Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[ramana]

There is a partial successful precedent in the aftermath of the Madurai Sultanate during the Vijayanagara rule.

[Manishw]

@ Brihaspati Ji You are an ocean, let me go through some of the posts before replying.Will go through and give a reply very soon.Meantime thanks again and permit me to say - All of us are explorer's but some are more gifted than others.You belong in that category, but more importantly(for me at least ) is the fact that you are humble about it.May god bless you.

[Christopher Sidor]

Integrating Punjabistan of Pathanistan into india will not be an ideal case. These provinces are hot-beds of radicalism and perverted ideologies. To drain this swamp of its bad elements will be massive effort. In the meantime India will have to become an occupying force, something akin to israel. This thought itself is abhorrent.
Add to the fact that these people, i.e. of punjabistan and pathanistan, have made a mess out of their own country. A mess which i do not want them to make in my country. In fact they can serve as a living proof of failed ideologies (i.e. muslims of india need a seperate homeland, the muslims are natural rulers of the indian subcontinent, etc). And we should abandon them to their own fate, which would be on lines very similar to somalia and present day afghanistan.

Baloch will never be independent without external support, be it western or indian. Its other neighbours afghanistan and iran covet it for their own purposes. Iran to keep the lid down on its own problems in sistani baluchistan and afghanistan for access to the sea. Baluchistan might get support from certain arab countries, but the problem is that the arabs might see a afghanistan-baluchistan entity as a more viable entity to check iran. India will not play that part, and the arabs know it. In all of these scenarios the baluch will remain a feudal society, wrecked by internally dissent and dictatorship.
For India Baluchistan is important, because it keeps our western flank, especially sindh, gujarat and rajasthan safe from future attacks via sea or land.

But the moot point is, if pakistan fragments, India will most probably have to forgo baluchistan. And that will be to the india's disadvantage in the long run.

[Prem]

At minimum 25% of Pakajabistan, concentrated in 3-4 districts must be proceesd through the Shuddhi by Agni Pariksha. This will lay down the foundation for human values to flourish once again in that land. 3-4 genration down the road , no one will even remotely remember the dark years living animalistic hellish life when mind always remained down below the ankle. JDam in india provide perfect excuse to vaporize half of Pakajab on selective basis.

[RajeshA]

There should be clear goals of India's expansion westwards.

• Access to Central Asia
• Blocking Chinese access to South (West) Asia
• Expanding our Indian Ocean coastline.
• Quarantining Talbanic-Barbarism.
• Demolishing Pakjabi- and Sindhi-based anti-Indian Islamism.
• Making current Pakistani regions independent but not self-sufficient, and as such dependent on India.
• Preventing increase of Muslim-Chauvinistic voice in Indian Democracy.
• Making current Pakistani regions dependent on India for refereeing their internal disputes.
• Preventing the introduction of arms, drugs, counterfeit money, terrorists from West of India.
• Harnessing Islamism
• Biting off only so much as we can chew.

Will go into the points later on!

[Manishw]

^^^ First Rajesh Ji I must say that I have not read even 1% of what I am supposed to read before commenting but at first glance such things seem highly idealistic and overestimation of our capabilities and underestimating the other side.
These are just off the cuff remarks as of now so kindly ignore if you see fit to do so.

[svinayak]

There should be clear goals of India's expansion westwards.

• Access to Central Asia
• Blocking Chinese access to South (West) Asia
• Expanding our Indian Ocean coastline.
• Quarantining Talbanic-Barbarism.
• Demolishing Pakjabi- and Sindhi-based anti-Indian Islamism.
• Making current Pakistani regions independent but not self-sufficient, and as such dependent on India.
• Preventing increase of Muslim-Chauvinistic voice in Indian Democracy.
• Making current Pakistani regions dependent on India for refereeing their internal disputes.
• Preventing the introduction of arms, drugs, counterfeit money, terrorists from West of India.
• Harnessing Islamism
• Biting off only so much as we can chew.

Will go into the points later on!

Very good start
All of them are acheivable.
It may take 20-30 years to achieve

[RajeshA]

At first glance such things seem highly idealistic and overestimation of our capabilities and underestimating the other side.

Manishw ji,

The discussion on how to deal with Pakistan takes place at many different levels. At which level the issue is being discussed varies based on several factors

• The Time-Frame of the scenario
• The pressures on India in the scenario during the time-period
• The capacity of India to control developments
• The preparedness in India to confront the challenges

There are moments in time when history speeds up and many new changes take place before everything again settles down into a long period of inertia and balance. It is at these moments in time, where much is possible, and if at that moment in time, one does not strike while the iron is hot, then one could let an opportunity pass, and may have to suffer long periods of a disadvantageous status-quo.

Within the next 15-20 years another window of opportunity is going to present itself to the Indian Nation w.r.t. Pakistani region, when much will be in turmoil, and it is absolutely important for India to know what kind of regional order India wants, to strategize well, and to go for it.

Pakistan does enjoy a uniquely very special strategic location and this area would be up for remolding. India cannot afford to not influence this evolution in her neighborhood.

[D Roy]

Partition must become history. Aurobindo had spelt it out on our first independence day.

[brihaspati]

Christopher Sidor wrote
Add to the fact that these people, i.e. of punjabistan and pathanistan, have made a mess out of their own country. A mess which i do not want them to make in my country. In fact they can serve as a living proof of failed ideologies (i.e. muslims of india need a seperate homeland, the muslims are natural rulers of the indian subcontinent, etc). And we should abandon them to their own fate, which would be on lines very similar to somalia and present day afghanistan.

we need to realize that those who "abandoned" Somalia and current AFG, actually did so after messing a lot in those areas and then abandoning territories far far away from their own domains.

India does not have that luxury. Its happening in the neighbourhood. Without Indian sovereign control the area cannot be sanitized - because for everyone else, it is actually in their interest to keep the place on the boil.

There are no long term living proofs of failed ideologies. They simply vanish and remain in fragments of texts or as underlays in current or derived ideologies. Moreover, hotbed of radicalism is not a geological feature. Society changes and an once radical society may change into a radical one or vice versa. Leaving destructive ideologies around with natural population base is even more dangerous, and if possible the territories should be brought under control with a clear cut plan and will to "sanitize".

Communism was a most radical ideology when it first appeared and has failed in its first state level experiment in Russia. But has it allowed us to escape the communist menace?

[AKalam]

I want to take a moment to thank everyone who had taken the time to respond to my posts with thoughtful remarks, frank POV, constructive suggestions for Bangladesh and for welcoming me to this forum:

brihaspati, Pratyush, chaanakya, Atri, lsunil, Venkarl, Rony, naren, Pranav, ShyamSP, Mauli, Hari Seldon, Manishw, Masaru, RajeshA, Acharya and others.

My apologies, if I was not able to address all the ideas and responses with the proper time and attention they deserve. If I have stepped on any toes or made any hurtful remarks, my apologies again.

I am honored to be able to share and exchange my POV and ideas here in this site, as I find that all here shares a dream of a better future for India, the region and the world in general.

To some here, I may remain a hopeless ROPer and/or RABE, with no hope for any future redemption, but please consider that I have walked this planet for close to five decades, have come accross some second hand information, have met individuals in different lands and have been in situations where some of you may or may not have been, as we all have our own unique starting point and our own unique path to walk. As our collective journey of discovery continues, perhaps I too may have a story or two to share that may help your cause, may help your understanding of the world or may simply be entertaining. So please give me the benefit of doubt before writing me off as useless and worthless just because I was born and choose to remain a Muslim, and am not bent on selling off my coreligionists, following examples of Salman Rushdie, Tasleema Nasreen, Ali Sina or many others like them.

I completely understand the reaction I have received because of suddenly barging in and presenting an idea without taking into account the current political context. For example, MQM leader Altaf Hussain seems to promote similar idea of EU type integration in the sub-continent, a fact I became aware of just recently.

I have tried being in some Bangladeshi and Pakistani websites and I hardly find that I can have a meaningful discussions with many, no wonder that those places are crumbling. On the other hand, here, I find a vibrant marketplace of ideas and always something interesting going on.

India and the sub-continent have a long way to go, but I am optimistic and confident that someday it will become a more influential part of humanity in all respects. In my small way, if I can help in any way, just by being here, it will be an honor and a pleasure.

Please feel free to ask any personal question as well, in the proper thread, I will disclose as much as is possible in a public forum. I am also open to accept anyone interested to be a facebook friend, if there is a way to exchange information with moderators permission of course.

And last but not least, as a Bangladeshi, thanks to Govt. of India and its people, for extending $1 billion line of credit to Bangladesh, I think it will take India-Bangladesh relationship to a different level.

[Manishw]

^^^ welcome back once again Akalam Ji, nice post of yours, sorry if any of my posts were to have caused any anguish to you.It wont be repeated in the future.Hope to have lots of meaningful debates with you.

[Christopher Sidor]

I completely understand the reaction I have received because of suddenly barging in and presenting an idea without taking into account the current political context. For example, MQM leader Altaf Hussain seems to promote similar idea of EU type integration in the sub-continent, a fact I became aware of just recently.

There is a set of people in bangladesh, who were abandoned by pakistan in 1971. These people did most of the dirty work for the paki army in the genocide of 1970-71. Once pakistan lost the war, it abandoned these people. Most of these people now live in refugee camps inside bangladesh and yearn to go to pakistan as full fledged citizens. Their number is also quite sizeable. Now here is the kicker, these are muslims from present day bihar/jharkhand/orrisa who had gone to live in the "land of pure" in 1947. The reason was, in 1947 west pakistan was distant, while east pakistan was nearby.

MQM represents Moharijis, a group of people who migrated from present day northern india and central india into sindh in 1947. MQM is now fighting for their rights, often violently, as it believes that these people were sidelined in subsequent years.

None of these people actually matter in the larger things of their so-called adopted countries, either bangladesh or pakistan.

An EU type integration will not work in sub-continent. EU is a grouping of similar sized countries, economic/population/size wise. In Indian subcontinent, India is a colossus. And in 20 years time the gap between it and its neighbours will be even more massive. All of the other countries are oriented towards India rather than towards other countries in the sub continent. For example sri-lanka's most important relationship in the subcontinent is with india. With other countries it has minuscule or very little interaction. This applies to most of the other countries of indian sub-continent also. All the other countries of Indian subcontinent will merge into India. There is a subtle difference over here.

[Carl_T]

The EU works not because it is a consortium, but because it has a "core" holding it together. That being France and Germany. A South Asian core will have to accept Indian supremacy, which I personally have trouble imagining.

[brihaspati]

The EU developed in a specific context :

(1) There was a perception of a common bigger threat from USSR - which made all the elite interests of all EU countries more less agree to submerge some of their mutual jealousies
(2) The two possible friendly interventionists - UK and USA, especially UK which had done so for centuries, were in league instead of competition because of UK's dependence on the USA.

In the subcontinent, both factors are missing.

There is no common perception of a bigger threat that unifies all the elites of all the countries.
There are competing power groups, UK+USA, continental EU, Sunni Ummah, Shia Ummah, PRC who do not have as great a convergence of mutual dependence as UK+USA, and therefore the tiniest Tom Thumb can have dreams of world dominance based on theology, or population numbers by playing off and auctioning themselves for patronage for distinct existence.

[Manishw]

The EU works not because it is a consortium, but because it has a "core" holding it together. That being France and Germany. A South Asian core will have to accept Indian supremacy, which I personally have trouble imagining.

What is taking them so long to accept turkey? any Ideas.Something else besides what you have just written plays a part.

[brihaspati]

^^^Loss of identity. Also the possibility of Turkey becoming the gateway for Islamism into EU. Further, the complications and political consequences of influx of cheap labour.

[Manishw]

^^^ Bang on target as usual Brihaspati Ji.

[Carl_T]

The EU works not because it is a consortium, but because it has a "core" holding it together. That being France and Germany. A South Asian core will have to accept Indian supremacy, which I personally have trouble imagining.

What is taking them so long to accept turkey? any Ideas.Something else besides what you have just written plays a part.

That is obvious, the idea of Europe is based on a Germanic-Latin core, and considering that Turkey has been a threat to Europe for the past 700 or so years would pre-empt any integration of Turkey. That and they don't want poor "darker" Muslims flooding their nations.

[Manishw]

Carl that is exactly my point that ROL would not like to be immersed in ROP, so ultimately R plays a very Important role in such matters, never said you were wrong only wanted to add another dimension.E.U is based on common R.
Just my 2 cents.

[RajeshA]

am not bent on selling off my coreligionists, following examples of Salman Rushdie, Tasleema Nasreen, Ali Sina or many others like them.

AKalam ji,
Welcome back!

Islam, or if you wish, followers of Islam, have had to face much criticism and hate speech lately in the last decade or so, coming from many different quarters. I assume, all this criticism, all this opposition, is difficult for any Muslim to digest and must be irritating. If Hinduism had been under similar bombardment, I guess many Hindus too would be pissed off.

So in an atmosphere, where it seems that Islam is under siege, it must be difficult for a Muslim to talk of reflection, of showing Islam, its followers, the mirror and pointing out the various shortcomings and transgressions. Anybody who dares do something like that, is prone to be shouted down, called a blasphemer, stamped as a puppet of the 'enemies' and pushed into a corner by the upholders & guardians of the religion. That way any discussion on religion, its tenets, it manifestation in the society, deeds of its followers is still-born.

So basically the same men who often are responsible for the external siege are also responsible for suppressing any internal dissent, which could have lead to reforms of the religion making it more amenable for coexistence with other faiths, and thereby amenable for coexistence with other people.

So what does selling off of co-religionists mean? Does it mean

• You would buy into the claims of some self-appointed guardians of the religion, that another co-religionist is indeed an enemy and not just a reformer, someone holding the mirror to the faithful, without analyzing the defendant by yourself on the merit of his/her theories and claims? There is both the question of agreeing to guilt and the quantum of punishment meted to the defendant.
• You would rather support those co-religionists, who claim to put the interests of the religion higher than other co-religionists or co-ethnicists who claim to have the interests of the nation at heart?
• You would rather support your co-religionists on some issue, even if your sense of reason, rationality, says otherwise?

The selling off of co-religionists can happen not only to some other religious interest, but also w.r.t. to other co-religionists, your nation or your conscience.

Secondly, just for the curiosity, why do you think that the above mentioned people sold off their (and your) co-religionists. Of course, after they were ostracized, they got support from other quarters, so subsequent support can hardly serve as evidence of selling off one's co-religionists to the enemy. Have you read the claims/allegations they made of Islam, the context in which they made them, and what they said later on in their defense. Why can't they be considered as reformers, having used different tools?

AKalam ji,
I've no intention of ambushing you or anything with the above questions. Feel free to answer them or not to. It is just meant as a 'warm-up' exercise.

[RajeshA]

For example, MQM leader Altaf Hussain seems to promote similar idea of EU type integration in the sub-continent, a fact I became aware of just recently.

...

India and the sub-continent have a long way to go, but I am optimistic and confident that someday it will become a more influential part of humanity in all respects.

Converting SAARC into some sort of EU is hopeless!

SAARC was initially conceived as a region which India would be able to call its near abroad, our neighborhood, our area of influence. This was simply unrealistic. Pakistan was sitting on the table like a 800 pound gorilla, not letting any progress be made, and every time hijacking the SAARC meetings to its own ends. It was an assembly where Pakistan dictated the agenda, rather than India.

Moreover it proved that Pakistaniyat was indeed infectious. Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka all got a bit of it. Pakistan's presence in SAARC introduced the general concept of conflict amongst neighbors, and every neighbor started reflecting on how that concept was relevant in their context, unnecessarily exacerbating India's relations with her neighbors. ASEAN on the other hand, put their focus not on conflict resolution, but rather finding common ground.

India should bury SAARC in the deepest hole in the ground she can find - in Marianna Trench perhaps.

In fact, from India's point of view, it would be extremely beneficial to keep Pakistan and Bangladesh at a safe distance from each other. Bangladesh needs to detach and get over its historical association with Pakistan, just like India has got over being a colony of Britain. A Dehyphenation in this case would go a long way, in putting Bangladesh on a path of independent thinking and resolving inter-state problems differently. As long as Pakistan and Bangladesh are together in some form of symbolic community of nations, like SAARC, the hyphenation, the bonds of a common history would persist.

BIMSTEC is just the kind of Association where developing and semi-developed countries can be business-like. It would also be far more productive for India to be associated in a neighborhood which provides her with things India needs - raw materials, minerals, transit facilities, cultural links, etc.

The only loss for India in SAARC would actually be Afghanistan, as India would not be able to express neighborhood and proximity to Afghanistan in the absence of SAARC. That however could also be resolved by having a different institution for that. An institutionalized association of Iran, India, Afghanistan and Russia, with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as associated partners, would go a long way in securing India's interests there.

BIMSTEC is the way to go. We should send Pakistan into the desert, as Germans say it.

[brihaspati]

Akalam bhai,
not wanting to lay on a mine for you! But as you state and reveal perhaps subconsciously and very clearly, and for most of current BD Muslims, the question of religion is even more thorny isn't it? The fundamental dilemma is even more powerful for BD than for Muslims in Pak.

How to reconcile the fact that BD could not have existed if the two-nation theory was invalid - to create Pak in the first place, and the fact that BD could not have existed if the two nation theory was valid because then Bengali nationalism would be invalid?

[Carl_T]

Carl that is exactly my point that ROL would not like to be immersed in ROP, so ultimately R plays a very Important role in such matters, never said you were wrong only wanted to add another dimension.E.U is based on common R.
Just my 2 cents.

Right, I see your point now.

[RajeshA]

How to reconcile the fact that BD could not have existed if the two-nation theory was invalid - to create Pak in the first place, and the fact that BD could not have existed if the two nation theory was valid because then Bengali nationalism would be invalid?

[Manishw]

Poor Akalam Ji , I feel he genuinely wants to communicate but there is a huge array of uncomfortable questions for him( Count me in as the guilty ones).Guess we should leave some space for him.Really would like to hear his POV, but that requires long and sustained discussions.

[vera_k]

Converting SAARC into some sort of EU is hopeless!

For sure, the EU is less evolved and still a work in progress towards an integrated state that looks more like modern India. But perhaps there is scope for India to update the concurrent schedule to devolve more power to the states as necessary, and then provide a way for new states to sign up. Something like a better A370 that is based on reciprocal rights for both parties. The result would be an entity that's immediately more integrated than the EU (think common defence), while providing scope for greater integration in the future.

[svinayak]

How to reconcile the fact that BD could not have existed if the two-nation theory was invalid - to create Pak in the first place, and the fact that BD could not have existed if the two nation theory was valid because then Bengali nationalism would be invalid?

First thing is to accept that they are not a nation. They are part of the sub continent with shared history going back to thousands of years ago.

They cannot be a nation based on Bengali language nor based on the religion.

[AKalam]

I completely understand the reaction I have received because of suddenly barging in and presenting an idea without taking into account the current political context. For example, MQM leader Altaf Hussain seems to promote similar idea of EU type integration in the sub-continent, a fact I became aware of just recently.

There is a set of people in bangladesh, who were abandoned by pakistan in 1971. These people did most of the dirty work for the paki army in the genocide of 1970-71. Once pakistan lost the war, it abandoned these people. Most of these people now live in refugee camps inside bangladesh and yearn to go to pakistan as full fledged citizens. Their number is also quite sizeable. Now here is the kicker, these are muslims from present day bihar/jharkhand/orrisa who had gone to live in the "land of pure" in 1947. The reason was, in 1947 west pakistan was distant, while east pakistan was nearby.

MQM represents Moharijis, a group of people who migrated from present day northern india and central india into sindh in 1947. MQM is now fighting for their rights, often violently, as it believes that these people were sidelined in subsequent years.

None of these people actually matter in the larger things of their so-called adopted countries, either bangladesh or pakistan.

An EU type integration will not work in sub-continent. EU is a grouping of similar sized countries, economic/population/size wise. In Indian subcontinent, India is a colossus. And in 20 years time the gap between it and its neighbours will be even more massive. All of the other countries are oriented towards India rather than towards other countries in the sub continent. For example sri-lanka's most important relationship in the subcontinent is with india. With other countries it has minuscule or very little interaction. This applies to most of the other countries of indian sub-continent also. All the other countries of Indian subcontinent will merge into India. There is a subtle difference over here.

AFAIK, there are three sets of Mohajirs that came from India during partition, Bengali Muslims from West Bengal, Bihari Muslims (from Bihar/Jharkhand/Orissa etc. but are collectively known as Bihari's) and wealthy Bombay Muslims, who were involved in business and industries.

Except for Bengali Muslims, most of the others spoke Urdu as their mother tongue, if I am not mistaken.

During the run upto the 1971 conflict, the Bihari's became victims of targeted killings, starting from Jan. of that year, specially in some settlements near Indian border, instigated by Awami League activists. Eventually, some Pakistani Army officers or Non-bengalis soldiers were also targeted. What happened since 25th March is well known so I will not go into details. The relevant fact regarding Bihari's is that from 1947 they received disproportionate benefits from the ruling govt., dominated by Punjabi's (or should I say Pak-jabi to avoid associating Indian Punjab) in the govt. Along with Punjabi's they took the attitude of ruling class among subject Bengali's. This may or may not have been true, but that is the feeling I remember from that time, that was felt among Bengali's.

During 1971 conflict, Bihari's, unfortunately, openly sided with the losing side and tried to save Pakistan, with justifiable reasons, because if East Pakistan became independent, that was the negation of two nation theory and victory of Bengali nationalism, and where does that put Non-Bengali's in a nation of Bengali's?

Because they sided with Pakistan Army (Bengali's already revolted and left PA soon after 25th March of 1971), they also took part in atrocities and after the war ended on Dec. 16, 1971, they suffered some blow back. They lost all properties and for safety started living in slum-like refugee camps in Dhaka and probably elsewhere. Some of them were taken in by Pakistan, but most were not taken, despite their endless plea to Pakistan govt.

In the meantime, a new generation has born in Bangladesh since 1971, all of whom speak Bengali, although many carry the social stigma and hostility from the majority, a carryover from the bitter bad blood during and before 1971. I saw a touching drama, a beautiful Bihari girl reciting Tagore poems and songs and falling in love with a Bengali guy, everything seemed perfect, but when the guys mother asks where she lives, she mentions Mohammadpur Geneva camp. The mother instantly becomes hostile (her parents were apparently killed by Bihari's during 1971 conflict). Eventually she is able to come to terms with her past feelings and accept her in the family.

In the last few years, the High court in Bangladesh has given all such "refugees" waiting for repatriation to Pakistan, citizenship and right to vote. My hope is that they will integrate without much of a problem with Bangladeshi larger society over time.

About integration, I agree that India is the middle kingdom of the sub-continent and my hope is that integration happens whichever way possible with as little disruption as possible in all societies in the sub-continent in the long run. I will go into details after I answer and respond to questions raised.

[AKalam]

The EU works not because it is a consortium, but because it has a "core" holding it together. That being France and Germany. A South Asian core will have to accept Indian supremacy, which I personally have trouble imagining.

With every passing year, as India continues with its economic growth, supremacy will be automatically accepted IMHO. For the parts that are misbehaving now, I will leave you with this imagery. Think of animal control poles used to restrain rabid dogs:

http://www.livetrap.com/cgi/search.cgi? ... trol+Poles

What needs to be done is to catch the rabid dogs with restraining poles, put them in animal shelter, perform necessary treatment to cure the diseases and then turn them into happy and productive members of the family. Just to use a very crude analogy.

Again I will go into more details later.

[AKalam]

The EU developed in a specific context :

(1) There was a perception of a common bigger threat from USSR - which made all the elite interests of all EU countries more less agree to submerge some of their mutual jealousies
(2) The two possible friendly interventionists - UK and USA, especially UK which had done so for centuries, were in league instead of competition because of UK's dependence on the USA.

In the subcontinent, both factors are missing.

There is no common perception of a bigger threat that unifies all the elites of all the countries.
There are competing power groups, UK+USA, continental EU, Sunni Ummah, Shia Ummah, PRC who do not have as great a convergence of mutual dependence as UK+USA, and therefore the tiniest Tom Thumb can have dreams of world dominance based on theology, or population numbers by playing off and auctioning themselves for patronage for distinct existence.

That is an accurate description of EU situation and the current status quo in the sub-continent, but the future is in flux. I will go into more details as I present my theory shortly.

I think there are some common enemies, namely poverty and its associated (IMHO) self-defeating irrational behaviors of a populace.

[Atri]

What is friendly about UK's repeated intervention in mainland Europe over the course of history?

[Manishw]

@ Akalam Ji Take things at your own pace and no hurry.I for one would like you here but being one of the shall we say irritants to you will stay out till you finish with every one at your own pace.Kindly read and ignore my post.No need to answer.

P.S- I have similar experience as yours but spanning four decades only , love to share thoughts later on.Pls stay on.

[AKalam]

On Turkey's EU accession, its unlikely IMHO, Turkey's best bet is with Maghreb, GCC (both parts of former Ottoman) and Central Asian Union that is home to its Turko-Mongol ancestor nations. What EU public is comfortable with is a special relationship as a partner, but not a full EU membership for Turkey. My prediction is that Russia have more of a chance to become an EU member, if they so desire in the future, than Turkey. But future is hard to predict, so one never knows.

[AKalam]

^^^ welcome back once again Akalam Ji, nice post of yours, sorry if any of my posts were to have caused any anguish to you.It wont be repeated in the future.Hope to have lots of meaningful debates with you.

Thanks for the welcome, no hard feelings. Looking forward to meaningful debates. Didn't mean to ignore your post, so letting you know my feelings.

@ Akalam Ji Take things at your own pace and no hurry.I for one would like you here but being one of the shall we say irritants to you will stay out till you finish with every one at your own pace.Kindly read and ignore my post.No need to answer.

P.S- I have similar experience as yours but spanning four decades only , love to share thoughts later on.Pls stay on.

I am trying to get as many responses out of the way as possible before lunch. You are no irritant, I understand where you come from, it will become clear once you understand the entire scope of my POV in course of time.

[Manishw]

^^^ Thanks.

[brihaspati]

What is friendly about UK's repeated intervention in mainland Europe over the course of history?

No : fireindly was meant in the sarcastic sense. Realistically speaking UK had given up on territorial ambitions on mainland with the loss of duchies in northern France. Since then they simply tried to meddle as much as possible to keep the big Euro powers at each others neck and hence save its own skin. This continued even until WWII. Perhaps even post WWII [look at its various twists about EU].

But UK would not support communist takeover of Europe and hence to a large extent UK's modern meddling was less about enhancing internal dissension among the continental powers and territorial aggression or overturning of regimes and systems - and more about containing communism and and Russian expansion. So in that sense UK was and is "friendly". Now has the great big northern bear ceased to be a threat? No...not really!

In a way, its going back to the situation of 17th century where, an increasingly frustrated and blocked [in tapping into global wealth through the Med] UK sought to expand its economic horizons by bypassing Euro's and directly connecting to the "East".

[Atri]

Communism is just a temporary cause.. England will not allow Germany-France-Russia to come closer. In post WW2 era, they went into EEC and EU to screw the French and split them off from Germans.

England is Europe's Pakistan (speaking in terms of mentality).. It was in England's interest that the "Common Market" did not work, since the time of Crusades. That would mean rejuvenation of Roman empire (in terms of territory, revenue and power). To ensure that, they have fought with Dutch against Spain (1701 Spanish war of succession), With Germans against French ( Seven years war - 1750's), with Germans and Russians against French (Napoleonic wars), With French and Italians against Germans (WW1), with French and Russians against Germans and Italians (WW2), With French and Germans against Russians (Cold war). With EU, the drive of Germany and France becoming irresistible, they have always tried to screw things up by creating unnecessary complications. This whole fuss about Schengen territory, Eurozone, common currency has its roots in this Paki ness of England. Much more to come.

Of course from English PoV, this is an extremely wise foreign policy which is not merely a "tactical brilliance" akin to the one displayed by our pure neighbour in west. This has lot to do with the internal fault-lines in Europe. If and when Europe (including Russia) discover the "unity of Sanskriti" as India does, England will immediately reduce to the status of a Paki land. This is however a very far-fetched idea.

Applying these lessons in Indian subcontinent, we see that the "sanskritik unity" is accepted by at ROI and with little effort will be acceptable by Nepal, SL and Bhutan. It is impossible with Pakistan (in its current form) and possible with BD in long run after it has solved the population problem. This acceptance won't be complete without an assurance from BD that they aren't threat to Hindu family of religions. The only way they can do it is by being more Bengali than wahabbi muslim and secondly by reducing their population in coming 3-4 decades.

The type of polity that works in India is that of "Civilizational state". This requires complete acceptance by all the subgroups in geography of India that they belong to "Indian Civilization". What is Indian civilization is a complex question and also irrelevant simply because fulfilment of definition isn't the key towards acceptance. One is accepted when one is accepted, there isn't any hard and fast rule for that. The Spiritual Path of "Islam" is none of anybody's concern. This sense of belongingness to "indic civilization" is what will ensure stable regional cooperation in Indian subcontinent. Taking the specific example of BD, they have already taken the first step. Now they have to acknowledge that Bengali culture is a subset of Indic culture and is inherent part of Indian civilization just as a Tamil OR a Kashmiri or a Gujarati is.

[AKalam]

am not bent on selling off my coreligionists, following examples of Salman Rushdie, Tasleema Nasreen, Ali Sina or many others like them.

AKalam ji,
Welcome back!

Islam, or if you wish, followers of Islam, have had to face much criticism and hate speech lately in the last decade or so, coming from many different quarters. I assume, all this criticism, all this opposition, is difficult for any Muslim to digest and must be irritating. If Hinduism had been under similar bombardment, I guess many Hindus too would be pissed off.

So in an atmosphere, where it seems that Islam is under siege, it must be difficult for a Muslim to talk of reflection, of showing Islam, its followers, the mirror and pointing out the various shortcomings and transgressions. Anybody who dares do something like that, is prone to be shouted down, called a blasphemer, stamped as a puppet of the 'enemies' and pushed into a corner by the upholders & guardians of the religion. That way any discussion on religion, its tenets, it manifestation in the society, deeds of its followers is still-born.

So basically the same men who often are responsible for the external siege are also responsible for suppressing any internal dissent, which could have lead to reforms of the religion making it more amenable for coexistence with other faiths, and thereby amenable for coexistence with other people.

So what does selling off of co-religionists mean? Does it mean

• You would buy into the claims of some self-appointed guardians of the religion, that another co-religionist is indeed an enemy and not just a reformer, someone holding the mirror to the faithful, without analyzing the defendant by yourself on the merit of his/her theories and claims? There is both the question of agreeing to guilt and the quantum of punishment meted to the defendant.
• You would rather support those co-religionists, who claim to put the interests of the religion higher than other co-religionists or co-ethnicists who claim to have the interests of the nation at heart?
• You would rather support your co-religionists on some issue, even if your sense of reason, rationality, says otherwise?

The selling off of co-religionists can happen not only to some other religious interest, but also w.r.t. to other co-religionists, your nation or your conscience.

Secondly, just for the curiosity, why do you think that the above mentioned people sold off their (and your) co-religionists. Of course, after they were ostracized, they got support from other quarters, so subsequent support can hardly serve as evidence of selling off one's co-religionists to the enemy. Have you read the claims/allegations they made of Islam, the context in which they made them, and what they said later on in their defense. Why can't they be considered as reformers, having used different tools?

AKalam ji,
I've no intention of ambushing you or anything with the above questions. Feel free to answer them or not to. It is just meant as a 'warm-up' exercise.

RajeshA ji,

Good thought provoking post.

Let me address the issues you have raised.

With endless barrage of criticisms, people like us have gotten used to it, but some of us have become good at separating the good and constructive criticisms from the bad, aka, Islamophobia.

If someone wants to be a reformer among any group, the first criterion is for him/her not to loose the target audience. Once the audience, for whatever reasons, even if erroneously, have lost confidence on the aspiring reformer, then all is lost. Whats left for him/her is then getting ostracized and being identified as an enemy. What this essentially means is that the reformer has inadequate understanding of the target group and his own abilities on how to be effective among this target group.

The men among the faith in question, who are responsible for the external siege and suppressing internal dissent, are a phenomenon of time and place, in the evolution of this particular faith, as the societies in question go through a series of disruptions and become unable to reform and adapt and thus coexist harmoniously with social groups belonging to other faith. I will go into details later if needed.

By selling off coreligionists, I did not mean any of the three things that you have mentioned. But I will discuss the ideas you have presented:

* once an aspiring reformer has alienated the target audience, I would simply call him/her ineffective. Of course there are others who would declare them enemy of the faith and put a price on their head, which positions I personally completely disagree with and consider unnecessary

* I personally would not support those coreligionists who put interest of the religion higher than other coreligionists or co-ethnicists who claim to have the interest of the nation at heart, because I would consider those coreligionists to have a wrong understanding of their own religion

* if my sense of reason and rationality says otherwise about some issue, I would protest it with arguments by staying within the range of allowable arguments that the coreligionists would understand, instead of attacking their entire system of faith

Of course selling out can happen in many ways, in terms of religious faith, or by betraying national interest or one's own conscience.

The three names I have mentioned, all three seemed to seek attention and fame, some consciously and some sub-consciously. As a result all three became world famous and some quite wealthy as well. This is why I allege that they were sell outs, because they have traded in the intimate knowledge of their own people and faith and have managed to hurt the feelings (some willingly and some unwittingly) of their coreligionists and thus gained notoriety and world fame.

Regardless of how much reservations I have about different aspects of a certain faith based system, my inclination would be to refrain from direct attacks and thus hurting peoples religious feelings as it is counter productive for any aspiring reform seeker. The end results are what counts, naive good intentions based on inadequate knowledge usually ends in calamity. I am not sure about Salman Rushdie or Taslima Nasreen, but I know about Ali Sina, because years ago, I had some web conversation with him. AFAIK, he has not only left the faith, but has become one of the prime operator of Islamophobic brigade, championed by people like Daniel Pipes.

From a bigger time line POV, I consider these faith based phenomenons a product of complex socio economic evolution since the age of civilizations and empires started after the last ice age that ended about 10,000 years ago when agriculture developed in human society and surplus food became available to free up people to pursue their effort in things other than their next meal. They have been an intricate part of social evolutions, some beautiful and elegant, some destructive and violent and not so elegant. But these time lines are minuscule compared to the time line of development of regional racial/ethnic archetypes, which are in the range of 40,000 to 60,000 years, after out of Africa migration. The archetypes are no longer pure and unmixed, but they remain pronounced and influential even after they are mixed, giving people a sense of kin-ship. Again more details later. It is my opinion that these kin-ship ties will reassert as the effect of organized religion on societies decrease with time. Also, when people of different regions of the globe start living in one place, such as the US, these kin-ship ties often supersedes religion, so we see things like South Asian Network in Los Angeles, Black African nationalism that includes Black Muslims and Christians in the US etc. Although there are occasional and increasing intermixing of races/ethnic groups, overwhelmingly people judge people based on their ethnic origin rather than religion, this has been my personal experience of being in different places on the globe.

When I look at the history of India, I consider the intrusion of Islam a grave disruption in the body politic (a la the wounded civilization concept promoted by V S Naipaul). But we are here at 2010, we cannot change the past, although we can make attempts to correct some of the more recent historical wrongs such as prosecutions of crimes committed since 1900 in riots, partitions etc. and ask for reparation from responsible govt. bodies or their successors, but it will open a whole can of worms that may not be worth it. I always feel that the properties that were usurped at the time of partition or later ethnic cleansing of minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh, should be compensated for, on behalf of the descendants of the wronged individuals. But going back more than a 100 years to find perpetrators of crimes would be a futile exercise, I think, because of lack of proper evidence and witnesses. Even going back 50 to 70 years would be difficult enough. When the over riding concern is getting the next meal for the majority of the sub-continent, coming to terms with historical wrongs will remain fancy dreams and wishful thinking, I guess.

A related point is that history is at best an inaccurate art, trying to recreate what actually happened so many centuries ago, based on written accounts of one or two individuals, sometimes firsthand and often hearsay, I don't think it should be made into a political tool to influence an often volatile populace, although I do support historical research which should always be updated based on new information.

Having said all that, going off in all sorts of OT tangent, to summarize, I consider all religions to be intricate parts of society and very much local phenomenons, regardless of their history of import to the area, that one should not trifle with, unless one risks causing disruption in the smooth continuity of social fabric. Naturally, I am a big supporter of Sanatan Dharma and its healthy revival, which can play a constructive role in the evolution of the Dharmic societies of the sub-continent in different countries. In our journey towards prosperity in the sub-continent, religions, I believe can be used as effective social tools, to guard against corrosive ideas such as Marxism/Maoism, rampant consumerism, dangerous anti social side effects of western culture etc. I also believe that proselytizing of any religion using economic incentive should be banned. Again more on this later.

[AKalam]

For example, MQM leader Altaf Hussain seems to promote similar idea of EU type integration in the sub-continent, a fact I became aware of just recently.

...

India and the sub-continent have a long way to go, but I am optimistic and confident that someday it will become a more influential part of humanity in all respects.

Converting SAARC into some sort of EU is hopeless!

SAARC was initially conceived as a region which India would be able to call its near abroad, our neighborhood, our area of influence. This was simply unrealistic. Pakistan was sitting on the table like a 800 pound gorilla, not letting any progress be made, and every time hijacking the SAARC meetings to its own ends. It was an assembly where Pakistan dictated the agenda, rather than India.

Moreover it proved that Pakistaniyat was indeed infectious. Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka all got a bit of it. Pakistan's presence in SAARC introduced the general concept of conflict amongst neighbors, and every neighbor started reflecting on how that concept was relevant in their context, unnecessarily exacerbating India's relations with her neighbors. ASEAN on the other hand, put their focus not on conflict resolution, but rather finding common ground.

India should bury SAARC in the deepest hole in the ground she can find - in Marianna Trench perhaps.

In fact, from India's point of view, it would be extremely beneficial to keep Pakistan and Bangladesh at a safe distance from each other. Bangladesh needs to detach and get over its historical association with Pakistan, just like India has got over being a colony of Britain. A Dehyphenation in this case would go a long way, in putting Bangladesh on a path of independent thinking and resolving inter-state problems differently. As long as Pakistan and Bangladesh are together in some form of symbolic community of nations, like SAARC, the hyphenation, the bonds of a common history would persist.

BIMSTEC is just the kind of Association where developing and semi-developed countries can be business-like. It would also be far more productive for India to be associated in a neighborhood which provides her with things India needs - raw materials, minerals, transit facilities, cultural links, etc.

The only loss for India in SAARC would actually be Afghanistan, as India would not be able to express neighborhood and proximity to Afghanistan in the absence of SAARC. That however could also be resolved by having a different institution for that. An institutionalized association of Iran, India, Afghanistan and Russia, with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as associated partners, would go a long way in securing India's interests there.

BIMSTEC is the way to go. We should send Pakistan into the desert, as Germans say it.

India is in the driver's seat, if BIMSTEC is the way to go, Bangladesh should go that route, following India's lead.

Bangladesh had enough of Pakistani masters during 24 years of misrule. Clearly its future interest lies with India and other neighbors in the East and not Pakistan, so it has no reason to have a need to be in the same association or group with Pakistan.

Bangladesh needs free flow of trade, commerce, goods and market access to sell their products, which is also Indian policy for its neighbors as laid out in the recent article by Shyam Saran. If it happens under BIMSTEC instead of SAARC then so be it.

For Bangladesh, it will however be good to have access to goods and markets via India to other countries within the sub-continent and beyond, when such linkages are established for India.