Murder on Helm Street

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

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

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

Harimau # 670

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Farzana Versey

- - -

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

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

rajsingh1, AlephNull, satyamvada and harimau:

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

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

Rajsingh1 #676

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

and for anyone else who might be interested:

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

India First

Satyamvada

Ref: 675

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

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

Kindly bear with me.

Once again, Thanks!

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


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

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

Adios

Harimau

Quote:

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

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

Some excerpts....


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Rajsinghi1 .....

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

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

Harimau

Ref: 670


Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Does India want to go beyond Straits of Malaca?

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


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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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


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

Excerpt:

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

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

This was said by Pt Nehru.

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

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

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

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

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

#668 by FarzanaVersey

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

Ref rajsinghi1 #665

[Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re. Indian elections...

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