NEW DELHI: China can "throw'' at least 21 fighter squadrons against India, from its eight airbases in Tibet and other airfields to their north. Even more Chinese fighters can join forces if they are able to overfly Myanmar. Similarly, Pakistan can deploy 21 to 25 fighter squadrons against India.
With this hard-nosed assessment in mind after defence minister AK Antony himself asked the forces to be ready for the twin-threat posed by China and Pakistan, the largest-ever combat exercise undertaken by IAF tested its capability for a two-front contingency by deploying "swing forces'' from the western theatre right across to the eastern one.
Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=20053
-
brihaspati
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 12410
- Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
A few of my old posts that might be relevant for the MIC line of thinking:
02 Dec 2008 02:16 pm
I don't think any of our grumblings on this forum about Uncle Sam or TSP or spineless politicians are going to matter. We dont have the political system that can respond quickly, with iron will - it is a defuse, hazy power structure, designed to shift the blame and responsibility around in a confused cloud - a perfect additive to the opium-"turiananda" state that the society is supposed to be in a contemplative permanent deep freeze.
There is no point wasting energy on futile speculations. The state is not ready for military retaliation or intervention -primarily because it has never really thought about it, has no time bound plans and objectives for Pakistan, has no decisions about the desired fate of Pakistan. This is the part of restructuring I am asking for people to think of first - think of the basic ideology and programme that should become the driving principle for the Indian nations and state. Once that is clear, objectives and methods for achieving them and by whom can be worked out. One good thing that has resulted from the recent outrages is a psychological proximity that has developed between the society at large and the armed forces bypassing the established political system. We would be so glad to hear what the Indian army "really" thinks its role and India's role should be - as this can be a basis for civilian-military partnership - we need to know what the army wants from us, and the army needs to know what we want from them - without the mediation by incompetent, shortsighted, and self-serving political elite we have managed to develop so far.
Without this basis and preparation, no strategic expansion can be thought of. We should pretend to cooperate with Pakistan and the world until we are ready - in fact we should do everything possible to convince even the Jihadis that we desperately want peace with them. What we plan for them in reality should not be discussed in open forums. Complete liquidation, of ideological leadership of terror and anti-Indian moves, and if necessary of all structures human or material that supports them, even if it is costly in human terms for the "enemy", is the ultimate target - but at a place of our choice, at a time of our choice, and when we are ready.
Post subject: Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent
PostPosted: 28 Mar 2009 12:34 am
Incorporation not as TSP, but its pieces as new provinces of India. Has to be perhaps of necessity militarily at an opportune point of time. My strategy for this I have mentioned here towards the beginning. There could be alternate scenarios for practical implementation, but the objective remains the same.
Thought many times, but finally gave almost all my reasons why any other alternative to direct occupation and incorporation under Indian control is likely to unravel all gains of the initiative. Only under multigenerational firm control, purge, carrot-stick, liquidation of the theologian networks, re-education, can we at all hope to solve the cancer problem of TSP. Just implosion without Indian supervision and incorporation will leave it open for manipulation by the West, Rus and PRC. All our agonies will simply be regenrated. Enticing the Talebs to attack after proper preparation would serve all diplomatic, political and military requirements.
Sealing off the southern sea-board in collaboration with Iran partly falls in line with your concept of making the "border" impervious to "undesirable" foreign "elements", and thereby desertify the focal point of US, UK targets in CAR and ambitions for the surrounding regions including Rus and India.
Post subject: Re: Conceptual Thread-1
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2009 01:52 pm
But such misconceptions can be quite useful, if we decide to use them properly. It can be a great cover for policies that take our own future interests forward, by making others believe in what they have concocted for themselves. Feigning weakness, while building strength, feigning peace when preparing for war, feigning friendship when preparing to destroy, can all be very useful - but they really have to be feints, and not true behaviour. My angst at GOI comes from too many signals that most of the time it has no forward vision. This lack of exapansive ideological drive, prevents taking long term concrete steps that also affect all branches of national life.
So much of our expenditure on HRD is wasted, when we do not have a comprehensive plan to use the skills we produce. We have been clamouring about investments in a recessive climate - but we are not that keen on making domestic developoment of military hardware capabilities a key issue of national agenda. After all it seems we never really plan to go to any intensive, longer than three weeks war, so why the impatience to get external military hardware? It does seem that we are keen on arming ourselves with technologies that keep pace with advanced military powers by borrowing from them, but on the other hand we never really do not think that we will need such technologies - because after all we are not going to war, and no one is really going to wage such a devastataing war on us.
We need to first change this attitude of holding the line - literally, ideologically, and physically, and that too taking care that the "line" is ill-defined, so that if we ever have to give it up, we cannot be blamed for giving in. Expansion, if taken as a foundation of the national vision, will incorporate all elements of economic, cultural and where necessary military expansion - all complementing each other and driving each other. Historical experience shows that technological innovations take a quantum leap when societies prepare themselves for war, which in turn drives a lot of economic changes, as well as social changes - for this is where the vast majority can no longer be hoodwinked as to their power, of numbers, of productivity, and the basis they provide to elite-power. This is how, in every society we can comprehensively study, preparation towards internally sourced military capability and expansion, changed economy, technology, and social relations.
This is not about jingoism, but using a very old concept in theories of civilization - that spectacular transitions in the more organized phases of human civilization, were most likely to have been brought about by the need to prepare for war. The actual war may not need to be fought, but the idea of all encompassing expansion can be a serious engine of growth.
For India this has certain policy consequences. And this needs to be sorted out.
Post subject: Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2009 07:20 pm
India;s main problem towards concentrating all efforts on the energy problem is basically tied up with the cleaning up of the hinterland of Bharat. India has to take control over the subcontinent, so that none of the peripheral rashtras foisted by the colonial and post-colonial foreign powers can be used by foreign interests to hold India back. As lomg as India leaves these rashtras alone and kicking they will be supported and pressurized by powers like PRC, or Uk or USA, or even theologians fueled by ME oil, to divert Indian resources and attention to defending itself.
There is no talk with Pakistan. Pakistan is a historical anachronism - a rashtra which has no national purpose other than creating a Caliphate over the subcontinent and destroy all non-Muslim cultures. Pakistan has outlived its utility even for the powers which created it - primarily UK and then its paramour USA. These powers are only being kept from realizing the bitter truth that they stand to gain from the dissolution of TSP and incorporation of these territories and peoples under Bharat - out of ego and racism, the blindness that destoyed the British empire. An unified subcontinent under Bharatyia rashtric rule, guarantees modernization of Pakistan occupied peoples, land reforms, and socio-economic upliftment. It provides guaranteed stability of economic infrastructure, port and road facilities reaching into the heart of Central Asia for access by the "west", and if sincerely supported by the "west", a loyal ally in balancing PRC and western interests.
PRC should agree to create a free republic of Tibet and withdraw from occupied territories of Sinkiang, NA, and AP. In return, Bharat can guarantee cooperation in IO and and SE Asia, and even the Pacific.
India can prepare well for war in any case, as preparation for war gives the nation purpose and determination, and practical impetus for racing and outpacing comeptitors in technology and economy. It should prepare Indians to face the possible fallouts of nuclear strikes undertaken by PRC and TSP, or even by proxy through a third power - maybe even under the excuse that nukes have fallen to Talebs or non-state actors. PRC thinks it will be safe because it predominantly Han ethnicity will be protected by the Tibetan plateau. A pacific nuke capable fleet or two should make it think.
India should not and cannot tie its military capability to what is being claimed by PRC or the various think-tanks who speak for PRC interests disguised under "neutral analysis".
15 Nov 2009 08:53 pm
brihaspati
Post subject: Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion
PostPosted: 02 Jul 2010 01:39 pm
Isnt technology and science "development" strongly correlated with "war"? Preparation for war, and planning war on others appears to be the primary driver of European sciences.
Lalmohan
Post subject: Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion
PostPosted: 02 Jul 2010 01:48 pm
Location: Cave of the Saffron Bandits
not sure that its cause and effect, but there are certainly connections. the desire to wage war might not spur innovation, but the need to survive one certainly does. and indeed post war when lessons are being learnt, perhaps leads to more insight. i think that the military-engineering-complex phenomenon might be a post WW1 development, seen to its zenith by the cold war. that said, napoleon did a lot to bring organised and well funded science to bear on the conduct of warfare, amongst the military specific inventions sponsored by him is tinned food.
economic growth creates the surplus resources which are devoted to more thinking, rather than surviving
the british had a good phase from the 1830's to the 1930's when they did a lot of good engineering development, then rapidly overtaken by the germans and americans
war is far more connected to economic growth/decline than any other factor
11 Aug 2010 05:41 pm
(3) I strongly believe that pure economical pursuits cannot define the ultimate national purpose. Over time it leads to degeneration of the nation because everything ultimately comes to have a valuation in terms of money - your land, your people, your family, your children, your wife or sister or mother, even your ideology and commitments - all become commodities. This is the process I termed "baniafication" of national ideology. I prefer an alternate outlining of national goal of civilizational expansion and be prepared to defend and fuel it - if necessary by war. War or at least preparation for potentially facing it, drives both technology and economics - and according to some analyzers was the single largets factor in driving the engine for technological progress and experimentation with better forms of social organization.
(1) what is the worth of POK that India should risk paying the costs to regain it - one side thinks nil-worth others think a range of rewards from strategic to immediate material to legalistic "belonging" argument
(2) what is the preparation required to actually carry out such repo missions - no one thinks that India currently has the capability [from strategic to material - strategic such as possible intervention by USA and PRC against India, and material in the sense of manpower and military hardware], some call for "caution" while others call for "aggression" and "initiative".
I will skip the part (1). Let us go into part(2).
Why should "caution" line and "initiative" line have to be completely disjoint? Why cannot they have some overlap in line? Here "initiative" line represents a spectrum of thinking incorporating not only preparing and building up military capacities but also diplomatic and sub-diplomatic initiatives to bring about situation on the ground which makes military completion necessary and inevitable to seal the territorial objectives. In short bring the region to war on India's terms and choice of time and battleground. It is hard to understand why "initiative" should be ridiculed because of their naievete in hardcore military knowledge - since the "initiative" line is not only about military build-up but also creating situations to use that build-up effectively.
"Caution" is good. No one likes the loss of lives of soldiers of our army. Maybe India should plan to raise separate forces for special operations across and outside of borders? A more ideologically committed force than that can be allowed within the "professional" framework of the army, that also has little confusion as to the necessity of eliminating anything even remotely connected to the word "Pak" and that stops short of no "costs" other than the jeopardy of the continued existence of India. The army can continue its cautious build-up plans to defend the country's current borders only, while the special forces prepare the ground for future complete elimination of all things Pak.
Without some degree of "fanaticism" the Pak-forces will always appear larger-than-life, with supposed shadows of USA or PRC growing longer and longer beside it. With time, either USA or PRC will supposedly go on adding to the arsenal and capabilities of Pakis. So we will possibly have to wait for a century to obtain that "overwhelming" ratio that will guarantee minimal loss of lives on our side and victory. In such a time frame the whole question may become irrelevant and then we can avoid taking any initiative about any war at all.
Post subject: Re: Pak Occupied Kashmir News and Discussion
PostPosted: 10 Sep 2010 11:00 pm
There are military experts here, and I am not one of them. But as far as my limited knowledge goes, it is quite standard military lore and legends about how battles or wars were lost because "leadership" were extra-cautious. All the examples of "cautious buildup" that are usually bandied about all show extensive "material preparations" but do not highlight the underlying political and broad strategic initiatives that went before such "cautious buildup". The people behind those campaigns had little doubt about what they broadly wanted - which territory they wanted to gain, what they wanted to crush, in fact even what sort of political systems or regimes they wanted post-victory - and most importantly "why" they wanted to do all that.
15 Oct 2010 06:59 pm
Why do we want war at all? War is the ultimate form of physical coercion which can be used as the ultimate weapon of politics. If India has clearly set out its geo-political targets, then there are two things that should be kept clearly in mind.
(1) Preparation for war itself can drive the nation and its economy forward. Technological investments, acquisition of technology has to go forward hand in hand with indigenous capability and innovation because "war" necessitates a mindset of maintaining a gap of advantage in technology and knowledge against potential enemies. This means the nation has to also develop its own capacities and not rely entirely on others [if you are always only buying weapons from others - you are always behind them].
(2) once geo-political targets have been identified - they must have been identified based on values and perceptions within the nation. Why should there be any confusion and ideological holding back after reaching conclusions from those very same ideological background? There are sacrifices to be made in any conflict, and such sacrifice includes the agony and pain of having to do things that apparently contradict ones personal ideals.
If however there is a "national ideology" that condemns any initiative that prepares for or needs to prepare for war, or thinks of war as only purely territorially defensive - then we should explore such "ideologies" as to their origins. whether they are part of a propaganda from our enemies who do not want us to get ahead of them in military capacities.
15 Oct 2010 08:40 pm
Well when was the period in US history when it was not making war to gain territory or economic interests? When they started to do so - was the world unipolar with themselves as leader of the shark-pack? I think the world was then being wrangled over by great whites of colonialism then - and which did not include USA.
Why is planning for war to take things that will not be yielded otherwise - "blind imitation"? By that token, even going for "GDP GDP GDP" chant appears to be a "blind imitation" of supposed "peaceful growth" countries onlee! show us an example of a country that [please don't give examples of territorially small population-small ports on a major sea-trade route - as no eample exists of their geopolitical dominance] had not simultaneously combined war and economic growth and territorial aggression to become "dominant" pole in of multipolar world.
When was "China" peaceful? Korea, Tibet, India, Vietnam, Cambodia - ah the peaceful "Chinese growth model"! Let us not bring MKG into this. Only someone who has not read him in the original at all will pass such casual comment on his approach as "passive" and "peaceful". It is a complete failure to understand the essentially radical, anarchist, anti-state, pro-active and confrontationist ideology of MKG. Or maybe even an attempt to reconstruct MKG as a soporific to channelize dissent and anger into a form more suitable for state control.
Historically too we have wonderful examples for India : every time India went into "accummulation only" mode, it was followed by invasion and looting of that accumulation. Over emphasis and neglect of preparation for war, or even intervention in the neighbourhood to destroy potential marauders - led to the "baniafication" of national ideology, that is everything can be bought or traded. That is a surefire way to the logic that sufficient money should be enough to purchase peace - and afterall you do not want to destroy your nest egg by "conflict". So more wealth and GDP will mean even greater efforts to avoid conflict and preparations to preempt the enemy, and clamour to "stop diverting vital developmental resources" into "stupid" "egoist zingoism".
The regularity with which such "clamour for GDP growth onlee" went on in Indian history before inevitable retreat and giving up and selling up of land, people, family, women and dependents - makes me suspect the motivation behind such statements.
02 Dec 2008 02:16 pm
I don't think any of our grumblings on this forum about Uncle Sam or TSP or spineless politicians are going to matter. We dont have the political system that can respond quickly, with iron will - it is a defuse, hazy power structure, designed to shift the blame and responsibility around in a confused cloud - a perfect additive to the opium-"turiananda" state that the society is supposed to be in a contemplative permanent deep freeze.
There is no point wasting energy on futile speculations. The state is not ready for military retaliation or intervention -primarily because it has never really thought about it, has no time bound plans and objectives for Pakistan, has no decisions about the desired fate of Pakistan. This is the part of restructuring I am asking for people to think of first - think of the basic ideology and programme that should become the driving principle for the Indian nations and state. Once that is clear, objectives and methods for achieving them and by whom can be worked out. One good thing that has resulted from the recent outrages is a psychological proximity that has developed between the society at large and the armed forces bypassing the established political system. We would be so glad to hear what the Indian army "really" thinks its role and India's role should be - as this can be a basis for civilian-military partnership - we need to know what the army wants from us, and the army needs to know what we want from them - without the mediation by incompetent, shortsighted, and self-serving political elite we have managed to develop so far.
Without this basis and preparation, no strategic expansion can be thought of. We should pretend to cooperate with Pakistan and the world until we are ready - in fact we should do everything possible to convince even the Jihadis that we desperately want peace with them. What we plan for them in reality should not be discussed in open forums. Complete liquidation, of ideological leadership of terror and anti-Indian moves, and if necessary of all structures human or material that supports them, even if it is costly in human terms for the "enemy", is the ultimate target - but at a place of our choice, at a time of our choice, and when we are ready.
Post subject: Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent
PostPosted: 28 Mar 2009 12:34 am
Incorporation not as TSP, but its pieces as new provinces of India. Has to be perhaps of necessity militarily at an opportune point of time. My strategy for this I have mentioned here towards the beginning. There could be alternate scenarios for practical implementation, but the objective remains the same.
Thought many times, but finally gave almost all my reasons why any other alternative to direct occupation and incorporation under Indian control is likely to unravel all gains of the initiative. Only under multigenerational firm control, purge, carrot-stick, liquidation of the theologian networks, re-education, can we at all hope to solve the cancer problem of TSP. Just implosion without Indian supervision and incorporation will leave it open for manipulation by the West, Rus and PRC. All our agonies will simply be regenrated. Enticing the Talebs to attack after proper preparation would serve all diplomatic, political and military requirements.
Sealing off the southern sea-board in collaboration with Iran partly falls in line with your concept of making the "border" impervious to "undesirable" foreign "elements", and thereby desertify the focal point of US, UK targets in CAR and ambitions for the surrounding regions including Rus and India.
Post subject: Re: Conceptual Thread-1
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2009 01:52 pm
But such misconceptions can be quite useful, if we decide to use them properly. It can be a great cover for policies that take our own future interests forward, by making others believe in what they have concocted for themselves. Feigning weakness, while building strength, feigning peace when preparing for war, feigning friendship when preparing to destroy, can all be very useful - but they really have to be feints, and not true behaviour. My angst at GOI comes from too many signals that most of the time it has no forward vision. This lack of exapansive ideological drive, prevents taking long term concrete steps that also affect all branches of national life.
So much of our expenditure on HRD is wasted, when we do not have a comprehensive plan to use the skills we produce. We have been clamouring about investments in a recessive climate - but we are not that keen on making domestic developoment of military hardware capabilities a key issue of national agenda. After all it seems we never really plan to go to any intensive, longer than three weeks war, so why the impatience to get external military hardware? It does seem that we are keen on arming ourselves with technologies that keep pace with advanced military powers by borrowing from them, but on the other hand we never really do not think that we will need such technologies - because after all we are not going to war, and no one is really going to wage such a devastataing war on us.
We need to first change this attitude of holding the line - literally, ideologically, and physically, and that too taking care that the "line" is ill-defined, so that if we ever have to give it up, we cannot be blamed for giving in. Expansion, if taken as a foundation of the national vision, will incorporate all elements of economic, cultural and where necessary military expansion - all complementing each other and driving each other. Historical experience shows that technological innovations take a quantum leap when societies prepare themselves for war, which in turn drives a lot of economic changes, as well as social changes - for this is where the vast majority can no longer be hoodwinked as to their power, of numbers, of productivity, and the basis they provide to elite-power. This is how, in every society we can comprehensively study, preparation towards internally sourced military capability and expansion, changed economy, technology, and social relations.
This is not about jingoism, but using a very old concept in theories of civilization - that spectacular transitions in the more organized phases of human civilization, were most likely to have been brought about by the need to prepare for war. The actual war may not need to be fought, but the idea of all encompassing expansion can be a serious engine of growth.
For India this has certain policy consequences. And this needs to be sorted out.
Post subject: Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2009 07:20 pm
India;s main problem towards concentrating all efforts on the energy problem is basically tied up with the cleaning up of the hinterland of Bharat. India has to take control over the subcontinent, so that none of the peripheral rashtras foisted by the colonial and post-colonial foreign powers can be used by foreign interests to hold India back. As lomg as India leaves these rashtras alone and kicking they will be supported and pressurized by powers like PRC, or Uk or USA, or even theologians fueled by ME oil, to divert Indian resources and attention to defending itself.
There is no talk with Pakistan. Pakistan is a historical anachronism - a rashtra which has no national purpose other than creating a Caliphate over the subcontinent and destroy all non-Muslim cultures. Pakistan has outlived its utility even for the powers which created it - primarily UK and then its paramour USA. These powers are only being kept from realizing the bitter truth that they stand to gain from the dissolution of TSP and incorporation of these territories and peoples under Bharat - out of ego and racism, the blindness that destoyed the British empire. An unified subcontinent under Bharatyia rashtric rule, guarantees modernization of Pakistan occupied peoples, land reforms, and socio-economic upliftment. It provides guaranteed stability of economic infrastructure, port and road facilities reaching into the heart of Central Asia for access by the "west", and if sincerely supported by the "west", a loyal ally in balancing PRC and western interests.
PRC should agree to create a free republic of Tibet and withdraw from occupied territories of Sinkiang, NA, and AP. In return, Bharat can guarantee cooperation in IO and and SE Asia, and even the Pacific.
India can prepare well for war in any case, as preparation for war gives the nation purpose and determination, and practical impetus for racing and outpacing comeptitors in technology and economy. It should prepare Indians to face the possible fallouts of nuclear strikes undertaken by PRC and TSP, or even by proxy through a third power - maybe even under the excuse that nukes have fallen to Talebs or non-state actors. PRC thinks it will be safe because it predominantly Han ethnicity will be protected by the Tibetan plateau. A pacific nuke capable fleet or two should make it think.
India should not and cannot tie its military capability to what is being claimed by PRC or the various think-tanks who speak for PRC interests disguised under "neutral analysis".
15 Nov 2009 08:53 pm
Yes I mean, in the first phase reclaiming the entire subcontinent as well as areas that were traditionally "culturally" with India further afield. Agenda of expansion drives preparation society wide. It involves intense efforts at becoming self-sufficient militarily and therefore in technological aspects that drive other aspects of the economy. It gives a nation purpose in which it can feel pride in. It necessarily requires adjustments and giving up fractures in identities and giving up claims of exclusivity.Manish_Sharma wrote
Brihaspatiji the first point of expansion is very interesting and rarely heard in Indian context. Don't know if anybody other then Cholas especially Raj Raja did it. What do you mean by expansion here? Is it reclaiming the lands gone in TSP like Kashmir, part of Himalaya taken by Chinese. Would be great if you could explain this a bit more. And also do you mean "agenda of expansion" will create more crystallization/nationalism or ekta amongst people?
brihaspati
Post subject: Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion
PostPosted: 02 Jul 2010 01:39 pm
Isnt technology and science "development" strongly correlated with "war"? Preparation for war, and planning war on others appears to be the primary driver of European sciences.
Lalmohan
Post subject: Re: Indo-UK: News & Discussion
PostPosted: 02 Jul 2010 01:48 pm
Location: Cave of the Saffron Bandits
not sure that its cause and effect, but there are certainly connections. the desire to wage war might not spur innovation, but the need to survive one certainly does. and indeed post war when lessons are being learnt, perhaps leads to more insight. i think that the military-engineering-complex phenomenon might be a post WW1 development, seen to its zenith by the cold war. that said, napoleon did a lot to bring organised and well funded science to bear on the conduct of warfare, amongst the military specific inventions sponsored by him is tinned food.
economic growth creates the surplus resources which are devoted to more thinking, rather than surviving
the british had a good phase from the 1830's to the 1930's when they did a lot of good engineering development, then rapidly overtaken by the germans and americans
war is far more connected to economic growth/decline than any other factor
11 Aug 2010 05:41 pm
(3) I strongly believe that pure economical pursuits cannot define the ultimate national purpose. Over time it leads to degeneration of the nation because everything ultimately comes to have a valuation in terms of money - your land, your people, your family, your children, your wife or sister or mother, even your ideology and commitments - all become commodities. This is the process I termed "baniafication" of national ideology. I prefer an alternate outlining of national goal of civilizational expansion and be prepared to defend and fuel it - if necessary by war. War or at least preparation for potentially facing it, drives both technology and economics - and according to some analyzers was the single largets factor in driving the engine for technological progress and experimentation with better forms of social organization.
(1) what is the worth of POK that India should risk paying the costs to regain it - one side thinks nil-worth others think a range of rewards from strategic to immediate material to legalistic "belonging" argument
(2) what is the preparation required to actually carry out such repo missions - no one thinks that India currently has the capability [from strategic to material - strategic such as possible intervention by USA and PRC against India, and material in the sense of manpower and military hardware], some call for "caution" while others call for "aggression" and "initiative".
I will skip the part (1). Let us go into part(2).
Why should "caution" line and "initiative" line have to be completely disjoint? Why cannot they have some overlap in line? Here "initiative" line represents a spectrum of thinking incorporating not only preparing and building up military capacities but also diplomatic and sub-diplomatic initiatives to bring about situation on the ground which makes military completion necessary and inevitable to seal the territorial objectives. In short bring the region to war on India's terms and choice of time and battleground. It is hard to understand why "initiative" should be ridiculed because of their naievete in hardcore military knowledge - since the "initiative" line is not only about military build-up but also creating situations to use that build-up effectively.
"Caution" is good. No one likes the loss of lives of soldiers of our army. Maybe India should plan to raise separate forces for special operations across and outside of borders? A more ideologically committed force than that can be allowed within the "professional" framework of the army, that also has little confusion as to the necessity of eliminating anything even remotely connected to the word "Pak" and that stops short of no "costs" other than the jeopardy of the continued existence of India. The army can continue its cautious build-up plans to defend the country's current borders only, while the special forces prepare the ground for future complete elimination of all things Pak.
Without some degree of "fanaticism" the Pak-forces will always appear larger-than-life, with supposed shadows of USA or PRC growing longer and longer beside it. With time, either USA or PRC will supposedly go on adding to the arsenal and capabilities of Pakis. So we will possibly have to wait for a century to obtain that "overwhelming" ratio that will guarantee minimal loss of lives on our side and victory. In such a time frame the whole question may become irrelevant and then we can avoid taking any initiative about any war at all.
Post subject: Re: Pak Occupied Kashmir News and Discussion
PostPosted: 10 Sep 2010 11:00 pm
There are military experts here, and I am not one of them. But as far as my limited knowledge goes, it is quite standard military lore and legends about how battles or wars were lost because "leadership" were extra-cautious. All the examples of "cautious buildup" that are usually bandied about all show extensive "material preparations" but do not highlight the underlying political and broad strategic initiatives that went before such "cautious buildup". The people behind those campaigns had little doubt about what they broadly wanted - which territory they wanted to gain, what they wanted to crush, in fact even what sort of political systems or regimes they wanted post-victory - and most importantly "why" they wanted to do all that.
15 Oct 2010 06:59 pm
Why do we want war at all? War is the ultimate form of physical coercion which can be used as the ultimate weapon of politics. If India has clearly set out its geo-political targets, then there are two things that should be kept clearly in mind.
(1) Preparation for war itself can drive the nation and its economy forward. Technological investments, acquisition of technology has to go forward hand in hand with indigenous capability and innovation because "war" necessitates a mindset of maintaining a gap of advantage in technology and knowledge against potential enemies. This means the nation has to also develop its own capacities and not rely entirely on others [if you are always only buying weapons from others - you are always behind them].
(2) once geo-political targets have been identified - they must have been identified based on values and perceptions within the nation. Why should there be any confusion and ideological holding back after reaching conclusions from those very same ideological background? There are sacrifices to be made in any conflict, and such sacrifice includes the agony and pain of having to do things that apparently contradict ones personal ideals.
If however there is a "national ideology" that condemns any initiative that prepares for or needs to prepare for war, or thinks of war as only purely territorially defensive - then we should explore such "ideologies" as to their origins. whether they are part of a propaganda from our enemies who do not want us to get ahead of them in military capacities.
15 Oct 2010 08:40 pm
Well when was the period in US history when it was not making war to gain territory or economic interests? When they started to do so - was the world unipolar with themselves as leader of the shark-pack? I think the world was then being wrangled over by great whites of colonialism then - and which did not include USA.
Why is planning for war to take things that will not be yielded otherwise - "blind imitation"? By that token, even going for "GDP GDP GDP" chant appears to be a "blind imitation" of supposed "peaceful growth" countries onlee! show us an example of a country that [please don't give examples of territorially small population-small ports on a major sea-trade route - as no eample exists of their geopolitical dominance] had not simultaneously combined war and economic growth and territorial aggression to become "dominant" pole in of multipolar world.
When was "China" peaceful? Korea, Tibet, India, Vietnam, Cambodia - ah the peaceful "Chinese growth model"! Let us not bring MKG into this. Only someone who has not read him in the original at all will pass such casual comment on his approach as "passive" and "peaceful". It is a complete failure to understand the essentially radical, anarchist, anti-state, pro-active and confrontationist ideology of MKG. Or maybe even an attempt to reconstruct MKG as a soporific to channelize dissent and anger into a form more suitable for state control.
Historically too we have wonderful examples for India : every time India went into "accummulation only" mode, it was followed by invasion and looting of that accumulation. Over emphasis and neglect of preparation for war, or even intervention in the neighbourhood to destroy potential marauders - led to the "baniafication" of national ideology, that is everything can be bought or traded. That is a surefire way to the logic that sufficient money should be enough to purchase peace - and afterall you do not want to destroy your nest egg by "conflict". So more wealth and GDP will mean even greater efforts to avoid conflict and preparations to preempt the enemy, and clamour to "stop diverting vital developmental resources" into "stupid" "egoist zingoism".
The regularity with which such "clamour for GDP growth onlee" went on in Indian history before inevitable retreat and giving up and selling up of land, people, family, women and dependents - makes me suspect the motivation behind such statements.
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
Brilliant series of posts brihaspati. Thanks for conflating and posting
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
Some salient quotes from brihaspati above:
brihaspati wrote:The state is not ready for military retaliation or intervention -primarily because it has never really thought about it, has no time bound plans and objectives for Pakistan, has no decisions about the desired fate of Pakistan. This is the part of restructuring I am asking for people to think of first - think of the basic ideology and programme that should become the driving principle for the Indian nations and state.
brihaspati wrote:So much of our expenditure on HRD is wasted, when we do not have a comprehensive plan to use the skills we produce. We have been clamouring about investments in a recessive climate - but we are not that keen on making domestic developoment of military hardware capabilities a key issue of national agenda.
brihaspati wrote: Expansion, if taken as a foundation of the national vision, will incorporate all elements of economic, cultural and where necessary military expansion - all complementing each other and driving each other. Historical experience shows that technological innovations take a quantum leap when societies prepare themselves for war, which in turn drives a lot of economic changes, as well as social changes - for this is where the vast majority can no longer be hoodwinked as to their power, of numbers, of productivity, and the basis they provide to elite-power. This is how, in every society we can comprehensively study, preparation towards internally sourced military capability and expansion, changed economy, technology, and social relations.
brihaspati wrote:India can prepare well for war in any case, as preparation for war gives the nation purpose and determination, and practical impetus for racing and outpacing comeptitors in technology and economy.
-
member_23692
- BRFite
- Posts: 441
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
Self deleted
Last edited by member_23692 on 17 Apr 2013 09:13, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
Sangramji. Please sir. This is a request. This thread is not for discussion of what is secular and communal. I will cross post your post elsewhere on a thread where you can continue your thoughtful discussion on the subject.
I hope you will understand. Thank you in anticipation
I hope you will understand. Thank you in anticipation
-
member_20317
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 3167
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
There was a Walk The Talk episode with Arun Shourie. Where Arun Shourie put up a counter query to the soft-state vibes that India sends out. This is a very old program, I believe from NDA days. The counter question was - Whether India really does wish/have it to basically Zionize itself?
Israelis have armed themselves to the teeth. They have an MIC that is well equipped and well respected for its size. But it also has one unique property. It is a small homogenous country where socio-political education takes little effort. What any MIC does to its foreign relations is that new allies get created. You can always have agents within other countries pushing your products. These in turn end up affecting not just the military and trade balances but also the socio-political balances within the buyer country. We ourselves are the biggest example of this. Israel to at a certain level is an example. While it has a two way relationship with US but it has been able to use this relationship to its advantage vis a vis the Saudis (Howsoever fickle the relations may be 73 and running is not something to be scoffed at).
Our situation resembles that of Israelis and I have a feeling that Indian Minorities will willingly join in to support an MIC that can meddle in the affairs of other countries esp. that of Saudi Arabia and Iran. The requirements of Indian Minorities are mainly in the political and economic front. Their social agenda should continue to be resisted but a working relationship between Indian Majority and Minorities can be established based on a MIC. After all the core of Majority-Minority differences is the unwillingness of majority to get excited by the happenings in the 'Holy Land' where the Majority is sought to be hallalified. With MIC we can instead of being a hallal, hope instead to carry out our own agenda.
I say we export Arjun Mk-1 and LCA and non-Nirbhay. This can change the mechanics in and around South East Asia. A non-Nirbhay with Philipines/Soko or an Arjun with Iran could just turn the whole debate around town. LCA can be reserved for south america like zones. This could have an additional spin off effect. The part of Indian armed forces that do not like Indian products can be persuaded.
MIC as a Torjan Horse seems like a workable idea.
Israelis have armed themselves to the teeth. They have an MIC that is well equipped and well respected for its size. But it also has one unique property. It is a small homogenous country where socio-political education takes little effort. What any MIC does to its foreign relations is that new allies get created. You can always have agents within other countries pushing your products. These in turn end up affecting not just the military and trade balances but also the socio-political balances within the buyer country. We ourselves are the biggest example of this. Israel to at a certain level is an example. While it has a two way relationship with US but it has been able to use this relationship to its advantage vis a vis the Saudis (Howsoever fickle the relations may be 73 and running is not something to be scoffed at).
Our situation resembles that of Israelis and I have a feeling that Indian Minorities will willingly join in to support an MIC that can meddle in the affairs of other countries esp. that of Saudi Arabia and Iran. The requirements of Indian Minorities are mainly in the political and economic front. Their social agenda should continue to be resisted but a working relationship between Indian Majority and Minorities can be established based on a MIC. After all the core of Majority-Minority differences is the unwillingness of majority to get excited by the happenings in the 'Holy Land' where the Majority is sought to be hallalified. With MIC we can instead of being a hallal, hope instead to carry out our own agenda.
I say we export Arjun Mk-1 and LCA and non-Nirbhay. This can change the mechanics in and around South East Asia. A non-Nirbhay with Philipines/Soko or an Arjun with Iran could just turn the whole debate around town. LCA can be reserved for south america like zones. This could have an additional spin off effect. The part of Indian armed forces that do not like Indian products can be persuaded.
MIC as a Torjan Horse seems like a workable idea.
-
RamaY
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 17249
- Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
- Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
I think is peace is very likely in next 1-2 years itself.
All Pakistan wants is a big-brotherly love from India. And in the interests of humanity peace must be given a chance.
1. India should conduct a plebsite in J&K and let Kashmiris choose their future.
2. Siachen must be demilitarized
3. Sir-creek must be given to Pakistan
4. Indus water treaty must be rewritten in such a way that all tributaries of Indus are given to Pakistan in the name of peace. India has Ganga, Yamuna, Krishna, Godawari etc., Brahmaputra must be given to Bangladesh
5. India must rebuild Babri Masjid to heal the wounds of Indian Muslims this is not secular
6. Pakistanis must be given 10year multiple visit visa on entry to spend time with family.
7. Indian PM must stop addressing from Red Fort so Indian and Pakistani Muslims do not feel humiliated. this is not secular
These measures, along with some other non-costly secular measures, will ensure that Peace is possible in a year or two.
If, by chance, the fringe minority talibani fanatics in Pakistan continue to conduct terror attacks, we can find new ways to achieve peace.
All Pakistan wants is a big-brotherly love from India. And in the interests of humanity peace must be given a chance.
1. India should conduct a plebsite in J&K and let Kashmiris choose their future.
2. Siachen must be demilitarized
3. Sir-creek must be given to Pakistan
4. Indus water treaty must be rewritten in such a way that all tributaries of Indus are given to Pakistan in the name of peace. India has Ganga, Yamuna, Krishna, Godawari etc., Brahmaputra must be given to Bangladesh
6. Pakistanis must be given 10year multiple visit visa on entry to spend time with family.
These measures, along with some other non-costly secular measures, will ensure that Peace is possible in a year or two.
If, by chance, the fringe minority talibani fanatics in Pakistan continue to conduct terror attacks, we can find new ways to achieve peace.
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
Sentiments of the type expressed in the post below, cross posted from the Bangalore blasts thread, makes me redouble my appeal to point out that we are at war. We must not panic at loss of peace and lament and tremble with self doubt and fear every time the war rears its head.
We need to stop lamenting like my elders did and prepare our young people to face war and make the nation powerful. We need to get the industries and opportunities going to make sure that our young are employed and equipped to respond to war with fire.
Laments are for those people who think peace will come after every bomb blast and howl with disappointment that peace has not yet come. Guess what? it won't come.
We need to stop lamenting like my elders did and prepare our young people to face war and make the nation powerful. We need to get the industries and opportunities going to make sure that our young are employed and equipped to respond to war with fire.
Laments are for those people who think peace will come after every bomb blast and howl with disappointment that peace has not yet come. Guess what? it won't come.
Abhi_G wrote:Last updates about B'lore blast in Indian newspapers are 14 - 16 hours old. Shows the pathetic situation we are in. We are being destroyed little by little by a million cuts. The future of this country is really bleak.Sorry for the pessimistic post.
-
member_20317
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 3167
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
Happy Navratras.
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
deleted
Last edited by shiv on 18 Apr 2013 09:36, edited 2 times in total.
-
member_20317
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 3167
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
^^ 
Shivji you are faster then a flying bullet.
I thought I had deleted it.
Sorry I admit to all my crimes.
Shivji you are faster then a flying bullet.
I thought I had deleted it.
Sorry I admit to all my crimes.
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
Forget it. Mine is deleted too. Circumcised after circumspection
-
RamaY
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 17249
- Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
- Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
Shivji,
From a secular point the peace must be possible with Pakistan in near future.
After all our conflicts with Pakistan are more like border disputes and international water disputes.
- J&K, Siachen, Sir-creek etc are nothing but unresolved borders
- IWT is international water dispute similar to Brahmaputra issue with china
- Cross-border attacks are similar to Chinese patrols violating the borders, albeit with some firing, beheading etc.,
What is happening within Pakistan is an internal issue and India has nothing to do with it. India's interest in Afghanistan is linked to unresolved J&K border issue. So when J&K is solved Af-Pak issue is also solved.
If India can have peace with China, why not Pakistan? China and Pakistan are in same league as far as India is concerned, right?
From a secular point the peace must be possible with Pakistan in near future.
After all our conflicts with Pakistan are more like border disputes and international water disputes.
- J&K, Siachen, Sir-creek etc are nothing but unresolved borders
- IWT is international water dispute similar to Brahmaputra issue with china
- Cross-border attacks are similar to Chinese patrols violating the borders, albeit with some firing, beheading etc.,
What is happening within Pakistan is an internal issue and India has nothing to do with it. India's interest in Afghanistan is linked to unresolved J&K border issue. So when J&K is solved Af-Pak issue is also solved.
If India can have peace with China, why not Pakistan? China and Pakistan are in same league as far as India is concerned, right?
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
The below was written in another context, somewhere else. But think it applies.
>> Why is that bad?
Our system and its “design intent”. We have 40 OFB’s, DRDO (with 48 labs) + 8 more defense sector PSU’s. Even after decades, HAL is not an aircraft design agency in the classic sense, they are more happy to upgrade and produce foreign aircraft with “deep” TOT rather than devote energies on the Tejas or they are on to the next, next gen project such as the AMCA, without first maturing the Tejas platform. The Israeli radar on Tejas was an acknowledgment that our own AESA is not ready and nowhere close to the needs of the forces.
The forces are happy to import the “latest” from foreign sources (did you see the recent news of $2 million for a single mid range missile, like the MICA on the M2K) instead of working with internal organizations with reasonable GSQRs, participation and even compromise taking into account our capability levels and likely threats.
To top it all a government that is happy to spend a little over 2% on defense and continue with the general state of affairs, which is possible due to the severe lack of accountability in our system of governance – especially on security policies.
The design intent of the system was statist and bureaucratic and never to build a MIC, which has to be driven by a mercantilist framework to succeed and thrive. The result is till 2001, while we were importing from the rest of the world from “private” foreign companies, Indian private companies were barred from the MIC.
It is not that they do not try, they do. Agni III alone was completely built by private companies, some 248 of them. L&T, Mahindras and Tatas are some big names “trying” to get a foot hold into a space, where if the policies and structure are set right, a profitable venture is virtually assured with the huge and diverse needs of the Indian military. But how many are willing to invest in a game where “none” of the parties concerned in government is committed to building an indigenous MIC.
What is needed are the right structures and the right design intent. The design intent should be a MIC rooted in mercantilist principles. The structure should be such that all interested parties, MOD, the forces and labs work towards such a framework.
The current mess is not unlike Augean Stables where there is no room for reform and a Herculean effort is needed to clean up the mess. The entire statist structure has to go. OFB’s and majority of DRDO have to be divested – save for strategic programs and core research.
Inviting more FDI, even from well meaning Israel, where much of the relationship will be a win-win – without this reset of the “design intent” will be a serious handicap to India’s great power ambitions. Great power without hard power is a chimera. This hard power has to largely stem from indigenous sources. But, without such a hard reset, the next best bet is to invite friendly countries and allow them to invest in an Indian MIC. Maybe we are destined to be laggards for a long time to come.
>> Why is that bad?
Our system and its “design intent”. We have 40 OFB’s, DRDO (with 48 labs) + 8 more defense sector PSU’s. Even after decades, HAL is not an aircraft design agency in the classic sense, they are more happy to upgrade and produce foreign aircraft with “deep” TOT rather than devote energies on the Tejas or they are on to the next, next gen project such as the AMCA, without first maturing the Tejas platform. The Israeli radar on Tejas was an acknowledgment that our own AESA is not ready and nowhere close to the needs of the forces.
The forces are happy to import the “latest” from foreign sources (did you see the recent news of $2 million for a single mid range missile, like the MICA on the M2K) instead of working with internal organizations with reasonable GSQRs, participation and even compromise taking into account our capability levels and likely threats.
To top it all a government that is happy to spend a little over 2% on defense and continue with the general state of affairs, which is possible due to the severe lack of accountability in our system of governance – especially on security policies.
The design intent of the system was statist and bureaucratic and never to build a MIC, which has to be driven by a mercantilist framework to succeed and thrive. The result is till 2001, while we were importing from the rest of the world from “private” foreign companies, Indian private companies were barred from the MIC.
It is not that they do not try, they do. Agni III alone was completely built by private companies, some 248 of them. L&T, Mahindras and Tatas are some big names “trying” to get a foot hold into a space, where if the policies and structure are set right, a profitable venture is virtually assured with the huge and diverse needs of the Indian military. But how many are willing to invest in a game where “none” of the parties concerned in government is committed to building an indigenous MIC.
What is needed are the right structures and the right design intent. The design intent should be a MIC rooted in mercantilist principles. The structure should be such that all interested parties, MOD, the forces and labs work towards such a framework.
The current mess is not unlike Augean Stables where there is no room for reform and a Herculean effort is needed to clean up the mess. The entire statist structure has to go. OFB’s and majority of DRDO have to be divested – save for strategic programs and core research.
Inviting more FDI, even from well meaning Israel, where much of the relationship will be a win-win – without this reset of the “design intent” will be a serious handicap to India’s great power ambitions. Great power without hard power is a chimera. This hard power has to largely stem from indigenous sources. But, without such a hard reset, the next best bet is to invite friendly countries and allow them to invest in an Indian MIC. Maybe we are destined to be laggards for a long time to come.
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
You would be better off with the french than the israelis. Very little to choose between them and both are hell bent on not transferring any design inputs.ShauryaT wrote:The below was written in another context, somewhere else. But think it applies.
Inviting more FDI, even from well meaning Israel, where much of the relationship will be a win-win – without this reset of the “design intent” will be a serious handicap to India’s great power ambitions. Great power without hard power is a chimera. This hard power has to largely stem from indigenous sources. But, without such a hard reset, the next best bet is to invite friendly countries and allow them to invest in an Indian MIC. Maybe we are destined to be laggards for a long time to come.
even of you bought complete designs from either at enormous cost, they will leave out crucial design bits that our dunderheads are too dumb to see are missing until it is too late.
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
Some more written at another time, different context (TATRA Deal), but it applies.
--------
Follow the money trail. When the MoD decides to award a contract, which may have a DPSU as is the case here, a key vendor-customer relationship is broken. An inbuilt assumption of such a relationship is the customer ensures that it has received value for the monies paid.
When crony companies become this vendor, such as a DPSU, under control of MoD, or one of friends, such as Mr. Ravi Rishi of Vectra – a key natural accountability that would exist is lost.
No system is perfect, but some are better than others. What is the MoD’s job, if not to ensure that Government money is well spent and the security needs of the country is served. However, this service cannot be rendered by the GoI. This paternalistic attitude has to stop. The massive monopolistic government owned infrastructure of DPSU, OFB, DRDO (save for some strategic programs and advanced research) has to be privatized. It is only on a commercial basis a sustained MIC can be built.
We cannot become a great power, without this MIC in place.
--------
Follow the money trail. When the MoD decides to award a contract, which may have a DPSU as is the case here, a key vendor-customer relationship is broken. An inbuilt assumption of such a relationship is the customer ensures that it has received value for the monies paid.
When crony companies become this vendor, such as a DPSU, under control of MoD, or one of friends, such as Mr. Ravi Rishi of Vectra – a key natural accountability that would exist is lost.
No system is perfect, but some are better than others. What is the MoD’s job, if not to ensure that Government money is well spent and the security needs of the country is served. However, this service cannot be rendered by the GoI. This paternalistic attitude has to stop. The massive monopolistic government owned infrastructure of DPSU, OFB, DRDO (save for some strategic programs and advanced research) has to be privatized. It is only on a commercial basis a sustained MIC can be built.
We cannot become a great power, without this MIC in place.
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
Isn't it really odd?ShauryaT wrote:
To top it all a government that is happy to spend a little over 2% on defense and continue with the general state of affairs, which is possible due to the severe lack of accountability in our system of governance – especially on security policies.
India faces a threat from a 2.5 million man China army + 600 thousand Pakistan army
We face 2000 Chinese aircraft and 300 Paki aircraft
We will have the largest single pool of employable manpower in the world in a few years
And yet our netas take mindless pride in quoting the "2% onlee" for the defence budget as though spending more would make them Hitler
How blind are our leaders?
We have a huge threat. We have the resources to face the challenge. But we do not seem to have the vision needed to start work NOW!
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
It is worse. We have lost territory to both! We face unresolved boundaries and adversarial relationships with both. We are getting screwed in the geo-political game for access to resources, ability to secure interests, we enjoy no preferential advantage in ALL international bodies, with either a second rung status or a defacto exclusion. An MIC can go a long way to address much of the issues.shiv wrote: Isn't it really odd?
India faces a threat from a 2.5 million man China army + 600 thousand Pakistan army
We face 2000 Chinese aircraft and 300 Paki aircraft
We will have the largest single pool of employable manpower in the world in a few years
Our leaders are not stupid, they are simply not qualified and neither do we have a system that demands and places value on these qualifications. There does not exist an institutionalized structure to address some of these issues. We lack a systemic integration of policy matters interlinked with expertise or a structure that makes the decision makers adequately accountable by those, who understand and are vested in such accountabilities.
In a bottoms up system that we have, where the electorate selects from the bottom, a set that has no competence to deal with such matters end up being the decision makers. I mean the goons of a party like the SP, sit on the defense committee in parliament. We have a democracy that is interested the "romanticizing" the people and not to address structural issues. When is the last time a full detail of the defense budget was published in the media and how many understand the implications of the defense budget?
Good people can come in and make changes, even in a bad system but is the country to wait for these good people to descend from heavens and wait for deliverance? But then the counter question is, who will make these structural changes so that in the future there are better mechanisms institutionalized for needs, such as the MIC to be addressed and not a complete reliance to super men to be in charge?
Can we invent another Mahatma? Maybe, we should have an EIC 2.0, just so that we can get a MKG 2.0
The mess is deep, very deep that, I have personally resigned for only incremental changes in my lifetime.PS: I know you know all of this, I am just playing along.
-
brihaspati
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 12410
- Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Re: Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years
Oh no! Not again! Not another MKG redux. Please. Only one positive lesson to be learned from him - how to reduce a seemingly trivial issue or question into something that shows to the public that their rulers' interests are contradictory to the peoples' interests. Forcing the question into a format where rulers and the ruled are forced to choose sides - and on opposite sides of the fence.
This is one way - the MKG way of alienating the people from their rulers. Just because he wanted to reign them in when it became a matter of jeopardizing party power and apaatre apatya sneha - does not negate the earlier move in the right direction.
This is one way - the MKG way of alienating the people from their rulers. Just because he wanted to reign them in when it became a matter of jeopardizing party power and apaatre apatya sneha - does not negate the earlier move in the right direction.