Bharat Rakshak

Austin wrote: People came out on the street in Bahrain too and they were shot and murdered as well , the only difference is these people so called innocent protesters were armed to teeth to an extent they could fight a well trained government soldiers , Innocent people dont carry arms and they are not trained in tactics to fight a soldier.

The people fighting are defected soldiers which the UN has confirmed and we see in videos on youtube (most show their military IDs and UN spent a few nights with the FSA - so there isn't much to debate there). There are small pockets of foreigners - particularly libyans. Syria also have the conscription system - so makes probably do know how to use a weapon.

As for Bahrain - not to the extent that is happening in Syria.

Give guns to people on street of any country and then see for your self how long can they last , these are no ordinary people but well trained militia and gun man trained to fight in the guise of freedom , these are just terrorist in plain simple words , similar to see you in Kashmir or else where.

Beg to differ and I think looking at history - Mukti Bahini, Chinese, Russian revolutionaries were all considered terrorists at one point.

If there were such mass defection Asad wouldnt have lasted that long , he would have gone by now ......the fact that he is in power is because most people support him and the Military does too .

His power base has weakened to the extent that he has mainly alawite militia and troops that are loyal.. He barely controls districts 30 km from his palace.

Pray tell me can innocent people who protest can engineer and plan sucide bomb attacks on well fortified intelligence HQ and other strategic targets ? Who is funding them and who is arming and training them is the question.

As I said, eastern syrian tribes were providing the logistics to the baathists, assorted sunni tribes in the west of Iraq for over 8 years now and the expertise exists and is being utilised.

Now check the news of Kosovo link and then link it to Saudi foreign minister statements of it being a wonderful thing to arm them ......does it ring a bell ?

No one is denying that they are not arming them, but do you think all of the people fighting are foreigners and are doing it? Don't you think if people there were happy with their lives, do you think they would go out to protest and sacrifice their lives and fight? I think you need to speak to syrians from across the spectrum - christians, alawites, sunni's (the majority) to get an understanding.

Even the best defended and sealed border can you smuggle arms if you have support of hostile intelligence agency , check for our borders in Punjab and Kashmir well manned but they still smuggle arms , check for US borders they still face the same problem or even israel borders the most sophisticated of them all ....... the key is the intention of hostile country towards yours .

Are you being serious? Kashmir is a mountaineous terrain and people are still slipping through despite fencing although fencing has been able to slow it down. In sectors the snow is so bad people can just walk over the fence.

As for Israel, they know the border with egypt hasn't been guarded well, hell CNN and many other networks have been in and out. Same goes with US, massive borders, drug smugglers use tunnels there too. As for Bahrain - IEDs have been used/ discovered there before and there have been terror attacks even before this crisis.But hte groups dont want to use them (although a rethink is in the works). But borders and the coast line are well protected because they have faced the Iranians boats smuggling arms before for around a decade or 2.

The fact is countries of GCC are openly hostile to Syria and they mince no words when they say that look at Saudi minister statements.

How would Saudi feel if Syria or Iran says it would be wonderful to support protesters fighting their own regiem in Shia dominated areas .....wouldnt that constitute open support and interference in sovereign nation internal affairs ?

They accused IRan already and the US for the first time agreed with them.

Neither the people on Bahrain or Shia dominated people who were brutally treated were protesting for fun , without gun and small arms they knew what to expect they were more brave in that respect , many of the so called Sryian protestors and freedom fighters still had small arms to fight, defend or attack

Bahrain is a different story altogether - they are coming out to protest because they dont want to be ruled by sunni's. Anyway, this is why the GCC say, they know IRan will respond in the Gulf as you say after Syria is over. Its coming soon and the GCC know it and are ready for it.

Who determines that majority is against Assad , Just because few have arms and can do suicide bombing do their determine the view of majority ?

Take a look around the cities and where protests have been reported, look at the UN statements and army defections.

Pray tell me which government in Arab world have every ruled with holding free and fair elections ? Does Saudi do it , Does Bharain do it .......do people of both countries have a free and fair voice to protest and express their anger .....they meet the same fate as in other gulf states which is clampdown and killings....... in that Assad is no different from them.

Actually Kuwait does - its a democracy now. As for KSA - if they did want to remove their rulers, they would be out on the streets and we know there was a campaign on the internet calling for protests - hardly 100 people turned up onto the street! Only place where protests have happened to date is in Eastern KSA - in the shia dominated areas.

If GCC says these are some innocent protesters and people with Arms killing innocent people via car bombs and targeted sucide attacks then by which defination these people are not terrorist ?

Its reached the level of car bombs because there was no political movement from asad since march 2011. Why now/ Why not when it all erupted in March 2011? Why weren't car bombs used then? This is because Asad hasn't relented and continues to use brute force against his people - we can see that with all the refugees fleeing violence on all corners of syria.

Well it is the same UN that said NATO bombing on Libya was a model to follow and it is the same UN that becomes tooth less when US attacks Iraqs in guise of chemical weapons and then find none and US is totally toothless to do any thing about it.

People use UN when its convenient to their cause and can totally disregard it when its not.

Of course, but they are on the ground and cameras have followed them - take a look at the images/videos of people on the streets when they are there. Thats the only time unarmed protesters feel safe to come out on the streets.

1 ) The reason these protest are mostly engineered and trained armed by GCC/US/UK is to weaken Iran by destabilisting its major support in the region which is Asad regime , there is nothing freedom fighting and democracy about this protesters , its plain simple geo-politics and Sunnia GCC versus Shia Iran.

This is true but don't ignore the people and their views - that is all i am saying. No one would be sacrificing their lives to this extent unless they truely were unsatisfied with their lives.

Is it okay for Syrians to come out to the street and protest and ask for their rights? And if they did want a change of regime or mere freedom to choose, is this acceptable? If they are met with violence, is it acceptable to use violence back?

This is my last post on this as I'm afraid I can't devote more time to this debate although its a interesting, healthy and good one to have.

Thanks.

Most interesting! Obviously not every Syrian is coming out into the streets against Assad. So if some Syrians or onlee part of the Syrian population come out that is still a valid expression of dissent.

We should not ignore the people and their views. So if a part of Bahraini society - even if onlee onlee Shias - comes out dissenting from their ruler and vanish or get killed. No one would be sacrificing their lives to this extent [maybe it is the cutoff in number that is important? somewhat like a poverty level - say if >90/day die then the extent is to be taken seriously not otherwise] unless they truely were unsatisfied with their lives.

Is it okay for Bahrainis to come out to the street and protest and ask for their rights? And if they did want a change of regime or mere freedom to choose, is this acceptable? If they are met with violence, is it acceptable to use violence back?

ShyamD ji,

1. Why don't we see the GCC dictatorships open gates for democracy at the same pace that they demand transformation in Libya, Syria etc places?

2. Why don't we see the freedom loving civilians magically get arms, funds and Facebook in Bahrain?

3. Why don't we see armed forces defecting to rebel side and start terrorizing (oops revolting) against Saudi oil fields and intelligence HQ?

4. Why are your sources so benevolent, freedom supporting, democratic and secular heads of Muslim emirates?

Egypt and Islamic Sharia: A Guide for the Perplexed

Letter from Istanbul

Turkish reflections: What I learned at the Istanbul World Political Forum

shyamd wrote:Abhishekcc ji, okay fine, India was occupied by a foreign entity - diff scenario. But, let's Look around - what about Chinese revolution, Russian revolution and the many other revolutions that have taken place? So are those people who fought terrorists too? If Asad was so confident that the people were with him, don't you think he would have opened up his country to democracy or allowed people to protest?

Russian revolution - yes, the communist revolutionaries were terrorists. Their subsequent actions, pogroms, mass murders, 'disappearing' dissidents, ghastly murder of the royal family - all reek of a terrorists' attitude. What is even more remarkable is that the Russian communist 'revolution' was funded by exactly the same class of people that are/have funding/funded the Syrian/Libyan/Egyptian so called 'peoples movements' - western international banking community.

Chinese revolution - same as above.

UN Observers Concede Presence of Terrorist Groups in Syria

UN peacekeeping observers have acknowledged the presence of terrorist groups in Syria, which are hindering the peace process between the government and the opposition, China’s Xinhua agency has reported, quoting UN peacekeeping head Herve Ladsous.

“We know that there are ... a third party (of the conflict), terrorist groups, who are trying to gain advantage for themselves... but we have to see this as an issue within Syria, between the Syrians,” Ladsous said at a news conference held in Damascus.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said that foreign fighters, some of them Al-Qaeda members, are fighting in extremist groups operating in Syria.

Ladsous added that 270 observers are working in six cities across Syria. According to him, observers will arrive in four more cities.

More than 9,000 people have been killed in Syria since the outbreak of a popular uprising against President Bashar al-Assad in March 2011, the UN says.

BBC: 'Al-Qaeda attack' on Yemen army parade causes carnage

An al-Qaeda source told the BBC one of its members had carried out the attack.

Interestingly the Al-Qaeda does not attack any of the GCC countries. Our strategists advise us to side with GCC.

many dots...

i love when Bs like this is propogated

people hate the syrian regime

well they hate all the regimes in their countries but in most cases are powerless to do anything




Mysteriously a well organised rebellion comes up in Syria (and we all know how NATO was only keeping the Gaddafi forces from shooting civilians)

Blowback on this is going to be Lebanon getting dragged in and other unknowns

I would love the spillover to Jordan

Surya wrote:i love when Bs like this is propogated

people hate the syrian regime

well they hate all the regimes in their countries but in most cases are powerless to do anything

The people there have an opportunity to do something about it, after spending a 8 months coming out to the street and no movement politically - getting killed, people are resorting to other methods. Its their choice.

I would love the spillover to Jordan

Why? so that a war with Israel takes place and more people die?

abhischekcc wrote: Russian revolution - yes, the communist revolutionaries were terrorists. Their subsequent actions, pogroms, mass murders, 'disappearing' dissidents, ghastly murder of the royal family - all reek of a terrorists' attitude. What is even more remarkable is that the Russian communist 'revolution' was funded by exactly the same class of people that are/have funding/funded the Syrian/Libyan/Egyptian so called 'peoples movements' - western international banking community.

Chinese revolution - same as above.

Funding from other sources is part of the theory of the revolution, with the hope that they will gain on the other side. In Bahrain, shia businessmen financed the revolution to gain more after the revolution. But it doesnt change one thing - the revolution is possible only if the people want it.

RamaY wrote:ShyamD ji,

1. Why don't we see the GCC dictatorships open gates for democracy at the same pace that they demand transformation in Libya, Syria etc places?

See kuwait - democracy today.

2. Why don't we see the freedom loving civilians magically get arms, funds and Facebook in Bahrain?

Very soon - they were fighting the rebellion over a decade ago if your memory goes back far enough.

3. Why don't we see armed forces defecting to rebel side and start terrorizing (oops revolting) against Saudi oil fields and intelligence HQ?

Simple. Protests were called for in KSA. Barely 100 turned up... That tells you no one wants a revolution. And the GCC now have another factor going for them - economics. These Arab "spring" countries that had their revolutions were in need of economic support - after the revolution they dont have it and their problems will get worse.

4. Why are your sources so benevolent, freedom supporting, democratic and secular heads of Muslim emirates?

Lol! Still trolling?

shyamd wrote:

I would love the spillover to Jordan

Why? so that a war with Israel takes place and more people die?

How will it lead to a war with Israel?

Because Sid Mallya benefits from the sale of beer and pop corn

Surya wrote:i love when Bs like this is propogated

people hate the syrian regime

I hate syrian regime too - that assad-dude is such a bitch. He is the one who caused me to throw away lots of stale popcorn And that lovely Turkish invasion seems more like a Turkish Delight - dusty and mard-like on the outside but totally fruity core....

Regime change in ME is like thinking a morning shave will cause permanent smoothness - beard will always grow back by evening. What they want is hair remover type treatment. But they are, well, too manly for voluntarily using hair-removers. No one else really cares enough to do it for them, as long as someone there sells something.

Why? so that a war with Israel takes place and more people die?

No saar

Simble reason

I have not forgiven Jordan for its pakiness in the past and I do not want those saudi rejects in power.

Actually Jordan to the palestinians might give peace a chance

look at the UN statements

Must be just like the "International community" which we hear of in western news outlet

^ are you guys talking about the same UN that prevented the Rwanda Genocide?

RamaY wrote:^ are you guys talking about the same UN that prevented the Rwanda Genocide?

..and the Bangladesh genocide of '71.

ShyamDji,

If Kuwait is democracy, isn't Syria a better democracy?

So who decides the order of revolutions in various countries? GCC/NATO/UN

Didn't OBL raise his voice against KSA as far back as Gulf War I?

Me trolling? No sir. That was an honest question. Why is GCC so eager to transform certain nations but is fine with other dictatorships? How come your sources are so benevolent yet support Islamic emirates that implement Sharia?

shyamd wrote: Simple. Protests were called for in KSA. Barely 100 turned up... That tells you no one wants a revolution.

People did not show up in a protest. It implies that people in Saudi Arabia don't want a revolution.

You deserve a prize for this gem.

Simple. Protests were called for in KSA. Barely 100 turned up... That tells you no one wants a revolution.

I know I know - the govt even offered to provide buses so that Women who are not allowed to drive could turn up.

but the women declined saying they had all the freedom and benefits and needed nothing more

was being sarcastic

ShyamD ji

Please do not take things personal. You are just reporting what you are told and heard. It is possible that somebody could be feeding you wrong info.

In the process sometimes you are mixing or presenting some info as your personal opinions.

Our questions will ensure that you are alert and have the opposing perspective in hand tO tease your sources, once in a while.

We want to hear what your sources have to say. So pls do not shut that info channel. If it hurts you too much we can have a separate thread to discuss the gulf from true Indian Interests perspective.

Syrian opposition flagrantly violates UNSC decisions – Lavrov

The Syrian opposition should observe the cease-fire agreement and implement the Kofi Annan settlement plan, but is flagrantly violating the UN Security Council decisions to that end instead, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said.

He feels that the opposition obviously seeks to torpedo the peace plan.

The UN resolution has approved the plan utterly and completely, a plan that urges both the Syrian government and the opposition to end the violence, Lavrov told the news conference that he was holding jointly with his Sri-Lankan counterpart in Moscow earlier today.

The Russian Foreign Minister added that attempts to encourage the continuation of the armed conflict are also in breach of the UN Security Council resolution.

Moscow fears Syrian conflict may spread to Lebanon

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has told a news conference in Moscow that the Syrian conflict may spread to Lebanon. Lebanese pilgrims were abducted in the Syrian city of Aleppo yesterday.

The Russian Foreign Minister feels there is a real threat now that the conflict may start spilling over into Lebanon, given the historical context, the ethnic and religious make-up of the population, as well as the principles that Lebanon rests on. Things may end badly indeed, Lavrov said.

ShyamD has a pretty accurate feel for what is happening in the Gulf. There are unwritten/tacit agreements in some of these countries which define the relationship between the people and the rulers e.g. in Kuwait, the original "unwritten" agreement goes to the founding 5/7 merchant families who agreed that the Al-Sabah's would be the rulers (because of their martial prowess) and in return the families would have free trading rights as well as a more than usual (for the Gulf) degree of political freedom. Hence Kuwait has a Parliament which is is quite vocal in its criticism but I am quite sure that even as of today a majority of Kuwaitis would vote for the Al-Sabah's if free elections were held. There are a minority of Shias in Kuwait but unlike Bahrain, because of the huge per capita oil output, the welfare state is able to look after its citizens and even the Kuwaiti Shias are quite happy and have prosperous jobs/businesses.

Saudi Arabia is governed by the "unwritten" agreement between the Wahabi clerics and the Al-Saud family. If anything, Bin-Laden's call to overthrow the Al-Saud's was based on his even stricter interpretation of this "agreement" that no foreign armed forces can operate in the Arabian peninsula and that for allowing the US to stay on in Saudi Arabia after Gulf War I, the Al-Saud's had violated that agreement and therefore should be overthrown. Saudi oil wealth is just about keeping up with the welfare state which keeps dissent in control. Absent that oil wealth and absence transparency, there will be calls for an overthrow, but for now, IMO, a majority of people will still prefer the stability provided by the current system.

The problem in Bahrain is that unlike Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the Shia's are a majority and their fight is for power. No amount of money (and although Bahrain does not have money as it does not have oil) that the Saudi's will throw at Bahrain is going to change that.

Having said this, both in Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait, there will be hardcore splinter groups opposed to the monarchy and given freedom they will protest and violently against the rulers. But IMO as of today they are a very very small minority.

As far as the Gulf monarchies aiding revolutions in other Arab states i.e. Libya, Syria etc, there are unique reasons for each. Hafez Asad and his son Bashar are Alawites and furthermore are supportive of Iran's role in the wider Middle East, hence the Saudis are quite happy to have them taken down. Gadhafi had a long running feud with the Saudi monarchy...at one of the Arab League summits he personally insulted King Abdullah to his face and then walked out of the summit...so the Saudi's were quite happy to see the last of him.

Added later:
The one revolution the Saudi's did not support was in Egypt. Hosni Mubarak was always fully supportive of the GCC and his overthrow happened not because off but inspite of Saudi support in his favor. The Saudi's were already shaken up over the virtual handover of Iraq to a Shia government and Mubarak's overthrow on top of that has severely strained Saudi-US relations. That is why, they are now open to developing closer relations with other rising powers including India because in their eyes, they can no longer take US support for granted.

Double standards hamper Syrian settlement - Lavrov

“Reports that the Syrian opposition has exploded a bomb or has attacked civilians come practically every day,” Mr. Lavrov says. “As a rule, these terrorist acts are committed by the so-called Free Syrian Army and other terrorist organizations, some of which are linked with Al Qaeda. Besides, it is no secret that the Syrian opposition – if terrorists can be called opposition – are financed or supplied with arms by certain forces from abroad. I have no doubts that these forces are trying to disrupt the implementation of Kofi Annan’s plan.”

“I would like to address those who are trying to stir up the conflict in Syria,” Mr. Lavrov says. “I would like to ask them: please say openly and honestly, what do you really want, what are you trying to gain by this? If you want Bashar Assad’s regime to be overthrown, why don’t you openly confess of this?”

“Let me remind you,” Mr. Lavrov continued, “that it was the policy of double standards, carried out by some countries, that sharply aggravated the political crisis in Iraq and a similar one in Libya. In fact, in both cases, in Iran and in Libya, NATO interfered with force, although this openly violated the UN Security Council’s resolutions. In both cases, NATO did not conceal that its real aim was to overthrow “undemocratic” political regimes in these countries.”

ldev wrote: As far as the Gulf monarchies aiding revolutions in other Arab states i.e. Libya, Syria etc, there are unique reasons for each. Hafez Asad and his son Bashar are Alawites and furthermore are supportive of Iran's role in the wider Middle East, hence the Saudis are quite happy to have them taken down. Gadhafi had a long running feud with the Saudi monarchy...at one of the Arab League summits he personally insulted King Abdullah to his face and then walked out of the summit...so the Saudi's were quite happy to see the last of him.

Added later:
The one revolution the Saudi's did not support was in Egypt. Hosni Mubarak was always fully supportive of the GCC and his overthrow happened not because off but inspite of Saudi support in his favor. The Saudi's were already shaken up over the virtual handover of Iraq to a Shia government and Mubarak's overthrow on top of that has severely strained Saudi-US relations. That is why, they are now open to developing closer relations with other rising powers including India because in their eyes, they can no longer take US support for granted.

There are three components in every message: Emitter/sender/giver, medium and the receiver.

First is message sender (GCC) perspective:

I am sure every country has enough reasons and justifications to do whatever they want, including supporting and exporting terrorism like Pakis do. Dont we have some key international powers and even some Indian analysts who understand and sympathize with Paki logic/justification in their terrorism as state policy?

Coming to GCC, they are doing what they are doing in their national interests, which we all understand. My question is, how does GCC's interests become any holier or reasonable compared to the interests of say Libya or Syria or Egypt?

Second part is the communication channel/medium in this case ShyamD, the poster.

I understand ShyamD is presenting what he heard/told/understood. And sometimes mixes the message with his own opinions (or that is how I read it).

Finally, the receiving end (Indian Interests?)
GCC actions have been inimical to Indian interests so far. Now that their geopolitical and security environments have become riskier, they are trying to hedge their security equations by using India.

In return they are willing to give some carrots to India. So far we are told that there will be investments in infrastructure, financial services (FIIs?) and so on. Whenever I asked about the specifics and the expected returns, there is littler concrete information.

Then comes the question of "Order of national interests" from Indian perspective. For example let us put in this order
1. Territorial Integrity
2. Cultural Integrity
3. Geopolitical Sovereignty
4. Food Security
5. Energy Security
6. Infrastructure
7. Technology, Industry development
8. Financial Services
...

For example a potential international partner approaches GoI and offers a substantial investment in say item 8, but is causing havoc on items 1, 2 and 3 directly and indirectly, should we call this a strategic partnership?

I think this is where ShaymDji faltering... and is not able to take the criticism...

And there is the generally accepted forum behavior: I post a link from some news paper article, say First Post. It doesn't matter if the person who wrote the article has any clue about what he is writing, did proper research or names his resources; but just because the article is from a self-proclaimed news source (imagine I open a website and do not mention that I am the owner of it) it gets more acceptance than a common poster's perspective, irrespective of the argument. None of us know ShyamDji's sources (I am not asking for it), and for all we know it all could be his imagination (I am not saying it), but somehow he can call others trolls while he posts away whatever he wants, just because he claims to have sources (I trust him).

^ How about we come up with a Indian Interests Calculator.

We will put all Indian Interests (like i mentioned above) and put some weights to them. Then ShyamDji can provide inputs from GCC perspective and we can doodh kaa doodh and paani kaa paani...

RamaY wrote:
Finally, the receiving end (Indian Interests?)
GCC actions have been inimical to Indian interests so far. Now that their geopolitical and security environments have become riskier, they are trying to hedge their security equations by using India.

In return they are willing to give some carrots to India. So far we are told that there will be investments in infrastructure, financial services (FIIs?) and so on. Whenever I asked about the specifics and the expected returns, there is littler concrete information.

Then comes the question of "Order of national interests" from Indian perspective. For example let us put in this order
1. Territorial Integrity
2. Cultural Integrity
3. Geopolitical Sovereignty
4. Food Security
5. Energy Security
6. Infrastructure
7. Technology, Industry development
8. Financial Services
...

For example a potential international partner approaches GoI and offers a substantial investment in say item 8, but is causing havoc on items 1, 2 and 3 directly and indirectly, should we call this a strategic partnership?

I think this is where ShaymDji faltering... and is not able to take the criticism...

There were similar discussion before where Indians were batting for foreign interest. This is called as the foreign lobby. In India the indian interest is seen as negotiable item and these lobby see this as an opportunity.
When the ruling regime for many decades had allowed foreign countries to get inside education, media and setup lobby group then these are taken for granted.
The Islamic banking was an example in this case.

This needs a reset.
No country allows until there is a reciprocal advantage.

ldev wrote: Saudi Arabia is governed by the "unwritten" agreement between the Wahabi clerics and the Al-Saud family. If anything, Bin-Laden's call to overthrow the Al-Saud's was based on his even stricter interpretation of this "agreement" that no foreign armed forces can operate in the Arabian peninsula and that for allowing the US to stay on in Saudi Arabia after Gulf War I, the Al-Saud's had violated that agreement and therefore should be overthrown. Saudi oil wealth is just about keeping up with the welfare state which keeps dissent in control. Absent that oil wealth and absence transparency, there will be calls for an overthrow, but for now, IMO, a majority of people will still prefer the stability provided by the current system.

Thanks for adding 'IMO' to your claims. It is the most useful word in your post.

RamaY wrote:
......Then comes the question of "Order of national interests" from Indian perspective. For example let us put in this order
1. Territorial Integrity
2. Cultural Integrity
3. Geopolitical Sovereignty
4. Food Security
5. Energy Security
6. Infrastructure
7. Technology, Industry development
8. Financial Services
...

For example a potential international partner approaches GoI and offers a substantial investment in say item 8, but is causing havoc on items 1, 2 and 3 directly and indirectly, should we call this a strategic partnership?.....

In terms of investment, the oil producing countries like having stable customers as well as capturing some of the downstream profits i.e. this can be ensured by FDI in refineries. I have not been following closely the various on/off discussions between various Indian oil companies and Saudi Aramco/KNPC. This is probably what will result in maximum benefit to both sides in the near term.

I will be surprised if the GCC invests in non oil related infrastructure in India...although India may want it. Critical infrastructure which has security implications such as ports may be questionable from the Indian side. I havent looked at the latest FDI rules for Indian ports especially things like LNG terminals.

Beyond that, their general investment patterns favor short term liquid investments...I do not think that Indian capital markets right now are liquid and large enough for the kinds of flows the Gulf sovereign funds have at their disposal even if GOI changes rules to permit things like foreign investment in Indian domestic Government debt. Maybe in the future if the Indian economy continues it current growth trajectory.

As to your position on the matrix, if the Saudis and or Kuwaits have invested in Indian refineries and these refineries are buying 2 million barrels of oil a day from those countries...dont you think that they would have some self interest in preserving their investments in India by ensuring that Wahabi yahoos via Pakistan dont blow them up?

ldev wrote
As to your position on the matrix, if the Saudis and or Kuwaits have invested in Indian refineries and these refineries are buying 2 million barrels of oil a day from those countries...dont you think that they would have some self interest in preserving their investments in India by ensuring that Wahabi yahoos via Pakistan dont blow them up?

Sure. The refineries would be protected. How does it alter the matrix? As follows:
(1) the investments yield profits which partially backflows into jihadi channels, which in turn support terror on India
(2) however terror happens on the aam, and not the big shareholders of the refineries, or the GOI which gets corporate income which it can splurge on giving X^N protection to its functionary pyramid or try to buy votes through dynastically named pseudo-charities from which again party functionaries can extract a further cut at the distribution level. So yes the refineries remain protected.
(3) as with the US, and the non-action by successive US gov's on Saudi covert terror supporting ops because of Saudi investments in USA, and possible direct but perfectly legitimate investments into political leadership which of course did not prevent a 9/11 - such investments will be a similar incentive for successive regimes at New Delhi not to take action against Saudis for their supportive role in perpetrating Islamist terror on aam Indians.
(4) Saudi sourced investments will spread around to social-work in the form of further Madrassah scents. Because Saudis have invested, already unchallengeable and uncriticiz-able mullahcracy can be even less challenged or criticized.
(5) A minuscule percentage of Indian populations will get a cut from processing the investment flows, and who will promptly invest that in gold and off-shore banks, and take out a dhamaaka star-nite on how Gulf investments will provide in the unknown future gazillions of jobs and prosperity and growth.

You are right. The refineries are worth protecting. They will be protected. s*** happens. What's the big deal? Any non Z^N security and non-financial-processor Indian life is worth even less than s***. A refinery holding potential billions for all the Z^N categories and the financial-flow-processors is gazillions worthier than that aaam s**** life.

^ iDev ji

1. India's daily oil consumption is 3mil barrels per day. I do not understand how you can call something a strategic investment when it is less than the daily consumption.

2. GCC is not the only source and the oil prices are standardized across the world and if I am not wrong is valued at a given delivery point and not source.

3. Even if we assume GCC in fact makes a "strategic" investment in energy security area, I do not understand how it makes that investment more vLuable to india when energy security is ranked 8 in it's priority list (unless you put energy security in 1st rank).

4. Energy security becomes important if and only if india exists as a seperate territorial entity. For example india becomes 51st (or whatever) state in USA, then india's energy security will be USA's headache, not Indias (we do not see Maine worrying about it's energy security).

RamaY,

The word "strategic" is probably the most used/abused word in BRF. IMO independent India has had a true strategic relationship, (for sometime only) with the USSR. The other relationships are areas of common interests around which countries cooperate i.e. agree to cooperate in certain areas and agree to disagree in other areas. I dont see anything strategic in any oil related investments that are made by the GCC in India. Its just good economic sense.

As far as security for refineries.... a country has to protect its critical infrastructure and oil refineries, bridges, airports, ports are part of that critical infrastructure. I dont see anything wrong with that.

If you study the oil market, it is not only price, but in the very near future, it will be supply itself which will be critical. The flip side is that the oil producers are looking for long term supply relationships from large and growing buyers. That is the common meeting ground between countries such as China and India on the one hand and the oil producers on the other.

Whether you like it or not, India's growing appetite for energy via oil and LNG imports will make such cooperation inevitable.

aaaHaa..

Now we are into defining "strategic" in strategic interests/investments?

OK, lets play along.

I will try to explain the word "strategic" using a pertinent analogy. Let us assume I am looking for a girl for coitus. Me going to a call-girl and pay her would be a simple trade. Me going after the girl and patayinchu her before we proceed to coitus would be a trade-relation. This is like item 8 in my national interests list. Let us assume I called it love and spent the required financial and emotional investment, it will be trade partnership. If it happens that we both value our relationship and decided to get married with coitus becoming part of that marriage, then it becomes a "strategic" relationship. Once we get married, often times there will not be any individual interest but mutual interest, be it money, properties or kids etc., There is a big difference between a one-night call girl and wife in our lives, right?

Given that definition - how would you like to define Gulf's interest in Indian energy security? Do they really care about India's energy needs, to the extent that they would go to war with our enemies to ensure our supply lines OR do they want to achieve their national interests (whatever they are and will have their preferred priority order) by contributing to India's energy needs? Once you understand this, you will have doodh kaa doodh and paani kaa paani.

If this is not enough, let us analyze it from another angle. Let us assume India decided to buy its energy needs delivered at its (designated) domestic ports. Then what will happen? Whose risk it will be to worry about the sea lines of communication, and such issues? How does it differ from India buying its energy needs at the suppliers ports and India having a ownership stake in the source nation's energy resources? At what point this becomes a "strategic" investment?

Whats the consensus on Egypt? Does the elecction mean Egypt will be focussed on their progress or be outwardly ummah?

MB gets presidency. MB and the other islamist will probably even out, with a third by the leftist. Ultimately, equations have been built to favour the MB. Unless a last minute deal works with the so-called non-MB "moderate".

Is US working towards a rise of non-monarchial Islamist grouping to counter the Wahabandis?

There is internal hesitation within admin to cast its lot entirely with MB. So it is going to hedge on both. But pro-MB lobby is stronger. A hotline to MB serves up many birds all at once. Temporary check on gulf nakhra, long term hoped for digestion of MB a la Talebs - turned into mamelukes.

RamaY wrote:aaaHaa..

Given that definition - how would you like to define Gulf's interest in Indian energy security? Do they really care about India's energy needs, to the extent that they would go to war with our enemies to ensure our supply lines OR do they want to achieve their national interests (whatever they are and will have their preferred priority order) by contributing to India's energy needs? Once you understand this, you will have doodh kaa doodh and paani kaa paani.

Nobody cares about any other country. One should get over entitlement issues about other countries caring for India or India caring for other countries. Its not a family relationship. As I said in my earlier post, its about selective commonality of interests - a long term customer relationship for long term energy security. Nothing more.

brihaspati wrote:
Sure. The refineries would be protected. How does it alter the matrix? As follows:
(1) the investments yield profits which partially backflows into jihadi channels, which in turn support terror on India

I had totally missed out your response. Here goes.

At 10 million barrels of oil a day at say $115 per barrel (based on Brent pricing) , the Saudis alone are grossing over $400 billion per annum. You seriously think the profits from their stake in 2 refineries in India is going to make any difference to terror funding. Big question ofcourse is does the Saudi state provide state funding to terrorist activities against India? Do you have any proof of that, any links you can provde? Private Saudi citizens donate zakat part of which is certainly leaking for terror funding.

(2) however terror happens on the aam, and not the big shareholders of the refineries, or the GOI which gets corporate income which it can splurge on giving X^N protection to its functionary pyramid or try to buy votes through dynastically named pseudo-charities from which again party functionaries can extract a further cut at the distribution level. So yes the refineries remain protected.

Why this diatribe? This is India. No point in fulminating against Indian institutional problems in this thread.

(3) as with the US, and the non-action by successive US gov's on Saudi covert terror supporting ops because of Saudi investments in USA, and possible direct but perfectly legitimate investments into political leadership which of course did not prevent a 9/11 - such investments will be a similar incentive for successive regimes at New Delhi not to take action against Saudis for their supportive role in perpetrating Islamist terror on aam Indians.

You appear to have no faith in India or Indians, that the country will learn from mistakes commited by others such as the US and guard against similar mistakes by increasing security and vetting.

(4) Saudi sourced investments will spread around to social-work in the form of further Madrassah scents. Because Saudis have invested, already unchallengeable and uncriticiz-able mullahcracy can be even less challenged or criticized.

Refer again to point 1. With existing revenues of $400 billion plus, will 2 more refineries make any difference in terms of their income assuming they are going to use them for terror funding. Its like saying that a multi billionaire is going to use his next 2 million to buy dal chawal .

(5) A minuscule percentage of Indian populations will get a cut from processing the investment flows, and who will promptly invest that in gold and off-shore banks, and take out a dhamaaka star-nite on how Gulf investments will provide in the unknown future gazillions of jobs and prosperity and growth.

Dhamaka star-nite is enjoyed by many Indians. If they do not enjoy this dhamaka they will not buy tickets. Who am I or you to say whether there should or should not be dhamaka? If you do like dhamaka star nite, do not buy tickets.

You are right. The refineries are worth protecting. They will be protected. s*** happens. What's the big deal? Any non Z^N security and non-financial-processor Indian life is worth even less than s***. A refinery holding potential billions for all the Z^N categories and the financial-flow-processors is gazillions worthier than that aaam s**** life.

Do you think that absent these refineries India will suddenly become a egalitarian society and abolish all its ills?