Geopolitical thread

[svinayak]

'The death of the European dream' By Gideon Rachman
Image by Ingram Pinn http://tinyurl.com/37ab8cl

Financial Times Illustrations May 2010

[Carl_T]

All these things are doable once PRC stops funding and arming Pakistan with WMD.

And stops sitting on Indian land and stops funding insurgent groups.....yeah India-China rapproachement!

[abhishek_sharma]

Why the US should welcome the nuclear deal with Iran

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/18/big_deal

[Pranav]

Military to Deploy Social Scientists to Africa, Searching for Signs of War : http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/05 ... gs-of-war/

[Sanku]

In the himalayas, everybody keeps what they already have and just demilitarize the entire Indo-tibetan border with significant number of military observers stationed on either side and joint patrolling by .lightly armed border guards.

Couple this with direct overland trade and tourist exchange and presto - Sino-Indian rapprochement.
.

They have to demilitarize Tibet, not merely the border. And allow Tibet full autonomy.

[Sanjay M]

Thailand's ex-PM Thaksin predicts guerrilla war

Thailand has already been fighting a bitter Islamic separatist problem in the South.
Will it now suffer a Naxalite problem?

I'm thinking that this is going to happen.

They keep blaming this one guy Thaksin with increasingly shrillness, but I'm thinking this problem is much bigger than him.

[ramana]

Thailand is beng taken apart as surely as Nepal was. Its the monarchy!

[RamaY]

I see all the regular suspects in Thai issue.

Another color revolution... but this time in Indian sub-continent.

when will our stupids wakeup?

[Paul]

I last visited Thailand few years ago on a business trip. There was a lot of respect for the King(Rama IX??). A local told me he lets the palace grounds be used for research activities. I hope it has not changed by much now.

His only daughter was married to a westerner....they are separated now.

Ramana,

Isn't thailand a DIE type state. They have always sided with the west for everything. What is going on there? Is this related to Myanmar?

Is this an extension of the shadow boxing between the west and PRC. Thaksin being PRC's attack dog.

Ramay:
Color revolution happened in Thailand many years ago. Ramana is right, it is Nepal - II again.
(However in Nepal, I think it served indian interests to take the king out).

[Paul]

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

[ramana]

The borg emerges!

Richard W. Bulliet, "The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization"
Publisher: Columbia University Press | 2004 | ISBN 0231127960 | 198 pages |

"Though Islamo-Christian civilization may be a neologism, it is a creative key term that this book will make into a household word. Since 9/11 Americans have been subjected to a relentless parade of experts, from missionaries to historians to special interest advocates, all of whom warn about the difference and danger of Islam. Richard Bulliet reveals the flimsiness of their arguments. Against Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations" and Bernard Lewis's "What Went Wrong?," Bulliet sees a future in which the screeds of American Islamophobes and the violent dreams of Muslim extremists both are eclipsed by respect and popular following for leaders of tolerant and peaceful conscience. They are the key to our collective future as members of Islamo-Christian civilization." -- Bruce B. Lawrence, Professor of Islamic Studies, Duke University

[Stan_Savljevic]

Paul, if you look at the furrin policy of the Thais, it had been pretty antagonistic to the chinis. I just happened to blindly pull a book on how the thai furrin policy was shaped through the 70s (have nt scanned through it much yet). The Thais had/have been consistently worried that Yunnan (whose dominant population is Dai/Thai) would be used by prc as a staging ground for fomenting violence and rebellion in Thailand. As the 90s came along, things cooled a bit just as Mme. Aung San Suu Kyi started waving the magic wand in Burma. Not like Burma and Thailand share a history of love, its been more of a hate-hate going all the way back to the Ayuthhaya kingdom days.

With business taking the pre-eminent role in prc/thailand relations, and thailand's criticism of Tibet morphing to one of silent bewilderment, lese majeste laws came to be used widely on anyone going against state policy. This realignment may show all the indications of a western hand, but it would be too early to cast it as a loss-loss situation for India. I see two kindsa strands going on here with the west: they are trying to strengthen chinis against India in the NE and Kashmir so that India will be boxed to the "south asia" sphere. They are trying to box china to historical ming-dom (no puns intended) so that the chinis will be g2 in name, but not much else. Fits rightly with the theme of try to prop both sides while you really pull them away. If this conjecture is right, then expect some violence in laos-cambodia-vietnam etc. sooner than later. We already had anti-chini riots essentially inflamed by the gora-dom in malaysia and indonesia in the 80s through the 90s.

India is stuck between the devil and the deep sea. There are no rights and wrongs here. If we do something to strengthen the hands of NLD in burma, we are stuck with the ejs in Aung San Suu Kyi. If we strengthen the hands of Gen Ne Win, we are stuck with lack of control in the Kachin and Shan states and the perpetuating terrorism by the nscn, ndfb, ulfa fatcats. If we let Ne Win run through, its Coco Is. and china fun-dom. If we let the NLD get in, its gonna set the stage for Partition Part II in the NE. So its fcked if we side with either beast. The best course as it seems like is to screw both the goras and the chinis by creating a third pole. The majority Burmans have nt had democrazy, the other minorities/nld are too ej for Indian comfort. So we should ideally prop up a grassroots democrazy clientele in the ethnic burman community. Wish someone could tap the Chettiyars' ken in this sphere, but most of the oldies who had been there-done that are dropping dead like flies due to the fat in their food. Not like the Indian high commission paid heed to their wisdom in the early days, they just abandoned ship right after 48-60 and let the Tams fight their way out of the mess.

[Singha]

a PRC friendly regime coming to power in bangakok would give the PLAN good deep water ports and airbases both in the andaman sea and
south china sea to get a hammerlock on the region. they also had plans to dig a deep water canal across the Kra Isthmus to connect the two
seas. I trust the king and his people hold out against the neo-naxals, EJs and islamists. the current 'anger' seems to be not so much against
the monarchy but against the PM. capitalism has always been crony capitalism in east asia. the rural and urban poor have been mobilized by
those promising them a better cut of the spoils.

meantime: CNN: - question is what now? Noko is out of the international trade and financial networks so "sanctions" are hardly likely
to elicit anything more than loud fart. Soko could sink half the Noko Navy in a day but Noko could escalate into a damaging artillery duel
on land that would be tough to stop.
Maybe sinking the largest Noko ship and then declaring a ceasefire after explaining why could be a message.
sending a 12,000 page dossier in cartons would so dharmic and indic


Washington (CNN) -- The president of South Korea has vowed "resolute" measures against North Korea for its alleged attack on a South Korean warship, South Korea's Yonhap News Agency reported Thursday.

A five-country committee announced Thursday morning in Seoul that they had concluded a North Korean submarine fired a torpedo that sunk the South Korea warship in March.

Investigators recovered a propeller from the torpedo that blew the Cheonan in half on March 26, Yoon Duk-yong, the committee's co-chair, told reporters.

The propeller was from the kind of "torpedoes that were exported from North Korea and the letters and the fonts on the torpedo are the are the same that are used by North Korea," Yoon said at a Thursday morning news conference. "This torpedo was manufactured in North Korea."

Yoon said that the investigation found that a small to mid-sized North Korea sub "fired the torpedo that sunk the Cheonan vessel and retreated back to their border."

As the 1,200-ton vessel went down, 46 sailors were lost near disputed waters in the Yellow Sea.

"(We) will take resolute countermeasures against North Korea and make it admit its wrongdoings through strong international cooperation and return to the international community as a responsible member," President Lee Myung-bak told Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in phone talks, according to Lee's office, Yonhap reported.


North Korea denied torpedoing the warship just as the team of investigators in Seoul unveiled their report.

"We had already warned the South Korean group of traitors not to make reckless remarks concerning the sinking of warship Cheonan of the puppet navy," North Korea's National Defence Commission said in a statement, according to the Korean Central News Agency. "Nevertheless, the group of traitors had far-fetchedly tried to link the case with us without offering any material evidence."

"It finally announced the results of the joint investigation based on a sheer fabrication" the defense commission said, according to the state-run KCNA. The commission called the new report part of a "smear campaign."

The White House backed the report issued Thursday in Seoul, saying it "points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the attack."

"This act of aggression is one more instance of North Korea's unacceptable behavior and defiance of international law," said a statement by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. "This attack constitutes a challenge to international peace and security and is a violation of the Armistice Agreement."

President Obama spoke with South Korean President Lee bak on Monday and "made clear that the United States fully supports the Republic of Korea, both in the effort to secure justice for the 46 service members killed in this attack and in its defense against further acts of aggression," Gibbs said.

"North Korea must understand that belligerence towards its neighbors and defiance of the international community are signs of weakness, not strength," Gibbs' statement said. "Such unacceptable behavior only deepens North Korea's isolation. It reinforces the resolve of its neighbors to intensify their cooperation to safeguard peace and stability in the region against all provocations."

The United States has a mutual defense treaty with South Korea and Japan to defend "against any aggression," so if a military confrontation develops, the United States would be responsible for defending South Korea, a U.S. military official said.

"I don't think it will come to that," the official said. "They know they need to have a response, but there is too much at stake for South Korea to have a confrontation on the Korean peninsula. North Korea has nothing to lose, but South Korea is a serious country with a huge economy."

There are military options for South Korea beyond firing missiles, said John Delury, who studies North and South Korea at the Asia Society.

Anything combative would hurt South Korea economically, Delury said, but the country could increase its naval presence along the line that divides South and North Korea in the waters surrounding the countries. He notes that comes with a risk.

"Those actions could trigger a conflict," he noted.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who will visit Seoul next week, will talk with the South Korean government about the investigation, Assistant Secretary Campbell said.

Clinton will also visit Japan and China during her trip, and the North Korean issue is likely to be high on the agenda.

Clinton will have "the closest possible consultations with Japan, China and South Korea about the next phase," Campbell said.

On Monday, President Obama spoke on the phone about the investigation with President Lee.

The president reiterated "the strong and unwavering commitment of the United States to the defense and the well-being of its close friend and ally, the Republic of Korea," a White House statement said about the conversation.

[Paul]

Stan, King Rama VI in the last century did the country great service by forcing the Chinese who were assailimated into accepting Thai culture. They had to take Thai surnames and adopt Thai way of life. Most of the Chinese in Thailand are from Yunnan province and at one time were 10% - 11% of pop.

BTW....Thaksin's origin got me thinking on the background of the Chinese population in Thailand and iI did some googling on thai chinese in Burma/Thailand. It turns out that the civil wars in Yunnan in the 1930s had a major bearing on thailand and Burma border and to prevent the Kuo Mintang from getting diverted from fighting the Japanese (hint:Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1937), the British demarcated the Yunnan-Burma border and hived it from India. They lay also have wanted a buffer protecting India from the threatening thunderstorms in East Asia. Note that Caroe in his papers had referred to Burma as the easter buffer state. The Brits may have been using the Kuomintang as their proxies against Japan.

Yunnan province and PRC in those days was not very different from Afghanistan today with warlords fighting each other for boys and land. There is a movie "High road to China" with Tom Selleck with this background.

Looks like this is the key reason for hiving Burma from India in 1937 (same year Burma was separated from India)....this question was asked on BRF many times. will post links later.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PS: Thaksin is basically a street fighter and has the sympathy of the chinese origin Thais. PRC has opened a new front in the proxy war to get to the warm waters of the Indian ocean. India better get over it's dhmmified shell and reach across Myanmar to secure it's interests soon or else....

[Paul]

Note that Caroe in his papers had referred to Burma as the easter buffer state.

Back to my pet thread: I posted this in 2008.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 77&start=0

ROAD TO YANGON
- India is unable to wed economic self-interest to strategic vision
Swapan Dasgupta


It’s never easy to balance ethics and expediency in foreign policy. Throughout the month-long anti-junta stir in Myanmar, India was at the receiving end of domestic and overseas criticism for being indifferent to the struggle for democracy. The land of the Mahatma was taunted for suggesting a moral equivalence between Senior General Than Shwe and Aung San Suu Kyi, the woman who has replaced Nelson Mandela as the living personification of Gandhi. Most damning of all, India’s attitude to the upsurge in Myanmar has been compared to the self-serving cynicism of China — a country with an impressive track of bolstering rogue regimes in North Korea and Sudan.

Viewed in terms of pure self-interest, India’s refusal to come out decisively in favour of the Buddhist monks and National League for Democracy is understandable. In the early-Nineties, New Delhi found itself cut off from the loop in Yangon for its open expressions of solidarity with the popularly-elected leader who was never allowed by the military to assume power. The collateral damage that arose from supporting democracy in Myanmar was profound. The Tatmadaw (as the junta is known) wilfully turned a blind eye to groups like the United Liberation Front of Asom and the National Socialist Council of Nagalim, which used camps inside Myanmar as springboards for operations in northeast India.

It took a great deal of patient diplomacy for Indo-Myanmar relations to be restored to a somewhat even keel. By 2000, India was successful in enlisting Yangon’s cooperation in meeting the threat of the northeastern insurgent groups. Not only did the Tatmadaw close down many of the camps inside its territory, it actually facilitated some cross-border operations of the Indian army. The camps that remained were in areas over which the writ of the Myanmar state did not run.

For a military regime that had become excessively dependent on China, it made sense to clutch India’s hand of friendship, if only as a hedge. India extended valuable assistance in upgrading the old Burma Road that links Manipur to Mandalay. Egged on by the state governments in Assam and the Northeast, India mooted a joint project to restore the famous 1,000-kilometre Stillwell Road which began at Ledo in Assam, ran through the Hukawng Valley in Myanmar, before finishing at Kunming in the Yunan province of China. Since a 300-km stretch of the road passes through an inhospitable Kachin belt, a subtext of the proposal was Indian assistance for Myanmar’s domestic anti-insurgency operations.

It is important to acknowledge that India’s engagement with the military regime in Naypyidaw, the new garrison town which is officially the capital, actually stems from a position of utmost weakness. Ideally, it would be in New Delhi’s interest to have an economically vibrant, democratic Myanmar headed by Suu Kyi, who has a deep, personal association with India. The deep involvement of China with the Tatmadaw in both the military and economic spheres has added to India’s fears of Chinese “encirclement”, fears that have grown with the turbulence in Nepal.

Yet, there is a recognition that the democratization of a society caught in a time-warp is unlikely to be trouble-free. Convinced that it is the sole guardian of the country’s traditional values, the Tatmadaw has so far resisted all moves to enlarge the decision-making process. It nurtures the belief that democracy will unleash fissiparous tendencies and undermine Myanmar’s existence as a united, Buddhist nation. In particular, it is fearful that the ethnic insurgencies along the borders will get out of hand with a federal, democratic constitution.

These are familiar concerns of self-serving cliques who believe they alone can safeguard national interests. That, however, does not mean that every fear is based on paranoia. India has reason to be grateful to the Tatmadaw for its success in containing the spread of the insurgencies, particularly those which blend sub-nationalism with Christian evangelism. A weakening of the central authority in Myanmar — unavoidable in the transition to democracy — will inevitably have a bearing on India’s internal security.

If India’s anxieties with the military junta stem from fears of growing Chinese influence, there is the corresponding apprehension that democracy could throw Myanmar into temporary chaos and lead to a free-for-all. The West genuinely wants democracy in Myanmar but this desire does not stem from the worship of ideals. It reflects a pragmatic desire to regain some influence in a country that has chosen to live in isolation from 1962.

For the Anglo-American alliance, the restoration of democracy is also the instrument to contain China’s “hegemonism” in Asia. Tarring China with the brush of encouraging human rights abuses is also a good way of deflating the hype around next year’s Beijing Olympics.

There is a happy convergence between Western designs and Indian wishes. Yet, the problem with Indian foreign policy is its inability to marry the pursuit of strategic and economic self-interest with a larger strategic vision. The mismatch is all the more pronounced since India acquired a new self-confidence rooted in the success of its private corporate sector.

The West, needless to add, would love India to take the lead in implementing a common agenda in southeast Asia — the other candidate, Thailand, has its own junta problems. But where does Myanmar fit into India’s larger scheme of things? If a stable Myanmar is all that India should hope for, it makes more sense to accept in the short-term the certitudes of the Tatmadaw rather than the uncertainties of the well-meaning Suu Kyi. However, if curbing China’s growing influence is the prime objective, how is that to be achieved?

It is interesting that many of these issues were discussed in considerable detail by the Viceroy’s Study Group, established in 1942 under the chairmanship of India’s foreign secretary, Sir Olaf Caroe, a man who combined his fascination for the Great Game with a Curzonian belief in the destiny of India. These deliberations have been dissected in detail by American historian, P.J. Brobst, in The Future of the Great Game.

Caroe envisaged a pivotal role for an independent India, strategically linked to Britain, “at the centre of an Asiatic system”. The defence of India, he argued, had to be based on an “outer ring” that extended to Iran, Tibet, Malaya and Thailand and an “inner wall”, which included Baluchistan, the North-West Frontier Province, Nepal and the North-eastern hill tracts. In Caroe’s mind, the biggest threat to India in the east was a China that “makes no secret of its ambitions to reassert its sway over its former territories; it recalls that it once claimed suzerainty over Nepal and Myanmar… and though in the past it has…had little interest in India, today the shrinkage of distance… may well turn the attention of Chinese imperialists to new and dangerous paths.”

The containment of Chinese imperialism, he argued, depended on establishing buffers all along the “outer ring”. The first was Tibet which gave several hundred miles of depth to India’s frontiers. The second was Myanmar. According to him the neutrality of a small state like Myanmar was impractical. “Any conception of the future of Myanmar,” he wrote, “must be related to a larger international order, to be guaranteed by some greater powers or power.” The buffer roles of “Myanmar, Malaya and Indo-China will depend entirely on the prestige of the sovereign power set against the acquiescence of other powers”. In plain language, it would not do for India to submit meekly to China.

Some six decades later, despite regime changes and the topsy-turvy of frontiers, Caroe’s understanding of Indian imperatives hasn’t lost relevance.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1071005/a ... 398140.asp

[Paul]

Looks canbe deceptive. The Yunnan-Myanmar border has a history of acrimonious dispute. There are rich opportunities for India for the picking here. Again, this is part of the reason why Burma was separated as an adminsitrative province from India (eastern buffer state).

Conclusion
Between 1911 and 1937, the Yunnan-Burma border comprised a warlord frontier. The Yunnan provincial militarists, Cai E and Long Yun, were at the forefront of the frontier dispute. Their handling of this critical foreign relations issue demonstrated their differing views on the role of the central government versus that of the provincial government and the emerging influence of provincial militarists on foreign policy issues. Long’s provincial administration crafted the only coherent frontier policy regarding the border. The Chinese Nationalist government simply lacked the political power to influence
this remote province and was preoccupied with other more pressing matters. As a result, Long sought to define the frontier in a manner designed

to enhance provincial autonomy and his control over the province. The nature of this frontier dispute and the role of provincial militarists in foreign relations and frontier policy is also a frontier of warlordism. Warlords have consistently been seen to either be the lackeys of foreign imperialists or not involved in foreign relations. The history of the Yunnan-Burma border dispute challenges both conceptions. Some militarists did indeed have extensive contact with foreign powers. Those militarists who ruled frontier regions, like Yunnan, had to maintain contact with foreign powers in order to manage a number of issues important to the preservation of the individual militarist’s base of operations. And when it suited their purposes, provincial militarists actively opposed western encroachment. To do otherwise, would have conceded potential resources that were vital to maintaining provincial autonomy and thereby the militarist’s political survival.

www2.uakron.edu/OAH/Proceedings/2003/McGrath.pdf

[Sanjay M]

If Thaksin Shinawatra is a pro-Chinese agent, then why is puny Montenegro the only place where he can find refuge? (and even then, the terms of his refuge require him to stay quiet)

I would think that China has enough pull internationally to get an agent of theirs better refuge than this.
He could have been granted refuge by Chinese puppet junta in Myanmar nextdoor. Or perhaps in Lanka.

Thaksin does certainly seem to be a bit of a Chavez type of firebrand, though.

[Paul]

Prince Sihanuak of Cambodia was PRC's proxy to rival Vietnam installed Heng Samrin....only place he could find refuge was in NoKo IIRC. Same with Pol Pot.

PRCcannot come out openly in support of Thaksin. This will have a ripple across entire SE Asia.

[Paul]

Emerging Fault Lines in Sino-Burmese Relations: The Kokang Incident

[Pranav]

However, if curbing China’s growing influence is the prime objective, how is that to be achieved? ...

Caroe envisaged a pivotal role for an independent India, strategically linked to Britain ... In plain language, it would not do for India to submit meekly to China.

Some six decades later, despite regime changes and the topsy-turvy of frontiers, Caroe’s understanding of Indian imperatives hasn’t lost relevance.

Swapan is unabashed in his desire to make India a coolie for western elite families.

[ramana]

The India that Caroe wanted for his Great Game is now called Pakistan. Indian chatterati don't understand what Caroe really wrote.

[Sanjay M]

Pentagon won't say ship sinking is an act of war


So basically, North Korea gets the same free pass that Pak gets for its acts of war.

[abhischekcc]

>>Swapan is unabashed in his desire to make India a coolie for western elite families.

Something seems to have happened to Swapan. He was a nice right winger for many many years.

Perhaps the lure of the lucre

[Sanku]

Okay folks, seeing Swapan regularly on tv and agreeing with his views, I would like to say just what Swapan said out there which is causing discomfort? He is uber nationalist on TV and expressed stronger views in person in front of Dutts and such of the world which we hardly say on BRF here, even behind handles.

I also read his piece on the need for buffer etc. I dont see whats the harm there? His saying Caroe's views were relevant? Yes I agree with him, Caroe was defending India for Brits, we need to defend India for ourselves but many of the geo-political imperatives continue to be same as are many of the needed tactics. Only the person who really benefits in the end has changed?

So what gives? I hope we are not, as JEM said, making enemies out of friends once again?

[Pranav]

Swapan supports an Anglophilic agenda - and that is inseparable from the "Anglo-American" Syndicate that Carroll Quigley talks about.

This syndicate has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions in engineered famines, genocides, partitions, revolutions etc. The self-confessed agenda of this syndicate is to attain sovereignty over all nations. One needs a five-hundred year historical perspective. I am trying to develop some of that perspective in this thread in the GDF: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... =24&t=5525

So, when an Anglophile like Swapan declares that the appointment of Gadkari is a "coup" in the BJP, or when he aggressively derides people who question black-box electronic voting, I don't see it as a benign phenomenon.

In this specific instance I was criticising the idea that India should join, as a subordinate partner, any western agenda of containing China. C Raja Mohan tends to push similar ideas. Now China has been hostile to India, but at the present moment, I see neo-colonization as the greater danger.

Okay folks, seeing Swapan regularly on tv and agreeing with his views, I would like to say just what Swapan said out there which is causing discomfort? He is uber nationalist on TV and expressed stronger views in person in front of Dutts and such of the world which we hardly say on BRF here, even behind handles.

I also read his piece on the need for buffer etc. I dont see whats the harm there? His saying Caroe's views were relevant? Yes I agree with him, Caroe was defending India for Brits, we need to defend India for ourselves but many of the geo-political imperatives continue to be same as are many of the needed tactics. Only the person who really benefits in the end has changed?

So what gives? I hope we are not, as JEM said, making enemies out of friends once again?

[Sanku]

Swapan supports an Anglophilic agenda - and that is inseparable from the "Anglo-American" Syndicate that Carroll Quigley talks about.

How? Which part of the statement makes you think that Swapan has supported an Anglophile agenda, the most he has said is the need to keep China at bay through buffer states etc. A natural fall out of this would be a assertive India and a autonomous Tibet at least (all of which are good things)

Meanwhile -- personally I dont think EVMs had anything at all to do with BJPs losses, and will probably rubbish any such mentions in public too. Does that make me a anglophile as well ? (you know my views in general right)

While I do not deny there is a anglophile agenda, or there are Indians batting for it (CRM is definetly one) if you listen to Swapan's views in general on Anglophiles, you would probably not use those two data points to make the judgment that you have.

If so that would make me one, and I dont think anyone on BRF would attribute that to me

[Pranav]

Swapan very much calls himself an Anglophile.

As regards EVMs, it is not a BJP vs. Congress issue. Indian EVMs are supported by various people including Congress, elements of the BJP and US State Dept.

How? Which part of the statement makes you think that Swapan has supported an Anglophile agenda, the most he has said is the need to keep China at bay through buffer states etc. A natural fall out of this would be a assertive India and a autonomous Tibet at least (all of which are good things)

Meanwhile -- personally I dont think EVMs had anything at all to do with BJPs losses, and will probably rubbish any such mentions in public too. Does that make me a anglophile as well ? (you know my views in general right)

While I do not deny there is a anglophile agenda, or there are Indians batting for it (CRM is definetly one) if you listen to Swapan's views in general on Anglophiles, you would probably not use those two data points to make the judgment that you have.

If so that would make me one, and I dont think anyone on BRF would attribute that to me

[svinayak]

Swapan supports an Anglophilic agenda - and that is inseparable from the "Anglo-American" Syndicate that Carroll Quigley talks about.

How? Which part of the statement makes you think that Swapan has supported an Anglophile agenda, the most he has said is the need to keep China at bay through buffer states etc. A natural fall out of this would be a assertive India and a autonomous Tibet at least (all of which are good things)

Pranav is right that Swapan is an Anglophile. Read all his article and he tried to create an impression for the western audience. He is similar to vir Singvi

This Tibet thing is a trap which the western media is patronizing HHDL. By using the western media the west is hoping to control the outcome of the future of Tibet and even control is as client state.

[Sanku]

Pranav is right that Swapan is an Anglophile. Read all his article and he tried to create an impression for the western audience. He is similar to vir Singvi

You know I read pretty much everything that comes out of both and I DO NOT accept the above. Including watching Swapan on TV nearly every other night.

I do not think he has yet said anything which would label him a anglophile -- by far -- merely having different approaches to nationalistic issue does not make one an anglophile.

Let us agree to disagree.

[svinayak]

You know I read pretty much everything that comes out of both and I DO NOT accept the above. Including watching Swapan on TV nearly every other night.

I do not think he has yet said anything which would label him a anglophile -- by far -- merely having different approaches to nationalistic issue does not make one an anglophile.

Let us agree to disagree.

He uses some psy ops in his articles. He is nationalistic but there is a tendency to cater to what the west wants to hear. Western observers are critical of any anti western national commentator. So most of these folks tone down and make it a diplomatic.
There is no nationalistic media yet in India and hence the problem.

[RamaY]

Acharya-ji

The need is to build Nationalistic Media bottom up. Make the low-level journalists and reports nationalistic first. Make them present analytical and fact-based reporting; then work their way up.

In parallel people should start buying Media shares. Money Talks.

[ramana]

And also not pot shots on current stream which is nationalistic in its own way but may not be in other ways.

[abhishek_sharma]

The 10 worst U.N. Security Council resolutions ever

http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/post ... tions_ever

[abhishek_sharma]

NATO 2020: Assured Security, Dynamic Engagement

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/ ... report.pdf

Emerging
global powers such as China, India and Brazil are asserting their rising influence
in a peaceful manner.

...

In the Asia-Pacific, the major powers, which include Japan, the Republic of Korea,
China, India, and Australia, all view regional stability as in their interests and are
generally supportive of international norms. The two primary sources of instability
are longstanding -- the rivalry between India and Pakistan, and the dangerous
government of the People’s Republic of North Korea (DPRK).

...

India, Indonesia, and the leading democracies of Africa and
Latin America share with NATO a commitment to global peace and the rule of law.

...

A new level of secure maritime
situational awareness is called for by changing risks around the periphery
of NATO and in the High North, Gulf, Indian Ocean and other areas. NATO
should harmonize investments in such surveillance platforms as unmanned
aerial vehicles, maritime patrol aircraft, land-based radars, surface and
subsurface vessels, and robotic systems. ...

[Sanku]

You know I read pretty much everything that comes out of both and I DO NOT accept the above. Including watching Swapan on TV nearly every other night.

I do not think he has yet said anything which would label him a anglophile -- by far -- merely having different approaches to nationalistic issue does not make one an anglophile.

Let us agree to disagree.

He uses some psy ops in his articles. He is nationalistic but there is a tendency to cater to what the west wants to hear. Western observers are critical of any anti western national commentator. So most of these folks tone down and make it a diplomatic.
There is no nationalistic media yet in India and hence the problem.

Yes I agree.. he is doing some packaging to make himself heard. It is needed unfortunately.

[JE Menon]

Who's the judge by the way?

And a 500 year perspective? Why not 600 or 400? Or is it just the spirit of the thing? And Carroll Quigley is from where? Bangalore, Kerala? Speaking of Anglophile ...

>>In this specific instance I was criticising the idea that India should join, as a subordinate partner, any western agenda of containing China.

Where does Swapan say anything of the sort. Maybe I missed it. Not being sarcastic, I genuinely might have. But I can pretty much bet without reading the article that he says nothing of the kind. I mean, for god's sakes people, if Swapan is not "nationalistic" enough (whatever the eff that means), then I wonder how people sitting outside India, conveniently holding permanent residencies or foreign citizenships and/or running lucrative businesses from there, can call themselves nationalistic when they are dependent on their livelihoods on the very "West" with its "agenda". Are they agents of one sort or another? Who knows...

Of course, one can label oneself whatever one wants, and do the same to others too - and here on BRF that's been a rule rather than an exception. It is unfortunate, and does not speak well of us.

Every vision for India must be articulated and a climate must be maintained where such visions can be tested, debated and reasoned through until the most robust, sustainable and survivable one emerges as the prevalent one - until the next one comes along. No one has a prerogative to determine by fiat what India should or should not be like. If there is a vision for an India that is "nationalistic" then it must win public support through reasoned debate, and the various other social, economic and political pressures operating within a thoroughly democratic milieu.

India is not for absolutists, it has never been, and if it falls to such-minded people, it will be the end of India as we have known it for millennia. Might as well over to America then (there won't be much of a difference between two then), and get with the so-called "Western agenda" - an amorphous and undefinable a term in any but the broadest manner.

[brihaspati]

It is correct approach that "absolutist" positions are not necessarily the most efficient ones. However, this also means that banning absolutist positions as particular tactical moves under specific relevant circumstances - is also an "absolutist" position. No absolutist position can be taken as permanent, forever applicable tools. But neither can we ban use of such tools if needed temporarily - because that in itself is an "absolutist" demand. Even the Indian Constitution recognizes this - through the provision of various degrees of Emergency concentration of power that bypasses temporarily the various aspects of "democracy".

Democracy or absolutism can never really be "pure". Even in Indian democracy, there are many things that are aspects of the rashtra not subject to democracy - for example how judiciary functions and behaves. So there always are elements of absolutism within democracy, and elements of democracy within absolutism (even the dictator needs the loyalty of a powerful group). Then again there can be the tricky question of "absolutism" that may be elected "democratically"!

Allying with certain groupings of forces in international politics should be subject to both long term and short term considerations. A statesperson may actually adopt policies that appear to go against short term interests but will recoup losses and add gains over the long run. While spectacularly successful politicians may do brilliantly for the short term but drag the country down a long slippery road over the longer term.

From the viewpoint of India, is there any "natural ally"? No, since the most common natural allies in the history and politics of the world come from perceived common ethnicity and religion. Indian ethnicity and "religion" of the significant proportion of the population does not have dominant representation in any other country's rashtryia power. Failing to realize this is a blunder, no, a criminal act of confusion where state policy is concerned. Starting from this clear recognition, we need to see as to leaning towards or appearing to cooperate with which grouping serves short term and long term interests. Neither a permanent bootlicking of China nor a permanent of bootlicking of the current "western" grouping or that of a so-called third front of Iran+Russia or alternative third front of KSA+Sunni ME - should be touted as the way to go.

But even before that, we need to decide "what" is really "India's interests". Even here there is confusion! Because of asbolutist positions on Indian interests, our policy remains confused and fatally inconclusive. Human journey has only gone forward because humanity "expanded" and explored, it tried out new territory, new ways of living, new ways of thinking. Not thinking of expansion is equivalent to stopping dead on your tracks and stagnation and eventual death. India has stopped even daring to think of expanding - philosophically, politically, militarily, civilizationally and we see the effect on the geo-political scenario. Unless we have a vision of expansion, we will make mistakes. Expansion in all possible ways is the driver of the national engine and should be used to base foreign policy on.

At this time, the most resourceful (politically ruthless) grouping is around the "west" and aimed against China. China is the immediate most inveterate imperialist expansionist engine that drives POWI Jihad against India and is engaged in developing a pincer to isolate the more populous and fertile, water-rich northern plains of India. Israel diverts a lot of Islamic Jihadi attention that otherwise would have concentrated on capturing India. There is little to choose from here, unless the classical mercantile mechanism of hoping to hedge with every enemy is allowed to run Indian geo-strategic policy - policies which inevitably landed up Indian commons subject to foreign boots. Once communist China goes down and a more open, democratic China comes up, Tibet is formed as an independent nation, and POWI dissolved and the territory brought back under firm Indian control - there is little choice in playing along the "western" tune. This is however not a permanent strategy, and when the time comes India needs to reassert control over the entire CAR and the ME leading up to the eastern Mediterranean. Similarly leading in the East to the Pacific.

[Pranav]

Who's the judge by the way?

And a 500 year perspective? Why not 600 or 400? Or is it just the spirit of the thing?

500 is just about adequate. But the more the better, obviously.

And Carroll Quigley is from where? Bangalore, Kerala? Speaking of Anglophile ...

Carroll Quigley was a person who had a broad understanding of world history, from the inside of the forces shaping it. For example, if you want to understand the thinking of the people who were planning the partition of India, including support for Jinnah of Direct Action fame, then Quigley is an important resource. Highly recommended that people find out more about what he wrote, although he was a self-confessed supporter of what he called the "Anglo-American" syndicate.

>>In this specific instance I was criticising the idea that India should join, as a subordinate partner, any western agenda of containing China.

Where does Swapan say anything of the sort. Maybe I missed it. Not being sarcastic, I genuinely might have. But I can pretty much bet without reading the article that he says nothing of the kind.

Swapan was talking about curbing the influence of China being a "primary objective", and was speaking approvingly of Curzon.

People like Swapan or C Raja Mohan probably do not consciously want to subordinate India. It is more subtle - more like a mental colonization, a need for approval from the west. Such mental colonization may lead to an inability to dispassionately analyze world events, for example the 9/11 attacks. Swapan also probably does not associate his Anglophilia with the corpses of millions of Indian peasants who starved in engineered famines. But the two are inseparable.

[JE Menon]

>>is also an "absolutist" position.

Of course boss. No one is saying it is "perfect"... Just the least imperfect... and until we can achieve perfection, let's just go with very good. Unless someone has a better proposition.

[JE Menon]

>>500 is just about adequate.

Hmm... ok then, I guess.

>>People like Swapan or C Raja Mohan probably do not consciously want to subordinate India.

So it is known what these people want to do non-consciously (or is that sub-conscious, or unconscious? ) and they can be judged for it?

I can see what C Raja Mohan has written, and point out specific stuff I disagree with, and say, yes, this suggests to me a very clear leaning towards a particular point of view. Nothing non-conscious about it. I do not see anything of that nature with Dasgupta's stuff, and have watched him numerous times on television as well (though not recently).

Who precisely are these people who can pick out the non-consciously influenced individuals, and what are the methods used to suss them out? Who belongs to this special group who neither consciously nor non-consciously want to subordinate India?

These rather oracular proclamations seem to me rather the expression of a singular lack of confidence in the people, and a desire (not new, nor certainly unique) to take charge of a particular vision of India and make it the dominant one. This is alright, but the manner of going about it - with dark hints of century-spanning designs, and intricate multi-layered conspiracies - is not going to withstand rigorous inquiry. Nor will it attract a sufficient number of rational people - elite and non-elite - to have any sustainable impact on the Indian polity. At best it will remain a hobby of sorts for people with time and money on their hands.

So it may have an impact, but not a sustainable one. For that, a much more powerful, flexible, relativistic and subtle ideology is required. One which does not seek to exclude and libel or label, but to include and and nurture. As such the multi-layered Indic ethos allowing unbounded intellectual freedom, especially in the sphere of inquiry on faith, apart from political and economic affairs, is the strongest and most flexible system that I can see in the world today. Personally, I don't see much point in undermining it on the basis of - well what exactly is not yet defined, except for vague European constructs such as "nationalism".

>>It is more subtle - more like a mental colonization, a need for approval from the west.

It could also be an interpretation problem. I'm quite sure that Swapan would not take it very kindly if he were told that he is acting on the basis of his mind being colonised, although I don't know the gentleman. But then, I suppose the ones who protest such labels more are the ones who are truly colonised.

Don't know about you guys, but it seems to me we have the makings of our own little inquisition here... Who wants to be the chief inquisitor?