Bharat Rakshak

Maybe the details should be proposed within GDF.
Harbans ji, we could possibly think of a framework by which we have various orders of autonomy, and a federal structure - to tie in foreign policy and military involvement. Apart from that a lot of independent action can be considered within that broad framework.

I agree that not all "intentions" are for open dissemination even if they are controversial.

harbans ji,

please bear with me.

The posts on "Peaceful Consolidation of Indian Subcontinent" still have some way to go. I also think, you may be reading the above in isolation, ignoring the context in which the proposal is being made.

I'll gladly discuss with you all issues, once my final post on this is through.

RajeshA ji,
while you are at it, would you consider the following limited objective, medium scale objective, and large scale objective as three sequential stages :
(1) limited objective : just gain two corridors - one to cut off KV north of slum. The second to have a land bridge from Tripura to the sea. (BD and or neighbour)
(2) medium scale : absorb and isolate within for sanitization : all areas upto and across the river in the west to a certain depth to secure the river and its east. Allow the desert people to join a confederation. Extend the "cut off corridor" in the north to secure the heights to the north leading to the "knot" and overlooking the valley and take control of the highway. Do nothing where the sun rises, or the "level plains" and the land of the twelve landlords but concentrate on the knot while preparing rapid deployment capabilities. Go out far into the peaceful waters and make as if you are going to go for trouble there.
(3) larger scale and longer term, recognize the home of Rudra as an affiliate after taking all legislative and material preparations. Offer such lucrative terms and get the islands in the backyward pond that it becomes "unavoidable" for the remaining tantrum throwing children to race towards joining in.

RajeshA wrote: The posts on "Peaceful Consolidation of Indian Subcontinent" still have some way to go. I also think, you may be reading the above in isolation, ignoring the context in which the proposal is being made.

My only question at this stage is this. Are you trying to justify this "peaceful consolidation" to the world? Or are you trying to justify it to yourself.

P.s. I suggest changing "peaceful consolidation" to something else. It sounds too much like "peaceful rise". And we all know what connotations that throws up.

brihaspati garu,

there is a reason, why I opted for this model. I'll be going into your suggestions and comments as soon as I have presenting my case.

TonyMontana wrote:

RajeshA wrote: The posts on "Peaceful Consolidation of Indian Subcontinent" still have some way to go. I also think, you may be reading the above in isolation, ignoring the context in which the proposal is being made.

My only question at this stage is this. Are you trying to justify this "peaceful consolidation" to the world? Or are you trying to justify it to yourself.

'Justify' is the wrong word. It is just a proposal.

Somebody or the other may see merit in it. If not, then it is just my contribution to the data graveyard.

TonyMontana wrote:P.s. I suggest changing "peaceful consolidation" to something else. It sounds too much like "peaceful rise". And we all know what connotations that throws up.

If the word 'peaceful' had a lawyer, he would have sued China long ago for defamation. Now anytime somebody uses the word 'peaceful', everything starts stinking!

Peaceful Consolidation of Indian Subcontinent: Being the biggest Muslim country in the World?

Right now Indonesia is the biggest Muslim country in the world with 209 million Muslims (according to this table). Pakistan has 174 million Muslims, India 161 million Muslims and Bangladesh 145 million Muslims. Sri Lanka has around 1.6 million, Nepal another 1.2 million and 0.4 million in Maldives.

Going by 2009 approximations, United India would be having 309.2 million Indian Muslims.

That makes India the biggest Muslim country in the world? Does it count for anything? India already can present herself to the world as the Inheritor of the Indian Civilization, as the Dharmic Civilization, but also as a modern 'Westernized' country as the world's largest democracy. After Unification, India would also have the option of presenting herself as the biggest Muslim country in the world.

Let's see how different regions would be affected by that fact.

Pakistan
Pakistan would feel the affects of this development the most. It already has a deep sense of abandonment, be it by India (or rather their Indian Wetdream), USA (after the Soviet-Afghan War) and by the Ummah (every time it sees Muslim countries lining up to welcome India). Most of its complexes arises from abandonment, regardless of the fact, that its polity in the past left the world no other choice. There will of course be the question - if Pakistan does not belong in United India, in which all other countries of the neighborhood have merged, where else does it belong? It could belong with the Ummah, but the Ummah would be more interested in partying with the biggest Muslim country, the economic power India.

Who would be interested in a failing Pakistan? PRC definitely, as long as it sees some use of its munna.

But would Pakistan still retain its penchant for a fight with India? The generals would be furious at the developments to the East, but how do they sell the concept to their people, that they want to fight the biggest Muslim country in the world? So simply on this score alone, Pakistan would be wondering, whether to continue its policy of a war with a 1000 cuts with India.

Secondly India would get a free pass from the Ummah to go and kick Pakistan in its nuts every Tuesday without any rebuke. As a 'Muslim' country, India is supposed to act a bit tough anyway, so what is wrong with a bit of fun in nut-cracking every now and then?! The formulation of "Hindu-India vs Muslim-Pakistan" one sees every time from BBC to every other West Asian newspaper would be gone. Nobody can simply ignore that India is the biggest Muslim country.

The point is Pakistan loses its claim as being the preeminent Muslim power in the Subcontinent, and hence responsible for the welfare of all Muslims in the Subcontinent, which allowed it to claim being their spokesman. India has of course never accepted that contention, but many in West Asia do accept it. OIC has often commented on Kashmir at the instance of Pakistan, and in media they do accept Pakistan's line about 'human rights abuses' on Kashmir Muslims, etc.

West Asia
In West Asia, in the Muslim countries of the world, India would be for once and for all be accepted as the dominant Muslim country in the Indian Subcontinent, and nobody would mess around with India anymore as far as Kashmir or India's treatment of Muslims is concerned.

Also Indian Muslims would get a voice which would be plainly and clearly listened to. Right now, Indian Muslims are considered by West Asians as having no voice or as being hangers-on of the Indian Hindus, as Muslims who got trapped in the Hindu India due to a quirk of history. With Bangladesh having freely opted to become part of a United India, this prejudice would also be done with.

In West Asia, India would have to redefine her role with regard to Israel-Palestinian conflict. Of course, the expectation would be that with our foreign policy increasingly defined by Muslims, there would be a bigger anti-Israel lobby in India. This could be true. On the other hand, a United India with the biggest Muslim population would be a partner the West would be extremely willing to invite and involve India as a mediator. Besides a superpower is not supposed to be taking ideological stances but should be at the forefront trying to solve world problems. The only thing that would change is that Israel would have to hear a little bit more of official criticism from India, but nothing that would jeopardize Indo-Israeli relations.

USA & West
Right now one of the reasons USA gives so much aid to Pakistan is also to keep itself involved with the Islamic world, so as to claim USA has an important Muslim ally, to claim that USA is not isolated in the Muslim world. Perhaps USA may continue to support Pakistan for other reasons, which too can be nullified, but as far as Pakistan's Islamic credentials as an argument is concerned, that would not play any role anymore.

One could even argue, that USA is pushing one Muslim country, Pakistan to hurt another 'Muslim' country India. That may not go down well with Muslims, because it could be construed again as a policy of keeping Muslim countries down and making them fight each other.

As mentioned before, USA would increasingly want to have India's sanction with what goes on in West Asia or in Pakistan or Central Asia, simply because it does make a difference when one claims, that over 300 million Muslims are on board with respect to some policy implementation in the Muslim world. That means India gets better trading chips.

China
In the future any tussle between China and India would be looked upon as a conflict between China and a Muslim country. China is not willing to spoil its relations with the Muslim world, and truly fears a backlash of Muslim ire, for example, in Xinjiang.

Covering ourselves with an addition Muslim shawl, it gives India a major shield against both Western attacks as well as Chinese aggression.

If India does the packaging properly, it is possible to force West Asia to look at China from an Indian lens, just as they were looking at India till now through a Pakistani lens.

South-East Asia
The Malaccan Straits pass through Indonesia and Malaysia and form an important artery of the world. To ensure the support of these two countries in any India-China conflict in the future would be crucial. Indonesia has civilizational ties with India but they have become somewhat weak with the advent of Islam there. Becoming the biggest Muslim country in the world, would allow India to expect a tighter and more assured alliance by these two strategically located countries.

Moreover, a more liberal and reform-minded Islam in India could also have a more moderating effect on how Islam is practiced in those countries. As mentioned earlier, being the third largest Muslim country does not help, especially not because the Indian Muslims are not considered to have a free will and have no voice. Perhaps Indian Muslims can help in the definition of a more enlightened version of Islam for East Asia, something different to what is to be found in West Asia.

Kashmir
By portraying India also as a 'Muslim country', the Azadi movement would die down, as the KMs would also agree that India is the true home of the Muslims in the Indian Subcontinent.

Rajesh Ji, you're focussing on incorporation into India's boundaries of neighbouring nations. What you're missing is that incorporation does'nt occur without cultural, political, social compatibility. India's future lies in developing cultural, social, political compatibility along bordering states like Bhutan, Bangladesh, SL, Myanmar etc.

Presently many of these states are falling to totalitarian ideologies partly due to the success of the dragon. India has to counter that example set by Panda proving liberal democracy can also be successful. Once we do so, we attract people to our worldview. Integration into the indic sphere occurs only then. And it may not necessarily include incorporation into India's nation state boundaries.

After Unification, India would also have the option of presenting herself as the biggest Muslim country in the world.

I completely fail to see how this is a good idea or what benefits that tag entails. India is not, must not and should not be seen one bit as a Muslim country. India must be seen as a pluralist, liberal democracy with a great economy. India despite it's large Muslim population has never been accepted as a Muslim country in any Muslim organization in the past and i don't see how adding 200 million more SDRE muslims will lead to change in the thought process, unless we also in parallel incorporate the Sharia.

At the first step i would use economic clout to further groups that stand for moderation, liberal and pluralist tradition in countries like Bangladesh and help them achieve economic benefits and be capable of defending those values systems. Remember the SDRE riots in Noakhali, Dacca, Calcutta were no less brutal than the TFTA ones in Lahore or Meerut.

The typical example of how we lost our sphere of influence is in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tibet. Areas where we had so much influence lie now shattered and outside our scope, because folks like JLN trashed Generals who came to him with Defense plans, even while Generals in Beijing and Slumabad were planning cutting off our spheres of influence to nought.

In 20 years from now we could possibly be looking at an EU style of functionig within the Indic union. States having far more autonomy, the Indic union taking care of Currency, FP and Defense. If neighbouring States want to join that they should be free to do so. The benefits must be mutual and in no way entail dilution of a liberal and pluralist constitution that would in case of a large influx of Muslims into the union. IF you look at Bhutan's success, it is precisely working with us on these conditions. It's FP is completely India's good is our good. It's Defense is taken care of by Indian soldiers with a Bhutanese COAS mostly from IMA or NDA and closely allied with us. Out of 200 nations worldwide the Bhutanese are our best friend and greatest example of success of siding with the Indian union.

Peaceful Consolidation of Indian Subcontinent: Implementation Issues

All this sounds a bit far-fetched, where all of a sudden countries in the neighborhood make a queue to merge with India. Is anybody knocking on our doors? None. So why go on a harebrained idea, when there is no demand, no desire, either in the elites nor in the people of these countries to join up with India, or for that matter in India itself for importing all these problem-countries in an already problem-laden desk of India.

There are many angles from which the issue needs to be looked at:
Internal Discussions
Before the ball even starts rolling, the upper echelons of the Indian Establishment, security experts, RSS, etc. need to discuss the prevailing situation in the Indian Subcontinent, the threats especially from China, the feasibility of such an undertaking, the effects on the politics of the country, proposals on strategy, etc. Some consensus needs to be found amongst the national stakeholders in India.

Test the waters
Before any initiative like this is started, it would be best if certain prominent personalities in India and a few in other neighboring countries speak up on the benefits of integration of 'South Asia'. These could be ex-Presidents or ex-Ambassadors or some elder statesmen. These speeches or interviews need to be taken up the media, and journalists, media people, prominent personalities, common people need to go over the issues involved. The WKK Brigade needs to be recruited for this. Their cross-borders connections could be useful.

Multi-Track Dialogue
After awakening the interest of the countries somewhat, Indian interlocutors need to generate interest in other countries for a closer union. This should be undertaken at two levels. At one level, past and present government functionaries who know each other need to discuss the issue. These establishment people in neighboring countries would then try to spread the message within their ranks and networks, or in other words do some viral marketing. This is important, so that when it comes up at the highest levels, there is already some degree of support for the idea at the lower levels of the establishment in the neighboring countries. At some point of time, there will be a dialogue between the special representatives of the heads of government, and later at the heads of government level also.

Available Framework
In the beginning there were many hopes from SAARC - that it would help decrease the level of conflict and distrust amongst the countries in 'South Asia'. Pakistan made sure that nothing came of it. Then India simply degraded SAARC and decided that it would go for bilateral treaties rather than multilateral ones. Also India outgrew her neighborhood and region and wanted to make alliances with countries outside the region. So SAARC simply became a photo-op.

But now SAARC would again have to be brought out of the cellar, dusted off and polished for its new challenge.

Now SAARC did not work last time. Why should one expect for it to work this time around?

The difference would be because this time around somebody would really have a strategic agenda in making things move and work in SAARC. Earlier it was all a bit of this and a bit of that, some trade barriers here, some there, and if it didn't happen because the meet got hijacked by Pakistan, it didn't really matter much.

Secondly even this time around one would be having Pakistan and a slew of observers - Australia, China, European Union, Iran, Japan, South Korea, Mauritius, Myanmar, USA. What for? For whatever historical reasons these guys ended up in a party with no music, they need not stay. India and the others who are interested in the project, can make a Two-Speed SAARC, as was once being talked about in EU, or India and interested parties can go ahead and make an Integration-Zone on the patterns of Eurozone, meaning those who mean business go to a separate room and talk business, leaving the others to munch on the rest-overs.

SAARC is an available forum. No extra energy needs to be wasted in creating another one, especially as that makes people suspicious and too many questions are asked.

Step-by-Step
Integration of the Indian Subcontinent would take place all at once. It would have to be moved ahead one run at a time, though there is no problem with a few fours and sixes. Some steps would be:

1. Common Sports Competitions and Events
2. Common Market
3. Currency Union
4. Phased coordination of Subcontinental militaries.
5. Free travel of people (though well-documented)
6. Political Union (on the lines of present Indian federal structure)

The momentum should not be lost after some phase, and it must be clear that the intention is to take the subcontinent the whole hog.

Propaganda
There will be a lot of propaganda coming out from people who have earned their livelihoods through anti-Indian propaganda. So India should in concert with other governments put some cash where their mouth is and buy the support of the various media houses for the agenda.

It would also help if popular celebrities and personalities like actors, sports-people in the various countries come on TV and announce their support for the move.

A begining should be made to revive Urdu in Devanagari script in order to get wider reading audience in India.

Peaceful Consolidation of Indian Subcontinent: Take all along

There have been questions regarding the extent of such an undertaking. Why should Bhutan be pulled in, when we already have a good equation with them. Valid Questions - All.

The whole enterprise is based on group dynamics. No single country would want to unite with India just like that. The governments of these countries have sworn oaths to protect the independence of their countries. The people would not allow their governments to go ahead with a complete sell-off. Any single country unifying with India is giving up its independence, because it is not an equal equation. India is by far the largest country in 'South Asia'. No population would believe that it is a marriage of equals.

That is why it is important that all trudge along. Bangladesh may unite with India, if Sri Lanka and Bhutan are also joining. Nepal would join if Bangladesh and Bhutan have said yes. Maldives could join if Bangladesh also shows eagerness. So it is important to bring about a consensus in a larger group to pull others in too.

Just like Germany and France were the engines of European integration, in 'South Asia', it would have to be India and Bangladesh. For one thing, we were already one country not all that long ago. Secondly with Bangladesh there are also transnational ethnic bonds. Bangladesh is also the major other pole to India in 'South Asia' (not considering the shit-hole to our West). So the enterprise stands and falls with the success of an understanding with Bangladesh. It would be clear to Bangladesh that in a united India, Bangladeshi regions would most probably have the major say on who forms the government in Delhi.

Once Bangladesh is on board, one needs to give the enterprise a cover of having support from multiple parties. It is here that Bhutan's cooperation is essential. With Bhutan acquiescence, the project starts to take the contours of the possible.

The next stop would have to be Sri Lanka, and would have to be worked on by both Indians and Bangladeshis. Now Sri Lanka is heavily wooed by China right now, but we can simply tell them to take the money and go ahead with the unification. Mahinda Rajapakse would probably feel, that if he were to take Sri Lanka into a United India, he would indeed be writing history. He could be tempted with the idea, that he has already conquered Sri Lanka and it is time for him to show more ambition. He would be becoming a power broker in Delhi as well.

After Sri Lanka, the group can let Pakistan in on the enterprise. They would probably not take it that seriously, but a lot in the media would be quite enthusiastic about the project. That side is useful for simply generating interest in other places. Of course, dangling the carrots in front of Pakistan is only that. The carrots are of wax only.

Maldives is a fully Muslim country. They are also very strategically located. If they see that Bangladesh, another Muslim country is fully on board, and Sri Lanka, another Indian Ocean Island Nation, is also showing enthusiasm, and there is some positive feedback from Pakistan, they too could say yes, especially if worked on some of the Muslim Ulema in India and Bangladesh.

Nepal, I think, even though a Hindu country and having a free border with India, would be the most difficult nut to crack, and hence should be cracked last. This would be so mostly because they already have all they want from India - investments, the right to work in India, etc. They are also heavily influenced by China. So they would only play along if they see that all the SAARC countries show eagerness for the project.

When murmurs of dissent start coming from Pakistan, India can propose a Two-Speed Unification Process and Pakistan can join in later, when they feel they are ready. Again this is only talk. But the good atmospherics have to be preserved. The WKKs would do their part in convincing Pakistanis, that they are truly welcome. All to no purpose, but useful nonetheless.

From there the whole group discussion on phasing and ultimate political structure of United India gets to be discussed in different committees, with members from different countries. My hunch is that the Indian political system would be accepted as is, but Indian committee members would have to argue well and to remove the concerns of others.

Very constructive thoughts indeed. My hats off to RajeshA-ji. EU can be tapped for integration consulting and they would love to lend a hand to another serious integration project, I believe.

US led West wants to see good management of Asia and troubled spots. The prevailing sentiment was that an economically resurging PRC would provide stability and become the deputy manager for Asia, while US led West keeps the top management post. India was not on the radar earlier, although people started seeing some faint bleeps lately.

But PRC is making angry and belligerent noises. So the situation is probably ripe for an alternate pole.

The integration project that starts in SAARC can be the beginning of an ambitious project that will aim for an India and subcontinent led Asian Union, where it can become a center of Asian civilizations once again because:

- subcontinent is the cradle and also holds the largest number of SD followers (Bali, Indonesia being another remaining strong hold)
- subcontinent holds the largest number (35%) of world's Muslims
- subcontinent is the cradle of Buddhism and subcontinent still holds some remnant ancient Buddhists whereas SAARC will hold large number of Buddhist regions such as Sri Lanka and Myanmar (if it becomes a new SAARC member)

Both Muslims and Buddhists can be used as levers to influence the coreligionists in Asia and beyond, by creating knowledge based prosperity and thus making the subcontinent once again the center for science and spirituality, where there is freedom of religion.

Near my home in Dhaka there are two huge compounds newly built in the late 1990's, one is the embassy campus of PRC and the other of the US. The former is a competitor, the latter a person of interest, but up in the secluded mountains of Pusan, Korea, where I used to take early morning walks, are the Buddhist temples, neatly kept to this day. Buddhists in Korea are fighting the Christians for their existence, they need help. The situation is not so bleak in Japan, but Zen Buddhism, that travelled to Japan from Korea some fourteen centuries ago, is still a large part of national consciousness. I can see two large Buddhist temples on my way to work in Little Tokyo, near downtown Los Angeles.

India and the subcontinent has the potential to make things happen, whether we can utilize the potentials is the big question. Being SDRE will keep us down onlee if we let others define us. Someday my hope is that ability and not physical traits will become the mark of respect, but much work needs to be done before that happens, I guess.

Peaceful Consolidation of Indian Subcontinent: Federal Structure and Multiple Electoral Zones

India's federal structure is based on language boundaries and administrative ease. India would be keeping her federal structure intact.

Bangladesh cannot be integrated into India as a whole nation. One would have to integrate them at a lower geographical break-down using their federal structure which is divided into 7 administrative units - Barisal (বরিশাল), Chittagong (চট্টগ্রাম), Dhaka (ঢাকা), Khulna (খুলনা), Rajshahi (রাজশাহী), Sylhet (সিলেট), and Rangpur (রংপুর).

Nepal with a population of 30 million could be a single state.

Sri Lanka which even though can be divided into the Sinhala speaking and the Tamil speaking areas would also have to be accepted into the Union as a single administrative unit, single state. The history there would not allow any division. May be after a few decades after the unification, the mood would be different. So India should not insist on break up of Sri Lanka for them to join. Sri Lanka has a population of 21 million and is as such also acceptable as a single state.

So too would Bhutan and Maldives each be a new state.

So the United India could consist of 39 States and 7 Union Territories.

Single Nation, but Multiple Electoral Zones
We have seen how Bangladeshis have spread out to different Northeastern states and to West Bengal, making a serious impact on the politics of these lands.

If we are hoping to unite with Bangladesh in one land, then one thing we cannot allow is for any region to screw the voting behavior of another region, in this case Bangladeshis screwing Northeast and West Bengal.

So I suggest, there should be a HomeElectoral Zones!

It means that each Indian citizen would have a Home Electoral Zone - which can be

1. The Old Indian States - the present states and UTs
2. Bangladesh - 7 present Bangladeshi Administrative Units.
3. Nepal
4. Sri Lanka
5. Bhutan
6. Maldives
7. Kashmir Valley (if this is to be indeed a solution there, which is a watered down Article 370)

Each Electoral Zone can have multiple states and/or Union Territories. An Indian Citizen can only vote in an election in that person's Home Electoral Zone, as well as stand only in elections in their own Home Electoral Zone.

That means even a current Bangladeshi citizen or Bangladeshi diaspora can only vote in an election in what is today Bangladesh but not in some election in say West Bengal or Tripura.

Of course any Indian citizen from whatever region or Electoral Zone would be allowed to take up residence and work anywhere he or she pleases in India. That right would be guaranteed by the Constitution and the Union Government, and no state would be allowed to overrule that.

But present Indians then need not have any fear that Bangladeshis would be swamping across present Indian States and forcing the politicians to change their legislative patterns, or needing to pander to Muslim voting blocs, etc.. Not just we Indians but also countries like Bhutan, Sri Lanka or Maldives need not fear they would be swamped by Indians, who would then vote there for candidates of their choice.

The principle here is that each state has a native population, interested in preserving their way of life (as long as it falls withing Constitutional freedoms), their culture, their interests, and immigrants should not marginalize those ethnic interests, because otherwise it feels like occupation.

All parties would have to agree with this principle.

This principle however also entails that even as it would be perfectly okay for Bangladeshi immigrants to live and work in the Northeastern States of India, or in West Bengal or in other areas of India, it is not okay to for them to be voting in elections in those states.

This too would have to be clarified with the Bangladesh Government. In fact this would form the major assurance by the Bangladeshis.

At the moment, the issue with illegal Bangladeshi immigrants is almost insolvable. Those that have come in, naturally do not want to go back to Bangladesh, as they have started a life in India. In order to secure their stay, they proceed with registering themselves as Indians. Many Indian politicians, or politicians who now present themselves as Indian, also help them in return for votes.

If the authorities do catch Bangladeshis and want to deport them, the Bangladesh Govt. does not accept their Bangladeshi citizenship claims, so India cannot deport them anywhere.

This can change if the Unification Project is pursued. India would then have the option of just deleting the names of those suspected of being Bangladeshis from the voter lists. Those Bangladeshis can continue to live and work in India. There would be no pressure to deport them back, so the authorities can proceed to declaring the illegal immigrants as Bangladeshis and removing them from the voters lists.

The Bangladeshis would not be having to fear that they could be deported so they would not resist that much their removal from voters lists. They can still vote for Bangladeshi politicians, perhaps by postal ballots, even as they live in India.

This is another issue that needs to be clarified with the Bangladesh Govt. beforehand, so that they do not feel betrayed later on. Their loss would be minimal. After all, the 260 million Bengalis (both West Bengalis and Bangladesh Bengalis) would be casting such a large influence on Delhi politics, that they can afford to lose influence in some Northeastern states.

The Aadhaar Program of the Indian Government would go a long way in solving this problem, and the Home Electoral Zone of the citizen can be included on the ID card.

So a check on illegal immigrants on voters' lists in Indian States would be a direct benefit of unification with Bangladesh.

The downside is that there could be many many Bangladeshis in India vying for work, and India would have to cope with it. The only way around it is if there is sufficient investment in Bangladesh to make Bangladeshis want to stay there only.

Peaceful Consolidation of Indian Subcontinent: Solving Pakistan

As mentioned in a previous post, a United India could be considered as a Modern Secular Democracy, a Dharmic Nation, but additionally as a Muslim Nation, not on the basis of being an Islamic Nation (rather far from it), nor on the basis of being a majority Muslim Nation, as Hindus would still retain the majority, but rather because India would be having the world's largest population of Muslims.

The Muslim Nation label allows India to break up Pakistan.

Pakistan was created as the Home for Subcontinental Muslims. If Bangladesh joins India of its own free volition then that means the Muslims of the Subcontinent are voting for India, they are saying that India is the true home of the Muslims in the Indian Subcontinent and not Pakistan.

The Indian Muslims are explained away in Pakistan as those unlucky ones who could not migrate to Pakistan for reasons of logistics, or as Hindu collaborators. The separation of East Pakistan from Pakistan is explained away as Indian deviousness and geographical distance of Bangladesh to Pakistan. But how would the Pakistanis explain away, when Bangladesh freely joins India? At this point, the Pakistanis would have completely lost the argument for keeping its various provinces within Pakistan. The Sindhis, the Baluchis, the Gilgitians, the Baltistanis, the Hindko, can then pose a question to Pakistan - If India is the home of the Subcontinental Muslims, then why are they not being allowed to join India?

TSPA's contention that Pakistan and Islam are under threat from India would sound very hollow, when Subcontinental Muslims, namely the Bangladeshis, are saying that India is not a threat but rather the home of the Subcontinental Muslims. How can Islam be under threat from India, when India is inviting Muslims to join India?

Even now India exerts a subtle centrifugal pull on Pakistan's various provinces, and Pakistan tries to suppress them through more Islam. With India being declared as the home of Subcontinental Muslims, and thus of Pakistani Muslims also, the centrifugal forces on Pakistan would grow even further.

Pakistan would have completely lost its ideological underpinnings.

The Pakistanis would then have to look for other ideological grounds to explain its right to exist, and this would most probably be in either Sharia-ruled Muslim land, or some Wahhabi Muslim land, but these grounds would not be sufficient for the Pakistanis.

Secondly even if we don't look at it from the Muslim PoV, but simply that United India is a unification of all Subcontinental people, then Pakistanis would start asking their government, why they are being left out. Do they not belong to the Subcontinent? Were they not once part of India, British India? Where else do the belong if not with United India?

That is the reason, why India should publicly welcome Pakistan into the union. This semi-offer would cause the centrifugal forces in Pakistan to rise. It can be that the Pakistani provinces demand of the Federal Govt. to let them go and become part of India. One has to first take in that one would be having a colossal Subcontinent united in every way, and then a small part of it, which feels it is a part of it, staying out, because one province - Pakjab, decides it wants enmity with the whole Indian Subcontinent, rather than take the train. So other provinces will start saying - "look you don't know whether you want to get on on the train, that is your problem, but we do want, so please make way"!

Once the provinces have made up their minds that they want to be in United India, then the demeanor of United India can change, where we become selective of which provinces can join, and which provinces have to fulfill certain criteria.

1. Baluchistan would be allowed in without much trouble - small secular Muslim population, large strategic coastal area.
2. Sindh, I am still not sure, but would be separated from Pakjab.
3. Pakjab would be told, to cool its heels. It still has to go a long way in stabilizing its out of control Islamism.
4. Pushtunistan would be told, India is happy to have it as its neighbor, and India recognizes it as an independent country and is willing to cooperate with it.
5. Gilgit-Baltistan would also be allowed in without too much fuss.
6. West-Jammu ('Azad Kashmir') is also an uncertain case. One would have to look, whether they bring in any strategic value - better land access.
7. Even as we accept Pushtunistan, some part of it, United India may be interested in keeping - Chitral, Swat, Kohistan, Upper Dir, etc - These areas give India better access to Afghanistan. The troubles in the region, and some benign Indian interference would allow such areas the option to come under Indian protective cover.
8. Karachi should be quarantined for the next two generations, and be allowed to become a sort of city-state, but as a protectorate of India, with its residents however not being allowed in into United India.

Now Pakjab needs to be kept out. Even as United India was extending a friendly hand towards it in the beginning, that should only be considered a ruse.

Pakjab's Big Population
The most important reason why Pakjab needs to be kept out is simply, that it has too big a Muslim population - already around 81 million people. On top of that this population is also very radicalized. Whereas the expectation is that Bangladesh's Muslim masses would not have too big an influence on the course of the Indian Ship, and may even support that course, contemplating Pakjab as a part of United India is calling for India's collapse, even before we start on our new journey as a consolidated nation. There is a critical limit, as to what ratio of Indics to Muslims, India can support without plummeting into unwieldability and chaos. I believe Bangladesh's inclusion would not damage India's viability. Including Pakistan wholesale would definitely cross the critical limit.

Pakjab's Radicalized Population
It is also not a question of how big a population, but also one of what kind. Pakjab's population is quite radicalized in Islamism, and letting them in would be equivalent of letting in a monster. Instead of stabilizing the Indian Muslim masses into a harmonious relationship with the Indics, Pakjabis would only be agitating those masses into a Wahhabized agenda. Moreover Pakjabis have lived decades hating Indians and Hindus, through their Pakistaniyat, and are trained only in using any and every opportunity to undermine India. This mentality is so intense and wide-spread, that it would need generations to self-correct. The graft cannot work.

Utilizing Pakjab for Reforming Indian Islam
In fact, Pakjab's radicalization helps India in holding up a mirror to Indian Muslims, including Bangladeshi Muslims, showing them just how wrong Islam can go, if its violent traits are given a free reign.

All those root-cause analyses of Pakjabi society, would be used by India through its Administrative infrastructure for Muslim Society Reform, to bring about reform of Muslim masses in India. If certain mentalities can destroy a society like that of Pakjabis, then those traits needs to be suppressed. Pakjab would help Indian State to give the Indian Muslims a proof of concept.

So depending on how many generations it takes for Indian Muslims to purge the Arabization and Violence in Islam, so long Pakjab should be kept in the doghouse, and every now and then pricked into action by India to show more of its Pakistaniyat for the benefit of viewing by the Indian Muslims.

Pakjabi society should be fully penetrated by the intelligence services of United India, ostensibly for the purpose of stopping terrorism in India, but also to control it and keep it dysfunctional.

Whereas the Indian Government would keep on repeating that Pakjab too would be welcome to join United India once it has overcome certain social problems, unofficially and in media, the refrain would only be that Pakjab is too barbaric to be a part of an enlightened community. Of course there would be a stream of sanctimonious lectures from Indians.

Considering the fact that the Pakjabis were responsible for up to 3 million deaths in Bangladesh, the Bangladeshis would not mind keeping Pakjab in the doghouse indefinitely. Of course, those atrocities, should become of common folklore, and be given sufficient publicity.

Should we consider it as payback for its sworn enmity to India and its terrorism on the Indian motherland? By all means.

Peaceful Consolidation of Indian Subcontinent: Making the Case

The biggest threats to India come from China and Islamic Radicalism. China has penetrated into the Indian Subcontinent and is using the reflexive anti-Indianism in India's neighbors in the Subcontinent to

1. Steadily Increase its strategic presence in the Indian Subcontinent.
2. Instigate and agitate the various groups in India's periphery to become aggressive and provoke India.
3. Provoke India to retaliate against its neighbors.
4. Do propaganda and portray India's retaliation as India's bullying ways
5. Use the ensuing anti-India wrath to set up India's neighbors as PRC's frontline states against India.
6. Use Maoism in Nepal and East India, and Bangladeshi animosity against India to cut off India's Northeast from India, and occupying it.
7. Lead to further break up of India with Kashmir going to Pakistan, and creating an independent Maoist-run East India, supported by PRC.
8. Neutralizing India

The latent anti-Indianism, and a perceived need to balance India in India's neighborhood leaves open a doorway for China to break in and smuggle all the machinery into the room to subvert and ultimately undo India.

Secondly China would use its strategic alliance with Islamism to undermine both India and the West, Pakistani Army providing a suitable go between to the Islamists.

So China is creating a Chakravyuh against India. In order for India to destroy this Chakravyuh, India would have to devise a new strategy to bolster its strength as well as neutralize China's moves in the Indian Subcontinent.

India can go for a muscular approach, and timely subdue any sources of instability and locations of China's potential forwarding bases - Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc, but the danger is that India would then exhaust all our resources and strength for that purpose, leaving us more prone to direct and terrorist attacks from Pakistan and direct attacks from China. Also it would give rise to a high level of animosity against India in India's neighborhood, which would then fully align with China against India. Also India would have lost all goodwill, and any chance of rehabilitating her image. It is very difficult to attack another country one day and the next day to plead with it for understanding of India's national interests. It would take more than a generation for any Indian neighbor to forgive India, even if it is they who asked for it. In the meantime China would have long clipped India's wings and put down any chance of India posing China a challenge to its hegemony over Asia.

Also any aggressions of India into its neighborhood, say in Chittagong, or in Nepal would bog down India in a war of attrition. We would have trouble keeping the land in our control against guerrilla attacks all supported and financed by China. This would actually make China's work all the easier. So if we cannot be 100% sure of success and have calculated the fallout and decided it to be not substantive, then it would make sense to take a muscular approach. I have gone in into such scenarios earlier in other threads.

At the moment India has her reputation among her neighbors of being a more or less peaceful neighbor. The latent animosity against India is less the work of India or any true grievances, but simply due to the fact that we present to them a very imposing and intimidating view due to our size. The reasons the neighbors give for their feelings against India can be challenged and India has good arguments. Any outward aggression by India would harden these feelings by leaps and bounds, and also give them real arguments for their existence.

So India's reputation is a valuable commodity and we should not gamble with it for small and controversial gains.

A peaceful consolidation of the Indian Subcontinent offers India an alternative to the muscular approach in the region. It can deliver India the necessary defensive and offensive strength to take on China, as well as a slew of other advantages. More importantly it plays to India's strengths. It is a world in which Indian leaders can do what they do best - talk, negotiate and build coalitions, and still deliver the goods. It can be done without firing a single bullet or earning the ill-will of others.

Peaceful Consolidation of Indian Subcontinent: Summary

We have talked about the dangers that India faces from China, and how our neighborhood is vulnerable to China's advances.

Throughout the various posts, the proposal has been that we consolidate the Indian Subcontinent peacefully, in a somewhat similar way as Europe, but go much further in establishing a true political union.

Due to a unification of India with Bangladesh, for example, there will be a lot more Muslims living in India, and this increase in Muslim population needs to be managed to ensure that the Indian ship stays afloat and keeps its course. Many challenges would arise in dealing with Indic-Muslim Relations. A new understanding would have to be reached between the Indics and the Muslims. We should systematically support liberal and reform-minded Muslims. Perhaps the Bangladeshi merger with India can even be beneficial and useful in reforming the thought process of the Indian Muslims.

An integration of the Indian Subcontinent would help India overcome the Chinese challenge but would also bring benefits to other countries of the subcontinent. Due to this integration process, India would have the most Muslims in the world, which would have negative but also positive consequences to it.

Such an enterprise is not only an imperative considering the situation in Asia, but it is also doable. In order for the enterprise to succeed except for Pakistan, India would need to take all others along. There is a perception of security when in a group.

India can opt for a federal structure, already known and tested by us. In order to solve the political problems arising due to migration between the regions, especially from Bangladesh, as well as to solve the current problem of illegal immigration, India can opt for separate Electoral Zones. Through the Peaceful Consolidation of the Indian Subcontinent there is a possibility to unravel India's enemy to the West - Pakistan, without resorting to war and without needing to accept radical Muslims into the Indian fold. Also we need not wait for an eternity as we can speed the developments there.

We should not lose time in preparing ourselves and our neighborhood to meet the challenge posed by China.

In the process, India would have become bigger and stronger.

Peaceful Consolidation of Indian Subcontinent
Table of Contents:

1. The Chinese Threat
2. Indic-Muslim Relations
3. Evolution of Muslim Psyche
4. Systematic Support for Liberal & Reform-Minded Muslims
5. What's in it for Bangladesh and others?
6. Being the biggest Muslim country in the World?
7. Implementation Issues
8. Take all along
9. Federal Structure and Multiple Electoral Zones
10. Solving Pakistan
11. Making the Case

brihaspati wrote:RajeshA ji,
while you are at it, would you consider the following limited objective, medium scale objective, and large scale objective as three sequential stages :
(1) limited objective : just gain two corridors - one to cut off KV north of slum. The second to have a land bridge from Tripura to the sea. (BD and or neighbour)
(2) medium scale : absorb and isolate within for sanitization : all areas upto and across the river in the west to a certain depth to secure the river and its east. Allow the desert people to join a confederation. Extend the "cut off corridor" in the north to secure the heights to the north leading to the "knot" and overlooking the valley and take control of the highway. Do nothing where the sun rises, or the "level plains" and the land of the twelve landlords but concentrate on the knot while preparing rapid deployment capabilities. Go out far into the peaceful waters and make as if you are going to go for trouble there.
(3) larger scale and longer term, recognize the home of Rudra as an affiliate after taking all legislative and material preparations. Offer such lucrative terms and get the islands in the backyward pond that it becomes "unavoidable" for the remaining tantrum throwing children to race towards joining in.

I'll go for a somewhat different strategy.
(1) Pay off the Khans to hit TSPA hard and make KKH impassable and useless for others. Increase piracy and theft there. (Zero Indian Casualty). BD is providing India access to the sea. That will have to suffice for now.
(2) Instead of Sanitization, increase the level of barbarity there, and broadcast it to India round the clock. Use it as a scare-tactic to reform IMs and demand more liberalism and reform-mindedness from them. "Pakistan ka matlab kya? La ilaha ilallah" If Pakistan sinks into barbarity, everybody gets to know the consequences of uncontrolled Islam. Only then does one have a chance to demand and get reforms there. Also highlight the plight of the Gilgitians-Baltistanis and get them to demand India to intervene and save them. Send in the military to take control. With Pakistan in turmoil, TSPA would not resist. The Chinese would have to give way. Peaceful waters sound good.
(3) Home of the Rudra should come under sustained pressure from a United Indian Subcontinent. DL should give his blessings as explained in another thread.

Otherwise "Peaceful Consolidation of the Indian Subcontinent" is doable and would give the necessary impetus for reform.

RajeshAji,
I will just draw a cautionary note about :

If Pakistan sinks into barbarity, everybody gets to know the consequences of uncontrolled Islam. Only then does one have a chance to demand and get reforms there.

(1) I remember that when the Talebs (with the other pure outfits fighting Soviets) first won Kabul and tortured and beat up Najibullah to death while hanging him - my fellow students at some so-called institute of national importance were actually joyful at the Taleb success. They looked at it from the viewpoint of the "frusrtrated" - people who saw existing social and political framework as sterile, ineffective and corrupt. They cheered the Talebs simply because of their effectiveness.

I think the more various sections of youth - especially the elite - face "ineffectiveness" of "power" where it matters for them or what they desire for their society, they may simply fall in love with the brutality and barbarity of Taleb type Islamism. we must remember that elite children of non-Islamic origin are brought up to despise their root faith so they have no strong psychological guard. Further their natural social upbringing to expect and exercise power without this commitment or affiliation to their birth faith and community - makes them wonderful champions of future barbaric versions of islamism.

(2) I have just watched this afternoon a BD cleric explain patiently from a BD based satellite channel - what people need to do to see to it that the Sharia provision for physical penalties against "adultery" (setting waist down into the ground and then slowly stoning) is accepted as law in BD - to make "society" beautiful and moral. He urges Muslims to build up "public opinion" so that this eventually takes place - and proposes using the recent media highlighting of "eve-teasing" cases as a vehicle.

Can you see how and why the one-sided freedom of speech and religion framework by which such things will be tolerated as merely being an integral part of the faith - allowed to be propagated and demanded to be made into "public opinion" with clear and open declarations of intention to one day enshrine it as "supreme law of the land" will merely see brutalities as the ideal and the norm? The perfection that the divine intended for humanity?

harbans wrote:Rajesh Ji, you're focussing on incorporation into India's boundaries of neighbouring nations. What you're missing is that incorporation does'nt occur without cultural, political, social compatibility. India's future lies in developing cultural, social, political compatibility along bordering states like Bhutan, Bangladesh, SL, Myanmar etc.

harbans ji,
There is ethnic compatibility at least between say Indians and Bangladeshis. The Bangladeshis are aware of their present and previous culture which is Indic. They neither use Arabic nor Latinized script. The ladies still wear sarees. They still adore their Hindu compatriots who have contributed to their culture. It suffices to say, that in comparison to Pakistanis, Bangladeshis are far more Indian. In fact, I would go as far as to say, that Bangladeshis cling far more to their pre-Islamic culture, than Indian Muslims. Politically, Bangladesh is more or less structured according to Indian Union. Despite the Islam there, they try to conduct themselves secularly.

Also Sri Lanka has a parliamentary form of Govt, albeit with a strong Presidency.

India is bound to Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka through culture, religion, history.

I see no dearth of commonality here.

harbans wrote:Presently many of these states are falling to totalitarian ideologies partly due to the success of the dragon. India has to counter that example set by Panda proving liberal democracy can also be successful. Once we do so, we attract people to our worldview. Integration into the indic sphere occurs only then. And it may not necessarily include incorporation into India's nation state boundaries.

May be at some point in time, when India has really become a prosperous country, we could flaunt our liberal democracy. At the moment, China has proven that authoritarian system is just as good if not better at delivering goods.

However at this stage, I think, the war of ideologies has subsided somewhat, and what works, counts, and he who can gather power, goes ahead. It is a war of identities and interests.

I also don't think, we should be in the business of trying to convert others to liberal democracy. That's their problem, their issue. This is also the GoI policy. Be it CPC or KMT, they both would have gone about in a similar way if the national interests were involved. A Mao or Deng could have belonged to either party.

I am not that interested in getting people in the world to share my worldview. What interests me is to have people who would share my nation's agenda. If other people share my identity, my nationality, it is much more probable that they would also be invested in my nation's agenda. So either other people are integrated into the nation or they become our strong allies, like as you mentioned, Bhutan. But by the nature of our history, our other neighbors would refuse to see the world through our eyes, and thus not act as our true allies. So the only option left is to make them our nationals, if we really need their cooperation, which in fact we do, in warding off China.

harbans wrote:After Unification, India would also have the option of presenting herself as the biggest Muslim country in the world.

I completely fail to see how this is a good idea or what benefits that tag entails. India is not, must not and should not be seen one bit as a Muslim country. India must be seen as a pluralist, liberal democracy with a great economy. India despite it's large Muslim population has never been accepted as a Muslim country in any Muslim organization in the past and i don't see how adding 200 million more SDRE muslims will lead to change in the thought process, unless we also in parallel incorporate the Sharia.

India is seen and can be seen in many Avatars. Pluralist, liberal democracy is one avatar. Mystic, Dharmic Bharat is another. A moderate Muslim country can be another. Muslims live in India, and that is a fact of life we cannot deny. So why not use that fact to derive some strategic mileage in geopolitics.

At the moment, Pakistan claims that the Subcontinental Muslims chose Pakistan and rejected India. Those who could not emigrate were those who did not have the means, but if they had the means, they too would have emigrated. They stayed behind not because of choice, but because of necessity, except may a small minority, but that was because of personal interests. Pakistan is claiming themselves as the true Home of the Subcontinental Muslims and India is their enemy. They display Kashmir as a prime example of how Muslims are prisoners in India.

The OIC has bought this line, and has denied India any membership, and thereby Indian Muslims are not represented in the council - OIC. Not that it matters that much.

Bangladesh is however a member of OIC. If Bangladesh opts to merge with India, then it is a decision by a Muslim country, made by its own volition, not under any duress. It is a confirmation of India as being the homeland also to the Subcontinental Muslims, thereby rubbishing Pakistan's claims of being the sole representative of the Muslims in the Subcontinent (Pakistan + India).

So if Bangladesh merges with India, it brings along its membership of the OIC along with it. Would OIC really reject the membership of 309 million Muslims of a United India - the land with the biggest Muslim population. I think not!

The Muslims may have their own racism and race hierarchy in the Ummah, but they would not deny membership of the Ummah to some SDRE Muslims simply because they are SDRE. In fact they use such membership to claim that they are not racists, a claim important for proselytizers.

In order to belong to the Ummah, or at least to the OIC, Sharia Law is not a necessity. In India, the Muslims do have Muslim Law.

The tag "Muslim state" has several benefits. In Asia, there are basically 4 powers - the Chinese, Islam, India and West's Asia interests and their allies. The West being an outside power and in relative decline would become less and less present. So in the Asian continent, it would be a tussle between the three power centers. Right now China is aligned with Islam, mostly through Pakistan but also through business and anti-Americanism. In a three-way competition between China, Islam and India, the one who aligns with another power would avoid defeat. Amongst the three China is the strongest power, Islam wields anarchy, and India is the benign power. An alliance between China and Islam is simply not good for India. India is holding up because USA is still involved in Asia keeping others in check, Islam's ire is diverted to the West, and China is only now coming into its own.

So the Muslim Tag on India will help break China alliance with Islam. If China pushes India around, then it would cause disconcert in the Muslim world, it would strain China's relations with Islam.

More importantly a Muslim Tag on India would help unravel Pakistan, and China would lose its most important interlocutor in the Muslim world. Without a Pakistan, China would revert to being a nation of kafirs who eat pork and occupy Muslim lands in East Turkestan.

harbans wrote:At the first step i would use economic clout to further groups that stand for moderation, liberal and pluralist tradition in countries like Bangladesh and help them achieve economic benefits and be capable of defending those values systems. Remember the SDRE riots in Noakhali, Dacca, Calcutta were no less brutal than the TFTA ones in Lahore or Meerut.

Time should help us get over the riots. The future cannot be made captive to the past all the time.

You are right. We should be using economic means to further moderation, liberalism, pluralism and reform-mindedness in Muslim societies like Bangladesh, but also India.

That however does not solve the Chinese Chakravyuh.

harbans wrote:The typical example of how we lost our sphere of influence is in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tibet. Areas where we had so much influence lie now shattered and outside our scope, because folks like JLN trashed Generals who came to him with Defense plans, even while Generals in Beijing and Slumabad were planning cutting off our spheres of influence to nought.

Yes, that is the risk the country took when idealists were put in charge, and such were the strategic losses because of that.

That is one reason, I switch off pluralist, liberal democracy talk when I think in terms of strategy. Such thoughts blind one to see the needful.

harbans wrote:In 20 years from now we could possibly be looking at an EU style of functionig within the Indic union. States having far more autonomy, the Indic union taking care of Currency, FP and Defense. If neighbouring States want to join that they should be free to do so. The benefits must be mutual and in no way entail dilution of a liberal and pluralist constitution that would in case of a large influx of Muslims into the union.

I love federal, but I find the Indian Union to be a perfect balance between Center and States.

I think, we should recognize, that Bangladeshis want to portray themselves as a secular country, even though they are to 90% Muslim. I also have a hunch here, that the SDRE Bangladeshi Muslims would prove to be a lot more nationalist than the current Indian Muslims, who still have some TFTA feelings.

harbans wrote:IF you look at Bhutan's success, it is precisely working with us on these conditions. It's FP is completely India's good is our good. It's Defense is taken care of by Indian soldiers with a Bhutanese COAS mostly from IMA or NDA and closely allied with us. Out of 200 nations worldwide the Bhutanese are our best friend and greatest example of success of siding with the Indian union.

India is a good neighbor to our neighbors, and India is a good pluralist liberal democracy to her citizens.

brihaspati wrote:RajeshAji,
I will just draw a cautionary note about :

If Pakistan sinks into barbarity, everybody gets to know the consequences of uncontrolled Islam. Only then does one have a chance to demand and get reforms there.

(1) I remember that when the Talebs (with the other pure outfits fighting Soviets) first won Kabul and tortured and beat up Najibullah to death while hanging him - my fellow students at some so-called institute of national importance were actually joyful at the Taleb success. They looked at it from the viewpoint of the "frusrtrated" - people who saw existing social and political framework as sterile, ineffective and corrupt. They cheered the Talebs simply because of their effectiveness.

I think the more various sections of youth - especially the elite - face "ineffectiveness" of "power" where it matters for them or what they desire for their society, they may simply fall in love with the brutality and barbarity of Taleb type Islamism. we must remember that elite children of non-Islamic origin are brought up to despise their root faith so they have no strong psychological guard. Further their natural social upbringing to expect and exercise power without this commitment or affiliation to their birth faith and community - makes them wonderful champions of future barbaric versions of islamism.

Which just proves that both Western and Islamic propaganda are of good quality. Najibullah had been demonized by both West and Islam. Dharmics would have to learn "psychological engineering" a bit more. Couldn't find the word upon googling.

In your example, the youth were able to impose some narrative on the brutality of the Talibs. I wonder, what reasoning they would be able to come up with, regarding the going ons in Karachi or the various Dargahs in Lahore and elsewhere.

I think the levels of barbarity that would dawn over Pakjab would be a specially brutal barbarity, and not special in its quality, but also special in how wide-spread it would be. And I think, if enough is seen through the TV, at some point in time, one would be able to convince the Indian Muslims, that they do not want to go that way too, and they should have another look at liberalism, moderation and reform.

brihaspati wrote:(2) I have just watched this afternoon a BD cleric explain patiently from a BD based satellite channel - what people need to do to see to it that the Sharia provision for physical penalties against "adultery" (setting waist down into the ground and then slowly stoning) is accepted as law in BD - to make "society" beautiful and moral. He urges Muslims to build up "public opinion" so that this eventually takes place - and proposes using the recent media highlighting of "eve-teasing" cases as a vehicle.

Can you see how and why the one-sided freedom of speech and religion framework by which such things will be tolerated as merely being an integral part of the faith - allowed to be propagated and demanded to be made into "public opinion" with clear and open declarations of intention to one day enshrine it as "supreme law of the land" will merely see brutalities as the ideal and the norm? The perfection that the divine intended for humanity?

One would have to expect such talk from some Muslims. They consider it part of Islam, and it probably is.

If Bangladesh does merge with India, then everybody lives under a single Criminal Law, and such punishments would stay illegal, even in the Bangladeshi region.

AKalam wrote:Very constructive thoughts indeed. My hats off to RajeshA-ji.

Thank you AKalam ji.

AKalam wrote:EU can be tapped for integration consulting and they would love to lend a hand to another serious integration project, I believe.

AKalam ji,

EU has a very different set-up than what I propose.

My proposal is very much based on the India-Model of federation. It does not envisage a council where heads of state meet to agree on common policy and resolve problems. It envisages a full central government for all the regions.

A EU would simply not function in the Indian Subcontinent, because of the power and size differential between India and the other countries.

The agreed upon EU voting rights are thus:

The treaty has expanded the use of qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers by having it replace unanimity as the standard voting procedure in almost every policy area. Moreover, taking effect in 2014, the definition of a qualified majority will change: A qualified majority is reached when at least 55% of all member states, who comprise at least 65% of EU citizens, vote in favour of a proposal. When the Council of Ministers is acting neither on a proposal of the Commission nor on one of the High Representative, QMV requires 72% of the member states while the population requirement remains the same. To block legislation, at least 4 countries (representing at least 35% of the EU population) have to vote against the proposal. Hence, the voting powers of the member states are based on their population, and are no more dependent on a negotiable system of voting points.

As India's population is much more than the 65% of the 'United India' required to pass a proposal, India would be having the veto. Would that sit good with the others?

Secondly India would have to have at least 3 of the other 5 states (Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Maldives) to pass a proposal. Let's say we get Bhutan and Maldives to always support Indian position, and depending on the case, take one more member on board. Would the other two be happy about that?

If the union requires consensus, than again nothing will work.

EU works because EU is a large group of large, medium and small sized countries. SAARC could not work like that. So the EU may not be able to advise us well in this regard.

The only reason for involving the EU that I see, is because of internal politics in Bangladesh. The Bangladeshi Govt. may want to present to its people and opposition a decision to unify with India as based on objectively assessed benefits. If that is the case, I don't mind involving the EU as long as they simply present a report prepared by the leadership in India and Bangladesh as their own and some objective assessment. Otherwise I don't trust outside powers. If India and Bangladesh wish to unify in one country, we would have to learn to trust each other, and involvement of outside powers does not encourage trust.

AKalam wrote:US led West wants to see good management of Asia and troubled spots. The prevailing sentiment was that an economically resurging PRC would provide stability and become the deputy manager for Asia, while US led West keeps the top management post. India was not on the radar earlier, although people started seeing some faint bleeps lately.

But PRC is making angry and belligerent noises. So the situation is probably ripe for an alternate pole.

The integration project that starts in SAARC can be the beginning of an ambitious project that will aim for an India and subcontinent led Asian Union, where it can become a center of Asian civilizations once again because:

- subcontinent is the cradle and also holds the largest number of SD followers (Bali, Indonesia being another remaining strong hold)
- subcontinent holds the largest number (35%) of world's Muslims
- subcontinent is the cradle of Buddhism and subcontinent still holds some remnant ancient Buddhists whereas SAARC will hold large number of Buddhist regions such as Sri Lanka and Myanmar (if it becomes a new SAARC member)

Both Muslims and Buddhists can be used as levers to influence the coreligionists in Asia and beyond, by creating knowledge based prosperity and thus making the subcontinent once again the center for science and spirituality, where there is freedom of religion.

As far as unification/integration of the Indian Subcontinent is concerned, I would stick to the India-Model or some federal model arrived through discussions between India and Bangladesh and others.

For wider Asia, the EU model may be useful.

If the inclusion of other countries in the Indic union is being considered because Bangladesh fears that it would not be able to balance India and needs other countries to do that, then I can only say Bangladesh would be overlooking an important aspect of the fictitious United Indian Subcontinent. Bengal would constitute about 260 million people. That is a big demographic group within a parliament. Bangladesh can rest assured that it would have more than enough influence in Delhi, more than any other region in India has except may be the Hindi Heartland which is politically fragmented.

AKalam wrote:Near my home in Dhaka there are two huge compounds newly built in the late 1990's, one is the embassy campus of PRC and the other of the US. The former is a competitor, the latter a person of interest, but up in the secluded mountains of Pusan, Korea, where I used to take early morning walks, are the Buddhist temples, neatly kept to this day. Buddhists in Korea are fighting the Christians for their existence, they need help. The situation is not so bleak in Japan, but Zen Buddhism, that travelled to Japan from Korea some fourteen centuries ago, is still a large part of national consciousness. I can see two large Buddhist temples on my way to work in Little Tokyo, near downtown Los Angeles.

My wife showed some photos of hers and her colleagues from Pusan and the lush hillsides and Buddhist Temples there. She has good memories of that place.

Yes, both Buddhism and Eastern Islam allow the Indian Subcontinent to spread its influence.

AKalam wrote:India and the subcontinent has the potential to make things happen, whether we can utilize the potentials is the big question. Being SDRE will keep us down onlee if we let others define us. Someday my hope is that ability and not physical traits will become the mark of respect, but much work needs to be done before that happens, I guess.

SDRE is a medal of honor on BRF.

RajeshA ji,

The proposed Union does not need to follow EU processes exactly or does not need their blessing or their involvement as a go-between. The reason I mentioned EU is because other countries and regions (US led West and PRC) would be suspicious of such an Union and how it affects them. The EU precedence offers a bullet proof cover for any allegation of empire building, expansionism etc. for changing the current geopolitical scene. So even if the process differs, which it should, as each case is different and unique, we should try to keep the EU example as a label IMO, just to deflect criticisms. I asked my parents (both born before the Partition and independence in 1947) two questions:

- how would you feel if Bangladesh joined or merged with India, they exclaimed in surprise that it is Obastob (Bengali for impractical)
- then I asked them, how would you feel if something like EU happened in the subcontinent and Bangladesh and other countries (a point you have correctly made in your posts about multiple countries) joined in a EU style SAARC union, they both said in unison, that yes that could be a definite possibility and even welcome (if I remember correctly, late Ziaur Rahman was one of the original founders of SAARC)

Bangladesh and its population should not and I believe will not be nervous to join the Indian Union or feel the need to balance its position with any other country in this Union. We have been part of core Indic civilization for most of prehistory and recent history, things have changed somewhat due to religious polarization only in the past few centuries and finally in 1947 the borders were established, which was 63 years ago, not a long period for a nation's life-time. As you have pointed out, BM's are definitely more SDRE and Indic than IM's most of whom speak Urdu, and I am glad that SDRE is a badge of honor in BRF .

Indian subcontinental Union should be the first step as it will be the core, like you have mentioned, tackling Pakistan and a wider Asian Union (similar to EU) could be next.

EU is mostly Christian (although many different denominations) and mostly white (of many different shades, such as Nordic, Germanic, Slav, Southern European etc.) and is struggling to take in Turkey and only contemplating about North Africa, both of whom might end up as special partners and not full members. On the other hand, the proposed Indian/subcontinental/SAARC union will have three civilizational anchors - SD/Islam/Buddhism, which are prevalent in Asia and covers almost all Asians in some form or other (Neo-confucianism is a mix of Buddhism and confucianism). Christianity made inroads in Korea, Philippines and some ASEAN countries. This wider Asian Union would be the vehicle to let others join in, where multi-party democracy and transparent form of governance would be a pre-requisite, which would prevent the joining of PRC, Noko and possibly Myanmar (unless of course it joins the Indian Union in the first phase and becomes a part of the core before the imposition of this prerequisite for wider Asian Union).

Tony ji have talked about a competing East Asian Union with Japan and Korea, but it will not materialize as a core, as both Korea and Japan are distinct ethnic groups from Han Chinese and are completely distinct civilizations which cannot merge like the merger of the Indic core, that was separated by force just 63 years ago.

Bangladesh have some clout within OIC because of following reasons:

- third largest Muslim country
- somewhat stable democracy
- growing economy and expanding manufacturing sector
- home to a sizeable population of skilled professionals
- 7-10% population already living as expats in Gulf countries and the West

That is why it was chosen as the place to establish the premier OIC funded engineering university.

A few points I want to make about Mongolia and Russia. I was reading Zbig's book from a BRF link and his thinking after the end of cold war has been how to bring in Russia within an expanded EU, of course with the US, being the behind-the-scene patron for EU consolidation and expansion. This smacks to me of Lebensraum talk that the third Reich was famous for. I think a challenge for Asia would be to keep Russia within Asian sphere and not let it fall to EU expansion. This is where both PRC and India could agree on and jointly work at some point in the future (integrated regional water management for Tibetan plateau would of course be one of the most important Indian-PRC co-operation project). At least Russia should be a special partner for both EU and Asian Union, if it cannot become an exclusive part of Asian Union. It has too much Asian Siberian land where the Russian Cossacks arrived only in the past 150-200 years lured in by fur trading. While Chinese labor and business are making inroads into Siberia, Japanese and Korean financing and subcontinental/ASEAN labor could also be there to balance Chinese presence, if they can stand the cold weather.

Mongolian's (including Kalmyk/Oirats in addition to Khalkha of Mongolia proper) recent history is intimately tied with Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Mongolia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Kalmykia

Speaking of wife (sorry for being OT), I have not been a great success in the marriage department. My first wife was Bangladeshi, did not last long, 2nd one was Korean, also did not last long. The third one is Korean as well, whom I just got married to recently. She is Christian as her parents are. I tell her about goings on at BRF sometimes. She mentioned that Buddhism in Korea is still well liked and she personally have a soft corner for Buddhism, but Christians are powerful and organized and are currently winning the battle in SoKo.

Is it OK to ask if your wife is Korean or was she visiting Pusan.

AKalam wrote: Tony ji have talked about a competing East Asian Union with Japan and Korea, but it will not materialize as a core, as both Korea and Japan are distinct ethnic groups from Han Chinese and are completely distinct civilizations which cannot merge like the merger of the Indic core, that was separated by force just 63 years ago.

But I darn say, we have more in common then we are different. The day you get Nepal to join the Indic Union is the day Korea joins the Sino Union. My 2RMD only of cause.

AKalam wrote:wife

দন্গ্সেও

TonyMontana wrote:

AKalam wrote: Tony ji have talked about a competing East Asian Union with Japan and Korea, but it will not materialize as a core, as both Korea and Japan are distinct ethnic groups from Han Chinese and are completely distinct civilizations which cannot merge like the merger of the Indic core, that was separated by force just 63 years ago.

But I darn say, we have more in common then we are different. The day you get Nepal to join the Indic Union is the day Korea joins the Sino Union. My 2RMD only of cause.

Tony, let me tell you about my 2nd Korean wife. She is a real character. When we go to any store, the first thing we do is try to find anything that is not "made in PRC", Taiwan is ok though, and of course India or Mexico is just fine. Me because I am chemical sensitive (MCS) and had bad results with many things that were made in PRC, not all though, I still have an Organic wool sweater made in PRC that is very nice. I don't know about others, but this lady hates everything about PRC and she told me that she is not alone in this kind of thinking in SoKo, using her simple and straight forward words "Chinese have been causing damage to us throughout history and now it is doing the same to the world". Being around Koreans for the last 20 years, I doubt Koreans will ever join in any special Union with PRC, and Japan would not think about such an Union.

I don't know enough about Nepal, but AFAIK, it is mostly Hindu, borders with India, has significant Indic population and some mixed with oriental types. It is also one of the original SAARC members and SAARC is already pledged to form such an Indic/subcontinental Union.

Mountain passes that are good for some part of the year are good connections, but they can only do so much against the huge connection of history that Nepal shares with India, after all it is in the subcontinent, which is it is to the South of the Himalayas. If or when India wakes up to all its possibilities, it will cause huge strategic challenges for PRC's current approach. I think the question is when it will happen, not if.

AKalam wrote:
"Being around Koreans for the last 20 years, I doubt Koreans will ever join in any special Union with PRC, and Japan would not think about such an Union.

Who would want to be a tributory state? But never the less, for hundreds of years, they were. And half of the Koreans disagrees with your wife.

My comment was in jest. I doubt the East Asian Union like I doubt the Indic Union.

Let's move on.

Koreans never forget destruction of Goguryeo and Baekje because of the betrayal of Silla who allied with Tang. A unified Korea will be able to stand up to PRC, if it has other powers behind it.

And please do not dismiss SAARC, it is a talk shop now, but when there is a strategic necessity, it should not take much time to dust off old files and get to work in high gear:

http://www.saarc-sec.org/

For us Bangladeshi's, it is a necessity, because of many many many reasons, chief among which is water, water that comes from upstream rivers in India and Tibet (Brahmaputra or Yarlung Tsangpo).

AKalam wrote:RajeshA ji,

The proposed Union does not need to follow EU processes exactly or does not need their blessing or their involvement as a go-between. The reason I mentioned EU is because other countries and regions (US led West and PRC) would be suspicious of such an Union and how it affects them. The EU precedence offers a bullet proof cover for any allegation of empire building, expansionism etc. for changing the current geopolitical scene. So even if the process differs, which it should, as each case is different and unique, we should try to keep the EU example as a label IMO, just to deflect criticisms.

AKalam ji,

First of all, thanks for your words of encouragement.

I am wary of involving external powers in something which is essentially a Subcontinental party. If some involvement is deemed necessary to make it much easier for one or the other Subcontinental country to accept unification, then it can be considered.

Question: If a Pakistani sees a White, which part of the body does the Pakistani crave most?
Answer: The shoulder - to cry on.

Anytime a Pakistani meets an American or a European, he starts complaining about how India is treating them, how the Indians are abusing human rights of Kashmiris, how India is dangerous, how India is poor and defecated..... So I am not sure, if there is a similar reflex in other subcontinental countries as well to seek out white shoulders. White shoulders can cause such reactions in perfectly 'normal' Pakistanis.

So any involvement of Europeans has to pass certain hurdles - Subcontinental leaders should be in full control of EU public reaction (both content and timing), and official recommendations on Subcontinental Unification. Also no European powers should be involved. If EU involvement is to be considered, then only of Benelux countries, or Nordic countries, or the smaller East European countries. I think the Dutch are quite popular in Bangladesh, because of their help with water management. If their involvement pleases Bangladesh, then they could be asked to do some consultancy.

One area, where EU certainly could be of help is with Common Currency for the Subcontinental Union.

AKalam wrote:I asked my parents (both born before the Partition and independence in 1947) two questions:

- how would you feel if Bangladesh joined or merged with India, they exclaimed in surprise that it is Obastob (Bengali for impractical)
- then I asked them, how would you feel if something like EU happened in the subcontinent and Bangladesh and other countries (a point you have correctly made in your posts about multiple countries) joined in a EU style SAARC union, they both said in unison, that yes that could be a definite possibility and even welcome (if I remember correctly, late Ziaur Rahman was one of the original founders of SAARC)

Bangladesh and its population should not and I believe will not be nervous to join the Indian Union or feel the need to balance its position with any other country in this Union. We have been part of core Indic civilization for most of prehistory and recent history, things have changed somewhat due to religious polarization only in the past few centuries and finally in 1947 the borders were established, which was 63 years ago, not a long period for a nation's life-time. As you have pointed out, BM's are definitely more SDRE and Indic than IM's most of whom speak Urdu, and I am glad that SDRE is a badge of honor in BRF .

Indian subcontinental Union should be the first step as it will be the core, like you have mentioned, tackling Pakistan and a wider Asian Union (similar to EU) could be next.

There are many things to which one can agree, but if it is a question of pride, than that mountain can only be conquered by climbing in a group.

In any unification process, India loses none of its pride. We are a big country, and would mostly be keeping our complete identity intact (though not completely) and know that later on we would be bigger and stronger. The small countries have over decades and centuries built up their individual national identities, and subordinating those identities under a much larger Indian Subcontinental National Identity would be to say the least, somewhat painful. As such Indians would have to be very careful of not causing any more takleef to the pride of the other countries, as what they would already be struggling with. In many sections of the populations of the neighboring countries, there will also be exuberance, but there will also be unease, and we should ensure that exuberance wins.

AKalam wrote:EU is mostly Christian (although many different denominations) and mostly white (of many different shades, such as Nordic, Germanic, Slav, Southern European etc.) and is struggling to take in Turkey and only contemplating about North Africa, both of whom might end up as special partners and not full members. On the other hand, the proposed Indian/subcontinental/SAARC union will have three civilizational anchors - SD/Islam/Buddhism, which are prevalent in Asia and covers almost all Asians in some form or other (Neo-confucianism is a mix of Buddhism and confucianism). Christianity made inroads in Korea, Philippines and some ASEAN countries. This wider Asian Union would be the vehicle to let others join in, where multi-party democracy and transparent form of governance would be a pre-requisite, which would prevent the joining of PRC, Noko and possibly Myanmar (unless of course it joins the Indian Union in the first phase and becomes a part of the core before the imposition of this prerequisite for wider Asian Union).

A long time ago, I used to think in terms of what religious influence India has and can have on Asia, and in terms of unions and federations. But then I grew up some and gave up on being too idealistic or as an Indian, too ambitious or let's say unrealistically ambitious for my country. I don't disparage such thinking at all. But I just don't think it is for my present me. I have gone from expansionism of India to consolidation of India, especially in the light of all the challenges India faces, especially internal.

For India, and thus for Indian Subcontinent to function properly it needs a solid core that acts as a guiding light. Mostly this solid core has proven that it can keep the system, India, together. Before the system expands, the core needs to make adjustments so as to exert a substantial pull on the periphery as well. Just as the core influences the periphery and changes it somewhat so does the periphery influence the core to change it somewhat, till some balance is found over time, and then the core expands to fuse with the periphery, becoming a new core, a little different from its earlier avatar in character but much bigger.

Once the Subcontinental Unification is done, it needs a period of rest - at least two generations, around 60 years for it to consolidate first and find a new balance, before it can think of another expansion. So an Asian Union on the same terms as the Subcontinental Union is for me, simply unimaginable, being too far in the future, and as such of lesser relevance to the issue at hand. Dispersion of focus would be harmful for the project.

As far as Myanmar is concerned, even though it too started on the same trajectory as India and Bangladesh 63 years ago, the long duration of junta rule, distancing from Subcontinental politics, and contamination by an all-pervading Sinic influence, has made it somewhat unsuitable for the first phase of unification, which should be limited to India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Maldives. A second phase could see Baluchistan, Gillgit-Baltistan and possibly Sindh (without Karachi) entering the Union. In a third phase, Myanmar could be considered.

Actually should a democratic dispensation truly come to power in Myanmar, a union with the Subcontinent may be democracy's only real chance of survival. But one shouldn't hold one's breath waiting for that day.

A loose confederation of countries in Asia is always possible, but the maturing of a national identity takes time, and cores are formed around national identities.

As such I personally choose to go slow on expansion, and like to concentrate on consolidation.

I probably even now would not have thought of expansion or unification, were it not for the fact, that PRC's intrusion into the Indian Subcontinent has made further consolidation within India's borders difficult and reversible by using the latent anti-Indianism in the Indian Subcontinent to set up and strengthen counter-consolidation, secessionist and anarchist forces.

As basically the anti-Indianism can be attributed to cracks the Subcontinental core left as it withdrew and contracted, it is possible to expand and consolidate in parallel - expansion of the current core, consolidation of the historical core. This expansion-consolidation of the Indian Subcontinent is needed to neutralize the influence of China, and contrary to popular intuition, IMHO, also the influence of anti-Indic Arabicizing & Radicalizing streams of Islam.

The EU could develop only after its major national conflicts and competitions were bulldozed by the exhaustion of WWII and their impotence and collective dependence on the USA.

All the major European countries have been allegedly involved in one way or another in covert and subversive operations in "ex-colonies" and areas of the world from which they have been forced to be evicted. The kindly Dutch started with trading in enslaved South Indian Hindus captured and sold by kindly Shia Bijapuris, and went on to do even kinder stuff on the rest of South East Asia. This kind tradition was continued in Indonesia, and the subsequent entire history of Indonesia through the antics of Suharto remain controversial.

Belgium was nicely involved in post-liberation Congo. Norway nicely involved in kindly activities in Sri-Lanka. UK has had some stellar role allegedly to play in Myanmar and Malaysia. Wherever we see that out of the post-colonial soup of Islamists, indigenous non-Islamic cultures, military organizations originally trained by colonial regimes, and "nationalists" and communists - only the Islamists, and colonial army's appear to emerge victorious - or where Islamists are not significant as a political power or are disputed then the "army" - are pushed into power - it implies the hand of Europe or its extensions in Oceania and the new world.

If there has to be any collaboration - approach it cautiously after the "union" sourced entirely from indigenous drives, is consolidated. The strong colour based identity of Europe has to go centuries before it will ever treat the tropical natives as fellow humans from the institution side as well as the public side. One exception will be as and when Europe is Islamized - which will then be Europeanized and used as a new imperialist ideology to start colonizing again. That could be game-changer for the subcontinent, but I dont see it happening immediately.

AKalam wrote:Bangladesh have some clout within OIC because of following reasons:

- third largest Muslim country
- somewhat stable democracy
- growing economy and expanding manufacturing sector
- home to a sizeable population of skilled professionals
- 7-10% population already living as expats in Gulf countries and the West

That is why it was chosen as the place to establish the premier OIC funded engineering university.

Even though the membership of OIC, a club whose resolutions are hardly given any attention, may seem mundane, but after the fact that India would be steeling her defenses in the Indian Northeast and the East, OIC membership is the second most-important reason for India to go for Subcontinental Unification.

In the previous posts, I've already gone through the various benefits that would accrue to India as India becomes the biggest Muslim country. Here I'd like to refocus on that.

Perhaps another thing Indians should consider is that More Muslim means Less Islamism.

At the moment the Hindus are convinced that despite all our secularism, there is an unmistakable stench of Muslim appeasement. However their true gripe is at appeasement of Islamists and not just Muslims. We see Indian politicians running around flirting with Islamists to get at their vote banks. And the pseudo-secularists do not see any reason to encourage liberalism and reform amongst the Muslim masses. Why not? Muslim votes are there to be fought over, even when they are more educated, have good jobs, and are integrated into the mainstream. The political establishment is quite happy to see expressions of Islamism in India which goes unreprimanded, and even if it is brought to justice, there is no concerted effort at the political level to make it an issue, and to get rid of the evil. The reason why the betterment of the Muslim masses in India is on nobody's agenda is IMHO wired into the national interests of India.

By giving the Muslims the freedom to do both good and evil in India, India wanted to appease the West Asian states. In the beginning there was the hangover of centuries of subjugation and enormous respect for the opinion of the Muslim nations in the West. India did not want to rile the opinion there. After all we wanted to live in this neighborhood full of Muslim countries, and India was not the strongest of states at her birth. So it was deemed tolerable to take a few punches at home, than rile the Muslim neighborhood. This policy is still being followed. India still shows a lot of deferment to opinion in Muslim countries. To some extent is this cautious, non-provocative, conflict-shy approach justifiable on national interest grounds. At least the argument can be understood. It is a different matter whether somebody can offer a different and better approach.

Secondly, or primarily, there was this question of Kashmir. A Muslim majority region joining India. Then at a crucial time in Indian history, the Indian leadership got bitten by a bug, which causes severe stupidity, and the matter was taken to UN. What we got in return was a disputed region, in all eternity to be fought over by Pakistan and India, where Pakistan's argument was that they are Muslim and India's argument was that we are also for Muslims. The eternal tussle based on these arguments has meant that India was forced to adopt a visibly pro-Muslim national doctrine and that included tolerating the occasional bouts of Islamism in India as well. Only at the propaganda level, where the argument comes down to Islam only, India cannot win the argument. We may go on limb trying to prove we are pro-Muslim, but Pakistan would always have the better argument on Islam - "Pakistan is the chosen land of the Subcontinental Muslims". But even if we are on a losing wicket with respect to that argument, India still continues to tolerate Islamic extremist groups, as it has become a part of the national political consensus.

Of course with such a sizable population of Muslims in India (161 million), it is important that harmony be kept. Since the general opinion worldwide is that Muslims tend to portray themselves as easily provocable, prone to agitation, often the state deems it necessary to give in to their demands, rather than pursue conflict with them even if it were for a just cause. Basically the Indics tend to show tolerance and understanding as Indics are averse to imposition of their will on to others who think differently.

Now there have been some examples of Indian Muslims trying to reform the more conservative Muslim societies in India, but the impression remains, there is insufficient determination and progress in this regard. Not just that the Indian Muslims have pathetically failed on the home front they have pathetically failed to make India's case in the Muslim world, failed to take on Pakistani propaganda, failed to secure Kashmiri public opinion for India, failed to make India a factor and leader in the Muslim world, so much so that India is not even recognized as Muslim (despite the 161 million of them) and is not a member of the OIC. Instead India has to bear the insults of OIC declarations on Kashmir, at the instigation of Pakistan, every now and then.

But this situation serves the Indian Muslim Ulema quite well. They get to keep their captive vote-banks illiterate and on sale to the highest bidder. They take no responsibility, do no developmental work claiming that the politicians they sell their votes to, to do that, do no work in promoting Indian interests abroad and in Kashmir. The longer they play 'subdued', the more would be Ummah's pressure on India on their account, and the more monies would flow their way from the Indian state under such pressure. They also take money from the Saudis, Emiratis and others, and are more than happy to further their interests in India.

So the question is how does India's unification with Bangladesh influence these state of affairs. Would the Indics in India have to be even more appeasist to those who push more radical Islamist agenda, as the number of Muslims in India would almost have doubled, and they would be having more political power? Or would the Bangladeshi Muslims help in putting a break on this movement to the right.

My hunch is that the Bangladesh would help curb the pressure to become more Arabic and radical in Islam in a United India. Bangladesh has shown that it can remain secular despite 90% Muslims, and most importantly that Bangladesh is willing to take the responsibility for the nitty gritty aspects of governance, even though not having the enormous riches of Oil or extent of backing by external patrons, as say Pakistan enjoys. For the first time, there will be a Muslim majority region in India which takes responsibility for its well-being and does not act like the Kashmiris who take all the dole they get from India but no responsibility.

My Hunch is that Bangladesh's addition to India would mean that Muslim Politics would have the label "Made in India" and not "Made in Pakistan" or "Made in Saudi Arabia" and exported to India.

Of course, a unification with Bangladesh can also go horribly wrong, where the Bangladeshi politicians start speaking out in favor of Indian Muslims for some perceived or imaginary wrongs, simply to get their support elsewhere, or to score brownie points with their own Muslim voters back in the Bangladesh Electoral Zone. So instead of playing a responsible role and contributing to diffusing the situation, the Bangladeshi leaders could be tempted to exploit the situation.

Therefore it is extremely necessary that India and Bangladesh agree on certain principles of politics beforehand regarding Indic-Muslim relations and State-Muslim relations.

Pardon my ignorance...

What is the meaning of a muslim nation and how is different from an islamic nation? What will happen if muslims of Indian federation (I know they will be separate political entities) democratically demand that the entire union comes under Sharia?

How does the Hindu population of India benefit from India, other than converting external terrorism into an internal law-and-order situation and a possible (not definite) seat in OIC?

What value it would bring to an average Indian when most of these nations have lesser per-capita resource availability, wealth creation, and HDI score?

Why not India try this with other more Indic nations like Bhutan, Nepal, Burma, and Sri Lanka first and only try this major reorganization ONLY AFTER it acquires enough economic and military strength to make necessary social changes in the target islamic nations?

RajeshA ji,

I admire and fully enjoy your thesis, although I may not agree on all the details of the methods (which perhaps comes from a slight difference in the ultimate objectives! ) I have a feeling that you are not considering some of the major issues between BD Muslim society and Indian Muslim society on the one hand, and the internal dynamic within BD Muslim society on the other hand.

My hunch is that the Bangladesh would help curb the pressure to become more Arabic and radical in Islam in a United India. Bangladesh has shown that it can remain secular despite 90% Muslims, and most importantly that Bangladesh is willing to take the responsibility for the nitty gritty aspects of governance, even though not having the enormous riches of Oil or extent of backing by external patrons, as say Pakistan enjoys. For the first time, there will be a Muslim majority region in India which takes responsibility for its well-being and does not act like the Kashmiris who take all the dole they get from India but no responsibility.

My Hunch is that Bangladesh's addition to India would mean that Muslim Politics would have the label "Made in India" and not "Made in Pakistan" or "Made in Saudi Arabia" and exported to India.

It was the disjunction of BD Muslim society from west and north-Indian Muslim society that led to the second Partition in the first place. How this disjunction pans out is not quite clear in the futuristic scenario you are proposing. I will reserve my comments on the remaining secular bit, for that struggle is not yet over within the society and structure itself.

The Islamic institutions are well entrenched within the nation and possibly even in its security forces. Integrating them or disarming them can be quite a bit of hassle if not impossible. Experience suggests that when formal borders are removed, certain types of religious identities are sharpened and communities become even more closed in and ghettoized. Having interacted with Islamic communities who perceive themselves as living in a "sea" of non-Muslims - I am rather doubtful of what you expect for BD muslims unless "pre-processing" of the ideological structures and the "mullahs" take place.

I have an entirely different track in mind for unification. Which should take care of the pre-processing as part of the unification process. But that is not perhaps to be deemed entirely "peaceful" for it requires dissolution of certain religious and connected institutions including the educational and security apparatus.

Perhaps even before BD, we need to think of what is happening with Myanmar. We may need to have a plan for the entire ring stretching from Nepal, through BD to Myanmar. Myanmar is proceeding towards the Kunming connection.

I would not rely on BD's apparent current cooperation with India too much. I hope my hunches about BD do not turn out to be along the same outcome as Turkey or Iran - whose twists and turns along Islamist lines were not foreseen at the time I cautioned about the possibility. We should buy, "get" a land corridor through Myanmar to the sea. Get it by whatever means, with nothing being dirty in achieving that. BD's parallel networking with NE, Assam , and Nepal and Myanmar is aimed at becoming a regional politico-military force. Moreover the pure-economic development and growth will take care of ideological dissatisfaction and insurgency is a fallacy as shown repeatedly in recent history. If the networking to which GOI is foolishly contributing actually manages to develop the economy given the current ideological state - then it will simply fuel a regional separatism much larger than NE has shown so far with elements of BD power elite controlling the strings.

I would rather welcome greater leaning towards China and greater moving towards China of the ring countries. The mistake made in allowing Pak to split in 71 was apparently a brilliant tactical gain but a disaster over the long term. It means that instead of one Islamist entity or base by which Islamists or their international users can play against India, we have to destroy two. Letting them move overtly towards China provides the future excuses we need.

RamaY wrote:What is the meaning of a muslim nation and how is different from an islamic nation? What will happen if muslims of Indian federation (I know they will be separate political entities) democratically demand that the entire union comes under Sharia?

A Muslim nation is a nation where the majority of the population is Muslim, or a state where the political power is held by Muslims. Islamic Nation would be one, which is not secular, i.e. there is a state religion - Islam, and where the law of the land is either Sharia or according to Sharia.

Well Muslims in Parliament would have to show two thirds majority to change the laws of the land if they want Sharia. At the moment they have their Muslim Law for family matters. That should suffice. Bangladesh too is a secular country despite its 90% Muslim population.

RamaY wrote:How does the Hindu population of India benefit from India, other than converting external terrorism into an internal law-and-order situation and a possible (not definite) seat in OIC?

The internal law-and-order situation is also a consequence of "foreign hand" (Pakistan) or "foreign hand behind the foreign hand" (PRC, USA using Pakistan). It is important that both China and Pakistan lose all ability to influence the going-ons in the Indian Subcontinent (sans Pakistan). Subcontinental Unification can help there.

There is also 'hope' that a unification with Bangladesh could help India unravel Pakistan and win the Kashmir argument for once and for all, due to the shift of Muslim Nationalist power in the subcontinent from Pakistan to India. This should come in useful, because then the pressure of Indian Leadership to pander to Islamism also decreases, which arises due to competition with Pakistan, unresolved Kashmir argument, and deferment to West Asian opinion. Of course India would need an agreement beforehand with Bangladesh on the principles of Indic-Muslim and India-Muslim politics, so that Bangladesh acts as a force for moderation and not exploitation.

The case I'm making is, that both external terrorism and internal law and order situation can be improved due to the merger.

Actually India should be inheriting Bangladesh's seat at the OIC. Throwing out United India would constitute a slap in the face of the Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent, Muslims of United India, the biggest Muslim country in the world, where they would be 309 million. So if thrown out, it would constitute a slight for Bangladeshi Muslims, who would protest the action and promise an appropriate response to it, unlike Indian Muslims, who take things lying down from the Ummah.

RamaY wrote:What value it would bring to an average Indian when most of these nations have lesser per-capita resource availability, wealth creation, and HDI score?

Cheaper labor to compete with PRC, Bigger Market (albeit sections of it, with limited buying power), Invigoration and New Purpose; more men under arms to take on challenges like Pakjabis and the Chinese.

RamaY wrote:Why not India try this with other more Indic nations like Bhutan, Nepal, Burma, and Sri Lanka first and only try this major reorganization ONLY AFTER it acquires enough economic and military strength to make necessary social changes in the target islamic nations?

I doubt those countries would be politically open to a merger with India. In case of Bhutan it would look like coercion. Nepal and Sri Lanka are under heavy Chinese control, Myanmar is under Chinese yoke. Bangladesh's decision to merge with India would act as a catalyst for the other countries. Their Indic heritage make them more suspicious of India's motives, not less. Besides the biggest strategic gains for India would come through Bangladesh, and so too would be the threat from there, if we leave the Bangladeshi outside and PRC can exploit them.

We tend to take India's borders as inviolable. PRC lays claim on Arunachal Pradesh and sometimes even over the whole of Northeast. Were India active trying to undermine PRC using proxies, or through land claims, strengthening Dalai Lama and Tibetan cause, or some other means, I would have been assured that India means business, and we are not acting just defensively. May be there is something going on, but I cannot deduct that from any open source. PRC is on the other hand waging a sub-conventional war against India using an elaborate network of proxies and influence. PRC's dirty work in India's North, East and Northeast is definitely visible. So I have to conclude that our East and Northeast is under threat.

So if PRC succeeds in neutralizing India using its proxies who enjoy China's support and nuclear cover, then all talk of Indic this and Indic that, Dharma this and Dharma that, would not have provided us with alternatives when they were to be most needed. India has to survive to expand, India needs strength to push back ChiPak Axis, and India needs to consolidate her immediate environment. If we outlive the ChiPak designs, we will be having sufficient time and energy to expand into other countries with Indic roots.

brihaspati garu,

Thanks for the feedback,

You're right. I'm not completely reassured that an India-Bangladesh Unification would be completely unproblematic and benign - that is why I'm suggesting a slew of precautionary measures to minimize that danger -

1. Agreement on Principles for Dealing with Indic-Muslim and India-Muslim Relations,
2. Electoral Zones,
3. Neutralizing present Bangladeshi influence in India's East and Northeast caused by illegal immigration,
4. Controlled and Spanned-Out Free Movement of Bangladeshi People within India, etc.

Will get back to with more later.

RajeshA ji, as the saying goes, it's no use "putting lipstick on a pig".

Also, any project to harmoniously consolidate Indian subcontinent must begin with exposing and getting rid of anti-Indic forces inside India.

Pranav wrote:RajeshA ji, as the saying goes, it's no use "putting lipstick on a pig".

We'll have to clear our eyes somewhat. What we see in our West is not just a "pig, with lipstick on". It is "wild boar feasting on our blood". And in the East, I see boar hunting technology, something we need, because we have none.

Pranav wrote:Also, any project to harmoniously consolidate Indian subcontinent must begin with exposing and getting rid of anti-Indic forces inside India.

When we don't have enough water, we need to fight fire with fire!

Donald Rumsfeld once said: "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have".
Well for India, one would say: "As you know, you go to war with the Government you have".

RajeshA wrote:

AKalam wrote:RajeshA ji,

The proposed Union does not need to follow EU processes exactly or does not need their blessing or their involvement as a go-between. The reason I mentioned EU is because other countries and regions (US led West and PRC) would be suspicious of such an Union and how it affects them. The EU precedence offers a bullet proof cover for any allegation of empire building, expansionism etc. for changing the current geopolitical scene. So even if the process differs, which it should, as each case is different and unique, we should try to keep the EU example as a label IMO, just to deflect criticisms.

AKalam ji,

First of all, thanks for your words of encouragement.

I am wary of involving external powers in something which is essentially a Subcontinental party. If some involvement is deemed necessary to make it much easier for one or the other Subcontinental country to accept unification, then it can be considered.

Question: If a Pakistani sees a White, which part of the body does the Pakistani crave most?
Answer: The shoulder - to cry on.

Anytime a Pakistani meets an American or a European, he starts complaining about how India is treating them, how the Indians are abusing human rights of Kashmiris, how India is dangerous, how India is poor and defecated..... So I am not sure, if there is a similar reflex in other subcontinental countries as well to seek out white shoulders. White shoulders can cause such reactions in perfectly 'normal' Pakistanis.

So any involvement of Europeans has to pass certain hurdles - Subcontinental leaders should be in full control of EU public reaction (both content and timing), and official recommendations on Subcontinental Unification. Also no European powers should be involved. If EU involvement is to be considered, then only of Benelux countries, or Nordic countries, or the smaller East European countries. I think the Dutch are quite popular in Bangladesh, because of their help with water management. If their involvement pleases Bangladesh, then they could be asked to do some consultancy.

One area, where EU certainly could be of help is with Common Currency for the Subcontinental Union.

AKalam wrote:I asked my parents (both born before the Partition and independence in 1947) two questions:

- how would you feel if Bangladesh joined or merged with India, they exclaimed in surprise that it is Obastob (Bengali for impractical)
- then I asked them, how would you feel if something like EU happened in the subcontinent and Bangladesh and other countries (a point you have correctly made in your posts about multiple countries) joined in a EU style SAARC union, they both said in unison, that yes that could be a definite possibility and even welcome (if I remember correctly, late Ziaur Rahman was one of the original founders of SAARC)

Bangladesh and its population should not and I believe will not be nervous to join the Indian Union or feel the need to balance its position with any other country in this Union. We have been part of core Indic civilization for most of prehistory and recent history, things have changed somewhat due to religious polarization only in the past few centuries and finally in 1947 the borders were established, which was 63 years ago, not a long period for a nation's life-time. As you have pointed out, BM's are definitely more SDRE and Indic than IM's most of whom speak Urdu, and I am glad that SDRE is a badge of honor in BRF .

Indian subcontinental Union should be the first step as it will be the core, like you have mentioned, tackling Pakistan and a wider Asian Union (similar to EU) could be next.

There are many things to which one can agree, but if it is a question of pride, than that mountain can only be conquered by climbing in a group.

In any unification process, India loses none of its pride. We are a big country, and would mostly be keeping our complete identity intact (though not completely) and know that later on we would be bigger and stronger. The small countries have over decades and centuries built up their individual national identities, and subordinating those identities under a much larger Indian Subcontinental National Identity would be to say the least, somewhat painful. As such Indians would have to be very careful of not causing any more takleef to the pride of the other countries, as what they would already be struggling with. In many sections of the populations of the neighboring countries, there will also be exuberance, but there will also be unease, and we should ensure that exuberance wins.

AKalam wrote:EU is mostly Christian (although many different denominations) and mostly white (of many different shades, such as Nordic, Germanic, Slav, Southern European etc.) and is struggling to take in Turkey and only contemplating about North Africa, both of whom might end up as special partners and not full members. On the other hand, the proposed Indian/subcontinental/SAARC union will have three civilizational anchors - SD/Islam/Buddhism, which are prevalent in Asia and covers almost all Asians in some form or other (Neo-confucianism is a mix of Buddhism and confucianism). Christianity made inroads in Korea, Philippines and some ASEAN countries. This wider Asian Union would be the vehicle to let others join in, where multi-party democracy and transparent form of governance would be a pre-requisite, which would prevent the joining of PRC, Noko and possibly Myanmar (unless of course it joins the Indian Union in the first phase and becomes a part of the core before the imposition of this prerequisite for wider Asian Union).

A long time ago, I used to think in terms of what religious influence India has and can have on Asia, and in terms of unions and federations. But then I grew up some and gave up on being too idealistic or as an Indian, too ambitious or let's say unrealistically ambitious for my country. I don't disparage such thinking at all. But I just don't think it is for my present me. I have gone from expansionism of India to consolidation of India, especially in the light of all the challenges India faces, especially internal.

For India, and thus for Indian Subcontinent to function properly it needs a solid core that acts as a guiding light. Mostly this solid core has proven that it can keep the system, India, together. Before the system expands, the core needs to make adjustments so as to exert a substantial pull on the periphery as well. Just as the core influences the periphery and changes it somewhat so does the periphery influence the core to change it somewhat, till some balance is found over time, and then the core expands to fuse with the periphery, becoming a new core, a little different from its earlier avatar in character but much bigger.

Once the Subcontinental Unification is done, it needs a period of rest - at least two generations, around 60 years for it to consolidate first and find a new balance, before it can think of another expansion. So an Asian Union on the same terms as the Subcontinental Union is for me, simply unimaginable, being too far in the future, and as such of lesser relevance to the issue at hand. Dispersion of focus would be harmful for the project.

As far as Myanmar is concerned, even though it too started on the same trajectory as India and Bangladesh 63 years ago, the long duration of junta rule, distancing from Subcontinental politics, and contamination by an all-pervading Sinic influence, has made it somewhat unsuitable for the first phase of unification, which should be limited to India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Maldives. A second phase could see Baluchistan, Gillgit-Baltistan and possibly Sindh (without Karachi) entering the Union. In a third phase, Myanmar could be considered.

Actually should a democratic dispensation truly come to power in Myanmar, a union with the Subcontinent may be democracy's only real chance of survival. But one shouldn't hold one's breath waiting for that day.

A loose confederation of countries in Asia is always possible, but the maturing of a national identity takes time, and cores are formed around national identities.

As such I personally choose to go slow on expansion, and like to concentrate on consolidation.

I probably even now would not have thought of expansion or unification, were it not for the fact, that PRC's intrusion into the Indian Subcontinent has made further consolidation within India's borders difficult and reversible by using the latent anti-Indianism in the Indian Subcontinent to set up and strengthen counter-consolidation, secessionist and anarchist forces.

As basically the anti-Indianism can be attributed to cracks the Subcontinental core left as it withdrew and contracted, it is possible to expand and consolidate in parallel - expansion of the current core, consolidation of the historical core. This expansion-consolidation of the Indian Subcontinent is needed to neutralize the influence of China, and contrary to popular intuition, IMHO, also the influence of anti-Indic Arabicizing & Radicalizing streams of Islam.

RajeshA ji,

EU involvement may not be necessary at all or very limited to technical consultancy as you have suggested, but using some label to equate the integration to EU integration would automatically make people associate it something familiar and acceptable in the international arena as well as the masses (locally or internationally), but again this also is not absolutely necessary. Using or modifying the SAARC in its current form maybe another idea where we could put the unacceptable countries in the back burner, such as Pakistan and Afghanistan and proceed with the other 6.

About using religion to increase influence, I think it is a very very old civilizational technique. West has been using it where ever it can, since they borrowed and adopted Christianity from Near East to their Roman Empire as the ruling ideology. Of course Islam has used it as well, many times accompanied with military force, but often associated with trade in coastal areas. SD and Buddhism mostly spread on their own at initiatives of local populace, kingdoms and empires and sometimes with trade. Before these civilzational tools become rusty in course of time, I believe they will go through a resurgent phase, and we are probably in the middle or beginning of it, mainly because of globalization and discovery of new media and connective tools, such as air travel, mobile communication and of course the spread of Internet. But this resurgence might be and hopefully will be mostly free from political overtones and mainly spiritual.

Like the Hare Krishna temples I used to visit often in Culver City, Los Angeles, spending some small resources to revive and reconnect the existing networks may provide excellent ROI for GOI, or some GOI supported or privately funded NGO's, specially for Buddhism in Asia and perhaps for SD as well where it still remains, such as Bali. Essentially its PR on the cheap to increase mind-share.

I completely agree with the phased approach of integration, but the details I am sure can be worked on when the time comes, such as when Myanmar should be tackled.

About South Asia or subcontinent, my personal dream is to see eventually a political unification of the Indic people in one federal country like the United States. Whether Pashtuns and other ethnic groups in Afghanistan, Baloch and Myanmar ethnic groups such as Burmans consider themselves Indic and want to jump on the train for potential benefit, like other somewhat non-Indic people within the subcontinent, is something they need to decide and consider I guess, but options should be kept open for them IMO.

About wider Asia, unlike Europe, there are multiple civilizations and ethnic groups, so an eventual political union may not be desired, what is realistic is an economic integration, such as border less trade and free movement of goods (customs union), possibly currency union etc., but not free movement of people and retention of defense, foreign policy etc. which will remain with sovereign countries and their governments.

Every Muslim people have their unique characteristic as Islam established itself in different regions and ethnic groups of the world. Islam in Bengal and Muslim Bengali's have their own unique history and characteristics:

- it has become a majority faith within Bengali ethnic group
- it has become people's faith and a peasant creed
- it is the single largest Muslim ethnic group within the subcontinent and possibly in the world
- unlike Pakjab, which had to face the brunt of Islamic onslaught, I believe Islam in Bengal had a slightly different history of conversion

Within a United subcontinent/India, I believe BM's and a transformed Bengal because of them can play a moderating and positive role, mainly because Bengali's, fighting hard with the elements and adversity (counting the cyclones, tornados and flood we face every year), are a hardy and survival oriented people. Survival, economic gain and uplift is more of a priority than some abstract ideals. As East Pakistani and Bangladeshi we have already seen how difficult it is to survive in a cut off and boxed in country, sometimes slighted because of SDRE/TFTA divide with Pakjabi's while in Pakistan and later becoming geopolitical pawns while independent as Bangladesh. Like the Bengali Muslims who have migrated from Bangladesh to India, our people have already voted with their feet, what they prefer. Just talk to a Bengali Muslim migrant labor, who are probably there in all major towns in India and check out for yourself, what their values are. They want hope for their and the future of their children more than anything else.

In pre-partition Bengal, mostly the Muslims provided the working hand, while SD followers provided the brain, that balance will be regained with unification. Bengal will once again become a powerful state and a pillar with disproportionate influence on Delhi. I am sure Tata Nano plant would never again have to move to Gujarat, if another opportunity like that knocks in Bengal's door again. BM's also I believe will play a leading role in transforming the role and vision of current Indian Muslims and hopefully in the future for global Muslim's on behalf of United India/subcontinent and thus further Indic interest within the subcontinent as well as the globe. Kashmir, Pakistan/Pakjab, OIC etc., all problems of such nature will have a different dimension added.

I think it is a vision and goal worth pursuing, for the sake of subcontinent and for humanity as well. Will it be easy to achieve, I don't believe it will be, but with time and patience mountain can be moved and large and worthy goals can be achieved.

RajeshA wrote: Donald Rumsfeld once said: "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have".
Well for India, one would say: "As you know, you go to war with the Government you have".

But would it not be easier to amend the Government you can have; than going with the assumption that the Government you have will be the Government that one can have always.
There are many steps that needs to happen within India first, and also in BD quite a lot, before things can move. And one of the easiest steps would be to amend the Government you can have, there are plenty of opportunities every 5 years (give or take a couple). This will happen sooner rather than later.