October 09, 2008 (the date of publication in Russian)

Alexander Eliseev


"Pagan democracies" are converging into a NATO-2

In its efforts to secure global control, the United States is trying and will continue to try to form various political combinations. The "colored revolutions" in Ukraine an Georgia were used for a new effort to create an anti-Russian and pro-American axis in a greater scale than before, possibly involving also the Baltic States, Moldova, and Poland.

This effort encountered resistance from the European establishment, inclined for pragmatic and peaceful partnership with Russia. The EU leaders are not eager to follow Washington's instructions on accelerated acceptance of Ukraine and Georgia to NATO, and the present political reshuffle in Ukraine adds new arguments for this reluctance.

A more promising geopolitical combination is now undertaken by the United States in Asia. Here, as well as in Europe, Washington is trying to use the existing historical tensions among nations to play some of them against others. Today, this effort is taking the shape of a New Delhi axis that is supposed to significantly change the geopolitical balance in Asia.



The first landmark on the way towards the New Delhi-Tokyo axis was the Japanese Prime Minister's visit to India in August 2007. At that time, the two nations acknowledged of large-scale plans of economic cooperation. Then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was accompanied by the leaders of top Japanese industrial corporations, including Toyota, Mitsubishi and Hitachi. The sides discussed the project of a major industrial- transport corridor connecting Mumbai and New Delhi, with nine clusters of machine-building and chemical industries. The amount of investments was estimated in $100 billion.

India is definitely very attractive for Japan and its business circles. "Japanese concerns have long regarded India as its major potential continental workshop", writes expert Yury Kotov in his article essay "A Strange Love Affair". Meanwhile, Sino-Japanese relations are spectacularly becoming more complicated. The growing China is becoming more independent. Despite huge amounts of Japanese investments in China, the anti-Japanese sentiment in China (as well as the anti-Chinese sentiment in Japan) is rapidly rising. In the conditions of exhaustion of Japanese reserves on the Chinese direction, India is viewed in Tokyo as the most promising partner. The most attractive advantage is the impressing cheapness of the Indian labor force, which is lower than in China and other regions of South-Eastern Asia.

The Indo-Japanese relations are not emburdened with bilateral tragic reminiscences like the relationship between China and Japan. In the political aspect, Tokyo tends to play into the hands of the American partner that is taking a more and more threatening posture against China. In the words of Sovetskaya Rossiya's authors, this game of the Japanese establishment "has long been a matter of honor and valor".

India's leadership is meanwhile inclined to become a member of the "club of Asian democracies". Observers foresee an emerging "Eastern NATO" involving the United States, Japan, India, and Australia. The combination is explicitly anti-Chinese. Both New Delhi and Tokyo are nervous about the gradual and resolute increase of China's political and economic strength in South-Eastern Asia. New Delhi is particularly concerned of the progress of Beijing's partnership with Islamabad. This headache, shared by Washington, serves as an engine for US-Indian strategic relationship (similar ties with Tokyo existing for decades before).

The relationship between India and Japan had been developing steadily but not smoothly. In particular, Tokyo was very upset about New Delhi's nuclear tests, and even responded with reduction of trade turnover. On the contrary, Washington did not display any irritation, being interested in emergence of a nuclear rival of China.

Beside concerns about China, Japan and India are similar in political systems. Though Japan is a monarchy and India is a republic, both states are based on a parliamentary rule. In these terms, they can be compared respectively to Great Britain and Germany, despite great cultural differences from European states. The Chinese system, based on the rule of the formally Communist and essentially pragmatic nationalist party apparatus, is essentially different.



Therefore, the inclination of both India and Japan for partnership with the United States is based on a certain ideological commitment. Both nations are dedicated to the Western model of political development.

In the first half of the XX century, the elites of India and Japan were dominated with far different ideals. At that time, Japan personified the Asiatic type of Nazism, based upon mystical militarism, involving a subculture of self-victimization known as kamikaze. In India, then fighting for independence, the most influential political figure was not Mahatma Gandhi or Jawaharlal Nehru (as it was described in Soviet textbooks) but Subhas Chandra Bose, who equally admired Iosif Stalin and Benito Mussolini.

Even today, Chandra Bose is regarded in India as a greater figure than Gandhi. Chandra Bose rejected Gandhi's principle of non-violence and preferred radical methods of anti-colonialist struggle. While the leaders of the Indian National Congress were reluctant to use World War II as a pretext for resistance to British reign, Chandra Bose, on the contrary, appealed for armed struggle, and hoped to gain support from the Nazi regimes of Germany and Italy. However, Hitler's attitude to the leaders of Indian resistance was lukewarm, as he relied upon a deal with Britain. Besides, Chandra Bos disapproved of the German intervention in the USSR, regarding it as "a tragic mistake". The Nazi built up the Indian (Tiger) Legion, but it did not play any role in the war.

The Japanese assistance to Chandra Bose was far more essential. Tokyo helped to establish the 50,000 India Nationalist Army, and recognized Bose's "provisional government" as an equal partner. However, Japan was more focused on protecting Burma than on expulsion of the British from India. As a result, Chandra Bose's plan of a march to New Delhi failed.

Both Japan and India have perfect grounds to dislike Western imperialism, especially in its Anglo-Saxon version. However, the West, being committed to prevent influence from the USSR, undertook a huge effort to reshape the traditional civilizations of the East, especially succeeding in India and Japan.

In fact, the Indian National Congress, historically the largest political party of India, was established with active involvement from the British who tried to establish a "positive vector" in Indian policy. Realizing that India was in any case going to win independence, they intended to keep it in the Western sphere of influence and not to become an independent center of policy. The radical period, associated with the activities of Gandhi and Nehru, conveniently passed, and the INC became a moderate institution, while the conservative revolutionaries were marginalized.

Conspirologists pay attention to the Freemasonic and generally occult influence on the INC, and this subject really deserves serious analysis. A most significant role was played by Annie Bezant, a British mystical philosopher who resided in India since 1907, taking an active part in the anti-colonial movement. She was once nearly elected a co-chairman of the Indian National Congress. Like Yelena Blavatskaya, she rather sympathized with Mahatma Gandhi than with the radical part of the nationalist movement.

The British spawned a network of Freemasonic lodges in India, using it for imposing indirect influence on the emerging national elite. Ramakrishna's disciple Swami Vivekananda, a religious reformist and strong supporter of independence, was a prominent Freemasonic figure, at the same time significantly influencing the religious mystical sentiment in North America and Europe. Besides, he admired the experience of Japan, and his meeting with the Emperor did not take place only because of his death.

In its turn, Japan was westernized with the efforts of the occupying powers. Earlier, Japan borrowed certain socio-political and economic patterns from the West but adapted them to the Japanese model. After World War II, Japan was politically attached to the American "coach", while the Samurai spirit was reduced to a mere tool in economic rivalry of corporations.



The Indo-Japanese axis is now going to be used as a ram against China. Generally, this is not expedient for both countries, as they are exposed to the first blow of the Celestial Empire. The establishment may once find out that Washington is dooming the two nations for a long-term and dangerous confrontation.

In India, protests against the alliance with Japan is raised today mostly by leftist forces. In July 2008, the popular Communist Party of India abandoned the party coalition, thus expressing utter disaccord with the pro-American course of the Indian Government. The leftists also strongly criticize the agreement on civic nuclear cooperation, the so-called Agreement 2003. The Communists insist on continuation of the nuclear military project which Washington is today trying to curb. The same view, though not so resolutely, is expressed by the rightist Bharatiya Janata Party.

According to analyst Andrey Volodin, the character of the division among the Indian elites is based on the attitude towards India's independent membership in the global "nuclear club", and to the level of well-being of the nation's middle class. The outcome of this dispute is not yet clear, particularly due to the unclear perspectives of America itself.

In case the United States loses the role of a global leader, the future of the Indo-Japanese axis may become rather curious. Still being in the orbit of US global influence, it may assist the United States against the Bolivarian Latin America. Still, the probability of development of the alliance into an independent geopolitical and civilizational center is even more probable. In this case, the axis may get into a desperate rivalry not only with China but also with the Islamic community. The essentially Pagan religious basis of India and Japan, with a strong polytheistic outlook, may predetermine a large-scale religious warfare. In its effort of ascent to the role of an independent pole of global influence, India and Japan are likely to enter a phase of a merciless collision with devotees of Islamic monotheism.



The high probability of decline of the US global influence predetermines significant political changes in Europe as well, given the prospects of decline of the presently dominating parties that will have to take responsibility for the economic crisis. The rising nationalist forces may strike a deal with the Indo-Japanese alliance against the Islamic threat. The rise of the powerful Indo-Japan may inspire a new generation of Western neo-Pagans, including the remains of the New Age movement.

Another option suggests increasing influence of Islamic monotheism in Europe. In case this tendency eventually develops into a convergence of monotheistic beliefs, the new global Abrahamic West, with a political and technological center in Europe, is likely to challenge the globalized Pagan East.

Thus, the conflict potential arising from the presently forming Indo-Japanese alliance is really great. The best option is to intervene in this process. The present inclination of New Delhi for partnership with Washington has emerged for only one reason – namely, India's loneliness at the face of both the Islamic threat and the strengthened China. In case Russia undertakes a new rapprochement with India, the "second NATO" will be unnecessary for New Delhi.

Number of shows: 1321
(no votes)
 © GLOBOSCOPE.RU 2006 - 2024 Rambler's Top100