Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 25 Apr 2011 02:43

What if he is Mad- vedev? Mad=Mud=Madira=Vino=Vodka.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Apr 2011 02:50

OT perhaps! But RajeshA ji, may vouch for the Anglo-Saxonic (old High Germanic)/Celtic"meade/meaddha" - the fermented drink made from honey. The "med" root is common between us and the Nordic - we also had "maddhi" made from "madhu". But lets stop this juicy and intoxicating line here!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Apr 2011 02:51

brihaspati wrote:RajeshA ji,
seriously, many of us will not agree to the tactical "necessity" of pretending weakness/host to a certain faith in order to get the followers on and motivate them on some dreams of a glorious Mughalistan-2 - in order to finish off the Paki regime.

The problem, is that sometime the interim steps in a sequence of tactical steps either sets in motion independently spawned hostile processes - like the gift by MKG of the Khilafat movement - or the compromises and networks that build up in making this tactical compromising step, becomes an unshaleable chain that binds and restricts all future steps.

But what you can definitely help us do at this initial stage is to produce some kind of a costs analysis for the very existence of Pak and BD. I think here would be a common point between the nay-sayers to your tactical steps and yea-sayers.

brihaspati garu,

The big powers of the world will not fight amongst themselves - USA, PRC, Russia, Europe, maybe even Turkey! They will all use the vipers to attack each other. They will use proxies to involve others in wars, in conflicts, in civil wars, in internal instability, in terrorist attacks! They would attack the non-powers (Iraq, Afghanistan, ..) to keep their own swords sharp and keep the production of swords up!

Of all the big powers, the Indian Civilization is "infected" like none other, making us the most vulnerable. The "infection" ensures that we will not rise against the other hives. And the other hives will always be used to keep us in check. That is the raison d'être Pakistan survives. As long as Pakistan survives, we will be kept in check!

The eagle and dragon are both in concurrence as to how to keep us tied down - using Pakistan. The fox's own minions within India ensured that Partition took place pulling Pakistan away from India. All of the Muslim League swore on their Persia-influenced culture as the reason for TNT. Even the bear sees something positive in keeping Pakistan alive for that keeps India dependent on the bear for weapons!

But we can turn the game around! We break Pakistan, we finish off their other proxies, and then we take down PRC using their own tactics (Pakistan)!

Spreading Dharmik values is easier if the one controls the whole field! Preaching alone only gets you that far!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Apr 2011 02:54

I agree - and my first target was the dissolution of Pak. But I am unwilling to risk a "khilafat" style mobilization blunder. Cannot allow that identity to become a centre of renewal.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 25 Apr 2011 02:56

In business , in life ,in any problems situation it become necessary to separate one immediate problemetic issue and fix it before moving to second one and so forth using the similar process. We cant solve 10-20 problems in one go. Economy first as mother milk of material strength, miitary weakness second, social and other domestic loose ends third and then move on to external adversaries and "dabao their taintua" for good . Its hard to get into mortal combat and simultaneoulsy keep watch on back from 10 different direction .
Rajesh ji,
lets not forget modern weaponary and myriad ways of warefare inc economic. None of the power centre is immune as all have their own vulnerabilities. As long as india have or acquired the capability deterimental to their well being and poltical will to use it , they all will back down.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Apr 2011 03:04

brihaspati wrote:I agree - and my first target was the dissolution of Pak. But I am unwilling to risk a "khilafat" style mobilization blunder. Cannot allow that identity to become a centre of renewal.

brihaspati garu,

there is zero chance of that if we are the biggest lion in the jungle! All powers, USA, UK, France, Russia, even China have ensured that the Muslim world would remain divided! With so many helpers, the chances are not really good!

Secondly as the biggest power "amongst" the Muslim powers, nothing this big will happen which goes against our wishes! There are so many available fault-lines for that! And by setting some of our own followers against the big powers, we bring down both a notch!

We hunt! We eat some, the rest we use for bait! We hunt! We eat some, the rest we use for bait!

In the end, we would have digested everything!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Apr 2011 03:14

Prem wrote:Rajesh ji,
lets not forget modern weaponary and myriads way of warefare inc economic. None of the power centre is immune as all have their own vulnerabilities. As long as india have or acquired the capability deterimental to their well being and poltical will to use it , they all will back down.

The game is played at so many levels! At each level we need both defenses and offensive capabilities! If we are weak somewhere we need to compensate at another level!

However no power center really backs down! They are all aggressive! They may make a tactical retreat but they will be soon trying to thwart one's pressure on them! Keeping the other pinned down, drinking one's blood using a straw, and watching a cool movie together happens all at the same time. And they are all doing that to each other! And the game never stops!

If the others are drinking Indian blood, there is no reason for India to be hesitant to do likewise! Those who decide to stop doing so, they can be spared too! But we will always have to keep the others pinned down, friend or foe! Yes, and then there is the cool movie!

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 25 Apr 2011 04:07

IMO, assuming that BD is slowly assimilated into desh in a state by state phased manner (in RajeshA ji's e-book), we need to consider assimilating another nearby landmass in the same phased manner almost simultaneously. The reason is precisely due to increasing seawater levels, the BD population will start moving into Indian territories (even with strict enforcement of electoral zones and migration monitoring systems etc), so unless India does not have a plan to assimilate a state (for eg Myanmar) on a province by province basis, at the same time as BD integration, India will have a humanitarian crisis on its hands, this is almost certain.

So we cannot keep Myanmar waiting for Phase 3 while BD is carried out at Phase 1. It must be planned in such a way that BD and Myanmar integration is concurrently concluded at the end of Phase 2 of the overall plan. The resultant human movement into Myanmar's seaboard and Airavati river valley must be in such a way that 5 Indics move in for every 3 BD citizens. Over a period of 3-5 years after Phase 2 is complete, we would be looking at complete evacuation of the flood prone BD area, perhaps initiating a man-made program to spread the Sundarbans bio-sphere northwards!

So unless, desh is ready with an action plan for Myanmar, action plan for BD cannot take place. Infact, I would advocate starting Myanmar slightly before BD.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 25 Apr 2011 04:14

Klaus wrote: So unless, desh is ready with an action plan for Myanmar, action plan for BD cannot take place. Infact, I would advocate starting Myanmar slightly before BD.

Now, that is strategy.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Apr 2011 10:43

Klaus wrote:IMO, assuming that BD is slowly assimilated into desh in a state by state phased manner (in RajeshA ji's e-book), we need to consider assimilating another nearby landmass in the same phased manner almost simultaneously. The reason is precisely due to increasing seawater levels, the BD population will start moving into Indian territories (even with strict enforcement of electoral zones and migration monitoring systems etc), so unless India does not have a plan to assimilate a state (for eg Myanmar) on a province by province basis, at the same time as BD integration, India will have a humanitarian crisis on its hands, this is almost certain.

So we cannot keep Myanmar waiting for Phase 3 while BD is carried out at Phase 1. It must be planned in such a way that BD and Myanmar integration is concurrently concluded at the end of Phase 2 of the overall plan. The resultant human movement into Myanmar's seaboard and Airavati river valley must be in such a way that 5 Indics move in for every 3 BD citizens. Over a period of 3-5 years after Phase 2 is complete, we would be looking at complete evacuation of the flood prone BD area, perhaps initiating a man-made program to spread the Sundarbans bio-sphere northwards!

So unless, desh is ready with an action plan for Myanmar, action plan for BD cannot take place. Infact, I would advocate starting Myanmar slightly before BD.

Klaus ji,

thanks for bringing this up! We have been talking of the Indo-Bangladesh merger here specifically, as I feel that that holds the key to unraveling Pakistan!

However Indo-Bangladesh merger can take place and in fact should take place only in the backdrop of a larger consolidation of the Indian Subcontinent - and it does very much involve taking in non-Muslim countries - Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and of course Myanmar!

In Myanmar we are both weak and we are strong. We have historical ties, and for a period of time we were even one country. We are strong there because of a shared history where we opposed the British together. We had the Indian National Army of Subhash Chadra Bose which was put together in that country. And we have had civilizational links with Myanmar when Buddhism spread. We have also supported democracy in Myanmar, sometimes less and sometimes more. Also the Junta are not really too happy with the bear hug of the dragon!

But we are also weak. Junta's fear of loss of influence and preeminence at the hands of democratic forces is very much there, and the Chinese are really deeply entrenched there. They have the junta by the balls - through a share in the profits of exploitation of natural resources, drug trafficking, military overbearingness with Chinese military both at the borders and inside the country, junta's dependence on the Chinese for keeping the West at arm's length, etc.

India's capabilities is limited there at the moment, but many see India as their only chance! But before we get at that point, we need to be able to offer the Myanmar junta a viable military alternative - a power that can push the Chinese back, militarily if needed, through proxies if possible, through guerrilla tactics if allowed! We need to stand on the borders of Myanmar with endless strategic depth! Right now our presence in the Northeast is mostly defensive in nature, to keep back any Chinese adventurism. We don't have as yet the posture of overwhelming might willing to expand and protect out interests beyond the borders. We need to get there!

The way to get there is to present to the Chinese a completely consolidated Indian Subcontinent in the East right up to the Tibetan (Chinese) and Myanmar borders - This means no Siliguri Chicken's Neck, no anti-Indian pockets anywhere around - either outside like Bangladesh, Nepali Maoists, etc. not internal like the various separatist movements in the Northeast. Once the whole area looks and feels like not as some unnatural geographical and political adjunct to India but as India proper, then we are ready to give the Myanmarese a viable and credible option. Myanmar would welcome being part of India, mainly because it lately the people have not been able to identify with any stable political order. Myanmar would fall easily to India but only if we are able to project overwhelming national power!

Myanmar would come to India like a child tormented at the hands of the neighbor, while we were away! But that will happen only if we appear to have come back home - as the unquestioned power of the Indian Subcontinent. There will be many constituencies in Myanmar which would greet a bigger Indian presence - the Buddhist monks, the civilian society, businesses, even the junta. Then there is a certain anglophone history as well which can give a shared foundation for merger.

The thing is in order to capture Myanmar with the help of the Myanmarese themselves we would have to go head to head with the Chinese, for the Chinese would not let go of Myanmar that easily! And we can go head to head against the Chinese only if we first take out all the forces, they wield and control in the Indian Subcontinent, and that means at least in this phase, to have all the Muslims in the subcontinent either contained and quarantined (Pakjabis, Mohajirs) or integrated (Bangladesh) and aligned (Pushtunistan), and it also means to have smashed the whole Maoist presence and integrated all the pockets of sovereignty (Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan) into India proper.

I don't think it harms us to wait a little longer to absorb Myanmar after having merged with Bangladesh, as long as we are sure that we are going to do it!

Myanmar would actually be the first battleground where India and China would come face to face with all the arsenal at our disposal - military, intelligence, proxies, cultural presence, soft-power, money, tactics! I am sure India would win the duel, but we have to go prepared! And preparation first means the Peaceful Consolidation of Indian Subcontinent, Isolation of anti-Indian forces in the Indian Subcontinent and Growth in National Power, which we preserve by not expending it in some religious wars within Indian and our neighborhood!

As far as the threat of submergence is concerned to Bangladesh, that has to be fought using science, technology and engineering! We have to look towards Netherlands and Venice for answers on how to keep back the sea! That is a project, Bangladesh cannot do on its own, and needs all the Indian help it can get. It is also in our interest to support them for we don't want any more destabilizing Bangladeshi migration into India if we can help it!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 25 Apr 2011 13:23

As we blue sky gaze on acquiring BD, Nepal, Bhutan, SL, an now Myanmar (guess no one's yet bothered to ask them

), Indian soft power is spreding its wings regardless...

Through, what else, Bollywood!
http://business-standard.com/india/news ... ld/433405/

In South Korea?! Those guys can hardly even speak english, even though they are quite westernalised in a lot of ways...And while its topcial, MNIK is hardly the most insipiring piece coming out of Bollywood..Proves that we have a good "product" to export in terms of our soft power...

India's influence will spread in line with its economic heft, and our culture will find resonance all over - from the East to the West..It wont be as brash as Macdonalds, but it will have a more subliminal impact, concretised by our economic glue...Now whether that is "dharmic" enough is a different question

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Apr 2011 16:42

In any given historical period, military advantages tend to get equalized over time. But geo-positional advantages are difficult to neutralize. The fatal blunder by JLN in accepting giving up of CHT and the Chittagong port - cannot be neutralized by simply economic soft power.

In fact what is missed in most "economic soft power onlee" lines is that in many cases we are forced to handout payoffs in economic terms simply because some pedestalized p-sec leaders who came to power by selection from both donor and donee political groups - have forced on us geo-political boundaries/sovereignties/territorial bazookas.

In many senses the economic handouts that people now clamour to be given to BD/Pak etc, happen because they are sovereign, and because they happen to hold on to key pieces of land.

The Myanmar situation should not be looked through romantic eyes. Yes SCB camped there for a time and drew support from expat Indian communities, as well as some Burmese politicians. These Burmese politicians switched sides suddenly to the Brits towards the end of the war, and although not much has been researched on this - but people tend to forget - that not long after this switch, and Brit collaboration with these Burmese politicos - Indians were literally chased out, with almost a "Kenyan" style cleansing of Indian biz/households/people.

Myanmar junta, and political/military elite has developed relations with the Brits over the Cold War period, and the Chinese connection needs to be looked into separately. In SE and East Asia, the Chinese connection to British biz interests go much back into history and there could be possible drug and capital flow networks between the two. There is no reason to wish away the possible existing links between the Chinese [not just overseas] and British interests in Myanmar.

India's only weakness in the whole of the NE, BD, Myanmar sector is the lack of a land corridor from Tripura to Bay of Bengal over which it has full sovereignty. A single strip of land that skirted BD territory or went between Myanmar and BD to the sea - would have finished off all future dances by BD and Myanmar.

India should buy/cajole/haggle/wiggle/extract this corridor from Myanmar. Even what may seem like a fantastic price now would pay itself off over the long term handsomely.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 26 Apr 2011 07:21

Early days yet, but things are moving...

India and BD on restoring rail linkages to Agartala...
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 076058.cms

There is a firm constituency at the highest levels of the BD govt today, hence propitious to move fast and capture the opportunity..

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 26 Apr 2011 11:19

brihaspati wrote:The fatal blunder by JLN in accepting giving up of CHT and the Chittagong port

My objection is only to one-sided criticism of PanditJi without appreciating the larger picture.

Chittagong and Chittagong Hill Tracts were different districts in 1947
http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpregion ... 14214.html

India had legitimate claims to CHT on basis of population, but the port wasn't so. Now I agree that Indian leadership should should have extrapolated the CHT claim to add the port itself. But I'm not sure whether a 97% majority in CHT would have have translated to a majority in all of chittagong division, the port having higher population density than the hills.

It's a strategic loss that rankles us and a J&K style expeditionary force could have been used to liberate CHT, but why paint "p-sec" leadership as almost the sole villain here, without giving it credit for Gurdaspur award which became a key to holding J&K?
http://www.ourbeacon.com/cgi-bin/bbs60x ... 3119164079

Perhaps you can propose a leadership, other than Nehru/Patel/Menon, circa 1947, who would have guaranteed inclusion of Chittagong port in India ?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 26 Apr 2011 11:36

Patel had promised the people of CHT that India will get Chittogram for them after the partition riots etc were sorted out. Unfortunately their turn never came before Patel died.

JLN DID NOT carry on the torch forward. He hindered Patel when alive and stopped Patelian moves after Patel's swargvas.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 26 Apr 2011 11:55

I see the quote now

S.K. Chakma - leader of tribals of CHT in 1947

"Though Patel was enthusiastic, Nehru was shaky, unwilling to do any thing that might justify the Pakistani inspired effort to take over Kashmir”

Assuming India has the resources in 1947 to liberate CHT, would that automatically fetch us the port too ? And did India have enough to spare ? I read somewhere that it took us until 1950s to restore the railway via Siliguri corridor. Could India have conducted another airlift based operation in CHT just like J&K meanwhile ?

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 26 Apr 2011 12:13

The fear of justification of paki occupation of J&K is plane b***. It automatically assumes that atrocities committed by paki regulars on Hindus and Sikhs in J&K would translate into similar atrocities by Indian Army in Chattagram. And this comes from the top leadership!

Who was jln fearing? It all boils down to sentimental attachment to one part of the country where one does not think twice to send forces without thought and probably justifiably so. But what about other parts that might have been strategically equally important? Maybe other parts were to be taught a "lesson".

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 26 Apr 2011 12:15

Its quite possible that J&K was done to ensure that India is too tied up to move in CHT. However had we moved there, the Pakistani's would be pressed too, they would have to chose once more. Probably in J&K.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 26 Apr 2011 12:16

Abhi_G wrote: Who was jln fearing? It all boils down to sentimental attachment to one part of the country where one does not think twice to send forces without thought and probably justifiably so

Oh NO JLN had to be kicked on backside to move on J&K as well. I dont think he really cared about that. He probably cared more about appearing "nice" for Lady Mountbatten and co.

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 26 Apr 2011 12:18

Agreed Sanku ! After all Patel said "Do you want J&K Jawaharlal?" when he was talking about world peace!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Apr 2011 12:19

Ab pachtay hot kya jab chidiya chug gayi khet

This is the future scenarios thread!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 26 Apr 2011 12:23

Abhi_G wrote:Agreed Sanku ! After all Patel said "Do you want J&K Jawaharlal?" when he was talking about world peace!

Anybody who cares for the country would care for ALL of it. If a person does not care about a part while appearing to care about others, the person really cares for nothing and is only a rank opportunist.

RajeshA Sir, now I have inlined the past with future with that comment saar.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Apr 2011 13:03

brihaspati wrote:India should buy/cajole/haggle/wiggle/extract this corridor from Myanmar. Even what may seem like a fantastic price now would pay itself off over the long term handsomely.

I am not aware of any transfer of sovereignty of land in exchange for money for the last half century and more! Moreover it is not just a question of money. The Myanmarese junta would be accused of selling Myanmarese land for their own profits by their people! India's image there too would be sullied! The Chinese too would not be willing to allow the Myanmar junta to do it, simply because they would lose land access to Bangladesh, and they want that in order to build up the other Pakistan in India's East!

So yes we can try, but I doubt we will be getting very far with our efforts!

Every time sovereignty changed hands, it did so through the use of force, through seditious and separatist movements!

Any such pressure on Myanmar from Indian side, means that the junta would run away into the arms of the Chinese, and their embrace would become even tighter. It would also be used as justification for the Sino-Myanmar forces to sponsor separatist movements in India's Northeast with even more vigor.

If Myanmar had been totally under Indian influence, or been a part of it, India could have totally isolated Bangladesh and stopped China from any access to the Bay of Bengal. We would not have had to worry about losing our Northeast either to the Chinese or to the demographic invasion from Bangladesh. But that was not to be!

brihaspati wrote:These Burmese politicians switched sides suddenly to the Brits towards the end of the war, and although not much has been researched on this - but people tend to forget - that not long after this switch, and Brit collaboration with these Burmese politicos - Indians were literally chased out, with almost a "Kenyan" style cleansing of Indian biz/households/people.

Myanmar junta, and political/military elite has developed relations with the Brits over the Cold War period, and the Chinese connection needs to be looked into separately. In SE and East Asia, the Chinese connection to British biz interests go much back into history and there could be possible drug and capital flow networks between the two. There is no reason to wish away the possible existing links between the Chinese [not just overseas] and British interests in Myanmar.

Any national establishment which can ensure that its population entertains the illusion of control, fairness and an individual's upward social mobility as well as a comfortable cultural environment is definitely has the advantage over a national establishment that cannot!

In an alliance with the Indian elite, the Myanmar's establishment can keep its spoils, but can also prolong its life and ensure protection from the public, something the Chinese may not be able to offer!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Apr 2011 16:28

brihaspati wrote:I agree - and my first target was the dissolution of Pak. But I am unwilling to risk a "khilafat" style mobilization blunder. Cannot allow that identity to become a centre of renewal.

Just some more thoughts.

There are three levels of chains on India, if one should look at Islam as incompatible with Indian interests (One may look at it differently)!

The Indian Muslims
Pakistan
The Great Power support to Pakistan

Each level makes the preceding level more dangerous for India. The Great Powers endow Pakistan with increasing levels of deterrent from India, the nuclear deterrent being the most prominent, but also due to delivery of conventional weaponry and enduring international cover for its misdeeds as well as political and financial support for its sustenance.

In this environment the threat from Pakistan continues to increase along with its sustained policy of terrorism, support for insurgencies in India, currency counterfeiting, drug smuggling, organized crime, as well as religious extremism.

The Indian Muslims would always remain vulnerable to radicalization, mostly channeled through Pakistan for hostile and subversive reasons and through Saudi Arabia because well that is their nature.

The Indian Muslims are a Democles sword at the neck of Indics. As long as Indics follow a non-confrontational policy towards Islam, this constituency would remain threateningly passive. Should that change, we could see much conflict and mayhem in India, where the potential could go all the way to civil war and a complete break down of Indian system. In 1947 there was an opportunity to make a clean cut with the non-Dharmik but it was not taken, so Indian destiny progressed on a different route with different strategic fundamentals. This far ahead in history after 1947, it is a bit late to adopt an anti-Muslim or an anti-Islamic stance! In the mean time we have developed a model of coexistence. This model can be improved on of course, and it should be, but the model does not allow an anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic stance!

India adopted a defensive policy. We try to mitigate this radicalization drive through further efforts by highlighting common bonds between the Indics and the Indian Muslims, by emphasizing the peaceful nature of Islam (in the hope that it would stick), by underscoring our common interests, by integrating the Muslims in the Indian mainstream, and often by outright appeasement through support to Hajj subsidy, etc.. The most troubling aspect is not only Muslim appeasement, but also Islamist appeasement. In order to avoid provoking the manifestation of the threat of Muslim insurrection, we also allow the vulnerability to increase, and Islamist elements to flourish. There is also the aspect that generally in India, the Dharmik is being increasingly played down, so that the Hindutva constituency does not start going after the Muslims.

The other option is to destroy the Islamist networks amongst the Indian Muslims and to coerce them to rethink their ideology and their ideological loyalties. This however would be an unmistakable assertion of an anti-Islamic stance! The following would be construed as anti-Islamic?

When would a stance be considered anti-Islamic?

Well when either the Islamic networks in India would be attacked where the reason for doing so is not conclusively due to anti-Indian activities of these networks but just because they are Islamic networks!
When Pakistan is attacked, this "peaceful" co-existence does come under stress, but it need not break!
When other Muslim countries are attacked by India!
When India officially starts an anti-Islamic smear campaign and attacks Islam ideologically!

So what are the downsides? Well the dormant threat in India would suddenly come alive. We can expect civil war in India. Indian Muslims have always prided on their ability to get the Muslims on to the streets. So if it comes down to Islam being considered in danger in India, they would not be holding back. Secondly whatever policy Pakistan is conducting against India, would get whole hearted backing from the whole Muslim world as such. Considering that India could be in a civil war, it would be likely that Pakistan would get support from amongst Indian Muslim in a Pakistani attack. Bangladesh too would be getting in the act, and sending in regular and irregular forces into India's Northeast and West Bengal. India would be isolated in the world, because of the considerable influence of the Gulf countries even on Western countries. India would also be put under an Oil boycott from West Asia. Indics in Gulf, MENA, and even in Europe, USA, etc. would become targets for Muslims. Islamist Networks do not live in isolation. They are ferociously protected by the 160 million Muslims in India. In a globalized world with highly developed forms of terrorism, and nuclear threat thrown in, despite a fully consolidated and even militarized Dharmik constituency, the chances of the Indian Civilization paying a heavy penalty, including one of its very survival are pretty high!

USA, PRC, etc. can afford to go and **** the Muslims of the world, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Somalia, to the end of the world, and they would still survive, simply because USA and PRC do not have 160 million Muslims living in their bellies and are not an island swimming in an ocean of Islam, with Islamic neighbors with nukes! India does not have the good fortune!

So on the home front our options remain only to break the radicalization nodes coming from outside affecting Indian Muslims, in cooperation with them to try to tame the more radical Islamist elements, and to try to keep the Indian Muslims happy! We could in fact go after the openly more aggressive Islamist elements within India if the Indics get a partner amongst the Subcontinental Muslims with whose help in exchange for a share in the power and booty, they are ready to openly support and in fact take the initiative to weeding out the radicals. In India right now, we don't have a constituency amongst the Muslims which can partner the Indics or one which would be willing to! In India, the Muslim clergy speak for the Indian Muslims. The politicians in India have ensured that this be the case. Indian Muslims who have moved more mainstream may not have the sufficient authority within the Indian Muslim community itself to be much of a help!

If there is some Muslim community willing to partner Indics in keeping the Indian Muslims non-radicalized, then IMHO it is the Bangladeshis. But that is another topic.

So if going head to head is not an option and the vulnerability due to Indian Muslims has to be accepted as part of life, what we have to ensure is that this vulnerability remains as passive as possible, without increasing and most importantly without the likes of Pakistan being able to light up this oil-spill within our house!

Pakistan however would keep on attacking India and threatening India and they would do it all in the name of Islam hoping that the oil-spill catches fire.

If Indians start going after the Pakistanis, we could keep the Indian Muslims quiet, but going after Pakistan in a aar-paar ki larhdai is going to be extremely costly to Indians and may benefit the other powers. PRC has ensured that we cannot go after Pakistan on the cheap! PRC too would be the biggest beneficiary if we do! As Pakistan becomes more and more Islamic, it would also become all the more difficult to go after Pakistan even at a smaller level without seeing an upsurge in discontent amongst Indian Muslims. But Pakistan would keep on attacking India through terror attacks! Since India cannot get into a big war with Pakistan, all such attacks vitiates the feelings of the Indics against Muslims and Islam in general, which may lead us to retaliate against Indian Muslims or get us into a rhetorical war with Islam itself, something Pakistan would welcome.

The Great Powers too would continue to use Pakistan as a way to keep India bottled down. Even if India's relevance to them increases, they will still see Pakistan as useful because Indian wooing of them depends on the Pakistan factor! PRC has the biggest stake in preserving Pakistan.

A summary of what is at stake

survival of Indian civilization (nuke threat)
Dharmik preeminence over India
social stability and peace in India (civil war threat)
security in India (terror threat)
political and diplomatic power of India in Asia and the World (collective opposition from Muslim world)
Oil (Oil boycott)
Work permit for 4-5 million Indians in Arab countries

Basically the loop is complete. We cannot remove the internal vulnerability. We cannot remove the external threat. We cannot even call our nemesis by name! In fact if we even claim our heritage and identity as Indics, as Dharmiks, even that could potentially tip the balance of our domestic stability!

These are some thoughts on the Chakravyuh that has been prepared for us! Some may consider this to be a paranoid and a defeatist articulation. Far from it. The Chakravyuh is a challenge, a challenge of strategy! Here Ideology becomes either the problem environment or a tool, but not a replacement for strategy.

If the iron spear in our heart is
USA+PRC+UK ----> Pakistan ------> Indian Muslim vulnerability,

then that also shows the way of defeating the challenge.
Contain Indian Muslim vulnerability ----> Use Indian Muslims as our Hammer -----> Destroy Pakistan -----> Use Ummah as our Hammer -----> Bring down USA+PRC+UK

When I say "Use Indian Muslims as our Hammer", I am just using a crude way to articulate that for the time being we should consider the Narsinmha Avatar - part Man part Beast!

Just some thoughts!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Apr 2011 19:39

Rajesh A ji,
briefly now - separatism is a threat that only Myanmar need not play. India could threaten too. The whole of the north of myanmar is even in hotter sh** than J&K.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Apr 2011 20:32

brihaspati wrote:Rajesh A ji,
briefly now - separatism is a threat that only Myanmar need not play. India could threaten too. The whole of the north of myanmar is even in hotter sh** than J&K.

brihaspati garu,

I meant that should we use subversive and separatist tactics on Myanmar, they could use it on us as well. At the moment, as far as I understand it, they are being cooperative with us dealing with the separatist groups in the Northeast.

This I mentioned in context of our needing to use such separatist tactics in order to get some corridor through Myanmar down to the Bay of Bengal.

Separatism in North of Myanmar would possibly only help China and not us, so we need to be careful there. I would have to do some reading on this issue.

Also I worry about any effort on our part to promote separatism there could strengthen the embrace of China on Myanmar making even normal relations between India and Myanmar an impossibility.

I however do not wish to write off any possibilities for India to make some arrangement with Myanmar for sea access to our Northeast, even without having sovereign rights over such a corridor. It is however always a possibility that Myanmar would make us dependent on them for that corridor once we have set up the infrastructure for such a corridor. Such is the case with Pakistan allowing USA a supply line for their forces in Afghanistan. Our access to Central Asia and Iran is also dependent on Iran. So no ideal options here!

The more I think of it, I think that the "Peaceful Consolidation of the Indian Subcontinent" is the most promising solution and a key to our problems with China and Pakistan and would help establish India as the primary superpower in the Indian Ocean Region.

What stands between us and superpowerdom is our willingness to embrace the only SDRE Muslim country, Bangladesh as part of India, in a controlled merger! That is the game we can play to checkmate every other power in the region!

We should accept Bangladesh as a partner to curb Islamism in India in return for a share of power, and we should welcome Mughalistan as an Avatar of India designed for aggressive competition with other Muslim powers.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Apr 2011 21:02

No, there are both pro-China and anti-China groups in that northern triangle. They are out there to get support from anyone who will support them in their independence bid. At present Chinese support is only to use the separatists as a dangling knife over the junta. You think the junta will last forever? Moreover, what if we deliver the perks and the money to the "people" and not to the junta. We can promise to help in the overthrow of the junta, with economic perks thrown in - in return for a permanent corridor - not a lease or dependent or shared ownership.

I do have a long and hard duel over the Mughalistan and BD issue with you it seems - but later!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Apr 2011 21:25

RajeshA, The spear or spike in our hearts are the deracinated pseudo-secular elite who use the Indian Muslim sensibility as cover to carry on their own agenda of remaking Hindusim in Christian image.
Lets not mistake the real prepetrators.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Apr 2011 21:32

ramana wrote:RajeshA, The spear or spike in our hearts are the deracinated pseudo-secular elite who use the Indian Muslim sensibility as cover to carry on their own agenda of remaking Hindusim in Christian image.
Lets not mistake the real prepetrators.

There has been massive social engineering of the sub continent muslims in the last 60 years with Pakistan being the primary one. Pseudo seculars are the other side of the coin who are the product of these social changes who are looking to change the indics permanently.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Apr 2011 21:42

I think the social enginnering strated right after 1857 with promotion of Urdu etc to develo a unique idenitity and to sow the seeds of seeking a separate nation. Along with that the remaking of the modern Hindu mind was in full speed to prevent a repeat of 1857. We recognize only one aspect.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Apr 2011 22:14

RajeshA wrote:
What stands between us and superpowerdom is our willingness to embrace the only SDRE Muslim country, Bangladesh as part of India, in a controlled merger! That is the game we can play to checkmate every other power in the region!

We should accept Bangladesh as a partner to curb Islamism in India in return for a share of power, and we should welcome Mughalistan as an Avatar of India designed for aggressive competition with other Muslim powers.

This is a very good strategy and I feel it is doable. I have a different methodology to acheive this goal.
The most important variable is the BD muslim being influenced by the western social engineering on Muslims as global community and Ummah.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 27 Apr 2011 05:35

In answer to Advait ji's questions, no, I do not think anyone who insults Islam or any other religion should be killed.

In any discussions about BD Hindus, if I can contribute in any way, I definitely will.

Whether I am personally a moderate, orthodox or fundamentalist Muslim is kind of beside the point I believe, as long as I can present somewhat credible information about concerns, thought process and dreams for future of a good cross section of Muslim populations, specially w.r.t. BD, since I happen to be from that community.

As for living under Muslim rule and becoming a dhimmi, I think the discussion is more about a possible alliance of convenience between Hindu and Muslim civilizations, which is more of a partnership than one ruling over the other.

Now getting back to the discussion, I appreciate the inputs from old timer gurus in BRF, as always the subjective expressions more than anything else shows and reveals matters of heart, that are of more importance than logic, facts and data.

I am no clairvoyant or omnipotent or all seeing Rishi who has reached the Moksha or Nirvana, but I try to bring up points of relevance where I can. Hardening of heart takes centuries and so its softening make take centuries, perhaps only good and positive karma from both sides can break the vicious cycle of lack of trust and goodwill.

When we think of strategy and geopolitics, I would always urge everyone to have the map in front, if not in front of their minds eye. For us in BD, we are surrounded from all sides by India, with a small land border opening with Myanmar and of course the opening of Bay of Bengal. When this territory was curved out, it created myriads problems on both sides, which both are working on to solve for many decades, it is still work in progress.

For BD as a Muslim majority state, it will always have Islamic dreams. This kind of Islamism may not involve violent salafist extremism, but could be more similar to soft Islamism of Turkish AKP that wants to use Islamic solidarity for trade, business and economic gain and also could be more of a leftist labor union supporting kind seen among Egyptian revolutionary youth. But at the end of the day, it will be Islamist, although it may try to use Islam as a positive social force than a negative one that is more prevalent on the world stage today. So it may dream of having a more united Muslim world, although not under a single state Khilafa or even an Islamic Union of the OIC countries. A more pragmatic approach would be to unite the regions Muslims are already in, together with people of other faith (or non-faith), to create a more united and connected Afro-Eurasian land mass, where borders are increasingly less relevant.

As I mentioned many a times earlier, despite being a minority in India, Indian Muslims, for that matter, pretty much all sensible knowledgeable Muslims anywhere, have similar dreams, to live and let live, in peace and prosperity, while there are always extremist lunatic fringes that muddies the water a bit.

Pakistani masses, poor, uneducated and misinformed, have been under a govt. propaganda spell for decades, so their situation is a bit different, IMHO.

RajeshA ji has a good grasp of the reality of the subcontinent in its totality, IMHO, while others are still trying to come to terms with their own self in some ways, of course that is from my POV. B ji represents the new post partition Hindu nationalist POV, whereas RajeshAji represents the pre-partition Hindu nationalist POV, which also coincided with the anti-partition Indian Muslim nationalist POV. Somnath ji represent more current pragmatic views stressing that there are no constituency present as of now for such moves, while others refute RajeshA ji's reasoning behind the plan we discussed earlier. While we all understand that there is no constituency now, as it is obvious and a given premise, what we are discussing, as a thought experiment, is what would be implications of such a possible future scenario. If it is found to be a win-win for both sides, only then can we think about creating constituencies on the ground that will help create a momentum towards this direction from the grass roots level.

The biggest dissonance between a Muslim and non-Muslim POV is that Ummah is more real for Muslims, it is only a matter of degree for different regions, ethnic groups and communities. Why Muslims, even the more moderate and secular ones, have to think about Ummah? It is because of finding strength in a group or strength in numbers, while their own individual community might be too small to matter. It is not any different from why a small country want to be a part of EU or AU or ASEAN. In the end, it is a matter of pragmatic calculations and the fundamental urge of lifeforms for "Will to power" as described by Nietzsche. It is for the same reason, why a Nepal, Bhutan or SL would want to become a part of the SAARC Union, or any sensible group in NE would never want to secede the Indian Union. If Muslims of the world were just in one geographic area, then it would be a simple matter to have them under one state. But the reality is different, they are spread around the world in a jig saw puzzle. It is a problem, but it is also an opportunity to connect and unite diverse regions of the world, such as ASEAN, SAARC, MENA, Africa, Central Asia, Slavic and Sinic world.

Somnath ji is quite correct that there is no constituency for the ebook ideas either in BD or India, all we can do for now is continue on with CBM's and thus make the region more integrated within our current bounds bilaterally and also under the existing SAARC mechanisms. The ebook ideas are obviously way too premature to implement now, but discussing such ideas is not without merit, IMHO. It clarifies many regional issues. Perhaps it also gives some brief break to the disproportionate attention Pakistan and Afghanistan is given in the region and in BRF.

Bangladeshi Islamist's may not have New Cooler options, but a leftist/democratic alliance of Muslim countries led by Bangladesh-Indonesia-Turkey-Egypt is more likely in the future than Pakistan playing a leading role in the new direction in a post Arab Spring Muslim world. Other than producing a few bombs with PRC help and becoming a victim of violent extremism under over bearing Armed forces, which started as a mercenary and still remains one today, Pakistan do not have much to show for. Martial race theory is not going to cut much in the future I am afraid.

The question for Hindu civilization is whether it wants to join in a partnership of convenience with the Ummah, shelving mutual apprehensions and differences for the time being, while both struggle to contain the other powers as a joint force, or whether this opportunity is given to the East Asian Hans by default, who have already made inroads in this direction.

My personal feeling is that it is probably not the right moment to even ask such questions, may be in a decade when the dust settles in MENA region, it might become a relevant question. So all we can do for now w.r.t. BD is carry on with improving relations. In the meantime, BD will get more involved and assertive in Muslim politics, just as Turkey has done recently and will probably urge ASEAN Muslim countries to become more active in this area as well. It will continue to work on improving trade and connectivity with PRC and ASEAN via Myanmar land routes, as it does the same with India, but it should and I believe will make sure that its territory is not used by outside players to harm any neighbors interest, at any time in the future.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 27 Apr 2011 07:54

RajeshA ji has a good grasp of the reality of the subcontinent in its totality, IMHO, while others are still trying to come to terms with their own self in some ways, of course that is from my POV. B ji represents the new post partition Hindu nationalist POV, whereas RajeshAji represents the pre-partition Hindu nationalist POV, which also coincided with the anti-partition Indian Muslim nationalist POV. Somnath ji represent more current pragmatic views stressing that there are no constituency present as of now for such moves

wow! we have entire threads focusing on developing an independent Bharatiya view. and now we see another attempt at "informing" us about how to categorize the various views on BRF!!!

a leftist/democratic alliance of Muslim countries led by Bangladesh-Indonesia-Turkey-Egypt is more likely in the future than Pakistan playing a leading role in the new direction in a post Arab Spring Muslim world.

hmmm.....you have the elephant sitting next to you, and you're too busy dreaming about the deers and rabbits, which are thousands of miles away...

The biggest dissonance between a Muslim and non-Muslim POV is that Ummah is more real for Muslims, it is only a matter of degree for different regions, ethnic groups and communities. Why Muslims, even the more moderate and secular ones, have to think about Ummah?

the feeling of community can be gained by accepting your Bharatiya roots. there are 1.2 billion of us. that is more than enough people to have a "community" feeling with. for all practical purposes in life, the supposed Ummah "feeling" doesn't exist beyond your immediate vicinity. I think Pakistan pretty much proved the extant of the supposed Ummah "feeling" when they committed a genocide on your country and tried their best to keep you oppressed. and still these dreams about some grand global Ummah.....

The question for Hindu civilization is whether it wants to join in a partnership of convenience with the Ummah

yup...that sums up the worst of our fears. an alliance of convenience. what happens when the "convenience" runs its due course? we have 200 million (future approximation) of you and another 200 million in our own country who decide that the fire for the Ummah "feeling" grows fresh in them.....and then the ever retreating "Hindu civilization" retreats even more.....

if you represent the "moderate"/"liberal" view of BD, then I don't want anything to do with a merger of Bharat and BD...
sorry for the bluntness.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 27 Apr 2011 08:31

What is that a billion strong ummah (that is full of differences )can achieve that a 1.2billionstrong deracinated Bharat cannot achieve?

Do we need BD merger to win the hearts and minds of IMs? I think that is an insult to IMs.

Trad with anyone who supports a peaceful strong and prosperous India. Let the weaklings seek integration before making any concession. Let the majority of Bharat prosper.

Let's put the house in order before accepting new family members.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Apr 2011 08:58

brihaspati wrote:No, there are both pro-China and anti-China groups in that northern triangle. They are out there to get support from anyone who will support them in their independence bid. At present Chinese support is only to use the separatists as a dangling knife over the junta. You think the junta will last forever? Moreover, what if we deliver the perks and the money to the "people" and not to the junta. We can promise to help in the overthrow of the junta, with economic perks thrown in - in return for a permanent corridor - not a lease or dependent or shared ownership.

I do have a long and hard duel over the Mughalistan and BD issue with you it seems - but later!

brihaspati garu,
Myanmar is a federation of various ethnicities, and when I look at it, it reminds me a lot about Afghanistan!

I think it is extremely important that we do not take the territorial integrity of Myanmar lightly! Should Myanmar break up, it is may be possible that India gets access to the Bay of Bengal from India's Northeast, but it is just as possible that China ends up becoming an Indian Ocean power! The Chinese influence over Myanmar is very troubling.

So I would say, we have to be careful in what we try out in Myanmar.

However, there are still a lot of possibilities. One of them is the Rakhine people! Myanmar is an interesting place. Too bad it gets short shrift from Indians and even Indian "strategists"!

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Apr 2011 09:05

ManishH wrote:
brihaspati wrote:The fatal blunder by JLN in accepting giving up of CHT and the Chittagong port
My objection is only to one-sided criticism of PanditJi without appreciating the larger picture.

Chittagong and Chittagong Hill Tracts were different districts in 1947
http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpregion ... 14214.html

India had legitimate claims to CHT on basis of population, but the port wasn't so. Now I agree that Indian leadership should should have extrapolated the CHT claim to add the port itself. But I'm not sure whether a 97% majority in CHT would have have translated to a majority in all of chittagong division, the port having higher population density than the hills.

It's a strategic loss that rankles us and a J&K style expeditionary force could have been used to liberate CHT, but why paint "p-sec" leadership as almost the sole villain here, without giving it credit for Gurdaspur award which became a key to holding J&K?
http://www.ourbeacon.com/cgi-bin/bbs60x ... 3119164079

Perhaps you can propose a leadership, other than Nehru/Patel/Menon, circa 1947, who would have guaranteed inclusion of Chittagong port in India ?

According to the Chittagong Hill Tracts folks' version of history, they were handed over to Pakistan as a substitute for the vital Gurdaspur area that on population basis might have gone to Pakistan.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 27 Apr 2011 09:10

^I would attribute all such mistakes to JLN's lack of strategic vision for India. He didnt think india would ever makes to worlds power table.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 27 Apr 2011 09:31

^^^
the first guy always sets the precedent. George Washington in US is an example. stopped after second term. set the policy of non-intervention in burdensome foreign entanglements. ruthlessly crushed internal "freedom" movements (this fact is carefully masked

). those 3 are Washington's greatest achievements as head of state. compare that record with JLN. exact opposite. built a neo-monarchy. didn't care about territorial integrity; and we were lucky to have few tigers like Sardar. the non-intervention part is tricky. that has to be carefully analyzed to measure how much we had a choice in and how much we were basically forced to do b/c of broader geopolitics.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 27 Apr 2011 09:44

Rajesh ji, What good is to India to gain the world and loose the Indic soul? BD merger will be the millstone around India's neck. Too big a price for the prospects of lesser reward and many uncertainties.. If global warning is real, They will be under water soon and begging for dry land. We will will have all sorts of leverage to "push" the right "merger' that time. China is a threat but not of this nature and magnitude that we cut our own nose to spite them. Indicvarta needs few more decades of healing for complete recovery before sending reconquistadors to show the door by jor.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Apr 2011 10:59

RamaY wrote:^I would attribute all such mistakes to JLN's lack of strategic vision for India. He didnt think india would ever makes to worlds power table.

RamaY-ji, on the contrary JLN could be justifiably accused of trying to pitch a position for India that was far above our capabilities for the time...He sought to substitute our glaring deficiencies in hard power quotient (economic, military) with history, moralism and sheer force of his personality...Not always for the better, has to be said...

On the specific issue of Chittagong, while it is easy to critique the decision-making on a post-facto basis, it would be important to remember that both freedom and partition came in a hurry for everyone...Indian politicians, largely untrained in the nuances of governance were faced with a daunting situation..the country came into being without a settled boundary..Riots all over...Very soon, a war in Kashmir...Integration of the princely states...Refugees....

On the whole, we came off pretty well geogrpaphically in the partition aftermath...Retention of Gurdaspur, ensuring the land link to J&K...Retention of A&N islands within India..Retention of Assam...whether the Chittagong port was a case of simply oversight in face of lots of other priorities, or a deal made, we'll perhaps never know...

Importantly, it isnt a big deal anymore - a closer economic linkage with BD will ensure that we have the port to our use, sometime in the future for naval use as well!