Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Mar 2010 22:25

What I am saying is that we need military strategic thinking even in economic and business field.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Mar 2010 02:57

http://ipcs.org/seminar/army/india-chin ... e-824.html

China’s military modernization and specifically China’s approach to Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) is important. RMA in the US including military technical revolution took place in the context of the Cold War. It was diagnosed by the Soviets who observed that advances in computer processing were enabling the US to develop an ability to launch precise strikes deep into Soviet territories. Enhancing and improving precision strike technology constituted the core of RMA in US military thinking. Therefore, there has been no revolution in the US per se because it has remained limited to long range strikes, precision engagement and reducing collateral damage.

The Chinese writing on what happened during the first Gulf war and Kosovo reflects a very different view. The translations of Chinese writings are quite striking for they demonstrate greater emphasis on information revolution than on precision strike. By RMA China meant information deterrence, information war and an informationized battlefield. Notion of paralysis combat and invisible forces are terms taken from the translation of PLA journals and Chinese strategic writings. Since the 90's, the Chinese have been thinking about warfare under informationized modern conditions. In fact, even the Chinese classical texts including Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of War’ demonstrate an emphasis on information and managing perceptions, superior intelligence, and the idea of winning without fighting. At the same time, the Chinese are thinking of the opportunity that information revolution provides in order to further asymmetric warfare. Unlike nuclear technology which is highly protected, information technology is relatively easy to acquire. The American approach to military affairs is based on launch precision strike with reduced collateral damage. But the Chinese approach to military revolution focuses on information warfare, idea of information deterrence and information umbrella, replacing the nuclear umbrella. . It goes well beyond military spheres, cyber espionage, and cyber hacking. Further they also talk about surprise attacks, need for serialized attacks, warfare engineering, cyber attacks and use of space.

The other portions of the summary refer to standard scenarios we talk on BR - like proxy conflicts to distract IA, etc.

However, one of the things about "information warfare" is that it in itself is vulnerable to "double dealing". Which means too much of elaborate aggressive planning in info war can unravel if the other side deliberately and carefully plants disinformation. So the Indian strategy can be to create a situation so that the quality of retrievable information from the Chinese side about India,degrades continuously over time. In this sense, parallel dedicated cyber nodes like BR could very well serve as source for counter disinformation.

For example, if I say, that we should encourage more Chinese investments in POWI - because in the end, it will all be India's, - there is no guarantee, that I am not serving as the mouthpiece of "powers that be" who have their own plans about POWI but which they cannot officially declare or identify with publicly (or even be forced to deny in public).

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 Mar 2010 04:39

Acharya wrote:What I am saying is that we need military strategic thinking even in economic and business field.

Well said.

Our alternative governance structure should have this re-grouping, IMO.

Some thoughts on this -

Council of Ministers should be divided into 5 groups under PM. These 5 senior ministers act as deputy-PMs. After allocating non-planned portion of the budget, the planned section of the budget has to be divided into these groups.

1. PM
- 2. National Security
-- a. Defence
-- b. Military Industry & Research Labs
-- c. Roads, Railways & Airports
-- d. Power, Petroleam & Natural Gas

- 3. Internal Affairs
-- a. Home Affairs
-- b. Law and Justice
-- c. Communications & IT
-- d. Urban Development
-- e. Information & Broadcasting
-- f. Labour and Employment

- 4. External Affairs
-- a. Foreign Relations
-- b. Trade
-- c. Overseas Indian Affairs
-- d. Civil Aviation
-- e. Tourism
-- f. Affairs of World Bodies - UN, WB, IMF etc

- 5. Natural Resources
-- a. Mines
-- b. Tribal Affairs
-- c. Social Justice and Empowerment
-- d. Youth Affairs and Sports
-- e. Forests
-- f. Fisheries
-- g. Water Resources & Rivers (Nationalize Rivers)
-- h. All govt. Lands (irrigated, non-irrigated etc)
-- i. Space
-- j. Education & Research
-- k. Health
-- l. Human Resource Development
-- m. Agriculture

- 6. Finance
-- a. Finance
-- b. Planning
-- c. Pensions & social security
-- d. Public Enterprises & non-military industries (textiles, steels etc)
-- f. Rural & Urban Development
-- g. Commerce
-- h. Food processing industries
-- i. Shipping

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 11 Mar 2010 07:52

IMHO,the future scenario must muster some positive observations beside many D and G apprehensions. The Geopolitics will/ can be change for ever once Indian turn nationalistic after reaching the medium term target of being 3rd largest economic power along with military strength and scientifc achievements at global stage. With so much Indian young blood surging to come " online" in next few years, we must offer a New Deal to the both civilized and brute world out there. Manufacturing, services, R&D,literarure and philosophy etc all must be dominated by upcoming Aryavartis.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Mar 2010 08:22

The WKK/Colonial born generation has to pass on.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Mar 2010 03:25

From a tip-off from Acharya-ji on the AFG thread: (quoting from rediff as link on Acharya-ji's post is restricted)
http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/feb/ ... -india.htm

According to Crile, Wilson had said that had India joined the Americans in opposing the Soviets in Afghanistan, India would have been able to impress its own Muslim population. New Delhi [ Images ] missed a golden opportunity to win the hearts of its Muslims, he had said. Crile, who died in 2006, had also said Wilson was upset over India seeking to play a role in ousting the Taliban [ Images ]. He disliked the Taliban but thought India did not have the moral spine to be active in Afghanistan.

"He [Wilson] did something extraordinary, something like what Churchill did to defeat the Nazis," Crile had told Rediff-India Abroad. He also said that Wilson had an extraordinary ability to bend the law, even subvert it because he had "the bigger picture in his mind" all the time.

The strange assumption in Wilson, if true, that India could "impress" its "own Muslim population" by fighting the Soviets - concisely shows up everything that is wrong in the US understanding of Islamism. Also all the reasons why its tactics will fail. It also shows that USA no longer produces statesmen and only politicians.

(1) He assumes that India needed to impress its "own Muslims"! Now why would India need to impress Muslims in India? India need not have felt its "own Muslims" to be Muslim first, and Indian second. For Wilson, national identities are inferior to religious identities. Nothing wrong in that, but assuming that a desperately trying-to-be-secular-India still within a decades shadow of '71 Islamist atrocities, and the post "independence" radicalization of both BD and POWI, would even dare to toy with the idea of "encouraging" a new surge of Pan-Islamism on the subcontinent, is the height of stupidity. It shows a complete lack of awareness of the intricacies of national perceptions of countries that do not belong to one's own cultural hegemony. Only an absolute asinine politician would forget that in Indian eyes, USSR was the benefactor and balancer of power projected by the USA and the western allies in favour of POGWI.

(2) He "dsiliked" the Taliban, but obviously he "disliked" India more - so that Indian attempts to oust the lesser disliked entity were also "disliked". So his dislike of nations are graded on how much those nations fail to align with his personal preferences. He wanted to "defeat" the evil empire. Taliban was "liked" because they shared his personal dislike. India was hated because India did not share his "dislikes" and disliked the entity he liked. It is all about he, him, himself, his. From an American's viewpoint, perhaps, USSR was an "evil" and anyone who helped in defeating the evil - was "good". But then this becomes hatred of the identity and not the ideology. For example, USSR stood for a force that typically went against fundamentalist religions, supported moves against fedualism, favoured womens' education, and in general had stood in favour of anti-colonial exploitation. These are "values" that are very much in essence bourgeois and capitalist - although of an earlier transitional era in Europe. Wilson, as an American should have found some of these values, and the role played by the USSR in many nationalist anti-colonial struggles of the so-called third world very much "likeable".

So his hatred is not really value based, but an unreasoned, "value-less" one. He shows here, that without having certain long term consistent values, one cannot fix the direction of the national effort towards a consistent future. Such people can be most effective politicians - superb manipulators and tacticians - but utter failures as statesmen.

As his comments show

Wilson had said on many occasions that it was not fair to blame him or likeminded people for driving out the Soviets from Afghanistan. 'We were fighting the evil empire,' he told Time magazine three years ago. 'It would have been like not supplying the Soviets against Hitler [ Images ] in World War II. Anyway, who the hell had ever heard of the Taliban then?'

For example, a statesman in his place - would realize that the USSR was actually creating conditions for a neucleus of modernization to take hold. That neucleus would have brought in modern education, enforced rolling back of feudalism and feudal structures, and a general repressive state machinery that would have repressed the Islamist religious mafia out of fear of rebellion. The two sides would have fought and bled each other so that they exhausted each other and a future generation could use that condition to transition to proper liberal/semi-liberal modern democracy. However the "leftist" interlude would have inserted certain modern and essentially west-European values that would have weakend Islamist retrogression in a country where non-Islamist progressive cultures or ideologies had been erased off completely. [Such an interlude was not necessary for India - as many of the progressive ideas could have also been sourced from pre-existing cultural elements - the first solid argument made out to justify widow remarriage was sourced not from any Europena text but a very Indian, pre-Islamic one by one member of the so-called forward caste educated in the supposed language of "discrimnators and casteist repressors" - Sanskrit].

(3) The lack of statesmanship shows up immediately in the blind admiration and little understanding he has about Islamism - as he should have been able to see the Taliban "coming", if he was so close to Zia, known about the hsitorical intricacies of the subcontinent.

If bin Laden and the leaders of Taliban benefited from the aid and turned against America later, Wilson argued, it was because America lost interest in rebuilding Afghanistan after the Soviet defeat.

Wilson's "simplicity" shows up, in assigning such simplistic cuases of "radicalization". A radicalized group which is fighting on religious and ideological grounds against obvious forces which are building educational apparatus for women or other elements of western-style "development" at least in the urban areas - would turn against the Americans becuase the latter did not do exactly those developments!!! Especially when Wilson, living until 2006 - could amply see that the Talebs were against all forms of development that the west understood as "development"!

(4)

Widely known for his playboy lifestyle, Wilson flew a Texas belly dancer to Cairo as he sought support from Egyptian officials for an arms transfer. On a government-funded trip to Pakistan, he openly traveled with a girlfriend, Annelise Ilschenko, a former Miss USA World. "Zia pretended she was not around," Crile said.

Wilson began taking interest in Pakistan and Afghanistan in 1982 when he added a stop in Pakistan during an official trip to the Middle East countries at the request of a Houston socialite, Joanne Herring, played in the film by Julia Roberts [ Images ].

Crile wrote in the book that Herring swept Wilson 'from the Bible Belt into her dazzling world of black-tie dinners, movie stars, countesses, Saudi princes and big-time Republican oil magnates'.

What is interesting here is the consistent pattern of very religious, "sacred text"-thumping, sort of puritanism in the mainstream of American politics that seems to come into play as a kind of guilt-compensation for a "less-than-ideal" lifestyle. From this springs a hidden admiration for the Taleb type of bearded-puritanism and perhaps even envious furtive glance at an imaginary "machismo" in religious fundamnetalists of the Islamic type. Inevitably, ladies of the more influential classes and social circles appear to play a catalytic role in bringing together Islamists and "conscientious" Christians. Is it possible that the American society is so uncomfortable with "normally assertive" femininity so much so that its "power ladies" suffer from the hidden drive to "submit" to "real men"? And the Saudi "princes" or the oil-barons and the Islamists from ME provide the appropriate image of machismo so dismissive of western liberalism about women? Or is it the right and deadly combo of flashing wealth and "exotic male dominance"? This could also be true of India! The strongest apologists for Islamism turn out to be women from non-Islamic but professionally advanced background - power-women to be exact.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Mar 2010 04:43

Bji,
Thanks for taking this up. There is fundamental mistake in the assumption of the anglo saxons on the Muslims inside India and how they look athe core values of India. If jihad is the core values of the Indian muslims and they expect all the Indians to rejoice in this then there is no future for the world.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Mar 2010 05:57

RamaY wrote:
Acharya wrote:What I am saying is that we need military strategic thinking even in economic and business field.
Well said.

Our alternative governance structure should have this re-grouping, IMO.

This is a very important that it needs deeper thinking. It cannot be a shallow answer.
Check this interview by Bharat Verma. See what he says at the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhUoIGwuYUw

manju · Post by **manju** » 12 Mar 2010 08:08

RayC wrote:I had a chat with Mr RS Gawai of the Republican Party, who I met perchance when I was visiting the Sankaracharya temple in Srinagar.

Since he is a Mahar and I was from a Mahar Battalion, we got talking and I asked him as a neo Buddhist why was he praying at this temple?

He said no matter what, the roots cannot be forgotten or totally discarded.

That is why you have the clamour for SC Christians (Mother Teresa also wanted the same and raised the issue later) and SC Muslims!!

I am not surprised with Sri Gawai, a Buddhist praying to Hindu Gods. It would be strech beyond imagination to assume the same for those who convert to Non-Indic religions.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 12 Mar 2010 08:45

Acharya-ji,

Thanks for the link and BV makes good points. Coincidentally I made a similar proposal to solve the Arjun-enigma. The key point is how to encourage all these power centers to work in harmony? I believe it is one of the core-aspects of governance/leadership.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Mar 2010 14:48

Shivji; you are placing a lot of hope and trust in the disaffection of common Abdul somehow rocking the apple cart of Pakistani state and making the life miserable, I personally think that while all the data points you have are fine, their interpretation into future leaves something be desired

Let me outline the chief difficulties with your scenarios (pointed before this post too)
1) Despite all the "peoples will" and "popular disaffection" type of rehotric, the fact remains that a "peoples movement" is usually nothing but a regime change by one set of elite by another set of elite. The people themselves remain at best a tool, with the tool being powered by the disaffection energy. The control of the tool is in other hands. Usually always in class of some other section of elite looking for a change in system (for whatever reasons) This has been beautifully expalined and illustrated by Brihaspati in multiple posts over multiple threads in multiple scenarios.

So the question is -- who in Pakistan has the potential to provide "alternate leadership from the elite" -- clearly as you have yourself demonstrated there is no middle class in Pakistan, and if there is any its a full subset of the RAPE class. So the typical set of people who have led the peoples movement all over, the psuedo-intellectual elite are conspicuously missing in Pakistan.

The only alterante leadership is provided by ? You guessed it, the Mullahs, usually of the fanatic persuasion.

In fact we already see the civil war in Pakistan being conducted by the two groups with common Abdul as the cannon fodder.

So the best case of dissolution of RAPE (not Pakistan) can come about by theological clergy.

2) The second point is SO WHAT? Fine we will have Pakistan led by a theological clergy instead of a RAPE class, what will it really change?

Are you hoping that its 3 and 1/2 firends will find themselves unable to use the psuedo-state of Pakistan any more? I wonder what that hope is based on since a very similar dispensation in Afganistan was supported earlier and seems to be all set for a return with the 3 1/2 support in a short time once more.

So instead of Pakistani state being comprised of Poor teeming Abduls with nothing to lose and a hypocrite Leadership -- we will have a Pakistan with a truly messianic leader (again not totally new, Zia was one) and leadership class who by and large practice what they preach -- AND a even poorer and even more teeming mass of sub-humanity that exists.

So yes Pakistan will truly be screwed as per our principles, I agree -- but so what from our perspective?

Notes
1) I think that 2 will happen and its a matter of when and not if
b) The above scenario will ensure that terror is fully unleashed from Pakistan on us in fits and starts.
c) The above may be GOOD for India in a way Bji means, we will be forced to retaliate (I have my own views)

But other than that I cant see how the current inaction of GoI allowing Pakistan to live its destiny of being a true basket case around our necks and keep hurting is periodically is good for us.

Pakistan is doing what it was designed to do -- be our Sisphuys stone and the continuting terror attacks are a part of that.

Just how do you find the status quo GOOD is what I cant figure out -- considering you dont share Bjis POV about (C) above

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Mar 2010 16:00

Why do we really have to go in cycles of arguments?

In every Islamic country which has successfully erased almost all the major elements of its pre-Islamic cultural identity, the theologian's preaching and insistence (with a good deal of initial elite help - because they think it will be useful for the elite) on total and absolute submission to "authority" as a religious commitment is more or less established.

This means, modern trends of popular democratic representation and expression has no outlet as in western style "liberal" democracies. Therefore in the peculiar social psychological conditioning of the Islamic society, such popular expression will take the form of more and more radicalization under the leadership of the "mullah" - for the mullah can choose to be independent of the esatblished rulership. Moreover, once Islamism is accepted as the basis of a society - with initial elite endorsement - the elite cannot back out later unless Islamism itself was formally proved/shown to be the major cause of a setback [Kemalite Turkey/early BD].

So the whole thing reduces to a perpetual struggle for power between the "mullah" - "the man of words" versus the elite rulership - "then man of action" for the control over the ideal of the state for Islamism - fusion of religious, legal, and executive authority in a single body not accountable to the public but to a suprahuman authority.

Under the circumstances, any clever mullah can use disaffection against the current regime to inch closer to that Islamic ideal and what in a modern democracy would have led to electoral changes in government composition, leads to a "purer" and more fanatical Islamist state.

It is a good thing that so many hate history - more hated and dismissed if history is explored for clues to future behaviour. This helps in the positivist glow of self-delusion that things will happen in the vanilla way we are comfortable with. In fact that is more a Hegelian "hidden hand of history" attitude that relies on "historical" forces to set everything "right" in a "positive" way on its own. By not looking into history for how certain groups wil behave in similar circumstances in the future - we do not fight the trends that lead to disasters and atrocities, and in the end allow history to clear the field of delusionists in our path. It is the delusionists who are the greatest obstacles and a nuisance - not Islamists.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 13 Mar 2010 17:38

i didnot know where to post this. thought b,ramana et al might be interested. this is an indian blog called sunninews.

looks like zakir naik is stirring some nests.
http://sunninews.wordpress.com/2008/11/ ... %99s-talk/

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Mar 2010 18:30

Re: Sunni reaction against ZN:

Maybe a separate site should be set up for following up on the various Christian and Islamic groups in India, and what they are saying. I know immediately some would say that the "Hindu" groups should also be "watched". But that job is is being done 200% by the 24-hour awake media and the majority of the political parties - who somehow never, ever manage the same amount of scrutiny on the Islamists and the EJ-ists. The Hindu groups really have no extra-territorial interests to serve - by the very nature of their power base and the coinstrained rhetoric that has to remain focused on purely Indian interests. However the EJ and Islamists share identities that are transnational and are most active reactants to whatever happens in their global cultural centres out of India.

The funny thing is that "fatwas" are becoming a natural and accepted part of Indian life. The whitewashing and "safe" reconstruction of Islam hides the natuer and significance of "fatwas". A fatwa is an essential part of an Islamic state, where "properly" qualified Islamic legal experts recognized by the Islamic state, issue legal injunctions based on interpretations of Islamic texts, binding on all in that Islamic state. Thus "fatwa" is a feature of a an Islamic state, and allowing it to become acceptable - becomes an indirect recognition of the Islamist to move towards a parallel state within a state.

This is the necessary fallout of recognizing indpendent religious centres of authority that come in between the Indian rashtra and its citizens. What right have any Islamist or any EJ to issue injunctions on who should be "banned"? Where will the Indian rashtra's vaunted secularism end if the "freedom of expression" is not held as a supreme right of the Indian citizen? How long should bodies that claim and share idenitities with power centres outside of India be allowed a free run and even allowed to dare to demand openly a ban on what an Indian citizen can say?

It is time Indians decide whether they are really going to be Indian first, and really establish their "secularism". Allowing these Islamic or EJ groups to freely challenge the basic rights and concepts that drive our rashtra, in the name of protecting minority [only] religious sentiments - is dangerous for the future of the rashtra. There have been a consistent raising of violent or loud claims of exclusivity and demanding immunity from any criticism or alternative viewpoints. I have many issues with Zakir Naiks misrepresentations - and have written extensively on how he faslsifies and whitewashes the real texts and his vitriolic misrepresntations of competing faiths. But I have never even thought of deamnding a "ban" on his words.

This banning and gagging is typical of Islamism. Allowing this to flourish is undermining of the authority of the Indian rashtra. If this GOI fails to take necessary steps, future India will suffer. On the other hand, maybe that is good also - for the compounded probelm and the immensely strenthened Islamist authorities will have to be dealth with much more harshly for a permanent solution.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Mar 2010 21:57

^^^

I registered a site for these purposes a couple of years ago. I havent done much with that. But can lend it

for secular purposes.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Mar 2010 22:00

The funny thing is that "fatwas" are becoming a natural and accepted part of Indian life. The whitewashing and "safe" reconstruction of Islam hides the natuer and significance of "fatwas". A fatwa is an essential part of an Islamic state, where "properly" qualified Islamic legal experts recognized by the Islamic state, issue legal injunctions based on interpretations of Islamic texts, binding on all in that Islamic state. Thus "fatwa" is a feature of a an Islamic state, and allowing it to become acceptable - becomes an indirect recognition of the Islamist to move towards a parallel state within a state.

This is very important observation. Unfortunately few idiotic hindu organizations fell in this trap, thus legitimizing in public psyche.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 13 Mar 2010 22:06

I was also thinking in the same lines. We can have few Cabinet Ministers

Security
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Home Affairs
Ministry of Law and Justice
Finance
Ministry of Finance
Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG)
Thirteenth Finance Commission
Public
Planning Commission
Directorate of Public Grievances (DPG)
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Central Information Commission
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
Election Commission of India
Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)
Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs
Industries
National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council (NMCC)
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Ministry of Commerce and Industry
Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers
Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises
Ministry of Labour and Employment
Ministry of Steel
Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Ministry of Textiles
Science
Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser
Ministry of Earth Sciences
Department of Atomic Energy
Department of Space
Ministry of Science and Technology
Social Development
Ministry of Minority Affairs
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
Ministry of Panchayati Raj
National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC)
National Commission for Minorities (NCM)
National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC)
National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST)
National Commission for Women (NCW)
National Commission on Population
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
Ministry of Tribal Affairs
Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region
Ministry of Rural Development
People Development
Ministry of Women and Child Development
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Ministry of Human Resource Development
Resources
Ministry of Tourism
Ministry of Water Resources
Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation
Ministry of Urban Development
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation
Communications
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Agriculture
Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution
Ministry of Food Processing Industries
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Transport
Ministry of Civil Aviation
Ministry of Railways
Ministry of Shipping
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
Mining
Ministry of Coal
Ministry of Mines
External Affairs
Ministry of External Affairs
Ministry of Culture
Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs
Energy
Ministry of Power
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 14 Mar 2010 23:58

These are the contradictions that come up when transnational affiliations are allowed by the Indian rashtra :

http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/they-ca ... -we-stand/

It’s natural for countries to review and revamp its foreign policy in light of national interests. Take Turkey – a Muslim country — for example. There are increasing indications of a new flexibility in Turkey’s approach towards India. Ankara traditionally had a staunch pro-Pakistan stance on Kashmir — advocating a UN-mandated resolution. Now, it has begun calling for a bilateral settlement of the Kashmir dispute, much to our comfort. Turkey remains highly concerned about the challenge posed by Islamist terrorism to the country’s democratic government, as do many other Muslim countries, like Yemen, Jordan and Egypt.

India’s relations with Israel are neither anti-Muslim nor anti-Palestine. Indian Muslims will always support the just cause of Palestine.

We as Indian Muslims will continue to view the blockade of Gaza as illegal, insane and unacceptable. Whenever Israeli planes pound innocent civilians in Gaza, we will demonstrate here in New Delhi. Our country believes in a permanent settlement based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), regardless of whether Israel’s stand on them.

How do we, as Indian Muslims, at once reconcile our bilateral ties with Israel and our support for Palestinians? The answer lies in Islam’s very approach towards Judaism. Remember, we are the very People of the Book. Remember, anti-Semitism is anti-Islamic.

These are poignant exercises at balancing a very tricky contradiction. So India's affinity for Israel is in the "national interest" but Israel's "national interest" is against "Indian Muslim" interests and therefore should also be against Indian interest.

The entire justification for opposing Israel's treatment of Palestinians is not being claimed here on any universal human rights concepts - but because the Palestinians are seen to be "Muslims". The interactions and attitudes should be based on the claim of being "people of the book"! Treatment of Judaism is different from "treatment of the Jews" - and all the incidentsmentioend in core Islamic texts are not a pleasant reading as to what the founding fathers of Islam did to the Jewish tribes or settlements.

If it is purely a case of national interests reigning supreme - and India suppose is in a situation where it is in its national interests in general not to pay much attention to Palestine - should not patriotic citizens of all religious backgrounds put the national interest first and their transnational interests second?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 15 Mar 2010 01:03

Don't they have a right to speak and for their opinions to be heard when deciding what is in "the national interest"?

If they feel Israel's actions towards Palestinians are immoral, don't they have a right to voice their opinion?

Are those who oppose Sri Lanka's actions towards Tamils "anti-national"? I don't think so.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Mar 2010 01:18

The question in reverse, why should the fate of Palestinian interests against Israels' overeride Indian national interests? Why does that overriding have to be based on religion and not on commonly accepted basic human rights?

You have not read my questions - if you accept the principle that "national interests" reign supreme, then if in a given situation India's national interests depends on good relations with Israel - why should the treatment of Palestinians at Israeli hands become an issue of overriding Indian national interest? Why should India make a religious communities overseas interests its "national interest" as an exceptional case when it does not do so for other religions in India - for example Hindus and Sikhs in POWI?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Mar 2010 01:29

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ ... 212a1.html
The latest expression of peaceful intent from Chinese academics:

Many in denial over China's quest for bases

By HARSH V. PANT
Special to The Japan Times

LONDON — For a long time, Chinese foreign-policy thinkers and the political establishment have been trying to convince the world that China's rise is peaceful, that China has no expansionist intentions and that China will be a different kind of great power.

What's striking is how many liberals in the West have taken these assertions at face value. There is an entire industry in the West that would have us believe that China is a different kind of great power and that if the West only gives China a stake in the established order, China's rise will not create any complications.

Now, however, one of the most prominent foreign policy thinkers in China is suggesting that establishing bases overseas is a Chinese right that the government cannot ignore. Shen Dingli, a professor at Fudan University in Shanghai, asserts that "it is wrong for us [China] to believe that we have no rights to set up bases abroad."

Dingli argues that it is not terrorism or piracy that poses the greatest threat to China's interests, but rather the potential of other states to block China's trade routes. To prevent this from happening, China, according to Dingli, needs not only a blue-water navy but also "overseas military bases to cut the supply costs."

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Mar 2010 01:41

Follow up in more technical details :
http://www.maritimeindia.org/pdfs/Chine ... %20Feb.pdf

China has deep anxieties about the geographical location of India that places it astride the
Indian Ocean. It has therefore always kept its options open with regard to deploying its armed
forces in the region. Thus the establishment of a Chinese naval base in the region, irrespective of
its location, would have considerable security implications for India. The sustained presence of
PLA Navy ships in the Indian Ocean, particularly in the Arabian Sea, will result in limiting the
availability of maritime space for the Indian Navy and curtail its area of influence. This will also
boost the morale of India’s inimical neighbour, howsoever notionally. The Indian Navy will have
to factor in the presence of Chinese naval ships in the Indian backyard while planning operations,
missions and exercises.

While there is neither any indication at present to suggest that China will set up a base in
Maldives or Seychelles, nor whether Maldives or Seychelles would willingly accede to any such
Chinese request, an attempt has been made to identify the most suitable location for China from
the maritime perspective. Given the Chinese propensity for springing surprises in international
arena all invariably ending up in its favour, the Indian strategic and security establishment must
take due cognizance of this probability turning into reality and prepare strategies to preserve the
Indian national interest in the Indian Ocean and its littorals.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 15 Mar 2010 01:45

brihaspati wrote:The question in reverse, why should the fate of Palestinian interests against Israels' overeride Indian national interests?

Who says protesting Israel overrides Indian national interest? The relationship with Israel benefits India, does that mean we on the individual level are obligated to justify every Israeli action? Btw to clarify, I support good relations with Israel as long as it benefits us.

However, Let us assume that "protest of Israel" and "support of national interests" are mutually exclusive. If people believe that the moral harms that Israel commits are greater than the benefits to the national interest of India, do they not have the right to have an opinion after weighing those benefits?

brihaspati wrote: Why does that overriding have to be based on religion and not on commonly accepted basic human rights?

How do you know they are not based on human rights as well as religion? There are many who oppose Israeli actions on religious grounds as well as many who oppose it on humanitarian grounds. In either case, why do they not have the right to speak?

brihaspati wrote: You have not read my questions - if you accept the principle that "national interests" reign supreme, then if in a given situation India's national interests depends on good relations with Israel - why should the treatment of Palestinians at Israeli hands become an issue of overriding Indian national interest?

Firstly, you have not shown that "protest of Israel" is in opposition with "upholding national interests".

Then I'd like you to tell me who decides "national interests". I believe it is the citizens of this country, of whom IMs are a part.

Now reign supreme over what? Some, if not many people believe that "national interests" should be maximized within a set of moral constraints. That is neither new nor peculiar to India or Indian Muslims.

Many Americans oppose good relations with certain countries due to moral grounds, despite the fact that they are in the national interest. Are they anti-national?

I know Tamils who opposed Sri Lanka's actions against the LTTE, are they anti national?

brihaspati wrote: Why should India make a religious communities overseas interests its "national interest" as an exceptional case when it does not do so for other religions in India - for example Hindus and Sikhs in POWI?

Care to clarify why Palestinians are characterized are a "religious community" and why support of Palestinians is characterized as "religious"? Ever spoken to Arab Christians btw?

Why does the GOI not do the same for other religions in India? The same standard should apply, and perhaps you should protest like the IM's do.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Mar 2010 02:24

Entire discussion was based on the quoted post. In that post
(1) the author justifies his demand that it is Indian national interest to protest alleged atrocities on Palestinians by Israelis - purely because "Indian Muslims" think India should do so, and Palestinian side should be taken up by India because they are Muslims. The author, unfortunately fails to mention any of the non-Islamic aspects of Palestine that you have so helpfully brought up. He does not mention common non-religious "human rights".
(2) My pointer is pretty strightforward - the author accepts that "national interests" can change long standing policies over and above previous moralistic concerns. Then he goes on to say that in the case it is about Islamic affiliations and identities, Islamic identity and its concerns, it is the latter which should become important.

Based on this my question was again quite simple - suppose in a given situation these two - good relations with Israel in "national interest" and taking up the Palestinian cause - clash. What then.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Mar 2010 02:29

Raises an interesting question: Why is supporting the Palestinian cause in the "national interest" of India?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 15 Mar 2010 05:06

It has nothing to do with the national interest of India.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 15 Mar 2010 19:28

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... GntEw72ik=

India up for sale to MNCs
The recent historic moratorium on Bt brinjal by Jairam Ramesh, minister of environment and forests, has created a network of citizens’ organisations around the country that have risen spontaneously from the ground, and have prevented the country’s agriculture becoming devoid of its diversity and moving in the direction of control by multinational corporations (MNCs). These corporations have strong links with the government of the United States of America US, and their sole objectives are (a) to make as much money as possible by any means, and (b) to eventually have total control over Indian agriculture, using every ruse known to the world of conmen. Unlike the government of India, they are fully aware that whosoever controls seed and agrochemical business in India, controls its agriculture. And whosoever controls our agriculture, controls India and its food security, for 62 per cent Indians derive their total sustenance from agriculture and, in our country, food security, food sovereignty, agriculture security, farmers security, and security of the rural sector, are synonymous and important components of national security and autonomy. If Bt brinjal had been approved, India would have, in course of time, ceased to be, de facto, an independent country and we, its citizens, would have had to start fighting the third war of independence which we would have eventually won, for truth always wins in the long run.

It is unfortunate that our government — our politicians and bureaucrats (exception granted) — and the rich and the powerful in the country, seem to be siding with the MNCs (read US), in their attempt to acquire control over our agriculture. This is reminiscent of India being ruled by the British through a class of Indians. Only the structure, colour and strategy of this class seem to have changed, while Britain has been replaced by the US plus the MNCs. Let us look at the evidence:

* We signed the India-US Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture during the first UPA government. Following this — and, perhaps, in preparation of this — our research and extension work in agriculture seems to have totally discounted our strengths and needs. Let me give some examples: The Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) has developed integrated pest management (IPM) and biopesticides for some 85 crops, including cotton and brinjal. Why have we not used these technologies instead of peddling Monsanto’s Bt crops?

Organic agriculture has been India’s forte. It brings better price for the produce. Andhra Pradesh already has two million acres under organic agriculture and has plans to take this area to 10 million in the next two or three years. Why are our Krishi Vigyan Kendras (I believe there is one in each district) not encouraging organic agriculture? Why does not ICAR have an institute devoted to organic agriculture?

Given today’s knowledge of molecular biology, why are our agriculture research scientists not developing varieties which would have the advantages of hybrids? The farmers can then have their own seeds and would not have to depend on seed companies. At a meeting that the director general of ICAR and I had co-chaired when I was the vice-chairman of the National Knowledge Commission, nine energy saving steps for agriculture were identified. Why have they not been taken?

The ICAR has published in several volumes, details of over 4000 traditional agriculture practices, many of which have been validated and cross-validated. We have many more documented by the National Innovation Foundation. Why are we not using the validated ones and taking steps to examine the remaining? Why are we not using our horticulture potential? For example, all the technology exists in the State Forest Research Laboratory of Arunachal Pradesh to grow over 600 orchids through tissue culture. These orchids can capture the world orchid market, replacing Thailand (for our orchids are far more beautiful and the world is tired of Thai orchids) and bring to Arunachal Pradesh a revenue of over Rs 10,000 crore a year. Why are we not pursuing the possibility?

Why is our department of agriculture not using the outstanding capabilities that our National Remote Sensing Agency has to, for example, identify diseased plants in a field so that one can prevent the spread of the disease?

* Ten of our leading CEOs signed the Indo-US CEO agreement (available on Planning Commission’s website) in which the Indian CEOs (led by Ratan Tata) agreed to put the lid on the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, promised not to give any trouble to Coca Cola and Pepsi irrespective of the quality and quantity of their misdeeds, and open our retail market to the US. There is already a US demand that India cuts down its subsidies to agriculture which are a pittance in comparison to what the US provides to its agriculturists.

* We recently signed secretly, an MoU on ‘Agriculture Cooperation and Food Security’ with the US, even though all the inputs we require — scientific, technological, managerial or social — to improve our agriculture to meet national demands (present or future) are available within the country. The MoU (The Hindu, February 24, 2010), for all practical purposes, appears to have handed over our food security and sovereignty, farmers security, agriculture security and security of the rural sector comprising 70 per cent of our population, to the US.

* The government has been supporting introduction of GM food and other crops in the country, which will eventually give control of our agriculture to US-based MNCs. Jairam Ramesh, taking into account overwhelming public opinion and unbiased scientific opinion has, rightly and courageously, in a statesman-like manner, put an indefinite moratorium on the release of Bt brinjal; he has gone on record to say that he has only two supporters in the government and the ruling party: the prime minister and Sonia Gandhi.

* Our surrender to the US seems to be total. If we buy nuclear reactors from the US (which we would be obliged to buy), we will pay most of the compensation in case of a nuclear accident, not the vendor of the reactor. And on the March 6, V K Saraswat, scientific adviser to our defence minister, said that the US is still denying us technology (Deccan Chronicle, March 7, 2010).

On November 10, 1698, Charles Eyre bought three fishing villages — Sutanuti, Govindpore and Dihi-Koikata — from a Bengali landlord for Rs1,300, and laid the foundation of today’s Kolkata. We are now trying to sell our entire country for a pittance (if for anything at all) to MNCs and the US. Those who are involved in this effort must understand that the citizens of this country are well-equipped to fight the third war of independence if that happens.

About the author:

Pushpa M Bhargava is the former vice chairman of the National Knowledge Commission

jambudvipa · Post by **jambudvipa** » 15 Mar 2010 21:55

Brihaspatiji,

I believe the espousal of the palestinian cause,the desperate need to identify a "secular" turuksha country ( a decade ago it was Malaysia /Indonesia who occupied this hallowed spot in the "liberal" Indian mindset.This quickly fell apart as the ground reality of racial and religious discrimination became apparent.From the thread on Turkey,it seems Turkey is the new contender for the top spot)and the stubborn refusal to accept the fact that the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train stem from a deep rooted fear of the turuksha.The reasons for this fear have already been discussed here.
The basic knee jerk reaction stemming from this "dhimitude" is to try and appease the agressor by defending him at every turn in front of co religionists,denigrating ones own religion and projecting ones own fantastical conceptions of the oppposing religion to try and prove that there exists a "mild" strain which is worth getting battered for.Couple this with an unwillingness to learn ones own history and to brainlessly mouth the same cliches over and over again.
And when this mentally bankrupt elite rule over the country it is not surprising when causes like the "palestine" start becoming "national intrest".
and our tendency to read the book the wrong way round, most of us go under the reasoning that because our doctrine is good, the opposing doctrine is good as well.The problem must lie with the interpretation by some of its followers.We get around to blaming the followers rather than the doctrine itself.Once the light of truth is shone on the doctrine itself ( thanks to the internet already happening),the darkness will dispel.
Anecdotally, in our family it was always related that when the turukshas overwhelmed the south,Swami Vidyaranya declared "Dharmayudham" and there was a lakshmi vrushti.ie people poured everything they had for the cause of dharma.I strongly believe on the grass roots there is a growing awakening coming regarding the threats.I believe we are just at a short intergenumm of a millenia old war for Bharatavarsha.
As you said the delusionists will need to be swept away before the awakened masses push back or destroy the threat.I am sure this will happen,but before it does we will have to sustain unacceptable high losses .
BR might be taken as a barometer for where the general educated thinking is heading.Few years back it was unacceptable to discuss religion or politics in any shape or form.Now at least some freedom is allowed in this respect.Removing religion and politics from strategy serves no purpose other than to divorce all discussion from ground reality.
i have been lurking on this forum for quite a number of years.People like you and Kaushal garu ( who is now in India forum ) have injected intellectual rigour and shone the light of truth for me at least.
It is always a delight to watch you tear the irrational arguements of the leftits and their ilk.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 15 Mar 2010 22:33

jambudvipa wrote:I believe the espousal of the palestinian cause,the desperate need to identify a "secular" turuksha country

jambudvipa wrote: The basic knee jerk reaction stemming from this "dhimitude" is to try and appease the agressor by defending him at every turn in front of co religionists,denigrating ones own religion and projecting ones own fantastical conceptions of the oppposing religion to try and prove that there exists a "mild" strain which is worth getting battered for.Couple this with an unwillingness to learn ones own history and to brainlessly mouth the same cliches over and over again.

Since you are referencing Israel and Palestinians, it would be great if you can explain which one out of the Israelis and the Palestinians is an "agressor" to us, and which one is our "co-religionist".

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Mar 2010 03:11

Jarita ji,
this [MNC+loss od indigenous+organic] is a very important issue. But you can probably do better justice to it in the Indian interests thread or within the Econmy and Tech Forum. The "organic and indigenous" movement is critical for future and impacts food security. I try in my minuscule way (among many others) to help some of the orgs involved in fighting for this. But the whole agricultural side in India is quite messy as it stands. The bigger picture of productivity hides the marginalization of rhe small peasant and agricultural labour and concentration of land and resources in "big-capitalist"+MNC form. But do raise the issue in those threads. Many more of the relevant "experts" will visit those threads and can contribute.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Mar 2010 03:49

jambudvipa ji,
The problem with the Palestine question is that for a long long time India's global foreign policy was perhaps more determined by its own domestic political pressures and immediate subcontinental concerns. Where Islamic countries or regional interests were concerned, we can see that for a long time, Indian leadership were weighing the pros-and-cons of how foreign policy stances with respect to distant but Islamic countries would reflect in the internal electoral equations. Part of that equation would also be the distrust from the US side, and hence the compulsion to align with USSR and the corresponding friend's friend - enemy's enemy equations.

But in the current situation, preservation of Israel would be in the interests of an India that does not want to allow an unbroken stretch of Islamism running from POWI to Turkey to all the way across sub-Saharan Africa right up to Nigeria. Any roll back of Israel and expansion of space available for Islamists in the eastern Mediterranean means Islamists in the ME have one big pressure point in the beachhead of Israel taken off its western flanks.

Between Israel and India is a geo-political axis that distorts and jeopardizes ME and Islamist expansion plans. I would even go for supporting the small Christian "forces" in the East African region so that this axis becomes a triangle to distract and prevent the concentration of Islamist forces across the ME. I would definitely support Israels expansion plans under the current situation.

The Palestinians under Arab or other Islamic theologian influence once definitely did try to eliminate the Jews from the place. In fact the entire ealy narratives about the foundation and expansion of Islam is almost entirely a history of expulsion of the Jews and their genocide from the region - and enslavement and conversion of their women and children. This is a narrative not told by Jews but but by Muslims themselves. So given half a chance the Islamic theologians will do a repeat performance on the Jews of Israel - and some of the political leadership like that of the current crop in Iran, openly declare so.

For India, weakening of Israel, rollback from even a toehold along the coast [which giving up Gaza will mean] means the corresponding space being filled up by Islamists. Thats geo-political suicide in the long run. The current lovey-dovey kisses towards India from all the Islamist groupings that are essentially against Israel's existence - has me slightly worried. Is it an effort to paralyze India a bit as afar as Israel is concerned? Which means they have some adventure about Israel in mind? Or others want them to go for such an adventure so that a different gameplan can be setup?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Mar 2010 17:33

Pakistan Supports Sovereign Palestine State with Al-Quds as Capital: Gilani

Pakistan Daily
Sat, 13 Feb 2010 06:27 EST
Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani on Friday said Pakistan has and will continue to steadfastly support the total withdrawal of Israel from the occupied Arab territories. "We support the full realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people including the establishment of an independent State, with Al Quds Al Sharif as its capital."
"We demand that the illegal Israeli settlements and construction activities in the West Bank and atrocities and repression must come to an end, forthwith," Gilani said while speaking at a banquet he hosted in honour of President Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine here at the PM House.
[...]
Prime Minister Gilani said Pakistan will also continue to play its due role at the United Nations in supporting the legitimate demands of people under occupation including the people of Palestine.
"To all Pakistanis and people striving for the right to self-determination the peaceful struggle of the Palestinian people is inspirational. We are confident that the Palestinian people will achieve full Statehood through their legitimate and peaceful struggle", he added.

Legitimacy is matter of viewpoint apparently - since POGWI does not consider similar occupation of POK as "occupation"! But more significantly he passes off the "Palestinian struggle" as a "peaceful" one! Note that the essential speech here is not about Palestine - it is not about any struggle for Palestinian "self-determination". For POGWI, Palestine is a tool to internationalize its own designs on J&K. And it comes in full blast next :

The Prime Minister said the Palestinian struggle for statehood and for the right to self determination finds resonance in Pakistan, adding; "Our brothers in Kashmir face a similar occupation and are also struggling to realize their right to self-determination."

He recalled that Pakistan hosted the 1974 OIC Summit under the direction of our Leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Shaheed. "That Summit was aimed at developing collective wisdom on issues concerning the Muslim World particularly on the Palestine issue and to establish linkages with the international community to resolve them in the interest of peace, security and progress, world over", he added.

So, Palestine is an issue that India needs to be most careful about in supporting blindly and that too against Israeli interests. Israel is the attractor of the "bees" so to speak who would otherwise buzz towards the only area left with the Kufr in the stretch of Islamism from Western Africa to Phillipines - India.

Pakistan's support for Palestinian independence is part of POGWI general tactic of internationalizing its strategic exapnsion objectives. This appears to be a standard technique now of Islamists. Note the threat in the strangely audacious linking of regional "aspirations" to "world peace and security". Which is another way of saying, if you do not give us what we want in our pockets and regions, we will disturb "world peace and security".

This is where the POGWI tactics scores - they always can successfully internationalize their regional objectives and hold the civilized part of the world to ransom. No one challenges them as to why they do not pledge similar support for Balochis "right to self-determination" or the "Tibetan right to self determination". No whisper was hear from POGWI about East Timorians in their "fight for self determination" - nothing for self-determinists in Bougainville.

No, only those among Islamic demands for "self-determination" that does not jeopardize POGWI's key allies (like PRC in East Tuekmenistan), and all those that can be used to snatch its expansion plans into India - are halaal.

jambudvipa · Post by **jambudvipa** » 17 Mar 2010 00:49

brihaspatiji,
I believe the late and great PV Narasimha Rao realised the significance of the continued existence of Israel on Indias long term security and hence took steps to normalise relations which were essentially in the bin due to decades of pandering to the domestic vote bank.
I fully concur with you that Israel is essentially acting as a diversion to the islamic states,prevents them from sinking the many hatchets they have with each other and focussing on India.The continued existence of this fully militarised state (not very different from Vijayanagaram or the marathas when Aurangzebs army stormed the deccan after Chattrapati Sambhajis murder) has allowed us some breathing space.The arabs need to constantly watch their rear to prevent a coordinated action by ISRAEL and India.
As for the palestinians,the arabs have used their cuase as a convineint stick to beat Isreal and its allies when it suits them.But the arab states themselves have been quite ruthless in putting down any " palestinian insurrections" on their soil.eg the massacare of PLO activists by Jordan in 1970.Plus depending on the situation have sold the palestinians down the river, after promising them liberation from the Israelis.
I have no doubt of the humane treatment that the surviving jews will get if and when the islamic states overrun them.The cartoons published in the mainstream arab papers during the Yom Kippur war and the 67 war,celebrating the coming destruction of the jews were indication enough.
My real worry regarding the continued existence of Israel is that their anglo saxon allies will probably screw them over.A better coordinated invasion of Israel by the arab states,possibly backed by Turkey at some point in the future cannot really be ruled out.
Isreal at the moment is a buffer much like the Shahiya kings of Kabul and Zabol were.To lose this would mean another wholesale invasion of the mainland India.
That Pakistan has been able to link this issue with Kashmir is more a reflection of our failure rather than a great success on Pkaistans part.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 17 Mar 2010 02:10

I think we all have to wait till World go beyond the oil economy . If not our life time , we must have rebirth to do the nishkam karma . Once India has energy security only then GOI will be able to take few desired initiative to punish the dushts and establish the peace in the region. I can very well imagine India having professional army of 5 Million volunteers and 20T economy in twenty years. World can really use a new symbolic Samrat or Vikramaditya performing Ashvamedh ceremony and infuse right kind of energy in humanity at large .

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 17 Mar 2010 10:46

^^^ With all due respect Prem ji, sitting on our musharrafs waiting for the WKK and the oil economy to pass is not really advisable. While doing nothing has been a viable strategy in the past, things like "green/renewable energy", "nuclear power" and the phenomenon of "Internet Hindus" along with slow indegenisation and establishment of our navy as mansabdar of Indian and Western Pacific oceans will effectively give the hounds who are baying for the kufr's blood something to chew on. And if that is not enough, we the kufr should militarise and colonize space as well. Perhaps, we could establish Indic colonies on Mars or Moon (and claim it as Pax Greater Indica (PGI), with the real estate and all resources under our control.

After all, the element of Bharatavarsha has existed for thousands of years in Indra's swarga and Yama's narak which are extra-territorial entities onlee, so I guess it is time to take Bharatavarsha back to its ancient position by colonising swarga.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Mar 2010 17:29

As anticipated - the AFG offensive is more to prepare grounds for bringing the Talebs back rather than anything else.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?opt ... mival=4829

AY: So the offensive, American-NATO offensive in Marja continues. But while you were there, there was all kinds of talks about negotiating with the Taliban. So what is happening? An offensive, and all this background about negotiations.

PORTER: Well, in my view, this offensive has to be viewed as more of an effort to shape public opinion in the United States than to shape the politics of the future of Afghanistan, the reason being that no matter how you slice it, this is too small a slice of Afghanistan, even too small a slice of that part of Afghanistan that is controlled by the Taliban, to really make a difference in the long run, to shape, to make a difference in terms of the kind of negotiations that are going to take place, inevitably, to settle this war.

JAY: Well, I guess the counterargument that would come from the American government would be, one, it gives us leverage in negotiating with the Taliban, 'cause everything looked like we were losing and we had no leverage. And, two, if you can create a model where you actually—what are they calling it?—you know, "hold and develop", if they actually do develop the place and introduce roads and schools and whatever and it's somewhat of a success story, it gives them, again, a little more leverage in terms of the Afghan population. Is there any [inaudible]

PORTER: Well, this is really sort of a if-wishes-were-horses kind of an affair. Yeah, if the United States had its way and created the perfect, you know, situation in this area of Afghanistan, then the problem would be on its way to being settled. But that, of course, assumes all kinds of things that are contrary to the history of this conflict, which is that you have governments, government officials, and institutions that are effective, that you have security organs, Afghan security organs, that are effective, legitimate, and so forth. None of this actually exists, as has been repeatedly pointed out, both by media coverage and by even the commander himself, that is, General McChrystal, in his report last year. So if you really look at the reality, it's going to be much more of a gray situation than they're portraying, this sort of ideal outcome. And beyond that, I mean, what we're talking about here is expending 15,000 troops for a community of about 80,000 people. Now, of course, it's well situated in terms of its geography, no doubt about that, but they cannot afford to be expending 15,000 troops for a city of 80,000 people. It just does not make sense. If you look at the population of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban, it's so much larger and so vast that they cannot afford to expend troops in this manner.

JAY: Do you get a sense that people are concerned that a civil war follows? Or do they think that the kind of jirga system, negotiations amongst the Afghans, can kind of sort this out one way or the other? 'Cause last time it was a terrible civil war that followed.

PORTER: I think that there's an awareness on the part of strategists, the intelligent Afghans who are thinking about a settlement, that even if United States troops and NATO troops leave the country, that does not mean that there's an end to conflict. You are going to have Iran, India, Russia continuing to support anti-Taliban forces. There certainly is a potential there for continued conflict. I would hope that it would not be at the same level that we have today or we've had in the past, for the simple reason that you don't have a lot of air power in the country, you don't have the degree of lethal power that the United States and NATO bring to the country. But certainly we're not going to see an easy end to the conflict, simply because you have negotiations.

JAY: Okay, just very quickly, do you think negotiations happen before this beginning of what Obama called a withdrawal? There has to be if there's going to be some kind of withdrawal,—

PORTER: Well, I think—.

JAY: —which is supposed to happen in 2011.

PORTER: The withdrawal, I would imagine, is going to happen as a result of negotiations, not negotiations as result of withdrawal.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Mar 2010 17:43

The continued drug lord angle in AFG - all part of a scenario India will have to deal with in the future :
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?opt ... mival=4862

JAY: Much of the Afghan army is Uzbek and Tajik, and much of that army is riddled with connections to warlords. And, as far as I know, some of the soldiers may even do double duty in terms of working part-time for warlords and part of the army. How does that affect the issue of the drug politics here?

JUNAID: When, you know, I analyzed it, I—you know, it was: let's do a stakeholder analysis of that. There are, you know, different parties with different stakes, and that can be—you know, they can make the situation understandable for us. There is ANA, the Afghan National Army, which is represented by Tajiks and Uzbeks, largely. There are the Taliban, who want their lost government to come back to them; they want their government back; you know, they want their rule. There is US and NATO, who want to develop that place and, you know, win the hearts and minds of the people. And there are drug lords. Now, drug lords is the most persistent, you know, species, I think, because they can be in Afghan National Army; they can be, you know, seen with Karzai; they can be seen from among the Alizai tribes; they can be seen, you know, from among Taliban, even. So they are the most persistent group in that. Each group in the area has, you know, their own benefits to take, their own stakes. The Tajiks and Uzbeks will obviously want to, you know, eradicate the poppy. That will, you know, give them an upper hand in the long run over Pashtuns in monetary terms.

JAY: Because they would still have poppy up north.

JUNAID: They will have poppy up north, exactly. As I said, you know, the Alizai tribes, which is the strongest tribe here, they have, you know, a lot of stakes in drugs as well. But now there is, you know, a drug war going on in this. These drug lords will be pitted against the drug lords which are, you know, from the northern Afghanistan, the Tajiks and Uzbeks, and again, you know, this will become a corporate war from that dimension. From the local dimension, if you tell people to, you know, go and, you know, ask for your money from NATO and ANA and, you know, take their support rather than having your own indigenous poppy, you know, and having your own money, that will, you know, create a shift.

JAY: The Alizai tribe, what is their relationship to the Taliban?

JUNAID: Their relationship with Taliban is, you know, you can expect that they're all Pashtuns, so there will be some of them who will be siding with Taliban. But Taliban would surely have allowed them to grow the poppy crop, and they will be, you know, sharing some riches. No doubt in that. That's, you know, a natural thing, because a lot of poppies coming out of that, and that place was controlled by Taliban. So they have actually allowed them to grow, and, you know, shared the money somehow.

JAY: So the battle of Marja is really taking place in the context of a much bigger drug war.

JUNAID: It's a much bigger drug war. I can imagine that, you know, it will also flood back into Baluchistan, you know, one of the very last provinces of Pakistan which is largely out of control these days. It is, you know, also rifed by insurgency and with law-and-order situation. I think, you know, there are many, many factors that are uncontrollable that will come out. And, you know, you can see Taliban showing their power, you know, once in a while. They went into Kabul and, you know, killed 17 people, most of them Indians. So they showed, you know, they can do anything they want, but they will do it when they want to. They would, you know, rather like to hide in the forests of Helmand and come out, you know, when they can, you know, take on Kabul.

JAY: And, of course, the American media portrays this as the US sort of above all of this drug-war fray, but it actually just decided which drug lords and warlords to ally with against other drug lords.

JUNAID: If you look at it from an independent dimension, it is bad, you know, that the US sides with the drug lords. But if you look at it from the US' angle, the problem is all the powerful people, you know, or most of them, are drug lords. So you have to, you know, talk to somebody; you cannot take the whole country on.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Mar 2010 03:48

Moved the law posts to the distorted history thread....

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Mar 2010 18:25

The journalist with obvious access to the higher echelons of Talebs+AQ dismisses the importance of arrests of one or two key leaders :
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?opt ... mival=4834

YUSUFZAI: This man, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, was a military commander when Taliban was in power, and he's from the same area, Oruzgan province, as the Taliban leader's Mullah Omar. They have been friends and allies, and he was one of the founders of the Taliban movement, also. In fact, his importance grew when the Taliban lost power, because then he became the deputy leader of Taliban movement. There were two deputies to Mullah Omar in the movement. One was Mullah Baradar; the other one is Mullah Obaidullah. So I think he's fairly important, not only as a link between Mullah Omar and the shura, or leadership council, and also a link between the shura and the field commanders who are doing the fighting. So this man was really a very crucial link between all these different segments of Taliban movement. Now that he has been captured—and Pakistan army today finally announced that it indeed he has been captured in a joint raid in Pakistan, in Karachi—I think this is going to demoralize the Taliban fighters, at least temporarily. It will also disrupt their activities and the coordination between various layers of Taliban movement. But this would be temporary, I believe that they will already have a replacement for Mullah Baradar, and I don't think it will, in the long run, impact on the ability of Taliban to continue fighting the US forces in Afghanistan.

This also reminds me of the "arrests" of "key" Maoist leaders in India - usually at the frail health stage.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Mar 2010 19:06

Nothing much is going to change in AFG. Basically the economy of the country has shifted towards a drugs production and export economy. This has ironically developed around the same Helmand province where American invested irrigation projects 3-4 decades ago have actuallu increased acreage - but all that irrigation goes into production of poppy as that is highly lucrative.

The illegal drugs trade profit is beneficial to many forces.

(1) American or western intelligence and undercover operators - who can use this non-budget non-country money to sponsor covert operations against their strategic enemies in the region. They get a control over this money by allowing virtual protection - and one more reason to have military presence in the region.

This is a possible reason that the Headley types or the D-company cannot be touched much by India.

(2) Warlords - who can use their initial power base out of tribal clan loyalties and networks and then reinforce that with controlling a stake in the drugs profits. Americans have selected their pet warlords and pushed others away who will seek anti-American backing. But the warlord culture remains because of foreign sponsorship. For foreign parties it is easier to deal with individuals rather than at a population level. Typically this is the footprint of western approach - they always look for dictators and personal influence which is how they treat culotures they do not understand.

(3) Talebs : - for them drugs production for their enemies can be part of an useful strategy to weaken "enemy" societies over the long term and be a drain on their economies. Moreover it is vital for them to have a source of revenue to fund their long term goals. Moreover since the drugs trade has become an established feature, Talebs will need to control it so that other bases of power cannot try to raise their heads on the basis of profits of the drugs trade.

So, the AFG situation will remain a scene of constant civil-war between all these groups, as well as entoties like POGWI or China, Iran and Russia jockeying for geo-political toe-holds.

India's short term and long term minimum objectives here are obviously contradictory. In the short term, non-involvement, a degree of neutrality, general goodwill among populations, containing Taleb backed terror attacks into India or preventing use of AFG by POGWI for similar purposes. However in the long term, this very same neutrality - non-involvement, not projecting military power means the Islamists forces and the traditional greed with which the AFG region has targeted the lucrative plains of India will gain strength and put in place their long term goals of expansion.

Now there will be many external powers interested to egg them on.