Indian Interests

[Altair]

This is a opportune moment for Pakistan to wage a surprise attack on India. The political turmoil in India,the economic tailspin in US and Europe can be a huge advantage for Pakistan in coming days. I dont have doubts on our Armed forces but we still take command from a civilian leader. I hope we got that covered.

No Altair garu,

A bigger threat comes from Moist+EJ groups.

Agreed we have a Maoist+EJ threat but they cannot nuke our cities.

[RamaY]

I am talking about current uncertainly Altair garu. Not our mirror image.

[shyamd]

2 must read articles imo:

Here, There Be Dinosaurs... Cataracts, Warts And All
Centre for Land Warfare Studies
E-Mail- .

By K Shankar Bajpai

United States secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s call for India to show greater leadership in world affairs is one more reminder of our tragedy. Just when the world starts to think of us as the major power we’ve always fancied ourselves to be, we have made ourselves increasingly unfit to take on the role. Our methods of attending to our affairs lead the other way: at best, stagnation as a backwater, or more probable, a deep ocean of trouble. We just cannot carry on like this. The immediate cause of this sorry state of affairs is the decay in governance, with our instruments of state action turning increasingly dysfunctional. But the government is the people: those in government or politics, whichever we wish to blame, are of our own creation. Ultimately, it is the way we all think and act that decides outcomes. Let alone taking leadership on the world stage, India is not even churning out far-sighted thinking on internal problems.

The reasons behind this are too complex for a detailed analysis here, but the one crucial failing is that the thinking, or considerations, that we bring to bear on any issue obstruct, instead of facilitate, decisions. Tangents, digressions, irrelevancies, non-sequiturs, the half-digested leavings of yesterday’s half-baked intellectuals, all compounded by unbridled emotionalism—the anarchic tendencies we seem to revel in are in full spate in our decision-making paradigm. Add the one constant consideration—“what’s in it for me or mine?”—and you’re assured of a bad result or none at all.

The illustrations of our condition are endless. A common feature emerges though: decisions are not taken, or taken for the wrong reasons, and then, only poorly implemented. The spectre of Maoism looms larger because of this. Perhaps the worst hit is our defence-preparedness. Delays in procurement are endemic; more worrisome, and wholly ignored, are the deteriorating civil-military relations. Many leaders are aware of this, but are stultified by the most petty of politics.

What goes virtually unnoticed is that we lack a shared frame of reference (FoR)—that “set of ideas, beliefs, assumptions and standards in terms of which other ideas are interpreted and assigned meanings that determine perceptions and reactions”, and enable constructive discussion and practical outcomes. People everywhere differ profoundly over issues, individual lines of approach being conditioned by training and experience. A soldier’s “set of ideas and beliefs” is quite different from a doctor’s, a professor’s from a street-sweeper’s. But elsewhere, those who must work collectively develop a broadly common sense of what they are dealing with and what kind of answer is needed. Without thinking the same thing, they think in the same terms. In India, apart from our well-known solipsism (immature egoism?), there are such tremendous divergences in the ways we are formed that a mutually comprehensible FoR between, say, a legislator, a businessman and a strategic analyst hardly exists. Even within cabinets, ministers approach issues with little in common by way of background or understanding—and publicly air differences. (Once, when the question of how to deal with Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal was raised, two members solemnly urged we all return to Gandhian society, where nuclear weapons would not exist!). What is at stake in our relations with a particular country means nothing to most of them.

We must learn to recognise the extent and implications of our strategic frontiers. The first head of our foreign service emphasised that they were the concentric circles passing through the Hindukush and the Irrawady, Aden and Singapore, Suez and Shanghai. Within the first circle, Af-Pak is an enlargement of our congenital problem with Pakistan, undoubtedly our biggest headache and our biggest source of confusion. That, and our other long-festering and long-neglected South Asian challenges aside, our wider priorities currently include Gulf security, Central Asian stability, the changing power equations to our East (of which the global consequences of China’s ascension is a vital, but separate issue), and several interests in the Indian Ocean. In which of these are we intellectually, much less militarily, equipped to do anything? How many in Delhi, leave alone Lucknow or Bangalore, are even interested, if not informed?

The overriding aim of all policy is to protect and enhance your way of life on your territory. The worst dangers are domestic—aggravated, if not created, by lack of thinking—but externally, the two states (India and Pakistan/China) have both the capacity and—in their view—justification for hostility to the ‘other’ way of life and/or territory. This does not necessarily mean that they will go to war, but it would be a criminal neglect of India’s interests to not develop contingency plans for disagreement erupting in conflict. It is literally an existential necessity for us to realise that, if that scenario was to ever come to pass, no state would come to our assistance: we would stand alone. The contingency is best pre-empted by making yourself so strong as to deter mischief. Several states are willing to help you make yourself strong—doubtless for profit but some also for common interests. We need to get them to be of use to us, something we cannot hope to achieve with our lordly illusions of dictating terms.

How can we safeguard our territory and security? How to develop influence within our strategic frontiers? Our two great priorities do not even figure into our thinking. Nor does the realisation that, until we are able to do more on our own, we must develop partnerships, or at least ad-hoc collaborations—not, obviously, with any one country. Ask our average neta or buddhijeevi, and you will be told non-alignment is still our shield or India and China are brothers and that we’ve nothing to worry about or people-to-people relations with Pakistan will make us friends. Some see salvation in new groupings: brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), or just ric. The height of sophistication is proclaiming that we must preserve our strategic autonomy, our intellectual’s variant of the politician’s favourite euphemism for avoiding decisions: “Keep all options open.”

The one option we still shy away from is America. It may no longer be treason to think of cooperating with it, but the old mindset against the arch-villain has remained extraordinarily tenacious. America cannot be our sole, or even primary, focus. But as the only power capable of influencing the course of events, for better or worse, wherever it chooses, it surely merits a greater degree of thoughtful—and skilful—handling. And of course America is no angel: what we refuse to understand is that no state is, not even us. Nor should we aspire to be. Notions of having friends in international affairs only betray naivete. States may have friendly relations, their agents may develop personal friendships, but even close allies will be as manipulative, opportunistic and unreliable as worst enemies. We will have major differences with America. But then that is the way the world works. And like it or not, it just so happens that America’s worldview now sees a strong India as an international asset (which itself must arouse our suspicions). It is also the only power willing and able to work towards the same objectives as us in the four strategic areas mentioned above. It will naturally work to its own advantage—as we should to ours. Common objectives never preclude conflicts over how to reach them: stability in the Gulf, for example, involves disagreements on Iran’s role. But should we therefore neglect exploring avenues for cooperation? If you cannot attain your vital objectives on your own, you must hold hands even with the devil.

What passes for our worldview was formed of a world that has long ceased to exist, but still the view persists. In particular, the Marxian FoR, which provided a readymade substitute to thinking for ourselves, has been abandoned by all the original Marxist states but still grips and paralyses us. It does not enter the minds of those most responsible for shaping our destinies that developing our strengths is of utmost priority or that strength is not just economic or military—the greatest asset is to be seen as knowing what you are doing and just as efficient in doing it. Instead, we keep broadcasting our sloppiness, indecisiveness, glaring lack of statecraft, and of course a brand of corruption that does not even deliver.

“Strategic autonomy” is meaningless if you can’t produce the bulk of your military requirements. We import 70 per cent of them, including nearly everything needed for the “teeth”. Thirty years and we are still to get our own light combat aircraft operational. Our medium gun, the famous Bofors, began slipping into obsolesence a decade ago. We can’t choose a replacement: the ghost of that affair frightens everyone, press and politicians bay for blood, nobody takes decisions. Decisiveness and delivery, understanding power and knowing how to use it—just mentioning these elements of statecraft underlines our lacking of them.

An eminent statesman, when asked about China and India, pointed out the key difference: “China is a closed society, but with open minds and an eagerness to learn about the world. India is an open society, but with closed minds and a know-it-all attitude.” If we can change, as people do, it will take decades. One interim possibility must be attempted. We still have people who know what is needed—and there’s no basic difference on this between our main political parties. If these could agree to eschew petty politics on just a few national challenges, especially national security, India could be a leader despite its defects.

Amb K. Shankar Bajpai is a former diplomat, and has previously served as India’s ambassador to Pakistan, China and the US. He is presently the chairman of the National Security Advisory Board

Courtesy: Outlook India, 15 August 2011

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?277931
(The views expressed in the article are that of the author and do not represent the views of the editorial committee or the centre for land warfare studies).

What can we confer from this article?
1) US is on the same page as us in our strategic objectives.
2) India cannot punch above its weight without being able to produce defence eqpt and it relies on international cooperation.
3) So in the event of a war, India has to opt for alliances against large threats. Is he hinting at a possible alliance with the US and US's friends in hte neighbourhoods?
4) But alas, he realises that we will probably be left alone if anything major between PRC comes - which is true.

Let me give you the example of GCC who have been a US protectorate. The GCC rulers know that if any nuclear war goes down, US will get the hell out of there. AFterall no one wants to be infront of a nuclear war. The US is tryng to convince them that they are a reliable partner. THats what happened when Irq invaded Kuwait. US offered to help the GCC. GCC leaders thought "why would I trust you?" And also the GCC thought was the US willing to fight the GCCs war? Will they stick with the GCC till the war finished? These were all questions that the GCCwas thinking. So the GCC developed alliances with the Muslim nations and brought them to the KSA as a backup incase the US bottled it in the end. I can go on more if people are interested.

But coming back to the subject, India forming an alliance with the US - can it prevent war and deter war? Thats the question.

Just imo.

Then comes SSM's article.

Our ability to change India in a globalised world

Centre for Land Warfare Studies
E-Mail- .

By Shivshankar Menon

“We must always be conscious of the difference between weight, influence and power. Power is the ability to create and sustain outcomes. Weight we have, our influence is growing but our power remains to grow and should first be used for our domestic transformation”

IN the fifties Nehru was accused of having too grand a vision of India's role and place in the world. Nehru's towering personality obscured the passion, logic and depth of that debate, particularly in the fifties.

It was a debate about the very idea of non-alignment. It was a debate about whether values have a role in foreign policy. It was a debate about the economic autarchy we should seek and about the very nature of our industrialisation. It was a debate about nuclear disarmament. On most of these Nehru's choices have been vindicated by history.

In hindsight, we might be accused of a misplaced faith in the multilateral approach and international organisations where we expended so much effort. We even took Pakistan's aggression in J&K to the UN, thinking the UN would come to a quick and proper decision. But the first act of the Security Council was to change the subject on the agenda from the "Kashmir Question" to "India-Pakistan question"! We had underestimated the protean forms of power politics. There is no question that in Nehru's time we were punching above our weight, measured strictly in realist balance of power terms. This was possible because of the strategic space that the Cold War opened up for us and because of the eminent good sense and reasonableness of what Nehru was doing and advocating. During the fifties, India stood higher in the world's (and her own) estimation than her strength warranted. During the sixties the reverse was the case. After 1971 there has been a greater correlation between India's strength and prestige and this seems likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Our priority

Our primary task now and for the foreseeable future is to transform and improve the life of the unacceptably large number of our compatriots who live in poverty, with disease, hunger and illiteracy as their companions in life. This is our overriding priority, and must be the goal of our internal and external security policies. Our quest is the transformation of India, nothing less and nothing more.
If we have consistently sought to avoid external entanglements or outside restraints on our freedom of choice and action, it is because we have been acutely conscious of this overriding priority and wanted nothing else to come in the way of its pursuit. This was and remains the essence of the policy of non-alignment. If we have sought the strategic autonomy that nuclear weapons bestow upon us, it is to be able to pursue this goal without distraction or external entanglement. This is the touchstone against which policy should be measured both for desirability and effect.

We have not done badly, when judged by the pace and nature of the developmentof India's society and economy. Only one other country, China, can be said to have drawn more people out of poverty largely as a result of her own efforts.

Consider the statistics. In 1947 the average Indian lived for 26 years, only about 14% of us were literate, and we were one of the poorest countries on earth with well over 3/4ths of our population in poverty. Famine was common, as was disease. Today our average life expectancy is over 65 years, 2/3rds of our population is literate, and (using similar relative yardsticks) around 1/5th of our population is poor. We feed ourselves and know how to control disease.

But the same statistics show that there is still a long way to go before we can say that all our people enjoy a satisfactory standard of living or are in a position to enjoy and exercise their rights and realise their full potential.

Hence India's primary responsibility is and will remain improving the lives of its own people for the foreseeable future. In other words, India would only be a responsible power if our choices bettered the lot of our people.

We, therefore, need to work for a peaceful periphery. We have an interest in the peace and prosperity of our neighbours, removing extremism and threats from their soil, as we are doing successfully with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Bhutan. This is more than the negative interest in avoiding sources of terrorism, extremism and insurgency from cross border ethnicities or others.

As a country lacking some of the essential resources for our continued development (such as oil, high grade coal, fertilisers, high technology and non-ferrous metals), it is essential that we work to ensure our continued access to them and build up our strategic stockpiles and alternatives. This requires a sustained cooperative engagement with the world, of the type that we are attempting in Africa and South East Asia and already have with West Asia. When we have physical access, Central Asia too becomes important to us for this reason.

We have an interest in helping to create an enabling international environment. We have an interest in global public goods like a peaceful order, freedom of the seas and open sea lanes. Over 20% of our GDP is now accounted for by our exports and our growth and survival depend on our imports of fertilizer, energy and capital goods.

We have a responsibility to build infrastructure in India and our neighbourhood that enables us to pursue these goals. In this sense, roads in the border areas, air, rail and sea connectivity with our neighbours and economic integration in our extended neighbourhood all become strategic goals.

Our goal must be defence, not offense, unless offense is necessary for deterrence or to protect India's ability to continue its own transformation. We must develop the means to defend ourselves. To what extent we become a net provider of security in the Indian Ocean and our neighbourhood would depend on how it contributes to India's own transformation. As of now it is our appreciation that our nuclear deterrence is best maintained by a credible and assured retaliatory capacity, rather than a destabilising first strike doctrine.

It could be argued that I have outlined a very selfish policy, and that if every country were to follow such a policy, avoiding external entanglements and only taking what suits it from the international community, the world would actually end up poorer and less secure than before.

It is true that absolute security for one country means absolute insecurity for all others. That is why it is also necessary to look at the sort of world we are living in and at the reactions that our pursuits will provoke from others.

The World Situation

We live for the present in a globalised world, which is increasingly tending towards multi-polarity, where power is more evenly distributed between and among states. There is no question that the world of 2011 is no longer as supportive of our transformation as in the nineties.

The world economy has deteriorated in the last few years since the global financial and economic crisis of 2008. Pakistan and some areas west of her have declined into what appears to be chronic instability. West Asia is in turmoil. Technology has empowered small groups of radicals, extremists, hackers, pirates and terrorists, shifting the balance of power within states too. Between states, the rise of China has been magnified by a matching loss of Western will and economic confidence.

In my opinion, three issues are likely to most affect our future ability to transform India.

The first is the rise of China and Asia. The facts are well known. What China achieved in the last thirty years is phenomenal. In thirty years China's economy has grown by a factor of very nearly ten. The IMF recently projected that it will be the largest economy in the world in just five years time. By 2035 China will use one fifth of all global energy. China, which used to be dependent on direct foreign investment, is now herself the investor with three trillion dollars of international reserves and a sovereign wealth fund with 200 billion dollars. She is about to overtake Germany in terms of new patents granted each year.

The world worries whether the powerful China that is emerging so rapidly will be a hegemon, or whether she will be one of several powerful cooperative states in the international order. Will she reorder international structures to suit herself, as the US did after WWII, and as other states have done in history? Or will she continue to rely on existing security and other structures that have worked so well for her, enabling her rise so far? There are no agreed answers to these questions, in India or abroad.

India's interest is clearly in an inclusive world order, with China as one of its cooperative members. That is clearly what we need to work towards, along with China itself.

Bilaterally India-China relations today have elements of cooperation and competition at the same time. We have a boundary dispute and overlapping peripheries in our extended neighbourhood, which is also China's extended neighbourhood. So long as both of us continue to be primarily concerned with our internal transformations, cooperate in the international arena on our common interests and do not see the other affecting our core interests, we can expect the present relationship to continue as it is.

But this will require much better communication between India and China and no misunderstanding of each other's actions and motives.

This also requires that some of our media and commentators, whose unquestioned brilliance is regularly on display lambasting other countries for their politics and policies, learn the virtues of moderation. The Chinese cannot believe that these media and commentators do not speak authoritatively for the country, as does their controlled media and academia.

We must recognise that other countries too could have similar imperatives as ours and their own reasons for what they do. And why create self-fulfilling prophesies of conflict with powerful neighbours like China? (For me that is one of the lessons of the fifties that some of us are in danger of forgetting.)

The second is a clutch of energy and technology related issues. Energy security, climate change, renewable energy and so on. Most of these issues that will determine our success in transforming India are not amenable to just our actions. We need international partners, coalitions where possible, to deal with major economic or political issues. Consider inflation in India, which concerns each of us. Much of what we see today in India is caused by the massive injection of liquidity in the international economy by the USA, China and developed economies to promote their own recovery after the economic crisis of 2008 and the rise in oil and commodity prices that has followed. This effect has been compounded by events in the Middle East and the uncertainty that this has caused, particularly about future energy prices.

The third is our internal cohesion and coherence, namely, our success in meeting the formidable internal challenges that we face and will face in the foreseeable future. These include the social and other effects of rapid but uneven growth. Left Wing Extremism or Naxalism is one such challenge to our development strategy and to our state institutions.

We cannot say that we know all the answers. What we do know is that neither the application of force alone nor a single-minded focus on development can solve the problem. Equally we now face new challenges of policing mega cities and a population of which over 50% will soon be urban, not rural. The defence of porous borders requires us to learn new rules for the use and combination of force, persuasion and deterrence, alongside other more benign means.

Talk of strategic autonomy or of increasing degrees of independence has little meaning unless our defence production and innovation capabilities undergo a quantum improvement. A country that does not develop and produce its own major weapons platforms has a major strategic weakness and cannot claim true strategic autonomy. This is a real challenge for us all.

As a nation state India has consistently shown tactical caution and strategic initiative, sometimes simultaneously.But equally, initiative and risk taking must be strategic, not tactical, if we are to avoid the fate of becoming a rentier state.

What would this mean in practice? It means, for instance, that faced with piracy from Somalia, which threatens sea-lanes vital to our energy security, we would seek to build an international coalition to deal with the problem at its roots, working with others and dividing labour. Today the African Union has peacekeeping troops on the ground in Somalia. We could work with others to blockade the coast while the AU troops act against pirate sanctuaries on land, and the world through the Security Council would cut their financial lifelines, build the legal framework to punish pirates and their sponsors and develop Somalia to the point where piracy would not be the preferred career choice of young Somali males. This is just one example of what such a policy could mean in practice.

Summing up

With time, our positive interests will grow and our horizons expand, as a responsible member of the international community.

As an old fashioned patriot I am confident that ultimately the Indian people, history and geography will prevail, as they always have.

For a considerable time to come India will be a major power with several poor people. We must always therefore be conscious of the difference between weight, influence and power. Power is the ability to create and sustain outcomes. Weight we have, our influence is growing, but our power remains to grow and should first be used for our domestic transformation. History is replete with examples of rising powers who prematurely thought that their time had come, who mistook influence and weight for real power. Their rise, as that of Wilhelmine Germany or militarist Japan, was cut short prematurely.

So at the risk of disappointing those who call on India to be a "responsible" power, (meaning that they want us to do what they wish), and at the risk of disappointing some of you who like to think of India as an old-fashioned superpower, I would only say, as Mrs Indira Gandhi once said: "India will be a different power" and will continue to walk her own path in the world. That is the only responsible way for us.

Reproduced from the Prem Bhatia Memorial Lecture, 2011 delivered by the National Security Adviser on August 11 in New Delhi

Simple: India's primary aim is to focus on development. I won't say any more at the risk of getting people upset at what SSM is hinting.

Look at the congruence in view between KS Bajpai and SSM. I understand where KSB is coming from about the dilemma for opting for alliance.

[ramana]

And add the speech by Brajesh Misra to the mix and the chairman(MKN) of the venue where he spoke and the occassion(First KS memorial lecture).

In other words the entire NSA frame is saying the same message.

* I would buy the message if I didnt know these were the very same folks at the helm who led things to this impasse.

Drafting errors and whatnot.

[RajeshA]

The NSA frame may themselves be on a leash and working within tight parameters, when they were at the helm.

I have a feeling the formation of a national interest establishement/elite is taking place, and there will be more and more of a collective voice coming from this group, giving direction to GoI regarding the policies of the nation!

[RamaY]

Thanks for posting those articles ShyamD garu.

Very good to see the real minds in NSA are thinking similar to what any nationalist Bharatiya would.

Forgive me for repeating these points.

1. Internal development - A focused approach can achieve 95% of results in 10-15 years. Some sections of the population may want remain outside this story (like some remote tribes) and they are our kid brothers and we can take care of them.
2. Energy security - Need to connect with CAR. That requires some offensive mindset.
3. National cohesion - If NM could achieve it (with all the distractions) in Gujarat in 10 yrs, we can do it throughout in the same time. The first step is accepting our own history as ours.
4. Internal Security - Need to change our political approach to it. That means purging old mentality.
5. External Security - Trade for internal development but do not for external security.

I am glad to see these people started speaking up.

[devesh]

The NSA frame may themselves be on a leash and working within tight parameters, when they were at the helm.

I have a feeling the formation of a national interest establishement/elite is taking place, and there will be more and more of a collective voice coming from this group, giving direction to GoI regarding the policies of the nation!

if such a movement is slowly taking place, these guys will eventually run into the same "vacuum ideology" of INC that keeps the country hamstrung. i suspect some people already know and understand this and are worried. but as more Indians start waking up to the reality of geopolitics in modern world, they will search for solutions, and at some juncture, they'll realize that all of theories on how to tackle these issues are useless b/c "vacuum ideology" is running the state. under this regime, a united voice against Islam/Taliban/Pakistaniyat is impossible, b/c it immediately draws the wrath of state forces.

the debate to judge and assess Islam must and will take place. this instinct will be opposed and fought by dynasty forces.

namely, national/civilizational interests will increasingly go against "state" interests.

we are nearing the tipping point, where going forward a Maha Sangram will be inevitable.

[ramana]

You guys dont understand Indian babus. They are not policy makers. They will gather data and analyse it to death but will never propose any solutions. Those who can propose solutions will be sent to some harmless dept to make them cool down.

[shyamd]

Ramana ji, which drafting errors are you refering to? What's the issue with the NSAB guys?

[Arjun]

What do folks out here make of SS Menon's speech? The overwhelming sense I am left with is that he is instinctively attuned to a policy of inaction and appeasement on the foreign policy front - ostensibly justified as a requirement for 'internal transformation'.

Would be somewhat palatable if the governments had also genuinely focused on internal growth in the interim - but the reality is that even the 'single minded focus on internal transformation' that Menon is so fond of stressing on has been junked in favor of populist schemes and high-level corruption over the last several years.

[shyamd]

RamaY ji, what you will realise is that nothing much has changed in the view of the strategists. Even SSM says it.

[JE Menon]

Shyamd,

Thanks for linking the text/speech from Bajpai & SS Menon. Fantastic.

There is some hard shite in there couched in the gentlest language.

Without our people getting richer and living better lives, we can forget about real sustainable power. If we had not had the economic transformation of the past two odd decades, this is not the discussion we would be having now. The objective is (should be ) to accumulate and maximise strategic autonomy (i.e. power) and maintain it at a level higher than all other competitors for the longest possible time-frame.

It is not an either/or thing. As we get richer, our weight, influence and power will grow. If we don't it won't. Wealth is a precondition for power, unless it is the sort of "power" that Pak or N Korea possess that we want. We already have that. But we have a greater civilisational responsibility to the world.

Meanwhile, some of us on BRF might be upset that things are not panning out exactly as we would have desired. Not enough machismo, too much apparent grovelling, etc. etc. Not to worry, every now and then, a pirate ship will be destroyed, or a "hitherto unknown" missile will be tested, it might emerge that some unnamed unit was operating in Afghanistan, that a base agreement was signed with Kimyasistan, and so on... Hell, we may even slap Pakistan around a little, who knows.

But the goal will be what SS Menon has stated above.

[brihaspati]

All this is fine, since the "get rich first" and then onlee "you will have power" is an old propagandu line in India. But at every point of time India got "rich first", it collapsed immediately afterwards before foreign imperialists.

The propaganda deliberately suppresses this consistent historical experience of India. Obviously no one learned from their corresponding pasts. I am saying this because it might be claimed that these eminent strategic thunkers are not fools, and after all we poor BRFites are pouring our bile but could not manage to be such "eminent" strategic "position holders"! Then again what does it say about the rashtryia system - perhaps that onlee those strategic thinkers will get eminence who support the regime-power-base line which is entirely mercantile in all its thinking, calculating all national questions in monetary terms except their own personal fiefdom over state powers.

What is avoided or glossed over in this "get rich first" and then " power will come automatically", smoothly, subconsciously, without a lot of risk, line - is that the very process of waiting to get rich spawns networks of interest that seek to undermine such eventual automatic gain of power.

None of the examples of "powers" grew simply out of "get rich first" lines - they did both simultaneously, both seeking power and get rich in the process. In fact for some, a judicious investment into power seeking was made deliberately before getting even that rich, but consciously in a combined strategy to get enriched through the pursuit of power.

If the "get rich first"ers consciously suppress or postpone the "power seeking" as the fundamental driving engine for getting rich, that means these are lines emanating from transnational networks of financial flows. Such transnational networks would see independent seeking of power by one component - as an obstacle to total imperialist control, and an obstacle to periodically recurrent tapping of honey from the honeycomb built and stored by worker drones. If the honeybees simultaneously learn to put up an iron defence or even predatory pre-emptive stikes on future-tappers - isn't that bad - very very bad?!!

[RamaY]

While I can understand the emphasis on wealth accumulation, it has to go hand-in-hand with power accumulation and projection. It will be too late for power accumulation when the society is wealthy. Probably that is what JEM-garu saying.

The third aspect of this triangle (Civilization-Power-Wealth) is cohesion and empowerment of civilizational memory. This part is completely missing in the past 60 years. I am not talking about the current trend of temple construction in the middle of the road type, but the spiritual and cultural foundations of our nation-state.

I do not see that mentioned/emphasized in our babu-speak.

[ramana]

Shyamd,
Sharm-el Sheikh drafting error.

While all this is nice articulation of potential threats, not one of these worthies did anything concrete when they were in charge. Only Late Sri J.N. Dixit did and he is dead.

K.S.Bajpai after retirement used to lead the WWK brigade in Hindusthan Times op-ed pages. You can google for his past thinking.

So while they make nice reading none of them will provide any solutions.

lets sum up tehir wisdom.

Brajesh Misra: India will be isolated. Need to jump on US banwagon. Doent talk about US track record and US interests vis a vis India.
KSB: India is weak. Military is long in tooth with obsolete hardware. Recall he is NSAB under UPA. ANd there have been no procurement under UPA! India will be isolated. Need to junp on US bandwagon.

SSM. Need to build up economy. This is same as MMS.

What steps has he taken to consolidate and bring together the myriad agencies that were created to gather intelligence? What long term planning steps has he taken to look at the big picture? What does he propose once the eocnomy builds up? And this is a never ending race. There will be some one welse doing better economically. At what time will he decide or give markers of when we can take care of other aspects of the triangle?
What do we offer to the world that they should give India the UNSC seat? Be another yes man to /clone of the P-5?
What steps has he taken to build the peripehry that he talks about. You can build with BMIST and others. Why do they always drag in TSP knowing they will be the spoiler in all multi-lateral bodies?


What about the siphoning of wealth by the UPA govt which weakens the country? Well thats not our brief.

[JE Menon]

>>All this is fine, since the "get rich first" and then onlee "you will have power" is an old propagandu line in India.

It is not get rich "first"... It is get rich and powerful together. It is an ongoing and simultaneous process, as has been demonstrated over the past two decades. There is zero chance of getting any real sustainable power without getting rich. And there is no getting rich without transforming the lives of people in the country for the better. In short we need to fix the basics, and not lose focus, and not be distracted. There will be a lot of effort made to distract us. No one is happy about India's rise, some are less sad than others that's all. We need to keep our eye on the ball.

It is a mistake to read transformation of our society to raise people from poverty to mean a focus solely on the economy, at the expense of everything else. I mean do we really think that is what MMS or SSM are saying?

On the other hand, if someone has a good plan for another approach to maximum strategic autonomy, it would be good to articulate it. It will be useful if it doesn't begin with "Let's go back to our civilisational underpinnings first" or something vague like that, because that is no different from "get rich first". There is no "first" business here. We have to do it all, and wealth will facilitate it all. Bravado, and noise a la Pakisatan, won't.

[devesh]

as a comparison between India and other rising powers of their time like USA, Britain, and Russia:

USA expanded and secured North America while at the same time improving its economic picture. USA first and foremost always focused on getting more land and pushing the frontier as West as possible. they knew that there would be fierce conflict with the Natives, but didn't care. look at how Andrew Jackson dealt with traders and small businessmen. wherever he found traders dealing with Spanish and British govts, he crushed them ruthlessly, even though that resulted in the local population facing a lot of economic suffering in the short term.

Britain consistently meddled in European affairs and secured itself by being the major contributor towards the decline of Spain. compared to Holy Roman Empire and Spain, Britain was a much poorer country and yet, it broke Spain. there were many continental powers which were economically much better off that Britain, and yet Britain consistently interfered and destroyed any pan-European force from taking place. they didn't wait around the mythical era when their economy would be equal to the European powers.

Russia first expanded from its core heartland of Muscovy into the Steppes and Caucasus before they started focusing on building trade networks. only after establishing control in Caucasus did they get into trade links and eventually direct occupation of Central Asia. had they built their trade foundations before securing the land frontier between Europe and CA, some other power would have come in and filled the vacuum and eventually taken over these profit generating networks. even today, Russia's influence in Central Asia is a result of their control of the gap between Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

[devesh]

JEM ji,

the very fist step is to de-link the land connection between Pakistan and PRC. as long as these two countries are linked on land, we are screwed. that is the fist priority. the fool Nehru didn't understand this and went to the UN and let Pakistan have PoK. now we are paying the price for it. PRC has stationed troops there and they are conducting exercises just a few miles from our border.

No. 1 priority: take back PoK and connect India to CA, and disconnect Pak from PRC.

[ramana]

Devseh< Not under this group but the Independence generation. Britsh India expanded to occupy Princely India. After Ashoka, this was the largest India. With SAARC India is moving into greater India.
In fact DC's angst right after Independence thur the fifties was that India would stretch to its cultural frontiers in SE Asia, East Africa and Middle East.

[JE Menon]

>>the very fist step is to de-link the land connection between Pakistan and PRC.

Boss, how exactly?

[brihaspati]

>>All this is fine, since the "get rich first" and then onlee "you will have power" is an old propagandu line in India.

It is not get rich "first"... It is get rich and powerful together. It is an ongoing and simultaneous process, as has been demonstrated over the past two decades. There is zero chance of getting any real sustainable power without getting rich. And there is no getting rich without transforming the lives of people in the country for the better. In short we need to fix the basics, and not lose focus, and not be distracted.

Can we list out where India's independent power projection [not screw tightening on Pak because of US changed priorities] has been simultaneously interwoven into getting "rich" over the last two decades, and how much of that "riches" has flown into the "lives of" which "people in the country"?

Is not the growth and income-disparity negatively correlated? Even the Kuznets inverse-U hypothesis is not empirically supported for India. Whereas, the negative impact of income-inequality on growth for democracies appear to be supported. Which means this get-rich policy will always be unfeasible in the long run while still a democracy, which means the projection of power could also safely be postponed indefinitely - while the profits from growth gets continuously siphoned off for the benefits of the few. UK also seems to have had growth - with similar financial honey floating around away from its national economy in warm tropical waters. Maybe India's money will float around in cool Alpine valleys away from the heat and dust of India.

[shyamd]

Ramana ji, thanks for the clear explanation. I agree with you.

I think the assumption is once india has "first world" HDI, education and health characteristics, TSP won't be a problem. Isn't that the case now? We are growing and buying better weapons.- pak is struggling to maintain balance and is just 120 days from dieing off? This was always the strategy from the 60s.

But again, look at the security preparedness and defence planning is still poor. Now alll of a sudden everything from A5 to roads on the borders in NE is a "national priority". The PRC threat isn't a new threat and they knew about it from the 90s. Yet they disbanded the mountain div.

Countless reports on reform within the intel agencies haven't been implemented. We can gO on and on.

National polity attitude is to make as much money as possible. Let's face it, these guys aren't the type to lead us to the next phase.

Its lack of leadership from the crown more than anything else.

Election is not too far away, you know the top will pull something unexpected out of the bag to salvage their dire political situation or pump the $$$ in through populist programs.

To sum it up, I think success is somewhat patchy.

[devesh]

Boss, how exactly?

there is only one way: push Pak out of Kashmir completely. it will require from "ground work" like creating covert networks in the area first, but it can be done. how Russia dealt with Ukraine's "orange revolution" is a good case study. should start with covert means, and at some point, take direct control through a war.


regardless of how it's done, do you at least agree that it must be done? as long as there is an agreement on that, we will find a way.

[brihaspati]

JE Menon wrote
It is a mistake to read transformation of our society to raise people from poverty to mean a focus solely on the economy, at the expense of everything else. I mean do we really think that is what MMS or SSM are saying?

How do we know that they do not mean anything else?

On the other hand, if someone has a good plan for another approach to maximum strategic autonomy, it would be good to articulate it. It will be useful if it doesn't begin with "Let's go back to our civilisational underpinnings first" or something vague like that, because that is no different from "get rich first". There is no "first" business here. We have to do it all, and wealth will facilitate it all. Bravado, and noise a la Pakisatan, won't.

Search for "Civilizational underpinnings" can appear to be vague, naturally - because it is not measurable in dollar or rupee terms. One of the main reasons, mathematical economics derides anything not convertible into monetary terms - because apart from preference orderings [which is insufficient] or the problematic "utility" theory, it has no tools with which such things can be dealt with. So the policy is to have a pre-emptive derogatory dismissal of the very areas that may show that financial wizardry does not explain all aspects of human life and experience.

But is not the claim that "getting" rich simultaneosuly with "projection of power" not equally vague? Where is the concrete step by step deterministic interconnection being revealed and shown? How do you make "growth" automatically determine "power projection"? why is it inevitable? just because some people have done elsewhere in the world before [those who have done it - have always done the force projection first and looted others growth to grow. Everyone who concentrated on growth failed to project power] is it claimed that Indian regimes will automatically emulate them?

Search for civilizational underpinnings is an important foundational step towards justifying an identity that is not perpetually in doubt over itself. That doubt translates into doubts over purpose and long term strategic objectives. Vague identities can be used by special interest groups to create overlaps and sympathies with hostile, or secretly hostile counter-interests. Not one power projector ever allowed doubts about its civilizational roots. When they did they tottererd and failed.

[JE Menon]

Pakistan occupied Kashmir is a part of India, so it is a bit ridiculous to suggest that I disagree. And how do you know that the way we have decided upon is not what has been happening to Pakistan over the past decades or so? The facts on the ground suggest that, over the past 10 years at least, Pakistan has been on a fast downward spiral.

You suggest creating covert networks etc. How do you know they don't exist? No one is going to come on BRF and reveal our operations in not just POK but all of Pakistan. So either you believe that our intel agencies are totally inactive in Pakistan or that they are doing something and you will have to accept that you will never know what, exactly.

Meanwhile, you are recommending war to take back POK. If it is going to recovered through war, this will happen only when the opportunity presents itself and when the costs of taking it back are assessed as minimal to us. I suppose that is what you mean when you advise war "at some point". How is it different from what anyone else is saying?

This is why I asked, "how exactly". It is easy to say cut off the land connection between Pakistan and China, but when we have to decide exactly how, basically what you are saying is build up intelligence networks and go to war at some point. OK, no disagreement on that.

This should, however, be the first national priority?

Probably securing our supply of energy and other strategic imports, as well as fundamental changes to our basic education system, crop efficiencies, resource exploration, looking at ways to manage or urban/rural evolution, etc., etc. will be considered more vital. I would have to agree.

[JE Menon]

>>Can we list out where India's independent power projection [not screw tightening on Pak because of US changed priorities]

Why not? But leave that aside...

>>has been simultaneously interwoven into getting "rich" over the last two decades, and how much of that "riches" has flown into the "lives of" which "people in the country"?

Have we or have we not, gotten wealthier over the last two decades? Who thinks that the fact that our economy had started growing robustly by the mid-1990s did not help us handle the aftermath of our 1998 nuke tests? Can we safely assume that if our economy was growing at 3-4% still, we would not be able to have so many missile programmes going simultaneously? Or that we would not have the financial ease to develop the LCA, LCH and multiple other defence developments? I’m not sure why we are even discussing this.

>>Is not the growth and income-disparity negatively correlated? Even the Kuznets inverse-U hypothesis is not empirically supported for India...Maybe India's money will float around in cool Alpine valleys away from the heat and dust of India.

OK, let’s assume that not one Indian other than the 1% elite has benefited from the growth. Isn’t that still better than not even that 1% benefiting? And we all know it is not just the elite that has benefited. The facts and figures are there for all to see. I’m not going to dig them out. No one is saying everything is perfect, but we are getting some things right, and there’s no harm in admitting it - whoever brings that good in, whether the NDA or UPA or whoever. The excellent example of Narendra Modi in Gujarat has to be carefully noted. Social transformation of the type SS Menon is talking about is probably happening there faster than anywhere else - though I have no stats to prove it. It is just an observation.

>>Search for "Civilizational underpinnings" can appear to be vague, naturally - because it is not measurable in dollar or rupee terms...

Everybody agrees, i certainly do, that we need to get this right. But if we don’t have the wealth to go with it, no one will be bothered about it. It will be roti, kapda, makan all the way... Now that money is trickling down to people who didn’t have it before, we can already see a return to these very underpinnings, in different and unexpected ways no doubt, but it is there; see how the temple celebrations have changed, how much more effort and money is poured into religious and related social pursuits. There is no rigid separation... Civilisation in one column, economy in another column, defence in a third...

We have to do it all together, judiciously, carefully and cannily. One can argue that the government of the day is not doing it as they should, that they are not canny enough, too risk averse, too corrupt, or whatever. There will be mistakes. And they need to be called out.

But we need to do a bit of thinking ourselves whether we on BR have got the priorities right. Not that it matters in the larger scheme of things or anything. Just fun discussion that's all.

[devesh]

Pakistan occupied Kashmir is a part of India, so it is a bit ridiculous to suggest that I disagree. And how do you know that the way we have decided upon is not what has been happening to Pakistan over the past decades or so? The facts on the ground suggest that, over the past 10 years at least, Pakistan has been on a fast downward spiral.

You suggest creating covert networks etc. How do you know they don't exist? No one is going to come on BRF and reveal our operations in not just POK but all of Pakistan. So either you believe that our intel agencies are totally inactive in Pakistan or that they are doing something and you will have to accept that you will never know what, exactly.

Meanwhile, you are recommending war to take back POK. If it is going to recovered through war, this will happen only when the opportunity presents itself and when the costs of taking it back are assessed as minimal to us. I suppose that is what you mean when you advise war "at some point". How is it different from what anyone else is saying?

This is why I asked, "how exactly". It is easy to say cut off the land connection between Pakistan and China, but when we have to decide exactly how, basically what you are saying is build up intelligence networks and go to war at some point. OK, no disagreement on that.

This should, however, be the first national priority?

Probably securing our supply of energy and other strategic imports, as well as fundamental changes to our basic education system, crop efficiencies, resource exploration, looking at ways to manage or urban/rural evolution, etc., etc. will be considered more vital. I would have to agree.

1. I didn't say you disagreed on Pok. I was simply confirming.

2. how much of what happened to Pak in the last 10 years is India's doing? how much is of Pak's own doing? how much is of USA's doing? and if India did something, how much of it is b/c of US pressure or US interests coinciding with ours?

3. in the last 20 years, under the esteemed leadership of one WKK, all covert networks inside Pak, which took decades to build, were disbanded. the same WKK's are in charge now. therefore, logic suggests that such a blunder could be repeated again.

4. about taking back PoK: is anybody even talking about that? GoI isn't even remotely interested in getting involved in that. a retired Navy Chief has openly said that political leadership is too embroiled in preserving its own interests to seriously give thought to national security needs. it was Admiral Arun Prakash who said it.

5. all the things you mention are vital. but India has achieved a level of critical mass, where these things can be decentralized, with the GoI managing certain aspects of finances and loans. there are dedicated ministries and departments for these functions, and with regular direction of top leaders, these things can be taken care of, as they should be.

6. India's direct connection with CA is essential for energy needs. and cutting off PRC from direct land connection is essential to keep PRC from a direct connection to Indian Ocean. the things you said about securing resources and energy needs is absolutely true. precisely for those reasons, PRC should be cutoff from Pak. PRC should not be allowed to transport anything directly over land from the Arabian Sea. everything should go through the Straits of Malacca. this is how India's energy and resource needs will be secured.

7. taking back PoK is essential b/c if a two-front scenario happens, PRC will have a direct connection into the plains of Pakjab. this is disastrous for India. you've already said that many countries/interests are not happy with India's rise. Pak and PRC are definitely in that camp. Pak's jealousy and PRC's imperial fantasies are major reasons for India to take back PoK.

[shyamd]

--------------------------
South Asian golden quadrilateral in the making: Bangladesh

Dhaka(Sana)India and Bangladesh are preparing to spearhead a South Asian Golden Quadrilateral, a sub-regional grouping with Nepal and Bhutan which will look forward to long-term cooperation and sharing of water resources, power and connectivity, an official says.
India is getting ready to reset its relations with Bangladesh. Both countries will sign a land boundary agreement and a water-sharing agreement when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh makes his first bilateral visit to Dhaka.

“We will resolve all outstanding issues between our two countries,” said Gowher Rizvi, close adviser to Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina.

But, beyond repairing bilateral ties, India and Bangladesh are preparing to spearhead a South Asian Golden Quadrilateral, a sub-regional grouping with Nepal and Bhutan which will look forward to long-term cooperation and sharing of water resources, power and connectivity, said Masiur Rehman, Hasina’s economic adviser.

The two top functionaries of the Bangladesh government are in India to finalize details for the PM’s trip, meeting national security adviser Shivshankar Menon, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee and home minister P Chidambaram. “We’re picking up from where we left off in the Indira-Mujib pact of 1974,” said Rizvi.

The land boundary agreement will not only change the map of India, it will be the first resolved boundary that India has with any of its neighbours. The agreement will essentially formalize the status quo on enclaves and areas under adverse possession — that is, there will be no transfer of territory or people. The 53,000 people residing in the enclaves, who have just been counted in the first ever census there, will get the citizenship of the country they reside it, said Rizvi. If they want to change later, they would have to go by normal channels.

On economic cooperation, Bangladesh and India have identified over 17 projects that will be implemented by the $1 billion line of credit from India. Bangladesh has asked for 61 items to be removed from the negative list, but India is still wondering whether this could be a precedent that would have to be followed for other countries as well.

Meanwhile, the return of ULFA leader Anup Chetia to India before the PM’s trip is all but certain. The Bangladesh home minister has said there was no objection to it, but certain procedures have to be followed. After Chidambaram’s visit, his counterpart, Sahara Khatun was quoted saying, “I don’t think there is any obstacle in handing him (Chetia) over to India … but definitely, there are procedures in extraditing someone who is in jail.” Bangladeshi security forces on Thursday also arrested the chief of the banned militant outfit Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (Huji), Moulana Yahiya, along with his two accomplices from central Kishorganj district.

On economic ties with India, Rizvi and Rehman said Bangladesh was keen to attract Indian investment in all sectors. “Let not the experience of Tata influence other investments.” The Tata group had to pull out from a proposed investment in the steel sector in Bangladesh during the previous BNP regime, which was openly hostile to India.

That, ultimately is the challenge for both countries — to ensure that a change of government in Dhaka does not put the brakes on bilateral cooperation

This is the move that Pak are so afraid of.

[ramana]

We need to move beyond what Pak wants or fears..

Including Pak in SAARC led its de-railment and unrealised potential.

Did PRC consider India for SCO? No they just went with it.

Good move to even name.


Sonar Bangla and all that.

[brihaspati]

>>Can we list out where India's independent power projection [not screw tightening on Pak because of US changed priorities]

Why not? But leave that aside...

Well it would be good to see a case by case comparison, and how such "power" projection has been made possible by "growth" alone. The devil sometimes lies in the details, as you rightly pointed out in the "vagueness" department.

>>has been simultaneously interwoven into getting "rich" over the last two decades, and how much of that "riches" has flown into the "lives of" which "people in the country"?

Have we or have we not, gotten wealthier over the last two decades? Who thinks that the fact that our economy had started growing robustly by the mid-1990s did not help us handle the aftermath of our 1998 nuke tests? Can we safely assume that if our economy was growing at 3-4% still, we would not be able to have so many missile programmes going simultaneously? Or that we would not have the financial ease to develop the LCA, LCH and multiple other defence developments? I’m not sure why we are even discussing this.

So that is about growth generating enough surplus at the hands of the state to invest in hardware - but then it is not about getting "rich" for "transforming the lives of people in the country for the better"!

There is zero chance of getting any real sustainable power without getting rich. And there is no getting rich without . In short we need to fix the basics, and not lose focus, and not be distracted.

>>Is not the growth and income-disparity negatively correlated? Even the Kuznets inverse-U hypothesis is not empirically supported for India...Maybe India's money will float around in cool Alpine valleys away from the heat and dust of India.

OK, let’s assume that not one Indian other than the 1% elite has benefited from the growth. Isn’t that still better than not even that 1% benefiting? And we all know it is not just the elite that has benefited. The facts and figures are there for all to see. I’m not going to dig them out. No one is saying everything is perfect, but we are getting some things right, and there’s no harm in admitting it - whoever brings that good in, whether the NDA or UPA or whoever. The excellent example of Narendra Modi in Gujarat has to be carefully noted. Social transformation of the type SS Menon is talking about is probably happening there faster than anywhere else - though I have no stats to prove it. It is just an observation.

Not onlee Gujarat is getting "rich". The top levels of urban populations almost everywhere outside Gujarat in the already "richer" western Indian states have definitely got richer. Even in Delhi. If it was getting richer alone - then that should have automatically induced Gujarat like supposed social transformations in all these other cities too. Is it happening? Need concrete indicators.

>>Search for "Civilizational underpinnings" can appear to be vague, naturally - because it is not measurable in dollar or rupee terms...

Everybody agrees, i certainly do, that we need to get this right. But if we don’t have the wealth to go with it, no one will be bothered about it. It will be roti, kapda, makan all the way... Now that money is trickling down to people who didn’t have it before, we can already see a return to these very underpinnings, in different and unexpected ways no doubt, but it is there; see how the temple celebrations have changed, how much more effort and money is poured into religious and related social pursuits. There is no rigid separation... Civilisation in one column, economy in another column, defence in a third...

We have to do it all together, judiciously, carefully and cannily. One can argue that the government of the day is not doing it as they should, that they are not canny enough, too risk averse, too corrupt, or whatever. There will be mistakes. And they need to be called out.

But we need to do a bit of thinking ourselves whether we on BR have got the priorities right. Not that it matters in the larger scheme of things or anything. Just fun discussion that's all.

[/quote]

There was no denouncement of the need for economic growth. But the way it is being presented - is devoid of clear cut national power projections and other social transformation issues. What we see is a constant neglect of the much disparaged "civilizational values" as a necessary component in the statements of these august spokespersons of rashtryia doctrine, and lack of clarity which appears to be deliberate in avoiding the issues over cycles of diplomatic iteration - about what the national goals are with respect to the demise and erasure of Pak, or say independence of Tibet, or roll-back of China. Not a single word about the destructive effects of selective protection and tolerance of special religions by the very same rashtryia thinking - and the obvious consequent effects on both internal as well as external policy.

Yes, in the light of studious silence about these issues - and the insistence on "growth" in the same breadth of "intelligence/security" expertise - means growth is needed and will be protected. But to what end? To be used for a different civilizational conquest of India? The resources to be used by the rashtra so that EJ and Islamist values provide the national framework -or "western" or PRC interests determine what India should be [every security sublime brain seems to be inordinately and fatally in love with one of the camps led by USA or PRC] - given that this very same voices are part of the rashtryia setup that thinks the majority community is the greatest danger compared to minorities? This is a sign of closely interweaved thinking?

Perhaps - but the "social transformation" interests in mind seem to be different from what we have in general on BR. Should BR thinking align with these voices pushing a particular rashtryia line that has the danger of covering for imperialist as well as hostile ideological interests [hostility proven repeatedly by past actions and continuing actions]?

[brihaspati]

We need to move beyond what Pak wants or fears..

Including Pak in SAARC led its de-railment and unrealised potential.

Did PRC consider India for SCO? No they just went with it.

Good move to even name.
Sonar Bangla and all that.

With BD it will not sustain. Wait for three more years. Dynastic agreements often have the danger of unraveling because they are not built on realistic relative strengths of social forces.

[ramana]

So while writing op-eds to warm jingo hearts, the NSA babucracy is dong this:

McCain's visit sparks debate in Kashmir
When McCain called on Governor Vohra, also present on the occasion were Lt Gen KT Parnaik, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief (northern command), and Lt Gen SA Hasnain, Commander of the army's Srinagar-based 15 Corps.
"Matters of mutual interest were discussed during the US senator's meetings with the state governor and the chief minister," said an official statement about the senator's meetings in Srinagar.
Daal men kucch kishmish hai!

Having spoken to 2 journalists, familiar with some these discussions, these talks are about US insistence on "territorial adjustments" in Kashmir to pacify Pakistan. These adjustments go beyond the suggestions in the article below. Since, our army has been typically wary about territorial adjustments, the discussions are meant to get their buy-in too. What comes across from discussions with these folks,are the following:
- for some reason, the US-SD is very sensitive to Pakistani strategic interests visavis India
- our top leadership is amenable to pressures from the US in this particular regard, and has backed off 26/11 results and is at least "considering" such territorial adjustments

The article referred to above is here...

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/ ... nnel_11191

Take this with a grain of salt, since it is impossible to verify whether the sources the journalists are speaking to, themselves have some agenda.

[RamaY]

I think the assumption is once india has "first world" HDI, education and health characteristics, TSP won't be a problem. Isn't that the case now? We are growing and buying better weapons.- pak is struggling to maintain balance and is just 120 days from dieing off? This was always the strategy from the 60s.

This is very ingenuine Perspective.

If Pak doesn't matter why is our PM, whole FP, and intellectual class burdened with this issue for past 60 years?

Pak issue is one of core issues to india's raise, civilizationally and geopolitically.

As long as Pak exists (a section of India can separate itself from it's history, culture and civilization on the basis of religious faith) Indian interests can be played by external powers.

It is a different thing if we want to postpone addressing the issue.

[Manish_Sharma]

Wow 40+ comments and likings on my fb page in 1 hour of posting. Thanks for bringing this out!

[sivab]

So while writing op-eds to warm jingo hearts, the NSA babucracy is dong this:

There is no evidence for that and it is unfair to babus. It makes no sense to give publicity to someones wet dream based on hearsay and rumors. No party can last a minute in government if they agree to giving an inch of territory. For fairness here is what McCain said:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 654142.cms

McCain said he had spent a few days in Jammu & Kashmir "at the request of Indian officials". Describing Kashmir as an "internal matter" for India, he said he was "encouraged by the improvement in the security situation in the state". Children, he said, were returning to schools and economic activity was picking up. "I hope this can continue".

McCain met J&K governor, N N Vohra, chief minister Omar Abdullah and the army commanders during his visit to the state. In Delhi, McCain met national security adviser, Shivshankar Menon, though a meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had to be cancelled because of his pre-occupation with Rajya Sabha proceedings. "The US has a critical stake in India's success," he said.

However, McCain had strong words on Pakistan. "This is the time for intense reflection in US Congress about our relations with Pakistan." He said it was widely known that sections of the Pakistani army and the ISI were working with terror networks like Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Taiba. "The US Congress would have a major say in how we work our relations with Pakistan," though he did not think it would be wise to walk away from Pakistan. "We've done it once and it wasn't a good thing."

[Prem]

http://www.speroforum.com/a/58922/India ... minorities
India violates its own Constitution in the treatment of religious minorities

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution gives fundamental rights to all Indian citizens against any form of discrimination either by the state or any citizen on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of thesem. Every Indian is proud about this guarantee without much knowing that the same constitution violates itself on the basis of religion. The Scheduled Caste, known as untouchables or Dalits, have suffered under this violation for 61 years.Presidential Order 1950 enacted Para 3 of Article 341, which discriminates against Dalits on the basis of religion by limiting fundamental rights guaranteed under Indian Constitution.The Presidential Order 1950 limits Dalits to being members of the Scheduled Caste if they choose any religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism. Dalits who converted to Sikhism were constrained until 1956, when the paragraph was amended. Dalit converts to Buddhism were so limited until 1990.This is an instance of the constution violating itself. This discrimination still exists—with no current attempts to rectify it—for Dalits who have converted to Islam or Christianity.
This Presidential Order directly punishes Dalits who, if they leave Hinduism and convert to any other religion, lose constitutional protections. The freedom to convert is guaranteed by Article 25. This punishment includes losing access to affirmative action programs for Dalits and legal provisions like the Prevention of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Atrocity Acts 1989.
The constitutional provisions and affirmative action facilities are off-limits to those Dalits who have converted from Hinduism to any other religions, first to Sikhism till 1956, Buddhism till 1990 and continues to those who convert to Christianity and Islam. What is the Article 341 Para 3 but a violation of its own constitutional fundamental rights on the basis of religion?As the constitution also provides the constitutional remedies, so Sikh Dalits and Buddhist Dalits have struggled to get their fundamental, birth, and constitutional rights, which they achieved after six years to Sikhs and 40 years for Buddhists.What about Christians and Muslims? They, too have been fighting for their fundamental rights but unfortunately, their cry has not been heard for the last 61 years. Commissions after commission were set up to look into the struggle and almost all of them have recommended including Dalit converts to Islam and Christianity. This includes the latest Commission for Minority Religion and Linguistic Minority (Misra Commission), set up by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government in 2005.

Madhu Chandra is a social activist and research scholar based in New Delhi. He works as Regional Secretary of the All India Christian Council and National Secretary of the All India Confederation of SC/ST Organisations

[brihaspati]

But Dalit identity is claimed onlee relative to "Hinduism", isn't it? if they remain Dalits within Christianity and Islam - which do not recognize such subidentities by origins - no "caste" identities, is it not contradictory to their beliefs? After "conversion" no such labels can remain! In fact even "schedule caste/tribes" categories should also be disallowed - since such characterizations are anathema to most Christian dogma and Islamic kalima! How can hierarchy less -origin-based discrimination-less these two great equalizing religions tolerate such heresy and blasphemy!

[JE Menon]

>>Well it would be good to see a case by case comparison, and how such "power" projection has been made possible by "growth" alone. The devil sometimes lies in the details, as you rightly pointed out in the "vagueness" department.

It is much easier the other way, which impoverished country has been able to project power sustainably? You have to create wealth. Everything flows from it. The Soviet example is an example of the opposite, of what happens when ideology is followed at the expense of getting finances right.

>>So that is about growth generating enough surplus at the hands of the state to invest in hardware - but then it is not about getting "rich" for "transforming the lives of people in the country for the better"!

I’m not sure why this is seen as an either or. Make money, let it trickle down as far as possible (as it has been - not wholly, or in full measure, but substantially), and this gives us the flexibility to follow the policies we want. Widens our options. This is clear cut. It is not that growth is generating surplus just to buy hardware, but that growth allows us to do it. If not, we have to go hat in hand.

>>Not onlee Gujarat is getting "rich". The top levels of urban populations almost everywhere outside Gujarat in the already "richer" western Indian states have definitely got richer. Even in Delhi. If it was getting richer alone - then that should have automatically induced Gujarat like supposed social transformations in all these other cities too. Is it happening? Need concrete indicators.

Of what? Gujarat is an excellent example in my opinion. Others are getting richer too. But Gujarat under Modi seems to be in the lead in the transformations that SS Menon is talking about. We need to examine why, and explain why. Perhaps he has been able to transfer the idea of civilisational values and give people a conceptual ideal they can rally behind. But would he have been anything but a rabble rouser, if he was not able to deliver economically and turn the state into the dynamo it has become? I think the answer will have to be no. Modi gets it.

>>There was no denouncement of the need for economic growth.

I didn’t say there was.

>>But the way it is being presented - is devoid of clear cut national power projections and other social transformation issues.

It seems to me that this is the crux of the issue. The presentation of the thing. There is no articulation of our national power objectives. Much as many of us on BRF would like to see this happen, at least some indication to let us know what our government and security establishment envisage for our country down the line, I fear we are never going to get any more light on that than the sort of thing SSM has stated in his speech. Maybe there is no more to it. Even so, the general direction is clear. I suspect though that the lack of any declaration on this is largely because we do not like to hamstring ourselves by either limiting our options, because we are not powerful enough, or because we do not want to present fixed strategic targets. But it’s only a suspicion. What we do know is that the Americans have been dying to find out exactly what we think, exactly where we see ourselves down the line, but we have not been telling them. Maybe because there is nothing to say other than what SSM has said. But, even so, we are accumulating wealth, power, influence and increasing our strategic options.

On the other hand, we have not been shy about asserting ourselves where we perceive a distinct potential danger - like taking the lead on the piracy issue in terms of getting aggressive. Everyone followed there.

>>Yes, in the light of studious silence about these issues - and the insistence on "growth" in the same breadth of "intelligence/security" expertise - means growth is needed and will be protected. But to what end?

To this question, I really doubt we will get a much clearer answer than what SSM said. We might pick up nuggets here and there indicating what is being considered, but a clear cut statement saying “xyz is what we want to do in the world”, or “we will render Pakistan ungovernable through sustained covert action on multiple fronts through various mechanisms” until it comes to a point where it will collapse of its own accord or face co-ordinated action by several countries is unlikely to be made. This comment was an interesting slip from the normal bland stuff though: “So at the risk of disappointing those who call on India to be a "responsible" power, (meaning that they want us to do what they wish)...”

[brihaspati]

I am not sure Modi should have been picked up for this line of argument giving the benefit of doubt to SSM or other Voices of the regime.

Suppose we accept that "Modi" gets it. Then two immediate questions arise.

(1) Why are not the other non-Modis not getting it? Maybe it was the civilizational visions itself to start with that made the difference? Pursuit of growth without civilizational vision leads to regimes whose thoughts are worded out by SSM/KB?

(2) if Modi is really "getting it", then an even more serious problem comes up. The regime on whose behalf KB/SSM have opened up their apologetics - goes tongs and fire at Modi. Any regime that tries to destroy the one person who is getting "it", surely must be not having "it" as the top priority - right? so Modi's getting "it" automatically then proves that the current rashtryia regime does not hold "it" as the supreme goal.

If "it" was of such supreme concern, assuming "it" to be a national objective - then personal or political vendetta should not have prompted such destructive attempts - by a regime which is sought to be given the blanket benefit of doubt leaning towards ascription of long term positive commitment by the likes of SSM? On the other hand such destruction attempts on Modi - the one who is "getting it" more than the others - shows that for the current rashtryia regime whom SSM is painting in strategic halo - national interests can be dropped in favour of personal dominance and power interests. Not what SSM is trying to project reassuringly.

Of course India is not doing everything the way USA wants. India has its own perceptions apparently where it shows "independence" - which in turn seems to be about cultivating ME dictators facing domestic and of-course opportunistic foreign reprisals, and hosting Islamists. India will not compromise on the question of protecting Islamism in all its forms, under a variety of stated and unstated excuses including economic-hostage Indian populations in ME (stated) to electoral necessities (unstated) - or EJ havoc - which of course is not against the "wishes" of USA. India will not take action - covert or overt against Pak - "against" the wishes of USA.

Definitely these are promising signs of future intentions. Should we also join SSM in his essential panegyric of congrez pretensions?

[devesh]

It seems to me that this is the crux of the issue. The presentation of the thing. There is no articulation of our national power objectives. Much as many of us on BRF would like to see this happen, at least some indication to let us know what our government and security establishment envisage for our country down the line, I fear we are never going to get any more light on that than the sort of thing SSM has stated in his speech. Maybe there is no more to it. Even so, the general direction is clear. I suspect though that the lack of any declaration on this is largely because we do not like to hamstring ourselves by either limiting our options, because we are not powerful enough, or because we do not want to present fixed strategic targets. But it’s only a suspicion. What we do know is that the Americans have been dying to find out exactly what we think, exactly where we see ourselves down the line, but we have not been telling them. Maybe because there is nothing to say other than what SSM has said. But, even so, we are accumulating wealth, power, influence and increasing our strategic options.

On the other hand, we have not been shy about asserting ourselves where we perceive a distinct potential danger - like taking the lead on the piracy issue in terms of getting aggressive. Everyone followed there.

Rahul Gandhi went and told Americans that he was more worried about "Hindu terror" than Jihadis. what else do "we" have to share with America? America knows everything it needs to know about Indian leadership and their worldview.

this is the definition of "influence": The capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something

do you really believe we have "increased" our influence on Pak? on PRC? on US? on Bangladesh even?

if for instance, India goes after all the rabid dogs who take shelter in Pak after killing innocents in India, then it could be said that India's behavior has made Pakistan think about its own behavior. Pak would still continue to support Jihadis against India, but they would think 10 times before blowing up the next target. they would be much more paranoid. this is influence. by taking certain actions, we had an effect on their behavior.

if for instance, India takes a stand against dubious funding agencies which are fueling the rise of EJs, and takes concrete action to stop and end these financial flows into India, then we will have made it clear to US what our priorities were. they would then understand our insistence and willingness to protect our culture. this effects American behavior. this is influence.

I guess in a certain way, we have influenced Pak and US. by being meek we have reassured them that we are all talk and no guts. this certainly has effected their behavior when it comes to our interests....I guess this is a kind of influence too.