Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 17 Jul 2010 11:14

Akalam,

The idea of an SAARC stabilization force for AFG is an intriguing one. The concern that I have is that the force is supposed to be primarily Muslim (If am understanding you correctly). We know from past history of AFG that it needs more Governance and less Religion ( the matter of religion should not even enter the decision.)

Does BD have a sufficiently strong military to put 150000 armed men approx 4000 kms from its borders. And who will pay for the deployment of the force.

On a different but related matter, if SARRC is an underutilized body as dispute settlement mechanism. Its failure rests squarely on the leaders who insist that India make unilateral concessions to then in return for no reciprocity from them.

The examples are too many to list in this forum.

One would expect that the leaders stop using India as a pin cushion for internal political games.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 17 Jul 2010 12:02

Pratyush,

I am not an expert on Afghan situation, so cannot say for sure whether a Muslim force selected from all 7 SAARC countries (Bangladesh can be a participant, but definitely not the lone participant) is more appropriate than a SAARC force regardless of religion. I mentioned that as it seemed to me to be more appropriate, specially at the initial stage of deployment, considering the current situation in Afghanistan. The officers probably would not need to be from a particular religion. As the situation becomes more stable, soldiers regardless of religion could be brought in, I believe.

But its a detail that I am not at all concerned with as, if ever such a situation arises, it will be decided by people on the ground and from negotiations involving govt.s of the concerned countries. My concern is to float the idea as it seems to me that it is one of the viable solution for the Afghan problem and could be a new opening as a field of cooperation, where India and Pakistan could find some common ground to work together on a project that is important for both, the SAARC region and the world as well.

About under utilization of SAARC as a regional block, IMHO it could be a effective weapon for India to trump China and become the premiere super-power of the region and the world in general, but then the principal stumbling block seems to be what to do with a spoiler Pakistan. The current consensus on this site seems to be to wait till Pakistan fails and then deal with its broken parts or something in that line. I am afraid that period of wait will create a further distance between PRC and India, which India could use to narrow the gap between itself and PRC.

From my POV, India as a country will not be able to compete effectively with PRC, until it can form an EU type Union among 8 SAARC countries + Myanmar, then that will be a new beginning that will create a definite opening for South Asian supremacy. So it is for the interest of everyone in South Asia, but naturally as India is almost 75% of South Asia and a rising power, while the others are insignificantly small or semi failed ineffective state like Bangladesh or almost totally failed and apparently disintegrating state like Pakistan, the responsibility it seems to me lies squarely with India, as it is the only party that is somewhat effective in this mix, of course if it chooses to act, realizing its importance for its own future well being.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 17 Jul 2010 13:53

The idea of BD being the lone provider of force came about as you suggested a Muslim force in the previous post. Now Indian Muslim presence will not be acceptable to Pakistan. Also allowing Pakistan a foothold in AFG is an invitation to disaster.

That left only BD as an acceptable force for both India & Pakistan. Which is the reason why i mentioned BD as the lone force.

Now as for SAARC I agree in principal with what you are saying about the economic and human potential group. But disagree in detail of it being vital for Indian Interests against China. As I don't think that India is looking to confront China any time soon or in the future. It may try to seek an accommodation with PRC from a position of strength. The Improvements in the border defense infrastructure points to that possibility.

Moreover, as long as Pakistan is not solved the possibility will always remain that it will be used against India in the west. In that case the power potential of SAARC will be suspect unless AFG has been pacified. Which seems to be impossible at this point in time.

As always just some confused thoughts

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 17 Jul 2010 14:43

I think if the soldiers are paid well, like the UN peacekeeping forces, or at least a good fraction of that amount, there will be interest on the part of BD army to get involved, if it is so decided by govt. of the SAARC member countries and funding is secured from US/EU sources.

About PRC's rise and future dealings with its neighbors, I want to draw on my personal experience in dealing with Koreans. I happen to speak fluent Korean and have been dealing with Koreans for most of my adult life which is more than 2 decades. Koreans have an interesting history of dealing with the Han Chinese for the last 2 millennium and based on that experience, they are deeply suspicious of Han Chinese. What they tell me is that nothing ever good comes in dealing with the Chinese, as they understand nothing but their own interest, even at the cost of elimination of their opponent. In fact, I know some Koreans who are so passionately anti Chinese that they do not buy anything that is Made in China, as they don't trust that they can be of lasting value, some even wish that the Chinese could be wiped off the face of the earth, which of course is an inhumane and extreme position. If some in China's closest neighbor and almost a vassal sister nation think of China in this way, it is hard for me to understand Indian complacence about Indian-Chinese relations. I think it stems from not knowing the Han Chinese historical character well enough, which was a problem also with Nehru in the first few years after independence.

As far as I understand, PRC wants to become undisputed power in Asia and eventually trump the US and West as well, and it certainly has the potential to go that far, in a number of decades. In its path towards this rise, it does not want a competitor from its weak under belly. So it takes great care in making sure that India remains a compliant second fiddle and never crosses the line, the way it ensures that is by keeping South Asia a fragmented region, by ensuring some level of hostility between India and its immediate neighbors. Considering subcontinental politics and prevailing situation, China does not even need to do much to attain this goal. Of course as a great bonus of this policy it gets sea access via Pakistan and Burma, port in Sri Lanka and some forward access via Nepal.

PRC and India are natural enemies, if ever there was one. In fact, I believe that the Chinese distrust is for all South Asians, even as they utilize the internecine conflicts within South Asia. Why it has to be so, may be because South Asia with its more than 1.5 billion people, its influence in ASEAN and reach in Central Asia can be the one and only competitor for PRC in the long term, even though it is a disorganized mess at present, noting that both of these populous regions are short on resources, which they would want to grab from the rest of the world and also share a water source in Tibetan highlands.

I would venture to say that from a Chinese eye all South Asians look like pretty confused "Accha people" fighting among themselves.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 17 Jul 2010 16:07

Akalam,

WRT, your views on China and Han Chines I respect them but would like to state that seeking a confrontation with PRC just on this matter will not be justified. The two are not enemies to me, but yes they are competitors for raw materials and other resources.

That being the case for a country such as India it must develop strength in an open and transparent manner. I also don't worry about where china will reach by 2050. or any time for that matter. What I do worry is where India will be and at what point of time will India achieve that level. It is the social and political development of the Indian state that leads to a creation of strength in India. I also think that India is sufficiently capable of holding the line against any present competitor.

Coming to the matter of SAARC, I repeat regardless of what potential it has. It will remain a talking shop as long as the member nations don't accept that they are a part of a historical Indian cultural and economic sphere. Only on the basis of that can a progress be made towards achieving the true potential of the body. Once that is accepted and the temptation to balance India with an external player has been neutralized. Will SAARC become any thing more than the talking shop it is today.

As us looking like Achhaa People to the gents in PRC. What to do we are like this only.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Jul 2010 22:57

Akalam bhai,

no : no recently known examples of subcontinental soldiers radicalized in contact with Talebs outside of Pak. No one else was formally present at gov level in AFG, at least officially. But the general radicalization that happened in AFG of subcontinental Muslims who went to fight the Soviets, and the subsequent fallout is what worries people. In this, comparison with the Congo or African UN missions of Muslim soldiers from the subcontinent is not tenable. Sudan was a possible test case, but the ethnic divide is too great there. Whereas in AFG completely different dynamic may ihappen because the Islamists in AFG have been truly internationalist in Jihad!

Under the BIA, there were known issues of collaboration, stealing and supply of arms and ammunition, and transfer of skills to Jihadi groups and orgs at various phases - from subcontinental Muslims in the BIA, to Pathan Jihadis. it was clamped down upon but never really eradicated. Then again, a substantial portion of the training and preparation for armed attacks in preparation for the partition was again led by Muslim soldiers of the BIA, although as claimed, they were all apparently "demobilized" when they did so! Surprisingly, it is people who insist on this demob angle in academic studies of the phenomenon, who (and all from the parent nation of the BIA) have most strongly objected to an idea I suggested on very similar lines as yours. When I explored and pointed out that by their own studies their fears were irrational, they clammed up. I suspect that this part of BIA history has lots of skeletons in the cupboard and is a sensitive issue where truth will almost always be partially hidden.

satyam · Post by **satyam** » 17 Jul 2010 23:59

Want a BJP ticket? Pass an examination first

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... st/401736/

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 18 Jul 2010 00:06

AKalam wrote:
From my POV, India as a country will not be able to compete effectively with PRC, until it can form an EU type Union among 8 SAARC countries + Myanmar, then that will be a new beginning that will create a definite opening for South Asian supremacy.

Its an idea whose time will come. It would have come sooner but for Pakistan.
Secondly, purpose would be growth and development rather than supremacy only then idea will create stable institutions.
Thirdly, competing with PRC for pie of world trade may be one of the objective, but it can not be the core/central idea. India is competing while at the same time cooperating with PRC at many levels and in different fora.Now many more Indian official and unofficial delegations, businesses are visiting china and that creates atmosphere of understanding each other's complexity. And it would be sweeping to say that India as a country would not be able to compete with PRC so there is need for EU type union. I think that is wrong understanding of Indian situation vis a vis Chinese.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 18 Jul 2010 03:00

Brihaspatiji,

Yes, radicalization was a deliberate policy that was pursued by USA with help of KSA and ISI to fight the soviets, the after effect of which is still reverberating at world stage. That's why I call the US an irresponsible and trigger happy super power, that does things without thinking much of future consequences, and eventually not only it pays for its own mistakes, but others, who had nothing to do with any of this, also pay dearly. This is why I support regional blocs where every people have their own centers of power so they do not fall victim to idiocies of far-away people and their whimsical mistakes.

But times are different now, it has become pretty obvious from where the extremist ideas are coming from and who is funding them, at least we have seen this beast up close in our own home, so I think we have some good idea what we are talking about. Fortunately, we in BD have been able to keep it under control, so far, and we see no chances of it getting out of control in the near future.

About BIA getting involved with Afghan Jihadi's and partition riots, its certainly possible and makes logical sense, I would not be surprised if it actually happened. Jinnah, his sister and company (Suhrawardy being a prominent player) was able to whip up some passion, if I recall from reading about those times. The pre-partition riots and the major blood letting and displacement that happened during partition, I have a feeling, was more of a real estate property grab for the masses, that turned neighbors against neighbors, when it became clear that partition was a possibility and later as it actually became a reality. Of course, once violence started up and spread like a fire, then it had its own dynamic of vengeance and counter-vengeance. It was the original sin of separatism that subcontinental Muslims made, which they are paying for now everyday and will continue to pay for for the foreseeable future IMHO. Post partition India, as large as it is, I believe it is still being negatively affected due to partition. I admit frankly that I believe my earlier generations made a colossal mistake, which cannot be undone. My parents were born in British India and they were young when the partition took place. When I discuss those times with them, they still support partition, even though I point out to them the consequences so far and the future it brought for subcontinental Muslims. So fear and emotion rather than logic took hold of an entire people, specially its elite it seems and blinded their faculty of reasoning.

I digress, but how do we move away from the past and let it not be a baggage for our future. I think we should not be afraid to dig out the past and analyze it, because for one it reminds us and young people today how India used to be as one country and of course we can learn where and how we went wrong. For an individual 63 years is a life time, but for nations and peoples life-cycle, it is not a long time IMHO.

About partition, I want to make an interesting comment. While I believe in individual property and personal initiative, I think it is wrong for any group of people to claim ownership of a land, although that is the practice with the nation state system today. I tend to believe (being the land and resource short Bengali I am) more of an communistic sharing of land and resources for the people of the world. While it cannot be extended to global level now, it is certainly possible to extend it to regional level, as is happening in EU. Resource rich small countries can be rich in the short term, ultimately they are not stable, as they need protection from larger more stable systems. Also, when things like Partition happens, it becomes an excuse for local people to kick out and/or marginalize any minorities or immigrants. This is what happened with Hindu's in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Bihari Muslims who migrated to Bangladesh are still suffering, similarly Muhajer condition in Pakistan is not good. A more recent example is that of the Kyrgyz killing 2000 Uzbeks, from a simple fight that went out of control in Osh and Jalalabad. I visited Osh several times and have some really nice memory of having wonderful food there, now I saw that most of those places were burned down. The Kyrgyz, an apparently peaceful and simple people with nomadic past, are fearful of Uzbek dominance, so they want to kick out the Uzbeks from those cities, which are their ancestral homeland, just because the Oblasts were created with those Uzbek cities within the Kyrgyz Oblast, to bring some benefit to the nomadic Kyrgyz, now that historical decision has become a cause for the Uzbeks to become a threatened minority in their own ancestral home. I have also heard that Maharashtrian populist political parties are agitating the local slum dwellers to kick out and threaten people from other states. Give people a chance with sovereignty and ownership of land and the first thing they want to do is kick out any minorities or vulnerable groups. That is why it is better to put land and resources into bigger collectives, such as diverse and big nation as opposed to small nation states and regional groups as opposed to nation states and ultimately of course it would be ideal to make land and all resources into a global collective, where all natural resources belong to all people of the globe, but that is far in the future, not any of our concern for now.

For the 14 regional blocs that I mentioned in my above post, the eventual goal is to become one undivided country, just like EU wants to become a United States of Europe, after going through many stumbling blocks over many decades. If regional blocs are the next evolutionary step after nation state, then I can say with certainty that Han Chinese will never accept a Pakistan within their political entity even in remote far future, may be Myanmar, but ethnic Burmans have much to fear of getting marginalized in their own land, where the Han Chinese may instigate other ethnic groups against them to play divide and rule. The British played this game to take over Burma from the Burmans, and although PRC does not actively play this game, but the tribes in Northern Burma are closer to ethnic Han Chinese, so there is some fear factor there. So Myanmar logically applied for SAARC membership, as I believe it will be much more beneficial for them than being a member of ASEAN and they should be welcome. But if I were a Pakistani, I would think long and hard to see where the relationship with PRC will go in the long term and why they should not rethink their policy with India. If SAARC members are siblings and cousins, then the PRC is not even a relative, but a complete foreigner, from the other side of Asia, where the Han Chinese are originally from, the South East corner of present PRC. So a sibling rivalry between India-Pakistan should not be a justification to create a family disturbance by inviting a foreigner in the house, no matter how sweet talking and generous the foreigner may seem.

Why do I think a regional stabilization force is a possibility, because sooner or later the US/Nato will leave Afghanistan, but they cannot leave a mess behind this time, so they will look for an honorable exit route. Afghanistan will not have an army or security force in a time frame that US was able to build in Iraq, that can take over or hold the country together, because the country simply lacks proper personnel that could run it in some manner, against the many difficulties of extremism, Taliban, drug cultivation etc. That is because unlike Iraq, war ravaged Afghanistan has been a basket case for more than 30 years. It will be much cheaper for the US/NATO to fund and support a regional stabilization effort instead, rather than staying in Afghanistan for the next 20-50 years. But the biggest stumbling block for the regional effort is the riddle of Indo-Pak relations, so my hope is that Obama administration would pay some attention in these areas to make progress.

Why a SAARC force and not from other neighbors? Lets look at the neighbors of Afghanistan:

- Iran, not trusted by the US and Shia Iranian force is not welcome in Afghanistan
- Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan - too small former soviet countries, kept stable under dictators, no intention to get involved in this mess which may have contagion problem and affect their own stability
- small border with Chinese Xinjiang, PRC will not get involved for obvious reasons

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Jul 2010 03:42

Very interesting line of thought. Much appreciated! You should have stayed on here on the thread while I have been leaning more and more towards the "military" solution as being inevitable!

Could have given me more pointers to be hopeful of the non-military ones.

Regarding land - is always going to be a tricky question even if one day we colonize the moon and Mars and the asteroid belt. In the meanwhile, what could be thought of are two - reclaiming new land (has its own obvious problems), and using various forms of the Community Land Trust models. To a certain extent, communistic endeavours work when the group is struggling to survive against hostile conditions. I studied the "Kibbutz" experience and we know that to a certain extent it was pivotal in the foundation of the Israeli nation [but having roots in the ethno-communism/socialism of the Jewish-Workers movement], but it seems to have run out of steam now. At the same time, such community based/commune based structures will be pivotal again for their future struggles - again beacuse they have continued to face hostilities.

I think the CLTM should be seriously explored in the subcontinent. It is a kind of compromise between complete social ownership of land and private rights - both of which are important for a healthy sustainable economy. Extreme privacy and extreme socialization both kill off the incentive factor. But this latter model also fits in with the current semi-capitalist structure of global interactions [semi-capitalist because it is not a free-market structure, with state and extra-state forms of control and intervention in the market], whereby market valuations can be used to maintain value and inputs into property and productivity by making the CLTM assets partially tradeable.

The difficulty that I see towards achieving your "union" is about the method. I would like to think of a method that minimizes actual "war", but this is not what I can foresee in any of the three or four routes that I have thought about.

Re: Partition, it will be wonderful if you can post your thoughts on the dedicated thread for that here!

A question : how far do you think the BD army will allow the current drive against the Islamists, and what reasons you think counters my uncomfortable feeling that a substantial portion of the establishment as well as security services may "trip" and go for a clever "coup", not a direct one, but a more subtle "chaotic" one made to look like from the civilian side, where the army has to "step in"?

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 18 Jul 2010 05:39

chaanakya wrote:
AKalam wrote:
From my POV, India as a country will not be able to compete effectively with PRC, until it can form an EU type Union among 8 SAARC countries + Myanmar, then that will be a new beginning that will create a definite opening for South Asian supremacy.
Its an idea whose time will come. It would have come sooner but for Pakistan.
Secondly, purpose would be growth and development rather than supremacy only then idea will create stable institutions.
Thirdly, competing with PRC for pie of world trade may be one of the objective, but it can not be the core/central idea. India is competing while at the same time cooperating with PRC at many levels and in different fora.Now many more Indian official and unofficial delegations, businesses are visiting china and that creates atmosphere of understanding each other's complexity. And it would be sweeping to say that India as a country would not be able to compete with PRC so there is need for EU type union. I think that is wrong understanding of Indian situation vis a vis Chinese.

Some quotes from Sun Tzu:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu

- All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

- Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

- All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.

- Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.

- Speed is the essence of war. Take advantage of the enemy's unpreparedness; travel by unexpected routes and strike him where he has taken no precautions.

- O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible and hence we can hold the enemy's fate in our hands.

- Of all those in the army close to the commander none is more intimate than the secret agent; of all rewards none more liberal than those given to secret agents; of all matters none is more confidential than those relating to secret operations.

- Opportunities multiply as they are seized.

- Secret operations are essential in war; upon them the army relies to make its every move.

- Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

- Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

- Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.

- Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious, he is inaudible. Thus he is master of his enemy's fate.

While India and PRC must develop outwardly good diplomatic and trade relations as the two most populous countries on the planet to show that they are good neighbors, shaking hands with smiling faces, the reality might be a shadow war between the two states in other states in the surrounding regions of South, Southeast and Central Asia. In this shadow war, SAARC can be an effective tool for India to reduce PRC influence in SAARC member countries and Myanmar.

If PRC was really serious about friendship and neighborly good relations with India, it would not invest its efforts with other SAARC member countries, often undermining Indian interest in those countries.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 18 Jul 2010 11:51

brihaspati wrote:Very interesting line of thought. Much appreciated! You should have stayed on here on the thread while I have been leaning more and more towards the "military" solution as being inevitable! Could have given me more pointers to be hopeful of the non-military ones.

Regarding land - is always going to be a tricky question even if one day we colonize the moon and Mars and the asteroid belt. In the meanwhile, what could be thought of are two - reclaiming new land (has its own obvious problems), and using various forms of the Community Land Trust models. To a certain extent, communistic endeavours work when the group is struggling to survive against hostile conditions. I studied the "Kibbutz" experience and we know that to a certain extent it was pivotal in the foundation of the Israeli nation [but having roots in the ethno-communism/socialism of the Jewish-Workers movement], but it seems to have run out of steam now. At the same time, such community based/commune based structures will be pivotal again for their future struggles - again beacuse they have continued to face hostilities.

I think the CLTM should be seriously explored in the subcontinent. It is a kind of compromise between complete social ownership of land and private rights - both of which are important for a healthy sustainable economy. Extreme privacy and extreme socialization both kill off the incentive factor. But this latter model also fits in with the current semi-capitalist structure of global interactions [semi-capitalist because it is not a free-market structure, with state and extra-state forms of control and intervention in the market], whereby market valuations can be used to maintain value and inputs into property and productivity by making the CLTM assets partially tradeable.

The difficulty that I see towards achieving your "union" is about the method. I would like to think of a method that minimizes actual "war", but this is not what I can foresee in any of the three or four routes that I have thought about.

Re: Partition, it will be wonderful if you can post your thoughts on the dedicated thread for that here!

A question : how far do you think the BD army will allow the current drive against the Islamists, and what reasons you think counters my uncomfortable feeling that a substantial portion of the establishment as well as security services may "trip" and go for a clever "coup", not a direct one, but a more subtle "chaotic" one made to look like from the civilian side, where the army has to "step in"?

By land and resource collective, I actually meant to consider bigger entities such as regional groups like EU, as opposed to a single country owned by a particular people, such as Kyrgyzstan for Kyrgyz, as being an obsolete model, but a Central Asian Union is probably a better model that provides more solutions of existing inter-state problems. Kibbutz are good, but I am not against private ownership of property, including land.

Military solutions could work in achieving a South Asian Union, if the population welcomes it, after getting tired of useless ineffective govt. that cannot provide security and an economic future for its people - Roti, Kapra and Makan as they say in Pakistan, I think. But if it is not welcomed by people and it is deemed as an invasion rather than liberation from an oppressive govt., then that will be problematic, as it will be difficult for the Indian state or any country in the world for that matter, to occupy and hold countries the size of Pakistan and/or Bangladesh for extended period of time. The cost will be too high.

I am completely in the dark about goings on in Bangladesh now, but I can assure you that Islamism has no future there. People are well aware of Saudi and other GCC funds, who they are going to and what kind of activities they are engaged in - I think in a small densely populated country like Bangladesh, there is no place to hide from people's eyes or the authority.

I will post my comments on partition in its thread in the future.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 18 Jul 2010 12:02

Where can I find meaning of commonly used forum acronyms, such as WKK, WRT etc.?

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 18 Jul 2010 17:15

AKalam wrote:Where can I find meaning of commonly used forum acronyms, such as WKK, WRT etc.?

http://sites.google.com/site/brfdictionary/glossary

lsunil · Post by **lsunil** » 18 Jul 2010 20:39

You cannot understand sun tzu's advices without graphical examples and scenarios. Most of his teachings revolves around "surprise" and "deception" which are considered cowardly according to the indian cultures and many other cultures also.

But the chinese view all sense of "glory" and "protocols" as a liability *in event of war*. Whatever that makes you win. Many others abstain from proliferation because of the "what will people say" argument but the chinese do not think that way.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 18 Jul 2010 23:15

lsunil wrote:You cannot understand sun tzu's advices without graphical examples and scenarios. Most of his teachings revolves around "surprise" and "deception" which are considered cowardly according to the indian cultures and many other cultures also.

But the chinese view all sense of "glory" and "protocols" as a liability *in event of war*. Whatever that makes you win. Many others abstain from proliferation because of the "what will people say" argument but the chinese do not think that way.

Yes, that was my point that what goes on in the surface is only tip of the iceberg. China continues its strategy in stealth mode, but it produces results. I am sure India is trying, but results so far cannot match that of the Chinese. My opinion is that SAARC may be able to level the playing field in India's favor.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 18 Jul 2010 23:44

Kalamji...regarding SAARC bloc having a military cooperation... does an average joe in BD is positive on this thought? it is interesting that this coincides with what Iftekar Ahmed Chaudhry has proposed in 2008..

Added later:
googling gave me this result : http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/2 ... 41322.html
wondering what happened to this initiative..did Thimpu round covered this aspect?
A very brave and confident initiative...

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 18 Jul 2010 23:58

Akalam garu,

I have my reservations on how far SAARC can be useful for India in containing China.But nevertheless a very interesting insight.Thanks. Did you get any chance to discuss your "Bideshi" view with any mainstream Bd's ? If yes, what was their reaction ?

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 19 Jul 2010 00:41

Venkarlji, if you would recall the BDR mutiny at Dhaka in 2009, it was mainly about Army getting the privilege of high paying UN jobs, while for BDR (former Bangladesh Rifles, equivalent to BSF border forces) there was none. Every Bangladeshi soldier's dream is to wait for their term to serve in overseas UN assignments. If the pay scale is somewhat similar, even though not as good, then I think there will not be any issues. Once the US embassy and BD Armed forces soldiers get on one side, nothing is impossible in Bangladesh, what politicians, army officers or bureaucrats think is pretty much moot from that point on.

Rony,

What does Garu mean

, I have seen that term, but not familiar with it, much appreciate it if you could kindly let me know.

For regional blocs, please look at my post near the top of this page where I talk about the 14 blocs that covers the world, and what they have in common. Also please look at the link in my first post for a book by Azar Gat of Israel: "War in Human Civilizations". It is kind of my personal conviction that the world will for the most part coalesce in these 14 blocs and eventually it may go down to 13 or so, if Russia eventually joins EU.

I have cooked up some theoretical basis for making this projection:

1. Historical Continuity of shared kinship ties (even though it may be centuries old), shared history (being under the same empire for some time), culture, linguistic ties, religion etc., some of these should be in common for the populations of nations within a regional block
2. Large homogeneous system trumps smaller entities because of economies of scale
3. External invasion and subjugation cause disruption that disturbs the natural order of a civilization and a wounded civilization needs time to heal (a la V S Naipaul)

My Bideshi expat view is entirely my own and I have not discussed it with anyone from mainstream BD's. But if Iftekhar Chowdhury, a former foreign minister/adviser, could have this view, then it must be fairly mainstream.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Jul 2010 01:36

Well,
the factors that are in the way of the SAARC route to "one country", are the following:

(1) secularization process : this will be vehemently opposed in Pak and BD. In this case, what happens to the attempt at going back to the '72 Constitution in BD turns out to be, is going to be significant. Without some degree of secularization the religious "divide" problem cannot be overcome towards "union".

(2) common military force : this is where, the greatest difficulty will come. Command structure, who gets the "top job", mutual hostilities, "national securities". I guess, the main troublemaker will be Pak, and BD+Nepal+SL+India will have relatively lesser of a problem to form a workable force for AFG.

(3) common economic zone : the least problematic, if only and as long as the flow is one way only, which it will have to be initially - from India. When it comes to reverse flow and associated commitments, will come strong centrifugal and "national" assertions - just as it happened with EU.

(4) common Constitution and Law : here, S-Nepal-India will have less of a problem to integrate, but BD will have strong opposition from within : Pak is a non-brainer if at that stage it still exists. Little chance of integrating AFG though.

(5) common currency : most problematic, severe opposition possible.

But, Akalam's idea of a common SAARC force for AFG will be a good possible start. In fact there are tactical possibilities even for India and the US to use it to pressurize Pak to really "act".

naren · Post by **naren** » 19 Jul 2010 02:17

^^^ Its double edged sword. BD & Pak will have huge population and in a sense, it "works" for them if they are able to easily migrate to India. Having democracy with their inclusion is pure recipe for disaster. ~500M united bious, that too rapidly growing vs 800M fragmented hindus.

We have so much appeasementism with just ~150M bious, talk about tripling that number !

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Jul 2010 03:35

lsunil wrote:You cannot understand sun tzu's advices without graphical examples and scenarios. Most of his teachings revolves around "surprise" and "deception" which are considered cowardly according to the indian cultures and many other cultures also.

But the chinese view all sense of "glory" and "protocols" as a liability *in event of war*. Whatever that makes you win. Many others abstain from proliferation because of the "what will people say" argument but the chinese do not think that way.

pardon the expression but that is BS.
surprise and deception are very legitimate tools of realpolitik practiced by every successful political entity throughout history, let's not confuse morality for the individual and that of the state/supra-individual. texts like arthashastra which are strongly anchored in Indian ethos recommend qualities like surprise and deception in an endeavour by the state in very direct terms.
criticism of the art of war rather comes from the fact that it is rather vague and majority of the sayings constitute platitudes.

the chinese at the end of the day are realists and they will stick to 'protocols' if a reciprocal breaking of protocols by the adversary has the potential to hurt them beyond what they are prepared to accept. the way to maintain a balance is therefore to maintain an ability to do reciprocal damage beyond their tolerance levels.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 19 Jul 2010 07:19

AKalam wrote:It was the original sin of separatism that subcontinental Muslims made, which they are paying for now everyday and will continue to pay for for the foreseeable future IMHO. Post partition India, as large as it is, I believe it is still being negatively affected due to partition. I admit frankly that I believe my earlier generations made a colossal mistake, which cannot be undone. My parents were born in British India and they were young when the partition took place. When I discuss those times with them, they still support partition, even though I point out to them the consequences so far and the future it brought for subcontinental Muslims. So fear and emotion rather than logic took hold of an entire people, specially its elite it seems and blinded their faculty of reasoning.

The question is whether the "original sin" stems from the basic doctrines of Islam itself.

If that's so, then progress will be a long term project. The population will have to evolve to the point where it is no longer swayed by blind belief.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 19 Jul 2010 09:42

AKalam wrote: What does Garu mean , I have seen that term, but not familiar with it, much appreciate it if you could kindly let me know.

Telugu - English Dictionary

gaaru honorific suffix added to names of persons (equivalent to Mr., Mrs., in English) and to names of professions.

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 19 Jul 2010 09:55

Rony wrote:
AKalam wrote: What does Garu mean , I have seen that term, but not familiar with it, much appreciate it if you could kindly let me know.
Telugu - English Dictionary

gaaru honorific suffix added to names of persons (equivalent to Mr., Mrs., in English) and to names of professions.

It is Telugu word to address a person elder than you. It is abbreviation for Gauravaneeyulu, literally meaning Respectable/Honorable.

I don't know what -ji means in Hindi or how the word is derived but garu usage is similar to -ji in Hindi

Mauli · Post by **Mauli** » 19 Jul 2010 10:05

I don't know what -ji means in Hindi or how the word is derived but garu usage is similar to -ji in Hindi

Ji is not a HIndi word. It is an Urdu word e.g. Ji Huzuri.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 19 Jul 2010 12:50

Barbarik wrote:
I don't know what -ji means in Hindi or how the word is derived but garu usage is similar to -ji in Hindi
Ji is not a HIndi word. It is an Urdu word e.g. Ji Huzuri.

From babylon's free dictionary

Ji is a suffix or postposition used with name or a title to show respect, in many languages in Indian Subcontinent. It originates from the Pāli and Prakrit variants of the word Arya, such as ariya, ayya, ajja, and aje.

lsunil · Post by **lsunil** » 19 Jul 2010 14:13

Rahul M wrote:let's not confuse morality for the individual and that of the state/supra-individual.

You are right. The people who deal with external factors ought to not ponder about such ethos. If
NFU is a deception then pre-emption is not a surprise.

Rahul M wrote:the chinese at the end of the day are realists and they will stick to 'protocols' if a reciprocal breaking of protocols by the adversary has the potential to hurt them beyond what they are prepared to accept.

I would say they practice what they preach to the fullest. Were we out of line in anyway that made china proliferate in the neighbourhood? Clearly(and obviously), it is not following protocols. The clandestine manner is just for confusion but is that manner not working for them? What are we and the world doing about it? Still following protocols? Why? Do we or the world have a plan?

We are getting contained. China is preparing itself for the "eventuality" by befriending our neighbours with money and while bases are not being established for the time being but do we not know the logical conclusion behind such an approach? Lets say it manages to achieve what it wants by 2020. We we doubt this time frame?

Sun tzu says that if your opponent is of equal strength then start dividing them. If the parties are sane enough to avoid a nuclear confrontation in event of an "eventuality", say in 2020, then our defences are destined to be divided in at least four fronts - pakistan, BD, SL and china.

The scenarios are self-explanatory. Im saying the "political" china and the "military" china are doing their job very well. The former has a calm and friendly approach while the latter is preparing our grave. That's deception.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Jul 2010 17:07

Rony wrote

Barbarik wrote:
I don't know what -ji means in Hindi or how the word is derived but garu usage is similar to -ji in Hindi
Ji is not a HIndi word. It is an Urdu word e.g. Ji Huzuri.

From babylon's free dictionary

Ji is a suffix or postposition used with name or a title to show respect, in many languages in Indian Subcontinent. It originates from the Pāli and Prakrit variants of the word Arya, such as ariya, ayya, ajja, and aje.

There was a discussion on this within GDF. OT here, but -ji suffix in Persian/Turkic is different - denotes extension of profession and not necessarily a honorific. The derivation from arya/ajja is problematic because standalone, arya/ajja was used as a prefix, postposition is difficult to derive and pronounce and hence likely to be discarded in the derived/softened/simplified pronunciation systems. Further there was a gap in the rise of this term between the demise of Pali/Prakrit and medieval rise of regional languages. The regional restriction in upper Gangetic valley among early Vaishnavites could have a connection to "Jiveshu/jiushu" used as an affectionate term of wishing a long life - always used as postfix, even to deities. OT.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Jul 2010 17:24

PRC current system is a historical legacy of a two-pillar system. One pillar was the party, and the other was the PLA. They used each other to divide up the power and resources of the state. Throughout, from the formation of both, there has been a subtle and sometimes overt struggle between the two for supremacy.

What is complicating the situation now, is the rise of the new entrepreneurial class, with international connections. While within CPC, a dynastic formation is taking place with children of previous party stars being put in next generation chairs. Overall this scenario leads to increasing corruption on the one hand, intensive competition between all three "power-seekers" and the rise of factional infighting within all three.

Out of this will rise the inevitable intellectual disgruntlement from elite segments. One direction already taken is towards "democratic critique". The other direction is going towards Neo-Maoism. The power struggle between these two ideological fronts will ultimately reflect the underlying power struggle within the CPC-PLA factions. They are not a monolithic "enemy" either. if India is astute enough, it can "encourage" the "democratic" faction too!

But then India does not believe in "interventions" - isn't it?

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 19 Jul 2010 17:32

posted w/o comment only. Kindly remove if irrelevant.
[youtube]e3tjIiWIkAQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 19 Jul 2010 18:26

China through ages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Terri ... _China.gif

In all these maps, there are few things which are common.

1. PRC is successor of Manchurian, Mongol and others. The real China (ethnically and Racially) is the doab between the two river basins - Yellow river and yangtzi river. As opposed to India, China has been an ethnic state of the culture of people between these two rivers. All throughout history, attempts have been made to standardize and normalize the cultural anomalies with reference to standards of the "han" culture from the doab. In other words, these two river basins is the core of China as an idea. The core of India (Sapta-Sindhu) has been including rivers from Sindhu to Kaveri for past 2200 years.

Thus, PRC is a China+its surrounding states, whereas ROI is fragmented India without essential and integral components (that is, without Sindhu and Ganga valley under complete control). There are 2 countries in region of maximum expanse of Chinese (PRC and Taiwan) people outside China. There is just one country in the ideological core of China (PRC). India, OTOH, has 5 countries in its ideological core (ROI, TSP, BD, Nepal, Srilanka) and 8 countries (Bhutan, Afghanistan, Myanmar) in the region of Indic's maximum expanse. Thus, essentially it is a contest between a "united China" and "fragmented India".

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 20 Jul 2010 03:09

SAARC integration can be a complex multi-track multi-speed process, similar to European integration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_integration

Afghanistan problem IMHO is a phenomenon caused by regional disruption caused by British and Russian legacy in South and Central Asia and it and other similar problems like the Kyrgyz instability can be solved with greater regional integration and participation in problem solving. US/NATO direct intervention in Afghanistan or Russian intervention in Kyrgyz case will always be costly and counter-productive. Russian's to their credit did not get involved in Kyrgyzstan despite a plea by Kyrgyz government, although unfortunately almost 2000 Uzbeks lost their lives, I should add with much sadness.

About 500 million united Muslims in South Asia and 800 million fragmented Hindu's, what can I say, first of all Muslims are not at all a monolithic group, the breakup of Pakistan was just one instance that shows Bengali Muslims getting fed up with bossing around of Punjabi Muslims. I would think that Muslims in different regions of India have much more in common with local people in their region than Muslims of other places, simply because before picking up this imported foreign religion or getting a small sprinkling of foreign immigrant blood, they were and still are essentially one and same with the local people.

The "original sin" of separatism was an error of judgement out of fear and anxiety whipped up by misguided and short-sighted leaders. Please note that fundamentalist Maududi, the founder of JeI, was against partition initially, as was his Hindu nationalist cousins at RSS. It was the Brown Shahib Jinnah and the two nation theory, which he eventually came to believe in, that caused partition, whereas, people at Deoband seminary were against partition, so, Islam and its basic tenets probably have not much to do with why Muslims chose to support partition. It was more of an effect of European nationalism picked up by British educated and influenced Muslim leaders and activists. Sorry to bring in partition here again, but this is just to answer a question that was raised.

Thanks for letting me know about the honorific Telugu term "garu" and the interesting discussion on -ji. Ji Huzur, I thought meant, yes Huzur - in Bengali, we do say, ji in place of yes, specially to older people, but I think its different from the -ji suffix in Hindi/Urdu, which could be similar to "Jiveshu/jiushu" as Brihaspatiji mentioned. I have also noticed with a Tajik friend of mine using -jan or -jon at the end of a name, I am not sure if -ji is an Indian version of this term. In Bengali, we also use -jan such as Bhai-jan, Chacha-jan etc. Just to add my 2 cents on this OT discussion.

The expansion of Chinese sphere is nicely shown in the wiki map link posted by Atri. Except for early Tang dynasty where the Chinese had made Tarim basin (current Xinjiang region) part of their empire for a few centuries, native Han Chinese dynasties never had much of an influence on Xinjiang and Tibet. It was Mongol Yuan and Manchu-Mongol Qing that held those areas at various times since the 13 century. When Qing finally collapsed in 1912, both Xinjiang and Tibet were virtually independent till they were occupied again by PLA in 1950's. On an unrelated note, PLA lost a million soldiers during the Korean war to defend the communist Kim regime in North Korea. So it is safe to say that if it was not for PLA, there would be no North Korea today. One could say that at the time they were backed by Soviet Union and it was a flash point between communism and captialism, where the US led West was trying to contain communism, but I would maintain that except for few Russian pilots who lost their lives, it was mainly PLA soldiers that bore the brunt against allied soldiers and I would venture to say, more than communism was at stake there. It was a deliberate effort to keep divided an otherwise united and powerful Western backed Korea, too close to Beijing for their comfort. It is for this same reason, despite having a great and expanding trade relation with South Korea, PRC is still not ready to give up their support for Kim regime and let South Korea increase its influence in North Korea and thus advance their work towards unification. No great power wants any powerful entity that is not a vassal or completely loyal to it near their vicinity and hence Japan's nervousness about PRC's rise and its renewed emphasis on US relations and protection from US fleets. Please note that unlike a SAARC in South Asia, PRC can never, or at least for the foreseeable future absorb within itself, a future unified Korea or Japan, since both of whom have been competing peer empires as the original Han Chinese and each consider themselves superior to the other two. Also note that despite suffering much at the hand of a much smaller but fast adapting Japanese, eventually Han Chinese ethnic group is surpassing the Japanese, mainly because this ethnic group was lucky to find themselves in one state, namely PRC and found themselves with some expanded lebensraum in the colonial possessions from Mongol and Manchu rulers, such as Xinjiang and Tibet, not to mention that both Inner Mongolia and Manchurian North East lands also became available for Han migration. Most importantly it was the size of population, properly utilized became their greatest weapon. Poverty was used as a weapon as well, to beat all other global cheap labor sources in a determined drive to become the factory floor of the world.

Japan, South Korea, ASEAN, US/EU (whose short sighted market access financed the rise of PRC), Central Asia and Russia - all are directly or indirectly threatened by China's rise. The US/EU, because it threatens their pre-eminence in global affairs, a result of their own karma, kind of poetic justice I should say and the others who are neighbors and will feel the heat sooner or later as PRC reaches parity with the West in socio economic development and advancement in science and technology, specially weapons technology.

So far, every one jumped to the band wagon of making money from PRC, while PRC busily managed its fast rise with as little attention as possible from the world. So, PRC leadership is justifiably nervous about disturbances in and world's attention on Tibet and Xinjiang that showcases oppression of minorities and cultural genocide.

But as quietly and silently as they move, using Sun Tzu's principles, it is not easy for them not to step on any toes and not to make people nervous, so slowly a ground is being created and an window of opportunity is being opened for attacking their strategy of creating or maintaining chaos, disorganization or fragmentation in places which can be potential source of trouble or threat for them.

Brihaspatiji mentioned some of the internal dynamics within PRC, I want to add the importance of overseas Chinese and their roles in the rise of PRC - and this includes Chinese in Taiwan, ASEAN, the West and around the globe.

In this situation, how does India want to engineer a path towards a rise and eventual dominance in global affairs, is it at all possible for India or South Asia as a whole to become number one in the world?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2010 03:20

Atri wrote:

Thus, PRC is a China+its surrounding states, whereas ROI is fragmented India without essential and integral components (that is, without Sindhu and Ganga valley under complete control). There are 2 countries in region of maximum expanse of Chinese (PRC and Taiwan) people outside China. There is just one country in the ideological core of China (PRC). India, OTOH, has 5 countries in its ideological core (ROI, TSP, BD, Nepal, Srilanka) and 8 countries (Bhutan, Afghanistan, Myanmar) in the region of Indic's maximum expanse. Thus, essentially it is a contest between a "united China" and "fragmented India".

In the modern world after 1900 they created United China and a fragmented India because they felt India was too strong after the WWII and that Indian land army can never be defeated by any power in the world. They fragmented the army first with Pakistan (that is the main reason for the partition) and then made sure the geography was fragmented so that no land borders are secure. Also natural nationalist leaders with Army experience such as Netaji Bose simply disappeared from the national scene.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2010 03:27

I would like to add that most of the current top leaders of PLA (PLA is a pet interest of mine) are children of past party elders and continue to have close relatives within the party and in many case even the party CMC. the funny thing that I found out was exactly how much of PLA culture and its relation with the part/govt is derived from the practices of past chinese empires. this is a trend that is also discernible in the FSU, many practices of czarist russia was simply renamed and used.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 20 Jul 2010 03:45

PRC actually has territorial disputes and claims on other nations all around its perimeter and border. It has problems with Mongolia, it has problems in Uyghur land, in Tibetan land, with Myanmar border tribes, with Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. There used to be some problems with Russia too, but gone below international radar now.

GOI took some initiative with Mongolia, but not much info is available on progress. Here Russia has a strong handle in mining. India could use that as a cooperation front. However, as we long ago discussed in the first version of this thread, the geo-political shape of PRC is that of a bulge which extends its borders and distends human and material resources in maintaining control.

India was perhaps constrained by lack of expendable resources to invest in foreign policy so far. But this has just now begun to change. A first step would have been to use the geostrategic disadvantages of PRC's current borders, and dabble in the border states. But a subtle entrance should have been in the border contiguous areas of Myanmar and China. Basically extending into SE Asia to Vietnam. This is the region concentrating most of China's sea-board and agricultural productive hinterland. A threat here will be multiplied many times in effect and extend the defensive line of PRC. We want buffer states of Tibet and perhaps a Uyghuristan. Not impossible.

Within China, only one historically known peasant uprising successfully toppled the empire entirely on its own. The Maoist revolt was a parallel, but succeeded in the special circumstance of an invasion that destroyed the existing centre of national power. The chinese society has strongly entrenched family and clan based networking, so reproduction of older empire structures was inevitable. However, the basic scenario is that if border troubles increase, and under appropriate climatic deterioration, the Chinese power centre contracts to the lower delta and plains. This can be a catalyst for internal factional infighting to change regimes in power.

There is an increasingly fanatical formation of neo-Maoists within both the party, and PLA. They hope to ride popular anger at corruption to move against those succeeding in their dynastic takeovers. The trick will be to support the "democrats" and not support any of the neo-Maoists within communist elite and none of the "liberals" either. [Or like Stalin swing sequentially both ways to use one faction to weaken the other in a war of attrition]

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 20 Jul 2010 04:25

Brihaspatiji, good points.

Please note that PRC holds close to 1/4 of humanity, India is also close to 1/4 of humanity and South Asia or SAARC is definitely 1/4 or little more. So we are really talking about matter of global proportions here. What happens in this region will affect the world disproportionately for the foreseeable future as the center of gravity of the world, economic, political and military, moves back in Asia. So we must think of a comprehensive global strategy for humanity that we want to pursue, kind of similar to a non-aligned movement, but that one did not go anywhere.

People around the world, including in our home, are suffering, but no one seem to care. I believe we can bring hope for humanity, in our homes and in other parts of the world, by pursuing a policy of wisdom and innovative principles and thus bring strength for ourselves and others. Communism was a flawed half cooked idea and it failed half way because it is flawed.

Unlike the West, that exploited the world for the last few hundred years, Japan which wanted to exploit Asia and actually did exploit Korea and some parts of China for 50 years, we can instead empower the downtrodden and exploited and thus create centers of power where there is not much power now, all that and more is possible with regional integration, starting with here at home and supporting others in other places in the globe. If we stand next to people and help them get strong, I believe they will forever be our friends, despite the saying that in international affairs there are no permanent friends or enemies.

Chinese rise is for their own enrichment, but why don't we try to rise ourselves and try to help others as well to do the same in their regions. I think South Asia can do it, and India in its heart can lead this effort and become an example of regional integration for the rest of the world. Its a challenge that is worth fighting for and unite IMHO. I believe together, if we try, we can take the globe in the palm of our hand and remake it the way we would want. While others try to keep people divided, we can try to unite and make them strong.

For too long the white man has ruled, now the China man wants to rule, we can say enough, we also want to see a powerful Indian brown man, a powerful black man and a powerful mestizo brown man, so there is no one or two people who can dominate and exploit the globe while the others suffer.

naren · Post by **naren** » 20 Jul 2010 06:01

AKalam wrote: About 500 million united Muslims in South Asia and 800 million fragmented Hindu's, what can I say, first of all Muslims are not at all a monolithic group, the breakup of Pakistan was just one instance that shows Bengali Muslims getting fed up with bossing around of Punjabi Muslims. I would think that Muslims in different regions of India have much more in common with local people in their region than Muslims of other places, simply because before picking up this imported foreign religion or getting a small sprinkling of foreign immigrant blood, they were and still are essentially one and same with the local people.

The "original sin" of separatism was an error of judgement out of fear and anxiety whipped up by misguided and short-sighted leaders. Please note that fundamentalist Maududi, the founder of JeI, was against partition initially, as was his Hindu nationalist cousins at RSS. It was the Brown Shahib Jinnah and the two nation theory, which he eventually came to believe in, that caused partition, whereas, people at Deoband seminary were against partition, so, Islam and its basic tenets probably have not much to do with why Muslims chose to support partition. It was more of an effect of European nationalism picked up by British educated and influenced Muslim leaders and activists. Sorry to bring in partition here again, but this is just to answer a question that was raised.

Sirji, I appreciate your intentions. But you are kinda oversimplifying things. Hindu-Muslim conflicts has its causes. Unless the causes are undone, there is not going to be any fruitful result.

I liked this quote from Sun Tzu:

"- Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."

Here, strategy addresses "causes", tactics address "effect". Applying the same principle on a broader level, the social-psychological current is the "cause". The resulting political structure/movements are the effects. We are not going to solve any problem by simply addressing it on a political level. Akin to "tactics without strategy". Only when the causes are undone, can we prevent future disasters like the partition. That brings us to the question, what is the "cause" for hindu-muslim conflict & how to "undo" the causes ? I'll let you ponder.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 20 Jul 2010 13:39

Narenji, I am not denying that there are reasons or "causes" behind Hindu-Muslim conflict which resulted in the "effect" of partition in 1947, it definitely did not happen out of vacuum.

You have mentioned social-psychological causes, I believe you are referring to perceived different world view and way-of-life that are different for different religious cultures, that originated and evolved in different places. As religions travelled far they also got adapted at different time and place.

These causes did not go away in the last 63 years, the dynamics may be a little different but the basic issues are still there, but we humans have learned to analyze human situations a bit more accurately than in the past I believe, as we discover more about social sciences, anthropology etc. from some excellent research in recent decades.

An EU type integration does not mean that suddenly partition will be negated. Integration will happen at a pace that the population is comfortable with and most decisions will be decided on by member country referendums as is the norm in EU. So there will be ample time to debate such issues and to come to agreement to acceptable accomodations for each country. Depending on the level of disagreement, socio economic progress and resulting increase in rational thought and discourse, the time for full political integration might be 3 to 7 decades away or even more. EU idea was floated in 1923 and in the past 87 years it has come this far. SAARC idea was floated in mid 1980's, so its been only about 25 years or so.

Most regional groups start out, as did EU, with customs union, free trade area operating and harmonizing the economic matters of the member states, so this way the region can deal with the rest of the world on economics, trade, commerce etc. as one unit.

Brihaspatiji mentioned some of the steps:

(1) secularization process : this will be vehemently opposed in Pak and BD. In this case, what happens to the attempt at going back to the '72 Constitution in BD turns out to be, is going to be significant. Without some degree of secularization the religious "divide" problem cannot be overcome towards "union".

(2) common military force : this is where, the greatest difficulty will come. Command structure, who gets the "top job", mutual hostilities, "national securities". I guess, the main troublemaker will be Pak, and BD+Nepal+SL+India will have relatively lesser of a problem to form a workable force for AFG.

(3) common economic zone : the least problematic, if only and as long as the flow is one way only, which it will have to be initially - from India. When it comes to reverse flow and associated commitments, will come strong centrifugal and "national" assertions - just as it happened with EU.

(4) common Constitution and Law : here, S-Nepal-India will have less of a problem to integrate, but BD will have strong opposition from within : Pak is a non-brainer if at that stage it still exists. Little chance of integrating AFG though.

(5) common currency : most problematic, severe opposition possible.

No 3. is the starting point and it will be running on the fastest track, while the rest will run on tracks at their own speed, but all will possibly run in parallel simultaneous tracks, none waiting for the other.

The point I am trying to make is that the integration process allows for disagreements and delays among all or certain members and as a result some member countries may adopt some integration measures earlier or later than others.

Member countries may agree on an eventual future goal of creating one country from the SAARC union. The other way of looking at it is keeping the goal not fixed but a variable, meaning we will only achieve what we can realistically achieve and only time will tell what the ultimate form of Union will be, a sovereign nation state or a Multi-level-governing structure administering a tight conglomeration of sovereign states, as future generations make their decisions for more or less integration.

My personal view is that we have similar cultures (not considering the imported religions), similar ethnicity, similar linguistics (except for some South Indian languages), shared history and a sense of being a distinct people of this region of the world, which is sufficient to create an Union and strive for greater integration, as it translates into some real tangible benefits, economic, strategic etc. for the population of the member countries.

I am not sure if the SAARC stabilization force will materialize, it was just an idea, but its just one example, where a regional strategy can become an effective tool. There are many such instances, where a regional approach to problem solving will be superior to nation state based approach.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Jul 2010 14:35

Akalam,

Many of the ideas that you espouse are ideas that are close to my heart as well. I believe we are looking at the same end result but are trying to approach it from different roads.

How, any attempt to create an economic and political union will effect the Mad Mullah brigade. In both BD and Pakistan. Moreover, the economy of the future will have to be an economy based on free exchange of Ideas followed by goods.

Even then the potential will remain hostage to Pakistani intransigence. At times I get the feeling that the politicians in different nations of the Indian periphery are using the Indo-Pakistani duel to stall any progress on mutual trade. Because they don't really want to change the status quo due to internal political compulsions. Bashing of India gets votes for the politicians.

Even in BD tensions with India in the not too distant past were kept high. Any attempt to lower them was taken as a sell out to India. It is not so today, but one really doesn't know if this will continue. Or will BD take a U turn and go back to anti India domestic politics.

Only Sri Lanka, Maldives and Bhutan have shown a consistent disinclination to attack India domestically in order to score political points.

Coming to trade, an implementation of bilateral free trade agreements in the absence of SAFTA will go some distance towards Integrating the economies. But it will not happen because of insecurities of the SAARC member nations.

So we are likely to remain locked in this status quo till India resolves Pakistan one way or the other.

JMT