Strategic leadership for the future of India

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 06 May 2009 16:11

Tactically astute! But can be a boomerang if sufficient "outrage" against the move is not generated. So that "outrage" also has to be thought about and worked up.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 May 2009 17:54

Following on from the discussion on British and US influence on the politics within India, the question now arises as to, which of the significant groupings - the NDA, UPA, the "other front" - is most attractive for the US+UK? Contrary to overt impressions, my assessment is that the US is not inclined much in favour of the NDA. Which is consistent with the line of thought that developed in this thread of the US taking on the baton of the UK. The UK placed Nehru, as the most favourable for its own continued interests on the subcontinent. In fact of late, I have been intrigued by the possibility of the NAM as a potential front that could be used by the UK to retain some degree of influence over a group of countries that could act as a a buffer to US dominance.

The NDA shows determination for national assertion that could spill over its current boundaries, which is something that is going to be a gall in UK eyes as well as the US. NDA could also jeopardize EJ activism. In that sense a "tolerant", "introspective" UPA is a much beter bet for them.

However the situation will rapidly unravel for such hopes in the UK+UPA, once the AFPAK Talebjabi situation starts getting out of hand. For then the second best bet will be to ask PRC to step in - which the cautious CCP will hedge and haw. Russia is anathema to the UK+USA to fill up the blank. Which means they will need an aggressive India to step in - and this is something that the UPA and the Cong can never provide, because of its deep political involvement with the Islamic theologians and the Islamic agenda.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 08 May 2009 01:45

Another factor is the left parties. The U.S would like to steer the new govt away from any leftist dependence. Expect "suitcases (from the U.S.A with love)" once the horse trading begins post May 16th

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 May 2009 01:59

If Obama wants a renegotiation on the NPT and more pressure on India, letting the "Left" "surge" could just be the thing for Unkil agents in India to go for.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 08 May 2009 02:06

Hmmm - citing nationalism as the cause for opposing the nuke deal and turning around and pitching NPT will be one hell of a trapeze act by the Left. Not that I put it beyond them.

Its amazing isnt it - the # of "levers" everyone else has within India: Red, Green, you name it. Only to be matched by our lack of leverage elsewhere. And wherever we do have leverage (Nepal, Sri Lanka due to ethnicity and religion), we tend to royally F&$# it up

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 May 2009 04:11

Well they just need the Left to put on the "renegotiation" table - so that Obama admin itself does not have reopen the question. After that, "drop" the "Left" again to limbo. That would show that it was not Obama admin which wanted to start renegotiating and put renewed pressure. Everyone's face is saved. Left is used to getting its face burnt - so no problem. It can simply sulk and withdraw and throw tantrums again.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 08 May 2009 11:33

Brihaspati -
So what you're saying is that foreign involvement in India is primarily directed at talking about the NPT?

Sounds skechy and conspiratorial. Talking about the Left's relationship to China seems much more plausible than America's intervention outside of EJ activity.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 May 2009 17:51

Lefts following Chinese cues cannot also be shown directly. It will very nearly be impossible to prove. Only circumstantial inferences possible. Just as the possible US moves I explored.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 May 2009 18:34

The western connection to the Left should not be dismissed. The Indian Left, has maintained strong connections with the British Communists. A lot of communist parties in the west were suspected by Stalinists to be fronts for the secret service of the western powers. I would not dismiss this suspicion of the Stalinists. I have had confirmations from some quite active in the communist movement of the early years, as well as later.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 May 2009 20:44

I've read somewhat believable reports that following the '71 war KGB had furnished evidence regarding CIA funding of CPI(M). given the sino-US relations that is not entirely unbelievable.

I used to wonder in the post May '98 days why the left speaks in similar terms to the US. could it be that the left is considered an useful tool by both the PRC and anti-India sections of west ?

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 09 May 2009 21:06

Rahul M wrote:I've read somewhat believable reports that following the '71 war KGB had furnished evidence regarding CIA funding of CPI(M). given the sino-US relations that is not entirely unbelievable.

I used to wonder in the post May '98 days why the left speaks in similar terms to the US. could it be that the left is considered an useful tool by both the PRC and anti-India sections of west ?

Ah, that Jyoti Babu is a CIA asset that led to the demise of the "revolution"

??

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 09 May 2009 21:28

http://www.foia.cia.gov/CPE/ESAU/esau-35.pdf

APPROVED FOR RELEASE
DATE: MAY 2007

DIRECTORATE OF
INTELLIGENCE

In India--in the Communist Party of India/ Left--a simEsituation obtained. Party general secretary Sundarayya, who continued to be somewhat critical of Soviet revisionism, privately remarked in late January 1967'that he was becoming increasingly disturbed at the course taken by the Chinese cultural revolution and at the glorification of Mao. Members of the moderate wing of his party (such as Namboodiripad) probably agreed with him, while the large, militant wing of the party centering on West Bengal continued to be loyal to the CCP.
.
.
In addition, the Chinese have had strong sympathy in much of the import'ant Communist Party of India (Leftist); but only a minority of this party has wished to follow the CCP in attacking the CPSU, and &e party as a whole has not done so. Moreover, the CCP disapproves of the CPI/L's participation in provihcial governments, and has greatly embarrassed the CPI/L leadership by publicly backing party rebels favoring immediate armed struggle. The party's right wing around Namboodiripad is fairly friendly now to the CPSU, which would dearly like to entice it away.
.
.
The same considerations are basic to Soviet policy in other parts of the world. in the contest among the great powers for influence in India, the role of Communist China (through the CPI/L) is relatively small, and the primary struggle is conducted on nearly equal terms between the United States and the Soviet Union. While Soviet controlled propaganda organs in India (such as the newspaper Patriot) do attack the Chinese daily, the main f o c u s o f i r work is the steady, long-term effort to defame and discredit the United States.
---------

DANGE (India): adverse reaction to Khrushchev ouster, and adverse attitude of new CPSU leadership toward him, I 53-58.
.
.
DOBRYIN (USSR Amb. to U . S . ) : on 18 Sept 65, during India-Pakistan war, attempts to discover what U.S. had told Chinese prior to Chinese ultimatum to India, II 38; his statements in Feb 67 regarding

INDIA: past vain Suslov efforts in 1950s to get CPI to build up its clandestine Rilitary capability, I
89; CPI/Left susceptibility in fall of 64 to toughening of Soviet line toward Vnited States, I 1-2.;
reasons for CPI/Right hostile reaction to Khrushchev's ouster, I 53-55; CPSU longing to get rid of Dange, I 55-56; CPSU cultivation of CPI/Left, I 56-58; CPI/Right support at Mar 65 Moscow meeting for convening of world Communist conference, I 121; CPSU tells Dange in Jan 65 about new Soviet strategy to isolate Chinese, I1 6 ; Sino-Soviet tactical struggle during Sept 65 Indian-Pakistan war, I1 31-40; private criticism of China's "cultural revolution" by one wing of CPI/Left, I11 63-64; current status in Sho-Soviet struggle of CPI/Right, I11 94, and CPI/Left, I11 95.
agreements on transit of Soviet aid to Vietnam, I11 47-48, 54.

INDIA-PAKISTAN SEPT 65 WAR: awkwardness of the war for Soviet world posture toward U.S., I1 31-32; advantage over U . S . gained by skillful Soviet maneuvering between India and Pakistan, I1 32-33; events surrounding Chinese ultimatum, I1 33-35; CPSU secret letter to Chinese warns of possible U . S . action, I1 35-38; inglorious end of episode for CPR, I1 38-40.

--WFTU: Soviets reduce WFTU 1966 subsidies to Indian party's All-India Trade Union Confederation as means of clipping Dange's wings, I 56; Soviets make overtures to PKI in late 64 early 65 through visits to PKI's SOBSI trade union federation, I 45, 50; repression of PKI after Oct 65 coup attempt eliminates SOBSI as leading pro-Chinese spokesman within WFTU, I1 41; Soviets expel Chinese from Dec 66 WFTU meeting, I11 66-67, 110.

PAKISTAN: Sept 65 war with India, I1 31-40; requests to Chinese not to intervene, I1 38; Chinese surprised by Pak cease-fire agreement, I1 39.

PEOPLE'S DAILY (CPR): 18 Sept 65 editorial attacks Soviets re India-Pakistan war, I1 35; 22 Sept 65 article claims Indians had complied with demands of CPR bltimatum, I1 39;

SUNDARAYYA (India): general secretary of CPI/L, writes early 65 letter to Chinese apparently connected with Chinese annoyance at CPI/L conduct, I 57; effect on him of later visit to USSR, I 57; Jan 67 private remarks critical of cultural revolution and Mao cult, I11 63-64.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 May 2009 00:12

Rahul M wrote:I've read somewhat believable reports that following the '71 war KGB had furnished evidence regarding CIA funding of CPI(M). given the sino-US relations that is not entirely unbelievable.

I used to wonder in the post May '98 days why the left speaks in similar terms to the US. could it be that the left is considered an useful tool by both the PRC and anti-India sections of west ?

Left aligned with the west - UK/US/CIA after 1975 and also the communists joined the Congress after the weakness of IG.

Communists in Congress: Kumaramangalam's thesis. [Introd. by] Satindra Singh
Book
Author Kumaramangalam, Mohan
Description Delhi, D. K. Pub. House [1973]
xxiii, 92 p. 23 cm.
Notes

Originally submitted to the Communist Party of India in 1964 under title: A review of the party policy since 1947.

http://openlibrary.org/a/OL6420A/Mohan-Kumaramangalam

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 May 2009 00:16

brihaspati wrote:The western connection to the Left should not be dismissed. The Indian Left, has maintained strong connections with the British Communists. A lot of communist parties in the west were suspected by Stalinists to be fronts for the secret service of the western powers. I would not dismiss this suspicion of the Stalinists. I have had confirmations from some quite active in the communist movement of the early years, as well as later.

Once you read the origin of the communist movement you will get the true picture of the communism and leftist movement.

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 10 May 2009 00:59

Rahul M wrote:I've read somewhat believable reports that following the '71 war KGB had furnished evidence regarding CIA funding of CPI(M). given the sino-US relations that is not entirely unbelievable.

I used to wonder in the post May '98 days why the left speaks in similar terms to the US. could it be that the left is considered an useful tool by both the PRC and anti-India sections of west ?

A better occasion couldn't be asked for.. I recently scanned the 2 chapters of The Mitrokhin Archive , which caused a lot of Taqleef among Indian Political Parties (Congress and Left)..

A *Must* read for Jingoes.. who havent already done so.. and take it *FWIW*..

The Mitrokhin Archive - India Files
Volume-II (The World Was Going Our Way - The KGB and the battle for the Third World..)
Download : FileFront
Size : 57 Mb (PDF)

Yuri Bezmenov (*1939 +1997), KGB defector and former Novosti employee

Watch the whole series (Playlist) and again *FWIW*

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 May 2009 01:32

One way of tackling what Mitrokhin is hinting at, is for any nationalist party of India to function like a "rashtra" with its own counter-penetration counter-intelligence operations.

SriniY · Post by **SriniY** » 12 May 2009 02:27

A nice summary of major things that defined the tenure of Prime Ministers. Nothing we dont know but then I have not seen JLN critized in media before like this.

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... en-india-s

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 May 2009 03:52

SriniY wrote:A nice summary of major things that defined the tenure of Prime Ministers. Nothing we dont know but then I have not seen JLN critized in media before like this.

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... en-india-s

the most significant thing for me was this

V P Singh wrecked efforts made over decades to turn caste into an irrelevant relic of medieval times, and brought it to the front and centre of Indian politics. Call me naive, but I made it all the way to college without ever knowing -- or caring -- what my caste was. It was enough for me to be an Indian. I'd like to believe it was the same way for many other young Indians. Idealistically, we believed that caste was an evil that had been made redundant in major Indian cities, and would one day be banished from small towns and villages too.

VP's cynical use of the Mandal Report to try and counter the rise of the BJP shattered that hope forever. Worse, it led to the rise of many small parties based on identity politics, which have no vision for India beyond their narrow vested interests. Today, sub-castes actually agitate to be declared backward. India has, thankfully, managed to avoid full-blown caste conflict but that's no thanks to VP. Rarely could a person who spent so little time in office have done so much damage to a country.

P.S: Before I'm accused of being casteist, I'd like to clarify my stand. I believe that one of the foremost duties of government -- Centre and states alike -- is to ensure affordable (if not free), high-quality education to all citizens, regardless of caste or community. Thereafter, there should be free and fair competition for jobs, based on equality of opportunity. Having failed to achieve this basic goal, politicians have resorted to lazy, and ultimately deeply divisive tactics like reservations. It's a shame we haven’t managed to see through their ploys.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 12 May 2009 06:49

Worst: VP Singh
Worst +1: JLN
Worst +2: IK Gujral
...
Best -3: ABV
Best -2: IG
Best -1: LBS
Best: PVNR

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 12 May 2009 12:14

Why is MMS/Rajmata missing from the worst list? Actually this combo was the worst.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 May 2009 06:53

MMS may not be around for a very long time, but do not count Rajmata immediately out. She will have solid international backing for years to come. Cong may still be kicking and screaming for the next decade or two. It will perhaps be quite crucial for the BJP. If it shows any signs of uncompromising attitudes towards national interests in extra-national framework, it may face coordinated attacks, both physical as well as political.

Over 60 years, there must have been tremendous investments, both external as well as internal, in the fortunes of the Cong. These investments cannot simply be abandoned, and hence, are likely to be fiercely and ruthlessly protected. The forces represented by the Cong is yet to show its real teeth, and will only come out when they think they may lose for good.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 14 May 2009 16:58

It can be worthwhile to look into the interests of various foreign groups in the fortunes and futures of Indian political parties and groups.

A starting list can be USA on its own, USA as part of NATO, UK on its own, UK as part of European interests, Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel. Another group is Pakistan, Nepal, SL, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia.

The third consideration are ideological groups which will have overlapping interests with the "national" interests mentioned above - the EJ's from USA, Catholic Church, Tablighi Islamists, Saudi Wahabis, Buddhists (Theravada and others).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 May 2009 23:24

x-posted...
If you look at Indian history we find that in a short period say 50~60 years after a strong center the peripehry disintegrates. The reason is all strong central powers are mutual coalitions with core ideas. The periphery disintegrates as they find that they are not accomodated in a meaningful manner. Usually the dominant central group garners all the privileges and keeps the others out. Hence to promote their interests they will bring down the center or weaken it. Rising expectiations due to Modernity and Communications revolution has accelerated this pace of disenchantment. We see this from V.P. Singh onwards.

So the magic is to promote the coalition with mutual benefit to ensure a strong center is always present. Weak willed 'persons for all seasons' are not needed there.

So if one thinks this is all corruption then they dont understand the lesson of history when diverse groups ocme together to form a nation state.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 May 2009 23:55

ramana wrote: Rising expectiations due to Modernity and Communications revolution has accelerated this pace of disenchantment. We see this from V.P. Singh onwards.

So the magic is to promote the coalition with mutual benefit to ensure a strong center is always present. Weak willed 'persons for all seasons' are not needed there.

It is all about economy. India share of the world trade hit the lowest in its entire history of 1000+ years in 1989 - The year VP SIngh was the Prime Minister. India's new generation born after the baby boom in the 1960s reached working age in 1990. Indian ruling class was not ready with a growing economy in that period.

All else is small factor.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 May 2009 21:16

Two series of posts from the elections thread:

amol.p wrote:
ramana wrote:I have a question about Maharashtra political setup. The players are: INC, NCP, SS & BJP with small showing by others. What are the regions where BJP and SS get their strength and why not in other areas?

BJP & SS got strength in vastly neglected ares for MH
1] vidarbha was neglected by many congress govt in past 30 yrs. The people gradually shifted to BJP+SS in those areas. If you see 2004 & 1999 results BJP & SS got there 80% seats from Vidharbha. The current BJP+SS leaders developed that area and put sugar industries giving reliable income to farmers.
2] Konkan belt: After muder of ghandhi many Brahmins were killed and there houses burned down by Marathas(congress supporters) as Godse belonged to brahmin community which pertained from pune but links to konkan belt. So Most of 90% Brahmins have still that feeling left for congress. As konkan is thickly populated by brahmins they support BJP & other group of people who are decendets of Shivaji Maharaj army they naturally support SS.

Now comes why BJP+SS cannot win in INC+NCP dominated areas.
1] From the day of independence whole of leaders who fought for independence came from western & south MH and were affililiated with congress. Once MH was found, these people brought all industries,banks,colleges, universities in there areas and put their own people as heads of those institutes.
2] This naturally brought goodwill for them and remained till 1990. But After 1990 winds of change started to flow with kolhapur becoming a SS stronghold. SS commands such a stronhold in kolhapur that once when a soldier from kolhapur died on border fighting terrorists the minorities in kolhapur suffered the brunt for weeks.
3] Once the change started many flocked to SS. But since all sugar industries,local co-operative banks & co-operative cloth mills & milk industries are in hands of INC+NCP , all farmers were threatened if SS comes to power in these areas you people can burn your sugarcane in your fields rather than our factories accepting it. They informed the co-operative banks to stop loans to farmers if they didnt come in power.
4] As Major rural economy is in hands of INC+NCP leaders rural flock always votes for INC+NCP.

and

On BJP & INC dynamics

R Vaidya wrote:Why some regional parties are afraid of "Growth of BJP"

Remember SVD Government in MP after 1967 elections--In that non-congress ministry both CPI and BJS were members. MP used to have vibrant Socialist parties/groups plus later Congress O. But see the development in the last few decades. Only BJP and Congress. Same with Rajasthan --looking back from seventies. Gujarath --many may not remember had Cong O government and strong Socialist groups. Now only BJP as alternative to congress. Same is happening at Karnataka--soon it will be BJP and Congress. Same will happen in Orissa. The decline of Congress is temporariliy used by some caste/regional forces but taken over by BJP since it represent a distinct "idea" from the Congress.Hence the worry of Naveen and Nithish is understood. More so of Navin since BJP has built on Sangha work and institutions in Orissa.Same reason- the reluctance of TDP to go with BJP in the second time--they lost Muslim vote etc is just an excuse. BJP is a "vish Kanya" for many a regional outfits. Attractive but killing. But sub-regional outfits like MDMK,PMK,Gorkha league,TRS,PR etc may find BJP as a good ally since BJP does not trample their current situations.
What is the difference between TDP and BJD and Congress. But look carefully they all have huge differences with BJP.
So, it is a long haul for BJP. I remember BJP taking a "victory" procession in Mangalore in the early eighties for retaining its ' deposit'-See today they are rulers.
Same was the situation in Gujarath in the eighties.
Hence expecting too much out of regional parties is not realistic. Also coming to power at centre on their own may be better--Coalition will have its own "black Mailing"--Remember the tantrums of Jaya and Mamta in the last NDA government.
It should be recognised and internalised that BJP represents a completely different set of idealogy compared to Congress. We are not debating which is good etc.
Hence for a complete transformational politics patch works may help only moderately.But not fully. The only point is BJP has not grown fast enough to compensate for the declining "idea" of Congress.
Anyhow they will form a coalition at the Centre in 2009 also and it will only be moderately succesful. Since it will be coalition of the idea of "BJP" and ideas of "congress"
R Vaidya

to which

A Deshmukh wrote:
R Vaidya wrote:Why some regional parties are afraid of "Growth of BJP"
Your theory is proven wrong if you look at Shiv Sena or Akali Dal.
SS is the oldest ally of BJP. And is still there.
SS and SAD, both may eventually decline, but not because of BJP, but because the original generation which created the parties will become too old, and new generation leaders may not be good enough.

to which

AjayKK wrote:The fact is true that the " idea of Congress " creates a political vacuum which is later taken over by the " idea of BJP ".

In states like Orissa , the alliance of BJP with BJD is not a "meeting of ideas".
Naveen Patnaik has always been seen himself as a Elite figure and is disconnected with the masses. Hence, over a period of time , the Elite will keep getting disconnected and the BJP and Sangh will keep growing as people of the state Orissa identify more with the later's philosophy.

I will let R Vaidya ji speak for himself, but his statement "regional parties are afraid of growth of BJP" applies to all BJP ally that identify with the "idea of Congress".

So if BJP has an ally which overtly/covertly identifies itself with "idea of Congress" (like BJD / and JD (S) prev . ), then that ally will definitely be afraid of BJP's growth. I think this is what he meant to say.

Hence, the same cannot be applied to Shiv Sena or Asom Gana Parishad as these parties share the same "idea" with BJP.

If ever their alliance breaks, it will be primarily due to over ambition of any of their leaders.

and

rkirankr wrote:
I was about to reply on the same lines, but couldn't have put it better than you have done.
One more thing is if BJP comes as an ally, I feel it is not only the BJP but the whole sangh parivar machine comes into that state. This will lay ground work for future BJP only govt. Eg Karnataka. BJP has been with RK Hegde and others in Karnataka, but now look at it. Look where the Devegowda party is.
As far as I see the next in line states to fall in BJP's lap in future is(in order in which they might come to BJP , only in south)
AP
Goa(well almost south)
TN( a long haul)
Kerala (will it ever happen)

This is just my understanding . Gurus please pardon if wrong

And related post about post-poll dynamics of how incumbency gives the occupier more state machy power.

R Vaidya wrote:Doodhwala from Delhi tells me that Maya has decided to go with UPA --deal is struck--mostly based on her cases. So Mulyam has moved to NDA. Lalu/Paswan with UPA. Varun claims that "he" will bring 40 seats from UP.
If TN Amma gets more or equal to 30 then her group is with UPA. Congress ditching DMK and one part of DMK moving with NDA. If it is less then 30 then Amma with NDA.
Doodhwalas are reliable since they are Krishna clan!!!

R Vaidya

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 May 2009 03:44

A very important sequence of posts linked together by Ramanaji.

The problem brings us back to the dilemma and dynamic of the relationship between the core and the periphery. My opinion is that so far there has not been any real core. Some regional interests have posed as the core (UP - with some networked adjacent sub-regional alliances in Gujarat and Maharashtra) and basically the rest of the "regions" have seen this as a greedy hogging of resources by essentially regional interests in the name of the core.

When rashtryia allocations are demanded and received by any region, there should be a calculation as to how and where these rashtryia resources are being extracted from. If there is a net flow of such resources from other parts of the country to feed and prosper a particular region, then there should be an analysis and policy based on actual reasons for the need of such a flow. Was this need a result of earlier exploitation by other parts? Or was this a result of mismanagement? Or was this a simple matter of political arm-twisting to benefit special minority or elite interests who basically want an economically unfair advantage? Then again should such flow be allowed to be unconditional and not based on time-staged proof of performance? If a policy basis for these flows cannot be established, political and economic blackmailing will continue to erode at the base of the core. This is perhaps very similar to all the economic and financial debates going on in general in the international financial circles - about bailouts.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 May 2009 03:50

brihaspati wrote:
When rashtryia allocations are demanded and received by any region, there should be a calculation as to how and where these rashtryia resources are being extracted from. If there is a net flow of such resources from other parts of the country to feed and prosper a particular region, then there should be an analysis and policy based on actual reasons for the need of such a flow. Was this need a result of earlier exploitation by other parts? Or was this a result of mismanagement? Or was this a simple matter of political arm-twisting to benefit special minority or elite interests who basically want an economically unfair advantage? Then again should such flow be allowed to be unconditional and not based on time-staged proof of performance? If a policy basis for these flows cannot be established, political and economic blackmailing will continue to erode at the base of the core. This is perhaps very similar to all the economic and financial debates going on in general in the international financial circles - about bailouts.

I will repeat again my earlier post. Stunted economy creates resource grab and unfair resource allocation.

Acharya wrote:
It is all about economy. India share of the world trade hit the lowest in its entire history of 1000+ years in 1989 - The year VP SIngh was the Prime Minister. India's new generation born after the baby boom in the 1960s reached working age in 1990. Indian ruling class was not ready with a growing economy in that period.

All else is small factor.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 May 2009 19:46

An important opportunity for the future arises for the "right" : this is the time to claim leadership of the sectors constructed as "dalits". Mulayams' support base in the future will be split between the Cong and BJP. There is no reason as to why BSP's fate should not be the same over the long term.

If the BJP really wants to go forward, then it should try to go it alone in as many of the states as possible. It is a turning point. If the "right" (which does not necessarily imply BJP only, or the apparent forces seen to be the "right") can clarify its position and stand, it can begin to consolidate all the forces that range against foreign political and hostile religious/cultural ideologies, as well as forces against internally divisive projections - these are a numerical minority now, but will increase as the "foreign interests" are seen to expand and the effects of supporting the Cong begins to be evident over the next decade.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 May 2009 21:18

This was what I wrote on the 13th, here

MMS may not be around for a very long time, but do not count Rajmata immediately out. She will have solid international backing for years to come. Cong may still be kicking and screaming for the next decade or two. It will perhaps be quite crucial for the BJP. If it shows any signs of uncompromising attitudes towards national interests in extra-national framework, it may face coordinated attacks, both physical as well as political.

Over 60 years, there must have been tremendous investments, both external as well as internal, in the fortunes of the Cong. These investments cannot simply be abandoned, and hence, are likely to be fiercely and ruthlessly protected. The forces represented by the Cong is yet to show its real teeth, and will only come out when they think they may lose for good.

I think, these factors are going to be increasingly more relevant as time goes by. Three formal postures put up by RG are significant : "youth" and "poor" and "secular". Did these factors really sway the electorate? What do the "youth" really think of their prospects under continued Cong rule? Or for that matter "poor", or "secular"?

Primarily the reality is a reflection of confusion, where "secularism" has made the "Hindu" more or less confused and sufficiently ashamed of its identity. This backgorund vacuum of ideology is therefore filled by superficial constructs. Visually entrancing or spectacular "star" qualities become fascinating. I had written long ago about the potential of "handsomeness" or "sexy" in politicians that the youth subtly media-managed through Bollywood will be susceptible to. The youth probably voted for the Cong, yes, but not for the reasons RG hints at - it is more akin to teenage "wet-dreams" about "stars" of the opposite gender on-screen. The BJP could not project a Sachin Pilot with a wife from the appropriate "community", or a RG with PG(B) providing the "goddess" component, or a ruddy "Illuminous sun" Scindhia - who would be repeatedly broadcast over wide reaching TV channels - with certain channels even focusing the camera on the swaying body parts of one of the ladies in hip-huggers on the election day. Maybe a judicious choice of "wife" by VG could be a step forward?

The poor angle doesn't cut much ice. For future growth, industrial development will have to take place. Given Indian land use pattern, this will have to come in conflict with agrarian interests and mor importantly rural poor. Which means any industrialization will have to subsidize large dole-outs, which will mean lack of interest in non-public sector investments. Where will sustained dole come from?

The last bit of red herring is the secular bit. This is an attempt at keeping the agenda of foreign religious interests alive and a message to the right quarters that Cong will keep an eye on the formers' interests. A kind of public "thank you".

I do not think the "right" should be disappointed. BJP's win would not have allowed the forces ranged against the idea of Bharat mature and come out into the open. It is better to allow them to feel more confident and start on their policies. A much wider and more fundamental "right" wing movement needs to shape up. Things will change when external aggression, and internal regression begins to show up.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 16 May 2009 22:41

Yes... I posted something similar in Future strategic thread few days ago..

Indic revival is perhaps waiting for some major shift in international geo-political scenario.. Without that push which will force Dhaarmic ideologies to take a major evolutionary leap, the revival is difficult as there is enormous amount of inertia in Indic population..

The biggest change that can happen in near future (within 25 years from now) is WW3.. if this happens, it will be a decisive event if Indian civilization manages to emerge relatively unscathed from the ordeal. But, in case of such huge escalation of events, it is becomes very difficult to predict the outcome...

These elections perhaps prove that development (or lack of it) is not sufficient enough in giving the decisive push to Indic civilization to wake her up from hibernation of millennium.

And finally...

Indian democratic set-up needs to be Indianized for larger participation of public..

Indianization of Democracy - A dire necessity

The best time for elections in India is when the Indic festivals of harvest are concentrated.. Or in August when crops are growing in fields and there nothing much work needed to be done except for daily maintenance of the fields.. in January-February.. or in November.. Around Diwali... the mood of country is happy overall due to festivities and the polling will be healthy.. There should not be any elections after Holi and before Monsoons, simply because there are not any festivals in that time.. In other words, when average climate of India is at its best and there are not many agricultural activities going on..

The festivals are concentrated in such periods of the year.. People have free time to think.. Since the climate is good, the atmosphere pleasent, people can vote without any bias, with clear conscience..

Election needs to be transformed into a religious OR social festival in India. It will not only preserve the sanctimony of the idea, but also make people more participative in a good way.. If it is a festival, people won't dare to cheat, bribe etc... and They will vote because voting will not be mere duty of each citizen, but it will the "Dharma" of each citizen to vote.. and Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah: - Dharma protects the protector....

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 May 2009 06:37

I am inclined to pass this election off as a wave, partially swelled by lack of shrewd image manipulation from BJP. But thats it, nothing more than a wave. Electoral emotions that swell up in adulation can equally turn nasty tsunamis once the euphoria is dashed on the hard rock of frustration and shattered dreams.

I would see this as a great cleansing bath for the Indian right, if not the BJP. Many in the right will seriously take up the challenge and commit themselves to active politics, and their obvious first and perhaps only viable choice will be the BJP. If the leadership is wise, they can use this influx to rejuvenate the party. If it fails, and BJP drops its fundamental core ideology of nationalism based on the "Hindu" idealism, goes for quick fixes and starts talking "Congress/Left/Indian" secularism, it will neither be able to surpass Cong, nor will it retain its actual source of strength. But even that should not be seen as the end of the road for the right. The core can still come out of it and reinvent itself.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 19 May 2009 08:09

Chiron wrote: The biggest change that can happen in near future (within 25 years from now) is WW3.. if this happens, it will be a decisive event if Indian civilization manages to emerge relatively unscathed from the ordeal. But, in case of such huge escalation of events, it is becomes very difficult to predict the outcome...

WW3?! What?!

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 May 2009 08:18

There is real possibilty of large scale warfare because of control over resources like energy, mineral etc to maintain the large economies in the world.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 19 May 2009 10:39

Prem wrote:There is real possibilty of large scale warfare because of control over resources like energy, mineral etc to maintain the large economies in the world.

Or even water.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 19 May 2009 12:42

Keshav wrote:
Chiron wrote: The biggest change that can happen in near future (within 25 years from now) is WW3.. if this happens, it will be a decisive event if Indian civilization manages to emerge relatively unscathed from the ordeal. But, in case of such huge escalation of events, it is becomes very difficult to predict the outcome...
WW3?! What?!

Why... What is so shocking about possibility of such highly escalated global war in coming 25 years?

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 19 May 2009 20:42

Chiron wrote:Why... What is so shocking about possibility of such highly escalated global war in coming 25 years?

25 years is a very short time and although some seem to be referencing the gap between WWI and WWII, it should be mentioned that 60 years have gone by since that time.

Things are going to have to become much worse before a war breaks out. It's not only fear mongering, its just silly.

As long as the USA remains military dominant, no large scale conventional warfare is going to take place. And like a neutral mafia while other gangs fight amongst themselves, they will intervene into that gang war if it threatens profit margins. The mafia in this scenario is the USA and China who would certainly have no desire to fight each other as long as they are profiting from one another.

WWIII will not happen in our lifetimes.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 May 2009 22:00

What if they are no longer profiting from each other? Its much better for them to gang up and produce conflicts in places where the fire will be too distant to singe their own fur, but which they can profit from nonetheless by supplying opposite camps.

If you look at those 60 years, they were never really taht far from a state of continuous warfare. They might have been less spectacular, becuase they were happening most of the time away from Europe or North America. But conflicts and wars probably overall involving a lot more than WWII were continuously taking place. This was US+West engaging in similar profiteering with USSR using third parties.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 20 May 2009 02:58

I would suggest instead of seeing the world from 1945, one should see it as a separate phase since 1990 (disintegration of Soviet Union)

1989-1991 is landmark period in history of world. God knows what planetary crap happened in heavens in that timespan. Disintegration of Soviet Union, fall of Berlin wall, Rise of India, brewing up of gulf war, peak point in careers of Afghan Mujahideen, Osama and Taliban. In other words, one global conflict came to an end and seeds of the next one were sown.

Its been 20 years now, when system was rebooted to certain extent. by 2029, it will be 40 years.. If India begins to show some spine from now on, by 2020-2025, there will be considerable clout in favour of India by then.

In such scenario, escalation is quite possible. the crunch for oil and water will be very high at that time in India and China. Given the pathetic maintainance of dams in TSP (silt depositions have reduced the holding capacity enormously - Tarbela is already choking up), Indo-Pakjab tensions will genuinely increase.

India entered as party of 1971 conflict owing to millions of refugees. India will not go on war with TSP or PRC for assuaging her H&D. Bhaarat will only go on war if it is profitable OR it is inevitable. I think escalated water scenario is the biggest reasons for tensions.

Of course, this does not take into consideration regarding what might happen until then and will TSP remain single or disintegrate. IMO, it will linger. India won't invade. Unkil-UK won't disintegrate TSP. PRC will continue its overt support to TSP.

One more interesting thing is PRC building huge dams on Brahmaputra and diverting the waters towards mainland. Could this be potential spark-point for Sino-Indian tensions?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 20 May 2009 03:34

brihaspati wrote:I am inclined to pass this election off as a wave, partially swelled by lack of shrewd image manipulation from BJP. But thats it, nothing more than a wave. Electoral emotions that swell up in adulation can equally turn nasty tsunamis once the euphoria is dashed on the hard rock of frustration and shattered dreams.

I would see this as a great cleansing bath for the Indian right, if not the BJP. Many in the right will seriously take up the challenge and commit themselves to active politics, and their obvious first and perhaps only viable choice will be the BJP. If the leadership is wise, they can use this influx to rejuvenate the party. If it fails, and BJP drops its fundamental core ideology of nationalism based on the "Hindu" idealism, goes for quick fixes and starts talking "Congress/Left/Indian" secularism, it will neither be able to surpass Cong, nor will it retain its actual source of strength. But even that should not be seen as the end of the road for the right. The core can still come out of it and reinvent itself.

Perhaps another nationalist party should rise up separately from BJP.
They will forego religious/Hindu issues (Ram Temple, anti-cow-slaughter, etc, etc)
and instead focus on purely nationalist issues without any religious hue (Uniform Civil Code, national security, terrorism, economic reforms, liberalization, anti-Mandal/reservation, development, etc). They can tread in districts that might otherwise shy away from BJP due to religious/communal sensitivities.

The 2 parties could then do seat-sharing arrangement, and avoid contesting in each other's constituencies, where each enjoys a local advantage.

ReligiousRight+NonReligiousRight=RightistMajority

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 May 2009 03:46

That was called the Swatantra Party and failed miserably for there is no base for such a party except with the ex-Maharajas and some industrialists. They used to have a block of 50-60 MPS. However to be fair to them themade good speeches with histronics. The 1972 Indira wave wiped them out. This is what led to her sweeping changes.

So in 1977 all these were merged into the Janata Party. This one, won the elections but, broke up due to contradictions and vindictive behavior with Mrs G. Instead of going after her minions, to satisfy their ego, they went after her: Shah Commission etc and made her an angel. Mrs G supported Charan Singh who had giant sized ego and wanted to be PM even though he didnt have the talent and pulled the plug on him after he defected. That led to the 1980 elections where she was returned to power.

From the ashes of the Janata Party, ABV and LKA created the BJP.