Lethargic  and  Self-Absorbed Presidency of India at a Time of Political Paralysis

Indian Presidency, headed by Mrs. Pratibha Patil since July 2007, has been scarred by unpalatable developments, which have been caused by the presidential personality of Mrs. Patil. Her detractors have disparaged her functioning, referring to her Presidency as unpleasantly indifferent and self-centered. The presidential post of this land, epitomized by august ceremonialism, has been occupied historically by esteemed personalities such as S Radhakrishnan, Rajendra Prasad, RK Narayanan, Abdul Kalam, etc. each of whom brought majesty, integrity, intellect, selflessness and impeccability to this position. Lamentably, Pratibha Patil, whose candidature for the Presidency was presented unexpectedly by the UPA in 2007, has gifted the nation a Presidency symbolized by unseemly ethics and displeasing controversies. The general observers of political news in India have been infuriated by the unwholesome controversies encircling Mrs. Patil’s Presidency.

What has added to the popular fury towards her Presidency is the sturdy perception that she is an INC loyalist, who has docilely served her political party by being in the Presidency. From here stems the proposition that she has politicized the Presidency condemnably. Her docility and inaction on momentous national issues such as the execution of the convicted terrorist, Afzal Guru, have invited popular opprobrium. Her Presidency has offered a paucity of constructiveness to the nation and to the central government. The national government has never been reprimanded by her despite the reprehensible inefficiency and wretched incoherence that the current Indian government has represented. Probably, a more hands-on, enthusiastic, inventive and knowledgeable President will have proposed certain recommendations to revivify the sagging national morale and to instill dynamism in the popular mindset.  A President, more interested in India’s development, will have suggested concrete ways to energize the national growth. Productive criticisms of the paralyzed UPA government may have been put forth by a politically unprejudiced President, which President Patil has not been.

The infuriation and helplessness being experienced by the national populace, due to the ineffectualness, waywardness and inconsiderateness of the national administration, has been aggravated by a highly uninspiring and insipid Presidency that has been linked to revolting monetary profligacy. Corruption in the incumbent Indian government has been manifested by the whopping 2G scam, the dishonorable CWG scam, the unbecoming ISRO-Devas scam, the injudicious selection of the CVC (involving the selection of the civil servant, PJ Thomas, against whom there is a case of corruption in the Kerala judiciary linked to the Palmolein import scam), etc. The national temperament is in depression and wrath because of these odious scams. In the implementation of the wide-ranging NREGA, the existence of bribery, filching of money meant for the poor rural people and the general unproductiveness has added to the popular rage against New Delhi. A more approachable, visionary and affable President, à la Abdul Kalam from 2002-2007, may have been able to elevate the current despondent national mood into a mood of hopefulness. But Pratibha Patil, with her perceived political partisanship, has only exacerbated the popular dissatisfaction, especially with the political establishment.

President Patil’s overseas voyages have, as per her, amplified the diplomatic strength of India internationally. But her foreign jaunts have, nonetheless, occurred by using taxpayers’ cash. Nearly Rs. 200-210 crores of taxpayers’ money have been utilized to enable her presidential visits abroad. Her overseas journeys as India’s President have been an immense affair as her familial members have accompanied her too. She has visited 22 overseas nations spanning 4 continents. Her opponents have accused her of expanding the expenditures of these foreign trips by increasing her entourage for these travels by including relatives. The President’s son, Rajendra Shekhawat, who is the INC MLA from Amravati, seemingly exploited his standing as the President’s son to obtain 532 sq m of NCC land. The land was attained by him allegedly for a college managed by the Vidya Bharati Education Society (VBES), a philanthropic foundation. The land, of the value of Rs. 1.50 crores, was bought by him when he was the VBES’s chairman. In June 2007, President Patil’s brother, GN Patil, had been accused of assassinating Vishram Patil, a Congressman of Jalgaon. The accusation was placed on the President’s brother by Rajni Patil, a professor at a Jalgaon college, who was the wife of the murdered Vishram Patil. Rajni Patil alleged that Pratibha Patil had safeguarded her brother reprehensibly. In June 2007, it surfaced that a female cooperative bank, established by Pratibha Patil in 1973, had become penniless as a consequence of loan waivers offered to Pratibha Patil’s kith and kin. The RBI had presented a closure notification in 2003 due to the bank’s bankruptcy.

Also, in June 2007, a month prior to her election as India’s head of state, another discomforting piece of news pertaining to her was divulged. It was disclosed that a sugar cooperative, of which Pratibha Patil had been the directress and chairwoman, had defaulted with bank loans equaling Rs. 17.3 crores. Her control of the sugar cooperative lasted till she was provided with the Governorship of Rajasthan in 2004. In April 2007, the INC-NCP government in Maharashtra had leased 25000 sq feet of valuable land in Amravati to Pratibha Patil’s husband’s education foundation. The state government had consented to construct a sports complex on that land using Rs. 36 lakhs from Pratibha Patil’s MPLADS fund. This fund was obtained by her in 1996 when she was a Lok Sabha MP from Amravati. The usage of Rs. 36 lakhs from her MPLADS fund for her spousal education foundation was in opposition to the regulations for distribution of MPLADS fund.

But the controversy that stung her more massively was related to her post-retirement home in Pune. Some weeks back, an RTI divulgement had brought to light that Pratibha Patil had been allocated defense land in Pune to erect a bungalow for her. The extent of this land was six times bigger than she is entitled for. She had been accused by certain ex-military personnel of stealing land, meant for housing soldiers and war widows, in order to construct a copious bungalow in Pune. She was accused subsequently of exhibiting callousness for the Indian soldiers and their legitimate interests.  The fact that land, which was supposed to accommodate soldiers living in cramped homes, was being used to build a gigantic bungalow for the President, generated sizable contempt for the Presidency in the minds of the citizenry.  Certain military personnel have blamed her for her dearth of genuine interest in military affairs considering she is the Supreme Commander of the Indian armed forces.

The unbecoming and listless tenure of Pratibha Patil as President has also brought the stately post of President into the realm of popular suspicion. As it is, the political establishment in India is at the nadir as regards respect from the national citizenry.- May 30, 2012.

 Futility of Indo-Pak Talks

Recent discussions between the Indo-Pak Foreign Secretaries (FS), Ranjan Mathai and Jalil Jilani respectively, have concluded expectedly, with no meaningful and trustworthy pledges from Pakistan to raze the anti-Indian Islamist terrorist infrastructure on Pakistani soil. Some days before the commencement of Indo-Pak FS talks, bloodcurdling divulgements from the detained terrorist, Abu Jundal, emerged in the public domain, which infuriated the Indian public. Abu Jundal, with many aliases, confessed, under the custody of the Indian investigative officers, that there was meaningful Pakistani State support for the monstrous terrorist atrocity in Mumbai in November 2008 (26/11).

Jundal was detained by Indian law enforcement officials after being under surveillance for months, as asserted by the Indian Home Minister, P Chidambaram. Jundal was nabbed by India also due to valuable cooperation between the Indian and Saudi espionage/security departments, with helpful interventions from the U.S. at times. Abu Jundal was one of the handlers of the Pakistani terrorists during 26/11. Jundal, an Indian national, was intimately ensconced in the plotting and execution of the ‘26/11 terrorist barbarities.’ Jundal has also admitted his presence in the notorious ‘Control Room’ in Karachi, which was installed by the ISI elements to guide the terrorist carnage in Mumbai. Significant ISI officers, Major Sameer Ali and Colonel Hamza, have been declared by Jundal as facilitators of the bloodletting during 26/11.

These macabre disclosures by Jundal were not wholly shocking as the Indian government had sturdily believed, even before Jundal’s wings were clipped, whatever Jundal has disclosed now. Nevertheless, New Delhi embraced considerable riskiness by permitting the scheduled FS talks to go ahead. India should, however, have responded in a diplomatically muscular fashion by deferring the FS talks indefinitely. An unswervingly nationalistic message should have been dispatched by the Indian Government to Pakistan by cancelling the recent FS meeting. New Delhi ought to have demonstrated meaningful solidarity with the casualties of the murderous Pakistani terrorism in Mumbai on 26/11. A fashion of demonstrating strong solidarity with the victims was postponing the FS discussions till Pakistan provides India with deep-rooted actions that Pakistan has adopted to paralyze the ‘potent 26/11 conspirators in influential positions in the Pakistani State.’

Pakistan has, unfailingly, refrained from rendering legitimacy to the bountiful reliable evidence that India has deposited in Pakistan pertaining to the Pakistani State’s participation in the ‘26/11 mayhem.’ Pakistan has dismissed the Indian Government’s mountainous corroboration vis-à-vis the connection of the Pakistani State’s protagonists to 26/11. Negligible validity has been attached by Pakistan to the Indian State’s voluminous evidentiary documents expressing the Pakistani State’s complicity in the dastardliness of 26/11.

Members of the Pakistani military and espionage departments connived with the Pakistani Islamist terrorists [Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT)] to train, indoctrinate, arm and subsidize the terrorists, who eventually arrived in Mumbai to accomplish their ghoulish mission.  Abu Jundal was the prime Indian support for the evil agenda of the Pakistani plotters/perpetrators of 26/11 as Jundal provided the Pakistani terrorists in Mumbai with useful information about Southern Mumbai’s localities.

Pakistan has unwaveringly pronounced that India needs to demonstrate more ‘concrete proof’ about the Pakistani State’s relation to the ‘26/11 bloodbaths.’ Simultaneously, Pakistan has showered commendations upon the ISI and has refused to acknowledge the Pakistani State’s clandestine endorsement of 26/11. The ISI/ Pakistani military have already been labeled by Islamabad as uncontaminated and guiltless as regards the ‘gore of 26/11.’ The perilously ultraconservative Islamists like Hafeez Saeed, against whom the Indian State has delivered copious proof regarding his involvement in the planning and implementation of 26/11, has been proclaimed by Islamabad as a person with impeccable social welfare credentials, due to his association with Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD). JuD is an organization that functions as the ‘charitable division’ of LeT, which has been designated as a worldwide terrorist association. Hafeez Saeed was a central player in LeT’s foundation to cause terrorism in Indian J&K and to wrest J&K from India. Pakistan has voiced that the substantial Indian evidence against Hafeez Saeed is ‘inadequate’ and ‘inadmissible’ in the Pakistani judiciary.

The relevant question pertains to the Indo-Pak dialogues’ usefulness. Pakistan has executed highly insufficient steps to undercut the anti-Indian Islamist terror factories in Pakistan. A few Pakistanis like Zaki-ur-Rehmaan Lakhvi, who are under the Pakistani State’s detention for their involvement in 26/11, have not been convicted yet. It is unsurprising that certain reports have emanated in the Indian media, which assert that these detained Pakistanis are experiencing a comfortable existence in the jail, from where they are running their terrorist factories. The trial of these few detained Pakistanis has been relentlessly adjourned. The Pakistani State has disingenuously rejected the Indian State’s copious evidence against elements of the ISI/ the Pakistani military/Hafeez Saeed. However, Pakistan continues to maintain the detention of the few aforesaid Pakistanis, without taking the trial of these Pakistanis to a logical conclusion that gives some justice to 26/11’s Indian and foreign victims.

Hafeez Saeed continues to utter despicably inflammatory statements vis-à-vis India in Pakistani cities during political rallies. His aides have attended certain gatherings organized by Imraan Khan’s political party, Tehreek-e-Insaaf. Saeed seems to be strengthening his political base in Pakistan, which essentially means that his deportation to India by Pakistan is improbable akin to Dawood Ibrahim’s deportation. The incumbent Pakistani Government, bedeviled by resilient corruption allegations against the Pakistani President, Asif Zardari, has also had to face the Pakistani judicial fury over inaction against those corruption allegations. This has resulted in the Pakistani SC convicting the preceding PM Yousuf Gilani for ‘contempt of court’, which created his departure from the Prime Ministership. If Imraan Khan’s fairly conservative political party, which is backed by orthodox clerical elements bitterly opposed to the Western military presence in Afghanistan, wins power in the national election next year, then the relations between Pakistan and India/U.S. are certainly going to sour. Imraan is epitomized by his advocacy of talks with the Talibani terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He desires the disengagement of Western troops from Afghani soil and blames the West, not the Talibani barbarism, for destabilizing Afghanistan. Imraan and his conservative alliance detest strong Pakistani-U.S. cooperation on the ‘war against terror.’ Imraan and his orthodox political partners haven’t voiced anything yet against the savagery of the anti-Indian terrorist groups in Pakistan.  He may never unequivocally condemn them and, if he becomes the PM, may never initiate actions that break these terrorist outfits’ backbone.

Indian military has presented evidence, which points to the existence of anti-Indian Islamist terror centers in PoK, Muridke, etc. in Pakistan.  While Pakistan may sporadically exterminate certain anti-Western Islamist fanatics, it will never act decisively against the Islamist terrorists venomously opposed to India. Indo-Pak disagreements have been over demilitarization of Siachen, over Sir Creek, etc. Regarding J&K, the solution of converting the LoC into an international border, which satisfies India, is never going to satiate Pakistan, which desires to control J&K. There is a massive deficit of trust between India and Pakistan. The Indo-Pak visa regime’s liberalization will represent a potent security threat to India as some Pakistani terrorists, amidst the peaceful Pakistanis, could enter India through this visa regime to create a bloodbath in the Indian public spots.

Indo-Pak talks are destined to be worthless. By talking to Pakistan when Pakistan continues to house lethal anti-Indian terrorist forces, India is, in a way, giving Pakistan a good certificate, which is against Indian interests. Certain members of the ruling PPP may genuinely want peace with India but the PPP government has to dismantle the terrorist forces antithetical to India. Unless that happens, talks have to be postponed indefinitely.- July 9, 2012.

Me And Hinduism

Hinduism is a religious community that is numerically copious and that has its heart located in the chunky Indian nation in southern Asia.  I penetrated our planet as a constituent of the Hindu religion. I profess that there is muscular admiration and robust fascination in me for this faith and for the multitudinous divinities that epitomize this faith. The theological majesty and spiritual opulence of Hinduism have definitely mesmerized me in different degrees and have positioned me in a condition of captivation towards them. The sacred books such as the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita and many others provide this religion with its seductively cerebral foundations. The copiousness of the duration of the survival of these pious treatises illustrates their brawny attachment to the psychology and mentality of the Indian State. Indubitably, there have been rapacious molestations of the cerebrum and of the anatomy of the Indian motherland that have been perpetrated by foreign religious forces that were symbolized by their behavioural toxicity towards the Hinduness of the Indian civilization and towards the kingly achievements procreated by this Hinduness.













The gorgeousness of the aforesaid consecrated Hindu treatises is that their applicableness is not confined to the Hindus alone. Sage standpoints are enshrined in the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, etc., which offer suggestions to the individual humans as regards apt and judicious fashions of administering and directing any human life. The advices of these visionary Hindu tomes are not exclusivist but they are characterized endearingly and praiseworthily by inclusivity. Any of these books hasn’t been awarded the most paramount position in the Hindu scriptural hierarchy, which is at the heart of their ceaseless survivability through millennia.








Christian and Crescentic sacred books are defined, at times, by their vile inferences linking foreign religions to heathenism or incivility or unenlightenment or primitivism. The connotation, displeasingly and bigotedly, in certain pages of these books is that these uncouth foreign religions have to be Muslimized or Christianized with muscularity if necessary.













One will struggle to attribute holistically or coherently or connectedly the same sinful intolerance to the Hindu texts such as the Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas and even to monumental Hindu epics like the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. These Hindu/Indian treatises proffer an opulence of majestic and priceless information about civilization, traditions, life, human emotions, mortal faultiness, human goals, human/ national/behavioral battles, etc. These tomes forewarn humankind about the corrupting inanimate seductresses, against whom humankind will have to grapple victoriously at different moments, in order to maintain prosperity, orderliness and respectability in the humankind’s functioning. Sagacious manners of dealing with these intrinsic (and external) behavioral debasers are provided in these tomes in such an absorbing way that most determined readers will find these tomes remarkable. Each of these Hindu books reflects the epoch in which it was inscribed and an open-mindedly discernible mind will find it troublesome to attach any kind of systematic intolerance to the agendum of these Hindu treatises.







My respect for Hinduism is unordinary probably as I have never really felt any attachment to the Brahmanic strand of Hinduism or to the ‘specialty of the purity’ of this strand. I never will. I subscribe impassionedly to the concept of Hinduism being unstratified socially. I regard it as pitiful that certain segments of the Hindu populace adopt a dissolutely stratified attitude in relation to their views on the Hindu social order. Such social stratification in relation to the outlook on Hindu society, prevalent in some ignorant Hindu minds, is a big disservice to the splendor of Hinduism. I will strive, in my own fashion, to promote the delegitimization of the attitude of Hindu social stratification, which exists in some soiled Hindu minds. My cherished mission is to see comprehensive Hindu unity in India, which covers politics, culture and social order. This goal of unity cannot afford senseless, pejorative and preposterous social hierarchies in Hindu society, which only assist the internal and external foes of Hinduism. However, I must state that organizations such as the RSS, its sister institutions, the World Hindu Council, etc. are rendering enlightening, patriotic and pertinent service to the cause of Hindu oneness and Hindu social delayering. The creditable service supplied by these Hindu nationalistic organizations encourages rightly the celebration of the Hindu linguistic and divine diversity. However, simultaneously, the undertaking of effecting interlingual Hindu political unification on seminal national issues is also being carried out painstakingly by these organizations. I give them fair credit for that.  






Also, the Gods and Goddesses of Hinduism represent sundry stories, lives and messages that have ample relevance for humankind today.  The multifarious stories of Hindu deities thrill me to a beefy extent and are so pertinent in the modern world. Their pertinence will always remain.











Thus, while I will unendingly venerate and propagate the mammoth knowledgeableness and visionariness of the Hindu faith, its epics, its books, its scriptures, etc, I will never be able to associate myself with the Brahmanic stream of Hinduism, from which I am as detached as snowiness is from Mumbai in May. I have regarded Brahmanic preeminence in ritualistic Hinduism as a concept that wholly asphyxiates and mars the vast intellectual extraordinariness of Hinduism. Brahmanic absolute supremacy should be a concept that should be guided to the path of vaporization by the Hindu society itself. The theological, cerebral and scriptural richness of Hinduism can survive even in the absence of outright Brahmanic ascendancy. My take on Hinduism here may be weird for some but my take is what it is. Obviously, every religion undergoes modification at different stages in its evolution. There is no harm, as per me, in divesting from the Brahmanic strand its unmolested primacy wherever it exists in the Hindu society. The operative word is ‘unmolested’ or ‘outright’ or ‘preeminence’ or ‘ascendancy’ or ‘supremacy’ or ‘primacy.’ Brahmanic presence can be at the same social level as that of other communities.







Nevertheless, there are admirable transformations being effected by several reformist and pragmatic Hindu groups in this front to equalize the social lane of Hinduism. I felicitate the Sangh Parivar for their constructive work in this realm that has attempted to instill awareness of the veritable Hinduism into the minds of the numerous Hindus, who have been compelled to swerve from Hinduism as a consequence of being bombarded unrelentingly by malignant mischaracterizations of Hinduism from the mass media. Adjustments of some Hindu theological foundations should be carried out pragmatically if these adjustments are indispensable to the cause of Hindu political solidification and Hindu interlingual merger in India for nationalistic purposes.











On a more lighthearted note, another Hindu issue, which appeals to me immensely, is the issue of Hindu interlingual matrimony. The idea of a Rajasthani Hindu male wedding a Malayalam Hindu female seems such an enticing one. Of course, the Rajasthani man needs to be in a condition of romance for the Malayalam female and vice versa. I visualize that it would be idyllic socially if interlingual matrimonies were run-of-the-mill affairs in India. But there is pitiable resistance in some Hindu quarters to the thought of interlingual/intercaste marriages between Hindus. This is a profoundly despondent reality and is one that could be simply detrimental to the extraordinary status of Hinduism in the Indian soul. Let me make it unambiguous. Thankfully, interlingual weddings between the Hindu ladies and Hindu gentlemen are increasing numerically. This has been a steady trend over the last 20 years. One doesn’t need statistical mountains to stress this reality. It is self-evident. But we need to reach a point where interlingual nuptial ceremonies between Hindus are par for the course. We haven’t reached that stage yet. Hinduism will eventually. This concept of interlingual Hindu marital ceremonies needs to be disseminated throughout those realms of Hindu society where there is condemnable bulldozing, even now, of the idea of Hindu interlingual matrimonies. Even now, lamentably, there are Hindu parents, who hesitate to wed their daughters and sons to Hindus of another language. Isn’t this inexcusably senseless?








There are Hindu parents, who are unnerved on realizing that their daughter or son is in a romantic state for a Hindu of another linguistic community. For example, there would be some Hindu parents in Gujarat, who would baulk at the idea of making their son marry a Hindu Telugu female. The hesitation would be not because of the personality of the girl, which may be delightful, but because of her Teluguness. Similarly, Tamil parents may worry on comprehending that their daughter has been smitten by a Punjabi Hindu male. The Punjabi boy may be a topaz as regards personality i.e. he may be a pleasant and responsible man. His parents may be immensely lovable. The Tamil girl and the Punjabi boy may have steady compatibility and will want to tie the knot. But the Tamil parents may exhibit procrastination as regards the marriage because of the Punjabiness of the boy. That he is also a part of the miscellaneous Hindu community is overlooked. This red signal is demonstrated to interlingual Hindu marriages by Hindu parents of all languages whether they are Kashmiri Hindu, Bihari Hindu, Haryanvi Hindu, Assamese Hindu, Manipuri Hindu, etc.  I mean to state that such parents exist in every linguistic Hindu community.
But, yes, increasingly, broadmindedness or sensibleness is being displayed by Hindu parents on the subject of interlingual marriages. This trend exists and should exist down the line. Hope this nervousness about Hindu interlingual marriage vanishes one day in the future. That is very necessary and would be a pleasant development.  Of course, if a Kashmiri Hindu woman is in love with a Kashmiri Hindu male and her love is reciprocated by him, then their marriage is the logical step. This applies to all the intralingual romances. All that I am saying is that the fear of interlingual Hindu marriages should evaporate from some Hindu minds. 









As regards me, I say that, if I am involved in an interlingual (love) marriage with a Hindu female (who is of Punjab or Kashmir or AP or Kerala or Maharashtra or Gujarat or Rajasthan or Karnataka or of other non-Tamil blocks), it would give me copious contentment for several reasons. I would feel that (what I am going to say now may seem heavy.....) I have played a tiny part in strengthening interlingual Hindu unity. Obviously, I would also be happy that I married the female, for whom I had romance and respect, and who had love and esteem for me. I would be contented that I wedded a woman with whom I had fair compatibleness.







Also, I have to voice this. If I am in a state of love for a female of my linguistic community and the same sentiment is experienced by that female, obviously, matrimony would be one of the next steps for all intents and purposes.






In any case, I firmly feel that certain Hindus will have to gradually stop giving regal status to terms like Brahman, Yadav, Kayastha, Jat, Iyer, Thakur, Iyengar, Nadar, Shetty, Patel, etc. This regal status cannot come at the cost of injury to overall Hindu cohesion, especially politically and as regards marital intermingling. My only point is that some Hindus need to dismantle their laughable small-mindedness on this issue because it has only done disservice to the learnedness of Hinduism. These inward-looking Hindus need to embrace interlingual Hindu marriages for the solid preservation of Hindu structure in the future. Also, they need to embrace it for the sake of sanity. Another attitudinal transformation wanted in some Hindu minds desperately is the stoppage of female feticide/infanticide. This is a grisly act not worthy of mercy, especially considering the powerfulness of Hindu female divinity and the venerable status that they have in our religion. Strengthening of Hinduism needs this transformation as well.





May be… may be…… the paucity of interlingual Hindu marriages was one reason behind a mainly Hindu India being molested and disfigured by foreign religious forces in the past. The more comprehensively unified Hindus in India become, the better it would be for Hinduism’s durability here and for its ability to combat effectively mortal perils to its existence as manifested by nefarious Christian missionaries, Islamist terrorism and even those Hindus, who love to envenom the identity of Hinduism reprehensibly.  

India-Pakistan Tie: Inexcusable Irrationalness Of Believing Pakistan’s Commitment To Peace






The spiritual voyage of the Pakistani President, Asif Zardari, to India recently, which also had a Pakistani political presence enmeshed in it, epitomizes yet another measure in the tempestuous diplomatic history between India and Pakistan. In his journey to the respected Mohammedan shrine in Rajasthan’s Ajmer, known as Ajmer Sharif Dargah (ASD), Zardari had company in the form of his young son, Bilawal Bhutto, who is, at the tender age of 23, the occupant of the post of chairmanship of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), despite having exiguous active political experience. But possessing the Bhutto surname and having the Late Benazir Bhutto as your mother unburdens Bilawal from the requirement of hands-on political experience in Pakistan’s stormy, sectarian and toxic politics in order to become the chairman of the PPP. Zardari arrived in India with the prominent Pakistani Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, who is quite adept at offering the Indian political media access to him. Zardari sought connection with divinity on arriving at the ASD, which was, by then, surrounded by a high hill of security presence. Zardari’s fairly substantial grant of $5 million to the ASD, seemingly for the welfare of the ASD, was a gesture that must have been heartwarming for the ASD’s management.











There was a get-together in the Indian Prime Ministerial residence between the Indian PM, Manmohan Singh, and Zardari while the latter was en-route to Ajmer. As has become customary during such visits, the statements by the two leaders and the two nations’ delegations were symbolized by insipid and docile declarations of tranquil intentions. The two leaders pronounced that they had congeniality in their minds and hearts for the Indian and Pakistani populace. While such proclamations of warless intentions are indeed welcome from the Pakistani State’s head, one needs to refrain from forgetting that such idyllic pronouncements have been uttered in the recent history by Indian and Pakistani leaders.
There has, however, been no extermination in the Pakistani Islamist terrorist infrastructure despite these rosy and blissful statements of peace emanating from the Pakistani governments and political parties in the recent past. In fact, the numerical and infrastructural strength of Pakistani Islamic terrorism has only strengthened in the last few years, with a miscellany of depraved Mohammedan terrorist outfits sprouting on Pakistani soil. Bloodthirsty Islamic terrorist outfits such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Hizbul Mujahedeen, which are conventional and renowned, have been joined by other Islamic fundamentalist outfits such as Sipah-e-Sahaba (SeS) and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ). Each of these monstrous terrorist outfits is characterized by virulent inimicalness towards India, towards non-Muslims in India and towards secularism in India. The aspiration of these Sunni terrorist outfits is to ground an Islamic Sultanate/Caliphate in India with the decapitation of non-Islamic religions in India. The lethality and depravity of these Sunni terrorist outfits are so copious that they have limitless vituperativeness for Shiite Muslims’ ideological structure as well. The Pakistani Sunni terrorist outfits regard the Shiites as unworthy heretical Muslims, who deserve the kismet of subjugation and extinction. The long-standing and grisly history of the massacres of the Shiites in Pakistan has been caused by Sunni militant outfits such as SeS and LeJ. Afghani Shiites too have not been spared by these Pakistani Sunni terror groups. The LeJ is strongly believed to have been involved in the terrorist assaults on Afghani Shiites on December 6 2011, when three macabre terrorist atrocities demolished Afghani urban areas simultaneously on the auspicious Shiite Ashura, which terminated 63-80 Shiite pilgrims. The frequent murders and pulping of Pakistani Shiites, more so during the Shiite sacred ceremonies in Pakistan, is a testament to the sectarian murderousness of these Sunni terrorist outfits’ philosophy. These Pakistani terrorist organizations are there intact and are mushrooming, with charitable arms sprouting of these terrorist outfits (Jamaat-ud-Dawa). The robust popular presence at the rallies of the Pakistani Islamic extremist leaders in different Pakistani cities demonstrates their healthy base. India can’t ignore this gruesome and insidious reality in the name of peace. India can’t let ignorant, self-destructive and illogical emotionalism dictate the course of her relationship with Pakistan. India has paid a ghastly price in the past for such romanticism with Pakistan.











The perilously ultraconservative Islamists in Pakistan, with political ambitions, are led by the likes of Hafeez Saeed, against whom the Indian government and the convicted terrorist, David Headley, have presented intense evidence in relation to the insidious role of Saeed in the mastership of the Islamic terrorist atrocities in Mumbai in November 2008. The Pakistani Mohammedan ultraconservatism is recognized for its straightforward and tacit compassionateness for the additional Pakistani terrorist outfits like the Pakistani Taliban. The Pakistani ultraconservatives have even declared their antipathy for the likes of the former Pakistani autocrat, General Musharraf, for his ‘strategic proximity’ to the West in the ‘global conflict against Islamist terrorism.’ Musharraf is despised by the Pakistani Taliban and other acidic Sunni (Punjabi) terrorist outfits for various reasons, one being that he is a Mohajir i.e. an Urdu-speaking immigrant with Indian birth, who then migrated to Pakistan in the aftermath of the horrific British Indian partition. Of course, Musharraf’s dexterous positioning of Pakistan in alliance with the West in the ‘war on terror’ generated vitriol for him in the minds of these Pakistani terrorist outfits.  Musharraf did cooperate, to a certain extent, with the West by handing over certain sinister anti Western terrorists to the Western authorities. These terrorists were related to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. No meaningful action was taken by him, however, to oust and cripple primarily anti Indian terrorist outfits on Pakistani soil. Also, the substantiation that is emerging gradually demonstrates that the global Islamic terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, could have been dwelling in Pakistan from as early as 2005-2006 itself, at a moment when Musharraf was in power. Musharraf, being the dictator and the lord of the Pakistani army, ostensibly failed to notice the presence of this terrorist monster on Pakistani soil. The Pakistani espionage and intelligence community also failed to detect bin Laden hiding on Pakistani territory. It is difficult to swallow this proposition for many observers. Musharraf and his government repetitively assured the international community that bin Laden was not present on the Pakistani earth. But that was the case in May 2011, when bin Laden was liquidated on Pakistani soil by an outrageously gallant operation implemented by the American special military forces, much to the dismay of Pakistan. The operation to extinguish Laden was a surreptitious one.











The infrastructural robustness and the terrorist ideological verve of these Pakistani Islamist terrorist groups are largely unstained and unbroken, notwithstanding the outlawing of some of these terrorist groups periodically by the Pakistani government. The outlawing is so passive and ineffective that these outlawed terrorist groups regroup and rename themselves and their aims to make themselves more palatable to the global community. These Pakistani terrorist outfits reincarnate themselves as outfits of philanthropy.  Pakistan can then conveniently express its incapacity to crack and illegalize these ‘charitable outfits.’ Essentially, these ‘charitable outfits’ have the same demoniacal aspiration as their terrorist founders.  One needs to look at the ‘transformation’ of the proscribed Laskhar-e-Toiba into a ‘philanthropic outfit’, which has meant that the Lashkar has circumvented the proscription on it by adorning the guise of a ‘charitable outfit’, which it may very well be, but its terroristic intentions and infrastructure, as well as finances for funding terror, still are healthy. Lashkar, LeJ and Harkat-ul Mujahideen al-Alami were involved in the many unsuccessful endeavors to bump off Musharraf, which led majorly to their toothless banning in the first place. Of course, these terrorist groups have indulged in bloodthirsty bellicosity against Western interests as well, such as the vehicular bombing in June 2002 near the American Consulate in Karachi. The banning The LeJ is also accused of participation in the loathsome homicide of the former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, in December 2007.











The menace of these extremist Pakistani outfits hasn’t faded away, with many of their members forging ultraorthodox political alliances, whose mammoth congregations have been attended by the functionaries of Imran Khan’s emerging political party, Tehreek-e-Insaaf. Imran Khan has promoted himself as the bringer of a better future for the Pakistani populace. He is, apparently, a stainless candidate unlike Zardari and some of the other conventional Pakistani politicians, who have been encircled by allegations of subornment and nepotism. Imran Khan does represent a new political fragrance for the Pakistani electorate as he is untested administratively and, hence, bereft of the grubbiness of allegations of corruption. But his standpoints on Afghanistan, on the Taliban, on the Pakistani political ultraconservatives, on the Pakistani terrorist outfits, on the international military presence in Afghanistan, etc. are fundamentally worrisome for Indian interests and strategic wellbeing. Imran Khan advocates a dialogue with the Pakistani and Afghani Taliban to procreate orderliness in Afghanistan.  Talking to these terrorist outfits, which have not hesitated to murder prominent Afghan messengers of peace such as Burhanuddin Rabbani, is a catastrophic idea, which will eliminate whatever democracy and tolerance that exists in Afghanistan today under the presence of the ISAF.  Talking to the devilish Talibani outfit will mean compromising with them if success has to be accomplished during the talks. That means that the Talibani demand for political power in Kabul will have to be accommodated. The cultural, religious, sectarian and gender bigotry practiced by the Taliban will come to the fore more openly if the Taliban acquires political potency. The objective behind the justifiable liberation of Afghanistan by the ISAF in 2001 was the extermination of the poisonous infrastructure of the Taliban. To accord the Taliban political power in any form would be to infringe the core principles upon which the invasion of Afghanistan was implemented in October 2001 by the Bush administration in the aftermath of the 9/11 carnage on American soil that was thickly assisted by the Al-Qaeda leadership safeguarded on Afghan earth by the then governing Taliban. The Talibani penetration of political potency in Kabul, as a part of any ‘peace pact’ arranged by the Pakistanis and even by the reluctant Americans, would be devastating for the stabilizing Western influence in Afghanistan. The Talibani access to the Afghan governmental corridors would be a blow that incapacitates Indian influence in Afghanistan, which has been beneficial for Afghan infrastructural development since 2011. The Taliban entrance into the Afghan government would mean an increased likelihood of sanctuaries being provided in Afghanistan for Taliban terrorists, who are opposed to the West and to India (non-Islamic India/Hinduism). An Afghanistan without the ISAF, even under a national coalitional administration consisting of the Taliban, will be forced to depend on Pakistani tutelage. Pakistan can take advantage of its meaningful connections with segments of the Taliban (terrorist Haqqani network) to exert considerable pressure on Afghanistan after 2014, 2014 being the year of the intended disengagement of American troops from Afghan soil. Pakistan will then block any Indian attempt to gain a toehold in Afghani matters such as Indian investment in the Afghani economy, Indian training for the Afghani military, etc. 








Pakistan will subdue Afghani strategic independence to such an extent that India will be regarded as a pariah in an Afghanistan that is devoid of the ISAF and that is, subsequently, under the coercive counseling of the Pakistani State (ISI, Pakistani military). An Afghanistan, which has a central coalitional government with the Taliban as one coalitional component, will be a nation fractured by political unsteadiness, administrative procrastination and obdurate interministerial divergences. In the event of a coalitional government in collaboration with the Taliban, a few ministries will have to be handed over to the Talibani hands. Such a government will be forever under incapacitating political paralyses of different degrees. The Taliban, on acceding to the democratic political process in Afghanistan as part of a ‘serenity accord,’ may ensure the temporary deactivation of their armed cadres to gain international succor. However, after the ISAF withdrawal from Afghan soil in 2014, the Taliban, even if it is a part of the political process in Afghanistan then, can effortlessly reactivate the militariness of its cadres as there will be, at best, an inconsequential global military presence in Afghanistan after 2014. Reactivation of its armed cadres will not be difficult for the Talibani political wing then.  After the ISAF disengagement from Afghanistan in 2014, the whole geopolitical and geostrategic scenario vis-à-vis Afghanistan will alter. Pakistan, through malicious means such as its endorsement of the deadly Haqqani network, will become the major foreign player in Afghanistan and the weary West may relent.  This means that anti-Indian Islamic terrorist factories could reopen in Afghanistan after 2014 and function more freely. Islamic terrorists could be pushed from Afghanistan to Pakistan, their border being unmanageably unlawful and unruly. These terrorists could then infiltrate Indian Kashmir from Pakistani soil i.e. vintage crossborder terrorism.  Anti Western terrorists could house themselves in Afghanistan after 2014 with the guarantee of receiving safe havens from the Afghan government, which has the political Taliban as its part. If the moderate pro-Indian Afghani parliamentarians protest against Talibani dictatorialness, then the Taliban could disengage from the Afghani political process and threaten to instill anarchical bloodshed on the streets. Will the West intercede militarily then to terminate the Taliban threat? Another full-fledged Western military intercession is highly improbable considering the Western tiredness on account of the current Afghan conflict. Pakistan will be the only country that will then trumpet to the world that it has the power to stabilize Afghanistan and kill the prospective anarchy there. 









This will mean, at least, that Pakistan will ‘arrange’ a very strong Talibani presence in the national Afghan government, which will represent the sidelining of other relatively broadminded Afghan political parties, with strategic conviviality towards India. Pakistan, in order to assert itself in Afghanistan, will desire and come up with a heavily Talibani Afghan government. This will typify the termination of the meaningfulness of the Indian diplomatic presence in Afghanistan as the Taliban will not aspire to do any business with India. Pakistan will be the gleeful victor. Pakistan shares a border with Afghanistan and India doesn’t. India currently doesn’t have a military existence on Afghan soil. It will be difficult for India to penetrate Afghanistan militarily after 2014 if the Talibani virulence for India manifolds. India will be a tragic loser.











This is the reality that Imran Khan desires, despite knowing the thick connections between Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other Pakistani Islamic terrorist groups. Negotiations with the Taliban represent a core strategy of Imran Khan to heighten the Pakistani influence in Afghanistan after 2014 and to decapitate Indian influence there after 2014. Imran Khan aspires to see the ouster of a constructive Indian presence in Afghanistan. His sugarcoated talks about Indo-Pak peace being one of his primary goals must not make India position blind trust in him. His alliances with the Pakistani political ultraconservatives, who have zero respect for India, his advocacy of discussions with Pakistani extremist groups to create orderliness in Pakistan and in the lawless Waziristan, his disparagement of the stableness that the Western military presence and the Indian diplomatic presence have brought to Afghanistan, etc. embody his political personality, which is unpalatable and indigestible for the idea of peace in South Asia. He has not spoken at length about the measures that he would take to dissect the Islamic terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. He probably never will speak at length on this matter since he doesn’t intend to do anything of this sort. India, at this stage, can derive no comfort from the electioneering and sloganeering of Imran Khan and his allies.











Any Indian government, which negotiates with Pakistan when no tangible action has been adopted by Pakistan to incarcerate the terrorist, Hafeez Saeed, is a dishonorable government. Any Indian government or think tank or media house, which even contemplates negotiations with Pakistan for the ‘resolution’ of Siachen/Sir Creek/J&K disputes, is a hopelessly unrealistic and inexcusably idealistic entity. This vision of talking to Pakistan is unpardonably utopian as the Islamic terrorist industry in Pakistan has mushroomed in the last 15 years.  There have been liquidations of prominent Pakistani politicians such as the Pakistani Punjab’s former Governor, Salman Taseer, and the former Pakistani Federal Minister, Shahbaaz Bhatti. These wanton liquidations were the handiwork of the Pakistani Islamic terrorists. The ISI and the Pakistani military have demonstrated no concrete sign to India and to the global community of their full breakaway from these macabre terrorist groups. No convictions of the detained Pakistanis have occurred in Pakistan in order to provide justice to the casualties of the 26/11 Islamic terrorist barbarities in Mumbai. The ISI and the Pakistani military will be the final deciders of the Pakistani relationship with India, not the democratically chosen feeble Pakistani government.











There have been mammoth instances of Pakistan fomenting ghoulish Islamic terrorism in India, with some help from some indigenous Indians. Temporarily, the Indian government is outraged and appalled and desists from having conversations with Pakistan. But then, with the passage of time, everything is forgotten and India is conversing with Pakistan again and issuing homilies in support of Indo-Pak tranquility. Indian PM Manmohan Singh emits commendations of the ‘Pakistani intentions of peacefulness.’ But the Islamic terrorists are there on that country’s soil planning their next atrocity on India, the laboratory of Islamic terroristic experimentation. It should an Indian governmental principle that India will not negotiate with a Pakistani government that doesn’t deliver an onslaught on Pakistani Islamic terror. Sagacious and realistic diplomacy doesn’t mean that India should continue to have unfettered dialogue with the Pakistanis even if anti Indian Islamic dragons in Pakistan continue to envenom themselves untouched. Talking to this Pakistani government and even mulling over any ‘peace deal’ with them is an affront to the thousands of casualties of Islamic terrorism in India. These Indian casualties, who have been exterminated by Islamic terror in crowded trains, buses, marketplaces and outside temples, deserve an Indian government that doesn’t compromise with a Pakistani administration that doesn’t whip Islamic terror on its soil.










The bottom line is that Pakistan will continue to adhere to the policy of making India bleed gradually. This policy was embraced by the Pakistani State after the 1971 liberation of Bangladesh by India during the Indo-Pak battle of 1971. Pakistan will continue to rear the Islamic terrorist infrastructure that can knife and slaughter India. This Pakistani policy is likely to continue at least till Pakistan attains its prime goal of annexing J&K. The question is, should India let that happen for the sake of ‘peace’ with Pakistan? For any kind of ‘durable’ peace and for a wholesome ‘resolution’ of Indo-Pak ‘disputes’, as stressed by Pakistan, India will have to make territorial and administrative concessions on Kashmir to Pakistan. India will have to make some territorial concession to Pakistan on the strategically important Siachen Glacier. Then only, Pakistan will be satisfied and there may be ‘peace.’  Should India make these concessions and thereby scorn the sacrifices of its military personnel in J&K, who have sacrificed their lives to continue J&K’s association with India? Should India make the Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh minorities in Kashmir additionally vulnerable by making concessions on Kashmir to Pakistan? What about the miserableness of the condition of the dispossessed Kashmiri Hindus, millions of whom are not in their Kashmiri hometowns and are, instead, in piteous refugee camps and in other parts of India? Should India lose the strategic advantage it has currently by demilitarizing Siachen in the absence of any foolproof guarantee from the 







Pakistani military that it will not try to reoccupy Siachen clandestinely?  Can Pakistani ‘tranquil’ intentions be trusted by India in the presence of such terrorist sectarianism in Pakistan, in the presence of copious anti-Indian Islamic terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan (and in Pak-possessed Kashmir)? Illogical sentimentality with Pakistan will make India appear to be a friend of foolhardiness and idiocy. Indian military potency and an indefatigable resolve to place Islamist terror in an unrecoverable comatose condition will be India’s savior, not comical emotionalism. A nation that indulges in comical emotionalism on security matters will be ridiculed by the world. India can start off by executing some of the convicted terrorists in India jails, who are with the death penalty.

Chinese Hazardousness

Chinese Overview:

China is a godless nation, with which India shares a colossal frontier. Ideally, China should never have been permitted to border India. The attachment of the Chinese border to the Indian border took place in the 1950s as a consequence of the grisly and lawless conquest of Tibet then by a hatchling Communist China. It must be remembered that the Chinese military, in the instantaneous aftermath of the proclamation of Communist China in 1949, was a somewhat uncooked one.

Chinese History:

The commonplace Chinese citizens were enmeshed in a rambunctious civil war for four years subsequent to the culmination of WW 2 in August 1945 after the Japanese surrender. Then, the civil strife in China had, as its participants, Communist militias pitted against the anti Communist (Nationalist) militias. Also, millions of the Chinese civilians, who were the members of either the Nationalist or Communist camp, participated in this civil war, which spawned additional disorderliness in China.

China, ever since the 19^th century, had been experiencing humiliation and subjugation by the Western European powers, which had been penetrating China monetarily by seizing the management of Chinese wealth and its natural resources. China was, in effect, a transnational colony, the financial path of which was being propelled by the arrogance of Britain, France, Germany, each of which, along with an increasingly imperialistic America and Japan, had carved ‘zones of influence’ for itself in Chinese territory. The U.S., Japan and the West Europeans directed the economic affairs of their zones respectively, which consisted of enforcing guidelines on trade and levies on overseas goods. These guidelines were fashioned by the imperialists disproportionately in a way that boosted the imperial treasure and ensured the stagnation of the Chinese financial system, which had, prior to becoming a casualty of the spiteful Western imperialism, been extremely potent. China underwent economic mortification of this sort, which was worsened by the supplementary political, military and spiritual concessions bequeathed to the West by a debilitating Chinese monarchy. Also, subornment had infiltrated the politics of China during this period of Western monetary exploitation. This subornment was in service as a result of the dissoluteness of numerous provincial Chinese warlords. Also, the attempt to Christianize China by the malignant Christian missionaries there kindled the enragement of the non-Christian Chinese. It appeared as if China, which once was a majestic civilization in the ancient and medieval epoch, had come to the point of intellectual and administrative disintegration.

The military conflicts waged by the Chinese monarchy against Japan and the West in the 19^th century over economic and territorial issues had severely paralyzed China as it was trounced in those wars and was compelled to fork out oceanic war reparations to the victors. China relinquished Korea and Taiwan to the Japanese overlordship.

Post-WW2 China, Mao, Nehru, Patel And India:

Coming to 1949, in this landscape of monetary inefficiency and shortfall, the Communists, directed by Mao Zedong, ultimately battered the Nationalists and conquered all of mainland China. The Communists inherited a fragile Chinese economy and a complete dearth of efficient governance. The Nationalists, headed by Chiang Kai-shek, escaped to the neighboring island of Taiwan, in which the Nationalists entrenched their government under the autocratic headship of Chiang. Thus, the military of Communist China, in 1949, was not as steely, well-oiled and sophisticated as it became later. Also, the Indian military, as opposed to the Chinese, was more effectively organized then, with the Indian military being more regimented and in possession of formidable weaponry. The military lethality of India then was one of the few genuinely constructive bequests of British lordship over India.

Therefore, a more street-smart Foreign Minister of independent India would have been able to handle the Tibetan subjugation by China more shrewdly. Nehru, the primary Foreign Minister of decolonized India, was, at the end of the day, predominantly unsuccessful as Foreign Minister. The two-facedness of his professed non-aligned overseas policy was exposed when he refused to condemn unmistakably the Soviet military belligerence in Hungary in 1956 to quell the anti Communist uprising there. However, the same Nehru had vocally vocalized contempt for the Anglo-French and Israeli assault on the Egyptian Suez Canal in 1956 subsequent to the Canal’s nationalization by the Egyptian autocrat, Gamal Nasser. Nehru’s supposed repudiation, in the 1950s, of the U.S. tender of an eternal seat for India on the UNSC continues to wound India even today as China, whose inclusion in the UNSC was favored by Nehru then, is the primary blocker of Indian penetration into the august UNSC presently. Nehru’s internationalization of the Kashmir question in 1949 by taking it to the UN was an oceanic blunder when a continuation of the war against Pakistan for the liberation of Kashmir would have sizably increased the prospects of complete Kashmiri accession to India. This internationalization was despite the

righteousness of India’s claim and conflict over Kashmir against the invading Pakistanis.

There was pragmatic advice from the commendable Indian Home Minister, Sardar Patel, to Nehru that urged Indian military assistance for the relief of the beleaguered Tibetans under the onslaught of the Communist Chinese marauders. Patel was a leading advocate against the connection of the Chinese border to the Indian one. Patel had espoused the maintenance of the self-governance of Tibet and the deactivation, by the Indian military, of the devastating Chinese military takeover of Tibet. Nehru had attempted to mollycoddle and appease the atheistic Chinese on several issues, including the bordering issue, which procreated the appalling Chinese attack on Indian territorial integrity in 1962. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which Nehru had fathered, was a voiceless and characterless character as it refused to explicitly excoriate the Chinese bellicosity against India. It was American intervention, pioneered by the then U.S. President, JF Kennedy, and the Presidential warning to Mao that assisted India and ensured the Chinese military disengagement from sizable Indian territory in the Northeast.

Indo-Chinese Border Trouble:

Let it be clear that China has not yet acknowledged unequivocally the territorial inseparableness with India of Arunachal Pradesh (AP) and Sikkim. China has not even vaguely accepted Indian democracy over these territories, with China continuing to illustrate these two Indian provinces as parts of China. The Chinese media has never attempted to conceal that China will never cede ground on these two territories. What does that mean? China yearns to position its hands on these two regions in one way or the other such as via combined rule over these two areas with India or through their outright annexation into Chinese territory. The Indian government has voiced its desire for tranquility with China. But is India willing to dilute the degree of its association with AP and Sikkim to create peace with China? Any nationalistic Indian outlook will not desire the dilution of Indian connection to AP and Sikkim as Indian troops have sacrificed their lives and shed their blood to keep these two provinces with India. It is obvious that a preponderance of the populace of these two provinces yearns to be with India completely as they respect and are grateful to Indian democracy and her religious tolerance. The Buddhist APs and Sikkimites have seen the persecution, victimization and enfeeblement of the Buddhists in the neighbouring Tibet that has been overrun by the sadism of atheistic China.

Transnational Placation Of China:

Developed countries such as America and those of Western Europe are committing erroneousness by attempting to placate the China of today for economic reasons. The hegemonic actions of China regionally and overseas are being overlooked. China is, after all, an authoritarian nation, which has repeatedly elucidated its policy of bombarding Taiwan even if a democratic Taiwanese government votes to ‘secede’ from Beijing. China is the financial and military backer of the tyrannical Communistic North Korean regime. The regime has been characterized by the blackness of its despotism, its illegal nuclear activities, its association with the dishonorable Pakistani atomic scientist, AQ Khan and by its unabashed military aggression against its democratic neighbor, South Korea. There is apprehensiveness in Southern Korea and Japan over the increasing powerfulness of China economically and militarily. There is mounting corroboration in the world of espionage about Chinese cybersubversiveness to weaken the countries China detests.

Chinese Invidiousness:

India has copious reasons to worry about a militarily and financially burgeoning China as China, on being confident of military success, could, in the future, attack AP and Sikkim to annex them. Military infrastructure is being bolstered far more quickly by China in the disputed bordering zones than by India. China is attempting to asphyxiate India by expanding its military and civilian presence in South Asia in Nepal, Burma, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Pakistani slavishness towards China is well-known. China occupies Aksai Chin (AC), which is claimed by India as a part of Kashmir. AC cannot be bartered by India as part of a compromise as long as China asserts its dominion over AP and Sikkim. China is working relentlessly to undercut the Indian standing in Africa. China has also irked India immensely by releasing stapled visas to Indian Kashmiris desirous of visiting China. It has also remarked that the folks of AP do not require visas to enter China as AP is a component of China. There is a credible feeling in the Indian security establishment that the ‘far left’ Maoist terrorists in India are being backed by Chinese espionage entities clandestinely as state-of-the art weaponry has been recovered from the arrested Maoists in India. One can only hope that the Indian diplomatic world is prepared to offset this Chinese maliciousness in every way and is able to convince the world of the hegemony of Chinese intentions.

Possibility:

One does feel that the appeasement of godless China could spawn, after 15 to 20 years, an expansionist China akin to Nazi Germany that annexed Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Austria and Poland as these were ‘German areas’ at some point historically. Global appeasement of China on matters such as the ‘Yuan controversy’ is not working and will never work as dictatorships such as China interpret placation as a sign of feebleness and only employ the period of placation to strengthen themselves. The diplomatic belligerence of China should be dealt with resoluteness by the world and by neighbors such as India, Japan and South Korea. Otherwise, in the distant future, there could be a Nazi Germany in China. Nazi Germany’s diplomatic contraventions, its infringement of international treaties, its territorial expansionism and general ideological bellicosity was ignored and mollified by the world, which engendered savage conflict from 1939 to 1945 internationally.