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
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?
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.
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.
Sorry for the pessimistic post.
The mess is deep, very deep that, I have personally resigned for only incremental changes in my lifetime.