Bharat Rakshak

Acharya wrote:

Paul wrote:Asia is big but not big enough to accomodate three major powers - one has to go when the music stops.

Which three - Japan, India and China?

India, China, and Russia.


Japan is nothing but to put it crudely...a glorified Georgia. Georgia was a rookie, japan may be a knight...but it is still a pawn.

It can never be the Queen.

Russia though it has a large Asian presence its operating location is in Europe. It always was. So there are two real powers in Asia- China and India. US and Russia are the powers located outside with presence in Asia.

Russia's brain may be in Europe. But it's brawn is in Asia.

Had Japan gained the upper hand over Russia in the mid-30s in the pre WWII period (remember the Russian armies Zhukov commanded)....by now PRC would have occuping that space now. This could have led to China getting overstretched to take on Xinjiang and/or Tibet.

PRC needs space to expand. Due to Russian presence in the north they are expanding west and south into Indian sphere of influence.

This thought came to my mind becuz if one looks at the times when the Indic civilization was strong or even during the mughal era...there was no Russia then.

ramana wrote:Russia though it has a large Asian presence its operating location is in Europe. It always was. So there are two real powers in Asia- China and India. US and Russia are the powers located outside with presence in Asia.

There is also the will to exercise the power by the ruling elite which is very important.
Of these countries - India has the least demonstrated will power

Hence it reacts to events set in motion by the other three big powers.

What is Russia's interest in the great game...Is it possible that they also want to keep India away from Central Asia - hence leading to a major alignment of interests with the West and PRC...

Paul wrote:Russia's brain may be in Europe. But it's brawn is in Asia.

Had Japan gained the upper hand over Russia in the mid-30s in the pre WWII period (remember the Russian armies Zhukov commanded)....by now PRC would have occuping that space now. This could have led to China getting overstretched to take on Xinjiang and/or Tibet.

PRC needs space to expand. Due to Russian presence in the north they are expanding west and south into Indian sphere of influence.

This thought came to my mind becuz if one looks at the times when the Indic civilization was strong or even during the mughal era...there was no Russia then.

But the US/UK policy made it happen. WWII treaties with Stalin gave USSR enormous leverage to take over large areas.
Japan was abondoned in 1920 by UK/US which made it weak.

Acharya Saar: If you will recall the famous Molotov-Ribbentrop-Hitler exchanges in the phoney war period. Where the Nazis tried to sweet talk the Soviets to go for the IOR and east asia as their sphere of influence. Purpose was to get the Soviets to withdraw their claims in eastern Europe and Ukraine which the Germans saw as their natural lebenstraum. Molotov was too slick to fall for this trick and extacted concessions from the Germans in East Europe and did not even say thank you for the so-called concessions in the east.

The west did the same with Stalin in an effort to appease his appetite for east Europe territories. Same thing here.

The current cold war – II with Russia is continuation of this saga.

Whether it was the Nazis or the anglo-saxons, the objective is the same…get Russians to move east so that they move Europe east of the urals.

Such plans dont understand that Russia is the result of the Vikings who were under Tatar rule which formed their ideas of Russia. They want the East to ensure never again and they want to be in West because they are Vikings same as the rest of the modern Europeans. Thats why I say they will be in Asia but rooted in Europe.

Paul wrote:Acharya Saar: If you will recall the famous Molotov-Ribbentrop-Hitler exchanges in the phoney war period. Where the Nazis tried to sweet talk the Soviets to go for the IOR and east asia as their sphere of influence. Purpose was to get the Soviets to withdraw their claims in eastern Europe and Ukraine which the Germans saw as their natural lebenstraum. Molotov was too slick to fall for this trick and extacted concessions from the Germans in East Europe and did not even say thank you for the so-called concessions in the east.

The west did the same with Stalin in an effort to appease his appetite for east Europe territories. Same thing here.

The current cold war – II with Russia is continuation of this saga.

Whether it was the Nazis or the anglo-saxons, the objective is the same…get Russians to move east so that they move Europe east of the urals.

Yes, I was referring to the same period. What is the interest of the western Europe in the Eastern Europe. Once this is understood then long term trends are evident.
This is basically a war between the Western Anglican/Catholic Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians going on for more than thousand years. Poland and Ukraine are still coveted by the Western Europeans.

Russia core is still the Moscovy region and any advance towards that region will invite the Bear.
So there is no question of Eastern asiatic region being the center of Russian policy.

The Russian Orthodox church, centered around Moscow. Czar Vladimir's conversion to Orthodox Christianity a thousand years ago, was followed a conversion of Pagan Russia to Orthodox Christianity, bringing with it the hatred of the Jews. This resulted in purges of Jews from Russia. The Jewish retaliation and it took control of Russia in the Bolshevik revolution. With the fading of Bolshevism in the late sixties, Russia once again became a spring board of a massive Orthodox Christian Revival. This latter movement has had consequences across the world, for it involved the use of islamic and other fundamentalisms to attack non-communist democracies like India. Although having a animosity towards the Catholic church, and to a lesser extent with the Protestant church, they do not hesitate to collaborate with them when fighting against Jews and Pagans (Indians). It today forms a formidable threat to the Western European powers.

Finally Caroll Quigley's insight are bieng understood here.

Wiki link: Caroll Quigley.

Scroll down and read his lectures. Once they were very highly classified.

Ramana is right - Russia will continue to be culturally rooted in Europe - in fact cultural differences between Europe and Russia have steadily decreased as the centuriess have passed, and will continue to decrease.

In terms of Russia's 'Asian' role, the term Asia is so Eurocentric as to be almost meaningless. Much of Siberia (up to Lake Baikal) is in ways an extension of European Russia.

What really exists as far as Russia's border with 'Asia' is concerned are a number of specific areas - the Caspian basin, Central Asia, and North East Asia.

Of all of these Russia is the weakest in NE Asia, and has always been for demographic and geographic reasons. Russia has never been the dominant power there for more than five minutes. The Japanese, the Americans, and the Chinese all have deeper reservoirs of power in the area.

Central Asia and the Caspian are places where Russia has rebuilt influence but where it can *not* act unilaterally - it relies on the need of countries like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan for no-questions-asked support, and it relies on Khomeinist Iran's international isolation. It is only when Iran is either isolated or dysfunctional that Russian influence in CA and the Caspian can be that strong.

Paul wrote:The west did the same with Stalin in an effort to appease his appetite for east Europe territories. Same thing here.

The current cold war – II with Russia is continuation of this saga.

Whether it was the Nazis or the anglo-saxons, the objective is the same…get Russians to move east so that they move Europe east of the urals.

Im not sure in what sense you are using the term 'Anglo Saxons'

British policy during the period of peak Russian imperial expansion from Catherine the Great onwards was to keep Russia out of the Mediterranean, and keep it out of the Indian Ocean. British policy never wavered on those elements, ever.

Traditionally Britain generally didnt get too involved with continental European affairs *unless* there was a threat to Belgium and Holland, or a direct threat to the isles.

The Americans only brushed up with Russia in the framework of its Pacific policies - opening Japan and Korea, keeping China open, and the purchase of Alaska.

France on the other hand had a much more defined continental policy - keep Germany harmless (fragmented until Bismark, and post-WWII subordinated to the EU) and keep a big buffer between Russia and the rest of Europe. It was French policy that became Allied policy after 1938. That is why France, even at periods of the greatest friction with the US (De Gaulle in the 1960s and Chirac) never left NATO.

Acharya wrote:The Russian Orthodox church, centered around Moscow. Czar Vladimir's conversion to Orthodox Christianity a thousand years ago, was followed a conversion of Pagan Russia to Orthodox Christianity, bringing with it the hatred of the Jews. This resulted in purges of Jews from Russia. The Jewish retaliation and it took control of Russia in the Bolshevik revolution.

so the bolshevik revolution was a jewish conspiracy.

Acharya wrote:With the fading of Bolshevism in the late sixties, Russia once again became a spring board of a massive Orthodox Christian Revival. This latter movement has had consequences across the world, for it involved the use of islamic and other fundamentalisms to attack non-communist democracies like India.

So you believe orthodox russia is using jihadists against India. so why are the jihadis in chechnya killing russians then. let me guess, some jews wearing a hijab are killing the russians there and all this is an jewish conspiracy. right?

Johann wrote:Traditionally Britain generally didnt get too involved with continental European affairs *unless* there was a threat to Belgium and Holland, or a direct threat to the isles.

Johann, but British have always kept a hawk's eye on the Continent, attempting to make sure that no power ever gets dominant---supporting the weaker to balance the stronger. This should qualify for an involvement.

Surinder,

Britain very rarely took a lead role in setting the conditions of the balance of power within Continental Europe. It functioned very much like an outside power, without particular affection or animosity to any particular player. Its geographical permanent interests were the British isles, Holland/Belgium/northern atlantic France

Russia was not a power of *particular* interest *except* in relation to their expansion towards the Mediterranean and Indian Oceans in the late 18th century.

Traditionally France was the westernmost country that particularly cared about the balance of power in Central/Eastern Europe.

The early 20th century saw a shift caused by the first age of globalisation. Both Britain and the US reluctantly found that they could no longer stand aloof from that question. I say reluctant because as maritime powers they were not keen on being drawn in to continental struggles.

Which is why in both WWI and WWII Britain, France the US and Russia found themselves allied against German expansionism, while in the Cold War Russia and Germany exchanged positions.

p.s. I replied to your post on Pakistan and dar-ul-Islam on the previous page.

Britain very rarely took a lead role in setting the conditions of the balance of power within Continental Europe. It functioned very much like an outside power, without particular affection or animosity to any particular player. Its geographical permanent interests were the British isles,

Paul wrote:

Britain very rarely took a lead role in setting the conditions of the balance of power within Continental Europe. It functioned very much like an outside power, without particular affection or animosity to any particular player. Its geographical permanent interests were the British isles,

Paul,

Once you can stand up again you might want to investigate if any British figure after the medieval era did what Cardinal Riechlieu, Mazarin, Catherine the Great, Napoleon, Tsar Alexander, Metternich,, Bismarck or Franz-Jospeh did - set and maintain the order of the Continental Balance of Power.

Rather than the expensive and difficult business of competing for power within Europe, Britain bypassed it by expanding in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, with the Mediterranean linking them.

The exception was of course during the Napoleonic Wars, where the British took the lead in 1806 after Napoleon's declaration of the Continental System which attempted to place a total embargo on Britain.

WWI marked a turning point - a return to Continental commitments, but in a supporting role. Even in WWI, Allied priorities were set by the French who by far had the majority of troops fighting on the Western Front. Do you remember who was Supreme Commander of the Allied Armies? How about WWII and the Cold War?

France was the natural candidate to have built and led the coalition against Nazi Germany in the 1930s, but although it was the first to issue warnings, it was utterly psychologically exhausted from WWI, and unwilling to act. Britain as usual was unwilling to take the lead in continental affairs.

Johann: I would rather focus on Disraeli, Gladstone, Pit, Milner, Cecil Rhodes, Churchill, and the writings of Carroll QUigley amongst others.

Rest assured I will post a detailed writeup with references.

This thread is to define and understand great power interaction from the Indian point of view.

However I do see I made my point.

As far as an Indian goes view, I dont know of any knowledgable or experienced Indian who regarded Britain as the key power in terms of setting the agenda and leading events in Continental Europe.

I'd really be quite surprised seeing a sound case for the opposite.

The few old John Bull flag wavers still around would be quite thrilled to learn how the British were stronger than anyone ever imagined or gave them credit for.

p.s. If you want a British name relevant to the time period, you might want to look at Castlereagh

See my reply in non western world view thread

not fully topical to the discussion, but here goes
after '47 our forex was held in pounds. when did we shift to dollars and why ?

Rahul M wrote:not fully topical to the discussion, but here goes
after '47 our forex was held in pounds. when did we shift to dollars and why ?

Our forex reserves are quoted in dollar terms since that is now the benchmark currency. That does not necessarily mean we hold that many dollars. Our forex assets are diversified with diff currencies, bonds, T-bills, etc. This change is denoting forex values in dollar terms probably coincided with the oil boom of late 60's - early 70's when dollar pretty much became the benchmark currency. Of course, this is only my understanding and may be wrong. More knowledgeable folks can correct me.

thanks boss, I'm really ignorant of economics.

ChandraS wrote:

Rahul M wrote:not fully topical to the discussion, but here goes
after '47 our forex was held in pounds. when did we shift to dollars and why ?

Our forex reserves are quoted in dollar terms since that is now the benchmark currency. That does not necessarily mean we hold that many dollars. Our forex assets are diversified with diff currencies, bonds, T-bills, etc. This change is denoting forex values in dollar terms probably coincided with the oil boom of late 60's - early 70's when dollar pretty much became the benchmark currency. Of course, this is only my understanding and may be wrong. More knowledgeable folks can correct me.

Since I can't edit the above post anymore, here is the added portion.

Rahul's question has got me thinking - Till about the mid 60's, the ME nations held their forex in INR(actual holdings). Then the oil gushed in and along came the USD. I am wondering how and where does this fit in the Great Game? How did this event impact/affect India in this Game? TIA

Ramana has posted on this before....

ChandraS, the gulf states actually used INR as their currency, not just for forex.
googling I found that GoI actually had created a "gulf rupee" in 1959.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_rupee

Paul, sorry for being late to the party. could you just point me to ramana's post ?
thanks.

1965 was a key year when the US took over the GB trading area and that included the rupee from the Middle East.

Johann,

Thanks for the reply on Britain's role in the continent.

A follow up question on the Pakjab from the pages before :

Johann wrote:I dont think its impossible - those kinds of dreams were brought by the Mohajir elite, and they have in many ways buried Pakjabi identity underneath it - the adoption and promotion of Urdu for example. Pakjab needs to shed Urdu and reassert its regional identity, which will pave the way for it to become a 'normal' Muslim state. Once that happened relations with the Indian Republic would improve quite dramatically.

Are you saying that the Mohajir elite are are the real reason for Pakjabi delusions of return to Mughal glory?

Pakjabi identity would never give up on Urdu and go back to Punjabi identity. Their inferiority complex at the language and culture of Punjabi was evident even before partition.

What is surprising is that the Pakjabi (Punjabi mussalman) were a very unlikely and surprising inheritor of the Pakistani ideology. Before the demand of Pakistan, they have lead a very unremarkable (and invisible) existence in India. Unlike the Pathans, who were great warriors and conquerers, or the UP Muslims, who excelled in high culture and sophistication, the Pakjabi have been utterly unremarkable in any field of activity. Even in the current Pakistan, it hard to find a single Punjabi warrior to name a missile. Prior to the Pakistan movement, they have shown no signs of being a force to be reckoned with. During the Sikh rule, they were one of the most loyal subjects. During the British rule, they were the most loyal subjects. During the Pathan rule, they were the most loyal subjects. If you look now, they head a nation that deals with the most sticky international problems, punches above its weight, is a nuclear power, is considered by all super powers in their calculations. I have to grudgingly condede that they are skill full in their dealings.

As a corallary of what I wrote in the paragraph above, maybe (just maybe), the Pakjabi is not *actually* delusional about bringing back the days of Mughals, Ghori, & Ghaznavi upon India, maybe it only *feeds* and plays on the delusions of other subcontinental muslims. Pakjabi itself is not under the delusion, it is only selling this idea, but does not buy it itself. For the Pakjabi strength comes not from its own, but it is based on the sacrifices of the other muslims (Indian muslims, Pasthuns, Mohajirs, Baloch, Singhi, Bengali, Arab). The Pakjabi is essentially fun-loving and given to elaborate games, schemes and deceptions; it has shown scant desire to bear the brunt of sacrifice or pain.

Good thoughts, but

During the British rule, they were the most loyal subjects. During the Pathan rule, they were the most loyal subjects. If you look now, they head a nation that deals with the most sticky international problems, punches above its weight, is a nuclear power, is considered by all super powers in their calculations. I have to grudgingly condede that they are skill full in their dealings.

It does not take genius to ingratiate oneself to America by prostituting airbases, the army, ISI, generals, politicians to serve America's errands (be they diametrical oposed-shooting in one direction and 15 yrs later shooting in the opposite direction). It takes only a bully's cunning to flatter a bigger bully and fetch China's water. Pakistan is not a country or a people, it is a concierge service.

Surinder ,
There might be truth in your evaluation of Pakjabis. Funny thing is Pakjabis have never won any war . They fear 47 might get repeated on them . The Biharis, UP and other Islamists responsible for making Godfather Djinna have gotten away unscrathced . This was a mistake and it is still them now who are longing for Aurangjebi rule.

Emma Duncan quotes a Pakjabi about how they suffer in the modern islamic state. He is forced to listen and speak Urdu which is alien to him He cant use his favorite swear words for his children say it makes him uncultured.

So where is the nazaraiya pakistan fostered?

NA=Nazariya PAK= Pakistan 's victims are Pathans and now Pakjabis are haunted with this thought of being hunted by the followers of Nazariya. Sindhis and Balochs were duped and Frontier had no choice . Soon it will back to Pre 47 days and this time the Danda to beat Pakjabis will come from the Western side. Think of Pakjabis having their back to the Wagha wall and big Pashtoon pressing them from the front.

Though this is more relevant to the geo-political thread,see how Syria has leveraged the situation in Georgia to acquire much needed Russia military hardware,which it could not get earlier.A lesson for India too.the Great Game is inded being played out on a wider front than before with the energy equation roping in newer players.The Indo-Iran-Pak pipeline is a vital agreement that we must clinch as it will give us energy security,keep Pak quiet to an extent-as it also benefits Pak and will help hopefully to reduce regional tension.But this does not benefit the US in any way,which wants war and war-like situations in the region so that it can intervene and establish a permanent presence,far from its own borders! This is the crucial key factor in the US's strategy.Fight the wars of the future far away from US territory,in the lands of one's enemies and weaker nations,who will have to buy weaponry and seek powerful protection.So wag the dog and actively support one kind of terrorist while fighting another.

Syria seeks weapons deal with Russia amid 'Cold War' ripples
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 05449.html

Big-power strategic alliances shift as result of Georgia conflict

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Friday, 22 August 2008

The ripples from a short and brutal war in the Caucasus spread out to encompass the Middle East yesterday, when the Syrian president rekindled a strategic alliance with Moscow that had been neglected since the Cold War.


The consequences of Russia's six-day war in Georgia have spiralled outwards every day since a French-brokered ceasefire was signed last week.

While the US and Russia initially confined their proxy war to flights of rhetoric, by yesterday Washington and the Kremlin were taking real punitive steps which show no signs of abating.

The arms talks between the Syrian and Russian presidents in the Black Sea resort of Sochi were the most public illustration of how alliances are shifting as a result of the war.

President Bashar al-Assad had flirted with the West of late and was a guest of honour at France's Bastille Day parade last month. Before the Georgia war, the West had high hopes of prising him away from Syria's key ally Iran, which the US accuses of supporting Islamic militants.

Those hopes were dashed when Mr Assad discussed an arms deal with President Dmitry Medvedev. A diplomatic source in Moscow said the leaders were preparing deals involving anti-aircraft and anti-tank missile systems.

Mr Assad issued a clear message of support for Russia's military crackdown in Georgia, which began after Georgian forces attempted to rein in the separatist territory of South Ossetia. "We understand the essence of the Russian position and its military response," Mr Assad told Mr Medvedev. "We believe Russia was responding to the Georgian provocation."

Washington and the other 26 Nato members have condemned Russia's "excessive" retaliation, which took Russian troops deep into Georgia proper. Speaking at an emergency meeting of Nato foreign ministers on Tuesday, the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, warned Russia against attempting to redraw the lines of the Cold War through stamping out by force Georgia's bid for Nato membership.

However, Mr Assad's talks in Sochi appeared to be a direct rebuff to Ms Rice, and came one day after the US and Poland inflamed relations with Russia further by signing a missile deal. Although the Polish government said there was no connection between the deal and the Georgia offensive, it seems Washington yielded to its demands for a battery of Patriot missiles to defend Warsaw in light of the six-day war.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's newly assertive Russia has long opposed Nato membership for Georgia and the Ukraine, as the Nato states encroach on its borders. It has now shown that it is prepared to use force to prevent the Nato expansion. Russia has also fiercely opposed US plans to base parts of a missile defence shield in Poland, and has threatened to retaliate against Poland with a possible nuclear strike over the deal, which was signed on Wednesday.

Diplomats said the Polish government fears that Moscow may be tempted to switch off gas supplies to the former Soviet satellite republic, something it has not hesitated to do in the past.

At their crisis meeting, the Nato foreign ministers reiterated support for Georgia and Ukraine's eventual Nato membership – but the alliance has made it clear that it is not prepared to use military force. Its charter only guarantees military support for member countries that are under attack.

The US ambassador to Nato confirmed yesterday that on the eve of the attack on 7 August, Washington urged Georgia not to fall into a Russian trap by using force to recover South Ossetia.

"Including the day before Georgian troops went into South Ossetia, we said, 'don't do it, don't be drawn into a military conflict, it's not in your interest'," the ambassador, Kurt Volker, told Norway's Institute of International Affairs. "But the pressure on [Georgia] was too great and they felt they had to act... that gave Russia the excuse they were looking for to launch a massive military operation with over 20,000 troops."

Russia retaliated yesterday against Nato's decision to freeze relations with Moscow until its troops left Georgia. Nato said it had received notification through military channels that Russia's Defence Ministry had decided "to halt military co-operation events between Russia and Nato countries until further instructions".

Three Nato warships entered the Black Sea yesterday for what Nato said were long-planned exercises.

PS:THis revelation about waring Georgia shows that the plan to attack S.Ossetia had been planned earlier by the US advised and backed Georgian troops .The only problem was that Shaky-willy jumped the gun and got his timing terribly wrong.That the US wanted Georgia to "punish" Russia was definitely a long-term plan that has now resulted in a devastating defeat for US chicanery in the region.

3 NATO warships enter the black sea on long-planned training exercises, eh?

Wow. The nerve. Unkill obviously calculates any attack pon its warships would be a step too far. But hat would depend on what it or its proxies plan to do with their power projection, I would surmise.

My fear is that such aggressive US moves and Russo countermoves could result in a breakdown of the 4th protocol (with due apologies to Frederick Forsyth) - that no one side shall arm non-state actors with suitcase WaMaDas.

And that would be the end of civilized transactions - in trade, tech, knowledge sharing, commerce of all sorts etc. That would be a tragedy of proportions we haven't even started to imagine.

Its onlee now that the US-PRC axis is beginning to realize that TSP too was all along a non-state actor onlee. Having leaked wamadas to them may coming back to bite the P5 in the backside anyday. And India is trapped by geography to bear close witness.

Ramana:

The viewpoint of a single Pakjabi does not necessariyly respresent the views and status of the entire 60 million people. Pakjabis (with very very minor exceptions) view Punjabi as a crude unsophisticated language and their punjabi culture with disdain. The exceptions to this are when they want back-slapping swearing and ribald fun times. Otherwise Punjabi is associated with being illeterate or just being "paindoo". They yearn to speak Hindi (which they call Urdu) and the high culture which supposedly comes from it. The city folks, those with even a little education prefer Hindi. They encourage their children to do the same too. A very ******** and disoriented approach, if you ask me.

(As an aside, the situation in Indian PUnjab is only marginally better: Many (not all) Punjabi Hindus have an attitude that is not too different, though.)


Prem,

You are absolutely right. The UP, Bihari, MP, AP etc. mozlems got away with vivisecting the country. They saw no consequence for their action. Most continued to stay in India after having actively supported its division. This is something India is paying for, and will continue to pay for a very very long time.

Yes, and the Pakjabi has never won *Any* war. That is true. There is no Pakjabi hero in the last 500 years since the ROP came to them. They cannot find Pakjabi to name a missile, if their lives depended on it.

Sanjay Kumar:

You are indeed right that TSP is merely a conceirge service (more polite than calling it c0nd*m). But do not merely focus on that. Even concierge services have to be deft in dealing with customers. This requires skill in international affairs. It requires to change on a dime (which Musharraff's TSP did on Sept 12, 2001). Also, imagine a country that is so enormously backward in education and science and technology. It has no IIT, no IISC, no AIIMS. It produces maybe 5 Ph.D.'s, all of poor qualilty with stolen ideas. But is now a nuclear power. That is remarkable. They have occupied 1/3 of Kahsmir, which they took by force from a country 7 times its size. (Imagine India, being sh1t scared of Chine, which is merely 3 times its size.) This is indeed remarkable.

Imagine, if India was run by Paki brains. And TSP was run with Indian brains. Pakistan would be history. Broken into small townships, killed, assimilated, destroyed.

Not to belabor the point. Who are the custodians of the idea of Paskistan aka Nazariya -e-Pakistan? If all thes groups are dissillusioned then how does it sustain? Is it periodic prodding from outside forces to select adherents that keeps the idea going? Is it comprised off elements of RAPE, Mullahs and Army?

If this a small group then it can be targetted to let the majority know the impacts in case they dont understand.

Surinder, I thought Punjabi is what is called Paschimi and Hindi is what is called Purabi. In TSP Punjabi is in Arabic/Persian script. In case of Persain since all of Persai got Islamised there is now angst even though the language is Arabic script ancient language. That is not the case for TSP Punjabi.

X-posted, and request the poster to come back...

parsuram wrote:/Lurking mode off/

acharya:

It is simplistic to view Indian policies in the way dipicted in the post you have quoted. South block has been far more aware of trends in geopolitics than anyone gives them credit for. One can see the consequences for India and its security through the turbulent end of the 20th century, particularly disintegration of the USSR. India came through that period with minimum damage.

This Georgian incident appears to be an opning gambit in Russia's counter offensive against US/NATO's disasterous geopolitical offensives following the fall of the Soviet state twenty or so years ago (Balkans, Middle east, south asia). We are going to see a reversal of fortunes, strategies & roles in Afghanistan. A new "northern alliance", with covert material support from Iran and Russia, with Indian tacit approval & "peaceful" participation on the ground, will likely begin a new & successful "jehad" against US/NATO forces in Afghanistan. In fact, a long term US/NATO presence in Afghanistan is probably the last hope of the pakis to keep their artificial "country" together. But Russian/Iranian supported bleeding of US/NATO forces in Afghanistan will drive them out in a lot less time than the Soviets held out. When it comes to bleeding & body bags, US/NATO are far far more squeemish at the sight of blood & death than any other armed force in the world. And in the subsequent obvious conflict between opposing Jihads (Taliban from the south and new NA from the north), the Taliban will finaly bleed to death, putting Afghanistan squarely in Russian (& Indian) orbit. That should also begin the long delayed unraveling of the artificial construct otherwise known as paki stan. As usual, and contrary to paki hi expectations, China will intrude minimally in this process. What matters is that with retreat from Afghanistan, and also from Iraq (foregone conclusion), US/NATO will find itself in an unusual (for it) defensive mode. The consequences for India, while full of cautionary circumstances, will be nothing but fruitful.

/lurking mode on/

Google Book

Central Asia and the World

Edited by Michael Mandelbaum.

A CFR book written in 1994. very good background material. It really is journal as it has many essays.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/pakistan.html

Pakistan maps....Probably Sumit Ganguly has worked on this..