All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
brihaspati wrote:Just a gentle reminder again, no discussion please on philosophical issues about any religion unless they have a direct bearing on future strategic scenario for the subcontinent. This is for both AKalamji and RayCji -
Thank you.
Are you the Webmaster, an Administrator or a Forum Moderator?
My post is logical and with issues that addresses the issues based on Mr Kalam's post. Do indicate where I have gone wrong.
I wish to assure you (as a Forum Moderator, if you don't mind) that this is a secular forum and we would like to have discussions that are balanced.
The mindset churns out the national strategy!
And when religion is brought in (under the guise of strategy), then it becomes an issue.
I am neither a webmaster, nor an admin, nor a forum moderator - and this is the reason, I give gentle reminders or request, and say please. If I was any of the above, I would delete without warning, warn, or ban - isnt it? or the frequently mentioned "jhapads"? I am trying to keep things in focus - especially since I alone appear to be reminded that I am endorsing "religious discussions". I have to manage pretty large classes and a mind-of-their-own PhD students - I have to make people fall in line without showing my "power" to do so, and that is all that I try to do - I do not have the benefits of being a "moderator".
I have myself argued that religion is an issue that cannot be entirely bypassed in our project. But what I am concerned about is not the philosophical or historical context in which a certain religion behaved in a certain way - but how such influences have shaped this religion's behaviour into the present and the future, as relevant for future strategies we need to adopt.
Your answer is logical and factual, I have not disputed that. But is it relevant for our future strategy whether a particular religion according to you is scientific or not? I was tempted to lash out on this! Creation, difference in the number of devils for men and women, the list is endless for the fascinating science behind Islam. I can take you out on a full scale debate about the degree and nature of "scientific" elements in Islam - I have studied most of the core texts in the original - but this thread is not the place for it, isnt it?
perhaps, it is.. when one thinks strategy by way of educating the masses (lets say madrassas) are the best place to make better society, where people don't take wrong routes to establish their visions. religion only plays then when it influences social living.
coming to yindooism, as many understand its more of the way of living rather a religion, hence there is a larger section that would fill the science, scientology and technology fields as well. the same can't be said with other religious cultures, especially that sends to hell and heaven on a whip of the sword or a trigger of gun.
as long as, the strategies are for converting their religion into a more modern scientific one, there is little chance for such thoughts in this thread. science and valid reasoning is required.. and by the same note, not that which is not proven, easily falls into hands of jihadics, and say science failed, hence our Gods command destruction or killings.
destruction of such teachings should be the numero uno strategy in the sub continent.. call it what ever. if there was new testament, basically meaning a change was done. the same way, any religious texts can be changed.. from calling for sacrifice, jihad, crusade, or any means of violence that only should have existed prior militarization of the world.
final justice, is a karmic action.. newtons third law... but, a bhuddist monk in bhutan can't fight an ak47 wielding kasabs, musharrafs and kayanis. bring the bhuddist to the mountain.. meaning, make them devoid of weapons or wall them up! plausible but not possible until we talk about WMDs.
of course, there are other means.. for example a slow secure and non stoppable chain reactions. hope we can start one soon.
brihaspati wrote:I am neither a webmaster, nor an admin, nor a forum moderator - and this is the reason, I give gentle reminders or request, and say please. If I was any of the above, I would delete without warning, warn, or ban - isnt it? or the frequently mentioned "jhapads"? I am trying to keep things in focus - especially since I alone appear to be reminded that I am endorsing "religious discussions". I have to manage pretty large classes and a mind-of-their-own PhD students - I have to make people fall in line without showing my "power" to do so, and that is all that I try to do - I do not have the benefits of being a "moderator".
I have myself argued that religion is an issue that cannot be entirely bypassed in our project. But what I am concerned about is not the philosophical or historical context in which a certain religion behaved in a certain way - but how such influences have shaped this religion's behaviour into the present and the future, as relevant for future strategies we need to adopt.
Your answer is logical and factual, I have not disputed that. But is it relevant for our future strategy whether a particular religion according to you is scientific or not? I was tempted to lash out on this! Creation, difference in the number of devils for men and women, the list is endless for the fascinating science behind Islam. I can take you out on a full scale debate about the degree and nature of "scientific" elements in Islam - I have studied most of the core texts in the original - but this thread is not the place for it, isnt it?
First of all, it is not your prerogative to instruct or keep things in focus. If it were, then the Moderators would be redundant and it would be a self censoring affair. Sadly, it is not so.
If you notice, this thread has a huge religious content and less of strategy.
Even another forum Moderator has this to say before I came in:
So Brihaspatiji, I read your endorsement of these discussions, but my concern remains: does the FUTURE scenario require going back to the same old yadayadayada islam this that - wasting all kinds of time of kind adminullahs?
Is there no FUTURE where we can break free of this medieval garbage? Isn't this depressing? Even the Pakistanis (oooh! check out the ultramodern-but-proper Hon. and Dig. Marvi Memon )seem to have started to come around to realizing that there may be some merit to coming all the way forward into the 18th century - then why must we keep going back to the 7th?
My post was not on strategy, but to suggest to Mr Kalam, who is an honoured member, of the issues that he had stated and which may not be in concert and so he could clear the cobwebs that I might have had.
When you state that you could take me on on Islam, I would not disagree since you would be better versed in the talim, possibly having studied in a madrassa. I would not like to contest you on that, but suffice it to say, that I have held my own in the Pak Def Forum on such issues. Yet, I concede that I am a novice in Islam studies compared to you, especially since self profess it so.
Thank you.
But please note don't moderate or give gentle reminders. Just report the post to the Moderators and let them earn their keep!
So, Gentlemen, is the future strategic scenario for an Indian Subcontinent to change Quran? What is your take on dealing with communism, if deal with Islam we must, unless the two are synonymous. Is there a simpler way to enforce a "we can both live or I (India) live" reality in the neighborhood?
There is also something called "replace" under the "change"-hood. It sounds better than change. There would be resistance for change, but a little lesser for replacement, as it would be at 20K feet against a 30K feet wish.
A further better option would be to "delete" the unwanted words.. this may be done by some covert imams or heads of all religions that practices and preaches ill health and killings to others or the disliked. a deletion would be at 10k feet level strategy.
BTW, we can only suggest. The revolt has to happen in the right masses, where it is now has bolted itself from any righteous path that leads to such things.. lets say, they are under the hood.. perhaps a right mood for them to rethink.
Religion is just one of the issues that any strategic thought about the future of the subcontinent has to deal with. There are other equally important issues. I am trying briefly to summarize this based on discussions and my own thoughts so far.
To put the core on a firm foundation, all aspects at present which prevent consolidation of the core have to be removed as far as possible. The factors can be broadly divided into four categories, but all have interrelations:
(1) ideological (2) economic (3) political (4) military. Here just (1). Will try to summarize (2-4) as followups.
(1) Ideological :
(a) religion in the subcontinent is one factor that prevents consolidation of the core, in the sense of inter-religion perceptions of conflict, the three major contenders in this are certain sections within "Hinduism", most sections within Islam, and Christianity. The most divided in reaction is of course the "Hindus" and not all Hindus are concerned about this conflict and and some Hindus may even prefer or admire elements in other "contesting" religions or follow elements of these other religions in their daily life. There is little or no such tendencies within Islam or Christianity. Given the Hindu propensity to protect, defend or admire the other "contesting" creeds, could have been expected to lead to a syncretic common ideology by now, which could have been a consolidating factor. Somehow, all Hindu admiration or even following/adopting of contesting religious practices have not led to this consolidation. This creates a divided society, where sections of populations affiliated to the three main contenders continue in not-always-obvious mutual distrust. These divisions in themselves need not have been a problem where external policy was concerned, if no contenders were seen to have external affiliations that predominate their thoughts or behaviour.
Unfortunately at least for Islam and Christianity, with their professed affiliations to centres outside the core, and in the case of Islam having overlapping connections with Pakistan, preserves mutual distrust. This in turn creates pressures and tensions on any elected government when it comes to deciding about concrete actions with respect to external entities that may affect the centres to which one or more religions may have affiliation to, outside of India.
Possible solutions :
(i) encourage the syncretic faction within Hinduism, the largest group - to admire and adopt elements of two other contesting religions so that interfaith distance decreases overall. Historical and current experience suggests that there is less hope of imitating this behaviour from within the two other faiths. In the past ex-Hindu converts into Islam have played pivotal role in the spread of Islam, and such people could again help in the religious homegenization of the core. Once everyone comes under Islam or Christianity the homeogenization problem is solved.
(ii) specifically ask each religion to formally declare themselves against explictly stated elements in their claimed core texts, that are incompatible with a modern society. For religions having centres outside of the subcontinent, these elements should also have to be specifically chosen strategically so that it diassociates the members in the core from these external centres. Better still if the elements are so crucial in the external centre's thought process, that declaring aginst them would make the subcontinetal followers themselves the targets of external centres.
(iii) declare that religion is not important for future strategic thinking about the subcontinent, and enforce this thought with authority. If successful, it can possibly get us out of any trouble with religion as an obstruction to consolidation of the core. This of course depends on the existence of authority figures acceptable to the majority of the populations, but if such authority exists, then they can cover for the growth of determined minorities who can take over the entire population in the name of any one particular religion when they are ready.
(b) non-religious political ideology : the primary division in the non-religious political ideology sphere is that between Marxism and anti-marxism. Most purely political divides fall in between the two extreme positions. An extreme pro-Marxist interpretation has been seen by some as a solution to the core's problems, leading to various Left experiments. Each of the splits in the CPI have actually occurred at dissatisfaction with parent party's lack of radicalism. This has resulted in Naxalism taking roots in large tracts of the core. The anti-Marxist position sees all Leftist positions as "evil" - for a variety of reasons ranging from economic inefficieny to anti-spiritual to foreign. The Leftist position on the other hand primarily sees only one "evil" on the subcontinent - the problem of "Hindutva", the only problem that is an ideological problem similar to Fascism while all others including Islamic or other forms of extremism as merely reaction to this Fascism or traditional exploitation and purely economic in origin. This conflict creates obvious problems in formulating clear or aggressive policies against terror seen to supported by religions or cultural values, and paralyzes the core.
possible solutions
(i) allow the Naxals to expand, as they have shown themselves to be successful at retaining leadership in the hands of elements originating from the elite within the majority Hindus, (a surname list of the top leadership usually reads like a whos-who of "top-order" Hindu "castes"), at enlisting interfaith support - from Islam and Christianity and claim to be based on scientific, modern and progressive dogma. They have the potential at least in theory to overcome all class, religious, and ethnic divides - they may even solve the political fracture problems as whereever their model has succeeded, they simply "liquidated" such problems. Their expansion will consolidate the core.
(ii) try a live-and-let-live formula with leftist extremism and make alliances with parliamentarian Left, proclaiming that Left-non-Left conflict was not a significant issue for the strategic future of the subcontinent. This will allow the Naxals (more than the Left parliamentarians) to ultimately exapand and take over the core completely resulting in consolidation of the core.
(iii) put in place immediate encirclement and liquidation campaigns to finish off military power of Naxals, and simultaneously launch an economic charm offensive to remove popular support. Isolate the Left parliamentarians by consolidating the Right, with the ultimate aim of removing popular support from them.
(c) question of reconstructions of history :
Historical reconstructions by the Thaparite School of Indian history creates tensions and fractures within the core in two ways - first it clashes with the oral traditions and folk memories of atrocities, and secondly it creates modern justifications for protection of certain religious thoughts formally under whose cover other, hidden violent elements can flourish. This also encourages self-hatred, and extreme anger at one's own origins perhaps if a core member comes from the only evil religion/culture as per hsitorical reconctructions. Such members are also causes of tension and fracture because they are in two minds about their affiliations and try to compensate by espousing the non-evil ideologies.
possible solutions
(i) enforce the Thaparite version compulsorily, which will weaken the "Hindus" sufficiently given that they are already quite fractured and confused over reactions to other ideologies, and the more vulnerable among them will use their "fanaticism" or love for power to liquidate any contrary opinion. This results in a homogenized and consolidated core dominated by more authoritarian and relatively far less confused ideologies like Islam or Christianity which are rarely unsure about their agenda.
(ii) insist on a public discourse, and educational access to core texts and narratives, without the benefit of editing and misrepresentations or whitewashing under interested "preachers" - (after all, the most vociferous of those who are deemed experts on the niceties of and lack of barbarity in Islam in India, like Prof. Romilla Thapar did not study in Madrassahs to become experts on historical Islam) besides formal and modern interpretations from exact sciences - archaeology, genetics, etc. This will bring a convergence of opinions about the past and place it on solid, really "scientific" basis - not based on individual claims of scientific basis of individual ideologies or versions of history. This can also weaken affiliations to staunch and particular positions on divisive religious and cultural identities,
Wow. This thread started off so well with talk about Indian nationalism and cosmpolitanism, what it meant for the future of India, talk of national integration and many other bold ideas.
Keshav wrote
Wow. This thread started off so well with talk about Indian nationalism and cosmpolitanism, what it meant for the future of India, talk of national integration and many other bold ideas.
Seriously, can we get back on track?
Apologies. I was angry and sarcastic. Apologies again.
Summarizing again:
The two main themes that came up in consolidation of the core and inspiring the periphery to become part of the core are (1) nationalism/national integration (2) cosmopolitanism - the first is the objective and the second is a method.
The thorny questions that come up as obstructions to national integration, are essentially the various fractures in subcontinental socities - as our discussions threw up, (1) ideological fractures like religious divides and threat perceptions, communism, etc. (2) language distrust and lack of a common language (3) regional, ethnic and other cultural subgroups who may place such affiliations higher than loyalty to an integrated nation (4) economic exploitation, discrimination, based on regions, ethnicity, class etc. (5) persistent polictical divisions based on ideology (because public policy turns out to be more comvergent than expected in spite of rhetoric to otherwise).
Cosmopolitanism is a phenomenon or process, and may actually depend on how inclusive the system turns out to be. I am all for urbanization, but as I have expressed my fears before - my experience in "ghettos" concentrating particular religions showed to me that lack of success in enjoying the "cosmopolitan life" could actually turn youth into radicals given a certain religious pre-conditioning. So in that case, urbanization/cosmopolitanism could actually worsen the situation - comparatively I found the rate of radicalization to be less in similar population concentrations in rural areas. So I would not bet all my hedges on cosmopolitanism as a phenomenon. But it definitely can help if carried out or promoted with a firm vision.
In fact what I have studied for long is the Israeli Kibbutz system and its effects on Israeli society. Now of course some will comment that we have got fanatic Palestinian haters out of the Kibbutz, but as far as the Israeli nation is concerned I think the overall effects have been beneficial. Primarily these were commune-farms which was primarily adopted in the early days of Israel formation - because they needed to make arid lands cultivable, needed to be in groups for security, and the experience of the Holocaust had probably given the need to draw closer to the "community". In India we probably cannot repeat such an experiment. But modern urbanization appears to promote isolation and alienation even while concentrating populations in a small space (by stacking them vertically and separating spatially).
A feasible way could be planned agrarian-industrial townships all over the country, preferably the so-called "circular" designs. The basic idea is to have both agriculture and industry equidistant from residential neighbourhoods. I am not going into details of the spatial planning and eco aspects, but what is relevant here is that same residential neighbourhoods can and should ideally contain both "farmers" and "industrial workers", every household should have acces to private plots to grow veg etc., and every "farmer" should have access to small tool-sheds etc. This makes every individual share and experience all parts of the production system, this creates a local economy, where no one is completely a novice in the skills and problems of the producer of commodities he normally simply buys off the shelf, and there is always a fall back option for every producer to survive in case other/outside supplies important for his survival does not arrive or becomes unavailable. More importantly this can actually give us an eventual mutual appreciation of each others contribution, breaking down of social taboos and stigmas associated with professions, provide a focal point for exchange of ideas and identities, and grow a common community. This is my take on adaptation of cosmopolitanism. For us this could also be an experiment in developing a kinder society that looks after vulnerable - in the extremes of age-spectrum - in a community sense - both children and the elderly. Such agrarian-industrial townships could be source of energy generation, a local economy relatively self-sufficient and buffered from national shocks, and a possible source of national integration.
JupiterJi, boss, we're staring at spots. Let me try to show how I am losing you. This cosmopolitanism stuff is a bit too modern for a old dude like me. And my head is spinning in circles trying to follow all the circular constructions that will salvage us. Finally, all the syncretic pancakes are causing unwanted secretions in my pancreas.
Let's start from the basics.
We wanted a core and a periphery. So went about asking where the core is, and what exactly that is. We said it's nationalism. Ok, now what is nationalism, and we started creating websites to talk to people. Right, so then we wiggled around and came to confront the issue that the periphery is actually pretty different from the core, not in the least because of islam. I don't see no one talk of nepal and bhutan and sri lanka, really. It's BD and Pakistan. The solution it turns out is:
1. Islam can't fix itself this time, OIC is busy.
2. We need some syncretic secretions to hand-shake.
3. We need to transform a core to secrete this way.
4. The core's objective is nationalism with a method called cosmopolitanism.
Gurudev, I am flunking your class and though as a prof I don't take classes (though I should), you really are scaring me with all this stuff.
I am sorry to be blunt but can we kindly write in simpler tutumaimai language. Like, pakistan hit me, what to do? Indian politican screws people, what to do? People not united, what to do? India's-got-everybody-in-the-hood-by-the-balls-but-is-sweet-to-them-how-to.
Okay lets get back to basics: (the cosmopolitan stuff was in response to AKalamji and Keshavji's comments)
(1) We have sort of agreed that the core is based on nationalism.
(2) The debate about nationalism bogged down into questions about "divisions" and how to overcome those divisions - as well as what is included in our nationalism and what isnt (it appears we haven't yet settled it)
(3) The search for common positive features among people and activating them.
Can we agree on certain points about nationalism ?
(1) there is a basic attachment of the people to the land, and a common cultural identity for the majority of the populations, and some syncretic overlap with "minority" cultures.
(2) we should try to identify those common cultural points that are not retrogressive, and helps us in reaching out to them using these points to try and raise awareness of security concerns and the need for more active and further nationalistic consolidation
(3) in the process, we have to tackle issues of modernization - maybe broach the idea of an uniform legal system, and other necessary social reforms
(4) try to overcome language barriers, settle the issue of English and interim use of regional languages to promote national awareness
(5) maybe keep in mind that we eventually want the periphery to come and join us as core - so we try not to say or promote things that drives the common people in the periphery away from us.
I do think your graph and network flow is a good approach. I thought of BD as a recent unexpected result only. But Nepal, Bhutan, should also be included, agreed.
All the countries in the periphery should be looked at together. And we can think of ways and means to isolate the common people in these areas from their elite, who use hostility towards the core as a political tool.
Like even in the case of TSP, there is no harm in strategically promising to build infrastructure and the economy if say the people of Sind or Pakjab want to join India - minus their leaders and theologians? Same tactics should not be applied to BD, or SL, but could be applied to Nepal.
I agree with where you are headed. Here's my take, where a vision is concerned:
* India is fractured, and it is polarizing. The polarization is largely around religious lines, and the ones along caste lines is receding.
* The religious polarization is aided by Pakistan, which has been able to pull the Indian Muslim away from India. The religious polarization is also aided by Saudi Arabia and others. The most negative relations India has with its neighbors are with Pakistan and Bangladesh.
* The communists come next and related to them China, which has formed a nexus with the countries in the periphery, initially PK and BD, but now others. We are going to choke on these peripheral pearls if we don't do something about it, now.
* India is not seen as the core of the civilization that is south asia. It is seen as a remenant hodge podge that should not have existed in the first place and must be brought down to size, of a manageable size, like the others. Why should a defeated Hindus be the boss of us, they wonder, right?
* This core and periphery is in our minds only and we can jerk off as much as we want, what is necessary is for the periphery to recognize us as the core.
* We must first recognize that it may take a great deal of work to change the sign of the relationship with our neighborhood. Instead of mere mixing as a paradigm for smooth core-periphery, I propose vigorous shaking and stirring for a while.
* We must start an internal process of homogenization and repeat that in our neighborhood.
* What does that mean.
First, India must pull the Indian muslims away from this slide of continual marginalization and separation. It must also stop appeasing them and allow them to get into the democratic mainstream. It must reiterate and enforce the fact that we are one nation under the sky.
Second, it must erect a wall between it and its neighbors by protecting its boundaries vigorously. No more goddamn samjhauta until PoK joins J&K and we've sorted Pakistan out. A nationalistic India will also have an understanding of how to deal with politicians who divide to survive and we must develop an educational plan that accomplishes it. Dhimmis and HFLs, purged.
Third, it must militarily sort out Pakistan, bide its time with China, and find a way to use US and RU and EU as a lever to hold China at bay. This will instill pride in her people. It must, snap Pakistan by pulling PoK out and help the Pushtuns free run, as punishment for past acts.
Fourth, it must then send its emissaries into the peripheral nations and have trade and military agreements with them and make them dependent on India for their essential existence. It must ensure all of them are democratic and yes, secular, and have a healthy balance of different religions, little Indias if you will.
Fifth, it must develop a benevolent, and kind approach to its periphery and actively manage the relationship.
That is how I think about it, and I am not sure this ongoing handshaking with islamism is in our or any nation's benefit.
(1) three problems in the periphery and the core require military solution - the dissolution of TSP and absorbing possibly Sind and Pakjab, neutralizing China with eventual target of establishing buffer independent Tibet, the liquidation of the Naxalite leadership internally. Question, are there programs and plans to equip the army for these strategic objectives? Can we have inputs from those who have the "experience" to tell us what sort of outlay would be required? (all three branches)
(2) We need to immediately consider reaching out to Myanmar and Thailand. The space left vacant is being filled up with China. It can look cycnical, but can we use "cultural" commons (like Buddhist networks) to reach out to these two regions? Myanmarese people probably expected some role from India, and India appears to have avoided them altogether. Same goes for Thailand.
(3) Can common festivals be used to promote homogenization? I know that this can start another "war" , but seriously, can we think of getting together people from other regions to participate in local festivals, and get local people to observe festivals from other regions - we can always find some "immigrant" from all corners of India in most places?
(4) Can the army be requested to provide personnel for leading groups of teenagers coming together from all parts of India in a camp or region for basic survival training, facing national emergencies in the rear, (The Soviets used to have summer camps and a standard feature seems to have been "war-games" for children) - but I hope you understand the purpose behind the proposal, basically kind of trying to homogenize early under the most nationalist institution with required expertise?
We do nothing with PakJab and Sindh until our own country has homogenized.
Our primary point of of connection with Pak is PoK. PoK is part of India. India has no interest in Pakistani territory, but we want ours back. Our overt operations are to retrieve PoK, which will begin with homogenizing J&K by removing 370, finding a way to go to the other side of PoK, and pinching PoK out. This provides us with a route to CAR and is our top strategic priority, I feel. This result can be made possible in the present climate, if we work it.
Once that happens, Pak is in a tail spin for a decade and Afghanistan is stablized right in time for Barack's reelection. We let the remainder of Pakistan implode with talibunnies and pakjabis and it must continue in that state indefinitely, until India has assimiliated POK into its fold and homogenized our country first.
Eventually, with a 3-sided encirclement, we can start mixing the core and the periphery, no rush.
^^samuel y do u think that usa china will allow india taking over china.haan only thing they can allow pak taking over j&k.moreover do u see any guts in indian leadership even to cross loc.
Article 370 will not be repealed unless BJP gets absolute majority, and even then it may become doubtful. Leaving Pakjab in our flanks while trying to absorb POK, could be seriously dicey - given the current, and foreseeable into the immediate future leadership of India. Just a threat of nuking, and all thoughts of repealing 370 goes out through the window. What is the army's latest opinion about this? Given the lack of strategic vision from GOI, I was thinking more in terms of fully preparing for an invasion to dissolve the "core" of TSP, Pakjab, and its access to the sea Sind, making Baloch independent. Know its a long shot, but probably have to wait anyway for an appropriate GOI to come to power - so why not use the time to prepare and equip? Also coming and occupying from the south prevents Unkil from supplying TSP with material to keep up the resistance. Evn if the northern line is opened, it will be more difficult and a thinner line of supply through central Asia.
To be sure, we are all here in a vision mode
Meaning, we are establishing a series of objectives of how the core expands.
It breaks up larger chunks into smaller chunks with or without the help of others and starts assimilating.
If you think the goals aren't accomplishable, lets break them to simpler ones that can be, don't lay down your tools too soon.
So, how would we make 370 happen?
How do we pinch off PoK?
(there is actually a bigger list, but we can start here)
To accomplish this, we need to realize that
1. We can't do it on our own. We need to build the strategic capacity to do it and external help.
2. We have to develop and pivot many international relationships along the way.
3. We have to have an internal transformation so that leaders who will accomplish those goals rise.
4. We have to have a core group of citizens that generates the momentum for the transformation.
That is how I think I see the core growing.
Right now, unless the US invites us into Afghanistan, this is all pocket billiards as you rightly suspect.
So, let us suppose that is true and ask ourselves, what do we need to make 1-4 happen?
Don't place a time limit, lets may be just think (since this is a future scenario) of what transformations need to happen...
Isn't that where Brihaspati was headed, unless I am mistaken?
samuel wrote:We do nothing with PakJab and Sindh until our own country has homogenized.
Our primary point of of connection with Pak is PoK. PoK is part of India. India has no interest in Pakistani territory, but we want ours back. Our overt operations are to retrieve PoK, which will begin with homogenizing J&K by removing 370, finding a way to go to the other side of PoK, and pinching PoK out. This provides us with a route to CAR and is our top strategic priority, I feel. This result can be made possible in the present climate, if we work it.
Once that happens, Pak is in a tail spin for a decade and Afghanistan is stablized right in time for Barack's reelection. We let the remainder of Pakistan implode with talibunnies and pakjabis and it must continue in that state indefinitely, until India has assimiliated POK into its fold and homogenized our country first.
Eventually, with a 3-sided encirclement, we can start mixing the core and the periphery, no rush.
S
Conceptually, the points are interesting.
However, it is worth a thought as to how does one get POK back?
Militarily, if one sees the terrain, physical capture of ALL territories is a moot point. I am not being pessimistic, but capturing ridgelines after ridgelines is a difficult proposition and very time consuming, and considering that the international powers that be, will force a close to the War well before the task is complete, as they have done with every other war.
Apart from the militarily option (and we don't have to return territory as per the Simla Agreement) Pakistan is not going to hand over POK.
The fostering nationalism is a laudable idea and none can quibble on that. I think the average Indian is quite nationalistic, but then the political parties across the board, never let us forget our regional, communal, linguistic and cultural divides, as these factors is what engines the political parties' existence.
The NCC is there where they 'catch them young' and try to instil nationalism. They have some success in the field, but then when the youth become young men, they are injected with the virus that the political parties thrive on - dividing the people and highlighting the the dividing lines.
Already India has a 'Look East' policy. Unless India becomes an economic powerhouse as is China and is capable of assisting these countries on competitive terms, there is little chance of it replacing China where manifesting Indian influence is concerned. It will be recalled that most of the newly independent nations were more attracted towards the USSR rather than the USA since aid came on very competitive basis and with no strings attached, unlike the Aid from the USA.
In so far as the future strategic scenario is concerned, while it is to the advantage to have weak and fractured neighbours, but if these neighbours are not self sufficient, they can pose a whole lot of problems as one finds the USA facing with the illegal Mexicans immigrants and India is facing with illegal immigrants.
Ideal would be not to militarily do anything to Pakistan, but let it self destruct because of its own dichotomies like resurgent sub-nationalism and sectarian divisions. We could help them to achieve this through covert means. Zia's bleeding India through 1000 cuts in reverse.
I was headed that way too (posted earlier the same thought in another thread, I think the response thread). The bleed by a 1000 cuts has to be turned around. If it is a low cost option for Pakistan, it will be an even better option for India.
Economic and military dependence of a fractured neighborhood on India is a better problem to have than the one we are in. It leaves us with an immigration problem, but there is no way we can have economically independent islamist nations in our neighborhood and hope that immigration wont be the tojan horse that it is now.
brihaspati wrote:
A feasible way could be planned agrarian-industrial townships all over the country, preferably the so-called "circular" designs. The basic idea is to have both agriculture and industry equidistant from residential neighbourhoods. I am not going into details of the spatial planning and eco aspects, but what is relevant here is that same residential neighbourhoods can and should ideally contain both "farmers" and "industrial workers", every household should have acces to private plots to grow veg etc., and every "farmer" should have access to small tool-sheds etc. This makes every individual share and experience all parts of the production system, this creates a local economy, where no one is completely a novice in the skills and problems of the producer of commodities he normally simply buys off the shelf, and there is always a fall back option for every producer to survive in case other/outside supplies important for his survival does not arrive or becomes unavailable. More importantly this can actually give us an eventual mutual appreciation of each others contribution, breaking down of social taboos and stigmas associated with professions, provide a focal point for exchange of ideas and identities, and grow a common community. This is my take on adaptation of cosmopolitanism. For us this could also be an experiment in developing a kinder society that looks after vulnerable - in the extremes of age-spectrum - in a community sense - both children and the elderly. Such agrarian-industrial townships could be source of energy generation, a local economy relatively self-sufficient and buffered from national shocks, and a possible source of national integration.
Modi has proposed the "Rurban" concept
---
Modi plans satellite towns to decongest bigger cities
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat government is drawing up a blueprint called 'Rurban' to create satellite urban centres to decongest its bigger cities. These towns will have rural souls with urban amenities, says Chief Minister Narendra Modi who has conceived this idea. The concept, according to government officials, will be marketed strongly at the January 2009 Vibrant Gujarat Global Investors Summit.
Ahmedabad, Gujarat's commercial capital, is already being developed as a mega city and a host of urban development programmes are being implemented to make it more liveable. Gujarat also has other cities such as Vadodara, Surat, Bhavnagar, Rajkot and Jamnagar that are witnessing rapid industrial growth and are becoming heavily congested. Mehsana, about 75 km from Ahmedabad, could also join this league as it is not far from the Ahmedabad-Dholera special economic region.
Officials said Modi has given a broad outline of the Rurban concept. According to him, it will be a "big village with a rural soul" but with all urban amenities that a city may have. The inspiration for the concept has come after Tata Motors decided to relocate its Nano car project to Sanand, about 30 km from Ahmedabad, which has a large cluster of villages stretching up to Viramgam, 16 km away.
With the Tata group also planning a residential township in Sanand, the Nano project is expected to transform the sleepy town into a bustling urban centre boasting of amenities such as malls, entertainment complex and educational centres.
The officials said the time was ripe to attract investments for such projects. According to them, while the current economic situation could hit investment in the manufacturing sector, it would not impact the infrastructure sector as projects would invariably have long gestation periods. Investors, both foreign and domestic, would not be averse to making investments in urban development projects, they were confident.
Gujarat, which is already seeking to capitalise on its strategy of port-led development, is pumping in an additional Rs 150 billion (nearly $3 bn) for developing port-related infrastructure, which includes development of new ports, special economic zones, connectivity with the hinterland, cold chain, shipbuilding yards, ship-repair facilities and inter-port transport systems.
The Rurban concept dovetails perfectly with this framework, the officials said. An additional investment of about $100 billion is expected on account of the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor project. The project envisages development of identified industrial nodes as global manufacturing and commercial hubs. Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Surat, Bharuch, Valsad, Ankleshwar, Vapi and Dahej would all be nerve centres of industrial activity. (IANS)
--
To accomplish this, we need to realize that
1. We can't do it on our own. We need to build the strategic capacity to do it and external help.
2. We have to develop and pivot many international relationships along the way.
3. We have to have an internal transformation so that leaders who will accomplish those goals rise.
4. We have to have a core group of citizens that generates the momentum for the transformation.
That is how I think I see the core growing.
Yes, thats the basic outline. But I am doubtful of external help, at best we can try to neutralize. I feel that India has to plan to sustain this campaign on its own. Any inkling of such a plan, will bring in immense counter pressure from the very sources we probably have in our shopping list. (4) is necessary to achieve (3), but did not bring this up because of possible existing parties who could see this as competing on the same support base. May mean negotiations with the existing frontage.
Right now, unless the US invites us into Afghanistan, this is all pocket billiards as you rightly suspect.
So, let us suppose that is true and ask ourselves, what do we need to make 1-4 happen?
Don't place a time limit, lets may be just think (since this is a future scenario) of what transformations need to happen...
Isn't that where Brihaspati was headed, unless I am mistaken?
Oh definitely, having an excuse to be on the Afghan side of the thin neck from Pakjab into POk was my wet dream from 27th Dec. But now I think the time is going past for India to even place the claim. Obama I fear may make an u-turn now not really to commit more to Afghan. My hunch was that USA would like to push further up to NE Afghan to forestall Iran+RUS+PRC linkup. This they still may do, and the price may have to be paid by India. In the future it becomes more uncertain. With time the Iran+RUS+PRC bond will only get stronger. Unkil has the nasty habit of suddenly leaving for home leaving a deteriorating situation and allies to their fate.
Getting mentally ready for such a scenario, suppose that Unkil invitation route is not available, I had thought of the alternative route from the south. Having a naval blockade, and negotiating with the Baloch's for an independent state, occupying Sind will cut off TSP from southern supply. This then places remaining forces in a possible encirclement from the west and caught between forces from the east that also disconnects POK. Well many are uncomfortable with absorption of Pakjab, and I understand the weight behind their reasonsing, but problem is there is really no guarantee that TSP will not survive or implode as long as the oil-wealth flows, and PRC is on the field - and the centre of TSP power lies in the plains of Pakjab. Capturing this allows proper "cleanup" operations as in no other way will TSP stop protecting and exporting terror. This is my reason for going for occupying Pakjab.
The 1000 cuts idea I toyed with before. But each time I came up with the conclusion that the ability to mobilize the spirit behind such "cuts" will be lacking in India. What TSP can do is because of a wide range of recruits from society in general who have come through the filter of a particular theological dogma - that is specially suited to this type of operations. Even a vastly shrunken, imploding, (if it at all implodes) TSP will still manage to find a steady stream of "cutters" who will be psychologically conditioned from childhood with the necessary psychological equipment - do you think Indians will be able to match that pathological hatred amounting to Sadism? I don't think so, and I think someone somewhere is going feel the tug of ethics and conscience - or empathise with or admire the "poor misguided" "cutter"s and squeal. There goes the 1000 cuts then. This can happen even with the homogenization of the core. A formal invasion will probably not rankle in such Indian conscience. It is the psychological prepartion or inclination from the Indian side for such operations I am not sure of - but excellent and effective if mountable.
I think the average Indian is quite nationalistic, but then the political parties across the board, never let us forget our regional, communal, linguistic and cultural divides, as these factors is what engines the political parties' existence.
This is the current reality and this has to change. English increasing in reach (although still negligible) could be a way forward to cross language barriers (being 3rd party and potentially "lucrative" invites no suspicion of "language imperialism" by another region) and foster direct communication between increasing middle classes across regions. But more importantly cultural elements, like common celeberation of inter-regional festivals could also be tried out. This is a method tried out almost everywhere in early anti-colonial movements, in Ireland and India in particular. A Bengali lady started "Shivaji utsav" in Calcutta I think in the very beginnings of nationalist stirrings. Festivities like the Holi or the Deepavali could be a starter as ithey are observed over very wide regions and communities - and I think in some cases even non-Hindus participate. On the other hand there are specifically regional festivities that remain confined within communities and regional affiliations and conscious organization to make people from other regions and communities participate can go a long way in breaking down regional barriers. Deepavali or Holi can take on a mass character becuase they do not stress out specific religious factors and are more connected to long standing agrarian or seasonal components in Indic cultures.
The NCC is there where they 'catch them young' and try to instil nationalism. They have some success in the field, but then when the youth become young men, they are injected with the virus that the political parties thrive on - dividing the people and highlighting the the dividing lines.
NCC is not uniformly followed/encouraged in all states - and it is not compulsory. The Territorial Army perhaps is a way of continued connection. But not everyone will perhaps be found fit to continue there. We need a setup that continues to hold on to initial youth going through it by organizing refresher meets or basically keeping in touch. This can be done purely on the basis of nationalism, and no politics need to come into it. The army as well as non-army components can ensure that basic structure remains free of political motivations even though individuals are free to have their political affiliations. Presence of the GOI however can make things murky.
Already India has a 'Look East' policy. Unless India becomes an economic powerhouse as is China and is capable of assisting these countries on competitive terms, there is little chance of it replacing China where manifesting Indian influence is concerned. It will be recalled that most of the newly independent nations were more attracted towards the USSR rather than the USA since aid came on very competitive basis and with no strings attached, unlike the Aid from the USA.
Agreed that India cannot compete in aid-competion with China right now, but that does not mean that we don't even try. Things could change for China, and we are not prepared to take advantage. There are sectors where India could provide input that China cannot - education, healthcare, IT. We als neglect the cultural aspect - especially the Buddhist connection where China is at a disadvantage.
Weak or fractured neighbours good or bad
My take is that it depends on the context. A weak and fractiued Bhutan is bad, a weak Nepal is good but not a fractured one. A fractured Myanmar is not good, but a weak Myanmar is good. A fractured TSP is not good but a weak TSP is good. etc. The main task is to isolate the most dangerous part of the periphery, from the rest - which is practically speaking TSP (PRC is a good candidate but India cannot do much right now). The allowing TSP to drift is a passive and reactive policy while it is important to think taking initiative to actively dismantle TSP. Both 1000 cuts and formal invasion aimed at liquidation of the "core" of TSP -Pakjab - should be in our kitty, but not dropping completely one method in favour of the other.
By Territorial or Political Cosmopolitanism I meant that cultural/religious group would be free to pursue their own cultural/religious activities as long as it does not hamper the greater goal of the nation state, just as there is freedom of religion in the US and EU for example.
About new ecological living spaces, I think we are quite lucky that we have high mountains on all sides of the subcontinent, protecting us from the dust storms and industrial pollutions generated in China. China is fast becoming a eco-disaster zone, and a big green-house emitter, I hope the subcontinent can follow the newer sustainable organic farming route, not get heavily involved in chemical industries and have stringent rules to prevent pollution of air, soil and ground water. The other important lessons from the West to learn is that freeway systems like the US, an automobile based transport system and people commuting long distance in cars are inefficient and wasteful, specially within a city. Farming communes like the Kibbutz are nice, there are some similar cooperative projects in many countries, I think. But employees and workers must live not too far from their work place and if possible should use bicycles for short distance transportation. The rat race for bigger houses, cars, more appliances are another negative, a consumption based economy in the West is destroying the ecological and climate balance of the planet. I think it is possible to utilize cultural/religious/dharmic traditions to avoid these pitfalls in newly developing economies like India or the subcontinent in general and make sure that millionaires and billionaires don't waste precious capital on their or their wife's whims, building mansions, buying yachts etc. and polluting the planet at the same time, afterall there are people who don't have jobs and sometimes enough to eat, I think there should be laws for avoiding these wastes, although I am dead against Marxism or any such nonsense that want to remake society. The attraction for these isms will go down, if there is fairness in economic opportunity.
The Chinese lost their Neo confucian (a fusion of Buddhism and Confucianism) traditional ethics with Maoist purges and cultural revolution and their inclination now is to follow the West in their rat race, but their thing is of course not so much consumption (they have a high savings rate), although they seem to spend a lot on infrastructure which may or may not be very useful in the long run - lately they have turned quite imperial in their goals and objectives it seems, following the US model of perpetual confrontation and destablization. They have devoured Xinjiang and Tibet and they have eyes on ASEAN, Mongolia, Siberia and Central Asia. Among these Mongolian's hate them with passion, as the Chinese oppress their brethren in Inner Mongolia, Siberia is of course colonized by Russia and Central Asians (including Mongolians) are still under Russian and Western joint protection, but China's soft power and economic infuence is on the rise in this theater. China has become a factory for the world, albeit with a penchant for producing dangerous toxic goods that shows how little regard they have for their own health and the health of others, a direct result of I think a loss of their traditional neo-confucian ethical construct, destroyed by Maoism and Marxism, a serious systemic problem of PRC that will not be solved by the show trial of a few culprits. Their meddling in Korean peninsula has created a rogue state and divided the Korean nation. Japan, another wannabe former empire, is quite nervous about a rising China at their door step.
Hope I did not go too far on a tangent, I just wanted to mention China's relations with its neighbors, because I think its relevant in this discussion, because some of these areas are also important for India and the subcontinent, specially ASEAN, where there is presence of significant ethnic chinese population and Central Asia, where they just started to move in with the excuse of business and trade. There is some presence of Indians in ASEAN from British colonial times, but the presence is not as comprehensive, historic and deep as the Chinese, although in ancient times, India had a strong cultural influence in the region. In Central Asia, the only Indian presence I know of are large number of medical students and some in other areas of study and scrarce few traders. So India has the potential to provide a much safer and saner alternative and counter balance to China for both ASEAN and Central Asia and far off countries like Japan/Korea or Mid-east.
Now about India's core and periphery issues, I feel the urgency of policy strategists to chart a path to solve current and future problems facing India. But this is a matter of immense consequence not just for the subcontinent but also for the world, because the center of balance of world economic power is fast moving back to Asia, after a hiatus of a few centuries.
As I mentioned earlier, I feel the subcontinent from ancient times has been quite close culturally and ethnically and if India is the core, its immediate neighbors in SAARC are its immediate periphery.
There is talk about supporting insurgencies within hostile neighbors or invading them outright. I am not a pacifist and I do believe force is necessary at times, but a clear cost benefit analysis must be made before making these strategies.
As I stated before, I do believe that the entire subcontinent can become part of the core, but there are other alternatives to military force which would be much more desirable specially considering the war widows and orphans and civilian casualties on both sides. Brihaspatiji mentioned economic charm offensive. Economic and political/diplomatic means and other forms of soft power could be much more effective with less possibility of blow back. In case of a successful disarming of N arsenals and a successful invasion of Pak (BD has no deterrence, so an invasion there will be quite an easy matter, except for the muddy rice fields), then there will have to be an occupation for a long period, before situations can be stabilized, if ever.
Here, I will present the alternative approach. First of all, I think most people in the world and also in subcontinent and even in India itself, still are not sure about the rise of India as a regional superpower, they hear the prediction from American think tanks, but still shake their head in disbelief when they see the situation on the ground. That is why we hear slogans like "Bhukha, Nanga Hindustan" from idiot Kashmiris. Personally, I am hundred percent positive that India will rise, for several reasons, one is the size of population, secondly it carries an ancient culture, although bruised by Islamic invasion but continuous nevertheless, with history of past achievements. Partition was a serious blow that India is still recovering from and I believe India must negate the partition and absorb other SAARC states, if it wants to reach great power status (as well as reduce current terrorism and tension with neighbors), how such an impossible task will be done, that is the question.
I think most people will change their mind about India's future in about 5 years, lets say by 2014, but definitely India cannot sit around till that happens. A strategy is needed today.
First, as many have already mentioned, situation within India, minorities and people with grievances have to be looked after first.
Then We should look at target societies within in-country minority and disgruntled communities and in neighbor countries and divide them in segments, mainly there are 3, the rich elite, the middle class and the masses. We should look at each and see what it is that they really want. The rich elite wants political power, to be the leader for their masses and market for their business and industries, the middle class wants secure well paying jobs and religious freedom and the masses just want Roti, Kapra and Makan and of course bare minimum religious freedom.
Now, you may say, wait a minute, are you not talking about SAARC, actually yes, I think the framework for all this has already been done on paper and everyone is already on board, but the bus needs a driver and that must be India. If India can do the heavy lifting, then one by one, everyone will come on board. Give it 15-20 years and soon it will be like the EU is today and at some point referendums could be done to make it one undivided country.
Terrorism will vanish, as soon as people see a solid future for themselves. As for the elites and middle class, there must be more student exchange programs and markets open for jobs, goods and services. The hatred is a function of the unfamiliarity created by the partition, and it will go away as soon as we can accomplish free flow of goods and people.
China can never absorb any of the SAARC members within its own country even in a 100 years, because of the history of the region, the people, culture and many thousands of other reasons, all they can do is meddle and spoil. They are taking advantage now and using India's neighbors, because of lack of management and foresight of the elite of the subcontinent and the fact that they are ahead in the development curve and a have a little more disposable resources and funds to play with. So the future is possible with courage and vision, but not with violence and force, I believe, not in this situation at this time, at least. The keys are familiarity, jobs, common market, shared future and well being etc.
I want to show an example where a fromal Union of countries have desolved, but due to shared needs, the economies and peoples are still quite close and in close cooperation with each other. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, some countries that are close to Europe did fairly well, due to increased trade with EU, but the Central Asian countries did not do so well, except Kazakhstan, which found and successfully utilized hydro-carbon and mineral resources. Leadership of petty ruthless dictators in case of Karimov, cleptocracy in case of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and sheer lunacy in case of Niyazov were some of the problems. People in Kygyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to some extent lament the days of Soviet Union, when everyone had jobs and enough to get by, despite some shortage at times. Now, millions of people from these countries, specially the male population, live and work in Russia and send their remittances home. Just to show that jobs and economic dependence are a vital factor, regardless of changing borders of nation states. And none of these people had any close cultural ties even 100-200 years back with Russian people, unlike the situation in the subcontinent, one reason why Russia probably let them go.
Simultaneously we should not forget the Asian Union project either, which can attract the people outside the subcontinent, starting with ASEAN and Central Asia/Iran, the other immediate neighbors or peripheri outside South Asia. But South Asia has to be richer and more powerful or at least an equal compared to China and definitely a more credible and saner power than imperial China, before India can match the Chinese in these theaters.
Akalamji,
glad to see you back and that we did not scare you away! Also delighted at the response from you and nsriram about the eco agrarian-industrial urbanization project. Just as a quick aside to Akalamji - I referred to the "circular" design: this is based on the very traditional village community where houses are arranged in a circle with an inner facing focal point and an outward private component. The idea is to build the town in concentric circles - the central area as a water collector/storer, with admin offices around, next comes the industrial zone (assuming the inner disc is appropraite for less space required) then a green forest zone within which residential neighbourhoods are scattered -each again built on a similar circular model, and then the outer bigger disc having farms. This means both farmers and industrial workers are equidsitant and close to their workplaces, each neighbourhood circle can have their primary schools (and shops) at the centre to wich children can walk, or people go for daily necessities - and they can even cross the neighbourhood to go into the farms to shop direct. Planned forests can provide adavanced wood based domestic heat sources and various pwer generatuon mechanisms can provide required electricity. But more importantly, the spatial arrangment of communities force them to share in a common life - being from BD, I am sure you remember the importance of the local "haat" in social unification. Some degree of compulsion must be there for everyone to learn to produce the basic necessities - some food, some cloth, some tools, some items of household goods, and every person should have some knowledge of farming and participate in farm work, some knowledge of tool making or handicrafts, - this makes people appreciate others labours, and blurs social segregation and taboos - at the same time makes people and the local economy rather self-sufficient. This interdependent community would be very hard to split along communal lines.
I did not have opportunity to go into the economics point it was next on my list after "ideology" the hot-potato!
samuel wrote:Love at a distance seems like a better idea to me.
Couldn't agree more. All this talk of a SAARC federation that includes tsp and BD bothers me no end.
I'd very much like an Indic-values based political and economic confederation with Nepal, SL, Burma and beyond - Thailand, cambodia maybe. Not the Muslim countries though. No, thanks.
I believe thats where Brihaspati ji's point that values and riughts should precede other things makes sense. A confederation of secular states is a good way to proceed.
samuel wrote:Love at a distance seems like a better idea to me.
Couldn't agree more. All this talk of a SAARC federation that includes tsp and BD bothers me no end.
I'd very much like an Indic-values based political and economic confederation with Nepal, SL, Burma and beyond - Thailand, cambodia maybe. Not the Muslim countries though. No, thanks.
I believe thats where Brihaspati ji's point that values and riughts should precede other things makes sense. A confederation of secular states is a good way to proceed.
Fair enough, if that is the route decided eventually, the idea presented still applies to in-country minority communities and non-muslim SAARC and ASEAN members, that will not be a bad first step to create great positive show-case examples.
Can I mention something as part of a strategic thinking : the main rot starts from within TSP, and its society seems to have been completely brainwashed. So that is the first target. To do this, can we think of taking all the others in the periphery on board in order to isolate TSP - in any case is it going to be too hard to make a convincing case of pointing out where the real benefits lie for any of the other peripheral countries - choosing the TSP boat or the IND boat? Even in ideological hardliners like BD or NEP, aren't there forces and factions whom we can encourage to follow a more rational and pragmatic approach? At least try - for the sake of tactics?
Jupiterji, Take a look at shiv's game on Islam. What Partition did was to transfer the majority of pure As to Pakistan while a few who are the leading lights of the A's in India and Bangla Desh. So those will prevent the focus on TSP.
Eg. Syed Shahbuddin in India and Kahleda Zia and her goondas of Bangla Desh.
Ramanaji,
but surely you see, that some of the B's actually helped in doing this at Partition. Shivji's point about win-win stratgey might have been valid at the time. But was it really so important for B's - I mean were A's so formidable at the time, that the win-win strategy would be necessary? I guess these are simply B's who never had really integrated with B at all - so always felt vulnerable and alienated and weak. These are the B's who are scared of the rest of the B's and try to lick A boots as a means of balancing the remaining B's. Maybe this is a new class of players - the O's - the "opportunists" who have no real identification with B's, simply used B as a cover when B was dominant. By licking A-boots they can use A-threat to keep B's in line, while they can use B-threat to force A to let the boot-licking continue.
brihaspati wrote:Ramanaji,
but surely you see, that some of the B's actually helped in doing this at Partition. Shivji's point about win-win stratgey might have been valid at the time. But was it really so important for B's - I mean were A's so formidable at the time, that the win-win strategy would be necessary? I guess these are simply B's who never had really integrated with B at all - so always felt vulnerable and alienated and weak. These are the B's who are scared of the rest of the B's and try to lick A boots as a means of balancing the remaining B's. Maybe this is a new class of players - the O's - the "opportunists" who have no real identification with B's, simply used B as a cover when B was dominant. By licking A-boots they can use A-threat to keep B's in line, while they can use B-threat to force A to let the boot-licking continue.
The British plan for the independence of India came to be known as the "Cripps Cabinet Mission Plan"(of
1946) and involved one of two alternative plans - called the "May 16th plan" and the "June 16th plan". The
May 16th plan envisaged the division of a united India into Muslim majority and Hindu majority provinces.
The June 16th plan envisaged the division of India into a Muslim majority nation state called Pakistan
leaving a Hindu majority India. The Congress party rejected the partition plan (of June 16th) outright and
was unwilling to accept the May 16 plan except for its idea of forming a constitution for India. The Muslim
League, furious at the Congress Party's outright rejection of the June 16th plan for the formation of an
independent Pakistan attempted to demonstrate Muslim militant power by initiating what was called the
"Direct Action Day" (August 16th 1946) in which thousands of Hindus and Sikhs were massacred in
Calcutta (Kolkata). The violence later spread to other parts of India.
This "Direct Action Day" led to two consequences, only one of which is acknowledged. It is acknowledged
that the Direct Action Day instigated by the Muslim League set the stage for the partition of India. What is
not acknowledged and does not get a mention in the incompletely written history of India is the fact that this
"Direct Action Day" was to be remembered by the Hindus of India, rightly or wrongly, as an indicator that
Muslims were prone to violence and either needed to be treated with special care, or were to be expected
to react with violence. Less than a year after "Direct Action Day" India became independent and Pakistan
was created. The massacres that followed partition not only increased Hindu suspicions that violence was
to be expected as a norm from Muslims, but it equally had the effect of making the Indian Muslims who
went to Pakistan become fearful and distrustful of what they felt was "Hindu India".
If you look at your own definition of "B", you find that it does not call for loyalty to its own rules since its core rule leaves the door open for others in a naive ignorance of fascist doctrines of religion.
This is liberalism - or even libertarianism at its best.
But neither of these can survive unmodified under a militant fascist force that religion represents
The solution may be as simple as imparting a good liberal education to everyone including Hindus, Muslims, etc irrespective of where they may live: TSP, BD, India, Afghanistan,...
EU is a complication we better keep out of consideration right now. EU is not sympathetic to what stands in the core. It is simply catching on the bandwagon taking the cue from USA and to a certain extent from the UK. EU wants India to deal with EU as an unit rather than bilaterally as countries - but EU countries do trade separately with India's enemies bilaterally in military products. It would only be convincing as to EU's intents if EU can sign a military cooperation treaty with India such that no EU member country can privately trade in sensitive military technology with anyone within the threat perception range of India.
Member country's roles in the subcontinent are even now doubtful, such as in SL, NEP, BD. EU's trade dependence for capital exports to China, and imports from China, its export markets in the middle east, its strategic needs to balance dependence on Russian oil/gas with that from the middle-east, fits in pretty well with its behaviour in the runup to the negotiations on the N-deal. Those are the crucial questions, is EU for Indian interests, for the core's interests, or even for the subcontinents interests - or all this talk of peaceful cooperation and restrained behaviour is simply essentially a tactic to obstruct the consolidation of the core and formation of an expanded subcontinental union - so that fractures remain, system remains uncompetitive, and disputes continue such that EU powers can come in to play as arbitrators?
From the strategic viewpoint this would be inevitable as an effort from Indian side. I think missile shield technology has been broached in BR before. The reaction times will have to be smaller than the US systems can afford to - because of threat distances. It is not clear how far such support will amount to in real terms - at a preliminary level it could simply be permanent tracking systems but manned under US control (like the advanced radar based systems supposed to be put up in Israel over which Israel itself will have no control). A shield system will be important for India, and India has to think of this also on its own - with one great advantage over the greatest threat, that of TSP - in its satellite technology. China is going to help TSP in countering this threat, so India has to think of a space-race to counter Chinese satellites too. Both USA and China I think have tested satellite bringing-down technologies and could use them as parts of future wars, and India should test such systems to warn off China from shooting down Indian sats. The Star wars programme is officially offline in the USA but could be going on as black ops.
In Indian case, bringing down those missiles on TSP soil, once launched would be the targets, and this would need pretty close tracking. I am not sure India has invested in such surveillance as yet. Relying on US to do this bit may not be wise for assurance.
Another aspect of such collaboration could of course be a commitment to take out the silos or mobile centres in TSP as preemptive strike in case the threat perception exceded a pre-agreed threshold. But will it be wise strategically for India to give such tactical power to US - for US could as easily turn the very same techniques to take out Indian warheads? This is tricky.
kya matlab when Amritsar and Lahore are hardly 50 kms away, if a nuke missile goes in Lahore , with an Easternly wind it will also contaminate Amritsar. I think when Chernobyl happened the increased radiations were detected as far as Canada.
kya matlab when Amritsar and Lahore are hardly 50 kms away, if a nuke missile goes in Lahore , with an Easternly wind it will also contaminate Amritsar. I think when Chernobyl happened the increased radiations were detected as far as Canada.
Yes that is a risk, especially because geological processes connect TSP and India very intimately. I guess the target is primarily non-nuke missiles, which also can do considerable damage. And nuke or non-nuke, try to get the explosion as close to the silo/point of origin as possible - trying to keep it as far as possible from Indian borders. On the other hand, as has been suggested before, India can prepare for nuke attacks or even conventional warheads by drilling at-risk populations to evacuate. This can be done at regular time intervals so that it does not seem unusual for "observers" - and should be done then under this cover of a drill in preparation for the push into TSP. Without the dissolution of TSP, it is not easy to see that any missile shield would be effective for the foreseeable future.
Since we are discussing ideological and not philosophical issues, and we have already have had quite a storm over future strategic significance of Islam, (we will return to this issue later perhaps, for we have not yet come to an agreement) I will move into another significant ideological problem - that of future role of Marxism and communism within the core-periphery dynamic. We still have to deal with the future developments within the various flavours of Marxism that can affect the stratgic future of the subcontinent. As of now, Communist parties of one or other flavour exists in all countries of the periphery as well as in India. The Pakistan CPP has split recently, in Nepal the communists now dominate the government, the CP of BD is alive and well, (the extremist Left groups have splintered many times as is typical all over the subcontinent, but the PBCP still appears to be quite active in spite of brutal state repression), the CP of SL is part of a larger alliance, Myanmar had a long tradition of communist parties and the movement is still banned. Within India, itself the communists have a long and torturous history, which is better covered in the Red Menace thread. Here we are more concerned with their possible interconnections and their attitude towards the core. The key to the problem here is the presence of PRC, which is the source of both an inspiration as well as perhaps a lot of ideological confusion to the Marxists in the entire subcontinent. The fall of the USSR, the strongly nationalistic (remember Sinification of Marxism line of Mao) "communist" China's adoption of state capitalist economic forms, and the general weakness or subregional nature of the subcontinental communist bases have combined together to force some degree of compromise with nationalism in their respective countries, as well as various degrees of ideological adjustments to acceptance of the "capitalist road to development".
The future strategic importance of the communist movement ideologically, stems from their weakness of mass bases. This leads them to seek support in fractures of subcontinental societies - ethnic divides, religious divides, regional divides, social hierarchies and divides, even nationalism especially in peripheral countries (the NEP commies are even stronger India-phobes than the previous monarchists - maybe helped along by the PRC also). The communist use and promotion of religious and ethnic hostilities can be a significant internal problem for the core in its strategic move towards consolidation. Such consolidation attempts will be seen by the communists as a threat to their support bases and they can cause significant damage within the core in panic. PRC will support them in this.
The parliamentary Left as well as the non-parliamentarians have to be neutralized as part of the core-consolidation strategy. A first ideological tactic is to force them into questions of and take positions on nationalism as seen in conflicts of interest between the core and the periphey or other countires and international groups. The second is to force them to identify themselves with particular faiths, which alienates them from the majoirty community and population. The third is to expose the "class character" of their leadership and set it in the context of the very social/hierarchical fractures they use at least within India - the higher communist leadership comes mostly from a particular religious background and mostly from so-called "forward castes" (someone mentioned about a similar study on BRFites - I guess it simply reflects the classical Indian pattern - some in the elite are passionate about identifying with their cultural origins - and some are equally passionate in hating everything about their cultural origins and seeking solace in "alien ideologies" and trying to distance themselves as much as possible from their cultural roots).
A sustained campaign to establish that, any ideology or group that denies their cultural roots within the core, does not belong to the core - should simultaneously help in disintegrating the communists from the people. The great irony is, that like most "haters-of-origins", communists end up professing a viewpoint that had already been arrived at long before within the very "origins" they now hate and try to disown - as perhaps realized by at least two Indian "communist" authors - D.P.Chattopadhyay and E.M.S Namboodripad. However, because of their official/public position the communists are constrained in not being able to reidentify with their "Indic cultural roots" - and this is their great strategic disadvantage, which can be exploited to the full.
The extremists of course need a military solution, where they have to be forced to change form their mobile warfare into positional one by tight encirclement and liquidation.
Even the Pakistanis (oooh! check out the ultramodern-but-proper Hon. and Dig. Marvi Memon )seem to have started to come around to realizing that there may be some merit to coming all the way forward into the 18th century - then why must we keep going back to the 7th?
