Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 18 Mar 2010 19:38

Bji,
Your analysis and predictions on afghanisthan are turning out to be accurate.What chance does an India-Iran-Russia alliance,if it materialises,have against Paki-Western nexus?

What are India's prospects in Afghania.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Mar 2010 21:38

Problem is Iran, they are engaged in tussle with Sunni world as well with open hostillity against israel. Vote bank politics in India and relation with ISrael limit the price India will pay to play with Iranian shenanigans.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 18 Mar 2010 22:36

Prem wrote:Problem is Iran, they are engaged in tussle with Sunni world as well with open hostillity against israel. Vote bank politics in India and relation with ISrael limit the price India will pay to play with Iranian shenanigans.

They also harbour rivalry vis-a-vis Turkey, Prem ji.. This again is a historical pattern which transcends religious barriers..

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Mar 2010 23:00

krishnapremi ji,

I guess three principal points on which to build a strategy for AFG :

(1) Clarity of objectives regarding the future of the lands and peoples of current POWI from the Indian side. Assuming that this objective is set to be dissolution of the occupation government and liberation of the "common abdul" (the landless, marginalized peasant) then two other aspects follow:

(2) A ring of "no-pasaran" - no passing of heroin - placed around AF-POWI. This has to be independent of western infiltration, as many of their secret services probably protect various drug key personnel in the region for purposes I mentioned in the previous post. The ring can only be effective if Iran and Russia are key participants [to balance out western meddling] which will help keep the CAR in line and who should be part and parcel of this "ring".

This is to dry off gradually the major means of generating revenue for survival of Jihadis in the region.

(3) Mutual non-aggression and military help in case of third party - aggression, defence cooperation treaty with AFG. Then create situation that POGWI is drawn into war with AFG. A tacit understanding to give concessions in land around the Durand Line in an effective agreement to partition and share pieces of POWI. This has to be concurrent with a policy to neutralize PRC intervention - either having mutual non-aggression treaties and not joining conflicts engaged bilaterally by each country with third countries [the carrot of not supporting Taiwan]. Or promoting the Uighurs, Taiwan and Vietnam all at the same time while dangling the threat of Tibet.

We want the AFG southern warlords to get embroiled into a war with POGWI, and mutually weaken each other, so that we can clean up and divide the land up. There could be many ways of starting this fight - including suitable managemnt of the "drugs trade". The "ring" pressure I am talking about can itself have "pressure cooker" and domino effects inside the POWI-AFG dynamic.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Mar 2010 00:13

India can play the game but first requiste as mentioned by Seema Behan is to have indo- centric GOI. We had Nehru Menon combo in past causing 30 years schock to indian society and now again MMS Nehru(vian) Menon combo is scaring many Indian well wishers. The way piliant Menon has been brought into decision making preocess and Saran quitting in rush does not give good impression to strategic observers and shows weakness at high level. Its better to spend energy to do home cleaning than/before playing Geopolitics. We lost in past because of political weakness, about to loose now because of it and will loose in future unless elites become Desh centric. DId /do they lack imagination and not made any back up plan beside the old routine of Iran, Russia etc?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Mar 2010 00:19

Prem ji, Do we have the time to do home cleaning first?

Aren't the two [external as well as internal] part of the same cleaning process?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Mar 2010 01:18

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LC17Df01.html

Battle over Afghan peace talks intensifies
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - The struggle within the Barack Obama administration over Afghanistan policy entered a new phase when the president suggested at a meeting of his "war cabinet" last Friday that it might be time to start negotiations with the Taliban, according to a report in the New York Times on Saturday.

Obama said the success of the recent operation to take control of the "insurgent stronghold" of Marjah, combined with the killing of insurgent leaders in Pakistan by drone attacks, might be sufficient to "justify an effort to begin talks with the Taliban", two participants in the meeting told the Times.

That proposal puts Obama directly at odds with key members of his national security team, especially Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Both Gates and Clinton have argued in recent months that attempting to negotiate with Taliban leaders would be fruitless unless and until they had been convinced by US military operations that they were losing.
[...]
Obama identified mid-2011 as the trigger point for the beginning of a US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. But Obama will also need to show the US public that he is making progress on an exit strategy by 2012 - the biggest single prod for starting peace negotiations much earlier.

The question of when negotiations with the Taliban might begin has been hanging over the administration's national security team for weeks. As one official told the Times, starting negotiations "is now more a question of 'when' than a question of 'if'."

McChrystal has been worried that Obama would agree to a negotiated settlement with the Taliban involving a relatively short timetable for the withdrawal of US forces.

Contrary to the public position voiced frequently by Gates that the Taliban would not negotiate seriously under present conditions, McChrystal understands that there are indications the Taliban leaders would try to use their present strong territorial position as bargaining leverage on a settlement. That was the gist of what an official of McChrystal's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) told Inter Press Service (IPS) in late January.

The Taliban would presumably offer formal guarantees that they would sever all ties with al-Qaeda in return for withdrawal of all foreign troops, based on the signal conveyed in an article on the website of the Taliban's Islamic Caliphate of Afghanistan website on December 5.

The Washington Post's military correspondents reported on February 22 that "senior military officials" had decided to target Marjah mainly to convince US public opinion that the US military could be successful in Afghanistan. That shift in perception about military success, in turn, would be expected to translate into a slower troop withdrawal, according to the Post report.

That reasoning implied that a shift in public opinion toward support for military operations in Afghanistan would discourage Obama from agreeing to a short timetable for withdrawal in any negotiations with the Taliban.
[...]
Meanwhile, Afghan President Hamid Karzai had already begun asking the United States to support him in starting negotiations with the Taliban - something Clinton had publicly opposed. Karzai said on December 3 that he would invite Mullah Omar himself to talks.

He let it be known that he would use the London conference of January 27-28 to invite the Taliban to participate in a national loya jirga "grand council" meeting on peace.
[...]
Obama's initiative in proposing to take advantage of even modest successes in Afghanistan and Pakistan to start talks suggests that he is waiting for the earliest possible favorable moment politically to make a move toward diplomacy. It remains to be seen, however, whether he is willing to stand up to pressures from opponents of such an initiative or will retreat once again to avoid any confrontation with the military.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Mar 2010 01:41

brihaspati wrote:Prem ji, Do we have the time to do home cleaning first? Aren't the two [external as well as internal] part of the same cleaning process?

Wish we can solve Indian Sphinx riddle?

Guess we have to wait and watch how Post Unkil Afghanistan evolve. Right now Indian strategy of running to Uncle and Aunties is reminder of "na munh na mattha,na siir na latta" i.e cant figure out lip,forehead,head,arms or legs.
Long term clarity demand we must develop our own independent players there along side the old partners. Any loss in that theatre must be compensated in Baluchistan, Sindh or river water system.Bottomline , price ought to be xtracted and Paki must burn all the times and not make any social, economic, political progress for the next 20 years.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Mar 2010 17:39

Prem ji,
If POWI is allowed to survive, its own internal power relations will ensure that it sdoes not make any progress in the conventional sense we understand progress to be. For their Islamist, Jihadi core of that entity, stagnation or in fact more regression to even more primitive or medieval status is good.

No education, no modernization, no science, no modern democratic empowerment of the common abdul [not just formal elections but removal of the mindset imposed through Islamism of submission to fanatical leadership] - is necessary to preserve the semi-feudal power structure and focus all internal failures and deprivations on to the external "devil" - India or Israel.

As the David Headley case shows, India needs to have its own independent murderous ruthlessness a la Mossad in order to chart out a new ball-game of inflicting immense pain on POGWI. Headley and many other double agents [how could he be "double" for years without the "great" secret services of USA not knowing about it? Under what excuse Headley convinced those racist morons in the CIA or elsewhere that he was gathering information about drugs networks and terror outfits in Mumbai when they were a dime a dozen in his blessed birth country!] are still working on. Many are likely to be people of subcontinental background who can blend in with local or regional populations.

I am sure most mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, who have lost their loved ones as a result of people like Headley will support a sustained covert campaign to punish POGWI [ unless some are encouraged by a media campaign to "forget and forgive" and move on].

I think, it is time to mount a social awareness campaign to dub any sympathiser of POWI to be dubbed a traitor to the nation and anti-Indian. Anyone who even remotely talks of "forgiving and moving on" is a traitor and anti-Indian. Anyone who directly, indirectly, seeks to give economic and other justifications but never the ideological motivations [Headley was deprived, poor, uneducated, tortured by Brahmins Kashmiri or Dalit? b******] behind every Islamist attack visited on India and Indians - is a traitor to India and anti-Indian. The mindset has to be hardened and made impervious to pleas and machinations from the "other" side. There are no allies and enemies in this - no one in the ultimate end in this particular aspect should be exempt because they seem to be allies in some areas. Begin to boycott sympathisers - do not talk to them, do not listen to them, do not read what they write, do not propagate what they read - do not buy magazines which publish them, turn off channels which propagandize them, do not vote for them, do not get into marital contact with them - do not recognize or acknowledge them if you come across them. Treat them as if they have ceased to exist.

Forget intelligence gathering and preserving elements like the D-company still surviving in its tentacles in the west coast of India. Root them out completely, and this may need non-local forces. [Non local forces cannot be easily accused of having special contacts with local power or interest groups] No need for intelligence gathering that only makes sense after atrocities have happened. No need to tolerate double agents for this flimsy excuse. Every Jihadi action on India should directly translate into social pressure for Islamist leadership and elite within India to "come out" of their theology or migrate out to pure land. This seems ruthless - but is an immense social pressure not to provide sustenance for the Jihadis within and a counter psychological pressure on POGWI.

This is specifically a call to the Ulema and the various Islamist parties and their leadership to make public commitments to come out of their religion when the next Jihad strikes India from POWI or BD, thereby reducing the number of co-religionists on the subcontinent. I do not expect them to do so - but the whole experience of increasing awareness of real tendencies in loud claimants of piousness - religious or political, rests in forcing them to "choose" sides on "questions". This is what MKG did in choosing "salt" as an issue.

Only if POWI handlers see that number of Islamists within India gets "reduced" - either by voluntary conversion or migration - each time Jihad bites India, will they hold back and turn to direct war. Which is where we want to catch them.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 19 Mar 2010 21:22

brihaspati wrote: As the David Headley case shows, India needs to have its own independent murderous ruthlessness a la Mossad in order to chart out a new ball-game of inflicting immense pain on POGWI. Headley and many other double agents [how could he be "double" for years without the "great" secret services of USA not knowing about it? Under what excuse Headley convinced those racist morons in the CIA or elsewhere that he was gathering information about drugs networks and terror outfits in Mumbai when they were a dime a dozen in his blessed birth country!] are still working on. Many are likely to be people of subcontinental background who can blend in with local or regional populations.

This is the need of the hour. Perhaps few 'selective' lives wasted on the western borders will save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives within Bharat. For peacenicks - with this strategy, we can save so many innocent lives, who are so similar to us, in those troubled lands.

India needs to take the fight to outside its physical borders.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Mar 2010 22:01

B sir ji,
When u said external and internal same , my understanding is solution to Paki and the sadde teen Auliyas problem is in India . They survive on our weakness and if we remove our weak links ( there are many) Paki nuisance get reduced by same amount of volume. All the rona dhona about Headlee, Dawood, Evil Axis etc stems from our own economic/ political/ psychological weakness as we still expect others/enemies to play by fair rules. IMHO, we have to live with this wailing for another decade or so till all the oldies of MMS age are gone on eternal pilgrimage. we are not being let down by otehrs but our supposed very own. One, onlee one confident leader can change the whole game played with Indics at home and abroad. Its bound to happen and lets hope we dont forget any single wrong or favour done. Good thing is even as elites letting us down , India's progressive march is still on. My hope is one day Indics , beside Mosad type warrirors,will be forced to have pachas lakhs sainani to punish the dushts all the way to Bosphorus if they have to. The Gussa need to be channelled in right direction to strengthen ourselves.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Mar 2010 22:29

BD has probably formallys igned agreements with China today to build and open the Chittagong port to Chinese access. Could be a counter to domestic criticism of "opening port to India". But things need careful watching as the justification of "increasing military" sales from India and defence cooperation with Bangladesh tyoically is displacement or countering Chinese penetration in the area.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 19 Mar 2010 22:39

Was about to ask this question in BD context; but can extend it to all non-paki SAARC nations and even few ASEAN nations.

Mass induction of LCA, Arjun, Pinaka, C4 etc desi systems/solutions into IA would open gates for military cooperation with many neighbors IMO.

Sometimes I wonder, what is stopping GOI to invest heavily (25-50% of forex reserves) into its own interests, be it in LCA, Arjun or military/industrial infra.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Mar 2010 22:59

Personally, I would have preferred paranoid obsessives at the helm - going for it, pushing people to outpace in capabilities. There are strategic and tactical gains to make a case for indigenous deveopment while experimenting any designs you can sniff, guess, steal from rivals - the actual history of development fo weaponology in the West. Almost all their military innovations appear centuries after such stuff were first toyed with outside Europe. They are simply more ruthless in applying them than the inventors.

Cost is something also bandied about. Don't know why the costs cannot be cut down if the entire production process is brought under a single facility with several of them comepting with each other.
Moreover, preparing for potential war, even a war that is never going to happen, helps the economy, indirectly.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 21 Mar 2010 01:08

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/27953
A paranoid theory and projection. But curiously consistent with emerging trends. Posting here for comments :

Turkey, Prof. Huntington, Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, and the Antichrist

But Prof. Huntington and the Trilateral want India as an ally to America and Europe. The plans of this group seem to wish a rapprochement between Russia and the Orthodox world (sky blue) on one hand and the Muslim world on the other. Turkey stands alone in-between these two groups, and is the only country in green-blue colour. Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Romania, Moldova, Transnistria, Montenegro and the bi-national island of Cyprus seem to have the same colour as Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia. In the Balkans, only Albania and Bosnia are depicted in green. Kosovo seems to be in the same colour as Serbia.

This can happen only through the forthcoming Balkan War that would oppose Greece, Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia and Turkey to Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia, whereby the NATO could meet a dead end. This would war would be extremely helpful for Russian diplomacy in many ways:

outmaneuver NATO

make a solid bridge to the Muslim world,

outmaneuver EU´s plans for control of Ukraine and the Balkans, and

present itself as the ultimate leader of an alliance involving the entire Muslim world, Southeastern Europe, and China.

For this to happen, it would require only the following:

Turkey would prevail over Greece, Cyprus, and Bulgaria

Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria would prevail over Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia

Russia would arrange an entire peace plan, whereby Turkey would return invaded territories to Greece and Bulgaria, Serbia would keep part of Kosovo, and the price to pay would be

for Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania to withdraw from the EU

for Albania to unite with part of Kosovo and forget the rest

for Macedonia to survive, and

for all to exit from NATO.

In the compromise, Turkey would get recognition as the Muslim world´s leading country, and would receive overwhelming support to conduct a virulent attack of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia against Israel, ensuring the Zionist state´s extermination, and Russian fleet´s permanence in the Palestinian shore.

For this to happen, Turkey should not be secular but gradually slip towards the presently barbaric Muslim world so that they would possibly accept it as leader. As it is clear that the hysterical paranoia of the anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist populations of uncivilized and uneducated Muslims (particularly the Arabic speaking analphabetic barbaric masses) have reached a culminating point, one could argue that they would follow anyone attacks Israel. In fact, the re-islamization of Turkey is not a prerequisite for the country in order to lead the lewd and impoverished masses of the Middle East. It is a necessity for the simple removal of the military and the secularist establishment of Turkey that would never make of Israel and NATO two targets.

The elimination of the prevailing Reason among the Ankara and Istanbul secularist, military – economic – academic – political establishment is definitely sought after by Moscow. It would however look obvious for an American professor to help Russia and the Muslim world form an alliance and rise to great alliance – counterbalance to America.

Yet, this would help America and Europe tremendously; first it would help America shake and then keep Europe under control. As Europe depends more than America does on Russia and the Muslim world for energy purposes, and as Europe is widely exposed to Muslim immigration, the agitation would be terrible, taking the form of riots and at the most advanced level the shape of a revolution.

The shock will be as terrible as Prof. Huntington and the Trilateral need in order to end up at once European Liberalism, European Welfare state, and European Humanism, opening space necessary for a vicious person to rise in power and in force seek to revenge over Russia, Turkey, the Muslim World because of the earlier destruction of Israel. That person would unite Europe under a radical form of Christianity (closer to what we know today as Evangelical ´Christianity´) and through unprecedented militarization and resource exploitation would lead a ferocious war, aiming at the most definite annihilation of masses and peoples of the Middle East.

America´s most secretive interests as conceived by Prof. Huntington and the Trilateral would therefore be better served by Europe at a moment America would be fallen to second rank power, as expected natural disasters would ensure. The plan implementation is becoming urgent because in the - emptied from their present populations – countries millions of Europeans and Americans have to be relocated (especially in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Gulf countries, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Eritrea, and Abyssinia) as early as possible, as total ecological collapse is expected before 2012. The rise of a Middle Eastern extremist and hateful leader, a Russian dictator, who would try to maneuver the Middle Eastern leader in a frontal anti-Western alliance, and a European hysterical emperor should not be a matter of great surprise. All the devilish elements are there, perfectly corresponding to the needs of disoriented and manipulated masses. These leader will meet existing demand. And this is one of the reasons Erdogan rose to power so easily; offering fake remedy to psychologically wounded elements of the Turkish society, and sending strong indications that he would cooperate with Russia.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 21 Mar 2010 12:15

It may be a stretch to say that it's consistent with "emerging trends". If you take the theory very seriously then it has actually been "consistent" with trends since the mid-90s after his book was published, and many of those trends are merely continuing today, eg the Islamisation of Turkey. It seems like Huntington modeled his theory on the breakup of Yugoslavia which is why his "civilizations" are religious in nature, yet his idea of "civilization" is rooted in "ethnicity" and ethnic identities, which is not the same as his civilizations.

Viewing politics primarily through ethnic lines is an interesting lens, but it seems quite idealistic as states have interests that are peculiar to the state and not the civilization.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 21 Mar 2010 16:15

Viewing politics primarily through ethnic lines is an interesting lens, but it seems quite idealistic as states have interests that are peculiar to the state and not the civilization.

The US (and to a large extent India) are multi-ethnic states. Same can't beas easily said of prc (Han dominant) or Russia (slav dominant but quite diverse even then).

How these nations define their interests w.r.t. ethnic composition (whether deliberately or unwittingly) will be interesting to see indeed.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 21 Mar 2010 17:20

Even in multi-ethnic USA, can we rule out dominance of ethnic factors in influencing political decisions?

Moreover, for Carl_T - I was pointing not to Hintington's thesis - which is quite well known. But the take on how that thesis could be affecting long term policies of the "west" as proposed by the author I posted - that is interesting in its prognosis. "Consistency" was about trends in Turkey etc.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 21 Mar 2010 21:09

brihaspati wrote:Even in multi-ethnic USA, can we rule out dominance of ethnic factors in influencing political decisions?

Moreover, for Carl_T - I was pointing not to Hintington's thesis - which is quite well known. But the take on how that thesis could be affecting long term policies of the "west" as proposed by the author I posted - that is interesting in its prognosis. "Consistency" was about trends in Turkey etc.

I know it is "well known", but my point is that these trends are not "emerging", many of them have been there for a number of years now as described by Huntington, like Turkey.

If anything, Turkey will never be widely accepted as the "leader" of the Muslim world as long as the Arabs have oil under their tents. There are too many ethnic rivalries in the "Muslim world" to allow that to happen.

Not to mention it has been improving relations with Greece ever since Erdogan came to power. "forthcoming Balkan War"

.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 21 Mar 2010 21:12

Hari Seldon wrote: The US (and to a large extent India) are multi-ethnic states. Same can't beas easily said of prc (Han dominant) or Russia (slav dominant but quite diverse even then).

That is exactly what Huntington has a problem with!

Just to note, Huntington uses civilization and ethnicity almost interchangeably, when it is not.

I think more accurately, there is a bloc in each country that wants the nation to make decisions on ethnic lines, however reality prevents that from happening. Huntington is part of that bloc that is why he sees it that way. Of course the Pan-Slav and Pan-Islamic movements would say the same.

But like any other country the US foreign policy hasn't been dictated ethnic lines. It is of course closer to countries with which it has either an ethnic commonality or an imagined cultural commonality (like Israel or RoK), but does that mean it will not maintain strong relations with countries it has interests in?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 21 Mar 2010 22:20

Actually tactical alliances or "favoured" status does not necessarily imply absence of "ethnic" considerations. The apparent blurring is also because ethnicity is as much a visual/anthropometric category as a narrative/interretive/recosntructive category, and can change over time and yes, indeed, civilizations.

Look at it biologically - genetically - ethnicity is a matter of historical/pre-historical time period and genetic drift. Ethnic origins are separated in time from the same genetic branch. If you start exploring "ethnic characterizations" you can always tear them apart.

In a very broad sense, current social concepts of "ethnicity" are closely related to reconstructions of civilizations. In the USA this ethnicity==civilization is that of the "Anglo-Saxon" which is primarily held to be a manifestation of "Teutonic-Graeco-Roman" and European adaptation of Abrahamic belief systems.

Quite easy to check - find how many times Americans refer to "British American" or 'Germanic American" or "French American" or "Dutch American" and how many times they refer to "Hispanic-Americans" or "Italian Americans" or "Irish American". There are intrinsic and almost subconscious equation of Americans with Brits+Germans+French+Dutch+Norway...etc. Check the history - all these countries were taken over by Germanic hordes as the dominant and ruling elite after the disnitegration of the Roman empire.

They can adopt [and typically they do] and usurp those cultural elements that raise "self-esteem". This is why they try to dub themselves as the actual legacy of Romans or Greeks. While they treat the descendants of those two "civilizations" - the Italians and the Greeks as a distinct identity from "Americans" - who need extra qualifiers after "American". This may sound strange - but is quite easy to understand. They have adopted the legacy of Greeks and Romans because they admire the capacity for expansion and subjugation inherent in the imperialist phases of those two. However their consciousness of ethnic origins in the "Nordic/Germanic" does not allow them to accept the derived ethnicities of those imperial models as "non-alien". In fact just as founders of Islamism hated the Jews most while claiming sole legacy of Judaic theology - the Americans have subtly pushed down the Italians and the Greeks while usurping their "historical mantles".

It is this curious mixture of exthnicity and "civilization" that is crucial to understand how the "western" political animal thinks.

jagga · Post by **jagga** » 22 Mar 2010 16:00

India can't sit out the great issues of our time
http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/mar/ ... -power.htm

India has to leverage its "swing" status, engage with all and align with none, observes Shyam Saran

India's vulnerabilities in the next decade will be centred mainly in its neighbourhood. While the Indian subcontinent is a single geopolitical unit, it is fractured into several states, each with its own dynamics. As the largest country in the region, India's security concerns have always encompassed and will continue to encompass the entire subcontinent. This dictates a strategy that neutralises vulnerabilities inherent in these political divisions, specifically ensuring that India's neighbours do not become platforms for hostile activities against it by current or potential adversaries. Otherwise, India's ability to overcome an adverse, or leverage a potentially favourable, global environment will confront severe constraints.

The management of our neighbourhood should enjoy the highest priority in the next decade. Episodic engagement and crisis-management must yield place to a long-term focus on the following elements:

1. The economic integration of South Asia, with a willingness to implement significant and, if necessary, unilateral trade and economic liberalisation measures favouring our neighbours. This will give them a stake in India's growth and propriety.

2. Improving and upgrading connectivity among all countries of the region, through roads, rail, air and electronic links. Without this infrastructure in place, regional economic integration will remain a chimera; and,

3. Significantly expanded cultural diplomacy to leverage the strong and enduring cultural and linguistic affinities we share with our neighbours.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 22 Mar 2010 16:43

brihaspati wrote:Even in multi-ethnic USA, can we rule out dominance of ethnic factors in influencing political decisions?

Moreover, for Carl_T - I was pointing not to Hintington's thesis - which is quite well known. But the take on how that thesis could be affecting long term policies of the "west" as proposed by the author I posted - that is interesting in its prognosis. "Consistency" was about trends in Turkey etc.

For Huntington's theories to succeed, any Russian dictator coming to power will have to reverse the current trend in ethnic Russian population going south. Russia's current demographic can be compared to pre-Nazi Germany, if the ethnic demographic problem is not solved then Russia will eventually be over-run by Islamists because any such war would sow radicalism in a forked manner from Southeastern Oirope to Urumqi in one direction and toward Indonesia/Phillipenes in the other, not to mention Islamists could rise in arms along Morocco and the Atlantic coast of North Africa.

Every pious mellow hearted yindu's worst nightmare, that.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 22 Mar 2010 16:56

jagga wrote:India can't sit out the great issues of our time
http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/mar/ ... -power.htm

India has to leverage its "swing" status, engage with all and align with none, observes Shyam Saran

If "Aligning with none" is meant in the context of the current strategic scenario, wherein we are supposed to be the "natural allies" of the reigning superpower but behind the thin veneer of trust lies a mirage of deception and delusion, then I feel that there the "swing state" tag and "aligning with none" moniker will be India's manifest destiny onlee

I'm trying to say that the line is a classic example of a vicious cycle, if we continue to align with none, we will end up as a second tier "swing" state which has its nuts handled by all and sundry. There is really no choice, we either become No. 1 or go down fighting. Something to learn from the Brits and their past "empire"

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Mar 2010 02:55

jagga wrote

India can't sit out the great issues of our time
http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/mar/ ... -power.htm

India has to leverage its "swing" status, engage with all and align with none, observes Shyam Saran

Quote:
India's vulnerabilities in the next decade will be centred mainly in its neighbourhood. While the Indian subcontinent is a single geopolitical unit, it is fractured into several states, each with its own dynamics. As the largest country in the region, India's security concerns have always encompassed and will continue to encompass the entire subcontinent. This dictates a strategy that neutralises vulnerabilities inherent in these political divisions, specifically ensuring that India's neighbours do not become platforms for hostile activities against it by current or potential adversaries. Otherwise, India's ability to overcome an adverse, or leverage a potentially favourable, global environment will confront severe constraints.

Why is India really the "swing" state?

Are there one or more groupings which are all equally balanced, such that leaning of India to any one of theose groupings dramatically alters the balance? For example, Iran is backed by both Russia and China against the USA. If India joined any of these two groupings, will it dramatically alter the balance of power with respect to Iran? We should also be considering the possibility that the very fact of India leaning to one grouping could add more forces to the opposing group, so that balance is restored or it becomes more adverse for India.

India has been unable to even punish its vicious terroristic neighbour, the POWI. What makes its "forces" tilt strategic balances?

Quote:
The management of our neighbourhood should enjoy the highest priority in the next decade. Episodic engagement and crisis-management must yield place to a long-term focus on the following elements:

1. The economic integration of South Asia, with a willingness to implement significant and, if necessary, unilateral trade and economic liberalisation measures favouring our neighbours. This will give them a stake in India's growth and propriety.

I thought POWI was alread given MFN status by India! By the above theory that should have given POWI a stake in India's development. Once again we are drifting here into that blinding delusion of "economic reasons onlee". Economic integration without political responsibility and cultural cohesion is a dangerous mix. It can sharpen divides and raise jealous backlashes when exclusive ideologies are present. Moreover, without political responsibility and centralized or uniformized political/rashtryia arrangements in place - India may end up bearing the costs of corruption/misadventures and sheer parochialism in regions inhabited by violent ideologies/identities. I know EU example can be taken up - but there were string roots of cultural unity through religion and imperialist wars of homogenization before EU economic union could be sriously taken up. Moreover it was after Europe was almost leveled "flat" in an all-consuming "world war". A similar situation will appear only after a similar "war" that engulfs the whole subcontinent and a clear victor emerges.

2. Improving and upgrading connectivity among all countries of the region, through roads, rail, air and electronic links. Without this infrastructure in place, regional economic integration will remain a chimera; and,

Once again without common foreign policy, no means of ensuring common attitudes towards violent proselytizing movements and terror, no common defence and internal security framework - this connectivity bit also remains a chimera.

3. Significantly expanded cultural diplomacy to leverage the strong and enduring cultural and linguistic affinities we share with our neighbours.

This is most interesting! Lets look at language. We share Bengali [well a form of Bengali] with BD, not much to speak of with China, not much to speak of with Myanmar, share a form of Hindi/Prakrit derivation with Nepal. On the "west" - what do we share - Urdu? Punjabi or Sindhi - possibly. But for how long, if POWI and POGWI is allowed to exist for long? Already "cultural diplomacy" with BD, the most promising and obvious "commonality", is generating quite a strong resentment from overt and covert Islamists in BD as "cultural aggression".

No I think these are mundane recommendations, without thinking much of ground realities and the main driving factors behind statecraft on the subcontinent.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Mar 2010 19:04

Secret negotiations with the Talebs are nothing new, and probably will be the same old story over and over again.

http://theglobalherald.com/afghanistan- ... sion/2418/

The Taleban administration in Afghanistan negotiated with the American embassy in Islamabad in 2001 to hand over Osama bin Laden to a specially appointed court, but suggestions of using a neutral third country to try the suspected terrorist were rejected by the USA, according to a new book by the former Taleban Ambassador to Pakistan.

Detailing the options which were explored, Abdul Salam Zaeef claimed that even using the court at The Hague was unacceptable to the Americans who never handed over any evidence of wrongdoing to the authorities in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

In the absence of an extradition agreement or proof against bin Laden, the Taleban chose not to co-operate. As Zaeef explained:

…If every country were to hand over any person deemed a criminal by America, then America would de facto control the world. This would in turn threaten the independence and sovereignty of all countries.

A dossier was eventually handed from the US Ambassador, Wendy J. Chamberlin, to the Pakistani leadership on the eve of war which linked the Taliban with Al-Qaeda thus allowing Pervez Musharraf a pretext for collaborating against his neighbours across the border. The former Taliban official explains that the Americans were unwilling to prove their case to the government in Kabul and yet intent on proving it to Pakistan, whose airbases they needed for war.

Do we see the drama of the "dossier"? In the uncanny parallels of the logic and argument given by POGWI about Indian "dossiers" and the ex-Taleb ambassador about US dossiers/"purported evidence", do we see any difference between how the Talebs thought/think and how POGWI thinks? Do we see the possibility that parts of both overlap and move and think as part of an integrated entity?

Among the more recent matters of intrigue were those regarding the wealth of natural resources in Northern Afghanistan. In the late nineties, Iran tried to undermine a gas pipeline project which was to run through Turkmenistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan – trying instead to have the route run through Iran. It began to give assistance to the Northern Alliance against the Taleban.

In addition, Unocal, an American oil company, was already working on oil projects in Afghanistan, but had missed out on a bigger contract to an Argentine company, Bridas, after trying to push the Taleban for an exclusive contract. A Greek company did a satellite imaging survey of Afghanistan which revealed huge possible reserves of oil in Kandahar and Helmand. The missed opportunity was soon apparent.

The US started to sponsor greater sanctions against foreign companies working with the Taleban. Interestingly, the book also states that Hamid Karzai, the current President of Afghanistan, once worked for Unocal – which was later merged into Chevron.

Note that the same economic factors, drugs trade, possible oil in the centre and south, are still there. herefore, the same old drives and external interests.

Zaeef’s story is revealing in what it does not say about the history and politics of Afghanistan. Mentions of his wife and children are kept to a bare minimum, the positions of women in Afghan society are glossed over and the complaints regarding the destruction of world heritage Buddhist statues are brushed off. He does explain, however, the background to the Taliban justice system and the Islamic grounding for his beliefs and actions, allowing a greater appreciation of the motivations behind some of the most controversial aspects of the Taliban’s rule.

As usual this important factor driving the Afghan reaction to forces of change, and how it goes only towards increasing Islamism and not the other way of modernization - is not raised or discussed. This is how even the most sincere "wishes" of progressive change is subverted from the discourse and people have to go back to acknowledging it in secret through "negotiations" while denying it in public.

Current trends, he say, sound and feel very much like echoes of the Soviet withdrawal at the end of the 1980’s. Moves towards reconciliation with the Taleban and tribal militias worked well for the Soviets but were disastrous for Afghans. Such policies, he says, would allow the Allies to leave, but would spell another decade of problems for Afghans.

Local militias and deals with the Taleban are, he says, short term solutions because the kind of people who get support in such situations are the wrong kind of people to rebuild Afghanistan for the better. Such policies represent cynical political solutions to the conflict.

I asked Mr van Linschoten about the time of the king, Mohammad Zahir Shah, which represented a relatively stable period in Afghanistan’s history. “The government in that time had an amount of outreach into the rest of the country. It didn’t seek to change people’s lives. What the people of Afghanistan want is security, justice and to be left alone”. Under the Shah, schooling was provided where it was wanted, or not at all if the locals decreed it. There was stability – a number of years where people could be educated and even travel abroad.

Mr van Linschoten predicted that a shallow form of stability could be achieved quickly if the Allies insist on using tribal militias and “lots of money” in the South of Afghanistan. Military action and violence could be slowed within a month – as the Soviets found. However, such a policy does not solve the underlying problems in the area, he argues.

I find this imagery of the "golden rule" under Zahir Shah turning up increasingly in the media. It is likely to be an attempt by a portion of the "strategists" in the west to put forward a "compromise" formula under that model - obviously without the "king/Emir". But things have changed - Islmaism and Islamist retrogression - suppression of womens' rights, intervention in educational and any other aspects of modernization will be severely curtailed and the barbarism of the Sharia and Hudood will remain supreme.

Asked about allegations of Taleban involvement with Al-Qaeda, Iran, Chechnya, the Uyghurs and other “international jihadist” movements, the researcher insisted that the Taleban are very nationalist and are not interested in foreign issues such as Palestine (US General Petreus recently said that American inaction and empty promises in Palestine were endangering US troops’ lives in Afghanistan).

He argues that there are no mentions of Palestine in official statements or policy, and that the Taleban are very distinct from Al-Qaeda. The Southern Eastern insurgency is separate again under the leadership of Haqqani. Also, Mr van Linschoten could find no credible reports of Chechens in Kandahar or elsewhere, despite researching the issue of links between militant Sufi organisations for an academic paper. He said the idea of an international jihad was popular in the US State Department, but there was no evidence to support the assertion.

Mr van Linschoten said that the Taleban were sensitive to local opinion and reluctant to bring in foreigners – who arguably have no extra skills to bring to the table. Bombs and small attacks do not require outside experts despite media claims to the contrary. Furthermore, Chechens are more likely to be Wahabbi (the Saudi brand of Sunni Islam) and patriotic about their own country than in alignment with the Afghan Taliban.

How does a researcher who could obviously survive only by the tacit blessings of the local warlords and the Talebs, and who has not apparently moved around much beyond the urban centres or been a part of the core of Taleb leadership or been involved in actuall training and operations of the Jihadis be allowed to "know" about such sensitive political/military operations. He conveniently ignores the international aspects of the Talebs - especially statements from time to about India or POWI?

Recent detailed, personal media coverage of top Taleban leaders and supposedly secret negotiations with Taleban command in the UAE led me to ask Mr Linschoten about the prospects of a deal with the Taleban. He said the issue was interesting after having just spent a month in the US speaking with the military and top politicians.

In Britain, he said, there was more of an instinctive acceptance of the necessity to do deals with the other side – as evidenced by Britain’s experience in Northern Ireland.

In the USA, however, there is no such atmosphere. Due to a huge commitment of troops and resources, the Americans are sceptical of deals with the Taleban and are likely to try and make further gains during the summer. Using force will have to be shown not to work before any deal can be considered. There is another US strategic review coming up in November – December and that is when the US direction may be reconsidered.

Reconsideration has long been under way. It is just a matter of time and hard bargaining on all sides concerned.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Mar 2010 19:37

http://afpakblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/ ... -the-good/
Taliban and Dostum: how NATO rewards the bad guys, punishes the good
January 29, 2010

But there are a few problems to the international condemnation of Dostum.

Obviously, it is hypocritical. Dostum is not the only warlord with allegations of human rights violations. There are people in the current parliament, such as Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, who have been involved in the civil war, allegedly supervised — or at least condoned — systematic killing of civilians by his men, and threw acid on the faces of unveiled women.

While these warlords enjoy immunity and can participate in the political process, Dostum alone is singled out. What’s worse is that the international community is now working to integrate even former Taliban leaders by offering them amnesty and jobs.

The UN, for its part, recently de-blacklisted several former mid- to high-level Taliban leaders and reportedly conducted secret negotiations with Taliban leaders. These leaders were once part of one of the worst terrorist organizations that massacred civilians and gave safe haven to terror groups such as Al-Qaeda.

With all the money, job opportunities and amnesty offers extended toward them, it can be argued that the Taliban are actually being rewarded for the violence and destruction they continue to perpetrate. Dostum, on the other hand, laid down his weapons and effectively disbanded his civil war-era militia under the DDR and DIAG, disarmament programs sponsored by the international community. For his cooperation, Dostum is being shunned.

Dostum was at the helm of the Uzbek political-military struggle during the civil war. He also spearheaded their bitter fight to protect Uzbek areas from the Taliban as the militant movement spread across Afghanistan and up north.

Today, the Taliban are once again making inroads toward the north of the country. They have already established their presence in provinces like Kunduz, where Uzbeks constitute a sizable portion of the population.

It is also likely to undermine Karzai’s efforts to build national consensus in Afghanistan. His program to offer amnesty and reintegrate Taliban fighters is partly intended to promote peace in the country through reconciliation and bringing together of different elements in the country. The same logic applies to his offer of the military post to Dostum. However, while the international community supported — and even promised to fund — the reintegration of the Taliban, they are openly opposing Dostum.

The international community is pursuing an incoherent policy in Afghanistan. Their support for Taliban reintegration but opposition to Dostum is inconsistent with their own broader strategic objectives in the war. It rewards Taliban militancy and ignores Dostum’s efforts in the last eight years toward stability in Afghanistan. It also angers the Uzbek population, one of the largest in Afghanistan. Besides that, it is hypocritical. And that is just bad policy.

There is a crucial point here in understanding the cultural and ideological aspects of the "western" attitude to the Asian nations and cultures. The fundamental trends in understanding "western' attitudes can be explained only if we assume that they have a deep-seated admiration for cultures which are not only "war-like" but also ruthless and sadistic. A straightforward category of the "noble savage" gains some literary admiration perhaps aimed at trying to say to others - do not be ruthless and sadistic like us so that we can at least defeat you! However, the real admiration is for the violently sadistic and persistently ruthless ones - starting from the Roman "empire". Even when there are obvious overt positive factors to be gained in terms of so-called "progress" by supporting certain entities, the west consistently chooses the most reactionary, the most sadistic and ruthlessly inhuman ones. Instead of seeing the Talebs as mere vicious and dangerous pests to be exterminated [pest-animals do not recognize "human rights" of humans, they simply tolerate humans out of fear of liquidation - and take advantage whenever possible] the west accords them the highest of recognitions as "normal humanity".

It is the same ideological proximity that keeps the west supporting the Talebs, and supporting the sadistic framework of Islamic POWI, while it sits and watches and perhaps enjoys the pain continued to be enjoined on India.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Mar 2010 20:02

One possibility to consider, which I think we have discussed long ago - is a virtual partition of AFG into two. One part a disintegrating, loose - tribal and permanently Jihadi south and east which is in a loose conglomerate with POWI for the time being.

The other part is the north and west which is better controlled under the "state", and is better connected with CAR, Russia, and through Iran to the IOR. This will be a corridor for CAR[Rail link through Uzbek proposed by Russia]+West[raillink through Russia]+Russia+China[proposed Copper mine and rail link to Xinjiang]+India[Gulf ports on Iranian side+road link built to connect AFG+Tajik bridge built by India that has already seen dramatic trade increases]. This bypasses the southern AFG route and isolates POWI from the trade flow.

Only change here could be if really huge hydrocarbon resources are extractable from Helmand.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 23 Mar 2010 20:06

brihaspati wrote: It is the same ideological proximity that keeps the west supporting the Talebs, and supporting the sadistic framework of Islamic POWI, while it sits and watches and perhaps enjoys the pain continued to be enjoined on India.

Brihaspati,

I am sure you are cleverer than this - there is nothing ideological about the west's support for the Talibunnies.
There are no 'good guys' or 'bad guys' in Afghanistan, heck anywhere else for that matter, only interests!

Its India's problem if she consistently puts on the silly Dharmic hat and keeps undertaking nation building activities in Afghanistan.
Let us suppose India starts really doing nasty things in Afghanistan, then the west will let India have more skin in the game.

The irony of which seems lost on our babudom.
They seem to get their dhotis in a twist even at such thoughts leave alone actions.
It will take time of it to sink in but the west paid attention to India only after 1998!

India does not want to be a bad girl! But, she wants to hang out with the bad boys!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Mar 2010 20:56

^ Pulikeshi-ji

Peel a couple of layers more and you will see that logic reasonable.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Mar 2010 21:01

Pulikeshi ji,

The post was about "western" love and passion in choosing the worst when its a matter of choosing between "equal" strategic interests. Both Dostum and Talebs are of equal importance - given the size of the Uzbek militia and the northern situation. Still they do almost everything to shore up the Talebs. The thing is, given strategic interests equal - west always goes for pampering the more sadistic and inhumane one - the lesser the presence of any humanity at all the better!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Mar 2010 21:08

The problem gets even more complicated, if we do not recognize the difference between "short term dharma' and "long term dharma".

Sometimes "long term dharma" is a product of "short term adharma", whereas "short term dharma" produces "long term adharma". India is probably already hedging its bets with a hoped fro revival of the NA. But it can unravel if the US covert interest entities decide that Helmand heroin production facilities are too important to lose in terms of funding covert ops under total deniability, and if really hydrocarbon extraction becomes feasible in Helmand.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 Mar 2010 22:09

brihaspati wrote:The problem gets even more complicated, if we do not recognize the difference between "short term dharma' and "long term dharma". Sometimes "long term dharma" is a product of "short term adharma", whereas "short term dharma" produces "long term adharma". India is probably already hedging its bets with a hoped fro revival of the NA. But it can unravel if the US covert interest entities decide that Helmand heroin production facilities are too important to lose in terms of funding covert ops under total deniability, and if really hydrocarbon extraction becomes feasible in Helmand.

Duryodhan was coward,crooked,cruel conssistently crowing for consessions like Coackroah Paki . Bheem killed him with blow below the belt which was adharmic but long term Dharmic act and was approved by Lord Himself as well rest of us . The message for Kalyugi logs like us was that no matter what the Duryodhan kind Papi should not be spared even if it require little bending of rule. Pakistan is Paaap and must be punished promptly for any Paki act.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 24 Mar 2010 08:19

^^^

Sorry, I see nothing more than offensive realism and the pursuit of power by the west.
India, chose the strategy she did of limited nation building in Afghanistan and no one is to blame for that but her!
It is yet unclear what is the short term and long term goal for India in that region of the world.
At the end of the day, India does not have the resources required to sustain the entropy needed for nation building.
So, neither will a nation be built, nor will another nation down south be unbuilt!
All of India's effort will be washed away by the next breeze that blows across Afghanistan.

Regarding the "western" love for choosing the Taliban, that love fest has history from the cold war mujaheddin.
Easier to resurrect the existing connections is the simplest answer that fits the bill.
There are also other reasons to go the Sunni route rather than the Shia, but thats for another day.

India must not punish Pakistan, there is enough reason to, but it must remove the reason for TSP's existence.
This is a geo-political imperative, it has nothing to do with good, bad, religion, jinn, etc.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Mar 2010 14:59

Pulikeshi wrote:^^^

India must not punish Pakistan, there is enough reason to, but it must remove the reason for TSP's existence.
This is a geo-political imperative, it has nothing to do with good, bad, religion, jinn, etc.

I agree with most of what you have said but the above I am having trouble agreeing with the first part of the above paragraph as Pakistan must be punished and in a way that a thought of India automatically results in brown pants .

I also don't believe that any one outside TSP can remove its reason for existence. That must cone from inside Pakistan. Which to me means that that the RAPES & RATS must be made so weak that they can no longer rule TSP. The challenge for us is to make sure that the RAPES and the RATS lose there grip on power. Moreover, it must be done without pulling India into the hellhole that FTSP will become.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Mar 2010 16:16

Pulikeshi wrote: This is a geo-political imperative, it has nothing to do with good, bad, religion, jinn, etc.

Pulikeshi; Religion IS a geo-political imperative.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Mar 2010 20:47

Hari Seldon wrote:
Viewing politics primarily through ethnic lines is an interesting lens, but it seems quite idealistic as states have interests that are peculiar to the state and not the civilization.
The US (and to a large extent India) are multi-ethnic states. Same can't beas easily said of prc (Han dominant) or Russia (slav dominant but quite diverse even then).

How these nations define their interests w.r.t. ethnic composition (whether deliberately or unwittingly) will be interesting to see indeed.

India that is Bharat, is much more than a conventional Westphalian nation state. Its an Empire State with a modern polity of elected representatives. Its not a monarchy or republic or a strict Westphalian state where there is a dominant ethnicity to provide the homogenity which forms the nucleus.

In a way it has harked back to the 16 Maha Janapadas of between the Epic and the Historic ages with a twist of a central representative power.

I think Western Europe is trying to become one and most likely USA will also become one in a a few decades to comprise an Empire or Federation stretching from Canada to Mexico.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 24 Mar 2010 20:48

brihaspati wrote:
There is a crucial point here in understanding the cultural and ideological aspects of the "western" attitude to the Asian nations and cultures. The fundamental trends in understanding "western' attitudes can be explained only if we assume that they have a deep-seated admiration for cultures which are not only "war-like" but also ruthless and sadistic. A straightforward category of the "noble savage" gains some literary admiration perhaps aimed at trying to say to others - do not be ruthless and sadistic like us so that we can at least defeat you! However, the real admiration is for the violently sadistic and persistently ruthless ones - starting from the Roman "empire". Even when there are obvious overt positive factors to be gained in terms of so-called "progress" by supporting certain entities, the west consistently chooses the most reactionary, the most sadistic and ruthlessly inhuman ones. Instead of seeing the Talebs as mere vicious and dangerous pests to be exterminated [pest-animals do not recognize "human rights" of humans, they simply tolerate humans out of fear of liquidation - and take advantage whenever possible] the west accords them the highest of recognitions as "normal humanity".

"War-like, but ruthless and sadistic"...want to back up that claim?

If anything, the "West" tends to support cultures whom it can imagine as an extension of its own values - Huntington's civilization argument - examples would be ethnic Ukrainians, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea and Christian Sudanese. If it cannot extend any sort of imagined ideological or ethnic similarity, and if there is no conflict between them and the core states of the West, then in the case of the US it picks what it sees as the less violent side and deems them the "good guys", that would be the Bosnians, ethnic Albanians, Tibetans.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 24 Mar 2010 20:55

Hi,

Religion (with a capital R) is one more tool in the toolbox.
Please do not confuse that as a goal or interest of a state, especially a secular democracy.
That does not mean, such a state could not use interested private structure externally
to further one belief or other in cases where it furthers one interest/goal or another.

Pratyush wrote: I agree with most of what you have said but the above I am having trouble agreeing with the first part of the above paragraph as Pakistan must be punished and in a way that a thought of India automatically results in brown pants .
...
Moreover, it must be done without pulling India into the hellhole that FTSP will become.

Pratyush, the point is that - revenge is personal, geo-politics is goal and interest oriented.
In geo-politics one can make affiliations with even the worst rogue, if it furthers one's interest or goals.

Consider, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. One way to look at the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
as revenge for Pearl Harbor attack, it is another to see that the US may have considered her interests in
the Pacific and addressed that threat accordingly.
The smacking of one's enemy provides delight only if it also furthers ones goals and interests.
If India punishes Pakistan, and is left with the costly task of managing a defeated state, who won?

Punishing Pakistan, assumes that Pakistan is a country. It further assumes that some transactional actions
could cause the RAPES & RATS to lose their grip on power, then the question arises on what and who will fill in that power vacuum.

India, is the manager of the Indian sub-continent and beyond (not South Asia, I do not know where that is...).
It is India's job to ensure peace and stability in her Region of Interest.
If Pakistan as an entity furthers this goal, then it has a right to exist.
I think we know the answer: If not, we need to remove its reason to exist systematically.

QED

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Mar 2010 20:57

Pulikeshi wrote:
India, is the manager of the Indian sub-continent and beyond (not South Asia, I do not know where that is...).
It is India's job to ensure peace and stability in her Region of Interest.
If Pakistan as an entity furthers this goal, then it has a right to exist.
I think we know the answer: If not, we need to remove its reason to exist systematically.

QED

Please repeat it many times.