Bharat Rakshak

VikramS wrote: The aim is not to destroy the billion plus people who live in India, but India as a nation.

Anyways my views on this subject of "What nation within geographic and historic India will get destroyed?" is OT for this thread. My personal view is that we need to worry about a nuclear exchange with a few or a dozen nukes and not start entering the realms of philosophy - which is what happens when one speaks of "complete destruction" of a nation as old as and as big as India.

VikramS wrote:shiv:

The aim is not to destroy the billion plus people who live in India, but India as a nation. If all major urban centers, and military installations are destroyed, who or what will govern of what is left-over? Aren't their enough fissures within India, that without a strong central presence, it will just go into hundred directions, with each surviving local dada, trying to carve out a jagir for himself?

+1

China's aim is to prevent a democratic power like India to stand as an equal on the Asian stage. The Partition of the Indian Subcontinent went a long way in preventing the rise of not just a rival but a superior to China in Asia. But even though the Indian Subcontinent is partitioned, China still fears that India can rise, if not as a superior, than at least a formidable rival, in military strength, in knowledge economy, as a scientific, technological and manufacturing power.

Should one throw in preferred support from the West, Japan, Korea and others due to our soft power, the balance turns decidedly against China.

It would suffice

• if India can be geographically stunted, e.g. India's Northeast can be separated from India at the Siliguri Corridor, and Kashmir Valley and Ladakh can be separated; and
• if India can be kept in political disarray through the Naxalites, the Islamists and other separatists; and
• if India can be kept pliant to foreign powers through Chinese influence in Delhi itself, something possible if the power elite is forced to appease China or want to avoid heightened tensions; and
• if India can be made unattractive to foreign investors through some terrorist attacks every now and then using Chinese proxies like Pakistan

That IS THE DESTRUCTION OF INDIA!

Talking about nuclear bombing of each other takes away the focus from what is much more feasible for India's enemies to a realm of hyperbole.

VikramS wrote:It just gives greater incentive to them to keep TSP alive as a thorn in India's backside. The biggest loser of India's rise will be China. The Anglo-Urope might not like it, but India is too far away from their borders, to be a major issue. They will have other domestic issues to worry about then.

I dont get it
Seems like many out here are hugely concerned that PRC wants to destroy India. And, as proof, we discuss how PRC supports Pakistan?! But, isnt it that closer home to you is a country that has supported Pakistan a lot more?

Am all for discussion about PRC's perfidy but this basic premise just doesnt square with my experience - IMO, India is, at best, a peripheral concern for PRC (and that too, primarily from our support of Dalai Lama). Their biggest bug bear is, in fact, America and all countries in their neighborhood move closer to America as they feel more threatened by PRC. From their perspective, India is doing the same thing that every country in East Asia is doing - feeling unreasonably threatened by China taking on its historical role in the center of world affairs and using America as a counter. Their support of Pakistan is nothing like their support of NoKo. NoKo is their soft underbelly, Pakistan is like Sudan - a country that feels poorly done by the "west" and will allow them to buy support. Such buying of support has a long hoary history in PRC empires and is nothing like American strategic support.
To really understand China, we need to get into thinking of east asia as the center of the world coz thats they way it is to them. IOR is, in fact, the western border and thus a place to look out for dangers maybe, but any show of nautical might will happen in the south china sea. The competitors will be america and australia, not India.

Maram wrote:@ Rajesh A-----------> The story in China is incomplete for a variety of reasons. First we don't have any accurate, independent information from East Turkeministan/xianjiang region.

There are many Mill towns in Northwest England that have similar demographic profile. Areas like Oldham and Bradford have 60% British Pakistani population and this has happened over 30-40 years. There are lots of ethnic tensions.race riots have happened. Unite Against Fascism( an organisation of left wing liberals and british pakistanis) and EDL(English Defence League) a far right british group are regularly having fights with each other needing a lot of police on the streets of Oldham,Bradford and more recently in Luton(near London).

The point is when regional demographics change, it does not come without problems. For example a town called peterborough in Lincolnshire had a massive influx of polish immigrants in a 5 year period and it had its fair share of prolems. That news is suppressed.

why is Chipanda censoring words like egypt,jasmine revolution,tahrir square etc.. etc... The commie party know something that we don't. Flooding hans into Tibet and East Turkeministan will have its problems. no doubts about it.

Maram ji,
So China gets problems with the Uyghurs in East Turkestan due to Han migration - social problems, law and order problems.

The social and law and order problems between Uyghurs and Han Chinese migrants can be resolved at the police level, some where some justice is done, some where the police favor the Han Chinese migrants. It is when these problems start spilling into armed struggle against China, that these really become serious. China still retains a strong military presence in Xinjiang.

Combined with the points, I've mentioned earlier, why should we think, that China cannot take care of their problems in Xinjiang. Some protest here and there, does not mean the whole place is falling apart.

Kosovo once formed the heartland of the Serbian nation. The explosion of Albanian population in Kosovo, through migration and higher birth rate, Kosovo slipped out of Serbian control. Thinking that the tiny Serbian minority would throw out the Kosovars after they had the demographic control would have been laughable.

Now that China is developing its West - Xinjiang, Tibet, etc., there would be many more millions of Han Chinese who would be migrating to these regions, putting these regions outside the realm of possibility of any Uyghurs attaining Independence for East Turkestan, and Tibetans attaining their Independence for Tibet. And then we have BRFites saying that all those future pipelines and trade through PoK is benign only, and only for economic development of China, and as such is only natural to accept the legitimacy of China's needs for putting up Oil & Gas pipelines through PoK, and improving the KKH.

RajeshA wrote:

VikramS wrote:shiv:

The aim is not to destroy the billion plus people who live in India, but India as a nation. If all major urban centers, and military installations are destroyed, who or what will govern of what is left-over? Aren't their enough fissures within India, that without a strong central presence, it will just go into hundred directions, with each surviving local dada, trying to carve out a jagir for himself?

+1

China's aim is to prevent a democratic power like India to stand as an equal on the Asian stage. The Partition of the Indian Subcontinent went a long way in preventing the rise of not just a rival but a superior to China in Asia. But even though the Indian Subcontinent is partitioned, China still fears that India can rise, if not as a superior, than at least a formidable rival, in military strength, in knowledge economy, as a scientific, technological and manufacturing power.

I beg to differ. In one way India partition saved India. It cut away from India the very core of destabilizing India. Imagine the 180 million crackpots of Pakistan, if had been in India, would have wrecked India with their nut schemes. Please note that I do not include Bangladesh into this. Off course this should not mean or imply that partition was final or was justified or based on some valid reason. I am just pointing out the silver lining or the saying "Whatever happens, happens for a good reason."

Coming back to the theme that India is somehow prevented from rivaling China due to Partition is Bum. We tend to see the progress China has made in economic sphere and seem to think that the lead which China has is unassailable. Or we tend to think the size of China, it is supposed to be the 4th largest nation on this planet and say we cannot compete. China is the 4th largest nation of this planet, because I have not included Taiwan, Arunachal and north ladakh into its territory deliberately.

But that is the problem with China. It has made progress only in economic field. Money can hide a thousand flaws. In case of china, its so called economic might is hiding hundreds of flaws. Its 2.1 trillion USD economic reserves point to a appalling inability to use the reserves inside its own country. Its economic well being is dependent on the developed markets. When they stumble, it has to come up with the worlds 2nd largest stimulus program just so that it can keep on going. China is nothing but Japan on steroids, and we know how the miracle story of Japan ended. If the Chinese insist on carrying out the one-child policy, indefinitely, then in the next 30 years they will face a catastrophe.

Just for clarification, I do not grudge the Chinese for their achievements. I do not envy their progress. In fact it is based on their hard work and single minded pursuit of an aim. But I think we can be better and will be bigger than they could ever hope for.

I am bemused by these descriptions of Chinese intent. In the absence of any credible evidence that Chinese actions on the ground add up to the grave predictions made I must admit that the soothsaying is appearing more like an exercise designed to get the Chinese to be feared and hated more than is currently the case and a sidelining of the actions of all the entities in the past who have actually sought to split India and fragment India from outside or within in pretty much the same manner - but on this occasion using nuclear weapons supply to Pakistan as the crucial factor that swings the argument.

Personally I am finding it less than believable.

There is a circular argument here that refers back to itself. Reference to insurgencies like those in the North East and the Naxals are admissions of fissures within India that others want to exploit. Either we deny the fissures exist or admit that they do exist. if those fissures did not exist then there is nothing for others to exploit and the Chinese can't exploit them. If the fissures do exist then there certainly is something for others to exploit and the Chinese are not the first or the only people to exploit those fissures and we are blaming the Chinese bitterly for exploiting our fissures in the same manner that the Pakistanis blame India about Baluchistan. Blaming an external agent for exploiting an internal fissure is right up that street. But denying such a fissure exists is another Paki and Chinese method and if that method is employed the entire argument about the Chinese fails. In other words to make a China threat more credible we have to admit that we are fractured internally. Unlike the Chinese who claim to be one people from the East to North Arunachal and East Turkistan with no exploitable friction. Talk about difference between the Chinese way and the Indian way..

The reference to the Siliguri corridor - a narrow geographic link is even more ironic. That corridor was carved out of India even before the current Chinese regime came into being. The creation of that corridor itself was a massive act of mutilation of an existing India. Highlighting a Chinese attempt to cut that corridor as a ploy to "destroy India" sounds like wholly untenable logic to me. I don't buy it.

I am merely stating my views. I have nothing against anyone who does not hold my views. I just don't see anything that fires me up and teaches me something new and exciting that I can eagerly follow as knowledge I have gained. If my feelings are those of a one off and most others are fired up by the case presented - I am currently a lone dissenter.

Christopher Sidor wrote:

VikramS wrote:shiv:

The aim is not to destroy the billion plus people who live in India, but India as a nation. If all major urban centers, and military installations are destroyed, who or what will govern of what is left-over? Aren't their enough fissures within India, that without a strong central presence, it will just go into hundred directions, with each surviving local dada, trying to carve out a jagir for himself?

RajeshA wrote: +1

China's aim is to prevent a democratic power like India to stand as an equal on the Asian stage. The Partition of the Indian Subcontinent went a long way in preventing the rise of not just a rival but a superior to China in Asia. But even though the Indian Subcontinent is partitioned, China still fears that India can rise, if not as a superior, than at least a formidable rival, in military strength, in knowledge economy, as a scientific, technological and manufacturing power.

I beg to differ. In one way India partition saved India. It cut away from India the very core of destabilizing India. Imagine the 180 million crackpots of Pakistan, if had been in India, would have wrecked India with their nut schemes. Please note that I do not include Bangladesh into this. Off course this should not mean or imply that partition was final or was justified or based on some valid reason. I am just pointing out the silver lining or the saying "Whatever happens, happens for a good reason."

I thought that the context was clear, but perhaps I should have added the qualifier, "provided internal rifts within the Indian Subcontinent, considered here as one political entity, had not become too destabilizing".

I too agree, that partition saved India, but that is a different topic.

My point was that a democratic India with quasi similar or better stability than today, but the size of the whole Indian Continent would have left China under no illusion of any supremacy over India. All that is iffy thinking, and hence it was not the core of argument, anyway.

Christopher Sidor wrote:Coming back to the theme that India is somehow prevented from rivaling China due to Partition is Bum. We tend to see the progress China has made in economic sphere and seem to think that the lead which China has is unassailable. Or we tend to think the size of China, it is supposed to be the 4th largest nation on this planet and say we cannot compete. China is the 4th largest nation of this planet, because I have not included Taiwan, Arunachal and north ladakh into its territory deliberately.

But that is the problem with China. It has made progress only in economic field. Money can hide a thousand flaws. In case of china, its so called economic might is hiding hundreds of flaws. Its 2.1 trillion USD economic reserves point to a appalling inability to use the reserves inside its own country. Its economic well being is dependent on the developed markets. When they stumble, it has to come up with the worlds 2nd largest stimulus program just so that it can keep on going. China is nothing but Japan on steroids, and we know how the miracle story of Japan ended. If the Chinese insist on carrying out the one-child policy, indefinitely, then in the next 30 years they will face a catastrophe.

Just for clarification, I do not grudge the Chinese for their achievements. I do not envy their progress. In fact it is based on their hard work and single minded pursuit of an aim. But I think we can be better and will be bigger than they could ever hope for.

Describing China as Japan on steroids is a popular sound bite, but it is specious. China still has enough cheap labor to keep on going for a long time. China is also not militarily castrated like Japan. So by describing China as Japan on steroids, if an argument is being made that China awaits similar stagnation and middle-power status, then that is off the mark.

What China is looking for is a transition from its "exclusively export oriented industry" to some growth in domestic-based growth; as well as to broaden its markets. And if the transition is not yet complete, I see no reason for stating it is going to be doom and gloom and inescapable bust and wreck.

Basically this discussion is about Chinese and American roles in Pakistan now or in the coming years, and not about China's problems after 50 years due to aging of population. In the long term we are all dead!

I claim India is whole and united and I choose a particular shape and size for the united India that I see in my mind. A shape and size that does not correspond to any earlier historic shape and size of India. But, paradoxically I simultaneously choose to admit that this India has rifts and internal fissures. Then I say that someone else is out to split us using those very fissures that exist in my united India. Among these I rank the Chinese as the single most significant threat.

It's not clear to me where this line of thinking leads. If nothing else it is veering way off topic for this thread.

^^^Incoherence (where this line of thinking leads).

looking ahead - the US is looking to change the game in Asia. pakistan is rapidly losing its utility and therefore in US minds, since iran is not pliable, India might become a new poodle or pseudo-poodle. india ofcourse is too "haughty" and "real focused on demcracy" to allow this to happen

1. how long will the US continue to prop up pakistan? (or specifically the TSPA?)
2. if the US recedes, how aggressively will the PRC fill in the gap?
3. do we know for example if TSPA afsars attend staff college courses in China? We know that they receive much american largesse.
4. is PRC engagement with TSP only confined to PLA and TSPA?
5. does PRC need pashtunistan? if so, for what purpose? is it the same reason it needs punjab?
6. does the PRC view pakistan as a 'whole' or as its parts?

shiv wrote:I am bemused by these descriptions of Chinese intent. In the absence of any credible evidence that Chinese actions on the ground add up to the grave predictions made I must admit that the soothsaying is appearing more like an exercise designed to get the Chinese to be feared and hated more than is currently the case and a sidelining of the actions of all the entities in the past who have actually sought to split India and fragment India from outside or within in pretty much the same manner - but on this occasion using nuclear weapons supply to Pakistan as the crucial factor that swings the argument.

shiv saar,
as I started the Managing Chinese Threat Thread, we had this discussion earlier!

I submit one post. There were discussions prior to this and after this post, on the matter.

Often you say, you are willing to look at the Chinese threat, if the others would consider America to be a similarly potent threat. If you now say, that "it is a design to get the Chinese to be feared and hated", then through the equal-equal with USA, that you propose, one would have to claim the same for USA. This in turns proves to be a formula in eternal bliss, because everything becomes unnecessary "design", and one need not fear China or USA!

Perhaps BENIS should be only thread on BRF!

shiv wrote:Personally I am finding it less than believable.

There is a circular argument here that refers back to itself. Reference to insurgencies like those in the North East and the Naxals are admissions of fissures within India that others want to exploit. Either we deny the fissures exist or admit that they do exist. if those fissures did not exist then there is nothing for others to exploit and the Chinese can't exploit them. If the fissures do exist then there certainly is something for others to exploit and the Chinese are not the first or the only people to exploit those fissures and we are blaming the Chinese bitterly for exploiting our fissures in the same manner that the Pakistanis blame India about Baluchistan. Blaming an external agent for exploiting an internal fissure is right up that street. But denying such a fissure exists is another Paki and Chinese method and if that method is employed the entire argument about the Chinese fails. In other words to make a China threat more credible we have to admit that we are fractured internally. Unlike the Chinese who claim to be one people from the East to North Arunachal and East Turkistan with no exploitable friction. Talk about difference between the Chinese way and the Indian way..

By that logic, we should stop blaming Pakistan for the Kashmir insurgency, cross-border terrorism, and the Mumbai 26/11. If we admit that Pakistanis conducted those misdeeds, then we would be admitting that we had fissures, and if we admit we had fissures, then it is no point blaming Pakistan, because anybody else too would have exploited those fissures, so blaming just Pakistan, does indeed sound a bit "unfair"! And even if do get around to putting the blame openly on Pakistan, then it is similar to the blame India gets on Baluchistan from Pakistan, so everything is equal-equal!

Admitting weak spots or not admitting them for reasons of honor, makes no difference! If they are there, they are there!

Unless one candidly talks about one's weaknesses, there is not going to be any efforts to remove them either. Hiding them from any spotlight, does not mean one's enemies and rivals are not aware of them.

shiv wrote:The reference to the Siliguri corridor - a narrow geographic link is even more ironic. That corridor was carved out of India even before the current Chinese regime came into being. The creation of that corridor itself was a massive act of mutilation of an existing India. Highlighting a Chinese attempt to cut that corridor as a ploy to "destroy India" sounds like wholly untenable logic to me. I don't buy it.

The Oil that China exploits to drive its economy was already there millions of years ago, before the current Chinese regime came to power! Does that mean, that Chinese are wrong to use Oil? Perhaps they should use only solar cells, because they were invented only in 1954, a few years after the Communists came to power in China.

Chinese claims in India's Northeast are perhaps all a figment of imagination! Perhaps American occupation of Indian land on which they have built their embassy/garrison makes it equal-equal with China.

shiv wrote:I am merely stating my views. I have nothing against anyone who does not hold my views. I just don't see anything that fires me up and teaches me something new and exciting that I can eagerly follow as knowledge I have gained. If my feelings are those of a one off and most others are fired up by the case presented - I am currently a lone dissenter.

same here, saar!
Only a discussion!

Fire and brimstone on my part is simply because of too much acidity in tummy onlee!

shiv wrote:I claim India is whole and united and I choose a particular shape and size for the united India that I see in my mind. A shape and size that does not correspond to any earlier historic shape and size of India. But, paradoxically I simultaneously choose to admit that this India has rifts and internal fissures. Then I say that someone else is out to split us using those very fissures that exist in my united India. Among these I rank the Chinese as the single most significant threat.

It's not clear to me where this line of thinking leads. If nothing else it is veering way off topic for this thread.

I think we are all talking about India as that what our Constitution claims to be legally part of India.

As far as I know, India's Northeast is not a figment of my imagination!

Rajesh A Garu,

Excellent posts. Its taken me a while to digest all facts! You summarise facts without waffling brilliantly.

“The claim, that the House of Saud together with USA have an edge over China, is misleading. I would say, the Wahhawolves weaken the hold of USA and House of Saud on Pakistan, and China profits from this weakened influence.”

I hypothesise that events like the Lal Masjid siege in July 2007 is also perhaps a way of keeping the wahhawolves and their ambitions in check. Pakijarnails will say “ our hands are tied onlee”. KSA will say “we are pure and fund the system. They will rebuild the mosque and fund the demonstrators( when they go falconeering to Pakisatan!). America has nothing to lose. Mangoabdul hates them any way. They know that.

I also hypothesise that Drone attacks/Black Water Contractors deal with rogue elements(ambitious pious types) of the wahhawolves.
However I do concede if there a vacuum China will try to gain a foothold. This is likely to happen. What next.. US and China fight over(overtly or covertly) Pakisatan control... result :- “Balkanisation of Pakistan”

I am of the opinion that Pakisatan will remain in the US sphere of influence for the foreseeable future.

The Pyramid analogy is an excellent way to understand the conditions. Look at the current North African/Middle Eastern Turmoil. No American/Israeli flags burnt. No calling for a return to purer Islam yet. It was refreshing to note that people are on the streets for food, clothes, shelter, opportunity for themselves and their families. No videos from Bin Laden or Al Zawahiri exhorting the ummah to rise against these dictators. In Eyeraq when Zarqawi was running the show, these videos praising the resistance were a regular thing on Al Zajeera. I guess the Islamists did not see this coming(Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Libya...Bahrain)

You make a very convincing case for the following reasons why Islamists cannot be toppled like No Freedom; No Military Capacity; No Anger at the Power Elite; Contained Desperation & No High Expectations. But, there are seminal events beyond control. Arab despots have always used Islam to justify their regimes etc... but to the best of my knowledge, there are no Islamist regimes which have lasted long, particularly the sunni/wahhabi/salafi variety. Even the Iranian revolution is in the process of change. Islamists have never been able to address the roti-kapada- makaan issues convincingly and in sustained it for very long. So I am of the opinion that the islamist will not be able to contain every single mutiny about these social change. Most Pakistanis watch cable TV and so have developed a taste for material things, however other worldly they may sound/appear!

When the tsunami of social change happens, all of existing order changes. Several middle eastern colleagues of mine state that the lack of availability of interaction with women & the expense of marrying a woman(as per sharia). Homosexuality is rife amongst the poor. A lot of them are certain that this also is the reason why this revolution in middle east/north Africa is more of demonstration of public will for more freedoms across the middle east.

Will the islamists control this scale of change demanded by people?
Not all the time.

Is china really the equal of america?!! America arms n threatens china on its borders with taiwan, south korea, philippines n now, india. Whats china's threat to america? Pakistan? Really?!!!
China has a border with india n has had one border war. Sure, the enmity is understandable. But this country is desperately afraid of noko peasants over running its borders. How likely is it going to be that it will try expand its borders against a wayyy stronger foe?!!
Is china+pak a formidable threat? Heck yeah !!! How formidable would india+ america+ russia be to china?!!! All 3 have had wars with china n , at best, grudging admiration. China is hugely worried about this combo. Afaik, they like the pak af takleef since it keeps america pre occupied n away. India is collateral damage.
What would china do if america is out of af pak? Is india so big a threat that they would fund pak to tie us down? M not so sure. It would be cheaper to try buy bhutan nepal sri lanka burma - maybe foment border troubles all along the eastern front. After all, pak will remain a threat even if unfunded.
Central asian oil corridors can just as easily go north of kkh as they can south
They would fund an anti india threat if the cost were lower than its benefits. Considering india can foment the same troubles for china, and importantly, has shown this capability in the past, would they choose to take us on at the border ?
Again afaik, india is as peripheral to china as it is to america. Probably more, given the sheer ignorance n contempt visible across the border on both sides to each other.
We worry so much about losing a few kilometres on the west. Yet, we have so easily given up our influence in states like burma to china. If we must discuss china, we must look east. The west is won only if we pull our weight on the east, not otherwise

Maram wrote:I hypothesise that events like the Lal Masjid siege in July 2007 is also perhaps a way of keeping the wahhawolves and their ambitions in check. Pakijarnails will say “ our hands are tied onlee”. KSA will say “we are pure and fund the system. They will rebuild the mosque and fund the demonstrators( when they go falconeering to Pakisatan!). America has nothing to lose. Mangoabdul hates them any way. They know that.

Maram ji,
Many consider Lal Masjid siege to be a pivotal event in Pakistani history. Pakistani Army was used to crush pious Muslims. Pakistani Army was used to attack a mosque.

After Lal Masjid, it became clear to many Islamists in Pakistan, that the loyalties of the Pakistani Army were divided, and it was willing to attack fellow pious Muslims, fellow soldiers of Islam in Pakistan.

It convinced the Islamists that the system needed to be made more Islamic, not just in hollow words and promises, but in deeds and behavior.

Whatever Pakistani Army did that day, when they entered Lal Masjid, whether it would put a check on the Wahhawolves or not, is written on a different page.

Maram wrote:I also hypothesise that Drone attacks/Black Water Contractors deal with rogue elements(ambitious pious types) of the wahhawolves.
However I do concede if there a vacuum China will try to gain a foothold. This is likely to happen. What next.. US and China fight over(overtly or covertly) Pakisatan control... result :- “Balkanisation of Pakistan”

China is not going to fight USA over control of Pakistan. Basically Pakistan would pledge its loyalty to the top-dog, and at the moment it sees China with the biggest cash stash! China also knows that Pakistan owes its nuclear shield to China, so Pakistan would remain pledged to China, no matter what! So basically, USA is funding China's whore, and China doesn't mind if the whore takes care of some services for USA.

China knows that they have a meeting of mind and soul with Pakistan, when it comes to India, and that is all that matters.

Maram wrote:I am of the opinion that Pakisatan will remain in the US sphere of influence for the foreseeable future.

Raymond Davis saga is telling us everyday how this sphere of influence looks like!

Maram wrote:The Pyramid analogy is an excellent way to understand the conditions. Look at the current North African/Middle Eastern Turmoil. No American/Israeli flags burnt. No calling for a return to purer Islam yet. It was refreshing to note that people are on the streets for food, clothes, shelter, opportunity for themselves and their families. No videos from Bin Laden or Al Zawahiri exhorting the ummah to rise against these dictators. In Eyeraq when Zarqawi was running the show, these videos praising the resistance were a regular thing on Al Zajeera. I guess the Islamists did not see this coming(Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Libya...Bahrain)

I too believe that the people were genuinely interested in food, shelter, opportunities for themselves and their families.

Maram wrote:You make a very convincing case for the following reasons why Islamists cannot be toppled like No Freedom; No Military Capacity; No Anger at the Power Elite; Contained Desperation & No High Expectations. But, there are seminal events beyond control. Arab despots have always used Islam to justify their regimes etc... but to the best of my knowledge, there are no Islamist regimes which have lasted long, particularly the sunni/wahhabi/salafi variety. Even the Iranian revolution is in the process of change. Islamists have never been able to address the roti-kapada- makaan issues convincingly and in sustained it for very long. So I am of the opinion that the islamist will not be able to contain every single mutiny about these social change. Most Pakistanis watch cable TV and so have developed a taste for material things, however other worldly they may sound/appear!

Arab despots often used Islam and its symbolism. The Muslims have always been in awe of their fighting forces, their ghazis. As such any military man would have received some support from the people. This however becomes contingent upon his unassailableness and the credibility of his Islamic credentials. Most Arab dictators lost their Islamic credibility, as new Islamic movements came on the scene and opposed those Arab dictators.

Also there was only a small elite of the Army, and the strongman's own tribe supporting the whole pyramid (on its head). This wasn't a strong base. Also there was not much glue within this base, other than some personal interests of the stakeholders.

Also the people have had their expectations from life raised by TV, Al Jazeera, Education, Social Media, Internet, etc. In none of the Arab countries, except may be Saudi Arabia, there is really much censorship of the Internet. I can't say this for sure however.

Maram wrote:When the tsunami of social change happens, all of existing order changes. Several middle eastern colleagues of mine state that the lack of availability of interaction with women & the expense of marrying a woman(as per sharia). Homosexuality is rife amongst the poor. A lot of them are certain that this also is the reason why this revolution in middle east/north Africa is more of demonstration of public will for more freedoms across the middle east.

Maram ji,
I appreciate this urge for change. We should here try to differentiate between a Muslim country and a Talibanic system.

Even though Iran went a long way in setting up an Islamic theocracy, it never had the zeal and thoroughness of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Pakistan may live through a couple of iterations, but the tendency is to establish a Talibanic system in Pakistan, simply because Pakistan is a land more Catholic than the Pope, and being all converts, they try to outdo each other in piety.

Maram wrote:Will the islamists control this scale of change demanded by people? Not all the time.

All these Arab lands are pristine lands as far as democracy is concerned. They still think, that people's voice can be heard if they choose their representatives. And perhaps in a century where democracy has had time to mature in some countries and many of its concepts have been researched and explored, it may even be possible to establish a democratic and responsive governance in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.

However in Pakistan, democracy has lost all its credibility! If the people take to the streets on a democratic platform, they wouldn't know really what political demands to make. Everything has been tried and failed. Except Islam in its purity. That is one strength the Islamists in Pakistan have! They have an untested and thereby uncorrupted system to offer the people!

And whatever dreams the people may have, of food and shelter, freedom from corruption, all those dreams would ride Islamist horses, because there are none else. All other horses have proved themselves to be asses.

JMTs

saudi for sure, and to some extent the UAE monitors internet and email - although it is with american help and the purpose is to catch jehadis

Lalmohan wrote:saudi for sure, and to some extent the UAE monitors internet and email - although it is with american help and the purpose is to catch jehadis

Thanks, Professor sahib!

Some thoughts:

(1) Us vs China (and TSP)
The civilized components of the modern world are a lot more inter-dependent than they ever have been. As a result military presence and capability of the rational powers is essentially a deterrent. It is highly unlikely that US and China will get into a direct shooting war. They will shadow-box and use their proxies. That is why I find this talk of the US 5th, 6th, 7th fleet cutting of China a very low probability event.

The US and China populate opposite sides of the globe. While they compete for influence, at the end of the day they both want peaceful access to global resources. The competition only comes when the resource rich area is up for grab. You do not see any issue with Aussie or even Indian raw-material export to China. Similarly the 5th fleet does nothing about Iran's oil exports, with Japan, China and India being the largest importers.

The choke-points help to keep to maintain the balance, peace, and prevent adventurism. The fleets help preserve the status-quo. However, their utility as a mechanism to force a change is very limited. It can work with small tin-pots but that is pretty much it.

Unfortunately for India, TSP is not what can be considered a civilized/rational power from the Indian perspective. The Indian dharmic perspective is at odds with TSP's raisin dieter and the TSP can not be expected to follow the rules. That is what makes TSP so dangerous; its unpredictability, its tactical brilliance (sic), its disregard for human life (as evident in Dacca four decades ago, and today in Libya and Bahrien).

(2) China vs India (and TSP)

Regardless of what kind of power China is vis a vis the US, the Chinese attitudes towards India are far from friendly. Whether it was occupying the buffer state of Tibet (50s), direct attack across the IB (60s), conventional support to TSP (70s), nuclear support to TSP (80s), missiles to TSP (90s), nuke reactors and a shadow nuke deal (in 2010). China also has a well-established fifth-column within India, which uses India's political system to speak for the Chinese POV; it has links with NE insurgents (who were supposedly offered SAMs); it has idealogical links with the Naxals (assuming other more direct links are not present).

While the US can act as a deterrent to any Chinese adventurism, if China truly decides to go after India it will be India's war to fight. However, China has a seat at the table; it is unlikely to do anything which is considered too uncivilized and irrational by others at the table. It however can use that rabid pest next door to do whatever dirty work it needs to do.

TSPs does the dirty work for everyone so it is not a big deal. The only problem for India is unlike others where their motivations are primarily mercenary, with India the motivation runs much deeper. Deeper to a point, where many in TSP do not mind getting blown up, as long as they take India with them.

[3] What will China do if it controls TSP?

In the ideal, stable world, India and China will move closer to each other economically. The Chinese may even see the risks that come with rolling with the Pig. It makes the more prudent choice, and does not sugar-daddy TSP. With no friend willing to fund it, TSP is forced to behave. China gets secure routes through India, access to a big market, a source of raw-material. With a TSP behaving the IPI pipeline becomes a reality, and resources from Mid-East and Central Asia start flowing to the PRC, as well as India. After all, in their entire histories, India and China have rarely if ever been involved in a military conflict prior to the PRC.

However, in a not so stable world, things can be dramatically different. Internal pressures in China, whether it is from food inflation, demographic pressures, the people's desire to seek more than roti-kapra-makan, another economic breakdown (say the Euro collapses), can make China insecure to a point where the fall back to their baser instincts.

IMHO it is the PLA/CPCs baser instincts which India should fear. Their system has very limited set of checks and balances, does not have any dharmic traditions it remembers, and can be brutally efficient when taking human lives to crush dissent. And when faced with internal dissent, the easiest way out is to create an external distraction. For PRC, the best part is that they have a TSP on the payroll to do all the dirty work.

(4) TSP meeting its 72
I can not construct a scenario where the TSP meets its 72, when the Chinese are calling the shots. They can keep the TSP on Liquid Oxygen. Alive enough to be a pain in India's back; but completely dependent on the PRC for its strategic weight.

With the US, I see a fundamental divergence of ideas and goals. Part of it is showmanship/GUBO/Begging; another part of it is more sinister and a result of completely diverging objectives and plans. That the CIA is resorting to articles in TIME to communicate with the ISI is a sign of the times.

In the grander scheme of things, an independent Sindh, Baluch and Pakthun nations under the US sphere of influence can help the US achieve many of its regional objectives. It may lose in the dirty-work category but then everything has a cost to pay.

However for that to happen the PRC will have to be co-opted and compensated. What can be done to co-opt the PRC is of course another thread all together.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A_Gupta ji:

You have alluded to the fact that the PRC is unsafe on its Eastern flank. Somehow their actions do not say so.

Their boats are challenging Japanese naval vessels. Noko torpedoes a SoKo Ship; it even got into a shelling war. All under the watchful, all-seeing eyes of the 5th/6th/7th ... fleet. Iran continues to ship oil. I doubt if there is any constituency left in ROC which imagines reconquering the PRC. The only issue is the degree of integration and how much of a separate identity to maintain.

Similarly, the ASEAN region is becoming increasingly dependent on the PRC as an EXPORT market. Everyone is scared of Chinese power and adventurism; but everyone is doing business with them.

The fact remains that the US and China are too dependent on each other for the US to even fancy the idea of raising the ante. The objective is to preserve the status-quo, while scoring a victory here, and conceding a point there. And that is fine with the Chinese, as long as the sea-lanes remain open; even if it is the 5th fleet guarding them.

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world- ... 24323.html

SSridhar wrote:

A majority of Pakistanis -- not just leaders but also lay public -- believes that India has never accepted the creation of Pakistan and that India's foreign policy is geared towards the undoing of Partition. The fact that all Indian prime ministers and a majority of Indian leaders -- even those belonging to the Hindu nationalist movement -- have repeatedly expressed their acceptance of Pakistan and offered their hand of friendship, has not changed this perception.

The underlined portion above is a 'founding myth' of Pakistan. This was propagated by the State to sustain enmity with India. The burden then falls on India to disprove it and if it fails to do so (and India will always fail the test because Pakistan could never be convinced by whatever action India takes because it is determined not to be convinced), it adds grist to the mill and Pakistan can reinforce its claim that India never accepted the division in the first place and was just waiting to gobble it up.

shiv wrote:Indians who will immediately brown their pants on reading this boast and go right ahead and moan about Indian weakness.

Just an observation.

The structure of the two contentions are similar.

India keeps on telling the Pakistanis, that we mean no harm, just an end to terrorism, and Pakistanis retort with India has never accepted the idea of Pakistan, and wants to destroy it. India can start a 1000 CBMs and of MFN status, etc. Nothing helps to convince Pakistan, because Pakistan does not want to be convinced. India tells them, then think what you want, but stop the terrorist attacks. For want of good arguments, Pakistan repeats India is the enemy, and terrorism is only natural, and as such the conflict endures.

Indians who consider China to be an enemy of India - the China-mistrusters, keep on telling why China is an enemy and we need to strengthen our defenses and be on our guard, keep on producing arguments over arguments, creating various threat scenarios, but those who believe that India has nothing to fear from China, the China-soothsayers, simply retort that China-mistrusters are simply afraid of China, we shiver in our dhotis, we brown our pants and we moan about Indian weaknesses. China-mistrusters can try to assure them that it is not about fear but about having a sound China-strategy, etc. Nothing helps to convince the China-soothsayers, because China-soothsayers do not want to be convinced. For want of good arguments, China-soothsayers simply repeat we are afraid, so they keep on attacking the China-mistrusters with innuendos like brown pants, shivering in dhotis, etc.

I had once posed the question, as simply as I could.
"How do I know, that I am not jumping from the frying pan into the fire?"

I would presume, the answer remains the same: browning our pants, shivering in our dhotis, moaning about Indian weaknesses, etc.

Considering that there is no way of going past this dead-end, I will simply sign off from this discussion and wish the others fun in their further discussions!

Last but not least, I think it worth repeating, that I have no ill-will towards any party, including towards the China-soothsayers! We are all BRFites, and each of us, ponders over and cares about our land in his own particular way!

RajeshA sir jee,

Please keep up the good fight.

What the good doc is doing, is illustrative of the over all mind-set in Indian strategic circles vis-a-vis the US. The doc should at least take comfort in the fact that he is essentially preaching to the choir. But like the mullah who does not want to give an inch, doc too does not want to; lest the faithful stray. Though the Islamists and the dharmics are poles apart, the dharmics can certainly pick up a lesson or two from the Islamists; kudos to the doc.

Also there is nothing on BR which says that the doc has to approve a view point. The very fact that he opened a new thread suggests, that while he has a viscerally opposite perspective, he is still willing to listen.

I feel what would serve everyone better is if the doc, A-Gupta Ji's concerns are addressed. From what I have gathered here are the key points:

-> The US surrounds the ChiComs, and they do not have any strategic space to operate in. A_Gupta ji feels that the Western border is of little importance compared to the Eastern coast, and the Chinese are still vulnerable in the Ellow C, to think about adventures in the Wild West.

-> The Chinese are VFM folks, and will not throw good money after bad (TSP). TSP is too unstable for the Chinese to invest any money into it.

-> The literature from China suggests that the hostility feared by Indians is more of a mirage; an Uncle created bogeyman. Chinese think-tanks are studying India in detail and are seeing immense opportunity to partner with India.

I have tried to address some of the issues, but I am a novice at this game. However, I will add something about public statements from the Chinese. There is an article on another thread, which clearly states that most of the publications on India come from academicians in China. OTOH in India it is the strategic community which writes the most about China. Academicians, live in their own world, and often have a disconnect with the ground situation, and can be very idealistic. The very fact that the Chinese literature about India is dominated by academics, raises alarm bells in me. IMHO, the academics are just a red-herring; designed to disguise their true intentions. The view held by the PLA and the strategic community is not visible. A repeat of the Hindu-Chini bhai-bhai phase.

The strategic intent of the Chinese is made very clear by the nuclear deal done for the TSP and the reactors which are spinning out nukes by the truck-load. There could not be a more clear message. However, even there shiv sees Uncle's hand; i.e. uncle is allowing TSP to make more nukes. Perhaps it is yet to dawn, that Uncle is helpless. When you are fighting a battle with both legs and one arm tied to the ground, it is hard for a super-power too to deal with the TSP. Of course once they decide to follow their basic instinct, the one which was articulated in the post 9/11 phone calls to Mushy things will change dramatically. However, the Uncle is afraid of a JDAM or two in the mainland, and does not consider it worth the risk, YET.

VikramS wrote: But like the mullah who does not want to give an inch, doc too does not want to; lest the faithful stray.

The observation is correct but the explanation is wrong. The faithful will not stray, but the neutral and otherwise not bothered will become aware. A message by me that causes you takleef will be read and absorbed by you in one reading. When I repeat the message you read it again and start wondering what i am doing. When I repeat the message ten times - you read it ten times and ask that I stop repeating it. The mistake is yours in assuming that I am addressing you. I am addressing the hundreds of others who also read this thread. The intention is to address people who see this thread just once in 2 weeks, 1 month or once in 3 months and make sure they get the message. The problem of irritating or upsetting you or anyone else is a minor and eminently ignorable issue compared with getting a message across to a larger number of people.

Often, by addressing me directly every time I repeat my message you help in making me reinforce my message. so there is a mullah like fervor but not anything you can stop. You could stop allowing it to worry you and asking me to change direction. It is high praise for me to be mentioned along with the word "strategic circles" in India but that is taking things a bit far even if my view coincide with those of others. Every Indian knows about China and a large number of Indians brown their pants at the mention of China - including I am sorry to say some members of the exalted "strategic community" of various nations.

But the ability to see the exact dynamics of the US is hidden to Indians by the deep love that Indians feel for the US. Most Indians want India to be like America, not China. But it hurts to be told that in order for India to be like America we must double cross America and speak with a forked tongue. Let the right hand shake hands with the US while the left sticks a finger up US backside. And this of course is how we must deal with China as well. Indian interests mean Indian interests. It cannot mean more goodwill towards a more benign appearing entity.

And I will keep repeating that in spite of the discomfort it might cause you or anyone else simply because you are only one of thousands who read this thread. if you are yourself a thinker you would do well stop being dragged down to the level of refuting my so called analyses, but go ahead and post yours without argument as RajeshA does really well. But I seriously disagree with his decision not to put his ebook online. It will never reach the people it should reach. Bad mistake in my view. Let people who read individual opinions decide what they want to believe. It's an open field and in that open field you will keep on seeing my views repeated. Whether that is mullah like behavior or not is irrelevant and will not stop me. It does not even serve to divert me from what I am seeking to do.

But that is OT - let me move on to other things - I was not sure where to post it but this thread will do now that it has been brought up to the top

Doc,
I have seen your "transformation" if you will in the last decade. I think Acharya was the only one for a while who was saying something similar to what you were saying now but of course he says in very abstract manner which is kind a opposite of your style.

All I am saying keep doing what you are doing not that is I don't say this you will stop

Naked Truth is never pleasant...especially when you are saying something against the "TOPDOG"- piskology which I will leave it upto you.

Btw,I am in Massa ...and got into slight "trouble" at work and also during social settings for saying similar things in the past

Now I think I am more "refined".

vishnua wrote:,I am in Massa ...and got into slight "trouble" at work and also during social settings for saying similar things in the past

vishnua I can hardly blame you. I know many people who need to be "more refined" or "more nuanced" because of their personal situation.

It became particularly evident after 9-11 when it became clear that there are some things that you cannot say when you live in certain countries even if those countries advertise themselves as free. At least one US citizen was arrested/harassed for wishing that bad things should happen to the right honorable Saint SriSriSri George W. Bush. On the other hand I will type the following words freely without fear of reprisal from non free countries of the world "Kill Kiyani. Nuke Pakistan. Kill Hu. Nuke Beijing" . You can say "Kill Obama" in Pakistan, but not "Kill Kiyani". And you can't say "I wish Jasmine on Hu" in China, leave alone any death threats. The internet has caused a great deal of churning in who says what and where.

But it does make debate more difficult. For example a person in the UK (uninitated to BRF) may feel that "Paki" is a racist term that applies to Indians as well and should not be used. but this is not the UK and no Indian thinks Paki is racist. A lot of time gets wasted on the forum when people worry about inconsequentials - but those inconsequentials cause worry because that is how their minds work or their personal situation makes it far from inconsequential.

If I start a thread saying "How to nuke Washington" there may be a number of people who will find it uncomfortable to take part in any "debate" on that thread because of personal constraints. Funnily enough it is far easier and more acceptable to talk about nuking Delhi or Bangalore. But pinpointing reasons for this and pointing out inconsistencies is always controversial. I was having a free and frank discussion about Islamic extremism on a mailing list a couple of months ago when one guy from the US emailed me privately and said that he agreed with what I was saying but could not afford to say it on the list as an Indian. But he added that he was going for his US citizenship interview the next day and after becoming a US citizen he could be free to say what he felt. I guess he believed that I was a free US citizen in the US - and confided in me for that reason, not knowing that I am a non free citizen in a Hindu extremist society.

But I digress . I was wanting to write something else but my thoughts are not organ-rised yet.

VikramS wrote: -> The literature from China suggests that the hostility feared by Indians is more of a mirage; an Uncle created bogeyman. Chinese think-tanks are studying India in detail and are seeing immense opportunity to partner with India.

I won't trust any literature from cheen, but yes I agree, the cheeni attitude to India and other neighbours is derived from deep fear of the "carving of the chinese melon". So wary it is about that, that it baulks from giving even an inch on arunachal/senkaku/spratly. US encourages everyone's fears of each other, so that China is bogged in those issues instead of facing up with US. Same game as Brittania's continental theory.

So in this strategic kushti, no two equal-seeded pahelwans come to blows directly. I can't figure out why Indian thought is focussed on picking grudges with each of these pahelwans and do direct duels and tit-for-tat replies to the Chinese threat, US intentions etc.

I think India's primary tactic short term should be to make these pahelwans (and their Pak towel-bearer) go head-to-head more often and weaken them.

Eg. If china threatens us by exporting nuke technology to Pak, we protest and we form an on-the-bounce anti-china alliance with US. But have we done anything in Uighur to create an impression that Pak is fomenting trouble there ?

Eg. If US actions of exporting mil hardware to Pak threaten us, we protest and we threaten rethink on future mil-deals with US. But have done anything to create an impression that Pak is exporting explosives to AQAP which uses it to disrupt US oil supply from arabia ?

Eg. If Pak has managed to make US see it as part of the solution in Afghanistan, have we done anything to make it be seen as part of the problem ? Or make Iran see Af-pak as a big enough threat ?

VikramS wrote: (2) China vs India (and TSP)
Regardless of what kind of power China is vis a vis the US, the Chinese attitudes towards India are far from friendly. Whether it was occupying the buffer state of Tibet (50s), direct attack across the IB (60s), conventional support to TSP (70s), nuclear support to TSP (80s), missiles to TSP (90s), nuke reactors and a shadow nuke deal (in 2010).

How is occupying Tibet an unfriendly act to India?! Its an unfriendly act to Tibetans, sure, but bear in mind that the historical state of Tibet was as mercenary as the Mongols towards the Chinese. They were finally tamed with help from central asian armies by Chinese quasi-Mongol empires. Tibet's benefit as a buffer state to India was incidental and had nothing, really, to do with Indian effort. Our losing the buffer must be gamed but why call it an "unfriendly" act to India?

Nevertheless, I dont argue that PRC is unfriendly. As shiv points out, PRC is as unfriendly in its actions towards India as the US has been so far.
direct attack across the IB? how about US sending a fleet to threaten india? or vetoing any sanction against Pakistan during 1962 and 1971?
conventional support to TSP? isnt there conventional support by America to TSP ?
nuclear support to TSP? ditto?
missiles to TSP? aircraft to TSP by US?
nuke reactors? nuke tech and sanction free aid by US to TSP, anyone?

I dont get the frothing at the mouth towards PRC. Neither PRC nor Amreeka is a friend or ally to India and that is as it should be.

VikramS wrote: China also has a well-established fifth-column within India, which uses India's political system to speak for the Chinese POV; it has links with NE insurgents (who were supposedly offered SAMs); it has idealogical links with the Naxals (assuming other more direct links are not present).

The NE insurgents were, maybe, offered SAMs by China and the Paks have, definitely, RECEIVED F16s from America. Ummm .. why is the SAM a bigger threat?!
To me, the argument sounds like a class war ! Both "dynasty" and "knicker", the ruling classes, draw support from Indian Americans; the poorer classes and has-beens draw support from Arundhati Roy and the naxals
If india's political system is the weak link, we have more to fear from US, IMO.

VikramS wrote: While the US can act as a deterrent to any Chinese adventurism, if China truly decides to go after India it will be India's war to fight.

This thread started by figuring out that the US could not deter Pakistan. Within 2 pages, we realise the US cannot deter China. But no one has worked out why we should bank on the US to deter anybody on our behalf?! How did we become their ally and in what sense? What independence of thought or action do we give up by agreeing to be allied for US and against China and what benefits do we derive?
It is evident that being an ally of the US does not help us with Pakistan. Must we go through a costly learning process to figure out it wont help us in ASEAN either?

VikramS wrote: [3] What will China do if it controls TSP?
IMHO it is the PLA/CPCs baser instincts which India should fear. Their system has very limited set of checks and balances, does not have any dharmic traditions it remembers, and can be brutally efficient when taking human lives to crush dissent. And when faced with internal dissent, the easiest way out is to create an external distraction. For PRC, the best part is that they have a TSP on the payroll to do all the dirty work.

What dharmic traditions or checks and balances have stopped Amreeka from using TSP to do its dirty work in the past?! What checks and balances in US were needed before prosecuting Cambodia Vietnam Iraq or Afghanistan?! Why do we fight the US's battles with China on this thread instead of fighting India's battles with both?
I remember you answered my post about the cambodian bombing by saying American soldiers were derided when they came back from Vietnam. cambodia is more indic and vietnam is more sinic and thats only one of many differences between the two - american boots were not in cambodia and no hippies bothered american air force after a tour of duty in cambodia.
I understand the worries about Pakistan on this forum, but the external world for India has to extend beyond Amreeka and Pak

VikramS wrote: (4) TSP meeting its 72
I can not construct a scenario where the TSP meets its 72, when the Chinese are calling the shots. They can keep the TSP on Liquid Oxygen. Alive enough to be a pain in India's back; but completely dependent on the PRC for its strategic weight.

Thats not the future scenario, thats the current state of TSP and its current dependence is the US. Why is TSP's changing dependence a "jump from frying pan to fire" for India?! TSP will choose the dependence it can - we must choose the fights we must.

VikramS wrote: You have alluded to the fact that the PRC is unsafe on its Eastern flank. Somehow their actions do not say so.

Their boats are challenging Japanese naval vessels. Noko torpedoes a SoKo Ship; it even got into a shelling war. All under the watchful, all-seeing eyes of the 5th/6th/7th ... fleet. Iran continues to ship oil. I doubt if there is any constituency left in ROC which imagines reconquering the PRC. The only issue is the degree of integration and how much of a separate identity to maintain.

PRC seeks to dominate the south china sea since that is their karma bhoomi. They need to challenge japanese vessels and torpedo Soko ships since they, actually, arent dominating the seas named after them right now. Its up to us to take the fight to their door or wait for them to bring the fight to our doors. Lets learn from America - they arm our foes against us, keep us off balance, foster dependence and call us an ally
Manish has the right approach ..

ManishH wrote: Eg. If china threatens us by exporting nuke technology to Pak, we protest and we form an on-the-bounce anti-china alliance with US. But have we done anything in Uighur to create an impression that Pak is fomenting trouble there ?

Eg. If US actions of exporting mil hardware to Pak threaten us, we protest and we threaten rethink on future mil-deals with US. But have done anything to create an impression that Pak is exporting explosives to AQAP which uses it to disrupt US oil supply from arabia ?

Eg. If Pak has managed to make US see it as part of the solution in Afghanistan, have we done anything to make it be seen as part of the problem ? Or make Iran see Af-pak as a big enough threat ?

This thread seems to be a veritable fest for China lovers and LAC flower holders!

phool phool pe likha hai PLA ka naam!

PrasadZ wrote:PRC seeks to dominate the south china sea since that is their karma bhoomi.

And I guess Afghanistan was also FSU's karma bhoomi!

RajeshA wrote:

PrasadZ wrote:PRC seeks to dominate the south china sea since that is their karma bhoomi.

And I guess Afghanistan was also FSU's karma bhoomi!

Maybe it was FSU's karma bhoomi ! And you know how the US gamed it, isnt it? They took on FSU where FSU aimed to demonstrate influence. If the south china sea is where PRC aims to demonstrate influence, then thats where PRC is vulnerable. We take on China inside Pakistan at our risk, we take on China in ASEAN at theirs.

RajeshA wrote:This thread seems to be a veritable fest for China lovers

OT birather but i do like chinese cuisine

PrasadZ wrote:

PrasadZ wrote:PRC seeks to dominate the south china sea since that is their karma bhoomi.

RajeshA wrote:And I guess Afghanistan was also FSU's karma bhoomi!

Maybe it was FSU's karma bhoomi ! And you know how the US gamed it, isnt it? They took on FSU where FSU aimed to demonstrate influence. If the south china sea is where PRC aims to demonstrate influence, then thats where PRC is vulnerable. We take on China inside Pakistan at our risk, we take on China in ASEAN at theirs.

- Europe was Soviet Union's karma bhoomi, just as you put East Asia as China's karma bhoomi.

- Afghanistan was the country adjoining Soviet Union's tender underbelly! So Soviet Union walked into Afghanistan to strengthen their southern flank! Now let's guess, where is China's soft underbelly! That may give us an idea, where China's Afghanistan would be!

I still don't know how to write what I want to write. The topic is relevant to this thread only indirectly. I wish to write about how analyses are done. How does anyone analyse anything. I am certain many of you are in the business of analysis - I certainly am and my entire life has to revolve around reaching judgement based on analysis, so I have some views on this. My views on this, right or wrong, do not mean that others views are necessarily right or wrong. These are my views.

For me it would be easiest to take a setting from my own experience to try and explain how people make analyses and reach conclusions that are logically inconsistent or based on inadequate information or inquiry.

For example, and this is just an example...

A woman is told that she might have appendicitis and that she might require surgery. She begins to weep and says "I have two small children. What will they do without a mother?". When she is asked why she is so upset she says "My grandmother had appendicitis and died". Further questioning reveals that her grandmother did have appendicitis, refused surgery but developed complications and eventually died of a heart attack.

The lady's anxiety is based on logic built up on inadequate information.

Her grandmother had appendicitis and died. She has appendicitis, and she will die.

The leap that this lady has made from the "possibility of appendicitis" to two children losing their mother forever is based on logic that is not wholly wrong, but short on facts. She could have appendicitis. She could need surgery if investigations confirm that she has appendicitis. All surgery and anaesthesia related to surgery could result in some complications. Death is an exceedingly uncommon complication, the chances are small but non zero. So in theory she could die. if you live in the US and read the consent form for surgery I am sure the fact that you could die will be explicitly mentioned on the form. I don't know for sure. What won't be mentioned on the form is that your chances of dying while crossing a road in Bangalore are higher. Of that I am certain.

The information this hypothetical patient needs is very reassuring and should calm anyone''s fears and it usually does. I will not bother putting the information on here, but I write this only to point out that lack of information, and lack of communication with those who matter are the most important causes of reaching conclusions that may be correct in themselves but may be modifiable by so many variables that the conclusion itself could be wholly wrong. Or it could be right only in certain special circumstances.

The relevance to this discussion is about China. If I say "China will defeat India in any war" a lot of people will agree and not argue because prima facie the logic is very much like appendicitis and grandmother. It is easy to argue that India will always and and invariably be defeated by China in any conflict. But trying to say that India will not necessarily get defeated and that there could be circumstances in which things to not pan out that way is an uphill task. Nevertheless, from the point of view of analysis - if you have an event like an India China war that can have one of two outcomes - say a defeat or a victory, it is wrong to suggest that victory will invariably be Chinas and that India will invariably be defeated. It is important not to dismiss one outcome as improbable and settle for the other one just because it is an easier one. But that is exactly what is done all too often. An unwillingness to go the whole hog and look at scenarios that seem less likely based on the information that one has is a formula for incomplete anaylses at best, and gross errors in many instances.

There is another point I want to make - and that is the problem of logical inconsistency. A leap from one statement on to a conclusion that has no bearing on the statement. For example - I criticise Advani. For this act I could be dubbed anti-BJP, anti-Hindu, and a Congress apologist. This happens time and again, and it has happened on this thread as well. May I point out that I am unable to see anyone on this thread who is a China lover. So far.

If I were a strategic analyst involved in a gaming scenario in the US - I would be free to game out all sorts of possibilities. For example - I could game out a "South Asia" scenario in which the US has to drop nuclear bombs on Indian cities, or arrange for the assassination of an Indian PM and it would all be included in the field of "academics". But on an open forum like this - discussion of launching a nuclear attack on the USA or assassinating a US president to destabilize relations between say Pakistan and the US tends to get less support than nuking Pakistan, nuking Saudi Arabia and nuking Beijing. To me it is quite absurd. We seem to live in a kind of fairy tale world in which we would not countenance an attack on a US target because the US would punish us severely and we wouldn't dare. But if we wouldn't dare attack the US would we dare attack China?

In our fairy tale world we might believe that the US will really really punish Pakistan if things got bad and that the 2002 pressure on Mushy was nothing compared to what the US could do if it really wanted to. But the other side of the coin is that the US wouldn't dare, and its all hot air. The US would not dare punish Pakistan and would fail if it tried. Would the US dare attack China? Would China dare attack the US with nukes? So where are we going when we talk of countries wanting to "totally destroy the other". But every one of these countries dares to attack India directly or indirectly.

We predict that China and the US won't get into a direct war. It would be a proxy war. But a US that puts nuclear sanctions on India while Pakistan covertly acquires nukes with US acquiescence and supplies lethal arms to Pakistan against India is also a proxy war. The US is already in a proxy war against India . The US won't get into a direct hot war with India any more than China, which we predict will use Pakistan as proxy to destroy India. No but China can attack India directly in support of Pakistan. But hey - the US is already supporting Pakistan against India.

It boils down to the fact that we cannot depend on the US, or on China or on Pakistan to look after Indian interests. By the same token if we talk of opposing Pakistan and China, it is essential to see what can be done about the US. The US and China are game changers in Pakistan. They are both complicit. They are both there. They have both ensured that Pakistan's strength vis a vis India is maintained at a level that causes pain to India.

If it is possible to spot birds on BRF who brown their pants, shiver in their dhotis, and moan Indian weaknesses, then who is to say that one would not spot other birds which are China lovers, LAC flower holders, and LAC hula hula dancers!

Sidor ji,

"Its 2.1 trillion USD economic reserves point to a appalling inability to use the reserves inside its own country. Its economic well being is dependent on the developed markets. When they stumble, it has to come up with the worlds 2nd largest stimulus program just so that it can keep on going. China is nothing but Japan on steroids".

Valid point. Certainly.

Rajesh A Garu,

Impressive and Cogent arguement from you.

"whatever dreams the people may have, of food and shelter, freedom from corruption, all those dreams would ride Islamist horses, because there are none else. All other horses have proved themselves to be asses."

One of the mistakes I made is that I assume the events in North Africa and Middle East are the same events as in Pakisatan. Wrong assumption. One big thing that happened in Pakisatan is that they have had democracy... sham and nepotistic, but democracy neverthless.Secondly, no Arab Country has had 30 year funding/weaponisation as Pakisatan has. These two issues make Pakisatan's case different.

I also hypothesise that Pakisatan's belligerence in Raymon Davis issue is a case of Chipanda-Amir Khan shadow boxing, The civilian government on the American side and the ISI on the Chinese Side.

Rajesh A Garu,

I am fascinated by this comment. "We should here try to differentiate between a Muslim country and a Talibanic system." This might help understanding Pakisatan better. Can you eloborate on this for us ignoramus's sake. you may have hit upon something, here.

Shiv ji,

"It boils down to the fact that we cannot depend on the US, or on China or on Pakistan to look after Indian interests. By the same token if we talk of opposing Pakistan and China, it is essential to see what can be done about the US. The US and China are game changers in Pakistan. They are both complicit. They are both there. They have both ensured that Pakistan's strength vis a vis India is maintained at a level that causes pain to India."

This is the bottom line. We can differ on opinions but facts are facts. The above paragraph in quotations is FACT.Period.US is doing whats best in its interests.China is looking after its interests.

How can we look after our interests when :-

1) our videshi mantri read's portuguese speech at the UN.
2)Our EX Telecom mantri is 2G Scamming.
3)Our Rail mantri is using rail buget as manifesto for Bengal elections.
4)Our BJP opposition allows Reddy Brothers to behave as if they have no rules.
5) & we have a press like shekhar dupatta/burkha dutt who do no bat for the home side.

I am not afraid of the Chinese or Americanese or Pakistanese.

I am afraid of ourneta bhai log.

Jai ho

RajeshA wrote:If it is possible to spot birds on BRF who brown their pants, shiver in their dhotis, and moan Indian weaknesses, then who is to say that one would not spot other birds which are China lovers, LAC flower holders, and LAC hula hula dancers!

Not to mention freedom lovin' folks who sing Vande Mataram to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner.

Maram wrote:One big thing that happened in Pakisatan is that they have had democracy... sham and nepotistic, but democracy neverthless.

This is what we are told by the West and those democracies who have supported Pakistan. Unfortunately any discussion about his subject boils down to a definition of democracy. But no matter which way you cut it Pakistan actually has not had any more democracy than the Democratic People Republic of Korea (DPRK).

Using India as an analogy - India has 3 levels of democracy. The bottom level are the local bodies. The state government is the next higher level and the central government is at the top. The system is not fully efficient and leaves much to be desired - but local issues ultimately do impact somewhat on state politics and spill over to attract the attention of the centre. That creates a tenuous link between mango man and centre.

Ayub Khan (and others) created a system of "local democracy" where people purported to elect legislators but there was never any real power put in the hands of voters. But the election sham has been tomtommed by Western democracies as a "democratic Pakistan". But Western powers have only been interested in the elite ruling class and as long as that elite were eating out of the hands of a Western power everything was said and done to support the contention that Pakistan was and is a democracy.

China has also befriended that same Pakistani elite - but China genuinely does not care about democracy in Pakistan and is not guilty of being supportive of the sham democracy in Pakistan.

But in the ultimate analysis it is cheaper to support a wealthy elite who can be your "ally" rather than support a huge mass of people whose local demands trump foreign policy. In my view Pakistan could have been a much more grave threat to India by developing economically rather than ignoring democracy and furthering the pretend-Mughal geopolitical games of the elite.

I think that in all such shaky political systems the power that wields the maximum force of arms trumps everyone else. This is such a stupidly simple and well known thing that the colonial powers and their opponents the communists have always ensured that the army of the people they support is well equipped to handle their own people as well as any external threats they may perceive.

India is a freaked out sore-thumb - an actual democracy sitting in the middle of nowhere amongst nations that have been dominated by colonial powers for over a century. Either India plays the same game as the colonials and bribes the Pakistani elite and army to sway India's way (impossible ) or India tries to encourage real democracy in Pakistan. Encouraging communism in Pakistan is IMO not possible for India.

As I see it the only alternative force to the Pakistan Army with grass roots support are the Islamists. And the Pakistani army depends on grass roots support. This fact has been recognized by the US that has tried desperately to keep the Pakistani army on its side by making "allowances" for the L-e-T and "good Taliban" etc. The US is clearly doing all this in its own interests but it is decidedly not in India's interest. As far as I can tell the US is losing, but the victory of the Pakistani army brass over the US may be a short lived pyrrhic victory. China might not be abe to do much better.

This is where my opinion has differed from some others on here. It is not clear to me that a deeply Islamized sharia loving Pakistan with a deeply Islamized army can gel well with China. China in my view is wary of Islamists. I cannot make predictions either way but Chinese options as I see them are

1) Accommodate the Islamist aspirations of the Pakistani army and its people and then face the Islamic music in the neighborhood. Somehow I don't see that as happening because China "faces the music" inside Chinese controlled territory by murderous crackdowns and it will be difficult to hide that from an Islamized Pakistan army

2) China can make the Pakistani army more sympathetic to money and development and still not try and impose Islamization on ummah brothers. The way I see this is as follows. The Pakistani army itself is rich and people in the army will welcome a continuation of privileges and perks. But a whole lot of the people of Pakistan outside the army are armed and islamized and ready to fight. They will fight but they do not have the money and perks of the army. The idea that these people can be selectively made to fight India alongside the Pakistani army but simultaneously create "money and development" in Pakistan ain't gonna happen IMO because this is where the US tried and failed. Continuous war and development are contradictory goals. War is easier and Pakistan has been at war with India for decades and if China keeps aiding that I don't see the Chinese being able to do any better than the golden era when both China and America were both funding Pakistan to fight India even as India was warily watching the China border.

3) China could do something different. That might be the topic of some discussion

west pakistan, having usurped the aid and trade of the two pakistans - could have become a strong economic power and had it maintained a degree of secularism and the rule of law - whilst the yindus wallowed in the mire, could have created a magnetic draw towards it self that might have broken up india
ofcourse, the desire to be purer than pure and the inability to resist khaki action, saw to their downfall

to my mind, the experiment of pakistan is over. it has been a resounding failure. time to dismantle the lab and distribute the working parts to others and let things return to normality

PrasadZ:

Your posts are doing equal-equal with US-TSP, with very little regard to the nuances.

In fact it is great that you are doing =/= since it at least establishes that if the US was unfriendly to India in the past, so was China.

So Rajesh-ji's analogy about the frying pan is valid, and requires review.

What you have NOT commented on, is how will things evolve in the future. Just harping on the past is not the purpose of this thread. So while I understand the urge to =/=, at least on this thread, let us keep the focus on projecting the future. You can always add a signature line to do the =/= to satisfy the inner mullah.

Lalmohan wrote:west pakistan, having usurped the aid and trade of the two pakistans - could have become a strong economic power and had it maintained a degree of secularism and the rule of law - whilst the yindus wallowed in the mire, could have created a magnetic draw towards it self that might have broken up india
ofcourse, the desire to be purer than pure and the inability to resist khaki action, saw to their downfall

to my mind, the experiment of pakistan is over. it has been a resounding failure. time to dismantle the lab and distribute the working parts to others and let things return to normality

Lalmohan ji,

This may have already been actioned upon.I hypothesise that it is a work in progress..... There are large swathes of NWF Province hat are droned(similar to Afghanistan/Pashthun areas) The boots on the ground may be black water contractors and special forces types and so we have'nt heard about "American boots on the ground". Baluchistan is brewing and TSPA is unable to do anything(as usual). No one can even claim they control Karachi.... So the lab is being dismantled even as we speak..........The only thing is, it has not been officially acknowledged as such... Its only a matter of time though....

Shiv ji,

"It is not clear to me that a deeply Islamized sharia loving Pakistan with a deeply Islamized army can gel well with China. China in my view is wary of Islamists".

I have thought about this for a while. Infact, for this very reason, I believe that Russia/Southern Caucases need to be included into this topic too. I Hypothesise that the way Communist China and Islamic TSPA and Tulibunnies can get along well is by letting the tulibunnies got to Jihad in the southern Caucases/Dagestan/Baltistan/Chechnya and our own Kashmire, potentially other tragedies like Mumbai 2008. However, it is only a short term remedy, eventually the tulibunnies will run into east turkeministan.

Another reason, Russia will be in conflict with Chipanda is the quarrel over territory brewing in Siberia/kamchatka region(which is a resource rich region). JMT

You have also asked a lot of WHY questions in this post

• why a SAM with a NE insurgent a bigger threat to India than a TSPAF with a few F-16s;
• why the Chinese act of occupation of Tibet was an unfriendly act

It would be best if you answer your why questions yourself. That if you believe that the SAM is a less of a threat than the F-16, please articulate that; Or Chinese occupation of Tibet was not an unfriendly act please articulate that from the INDIAN Point of View, instead of asking me why. I have been trying to articulate why the Chipanda is not benign. As a basic courtsey please present your case too.

Also before about planes to TSPAF from the US, can you please check how many planes actually got delivered? Statements without fact checks just destroy the crux of your arguments.

Also the post about Vietnam was in the context of the checks and balances present in the system between the US and ChiCom.

PS: There was a chopper crash, literally out of the blue (no bad weather or signs of mechanical fault) in the NE a few months ago. The circumstances of the crash and the way it official story changed smelled fishy; it was not typical DDM, those were statements from the officials. When I had bought up the question of why the chopper went down, the good doc did ask me not to speculate. A few weeks later we got the news that the Chinese had been trying to supply SAMs to the NE militants ....

PrasadZ wrote:

VikramS wrote: (2) China vs India (and TSP)
Regardless of what kind of power China is vis a vis the US, the Chinese attitudes towards India are far from friendly. Whether it was occupying the buffer state of Tibet (50s), direct attack across the IB (60s), conventional support to TSP (70s), nuclear support to TSP (80s), missiles to TSP (90s), nuke reactors and a shadow nuke deal (in 2010).

How is occupying Tibet an unfriendly act to India?! Its an unfriendly act to Tibetans, sure, but bear in mind that the historical state of Tibet was as mercenary as the Mongols towards the Chinese. They were finally tamed with help from central asian armies by Chinese quasi-Mongol empires. Tibet's benefit as a buffer state to India was incidental and had nothing, really, to do with Indian effort. Our losing the buffer must be gamed but why call it an "unfriendly" act to India?

Nevertheless, I dont argue that PRC is unfriendly. As shiv points out, PRC is as unfriendly in its actions towards India as the US has been so far.
direct attack across the IB? how about US sending a fleet to threaten india? or vetoing any sanction against Pakistan during 1962 and 1971?
conventional support to TSP? isnt there conventional support by America to TSP ?
nuclear support to TSP? ditto?
missiles to TSP? aircraft to TSP by US?
nuke reactors? nuke tech and sanction free aid by US to TSP, anyone?

I dont get the frothing at the mouth towards PRC. Neither PRC nor Amreeka is a friend or ally to India and that is as it should be.

VikramS wrote: China also has a well-established fifth-column within India, which uses India's political system to speak for the Chinese POV; it has links with NE insurgents (who were supposedly offered SAMs); it has idealogical links with the Naxals (assuming other more direct links are not present).

The NE insurgents were, maybe, offered SAMs by China and the Paks have, definitely, RECEIVED F16s from America. Ummm .. why is the SAM a bigger threat?!
To me, the argument sounds like a class war ! Both "dynasty" and "knicker", the ruling classes, draw support from Indian Americans; the poorer classes and has-beens draw support from Arundhati Roy and the naxals
If india's political system is the weak link, we have more to fear from US, IMO.

VikramS wrote: While the US can act as a deterrent to any Chinese adventurism, if China truly decides to go after India it will be India's war to fight.

This thread started by figuring out that the US could not deter Pakistan. Within 2 pages, we realise the US cannot deter China. But no one has worked out why we should bank on the US to deter anybody on our behalf?! How did we become their ally and in what sense? What independence of thought or action do we give up by agreeing to be allied for US and against China and what benefits do we derive?
It is evident that being an ally of the US does not help us with Pakistan. Must we go through a costly learning process to figure out it wont help us in ASEAN either?

VikramS wrote: [3] What will China do if it controls TSP?
IMHO it is the PLA/CPCs baser instincts which India should fear. Their system has very limited set of checks and balances, does not have any dharmic traditions it remembers, and can be brutally efficient when taking human lives to crush dissent. And when faced with internal dissent, the easiest way out is to create an external distraction. For PRC, the best part is that they have a TSP on the payroll to do all the dirty work.

What dharmic traditions or checks and balances have stopped Amreeka from using TSP to do its dirty work in the past?! What checks and balances in US were needed before prosecuting Cambodia Vietnam Iraq or Afghanistan?! Why do we fight the US's battles with China on this thread instead of fighting India's battles with both?
I remember you answered my post about the cambodian bombing by saying American soldiers were derided when they came back from Vietnam. cambodia is more indic and vietnam is more sinic and thats only one of many differences between the two - american boots were not in cambodia and no hippies bothered american air force after a tour of duty in cambodia.
I understand the worries about Pakistan on this forum, but the external world for India has to extend beyond Amreeka and Pak

VikramS wrote: (4) TSP meeting its 72
I can not construct a scenario where the TSP meets its 72, when the Chinese are calling the shots. They can keep the TSP on Liquid Oxygen. Alive enough to be a pain in India's back; but completely dependent on the PRC for its strategic weight.

Thats not the future scenario, thats the current state of TSP and its current dependence is the US. Why is TSP's changing dependence a "jump from frying pan to fire" for India?! TSP will choose the dependence it can - we must choose the fights we must.

VikramS wrote: You have alluded to the fact that the PRC is unsafe on its Eastern flank. Somehow their actions do not say so.

Their boats are challenging Japanese naval vessels. Noko torpedoes a SoKo Ship; it even got into a shelling war. All under the watchful, all-seeing eyes of the 5th/6th/7th ... fleet. Iran continues to ship oil. I doubt if there is any constituency left in ROC which imagines reconquering the PRC. The only issue is the degree of integration and how much of a separate identity to maintain.

PRC seeks to dominate the south china sea since that is their karma bhoomi. They need to challenge japanese vessels and torpedo Soko ships since they, actually, arent dominating the seas named after them right now. Its up to us to take the fight to their door or wait for them to bring the fight to our doors. Lets learn from America - they arm our foes against us, keep us off balance, foster dependence and call us an ally
Manish has the right approach ..

ManishH wrote: Eg. If china threatens us by exporting nuke technology to Pak, we protest and we form an on-the-bounce anti-china alliance with US. But have we done anything in Uighur to create an impression that Pak is fomenting trouble there ?

Eg. If US actions of exporting mil hardware to Pak threaten us, we protest and we threaten rethink on future mil-deals with US. But have done anything to create an impression that Pak is exporting explosives to AQAP which uses it to disrupt US oil supply from arabia ?

Eg. If Pak has managed to make US see it as part of the solution in Afghanistan, have we done anything to make it be seen as part of the problem ? Or make Iran see Af-pak as a big enough threat ?

Maram wrote:I Hypothesise that the way Communist China and Islamic TSPA and Tulibunnies can get along well is by letting the tulibunnies got to Jihad in the southern Caucases/Dagestan/Baltistan/Chechnya and our own Kashmire, potentially other tragedies like Mumbai 2008. However, it is only a short term remedy, eventually the tulibunnies will run into east turkeministan.

For a long time my thesis has been (it finds mention in my ebook and on BRF threads currently running) that it is easy for the Pakistani army with aid from the US (and/or China) to create Islamist militias of tens of thousands of men. But the one thing that these militias have not been able to achieve is defeat the Indian military. Over the years, they have not even been able to cross the border. Nowadays they get shot there and then and their bodies offered to Pakistan or to Agni. Note that if Pakistan creates these militias the naturalplace for these people to go is Cashmere. It is, after all, right next door.

Furthermore, it is my thesis that it was a fundamental inability of Pakistan to seriously push tens of thousands of armed militia into India that eventually caused them to "build up" in numbers in Pakistan and Afghanistan after which it became easier to ship them to Dagestan, doggie-stan Checehnstan wherever. What you are saying is documented history which culminated with 9-11.

The Pakistan army , through the golden years when they had both Chinese and American aid were unable to take Cashmere either militarily or by the infiltartion of armed and trained militias. That is why Mumbai 26/11 was such a good idea. Gradually India - the most stupid nation on earth with the added karma of having Pakistan next door will shut down every innovative way of taking India down. Only Indians are allowed to take Indian down. I do not believe that the Chinese- even in case of a honeymoon with Islamists will be able to make Pakistan do more.

China will have to come up with something vastly more innovative. But "innovative" can mean different things. Like I said earlier - roads through a peaceful Pakistan with money pouring in is inconsistent with constant war with India. Nothing I have read so far is convincing that Pakistan can be prosperous, stable, offer transport for China and remain constantly at war with India as it has been for decades. Some people (Pakis, Chinese, Americans) are going to have to make some difficult choices. Indians have no choice.