Murder on Helm Street

Harimau


Ref:698


This is more to acknowledge your post than anything else.

I have been travelling and still am away. Had not seen your post earlier. Even though I have not been able to follow the news but am aware of certain developments in a very broad manner. Meaning, situation has altered (congress having won elections alongwith its allies or NDA/BJP having lost elections), so there is hardly much to say on the subject as the dreaded scenario of some, has come close to reality.

Ref rajsingh1 #697

If you want greater clarity, please replace ``Indian`` with ``ethnic Indian`` in my post #696.

During the 1987 coup, the Prime MInsiter of Fiji was an ethnic Fijian though the Indian population was about 52% of Fiji`s total population. He died just a couple of weeks ago.

As to Sonia Gandhi, there would be no NEED for a law to prevent her from becoming the Prime Minsiter of India but for the pseudo-secularists and those bending over forwards to get their butts reamed. What exactly is the chance that an Indian would become the Prime Minister of England where, as these idiots are fond of pointing out, there is no law barring a foreigner from holding that office? The fact that an Indian is allowed to make tons of money in the private enterprise system in Western countries is confused by these idiots who think that there is no bar to political leadership as well. With the exception of a third-generation Indian becoming the Premier of British Columbia, Canada, there has been NO record of any Indian holding major public office in the West.

Again, if only Sonia had been black, none of us would be having this discussion. Since she is while (white trash), she is acceptable to Indians. I am not surprised in the least that Rahul has a white girlfriend -- if she is from Columbia, there are plenty of mixed-race persons in that country as a result of centuries of marriage between Spaniards and the native Amerindians. But obviously, such a person wouldn`t do for Rahul or for Indians in general.

The contempt Indians feel for themselves is palpable in their mad rush to support Sonia Gandhi. The Congress held the people in contempt during its 45 years of misrule no matter what anyone says about the regularity of elections and the pattern merely continues.

As to those of you who point out that India embraced Mother Theresa as one of its own, let Sonia Gandhi work in the slumd of New Delhi if she wants to be of service to India and Indians.

Harimau

Ref:696


While I do thank you for shedding some more light on the coup of 1987 but something in the following paras (bold part)is not that clear.

Quote:

`` The coup in 1987 wasn`t against an
Indian prime minister. That coup however served notice on the Indian community (which was in a majority) that their rights would be trampled over by the Fijians.

The 2000 coup was against the Indian prime minister elected under the revised constitution of 1987 vintage. The fact is that the Fijians are unwilling to let democratic forces shape their government.``

Indian Prime Minister?

Till it is fully understood and realised that it is a Fijian Prime Minister about whom discussion is taking place, and not an Indian one, it would be difficult to be on the same wave length, when it comes to discussing issues. Chances are, discussion would not be with each other but .......................

Quote:

`` If India is unconcerned because this coup was in a foreign country, then they should not go about expressing regrets over the coup. Nor should they invite Mahendra Chaudhry (ex-PM of Fiji) to the NRI day and make a big deal out of his presence. Either he is Fijian and has no connections to India or he has rights we want to protect.``

India can express, has expressed regrets over the coup in other countries too, where there have not people of Indian origin, in position. Expressing regrets does not necessarily has to have relation with that.

As to his being invited as NRI, that is as an individual and not as PM of Fiji. As a person of Indian origin, he may have certain privileges (spl?), and perhaps a right too, to the extent of applying for Indian citizenship but, as PM of Fiji, he has no right whatsoever, in India. And India, as a country, does not have to protect him or any other PM (of other country/ies) for that matter, until and unless India deems it to be in its interests (unless one brings in human angle here).

And as I said earlier, make a case on India`s interests (political/economical) in Fiji then it would be much better to go into other aspects.


Quote:

`` I would not in the least be surprised to find that it is precisely these people who are unconcerned about ethnic Indians around the world who would be willing to hand over India to Sonia Gandhi, an ethnic Italian and a reluctant first generation immigrant to India. ``

Guess what...IF Sonia Gandhi ever becomes PM of India, it would be because of current leadership of India, especially big guns of BJP than anybody else. It is they, who for the petty gains, greed for power, refused to bring law which can bar people of foreign origin to become PM of India. And this, even when they themselves constituted a committee to look into this very aspect specifically but it was same BJP (out of 5 or 6 members, 2 were from BJP) who did not let the committee to peresent its report (or perhaps, it was that those two did not sign on the report or something like that). IIRC, P A Sangma too was one of the members of the same committee and he very much wanted to come out with a recommendation which would have helped in barring Sonia, for starters, to become PM of India. But, current stalwarts of BJP knew very well that Sonia is the best opposition leader for them, to stay in power. And in their greed, they deprived India from having a law which could have barred her from becoming PM of India. So direct the guns, in the correct direction. And that is, towards those leaders of BJP.

Ref rajsinghi1 #695

The coup in 1987 wasn`t against an Indian prime minister. That coup however served notice on the Indian community (which was in a majority) that their rights would be trampled over by the Fijians.

The 2000 coup was against the Indian prime minister elected under the revised constitution of 1987 vintage. The fact is that the Fijians are unwilling to let democratic forces shape their government.

If India is unconcerned because this coup was in a foreign country, then they should not go about expressing regrets over the coup. Nor should they invite Mahendra Chaudhry (ex-PM of Fiji) to the NRI day and make a big deal out of his presence. Either he is Fijian and has no connections to India or he has rights we want to protect.

I would not in the least be surprised to find that it is precisely these people who are unconcerned about ethnic Indians around the world who would be willing to hand over India to Sonia Gandhi, an ethnic Italian and a reluctant first generation immigrant to India.

harish_hyd

Ref: 680


Your post reminded me of the fact that wars, power projection is a very expensive thing/business. With that in mind, I did a quick google search on army coup in Fiji.

If I have got the years/dates right then I wonder, what these people are/were thinking when the suggestion is, India should reflex its muscles in Fiji....For, first coup took place in 1987, and by 1989/90, India was almost on the brink of bankruptcy (India had mortgaged its gold to Bank of England). Surely in 1987 India would not have been floating in/on the gold. So with what India could have projected power in Fiji? Second, around that time Brasstacks too took place. Which means, India was not only so busy within India (and with Pakistan) but also had spent quite a lot on Brasstacks. In other word, at that time, India neither had money for power projection, nor it was practical for her to be anywhere else.

Second coup in Fiji took place in 2000. And in 2001, just one travel advisory by US, stopped the present govt in its tracks. And the expectation/desire is, India should project her power in the backyard of Australia (where US has a big say).

Quote:

Besides military power, another aspect that nations must carefully consider is the indirect impact military intervention can have on the economics of an aggressor nation. The reason why China dare not invade Taiwan is not because it doesn`t have the military power or the financial resources to overwhelm it, but the consequences the very act could have on the economy. Besides, investors would not want to invets in a country that is perceived as a warmonger or is at war.

Yes, it is more about cost benefit thing/ratio, which does come into this too. Cost to China, of having Taiwan forcibly, could be very high indeed, in the present circumstances. In the end, it may not be even worth her while.

AlephNull

Ref:679


Quote:

`` The case that Nehru was a hard realist who had no use for morality in foreign affairs, other than as a facade behind which to practice realpolitik; that he had no qualms about saying one thing and doing another, etc.; has been made most forcefully by Bharat Karnad (who is probably the most hawkish of the few Indians who’ve made thinking about strategic issues their full-time profession). It can of course be contested. More here:

India First ``

First of all, thanks a lot for an excellent link. Don`t know how I missed seeing it earlier. :)

Yes, he indeed has made a very good case on Pt Nehru being realist and not an idealist. On another forum, his book was reviewed quite exhaustively.

As to your saying that it can be contested (Bharat Karnad`s viewpoint on Pt Nehru), well, sure it can be but one would have very, very hard time in proving it otherwise. That is, when one talks on issues and not just on the basis of bias, belief. If it is mainly on the basis of emotions, bias, belief, then there hardly could be any reasonable, logical, healthy, discussion. And frankly, that is what one generally tends to see among those who already have made up their mind on Pt Nehru being only an idealist.

Maharana


Ref: 678

I do appreciate the kind words.

As to the sources, although there are many different sources who have said the same thing in different manner but the excerpts that I quoted are from: http://www.kashmirtelegraph.com/dasgupta.htm

also from..

www.esamskriti.com/html/warsfa/kashmir_mess.doc

Quote:

`` In my opinion, it did not make any difference to a commoner in india, whether he/she was ruled by zamindars, british or raja/nawabs. Their lot was pathetic with no hopes for any say in their lives. Not just their lands, but their lives were dependent upon the whims of their masters. Freedom struggle to replace one set of masters by another did not make any sense to them. I think Gandhi changed all that, by awakening the masses to take control of their own destinies, be it caste related discrimantion or nation`s subjugation. He was instrumental in ``informing`` the people that freedom does not just come by overthrowing the brits, but also all other shackles burdening their lives. That rings a bell with a commoner. People in india are mistaken that he was just a religious or idealistic nut. He was a lot more intelligent and pragmatic than many people can understand.``


Had the things moved further or in this direction, I would have come around to this part too. :) But, I am glad that it is you who has done it, and in a much better way.

Ref jang #683

[In past you have challanged posters going gaga over ``indian might in software``. I would suggest that indian might in military field should get the same treatment. You strategic thinking reminds me of something Ali1 said (i believe)

g@nd mein dum nahin, hum kisi se kum nahin.

chinese are not a nation that everyone must emulate.]

The simple question is: could Fiji be taken? Would Australia come to Fiji`s aid or would it just make appropriate noises?

Just like the US picks its fights carefully (with the exception of Korea and Viet Nam), India should also pick its fights carefully. The US picked Granada, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq. Of all these nations, you can call Iraq the only poor choice but still it is a war the US can fight.

After all, if Indonesia can occupy East Timor and Western New Guinea, there is no reason India cannot throw its weight around.

China said that if Taiwan attempted to acquire nuclear arms, it would invade Taiwan. Did India ever issue such a warning? Guess what happened? Pakistan has got the nukes.

Pakistan keeps claiming that India doesn`t want to recognize the existence of Pakistan. I think we should make Pakistanis happy and claim that all of Pakistan is a renegade area that would one day be re-united with the motherland... re-play the Chinese words replacing Taiwan with Pakistan and make the Chinese squirm. India should have said to the Chinese back in the 70s that the day we find Chinese complicity in the Pakistani nuclear program, we would be supplying fully assembled nuclear bombs to Taiwan.

Next time any frikking Pakistani says boo, I think India should kick their Butts. At some point, the Pakistanis have to learn that nuclear blackmail isn`t going to work and that they have to learn to live with India. Instead, Indians are being told that we have to learn to live with the Pakistanis and accept bomb-throwing in Srinagar as a way of life.

50 years of Gandhian crapola (Gaanduan crapola, if you want) had led to this situation.

The Jama Masjid Imam is the counter-part of the VHP sadhus- un-educated, un-civilized, always ready to sell others for their petty crumbs.
And willing to extend the same old jehadi logic where is suits them- this time it is used to justify their aligning with the BJP.

Ref nazarhayatkhan #682

[As a well wisher of India, I think India should have a low profile International policy for next 10-15 years - and concentrate on its ecinomic strength. All this would automatically follow. If any such open SHOW OF FORCE is done at the International level at this stage, that will be a needless distraction and disruption in its growth towatds becoming the third biggest economic power.

It is just a little early. Once again, a good example is of China.]

Actually, China took care of its territorial issues FIRST.

Cina invaded Tibet in 1952. It settled the Xinjiang issue and got Russia to withdraw from there by 1960.

It went to war with India in 1962. It went to war with Russia in the 1970s over the border in Siberia. It even went to war with Vietnam in 1979 over a border dispute.

It has occupied the Spratley Islands and the Paracels in South China Sea though Vietnam and the Philippines claim those islands.

It is pretty much saying South China Sea is Chinese territory though right now the Chinese Navy can`t do squat there.

The only thing that hasn`t gone the Chinese way is Taiwan but that is because the US wants a permanent thorn in the Chinese side.

So if India were to follow the Chinese example, it should throw its weight around a little bit.

I think declaring that Sri Lanka, Mauritius, and Maldives are of special concern to India and India won`t tolerate interference in these countries by others would be a good first step. It is a bit too late to include Pakistan in the list.

Ref satyamvada #675

[Harimau,
India does not have military power yet to project all the way to Fiji !!
Heck...Even China cannot step close to Taiwan - a neigboring island !]

China can`t do squat to Taiwan because of the US. The last time the Chinese attempted to stage a naval exercise in Taiwan Straits, the US had an aircraft carrier in the Straits to draw a line which the Chinese dared not cross.

If Britain could take Fiji in the 1850s with sailing ships, India should be able to take Fiji with a couple of battleships. It probably takes 2 weeks to get there as opposed to a year by sail power. And today`s ships hold more soldiers and more firepower.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#683 by jang

I have better one: G@and mein nahin guda - Lanka mein kyun kuda :)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: fv #681

[...He believes that issues like the Babri Masjid and the Gujarat carnage can be dealt with in three ways -- through a jihad, or migration of the Muslims or reconciliation. While the first will not help at all, he is only strengthening the general stereotype of the Muslims as jihadis...]

fv doesn`t really have an objection to jihad itself, i.e., if jihad COULD help, it should be waged.

harimou various

In past you have challanged posters going gaga over ``indian might in software``. I would suggest that indian might in military field should get the same treatment. You strategic thinking reminds me of something Ali1 said (i believe)

g@nd mein dum nahin, hum kisi se kum nahin.

chinese are not a nation that everyone must emulate.

#682 by nazarhayatkhan
//.....India should have a low profile International policy for next 10-15 years - and concentrate on its ecinomic strength....///

I agree. I don`t believe in `Gandhian crapola of non-violence` as Harimau put it :) but I think India should gain more strengh before stretching out far and wide. For Pete`s sake - India can`t even take care of pesky pakis next door. Getting foothold in pacific is inviting , but somehow I am doubtful India has resources to do it.

In case of Fiji - I wish India could have done more. But there was hardly any public awareness behind it. I mean - before the whole story broke - I didn`t know there was country called Fiji and that there are so many indians there.

Harimau # 670

(By the way, that would have been the way for India to get a foothold in the Pacific.

(After India`s nuclear tests in 1998, Australia realized that its future threats are from not just China but also from India. So nothing wrong with showing the Aussies and their US masters that India could also play the geopolitical game)

(The trouble is that we have too many people who have been brain-washed into the Gandhian crapola of non-violence. It just doesn`t pay in international relations. )

As a well wisher of India, I think India should have a low profile International policy for next 10-15 years - and concentrate on its ecinomic strength. All this would automatically follow. If any such open SHOW OF FORCE is done at the International level at this stage, that will be a needless distraction and disruption in its growth towatds becoming the third biggest economic power.

It is just a little early. Once again, a good example is of China.

The Shahi Imam is now really preparing to `affect` the voting pattern in parts of Delhi, that go to the polls on May 10. I have tried unsuccessfully to download his interview in The Asian Age, dated April 29 (they have the most ineffective search engine)...if any of you are interested and more net-savvy you might like to look it up.

Meanwhile, my letter to the editor on that interview has been published today, April 30. I have that with me and it is online too. It might give you an idea of what the man is talking about:
- - -
Sir, Does the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid have any political currency to represent the “genuine grievances of the Muslim community” when he is all but ready to play footsie with the BJP? In ‘Bukhari sets a new Muslim agenda’ (The Asian Age, April 29), he is quoted as saying that issues like the Uniform Civil Code, Article 370 and Ayodhya are matters that have been used for emotional blackmail, forgetting that he and his ilk have been at the forefront of such deals. Only now that it seems to suit him, he is talking about security, education and employment, which the minorities as any other community should take as a matter of right, and not something they have to fight for. The Imam’s views are subversive. He believes that issues like the Babri Masjid and the Gujarat carnage can be dealt with in three ways -- through a jihad, or migration of the Muslims or reconciliation. While the first will not help at all, he is only strengthening the general stereotype of the Muslims as jihadis. And how would migration help the Indian Muslim cause? Regarding reconciliation, what does he mean? That the Muslims should gift away the site?

Sincerely,
Farzana Versey

- - -

sadna, if you are here... from the Lahore board
[#220 by sadna on April 29, 2004 7:27pm PT
FarzanaVersey #219
The Vajpayee Himayat committee took out ads supporting Vajpayee which included pictures of Musharraf.]

What next?! On another note, I was quite riled to see two large front page pix in The Age of Sachin Tendulkar in the left panel at a shoot and the other panel with Shoaib Akhtar talking a child suffering from cancer. The caption read, ``Commerce and charity``. This was unfair, since Shoaib was in Mumbai to shoot with Tendulkar. I think we are going overboard with this peace business.

rajsingh1, AlephNull, satyamvada and harimau:

Besides military power, another aspect that nations must carefully consider is the indirect impact military intervention can have on the economics of an aggressor nation. The reason why China dare not invade Taiwan is not because it doesn`t have the military power or the financial resources to overwhelm it, but the consequences the very act could have on the economy. Besides, investors would not want to invets in a country that is perceived as a warmonger or is at war.

As much as the Americans and Europeans are sold on China`s low-cost advantages, they will simply not look the other way should China commit an aggression against Taiwan. China`s economy is going along so nicely that it doesn`t want to commit such a silly act and allow the west to pull the plug on its economy, given the fact that the act of invading Taiwan in itself is more symbolic than substantial. It would rather wait for an opportune moment or seek other means to resolve the imbroglio. That is precisely why China is keen on settling all issues with its neighbors in a peaceful manner through dialog. The same goes for India too. Making threatening noises from time to time like China does or amassing troops along the border like India did are mere symbolism, intended more for public consumption than any real gain, although India`s move was relatively successful in that it forced the Americans to lean on Pakistan to do more to curb cross-border terrorism.

Rajsingh1 #676

{{However, one of the important things to note/learn from excerpts is that Pt Nehru was very much alive to what was happening, was trying his best, and in no way he was a preacher/idealist, as he is accused (yes, accused). Wrongly, of course.}}

and for anyone else who might be interested:

The case that Nehru was a hard realist who had no use for morality in foreign affairs, other than as a facade behind which to practice realpolitik; that he had no qualms about saying one thing and doing another, etc.; has been made most forcefully by Bharat Karnad (who is probably the most hawkish of the few Indians who’ve made thinking about strategic issues their full-time profession). It can of course be contested. More here:

India First

Satyamvada

Ref: 675

I am not being modest/dramatic/pompous when I say, I sincerely do thank you for having thought of me as someone who can recommend some book/s on the subject, in which you have expressed interest.

I request, give me some time to come up with something. For, from top of my head, as this very moment, there hardly is anything. :)

Kindly bear with me.

Once again, Thanks!

rajsinghi1 # 676 & 674,
Thanks for the excellent posts. What is the source of this information?


``Since you are one of the most well read/informed person (I am not being sarcastic), try to go back to the days before the arrival of Mahatma Gandhi, in India. What was India like at that time? Forget the British but just look at Indians only (of course, today`s Pakistanis too). Was there really any freedom struggle going on? ....... ``

In my opinion, it did not make any difference to a commoner in india, whether he/she was ruled by zamindars, british or raja/nawabs. Their lot was pathetic with no hopes for any say in their lives. Not just their lands, but their lives were dependent upon the whims of their masters. Freedom struggle to replace one set of masters by another did not make any sense to them. I think Gandhi changed all that, by awakening the masses to take control of their own destinies, be it caste related discrimantion or nation`s subjugation. He was instrumental in ``informing`` the people that freedom does not just come by overthrowing the brits, but also all other shackles burdening their lives. That rings a bell with a commoner. People in india are mistaken that he was just a religious or idealistic nut. He was a lot more intelligent and pragmatic than many people can understand.

Adios

Harimau

Quote:

`` As to your comments about Kashmir in 1948, India should not have accepted the ceasefire but continued fighting to evict the Pakistanis. The most that Mountbatten would have done was to resign, pack up and go back to England and taken his British officers with him from both the Indian and Pakistani armies. We would at least have known which army had better planning and execution abilities.

Instead of my saying anything for now, kindly read the following...but, condition is :) , read with an open mind...

Some excerpts....


`` At this point in time, it is useful to remember the role of Great Britain,
particularly of Lord Mountbatten, to understand how Albion has been
single-handedly responsible for the Kashmir imbroglio. For this, it is
necessary to go back to a year before the British left the jewel of their
empire.

In 1946-47 they were perhaps ready to depart, but not to lose their
influence in Asia and the world. For the past two centuries, the defence of
their empire had been centered on the Indian subcontinent and the Indian
Ocean [known as the British lake]. The British Empire, born from a trading
company, was basically a sea-empire. This was brilliantly demonstrated by K
M Panikkar, the historian [unfortunately turned diplomat] in his famous
book, Asia and the Western Dominance. But at the beginning of the 20th
century, two new factors appeared on the strategic scene: one was aviation
(whose role was masterfully demonstrated by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor in
1941) and petrol (and therefore the importance of Middle East).

When the British chiefs of staff were ordered to submit a report on the
strategic consequences of their departure from the subcontinent, all the
generals agreed that Pakistan was the more important of the two future
dominions, because of the possibility of installing air bases in the north
of the country (to control Russia) and naval bases opening to the Arabian
Sea in the south. A brotherly contact with the Muslim states in the Middle
East was an added bonus.

Another argument, which made Pakistan more reliable, was that Mohammed Ali
Jinnah was extremely keen to remain in the Commonwealth while the Indian
National Congress could not make up its mind. Jinnah once forcefully told
Mountbatten: ``You can`t kick us out.`

The dies were cast in May 1947 when the chiefs of staff reported: ``From the
strategic point of view there were overwhelming arguments in favour of West
Pakistan remaining within the Commonwealth, namely that we should obtain
important strategic facilities...``

Subsequently this policy was implemented, partly with the unknowing (not to
say foolish) collaboration of the Congress. When the time of independence
came and Jinnah insisted on becoming the first governor general of Pakistan
(London had thought Mountbatten could be the governor general of both
dominions), the Congress offered the job in India to the viscount.

This was the first of a long series of blunders. Then, when the issue of
Junagadh and Hyderabad came up soon after Independence, a defence committee
of the Cabinet was created. And who was its chairman? A Britisher.

This was a surrealistic situation: two dominions, one with a Pakistani
governor general, the other with a British; two armies, both with British
generals (though India tried from the first months to indigenise her cadre).
The `Indian` British generals took orders from the British governor general
and not from the Indian government; the defence committee was chaired by a
Brit, which most of the time was overriding the Cabinet`s decisions and a
`stand-down` order stated that British officers would not fight one another.

Such was the situation when the raiders trained, equipped and directed by
Colonel Akbar Khan, military adviser of the Pakistani prime minister,
entered Kashmir at the end of October 1947. The story is too well known to
be recounted here, but the interesting point is that the British constantly
played a double game. General Douglas Gracey, the Pakistani army commander,
knew of the raiders` attack beforehand, but did not `inform` his Indian
counterpart. Later on, information kept circulating, but in one direction
only. This shows that London, with the help of Mountbatten, was determined
to implement the strategic plans of HMG.

Another strange situation: Mountbatten, formal head of the Indian State,
took upon himself to be the mediator also. Can we imagine the captain of a
World Cup soccer team being the referee at the same time, while also acting
to make a third country win?

Once a friend of mine visiting Israel was asked by his hosts: ``What do you
see as a difference between India and Israel?`` My friend answered: ``In
Israel, you use your guts, in India we wait for the Grace.`` The Grace struck
when Mountbatten`s cousin (Elizabeth II) got married in London, forcing him
to leave India for two weeks in November. During this time, the Indian
commanders did so well that they secured Srinagar and stabilized the Uri
sector. They could have advanced and taken back Muzaffarabad if they had not
received orders from Delhi to stop their advance.

The last two months of 1947 is a long tale of the British authorities trying
to `restrain` India from chasing out the raiders. This explains why Nehru,
though a great admirer of the governor general, was really fed up at the end
of 1947 and why he wrote the note quoted earlier.

When he got to know the content, the cunning Mountbatten decided to act
fast. From the start, he had been of the opinion that the best way to derail
an Indian offensive, which would have finished off Pakistan, was to refer
the case to the United Nations where it would be quickly buried. We should
not forget that not only was Mountbatten a fine soldier and an over-charming
man, he was also a clever politician who knew perfectly well that, even
within Clement Attlee`s Cabinet, there were enough people like Noel Baker,
the Commonwealth secretary, who would immediately take Pakistan`s side
against India.

He (Mountbatten) used all his influence on Nehru (and he had a lot) to
convince him that it was `The Solution` and the world would immediately
condemn Pakistan for supporting and assisting the raiders. During the
following defence council meeting on December 20, he forced Nehru and his
colleagues to accept the idea to make a reference to the UN. Reluctantly the
Indian prime minister agreed: India would appeal, but would at the same time
prepare a contingency plan for attacking the raiders` sanctuaries in eastern
Pakistan.

On December 22, Nehru sent an ultimatum to Pakistan Prime Minister Liaquat
Ali Khan that the raids should be stopped immediately failing which India
would consider a counter attack. It is to be noted that at that time the
Indian leadership was a deeply divided lot and the next day Sardar Patel
sent a resignation letter to Nehru for being sidetracked on the Kashmir
issue. This was not to help India`s case!

However, the man who had commanded the Allied forces in Asia had scored a
first point: the principle of a reference to the UN was accepted. The next
step for the governor general was to kill the Indian military plans. He did
not hesitate to spend Christmas day writing a very long missive to Nehru
highlighting the advantage of the UN solution and the danger of a military
escalation.

We should not forget that if a war had broken out between the two dominions,
the British officers posted in both dominions as well as the governor
general would have lost their jobs and would have had to pack their bags for
the native island.

Mountbatten told Nehru clearly ``his considerations were not inspired by
military considerations, but by the fact that it would mean war between
India and Pakistan``. In other words, he was not really interested by the
merits of the case or whether Pakistan was on the wrong side of the fence;
he wanted to avoid a war and its consequences for the United Kingdom.

Nehru soon discovered that Mountbatten`s interests in the reference to the
UN were only ``to get a team nominated to come out and deal with the business
and help to stop the fighting``. The next day, Nehru answered with another
very long letter and made it clear that he agreed about stopping the
fighting: ``Yes, certainly, but how? We neither started it, nor can we stop
it. Of course, we can, in a sense, surrender. That I am sure you would not
advise us to do.... The very idea is hateful.`` But it was indeed what the
governor general wanted India to do... and this in the interests of the
Crown and Mountbatten`s own career and reputation.

Seeing that his plans were not fully working, Mountbatten launched another
attack, he secretly passed all the correspondence (and even the minutes of
the defence council) to Attlee asking him to intervene and put pressure on
Nehru. At the same time, he advised Nehru to inform the British Prime
Minister of the `latest developments` making him believe that it would help
India`s cause in the UN. It would have been strange if Attlee had written on
his own about what he was not supposed to know! Not knowing that Attlee had
already been fed with all the details of meetings and correspondence, Nehru
naively tried again to explain India`s position.

He was to receive a lecture the next day that attacks on the `nervous
centres` of the raiders in Pakistan were not `justified in international law
as India was not entitled to take this action in self-defence`. Attlee told
him that not only was he totally wrong legally, but any actions along this
line would tarnish Nehru`s international reputation and stature.

At the same time, London passed all the correspondence and other documents
to the US and France, asking them to put pressure on India to avoid
destroying the raiders `sanctuaries`; the US complied immediately. It was
enough for the Indian prime minister to `try` the UN solution.``

---

In the above quoted excerpts, there certainly are a few sweeping statements with which I do not agree (actually, I find those questionable. Do not agree is bit heavy ......). For, I have come across some material/read some material on the subject which make those statements bit questionable (can go into those a few statements when/if need arise). However, one of the important things to note/learn from excerpts is that Pt Nehru was very much alive to what was happening, was trying his best, and in no way he was a preacher/idealist, as he is accused (yes, accused). Wrongly, of course.

Rajsinghi1 .....

Can you recommend some books on the Indian political/geo-politics after 1947 ?

Harimau,
India does not have military power yet to project all the way to Fiji !!
Heck...Even China cannot step close to Taiwan - a neigboring island !

Harimau

Ref: 670


Quote:

`` I grant you that the overthrown Prime Minister was Fijian but were the Turkish Cypriots ETHNICALLY Turkish or were they Trukish citizens? Since they did not have Turkish citizenship but Cyprus citizenship, why did Turkey invade? They invaded to show their muscle. ``

In my previous post, the idea behind giving history (quoted excerpts/role of Britain and US) of that time was to show and convey that Turkey was part of the Western camp and she knew, she (Turkey) could get away, so Turkey invaded. In the case of India, since India already had terrible experience in dealing with some countries, and since India was trying to find its own feet too, India`s approach has been cautious. However, whenever opportunity arose or the need was there, India did reflex its muscles. Turkey had its Godfather/s and India refused to have one (recall, experience with international community had not been good right in the begining).

Quote:

`` So exactly what would the Fijian government have done if India sent in a couple of thousand sailors in two naval ships to take over their country? How about taking over one of the two large islands in Fiji and declaring it to be a separate country for Fijian Indians? ``

First make a case that India had some political/economical/strategic interests in Fiji. Only then it would be worth going into what Fiji/Australia/US could have or could not have done.

Generally, countries do not react in hostile manner or create hostilities on the basis of whims/emotions of its leadership. So why there would be any need for India to make an exception in the case of Fiji.

Quote:

`` By the way, China declares that all overseas Chinese are still Chinese citizens, even when the overseas Chinese don`t want such a declaration. It is just a threat that they hold over other countries in the neighborhood with a large Chinese population.``

When China claimed that people of Chinese origin, citizen of Singapore are in actuality Chinese citizens? I am referring to the above statement ``China declares that all overseas Chinese are still Chinese citizens``. Or are you saying something different? If so, please clarify.

Quote:

`` As to the geopolitics of invading Fiji, what would the US and Australia have done? If India had gone in claiming to ``restore democracy``, would the US and Australia have come out against that? Even if they did, would they have gone to war against India? ``

India could not stop US from making Diego Garcia an army/naval base in Indian Ocean itself and now the expectation is that India should have gone to the corner of Pacific Ocean, and take on US/Australia in the name of creating/restoring democracy, in a country, where India`s interests are not even known. Is that even a reasonable expectation?

Quote:

`` By the way, that would have been the way for India to get a foothold in the Pacific. ``

Does India want to go beyond Straits of Malaca?

`` After India`s nuclear tests in 1998, Australia realized that its future threats are from not just China but also from India. So nothing wrong with showing the Aussies and their US masters that India could also play the geopolitical game. ``


Sir, but who says India has not been playing geo political game? If/when the game being played does not meet your expectation or does not seem to be being played in the manner desired by you (not just you personally but am referring more to the method/manner here), does not mean the game is not being played or India is not playing a good game.

Quote:

`` The trouble is that we have too many people who have been brain-washed into the Gandhian crapola of non-violence. ``

I think, since India`s independence, the two most misunderstood persons are
Mahatma Gandhi, and Pt Nehru. Sad part is, it mainly Indians themselves (not all) who have not understood, and appreciated the efforts made by these two in making India.

Was it really a non violence that Mahatma Gandhi taught/preached or was it a pragmatism, as there hardly was any other way to fight British, British rule?

Since you are one of the most well read/informed person (I am not being sarcastic), try to go back to the days before the arrival of Mahatma Gandhi, in India. What was India like at that time? Forget the British but just look at Indians only (of course, today`s Pakistanis too). Was there really any freedom struggle going on? Sure there was but, to what degree? Was there any unity at all for the purpose or was it that almost every block/mohalla/pocket had singing its own version of Freedom? Add to it, social disharmony/problems (I hope, I need not go into gory details of that time). No, not just communal but other related problems too. So where was all this Freedom movment (s) going? Hardly anywhere. It was Mahatma Gandhi only when he arrived on the scene, he united the people of India and gave them a purpose. The weapon (at that time, it was a weapon)of non violence that he used was not because of some belief in non violence but after having seen the sheer poverty, discords between different communities, castes, he realised that when majority of Indians cannot even afford to have two square meals a day, how in the world are they going to pick gun, and fight the world power of that time. Gun battle would not have gone anywhere. Not that guns had not been tried before by Indians. British had a weakness (sense of superiority when it comes to morality), which he studied and he attacked on that weakness only, by using the weapon of non violence.

( This in itself could be a big topic but I would prefer to talk on this more, when dialogue/posting is not that slow. I mean, real-time.)


Okay, here is a request to you. I am going to quote an excerpt and would like you to guess who said the following, without looking at the answer, which is in the para followed by the excerpt. In case you respond to this, would certainly like to know, if you or anyone else for that matter had been able to guess. :)

Excerpt:

Are we to allow Pakistan to continue to train new armies for invasion and to
allow its territory to be used as a base for these attacks? The obvious
course of action is to strike at these concentrations and lines of
communications in Pakistan territory. From a military point of view this
would be the most effective step. We have refrained from taking it because
of political considerations. We shall have to reconsider this position
because a continuation of the present situation is intolerable. If Pakistan
is not prepared to help in putting an end to this war or even to try to
withdraw these invaders then we should help ourselves, even by crossing some
part of Pakistan territory and hitting at their concentrations. This
involves a risk of war with Pakistan. We wish to avoid war, but it is merely
deluding ourselves to imagine that we are avoiding war so long as the
present operations are continuing on either side.

Once again, guess who said this.
.
.
.
.

This was said by Pt Nehru.

On December 20, 1947, eleven days before the Kashmir issue was
referred to the United Nations.

Now tell me, after reading that, where is non violence and the preaching of non violence in that? Look at the date again, and note, Mahatma Gandhi was still alive (not that he was part of this speech or had anything to do with it), and Pt Nehru used this langauge.

Even the present day leaders do not have the guts or shall we say balls, to come up with that kind of language, message to Pakistan. So, what were we talking .............

sridhar:
``Most people, whose lives have not changed despite all this hoopla about increased GDP growth, are not amused and they are punishing BJP.``
...moreover, those who benefitted -the chattering class- do not want to go the voting station and stand in line with the riff-raffs. They will wait until they can logon and use a password to cast their votes:).

re:#669 by gujjubania
``India shining`` was an electoral gimmick (just like ``Garibi hatao`` by Indira Gandhi, as if one can remove poverty by a magic wand!) that is misfiring now. Most people, whose lives have not changed despite all this hoopla about increased GDP growth, are not amused and they are punishing BJP. I do not think BJP will get a majority without allies.
Sridhar

#668 by FarzanaVersey

I told you so.. India Shining is not bought by the electorate. Now only thing left to do is to enjoy the show, and suffer the misery.

Ref rajsinghi1 #665

[Quote:

``India watches as the Fijian Army overthrows the democratically elected Prime Minister of Indian origin. Since then, enough Fijian Indians have been evicted from Fiji so that they have now become a minority.``

As a country, pray what strategic interests India has or had in Fiji? The overthrown PM was a Fijian, and not an Indian. Sure, he is/was of Indian origin but that does not mean that India had to attack Fiji militarily or demanded from other countries to do so. And then, let us face it, India was not in that position as it is, at that time.

Another thing, Fiji is Australia`s backyard and it is US whose writ runs in that country, when it comes political and security issues.]

I grant you that the overthrown Prime Minister was Fijian but were the Turkish Cypriots ETHNICALLY Turkish or were they Trukish citizens? Since they did not have Turkish citizenship but Cyprus citizenship, why did Turkey invade? They invaded to show their muscle.

So exactly what would the Fijian government have done if India sent in a couple of thousand sailors in two naval ships to take over their country? How about taking over one of the two large islands in Fiji and declaring it to be a separate country for Fijian Indians? What did Australia do except say `tut, tut` when the Fijian Army overthrew their Prime Minister? What would Australia have done if India went in with a couple of ships and showed its muscle?

By the way, China declares that all overseas Chinese are still Chinese citizens, even when the overseas Chinese don`t want such a declaration. It is just a threat that they hold over other countries in the neighborhood with a large Chinese population.

As to the geopolitics of invading Fiji, what would the US and Australia have done? If India had gone in claiming to ``restore democracy``, would the US and Australia have come out against that? Even if they did, would they have gone to war against India?

By the way, that would have been the way for India to get a foothold in the Pacific.

After India`s nuclear tests in 1998, Australia realized that its future threats are from not just China but also from India. So nothing wrong with showing the Aussies and their US masters that India could also play the geopolitical game.

The trouble is that we have too many people who have been brain-washed into the Gandhian crapola of non-violence. It just doesn`t pay in international relations.

As to your comments about Kashmir in 1948, India should not have accepted the ceasefire but continued fighting to evict the Pakistanis. The most that Mountbatten would have done was to resign, pack up and go back to England and taken his British officers with him from both the Indian and Pakistani armies. We would at least have known which army had better planning and execution abilities.

PS. So tell us, why DID India take the Kashmir issue to the UN?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re. Indian elections...

It is really disappointing that the anti-NDA lot is so dispersed, especially when there are talks about the possibility of a hung parliament. And the culprit is Mulayam Singh Yadav. He fielded candidates in Bihar only due to his old Yadav vs. Yadav rivalry with Laloo. And getting his party to fight for 15 seats in West Bengal, where he could have had a sensible alliance with the Left, only proves that he is helping the BJP cause.

i just wanted to see who the 666th interactor was. oddly enough i was disappointed it was not arjun!

: )

Satyamvada

Ref:662


Thank you for the kind words, and I do appreciate.

Harimau

Ref: 663


Quote:


`` Turkey invades Cyprus and declares a separate homeland for Cypriots of Turkish origin. To this day the northern part of Cyprus remains a separate country though it lacks recognition from the world and Turkey guarantees it will remain separate. ``


I am not sure on what is being conveyed here.

Assuming, this is an example of Turkey having shown and used its balls then would like to say, this is not applicable to India at all. For, these are two different situations.

First all, Turkey is/was a member of NATO so she knew, no major power worth its while is going to go out of the way to punish (?)/antagonise Turkey for its action.

Now contrast this with India`s situation. Almost right from the begining, since India`s independence, by design or some quirk of fate or whatever, India has been stabbed, and stabbed, by at least two major powers of that time. Yes, I am talking about the same J&K imbroglio. Here, India had a perfect legal case on its claim on J&K state but powers like England and US conspired (?) to deprive India of its rightful possession. Don`t take my word on this as there is plenty of evidence available now which shows that part of British govt by design, did not want India to have J&K, and US, even after having admitted that India has perfect legal case went along with British position, for its own reasons.

Some relevant excerpts from review of a book, on the subject....

`` The book also gives a vivid account of how Noel-Baker misled his government on the US position too. C Dasgupta says: “In 1947-48, Washington accepted (Secretary of State George Marshall) the fact that Kashmir legally belonged to India by virtue of the Maharaja’s accession. In February 1948, the Americans informed Noel-Baker that they were disturbed by the implications of the resolution that he wanted to move in the UN, which would have allowed Pakistan to deploy its troops in Kashmir.”

When the British side argued that Kashmir was a ‘‘territory in dispute’’, the Americans disagreed, stating that they ‘‘found it difficult to deny the legal validity of Kashmir’s accession to India’’. Under pressure from Noel-Baker, the US finally agreed to float a draft resolution which would have permitted entry of Pakistani troops but only if India concurred. When his cabinet colleagues objected that India would never accept this, Noel-Baker chose to conceal his own hand in prompting the US move.” Noel-Baker tried to have Kashmir placed under effective UN control, pending a plebiscite, with Pakistani troops entering the state with a status similar to that of the Indian Army. But the US and other countries did not accept this.

John Foster Dulles, the acting leader of the US delegation in the Security Council, in November 1948, complained to the State Department that the ‘‘present UK approach (to the) Kashmir problem appears extremely pro-GOP (Government of Pakistan) as against (the) middle ground we have sought to follow.’’

To put it in very simple way, India`s position has been very different from others and India had to be much more cautious in its dealings/workings/approach.

By the way, is it a concidence that just when Bangla Desh came into being, Turkey invaded Cyprus around the same time(little later)...It can be said, Turkey followed India in displaying and using the balls, and not the other way around. :)


Quote:

``India watches as the Fijian Army overthrows the democratically elected Prime Minister of Indian origin. Since then, enough Fijian Indians have been evicted from Fiji so that they have now become a minority.``

As a country, pray what strategic interests India has or had in Fiji? The overthrown PM was a Fijian, and not an Indian. Sure, he is/was of Indian origin but that does not mean that India had to attack Fiji militarily or demanded from other countries to do so. And then, let us face it, India was not in that position as it is, at that time.

Another thing, Fiji is Australia`s backyard and it is US whose writ runs in that country, when it comes political and security issues.


Quote:

`` India accepted the view that since it was a British dominion just like Pakistan was, it should cease fire in Kashmir and take the case to the UN. ``

The above quoted excerpts should be sufficient for someone to start thinking, above assertion is not true/is not the case. If still in doubt, then very humbly I would suggest, read more on the subject.

btw, I appear to have missed posting this in one of my posts:

I miss Ms. Lajwanti! :)

Ref rajsinghi1 various posts:

Turkey invades Cyprus and declares a separate homeland for Cypriots of Turkish origin. To this day the northern part of Cyprus remains a separate country though it lacks recognition from the world and Turkey guarantees it will remain separate.

India watches as the Fijian Army overthrows the democratically elected Prime Minister of Indian origin. Since then, enough Fijian Indians have been evicted from Fiji so that they have now become a minority.

Turkey, while being a member of Nato along with Greece, works against Greek interests in Cyprus.

India accepted the view that since it was a British dominion just like Pakistan was, it should cease fire in Kashmir and take the case to the UN.

When Christ said something about turning the other cheek, he didn`t mean the ass-cheek.

Though with its craven desire to please the world, that is the interpretation Indians have placed on Christ`s admonition.

Rajsinghi1 ....you have made your case well.

I used to have ``some`` ideas similiar to Harimau`s, now I have updated
and corrected my views. You are right.

Thanks.

Harimau

Ref:654


Quote:

``
For that, the US has to be the 28th state of India. Since that is not going to happen, India should pretty much do what it wants and let the chips fall where they may.



So the believer/s in ``let the chips fall where they may`` want to decide the fate of over billion lives/sub continentals...

Is it any wonder they claim, ``India never had balls``. Not only that, Indian leadership lacked vision and political will (ref to 1971 war).

Harimau

Some excerpts ....


Quote:


This writer would like to share with the readers a memorandum of conversation between Kissinger, on the one hand, and P.N. Haksar, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister and Vikram A. Sarabhai, Chairman of India`s Atomic Energy Commission, on the othe r. No one else, from either the MEA or the U.S. Embassy, was present. The memorandum was meticulously prepared by Winston Lord, a member of the National Security Council staff. It was an informal discussion for an hour and 40 minutes over luncheon at the Ashoka Hotel in New Delhi, on July 7, 1971. The writer is indebted to the National Security Archive for a copy of this document.

Kissinger disclosed: ``We are just at the beginning of a meaningful dialogue with the Chinese... Over the coming months the U.S. might be able to make some significant starts in its relations with the Chinese, although we had no illusions about our differ ences.`` Short of telling his hosts that he would be in Beijing two days later, Kissinger revealed enough for New Delhi not to be too surprised when that historic trip was made known to the wide world on July 15.

In this context, what Kissinger said on India merits quotation in extenso: ``Dr. Kissinger said that under any conceivable circumstances the U.S. would back India against any Chinese pressures. In any dialogue with China, we would, of course, no t encourage her against India. The U.S. knew that foreign domination of India would be a disaster. It was for a strong, independent India which would make for stability in the region. From what we knew, this was the Soviet aim as well, and we did not believe that the U.S. and Soviets had any conflicting interests in India. India was a potential world power. Our priorities would reflect these facts.``

He added: ``The U.S. hoped to use its influence with Pakistan, rather than cutting off all influence, and move it toward the type of political evolution in East Pakistan that we believe India wanted also.``

Shortly after his return from Beijing, on July 16 Kissinger summoned India`s Ambassador L.K. Jha to San Clemente to say that the assurance he gave in New Delhi would not apply in the event of China`s intervention in an India-Pakistan war. During the war, he encouraged China to do just that.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Harimau

Ref:655


Quote:


``On the day Dacca surrendered, India should have sent troops into West Pakistan. So what if Russia didn`t veto any anti-India Security Council resolution? So what if the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution against India demanding withdrawal from West Pakistan? Who was going to enforce it? The US was already upto its a$$ in alligators in Vietnam. ``

This is bordering on the lines of, `instead of Rs. 100 I have, only if I had Rs. 200 and then weaving dreams around that.

How about learning some more, about the situation of that time and then, only then come to conclusions on which some discussion can take place. When someone is threatened with a loaded gun, last thing on the mind of threatened person is if the person who is threatening is a good shot or not. Read some declassified transcripts between Nixon, Kissinger and others and it will show that break up of Pakistan was a foregone conclusion and there was no way US, China and the rest of the world was ever going to accept attack on West Pakistan. India`s aim and position on the West front was defensive and not offensive.For the time being, here is an excerpt from one of the papers on the subject which shows, that even China would have jumped in the fray if India had tried to break West Pakistan. Also, the tremendous pressure under which India, Indian leadership was operating.

Quote from the link

`` Although slow in coming, on April 13 China expressed

support for President Yahya`s efforts. Chou En-lai stated

that should India attack Pakistan, China would fully support

the Pakistani people and government to safeguard ``State

Sovereignty`` and national independence. The phrasing was

important as it did not state full support for the unity and

integrity of the nation as Pakistan wanted. From April

onwards, China provided economic and military assistance

appropriate to their statement of support; that is,

sufficient to guarantee only that in a war with India the

Western wing would survive, but not necessarily the Eastern

wing. Both India and the Soviet Union had long standing

disputes with China. China`s interests would be served by

continuing to have Pakistan interposed between the U.S.S.R.

and India. Should West Pakistan cease to exist, then China

would be surrounded by unfriendly neighbors. On the other

hand, continuing rivalry between Pakistan and India over

East Pakistan would divert India`s attention away from her

border with China. Thus survival of West Pakistan was

important to China, while the dispute in East Pakistan would

add to the rivalry between India and West Pakistan to ensure

that India`s attention would be diverted from her Northern

border with China.

---

While the Soviet Union consistently supported Indian

positions at the United Nations, in October Moscow pressured

New Delhi to soften her policy on Bangla Desh independence.

As a result, the Indian Foreign Minister announced that

India was committed only to a political solution acceptable

to the already elected representative of East Pakistan.

---

Point is, when almost the whole world is against you there is only so much manouvre (spl?) room available. Not much of a point in dreaming, things could/should have been this way or that way.


Quote:


`` So the Indian Army DID pull back its troops from the Tibetan border proving my point that there was no threat of a Chinese invasion despite the big talk from China.

It does not prove a jack! For, aim/goal of India had been breaking East Pakistan away from West Pakistan and creating Bangla Desh. On the western front, India just wanted to hold its position whereby Pakistani goal was to have as much territory as possible and sit on that territory for negotiations on East Pakistan/Bangla Desh.

Quote:

`` Either the Army should have made plans or the political leadership should have told the Army to make such plans well before starting the invasion of East Pakistan. Total lack of leadership, vision and political will. ``

Oh sure! Elected leaders of India, professionals of Indian armed forces had no vision, will and we are being told this by someone who does not even have much of an idea as to what the political and military goals of that time were and how they were achieved, against what odds. Not only that but that someone instead of having an open mind and learning something new is just living in some world ..... and expect from others to join in that created world ..

Quote:

`` ALL of J&K belongs to India and you have let Pakistan control about one-third of the territory. You call that a victory and a display of balls? ``

Point was, at the time of independence, J&K was not part of India. And India not just had the balls but India displayed those balls too, on many occassions. All of J&K belongs to India not because of some dreamy theory on the lines of it should have been this and that but it belongs because of usage of the balls.

Quote:

`` Give me a break. What was Portugal`s troop strength in Goa? I am sure that Sikkim had even less of an army than Tibet did or Tonga does. ``

Oh now the complain is that Goa/Sikkim did not have enough troops. What is expected here that India should have fought with US, USSR or some other country like that, to show someone who does not even know or acknowledge what balls mean in political/geo political terms...

Quote:


`` Did India seize a couple of Indonesian islands off the Sumatran coast to teach a lesson to Indonesia for supporting Pakistan in the 1965 war?``

What? Is this even a logical thought?


Quote:

`` Do let me know what other examples peaceniks like you might dig up.``


Apparently, in that self created world, all others are peaceniks and all the vision, balls, leadership and other such qualities reside with you, the bravest of all! Joys of internet...Enjoy.

It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to respond like that and frankly I rather not. Avoid putting labels and there could be some discussion. Unless, intentions are different.

Re Muslim majority constituencies:

Jaffar Sharief gets elected from the North Bangalore constituency repeatedly. I don`t know if Muslims are actually in majority there but it shows that there are other locations than Kashmir, Kishenganj and Moradabad where a Muslim can get elected to the Parliament.

Of course there are scores of other constituencies where Muslims get elected either to the Parliament or the state legislative assemblies, proving that the electorate would generally vote along Party lines. It is then the responsibility of the various political parties to field the right candidate regardless of his religion.

Re Muslim majority constituencies:

I forgot to add that Kerala with its sizeable Muslim population would certainly have some Muslim majority constituencies, particularly in the Malabar area. After all, Chaudhry Rehmat Ali was dreaming of a ``Moplahstan`` there!

Somebody like Jay or Sadna would be able to provide more information about Kerala.

Ref stuka #595

[When India has US backing to the extent Israel does, we can talk.]

For that, the US has to be the 28th state of India. Since that is not going to happen, India should pretty much do what it wants and let the chips fall where they may.

[Besides, what is it the Israelis have achieved? Suicide bombs every couple of days?]

So you think we are getting flower bouquets in Srinagar everyday?

Ref rajsinghi1 #599

[USSR did tell India that it/she may not be able to use its veto in SC for long but that was about finishing the war as quickly as possible and it was not about limiting the war to East Pakistan/Bangladesh. USSR was under tremendous pressure from US on not using its veto and USSR felt it/she may not be able to withstand that pressure for long so the message given to India was that they have very limited time to do the job.]

On the day Dacca surrendered, India should have sent troops into West Pakistan. So what if Russia didn`t veto any anti-India Security Council resolution? So what if the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution against India demanding withdrawal from West Pakistan? Who was going to enforce it? The US was already upto its a$$ in alligators in Vietnam.

So long as the Indian Army uses World War II tactics pre-planning every move, there was no way for the army to react to the situation quickly and use the tactical advantage it gained to force the collapse of Pakistan. Since 1971, Pakistan doubled the size of its Army and now is baiting India with terrorism and threatening nuclear blackmail. I suppose you guys consider this a desirable situation.

---

[Quote:

``China could have done diddly squat because the Himalayan passes were still snowbound. ``

Here is another quote from the same link, which tells/suggests, if Chinese could not have done anything, the following action would not have taken by Indian military.

Quote from the link:

``Jacob`s commander, Lt. Gen. Aurora, provided full support for his Army`s own plans and allowed Jacob to pull down troops kept in reserve for a possible attack by the Chinese. Some of these troops had to be brought into battle so hurriedly that the only way was to paradrop them. This was accomplished with the help of the IAF and soon soldiers geared to fight the Chinese in the high mountains found themselves in the tropical riverine areas of Tangail in East Pakistan.`` ]

So the Indian Army DID pull back its troops from the Tibetan border proving my point that there was no threat of a Chinese invasion despite the big talk from China. By the way, at that time Taiwan was holding the seat in the Security Council not Mainland China and so if India`s diplomacy had been a bit more even-handed (and self-serving), we would have had diplomatic relations with Taiwan and hopefully a veto from Taiwan to support us.

---

[``India should have occupied a sizeable portion of West Pakistan and demanded that Pakistan hand over ``Azad`` Kashmir and the Northern Territories if it wanted Karachi back.``

This was not even part of the plan/s.]

Either the Army should have made plans or the political leadership should have told the Army to make such plans well before starting the invasion of East Pakistan. Total lack of leadership, vision and political will.

[Quote:

``The problem is that India never had the balls that Israel has.``

India never had the balls? Pray, what is the basis for this sweeping statement, and factually incorrect, at that?

Here, we are talking about 1971 war, in which India very successfully broke an existing country into two and it is being said, India never had the balls..

Let us go back to August 1947. Would like to remind, at the time of independence, J&K was not part of India, and today, major part of J&K state is part of India. And India never had balls?]

ALL of J&K belongs to India and you have let Pakistan control about one-third of the territory. You call that a victory and a display of balls?

[Later, Goa/Sikkim too became part of India. And India never had balls?]

Give me a break. What was Portugal`s troop strength in Goa? I am sure that Sikkim had even less of an army than Tibet did or Tonga does.

Did India seize a couple of Indonesian islands off the Sumatran coast to teach a lesson to Indonesia for supporting Pakistan in the 1965 war? Of course not, we are all going to turn the other cheek.

[Sure, 1962 was an exception but how can it be denied that even to this day, China and India have land/border dispute. If India never had balls then how come China a huge and powerful country has not been able to take the land/territory which it claims it belongs to her?]

China IS still holding all of Aksai Chin. China withdrew from NEFA/Arunachal Pradesh ``after teaching India a lesson`` (according to China). The withdrawal from NEFA does not mean China has relinquished claims over NEFA. It merely feels that Aksai Chin would be a good trade-off for NEFA.

[Above are few of the examples. Sure there are some more.]

Do let me know what other examples peaceniks like you might dig up.

Ref FarzanaVersey #646

{[Re Sonia, it does take a TamBrahm to come up with the proper cynical view. ``Cho`` Ramaswamy seems to have remarked (and this was reported by S. Gurumurthy) that Sonia would not be a factor in politics despite being Rajiv`s widow if only she had been of African origin. Precisely! ]

Not quite. Widows in our part of the subcontinent have a `divine` right, or so it seems. MGR`s widow came out from hiding (it is another matter that the other woman got the better of her), Lakshmi Parvathi and even the Mumbai don Ashvin Naik`s widow, Neeta, made some headway. Therefore, I think the African origin is a bit of s stretch...here we are talking about dynasties; if it was only skin colour then Sonia Gandhi would have a lot of support, which she clearly does not have.}

The comment about African origin was aimed at the Congress neta`s and the middle- and upper middle-class of India (and the ``secular`` press) who support Sonia. Cho`s point about the racism of this group is extremely valid. Pray tell me, how many Africans did the Indians in East Africa marry? And how many Indians in the US have married Blacks... as many as have married Whites? (Yeah, even Rahul Gandhi is on the way to marrying a white woman, though Colombians are hardly an improvement over Italians and the Latin community in Europe is looked down upon by the Anglo-Saxons as poor white trash.)

If Sonia had been black with all the leadership qualities of a Barbara Jordan, she would still be a nobody in India. Because she is white, the ``secularists`` rally behind her.

If Sonia doesn`t have any more support than she does today, blame her stupidity, not her skin color. Skin color got her to where she is now.

Farzana Versey


Thank you for the reply/clarification.

All this talk about BJP wooing the Muslim voters is correct. But what is wrong in it? In an election, all the parties have every right to project themselves in a manner they like. Slowly and surely, the Muslim voters will realise that up to now the Congress party has used them as a vote bank to further its cause while doing nothing worthwhile for the betterment of Muslim population.

regards

Further to my previous post, L.K.Advani prefers playing kingmaker. Should you be interested, I had profiled some of the key players in the article `The Unmaking of Gujarat`, and the strategies they adopt:
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00001682&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1

#647 by rajsinghi1:

[Quote: `` He will set up another `mukhota`, if at all.``

I do not want to read something in this which is not there so I am asking/requesting, could you please elaborate on what do you mean by setting up another mukhota? Reason I am asking for clarification is that in the past, it has been said, it is ABV who is/would be a mukhota (Govindacharya said, ABV is/would be) . So are you saying something on the lines of, ABV is a mukhota, and now another would be found? ]

Yes, indeed, this is what I meant. We must see that ABV was/is not a `mask` in the narrow sense; he is the face that the BJP feels is acceptable to the moderates, even among the Hindus. This is the strategy I have consistently talked about here -- of getting a `mukhota` to lessen the blow of the hardliners, while continuing to play footsie with them. Everyone knows that today the RSS/VHP/Bajrang Dal cannot be ignored.

Interestingly, as the article posted in #648 shows, it is the Muslim clerics who are responding to the BJP. Fanatics cut across all religious lines.

Farzana Versey


Quote:


`` He will set up another `mukhota`, if at all.``

I do not want to read something in this which is not there so I am asking/requesting, could you please elaborate on what do you mean by setting up another mukhota? Reason I am asking for clarification is that in the past, it has been said, it is ABV who is/would be a mukhota (Govindacharya said, ABV is/would be) . So are you saying something on the lines of, ABV is a mukhota, and now another would be found?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#643 by harimau:

{[And even so-called reports have a clear slant, with their timings designed to help certain political parties or friends in high office.]

Does that include the exit polls that give Andhra to the Congress and show that the NDA is now neck-and-neck with the Congress nationwide?}

There are several exit polls and the fact that their versions vary should tell us something.

[I am NOT selectively cynical. I have a completely jaundiced view of politicians of all stripes! ;-) ]

I was talking about the media, and you did not catch the reference!

[Re Sonia, it does take a TamBrahm to come up with the proper cynical view. ``Cho`` Ramaswamy seems to have remarked (and this was reported by S. Gurumurthy) that Sonia would not be a factor in politics despite being Rajiv`s widow if only she had been of African origin. Precisely! ]

Not quite. Widows in our part of the subcontinent have a `divine` right, or so it seems. MGR`s widow came out from hiding (it is another matter that the other woman got the better of her), Lakshmi Parvathi and even the Mumbai don Ashvin Naik`s widow, Neeta, made some headway. Therefore, I think the African origin is a bit of s stretch...here we are talking about dynasties; if it was only skin colour then Sonia Gandhi would have a lot of support, which she clearly does not have.

- - -

#645 by arjun_m:
[and what`s this obsession with muslim majority areas anyway? what`s your point? That only muslim majority areas will elect muslim politicians and only muslim politicians can protect the interests of muslims....

muslim pols enforcing the an Islamic agenda in a muslim dominated area is just as reprehensible as a hindu politician enforcing a hindutva agenda in a hindu majority country....]

You obviously do not know what I am talking about. My post #630 is clear enough. My position is not about Muslim politicians at all. I have already said it. Read.

- - -

dost-mittarji (#640):

We can only wait and watch. Advani will not change. He will set up another `mukhota`, if at all. I am certain about this...and you read it here first:)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ref FarzanaVersey #639

[And even so-called reports have a clear slant, with their timings designed to help certain political parties or friends in high office.]

Does that include the exit polls that give Andhra to the Congress and show that the NDA is now neck-and-neck with the Congress nationwide?

[And people like you will be selectively cynical and hit out at the ones who at least do not even claim objectivity and clearly enunciate their views as their views:) ]

I am NOT selectively cynical. I have a completely jaundiced view of politicians of all stripes! ;-)

However, I want the NDA to win power at the center for another 5 years because: they will complete the highway projects, probably connect more regional cities to the highway network, add another 200 million cellphone users in the country, build a couple of modern airports in the country (hopefully NOT named after Sonia Gandhi!), probably start on the building of more ports along the coast and more people would be able to buy cars, two-wheelers and the like, and hopefully Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion will pop off while he is out of power leading the DMK to splinter into a thousand pieces and giving Soysauce the opportunity to immolate himself because of his grief over the death. Despite the high price of gasoline in the US, I would send over 10 gallons to Soysauce to aid him in this purpose.

Re Sonia, it does take a TamBrahm to come up with the proper cynical view. ``Cho`` Ramaswamy seems to have remarked (and this was reported by S. Gurumurthy) that Sonia would not be a factor in politics despite being Rajiv`s widow if only she had been of African origin. Precisely!

And of course it is I who offered the acid test of Sonia`s commitment to India: shoot Rahul Gandhi dead and see how long before she gathers Priyanka and her brood and flies off to Italy!

Ref #638:

[The change in the BJP is not for what it can give, but what it can get. As one rival political ad pointed out, it has privatised the thriving public sector companies.]

The BJP is attempting to privatise what it can sell. If it is going to be Indian Oil, ONGC, BSNL, etc., at least the money they earn from selling parts of these off will go to paying off the accumulated deficits of public sector companies that runs into trillions of rupees.

Who screwed up the sale of that loss-making airline Air India? After Tata and Singapore Airlines jointly bid on it, enough injunctions were obtained from various courts that they both backed off and we reached a stage where NOBODY in the world even wanted to put in a bid! As my lawyer friend in Chennai put it, it is possible in India to get an injunction from some court on any matter. We now have an airline that not only has three times as much staff as the worst-run airline in the world but has only now woken up to the fact that most Indians go to the west coast of the US for their Silicon Valley jobs and is finally offering a flight from India to Los Angeles. With this kind of commercial acumen, I am surprised these idiots even attracted a bid from Singapore Airlines!

Dear Farzana: (# 638):

``PPS: There are only two Muslim majority areas in India -- Kashmir and Kishenganj in Bihar. ``

I can also add one more. It is city of Moradabad in U.P. It has about 55% muslim population. M.P., or M.L.A. used to alternate from Hindu and Muslim communities.

Regards and have fun.
Anil

I have not been able to find the interview of Mr Jaswant Singh to which I referred to earlier. However, this (following) is what he is supposed to have said in the Parliament, in 2001, with regard to muslim majority areas in Indias.

Quote:


Asserting secularism was embedded in Indian nationalism, the minister said New Delhi rejected the two-nation theory on the basis of which Pakistan was created.

Stating that 85 to 90 per cent of people in the Kashmir valley were Muslims, he said there were several areas across the country which had Muslim majority.

“What am I to do? I cannot put them in a railway rake and sent them to Pakistan. I cannot do that,” he said while pointing out New Delhi made no distinction on the basis of religion, caste or creed.