Can India achieve Great Power Status ?

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
I thought India did not only beat pakistan but capture tens of thousands of them . you forget 1971 even if it was only east pakistan...
East Pakistan was a militarily indefensible territory. You may well remember that though India won the war on the eastern front, on the western front, there was a stalemate.

Even today, show me a single Indian general who says that beating Pakistan is a cakewalk. Even Brigadier Ray has admitted in his earlier posts that the Pakistanis are no pushovers. China on the other hand, is a whole different ballgame altogether. The PLA is twice the size of the InA, and they are very well equipped and supplied with indigenously produced armaments.

Banging your head on a wall will not damage the wall, but it will surely break your skull. So best way is to concede to the superiority of the Chinese, just as we advise the Pakis to concede to Indian superiority.
 

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
This post is from Known_Unknown under the following thread to remind him of his plans in 2011 which have taken a dive for worst.

What would you do if you were elected PM of India?

Consider this hypothetical scenario: You are elected PM of India with a solid majority. You have your own party, which is neither Congress nor BJP. Your party consists of millions of grass roots workers as well as kar-sevaks, some of them armed with pistols, swords and other easily available weapons. The nation now looks to you as their leader and treats you as a demi-god (a la Nehru or Gandhi). You have all the opportunity in the world to fix everything that's wrong with the country. What would your plan be?

Here's what I would do:

Ban all other political parties. Amend the Constitution to declare myself PM and President for an indefinite term. Concentrate all national resources for building up the national economy as well as the strength and capacity of the armed forces. Plan to increase the strength of the army from 1.2m to 12m, with a 60,000 tank mechanized force and 30,000 pcs of artillery within a decade. Increase AF strength to 100 squadrons. Replace most of the Navy's surface fleet with indigenous SSN's and SSBN's. Privatise the DRDO and all other arms research bodies, and force them to come up with indigenous artillery, guns, howitzers, RPG's, and other basic weapons as fast as they can. Secretly accelerate the production of the Agni V and commence design and manufacture of the Surya series of ICBM's to deter potential superpowers from interference. Also massively increase the amount of nukes.

At the same time, shed the pacifist pussy image and break all ties with Pakistan. Deny all overflights, ban all types of trade, deny visas to any and all Pakistanis except a minimal amount of diplomatic staff. Start harassing Pakis by playing with the water levels in the dams in Kashmir. Re-instate RAW's covert ops division, and conduct targeted assassinations of Paki armed forces personnel and politicians suspected of having links to terrorist attacks inside India.

Invade, occupy and annex Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. These don't have large populations and can be easily controlled. Annexation of Nepal and Bhutan will solve India's "chicken neck" problem, and makes Bangladesh irrelevant for the purposes of connecting the NE.

Since a sustained and long-term war effort will depend on having continued access to oil, securing this will be the most important task. Coupled with an increased focus on exploration and exploitation of India's own oil reserves (Rajasthan could contribute up to 40% of India's total oil production by 2014 - Money - DNA), pacts will have to be signed with Iran and Russia to ensure sufficiency.

Once these steps have been taken, a gradual build-up of tension on the border with Pakistan will be started. Ratchet up the rhetoric about recovering PoK, and convince the Pakis with action. If terrorists engage in gun battles with armymen across the LoC, crossborder raids will be carried out to eliminate them. In case Paki armed forces open fire, pummel them with thousands of arty pcs and MBRL's. The Pakis must be convinced that India is on the verge of launching an all-out invasion to destroy them completely. When this happens, convene a secret meeting with Pakis where an ultimatum will be served to hand over PoK or face extinction.

The Paki Army, seeing the huge difference in relative military strengths will choose survival over extinction. If they do refuse, start preparing for all-out war. Launch a pre-emptive missile strike with 200 nukes targeting the Paki capital, all their major nuke research facilities, storage sites, military cantonments, storage sites and weapons manufacturing facilities. At the same time, mount a massive air raid to destroy all their main air bases and aircraft hangars, while simultaneously blockading Karachi and Gwadar ports. Prepare a three-pronged ground invasion: one towards Karachi, one towards Lahore and one towards Islamabad. The Paki Army will have no time to react. Within a week, Pakiland will be under Indian control. Sindh, PoK, and Balochistan will be annexed. NWFP will be merged with Afghanistan. As for Pakjabiland, it will deserve special treatment. It will be surrounded on 3 sides by India, so Pakjabiland will be made an Indian protectorate (a la West/East Germany), a buffer state between the mad tribes of the Pakhtuns and India.

Once this is accomplished, part 2: Mission China (for next time).

To Known_unknown:

This was your plan for the future course of India, if you were PM of India in October 2011 so what happened between this post and new post in which you want India to surrender to China's whims. Have you lost all the motivation to help India in reaching the goals set by us. You did motivate lot of us to come up with our own ideas and I included you in our cabinet whereas I am the PM.

We are still waiting for part 2 of your vision.

I had to do this for one and only one reason because your comments really enraged me to a point I cannot explain. I do not surrender and fight to the last man. I will try to reply to each and every post of your on this thread at a later date.
You cannot fight with sticks and stones when your opponent has a Chain gun. As I explained earlier, India is too divided internally to ever become united for the common good of all its people. If India was homogenous like China, then we might have had a shot at becoming a great power.

But when Indian politicians cannot even agree on how to govern the nation, have to ally themselves in 16 or 21 party coalitions and manage all the ideological differences that come with them, it is not realistic to expect anything more than that India should remain a single united country instead of breaking up into countless little territories.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
You cannot fight with sticks and stones when your opponent has a Chain gun. As I explained earlier, India is too divided internally to ever become united for the common good of all its people. If India was homogenous like China, then we might have had a shot at becoming a great power.
We can't be racially homogenous as the Chinese, but we have a chance at ideological homegenization (somewhat like USA), which IMO is superior
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
India does not have the wherewithal to block the Malacca Straits. China has over 50 submarines that can sink the Indian Navy if they tried to block Malacca. In addition, China can attack India all across the LoAC. Indian formations all along the Chinese border are defensive in nature and are not meant for offensive action inside Tibet. Logistics is a nightmare on the Indian side of the border, while on the Chinese side, they can easily transport troops and supplies over the Tibetan plateau using their much superior infrastructure.

Besides, what do you think the Gwadar port is for?

You are dead wrong here..
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
China on the other hand, is a whole different ballgame altogether. The PLA is twice the size of the InA, and they are very well equipped and supplied with indigenously produced armaments.
PLA may be twice the size but it depend heavily where they fight..

Secondly Indian Army is also supplied and Equipped with Indigenous produced arms ( Infantry & Arty ), What lacked is Infrastructure to support them..
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
We can't be racially homogenous as the Chinese, but we have a chance at ideological homegenization (somewhat like USA), which IMO is superior
Even the Chinese are not racially homogeneous; rather they are culturally homogeneous (or at least share many elements of a common culture). A 'Han' is anyone who is Sinicized and has adopted 'Han' culture.

The Han themselves have very diverse racial origins; a 'Han' from Manchuria has a much different physical appearance and ethnic background compared to a 'Han' from Yunnan, near the Burmese border. But they both share a common 'Chinese' culture, which is what matters.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
Even the Chinese are not racially homogeneous; rather they are culturally homogeneous. A 'Han' is anyone who is Sinicized and has adopted Han culture,

The Han themselves have very diverse racial origins; a 'Han' from Manchuria has a much different physical appearance and ethnic background compared to a 'Han' from Yunnan, near the Burmese border. But they both share a common 'Chinese' culture, which is what matters.
Say....a Russian adopts Chinese culture, can he become Han ? ;)

Chinese nationalism has racial component apart from cultural.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
Say....a Russian adopts Chinese culture can he become Han ? ;)
Sure. I think it would be more difficult for a Russian to be 'Sinicized' since Russians are not native to the region at all, but there's no reason why it can't happen. Far more absurd cases of cultural assimilation have taken place.

The Mandarin word for Siniciziation, Hanhua, basically means "becoming Han".


Chinese nationalism has racial component apart from cultural.
I think the racial component is a fairly recent feature of Chinese/Han nationalism, and largely fictitious as well. The whole concept of a "race" is a European concept to begin with.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
Sure. I think it would be more difficult for a Russian to be 'Sinicized' since Russians are not native to the region at all, but there's no reason why it can't happen. Far more absurd cases of cultural assimilation have taken place.

The Mandarin word for Siniciziation, Hanhua, basically means "becoming Han".
Doubt it.


I think the racial component is a fairly recent feature of Chinese/Han nationalism, and largely fictitious as well. The whole concept of a "race" is a European concept to begin with.
It might have been a Chinese concept before that.
 

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
We can't be racially homogenous as the Chinese, but we have a chance at ideological homegenization (somewhat like USA), which IMO is superior
I believe racial homogenization is better than ideological homogenization. Ideologies wither away and die, but a racially homogenous nation becomes and stays a great power through its belief in the greatness of its people, regardless of the ideology guiding them. For example, the Russians were a great power under the Tsars, under the Communists and now under Putin. The same can be said of China (Qing Dynasty, Mao, market oriented current CCP leaders) and the French (Imperial France, Napoleon, Charles De Gaulle).

India was once a great power under Ashoka and the Guptas, but that was a merely flash in the pan. A couple hundred years of global importance amid millenia of enslavement by foreign powers and infighting.

Since someone here said earlier that history repeats itself, the only event we have to look forward to is either the disintegration of the Indian Union or it's enslavement by a foreign power.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
India was once a great power under Ashoka and the Guptas, but that was a merely flash in the pan. A couple hundred years of global importance amid millenia of enslavement by foreign powers and infighting.

Since someone here said earlier that history repeats itself, the only event we have to look forward to is either the disintegration of the Indian Union or it's enslavement by a foreign power.
But Mauryans and Gupta were not an ethnocentric empire. Ideology is a double edged sword. Sure it can wither away and die, but it also has the power to transcend race and establish a global presense.
 

ashdoc

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
2,980
Likes
3,682
Country flag
vegetarians can never achieve great power status :rolleyes:
 

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
But Mauryans and Gupta were not an ethnocentric empire. Ideology is a double edged sword. Sure it can wither away and die, but it also has the power to transcend race and establish a global presense.
Sure Mauryans and Guptas were ethnocentric. In medieval times, all Indian rulers were ethnocentric. Why else were they fighting each other? They belonged to the same or similar religion, only thing that divided them was language and ethnicity.

As for ideology, name one power in the history of the world that has managed to retain its importance despite extensive racial diversity. (The US is not the right answer, since it has allowed non-white immigration only in the past few decades).

Multiculturalism is the bane of greatpowerdom. Rome collapsed due to it, and so will the US. Countries that are racially homogenous aspire to greatpowerdom due to the shared historical experiences and common aspirations of their citizens. If the citizens come from radically different backgrounds, they have different philosophical, religious and political outlooks, resulting in too many internal divisions to be able to decide on the best way to move the country forward.
 

nimo_cn

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
4,032
Likes
883
Country flag
Sorry to interrupt, but I have to agree with KU, multiculturalism only makes a country look good during peaceful time. In a critical time, it brings more troules than benefits.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
Today, India and China are almost diametric opposites, with India being a highly diverse, pluralistic entity and China a homogeneous, monolithic one. But there was a point in history when both civilisations were at a crossroads, facing more or less similar circumstances. India, in fact, was first politically unified before China. Chandragupta Maurya's ascension to power in c.321 B.C.E. came exactly one century prior to the rise of the first imperial Chinese dynasty, the Qin, in 221 B.C.E. Both the Mauryas and the Qin were centralized, bureaucratic empires with aggressive foreign policies and internal policies aimed at consolidation and unification of vast landmasses.

The Mauryas were short-lived even by Indian standards; there were only three important emperors whose cumulative reigns totaled about 90 years, and the empire began falling apart as soon as Ashoka died. But the Qin were even more short-lived, with only one emperor (Qin Shi Huang) who reigned for only 14 bloody years. Moreover, his reign was marred by cruelty and oppression, while the reign of Ashoka was marked by enlightened and benevolent rule. Yet the successors of the Qin, the Han, adopted the essentials of Qin governance (while replacing legalist brutality with the more socially-conducive philosophy of Confucianism), and paved the way for nearly 2,000 years of Imperial China, where the concept of 'China' would emerge as a singular, cultural entity. On the other hand, the efforts of the Mauryas were quickly forgotten; first India's political unity was lost, and then its potential ideological unity was corrupted by the Hinayana-Mahayana schism during the Fourth Buddhist Council in the Kushana period, until Buddhist ethics were finally swept aside by Brahmanical orthodoxy during the supposed 'Golden Age' of the Guptas. While the Qin ended regionalism and feudalism in China and ushered in imperial unity, which continued even after its fall, in India the fall of the Mauryas ushered in the very same regionalism and feudalism.

Why the histories of India and China diverged so strongly is open to interpretation.
 

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,626
Likes
1,670
^^Thanks, great post comparing the historical evolution of both countries!
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
No...unless we come out of the small man syndrome and start acting like big powers.
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
Sorry to interrupt, but I have to agree with KU, multiculturalism only makes a country look good during peaceful time. In a critical time, it brings more troules than benefits.
A very good point.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
The worlds lone super power is as diverse as it can get.

Whatever happened to the idea of nation and nationalism.

Is 5000 years of common culture and 80% people belonging to one religion not enough to bind the country?

Why we cannot be a super power is dictated by who makes policy than any lack of "homogeneity" in the society.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top