The Candid Eye

January 10, 2010

How prepared are you if terrorists strike again??

Filed under: India,Jihad,Terrorism,USA,Wahabism — thecandideye @ 6:00 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

This one is very informative and MUST read article from Juval Aviv, the former Israeli Agent. The information is not only useful and very much needed one for India also.

Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie ‘Munich’ was based. He was Golda Meir’s bodyguard, and she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games.

Staying Safe by Juval Aviv : Image Courtesy - Wikipedia

In a lecture in New York City he shared information that EVERY American needs to know — but that our government has not yet shared with us.

He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O’Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O’Reilly laughed, and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show. Unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.

Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the Middle East) to the Bush Administration about 9/11, a month before it occurred. His report specifically said they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. Congress has since hired him as a security consultant.

Now for his future predictions. He predicts the next terrorist attack on the U.S. will occur within the next few months.

Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke — that we have beenreactionary rather than proactive in developing strategies that are truly effective.

For example:

1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new explosives are made of plastic.
2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can’t bring liquids on board. He says he’s waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked!
3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates.

Every strategy we have is reactionary.

Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a drink, and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved. In Israel, security checks bags BEFORE people can even ENTER the airport.

Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate. (i.e., Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, big cities (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as, rural America this time. The interlands (Wyoming, Montana, etc.).

The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, including rural areas.

Aviv says terrorists won’t need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.

Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S. Government does not want to ‘alarm American citizens’ with the facts. The world is quickly going to become ‘a different place’, and issues like ‘global warming’ and political correctness will become totally irrelevant.

On an encouraging note, he says that Americans don’t have to be concerned about being nuked. Aviv says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons. They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It’s cheap, it’s easy, it’s effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to ‘meet their destiny’.

He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America  should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad.  But will be, instead, ‘homegrown’, having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U.S. He says to look for ’students’ who frequently travel back and forth to the  Middle East. These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won’t know/understand a thing about them.

Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terrorist threats we will inevitably face.  America still has only a handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact SOON.

So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel’s, Ireland’s and England’s hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to pay attention to, and trust ‘aware’ citizens to help. We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens, ‘like babies’. Our government thinks we ‘can’t handle the truth’ and are concerned that we’ll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake.

Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities. The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago, someone tried to steal the briefcase!

In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well ‘trained’ that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizen(s) who know to publicly shout, ‘Unattended Bag!’ The area would be quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves.

Unfortunately, America  hasn’t been yet ‘hurt enough’ by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it’s their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism.

Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were ‘lost’ without parents being able to pick them up, and about our schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get there. (In New York City, this was days, in some cases!)

He stresses the importance of having a plan, that’s agreed upon within your family, of how to respond in the event of a terrorist emergency. He urges parents to contact their children’s schools and demand that the schools too, develop plans of actions, just as they do in Israel.

Does your family know what to do if you can’t contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.

Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan, that in the event of another terrorist

attack, EVERYONE’s ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., will immediately be cut-off, as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated.

How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak to each other? You need to have a plan.

Related Posts:

Saudis have radicalized 80% of US mosques

Talibans in J&K

Pakistan ran Muslim extremist terrorist camps

Advertisements

October 25, 2009

World gears up for a peaceful tomorrow

When Sri Sri Ravi Shankar addressed the second Israeli Presidential Conference on Tuesday titled ‘Facing Tomorrow’, he hoped that if tomorrow comes, it would be peaceful.

So he spread his message of cheer and comfort among the August gathering at the gala opening of the three-day event that was inaugurated by President Shimon Perez and began with a video message from President Barak Obama, in the presence of world leaders from USA, Europe, ministers from China, ambassadors and representatives from the UN, research scientists, engineers, IT professionals, entrepreneurs and Noble Laureates.

The guru, who has a huge following in Israel, applied his own brand of narrative medicine, which is about healing yourself by hearing the stories of others. Touching upon a gamut of topics from climate change to the leadership issues in Israel and Palestine, a concerned Sri Sri Ravi Shankar said he was optimistic that patience and perseverance will bring peace in the region. With his wit and humor, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar brought a sense of lightness and laughter to an atmosphere.

Israel’s renowned talk show host Dan Shilon was the moderator for the session with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on a panel, along with President Shimon Perez, Jimmy Wales, the founder for Wikipedia, Andre Azoulay, Counsellor of His Majesty Mohammed VI, King of Morocco, Cecilia Attias, President of Cecilia Attias Foundation for Women, and entrepreneur and philanthropist Guma Aguiar.

Israel’s TV & Radio 2 stated, “No doubt, the most colourful and interesting talk was by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar.” They quoted Sri Sri’s address saying, “vision and mission is needed among the youth towards resolving the conflict.” A statement issued by the president’s office noted that the conference was being held amid a number of significant problems facing the world. It listed them as the ongoing economic crisis, continuing ecological deterioration, political instability in the Middle East and Iran’s push to acquire nuclear weapons.

Leading economic, political, intellectual, and technological experts from Israel and the world will address these issues in this year’s conference, Perez’s’ office said.

October 20, 2009

The Future Cars!!

Filed under: Automobile,Technology — thecandideye @ 9:30 AM
Tags: , , , , , ,

Think of this scenario.What if your car gives the same mileage as your bike?What if your car gives 5 times more mileage for a litre of petrol/diesel?What if your car pollute only 1/10 th of its current pollution rate?Isn’t remarkable?

Gad Assaf, the CTO of Agam Energy Systems along with his company CEO, Moshe Maroko have invented a new path breaking technology for Automobile technology that has not changed since the invention of piston based engine.

Turbine based Engine

Turbine based Engine

Heat engines usually use piston drives and crankshafts to convert linear motion to rotating motion. There were many attempts to convert gas turbines, which dominate the aviation industry, into a compact vehicle engine. In these attempts, the small turbine rotate at 60,000 rpm or so, which requires expensive transmission or electric power generation that reduces shaft work efficiency.

Liquid ring machinery are simple, reliable and low noise compressors and vacuum pumps, which convert the shaft work to radial compression without utilizing pistons and crankshafts. Analysis of the different components of shaft work in liquid ring compressors indicate that close to about 50% dissipate at the Liquid Ring-Casing boundary. With the LRRCC, the boundary friction is replaced by frictional bearing, which is less than 10% of the liquid ring dissipation. This makes the LRRCC a competitive partner in the compressor’s and the expander’s machinery.

The Israeli air-conditioning company, Agam Energy Systems Ltd., is expanding its energy conservation technology to develop fuel-efficient technology for car engines.

“Cars are very inefficient,” said Ofer Spottheim, business development manager at Agam. “It’s the same idea that has been used for the past 100 years. When I took my driving lessons 25 years ago it drove at 10 km/1 litre. It still drives at 10km/1 litre.”

Electric cars offer promise, but switching over still has limits: infrastructure is lacking, new cars need to be built, and the electric car just doesn’t have the same “muscle” as the petrol-fueled machines that people love.

Instead the new engine developed by Agam will enable cars to drive at 45 km/litre. The engine is more efficient even in start and stop city driving because the car stores recoverable kinetic energy.

With oil on a worldwide price hike, Spottheim is confident that there will be a big market for fuel-conserving technology.Compared to a regular car that runs on a piston engine, Agam’s prototype uses a turbine that allows for an 80 percent gas reduction and a 90% reduction of C02.

Previous attempts at creating a turbine engine have failed mainly because of the extremely high amount of energy required to move the compressors.Since cold air is compressed much easier, Agam devised a water-ring compressor that cools the air by spraying cold water.

The engine can also be used as a small to medium sized electricity generator, eliminating the need for coal. Up to 22% more efficient than typical electricity generators of the same size, the price will also be lower per kilowatt.

So far, Agam’s prototype has lived up to expectations and the product is expected to be implemented in 2011 in power plants and in 2012 for cars.Agam, run by reserve colonel Moshe Maroko, a former commander of the IDF technology unit, who was twice awarded with the ‘Israel Defense Award’, was able to make the leap from air conditioners to engines because both technologies are based on the laws of physics.

Agam added that the company has not neglected original products and is developing an air-conditioning system at double efficiency that is entirely devoid of Freon – a destroyer of the ozone layer.

The mind behind these efficient products is a former senior scientist at the Weizmann Institute Dr. Gad Assaf, who is a specialist in energy and thermodynamics.

Agam’s turbine engine could be fitted into a regular car with some gear modifications, such as a Toyota Camry, and offer 100 miles to the gallon, the company boasts. This compares to about 21 miles to the gallon of today’s average car. Road efficiency in cars is about 10 percent, says Spottheim, while Agam’s engines promise 55% efficiency.

And of course Agam’s engine is good news for the environment too: It consumes about the fifth of the petrol of a piston-based engine, and emits one-tenth of the CO2 fumes that contribute to global warning.

Agam is based in Hod Hasharon, Israel and currently employs five people. The new engine, the company adds, is designed not just for vehicles but also for industrial machinery and power plants.

Sources:

Agam Energy Systems – Green Prophet.Com

Agam to develop fuel efficient car engines – The Jerusalem Post

Heat Engine Invention – FreshPatents.com

October 2, 2009

Hamas teaches kids to kill Jews

Filed under: Islam,Jihad,Terrorism — thecandideye @ 6:00 AM
Tags: , ,

From PMW

The bear puppet host, Nassur, of a Hamas children’s TV program used different words for “slaughter” to describe how to rid Israel of Jews.

First the bear explains that all Jews must be “erased from our land.” Later in the conversation he adds, “We want to slaughter them, Saraa, so they will be expelled from our land.” He repeats, “…We’ll have to [do it] by slaughter.”

He first uses the Arabic expression for “slaughter,” “Nidbah-hom,” and later on uses the word “Shaht.”

The following is the transcript from the children’s program Tomorrow’s Pioneers:

Nassur: “There won’t be any Jews or Zionists, if Allah wills. They’ll be erased.”
Saraa: “Chased away.”
Nassur: “And just like we will visit the Qaaba [in Mecca]… everyone will visit Jerusalem.”
[Seven-year old Palestinian child on phone tells how his father, a member of the Hamas Al-Qassam Brigades, “died as a Shahid (Martyr).”]
Nassur to child on phone: “What do you want to do to the Jews who shot your father?”
Child on phone: “I want to kill them.”

Saraa: “We don’t want to do anything to them, just expel them from our land.”

Nassur: “We want to slaughter (Nidbah-hom) them, so they will be expelled from our land, right?”

Saraa: “Yes. That’s right. We will expel them from our land using all means.”

Nassur: “And if they don’t want [to go] peacefully, by words or talking, we’ll have to [do it] by slaughter.” (Shaht)

[Al-Aqsa (Hamas) TV, Sept. 22, 2009]

August 10, 2009

Worst case scenario threatening Indian survival

The tradition of statecraft is weak in India though most Indians are apt to name Kautilya proudly to suggest otherwise. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating and Indians have habitually stumbled in their international relations. Local Indian kingdoms in the region failed to unite adequately in the face of medieval Islamic invasions that brought them catastrophe on an unimaginable scale. Medieval Indians might be forgiven for not anticipating that Abrahamic invaders would attempt to erase their cultures altogether and enslave them en masse since local pluralist custom and consanguinity of their traditions ensured that military defeat did not mean extinction. There can be fewer excuses for subsequent failings and the affectations to superiority, combined with childish unrealism, which continued to dominate later Indian history.
The Maratha successors of the great warrior-king Shivaji were betrayed by their own French officers to the formidable Arthur Wellington, admittedly a great general who also saw off the redoubtable Napoleon. And a broken backed Pakistan continues to routinely outwit India today. Fundamentally, Indians refuse to acknowledge the brutally predatory nature of the wider world and persistently adopt the path of least resistance in the apparent hope that difficult problems will go away or can be finessed by compromises.
The Gandhi-Nehru era is considered by many to have been the most dismaying modern example of boundless self-confidence and stupidity in dealings with other countries. In defence of the Mahatma it might be said that his supposed whimsical counsel to surrender and/or commit mass suicide, which is what he advised the Bengali Hindu rape victims of Noakhali, may not be the entire story. Although he reputedly espoused non violence, almost unconditionally, the same Mahatma Gandhi also wrote in The Doctrine of the Sword, “I do believe when there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence… I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless victim to her own dishonour”. When Nehru apologetically informed him of India’s armed defence of Kashmir against Pakistani marauders, engaged in rape and looting, he agreed that there was no choice, but to fight. But Gandhi’s theme of non-violence was handsomely embellished by India’s Anglo-Saxon enemies as a means of befuddling the natives though some among them had their own reasons for choosing befuddlement. Jawaharlal Nehru, though a worldly statesman was another kettle of fish, wildly misconceiving Indian interests at every juncture, choosing the worst possible advisers and ignoring counsel that warned of impending national disaster. Ambassador K. M Pannikar, his evil courtier, led him up the garden path while Nehru banished the formidable Mr. Sinha abroad because the latter insisted on warning of the impending 1962 Chinese attack.
Even Indira Gandhi, who displayed great courage, was failed by a medley of dim-witted advisers, apt to misconstrue their privileged origins as some sort of certification of innate wisdom. And if they could use a knife and fork, unlike the rest of their hapless fellow countrymen and compose adolescent English prose, they were unstoppable. This was the reason why she took the decision to invade Bangladesh without the enthusiastic support of those around her. But she was lucky to have, in General JFR Jacob, one of the great soldiers of the twentieth century and that according to the Times of London, which unfailingly wishes India harm. The fruits of the historic victory were lost because India declined to offend the USSR since it provided critical diplomatic support for its famous military victory. The Soviet leadership pressed India not to demand from Pakistan what might be considered humiliating terms because the US made that a condition for the SALT talks between them scheduled for 1972, which the USSR regarded as crucial. Quite clearly, India should have insisted on a treaty renouncing all Pakistani claims to Indian Territory before agreeing to the cessation of hostilities, even if it offended the USSR. The expression of gratitude in international relations is situational and should be withheld if its does not serve important national interests. It is not the counterpart of an inter-personal relationship that encapsulates inviolable mutual honour!
The most immediate danger for India is a simultaneous military attack by Pakistan and China. Despite apparent Indian military preparedness for such a dire eventuality it is unclear if India could sustain a prolonged engagement with both of them. China is in a position to produce sufficient hardware and ordnance for its own and Pakistan’s military assault against India. India is unfortunately likely to remain dependant on foreign supplies of hardware and possibly ordnance as well for the foreseeable future if the engagement proves long-lasting. Of course the threat of a nuclear factor should enter into the calculations of both aggressors, but India has done everything to convey a message that it is unlikely to resort to nuclear weapons, even in the face of military and political catastrophe. It may be assumed that Russia will not deny India supplies and spares, but there is a high probability that it will press for Indian concessions to keep its own fragile relationship with an increasingly empowered China tolerable. The Israelis are not in a position to substitute Russia and are unlikely to be enthusiastic about enmity with China by helping India. The Americans will do exactly the same, judging Indian territorial losses and humiliation an insufficient cause to jeopardise its historic friendship with Pakistan and offend China, with which it is evidently fashioning a global condominium. On the contrary, India in disarray in the aftermath of defeat might be considered ripe for subordination as a prostrate ally like Pakistan and rapid Christianization.
Indians enamoured of the US are likely to be grievously disappointed when their supposed friendship is tested by the harsh realities of international diplomacy. The US faces no direct threat from China while its ICBMs retain their awesome superiority in variety, accuracy and numbers. While India and Japan may be seen as useful counterweights, in order to elicit an acceptable understanding with China over their respective interests in Asia and elsewhere, actual conflict with it would be considered a failure of US policy. The loss of some Indian territories to China and Pakistan, being ardently sought by both in a war against India, might be regarded as unfortunate, but clearly not a casus belli that should bring it into direct conflict with either aggressor. The obverse does not hold true in the event of the US finding itself in a serious military engagement with China, arising out of an unavoidable dispute with it. In such a situation, Indian bases would be sought and Indians regarded as useful cannon fodder to ensure a satisfactory outcome for the US. There are some within the supposed Indian nationalist constituency that might even be willing to acquiesce in such an unfavourable role for India because they have compromised themselves with the US and are vulnerable to blackmail.
In addition, India’s minor detractors in the region might regard setback suffered by it an opportunity for achieving any territorial ambitions they may have harboured. The enmity of its smaller neighbours stems mainly from a lack of respect for India, which means that although India is pilloried by them as an alleged bully it is precisely because India does not wield a big stick that they complain and needle. Of late there has been a measure of attitudinal change in this motley group of failed states because Indian economic advance, though irksome to them, cannot be altogether denied. In addition, the Cold War incitement against India fuelled by the Anglo-American imperial predators has waned somewhat in the past decade. But India should be under no illusion that if it were to find itself in serious political difficulties they would wish to take advantage with alacrity. India must therefore make provision for this potentially costly eventuality in much the way the USSR did before the onset of war with Nazi Germany in relation to the truculent Finns and Baltic States to secure its strategic perimeter. Such preparations would entail sealing the border with Bangladesh and Nepal and securing the Palk Straits to prevent its use by a third party, aided by Sri Lankan perfidy. In all these cases the threat of devastating Indian fire power should suffice to deter opportunism.
A more complex and disastrous problem lurks inside India itself in the potentially treasonous conduct of Indians themselves and a foreign fifth column embedded discreetly within it. Many of the thousands of foreigners residing legally and illegally in India, including ostensibly accredited journalists and apparently innocuous visitors, are almost certainly agents of foreign powers who will implement pre-existing plans to undertake political and military sabotage. Assorted insurgencies, ranging from ULFA to the Naxalites, are completely controlled by Sino-Pak agencies and will no doubt endeavour to tie down India’s paramilitary forces. It would be a logical goal for them to seize territory and especially small towns, even cities and decapitate the established authority within it. If the military debacle suffered by India is severe whole swathes of Muslim India within its cities, which already enjoy virtual de facto sovereign autonomy, will revolt to assert de jure independence. The Hindus in these cities, especially Kolkata, Hyderabad and other areas adjacent to its borders in Assam, Kashmir and elsewhere will simply flee, precipitating a further effective partition of India. Depending on the scale of the catastrophe, some states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Punjab and J&K and indeed even West Bengal, which have already been subverted politically by foreign interests like evangelical business corporations, could secede and are likely gain immediate political recognition from India’s enemies.
If India’s feeble political leadership showed any sign of deploying nuclear weapons in order to deter Chinese aggression massive public demonstrations, instigated by Left parties and myriad foreign-sponsored NGO activists are guaranteed to oppose it. It may also be hazarded that weak coalition partners at the federal centre, inexperienced and motivated principally by lucre would panic and fold quickly if India’s armed forces suffered a major reverse or local revolts threatened the viability of their own regional party. Most of the leaders of such coalition partners are preoccupied with the personal fortunes of their families and party and their very participation at the federal centre is primarily intended to promote their parochial regional aspirations. India may face the threat of extinction as a political entity if matters get out of hand, but its opinionated Chatterati will no doubt congregate in the capitals salons in the meantime to reflect on the IPL and other assorted matters of substance. The armed forces alone would remain interposed between annihilation and Indian survival. By the time such dire choices are posed, though unlikely, but not inconceivable, it would be too late to work out a strategy in response to them. It is therefore indispensable for India’s armed forces and what remains of its dismayingly politicised and subverted establishment (including its bureaucracy, intelligence services and key players within civil society) to consider what actions they may need to take in the event of a primordial threat to India’s survival.
Seizure of political power by India’s armed forces in such circumstances would be imperative and justified. It would be need to be followed by ruthlessly neutralising saboteurs and foreign agents operating inside the country. The same treatment would have to be meted out to a significant number of the comprador political class under the sway of foreign powers and those groups threatening secession. In order for this to be achieved effectively plans need to be drawn up in advance, covertly, with the help of India’s intelligence agencies, to identify individual candidates for elimination. But the gathering of this information needs to proceed in the greatest secrecy, involving the fewest possible senior personnel of the armed forces and only on a need-to-know basis. Perhaps, this particular task might be best left to retired senior personnel of the agencies concerned. Revolts within cities would need to be crushed immediately and pitilessly to demonstrate the will of the Indian State. A few harsh examples would constitute a salutary deterrent. But most of all, the Indian armed forces would need to wrest control of India’s nuclear weapons from the political class. And with the help of India’s formidable scientific establishment prepare low-yield battlefield nuclear warheads for use, with the menace of escalation to a ballistic level if India is threatened by the nuclear armouries of its adversaries.

The tradition of statecraft is weak in India though most Indians are apt to name Kautilya proudly to suggest otherwise. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating and Indians have habitually stumbled in their international relations. Local Indian kingdoms in the region failed to unite adequately in the face of medieval Islamic invasions that brought them catastrophe on an unimaginable scale. Medieval Indians might be forgiven for not anticipating that Abrahamic invaders would attempt to erase their cultures altogether and enslave them en masse since local pluralist custom and consanguinity of their traditions ensured that military defeat did not mean extinction. There can be fewer excuses for subsequent failings and the affectations to superiority, combined with childish unrealism, which continued to dominate later Indian history.

The Maratha successors of the great warrior-king Shivaji were betrayed by their own French officers to the formidable Arthur Wellington, admittedly a great general who also saw off the redoubtable Napoleon. And a broken backed Pakistan continues to routinely outwit India today. Fundamentally, Indians refuse to acknowledge the brutally predatory nature of the wider world and persistently adopt the path of least resistance in the apparent hope that difficult problems will go away or can be finessed by compromises.

The Gandhi-Nehru era is considered by many to have been the most dismaying modern example of boundless self-confidence and stupidity in dealings with other countries. In defence of the Mahatma it might be said that his supposed whimsical counsel to surrender and/or commit mass suicide, which is what he advised the Bengali Hindu rape victims of Noakhali, may not be the entire story. Although he reputedly espoused non violence, almost unconditionally, the same Mahatma Gandhi also wrote in The Doctrine of the Sword, “I do believe when there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence… I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless victim to her own dishonour”. When Nehru apologetically informed him of India’s armed defence of Kashmir against Pakistani marauders, engaged in rape and looting, he agreed that there was no choice, but to fight. But Gandhi’s theme of non-violence was handsomely embellished by India’s Anglo-Saxon enemies as a means of befuddling the natives though some among them had their own reasons for choosing befuddlement. Jawaharlal Nehru, though a worldly statesman was another kettle of fish, wildly misconceiving Indian interests at every juncture, choosing the worst possible advisers and ignoring counsel that warned of impending national disaster. Ambassador K. M Pannikar, his evil courtier, led him up the garden path while Nehru banished the formidable Mr. Sinha abroad because the latter insisted on warning of the impending 1962 Chinese attack.

Even Indira Gandhi, who displayed great courage, was failed by a medley of dim-witted advisers, apt to misconstrue their privileged origins as some sort of certification of innate wisdom. And if they could use a knife and fork, unlike the rest of their hapless fellow countrymen and compose adolescent English prose, they were unstoppable. This was the reason why she took the decision to invade Bangladesh without the enthusiastic support of those around her. But she was lucky to have, in General JFR Jacob, one of the great soldiers of the twentieth century and that according to the Times of London, which unfailingly wishes India harm. The fruits of the historic victory were lost because India declined to offend the USSR since it provided critical diplomatic support for its famous military victory. The Soviet leadership pressed India not to demand from Pakistan what might be considered humiliating terms because the US made that a condition for the SALT talks between them scheduled for 1972, which the USSR regarded as crucial. Quite clearly, India should have insisted on a treaty renouncing all Pakistani claims to Indian Territory before agreeing to the cessation of hostilities, even if it offended the USSR. The expression of gratitude in international relations is situational and should be withheld if its does not serve important national interests. It is not the counterpart of an inter-personal relationship that encapsulates inviolable mutual honour!

The most immediate danger for India is a simultaneous military attack by Pakistan and China. Despite apparent Indian military preparedness for such a dire eventuality it is unclear if India could sustain a prolonged engagement with both of them. China is in a position to produce sufficient hardware and ordnance for its own and Pakistan’s military assault against India. India is unfortunately likely to remain dependant on foreign supplies of hardware and possibly ordnance as well for the foreseeable future if the engagement proves long-lasting. Of course the threat of a nuclear factor should enter into the calculations of both aggressors, but India has done everything to convey a message that it is unlikely to resort to nuclear weapons, even in the face of military and political catastrophe. It may be assumed that Russia will not deny India supplies and spares, but there is a high probability that it will press for Indian concessions to keep its own fragile relationship with an increasingly empowered China tolerable. The Israelis are not in a position to substitute Russia and are unlikely to be enthusiastic about enmity with China by helping India. The Americans will do exactly the same, judging Indian territorial losses and humiliation an insufficient cause to jeopardise its historic friendship with Pakistan and offend China, with which it is evidently fashioning a global condominium. On the contrary, India in disarray in the aftermath of defeat might be considered ripe for subordination as a prostrate ally like Pakistan and rapid Christianization.

Indians enamoured of the US are likely to be grievously disappointed when their supposed friendship is tested by the harsh realities of international diplomacy. The US faces no direct threat from China while its ICBMs retain their awesome superiority in variety, accuracy and numbers. While India and Japan may be seen as useful counterweights, in order to elicit an acceptable understanding with China over their respective interests in Asia and elsewhere, actual conflict with it would be considered a failure of US policy. The loss of some Indian territories to China and Pakistan, being ardently sought by both in a war against India, might be regarded as unfortunate, but clearly not a casus belli that should bring it into direct conflict with either aggressor. The obverse does not hold true in the event of the US finding itself in a serious military engagement with China, arising out of an unavoidable dispute with it. In such a situation, Indian bases would be sought and Indians regarded as useful cannon fodder to ensure a satisfactory outcome for the US. There are some within the supposed Indian nationalist constituency that might even be willing to acquiesce in such an unfavourable role for India because they have compromised themselves with the US and are vulnerable to blackmail.

In addition, India’s minor detractors in the region might regard setback suffered by it an opportunity for achieving any territorial ambitions they may have harboured. The enmity of its smaller neighbours stems mainly from a lack of respect for India, which means that although India is pilloried by them as an alleged bully it is precisely because India does not wield a big stick that they complain and needle. Of late there has been a measure of attitudinal change in this motley group of failed states because Indian economic advance, though irksome to them, cannot be altogether denied. In addition, the Cold War incitement against India fuelled by the Anglo-American imperial predators has waned somewhat in the past decade. But India should be under no illusion that if it were to find itself in serious political difficulties they would wish to take advantage with alacrity. India must therefore make provision for this potentially costly eventuality in much the way the USSR did before the onset of war with Nazi Germany in relation to the truculent Finns and Baltic States to secure its strategic perimeter. Such preparations would entail sealing the border with Bangladesh and Nepal and securing the Palk Straits to prevent its use by a third party, aided by Sri Lankan perfidy. In all these cases the threat of devastating Indian fire power should suffice to deter opportunism.

A more complex and disastrous problem lurks inside India itself in the potentially treasonous conduct of Indians themselves and a foreign fifth column embedded discreetly within it. Many of the thousands of foreigners residing legally and illegally in India, including ostensibly accredited journalists and apparently innocuous visitors, are almost certainly agents of foreign powers who will implement pre-existing plans to undertake political and military sabotage. Assorted insurgencies, ranging from ULFA to the Naxalites, are completely controlled by Sino-Pak agencies and will no doubt endeavour to tie down India’s paramilitary forces. It would be a logical goal for them to seize territory and especially small towns, even cities and decapitate the established authority within it. If the military debacle suffered by India is severe whole swathes of Muslim India within its cities, which already enjoy virtual de facto sovereign autonomy, will revolt to assert de jure independence. The Hindus in these cities, especially Kolkata, Hyderabad and other areas adjacent to its borders in Assam, Kashmir and elsewhere will simply flee, precipitating a further effective partition of India. Depending on the scale of the catastrophe, some states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Punjab and J&K and indeed even West Bengal, which have already been subverted politically by foreign interests like evangelical business corporations, could secede and are likely gain immediate political recognition from India’s enemies.

If India’s feeble political leadership showed any sign of deploying nuclear weapons in order to deter Chinese aggression massive public demonstrations, instigated by Left parties and myriad foreign-sponsored NGO activists are guaranteed to oppose it. It may also be hazarded that weak coalition partners at the federal centre, inexperienced and motivated principally by lucre would panic and fold quickly if India’s armed forces suffered a major reverse or local revolts threatened the viability of their own regional party. Most of the leaders of such coalition partners are preoccupied with the personal fortunes of their families and party and their very participation at the federal centre is primarily intended to promote their parochial regional aspirations. India may face the threat of extinction as a political entity if matters get out of hand, but its opinionated Chatterati will no doubt congregate in the capitals salons in the meantime to reflect on the IPL and other assorted matters of substance. The armed forces alone would remain interposed between annihilation and Indian survival. By the time such dire choices are posed, though unlikely, but not inconceivable, it would be too late to work out a strategy in response to them. It is therefore indispensable for India’s armed forces and what remains of its dismayingly politicised and subverted establishment (including its bureaucracy, intelligence services and key players within civil society) to consider what actions they may need to take in the event of a primordial threat to India’s survival.

Seizure of political power by India’s armed forces in such circumstances would be imperative and justified. It would be need to be followed by ruthlessly neutralising saboteurs and foreign agents operating inside the country. The same treatment would have to be meted out to a significant number of the comprador political class under the sway of foreign powers and those groups threatening secession. In order for this to be achieved effectively plans need to be drawn up in advance, covertly, with the help of India’s intelligence agencies, to identify individual candidates for elimination. But the gathering of this information needs to proceed in the greatest secrecy, involving the fewest possible senior personnel of the armed forces and only on a need-to-know basis. Perhaps, this particular task might be best left to retired senior personnel of the agencies concerned. Revolts within cities would need to be crushed immediately and pitilessly to demonstrate the will of the Indian State. A few harsh examples would constitute a salutary deterrent. But most of all, the Indian armed forces would need to wrest control of India’s nuclear weapons from the political class. And with the help of India’s formidable scientific establishment prepare low-yield battlefield nuclear warheads for use, with the menace of escalation to a ballistic level if India is threatened by the nuclear armouries of its adversaries.

Source : Vigil Online

Blog at WordPress.com.