Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[joshvajohn]

When power comes politicians and rulers become the same! when power is linked with ideologies then it is not people that matter but economy or ideology or something else always matters! I am yet to see exceptions in Indian politics. No Political leadership in India is away from supporting their corrupt and their criminal regional leaders!

[RajeshA]

Much from the list is standard prescriptions, however two are noteworthy (for me):

8. Excellent primary education till grade 6, via vouchers of equal value provided by the government to all children (regardless of any financial, social or any other status of the parents), to be used in a private school of choice of the parents (India in 2011 can afford this, if corruption doesnt come into play and a voucher system will just about remove corruption from education and transfer the reponsibility of using the vouchers wisely with parents).

This has been a long demand of mines and I support this wholeheartedly.

6. Protection of the rights of adherents of native religions such as Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism and other native aboriginie and animist religions without infringing on the rights of adherents of other religions such as Islam and Christianity. In those instances where there is a doctrinal difference between native religions and "externally originated" religions, native religious doctrine will prevail, in the social arena, law and order arena and law of the land arena. Conversion out of any native religion to any "external religion" will be highly regulated and will only be permitted if the religious leaders of the native religion which a person is leaving issue a certificate that this person is leaving out of his own free will without coersion or being bribed.

This is using a hammer instead of a surgeon's knife.

How can it be protecting the rights of the adherents of native religions if one is taking away their right to believe whatever they will?

If a person has chosen to adopt another religion, say Christianity or Islam, then it is because these religions have been able to either market the belief system better or have given a better incentive to convert. The native religion has proven weak.

According to Darwinism and law of markets, the weak should perish, and make way for the competitive, the strong. That Abrahamic faiths manage to achieve a monopoly in territories of their domination, can be understood, but in India, the Hindus are the majority. Why do they manage to steal the sheep from under the noses of the lords of Hindu Dharma? Just like the "Protectors of Hindu Samaj" fell to the spears, arrows and swords of the Islamic invaders, so too should they fall again to the "appeal of Monotheism"! Do they deserve to stand and win?

[RajeshA]

One is deserving of survival and success, if one can show the dedication, the brawn and the brain. None of it is optional. All are necessary. Without the brain, both brawn and dedication are useless, and one may end up harming one's cause more than through just passivity. Next comes dedication! Without dedication, all the ideas produced by the brain would remain an unsung poem, just data for the data graveyard. Third comes brawn. This can be built up - through numbers, through tools.

The brain has to analyze and conjure up strategy. And using hammers instead of surgical knifes is a sure way to a blotched up strategy. The Indian state has a strong foundation and strong pillars. It is the roof and walls that have been hollowed out. If one uses a strategy to bring down walls and roof, by attacking the foundation and the pillars, one would find out that, these would hit back. The security forces would hit back. A revolution that uses violence would have its ass served in its hands. If a revolution wants to use violence in the Indian context, it has to be very limited, it has to be covert and it has to be very precise. But that too would not really deliver on the promise.

One has to attack the walls and roof directly without challenging the foundation and the pillars. One has to make the walls and roof incompatible with the foundation and pillars. One can give the foundation and the pillars a new paint making the walls and roof stand out as incompatible. One has to coax the walls and roof out from behind the protection they enjoy behind the foundation and the pillars. Often one cannot attack the target directly, and one needs to target the real target's protectors and arbitrators. Sometimes one needs to buy over the protectors and arbitrators. Sometimes one needs to cleanse them from within their own ranks. The best way I find is to change the environment, the air composition. Make the air have the composition in which your species thrive, while the enemy's species gasp for air, and dies off of its own accord, without you ever having needed to raise the hand against your enemy. One needs to find out what is exactly the air composition in which Indic religions will blossom, while the Abrahamics would go under.

First rule of the book should be never to mark your enemies as such. Second rule should be to always go into a struggle with a positive agenda - define how India should be, and not what your enemies should be not! A positive agenda can kill off your enemies, without ever naming them. Third rule should be to weaken your enemy by causing dissension in its own ranks. Fourth rule should be to force your enemy to take off its civil mask, without resorting to uncivil methods. Fifth rule should be that if your enemy shows its uncivil mask, you kill of 5-10 % of your enemy, its hardcore, and you convert the rest.

Full, open and scientific scrutiny of faith systems, their founders and their origins is definitely one component of the biosphere where Hinduism can survive, but many others may not.

[brihaspati]

Meanwhile, the projection I had on the growth of the neo-Maoist faction within the party and PLA in China - appears to be becoming more and more public.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/31/jin ... ist-party/
31st August, 2011.

Jin’s comments about senior officials caught spying, including Kang Rixin, general manager of China National Nuclear and a member of the CCP’s Central Committee and Central Disciplinary Committee, and Li Bin, Chinese ambassador to South Korea, are intended to contrast the current Chinese leadership’s attitudes with those displayed by such key figures as Zhu De and Mao Zedong. The implication is that today’s CCP leadership is not living up to the example and the ideals set by Mao.

Jin says the accused were charged with economic crimes instead of spying, because it was too embarrassing to the Party to acknowledge that senior officials might be engaged in espionage. While discussing Li Bin, Jin laments that no other country has had one of its own ambassadors change sides. (Jin apparently is unfamiliar with the case of Soviet ambassador to the U.N. Arkady Shevchenko.)

What is striking is how Jin’s comments are in line with the efforts of neo-Maoist populists such as Bo Xilai, the general secretary of the direct-controlled city of Chongqing (comparable to a province). Bo has sought to distinguish himself from the mass of Chinese politicians by publicly cracking down on corruption, stressing populist themes such as affordable housing, and emphasizing the continued importance of ideology. Bo has reportedly text-messaged quotations from Chairman Mao to various followers, and championed the broadcasting of “red culture” songs on Chongqing television.

If the available video of General Jin’s speech is authentic and accurate (which remains to be seen), it is far from indicating a military/civilian split. Instead, it would likely signal the rise of a new faction within Chinese politics—a neo-Maoist grouping that combines military and civilian elements. This new faction would appear to be more interested in old-fashioned Communist ideology, as a means of reviving the authority of the CCP—perhaps due to economic difficulties. On the eve of 2012’s power transition in Beijing, from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping, such a new grouping may have unpredictable results.

The neo-Maoists are using a "revivalist" version as a tool for intra-party factional power struggle, but disturbingly [or welcome for us longer term] there is an increasingly strong military faction behind this. Moreover, the youth are showing a Cultural revolution like trend of super-nationalism on selective issues. Chinese youth, especially the sections that become first or second generation "exposed" to education, have a tendency to "rebel" on perceived issues of "national" degradation and social injustice. There can be a convergence of factors leading to interesting array of conflicting forces.

The recent hype about "social harmony" makes greater sense. For India, as my speculation was, the growth of neo-Maoist tendency may bring both sides to excessive nationalism and prospects of military adventurism to checkmate or win against the other faction.

[suryag]

NaMo's smashing interview with Society magazine, didnt know where to post it

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/naren ... herstories

[RajeshA]

Man if so many in the media are now falling heads over heels fawning at Modi, then it means that US Report must have worked wonders in the Indian media scene.

Scary how much influence US official opinion has on Indian media.

[suryag]

After reading all leaks i wouldnt be surprised if unkil even ran a survey in india and found NaMo has the winning potential and may be they perceive NaMo as pro-us based on the fact that he comes from the right

[Arjun]

Man if so many in the media are now falling heads over heels fawning at Modi, then it means that US Report must have worked wonders in the Indian media scene.

Scary how much influence US official opinion has on Indian media.

There have been 3 developments over the last week that are changing media perceptions about Modi: the SC verdict, the US report, and the Sadbhavna mission / fast.

The US report is probably the least consequential of the three - much of the makeover is due to the other two developments.

[vishvak]

Man if so many in the media are now falling heads over heels fawning at Modi, then it means that US Report must have worked wonders in the Indian media scene.

Scary how much influence US official opinion has on Indian media.

There have been 3 developments over the last week that are changing media perceptions about Modi: the SC verdict, the US report, and the Sadbhavna mission / fast.

The US report is probably the least consequential of the three - much of the makeover is due to the other two developments.

The fast is an indication that Modi is a victim of decade of bogus propaganda that other CMs have never have to deal with. For example farooq abdulla for ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits; terrorism in the north east states, etc.

A dharmic heathen/pagan elected chief in a third world country doing a good job is somehow too 'difficult' to comprehend even now.

[suryag]

like my dear friend said "dudex fod diya hai namo ney" and this is what i feel after namo's speech. Man for 45 mins he talked so coherently

[abhischekcc]

The SC verdict has made it impossible to defame Modi without invoking libel/slander charges. The psecs must be very careful now.

[joshvajohn]

Future leadership depends on how one can bring diverse groups together under a moderate leadership. Even the wider parties which do not like Congress to come to power. The task is to bring under a wider umbrella and running this country. It is not about how particular ideology is going to be forcefully promoted and a particular caste is going to come to power! If this country should remain united propeople Aam Aadmi government and growth oriented government is what needed for India.

[vishvak]

Future leadership depends on how one can bring diverse groups together under a moderate leadership. Even the wider parties which do not like Congress to come to power. The task is to bring under a wider umbrella and running this country. It is not about how particular ideology is going to be forcefully promoted and a particular caste is going to come to power! If this country should remain united propeople Aam Aadmi government and growth oriented government is what needed for India.

Is anyone opposing RSS/majority/nationalism/right-wing moderate leadership? Is leadership giving first right to religious minorities over majority a moderate leadership?

Where does the caste come into the picture when Narendra Modi is himself so called lower caste?

How is all this connected to growth-oriented govt at all?

If growth-oriented Govt. is always expected to do something special/extra/in-preference to all and not only particular minorities; is it a pro-majority and therefore non-moderate Govt.? Is votebank politician a moderate politician?

If particular minorities keep on expecting more and more and then keep on getting disappointed, does a moderate leadership has to keep running after special expectations, lest internationally the moderates be suddenly be called right-wing? Are there any such laws in India that are fundamentally against minorities for such ever-increasing expectations?

I am yet to hear such kind of anti-majority propaganda from Jews in India. Here is more of what I could read somewhere on the net and have pasted earlier http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1163202

Are not majority of all the international elected Govts extremely right wing by these standards, yet not answerable and still getting elected again and again? Are there any international standards for moderate leadership?

Should Hindus in other countries demand and then look down on politicians and yet not feel victimized?

[brihaspati]

Bringing diverse groups together is a noble goal. But too many times India suffered because some besotted individual convinced the mercantile mentality hedgers of risks - to compromise on crucial values, in order to bring everyone on to the boat - that then endlessly protects and nurtures vehemently hostile and destructive ideologies and social organizations.

There cannot be compromises on crucial points. It is not about "caste" or one particular ideology. It is actually about removing a modern reconstruction of another "caste" system [or essentially a permanent fixation of the caste system as an inversion not abolition] and the removal of a particular ideology that centres itself on a continuation of the colonial ideological basis [pretending neutrality and == between all claimants of ideological ownership over India, while pushing a third imperial detached-from-the-country one], the colonial dynastic foundation of regime, the colonial protection of foreign ideologies and their institutional growth while undermining pre-foreign foundations.

[brihaspati]

The blunder of compromising all-on-board line of the Khilafat movement sponsored by MKG, neither brought everyone on board, nor prevented the utilization of that political legitimacy for development of the future ML and eventual Partition.

You cannot recognize separate existences and identities and think that while keeping such a recognition, you can bring them into one single entity. It becomes a temporary coalition, not a single body.

[shivajisisodia]

Look at this article entitled "Muslims have accepted Modi in Gujarat".

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 110918.htm

I have it from other sources as well, that Muslims have now stopped resisting and have stopped their anti-national behaviour in Gujarat. They have done this because they have realized the firmness of Modi government has left them no wiggle room whatsoever for any overt or even deceptive covert anti-national behaviour.

It also makes logical sense. Think about it. Islam and Islamists only respond to "firm" management. The inherent cowardice of Islam has these traits. Kick the weak and bow down in front of someone who has the ability and inclination to kick their butts.

Gujarat is an excellent model of how Muslims can be treated across the rest of India to bring them back into the national mainstream.

[brihaspati]

What is common between supporting Palestine and reservations for Muslims in India?

http://www.samachar.com/Centre-planning ... stread_top

The Centre is proposing to introduce reservation for Muslims in educational institutions and employment on the lines of Andhra Pradesh government, Union Minister for Law and Justice Salman Khursheed indicated in Hyderabad on Sunday.

Notification likely

Talking to reporters here after participating in a ‘Solidarity Meeting on Palestine' organised by the Indo-Arab League here, he said: “I don't know whether it is a Bill. There will be separate reservation. It is not necessary to have another Bill. It may be done through a government notification. We are having it examined.”

He said the OBC Commission would have some role in surveying and deciding what percentage of reservation should be extended. “We may have to make some changes in the law regarding this. What we want to give is on the lines of what Andhra Pradesh has already done. Therefore, we will follow that model quite closely.”

Earlier addressing the meeting, he said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi wanted the proposal to be placed before the Union Cabinet.

He reiterated that India was committed and would stand in solidarity with Palestinians and expressed the hope that the latter would succeed.

[shivajisisodia]

Look at this article below.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/washington-nar ... 37195.html

By Seema Sirohi, Washington, Sep.17 : The narrative on Pakistan sustained by American policy wonks appears stuck in old think, unduly rationalizing Islamabad's destructive behaviour while showing a curious inability to understand India.








The numerous think tanks sprinkled around Washington produce an impressive flow of reports, papers, books and monographs on South Asia all year around, documenting the ebb and flow of developments in the region, often in admirable detail.

But when it comes to Pakistan, many US experts speaking from the privileged platforms of prestigious institutions seem to underplay the use of terrorism as a policy tool. In think tank speak, which can instantly reduce the impact of horrible attacks, terrorism becomes a part of Pakistan's "asymmetric warfare" against India. Terrorists are mere "surrogates" and subversion, infiltration and an overt low-intensity war waged through militants is described as "Pakistan's crisis-generating behaviour."

A report released by the Stimson Center on "Crises in South Asia: Trends and Potential Consequence" on Wednesday was a textbook example of this narrative. It described Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed as mere "extremist groups" and over 100 pages, refrained from using the word "terrorism" or "terrorists" while talking of the Mumbai attacks. It preferred "mass-casualty assault" and "militants."

Many US strategic experts seem to accept the storyline given by Pakistani military-intelligence establishment, which always paints India as a hungry monster waiting to swallow a chunk of territory and unyielding on the Kashmir issue. No American expert, save one or two, cares to say who started the three wars between India and Pakistan, lest the moral equivalence they establish through jargon and selective display of facts between the two countries be disturbed.

In the post-Osama bin Laden Pakistan, where brave Pakistanis have been questioning their army, its competence, the ISI and its lethal influence in the region in greater numbers through newspaper columns, it is sadly ironic to see old time experts in Washington sticking to outdated ideas. That the Pakistan army is the only institution which works no matter how duplicitous its dealings with the US or in the region. That Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism as if that wipes away the army-ISI imprint on terrorist attacks against India and elsewhere.

At a recent conference organized by the Middle East Institute and the Johns Hopkins University on "Inside Pakistan's ISI," panelists bent over backwards to seemingly exonerate the most implicated foreign intelligence service in recent times. They concluded that while there was substantial evidence of links between the ISI and terrorist groups, they could not be sure whether the ISI as an institution was involved or only some "rogue agents."

Arturo Munoz, a former CIA officer and now an expert with Rand Corporation, speculated that the July 7, 2008 attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul, which killed 41 people, was a "rogue operation." He then proceeded to claim that it is "hard to say" whether the ISI created the Taliban because Taliban leaders he spoke to said they got no help from the agency.

Is this mere naïvete? Instead of expecting Taliban leaders to freely confess their parentage, Munoz should have made his assessment based on available evidence. But he gave the ISI a boost in a room packed with other experts, students and young policy wonks waiting to break into the business of thinking.

In fact, there is so much "understanding" of Pakistan's dilemma, a few US experts have now begun pleading that growing US relations with India might be coming in the way of curing Islamabad's many diseases. They forget that for nearly three decades, India was at the receiving end of unfriendly US policies and was shown little "understanding."

George Perkovich, a highly respected expert on South Asia at the Carnegie Endowment, released a report last week, which while advocating sensible changes in US policy towards Pakistan, also had a section titled "Stop Over-Indulging India." He said that both the United States and India "must be more sensitive to the legitimate difficulties Pakistan will experience in coming to terms with" India's rise.

This may come as a shock to New Delhi, which thinks of itself as collateral damage in America's Pakistan policy. India has watched in dismay as billions of dollars in US military aid have gone to a neighbour who repeatedly sends lethal human bombers across the border and whose intelligence agencies have been caught on tape directing attacks, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks which killed 164 people.

The report goes on to say that "many Pakistanis feel that their dignity and the moral worth of Muslims are disrespected as a result of the war on terror as defined by the United States and India." For the record, India is not a joint sponsor, nor a definer of the war against terror. Its tactics are vastly different from those used by the post 9/11 hyper-security state that is America today.

Perkovich warns that Washington "will exacerbate the backlash in Pakistan if it does not balance its interest in military sales and cooperation with India" with efforts to reassure Pakistan. India and the US must proceed "slowly" and give Pakistan the opportunity to participate "constructively" in bilateral and trilateral dialogues that India's intentions are defensive. How about peeking at history instead to determine the offenders?

Perkovich also concludes that India is getting a free ride from Washington and human rights groups on its record. He rains hard on US politicians, businesses and media calling them "blind and deaf to India's imperfections and mute in calling India to account" such as bringing those behind the Samjhota Express attack to book. Yes, India is no longer the target of negative reporting but Indian activists keep the light on the government and its follies. The recent report on unmarked graves in Kashmir is a case in point.

A few experts such as Christine Fair have argued that Pakistan should be given a civil nuclear agreement similar to the Indo-US deal to help moderate its behaviour. The idea has found no traction within the Obama Administration, which alternately tries to entice, coerce, bribe and threaten Pakistan in other ways to save itself from a downward slide.

But the important question for US experts is this: Even if the entire geo-political situation in South Asia were changed to fit Pakistan's requirements, would Islamabad abandon its terrorist friends?

Attn: News Editors/News Desks: The views expressed in the above article are that of Seema Sirohi, a Washington D.C.-based foreign affairs analyst

Why does US behave this way ? Let us not come up with any conspiracy theories about how the West and US in particular wants to keep India weak. This may have been a calculation during the height of the cold war, but it certainly is not the case now. The reason US behaves this way is because

1. It really thinks that despite all the Paki double talk and even Paki promotion and protection of Islamic groups that sometimes directly hurt US interests, on balance, the Pakis do enough to assist US in its immediate tactical goals such as running supplies into Afghan and even allowing CIA to operate somewhat within Paki etc, to make it on balance at least a marginally beneficial relationship for the US. In that sense, the experts in Washington do tell the truth. "Paki is a troubled relationship for us, but on balance they are an ally", meaning that yes, they do a lot to hurt our interests, but also do certain things that we absolutely need now. US has very few tactical options in certain things in this neighborhood and Paki, even if it barely gets it done, kind of gets it done for the US, while screwing it a bit with the other hand. This "getting screwed by the Paki somewhat" then becomes a somewhat acceptable price for US to pay to Paki, in these experts' mind and the US government has been buying this line for decades.

2. The other reason US does it, in addition to the primary reason above, is that India does not impose a "cost" on US to keep coddling Paki and keep arming it and paying it off, in exchange for what the US sees Paki help in its tactical goals in the area. While, I am not an anti-US person, but I do think that this lack of "creating a cost" for the US for its acts vis-a-vis Paki that hurt Indian interests, makes US dealings with Paki on balance a profitable relationship for the US. If India were to impose even some cost on the US for its actions vis-a-vis the Paki, perhaps, the cost that Paki itself extracts from US for being its "ally" combined with the cost US may have to pay to India, may just tip the balance the other way, to where the relationship with Paki becomes too costly for the US to continue.

3. This lack of cost imposed by India on the US, is again because no one in the Indian government has the time to think strategicaly in this direction and actually work in this direction. Everyone is too busy making money and enjoying their overseas postings, to really think deeply about these calculations. The lack of strategic thought out of neglect and corruption is another major act of treason by ommission on part of the Government of India and all its politicians and bureaucrats, regardless of their color and political hue.

Another reason, all these netas and babus should be branded traitors and ............

Shiv, Sir, if you are reading this, this post of mine should warm your heart!

[Pranav]

Look at this article entitled "Muslims have accepted Modi in Gujarat".

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 110918.htm

I have it from other sources as well, that Muslims have now stopped resisting and have stopped their anti-national behaviour in Gujarat. They have done this because they have realized the firmness of Modi government has left them no wiggle room whatsoever for any overt or even deceptive covert anti-national behaviour.

It also makes logical sense. Think about it. Islam and Islamists only respond to "firm" management. The inherent cowardice of Islam has these traits. Kick the weak and bow down in front of someone who has the ability and inclination to kick their butts.

Gujarat is an excellent model of how Muslims can be treated across the rest of India to bring them back into the national mainstream.

Islamism thrives on a victimhood narrative. The failure of Modi to contain mob violence in 2002 helped the LeT and IM to recruit and motivate many. When we fail in maintaining the rule of law, destroying inimical ideologies becomes harder.

If you recall statements by David Headley regarding his discussions with his ISI handlers - they had no intention of assassinating Bal Thackeray because they "did not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs".

[Pranav]

Why does US behave this way ? Let us not come up with any conspiracy theories about how the West and US in particular wants to keep India weak. This may have been a calculation during the height of the cold war, but it certainly is not the case now.

Free your mind from Fatwas for or against "conspiracy theories". Also, George Friedman of Stratfor has written frankly on this subject, you may find his take interesting.

[devesh]

it all started with Godhra. there was no way anybody could have done anything about that. Modi doesn't have a sixth sense. the response by Hindus was necessary. I am a firm believer in the argument that when a Muslim mob kills and maims Hindus, then any resulting Hindu mob reaction should be allowed to take place. that is the only way to show that Hindus can and will retaliate. the task lies in containing it to that one action-reaction pair and then make sure that no other "reactions" follow. but the initial reaction against aggression must be allowed to take place.

[Pranav]

it all started with Godhra. there was no way anybody could have done anything about that. Modi doesn't have a sixth sense. the response by Hindus was necessary. I am a firm believer in the argument that when a Muslim mob kills and maims Hindus, then any resulting Hindu mob reaction should be allowed to take place. that is the only way to show that Hindus can and will retaliate. the task lies in containing it to that one action-reaction pair and then make sure that no other "reactions" follow. but the initial reaction against aggression must be allowed to take place.

This is silly. By that logic, after 9/11, the US should have gone on a pogrom against Muslims living in the US. Like Bal Thackeray, you are a goose that lays golden eggs for the ISI.

[devesh]

^^^
nope, not so. the perps of 9/11 all came from Saudi/Pak.

when the State doesn't protect the rights of people, then the people must take drastic steps to ensure that future attacks don't take place.

if the politico/legal/social framework of the State punished the evil elements, then I wouldn't be advocating this course of action.

but when that is lacking, the only protection is to set an example.

[Pranav]

^^^
nope, not so. the perps of 9/11 all came from Saudi/Pak.

But the alleged perps and Muslims living in the US are part of the same Ummah, no?

[devesh]

perhaps, perhaps not. I couldn't care less. My opinion is on India.

[Pranav]

perhaps, perhaps not. I couldn't care less. My opinion is on India.

But the situation is analogous.

[Pranav]

^^^
nope, not so. the perps of 9/11 all came from Saudi/Pak.

when the State doesn't protect the rights of people, then the people must take drastic steps to ensure that future attacks don't take place.

if the politico/legal/social framework of the State punished the evil elements, then I wouldn't be advocating this course of action.

but when that is lacking, the only protection is to set an example.

But more seriously, if you attack somebody based on their membership of a group, you are only recognizing and strengthening the group identity. It means that you are incapable of mentally breaking free of paradigms and identities manufactured and imposed by outsiders.

[joshvajohn]

This is kind of fear in the mind of people in India not only among minorities but also among the majority. People in India do not want to see India turned into another Pakistan where everyday we will get a bomb here and there and then a mob will react on another mob and so continue this to bring down the whole of India into a mess which it can never recover from. Pakistan govt cannot remedy itself because of the flow and current of religious extremism all of them played into and now no escape in spite of all money being pumped into her from West and Islamic countries. It is in the verge of collapse just because of extremism in religion and easy to kill anyone in that country now and chaos and confusion is everyday life out there. So some people wanted to take India towards such situation by bringing division between communities and create war between them. Unforutnately this is the reason many vote for Congress and other local so called secular parties so that there is a balance of their interest but a nation is held without confusion and chaos. India cannot get rid of her Muslims, Christians, Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists as they belong here and they are Indians. For those who are trying to sensationalise these differences and make people to hate each other and kill each other will never come to power unless there is a genuine love for this country to grow and be strong in this part of the world.

[Sanku]

it all started with Godhra. there was no way anybody could have done anything about that. Modi doesn't have a sixth sense. the response by Hindus was necessary. I am a firm believer in the argument that when a Muslim mob kills and maims Hindus, then any resulting Hindu mob reaction should be allowed to take place. that is the only way to show that Hindus can and will retaliate. the task lies in containing it to that one action-reaction pair and then make sure that no other "reactions" follow. but the initial reaction against aggression must be allowed to take place.

This is silly. By that logic, after 9/11, the US should have gone on a pogrom against Muslims living in the US. Like Bal Thackeray, you are a goose that lays golden eggs for the ISI.

Well not talking about correctness of the situation, but US did go on a state sponsored pogrom of Muslims in US after 9/11. The figures for those incarcerated etc are available.

US also rounded up all Japanese during WW II on basis of racial identity.

Racial profiling is quite common in US.

So I dunno what example bringing US into the picture helps. -- In fact all folks in India regularly point to US to show what a "firm hand" should be like. (B Raman for all his flaws quite clearly brought out in his response to Fareed "Good Muslim boy" Zakaria while ripping him a new one")

Its a self goal, perpetuates the same control of forces based in US doing mind experiments in India that you so rail against.

A magnificent self goal.

[Pranav]

This is silly. By that logic, after 9/11, the US should have gone on a pogrom against Muslims living in the US. Like Bal Thackeray, you are a goose that lays golden eggs for the ISI.

Well not talking about correctness of the situation, but US did go on a state sponsored pogrom of Muslims in US after 9/11. The figures for those incarcerated etc are available.

This is going OT ... the correctness of the point, which you are admittedly not talking about, is the main issue. But you are welcome to provide the figures, but I doubt that they were particularly high. And legal processes would have been adhered to, to a large extent. No mobs or burning condos.

So I dunno what example bringing US into the picture helps. -- In fact all folks in India regularly point to US to show what a "firm hand" should be like. (B Raman for all his flaws quite clearly brought out in his response to Fareed "Good Muslim boy" Zakaria while ripping him a new one")

Its a self goal, perpetuates the same control of forces based in US doing mind experiments in India that you so rail against.

A magnificent self goal.

I am the last person to hold up the US political elites as exemplars, as is well known in these parts. But the mention was made for a limited illustrative purpose.

[Sanku]

But you are welcome to provide the figures, but I doubt that they were particularly high. And legal processes would have been adhered to, to a large extent. No mobs or burning condos.

So let me get this correct. You do not know what happened in US, however you are quite eager to compare Apple and Oranges?

I am the last person to hold up the US political elites as exemplars, as is well known in these parts. But the mention was made for a limited illustrative purpose.

Which makes no sense, if you are the last person, clearly that is not seen in your behavior of jumping up and down to score a self goal.

Clearly there is a disconnect between your various stated positions.

It is better to accept that it is a self goal, admit the mistake correct it and move on -- unless you are the type whose "correctness with methods" depends on whether they serve your political inclinations.

This is quite frankly only the second time I have seen you apply logic conditionally, in a huge period, so I will not hold it as a pattern, neither am accusing of the same -- consider this a friendly gentle correction

[SSridhar]

Guys, the discussion is veering off course. Stay within the thread.

[vishvak]

..So some people wanted to take India towards such situation by bringing division between communities and create war between them. Unforutnately this is the reason many vote for Congress and other local so called secular parties so that there is a balance of their interest but a nation is held without confusion and chaos. India cannot get rid of her Muslims, Christians, Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists as they belong here and they are Indians. For those who are trying to sensationalise these differences and make people to hate each other and kill each other will never come to power unless there is a genuine love for this country to grow and be strong in this part of the world.

How is it that perhaps Ahmedias are more protected than the most of the world in Gujarat? Would Ahmedias not feel religious tension in states like Kashmir, Nagaland, etc where even Hindus are mistreated? This "sensationalise these differences and make people to hate each other" is completely misplaced and comparing this to pakistan is even less proper.

It is indeed strange that to grow and to be in this part of the world, one has to play to secular galleries. Otherwise it is termed as right-wing and not worth the vote.

Last time when NDA was in power, I do not recall any anti-minority laws being passed.

[Pranav]

But you are welcome to provide the figures, but I doubt that they were particularly high. And legal processes would have been adhered to, to a large extent. No mobs or burning condos.

So let me get this correct ...

You are welcome to get it correct in the off-topic thread ... replied to here: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1165821

[Arjun]

Just got off watching Modi give his speech at the end of the Sadbhavna fast.

In one word-outstanding ! Three things that impress me phenomenally about this guy - a) he is Mr. Communicator, his ability to make / convey his points is amazing, b) he is the first leader in India that I have had the pleasure of listening to, who I can confidently characterize as visionary....he said for example that the problem with India is that it always sets its sights too low. This guy will completely revolutionize goal-setting in any field in India, if / when he comes to power. Finally - his focus on what is relevant and what is not & the sheer logic that underlie all his arguments is mind-blowing.

I assume his speech will be archived on http://www.narendramodi.in/sadbhavana/ ........ its worth going viral and forwarding this speech to everyone who is interested.

[pgbhat]

Evaluating India’s Strategic Partnerships using Analytic Hierarchy Process ---- Sarita Azad and Arvind Gupta

[Sanku]

Can some one please share links to Modi's speechs?

[brihaspati]

This is kind of fear in the mind of people in India not only among minorities but also among the majority. People in India do not want to see India turned into another Pakistan where everyday we will get a bomb here and there and then a mob will react on another mob and so continue this to bring down the whole of India into a mess which it can never recover from. Pakistan govt cannot remedy itself because of the flow and current of religious extremism all of them played into and now no escape in spite of all money being pumped into her from West and Islamic countries. It is in the verge of collapse just because of extremism in religion and easy to kill anyone in that country now and chaos and confusion is everyday life out there.

A lot of this is apparently correct. But only apparently. But too many issues unfortunately mixed up in the above. And one key ingredient forgotten - completely - that the fear mostly centres around a particular religion - because of its imperialist outer, inner, middle and core. Because of how even while being a minority - a minority religion could unleash rape, massacre, genocide on a "national" scale on the "majority" with the benign protective hand of the rashtra's blessings.

That fear, that record of continuous genocidic violence perpetrated with military audacity - and always- always - under state protection, for centuries, is what is now cleverly inverted into the so-called reasons for "minority" to "fear" the majority. While all that record of guilt is cleverly shifted on to the majority - whose burden it is now to protect the ideological and institutional framework that protects mullahcracy and its never given up ambitions of Islamization of the subcontinent.

In a twisted evil of the highest ideological order - that memory of violence instigated by the mullahcracy for centuries, using state's coercive protection, is sadistically raised continuously now - so that the inherent civilizational trauma can be used to scare the majority into not taking measures to defend itself, or be aware of how state machinery and even majority resources are being used to promote particualr religions and their theologians and their institutions.

Don't explore the mullahcracy's strategies, do not explore the proselytizing Abrahamics hate campaigns against majority ideology, culture, icons, do not explore their underlying imperialist agenda, do not be aware of their actual political and social hegemonistic attitudes wherever they can get numerical strength - how they consolidate territorially, do not see how they use the threat of "riots" and the threat of "law and order" situation to get their transnational programmes or objectives satisfied. If you do - then you are raising "fears" in the minority.

Its a win-win situation for these imperialist ideologies actually. They are imperialists and genocidic culture erasers anyway. They will continue to do so whether there is peace or whether there is conflict. In peace it is their religious birthright to do so - by challenging those activities or resisting their activities - you are denying their religion, and their right to replace other cultures. That act of resistance is of course "violence". In conflict, of course - they will continue to do so. Because violence is also their brthright - as religious right of defence - which of course their hated enemies cannot claim as a right.

So some people wanted to take India towards such situation by bringing division between communities and create war between them. Unforutnately this is the reason many vote for Congress and other local so called secular parties so that there is a balance of their interest but a nation is held without confusion and chaos. India cannot get rid of her Muslims, Christians, Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists as they belong here and they are Indians. For those who are trying to sensationalise these differences and make people to hate each other and kill each other will never come to power unless there is a genuine love for this country to grow and be strong in this part of the world.

[/quote]

Some people always targeted to have all others under their particular institutional religious order. Time and again they took recourse to violence, and capturing or influencing state power to coercively achieve their expansive targets. Moreover they did so in the name of achieving submission of these "others" towards religious-political authorities and centres situated outside the subcontinent.

Like the Brit imperial occupation gov before, congrez is just the useful tool of state power with which the theologians of imperialist religions survive to continue towards their respective expansion agenda.

Can we identify who try to "sensationalize" differences? Who try to be super-exclusive - in use of language, in dress, in external grooming, and customs down to the n-th level? At least we can be privately honest and acknowledge that this "sensationalization" is mucho mucho more in the proselytizing foreign religious ideologies hoping to subjugate India for their respective orders and institutions - sitting in the ME or the European world.

[KLNMurthy]

it all started with Godhra. there was no way anybody could have done anything about that. Modi doesn't have a sixth sense. the response by Hindus was necessary. I am a firm believer in the argument that when a Muslim mob kills and maims Hindus, then any resulting Hindu mob reaction should be allowed to take place. that is the only way to show that Hindus can and will retaliate. the task lies in containing it to that one action-reaction pair and then make sure that no other "reactions" follow. but the initial reaction against aggression must be allowed to take place.

This is silly. By that logic, after 9/11, the US should have gone on a pogrom against Muslims living in the US. Like Bal Thackeray, you are a goose that lays golden eggs for the ISI.

Maybe not a pogrom but US gave lots of 'loving attention' to muslims and terrorist-front US muslims organizations came into line since they understood what will happen to them if they wag their tails.

US system is more functional and less tolerant of public disorder than India, so it handled this differently.

The golden egg laying goose has to be managed but that doesn't mean aggression should not be retaliated against.

Terrorism is itself a goose that lays golden eggs for forces of civilization as it is a self-goal by terrorists that exposes their side's pakiness.

[brihaspati]

We are asked to be let us be be (ab)used by the golden goose, rather than pressurizing the goose to allow itself be used by us.