Indian Interests

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Oct 2010 22:04

Very apt op-ed by N.V. Subramanian!

Divide & gain
India's unity lies in democracy and diversity, but foreign powers do not always see it that way, says N.V.Subramanian.

11 October 2010: The Economist magazine of UK has just recommended India over China to foreign investors. The point it makes has been made before, which is that India may be chaotic on the surface but is calm below. The opposite is said about China.

But despite such high-powered recommendation of India by a world-class publication, some caveats are necessary, especially in respect to the conduct of foreign relations. Some great powers and puny states alike, including the US, China and Pakistan, take our democratic skirmishes at face value, and seek to make divisive interventions that could someday prove costly.

Consider the Indo-US nuclear deal. It might be argued that as contentious as its earlier "positive mandate" from Parliament proved to be -- the Left pulled out of the government and the Manmohan Singh regime at best won a corrupt confidence vote in the Lok Sabha -- the subsequent consensual parliamentary approval of the nuclear liability law put a permanent lid on the controversy.

But in the middle of the nuclear-deal scrimmage, at least one unfortunate incident happened. The US approached the Manmohan Singh government about the BJP's opposition to the nuclear deal. You may or may not accept the BJP's opposition (this writer, for the record, does), but the Centre handled the American interrogation wrongly. It asked the US government directly to speak to the BJP, when it would have been wiser to say the opposition was being engaged.

If, thereafter, an unconvinced US took the matter straight up with the BJP, that would be the call of a sovereign state. But the Indian government wouldn't in any way be implicated. By directing the US to the BJP, the Manmohan Singh government was ceding its authority and diminishing the Centre. It was putting the official stamp on internal political differences which ought never to be done. For its part, the BJP should have heard out the US, but politely closed the conversation by saying its points of differences would be conveyed to the government. At all times, the government should be the single window of interface for any foreign state.

The US is not the only country to attempt to play upon perceived internal political differences. Pakistan and particularly its ex-dictator, Parvez Musharraf, have tried it all too often in the past and continue to do so. At Agra, Musharraf worked on the alleged differences between A.B.Vajpayee and L.K.Advani. When the UPA-I government was formed, Musharraf tried to show Manmohan Singh down by saying Vajpayee was a doughtier peace-maker. Then Musharraf invited Sonia Gandhi to visit Pakistan to exploit the fact that Manmohan Singh was PM at her pleasure. Now again, as Musharraf attempts a desperate political comeback in Pakistan, he has reversed his stand, hailing Manmohan Singh as a bigger conciliator than Vajpayee. Musharraf's game is obvious. But his bait should not be taken.

China too carries the misimpression that India is weak because of its democracy. In a recent phase of downturn in Sino-Indian relations, the Chinese had articulated the possibility of Balkanizing India along its linguistic "faultlines", forgetting that they were overcome long ago. More currently, to prevent any Chinese extrapolation of India's Commonwealth Games (CWG) fiasco as somehow reflective of the country's strategic confusion, this writer had argued about India's core strengths, one of which happens to be democracy. The message got home to the Chinese, who quickly sympathized with India's CWG predicaments in their regular foreign-office briefing.

The point is this. In any democracy, political differences cannot artificially be capped. They make a democracy both weak and strong, but stronger by far. It is most important that foreign powers do not misconstrue India's democratic chaos for weakness, as some examples given above show. How that is done, particularly in the realm of foreign affairs, is to make government the sole point of official contact for other countries. This might appear to be obvious, but when there seem other locations of appeal, like, say, Sonia Gandhi or the BJP or (for the Chinese) the CPI-M, then India weakens. This is not to say foreign countries should be barred from engaging non-government notables, opposition parties, etc. But they should understand that the policy of divide and extract won't be tolerated.

The strength of chaotic but calm India can no longer be taken for granted.

N.V.Subramanian is Editor, http://www.NewsInsight.net, and writes internationally on strategic affairs. He has authored two novels, University of Love (Writers Workshop, Calcutta) and Courtesan of Storms (Har-Anand, Delhi). Email: envysub@gmail.com.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Oct 2010 01:33

Pranav wrote:^^^ See also: Brijesh Mishra a CIA agent? http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2005/ ... agent.html

Pranav, Brajesh Mishra is son of Durga Prasad Mishra the former CM of Madhya Pradesh and right hand man of Mrs G during the Syndicate wars. A more likely explanation is he was protecting her interests. At that time it was Sanjay Gandhi who was the more political son.
As for Rahul baba its not good for image to have the son of former iconic PM to get arrested.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 13 Oct 2010 02:21

RajeshA wrote:
Altair wrote:India "awarded" Non-permanent UN security council seat.
Read:"You can bark all you want but you cant bite"

Mods:Do we need a seperate thread for this fetish orgy?
At the moment the thread "Should India leave UN, if we don't get a veto seat in UNSC?" has mutated into the India-UN Thread. One can use that, or create another one depending on how Mods see it.

Unitl India defeats all the opposition to its own existence -from Pakistan - it will not be able to go to the next step

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Oct 2010 09:58

India must secure its relations with TSP. The only way of doing so is to bring the TSP down. The nation needs to prepare to repeat 71 on TSP.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Oct 2010 19:00

AK Anthony says neighbors arming themselves, while being incharge he has done the most to ensure the unreadiness of the Indian armed Forces. He did this by delaying and cancelling orders on whiff of suspicion. He should punish the wrong doers while ensuring procuremnt goes on. Instead he has chosen to stop everything and reset the clock. Truly Krishna Menon redux.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 65#p957665

Answer from a retired Army Maj Gen.

EDITS | Wednesday, October 13, 2010 | Email | Print | | Back

Military with no weapons
October 13, 2010 7:16:23 PM

Ashok K Mehta

India’s defence forces are getting increasingly crippled as Saint Antony refuses to sanction the purchase of urgently needed weapons

Over the next five years, India will spend $ 50 billion on arms purchases, including the daring joint development and production of the fifth generation fighters with Russia. This would suggest that Russia might no longer be in the race for the 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft as defence acquisition involves political balancing. Still 70 per cent of all our equipment and dependency will remain Russian. As Finance Minister, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had promised that once the economy grew, funds for defence modernisation would increase incrementally. That’s what is likely to happen after a two-decade drought in military modernisation.

Given the track record, defence acquisition will be further degraded by the overkill in probity and the Byzantine procedures. On August 25 this year, heads of five defence companies from the US, the UK Germany, France and Canada wrote to Defence Minister AK Antony for better structured and more supplier-friendly defence procurement policy.

The real questions are whether the buying spree will enhance self-reliance, improve deterrence and strengthen India's clout in international affairs. So far, at least, India has underutilised its military capability for a variety of domestic political and cultural reasons, not the least, the lack of strategic thinking.

A new book, Arming Without Aiming: India's Military Modernisation by Stephen Cohen and Sunil Dasgupta of the Brookings Institution has done some excellent mind-reading of Indian policy planning failures to develop military capabilities commensurate with its rising power and also exposed the warts in planning.

It is not surprising that despite terrorist attacks on Parliament and in Mumbai and several lesser strikes across the country over the last two decades, India has not crafted a suitable response to cross-border terrorism. The international community is astonished at the amazing levels of tolerance and military restraint shown by New Delhi — making a virtue of necessity, its strategic restraint and patience. The authors say that India’s rise is welcome (except in Pakistan) as it is not seen as an assertive power.

Is strategic restraint, the term coined by Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh during Operation Parakram, an euphemism for lack of appropriate military capabilities? Twice in that year, India came close to crossing the start line but held back, according to insiders, as neither the Air Force nor the Army was deemed fit or ready for punitive operations. It is the duty of Governments to keep the armed forces in a state of operational preparedness with relevant equipment and technologies. So it may not just be the culture of military restraint but equally the lack of defence planning.

The authors argue that India’s defence acquisition process is ‘amazingly convoluted’ and coupled with its preference to acquire technology and build weapons itself has led to deep problems. The preference is also to add and expand existing structures than engage in reform. This is true as since independence there has been no defence review and the armed forces have continued to operate in a political vacuum virtually decoupled from decision-making. This has resulted in erratic and spasmodic defence modernisation unrelated to developing challenges and their priorities but contingent upon availability of funds.

Commenting on the book, Ashley Tellis of Carnegie Endowment has noted that India’s defence policy was in crisis as there is ‘internal sclerosis’ in India’s internal defence thinking. Despite the Group of Ministers report after Kargil, key reforms like appointing a Chief of Defence Staff, remain in abeyance and integration is only lip-serviced. Another profundity from Tellis is that while the Indian state has the money, it does not have the capacity to spend it efficiently. To this self-explanatory charge can be added that funds for modernisation cannot be utilised in full due to avoidable road blocks. Tellis notes “how civil-military relations restrain military modernisation and this is not accidental but deliberate”.

Every year, an average of Rs5,000 to Rs 8,000 crore is returned to the Finance Ministry months before the end of the fiscal which helps to balance the Government's books. Tongue in cheek every year, the Finance Minister ends his ritual two-line statement on defence allocation with the caveat that “more money will be provided if required”. This is followed by thumping applause!

But no amount of military modernisation will help unless there is new strategic thinking and political will to shape the environment to India’s advantage. For a rising power, a strong military is an asset if it is employed gainfully to promote political and diplomatic objectives. Cohen says: “We don't think that new hardware and weapons will make that much of a difference as diplomacy and new strategic thinking are important.” The challenge for New Delhi is transforming the strategic environment.

Interestingly, the book contains a chapter on Defence Modernisation and Internal Threat. This probably is the most relevant contribution to India’s severe domestic problems ranging from insurgencies in Jammu & Kashmir and the North-East to the Maoist threat which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh first flagged in 2004 and has since repeatedly called the most serious internal security threat facing the country. Unfortunately, we continue to look outwards without addressing cogently, the threats from within, being fixated with Pakistan.

India’s defence budget has shot up astonishingly from nearly Rs50,000 crore in 1999 to Rs1,50,000 crore in 2010 and is growing exponentially at nearly 10 per cent but still remains far below two per cent of the GDP against the prescribed three per cent. Nearly 40 per cent of the budget goes towards military modernisation and maintenance.

Given the recommendations in the book, India must revisit its defence policy, implement outstanding defence reforms, including scrapping the laughable system of Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee, and appointing a Chief of Defence Staff. Despite India’s, in Tellis’s words, “strong cultural impulses towards restraint” the dominant short-term military requirement is creating a credible response to a terrorist strike from Pakistan short of full-scale war. One hopes that Home Minister P Chidambaram’s threat of a ‘swift and decisive response’ transfers into visible military capability embodied as a deterrent.

Diplomacy and deterrence will work best when the military is encouraged in new thinking through useful strategic and political guidance. This must become a two-way street with a free flow of ideas and innovations. Arming Without Aiming is certainly not what the Army teaches its soldiers. It is ek goli ek dushman.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Oct 2010 19:27

UPA and BJP came to an understanding on Karnataka political turmoil.

Background: 14 BJP MLAs rebelled against Yadyurappa's BJP govt. BJP suspended its rebels along with 6 independents before going to trust vote and winning it in the assembly. Governor Bharadwaj questioned this (he consistently intervened into state politics before to hurt the BJP govt) and recommended president's rule.

BJP Reaction: BJP demanded recalling Governor Bharadwaj.

Telugu news paper Eeenadu reports that a compromise has been reached between UPA govt and BJP party in view of upcoming Obama visit

$$$Billion question is what is expected to happen during Obama's India visit?
- MMRCA Deal - $10B+
- Nuke Power deals - $20-50B
- J&K - Priceless

The news page is not archived at. Will post the link tomorrow for people who can read telugu.

http://www.eenadu.net/panelhtml.asp?qry ... panel3.htm

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Oct 2010 00:55

X-post from book Review thread...

Tracing India’s military journey
October 11, 2010 8:21:40 PM

The Rise of Indian Military Power
Author: GD Bakshi
Publisher: Knowledge World
Price: 780

The book identifies three ‘revolutions’ in military affairs, and says the country awaits the fourth one, writes Anil Bhat

Since Independence, coming after 1,000 years of chaos and anarchy, India has seen four conventional wars. And the fifth — an asymmetric one of proxy by export of terrorism — has been on since the 1980s.

This book, GD Bakshi’s 12th, is a path-breaker, attempting probably a first scientific analysis of the Indian military history in terms of a series of “Revolutions in Military Affairs” (RMA) that had profound implications in the socio-political sphere. The author identifies three critical RMAs that changed the course of Indian history.

The first RMA was engendered by the Mauryans who used war elephants en masse to generate “shock and awe”. This, for the first time, helped unite almost the entire subcontinent into a highly centralised and prosperous empire.

The Mughals under Babar introduced the Second RMA in South Asia. The Mughal RMA was based on an intelligent combination of field artillery, flintlock muskets and horse- based archers. The new explosive paradigm of warfare terrified the Indian war-elephants and panicked them to a degree that made them a liability on the battlefield. The Mughals, thus, unified India for the second time into a magnificent empire that at one stage was generating 40 per cent of the world’s gross domestic product.

The British introduced the third RMA by raising well-drilled infantry regiments that could shoot collectively in a rhythm. An infantry battalion could thus generate sustained rates of fire of a thousand shots a minute. This high volume of fire decimated the Mughal-style cavalry. The third RMA helped emerge the “Third Empire of India”. The British unified the subcontinent for the third time.

The focus of this book, however, is not pre-Independence India, but the post-1947 period of the Indian military history. It tries to answer some pertinent questions: Is there an Indian strategic culture? Is there an Indian way of fighting warfare?

Western scholars have opined that India lacked a strategic culture. The author disagrees. Kautilya’s Arthashastra, he feels, constitutes the essence of an Indian strategic culture resurfacing unconsciously whenever India was united. This military culture is premised upon huge armed forces and attrition, besides emphasising on covert operations and information dominance. This Kautilyan paradigm of warfare resurfaced unconsciously in the liberation of Bangladesh in the 1971 war, which resulted in a resounding Indian victory over Pakistan. The shock and awe generated by the Indian Air Force’s complete domination of the skies over Bangladesh paved the way for a classic ‘blitzkrieg’ that (for the first time after the Second World War) created a new nation state with the force of arms. In just 14 days, India turned into a major regional power.

Since the Afghan jihad, the situation in South Asia has taken a turn for worse. Non-state actors are busy as never before. And, to bolster them, there is Pakistan, which has achieved nuclear and conventional military parity with India with the help of China and the US. Islamabad uses this parity to wage a relentless asymmetric war against India by using Islamist terrorists.

India is set to become a major economic power. It must translate this potential into usable military power to deter its adversaries from any provocative adventurism. India will have to field dominant war-fighting capabilities by ushering in the fourth RMA, based on air and water superiority.

India’s Defence Ministry has admitted in its annual reports that diplomacy remains the country’s chosen means of dealing with challenges, but that effective diplomacy has to be backed by credible military power. Delhi’s strategic and security interests require a mix of land-based, maritime and air capabilities with minimum credible deterrent to thwart the use of nuclear weapons against it.

This book must be read by all, particularly those interested in dealing with the issue of national security.

--The reviewer is editor, WordSword Features & Media

My comments on the strategic culture or lack there of.

To have strategy one first requires an imagination of what one wants to be. India's early planners envisaged an economic vision of what they wanted India to be. The reason was post World War II period was expected to be a stable one after the retreat if the colonial powers and end of rightist totalitarian states like nazi Germany, Fascist italy and Imperial Japan. And necessarily the strategy is also static and is more akin to corporate strategy of occupying market share. The corollary was that military buildup would ensue as economic progress is realized.

Along the way external and internal forces exerted pressures which required military response and build up. Thus the static world situation was disturbed and chaos entered. From 1962 to 1970 was two decades of wars and droughts. This necessasirly introduced uncertainity in Indian outlook.

The gap now is people abroad focussing on the military aspect and claiming there is no strategic culture as it does not match their idea of how things have to be. Did the US have a military build up in the early to middle 19th century? Not much as they let the British burn DC in the war of 1812 while Brits were busy with Napoleon. Does anyone berate US for allowing the Brits to do that.? Heck No!

It was only after Civil War ending in 1865 and the Indian tribes suppression of the 1870s that followed and the industrial build up of 1890s, when US overtook GB in steel production, that US statrted peeking its head into the rest of the world.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 14 Oct 2010 02:10

What on earth was Quattrocchi's son doing as part of the wheeling dealing in Karnataka? He met with Deve Gowda and others. This is shady beyond belief. What is amazing is that after subverting the CBI the family is openly displaying affiliations with Quattrocchi

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 14 Oct 2010 09:15

Pranav wrote:For anybody who doubts that our politicians are guilty of treason -

Congress took U.S. money: Daniel Patrick Moynihan http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/12/stories ... 050700.htm

So the Emergency was a CIA effort to Pakistanize the country? Would explain a lot about why the BJP is unpopular in Western circles.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Oct 2010 21:52

Pranav wrote:For anybody who doubts that our politicians are guilty of treason -

Congress took U.S. money: Daniel Patrick Moynihan http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/12/stories ... 050700.htm

Whenever there is a need for kowtoww such allegations are brought up.

Note Nixon and Anderson each used to take money from the same source during the time he was President based on NPR interview last week.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Oct 2010 21:28

The biggest damage that was done by the Macaulayite education was to linearize Indian thought process is to enhance the left side of brain and kill the right side brain which is the center of creativity. The way Mahatma Gandhi suppressed the linearized left side brain was by returning to native(Indic) roots and writing Hind Swaraj. He was able to envison an India that is decolonised.

Unfortunately he died before he could decolonise the mind. Now I understand why he wanted to disband the Indian Natioanl Congress which was vehicle for the poltical aspirations of the Indian people under colonial rule. What he wanted was fresh begining which was Indian in thought and origins and started after Independence.

Even the US whithered the Political parties that led the American Revolution. For instance the Whigs were remade into the Republican party only in 1860 elections. And Thomas Jefferson founded the Democrats after the Independence.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 15 Oct 2010 21:50

ramana wrote: Unfortunately he died before he could decolonise the mind. Now I understand why he wanted to disband the Indian Natioanl Congress which was vehicle for the poltical aspirations of the Indian people under colonial rule. What he wanted was fresh begining which was Indian in thought and origins and started after Independence.

Did he articulate that prominently when he was alive? or was it an inside matter which got revealed after his death by some biographer? Probably Nathuram Godse and his supporters would have thought twice before killing him....actually if the bold part was realized by MKG...Indian politics would have been different...of course..its beyond my understanding to say how different it could be.

TIA.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 15 Oct 2010 21:54

^^^ Good question venkarl. I've also heard that MKG wanted to disband INC but JLN wanted it to continue indefinitely as his vehicle to power. Now whether this attribution of MKG's intentions is post facto or in is own words remains to be seen.

Also, lest it be forgotten, MKG intervened to remove a democratically elected INC president Netaji Bose. Doesn't quite look like the actions of one who wanted INC dead soon after independence. Perhaps.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Oct 2010 22:04

Anyway, my focus was on how he de-Macaulayised! And how we are not!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Oct 2010 02:57

From Collected Works of MKG:
"The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic Book), New Delhi, Publications Division Government of India, 1999, 98 volumes"
VOL. 98: 6 DECEMBER, 1947 - 30 JANUARY, 1948 p333
327. DRAFT CONSTITUTION OF CONGRESS2 NEW DELHI,
January29, 1948
Though split into two, India having attained political independence through means devised by the Indian National Congress, the Congress in its present shape and form, i. e., as a propaganda vehicle and parliamentary machine, has outlived its use. India has still to attain social, moral and economic independence in terms of its seven hundred thousand villages as distinguished from its cities and towns. The struggle for the ascendency of civil over military power is bound to take place in India’s progress towards its democratic goal. It must be kept out of unhealthy competition with political parties and communal bodies. For these and other similar reasons, the A. I. C. C. resolves to disband the existing Congress organization and flower into a Lok Sevak Sangh under the following rules with power to alter them as occasion may demand.

[Footenotes on pp 333-4 explain the reason why this has been included in CWMG - it was to stifle speculation in the press, and that this was the draft Constitution MKG was working on the day before he was assassinated]

2 Acharya Jugal Kishore, General Secretary of A. I. C. C., released this draft to the Press on February 7, with the note: “As something has already appeared in the Press . . . regarding the proposals which Mahatmaji had made concerning changes in the Congress constitution I am releasing the full draft as was handed to me on the fateful forenoon of 30th January. . . .”

This appeared in Harijan under the title “His Last Will and Testament”.
In his article “The Fateful Friday”, in Harijan, Pyarelal writes: “The whole of the 29th had been so cram-full with work that at the end of the day Gand hiji felt utterly fagged out. “My head is reeling. And yet I must finish this,” he remarked to Abha, pointing to the draft constitution for the Congress which he had undertaken to prepare, and then, “I am afraid I shall have to keep late hours.”

The next morning Gandhiji revised the draft and gave it to Pyarelal to “go through it carefully”. He added: “Fill in any gaps in thought that there might be. I wrote it under a heavy strain.” When Pyarelal took the revised draft to him he “went through the additions and alterations point by point with his characteristic thoroughness and removed an error in calculation that had crept in in regard to the number of panchayats.”
1 The copy available in the A.I.C.C. files has a question-mark here. 2 A facsimile of the draft up to here is available in Mahatma Gandhi—The Last Phase.

[this e-edition http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/cwmg.html has some differences with the printed volumes that I have. But I had checked this particular piece before and no differences with print version]

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Oct 2010 03:04

Added as an afterthought, as far as I remember, [dont have the time to look up the volumes now] MKG had been openly criticizing Congress-men for a wide variety of things - he thought were unacceptable, for at least two years before his death. Could be a good opportunity for people to access his original works!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Oct 2010 03:22

Hari and Venkarl ji,
all evidence points to the draft being written by him as last known - the day before he was assassinated. It was not publicly available therefore for the "conspirators" to access. The only people who might have known about this would be the "eyes" and "ears" of the British secret service and of course some of the inner circle in the INC.

I would rather see it as worthy of a future inquest again. Lots of deaths and disappearances of the shapers of modern India seem to be too convenient for whoever came to power afterwards.

gpati · Post by **gpati** » 16 Oct 2010 07:53

Hari Seldon wrote: MKG intervened to remove a democratically elected INC president Netaji Bose. Doesn't quite look like the actions of one who wanted INC dead soon after independence. Perhaps.

It seems, INC had term limit for their presidents, that is they could not contest second time. Netaji apparently ignored that and had contested for second term.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 16 Oct 2010 13:57

Brihaspati Mahoday...Thank you....it makes me sad that his vision was blocked and kept deep under the debris from realization

Indians of today has to know what Mahatma wanted to do.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 16 Oct 2010 16:09

On the topic of MKG, I have only read An Autobiography & India of my dreams. Before having read them I used to feel that he was a coward and the man responsible for the mess our nation is in today.

Once I had read the two, it was clear to me that the mess we find our selves in, is, in effect a result of our deviation from the Gandhian ideal as espoused by him. I say this inspite of not having gone through the complete work of the man. But only a minute fraction of his work.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Oct 2010 19:10

MKG's words are selectively written and quoted to create an impression that is more suitable to subservience of whoever happens to be in power.

If his actual words are studied, he comes across a complex character who is not always consistent, and therefore very human. But his essential spirit was radical, anarchist, anti-rashtryia dominance, confrontationist, pro-active. This is not the "passive", "peaceful" image that is sought to be projected. It is nothing about peace or passivity. He is against "state" as a form, and therefore a "confrontationist" who sought to face up to and destroy the highest form of coercive organization - state as having monopoly over all violence. His methods are deceptively "peaceful" - but we have given too much importance to the method and not seen the purpose behind it all.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 16 Oct 2010 19:28

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 16 Oct 2010 21:53

Unite against the host community advices Archbishop of Canturbury

http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.a ... 363&SKIN=C

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Oct 2010 23:00

For the missionary drive :
One of my most favourite authors/philosophers writes :

Whence comes the impulse to proselytize?

Intensity of conviction is not the main factor which impels a movement to spread its faith to the four corners of the earth: 'religions of great intensity often confine themselves to condemning, destroying, or at best pitying what is not themselves." Nor is the impulse to proselytize an expression of an overabundance of power which as Bacon has it "is like a great flood, that will be sure to overflow." The missionary zeal seems rather an expression of some deep misgivings, some pressing feeling of insufficiency at the center.

Proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than a desire to bestow upon the world something we already have. It Is a search for a final and irrefutable demonstration that our absolute truth is indeed the one and only truth. The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others. The creed whose legitimacy is most easily challenged is likely to develop the strongest proselytizing Impulse. It is doubtful whether a movement which does not profess some preposterous and patently irrational dogma can be possessed of that zealous drive which "must either win men or destroy the world." It is also plausible that those movements with the greatest inner contradictions between profession and practice -that is to say with a strong feeling of guilt - are likely to be the most fervent in imposing their;faith on others. The more unworkable communism proves in Russia, and the more its leaders are compelled to compromise and adulterate the original creed, the more brazen and arrogant will be their attack on a non believing world. The slaveholders of the South became the more aggressive in spreading their way of life the more it became patent that their position was untenable in a modern world. If free enterprise becomes a proselytizing holy cause, it will be a sign that its workability and advantages have ceased to be self-evident.

The passion for proselytizing and the passion for world dominion are both perhaps symptoms of some serious deficiency at the center. It is probably as true of a band of apostles or conquistadors as it is of a band of fugitives setting out for a distant land that they escape from an untenable situation at home. And how often indeed do three meet, mingle and exchange their parts.

_______Eric Hoffer in The True Believer - Psychology of mass movements, 1948/51.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 16 Oct 2010 23:58

Eric Hoffer should be required reading for everyone studying politics.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 17 Oct 2010 05:29

brihaspati wrote:For the missionary drive :
One of my most favourite authors/philosophers writes :

Whence comes the impulse to proselytize?

Intensity of conviction is not the main factor which impels a movement to spread its faith to the four corners of the earth: 'religions of great intensity often confine themselves to condemning, destroying, or at best pitying what is not themselves." Nor is the impulse to proselytize an expression of an overabundance of power which as Bacon has it "is like a great flood, that will be sure to overflow." The missionary zeal seems rather an expression of some deep misgivings, some pressing feeling of insufficiency at the center.

Proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than a desire to bestow upon the world something we already have. It Is a search for a final and irrefutable demonstration that our absolute truth is indeed the one and only truth. The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others. The creed whose legitimacy is most easily challenged is likely to develop the strongest proselytizing Impulse. It is doubtful whether a movement which does not profess some preposterous and patently irrational dogma can be possessed of that zealous drive which "must either win men or destroy the world." It is also plausible that those movements with the greatest inner contradictions between profession and practice -that is to say with a strong feeling of guilt - are likely to be the most fervent in imposing their;faith on others. The more unworkable communism proves in Russia, and the more its leaders are compelled to compromise and adulterate the original creed, the more brazen and arrogant will be their attack on a non believing world. The slaveholders of the South became the more aggressive in spreading their way of life the more it became patent that their position was untenable in a modern world. If free enterprise becomes a proselytizing holy cause, it will be a sign that its workability and advantages have ceased to be self-evident.

The passion for proselytizing and the passion for world dominion are both perhaps symptoms of some serious deficiency at the center. It is probably as true of a band of apostles or conquistadors as it is of a band of fugitives setting out for a distant land that they escape from an untenable situation at home. And how often indeed do three meet, mingle and exchange their parts.

_______Eric Hoffer in The True Believer - Psychology of mass movements, 1948/51.

In the world of psychology and psychiatry this condition is called "unilateral control" - I am always right and you are not. It is something that can be cured through therapy and treatment in most people except sociopaths and those with severe manifestation

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Oct 2010 16:59

But these particular individuals are part of groups whose right to such psychological deviation is protected under the Indian Constitution - and you cannot even question them or call them psychological patients - it will be "blasphemy".

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Oct 2010 07:42

http://www.zeenews.com/video/showvideo8610.html

In conversation with Baba Ramdev
Baba Ramdev is seeking to enter politics with an aim to cleanse the system. Speaking to the prolific yoga guru on her chat show `Kahiye Janab`, Swati Chaturvedi of Zeenews.com gauged his thoughts on the Ayodhya verdict, country`s socio-economic conditions, his meeting with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and more

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Oct 2010 11:16

X-Posting from Waging war for geopolitical gains

shiv wrote:When I look at the profile of the average Indian politician who rises up from grassroots - it appears that the people are no strangers to posturing and intimidation. That is exactly what we read about in Indian politics at the ground level.

But when these people reach the top the behavior is no longer evident on a national or international level. I wonder what behavior modifications occur that lead to this. Some possibilities are that India follows a ye olde understated diplomacy style inherited from the British and continued by advice and guidance from the babucracy. Another is the possibility that by the time Indian politicians reach the top at the center - their own asses are already on fire because of the people they have pushed aside, cheated and intimidated - so they are too busy sustaining their own gaddi to give a damn about intimidating another nation for Indian geopolitical clout.

Having said that, the topmost echelons of Indian decision making have among their advisors - real professionals (military) who are well versed with the art of recognizing and differentiating posturing and intimidation from real threats with intelligence inputs adding to the process of assessments. It is at that level that one can expect intrigue and deception - in that top political statements from, say China may indicate one thing while something else happens on the ground.

I think it is a combination of three things:

Local Focus. The Indian politician having gone through the electoral process, is more attuned to the local politics of his constituency and politics at state level. States in India have been cut out on linguistic and ethnic lines and the Indian politician feels mostly at home with those horizons as his limits. Usually the Indian politician ventures out of the state, when he becomes an M.P., but by then he is much older and his thinking has already been ossified at the state level. Even when he becomes an M.P. his attention remains anchored to the politics back 'home' in his state. By the nature of politics demanded at home, it is understandable that the politician has had less than sufficient time to devote to matters of the whole nation, let alone geopolitics. Perhaps if the politician was some businessman entrenched in export-import, he might have more exposure to rest of the world.
Indian politicians do not have the drive to think big. Normal politicians hardly identify themselves with old empires which stretched beyond the borders of current India, and as such do not have the consciousness of an inheritance of something far larger, something they were robbed of by history and something that needs to be rectified. They also do not have a strong victim mentality of having been enslaved or their lands occupied, that they seek redress (perhaps fatalism at work here, or insufficient historical consciousness). Some RSS ideologues may feel something like that w.r.t "Akhand Bharat" or some Mughalist Muslims may feel this, but the Centralist parties in India like INC have formulated the nation concepts differently and belittled that consciousness. The Indian Mughalist Muslims have also been discouraged to take up their identification with Mughal Empire by the aggressiveness of Pakistan and the Two-Nation Theory. So the expansionist, aggressive pressure has been fully wiped out in India, in the absence of which one accepts the siege from the neighborhood.
Bureaucratic Stranglehold. The Indian politicians once in Lok Sabha and national politics are first and foremost advised by bureaucrats who tell them that the instincts they learned at the village level and state level can not be used at the international level. There is a 'code of behavior'. Coming to the national level, the politicians already feel at some unease, perhaps because of change of language, or a change of environment and people. Not having had a pan-Indian consciousness earlier and seriously lacking pan-Indian knowledge, they feel uneasy taking decisions which affect the whole of India. They feel like they are encroaching upon the political calculus of other politicians from elsewhere, especially when criticized, so many decisions which concern India are postponed or not taken. As far as international relations are concerned, they are even more uneasy, and leave everything to MEA or other ministries. The babus however have come up through a Macaulayist protected upbringing, with no hurly burly of politics. These babus can talk and they can negotiate, but they cannot play international politics, and because of their meekness, Indian politicians too are not advised to be too aggressive.

Hence the political instincts of Indian politicians at the local level, cannot be scaled up.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Oct 2010 13:26

There are several ways in which the above can be remedied.

On-the-job Education: I feel it is important that Legislators should actively attend schooling on Indian and Global issues of relevance if they are elected or nominated at the Center or to the State Assembly. It is fine, that politicians first earn the trust of the people, and get elected. But once they have been elected, there should be an active encouragement built in into the system to educate them for the sphere of their responsibility and the sphere's external relations - at the State Level that would be State and Indian Union, at the Central Level that would be Indian Union and World.

At both levels, State and Center there needs to be Leadership Advisory Councils made up of eminent experts, think tank scholars, university professors and academics, businessmen, army, etc. who are chosen by their peers to be included in the body. These experts then hold regular seminars for politicians in the various subjects, and these seminars can be attended by various politicians in the State Assembly or from Lok and Rajya Sabha.

As encouragement, I would say give the politician all incentive that would be possible - good food & drinks, good atmosphere and surroundings, really hot hot chics (or guys) as waitresses, some renumeration for attendance, and opportunities for networking. One can also have some grade for every politician depending on his attendance of such seminars and his/her involvement.
The various standing committees in Indian Parliament should have more continuity. The members of the previous Parliament should continue to be members of these committees and be available to the new members as a knowledge base. The Caucus system can be looked at for Indian Parliament, where legislators from various parties can join a caucus which supports some issue of national relevance.

Just some thoughts!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 18 Oct 2010 19:42

Random rumblings

1. Claiming what is legitimately yours. Land/Geography holds the ultimate wealth, not paper currency.

The growing tensions about the ownership of Arctic shelf makes Norway concerned as it is standing against the might of Russia. Russia already announced plans to build multiple floating nuclear power stations so they can support remote towns of 40-50,000 populations in Arctic shelf. This is to ensure that Russian claims on this resource rich arctic shelf remain strong.

Compare this with Indian actions when it comes to its legitimate claims on Aksai-chin and POK. “Not a blade of grass grows” said a unwise prime minister. “It is all white” claims today’s self-proclaimed military and strategic gurus.

2. Watch UK to know the global trends.

I don’t remember who said this (I think it was Ramanaji or Bji). UKstanis are good at sensing the direction of geostrategic winds. They do not hold any ideological values of their own. They convert to the ideology of powerful and manipulate that power using their media and propaganda machines.

Now they are behind China and the upcoming leadership of PRC. Vice-president
Xi Jinping is expected to replace Hu-o-Akbar in 2012.

Today’s news item on BBC-radio indicates that he is Party’s preferred candidate and expected to maintain status-quo.

3. Need a nationalist organization to initiate local agitations to meet national interests.

AFAIR we have discussed this in [deleted] conceptual discussion threads. The need of the hour is to have a nationalist organization which can initiate local agitations (to meet local needs) in harmony with Indian Interests.

One example is the demand for removing/diluting AFSPA. It would be nice to have a local agitation in Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmir regions that demand keeping AFSPA to protect Indian citizens from Sunni-Wahabi terrorists. Remember Amarnath agitation???

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Oct 2010 20:14

^^^Perhaps one way is to build and develop settlements of "like minded people". Claim and connection on the land, being productive, and motivated with an ideology too. In sufficient numbers to prevent virtual "sieges" and making it sustainable as a community.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Oct 2010 20:32

X-posted...

X-post from India Forum;

:

Dhu wrote: With India , they encountered a context-free grammar/language and a context-sensitive experiential framework. It was necessary to transform these into variants of Abrahamism (coded language and context-free ethics/meaning).

When worded this way, it becomes clear which framework is conducive to propaganda and which is true discourse.

Foucalt, his predecessor Marx, and the Western relativists are objectionable because they seek to transform all discourse as instances of propaganda, ignoring the heathen sensitivity. The believers object to Foucalt because theirs is not propaganda but Truth. BUT THE BELIEVERS DO NOT REALIZE THAT the relativists take their position only to smother the last instance of heathenism i.e., the possibility of context-free grammar/language and a context-sensitive experiential framework; that is, the believers do not realize that the relativists ultimately and conclusively affirm Abrahamism by stating that all frameworks are 'interpretative' frameworks and instances of propaganda (as opposed to experiential frameworks).

To finalize the Abrahamic design, it becomes necessary to state that only propaganda is possible, but this transforms the Abrahamic claims as hollow.

And the blind heathens mistake Foucalt's 'relativism' as relational.

I think, with the movie 'Avatar', the colonizer overplayed its hand (for the first time) and exposed the mask dynamic for a brief period. To resurrect the colonizer dynamic, it will be necessary to shown in the next `movie how the Na'vi are themselves colonizers. This means that Orientalist caricatures of the native have a brief period of vulnerability as they switch between the colonizer's narrative and the native's narrative (in assumed voice and donned clothes)..

In India's case that period was the time the INC had not yet adjusted to becoming the colonizers. Unfortunately the Hindu right / nationalists got blamed for MKG's killing and window was partially shut down.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 19 Oct 2010 10:16

JwalaMukhi wrote: .. RM's ideas were iffy to put it mildly. The implementation aspect and practicality were not demonstrable even theoretically. Lots of hand waving when pointed questions were asked, but that's part and nature of the debate. Claims were very tall, short on substance. He claimed that without expenditure to the government, prime minister and other ministers could be replaced/recalled without recourse to elections or election like process. ....

JM,

The allegation that 200-250 administrative procedures I have proposed are logistically unvialble is false. I will discuss this in detail in Neta-Babu-judge thread. I will first how that the FIRST administrative change I have demanded/proposed shown in the Indian Express advertisement is viable. The exact DRAFT of procedure is on the very first page of 4 page pamphlet http://rahulmehta.com.001.h.pdf or http://rahulmehta.com.001.pdf. If possible please go thru the half page draft. I will write more on it in Nbj thread.

JE Menon wrote: Anybody notice the sleight of hand? Poverty is reducing every day even without the RTI2 law, so at least you can't accuse him of falsehood in advertising. Now if he said "eliminate" , then someone might actually stop laughing and start fighting, cause 120 days is like four effing months. .....

JEM,

The ad was supposed to come on first page, and so there was a limit of 240 sqcm (editor refused to print it on first page). And so I could not explain "reduce" by how much. But I did say that corruption in police will become nearly nil. Again, nealy nil is not defined due to lack of space. In http://rahulmehta.com/001.pdf I have elaborated my claim that corruption in policemen will become LESSER than US in 120 days after RTI2 is signed and poverty will decrease by amount equal to 67% of land-rent from GoI plots and mineral royalties. How much is that amount? I will write more details in Nbj thread.

===

JE Menon wrote:I could, for instance, insist that nothing will work well in India unless everyone has excellent bowel movement in the morning, and we should do all that is possible to ensure that. No matter what argument is brought out, we could insist that no judge or nbjprie (?) or whatever could make the right decisions on a poor constitution. Sooner or later, we'll have some followers...

Sanku wrote:And also toilets, dont forget the toilets. Nothing must be done by India for xyz years till we have good bowel movement and toilets to take care of it.

So may I start a thread on "Excellent bowel movement can reduce corruption and poverty", where in you can give exact DRAFTS of the laws by which you plan to ensure that most Indians do indeed have excellent bowel movement? Or why dont you guys start one such thread yourself?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 19 Oct 2010 20:14

Salami-slicing Indian Justice System

Remember the days when Supreme Court moved all Gujarat Riots cases to Mumbai per some secularists requests?

We are reaching the next level of it.

A "dalit" petitioner (Atul Ramjibhai Makwana) requested approached Gujarat High Court asking to transfer his case to a court without "Brahmin" judges as he "believes" that Brahmin judges cannot serve justice to his issue due to his "Dalit" background.

Thankfully Justice R.R Tripathi declined this request.

http://eenadu.net/story.asp?qry1=28&reccount=30

In essence we are allowing someone to seek a "favorable" bench on religious/caste/sex basis. Good going GOI.

Does anyone care for Constitution of India anymore?

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 20 Oct 2010 08:09

RamaY wrote:A "dalit" petitioner (Atul Ramjibhai Makwana) requested approached Gujarat High Court asking to transfer his case to a court without "Brahmin" judges as he "believes" that Brahmin judges cannot serve justice to his issue due to his "Dalit" background.

Thankfully Justice R.R Tripathi declined this request.

http://eenadu.net/story.asp?qry1=28&reccount=30

In essence we are allowing someone to seek a "favorable" bench on religious/caste/sex basis. Good going GOI.

Does anyone care for Constitution of India anymore?

Some details of the cases are as follows

1. In one district sessions court (Junagadh?) some 20-30 people were hired by written test followed by interviews. In results of written tests, the toppers were from all castes. But after interview, the finalists lists had over 60% brahmins. The Principal Sessions judge who was in-charge of interviews was a brahmin

2. The non-brahmins decided to politicize the case, as HCjs are known to favor corruption, favoritism and nepotism and no one has any hope from HCjs these days. High Court was used only give publicity to the case and no other reason. The lawyer deliberately made this remark. The media-owners fell in the trap and publicized the case.

===

My personal take is :

1. There was no brahminism in recruitment but it was a usual case of rampant nepotism, rampant favoritism via interview. One of my proposals/demands is that ALL initial recruitment at all junior/middle positions in GoI, courts must be via written exams ONLY and no interview (see chap5 , search for word "interview") . Nbjprie have inserted Interviews in recruitment ONLY to collect bribes and promote nepotism/favoritism. Now when rampant nepotism occurs, it is easy to give caste color as most relatives of a person of caste-X will also belong to caste-X.

2. Now if someone like myself confines to administrative issues namely nepotism, favoritism and solutions (abolish interview, introduce elections in judicial appointment), the media-owners do not want to highlight issues or solutions or persons focusing on issues and solutions. But if someone throws casteist remarks, media-owners highlight the comments and persons immediately. So for those who want fast publicity insist on giving caste-color to this issue of nepotism, favoritism and corruption.

3. Media-owners do NOT want to highlight the problem of favoritism, nepotism in courts but run to publicize the casteist remarks on the FIRST page. Why? The reason is : increase in caste strife will help Christianist agenda, and so Christianist pay big bucks to media-owners to highlight all remarks that would increase caste-strife in India.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 20 Oct 2010 08:42

^

I believe you are right.

The only point I have at this point is that "Interviews" cannot be considered as an objective step in selection process, because they are prone to favoritism.

A rhetorical question. What happens if the interview board has majority non-OCs and has high percentage of non-OC selections?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 21 Oct 2010 16:19

>>So may I start a thread on "Excellent bowel movement can reduce corruption and poverty", where in you can give exact DRAFTS of the laws by which you plan to ensure that most Indians do indeed have excellent bowel movement? Or why dont you guys start one such thread yourself?

This is the sort of chicken/egg situation which i'm talking about. I'm saying no law can be drafted unless the people drafting them have excellent bowel movement FIRST. You are saying FIRST a law needs to be drafted to "ensure" excellent bowel movement. Now, you tell me which is sane, and which is insane?

I don't intend to start such a thread. You may wish to, but it will be subject to the same assessment as all other new threads started. I cannot prejudge

what that assessment might be.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2010 22:48

I don't have direct evidence but I think this trip induced JLN to change the emphasis of the Second Five Year plan to Science and Technology

KLNMurthy wrote:Laying out the Red carpet

Some enlightening reminiscences from Inder Malhotra's review inspired by recently-released Selected Works of Nehru.

However, greatly impressed by China though he was, he wasn’t overawed. To quote his speech to the Congress parliamentary party again, “I am impressed by China. Having said that, let me also tell you that, having been to China, I am very much impressed by my own country.” In today’s circumstances, it surely looks highly ironic — but, at that time, Nehru also assured his party that India was “unlikely to be outstripped by China economically.”

What stunned Nehru was Mao’s utter insensitivity about a nuclear war. Atomic weapons, Mao argued, had made “no basic change” in warfare except that more people would be killed. Nehru disagreed strongly. Atomic warfare, he said, was not a matter of a greater quantity of deaths but of a “qualitative change in killing.” A third world war would be very different from earlier wars. Mao contended that even if half the population died in a nuclear war, the other half would build socialism, and imperialism would be dead for ever.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Oct 2010 00:39

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/pakis ... ostComment
Indians view LeT, Pak as greatest threats: Poll

An overwhelming majority of Indians view LeT and Pakistan as the greatest threats to their country and believe that there is a link between the two, an opinion poll shows. The poll by the Pew Research Centre said that a plurality of Indians characterise Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group responsible for the Mumbai attacks, as the greatest threat facing their country, along with Pakistan.
"One-third name Pakistan as the greatest threat – and overwhelmingly Indians believe there is a link between these two threats: 58 per cent say the Pakistani government actively supports extremist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, while another 21 per cent think it at least tolerates them," it said.
"And if these groups were to conduct another terrorist attack against India, most would support military action against them in Pakistan," according to the poll.