happen? How did US manage to do equal equal even under thos conditions? Then there was Kargil when TSP was under the Pressler amendment and sanctions; yet India cvould not force the issue. RudraJi, without getting into ABV Vs MMS BS, I mean lets be blunty honest here. During Kargil, TSP invaded our territory, and yet India did not have the b@lls to cross the LoC and teach TSP a lesson once for all and seal LoC == IB irreversibly. I even remember a BeeB news report from that time, where the anchor refreshingly asked Sumit Ganguly whether this was the time for India to teach TSP a lesson and seal LoC == IB once for all. Why didn't India do it? And we claim Kargil was a "victory". Anyway, my question though is how did US manage to pull off equal equal even when TSP was under sanctions? Or at the end of the day, it was the Chinese with their nuke largesse has been TSP's benefactor?

[Rudradev]

. RudraJi, without getting into ABV Vs MMS BS, I mean lets be blunty honest here. During Kargil, TSP invaded our territory, and yet India did not have the b@lls to cross the LoC and teach TSP a lesson once for all and seal LoC == IB irreversibly. I even remember a BeeB news report from that time, where the anchor refreshingly asked Sumit Ganguly whether this was the time for India to teach TSP a lesson and seal LoC == IB once for all. Why didn't India do it? And we claim Kargil was a "victory". Anyway, my question though is how did US manage to pull off equal equal even when TSP was under sanctions? Or at the end of the day, it was the Chinese with their nuke largesse has been TSP's benefactor?

I cannot tell you more than you can find out from a thousand open sources (including many on this site) why the ABV government did not cross the LoC , "teach TSP a lesson" etc. during Kargil.

For that matter, I'm not and have never been a spokesman for the ABV government, so I'm not sure why I am being asked to explain their decisions 11 years ago. My defense of them only goes so far as to demonstrate that, with all their faults, evidence has borne out that they handled Pakistan (and the US) better than what is being seen today.

Was Kargil a "victory"? By the minimal standards common to the four India-Pakistan wars (48, 65, 71, 99) it was. It arguably fulfilled the minimal conditions for intepretation as a "victory", by defeating the goals of a Pakistani military expedition that aimed to change the status quo. That is a little more than we achieved in '48 (where we hamstrung the army by going to the UN), and about as much as we achieved in '65 (where, despite crossing the IB, we gave back what we gained). In 1971 we achieved more than that, severing Bangladesh and ending (one hopes) the prospect of a two-front war against Pakistan... but even with such a decisive military victory in hand, LoC==IB was not sealed.

By the way, may I ask you in turn why Kargil would have had to seal LoC=IB reversibly as a "victory condition"? Given that the Indian parliament has resolved that all of J&K is Indian territory, casting LoC=IB in stone would actually appear to be a climbdown from any rational point of view.

It could be argued that the Siachen operation of 1987 was a bigger "victory" than any of the formal wars. It allowed us to consolidate what had been nebulous claims on a highly strategic piece of terrain with actual boots on the ground. At least, we still have boots on the ground there today.

The sanctions against TSP were specifically against supplies of military hardware and dual-use technology. To the extent that TSPAF declined to fly any missions against IAF during Kargil, it could be said that the lack of F-16 spares may have contributed to their decision, but in any other sense they did not affect matters much.

[CRamS]

Rudradev:

Not at all, don't mean to put you on a spot, and neither I am refering to you as an ABV spokesman. Just didn't want my views to come across as ABV Vs MMS thats all. For me, its only India that matters.

My question still remains, how is that cold warriors could not prevent anti TSP legislations like Pressler from kicking in? This is the standard arguments the Uneven types put forth when drawn attention to USA's pro-TSP tilts.

[Rudradev]

My question still remains, how is that cold warriors could not prevent anti TSP legislations like Pressler from kicking in? This is the standard arguments the Uneven types put forth when drawn attention to USA's pro-TSP tilts.

Pressler happened in the early '90s. At that time the cold war had just ended and preventing other nations outside the P5 from acquiring nukes was *the* top priority of US foreign policy (the biggest nuke-holding threat to America by far, had only just been neutralized after all).

Also, the end of the cold war meant that TSP grew dim on the radar screen of the cold-warriors. They still wouldn't have countenanced any direct threat to their pet from India, but grew careless enough to forget about feeding it sometimes

Between the aggressive, pro-active agenda of the non-proliferationists vs. the self-satisfied resting on laurels of the cold warriors, it would seem that the former won out and created a climate favourable to things like Pressler amendment, while the latter weren't motivated enough to lobby strongly against Pressler.

It should be noted that, until Pressler amendment actually took effect, the US had known about all the Photochor-China stuff all through the '80s. As long as the cold war was on, the non-proliferationists were overruled while the Cold Warriors made sure their dog was not kicked. When the cold war ended the Cold Warriors took a nap and the non-proliferationists gained currency. At least that's how I read it.

To India it didn't make any difference because the objectives of the non-proliferationists and the Cold Warriors coincided almost exactly.

Security concerns faced by the US at towards the late '90s... specifically the Balkan wars and OBL hi-jinks... gave the Cold Warriors a shot in the arm, brought them back to center stage, and made D.C. start to listen to them again.

[Karna_A]

My question still remains, how is that cold warriors could not prevent anti TSP legislations like Pressler from kicking in? This is the standard arguments the Uneven types put forth when drawn attention to USA's pro-TSP tilts.

The cold war was over in 1991 and the money, expertise, technology made a lot more sense to be invested in fellow East Europeans, than in TSP. Vast sections of US population are from East Europe. Mid west is full of Polish immigrants. Their vote bank was way more important than anything TSP could provide.
Moreover, no. 41 GB was ex CIA head and knew the internal contradictions in TSP.

[ramana]

Good responses.

CRS, There are intentions and capabilties. So long as capabilities remain intentions can change. the US formly beleives that. And India has the capabilities despite the intentions of its leaders. So it will always be in cross hairs as long as capabilities remain. All the 'allies' of US are poodles with neutered capabilities. Everyone of them from Queendom.
Pressler Amend itself is a Cold Warrior's cover to protect TSP. Let me explain. Before Pressler the operative law was the Cranston Amendment which itself was modification of Symington Amendment. What Cranston Symington required was the US to cut off aid to countries working on nukes. That would not work for channeling aid to TSP to fight the Afghan jihad. In steps in Pressler stating that if the US President certifies that TSP is not working on a nuke its acceptable to send aid. So every year the US President would send a certification despite knowing that TSP was moving from development to actual acquisition of nukes. In 1990 seeing the turmoil in J&K and weak coalition govt the TSP advised Robert Gates that they plan to use nukes in first strike. So the figment of Pressler had to be removed and the POTUS was forced to invoke it. Subsequent books by former US officials note that TSP tested in 1983 in PRC while Pressler was in full force. And the great Larry Pressler has the audacity to tell the Indian what a great job he did for them, and the deluded Indians continue to sing praises to him. When Pressler got invoked the US had to cut off aid and that led to a economic free fall for the TSP which is a rentier state. Emma Duncan in her book "Breaking the Curfew" says how strange it is that TSP does not have an economy yet has a GDP because of 'aid'.

Also ensuring former SU component states and Eastern Europe doesn't slide back into chaos were more important than funneling aid to TSP and India was in an economic mess anyhow in the mid 90s.

More later....

[CRamS]

Guys:

Thanks for the responses. RamanaGaru, I thought Pressler is an Indo-Phile. India' "Bill Gates" and IT honcho Narayana Murthy even has him on Infosys board of directors or some some such thing. Interesting perspective.

[ramana]

Guys:

Thanks for the responses. RamanaGaru, I thought Pressler is an Indo-Phile. India' "Bill Gates" and IT honcho Narayana Murthy even has him on Infosys board of directors or some some such thing. Interesting perspective.

Might be to get protection for his employees.

[ramana]

X-post with my highlights

When Islamization is deliberately sponsored by a ruling elite of a Muslim dominated nation, it always comes to a point where the common abdul looks for empowerment through Islamism. In all the Islamic countries this trend is obvious. What would have had a safety release through normal electoral processes and an open society in modern liberal democracies, is forced into a peculiar fundamentalist upsurge in Islamic countries. This is drive for empowerment looking to use classical Islamic "revolutionary" forms - paint current holders of privileges as "corrupt/fallen/deviated/impure" and off with their heads, and get their lands and women (the real targets set for common abduls anyway within the framework of the theology).

The Iranian commons desire for empowerment went the Islamic theocratic authoritarianism way - marginalizing all the liberal democrats/leftists. Some countries have tried to compromise with accommodation of the Islamist theocrats and the popular movements they lead as in BD, TSP, Malaysia etc.

But it would be wrong to think that domestic violence against ruling Islamic elite by the abdul will delegtimize Islamist or Jihadist ideology - in fact it strengthens fundamentalism as the new movement seeks to present itself as "purer". In TSP, too any such movement will lead to even greater fundamentalism. Talebs are just one acute epression of this phenomenon.

I noted this in ~ 1996 when the Taliban first took over Kabul. Fundamentalization of Islamic states is due to lack of outlets to express genuine dissent. But the very nature of Islamic state has no basis for such dissent.

[Jarita]

Talking abt leadership, rumor (pls don't ask for links, this is hearsay from Dilli Billis) has it that both brother sister duo see themselves as future leaders of India. There might be slight friction arising between the two as a result of matched ambitions

[ramana]

Talking abt leadership, rumor (pls don't ask for links, this is hearsay from Dilli Billis) has it that both brother sister duo see themselves as future leaders of India. There might be slight friction arising between the two as a result of matched ambitions

Many of the compromises of the 'leaders' are due to the definite/certain knowledge that they wont be protected by the state agencies.

[Jarita]

On that note a fresh tweet from Kanchan Gupta on the Saran ouster

More to Saran saga than meets the eye. South Block abuzz that Amriki takeover complete. Two naysayers in PMO, MKN and Saran, forced out.

[Muppalla]

On that note a fresh tweet from Kanchan Gupta on the Saran ouster

More to Saran saga than meets the eye. South Block abuzz that Amriki takeover complete. Two naysayers in PMO, MKN and Saran, forced out.

If that is true even by a shred then more interesting things will come out. watch the space.

[Pranav]

On that note a fresh tweet from Kanchan Gupta on the Saran ouster

More to Saran saga than meets the eye. South Block abuzz that Amriki takeover complete. Two naysayers in PMO, MKN and Saran, forced out.

Saran apparently clashed with Jairam Ramesh on global warming. It is amazing how the corpse of the global warming scam continues to be pushed forward by western elites. Even more amazing is how they can get away with it. Everybody knows it is a fraud but MMS shamelessly keeps supporting it.

[RayC]

I think MMS is cute. As cute as Gorbachov!

I like his Independence Day speech. He is superb. He can make a happy point with a sad and high pitched voice! Or maybe my TV set is bad and requires a change!

His strategic leadership has made my otherwise full refrigerator appear to be barren.

GDP is fine, but what about the cost of food?

How does the GDP help the village folks?

One can't eat, live and breathe by mere statistics!

Notwithstanding, he is an honourable man!

[Sanku]

He can make a happy point with a sad and high pitched voice! Or maybe my TV set is bad and requires a change!

:sniff:, :sniff:

[brihaspati]

Talking abt leadership, rumor (pls don't ask for links, this is hearsay from Dilli Billis) has it that both brother sister duo see themselves as future leaders of India. There might be slight friction arising between the two as a result of matched ambitions

Watch out for the sister. She is infinitely more talented for this job. But I cannot smell that "great leader" quality. In a sibling contest, she will win hands down. Especially as the coterie always goes for the apparently weaker in the hope of making him/her dependent. In the long run, neither has the potential to match up even to their mother - let alone grandma.

[Jarita]

^^ But she does not have the nationalism and deep love for nation that her granny had. Besides granny was much more savvy in statecraft.
Also same sources say that the mother is more predisposed towards son whose values & orientation are aligned with hers. Daughter is bit of a wildcard

[brihaspati]

That is exactly her advantage. I have watched one of her interviews and how the video-media focuses on her "parts". She knows how to use her assets. That, coupled with her apparent "weakness" gives her the edge. I have already suggested that she is no match even to her mom and a far cry from her grandma. But she can go further than her bro. There will be quite few wily old foxes in the political ring who will make the same mistake as those who made it around her grandma.

[Jarita]

^^^ More of this deteriorating dynasty gives one heartburn

Need a mule (foundation series)

[ramana]

^^^ More of this deteriorating dynasty gives one heartburn

Need a mule (foundation series)

its there but not recognized. Its more like the Chalukyas.

[Jarita]

Another tweet on the Shyam Saran episode from SV


svaradarajan Shyam Saran is the second high-profile climate negotiator to exit the stage after crossing swords with the U.S.

[RamaY]

^^^

XPosting, so it makes sense.

thanks to Acharya-ji - X-Posting from China thread.

India and Geopolitics

Can't believe that US administration was entertaining these thoughts post 9/11.

White house and administration strategy in the new strategic document for the problems facing Islam in 2003: Carl Rove (advisor to President GWBush in 2003) argued, 'Islam was one of the world's great empires' which had 'never reconciled... to the loss of power and dominion'. In response, he said, 'the United States should recognize that, although it cannot expect to be loved, it can enforce respect'.

This probably requires that an Islamic nation with a political center with WMD capability be propped up and given a UNSC seat and work for the interest of the western power. But this requires India not be in the strategic location with such military power. Hence there is a long-term plan to undermine the power of India from inside and from outside using Kashmir and other Islamic subversive activities. Kashmir may have come as a opportunity and not really sought before but has become important now since it is seen as pinning the Indian ambition and expansion down.

Now it becomes clear Indian subcontinent is allowed to have a nuclear Islamic state but not ME. I guess India should donate a couple of bums to persia and kosavo

[svinayak]

In 1947 India got partial independence only. Independence in real terms means that India finds its roots (culture, heritage, history and ideology). But after 1947, India got independence from Mughal empire, that too by accepting the partition, but not from western colonialism. The overt colonialism that existed for 200 years prior to 1947 has become a covert one after 1947.

The so-called independent India accepted western models of democracy, secularism, IAS/IPS in place of British empire. The only change is that currently we have President of India instead of Governer General of India.

The western model of democracy, bureaucratic structure are proven models of governance which were adopted after independence. They could have been better adapted to the local context, but inventing a wholly new governance structure was probably thought to be too risky. 1947 marked an almost clean break of association with the British people/politics as far as India was concerned. The in coming rulers were free to choose whatever system of governance they deemed fit. The fact that they didn't dismantle/sufficiently reform the colonial structure reflects on their intellectual myopia, lack of vision, confusion about their cultural heritage along with the innate belief in the superiority of the system that the British bequeathed. Most other colonized societies go through a period of detoxification which never happened in the case of India. For ex. when Korea got independence after 35 odd years of Japanese colonial rule it systematically dismantled any vestige of that era including tearing down buildings and erasing the Macaulay like effort of cultural indoctrination/history re-writing prevalent during colonial rule.

However, it is not the residual colonial governance structure, but the revisionist agenda of a section of populace which wants to regain its Mughal era dominance, which is the more pertinent problem. This has already resulted in a trifurcation, and is behind the J&K issue which is increasingly metastasizing into other parts of the country. A very superficial example in contrast between residual hold of the English and Mughal colonial power would be to consider the naming of cities and politics behind it. While changing the english names of cities are done without narry a whimper, would it be the same if the names are derived from Mughal-Arab invaders? (context: does one find cities/roads named after ex Imperial Japanese Army generals in PRC?, or after 3rd Reich officers in Israel/France/Poland/Russia or Germany) . Seeing the convulsions one witnessed over tearing down a useless relic celebrating an brutal invader of the past and numerous other such examples across the country IMHO that India is yet to and may possibly never get independence from the Turko-mongol invaders.

[ramana]

This post belongs here.

RD and Amit please continue here....

"Rudradev"
On this note one should consider Taiwan, the rival that has long been propped up by the West against the PRC. For decades, Taiwan's GDP and rate of growth towered over that of PRC, a differential that has never applied to Pakistan against India. The Taiwanese were also supplied by the West with the latest armaments, all directed against the PRC. Yet, the PRC never made compromises with respect to Taiwan, in order to catch up with Taiwan's GDP or develop economically in its own right. It stood up to the Western proxy, armed itself with enough capability to invade the island if necessary, and still continued with its own economic development in an unflagging manner.

I’m afraid this is an overtly simplistic assessment of China’s stand vis a vis Taiwan. China is very explicit on its claims on Taiwan and yet the Taiwanese armed forces have been armed by the US for decades and was definitely till recently far superior to the Chinese forces in terms of quality.

I suppose you mean "overly simplistic". Well, let's take a more detailed look at it then. The Taiwan Straits Crisis of 1995 http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~john ... /ross3.pdf was precipitated when the US gave a visa to Lee Teng-Hui, a Taiwanese President who was seeking to maximize Taiwan's wiggle room by proposing a "two-state solution" to the One China policy that most countries in the world recognized at that point. No formal diplomatic relations existed between the US and Taiwan at that point, and none exist today, in recognition of the One China policy by Washington. In this context, Lee's visit to the US was deemed unacceptable by China as they interpreted it as US approval of Lee's stance.

Unquestionably Taiwan had a qualitatively better military than China at the time; and unquestionably they had a far stronger economy per capita. China's GDP in 1995 was barely half a trillion dollars... less than half of what India's GDP is today, by the way.

Yet the Chinese did not waffle and make concessions in an attempt to win the US over, so that they could go on improving their economy at the cost of even a diplomatic point against Taiwan. They did not skirt the issue but raised it, and through a combination of coercive diplomacy and military intimidation, they got their way eventually. Lee did win re-election in Taiwan in 1996 but backed off on any drive to assert Taiwanese independence. He was persuaded to climb down by the US, which had come uncomfortably close to a confrontation with China on the subject. In a manner similar to Parakram, coercive diplomacy was used by the Chinese to pressure the US into reigning in their ally.

End result: China had its way on Taiwan, and Washington among other countries still endorses the One China policy with no changes. Lee Teng-Hui failed in his attempt to change the status quo. And China did not suffer one bit in terms of economic expansion, as a consequence of standing up for itself. Even though its GDP then was not even half of India's GDP now.

It’s only now that China has threatened overt economic sanctions against US entities which arm Taiwan. Before it’s typical reaction was a lot of bluster and military exercises and pointing more missiles against Taiwan etc. Nothing was directed against the US except for a lot of verbiage. Let’s not put Uncle Jiang on a pedestal for the sake of promoting one POV.

Ironically, it is the overt economic sanctions threatened by a 4-trillion-dollar China today that have not been effective. The arms sales by the US to Taiwan is still on the cards as far as I know. There are good reasons for this.

No matter how strong China's GDP may be today, it still doesn't have the clout to get its way merely by trying to arm-wrestle the US on purely economic terms. The business community in the US is unlikely to forego the very lucrative Taiwanese arms market. Yes American business has interests in China, but it has interests in Taiwan as well.

And most importantly, the US knows that China is bluffing. In any exchange of retaliatory sanctions and reciprocal denial of export markets, China will be the loser *by far*, even with its $4 trillion GDP.

Which puts paid to the canard that GDP alone is worth anything. Business leverage cuts both ways, because it creates an interdependency. If China can influence the American business lobby, the US can exert at least as much reciprocal influence on the Chinese business lobby. Only by a combination of leverages, including cooperation on Iran, military assertiveness in its near abroad, and selective nuclear proliferation in addition to economic strength, has China been able to influence US policy. There is no basis to say that they could have enjoyed as much influence on the strength of their economy alone.

By the way, nobody is "putting Jiang on a pedestal". That is a strawman you have erected to deflect attention from the canard you apparently want to perpetuate. The discussion of China is not to establish that its leaders are great people; but that it is perfectly possible to assert national interests, including security interests, without compromising on economic growth and development.

To insist that this is not possible, while Indians lose their lives to Pakistani terrorism, is the fraud being perpetrated by the MMS regime on the Indian people. Kindly do not attempt to divert attention from that by making the debate about Jiang's qualities as a leader.

Today we say: $1.3 trillion GDP isn't enough for us to stand up to Pakistan (let alone the US). It isn't enough for us to consolidate our strategic, diplomatic and security interests even in our own near abroad. Instead we must do exactly as the US says, and pursue peace with Pakistan at any cost, at least until 2015 or whenever we have a $4-$5 trillion GDP (as China has now).

Let's say we do this (at the incalculable price of sacrificing our national interest even within the confines of our own neighbourhood). Let's say we continue along the path MMS is taking now and wait to develop a $4-$5 trillion GDP.

When we have it, what then? Will we look at China's $10 trillion GDP and say "well, $4 or $5 trillion doesn't really cut it in terms of global influence. Let's just make more compromises and count on losing another six or seven thousand Indian lives to terrorism every year until we hit the $10 trillion mark"?

This makes no sense to me at all. India is not a corporation, not a cash cow with shareholders to answer to. India is a nation, a nation of people whose interests must be secured for generations to come. For all their ruthless corporatism the Chinese have never lost sight of the difference.

I’m sorry boss but either you did not understand my argument or you are twisting it.

I’m quite clear in my mind that we are at a level where we can swat the Pakistanis any time we want to provided the US and its friends don’t prop them up. However, the whole premise of my argument is how we can realistically build influence within the US so that it makes sense for pressure groups on Capitol Hill to drive a change in the US govt policy.

And ultimately the levers of US power is best manipulated via US business interests. In order to get them sufficiently interested we need a bigger economy so that the prize of economic cooperation with India is bigger and is worth letting the Pakis go.

I'm afraid this is where you are wrong. On two counts.

First, that the levers of power in the US are *not* best manipulated by business interests alone. As a matter of fact, levers of influence based solely on business interest have a distinct limitation: they cut both ways. The more the US has invested in a business relationship with India, then the more India has invested in a business relationship with the US.

This could not have been more obvious when the high and mighty of India's InfoTech revolution, began to pressure the GOI to stand down against Pakistani terrorism on Parakram.

This double-edged nature of a relationship predicated solely on business, is in fact, the cornerstone of US grand strategy to obtain leverage over the rise of China. The more US debt China owns, the less likely China is to want to disrupt US interests or the US economy. The more Chinese businesses depend on export to the US market, the more vulnerable China is to restrictions on its access to that market. The greater China's trade surplus with respect to the US, the more concerned they will be about circumstances that may hand the US a pretext to default on its deficit.

And eventually, in any wrestling match based on economics, the US is sure to win. No matter if we're a 4 or 5 trillion dollar economy like China is today, or even stronger than that, the US will always (into the foreseeable future) be in a class by itself in terms of economic strength. Ultimately no country can press its economic leverage with the US beyond a certain point where it ends up shooting itself in the foot.

So no, we are not going to achieve influence in the US based on economic strength alone. Economic strength has a certain role to play in achieving that influence, as a positive inducement. But it has to be balanced by other diplomatic, political and military imperatives as other positive and negative inducements. Under this MMS regime there is no chance of acquiring those any time soon.

The second point where you are wrong, is to imagine that a better economy alone will be enough to convince the US to "let the Pakis go". What do the Pakis offer the US economically? What they offer is something I hope that even MMS wouldn't be willing to give.

The truth is that while India continues to acquiesce tamely to US demands, and while India persists in subordinating its own priorities to US interests, there is no incentive for the US to do take any of India's interests into consideration. We are already rolling over and giving up everything, so why should they do anything to please us?

If you go before the US with a constantly wagging tail, as Manmohan Singh has, you will be treated like a lapdog. Not as a partner, but as a slave.

This has been borne out in spades. We thought that by going along with US strategy in AfPak, our interests in Afghanistan after the NATO withdrawal would be respected. The West has, in fact, spat in India's face on this account. What thanks did we get for signing the Sharm-el-Shaikh declaration, so effusively praised by Washington? S M Krishna was left totally in the dark with regard to American policy of negotiating with the Taliban. He made a fool of himself with public statements about "there are no good Taliban", even as the heads of all governments involved were about to assemble in London exactly for the purpose of negotiating with a "good Taliban".

Today things are even worse. K. Subrahmanyam is about as accurate a source on GOI "thinking" as we in the public domain can hope to hear from. In his article "What's Happening in Pakistan?" http://www.hindu.com/2010/02/22/stories ... 991100.htm Subrahmanyam expresses that the GOI has underlying fears about Pakistan's new initiative to start arresting Taliban leaders. He says:

There are underlying worries over whether in exchange for cooperation in fighting the Afghan Taliban and the other terrorist groups Pakistan would have obtained U.S. and NATO promises to get their mediatory intervention on the Kashmir issue. Further concerns are, relying on the U.S. gratitude for action against some of the jehadi groups whether Pakistan may carry out more terroristic attacks on India and hope for the U.S. and NATO putting pressure on India not to retaliate. The Indian fears have very valid bases and the Indian agencies have to assess the consequences arising from the latest developments for India carefully and initiate steps for optimum preparedness to meet such contingent threats.

This just shows how much of a "partner" the US actually considers India. We take orders, but let alone being consulted on US strategic and diplomatic decisions, the Americans don't even bother to inform us about them!

So if we haven't been able to guarantee that the US and NATO will keep off Kashmir, and we haven't been able to guarantee that the US and NATO won't pressure us not to retaliate against Pakistani terrorist attacks on Indian citizens: what, exactly, has MMS' diplomatic strategy of doing whatever the US tells him been worth?

Meanwhile, even Pakistan, with its basketcase of an economy, has done an excellent job of manipulating the US to secure its interests in Afghanistan with a diverse array of inducements and subterfuges.

And we think that if we sit on our thumbs developing a $4 trillion economy, we will gain "influence" against Pakistan in Washington!

Now will it pan out after we hit US$4-US$5 trillion? I think it’s obvious that that’s not an immediate given. It will ultimately depend on the political leadership and whether they have the political acumen and skill to use this new found economic clout to India’s advantage. If we don’t have the right leadership even the world’s third or fourth largest economy would not help.

Exactly right. And that is the problem today. We have a $1.3 trillion dollar economy, which is in fact the world's fourth largest in GDP-PPP. But we cannot stand up to a Pakistan which is where? All thanks to the pathetic excuse for "leadership" residing in New Delhi.

The other point is at present even assuming we had a “braveheart” Nationalist government in power today, we/they wouldn’t have the wherewithal to sufficiently sway US interest groups.

Sorry, this is simply inaccurate.

Firstly, US interest groups were swayed not to impose all-out sanctions against India after the 1998 Pokhran tests by a nationalist government (even though leaders as diverse as Henry Hyde and Madeleine Allbright were baying for our blood, demanding that an example be made of us).

How strong was our economy then? Just a fraction of what it is now, but even so, business interests in the US prevailed upon the Clinton administration not to deny them a huge emerging market by imposing sanctions. So I'm sorry, but this whole business of $1.3 billion "doesn't cut it" is a crock of Paki dung... an excuse for the MMS regime's inability or unwillingness to stand up for India.

Secondly, US interest groups were swayed not to get involved in Kargil to Pakistan's benefit, despite the prevalence of cold-warriors and other Pakistan supporters in many areas of the US defense and diplomatic establishments.

And finally, US interest groups at the highest level did a 180 degree turn... from considering J&K an easy-access safety valve to divert Pakistani jihadi terrorism, to leaning on Pakistan for a cease-fire and a stop to infiltration in J&K. Thanks to coercive diplomacy by a nationalist government.

All this happened while we didn't even have a $1.3 trillion economy. So what gives?

Previous governments have exercised coercive diplomacy against Pakistan (and the US) without ending up in a confrontation, yet leading to very tangible national security benefits.

I’m sure you’re referring to Operation Parakram here as apart from that mobilization I don’t recall any other coercive actions from the NDA govt apart from heavy rhetoric. (Please note here that while the NDA govt pulled the nuclear trigger and deserve compliments for that, the ground work was done by the PVNR govt. This is the same as your point later about the ongoing nature of such projects. The NDA govt did not pull Pokharan out of its hat).

This is not the same as my point about the ongoing nature of such projects. The bomb project had been *finished* (was not "ongoing") by the time PVNR came to power. Yet PVNR did not test it. All said and done I don't blame him for this, given the dire economic straits we were in during the early part of his regime.

The NDA does not deserve credit for developing the bomb. The credit it deserves is for testing the bomb, and taking responsibility for the political and economic consequences of such an act (totally unprecedented outside the P-5 nations).

You have highlighted the benefits which Parakram brought. And I personally think it was a good move on the part of the NDA govt.

But I’m sure you’d agree that even that didn’t prove to be a permanent solution. We may have got Musharraff browning his pants but despite that there were the Delhi and Ayodhya blasts after that, not to speak of Mumbai.

Boss, please tell me which country in the world today has managed to effect a "permanent solution" against the external sources of its international political problems?

No matter how high their "GDP"... have the Chinese managed to "permanently solve" Taiwan?

Have the Japanese or South Koreans managed to "permanently" solve problems even in their immediate neighbourhood, or could North Korea take out their dazzling economic centers in a mushroom cloud?

For that matter, the Americans, with the highest GDP of all by far... have they managed to ensure permanent, favorable solutions in even such dwarf nations as Iraq and Afghanistan? Despite "winning" the Cold War, have they permanently ensured that Russia will never have the capacity or the will to threaten them existentially again?

Outside of situations like Rwanda (where mass genocide is arguably quite a lasting conclusion)... "permanent" solutions do not exist in today's geopolitical landscape. They haven't since the end of Nazism: and that's because the cost is too great for any nation, no matter how powerful its economy, to bear.

The success of Parakram must not be measured in terms of some blue-sky demand that we "permanently" solve the Pakistan problem. That simply isn't realistic. The best option most players have is to incrementally nudge the status quo so that it is more and more in one's favour. You disrupt the existing equilibrium in such a way that when things re-settle, they are placed a little better for you than they were before. Even the US has realized this... from shock and awe, they are now adopting the less ambitious, more sensible tactics of doggedly going after achievable goals one by one.

Parakram certainly looks like a success compared to the track record of countries with trillions of dollars in GDP... such as the US, which has barely managed to slap a few band-aids on the mess in Iraq to cover its quick and silent retreat.

Also, the three terrorist incidents you mentioned: Delhi, Ayodhya, and Mumbai... were only perpetrated by the Pakis after the government that implemented Parakram was no longer in power. Some terrorist incidents did take place after Parakram during the NDA's tenure as well: Akshardham and the Mumbai train blasts come to mind. But there is no question that the number of incidents spiked after the UPA came to power.

So long term I don’t see how coercive diplomacy would/will work with the Pakis as long as we can’t wean away the Amercians.

I don't think we should be pursuing coercive diplomacy against Pakistan alone (it is true, they have so little to lose that coercive diplomacy has its limits with them).

Parakram for that matter wasn't targeted only at Pakistan. Its coercive diplomacy was equally aimed at the US. Had not Unkil browned his pants first, at the thought of his Afghan game plan going for a six, it would not have leaned on Pakistan to reverse its policy of J&K terrorism. Musharraf browning his pants was a side effect with more entertainment value than anything else.

It is to squeeze the US so that they guarantee our interests, economic and political and military, in exchange for our avoiding a confrontation.

Undoubtedly it’s basic baniya logic. But it’s also baniya logic that you need to get to the capability to be able to do that. How do you propose that India does that? By playing a spoiler with Iran and in Afghanistan? Do you think the US would be so scared of that they will back off from Pakistan? If wishes were horses…

Cognitive dissonance perhaps prohibits you from seeing this; but in fact, that is exactly what happened during Parakram. We threatened to play the spoiler in Afghanistan; the US backed off from its traditional nodding and winking at Paki terrorism, and made the Pakis do a 180 on infiltration into Kashmir.

Playing the spoiler with Iran and North Korea is one of China's primary sources of leverage against the US, and has been for a long time. Long before they had any $4 trillion economy, for sure. Yet they have that economy now, and they haven't mortgaged their national interest in pursuit of that economy... as the MMS regime is doing.

If the MMS government can guarantee the safety of the Indian people by internal security means alone, and without yielding any concessions to the Pakistanis, well and good. If it cannot guarantee the security of the Indian people while maintaining its "holding operation" then the "holding operation" has failed and must be replaced by a strategy that imposes retaliatory costs on those endangering the Indian people... no two ways about it.

I agree with you on this but the point is we really don’t know yet whether the holding operation has failed or not. I don’t know how it was done or whether it is just good fortune but the fact remains that after 26/11 it was the first time since terror strikes started in India outside of J&K we’ve had more than a year without any incidents before the Pune blast.

I agree with you the IPL and Commonwealth Games are prime targets as would be the Hockey World Cup and the remaining two One-Dayers with South Africa. Now there’s two options before India. One is the easy way out. Take IPL overseas and cancel all the other events. Or tighten security as much as possible and hope for the best. Now tell me what is the better option?

Given that the MMS regime has decided to pursue its policy of pandering to Pakistan and the US despite the cost in Indian lives, I don't know what constitutes a "better option".

I would say that stopping talks with the Pakistanis, keeping our engines tuned for cold start during the IPL/CGW, and of course maintaining internal security to the best of our abilities is the best option MMS has left us with. But I honestly don't see him adopting it.

This is why it can take years for anything to happen. The nuclear submarine ATV program was begun by the NDA government in leasing INS Chakra from the Russians but has only borne fruit today. Missile research, LCA development, Arjun development all proceed at their own pace no matter who happens to be the government of the day. If any of these programs meet their milestones during a particular government's tenure, it does not necessarily mean that the government of the day should get any credit for it.

Of course, the government *can* if it wants, change things. The PM (along with his MOD and COAS) can take personal interest in accelerating defense acquisitons and if he does, it will have a dramatic effect. The MRCA could be decided on and purchased within weeks if MMS decided to move on it.

I’m sorry but your facts are bit mixed up here. The ATV programme started much before the NDA govt. However, procurement of big ticket defence items is not the issue. It’s the willingness to test missiles and develop new ones. You know if the govt really wanted to go slow on defence it could have deferred the anti ballistic missile tests, the Agni 3, Shourya and a host of other projects which all seem to be moving towards culmination.

The lease of the INS Chakra, an event to which I specifically referred, was during the NDA government. You are right that we had established the intent to develop an ATV even before that.

Procurement of big ticket defence items is very much an issue, if the non-availability of those items is then proferred as a reason for why we don't have any coercive diplomatic or military options left towards Pakistan.

As for the missile tests, those have been continuing under any number of governments. Yet, I remember BRF posts to the effect that our 10,000 km plus range ICBM, known as "Surya" (not "Shourya") was expected to be developed by the end of the last decade. I wonder why it wasn't... maybe because of the government in Delhi for more than half of the last decade? Surya, of course, would have been particularly displeasing to those whom MMS apparently wants to please at any cost to India.

And I’m sure you’ve seen press reports that state that there’s a move to speed up the MRCA acquisition. Also there’s a massive move to ramp up security in the North East. Now surely you’re point is not that the UPA govt which is a cat in the west becomes a tiger in the east?

Yes, I've seen press reports, and I'm quite aware of who controls the overwhelming majority of English language media in India.

But now and then a genuine news story also seeps through. For example, when I was visiting India last year, there were stories of ongoing Chinese incursions and landgrabs in the Ladakh sector around Leh.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 983271.cms

Then came all these reports about how Manmohan Singh had grown a pair and become a total "Tiger in the East". Like carefully cultivated plants they blossomed.

So imagine my surprise when, just last week, I saw this story which suggested it was STILL going on!

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/china-grabbi ... ml?from=tn

The Chinese can clearly gauge the toothlessness of our Tiger by gauging his response to the jackal Pakistan.

I'll believe all that about being a "Tiger in the East" when I see some evidence of it. To the extent that HH the Dalai Lama was allowed to visit Arunachal Pradesh, yes, I'll give credit for that to MMS. But the Chinese incursions and landgrabs are evidently still very much in progress. There has been no Sumdorong Chu to deter them.

Since the 1960s, the only GOI that has actively prioritized jumpstarting the military acquisitions process has been the Rajiv Gandhi government. Of course they were sloppy about kickbacks and such, and lost re-election largely on account of the Bofors scandal.

I agree with you on this. And it is the singular responsibility of the non-Congress parties that they have kept the ghost of Bofors alive all these years by not getting to the bottom of the so called Rs64 crores kickbacks and the net result has been a badly crippled the Army which hasn’t been able to induct much needed artillery for more than two decades. Was it too difficult to bring the perpetrators of this kickback to book in the years that VP Singh and others were in power or more later when the NDA govt was in power for six years? Neither was that done, nor did the non Congress govts have the nerve to go out and buy new guns. Isn't just picking up the UPA govt on this a case of selective blame fixing?

Sorry boss, this is just too funny.

It is the "singular responsibility of the non-Congress Parties?" And why is that, pray?

Why do the Congress governments of PVNR (1991-96) and Manmohan Singh (2004-10) share no responsibility for investigating the Bofors kickbacks and bringing the perpetrators to book?? Are they not obliged to punish those who broke the laws of India, simply because the lawbreakers happened to belong to their own political party?

The non-Congress governments in between have certainly been remiss. But your willingness to give the Congress governments a pass suggests you think it is perfectly ok for them to cover up corruption on the part of an earlier government by the same party!

Not surprising though, considering what else you're willing to give them a pass on.[/quote]

[Pranav]

^^^

Here is the leverage Pakistan has :

(i) threatening to proliferate nukes to actors that threaten western elites
(ii) acting as a check on India (directly) and Russia (via radicalization of CARs). Recall the long-term demographic threat to Russia from the Islamic populations.
(iii) not threatening to ever become an independently viable entity in themselves

As far as India is concerned, we are led by the craven MMS govt that depends on Massa's EVMs to stay in power and to keep the Swiss bank accounts healthy. So it's fine to kick us around like mangy dogs.

And RD, the BJP will be no messiah. So don't pin your hopes on them. They are almost equally enslaved. Particularly their top leadership - Vajpayee, Advani, cronies like Sushma and Brajesh. The BJP has helped the Congress first family by not getting to the bottom of the Bofors scam, and even allegedly bailing out yuvaraj when he was busted in Boston in the company of girlfriend with large sum of un-accounted for cash.

[ramana]

X-post...

Though, some stalwarts on this forum disagree, I am of the firm opinion that talking to Pakistan has everything to do with apeasing Indian muslims. From 2004 onwards, every terror hit only helped Muslims moving towards INC. Some think here that Indian Muslims have moved on since 1947 and Pakistan is not a factor in their lives but I respectfully disagree.

Off cource there is no doubt that US also want India talking to Pakistan for a different but similar reason.

Both domestically and internationally if we go back in a time machine to 1980s ( my favorite period of analysis) and early 1990s, I beleive we have answers regarding why US wants us to talk to Pak and why INC also wants to talk to Pak.

Internationally
* Jihadi factory is busy with anti-Isreal and anti-Russia operations. Kashmir was third in the priority hence India did not face the entire factory output
* Both the West ( US and Western Europe) milked cheap Oil from middle east using the favorable regimes while these regimes in collusion with west funded the entire factory.
* First problem - Some of the factory became job-less to an extent after Rubin and Arafat made a deal.
* Second problem - End of cold war released all the factory employees

At this time the best visible thing available for Islamic factory was Kashmir. Using Robin Raphel etc., they decided to make all the factory employed against Kashmir and which is also direct interest to our western neighbor. West failed and there was a time-lag to make Kashmir fight equivalant to that of Israel or Russia. Meanwhile unemployed factory employees turned their guns on the west which is called as alkeeda.

Bush wanted to confront it and change the world order in a different way. The Dems admin still has confidence that they can return back to golden 80s and make Kashmir as next employable area for all the Jeehadis. It is this thought process where they want to see good Taliban, someone equivalant to Zia (in Kiyani) and then operationalize the factory slowly in Kashmir. Here is where even Saudi's importance in solving Afghan problem comes into picture.

The challenges:
1) Western Europe is not keen in this rollback to 1980s as they are getting equivalant free oil from Russia.
2) There are no strategies for US regarding how to keep the non-pasthun areas of Afghan happy in this factory-restart deal

India domestically
* In 1980s Muslims voted to INC as a single block. Apeasement of those days is multi-fold at micro/macro level.
* Even post 1965 and 1971, INC had to do a rope trick to get alienated Muslim vote into its fold. 1971 was easy because of Bangla Muslims. Post 1965, INC lost a lot of seats and Indira was also dependent on Left to survive ( INC split also is the reason)
* The first anger of Muslims was visible when Ayodhya temple was opened by Rajiv. It did not move away totally.
* It started moving away after India started diplomatic relations with Israel
* It got wiped out when Babri collapsed

From 2004 onwards, INC did all the manoverabilty it can do after every terror attack. Most of us blame Shivraj patil as dumb etc. but his non-decision making is the real reason for Muslims to beleive that their past glory will be returned only if INC comes back to power and not Mulayams and Left. The approach is very simple as they show every apeasement openly with (1) stop Afzal hanging (2) Never allow arrests from sleeper cells and on top of that protect them (there are several examples) (3) Open channels with Pak (aman-ki-asha types). It paid rich dividends at elections.

In their onward march on this pursuit - Mumbai blasts and IPL types are just hurdles. They have the will power and they will march on with slight delays.

Kashmir burning and once in a while terror attack on India are very convinient things for US, Pakistan and Indian ruling congress party. All these three entities will keep trying to achieve that. The only challenges they will face are certain game changing events that happened in late 90s and the first decade of 21 century.

For US: Kashmir burns so that jehadis are having fulltime job and also 9/11s may not repeat and Middle Eastern kingdoms will survive
For Pak: Can be united using Islamic takleef and jeehad for Kashmir could be uniting factor
For INC of India: Every Terror attack will give them oppurtunity to show to IMs that how loyal they are to them by not taking action on any criminal even though they are caught red handed. Few people here and there dead is not going to change anything in India. Soldiers are anyway paid to die. Few Unnikrishnans are alway expendable. There are Padma awards and Ashok chakras for such folks.

and

Muppalla, Your argument is based upon the assumption that folks in INC are under the assumption that IM's somehow favor Pakis and any talks with Pakistan would reap them electoral awards. Do IM's actually think like that. I doubt so.
Isn't the inaction on terror attacks a double edged sword for INC. The more they procrastinate and let Jehadis flourish in India, more are the odds that BJP (or any other party) will occupy the nationalistic space and even the WKK would turn away from INC.
Regarding the International scenrio, Now that the Gennie of Jehadis has been unleashed on the international stage, I don't think you can bottle it back into Kashmir and keep it focussed there.
I think Kashmir card has been exhausted by Pakistani Jehadis and now they are onto bigger better stuff (Refer OBL talking about Global warming). After all who wants to keep hitting a meek fellow who doesn't react when you are looking for a fight.Arjun Sahasrabahu can be a good analogy here.

Having said that , I don't know, you might be right. After all truth is stranger than fiction.

and

Muppalla-> I disagree, Talks with PAk has very little to with IM's. Many of them are against PAK. It is for adhereing to UNcle and Western power plans.

Well, there were no talks, no real terror attacks. Now we will talks, have terror attacks and we will have somthing to call off.

So Pakis can be back to thier game. Guys get ready for next round, just hope anyone including me whom I know does not get affected by the next round of terror attacks.

[Carl_T]

Wrt to the above quotes.

I think the question of whether dialogue with pakistan is there to appease IM's is a different question from whether IM's actually support Pakistan.

I think some IM elites will be less hostile towards TSP, however in my experience that is not the case for the non-elites who have no relation to Pakistan. However I don't think that the IM elite sympathy is high enough to outweigh their patriotism. It is these elites which might move towards the INC due to dialogue with TSP, and confusing these particular IMs with the rest of the group leads to statements such as Advani's praise of Jinnah.

Appeasement of Muslims might be subconscious, however I don't think it is overt for a few reasons:

1) Putting the blame on Pakistan shifts blame away from IM's and places it firmly on PM's. It allows the parties to de-link IMs from any identification with Pakistan and clearly posit TSP as the "other".
2) I believe there is a lack of recognition of the threat that Pakistan actually is. Most of us live far away from the threat centers.
3) Terrorism is a somewhat regular occurrence at this point.
4) People assume the idea of "peace" is desirable without realizing what the cost of that peace is. I think many Indians did not realize that swathes of J&K are controlled by Pakistan until relatively recently..
5) We are a poor country and the issues we discuss on this forum aren't on the radars of hundreds of millions of people in India.
This may not be true, but I can only speak from my experiences.

[JwalaMukhi]

Wrt to the above quotes.
2) I believe there is a lack of recognition of the threat that Pakistan actually is. Most of us live far away from the threat centers.

That's poor excuse in today's world, where the means of communication is readily available. When there is recognition of threat because twin towers came down, even for people living across oceans, there is no excuse to say that what happens in the backyard is not being recognized.

3) Terrorism is a somewhat regular occurrence at this point.

That's precisely what the establishment and leadership would like all the 'bakras' to believe. It is on overdrive to convince the people that terrorism is regular occurrence and nothing can be done about that. If that is the case, the leadership in India has not gone onto the next level in the escalation ladder.
Which is if "terrorism is acceptable part and way in one's life"; then it jolly well be: that it is better to be the predator than the prey to the mechanism of terrorism.

4) People assume the idea of "peace" is desirable without realizing what the cost of that peace is. I think many Indians did not realize that swathes of J&K are controlled by Pakistan until relatively recently..

People realize the cost of peace and that is the reason why commons line up at the gates of defence recruitment centers voluntarily and most of them come from the category of what is dubbed as "people".

5) We are a poor country and the issues we discuss on this forum aren't on the radars of hundreds of millions of people in India.

Of course, we are a poor country and hence it puts a higher premium on the leadership to deal with the 'issues'. Sadly, there is lack of quality and understanding at leadership level. This premium is misused by the leadership to shaft the "represented".
This is akin to saying health is not a concern to hundreds of millions of people in India, but only to a few select elite category of physicians. The poor people of India expect and trust these elite physicians to work to the trust reposed in them and do justice to their occupations, rather than hiding behind the masses who supposedly do not have health issues on their radars.

[Carl_T]

1) People realize that terrorist attacks happen, but they have to internalize that threat on the personal level before you can expect them to take action.

2) It is very much a regular occurrence, and most that I know in desh have bought into it.

3) Just because the enrollment after terrorist attacks goes up doesn't mean that all people realize the seriousness of the threat. Some do, many do not.

4) If that is so, then why aren't governments thrown out of office on poor performance on things like education and healthcare? Or are we to believe that we have been immaculately succesful on those counts?

[Jarita]

Looks like Congress is intimidating business leaders who support BJP

Robert Vadra meets Rajesh Adnani

http://deshgujarat.com/2009/06/02/rober ... -in-a-fix/


Then CBI arrests Rajesh Adnani

http://deshgujarat.com/2010/02/27/cbi-a ... terprises/

[Prem]

Some more answers to B.S Raghvan's BS to bow before China. I am curious if this Raghvan is related to ex DGMO Raghvan of J&K who has similar pacific views regarding Indian's other Stratgeic interests.
FREEDOM FIRST, MONTHLY NO. 513, MARCH 2010

Retired Major General Afsir Karim: The solution is a status quo. Aksai Chin cannot be taken back and Arunachal Pradesh or any part cannot be bartered. I believe China will be willing, provided some other conditions not directly related to the border dispute, are met. These conditions have to be discussed in a comprehensive dialogue held at the highest level. Preparedness to meet any armed aggression is a must even if an agreement is reached with China, but jingoism has no place in this process.

Arvind K Mathur, an Indian American Military History buff: There is an old saying in the military “ battles are lost in the minds of generals, not on the battle field”. Ask an Indian farmer if he will give up his land…Why do these analysts believe that India is incapable of defending herself against China? .. .I reject the idea that the Chinese will let us live in peace if we let them have the land that they look for. Note that this land is not important to them they just want it. So its not that if we give it to them they will say thank you and go about their business - no they will now be emboldened and ask for something else, may be the entire Indian Ocean.

Retired Admiral Arun Prakash, till recently India’s Chief of Naval Staff: Does no one remember history and the wages of appeasement? …Chamberlain’s f amous declaration on return from Munich in 1938, “ It is peace for our times....” will go down as the most pathetic last words ever.... Let there be no doubt that China is a hegemon which wants to give India another knock to ensure that we know our (Number 2) place in Asia. Give away Tawang today and they will demand Arunachal & Ladakh tomorrow. Given visionary & resolute leadership India can stand up to China and make them back off.

Arvind Virmani, author of, “From Unipolar to Tripolar World: Multipolar Transition Paradox, 2009": One simple question needs to be answered first: Is there any China sponsored global or continental (Asia wide) organisation (economic, social or security related) to which India was invited to be a full fledged founder member? I am not aware of any!

Retired Major General E. D’Souza, PVSM: I faced the Chinese in 1965 at Natu La. To me it is abundantly clear that we would be totally out of our minds to do so. I am convinced that we must stand fast and quietly go on girding our loins as we are now doing. (Freedom First readers will recall his many articles on the subject the last of which was in the January 2010 issue)

Madhav Nalapat, Professor of Geopolitics & UNESCO Peace Chair at the Manipal Academy of Higher Education: The Chinese are not interested in Tawang, but are using that to ensure Indian compliance on the “Dalai Issue” — the matter that is their deepest concern. Should we make concessions on that, they will agree to the status quo. So our friends are being needlessly generous, when they say that India should give away territory. Generally, that is a bad idea, including when the Obama team wants India to surrender Kashmir.

Mohan Guruswamy, China expert and author of the well acclaimed recently published book “Chasing the Dragon”: Will India Catch-up with China?”: No strategically minded India will allow the Chinese sub Himalayan space so near the Brahmaputra valley. The Himalayas are our natural boundary and China must remain on the other side of it.

Lawrence Prabhakar, Professor of Political Science, Madras Christian College and Strategic Affairs Analyst: Let me critique the propositions and outline why it is untenable in the strategic sense:

(a) By what measure do you sue for peace; is it on concrete power profile terms that is reciprocal of mutual sharing and giving up of territory for a concrete long-lasting political settlement or is it merely the angst from a bully power; By the way what does China give up? (b) In the recent history of China “settling its border and boundary disputes” there is not a single instance in which “Peaceful China” has reciprocated on territorial settlements including its strategic partner Russia. By the way Strategic Partner Russia is quite wary of China although it enjoys a flourishing commercial relationship with China. Russian officials recently have expressed much concern about China’s military and strategic modernization and Chinese designs on Siberia. The Russian-Chinese friendship or strategic partnership is evident as long as powerful USA lasts.

[ramana]

A very relevant book review. I suggest members in india read teh book and disucc it.


From Pioneer:

AGENDA | Sunday, February 28, 2010 | Email | Print |


Indian military history: From ancient to contemporary times

Sandhya Jain analyses a book that sees a civilisational continuity in the Indian way of fighting, from Kautilya’s time to the present


The Rise of Indian Military Power: Evolution of an Indian Strategic Culture
Author: Maj Gen GD Bakshi
Publisher: Knowledge World
Price: Rs 780

Rarely has a book managed to be so intellectually stimulating and to embody the continuity of tradition and modernity on so seemingly prosaic a discipline as military history as this utterly delightful offering from Maj Gen Gagandeep Bakshi. The book is as serious as the subject suggests, and the author brings his impressive multi-disciplinary erudition and sharp geo-strategic perspective to prove that India has an early and venerable strategic culture that can be authentically traced back to the Sada Shiva Dhanurveda, Hastayur Veda, the Ramayana and Mahabharata epics, the Agni, Matsya and Bradharma Puranas, and of course, the most venerable manual of statecraft, the Arthasastra.

This is startling, given that one frequently hears Indian and foreign analysts pontificate over the lack of strategic culture in India, though this is partly understandable in view of some grim mistakes in our modern history. The author notes that a strategic culture is persistent over time and tends to outlast the era of its inception. In this perspective, there is an Indian way of fighting, a civilisational continuity, best embodied in Kautilya who transformed India into a political entity from a civilisational unity.

Bakshi notes that the most important historical phenomenon of the 21st century is the inexorable power shift from Europe to Asia, and the rise of China and India. Till the 17th century, India and China together generated nearly 80 per cent of the world’s GDP on the basis of an agricultural economy alone; had continental size empires; huge economic surpluses; and military manpower. Both civilisations declined on account of a singular failure to keep pace with the Industrial Revolution and the new military technology it created, and suffered the humiliation of a prolonged colonisation. Now, history has turned another cycle, and both are experiencing enviable economic growth, industrialisation, and rising military power.

The Asia-centric power shift is best reflected in the fact that the continent today has six nuclear powers — Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. The rising economic and military power of Asia has also been accompanied by the rise of nationalism in the region, in response to renewed neo-colonial pressures from a declining Western civilisation.

Bakshi’s fascinating analysis of Indian military history sees it in terms of revolutions in military affairs (RMAs), based on key techno-economic triggers which profoundly impacted the socio-political sphere. In other words, radical changes in the waging of war triggered major economic and political changes.

The Greek invasion of Alexander crystallised India’s sense of self. Till then, warfare in the subcontinent had followed certain codes of military conduct wherein battles were confined to a tournament format in which armies met on flat open plains to fight force-on-force battles of attrition. The horse-and-chariot-based system of warfare of the tribal and clan-republics and petty principalities of northern India proved a liability as they lacked cross-country mobility. The Greeks, in contrast, had highly disciplined infantry phalanxes and light and heavy cavalry, fought most battles on river banks where the chariots got bogged down, and were free from the burden of the Kshatriya code of ethics.

The Indian war elephant, however, was the one element that literally shook the Greeks, and Kautilya wisely made this the first real RMA in India by raising massive shock troops of 9000 war elephants for the imperial Mauryan army. As elephants were prohibitively costly to procure and maintain, they needed a strong centralised state with a huge economic support base to generate the requisite force asymmetry on the battlefield. Little wonder that after Alexander’s invasion, Kautilya and an elephant-based army took just 25 years to unite the whole of India into a highly centralised state and empire. The next significant revolution in military affairs came with the siege cannons of the Mongols, which the Mughals combined with field artillery, flintlock muskets and horse-based archers. These terrified the elephants and made them a liability on the battlefield. The Mughal Empire also benefited from Akbar’s foresight in sucking up the available military labour (four million) to deny manpower to his rivals; mansabdars and subedars managed this military labour for the imperial court.

Akbar retained personal command and control of the guns and artillery, allotting the same to regional mansabdars for specific campaigns only. He monetised the Indian economy on the silver standard and made taxation and revenue collection more scientific, thus attaining a military strength of two million armed men and four lakh horses for the Mughal empire, which generated 40 per cent of world GDP in that era. However, under the later Mughals, the rapid proliferation of small firearms all over the country rang the death knell of the Mughal Empire. This benefited the rising native leaders like Guru Gobind Singh, Chhatrapati Shivaji, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and the Ahom general Lachit Borphukan. The next RMA was the Infantry RMA which began in Europe with the Industrial Revolution. Napoleon introduced the concept of the division — a combination of all arms that operate as a single entity on a battlefield. Then, between 1750-1850, the French and British innovated new methods of fighting in Asian colonies. The British raised well drilled infantry regiments in India that could manoeuvre on drill square words of command and shoot in a disciplined rhythm collectively, reaching a sustained rate of fire of 1000 shots a minute. This decimated the Mughal-style cavalry. Later, the British created a suction economy to suck out revenue and raw materials from India to sustain the industrialisation of Britain.

Post-Independence, the Indian Army in 1947-48 succeeded in Jammu & Kashmir because of tactical innovation and extensive employment of air power. The highpoint of the war was Maj Gen Thimayya’s bold and innovative use of tanks at a record altitude to secure the strategic Zojila Pass and lift the siege of Leh. Pakistan’s geo-strategic aim was to capture the headwaters of the Indus river system and secure its agro-based economy — an objective that remains intact to this day.

The 1948 Hyderabad campaign, Operation Polo, was a tactical masterpiece, as was the liberation of Goa in 1961. But modern India’s greatest and continuing failure is the failure to consolidate the Himalayan border regions. The military coup in Pakistan caused Indian politicians to fear the armed forces, which were pushed down in the warrant of precedence, while the political elite laid emphasis on vacuous doctrines of soft power projection and diplomacy. This led to military professionals being sidelined in favour of intelligence officers with a police background and little knowledge of geo-strategy, and the political blunders of Nehru made India lose the buffer and upper riparian of Tibet, without even a border settlement. In the 1962 conflict with China, India was led by Lt Gen BM Kaul who had no combat experience, but enviable proximity to the political elite. His flawed policy gave India a bloody nose and a lesson to remember.

In 1965, Indian forces admirably captured Haji Pir, the Pass from which the main infiltration operations were funneled. Bakshi mentions that India inexplicably left the Navy out of the war for fear of escalation (whatever that means), but a notable omission in his thesis is the failure to mention the surrender of Haji Pir at Tashkent.

This Indian-style of victorious defeat was again experienced in 1971, a war provoked by Pakistani genocide in East Pakistan and 10 million refugees seeking succour in India. In a marvellous tri-Service campaign with air power as a key enabler, India forced the surrender of Dhaka in just 14 action-packed days and created Bangladesh. The victory showed India revert unconsciously to her classical Kautilyan method of waging war — slow and extended preparation, information dominance, and destruction of the politico-military balance of the adversary through covert action via the Mukti Bahini.

The next paradigm shifts came with the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which saw Pakistan emerge as a key frontline state for the CIA jihad against the Soviet forces, and the indiscriminate weaponisation of tribal society which is now undercutting the foundations of Pakistan itself. In 1998, India went overtly nuclear, followed by Pakistan, which then embarked on the Kargil mis-adventure in 1999. But India had no vision of what it wanted to achieve via the subsequent Operation Parakram, which badly eroded her reputation; this lack of vision also led to non-response to Mumbai 2008.

The Global War on Terror has only further destabilised our region, but India is now modernising with weaponry from Russia, Israel, Europe, and America. Pakistan has largely lost the terrorist battle with India and switched to Intifada style phase of mass agitation based on communal mobilisation. It is now time for India to restructure its security architecture.

Bakshi emphasises that outsourcing security from terrorist attacks to America is not a viable policy option and we need to build capabilities that can deter China, especially its fourth generation air power. He warns that India should not prematurely take sides in the renewed Cold War, nor be driven to fighting the wars of others.

In the nuclear context, he notes that the Cold War rested on the fact of military exhaustion of all powers, but there is no such fatigue in Asia today. Hence the Chinese Limited War Doctrines Under Conditions of Informationisation, which involves being ready to fight limited conventional wars even against a nuclear backdrop, needs examination. It is pertinent that this is also the US strategy in Iraq, Afghanistan, former Yugoslavia; America has entered the Soviet backyard in Poland, Ukraine, Central Asia, Georgia.

It is difficult to enumerate the many insights offered by the book, which is a must read for all serious students of military theory. But it may be mentioned in conclusion that regarding the endless jihad in the northern state of Jammu & Kashmir, Bakshi states that as a sovereign government, Pakistan cannot claim lack of control over its territory or non-state actors within its domains, else it should be prepared for transgressions of its sovereignty. That’s the spirit. Finally, I heartily endorse the demand that West-funded traders in human rights be curbed with a firm hand. One word of criticism is in order — where is the index?

[ramana]

Related post....

India Prepares for a Two-Front War

Uh-oh. Can't be good if Yindia's warmongering general sahibs can not only steamroll pak without having to get off the couch (a.k.a. cold start), seems they can also apparently effectively stymie cheeni interventionism, land-grab and rampant ransom-ism onlee.

The sub-heading is even more alarmist:

This isn't just a change in military doctrine—it's a reflection of America's declining power in Asia.

Seems even unkil may be powerless sooner rather than later to restrain Yindia's storm-breaking vengeance onlee.

There is one country responding to China's military build-up and aggressiveness with some muscle of its own. No, it is not the United States, the superpower ostensibly responsible for maintaining peace and security in Asia. Rather, it is India, whose military is currently refining a "two-front war" doctrine to fend off Pakistan and China simultaneously.

Simultaneously? Really? uh-oh for TSP.

But as China has grown more aggressive, Delhi has begun planning to fight a "two-front war" in case China and Pakistan ally against India. Army Chief of Staff General Deepak Kapoor recently outlined the strategy: Both "fronts"—the northeastern one with China and northwestern one with Pakistan—would receive equal attention. If attacked by Pakistan and China, India will use its new integrated battle groups to deal quick decisive blows against both simultaneously.

The two-front strategy's ambitions go even further: In the long term China is the real focus for Indian strategists. According to local newspapers, Gen. Kapoor told a defense seminar late last year that India's forces will "have to substantially enhance their strategic reach and out-of-area capabilities to protect India's geopolitical interests stretching from the [Persian] Gulf to Malacca Strait" and "to protect our island territories" and assist "the littoral states in the Indian Ocean Region."

Wow. No wonder paki pants went all warm and moist when Gen Kapoor spoke, routinely, about Cold start.

Of course the existence of a new doctrine does not make it an operational reality. But a cursory glance at India's acquisition patterns and strategic moves gives every indication that India is well on its way to implementation. Delhi is buying and deploying sophisticated command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance networks; supersonic cruise missiles; lightweight towed artillery pieces; and new fighter aircraft with supporting electronic warfare and refueling platforms. India has already bought C-130J aircraft from the U.S. for rapid force deployment. The navy is planning to expand its submarine fleet, to acquire three aircraft carriers, and to deploy them with modernized carrier-based fighter aircraft. In addition India plans to deploy fighters and unmanned aerial vehicles at upgraded bases on the Andaman and Nicobar islands in the eastern Indian Ocean.

India is not looking for a fight with China: It simply understands it is prudent to develop a military that can deter Beijing.

Yup. An understanding borne of blood, sweat and tears in 1962. Legend has it that uber WKK-icon JLN himself was shamed into accepting reality.

President Obama's accommodating stance toward China and his apparent lack of interest in cementing partnership with Delhi have focused Indian minds, as have his failure to invest in resources his Pacific commanders need.

While America has a strong interest in sharing the burdens of checking China's expansionism, it should be concerned when its friends react in part to a perception of American weakness and Chinese strength. Ultimately, the U.S. is the only country with the power and resources to reassure its allies they need not engage in costly arms races with China. But first the U.S. must identify Chinese military power for what Asian allies know it to be: a threat to peace in Asia.

Right. So in the end, the article ends up as another exercise in asking for more US military presence in Asia. More arming of traditional rivals like India and Pak, I guess. And also for continuation of sanctions against India as well. Not.

[ramana]

Another article in similar vein. From Pioneer

OPED | Monday, March 1, 2010 | Email | Print |


Securing national security

Brajesh Mishra

As China and Pakistan have begun to coordinate their activities to keep India preoccupied in South Asia and deny it any worthwhile role in global strategic affairs it’s time we increase our defence capability so that we can defend ourselves against both the countries

For the first time after the Chinese aggression of 1962, India is confronted with a very critical national security situation. Since 1962, India has had to contend with hostile forces on two fronts, north and west. (East Pakistan and later Bangladesh posed problems, but they were manageable.) Fortunately for us, the northern and western fronts were not active simultaneously until today. But now China and Pakistan have begun to coordinate their activities to keep India preoccupied in South Asia and deny it any worthwhile role in global strategic affairs.

China’s aggressive posture on the Line of Actual Control and its vituperative pronouncements about a repeat of the 1962 aggression, threat to disintegrate India, scoffing at any suggestion that India could compete with China, the change in Beijing’s position on Jammu & Kashmir demonstrated by the issue of Chinese visas on separate sheets of paper and not on Indian passports, the recent declaration that China will continue to extend military support to Pakistan (while the US has also extended immense financial and military aid to Pakistan since October 2001) coupled with Pakistan’s violation of the 2003 cease-fire agreement along the Line of Control, increase of infiltration across the LoC, building of bunkers across the international border and, of course, the never-ending aiding and abetting of terrorism not only in Jammu & Kashmir but also in other parts of India, clearly indicate that the two fronts are active simultaneously. Unlike in 1971 when we were assured of support through the Indo-Soviet Friendship Treaty, today we have no one to help us even against Pakistan, much less China.

The second critical factor is that terrorism emanating from external sources is linked to terrorism which is termed as home-grown. This is not only on account of support and incitement from Pakistan. For years terrorists in our North-East have received material support and training from China as also rebel groups in Myanmar. Further, the recent charge-sheet filed against Kobad Ghandy alleges that Maoists in India have been running a campaign of terror in collusion with like-minded groups in a host of countries, including Nepal. Thus, it would be unwise to ignore the link between the external threat to India and the fast growing internal terrorism and, indeed, insurgencies.

The Union Government needs to devote itself with determination and urgency to three tasks. First, it has to substantially increase our defence capability so that we can defend ourselves against both China and Pakistan at the same time. For this purpose, there is an immediate need to acquire modern defence equipment for all the three services — Army, Air Force and Navy. The political leadership has to overcome the burden of the Bofors scandal in order to buy military equipment based on India’s strategic requirements and considerations, and not on the basis of our antiquated tendering process which is more of a barrier than a facilitator.

At the same time, the three services have to modernise their acquisition procedures. The current procedures not only lead to inordinate delays but also to corruption at each stage of the testing or trial of military equipment under consideration. Let me be brutally frank. Today, the police force has lost the respect of the people, leading to criminals having an upper hand over the law and order machinery. If our defence services do not immediately reform themselves, their personnel will suffer the same fate and rapidly lose respect among the people of India. How can any self-respecting service issue sub-standard clothing and footwear to our jawans guarding India’s frontier in Siachen?

The second task relates to the reorganisation of the intelligence system to conform to the needs of a country threatened not only by external forces but by determined and well-organised domestic terrorist and insurgent groups as well. This means very close coordination among the intelligence agencies as also with the Ministries of Defence, External Affairs, Home Affairs and Finance. Further, apart from acquisition of modern gadgetry including spy satellites, the gathering of human intelligence needs to be improved and intensified.

The third task is the reform of the police force in the States. To begin with, the recruitment, transfer and promotions in the police force must be completely free of political interference. The training of police officers and personnel has to be geared to contemporary needs. The most competent policemen should be posted at the street (mohalla) level. This is the most effective method of being aware of planning of crimes and hatching of terrorist conspiracies.

My final words relate to the conduct of our politicians. Our petty electoral politics is very often against India’s national interest. Political parties resort to campaigns and slogans and give tickets to criminals regardless of the adverse impact of such activities on the unity of India. There is no need for me to give instances of such pettiness practiced for the sole purpose of getting votes in local as well as State and national elections. There are examples galore. Ultimately, it will lead to the end of democracy and to the disintegration of India. But are our politicians bothered about the impending catastrophe? Not at all!

-- The writer was National Security Adviser in the NDA Government, 1998-2004.