Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[munna]

I am beginning to feel, if Pakistan had taken lands/cities like Lucknow, Barielly, Banaras, or Patna, Indian reaction to TSP would be vastly different.

I agree! We are being badly let down and defeated in the core. I had some hopes of a resurgence in the 1990s but all of it petered out at the altar of casteism and naked power grab.

[ramana]

Both of you drop the defeatist attitude. Feeling blue occssionally is OK but not this. Remember how many folks read this forum.

[Sanku]

This is the region which did fight Islamic invasions in the beginning but apparently with much less tenacity and success once the western gates in the Punjab were breached. Just compare the rate of progress of the armies from Kabul to Tarain and from Tarain to borders of Bengal crossing the entire UP and Bihar portion of the Gangetic valley.

This is natural, this is a function of Geography, the river plains are one interlinked region and will rise and fall as one more or less. However the idea of of a the entire region falling as one is incorrect

For example (one of many)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khanwa

His troops had been obliged to abandon Kanauj[1]. Gwalior was blockaded by the Rajputs of the vicinity Alim Khan Jilal Khan Jighat of Kalpi who was sent to relieve it instead of executing his orders had marched off to his own country[1]. Many Hindu chiefs deserted the cause of Babur[1]. Indeed the previous conquests and recent success of Rana Sanga a Hindu had inspired all his countrymen with hopes that a change of dynasty was about to take place and they hailed with joy the prospect of a native government.

My model was that the fighters and resistors died fighting or escaped to other regions to live and fight another day. Those who stayed put were the compromisers who valued their lands and possessions much more than their ideology even if seeing how ruthlessly destructive and proselytizing the invaders were who specifically targeted the culture.

That is not incorrect but incomplete. Again to raise but one example, despite many issues, Varanasi despite many setback continued to be THE dominant center of Indian culture and learning, we must remember when Shivaji wanted his Rajyabhisheak the Purohit came from Kashi.

But overall they will not be able to take the initiative - for their entire philosophy and mindset now is a historical inertia of self-justification of their own compromises.

Again only partially correct, remember the rising of 1857 was heralded by the Indian soliders from this region. As soon as the Mughal power waned Kashi was again a Hindu kingdom.

Start looking for strength in the overall country and nation, and not be dictated to in ideological terms by what those two states are producing.

This though is absolutely correct -- the country is a whole with different parts holding up each other and balancing each other out, the habit of going with Dwarka-Indraspatha or Indraspatha-Maghada axis is a by product of history with examples as recent as the rising of 1857 and post 1857 anti-British movements, however at the same time we must remember that it was the Marathas who came to stablize the region just prior to that with full and willing help to people there

Falling into short sighted views based on perceived current of the region would be short sighted and self defeating.

[Sanku]

Both of you drop the defeatist attitude. Feeling blue occssionally is OK but not this. Remember how many folks read this forum.

This is correct, the right way to see this is that this provides the core strength of arms to the Indian nation, only has to be used.

[surinder]

Again only partially correct, remember the rising of 1857 was heralded by the Indian soliders from this region.
...
we must remember that it was the Marathas who came to stablize the region just prior to that with full and willing help to people there

From which region hailed the great nationalist Indian Soldiers (actually collaborators/soldiers in the Company army) that finished out first the Marathas, then the Punjabi Kingdom of Ranjit Singh?

Two major Indic awakenings that faught the RoP's and the British were snuffed by the same geniuses.

[brihaspati]

Sanku ji,
I was clearly referring to the "leadership" and "ideology" as given by the elite of this region, and not the "lower end" of the spectrum [in economic and "power" sense] from the region - as my subsequent post should make it clear. Actually before and after HSRA [which has a chain connection leading through to SCB and Anushilan] until the glow of JLN - the region did not produce in general the forces against both the invasive ideology/regimes in the north.

Varanasi did remain the cultural focus - but that also speaks of historical continuity, where its earlier prestige was being utilized. So it could be more an image held on to by the "distant" cousins rather than any significant contribution in concrete terms from the city. The city is a treasure trove of manuscripts still kept away from the public. The core Pundit section has given some very forward looking explanations where interpretations of texts are concerned about social dilemmas. But where has that gone or left any impact on the overall ideology and politics? I have some long family associations with the place dating from before the Mughal period. From that my impression is that the basic network has steered clear from the leadership role they could have played.

I do not relish epithets given to "Jumma Chumma De-o-ji" ! He is a merchant of dreams, I am at most a donor and sharer of my dreams without expecting any monetary returns.

[ramana]

Bji said

I have some long family associations with the place dating from before the Mughal period.

Can you share the narrative here or in GDF or e-mail?

Was 1675 an important year in that narrative?

[abhishek_sharma]

There are multitudes of cultures, languages, religions, sects, customs. Many such groups have very small populations and are on lands whcih are at the mercy of the enemy or nature. Such small vulnerable populations need to preserve their historic past. They cannot function if at a drop of a hat millions of Biharis/UP'ites descend and overwhelm it demographically.

Why can't they function normally? Are Biharis/UP'ites trying to destroy the culture of a particular region?

Preserving such cultures requires an empathy with them, not a grab mentatility.

What grab mentality are you talking about?

Politicians from UP/Bihar will continously rise up to defend the treatment of "their guys" in other states.

Yes. Recently the CM of Punjab wrote to the PM asking him to provide security to the Sikhs in J&K. (And this request was perfectly appropriate.) Isn't this very similar to Nitish Kumar's request to protect Biharis in Mumbai?

Train routes and faires will be kept in line with the needs of mass migrations of these people. Local elections will continue to be faught by political guidance from Patna & Lucknow.

You are really very close to a conspiracy theory!

More seriously, you are probably referring to the fact that George Fernandes and Lalu Yadav have been railway ministers. So? Ministers from other states had other portfolios. Right? Should we read too much into it? Probably not.

But when it comes to fighting for the nation, there is little empathy for the same regions that are a target of migration.

How do you know there is little empathy for the "periphery". You should probably provide statistical evidence to back your claims. People from all states serve in the military and pay taxes for it.

There was a report in ToI that J&K had 1% of population and gets ~10% of all Central funds. It appears that other states are sacrificing for the "periphery".

There are no mass movements and trains full of volunteers willing to travel to the periphery to die to protect the motherland.

Actually in 1962 war, many volunteers did travel to join the military.

In Kargil war, Yogendra Singh Yadav (born in Lucknow) and Manoj Kumar Pandey (born in Lucknow) got Param Vir Chakra. Is this fact relevant?

Unfortunately democracy has meant, 1-man, 1-vote.

Why is it unfortunate? You are probably saying that leaders from other regions would make better decisions. The Gujral Doctrine and Sharm el-Sheikh agreement were not designed by Mayawati and Ram Vilas Paswan.

A guy from UP ordered Pokharan II tests. During the debate in May 1998, Pranab Mukherjee argued that "the longstanding consensus on keeping the nuclear option open was destroyed by the tests" and assailed PM Vajpayee for his statement that the tests removed "uncertainty and doubt". Where is Pranab Mukherjee from?

Morarji Desai?

It is actually funny because one of our reasons for a Security Council seat is that we represent 1/6th of the humanity.

So these regions will continue to influence the directon of india for a foreseeable future. We cannot change that reality very easily.

All states influence the direction of India. How many cabinet ministers are from Bihar these days? Laloo did everything to get a cabinet rank. He couldn't because his party performed poorly in the elections. So power equations in Delhi may not be a conspiracy theory. ISRO satellites and Su-30MKI planes were mobilized to find the CM of a state not in Gangetic plains.

I am beginning to feel, if Pakistan had taken lands/cities like Lucknow, Barielly, Banaras, or Patna, Indian reaction to TSP would be vastly different.

Actually India's borders have not changed since 1962. We lost land in 1962 because we were not prepared for a military fight. Regional concerns did not play any role.

Policy towards Pakistan is basically designed by the PM and a small group of cabinet ministers. Mulayam and Lalu do not have any veto powers (or significant power) on foreign policy or strategic issues. Their influence is not more than that of politicians from other states.

Even in media, do we really believe that leaders (or people) from Bihar/UP have shown great love for Pakistan? I can't recall any significant statement by Nitish Kumar et al on these issues. In any case, they cannot possibly be worse than Mani Shankar Aiyar, right?

[Manishw]

Friend's We are all here to see a strong ,prosperous and united India.This debate will do the opposite.Since everybody had their say it is best we close this thing here.We must remember that other people are reading this forum as Ramana Ji pointed out.Everybody would agree that both U.P and Bihar should grow at 15%+ as that would put an end to this problem.I am for one rooting for Nitish Kumar only for development's sake otherwise I have no voting right's there.
Please accept my apologies if I have offended anyone through this post.

[Sanku]

Again only partially correct, remember the rising of 1857 was heralded by the Indian soliders from this region.
...
we must remember that it was the Marathas who came to stablize the region just prior to that with full and willing help to people there

From which region hailed the great nationalist Indian Soldiers (actually collaborators/soldiers in the Company army) that finished out first the Marathas, then the Punjabi Kingdom of Ranjit Singh?

Two major Indic awakenings that faught the RoP's and the British were snuffed by the same geniuses.

Surinder, you have been corrected on this count many times, before. It appears that you are taking the local and limited view of matters and making scapegoats on a issue which is hurts you personally (your hurt is appreciated but that does not mean you are right in analysis)

Anyway I will correct you once more (and you can also cross check these of Airvats blog, he has held and supported the same views)
1) The Purbaia's were the soldiers of ALL large Hindu armies including the Maratha's, even Rajputs used Matchlockmen from Kalpi etc.

2) When East India company came, it was natural for Purbaia's and Bengali's to joing with East India company in their attempts to remove the Nawabs in that region -- have you even read Anand Math? In many cases it was with willing acceptance of the Maratha rulers who made contracts with the British.

3) The Khalsa losses are as much due to infighting of Sikhs as due to anyone else, in a large measure. In fact so are the Maratha wars with some Maratha's fighting alongside the British. Many elements of treachery by elements of Sikhs against fellow Sikhs was the REAL reason that the Khalsa broke up.

4) As far the collaboration with British is concerned, it is the Punjabi's who collaborated with the British in 1857, when they had the chance to join the confederation of Indian princes and kick out the British (yes I know that you think they had *justified* reasons but then fact is fact and know I dont buy your reasons that it was anti-Delhi behavior, not by a long chalk, the Khalsa had worked with Delhi too in past when real poltick demanded it, it was simple, at that point of time Sikh leadership was composed of those Sikhs who had collaborated with the British to back stab the Khalsa empire and thus were hand maidens of British)

5) The founder of Khalsa, the much revered Shri Gobind Singhji, was sheltered and brought up in the same region you detest so much, wrote the Dasham Granth in the lnaguage of the same plains, was watered by the culture of the same plains, and he acknowledges the contribution of the culture and people. You could at least follow the example of the Great Guru.

In end I would strongly remind every one that acting like uninformed bigots at worst and simplistic one dimensional view against your own countrymen when the situation demands quite the opposite is self defeating.

[Sanku]

More seriously, you are probably referring to the fact that George Fernandes and Lalu Yadav have been railway ministers. So? Ministers from other states had other portfolios. Right? Should we read too much into it? Probably not.

And Oh, George Uncle is actually from Karnatka, it is just that he joined JP is the mass movement and ended up with JP where he was from.

People have short memories, why was emergency imposed in 1977? Which region rose up to protest the secular policies of Indira Gandhi, where was Jayprakash Narayan from?

Actually before and after HSRA [which has a chain connection leading through to SCB and Anushilan] until the glow of JLN - the region did not produce in general the forces against both the invasive ideology/regimes in the north.

Actually I am not sure if it is true to the extent you say, the region did maintain THE seed of cultural continuity and resurgence which is seen physically in some cases such as continued battle of Kashi Kings against Mughals as well as return of Kashi kings as Hindu kingdoms when ever opportunity presented itself. (One of many examples)

Also VERY importantly, the seed as seen in mental effect is some important cases -- for example the Sikh panth was really successful only by efforts of Shri Gobind Singhji, whose education was in great parts from the same sources. I have already made the case of Shivaji's coronation before.

Note the above are the easiest and larger of some of the many examples that exist, but I think they suffice to illustrate what I wish to say.

So in summary, yes there is a culture of *compromise* as you say it playing out there, however it would be slightly wrong to blow it out of proportion in general (is there no compromise happening in erstwhiles Nizam's area of operations ?) Too much negativity colors the perception and makes one (not you, but as Ramana said, you are not the only one who is on these pages) lose hope/faith and miss the opportunities.

Finally it is critical to follow the ideology and not the region, and also not beat upon and look down on a region (as you said too) India is too big to be a single region, even if one river plain is physically large, we rise or fall as one.

[brihaspati]

Sanku ji,
the period between HSRA and pre-eminence of JLN is just about 20 years before the departure of the Brits in the first half of 20th century. I was comparing the attitude of HSRA (and its ripples through Rashbehari Bose and thence to SCB) and what JLN stood for. if you see this phase - there is no doubt as to which ideological trend gets overwhelming dominance among the "decision-makers" from the region.

Kasi kings did have a very interesting role. But when one royal faction fought, another royal faction would shake hands with the "enemy" to gain the throne. The Pundits have indeed maintained perhaps the only way out open for them - that of preserving the classics and their studies. This has influenced a lot of thinkers and action-men who went to Kasi to get knowledge and training. Just as it had influenced people in the right direction - as you pointed out - it also produced or influenced men like the founder of the "brahmo samaja", who was himself a key associate of the Brits and one whose reform activities ultimately led more to factional opposition to SD instead of revival and de-rusting of SD. That latter task was more concretely done by Vidyasagar from within SD - who hailed from the same region but was much less exposed to Kasi.

Production of ideology is only one part of the step - also seeking and producing the ideology that will select and establish the political organizational framework that will implement that ideology is a necessary second step. Leaving that out dangling for a free-for-all is not good long term thinking. Otherwise all sorts of deviations and wrong u-turns take place. Laloo-ji is the end product of such meanderings from JP whom you mention as the one going against "secular" passion-fest.

An aside : request again not to honour me with the epithet for the "dream merchant". I don't trade my dreams for material prices.

[Sanku]

B-ji I am well aware of Lalu's journey from JP to his secular antics, as the process produced a George so it did a Lalu, and yes, just as Kasi nurtured two different outcomes (although I would not be too harsh on Brahmo Samaj, not because I have any special affinity for them, but because they represented a adaptive step of eternal India, they played a role and are now gone)

However it was not my case that "all is well", I was merely trying to "balance" some of your observations, and mention that as it happens, the "compromise" tactics is unfortunately not limited to that region, we see it in Maratha's, in Sikhs, in Rajputs, in all places and all regions.

I think the "problem" is that the Gangetic plain (due to reasons explored earlier) is held to highed expectations and its failing also stand out more harshly, ah well I guess thats the flip side of the august history it lays claim too.

------------------

Aside --

I used to be pretty harsh on the "fight with one hand and make deals with other" type of behavior that we see often in India, however through a pretty interesting set of discussions led by the good Dr here on BRF a few years back (3-4?) where I did realize that Hawk-dove equilibrium in various scenarios that were gamed did seem to suggest that this might not be a bad tactic after all.

------------------

PS> The epithets do not belong to a dream-merchant selling dreams for materialistic wealth, some trade it for other intangibles which are far more valuable

[brihaspati]

The Hawk-dove game example reminds me of the other long standing and partially experimentally explored strategy of tit-for-tat with occasional forgiving.

What could be a better Indian reaction for Chinese dastardliness - if we followed game theory?

Tit-for-tat means in this case that every action perceived to be detrimental to Indian interests should have been and will have to be matched by corresponding action in spheres that China will consider detrimental to Chinese interests.

So just as China raised a fracas about Indian dignitaries visiting AP, India should have raised a fracas about the presence of Chinese engineers visiting the site of the Hunza disaster.

If China tries to staple Visas for "Kashmiris", give stapled visas for all Chinese nationals applying for Indian Visa. In fact give different visas according to region of domicile within China [movement within the country as for residence is highly controlled].

Make it clear, without keeping any paper notes - which appears to be fashionable, that If China does not stop meddling in POK and AP, India will meddle in Uyghuristan, Tibet, Chinese occupied Mongolia, and support the anti-China lobby in Taiwan.

Make it clear to suitable countries that need both India and China that India is willing to make it a zero-sum game - that any gains made by favouring China will be compensated by equal or greater losses imposed on that country from everything and everywhere India can put its finger in.

JLN has forgiven the Chinese on the behalf of all of us and even those soldiers whose fingers froze [as reported to me later by someone who went visiting wounded soldiers in 62] - by not imposing any penalty of similar order later on the Chinese themselves. So we have already used the "forgiving" part of the "optimal strategy".

What remains is the tit-for-tat - if we want to coexist.

But then long-term we have to take the decision as to what we do really want with the current setup in China. Tit-for-tat is for coexistence. If we decide that China in present setup must not exist - then it is another game altogether.

China, and India is not necessarily civilizationally deadlocked in a zero-sum game. But the current regime in China and India cannot coexist - and this definitely is a zero-sum game.

[TonyMontana]

What remains is the tit-for-tat - if we want to coexist.

Unfortunatle tit-for-tat means equal responses. What if China raises the stakes? What if China start to actively fund, train and equip the Maoists? Unless India have ways to replicate this upping of the ante, tit-for-tat don't work.

But then long-term we have to take the decision as to what we do really want with the current setup in China. Tit-for-tat is for coexistence. If we decide that China in present setup must not exist - then it is another game altogether.

"If we decide that the USA in present setup must not exist - then it is another game altogether." --- Random Chinese Person.

Tell me how does this sound to you?

China, and India is not necessarily civilizationally deadlocked in a zero-sum game. But the current regime in China and India cannot coexist - and this definitely is a zero-sum game.

But the current regime and India IS coexisting...

[brihaspati]

Tony Montana wrote

brihaspati wrote:
What remains is the tit-for-tat - if we want to coexist.

Unfortunatle tit-for-tat means equal responses. What if China raises the stakes? What if China start to actively fund, train and equip the Maoists? Unless India have ways to replicate this upping of the ante, tit-for-tat don't work.

When I first had to take out a driving license abroad, my head dep reco'd an instructor to give me the ropes for a day or two before the test. this very chatty and friendly instructor gave me some memorable pieces of his wisdom. He said, "sometimes ya can't tell a woman from a man, y'know! How do I 'now them? If its a gal she is looking for any excuse to stop dead, ma'be reverse and crawl back to the starting pt! If its aguy - he is looking for any excuse to step on the gas and nee'r stop! ya, thats how ye 'now them!"

Do we still have great doubts as to where the weaponry and ammunition the Maoists use, come from - with even a two-bit foot-soldier carrying an ak-47, and with the consideration that getting hold of the gun may not be that difficult but to keep it supplied with ammunition is a much more difficult task? china does supply them - one way or the other. China funds, equips and supplies the much greater terror establishment in Pak against India. Pak as an independent nation can amass forces and provide cover for Chinese operations of magnitudes of order greater than Maoists can hope to even in the near future. China has already exercised fully its options for subversion and below-the-radar aggression against the state of India. Wondering more about what more damage they could do - and therefore allow them to do more damage anyway - is a complete failure to understand international gamesmanship.

brihaspati wrote:
But then long-term we have to take the decision as to what we do really want with the current setup in China. Tit-for-tat is for coexistence. If we decide that China in present setup must not exist - then it is another game altogether.

"If we decide that the USA in present setup must not exist - then it is another game altogether." --- Random Chinese Person.

Tell me how does this sound to you?

That sounds wonderful! First it provides a glimpse into the mindset of any person who compares the India-China ratio as equal-equal to China-USA. Second it provides a proxy mind that can think like a Chinese [or thinks it can think like a Chinese]. Believe me that sounds so enticing to thrash out so many ideas as a sounding board! I can even compare it with a large pool of chinese students and academics and colleagues I am in regular contact with - of course resident out of China, so all the more interesting cross-validations.

brihaspati wrote:
China, and India is not necessarily civilizationally deadlocked in a zero-sum game. But the current regime in China and India cannot coexist - and this definitely is a zero-sum game.

But the current regime and India IS coexisting...

Is it? China's current regime's existence is meaning increasing pressure on pro-do-nothing hawk-restraining peace-loving proponents of co-existence within the Indian system to actually run about trying to show that it is not a doormat after all! What immense internal pressures does it generate in the magma chambers of New Delhi's regime - given that not very far back stalwarts of the cabinet were livid at the apparent obstructions placed in the way of Hindi-Chini bahai bhai! Given that existence of the current Chinese regime means more consistent support to Paki designs on "Kashmir" and gradual retreat of GOI from the "valley". What needs to be more transparent?

[TonyMontana]

Wondering more about what more damage they could do - and therefore allow them to do more damage anyway - is a complete failure to understand international gamesmanship.

As oppose to charging headlong into a fight where you are at a disadvantage?

That sounds wonderful! First it provides a glimpse into the mindset of any person who compares the India-China ratio as equal-equal to China-USA.

You misunderstood me. Allow me to elabrate. I can tell you now that any person that compares the India-China ratio with China-US ratio as == is a rabid jingoist. As China is not where near as strong as the USA. However, you must also realise the irony of a mind that forsees India affecting a regime change in China.

However, I do see the way the discussion are framed are very similar in all the different military forums. Pakistanis are obsessed with the fall of India, Indians are obsessed with the fall of China and Chinese are obsessed with the fall of USA. You draw your own conclusions. I just find it interesting.

[brihaspati]

Wondering more about what more damage they could do - and therefore allow them to do more damage anyway - is a complete failure to understand international gamesmanship.

As oppose to charging headlong into a fight where you are at a disadvantage?

That sounds wonderful! First it provides a glimpse into the mindset of any person who compares the India-China ratio as equal-equal to China-USA.

You misunderstood me. Allow me to elabrate. I can tell you now that any person that compares the India-China ratio with China-US ratio as == is a rabid jingoist. As China is not where near as strong as the USA. However, you must also realise the irony of a mind that forsees India affecting a regime change in China.

However, I do see the way the discussion are framed are very similar in all the different military forums. Pakistanis are obsessed with the fall of India, Indians are obsessed with the fall of China and Chinese are obsessed with the fall of USA. You draw your own conclusions. I just find it interesting.

You failed to catch the difference in meaning that I deliberately laid out - I said India and China is not necessarily deadlocked civilizationally in a zero-sum game - but the current regime in China and India is. This implies that I have no quarrel with the overwhelming mass of the common Chinese as along as they are not behind the dictatorship of the PLA+CPC combine.

What I was referring to was a regime change in China - not a "fall of China". Compared to this the other examples you gave - Like Pak is obsessed with the disappearance of India as an independent nation - they want India to be absobed under Islamic overlordship in a Caliphate of Mughalistan. China wants to dissolve India into tens if not hundreds of units with a complete erasure of India as a country or a nation.

You would do better to be more careful about comparing incomparables.

As for "headlong stuff" - I mentioned that in the "longer term". Further, if every conflict was undertaken with prior consideration of the apparent advantages of the enemy - the world would be devoid of war. Because as soon as any one strong power developed no one else would rebel or counter and no future conflict would weaken the "strong man" so no war for ever. History runs exactly to the contrary. Strengths are sometimes apparent and propagandized or exaggerated. The CPC itself or the Vietnamese would never have succeeded if they actually considered their respective enemy's advantages.

[Christopher Sidor]

You failed to catch the difference in meaning that I deliberately laid out - I said India and China is not necessarily deadlocked civilizationally in a zero-sum game - but the current regime in China and India is. This implies that I have no quarrel with the overwhelming mass of the common Chinese as along as they are not behind the dictatorship of the PLA+CPC combine.

What I was referring to was a regime change in China - not a "fall of China". Compared to this the other examples you gave - Like Pak is obsessed with the disappearance of India as an independent nation - they want India to be absobed under Islamic overlordship in a Caliphate of Mughalistan. China wants to dissolve India into tens if not hundreds of units with a complete erasure of India as a country or a nation.

Irrespective of who controls china, be it CPC or some democratic institution or some other form of autocratic institution, India and China are in a zero-sum game. Even when CPC was not in power in China, and the nationalist under Chiang Kai-shek were in control, then also China knew that it will be India which China has to contend with. They even dispatched envoys to nepal so as to prevent it from coming under India's influence. Nepal is important for China, because with Nepal under its belt, it can directly threaten the entire Gangetic plains and central India.
Even before the nationalist, under the chinese republic of Dr. Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese considered us as subordinate to them.

There are people who are saying that China and India have coexisted peacefully for the last say 5000 years or so and we did not have a conflict with the chinese till 1950-60s are living in a fantasy land. History has shown that there were excursions from Indian side into China-Tibet and from the chinese-tibet side into the Indo-Nepal side way before the 1900s.

And both the countries, i.e. Pakistan and China, have one aim, to end the entity called India. Though they are doing it for different purposes, their end is the same.

[Manishw]

B Ji, You know how much I respect you.Seems you were caught on the wrong foot this time.
Asia is Too small for both India and China to Co-exist peacefully.I don't remember a similar case in history.Either China in whatever form (communist, democratic etc.) goes back to its rump status ala beijing, shanghai or we prepare to downsize ourselves.
The current state of affair's is unnatural and you know better than me that what is not natural does not exist for very long.
As far as Pukestan, further balkanizing is reqd. and IMHO will happen.

[abhischekcc]

On this, I tend to agree with CS. The current outlook of the CPC towards India is a reflection of Chinese nationalism, and not of communism.

Communism was never a guiding star of Chinese foreign policy, although it is a good excuse to supress domestic dissent. China has never believed in communism. Its adherence to communism is like its current flirting with Buddhism - they think it is alternative path to reach out and influence people that would otherwise not look towards China for any guidance.

Even if China gives up communism at some future date, it will not change their attitude towards us. They will still compete with us for influence/resources/etc.

[Atri]

@Manishw ji,

India is already downsized and fragmented, which led to subesequent chinese expansion.. why do you think pathans like us? because they have a pakistani identitty to hate.. once pakistan ceases to exist and united punjab comes back to (or starts coming back to) Indic fold, things will change. Disintegration of pakistan == resurgence of indic. even if it means temporary disintegration and destabilisation of ROI.

China through ages


In all these maps, there are few things which are common.

1. PRC is successor of Manchurian, Mongol and others. The real China (ethnically and Racially) is the doab between the two river basins - Yellow river and yangtzi river. As opposed to India, China has been an ethnic state of the culture of people between these two rivers. All throughout history, attempts have been made to standardize and normalize the cultural anomalies with reference to standards of the "han" culture from the doab. In other words, these two river basins is the core of China as an idea. The core of India (Sapta-Sindhu) has been including rivers from Sindhu to Kaveri for past 2200 years.

Thus, PRC is a China+its surrounding states, whereas ROI is fragmented India without essential and integral components (that is, without Sindhu and Ganga valley under complete control). There are 2 countries in region of maximum expanse of Chinese (PRC and Taiwan) people outside China. There is just one country in the ideological core of China (PRC). India, OTOH, has 5 countries in its ideological core (ROI, TSP, BD, Nepal, Srilanka) and 8 countries (Bhutan, Afghanistan, Myanmar) in the region of Indic's maximum expanse. Thus, essentially it is a contest between a "united China" and "fragmented India".

[Manishw]

^ Great Article Atri Ji. Agree 100% with you. Great visual representation too.Better than a 1000 words.

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from Managing Pakistan's Failure Thread

Process of Total Chaos and Subsequent Redemption

The real question people have is whether failure in Pakistan will lead to NK like state, Yugoslav/Soviet style dissolution of union, Somali like total collapse, or perhaps even some sort of combination.

Some days back we had an interesting case where there was a quarrel between some Mehsud tribesmen and Usman Punjabi's men in Miranshah, North Waziristan, over the rich widow of a deceased militant, and it ended with Usman Punjabi's death.

What this tells us, is that the potential is there for Islamist groups to fight amongst each other for their share of the booty.

Now let's consider a situation, where the singular entity keeping Pakistan together, the Army has fragmented, for which there are also scenarios. Somehow I don't foresee a Yugoslavian situation, where there are nationalities that assert themselves. Nationalities can only assert themselves where there have been organized secessionist movements having a broad support amongst a nationality, e.g. the Baluchis, the Balawaristanis. During any collapse of the state, these organized movements could take the leadership in bringing some semblance of order to their respective regions and bringing the region under a collective leadership.

In Pushtun Areas, one can imagine a federation of tribes, where each tribe has an area carved out for itself, or an area where a single tribe dominates, and these tribes together form a council, a jirga, to consider issues which have national and extra-territorial relevance or for resolving inter-tribal feuds.

As far as Pakjab and Sindh are concerned, IMO, they would be hit the hardest. Due to the urbanization and development of both elites and middle classes, the tribal hierarchies have broken down. The state machinery has allowed the elite to fleece the country, without needing to give much thought to the plight of the common people. With the break-down of this state machinery, the common people would not be willing to accept the leadership of the present elites.

The Islamists too would not be able to establish a central control, as at the moment there are several militant groups, which are either held together by the Army's control over them, or due to some understanding between the charismatic leaders of these groups in view of a common challenge - the state, the kafirdom, etc. These alliances would be mostly opportunistic. Every Islamist/Jihadist leader would be competing with the other and be wary of head-hunting, poaching, encroachments into one's territories, betrayal to enemies, etc.

In fact, I foresee Islamist gangs marauding the common people, either taking away their kids and making them child soldiers, or if they have no kids, then taking away their possessions and raping the women. Islamism is going to be in name only and the Islamist leader of the gang, would issue fatwas, which would enhance his own position. Something similar to what we saw in Swat with Mullah Radio.

So basically I see a huge Somalia with the difference, that unlike Somalia, where the Islamists are trying to establish a single command over the country by getting rid of the warlords, in Pakistan the Islamists would be too disunited to really be able to do that. In Pakistan the Islamists would be the warlords. Whereas Somalia has a chance of coming out of its misery under some Islamist leadership, Pakistan would have no such chance.

Also there would be no comparison to the 90s Taliban Regime. 90s Taliban Regime in Afghanistan was under the command of Mullah Omar. He was the undisputed Emir. But mostly the unity in the Taliban Movement was the handiwork of ISI. ISI could keep the Taliban together, especially as ISI controlled the financing, the organizational hierarchy, the war-theater strategy, the arms, etc. In case of Pakistan, there would be no higher power. Even Al Qaeda cannot provide the country controlled by Islamist Gangs with structure and direction.

Pakistan's demise into chaos would be total.

What is in it for India?

Well if India is able to keep the refugees at bay and our borders closed, the situation would be very advantageous indeed. In Pakistan due to the activities of the Islamist Gangs, Islam itself would have lost out much of its moral sway. The moderate Mullahs would have already taken their leave from the field through bullets, courtesy of the Islamist Gangs, eager to establish their own writ over an area. We have seen some of this in Afghanistan and tribal areas of Pakistan, where tribal leaders and moderate mullahs have been killed off.

So what would be the right strategy for India?

1) Support every Islamist Gang in Pakistan through different handlers and agencies in India - financially, logistically, militarily, and through food and medical supplies. No other groups or countries should be allowed to exert their influence. Any Arabs, Chinese, Americans fishing in these troubled waters need to be taken off the board, using of course, the services of rival Islamist Gangs.

2) Ensure that there is rancor and strife between any two neighboring Islamist Gangs, and occasional bloodshed. India's hand should not be visible in all this. This should create a history of bad blood amongst the Islamist Gangs, which do not allow them to reconcile that easily.

3) Create an awareness in the international community, that religious minorities (Christians, Hindus, Ahmediya, Shia, etc) are taking the brunt of this break-down in law and order, and they need protection. This is to be packaged as a humanitarian tragedy.

4) Pass legislation in the Indian Parliament asking the Indian Government to secure islands of religious minority populations within Pakistan through military means.

5) Send Indian Soldiers to establish and secure 'safe area enclaves' within Pakistan for religious minorities (actually mostly for the Dharmic variety). These safe areas would be provided with food, medicines, water, security, training.

6) Through well-placed agents in Pakjab and Sindh, first countryside and then urban areas, get the people of an area - a village, a neighborhood, which does not belong to a religious minority, e.g. of the Dharmic kind, to pledge allegiance to a minority religion, in order to also avail of Indian protection from the marauding Islamist Gangs. Once the village/neighborhood has converted, India can send Indian forces in into the area.

7) Through military and administrative training of the religious minorities and those converted into a minority religion (e.g. Dharmic religion), and with additional support by Indian forces in emergency cases, India would be able to leave the care of the area in the hands of the locals, freeing the Indian contingent in the area for other areas.

Gradually as the area under a minority religion in Pakistan increases, India can start emasculating the local Islamist Gangs, through inter-gang wars, through stopping aid to a previously supported gang, through effecting betrayals in their ranks, through aerial bombing, through decapitating, through fighting them out, etc.

9) Once an Islamist Gang has been cornered or brought under sufficient pressure, Indian forces can offer the Islamist Gang to reform, and to convert to a minority religion (e.g. Dharmic one) and under proper guidance from Indian advisors to oversee the conversion of the populace under their own 'jurisdiction' to the same minority religion, in which case the ex-Islamist Gang would be allowed to function and survive.

10) As the ink-drops of Indian Protection spread along with an expanding converted population, a time would come when the rest of the population still unconverted would see the light of day and take the plunge.

IMHO, this is a viable strategy (under the as yet fantastic assumptions of Pakistan unraveling), and if conducted over 20 years, can lead to a reintegration of Pakjab and Sindh into the Indian Union as 'reformed' regions, totally compatible with the values and norms of the Indian Civilization.

Baluchistan and Balawaristan should have been incorporated into the Indian Union much before this Process of Total Chaos and Subsequent Redemption even starts.

As mentioned, before anything positive can start in Pakistan, Pakistan would have to stew in its Islamist juices until all molecules of Islam have broken down. There are steps India can take to see to it that Pakistan lands in the cauldron and there are step Indian can take to increase the heat under the cauldron, and all in the name of Islam. Any serious call for Democracy, Secularism, Islamic Reform, Stability in Pakistan by India is shooting ourselves in our own feet, though officially it is recommended that India sticks to a benign and supposedly helpless position. India needs a direction for Pakistan, a strategy, and what is a better strategy than to give the drug addict, that what it wants the most - Islam.

Basically this is a Hammer and Anvil strategy - Islamist Gangs being the Hammer and Indian Forces the Anvil. Another thing worth noting is that such a strategy built on controlling the chaos and providing the people a tunnel out based on their religious persuasion is not based on compulsion. Indian Forces will not be in Pakistan doing any missionary work or converting Muslims. Indian State need not compromise its secular credentials.

That can be undertaken is by private religious organizations in India using private security companies and providing information to the Indian State of populations in Pakistan requiring Indian protection, and lobbying for intervention by India.

[Manishw]

^ Thank's RajeshA Ji, this thread is feeling better now.

[RajeshA]

^^

[Christopher Sidor]

^^
A fantastic proposition. Dont know if it will come true or not.

[Pratyush]

Rajesh A,

Sorry for being a wet blanket.

In order for your proposal to be realised, India will need to get rid of its DIE class and become a true secular nation. In the absence of the same I just am unable to see this taking place in the forseable future.

[brihaspati]

Christopher and Manishw ji,
I said "not necessarily" deadlocked civilizationally and "no quarrel with common Chinese as long as they do not support CPC+PLA dictatorship". This has been my consistent line about existential "enemies" of India - be it the theology, or countries. The common followers of the faiths or the citizens of Pak or China are not primary targets - but their leadership are targets for destruction. Most of the problems in inter entity conflicts come from ideological brainwashing in the wrong directions. Human minds can in general be won and changed - it is a matter of will and determination that lasts for several generations. Most people do not do things out of careful and deliberate conscious decisions made with full awareness of all the logics and values involved. They do it by habit, example or training.

Just as these people were brainwashed once into the theology, or Chinese "nationalism+ethnicism" (which in fact is a very dubious concept - for actual Chinese history does not show "nationalism", and only traceable to the modernization struggle within Chinese society around the early western educated Chinese of the 20th century - who were most likely to have been using western concepts of nation as a tool) - they can be brainwashed again. In fact it will be much more difficult to "brainwash" Indians than Pakis or the Chinese.

Think gentlemen - we need statesmanship, and not mere realpolitik. Realpolitik can give spectacular advantages in the short term and sink the whole enterprise long run beyond redemption. Why does Abe Lincoln stand out among a host of US Presidents? He could abandon realpolitik for the short term and go for state-building. He both crushed the source of resistance -the elite leadership and semi-feudal economic structure of the South, if needed by a brutal war with huge costs on both sides even in human terms, but had a firm and clear policy on rebuilding of the south and keeping them within the "fold".

Without such an approach - with a clear realization of what moves social thinking over the long term - we will not have long lasting solutions to the problems posed by our enemies. Destroy the leadership and the elite who maintain these enemical structures, and the socio-economic base which benefits and maintains those leadership in power - but we need to "reconvert" the people into our own "framework". Only such an integration will prevent the regrowth of "enemies" in those populations.

[brihaspati]

I would be rather cautious about letting islamist stewing go to extreme lengths. There is not a single country or region that has any precedence of such stewing leading to turning away from Islamism. It would be possible to change form there - but there has been only one unambiguous example - that of the Reconquista in Spain. The longer time you let a region stew in Islamism, the harder and more brutal are the techniques needed to get rid of the roots later and the process does not take place automatically. We can ponder Iran, Arabia, Iraq, Malaysia, Turkey, Indonesia, and the sub-Saharan African Muslim dominated countries, including the classic case of Somalia - none, absolutely none changed from within or broke up after long and hard stewing.

That is alright if future Indians do not feel nauseous and squeamish about what then they will have to do to carry out the clean-up. If we cannot be sure about such ruthlessness, then it is better to intervene before extreme stewing and actively break up Pak and of course China's bloated empire.

[Manishw]

Brihaspati Ji,
Kindly do a favor and explain how you see things panning out over say 10-15 years and the planning to be done accordingly in brief.
Added later: Kindly include specifically Tibet since I have been through most of your writings and understood them and your point's except Tibet, Xingiang.

[brihaspati]

One example of the Islamist marauder gangs and external armies hammering was tried out in Somalia. The result has been a free-for-all among Islamic gangs with complete breakdown of any regular government and no external army interested to intervene or hammer.

The Somali conflict can be studied with great lessons about what happens when we allow Islamism to play freely. The contrast with the Spanish Reconquista should make it clear what was missing in the Somali attempt. In the Reconquista, the specific structure of Islamic institutions were targeted and eliminated. The theologians were targeted and eliminated. Nothing of this sort was done in Somalia. With the result seen on the ground.

[brihaspati]

Manishw ji,
it can be difficult to exactly pan out the next 10-15 years. Thinsg appear to be changing and developing at a very rapid pace. The increasing references on net and media appear to be part of a conscious attempt to prepare public expectations of war in and around CAR, with involvement of Pak, China and India. The times being most obsessively bandied about is 2010-2012. War could be a way out for all three of USA, PRC and Pak - solving or delaying the crises on socio-economic fronts looming in all three. I will try to expand on this possibility and incorporate this.

[Manishw]

Bingo Brihaspati Ji.Please can we take this discussion to GDF.Pls Suggest suitable thread.

[surinder]

^^^ The presence of PLA in Balwaristan is something that should make us think deep and hard where we are headed, what we are up against. Ever since the internal weakingin of TSP has taken an exponentially enhanced pace, PRC has been unnerved. There was strategic confusion in the inner circles of PRC/PLA/CPC. The internal thought process oscillated between hedging the bets and becoming friendly to India, to waging a 2nd vesion of 1962 to keep India in place. George Bush added to the confusion by his nuclear deal and the publicaly stated desire to make India a world power.

Ultimately, PRC concluded that TSP will not sink that easily nor immediately, nor is India shrewd enough nor strong nor resolute to take advantage of TSP's coming collapse. (PRC often ends up modeling India as a mirror of itself, like how everyone does. It took some time to sink in to PRC leaders that India is not PRC, it will not act like PRC.)

Ultimately it settled on a course of action with three pillars: (1) continue to past practice to arm, protect, cover TSP---basically continue the past policy, but even more energetically. (2) Use direct PLA troops to directly protect those parts of TSP that border PRC (PoK). How much land it can directly protect is merely a function of PLA projection power, which has been growing rapidly. (3) Continue with the exaggerated aggressive actions to scare India and keep it in a state of shocked inaction and imbalance.

This is where it suddenly changed course few years on Arunachal, Aksai Chin, LOAC, Nuke deal with TSP, troops in North PoK, river diversions etc.

There are many things that India can do. It is not short of options. India can pull a Vietnam on PRC. It can use PRC's standard wars to teach a lesson to TSP. India can whack TSP so hard for upping the ante. This an have a very sobering effect. This can be localized in areas inaccessible to PLA, and we have a very long IB and maritme border for that. This is only one of the ideas, we can flesh out many more. But if India is looking for easy solutions, solutions that require zero sacrifice, then there are none, I am afraid.

[ramana]

Rajesh A,

Sorry for being a wet blanket.

In order for your proposal to be realised, India will need to get rid of its DIE class and become a true secular nation. In the absence of the same I just am unable to see this taking place in the forseable future.

Pratyush, Dont be pursuing solutions before goals are decided. Take momone to understnad what he is saying. Do you agree with the goal or not? If not what is your plan? If you agree what are the barriers?

So answering question three before two will lead to disruption.

[surinder]

Surinder, you have been corrected on this count many times, before.
...
Anyway I will correct you once more (and you can also cross check these of Airvats blog, he has held and supported the same views)
1) The Purbaia's were the soldiers of ALL large Hindu armies including the Maratha's, even Rajputs used Matchlockmen from Kalpi etc.

2) When East India company came, it was natural for Purbaia's and Bengali's to joing with East India company in their attempts to remove the Nawabs in that region -- have you even read Anand Math? In many cases it was with willing acceptance of the Maratha rulers who made contracts with the British.

3) The Khalsa losses are as much due to infighting of Sikhs as due to anyone else, in a large measure. In fact so are the Maratha wars with some Maratha's fighting alongside the British. Many elements of treachery by elements of Sikhs against fellow Sikhs was the REAL reason that the Khalsa broke up.

4) As far the collaboration with British is concerned, it is the Punjabi's who collaborated with the British in 1857, when they had the chance to join the confederation of Indian princes and kick out the British (yes I know that you think they had *justified* reasons but then fact is fact and know I dont buy your reasons that it was anti-Delhi behavior, not by a long chalk, the Khalsa had worked with Delhi too in past when real poltick demanded it, it was simple, at that point of time Sikh leadership was composed of those Sikhs who had collaborated with the British to back stab the Khalsa empire and thus were hand maidens of British)

Sanku, with all due respect, you make valid points, but they are tangential to the point I had made. The fact remains that Purbias enrolled in the British armies and then went on to fight for the British multiple wars. The wars with the Marathas resulted in the Maratha defeat. The wars with Ranjit Singh's kindom resulted in the liquidation of that empire too. You are "explaining" the reasons and "excusing" them, not denying that the basic facts. The fact still remains the participaton of this regions was critical to the liquidation of the two most successful and inspiring Indic resurgences.

First the Marathas, and later the Sikhs, took up the mantle of protecting Hindu Dharma in India. They waged terrrible wars against the Mughals, Afghans, and local RoPist. These two Indic revivals finally put the ROP assault on India on the backfoot and allowed the old Indian Hindu glory to once again breath. It allowed the common Hindu (which includes Sikhs, incidently) to walk the land with honor and dignity.

British could not have on their own attacked either the Marathas or the Sikhs. The supply lines from UK to Maratha & Sikh lands was too long. The number of Europeans never large enough to wage a successful war on these empires. They needed the Purbias, both combaants and non-combatants and supply to fight the Indics.

The unintended consequence of the UP/Bihar support for dismantling the Marathas+Sikhs was that the ROP was emboldened and stenghtened (because they knocked off the two vigourous opponents of Izslamism). Marathas and Sikhs had been fighting the ROP power on the Subcontinent for two centuries, almost. They had succeded after substantial effort. But the Sikh/Maratha defeat allowed the emergence of the ROP phoenix.

On the lands of "core" it built AMU, Deoband, the "Urdu" culture (which is the de-facto ROP culture in the whole Subcontinent). The wahabis were nurtured there by the British. Incidently, with the minor exception of Hyderabad, the ROP "core" was never in the Punjab nor Kashmir nor Bengal nor Maharashtra (even though ROP %age was high). The core of the ROP has been UP/Bihar, because it is there they were largely unmolested and unopposed and unmauled.

These were the intellectual germs that lead to formaation of TSP eventually. The liquidated & weakened & demotivated Marathas and Sikhs could not anything to oppose the resurgent ROP in the subcontinent.

TSP came to existence, Punjabis paid a huge price, Bengalis did to. "Core" of India barely any. Even in 1947, UP/Bihar did nothing to dismantle the structure that begat us TSP. Their institutions, colleges, universities, language, businesses continued as if nothing had happened. The small minority of UP/Bihar ROP which migrated to TSP, did so on their own accord, not because they had to. Many promptly came back, incidently, after short stay in TSP. The Punjabis took such good care of the departing ROP's that none ever even thought of coming back. Many ROP from this "core" region have relatives in TSP, intermarry there, travel there.

What has changed in 2010 to suggest that the past is really past? What gives us hope?

same region you detest so much

Sanku, I am not sure if I can convince anyone that easily, but I don't detest this region. My strong wording is more akin to upbraiding one's brother harshly. Because we love our brothers more than anything, we may shout and curse and even slap him harshly. But this due to love, not hatred. But when dealing with a neighbor or stranger, for same crime, we are usually more restrained and polite.

I know this region, I love it, I have lived in the past there, and if I had to choose one region of India to live, I will rather live there. I see this region as vital to Indian resurgence. If anyone has a heart that beats for India, then this is the region to start, as this is the region that is the sickest and most abilty to drag us down. If one ignores this region, the region has the past tendency to bring any other movement down.

[Sanku]

The fact remains that Purbias enrolled in the British armies and then went on to fight for the British multiple wars.

Huh so did all other groups, any particular reason that you want to pick a particular group? Sikhs are especially guilty along with Gurkha's amongst being the chief arms of British repression from the earliest times.

Anyway in case you have not noticed, the Anglo-Sikh wars were won because of the Sikh betrayal of fellow Sikhs and their invitation of EIC to settle internal dispute.

I am terribly sorry but most of your write up is poor history at best, I think some one like you will be better served by trying to learn what actually happened rather than having a blinkered perspective to history and trying to find some others to blame than taking a long hard look at each of the constituents. (For example, you might want to see what is the price that the "core" paid and continues to pay, the resurgence of Indic from the those parts in past, when the Purbaia's first joined EIC, did they do with EIC and Maratha's in collaboration or against?)

As far as the charge of "they did not dismantle the power of RoP when they had the chance" exists -- well for better or for worse, barring the 1 year period post 1947, NO ONE in India took extensive steps to do that.

Not the Maratha's, not the Sikhs and not the Rajputs of Rajputana -- they were content to co-opt the structure of RoP once they had overthrown its primacy. So for Powers of Gangetic belts, like the Kashi Naresh for one, or the Jats of the Yamuna region.

Any charge that you make against the Gangetic belt can be made against pretty much any one else -- what do you/we seek to gain by mutual mud slinging? The Gangetic belt people have displayed as much the same Indian traits as their fellow countrymen elsewhere.

[surinder]

I don't want to make this a sikh-anglo thread. No one is contesting that there were multiple reasons for the failure. Nor am I looking to assing blame. I am simply pointing out the the Gangetic Valley's eager participation against the Indic empires of Marathas & Sikhs. That there might other reasons for defeat is besides the point.

If they the Sikhs/Punjabis later became collaborators of British is after the the trauma they faced by the British with Purbia help, not before.

But if we must go into Sikh-Anglo wars, it is true that Cis-Sutlej states became British protectorates, but they did not participate in war against fellow Sikhs---they stayed neutral. One more clarification. The whole Britsih plan to invade the Punjab Empire or the Maratha emprire was based on the assurance of willing participation of Purbias (combatants, supplies, and a friendly population during the campaigns.) The betrayals by elements within the Sikhs/Marathas was icing on the cake.

As far as the charge of "they did not dismantle the power of RoP when they had the chance" exists -- well for better or for worse, barring the 1 year period post 1947, NO ONE in India took extensive steps to do that.

That is not correct. Indian Punjab (current day Haryana, Punjab, HP) was denuded of ROP. This was a violent couter-retaliation for partiion. No population center (with one exception), community, building, institution survived the onslought. As ex-BRF'ite G. Subramanian has pointed out, this has eliminated the possibility of ROP rising from these areas forever. Current Punjab has the lowest ROP %age in whole of India, even now. The ones they do have are basically, you guessed it, an export from UP/Bihar.

If everyone had done that, our problems would have been history. If UP/Bihar had done that, the blandishment of the pinnacle of "Urdu"-based ROP culture would have been wiped off, along with its desire to rise once again. They treasonous institutions are still there.

what do you seek to gain by mutual mud slinging?

I am just making a point, a point that I wish not to make, since it is an unplesant topic. Again, these issues I bring not out of spite or parachialism. The basic mentality is still the same. The desire of the "core" of India to compromise with the ROP and have other places pay the price of that compromise is intact. The infrastructure of separatism is still there and the basic institutions are still functioning as before. When will UP/Bihar do something about it, themselves?

[brihaspati]

I think we visited this question before, but once again : about PRC behaviour vis-a-vis India and POK etc. We have to keep in mind that no regime ever is completely a one-man show. Just as Indian regimes are more or less always divided and hence submit to dynastic rule or one-man rule for convergence, so do the Chinese.

There is a lot of myth about Chinese nationalism driving a perpetual Chinese motion machine. However if one looks at Chinese history it was more an unity of convenience driven by nomadic aggression on settled populations and a common river system. Even within that, they were mostly constantly engaged in constant interregional tussles and which often took ethnic conflict lines. Chinese nationalism was invented in the early twentieth century when first Japanese educated and then "western" educated Chinese intelligentsia saw in the western concept of "nationalism" a means of eradicating whatever they felt was "wrong" with Chinese society.

In addition, as I often try to propose - it is the disgruntled portion of elite who feel power was their exclusive birthright and somehow cheated out by this or that faction which rules - who are constantly on the search for an ideological justification to mobilize a constituency among the people that can then be used to ride to personal power.

That this motive is true in transitions is seen by the fact that those who take the idealism seriously typically get weeded out in the early struggles - both external and internal - and only those survive in power from such transitions long-term who were in it for personal power. Mao was not the first founder of communism in China nor its most talented organizer. Same goes for Stalin. Or for that matter Chiang.

If we keep this aspect of so-called Chinese nationalism in mind - it will become easy to see why, what happened, did happen and what is happening will continue to happen.

For Mao neither communism nor an invented "nationalism" was the end point of belief. Those were tools that happened to come before him in his drive for personal power. it is not well known that right from the beginning, like every other communist party in history - they were ridden with factionalism and internal power struggles that very often resulted in betrayals and tragedy. In communist parties personal rivalries typically take the form of polemical battles.

Mao's middle-rich peasant background and relatively low formal educational background meant that the early Comintern representatives from Russia did not look upon him as a proper "proletariat-background" candidate for top-jobs. Mao was astute enough to realize the potential of the communist framework for a drive towards personal power but realized that in China the supposed proletariat was weak and would not give him sufficient push towards power. To do anything significant he needed to get into the peasantry pie.

Mao could not have opted for the Kuo-min-dang [Even though for a time communists did join the KMT during the so-called Comintern twist of "united-Front" policy] as the KMT was dominated by the traditional elite of China at the turn of the century phase, and such a society would not have accepted Mao as a dominant leader.

The "nationalist" bit was found useful to claim leadership against KMT when the Japs invaded. This was essentially to win over the coastal urban educated middle-upper middle sections as well as gain credibility in the eyes of the Allied powers who were largely "western". For Stalin, and Russia, the format of communism was maintained.

But throughout the 20's and the 30's Mao was engaged in a bitter intra-party struggle and we know that he almost steadily lost power and position and even was at point forced to criticize his own followers in party fora. Just before the so-called Long March, he was almost out of action as he was supposedly sick and had to be carried on a litter. In communist circles this type of illness at crucial stages of internal power struggles is known as "political illness".

Without going into a detailed history of the CPC's internal struggles in the 20's and 30's let us note that it was only after Mao's followers won some kind of prestige after revival of the "guerrilla" strategy since the loss of the base in the south at Tsunyi - did the party finally turn around to give Mao the predominant position. The cult of the person - started in earnest after that and in a sense Mao himself indirectly acknowledged and justified this as a necessary focus for unity.

Even after this Mao was engaged in a constant power struggle even after taking power in 1950, and once again those whom Mao feared for loss of his personal power - the faction he dubbed "right deviationist" steadily won support. So much so that by the early 1960's Mao was again virtually cornered over control of the party, and people like liu Shao Qui were going ahead. Dubious accusations of collaboration and spying were raised against them.

Just as Mao's early enemies within the party were more favoured by the international powers - like Russia, his later enemies also found readier acceptance outside. Here it is easy to understand why Mao would emphasize "Sinification of Marxism" or a Chinese version of marxism or even uber-nationalism because he needed to discredit his more internationally accepted colleagues.

The Cultural Revolution, and before that the break with Kruschev, came because Kruschev represented another threat for the personal power of Mao - by denouncing the Stalinist regime and "personality cult". If Mao did not pre-empt his enemies by making a clean break and spoil future relations with Russia, his juniors would have taken a lesson from Kruschev. To balance the Russians and become independent of the Leftists like Lin biao whom he had used aginast the Right - he needed to ally with the USA to contain and check any uber-nationalism that would in turn be used by another junior to oust Mao from power. 1962 was part of drawing US attention that Mao was crying out for a separate recognition from the west - especially the USA as an independent and willing player in Asia distinct from USSR.

It is this internal dynamic thats till continues within the CPC and the PLA. It is internal power struggle that gets reflected in external foreign posturings.

So the growing disgruntlement among the CPC elite - as proved in the Tiananmen Square incident, has fueled a neo-Maoist trend which will use foreign posturings and policy or actions as a polemical tool against the non-neo-Maoists. The CPC current regime may be forced to be more hawkish on the POK or India connections to forestall gaining more power or influence by the neo-Maoists. Any uber-nationalism expressed by Chinese circle should be interpreted as a manifestaion of an internal power struggle - and not a general reflection of Chinese society.