India as a major factor in "The Great Game"

[Ayush]

very nice thread @third eye . are there more parts??

 

[Umair Nawaz]

A history on the history of rivalry between the Russian and British empires for dominance in Asia in the nineteenth - early twentieth century, which has been called "The Great Game."

In the second half of the XIX century, India occupied the center stage in the geopolitics of two great empires - the Russian and the British. It was around India that a kaleidoscope of events unfolded, from large-scale wars in Central Asia to the secret exploratory raids of the Russian and British intelligence services. And these things went on for half a century in the vast expanses of Asia from Persia to Tibet. In London, this was called the "Great Game." In St. Petersburg, the "Tournament of Shadows".

For the British, India was the most important part of their empire. Indeed, it was precisely because of India that Britain became an empire. Beginning in 1876 Queen Victoria officially assumed the title “Her Majesty Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of India”.

The value of India as a colony of Britain was determined, above all, by the wealth of its natural resources, turning the Asian country into a source of financial flows needed for the industrialization of the cities and the welfare of the subjects of the British Crown. In addition, India was an unlimited market for British goods, especially textiles. Not to mention the fact that it was a strategic base for further advancement into Asia.

In his work "India as a major factor in the Central Asia issue", Andrei Snesarev, the brilliant Russian spy and scientist, whom contemporaries call the greatest geopolitician at the turn of XX century, describes the facts of historical analysis. After the conquest of India, which began victory at Plassey in 1757, when Colonel Robert Clive defeated troops of the Nawab of Bengal, "wealth flowed from India to England."

"Up to this moment” - notes Snesarev – “England was a poor country, without working capital, with a primitive industry, with small towns, buried in the mud and dimly lit by oil lamps. England was not only inferior to many European countries, such as France, the Netherlands in wealth and industry, it was certainly inferior to India itself .... The industrial revolution that took place in England in the middle of the XVIII century, thanks to the influx of goods from India, clearly demonstrates the extent to which England owes its revival in the distant past to India. The well-being of England after the 1760s also, albeit more covertly, was fed and is being fed mostly by the same India "

The British themselves were well aware of the value of their colony in India, giving it the exalted epithet "Jewel in the Crown". It is not surprising that any threat to India, hypothetical or real, by outside powers would inevitably become a nightmare for the British establishment. And the protection of the Indian subcontinent from the potential aggressor acquired the character of an obsession in the minds of the elite of British empire.

Therefore, the advances of Russia in Central Asia were a cause of great concern for the British.

"The UK is watching with great jealousy and apprehension, not only the advance of Russia from Black Sea to Turkey and the Mediterranean,” - wrote in 1869 the American newspaper The New York Times, - “but also similar actions by Russia along the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea deep into Turkestan towards Bukhara, considering the regions in terms of the threat of approaches to the north-western borders of its Indian Empire. That is why the Hindu Kush line, the great natural boundary on this border, is being so carefully guarded "

India, being the most important part of the British Empire, was at the same time the most vulnerable, says Tatiana Zagorodnikova, a leading researcher at the Centre of Indian Studies, Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences:

“Russia was full of all sorts of contradictions with the British everywhere, in Turkey and in the Far East. But for some reason, these contradictions were not called the Great Game. This term was limited to events in Central Asia. After all, it is through the deserts and steppes, through the mountain passes that you could reach out to the British domain in South Asia. In addition, this bogey of "Russian threat" to India was very beneficial to certain circles in London and Calcutta. This allowed them to receive huge sums for defence, for arms, for troops. "

Documents stored in the Russian archives, show that up to the middle of the XIX century the Russian imperial strategists virtually ignored the Indian line right until the Crimean War. All criticism of Britain in the elite circles of the Russian nobility was limited to Russia’s resentment over London’s support for the Turkish sultan or intrigue in Tehran at the expense of Russia.

But the campaign of 1853-56, when a coalition of Britain, France and Turkey invaded Russia, changed the situation dramatically. In the early 1880s, Russian Foreign Minister Nikolay Gears admitted in an interview with the Russian ambassador in London Arthur Mohrenheim: "The Crimean War marked a decisive change in our relations with England." Russia was forced to seek a foreign policy weapon against London.

In 1863 Count Nikolai Ignatiev, Director of the Asiatic Department of Russia’s Foreign Ministry and one of the grand masters of the "Great Game", wrote:

"In case of a break in relations with England, Russia will find itself in a painful situation because the main thing that we are doomed to is passive defence, we must immediately put our troops on a war footing, and arm all the fortified coastal settlements, spend millions even before the war, and our maritime trade can be destroyed immediately without considerable effort. The British have a full opportunity to threaten us all along our shores, harass us with impunity and finally choose any weak point for a decisive attack "

Already in 1854, the Russian military strategists began to develop plans to attack the British position in India through Central Asia. The great Indian mutiny of 1857 helped to adjust the strategy of the offensive. Now the Russian General Staff began to consider a possible invasion of India not just as a diversion to distract the British forces and means from the European theater, but as a catalyst for domestic social explosion aimed at the liberation of India from the colonizers and the destruction of the British Empire.

1857 is considered the official date of the beginning of the "Great Game." Russia began a systematic advance to the south, including in the Central Asian states of the empire. And England began to build defences on the outer reaches of India, drawing into its orbit of influence, by power or by cunning, the rulers of Afghanistan, the Pamir and the Himalayan kingdoms. And infesting the Central Asian khanates with agents whose mission included, among other things, inciting the khans, emirs and lords to war with Russia.

U do realize there is a book written by yr first FM in 50s called 'the great game'?

 

[illusion8]

HaHa, Spring Chicken is only providing the usual Pavlovian "knee-jerk reaction", just not worth a second glance.
The issue is that there cannot be a replay of the "Great Game" that History has recorded. Instead there will be many "Small Games" that will get played out in the region. The earlier Game was an entirely Imperial one. The ones in the future while seemingly Imperial in nature will be more Cultural in character. And it will continue in that fashion. This Cultural thingy will be predicated mainly on Sectarian considerations with Economic overtones upto a certain point. But it will be an area of untramelled turmoil even into the future. All the players will concentrate on creating "fire-walls" while raking up the embers now and again.

@Capt.Popeye,

Nice summation, spring onion as per me is just a novice (though old by years) journalist like the usual one so no considerations for her. What we need to explore is what the actual great game is and who are it's primary players. Muslim (shariah followers) will find it's primacy in the coming decade and it's chief opponents will be the west and Russia and China and possibly India. India will find itself placed at some crucial juncture at any table but it will have lost it's luster because of it's (useless) leaders. The coming decade is (if one agrees or not - is crucial for the world - one way or the other) what will set the tone for the future generations.

 

[Srinivas]

The Game depends on strategic interests and Historic opportunities, India is quietly expanding its influence in central Asia. India eye Central Asian republics as trade partners, reason why Chahabar port is given much importance.

First Afghanistan plays an important role in expanding trade routes to resource rich central Asia.

Secondly India has good relations with USSR now former soviet countries, India is a trading partner then and now India is again looking to continue the relations with them.

Third, Russia on its own cannot negate the influence of China on its former USSR countries neither it can loose its influence on them to china. So it turned towards its old friend India to close the gaps and negate Chinese influence to some extent.

Fourth Indian presence in Afghanistan is crucial to negate any Pakistani adventures on India. The presence of India is a precautionary step to negate any adventures from its rival.

India is much different now than in 80's or 70's, the trade benefits and strategic interests out weigh any risks in Central Asia. We cannot afford to loose this opportunity to make this situation advantageous to us.

Each player phrase has India nowhere near.

Indeed weak alliances are worst.

Russia is standing alone. Lost all clout.

 

[third eye]

very nice thread @third eye . are there more parts??

Have you read this ?

https://defence.pk/threads/the-great-game.285332/#post-4905914

 

[Ayush]

Have you read this ?

https://defence.pk/threads/the-great-game.285332/#post-4905914

nope,gonna read it now.

 

[Spring Onion]

The Game depends on strategic interests and Historic opportunities, India is quietly expanding its influence in central Asia. India eye Central Asian republics as trade partners, reason why Chahabar port is given much importance.

First Afghanistan plays an important role in expanding trade routes to resource rich central Asia.

Secondly India has good relations with USSR now former soviet countries, India is a trading partner then and now India is again looking to continue the relations with them.

Third, Russia on its own cannot negate the influence of China on its former USSR countries neither it can loose its influence on them to china. So it turned towards its old friend India to close the gaps and negate Chinese influence to some extent.

Fourth Indian presence in Afghanistan is crucial to negate any Pakistani adventures on India. The presence of India is a precautionary step to negate any adventures from its rival.

India is much different now than in 80's or 70's, the trade benefits and strategic interests out weigh any risks in Central Asia. We cannot afford to loose this opportunity to make this situation advantageous to us.

1. Historically India was a target not player as mentioned in the history posted by third eye.

2. In the 70s and 80s India had greater influence than today. Russia was strong and could have handled Afghanistan situation along with India even merely an ally provided Cold war wasn't that hot.

3. Today cold war has gone almost. Russia has gone weaker viz a viz any significant block wrg to this region.

4. You talked about Russian fear viz a viz Chinese influence, whereas many analysts see Russia might extend hand to China for help in this area. So no reason for Russia to take on China. One China is inn , India is out.

5. India is trading power however, it can not just fly over to CARs. You need strong support when Russia is itself weaker at the point it cant provide you any help.

6. NATO/US talked much about supply routes through Russia etc etc giving you solace but nothing significant happened . They still need us THE PAKISTAN to route out .
7. US/Afghanistan still needs Pakistan even for negotiations so you can not just negate Pakistan's influence (ANYWAY subject of my discussion was NOT Pakistan here but since your main theme is this hence I also mentioned).

8. Indians also trying to bank on Iran once again, however, with changing environment either India have to irk US to go all out or will keep a low in both the cases an all out India-Iran grouping wont be that strong.

9. Read out all these parts posted by third eye ; all these point to phrases "WAS, "Were" even then India was NOT a player now its want to be a player but for that a lot of overhaul needed.

lastly there could be China, Iran, Pakistan block as well and China, Iran, Russia, block as well. But again too many bold and risky decisions for these will be needed.

 

[Chronos]

1. Historically India was a target not player as mentioned in the history posted by third eye.

2. In the 70s and 80s India had greater influence than today. Russia was strong and could have handled Afghanistan situation along with India even merely an ally provided Cold war wasn't that hot.

3. Today cold war has gone almost. Russia has gone weaker viz a viz any significant block wrg to this region.

4. You talked about Russian fear viz a viz Chinese influence, whereas many analysts see Russia might extend hand to China for help in this area. So no reason for Russia to take on China. One China is inn , India is out.

5. India is trading power however, it can not just fly over to CARs. You need strong support when Russia is itself weaker at the point it cant provide you any help.

6. NATO/US talked much about supply routes through Russia etc etc giving you solace but nothing significant happened . They still need us THE PAKISTAN to route out .
7. US/Afghanistan still needs Pakistan even for negotiations so you can not just negate Pakistan's influence (ANYWAY subject of my discussion was NOT Pakistan here but since your main theme is this hence I also mentioned).

8. Indians also trying to bank on Iran once again, however, with changing environment either India have to irk US to go all out or will keep a low in both the cases an all out India-Iran grouping wont be that strong.

9. Read out all these parts posted by third eye ; all these point to phrases "WAS, "Were" even then India was NOT a player now its want to be a player but for that a lot of overhaul needed.

lastly there could be China, Iran, Pakistan block as well and China, Iran, Russia, block as well. But again too many bold and risky decisions for these will be needed.

You are overestimating the influence Pakistan has on the U.S.

 

[Spring Onion]

You are overestimating the influence Pakistan has on the U.S.

Its not about influence or over estimation its about compulsions. Whether you hate Pakistan or like us, the fact remains that we are a bridge. So if you want to use the bridge or destroy it the consequences that too difficult ones are there for every player.

 

[Chronos]

Its not about influence or over estimation its about compulsions. Whether you hate Pakistan or like us, the fact remains that we are a bridge. So if you want to use the bridge or destroy it the consequences that too difficult ones are there for every player.

The new small game crux is of course the issue of supply lines. Pakistan and Afghanistan are in a sense nerve centers of that. In terms of negotation power, America holds a lot more power than Pakistan do.

India has less stake in the game but more gain to from this to feed their own economic needs.

Indian concern would be of looking after future resource acquisitions and contain the contagion that Pakistan has.

Pakistan has a fantastic job of self immolation, no need for Indians to stick their nose in.

 

[Spring Onion]

The new small game crux is of course the issue of supply lines. Pakistan and Afghanistan are in a sense nerve centers of that. In terms of negotation power, America holds a lot more power than Pakistan do.

India has less stake in the game but more gain to from this to feed their own economic needs.

Indian concern would be of looking after future resource acquisitions and contain the contagion that Pakistan has.

Pakistan has a fantastic job of self immolation, no need for Indians to stick their nose in.

Indeed US has more powers ))) and the same prevents Russia and Co .

As far as what future holds for Pakistan lets wait and see.

 

[Srinivas]

I reply to this post soon

Russian Indian strategic interests converge very well than Russian and Chinese interests. Historically speaking India never ventured out except in Raja Raja chola period where these guys conquered South East Asian regions.One of the reasons is India is self sufficient and no need to look for resources so no need to venture out. But todays scenario is different.

When compared to China, Russia is more comfortable partnering India since India is a distant friend with no territory disputes unlike china. It may appear Russians and Chinese are against USA though.

1. Historically India was a target not player as mentioned in the history posted by third eye.

2. In the 70s and 80s India had greater influence than today. Russia was strong and could have handled Afghanistan situation along with India even merely an ally provided Cold war wasn't that hot.

3. Today cold war has gone almost. Russia has gone weaker viz a viz any significant block wrg to this region.

4. You talked about Russian fear viz a viz Chinese influence, whereas many analysts see Russia might extend hand to China for help in this area. So no reason for Russia to take on China. One China is inn , India is out.

5. India is trading power however, it can not just fly over to CARs. You need strong support when Russia is itself weaker at the point it cant provide you any help.

6. NATO/US talked much about supply routes through Russia etc etc giving you solace but nothing significant happened . They still need us THE PAKISTAN to route out .
7. US/Afghanistan still needs Pakistan even for negotiations so you can not just negate Pakistan's influence (ANYWAY subject of my discussion was NOT Pakistan here but since your main theme is this hence I also mentioned).

8. Indians also trying to bank on Iran once again, however, with changing environment either India have to irk US to go all out or will keep a low in both the cases an all out India-Iran grouping wont be that strong.

9. Read out all these parts posted by third eye ; all these point to phrases "WAS, "Were" even then India was NOT a player now its want to be a player but for that a lot of overhaul needed.

lastly there could be China, Iran, Pakistan block as well and China, Iran, Russia, block as well. But again too many bold and risky decisions for these will be needed.

 

[Spring Onion]

I reply to this post soon

Russian Indian strategic interests converge very well than Russian and Chinese interests. Historically speaking India never ventured out except in Raja Raja chola period where these guys conquered South East Asian regions.One of the reasons is India is self sufficient and no need to look for resources so no need to venture out. But todays scenario is different.

When compared to China, Russia is more comfortable partnering India since India is a distant friend with no territory disputes unlike china. It may appear Russians and Chinese are against USA though.

Russia-India equation brings US in the picture again.

 

[Srinivas]

Russia-India equation brings US in the picture again.

This is not cold war era dude, nobody is entirely against each other, Russia do not mean anti USA. International relations and diplomacy are complicated because of sole superpower, this world is not polarized anymore. Countries do work together on strategic interests that includes USA and Russia.

 

[Spring Onion]

This is not cold war era dude, nobody is entirely against each other, Russia do not mean anti USA. International relations and diplomacy are complicated because of sole superpower, this world is not polarized anymore. Countries do work together on strategic interests that includes USA and Russia.

dude who is talking about cold war in the first place.

USA protecting its interests doesn't mean its anti-Russia either.