Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

[RayC]

Chiron,

One wonders if India can dominate the areas that you mentioned which possibly would amount to a fourth of the global space. Neither do I think that people would like to get Indianised. Colonialism is a past horror, if I may use the word.

IMHO, I do not have the figures but to dominate the Indian Ocean or even west of Mumbai to the African coast will require a huge navy and the finances will never be enough to organise or maintain such a force.

As far as China is concerned, the Chinese mentality has to be understood. Wars in the past before 1962 did not occur because China was cobbling up its own identity. If you look at the Understanding the Chinese thread, you will realise that they were in the process of Hanisation of the ‘barbarians’. The Himalayas too acted as a barrier and Tibet was an independent country.

While it is true that China and India should coexist, yet realpolitik to my mind would indicate otherwise.

JMT

[RayC]

Pranav,

Thank you, for your views.

China in 1962 quit Arunachal, not because of goodness of their heart, but because it was not militarily feasible to hold on such a huge tract of land on foot tracks and a handful of mule tracks. It would be as unsustainable as Pakistanis holding onto Kargil Heights without maintenance and supply or medevac. The Chinese did not leave any areas taken in the West since it was possible to maintain the occupation troops as also move in artillery.

Chinese support to SL is in its strategic interest since it will allow them to have berthing facilities and maybe even a naval base in SL and thereby ensuring Chinese military presence in the Indian Ocean as also further their String of Pearls strategy. And China has always extended military and other assistance to all repressive regimes eg Zimbabwe et al. They cover this with platitudes that they do not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.

Marwaris being businessmen have a say in the nation’s economy as they did in Bangladesh and also they do so in Nepal and yet they do not assimilate with the locals. This causes heartburns. Fortunately they are sharp and so the buy their peace.

[raji]

Question on POK for all those in the know....(at least far more in the know than me).

1. Why do you say, Ray, that taking POK is militarily not possible ? Are the major obstacles, Pak nukes and threat of direct Chinese intervention ? What if US backs India, indirectly ?

2. If Pak nukes are nuetralized by the US via one of several or combination of means (this means, US is backing India's recapturing of POK), and the Chinese are aware of US backing, would they(Chinese) directly intervene ?

3. IF the Chinese dont directly intervene and Pak nukes are neutralized........would not a 30 or a 60 day conventional war do the trick for us ? What other than Pak Nukes and threat of direct Chinese intervention are major issues, if US gives its tacit backing ? Is the terrain really that impossible ? Whats wrong with Samuel's and Brihispati's maps and thrust scenarios ?

4. I personally think, that reclaiming POK is only even thinkable, if US tacitly backs, I feel US may be brought around to backing such a move if they continue to fail in AFPAK, get their existing supply routes into AF further destabilized and India makes a very aggressive and targetted diplomatic offensive in Washington and other Western capitals explaining their claims to POK and how they can strike a deal with the US for a secure corridor into AF via Northern Areas.

5. Then......you can count on the Pakis to give India and US a very nice excuse in the form of another hotel bombing, train bombing, bus bombing, and if none of these materialize, some infiltration......or killing of a few civilians in JK

[RayC]

POK would be a tough nut to crack, but dissension in the Northern Area is feasible since it is Shia dominated and Pakistan is trying to change the demography by planting Afghan/ Pashtun Sunnis there.

We cannot formulate strategic policies on the impossible.

You just formulated a strategic objective to crack PoK. That's a great first step.
Should one ask why you are trying to "crack" it? What happens on the other side of LOC, "better if it were IB", is none of our business, isn't it?

You don't need to get into semantics of what a strategic objective is or should be. We lost PoK, we lost Aksai chin. This wasn't a "partition" loss even. The idea is "Don't forget and don't let go." NOT "no regrets!"

And the excuse of an answer "we were weak then, try it now" isn't convincing! With pressures via pak, bd, myanmar, sl and nepal only increasing (NOT decreasing), a situation can arise where the country is compelled to fight economically and militarily on enough fronts to lose Arunachal.

Our nation collectively will certainly have an excuse and continue defending our posts after that, with full determination!

So! Please make it easy for this to NOT happen by preventing it from coming to us! Take it to them!

So!! I think we understand where the strategic objective to "crack pok" comes from and we realize it is a tough one.

Step two. What will have to happen to accomplish it.
- How can we weaken Pak's hold on PoK.
- How can we better treat and integrate our J&K.
- How can we militarily box PoK?
- How can we create pressure elsewhere for Pakistan?
- What can we trade with other more powerful nations to gain a good posture for us towards PoK.
- Can we create awareness and sentiment among our own people of the plight and necessity for PoK reintegration?
- Can we get "strategic" assets to run through it. Pipeline diplomacy for a pipleine to CAR in which we will have a stake defending?
- Can we bring PoK up at every meeting and ask that Pakistan vacate it.

As a general way, first control the "boundary conditions" and then create the pressure. Solutions will start to emerge where they once seemed remote or impossible. Don't give up, don't forget!

Thanks
S

Good point. What happens across the LC or IB is none of our business. And yet there is talk on this thread IIRC of taking over POK etc!!

No, I am not going into any semantics of what the strategic objective should be. It is just that the thread is titled “Re: Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent”. And from that many a poster has postulated their ideas as I have also done. Now, if you can enlighten us as to what could be included and not included in a discussion on the Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent, it would be a great boon.

Yes, we have not only lost POK and Aksai Chin, but also the Northern Area (which is not a part of POK). No one has suggested that we forget, but it is equally odd, given the situation and wherewithal, to feel that it can be taken back in a jiffy. I would humbly state that anyone with a modicum of military background would agree that it is not currently feasible overtly. The only way it can be done is the way how the Rainbow Revolutions were brought about in the erstwhile states of the Soviet Union. That is what I am stating in response to those who wish to take over POK with military action or ask the US to make routes to India through POK etc. Given the Indo Pak relations, I am not too sure that Pakistan would allow routes to India through their held territories and then allow IA to defend such strategic assets?

I am trifle befuddled. On the one hand, you state ‘Don’t forget. Don’t let go’ and in the same breath you state that we will lose Arunachal. And then you state that we should take the war to them! Rather confusing. Maybe I have not got your drift.

Likewise, it is interesting that you feel the complete neighbourhood will gang up against India. That is too far fetched as I see it. It maybe worthwhile to check up on how dependent the neighbours are on Indian products so that one realises that to crush India economically will be a Herculean task. If the goods were imported from elsewhere the cost would skyrocket in transportation and handling.

Militarily all will take on India ie. Pak, China, BD, Myanmar, SL etc? That will be the day is what I feel. Again map gazing is not the answer. One has to understand the terrain and the military implications. Take the case of Sikkim as an example. There is a height 6666 metres. Calculate it in feet. The ratio for victory is 12:1. And there are many such heights held. Sikkim and AP is all High Altitude. So much of troops will be required. Thereafter, even if the IA does a strategic withdrawal and keep holding successive heights rearwards, can the Chinese artillery have a hope in hell to move? And without artillery what are the chances and artillery in the mountains is chancy since there are overs and shorts and very few rounds actually land on the objective. In Kargil, PGMs were used and Bofors used in Direct role as if they were tank guns!! Then our IAF will not be sitting pretty either! The Chinese have a disadvantage since they will be using HAA airfields and so the payload will be less.

I assure you that we are holding on to our posts with all determination. Even if they come, we are ready. As far as taking it to them is concerned, it is a political decision and not a military one. I would not like to discuss details of this, but one should remember Bana Post and such like events. I don’t think the IA takes everything lying down. And such actions were not dictated by the political masters either!

J&K is an interesting subject. The popular image that they are against India is not totally correct or that they do not like the Indian Army. It is just that they are in a bind with the terrorists on one side and the Security Forces on the other. And the terrorist have an advantage (which the Kashmiris know i.e. that they are beyond courts and human rights organisations). That there has been a groundswell in the election is not because of any ingenuous policy of the Govts, be it the State or the Centre. To a great extent it has been the Army’s programme of Op Sadbhavna. Schools, community centres, playing facilities, sponsored visit to mainland India etc has changed the mind of the youth, who are voters now. Whenever a trip is planned to Mainland India, there is a clamour that their children be taken and there is a huge waiting list. The civilians bank on the Army for their needs than the District Administration since the latter is corrupt to the core! This programme of the Army has to be seen to be believed.

The only way to weaken Pakistan and not only POK is to encourage subnationalism as in Balochistan and which Pakistan is already accusing India of doing. Indeed, if India is at it, India is doing a yeoman’s service. Encourage Balwaristan also.

Boxing POK militarily is an issue that I leave it to the mandarins here. I have not the foggiest since my long association with Kashmir, both as a civilian and as a military officer, gives me no solution except covert ops.

Even if one gets a pipeline through POK (very remote and I would be surprised if that happens), how can we think that Pakistan will allow us to ‘defend’ it? Will be allow Pakistan Army to defend anything on our territory?

Regards

[Rony]

RayCji,
you deliberately ignore logical consistency when you decide to trash up others arguments. You are basically used to constantly try and shift terms of reference in any discussion, and your main target is the individual behind a line of argument that upsets your sense of control or power or authority. We live in different time zones, and I have no obligation to continue answering your deliberately provocative posts losing my sleep, as I too have to work for a living.

The connection to strategy started because I had mentioned the possibility of India taking up the pro-democracy cause as a humanitarian intervention strategy, which will force the Chinese hand behind support of the junta to be exposed, as PRC will have to run the extra mile to bolster the junta.

The whole line of arguments started because you tried to defend the "past non-interventionist" stratgey of the West, as being something specially difficult and resistant in the Burmese junta, and therefore India should also copy the "West".

I tried to show that the West has long term intersts from the Cold War period as well as continued "investments" until recent times to have no sincere interest in "intervention" and removal of the junta from power.

No, but you had to go on and quote trade data claims by UK, in very recent times, as proof of total opposition by the West to the junta. To which I had to quote investment data to show that in spite of all such talk, investments had continued until very recently, and that even now the West can invest indirectly.

After all that you of course, true to to your typical tactic, had to ask where is the connection to strategic interests comes from. The circular logic was coming from you yourself trying to discount intervention by India on the basis of supposed non-intrevntion in the past by the West, and then forgetting it all why the whole discussion started.

I have no interest in personal assessments. But I do find your lack of preparation in topics like this rather odd. Before you talk smugly about West and Myanmar, you need to spend some time tracking the detailed politics of this region from colonial period, right through the KuoMinDang incursions, and the consequent Cold War posturings including the history of the Communist Party of Burma, its splits, and the connections of the West to the rise of the military in power, as well as close business interests that continue, directly and indirectly.

I have said this before, and I repeat : our areas of professional expertise do not overlap. I do not question your knowledge of the "military" and military experience, but I do not think you are used to wider historical, geo-political analysis. This latter is not my main academic expertise, but I collaborate academically with experts in the area, and I have been part of collaborations resulting in peer reviewed papers. We have to be extremely thorough in preparing arguments as otherwise they would be thouroughly "trashed" in much more impersonal fashion than you are capable of.

Military doctrines are also products of the times and source by which they are created, and depend on political perceptions, technological limitations, and political strategy. There are essential continuities as well as significant departures depending on context, and this is one area which is also not static.

If you cannot manage impersonal discussions, and prefer to waste your energies on personal "digs" and attacks, please do not engage in any discussion with me. It worries me then, for I begin to wonder, whether there are more mentalities like you populating the command structure of the army, who are driven by a need to gain personal authority and cannot psychologically handle any imagined challenge to that authority.

Excellent post Brihaspati Ji. The amount of Western investments in Burma simply does not add up with the western nautanki about lack of democracy in Burma. Also people who think that America will support India because of China are being delusional.They are simply ignoring the interdependence connections between US and China as well as the convergence of interests between US and China in curtailing and limiting India's Strategic programmes. US wants India to be like Japan, completely dependent on america for its security with no worthwhile defence capability of its own.MMS also has same vision for India.No wonder even a dork like Vir Sanghvi also called MMS (in a heat of an argument) an 'external plant' in the congress party .

[Atri]

How about a national trade policy which castigates the imports from those nations which help TSP?

There no need to snap the business ties altogether.. But isn't it a reasonable step to heavily increase the duties on the imports from those nations. China will suffer the most followed by perhaps USA. But the Indo-US cooperation is much more diverse than Sino-Indian trade which is more or less buy-and-sell situation. Won't this create an international pressure of immense magnitude which will actually work in India's favour. All that is required is wait for next big terrorist strike emanating from TSP (which is bound to happen) and formally declare Pakistan as terrorist state. Pakistan will in turn declare India as terrorist state (== syndrome) and snap ties with India.

But global community won't care a damn about loosing Paki market if it is given an either-or choice vis-a-vis Indian market.

Bhaarat should use her domestic market as a leverage to make people fall in line..

[samuel]

The subcontinent includes PoK.
POK is a part of India. You know, the map of India that we and our GOVT puts out and read and learn and get upset about when it is not shown as such.

So! Can I drive to PoK and enjoy it as a citizen? Obviously not! (this is true elsewher e and that is ALSO a problem).

Is POK a part of India or not? If it is, why are we defending passes within our country AND why are we not working to get PoK back (and yes, northern areas). How are we going to do it, that is the question.

A proposal for "taking it in a jiffy" is NOT placed in front of us. We discuss here "a FUTURE strategic scenaro" because it is the TITLE of this thread.

But do we FIRST agree that POK is a part of INDIA and we must have it? Or, are we going to say, let's defer that question because it is not feasible?

S

[RamaY]

Marwaris being businessmen have a say in the nation’s economy as they did in Bangladesh and also they do so in Nepal and yet they do not assimilate with the locals. This causes heartburns. Fortunately they are sharp and so the buy their peace.

Interesting perspective! Earlier you used similar logic regarding the Sikh population struck in SWAT region where Taliban are demanding zizya. Looks like Indian leadership, both political and military, in its current formation is completely useless when it comes to

- Protecting indian interests w.r.t it's expatriate population
- Displaying a unified front (of Bharat) instead of viewing the expatriate population as Sikhs/Marvaris/Tamils
- taking strategic risks to protect Indian interests and projecting Indian influence and power
- Using military power to achieve its national interest objectives (AP/POK/Aksaichin and Pakistan/BD/Burma/Srilanka)

Is there any specific reason behind this risk aversion by our political/military leadership? I see it in our national response to 1947/Aksai-chin/AP type strategic issues and more tactical issues like Mumbai Attacks. And your view that it would be financially untenable to develop a required naval force to influence the area between our west coast and Africa reflects that thought process to me.

[RayC]

Myanmar's military junta's mythic survival capacity against supposed western attempts, are not that difficult to work out. There simply has been no serious attempt at all by the West to destabilize the junta that capture power in 1988. Coups are not new to Burma. General Aung San first used the Japanese to drive out the British when Japan seemed ascendant, and then invited the British to drive the Japanese out when the Axis was obviously getting weak. There were earlier that 88 coups, for example 62. The basic reason was the complex interplay of Cold War interests of the US and UK. They backed up the KMT units who entered the northern Shan province after being defeated by the Communists in mainland China. The CPB itself was infiltrated and split into the two "flags", and groups within the military then prompted to get involved.

Business and financial links have continued to flourish with military junta, from the west. UK maintains huge investments in Mynamar. Others within the Western sphere have sold vital military hardware. Japan, post war, US-tied Japan, was the first to restore ties with Myanmar after the junta took over, and for a long long time, remained the biggest donor (at least until 2005-7 - afterwards I do not have data to compare with China, which has forwarded huge loans against arms purchases). The drugs trade follows through Chinese borders into Hong Kong and other Chinese dissemination points in SE Asia (probably a poetical justice of a reverse Opium War). It is only very recently, US has moved against the junta, primarily under the cover of anti-drug initiatives, and roped in Thailand which has longs tanding disputes with Myanmar.

I am afraid I don’t really ignore consistency when replying. Indeed, I was flabbergasted at the contention that the West supports the Myanmar junta economically. I posted the facts just to clear the air. If that is inconsistency, my apologies.

I don’t shift terms of references, I only go for facts and not high flaunting philosophical postulations in fancy English that obfuscate the content and intent and yet appear very educated. I am afraid I am afraid and butter man and philosophical and esoteric pious platitudes cause me to react.

Indeed, we are in different time zones. I work on the computer at night and the morning. And it is not that I am totally unemployed. I work but I am always ready to learn and be at it. We are taught in our profession to never give up the ship. Should you find it hard to keep pace, it is your problem. I assure you I too have a living and am not an idle rich! The day I win the Rs 17 crore lottery, you won't find me there to torment you.

That PRC is not pro democracy and is in support of all repressive regimes requires no nudge from India. There are enough examples to prove that China supports repressive regimes. The West is working overtime to tell the world. Why jump into the muddy waters and have your body soiled?

Let us say India intervene in Myanmar. Will that help India? Please answer that? Are you aware of Myanmar’s cooperation on our Eastern front and the way they are at it to the R0ohingyyas and causing a problem for BD? Now, should we upset this cosy nest? We need not copy the West since that would be foolish. We should look after our interests. There is already a row over oil exploration between Myanmar and BD. That is in our interest.

I am sorry that the trade claims of the UK and the US upset your argument that these two countries are foisting the junta. I go by facts, but if you have ‘inside’ information, so be it.

I am still foggy about your ‘circular logic’ hypothesis. I am well aware how the discussion started and how it was veered into the esoteric realm and the ground realities given the go by. I can’t blame anyone. One has to be on the ground to realise the real issues. It is all very good to have Macmohan Singh as an Assamese for voting for a day, but if that bloke has no clue of the NE, he too will be on the esoteric roller coaster ride! Imagine, one of my officers who has retired is the head of a hydro electrical project in Arunachal since none wants to be there!! He floored me when I spoke to him. That much for ground realities and esoteric brouhaha! That much for how India functions!!

I am not also interested in personalities. Yet on strategy, I can hardly agree with you that I do not know the subject. Whatever makes you fell I am not aware? You live in the past since you have material to bank upon and appear ‘educated’ since you apparently have no foresight. I have a sense of history (ask Ramana who I an related to) and yet I prefer to look at the present and then into the future. I don’t wallow and lament over the past.

If I have no idea of geopolitical analysis, then the GOI has wasted its money on me and many others of my profession. Please understand one thing and that is after a certain rank, it is not tactics, it is strategy. Please do not underestimate India. We are fools to you, but don’t get surprised if we fool you!! I don’t collaborate. It was my brad and butter!

In case you feel that I am not impersonal in trashing your assumed ‘intellectualism’, I will ask the Lord to forgive me for the trespasses, but in my profession where things are a matter of life and death, we do not take things for granted and question it so, even though there is the incorrect belief that military men are robots.

I certain agree that I am nowhere in your expertise of trashing arguments with pseudo intellectualism which is so apparent!

I have no desire to engage in discussions with you since you are quite hollow. I have met many like you and it is no big deal for me. If you should take care not to reply to my post, I would be delighted to avoid the waste of time that I am subjected to.in answering to your otherwise inane posts that has pretensions.

Since you wish to be obtuse, I hope you will allow me the same privilege!

[RayC]

The subcontinent includes PoK.
POK is a part of India. You know, the map of India that we and our GOVT puts out and read and learn and get upset about when it is not shown as such.

So! Can I drive to PoK and enjoy it as a citizen? Obviously not! (this is true elsewher e and that is ALSO a problem).

Is POK a part of India or not? If it is, why are we defending passes within our country AND why are we not working to get PoK back (and yes, northern areas). How are we going to do it, that is the question.

A proposal for "taking it in a jiffy" is NOT placed in front of us. We discuss here "a FUTURE strategic scenaro" because it is the TITLE of this thread.

But do we FIRST agree that POK is a part of INDIA and we must have it? Or, are we going to say, let's defer that question because it is not feasible?

S

Anyone has stopped you?

Take it.

But lead from the front!

Not your post but just to add on I find it interesting that there are people who feel capturing areas or influencing areas is a piece of cake!!

They should join the Cabinet.

The second swearing in is said to be on Tuesday!

[RayC]

RamaY

How much does a ship cost?

How mcuh would a flotilla plus cost?

HOw many flotillas required plus reserve?

India has those resources?

If so, I am with you!

[RayC]

I tried to show that the West has long term intersts from the Cold War period as well as continued "investments" until recent times to have no sincere interest in "intervention" and removal of the junta from power.

Interventions?

Apparently you have not read Cheney's DPG and NEP.

Read it and come back!

Let's not talk vacuously.

[samuel]

Thank you for that confidence, even if it was said in sarcasm.

I am very happy to lead and earn the confidence of people I lead.

Leading starts now for thoughts on how to take POK, in ALL dimensions; not just the final military advance. I will be most delighted to hear of options and build consensus here, but if you want me to take lead, please wait for next post at the end of the day.

You can critique it, but don't mock it, just because I have the baton.
S

[RayC]

Thank you for that confidence, even if it was said in sarcasm.

I am very happy to lead and earn the confidence of people I lead.

Leading starts now for thoughts on how to take POK, in ALL dimensions; not just the final military advance. I will be most delighted to hear of options and build consensus here, but if you want me to take lead, please wait for next post at the end of the day.

You can critique it, but don't mock it, just because I have the baton.
S

Great.

So you are leading.

What are you leading?

And what is this baton you carry?

The Field Marshall's?

[RamaY]

RamaY

How much does a ship cost?

How mcuh would a flotilla plus cost?

HOw many flotillas required plus reserve?

India has those resources?

If so, I am with you!

I googled it and got the cost estimates. The question is will the cost results in a profitable return? What are the benefits of having absolute influence over IOC region? Is it worth spending $100+B on a strong naval force?

What is the value of POK to India? This is my value proposition.

- It would cut the physical connectivity between PRC and TSP. After 1990 (PRC atomic tests for TSP) the opportunity cost is ~250000+ lives ~$100B financial loss to India if TSP uses one of it's bums on Indian soil.

- Control over POK would have given access to Phuk-Af region and CAR. I would place the opportunity cost >= the annual aid TSP is receiving from Unkil.

- Complete suppression of J&K terrorism. The opportunity cost here is ~50000 lives lost in the past 15-20 years. How many lives were lost by our defense forces?

- No Kargil. This goes into the plus side of the balance sheet.

- Entire J&K is completely integrated into Indian union. The opportunity cost is >$1B financial support GOI is giving to JK govt for the past >10 years?

- Aksaichin - what is the price you are willing to put on KKH?

- Siachin - How much it is cost the indian exchequer?

The point is, do we want to pay the price once and take ownership of POK or keep paying the rent forever. Each logic has its own risk-reward dimensions. You appear to support the rent option like you mentioned in Marwari and Pakisthani-Sikh examples. One fine day the owner will ask you to vacate and you will not only lose your presence there but also your belongings.

From a military perspective what are the worse-case scenario costs to recapture POK region? Do they outweigh the opportunity costs listed above?

[Tilak]

Great.

So you are leading.

What are you leading?

And what is this baton you carry?

The Field Marshall's?

Excuse me!! But You need to lose that "chip on that shoulder". And just because you have "been in the army" or people not being in the "moderating team of BR", (ie. your thinly veiled threats..). Doesn't mean a thing.

Same questions can be flipped around and asked of you.. And you aint no "Field Marshall" either or) try "to be one" and lead.

[samuel]

And what is this baton you carry?

The Field Marshall's?

Have you ever run a relay race?
The person with baton runs (here, it means one who creates ideas).
You gave me the baton, have patience. Thank you
S

[harbans]

If 2 people start fighting over a loaf of bread, it does'nt matter who owns it. The world says...the bread is disputed.

India must:

1. Say it does'nt recognize Chinese sovereignity over Tibet.

2. It doesn't recognize the same on Aksai Chin.

3. It must say India wants the entire area in which Kailash and Mansarover lie to be a part of India as these are Hinduisms holiest sites and nothing to do with Buddhists or Han Chinese either in history or today.

4. India must start talks with Pakistan on return of these territories. If Pak wants to talk about Indian Kashmir, we want to talk on when Pak is returning POK.

5. Also since Australia is originally Astra + Alaya (Place of weapons..) ancient Indian land..we want atleast Western parts of Australia. If Australians laugh at us, we look back and say ok you don't agree with us, we agree to disagree. Lets not fight on this, lets talk. Trust me, in 5 years of talks we can get Western Australia to be recognized disputed territory.

[Atri]

1. Say it does'nt recognize Chinese sovereignity over Tibet.

2. It doesn't recognize the same on Aksai Chin.

3. It must say India wants the entire area in which Kailash and Mansarover lie to be a part of India as these are Hinduisms holiest sites and nothing to do with Buddhists or Han Chinese either in history or today.

4. If Pak wants to talk about Indian Kashmir, we want to talk on when Pak is returning POK.

5. Also since Australia is originally Astra + Alaya (Place of weapons..) ancient Indian land..we want atleast Western parts of Australia. If Australians laugh at us, we look back and say ok you don't agree with us, we agree to disagree. Lets not fight on this, lets talk. Trust me, in 5 years of talks we can get Western Australia to be recognized disputed territory.

1. Too early for that... We can't afford that today

2. The mention of Aksai Chin can slowly start coming in Indian media from GOI

3. Too early for that.. We can't afford that today.. but excellent argument when we can afford that

4. Perfecto... add to that Northern areas as well... The chai-biskoot sessions can begin with TSP regarding Pak returning PoK and northern areas to India and the demand should increasingly put forth in Indian media just to rattle their cage.. On the event of next major terrorist attack on India whose links are seen proven towards TSP, suspend all relations, declare TSP as terrorist state, threaten to review (not suspend) IWT, start putting strictures on allies of Pakistan regarding their share and availability of Indian domestic market. All this should be done in spur of moment when world is on our side. GOI should have done all this on 27th-28th of November 2008.

5.

[RayC]

Great.

So you are leading.

What are you leading?

And what is this baton you carry?

The Field Marshall's?

Excuse me!! But You need to lose that "chip on that shoulder". And just because you have "been in the army" or people not being in the "moderating team of BR", (ie. your thinly veiled threats..). Doesn't mean a thing.

Same questions can be flipped around and asked of you.. And you aint no "Field Marshall" either or) try "to be one" and lead.

Sweetheart,

I never claimed I had a baton in the knapsack!

No chip on the shoulder either.

But it is like a Phd in English Literature (highly educated in general terms) educating Montek Ahluwalia what is economics!

Moderators chip is also not on the shoulder! Seen any of it?

Keep to the point and discuss. Divergent view is acceptable, and replies too!

I dont give threats. I act immediately! But I give a lot of rope. I know my place in society and have no reasons to fight to prove it so.

So spare yourself from some sweating. You have still not reached the threshold. Patience is my middle name.

[RayC]

And what is this baton you carry?

The Field Marshall's?

Have you ever run a relay race?
The person with baton runs (here, it means one who creates ideas).
You gave me the baton, have patience. Thank you
S

Indeed I have old boy.

But in the military, a baton is the field marshall's and he is the only one who need not salute but tip his baton to his cap!

That is the problem. All know everything of the military and yet they know nothing and come out naked! And then get aggressive!

Capture POK. Bifurcate Pakistan. Wonderful to hear, but why has it not been done so far? That begs an answer. The Armed Force weak or there is no loitical will or is it a pipedream given the global circumstances?

If BRF posters were ruling and the circumstances ideal, the world would be in India's pocket!

It is like us telling Manmohan how to run the govt.

The phrase - uneasy lies the head that wears the crown - is very apt!

Wear the Crown and then talk!

[RamaY]

It is like us telling Manmohan how to run the govt.

Deve Gowda, IKG, Laloo, Mayavathi, Mulayam, DMK also ran/running govts. Our MMS-ji is also running (or is it Sonia-ji) a govt. But where is it taking this nation? Tomorrow Rahul-ji will also run a govt if Indian democracy blesses him.

Could you please lead the discussion instead of arguments?

[RayC]

It is like us telling Manmohan how to run the govt.

Deve Gowda, IKG, Laloo, Mayavathi, Mulayam, DMK also ran/running govts. Our MMS-ji is also running (or is it Sonia-ji) a govt. But where is it taking this nation? Tomorrow Rahul-ji will also run a govt if Indian democracy blesses him.

Could you please lead the discussion instead of arguments?

The discussion is moving on stream but the arguments thrown in after my post requires reply.

I don't expect all to agree and why should they?

But facts are to be forward and not pipedreams.

I gave a statement and that brought out arguments.

Please point out any pipedream that I have forwarded.

So, it is not me who is to blame. It is you and your fellow travellers since you have no facts and figures to deliver. High on gas but low on mileage!

I agree it is quite a pain to confront someone who has been there and done that when one wants to dwell in the esoteric, philosophy and areas where there is no requirement of hard facts and so act 'intellectual'.

And yes I have been in the Army Tilak. Can't help it. It is history and experience. Anyone stopped you from being there? So, what is your chip on your shoulder?

Reveille!

[RamaY]

But facts are to be forward and not pipedreams.

Very true. Facts and ground realities must be the basis for any planning.

Since we are in Future Strategic Scenario, the ideas that appear pipe dreams today must be made into facts of tomorrow.

This is the same question I asked in the other (locked) thread. Do we want to accept the historical fact of pakistani-minorities or setting a new fact today by imposing reverse-Zizya on Muslim populations where they are minority? What we do today creates a new history for tomorrow. Otherwise, we will keep developing new POKs/Aksaichins and BD lands.

BRF itself is a forum where ideas are discussed, not realities implemented.

[RayC]

Since we are in Future Strategic Scenario, the ideas that appear pipe dreams today must be made into facts of tomorrow

Like what?

Yes all is pipedreams but some facts must be there to back it.

Please leave Hinduvta out and spreading it world wide.

Then we can discuss.

Take this question asked of me:

Have you ever run a relay race?

Indeed I have.

But should I ask the question that have you climbed 6666m in a simulated attack? I am sue you would agree that it would be silly to ask this question when the person has no idea where 6666 is, let alone ever braving to climb it even as a tourist!!

These are the posts that deviate from the issue to act 'intelligent' and cutely smart!

[RamaY]

Since we are in Future Strategic Scenario, the ideas that appear pipe dreams today must be made into facts of tomorrow

Like what?

Please leave Hinduvta out and spreading it world wide.

Then we an discuss.

Nice try

Seriously, talking about Indian national interests is Hindutva to you?

When I talk about protecting religious minority freedoms in Islamic countries it appears Hindutva to you. Your solution to those issues is accept the "ground-reality" even if it results in genocide outside our borders. So what moral authority you want to build for India?

When I ask questions about lost Indian territories by our political/military leadership and you bring cost/benefit analysis. I am still waiting your response on my cost-benefit analysis.

Why are you so interested in bringing Hindutva word into every discussion? Is it your way to get threads locked? soon we will have threads only on PRC and TSP in BRF. I still do not understand how BRF is allowing a nonsensical thread like Baki-Bositive news in its strategic forum but locks threads pertinent to our national identity and interests.

[raji]

Rayc,

We understand that you dont think it is practical to take POK in today's context. We also understand that your opinion comes based on your being in the army and therefore, having intimate knowledge of military scenarios, strategies, limitations, other side's capabilities, terrain etc in addition to what everyone else knows about the current political situation in India and its geo-political and geo-strategic context.

To be fair, please note that no one here thinks its going to be a piece of cake.

But, I think you would agree with the following points:

1) It is a desirable thing.

2) It is no secret that the Indian governments have been and are willing to give away POK in exchange for Pak recognition of Indian held Kashmir as Indian. It is the Pak government's position that has kept POK still disputed.

3) It will be a delicious irony if India can turn this around and at least start bringing POK back on the diplomatic and military radar screen.

4) Diplomatically, it gives India a bargaining chip, however weak, but its a free chip, it doesnt cost us anything to keep bringing this up (not to be confused with the "chip on the shoulder" refered to earlier.. )

5) Militarily, we(Indian army, politicians, government, civil society, media etc) should always play out proactively, scenarios which will land POK back into our lap (this is not to be confused with anyone suggesting it is going to be anything but extremely difficult in the best of scenarios). The reason is, that geo political situation keeps changing. We should be ever ready to take advantage of any opportunity that arises for us anywhere in the world, but certainly in our neighborhood. Developing and playing out scenario is also FREE and has no cost, except perhaps it irritates you a little bit, as you being on the inside know the enormity of the task which you dont think others here realize. I mean, who would have thought in the year 2000, that the Americans will ever be in our neighborhood, creating the ever so discernable crack through which there is a semblence of sunshine, where POK northern routes have become more critical than they ever were.

6) I was only suggesting, that if the stars aligned properly, where the Americans want to make a determined stand, their supply routes became a little more squeezed, they truly lose that base in Central Asia, which closed the US base under pressure from Russia, and India does its part, it may be possible to make a politico-military deal with the Americans to get their backing for us on POK. The rest is upto us Indians. If we fall short despite having a deal with the Americans, it will be a great lost opportunity. I am not even saying that there is an opportunity yet, but it is not inconceivable that it might develop.....if things continue to go bad for the Americans. So, while it may have been a pipe dream even a couple of years ago, it doesnt seem to be a pipe dream in todays scenario (or does it ?)

7) I look forward to getting Samuel's scenarios for POK soon and also input from others such as Brihispati and others in the know. But I acknowledge you as our expert military strategist, and I would be very keen to find the answers of the following questions from you. Please dont reject them out of hand.

a) Is it your position that there is no scenario where India can reclaim POK ?
b) If not, then please layout your scenarios.......which I am very interested in, considering your background
c) What is the cost of bringing the talk about POK back into the limelight, in media, diplomacy, our discussions with
Pak and also our discussions with everyone Internationally including PRC
d) What is the cost of doing a reset on our discussions on settling the border with PRC to the very begining, which
will take us back to India's starting position that Aksai Chin is ours and Tibet is not recognized as part of PRC ? It
seems to me that PRC has successfully been able to get India to recognize Tibet as theirs and practically drop our
claims on Aksai Chin without giving us anything in return, except arming our neighbor to the teeth, including
nuclear weapons. The objective is not to actually retake any territory at this point from PRC, but two 1) preserve
what we hold right now, and 2) to make them realize that the days of getting unilateral concessions from
India are over
e) What is the cost of de-recognizing Tibet as Chinese ? This is still one of the weak underbellies of PRC, which is
staying not so weak by the day, where the Westerners(governments, media and public opinion) have some
reservoir of sympathy for Tibetans. While the Dalai LAma is alive, we should take that step, as I am sure (correct
me if I am wrong), I am not sure Indians have a strategic plan for transition from this Dalai to the next to
Tibetans and Indian advantage. You can bet, the Chinese have their own Dalai ready to take over in the event
of passing away of His Holiness.
f) Still hugely premature, but dont you think, today, is in relative terms, the most favorable geo-political situation
for us SO FAR, for thinking about retaking POk, since 1947, when we lost it ? If yes, why ? If no, why not ?

We all respect your service to the country unconditionally, and therefore, I am sure you also think about the retaking of POK scenarios. I am just requesting that you articulate those along with answers to my questions above.

Thanks.

[RayC]

[Since we are in Future Strategic Scenario, the ideas that appear pipe dreams today must be made into facts of tomorrow

Like what?

Please leave Hinduvta out and spreading it world wide.

Then we and discuss.[/quote]

Nice try

Seriously, talking about Indian national interests is Hindutva to you?

When I talk about protecting religious minority freedoms in Islamic countries it appears Hindutva to you. Your solution to those issues is accept the "ground-reality" even if it results in genocide outside our borders. So what moral authority you want to build for India?

When I ask questions about lost Indian territories by our political/military leadership and you bring cost/benefit analysis. I am still waiting your response on my cost-benefit analysis.

Why are you so interested in bringing Hindutva word into every discussion? Is it your way to get threads locked? soon we will have threads only on PRC and TSP in BRF. I still do not understand how BRF is allowing a nonsensical thread like Baki-Bositive news in its strategic forum but locks threads pertinent to our national identity and interests.[/quote]

No, it is not wrong to protect Indian citizens rights in foreign countries (and not only Hindus). But the question is - can we? If we can't, then why the hot air?

I assure you I am seized with India's national interests and that too without the Hinduvta tag attached. India, as I know and understand, is far higher than religious tags. I am also against all this minority tags and sops. We are Indians, 60 years have gone by and if we still have not found equal footing, then there is nothing wrong with the country, but something seriously wrong will us.

Even Mayawati's crap of being a Dalit ka beti has fallen flat!! These divisions are our bane and an albatross around India's neck.

I am with you that India must rule the world. I bring in costs because one cannot rule the world without having the wherewithal and to have it, it requires money. Have we got it? If you feel iwe have it, then go ahead. I would be the happiest.

I am not bringing Hinduvta. But I find a surreptitious angle being brought in. Veru subtle and very covert. And very clever. Maybe not by you. Have you not seen the other strategic leadership thread where Hinduvta is a claim for strategic leadership?

If you were not one of those Hinduvta exponents in the other thread, then, my unconditional aplogies!

[RayC]

Raji,

Will answer tomorrow.

Capturing POK is physically impossible. Chunks here and there, yes but not the whole!

[ramana]

OK folks what are the non-warlike measures along with partial war measures to achieve the strategic objective of no more TSP as a nation state. I think we have to quit beating round the bush and come to brass tacks.

One big factor will be a stabilized and strong Afghainstan as such an entity will seek to erase the Durand line. Now there are two ways to enusre a stable Afghanistan: one is to strenghten Karzai type of forces and the other is to strenghten Taliban. We need an Indian solution to AfPak to prevent it from a spoonerism. Please debate the merits of these two options along with adverse consequences and steps to hedge against them. Once this approach is settled all others fall into place.

[Tilak]

Sweetheart,

I never claimed I had a baton in the knapsack!

No chip on the shoulder either.

But it is like a Phd in English Literature (highly educated in general terms) educating Montek Ahluwalia what is economics!

Moderators chip is also not on the shoulder! Seen any of it?

Keep to the point and discuss. Divergent view is acceptable, and replies too!

I dont give threats. I act immediately! But I give a lot of rope. I know my place in society and have no reasons to fight to prove it so.

So spare yourself from some sweating. You have still not reached the threshold. Patience is my middle name.

[/quote]

Darling..

I never claimed I had a baton in the knapsack!

I know for a fact you "dont" have one, that was not my point. But It looks like we need a summon none less than a "Field Marshall" to bring some order to your line of argument.

Keep to the point and discuss

Indeed pretty rich after all the patronising talk and the baton waving.

But it is like a Phd in English Literature (highly educated in general terms) educating Montek Ahluwalia what is economics!

Nobody went into operational details/planning, which I concede require a military bent of mind. Nor is anybody trying to "educate" as far I can see.
Indeed I would be surprised if Montek Singh Ahluwalia would go to his boss Pranab Mukerjee (Law , Political Science and Philosophy Major) and say "I dont need any education on Economics", at every turn.

I dont give threats. I act immediately! But I give a lot of rope. I know my place in society and have no reasons to fight to prove it so.

So spare yourself from some sweating. You have still not reached the threshold. Patience is my middle name.

Sure..Sure..

:My Last post:

[Tilak]

X-Posted : Naval Thread

China proposed division of Pacific, Indian Ocean regions, we declined: US Admiral
Manu Pubby Posted: Friday ,
May 15, 2009 at 0242 hrs IST

New Delhi: In a startling disclosure, a top US Admiral has revealed that China offered to divide the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions between China and the US after Beijing launched its own fleet of aircraft carriers.

The offer was made by an unnamed top Chinese Navy officer while discussing the country’s ongoing aircraft carrier programme, one of the senior-most officers of the US military, Pacific Command (PACOM) chief Admiral Timothy J Keating said. He added that the incident was disclosed to Indian Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta during their meeting on Thursday.

Keating said that the offer, which was made somewhat “tongue in cheek” was declined by the US but the top Chinese officer indicated that Beijing would pursue the development of aircraft carrier technology.

“We (Keating and Mehta) talked a little about the potential development of a Chinese aircraft carrier. I related (to Mehta) a conversation I had with a senior Chinese Naval officer during which he proposed, in his words, that as China builds aircraft carriers — he said plural — we can make a deal,” the PACOM chief said after meeting the top Indian military leadership besides the National Security Advisor and Foreign Secretary.

The proposed “deal” envisaged that after China has its own aircraft carriers — it remains the only major naval power currently without such a capability — the Pacific region could be divided into two areas of responsibility.

“(The Chinese officer said) You, the US, take Hawaii East and we, China, will take Hawai West and the Indian Ocean. Then you will not need to come to the western Pacific and the Indian Ocean and we will not need to go to the Eastern Pacific. If anything happens there, you can let us know and if something happens here, we will let you know,” Keating recalled.

Keating and Mehta also discussed the recent “aggressive” tactics of Chinese vessels against US Navy warships operating in the East China sea. Calling the tactics, which were described in reports as very close passes and attempts to block US warships by Chinese vessels, as “irresponsible”, Keating said that he and Mehta viewed them with “concern”.

[Tilak]

X-Posted :

The next government in Delhi - National and Strategic security challenges
from M.K. Dhar by Maloy Krishna Dhar

Mrs. Hilary Clinton, the US Secretary of State in a recent statement expected India to play a vital role in the regional conflicts raging in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Her brief statement was followed up at a Senate hearing on May 13. The US Afghanistan-Pakistan special envoy Richard Holbrooke acknowledged that India has a great role to play in coping with the Al Qaeda and Taliban challenges. Replying to a Senator who wanted to know how New Delhi could help arrest the deteriorating situation in the region, Holbrooke said that till the Indian elections were over and a new government was in place nothing could be said with certainty. Though nothing tangible has been said by Obama, Hilary and Holbrooke so far, the suggestive signals emanating from Washington appear to be ominous. A discerning observer cannot miss subtle changes in US policy towards India and Pakistan. Obama is determined to pour billions in Pakistan in the name of fighting jihadi terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan and spreading in all conceivable directions. He is yet to make up a policy decision if India is acceptable to Washington as a cornerstone of peace, prosperity and democracy in this most troubles region of Asia.

International security observers understand that out of 5 Islamist terrorists 3 have connectivity to Pakistan. They were responsible for terrorist actions in the USA, Britain, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden etc countries. Some of them are linked to the Chechen and Dagestan Islamist rebels and the Uyghur rebels in West China. India’s next door neighbor is the breeding ground of jihad and Islamist terrorists, who want to islamicise the entire region and even other Muslim majority countries. They have virtually become franchisees of al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Strategic habits die hard. Pakistan has been a client state of the USA since 1948. Having used Pakistan as a partner in giving birth to Islamist terrorism in Afghanistan-Pakistan, the USA now wants to use Pakistan again to fight the same Franken-Sheikhs. The U.S. is most likely to succumb to another Pakistani blackmail strategy and ask India to ease military presence and operations in Kashmir as a pre-condition to Pakistan’s withdrawal of troops from the second line of defence for pitting against the Taliban and al Qaeda. The new government in will have to face this demand from the USA and its allies. It would depend on the intrinsic strengths of the new government in Delhi to pressure Washington not to try any funny game and to understand India’s own security concerns. Hopefully, Manmohan Singh led government would give priority to India’s own security concerns than falling prey to U. S. pressure to ease military presence in Kashmir. He had bargained well during the nuke deal; he should now bargain like a Shylock and get the pond of flesh India has been denied so far by the west. It is time India tells Pakistan to vacate the PoK and the Gilgit-Skardu areas and put pressure on China to vacate the Kashmir land gifted to it by Pakistan in flagrant violation of UN mandate conditions and to shut the pages of moth-eaten history of China and stop demanding Arunachal Pradesh and vacate Aksai Chin areas.

[brihaspati]

RayCji, you only talked of trade data for the last couple of years as claimed officially by the UK and keep harping on it. When I pointed out the fact of investments, you ignore it. When I point out that indirect, non-UK registered tracks of investments and cpaital flows are are possible with the source still being in the west, you ignore it. When I mention Japanese investmenst, from a country closely tied with the West, you ignore it. The discussion was about Myanmar and the West, and I did not put any obtuse, pseudo-intellectualism there. I mentioned the source too, but of course you need to ignore it too, and declare that I am talking on privy information.

You live only in the present and it is really worrying if as you claim, you are also into "strategy" above a certain rank. You continuously attribute expressions and meanings to others claiming that others were not clear enough. This is your tactic to change what others are saying in a way that is manageable for you to dismiss and ridicule. This tack wont cut much ice with me either, as I have seen such hollowness before too.

The fact of the matter is, you have not studied Burmese history and have not followed it even in recent years. You also seem to be blissfully taken in by Western or Commonwealth statements, and choose not to verify it from many different cross sources and angles. If Cheney's official or public pronuncements only is your primer which you use to gauge "strategy", it is worrying indeed. But probably such thinking as yours bolsters what the political masters need, so I guess, yes, people like you can be given the task of formulating "strategy" for India.

[brihaspati]

Friends, all who are posting on the two "strategic" "scenario/leadership" threads. Just a few pointers for you to ponder before you post. These threads were essentially started to discuss strategy with the future in mind. Obviously, the future is not the present, and it can develop from the present into one of many possibilities.

Since strategy in both arenas of focus is a multifaceted issue based on diverse factors that include ideology, "faith" or religious or general ideological components came up from time to time. As you have noticed recently, hopefully just coincidentally, that about the period the election results were out, any line of post that can be represented or interpreted as being favourable towards or promoting "Hindutva" can lead to entire threads being locked. To be fair the same has been done for threads that ostensibly discuss "Islamism", but many of these latter threads also had posts that tended to throw up evidence or posts that explored "negative" aspects of Islam, and could therefore be seen as supporting "Hindutva" according to certain interpretations of "Hindutva".

There is an old saying, that, "God resides in atheists even more strongly than theists, in the form of an overwhelming urge to deny God". So those who are paranoid about "Hindutva" and give it more importance than is due, will see it everywhere. They will find a surreptitious angle being brought in, very subtle and very covert, and very clever. Even if it is not there, they will need to invent it, and make it as sinister as possible. This is after all a very conscious political thinking aligned to existing political beliefs in India that looks upon "Hindutva" as a political threat, and makes it larger than life.

I would request all, that we have had the opportunity to discuss a lot of interesting and useful ideas here, and hopefully we can continue discussing them. Please do not give any excuse to those who are so paranoid about a single term, that they think, it needs simply being mentioned to make it popular, and therefore all voices that may use the term should be silenced, and entire threads locked.

There is an old story from "Buddhism". Two monks were journeying and came to a shallow river one morning. There were no boats and with some difficulty the men would be able to cross. However, a young and attractive woman was desperate to cross the river too and requested the monks to carry her across. The younger monk refused, as it was against the vows to touch a woman, especially a young and attractuve one. The elder monk picked the woman up on his shoulders and carried her across the river. The monks and the woman went their separate ways. In the evening, after they had halted for the night, the younger monk could hold himself no longer and openly accused the older monk of breaking vows. The older monk smiled and replied "oh I have dropped her off my shoulders at the river bank, are you still carrying her around?"

Let those who are scared of "Hindutva" carry it around, and let us push on with our actual, diverse and stimulating discussions.

[raji]

Raji,

Will answer tomorrow.

Capturing POK is physically impossible. Chunks here and there, yes but not the whole!

Ok, I will take your word for it.

Out of respect for your opinion and wishes, let me replace everywhere, the word POK with the phrase "Corridor to CAR via Northern Areas" and lets just focus on retaking that. Lets let the talk of taking over all of POK aside, unless taking it is tactically essential to retaking the "Corridor to CAR via Northern Areas"

I hope this is more palatable to you and I look forward very much getting your scenarios and what is necessary to accomplish this along with Samuel's and others.

[brihaspati]

ramana wrote
One big factor will be a stabilized and strong Afghainstan as such an entity will seek to erase the Durand line. Now there are two ways to enusre a stable Afghanistan: one is to strenghten Karzai type of forces and the other is to strenghten Taliban.

Ramanaji, any reasons against why Karazai type government may not seek to erase the Durand line? I know these issues crop up. But what if, as is increasingly being inadvertently revealed in certain lines of thoughts within the Indian thinking, that such territorial claims can merely be kept alive as a bargaining point and not meant sincerely.

For India to play any role in supporting or strengthening Karazai type governments, the problem will be the landlocked nature of AFG and the lack of common borders at the moment due to POK. So all such attempts in concrete material terms will have to go through third countries and therefore dependent on alliances with them. Even the connection with Iran is quite shaky even now, the only existing route that bypasses direct US or TSP dependence.

[Pranav]

People are talking about capturing of territory, but we first need to do a good job administering territory presently under Indian control. We are very far from doing that.

We can certainly encourage provincial autonomy within Pakistan, and develop relations with individual provinces. But anything more than that might be biting off more than we can chew.

Chinese support to SL is in its strategic interest since it will allow them to have berthing facilities and maybe even a naval base in SL and thereby ensuring Chinese military presence in the Indian Ocean as also further their String of Pearls strategy. And China has always extended military and other assistance to all repressive regimes eg Zimbabwe et al. They cover this with platitudes that they do not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.

You may be right about Chinese expansionism. But I still think that the Chinese do not seek global domination to the same extent that the western block does.

As regards Mugabe of Zimbabwe - he is a classic case. He is one of the many tyrants that the West has been in the habit of supporting. His peers include Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, Idi Amin of Uganda, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, Suharto of Indonesia, the Sandinistas of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile, the Saudi royal family, and many others.



It is interesting that in 1994, the British royal family made Mugabe a "Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath" (http://nastyknights.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... ugabe.html). At that time, he was already a confirmed thug. What caused the West to turn against him was his unwillingness to continue serving Western interests. In "normal" circumstances, he would have been squeezed and deposed, and a more pliant thug installed in his place. But now, the new factor on the scene is China, which has bailed him out.

The Western block has directly or indirectly been responsible for the deaths of many millions around the world over the past few decades. On the other hand, the Chinese are willing to harvest the organs of their prisoners for transplants. So, in terms of morality, there is little to choose between the West and China. But it does not appear that the Chinese have the same ambition for global dominance that the Western block has.

India needs a robust defense capability, and should establish close relationships with smaller nations of South Asia. India should also reach out to Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. If Western help is available, it should be used. But relations with China should be cordial to the extent possible.

There needs to be a balance. It is not advantageous that a single dominant pole emerge in the world before India can become a pole in its own right.

[samuel]

http://www.johnthemap.co.uk/pages/kkh/kkhmap.html

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2009/feb/04 ... essway.htm

Karakoram expressway...cuts any corridor we may think of.

Though India is keeping a mum over the development, sources said that the expansion cannot be ignored. "The stretch is located just above Siachen glacier and Kargil in Jammu and Kashmir," said a senior defence personnel, on the condition of anonymity.

What are they going to do about "cannot be ignored"?
This highway needs to be cut off; is it possible or will mum remain the word?
S

[brihaspati]

This was my reason to talk of KKH, which cuts across and winds across the terrain which is otherwise considered extremely rugged and difficult for military operations. The expressway, provides a means of moving Chinese or TSP troops across North Kashmir, and across territory which appears to be considered "inaccessible" from Indian military "strategic" thinking.