Burma Burns as the World Watches

[Lurker]

For its own sake, India needs a stable and self-confident Burma that can keep China at bay. Our internal debate must centre on the best way to achieve this objective. The rest is humbug.

Strange how the author beleives in that, his supporters beleive in that theory as well and still not able to suggest what India should do to "gain" from Burma. Would a Burmese junta, that is largely driven by Communist agenda, help India down the line? Or would a Democratic Burma be more in India's interest? Would a China want two democratic countries right at its doorsteps? Or would a China want only 1 country to deal with. Simple question, easy answers. xxx

[sandtest]

Indeed it's a very sensible article about foreign policy issue, keeping Indian Interests in mind. Such articles are rare gems given these days apologist dominated media. Thumbs up to this columnist Swapan Dasgupta, for standing up and shatterring the myth created by lifafa journalists. The more I think about it, the more I am coming to believe that an outside force 'liberating' a people from its oppressors (as we did in Bangladesh, or, arguably, as the US did in Iraq) will end badly. There is a psychological element in people that makes them hate the one to whom they know they owe their liberation and survival. (I know the situation in Iraq is more complicated than this. And that there are also other factors underlying Bangladesh turning against us under radical Islamism, but my point is that the psychological element is not to be ignored.) The best thing for Burma and us is for its people to get over their fear of the junta and do their own fighting, violently or non-violently as may suit them. Plus they have to think through and work out how they are going to run themselves as a free democratic country, and manage their diversity. These are the things that will make them grow up out of their present infantile state in which they are allowing themselves to be forcibly kept. Our correct role should be that of friendly and kindly supporters and well-wishers, ready with asylum to their leaders and the imparting of institution building skills--provided through private sector, while the government maintains a correct and non-hostile posture with the regime. I think, under no circumstances should we give in to the temptation of giving the Burmese a shortcut (by way of military intervention) for the struggle they must wage, as doing so would ultimately be a disfavor to both them and us. We have burnt our fingers in Sri Lanka and got nothing!! I also think it is a mistake for the GOI and prominent non-govt orgnizations. Indian voices should just keep their mouths shut about this, they are trying to portray as if we are somehow hiding an immoral policy, as if we subscribe to the framing of the question as a choice between overt hostility to the current regime and being guilty of complicity in killing monks. We would be better off spelling out our wish for the Burmese people to be arbiters of their own destiny, and expressing our belief that it is their rightful duty and priviledge to do their own struggling to achieve their legitimate goals, or similar words. And adding that it is our policy with all countries to maintain friendly relations with the government, regardless of its nature, for example please see our policies toward the govts. of Pak and China...:angry_smile:

[Lurker]

Indeed it's a very sensible article about foreign policy issue, keeping Indian Interests in mind. Such articles are rare gems given these days apologist dominated media. Thumbs up to this columnist Swapan Dasgupta, for standing up and shatterring the myth created by lifafa journalists. The more I think about it, the more I am coming to believe that an outside force 'liberating' a people from its oppressors (as we did in Bangladesh, or, arguably, as the US did in Iraq) will end badly. There is a psychological element in people that makes them hate the one to whom they know they owe their liberation and survival. (I know the situation in Iraq is more complicated than this. And that there are also other factors underlying Bangladesh turning against us under radical Islamism, but my point is that the psychological element is not to be ignored.) The best thing for Burma and us is for its people to get over their fear of the junta and do their own fighting, violently or non-violently as may suit them. Plus they have to think through and work out how they are going to run themselves as a free democratic country, and manage their diversity. These are the things that will make them grow up out of their present infantile state in which they are allowing themselves to be forcibly kept. Our correct role should be that of friendly and kindly supporters and well-wishers, ready with asylum to their leaders and the imparting of institution building skills--provided through private sector, while the government maintains a correct and non-hostile posture with the regime. I think, under no circumstances should we give in to the temptation of giving the Burmese a shortcut (by way of military intervention) for the struggle they must wage, as doing so would ultimately be a disfavor to both them and us. We have burnt our fingers in Sri Lanka and got nothing!! I also think it is a mistake for the GOI and prominent non-govt orgnizations. Indian voices should just keep their mouths shut about this, they are trying to portray as if we are somehow hiding an immoral policy, as if we subscribe to the framing of the question as a choice between overt hostility to the current regime and being guilty of complicity in killing monks. We would be better off spelling out our wish for the Burmese people to be arbiters of their own destiny, and expressing our belief that it is their rightful duty and priviledge to do their own struggling to achieve their legitimate goals, or similar words. And adding that it is our policy with all countries to maintain friendly relations with the government, regardless of its nature, for example please see our policies toward the govts. of Pak and China...:angry_smile:

Class A rant. Was that directed towards any poster in general ya shaam ko aise hi sanak gaye Sandy maharaj?

[Guest dada_rocks]

Strange how the author beleives in that, his supporters beleive in that theory as well and still not able to suggest what India should do to "gain" from Burma. Would a Burmese junta, that is largely driven by Communist agenda, help India down the line? Or would a Democratic Burma be more in India's interest? Would a China want two democratic countries right at its doorsteps? Or would a China want only 1 country to deal with. Simple question, easy answers. xxx

Simple question hota to kya baat thi........ DID India benefit from communist Russia or not ? In matters of foreign policies morality has never been be all end all for any country. People want democracy but not at the cost of propping up yet another insurgent borders.

[sandtest]

Class A rant. Was that directed towards any poster in general ya shaam ko aise hi sanak gaye Sandy maharaj?

Nahin, guru, yeh hamari aadat nahin ke hum kisi ko "target" kerkey post kere ....Aur aap jaise mahanubhavo ko target kernaa toh tauba-astafghar, aap turant usko "rant" ghoshit ker dengey, ya phir, "fear-monger' ki sangya de dengey,:cantstop::cantstop:

[Bongosamaj]

First of all, let me see your above claimed "verse" from Rigveda mentioning "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" -- in Sanskrit --

Easily done. Pick up a copy of the Rig Veda in your local library. Provided your local library is not a total waste.

And I will not tell you now, where in Upanishads it is.:hysterical:....you will never get it in google.

I don't give a hoot whether it is in the upanishads or not. As i said, it sees mention in the holiest of the hindu texts. That is enough for me.

My religious background is NONE of your business and you can stick to topic at hand rather than pondering over whether I am following Dharma or not, leave it on my parents and guru to do that job.

If you go around claiming to be a 'hindu' and then twist hinduism flagrantly, it is my business to point it out, since you are misrepresenting the faith.

First prove your above claimed verse from RigVeda then come again to lecture.

Prove ? You mean to say i just cooked up the precise verse and chapter number ? Pfft. Nomatter. Since you have not read the Rig Veda, you are blissfully unaware of its message. Perhaps you should give a shot reading the holiest text in hinduism instead of deriving your notions of hinduism totally from a far less significant book called the Gita.

But ONLY after making SURE that they can be OVERTHROWN and NOT become like IRAQ and Afghanistan. because they are very close to our borders and will affcet us in tremendously if they become another Iraq.

Umm. Do you have any idea on these issues or do you just speak randomly whatever comes to your mind ? Iraq's situation is so because the nation is deeply Islamic and it sees the western interference as very offensive. No such concerns in Burma for us. It is a buddhist country for christ's sake! When did you hear about Buddhist terrorism and intifadaa groups ? That Burma won't go Iraq's way should be very obvious to those who know a thing or two about the difference between Burma and Iraq.

We have got our "job" done by current Burmese regime. Indian petroleum minister has visisted Burma a few times-- SILENTLY. Some Indian companies have invested in there (RAW has penetrated) , obviously you have no idea about how, military establishment of India operates.

Wtf does this have to do with the FACT that India doesn't amount to 1/10th of the influence China exercises over the Burmse military govt. and India will never match China in this regard, thus making India's effort similar to casting pearls before a swine ??!?

They are not sitting on huge Oil and Gas reserves like Saudi and Qatar. But they create and control these through their "Corporations". So obviously they will protect it which is backbone of their status as World Supre Power. That doesnot mean, Iraq war is justified. Iraq is a classical example of intelligence failure. It can happen with any country. It has happened with India as well in case of Kargil. Overall, India following USA footstep is good for us.

My point is, USA doesn't care for its people. It never has, it never will. Have you ever been there ? If not, i suggest you do and then form an independent opinion. And it is never a good idea to follow a nation that doesn't give a toss about its people!

Create a seperate thread for discussion of Dharma.

Shying away from answering a rather basic question again i see. And you had the gall to lecture me on humility a bit earlier. Next time, take some time to read up on the meaning of the word 'humility' and 'ego' and then work up the courage to admit you were wrong. Simple, isn't it ?

Unlike your beloved Islamic countries and beloved neighbors who are NOT open to any spirituality other than pseudo-monotheistic charm of Islam.

My beloved Islamic countries ?!? Where on earth did you get that gem ? Or did you just cook that up as a pointless slander to hide behind ? I have no love lost for Islamic nations and Islam but unlike you, i do not specialize in exgaggerating the extent of Islamic madness.

The best thing for Burma and us is for its people to get over their fear of the junta and do their own fighting, violently or non-violently as may suit them.

Have you ever heard of the theory ' if India was ruled by Germany instead of Britain, then Gandhi would've been killed by Hitler and India would've still been a german colony' ? Same applies here. There is no way to 'get over the fear' of such a brutal govt., that has zero problems in killing many thousands at the drop of a hat just to remain in power. Unless ofcourse, you got guns and lots of it. That is where India comes in.

I think, under no circumstances should we give in to the temptation of giving the Burmese a shortcut (by way of military intervention) for the struggle they must wage, as doing so would ultimately be a disfavor to both them and us. We have burnt our fingers in Sri Lanka and got nothing!!

You show classic case of lack of understanding again. We got burnt in SL because the issue we went in for was not solved and was an open-ended mission. In Burma, we simply have to fight the Junta, overthrow them and promptly get the f*ck outta burma. Once that happens, its 'mission accomplished' and as i explained earlier, the Burmese people will be grateful. And even if they are not, even if they say 'F*ck you india, we are closing our borders and pretending you don't exist', it is still a victory for us, because a Burmese civillian govt. is by default going to be less China friendly and that, by default, is our victory!

We would be better off spelling out our wish for the Burmese people to be arbiters of their own destiny, and expressing our belief that it is their rightful duty and priviledge to do their own struggling to achieve their legitimate goals, or similar words.

In that case, we'd be better off not selling ANY military equipment to the Burmes military junta. For right now, all India is doing in burma is digging its own grave. We know that the burmese people hate their government, we know that India is selling weapons and military equipment to the Burmese military and we know that the Burmese military is using it against their own people. We are complicit in the act of the innocent monks dying and support of the opression because we are selling arms to the Burmese militia. And we are getting very little gains from it in terms of countering China. When the people of burma finally rise up and overthrow their govt, do you think they would be happy with India knowing that we sold their brutal opressors weapons ? A little bit of commonsense will go a long way i think !

[Lurker]

Simple question hota to kya baat thi........ DID India benefit from communist Russia or not ? In matters of foreign policies morality has never been be all end all for any country.

So there you go again. Present problem ko resolve karne ke liye past ka sahara! I mean I can understand if you have 3 points, 1 of which is a historical perspective but to have just 1 point and that too historical means that you continue to live in the past.

People want democracy but not at the cost of propping up yet another insurgent borders.

Elaborate. How do you expect Burma to become insurgents? xx

[Lurker]

Nahin, guru, yeh hamari aadat nahin ke hum kisi ko "target" kerkey post kere ....Aur aap jaise mahanubhavo ko target kernaa toh tauba-astafghar, aap turant usko "rant" ghoshit ker dengey, ya phir, "fear-monger' ki sangya de dengey,

Okay then I shall take that rant as a f@rt in the wind then. No worries :mail:

[sandtest]

Easily done. Pick up a copy of the Rig Veda in your local library. Provided your local library is not a total waste.

Very very good reply...listen, bandhu, I am new to this use of semantics.:giggle: I asked you in crystal clear words that just write that verse, which in your previous post, you claimed exists "precisely" in Book-1, Chapter no. 164 and Verse no. 46 -- with "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam"..... But instead of writing it you are asking me to refer to save yourself from embarrassment, isn't it?? Well, I don't want to embarras you further by writing that verse here itself, with full meaning, but be careful next time you write something with such boldness about our scriptures. Not everyone you can fool here. Keep in mind, if again you will press for that, I will write that 46th Richa from 1st Mandala and 164th sukta of RikVeda, as you claimed previously. There is nothing like "Vasidhaiva Kutumbakam" in that and it's meaning is totally different than what you are claiming. It's about Universal God or "Visvedevta" in his different aspects, concept of monotheism embedded in polytheism, i.e. pantheism -- is explanation of that verse by prominent Vedantist. "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" is actually from Upanishads -- I will explain next why Upanishads? Let me remind you, In past, You have been caught twisting facts regarding Lord Kalki in Vedas.

I don't give a hoot whether it is in the upanishads or not. As i said, it sees mention in the holiest of the hindu texts. That is enough for me.

How convenient, isn't it??...you sir, it were YOU who said that it doesnot exist in Upanishads. Sir, I tell you, on contrary, I never came across anything in RigVeda which mentions "Vasdhaiva Kutumbakam". Show me that Verse from RigVeda and I will appreciate you as great scholor.:giggle: And if you don't give a hoot about Upanishads, then your knowledge of Vedas can NEVER be complete. Upanishads are an exmplanation of Vedas...Upanishads are also called as Vedanta --i.e. End of Vedas. Vedas will look highly ritualistic in nature at first sight for a layman like us -- the philosophy hidden in these rituals is well revealed by ancient Rishis who composed Upanishads, to make the realization of "Self" i.e. "Supreme Brahmn" and it's all apects understandable to everyone. Upansihads are backbone of Vedanta and only a fool will ignore Upanishads. Unfortunately out of more than 100s of Upanishads, we can find mostly 10 Upanishads through authentic resources in libraries, accepted as "Shrutis". And "vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" is from a very lesser known Upanishad which cannot be found even in well known book companies like Gita-Press Ltd. in UP.

[Bongosamaj]

There is nothing like "Vasidhaiva Kutumbakam" in that and it's meaning is totally different than what you are claiming.

False. The complete verse states " Udaar charitanam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam" But keep exposing your ignorance further.

"Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" is actually from Upanishads

False. It is originally from the Rig Veda. And Since Rig Veda >> any other hindu scripture in terms of historic and philosophical relevance to hinduism, it gets the credit. Simple really, no ? And please do not lie- i have not claimed any 'meaning' to it at all. I asked you to read it and then come back and tell us what it means. Nowhere in this thread have i said what that phrase means.

Sir, I tell you, on contrary, I never came across anything in RigVeda which mentions "Vasdhaiva Kutumbakam".

A more honest comment would've been 'i've never come across the Rig Veda'. But we knew that already.

Upanishads are an exmplanation of Vedas...Upanishads are also called as Vedanta --i.e. End of Vedas.

it is someone's explanation. Not necessarily the only explanation. I leave dogmatic individuals incapable of thinking on their own to seek second hand knowledge ( explanation of something = gospel) instead of reading the original text and arriving at your own conclusions to the meaning/relevance of the quote.

And "vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" is from a very lesser known Upanishad which cannot be found even in well known book companies like Gita-Press Ltd. in UP.

False again. It is directly from the Rig Veda. I've provided you the entire quote.If you can find an original untranslated Rig Veda complete in its text in the internet, please let me know and i will refer you to the exact paragraph/verse it is in that website too. But since all Rig Veda writings on the internet are English translations, how do you expect me to find you a page that has 'vasudhaiva kutumbakam' in its orignal sanskrit form ?!

Upansihads are backbone of Vedanta and only a fool will ignore Upanishads.

And only a fool would take Vedanta as the one and only explanation of the vedas. Those fools are the ones who've not read the vedas and given that you live in India and there is like 15 copies of Rig Veda in entire India that is accessable to the public, i am curious to your claims as to how you've come across this and where.

You have been caught twisting facts regarding Lord Kalki in Vedas.

There are no facts in there to twist, only different interpretations. The mere fact that you consider it a 'fact' is nothing more than proof positive of your dogmatic behaviour, not scholarly approach. Now, stop running away from Burma on this thread and answer this point :

In that case, we'd be better off not selling ANY military equipment to the Burmes military junta. For right now, all India is doing in burma is digging its own grave. We know that the burmese people hate their government, we know that India is selling weapons and military equipment to the Burmese military and we know that the Burmese military is using it against their own people. We are complicit in the act of the innocent monks dying and support of the opression because we are selling arms to the Burmese militia. And we are getting very little gains from it in terms of countering China. When the people of burma finally rise up and overthrow their govt, do you think they would be happy with India knowing that we sold their brutal opressors weapons ? A little bit of commonsense will go a long way i think !

[Bongosamaj]

Vedas will look highly ritualistic in nature at first sight for a layman like us

Because it is.

And if you don't give a hoot about Upanishads, then your knowledge of Vedas can NEVER be complete.

Please do not misquote me. Or learn this language of communication well. I did not say ' i don't give a hoot about Upanishads'. I said i don't give a hoot whether this verse is in the upanishads. Simply because, Rig Veda is the supreme text in hindu history and if something occurs in it, it gets the original reference, regardless of how much that thing is later copied in the Upanishads or Gita. Comprende ? Regardless, please explain to me how you can claim to be a 'hindu' on one hand and then dismiss ' Udaar Charitanam tu Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam' so nonchlantly, for it is contradictory of what it means to be a hindu. So pick dear boy- hindu or nationalist ? World family or India-only ?

[sandtest]

False. The complete verse states " Udaar charitanam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam" But keep exposing your ignorance further. False. It is originally from the Rig Veda. And Since Rig Veda >> any other hindu scripture in terms of historic and philosophical relevance to hinduism, it gets the credit. Simple really, no ? :

:whatchutalkingabout:whatchutalkingabout Man, I am really surprised, you have been on record saying that Book No.1, Chapter 164, Verse 46 has "vasidhaiva kutumbakam". here is that entire verse -- इन्द्रम मित्रं वरुणमघ्निमाहुराथो दिव्यः सा सुपर्णोगरुत्मन एकं सद विप्रा बहुधा वादंत्याघ्नियामा मतारिस्वनामहू ----- (1-164-46) Translation in Hindi एक ही सत्यारूप परमेश्वर का विद्वानो ने (विभिन्न गुणों और स्वरूपों के अधर पे) विविध प्रकार से वर्णन करते हैं. उसी परमात्मा को ऐश्वर्य सम्पन्न होने पर -- इंद्र, हितकारी होने पर --मित्र, श्रेष्ठ होने पर-- वरुण, तथा प्रकाशक होने पर - अग्नि कहा गया है. वह(परमात्मा) सुपुर्ना तथा गरुत्मन है. Translation of above Hindi into English : That one supreme Being as per His various aspects has been described by wise people in different ways. That supreme being when desired for wealth is Indra, when desired for well being is -Mitra. When desired to achieve highest is varun and for brightness is Agni. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where does it mentions "vasudhaiva kutumbakam"??:confused_smile:

[Bongosamaj]

I stand corrected- it is from the Maha Upanishads, not Rigveda. My point is, are you disagreeing with Vasudaiva kumbakam or not ? My point is, how can you be a hindu on one hand and be a fierce nationalist on the other hand, since hinduism is NOT about nationalism! As I said, pick what you are - An Indian nationalist or a hindu. Your quote 'janamabhumi blahblahblah' is about birthland, which is not the same concept as a nation. And do you recognize my point about Burmese hating India in the future for supplying arms to their brutal regime or not ?

[sandtest]

I stand corrected- it is from the Maha Upanishads' date= not Rigveda.?

Ohh boy, this is what I have been trying to tell you in polite way that it is not from Rigveda but definately from Upanishads which is nothing but philosphical explanation of Veda. I am really amazed, you quoted EXACT -- Verse, Book, Chapter, without caring to read it..:omg_smile: Bhai, please next time when you visit india just go to gita-press and get hold of Upanishads, you will love reading it!

My point is, are you disagreeing with Vasudaiva kumbakam or not ?

No boss. your very first point was that YOU know about the verse and I know nothing. I am just a stupid Hindu!! That is why I challenged you to prove this. Now since you have admitted that you were wrong, my intention was not to embarrass you. But to hint you that quoting sanskrit texts at drop of hat without knowing it's whereabouts is not correct. And ego of knowledge defeats the purpose of ac quiring knowledge. Now, as far as "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" is concerned -- Who can disagree with a mature Philosphy of Upanishads, my friend....but here we are talking of modern day politics. If we can help people of Burma without harming our interests well and good. I am all for sending troops to overthrow the current regime....BUT what after that??. I have already posted enough pros and cons.....There is an excellent article by one Mr. Swapan Dasgupta which I read today -- probably writer is from your state Bengal.....Just go thru that article. If we are damn sure that we can eliminate "Totally" current regime then there is nothing wrong in sending troops. China will look like real bad arse if they will appose India in restoring democracy, militarily and might loose their Olympic hosting rights as well. We will get Europe, US support in thwarting China.....BUT -----: problem is can we really and TOTALLY eliminate current military rulers....It should not become like Afghanistan where these rogue military elements mount attack in guerilla manner, even after they are defeated, thus effectively making it an endless war. If we are sure that we can gain total control and handover power to democracy leadres of Burma then we should intervene militarily. Otherwise, if we can deal with dictatorships that too hostile in nature like china and Pakistan then why not Burma. Good night, see u guz tommorrow.

[Bongosamaj]

Who can disagree with a mature Philosphy of Upanishads, my friend....but here we are talking of modern day politics.

So on one hand you are saying who can disagree with this and on another you are saying you disagree coz this is modern day politics. Sounds a trifle inconsistent!

BUT what after that??.

After that we come home. Not stay around telling Burmese how to run their own country ala America style.

There is an excellent article by one Mr. Swapan Dasgupta which I read today -- probably writer is from your state Bengal.....Just go thru that article.

I found his article interesting but very narrowminded and typically ' lets not do anything bold, instead lets just focus on idle rants' mentality of his.

problem is can we really and TOTALLY eliminate current military rulers....It should not become like Afghanistan where these rogue military elements mount attack in guerilla manner, even after they are defeated, thus effectively making it an endless war.

Yes we can. Let me elaborate on why and where the differences lie with Afghanistan. Every land/country, broadly speaking, can be divided in two broad categories in military topography : The cities/urban areas and the Countryside. Controlling a nation involves different degrees of control for both aspects. In Afghanistan, the reason for the potracted struggle is because it involves religion. Religion makes people do many mad things - from Crusades and Jihads to tearing down mosques. The Taliban government were not just the rulers of Afghanistan, they represented a significant part of Afghanistan's muslim brotherhood too. When the Americans moved against Afghanistan, the taliban used religion to combat it. The Taliban movement sprang predominantly from Pakistan ( or rather, from the refugee camps dotting the western parts of Pakistan) but it gained control of Afghanistan through the countryside first. They infiltrated villages & little hovels, got the population to back them and slowly built up their power-base through that avenue. Hell, kabul, Qandahar, Herat, etc. were taken by the Taliban military very late in the 'Taliban revolution' and their grasp of the cities has always been tenuous, brokered predominantly by bribing/threatening/controlling the warlords for those towns. This is not only evident from history of that period of Afghanistan, this is also evident from the power-status in Afghanistan today : the coalition troops control most Afghan cities but they do not control the countryside. This is why every now and then some dude walks in the town, blows himself up and the Americans find nothing after doing house-to-house searches in the cities. Makes perfect sense, since if the Taliban control sprang from countryside---> cities, it would mean that if the taleban are faced off against a more powerful adversary, they will lose control of the cities first, then lastly the countryside. This is not the case with Burma- it is already well known that the burmese militia hates the country's buddhist clergy and the burmese militia by no means represents the religion of Burma- they don't even pretend to represent the religion of Burma. Furthermore, Burmese militia does not control its countryside. Let me tell you a bit about Burma's geo-social picture: Burma in many ways, is the 'egypt of the jungles' : The country is dominated by one river ( Irrawady) and 90% of burmese live in the heavily populated ( and most burmese cities are here too) Irrawady rivery valley & the vast Irrawady delta. Around the very south of Burma( which looks like Burma's tail on the map), there are a few cities but most of the country is hilly and filled with plateaus that are densely forested with tropical jungles. This is why Burma has problems with terrorism despite China helping the burmese military stamp them out and India making life hard for any rebels it can get its hands on- Indian or burmese. Since the military does not control the jungles and countryside of Burma, the rebels hide out in the forests. Mind you, i do not use the word 'terrorists' in this case because these rebels do not go around blowing up cities in Burma- their fight is against the Burmese military and they got a bloody good reason for it. People like the Karen in Burma serve a prime example : they live in the most sparsely populated part of Burma, an area filled with dense jungles and few towns and several villages. Due to this isolation, the Karen developed a distinctly different culture from the Bamars ( the largest ethnic group in Burma and Burma is named after the Bamars). They were quite happy to recognize the authority of Rangoon/Mandalay(Burma's capitals for the last several hundred years are around these two cities) but when the Military Junta came to power, they decieded that it would be in Burma's interest if all Burma became one people of one culture & ethnicity and Karen being one of the most distinct & small sized minority, the Junta decieded to start with them and then move to bigger fish. They simply showed up, started taking Karen women as wives for unmarried Militia soldiers ( not to mention, generous amounts of rape) and anyone who said anything just got a bullet in the head. The Karen organized some resistance but the Junta in response wiped out entire towns & villages, forcing most of the Karen people to either flee to friendlier shores ( in this case, Thailand) or take refuge in the dense jungles of Burma where the military cannot get to them easily. Yet, the activities of the Karen involve blowing up Junta military bases or bombing Junta convoys. They didn't just show up and start blowing themselves up in Rangoon or blow up the Shwedagon Pagoda. This i think is a fairly expected and understandable response and something we should not insult by labelling as 'terrorists'. Most rebels in Burma are from a few ethnic minority crowds that felt the brunt of the military junta in their brutal opression. Whatever the military Junta does in Bamar-populated areas like Rangoon or Mandalay, you can bet your life on the idea that they do 10 times worse to non-bamar areas. Anyways, it is a fairly good perspective to say that the Junta will not find any support in the countryside of Burma and that they do not control it. So it basically becomes the war of the easier kind : the war for cities. You move against cities, you fight the army & break its hold on cities and you win. Wars where the opposition controls the countryside is far harder to win because the countryside is always far bigger than the city areas, there are always fewer people and far more places to hide away. So all the Indian army has to do is, march into Burma and have a few battles with the Burmese military. It shouldn't be more than a 4 month war at worst either.

If we are sure that we can gain total control and handover power to democracy leadres of Burma then we should intervene militarily.

My friend, this is the problem i underlined in my initial post. The Indian mentality is too conservative in this regard. What do you mean by 'be sure' ? Nothing is sure my friend, even your Sri Krishna mentions at beginning of Kurukshetra that the outcome is not for sure and many tests lie ahead. Or think of it this way- if you are sure to win, then it means that the other side is sure to lose. If the other side knows its sure to lose, would there be any war at all ? Wouldn't it then just be some diplomat saying ' We declare war on you!' and the other diplomat responding with ' Okay! you win! we lose. War over!' ?? Nothing is for sure- things are all about probabilities- if it favours you, you do it, if it does not, you do not. Right now, as i painstakingly explained, the probabilities favour India. And chances are, probabilities will not be this favourable to India for a very long time. Simply because, just because this is 2007 and the 2008 Olympics in Beijing is just months away, China is hamstrung. China is unlikely to take direct action against India for burma's sake because China cares about its image, it desperately wants the western world to show that it can be as 'advanced' and capable. You forget the importance of this olympics to China ( if you want an idea, visit the official beijing olympics website run by the Chinese govt.) - not only is this the FIRST Olympics for China, this is also the FIRST Olympics outside of 'European world'. China is actively drumming up how 'momentous' this occasion is, for the most hallowed of European traditions ( the Olympics) to be held outside of European world for the first time in the history of mankind. Under such 'image' issues, China is very nervous about the Olympics. Think about this- in the Olympics, China will be forced to admit hundreds or thousands of international journalists to cover the Olympics. There is no buts or ifs in this - this is mandated by the IOC and any country that hosts the Olympics has to agree to IOC rules. Remember, IOC owns the Olympics- if it says tomorrow that Beijing 2008 is cancelled, China can go beserk but nobody will show up for the Olympics. Period. And it is a long event too, lasting more than a month. Based on sucha situation, do you think it would be wise for China to take direct action against India in support of a brutal dictatorship ? If it does so, these thousands of journos will turn hostile to the govt. of China ( remember, most people dont like the Commie Chinese, so they are a bit hostile anyways, this will make them even more so) and they will go around ferreting stories about China's misdeeds in china. This could spark a revolution in China and the communists there are very aware of this. Remember, all is not hunky-dory in China- there have been a few mass protests and anger at government mismanagement & info clampdowns in China and suffice to say, people there are not all 'at one' with the communists. This is why i said that the window of opportunity is now- if India does something 5 yrs from now, China will be far less hesitant to move against India militarily. And yes, the outcome is not set in stone. We can still bollox it up - but the odds favour us. In such a situation, we really have to back ourselves and remember the saying 'fortune favours the bold'. We don't have to worry about religious extremism from the Burmse ( they are BUDDHISTS! ), we don't have to worry about some sort of potracted struggle with the Burmse people and getting bogged down in Burma. We don't have to worry about beating the Burmse military ( we can crush them in reality). All we have to worry about is China- what is China going to do if we attack Burma ? Right now, China's odds of doing something is far smaller than when the Olympics are over, the journos have left & China can go back to doing what it wants. Right now is the window of opportunity. Right now is the time for India to show some spine and do something significant at the world stage in the last 1000 years. One act of boldness from India- just one. That is all i ask. But its a pipe-dream i guess.

[sandtest]

we really have to back ourselves and remember the saying 'fortune favours the bold'. We don't have to worry about religious extremism from the Burmse ( they are BUDDHISTS! ), we don't have to worry about some sort of potracted struggle with the Burmse people and getting bogged down in Burma. We don't have to worry about beating the Burmse military ( we can crush them in reality). All we have to worry about is China- what is China going to do if we attack Burma ? Right now, China's odds of doing something is far smaller than when the Olympics are over, the journos have left & China can go back to doing what it wants. Right now is the window of opportunity. Right now is the time for India to show some spine and do something significant at the world stage in the last 1000 years. One act of boldness from India- just one. That is all i ask. But its a pipe-dream i guess.

If there was a BJP government, possibility of military intervention was more, as these guys have guts to stand up for a cause when it matters!!! RSS has fair ideology, which includes Budhhism and Sikhism in "broad" Dharma fold along with Hinduism. RSS considers Budhism a complement to Hinduism and is on record acknowledging Lord Buddha as 9th incarnation of Vishnu (Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narsimha, Vamana, Parashurama, Ram and Krishna being the previous 8 incarnations in different Yugas as per Vishnu Puran and Lord Kalki as tenth and final one). So ideologically, we Indians have no problem in supporting Budhists instead of military Junta with Chincommie presence -- who want to suppress Budhism from Burma to generate a space for their Commie atheist ideology to flourish, like they did in Tibet. Also if Burma comes under India's influence with strong spiritual ties, it will affect Chinis in particularly in Tibet and probably their influence in Bhutan, becuase Tibet, Burma and Bhutan have very strong cultural affinities.

[sandtest]

Well, on other side, our TOTAL inaction is strictly Nehru's legacy that has now become the bone-marrow of Congress. BJP had no such problem. They were quite assertive and deft in foreign policy. See the Bhutan army's hounding of Ulfa cadres under NDA' nudge. NDA blasted nukes and then admirably managed the fallout, from so called world-power and Non-Proliferation Taliban (NPT). And real initiators of todays Nuclear deal with USA were Jaswant Singh and Stock Talbott -- who initially started discussing this idea in strict privacy -- which now Congress trying to take credit. BJP led NDA government got Sikkim removed officially from China's maps. And who can forget how they made Malaysia grovel and apologise when Indian engineers were kicked and pushed around by the police there in the middle of night. NDA was even threatening punitive import duty on palm imports from Malaysia if it did not take any action. Nationalists are naturally assertive. That is why why western countries are frantically promoting leftists and liberals from India as counter-balance and showering them with awards. While, when it comes to their own country they promote Nationalism. Congress is the culprit for spineless and ineffective foriegn policy, not India or Indians. The sooner this party dissappears, the better. This is what happens when a party has no ideology or national vision except a lust for power and obsession with ummah appeasing vote for next elections and just mouths stupid vacant words like "secularism" and non-alignment.

[sandtest]

Found this opium growing in Burma article relevant -- http://www.allmyanmar.com/new%20allmyanmar.com/Golden%20Triangle.htm remote area covering parts of Shan State in Myanmar and smaller, adjacent areas in Laos and Thailand — conveys mystery and intrigue. The GoldenTriangle, reputed to be a large opium producing area, is a thickly forested and mountainous region beyond government control. Since the end of World war 2 the Golden Triangle has been a haven for various groups including: the Kuomintang or KMT, Nationalist Chinese troops who escaped to Myanmar after their defeat by the Chinese communists; Shan and Kaching insurgents and the Communist Party of Burma, CPB, who established a base among the Wa people.... The U.S. financed the KMT to pressure the Chinese communists under Mao. After Nixon and Kissinger established stronger relations with China under Mao, the U.S. withdrew support from the KMT who then turned to raising poppies to finance their activities.... Earlier, in 1989, Khun Sa had indicated to President Bush that he would cease planting poppies and in 1975 Law Hsin Han offered to sell the complete opium crop of the Golden Triangle Shan State to the United States in exchange for another cash crop. These suggestions and others have been arrogantly rejected by the United States who blame Myanmar for not solving the problem in the Golden Triangle... The government of Myanmar enacted a Narcotic Drug Law in 1974 and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Law in 1993 to combat drug trafficking. The Central Committee for Drug Abuse Control (CCDAC) is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the laws and of encouraging crop substitution and livestock farming. The government also provides treatment as well as conducting information and education programs. Rehabilitation, information and education have been undertaken. Myanmar is also actively co-operating with countries in the region as well as with UN agencies in drug control work. From 1990 to 1997, seized narcotics valued at over $52 million were publicly destroyed at 11 exhibitions before state, diplomatic and UN officials... Tachilek, located on the Myanmar-Thai border in the eastern sector of Thanlwin Shan State, is being upgraded as a gateway to the heart of the Golden Triangle. The Friendship Bridge across the small Mae Sai stream links Tachilek with the northern Thai border town of Mae Sai. The area is currently being developed for tourism and cross-border trade with Laos, Thailand and China. One can fly direct from Yangon to Tachilek in an hour or motor 450 kilometres east from Taunggyi to Kentung, then 163 kilometres south to Tachilek. There is a ferry landing site at Wanpon port on the Mekong River at the Myanmar-Laos border, 29 kilometres from Tachilek. The port also handles goods shipments to and from Thailand and China. Work is under way to develop the town as a exchange centre for trading goods.

[Guest dada_rocks]

U know I am depressed/tired/bored and need a break asap from everything even from myself; when I give a religious/political thread passe. So here is my yawnnnnnn Screw Burma and burmese:finger:

[kumble_rocks]

U know I am depressed/tired/bored and need a break asap from everything even from myself; when I give a religious/political thread passe. So here is my yawnnnnnn Screw Burma and burmese:finger:

I am in the same boat ! I used to be a news junkie and used to listen to BBC all the time and the only thing I like now is the BBC music . Rocks !:two_thumbs_up: