Bharat Rakshak

Brihaspati ji,
To the financial loss for India continuing with the current state of Pakistan, we must add

i) Total cost and maintainance of all the non-productive security checks across all the theatres and malls in India
ii) Total time value of money for all those who go through those security checks
iii) Cost of the whole army maintainance in Kashmir, BSF & CRPF
iv) Maintanance of extra army divisions to battle against two nuclear adversaries, instead of one.

Ofcourse the losses due to strategic straitjacket are something else

But these costs are borne by the aam aadmi, as his costs to business and through his taxes.

Notice who gets the gains? The elite businessmen

Of course, when costs are calculated in this way, the people who throw around the usual "guns vs bread" dont show up.

RajeshA wrote:Middle finger to the world. We have grown ourselves beyond those little fantasy monsters under our bed, which the Great Powers used to use to scare us in our childhood.

RajeshA-ji, dont know about you, but most people have to live in the world as it exists, not a world that we wish there was..
There is no tolerance in the world for armed conflict between nuclear armed nations, for that matter, armed action against even a potential nuke armed adversary...If "teaching a lesson" by random, frequent limited actions against a nuke-armed rogue was so plausible, Israel/US would have carried that out against Iran long back...SoKo/US would have done it against NoKo...In both those cases, the power differentials, even in purely conventional military terms are far better than what exists between India and Pak today...

Do a thought experiment war gaming exercise - a rudimentary one...

There is a bomb blast in (God forbid) Palika Bazaar, heart of New Delhi - kills 50 people...

Proven connection to LeT...

We start a limited incursion across the Chamb-Jaurian axis, with an aim to reclaim Haji Pir...

the above three are "easy" to imagine...the nasty blocks that dont fit into neat circles come now..

1. How many days will it take for us to attain the objective? 5 days? 7 days? Extrapolating from the 1965 experience and granting for a much stiffer level of Paki defences there today, we will need to mobilise 3-4 divisions worth of troops...So lets say 3 days to mobilise, 7 days to achieve the objective...(just taking off loosely from Cold Start aspirational numbers)...

2. On the second day of shooting, travel advisories go out across the world..

3. On the first day of shooting, stock markets tank 15% - and will need to perhaps be shut down temporarily..

4. Rupee tanks by 10% on the first day of shooting...

What do you think US, Europe, China and everyone else would be doing? Travel advisories, partial suspension of sea and air travel...

We brave through all of this in 10 days...For the next 1 year, the economy will spend in simply recovering...The noise on "most dangerous place on earth" will get louder...And a fresh attack will leave us with no other option but to do another limited "war", if only to retain strategic credibility...In reality, we will need to embark on a new "peace process", as international pressure will force that though multiple levers....

Israel learnt (or didnt learn!) the futility of the whole "limited military action" theory over the years...military operations did little to reduce rocket attacks or terror attacks...What did work was political and intel work - like getting Egypt on board to economically aphyxiate the Paletinians, getting Jordan on board...Playing on the fears of Saudi Arabia...Perpetually keeping the Palestinians divided - Hamas and Fatah (yes, if you didnt notice, once Hamas became too big for their boots, Israel shifted patronage to Fatah!)...

those who blithely comment that "prosperity for a select few is unimportant" display nothing but a complete lack of understanding of either the complex globally integrated state of the Indian economy as well as geopolitics...During Ops Parakram, one of the pressure points on the govt was brought about by IT companies, as travel advisories from the US started hurting....No one will base their back-office or tech support in a country that is frequently doing small wars with a rogue nuke armed neighbour...

A "comprehensive" political solution, companied with ethnic cleansing (as some members here fantatsize about) are more than just fantasizing, they are delusional...We saw the costs of regime change in Af and in Iraq to the US...Finally, the Pak problem will be solved by time - we can only keep managing it by insuating ourselves as much as possible while hastening Pak's downfall..

Acharya wrote:here we have fully explored all options on Pakistan and non military threat such as religion is more dangerous than the military threat

Acharya-ji, your penchant for running one-liners without any evidence or rationale or data source is quite amazing...Is this level of definiteveness on the issue the same as your level of definitiveness about Indian rupee being the "freest" currency in the developing world? Or INR's reserve ccy role in the ME in the '60s?

Fellow posters on this thread, I am looking for examples of posts that advocate "ethnic cleansing". If anyone has used the term and I have missed it, please point out! I personally use the word "sanitization" which has been explained by me many times before, and in other threads and previous versions of this thread. I use it always in the context of simultaneously speaking of "reabsorption" of both the territory and its "people" back into the rashtryia soverignty of Bharat. If I was using sanitization in the sense of "ethnic cleansing" there would be no sense in talking of reabsorbing the people - because then they would no longer exist if they have already been ethnically cleansed.

There is a great discomfort and deep seated hatred that stirs in some "forward caste" Hindus whenever there is even the imaginary prospect of ex-Paki-Muslims becoming Bharatiyas again - in a rashtryia sense. It is understandable that such discomfort and hatred comes out in the deliberate ambiguity over what exactly to do with Pakistan in the end - say even after it has stewed in its own juices to the point it has become a soft mash or a soup. What will you do with that stewed people?!! They will still after all be sitting around as a society on the western borders of current rashtriya Bharat. What sort of a society will that be in its attitudes to Bharat? How vulnerable and penetrable by other foreign groups who have hostile intent on Bharat? Is it not an even greater fantasy to try and delude people that it is a more tangible task to convince all nations of the earth to give up their hostile designs on India - so that no such hostile power remains [even USA tried this for so long - to no avail] who will not encourage and take advantage of the left over soup?

Israel's apparent failure in military method is claimed, USA's failure in military methods is claimed, but in spite of that claim both still now have not abandoned the military retaliation. Even as we speak, Gaza is recovering from a spate of retaliations from Israel over the rockets having been fired from the Palestinian side.

Both Israel and USA - like many other countries - say China, or Russia, and their respective allies - use military action, covert and overt, continuously in an integrated operation combining both diplomatic and political action that is used to keep the pressure on hostile entities and neutralize them or push them up against the wall.

In India, we have advocates of the "loss of prosperity" line demanding that we take no military action at all. Sometimes one has to wonder, given the inevitable background connection of big-business and foreign trade and large financial transaction, whether even this "no military action" thought process is a result of the induction from foreign interests? Because foreign business is known to have odd connections to foreign policies of their respective "home countries" it is perhaps important for those "home countries" to prevent military retaliation on their asset Pakistan - and hence the subtle or not-so-subtle threat of withdrawal of "business" if their asset Pak is hurt?

From Sankuji's post on the "transparency" angle over the nuclear deal, I have had a thought on another possible motivation that may explain strong protests of financial or economic benefit to India in its specific foreign policy actions.

For example over the issue of GCC - possible military security being extended to the royals - is claimed to potentially boosting injection of Saudi capital into "development" of the Indian economy, while retaliating on Pak is supposed to detract from "economic development".

Apart from the possible foreign powers manipulation of the business psyche of Indians engaged in high value transactions, what if all this talk of foreign investments also imply investments into the "party economy"?

It strikes me that one angle we have not considered perhaps in this - that maybe , just maybe when we talk of "boost to the Indian economy" - what it means perhaps is also a boost to the "party economy"? running a big party that has to guarantee Lok Sabha seats needs a lot of money, isnt it? Quattrochhi and related affairs are not that ancient history!

brihaspati wrote:Fellow posters on this thread, I am looking for examples of posts that advocate "ethnic cleansing".

I believe somnath ji used those words one post above yours. What a coincidence! Otherwise usually the words pop up in reference to Kashmiri Pandits.

Hope I could help!

somnath wrote:

RajeshA wrote:Middle finger to the world. We have grown ourselves beyond those little fantasy monsters under our bed, which the Great Powers used to use to scare us in our childhood.

RajeshA-ji, dont know about you, but most people have to live in the world as it exists, not a world that we wish there was..

There is no tolerance in the world for armed conflict between nuclear armed nations, for that matter, armed action against even a potential nuke armed adversary...If "teaching a lesson" by random, frequent limited actions against a nuke-armed rogue was so plausible,

somnath ji,
I thank you for bringing up a very important point - "tolerance in the world for armed conflict between nuclear armed nations"!

Because perhaps the tolerance is low, as you yourself claim here, may be we can use that low tolerance in our favor. The world is given an ultimatum by us, or perhaps one can use a more diplomatic term, the world is shown an opportunity by us, either the world HELPS us solve the Pakistan problem or the world LETS us solve the Pakistan problem. But the option where the world STOPS us from solving the Pakistan problem, is not on the table.

Now the laundry list is long on Pakistan, but topmost on that list should be a UN Security Council Resolutions

1. Declaring Pakistan a terrorist state
2. Putting an arms embargo on Pakistan, especially on big-ticket items.

So the question is, can India make the "Great Powers" so jittery, that they accede to these minimum demands from India.

somnath wrote:Israel/US would have carried that out against Iran long back...SoKo/US would have done it against NoKo...In both those cases, the power differentials, even in purely conventional military terms are far better than what exists between India and Pak today...

Don't you think, that it is part of American duplicity to extend support to you against your enemy, but to see to it, that your enemy lives on, albeit somewhat weak but still threatening.

somnath wrote:Israel learnt (or didnt learn!) the futility of the whole "limited military action" theory over the years...military operations did little to reduce rocket attacks or terror attacks...What did work was political and intel work - like getting Egypt on board to economically aphyxiate the Paletinians, getting Jordan on board...Playing on the fears of Saudi Arabia...Perpetually keeping the Palestinians divided - Hamas and Fatah (yes, if you didnt notice, once Hamas became too big for their boots, Israel shifted patronage to Fatah!)...

There are differences between India vs. Pakistan and Israel vs. Palestine. For one thing, the whole Islamic world cares a lot more about happens around Islam's third most holy site, than what happens to the Pakis. Secondly the Palestinians are confined to a very small space, whereas Pakistan is large, which means that if India bites off chunks of Pakistan, there is still going to be enough of left over for Pakis, so for Pakis, it is not existential. Thirdly even in the minds of the Ummah, Pakistan is still considered part of Hindustan, the Pakis are still Hindustanis, despite Paki pleas to accept them as their offspring. Fourthly Jews are the historical enemies of the Muslims. Hindus were just slaves and not to be taken seriously.

The point is Israel has had only limited room for maneuvering. And they still have played a pretty aggressive game.

Indians do not really have this history of aggressiveness towards Pakistan, and I think this must change, especially as Indians do have a lot more room for slapping Pakistan. I concede Amreeka bahadur and not Cheen bahadur would frown, but even 1971 did not stop India to do what was necessary when these countries were strongly anti-Indian, why should it stop us now. Even USA and PRC have their doubts about Pakistan.

All this give us a lot more leeway, than Israel ever had!

somnath wrote:those who blithely comment that "prosperity for a select few is unimportant" display nothing but a complete lack of understanding of either the complex globally integrated state of the Indian economy as well as geopolitics...During Ops Parakram, one of the pressure points on the govt was brought about by IT companies, as travel advisories from the US started hurting....No one will base their back-office or tech support in a country that is frequently doing small wars with a rogue nuke armed neighbour...

somnath ji,
I think all Indians even the WKK have some function in the overall design of bringing Pakistan down.

Those Indians who are connected to the global supply chains should ensure that India has minimum costs due to temporary phases of regional "instability", when India goes to spank Pakis. However I do not think, that these Indians should be arguing against India solving Pakistan problem.

I ask you, did USA, UK and other Western countries not issue travel advisories in the wake of Mumbai terror attacks? And even when CWG were to be held, fearing terrorist attacks?

Once Afghanistan eases, don't you think that the phase of "less" terror attacks against India would be over, and Pakjabi Generals would go back to their daily schedule?

Pakistanis NEED TO BE DEALT WITH. Even though the games you propose can be pretty useful, they are at best a little cream over our sores, not a solution to our disease - Pakistan.

somnath wrote:A "comprehensive" political solution, companied with ethnic cleansing (as some members here fantatsize about) are more than just fantasizing, they are delusional...We saw the costs of regime change in Af and in Iraq to the US...Finally, the Pak problem will be solved by time - we can only keep managing it by insuating ourselves as much as possible while hastening Pak's downfall..

What does regime change in Pakistan really mean?

If there is a "democratic" election it would throw up one or the other feudal/civilian joker, who would admit his helplessness in going against the Army or their policies against India.

If we somehow push through a COAS of our choice even, his Islamized Pakjabi officers may sideline him, if his policies are too India-friendly.

If we dismantle the whole Pakistani Army a la Paul Bremer, the society would again throw up the same crap as candidates for whatever security force is put up instead.

So regime change in Pakistan, would not help one bit! The only change we can push through is either dismemberment or effect a change in regime behavior. The change in regime behavior can however come only from what lessons they learn when dealing with India.

somnath ji,

just adding to the above,

"teaching Pakistan a lesson" means more than just lashing out in revenge. It is a rational thought intended for exact that purpose, and not to be mistaken for simply a mask for revenge.

The comments below are to be understood in the context of "Solving Pakistan: Solution 2: Unchaddee the Echandee of the Bully & Swat It Solution", which includes the "Land for Terror" aspect.

Attacking a nuclear armed country like Pakistan is especially important, because how else can one tell the Pakis that your nukes do not work in more ways than one - one does not fear the nukes. This is the way to tell the Pakistani Establishment that neither we fear their nukes nor their terrorism nor their conventional military nor their faujis.

Only when this lesson sinks in, that basically Pakistan has nothing that makes India break into a cold sweat, only then will the Pakistani Establishment be willing to change its spots and stripes.

Of course our infrastructure and investments, the business climate, and even our lives all make us very sensitive to pressure and fear. It is to keep that fear alive, that we get hit every now and then. And then there is a big constituency of Indians, and I can understand them very well and sympathize with them, who fall for this agenda, are fearful, but more importantly display that fear outwardly to the Pakistanis, confirming their theories that bullying works, and reaffirming their program of instilling fear into Indians through regular terrorist attacks.

FEAR ATTRACTS TERRORIST ATTACKS!

The more we fear, the more travel advisories would go out!

"Teaching the Pakistanis a Lesson" is all about telling them that Indians are not afraid, and if they wish to continue to rule, they better come up with a new business model!

And if they want help, in looking for a new business model, Indians may even relent and help.

somnath wrote:
Acharya-ji, your penchant for running one-liners without any evidence or rationale or data source is quite amazing...Is this level of definiteveness on the issue the same as your level of definitiveness about Indian rupee being the "freest" currency in the developing world? Or INR's reserve ccy role in the ME in the '60s?

There is no need to target a straw man here. Already you had warnings and other had found problems in taking you seriously. You can just ignore my posts.

all the media clamoring and propaganda in the West is useless in the long term. eventually they realize the futility and stop or just ignore us. media propaganda is usually used to support a certain action. if the action was to attack India to stop dissolution of Pakistan, the media angle could work. but no western nation, including US/UK imperialists will attack India. it won't happen. as long as we make sure that we are overtly targeting terrorists groups, we are fine. this is a multi-stage process. first, overt and covert action against all terrorists, in India and broader Asia. this is done by covert units outside India. the idea that India will hunt and kill perpetrators will have to be firmly established. we shouldn't shy away from attention. the more media attracts attention to India eliminating Jihadis, the better it is. it must become firmly rooted in the Western mind that India will attack those who attack her. once this level of "brainwashing" has been achieved, we can move onto next levels.

the idea here is that we will gradually become more aggressive in our approaches. we are not going to start military action against Pakis tomorrow morning. first we will start by openly eliminating Jihadis who attack India all over the globe. we also start gaining control of funding networks. this is the first step. after this has been achieved, incremental steps will have to be taken. this is how we deal with the issue. it's classical conditioning at work here. slowly acclimatize the enemies to our presence, and our actions, and let them firmly believe that we intend to pursue this course of action.

RajeshA-ji,

I think we have both said our pieces - most of the stuff is at the level of speculation, so beyond a point its difficult to "judge"..

The issue is about a vision of India's place...An India stuck to squabbling with Pakistan will always remain hyphenated with it...It has taken a good 15-20 years of hard work for us to graduate up to a higher league, and get rid of the hyphenation..A recurring shooting match will keep us tied down to Pak..At the dtriment of our strategic position vis a vis the real challenge, China...China would love nothing more than to see an active shooting game between India and Pak...It helps don the mantle of a neutral dispassionate "arbiter" of some sorts, especially given its influence over Pak..And it dissipates India's energies towards Pakistan, rather than building up all round cpacities to confront China, which is the real challenge for us in the 21st century...

In the history of the world, we have not seen an great power without heavy economic sinews...For all those here denigrating the importance of that, the predicament of Soviet union from the '70s should be a lesson...India needs to be richer, far richer than what it is...The economic surplus will afford a lot more in terms of strategic options - military hardware and influence aroudn the world..Cheap thrills on Pak will serioulsy divert us from that...JMT...

Last, and certainly the least, ACharya-ji,

You can just ignore my posts.

Yes, that is usually a good strategy for unthinking sloganeering...

somnath wrote:The issue is about a vision of India's place...An India stuck to squabbling with Pakistan will always remain hyphenated with it...It has taken a good 15-20 years of hard work for us to graduate up to a higher league, and get rid of the hyphenation..A recurring shooting match will keep us tied down to Pak..At the dtriment of our strategic position vis a vis the real challenge, China...China would love nothing more than to see an active shooting game between India and Pak...It helps don the mantle of a neutral dispassionate "arbiter" of some sorts, especially given its influence over Pak..And it dissipates India's energies towards Pakistan, rather than building up all round cpacities to confront China, which is the real challenge for us in the 21st century...

somnath ji,



Of all the credible solutions for Pakistan we have been coming up with here, I too consider the "Land for Terror", etc. to be the most costly. It is also the brute force solution trying to crack open the Pakistani black box. You're right about China!

There are four other solutions, that were proposed by me in the Managing Pakistan's failure Thread, which too I would categorize as comprehensive solutions, which entail much lower costs, and probably solve the Pakistan conundrum in a much more lasting way than the "Land for Terror" proposal.

I see it as important that Pakistan be solved for once and for all, for simply coming to terms with its nuclear blackmail and terrorism, is simply not a viable alternative. You don't know when the Jihadis could decide to explode a nuke in Mumbai. Instead of living in fear and letting the perdition come to you, we should take the initiative and ourselves go to the jungle and deal with the beast!

somnath wrote:Finally, the Pak problem will be solved by time - we can only keep managing it by insuating ourselves as much as possible while hastening Pak's downfall..

Somnath, while others out here are taking the trouble of detailing out possible solutions to India's Pakistan problem - I haven't actually seen one from you. I presume you have some concrete thoughts other than saying that the 'Pak problem will be solved by time'. Let me add that I might have missed your solution since I am not a frequent visitor to this thread.

If you have presented a concrete approach earlier aimed at 'hastening Pak's downfall' can you provide the link to the relevant post, or alternatively can you provide your viewpoints on how the Pakistan problem is to be eliminated?

Arjun wrote: If you have presented a concrete approach earlier aimed at 'hastening Pak's downfall' can you provide the link to the relevant post, or alternatively can you provide your viewpoints on how the Pakistan problem is to be eliminated?

Unfortunatelky multiple threads have similar thought processes...This got discussed in the "Managing Paki failure" thread as well....You can refer to that...

Actually China has a Taiwan obsession, India plays neutral and coy. Japan has a North Korea obsession. India plays neutral. Sri Lanka had and still has a Tamil obsession. India twiddles its thumb. The more China gets ruffled up over Taiwan, India should become happy - it can play the neutral arbiter role. etc, etc.

But that is not how things really happen, isnt it? India does not play any arbiter role, just as most other powers or even super-powers do not, simply because many of the serious and long running territorial and sovereignty disputes are practically inaccessible for really "neutral" arbiters. What in reality happens is completely non-neutral taking of sides.

It is surprising that the same type of mentality that severely ridicules "black and white" views of the world who claim a mastery and sole monopoly over "comprehension", completely fail to "comprehend" that international maneuvering is not about concentrating only on one country to the complete exclusion of all other countries in scope but a "comprehensive" strategic vision involving many countries and many entities.

Assuming that such arguments are aware of what they are doing, we have to hypothesize that perhaps this criticism of military retaliation or penalties on Pakistan at two levels - is essentially tied to a convergence of views with interests hostile to Indian expansion of hegemony or protection of its core.

The two levels are both absolutist. At the first level the trick is to make Indian economic growth [in the most general GDP /macro/totality focus only and not about where that growth goes or who benefits immediately] mutually exclusive with military retaliation and deliberate, planned dissolution of Pakistan. The typical claims are that supposedly no power grew up without developing economic sinews. Here deliberate turn of phrase is used to obfuscate the real historical track record of "powers". I guess the tactic is to specifically ignore and not mention the simultaneous use of military aggression as an integral part of economic and political expansion, and almost inevitable use of military aggression before reaching rapid economic growth. There are no exceptions unless enclaves dependent/protected by colonial powers. In case the real history is highlighted case by case, country by country, the response will be the legally impeccable "I never said that the countries did not also use military force". But because the precise chronology or simultaneity of military aggression and economic development is ignored - the impression can be created as if military moves can ONLY be made AFTER full economic prosperity. Since what rigorously characterizes the limit or fulfillment of "prosperity" can never really be defined - this makes for a good argument to indefinitely postpone military moves to dismantle the rashtryia shelter within which this western asset can be preserved.

Second level is the attempt at making the need to dismantle Pakistan mutually exclusive with confronting or rolling back China's presence and shenanigans from the borders of India. Another of those "black and white" moments that seeks to turn attention away from Pakistan by raising the bogey of China - as if solving the China problem is independent of solving the Pakistan problem.

The simultaneity and comprehensive integrated approach on many fronts, many countries, and many political entities, is unfortunately missed by critiques of "black and white" thinking. Hopefully not for some ulterior motives tied to monetary profits from toeing the western line!

somnath wrote:Unfortunatelky multiple threads have similar thought processes...This got discussed in the "Managing Paki failure" thread as well....You can refer to that...

Haven't found any such post from you over the last 6 months at least on that particular thread - a link would have been useful.

I did come across some thoughts on other threads where you have indicated that the US should continue to play its current role in AfPak and the Durand line should be questioned...Is that the sum total of the measures you would recommend aimed at the objectives of (a) entrenching Pakistan's slide into the zone of instability if not necessarily balkanization & (b) eliminating Pak sponsored terrorism & insurgency. No need to be coy about it if it is - if it is not, do enumerate the other measures you propose.

The reason I am interested is that criticism of a proposal on the table is constructive when you bring up an alternative which facilitates comparison. Have not seen any alternative proposal in your critique of of RajeshA's approach.

Arjun wrote:No need to be coy about it if it is - if it is not, do enumerate the other measures you propose.

The reason I am interested is that criticism of a proposal on the table is constructive when you bring up an alternative which facilitates comparison. Have not seen any alternative proposal in your critique of of RajeshA's approach.

Arjun-ji, not sure why I should be coy about anything on an internet blog..Dont take myself THAT seriously, even though I usually take data very sersiously...About the larger AfPak scenario and potential strategies for India, have posted many comments in various threads - unfortunately there are too many threads around the same topic, and dont have the patience to physically go through each of them...

There was a discssion on a thread titled "US and China in Pak" (not the "maanagin Pak failure" - I was confused) - you should find the pointers there...

About the critique of RajeshA's axiom, it is spendid that he has taken the trouble of articulating in such great detail...The issue really is of practicability of the propositions...And given the incomplete access to data/info that all of us have here, can finally be only a matter of POV, not data-oreinted conclusions...

RajeshA wrote:I see it as important that Pakistan be solved for once and for all, for simply coming to terms with its nuclear blackmail and terrorism, is simply not a viable alternative. You don't know when the Jihadis could decide to explode a nuke in Mumbai. Instead of living in fear and letting the perdition come to you, we should take the initiative and ourselves go to the jungle and deal with the beast!

RajeshA-ji, a bit tautological, but no geopolitical problem gets solved "once and for all" by someone pressing a few buttons and strategising on political moves....Issues usually rumble on towards solutions, buffeted by developments that no one could predict, and principals try to make the best of what is presented...

Even in our finest hour of strategic brilliance, 1971, even a cursory reading of the history would show how much of the outcomes were simply driven by the rush of events...there was no grand plan, even in the late '60s of dismembering Pak...As late as 1970, we have it from JN Dixit that India was looking at the East Pak crisis being solved somehow "internally"...

That remains true for all issues of comtemporary geopolitics - Iran, NoKo, China, Af, Iraq, Israel - I can go on...Principals try to simply extract the best value out of an existing situation...

IMO, which is precisely what India is doing, or trying to in any case...A general plan of facilitation of an unstable Pak fits in...Which will be a combination of intel, political, covert action and economic measures....But military conflicts, that too at a sustained level periodically, isnt..

somnath wrote: There is a bomb blast in (God forbid) Palika Bazaar, heart of New Delhi - kills 50 people...

Answer just one question. God forbid a close relative of yours is one of those 50, How will you avenge your relative's murder?

somnath wrote:

RajeshA wrote:I see it as important that Pakistan be solved for once and for all, for simply coming to terms with its nuclear blackmail and terrorism, is simply not a viable alternative. You don't know when the Jihadis could decide to explode a nuke in Mumbai. Instead of living in fear and letting the perdition come to you, we should take the initiative and ourselves go to the jungle and deal with the beast!

RajeshA-ji, a bit tautological, but no geopolitical problem gets solved "once and for all" by someone pressing a few buttons and strategising on political moves....Issues usually rumble on towards solutions, buffeted by developments that no one could predict, and principals try to make the best of what is presented...

somnath ji,
Solving a problem is as much about defining solution as it is about defining the problem.

IMHO, basically Pakistan presents the following serious problems for India:

1. Instability in Kashmir
2. Terrorism in India
3. Nuclear Threat
4. Blocking Indian access to West and Central Asia
5. Islamist influence over Indian Muslims

There may be other problems like organized crime, etc., but I consider those to be secondary problems. Those are problems we can deal with well.

I would consider the Pakistani problem solved if we can solve some of the key structural challenges like Kashmir and Nuclear Threat for good, dismantle most of the anti-Indian terrorist networks, and manage the other problems.

Many of the problems would go, should Pakistan fragment.

somnath wrote:Even in our finest hour of strategic brilliance, 1971, even a cursory reading of the history would show how much of the outcomes were simply driven by the rush of events...there was no grand plan, even in the late '60s of dismembering Pak...As late as 1970, we have it from JN Dixit that India was looking at the East Pak crisis being solved somehow "internally"...

That remains true for all issues of comtemporary geopolitics - Iran, NoKo, China, Af, Iraq, Israel - I can go on...Principals try to simply extract the best value out of an existing situation...

IMO, which is precisely what India is doing, or trying to in any case...A general plan of facilitation of an unstable Pak fits in...Which will be a combination of intel, political, covert action and economic measures....But military conflicts, that too at a sustained level periodically, isnt..

There are also cases like Soviet Union and Yugoslavia falling apart! Why forget them?! When the Berlin Wall came down the biggest schism in geopolitics suddenly fell apart!

Pakistan resembles those cases far more than those other intractable problems. Just because India has never done anything to speed up Pakistan's unraveling other than hesitantly liberating Bangladesh, it doesn't mean that it is not doable.

Off the cuff, the first instance that I can recall of a "great power" concentrating only, and only on full prosperity before going out to militarily punish another "state" - is perhaps the USA -Brabary states wars of 1801-1805. When USA embarked on this - it was just 18 years from the treaty of Paris which formally gave recognition to USA as an independent country.

The US merchant ships were constantly preyed on by the Barbary coast states "pirates" who were definitely simply extensions of the Islamic state armies/navies on the North African western coast. The reason I call them Islamic is specifically rooted in a conversation reported by Jefferson back home. In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripolian envoy, Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied that

"It was written in their Qu'ran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."

So the piracy or war etc were firmly connected to, justified and pushed by these states as part of their Islamic way of doing things.

USA too tried "appeasement" but the significant point to note is that they quickly tired of it and they did not condemn those who warned of the dangers of buying-peace as anti-development and war-mongerer or perhaps even fanatical-religious-nationalists. Joshua London writes Joshua London, 2006

After the War of Independence, America lost British protection in the Mediterranean and began worrying about Barbary depredations. In very short order, the precariousness of American interests abroad was brought into sharp focus when the American merchant vessel Betsey was taken by Morocco in October 1784.

Soon thereafter, two ships with a combined crew of 24 men fell to the pirates of Algiers-the Maria of Boston was captured on July 25, 1785, and five days later the Dauphin of Philadelphia was taken. The hostage crisis was significant, and Congress became greatly alarmed. Destitute of finances and military might, however, the United States pursued a multilateral diplomatic effort at peace. Conse­quently, between 1785 and 1793, a total of 13 ships and 119 men were taken by Algiers.

Obviously, the way forward was deemed to be the pursuit of peace treaties-appeasing terrorism. In 1792, for instance, Congress hoped for a peace trea­ty with Algiers that was to cost upwards of $40,000, with up to $25,000 to be paid in annual tribute. Ransoming enslaved Americans, it was thought, would cost an extra $40,000. Unsurprisingly, these terms were unacceptable to the pirates-why, after all, should they settle so cheaply?

The peace treaty was finally concluded with Alg­iers only in 1796, and the terms were far from appealing-$642,500 in cash up front, followed by a pledge of healthy annual tribute and sundry naval stores. The total cost of this transaction, Congress later determined, was $992,463.25, or about $14,300,000 in today's terms: By way of compari­son, the entire federal budget for FY 1796 was $5.7 million.

London goes on to point out the vagaries of democracies but we can see the difference from what we see in our media or political voices or elite :

President Washington warned Congress in December 1793: "If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace…it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."

Suitably moved, the House of Representatives on March 10, 1794, passed, and on March 19 the Sen­ate ratified, a bill that gave birth to the United States Navy. As the legislation states: "Whereas the depredations committed by Algerine corsairs on the commerce of the United States render it neces­sary that a naval force should be provided for its protection…." Six ships were authorized at a cost of just under $700,000.

What!!!! Ready for war to secure peace in 1793 - just 10 years into "Independence"? An "Independence" that had left an estimated 114 million dollars (reduced to 80 million dollars) in the currency of that period as national "debt" (consolidated - both federal and state)!!!

For those wishing to follow through : can read up that the war was initially undertaken with not much "certainty" about the "outcome" of the conflict, that the Americans suffered reverses, that they persisted, and it was some "bold" action managed with deception that ultimately broke the back of the Barbary resistance. Americans basically wore them down, with persistence and raids, and we should remember that they had gone far out from their home territories, and that initial naval strengths were not so clearly in their favour compared to the Barber navies.

They continued even after formal peace treaties, in 1805, since Berber raids continued to a lesser extent, and USA went to war again in 1815 and "forced" tough treaties "at cannon point" on Tripoli.

There goes at least one instance of developing superb economic "sinews" first before taking retaliatory actions - within two decades of gaining independence, and saddled with a huge national debt.

From past experience, for some posters on this forum - who is writing is more important than what he is writing. So just to point out that even if Joshua London is associated with the "Conservative Jewish" movement, WHAT he writes can be independently verified from historical sources, and his "political affiliation" should not be used against his quoting of historical documents.

RajeshA-ji,

The definition of the problem is not its symptoms, but its core...At the core, the issue for India is the structure and outlook of the Pakistani state - rest are all derivatives...Now the problem can be potentially tackled in various ways:

1. Pak becomes a "protectorate" of a power that is not hostile to India - can think of only the US here...a parallel that one can draw is Lebanon, whose threat to Israel over the years have been a function of the degree of Western influence there..With Pak of course, the equation is more complicated with US interests in Central Asia etc...So not a viable option really..

2. Pak evolves into a viable state that is confident of itself and cuts rational deals with its neighbours...This is the "best case scenario" for the world...

3. Dismembering Pak, which means that the Pak state is rendered incrementally weaker...But any successor unit, maybe Punjab carries forward the same hostility towards India, albeit with lesser reources at its command...

there is no way anyone can sit here and "plan" any of the outcomes out..Not even the US, certainly not India...the example of SU is pertinent - till the putsch overturning Gorbachev, and even after, western intel did not predict a collapse...Berlin Wall - even the KGB, so much enmeshed in the East German system, did not predict that till the last days, as we have it from Oleg KAlugin's authority now...

IMO, the Indian leadership is trying to nudge Pak at multiple levels on both 2 and 3...Optically, #2 seems the focus, but then by definition most action on #3 would be outside the public realm...All the talks, pappi jhappi et al are to probe and examine whether there is willingness in the Paki state structure to cut a rational deal...The talks with Musharraf, which apparently was "yet so close", again depicts the same thing...The whole network in Afghanistan, the alignments with the US to keep them in Af, the Baloch insurgency-support - these are all to address #3...

So we dont know how events in the long run pan out...But we can keep deriving the max that we can from India off the situation that exists...Not lose focus of our needs - become (at least) a middle income country in 10 years time, becoem the 3rd largest economy in that timeframe, be in a position to exercise meaningful influence from the straits of Malacca to the straits of hormuz - economic and political, create a better India for our children, a much better India than what we got from our parents (which was quite frankly not much)...

ShauryaT wrote:God forbid a close relative of yours is one of those 50, How will you avenge your relative's murder

ShauryaT-ji, good question..Answer is, I dnt know...But the govt of the day cannot take calls based on individual emotions, callous as that might sound...

Somnath:

how can you say US is not hostile to India. in today's world, US, Pak, and PRC are the most hostile towards India. have you read George Friedman? seriously, Friedman gives a pretty good idea of how US power works. when it comes to India, US will go to any lengths to checkmate us. that's the basic strategy. Indo-Pak balance of power is one of the keystones of American foreign policy. US will never stop supporting Pak. if tomorrow, Paki terrorists kill off a 1000 Indians, it won't matter. US will continue to support and incubate Islamists who want to shaft India. US is and will always be hostile to any prospect of India rising to become a prosperous and powerful country. if you don't get it even after reading it from a Western imperialist, then you'll never get it, and frankly speaking, you have entered realm of delusional disconnect with reality.

devesh wrote: Indo-Pak balance of power is one of the keystones of American foreign policy. US will never stop supporting Pak. if tomorrow, Paki terrorists kill off a 1000 Indians, it won't matter. US will continue to support and incubate Islamists who want to shaft India. US is and will always be hostile to any prospect of India rising to become a prosperous and powerful country. if you don't get it even after reading it from a Western imperialist, then you'll never get it, and frankly speaking, you have entered realm of delusional disconnect with reality.

Can you elaborate on this. Not many discussion on how US policy will determine the Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

x-post( Bizness interests are alreay ruling )
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 850217.cms

World cannot ignore India and China any more: Raja Todar Mal/Anil Ambani

WASHINGTON: World, in particular the developed world in the West, can no longer afford to ignore India and China at least in terms of their economic power, ADAG chief Anil Ambani has said. Achieving a growth of 8-9 per cent per annum at a sustained pace on a long-term basis is a real possibility, Ambani said at a panel discussion on "The Shifting Global Economy and Implications for Trade" being held on the sidelines of the annual conference of the US Exim Bank here. Achieving such a growth rate -- a reality in India and China -- is "impossible" in the United States and other developed countries of the world, Ambani said. At the same time, he said there are challenges which India has to address on a priority basis. There is need of creating infrastructure, intellectual, physical and social, which would be the prime movers of India's growth.
China is already the biggest economy, trader and net banker in the world. It's a world where the US can no longer take its economic preeminence for granted," Subramanian argued.
Ambani praised the Chinese effort of increasing its business and economic relationship with India. India, he said, is the largest trading partner of China, a place, which was earlier occupied by the US. India is a young country as compared to China. In less than a decade from now, more than half a billion people would be less than 30 years of age, he said. On Thursday Ambani met the Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke, during which they discussed the new momentum in economic relationship of the two countries, following the November visit of the US President Barack Obama to India. Locke and Ambani expressed their desire to work together to accelerate the development of the bilateral relationship, sources told PTI. It is believed that during the meeting Locke spoke to the momentum of the US-India economic relationship coming off of Obama's historic visit to India last November. Both expressed desire to work together to accelerate the development of the bilateral relationship, sources said.

Acharya wrote:

devesh wrote: Indo-Pak balance of power is one of the keystones of American foreign policy. US will never stop supporting Pak. if tomorrow, Paki terrorists kill off a 1000 Indians, it won't matter. US will continue to support and incubate Islamists who want to shaft India. US is and will always be hostile to any prospect of India rising to become a prosperous and powerful country. if you don't get it even after reading it from a Western imperialist, then you'll never get it, and frankly speaking, you have entered realm of delusional disconnect with reality.

Can you elaborate on this. Not many discussion on how US policy will determine the Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

as per my understanding, US follows Britain's balance of power strategy in setting its policy. this is b/c both Britain and US are isolated countries separated from rest of the world by oceans on both sides (although US is not isolated from Mexico). isolated superpowers usually follow the strategy of making sure a single power doesn't dominate an entire region, which consists of several countries. as per this strategy, it is imperative that US checkmate India at every turn. if Indian Navy starts becoming powerful, expect US to give massive boost to PA and PAF, to destabilize India's lead w.r.t Pak in land and air. this will force India to stop investing in Navy and put more money into expanding Army and AF resources. this invariably makes sure that India doesn't gain the ability to interact with rest of the world via its Navy and also makes sure that India can't project power in its own backyard (IOR).

US will never let India gain a huge lead wrt Pak. they won't sit around waiting for India to rise. they will be hoping that Indian growth abruptly ends in some economic collapse (this is how they have planned PRC's "miracle" and this plan will be executed; PRC "miracle" has been and continues to be managed in the direction of systemic collapse). they will continue to arm Pakistain no matter what the cost. they will turn blind eye to any Pakistaini attrocities b/c their strategy demands it. they are pursuing a ruthless policy and will continue to pursue it. this policy of arming and protecting Pak will be done under the disguise of taking care of the little guy. if one looks at US media representation of Pak, one sees that Paki land is represented as a victim of terror. as a relatively poor state ravaged by terrorists. even this media "picture" is relatively new. back in the day, Pak was pictured as a great ally. unfortunately for them, the real picture on ground has gotten so bad that they have to acknowledge that Pak is a storehouse of terror. but the roots of this terror are not examined.

as for how US will try to pursue its strategy of shafting rising powers, wrt India, there are 2 possible ways US can achieve its objective:

1. Destroy Indian economy in the name of globalization --- basically send in the army of GS, JPM, etc financial goons and looters and transform Indian financial landscape into a gambling house. they might try to use extensive network of analysts, consultants, etc to carry out sabotage acts (read John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"; it's a treasure trove of information on this topic; it will literally make you cry; it made my cry when i first read it; i used to be a fool believing in the freedom/liberty/justice bullsh** that the politicians and the pundits used to sprout). but this approach requires that they open up the Indian financial scene to foreign invaders. it is in this context that i've warned some time ago that we need to watch our Economic/business elite. there is lot of opportunity to coax deracinated elite to become globalized. we've seen this happen to the intellectual elite for the past 200 years. as economy rises, we should fully expect that efforts are afoot to globalize these elite too.

2. in the geopolitical spectrum, let us all solemnly take it for granted that Pakistain will continue to receive ample baksheesh from Uncle. this outcome is as guaranteed as the presence of BRF. this is as solidly set in stone as India’s Champion status in WC 2011. This outcome is as solidly real as the existence of this entire universe (unless you are a staunch mayavadi, in which case nothing is real, and all is maya). No need for more elaboration here. Let’s take it as a law of nature that Paki-stain will continue to be emboldened and strengthened (militarily and wrt to Islamism) by Uncle.

As of right now, #1 is possibly being planned and executed right now. #2 has been in play for 65 years now, and will continue to be real. Beyond this, there are other things, but India hasn’t grown past this stage yet. We are still at the stage of playing around with Paki-stain without any seriousness.

I had a revelation: Microsoft Word doesn’t show an error when you enter “Paki-stain.”

The above is just my understanding of the situation. I’m sure the game is much more deep and there are a lot more facets, but wrt Paki-stain I think I have a pretty good idea how US will treat India.

devesh ji,
excellent insight. Here is my tuppence.

The key lies in the relationship of the merchants to the ruler. This is different in the Anglo-Saxon from that in India. In the Anglo-Saxon, the merchant works as an arm of the state, and the state works as an arm of the merchant. Both are partners in the joint venture of imperialism.

In India, the native mercantile class had long become devoid of alliance with the ruler and both had long not been involved in any joint imperial project. This started since the fall of the Mauryan empire, after which different parts had different aspiring emperors but the trading hinterland was common. Which meant that merchants developed their own network and understanding bypassing the rulers. When the Islamics came, they maintained a constant war on non-Muslims - in all possible senses, so that even if the mercantile class was somewhat tolerated - we see a gradual reversal of the share of trade and trade dominance from the non-Muslim towards the Muslim.

The Islamic rulers in their infinite secular and unbiased wisdom also decided to squeeze the last drop of resource from the producers and the non-Muslim merchants so that they never would dream of resistance. But the net result was that the imperialist joint venture never took off at least with the non-Muslim native mercantile class.

In came the Brits, and with this same mentality the Indian mercantile class simply jumped on board dependent capitalism. "Peaceful" colonial transfer of power ensured that imperialist native regime who would become competitors of the Anglo-Saxon were kept away from power. This was why it was so crucial and important for the Brits to "hand over power" rather than be kicked out through armed insurrection - this was what the Brits most strongly reacted against. Any counter-regime that came to power through force would be militarily ambitious and independent psychologically [no sense of gratefulness for the British who even if gave "much sorrow to Indians" still "had plenty of good qualities to which Indians could appeal to"] of their erst-while Anglo-Saxon overlords.

Thus even here - a joint imperialist project could not develop. Contrast this with the Brits or the Americans - where business interests, foreign policy and ruling regime are essentially fused into one single continuing imperialist project.

So American policy over the subcontinent will evolve differently from that of Indian side - whose profiteers are more likely to press for pure profits and not a joint imperialist project with the rulers - thereby actually facilitating the Anglo-Saxon project.

brihaspati wrote:
In India, the native mercantile class had long become devoid of alliance with the ruler and both had long not been involved in any joint imperial project. This started since the fall of the Mauryan empire, after which different parts had different aspiring emperors but the trading hinterland was common. Which meant that merchants developed their own network and understanding bypassing the rulers. When the Islamics came, they maintained a constant war on non-Muslims - in all possible senses, so that even if the mercantile class was somewhat tolerated - we see a gradual reversal of the share of trade and trade dominance from the non-Muslim towards the Muslim.

Is there any good reference for this for that period. The reason could be for many reasons. Indian economy was the first global multinational economy and it created stable order for 1000 years and more. It created a system of interdependent economy which no ruling class wanted to disturb.

devesh wrote:as for how US will try to pursue its strategy of shafting rising powers, wrt India, there are 2 possible ways US can achieve its objective.

Devesh, you are right about your second point, but wrong about the first. The US might very well try all it wants on the economic side, but the forces of economics and business have their own life and GOTUS has far far less ability to control things in this sphere that in geopolitics. Seriously, when they couldn't prevent their own economy from tanking like a rock and where the masses live in perpetual fear of a double dip - the idea of crediting the Americans with bringing down India and China is laughable. Sure they can try and use whatever little leverage they have - but that's like trying to empty the ocean using a bucket !

If you are talking about exporting inflation through Fed monetary policy or through wilful default on their borrowings - the US economy will take as much of a hit as will China.

You might want to try spelling out exactly what measures you think the Americans have the ability of taking that causes you so much worry.

devesh wrote:in today's world, US, Pak, and PRC are the most hostile towards India. have you read George Friedman? seriously, Friedman gives a pretty good idea of how US power works. when it comes to India, US will go to any lengths to checkmate us. that's the basic strategy. Indo-Pak balance of power is one of the keystones of American foreign policy. US will never stop supporting Pak. if tomorrow, Paki terrorists kill off a 1000 Indians, it won't matter. US will continue to support and incubate Islamists who want to shaft India. US is and will always be hostile to any prospect of India rising to become a prosperous and powerful country. if you don't get it even after reading it from a Western imperialist, then you'll never get it, and frankly speaking, you have entered realm of delusional disconnect with reality.

Devesh-ji, I have been a keen follower of Tom Friedman from his "Lexus and Olive tree" days...Can you point out which book/opinion/idea of his points out to the sort of "hostility towards India" that you are alluding to? If anything, Friedman is a huge champion of the India Shining narrative...

I am intrigued by your definition of the US as a "hostile" country that has a grand plan of "destroying" India...US has always acted in its self interest, and in many respects those have clashed with ours, especially pre-90s, but visceral hostility? Hard to discern...There have been lots of positive take-aways for India on our engagement with the US - not least the fact that the first IIT/IIMs were set-up with substantial US funding and technical collaborations..But really in a range of other areas through the decades, culminating in the path-breaking nuclear deal...None of this points out towards a destruction plan...Maybe you can articulate how in some detail - and yes, reference out Tom Friedman...

US wants to maintain "balance of power"? fine...So do we..Our grand objective, if there is one, is to ensure that we are tilt power in the balance of power in Asia, where the US and China are slugging it out, and will do so increasingly...The triumvirate of India, China and US will play itself out in many ways - in some areas cooperation, in some others competition - so "coopetition" will be the order of the day! We need to think about the variables rationally, not with emotional thoughts of "US is a hostile enemy"...If you look at post-independence history, that is pretty much what we have tried to do, with variable degrees of success - more so in the last 20 years than in the previous 40...If anything, the huge influence of big businss on US policy making works to our advantage today..


BTW, "Confessions of an economic hitman" is a thoroughly enjoyable book, but books on pop-economics/sociology are not the best places to gain insights on either geo-economics or geopolitics...

Arjun:

simple, if they can get the Indian business elite on board, they'll be use their local money/political power to open up Indian finance. and then the loot will once again begin in earnest. this is what happened in Uncle land. the business elite launched a coordinated attack on all forms of protection against globalized banking harakiri. the result is seen by all.

of course, one would think that their own personal experience would teach American leadership something about replicating this around the world. but we must realize that domestic policy has nothing to do with foreign policy. US has achieved such a level of separation between domestic and foreign realms that they can pretty much do in the foreign realm exactly opposite of what they're doing (or should be doing) in domestic realm. on one hand, they can implement domestic policy beneficial to America, while promoting/encouraging complete opposite policies in foreign realm without any repercussions. the US Rashtra has achieved this separation between domestic and foreign goals/objectives.

Somnath:

Tom Friedman is a useless armchair pundit. the man is half delusional, and half fantasizing. and he has an almost erotic fascination with CPC leadership of PRC. I was referring to George Friedman. he himself is an imperialist, but he has come out openly laid out how US power system works. he has clearly stated that there is a single guiding force behind everything US does about India. the ultimate aim is only to contain India. in the process, if India ends up getting beheaded, it is all fair in war and love, only.

there is no such thing as hostility, visceral hostility, etc. there is only hostility, pure and simple. we shouldn't be deluded by defining degrees of hostility....that's just stupid. no offense to you or anyone else.

US and China are not slugging it out. that's another nonsense carefully given birth to. there is no grand US/PRC rivalry. if there was a rivalry, the two countries would be fools to become so interlinked. US is not a fool. China on the other hand falls into that category. China, at best is being setup for a systemic collapse, all the while they've handed over control of their economy to US. at worst, China will be made a Germany of 21st century. i'm not sure which prospect is worse for India. but i'd say both are pretty bad. in both cases, there is high likely hood of China going ape shit over its neighbors.

John Perkins' book is not a lesson in geopolitics. it's a lesson in the ruthless nature of American/Western imperialism.

devesh wrote:
Tom Friedman is a useless armchair pundit. the man is half delusional, and half fantasizing. and he has an almost erotic fascination with CPC leadership of PRC. I was referring to George Friedman.

devesh wrote:I was referring to George Friedman. he himself is an imperialist, but he has come out openly laid out how US power system works.

Sorry, my mistake - still groggy after last night!

Stratfor isnt very complimentary generally to India, but then one could say that about The Economist as well till very recently...Not sure where George Friedman has said that US is out to destroy India though (we used to use Stratfor professionally for some time, and I receive their updates even now, some of it is free) - can you point out?

About the nature of geo-econmics, its not the way it functions, Devesh-ji...When global daily capital flows are 4 trillion dollars, there is very little that any national govt can do to regulate them as per neat strategies...Frankly, if India attains the economic status of Germany in the 21st century, more power to that idea!

Somnath:

i'm going to start being very clear as to what I say from now on. anyway, you're getting the wrong message from my posts:

1. it's not a question of complimentary or not. Stratfor can be complimentary, and at the same time say that rising India is a threat to US clout. that is what Stratfor is saying. in his latest book, Friedman has said the same. it's called "The Next Decade." also, excerpts from it were posted by Ramana in previous pages of this thread or some other thread.

also, i was referring to China being setup as a Germany of 21st century. NOT India. and i'm not talking of economic status here. i'm speaking of the systematic neutering of Germany. but it is also possible that India could be made the Germany of 21st century. i'm not talking of economic status here. we don't need anyone to make us a Germany. we'll do it by ourselves. no, what i'm referring to is specifically the destruction of Germany. being setup as Germany is a scary thought. i have no idea why are you would welcome such thing.

John Perkins's book is interesting not b/c it gives insight into the complexities of some intricate equations which govern the Universe. it is not about geopolitics. it is about only one thing: the ruthlessness of American imperialists. Perkins has also given interviews where he talks about his own experiences in South America. seriously, listen to those interviews.

Devesh-ji,

If you are referring to the "Lost Decade", then really, its a book on what Goerge F would "like to see" American policy eolving, not how it is likely to evolve....There are huge inconsistencies in the narrative that is visible even to an amateur eye..For example, a potential German-Russian entente in order to enable Germany take care of its "population" problem...Not sure how setting up factaories in a country with declining population is a cure for Germany's own population issue! Further, US will cultivate a relationship with Poland to counter that, I mean for God's sake, Poland? To counter a Russo-German axis?

Anyways, there is a dichotomy in what you are saying isnt it? How can there NOT be a slugfest between US and China while the former goes around plotting all sorts of nasty things about the latter?

Anyways, on India, George F's pretty scanty on coverage - only to the extent that an Indian naval buildup to challenge the US on the Indian Ocean needs to be counteredt by strengthening Pak..If anything, we should be gratified that he thinks that the Indian naval capacity has the potential to challenge the US!

George F is a Cold warrior, guys like him havent managed to break out of the Cold War mould - he is smart and witty, but by no means is he the only articulator of american policy..

The crux of the matter is different...What is there in current data to suggest unremitting US hostility towards India?

somnath wrote:RajeshA-ji,

The definition of the problem is not its symptoms, but its core...At the core, the issue for India is the structure and outlook of the Pakistani state - rest are all derivatives...

somnath ji,

the interesting thing is that while you were so kind to express the problem in its naked essence, with which I agree completely, the solutions you prescribe does not touch the core at all. In fact the solutions do not even touch the symptoms. If there is so much clarity in your assessment of the problem, the logical solution would have been the dismantling of the Pakistani state, which does away with both its structure and outlook.

somnath wrote:Now the problem can be potentially tackled in various ways:

1. Pak becomes a "protectorate" of a power that is not hostile to India - can think of only the US here...a parallel that one can draw is Lebanon, whose threat to Israel over the years have been a function of the degree of Western influence there..With Pak of course, the equation is more complicated with US interests in Central Asia etc...So not a viable option really..

2. Pak evolves into a viable state that is confident of itself and cuts rational deals with its neighbours...This is the "best case scenario" for the world...

3. Dismembering Pak, which means that the Pak state is rendered incrementally weaker...But any successor unit, maybe Punjab carries forward the same hostility towards India, albeit with lesser reources at its command...

You've suggested various outcomes in Pakistan. A while earlier, I too had suggested my own list, which I am simply including below.

RajeshA wrote:My Preference Hierarchy for Pakistan:

1. Separated provinces/states fully integrated with India, whose people have been detoxicated.
2. Separated provinces/states under Indian control, with people there posing no threat to India.
3. Separated provinces/states in conflict with each other, each under Indian influence, with people there posing no threat to India.
4. Completely fragmented region in constant conflict, under large Indian influence, albeit with people who can be considered hostile towards India, with India in full control of her borders.
5. Separated provinces/states, under Indian but also other (Chinese, American, ME) influence, with people generally willing to live in peace with India, but with the elites still bearing anti-Indianism.
6. Democratic unified Pakistan which is denuclearized, where TSPA is substantially reduced in size, Tanzeems have been decommissioned and disarmed, and Pakistan has "made peace with India".
7. Separated provinces/states, with some under foreign (Chinese, American, ME) influence, still bearing enmity with India but posing no serious military threat to India, whereas other provinces/states are under Indian influence.
8. Talibanized unified Pakistan which is denuclearized and impoverished, and has no outside backing, with India giving some financial support. Talibanism mostly inward directed.
9. TSPA-controlled unified Pakistan which is denuclearized, under USA and Chinese influence, having "made peace with India".
10. TSPA-controlled unified Pakistan which is denuclearized, under USA and Chinese influence, but still bearing enmity towards India.
11. Talibanized unified Pakistan with nuclear weapons extorting money from all other powers including China and USA.
12. TSPA-controlled unified Pakistan with nuclear weapons, under Chinese influence and extorting money from USA, trying to keep a modicum of pretense of being civilized (which allows a smoother extortion). [PRESENT]
13. TSPA-controlled unified Pakistan with nuclear weapons, under Chinese influence and extorting money from USA, trying to keep a modicum of pretense of being civilized (which allows a smoother extortion), but with a better economy.
14. TSPA-controlled unified Pakistan with nuclear weapons, under Chinese control and protection, with Americans out of the picture. TSPA uses its full potential for nuclear blackmail and terrorism for extortion. No pretense of civility any more.
15. Talibanized unified Pakistan with nuclear weapons, under Chinese control and protection, with Americans out of the picture. TSPA uses its full potential for nuclear blackmail and terrorism for extortion. No pretense of civility any more.

I too did not include the option of Pakistan becoming a US protectorate fully subservient to American wishes and control, and not just because of American interests in Central Asia, but also because of a substantial anti-American constituency there. Secondly there is no reason for India to accept US protection over Pakistan, because traditionally Pakistan has been India's core area of influence, and not that of a power sitting thousands of miles away.

Your second scenario of Pakistan becoming a rational state cutting deals with its neighbors could have been possible were it not for the fact that the country in question is Pakistan. In 63 years time, Pakistan which had not taken that much form and direction as yet, and was governed by leaders who had a better grip on the people, would have had a better chance of getting the curve. The sheer level of corruption, cynicism, denial, anti-Indian hate and Islamism, which has percolated through Pakistani society by now, means that the steering wheel is jammed, and the Pakistani state can move only in one direction, its current direction.

Your third scenario, is the scenario to go for! It is wrong to assume that in a dismembered Pakistan, Pakjab would be an exact replica of Pakistan, only much smaller! To a large extent, Pakjab's direction would be based on its access to the outside world. If it loses its access to the Indian Ocean as well as to China through Gilgit-Baltistan, then Pakjab too could revert to its traditional ethnic roots. Moreover even that Pakjab could see further splintering with Seraikistan breaking off, making the region even more manageable. Pakjab would have new neighbors, and as such its geopolitical outlook would be shaped by much different variables than Pakistan's currently "reality".

somnath wrote:there is no way anyone can sit here and "plan" any of the outcomes out..Not even the US, certainly not India...the example of SU is pertinent - till the putsch overturning Gorbachev, and even after, western intel did not predict a collapse...Berlin Wall - even the KGB, so much enmeshed in the East German system, did not predict that till the last days, as we have it from Oleg KAlugin's authority now...

somnath ji,
I disagree here with you.

India has a host of options which strike at the very foundation of Pakistan - its Army Officer Corp, its Agricultural Base, its Calling and Raison d'être, its Instruments of Fear, its Territorial Integrity.

If India wants, we can very much be in a driver's seat. What we lack is not the means but the will at the top level!

somnath wrote:IMO, the Indian leadership is trying to nudge Pak at multiple levels on both 2 and 3...Optically, #2 seems the focus, but then by definition most action on #3 would be outside the public realm...All the talks, pappi jhappi et al are to probe and examine whether there is willingness in the Paki state structure to cut a rational deal...The talks with Musharraf, which apparently was "yet so close", again depicts the same thing...The whole network in Afghanistan, the alignments with the US to keep them in Af, the Baloch insurgency-support - these are all to address #3...

The Pakistanis have latched on to the metaphor, that Indians are muhn men Ram-Ram, bagal men chhuri! and they have built their policies against India based on that. The problem is India does not really have a chhuri.

I don't wish to deride Indian achievements in Afghanistan, but our "network in Afghanistan" is mostly India being helped by Afghan intelligence to protect the Indian Embassy, our support for the Baloch-insurgency has more gas than anything substantial to it and our alignment with the U.S. in AfPak is at the moment a mountain of anticipation that U.S. may see our PoV some day. I may be wrong on "our network" though, and I hope I am.

Since when has it become big business selling mirages in the desert?!

As far as I know, our mission in Afghanistan is quite limited and it has not been secured adequately through sufficient boots on the ground and a secure supply line. Even if we have a supply line to Afghanistan, it is mostly independent of USA.

Basically my point is that for territorial break up of Pakistan initiated by our Afghan and US connection has still a long way to go, for at the moment it is still at the level of a half-wish, much less a plan, with hardly any implementation of it.

We discussed in "US and China and their respective roles in Pakistan Thread", how such a scenario could blossom. Even there your suggestions did not imply you were vying for dismemberment of Pakistan, merely soft borders between Pushtunistan and Pakistan, without any accompanying recognition of Pushtunistan's Independence, allowing a reversal of the situation sometime in the future.

somnath wrote:So we dont know how events in the long run pan out...But we can keep deriving the max that we can from India off the situation that exists...Not lose focus of our needs - become (at least) a middle income country in 10 years time, becoem the 3rd largest economy in that timeframe, be in a position to exercise meaningful influence from the straits of Malacca to the straits of hormuz - economic and political, create a better India for our children, a much better India than what we got from our parents (which was quite frankly not much)...

All that can be done and more, as long as India becomes more assertive in her neighborhood, and we stop looking up to America to deliver us the 'peace'!

I still fail to understand, why some constituencies in India undersell India's potential to redesign and mold our neighborhood to India's national interest - both of security and geopolitical strength.

The problem is not India's options but our strategic self-emasculation.

devesh wrote:simple, if they can get the Indian business elite on board, they'll be use their local money/political power to open up Indian finance. and then the loot will once again begin in earnest.

You would have to be more specific as to what you mean by 'Opening up Indian finance'. This could mean full capital convertibility for rupee, or opening up insurance to FDI, or liberalizing derivative trading, or one of several other policy reforms - each one of which has been debated extensively over the past 2 decades in India at a micro-level. Best to debate these things at the level of the particular policy decision - rather than at a ten-thousand foot level of 'opening up Indian finance'. Indian finance has been gradually liberalized over the last 2 decades - and this is one of the factors behind India's recent prosperity and growth.

of course, one would think that their own personal experience would teach American leadership something about replicating this around the world. but we must realize that domestic policy has nothing to do with foreign policy. US has achieved such a level of separation between domestic and foreign realms that they can pretty much do in the foreign realm exactly opposite of what they're doing (or should be doing) in domestic realm. on one hand, they can implement domestic policy beneficial to America, while promoting/encouraging complete opposite policies in foreign realm without any repercussions. the US Rashtra has achieved this separation between domestic and foreign goals/objectives.

A healthy skepticism of US foreign policy objectives is a good attitude to have- though it should obviously not descend to paranoia.

But I do have a problem with folks associating finance or schools of economic theories as being somehow 'an American system'. That is as ludicrous as saying that science and technology is a western construct and therefore Indians should have nothing to do with it. If you have an issue with a particular school of economic thought or particular policy decisions then do point those out. Indian financiers and businessfolks have been the original capitalists in many ways, way before the Americans got hold of the concept themselves and therefore - to somehow credit America with devising the system and ensnaring 'naive' Indians is to my mind a bit of a travesty. The goal should be therefore for a playing field which enables private Indian enterprise and financiers to play an increasingly dominant role in the global stage - and with adequate regulation that is based on learning from the recessions of the past.

somnath wrote: 1. Pak becomes a "protectorate" of a power that is not hostile to India - can think of only the US here...a parallel that one can draw is Lebanon, whose threat to Israel over the years have been a function of the degree of Western influence there..With Pak of course, the equation is more complicated with US interests in Central Asia etc...So not a viable option really..

2. Pak evolves into a viable state that is confident of itself and cuts rational deals with its neighbours...This is the "best case scenario" for the world...

3. Dismembering Pak, which means that the Pak state is rendered incrementally weaker...But any successor unit, maybe Punjab carries forward the same hostility towards India, albeit with lesser reources at its command...

#1 is not a viable option. We can't be talking of India, China and US being the big superpowers of the future and at the same time allow one of the other two to have a 'protectorate' in our immediate neighborhood !

#2 is not possible. 'Becoming a viable state that is confident of itself' is a huge big IF given where Pakistan is today. In the minuscule probability that it will become one, it is obviously more likely, as it is doing today, to cut rational deals with the world's three largest financiers (US, China & KSA) than to cut rational deals with its neighbors.

#3 is therefore the only remaining option.

somnath wrote:Not lose focus of our needs - become (at least) a middle income country in 10 years time, becoem the 3rd largest economy in that timeframe, be in a position to exercise meaningful influence from the straits of Malacca to the straits of hormuz - economic and political, create a better India for our children, a much better India than what we got from our parents (which was quite frankly not much)...

A more aggressive posture to secure interests in our immediate neighborhood is not in the least inconsistent with becoming an economic powerhouse. The fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power is a problem that needs to be addressed and worked around - but Indian planners need to keep in mind that Pakistan or its successor states being in the Indian zone and becoming 'Indian' protectorates' is definitely the long-term vision that the polity needs to work towards.

somnath wrote:Devesh-ji,

If you are referring to the "Lost Decade", then really, its a book on what Goerge F would "like to see" American policy eolving, not how it is likely to evolve....There are huge inconsistencies in the narrative that is visible even to an amateur eye..For example, a potential German-Russian entente in order to enable Germany take care of its "population" problem...Not sure how setting up factaories in a country with declining population is a cure for Germany's own population issue! Further, US will cultivate a relationship with Poland to counter that, I mean for God's sake, Poland? To counter a Russo-German axis?

Anyways, there is a dichotomy in what you are saying isnt it? How can there NOT be a slugfest between US and China while the former goes around plotting all sorts of nasty things about the latter?

Anyways, on India, George F's pretty scanty on coverage - only to the extent that an Indian naval buildup to challenge the US on the Indian Ocean needs to be counteredt by strengthening Pak..If anything, we should be gratified that he thinks that the Indian naval capacity has the potential to challenge the US!

George F is a Cold warrior, guys like him havent managed to break out of the Cold War mould - he is smart and witty, but by no means is he the only articulator of american policy..

The crux of the matter is different...What is there in current data to suggest unremitting US hostility towards India?

http://www.amazon.com/Next-Decade-Where ... 0385532946

^^^ that's the book i'm referring to.

what Friedman is saying is that Germany can use Russia's excess labor to fulfill it's own lack of labor. Russian population is declining, yes. but it still has excess labor and will continue to have excess labor. it makes perfect sense for Germany and Russia to collaborate. already, Germany is dependent on Russia for its energy needs. we've already seen Germany shrugging off its Cold War policies. the EU mess has also hastened Germany's departure from US led West. Germany has started thinking for itself. and there is long history of Russo German cooperation over the last few 100 years.

as for Poland, Germany (Prussia) and the Tzars divided up Poland over a period of 125 years, until Poland was completely dissolved off the map. the strategy of bringing in Poland under US military umbrella would put American missiles and BMD's a few 100 miles from Moscow and St. Petersberg. it will also remind Germany that US is a player in the game and Germany can't ignore that.

one has to be really blind to see that Germany is not the Cold War Germany anymore. in 2001, Germany did year long celebrations in memory of Prussia. Germany is increasingly asserting itself and not towing the line of US led West.

and why the hell should we be gratified if some US imperialist thinks our rise threatens them. we don't need to be gratified by Western praise. this is classic SDRE chest thumping syndrome that was exploited in the past by British. what matters is that GF thinks it's an absolute necessity to counter India. that's what really matters. and US behavior shows that this is how US policy makers think. they want to contain and counter India's rise.

US support of Pak is the evidence which shows US is trying to contain India. it's a cold war era policy which still continues, and will intensify as India leaps forward. what more evidence do you need? there is ample evidence.

Somnath, i was willing to give you the benefit of doubt. but now you're just being utterly ignorant or purposefully derailing further discussion on the issue by keeping us involved in the first stage of discussion (which is US propping up Pak for imperial purposes). as long as you continue to keep asking basic questions which have already been answered, the next level of discussion can't be achieved. people, let's just ignore this guy. it's seriously getting ridiculous when we're going back and forth about the benefits of US policy wrt Paki-stain. it's the same thing being said page after page. utter waste of time.

Somanth / Admins 
Requesting a Census data thread (technology forum?) to follow.

TIA