Understanding Indian Insurgencies

[Ray]

How credible are the media reports? What foreign NGOs are involved, and what are they allegedly doing to encourage militancy?

Which church(es), and how is that influence typically used?

What's the nature and extent of that involvement?

Certainly foreign parties try to influence these situations, but they don't always succeed. That influence is often overstated, especially by governments that would rather blame an insurgency on foreign subversion than address their own governance issues.

I'm still curious about the allegation in the article cited earlier that many of the fighters are in it for the money. Is that true? If so, where's the money coming from?

Here are some links:

Western nations fund NGOs operating in developing countries to influence policy and subvert institutions. India does not need foreign-funded NGOs.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnis...e-nations.html

Indian law on foreign funds to NGOs worries UN body
http://www.firstpost.com/india/india...dy-242888.html

Foreign funds help NGOs fuel unrest in India
http://dailypioneer.com/home/online-...-in-india.html

It maybe interesting to note that the areas where foreign funds are being used by the NGOs are the places where terrorism and Maoism is at its prime!

Then we have the infamous Binayak Sen's case, where the foreign 'intellectual' intervened with the Govt so that he could be released! He is a doctor who sympathised with the Marxists and was distributing Maoist and Communist pamphlets that advocated overthrowing of the Govt and Democracy and to set up a proletariat regime!

[Ray]

Bill Moore

The exodus of the NE people (who are Hindus, Christians, animists) from Mumbai and cities of the South, was triggered off by threats to their lives by SMSes and MMSes because the Bodos (tribal people of Bodoland) clashed with the Muslims, the large majority being illegals from Bangladesh who have settled down and some even have acquired Indian ID cards through dubious means.

In India, no one can settle down in tribal land. That land belongs to the tribal. The Muslims have slowly spread their wings into the tribal area and so that is the problem.

The anger of the Muslims was expressed first in Mumbai, where a Muslim NGO Raza Academy held a protest rally. Mumbai broke into flames!

I am only giving the links since the pictures and the video are disturbing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlZ6u...layer_embedded

http://i.imgur.com/E4Ldr.jpg

http://www.esakal.com/esakal/2012081...085509_Org.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/kX5Gl.jpg

https://p.twimg.com/A0BjaU0CcAAQ_r1.jpg:large

http://gallery.mid-day.com/plog-cont...e-mumbai11.jpg

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...74133450_n.jpg
(Destroying a memorial to the Fallen Soldiers)

http://static.ibnlive.in.com/ibnlive...an_protest.jpg



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAF8g...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5io2w...layer_embedded

[Ray]

The Muslims were agitated because they were angered over the Bodos (tribal, who are Christians and animists) causing 'trouble' for the Muslims.

They were also enraged over SMSes and MMSes circulated to them on the riots as also of the riots in Burma where the Burmese pushed out the Rohigyas (Muslims of the Arakan). Bangladesh pushed these Muslim Rohingyas back!

They were angered that India had not done anything to Burma for what they had done to the Rohingya Muslims and they wanted action against the Bodos also.

It will be interesting to note that these MMSes were doctored.

Videos doctored in Pakistan sparked NE exodus: Government

In one instance, images of death and destruction caused by a cyclone have been morphed to be passed off as a case of atrocity on Muslims in Assam. In others, bodies of victims of an earthquake which occurred months ago was juxtaposed with photographs of Buddhist monks to project violence on Muslims in Myanmar by Buddhists.

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Vide...w/15550503.cms

[Ray]

The levels of corruption in both India and the Philippines largely make their democracies irrelevant to vast portions of the population to begin with

Bill,

If India did not have faith in Democracy, notwithstanding its faults, such type of activities including Kashmir, Maoists and communal bloodshed would have been solved in the manner in which Sri Lanka handled the LTTE or China handles all types of revolts by minorities and political deviants!

But then, India is a Democracy!

[Dayuhan]

Here are some links:

Some fairly chaotic stuff there, representing another thing the Philippines and India seem to have in common: poor journalism. There's little attempt to distinguish among government-supported NGOs, privately funded NGOs, and foreign funding for domestic NGOs, they're simply lumped together. There's little appreciation for the broad spectrum of NGOs, which ranges from quasi-official government-funded groups like NED to issue-driven groups with a distinctly adversarial relationship with their own governments. In particular this claim:

By far the most important tool of empire is Amnesty International.

would come as a surprise to the American fringe right, where Amnesty International is routinely castigated as a tool of the great Commie-Muislim anti-American conspiracy, owing to their regular criticism of authoritarian regimes allied with the US.

Mainstream groups like NED and Freedom House do inspire some anger, which is a good sign: if they weren't pissing anyone off they wouldn't be doing their jobs. Anyone familiar with either group, though, would know that neither they nor any similar group is likely to be funding Maoist rebels, or even antinuclear protests. What reason would the US Government have to oppose Indian development of nuclear power?

Of course there are many independently funded NGOs, particularly of the environmental and generic left persuasion, that would support opposition to nuclear power plants, dams, mines, etc. Most of these groups have an intensely adversarial relationship with the US government, which they see as a tool of the evil corporations and a primary enemy. The extent to which they would fund armed Maoist rebels is another question altogether. Some might, most wouldn't: even where leaders are sympathetic, they're well aware that their own donor base would not be.

It maybe interesting to note that the areas where foreign funds are being used by the NGOs are the places where terrorism and Maoism is at its prime!

NGOs typically prioritize the poorest and least developed areas, which are also those most susceptible to insurgency, so that's not necessarily evidence that NGOs are causing the insurgency. Is there any specific information on what NGOs are allegedly supporting actual armed rebellion (as opposed to demonstrations and other peaceful protests) and on the nature and extent of the alleged support?

[Ray]

What reason would the US Government have to oppose Indian development of nuclear power?

Locals Resume Anti-Nuclear Protest

A day after work resumed at a large nuclear power plant in India’s southern state of Tamil Nadu, anti-nuclear protestors are up in arms against the state government’s decision to begin work at the site....

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa gave a go-ahead to resume construction work at the Russia-backed project, ......

Ms. Jayalalithaa’s move comes after the Indian government alleged illicit foreign funding was behind the protests. According to reports, the government ordered cases to be registered against four non-governmental organizations for allegedly receiving illicit funding to encourage anti-nuclear protests in Tamil Nadu. A German national was also deported for his alleged involvement in the protests, though he denies any wrongdoing.

This is a topic Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has also weighed in on. In a magazine interview published in February, Mr. Singh alleged that “the atomic energy program has got into difficulties” because of the opposition of NGOs, “mostly I think based in the U.S.” In the same interview, Mr. Singh claimed that the “thinking segment” of India’s population supported nuclear power. He pointed at India’s need to increase its energy supply.
http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2...clear-protest/

This is from the Wall Street Journal, India.

I wonder if American feel that the Wall Street Journal would qualify as chaotic or shoddy journalism.

Our PM is a very pro US person ('Mr Bush, India loves you' is his quote when he met Mr Bush). If he feels that way he felt over the issue, then one cannot dismiss his comments perfunctorily.

Most of the Indian editors are foreign educated (Oxford or Cambridge or Harvard or Princeton).

The reason why US is not comfortable over the nuclear plant is that it is Russian backed, while it was the US (Mr Bush actually) which got India clearance for international nuclear fuel supply and, it was understood that India would buy US nuclear plant. The Liability factor on the supplier is what is the hurdle with the US nuclear plants. India is very careful on that after the Union Carbide case which caused the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.

2. Amnesty International is not a Mary Poppins inspite of the hype.

I endorse the American opinion of this organisation and add it is also pro terrorist. Human rights is one thing and bending backward to castigate the Govt alone and not the terrorists is another.

3. Funding organisations that superstitiously espouse the Maoist and terrorist cause is indeed a part of a destabilisation at work.

The Tablighi organisation is a charitable organisation, but the ulterior aim is something else.

Here is a link

FBI monitors Islamic group Tablighi Jamaat at Masjid Al-Falah Queens New York
http://pibillwarner.wordpress.com/20...-investigator/

I am sure the Islamic countries would feel that this is unfair since the Talblighi works amongst the American poor and the deprived!

And is unnecessarily being taken to be an organisation that is radicalising people and turning them into terrorists.

You may also like to read this:

Tablighi Jamaat: Jihad's Stealthy Legions
http://www.meforum.org/686/tablighi-...ealthy-legions

[Ray]

Aid money and how it is used.

The British view

DfID Still Burning Our Money

But the fact remains that the big success stories in economic development have never come about as the result of western government aid programmes. They have come from poor countries themselves deciding to embrace the market and welcome in private investment.......

And boy, does this idea allow DfID to waste money. Because by switching its emphasis from drilling wells to promoting rights, it moves out of the realm of practicalities and into the realm of "communications" and"advocacy" - aka spin. And spin can take place anywhere, including right back here in blighty.

According to Fake Aid, a new report from the International Policy Network:
"increasing amounts of DfID funds are channelled through non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to fund lobbying activities, marketing, and the promotion of political ideology, often within the UK.

DfID funds various well-known NGOs – including Oxfam, VSO, and ActionAid – for vague-sounding activities such as “awareness”, “promotion”, and “advocacy”. The programme that funds these activities has spent over £600 million to date. Most of these grants are not provided by an open tendering system but are instead supplied to NGOs that have very close relationships with government. New applications are currently not allowed, so this elite band of NGOs has enjoyed sole access to the increasing funding."

http://burningourmoney.blogspot.in/2...our-money.html

Now, what could be vague-sounding activities such as “awareness”, “promotion”, and “advocacy”?

Are they really doing much to improve the lives of the impoverished, underfed millions or is it to create unrest?

Also, this aid is basically to improve commercial interest.

Working as one team at Post: Guidance for DFID, UKTI and FCO staff on HMG’s Commercial Diplomacy and Untied Aid Agenda
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/pub...-diplomacy.pdf

Actually, nothing wrong in that.

At least, the British Govt has clearly stated the reality upfront! The Govt deserves credit for being bold and forthright rather than being weasel mouthed as so many aid giving countries around the world!

Some other views:

If India doesn't want our aid, stop it now, Cameron told after country labels £280m-a-year donations as 'peanuts'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-offer-us.html

The politics and arrogance of British aid to India
Link

[Ray]

This spreading of “awareness”, “promotion”, and “advocacy” by foreign funded NGOs is what fuels the fire and leads to insurgencies and Maoism.

Hitler, also spread “awareness”, “promotion”, and “advocacy” amongst the German people and created the juggernaut that shook the world and brought misery. He did a great job if one was a Nazi or a sympathiser, but was a Devil Incarnate is one faced the brunt of his spreading of “awareness”, “promotion”, and “advocacy” amongst the then impoverished, humiliated and deprived German people.

It all depends on how one perceives the different sides of the same coin!

Manmohan Singh told Mr Bush - India loves you, Mr Bush. Indeed, many did and still do.

But ask the Indian Muslims. Do they love Mr Bush?

[Dayuhan]

This is from the Wall Street Journal, India.

I wonder if American feel that the Wall Street Journal would qualify as chaotic or shoddy journalism.

There's nothing in that article to suggest funding by the US Government. As I said, it's entirely possible that US NGOs are helping to fund antinuclear, environmental, and other movements in India. I'd be surprised if they weren't. That doen't mean the US Government is involved in any way. Most of these NGOs don't get government funding, and many have a quite adversarial relationship with the US government. The US Government can't stop them from sending money, unless they send it to someone designated as a terrorist organization.

Again, if you're looking at NGOs there has to be some distinction among Government-funded or approved foreign NGOs, foreign NGOs not funded by government, and local NGOs receiving assistance from foreign counterparts.

The reason why US is not comfortable over the nuclear plant is that it is Russian backed, while it was the US (Mr Bush actually) which got India clearance for international nuclear fuel supply and, it was understood that India would buy US nuclear plant. The Liability factor on the supplier is what is the hurdle with the US nuclear plants. India is very careful on that after the Union Carbide case which caused the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.

How does supplier liability work out in the case of a Russian-built nuclear power plant? The Russian nuclear industry isn't noted for having a perfect safety record. In any event the idea that the US Government is funding anti-nuclear protests in India because a US company didn't get the contract seems pretty far out on the conspiracy-theory scale. What are the specific NGOs involved? Is there any evidence that they receive US Government funding?

2. Amnesty International is not a Mary Poppins inspite of the hype.

I endorse the American opinion of this organisation and add it is also pro terrorist. Human rights is one thing and bending backward to castigate the Govt alone and not the terrorists is another.

I certainly wouldn't say they are "a Mary Poppins", but they aren't tools of the US Government either; they've shown that enough times. Over the years they've come in for quite similar criticism from the US Government

3. Funding organisations that superstitiously espouse the Maoist and terrorist cause is indeed a part of a destabilisation at work.

Possibly so... but who's being funded, and who's doing the funding? The accusations published all seem awfully generic, with few organizations actually mentioned, and funding for, say, environmental, anti-nuclear, or similar groups isn't the same thing as funding Maoist rebels.

Governments always prefer to blame issues of insurgency and popular resistance movements of foreign subversion: that relieves them of responsibility for the consequences of their own governance decision. That's often a bit of an excuse, though. Foreign support may aggravate an insurgency, but it's not going to create one, not without a pretty high level of disaffection already in place.

[Ray]

There's nothing in that article to suggest funding by the US Government. As I said, it's entirely possible that US NGOs are helping to fund antinuclear, environmental, and other movements in India. I'd be surprised if they weren't. That doen't mean the US Government is involved in any way. Most of these NGOs don't get government funding, and many have a quite adversarial relationship with the US government. The US Government can't stop them from sending money, unless they send it to someone designated as a terrorist organization.

Again, if you're looking at NGOs there has to be some distinction among Government-funded or approved foreign NGOs, foreign NGOs not funded by government, and local NGOs receiving assistance from foreign counterparts.

It would be an understatement to believe that the foreign funding was totally altruistic.


If you had read through the links, you would have realised the British anger at funding India, which does not require British aid. DFID is Govt funded and it supports the NGOs in India.


Here is an article from the UK

Dodgy development: DFID in India : Introduction: DFID in India

http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=3655

Let us look at a similar situation from history.

Would anyone believe that colonialism was anyway related to evangelism of the Missionaries who can to ‘civilise’ the ‘savages’?


I am reminded of Desmond Tutu’s phrase on the missionaries.

When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land.

And actually, while the missionaries were not funded by the Govt, but they assisted their Govt to change the minds of the people the missionaries ‘saved’.


Christianity and colonialism are associated because Catholicism and Protestantism were the religions of the European colonial powers and in many ways are taken as the “religious arm" of those powers.


I am not saying so but Edward Andrews has opined that Christian missionaries were initially portrayed as "visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery". However, by the time the colonial era drew to a close in the last half of the twentieth century, missionaries became viewed as "ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them", colonialism's "agent, scribe and moral alibi."


Some more reference material are:

1. ^ Melvin E. Page, Penny M. Sonnenburg (2003). Colonialism: an international, social, cultural, and political encyclopedia, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 496. "Of all religions, Christianity has been most associated with colonialism because several of its forms (Catholicism and Protestantism) were the religions of the European powers engaged in colonial enterprise on a global scale."

2. ^ Bevans, Steven. "Christian Complicity in Colonialism/ Globalism". Retrieved 2010-11-17. "The modern missionary era was in many ways the ‘religious arm’ of colonialism, whether Portuguese and Spanish colonialism in the sixteenth Century, or British, French, German, Belgian or American colonialism in the nineteenth. This was not all bad — oftentimes missionaries were heroic defenders of the rights of indigenous peoples"

3. ^ Andrews, Edward (2010). "Christian Missions and Colonial Empires Reconsidered: A Black Evangelist in West Africa, 1766–1816". Journal of Church & State 51 (4): 663–691.doi:10.1093/jcs/csp090. "Historians have traditionally looked at Christian missionaries in one of two ways. The first church historians to catalogue missionary history provided hagiographic descriptions of their trials, successes, and sometimes even martyrdom. Missionaries were thus visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery. However, by the middle of the twentieth century, an era marked by civil rights movements, anti-colonialism, and growing secularization, missionaries were viewed quite differently. Instead of godly martyrs, historians now described missionaries as arrogant and rapacious imperialists. Christianity became not a saving grace but a monolithic and aggressive force that missionaries imposed upon defiant natives. Indeed, missionaries were now understood as important agents in the ever-expanding nation-state, or "ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them."

4. ^ Comaroff, Jean; Comaroff, John (2010) [1997]. "Africa Observed: Discourses of the Imperial Imagination". In Grinker, Roy R.; Lubkemann, Stephen C.; Steiner, Christopher B.. Perspectives on Africa: A Reader in Culture, History and Representation (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. p. 32


Therefore, the correlation between Missionaries and Foreign funded NGO is quite similar. They are basically the ‘ideological shock troops in guise of moral, bleeding heart Pollyannas’.


I think this is a subject that can be debated on a separate thread.

How does supplier liability work out in the case of a Russian-built nuclear power plant? The Russian nuclear industry isn't noted for having a perfect safety record. In any event the idea that the US Government is funding anti-nuclear protests in India because a US company didn't get the contract seems pretty far out on the conspiracy-theory scale. What are the specific NGOs involved? Is there any evidence that they receive US Government funding?

I think the term, “Conspiracy Theory” has been overused and is but a cliché and cover all for anything that does not suits one’s own perceptions.


One the Russian nuclear project, Wiki sums up the issue.


An Inter-Governmental Agreement on the project was signed on November 20, 1988 by then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, for the construction of two reactors. The project remained in limbo for a decade due to the political and economic upheaval in Russia after the post-1991 Soviet breakup. There were also objections from the United States, on the grounds that the agreement does not meet the 1992 terms of the Nuclear Suppliers Group(NSG).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudanku..._Power_Project


While there were protests in India, where the US oriented PM of India was equally livid about the protests being foreign funded, it also found widespread sympathy in western nations.

Protest in Britain over Kudankulam nuclear plant
They claimed support from five British MPs and one British Member of the European Parliament who have signed a letter addressed to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh which will be handed over to the High Commission……..

They claimed the construction violated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safety guidelines as Kudankulam is in a tsunami and earthquake prone region which has also experienced small volcanic eruptions and is affected by water shortages.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/protest-i...42-62-128.html

It sure makes one wonder as to what prompts far away western nations to be livid about India’s development plans when they are not funding the same? Should they not be more concerned about themselves acquiring nuclear submarines and adding to their nuclear stockpile? I am sure those are more dangerous for proliferation in case of accidents inside their country or while traversing across the oceans than a nuclear power plant!


One wonders as to why there was no western outcry that Japan should close down all its nuclear power plants since it is an earthquake and tsunami prone nation and disasters like the last nuclear plant accident due to the tsunami could affect the world.

Odd, to say the least.


On the issue of whether or not the NGOs or those providing the funds have the support of foreign Govts, would any organisation claim that they are being funded to pursue an agenda that has covert aims tweaked in its moralist and altruist façade? I would be very surprised if a person of the US Embassy should walk up and shout from the rooftop stating ‘Hey, I am a CIA agent!’

I am sure you have heard of the Raymond Davis case in Pakistan. He was a retired Special Forces soldier, who carried out scouting and other reconnaissance missions as a security officer for the Central Intelligence Agency. The US Govt would not go to the extent that it did, if he was not a CIA agent. And what was his official designation?

I certainly wouldn't say they are "a Mary Poppins", but they aren't tools of the US Government either; they've shown that enough times. Over the years they've come in for quite similar criticism from the US Government

Amnesty International is an over rated organisation with its own agenda.


They trot out their ‘findings’ which are one sided, perfectly satisfied that they need not give the facts of the terrorist/ Maoist atrocities!


Amnesty International, medecins sans frontiers, the Peace Corps et al, all very noble organisation have been accused to pursuing foreign agenda or spying. To believe that one would not use such organisations would be disingenuous.


Soft power is a concept developed by Joseph Nye to describe the ability to attract and co-opt rather than coerce and rather than using force or money as a means of persuasion (to pursue the agenda).

[Ray]

Possibly so... but who's being funded, and who's doing the funding? The accusations published all seem awfully generic, with few organizations actually mentioned, and funding for, say, environmental, anti-nuclear, or similar groups isn't the same thing as funding Maoist rebels.

Governments always prefer to blame issues of insurgency and popular resistance movements of foreign subversion: that relieves them of responsibility for the consequences of their own governance decision. That's often a bit of an excuse, though. Foreign support may aggravate an insurgency, but it's not going to create one, not without a pretty high level of disaffection already in place.

It is easy for one to comment that the Govt blames others for their ills.


Indeed the Govts are responsible for neglect that leads to such insurgencies, but then you may like to think it over as to what would be the cost of organising an insurgency.


Look at organising an insurgency in terms of patching up the organisation, organising the publicity, weaning over sympathisers, having overt front men and organisation espousing their cause, training and equipping the underground soldiers for their cause, organising and funding the logistics of such Army and also other front organisations and so on and so forth.


It requires big time Money. Without help from ‘friends’, such an endeavour is a non starter.


One does not require a high level of dissatisfaction to start a revolution.


Dissatisfaction is there in all societies. It merely requires good and sustained spin to brainwash people into action and then it becomes self sustaining.

[Ray]

Minute by the Hon'ble T. B. Macaulay, dated the 2nd February 1835.

[5] The argument which I have been considering affects only the form of proceeding. But the admirers of the oriental system of education have used another argument, which, if we admit it to be valid, is decisive against all change. They conceive that the public faith is pledged to the present system, and that to alter the appropriation of any of the funds which have hitherto been spent in encouraging the study of Arabic and Sanscrit would be downright spoliation. It is not easy to understand by what process of reasoning they can have arrived at this conclusion. The grants which are made from the public purse for the encouragement of literature differ in no respect from the grants which are made from the same purse for other objects of real or supposed utility. We found a sanitarium on a spot which we suppose to be healthy. Do we thereby pledge ourselves to keep a sanitarium there if the result should not answer our expectations? We commence the erection of a pier. Is it a violation of the public faith to stop the works, if we afterwards see reason to believe that the building will be useless? The rights of property are undoubtedly sacred. But nothing endangers those rights so much as the practice, now unhappily too common, of attributing them to things to which they do not belong. Those who would impart to abuses the sanctity of property are in truth imparting to the institution of property the unpopularity and the fragility of abuses. If the Government has given to any person a formal assurance-- nay, if the Government has excited in any person's mind a reasonable expectation-- that he shall receive a certain income as a teacher or a learner of Sanscrit or Arabic, I would respect that person's pecuniary interests. I would rather err on the side of liberality to individuals than suffer the public faith to be called in question. But to talk of a Government pledging itself to teach certain languages and certain sciences, though those languages may become useless, though those sciences may be exploded, seems to me quite unmeaning. There is not a single word in any public instrument from which it can be inferred that the Indian Government ever intended to give any pledge on this subject, or ever considered the destination of these funds as unalterably fixed. But, had it been otherwise, I should have denied the competence of our predecessors to bind us by any pledge on such a subject. Suppose that a Government had in the last century enacted in the most solemn manner that all its subjects should, to the end of time, be inoculated for the small-pox, would that Government be bound to persist in the practice after Jenner's discovery? These promises of which nobody claims the performance, and from which nobody can grant a release, these vested rights which vest in nobody, this property without proprietors, this robbery which makes nobody poorer, may be comprehended by persons of higher faculties than mine. I consider this plea merely as a set form of words, regularly used both in England and in India, in defence of every abuse for which no other plea can be set up.

[12] How then stands the case? We have to educate a people who cannot at present be educated by means of their mother-tongue. We must teach them some foreign language. The claims of our own language it is hardly necessary to recapitulate. It stands pre-eminent even among the languages of the West. It abounds with works of imagination not inferior to the noblest which Greece has bequeathed to us, --with models of every species of eloquence, --with historical composition, which, considered merely as narratives, have seldom been surpassed, and which, considered as vehicles of ethical and political instruction, have never been equaled-- with just and lively representations of human life and human nature, --with the most profound speculations on metaphysics, morals, government, jurisprudence, trade, --with full and correct information respecting every experimental science which tends to preserve the health, to increase the comfort, or to expand the intellect of man. Whoever knows that language has ready access to all the vast intellectual wealth which all the wisest nations of the earth have created and hoarded in the course of ninety generations. It may safely be said that the literature now extant in that language is of greater value than all the literature which three hundred years ago was extant in all the languages of the world together. Nor is this all. In India, English is the language spoken by the ruling class. It is spoken by the higher class of natives at the seats of Government. It is likely to become the language of commerce throughout the seas of the East. It is the language of two great European communities which are rising, the one in the south of Africa, the other in Australia, --communities which are every year becoming more important and more closely connected with our Indian empire. Whether we look at the intrinsic value of our literature, or at the particular situation of this country, we shall see the strongest reason to think that, of all foreign tongues, the English tongue is that which would be the most useful to our native subjects.

[34] In one point I fully agree with the gentlemen to whose general views I am opposed. I feel with them that it is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, --a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.

[35] I would strictly respect all existing interests. I would deal even generously with all individuals who have had fair reason to expect a pecuniary provision. But I would strike at the root of the bad system which has hitherto been fostered by us. I would at once stop the printing of Arabic and Sanscrit books. I would abolish the Mudrassa and the Sanscrit College at Calcutta. Benares is the great seat of Brahminical learning; Delhi of Arabic learning. If we retain the Sanscrit College at Bonares and the Mahometan College at Delhi we do enough and much more than enough in my opinion, for the Eastern languages. If the Benares and Delhi Colleges should be retained, I would at least recommend that no stipends shall be given to any students who may hereafter repair thither, but that the people shall be left to make their own choice between the rival systems of education without being bribed by us to learn what they have no desire to know. The funds which would thus be placed at our disposal would enable us to give larger encouragement to the Hindoo College at Calcutta, and establish in the principal cities throughout the Presidencies of Fort William and Agra schools in which the English language might be well and thoroughly taught.


*****************

So, changing the mindset to suit powers that be is an old custom - as old as when Time began!

And only the fools will abdicate their pristine position with moralism by not use all instruments available to ensure that they remain supreme!

The West may have become weaker owing to the unique circumstances, but they are no fools!

The West will use all instruments in the book to ensure best to form a class who are alike in thought, --a class of persons foreign in colour but Western in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.

The only problem the West has now is a matching competitor flushed with oil money. They are hard put in spreading their religious edicts and demanding the same with their economic clout in foreign lands. Some nations are succumbing and some are possible valiant as in Custer's Last Stand!

There is also another challenger with economic clout, which has a history of vast imperialistic adventures and gobbling up others and assimilating them and converting them to the imperialist ancestry! They are rising where the Sun rises after Japan. Flexing their muscles but still not there!

In these stands, one hopes Custer wins!

[Dayuhan]

It would be an understatement to believe that the foreign funding was totally altruistic.

Many of those involved in the antinuclear movements certainly perceive themselves as altruistic. In their own minds, they are saving the planet from the scourge of corporate capitalism. That's an agenda, but it isn't a government agenda or a unitary "Western" agenda.

DFID is Govt funded and it supports the NGOs in India.

What do you mean by "the NGOs"? Which NGOs? There's a huge spectrum there, ranging from finance for small development projects with minimal or no political engagement to pure research to open advocacy and support for radical political causes. Some NGOs get government funding, others don't. Some openly loathe their governments and are intensely disliked by those governments. US NGOs involved in environmental and antinuclear campaigns have been monitored by the FBI, suspected and even accused of criminal and "eco-terrorist" activities. They do not get (and would not accept) government funding. They do raise funds, and they do support anti-nuclear campaigns all over the world. This is not some government or "Western" agenda, it's an agenda driven by a particular social philosophy that has attained a substantial following in much of the west.

I think the term, “Conspiracy Theory” has been overused and is but a cliché and cover all for anything that does not suits one’s own perceptions.

It's an accurate description of what has become a pervasive trend in much of the world: widespread belief, often absolute and unquestioning, in propositions that are supported by neither logic nor evidence. It's a fascinating trend, often supported by the internet, which allows believers to construct a closed circle of superficially credible websites that tell them what they want to hear.

I have no doubt that US-based NGOs fund antinuclear groups in India and in many other places. The same happens in the indigenous rights movement, the environmental movement, the animal rights movement, the feminist movement, etc. We routinely get foreign activists blundering into local movements and trying to offer support. They're often annoying and genrally utterly naive, but they are in no way the cutting edge of some generically "Western" conspiracy to undercut the Philippines.

The project remained in limbo for a decade due to the political and economic upheaval in Russia after the post-1991 Soviet breakup. There were also objections from the United States.

And from this you deduce that protests in India are funded by the US Government? Isn't it more likely that money is coming from groups like Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth. groups that the US Government wouldn't touch with a barge pole? That's what these groups do, they are quite open about it and quite proud of it.

That does not mean that these groups would directly fund Maoist rebels. Some of the individuals in them might want to, but the groups themselves would be very careful: direct support of violent movements would, if exposed, dramatically reduce their ability to raise funds.

The idea that the US Government is funding Maoist rebels is too absurd to countenance. If we heard that the CIA was funding a covert hit squad to whack Maoist sympathizers, that might be more believable.

While there were protests in India, where the US oriented PM of India was equally livid about the protests being foreign funded, it also found widespread sympathy in western nations.

Protest do get widespread support in Western countries: that's why NGOs are able to raise the money they raise. This does not mean the support is institutional or that it comes from government. Many of the people involved are deeply suspicious of government and see it as an antagonist, along with the much loathed bogeyman of "the corporations".

It sure makes one wonder as to what prompts far away western nations to be livid about India’s development plans when they are not funding the same? Should they not be more concerned about themselves acquiring nuclear submarines and adding to their nuclear stockpile?

Many of the same groups hold the same kind of protests against nuclear moves in their own countries. These groups act on their own, generally oppose their own governments, raise substantial cash from sympathizers, and are globally interconnected.

One wonders as to why there was no western outcry that Japan should close down all its nuclear power plants since it is an earthquake and tsunami prone nation and disasters like the last nuclear plant accident due to the tsunami could affect the world.

There is an active antinuclear movement in Japan and it is actively engaged with similar movements around the world. I don't know if it receives funding: it's well established and able to raise funds domestically, I'd guess antinuclear groups in Japan are likely to be funding those in other countries, rather than receiving funds.

There's no generic "western outcry" against nuclear power in either Japan or India. The anti-nuclear movements oppose it, as they do everywhere. They are not "The west" in any generic sense, they are a group of people with a passionate, in some cases obsessive belief and the will to campaign for what they believe in.

would any organisation claim that they are being funded to pursue an agenda that has covert aims tweaked in its moralist and altruist façade?

Is there any evidence of government support, or are you simply assuming that all foreign NGOs are government-funded?

Amnesty International is an over rated organisation with its own agenda.

Of course it has its own agenda. That doesn't make it a tool of the US Government or of "the West". Where I live Amnesty International and similar groups are believed in military circles to be tools of international communism. Same complaints: they complain about government abuses but ignore those of the rebels, etc.

It is easy for one to comment that the Govt blames others for their ills.

Governments do actually do that, all over the world, on a regular basis.

Indeed the Govts are responsible for neglect that leads to such insurgencies, but then you may like to think it over as to what would be the cost of organising an insurgency.

Has anyone actually been accused of funding insurgency? Who, and to what extent? All I've seen is a claim that Indian NGOs diverted foreign funds to support protests. That's by no means incredible, but it's a far cry from funding insurgency.

I've also expressed curiosity about where Indian insurgent movements get their money, especially if it's true that the fighters are fighting for pecuniary benefit. Claims that the insurgency is directly funded by foreign NGOs or governments, though, have to be supported by some kind of evidence or at least some kind of logic. There's simply no reason for the US or any western government to fund Maoist insurgents in India.

Look at organising an insurgency in terms of patching up the organisation, organising the publicity, weaning over sympathisers, having overt front men and organisation espousing their cause, training and equipping the underground soldiers for their cause, organising and funding the logistics of such Army and also other front organisations and so on and so forth.

Self-sustaining insurgencies have existed, especially in their early stages. Foreign funding or ideological support can advance an insurgency, but they can't create one, not unless the domestic conditions exist. Governments would be well advised to address the domestic conditions instead of blaming foreign subversion.

One does not require a high level of dissatisfaction to start a revolution.

So people pick up guns and start shooting at vastly superior forces just because some foreigner wants them to? I don't think so, not without some pretty powerful motivation on a local, personal level.

The West will use all instruments in the book to ensure best to form a class who are alike in thought, --a class of persons foreign in colour but Western in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.

What you're not recognizing is that "Western" encompasses huge variety. There's the "West" of the tea party and the west of the Occupy movements, the west of Exxon and the west of Greenpeace, the west of the IMF and of the anti-globalization protestors and all stripes in between. Governments juggle and dance to try to gain support and deflect opposition from as many parties as possible. Different factions compete aggressively for followers, all over the world, and link with the like-minded all over the world to advance their own agendas.

It's impossible to speak of a unitary "Western" agenda because no such thing exists.

[Ray]

What is the West?

http://<a href="http://www.youtube.c...r_embedded</a>

http://<a href="http://www.youtube.c...r_embedded</a>

Note the difference of understanding between the Oriental and Occidental viewpoints.

Many of those involved in the antinuclear movements certainly perceive themselves as altruistic. In their own minds, they are saving the planet from the scourge of corporate capitalism. That's an agenda, but it isn't a government agenda or a unitary "Western" agenda.

Indeed protests can be with an altruistic drive. However, not all such protests are very noble so to say and can be driven by foreign money.

It is claimed that USSR with the WPC used the undermentioned organisation to spread its of view of peace.
 Christian Peace Conference
 International Federation of Resistance Fighters
 International Institute for Peace
 International Organization of Democratic Lawyers
 International Organization of Journalists
 International Union of Students
 World Federation of Democratic Youth
 World Federation of Scientific Workers
 World Federation of Trade Unions
 Women's International Democratic Federation
 World Peace Esperanto Movement.
 International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

Obviously, the way these organisations could be used was with funding and infrastructure and behind the ‘altruistic’ aims, they were basically being used to promote the Soviet agenda.

Whether it is true or not, one can always dispute it. Credibility is based on which side of the fence one is.

In 1951 the House Committee on Un-American Activities published The Communist "Peace" Offensive which detailed the activities of the WPC and of numerous affiliated organisations. It listed dozens of American organisations and hundreds of Americans who had been involved in peace meetings, conferences and petitions.

I take it that this House Committee on Un-American Activities is not a totally bogus Committee that is asinine in thought and deed!

Now another one. This will indicate how NGOs and others are not aware of being used

In 1982 the Heritage Foundation published Moscow and the Peace Offensive, which said that non-aligned peace organizations advocated similar policies on defence and disarmament to the Soviet Union. It argued that "pacifists and concerned Christians had been drawn into the Communist campaign largely unaware if its real sponsorship."

So, would it be wrong to believe that the NGOs know who are their actual backers?

Further, in 1985 Time magazine noted "the suspicions of some Western scientists that the nuclear winterscenario was promoted by Moscow to give antinuclear groups in the U.S. and Europe some fresh ammunition against America's arms buildup."

One could give examples at length, but suffice it to say, that foreign Govts do indulge in using NGOs to promote their agenda, and rarely will it admit that they are funding them or they are using the NGOs. Nor will the NGOs know who actually are their backers.

We are aware of the Western commentaries because it is widely read by the English speaking world, but then if one could read and access Soviet or even the Chinese commentaries, they would have told a different story.

In short, in this murky world of geopolitical one-upmanship, to stay relevant and capable of influence peddling, it becomes essential to use every instrument available to maintain supremacy.

I have given adequate examples to include the Raymond Davies case, but then it appears you have missed the same.

I have even said, it is only a silly Govt, which does not use these instruments (even if they are morally base) to ensure furthering its national agenda.

Like, the once hero of India, JL Nehru, who wanted to be the moral conscience keeper of the world, sold us all the way through from Kashmir to Tibet.

Good chap he was, but he failed to see reality.

Other nations like the US or UK, with their long history of governance and world domination, are hardly of the ilk of Nehru or even Gandhi!

What do you mean by "the NGOs"? Which NGOs? There's a huge spectrum there, ranging from finance for small development projects with minimal or no political engagement to pure research to open advocacy and support for radical political causes. Some NGOs get government funding, others don't. Some openly loathe their governments and are intensely disliked by those governments. US NGOs involved in environmental and antinuclear campaigns have been monitored by the FBI, suspected and even accused of criminal and "eco-terrorist" activities. They do not get (and would not accept) government funding. They do raise funds, and they do support anti-nuclear campaigns all over the world. This is not some government or "Western" agenda, it's an agenda driven by a particular social philosophy that has attained a substantial following in much of the west.

I precisely mean the DFID supports NGOs. Which NGOs? I am sure you could go on their website and find out for yourself, so that there is no doubt in your mind that may happen if I told you.

US NGOs maybe monitored by the FBI. But what of it? Are they independent of the Govt? Will they disobey the directions?

How come David Headley was a double agent? He worked for both US and ISI. He screwed the US.

The US government has sentenced a Kashmir-born American citizen Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai for having ties with the Pakistani intelligence community. Fai acknowledged that he relied on funding by way of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) to stay afloat. Fai admits that he hid information about the more than $3.5 million that was sent to his group from the ISI but says he saw no reason to disclose his ties.

That puts paid to the issue of active and hotfoot FBI monitoring. It was convenient to keep him off the radar, and when it became inconvenient with India warming up to the US, Fai was nabbed and booked!

So, give us a break with moralising, even though that is a Chinese trait to cover misdoings!

It merely proves that Govts, not only the US, but all, use every means available to ensure its national agenda is in place.

To deny it would mean that one is but Goody Two Shoes and pulling wool!