Understanding the Uighur Movement-1

[JwalaMukhi]

Mishra Sukhvinder Brahmachari will do what he is best at. i.e., he will hedge his bets on the capability of others than on his own (a tacit admission - that he admires others capabilities and is unsure of his own). Basically, he is believing that uighurs will do things, that he is unwilling and would not be able to do it.

If this exactly is such a game changer why did he not actually conceive and fuel and exploit this strategy for a long time. Would have made sense as Geostrategy if the investment was going to get disproportionate returns. Well, alas, trying to be opportunistic is good too, but imagining to ride on coattails of superpower (for the record: this superpower has track record of not conducting geostrategy based on religion or use religion, but purely on rationality per some posts ) is a day dream.

For the record, China which regularly utilizes jihadis to cause trouble, will not feign for a second to deal with its interests ruthlessly with or without jihadis. It has also demonstrated so far, that it can handle blow backs decisively.

Well SwamyG asked the correct question, if one is capable of that, where is the track record for mishra sukhvinder Bhramachari? Is it wise to ride on coat tails in a situation, which is essentially religion blind per some posts. As geostrategy is not based on religion, why does a religious Mishra sukhvinder planning to involve in what is basically a non-religious situation? Or is it, when one rides the coattails, one becomes oblivious to religious undertones of the coattails and of oneself and the situation.

[enqyoob]

If Sukhvinder Mishra Balaji Chaatthu feels the itch on his musharraf so much to go biss off the neighbors, I suggest that Darfur, Sudan is a heck of lot better than Xinjiang. There is a real hope of getting some traction there, and there are millions of hungry, terrified people to help - and the objective of bissing off Bakistan and China would be achieved much more painlessly.

Another option would be Antarctica. It's as cold as Urumqi in winter - and you can get ice cream in August!

[shaardula]

mebbe mishraji realizes the world has always been big enough for both his and their people.

[RayC]

Who is this Mishra Sukhvinder Brahmachari?

Never heard of him and nor has Google!

I am very keen to know about him and sadly, I have not been able located this Brahmachari man!

Such non entities have no place in Indian politics or do they have?

Who cares for what he has to say?

Those who are propagarting his worth, may please append his biography and achievement so that we can realise how 'great' he is in politics and geo-strategy!

Anything Togadia has said that is earthshaking on this matter? I have heard of him!

[RajeshA]

Some credible conspiracy theories arising from the discussion here are:

The Uyghur uprising is all the doing of the Color Revolution Brigade in Washington D.C.. They planned the uprisings, did the media jiggle, and directed a film for the Australian Film Festival!

Considering that they were somewhat successful, means that the perception of the World Wide Truth is more like the Uyghurs are an oppressed lot, and need World Wide Support. Washington D.C, Ankara and Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb are speaking with one voice.

This perception could lead to following eventualities: -
a) Pakistan can either lose face in the Ummah street ether or get its balls squeezed by Cheeni Daddy.
b) Turkey's involvement could crack SCO, and also China's economic grip on Central Asia.
c) Ankara's and Washington D.C.'s involvement could make EU distance itself from PRC, and can dent PRC's economic prospects.
d) Al Qaeda declares war on PRC in Africa, South East Asia, Central Asia, with PRC's retaliation leading to more war.
e) PRC becomes unpopular in the Muslim World, from Bangladesh, to Malaysia, to Indonesia, to Iran, etc.
f) PRC under constant attack from West and Islam, loses appetite for pursuing its agenda in Arunachal Pradesh, and/or Nepal.

All these possibilities are however uninteresting for those interested in Truth, the Truth being more on the lines of some Color Revolutionary throwing a stone into a volcano. The Lava was already there. But the Color Revolutionary becomes the bad guy, and the Lava is simply side-kick to Truth and hence ignorable.

Many years ago, there was a similar situation

In 1953 or so India was offered China?s permanent seat in the UNSC then held by Taiwan but Jawaharlal Nehru rejected it saying that it was an American effort to marginalise the Communist China.

Then it was the UN permanent seat. Today on offer is the possibility of a realignment of power in Asia between Communist China, Indics and Islam. The close alignment between Communist China and Islam is under strain. If the Indics want to survive, it is imperative that this coalition breaks. What is on offer is that instead of using India as the punching bag for Islamic violence, America is willing to use PRC as the punching bag.

But Noooooo! We want commie-friendly Truth, and Indian interests be damned. Nehru Zindabad!

[Sanku]

But Noooooo! We want commie-friendly Truth, and Indian interests be damned. Nehru Zindabad!

Am not taking sides here, but a comparison could be also be to the much advised against support for Khilafat movement by Gandhi -- it had a direct bearing on the Partition.

There are some games which are great if others play but we should stay out of -- let us back our one horse in this game though. All the way and maybe to correspond with the other game in parallel.

There is lot of fuel lying inside our home, trying different kinds of matchsticks is perhaps fraught with attendant dangers.

[JwalaMukhi]

Another option would be Antarctica. It's as cold as Urumqi in winter - and you can get ice cream in August!

Wonderful, that is a very good option, because it has all the semblance of rationality. It has given due consideration to reality that Antartica is far far away from home and is more amenable to "fly by night operator techniques and tactics", which could be classified as great strategy too. Only a minor problem though, Antartica situation is deeply steeped in religious overtones, unlike Xinjiang. Because stronger conviction and fundamental core interests to carry out strategy and recognizing reality is not such a great requirement for Antartica, this path has success written all over it.

[RajeshA]

There are some games which are great if others play but we should stay out of -- let us back our one horse in this game though. All the way and maybe to correspond with the other game in parallel.

There is little India can do to play games there, except a few subtle programs one can undertake, which I suggested earlier. It neither involves us training Uyghur jihadis in Paharganj nor does it involve GoI making any statements against PRC.

First and foremost is the discussion about awareness - which events in the world are in favor of India and which against.

1. Considering PRC sensitivities to Indian stand, my suggestion was for GoI to stay aloof, but through backroom suggestions encourage Indian Muslims to protest Uyghur oppression in East Turkestan.
2. Secondly I was in favor of supporting Turkey in establishing a benign sounding Forum to institutionalize its involvement and culture and heritage oriented cooperation in Central Asia, as well as improving our strategic ties with Turkey in general.
3. Thirdly I was in favor of some more media coverage to the Uyghur viewpoint.

Nothing more than that!

There is lot of fuel lying inside our home, trying different kinds of matchsticks is perhaps fraught with attendant dangers.

Regardless of whether we use any matchsticks or not, Evenjehadis, Islamists, Chini Commies, and Hyooman Rightists are moving around India throwing burning matchsticks all over the place.

[Sanku]

but through backroom suggestions encourage Indian Muslims to protest Uyghur oppression in East Turkestan

.

This is the point that I am against. At no point of time we should give any mileage to a problem which assumes a pan-Islamic identity (a pan turkic identity is quite another thing like in your other suggestions)

Regardless of whether we use any matchsticks or not, Evenjehadis, Islamists, Chini Commies, and Hyooman Rightists are moving around India throwing burning matchsticks all over the place.

Yes but no need to add your shoulder to their efforts at moving the wheel right.

With all due respects to IMs and the need to be politically correct etc etc. The question of identity in the entire Indian subcontinent is not closed. Not by a long chalk, and a congress win or BJP loss does not really reflect the existing fault lines.

Much as we would rather not believe them to be true.

-----

My suggestion would be to
1) Use the ethnic/cultural minority angle
2) Use the democracy vs totalitarianism angle.

[RajeshA]

but through backroom suggestions encourage Indian Muslims to protest Uyghur oppression in East Turkestan

This is the point that I am against. At no point of time we should give any mileage to a problem which assumes a pan-Islamic identity (a pan turkic identity is quite another thing like in your other suggestions)

That pan-Islamic identity is a reality.

The question is till when Indian Muslims would play a subservient role to the Arabs, Persians, Turks, and Pakistanis; and when will the Indian Muslims get sufficient courage to break free of this mental slavery. The question is when will the Indian Muslims start to stand up for Indian interests in the Ummah! The question is when will Indian Muslims close ranks with other Indians over a common Indian heritage and a common Indian mission.

Regardless of whether we use any matchsticks or not, Evenjehadis, Islamists, Chini Commies, and Hyooman Rightists are moving around India throwing burning matchsticks all over the place.

Yes but no need to add your shoulder to their efforts at moving the wheel right.

I meant to say "Regardless of whether we use any matchsticks abroad", and not in India as is the case with the above mentioned groups.

With all due respects to IMs and the need to be politically correct etc etc. The question of identity in the entire Indian subcontinent is not closed. Not by a long chalk, and a congress win or BJP loss does not really reflect the existing fault lines.

Much as we would rather not believe them to be true.

True, that is a long term dialogue within India, but no reason not to use the opportunity to show support to the Uyghurs as a background to push for this process of internal reconciliation. In March 2007, when George W. Bush visited India, the IMs came to streets to protest. At that time, it was against Indian interests, but a similar protest for the Uyghurs would be in Indian Interest. It would improve the relations between IMs and Indian Foreign Policy establishment.

My suggestion would be to
1) Use the ethnic/cultural minority angle
2) Use the democracy vs totalitarianism angle.

Those angles are not something India can use -
1) India too has a plethora of minorities. In fact our whole country is comprised of minorities. So we can hardly use some general minority rights stick. Only Turkey and Central Asian Republics can play the ethnic card because of their ethnic kinship with the Uyghurs.
2) The Democracy vs Totalitarianism is an argument that is made only by the political elite, by the Governments. GoI would not want to make that argument.

[James B]

Many years ago, there was a similar situation

In 1953 or so India was offered China?s permanent seat in the UNSC then held by Taiwan but Jawaharlal Nehru rejected it saying that it was an American effort to marginalise the Communist China.

Slightly OT, but I think that India was never offered permanent seat in UNSC, I think it has got propagated as a myth. JLN made a statement in parliament that India was not offered the UNSC seat.

[Sanku]

1) India too has a plethora of minorities. In fact our whole country is comprised of minorities

Precisely and thats why we can use that card. We have no discernible ethnic majority. (in fact there are no two ethnic blocks in India anyway -- genetically proven)

So we can -- this will be a continuation of what we say in Tibet too, playing this card is next to impossible in India.

2) The Democracy vs Totalitarianism is an argument that is made only by the political elite, by the Governments. GoI would not want to make that argument.

Political elite != GoI thank god for democracy. I am sure during the Nuke drama a lot of points were made by the Pol elite while GoI was publicly mum.

Also note

but through backroom suggestions encourage Indian Muslims to protest Uyghur oppression in East Turkestan

does not go with

I meant to say "Regardless of whether we use any matchsticks abroad", and not in India as is the case with the above mentioned groups.

and

The question is when will Indian Muslims close ranks with other Indians over a common Indian heritage and a common Indian mission.

does not go with

he question is when will the Indian Muslims start to stand up for Indian interests in the Ummah!

The moment we open a religion card linking interests in matter abroad based on the interests of a religious group in India we are opening a can of worms in general and specifically when we talk about Islam we are opening the doors to our own doom (like Gandhiji did with Khilafat much against the advice of seculars like Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan)

This is the angle which we must avoid like plague.

[RajeshA]

1) India too has a plethora of minorities. In fact our whole country is comprised of minorities

Precisely and thats why we can use that card. We have no discernible ethnic majority. (in fact there are no two ethnic blocks in India anyway -- genetically proven)

So we can -- this will be a continuation of what we say in Tibet too, playing this card is next to impossible in India.

Does not preclude India not using a common Indic Civilization card sometime in future, which includes all sorts of minorities within India and outside India which adhere to this substantial albeit somewhat vague heritage.

2) The Democracy vs Totalitarianism is an argument that is made only by the political elite, by the Governments. GoI would not want to make that argument.

Political elite != GoI thank god for democracy. I am sure during the Nuke drama a lot of points were made by the Pol elite while GoI was publicly mum.

Most of this political elite shares power, either in states or at the Center, in this government or the next government.
USA has a host of Think Tanks, Public Interest Pressure Groups, Lobbies, Human Rightists, Evan-Jihadis dressed in secular clothes, etc. who usually take up these topics, often abroad. In India these are still very weak, and those that may be there, are infiltrated by Western interests.

but through backroom suggestions encourage Indian Muslims to protest Uyghur oppression in East Turkestan

does not go with

I meant to say "Regardless of whether we use any matchsticks abroad", and not in India as is the case with the above mentioned groups.

Both statements are in consonance. We could use Indian Muslims to light matchsticks abroad (I don't mean that they become Jihadi).

The question is when will Indian Muslims close ranks with other Indians over a common Indian heritage and a common Indian mission.

does not go with

the question is when will the Indian Muslims start to stand up for Indian interests in the Ummah!

Both statements are in consonance. The Indian Muslim should be the lawyer who is Indian to the core, but puts up a vigorous defense of Indian PoV and Indian Interests in a "Court of Law" or rather a court of opinion, i.e. the Ummah, with jurisdiction only over the Muslim minds! All the lawyer needs for that is his per-forma license to practice law in the given court.

The moment we open a religion card linking interests in matter abroad based on the interests of a religious group in India we are opening a can of worms in general and specifically when we talk about Islam we are opening the doors to our own doom (like Gandhiji did with Khilafat much against the advice of seculars like Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan)

This is the angle which we must avoid like plague.

The point is "we" are not opening any religion card. The IMs should be free to express views about the bad treatment of their co-religionists outside India, as long as the IMs have beforehand made sure, that that vocal demonstration does not run counter to Indian Interests. In this case any such vocal demonstration by IMs would 'coincidentally' coincide with Indian Interests privately expressed by some not having to do with the GoI, but 'coincidences' happen!

Gandhiji at the time was the torch-bearer of Indian nationalism and Indian Independence Movement. Having had that quasi 'official' and responsible position, he probably should not have taken that stand. Abdul Gaffar Khan was right. In this case however, GoI is 'officially' not taking any such 'stupid' position. We are for secularism. We are for unity and integrity of China.
The line is "GoI can't do anything if Indian Muslims want to demonstrate peacefully for something that agitates them. They are like that onlee! We are a democracy and we have to accept that."

[Sanku]

RajeshA, I WILL and CAN NOT accept the fact that using the lever of pan-national Muslim identity in any shape or form is good for us.

I will stay out of this like a possessed devil -- you can blame me of not trusting the IMs enough and all that if you so wish.

We have enough levers outside this cursed path which has known to bite us to still rake up the issue -- I have already mentioned the ones that I think are stronger.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

[RajeshA]

Sanku,
your concerns are legitimate.

My line of thought does require that there be a level of confidence and understanding between the Foreign Policy establishment of India and Indian Muslims, which is probably still missing today.

[SwamyG]

But Noooooo! We want commie-friendly Truth, and Indian interests be damned. Nehru Zindabad!

Good spin of others views. Expected better from you.

First, I assume all BRFites, ignoring the trolls or spies, have Indian interests foremost in mind. As far as Truth - yes it is to be damned. It is one of the first causalities in a war. The truth is that one set of people are being oppressed by another set of people. I don't mind being called commie-friendly because I am capitalist-friendly too. But the label I like is dharmic

And actually Nehru apart from his flaws steadied our nascent country when the World was just coming out of turmoil.

[RajeshA]

But Noooooo! We want commie-friendly Truth, and Indian interests be damned. Nehru Zindabad!

Good spin of others views. Expected better from you.

Sorry to disappoint you SwamyG ji.
If it is any comfort, that statement was not a response or reaction to something you may have written, that I am aware of.

First, I assume all BRFites, ignoring the trolls or spies, have Indian interests foremost in mind.

That is a given. The criticism was towards the focus on ''Truth' and less on how the events can impact Indian interests.

As far as Truth - yes it is to be damned. It is one of the first causalities in a war. The truth is that one set of people are being oppressed by another set of people.

I don't mind being called commie-friendly because I am capitalist-friendly too. But the label I like is dharmic

You're not being called commie-friendly, saar. That remark was intended for another member, who has himself indicated he is playing the defense lawyer for the Commies.

And actually Nehru apart from his flaws steadied our nascent country when the World was just coming out of turmoil.

JLN's considerable contributions are known. The remark was targeted at a particular streak of his idealism. That streak was the target of my rhetoric, not the persona of JLN himself.

[SwamyG]

If we want to really "divide the elites" in this thread, I would divide them into the following groups:
1) Let us do something Right Now.
2) Let us wait and watch.
3) When you befriend someone ensure your new friend does not snap at you in return for your friendship.


All three groups take geostrategy and Indian interests into account. And no one group is holier than the next, for all the three groups have ignored the fact that Uighurs and Chinese are REAL human beings. They have feelings too you know. And we are not helping them because of humanitarian reasons alone. In all the three groups we have people with REAL hearts who feel for the Uighurs (and probably towards all people who suffer on this planet), but we push those nice thoughts to the back burner and take Indian interests.

[RajeshA]

Uighurs and Chinese are REAL human beings. They have feelings too you know. And we are not helping them because of humanitarian reasons alone. In all the three groups we have people with REAL hearts who feel for the Uighurs (and probably towards all people who suffer on this planet), but we push those nice thoughts to the back burner and take Indian interests.

SwamyG,
you are presuming we all have sympathy for Uighurs and Chinese. I can only speak for myself. I don't have sympathy either for the Chinese who live in Xinjiang, because they are there as occupiers, regardless of whether they are Chinese troops or Han Chinese civilians.
I have limited sympathy for the Uyghur, because much of their movement is based on their Islamic identity and we know where that leads to. Sometimes I do believe, that Muslims should not be the only ones who march into other's countries and plunder and occupy those lands and its peoples. They too should feel the rod, in which case PRC is doing humanity a favor by showing the Muslims the other side of the coin.
So considering my lack of sympathy for either side, I have to base my arguments on Indian Interest only.

3) When you befriend someone ensure your new friend does not snap at you in return for your friendship.

I don't really see any friends in this issue. I can't really consider the Turks, the ETIM, the Ummah in general, or the Color Revolutionaries as my friends. Since I have no friends in this race, I would have to work with neutrals or my enemies. Of course, there are other rules of engagement when one works with one's enemies, as when one works with friends.

[RamaY]

^^^
RajeshA-ji,

Completely agree with your logic and I think everyone on this thread has the same baseline that is, to exploit this conundrum to Indian advantage.

No need to go into details as most of us know what are Indian interests in this specific scenario.

We also know the overt and covert players – Some of the CTs here are trying infer additional information, so we can understand/trace the strings and levers being used in the play.

Now the question is, should India do anything overtly or have its own strings in place and levers to achieve its own strategic objectives.

My POV is that India should do anything (overt or covert) to achieve its strategic objectives if it is sure of the strategy and outcomes. If India is not sure, then it is better to be an outside observer (similar to Af-Pak scenario after 9/11) instead of being someone else’s string or lever.

JMT.

[SwamyG]

Maybe that is where the flaw is, we don't see others as humans. And our grand strategies are based on as if they are rocks or machines. No doubt, lots of strategies come back to bite. Only chess pieces don't snap back at us.

Fine if you don't like the word 'friends'; you can swap it with the word "business partners", that point will still hold good - i.e one needs to enter into a relationship only with people who one can trust or lead us to believe that they can be trusted.

If we are going to lend someone money and not sure of their credibility to return then, we are looking at enormous risks. Our potential rewards be better to play this high risk game.

[enqyoob]

Ooo! Getting close to the outbreak of all-out street riots here.

1. Considering PRC sensitivities to Indian stand, my suggestion was for GoI to stay aloof, but through backroom suggestions encourage Indian Muslims to protest Uyghur oppression in East Turkestan.
2. Secondly I was in favor of supporting Turkey in establishing a benign sounding Forum to institutionalize its involvement and culture and heritage oriented cooperation in Central Asia, as well as improving our strategic ties with Turkey in general.
3. Thirdly I was in favor of some more media coverage to the Uyghur viewpoint.

These are a far cry from "give arms to the ETIM because it is GeoStrategy" so I have no serious problems with these. They are all probably happening already without any involvement of the GOI. Same as the Baluchistan and Sindh movement have absolutely no Indian involvement. The Tibetan Freedom Struggle OTOH is a legitimate, internationally recognized struggle against military occupation by an evil Power in plain violation of the United Nations Charter. Also, China's and Pakistan's occupation of POK, Aksai Chin and other parts of Indian territory are direct violations of the UN Charter, and only survive because of brute force, and India's reluctance to get into a destructive war that will cause much human suffering.

But let's take each of these:
1. Encourage Indian Muslims to protest Uyghur oppression. Unlike the Uighurs, Indian Muslims are completely free to express their opinions (without burning buses, please) and I believe they have already done so. I am all for that.

2. "in favor of supporting Turkey in establishing a benign sounding Forum"
Sorry, I would rather leave this to the European Union (since Turkey is or wants to be a part of that). Basically, I support the Chinese (not "COMMUNIST") in their hard-learned revulsion against foreign, esp. European or American, interference in the internal affairs of China. The Boxer Rebellion has not been forgotten, not has the fact that it started as a Freedom Movement against the drug-dealing cartels of America and England who used sheer brute power to kill the law enforcement authorities of the Chinese nation and did everything possible to turn their people into a land of drug addicts - and the drugs came from INDIAN ports (yes, I know, India was also under the drug-dealer cartel of Britain at that point).

Endorsing a Turkish-led cartel (let's call the "benign-sounding Forum" what it will be in reality) to interfere in Xinjiang, invites another cartel - let's say the Forum For the Protection of the Lawd's Work - led by Portugal to conduct religious conversions and subversion of the Indian nation, through Goa. We already have enough of those, thank u, "led" by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Fort Harvard, Ford Foundation etc. And GOI endorsement of such an effort will have all the relevance of what is classically know as

A third (Little Cheney) at a wedding

So... stay out, get the "kappalandi kadalai" and a Pineapple Juice, and sit back b4 the TV set.

"3. Thirdly I was in favor of some more media coverage to the Uyghur viewpoint."

THIS is a very interesting point. Has anyone looked into the coverage of the Xinjiang events in The HINDU and any Kolkotta newspapers, and compared the reports with those in "Peopre's Dairy" of Xinhua? This would make a very interesting short paper that we would very much like to post. It's not "media coverage" that we need - it is to highlight the lack or bias thereof. GREAT opportunity!

Beyond that, hey, attacking those who ask for a little bit of introspection beyond what is shown on CNN, is as I said, like that picture I posted before.

"St. George Slays the 4-Armed Brick-built Hindoo Demon"

I think was the title.

Now I see that these "Presumed Hindoos" are also "Communist Supporters". The trouble with these "presumptions" is that they get wilder and wilder because they have, to put it in engineering terms, a resonant mode at zero frequency with free-free boundary conditions. Just puts me on a roll.

[RamaY]

1. Considering PRC sensitivities to Indian stand, my suggestion was for GoI to stay aloof, but through backroom suggestions encourage Indian Muslims to protest Uyghur oppression in East Turkestan.

If we do this, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Tomorrow the same IMs (on their own or at some others' behest) will want to protest at something else and this goes nowhere. By the way, why don't we encourage IMs to protest against Deoband Fatwas, J&K Terrorism, Paki-Terrorism etc?

2. Secondly I was in favor of supporting Turkey in establishing a benign sounding Forum to institutionalize its involvement and culture and heritage oriented cooperation in Central Asia, as well as improving our strategic ties with Turkey in general.

In what way it is in Indian national interests? Isn't it the same as JLN giving (if true) UNSC seat to PRC?

3. Thirdly I was in favor of some more media coverage to the Uyghur viewpoint.

This assumes that Indian Media cares for Indian national interests, which is yet to be proven.

[RamaY]

Maybe that is where the flaw is, we don't see others as humans....

This should be, IMHO, India's world-view. It will surely bring good-karma (and associated goodies) to Indian strategic interests in the long run.

If we want to see others as humans, as a first step India must fight for African Civilizational prosperity and rights. There is no comparison between African sufferings and Uighur sufferings. More over, Uighur people are being taken care by our lizard friend in terms of prosperity, IOC interms of civilization, and Western-world interms of human rights .

[shravan]

Indian Government should indirectly support Pakistani Terrorists to fight/kill the HAN Chinese.

Is it possible ?

[RajeshA]

Now the question is, should India do anything overtly or have its own strings in place and levers to achieve its own strategic objectives.

My POV is that India should do anything (overt or covert) to achieve its strategic objectives if it is sure of the strategy and outcomes. If India is not sure, then it is better to be an outside observer (similar to Af-Pak scenario after 9/11) instead of being someone else’s string or lever.

RamaY ji,
There are several advantages India can derive from the situation in East Turkestan, but those advantages can also be derived by simply being a passive observer, and eventually by being a sympathetic ear to Uyghur's woes, as you say similarly to Af-Pak scenario after 9/11.

Through our active involvement, we could get a few brownie points with the Ummah, should IMs demonstrate. We can pull Turkey a bit away from their Pakistani inclination, a bit towards an Indo-Turkish strategic relationship. There are few goodies to take through action on our part. We should take those goodies, because they come with few risks.

n³,
I guess the difference in our viewpoints, as I read it, is basically you are more principle-based, which I do admire.

OTOH I consider myself a bit more tribe-oriented, i.e. principles and laws are fruits for the own tribe, others get what they deserve.

[RayC]

It is nice find pacifists around.

We should do what we did in Sharm al Sharif.

Not be postive and just stab in the dark!

Reality? Don't know!

Covert action!

Gilani is cribbing about Balochistan!

Were we ever there?

Maybe and maybe not!

But then Indians are Mahatmas!

Never do anything immoral and wrong!

China never actively engage. They just nudge!

[RajeshA]

1. Considering PRC sensitivities to Indian stand, my suggestion was for GoI to stay aloof, but through backroom suggestions encourage Indian Muslims to protest Uyghur oppression in East Turkestan.

If we do this, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Tomorrow the same IMs (on their own or at some others' behest) will want to protest at something else and this goes nowhere. By the way, why don't we encourage IMs to protest against Deoband Fatwas, J&K Terrorism, Paki-Terrorism etc?

The same IMs did come on the streets when George W. Bush came visiting in March 2007. IMs can be more easily harnessed for 'atrocities' against the Muslims somewhere far off.
You are however right, when you say that the same forces can be excited on an outsider's behest to protest against Indian actions as well. I do think, that Indic-IM relations still have a long way to go and IMs would in the long run have to adopt a more public nationalist stance. Possibility of protests against J&K Terrorism, Paki-Terrorism should definitely be studied, whether IMs would do it, however at the moment they may perhaps be less forthcoming on these issues because of history.

2. Secondly I was in favor of supporting Turkey in establishing a benign sounding Forum to institutionalize its involvement and culture and heritage oriented cooperation in Central Asia, as well as improving our strategic ties with Turkey in general.

In what way it is in Indian national interests? Isn't it the same as JLN giving (if true) UNSC seat to PRC?

Well for one thing we want Pakistan to have as few friends as possible. On the question of Uyghurs both may find themselves at opposite ends of opinion. Secondly we could be able to build even better relations with the CARs if we do it showing ourselves as friends of Turks. There is nothing we are giving away.

3. Thirdly I was in favor of some more media coverage to the Uyghur viewpoint.

This assumes that Indian Media cares for Indian national interests, which is yet to be proven.

Then they can do it for other reasons.

[VikramS]

Endorsing a Turkish-led cartel (let's call the "benign-sounding Forum" what it will be in reality) to interfere in Xinjiang, invites another cartel - let's say the Forum For the Protection of the Lawd's Work - led by Portugal to conduct religious conversions and subversion of the Indian nation, through Goa. We already have enough of those, thank u, "led" by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Fort Harvard, Ford Foundation etc. And GOI endorsement of such an effort will have all the relevance of what is classically know as

N^3:

I am still shocked to see the shades of log kya kahenge in your thinking. Simply because India supports cause A in the context of country B, does not mean that the same rules apply to India.

The success or the lack thereof any foreign subversion of Indic culture will be, primarily controlled by the Indic reaction to those efforts. Similarly the success or failure of any Uighur movement will be primarily a result of how the CCP/PLA handles the challenge.

It also shows that very little has been learnt on how to manage the different forces which exist in India's neighbourhood. Calling Turkish pan-Nationalism bad and condemning it since it is is somewhat similar to Paki-Ummah Nationalism, shows a lack of discrimination. Perhaps years of Islamism thread has blunted the gurus abilities to see the shades of gray. The silence of the Ummah on the Uighur issue itself should be an eye-opener that not all Islamists are the same; nor every Muslim equal. Everyone has their own objective and brushing them with one big stroke is a down right moorkh

Another aspect to keep in mind is that India has blunted multiple decades of Pakiban assault on India . Islamist zeal may transcend generations and centuries; however within a given generation, that zeal too gets exhausted. The Islamist's power lies in reviving that zeal again and again, after generations of failures. At this point of time, Indics seem to have severely drawn out the current generation's zeal, with the Islamists resorting to desperate acts of terrorism and their attention drawn inwards.

Think of Islamist zeal as a sinusoidal wave with a positive cycle which focuses on India. We seem to be at the inflection point where it is close to crossing zero. India can close its eyes and pretend that there is no negative cycle. Or use the upcoming negative cycle to turn the tables on those who have been using the Islamist zeal against her. Mind you, the current negative cycle will too be exhausted and the wave will turn back and become positive again. However India's ability to deal with the next cycle will be a function of the strength of her enemies. The real GDP growth rate graph comparing China and India should put to rest any doubts about how internal turmoil affects a nation's growth, and why some internal schisms in China are likely to slow down the the Chinese imperial borg.

And India does not need to do any thing blatant or overt here. There is no need to involve IMs en-masse. All India needs to do is to help keep the pot simmering with an occasional burst to boiling point. If the Turks and AmirKhan want to take it further, let them do it own their on.

The bottom line is this: If there is a choice between dealing with any negative fall out of Turkish nationalism on India versus dealing with the CCP borg, I will chose the Turkish nationalist any day. Turkish nationalism does not pose any direct threat to India. Any linkage with the unlikely future success of Turkish nationalism with Pakiban is tenuous. In fact the forces which back the Pakiban, would rather not see Turkey emerge as a competing power center in the Islamic world.

[ramana]

Indian Government should indirectly support Pakistani Terrorists to fight/kill the HAN Chinese.

Is it possible ?

They dont need any encouragement that too from India. Havent you read the threats from Alq and others.

[RajeshA]

VikramS ji,

you have put it very clearly.

OT here

If I may suggest one correction. The term Pakiban is often used on BRF to mean the Pakistani Taliban, or the TTP headed by Baitullah Mehsud. The term Pakiban usually applies to those Pushtuns in Pakistan who call themselves Taliban but do not follow Rawalpindi's diktats and are mostly active in undermining the Pakistani State. They have not been active in attacking India that much.

Then there are those Taliban in Pakistan who follow Rawalpindi diktat, and these are referred to here as Sarkari Taliban.

All the other Pakjabi groups, which usually direct their terrorism towards India are simply called Sarkari Jihadis.

[RamaY]

In what way it (Secondly I was in favor of supporting Turkey in establishing a benign sounding Forum to institutionalize its involvement and culture and heritage oriented cooperation in Central Asia, as well as improving our strategic ties with Turkey in general.) is in Indian national interests? Isn't it the same as JLN giving (if true) UNSC seat to PRC?

Well for one thing we want Pakistan to have as few friends as possible. On the question of Uyghurs both may find themselves at opposite ends of opinion. Secondly we could be able to build even better relations with the CARs if we do it showing ourselves as friends of Turks. There is nothing we are giving away.

I agree that our interest is to take as many friends away from Pakistan as possible. But the reason we are giving in this specific scenario is Ummah, which will be a double edged sword at the wrong time (for India) {Remember Khilafat movement and Ummah's response before/during/after partition?}. We need to find innovative reasons/ways to befriend other IOC nations, while being conscious about this Ummah.

[RajeshA]

RamaY ji,
we will discuss that perhaps on some other thread sometime in the near future.

[ramana]

The core aspirations of the Uighers are nationalistic i.e. they want self determination(SD). Religion is the only vehicle they have and are expressing their SD rights thru that cloak. In this they are like the Pashtuns, another tribal nation.

Turkey is asserting its solidarity towards fellow ethnic people(Uighers). Yes both are of same religion and that should not cloud our prespective.

[brihaspati]

Islamism itself, potentially within the Uighurs, is directly not a problem. It is after all going to be a landlocked nation, and with some determination a solid filtering manadala can be fitted around its neck. The problem will be the external powers who will encourage the "religious" bit for their own purposes.

The only guarantee that such a thing does not happen from the forever mischief makers like UK, or some other powers in EU or the USA or PRC itself in the future, is sufficient anti-Islamism, as national and military force formed into a strong regional or global alliance. Only a overwhelming force ranged against any raising of the head of the mullah-theologians above ground, is a guarantee that global "foxes" like the UK does not send its implants into overdrive to whip up the Sunni Jihadi frenzy.

My scepticism and caution about supporting the Uighurs is that at the moment India has no mechanism (or any apparent political will) to deter such machinations of indirect support to the Islamists from outside. India's own policy handicap about denying the "ideological motivation" behind Jihad, and looking at it only as an economic/territorial ambitions problem, also creates severe limitiations and restrictions in what India can do to tackle potential negative side-effects of supporting the Uighurs.

[RamaY]

The core aspirations of the Uighers are nationalistic i.e. they want self determination(SD). Religion is the only vehicle they have and are expressing their SD rights thru that cloak. In this they are like the Pashtuns, another tribal nation.

Turkey is asserting its solidarity towards fellow ethnic people(Uighers). Yes both are of same religion and that should not cloud our prespective.

1. Disputed Territory
2. SD (Be aware)
3. Ethnicity
4. Human Rights
5. Genocide
6. Democracy (Especially when PRC is preaching others on how controlled economy/governance is better than other models - hello Jakie Chan)
7. FDI (Business Interests)
8. Trade Routes (not a destination but a transit point)
9. Source of global unrest/terrorism

Any other?

[enqyoob]

I am still shocked to see the shades of log kya kahenge in your thinking. Simply because India supports cause A in the context of country B, does not mean that the same rules apply to India.

basically you are more principle-based, which I do admire.

OTOH I consider myself a bit more tribe-oriented, i.e. principles and laws are fruits for the own tribe, others get what they deserve.

All I am saying is,

More thought, less chest-thumping, enables one to sit down without pain

Rajesh: I am saying that one should carefully think through the PRC's sensitivities before blundering into something that will only trigger massive public anger in China against India - with absolutely no positive gains for India.

VikramS: Please note that the "leave the rising outswinger" policy that I advocate is the exact opposite of "Log Kya Kahenge". Today, as Rajesh points out, jumping up and down and waving Uighuristan Liberation banners is exactly in tune with what impresses "Log". But if internal discontent spiralling into public disobedience of the Communist regime is what you have in mind, then the right strategy is to NOT do anything overt (and note that I believe all "covert" machinations are "overt" with an establishment that is as Chinese-penetrated as India's is) and avoid giving needless ammo to the Commies.

The Uighur dissent will be (has been already) crushed mercilessly by the Commie regime. That leaves millions of seething, desperate Uighurs gnashing their teeth. The regime has weakened itself, and has gained nothing. Note that they are grabbing at any straws to blame "foreign interference" precisely because a spontaneous, internally generated movement against the regime is a repudiation of the Communist Paradise fairy tale. This is why Hu had to rush back from G-8 - a lot of angry, red faces in the High Command because they find themselves re-living Tian An Men Square 1989, and are asking:

Why are we in this situation AGAIN? Hu was asleep at the controls?

The time for India to move will be when the PRC launches cross-border strikes against Kazakhstan and the other neighbors of Xinjiang. I hope the border roads and rail logistics are in better shape, and the MiG-29 fins have all been strengthened, and we have 5000 LCAs and high-ceiling helicopters in service and have a plentiful store of Bofors shells with the external burning augmentation, AND a massive distributed store of Prithvis, Agni-3s and BRAHMOS ready.

[Paul]

Even if the Uighurs aspirations are nationalistic for now, it won’t be long before the movement is overtaken by Islamists just as it reaches critical mass.

In any violent movement to overturn the status quo, it is always the extremist faction that wins. This is what happened with the October revolution in Russia where the Mensheviks (Georgians) were overthrown by the more extreme Bolsheviks. A more recent example is in 1979 when during anti shah movement all sections of society banded together, but eventually the islamists took over and moderates like Bani Sadr were kicked out once their utility was over with.

It is very dangerous to allow land locked countries in India’s vicinity to have independent status. It is an ideal offshore balancing tool in the hands of the Anglo-saxons. The only alternative is to have an ex-CCP apparachik take over the reins and rule with a iron hand like is being by Islam Karimov and Nursultan Nazarbayev. But again, extremist Islam is a very tenacious animal, it can lie dormant for decades before rearing it’s ugly form. Case in point is with the crusades where it took Islam 250+ years before they were able to rout the crusaders. This is held as an example to be followed by the late Hafez Azad.

The Indian subcontinent has never been directly invaded from East Turkestan. The old invasion routes have been through Khyber. However, with modern technology it is now easier to explore this route. If we are not ready to step into the void should PRC influence recede, then better let the status quo continue.

From Indian interests POV, we need to borrow from Kissinger’s words….China should bleed...and bleed bloody, but should still pull ahead of the Uighur nationalists.

[enqyoob]

Rajesh:

This She-Einstein's masterpiece will no doubt impress u...

[SwamyG]

Is she this Pallavi Aiyar? By her own words she "grew up in New Delhi in an anglecised, Oxbridge educated family,". She has been "The Hindu"'s Beijing Correspondent. She has lived in China for several years.