Book Review : The Indian Doctrine

[con]

The issue that I agreed with Munshi on was something that has been written on by authors in all of the countries like BD, SL and Pakistan. Nobody is ready to toe the Indian line and certainly don't like to be pushed around by an arrogant India (in the past it was the "big" India, now its the "big, arrogant" India). The interesting thing about this whole discussion is that this arrogance shows through the comments of the Indian contributers here...so I am not sure why you guys act so surprised when somebody from BD calls you guys arrogant or bullies.

Why is that anti-India articles from some writers from the these regions is only consider and consider the truth? Can't there be a second face to the facts presented by these writers?

as far as arrogance is consider,it is based one's perspective right? When Munshiji says Bangladesh can close economic gap within 5 years would be arrogance to me,similarly Indians saying Bangladesh cannot do **it to India is arrogance to others.

There are certain advantages that comes to India due it being a large country within the subcontinent. For people who dislike India it is arrogance when Indians point out these advantages,however that does not negate the truth for what it is. Unfortunately this will always be the case in whatever discussion has India in it.

And yeah that educated figure part..
here is the link
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html#People
It says around 60% above 15 years.. And yeah not all in US and UK are "educated" either.

 

[blain2]

Why is that anti-India articles from some writers from the these regions is only consider and consider the truth? Can't there be a second face to the facts presented by these writers?

as far as arrogance is consider,it is based one's perspective right? When Munshiji says Bangladesh can close economic gap within 5 years would be arrogance to me,similarly Indians saying Bangladesh cannot do **it to India is arrogance to others.

There are certain advantages that comes to India due it being a large country within the subcontinent. For people who dislike India it is arrogance when Indians point out these advantages,however that does not negate the truth for what it is. Unfortunately this will always be the case in whatever discussion has India in it.

And yeah that educated figure part..
here is the link
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html#People
It says around 60% above 15 years.. And yeah not all in US and UK are "educated" either.

Con it was the Indian arrogance in one of the earlier posts to which I responded. It was not a perception issue as it was in plain view of all to see.

Your explanation of arrogance to me sounds like you do not know what Arrogance is. The larger neighbor has to be mindful in its dealings with the smaller countries that the way its points are put through could be considered arrogant and the last thing smaller countries or their citizens like is someone boasting of their immense power and the impotence of others. This is probably the one thing that Pakistan can never live with and as such Pakistan always calls for an equal status to India in all of the regional settings.

Also on the educated part, focus on my point about how classification of education is done in India and Pakistan...in the US and UK you are considered educated if you have passed your secondary/high school education. In India and Pakistan, continuing on with the British raj tradition, anyone who can read and write their name is considered and counted amongst the literates and as such the figures are a bit fudged. In reality, the population of educated is pretty low in both India and Pakistan (Pakistan even less).

 

[con]

Con it was the Indian arrogance in one of the earlier posts to which I responded. It was not a perception issue as it was in plain view of all to see.

I was actually responding to the "big arrogant India" part...

Your explanation of arrogance to me sounds like you do not know what Arrogance is. The larger neighbor has to be mindful in its dealings with the smaller countries that the way its points are put through could be considered arrogant and the last thing smaller countries or their citizens like is someone boasting of their immense power and the impotence of others. This is probably the one thing that Pakistan can never live with and as such Pakistan always calls for an equal status to India in all of the regional settings.

Countries as run by humans . you can expect the same"human" behavior between countries. Your seniors would have behaved "arrogantly" with u in college..and possibly you might act with the same arrogance with your juniors.

India is a big country in South Asia,but there are bigger countries than India in the world. The way these "powerful" countries behave with India would reflect the way India treats countries smaller than her.

This behavior is not just for India,it is valid for very country in the world.

Pakistan is al buddy with US,but why not with Afghanistan? US doesn't give a hoot what Pakistan thinks,just like Pakistan doesn't give a hoot what Afghanistan thinks.

This is how the world is and will be.

[/QUOTE]

 

[kidwaibhai]

dude no body gives a hoot what aghanistan thinks. but i think the way afghanistan is they dont care what anybody thinks. i do agree though that india should not underestimate BD if it helps insurgency in india with the help of pakistan that could become a real mess for india.

 

[Adux]

Kidwai,

If you guys dont give two hoots to A-stan, why should we to BD. Atleast A-stan has NATO back-up, BD has nothing, no-regional standing than poverty and religious fundamentalism. Or do you think only Indians have to worry about small fry's will other countries such as yours dont give a *hit

 

[Contrarian]

Blain, Myanmar is totally alongside India. China has given a lot to Myanmar, rest assured, even after that when push comes to shove, Myanmar will be with India. You can read up on countless articles about India's relationship with Myanmar, with their leaders constantly visiting India and vice verce. India also has historical ties with Myanmar.

About SL, you might think that with all the military help that Pakistan is providing SL, that her relationship is on a qualitatively different level. But again, SL wont do ANYTHING, and i mean ANYTHING against Indian interests. They live here, a stones throw away from the Indian mainland. India has invested a lot in SL. Our Navy patrols the shores. They are not changing any camps.

Only BD is not alongside India, but like i said, our relations are improving, which is better than nothing.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

I regret not being able to have participated in the foregoing discussion which seems to have been very lively. The reason for my absence was my required attendance at a regional conference held at Radisson Winter Garden Hotel in Dhaka on the subject of 'Regional Stability and Cooperation: The Role of Bangladesh and Pakistan'. I was asked to be a discussant on a paper presented by Mr. Fahimuddin, a lecturer at the University of Karachi. I would like to share the comments I made with this group -




Bismillaher-Rahmaner-Rahim

His Excellency the High Commissioner of Pakistan, Distinguished Guests,

Discussants, Ladies and Gentlemen


Assalamu Alaikum,


I would like to thank Mr. Fahim Uddin on his presentation of a thoroughly thought-provoking keynote paper on the strategic and military security situation of Bangladesh and Pakistan. I must also express my appreciation to the editor of PROBE magazine, Mr. Irtiza Nasim Ali, for according me this opportunity to speak on this occasion as discussant. It will be difficult for me to do justice to the insightful paper of Mr. Fahim Uddin especially as this is my first chance to view the paper and my remarks will, therefore, be somewhat generalized, tentative and extempore in nature.

Issues involving strategic and military security tend to be highly controversial and contentious and this is more so when the names of Pakistan and Bangladesh are included together. This is particularly the case in Bangladesh and is an unfortunate consequence of certain quarters continually raising the spectre of 1971 to thwart a cooperative approach between our two countries on the vital strategic questions facing South Asia today. The events of 1971 are undoubtedly tragic with the loss of human life and suffering caused by the war but after 36 years why on earth this should impede the progress of 140 million Bangladeshis and 160 million Pakistanis completely escapes me. Being of the post 1971 generation with no memory or personal knowledge of that period I would hope that the policy makers in Bangladesh would now look at the present strategic interests of the country in a new and enlightened perspective without their views being coloured by the episode of 1971 which is now largely irrelevant to the strategic equations being considered in South Asia.

While the differences between Bangladesh and Pakistan had been highlighted during and after the war the similarities were consistently overlooked. One similarity that is relevant to our discussion today is in respect of our security needs and threat perceptions which are almost identical, with variations based primarily on geographical location and this commonality is a point which is being slowly recognized in this country. There is no doubt in my mind that a closer understanding between Pakistan and Bangladesh on these important matters would be to the advantage of both countries and should be pursued with utmost vigor by our political leaders and their military advisers.

However, this is not intended to overemphasize the military aspect of the cooperation as security threats can take on many dimensions and forms and the military solution is not always the most appropriate or necessary. In both countries poverty, illiteracy and other social deprivations are constant worries and have the potential to translate into security concerns when exploited by the unscrupulous. So as an alternative to military cooperation between Bangladesh and Pakistan there should be social, cultural and economic ones as well. This in fact should be the priority and military considerations will come at a later stage when better understanding is achieved between the two nations through social and cultural exchanges and economic advancement through increased trade and the opening up of markets.

Now on the points raised by Mr. Fahim Uddin in his keynote address -

In his paper, Mr. Fahim Uddin has explored and highlighted the most fundamental concepts of
Security
Peace and
Cooperation
I think it is true that ideas determine the fate of the world. It is through ideas that great policies are implemented. There is a very general need to reevaluate and restructure the dynamics of security at the global, regional and individual level. The need is to apply the model of peace and cooperation which has been successfully materialized by the European Union.

Here, I would like to refer to Mr. Fahim’s notion of friendship. It is beyond doubt that states have difficulty in consolidating relations whereas individuals can do it easily.

I think there must be revision of our priorities because only through that we can be able to pursue further cooperation most meaningfully. Our theory delineates our practice therefore the generation of a positive approach at the level of ideas.

The security of Pakistan and Bangladesh is highly intertwined. Times change and so does human behaviour. This changed environment can unleash a process of greater cooperation resulting in greater mutual security.

With these words, I appreciate Mr. Fahim Uddin for his excellently well argued and thematically introspective analysis of the notion of security. I hope this introduction to conceptual paradigm of security has clearly set the ground for subsequent discussions of cooperation in all other fields.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

Hi guys .. I am new to this forum... I have been reading this forum for the past one year....

Guys .. why do you even bother to reply to this MBI Munshi.. We personally do not have hate against any bangladeshis.. hell we dont even talk about them...

I think he some kind of looney like the alien conspiracy theorists that exist in US.

And to all of my pakistani friends... You have often critisized India's growth as a failure...

Well let me tell you something . I am from a middle class family and my parents are clerks.. A few years back I was literally drooling over the sight of a PC at computer store.. Today I own one.. I have easy access to high speed broadband access ....I am from a decent college down here in south India and I know that all our seniors have been placed in IT corporations .. nearly all the 2000 of them have been placed in multinationals.. I am expecting placements by this year end... Today I have the confidence to buy a car or atleast the very near future wen I am placed...and above all most of the seniors who got placed in IT firms were from rural background... Guys this is called growth
Enabling and providing opportunity for individuals.. and at present such opportunities are available aplenty in India.. If we were just a backoffice country why would multinationals have their labs in India.. heck even GE has Jackwelch center a lab at Bangalore....Our seniors and college students form our country get admission into top leauge institutes in US and get all the scholarships on earth...

And to Munshi Iam sorry to say.. from a south Indian perspective,.... we dont give a damm about your country... Why would we want all your poor and dirty people into our borders..... And as far as catching up with economy is concerned ....I say just try.. what was your country's greatest achievement .. Building fishin boats? ... Heck we guys ie our collage mates are currently working on areas such as ad hoc wireless networks...Havent heard of it? well your country dosent even have a decent science and technology institute and you are buiding castles in air....

Guys this person must be either a fake or a burntout academic who's just trying to be diffenrent.......

Note: I am sorry for the way I have talked about bangladeshis.. They are really good people...I am just directing my talk against a looney called Munshi hell bent on creating animosities

 

[Adux]

india-pakistani-friendship....

Please do introduce yourself in the introduction section

 

[HAIDER]

wooow...very assertive...but its ok...we respect freedom of speech...

 

[Contrarian]

Welcome dude,

yourname...Interesting, please introduce yourself in the introduction section.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

What another Indian moron sent to attack me. It seems these fools grow on trees in India. Is it the climate or your inferiority complex. I just don't get it. They send 4 Indians to slander and defame me but they simply can't defeat me in a straight discussion. Two of them even conceded defeat and another has become so inane that it appears pointless to reply to him. Con stopped making sense a long time ago. Now we have this lunatic 'indiapakistanfriendship' making uncivilized comments that shows his inbreeding and tendency to talk through his rear end.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

For the benefit of Adux who mistakenly keeps on insisting that I made the comment concerning Sikkim I refer him to the relevant passage of my book in 'The India Doctrine' concerning the annexation of that country -

India’s policy towards Sikkim differed only in the details and went much further than merely controlling foreign policy and could be described as a direct and aggressive annexation of territory. The significance to India of this country has been explained by South Asian expert Dr. Shastra Dutta Pant in his definitive work on Indian intelligence, ‘Machinations of RAW in South Asia.’ In the book he argues that Sikkim was very important strategically for two reasons, “One was the Four Finger Theory which had been much talked about during the 1960’s. This basically aimed at uniting the people of Nepali origin [many of whom resided in Sikkim]. The second thing was that India, as it already fought a war with China wanted to station its troops along the Tibet border. For these two reasons, the Sikkim operation gained high strategic importance.” The trigger for India’s intercession in Sikkim was a belief that the Chogyal (Dharma Raja or righteous king) was intending to set up an independent kingdom with a flag of its own and a separate national anthem which would have been in contravention of an understanding between the Indian government and a Sikkim delegation that agreed to designate the country a protectorate of India in March 1950 but which had no binding force and could be amended by either of the parties unilaterally.
The Indians claim to have had evidence that the CIA was encouraging the Chogyal to seek independence so they instructed their own external intelligence agency RAW to stir up trouble. It seems likely that RAW concocted a plot implicating the Chogyal in a conspiracy to assassinate top leaders and civil servants which galvanized the population against their ruler and brought public resentment out on to the streets. This became a perfect cover for the Indian army to intervene in April 1973 on the grounds that it was protecting the Chogyal. The army was really brought in to intimidate the Chogyal into submitting to Indian demands which he promptly did by agreeing to popular government and a legislature to be elected every four years and on April 10th the Sikkim Assembly was able to say that, “the institution of Chogyal is hereby abolished and Sikkim shall henceforth be a constituent unit of India.” India’s justification was superficially based on the idea of democracy and human rights but its true motivations were derived from the precepts of the Nehru Doctrine and the Forward Policy which was brought into play by the perceived US interest in Sikkim,

“India could least afford an unstable Sikkim or allow interference of any foreign country in Sikkim affairs … It was also obvious that an unstable neighbour would become a grave threat to India’s national security … [So in] response to [the Sikkim Assembly] resolution, the Constitution (Thirty-Eighth Amendment] Act was passed by Parliament, making Sikkim the 22nd State of the Indian Union on April 26, 1975. RAW had helped in the bloodless transformation of a princely state into a democratic state of India. How far the Chogyal had personally masterminded the plot, to annihilate popular leaders and assume absolute power over Sikkim, remains a mystery.

Four years later, RAW was still moping up loose ends. There were still a few people who had to be paid off for services rendered. Payments had been delayed … Fresh authority for funds to be released had to be sanctioned. These never came through.”

In a cynical political move to legitimize the de facto annexation a referendum was held in Sikkim within the short period of 72 hours on April 14, 1975 with the public assuming that they were being offered a choice between a monarchy and a republic but RAW, in a conspiratorial way, changed it into a choice between merger with India or against merger. The referendum was held in an atmosphere of fear, tension and chaos with more than 20% of the people not casting their votes and Indian agents capturing the ballot papers at gun point. It was of no surprise that when the ballots were counted a figure of 97.55% was recorded in favour of abolition of the monarchy and merger with India although this was not officially an issue in the referendum. In an article that appeared in Time magazine of May 5, 1975 it was claimed that although, ‘there was little debate before the act of union was rushed through India's Parliament last week, one opponent of the bill did charge India's Foreign Minister Y.B. Chavan with behaving like "a very apt pupil of the British.’” According to Dr. Pant this travesty was partly the fault of the treacherous activities of Sikkim’s political parties, namely, the State Congress. Sikkim National Congress and Praja Sammellan Party or People’s Conference Party, that was ultimately responsible for the final downfall. He similarly condemns the political parties of his own country for meekly submitting to Indian pressure and predicts a similar fate as that befell Sikkim unless something drastic changes within Nepal’s political culture. He was of course writing those words a year before the crisis in Nepal had led to the stripping of the King of almost all his powers and the constitutional settlement between the Maoists and the political parties in late 2006.


END NOTES OMITTED

 

[Adux]

Sikkim is a Indian State, Since you claim to be objective person you should have addressed it as the ground realities stand.

PS: And it is forum manners, that you should have post sources or links..

 

[Contrarian]

I still cant get over the best statement that those who support India in Bangladesh are DEFINITELY on payroll by RAW. And Mr Munshi here is a TRUE Bangladeshi patriot.