Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Sep 2009 17:54

We are probably revisiting the starting oages of this thread.

There were many pages of discussions on drawing China out into SE Asia, putting military and strategic presence into Myanmar, Laos, Kampuchea, and Vietnam. Being present navally in South China Sea. Being able to threaten with nukes from subs or fleets - the coastal and south eastern population centres of China.

My original point was basically to present an exposed flank of China to the PLA, where China can be made to see that its basic geographical shape makes it very hard to defend. It is shaped like a bulge. To do this China needs to be surrounded on the flanks.

Problem is, that at the moment there are not many military or defence vulnerabilities that India can show for bargaining. Where China can put up Pakistan, occupied Himachal and Ladakh, occupied AP, India does not have a corresponding threat to show or bargain about.

Problem with the combined attack by China+TSP from south west-west is that the "so significant factor" of international interference may actually behave differently if the aggressor was India and if the aggressor was China. Whereas, this interference will come quickly to stop India gaining, it will delay stopping China from gaining. We shoudl not forget, that the Anglo-Saxon world is now heavily latched on to PRC economy.

So the move from the west after long-distance softening from occupied NA may not "backfire", if at the same time diversionary posturings are maintained throughout the border from Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and AP. PRC may actually spped up this pressure because it may want to capitalize on the current dependence of the Anglo-Saxon world on China.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Sep 2009 18:33

Chiron-ji

It is neither China's interest nor ambition to occupy any of the Indian heartland territory. The war (from their side) will start and aim only at earning some diplomatic chips for future bargaining. The aim here is unhindered chinese access to IOR and isolation of India from CAR.

Given the infrastructure which is already in place on Chinese side of territory, the movement of army column is much more easier. Infrastructure development on Indian side has started quite late we are at least 5-6 years behind the Chinese. This may or may not act to our benefit simply because it will be progressively difficult for the Chinese to march on Indian territory.

First of all non-Huns are not even allowed to visit China’s geography freely. So I would not venture into knowing their interests or ambitions.

PRC built all the infrastructure in its western front only in the past 10 years. As you claimed, it is not PRC’s heartland so they have the luxury to wait. On the other hand J&K, Arunachal Pradesh etc are part of Bharatiya heartland. If Indian Armed forces didn’t see the need to develop additional mountain divisions and if political leadership didn’t see the need to develop the border infrastructure even after 1962, 71, and 1998 whose fault it is?

PRC built the infrastructure in Tibet and Indian Borders when it saw the need for it. They will not wait for Bharat to develop its infrastructure so both can have Dharma-Yudh. More over the SEA (south-east-asia) strategy you mentioned is not Koota-Yudh. So let us not attribute non-existent Dharma here.

Of course, it will be unwise to give-up the precious J&K and isolate the nation from CARs, but given the cost-benefit ratio which is currently in favor of Chinese, this move can seriously shift the equilibrium on Indian side.

I hope you are not outlining the lose-here and gain-there strategy already. Current Indian Armed forces must be commanded to hold on to all Indian territory, while the newly developed (built) strategic armed forces are designated to pursue your SEA strategy.

Hence, Bhaarat should fanatically improve the roads and related infrastructure in meghalaya, Manipur, tripura, mizoram, Assam and Arunachal; and start talking more positively with both Burmese Junta and people.

This should be Bharat’s primary objective irrespective of PRC intentions and ambitions. All the above regions must be developed, in terms of both
Infrastructure as well as human development because they are Bharatiyas.

That said, the opinion that a modern army cannot move division strength armys across difficult terrain is not true in this scenario. That applies to 99% of the nation-states. But PRC is trying to be one of G-2. If it cannot develop the infrastructure, logistics to do this, it cannot be a G-2 power.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 17 Sep 2009 19:53

In Ladakh, it there are ingress routes West to East. It is not there are none. But North South thereafter is difficult.

Having said that, the ingress routes have mountains on either side and if held, will make ingress difficult.

The 'open flank' for China is Aksai Chin. Aksai Chin is strategically important to China since it allows China and access to Gwadar and hence to the Indian Ocean in case the Straits of Malacca is blocked. At the same time, the area can be made volatile, since the areas of Uighur volatility are not too far!

It is time for some investment in the Uighur issue.

The Tibetan railway is also vulnerable and so are the Highways, given that the Tibetans have no love lost for the Chinese.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 17 Sep 2009 23:15

brihaspati wrote:We are probably revisiting the starting pages of this thread.

true indeed.. I too am amazed at this..

I must confess, this humble mujahid has learnt a lot and still learning a lot from you, devguru..

people like you, shivji, RayC, N^3, Surinder, RamaY, RajeshA, Arun_S, Rajaramji, Sridharan ji, and many others, whom I apologise for not mentioning here, have taught a lot..

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Sep 2009 23:36

Chiron-ji, you are embarassing me!

I think, the key to understanding current GOI attitude is a possible extraordinary fear of war - any war, even a defensive war. War may unravel all sorts of weaknesses. Lack of military preparation, lack of economic preparation, and other strategic and tactical weaknesses. Moreover, it could jeopardize financial and economic understandings with international bodies and countries or groups.

Or it could even be a completely irrational fear of anything to do with war that may upset internal political equations within the country. It is possible that a lot of the ambitious programmes and projects announced may ultimately turn out to be infeasible and unachieved. The dilemma is probably that they realize any external threat is good to divert attention from coming disillusionment of the people, but an actual external aggressive action could turn that popular attention to hostility.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Sep 2009 01:57

Here is a most negative summary projection for the future:

India signs CTBT and NPT without having credible TN devices. In return, she gets membership of a regional defence organization with formal (read easily flouted) commitments from TSP and PRC about non-aggression. Mutual distrust is cited and used to give controlling interest to UK and USA over this pact. This is declared to bring in a thousand years of peace and prosperity to IOR. But the conditionalities of the pact also ensure gradual withdrawal and scaling down of Indian missile, and nuke weapons technology, as well as Indian military capacity building. All the while TSP and PRC maintain and replenish their capacities under British and American protection as India is not seen as having the capacity to become a strong and ruthless military power base to be used by the Anglo Saxon.

WWII experience suggests to the Anglo Saxon that even though hot-headed and easily-turned-Jihadi, the TSP Islamists and Chinese military can be faithful lackeys for them angainst Anglo-Saxon enemies, no matter how much they are thrashed or mistreated. Mao never lost his admiration for the USA, and did not shy of using US-residing Chinese for his own purposes. He was again quite easily charmed by Nixon.

An armed insurrection starts in the Valley and NA, and explosions happen in TSP and PRC dumps all around the LOC which are shown to the wordl media to have been the result of Indian Hindu agents and mischievous action by IA. The world condemns this unprovoked Indian attack and the UN takes up the issue of Hindu "castesit" and "fascists" oppressing and carrying out genocides of Kashmiri muslims. TSP and PRC is forced to retaliate with missiles from the north and west. A low yield nuke is dropped near Delhi and another near Mumbai. The populations in these cities draw massisve support from the media and talk shows all around the country in demanding that the GOI immediately negotiate for peaceful settlement.

TSP and PRC says they are not interested in territory, but they would want to have a buffer state of Kashmir so that future Indian military aggression cannot make inncocent Muslims and Han Chinese of Kashmir suffer.

India agrees to recognize an independent Kashmir. The then Indian PM gives a rousing speech that has the whole nation crying at the immense vision and magnanimity of this PM for having at last brought peace in the north. After all nothing more than apples and peaches grew in the valley.

Ananya · Post by **Ananya** » 18 Sep 2009 06:19

PLA does a lighting srike and comes withing miles of Delhi from the Nepal border, as the tactic that would be used is ,attack where least expected. The bargaining chip would be to divide kashmir betweek Pak and China and ask for a direct port access in the sates facing the Arabian sea .

we would simply sit and watch , We would still be debating which failure let do this even 50 years down the lane

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Sep 2009 07:12

Thats one point of approach I had carefully avoided - Nepal - to keep it out of "sight" and discussion!

You have hit the nail. That is one approach route that could actually be used by India that can potentially unravel all the nice plans of mice and men (TSP and PRC). They can growl around the two endpoints. Encourage them to do so. But it will need a lot of Chankyangiri to engineer hostilities from Nepal which is a crucial step.

But most importantly such a GOI needs to be in place to think this way.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 18 Sep 2009 08:38

Brihaspatiji,

Your recent posts have been so thought-provoking as to goad a poor lurker out of hibernation

On the Chini-Paki protectorate of J&K scenario: we should certainly plan for that contingency, but I do see some difficulties with it materializing: even if we remained as emasculate as ever, and PLA could confidently calculate a certain victory over India in any two-front action, there are compelling reasons for the PRC to think twice about such an adventure.

The first is what it gains them. PRC has always claimed Ladakh (or Western Tibet or whatever they call it) as a strategic adjunct to consolidate their hold over Tibet proper. At one time it must have also been important for them to control this area so as to forestall an Indian government's use of it to launch a Tibetan insurrection; but that probability has most likely receded to the middle distance in the present-day Chinese worldview (not impossible, but not the likeliest thing either). Right now Aksai Chin is enough for the Chinese to dig in around Tibet, and the KKH/CoPoK provide enough of a corridor for them to interact with their All-Weather Friend.

Even should a J&K protectorate fall into their hands, affording additional egress to the Indian Ocean over and above the KKH, converting such egress into an economically feasible venture would demand prohibitive levels of infrastructural investment on Beijing's behalf (it's not as if Pakistan is going to pick up any part of the check). The said J&K protectorate would also naturally fall more within the Paki sphere of influence (as a result of cultural and normative proximity) and the Chinese would necessarily have to entrust the TSPA with J&K as a de-facto Satrapy. Unless, again, they were prepared to make military and political investments in J&K on a prohibitively expensive scale, and deploy huge numbers of PLA troops and political officers there.

Especially given their history of mis-adventures in Gwadar... would Beijing really find all this worth the effort it would involve? What does culling and proxy-governing a distant, trans-Himalayan province gain them in the big picture... an already placid (and not-really-nuclear-armed) India be damned? Insurance against a Tibetan revolt to some extent, perhaps. But look at the premium China would be paying for such insurance.

Which brings us to the second reason... what an independent J&K protectorate costs, or loses China. Today, between the terrorist-ridden Neelam valley and the LAC are 7,000,000,000 SDRE Indian troops. Bogged down with keeping Islamist terror in check while confronting the Pakis along three fronts (IB, LoC and Siachen) they don't really pose any threat to PRC... especially given the mealy-mouthed and gunshy nature of the GOI that deploys them. There is virtually no chance that these Indian troops could mount an assault on PRC positions in Ladakh without the Pakis sniping at them from flank and rear (and, via terrorist proxies, undermining from behind their own lines as well). Meanwhile, the very presence of these Indian troops, and of an Indian flag over Srinagar is a guarantee in itself of Pakistan's pliancy and malleability in Beijing's hands. Once Pakistan has gained Kashmir... will they really be that amenable to following China's lead?

"All-weather friends" are fine when there is a thermopane window in between yourself and them... a role served by the Indian presence in J&K. If you leave the window open all the weather comes straight into your living room. Pakistan has other fathers... Unkil and KSA, very notably. The ISI has beyond a doubt some history of supporting Uighur extremists in the past (as opposed to the extremely docile stance India has taken with respect to Tibet).

India has always been "responsible" even in the face of Chinese hostility, trying to resolve the border issue via "talks", attempting meekly to ingratiate itself as a profitable trading partner of China, etc. Pakistan's entire economy depends on heroin, terrorism, black-market nukes and begging... they have never allowed economic incentives to dictate their foreign policy beyond renting themselves out wholesale to the most well-heeled sugar daddy. Unkil will certainly frown (at the very least) upon the emergence of any Cheeni-Paki "protectorate" of J&K... if J&K is going to be "independent" Unkil will want it to fall under his own aegis, and will feel actively threatened if it is under Beijing's influence. Should such a "protectorate" emerge Unkil will pull out all the stops to stick his ungli there... and whores that they are, the TSPA will oblige him for the right price.

All said and done, even if success in defeating India were completely assured, the Chinese might very well prefer the J&K status quo to the consequence of any adventure in which the Pakis must be promoted to junior partners (and entrusted with real power) instead of mere tawaifs. IMHO, such a venture will not satisfy a dispassionate cost-benefit analysis in Beijing.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 18 Sep 2009 08:38

Now your other scenario... a Chinese invasion of Nepal ... is even more fascinating to ponder.

It is reminiscent of another situation some three decades ago when a muscular communist power invaded a southern neighbour in support of its proxy regime. We all know that the ultimate consequence was the erosion and humiliating defeat of that communist power... and most interestingly, we're aware of the means by which that defeat was effected. Certain bottles might perforce have to be uncorked, certain genies let free who have long been tightly gagged and suppressed... as the only means of defeating the existential threat to India that China's action presented.

If the right people do the right things... a Chinese invasion of Nepal might elicit a response that their invasion of Tibet, two generations ago, never did from India. The momentum generated by such a response, given the cultural contexts involved, might lead to the most far-reaching transformations in the Indic character since the advent of Sikhism.

In fact, such an event might furnish the pivot for a profound recasting of Bharatya civilization's role, relevance and predominance on the international stage. The iron will never be hotter for us than in the wake of a Chinese invasion of Nepal, and as long as we muster up the courage to wield the hammer, we might even find other hands lending strength to our own. The trick will be to ensure that our hands-- alone-- grasp the hilt of the weapon that will be forged.

Allow me to advance, then, a most positive scenario in response to one of your most negative ones: if Prachanda becomes the next Najibullah, a new Dharmayug might well be around the corner

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 18 Sep 2009 08:43

B,

Isn't that a little alarmist & unreal scenario?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Sep 2009 17:37

surinder,
it was declared "most negative"! A deliberately worst possible scenario. It may not happen all at the same time so dramatically. But epiece by piece, not an entire impossibility.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 18 Sep 2009 19:23

Rudradevji,

PRC strategy behind claiming Ladakh must not be seen in isolation, as there are two different aspects to it. First is the consolidation of PRC hold on Tibet, which gives it the land, watershed, and natural resources. The second aspect, IMO, is a foot hold into Indian side of Himalayan range. Even though it is not of any substantial value to PRC, control over Ladakh can make PRC a potential party in Indus water system.

Looking at how PRC controls its Xinjiang and Xizang regions we can get a fair idea on how PRC will control a J&K protectorate. PRC is not USA and it does not have any pretentions to be a democracy. So it will control J&K directly as it will give a life-supporting control over both India and Pakistan.

Only one section of Indian strategists think it is “impossible” to build industrial and military infrastructure in the lower and upper Himalayan region. It all depends on the national intent and leadership. PRC is a different devil altogether. It has the luxury of communism, centralized planning to demolish/rebuild entire cities and in the process can implant the security structures to control the occupied territory.

Can it be done? PRC already has demonstrated that it can demolish and rebuild entire cities not just Beijing and Shanghai but as far as Tibet , force evacuate entire regions (Three-Gorges), and build military infrastructure (Tibet) in harshest environmental and geographical environment. With its “managed” economy the definition of cost in general sense twists and with its 1+ billion population (>40% working age) at its can achieve any level of reconstruction. Adding to that the entire bill will not be picked up by PRC; the acquired land and population will be “motivated” to foot most part of the costs.

India’s “responsible nature” is a brand and is an invention of its inept and corrupt leadership for its internal consumption. For outsiders India is a soft-state, which is not proud of its culture, civilization, and people and which cannot protect its citizens within and without.

JMT

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Sep 2009 03:21

rudradevji,

The first is what it gains them.

It simply ensures that India is cut off from CAR and the possibility of developing support routes towards Mongolia and the Uighurs. Moreover, more Jihadis could be then pushed into India as and when required to put more pressure on India.

Even should a J&K protectorate fall into their hands, affording additional egress to the Indian Ocean over and above the KKH, converting such egress into an economically feasible venture would demand prohibitive levels of infrastructural investment on Beijing's behalf (it's not as if Pakistan is going to pick up any part of the check). The said J&K protectorate would also naturally fall more within the Paki sphere of influence (as a result of cultural and normative proximity) and the Chinese would necessarily have to entrust the TSPA with J&K as a de-facto Satrapy. Unless, again, they were prepared to make military and political investments in J&K on a prohibitively expensive scale, and deploy huge numbers of PLA troops and political officers there.

Especially given their history of mis-adventures in Gwadar... would Beijing really find all this worth the effort it would involve? What does culling and proxy-governing a distant, trans-Himalayan province gain them in the big picture... an already placid (and not-really-nuclear-armed) India be damned? Insurance against a Tibetan revolt to some extent, perhaps. But look at the premium China would be paying for such insurance.

China could actually divide up J&K into virtual spheres of influence - with the eastern part more directly under its own control. Moreover, TSP will remain dependent on China for a long time. They will also draw up closer in the event because for a long time they will need close military cooperation to prevent any retaliatory action by later Indian regimes.

Which brings us to the second reason... what an independent J&K protectorate costs, or loses China. Today, between the terrorist-ridden Neelam valley and the LAC are 7,000,000,000 SDRE Indian troops. Bogged down with keeping Islamist terror in check while confronting the Pakis along three fronts (IB, LoC and Siachen) they don't really pose any threat to PRC... especially given the mealy-mouthed and gunshy nature of the GOI that deploys them. There is virtually no chance that these Indian troops could mount an assault on PRC positions in Ladakh without the Pakis sniping at them from flank and rear (and, via terrorist proxies, undermining from behind their own lines as well). Meanwhile, the very presence of these Indian troops, and of an Indian flag over Srinagar is a guarantee in itself of Pakistan's pliancy and malleability in Beijing's hands. Once Pakistan has gained Kashmir... will they really be that amenable to following China's lead?

But India is a democracy, with one-party rule not guaranteed. So the current hesitation on the one hand and headless-chicken running around on the other is not guaranteed either. What if another Indian regime decided to cut off the Valley from its thin neck to Islamabad! Indian troop presence in J&K still does represent problems for pRC - given proper military planning and political will. Both to the east and the west/south-west.
Pakistan will remain dependent on PRC for a long long time, so no need for PRC to be worried.

"All-weather friends" are fine when there is a thermopane window in between yourself and them... a role served by the Indian presence in J&K. If you leave the window open all the weather comes straight into your living room. Pakistan has other fathers... Unkil and KSA, very notably. The ISI has beyond a doubt some history of supporting Uighur extremists in the past (as opposed to the extremely docile stance India has taken with respect to Tibet).

The USA+KSA may actually be in understanding with PRC itself. The first two are opportunists - they swing with advantages.

India has always been "responsible" even in the face of Chinese hostility, trying to resolve the border issue via "talks", attempting meekly to ingratiate itself as a profitable trading partner of China, etc. Pakistan's entire economy depends on heroin, terrorism, black-market nukes and begging... they have never allowed economic incentives to dictate their foreign policy beyond renting themselves out wholesale to the most well-heeled sugar daddy. Unkil will certainly frown (at the very least) upon the emergence of any Cheeni-Paki "protectorate" of J&K... if J&K is going to be "independent" Unkil will want it to fall under his own aegis, and will feel actively threatened if it is under Beijing's influence. Should such a "protectorate" emerge Unkil will pull out all the stops to stick his ungli there... and whores that they are, the TSPA will oblige him for the right price.

Yes, but USA can share. Moreover, USA could be dependent to a great extent on PRC for quite a while to come.

All said and done, even if success in defeating India were completely assured, the Chinese might very well prefer the J&K status quo to the consequence of any adventure in which the Pakis must be promoted to junior partners (and entrusted with real power) instead of mere tawaifs. IMHO, such a venture will not satisfy a dispassionate cost-benefit analysis in Beijing.

No, possibly no real power. Moreover, PRC can try and move the ethnic Uighurs into the eastern part of J&K as a cleanup operation. The very factors that make apparent Indian moves difficult, will then hamper Uighur ambitions.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Sep 2009 03:47

RamaY wrote:Rudradevji,

PRC strategy behind claiming Ladakh must not be seen in isolation, as there are two different aspects to it. First is the consolidation of PRC hold on Tibet, which gives it the land, watershed, and natural resources. The second aspect, IMO, is a foot hold into Indian side of Himalayan range. Even though it is not of any substantial value to PRC, control over Ladakh can make PRC a potential party in Indus water system.

PRC strategy on Ladakh is based on Tibet policy.
One is cultural control of TIbet. If PRC allows TIbet culture to flourish outside its control it will loose its long term strategy.
Claim on Ladakh is strategic and also there is a synergy with Pakistan.

PRC cannot hold these areas for long since the land and population are not hospitable.

PRC control over Ladakh can make PRC a potential party in Indus water system. and also in the Kashmir problem of Pakistan. It looks like PRC is a proxy for the former colonial powers who wanted control over the region and wanted to put more pressure on Nehru to vacate after he held the valley in 1948.
We see that rapid development after 1946

1946 - Jinnah action
1947- Hurry in the partition and India Independence act. British troops leave India. Free India and Free Tibet
1948- Jinnah and Pakistan war on India. TSP and Indian Troops inside kashmir
1949- CPC win in china and formation of PRC. Claim over Tibet
1950 - PLA Incursions into Tibet and Ladakh area. PLA Troops inside Aksai Chin and in the border near J&K
1951-1960 - Take over of Tibet by PRC PLA troops

----------------

We see that Troops are very near the Kashmir border and LOC always from 1948 to ensure that balance is not against Pakistan. PRC troops are present to make sure that they can always push forward inside JK
After 911 we see that US troops and NATO troops are just nearby in the Afghan border who can reach the LOC within hrs.

So we see that 4 different army groups are within close range of the LoC and Pakistan is having backer to make sure that LOC remains where it is.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Sep 2009 20:24

The USA will be retreating from the AFG and the north of TSP. It is only a matter of time. What it will try now despeartely to do is to force India into a kind of agreement that ensures protection of TSP existence. But in geopolitics no agreement is forever binding. A retreating USA cannot enforce agreements over the long term.

It will be crucial to see that the current GOI does not sign on to long-term binding contracts over ensuring TSP safety.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 20 Sep 2009 11:14

Acharya,

It is an interesting analysis.

While the US and NATO will have the aerial reach to the LC, yet it would not be a matter of hours overland. And it will depend also upon the resistance.

I was listening to the Geo TV editor yesterday and he categorically stated that while the Govt of Pak maybe cosying up with the USA, the mass of Pakistan is totally anti US.
***************
The US in Afghanistan and Iraq is a deliberate move as per the US strategic vision that emerged after the demise of USSR.

Whatever has happened in Iraq and in Afghanistan is a fall out of Cheney’s DPG 1992 read in conjunction with the NEP that brazenly underscored the removal of political, economic, legal and logistical obstacles in accessing petroleum sources including that of CAR.

That the US is steadfast on the Cheney Doctrine, if it can be called so, on 19 Mar 2001, the US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has stated “America faces a major energy supply crisis over the next two decades. The failure to meet this challenge will threaten our nation’s economic prosperity, compromise our national security, and literally alter the way we lead our lives.”

Therefore, Energy is one of the more important prime mover of US Defence strategy. Ever since the demise of the USSR, the number one objective of U.S. post-Cold War political and military strategy is to prevent the emergence of a rival superpower. It is pertinent to note that the DPG mentions that their first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is their dominant consideration underlying the new regional defence strategy and that requires that the US endeavour to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.

Three other additional aspects to this objective is:

• First, the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.

• Second, in the non-defence areas, the US must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging the US leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order.

• Finally, the US must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.

The DPG also went on to state that the U.S. should aim "to address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems."

Interestingly, to avoid being labelled ‘colonialists’, ‘neo colonialists’ ‘imperialists’ etc, they disguised the intent with the garb of spreading ‘Freedom and Democracy’, which in actuality, was patently bogus because there were worse regimes than Saddam’s which were dictatorships and tyrannical. Indeed, in the axis of evil, how come Pakistan was missed out when it was and is a proved womb of international terrorism and had both the WMD and delivery means – the two criteria that were essential to be labelled axis of evil. Iran and Iraq did not have the delivery means, even if they were suspected to have WMD.

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
defend the American homeland;
fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary
allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in
the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.

It is pertinent to note that the Balad base in Iraq is one of the largest US bases outside US and Baghram in Afghanistan is also a large base.

The Americans are here to stay and are not going to move out in a hurry. They will maintain a sizeable presence to be reckonable and true to the strategic tenets enunciated in the DPG and NEP.

While Obama may try to project a ‘moderate face’ by dropping the missile shield, reaching out to the Islamic world, playing footsie with Pakistan, it is only riling the white majority which perceives itself as the inheritors of the world! Obama will have to finally tone down since it is a ‘white world’ and a ‘white US’.

The aggressive US uber alles attitude will ensure that they will hang around wherever it is needed so that they rule supreme!

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 20 Sep 2009 11:43

brihaspati wrote:The USA will be retreating from the AFG and the north of TSP. It is only a matter of time. What it will try now despeartely to do is to force India into a kind of agreement that ensures protection of TSP existence. But in geopolitics no agreement is forever binding. A retreating USA cannot enforce agreements over the long term.

It will be crucial to see that the current GOI does not sign on to long-term binding contracts over ensuring TSP safety.

There is no chance of withdrawl from AFG anytime soon. More people died in 9/11 than at pearl harbor.
Moreover, the base at AFG has way more value in today's world than Okinawa or South Korea has.
It's close to all the places where the HOT action spots are currently. Iran, TSP, Kashmir, China, Central Asia and all the future wars would be in this area and US has best opportunity to sell it's arms and get oil and other raw materials. The only large undiscovered oil fields are in Central Asia and unless Toyota prius becomes the compulsory car for everyone in US, the demand for oil will continue to grow.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 20 Sep 2009 16:59

USA may want to stay on in bases in AFG. But AFG is different from the flat sand and mudflats of Mesopotamia. In spite of everything that the USA does to maintain bases, fixed position based warfare in AFG has never succeeded. Forces that overtly collaborate with USA have also stakes in covertly resourcing the AFG anti-US forces - like, KSA and Russia. For a long time into the future even Iran has stake in supplying or allowing the resourcing of anti-US componenets in AFG.

Just as US may want to hold on to AFG, Russia and China and Iran has every interest in preventing that from happening. Combined focus and convergence of interests in this arena gives them certain advantages that the USA does not have. USA has dug its own grave by encouraging and consolidating the Islamist hold in the region as an antidote to "left". The Islamist feeling has gone completely against the USA -for a very simple reason. USA's own ambitions in controlling the Islamists, goes against, Islamist ambition of expansion.

The USA has lost the military initiative in AFG, and it will retreat. There are a host of factors that puts the Islamists way ahead of USA. USA has to supply its forces from a great distance. Russia+China+Iran+KSA can supply the Islamists much easier than USA can supply its own. The entire region is crisscrossed by millenia old routes for smugglers. The USA can never install the manpower needed to stop the supply and transaction routes - in spite of all technological surveillance capacities.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Sep 2009 20:45

RayC wrote:Acharya,

It is an interesting analysis.

While the US and NATO will have the aerial reach to the LC, yet it would not be a matter of hours overland. And it will depend also upon the resistance.

I was listening to the Geo TV editor yesterday and he categorically stated that while the Govt of Pak maybe cosying up with the USA, the mass of Pakistan is totally anti US.
***************
The US in Afghanistan and Iraq is a deliberate move as per the US strategic vision that emerged after the demise of USSR.

I have been working on this for few years now.
ZBrezenski in his book The Grand Chess Board has latest update on the long term plan.
The stations in Afg and Iraq are part of the initial strategy which is first step in the long 50 years plan/

Just by denying other countries to control the afg area US can change the dynamics of the centeral Asia. This strategy is aimed at SCO organization - Russia and China.
Everybody has a price and this long term term dynamics will evolve in 10-20 years from now

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 20 Sep 2009 22:44

Having bases is not a fixed position concept. It is more akin to the airhead concept!

Iran in Afghanistan has their own agenda. The Shia Sunni schism is very deep and their animosity to each other has to be seen to be believed!

While every country of concern has a stake in Pakistan, none can compete with the US in terms of international support, finances or sophisticated weaponry. If the IMF, WB and the US quit salvaging Pakistan, China would be in no position to replace.

It maybe so that the US wants the situation to be fluid, so that they have a reason to be in situ in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If the issues are settled, then who would appreciate their presence in these two countries, more so, when the public are hostile!!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Sep 2009 05:04

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airhead
It is true that most of it will be airhead bases.
This region which Brezinski calls it as the Balkans of Asia will be bleeding for the next 40 years.
It will take the next generation of the ruling elite in the region to change the region by aligning themselves to nearby big countries.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Sep 2009 03:30

Towards the beginning of this thread, I proposed that the USA would not give up the AFG theatre. The reasons for me were exactly the driving motivations for the Americans we note now. But problem is that, outcomes are not always determined by motivations only. The American army did not want to lose "Vietnam" and their motivation was primarily to drive out "communism" and check any advance by the Chinese. But they had to give up. Even though there have been n-number of recent "reassessments" trying to show that militarily, the USA was "winning" - especially repulsing the "Tet" offensive. It was supposedly the turning around of "American civil opinion" that made it costly for politicians to continue military action. And supposedly again, a big role in this swing of public opinion was played by the "media".

To re-summarize the the motivating factors behind US presence in AFG.

(a) North Eastern AFG is a crucial location to watch over a variety of tactically important locations. Like the KKH access route, a host of approaches to the CAR, and proximity to China, Russia and Iran. It is the most advance position reasonably occupiablewith military strength to do all this.

(b) For the USA, occupying N-NE AFG, also means, disrupting the geopolitical coordination between Russia, China and Iran. Providing an addional player with required military capability, for the CAR's to play around and use against the regional empires bulldozing them into submission.

(c) This also prevents Russia and China to have direct and unhindered access to the IOR overland. It prevents CAR oil and gas reaching IOR without US control, as well as putting more distance between the Gulf and the two above powers.

But this only gives the desirability factors for USA. It does not give the reasons why it will be able to maintain its presence.

The main factors that I think will make US retreat a matter of time only, are as follows :

(a) The main production centres for hardware are for security and economic reasons on the mainland of USA. Which implies all resources for military sustenance has to come from a very long distance, and stockpiled in at least intermediate range dumps in countries which are not directly under US government. Except Europe and Australia/NZ proper, none of the intermediate dumps can be put in any country that has substantial and solid social identification with the USA. This means, the societies of these countries could turn hostile in the future under appropriate conditions.

Compared to the USA, Russia, China and Iran have contiguous land borders with the region of interest. Their military production centres can deliver their products through supply routes over territories under the sovereign control of their respective governments.

(b) The military hardware disadvantage is now being balanced by the quantitative and qualitative superiority of the US side. However, this counterbalance is not guaranteed to last forever. Economic weakness will eventually have impact on how much the USA can spend in maintaining this superiority.

(c) The KSA+Iraq oil fields are under US control with military bases being maintained, not just because of military superiority of the US. It is also being maintained because of the traditional size of the economy and economic might of the USA, that absorbs the oil produced by these countries and provides connected markets. With growing demand of the products of these countries in other economic powers, and an alternative military supplier who agrees to maintain the unpopular and weak regimes - can eventually push out USA.

(d) If KSA+Iraq formally detached itself from the US camp, the US presence in AFG becomes untenable. This becomes part of "CA string of pearls". The arc made up by China+Russia+Iran can gobble up US in AFPAK, once the flanking threat from Iraq+KSA is removed. This can happen out of the Jihadi Islam now being spread around in the ME.

(e) The tactical fight between the Sunni and the Shia will not prevent their collaboration to drive out their hated common enemy - the so-called decadent western "evil" - USA. Each side will find enough commonalities to pool their strength for the task of erasing US power in Asia and postpone their vicious inner struggle for later. The regimes in all these countries ringing the IOR from ME - have weak and unpopular almost puppet regimes in power. These regimes are therefore dependent on US support. But alternative powers like Russia and China can extend support to these regimes - or support revolutions. Eitherway - USA loses its handle.

(f) Pakistan's military forces are simply regrouping and consolidating. Once they manage to coordinate their movement and plans, their ultimate ambition and sole national project takes over - the achievement of the fictional Mughalistan and the even greater fiction of a neo-Caliphate. The American bases in TSP can play the role it plays in maintaining a weak regime in power for sometime as in KSA. But eventual Jihadization will make the USA increasingly unpopular throughout the ME. A tipping point will come, when ME regimes will deem it too costly to be seen as US stooges. This feeling is perhaps also being fueled covertly by the regional aspirants to dominance.

(g) US foxiness - can lead it to have very cold and unromantic calculations. While it will see advantages in encouraging Indian hostility towards PRC, to safeguard its right flank, it may as quickly and as easily abandon India if it buys them tactical bargaining points with China. On the other hand, opting for an independent Kashmir can also satisfy most of their tactical needs, and in that case, India becomes redundant. Or China and TSP insists on abandonment and isolation of India from Kashmir as part of settlement on US terms and with US presence. But, longterm, this will be a trap for the US. The factors of Islamization in ME mentioned above will mean US cannot hold on to this vantage point for a very long time.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Sep 2009 04:04

brihaspati wrote:Towards the beginning of this thread, I proposed that the USA would not give up the AFG theatre. The reasons for me were exactly the driving motivations for the Americans we note now. But problem is that, outcomes are not always determined by motivations only. The American army did not want to lose "Vietnam" and their motivation was primarily to drive out "communism" and check any advance by the Chinese. But they had to give up. Even though there have been n-number of recent "reassessments" trying to show that militarily, the USA was "winning" - especially repulsing the "Tet" offensive. It was supposedly the turning around of "American civil opinion" that made it costly for politicians to continue military action. And supposedly again, a big role in this swing of public opinion was played by the "media".

Another primary motive is the drug money. The British used to fund their war efforts by selling opium from Afghanistan. US was also in the same business in Nam and also in afganistan. This money is used to shore up the stock market and credit market in the western economies for the last 100 years.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Sep 2009 01:49

We are neglecting the study of pro-democratic movements in authoritarian and dictaiorial regime ruled countries of Asia and SE Asia. For some reason we have begun to catch the American bug of relying more on dictators to deal with. We raise our hopes if the Myanmarese junta is forced into conflict with PRC. We try to pacify and try not to hurt the precious sentiments of CPC and the central committee or politbureau ruling China.

In neither country, we do anything to express solidraity with or respect the pro-democracy movements. We do not give out hope for these fledgeling attempts at walking towards greater power to the people - towards civilization. And we pretend to be the upholders of democratic values and principles.

Promoting democracy in certain Islamic countries could actually go against Indian strategic interests. But in Myanmar and China, India's clear stand on support towards democratization would go immensely in favour of India over the longer term. If there are voices of modernization talking in whispers in China or Myanmar, India can join both her strategic interests and her much-vaunted "principles" by holding out the hope of support.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 23 Sep 2009 11:08

The aim of the US is to remain the sole global superpower. And to it, the US psyche must be factored in. Americans would not like to lose their pristine position even if it a truism that they want high payoffs with low costs. The very concept of ensuring that they are the global policeman indicates not only their aggressive psyche to dominate, but their zeal in ensuring that none other poach on their assumed preserve

Vietnam was driven by the zeal to contain Communism. The US requires an ‘enemy’ to sustain their zeal. When Communism faded, they got the War on Terror going and it is still going on.

During the Cold War era, the competition was the USSR. The USSR had global parity militarily, but was not equal in economic health. It also did not have a stranglehold on the US economy as China has now. The USSR was thus a distant enemy that could not swamp the US in any manner without being affected seriously also. The USSR affected the American citizenry only in a psychological way, in a manner of speaking.

On the other China is inscrutable. Unlike the USSR, China does not aggressively indicate competition with the US and yet is making inroads into areas of US strategic interest in a ‘peaceful’ manner; totally Machiavellian! Sri Lanka (US supremacy in IOR gets affected), Iran (China buying oil and selling products and this has a direct influence on the US embargos), Pakistan (sold off long ago), South America and now even in Afghanistan – where China through the SCO and, also directly have given economic assistance. China is also involved in Afghan copper industry and ingenuously cunning is producing burqas to identify with the religious sentiments of the people!. Obviously, China makes a greater impression around the world than the supremacy through militarist actions used by the US and allies. It does make a world of difference and in a clever way sets the US in competition, without announcing it openly! China has also made great strides in defence, industry and economy and has a stranglehold on the US economy as also on the American people with their cheap products that reinforce their (US) ‘disposable and waste’ economy concept favourably. In short, China, unlike the USSR, directly affects the US and the American people and hence, a greater threat.

A word on the Chinese capability in changing mindsets around the world. China hammers away their viewpoint with total disdain for world opinion or another country’s viewpoint. The fact that Indians readily speak of what the Chinese call Arunachal i.e. South Tibet (which was never heard of before and should be categorically denounced and dumped) or Obama conceding that he will not meet the Dalai Lama before his China trip since China desires so, indicates the sharpness and persuasive political and diplomatic policies that keeps the others on the backfoot without China doing any sabre rattling!! To imagine that the Chinese Ambassador had the audacity to state that there has been no incursions and not being taken to task for it either by the Mandarins or the Indian media!

Therefore, the issue of Vietnam and Communism pales before the Chinese global military, economic and political strategy of present. And the issue is that it affects the American way of life and its supremacy than what the USSR did. Hence, the difference!!

Afghanistan is the ‘cockpit of the world’ to use a popular phrase in the strategic world. Anyone who controls Afghanistan influences the activities of the countries adjoining Afghanistan. One just has to count the number of nations adjoining Afghanistan and check the ‘influence’ those countries have on the economy and strategy of the world, if not, Asia and also indirectly, Europe. The emerging superpowers, erstwhile superpowers, dynamic economies, rogue states are all in this area! Therefore, a country, like the US, which wants to remain the sole global superpower, will abdicate its presence from Iraq and Afghanistan, kept in its ‘sphere of influence’ at great cost and makes way for inimical powers to fill the vacuum? One wonders, even though it is an interesting thought! It would go against the US policy as enunciated in the DPG.

The complete Afghanistan is important to the US and not any corner! Every corner of Afghanistan has a competitor or an obstacle to the US. From such a pristine position to influence events, if the US quits, then that would be something! Food for thought! Baluchistan is equally important. It boxes in Iran as also influences the Chinese influence in Gwadar – a dangerous input in US strategic equation in the IOR, ME and on the control of oil through its proxies.

The Obama initiative to calm Russian fears by scrapping the missile defence has a method in the madness. It is to open a viable and sustainable route to Afghanistan beyond the Pakistani one. As Asprinzel has opined the CAR continues to be chummy with Russia. And Russia, sure would love that the Taliban influence does not spill over to their areas of influence in South and West of Russia. Afghanistan is more important to US strategic interests than a make belief Iran and Korean missile attack. While Russia will endeavour to keep the US off balance selectively, it would assist the US to keep China’s growing clout in check since China poses a threat to both the US and Russia. The fact that Chechnya could be controlled so easily is not merely because of superior Russian tactics! There is more than what meets the eye.

It is worth consideration if Govt, which are bolstered with US Aid, military and economic would care about the public opinion of their country. Does the Pakistan govt care for their people’s opinion? Geo TV does not think so!

On the issue of Jihadisation of the ME, it is a moot point if the autocratic Sheikdoms would allow the winds of democracy or Islamists demanding the ummah and the Caliphate to sweep through their Sheikdoms and make the Sheiks irrelevant! Therefore, without opposing Islam, they will encourage the US to keep such diverse elements in check. It serves both the Sheiks’ and the US interest!

Iran, being a theocratic state may declare the US as an enemy. However, the intensity of the Opposition in Iran spells something else. Notwithstanding, the Sheikdoms for reasons mentioned above, would be hardly encouraged to see the power of the US decline. Their very existence depends on the US, even if they are constrained to spout anti US sentiments now and then to indicate that they are with the Joneses!

The fact that the Sunni Arabs did not lift a finger to support the Hizbollah in Lebanon against Israel in the last war indicates the deep difference of perception of Islam and the traditional rivalry that even a common religion cannot heal! US may be taken as the Great White Satan, but the usage of the term is selective and to each’s interest! The animosity is best demonstrated in Lebanon, where the Sunnis preferred to join hands with the Christians to defeat the Shias in the elections!!

It will be a long time before any country in the ME can nudge the US interest and control of oil in the ME. Iraq and Iraq attempted to change from the US dollar to the Euro and came to grief. Therefore, the US is clear in its aim in the ME, no matter who attempts to lure it away! The US economy and power depends on Oil! And control of oil means power and supremacy to dictate terms! Given the political structure of the ME and the interest thereof, there is no common enemy. For Sunni Arabs, the US is no enemy but a prop!

As far as Pakistan is concerned, the US will not allow it to consolidate, with or without Chinese help. Afghanistan and Pakistan has to be on boil so that there is a rationale for the US to remain in this area and influence events of the world. They have already created a schism between the common man and the Pak govt, starting from the time of Musharraf. This will continue and if Pakistan gets too big for its boot, a wee bit of encouragement to India would do the trick.

India is also redundant to the US strategic interest!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Sep 2009 01:41

Here is an alternative take on the Shi-Sunni divide - from inside. Even if sectarian divides are a ground reality, this article represents a consciousness of the need for unity towards common political objectives. Most of the educated opinion-makers on both sides I know personally are increasingly trying to project this.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/834/focus.htm

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Sep 2009 02:12

brihaspati wrote:Here is an alternative take on the Shi-Sunni divide - from inside. Even if sectarian divides are a ground reality, this article represents a consciousness of the need for unity towards common political objectives. Most of the educated opinion-makers on both sides I know personally are increasingly trying to project this.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/834/focus.htm

A similar thing is happening in Christian sects also after Benedict took over. A sort of growing consolidation is underway. Its only Indians who are divided in every which way.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Sep 2009 02:44

ramanaji,
there are indeed already efforts and steps undertaken to bring the Christian sects together - even protestants and Catholics. they also have managed to do in the key Anglo-Saxon domains. But Bharatyia does not even want to think itself of as Bharatyia first - still holding on to regional and linguistic identities to create shells within which to hide.

It is so much more important now to bring out the historical commonalities and point out the reasons for "diversity". We should stop this unthinking blind worship of "diversity", and stop reveling as if it is our greatest asset and to be preserved at all costs. Diversity which is not essential should be taken as just that - something we have grown - like colourful and newly fashionable clothes. Beautiful to the eye, but not more important than the body inside.

Maybe we can start on BR to identify ourselves as Indians and Bharatyias only, our regional origins and languages and cuisine only coming up as experiential treasures to be shared by all Bharatyias.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 24 Sep 2009 10:22

On the Shia Sunni irreconcilable difference, it matters not what the educated Muslims feel.

It is the Muslim hoi polloi who matters.

The clergy (as with all clergies) will hardly allow their hold over the masses to diminish. And the mullahs are quite powerful in their hold over the Islamic mind.

If indeed there was practical approach to religion, would there be AQ or terrorism? It is the cry 'religion extinction by infidels' driven! Logical?

If for centuries the Shia Sunni divide could not be resolved, can it be done by a handful who feel it should happen?

Have the Hindus been able to get rid of castes? And Hindus are not so obsessive about religion as Islam!

Therefore, to feel that the Islamic divide will wish itself away is another wishful thinking!

They have not been able to stop such an odd way of divorce of saying Talaq three times by voice, e mail, twitter and whatever!

So, can they remove their historical divide?

The divide:

http://www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm

Ramana,

Benedict may have a sway over the Catholics, but not the Protestants.

However, the Protestant Churches have come under two umbrellas. But, then the differences between denominations are still there and is very subtly expressed!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 24 Sep 2009 10:38

Some clarifications on this South India or Madrasi syndrome. Highlighted is true for Tamilians only that too for those corrupted by Dravidian movement. Even Dravidian movement itself is Tamilian movement without Telugus and Kannadigas, may be Malayalis ever joining it.

Accepting english and rejecting Hindi is nothing but deracination, self-negation, dhimmitude.

Two roots for Indians
G.S. MUDUR

New Delhi, Sept. 23: A new genetic study has provided glimpses of India’s population patterns from deeper in the past than before, revealing the existence of two distinct, ancestral populations in the country about 45,000 years ago.

Indian and US scientists have used human genes to explore a largely uncharted domain of prehistoric populations and shown that nearly all Indians are descendants in varying genetic proportions of these two distinct populations.

The researchers also found that after the ancient admixture, endogamy has shaped marriage patterns in India for thousands of years, predating the caste system.

They analysed more than 560,000 genetic markers from the genomes of 132 Indians representing 25 population groups, six language families and several castes and tribes. The findings will appear in the journal Nature on Thursday.

The study has suggested two ancient populations — ancestral North Indians and ancestral South Indians — that had diverged from older population groups, derived from the earliest modern humans who trudged out of Africa some 70,000 years ago.

“They appear to be progenitor populations — nearly all the groups we studied have descended from mixtures of the two,” said Kumarasamy Thangaraj, a co-author and senior scientist at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Hyderabad.

Thangaraj and Lalji Singh from the CCMB collaborated with scientists at the Broad Institute of Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to study variations of a large number of genetic markers in individuals from different population groups. The patterns of variation can provide information about genetic distances between the groups and their history.

The genetic patterns suggest that most present-day Indian population groups have inherited 39 per cent to 71 per cent of their ancestry from the ancestral North Indians who are genetically close to central Asians or Eurasians.

The balance comes from ancestral South Indians who do not appear to share genetic proximity with any group outside India. “The ancestral South Indians may have diverged from the earliest of modern humans to arrive in India,” Thangaraj said.

The new study was not designed to explore how far back in time the distinct populations arrived, or when they began to mix. But the new data combined with earlier research would put the ancestral South Indians in India about 65,000 years ago and the ancestral North Indians about 20,000 years later.

Although there is abundant archaeological evidence — rock shelters, stone tools and wooden spears — for prehistoric human settlements in India, population patterns and movements of the earliest modern humans in India remain unclear.

“It seems to me that attempts to postulate a population pattern so far back in history, going back to before 10,000 BC, would have many uncertainties,” said Romila Thapar, emeritus professor of ancient Indian history at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. “Our data on population groups for such early periods is limited,” Thapar told The Telegraph.

Genetic studies by other research teams have indicated that modern humans began walking out of Africa into West Asia, central Asia and South Asia, about 70,000 years ago. The new study has also confirmed earlier findings from the CCMB that the Onges in the Andamans are the descendants of the first modern humans who moved out of Africa, but have remained isolated on the islands.

The Onges appear exclusively related to the ancestral South Indians.

“Understanding the origins of the Andamanese (tribes) could provide a window into the history of ancestral South Indians,” Nick Patterson, a mathematician and a team member from the Broad Institute, said in a statement.

The CCMB-Broad Institute study has shown that genetic contribution of ancestral North Indians is high in upper caste and Indo-European language speakers on the subcontinent — such as the Pathans from Pakistan or the Kashmiri Pandits, Vaish, Srivastava groups from India.

But some tribal and lower caste groups appear closer to the ancestral South Indians.

The study also indicated that four groups — the Onges from Andamans, the Siddhis from Karnataka, and the Nyshi and Ao Naga from the Northeast — have genetic proximity to populations outside India and do not have detectable contributions from either the ancestral North Indians or ancestral South Indians.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090924/j ... 536075.jsp

Any comments from the Knowledgeable?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Sep 2009 10:54

RayC wrote:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090924/j ... 536075.jsp
Any comments from the Knowledgeable?

Check here
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... t&p=101485

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 24 Sep 2009 11:05

True, but the genetics?

This is the latest.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 24 Sep 2009 11:07

If we are to focus on the Strategic Leadership, can we be far from the Tactical Leadership?

Oh Re Taal Mile Nadi Ke Jal Mein
Nadi Mile Saagar Mein
Saagar Mile Kaunse Jal Mein
Koi Jaane Na..

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Sep 2009 11:11

RayC wrote:True, but the genetics?

This is the latest.

Yes, The latest is being discussed there

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 24 Sep 2009 11:20

Acharya wrote:
RayC wrote:True, but the genetics?

This is the latest.
Yes, The latest is being discussed there

Seen.

Thanks.

It gets more confusing!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Sep 2009 17:27

Stan_Savljevic wrote: How many aryan-dravidian things do you hear from TN in everyday life to claim that it is "absurd level in everyday life"?

I met this lady who was commenting on somebody saying that "the person thinks like Brahmin- very bad"
This was in massaland

Perhaps the sour grapes of other South Indian states that they could nt whip up hysteria and protect their languages as much as TN could do is showing. May be not. If that is the case, take a look at TN's student politics history, there are tons of lessons on how to build critical mass and how to create a vent to let off steam as and when necessary.

No strawman reqed here.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 24 Sep 2009 17:31

Acharya wrote:
Stan_Savljevic wrote: How many aryan-dravidian things do you hear from TN in everyday life to claim that it is "absurd level in everyday life"?
I met this lady who was commenting on somebody saying that "the person thinks like Brahmin- very bad"
This was in massaland

So you are xlating one incident that you saw into "aryan-dravidian things in everyday life in TN" and then later whining about me creating a strawman. Wonderful....

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 24 Sep 2009 18:44

As per the revelation by AQ Khan, Benazir Bhutto ordered the passing of nuclear secrets to Iran.

Benazir Bhutto was a Shia.

Gen Mirza Aslam Beg, a rabid anti American, was the Chief of the Army Staff of the Pakistan Army then. The selling of the nuclear secret was a part of his anti US scheme since Iran, by that time, was the only Islamic nation under Imam Khomeini that was unwaveringly virulent towards the US. It suited his purpose. Saudi Arabia, the favourite of Zia (who died under mysterious circumstances) was a puppet of the Saudis and it is believed that Beg was not too keen on the Saudis as the ‘saviour’ of Islam, even if Mecca was in their country and was hallowed ground!

In Beg’s vision, also enunciated in his writings, he was of the opinion that it would be better ‘democratising’ the global nuclear non-proliferation order and moving to a multipolar world. That would ensure safety that bipolar US – USSR bipolar war or a unipolar one where the US ruled supreme. It maybe added that Beg and AQ Khan were close friends and political allies and shared many of the same views

Can the Sunni Shia divide vanish because of the effort of a few Islamic ‘intellectual’?

If after so many years of secularism being drummed into the Indian mind, we have not been able to bridge the gap between the various religions and Hinduism is a much tolerant religion and accommodating too compared to the fierce ‘loyalty and unity’ that is there for Islam amongst the adherents, can the Sunni Shia divide ever go away?

Throughout history, there have been attempts to converge, but it has never worked out and it never will!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Sep 2009 04:16

Hyderabad was supposed to be that and there is an arrangement for the President to stay in Hyderabad for short period of three months or so. It was like that in the 60s. Dont know if it still in continuation or not. The idea was for people in South to be able to access the President without having to go to Delhi. There is a Bhavan also for this purpose.