Doomed If They Do, Doomed If They Dont

Underneath the donated/begged finery, India remains a leper and a hijra.....who will clap to any tune.

Even with acquired weaponary, Indian is impotent even against Paksatan, let alone China. In the partnership, the US is the driver and the conductor of the bus. India is the cleaner and some minor maintenance of the bus.

Udayakumar:

when push comes to shove

the leading world...powero uno and her allies have the weapons of mass destruction and the economic muscle, influence and deliver systems

the near-vanquished who do not yet have ``the weapons of mass destruction nor the economic muscle, influence and deliver systems`` have an inordinate amount of an intangible supreme faith in their cause*

result: inconvenience and sufferings for the civilians in and out of battle zones and `occupied` territories!

the seemingly unstoppable suicide bombers are a disenfranchised people`s weapon of mass destruction in this uni-polar world replacing the surface check and balance of the cold war

when the policy makers in the powerful world capitals recognise and act on this then only will a semblance of peace will rule the world again...only then will the enemy become visible...visibility is important for checks and balances, for quid pro quos, for talks and negotiations and discussions...otherwise it is dark ages for us

the west cannot bomb them all into submission
they cannot bring the west down on it knees
stalemate and mayhem will rule
and the innocent civilians everywhere will suffer the consequences

rgds

t

*i vehemently disagree with their cause and misplaced belief system

Well, this Bombay born Tellis is rumoured to have played a big role in drafting Indian Nuclear Doctrine and then praising it in his paper for RAND for the yes of State Department. His policy papers on South and Central Asia form the basis of US policy in the region.

Indo US nuclear cooperation however covert has been there for a long time. There was diplomatic murmer that India had used Israeli albeit US designs for its weapons in 1998.Now it is open.

Three new developments can be hypothised.
1. The triangle of China-India-Pakistan get locked in a new arms race, something that could retard the Chinese fast track development. Perhaps too wishful.
2. Degrade Pakistan`s nuclear capability. Something in the realm of possibles.
3. First contours of a new Balance of Power model comprising USA, UK, Israel and Australia including the Insian Ocean Rim against a possible Russo-Sino-Pakistani-Iran with EU acting as a balancer. Possible.

So India hopes to nuetralise the Middle King (China), enemy(Pakistan) and befriend the Vijughishu( Incle Sam).

Interesting days lie ahead.
Cheerios

Well, this Bombay born Tellis is rumoured to have played a big role in drafting Indian Nuclear Doctrine and then praising it in his paper for RAND for the yes of State Department. His policy papers on South and Central Asia form the basis of US policy in the region.

Indo US nuclear cooperation however covert has been there for a long time. There was diplomatic murmer that India had used Israeli albeit US designs for its weapons in 1998.Now it is open.

Three new developments can be hypothised.
1. The triangle of China-India-Pakistan get locked in a new arms race, something that could retard the Chinese fast track development. Perhaps too wishful.
2. Degrade Pakistan`s nuclear capability. Something in the realm of possibles.
3. First contours of a new Balance of Power model comprising USA, UK, Israel and Australia including the Insian Ocean Rim against a possible Russo-Sino-Pakistani-Iran with EU acting as a balancer. Possible.

So India hopes to nuetralise the Middle King (China), enemy(Pakistan) and befriend the Vijughishu( Uncle Sam).

Interesting days lie ahead.
Cheerios

Well, this Bombay born Tellis is rumoured to have played a big role in drafting Indian Nuclear Doctrine and then praising it in his paper for RAND for the yes of State Department. His policy papers on South and Central Asia form the basis of US policy in the region.

Indo US nuclear cooperation however covert has been there for a long time. There was diplomatic murmer that India had used Israeli albeit US designs for its weapons in 1998.Now it is open.

Three new developments can be hypothised.
1. The triangle of China-India-Pakistan get locked in a new arms race, something that could retard the Chinese fast track development. Perhaps too wishful.
2. Degrade Pakistan`s nuclear capability. Something in the realm of possibles.
3. First contours of a new Balance of Power model comprising USA, UK, Israel and Australia including the Insian Ocean Rim against a possible Russo-Sino-Pakistani-Iran with EU acting as a balancer. Possible.

So India hopes to nuetralise the Middle King (China), enemy(Pakistan) and befriend the Vijughishu( Uncle Sam).

Interesting days lie ahead.
Cheerios

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

[The Indian Nuclear Menace May Get Worse]

I hope it does and I hope the leaders of quite a few countries spend sleepless nights worrying about if they will awake to the next day.

[A simple cost-benefit analysis of the “India nuclear deal” would reveal the nasty picture that is emerging. We will have Uncle Sam sitting in our living room poking his imperialistic nose into every sphere of our national life constantly calculating his selfish gains and cunningly pushing us into our neighbor’s yard. We would be doing the dirty job of confronting China at the cost of jeopardizing our (relatively) good neighborly relations.]

Yep, good neighbor occupying 15,000 square miles of Indian territory. No matter what you Commies say, the end of a unified China is not too far. What happened to the USSR will happen to China too. If we can do something to help that process along, we should do it.

[The already anti-democratic and anti-people money-guzzling Indian nuclear establishment will continue with its lackadaisical performance and gain considerably from the newly found international legitimacy. The nuclear expenditure will increase exponentially; there will ensue militarism, arms race with China, insecurity and underdevelopment. The ordinary Indian citizen will scrape along in poverty and misery as he has always been.]

What happened, you don`t like the Koodankulam powerplant in your backyard? Tough noogins. I hope they build more nuclear powerplants. The one in Kalpakkam outside Chennai is humming along fine. With American technology, the audible hum should be reduced.

As to your beloved fishermen, tell them the days of marginal living would end only if they stop overfishing. That, and they should limit their families. And get their kids into schools.

The ordinary Indian citizen is NOT some farmer or fisherman nor is he a US-minted PhD with Commie leanings like you. He is trying to make a living anyway he can and succeeding after you Commies were forced to loosen your vice-like grip on the citizenry.

Thank you for shutting up.

Re: # 1

You do have a way with words!!!.Rain soaked and weary i am uplifted.I hate the Commie bastards of India.Self serving weasels.Till we get rid of the Commies India will have to behave like an eunuch.....

This nuclear deal is pretty much the same deal the BJP had been trying to push through for quite some time. Without any access to the military establishments, the IAEA`s inspections won`t have much teeth. It is only a ploy to get the nods from the US congress.

Much as we dislike the hypocrisy of US nuclear plants being outside the bounds of the IAEA, this is a small price to pay for acquiring the latest technology without spending huge amounts on R&D. And as someone commented, if the US Congress declines, it will be much easier for India to get this technology from Russia or France.

As for commies not wanting us to be a deterrent to China, I say - emigrate to China! Leave today. And don`t come back.

There was a story I read in my High School English Text book. It was called a ``A table is a table``... Nice story, that. It was about an old lonely man, who began to find his life quite dull and boring. In order to bring some excitement into his routine, he decided to rename things. For example, he started calling the `table` - `window`, and the `window` - `shoes`.... and so on. He interpreted people`s conversations as per his new vocabulary, and laughed at the new meaning their sentences acquired. But alas, a time came, when he forgot the original language. His condition became pitiable as there was no one who could understand his new found language.

Sorry, but this current article, which began on an interesting note, seems to have a similar tone. The author seems to have overdone the humor.

The length of the article has cut down on the crispness.

Tariq Siddiqi

Here`s what an honorable citizen has to say about the PM`s visit to D.C.I hope this chutiye reads this.........
.
Gujral praises N-deal, calls for a united front

Listen carefully to Singh, don’t rush into polemics: former PM’s advice to parties

C. RAJA MOHAN

Posted online: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 at 0238 hours IST

NEW DELHI, JULY 26: Expressing political satisfaction with the recent visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington, former Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral called for a reasoned parliamentary debate on the Indo-US nuclear pact.

Gujral, who stoutly resisted US pressures on India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty during 1996-98, said the new nuclear pact signed with the United States could “bring stability to India’s nuclear policy”.

“The Indo-US nuclear pact should be judged in perspective rather than derogatory adjectives,” Gujral said in a conversation with The Indian Express.

Responding to the BJP and Left criticisms of the pact, Gujral emphasised the “essential continuity in India’s foreign and nuclear policies” and called for a “consensual approach” in the impending parliamentary debate on the Indo-US nuclear pact.

Asked whether BJP leader Atal Behari Vajpayee was departing from the tradition of former prime ministers not raising controversy over nuclear issues, Gujral did not respond.

But he insisted that India’s nuclear diplomacy should be seen as a “national policy” rather than “belonging to one particular party”.

Referring to the intense national debate on the CTBT in the mid 1990s, Gujral said no responsible person in the country called for signing the treaty and the national consensus on the subject was deep.

On the moral arguments against nuclear weapons, of the kind offered by the Left parties, Gujral said India’s position evolved during the CTBT debate when “national security arguments” prevailed over the idealist ones. That debate is now behind us, Gujral suggested.

Arguing that India’s strength lay in “consensual politics,” Gujral underlined the success of different coalition governments over the last decade in managing the nuclear challenges faced by the nation. Gujral added that political parties must carefully consider what Prime Minister Singh has to say in Parliament on the Indo-US nuclear pact rather than “rushing into polemical assertions”.

Singh is expected to make a suo motu statement to the Parliament on Friday.

Questioned on the importance of separating civilian and military nuclear programmes, Gujral said India should have little difficulty doing this. He pointed to the fact that India has always accepted this basic principle and had put many of its peaceful facilities under international safeguards. On the nuclear pact’s implications for the size of India’s atomic arsenal, Gujral said: “Bush has not asked us to quantify India’s minimum deterrent”.

Gujral was confident that Prime Minister Singh would have taken into account all technical and security considerations in signing the nuclear pact.

Congratulating Singh for conducting himself with “great dignity” in Washington, Gujral said the US clearly wants to “befriend India”.

The process of engagement between India and the US which began when he met President Bill Clinton in New York in September 1997, has begun to pay off, Gujral said.

Re: # 10

``The author seems to have overdone the humor.``
Humour? Really?

India’s Nuclear Sell-Out?

By Jacob Leibenluft Page 1 of 1


Posted July 2005

Both critics and supporters thought India got the better end of last week’s U.S.-India deal on nuclear technology. Yet, in India, many feel that New Delhi gave up too much for too little.




This is the easy part: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, pictured with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney (left) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (right), was received warmly in Washington.


Win McNamee/Getty Images


Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s recent visit to Washington seemed about as good as it gets. He arrived to an elaborate state welcome on the White House South Lawn and was feted at only the fifth grand banquet of the George W. Bush presidency. Addressing a joint session of congress, he was interrupted more than two dozen times by applause from U.S. lawmakers. The biggest triumph appeared to come at the bargaining table, where Singh and Bush agreed to a deal that effectively ended nuclear export restrictions placed on India after its 1998 nuclear tests. In the United States, the deal has been portrayed as such a boon for India that critics such as Democratic Rep. Ed Markey have denounced the Bush administration for “playing favorites.”

But for all the talk of a resounding diplomatic victory, Singh received less than a hero’s welcome when he returned home. As part of the deal, India agreed to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities and bring the civilian ones under international safeguards. Now, from both the left and the right, the prime minister is facing difficult questions as to whether he gave up too much for too little.

In Washington, India is seen as a big winner in two ways—by shedding its identity as a nuclear pariah state and by taking an important step toward addressing its growing energy needs. But for Singh’s critics, those victories appear rather hollow. In the Deccan Chronicle, one of south India’s leading daily newspapers, a cartoonist lampooned the deal by depicting Singh being wrapped in a sash that read “IAEA,” with a nearby advisor telling him, “Congrats, sir—it means we’ve been given a nuclear power status!” In return for concessions, these critics argue, all India received was acknowledgement of what everyone already knew. Many also emphasize what India didn’t get: U.S. support for a permanent seat on the U.N. Secretary Council or formal recognition as a “legitimate nuclear power.”

Several prominent Indian nuclear scientists and defense analysts argue that the separation of India’s military and civilian nuclear facilities will be difficult and perhaps even prohibitively expensive. “These have been integrated from the very beginning.... To now try to sort out the integrated whole into these constituent parts is just about impossible,” says Bharat Karnad, a military analyst at the Centre for Policy Studies in New Delhi. “People like me, and in the Indian nuclear establishment, are completely mystified as to what we can gain from this collaboration and cooperation with the United States.”


Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his fellow members of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) argue that the separation of civilian and military facilities will limit the amount of fissile material India can possess and weaponize—leading to a de facto cap on its nuclear arsenal. And the Communist Party, a key ally of the Congress Party-led government, has been no less critical of the deal, claiming that it has compromised India’s independent nuclear policy and that it marked an unwelcome “pro-U.S. shift” in Indian foreign policy.

Those criticisms have been amplified by mistrust that lingers from nearly 60 years of strained relations between the world’s largest democracies. Only three weeks before Singh arrived in Washington, declassified documents were released showing U.S. President Richard Nixon calling Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi an “old witch” and U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger remarking that “the Indians are bastards anyway.” It was front-page news in India, even if it barely earned a mention stateside. Despite polls suggesting that Indians are among the most pro-American people in the world, disappointment with Washington’s post-9/11 coziness with Pakistan and mixed feelings about the Bush administration’s policies in the Middle East have kept old suspicions alive.

Even supporters of the deal’s substance remain anxious about Washington’s ability to hold up the American end of the bargain. Bush must get congress’s approval and will face opponents on both sides of the aisle. And even if Capitol Hill signs on, the Bush administration must convince other nuclear supplier countries to reopen nuclear commerce with India. For supporters and opponents of the deal alike, the attitude is “wait and watch,” says Harinder Sekhon of the Observer Research Foundation, a New Delhi think tank.

The big question for Singh is how much of the criticism he faces is serious, and how much simply reflects the rough-and-tumble of Indian politics. When the BJP held the reigns from 1998 to 2004, it brought India closer to the United States. But recently, it has grasped at every opportunity to criticize Singh’s Congress-led government. “[The BJP] is trying to make some noises in order to establish its position as an opposition party,” says Pankaj Vohra, political editor of the Hindustan Times. But those noises, joined by outcries on the left, may ensure a steady downpour of debate as the Parliament’s monsoon session begins this week. Back in New Delhi, Manmohan Singh may soon feel nostalgic for Washington hospitality.



Jacob Leibenluft, currently in India, is editor in chief of the Yale Daily News.

A combination of a reversal of the disastrous earlier economic and diplomatic course by India and changes in the geopolitical situation in the post cold-war period has put India in what the stock-pickers would call a diplomatic sweet-spot. India today seems to be attracting favourable attention of the U.S, Russia, China, Europe, Iran and even Pakistan. But you wouldn`t find any hint of this in this ideologically-driven piece; the author would probably want India to go back to 1962 when, at the height of the non-alignment movement, it found itself abandoned even by its most-aligned, non-aligned friends when attacked by China; when people of the author`s class lived in relative comfort while feeding the opium of `garibi-hatao` slogans to the poor people. They would dearly want to take the mobile phone from the poor vegetable seller and have him join in a demonstration against imperialism and colonialism at Vijay Chowk. Ah, those were the days!

Silly article, typical of reflexive anti-american (and pro-chinese) attitudes and fundamentally empty-headed mindset of so-called ``left-wing`` writers. Not a single real idea is present, just regurgitation of slogans and adjectives. I have noticed that for a certain class of people, especially left-wingers, knowledge of english appears to be all that is needed to expound on any and all topics.

Re: # 14 dm
//.... the author would probably want India to go back to 1962 when, at the height of the non-alignment movement...//

Yep - every commie worth his salt[chinese variety] is pouring his heart out on all the broad sheets. Newspapers are full of their verbal diarrhea.

That`s a shame. The very fact that these fools still retain any credibility is a failure on part of Indians. And that shows. The country is still filthy, poor and wretched. India will continue to be a ``leper and h!jra``[as kaura put it] as long as these commie low-lives allowed to dominate the discourse.

#14 by dost-mittar

[India today seems to be attracting favourable attention of the U.S, Russia, China, Europe, Iran and even Pakistan.]

I agree with your post. But I just wish you hadn`t included Pakistan in this list.

It`s like saying ``USA today is attracting favourable attention from China, Russia, France and Cuba``. Americans are not too cut up about whether Cuba looks at them favourably. Similarly Indians are not too cut up about whether Pakistan looks at India favourably. Pakistan is much smaller than India in every way as well as a rogue state that is the center of International terrorism, and has been our enemy in every respect and always.

They are not in a position to have a ``favourable view``. They are not in any position to do us any ``favours``. In fact, the situation is quite the contrary.

Re: # 14
Dost-mittar,
Any comments on the three points raised by me.

Now coming to your non-alignment. Well it was a policy adopted in concert with Pancsheel and was connected to many issues including Kashmir. Nehru thought that it would serve the Indian purpose which it did to a great extent. What kept India back was the Fabian Socialism. Once India liberalised in the 90s, India got an economic jump start. So I dont think that the arguement can be extended in the manner that you are reasoning, because India`s core Grand Design has not changed.
Respects and Cheerios

Eventhough as many interacts have said that the article is usual crap without substance, I believe having some credible opposition whether left or/and center or/and right in such cases is needed to balance and curtail what the current dispensation is doing. And sometimes it also gives them a way to wiggle out from heavy pressure from Uno Superpower or other countries. But would have liked the article to have more substance than usual rants.

Non-Alignment did pay some dividends to us and basketcase Pak shows us what being an unequal ally results in. So more power to ``real and substantiative`` counter-balancing forces in this case. And can put up with hundreds of such ``c...`` as long as there are some valid and full of substance opposition

deleted hilarious part I

`` In a paper entitled “India as a New Global Power: An Action Agenda for the United States” (2005), Ashley J. Tellis, a US-India relations specialist at Carnegie Endowment, identifies three constraints on India’s rapid economic growth and on the emergence as a great power: insufficient access to energy, shortage of foreign investment and infrastructural weakness. Suggesting the creation of an energy dialogue as a means to jump-start the US-India relations, Tellis points out that India’s energy challenges cut across multiple realms such as foreign policy, geopolitics, environmental concerns and proliferation. ``

I do not know if foreign investment is a problem in itself.

`` Discussing in detail the different aspects of India’s civilian nuclear power program and its strengths and weaknesses, such as the Department of Atomic Energy’s (DAE) three-stage program and its implications, India’s shortage of natural uranium, the rich thorium reserves etc., Tellis insists that Washington should satisfy New Delhi’s need for nuclear energy. To circumvent the problem of integrating India into the global nonproliferation order, he comes up with five illustrative options the United States has and envisions six end-states of integrating India into the Global Nuclear Regime. ``

Access to civillian nuclear technology increases bargaining power with Iran, Burma and other suppliers of hydrocarbons. A lot of Pakistanis who keep claiming India cannot progress without gas pipelines through Pakistan will mellow down.

`` In other words, Tellis, who is a close confidant of Robert Blackwill, the former American ambassador to India, who has brokered this current US-India deal proposes that the US should help India with the civilian nuclear program and get a foothold in Indian affairs and policies and also advocates closer bilateral relations that is steeped in American military sales and support for India’s growing nuclear weapons program Thus the so-called India nuclear deal, as the American media have christened, comprises of ‘the energy carrot and the China stick’ that the United States will employ to drive India into subservience. ``

Most of US reactors are based on enriched uranium. My gut feeling is that India will order nuclear reactors based on natural uranium. This will eliminate dependence upon the West for nuclear fuel. The decision of USA makes it easy to order French or Russian or German reactors.

`` According to the “Indo-US Joint Statement,” the Indian nuclear establishment will have to identify and separate civilian and military nuclear facilities and programs “in a phased manner” and file a declaration regarding the civilian facilities with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It should take a decision to ”place voluntarily its civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards” and should also sign and adhere “to an Additional Protocol with respect to civilian nuclear facilities.” India will continue the “unilateral” moratorium on nuclear testing and persist with the non-proliferation export control policies. India will also work with the US on concluding the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) and adhere to the guidelines of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Interestingly enough, nobody knows what these “phased manner,” “declaration,” voluntary placement, IAEA safeguards, and the “Additional Protocol” all mean or will consist of. ``

devil is in the detail



`` The deal also talks about the United States’ willingness to “consult with its partners…with a view toward India’s inclusion” in the ITER and Generation IV International Forum. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is a project in which six countries are experimenting under the aegis of IAEA with a hydrogen plasma torus to design and build nuclear fusion power plants. Generation IV is a project undertaken by ten countries under the US Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to examine concepts that may bring about economical, safe, proliferation-resistant and less-waste-producing nuclear reactors. ``

This may be a bigger benefit !!!

`` As a country that thrives on the sale of weapons and military technologies, the United States also has business plans in mind. According to the Indo-US Joint Statement, President Bush has said, “as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, India should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states.” These “benefits and advantages” would be India’s purchasing $ 5 billion worth of conventional military equipment from the US including anti-submarine patrol aircraft that could spot Chinese submarines in the Indian Ocean, and Aegis radars that could help the Indian destroyers operating in the strategic Strait of Malacca monitor the Chinese military. ``

US has not agreed to sell Aegis class radars.

`` It is also speculated that India may be allowed to buy the Arrow Missile System developed by Israel with American technology. Some analysts have pointed out that the US may also try to sell the AP-1000 reactors made by Westinghouse. It is important to note that the Bush administration tried to sell the same to China with the largest-ever loan granted by the U.S. Export-Import Bank. Strangely enough, these “benefits and advantages” that India may be bestowed with for its responsibility, democracy and all of that do not include even a simple acknowledgement of India’s aspirations for a seat in the UN Security Council, or its recognition as a nuclear power with a seat in the NSG. ``

USA has supported Japan and one developing country. It is sort of no-brainer who is the best candidate.

`` In return for the American promises (most of which are vague and unpromising), India seems to have given some important security, energy and foreign policy concessions to the United States. For example, right after signing the deal, the Indian Prime Minister remarked to The Washington Post that the $7.4 billion India-Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline project was fraught with risks and difficulties. The United States is opposed to this project and their objection emanates from the fact that the project could generate much needed hard currency for Iran and from the fear that it could be used for Tehran’s nuclear program. ``

There were disagreements with Iran on the price of natural gas. By no means it was a done deal.

`` The joint statement is also completely silent about the traditional principles and values that India has consistently voiced in the international arena such as nuclear disarmament, total abolition of weapons of mass destruction and so forth. Instead, the deal simply mentions the American welcome of “the adoption by India of legislation on WMD (Prevention of Unlawful Activities Bill).” Just as the WMD Bill was hurriedly passed before the prime minister’s trip to the US, the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 is also being amended to facilitate private investment in nuclear power generation. Dr. Singh’s call for investment may prod US companies to jump into nuclear energy production with serious repercussions to our strategic interests, national security, sovereignty, independence and freedom. ``

Has support for nuclear disarmament influenced US nuclear stockpile ?

`` The claim that opening up our civilian nuclear power plants for international inspection will curtail India’s diverting the spent uranium fuel to be reprocessed into weapons-grade plutonium is also misplaced. It is important to remember that the plutonium for the 1974 test came from the safeguarded Tarapur plant after all. Moreover, there will always be research reactors, and underhanded methods that are not altogether unknown in the field of nuclear science and in the military-industrial complex. Most importantly, the agreement is deliberately silent about India not producing weapons-grade plutonium or not expanding the country’s nuclear arsenal.``

I do not think India is expanding nuclear arsenal. It is cheaper to use military technology to increase potency of your existing arsenal rather than increasing the size of it.


So, one would be thoroughly mistaken if one were to think that the specified safeguard measures mentioned in the deal would finally bring some kind of transparency, accountability and popular participation (TAPs) to the workings of the DAE. In fact, the Indian Foreign Secretary, Shyam Saran, has already indicated that they would not agree to any discriminatory safeguards, meaning India would object to obligations that discriminated between nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states. In other words, the IAEA team could do in India what it would do in the United States and other nuclear powers and nothing more.

`` A simple cost-benefit analysis of the “India nuclear deal” would reveal the nasty picture that is emerging. We will have Uncle Sam sitting in our living room poking his imperialistic nose into every sphere of our national life constantly calculating his selfish gains and cunningly pushing us into our neighbor’s yard. We would be doing the dirty job of confronting China at the cost of jeopardizing our (relatively) good neighborly relations. The already anti-democratic and anti-people money-guzzling Indian nuclear establishment will continue with its lackadaisical performance and gain considerably from the newly found international legitimacy. The nuclear expenditure will increase exponentially; there will ensue militarism, arms race with China, insecurity and underdevelopment. The ordinary Indian citizen will scrape along in poverty and misery as he has always been. ``

good neighboring relations with China ??

Ijaz#18:

I do not think that non-alignment was linked to the Kashmir issue. Nehru had developed this policy even before India got its freedom and India would have had a much easier time in the UN on this issue if it was an ally of the West.

It is difficult to predict the future alignments because we are in such unchartered territory and there are so many unknowns. In any case, here are my views on your three scenarios:

``1. The triangle of China-India-Pakistan get locked in a new arms race, something that could retard the Chinese fast track development. Perhaps too wishful.``

I do not think it is too wishful and I do not think that it would retard the Chinese fast track development. I believe that Pakistan has really decided that it cannot afford to have an arms race with India and for this scenario to develop, China would have to help Pakistan even more than it has until now. The problem with this scenario is that China may not want to help Pakistan beyond a point until Islamic militancy is brought under control because it poses potential problem for China, too.

``2. Degrade Pakistan`s nuclear capability. Something in the realm of possibles.``

As you know, there are all kind of scenarios and games being played in American Think Tanks along this line. The possibility of this happening is however remote as long as army remains in command and the army command is in the pro-American hands. However, all bets are off if pro-jihadi elements come to power.

``3. First contours of a new Balance of Power model comprising USA, UK, Israel and Australia including the Insian Ocean Rim against a possible Russo-Sino-Pakistani-Iran with EU acting as a balancer. Possible.``

To me this is the least likely scenario. India values its relationship with Russia and Iran too much to join any alliance directed against these counrtries. And while Indian and US interests converge vis-a-vis China, there really is no longer any real hositility between the two, especially if the border dispute is resolved. India would like to be a regional rival to China without being hostile. China also understands India`s position. In a recent editorial in China`s People`s Daily, India was favourably compared to Japan because, unlike Japan, it was perceived unlikely to toe the US line on every issue. I have a hunch that if China has to choose between India and Japan for the UN Security Council seat, it will choose India. And as you are aware, India does not favour a unipolar world and has indeed been talking to Russians and the Chinese for developing an alternate force.

My dream scenario would be one in which India and Pakistan start thinking of themselves as a South Asian block and maximise their leverage in dealing with outsiders. The chances of that happening are not bright but are greater than zero if the people to people contact is not reversed for one reason or another. There is a tremendous amount of goodwill and warmth that exists between the two peoples, despite the inflexiblility of the two governments on various issues, Kashmir in the short run and water-sharing in the long run.

besharam:

There have been many thoughtful objections to the Singh-Bush agreement in the Indian media, besides knee-jerk regurgitations of the same old, same old by leftists.

Ijaz_gul #5: ``Three new developments can be hypothised.
1. The triangle of China-India-Pakistan get locked in a new arms race, something that could retard the Chinese fast track development. Perhaps too wishful.``

I don`t think Pakistan is going to get into an arms race. It has, in fact, already opted out of it. Pakistan`s miltiary budget for a while has been stuck at the $3 billion level. It is now less than 1/5th of India`s. Pakistan has a nuclear deterent and that is all it needs.

The only reason for increasing armament now, in the area is to become a world power, i.e. take on the USA. The only country that can do that is China. That requires moving out of the tatical domain, and into the strategic arms domain (blue water navy, ICBMs, Strategic bombers etc.). It will take China a long time to do so.

I don`t think India can do that. That will require a military budget of $200 billion or so. India would go bankrupt just trying to compete militarily with China, much less the USA. I think India will be in two minds, i.e. it will not be sure whether it should go for outright strategic competition or remain at a local level in South Asia. It is too small to do the former, and too big to settle for the later.........

``2. Degrade Pakistan`s nuclear capability. Something in the realm of possibles.``

The only country that can do this is the USA. If it ever felt like it had to do it, there isn`t much anyone could do to stop it. It could, in fact, do that to any country if it wanted to(including India), other than China and Russia.

Legend has it that in 1983, Israel tried it unsuccessfully. We were in Sargodha and saw literally the whole PAF take-off in the middle of the night. NazarHayatKhan may have the inside story.....

``3. First contours of a new Balance of Power model comprising USA, UK, Israel and Australia including the Insian Ocean Rim against a possible Russo-Sino-Pakistani-Iran with EU acting as a balancer. Possible.``

USA-EU-Israel-India-Australia-Japan is a more likely alliance. USA`s aim is to neutralize China. It will need India on its side to do so. I am not sure whom China will ally itself with. It could attempt an alliance with all the countries, which seem disgruntled with USA, which would be the Middle Eastern oil states (and Russia)........

In the end, there can be only one. One superpower, which is currently USA and it would like to keep it that way. And one Asian power, which currently does not exist. That is where China, India and Russia will compete. I think China has pretty much already won......The best ally that India could have in that race would actually be Pakistan. Pakistanis have far more in common with India than with China. But that possibility was lost due to wars, with Pakistan. I think Pakistan is moving fully towards China, as India moves towards the USA..........

The joker in this whole pack is Russia. The Russian bear only hibernates, it never permanently to sleep............

As for Pakistan, it needs to get completely out of any arms race with anyone. Strengthen its nuclear deterent in proportion to any move made by India. And then throw its lot fully with China. I am surprised Pakistan isn`t already teaching Mandarin and Cantonese in its schools..........

#22

Hi Romair:

``I don`t think India can do that. That will require a military budget of $200 billion or so. India would go bankrupt just trying to compete militarily with China, much less the USA. I think India will be in two minds, i.e. it will not be sure whether it should go for outright strategic competition or remain at a local level in South Asia. It is too small to do the former, and too big to settle for the later......... ``

India`s strategic plan is very simple. Seprate Pakistan from its China equation completely. With Pakistan, it will tow the U.S. and U.K. as it gives the mxaimum leverage and the least cost route. While India will play Japan, China and the U.S. cards to get maximum advantage. According to Indian sources, the last war with Pakistan was stopped more by WIPRO / General Electric rather than by General Powell. You can probably judge from Manmohan Singh`s tone, and especially when Yasin Malik said Pakistan`s minister of Info. and Broadcasting sheltered kashmiri terrorist ( = jihadi`s given the perspective and sentiments you want to support).

India is committed to play hardball with Pakistan, until the U..K. and the U.S. do differently and India must do differetnly. Surprising ``HP`` was the most accurate in predicting this scenario being played out.

Japan-China-U.S. need India more than they Pakistan at this stage to ensure their powerplay is not destroyed. India can tip the balance, at least in their mind, in that part of the world. There are more companies opened in Singapore by Indians over the last five years than by Chinese or Singaporeans. India has its domain of influence, however small it is, yet that looks eastward as long as Pakistan at India`s rear is watched by the U.S. This is the worst case scenario, if something happens to Musharaff, whether is runs a foul with the west, or he is killed by the right wing extremists and a right wing regime is established. Interestingly, the west now is beginning to realize that Pakistan is playing game and will neve deliver OBL. If this is converted into cofirmed belief, that would be tragic for Pakistan and South Asia.

It may be hard for sincere and loyal Pakistanis, like yourself and YLH. Both the U.S. and India have given enough indications through recent annnouncements on F16 to Pakistan, prodution of F18 in India, Nuclear energy for India thru accepting India in the nuclear club.

My friends in Indian, Pakistani, and the U.S. are quite clear that the key to Pakistan`s nuclear assets are no longer in Pakistani command control. These are firmly in the U.S. lock and key. This bargain was struck when Pakistan was made non-NATO major ally, despite AQ Khan fiasco.

The best game for Pakistan, in my view, is to play with India and the U.S. In the long term it will bring the most economic benefits to not only Pakistan but also to all of South Asia. South Asia without Pakistan, for now at least will not be strong, and with Pakistan it can be stable in ten years. This is something, a fairly good friend in senior Indian strategix studies told me that privately even Pakistani army now concedes it, and that Pakistan military establishment is committed to give more concessions on Kashmir leading to the acceptance of LOC as the software border between India and Pakistan.

On another note, I think you should seriously consider IT projects with India thru Srinagar. Get some Kashmir University students on the ground working on your projects. You would surprised the traction you will get.

Anil

Re: #184 by Romair


Here’s an EDITED version of this liar’s post:

Inquirer/Ferozek: Are both of you against letting the MUSLIM Kashmiris decide what they should do with their future? Do you believe that MUSLIM human beings should be allowed to make decisions about their future, or do you think such decisions should be dictated to them? And what is the ethical and moral authority under which such decisions should be dictated. (Answer: Look at a previous post of mine on THIS SAME SUBJECT ON ANOTHER BOARD THAT I AM CUTTING AND PASTING HERE:)

[The reason I say that people like Romair and Farzana Varsey are intellectually dishonest is because of posts like these.

Why?

Because they KNOW that they are using false arguments. But after I refute them, they’ll continue to use this argument WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO DISPROVE MY ARGUMENT.

Here’s how.

Romair, Farzana etc. have the following argument:

“This is a KASHMIRI movement. Let Kashmiris decide their own fate”.

On the surface, this sounds eminently reasonable. Sensible. Very democratic. Even a CHILD can understand it. In fact, a lot of consciencous Hindus have been, and still are fooled by this argument, and consequently, feel guilty about it.

But this argument IS FULL OF HOLES:

HOLE NUMBER 1:

It is NOT a Kashmiri movement.

It is a MUSLIM Kashmiri movement. HINDU Kashmiris are NOT part of the movement.

So then what about the majority issue? If Muslims ARE the majority, why cannot they decide and overrule the minority? Isn’t THAT what democracy is all about? Majority wins etc.?

Nope.


Look at the US constitution (it is a good example, since most people, like tahmed32, ONLY listen to the west). The majority CANNOT pass laws that represent ``tyranny of the majority over the minority”. One religious group CANNOT pass a law unilaterally, that the minority DOES NOT WANT, if that is precisely divisive along religious lines.


HOLE NUMBER 2:

Even if Hole Number 1 was not there, and the majority COULD vote along religious lines to create a separate state, other questions have to be answered:

a) Is it okay for Jammu, which is Hindu Majority, to become a separate entity?
How about Ladakh?
b) Is it okay for a Hindu-majority area in Sindh to ask for it’s independence?

What is the size criteria for a geographical area to declare independence? Who decides it?

HOLE NUMBER 3:

If tomorrow, Tripura becomes Muslim majority, do they have a right to secede and join Pakistan?

At what point in a geographical area’s history is secession allowable?

What if West Bengal is going that way? If the current majority Hindus in West Bengal do not want to live under the Sharia, or secede, should they start expelling Muslims from the state? Should they flee the state themselves?



Of course, you would expect Romair or Farzana to dissect my arguments point-by-point. Like farzana tried to answer Ajay Raina’s post point-by point.

But they won’t.

Because they can’t.

But they’ll keep on repeating the same garbage over and over.]


As I predicted, this liar is continuing to repeat the same garbage over and over. This is also known as propaganda.

To continue with this liar’s article:


To me the biggest source of violence in the world, is the desire of one human being to dominate another, just to satisfy the former`s ego and beliefs(BEHOLD THE WAY MUSLIMS DOMINATE OVER MINORITIES IN EVERY MUSLIM-MAJORITY COUNTRY UNDER THE SUN). This is the core problem in everything from a husband beating his wife (OR WIVES), to one country occupying another.......

The internal desire for any human being (including HINDU KASHMIRIS) to be free, and to live on his own wishes, as opposed to the convenience of individuals many cities and oceans away, is an uncontrollable and unextinguishable desire. It is extremely difficult to kill that desire. This is why even after 1000 years of being ruled, Hindus in India wanted to be free......

If such a desire did not exist, the world would be nothing but a society based on 100% survivial of the fittest, with the weak totally occupied and crushed by the powerful. As someone who is assoicated with the area of Kashmir, I certainly disagree with Feroze`s suggestions. I am surprised he feels he has the right to even make such a suggestion. In fact, the whole problem is that too many people in our societies feel they have the right to make suggestions about others, rather than letting the others make suggestions about themselves.......

Let every human being live in freedom, based on his/her own wishes. That is a goal we should all be aiming for. Our aim should not be to impose our solutions onto others.........

The solution to the MUSLIM Kashmir problem is right in front of everyone. Let them MUSLIMS decide what they want to do. It is under this same basis that India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh), themselves, were formed. Why not give other MUSLIMS this right also. Rest assured if this right were given to the MUSLIM Kashmiris, your personal lives would not be affected at all (UNLESS YOU ARE A HINDU KASHMIRI). If anything, they would get much better.......After a few decades or a generation, no one would even remember that Kashmir, at one time, was occupied or an area of conflict............

So, at best, Feroze has a right to suggest that Pakistan should not support the MUSLIM Kashmiri`s freedom struggle. But I don`t think he has the moral right to decide their (MUSLIM KASHMIRIS’) fate...........

The last days of `Londonistan`

By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website


Massari`s case highlights difficulties the UK government faces
The London bombings have spurred the British government into proposing a series of new laws designed to put an end to the reputation of the capital as ``Londonistan``, a centre for militant Islam.
It wants to create offences such as ``indirect incitement to terrorism``, ``acts preparatory to terrorism`` and using the internet for terrorist recruitment and training.

It also wants to make it easier to deport foreign nationals who openly preach jihad and violence.

However, one attempted deportation shows how human rights legislation and its interpretation by the judiciary can prevent the executive in a Western democracy from simply exercising its will.

At a time when al-Qaeda and its associates are showing a resilience and ability to strike at widespread targets in London and Egypt - let alone Iraq - the government feels such legal protections must be looked at again.

The al-Massari case

The case in point is that of Muhammad al-Massari, an exile from Saudi Arabia, who runs a website that shows videos of suicide bomb attacks in Iraq, including one in which three British soldiers were killed.

An extended interview with Mr al-Massari was shown in a BBC television documentary about how the internet is an integral part of the far-flung al-Qaeda network, of which the Iraqi insurgents led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are part.

In the 1990s, Mr al-Massari ran a group in London called the Committee for the Defence of Legal Rights. At that time, he specialised in sending faxes into Saudi Arabia to promote his cause.

According to a British official who has tracked the case, the Saudi government told the British authorities at the time that he was more Islamic militant than human rights activist.

``He opposed the Saudi royal family from an Islamist point of view. He thought, and probably still does, that it was not Islamic enough, that it was corrupt and decadent,`` the official said.

``The royal family was not greatly amused.``

Attempt to deport

During the Conservative government of John Major, a high-level assurance was given to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah that Britain would send Mr al-Massari back.

That is when the legal problems began.

Mr Blair says tackling the ideology behind the attacks is key

The case was handed to an unusually senior British official, a sign of how important it was deemed.

For the next 18 months, this official spoke to almost every lawyer in the government but was blocked at every turn.

The issue was that of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, which says in Article 32: ``The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.``

Government lawyers said that British national security was not sufficiently engaged, even though the then-Home Secretary Michael Howard argued that British interests in the Gulf were at risk from Mr al-Massari`s activities.

The Dominica solution

Eventually, another route was explored.

``We looked at whether another country might take him,`` said the British official. ``We narrowed it down to about 10. They all said that they would like to help but always added that their relations with Saudi Arabia might be jeopardised. Finally it came down to one - Dominica.``

Dominica, a former British colony, is a volcanic dot in the Caribbean, one of the lushest of the West Indian islands and about as far away from the Middle East as you can get.

It had been run for 15 years by a tough prime minister named Eugenia Charles, an admirer of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Dominica agreed to take the Saudi exile.

``Massari appealed and the court upheld his appeal,`` said the official.

`` It held that although Dominica had signed the 1951 Convention, this was not incorporated into its domestic law, so there was a chance he would be sent on somewhere else. We could not get rid of him.``

The promise to the Crown Prince could not be fulfilled. The Saudis were not pleased.

European Convention

Mr al-Massari was eventually allowed to stay in Britain and is now protected even more because of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into British law by the Human Rights Act of 1998.

It prevents anyone from being deported if there is a risk of them being tortured, which is against Article 3 of the Convention.

``The Saudis have offered assurances that he would not be tortured,`` said the British official, ``but the lawyers said this was not enough.``

Whether the government tries to deport Muhammad al-Massari again, especially after the considerable satisfaction he appeared to show in displaying his video of the deaths of the three British soldiers, remains to be seen.

Government frustration


The government`s frustration showed when Prime Minister Tony Blair said at a news conference on Tuesday that judges had been ``blocking`` deportations.

``Other countries have managed perfectly well, consistent with human rights, to expel people who are inciting in other countries.

``We have tried to get rid of them and been blocked. I think there has been too great a caution in saying: `Sorry this is unacceptable.```

Some favour more radical solutions than hoping for a more compliant judiciary.

Sir Andrew Green, a former senior British diplomat who now runs campaign group Migration Watch UK, says there needs to be ``fundamental review of the whole system``.

``We should withdraw from the 1951 Convention and have a national convention for asylum which would cut out the abuse. We should also withdraw from Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention and re-enter with a new provision,`` he said.

But a warning against such an approach has come from none other than Mr Blair`s wife, Cherie Booth, a lawyer.

She told a conference in Malaysia that Britain should not take measures that would ``cheapen our right to call ourselves a civilised country``.

European experience

Other European countries are facing the same dilemma.

France`s Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy has said recently that he will deport more Muslim clerics preaching violence.

In October last year, after a case which went right up to the highest administrative body, the Council of State, France sent an imam back to Algeria.

Germany has sometimes also been accused of harbouring militant Islamist preachers and in January this year it, too, acquired new powers of deportation.

The Social Democratic Interior Minister Otto Schily called the new law a ``historic breakthrough`` and a ``blessing for Germany``.

Dost/Romair,
I read ``discovery of India`` many a times to undesrstand Nehru`s mind. More, I read through many archives on the mainsprings of Indian Policy framed in the early years of the Cold War. It is my assessment that Panchsheel, Non alignmant, Fabian Socialism and Secularism were all linked with one another and also Kashmir. The days when this policy was framed were the days of Hind Chini Bhai Bhai and Tibet was placated to China for Kashmir. It never worked so after the border dispute. I would request you to read my ineracts on the subject.

1. Perhaps Pakistan has decided to take the economic route and it is the political economy that shall lead the way till the balance of power model changes.

2. Just consider that if India gets a percentage of the anti Missile Defence capability like USA/Israel, Pakistan`s detterance gets degraded. So nuclear capability is as much as making a device with delivery systems as it is a defensive capability against nuclear attack.Efcourse, a good submarine fleet, high altitude bombers and Nicobar etc are also part of the reckoning.

3. Well the International balance of power will change. Already in central asia, US presence is viewed with concern by both Russia and China. There is a Russian base just 2 minutes flight from a US base in CARs. Recent unrests in CARs have much to do with the Russian and Chinese sympathy. This is just one likelyhood and a possibility.

I feel that india under the BJP have finally broken away from the Nehru paradigm and so has Congress but not the communists, who in any case are romantics. However, the Grand design remains the same. Laws of the fishes, Katulianism and Manu Smitri will remian and India will continue to work towards maximisation. So latest friendly overtures nothwithstanding, covertly both Pakistan and China emerge as challengers and enemies in the political calculas.

Respects and Cheerios

The best parts of this write-up are the quotes – everything else is this “writer’s” spin and fluff!

People like this author live in a world of their own, in which – Uncle Sam is BIG and Uncle Sam is BAD – and all material needs of life get met for everybody – and the electricity for meeting those needs comes from – yes, you got it – vacuum! Vacuum, you know what it is – like this author’s mind!

Nuclear energy is the way of the future, whether we like it or not! It’s not even a matter of choice. The need for energy can only go UP with population – the only time energy consumption falls is when people DIE!

The author will probably have better luck riding bullock carts and writing with fountain pens (instead of typing on a computer terminal), which would be only too logical – following his line of reasoning. Except that, like all hypocrites, he is NEVER going to practice (the logical conclusion of) what he preaches!

Making fun of individuals or countries using play in names, on a topic this moron is trying to portray as serious, exposes this pseudo-liberal for who he is – a representative of the significant population of gutless cowards who have not found any meaningful work or purpose in life (being a janitor, for example), and keeps repeatedly and desperately trying to carve out a niche in the mode of the hippy community of the U.S. from the 1960’s. His path would be easy indeed except for a couple of simple facts of life of which this individual is absolutely ignorant: (1) this isn’t the sixties, and (2) India isn’t the U.S. A country’s foreign policy – especially a superpower’s foreign policy – is always dictated by the geopolitical interests of the country and is (except perhaps for a certain country in the South Asian context) non-negotiable.

Nuclear proliferation is a bogus issue, and has always been (Sorry, Dr. Gill, the janitor tells it like he sees it!). This bogey was created and raised for certain very specific reasons – to suit the needs of countries that already HAD such power. Most of what it intended to accomplish has already been accomplished. Virtually all nuclear powers are responsible countries – North Korea and Pakistan being the only exceptions – and they present minor irritants and will be dealt with properly when the time is right! In case of one, this issue may have already been handled behind the scenes!

Ijaz#26:

As you probably know by now, I am no great fan of Nehru. But it would be unfair to say that his China policy was strongly linked to Kashmir. Nehru`s foreign policy was less Pak-centred than those of the other Indian leaders who followed him. Nehru`s vision was grander than that; I think that he was a believer in a strong Asian destiny anchored by the two old civilizational countries - India and China.

I had not fully understood the meaning of your ``degradation`` of Pak nuclear deterrent. Yes, the possibility of India acquiring a Patriot-type shield is quite strong. However, the earlier version of these anti-ballistic missiles were not what they were made out to be; I do not know how effective are the newer versions.

You made reference to Manu Smriti and Kautalya. I believe Manu Smriti has served whatever useful purpose or damage it had for the Hindu Indian society and is now completely irrelevant. It is mentioned more at chowk, Pakistani media, some dalit and anti-Indian websites than in the mainstream Indian media. In my whole life -and I am called the chowk baba by some- I have NEVER heard anyone in my family, friends and at social parties even once mentioned Manu Smriti. I believe that the only Smriti that holds good for Hindus now is the Hindu Code Bill, for which the Hindu society should be grateful to Nehru.

Kautalya/Chankya on the other hand is routinely cited by Indian politicians in a positive manner and by Pakistani commentators as an indication of the cunning/deceitful brahmin/bania mind. But as far as diplomacy is concerned, Kautalya basically means pragmatism in ensuring state`s interests. In that sense, China already is ``Kautalyan`` (wasn`t a famous Chinese pilgrim in India during Kautalya`s times?), as are most countries, except Pakistan, which sometimes subordinates its interests to that of the Ummah and India during Nehruvian times when ideology sometimes superceded national interests.

I think that the most interesting scenario to watch in the future will be the development of the Sino-Indian-Pak triangle. There is a strong emotional content in the Indo-Pak relations than in the other two sides of the triangle; this emotional content has played negatively thus far but, in theory, at least, it can also play a positive role. Chowk has become an arena of Indo-Pak mud-wrestling and still, I can bet that each one of us ex-pats here has more and closer contacts with fellow South Asians than with the Chinese. In the long run, as Nehru correctly envisaged, there is a stronger religious/cultural underpinnings to the Sino-Indian relationship than the Indo-American relationship. I have interacted with quite a few Chinese at a personal level and India is the only country that they admit China to have been influenced by in history. Pakistan could claim to have the same cultural/religious links but the Pakistani state has chosen to ignore the pre-islamic aspect of its history.

Sorry, this post has turned out to be longer than I had planned.

Dost,
I respect your views and have many linkages with East Punjab and Sikhs in many ways. Well that is another story.

On Indian politic body, Nehru occupies a central position because he framed India`s defence and foreign policy and that Congress remained in power that long to give it consistancy. Kashmir was essential to prove secularism right. There was an interplay of kasmir with Tibet. India soured realations both with China and Pakistan because of Kashmir. All wars that India fought with China and Pakistan has Kashmir equationed. So it remains central. Yes the present internatinal sensitivities link it to a floating threat of terrorism and this is where India gets better mileage and a chance to frisk it and put it on the back burner. India is riding the high and this remains of concern to every Pakistani.

As regards emotional rootes, yes they are there but in a paradox. The mechnics of Partition and events thereadter put India and Pakistan on the extremes of an ideological divide with proliferation of mistrust and hate. I feel that though many Pakistanis want to correct course, most Indians riding a high are becoming cynical as ever. I am a member at satribune, SAIF, orkut, zorpia and chowk. Everywhere I have found Indians to be very slanty, full of hate against Pakistanis. After the London and Egypt bombings, I conducted a survey on the net. Indian media spewed maximum poison against Pakistan. This does not help.

As for Manu Smitri. There was a debate on it at chowk and SAT. I was recently on a desert trek in the Nara Desert. It was my first opportunity to interact with Pakistani Hindus.It was depressing to see the social injustice within a religion, something I never saw in other parts of Pakistan. I also inquired from the Kholis about the recent murder of a low cast kholi engineer by the upper class hindus in cahoots with some muslim fuedals.Unfortunately, it is all so true. Fellow Hindus discriminate Kholis more than other people in Pakistan. I had a long discussion with a gentleman from the upper class and he justified everything in the name of religious code. My feeling was that religion was being exploited to meet the ends of fuedalism. Phe modernity that has caught up with Hindus in some parts of India is something alien to those in Pakistan. Inter commualy, at Nagarparker, I saw a Pakistani Kholi Hindu supervising the construction of a mosque.

Respects and Cheerios

Like many, I do not abhor Kautilya. I have read Arthashastra many times and carried out a comparative analysis iwth Machiavelli, Pluto, Clausewitz and Balance of Power Model of Kaplan. I have rated him above all of them and had to defend my Thesis for months before they were approved with outstanding rating. Hopefully someday it will appear as a book. Realpolitik is Kautilianism.

By the way, my father was the only non Sikh teacher in Khalsa High School Sargodha. He taught persian and drawing. Do find out if some of his students are still alive.

ijaz_gul

Do you feel there is any reason for the cynicism of Indians (other than the obvious fact that there is something wrong very with us as a nation)?

wrong very - that is wrong.... :)

yeah sounding we are like yoda every now and then. :)

LOL

Most Indians that we come across are on the net. Read their comments and make judgements.
As for my opinion, they of late seem to behave like the citizens of an imperialist super power.Comparing Pakistan to Cuba et al.
Cheerios

Re: # 28 & #29:

Ijaz & Dost-Mitter:

Law of society in modern India will not come from Hindu Code Bill or Sharda Act of 1950s.

It will evolve out of the new knowledge base society that is forming in front of our very eyes through revolutions in IT and telecommunication, and soon through affordable air-travel revolution too.

While Indians have Manu-Smriti, as a reminder - I have commented on it a few time here on Chowk a few times. More importantly, Indians have even stronger and longer tradition coming from vedic tradition of challenging Hindu Thoughts. This knowledge worker of India is challenging each aspect of Indian social tradition, and will continue to do so and form anew, rather than reform the old. If you study the social aspect of this revolution, be in Bangalore, Chennai, Hydrabad, Pune, Gurgaon or NOIDA - it becomes very clear that this group of people have transcended regional (therefore linguistic), and religious boundaries. More are crossing at faster rate than ever before. They have a new thinking, which is certainly more influenced by not the U.S., but silicon valley (only a small corner of the U.S.). They are extremely proud and confident as a knowledge worker (closer to brahmins and banias of older times). Certainly not all are brahmins in the older framework of caste.

Emancipation and empowerment among women is greater than even in Silicon Valley. Caste and regionalism plays little role in their thinking. I can go on more but will save it for now.

Ijaz, you saw Pakistani-hindu kholis who probably are boxed in older ways by external perceived threats from non-hindus, and acceptance of their submissive position to fuedals and upper caste. They are numb from living in seize mentality for generations, much like the African-Americans of the South. Essential part, not necessarily the whole.

You would not find any such thing among this group of knowledge workers in India. They have their own language, and are amassing wealth and knowledge in India faster and wider than any other generation ever generated. When you will apply all other tests of social phenomenon in making, this group will yield surprising results for you. Give a few more generations to this seed to evolve.

It will have its own symbols and icons as well. I have indeed seen people IIT and the U.S. trained of this group, starting their day by actually folding hands, closing their eyes and bowing thier head to the computer screen before starting their work day. I call this a ``computer jee ka mandir`` phenomenon.

Hindu society has been a very layered society. This is the drawback of the natural law of what I call distributive society, as against centralized society where the laws are codified in a single book. Some layers will never change because they do not feel the need to change. Some layers will resist and reject the change. Even Amish in the U.S. have resisted and rejeted changes. However, the beauty of the distributive society is that every layer and sometime sections within a layer have their own rules and laws which allow them to co-exist, like a microcosm. India is such a microcosm.

I have recenlty submitted an essay to Chowk on ``what binds us into ..... respective national identities?`` I hope it is published here, as I would love to get the reaction.

Anil Kapuria

i`m curious. what do most pakistanis we come across on the net behave like? sheep? downtrodden? angels? behaving as wannabe fill-in-the-blank -ists? comparing india to nazi germany et al.?

i should have posted this thought in yodaesque. perhaps next time

ijaz_gul

When I said that there is something wrong with Indians, I wasn`t kidding. Like the Chinese, we see ourselves as an ancient, great people who, despite all our challenges, must be, and will be, a great future power. Many people inside and outside of India understandably decry that ambition, but that ambition is a fact, nevertheless.

Now, specific to Pakistan, Indians have a particular attitude. It is for Pakistani intellectuals to help explain to Pakistani people whether Pakistani state has played any part in shaping that Indian attitude.

re: anil # 35

I want to privately share with you a very old idea. Could I do so?

Thanks in anticipation.

kaalchakra,
Both are to blame. Both have become nationalists. Its a tit for tat and both play each other.Yes we too have an attitude like all aspiring nationalists.

We Pakistanis too have a sense of history. The ``Wonder that was India`` In fact comprised most parts of what is now Pakistan. South India was never part of that INDIA. I CAN ONLY GUESS THAT THIS ATTITUDE OF INDIANS ALSO MAKE PAKISTANIS WARY WHO RELATE IT TO AKHAND BHARAT.

The Great Mauryan empire had its centre in Taxila, next to Islamabad.
The Nara Civilisation, what you call Saraswati was perhaps centred around Harrapa.
There is lots of Sindhi folklore that found its way to europe thousands of years ago.
Some Biblical Scholars believe that River Pishon of Eden was in fact NARA
Cheerios

ijaz

Almost. The India that was did begin in Pakistan. Much of our hatred lies in the history and politics of appropriation and rejection.

With relations that close, one cannot be unconcerned. We could have been either the greatest of friends or the greatest of enemies. We chose to play the latter.

Ijaz_Gul/Anil # various: This is turning into an interesting discussion. I will post a detailed reply to Anil’s point in a subsequent reply…….

“Perhaps Pakistan has decided to take the economic route and it is the political economy that shall lead the way till the balance of power model changes.”

The thought process of the Pakistan military is to arm itself at the same ratios as India. They want to remain at 1/3rd of India in military power. They genuinely feel India will some day attack Pakistan, if it can. India’s massive Pakistan-specific purchases tend to add to this feeling. However, I think Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent has had a calming and securing affect on the military and on the population of Pakistan. And I do think that the country is now, correctly, moving towards the economic route.

Pakistan should match all strategic developments that India makes on the nuclear side, while de-scaling the conventional side. The recent pile-up of troops and then their eventual withdrawal by India was a clear indication that the two countries, for the first time, are in a situation of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

Hence Pakistan does not need to arm itself any more………….Regardless of what India does…….Pakistan should now put everything into economic development and aim for a 7% or so growth rate for the next ten years……..It should, in fact, turn its current Defences skills into an export-oriented industry, specifically for Middle Eastern countries……….

“Just consider that if India gets a percentage of the anti Missile Defence capability like USA/Israel, Pakistan`s deterrence gets degraded.”

No country in the world has credible missile defence capability. Nor does any exist. Even the USA isn’t close to developing any such capability. It has had all kinds of massive problems with its Star Wars plan because it was not feasible. And even that required a high available detection time of minutes. In addition, it is order of magnitude easier to develop an offensive counter to any missile defence capability than to develop a new missile defence system.

There is absolutely no defence against sub-minute missile launches, below space – the type that will occur between India and Pakistan. Patriot missile defence systems cannot protect against that. They do not have even close to 100% reliability. And they are designed to protect buildings and localities. Not to protect cities.

Hence, no sensible country will risk a nuclear strike, based on such equipment, even if it is 90% reliable. In addition, the close geographical proximity of Pakistan and India will result in radioactive affects travelling to the other country, after nuclear strikes.

Pakistan and India, now, will completely destroy each other in a war. No one should have any kind of doubts about that………

“So latest friendly overtures nothwithstanding, covertly both Pakistan and China emerge as challengers and enemies in the political calculas.”

To some extent, I agree.

However, I don’t think India can make policy based on emotions only. I don’t see any advantage India can gain from military growth. It is much larger in that area than all South Asian countries already. It can influence the policies of all of them, through military advantages, already. Other than Pakistan. And due to the nuclear deterrent, I don’t think India can influence Pakistan. At the same time, I don’t think India can ever catch up with China, militarily. In fact, the gap is growing……….Hence any growth in India’s military capability is not going to change the already established balance in the area. India would have to develop the world’s most sophisticated Nuclear Missile Defence system, without any counters, to be able to change the balance in the area. Which is why I think much of the military purchases on the Indian side, nearly all of which are Pakistan-specific, are based more on emotions than anything else……..Or perhaps to get Pakistan into an arms race........

I think India should actually de-militarize, which will result in further de-militarization of South Asia, thereby freeing funds for human development………….

Romair : ``I think India should actually de-militarize, which will result in further de-militarization of South Asia, thereby freeing funds for human development………….``

It doesn`t matter what you think.

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……….

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

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.

Re: # 38

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

Thank you
Anil

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………

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.

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 an