Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Apr 2009 20:00

brihaspati wrote:Pak gov's recent claims of India behind the Lahore attacks, in spite of supposed claims by Bytullah Mehsood, is significant. In my analytical framework, I would see this as an indication that the PA and its foreign handlers have now decided that the further spread of Taleban and the PA+Talebjabi expansion plans need a a formal cover to divert global attentions.

PA or UK+PRC is not exactly sure about the future outcomes of the Indian elections. If a Congress governemnt is not returned to power tolerance of Jihad is not guaranteed. Even a third/fourth front collapsing under the weight of their own Islamophilia could get replaced by a staunchly and actively anti-Jihadi right-wing government. Additionally, economic recovery in UK and PRC may be facing severe obstacles. Under the circumstances, starting a proxy war on India would be a tempting solution. Both countries can sell their military hardware to TSP at a premium bought against the US bailout given to TSP (as per TSP track record in juggling funds taken for one purpose into investing for terrorism and war on India).

For TSP too, the next stages of the Talebjabi+PA expansion plans need to focus on India. To allow diversion and cover up of the plan to expand east under the excuse of defending against "Indian aggression". This actually derails all US caluclations of retreating from AFG in good order. US will have to face the dilemma of fighting further south within TSP and abandon hopes of any remnant influence in AFG proper, or, activate the northern supply route to preserve AFG sector but abandon TSP sector.

I dont see you using US in your analysis which is in the ground in Pakistan.
US+PRC is a dangerous combination

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Apr 2009 20:15

brihaspati wrote: PA or UK+PRC is not exactly sure about the future outcomes of the Indian elections. If a Congress governemnt is not returned to power tolerance of Jihad is not guaranteed. Even a third/fourth front collapsing under the weight of their own Islamophilia could get replaced by a staunchly and actively anti-Jihadi right-wing government. .

Brihaspati - this is balderdash. The "anti-jihadi" right wing government has nothing to show Indians in India that they did any better than the people whom you call islamophiles. I believe words such as yours damage the chances of BJP more than they help them but I don't really care and anyway BRF is too small.

it is interesting that for you 'islamophile" means Pakistan friendly. The allegation is that non BJP parties are Pakistan friendly because they are islamophile?

Your erudition may sound sweet to many on this forum but you keep your words just uninformative enough from your excellent knowledge of English for them to be innuendo, but not explicit. This style is ideal for broad prognostication - but when it comes down to specifics - it breaks down.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Apr 2009 22:06

Shivji,
I have not said that it is the BJP which would come to power as staunchly right-wing anti-Jihadi government if third-fourth front collapses. This can be a future alliance of right-wing groups that includes the BJP. But it does not have to be BJP alone. I don't think I have ever expressed unquestioned commitment to BJP here on this forum.

Islamophilia for most thrird/fourth front members stem from their reliance or hope to gain committed religiously affiliated electoral support from Muslims. However, there is also a simultaneous awareness in the leadership of these parties, of the possibility that if these parties criticize or emphasize Pakistani role in terror or in Jihad against India, it can cost them their "Muslim vote". Since as you claim you value POV, and personal anecdotal experiences, this has been my political organizational experience.

This sort of paralysis from the party POV need not reflect actual Indian Muslim behaviour in the case of real Pakistani terror or Jihadi operations against India. However, such party POV is sufficient to allow space for a determined minority of Muslim radicals to operate without tangible opposition.

I have not tried to show my erudition here in this forum. I have carefully avoided quoting "big names" or authors as much as possible simply to minimize such accusations. What you term as innuendos, comes from habitual writing/speaking to academic audiences, where most of my peers in the audience would have background knowledge, and extreme elaboration is frowned upon as time-consuming and under-estimating my peers. But even here, if debates ask for elaboration, I have tried to give as much elaboration as feasible.

You can assume deliberate purpose in my style, but that is your prerogative. I do not do it it out of conscious purpose. I respect your writing, and your POV and knowledge, which I have openly acknowledged many times. I am delighted at your brickbat of "balderdash", or reference to the "sweetness of my erudition" as the blessing from a "Guru".

Regards.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Apr 2009 01:19

An issue of potential significance has come up as mentioned in a locked thread. This is the possibility of large scale migration of refugee populations from Pakistan becuase of impending or perceived civil war and fear of being targeted for ethnicity or religious belief. This is a critical issue as mingled with genuine refugees fleeing persecution, there could also be mixed in infiltrators from ISI, or Taleban.

Should BD like situation in '71 be allowed to repeat? Or is this the time to think of a different strategy?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 12 Apr 2009 01:45

All the Non Muslims of Pakisatan should be granted asylem . This will be the right thing to do but they should be put through the proper security check. Question , will this legally abrogate Nehru Liaqat pact and may be the beginning of peaceful population transfer between 2 countries. This way people of Pakistanis state of mind in India can go to their dream and and Indians can come back home and enjoy the freedom. If true, This will be godsend oppertunity to draw the clear lines between good Vs evil and very apt time to shift majority Atankgarh to Islamabad.

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 12 Apr 2009 05:23

X-Posted :

Charlie Rose - Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger April 6, 2009 - 56:01 - Apr 7, 2009

Pakistan - Iran - US Foreign Policy - Obama Administration

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 12 Apr 2009 08:34

From Orbat {Why is Orbat talking about attacking Haji Pir Pass at this time ? }

One of the options that is under consideration and for which the Army has recently trained is the Haji Pir bulge. In the 1965 War India took the Haji Pir pass (Lt. Colonel Ranjit Singh Dayal heading a parachute battalion) but India gave it back after the ceasefire. Retaking the pass would greatly shorten India's defense line because India would regain direct communications between Punch and Uri.

This operation, if it happens, will require induction of two divisions, one on each side of the pass, to make a pincer attack while 25 Division (Punch) and 19 Division (Uri) attack straight west to tie down Pakistan 12 Division and pull in its X Corps reserve, 19 Division.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Apr 2009 22:16

The Indian army may need to do this as a pre-emptive strike to reduce the frontage that Pakistan can use to facilitate the Talebs to "push-in". On the other hand a public speculation can be part of psychological pressure on the PA. A counter to similar possibilities about news-stories of Talebs moving across to Kashmir.

But any serious attempts by the Pakistanis to use the Talebs to finish their unfinished agenda of grabbing Kashmirby PLA i, will necessitate actions on many fronst, both to the general direction of south-west and west from Srinagar. The complication can be facilitation by the PLA of the Talebs from the "north" or Karakorum highway, and any diversionary attacks or movements by the PLA in PRC occupied sectors of India.

Hopefully the USA is not at the same time manipulated by its allies and "business interests" like UK or PRC, to treat this as an opportunity where the Talebs appear to be less strong in the AFG sector as they appear to have moved their momentum to the east. there could be genuine agreements between the so-called good-talebs and the USA to "shift east". On the other hand it could all be a part of ruse and deception, where the Talebs want to appear to have moved to the east, but in reality preparing to trap the NATO forces in the west.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 14 Apr 2009 01:12

Promising openly, Indian soldiers to fight Taleban in TSP, can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, this can activate US and western forces who have interests in the outcome of Indian elections in favour of the "promiser". But on the other hand this will prompt the Talebjabis to intensify their campaign against Kashmir and western India in general. Given that the grounds have been prepared for both "withdrawal to save the skin" as well as "jingo" mentality, this can lead to an uncertain outcome. There can be loud cries of, "more needs to be done to assure the communities, since all these attacks are actually because of rise of right-wing of Hindutva".

What appears to be lack of control by the government, is actually an appearance. This is partly true but represents possibly a deliberate attempt by the ISI+PA+Taleb combination to delegitimize the civilian governmental structure. Behind all this facade, the combination is working towards its traditional goal - the overall subjugation of the subcontinent under an Islamic regime, and restoration of what they consider their glory days of lording it over India.

They have managed to coax Obama admin's funds, which inspite of all attempts to the contrary, will still be surreptiously diverted to fund the PA national project of conquering at least part if not whole of India. Obama, in spite of all his bluster is trying to find glorious ways of covering up his withdrawal from AFG. Already this has led to inventing a "moderate" Taleban (Islamic Jihadis always pretend to be moderates when they think they can extract resources, or buy time). If the plan has been hatched between TSP+PRC on one side and USA+UK on the other, it can be a dangerous trap for India, if India has to divide its forces and get bogged down in a war which PRC and allies sponsor as a proxy war, while the entire north-west of India lies vulnerable.

A presence from the AFG side would have been tactically much more convenient, but not from the TSP side if that has to be an open-ended presence, without immediate and clearly defined rapidly achievable objectives.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 Apr 2009 02:14

shynee wrote:From Orbat {Why is Orbat talking about attacking Haji Pir Pass at this time ? }

One of the options that is under consideration and for which the Army has recently trained is the Haji Pir bulge. In the 1965 War India took the Haji Pir pass (Lt. Colonel Ranjit Singh Dayal heading a parachute battalion) but India gave it back after the ceasefire. Retaking the pass would greatly shorten India's defense line because India would regain direct communications between Punch and Uri.

This operation, if it happens, will require induction of two divisions, one on each side of the pass, to make a pincer attack while 25 Division (Punch) and 19 Division (Uri) attack straight west to tie down Pakistan 12 Division and pull in its X Corps reserve, 19 Division.

You have to look at the geopolitics very clearly.
If in case India and Kashmir is dragged into the Afg-Pak mess and India is accused of not doing enough to change the situation then India has to have a strategy.

It is better India has a border battle and war in Kashmir at India's advantage when India is going to the Afg-Pak mess.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 14 Apr 2009 02:21

We can wait till PA= kibans and NATO/TROOPS get into real close quarter fight at AFPAK border.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Apr 2009 18:05

They may never get that close to fighting. If the US has been made to buy into the TalebPA propaganda, then US could be hoping for a lessening of pressure on the AFG front, so that it can justify withdrawal. And TalebPA could be temporarily feeding into that by shifting pressure to the East.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Apr 2009 21:58

The lesson that US has learnt from the Anglo-Afghan Wars is not commit any large number of troops in the Afghan cauldron. The same lesson was taught to the French by the Viet Minh at Dien Bin Phu in 1954.

The key is a large occupying force lodged in the towns and cities and raiding parties/levies to pacify the countryside. This was the key since Babur took Kabul.

The lesson is if you commit large troops in hostile terrain and get casualties its finis for you.
Go back to battle of Tauteborg Forest where the Roman legions were defeated by Arminius.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Apr 2009 22:26

True. I think, for the moment US would simply withdraw to strong urban holding positions but with enough peripheral control to avoid, inner city urban guerrila conflicts. Eventually, however, they are going to withdraw from even there. For they are going to lose the initiative in this highly mobile warfare by becoming staionary.

They have already "invented" a "moderate Taleban", to whom they can appear to leave ground with "good face".

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Apr 2009 00:33

Suppose, US cuts a deal with its invented "moderate Taleban" and brokers an agreement between Zardari and the Talebs for power-sharing in the North West. This will simply be a ratification, according to my thinking, of the TalebPA plan to coax USA into a position where, the defacto transition to a TalebPA Islamic state is tacitly endorsed by the USA in the "hope" of showing to its electorate and the world media that USA has retreated "ethically".

This plan could have the support of UK+PRC. Karazai could be brought in on this out of necessity on his weak power and resource basis. Russia+Iran could be made to wait and watch. So in that case the entire brunt of the TalebPA expansionist plan would fall towards India. Why India? Because of many different possible calculations.

TalebPA can hope to get tacit PRC support. It can hope to get US reluctance to commit forces in this theatre as afavourable scenario. It can calculate that GOI can be made to negotiate in an international form of "zazyia" extraction. This can be made in a form very similar to the way in which "zazyia" was extracted from the USA - by posing as "funds" required to "develop" sufficiently "to alleviate poverty and economic factors that gives rise to terrorism". A situation can easily be developed by which India is made to look like a "miser" "who is reluctant to share her fortune" with the poor "neighbour", and therfore must face the consequences of continuing "terror attacks".

Internal divisions, fractured and antagonistic opinions within the "anti-Jihadi" section in India, who still agonize over the "hows" and "why's" of Jihad and what of astrategy should be appropriate, can be banked upon to provide the typical scenario of lack of ruthless retaliation that probably existed during the early years of Islamic invasions into India.

It can also be a military preemptive move to prevent India participating in any joint military operations in the core areas of TSP. PRC could panic if Indians start talking too much of sending expeditionary forces into TSP.

Punjab has to be crossed, but how much resource will the Sikhs have to stop the Talebs?

Once the Gangetic plains can be reached, there can be hope in the TalebPA's that UP, Bihar and WB will prove pliable, and temporarily, Nepalese communists and PRC from behind can provide good flanking support. None of the Naxalites who prove now so brave and effective will stand a chance before Taleb type groups - communists have never anywhere in the world been able to outwit Jihadis. This makes it easy for PRC to move in on the North East, once the Gangetic belt can be brought under Taleb type influence.

Now these are all "extreme" scenarios. There will be many protests - that IM will never support Talebs, etc, so the Ganegtic belt thing is unrealistic. But such "hopes" were also heard about the "Pashtuns", that they will not support the Talebs - apparently any such non-support has had no effect at all.

The question of IA will also come up - I have treated the whole scenario as if the IA does not exist at all. The reasons for this are two. There are reports of electoral promises by parties that they will send IA regiments to fight the Talebs in TSP. This can mean a convenient splitting up of forces which leaves the north-west of India slightly vulnerable - if the PA can play it so that all the danger is shaping up in the "west" necessitating increasing strength in that theatre. Also PRC could coordinate multiple intrusions from the North Kashmir, through occupied areas further down, and far north-east. This can also stretch IA to the point of making it militarily infeasible to hold onto forward positions in the north. Finally the question of political "will" could come in, which can vacillate sufficiently to lose initiative militarily.

Hoping I will get convincing arguments from posters that none of the above scenarios are likely at all.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Apr 2009 00:48

Brahsapati Sir ,
In above scenario, Brahastars will be used to elminate major threats and any local support can be supressed by majority community outnumbering the Jihadi supporting people. There is one cach i.e GOi must control over the spread of illegal automatic weapons to Azamgarh kind of localities as well keep check on the infliteration of Jihadi sympathizers into security appartus.One thing to remember is India can put many millions people under arm as secondary force to keep internal peace . NCC, Homeguard,CRPF etc with majority population support can manage law and order very well.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Apr 2009 02:44

brihaspati wrote: This plan could have the support of UK+PRC. Karazai could be brought in on this out of necessity on his weak power and resource basis. Russia+Iran could be made to wait and watch. So in that case the entire brunt of the TalebPA expansionist plan would fall towards India. Why India? Because of many different possible calculations.

TalebPA can hope to get tacit PRC support. It can hope to get US reluctance to commit forces in this theatre as afavourable scenario. It can calculate that GOI can be made to negotiate in an international form of "zazyia" extraction. This can be made in a form very similar to the way in which "zazyia" was extracted from the USA - by posing as "funds" required to "develop" sufficiently "to alleviate poverty and economic factors that gives rise to terrorism". A situation can easily be developed by which India is made to look like a "miser" "who is reluctant to share her fortune" with the poor "neighbour", and therfore must face the consequences of continuing "terror attacks".

...

The question of IA will also come up - I have treated the whole scenario as if the IA does not exist at all. The reasons for this are two. There are reports of electoral promises by parties that they will send IA regiments to fight the Talebs in TSP. This can mean a convenient splitting up of forces which leaves the north-west of India slightly vulnerable - if the PA can play it so that all the danger is shaping up in the "west" necessitating increasing strength in that theatre. Also PRC could coordinate multiple intrusions from the North Kashmir, through occupied areas further down, and far north-east. This can also stretch IA to the point of making it militarily infeasible to hold onto forward positions in the north. Finally the question of political "will" could come in, which can vacillate sufficiently to lose initiative militarily.

Brihaspathi-ji,

We are underestimating US influence in certain power centers in GOI. If US/UK/PRC are hell-bent on protecting TSPA then they can pull certain strings to force India to accept such a plan.

IA is not an independent institution and cannot overstep political decision making council.

So, unless it is an existential threat to India, such as a Kargil type incursion I do not see IA getting into the picture. Terror attacks and no-go-zones are a reality and accepted (even though not written) collateral damage. Certain 3rd or 4th front political parties are in fact encouraging such soft-talibanization in IM communities in the hope of vote-bank politics.

Certain Taliban elements already exist in J&K today. So I hope Pakiban, in their jubilation, crosses over to J&K thru POK giving India much needed opportunity to enter into POK+Af-Pak area. The only deciding factor in such a scenario would be political will in GOI.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Apr 2009 18:16

RamaY-ji,
Do you see any reasons to indicate that the political will of GOI will change irrespective of electoral results? There has always been rhetoric about the "forward" initiative in going beyond the LOC. In fact such moves have been made before on "provocation" but almost all territorial/positional gains have been relinquished. Only loss of IA lives, and resources have been the net gain.

The only circumstantial changes that I can see, are the relative weakening of positions of the USA and Russia. But this has been replaced by the relative strengthening of PRC, which is equally if not more hostile than cold-war pro-TSP USA.
So if the line of argument that justified such "retreat" on "foreign pressure", then such pressures still remain.

What are your thoughts on this?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Apr 2009 18:35

brihaspati wrote: The question of IA will also come up - I have treated the whole scenario as if the IA does not exist at all.

<snip>

Hoping I will get convincing arguments from posters that none of the above scenarios are likely at all.

With the thrust of your post indicating that even sensible and patriotic Hindus do not exist across 1500 Km of North India or equally concerned Indians in central and South India - convincing arguments against your scenario do not exist.

You are talking about the worst possible fears anyone can have about defenceless India. It is better that you continue to have those fears than try and convince anyone otherwise.

In fact let me be so bold as to say that since someone saying that Pashtuns will not get Talibanized was proven wrong - you are using that story to extrapolate and say that nothing much is there to stop the Taliban from spreading.

Congratulations. You are correct. There is nothing to stop the taliban from spreading. India will go under them. Is that such a bad thing? i would l like to hear some convincing arguments about that

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 16 Apr 2009 18:50

Punjab has to be crossed, but how much resource will the Sikhs have to stop the Talebs?

Punjab will never be alone in its fight if it comes to that Brihaspatiji. The resources from whole of India will pour into the fight. One factor we are not considering in the scenario or not giving enough credit for, is the ideology of Taliban. Taliban will enter India, if it ever happens, strictly as a rag tag military force. The power of Taliban on display in TSP is more ideological than military. Take away the ideological base and they are reduced to the rats they are. They will have NO ideological support worth mentioning on Indian soil and there will be no accompanying aura of invincibility in Indian psyche. They will be like the current naxal threat at their very best, one that can be crushed if there is enough political will.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Apr 2009 18:56

shiv wrote:
brihaspati wrote: The question of IA will also come up - I have treated the whole scenario as if the IA does not exist at all.

<snip>

Hoping I will get convincing arguments from posters that none of the above scenarios are likely at all.
With the thrust of your post indicating that even sensible and patriotic Hindus do not exist across 1500 Km of North India or equally concerned Indians in central and South India - convincing arguments against your scenario do not exist.

You are talking about the worst possible fears anyone can have about defenceless India. It is better that you continue to have those fears than try and convince anyone otherwise.

In fact let me be so bold as to say that since someone saying that Pashtuns will not get Talibanized was proven wrong - you are using that story to extrapolate and say that nothing much is there to stop the Taliban from spreading.

Congratulations. You are correct. There is nothing to stop the taliban from spreading. India will go under them. Is that such a bad thing? i would l like to hear some convincing arguments about that

What is stopping islamic fundamentalism in J&K? Nothing.

The IA is holding the Indian territory while the Hindu minority is chased away and the democratically elected PDP, NC, and INC governments are paying Jijiya to Vally Muslims.

What is stopping islamic fundamentalism in NE? Nothing.

Again the IA is trying to hold the territory and acting as security gaurds to VIPs only. In the meantime millions of illegal BDs are spreading like cockroaches.

What is stopping Islamic fundamentalism in West Bengal? Nothing.

The secular and aethist communist govt is giving voter id cards to BD muslims. The pseudo-secular Hindu intelligentia is corrupting our education system sitting at JNU.

What is stopping Islamic fundamentalism in Bihar/UP? Nothing.

It is next to impossible for IA to take a decisive military action against an advancing Taliban influence in Northern-India overstepping our political decision making chain of command. To have a decisive action against such national security issues, first our pseudo-secular and vote-bank politics must be defeated.

I know you will jump on me asking who are the leaders of these political parties. They are todays Jayachandras. Hindus in name and behavior. But self-serving dhimmis in outlook.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Apr 2009 19:18

RamaY wrote:
What is stopping islamic fundamentalism in J&K? Nothing.

The IA is holding the Indian territory while the Hindu minority is chased away and the democratically elected PDP, NC, and INC governments are paying Jijiya to Vally Muslims.

What is stopping islamic fundamentalism in NE? Nothing.

Again the IA is trying to hold the territory and acting as security gaurds to VIPs only. In the meantime millions of illegal BDs are spreading like cockroaches.

What is stopping Islamic fundamentalism in West Bengal? Nothing.

The secular and aethist communist govt is giving voter id cards to BD muslims. The pseudo-secular Hindu intelligentia is corrupting our education system sitting at JNU.

What is stopping Islamic fundamentalism in Bihar/UP? Nothing.

It is next to impossible for IA to take a decisive military action against an advancing Taliban influence in Northern-India overstepping our political decision making chain of command. To have a decisive action against such national security issues, first our pseudo-secular and vote-bank politics must be defeated.

I know you will jump on me asking who are the leaders of these political parties. They are todays Jayachandras. Hindus in name and behavior. But self-serving dhimmis in outlook.

Congratulations. You are correct. There is nothing to stop the taliban from spreading. India will go under them. Is that such a bad thing? i would l like to hear some convincing arguments about that

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Apr 2009 19:22

Shivji,
I asked others to give me solid arguments about why my "fears" will not materialize. That is a clear statement of hope and not of "fear psychosis", and wanting others to counter my scenario is also not trying to encourage others to be "afraid" - but "counter" any such "fear".

tripathi · Post by **tripathi** » 16 Apr 2009 19:52

Brahaspati ji one line argument i can give is if there are 1.1 billion indians and even if u discard 20% as muslims(helping taliban) even then there will be 900 millions of indian will be left and by no way india will be a cake walk for them now.we have seen same talebs in kashmir in 1947-48 abbetted by pak forces when they were just 5 km away from the srinagar airport and then they were beaten back to present day pok.

u r creating scenario for india based on perception that talebs r running amock in pakistan and they r easily taking over it.but u r not considering the fact that they r tactically assisited by pak army and its own public.which will not be possible for them in india.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Apr 2009 19:57

brihaspati wrote:Shivji,
I asked others to give me solid arguments about why my "fears" will not materialize. That is a clear statement of hope and not of "fear psychosis", and wanting others to counter my scenario is also not trying to encourage others to be "afraid" - but "counter" any such "fear".

Brihaspati

The devil is in the detail

It can calculate that GOI can be made to negotiate in an international form of "zazyia" extraction. This can be made in a form very similar to the way in which "zazyia" was extracted from the USA - by posing as "funds" required to "develop" sufficiently "to alleviate poverty and economic factors that gives rise to terrorism". A situation can easily be developed by which India is made to look like a "miser" "who is reluctant to share her fortune" with the poor "neighbour", and therfore must face the consequences of continuing "terror attacks".

So what if India looks like a miser? On the US throws money stupidly at Pakistan. Not India. India has terror attacks anyway. Why would India fall for this?

Internal divisions, fractured and antagonistic opinions within the "anti-Jihadi" section in India, who still agonize over the "hows" and "why's" of Jihad and what of astrategy should be appropriate, can be banked upon to provide the typical scenario of lack of ruthless retaliation that probably existed during the early years of Islamic invasions into India.

There is a persistent myth doing the rounds on BRF that India was some sort of coherent nation state 1000 and more years ago. It was not. It was a pool of similar cultures nothing more. It is a coherent state now. you may not like its political composition, but it is now what it wasn't then. You are creating a failure of the state to suit your paranoid scenario and imaging that current Indian leaders such as Mulayam and Mayawati are dharmic ascetics who do not value lucre, power and influence and sit by and not agree that that Taliban is a problem. By what sleight of hand did you remove the love of power and wealth from Indian leaders that they should just cave in.

TalebPA can hope to get tacit PRC support. It can hope to get US reluctance to commit forces in this theatre as afavourable scenario

It can get Martian support too. There is a little matter of logistics from Pakjab border to Bihar. Martians will be needed for that. Even Americans can't do it - when they have no money to do their own thing

Punjab has to be crossed, but how much resource will the Sikhs have to stop the Talebs?

Since you refer to Indian Punjab almost like an independent state between India and Pakistan in which those surds will have to fend for themselves and no other Indian will lift a finger to do anything but sit and watch IPL while that happens, yes, Punjab will be run over in a couple of days.

The question of IA will also come up

Er have you heard of the Air Force? Have you heard of logistics and the logistics line that China and the Nepalese will need for helping the Taliban?

brihaspati - you need to spend a little time on the military forum and perhaps spend some days reading about military scenarios (from the archive) - threads of scenarios developed by forum members and then revisit your nightmares.

You are posting a political-social scenario and choosing to ignore the military options available. You also are indicating zero faith in a 80% majority Hindus and others and even at least some Muslims as intending to do anything. You are actually having paranoid dreams.

You seem to have reason to suspect the integrity and structure of the Indian state itself and for that non functioning state you are conjuring up a scenario that will ensure collapse. I find the scenario you have painted particularly boring because the result is so simple

It is precisely for this reason that I put my answer down first time:

Congratulations. You are correct. There is nothing to stop the taliban from spreading. India will go under them. Is that such a bad thing? i would l like to hear some convincing arguments about that

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 Apr 2009 20:08

tripathi wrote:Brahaspati ji one line argument i can give is if there are 1.1 billion indians and even if u discard 20% as muslims(helping taliban) even then there will be 900 millions of indian will be left and by no way india will be a cake walk for them now.we have seen same talebs in kashmir in 1947-48 abbetted by pak forces when they were just 5 km away from the srinagar airport and then they were beaten back to present day pok.

u r creating scenario for india based on perception that talebs r running amock in pakistan and they r easily taking over it.but u r not considering the fact that they r tactically assisited by pak army and its own public.which will not be possible for them in india.

Were the Kashmir Islamist tacitly assisted by the people inside the govt and key people so that they could kill and drive away the KP out of the valley.

So every islamicist needs some tacit support from the society, govt or the security force to expand.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 Apr 2009 20:10

shiv wrote:

There is a persistent myth doing the rounds on BRF that India was some sort of coherent nation state 1000 and more years ago. It was not.

There was no nation state in the entire world 1000 years ago.

tripathi · Post by **tripathi** » 16 Apr 2009 20:23

Acharya wrote: Were the Kashmir Islamist tacitly assisted by the people inside the govt and key people so that they could kill and drive away the KP out of the valley.

So every islamicist needs some tacit support from the society, govt or the security force to expand.

In case of KP goi kept quite just not to aggravate the situation as muslim being majority there.but will the same goi will keep quite when taleb attack kashmir.no they wont.we ve been seeing this past 20 yrs.if i go by ur logic then by now goi would have yielded the control of kashmir to L-E-T and pak.dont u think so kashmiri public tactically support millitants.Tactic support or not Goi will fight talebs. will the same goi hold the card of secularism just to appease the attacking talebs?
no they wont.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Apr 2009 20:26

Acharya wrote:
shiv wrote:

There is a persistent myth doing the rounds on BRF that India was some sort of coherent nation state 1000 and more years ago. It was not.
There was no nation state in the entire world 1000 years ago.

Correct. Hopefully this will make some people see India more realistically. I find on this forum a reluctance on the part of some people to consider the possibility that

1) Indians may have learned from History
2) The concept of India as one united nation state may have only been a sunbconscious cultural awareness 1000 years ago, but that has been converted into a real sense of "geographic Indian nation" only in the last 2-3 centuries.

The fundamental point I would like to make is that history moves in one direction along with time and people change and add to their knowledge and attitudes. The absence of nation state 1000 years ago or even a coherent concept of nation state does not mean one cannot exist now.

The concept of Islam as an expansionist political ideology was non existent in world consciousness 2000 years ago. It is ONLY if your assume that people today are relying solely on the information acquired 2000 years ago can you claim that people do not know Islam or have not learned from its actions.

The questions a person asks and the doubts he has are deeply related to his state of mind. If his state of mind is unable to see a particular aspect of reality, it will reflect in what he says and does,

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 Apr 2009 20:31

shiv wrote:

There is a persistent myth doing the rounds on BRF that India was some sort of coherent nation state 1000 and more years ago. It was not.
There was no nation state in the entire world 1000 years ago.

Correct. Hopefully this will make some people see India more realistically. I find on this forum a reluctance on the part of some people to consider the possibility that

---------------
India had monarchy which was big(including population) covering large areas including all the region during various period in History.

Even smaller monarchy has history of atleast 300-500 years. Some have 800 year history and these are comparable to European monarchies. By population Indian monarchies were bigger than the europeans.

Only Chinese monarchy history may have longer history without any break.

-------

Indian sense of monarchy and geography in historical terms are coded in Indian stories, puranas such as Mahabharata and Ramayana. These are markers for sense of one large nation.

-

Fractal recursivity makes Indians say other wise since the British sense of Indian history is different.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Apr 2009 20:40

shiv wrote: Congratulations. You are correct. There is nothing to stop the taliban from spreading. India will go under them. Is that such a bad thing?

Not at all Shiv-ji!

That is why I asked to define our strategic interests in this and other pertinent threads. Based on what I have heard so far, Talibanization of India is NOT a bad thing. Indic/Bharatiya/Animist view points are pluralistic by nature and evolve by including other ideologies. So we can INCLUDE talabanism too into our Indic society as part of our individual enlightement.

Being the schizophrenic male that I am, I might get to do things I always wanted to as a Talibani...

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 16 Apr 2009 20:42

Acharya -

It is true that India is defined geographically by the Ramayana and Mahabharata, as well as other scriptures, and the position of maths across India but while our definition hasn't changed much, there have been certain periods where it has differed.

For example, we say that Gandhari from the MB was from Kandahar in present day Afghanistan. Ashoka ruled over what is today Pakistan, Afghanistan, and parts of eastern Persia.

I don't want to derail the conversation, just observing a point.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Apr 2009 20:44

Acharya wrote:
Even smaller monarchy has history of atleast 300-500 years. Some have 800 year history and these are comparable to European monarchies. By population Indian monarchies were bigger than the europeans.

Only Chinese monarchy history may have longer history without any break.

I am certain that these have played role in the overall consciousness of Indians, but let me ask a question that I had asked before. When a small areas of Indians - say a part of Karnataka found itself under one particular ruler - would they immediately have started calling themselves citizens of the state of that ruler and started applying for visas from a neighboring state to visit Kashi?

Or did they say they were "Indians"?

I suspect that neither is correct. People just continued to live their lives under any ruler with no particular allegiance to any border except when they were part of the rulers army and had to maintain his border. The people were subjects of the but not "citizens of a nation state" with documents to support that. And they could expect no help from their ruler if they got into trouble in a neighboring state. And they did not have any emigration/immigration formalities. it was all Bharata desha.

There was no particular incentive to maintain one's kings border or respect the border and expect hostility from people across a border.

Indian monarchies came and went and i suspect that many "great" Indian monarchs of various religions found it easy to rule precisely because the people did not give a damn about which ruler ruled. Aside from a small minority who were directly affected by the ruler the vast multitudes in India isolated villages were hardly touched - until the Brits came.

The sense of "nation state": became important under the British - and played a vital role in getting them out. While Shankaracharya and Vivekananda may earlier have defined the cultural boundaries of the Indian nation, the unification of people within that nation state owes a lot to gandhi and others.

What we have today is really a new India based on the foundations of a very ancient culture of loose cohesion. Today is different from yesterday, although it retains and utilizes the loose cohesion of yesterday to define the nation state of today.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Apr 2009 20:49

shiv wrote:Indian monarchies came and went and i suspect that many "great" Indian monarchs of various religions found it easy to rule precisely because the people did not give a damn about which ruler ruled. Aside from a small minority who were directly affected by the ruler the vast multitudes in India isolated villages were hardly touched - until the Brits came.

IMO this changed with Islamic invasions. They brought the concept of across-the-board killing/pillage/destruction as part of wars between kingdoms.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 Apr 2009 20:49

shiv wrote:
The sense of "nation state": became important under the British - and played a vital role in getting them out. While Shankaracharya and Vivekananda may earlier have defined the cultural boundaries of the Indian nation, the unification of people within that nation state owes a lot to gandhi and others.

Nation state is only few centuries old and actually only 100 years old in some cases.
Indian unification is built on centuries of shared history.

Your point is not coming out in your post.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Apr 2009 20:52

RamaY wrote:
shiv wrote:Indian monarchies came and went and i suspect that many "great" Indian monarchs of various religions found it easy to rule precisely because the people did not give a damn about which ruler ruled. Aside from a small minority who were directly affected by the ruler the vast multitudes in India isolated villages were hardly touched - until the Brits came.
IMO this changed with Islamic invasions. They brought the concept of across-the-board killing/pillage/destruction as part of wars between kingdoms.

I have read that the Islamic kings affected day to day life i rural India less than the brits. It was the Brit version of squeezing local economies that was the final straw in raising the demand for "India". Also the Islamic kings never covered so much of India over so long a period as the Brits. The british method of colonization was vastly different from any previous naive monarchies.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Apr 2009 20:53

Acharya wrote:
shiv wrote:
The sense of "nation state": became important under the British - and played a vital role in getting them out. While Shankaracharya and Vivekananda may earlier have defined the cultural boundaries of the Indian nation, the unification of people within that nation state owes a lot to gandhi and others.
Nation state is only few centuries old and actually only 100 years old in some cases.
Indian unification is built on centuries of shared history.

Your point is not coming out in your post.

Thanks for the correction. That is what I meant.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 16 Apr 2009 20:57

shiv wrote: I suspect that neither is correct. People just continued to live their lives under any ruler with no particular allegiance to any border except when they were part of the rulers army and had to maintain his border. The people were subjects of the but not "citizens of a nation state" with documents to support that. And they could expect no help from their ruler if they got into trouble in a neighboring state. And they did not have any emigration/immigration formalities. it was all Bharata desha.

Very true. Good post.

RamaY wrote:IMO this changed with Islamic invasions. They brought the concept of across-the-board killing/pillage/destruction as part of wars between kingdoms.

Shiv wrote:I have read that the Islamic kings affected day to day life i rural India less than the brits. It was the Brit version of squeezing local economies that was the final straw in raising the demand for "India". Also the Islamic kings never covered so much of India over so long a period as the Brits. The british method of colonization was vastly different from any previous naive monarchies.

I don't think its hard to consider that foreigners probably did more for the political unification of India than Indians ever did, but ultimately, it was a combination of both. Obviously, the problem hasn't been completely solved.

The Islamic kings may have introduced mass slaughter but the British were much more efficient and more pervasive than Islamic kings. Shiv is right that British colonization, however destructive, was extremely smart, effective, and planned.

Sorry for the continuation of OT. Let us get back to talking about the future.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Apr 2009 21:02

Before the invasions, they would call themselves the citizens under that raja or ruler and as Hindus not Indians. The idea of nationa states is only ~300 years old and its fatous to say there was no India in the old days. Yes there was no UK either.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Apr 2009 21:03

Keshav wrote: I don't think its hard to consider that foreigners probably did more for the political unification of India than Indians ever did, but ultimately, it was a combination of both. Obviously, the problem hasn't been completely solved.

I have quoted your post but have made the font size of the first 8 words so small that I can't read them without glasses.

I agree with the rest of the post, but put it to you that the single most difficult fact to put across to Indians, especially on this board is that foreigners (and IMO, fractal recursivity) have played a huge role in the political unification of India. Cognitive dissonance kicks in to stop the thought.