China/Pakistan/India - Was Nehru smarter than Modi?

[patriotic89]

But you were crying abt killing of pak civilians but now have your mouth shut by money

Mr Ashish.. would u tell y Modi was banned in America???

 

[AshishDelhi]

Are they Chinese citizens? No. Then it's not our responsibility. Pakistan can take care of themselvi, they are a mature nation (unlike India).

You guys voted for a mass murderer of your own citizens, do you really expect me to have a problem with that?

The only ones who have a problem with that, are the people he likes to commit genocide against, i.e. Indians.

Meanwhile he can help us to continue draining money out of India, win-win for us. Then maybe another incursion so that he cries again.

Then why were you crying about killing of pak civilians if it is none of your business or anything to do abt indian muslims. Take your money and manufacture for us.
And we dont care abt what u do to uyghurs..heard there was another attack this week.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Then why were you crying about killing of pak civilians if it is none of your business or anything to do abt indian muslims. Take your money and manufacture for us.
And we dont care abt what u do to uyghurs..heard there was another attack this week.

Good, since neither of us care, why are you getting so worked up over that mass murderer called Modi?

 

[AshishDelhi]

@Chinese-Dragon r see i will tell you a simple thing...your first post was forward policy of modi and now you are saying that pla strolled in india.
You cried abt killing of pakistanis and now you dont care.
You say modi is murderer but xi will meet and invite him for money.
Your stand is incoherent. You will just reply anything.
You are fine with killing uyghurs by chinese govt but have problem with any indian muslim death in riot. Indian police had killed more hindus while controlling riots. I can give you correct info but you have an anti india sttand. Whatever i tell you will hit that anti india thought process. All i xan tell you is that spread little less hatred.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

See i will tell you a simple thing...your first post was forward policy of modi and now you are saying that pla strolled in india.
You cried abt killing of pakistanis and now you dont care.
You say modi is murderer but xi will meet and invite him for money.
Your stand is incoherent. You will just reply anything.
You are fine with killing uyghurs by chinese govt but have problem with any indian muslim death in riot. Indian police had killed more hindus while controlling riots. I can give you correct info but you have an anti india sttand. Whatever i tell you will hit that anti india thought process. All i xan tell you is that spread little less hatred.

I think you failed to read any of my posts.

Modi is the one trying a "new assertive posture" on both the borders, and if he thinks we will back down from another "Forward Policy" when we are at the strongest point in the past 200 years, he is going to be in for a big surprise.

Even a China collapsing from the worst famine in our entire history (and much poorer than India at that point as well) managed to defeat India comprehensively in both sectors.

We are not starving now, and even our currency reserves alone (at over $4 trillion) are more than double the entire Indian GDP. That's our currency reserves alone. The entire situation has reversed, we are not the weak ones anymore, our advantage over India is so great that even the Indian Army has admitted that "India cannot match China by any conventional or non-conventional means, and the gap is growing larger every day".

 

[AshishDelhi]

Yes modi's assertive posture and pla strolling into india. You are xontradicting yourself.

In same poat yoy are crying qbout pakistan.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Yes modi's assertive posture and pla strolling into india. You are xontradicting yourself.

In same poat yoy are crying qbout pakistan.

English is not my first language sir, can you please tell me what you mean when you said: "poat yoy are crying qbout".

Thanks.

 

[AshishDelhi]

There is not going to be any war tta. It is all in your head...forward policy and war and muslim oppression. You like to make yp stories

English is not my first language sir, can you please tell me what you mean when you said: "poat yoy are crying qbout".

Thanks.

You can read modi's mind on forward policy am sure you would be able to read this also

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

There is not going to be any war tta. It is all in your head...forward policy and war and muslim oppression. You like to make yp stories

There will be no war as long as India doesn't try this again:

It wasn't China, but Nehru who declared 1962 war - The Times of India

But I am doubtful that the Indians can keep their fingers off the trigger, they love shooting civilians and even children on their borders with both Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Sooner or later, some Indian border guard is going to make an "innocent mistake" on the Sino-Indian border. And that will be enough.

 

[AshishDelhi]

Hardly matters what doubts you have.you can have doubts all your life but there will be no war. There are sensible people on both sides

And you are just copy pasting your messages. Seems you are following a set process. Dont have time now for this...let me know when there is a war.

 

[SQ8]

One has to look at what the BJP is to understand Modi. The BJP is the first Party in India which is based on capitalist ideals, or rather it is an odd sort of mirror to the republican party in the US. Religious, Capitalist and right wing. Just as with Pakistan and its establishment, there has been an "establishment" in India as well(although not in the strictest sense of the word as with Pakistan). This "establishment" or "think tank" within India has maintained its consistency of policies when it comes to foreign affairs with the world; in India's case that has been non-alignment in the strictest sense and a more looser connection with the Eastern bloc namely Russia. However, the BJP is a party that has now returned with major funding from MNCs in India. MNCs that look for business and support policies that support business. This then blends with its earlier right wing or religious basis to form what is as stated earlier, a more rabid yet more fluid mirror of the republican party.

lets come to Prime Minister Modi, to take Modi on the basis of just his development in Gujrat.. or his alleged role in the Gujrat Massacre is injustice to a proper analysis of the man. As I stated elsewhere, his beginning and his political history are an important clue to what he intends to due in the future. First and foremost he is a politician or rather a political businessman. His focus will be first to ensure that his "firm"(in this case his party and his seat) remains intact in the playfield. This means making sure that his core business or core product stays intact for the market; here it refers to his two main themes on which he has risen since he started out:

1. Concrete Development and Progress
2. Assertion of Hindu religious/cultural superiority over other Indians

This is the core product Modi has been told/adopted to sell. Now, what other ventures come after these?
3. Expansion of Relations and Business contacts for votebank and investors(donors) on an international front. This refers to international relations and if taken in analogy to Business means capital(diplomacy) to invest in a venture.

So now, we have 1 & 2 to get the Business into the market(which it has) and 3 being a greater expression of the "firm"/CEO.
When it comes to 3, the CEO/PM is focused and open to all avenues which includes existing and emerging markets, by existing we have Russia, Europe , Japan and emerging is the US,China and so on. Again, when I refer to "Business" I am not restricting myself to monetary interactions but those also on the diplomatic and tangible/intangible gains in international relations.

As I mentioned before, the CEO/PM may have ideas but these still need approval by the board and the shareholders. In this case the Board is the Party and the Shareholders are the campaign donors(and NOT exactly the many internet warriors here and the millions who voted to think they actually chose what happens to them). The Party has various leadership and power players who have their various interests and their own "visions". Some of these visions are tainted by a misplaced sense of religious supremacy while most other visions are based on what meets their versions of 1,2 & 3. These visions then influence their approval/disapproval/suggestions to the PM who then weighs the implications/effects/causes(etc) on his "Business" and his own seat. This goes onto what India does, vis-a-vis its actions via China or Pakistan or the United States.

When it comes to China, the CEO/PM views it from two angles(as with all markets): There is the monetary(business) gains and then there is the diplomatic/IR gains. For the former it is an existing(but still highly unexploited) market and the latter is an avenue that has both positive and negative potential. While investment has already been made in the former and continues to grow, the latter is still being debated in forms of "investment". Here the CEO/PM is now burdened down with his donors and their opinions along with that of his board; since they have been invested in by the Americans and their MNCs/Government. So the question then pops up whether the RoI of China will outweigh the current "income" and RoI from the Americans/West(Japan included). If it were up to Modi IMHO, he would like to reap the benefit from the Chinese on an equal footing but first reach a level where India and China are considered equal economic/military/diplomatic powers. At the same time, he wants to ensure that the West remains dependant on India for its various needs and more so wishes to see India replacing China for meeting the manufacturing needs of the west. That means that while on one side India wants to Profit from China, it also wants to steal its Business. Yet, there is also a realization that a potential settlement of the China-India dispute may allow the formation of a loose Eastern Bloc that may genuinely challenge the west for presence in the Asian subcontinent and essentially push them back; something that remain a closet dream of many of the mainland Asian leaders. However, here the "visions" of the board come in and the influence on them via their backers and ideals which at the moment seem to push the PM/CEO to focus his alliances with the west and in a rather odd change over the 68 years of Indian history.. tilt India towards the western "camp"(if ever so slightly). Moreover, while the PM seems to be resisting this; the "board" of India in contrast with the long term established thinking of the Indian think tank wishes to make India "dependant" on the west both in Business and the intangibles. This tilt has also started effecting the Indian think tank.. in other areas as well to which I will focus next.

Lets come to Pakistan. As a good friend and original implanter of this idea pointed out.. if anyone wants to know what the current stance or rather new "core" stance of the Pakistani establishment is.. one needs to look no further than Musharraf's various "sudden" press interactions in India following his step down in 2008. Whatever he said can essentially be interpreted as the Army/ISI/Certain Bureaucracy a.k.a "the establishment" speaking to the Indian government/Think Tank and people as to what they want in terms of future India/Pakistan relations. This initiative was reciprocated by the Indian side as well, despite 2008 and the LoC incidents these small interactions at the secretary level.. even lower kept going on slowly. It could be observed by those looking at the right places that while elements on both sides who still had their grudges bottled up kept shooting words and bullets at each other, the realists were quietly talking.. directly/indirectly.. even through gestures.
Come the rise of the BJP and its 2nd core ethos.. something suddenly changed. First, the Indian population which was not radicalised or rather "Rabid" in its stance in general towards Pakistan turned around to becoming almost downright bloodthirsty.. and then, the Indian "Think Tank".. which was moving towards rapprochement suddenly fell silent.. and now seems to be replaced by much more hawkish ideals. In it comes Modi, who is riding this wave. But then, we also forget that we are looking at a man who goes by 1 & 2. So for him, whilst he is being pushed by 2 he also has 1 on his mind; and point 1 benefits or goes faster with peace on the western border. Yet, his attempts at point 1 are inhibited by his image due to the 2002 riots in Pakistan and the implications of dithering from 2 which ensures his seat.

So what you have eventually with Pakistan is the overriding evidence that profit for Modi is greater from following 2 and ignoring point 3. Until the profit from point number 3 exceeds the risk to point number 2, you will continue to see hardline policies against Pakistan upto near war and the Indian public will swallow this hook line and Sinker because they dont know better(like most drones on social media and otherwise). In Pakistan Modi will continue to be painted as the next coming of Count Vlad because that is "trending" and hence everyone has to follow it. This public sentiment gets triggered by all those looking for their respective points 1,2,3 and so on.

So to the original question of whether Nehru was smarter than Modi I would say this. Nehru had his own 1,2 and 3 and in executing those 1,2 and 3 he was very effective in general. Modi so far has been effective with his 1 & 2 but we have yet to gauge 3 on a timeline beyond Gujrat. What will be the final benchmark will be whether the benefit to Modi of his 1,2 & 3 aligns with what was best for India 30 years down the line.

 

[MarkovChain]

There will be no war as long as India doesn't try this again:

It wasn't China, but Nehru who declared 1962 war - The Times of India

Well you pretty much answered the topic yourself! Nehru was an egghead who tested Mao in spite of having quite an untrained military force and zero intelligence forces. China had other strategic objectives in trying to humiliate Nikita Kruschev and invading India was most likely a by-product of these. I don't think China had intentions of trying to conquer Arunachal Pradesh etc - which is why they withdrew behind original borders. Any pressure from China w.r.t the NE is a mere mind game more than an intent of conquest.

Modi's approach is not very different than what you would expect China to take if India was in China's position.

Sooner or later, some Indian border guard is going to make an "innocent mistake" on the Sino-Indian border. And that will be enough.

Unlikely - nations are mature enough to realize that economic cost of war far exceeds the benefit of saying "hey I got one over you - hahahaha!". It's far more likely that diplomacy will rule over trolling when it comes to countries (rather than forum posters) dealing with one another.

 

[Vinod2070]

Xi Jinping strolled into India on one side, while the PLA strolled into India on the other side.

I'm sure you remember all the crying from India about the "Chinese incursion".

Do you know who the head of the PLA is? You guessed right, Xi Jinping. As the ultimate authority over the PLA, he was the only one who could have given that order, and Modi couldn't do anything except cry about it.

This seems to be opposite to the basic premise of your thread.

Why don't you decide?

Is it India's supposed forward policy 2.0 that is bothering you or are you saying that China is an irresponsible state engaging in double speak?

 

[asquare]

One has to look at what the BJP is to understand Modi. The BJP is the first Party in India which is based on capitalist ideals, or rather it is an odd sort of mirror to the republican party in the US. Religious, Capitalist and right wing. Just as with Pakistan and its establishment, there has been an "establishment" in India as well(although not in the strictest sense of the word as with Pakistan). This "establishment" or "think tank" within India has maintained its consistency of policies when it comes to foreign affairs with the world; in India's case that has been non-alignment in the strictest sense and a more looser connection with the Eastern bloc namely Russia. However, the BJP is a party that has now returned with major funding from MNCs in India. MNCs that look for business and support policies that support business. This then blends with its earlier right wing or religious basis to form what is as stated earlier, a more rabid yet more fluid mirror of the republican party.

lets come to Prime Minister Modi, to take Modi on the basis of just his development in Gujrat.. or his alleged role in the Gujrat Massacre is injustice to a proper analysis of the man. As I stated elsewhere, his beginning and his political history are an important clue to what he intends to due in the future. First and foremost he is a politician or rather a political businessman. His focus will be first to ensure that his "firm"(in this case his party and his seat) remains intact in the playfield. This means making sure that his core business or core product stays intact for the market; here it refers to his two main themes on which he has risen since he started out:

1. Concrete Development and Progress
2. Assertion of Hindu religious/cultural superiority over other Indians

This is the core product Modi has been told/adopted to sell. Now, what other ventures come after these?
3. Expansion of Relations and Business contacts for votebank and investors(donors) on an international front. This refers to international relations and if taken in analogy to Business means capital(diplomacy) to invest in a venture.

So now, we have 1 & 2 to get the Business into the market(which it has) and 3 being a greater expression of the "firm"/CEO.
When it comes to 3, the CEO/PM is focused and open to all avenues which includes existing and emerging markets, by existing we have Russia, Europe , Japan and emerging is the US,China and so on. Again, when I refer to "Business" I am not restricting myself to monetary interactions but those also on the diplomatic and tangible/intangible gains in international relations.

As I mentioned before, the CEO/PM may have ideas but these still need approval by the board and the shareholders. In this case the Board is the Party and the Shareholders are the campaign donors(and NOT exactly the many internet warriors here and the millions who voted to think they actually chose what happens to them). The Party has various leadership and power players who have their various interests and their own "visions". Some of these visions are tainted by a misplaced sense of religious supremacy while most other visions are based on what meets their versions of 1,2 & 3. These visions then influence their approval/disapproval/suggestions to the PM who then weighs the implications/effects/causes(etc) on his "Business" and his own seat. This goes onto what India does, vis-a-vis its actions via China or Pakistan or the United States.

When it comes to China, the CEO/PM views it from two angles(as with all markets): There is the monetary(business) gains and then there is the diplomatic/IR gains. For the former it is an existing(but still highly unexploited) market and the latter is an avenue that has both positive and negative potential. While investment has already been made in the former and continues to grow, the latter is still being debated in forms of "investment". Here the CEO/PM is now burdened down with his donors and their opinions along with that of his board; since they have been invested in by the Americans and their MNCs/Government. So the question then pops up whether the RoI of China will outweigh the current "income" and RoI from the Americans/West(Japan included). If it were up to Modi IMHO, he would like to reap the benefit from the Chinese on an equal footing but first reach a level where India and China are considered equal economic/military/diplomatic powers. At the same time, he wants to ensure that the West remains dependant on India for its various needs and more so wishes to see India replacing China for meeting the manufacturing needs of the west. That means that while on one side India wants to Profit from China, it also wants to steal its Business. Yet, there is also a realization that a potential settlement of the China-India dispute may allow the formation of a loose Eastern Bloc that may genuinely challenge the west for presence in the Asian subcontinent and essentially push them back; something that remain a closet dream of many of the mainland Asian leaders. However, here the "visions" of the board come in and the influence on them via their backers and ideals which at the moment seem to push the PM/CEO to focus his alliances with the west and in a rather odd change over the 68 years of Indian history.. tilt India towards the western "camp"(if ever so slightly). Moreover, while the PM seems to be resisting this; the "board" of India in contrast with the long term established thinking of the Indian think tank wishes to make India "dependant" on the west both in Business and the intangibles. This tilt has also started effecting the Indian think tank.. in other areas as well to which I will focus next.

Lets come to Pakistan. As a good friend and original implanter of this idea pointed out.. if anyone wants to know what the current stance or rather new "core" stance of the Pakistani establishment is.. one needs to look no further than Musharraf's various "sudden" press interactions in India following his step down in 2008. Whatever he said can essentially be interpreted as the Army/ISI/Certain Bureaucracy a.k.a "the establishment" speaking to the Indian government/Think Tank and people as to what they want in terms of future India/Pakistan relations. This initiative was reciprocated by the Indian side as well, despite 2008 and the LoC incidents these small interactions at the secretary level.. even lower kept going on slowly. It could be observed by those looking at the right places that while elements on both sides who still had their grudges bottled up kept shooting words and bullets at each other, the realists were quietly talking.. directly/indirectly.. even through gestures.
Come the rise of the BJP and its 2nd core ethos.. something suddenly changed. First, the Indian population which was not radicalised or rather "Rabid" in its stance in general towards Pakistan turned around to becoming almost downright bloodthirsty.. and then, the Indian "Think Tank".. which was moving towards rapprochement suddenly fell silent.. and now seems to be replaced by much more hawkish ideals. In it comes Modi, who is riding this wave. But then, we also forget that we are looking at a man who goes by 1 & 2. So for him, whilst he is being pushed by 2 he also has 1 on his mind; and point 1 benefits or goes faster with peace on the western border. Yet, his attempts at point 1 are inhibited by his image due to the 2002 riots in Pakistan and the implications of dithering from 2 which ensures his seat.

So what you have eventually with Pakistan is the overriding evidence that profit for Modi is greater from following 2 and ignoring point 3. Until the profit from point number 3 exceeds the risk to point number 2, you will continue to see hardline policies against Pakistan upto near war and the Indian public will swallow this hook line and Sinker because they dont know better(like most drones on social media and otherwise). In Pakistan Modi will continue to be painted as the next coming of Count Vlad because that is "trending" and hence everyone has to follow it. This public sentiment gets triggered by all those looking for their respective points 1,2,3 and so on.

So to the original question of whether Nehru was smarter than Modi I would say this. Nehru had his own 1,2 and 3 and in executing those 1,2 and 3 he was very effective in general. Modi so far has been effective with his 1 & 2 but we have yet to gauge 3 on a timeline beyond Gujrat. What will be the final benchmark will be whether the benefit to Modi of his 1,2 & 3 aligns with what was best for India 30 years down the line.

An American analogy to what you describe as Modi's second main theme, is the narrative of American exceptionalism, particularly moral superiority, that the American right is so dependent on. In Modi's/BJP's case, however, I don't think there is a deep rooted belief in Hindu exceptionalism, nor is there the propagation (at least overtly) of this belief.

What you describe as India's think tank, has in the past, been so far to the left that the BJP is positioned, in work by Indian writers and thinkers, as ultra-nationalist and ultra-conservative. The BJP, at best, would qualify as a centre- right party anywhere else in the world.

My interpretation of the BJP's history is a little different from yours (and very different from the BJP's own interpretation). The BJP evolved not so much as the ideological right but more as a collection of rag-tag elements who felt marginalised by Congress's monopoly on political power. In fact, almost all of the BJPs current political leadership emerged while fighting the emergency imposed by the Congress government in 1975-1977. In the past, many of today's socialist regional parties were identified with the BJP, united only on the basis of their anti-congressism. The BJP, in terms of it's psychology, is the perennial political upstart. To me, this is what lies behind their growth- their hunger for political success has meant that they are willing to work many times harder than the Congress to get into power and just as hard to stay in power. The BJP's two star Chief Ministers (other than Modi), Raman Singh and Shivraj Singh Chauhan are known for their centrist stand (far more acceptable to the left and to minorities than Modi). Their success is based on a clean, efficient image.

The BJP's own understanding of their history is that they were created on the basis of a shared ideology (hindu pride, decolonisation of the Indian mind etc). It suits them to believe this, it sounds nicer than saying the unifying force is anti-congressism/ hunger for political relevance. I believe the BJP lacks a unifying ideology and I am grateful for this fact.

 

[Vinod2070]

What you describe as India's think tank, has in the past, been so far to the left that the BJP is positioned, in work by Indian writers and thinkers, as ultra-nationalist and ultra-conservative. The BJP, at best, would qualify as a centre- right party anywhere else in the world.

This is the funny part. In India things have been distorted beyond proportions because of the so called "Nehruvian consensus" and the extreme left monopoly of the discourse in India.

Coupled with that the misuse of the mainstream media and the institutions by the Congress party to vilify the "Hindu nationalists" to an absurd degree. So what is perfectly normal anywhere else becomes abnormal and extreme right in India for some reason.

So you see the absurd situation where Modi was singled out for Visa ban in the USA!

One doesn't have to even mention where the real religious persecution is happening and which religious majority countries are the main culprits. Then you see the people from the most extremist and "minority friendly" (in that they have almost completely cleaned up their minorities and now turned on the non dominant sects) lecturing us on things like secularism and democracy and minority rights!