(The timing was also close to the "demolition" - in '95)-----------India’s missile defense: changing the nature of the Indo-Pakistani conflict by Taylor Dinerman: The Space Review
Another 10 years. Then TSP will be left with no more grass to eat, as it will bite the dust.During a panel talk at New York’s Asia Society on January 21, Professor Ashutosh Varshney of Brown University claimed that some “right wing” forces in the US and India were interested in seeing Pakistan break up and that they imagined that somehow India would be able to “neuter the nukes” and prevent them from getting into unfriendly hands, something he considered highly risky and likely to lead to catastrophe. During the same event former Pakistani diplomat Munir Akram claimed that any war between India and Pakistan would escalate uncontrollably and go nuclear quite quickly.
Even if they give missile defense a big budget and a high priority, it will be many years before India has a moderately effective, indigenous missile defense shield.
At this moment, they are both right. The India-Pakistan nuclear stand-off is stalemated to Pakistan’s advantage, in that they can launch (or allow) terror attacks such as the November 2008 one on Mumbai and India can do essentially nothing in response. The unmistakable smugness of the former Pakistani diplomat made this evident. However, this situation will not last forever. India is now seeking way to neutralize the majority of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and within a decade or perhaps a little longer they may come up with a solution.
In 2006 India began testing a missile defense version of its Prithvi medium-range ballistic missile. This test is just one sign that New Delhi is seeking to develop a multi-layer complex that can defend against Pakistan’s nuclear missiles. Due to its liquid-fueled first stage, the Prithvi Air Defense (PAD) is certainly not an ideal system, but it is both available and locally made. The Indian military is comfortable enough with this weapon’s effectiveness to make it their main battlefield ballistic missile for both conventional and nuclear applications.
Even if they give missile defense a big budget and a high priority, it will be many years before India has a moderately effective, indigenous missile defense shield. The claim last year by the head of the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) that they will have a multi-layered system ready in 2010 is taken with a grain of salt by observers both inside and outside the subcontinent. However, unless the geopolitical situation radically changes, there is no doubt that India will continue work on the systems for the foreseeable future.
If they wanted to they could buy systems from the US, Israel, or Russia, and they have already bought themselves a pair of Israeli Green Pine radars originally designed for the Arrow ABM system. If they were ready to spend the money they could combine, for example, the US PAC 3 version of the Patriot with the Israeli Arrow and have an effective but limited defense system within a fairly short timeframe. While the US may have blocked India from buying the Israeli system in the past, this no longer would be the case.
What is more likely, though, is that they will continue to build up their own technology while procuring a few items from overseas and entering into collaborative development programs with carefully selected foreign firms. The hard part may not be the interceptors themselves but building up the network of sensors and command and control systems needed to make the whole thing credible.
One requirement will be for some sort of space based early warning system to supplement the powerful long-range radars they will have to deploy both in the air and in the western Himalaya mountains. India is lucky in that it does have a few good places where it could place radars that, if they were powerful enough, could cover most of the possible launch sites. But they will still need satellites to cover the whole of Pakistan and to provide a secure and unambiguous warning of a launch event.
India could, if they wanted to, gain access to the US DSP (Defense Support Program) and SBIRS (Space Based Infra Red System) information the same way that NATO, Israel, Japan, and South Korea all have this data available to one degree or another. However, given the history of the subcontinent, and the shaky basis on which the new US-India relationship rests, the government may not be willing to put its trust in Washington’s goodwill.
They may choose to build their own heat detecting satellites. The IRS (Indian Remote Sensing) and Cartosat series of remote sensing spacecraft have given India some of the expertise required to build an equivalent of the DSP. Such a system does not have to be as heavy or as sophisticated as the US one; it could, in fact, consist of a larger number of small satellites in low Earth orbit. This would certainly be expensive by Indian standards and would take at least as long to develop and deploy as the indigenous interceptor missiles themselves.
India could, if they wanted to, gain access to the US DSP and SBIRS information, but given the history of the subcontinent, and the shaky basis on which the new US-India relationship rests, the government may not be willing to put its trust in Washington’s goodwill.
Another factor that will add to the expense of this project is the fact that India is a big country and will need a fairly large number of long-range and short-range BMD missiles. The better that they can do in the boost phase the better off they will be, but there are few signs that they, or anyone else except the US, are seriously looking at this capability.
As long as India vigorously pursues this capability it will put Pakistan into the same kind of dilemma that faced the Soviet Union after President Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program in March 1983. Islamabad has neither the resources nor the technology to compete with India in this field. Indian missile defense will not, by itself, prevent a Pakistani “loose nuke” situation, but it will reduce the value of their atomic stockpile.
They also lack the resources to build up a very large and diverse force of reliable, sophisticated, nuclear-tipped missiles that could overwhelm an effective Indian defense system. If they tried to build such a force they would either have to weaken their already limited conventional defense forces or spend themselves into economic oblivion. India’s robust and growing economy is a strategic asset that is slowly but surely making itself felt in the military balance between the two subcontinental rivals.
Taylor Dinerman is an author and journalist based in New York City.
Well this is something I was trying to point out. I did not mean this or that leader, although even that angle can be explored - for example Washington's attitudes towards native Americans or slavery. The fact remains that individual leaders speak eloquently of "high principles" but that does not rule out the possibility that such representations could have been used to legitimize the political demands based on selfish economic considerations. Political leadership can use rallying cries which serve as focal points for mass mobilizations. Moreover, if societal values do not encourage flaunting of such selfish interests - then showing that the mobilization was for a high ideal, something detached from the immediate personal motivations of the leadership - then it is likely to be more readily accepted. Lenin for example used the slogan of "peace/land to the peasant" to get support of the Workers and Peasants Soviets, although he wanted to establish the dictatorship of the "proletariat" which literally translated into the dictatorship of "vanguard" or the "party". If I really look for the type of leaders you hint at, I would look for leaders who really risked and braved unpopularity and hostility even from the majority of the vocal - to stand solidly for their principles or beliefs - one such will be the 6th President, the deserter from "federalist" camp, John Quincy Adams.Swamy_G wrote
If one starts reading the 'The Federalist Papers' one does not get the view that it stems from narrow selfish motives. We have to grant the time was just right when some great folks gathered around to create a new country out of the 13 colonies.
ramana wrote
Actually birhaspatiji, If India declares the right of self determination of the Pashtuns the whole hill sides will erupt and throw away the TSP yoke. The Durranis and Ghilzais will unite to achieve this.
Thats my conclusion after reading reams of papers and books.
The big idea is to ensure no GOI will do that.
ShauryaT wrote
My view too. Pashtunistan is a far stronger idea than TSP. And we know, which party is the most likely to do this. Although, I personally have not seen the top leadership of the BJP with the guts, to publicly or materially change the game in such a manner, yet.
andramana wrote:The guy's name is Vellupalli Prabhakaran or VP. So PVK is not there.
Samuel, Before you get into set theory morass, a little history is needed to understand the periphery angst.
You know the Islamist connection for TSP and Bangla Desh. however SL, Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar are driven by the fear of assimilation in greater India. Its besides the point that these areas were part of the greater abroad of classical India. Since then they have developed separate indentities and value that. They see no benefit in losing that. The UK and US stoked those fears of assimilation to perpetuate the separateness. And everytime any half-informed INC leader talked about ancient Indian ties to SE Asia etc these periphery countries hugged the West more tightly.
In the 60s SL and TSP used to talk of peripheral ties and were encouraged by Anglo-Saxon Western powers. That is what Mrs G sough to undo and did. In fact Colombo allowed TSP troop flights to stage thru their land despite the atrocities in East Pakistan.
So Indian interest is that the peripehry tie up with core and not themselves as a ring of containment. So Indian policy should be that which encourages and incentivises their ties to India.
brihaspati wrote:I would agree with Ramanaji's assessment. Direct connections to the core will encourage stability on the long run, and should be convincingly argued with the periphery as something that benefits them more than a separate peripheral ring connection.
Can we get the original?Off course it was anonmouse!
I happen to know one of the investigators of that case, also referred to in the doc and the case is nowhere as clear as is made out to be.brihaspati wrote:Akshutji,
If you are referring to the "Jhalda" case, the main recipient was supposed to be AnandaMarg. Is it possible that they were allowed to be "caught" because this was a supposedly "majority faith" connected militant organization? Not many arms shipment meant for Naxalites/Jihadists appear to get caught in the net.
http://cbi.gov.in/judgements/padc.pdf
Why the change in Kazakhstan's attitude towards India? Both US and Rus pressure? Kazkhis do not have an easy relation with Russians at the societal level, but maybe they are beginning to converge at the elite level, and Kazakhis are learning the value of playing up to multiple suitors.Turning point..
Image
not too much, as the said person was extremely reluctant to share additional info other than that the investigation itself was inconclusive in most part.brihaspati wrote:Rahul_Mji, can you elaborate - as far as feasible? Possible outline hypotheses will do.
This was my impression too. Even from German immigrants from Kazakhstan. But I was referring to the "turning point" ref about India losing out on the petrochem bid. By the way this reminds me of the importance of reoccupying PRCOK and PRCOL - an easier connection to CAR and Kazakhstan.Khazaks have a very good image of India.
However chroniclers (emphasizing their Islamic identity in contrast to the "Qufr" Indians) accompanying military/colonizing campaigns of the Arabs/Turko-Afghans in India from the 8th-14th century, usually make no mention of the notorious caste/sectarian distinctions among the Indians they refer to uniformly as "black faced hindoo/but-prasts" and target for enslavement/massacre (Elliott and Dawson - a notable exception being AlBeruni who does translate certain Indian textual conceptualizations of caste without showing awareness of sects - possibly arising out of motivations similar to that in Tacitus).
I am lookig for the black-faced hindoo refsbrihaspati wrote:Shivji,
yes , perhaps too long for this forum. Do you want a citation of "black face/butprast" or the Alberuni-Tacitus comparison? Specifics of the first can be found in Masudi, Firishta, etc. or translations in Vols 1-IV of Eliott and Dowson. Can give details but too loaded down this week. Alberuni-Tacitus comparison is mine - both could have been indirectly motivated by the need to create an ideal for their respective cultures by comparing with "noble savages" - but because of possible repercussions they construct this "under deep cover".
Ramanaji,
thanks. yes reviewed Curzon's lecture again after a long time. Quite revealing. His arguments can now be turned around.
To both: should I replace these posts with a summary and simplification? But cannot until the weekend. This was part of a sequence of articles I wrote on the theme, and thought I should give the full arguments.
This is valid as your viewpoint, but I believe your own view is not sustainable on the basis of the voluminous research that you have quoted.My position on absorption is primarily based on the understanding I gained as result of trying to grapple with this. And this is the reason, I advocate military or otherwise incorporation of TSP populations and territories into India as early as feasible. Waiting longer will simply reinforce separate Islamic identities beyond redemption. The more we recognize such differences, the more we accept such claims of separation - the more we make them unremovable and irrevocably hostile.
The Indian National Congress (INC) and Gandhi attempted to create a macroidentity based on secularism and equality of all faiths out of the conflict generating caste/faith microidentities of India in order to oppose the threat of the British RajHistorically, macroidentities appear to form out of threat perceptions which do not distinguish between microidentities. Thus if two groups are in conflict over a microidentity, feeling threatened without distinction by a third group can lead to the search for and formation of a macroidentity incorporating themselves into a single identity without necessarily completely erasing previous conflicts, which, however, no longer take priority in determining the nature of their mutual interactions
The efforts of the INC and Gandhi were seen by the Muslim league, Jinnah and Allama Iqbal as an attempt to make a microidentity out of Islam, instead of their view of islam as a unique macroidentity. I need to explain this more clearly.A macroidentity once formed need not remain unaltered in space/time. Previous macroidentity of a numerical minority immigrant group in the geopolitical space dominated by another macroidentity, will appear as a microidentity.
andThe fact that it is nearly impossible to form disjoint communities of humans based on exclusive clusters of microidentities leads to the most pervasive and persistent threat to preservation of microidentities
A little explanation is in order here.The necessity of cooperating with other microidentities in the hope of or actual realization of increasing efficiency/consumption, makes it impossible to seal off all interactions. Thus a permanent prevention of all border interactions is impracticable and borders can only be realized as a spatio-temporal process of temporary compromise
.I know that my suggestion is complete pie-in-the-sky $hit with millions of holes and potential pitfalls ... but if we don't start floating new ideas, however absurd they might be, we'll continue to stomp around in the same old circles. The biggest hole in my proposal is that the Native Americans were a defeated people... while the subcontinent's Islamists think they're invincible. The only way to impose the "reservation"/"homeland" template on subcontinental Islam will be after delivering a mind-numbing, head-spinning, jaw-breaking series of jhaapads to Pakistan and its proxies. Utter, humiliating defeat (with ourselves in full control of determining a new dispensation in the aftermath) would be a necessary intermediate step.it is a self destructive (or self limiting) ideology. It destroys its own allies until the only people left are those who will fight everyone else.
Rudradev,Rudradev wrote:The only way to impose the "reservation"/"homeland" template on subcontinental Islam will be after delivering a mind-numbing, head-spinning, jaw-breaking series of jhaapads to Pakistan and its proxies. Utter, humiliating defeat (with ourselves in full control of determining a new dispensation in the aftermath) would be a necessary intermediate step.
But extreme "orthodoxy" in practice within such enclaves cannot be allowed. The native Americans were initially massively crushed and traumatized militarily, and the reservation politics is one of the darkest chapters in the history of "visionary" "humanitarian" "liberal" early founders of the USA. But such brutal and authoritarian treatment took out all power of military assertion of independent and defiant power from the natives. Ironically, this is what I have been proposing to deal with these TSP "pockets" before incorporation.If Indic point of view is not discussed in BR where else can it be discussed. It has to be encouraged here.brihaspati wrote:Raja Ramji,
You are correct in the criticism that the take was more occidental in assumptions. It was originally meant for a western peer circle. I have thought of the Indic viewpoint, but I try to avoid bringing in such discussions here, as those with severly limited understanding of Indic philosophies could try to trash up such discussions as "religious ones". My experience from political polemics says that such aggressive debates usually hide personal power dynamics and ultimately lead to unncessary bitterness, and is practically useless. I hope you will forgive me.
Arthasastra (sorry! to refer to it again) has some indications that peripheral powers and identities were recognized as layers that can be incorporated. Although perhaps the question of identity does not appear there - more a characterization of imperialist expansion perhaps. But, the principles behind "raajaniti" as propounded is based on "values" and preservation or extension or establishment of such "values" to ever extending populations.
