Doomed If They Do, Doomed If They Dont

Re: # 50

Romair:

The long list that I provided were the series of bi-lateral trade agreements signed in 60s - 80s between the governments of Canada and the U.S. which eventually became the basis of NAFTA, and were ratified as such. It would not really hurt to read these developments. I can tell you more about the precursor of EU - ECM European Common Market as well. I was student in England in those days when the debate to join or not to join was very hot. Labor in England was most aggressively againt ECM and then turned around to become the most vigorous supporter and held first ever referandum in Britain.

I may be wrong, but you seem to pay more attention from military perspective. Anyway I do not. The military must only a chowkidar and cannot be the Lord of the house. You are ready to allow Chowkidar to be the Lord. You are ready to concede an active role for Church (= Mosque in case of Pakistan) of Pakistan. To me the role of mosque (= religion) is ZERO beyond the mindspace. These are basic and ideological differences between us, as I see it.

In my vision, the modern nation-states (Canada, U.S. from the richey rich, and yes India from the poorest of the poor), and union of nation-states (EU) came into existence and continue to evolve for greater economic reasons.

Not for armed reason, and certainly not for religious reasons. I have a great book written in early 90s by the head of McKinsey & Co., Japan, who later became the Prime Minister of Japan. He titled this book ``End of Nation-State``. I would suggest a reading for you to see how my thought processes have evolved. I have been ready to adopt a village in Kashmir and try these, if ever I can. I have successfully started, grown and managed bigger enterprises than the GDP of a village.

Now to your question, what is fair and just solution? The question itself is so subjective that answers too controversial that it is not even worth wasting the time. Socialist would have said, Roti, Kapda aur Makan to be fair, TNTist would have said religion. These are old and be over with slogans.

Modern slogan is level the playing field - flatten the earth - and then play your unfair advantage over the competition. Let me ask you when Wasim Akram and Imran Khan roughened one side of the bowl and bowled reverse swing to win on otherwise level playing field to gain unfair advantage over the competition, what was it? Would you call it fair and just? Even Imran accepted doing it. That is what I was talking about ``win without trusting`` rule.

Your question about South Asia. A couple of years back, one of my essays on South Asia was published on Chowk. One day I was googling something, and came across it being discussed by a group of students in Asam in the class of great autonomy for states. Completely unknow to me.

In India, I can tell you, 50% of the contribution to GDP already comes from individual states, and the center has no control over it whatsoever. Thus Bihar cannot get it if it did not create it. This devolution is real, and you can witness it today, just visit Bangalore and Patna.

The first alliance of regional parties ruled the full five year term under BJP. In this process evolved a framework of Common Minimum Program (CMP or somthig). This framework became a vehicle to use Indian democractic system to bargain and get benefit for party`s regions.

The present coalition has follwed the same vehicle. Thus there are atleast six or seven years of experience in the devolution process that is going on in India. Without a whimper, or without a shot being fired.

Another interesting phenomenon, as I see, the latest terrorist attack on Ayodhya did not start the violence against the muslims. Instead resulted in warning to Pakistan that the such attack would derail the peace process. In it I see a good sign that nations economic interests takes precedence over raw emotions. Although you could take a view that India is back to the old tricks of blaming Pakistan. The choices are available to the individuals. We don`t have to agree, neither do our choices must be the same. In plural and democratic set this is acceptable.

This lead to the point of my statement on India`s neighbors. Recenlty I concluded my interactions and exprienced dealing with CEOs of two of the finest companies from South Asia. None of them is Indian. One privides 38% of all intimate apparels manufactured and sold by Victoria`s Secrets, the other grew to dominate that country`s stock market and is very diversified.

The first is obviously very entreprenuerial and at the first opportunity penetrated India without a flutter or noise to set up probably the best technology intensive manufacturing operations in non-technology sector anywhere. They realized the Indian market is so huge that it is only a matter of time, if they don`t do it then some Indian company will do it, and take away 38% of the Victoria`s Secret business.

The other proudly and openly touts itself and the city it operates as the third best option to Bangalore, and Chennai. Not a single word about LTTE - or SHATTA as a Punjabi would say, no nonsense just and fair would call?

These examples are all about regional block that ex-McKinsey ex-Prime Minister of Japan predicted in his book about 10 years ago.

I guess you missed my posting for you in another board that you might consider setting up an IT operation in Srinagar with the help of Kashmir University faculty staff to handle Pakistani contracts. Can you imagine the support and media publicity you would get?

It is again creating unfair advantage over competition after leveling the playing field. I have a feeling you have spent too much time sifting thru statistics, and not enough in sharpening your vision, before articulating it and presenting it to others. Who knows you could the entreprenuer who would take 38% of somone like Victoria Secrets business. Personally I would go with you to Farooq Kathwari to get Ethen Allen`s IT business. Do you think he would ever refuse? I don`t think so. I hope you do not mind my post sound pedantic or preaching.

You believe in God, so let me say this way that God has given 24 hours in a day to everyone from a pauper to the president. It is how we use is what we become. How do you use your 24 hours?

Anil Kapuria

Just to conclude.
Discovery of India is explicit on Nehru`s vision. I agree.

As for armed forces, Nehru well understood Praetorianism, and tendency on part of post colonial armies in such indulgence. There is a school of thought that Nehru deliberately reduced the prestige of the armed forces to deter then from intervention.Yet to put the defence policy on right lines, he hired a British expert in operational research and system analysis, Mr. Blackett whose report was the basis of the Indian Force Structure. Even in modern countries, Civil experts over rule military recommendations. It was not that he had a likewarm attitude towards defence.

Perhaps one day we would be fortunae to exchange views tete a tete.

Cheerios

Ijaz:

I was thinking of ending this conversation but then thought otherwise because we still do have some differences. I agree that defence and foreign policies are linked but in Nehru`s case it was his international vision that drove his defence policies rather than the other way round. Close cooperation with China was the key to his international vision. India was the first country to recognize China and sponsored its acceptance by the U.N. Nehru is reported to have rejected Western offers for India to replace China in the Security Council. When China absorbed Tibet in 1949 (?), the Indian army perhaps was more disciplined and better armed than China`s PLA. Many Indians at that time wanted Nehru to oppose China`s action to remove Tibet as a valuable buffer state between India and China but he instead accepted Chinese suzereignty over Tibet without protest. In addition to this Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai slant, Nehru was perhaps also not too favourably disposed to the Tibetan Lamadom, which to him was a combinaion of the two things he hated most - feudalism and religious obscurantism. Even when the Dalai Lama was given asylum, he was told that he would be given full support for providing modern education to Tibetan youth but none for his political aspirations.

His defence policy was basically what Romair is advising to Indians - namely, he thought only in terms of a credible deterrence against Pakistan and anything more than that was a foolish waste of precious resources. He relegated the defence to the babus - even today, a lowly deputy secretary in the Defence Ministry can totally ignore an army general at the army headquarters. He preferred the advice of a military nincompooph like Krishna Menon over that of the most admired Indian soldier, General Thimaya, and when General Thimaya complained, he was given a dressing down.

Nehru was driven by an idealist vision, not by Kautalya or realpolitik.

Ijaz_Gul #51: ``Romair, I do not want to get into a nuclear debate.``

Hmm....I was actually looking forward to such a debate with you. I am quite interested in the subject, and I think Pakistan should use it as the core of its defence and foreign policy, thereby moving away from conventional policies, and freeing up that capital for economic development..........

Romair

Look, we went over this before once. We are speaking here of highly motivational but `completely irrational goals.`

Pakistan`s irrational goal from day 1 has been to the leader of the Unmah. India`s irrational goal is to be one of the many great players in this world.

Just because these goals are irrational, they don`t stop being real.

Re: # 50

Romair

Go get a life.Be grateful you live somewhere in the west and make sure you save some till they come and get you and your kind.You will then be in our backyard.We have no time for petty little pissers and their peeves.You guys had your chance.We are moving on and the whole world is our theater of operation.India has gone global.We are well on our way.

#43 by Romair

[I think it is quite ridiculous for any country in South Asia to start thinking of itself as a, “Player” in the Great Game of superpowers. We need to open our eyes and realize that South Asia is the second-worst area to live in the world. We are dirt-poor. The average South Asian is around 80 places below Russia, Cuba and Libya on the Human Development Index. We are even lower than the PLO areas………….If India wants to get involved in this Great Game, best of luck. I would certainly suggest Pakistan just keep a bare minimum deterrence and concentrate on economic development………. ]

Per capita income might be low, but middle class India is potentially the second biggest consumer market in the world, and will be biggest in the not-so-distant future.

We inherited a huge uneducated population from the British govt, with not even the capability of making salt in our own country. And add to that the ball and chain of the accursed country, Pakistan.

With all these impediments, India is one of the few countries that can put a satellite in polar orbit, can manufacture a supersonic jet from scratch, has a far greater number of trained and skilled man and brainpower than the USA, for example, and manufactures almost everything under the sun indigenously. Indians power the American economy to an enormous extent. India is increasingly indispensable to the world economy.

The general population in India has started moving. It is a huge ball, and has started rolling, and will not stop easily.

It will be slow, but within your own lifetime, you will be horrified to see India emerge as a prosperous nation, where the benefits of prosperity reach even the lowest economic strata and with a permanent seat in the UN council. Just wait a few years. And keep memorizing the Koran. Allah will do all that for you guys too, magically. Maybe if you can tax the infidels in the prescribed manner, you can make a buck.



[Not a single country in South Asia is willing to voluntarily accept India as a leader. Not only that, nearly all of them feel very threatened by India, and will do everything in their power to ensure India does not become the leader….This includes Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal etc. ]

Pakiland – muslims.
Bangladesh – ungrateful muslims (sorry for repeating the same word in one sentence).
Sri Lanka – Of course they’ll resent us. Our PM died at the hands of the terrorists there for helping the Sri Lankan Govt. No wonder they will dislike us.
Nepal – Yes, China-inspired Maoist guerilla-induced propaganda has harmed our image there. But they can resent us ALL they want to.

[It would be good, if our Indian colleagues asked themselves, why? Why is the USA (not including the current George Bush phase) accepted as the leader of North America (and of the Western world, to a great extent), while India is not accepted as a leader in South Asia?]

Because of the above countries, and the increasing islamification of nations like Malayasia, Indonesia etc.

[A country that is not accepted as a leader in its local geography can never attain leadership position in the world arena. It is impossible. ]

Don’t you wish. Heh heh heh. Just wait a few years.

[However, leadership requires behaving like an elder brother, not like a, “big brother.” Being an elder brother requires sacrificing and compromising, usually in favour of the younger brothers. It requires giving the younger brothers a feeling of security. Not a feeling of insecurity. It demands initiating genuine peace. Not attempting to force peace on one’s own terms. It demands buying defensive weaponry to defend itself against external threats. Not piling up offensive weaponry, which can only be used against its younger brothers. It demands a secured maturity against the younger brothers’ insecure immaturity. ]

India is piling up offensive weaponry for potential use against countries like China. Pakistan is insignificant as far as conventional warfare is concerned.


If India had settled its border conflicts with its smaller neighbours (including Pakistan) decades ago; even if it had to be done in favour of the smaller neighbours; if it had not interfered in the internal affairs of its neighbours (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan)]

Lies, as usual.


[I don’t know what South Asia will gain by India trying to become a pawn in the Great Game, which is about to occur between USA and China. I think Indians are greatly over-estimating their importance in that game. India can only be a player in that game; if it’s close geographic neighbours support it. China will be defining its area of influence in the world soon. And it will want it to stretch from Japan to Australia to South Asia to the Middle East. And, like any superpower, it will not tolerate any competition. ]

Chini bhai is your only hope at some satisfaction regarding India.

But increasingly, trade between India and China is taking off (now it has grown to $1 billion a month) and your dreams will remain dreams.



[Unfortunately, South Asia will be screwed in this scenario, with India supporting USA and Pakistan supporting China.]

Hmmmm…Let’s look at the parity here:

USA :: China (big brothers – almost equivalent)

India:: Pakistan (little brothers – yup, equivalent too)

Yeah, I see your point.

Heh heh heh….



[Both pawns to somebody else, much at the expense of their own citizens. And specifically because, India – a country that should be the natural leader of South Asia – is unwilling to act like an elder brother and is hell-bent on acting like the Big Brother…]

Yup. We’re unwilling.

Dost,thanks for agreeing with me. I will add that defence and foreign policy are instrincally linked on the same spectrun of policy, cooperation-conflict.

Yea I agree on Kargil. Pakistan`s timings were wrong and the nuclear factor and the Mujahideen card proved diplomatic liabilities. In fact Pakistan was under sanctions and isolated even before the conflict took place.However, there was nothing immoral about it, as politics are never built on morals. Remember, that the crop of senior officers were the people who as very young men had seen the humilation of East Pakistan.

Romair, I do not want to get into a nuclear debate. The very essence of deterrance is to prevent War and ensure peace. Escalation was long time ago discarded and gave way to other nuclear strategies including SDI. SALT and START had a major component of Nuclear Defence as negotiating points.
Cheerios

Anil #43: You have provided a long list of economic deals that Indian companies have signed. My knowledge of that is limited in comparison to yours. So I am not sure what kind of comment I can pass on that. And I am not sure how such economic deals affect any kind of peace in South Asia........Peace is not based on how wealthy or poor a country is.

``Other than Paksitan, the countries you have mentioned I have direct experience and can assure you, that their envy and grudge is just and understandable as is the Canadians with the U.S.``

I cannot agree with this. Canadians envy and grudge with the USA is quite different. Canadians accept the USA as a leader (not counting the George Bush phase). They do not feel threatened at all by the USA. There are no border skirmishes with the USA. Canada barely has an Army. And there is no intereference in the internal affairs of Canada by the USA. And vice-versa..........

How can you compare this to South Asia? A little introspection is needed here, perhaps. One needs to deal with these issues honestly, if one wants to establish true peace. One cannot simply gloss over them..............Unless they are dealt with honestly, in a just manner, I don`t think the situation in the area is going to improve much.........

My aim here is not to critique India only. But I think a lot of Indian colleagues tend to get carried away in criticizing others, and praising India. I am not sure why. And I feel they ignore any issues that other regional countries may have with India. Or they simply avoid or gloss over the issues.......Or they simply start highlighting the economic accomplishments of India. I am not sure how these problems can be solved by trying to prove one country has signed more economic deals than the other. They have to be addressed honestly and logicially and in a humane manner..........Otherwise any peace will be artificial............

I would be interested in your comments on a just solution to South Asia`s problems. Not one that is based on economics or realpolitik, etc. Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the feeling that India is only willing to have peace in South Asia on its own terms. Or no peace. And one gets the feeling that a lot of Indians think it is their right to demand only such a peace.......And I think they are unwilling to look at anything India has done wrong.......I think the only peace that will work, and that anyone will agree to, is one based on justice and fairplay and human rights..............

Re: # 43

I would love to discuss with you issues, as long as I am not dragged into discussions with religious or political slant. I no longer have interest in any of these two.

I do not know where did you form the idea about my position and the U.S. foreign policy. I probably have lived in Canada longer than you have lived and worked there, and I have lived, worked and studied in England probably longer than you have lived outside Pakistan. My business interests and investments allow me to travel world-wide, except for Latin America and Africa. Among muslim countries I have visited Turkey and had business dealings there too. As a result I have met and made life long friends all over the world, if anything I would say that I have a very wide perspective to be wise enough not to get involved with religion and politics.

Allow me to add a few more things here.

Canadian society is not as glorified as it looks to you, neither is the British. The glass ceilings there are much lower for people like you and I. The managers, professionals and investors there are quite visibly backward toward ethnic minorities.

Please conduct this test, and see what percentage, as a ratio of ethnic to total population, the student body in top Canadian and British schools and universities is South Asian, and then do the same for the ivy league U.S. universities. You will find that upward mobility of asians (East and South alike) is much higher in the U.S. Check out the student body population in ivy league and Stanford and compare it with Oxford, Cambridge, McGill and McMaster you will see the point I am making. Indeed I have discussed this point my alma-mater in England and in the U.S. and they agree and concede about upward mobility. The English alma-mater feel that they missed out on at least two generation to derive benefits that their multi-cultural society presented.

The success of South Asian and East Asian entreprenuers in Canada and Britain is despite the hurdles and not with the help of openess there. Whereas, the success in silicon valley, and wall street of Asians is because of openess.

Regarding policy making, I am neither student nor an expert. However I do believe that the west (including the U.S., Canada, and EU) is a club. It is driven by common interest and tries to forge a common interest among its members. Please study the history of the west`s involvement in Middle East, Africa and Asia, and Latin America. Colonial expansion was driven by expansion of their economic needs. Both religion, and force were freely and interchangeably used whenever and whichever suited the most.

England, Spain and France - European powers played the same role but with different style, whether they were fighting Tipu Sultan in India, or Custer`s last stand, the Alama, or spanish armada etc.

Wherever this club has interest they have found reasons to share and defend. Internally they have fought too, once internal fight was settled they tried to restore the external colonies whenever it was possible, Indian independence and Ho-Chi Minh distrubed the cart. Monroe Doctrine came out in America only when enough europeans had consolidated their positions.

DeGaulle had famously said ``Nations have interests, while people have friends.``

The economic interest of oil is so common and so strong that they will never fight among themselves, few will come in first, and others will come in later, but all will come in, incluidng, the east will join. It is delusional to think otherwise.

Arabs recognize this and accept it. The oil is world`s commodity and life which happens to come from the land beneath their part of the world. The West, the East (China and Japan, and soon India too) rely on it.

This is nothing more than the case of your life line. You too will protect it, if it passes through an enemy territory, the alternative is too ghastly to imagine. You too will put your stooges and despots to defend it for you. Mughals in India, and Ottomans elsewhere did exactly the same to defend and expand their interests. Otherwise, rich and powerful fuedals in India and Paksitan would not be muslim. Only difference is that the tables are turned, and Ottomans and Mughals and therefore by default the muslims lost their advantage. This has nothing to do with clash of civilization or religion.

Now coming to India and South Asia.

Other than Paksitan, the countries you have mentioned I have direct experience and can assure you, that their envy and grudge is just and understandable as is the Canadians with the U.S.

In my days in Canada, I had seen this envy among Canadians. I had seen it being translated into Canadian pride rather than war too. Automobile agreement, lumber / pulp agreement, beef agreement, mining agreement, etc. are so one sided that they look like being negoitated for the U.S. by East India company.

Dost-Mitter can probably throw more light on these than I can. Canadians used these to gain market access and improve their life and quality and standard of life. The shaft they got in these agreement ensures higher prices of automobile and lower wages than the U.S. but still allows them to create superior quality of life and without having to send forces overseas. This is Canadian way of getting even. As they used to remind that it is better to get even than mad. I thought it was wonderful and admired it after I moved to the U.S.

I also know about Pakistan and India one-upmanship, and Pakistan`s constant struggle to maintain parity. India is no longer interested in maintaining any such parity with Pakistan. This is a new reality that Pakistan privately acknowledges, and will eventually accept too, so that it can move foward to take its sweet revenge elsewhere.

India loves the importance that it will get playing with China, Japan and the U.S. in Asia. No doubt India will spend certain percentage of its GDP on defense, but not for parity with Paksitan in mind.

The U.S. will want India to do it, India will want in return something too. Remember a lot pressure was put by the U.S. for refuelling rights and to provide soldiers during Iraq war. Pakistan had to succumb, but India did not. That is the advantage of being democratic, Pakistan still has to learn this, otherwise Mushraff will not boast that Kashmir problem can be solved in one day.

Therefore, the shape and form the U.S., India relationship will take only time will tell. It is not determinable for now. Neither is the future. I have interesting discussions with influential persons on this subject. Two of them (one Indian and one U.S.) independently and in different places remarked that India handled the U.S.S.R. better than the U.S. There is a truth in this statement. Even Nixon alluded in recently publshed tapes how Indians played and how Pakistani leadership played.

Indians want to ensure that the U.S. + Western Europe take care of Pakistan. Short giving up Kashmir India would anything to keep the west`s arms length involvement. Sadly, Musharaff has boxed himself in the corner to keep this involvement alive for many years to come. Therefore, Pakistan itself is playing the card that India wants it to play then why should India interfere and demand and change the rules. Terrorism as a bogey works great for India in this equation, until Pakistan can cut out the cancerous cells and deliver OBL. Neither can happen in the short term. Musharaff is not that strong, and democratic institutions are not there as the alternative either. Therefore, quite conveniently for India, there is common interest for all parties to remain on the poker table and continue to play the game without trusting anyone.

On the eastern side, India will play diplomacy - Kautilya / Chankya type with the U.S., China and Japan to get maximum economic benefit. There is no need to fight, it is very clear that China will not go to war with India, and neither would India want to go to war with China. Nixon could not get China to fight, Pakistan could not get China to fight with India. Both India and China see an opportunity of peace dividend.

None of these countries, India included, trust each other. This is precisely the rule of the game - ``win without trusting.``

Arms race with China is certainly not the game for India. Carving out and defining interest is called for now. This falls in diplomacy. It remains to be seen, if Kautilya / Chankya Niti will deliver or Sun-Tzu`s Art of War will deliver. These societies have history of playing in timeless way so there is no rush, if the winner is not known in Manmohan Singh`s life time, or even never known and the game contiues. Their driving philosophies are derived from conclusive wars etc.

With China, Japan or the U.S., India would want a fair share of movements of jobs, and capital as a result of globalization of world economy. No one will deliver these to India on a silver platter. India must create environment for it to happen, and continue to flatten the earth - as Tom Friedmann put it -- and then use skill surplus as the advantage to both service the west and the east and increase purchasing power and affluence of its consumers.

Where is the foreign policy? Where is the nuclear policy? Where is the oil policy?, Where is the trade policy? etc. etc.

The guiding principle is Indian market, Indian skill-surplus and growing middle class and increasing consumer base with surplus and measurable purchasing power.

The U.S., and Europe controlled jobs when they opened the market.

Korea and Japan took iron ore from India. Only now Koreans want to set up their largest steel plant in India. Only now Japan wants to set their largest steel plant in India. What is making them change thier mind?

The steel player, Mittal and his interests. He and ONGC - an Indian company announced their plans to set up plants that will create jobs, suddenly picture changed. This is NRI factor. India will play this NRI factor to the maximum advantage.

Please study these dynamics, rather than armed race dynamics of cold war days. The answer does not belong there any longer. This is where tomorrows dawn is, I wish you can see through the old cold war glasses, otherwise please discard them.

This is how I see, the world from my window.

Anil Kapuria

Romair

If India is able to establish an unambiguous and overwhelming second nuclear-strike capability (I don`t know whether it currently does or not), then Pakistan`s nuclear abilities are, IMO, rendered quite useless. Remember, it is Pakistan, not India that is interested in first nuclear-strike option against each other.

Ijaz_Gul #44: “Romair, what I am indicating is balance of terror. What is the calculus on second strike and risidual capabilty. This is what India is trying to acquire through a missile defence.”

I think the second-strike capability that the USA and USSR had (have) against each other, was completely based on multiple domains from which missiles could be offensively launched. It was not, nor is it currently, based on missile defence. Missile defence is completely unproven technology. In fact, it does not exist. For it to be useful, it would have to be 100% reliable………It isn’t even close to that…..

For India to have second-strike capability, it would have to move to submarine launched missiles. And to things like mobile systems that can be moved around inside India. I don’t think the USA will be too interested in India getting into that domain. If it does, then Pakistan would have to do the same. In which case, both countries will have moved up, unnecessarily, one notch on the nuclear ladder.

Even with submarine launched missiles, the only successful attack that India can carry out now against Pakistan (or vice-versa) is to launch a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan’s nuclear missiles. Destroy them completely and then attack Pakistan conventionally. However, there is no way for India to successfully target Pakistan’s nuclear missiles with conventional weapons. It would have to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack against Pakistan, and hope that it destroyed all the missiles.

If it were unable to destroy all of Pakistan’s delivery systems (aircraft, missiles), then Pakistan would launch a retaliatory nuclear attack. And we will all be dead……..There is no point in having a second strike capability, of submarines, if one’s whole country is destroyed…….

I cannot see any scenario of military conflict between India and Pakistan, in which eventually both countries do not end up destroying each other nuclearly. I think our future conflicts will be, at most, things like Siachen etc. If you can highlight any such scenario in which one country destroys the other, without being destroyed itself, I would be very interested in discussing it………

Re: # 38

Kaalchakra: You can email me at: anilkapuria@yahoo.com

Thank you
Anil

Ijaz#29:

I fully agree that Nehru was central to India`s foreign and defense policies. And when I said that his foreign policy was not Pakistan centric, I did not imply the same thing about India`s Defence policy, which has continued to be largely Pakistan-centric although it has recently acquired larger ambitions of great power projection with a blue water navy and all that. I also think that there was an element of emotion in his Kashmir Policy; its vital importance for India`s secular credential is a somewhat later addition, as is its linkage with the security of Indian Muslims, which should not be there in ideal circumstances.

I believe that there is no counterpart to Muslim personal law in Hindu religion. British wanted to have a Hindu law to complement Muslim and Christian personal laws and some English researcher dug up Manu Smriti.

I am not surprised by your observation regarding kholis of Sindh. I observed that the fate of low caste Hindus in Bangladesh, too, is worse than that of their counterparts in India. If their fate has improved somewhat in India, it is because of the consistent efforts of the State and their empowerment through democratic politics.

I also agree with your observations regarding hatred. My own observation is that there was a complete change after Kargil. Before Kargil, Indians generally talked of friendship with Pakistanis whereas Pakistanis had a generally belligerent attitude; post-Kargil the situation has reversed, although one sees fairly favourable coverage of people-to-people contacts in the Indian media.

Romair, what I am indicating is balance of terror. What is the calculus on second strike and risidual capabilty. This is what India is trying to acquire through a missile defence.
Cheerios

Anil #23: I will attempt to reply to your reply. However, I will have to request you to keep an open mind to comments that I make that may not agree with your definition of right and wrong, your views, or how you see the world, and on your definition of ethical and unethical. I have noticed that you, perhaps, tend to get somewhat emotional towards comments that tend to portray US foreign policy negatively. My view of the world, - of what is ethical and unethical etc.- is quite different from how the USA views it in its foreign policy, and perhaps how you may view it (in certain specific areas)……….

I will answer the detailed parts of your reply in a subsequent reply. However, here are the broad outlines:

- I think it is quite ridiculous for any country in South Asia to start thinking of itself as a, “Player” in the Great Game of superpowers. We need to open our eyes and realize that South Asia is the second-worst area to live in the world. We are dirt-poor. The average South Asian is around 80 places below Russia, Cuba and Libya on the Human Development Index. We are even lower than the PLO areas………….If India wants to get involved in this Great Game, best of luck. I would certainly suggest Pakistan just keep a bare minimum deterrence and concentrate on economic development……….

- There are two, “views of the world” in the Western society. One is the USA view. And the other is the EU (plus Canada) view. After living in both environments, I am convinced that the way to go is the EU way. The USA way is only going to result in long-term violence and under-development for third world countries.

Specifically, within South Asia, it is only the EU view that is going to work. The USA view will be disastrous. South Asia is more like EU. Amongst other things, there are only two areas in the world that have enough money to implement the USA view of large military alliances, utilizing military power as a deciding factor in foreign relations. One is the USA and the other is EU. EU has rejected that view. In the next century, China will be the only other country that can implement it. All other countries, (like the USSR did), will go bankrupt trying to implement it. USSR actually broke up, trying to pursue that view.

- Under any and all factors, India should have been the natural leader of South Asia. It is more influential in all factors - geography, population, history, demographics, location, etc. – in comparison to all other countries in the region. India should have been leading South Asia much like USA leads North America. However, India has not been able to achieve that status. Not a single country in South Asia is willing to voluntarily accept India as a leader. Not only that, nearly all of them feel very threatened by India, and will do everything in their power to ensure India does not become the leader….This includes Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal etc.

It would be good, if our Indian colleagues asked themselves, why? Why is the USA (not including the current George Bush phase) accepted as the leader of North America (and of the Western world, to a great extent), while India is not accepted as a leader in South Asia? In fact, the rest of the Western countries (including Canada) actually consider the USA their protector………

A country that is not accepted as a leader in its local geography can never attain leadership position in the world arena. It is impossible. However, leadership requires behaving like an elder brother, not like a, “big brother.” Being an elder brother requires sacrificing and compromising, usually in favour of the younger brothers. It requires giving the younger brothers a feeling of security. Not a feeling of insecurity. It demands initiating genuine peace. Not attempting to force peace on one’s own terms. It demands buying defensive weaponry to defend itself against external threats. Not piling up offensive weaponry, which can only be used against its younger brothers. It demands a secured maturity against the younger brothers’ insecure immaturity.

This is, in my opinion, the main problem with India, i.e. it is a large country that thinks too much like a small country (while Pakistan has the opposite problem, i.e. it is a small country that thinks too much like a large country).

If India had settled its border conflicts with its smaller neighbours (including Pakistan) decades ago; even if it had to be done in favour of the smaller neighbours;, if it had not interfered in the internal affairs of its neighbours (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan), it would have been the voluntarily accepted leader of South Asia today. South Asia would have been like EU, with India as the undisputed leader……….

I don’t know what South Asia will gain by India trying to become a pawn in the Great Game, which is about to occur between USA and China. I think Indians are greatly over-estimating their importance in that game. India can only be a player in that game; if it’s close geographic neighbours support it. China will be defining its area of influence in the world soon. And it will want it to stretch from Japan to Australia to South Asia to the Middle East. And, like any superpower, it will not tolerate any competition.

Unfortunately, South Asia will be screwed in this scenario, with India supporting USA and Pakistan supporting China. Both pawns to somebody else, much at the expense of their own citizens. And specifically because, India – a country that should be the natural leader of South Asia – is unwilling to act like an elder brother and is hell-bent on acting like the Big Brother……….