Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 15 Apr 2011 06:42

x-post from pak thread:

Sushupti wrote:http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-Bad-timin ... 370353.cms

Sushant Sarin quite fired up. Feel like someone from BRF is speaking.

These are extraordinarily delicate times. As far as India is concerned there are two civilizational mega-trends to address:

(1) handling the people who took up a new identity in the wake of invasions beginning around 1000 AD, and were given a nation of their own by the British, and
(2) dealing with the push towards a unipolar world order

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 15 Apr 2011 06:58

A point that should be considered:

Historically, Pak was permitted to acquire nukes, with the tacit approval of "the west", so that it could continue to balance India. At the same time, a major headache for the west is the possibility of those nukes being used for purposes unintended by the west. Thus the west would probably be uncomfortable with nukes remaining in Pak hands indefinitely.

I will say that the best case scenario for the west would be that India takes out Pak nukes (and suffers consequences in the process). Thus, terrorist outrages against India, which may goad India to act, may not necessarily be regarded as a bad thing by the west. Something to be kept in mind.

At the present moment, I would say that the best policy with respect to the Paks would be to maintain a distance. Neither excessive bonhomie nor excessive acrimony would be desirable.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 15 Apr 2011 07:01

Pranav wrote:At the present moment, I would say that the best policy with respect to the Paks would be to maintain a distance. Neither excessive bonhomie nor excessive acrimony would be desirable

Which is precisely what a lot of governments have tried to achieve since ABV's time....

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 15 Apr 2011 07:07

x-post from US vs. China in Pak thread:

Paks make themselves useful to both US and China to keep India down. Once both US and China realize that India cannot be kept down and that they will pay a price unless they are nice to India - at that point one can begin to deal with the problem of external support to the Paks.

This is already beginning to happen in fits and starts.

Given that the US and China are rivals and will remain rivals, it will not do for India to align itself too closely with either one - because then the Paks will go with the other.

Thus India has to be important to both, without being aligned with one of them against the other. Also, it has to become clear to both that a policy of trying to keep India down will be unsuccessful and costly.

I would say that a big part of the problem is India's strategic diffidence - for example not developing proven thermonuclear capability.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 15 Apr 2011 13:50

Land-swap deal between India and BD..

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 477b982.41

Settling the border will be the biggest indication of India's (and BD's) willingness to settle outstanding issues and move forward...there is no point in maintaining contention over a few thousand hectares of land...IMO, India should play the Gujral doctrine here - just settle it, even if it means a little bit more to BD..Use that goodwill to "buy" other strategic variables - finalisign the land access to NE for example...Or finalising a deal on Chittagong port..

In main parts, India needs to start paying a lot more attention to South Asia ex-Pak....G Parthasarthy wrote a nice op-ed in Hindu yesterday - it would have been great if the PM was present in the WC opening ceremony in Dhaka..It was BD's "coming out party" in some ways and both the citizenry and the officialdom were clearly crazed about it...The presence of the Indian PM would have sent a strong signal of support and solidarity in BD's moment of triumph..And if he had mentioned about the joint celebration of 150th anniversary of Tagore from the same platform - the opening ceremony was dominated by Tagore

- it would have driven a minor coup de etat! Unfortunately, India was represneted by Sharad Pawar, whose attempts in both Bangla and English were equally incomprehensible to anyone, including himself!

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 15 Apr 2011 16:53

G Parthasarthy wrote a nice op-ed in Hindu yesterday - it would have been great if the PM was present in the WC opening ceremony in Dhaka.

Good note Somnath ji, this indeed would have been really worthy. But guess MMS is the type that thinks India's future is not twined with a more SDRE lot than it is with the TFTA. He's grown up in an environment it seems that is in awe of White and West. HIs reactions against seem only a repudiation to his own self that it's not the case. I felt hurt truly..not that i am a great fan of Obama..but, when MMS leaked a personal letter from him (Obama) recently. I think he broke a lot of salients. It's not done. Obama all said, did at the Indian Parliament endorse/ acknowledge MMS's greatest dream..that of UNSC membership. I doubt if i was Obama i would take it lightly. This is not equivalent to leakage of ABV's letter to Bill Clinton post 98. That (letter) seemed amateurish at best when there was no personal relationship at all. Problem is MMS is trying being Chanakyan with Americans and 'pure' hearted with TSPians. Thats wrong.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 15 Apr 2011 17:12

^^^Harbans-ji, I wouldnt go quite that far..."Personal" equations seldom prevent world leaders to spring reasonably nasty surprises at each other! The most delicious ones for me were the ones between Churchill and Roosevelt....They were close, incredibly so, so much so that Churchill had no issues (some say he even encouraged) Roosevelt's emissary in London to carry on a raging affair with his own daughter-in-law!

But the list of surprises that they threw at each other would make for a large book - with a few chapters having to be devoted to the shenanigans at Yalta alone!

Anyway, that letter pitching for American planes in the MRCA contest was pretty anodyne I thought...Compared to the ABV letter on China to Clinton...And otherwise as well, letters need not always be leaked "officially", sometimes there are vested interests within the bureaucracy/politicians that do so as well..

On attention to non-Pak neighbours, somehow almost all PMs (and FMs) in history have been guilty of that...Pak has been the elephant in our neighbourhood foreign policy equation...the only exception I can think of in recent times was Gujral, who genuinely made an attempt....The Ganga Waters treaty with BD he pushed through has stood the tests of time, and was the first break-through initiative with BD after 1972...Gujral of course didnt have much political capital (the BD initiative went through on account of the political heavy lifting done by the CPM, Jyoti Basu was an enthusiastic supporter), so he finally had little overall impact...

But time has come to change that...I mentioned before that we have a unique constellation of pragmatic "India-phillic" politicians in our neighbourhood today, and with political capital - there is a unique opportunity to sieze for a greater engagement with them...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Apr 2011 17:25

Can someone put up the SC judgment on Vinayak Sen's bail? This fits into what I projected for the gradual steps that would manifest as to the direction the rashtra would be taking. Veerappa Moily has already renewed making hints at need to restructure "sedition" laws in keeping with ideas of "liberty" etc.

There is a lot to learn of the technique of contextual subtle association of concepts and ideas - from the SC judgment. If what has been reported in broadcasts, is true, then we should note the argument supposedly given in response to keeping suspect "literature" on person/at home - that if someone kept a book by Gandhiji at home does it make that person a "Gandhian"? Astute and most relevant observation in a case that was not discussing a book by Mao/Naxalite leadership, but a mere supposed letter or communication from a Naxalite leader. If this statement has to be relevant and "contextual" then logically, from now on communications/letters from Naxlaite leaders should be treated as equivalent to works by Gandhiji. I was expecting maybe a comparison to authors who espouse violent overthrows of regimes and totalitarian forms of "liberty" like Hitler's Mein Kampf for example. I guess we have to wait and see whether such a comparison seamlessly drops Hitler;s works into future statements about say "sympathizers" of "saffron".

But the most important lesson is that there is now legal precedence for safely and securely being "sympathizers" of movements that openly admit violent overthrow of the rashtra as their ultimate aim and establishment of a totalitarian regime ["loved by people" under "leadership of the vanguard of the" proletariat/ummah].

The sedition laws are going to be changed, no doubt, as they need to. But with conditional qualifications perhaps - that exempt the "red" and "green" variety only but still keeps clauses to bar the "saffron" from any such consideration? I guess the legendary demand that no ideological/value based criteria should be used has to be quietly dropped in this case - to debar non-secular [as defined by the "chosen"] "sedition" only from such lenience. It is also urgent to do so because the Sayed Geelani and ARoy types cannot be allowed to be muzzled in their activities.

It is good to see exposures increase. When people are forced to choose sides that is when their real affiliations and agenda comes out.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Apr 2011 18:03

To bring up hard data about the neighbourhood : upto 0.05%of total votes
(2001 elections) from http://www.ecs.gov.bd/English/Elec_Par.php
1 Bangladesh National Party(BNP) 41.3958
2 Bangladesh Awami League 40.0244
3 Islami Jatiya Oikya Front 7.2189
4 Jamaat-e- Islami Bangladesh 4.2793
5 Independent 4.0581
6 Bangladesh Jatiya Party(N-F) 0.9355
7 Islami Oikya Jote 0.5613
8 Krisak Sramik Janata League 0.4688
9 Jatiya Party (Monju) 0.437
10 Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal 0.2136
11 Bangladesh Communist Party 0.1022
12 Bangladesh Workers Party 0.0726
13 Bangladesh Islami Font 0.052

The 2008 elections from http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/ ... sh2008.txt
Party Votes % Seats
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bangladesh Awami League 33,887,451 49.0 +08.9 230 +167
Jatiya Dal 4,867,377 07.0 -00.2 27 + 13
Jatiyo Samajtantrik Dal 429,773 00.6 3
Liberal Democratic Party 161,372 00.2 1
Workers Party of Bangladesh 214,440 00.3 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total AL and allies 39,560,413 57.2 263
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bangladesh Jatiya Party 95,158 00.1 1
Bangladesh Jatiyatabadi Dal 22,963,836 33.2 -09.5 29 -169
Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh 3,186,384 04.6 +00.3 2 - 15
Others 3,366,858 04.9 4
Vacant 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 69,172,649 300
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The changes data should point to a possible role of a swing percentage of roughly 9% [a more detailed analysis will indicate certain interesting geographical and demographic patterns in the possible source of this swing] creating a havoc of roughly 167 seats.

The patterns of interim local body elections needs to be worked on - but they already show a reverse swing in the crucial urban concentrates along the NW-SE belt that seem to be the main culprit for "swings". Will post later.

What should be observed is that the support base of both AL and BNP appear to be more or less evenly split, with an urban swing that determines which direction the regime goes. This is no consistent "swing" population as all authentic "swings" are - and hence cannot be reliably predicted to be always on AL side.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 15 Apr 2011 18:34

X-Posting so the bleeding heart [sic] (pseudo) seculars on the forum can have a moment of truth

sum wrote:New symbol for Hazare’s movement

The tricolour will replace the Bharat Mata image that was in the background set-up of the stage erected at Jantar Mantar on which Hazare was lying on a fast-unto-death for the Jan Lokpal Bill.

The background set-up had an image of Bharat Mata encircled by the map of India. Now the map will encircle Tiranga.

According to sources, the movement leaders decided to give a secular character to the logo as some civil society members were uneasy on displaying an image which is identified as a Hindu religious symbol.

Bharat Mata is considered to be an incarnation of Devi Durga. “The issue was raised in the strategic meeting held after Hazare ended his fast. Women activists like Kavita Krishnan, Nandini Ojha and others raised the issue and requested the movement leaders to replace the image. It did not take long for the leaders to agree to replace the image,” said sources.

Patriotic colour

Activists said that the Bharat Mata image was meant to give a patriotic colour to the anti-corruption movement. The image was in no way associated with any communal agenda.

Imagine what happens when the [sic] secular brigade gets uncomfortable with the saffron color in the national flag.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Apr 2011 20:15

^^^No problems with the "green" or "white"? They do not remind people of faiths and religions? And the "chakra" is secular too! Krishna(Vishnu) is "ckarapaani", and Ashoka Maurya (or Ashoka Gonanda) used "chakra" just like any other puritan and orthodox Buddhists - as a sign of "sad-dharma/Buddha" and not "secularism". The wonders and advantages of a "little" knowledge.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 15 Apr 2011 20:48

RamaY wrote:Imagine what happens when the [sic] secular brigade gets uncomfortable with the saffron color in the national flag

If they do, it would be exceedingly stupid..There is no religious significance of the Indian national flag in its current incarnation - the Congress was very clear about that in 1931, when the tricolour was adopted as the national flag...Saffron for strength/courage, white for peace/truth and green for fertility, the dharma chakra to indicate life in motion...

History of the Indian flag here..
http://india.gov.in/myindia/national_flag.php

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 15 Apr 2011 21:10

Whatever the history, civil society currently understands Saffron as Hindu, Green as Islam, White as Christian and the Dharma Chakra as Buddhist. To be secular then, the flag would have to be changed to accomodate symbols or colours from other religions, or alternately to non-controversial colours like purple. IMO, nothing wrong in changing the flag since secularism is an evolving process

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 15 Apr 2011 21:35

LINGUISTIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIAN ENGLISH

Jason Baldridge

http://www.languageinindia.com/junjul20 ... glish.html

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Apr 2011 21:45

brihaspati wrote:^^^No problems with the "green" or "white"? They do not remind people of faiths and religions? And the "chakra" is secular too! Krishna(Vishnu) is "ckarapaani", and Ashoka Maurya (or Ashoka Gonanda) used "chakra" just like any other puritan and orthodox Buddhists - as a sign of "sad-dharma/Buddha" and not "secularism". The wonders and advantages of a "little" knowledge.

I once posted that JL Nehru was a modern day Ashoka and not some Western transplant. The difference is just as Ashoka had Buddihism as a state religion and did his utmost to see that its implemented, JLN had pseudo-secularism as the new state religion. Also read his "Discovery of India" and "Glimpses of World History" to get the insight. Just as Ashoka was mistaken on the universality of Buddhism, JLN is also mistaken on the unversality of pseudo-secularism.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Apr 2011 03:14

ramana ji,
Some curiosities about the design of the flag finally presented by JLN for approval :
(1) Only the "red" of the previous version was changed to "saffron". But "red" had already been redefined by MKG as not "communal", [in spite of his earlier explicit faith based explanation].
(2) the "charkha" was replaced by "ashoka dhamma chakra" and not the general "Buddhist dhamma chakra" which is more commonly depicted with 8 spokes (the ashtasheel). The 24 spokes of the Ashokan version is unique to Ashoka and is supposed to correspond to a later Buddhist expanded list of "virtues" - 24 in number. It is doubtful that Ashoka Maurya had a 24 hour day count. The contemporary or even the closest Buddhist records use a prevalent time cycle which is different. It is also debated that the original "chakra" need not be about day/time but cycle of birth/death/rebirth and impermanence of life rather than "life in motion".

So a specific contextual (in JLN speech terms - "a concentrated/compacted history") and deliberate placement with a particular emperor and empire which happened to push for a particular interpretation of Buddhism - is interesting. In fact the legacy is explicitly acknowledged in JLN's speech and alluded to in Rajendraprasad's introduction - who makes a better job of it by declaring that the term "dharma/dhamma" implies "virtue" [the etymology and context of the latter being somewhat different from both Buddhist "dhamma" as well as SD "dharma"].

(3) the colour "saffron" ("deep saffron" by flag code) is explicitly tied to "renunciation/sacrifice" through "bhagwa". Culturally this tradition and association would only be supported in Theravada Buddhism and "sannyas" tradition in certain phases of SD [white would also be a claimant for SD]. So curiously at one stroke SD/Buddhism is put into the box of "sacrifice/renunciation" perhaps as a signal of what it should restrict itself to. So the need to change over from "red".

(4) Blue is the colour used in the central "khanda" symbolism (which contains a circle to represent "one God") against the "saffron" backdrop of the "nishan sahib". Blue [navy blue by flag code] is used to colour the central Ashoka dhammachakra too.

(5) Oath of allegiance to the flag was carefully arranged so that representatives spoke of their "community" identification to the flag, and all the major denominations were represented [Christian/Muslim..etc] but somehow none formally representing "Hindu". Either the "Hindu" was seen not as community or should not think of itself as a community, or allegiance to the flag was automatic for the "Hindu".

The argument that we should not look at history to model or iconify or represent the present or the future appears not to hold here. History is used to impose and construct a particular filtered representation of history that should be binding and determine future behaviour of communities.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 16 Apr 2011 04:54

brihaspati wrote:the colour "saffron" ("deep saffron" by flag code) is explicitly tied to "renunciation/sacrifice" through "bhagwa". Culturally this tradition and association would only be supported in Theravada Buddhism and "sannyas" tradition in certain phases of SD [white would also be a claimant for SD]. So curiously at one stroke SD/Buddhism is put into the box of "sacrifice/renunciation" perhaps as a signal of what it should restrict itself to. So the need to change over from "red".

The color deep saffron (kesari) is also tied to sacrifice on the battlefield. Rajput soldiers who vowed to win victory or die fighting used to don saffron robes. Such soldiers were called kesaria in Rajasthani and Hindi, and zard kaprawala in Hindustani.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Apr 2011 05:56

^^^Yes, but they do not mention that - rather explicitly highlight "bhagwa" and "renunciation".

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 16 Apr 2011 12:33

ramana wrote:JLN had pseudo-secularism as the new state religion. Also read his "Discovery of India" and "Glimpses of World History" to get the insight.

PanditJi didn't single handedly impose his vision on India. He only represented a shared-vision of many nationalists during his time. His vision is more representative of the Indian people at the time than Ashoka who one might blame to have been a sort of Constantine after his catharsis.

PanditJi may have made errors of judgement and trust, but India owes her social unity to his and numerous other freedom fighters' vision of secularism. If PanditJi etc were "pseudo" what really is "true-secularism" ? In other words, can there be any secularism other than "pseudo" at all?

Without a secular society, we'd have had more internal strife to add to external threats. Indian secularism is fully in keeping with Sanatan tradition of "Audarya" - magnanimity and "Vasudaiva Kutumbakam".

PS: It's almost a fashion to trash PanditJi today. Whereas eg. Russians will even defend despotic stalwarts of the various forms of the Russian states - like Lenin/Tsar Peter.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Apr 2011 12:43

ManishH wrote:
ramana wrote:JLN had pseudo-secularism as the new state religion. Also read his "Discovery of India" and "Glimpses of World History" to get the insight.
PanditJi didn't single handedly impose his vision on India. He only represented a shared-vision of many nationalists during his time. His vision is more representative of the Indian people at the time than Ashoka who one might blame to have been a sort of Constantine after his catharsis.

PanditJi may have made errors of judgement and trust, but India owes her social unity to his and numerous other freedom fighters' vision of secularism. If PanditJi etc were "pseudo" what really is "true-secularism" ? In other words, can there be any secularism other than "pseudo" at all?

Without a secular society, we'd have had more internal strife to add to external threats. Indian secularism is fully in keeping with Sanatan tradition of "Audarya" - magnanimity and "Vasudaiva Kutumbakam".

Secularism remained "pseudo" because it failed to define the liberties of religion with respect to state, society and individuals and with respect to other communities.

ManishH wrote:PS: It's almost a fashion to trash PanditJi today. Whereas eg. Russians will even defend despotic stalwarts of the various forms of the Russian states - like Lenin/Tsar Peter.

Yes and the Russians would also trash a democrat like Gorbachev!

Maram · Post by **Maram** » 16 Apr 2011 14:27

Brihaspathi ji,

excellent post about the flag and demographic details in BD. received a lot of gyan. bheri humbly

maram

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Apr 2011 16:50

Thanks Maram ji,
there have been too many claims based on "perceptions" about BD on very flimsy overt items chosen arbitrarily. So thought, some concreteness was required. The flag-issue itself was always controversial, and most people try to push the formal statements of certain leaders as being authentic and not "political" or diplomatic. This is not the thread, but switch over from communal interpretation to "non-communal" interpretation of colours was explicitly given as "political tactical necessity" by MKG himself as a means of mobilizing "larger numbers". Once you have statements like that - all subsequent pious statements about "non-communality" become suspect.

Moreover, we do see some kind of accommodation of community sentiments in retaining the colours from the "communal interpretation" phase. If changing "red" to "saffron" became "necessary" to make the flag "non-communal" as one of the speakers in the Constituent Assembly debates on the flag mentioned - why not change the other colours too - since they also had been exclusively interpreted by certain community leaders as "their colours". There were some strong demands and movements to include two other communities in colour or symbols - apart from three communities supposedly represented by red+white+green. It is uncanny that one's colour/symbolism in its flag, and the other "community"'s leader's fascination with a particular faith appear to coincide in the central "chakra".

But OT. So won't go into this.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Apr 2011 17:19

ManishH wrote:
ramana wrote:JLN had pseudo-secularism as the new state religion. Also read his "Discovery of India" and "Glimpses of World History" to get the insight.
PanditJi didn't single handedly impose his vision on India. He only represented a shared-vision of many nationalists during his time. His vision is more representative of the Indian people at the time than Ashoka who one might blame to have been a sort of Constantine after his catharsis.

PanditJi may have made errors of judgement and trust, but India owes her social unity to his and numerous other freedom fighters' vision of secularism. If PanditJi etc were "pseudo" what really is "true-secularism" ? In other words, can there be any secularism other than "pseudo" at all?

Without a secular society, we'd have had more internal strife to add to external threats. Indian secularism is fully in keeping with Sanatan tradition of "Audarya" - magnanimity and "Vasudaiva Kutumbakam".

PS: It's almost a fashion to trash PanditJi today. Whereas eg. Russians will even defend despotic stalwarts of the various forms of the Russian states - like Lenin/Tsar Peter.

It has become now fashionable to select aspects of Sanatana dharma and claim that they alone characterize Bharatyia tradition to the exclusion of all the other aspects. "Magnanimity" and "Oudarya" and "Vasudaiva Kutumbakam" is supposed to over-rule all other aspects of SD. So shedding blood of those who are close relatives if they go against "dharma" cannot be part of SD even if it appears in Bhagavat Geeta - because "magnanimity/Oudarya/vasudaiva" etc should overrule such fights. So more or less commonly acccepted voice/person/manifestation of a "descended" supreme [by Hindus] - Vishnu - Krishna must have been preaching against Sanatana Dharma, because "magnanimity/Oudarya" should have prompted him to urge the Pandavas to "forgive" and "forget" attempted rape of Draupadi, or cheating out of their minimal inheritance and sundry other offences.

Looked at from the other direction, just as the Brits had targeted SD for emasculation - anyone who came to power by selective collaboration and negotiation with the British - would see the legacy of the earlier nationalists who derived their memes of struggle against the perfidious brutality of the Brits from SD memes - as a threat to their own continued hold on political power. Hence they would need to preach "tolerance" - otherwise how would a Nehru or a Gandhiji be able to have the callous audacity to suggest that the Punjabi/Sikh and Bnegali Hindus should allow themselves to suffer the consequences of unprotected [and in some cases state-sponsored or allowed by the state] violence during and after the Partition. Their own women or children were not touched, so the burden and mantle of magnanimity/Oudarya must have been feather light on their conscience. Only a supreme intellectual callousness could pass off all that suffering as the "birth pangs" of a feminized nation "giving birth" to freedom.

So Bharat becomes a "mata" when its about allowing a certain faith free run of violence on its "body", [the violence is created by her own body and not external sources - need to clear the faith's image] but that "mata" remains a "Hindu" symbol for his modern ideological inheritors and therefore something to be ashamed of and hidden or erased - as so ironically illustrated by the collection around "Gandhian" Hazare ji?

You claim that their statements reflected a sentiment shared by the absolute majority of Indians at the time? Even by those suffering at the hands of ML organized looters and rapists and murderers?

I have posted on this forum details of electoral qualifications that actually prevented the large part of Indians, in fact exactly those who had less education, less money, less land - that is the bulk of the population of Indians - from eligibility to vote in the provincial legislature elections that ultimately gave power and legitimacy to the Congress. It was this collective provincial representation that was converted into the Constituent Assembly that foisted the Constitution which was never sent to a referendum based on universal franchise. I have also quoted studies that point to between 17% and 30% of the total adult Indian population being eligible to vote in those elections [and only a much smaller proportion actually voted]. Moreover these were also the "elite" of India, and who must have been not that actively against the Brits as a class to prosper educationally/financially and land-ownership wise [there were formal Brit admin measures to penalize on those counts if even a family member indulged in anti-Brit activities].

You claim this at most 1/3 population's "proven" support for JLN or his associates as proof of the majority of Indian's support for statements by JLN?

Can you please investigate and make a post on why dual constituencies were maintained in the first general elections and then quietly dropped from then on? What were the results of the dual constituencies in particular?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 16 Apr 2011 19:30

ManishH wrote:PanditJi didn't single handedly impose his vision on India. He only represented a shared-vision of many nationalists during his time. His vision is more representative of the Indian people at the time than Ashoka who one might blame to have been a sort of Constantine after his catharsis

Well, Nehru was a complex personality, but even his harshest critics, and there is no dearth of them, have not concluded that independent India's founding principles were based on Nehru's philosophies alone...In fact that would be giving too much credit to Nehru's influence within the Congress! He had a decisive influence, yes, but it was his ideas only, certainly not...

Each facet of independent India's political orientation was debated fiercely, in the Congress and then in the Constituent Assembly...If anything, Nehru "gave in" on a number of issues, hindu personal law for example, which the "tipping point" of some sorts for BR Ambedkar...And many more...

The vision of a "secular" republic wasnt Nehru's alone, almost the entire pantheon of the Congress leadership shared the same vision - from the conservative Sardar to the liberal Rajaji to the "socialist" JP, and of course Nehru, Gandhi, Subhas (when he was there) - a "hindu version of Pak" was not something on the table, ever...

About "popular" support, while the pre-independence elections were limited mandate, the level of electoral suppot for the Congress, and the complete wipe-out of the Hindu Mahasabha, subsequently more than adequately sanctified the "popular" supprot for the Congress in vox pop...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Apr 2011 20:12

Anyone with some actual figures of voting and percentages, as well as some "scholarly" studies of how elections were won in the first decade after independence - the voting that apparently gave "vox-pop[uli?]" blanket support to the Congress - please do so! Such formal studies do exist - apart from anecdotal narratives. They should show that to make such statements of blanket support, one needs to be aware of a bit more than one's own urban and dhimmi class cocoon [since the majority of the electorate lay in the country-bumpkin domain] as to the reality of early elections, where feudal structures remained intact in their networks even if the nature of the effective power component had changed over to the next gen of "professionals" hailing from such previous landed elite background, and some elementary knowledge or home-work on sociological studies of electoral patterns.

I have already raised the issue of dual constituencies and why they were dropped - as issues to be explored. How the percentage of vote share mismatched "expectations" and "claims" even in the very first election, and what happened to that percentage share over the subsequent elections should be most illustrative.

Moreover before dismissing the Mahasabha, maybe its actual support base and mutations have to be looked into. Where did its numerical strength lie? What happened to those regions? Was there any restructuring and moving out from the Mahasabha? Does such a perception that a better focused [for "communal" interests] org was needed, support the sly accusations from Nehruvian camp-followers about the "communal" character of the Mahasabha? Which section of society did SPM mobilize? What was the fate of that section in the Partition?

Not sure that this is not going OT. But I can bring up material that will expose the circus propaganda more and may not be good for the image of the "party" and its iconic "leader" or the myths that are propagated on its behalf. So whatever is wished!

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 16 Apr 2011 21:27

somnath wrote:Land-swap deal between India and BD..

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 477b982.41

Settling the border will be the biggest indication of India's (and BD's) willingness to settle outstanding issues and move forward...there is no point in maintaining contention over a few thousand hectares of land...IMO, India should play the Gujral doctrine here - just settle it, even if it means a little bit more to BD..Use that goodwill to "buy" other strategic variables - finalisign the land access to NE for example...Or finalising a deal on Chittagong port..

In main parts, India needs to start paying a lot more attention to South Asia ex-Pak....G Parthasarthy wrote a nice op-ed in Hindu yesterday - it would have been great if the PM was present in the WC opening ceremony in Dhaka..It was BD's "coming out party" in some ways and both the citizenry and the officialdom were clearly crazed about it...The presence of the Indian PM would have sent a strong signal of support and solidarity in BD's moment of triumph..And if he had mentioned about the joint celebration of 150th anniversary of Tagore from the same platform - the opening ceremony was dominated by Tagore - it would have driven a minor coup de etat! Unfortunately, India was represneted by Sharad Pawar, whose attempts in both Bangla and English were equally incomprehensible to anyone, including himself!

Somnath: Good point.
Yes, Indian PM should definately have gone to BD. Gujaral doctrine would work best for South Asia ex-Pak.
And BD PM should also have been invited to Mohali. Any time, TSP is shown any respect, equal if not greater should be shown to BD.
The possible returns from South Asia ex-Pak are just great including Nepal, SL etc.

The per capita income of BD and TSP is not much different inspite of TSP receiving $100 Billion + aid in last 60 years. Even 1/3rd similar aid to BD would have done wonders.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Apr 2011 00:56

I think as per BD gov sources, the outstanding "hard terms" debt is highest with respect to India. Economists, especially BD economists, appear to be divided over the impact and efficacy of "aid" and investments - especially from India. Barro type analysis, the last such report I have seen, appears to indicate overall negative correlation of growth with foreign aid. Sub-regionally, inland LATAM and south Asia were exceptions. So it all depends on how the aid and investments flow in and which market segment they go into - coupled with political and governance issues. Some BD economists have tried to show that even with a bilateral FTA, BD may not gain in RMG sector which is its main export earner.

FDI/aid appears in some cases to skew actual foreign relations, by polarizing the receiving economy into those few who benefit and profit and those who can be made to think that they have lost out or are worse off because of the supposed political motivations of the investor/donor.

So before talking of simplistic aid/investment flows from India towards BD, maybe the overall political balance of forces, how such equations may use Indian investment for political scores, and what would be the net outcome in macro terms of interest to the BD economy, needs to be explored. Chief concerns and demands from BD side is based on [unsupported yet] a perception that increased Indian market access would compensate for the unfavourable trade balance. But if that does not turn out to be true in practice, what will be the political impact?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Apr 2011 01:29

somnath wrote:Land-swap deal between India and BD..

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 477b982.41

In main parts, India needs to start paying a lot more attention to South Asia ex-Pak

Is somebody promoting here Peaceful Consolidation of the Indian Subcontinent?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Apr 2011 01:45

Consciousness is one.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 17 Apr 2011 06:32

RajeshA wrote:Is somebody promoting here Peaceful Consolidation of the Indian Subcontinent?

That is precisely right..Though not in the manner of a "political re-integration" into India

It is about building cooperative structures to integrate South Asia economically, followed by strutures on security coordination...Leading upto (as a final destination), to structures like a SAFTA and politico-security architectures tackling terrorism, extradition etc within the subcontinent..

Karna_A wrote:The per capita income of BD and TSP is not much different inspite of TSP receiving $100 Billion + aid in last 60 years. Even 1/3rd similar aid to BD would have done wonders

BD actually is a far more robust economy than Pak today..BD's international credit rating is BB-, way above Pak's CCC..In HDI, BD's indicators are rapidly improving, and in some respects better than India's...In terms of pure economic growth itself, in recent years BD's record has been far superior to Pak..

India recently extended a 1 billion dollar credit line to BD - its a good start (of course some people have no clue on the differences beteen aid and credit), and utilisation of the same will indicate how closely the economics of investment can work out beteen the two countries...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Apr 2011 06:43

Some people are clueless about whether or not there is a huge difference between aid and credit in the impact on political and international relations.

As usual no exposure to political economy - and one knife to cut everything - "financial management" manages all.

Frederic · Post by **Frederic** » 17 Apr 2011 07:31

somnath wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Is somebody promoting here Peaceful Consolidation of the Indian Subcontinent?
That is precisely right..Though not in the manner of a "political re-integration" into India

It is about building cooperative structures to integrate South Asia economically, followed by strutures on security coordination...Leading upto (as a final destination), to structures like a SAFTA and politico-security architectures tackling terrorism, extradition etc within the subcontinent..

Karna_A wrote:The per capita income of BD and TSP is not much different inspite of TSP receiving $100 Billion + aid in last 60 years. Even 1/3rd similar aid to BD would have done wonders
BD actually is a far more robust economy than Pak today..BD's international credit rating is BB-, way above Pak's CCC..In HDI, BD's indicators are rapidly improving, and in some respects better than India's...In terms of pure economic growth itself, in recent years BD's record has been far superior to Pak..

India recently extended a 1 billion dollar credit line to BD - its a good start (of course some people have no clue on the differences beteen aid and credit), and utilisation of the same will indicate how closely the economics of investment can work out beteen the two countries...

Somnathji,
What's with this "South Asian" this, "South Asian" that, hainji!

At least on Bharat Rakshak I thought the general consensus was to promote the term "Indian Subcontinent" instead of that obnoxious, perfdidious Foggy Bottom moniker "South Asia"!

Just as a matter of curiosity onlee, do you have any issues ( idealogical or otherwise), with promoting the term "Indian Subcontinent" instead of the sneaky "South Asia" being used by the "Bangalore, Kerala" types from across the border?

Best Regards
Fred

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 17 Apr 2011 08:42

Frankly even the Indian Subcontinent is a restrictive nomenclature. But for all purposes certainly better than the South asia crap. South Asia or the Indian subcontinent both in ways restrict India to the same geographical area intuitively. These terms are coming in because we are not at peace with our Dharmic ways or cannot go about that because of sensitivities and Political correctness. We shouild be referencing the region as Dharmic states or regions of Dharmic influence. That would obviously preclude Pak and BD, but it would highlight Nepal, Tibet, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, S Korea, Japan...it would unite the countries that hold the dharma chakra sacred. Our aim for the geographical region called the Indian Subcontinent must be to bring it's folks under a constitution of SD and Dharma...and Dharma here is not Hindu or Buddhist religion. But it's fundamental lies in Vasudeva Kutumbhakam and 'God is one, but is worshipped by many names', Advaita, Dvaita, Nyaya all find a place in the sun. That essentially does not imply going back into the past, but only bringing back a core tolerant, pluralist value system and tradition to the fore. A truly by the people, for the people concept encompassing the Univ Charter of HR and more but on the basis of SD to define us and more.

It's only 60 years of complete Adharma in Pak..same time 60 years ago the very people who are now Taliban and AQ were followers of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan..a complete believer in Gandhi. Ustad Bismullah Khan...who ~~sang~~ (composed) some of the most beautiful Hindustani classical music was a Balaji bhakt and came from that region. He made music for him (Balaji) and did it right at his altar. Thats the Bharat and future of the Subcontinent and beyond in a way i seek and yearn. Not the Psec South Asian way. We will prosper only 100-150 years in that mode about max. Become possibly a superpower in 20-40 years and hand it over to those whose internal contradictions and conflicts have not ended 1600 years after their founder is dead in another 100 at most, maybe less.

Edit-Inadvertant honest error..corrected/ credits to Somnath Ji.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 17 Apr 2011 08:52

Frederic wrote:Somnathji,
What's with this "South Asian" this, "South Asian" that, hainji!

Fredereic-ji, I have no issues with the moniker of "Indian subcontinent"...Some of our neighbours might have for now, but ex-Pak, as linkages and engagements grow, "Indian subcontinent" would beome de rigeur...

[Anecdote: I see some of that in the "divisional nomenclatures" in banks - most banks still use "South Asia", or MESA (Middle East and South Asia - typically when SA excludes India, as we are too big and classify as a region stand-alone), but some have started using "India and subcontinent" in cetain areas...]

But really, "whats in a name"? It will happen in due course, as of now the bigger challenge is to get the nuts and bolts going...

And of course, the resident academic cannot help but make snide remarks...If one were to of course ask him for his definition of "hard terms" debt - again not a terminology used in international finance or economics - or data on how India is the highest "hard terms" creditor to BD, there would be a 500 word treatise on, abolsutley nothing (besides some snide remarks)...In terms of data of course, BD has no sovereign bond issuance outstanding, so the govt really has no "commercial market" borrowings at all..All its debt is bilteteral/multilateral credit, the details of much of which will not even be in public domain to make a call on whether they are "hard or soft"....BTW, it also has the issue typical of a lot of developing nations, ie, the annual biltral aid goes significantly in simply servicing offshore debt...

On the whole though, BD is a pretty well managed economy, has been for 7-8 years, with good growth and reasonable debt-service ratios...

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 17 Apr 2011 08:56

-------------deleted--------------

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 17 Apr 2011 09:13

Sorry Somnath Ji..Shenoi. Honest mistake really. (If you read the next line you'd also notice it was an honest error, else i'd have repeated it next line itself). I am/ was very aware Bismullah Khan was the greatest exponent of Shenoi. Was from UP but ethnically from NWFP?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 17 Apr 2011 09:20

harbans wrote:Sorry Somnath Ji..Shenoi. Honest mistake really. Was from UP but ethnically from NWFP?

No issues, harbans-ji, hota hai (certainly no reason to be sorry)

...I have deleted my post as well...

I dont think he was ethnically from NWFP - his father was a musician in the Bihar court - they belonged to the ganga-jumni tehzeeb perfectly!

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 17 Apr 2011 09:25

I said NWFP beause i assumed it was his ethinicity and he'd settled in Bihar/ UP. I know about lot of people from Western UP who left for Pakistan and Peshawar region. I assumed (unsure correctly) Mr Khan was from the same genre.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 17 Apr 2011 15:40

brihaspati wrote: It has become now fashionable to select aspects of Sanatana dharma and claim that they alone characterize Bharatyia tradition to the exclusion of all the other aspects. "Magnanimity" and "Oudarya" and "Vasudaiva Kutumbakam" is supposed to over-rule all other aspects of SD.

BrihaspatiJi: Audarya isn't meant for Kuravas and other Aasuri entities. Krishna's audarya was meant for all humanity. Note that Yudhishtira accepted Yuyutsu inspite of him being Kauravs' half-brother. This is from Bhishma Parva ...

O Yuyutsu, both Vasudeva and we all say to thee, I accept thee, O thou of mighty arms, fight for my cause." Casting his eyes then upon them, Yuyutsu said these words, with a cheerful heart, unto Kunti's son king Yudhishthira the Just, I will fight under thee in battle, for the sake of you all, with the sons of Dhritarashtra, if, O king, thou wilt accept me, sinless one' Yudhishthira said, Come, come, all of us will fight with thy foolish brothers. O Yuyutsu, both Vasudeva and we all say to thee, I accept thee, O thou of mighty arms, fight for my cause

All secularist thought says is - accept the Yuyutsu's and fight the Kauravas, and fight them with a Sudarshan chakra/Brahmastra what not.

Of course, Pandavas had to listen to many barbs by Draupadi in the buildup to the Dharmayuddh. Therefore, I recommend secularists to bear the barbs of those who mock them with similar patience

I don't mean to say that Congress is the manifestation of secularism. The 5 years of ABV-led NDA rule was no less or more secular.

So Bharat becomes a "mata" when its about allowing a certain faith free run of violence on its "body",

Just because extremists use a certain faith (I assume you mean Islam here), doesen't mean that faith is treading upon Bharat. Adherents of that faith have given their blood to defend Bharat mata too.

Bharat mata has children who'll defend her - but she cries whenever she sees her children in conflict - due to misunderstandings sown by outsiders.

You claim that their statements reflected a sentiment shared by the absolute majority of Indians at the time? Even by those suffering at the hands of ML organized looters and rapists and murderers?

I only claim that PanditJi mirrored the majority sentiment. I don't claim that PanditJi single-handedly created, and realized a secular nationalist vision. He was a representation of national will of the time. The will to put the religious frenzy of post-partition violence behind and concentrate on nation building.

You claim this at most 1/3 population's "proven" support for JLN or his associates as proof of the majority of Indian's support for statements by JLN?

BrihaspatiJi - just because only 1/3rd of the populace voted in those elections (let's dismiss all pre-independence ones), doesn't imply 100% of those 1/3rd were pro-Congress and 100% of the remaining 2/3rd were anti-Congress ? Congress of-course had the momentum of freedom movement which other groups did not. But Congress did not monopolize the freedom movement. Even in today's elections, voting %ge hovers around 60%, that doesen't mean the overall results are un-representative.

The adoration and respect for BapuJi+PanditJi was shown in the outporing of jan-stoma during their final journey too. How many contemporaries of his would have had such a following ? Note that those times, the crowds would not come for Biryani packets like in today's Congress meetings.

Can you please investigate and make a post on why dual constituencies were maintained in the first general elections and then quietly dropped from then on? What were the results of the dual constituencies in particular?

BrihaspatiJi - I'm ignorant of this aspect (nothing much other than your own post on BR dated 21/12/10 came up). If you consider that this was a substantial reason for PanditJi becoming the PM, please expand on this. Thanks.

PS: note, my defence of PanditJi dosen't imply I considers INC of today to carry his legacy.

Edit: factual correction on Yuyutsu's parentage.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Apr 2011 17:29

Extreme arrogance appears to consistently cover for consistent lack of any knowledge of where the data lies, or how to find it, or some basic acquaintance with "academics" as a method of logically coming to conclusion after proper research. What the narrow professional exposure to jargon does not capture is to be dismissed as non-existent and insubstantial.

Table-8.3
DONORWISE DETAILS OF HARD-TERM BORROWINGS Upto 30 June 2010
[...]
Country, Agency/Debt No./Loan Loan Description/Donor reference/ Agreement date
Agency
TOTAL: INDIA
Loan Amount net of
cancellation IRs 3776.219 (millions)
Disbursed 3425.486
Repaid 1745.276
Outstand- ing debt 1680.210
Grace Period
Interest (%)
Repay- ment Pe- riod(Yrs)
Down Payment

This table does occur on some government site. Data for India is there alongside other countries (with exchange rate adjustments it should be easy for those who have some basic hands on knowledge about how to compute to compare inter-country - of course it is another matter for those who lack such hands-on skills): "Donor" [one who gives - by Queen's English] is used in the same breath as "hard term" "borrowings" and "outsanding debt". Now I will expect a 1000 word treatise on how "borrowings" is completely "unrelated" and "out of context" with "debt", since they are derived etymologically from different roots in Queen's English.

Actually now it seems that apart from complete lack of depth in economics in its full mathematical/statistical/models blast, complete lack of exposure to political economy or international relations or policy studies - maybe there is also little knowledge of how "English" has evolved, with little knowledge of the root languages that are overlaid in English.

I can see some lucrative potential perhaps in a new training institute under the chancellorship of the sole comprehender of accurate Queen's English to teach a particular sovereign Government as to how it should not use the term "hard terms" in connection with "borrowings/debt" - because the high pontiff of international finance has banned it from usage.

Left out the source deliberately. But it exists for those who want to find it.