Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[brihaspati]

The problem with the economic route to integration is two:

(1) the potential integrators must be economically compatible or complementary. The reason we see that most of the FTA's are being signed among economically comparable [ to a certain extent - and not just about size of the economy, but ranging from such abstract things as business regulations to corruption to political will and government policy] partners.

This leaves out large parts of Asia, and especially the more troublesome parts.

(2) economic considerations may affect not only ideological positions of ruling or dominant subgroups in regions who are being "developed" by already developed ones, but also the ideological positions of those exporting "development" in the first place.

What can happen, as indicated in observations on identity salience, ingroup enhancement and sharpening of ideological orthodoxy in the "developing" may appear as a means of protecting previous power networks. Similarly, those trying to "develop" the less-developed, may in turn choose to dilute their own values and ideologies.

The question, for example is the everlasting dilemma of a dictatorial, non-democratic, communist one-party rule, PRC apparently delivering spectacular "economic development". If "economic development" becomes the supreme value, then all the other aspects of PRC's rule become secondary and when push comes to shove - should then be acceptable.

Apart from the social consequences of accepting a purely monetary price on all aspects of human life - there is a potential severe economic fallout. Something that befell USSR, after the heady initial expansions of the command economy in the 30s-50's. At some point of development, the market signals get trapped and misplaced between the command centre and end-point agents.

The state structure that PRC has built up however will have its own inertia based on the CPC and the PLA, and likely to try and continue to hold on to power. If a revolution doe snot overtake PRC and overthrows its existing regime - it may very well reduce to a semi-military junta that is moribund and yet stable in power. Unless of course they make the mistake of the CPSU PB - that is, appear weak and allow some freedom for a brief moment.

But PRC stability in its own form then will inspire other societies to follow the same model and end up just like the USSR - stagnant.

[TonyMontana]

The state structure that PRC has built up however will have its own inertia based on the CPC and the PLA, and likely to try and continue to hold on to power. If a revolution doe snot overtake PRC and overthrows its existing regime - it may very well reduce to a semi-military junta that is moribund and yet stable in power. Unless of course they make the mistake of the CPSU PB - that is, appear weak and allow some freedom for a brief moment.

But PRC stability in its own form then will inspire other societies to follow the same model and end up just like the USSR - stagnant.

The Chinese consider the current form of government the same as the one in Imperial China. Looking back on Chinese history, the Chinese civilisation goes in cycles. Periods of unification followed by periods of infighting. And it is during these periods of unification that the Chinese civilsation grew. Some of these unified periods has the harshes regimes in Chinese history, yet growth still happened. It is in my opinion that the requirement for Chinese growth is not the style of government. But mearly unification. So as long as there is stablilty, the Chinese will grow.

[brihaspati]

Even the so-called imperial territories were quite small by current standard. They never really had it so large. Moreover, each period of "unification" actually led to isolation of the "central regime" and eventual retreat - even in terms of territory. For that matter, for mere growth - the Chinese do not need to be even Chinese governed - for example one of their greatest periods of growth happened under Kublai Khan.

[naren]

AKalam ji,

I have been wanting to reply, but kinda held up with some personal things. I have no disrespect to you as an individual or for identifying with a particular religion. My disagreements are solely on an ideological level, which is not "hateful" in anyway. I totally enjoyed your posts on your many personal experiences and I will continue to look forward to it.

I think this recent extremist RoP phenomenon is a temporary and passing phase, this was not even prevalent on world stage before the Afghan Jihad. RoP is a shifting dynamic entity, within certain limits and its entirely possible IMHO to move towards more palatable and tolerant versions, when it is done from proper sources, namely from the old and established theological centers of learning and research, and when there is money behind the propagation of sound ideas and reform. Due to globalization, there is increasing contact between Muslims and there is some initial euphoria of some kind of Islamic common brother hood, now IMHO it is not bad to have OIC etc. to push for some common agenda's and pool resources to help each other, but the increasing contact has also resulted in observations that Islam is just a veneer, people do have local cultures and local concerns and Islam or any religion is just a part (with varying degrees of significance) of their total cultural make up, it can never replace the local and regional nature of human beings with their unique local ethno-linguistic identity that goes much further back in time than Islam or any other religion.

Two things: Islamic civilization vs Hindu civilization and Islamic civilization vs Western civilization. Former is well known & have been going on for the past thousand years. I'll talk about the latter: Both West and Islam see themselves as "solutions" to the entire human race. On one side we have collectivist, religious, theocratic, conservative Islam. On the other side we have individualistic, scientific, secular, liberal West. This is the classic clash of the civilizations. This is, as you rightly said, because of the increased contact due to Globalization. Now which side will prevail ? In the sense that which side is the solution of human race ? Neither.

Western ideas are seemingly working, yet they have hardly seen the test of time. At the present trajectory, US will probably fall apart in few decades (totally irresponsible life style, lack of family/community values, excessive debt, excessive consumption...). Family institutions have evolved for a reason. No society is going to prosper by shunning these time tested institutions.

That brings the question which civilization could be the solution ? Here's a hint - that civilization produced both Buddha and Kama Sutra. Economically, richest for the longest period of time. Produced strategic geniuses such as Chanakya, yet hardly engaged in crimes against humanity (atleast in comparison to other civilizations). Protected persecuted peoples of the world, like Jews, Zorastrians and Tibetans. Most diverse country in terms of religious sects, languages, ethnicities.

Sooner or later, Islam has to realize that Secularism is the way forward. Successful civilizations have adopted secularism & prospered. Hindus were probably the first to come up with secularism - separation of Brahmin (church) and Kshatriya (state). Islam cannot hope to be collectivist forever - there is increased awareness among people. Excessive state control on religious lines is counter productive. Islam's aversion to God shunning Western secularism is quite understandable. That raises the question, which flavour of secularism will be acceptable ? Here's another hint - Hindus were secular, yet they can be hardly called "non religious".

PS: Secularism above has nothing to do with the "appeasement secularism" of the present day politicians.

[TonyMontana]

Moreover, each period of "unification" actually led to isolation of the "central regime" and eventual retreat - even in terms of territory.

This is the cyclical dynasty changes that the Chinese has seen many times in their history. These period of unification lasts up to hundreds of years. They will eventually peak and then the infighting will resume. And when the Chinese are fragmented they tend to lose their territories to outside powers.

For that matter, for mere growth - the Chinese do not need to be even Chinese governed - for example one of their greatest periods of growth happened under Kublai Khan.

As I've wrote in another thread. The world "Chinese" is like the word "American". It does not identify a certain race, but a particular civilisation. After the Mongel and later Manchu take overs. The racial identities within China still remained strong. Even amongst the Han people, there is still a north/south split. Sometimes along ancient "kingdom" lines. Such as the Shanghainese consider themselve decendents of the Wu Kingdom. Being the leader of China does not require one to be Chinese. Mearly having the "Mandate of Heaven".

[AKalam]

Naren ji,

Thanks for your kind words about my posts . Please feel free to ask any questions at any time. Sorry for my delayed response.

Religious faith systems have emerged in human society as society evolved from small hunting gathering communities to agricultural surplus producing city states, kingdoms, empires, civilizations etc. The trend continues as we speak. All of these faith systems claim to have entire and universal solution for human social needs, but since the dawn of civilizations, faith systems have risen and fallen and some have been forgotten in the mist of history. Nothing is permanent and even the existence of our species or lifeforms on this planet is only temporary in the very big picture, one can argue.

I view human societies as similar to highly evolved complex living organisms or large systems, always adapting and changing to keep up and cope with an ever changing environment:

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

Eurocentric view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Wallerstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-systems_approach

More cosmopolitan view which looks at Asian perspective and world system in the making in past 5000 years:

https://faculty.washington.edu/modelski ... pires.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Abu_Lughod
http://rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/
http://rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/structural.html
http://rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/asian_based.html

The clash of civilization you have described between collectivist, religious, theocratic, conservative Islam and individualistic, scientific, secular, liberal West is essentially the story of a rising global hegemon (the West) that was able to eclipse another alternate prevailing system which is perceived as one Islamic world, but was in reality 3 large functioning system and several minor ones, which are the Ottoman Empire, Iranian state and Mughal India, which was Muslim ruled for a time, but not Muslim majority.

It is difficult to talk in such general terms, because there are so many major players and so many series of incidents. But in brief, Ottoman collapsed and many nation states in Eastern Europe, Middle East and North Africa emerged from the broken parts. Mughal was already broken up in independent Maratha, Sikh, Durrani and Bengal states, when the British colonial forces emerged victorious in their struggle with the French and Portuguese to slowly take over all of India (except the Afghan part of the Durrani empire). Britain even occupied some additional parts such as Sri Lanka and Myanmar, which were never part of the Muslim rule. Only Iranian state remained in its previous form, except for some loss of Azeri homeland in the Northwest to Russian empire. Iran's Mullah run Shia regime is a caricature of a powerful state and survives only because of its large oil reserve and oil revenue. Only Turkey as the previous core of Ottoman empire has retained some of its adaptability and emerged as a relatively viable and powerful state. All others, including the ones in South Asia are toothless basket cases. So Islam has become essentially a spent force. There is no future possiblity of any powerful Islamic state to emerge in the foreseeable future that can ensure the continuity and cohesiveness of this faith system. In this vacuum several alternate and ineffective delusional players emerged, such as brotherhood in Egypt, Hizb-ut-Tahrir in Palestine/Jordan and finally the Wahhabi creed got a boost after oil became expensive in world market. None really have a solution, because none come from the old imperial cores or power centers, but from degenerated backwaters of the Islamic space and hence the poverty of their ideas and resulting delusion, at least in my POV. Pakistan or to be specific Pakistani part of Punjab as the power center of Pakistan is similar in this regard, which bungled their way into the current mess. So there never was any clash as clash are usually between equal or semi equal peer powers, but ineffective pin pricks which has nuisance value but no real potential for threat to the global status quo, in the way the PRC's emergence is for example.

Unfortunately, the human species over-react and blow things out of proportion, politicians use bogeyman and fear factor to score political points and the gullible take the bait.

So Al Quaeda's insane idea of Khilafat and world domination also generate equally insane neo-con led attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq and the saga continues.

The whole thing would be a tragi-comedy except that millions of innocent lives have been already lost in the resulting pandemonium and while the situation seems to be stabilizing in Iraq, there is no end in sight for Afghanistan, but then things never quite were good there, so it is nothing new since Mughal sway ended there and it became a land locked orphan state and a constant off and on cauldron of chaos.

The only threatening part that have emerged in this mix is the nuclear war heads and delivery system that Pakistan (or Punjab in Pakistan) have managed to develop probably from stolen material and some help from PRC. Iran's drive for nuclear weapon is another threat. But to put things in perspective, this Pakistani or Iranian threat is limited in scope and can be wiped out by the hyper nuclear powers, such as US, Russia or PRC at any time. So Pakistan's threat is mainly India specific (for the time being, as India will soon upset this balance as its economy continues to grow) while Iran's threat is GCC specific with a particular emphasis on Israel.

Considering that a mass of healthy and highly educated, skilled and creative manpower is the ultimate source of power with their research centers of excellence, powerhouse of technology, vibrant and world competitive manufacturing base and a military industrial complex - no Muslim majority country has these currently or going to achieve them anytime soon, except for Turkey to some extent, I can safely declare that no amount of Terrorism pin prick nuisance will turn any Islamic community in any significant global power center for the foreseeable future. And for all the "Islamist" "intellectuals" spouting their meaningless world Islamic brotherhood nonsense, I can safely say, that all that you are doing since the past 100 years and most visibly since 9/11 is making a Muslim's life more and more difficult and stigmatized as the follower of a "vile and evil" faith, in the world stage.

Sorry for going off on a tangent, but all of the above is to show that there is no "clash" of civilizations, as one had already collapsed and gone comatose and making occasional nuisance pin pricks to an opponent, while the opponent is giving this brain dead vegetable body in life support some sound bit of thrashing.

Western civilization in its current form, with all its faults, is a result of its own social evolution, so it is appropriate for its own societies. Bits and pieces of good ideas can be applied, such as democracy and empowerment of the masses, to other societies, but one cannot take a whole system and transplant it to other society in its entirety, as every society or large system, is in its own path and trajectory with its own historic indigenous system, which can evolve with time with minor adjustments here and there, avoiding large scale disruptions.

So, for India and its Dharmic communities, I am a tremendous admirer of Sanatan Dharma which has survived from antiquity despite suffering so much during the Muslim and British rule. I whole heartedly support a healthy revival of this tolerant creed.

IMHO Islam, more than anything else, first needs to loose this "Islamist" Egyptian and Saudi led virus it contracted in the last 100 years and hopefully can then address its myriads of problems which caused its failures in the first place. Accepting a separation of state and mosque would definitely be one and for the most part, this was the form that took shape in Ottoman, Mughal and Safavi and later Iranian dynasties, none were a theocratic state a la Khomeini or the historic 4-Khilafa state, but were more like a secular monarch led dynastic powers, where the monarch were called Khalifa for legitimacy (none were elected or chosen per Islamic law). In fact, after the first 4 Khalifa's, the Umayads and Abbasids were also more or less "secular" hereditary dynasties, more interested in power and territory. Islamic societies has the capacity to reform itself IMHO and enhance positive traits, from within, the only reasonable example I can provide is that of Turkey. For subcontinental Muslims and specifically Bangladeshi Muslims, and Muslims in other parts of the world, I would say, that one must reflect on their local reality, on their neighbors and country men, who profess other faith, forget about dreams of past empires, that were built on the backs of mainly the skills of desert nomads such as Bedouin warriors and steppe nomadic Turko-Mongols, who found opening of weakness in neighbor states and empires. Those days are gone as they say. So it is time to take stock and concentrate on becoming good citizens of respective countries, good neighbors of respective regions specially if the neighbors are of different faith and has been affected by past excesses of Muslim states. It is time we realize that we need to keep religion away from state craft. If there is people of other faith in our midst, we need to take extra care to make sure that they are not persecuted or marginalized in a Muslim majority country or community (Kashmiri's please take note, your best bet is to welcome back all Pandits and Sikhs who had to leave). It is time we become good citizens of the world. It is also time that we expose and excommunicate the extremist in our midst who are harboring the destructive ideas which are causing so much grief for our local communities.

[AKalam]

IMHO, it was a strategic mistake by the US (EU was forced to tag along later), just because of the greed of a few businessmen, to put all their eggs in one basket. Instead of giving the entire manufacturing market to PRC, in the name of free trade, to take advantage of authoritarian govt. and slave labor, so the trading businesses and companies like Walmart and other retailers could maximize their profit. They should have spread the market access to other low cost manufacturing centers, in ASEAN and South Asia, who could compete easily with PRC, if given the opportunity with the help of some quota and tariff. Its a little too late for that now, but still the US/EU should think about strategic implications when corporations make their business decisions. Free trade and maximizing profit looks great for short term profit making, but it can be destabilizing in the medium or longer term, which may end up costing a lot more to curb a rogue power that became overblown in too short a time, without developing an adequate sense of responsibility.

As PRC has become way too strong already, the West needs to balance it with India by giving some kind of preferential market access to South Asian countries, as a bloc, so on the one hand, India becomes powerful and at the same time countries like Bangladesh solves its demographic problems and Pakistan solves its extremism problem. Similar access should be given to low labor cost countries in ASEAN such as Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. There should be a deliberate push to take manufacturing away from PRC so it cannot utilize the lower cost labors in its interior and thus continue to achieve a high continuous growth rate. An economic attack to curb PRC's rise would be a more prudent route than an expensive hegemonic design with bases and fomenting insurgency at weak spots.

A redistribution of manufacturing capacity is the key to a stable Asia.

India is signing a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with Japan by the end of the year. Even as Japan has economic partnership agreements (EPA) with many countries, like with countries of ASEAN, Australia, Chile, Mexico, South Korea and Switzerland, Japan does not have with China. Japan has already agreed to financially and technically support the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor, which would cost around 90 billion USD. A Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC) supported by Japan is also in the pipeline.

An India-EU FTA is also on the cards, but there are serious reservations in India with respect to patent law and EU's agricultural subsidies. Should India find some way to proceed without giving in too much, that too would boost manufacturing in India.

Since 1st January, 2010 there exists an India-ASEAN FTA. India is considering another FTA with Thailand. With Singapore India has a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement since 2005.

All these developments are designed to increase India's manufacturing base even further. It will take some time to find out, if India is able to translate all these FTAs into an industrial base which can compete with that of PRC.

In the end it not just about FTAs but rather whether India can provide the industrial infrastructure (land, power, cargo handling, etc) to attract the world's manufacturing capacity to India as well as build its own.

One of the biggest advantage of PRC is that it has a authoritarian govt. that can make quick decisions and implement some policy overnight and do all that without letting any one know. In a democracy, one has to go through parliament or a cumbersome bureaucracy, which is usually bogged down with red tape, and do everything above board, nothing can be hidden, so no unfair secret trade practices can be used as a trade enhancing tool.

From my observations of doing business with Koreans, what I saw is that Korea, following Japan, has a trade promotion office, which is separate from embassy. All it does is promote trade with a target country, provide information for available product, showcase products, provide business contact, arrange tours of entrepreneurs between two countries etc. Also, the big conglomerates also called chaebols, such as Samsung, LG, SunKyong, SsangYong etc. have their own offices in target countries to see their products and look for business opportunities. Koreans in trading are even more aggressive than the Japanese, Chinese are fairly new in this game, but they are learning fast. In Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, I saw that there are construction and mining companies from mainly two countries, Korea and Turkey, both doing very well. Chinese have bought up old factories which they run with Chinese managerial staff, most Indians I saw there are medical and other university students. I met one Indian trader in Almaty and heard of Indian traders in Bishkek selling imported Indian medicine. Pakistanis are as usual wheeling and dealing and the entire used car market or at least significant part of it is in their control.

Japan, after WW II shifted their effort from militarism (as that route was not available to them anymore) to trade and they had a good success in export for a while. Korea studied and followed the path tread by the Japanese and I think they are now beating the master. War for them, has shifted from the battle field to corporate board room and the market place, where winners and loosers are determined by market share. India, if it does not already have one, need to setup a RAA type intelligence agency for enhancing trade and IIT type research institutions for improving business and entrepreneurial skills. India has a big local market where almost any product can be tried first before trying for export. Someone mentioned that PRC is selling a lot of product in Indian market and there is big trade deficit, I would look at all these products and see if they can be made locally, cheaper and of better quality. If it works with one product, then it can be sold back to Chinese market. One must fight fire with fire and beat people at their own game. Today the battlefield is not just in the marketplace, it is also in the factory floor, where each production machine is better than a machine gun or a fighter plane and each skilled operator is a person manning the gun. It is here that countries fortunes are made and lost. And it is the army of entrepreneurs or managers of conglomerates supported and backed by the country with any and all available facility that win a business from the world market, whether its a mining contract or an order for a manufacturing product.

FTA is of course a vital part of this whole set of factors that are important to enhance trade.

People in every country have their unique traits, Japanese are extremely slow in decision making and always make corporate decisions collectively, but once a decision is made, implementation is super fast. Koreans are similar, but they are more individualistic than the Japanese. Vietnamese I work with here in the US are also fast in doing things, us South Asians can be a little slow in our actions, Chinese are supposedly faster than South Asians, but I have heard than an average South Asian worker (of course if he/she is well fed since birth and free of malnutrition) is more intelligent and perfectionist, which is very important to make high quality product. Now a Dharmic company will always consider the end customers interest when making a product, which an average atheist Chinese worker will not. Indeed, the Chinese products are known for their toxic content, I am kind of chemically sensitive and I am even afraid to touch a product that is made in China, specially clothes. I buy a lot of organic cotton clothing and found that one Ram Rajya Dharmic type company actually produces one of the nicest organic cotton clothes, which I buy regularly. Just one practical example, where Dharma or any moralistic religion can play a practical role in enhancing trade and win satisfied customer.

[AKalam]

The problem with the economic route to integration is two:

(1) the potential integrators must be economically compatible or complementary. The reason we see that most of the FTA's are being signed among economically comparable [ to a certain extent - and not just about size of the economy, but ranging from such abstract things as business regulations to corruption to political will and government policy] partners.

This leaves out large parts of Asia, and especially the more troublesome parts.

(2) economic considerations may affect not only ideological positions of ruling or dominant subgroups in regions who are being "developed" by already developed ones, but also the ideological positions of those exporting "development" in the first place.

What can happen, as indicated in observations on identity salience, ingroup enhancement and sharpening of ideological orthodoxy in the "developing" may appear as a means of protecting previous power networks. Similarly, those trying to "develop" the less-developed, may in turn choose to dilute their own values and ideologies.

The question, for example is the everlasting dilemma of a dictatorial, non-democratic, communist one-party rule, PRC apparently delivering spectacular "economic development". If "economic development" becomes the supreme value, then all the other aspects of PRC's rule become secondary and when push comes to shove - should then be acceptable.

Apart from the social consequences of accepting a purely monetary price on all aspects of human life - there is a potential severe economic fallout. Something that befell USSR, after the heady initial expansions of the command economy in the 30s-50's. At some point of development, the market signals get trapped and misplaced between the command centre and end-point agents.

The state structure that PRC has built up however will have its own inertia based on the CPC and the PLA, and likely to try and continue to hold on to power. If a revolution doe snot overtake PRC and overthrows its existing regime - it may very well reduce to a semi-military junta that is moribund and yet stable in power. Unless of course they make the mistake of the CPSU PB - that is, appear weak and allow some freedom for a brief moment.

But PRC stability in its own form then will inspire other societies to follow the same model and end up just like the USSR - stagnant.

brihaspati ji,

PRC has studied the Soviet failure and are keen to avoid their fate. To avoid a Soviet style disintegration, they are ensuring a demographic Han Chinese (including Hui Muslim) majority in the Autonomous regions of Tibet and Xinjiang. Also, for transition to market economy, the process is well under way. They are also increasing democracy within party hierarchy I believe. Only thing they are holding onto is the One party system. The Chinese people it seems are fine with it, because they know that it is their fastest route to prosperity and a way to beat other competitor nations. So as long as they are competent and are able to maintain 8-10% growth, their mandate of heaven is secure, but I am sure that they will be making preparation for the day when they will switch to a multi-party democracy, although I believe that will happen well after they have beaten the US in nominal GDP and also have achieved military superiority over the US. If they have to switch to multi party democracy before that point, then that will open up a lot of weakness for the state, which they would definitely like to avoid till they a reach a preeminent global power status.

[TonyMontana]

but I am sure that they will be making preparation for the day when they will switch to a multi-party democracy, although I believe that will happen well after they have beaten the US in nominal GDP and also have achieved military superiority over the US. If they have to switch to multi party democracy before that point, then that will open up a lot of weakness for the state, which they would definitely like to avoid till they a reach a preeminent global power status.

What makes you think that the Chinese will switch to multi-party democracy? Is it backed up by facts and trends or is it just wishful thinking? Best prediction of future behaviour is past behaviour. The Chinese don't do multi-party democracy well, they do single-party meritocracy well(see periods of culture/civilisational growth for the core Han Chinese in their history). What makes you think the Tiger will change stripes?

[naren]

Please feel free to ask any questions at any time.

AK ji,

Thanks for the offer I'm interested to know about the caste system in Bangladesh. What role does caste play in determining marriages, social mobility, segregation etc. ? What is the perception of Hindu caste system ? I have come across many Bakistanis who have strong anti-Brahmin feelings. I have a theory as to why this "memory" is carried down, even though it is seemingly irrelevant in a muslim majority country. I hope you'd share your views in the harmonization/homogenization thread in GDF.

Sorry for going off on a tangent, but all of the above is to show that there is no "clash" of civilizations, as one had already collapsed and gone comatose and making occasional nuisance pin pricks to an opponent, while the opponent is giving this brain dead vegetable body in life support some sound bit of thrashing.

Nicely written. Yes, I agree with you that the clash is not "well defined" on a geopolitical level. My perception is that due to globalization, the Islamic world is coming into contact with many "new" ideas. Islamic world does have a problem with sectarian violence, women's rights and may be contradiction with modern science. How these "new" ideas will influence the Islamic world is something to watch out for.

There is a view that Islam must be uprooted totally. I dont subscribe to that. I dont believe that Islam is "vile and evil" (subscribed to that at one point, but later had spiritual experiences which convinced me otherwise). Islam is a great Bhakti school. My disagreements are only with the politics associated with the religion.

[brihaspati]

naren ji,
if you want to give your very own personal interpretation of Islam, then a better place is perhaps the "historicity of Islam" thread in the GDF. This "strategic scenarios" thread should not have comments that will start off a debate on the nature of a particular religion. if you express this very same view on that thread within GDF, I am most willing to take it up with you.

Existence of "caste" within BD Muslim society is not exceptional, AKalam bhai will perhaps explain in detail. In fact it is common all over the subcontinent, and there exists well researched articles on this from both Muslim as well as non-Muslim researchers. OT.

[brihaspati]

Akalam bhai,
your reasoning is very interesting. I had thought that the transition to pluralism will not be peaceful or automatic, and the party and PLA will try to resist transition. The Chinese had also tried the demographic cleansing experiment before. It never worked with the western frontier. For such demographic experiments to be successful, the colonial-superior-segregationist attitude is counter productive. The reason, the Brits could never take root in India, since abandoning the EIC period "free-mixing" [more than Victorian, not meaning any universal trend]. But the Han-superiority attitude is based on a myth of ethnicity that is not borne out by facts [it is a motley collection of a small section of the delta and plains of the northern rivers] and also a ethnicity that lost out on its glory or claims of supremacy quite early in its history and were subjugated by "western" (to their region) tribes and never really regained that power.

[brihaspati]

Akalama bhai,
any scoping on possible thinking behind the Tareq+Koko parole dispute? Any possible analyis of disposition of the armed forces?

[TonyMontana]

Akalam bhai,
I had thought that the transition to pluralism will not be peaceful or automatic, and the party and PLA will try to resist transition.

I keep seeing the underline assumption that China will trasition to pluralism. Says who? Why? What are the forces pushing for it? I don't see China trasition to pluralism anytime soon not because the CCP are so good at oppressing people, but because the Chinese don't want multi-party democracy.

But the Han-superiority attitude is based on a myth of ethnicity that is not borne out by facts [it is a motley collection of a small section of the delta and plains of the northern rivers] and also a ethnicity that lost out on its glory or claims of supremacy quite early in its history and were subjugated by "western" (to their region) tribes and never really regained that power.

Indian are far too focused on the Han ethncity. Do you single out the Irish Americans when you talk about America? The pressure felt by Indians from China are not just from the Han people. The Han people are not out to get you. It's a Pan-China nationalism you're dealing with.

[AKalam]

Akalam bhai,
your reasoning is very interesting. I had thought that the transition to pluralism will not be peaceful or automatic, and the party and PLA will try to resist transition. The Chinese had also tried the demographic cleansing experiment before. It never worked with the western frontier. For such demographic experiments to be successful, the colonial-superior-segregationist attitude is counter productive. The reason, the Brits could never take root in India, since abandoning the EIC period "free-mixing" [more than Victorian, not meaning any universal trend]. But the Han-superiority attitude is based on a myth of ethnicity that is not borne out by facts [it is a motley collection of a small section of the delta and plains of the northern rivers] and also a ethnicity that lost out on its glory or claims of supremacy quite early in its history and were subjugated by "western" (to their region) tribes and never really regained that power.

brihaspati ji,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-party_state

Nation states in recent centuries have evolved from hereditary dynasty controlled monarchist states (some from decolonization others from sovereign states or from broken up parts of past empires) to multi party democracies, some took an alternate route of single party states (many communist states), but many of these single party states also later became multi party democracies, please note list of past single party states in above link.

Single party democracy is an oxymoron promoted by CPC of PRC, obviously to keep their hold on power by fooling the billion Chinese citizens. These gentlemen sound like part of an army of Western individuals/intellectuals as mouthpieces probably funded directly or supported indirectly by CPC:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ ... 528a1.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opini ... cohen.html

Chinese people accept and tolerate this single party rule because it is effective, for now, and is producing results of 10% GDP growth per year. As soon as they fail to keep up this level of growth, they will loose the Mandate of Heaven in the eye of the people, that will be the dreaded day, when things may get interesting in PRC. To forestall a catastrophe and total loss of power, the elite and rich in PRC, who are mostly descendants of Party and PLA officials, it is my guess that they must have a contingency plan of forming multiple parties within this elite and giving some power in each party to increasingly influential and vocal non party intellectuals among China's netizens and broader populace (mango janata), rather than being violently kicked out of power, which may cause great social disruption and may cause disintegration of PRC a la USSR.

World population trend moving towards more and more "freedom" and democracy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in ... 8report%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elect ... racies.png

I believe people want a system that produces best result for them. Single party is good when society makes a transition from agrarian to industrial and information economy and has to maintain high growth rate to achieve socioeconomic gain and gains in GDP, but at some point in the trajectory of a societies evolution, it will reach a point of diminishing returns and have the potential to create wide spread discontent and destabilization and demand for more freedom and democracy (of the popular multi party kind) similar to rest of the world and specially the advanced economies. So if I were a CPC politburo member and member of their think tank strategizing team, I would make contingency plans of switching over to mulit-party, when the back is against the wall and no other choice or option remains open.

Now this may or may not happen, as future is hard to predict and specially the exact time frame of events that will take place, but the move towards multi party pluralism seems to match the trend of human societies on the globe and I do not see why Chinese society will be any different, as they are part of the human race (unless of course someone trys to deny that and think that some other rule apply to the Chinese).

About demographic or ethnic cleansing, you are probably talking about extermination of the defeated Dzungar/Oirat mongols in Xinjiang area by the Qing. Han Chinese actually do not consider themselves as racially superior than Mongol, Uyghur, Kyrgyz, Kazakh or Tibetans, in fact the opposite is true and is a mutually understood perception, ie, these minorities consider themselves to be superior as they all descend from tribes that the Han Chinese fought and lost. It was always numerical superiority and also utilizing this superiority as a tool of strategy, even in war fare, that led to Han victory against these minorities, so is the case today. If it was upto Han, they would very much like to absorb these minorities within their great Han ethnic soup-mix, borg style and add some good gene pools for their benefit, but what stands in their way is the distinct religious-linguistic-cultural identity, which the CPC want to chip way slowly, so eventually these people can merge with Han, just like the Manchu's and Hui Muslims did. But unfortunately today, in this era of globalized media, internet and exposure to all sorts of information and contact with kindred people, these new technology of communication and exposure, which is hard for govt. to control despite the effort with great firewall, uncommon alliances are made like the Turkish sympathy for the Uyghur cause and Buddhist world sympathy for the Tibetan cause. People are now overly aware about their identities, so any attempt to attack any part of their identity is rightly identified as an attack on their collective self consciousness, a smooth continuation of which is important for the survival of any society, small or large, which I will discuss further when I present my own pet theory.

About internal difference within Han, northern and southern variation, Han Chinese who are 92% of PRC population (1.2 billion), actually became a nation in an integration process lasting for more than 1800 years, starting from Shang in 1600 BC to the end of Han around 220 AD. Since then it remained intact during Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties. Although differences remained among Northern and Southern Han and probably Western Han, with rapid movement of population, these genetic differences are diminishing, and more importantly culturally they are being unified with common schooling, language, TV programs etc. Taiwan maintains a slightly different language, and so does probably many other somewhat isolated overseas Chinese in Asia and rest of the globe, but due to overwhelming influence and number of PRC population, they will soon become negligible and insignificant.

The EIC example of abandoning the White Mughal model of Darlymple fame and not fraternizing with local populace, probably has to do with several factors, one is the belief of racial superiority, once Europeans became dominant colonial power on the globe by that time and also because of some bad results of fraternization they saw for the Spanish in South America and Philippines, compared to no fraternization followed in North America and Oceania. They probably reasoned that where we can we will exterminate the natives and create space for propagation and expansion of our own race/ethnic group, where the natives are too numerous, we will not get mixed with the natives, like the Spanish did, but rule and exploit while we can and extract as much as we can and then leave when the cost (because of native upstarts power grab) outweighs the benefit.

[AKalam]

Please feel free to ask any questions at any time.

AK ji,

Thanks for the offer I'm interested to know about the caste system in Bangladesh. What role does caste play in determining marriages, social mobility, segregation etc. ? What is the perception of Hindu caste system ? I have come across many Bakistanis who have strong anti-Brahmin feelings. I have a theory as to why this "memory" is carried down, even though it is seemingly irrelevant in a muslim majority country. I hope you'd share your views in the harmonization/homogenization thread in GDF.

Sorry for going off on a tangent, but all of the above is to show that there is no "clash" of civilizations, as one had already collapsed and gone comatose and making occasional nuisance pin pricks to an opponent, while the opponent is giving this brain dead vegetable body in life support some sound bit of thrashing.

Nicely written. Yes, I agree with you that the clash is not "well defined" on a geopolitical level. My perception is that due to globalization, the Islamic world is coming into contact with many "new" ideas. Islamic world does have a problem with sectarian violence, women's rights and may be contradiction with modern science. How these "new" ideas will influence the Islamic world is something to watch out for.

There is a view that Islam must be uprooted totally. I dont subscribe to that. I dont believe that Islam is "vile and evil" (subscribed to that at one point, but later had spiritual experiences which convinced me otherwise). Islam is a great Bhakti school. My disagreements are only with the politics associated with the religion.

naren ji,

Thanks for your kind words. Sorry for the delay in my reply.

Please let me know the link for this thread as I could not locate GDF (General Discussion Forum) thread, where I will post reply to your above post.

[AKalam]

Akalam bhai,
I had thought that the transition to pluralism will not be peaceful or automatic, and the party and PLA will try to resist transition.

I keep seeing the underline assumption that China will trasition to pluralism. Says who? Why? What are the forces pushing for it? I don't see China trasition to pluralism anytime soon not because the CCP are so good at oppressing people, but because the Chinese don't want multi-party democracy.

But the Han-superiority attitude is based on a myth of ethnicity that is not borne out by facts [it is a motley collection of a small section of the delta and plains of the northern rivers] and also a ethnicity that lost out on its glory or claims of supremacy quite early in its history and were subjugated by "western" (to their region) tribes and never really regained that power.

Indian are far too focused on the Han ethncity. Do you single out the Irish Americans when you talk about America? The pressure felt by Indians from China are not just from the Han people. The Han people are not out to get you. It's a Pan-China nationalism you're dealing with.

Please see my previous post addressed to brihaspati about future pluralism and multi party democracy in PRC.

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

At 92% of PRC, Han Chinese dominates CPC and PLA and Han Chinese nationalism (tinted with Han chauvinism) may become the only force that can unify and stabilize PRC when role of communism, single party etc. diminishes further, just as today ethnic nationalism is an important unifying theme in post Soviet Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_chauvinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_nationalism

[AKalam]

Akalama bhai,
any scoping on possible thinking behind the Tareq+Koko parole dispute? Any possible analyis of disposition of the armed forces?

brihaspati ji,

This is the only article I have seen about this, I will let you know if I find anything more:

http://www.independent-bangladesh.com/2 ... epeal.html

Vengeance between these two ladies have a long history, which Bangladesh could do without. IMHO Hasina should try to reduce corruption of her party-men and do more good work to improve business and economic environment of the country which will bring improvement in the lives of the impoverished, those are the real priority issues, along with making sure that extremist form of Islam does not take root in Bangladesh.

About Bangladesh Army:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20466

Now Joy is Hasina's son which Mr. Salah Uddin Shoaib forgets to mention. Mr. Shoaib himself is a quite a colorful character, who was harassed by RAB, as there is allegation that he has some association with some US based Jewish groups. Apparently he was trying to promote some Israel-Bangladesh friendship association and was planning to travel to Israel, which is not looked upon as normal by average mango janata in BD. He is a good source of information, but he is definitely not viewed as a credible and reputed journalist in Bangladesh. The consensus is that he is cashing in on a niche that he found that can be lucrative, nothing wrong with that, just that when money is the prime motivator, credibility can be questioned.

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

I am not sure how involved current Bangladesh Army is in politics and how the state of extremism is within it, I will try to find out more and let you know.

[TonyMontana]

Please see my previous post addressed to brihaspati about future pluralism and multi party democracy in PRC.

Very well written and thought out. I would like to point out that having multiparty democracy does not mean one truely practices multiparty democracy. And wanting a functioning democracy does not mean you'll get a functioning democracy. Would you say Russia and Iraq are functioning democracies? What you say is true. Maybe in the future, the many factions and cliches that already exists within Chinese politics will openly declear their positions. But that does not mean China will have a functioning democracy in the classical sense. Hell, I don't think America have a functioning democracy.

Secondly, I think this is the kicker here. A multiparty democractic China will not mean a China that is anymore friendly to India than the CCP. China will do what is right for China. And if that's against the interests of India, who's to say they shouldn't? That's why I always suggest that India should do what the Chinese did to the Americans. Make it unprofitable for the Chinese to be against Indian interests and make it profitable for them to align with Indian interests.

Lastly, as a general observation of the forums. A lot of BFRites are hoping/anticipating for the collapse of the Chinese economy or have China undergone a revolution of some sort so their internal conflicts will benefit India. As I posted in another thread, hoping for your enermy to fail is not a strategy!

[naren]

Please let me know the link for this thread as I could not locate GDF (General Discussion Forum) thread, where I will post reply to your above post.

Here it is.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... =24&t=5550

Thanks !

[brihaspati]

An interestsing struggle that is developing in AFPAK may have consequences for the entire region. It essentially reduces to a three-party struggle for dominance and face saving keeping their domestic power bases in mind.

USA does not want to appear to have lost out to the "inferior" Talebs and Afghans, but cannot maintain the level of investments in manpower and material for long, given domestic pressures. It has also faced criticisms for giving advanced notice of withdrawal because that shows the weakness of its position in the region and encourages post-withdrawal planning by others. So a very public protest that they will still be present in a significant way. Even in reality, the model being thought of is the KSA model of bases for regional military deterrence but not having any real say in the general running of the country. But AFG is not KSA. ME had been under Brit imperial thumb for a long time, so that Brit agents had time to build up networks that would help them long term the way it has been for India. AFG never had such Anglo-Saxon penetration. It still does not have.

Karazai is too deep in the muck that AFG has become to withdraw simply with his life and limb. He cannot afford to be seen entirely as an American or Paki stooge, and has had to make contsantly a stream of position statements trying to prove that he wants to be independent of both. This shows to a certain extent the actual pressures of the Afghan elite networks in the south and centre. The Afghan elite will not allow modernization of AFG society, will not allow a strong national centre to emerge, while not wishing any foreign dominance - a kind of an impossible dream and an infantile disorder. Their opposition to US or Pak dominance is not because they are themselves some paragon of values superior to the perfidy that both the other powers perpetrate - but because they want to retain the freedom to carry out such perfidy themselves on their own society and extrens as and when convenient. If there was any inherent humanity in AFG society - Talebs would not have been able to spread in the first place.

Pakis are of course trying to save their own face. All their investments in the Talebs and other militants will be a total loss if the Talebs become compltely independent. But it also shows that the PA is losing its capacity to fight and they need the Taleb forces to be under control to both supplement their own capacity to cause damages to strategic enemies like India - as well as preventing confrontations with an independent Talebs which may very well prove the end of the PA.

So both Karazai-AFG-elite and Paki elite interests will be against liong term US bases in AFG. Given the geopolitical history of the region, it is unlikely that the bases will be feasible in the long run.

[ramana]

Bji, The sub-surface tussle in Af-PAk is the Ghilzais are reasserting themselves after the Abdali/Durrani centuries. And the historic reality is Ghilzais are drawn to Dilli while the Durranis are drawn to Fars. Am wondering if the solution is two Pashtun states. Ghilzai dominated Khyber-Pashtunwa and Afghanistan with the Durrani Pashtuns?

[RajeshA]

I think India is missing out on a golden opportunity by not opening a relief center distributing relief aid worth the 5 million USD from our Jalalabad Consulate to the various warlords and Taliban, instead of giving it to Pakistan.

Important is to have "From the People of Hindustan for the Pakhtun People as a token of Friendship" in Pushto and Dari on all relief supplies.

[ramana]

I agree and had suggested it in the TSP thread. It can be opened for Afghan flood victims without need to check the domilicty.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 52#p928452

RajeshA, Can you open a thread to collect ideas and logistics for such a center operating near Jalalabad or another good location. It can also be in Iranian Balochistan. Maybe the US scholar's nigthmare might come true!

[AKalam]

Please see my previous post addressed to brihaspati about future pluralism and multi party democracy in PRC.

Very well written and thought out. I would like to point out that having multiparty democracy does not mean one truely practices multiparty democracy. And wanting a functioning democracy does not mean you'll get a functioning democracy. Would you say Russia and Iraq are functioning democracies? What you say is true. Maybe in the future, the many factions and cliches that already exists within Chinese politics will openly declear their positions. But that does not mean China will have a functioning democracy in the classical sense. Hell, I don't think America have a functioning democracy.

Secondly, I think this is the kicker here. A multiparty democractic China will not mean a China that is anymore friendly to India than the CCP. China will do what is right for China. And if that's against the interests of India, who's to say they shouldn't? That's why I always suggest that India should do what the Chinese did to the Americans. Make it unprofitable for the Chinese to be against Indian interests and make it profitable for them to align with Indian interests.

Lastly, as a general observation of the forums. A lot of BFRites are hoping/anticipating for the collapse of the Chinese economy or have China undergone a revolution of some sort so their internal conflicts will benefit India. As I posted in another thread, hoping for your enermy to fail is not a strategy!

Thanks for the complement, but you are only too kind .

Yes, even when China switches to Multiparty democracy (if it ever does), it will not be more friendly to India. I understand that you are suggesting that India engage China with trade, and it is happening already as we speak.

Chances of China collapsing are slim to none, as there is sufficient human capital accumulated in its emerging middle class to prevent such a collapse, it was more likely right after the cultural revolution when Mao led purge was able to eliminate much of the middle class intellectuals there.

My concern for China (PRC) is the following:

- aggresive attempts at cultural genocide against Mongols in Inner Mongolia (IMAR), Tibetans in Tibet (TAR) and Turkics in Xinjiang (XUAR)
- support of North Korea to keep a buffer state
- aggression in South China issue with Vietnam and other ASEAN countries
- Han Chauvinism on the net that flares up in many issues such as calling Koguryo as a Chinese dynasty or calling Chingis Khan as Chinese, since Mongols are a part of 55 minority ethnic groups

The connecting thread among all of the above is a newly burgeoning middle class elite, that is showing signs of adolescence and aggressive behavior.

India could take all this aggressive behavior and make a case with the West, Japan/Korea and ASEAN (Asian neighbors of China) that a peaceful rise is not possible and India should be given a strategic boost with favorable investment and market access so it can catch up with China. When US led west becomes concerned about stability and security against a threatening entity then any amount of expense for this change in posture might become worthwhile for gaining the strategic benefit of pulling down a threat, pulling up a balancer and thus bring a more balance in the Asian and global order.

So things will be interesting in the short and medium term. But I hold this unshakable view that in the long term, immediate neighbors like China and India will be indispensable for each other and can add to each others strength, when each reach a level of GDP and size of market and are no longer dependent to the extent they are today on the West for Market access and tech transfer. So a vigorous wrestling duel is good, but one should not bring a baseball bat, a knife or a gun in the ring to cause inordinate amount of hurt.

[TonyMontana]

My concern for China (PRC) is the following:

- aggresive attempts at cultural genocide against Mongols in Inner Mongolia (IMAR), Tibetans in Tibet (TAR) and Turkics in Xinjiang (XUAR)

The sadder truth is the cultural genocide are actually mostly completed back in the 70's. What you see today are a shadow of their former culture. The most powerful weapon of these cultural genocides are actually materialism. The youth of these cultures are more and more materialistic and in a way they "want" to be more "Chinese" to get on the gravy train.

- support of North Korea to keep a buffer state

Geo-politics. Same as american support for Pakistan.

- aggression in South China issue with Vietnam and other ASEAN countries

Again, geo-politics.

- Han Chauvinism on the net that flares up in many issues such as calling Koguryo as a Chinese dynasty or calling Chingis Khan as Chinese, since Mongols are a part of 55 minority ethnic groups

I don't think it represents the Chinese view point on the street. Any Chinese after high school are well aware of their history. There is no doubt in their mind where the Mancho and Yuan dynasties are from.

I believe that there is a misconception between Han Chauvinism and "Middle Kingdom" Chauvinism. As I've mentioned before. "Chinese" is not a racial or ethnic designation. Chinese = American. The nationalism you feel are Chinese nationalism. But because most Chinese are Han, it is seen as Han Chauvinism. When the Mancho and Mongels went South and took over China, China itself was preserved. Think of it as a change of government in the US. Different policies, different people in charge, but it's still the same country with the traditions and problems.

India could take all this aggressive behavior and make a case with the West, Japan/Korea and ASEAN (Asian neighbors of China) that a peaceful rise is not possible and India should be given a strategic boost with favorable investment and market access so it can catch up with China.

Define peaceful rise. I don't see China starting to carve out a east asian co-prosperity sphere anytime soon. It's naive to expect any sort of rising power to not have disputes with other nations.

When US led west becomes concerned about stability and security against a threatening entity then any amount of expense for this change in posture might become worthwhile for gaining the strategic benefit of pulling down a threat, pulling up a balancer and thus bring a more balance in the Asian and global order.

So things will be interesting in the short and medium term. But I hold this unshakable view that in the long term, immediate neighbors like China and India will be indispensable for each other and can add to each others strength, when each reach a level of GDP and size of market and are no longer dependent to the extent they are today on the West for Market access and tech transfer. So a vigorous wrestling duel is good, but one should not bring a baseball bat, a knife or a gun in the ring to cause inordinate amount of hurt.

[/quote]

Entirely agreed. India have to ensure that she's not fighting someone else's war. Beaware of any "borrow the knife to kill the chicken" tactics from other interests. Believe it or not, the common Chinese racial memories of Historical indians are very positive. I don't see how the last 100 years changed that racial memory. Government propaganda, which to be honest are not THAT anti-india, are obvious to the Chinese people. You have to give the Chinese more credit than that.

[brihaspati]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100826/wl ... 0826054057

Militants plan aid worker attacks in Pakistan: US
AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The Pakistani Taliban is planning attacks on foreigners offering assistance in the aftermath of devastating floods in Pakistan, a US official has warned. "According to information available to the US government, Tehreek-e-Taliban plans to conduct attacks against foreigners participating in the ongoing flood relief operations in Pakistan," the official told AFP on condition of anonymity. "Tehreek-e-Taliban also may be making plans to attack federal and provincial ministers in Islamabad," the official warned.

The vast floods have affected an estimated 17.2 million people, at least eight million of whom are believed to need life-saving humanitarian assistance. The United States and other countries have pledged more than 700 million dollars for relief efforts.

The Pakistani Taliban have previously denounced all foreign aid for victims of the country's catastrophic flooding.[...] US officials had earlier said they had not encountered any hostilities in flying aid to stricken parts of the country, where rancor towards the United States runs deep.

So the plans for an intensification of the civil war are on the motion.

The floods may have provided the Pakistani Taliban with some breathing space, according to the head of the US Marine Corps, General James Conway. He said Tuesday the disaster had forced the Pakistani military to scale back some operations against Taliban militants in the northwest. Despite the warnings of possible attacks, a top US general overseeing the American military's relief efforts told reporters that US forces had faced no security problems. "We have seen no security threat whatsoever in the three weeks we have been operating here," Brigadier General Michael Nagata said Wednesday via video link from northern Pakistan.

What is being represented as "breathing space" simply means that the portion of the PA which was still hoping to control the Talebs has virtually given up. Actually the floods might have saved this portion of the PA too, for the floods will stall regular operations on both sides.

He said the Pakistani military "have done a commendable job and a highly effective job in providing our force protection and security while we are here in Pakistan." Pakistani forces have provided experienced pilots to guide American helicopters through the rugged terrain of the Swat river valley and "we also have some of their own security guards on our aircraft providing our close-in security," Nagata said from Ghazi air base.

A small contingent of US special forces who train Pakistani troops tend to keep a low profile in the country, but the emergency relief effort meant some Pakistanis were seeing their country's troops for the first time working closely with their American counterparts. Amid concerns over security and strong anti-American sentiment, the Pakistani authorities usually distribute the aid that is delivered by US C-130 planes and American military helicopters, officials said.

But US crews were directly involved in rescuing Pakistanis trapped by the devastating flood, with American choppers helping save more than 6,000 people, said Nagata, the second-ranking US officer based in Pakistan. Pakistani civilians "are impressed when they see Pakistani military service members and United States military service members working side by side, often flying in the same helicopters, working together on these landing zones..." he said.

This would also be an indication of the desperation within PA command that makes them commit the suicide of being seen as one and the same with US marines.

The US military has deployed a fleet of 19 US helicopters to deliver aid and assist with rescue efforts in Pakistan, while about 230 service members were helping fly and maintain the aircraft and unload cargo, Nagata said. The military planned to deploy four additional "heavy lift" helicopters in the first week of September, the general said. In addition, the military had ordered the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit to steam to the Pakistani coast to bolster the relief effort, where the amphibious assault ship Peleliu is already in place, officials said.

The US has most likely decided that they may need to actually take up the fight on behalf of the pro-US faction within PA [pro- in order to survive - no great ideological love lost]. In turn this is more an acknowledgment of the tottering PA based regime. After AFG, USA will have to try to put up military bases all over AFPAK to keep puppet regimes in formal power. Something that makes those puppet regimes and USA more and more unpopular. What next - a Nam style sudden withdrawal with "let them burn in their own fire" movie-script monologue?

[chanakyaa]

I came across an interesting article in the WSJ about how what Southeast Asian countries have in mind to avoid being turned into a banana republic by PRC.

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PU ... 87976.html

The rising labor costs represents an opportunity for countries like Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia. These countries are pressing ahead with plans to stitch together the patchwork of nations into a common market and production platform by 2015. If fully realized, the project will include fewer restrictions on movement of skilled labor from country to country. Looks like the a southeast union (EU style) in the making (but, unlike EU, plagued with undeveloped legal system and corruption)….

[brihaspati]

But PRC is not going to easily let it be. PRC recently completed a major highway network connecting PRC and Vietnam ostensibly under the Asian Highway framework. PRC has been investing heavily and acquiring land in Vietnam and Kampuchea which the respective regimes have backed against local protest. Vietnam is still under a "communist party" led regime, even though it has contests with China territorially. So it is not a straightforward scenario since these regimes are themselves oligarchies who may very well look at their own power interests over and above simple conforntations with PRC.

[brihaspati]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -22516942/

The un is reviewing security after the Taliban issued a chilling threat to attack foreigners delivering aid to Pakistan flood victims.

More than 17 million people have been affected by the floods and about 1.2 million homes destroyed leaving around five million homeless.

Another embankment burst yesterday in the Kot Almo area in Sindh province, causing thousands of people to flee from their homes. About 400,000 people have been told to evacuate the towns of Sujawal, Mir Pur Batoro and Daro.
[...]
A un official said: "The Pakistani militant group Tehrik-e Taliban plans to conduct attacks against foreigners participating in the ongoing flood relief operations in Pakistan." He said the US government also believed "federal and provincial ministers" may be at risk.

What is interesting is that widespread droughts and periods of excessive rain and floods appear to come immediately before serious regime changes on both ends of the Sindhu-Ganga system - historically. This was true in 700's,1000, 1200, 1500, 1800's. BD change came in backdrop of '71 floods and cyclones. The 42-47 season was a period of heightened climatic extremes too.

[Pratyush]

X post from the Geopolitical thread,

The world must be India specific

Nice read regarding the attitudes of the Indian power elites when it comes to dealing with dealing with the ROW. Especially the Alphabet soup treaties.

[brihaspati]

Interesting read - but what about what it reveals about the Indian media itself?

When the Indian political leadership faces something that requires the country to engage and become part of an international system they rarely focus on trying to understand what the costs and benefits of doing so. They instead look for ways to make it “India specific.” In other words, whatever treaty or legislation that is being signed or put together it must have something unusual, something unique to India.

Very nice and cool comment. But what exactly is a cost-benefit analysis in this case? Does the commentator himself know really about cost-benefit analyiss of decisions that have political consequences and can have long term fall-outs? It is still an arbitrary "area" with imputations of values attached to different options that are not necessarily easily calculable in quantitative terms.

This is now so well recognized by other governments that when they try to inveigle New Delhi into signing up for something they look for some innocuous paragraph or line to sacrifice to India.

Is India just trying to be ornery? Actually this sort of thing is quite common among biggish countries. American exceptionalism, Gallic everything and the Middle Kingdom are all about the assertion of national identity in a globalised environment.

But Indian politicians are also being intelligent when it comes to the public’s pulse. Indians are particularly sensitive about the idea of sovereignty.

I always like to cite a study by Rollie Lal, called Understanding India and China, where she interviewed dozens of strategic thinkers in both countries. Strangely, more homogenous and politically centralized China was concerned the most about territorial integrity. Sovereignty was about national unity. Indians were much more concerned about being able to make independent decisions in the world’s economic and political. “India –specific” is a good way to absorb this.

Why is this "India-specific" factor specifically Indian? Especially because Americans, Gauls and the subjects of the Middle Kingdom - all apparently have their own way of expressing their specific claims! Can territorial integrity be maintained by sacrificing soverignty? Which entity did both?

Why are Indians so concerned about this sort of thing? Good question. It partly reflects the fact that Indians believe their democratic system is capable of handling any secessionist threats. It also reflects a broad scorn for the Indian state, seen as dysfunctional and incapable of not being hornswoggled by other governments. But it also reflects history. As economist Jeffrey Sachs once said, while explaining India’s suspicion of foreign investment, “This is the only emerging economy that was once colonized by a multinational.”

Goodness! Why should a handful of India's supposed "strategic thinkers" be reflecting the strategic thinking of India's billions? Just as a handful of Chinese thinkers are assumed to reflect Chinese thinking. Do these strategic thinkers even reflect political thinking or Government thinking? Or is that all this reflects what media personalities themselves think?

Those of the elite not in power have a tendency to distrust the state power. The commons of countries like India where the colonial admin system has been taken over lock-stock and barrel and preserved as such by newly "independent" elite - simply continue in their fear of the administrative machinery for continued arbitrary and arrogant behaviour as tools of repression by their new masters. Do they have the opportunity to think beyond that and suspect the state of undermining soverignty.

I thought SA and Brazil would also belong to the category of being colonized by a multinational enterprise.

[brihaspati]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 76_pf.html

CIA making secret payments to members of Karzai administration

By Greg Miller and Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 27, 2010; 12:14 AM

The CIA is making secret payments to multiple members of President Hamid Karzai's administration, in part to maintain sources of information in a government in which the Afghan leader is often seen as having a limited grasp of developments, according to current and former U.S. officials.

A good way of pressurizing Karazai through leaks. On the other hand recent corruption-anti-corruption dramatics could also be engineered.

How long can Karazai stay independent of the Talebs and PA?

[Atri]

With Chinese deployment in Gilgit, there might be some complications in Northeast, before harsh winter sets in Arunachal's himalayas...

Analogously, there might be some diversionary tactics from India in NA-Gilgit and PoK...

attempt of Kargil Redux OR something similar to gain some advantage just before the harsh winter, thereby delaying the retaliation by IA and IAF.

Consolidation of the occupation, meanwhile...

Need to strengthen Sikkim and Bhutan for enhancing the ability to project the power to Lhasa as retaliation.

fighting PRC-Pak together in Gilgit might be detrimental.

For the first time, a Chinese army has been deployed in Indian territory of Gilgit..

IN needs to think out of the box and be ready..

[Jarita]

^^^ Not sure if it will come to that unless China is really destitute due to a sudden economic downturn in its markets. They have a lot to lose from a war with India even if India is weaker.
That said, they may be anticipating major capacity overloads and rural uprisings. That could turn things around

[brihaspati]

In this thread we had considered the possibility that PA could combine with PLA help to mount a campaign in the NA against India.

My hypothesis was that as and when the lower reaches of the Indus became unstable and potentially seen as getting out of control of Islamabad regime, as well as west Pakjab, the Islamabad regime will see the NA and the Valley as the last resort of saving some kind of an existence.

So as the crisis deepens in control over and within PA, the regime and top-level will increasingly and desperately press for Valley independence. This is where they hope to shift when the west and south goes out of control. The PLA will naturally try to shore up the regime here because it helps in their imperialist territorial designs.

Moreover, in the last resort the PA regime may actually formally handover or sell more parts of POK to PRC, which not only gives the elite more money to shore up exile in the west but also allows PRC to protect its missiles and nukes targeting India.

PRC needs to be cut down to size. USSR could be cut down to size and the same tactics will bring PRC down. They want war, let them be drawn out into multiple wars. One theatre is of couse Africa. Another is SEAsia.

A 20 year programme should be good enough to bring this about. Actually China is not even in the position that USSR was post 1945. it took 44 years for USSR. It will not take that long for PRC.

[Atri]

There is one more fallout..

extensive mining in Gilgit might lead to large-scale melting of glaciers in the Pamir knot. This will seriously phuck up the ecology and climate of Bhaarat. It is enough that China has phucked up the ecology in mainland china. It is phucking up the ecology in Tibet.. The Chinese phuck up in gilgit will have serious repercussions for climate and hence geopolity of Bhaarat. If Sindhu starts swelling (like now) and then drying up cyclically (even if temporarily for 10-15 years), there will be enormous pressure on India to absorb pakis. it takes time for glaciers to build up again, till then tough times in summer in Sindhu valley.. Allowing Chinese to mine freely, indiscriminately and extensively in that area is the "ultimate" example of idiotic tactical brilliance by pakis. Not good for India.. It is misfortune of India, in every age, there is one dhritaraashtra.. always.

[brihaspati]

Stopping mining by PRC means India has to pay way over the real costs to buy out the regional powers desperate to cash in on the money from selling ore. Tajikistian, AFG and pak - which will let go of the loot?

[brihaspati]

Climatic disasters will strike anyway. I don't remember in which thread I posted about it before, but there is a long term drought trend in China which no amount of forestation is likely to be able to check. PRC itself may be subject to climatic vagaries of an order not seen in recent centuries.

The IV has repeatedly been subject to unstable periods leading up to a mega drought that comes with a great deal of regularity, during which heavy and irregular over-precipitation is interspersed with short term droughts. This has been the bane of civilizations in the region and periodically weakened them to be replaced by new.

[chanakyaa]

...
fighting PRC-Pak together in Gilgit might be detrimental.

For the first time, a Chinese army has been deployed in Indian territory of Gilgit..

IN needs to think out of the box and be ready..

Very nice. Does this mark the end or near end of "what we should have done to TSP as a geographical region, but never really had bolls to do it" and the beginning of unofficial colonization of TSP by PRC? At this moment it is extremely difficult for TSP to generate meaningful revenue to hold on to the country together. I'm sure, Xardari would not mind dropping his pants down and let PRC take all of it.