The Indian propaganda machine appears to be run by RAW and involves the entire media and press of India. This is not to suggest that everyone working in these sectors is in the pay of RAW but only those that matter and decide the actual content of information. To take an excerpt from my book The India Doctrine ââ¬â
ââ¬ÅTo substantiate this point and extend the analogy to journalism and contemporary reportage one may usefully refer to an embarrassing revelation in August 2005 where the New Age daily reported that Indian journalists had been paid ââ¬Ëhandsome moneyââ¬â¢ to write articles against Bangladesh and two other neighbouring countries. The report continues,
ââ¬ËArun Rajnath, New Delhi correspondent of the Washington-based online newspaper South Asian Tribune, said he was offered Rs 10,000 per month to write a story against Bangladesh, Pakistan or Nepal. Rajnathââ¬â¢s revelation was published in a special report of the newspaper headlined ââ¬ËIndian Officials Harassing South Asia Tribune New Delhi Correspondentââ¬â¢ on July 27. The report, which had detailed description of the Indian intelligence agenciesââ¬â¢ clout on Indian journalists, captures glimpses of the harassment towards journalists who refuse to comply with official directives. After refusing to be on the payroll of an intelligence agency, Rajnath, who writes on the Indian army and Kashmir, was refused accreditation by the external affairs ministry, and he became the target of frequent intimidating phone calls from the intelligence men. The correspondent claimed that many top Indian journalists covering news relating external affairs, home, and defence were on the payroll of the security agencies or the ministries concerned, and regularly receive ââ¬Ëhandsome compensation packagesââ¬â¢. Commenting on the report, a Bangladeshi intelligence expert said they have reports that not only Indian journalists, but also a number of Bangladeshi writers are on the payroll of Indian sources. Mentioning a lack of resources and motivation on the part of Bangladeshââ¬â¢s intelligence agencies, he said, ââ¬ËVery little can be done in the existing situation.ââ¬â¢Ã¢â¬? (The India Doctrine pp. 63 ââ¬â 64)
Propaganda issues take up a large proportion of the book but this is a useful example of RAWââ¬â¢s technique.
News agencies been used by intelligence agencies is nothing new,not done only by India. Us does it ,so does Bangladesh.
Even if you say most of the papers are propaganda, I am yet to see a single article by any source which says India supports Maoist or is bent on creating trouble in Bangladesh.
If you carried out "in-depth" analysis ,point me to non-Indian and non-Nepalese source which says India supports Maoist and a non Bangladeshi source which details Indian disruptive acts.
If Indian media is biased due to RAW,I hope you agree international is not RAW payroll. Since you have done extensive research,you should be easily able to point it.
Why on earth would Indian intelligence want to disclose its own secrets to the outside world? Your question makes no sense. The purpose of propaganda is to undermine your enemy or opponent while projecting a favourable impression of your own position. To disclose Indiaââ¬â¢s links to Nepalââ¬â¢s Maoists would be literally shooting oneself in the foot.
Yes, supporting Maoists is also shooting in the foot. They are already creating trouble in India.
If RAW does not declare,India media is biased,Indian establishment is obvious biased, how do you declare this
The views that are contained in the book were taken primarily from Indian sources that included the opinions of politicians, diplomats, military officers, journalists and former intelligence operatives of India. These were akin to confessions of Indiaâs nefarious activities in regard to its neighbours.
You have used articles from biased Nepalese writers and proudly says that you can concluded that India supports Maoists by "primarily" Indian sources.
Only when Nepalââ¬â¢s kings decided that his country did not need or want Indiaââ¬â¢s security guarantee did the Indian government turn against Nepal and start to destabilize the country. It was the kingââ¬â¢s attempt to procure weapons from Israel and China that negated the security guarantee and only then did India adopt the policy of destabilization.
If the King was so good in "making sure of the Nepal's security" why was he thrown out? Why would be the king be friendly with India,when India along with US and UK was against the king's autocratic rule?
Why would India spend resources on establishing Nepal,when the whole of Nepal was against the king? Do you screw up a whole nation to prove a point to a single person?
Your reason doesn't hold water.
A highly motivated population and fighting force can repel a larger power with the requisite outside support as we saw in Vietnam and Afghanistan (after the Soviet invasion). More recently you may recall that a mere 5000 fighters of Hezbollah (financed by Iran and Syria) pushed back and inflicted heavy damage on the Israeli Defence Forces. A Nepalese army supplied by China could quite easily embarrass the Indian Army in any invasion and even take the fight into India if necessary. The Indian military suffered this humiliation in Sri Lanka during the 1980ââ¬â¢s.
Americans was not defeated military in vietnam
Russians were not defeated military in Afghanistan
Israel was not defeated military in Lebanon,nor were they pushed back.
The armies did what they were suppose to do. They were failed by the politicians. Finding political solution is not the job of defense forces.
As per the humiliation of Indian Army,may i remind you that the same army capture Jaffna in 3 weeks and handed them to SLA,which the SLA which "displays sovereignty and independence by having the option to export weapons from anywhere " IS YET TO DO.
SLA trained by the Pakistani and American is still to dislodge the LTTE.
And i will quote you ."THIS IS THE REALITY".
Yes. A sovereign and independent country must determine its own foreign policy and not co-opt its own interests in favour of another country.
Then how come you point out stationing of Chinese troops in Pakistan is correct. How do you see that Bangladesh's should align with China?
Serving Chinese interest doesnot constitute a sovereign breach?
I have never heard the Tamil population of Sri Lanka referred to as Tamilians. Are you making these words up as you go along? The issue in Sri Lanka is only partly to do with equality but has more to do with autonomy demands. It is unlikely that the Sri Lankan government would accede to the latter demands. India itself has not accepted the more justified and credible demands for autonomy/independence made by the Kashmiris, Seven Sister States and Tamil Nadu. It seems extremely hypocritical for India to require Sri Lanka to accept such unjustified demands made by the LTTE when the Tamils are relative newcomers to the island state compared to the majority Sinhalese.
Please enlighten me what are they called?
India has never called for a independent state as the solution. At the most it has called for equal rights and equal voting rights. Autonomy demands by LTTE is it's own clause. If SL government is ready to use force on the issue of equal rights,what guarentee that they will keep up their promise?
May be if you can get into the LTTE's foot you can understand why are they demanding it.
As far Tamil Nadu demanding autonomy,why should they get it? They have equal rights like any other state in India. Hell they even have cabinet minister every time the Indian gov changes.They are one the most powerful states in Indian politics. Why the hell they should get autonomy?
That is entirely within the discretion of the Sri Lankan government. Whether such a policy will create difficulties for India in Tamil Nadu state should only be a marginal matter unless it directly impinges on the conflict itself but such a balance has to be calculated with political circles inside Sri Lanka and not be dictated from New Delhi.
India does not dictate SL govern. If it asks the issue to be resolved by diagloue,is it wrong? SL is determined to solve it by force.
If they are so keen in peace,all they have to do is sit down and talk with the LTTE. If they are not ready to do it,then it is not India's problem if SL has problem in it's country.
When the containers of the ball bearings have Indian markings then it is clear that it was manufactured in India. I am not sure why it is difficult for you to grasp such a simple idea.
I never denied that it is not manufactured in India. You are twisting the statements. You were trying to prove RAW is involved,just because ball bearing is manufactured in India. tamilnadu is a hub for automobiles manufacturing.You need to have RAW's assistance to get some ball bearings,that have Made in India mark.
Millitants in Kashmir use AK's with markings from China. does it prove Chinese involvement?
You need a better case to convince me on this .
I think you have found the answer to all your questions and it came from your own mouth and you did not even realize it. There are clearly electoral considerations for why India may want to support the LTTE (at least covertly) since if emotions become too heightened in Tamil Nadu it could have a reactive effect against the Indian government. A complete defeat of the LTTE could also have unpredictable and disastrous consequences for India. More significantly Chinese, Pakistani, Israeli, European and American involvement in Sri Lanka has drastically undermined Indiaââ¬â¢s influence in that country. India is the only country that is not supplying Sri Lanka with arms to fight the LTTE although it was that insurgent group that killed the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. What does all this imply?
That implies that Tamil political parties are powerful enough to stop Indian supplies to SL. It is a known fact. But they are yet to force the Indian gov to supply LTTE. LTTE is a banned terrorist org in India. Hence Tamil political parties cannot force the central gov to support LTTE.
May be if you had researched harder,you had found out that India gave around 200 milion dollars to SL in the name of aid. India may not have supplied arms,but whatever arms SL got is through Indian money.
This statement left me completely confused and makes no sense whatsoever.
Never mind. It was a gig.
He has written a great many things since that article as have many other ex-RAW officers. His opinions on these types of issues can be highly deceptive but he would not have become the RAW chief if it was otherwise. Deception is part of his game and we have to decipher his meanings in that context and light. The basic training manual for RAW is Kautilyaââ¬â¢s ââ¬ËArthashatraââ¬â¢ which teaches deception and guile as an art form. In other words, we should not take Ramanââ¬â¢s comments at face value.
Deceptive because it is against what you want to believe.
If you dont believe him,how did you conclude that he has shown sympathy towards LTTE ,just because he said something along the lines of dumping current LTTE leader?
And people here on the forum should take "India's Doctrine" book at face value?
I have answered the question but it also appears that the LTTE was forewarned that the radar would be inoperative for a certain period of time. In fact, it seems that Sri Lanka wished to purchase Chinese made 3D radar but India pushed its cheaper and less effective 2D version. This is the problem that has to be faced when such decisions are taken out of the hands of local policy makers and transferred to New Delhi. It is with no surprise that Nepal sought Chinese and Israeli weapons.
So Indian radars were the only radars in SL? What about the radars on the international airport? Were they also down? How did they manager to travel 400 km without a stracth?
I have never in this forum used the words ââ¬ËHindu Imperialist Planââ¬â¢ so why does it appear in your responses? In the same way that Israel created Hamas or the Americans the Mujahedin (to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan) India employs misguided Muslims to act on their behalf to serve a particular strategic requirement. In many cases the Muslims do not even realize they are being employed by RAW. This is the art of intelligence work and should not be such a surprise to you. RAW is prepared to employ Maoists and Muslims to carry out its dirty work but very clandestinely and covertly.
Bangladesh employs misguided Muslims to act on their behalf to serve a particular strategic requirement. In many cases the Muslims do not even realize they are being employed by Bangladesh intelligence. This is the art of intelligence work and should not be such a surprise to you.Bangladeshi intelligence is prepared to employ Muslims to carry out its dirty work but very clandestinely and covertly.
All I did was replace India with Bangladesh and RAW with Bangladesh intelligence. It forms exactly what India keeps saying. Strange isn't it. If what India claims is propaganda,,then what you say cannot be truth either.
No. To the worlds media so that there would be an added justification for the US invasion other than the Taliban holding on to Osama bin Laden.
They did not need to give justification.Every media house knew Taliban sheltered OBL.
How do you know that India has provided the images? Are you involved in inter-governmental meetings where this evidence was produced?
I never said India produced it. My argument was based on the assumption "if India had produced..".
Let me point out that it was you who denied that India has provided satellite images. The onus is on you to prove it.
The difference between an army training camp and a terrorist one would be quite obvious. Your accusations are now verging on pure speculation and guess work.
Really? A bunch of people training with AK-47's in a firing range,wearing fatigues,within a camp deep in the jungle.. It can be a terrorist training camp or a military camp. They dont place tanks in jungle camps.
Worst if BDR was suportting them,there is nothing stopping them to declare that it is their camp.
And please dont tel me, BDR used tanks.
I have explained that his comments were intended to be diplomatic and good natured in the face of hostile comments made by Indian politicians.
Lots of Indian leaders have said bravado things abut Bangladesh for years,however I am yet to see any military action.
when previous Bangladesh leaders haven't "not denied" with so much recthoric, how come he did?
Six years ago India only lost a foot if it tries a full invasion it will loose an arm and a leg and possibly its head also. This is not an issue of prowess but reality.
It was India which captured "East Pakistan" in 14 not Mukti Bahani or any other org. As far as loosing the head is considered,India's neighour on the west has been trying to do this for years....... and is still trying and trying..
By the when was the last time Bangladeshi army fought a war? Has it ever found one?
In answer to this comment I again quote from The India Doctrine ââ¬â
ââ¬ÅIn the view expressed by Indira Gandhi it may confidently be surmised that Indiaââ¬â¢s role in the 1971 war was naturally an extension of its own policy considerations and ideological compulsions based on the idea of an Akhand Bharat which may be inferred from the following observation of Moudud Ahmed in his book ââ¬ÅBangladesh: Constitutional Quest for Autonomyââ¬?: ââ¬ÅIndiaââ¬â¢s support for Bangladesh basically emanated from its negative approach towards Pakistan. For political, historical, and economic reasons, it was Indiaââ¬â¢s natural desire to see that her rival power structure in the subcontinent is weakened. It was not so much love for democracy or sense of brotherhood for the people of Bangladesh that Indira Gandhi decided to support the Bengalis in their war to achieve independence. The then Government of India acted on its own calculations in order to achieve its own national and international objectives. Once India got involved she became greatly interested in seeing the struggle the Bengalis remain in its complete control. The Indian Government wanted to ensure that following the removal of the west Pakistani authority and effective government of its own liking was established in Bangladesh.ââ¬? (The India Doctrine ââ¬â pp. 38-39)
Whatever gratitude Bangladesh had for India was quickly washed away by Indiaââ¬â¢s arrogance and high-handedness.
Allow me to again quote from The India Doctrine ââ¬â
ââ¬ÅDuring the final phase of the conflict or at least very soon after the 1971 war (Kalidas does not specify a date) an agreement was signed between the Bangladesh government in exile by Acting President Syed Nazrul Islam (Sheikh Mujib had not been released by Pakistan by this time) and the Indian government which contained the following seven points:
1. Those who actively participated as Freedom Fighters and were recognized as such would according to ability, run the state administration of Bangladesh and the others would be removed from their employment and service.
2. The Indian and Bangladesh armies would be made into a joint or combined army whose head would be the Indian Army Chief. Only on his command could war be waged.
3. Bangladesh will not have its own military force.
4. Instead a paramilitary force would be established to take care of the internal law and order situation.
5. There will be an open market between the two countries but from time to time through mutual discussions the principles of trade would be settled.
6. The Indian Army will remain in Bangladesh for an indefinite period.
7. India and Bangladesh would have the same foreign policy based on discussions between the two countries.
After this agreement was signed Prime Minister Indira Gandhi took steps for war with Pakistan. On the 16th of December 1971 the Indian Army is said by Kalidas to have taken ââ¬Ëpossessionââ¬â¢ of Bangladesh. In the surrender and sovereignty power document which was signed by General Niazi on behalf of the defeated Pakistan Army and handed over to General Aurora it was no where mentioned whether this document was then passed on to the Bangladesh government as the natural heirs to the Pakistani government in Dhaka and therefore the custodian of the countryââ¬â¢s sovereignty unless, of course, India had other plans which seems to be the actual meaning of Kalidasââ¬â¢ disclosures. Kalidas seems to be implying that with the possession of this document still in Indian hands ââ¬Ëlegal titleââ¬â¢ to the sovereignty of Bangladesh remains with India. Kalidas adds that up to this time neither government, separately or jointly, has ever cancelled the 7 point agreement.ââ¬? (The India Doctrine ââ¬â pg. 7)
Kalidas is a former RAW operative who infiltrated into East Pakistan sometime in 1952. His comments concerning the 7 point agreement would suggest that the Indian government had no intention of letting go of Bangladesh but the terms of that agreement were subsequently invalidated by the 25 year Friendship Treaty that recognized Bangladesh as a sovereign country but under certain conditions and even then the Treaty was reluctantly signed by Indira Gandhi as appears clear in The India Doctrine ââ¬â
ââ¬ÅThe Treaty came about as a result of growing international disquiet at the Indian armyââ¬â¢s continued presence in Bangladesh and who appeared to be an occupying force rather a liberating one. Their extended stay was also breeding hostility amongst Bangladeshis because the Indian army was seen taking away, ââ¬Ëthe arms, ammunitions, equipments, machineries and even furniture and household goods in convoy of trucks across the border.ââ¬â¢ For Sheikh Mujib the major cause of concern was that many countries were still withholding recognition because of the Indian armyââ¬â¢s continuing presence in Bangladesh after the end of hostilities.ââ¬? (The India Doctrine ââ¬â pg. 98)
These are only some of the revelations that appear in The India Doctrine. In short, India did technically try to claim Bangladesh and that it did not intend to give birth to a new nation.
Could you please point me to a "non-Bangladeshi source" for this treaty thing. India was ready to "negate everything" after making such grand plans?
And this comment...
"ââ¬ÅThe Treaty came about as a result of growing international disquiet at the Indian armyââ¬â¢s continued presence in Bangladesh and who appeared to be an occupying force rather a liberating one. Their extended stay was..."
IA left Bangladesh in March 1972..
The "extended stay"... was 3 months...and there was already a "growing international disquiet".
No I am very happy that we got independence from Pakistan but as President Pervez Musharraf has apologized for the events of 1971 on at least two occasions we can put our relations with Pakistan on a different footing. A consequence of independence in 1971 is that Bangladesh can deal with India on its own terms without seeking approval from Islamabad.
A apology is enough to erase the crime of killing of so many civilians and a dispute over water sharing and India blaming presence of ULFA is "unpardonable".... strange logic Mr.Munshi.
So you admit that there are RAW operatives in Bangladesh then!
And you think I am would say "Since I havent seen RAW operatives in Bangladesh personally I deny their presence"..?
Yes the Nehru-Indira plans are still relevant for the reasons I have stated in this reply and to the other comments on this forum over the last few days.
Even for government with BJP in power?
Unfortunately we do not have a choice and must trade otherwise smuggling would rise even further. Bangladesh keeps its tariffs low to comply with free trade principles and as we do not choose our neighbours we must trade with India. Bangladesh would happily relocate far away from India if it could.
Smuggling from where? Bangladesh to India? or India to Bangladesh?
If you saying Bangladesh to India ,I doubt it,as I am yet to see what are those things from BD,that India is so dependent on.
Also since BD can produce "better and cheap" than India, wonder why there should be smuggling from India to BD?
You dont need to relocate..just dont sell to India. Is exporting to India is more worth over "preventing Indian Imperialism"?. And the question about "We cant help it" doesnot even arise as India does not prevent BD from selling somewhere else.. or does it??