Bharat Rakshak

X Post from TSP Thread

TSP is going to ask for more P3Cs to replace those lost in acts as terror because it is a partner in the WOT.
wwww.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=6214&Cat=13&dt=5/24/2011

x-post from Pak thread.

It is not necessarily a major point that Chinese and American personnel were found in close proximity given the nature in which PAF bases (both Faisal and Masroor) are used regularly for. I am sure that shipments for Nato are flown from this airbase as well as to Chinese facilities elsewhere in Pakistan.

What this means is nothing more than yet another confirmation that PRC-US-Chinese nexus is alive and well, despite the hiccups that come its way, at least as of right, now. We have just more visible proof now from Mehran. Possibly the same happens elsewhere too.

If the Orions were indeed being retrofitted in a joint project, that can be considered possible even without the information that we recently got. In fact I would go on to claim that this is possibly just the tip of iceberg in terms of places where possibly, joint work is being carried out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/world ... ijing.html

Pakistan and China: Two Friends Hit a Bump

This is officially the Year of Pakistan-China Friendship, and in a four-day visit to Beijing last week — the third in just 17 months — Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, proclaimed that the two best friends “are like one nation and two countries.” Chinese officials were reported to have presented Mr. Gilani with 50 fighter jets as a welcome gift.

So it raised eyebrows when this week the two nations politely disagreed over whether Mr. Gilani had given the Chinese a gift that would be hard to mislay: an entire naval base, right at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

Pakistan’s defense minister, Ahmad Mukhtar, who accompanied Mr. Gilani on the state visit, announced the deal after Mr. Gilani returned home on Saturday.

“We have asked our Chinese brothers to please build a naval base at Gwadar,” a deepwater port on Pakistan’s southwest coast, he told journalists.

Moreover, he said, Pakistan had invited China to assume management of the port’s commercial operations, now run by a Singapore firm under a multidecade contract.

On Tuesday, however, China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Jiang Yu, disagreed, saying the port had neither been offered nor accepted.

“China and Pakistan are friendly neighbors,” she said at the ministry’s twice-weekly news conference. “Regarding the specific China-Pakistan cooperative project that you raised, I have not heard of it. It’s my understanding that during the visit last week this issue was not touched upon.”

Some analysts were at a loss to explain the discrepancy.

“Maybe there were some discussions between the two sides when Gilani was up in China last week, bearing on some kind of future Chinese stewardship of the port,” said Michael Kugelman, a South Asia scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, in a telephone interview. “Maybe there was some speculative discussion. Perhaps the Defense Ministry simply got its signals wrong.”

“We’re seeing a lot of incompetence in the Pakistani government these days,” he added.

Others, however, saw Mr. Mukhtar’s announcement as a pointed, if graceless, effort to send a message to the United States that Pakistan had other options should its foundering relationship with Washington prove beyond repair. Ties between the two nations, never very warm, have been icy since American commandos killed Osama bin Laden in a raid inside Pakistan that went undetected by the nation’s military and intelligence establishments.

Pakistan has an interest in sustaining ties with the United States, which has given the nation billions of dollars in economic and military aid in return for Islamabad’s help in combating terrorism.

But China has long been its closest major ally, with political, economic and military ties that extend to the founding of the People’s Republic of China more than 60 years ago.

China regards Pakistan as a strategic bulwark against its longstanding rival, India, and it needs Pakistan’s help to combat Islamic separatists in the Xinjiang region, which abuts Pakistan’s northern border.

Indeed, China contributed much of the millions of dollars that have been spent to build Gwadar, the only port in Pakistan big enough to handle the largest cargo ships.

Some analysts say China stands to gain from the rift between Pakistan and the United States. In an editorial this month, Global Times, a major Communist Party newspaper, took pains to praise Pakistan’s commitment to the fight against terrorism and to note that China had been an unswerving friend.

That was an unspoken gibe at the United States, which many Pakistanis fear will abandon them once the war in Afghanistan winds down.

I am waiting for China's trusted friend Pakis to back stab them in Xinjiang just like they did with US.....then, Chinese can rue how much they regret being "one nation and two countries."

I have never seen high level officials make such desperate sounding statements as those emanating from Gilani's mouth to China.

I mean he sounds like a hapless lovestruck teenager trying very hard to get into China's pants. You'd expect at least a little decorum from a nation's leaders. I don't even mean this as a joke, although it is hilarious, it's also quite sad.

UBanerjee wrote:I have never seen high level officials make such desperate sounding statements as those emanating from Gilani's mouth to China.

I mean he sounds like a hapless lovestruck teenager trying very hard to get into China's pants. You'd expect at least a little decorum from a nation's leaders. I don't even mean this as a joke, although it is hilarious, it's also quite sad.

Lot of these report could be made up
This more of a image creation to humiliate Pak or even China!

--------
This is a US - PRC tango on client state Pak

Pakistan is still strategic partner:Hillary
Pakistan Observer - ‎2 hours ago‎
Paris—US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton s on Thursday said that Pakistan is a key ally in the war against terrorism and the United States wants close cooperation with Islamabad for long term. Clinton told reporters in Paris on the sidelines of a

^ well I am talking about public statements by Gilani. Presumably he knows how to correct people when humiliating quotes are falsely attributed to him.

UBanerjee wrote:^ well I am talking about public statements by Gilani. Presumably he knows how to correct people when humiliating quotes are falsely attributed to him.

I have noticed that Pakistani "officials" operate on two levels - or - more accurately speak with two tongues. Very often the statement that appears in the Pakistani media is one that is designed to appear to maintain the honor, dignity and independence of Pakistan in the eyes of mango paki and is frequently an out and out lie.

One of the downsides of following the Pakistani media so closely on this thread is that we read and digest the lies first and even dhoti shiver a bit before we heave a sigh of relief. Yes, it is "sort of sad" but on another plane is it typical. Gilani is very much establishment and these guys need to be lynched. By talking crap like this he avoids that lynching.

India compliments US for 26/11 trial
http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstyp ... sid=241190

Thru this trial US has helped in many ways to expose the ISI and its terror motives against India. US has done a good and great job in this regard.

Chidambaram compliments Roemer for promoting Indo-US counter-terrorism cooperation
http://www.dailyindia.com/show/441954.php


Is there a possibility of India and US working together in eliminating any terror camps in Pakistan? If Pakistan colloborates it will be great as well. Grounding terror altogether in Asia.

joshvajohn wrote:
Is there a possibility of India and US working together in eliminating any terror camps in Pakistan? If Pakistan colloborates it will be great as well. Grounding terror altogether in Asia.

The problem to me does not appear to be lack of intent to cooperate between India and the US. It is Pakistan's collaboration that will not come.

I say " will not come" which is a judgement - but unless one bothers too look at the internal structure of Pakistani society and its development over time, one will never be able to see why Pakistan will not cooperate. Pakistan was created and celebrated and given status as a Muslim country for Muslims. It was taken for granted that Muslims would have issues with non Muslims so it was OK for them to have a separate nation and OK for them to have conflicts with any nearby non Muslims. This feeling was accentuated in the cold war in Afghanistan when the Muslim identity of Pakistan was used to oppose non Muslims (communist) ideologies in Afghanistan.

Pakistanis found the UN and the world community supporting the cause of Muslims fighting wars against the Soviet Union. The US and the western world went so far as to declare the conflict with India as a "freedom struggle". In other words Muslim hitting non Muslim was recognised as fine and dandy. Pakistanis started thinking that it was their birthright to oppose all non Muslims at all times and be supported in that effort. Clearly terrorism does not fall into that category. But Pakistanis have not figured out that "terrorism" can also be Muslim hitting non Muslim. Pakistanis see terrorism as non Muslim hitting Muslim, or an event when Muslims are killed. When Muslims kill non Muslims it cannot be terrorism. It is always a struggle for justice (Palestine), Freedom (Kashmir) or a struggle against dark forces like communism (Cold war in Afghanistan)

Pakistanis have yet to figure out that non Muslims do not necessarily like being killed by pious Muslim Pakistanis. Pakistani are singularly blind to Muslim killing Muslim because they have been taught to think that if a Muslim is killed, the killer cannot be a Muslim, or if people like Shias or Ahmedis are killed they are non Muslims anyway.

Pakistan is not just a basket case. It is the world's biggest psychiatric case. And I'm not joking. Even if that entire country is forced to behave at gunpoint the population will need massive re education and re orientation.

^^^
Shiv ji, very astute post. few days ago, I had this thought, and now I'll post it. hopefully I won't get flamed.

Pakistan represents the most extreme version of India's deracination. the British agenda of brainwashing through education and covert help to aberrant ideologies paid most dividends in Western India. Pakistan's psyche should be researched much more deeply. because, this is what British hoped would happen to all of India, and not just a part of it.

devesh wrote: Pakistan's psyche should be researched much more deeply

One thing we must be wary about is that such research would be breaking new ground and would not necessarily match existing knowledge because I doubt if even the Brits knew exactly what they were doing. That means that there may not be many obvious parallels you can draw from, and there will always be many vehement opponents to anything that is new and unfamiliar. Scientists, historians, sociologists and psychologists too can suffer from cognitive dissonance and cognitive bias.

But that should not stop us from breaking new ground and boldly saying stuff that will be bitterly disputed.

Two Nation theory has led to Two Tongue actuality in Pakistan. That is their Psyche.

devesh wrote:^^^
Shiv ji, very astute post. few days ago, I had this thought, and now I'll post it. hopefully I won't get flamed.

Pakistan represents the most extreme version of India's deracination. the British agenda of brainwashing through education and covert help to aberrant ideologies paid most dividends in Western India. Pakistan's psyche should be researched much more deeply. because, this is what British hoped would happen to all of India, and not just a part of it.

This imputes far too much power to the British. There is a small element of this, but remember that Muslims in India have always envisioned themselves a people apart, superior, and deserving of rule. It was this fundamental aspect of the Islamic psyche that the British used to divide the nation. Islam had already deracinated these people. Islam placed the locus of their identity externally, made them identify with those who raped and pillaged their ancestral populations, and when Pakistanis proudly announce their Turkic or Persian or Arab 'martial' ancestry and make a stupendous effort to throw Arab and Persian words into everything, they are just following in this vein of thought.

The British found it useful to accentuate and stir up the Paki desperation to avoid all things SDRE. These elites were used to comfortably ruling over the dark, weak Hindu and when they were in danger of losing this all these trends only got sharpened.

Think of the kind of people that founded Pakistan. In what way would they ever be satisfied with a continued subordination to the hated kufr Hindu? At the very least they would have completely separate electorates, advanced implementation of Shar'ia governance, and so on. Think of how much the existing body politic in India caters to the Muslim 'special needs'. Now multiply that population by 3 and add Pakistaniyat to it.

The fact that Pakistan proudly names missiles after Ghauri and company tells you all you need to know about the deracination Islam imposes wherever it goes, similar to what happened in Iran. Those who remained in India were those of the Muslim population who had not descended to this level and who were willing or forced to co-exist.

^^^
agreed, the deracination of Pakistan is not just a result of British. Islam had already done a wonderful job of it by imposing its Arab-centrism. the British carefully observed these tendencies and then sharpened them will full blessings. I don't think for one second that Pakistan, with its present boundaries and population, would have existed if not for the British help. Islam's imposed attitudes were already loosening in Sindh and Balochistan 70-80 years ago. there are records of Sindhi Muslim leaders being very interested in the RSS movement and interacting with RSS top guys, without exhibiting any TFTA tendencies. the real problem were the Maulvis and elites, just like in Punjab. the mango Abdul in Sindh was quite alright with live-and-let-live attitude. the elites not only financed assassinations of Hindu spiritual leaders but even arranged for regular doses of killings in Hindu areas hoping for retaliation by Hindus.

Islam's hold on the psycle of certain portions of Pakistan was waning even after British did everything they could to augment it!!!! we should have not allowed Sindh and Baloch to be taken over by Pakjabis. that was the greatest blunder that India made in the past 200 years. China was setting an example and our Anglophile elite didn't bother to look in that direction....

devesh wrote: China was setting an example and our Anglophile elite didn't bother to look in that direction....

All OT for this thread. 20/20 hindsight is always great but the "elite" of India in 1947 were a very very small group. Not like it is now.

A large number were Royalty who were often eating out of Brit hands. A smaller number were patriots whose thinking was deeply affected by their Macaulayite education. In their own ways they tried to do good - without realising that they too carried with them a biased mindset. Whether anyone likes it or not there is fairly deep psychology here because it is about the way we see and feel the world. On the other forum there was some discussion of lack of self esteem among Indians - which occurs even today. That lack of self esteem harks back to days when anything Indian - especially anything Hindu was decried as totally useless.

I generally object to the blind smearing of any class because it closes our eyes to other possibilities where there may be a fundamental bias in the way we as individuals look at things. The debate in another thread about the role of accents and "embarrassment" at an Indian accent and "Others laugh / smirk at Indian accents" (external validation) is very telling about the way Indians see other Indians. Many of our judgements are colored by subjective biases.

Sorry OT. I will continue elsewhere if need be.

A whole bunch of posts on this topic in the TSP news thread....

"rohitvats"

Acharya wrote:

rohitvats wrote:To me, it seems that TSPA is seriously worried about something. Something they feel India is going to do in medium term or being able to do in medium term - over next 5 years.

The biggest fear of the PA is the joint ops by India and US army to go after Pak assets
They are asking for a third party guarantee

Possible, entirely possible.

In my opinion, in the short to medium term, TSPA is and will remain capable of holding IA at least to standstill (read: less than dramatic gains for IA) in a short conflict - during which the might of the IA might not come into picture completely. Apart from quick mobilization, this is another aspect which CSD tries to address - to create assymetry between attacking-defending forces from the word go. And TSPA has taken measures to address this.

IMO, the next 5-year defence plan (2012-2017) and the one after that, will change the face of Services in India. Next 5-year plan will see increment in the capability of the Services and more rounding off in terms of overall capability. The Services will set into their planned objective (in terms of strength and equipment profile) in the 2018-2022 plan period. So, it is no surprise that Kiyani said (last year?) that he expects IA to be in positiong to execute CSD in all its glory over next 5years.

However, the urgency for getting PLA involved in POK/NA and now this brigade level exercise points to some other urgency. What one needs to understand that brigade level exercise are generally done between armies expected to fight together. After all, if the whole idea for PLA was to learn about engineering aspects of mechanized in marshy areas, they could well have sent in a Squadron/Field Company worth of their Engineers. Why send in a whole Brigade? And if there is a Brigade, it sure will have mechanized elements comprising of tanks and APC plus support elements.

As I said earlier, something more sinister than anti-India posturing is involved here. Chinese don't show there hand so openly unless, the time has come.

From our POV, if nothign else, it will push the GOI/MOD to expedite the procurement process after the dragon has bared its fangs.

A brigade size Chinese contingent in Pakistan will need to have a suitable logistics chain. "Power projection" is always about logistics. China, like India, is practising its power projection capability. A year or so ago China had a PLAAF exercise with long range flights into one of the Central Asian States - it was all about a long range foray to combat a terrorist group.

My guess about China is that the Chinese may want to operate in Pakistan for the same reasons and the Pakis have accepted that because it will send a "Allah is helping us" signal to the Pakis.

I get the feeling that China dos not get to exercise much with some of the more serious armed forces of the world - so Pakis will have to do. It is ironic that the Paki army now looks like th US army - having just received a lot of stuff from the US. India will kick Chinese butt in Pakistan if need be. The India armed forces are not training to fight a particular ethnic group but anyone who stands against them.

>>The biggest fear of the PA is the joint ops by India and US army to go after Pak assets
>>They are asking for a third party guarantee

Very likely. Plus they will use the excuse that their troops are on the western border as an additional justification.

Shiv, Expect more Lal Masjid type parlor raids leading to further chaos in TSP.

PLA troops will have their own tail or create new tails.

X-Post...

Y I Patel wrote:Regarding the Chinese brigade on India's western front.

Awesome news.

Someone had posted Pak Orbat for operations in Tribal Areas. Looks like PA is seriously milking their India-focussed ARN and ARS of sub-units. Their strategy is to keep the Div headquarters on the western front, and just move sub-units out. This creates the impression that Aaal is Well on Eastern Front, when in reality the cupboard is getting depleted. They were operating on the assumption that they will move the sub-units temporarily, but now it seems to be sinking in that the deployed units will need to be there long term just to save Pak's backdoor. And given that these precious units will be actively engaged on Pak western front, they will not be available for redeployment in a reasonable timeframe, should the need arise.

Ironically none of this matters, because India is not going to attack to take advantage of Pakistan's defenselessness from Siachen to Sir Creek. But how can one justify the existance of PA itself, if it is not on permanent alert against Enemy #1? Realize that last year, with the floods cutting of huge parts of Northern Areas, PoK was defenseless against evil Hindus. So Lizard has to come in to "protect" NA, and now again, to "protect" the entire eastern front - all against an enemy that has minimal inclination to rouse itself even against serious and real provocation.

As for the Chinese, they are reducing India's two front problem to a one front problem (albeit a really long one front). And they are exposing themselves to India's real might - never in my wildest dreams had I envisioned that Lizard would be at the tender mercies of the Kharga, Chakra, Chetak, et al. But here they are. Talk about real strategic stupidity.

Not to mention those corps are in their area of operations!

rohitvats wrote:To me, it seems that TSPA is seriously worried about something. Something they feel India is going to do in medium term or being able to do in medium term - over next 5 years.


The biggest fear of the PA is the joint ops by India and US army to go after Pak assets
They are asking for a third party guarantee

Possible, entirely possible.

In my opinion, in the short to medium term, TSPA is and will remain capable of holding IA at least to standstill (read: less than dramatic gains for IA) in a short conflict - during which the might of the IA might not come into picture completely. Apart from quick mobilization, this is another aspect which CSD tries to address - to create assymetry between attacking-defending forces from the word go. And TSPA has taken measures to address this.

IMO, the next 5-year defence plan (2012-2017) and the one after that, will change the face of Services in India. Next 5-year plan will see increment in the capability of the Services and more rounding off in terms of overall capability. The Services will set into their planned objective (in terms of strength and equipment profile) in the 2018-2022 plan period. So, it is no surprise that Kiyani said (last year?) that he expects IA to be in positiong to execute CSD in all its glory over next 5years.

However, the urgency for getting PLA involved in POK/NA and now this brigade level exercise points to some other urgency. What one needs to understand that brigade level exercise are generally done between armies expected to fight together. After all, if the whole idea for PLA was to learn about engineering aspects of mechanized in marshy areas, they could well have sent in a Squadron/Field Company worth of their Engineers. Why send in a whole Brigade? And if there is a Brigade, it sure will have mechanized elements comprising of tanks and APC plus support elements.

As I said earlier, something more sinister than anti-India posturing is involved here. Chinese don't show there hand so openly unless, the time has come.

Another thing to remember is what Obama discussed with China. It was the south asia region for China

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... ate-change

Obama's reference to China's role in South Asia during the joint ''question-less'' presser was not part of the mainstream discussion in Washington DC, but South Asia experts who noted it differed on its significance. ''This is most unhelpful and counterproductive. It will cast a shadow over PM Singh's visit,'' said Ashley Tellis, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

http://the-diplomat.com/2011/07/26/obam ... ncing-act/

People were laughing at this.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... -s-comment

The Indian media, indeed the government, is upset that the US president has roped in, or at least tried to rope in China to ensure there is peace in the region, read, between India and Pakistan.

How dare the president of a nation that should be closer to us than others in the region have the temerity to suggest something as preposterous as that? Does he not know of the current war of words between India and China over Arunachal Pradesh, the Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh, Chinese-made laptops showing portions of India as under Pakistan, and so on?

India is the football between China and US. Does India want ot be player or be the football.
That is the question which Indians should answer.
http://southasianidea.com/foreign-polic ... and-india/

shiv,

I really wanted to respond to you in the TSP thread, but then this thread caught my eye. I went through the first few pages and got the gist of your exchange with somnath. Please excuse me for being a Late Latif, but I felt somnath was saying a lot of things I wanted to say, and I wanted to add my two bits - even if some of this is stuff you have heard from your other connections here in US.

If I understand correctly, you want US to stop aiding PA. You mentioned in the other thread that you feel US policy in Pakistan has been foolish and counterproductive. And worst of all, it hurts India and forecloses Indian options.

Again, I am trying to summarize not your whole message, which is chock full of well articulated insigths, but nust the parts I would take issue with. And I am addressing you because I regard your opinions with respect and see them reflected in some of the actions actually taken by India. What follows, read as a response from a friendly American.

The nub here is that you, like everyone else, want something from US. In your case, you just want US to stop doing something, but that still counts for something you want. One privilege of being a superpower is that everyone wants something from you - some want arms, some political recognition, some visas for work in Silicon Valley... those are "positive" requests. Then there are "negative" ones too, like the one you just mentioned - and some extreme examples would be, say, Iran wanting US to stop sabotaging Iran's peaceful new clear weapons program. Well, sure. US entertains all requests. You want it? We'll talk. Just show me some skin, baby.

So you were saying? Oh yes. Stop supporting Pak Army and get the hell out of Pak so that India can clean it up? Why, we want to clean it up too. Trouble is, we also want to influence in Pak because we have other vital interests in the region. Sure, it's a royal pain. But then, so were our allies the Soviets, who took over half of Oirope and wouldnt give it back. Our buddy PA helped us to get those Reds out of Afghanistan. Sure, they have been bitching about it since then, but were mighty useful in gettin ole OBL! But you know what, you are right. Pakis are real a$$holes. They hid OBL while pretending to help us, and now we are really mad. We don't have money right now or we would stay there for the next 50 years and $crew them right over. But hey, you think you can help us? Sure would be nice showing them who the real boss is in South Asia!

No? You are pissed at us and don't want anything to do with us? Why, that really hurt. Okay, we'll still be buddies and work on those chinkus. But meanwhile, I have a few friends who might help me form an Independent Republic of Baluchistan. Real straight shooters, those Balochs. Would hate it if anyone came around givin them ideas. Okay, gotta run! See you in Davos!

--


Again, you have probably heard this before, if not in those words. The thing is, India comes across as being sanctimonious and even hypocritical. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree to it or not, America will continue to be involved in the whole area. India cannot dictate to USA. But if India works with USA, USA can be a very generous partner. And I am not being a snake oil salesman. Just look at the record from US eyes.

Y I Patel wrote: The nub here is that you, like everyone else, want something from US.

This equation will change rapidly when we start giving negative feedback to US. The problem is that we have never created disincentives for you. Once we shed our benevolence, you will see the light. So you are right: The problem lies in India.

Y I Patel wrote:The thing is, India comes across as being sanctimonious and even hypocritical.

Americans should stop using the word 'hypocrisy'. Please look in the mirror.

excuse me, India comes across as hypocritical ?

Abhishek,

India is way too smart to think like you - even in its most anti-US days, India has never tried to be a problem for the US. Some other countries, a lot more powerful than India, tried to be a problem for the US. The US made foolish bargains with the enemies of those powerful countries, and now those countries are not so powerful any more.

Does India have enemies? Will they be willing to be friends with US to screw India? Can US do more to encourage them to screw India even more, if it wants to do so?

You can argue that if I am speaking as an American, then I have no right to call any other country hypocritical because of what America had done, keeps doing, and will keep doing. However, it is not as counterproductive to America's interests in being called hypocritical, as it is to India's interests. Just trying to be blunt here.

Rahul, I used harsh words, but yes. It has, some times in the past. Let me respectfully say that I am really disinclined to go down that rabbit hole so that I can focus my time on my main message.

Y I Patel wrote:Abhishek,
India is way too smart to think like you - even in its most anti-US days, India has never tried to be a problem for the US.
Some other countries, a lot more powerful than India, tried to be a problem for the US. The US made foolish bargains with the enemies of those powerful countries, and now those countries are not so powerful any more.

Not always. Actually US pays billions of dollars to protect itself from those disincentives. It is called "counter terrorism support". Look at the countries in West Asia.

The US made foolish bargains with the enemies of those powerful countries, and now those countries are not so powerful any more.

For example, look at China. It is not powerful any more. It is also America's friend.

Wake up!

Yogi I want you to ask your questions and hope you find the answers here. Everyone has to go on asking a hundred questions and go thru the pain and emerge with answers. Some of us have done it and others havent yet figured out they have questions.

From this ordeal you will emerge more knowledgeable and stronger in the idea of India.

To really seek you need an open mind like a child.

As the TV serial says "Uthista Bharata!"

Y I Patel wrote: In your case, you just want US to stop doing something, but that still counts for something you want.

We are not asking for anything now. You should ignore our requests. As long as people like Faizal Shahzad exist, you will automatically do what we want. When 30 SEALs blow up in Afghanistan, I guess you will stop following the advice of Brzezinski and his disciples.

Good luck!

it's not as much the harshness of the comment but the hypocrisy of calling India's position hypocritical from a US viewpoint.
US has actively acted against Indian interests and continues to do so at a lower intensity. how calling that out is hypocrisy I fail to understand.

we are always lectured how India should look at everything from US viewpoint and not hurt unkil's interests. only poodles can be expected to do so, to them their interests coincide with their master's interests. under no circumstances is India interested in a poodle relationship, irrespective of whatever generous pampering unkil sam showers on its poodles.
this is the harsh truth unpalatable to some.

the ball is firmly in US court, the only way the relationship will go forward is for US to understand that India has interests of its own which do not coincide and sometimes clash with US interests. and that compromises on the part of US would be necessary to move forward. if US continues to harbour unrealistic expectations of unilateral concessions from India on its vital interests again and again, the relationship will continue being stuck where it is now.

p.s. yes I know, the old 'India supported soviet invasion of afghanistan' will be tottered out to flesh out India's supposed hypocritical stance. the fact remains that India had the option to take a political stance in that case and humanitarian ones in other cases like vietnam simply because we were not actively involved for or against any of the sides.
in short, we were not supplying vietcong with weapons to kill US soldiers. can you say the same about US ?

Right now TSP is the playground for US -PRC rivalry but the prize is India. PRC wants US to pressure India on two things and everything will be hunky dory.

Y I Patel wrote:Some other countries, a lot more powerful than India, tried to be a problem for the US. The US made foolish bargains with the enemies of those powerful countries, and now those countries are not so powerful any more.

You are right. For example, Soviet Union does not exist now. And the side effects of those "bargains" reached your country on Sept 11, 2001. It led to a decade of war and conflict. And now you are sinking in debt and staring at Japan-style economic malaise.

It appears that your country could use some rational thinkers.

I have been blessed to hear S N Goenkaji speak. I will not go into that more, except to partially quote a story he uses: A person is offered kheer, and sees a black spot in there. He gets mad and refuses the kheer. The black spot is cardomom, but the real offering is the kheer.

While my calling some Indian positions "hypocritical" is certainly not a bit of fragrant cardommom, I request you to consider the rest of my offering by setting aside that I called Indian actions hypocritical. If you feel it is not something you can set aside then I am afraid we will not be able to get past that sentence in various permutations.

I totally reject the notion that working with US amounts to becoming a poodle of the US. India is too important, and in the rest of my material I have tried to indicate how US will try to square its interests with a country it regards as too important to disregard or anger. US will politely deflect the conversation to other areas where it knows it has common interests with India, and will continue to follow its interests in Pakistan; maybe taking enough of India's sensibilities into account to not really anger India, but at the same time certainly not stopping from pursuing with what it regards as the best remaining choices.

In other words, India can raise a stink. India would be justified in aboslute moral terms, but that does not help in geopolitics especially when the stakes are a superpower's interests. The alternative I am suggesting is that India drop a hard unilateral stance and be willing to work in a coalition, in return for the big prize of having a much greater combined (US+India) influence over not just Pak, but well beyond the Amu Darya which I consider to be the true boundary of Indian influence. It would certainly involve effort to harmonize interests on part of India as well as US. But it would not be appeasement.

Our ultimate desires are a lot closer than what you (Rahul or Abyhishek) think. My means, or perhaps the way I present them, seem to offend you deeply. Throw out the black spot please. Consider the rest of my offering.

Y I Patel wrote: The alternative I am suggesting is that India drop a hard unilateral stance and be willing to work in a coalition, in return for the big prize of having a much greater combined (US+India) influence over not just Pak, but well beyond the Amu Darya which I consider to be the true boundary of Indian influence.

I don't think America ever discussed such ideas with India. It is inconsistent with their doctrine of "balance of power" or "offshore balancing". They would continue to support Pakistan against India (and they would support India against China).

Y I Patel wrote:The nub here is that you, like everyone else, want something from US. In your case, you just want US to stop doing something, but that still counts for something you want. One privilege of being a superpower is that everyone wants something from you - some want arms, some political recognition, some visas for work in Silicon Valley... those are "positive" requests. Then there are "negative" ones too, like the one you just mentioned - and some extreme examples would be, say, Iran wanting US to stop sabotaging Iran's peaceful new clear weapons program. Well, sure. US entertains all requests. You want it? We'll talk. Just show me some skin, baby.

So you were saying? Oh yes. Stop supporting Pak Army and get the hell out of Pak so that India can clean it up? Why, we want to clean it up too. Trouble is, we also want to influence in Pak because we have other vital interests in the region. Sure, it's a royal pain. But then, so were our allies the Soviets, who took over half of Oirope and wouldnt give it back. Our buddy PA helped us to get those Reds out of Afghanistan. Sure, they have been bitching about it since then, but were mighty useful in gettin ole OBL! But you know what, you are right. Pakis are real a$$holes. They hid OBL while pretending to help us, and now we are really mad. We don't have money right now or we would stay there for the next 50 years and $crew them right over. But hey, you think you can help us? Sure would be nice showing them who the real boss is in South Asia!

No? You are pissed at us and don't want anything to do with us? Why, that really hurt. Okay, we'll still be buddies and work on those chinkus. But meanwhile, I have a few friends who might help me form an Independent Republic of Baluchistan. Real straight shooters, those Balochs. Would hate it if anyone came around givin them ideas. Okay, gotta run! See you in Davos!
Again, you have probably heard this before, if not in those words. The thing is, India comes across as being sanctimonious and even hypocritical. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree to it or not, America will continue to be involved in the whole area. India cannot dictate to USA. But if India works with USA, USA can be a very generous partner. And I am not being a snake oil salesman. Just look at the record from US eyes.

Y I Patel ji,

if you were saying all this in 2001, may be it would have sounded rational. Today it is 10 years too late! USA is a pale shadow of what it once was in relative terms.

We have the option of standing back and having a good look at USA, its burdens and its interests, its investments and its tight-spots.

Today we know that USA is feeling the heat in the Pacific from an ever more militarized China, and we know it doesn't have the money to support its military commitments!

USA wants our support in the Pacific, then we have a price - finish off Pakistan! USA is too far down the $hithole to talk about vital long term interests in Pakland and Afghanistan. It is slowly being shut out of Central Asia, and USA is in no position to offer us a piece of the cake on Amu Darya!

If USA wants Indian cooperation, then it should first take down what it helped put up - Pakistan, and we can talk!

You're overrating American position!

ramana wrote:Right now TSP is the playground for US -PRC rivalry but the prize is India. PRC wants US to pressure India on two things and everything will be hunky dory.

RajeshA, Quite perceptive. There are two games/negotiations that US is doing: with China on India & Central Asia and with India on China & Pacific.

- This is what their manage/help the rise of India is all about.

Now think why did MMS speak recently in Mrs. Indira Gandhi speak?

The current and former NSAB et al who are wounded bureaucrats want India to close the bargain with US before the Chinese do. Hence all their isolated India refrain is all about. Brajesh Misra spoke that ling in presence of MKNarayanan on the First KS memorial lecture. All three names are former NSAB. Then KS Bajpai writes in similar vein. IOW its a consensus opinion of the NSAB elite that India needs to get into US bandwagon to preclude Chinese threat.

I recall in WWI, US did not intervene until late in 1917 when GB was almost dead and swung the tide.

In WWII they did lend lease and extracted everything out of Great Britain and then entered the war. Even then they concetrated on Japan. It was Hitler who declared war on US and forced them to intervene in Europe.

So the NSAB elite is wrong in thinking that US will rush in to help India if in trouble. Western Europe did not believe that and insisted on trip wire troops in Germany during Cold War.

My take is China is a lizard pretending to be a dragon and if US goes with them they will bite and both will go down.

China is in stagflation:inflation without growth, Their markets are in coma etc.

So keep negotiating and building up your strength in all spheres:Economy, political and society.

Y I Patel wrote: The nub here is that you, like everyone else, want something from US. In your case, you just want US to stop doing something, but that still counts for something you want. One privilege of being a superpower is that everyone wants something from you - some want arms, some political recognition, some visas for work in Silicon Valley... those are "positive" requests. Then there are "negative" ones too, like the one you just mentioned - and some extreme examples would be, say, Iran wanting US to stop sabotaging Iran's peaceful new clear weapons program. Well, sure. US entertains all requests. You want it? We'll talk. Just show me some skin, baby.

So you were saying? Oh yes. Stop supporting Pak Army and get the hell out of Pak so that India can clean it up? Why, we want to clean it up too. Trouble is, we also want to influence in Pak because we have other vital interests in the region. Sure, it's a royal pain. But then, so were our allies the Soviets, who took over half of Oirope and wouldnt give it back. Our buddy PA helped us to get those Reds out of Afghanistan. Sure, they have been bitching about it since then, but were mighty useful in gettin ole OBL! But you know what, you are right. Pakis are real a$$holes. They hid OBL while pretending to help us, and now we are really mad. We don't have money right now or we would stay there for the next 50 years and $crew them right over. But hey, you think you can help us? Sure would be nice showing them who the real boss is in South Asia!

No? You are pissed at us and don't want anything to do with us? Why, that really hurt. Okay, we'll still be buddies and work on those chinkus. But meanwhile, I have a few friends who might help me form an Independent Republic of Baluchistan. Real straight shooters, those Balochs. Would hate it if anyone came around givin them ideas. Okay, gotta run! See you in Davos!

--


Again, you have probably heard this before, if not in those words. The thing is, India comes across as being sanctimonious and even hypocritical. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree to it or not, America will continue to be involved in the whole area. India cannot dictate to USA. But if India works with USA, USA can be a very generous partner. And I am not being a snake oil salesman. Just look at the record from US eyes.

Spot on YIP. That is an Indian viewpoint and the US had better learn to live with it. Of course the US might not care - but that will not stop the demands fron an Indian viewpoint.

Not only have I heard all this before and for decades I want to point out an interesting anomaly. A lot of the stuff you have written about the US/superpower/everyone has demands etc is, as far as I am concerned laughable. It is what has been described as Americanitis - an undue faith that America will always and forever dominate. In the 1960s and 1970s when half my generation migrated to the US and treated me to the same stuff you are telling me 40 years later, it was much more believable. Those people did not see any weakness in the US and were able to cockily point out that everyone else was asking the US for something. And say how the US was the center of the universe.

Well, guess what? All those beggars are still asking the US for the same things and the US has become weaker and can no longer act so cocky. Give a few more years the US will have its tail between its legs and start listening to some of those demands. IMO it has already started. So you are entitled to an outmoded and decades old inflated opinion of US strength - but US weaknesses are easier to see outside the US. The US shows only strength to its own residents.

No ill will intended. The US is going down and all that you have said in describing US strength will appear like cocky bluster. That is why it is important for India to keep up with its demands. No point changing just because the US appears strong today. The stupid things that the US does seem to be visible to everyone except those inside the USA (bar a few)

Until then I am perfectly willing to listen to wild boasts about US capabiiity from people in the US. After all I have already heard the same stuff for 40 years and watched the world change in front of my eyes. those boats are becoming increasingly hollow. And I humbly request that my statement not be treated as some jealous triumphalism, because triumphalism on behalf of the US is how I read some of your statements. It's only fair that others mock and scorn as the US sinks and starts looking for help from nations other than Pakistan or the Phillippines whom the US thinks it can control. That is about as far as the US will be allowed to go.

I said:

US weaknesses are easier to see outside the US. The US shows only strength to its own residents.

I recall watching (years ago) an entertaining re run of some old serial - may even have been American featuring The Fonz, but the story in one episode was how an intruder came across various residents in a house - each of whom bungled and dhoti shivered but the intruder was seen off anyway. As each person later recalled his role - the description was one of great courage and strength.

Both the US and, for example Kim Jong Il see themselves that way. And it is probably true to think that both Americans and many North Koreans think they are the greatest country on earth. It's all about perspective.

The US says "We are the richest and greatest country on earth. We have cornered North Korea and kept it where in belongs - in the waste bin of the world"

Kim Jong Il probably does not agree with that. He is rich. He is powerful and he gets what he wants - the USA, South Korea and Japan are all begging to talk to him and pay him. Hie followers can see his greatness.

Conventionally we are attuned to agreeing with the US viewpoint. But the closer you get to North Korea the more distant American power feels and the closer the disruptive power of NoKo feels. The same sort of perspectives hold true about US power vis a vis anyone else. Even Pakistan. The weakness of the other party becomes more and more and more apparent the further you get. I have often pointed out how people in India have sometimes been hauled up for being abusive of - say Bal Thakre (or Sonia Gandhi) But i you live in the US you cannot get hauled up for that. it is easy to be abusive of Bal Thakre or Sonia. On the other hand no US resident would dare write anything remotely threatening to the US president.

The closer you are to power, the more threatening and intimidating it feels. The further away it is the easier it is to see its weaknesses. I have tried to say this in many ways but the cocky descriptions of US capabilities - only some of which are credible can be believed only if you are somehow emotionally or physically close to the US. Step away and more and more of it becomes hot air. That is why countries like NoKo and Iran and Pakistan and Cuba survive despite not giving a flying fug for the USA.

Somehow - not everyone in the US seems to understand this. A view from the outside always affords a different perspective.

^^^ True there. A piskological Doppler Effect of power perception. Its not so much about standing close to or far from a power center.... as it is about being inclined / moving towards a power center or away from it in terms of emotional identification. People can use this effect in psy-ops to influence local people's perceptions of their own govt.

YIP,

I dont think the style of India's interaction with the US in the last 20 years can really be compared with the first 40.

There's a whole host of reasons for that. For one thing those sorts of relationships are no longer dominated by the personality of a single person like Nehru or IG. Secondly ideology (particularly 'progressive' third world solidarity) counts for much less, and for a third comprehensive notions of Indian security consider growth generated by private sector trade and investment instead of a threat. Fourthly, what is gradually being built, at least at the level of ruling classes in both countries is a people to people relationship, rather than just state to state - which is often no more than bureaucrats doing their best to annoy each other.

On the whole I find India's current relationship (and I mean both under the BJP and Congress) with the US very pragmatic. Neither side gets exactly what they want/need, but they both get something they want/need and move forward from there. On the whole it seems to me that politicians, businessmen and entertainers (and maybe some of the naval and air force types) on both sides tend to be the most excited about the potential for the relationship, while the rest of the security bureaucracy is much more grudging in its enthusiasm. On the whole I'd say things are a huge improvement over previous eras.

shiv wrote:I said:

US weaknesses are easier to see outside the US. The US shows only strength to its own residents.

The closer you are to power, the more threatening and intimidating it feels. The further away it is the easier it is to see its weaknesses. I have tried to say this in many ways but the cocky descriptions of US capabilities - only some of which are credible can be believed only if you are somehow emotionally or physically close to the US. Step away and more and more of it becomes hot air. That is why countries like NoKo and Iran and Pakistan and Cuba survive despite not giving a flying fug for the USA.

Somehow - not everyone in the US seems to understand this. A view from the outside always affords a different perspective.

Sir,

Not generally true. India is close to China, and yet the Indians(in the know, as opposed to the vast majority ignoramus) dhoti shiver from Chinese actions. India is close to the Islamic world, and yet Indians(again, in the know) dhoti shiver of Islam.

You seem to be in a mission to prove, by logic or illogic, that US is all hot air. US has a lot of power, probably more than anyone else. If and when it chooses to use its power against someone, rightly or wrongly, that someone pays through their teeth. In some cases it has been less effective, such as North Korea, which is practically a protectorate of China, but even there, they are making the North Koreans "hanbok" shiver. Hanbok by the way, is the Korean national dress. They failed in Vietnam to achieve "their" objectives, but killed more than a million Vietnamese and 20 years after the war came forward to offer friendship to the US, and somewhat due to India not being a powerful enough and reliable enough ally for the Vietnamese they are now practically a US ally, no mean feat for the US. US failed against Pakistan, because of its stupidity and lack of understanding of who the true enemy is and therefore, their inability to point the gun in the right direction.

US is a very powerful country and very effective in conflicts. But no more, no less. It has its limitations. But probably less than other places. I am not a big fan of the US, but I dont think there is any deep seated animosity towards India in most circles within the US. If they take any actions detrimental to Indian interests, it is due to their analysis that those actions are in their interests, not due to any directly anti-Indian strain within them. Of course, they are guilty of taking many anti-India actions despite knowing that these actions will hurt Indians, because they felt that these actions are in their best national interest, which in case of Pak turned out to be not true and they do have egg on their faces.

Indians, as it is, have too few allies or "friends" in the International community. It is probably because of our typical Indian tendencies of "seeing enemies" everywhere. Next to Arabs and the Islamic world, which is the hotbed of bizzare conspiracy theories, Indians are the biggest second guessers in the world. We'd second guess everything and everyone, and in most cases are too clever for our own good and manage to outsmart ourselves. While agreeing that US is not perfect , if we cannot use our diplomacy and find a friend and "friendship" in the US, we probably cannot find any friends anywhere, not even Israel. Oh, with the possible exception of the Central African Republic and Bhutan.