Bharat Rakshak

Muppalla wrote:

A_Gupta wrote:Assume for an instant that Stratfor's George Friedman is correct, about this "Since a stable Pakistan is more important to the United States than a victory in Afghanistan - which it wasn't going to get anyway - the United States released pressure and increased aid. If Pakistan collapsed, then India would be the sole regional power, not something the United States wants,' Friedman said."

To me, the logical implication is that if Pakistan could break the al-Qaeda/other international terrorist groups' link with the Taliban; i.e., if the Pakistani Army could convince/force its clients in Afghanistan and Pakistan not to threaten the US or NATO countries, the the US would be happy to give Pakistan free rein in Afghanistan. After all, that meets all US objectives.

It follows that Pakistan is unable or unwilling to deliver this delinking. Pakistan has not kept even the L-e-T to a local scope (India, Afghanistan). It might be the usual Paki method of taking a maximalist position, or it might be that Pakistan genuinely has lost control.

It follows that the duplicity is not that Pakistan supports the Taliban. The duplicity, from the P.O.V. of the US, if Friedman is correct, is that Pakistan has not delivered on keeping its terrorist proxies confined to South Asia.

shiv wrote:If what Friedman says is true and we assume that Paki nukes have US PALs - it is likely that the US has made it clear to India that war with Pakistan means that Pakistan will be free to unlock their nukes.

This is contrary to what I have believed and stated so far.I have believed hat the US has cajoled and compelled India into cooperation on the suggestion that moving the nukes would get some of them out of control. But this news could mean that the US will not object if the nukes are moved for mating in a war with India. I am still not sure that this is good for the US in the long term. It is bad for India from any anglle anyway.

These two posts fundamentally are summary of the zillion posts and zillion versions of BR threads regarding this tango between India-TSP-US. In addition to what George Friedman has put so bluntly and honestly, we should add India's closest friend Robert Blackwill's comments recently and also the one that he made immediately after India's parliament attack. He clearly said that " Existance and integerty of pakistan is non-negotiable as it is US national interest. We are not here to fight India's war. "

What US wants is a tap (owned by TSP) when opened the water (Jihadi Terror) should always fall in a designated vessel (was Russia and India and later just India). However, as the tap got wornout, it started leakings. The leaked water started reaching western nations and created a one time flood in the form of 911. US was working to fix the leak for a while and became serious to fix the leak after 911. However, there was never a plan to remove the tap. The tap is required. India is just a catalyst so that the leaks are fixed. Nukes are a hedge so that India and others does not remove the tap forever. Now just add the billions of dollars in aid being delivered etc. to this picture and we get the same story. Fundamentally nothing has really changed geopolitically between US-TSP and India. US's friendship with India is just for pure commercial purposes.

TSP knows this game so well and they were extremely confident that US will never knockout TSP and hence they played the alleged-double game against US. It is neither unexpected nor shocking for US that TSP is actually using the war on terror to help Taliban. They know that Pakistan has to be allowed to do whatever they are doing inorder to get the tap-leaks plugged. The only challenge in the whole game was for TSP in convincing the entire jihadi-machinery that this whole thing is supposed to be meant only-for-India and not a global thing. The entire engagement of US in South Asia is to wait patienty and help/facilitate TSP to plug the tap-leaks. In the persuit, it asked India also to take some hits because it is a necessary step to facilate TSP meet the "challenge".

The wikileaks is a platform to tell the world what US actually wanted and it is like a status report. It is also the way to tell that as soon as we are satisfied that the "water-leak" is taken care off, we will be off Af-Pak. I am sure in the coming days we will also see the strategy that US want to put in place so that TSP could meet the "challenge".

Did US succeed in helping TSP meet the challenge?
(1) Yes - it has put a lot of human and electronic intel in Af-Pak area to know when the attacks are coming to west.
(2) As long as jihadis are busy in attacks in India, Russia etc. it achieved its goal
(3) It may allow some not-so-important western nations (like Spain, Iceland etc.) to take those once in a while attacks. It may feel that it is ok to take once in a while terror attacks on US interest abroad viz. US-Cole etc. Minimal life loss once in a while to jihadis is not that big of a loss and worth the loss in the US-National interest.

Did the US succeed in helping TSP stay on course and intact?
(1) US is working on a plan to see Pasthuns are less angry. TSP may just allow them to do whatever they want in Punjab. TSPA may gift Pastuns to go and rape as many women as they want in Punjab. The rentier state can rent the selected portions of Punjab to Pasthuns to buy peace and put back the machines on course.
(2) Allow Taliban to takeover Afghanistan so that they can lead Afghans and also they have Punjab for flesh. TSPA will make sure the tap water goes to designated vessel.
(3) Drug market eminating from Af-Pak is force multiplier to motivate all the officials from the countires there so that the financial-cuts could make them rich while helping the jihadi finances

US will stay as long as it takes to achieve the above.

What's for India in all this?
It has to wait before thinking doing these big-boy items as it has to take care of those who does not have a flushable lavatory. Until then India has to spin itself for talks-with-anyone, Nuke deals and everything that will get few more dollars. [Note: not meant to take potshots on any BR member. I honestly believe this is the thought process in a substantial section of Indian policy makers.]

the Congress party today broadly is divided into two camps: those that are in government and those that are not. Camps, perhaps, is a strong word because the division is not formal in any sense although it is slowly becoming pronounced. Those in the government and therefore ipso facto in that camp want to preserve the status quo. There are exceptions to this. Pranab Mukherjee is one, who still commands wide respect within Congress party circles.

Two fundamentally significant developments have strengthened the hands of the Congress group vis-a-vis the government camp. The first is that the Manmohan Singh government has lost its moral authority following the deep distortions produced by its Washington Consensus economic model, one of whose consequences is the runaway food and fuel inflation.

As of last week, there were strong whisperings that Manmohan Singh would be promoted as President of India and Pranab Mukherjee brought in his place as interim prime minister till Rahul Gandhi was ready. This writer does not believe Rahul Gandhi can run this country for a day considering the enormous complexities of India, and that is the rub. With the failure of a technocrat like Manmohan Singh, one would imagine the Congress leadership looking at the issue of prime-ministership with dispassion, clarity and wisdom. The dynasty experiment failed with Rajiv Gandhi and it will wreck with his son, but the country seems condemned to it. Meanwhile, the Congress and government leadership have come to believe that no news (about the opposition and peoples' agitation against the unprecedented price rise) is good news. Managing the media (whose current credibility crisis eventually will destroy it) is a lot easier than fixing elections, and terrified Congress grassroots leaders know that only too well.

brihaspati wrote:All other factors, are really secondary. Money or no money, career or no career, presence on say tweeter or not, all are really not primary determinants of being seen as trustworthy enough to deliver - by the people you want to support you.

Atri wrote:Study the socio-economic dynamics of Vijaywada region. The caste politics is immensely important there. Make sure you have constituency amongst those which castes are the "deciding factors" in Vijaywada constituency.

Atri wrote:I would recommend you to "understand" what "being Indian" and "being Hindu" is.

Atri wrote:Regarding "great Indian empire" or "mahabhaarat", I would recommend you to talk with pakjabis, sindhis, bangladeshis, our bengalis, assamese, Burmese, Nepalese, Sri lankans. try and gather data from the youth from that region and know their aspirations. Try and make sure you get data from every region/province/district of pakjab, BD and SL. Without people willing,there cannot be a "great indian empire".

RamaY wrote:gpati garu,
Y0-Y5 - 2010-15 - Complete your Phd. Doesn't matter the field of study. I am giving you 5 yrs for this. Take your time to do your Phd, while gaining as much knowledge as possible on world history (there are ~180 countries and you should be able to quote their history, intellectuals, philosophers, leaders, poetry as needed). Learn at least 3 Indian languages (other than Telugu - Sanskrit, Hindu, and Urdu are my recommendations) and 2 foreign languages (Chinese, and Spanish are my recommendations). Practice on your presentation and oratory skills. Learn to think 1 minute for every 10 secs you speak. Practice a base voice.

Y5-Y10 - 2015-20 - Work in a field that pays the most. It doesn't matter where you work as long as you get the highest paycheck. Objective is to save at least $80K/Yr (5 yrs = 400K = Rs 2 Crores). Deposit in an Indian bank. This will give you ~Rs3-4 Lakhs monthly income starting year 2030.

brihaspati wrote: Second most important thing is to choose the "constituency". I don't mean it in the ordinary voting area sense. I mean which sections of the society you think you can approach and mobilize behind your programme. Or if you feel that the most promising section is not really there "yet", what you need to do to bring them to "ignition".

If you want others to follow, learn to be alone with your thoughts

By William Deresiewicz

The lecture below was delivered to the plebe class at the United States Military Academy at West Point in October of last year.

Klaus wrote:Recently the "Discussion on Indian Epics, Treatises and Kathas" has featured the DI axis and its influence on India since Mahabharata.

One characteristic feature of the DI axis is that the "D" end (Krishna) bails out the "I' end when I is down and out. Is it time for the DI axis to rise from the dust again and reassert itself in the epicentre of Indian politics given the "I" is dithering from dharma? Will we see the "D" come to the forefront in 2014 or earlier?

OTOH, are these testing times for both "D" and "I", with "D" being tarnished for more than a decade now?

brihaspati wrote:
Leaning alone on D-I is not a good idea - India is also crucially dependent on the cooption of Magadha-Kekaya axis as equal partners. That will keep the Duryodhonas and Satyakis in check. One an example of reliance on dynastic claims - the other an example of growing arrogance.

Pratyush wrote:

Klaus wrote:Recently the "Discussion on Indian Epics, Treatises and Kathas" has featured the DI axis and its influence on India since Mahabharata.

One characteristic feature of the DI axis is that the "D" end (Krishna) bails out the "I' end when I is down and out. Is it time for the DI axis to rise from the dust again and reassert itself in the epicentre of Indian politics given the "I" is dithering from dharma? Will we see the "D" come to the forefront in 2014 or earlier?

OTOH, are these testing times for both "D" and "I", with "D" being tarnished for more than a decade now?

Probably OT,

I have read that thread but could not really understand the refrence to D & I , one guess is

D=Dwarka
I= Indraprastha

Klaus wrote:

brihaspati wrote:
Leaning alone on D-I is not a good idea - India is also crucially dependent on the cooption of Magadha-Kekaya axis as equal partners. That will keep the Duryodhonas and Satyakis in check. One an example of reliance on dynastic claims - the other an example of growing arrogance.

During MB times, South India was largely isolated/insulated from the NI plains due to the thick Dandaka forests (please correct me if i'm wrong here), save for rishis, ascetics and travellers who continued to travel to and fro spreading dharma, spirituality and knowledge between kingdoms. In modern India, with exponentially increased mediums and degrees of communication, is it possible that the Magadha-Kekaya axis has converted to a Magadha-Godavari-Kaveri axis. AFAIK, Kekaya had lost must of its former glory by the time of MB.

I would think that India's power is concentrated along 2 (or maybe 3) axis running on either side of the Vindhya mountains.

Now that you've mentioned it, D (Krishna) seems to be quite a dichotomy. I could expound on this in the GDF.

Atri wrote:I will play devil's advocate, just for the sake of argument..

One of the most important factors, that of drying saraswati is being neglected in above discussion. This is one of the factors which was misread by the think-tanks of DI-Axis. The revelation that Saraswati is drying up comes to Krishna after the Raajsooya Yagna Episode. Without the game of dice, the strategists of DI-axis might have thought a way of shifting eastwards.

Ideology is never static, it spills over once it is given a sufficient incubation time in any one region OR subregion. The fatal mistake of Dwarikadheesh was not putting all eggs in one subregional basket. I guess, his mistake was putting all eggs in that subregional basket which was torn and had a huge hole.

Along with ideology, even polity spills over the shifts the centre of admin. We see this in gupta times when Pataliputra was abandoned as capital in favour of Ujjain for its ease in northwestern conquests (both military and ideological).

ManuT wrote:
IMO, there is some value in building alliances, but they have to be built in advance and as the hostilities are breaking out. One would hope similar systems will polarise together in the long run. India should know in which direction it wants to polarise itself. Because at least one of the directions are led by people like Karat.

ManuT wrote:
slight OT ---

Acharya wrote: Russia/Soviet Union did not help us in 1962. This conflict was approved by the major powers at that time to bring down JLN.

In my verison, it was brought upon JLN by himself (a series of policy errors, since fall of Lhasa) and Krishna Menon (internal sabotage). But West did come to India's aid and India's response to them was kind of bi-polar.

Rony wrote:Hinduism & its Military Ethos

by Air Marshal (retd) R K Nehra

Reviews by Claude Arpi and Ramananda Sengupta respectively

A bogus preoccupation with the ideals of ahimsa, shanti and satya is at the root of the culture of unreasoning acquiescence that characterises Indian diplomacy. Air Marshal RK Nehra’s book, Hinduism and its Military Ethos, mourns the erosion of Hinduism’s lost ‘warrior mindset’

Que sera sera — whatever will be, will be.” Thus ends a fascinating book, Hinduism and its Military Ethos written by Air Marshal RK Nehra. According to the retired Indian Air Force officer, it could be the motto of India: The future is already written, we can’t do anything about it!

At the level of an individual or a nation, the blind acceptance of the present, as it is, and the future, as it will be, can have critical consequences.

He explains: “It is equally baffling to see the ease with which Hindus accepted their slavery. They adjusted to it with remarkable alacrity, almost as a duck takes to water. There was no great national upsurge, no fightback, even no major signs of resentment.”

According to him, the problem is that India is “stuck in the bhool-bhulayas (labyrinths) of ahimsa (non-violence), shanti (peace) and satya (truth)”.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with these great Indian virtues which have been the ideals of every Indian for millennia, but the problem seems to be rather that instead of being the final goal, the ultimate objective of a civilisation, they have become the means to achieve this end. Mixing up the goals and the means is the tragedy of India.

Chanting shanti, shanti or speaking of ahimsa on a battlefield (or on the parleys table) does not help to achieve shanti or remove the violent instincts in the opponent, especially when one faces a rogue one. Though Air Marshal Nehra restricts himself to military matters, the mindset described by him also exists in other fields, particularly in diplomacy.

Take the example of the recent ‘Islamabad talks’. I was shocked to read the comment of an ‘eminent’ analyst who said that ‘India shone’ in Islamabad. Why? Because India did not respond to the insults received.

One can understand that the Indian Prime Minister wants to leave some trace of his passage at Race Course Road and is ready to take some risk for that, but why silently accept insults? When Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi compared Home Secretary GK Pillai to Jamaat-ud-Dawa’h chief Hafiz Saeed and complained that his Indian counterpart Mr SM Krishna took telephonic instructions from Delhi, the Indian side only feebly protested. The next day, the Indian Foreign Secretary even said that the talks were on. Que sera sera!

The worst is that Mr Pillai was punished for standing by ‘satya’, he had just confirmed that the ISI had been involved “from beginning to end” in the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks: The Ministry of Home Affairs has now appointed a new spokesperson. Indian diplomatic blunders would take pages and pages just to list. One of the biggest, according to me, was the Panchsheel Agreement through which India unilaterally surrendered its rights in Tibet, without getting even a proper demarcation of its frontier in return. The Machiavellian Chinese Premier, Mr Zhou Enlai, enigmatically declared that all the issues “ripe for settlement” had been solved. Nobody reacted till several years later when it was too late (the Chinese had already built a road through Indian territory in the Aksai Chin area of Ladakh).

Air Marshal Nehra’s theory is that there is something wrong with the ‘Hindu’ mindset. He writes: “Out of the recorded Hindu history of around 2,300 years, Bharat was under jackboots of slavery for some 1,300 years — a dubious record.” He tries to analyse: “It is baffling to see the great Hindu civilisation going under with such extraordinary ease. It would appear that reasons for Hindu slavery lay in their mind, rather than in their muscle. The ancient Hindus were a set of martial people who lived by the sword. Somewhere along the line, Hindus lost their way and their martial spirit.”

One of his conclusions is that “Hindus developed a deluded sense of dharma under influence of Buddhism; that was the main reason for their downfall.”

Here, I differ with his view. There are many examples of Buddhist ‘warriors’, defending the highest Indian values. Even in modern India, without the Nubra Guards of Colonel Chhewang Rinchen, who received twice the Mahavir Chakra, Ladakh would today be under Pakistani occupation. One could also cite the role of the Ladakh Scouts during the Kargil conflict or on the Siachen glacier and the Tibetan Special Frontier Forces who participated in the Liberation of Bangladesh in 1971 and several other battles.

For Buddhism (as well as for Hinduism), a tradition of defending the highest dharma has existed; Air Marshal Nehra himself quotes the Bhagvad Gita: Hatova prapsyasi swargam jitva bhoksyase mahim (Slain in battle, you attain heaven, gaining victory, you enjoy the earth).

But Air Marshal Nehra is probably right when he says: “Hindus suffer from bouts of phony morality and bogus sense of self-righteousness… All these are un-military-like attributes, which must be shunned.”

He speaks at length of India’s military campaigns and India’s lost chances to send back the invading forces to their Penates. One of the first ‘blunders’ of Independent India occurred in January 1948; suddenly the Indian forces stopped their advances in Kashmir and the raiders were not pushed back to Pakistan. If one studies history, one discovers that Indian defeats have always been the result of wrong interpretation of the Indic spiritual tradition.

However, some Indian leaders did see things differently. When Hindus were butchered in East Pakistan during the first months of 1950, the Government first contemplated strong steps, then the Prime Minister of Pakistan came to India and Nehru melted; he signed a pact with Pakistan; at that time, Sri Aurobindo argued: “The massacres in East Bengal still seemed to make war inevitable and the Indian Government had just before Nehru’s attempt to patch up a compromise made ready to march its Army over the East Bengal borders once a few preliminaries had been arranged and war in Kashmir would have inevitably followed. America and Britain would not have been able to support Pakistan and (they) had already intimated their inability to prevent the Indian Government from taking the only possible course open to it in face of the massacre. In the circumstances the end of Pakistan would have been the certain consequence of war… Now all this has changed. After the conclusion of the pact… no outbreak of war can take place at least for some time to come, and, unless the pact fails, it may not take place. That may mean in certain contingencies the indefinite perpetuation of the existence of Pakistan and the indefinite postponement of the prospect of any unification of India.”

Sixty years later, India is perhaps ‘shining’, but losing battles. At the end of the day, is it not a problem of leadership? India has unfortunately only had leaders who sing: “The future’s not ours to see! Que sera sera!”

Superpower in waiting. That’s how many of us would like to describe India. An economic juggernaut, a state with nuclear weapons, waiting to take its rightful place at the world’s top table.
Air Marshal (retd) RK Nehra believes that wait is likely to be a long one.

Because, thanks to Buddhism, the once martial Hindus, who still are a majority in Hindustan, have now become peace-loving wimps.

And a ‘soft state’ can never become a superpower, it will always be a waiter at the top table, if that.

I must confess when I first heard about his book, Hinduism and its military ethos, I was less than impressed.

The book jacket, which portrayed a pale brick wall, or pavement, with a crack running down the middle, did nothing to change that impression.

But I should have known not to judge a book by its title, or its cover.

Air Marshal Nehra has obviously spent a lot of time and energy studying not just Hinduism, but every major religion of the world.

He starts by examining the India-born religions, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, before moving on to describe the Judaic religions – Christianity, Judaism and Islam – in a nutshell. (All this, in 13 pages of crisp text.)

He then concludes that “Hinduism, ‘the first formal religion of mankind’, remained confined to Bharat (India) while Christianity and Islam spread rapidly across the world simply because of the ‘stark simplicity of the creeds of the two faiths. These are easy to understand by laymen with average, (or even below average) intelligence. By comparison, Hindu philosophy is highly complex and their view of life difficult to understand.”

But wait, I digress.

Nehra’s argument is essentially simple: We as a nation lack the killer instinct. We lack the ruthlessness, the cunning, the immorality needed to become a true world power.

And he blames Buddhism for our recent meekness.

‘Of the recorded Hindu history of around 2,300 years, Bharat was under the jackboots of slavery for some 1300 years—a dubious record.’


The ancient Hindus, he says, ‘were a set of martial people who lived by the sword. Somewhere along the line, Hindus lost their way and their martial spirit…(they) developed a deluded sense of Dharma under the influence of Buddhism, and that was the main reason for their downfall.’

While the Bhagvad Gita emphasises the duty to engage in holy (righteous) war, Buddhism and Jainism injected self-defeating concepts like ‘ahimsa, (non-violence), shanti (peace) and satya (truth) into the Hindu psyche, ‘with disastrous results,’ argues Nehra.

It is that mindset, he says, which produces ‘patriotic songs’ which say things like: Duniya ka zulum sehna, aur munh se kuch na kehna,’ which loosely translated means: “it is a great tradition of ours to bear all type and manner of atrocities, without ever complaining.

“In addition to ahimsa, another insignia fondly, forcedly and firmly put on the Hindu lapel is that of ‘Tolerance’. It is difficult to utter the ‘Hindu’ word, without uttering ‘tolerance’ in the same breath,” he says.

“The Hindu is being constantly told that his religion and scriptures require him to be ‘tolerant’. It is generally projected as if Hinduism has no existence independent of tolerance; a Hindu should ‘walk’ tolerance, he should ‘talk’ tolerance. During TV debates, one often hears Hindu leaders, both pseudo-secularists and ‘communal’, going hysterical about ‘Hindu Tolerance’.

But yet in the Ramayana, he notes, ‘Laxman displays extreme intolerance in cutting off nose of a woman, Surpanakha. What was her fault? She had only made a marriage proposal to Laxman, who at that time, was without his wife. In any case, those days, rulers used to have multiple wives.’

While in the Mahabharata, Arjun, at Krishna’s behest, killed Karna when he was helpless. Bhima, again at Krishna’s urging, hit Duryodhana on the thigh with his mace, violating prevailing norms of combat.

Thus, ‘the projected tolerance of Hindus, born out of bogus spirituality, is a myth. It is an artificial web woven round the Hindus by people with base instinct and baser intentions,’ he concludes.

Superpower? Top table? Not just yet.

The meek, as they say, will inherit the dearth.

But yet in the Ramayana, he notes, ‘Laxman displays extreme intolerance in cutting off nose of a woman, Surpanakha. What was her fault? She had only made a marriage proposal to Laxman, who at that time, was without his wife.

Acharya wrote:

ManuT wrote:
IMO, there is some value in building alliances, but they have to be built in advance and as the hostilities are breaking out. One would hope similar systems will polarise together in the long run. India should know in which direction it wants to polarise itself. Because at least one of the directions are led by people like Karat.

India has to get the right leadership and people have to vote for them. leadership has to understand the threat round the world. Indian National interest is important. Colonial perception of the world does not matter and India has to have its own media for the rest of the world to show what Indians values are and what Indians work with other countries.

Acharya wrote:Indians still have not understood what is geo politics about. They will always come and try to help after they have set in motion what they wanted to do. This is not about JLN or XYZ. It is about the entire nation and civilization.

ManuT wrote:

Acharya wrote:Indians still have not understood what is geo politics about. They will always come and try to help after they have set in motion what they wanted to do. This is not about JLN or XYZ. It is about the entire nation and civilization.

The following are the challenges for the Indian Civilization, in my world.

1. To make available the food surplus to India's hungry.
2. To eradicate female infacticide.
3. To make avilable urea free milk to babies.
4. Promotion of lead free paints in house paints and toys for kids.
5. To provide life saving Emergency Ambulatory services to its population.
6. Preventing of mixing of used engine oil from vehicles with ground water.

................
................