Bharat Rakshak

X-Post....

ldev wrote:The link below contains the full document of the Joint Doctrine of the Indian Armed Forces released by the Chairman of the COSC on April 26, 2017. It's a 86 page document and I am posting it in this thread only as there are aspects mentioned in it which address the issue of nuclear deterrence. However it can also be cross posted in other threads in the Military Forums.

http://bharatshakti.in/wp-content/uploa ... Forces.pdf

and

ramana wrote:Bharat Karnad critique:

Menu

Search
Security Wise
Bharat Karnad – India's Foremost Conservative Strategist

Joint Forces Doctrine — passive, defensive inward-turned, and disappointing
This was not unexpected, but still it is surprising just how unventuresome, diffident, hesitant and, therefore, thoroughly fainthearted the ‘Joint Doctrine Indian Armed Forces’ really is. Issued by Headquarters Integrated Defence Staff (IDS), Ministry of Defence, this document supposedly outlines the jointness mission for the military. As such, it is a fairly innocuous bit of paper indulging in banality-mongering to the max, taking extreme care to not touch on the practical aspects of integrating authority, military resources, and effort. It is a document that at best reflects an intent to realize jointness in the indeterminate future. Because, on the ground, the individual services still reign supreme and who regard IDS more as encumbrance than help.

However, IDS and its work is played up by the military brass whenever they sense movement by government to restructure the higher defence organization by replacing the existing order with a Chief of Defence Staff-system. When Manohar Parrikar was around there was real fear that one fine day he’d take it into his head to get on with the long pending job of major organizational reform and restructuring. Whence, this document was conceived as a way to postponing even an interim solution of a permanent 4-star post as Chairman, Chief of Staff Committee, recommended by the Committee headed by the arch bureaucrat, Naresh Chandra. Known to his 1956 IAS batchmates as “ustaad” for his ability to size up a situation, manage it, run circles around politicians and the lesser civil services, and generally maintain the status quo in which babus are top-dogs (especially in MOD), Chandra was not about to suggest anything radical. Sequentially chief secretary, Rajasthan, and at the centre, defence secretary, home secretary, and finally, cabinet secretary before beginning his unending post-retirement tenures in government, including being retained by Atal Bihari Vajpayee as Indian Ambassador to the United States, Chandra was one of the charter members of the bureaucratic clique that has pushed and pulled Indian policy towards close India-US ties at the expense of every thing else. He sided as cabsec, it may be recalled, with those in Delhi (K. Subrahmanyam, Air Cmde Jasjit Singh, et al) and keeping up the drumbeat from Washington where he was appointed ambassador in 1996 for India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. With Finance Minister Arun Jaitley back as part time defence minister, everybody who counts in the military hierarchy seems reassured that the pressure is off, and the incumbent raksha mantri does not have the time or inclination to do anything substantive. In that sense, this “doctrine’ is the military brass’ collective sigh of relief!

There’s much to question in this paper, but here’s my reaction to certain aspects of it (in no particular order of importance) stuck me as troubling.

1) In the sub-sections (pp 1-2) on “National Aim” and “National Interests”, for instance, there’s no mention anywhere about extending India’s influence in South Asia, Asia, and the world. In other words, the Indian armed forces are happy where they are and with the country where it is, namely, sidelined even in the extended region.

In this circumscribed sphere, the armed forces described as the “Military Instrument of National Power” (p. 6) their utility limited to being “a means of deterrence and conflict resolution”. While acknowledging their “coercive nature” the paper stresses the armed forces’ being “gainfully employed” in “non-conflict situations and natural disasters”, in short a uniformed version of Oxfam or similar social service agency.

2) Have railed in all my writings for some 30 years now about the wrong threat perceptions animating the Indian military. When one gets so basic a thing wrong, what can the armed forces get right? Anyway, here’s proof, albeit indirect, about just which threat our military is preoccupied with — Pakistan. In a section entitled “Strategic environment scan”, the document speaks (p. 7) of “the requirement to safeguard our territorial integrity” owing to the “disputed borders” and lists the Line of Control in the west first.

A related section (pp. 8-9) on “Security Threats and Challenges” rather than speaking straightforwardly about China, Pakistan, etc., talks obliquely about competition for resources, of “inherited faultlines” and “increasing blurring lines of traditional and nontraditional challenges”.

3) In pondering the “Nature War (sic) and character of conflict/war” (p. 10), the attributes of future wars are listed as “ambiguous, uncertain, short, swift, lethal, intense, precise, non-linear, unrestricted, unpredictable and hybrid”. Whew! Scrounging together all these adjectives, leaves the big Question open — so what’s India to prepare for??? Because the forces required to fight short, swift, lethal, intense, precise counter-force wars are surely quite distinct and different from those needed to engage in necessarily long duration conflicts that are ambiguous, uncertain, non-linear, unrestricted, unpredictable, and hybrid. When minds are not applied, vapid statements like this result.

It reminds me of Reagan’s jibe against Walter Mondale when the latter advanced a fairly inane proposal in the 1984 US presidential elections – “where’s the beef?”

4) Part of the problem — other than passing off the banal as profound — is with the language. In getting inventive in using the English language, the result is grating, to wit, (p. 12) — “There are four levels of of War; Political/Grand strategic , Military strategic, Operational and Tactical; each level being twisted to the other.” In this construction, “each level being twisted to the other” appears in italics — meaning what the authors themselves know the phrase makes zero sense, or that there’s a meaning the reader is not supposed easily to divine, what…?

Further in a slightly confused discussion on “Generations of War” (p. 13) — again the language and content problem emerges — there is a statement of war transiting quickly from 1st generation to 5th gen hybrid warfare of today which ends with this — “Simply put, it is a war in which one of the major participants is not a State but rather a violent non-state actor or non-state actor sponsored by a State”, thereby synthetically separating non-state actors from the patronage of the adversary state, which division carries little weight in the practical world.

In the section following on “India in Conflict/War” (p. 14), the paper refers to an “operationally adaptable force” almost as an imperative without anywhere explaining how the country is to obtain it. This harks back to my #3 above. Is such a force to be the all-purpose military capable of short intense wars as also long duration attrition conflicts? If so, it was all the more necessary IDS had at least sketched out how this is to be achieved and at what cost.

5) In the chapter on “Military — An Instrument of National Power” and section therein concerning “Functions of Military Power” that dilates on conventional offensive and defensive operations (p. 19), we have such gems as “offensive operations” to address “The adversary’s centre of gravity” by “attacking enemy’s criticalities….” etc. If this is a primer on the military, what is such stuff doing in a doctrine? This is succeeded by a para on offensive ops wherein is semi-detailed “A philosophy of pro-active defence” that the doucument claims is “most suited for India”, which is revealing of the Indian military’s attitude generally, perhaps, mirroring the Indian Government’s mindset. In trying to conform to NSA Ajit Doval’s fairly elementary rendition of “offensive defence”, this document — emphasizes “defensive operations” by “ensuring security of own forces, secur[ing] bases for launching forces and creat[ing] favourable conditions for offensive operations”.

In line with such thinking is the section on “International Defence Cooperation” (p.22) which talks of this pol-mil-diplomatic activity without once mentioning the absolute predicate for such military outreach and presence, namely, bases in the Indian Ocean Region and in the states on the landward periphery (such as in Central Asia). Staying and operating from homeland bases, the country is expected to “leverage” the achievement of “National Security Objectives”. This is like proposing to lift a tub while standing in it. Hard, in the event, to take much of this document seriously.

6) This unsophisticated, college sophomore-level paper rounds out by analyzing Jointness, observing correctly, for a change, that military integration is mandated by resource constraints and will make possible “centralized planning” and appropriate allocation of resources to obtain “the right mix [of forces] at the right time and place” and “a high level of cross-domain synergy”. (p. 39) But after saying all this about the urgent need for integrating the military and realizing that they had gone out on a limb with their masters, IDS quickly backtracks, reiterating on the very next page (p. 40) that all the preceding material notwithstanding, “It does not imply physical integration” of the three armed services.

7) This is almost a throwaway line, but on page 50, the document asserts, in the context of establishing a joint “Special Operations Division” the fact that “the possibility of a conventional war under a nuclear overhang recedes with attendant political and international compulsions” but stops short of saying that this is just the reason for a major overhaul of the extant military force structure, especially the rationalization of the three strike corps for exclusive use on the Pakistan front into a single composite corps that I have been advocating for nearly 25 years now, and transferring the materiel and human resources to form additional two offensive mountain corps for use against the Chinese PLA in Tibet. This would be the sort of force rejig that cries out to be implemented. Except the existing armed services are inclined to preserve and protect their autonomy at all cost, and even at the expense of the national interest.

More disarmingly, this IDS paper is upfront about needing to strike “a balance between indigenisation and foreign purchase essential to India’s military independence and modernization” (p. 54). This translates into continued reliance on imported armaments even though any level of foreign purchases is inimical to the country’s “military independence”.

9) And absent is any nod to the nuclear deterrent other than a wary affirmation of credible but minimum deterrence that reflects lack of deep insights and knowledge in the field. The doctrine refers to the need to shift force structuring from a threat-based template to a capability-based one. The Indian strategic deterrent too could do with a similar change in its fundamentals.

10) And, finally, there’s a pointed last page (61) reference to the perennial military-bureaucrat tension, saying “The functionaries in the MoD ought to be enablers” and facilitators of “free flowing communication” between the political class and the armed services, to make possible “critical and timely decision making” rather than being another variety of vested interests gumming up the works in the national security field.

——-

Taken in toto though, this paper is a lot of thin air masquerading as Joint Doctrine. Pity about this. Because serious thought is warranted regarding all aspects of the Indian military. Alas, this paper contains little of that.

Old Op-ed by Ajit Doval, currently the NSA ten years after this article is written


Needed War on Error by Ajit Doval

Needed War on Error

Ajit Doval

For nations, it matters what happens to them; but the course of their history is often determined less by what happened and more by how they reacted. What is happening to India on the terrorist front is bad, but what is worse is the way we are reacting to it.

The worst reaction of a government to such a serious national challenge would be to underplay it, divert the discourse from core issues to the peripherals. Asserting that all is well and nothing needs to be changed, emphasising maintenance of social harmony as the core concern, complimenting people for bravely suffering losses and returning to normal lives, talking about human rights and protection of minorities — these are all laudable objectives. No one disputes them, but they do not address the core issues.

In the face of a threat as serious as this, the national focus should be on: how serious is the threat; its long and short-term implications; our capacities to counter the threat, both in policy formulation and policy execution; and how to address the deficiencies. This would involve considering ways to leverage civil society, media, the scientific community, religious leaders to the best national advantage; ways to neutralise the fast-growing domestic base of terrorism, including availability of hardware and human resource, collaborative linkages of the terrorists with organised crime, gun runners, drug syndicates, hawala operators, subversive radical groups, and how to break the nexus. Debate on the adequacy of the country's laws, judicial administration, security systems and doctrines, etc, in the light of assessed threats is also important. The right discourse should also centre on our policy options vis-à-vis countries and groups involved in terrorist incidents in India. This is not happening, and that's the tragedy.

It is not happening because a basic requirement is missing: a political culture that can subordinate electoral and other political considerations to the nation's supreme sovereign interests. This requires the political will and ability to carry the whole country together. If the nation fails to do so, it may face many Hyderabads, and worse.

That Hyderabad is on the terrorist radar has been well known for quite some time. Here are a few illustrative events that could have served as alerts to undertake surgical operations, covert and overt, to sanitise the city, whatever the cost.

On April 1, 2007, an ISI agent, Maqsood Ahmed, was arrested while recruiting youths for sabotage and espionage activities. Neither was he thoroughly interrogated nor was follow-up action taken. On May 20, 2007, Mohamed Sayeed was arrested by the West Bengal police from Jharkhand's Jantara district. He gave copious details of his links with terrorist modules in Hyderabad. On May 25, 2007, Shoaib Faqruddin Jagirdar, muttawali (custodian) of a local dargah, was arrested for sending RDX and youths from Jalna in Maharashtra to Hyderabad for terrorist actions. He was reportedly released under political pressure. On June 15, 2007, Mohamed Abdul Sattar, an ISI agent, confessed he had received armed training in Pakistan along with Shahid who was responsible for the May 18 Hyderabad blasts. On August 12, 2007, the Aurangabad police seized 29 kg of ammonium nitrate explosive, abandoned by a man who came from Secunderabad (near Hyderabad).

If we have to win the battle against terror, political considerations, communal pressures, administrative and police lethargy, and a weak legal-judicial regime will have to be negated. Let us not sugarcoat our response, like announcing that India and Pakistan as victims of terrorism are in the same league, lest we sent ambiguous signals to India's enemies.

It is a myth that terrorists strike anywhere, any time and against any target. Had that been so, they would have caused havoc not just in India. Terrorists strike where their intentions and capabilities meet the opportunities. The success of counter-terrorism lies in degrading their capabilities, forcing them to change their intentions and denying them opportunities to strike. We appear to be failing on all three counts.

Their extended capabilities are obvious by their spreading the arc of violence to cover almost the entire country. The fact that masterminds and critical perpetrators of all the recent terrorist depredations remain by and large unidentified is a matter of concern. This brings the deterrence threshold down. There is no change in the intentions of those within and outside the country who seek to bleed India, appeasement within and peace parleys outside notwithstanding. We have also not been able to deny them the opportunities. All these infirmities can be corrected only through an integrated strategic and tactical action plan aimed at empowering and enabling security agencies, strengthening our legal-judicial response regime, upgrading intelligence, and complementing our defensive regime with defensive offence capabilities.

Besides the government and its security agencies, civil society has a seminal role in this. The nation has not been able to produce a powerful ideological movement within the Muslim community to counter the radicals and deprive them of religious legitimacy within the community. The last few years have witnessed alarming growth of Salafism and Wahabism at the cost of the indigenous variant of Islam, which is more tolerant and accommodative. Funding to such organisations from outside the country also has to be stopped, if need be, by further strengthening our laws on the subject and their implementation.

India's neighbourhood, particularly Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, must be understood. Fundamentalist forces have acquired strengths, resources and capabilities to survive and strike on their own strength. They have global collaborative linkages, sustainable channels of funding, access to modern technology and an unending stream of jihadis keen to kill and die. The global growth of Islamic radicalism, proximity of jihadi epicentres close to Indian borders and the tilting of some sections of Muslims within the country pose real problems. The imported variety of terrorism whose planning, infrastructure and resources are of foreign origin will continue to haunt us for quite some time.

The current phase of terrorism has a marked Bangladeshi dimension, closely linked to illegal immigration. Most of the recent cases are linked to Harkat-ul-Jihad-e Islami, which operates from Bangladesh, where it has an extensive network. Al-Qaeda's linkages with HUJI are old and intimate with total ideological convergence. Al-Qaeda is out-sourcing terror through franchised groups, who enjoy local advantages and can raise their own resources and operate as stand-alone entities. A special action plan needs to be formulated to contain HUJI's entrenchment.

All this will happen if we bring the discourse on the right track and set priorities right. We need to do a quick VED analysis focusing on the Vitals, keeping a watch on the Essentials and leaving the Desirables till the vitals have been achieved and essentials addressed. For those who govern, let political interests, at best, fall in the category of desirables.


The writer was director of the Intelligence Bureau

Google Books

Politics of Counter Terrorism In India:Prem Mahadevan

Interesting name for a thread. "Evolution of Indian Strategic Thought".
I for one, see neither "Evolution", nor "Strategic" in Indian Thought. Frankly, I don't see any "Thought" of any consequence, in India.

On the other hand, I see plenty of Strategic Challenges, some of which are a direct result of this lack of "Evolution", or "Strategy" or "Thought", in India.

One such serious challenge is as follows:

X-posted from another thread.

Poster - rsangram-

So, heard this from a fairly reliable source, who is from Langley

Trump is very impressed with the Chinese for "trying" to help out with the |North Koreans, despite the fact that, that "trying" yielded no results - zero, zilch. However, the Chinese have now bought credibility with Trump, to a point, where the pressure is off of them from the US on trade, currency and other such issues. It seems that Trump is even willing to throw Taiwan under the bus and not rake up the South China Sea issue much, as long as the Chinese don't rub it in the Americans' face. There is a sense in the White House now, that despite fiery campaign rhetoric, a confrontation with China now is unwinnable, and therefore, not worth entertaining, as losing a confrontation with China, even a diplomatic one, will be perceived as a defeat in Middle American, which the Trump White House does not want to risk. There also seems to be intelligence to the effect that the Russian Ambassador to Washington, Kysliac, is playing a very important role in mediating between Trump's inner circle at the White House and the Chinese, via Lavrov, who, as Putin's "Erdogan-esque" lapdog is getting increasingly closer to Xi Jinping.

With the above paragraph as context, it appears as though the Chinese, using Russians as intermediaries, are proposing a long term settlement in Afghanistan to Trump and Trump is listening to Bannon on this, and Bannon is inclined towards this deal. It must be remembered, that Bannon heads the isolationist wing in the White House, in addition to the hardcore racist wing and therefore, is loathe to continue this war in Afghanistan. Trump's instincts too are isolationist, and hardcore racist, and he tends to coalesce around Bannon on these issues. Besides the Trump/Bannon combine along with many others in Washington in the White House and the Capitol, look upon the Afghan war as an unwanted inheritance and an irritant, which they want to get rid of, at the earliest, so that they can focus on "more important issues", such as Domestic Policy, Controlling illegal AND legal immigration and scoring small victories overseas, which would help brand Trump as a warrior president among Middle America, which by the way, is the wet dream of every US President in history.

The outlines and contours of the Chinese proposed, long term deal on Afghanistan, according to this source in Langley, are as follows:

1. Keep the status quo going with the US actually increasing the number of troops by about 5000, for the next year or so, so that this does not appear to be a full and blatant capitulation by US.

2. After a year or so, the US would join a "peace conference", on Afghanistan, convened by the Russians, with the Chinese, Pakis, Afghans, Talibans, Saudis and the Turks attending. The Saudis, the Turks and the Chinese, including the Russians, will put pressure on Taliban to disband, thereby, handing a "victory" to the Americans. The Americans will declare victory or Trump might even declare a Triumph, for winning a war, which everybody said was unwinnable.

3. In the same conference, it will be agreed that in return for Taliban disbanding, a lot of their members will be accorded power sharing, and in essence this will be a Taliban government, in everything but name.

4. The Taliban government will agree to allow other "pro American" and old "Northern Alliance" factions to live and exist and be token participants in the government, provided they disband and do not maintain any private armies. The Americans will guarantee this castration.

5. The Pakis, the Turks, the Saudis, the Chinese and the Russians will guarantee to the Americans, there this new "Taliban" government, will not allow any "radical groups", meaning, any anti-Western groups to exist in Afghanistan or establish bases there, to carry on anti-West activities from Afghanistan.

6. The Americans will not ask for any guarantees or even assurances from any of these countries, including the new "Taliban" dispensation of Afghanistan, to refrain from any terrorist activities directed towards India. At best, there will be some vague statement about the new "Taliban" government wanting good relations with all its neighbors and will work, as it has always worked, even in its previous life, not to destabilize any of its neighbors.

7. The Chinese will be granted deep footholds in Afghanistan, once this new Taliban dispensation has taken power, to develop and exploit the natural resources and minerals of Afghanistan, for the "benefit of Afghans, of all shades". The Chinese will come up with this "Grand Vision" of developing Afghanistan into this economic powerhouse, which will play a vital role in connecting East Asia (China), South Asia (Pakistan) to Central Asia and ultimately Russia, via what they will propose as the "South to North" corridor of its Silk Road initiative.

8. The Americans will be thrown some crumbs in the form of some mining contracts in Afghanistan, particularly in those areas, where the Chinese do not have the technology to exploit the mineral resources of Afghanistan.

9. The Pakis will be big economic beneficiaries in all of this, as all the trade generated from these new economic initiatives and the Chinese "Grand Vision", the maritime portion of it, will be routed via Gawdar and the Pakis will collect handsome rent for that.

10. The Americans will declare PAkis as their strategic and Non-Nato ally, and announce a long term aid and arms package worth billions every year.

11. The Russians will get iron clad assurances from Paki, Chinese, Turks, and the Saudis, that there will be no Islamic Terrorism targeted at Russia, certainly not from Afghanistan and if rogue Islamic groups do target Russia, that it will have the full support of all these countries, if Russia decides to retaliate in the most brutal fashion. Russians may even get some accommodation from Saudis on future Syrian dispensation and particularly on securing their naval base in Syria

A Western Look at Bhagavad Gita

http://www.classicsofstrategy.com/2016/ ... ry-ad.html

IDSA Comparing Arthasastra

Arthasastra in a Transcultural Perspective

Not India but a US book on

Policy Analysis in National Security Affairs: New Methods for A New Era Richard Kugler

Its 638 pages long and quite illuminating.

RoyG et al please read.

Seen on the internet:
"The more general point about achieving results when the enemy's base area is in a neighbouring State, with which you are not formally at war, is addressed in Harry G Summers, "On Strategy""
Refers to this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Critica ... ry+summers

Re: J&K, the enemy's (Pakistan base area, is in a neighbouring State, with which India is not formally at war. Does Harry Summers have anything useful to say?

Some lessons for India

https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridg ... ompetition

This is a strategic thought of the highest order!
http://www.defencenews.in/article.aspx?id=536988

Netflix has an Indian series called Adrishya on Indian spies through the ages.
Do watch and appreciate the lessons. Especially on Jeevasiddi.

SaiK wrote:This is a strategic thought of the highest order!
http://www.defencenews.in/article.aspx?id=536988

This does not belong to this thread but to the Army thread and has been posted there.

Amit Shah gave a speech on Chanakya in Pune.

https://twitter.com/vinay1011/status/10 ... 26401?s=19



YouTube link

https://twitter.com/RaviPokharna/status ... 49856?s=19

In response one of our members sent this. Waiting response.....

This was email to AmitBhai’s office :

——————————-

Influence of dharma over politics :

Chanakya upheld the primacy of dharma over polity. But there is subtle difference. Earlier Vaidik political thought contributed to dharma both strengthening the polity as well as controlling it. Chanakya's reforms intended to have dharma strengthen the polity but NOT CONTROL IT. He is strong proponent of using DHARMA to maintain internal security as well as whipping up the propaganda to direct that public fury against enemy (especially if enemy is of different religion).

Every varNa should follow its duty. What is dharma? What is Adharma ? chanakya says these questions are to be answered by people on their own using the three vedas (not four, three. Atharvaveda is not considered a pure veda by many). The primacy of Vedas is supreme, Chanakya says.

He seems to be largely influenced by Purva -mimaamsa. He ends this section of arthashaastra by saying - " A king who does his duty - he attains Svarga and eternal brahmaananda. If he does not, it leads to various communities infighting in his kingdom which leads to destruction". (arthashaastra 1.2-1.3)

A king should not allow people to deviate from their jobs in life (as varNaashrama Dharma mandates). If people deviate from their jobs, they start causing trouble (AS 1.4)

King should pay attention to local customs, traditions and gods of the people whom he has conquered. Talented people should be given concession in taxes and other incentives. King should actively try to uproot adharma from the land he controls. (AS 1.6)

King should prohibit killings of women and "खच्चीकरण" of youth by inimical forces (both mental and physical which leads to young people turning lazy and slothful due to pleasure or addiction etc) (AS 13.5)

He emphasizes on utilizing espionage agencies to maintain intern law and order. A king should convince public that he embodies both Indra and Yama - They have power to grant you boon or curse you to death.

Charita (traditions), vyavahaara (agreements), dharma (as per mandate of shaastras) and raajaagnaa (political law) - these are the four pillars of "Smriti".

This order is in ascending order of primacy and strength. THis means raajaagnaa is most powerful pillar of all which supersedes others in case of conflict (AS 3.1)

Superstition and politics

A king should let lose propaganda that vetaal, and other evil beings do his bidding and are at his command. He should spread the rumours that gods are happy with his saadhana and that they are favourable to him. He has given various tricks and methods to spread such narrative among public - to ensure that public maintains order and continues viewing king in high esteem. The list is quite big. He also encourages use of women and courtesans and artists for this purpose.

For king however the recommendation is different -

There are three impediments hurting the "sampatti" of a king - wish for an excellent afterlife post death (paralokaapekshaa), extreme insistence on being virtuous (dhaarmikatvam) and belief in astrology (mangala-tithi nakshatra sutitvam). (AS 5.2 onwards).


while king should give importance to all these hypocracies in his public life, if he starts believing in them, lakshmi deserts him.

Raajaagnaa supersedes all - dharmashaastras included (when it comes to material aspects of life).

Finally -

King is Sheep. Prajaa is the shepherd. While alive - sheep dances, gives milk, gives wool to the shepherd. After death, sheep gives meat, hide and horns. Thus in both life and death, sheep serves the shepherd. King should be thus.

If he ensures that his prajaa is materially happy and content and that the society at large is upholding the vaidika dharma, then 1/6th of puNya of all his subjects goes to the king and he attains high svarga (his personal virtues and vices immaterial). Same applies for 1/6th of paapa of all his subjects if he is not upholding the dharma and keeping public happy, occupied while living a pious and virtuous personal life.

———————

CLAWS article

Military Leadership and
Vedic Literature Linkages

There is good US book called
"Warning Analysis for the Information Age" John Bodnar PhD.

http://ni-u.edu/ni_press/pdf/Warning_Analysis.pdf

Download for it and read.

and
Read first
Cynthia Grabo : Anticipating Surprise

http://www.ni-u.edu/ni_press/pdf/Antici ... alysis.pdf

ramana wrote:Google books:

Rule the World the way I did

Unfortunately only limited preview of Chanakya's world view.

Incidentally he says there are six ways instead of the traditional four ways. Inaction (Asana) is there!!!

Yana is preparing for war.

He says about the six ways (page 210):

Sangraha:Peace by treaty
Vigraha: Keep them busy with war or non-war
Asana: Be watchful, silent and do nothing
Yana: Prepare for war
Samasraya: Seek protection of stronger king
Dvaidhibhava: Make peace with one while making war with another
----
I don't have the book but I think Asana is when one is confronted with a hostile & powerful state is the recommended practice.

But it has to be with strong measures to strengthen ones own state.

Essay on Dvaidhibhava in Arthasastra and other works

IDSA Essay on Four Upayas by Col. P.K. Gautam.

He is now the foremost Chanakya scholar in IDSA.

LINK

Understanding Kautilya’s Four Upayas
P. K. Gautam
P. K. Gautam is Research Fellow at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.
June 20, 2013

The four upayas or approaches, i.e., ways of realising aim or object have existed since the period of the epics and the Dharmasastra. The upayas are sama- dana- behda- danda: conciliation, gifts, rupture and force. The upayas have a wider application, being useful in securing the submission of anyone. In a 1954 essay “The Four Upayas of Hindu Diplomacy” in The Indian Year Book of International Affairs published by The Indian Study Group of International Affairs, University of Madras in 1954 R. Bhaskaran invited attention to history to show that upayas existed in the Dharmasastras, Sukra Niti, Agni and Matsya Puranas, and Nitisara of Kamanadaki, besides many other texts. The South Indian Jain scholar Somadeva Suri, in the Nitivakyamitra written in the 10th century, mentions the four upayas. In Sanskrit literature, the upayacatusthaya or the “four expedients” and the “turiya” or fourth upaya invariably means Danda or force. By the time of the Ramayana, these four upayas had become such well-known commonplace that the poet could put these quite casually in a soliloquy. For example, Hanuman argues “Here the situation is beyond the three upayas and the fourth alone is indicated. One can not negotiate with demons nor bribe people abounding in wealth. A strong nation cannot be divided against itself, only superior force can win.” (R. Bhaskaran, “ The Four Upayas of Hindu Diplomacy” in The Indian Year Book of International Affairs published by The Indian Study Group of International Affairs, University of Madras in 1954). In Mahabharata and later Smrtis, the upayas are mentioned as well and in the famous commentary on Yajnavalkya (the Mitaksara), the four methods are held applicable not only in diplomacy but in all human relationships, including those between father and son, and teacher and pupil. Further, each upaya has many variations or procedures. V.R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, in War in Ancient India (1944), noted that the Puranas and later niti works like that of Kamadakiya add three more upayas to the original four—upeksha, maya and indrajala. Maya is an aspect of danda, and upekha and indrajala aspects of bheda. In this commentary, in order to avoid complexities, I prefer to stick to the basic four.

Interestingly, without any reference to Kautilya, the 20th century pioneer of power politics theory Hans J. Morgenthau, in the chapter of different methods of balance of power in his book Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, (1966) mentions that “The balance of power can be carried on either by diminishing the weight of the heavier scale or by increasing the weight of the lighter one.” His chapter has sections on: 1.) Divide and Rule; 2.) Compensation; 3.) Armaments; and 4.) Alliances. The four sections are very close to the Kautilyan concepts of bheda (divide and rule), dana (compensation), danda (armaments) and sama (alliances).

It appears that the four upayas are not well studied by scholars and are often used in a casual, off-hand manner. Another variation, in its worst form, is the issue of (mis)quotation of Kautilya out of context in various instances. A few examples can be provided to demonstrate this:

(a) The historian Kaushik Roy in an article “Just and Unjust War in Hindu Philosophy”, in the Journal of Military Ethics (Vol. 6, No. 3, 2007, pp. 232-45) concludes with the bizarre idea that in its counterinsurgency strategy, India employs Kautilyan bhedneti (divide and rule) where it employs Hindus and Christian Nagas from Nagaland to crush Muslim Kashmiri insurgents. This conclusion is false and the analysis is flawed logic. Worse, it has been constructed and painted in an artificially manufactured Kautilyan framework. In reality, the turn-over or rotation of units is a practice followed by the army since independence. Units spend two to three years in field and operational areas, and their identity is well-known. The author fails to provide any evidence to support his claim. Such a statement is based on incorrect or partial/superficial understanding of military operations. The Indian military posts units to peace and field areas on rotation, never on caste or communal lines.

(b) The word ‘Kautilya’ is being used by some Western and Indian scholars very loosely, as advocating the concepts of treachery, cunningness, and divide and rule. A Norwegian scholar from PRIO, Ashild Kolas, in her article “ What up With Territorial Council” in the December 2012 issues of The Seminar, on selective peace talks with various insurgents by Indian negotiators in Assam, writes: “...it is obvious that Kautilyan tactics remain popular with India’s security establishment.” The author, however, does not clarify what she means by “Kautilyan”. The work of Kautilya includes 6,000 sutras and has been described as a “library of ancient India” by German Indologist Johann Myer in 1926. It appears that this is again Ms Kolas’ superficial understanding of the four upayas.

(c) Cascading and repetitive use of secondary sources continues. To sound profound, with little clue on the text of the Arthasastra, weak formulation continues. For this, there are some more examples which must be explained. Some Western scholars are very enamoured to use selectively borrowed secondary ideas of some Indian authors. A book written by a former intelligence officer, Asoka Raina, titled Inside RAW: The Story of India’s Secret Service (1981) alludes to ancient Indian scriptures and the laws of Manu and Kautilya on intelligence. In his journalistic account of the Sino-Indian rivalry titled Great Game East: India, China and the Struggle for Asia’s Most Volatile Frontier (2012), Bertil Lintner picks up from Raina’s work and a similar work by former BBC correspondent Subir Bhaumik’s Troubled Periphery: Crisis of India’s North East (2009). Lintner again parrots sama-dana-bheda-danda being employed as an evil strategy by the Indian state in the Northeast. These authors ignore the post-colonial nation building experience. It is no wonder that vague accounts based on superficial reading of secondary sources flourish in most of the writings by Western authors who cannot then be called scholars on Kautilya (barring, I must add here, Indologists). This is best exemplified further by the work of Terry Crowdy in his The Enemy Within: A History of Spies, Spymasters and Espionage (2006), who assumes the fiction of Vishakanyas as to be true, whereas in fact it is based, as alluded to, on the 5th century CE play Mudrarakshaka by the playwright Vishakhadatta.

(d) In a very comprehensive survey of the history of the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), Nani Gopal Mahanta, in his book Confronting the State: ULFA’s Quest for Sovereginity (2013) again puts forward an idea incorrectly. Mahanta at page 142 writes that the basic premise of Kautilyan statecraft of four upayas is: “...that longer the negotiations, the easier it is to wear down rebel leaders.” A careful reading of the Kautilya’s Arthsastyra (KA) shows that this concept of “wearing out by delaying” is not mentioned anywhere in the text. It is obvious that this is Mahanta’s own idea or a commentary or bhasya which must be attributed to his analysis, and not to be fired from Kautilya’s shoulder.

Arthasastra sutra 22 in chapter 13 of Book One, “Concerning the Topics of Training”(1.13.22) mentions: “Those, however, who are enraged or greedy or frightened or proud, are likely to be seduced by enemies.” Kautilya further suggests that “He( the King) should manage those who are discontented by means of conciliations, gifts, dissention or force.” I do not agree with Kautilya, but at the same time I need to add here that Kautilya cannot be faulted as he just explained the practical aspects of state craft during a specific period of history. Experience in independent India of the 20th and early 21st century shows that insurgents are not enemies. The word dushman or enemy is never allowed to be used by the Indian military to describe the misguided countrymen. Out of the four ways or upayas of sama- dama- -bheda- danda, it is clear that bheda or ‘divide and rule’ would not work in the long run in a counter insurgency. Yes, some force or danda may be required, perhaps minimal. The main argument is that all the four upayas are not to be applied in a rigid template on issues of internal security in dealing with insurgents in a nation-building process.

Thus it is important to locate the text of traditional indigenous knowledge in their correct context. By picking up one idea such as bheda and then saying it to be a Kautilyan idea is limited understanding of it. Scholars should avoid false attribution and heresy accounts when the working text of the Arthasastra is not fully known to them. It is better, as is given in the Arthasastra, to mention that what one writes other than the text is a bhasya or a commentary and not necessarily what Kautilya said. Thus this commentary.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

We need a thread on :National Security and Law in India"

52 years on, still no sign of national defence university.

Fifty-two years after it was first mooted, and over six years after its foundation stone was laid, the Indian National Defence University (INDU) is still missing in action due to politico-bureaucratic apathy and wrangling.

Sources said there has been hardly any progress since the draft INDU or Indian Defence University Bill was submitted to the Prime Minister’s Office
and cabinet secretariat in December 2017 after protracted and contentious inter-ministerial consultations. “The bill will have to be cleared by the cabinet and Parliament for the INDU to be eventually set up,” said a source.



The country certainly needs a ‘world-class’ INDU to inject some much-needed strategic culture in governance as well as encourage robust cross-linkages between the executive and academia. Almost all major countries, from the US to China, have national defence varsities to develop national security leaders as well as undertake long-term strategic studies and threat assessments.

“China strategically thinks at least 50 years ahead. In India, we at best stumble from election to election. After approving the 9/15/2019 52 years on, post of the CDS (chief of defence staff), the government should now push for the defence varsity. India suffers from a lack of integrated, multi-dimensional approach to shape long-term strategic thought, culture and actions,” said a top defence official, who did not want to be named.

Experts said India, apart from the requisite economic growth and systematic building of military capabilities, also requires to educate its political leaders, bureaucrats and military brass in strategic thinking and security issues, both external and internal, if it aspires to become a superpower. “We need politico-military thinkers and analysts, who do not live in silos, to advise the country’s top political leadership on long-term strategic challenges,” said an expert.

There was some rejoicing when the foundation stone of INDU was laid in May 2013 with much fanfare at Binola, near Manesar in Gurgaon district of Haryana, by the then PM Manmohan Singh. The varsity was supposed to come up, at a preliminary cost of Rs 395 crore, on 202 acres.

A little infrastructure development on the acquired land began in December 2015, which was followed by the government putting the draft INDU bill online for public consultations in August 2016. “But not much happened after that. The estimated initial cost stands at well over Rs 2,000 crore now,” said a source.

The fully-autonomous INDU was supposed to be headed by a three-star general, first from the Army and then from the IAF and Navy in turns, with the President as the visitor and defence minister as the chancellor.

With 66% of students drawn from the armed forces and the rest from other government agencies, police and civilians, the varsity was to initially set up four new institutions — School of National Security Studies, School of Defence Technology, School of Defence Management and Centre for Distance and Open Learning — in the main campus.

It was also planned that the existing National Defence College (Delhi), College of Defence Management (Secunderabad), Defence Services Staff College (Wellington) and National Defence Academy (Khadakwasla) would be affiliated to it.

Not about India but on why US needs to revamp its policy making expertise:

https://tnsr.org/2019/09/to-regain-poli ... m-solving/

Some parts could apply to India as we see the Asian Century burst forth.

Watch the whole lecture if you can spare the time.

seeing the chalk and cheese difference between the world views of the previous dispensations and the Modi Govt's view, one wonders as to which drummer's tune were all the previous govts marching to and to mix metaphors inelegantly, who was paying the piper to call those tunes.

The earlier dispensations were dining off a fixed menu smorgasbord which undoubtedly contained a mongrelized fusion of cheese paired with diplomatic cuisines and spiced with culinary chicanery and would include primarily the appetizing nouvelle cuisine of US, the colonial UK and elements of non Indian tadka like the IWT, return of the 93K paki prisoners and unwarranted return of captured paki territory of immense strategic and tactical value, served up on a flaky bed of a eyetalian sourced pious pastry with a pungent chinese barbecue sauce with distinct economic undertones and with more than a hint of extraterritorial bouquet.

Modi seems more like an ala carte menu type of customer and won't mind mixing japanese, french, israeli and russian flavors as well.

Jaishankar's blunt response to Raja Mohan's question on whether a slowing economy + concerns about illiberalism are affecting India's brand abroad?

"My reputation is not decided by a newspaper in New York." (1:15:35)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ1WOEU2Sdo


Five months into his new role as Minister of External Affairs, S Jaishankar delivered the 4th Ramnath Goenka Memorial Lecture in New Delhi.

A series of article to study and clarify our thinking.

1) Forecasting and Scenarios:

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/ ... =196210235

2) Risks and Risk Analysis in Strategic Context :

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/ ... =196210233

3) Threat Analysis in Strategic Context

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/ ... =196210232

4) Political Forecasting and State Collapse:

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/ ... =196210237

5) Risk Involved in Military Interventions

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/ ... =196210234


Any volunteers to summarize these in a Infographs and create a template to quantify the risks and threats?

From American business world:

1) Three signs you are a strategic thinker:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/terinaalle ... 9078356921

2) Make Strategic Thinking part of your job:

https://hbr.org/2016/10/make-strategic- ... f-your-job

Full videos of IDSA workshop on Kautilya conducted in 2012. Still very relevant.


https://idsa.in/event/Kautilya

A.N.D Haksar is an amazing Sanskrit scholar.
Was in Washington Dc in the early 1980s

Manekshaw Papers:

Evolution of Strategic Culture Sun Tzu and Chanakya

Janapada Territory and its importance to Ancient India and now

Dabke and Belly Dance and Understanding Symbolic Culture of Violence in Syria

Thanks Ramana Sir,
The CLAWS papers are good read. Well timed due to work from home situation.

Subroto, Are you on Twitter?

No Ramana. Not yet.

https://bharatmimamsa.com/savarkar-on-f ... y-affairs/

Savarkar on Foreign and Security Affairs
by Sandesh Samant | May 28, 2020 |

Veer Savarkar is often discussed as one of the extremist leaders of Indian freedom struggle and the movement of nationalism in India. Much of the discussion revolves around his contribution in freedom struggle and the hardships that he faced in the British Indian Empire.  As the writer Vikram Sampath states that, “Revolutionary as a terminology is generally coupled with the Communists. But, Veer Savarkar was a revolutionary and he wasn’t a Communist.”

However, one of least discussed aspects of Savarkar’s life is his views on India’s foreign relations and security policies.  He was a pragmatist and his views of foreign policy were driven by his knowledge of the two World Wars and the world order during his time.  Savarkar had spent a good amount of time in the United Kingdom and had observed the political developments in Europe very closely. Although he was imprisoned at the Andaman during the course of the First World War, he was updated about the developments about it. Having studied various ideologies and behaviours of societies and civilisation, he was ahead of his time to analyse the course of future political processes.

Foreign policies are generally driven by ideologies of policy makers. Savarkar, however, did not believe in one particular ideology. His ideas were shaped by the experience of colonisation of India by the British. According to him India’s weaknesses were exploited by the British to colonise the county. Hence, he believed in the masculine superiority of state. He was definitely a staunch realist; but, he refused to believe in any one ‘ism’ to form the country’s foreign policy.  He stated, “We should never hate or love Fascists, Bolshevists or Democrats simply on the ground of any theoretical or bookish reasons. There was no reason to suppose that Hitler was a human monster because he passed as Nazi and Churchill was a demi-God because he called himself a democrat.”

In the contemporary world order and considering the formation of the United Nations and its impacts on the world affairs, Savarkar’s ideas stand the testimony of time.  It was also the reason he advised the policymakers to focus on heavy militarisation. He was strong proponent of India’s nuclear programme. Contrary to common belief, Savarkar wasn’t particularly against the idea of a ‘non-violent’ state; but, he was of the opinion that non-violence shouldn’t make the state weak which may invite crisis. He was influenced by the principles of Mahabharata and Ramayana where Krishna convinced Arjuna to render justice through violence and Ram too resorted to a war.

He’d anticipated the demand of Pakistan and also believed that a neighbouring state like Pakistan which stands on the pillars of religious fundamentalism, shall always pose danger to the security of India. Savarkar was accused of causing paranoia amongst Indians. However, he was proven correct immediately after the formation of Paksistan when it launched an attack on Kashmir and India was engulfed in a war after independence. In last seven decades India had to fight four major wars and innumerable proxy wars against Pakistan.

Savarkar opposed the idea of ‘self-determination’ on religious ground when Sindh was separated from Bombay presidency. He opined that the trend in future would result in the partition of land. Similarly, he insisted the migration of outsiders in the land must be controlled with strict measures. Today, when India is facing the crisis in its Eastern states due to illegal Bangladeshis, Savarkar is proven right yet again.

Similarly, he was a staunch supporter of the Jewish State of Israel. When Israel was established in 1948, India had refused to support the partition of Palestinian soil. Pt. Nehru was of the opinion that, “I confess that while I have a very great deal of sympathy for the Jews, I feel sympathy for the Arabs also…After all these remarkable achievements, why have they [the Jews] failed to gain the goodwill of the Arabs?” India didn’t establish formal relationship with Israel until 1992.  In 1956, in Hindu Mahasabha’s annual session at Jodhpur Savarkar said “…that tomorrow if there breaks out a war between Pakistan and Bharat, almost all the Muslim [states] will be arrayed on the side of Pakistan in opposition to us and their enemy Israel will be our only friend. Therefore, I say that Bharat should give an unequivocal recognition to Israel.” He viewed India-Israel ‘friendship’ from religious relations rather than geo-strategic cooperation. In the war of 1962 against China and in 1999 Kargil conflict – on both occasions, Israel stood by India and helped with decisive military equipment. Today, Israel happens to be one of the most important partners of India in anti-terrorism struggle.

Along with Pakistan and Israel, Savarkar was always vocal about his perspectives on China.  In 1950s, when India’s policy makers were celebrating ‘Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai’, Savarkar had criticised it. (Another important leader to criticise this policy was Dr. B. R. Ambedkar).  Savarkar had raised doubts about the intentions of China.  He expressed his fear that if China could annex Tibet in 1950; it was a matter of time that China would stake claim on Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh (then NEFA). His views were unconvincing and he was once again accused of causing panic in India. However, 1958 onwards, the relationship between India and China deteriorated and the rest is history.

Another important perspective that he had offered was about Nepal. Recongnising the importance of buffer states on India’s borders, Savarkar had special affection for Nepal.  He strongly believed that Nepal maintaining its official ‘Hindu’ identity will always be in India’s interest. Hence, he would often write letters to the King of Nepal over various issues.  In 2008, following the massacre in Royal Family, Nepal ceased to be a Hindu state followed by the Maoists forces overtaking Nepal’s politics. Thereafter, the relations between Nepal and India have faced a major setback. Currently, the Maoist influence on Nepal’s politics has resulted in Nepal altering its political map.

There are numerous issues – ranging from Goa to Kashmir and Andaman to Nagaland where Veer Savarkar had expressed his thoughts that were rejected by his contemporary. However, over a period of time, Savarkar’s views remain undefeated. It is the cycle of time that has proven him true in various issues again and again.  It is the need of our times to embrace Savarkar that transcends the clichés in our usual discourse.


Views expressed are of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official position of Mimamsa – An Indic Inquiry 

TWITTER
@sanjeevsanyal :

One signs of a self confident country, is that it's "intellectual" class is confident enough to comment on the rest of the world from its own perspective, and do so in even when it is not directly involved in any way

We are currently living in a time of major global shifts - a developing US-China Cold war, US race riots, Brexit etc. However, Indian columnists, writers etc will almost never take these up except as peripheral to some domestic issue

Where are the Indian writers pontificating on US race relations / police atrocities, HK constitutional position? They all talk about it in dinner parties but do not have confidence to join the debate. Moreover, they usually just parrot views of US or British intellectuals

This failure perpetuates a form of colonial Orientalism where we get dissected by the West but we can never dissect them. Instead, Indian publications bend backwards to publish obscure academics from the West to write on Indian issues, but never Indians to write on the West

Must add, that the one honourable exception to this is Wion TV channel. It reports on UK and US in the way BBC and CNN respectively report on India - i.e. with grave concern for the natives.

The asymmetry struck me when, just after I joined the govt, a foreign state-owned channel called me at 10pm to tell me to turn up for an interview on Indian economy next morning at 9am. The tone suggested that it was a favour being done by choosing me

I refused - and asked what would be the likely response if Doordarshan had similarly called up my equivalent in their home country. People treat us the way we allow them to treat us.
https://twitter.com/sanjeevsanyal/statu ... 41953?s=19

India has seldom had good systems of governance right through its history. In fact, while it is true, that Indian history has been hijacked by Islamists, Commies, Liars, Commies again and Hindu genocide deniers or even Hindu genocide proponents, even in those rare honest history books, there are still very few detailed accounts of what Core Principles and the foundations of a solidly "Sanatani" system of governance, which promoted Strategic Thought and Comprehensive well being of the People and Nation as a whole.

By a "system of governance", which promotes Strategic Thought and well being...", I mean, an interdependent , mutually (not just consistent), but mutually advancing set of principles governing 1) A clear narrative of who we are as a people and civilization, 2) A clear narrative of what we as a people hold sacred (meaning those core interests which are non negotiable and non compromisable, even at the cost of death or extinction), - can also be called the core interests and organizing principles around which our civilization was built and will continue to be built 3) A sound set of practical rules, albeit limited in number, which our system of governance will enforce and enforce strongly, including an efficient and yes, ruthless system of law and order and a system of justice which actually imparts justice, 4) A sound set of fundamentals which clearly and simply articulate the principles upon which a "Sanatani" economic system can be built, 5) A clear definition of external challenges that our civilization faces, and a concise but clear doctrine to meet those challenges through a robust military policy, military structure, military budget, military configuration, military doctrine etc, supported by an adjunct foreign policy, 6) A simple, yet clearly defined mechanism which ensures that any policy or set of policies, no matter how long they have been in place, do not become dogmas or orthodoxies, but are open to be changed and modernized as the challenges change and evolve.

Kautilya's Arthashastra comes to mind, as one of the few ancient Indian writings which attempt to address and arrive at a comprehensive set of principles, but having read it, in my personal view, it doesnt go far enough, in fully achieving the goals outlined by me in the previous paragraph.
This is not a criticism of Chanakya, but just a statement of fact, as Chanakya, never intended this treatise to articulate his "maximum" thoughts on "everything" in Arthashastra. He had chosen to expound only a subset of his thoughts in this particular book, and he may well have written other works which may have been lost - after all, even the Arthashastra was only re-discovered in the 20th century by accident, after centuries of being lost.

On the other hand, from all accounts, it can be gathered that Magadha, even before Chanakya, at least starting with the Hariyanka Dynasty down to the Nandas, did make a robust attempt, to look at things comprehensively and strategically, in all aspects - whether it be ideology, economy, defense, foreign policy, legal system, and system of governance. In fact, it can be argued that the Mauryans and Chanakya himself may have derived a lot of their thinking from those in Magadha who came before tem, particularly the sophisticated "doctrines", and "systems" put in place by the Nandas, who in turn may have built their model on top of previous Magadhan models.

Gradual decline in according importance to strategic thinking among Hindu dynasties, post Magadhan dynasties, due to conditions presumed to be beyond the control of subsequent dynasties, which may have necessitated all energies to be diverted to the tactical or immediate survival, may have been reasons, not excuses, for de-emphasizing strategic thought in Indian culture during early medieval period (1st thru 9th Century AD), which then manifested delayed disastrous results in the later medieval period, culminating in the defeat of Prithviraj in the 2nd battle of Tarain in 1192. With few exceptions since 1192, such as the Vijaynagar and other mainly South based empires, Rajputs, Sikhs and lastly the Marathas, who all made compromises of the "strategic" in favor of tactical, in varying degrees, Indian History has been disastrous, and none more disastrous than the period since 1947, in terms of the loss of strategic thought, strategic space and thereby, a precipitous decline in our civilizational and human values in Bharat. Today, we cannot be called a civilizational people - quite the opposite - our general population can be correctly characterized as "Vile" and "Uncouth", not as per some "Western yardstick" or "lens", but bench marked against our own heritage, thought and self image.

There do not seem to be any other North or South Indian texts, which have survived, which comprehensively deal with System of Governance and Economic Principles which were either desirable or in actual existence. There is a sprinkling of texts, although quite cryptic and perfunctory, on what prevailed by way of an economic and administrative systems under different dynasties.Even ancient Kashmiri Hindu texts which have survived, Rajatarangini, from Kalhan right down to Jonaraja, Srivara, Priyabhatta and Suka, are meant to be histories, which do not talk much about the comprehensive governing principles.

None of this is to say that there did not exist in the past(which may be lost), or that we cannot derive now, for the future, a Comprehensive Strategic thought, rooted in Sanatani culture, which will clearly and concisely articulate a core set of principles, which will define us as a people and a civilization, define our ideal economic system, ideal law and order and system of judiciary, ideal defense doctrine, and an ideal system of governance to advance the civilization.

Not only can such Comprehensive Principles be derived now for the future, but it is imperative, even critical for our survival as a people, as a nation, as a civilization that this be done, not in the future, not in the near future, not even now, but "yesterday".

These Comprehensive set of Principles ARE the Strategic Thought, WILL LEAD to a constant evolution of Strategic Thought and is the only way to ensure not just the survival of our civilization, but advancement of it. Today, we find ourselves on the precipice, where the slightest nudge will send us spiraling to the ash heaps of history, to the same place where the Babylonians, Egyptian Civilization, The Greeks, The Romans, The Mongols and so many others who have disappeared. The sliver of hope is that if we Define our Comprehensive set of principles, even at this late stage, and coalesce around them, in enough numbers, as people, we may have a chance not just of survival, but of re-attaining true greatness.

I would like to invite, in this thread a robust and vibrant discussion on arriving at these "Comprehensive Principles", the meaning of which I have articulated in the 2nd paragraph of this post.

While I am not revealing, my own conclusions(which I have not cast in stone, as I am always open to learning) about the ideal "System of Governance" that we should have, consistent with our heritage and to meet the challenges of today and the future, which I have arrived at, after years of thought, and arriving at the "Comprehensive Principles" for India, I would be happy to reveal my conclusions, and work our way back from the conclusions, if general consensus on this thread is such.

I will, however, give a clue into my thinking. The System of Governance, that we have had, since 1947, is an outcome of an insidious Sellout and Collaboration between the British Colonialists and the Gandhian wing of the Indian National Congress, combined with the collusion of large segments of Indian populace, which had by that time, lost all sense of the Strategic in favor of the not even tactical, but the banal, in the name of "tactical". While this large section of the populace which went along with the Gandhian sellout of India to the British, post "independence", was not the majority, it was in sufficient plurality, to throw the rest of India under the bus.

Therefore, the System which was put in place on the foundations of treachery on part of the Gandhi faction and extermination of the goodness, in the form of Subhash and his ideas, by definition was necessarily doomed to disaster, if you simply apply the basic principles of cause and effect. The majority Hindus should have seen the proof of this pudding in 1948, if they did not see it in 1946 or 1947. They should have seen this proof of the pudding on Jan 26 1950, if not earlier when events lead to Jan 26 1950. They should have seen the proof of the pudding in 1950-51 (Chinese Take over of Tibet, smilingly approved by Nehru), if they did not see it earlier. They should have seen the proof of the pudding in 1954, when 35A was secretly and insidiously made a part of the Constitution, if they did not see it earlier. They should have seen it every year in the 1950s, as the Gandhian, Nehru charted a sure course of destruction of India, through economic, political, social, foreign and defense policies well beyond what Gandhi himself could have imagined. They should have seen the proof of pudding in 1962 and every year since then. Today, in the year 2020, we should see the proof of the pudding, if we have not seen it already.

As bad as the Islamists were, and yes, there was a shrinkage of Indian Civilizational space because of them, most notably, Indonesia and Afghanistan, but also parts of Central Asia and the Malay Peninsula, over centuries of Islamic rule and expansion, the amount of shrinkage of the physical space in the heartland of Indian civilization under the collaborator regime of British?Gandhi during last 70 years, has been far greater. If you consider Pakistan, East and West, Aksai Chin, Gilgit Baltistan, Baluchistan, POK and areas of Laddakh lost, not to mention Tibet, it is heart wrenching, unprecedented and criminal. The territory loss over the last 70 years alone, has been like pulling out the heart of a civilization. Now add to this, the fact that we have on our frontiers, a slimy slithering and soulless enemy, nuclear armed to the teeth, sharing a border with us, for the first time, in History and it is a long History (China), and a nuclear armed virulently Jihadi state, all a result of the Gandhi Collaborator regime over the past 70 years.

The System of Governance put in place as a result of the "Original Sellout", which is so dishonestly called, a "Constitutional Democracy", and a so called, "Socialist Secular Republic", is none of those things. The System of Governance in place is not "Constitutional", not a "Democracy", nor is it "Socialist", nor "Secular" and it certainly is not remotely a Republic. At this point, it is a separate argument, whether, even if it were a genuine Constitutional Democracy and a genuine Socialist Secular Republic", it would be desirous to have. But it is quite evident, that any intellectually honest individual would unconditionally grant, that India of today, does not have even any perceived or claimed or imaginary or proganded benefits of "Socialism", "Secularism", "Democracy", "Constitutionality" or a "Republic".

My own view is, and without revealing my hand on what the ideal system of governance for us should be (I would like that to evolve via a discussion here), that the system which was built by way of treachery in 1947 and subsequently, our general population failed to change, was further hijacked by the Gandhian/Nehruvian using the phrases, slogans and terms, such as "Democracy", "Secularism", "Socialism", "Repbublic" and worst of all, "Constitutional", while this system was not even remotely connected with any of these concepts (whether these concepts in their own right are desirable or not, is another matter). The System of Governance since 1947, in actuality, was, in my view, and continues to be, a Classic Tyrannical Kleptocracy, ruled by a a bunch of MAfia families or organizations, masquerading as political parties, whose primary purpose is to "loot", "grab", "thuggary" and perpetuate their own power, while consistently, continuously, and relentlessly oppressing the people of India, selling out the people of India to its enemies, within and without, lying to its people, and stripping them of their dignity.

There is more, and worst. The worst thing that this Mafia operated Kleptocracy has done over the past 70 years is not even what I have mentioned above. The very worst, absolute worst thing is not even the loss of territory or loss or economy, loss of potential, or enemy states on our border. The worst thing is, that this Gandhian Collaboration Kleptocracy has CORRUPTED the general population, by taking away their legitimate means of livelihood, taking away the "merit" from the economy and the system, devaluing merit and promoting criminality thereby in essence perverting the value system and closing the space for an honest man to operate. This has resulted in every one, even the most honesty inclined amongst us to break the law to survive, compromise our integrity just to be able to live. This Kleptocracy has made a criminal out of a common man. Now the common man is so CORRRUPT in India, that even the relatively honest, defends corruption and sees nothing wrong with it.

Will such a Corrupt people ever rise ? Is not their ability to rise up again, been completely operated or mutated or radiated out of their DNA ? I dont know, if there is still a few of us remaining, who have even slight or mild traces of Pride and Self Respect left in our genes. If at least some of us do, let us rise, rebuild, and start by creating and articulating a Comprehensive Narrative and a Comprehensive Set of Principles, to chart a course for our comeback.

SRoy wrote:No Ramana. Not yet.

So on Twitter, I followed someone with your name. The fellow was very rude and sent me DM to not follow him even after I explained who I thought it was! FC!!!

Non expansionist strategic culture

https://usiofindia.org/publication/usi- ... c-culture/

Am looking at any stuidies on Vidura as Hastinapura Mantri.
How was his governance?
His information system?
Advisory role to the King?

I have a copy of Vidurneeti but its his teachings.
What we want is his practice.

Admin, moderators please delete this or let me know to delete this if it is appropriate.

Folks, I have been attending HUA (Hindu University of America) an online University. One reason I have been very busy and absent in some of the BRF gufas on Social Media.

https://www.hua.edu/

It is a fledgling still, and trying to grow. It has managed to pull in some very good professors like Vishwa Adului, Kundan Singh, Joydeep Bagchee teaching some of the Textual Criticisms, Historical Methods, Post Colonial Studies etc etc. There are some great Yoga and Sanskrit classes as well.

It is not a run of the mill U getting your money; you put in your effort you will get some good knowledge out of the system. You can check out more here: https://www.hua.edu/academics/areas-of-study/

thanks...

From SwamyG's Link

Course Code: CPS 5505
Credit Hours: 3
Course Level: 500
Description
Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra, written around 300 BC, is a text on statecraft, a book of political realism. It deals with various topics including war and diplomacy, how a king can retain his kingdom and become a conqueror, how to make allies and know the enemies, and how to make treaties. It focuses on elements, what can be termed in modern usage diplomacy, such as the doctrine of a silent war, propaganda, secret agents, how to use women as weapons of war, and how to use religion and superstition to advantage. According to Kautilya, “power is (possession of) strength” and “strength changes the mind.” More importantly, Kautilya emphasized power to control not only outward behavior but also the thoughts of one’s subjects and enemies. According to him, “one possessed of personal qualities, though ruling over a small territory … conversant with (the science of) politics, does conquer the entire earth, never loses.” Kautilya is the founder of Mandala Theory of foreign policy, which can be termed as a precursor of the theories of political realism and balance of power. Kautilya favored righteous war than greedy and demoniacal wars. The course will delve into various elements of this insightful text and juxtapose the main ideas in the text with similar theories and approaches in the modern world. The students will be able to draw parallels between the core ideas embedded in this ancient text with many modern ideas.

In this course the students will be able to:

Identify how this ancient text could be considered a precursor to the modern theory of Realism in international relations.
Delve into various elements such as Mandala theory in this insightful text and juxtapose the main ideas in the text with similar theories and approaches.
Explore the significance of this ancient text to address problems in the modern world.
Area of Study: Conflict and Peace Studies

Elective/Required: Elective

Prerequisites: Admission into a Program of Study

Instructor: Dr. Debidatta. A. Mahapatra

pankajs wrote:

KS wrote:Thus the real question about the future world order is whether it is to be democratic and pluralistic, or dominated by one-party oligarchies that prioritise social harmony over individual rights. If the US remains the world’s predominant power, and China is second, India will be the swing power. It will therefore have three options: partnering with the US and other pluralistic, secular and democratic countries; joining hands with China at the risk of betraying the values of its Constitution and freedom struggle; and remaining both politically and ideologically non-aligned, even if against its own ideals. Many Indians worry about an unequal partnership with the US because they do not appreciate the full potential of India as a knowledge power. In the years ahead, the US will require a reservoir of skilled manpower, and India will require green energy and agricultural technology to grow faster. The emerging Indo-US partnership is not about containing China. It is about defending Indian values from the challenges of both one-party rule and jehadism, and realising a future in which poverty and illiteracy are alleviated.

ramana wrote:Here KS garu is not recognising that the one world governing system that US aspires for is not compatible with the traditonal balance of power system he sees.

What if the US and PRC are really a duopoly or the two faces of the dominant system: one with capital and the other for manufactured goods. The introduction of China without controls into world markets has destroyed mfg capacity world wide. Secondly he sees these powers as being eminent for ever. We know that the baby boomer generation in US and the one child policy of China will cause dempgraphic changes in the middle of this century around 2050. And to add to this mix by 2030, the population in India with IQ >110 will be 230Million that is about the size of current US population. Such being the case India should let these duopoly collapse on its own contradictions like the two headed bird in Sindbad's travels.

If what you suggest is true saar, it is imperative that the US and PRC not be allowed to join forces against India. So the choice cannot be 'remaining both politically and ideologically non-aligned'. Of the remaining 2 choices outlined by KS garu, the one advocated by him becomes the natural choice.

If the demographics ultimately overtake both, so much the better. Till such times we will be better off partnering with the US which is on the decline but can still offer us much more than the Chinese.

Since 2017, that is what NaMo diplomacy with Donald Trump offered India.
The old G2 model declared by Bill Clinton was being slowly taken apart.

So now we understand the stakes in US election?

Very deep thoughts. If NaMo could indeed get this across to Trump, hats off to him.

Did NaMo offer the other side of the argument to Xi in Mahabalipuram and it didn't work out? Would that explain Chini aggression in Ladhak?