Pan-Subcontinentalism - A New Nationalism!

[Manu]

I suppose it is easy to say that "partition was the best thing to happen to us" when one has not lost relatives (lives and honor), land and wealth - not to mention identity - in the blood bath that accompanied the partition.

I suppose you are never really Indian till you live as a refugee in your own country. Would the Kashmiri Pandits also agree that Kashmir being separated from India will be a good thing and they can continue to live in the conditions that they have 'enjoyed' for more than 2 decades now? After All, in J&K, Kashmir Valley is overwhelmingly Islamic.

You cannot keep retreating inwards forever.

We want our ancestral lands back (at least all of West Punjab, East Bengal and Sindh), sans the mofos. They may kindly drown in the Arabian sea and Bay of Bengal, respectively.

[Hari Seldon]

I suppose it is easy to say that......

You cannot keep retreating inwards forever.

We want our ancestral lands back (at least all of West Punjab, East Bengal and Sindh), sans the mofos. They may kindly drown in the Arabian sea and Bay of Bengal, respectively.

Manu saar, a few gentle quibs only. It is easy to say 'get back 'em ancestral lands sans the mofos'. RajeshAji also speaks of some 'certain conditions' being fulfilled or some such thing etc.

Trouble is how this getting rid of mofos in their millions and more will be achieved is never spelt out, despite everything in this discussion supposedly being above board and nothing hidden/chankian etc.

Which is why some of us, always a tad quick to assume the worst, fear some woolly-headed solution like merging the countries to get the lands back without the said mofos being extinguished only.

Something tells me at some tipping point, the said mofos will get and use nooks on some innocent kuffr city and that should be the green signal to rid the land of all the mofos permanently. Or maybe the cousins of said mofos will take over oirostan demographically before then - whichever comes first. Time will tell.

Anyway, back to scheduled programming till then. jai ho.

[nachiket]

Manu saar, a few gentle quibs only. It is easy to say 'get back 'em ancestral lands sans the mofos'. RajeshAji also speaks of some 'certain conditions' being fulfilled or some such thing etc.

Trouble is how this getting rid of mofos in their millions and more will be achieved is never spelt out, despite everything in this discussion supposedly being above board and nothing hidden/chankian etc.

Excellent point. It's one thing to want the land back. We would all love to get it back. But unless we are ready to commit genocide, which I'm sure we are not, we will compulsorily get the said "mofos" with the land if we manage to capture it. And having those raving lunatics as Indian citizens is just too high a price to pay for that land. The exception, and this is just my personal opinion of course, is PoK. That was our land legally even after the partition and should be physically ours in the future.

[Jaspreet]

But unless we are ready to commit genocide

The solution is not genocide. One possible solution could be a long-drawn process (running in centuries) to undo the process (which also took centuries) that converted our people. How is that to be achieved, I don't know. Maybe by making the core land, that is, what is now India, more attractive.

Clearly, this won't satisfy "nuke the Pukes" kind of people but it is a much gentler solution.

Edited for clarity.

[Hari Seldon]

To set the record straight, nooks are weapons not meant to be used. I certainly wouldn't wanna dispute that and am expressedly not calling for a first strike against TSP.

That still leaves open the Q of what we will do if Qadri types get their fingers around the n-trigger. I know, sounds far-fetched and all right now. But 5, 10, 20 yrs hence?

Anyway, my last on this dhaga. have a nice day.

[Bade]

All the naysayers have not convincingly argued why keeping the evil folks quarantined has made India any more safer as of now.

[brihaspati]

I, for one, have always proposed that geogrpahical identities are only a part and not the determining component of national identity. A "nation" can survive and ultimately survive only in a people regardless of where they are situated. So if things go wrong in the supposed homeland, the flame is still kept alive and there is hope for revival and recapture of homeland one day again.

I would not ascribe "wishful thinking" to what you say. However, only one example (Israel) does not prove or disprove the possibilities. Probably, Israel is the way forward and a positive conviction like Israel needs to be ingrained.

A resurgence has to start in the "homeland" itself. No amount outside nudging will help if the "homeland" morphs itself into something else or never becomes "ready" - INA experiment (not saying it was a failure in any sense!!!). The Incas and Aztecs are examples to watch out for.

No I did say it was a hedge. I am a keen analyzer and admirer of the way by which the Jewish Congress established its state. But for me it is simply a historical lesson, not a model to be blindly implemented. We do not put all our eggs in one basket usually - in tactical situations. Not rely entirely on it, but use it as one of the simultaneously adopted different approaches.

[brihaspati]

Look, I think this is going the age old debate way I have now gone through in several cycles on the forum.

I request people to think on the following basic argument :

Without expansion outside our currently existing border and control lines we cannot secure the inside. The periphery is where hostile forces gather and are backed up by interests even farther away. The expansion is to take control over the land and people with full sovereignty so that foreign powers like USA, UK, PRC cannot keep on backing violent, parastic and anti-Indic systems for their own respective strategic, economic and ideological interests.

But when we expand we need to understand as to what are we exactly trying to protect in the "inside"? Is it just the current setup of the rashtra, this or that party, just the people's lives? We need to protect the driving principles of our civilization, which includes the core of SD but not necessarily the barnacles that have grown on its ancient hull.

So no expansion should compromise on that civilizational part. It is a difficult simultaneous struggle. Expansion must take place, to retrieve what was traditionally our civilizational sphere, and thereby secure our civilizational homeland. Without a clear recognition of the ideological basis of this expansion, it will never succeed and can actually revert into a reverse flow. We also need to destroy the ideological basis of all "foreign" ideologies which have proved themselves as being solely driven by destruction of SD as part of preparation for foreign imperiliast forces.

We have to destroy the faith systems that are the tools of imperialist interests aimed at parasitic feeding off of our homeland, and we can do this by choosing our targets carefully. The faith institutions and their networks and leadership should be erased, but we must use every means to make the people "come out" and try and win them over. As the Brits and Islamists have proved, no winning-over is a purely charitable and voluntary non-coercive process. Missionaries always succeed best when they are backed up by armies and military coercive presence - this was the case with the "peaceful" Sufis as well as Christian "missionaries".

I am willing to pretend to support all purely "peaceful" and voluntary "accretions" to the homeland, but I would also silently and surely prepare to create the conditions by which people in those regions have no other option but to accede "peacefully" and "voluntarily" and also denounce the barbarity that their faiths and cultures have become.

Security will not come by compromising on the ideological grounds.

[RajeshA]

The Laws of Pan-Subcontinentalism

IV Law of Pan-Subcontinentalism
Religious Freedom - A Subcontinental can be a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, Jew, Animist, Atheist or something else. Every Subcontinental chooses his religion for himself. There is no compulsion in religion. Every Subcontinental can preach any religion he wishes to others. Nobody ought to stop him from doing that. Between the various religious communities, between religious sects, an attitude of mutual respect, consideration, tolerance and genuine friendship and trust should reign.

It is the duty of every Pan-Subcontinentalist to fight for the right of every Subcontinental to practice and preach any religion of his choice. That said, it is also a duty of the Pan-Subcontinentalist to fight for freedom from Religious Merchants, who act to divide people of the Subcontinent, to impose themselves on other people and to decide the freedoms and duties of the common man. The Subcontinent has seen very severe divisions in the name of religion. That makes it mandatory upon each Pan-Subcontinentalist to approach Religion with a some healthy scepticism.

There are Religious Segregationists. They will tell you that people of the faith they purportedly claim to represent, cannot mingle with the followers of another faith, they cannot live with followers of another faith. They will give various excuses ranging from racism to paranoia. They will tell you that they are racially superior perhaps based on some genealogical lineage, or some general physical attributes. They will play the victimhood complex card, and tell you about the threat emanating from some other religious group, again by quoting history selectively or by dishing out fabricated lies. They will tell you, the other religious community is unclean because of some customs and habits, or even due to poverty. They will tell their religious laws do not allow a co-habitation. These people are catering to one’s ego, one’s fears, one’s socially-honed sense of asthetics, one’s ignorance of one’s own religion.

Then there are Religious Fascists. They want to control the lives of others – what they are allowed to say, what they are allowed to do, how they are allowed to dress, how they are allowed to think. Often they coerce people to relinquish all association to their age-old customs, which preexist their conversions to the new faith. They are also the ones eager to use barbaric means to make people accede to their diktat. All this they do in the name of religion. Neither are these religious fascists willing to allow somebody to change his religion if he finds their interpretation of it suffocating. It is the duty of the Pan-Subcontinentalist to win back religion from the throes of these religious bigots. The religious bigots should be given only two choices – migration to some place outside the Subcontinent where his views would be acceptable and can cause no harm to the Subcontinent and its people, or migration to some place outside the World of the Living.

There are also Religious Uber-Passionists. They are of the view, that if their sentiments are hurt, they have the right to take the law into their own hands, and to bring barbaric justice to whoever they think partook in “blasphemy”. Saying or doing something against some prophet, emissary, symbol, name or edict of God, as understood by some religion, is at the most a crime against God and it is up to God to punish the person. Blasphemy is not for adjudication by civilized humans. What however can be adjudicated is speech, writings, or signs which ‘‘with deliberate and malicious intention’’ insult the religion or the religious beliefs of any class of citizens.

Religious Sexists are those who discriminate against women citing scripture. In fact discrimination does not really capture the atrocious behavior some religious groups show towards their women, which can range from constraining their freedom to stoning them to death. There needs to be an awareness, that it is not for Men to lord over the lives of Women, and no religion is made for Men only or for his Lordship over Women, except occasionally perhaps in a symbolic or a formal sense, but with no practical intention.

The most problematic however are the Religious Warriors. The use of a militant wing by some religious community or religious organizations can only be justified if there is a history of unprovoked violence against the group, when the religious group has an established policy of neither inciting violence nor committing aggression upon others, and if the militant wing is trained to cooperate with state security authorities, use minimum force and use force only for the defense of the religious community. But there are of course also religious militants who use violence, aggression against others because others simply belong to a different religious group; or when they consider it their religious duty to use intimidation, bullying, aggression, violence against others; or when they have no qualms about subverting the state through violence; or when they consider the slightest provocation, a provocation where there was no physical harm to their community, as sufficient grounds to commit aggression onto others; or when they first provoke others, and then upon a similar response from others, see it reason enough to escalate, to use terror or dispropotionate amount of force onto others. Such religious groups are a danger to society.

Religious Segregationists, Religious Fascists, Religious Uber-Passionists, Religious Sexists and Religious Warriors are all elements which desecrate religion and its name. These are the snakes which are constantly infusing venom into the arteries of society, all in the name of religion, all through the veneer of respectability, all by constantly abusing their position and responsibility as representatives and scholars of religion. As long as these elements exist, they will always remain a potent threat to the dignity of women, freedom of own religious community, security of other religious communities, and ultimately to the viability of a Unified Subcontinent.

It is imperative upon the Pan-Subcontinentalists to first recognize all these elements and then to fight their poison. First and foremost, it is the responsibility of Pan-Subcontinentalists of the same faith to stand up to these elements, but in the end all Pan-Subcontinentalists share this responsibility. The Pan-Subcontinentalists can start by giving them some friendly advice to change their ways and agendas; by questioning their religious interpretations and their methods; by enlightening the public by demasking them; by using all avenues of law to clamp down on them; and by confronting them head on, with the use of force if necessary. There should be no mistaking: all these elements have to be crushed one way or another.

In whichever system they have gained a foothold, one must consider that there are vested interests in ensuring that this religious hardline system prospers. These vested interests may be part of this system, they may be from the same country or they may be from abroad. One must be on look-out, if these vested interests are outside the subcontinent. However and Whereever these vested interests may be, the Pan-Subcontinentalists should ensure their defeat.

One thing the Pan-Subcontinentalists have to be always cognizant of is that religion promises paradise in after-life, but Pan-Subcontinentalists want more than that, they want to have a paradise on the Subcontinent itself, not just for themselves, but for their children, their grand-children and for the whole of their blood-line, not in after-life, but in this life itself, and promises of some paradise in after-life is something too little, especially because it is just a promise, a promise by some merchants of religion of questionable integrity.

[A_Gupta]

Irfan Ahmad, (b 1974), wrote a book - Islamism and Democracy: the transformation of Jamaat-e-Islami (2009), published by the Princeton University Press. I'm excerpting from it, because it represents the current implicit agreement between Islam and Congress nationalism.

Madni below is the nationalist Maulana H.A. Madni (or Madani).

“The conceptualization of a “united and indivisible” nation clearly entailed a differentiation between religion and the state. According to Madni, Islamness (Islamiyat) belonged to the domain of religion where Islam was supreme; in worldly affairs, Indianness (hindustaniyat) reigned high.

For military, economic and political pursuits Islam permitted Muslims to make common cause with Hindus. Such a separation between religion and state, he noted, was already in practice and Islam legitimized it. “Islam is a flexible religion,” was Madni’s motto.

Dismissing the view that democracy was European, he called upon Muslims to embrace it. Islam, Madni held, had laid the foundation of democracy. The separation between Islam and state meant stressing that Muslims qua Muslims could flourish under a secular state. It was not a smooth task given the nineteenth-century jihad by ulema to found an Islamic state after Delhi’s takeover by the British. In the viewpoint of the Jamiatul Ulema, the aim of the jihad movement was to expel the British, and ulema did not care if Hindus or Muslims formed the state.

Although the Jamiatul Ulema worked with the Congress, it did not merge itself with the Congress but retained its autonomy vis-a-vis Muslim issues. Some important issues were the preservation of civil sharia laws, for example, the freedom to practice Islam, advancement of Urdu, nondiscrimination against Muslims in various services, and so on.

Given Muslims’ minority state, the Jamiatul Ulema urged the Congress not to adopt any majoritarian policy. Dismissing assimilation, Madni, in the tract cited above, made it clear that Muslims desired guarantee not just of their individual belief, but of their “culture”. He further argued that for Muslims religion was not a “private” affair. The 1931 Fundamental Rights resolution of the Congress addressed these concerns. According to S. Gopal, Nehru’s biographer, this resolution formed the core of secularism in the Constitution. After Independence, secular democracy became the idiom of Muslim politics.

It is clear from the book that the opposite of "secular" in the Indian Muslim context is "majoritarian".

I present it here because to realize RajeshA's pan-subcontinental vision, some 450 million or so Mussalmans will also have to buy into it. The above is a succinct outline of the necessary Islamic theology and secular government set up for it to work.

[svinayak]

I present it here because to realize RajeshA's pan-subcontinental vision, some 450 million or so Mussalmans will also have to buy into it. The above is a succinct outline of the necessary Islamic theology and secular government set up for it to work.

It will happen in stages.
THe entire concept of Islamism does not have a place in the sub continent since it is not applicable in a diverse society of the region. Only a "secular Islam" can be sustained. It will take some 30 years for this to emerge.

[SwamyG]

Rajesh has taken pains to articulate his opinions and has argued for it in a reasonable manner. There might be disagreements and agreements; so respecting him we should keep this dhaaga as clean and reasonable as possible. Let us not use "mofos" ityadi words on millions of people, there are lots of other adjectives - brainwashed citizens ityadi.

[RajeshA]

SwamyG ji,
Thanks for your support.

A_Gupta ji,
That is a very pertinent piece. I think, Pan-Subcontinentalism, as I think about it, goes somewhat further than the line Madni was willing to draw, though the line would be crossed not necessarily by State, but by ideology itself.

[RajeshA]

The Laws of Pan-Subcontinentalism

V Law of Pan-Subcontinentalism
Embrace of All Subcontinental History and Strive for Truth - Subcontinent’s history has rivers of blood flowing through it. Our civilized psyches have been scarred with slashes from our barbarity. The pain is deep, and it is kept simmering through our hatred. But even hatred is taboo, because we are brothers, and co-travelers of the same destiny. We, Subcontinentals, have all been partners in self-mutilation. But if history has torn us, it has also forged our mettle, our identity. We cannot escape history or ignore history. All we can do is to embrace history.

Our identities are tied to various ethnicities, various ideologies, various historical events, various historical personalities. These define us and rightly so. If we derive our sense of belonging and pride from the above, why are we not willing to accept the dark chapters as well of the concerned historical events, ideologies, groups and personalities? Are we so 2-dimensional, that regret would add a facet to our thinking, that our personalities would collapse under its weight? Are we rather willing to carry the burden of culpability and shame of our history on our souls dressed up as denial and pride?

For if we do that, we are shutting the doors for our intellect, through which enlightenment should come. We would be unwilling to learn the lessons. We would skew our personalities so much, trying to justify the unjustifiable. To some extent we are free to form and mould our own identities. There where there is a choice, we ourselves choose which historical associations we want as the building blocks to our identity, but once we choose these, we should accept both their glowing aspects as well as their shaming aspects; we should publicly acknowledge those shaming chapters of history; we should not be hesitant in expressing our regrets at the shameful turn of history; and we should not hesitate in drawing lessons from such chapters.

For those aspects of identity, over which we have no control, which we inherit as part of our birth, again we should enjoy both the glowing pride such history infuses in our breasts and lament the list of criminal charges that may cling to such history. One can again cope with this inheritance of guilt, by turning it inwards and tormenting one’s own soul with it, or by confronting it, acknowledging it and repenting it. Repentance is the only way for one’s soul to escape the torment, for the soul to feel its strength and for it to taste life as it should taste – as free.

The Subcontinent needs both pride in its history but also reconciliation. Only Truth, Regret and Repentance make Reconciliation possible. A Pan-Subcontinentalist would derive pride from his identity and from Subcontinent’s history where ever possible, but would also be open to regret and repentance, where history requires it of him. A Pan-Subcontinentalist’s soul would be uncaged, unchained, unburdened by History. The Pan-Subcontinentalist will embrace History with all its warts. This would allow him to both be firmly anchored in his Identity but also to be in peace with it. The Pan-Subcontinentalist would in his own way thus contribute to Peace in the Subcontinent.

When talking about History, it is also important that one has the courage to dig for the Truth. The Truth should prevail! Satyamev Jayate! There are people however, who however want to twist History to their agendas, to make it fit their ideologies. The Pan-Subcontinentalist would fight against this trait and would always stand for the Truth, come what may! For the Subcontinental to evolve, he needs to learn how to face the Truth about the region, about his History.

The Pan-Subcontinentalist basks in the glory of Subcontinent's history, contributes to the healing of History's wounds, and seeks Truth hidden in History's drapes.

[RajeshA]

The Laws of Pan-Subcontinentalism

VI Law of Pan-Subcontinentalism
Protect Cultural Wealth - The Subcontinent has played the stage for the birth and growth of a very rich culture and civilization. It has been the cradle of many Empires, much Spiritual Exploration, many Scientific Advancements and an enormous amount of Cultural Diversity.

It is this cultural wealth that gives new generations their anchor, their moorings. It is not only our inheritance from our forefathers, but also out debt to our progeny. The cultural heritage of the whole Subcontinent regardless of era it came up in, regardless of religious background in which it developed, regardless of region it was born in, belongs to all Subcontinentals. For the Pan-Subcontinentalist this is more precious than his personal wealth.

Time, poverty, neglect, greed and robbery have been ravaging much of our cultural heritage. This is in fact a matter of utmost shame for the whole subcontinent, because it is happening before our very eyes and we are acting indifferent to it.
It is imperative on Pan-Nationalists to show care for our heritage, by increasing awareness about it, by taking their families around to see the old splendor, by mobilizing their neighborhoods to establish perimeters around various cultural sites, by assisting Archeological Survey of India and other bodies in caring for the treasure, by banning people from taking these treasures abroad.

There have of course been cases, where some groups have deliberately destroyed our cultural heritage – the Bamiyan Buddhas come to mind. Perhaps that what cannot be left alone in its original location due to prevalent political and security conditions, can be moved to a more safer and less controversial location. Accepted, that it would have been difficult moving the Buddhas, but where possible, the option should be availed of. Anyway those whose agenda it is to destroy culture and sometimes even remove all traces of it, should be crushed without mercy, for they attack the very core of the soul of the Subcontinent.

Culture however lives not only in old buildings. Culture is everywhere in diverse forms – music, singing, dancing, films, cartoons, festivals, etc. Culture is the creative expression of people. However culture in general has come under attack by several religious minded groups - be it banning music or be it vandalizing shops selling Valentine cards. Culture cannot be suppressed. Pan-Subcontinentalists swear to put a stop to any intimidation of Subcontinental society by such groups.

It is not just high-culture that needs protecting. In the Subcontinent we also have a multitude of languages, tribes with their own peculiar customs and beliefs. Due to homegenization, these cultures are dying off. It is imperative, that these cultures be protected, that tribes should be able to pass on their customs and workmanship to the next generation, and the state should support this. One needs to give the smaller cultures the necessary Lebensraum to survive and prosper. The more diversity there is, the richer are the Subcontinentals. Those cultures, which cannot be saved, they should be recorded, and the cultural wealth passed on to and integrated into the mainstream.

The Pan-Subcontinentalist swears to pass on his own family-specific culture but also the general Subcontinental culture on to his progeny and those under his guardianship and responsibility.

[RajeshA]

The Preamble of Pan-Subcontinentalism

Pan-Subcontinentalism is the Nationalism of the Indian Subcontinent. The adherents of Pan-Subcontinentalism, the Pan-Subcontinentalists identify themselves with the whole Subcontinent and pledge their loyalties to a movement to establish a political union of all ethnicities at home in the Subcontinent over an area encompassing Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Mauritius, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Tibet. Once established, the Pan-Subcontinentalists’ loyalty would lie with such a Civilization-State.

In the Indian Subcontinental Union, the People would be sovereign and it would be ruled according to the principles of democracy. It would be structured as a federation of states based on linguistic and administrative divisions. The Union would have a strong center.

Pan-Subcontinentalism is also a Nationalism based on certain principles, principles which will help both the establishment as well as the preservation of such a large democratic political union. Just as important is the nature of society, that should flourish in such a union – it should be based on equality, freedom to practice and preach religion, communal peace, tolerance, celebration of diversity, decency, respect for privacy, spirituality, freedom of thought, free movement, openness, caring, social conscience, good neighborliness, moral courage, respect for law and citizens’ rights, justice, press-freedom, opportunity for all, meritocracy, thirst for knowledge, scientific inquisitiveness, spirit of exploration, creativity, good work ethic, healthy living, sustainable development, equitable growth and environment-friendliness.

Pan-Subcontinentalists swear to fight ethnic and religious segregationists, fascists, uber-passionists and warriors, and to not allow them to control, radicalize and rip apart society. Pan-Subcontinentalists swear to fight all groups with vested interests in disunity or instability of the Subcontinent, using all means available, peaceful if possible, violent if necessary.

Pan-Subcontinentalists swear to contribute to the creation of an ecologically sound, a socially harmonious, an economically developed, a scientifically advanced and a militarily strong Indian Subcontinental Union.

[Arjun]

RajeshA, very well put together blueprint for your vision for the Subcontinent. In some ways, a Tour de Force effort !!

A few random comments. Let me know if you agree with these-

1) Under the definition of Culture (your 6th Law)- I would include mythology. By mythology I mean the tales and epics that have defined the narrative of that particular community or tribe from time immemorial. The dominant grand mythologies prevalent in the subcontinent, as ALSO those of the multitude of smaller tribes - need to be protected and means of official promotion need to be identified.

2) Under Religious Freedom (Law 4)- While the freedom to pursue the customs and beliefs associated with one's religion or community needs to be enshrined and will obviously be a very key component of the subcontinental blueprint, I am also of the opinion that customs that are deemed to be 'offensive to accepted human sensibilities' need to be curtailed. These might be customs where the individual performing certain activities claims to be performing the activity entirely based on his / her own free volition and not under any religious or communitarian duress - and yet most educated and thinking people would find the activity to be offensive to their sensibilities. Examples of these would be piercing of body parts as a mark of devotion, rolling one's body on the eaten leaves of others as a mark of piety or devotion (rituals associated with certain Hindu sects) as also the full-body veil covering (burqa) associated with Islam. Such activities can only be permitted, if at all, in private and are not to be allowed in public locations.

There is a chance that this particular clause could be misused by parties - so I am somewhat ambivalent about it, but would be glad to obtain views.

3) Law 6 (Protecting Cultural Wealth) should be subject to the same exceptions as made out for Law 4 - i.e. the need for protecting one's culture (including customs and beliefs) should not be an excuse to allow the elements of segregationists, fascists, sexists et al within that community.

4) Law 4 (Religious Freedom)- Under either Religious segregationists or fascists, one needs to include the category of religious leaders who claim there to be only one path to God or who believe that all Gods and paths to God outside of their own are false. The reason is simple - if one does not include this category, while you will be preventing physical segregation (based on eschewing the segregationists) you will not be preventing mental segregation which is an equally if not more dangerous phenomenon.

This will possibly be your biggest hurdle - but there is no getting around this. Only by accepting all Gods and paths to God to be equal will the barriers between religions break down, and your subcontinental vision set in in reality.

5) Preamble - You state that rule will be according to the principles of democracy. While fine in theory, given that attachment to one's community or religion will continue to be strong for several generations - it is important that there be explicit provisions that prohibit the use of certain types of communitarian campaigns by political parties as a part of 'vote-bank' politicking. I am not sure what the precise prohibitions would be - but based on the India experience, clearly there is a lacuna in current politics that needs to be addressed.

6) Creating a constitution is somewhat like building an operating system for computers! One needs to recognize that there will be constant attempts to subvert the spirit of the constitution through the equivalent of viruses that seek to take advantage of some inherent weaknesses and loopholes in the system. One must prepare for this upfront and allow for evolution of the blueprint /operating system to take care of / prevent these viruses so as to maintain the original spirit behind the constitution.

7) The biggest challenge will lie in the nitty gritties of the legal / legislative provisions that would take this to the next level of detail. Special interests across the subcontinent will be interpreting some of these provisions to suit there own needs - the leadership required to maintain the original spirit in the midst of these challenges will be immense.

Lastly, I notice the geographical definition of the Subcontinent !! Am with you on this, but clearly the challenges associated with bringing that about is a whole different set which I will not even attempt to address...!

[Neshant]

The pan-subcontinentalism is nothing more than snake oil salesmanship.

India is making good progress on her own and does not need the basket cases. We will be master of the subcontinent by virtue of size alone. Pan-anything is just a load of kumbaya BS promoted by the people who don't seem to learn anything from history. They are looking to hand India's hard earned power away under the banner of some idealistic nonsense.

Don't share power. Grab it.

[RajeshA]

The pan-subcontinentalism is nothing more than snake oil salesmanship.

You're mixing up the sellers and buyers.

India is making good progress on her own and does not need the basket cases. We will be master of the subcontinent by virtue of size alone. Pan-anything is just a load of kumbaya BS promoted by the people who don't seem to learn anything from history. They are looking to hand India's hard earned power away under the banner of some idealistic nonsense.

The lessons you learn from history is that one needs to offer the general public an ideological framework, which instills in them a belonging to the system. Otherwise you will have either revolutions every second Friday or constant chaos. Would the masses in India not have begrudged the Indian elite the fruits of their wealth, if they weren't even allowed an outlet of elections every 5 years in the name of democracy and the few programs for social upliftment.

Power is fickle in an environment of chaos and uncertainty. If you strive for power, is it not rational to also strive for a system, in which you can enjoy it, and keep it?!

Don't share power. Grab it.

Grabbing is the easy part. Maintaining it, and that too unchallenged, is the hard part! The wise use snake oil, the uncreative need a security state!

[RajeshA]

RajeshA, very well put together blueprint for your vision for the Subcontinent. In some ways, a Tour de Force effort !!

Arjun ji,
Thanks for your confidence.

A few random comments. Let me know if you agree with these-

1) Under the definition of Culture (your 6th Law)- I would include mythology. By mythology I mean the tales and epics that have defined the narrative of that particular community or tribe from time immemorial. The dominant grand mythologies prevalent in the subcontinent, as ALSO those of the multitude of smaller tribes - need to be protected and means of official promotion need to be identified.

Yes, I agree. In many sections ("Laws"), there are still discrepancies and important portions left out.

I agree full heartedly that mythology should be considered a part of culture. Sure, it is for some a part of their religion, but there is no reason, why it cannot be considered by others as their cultural heritage and be respected thus.

2) Under Religious Freedom (Law 4)- While the freedom to pursue the customs and beliefs associated with one's religion or community needs to be enshrined and will obviously be a very key component of the subcontinental blueprint, I am also of the opinion that customs that are deemed to be 'offensive to accepted human sensibilities' need to be curtailed. These might be customs where the individual performing certain activities claims to be performing the activity entirely based on his / her own free volition and not under any religious or communitarian duress - and yet most educated and thinking people would find the activity to be offensive to their sensibilities. Examples of these would be piercing of body parts as a mark of devotion, rolling one's body on the eaten leaves of others as a mark of piety or devotion (rituals associated with certain Hindu sects) as also the full-body veil covering (burqa) associated with Islam. Such activities can only be permitted, if at all, in private and are not to be allowed in public locations.

There is a chance that this particular clause could be misused by parties - so I am somewhat ambivalent about it, but would be glad to obtain views.

Arjun ji,
I would tend to not go there.

In the Preamble, there is a mention of "decency". That would suffice to see to it, that the Subcontinent does not become the land, where people start having free sex on the open roads, or people start walking on the streets naked.

However it is important to allow this leeway in case of religion. It is important that society be pushed to its limits as far as sensibilities go, in order to make it more tolerant. You take away the tolerance from some body else's religious practices, and he would try to take it away from yours.

Of course, all religious customs and practices also need some bounds, but the bounds should not be imposed under the excuse of the larger society's sensibilities, but rather on other bases:

1. Security and Public Safety: In some areas, full-body veils will not be acceptable. It would also not be acceptable to burn huge effigies, if such activity can cause the fire to spread uncontrollably.
2. Protection against Cruelty to Animals: One can't go around killing and sacrificing animals, if the animals are being killed outside the licensed slaughterhouses or private compounds, or if undue cruelty is being shown towards the animal.
3. Protection of Children: Certain practices can be restricted if it can cause some child some trauma, or the child is exposed to vulgarity, etc.

3) Law 6 (Protecting Cultural Wealth) should be subject to the same exceptions as made out for Law 4 - i.e. the need for protecting one's culture (including customs and beliefs) should not be an excuse to allow the elements of segregationists, fascists, sexists et al within that community.

I would give some thought to this. May be you can go into it a bit more.

I would think, that destruction of cultural wealth (including customs and beliefs) would be ordained by some because of their religious beliefs. So I placed it in the Law of Religious Freedom, under Caution from Religious Fascists. I would think, that customs and beliefs of some community are protected by curtailing the freedom of Religious Fascists to dictate and impose their views on society.

I think I understand, where perhaps the confusion lies. The protection of cultural freedom in this case is stated in the Law IV, where the source of threat to cultural freedom is mentioned, and not in Law VI where the target of the threat is discussed. There would be redundancy, but the line can be added for completeness.

4) Law 4 (Religious Freedom)- Under either Religious segregationists or fascists, one needs to include the category of religious leaders who claim there to be only one path to God or who believe that all Gods and paths to God outside of their own are false. The reason is simple - if one does not include this category, while you will be preventing physical segregation (based on eschewing the segregationists) you will not be preventing mental segregation which is an equally if not more dangerous phenomenon.

This will possibly be your biggest hurdle - but there is no getting around this. Only by accepting all Gods and paths to God to be equal will the barriers between religions break down, and your subcontinental vision set in in reality.

Arjun ji,
I don't think that would work. Monotheism is a school of thought in religion. If one bans that one denies the core, the grounding, of that religion.

The effort has to be made in what is possible:

1. Monotheists do not wage war on Polytheists
2. Monotheists do not publicly hurt the feelings of Polytheists, by making fun of the icons, symbols and deities of Polytheists.
3. Monotheists do not go for segregation, fascism, uber-passionism, conflict with Polytheists.
4. Monotheists do accept the religio-cultural wealth of the Polytheists as their own cultural wealth, even if not having any religious importance.

5) Preamble - You state that rule will be according to the principles of democracy. While fine in theory, given that attachment to one's community or religion will continue to be strong for several generations - it is important that there be explicit provisions that prohibit the use of certain types of communitarian campaigns by political parties as a part of 'vote-bank' politicking. I am not sure what the precise prohibitions would be - but based on the India experience, clearly there is a lacuna in current politics that needs to be addressed.

One can put an end to vote-bank politics, by either having candidates in the running, who are equally attractive to that vote-bank, or by destroying the power of the clerics and religious groups to influence people of a particular vote-bank.

Of course, some candidates would vie for the votes of the vote-bank, by competing and appeasing the constituency using populist and religious language. This happens only if majority community allows it, which again happens when there is not sufficient education on what is permissible and what is not. The majority community needs to take umbrage when such pandering occurs.

I am also in favor of two-round systems, where the two candidates with the most votes in the first round, proceed to the second round, unless someone wins more than 50% of the votes casted in the first round itself. Such a system would lessen the influence of the vote-banks.

6) Creating a constitution is somewhat like building an operating system for computers! One needs to recognize that there will be constant attempts to subvert the spirit of the constitution through the equivalent of viruses that seek to take advantage of some inherent weaknesses and loopholes in the system. One must prepare for this upfront and allow for evolution of the blueprint /operating system to take care of / prevent these viruses so as to maintain the original spirit behind the constitution.

Well said.

7) The biggest challenge will lie in the nitty gritties of the legal / legislative provisions that would take this to the next level of detail. Special interests across the subcontinent will be interpreting some of these provisions to suit there own needs - the leadership required to maintain the original spirit in the midst of these challenges will be immense.

India has a fine Constitution. Much of what can be inferred to from Pan-Subcontinentalism is already there.

Pan-Subcontinentalism is targeted not so much as becoming some sort of future Constitution of some Indian Subcontinental Union, i.e. to guide the state. It is supposed to be more of a popular ideology, to guide the people, so that they help steer the region on the right path.

Lastly, I notice the geographical definition of the Subcontinent !! Am with you on this, but clearly the challenges associated with bringing that about is a whole different set which I will not even attempt to address...!

I'll greatly appreciate your feedback, input, critique and help. It is most welcome.

[brihaspati]

Can we really escape spelling out an independent set of values against which culture/religion/tradition claims have to be evaluated? Without such a detailed set of values, and preference ordering between them, can you have any laws about "cultural protection"?

As it stands, claims of right to cultural protection will be most stringently and effectively used by religious "fascists/uber passionists/warriors", because they are more keenly aware of what is at stake, and are better organized with a better understanding of how power is attained and maintained.

For example most of the majority community in the subcontinent are divided and confused about the need to protect "cultural icons" of their heritage. Because trying to do so may be interpreted as the intolerance of other culture's whose claimed cultural heritage is to destroy all possible icons of all other cultures. Now for good or bad, reality or unreality, this majority community might just have been convinced or confused sufficiently that overwhelming tolerance for all possible ways to "God" is the fundamental and top priority. What does this create? On the side of the majority a confusion and hence inaction/hesitation to resist demands by another community that a majority community's cultural icon/practice is an offense to the other community - hence has to be destroyed/removed/stopped.

On the other hand some other practise of that community might be offensive to the majority but is an integral part of the culture of that community and hence has a right to be protected.

Who will win in this case? The answer should be obvious.

I do not think you can get away without creating and spelling out certain values as inalienable, as well as preference ordering among those rights. That is if two rights come into conflict which one prevails? In my view, in this list, right to culture and freedom of religion will be at the bottom of the list of all other rights.

So lets say, "right to education" comes before "right to equality of gender before the state", and both come before "right to culture and freedom of religion". This means that in case there arises a situation where a boy cannot be allowed to study a certain course because the quota for boys have been filled up and there were not sufficient girls to fill up the girl's quota, but still the boy cannot be allowed to study on the excuse that it subverts equality of gender. Same case the other way round. But both coming before right to religion ensures that certain communities cannot raise any excuse of segregation being law for them, or that girls should have a separate or distinct in content education from boys. Segregation is not just about "sexual temptation/corruption/free mixing" - in education it also subverts "equality of gender" in treatment.

In any case right to freedom of expression and thought should come before "right to freedom of culture and religion". Everyone should have the right to deconstruct any religion. Let the strongest idea win and survive.

[Arjun]

Pan-Subcontinentalism is targeted not so much as becoming some sort of future Constitution of some Indian Subcontinental Union, i.e. to guide the state. It is supposed to be more of a popular ideology, to guide the people, so that they help steer the region on the right path.

I might have possibly misunderstood the nature of your document. My reading of the objective was it was aimed at achieving regional consolidation based on imposing a minimum level of plurality and alignment with India's value systems across the more 'difficult' sections of the region.

My objection now is two-fold: (a) the bar in terms of values (as defined in your Laws) might be lower than that required to achieve BOTH (i) meaningful long-term integration of the region AND (ii) ensure no retrograde effect on India's own value-systems and growth story; (b) by not providing teeth to the 'Laws' through legislative provisions, they are no more than election rhetoric that work for selling the Pan-subcontinental story - but do nothing substantial to ensure that the Laws are adhered to.

Let me take up (b) first...Do we have laws to go after the Religiuos segregrationists, fascists, sexists et al you define? How are you going to prevent a segregationist from advocating segregation? If the UK, with <3% Muslim population has been having huge problems in integration of its Muslim minority and has not been able to contain the segregationists, fascists and sexists; how do you think the Indian subcontinent with 30%+ Muslim population currently and >50% in a few decades would cope, based on the same or possibly inferior set of laws?

Coming to (a)- lets first accept that the biggest source of difficulty and tension in the Subcontinent will lie in integrating the religions.

4) Law 4 (Religious Freedom)- Under either Religious segregationists or fascists, one needs to include the category of religious leaders who claim there to be only one path to God or who believe that all Gods and paths to God outside of their own are false. The reason is simple - if one does not include this category, while you will be preventing physical segregation (based on eschewing the segregationists) you will not be preventing mental segregation which is an equally if not more dangerous phenomenon.

Arjun ji,
I don't think that would work. Monotheism is a school of thought in religion. If one bans that one denies the core, the grounding, of that religion.

There is a difference between monotheism and destructive exclusivism. Indics are no strangers to monotheism - but as a pluralist society, the latter (destructive exclusivism) is completely antithetical to India's core values. To make it more explicit, there is a difference between believing in one God and the claim that 'all other Gods or the same God by any other name are FALSE Gods'.

Sikhism is a monotheistic faith, but (from Wikipedia)

Sikhs believe that God has been given many names, but they all refer to the One God VāhiGurū. The word Guru means teacher in Sanskrit. Sikhs believe that members of other religions such as Islam, Hinduism and Christianity all worship the same god

and

Sikhs and Jains, like Hindus, are expected to be tolerant of all faiths and do not believe that any one path has a monopoly on the Truth. There are many paths to seek out the Love of God and incur Divine Grace. In fact to call another's path inferior is sign of ignorance and intolerance.

You state that 'Monotheists do not publicly hurt the feelings of Polytheists, by making fun of the icons, symbols and deities of Polytheists'. But that bar is too low- they have to RESPECT other Gods and icons and not believe them to be FALSE. Otherwise, the mental segregation still remains - and morover by allowing the concept of FALSE GODS, there is a fundamental dissonance between your Law #2 and Law #4.

Forget the rest of Hindutva, if there is one lowest common denominator that represents India's core value system that makes it a shining light - it is this belief and respect for other religions' icons. One certainly does not want to dilute this fundamental characteristic in some retrograde mission that extinguishes this sole beacon of hope.

[RajeshA]

Pan-Subcontinentalism is targeted not so much as becoming some sort of future Constitution of some Indian Subcontinental Union, i.e. to guide the state. It is supposed to be more of a popular ideology, to guide the people, so that they help steer the region on the right path.

I might have possibly misunderstood the nature of your document. My reading of the objective was it was aimed at achieving regional consolidation based on imposing a minimum level of plurality and alignment with India's value systems across the more 'difficult' sections of the region.

Arjun ji,
Perhaps we're looking from two different perspectives. I am thinking in terms of a process and that too in the neighborhood. I presume you're looking at an end state.

The mentality in our neighborhood has become so skewed that it would take some time for those who adhere to Pan-Subcontinentalism to make meaningful changes. In some cases, it would lead to unification with India, in other cases, it would remain a process which would undermine the existing fascist order there.

The Subcontinental Consolidation is dealt with in the ebook.

My objection now is two-fold: (a) the bar in terms of values (as defined in your Laws) might be lower than that required to achieve BOTH (i) meaningful long-term integration of the region AND (ii) ensure no retrograde effect on India's own value-systems and growth story; (b) by not providing teeth to the 'Laws' through legislative provisions, they are no more than election rhetoric that work for selling the Pan-subcontinental story - but do nothing substantial to ensure that the Laws are adhered to.

Let me take up (b) first...Do we have laws to go after the Religiuos segregrationists, fascists, sexists et al you define? How are you going to prevent a segregationist from advocating segregation? If the UK, with <3% Muslim population has been having huge problems in integration of its Muslim minority and has not been able to contain the segregationists, fascists and sexists; how do you think the Indian subcontinent with 30%+ Muslim population currently and >50% in a few decades would cope, based on the same or possibly inferior set of laws?

There is something called a social codex! First and foremost, this is what Pan-Subcontinentalism ought to be in the Indian Subcontinental Union. I would want a society to have a firm footing in a set of values, that they continue to strive to build such a society, and when they see some phenomenon, which goes against these values they pounce on it. I am in fact in favor of having these values be imbibed in the population in school itself.

A set of laws, where political considerations of the elite or the power brokers are involved, would be insufficient to stop the tide of obscurantism. So the values have to be planted deep in society.

Secondly,

• I've often pleaded on BRF, that there should be a stop to outside funding of religious institutions in India, and if it takes place it has to be channeled through the government.
• I've also spoken about that hate speech or instigation to violence by religious institutions and personalities, should be closely monitored. Any violation can cause the Government to confiscate the properties of the personalities and institutions and given to others from the same faith.
• I've also advocated, that if some body conducts a terrorist act, or even a violent act on the basis of religion, not only he, but also the source of his skewed mentality should answer to the Law of the Land. If some cleric is found giving advice, which goes against the secular policies of the government - girls marry with 18, no coercion to change the religion of spouse, etc. then the cleric can also be fined heavily
• etc.

There are a number of laws, one can introduce which facilitate the goals advocated in the Laws of Pan-Subcontinentalism.

However, it is not that easy to turn all values into laws. One can make laws based on security of the state, or the fundamental rights of the individual, etc., but nuances in behavior can be legislated upon only with much difficulty and never perfectly.

Coming to (a)- lets first accept that the biggest source of difficulty and tension in the Subcontinent will lie in integrating the religions.

4) Law 4 (Religious Freedom)- Under either Religious segregationists or fascists, one needs to include the category of religious leaders who claim there to be only one path to God or who believe that all Gods and paths to God outside of their own are false. The reason is simple - if one does not include this category, while you will be preventing physical segregation (based on eschewing the segregationists) you will not be preventing mental segregation which is an equally if not more dangerous phenomenon.

Arjun ji,
I don't think that would work. Monotheism is a school of thought in religion. If one bans that one denies the core, the grounding, of that religion.

There is a difference between monotheism and destructive exclusivism. Indics are no strangers to monotheism - but as a pluralist society, the latter (destructive exclusivism) is completely antithetical to India's core values. To make it more explicit, there is a difference between believing in one God and the claim that 'all other Gods or the same God by any other name are FALSE Gods'.

Sikhism is a monotheistic faith, but (from Wikipedia)

Sikhs believe that God has been given many names, but they all refer to the One God VāhiGurū. The word Guru means teacher in Sanskrit. Sikhs believe that members of other religions such as Islam, Hinduism and Christianity all worship the same god

and

Sikhs and Jains, like Hindus, are expected to be tolerant of all faiths and do not believe that any one path has a monopoly on the Truth. There are many paths to seek out the Love of God and incur Divine Grace. In fact to call another's path inferior is sign of ignorance and intolerance.

You state that 'Monotheists do not publicly hurt the feelings of Polytheists, by making fun of the icons, symbols and deities of Polytheists'. But that bar is too low- they have to RESPECT other Gods and icons and not believe them to be FALSE. Otherwise, the mental segregation still remains - and morover by allowing the concept of FALSE GODS, there is a fundamental dissonance between your Law #2 and Law #4.

Forget the rest of Hindutva, if there is one lowest common denominator that represents India's core value system that makes it a shining light - it is this belief and respect for other religions' icons. One certainly does not want to dilute this fundamental characteristic in some retrograde mission that extinguishes this sole beacon of hope.

Beliefs cannot be legislated or be barred through some liberal value charter. All one can do is to ensure that such beliefs do not cause harm or injury to any citizen or to the state.

Islam was forged in destruction of statues of deities in Kaba. It is their core belief that one should not worship stones and statues. So if it is not possible to ban Islam, one needs to look at other avenues, these avenues being:

• Educating the Subcontinental Muslims, that the statues basically work to focus one's attention and as a channel to communicate to God(s), that their function is symbolic.
• Educating them, that if they cannot accept the statues as a legitimate means of prayer or other religious functions, they should accept and respect them as part of their cultural heritage.
• Cosmopolitize the Muslims, so that they accept the Indic religions, simply because they are used to seeing it everywhere.
• Cosmopolitize the Muslims, so that their extremist religious injunctions do not matter much to them.

It is hopeless trying to reform the Abrahamic religions to accept that there are multiple ways to God. Even in Christianity, Jesus claims he is the only way to his Father.

[RajeshA]

brihaspati garu,
I am still pondering over your wisdom. Will get back to you soon.

[Arjun]

Arjun ji,
Perhaps we're looking from two different perspectives. I am thinking in terms of a process and that too in the neighborhood. I presume you're looking at an end state.

I think I get what you are saying. But Jinnah was possibly thinking in terms of a process as well, and may well have been mighty surprised when a 'moth-eaten' Pakistan landed on his lap !!

[RajeshA]

Arjun ji,
Perhaps we're looking from two different perspectives. I am thinking in terms of a process and that too in the neighborhood. I presume you're looking at an end state.

I think I get what you are saying. But Jinnah was possibly thinking in terms of a process as well, and may well have been mighty surprised when a 'moth-eaten' Pakistan landed on his lap !!

And the state he got, was based on logical conclusions to the justification he gave for his movement - Muslim Segregation.

I would hope, that in this case too, an Indian Subcontinental Union is founded on the spirit of Pan-Subcontinentalism.

[A_Gupta]

FYI
http://www.harvard.com/book/how_to_run_ ... naissance/

New book:
How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance
by Parag Khanna

PS: http://www.paragkhanna.com/?p=264

[RajeshA]

The Laws of Pan-Subcontinentalism

VII Law of Pan-Subcontinentalism
People are Sovereign - The Subcontinent belongs to its people, to all its people. The people are Sovereign. The Subcontinentals decide the Subcontinent’s Laws and Policies and their Representatives who should channel people’s will in formulating them and implementing them.

The Subcontinent’s destiny is bound to Democracy. There is no other system, which can survive and prosper in the Subcontinent. In India it is a tried and tested system. Only democracy can legitimize the rulers.

There would be those, who say they want to live by God’s Laws and not man-made laws. Theoretically one can live by God’s Laws, the problem is however that it becomes the responsibility of the clergy to mediate between God’s laws and their implementation in a temporal setting and they neither have the objectivity, nor the expertise to accomplish that. They also exhaust their resources in analyzing, interpreting and debating God’s Law, that all concern for those who will be subjected to the Law, is easily overlooked. Moreover it is nigh to impossible to find a single acceptable interpretation to God’s Law, that the matter grinds to a standstill. So it becomes impossible to make God as the sovereign of the state, as one ends up making the clergy the sovereign.

At the most, God can be a sovereign over one’s heart, and through the channel of a citizen’s religious conscience can determine the outcome of the political process of the state.

Neither can a Monarchy, a Military Dictatorship or a One-Party Dictatorship determine the course of India’s Destiny. Only the Subcontinentals can determine the destiny of the Subcontinent.

It must be ensured that from the representatives of the people, there is absolute transparency, except maybe in cases of national security, and absolute accountability, and at all times there needs to be a constant reevaluation if the present framework of curbs and checks suffice to produce clean governance. Not just as representatives of the people, but as politicians as well, their assets and their campaign funding need to be made transparent. There needs to be besides the legal and administrative framework of checks and balances, also an interest on the part of civil society to organize themselves in NGOs and to try to investigate the truth.

Another weakness of the election system in the Subcontinent is that it is based on the Westminster model, where the candidate first-past-the-post gets elected. This skews the representativeness of the candidate. A two-stage model would be much better suited. The first two winners of the first election cycle in a constituency, in case none wins over 50% of the votes, would have to test their mettle in a second election cycle shortly after the first one.

There is also a need to establish a culture of one-on-one debates among the two front runners, and they should debate with each other why the one is a better candidate than the other. Depending on the size of the constituency, the debate may be aired live or not.

The democratic credentials of the representatives have to be supplemented by the democratic credentials of the political parties themselves. The right to stand as a candidate in a constituency should also be determined through an inner-party election for the candidature. Also all functionaries of a political party need to be elected by the rank and file of the party.

The Pan-Subcontinentalist is wedded to democracy, and despite its flaws, the Pan-Subcontinentalist sees it as the only available credible model. The Pan-Subcontinentalist also wants to ensure that he gets the best candidates to stand up for election and the representativeness of the candidate once elected is maximum.

[TonyMontana]

Pan-Subcontinentalists swear to fight all groups with vested interests in disunity or instability of the Subcontinent, using all means available, peaceful if possible, violent if necessary.

Pan-Subcontinentalists swear to contribute to the creation of an ecologically sound, a socially harmonious, an economically developed, a scientifically advanced and a militarily strong Indian Subcontinental Union.

Rajesh-ji. Did you take this bit straight from the CCP website? Sound awefully similar to the slogans rammed down Chinese throats every day.

[RajeshA]

Pan-Subcontinentalists swear to fight all groups with vested interests in disunity or instability of the Subcontinent, using all means available, peaceful if possible, violent if necessary.

Pan-Subcontinentalists swear to contribute to the creation of an ecologically sound, a socially harmonious, an economically developed, a scientifically advanced and a militarily strong Indian Subcontinental Union.

Rajesh-ji. Did you take this bit straight from the CCP website? Sound awefully similar to the slogans rammed down Chinese throats every day.

You did mention once, I thought like you!

[RajeshA]

The Laws of Pan-Subcontinentalism

VIII Law of Pan-Subcontinentalism
Equal Opportunity and Meritocracy - As long as monarchies and colonial occupations ruled over the Subcontinent, mostly everything revolved around the requirements of the rulers. To a large extent it still does. But as people become sovereign, the state has the responsibility to look after its citizens, all its citizens. However this does not mean that the State needs to look after the citizen from birth to grave, but the State has to ensure that all its citizenry get an equal opportunity to realize its potential. The implication here is to give every child an opportunity to avail of school education. In fact, it has to be a duty of the state, society, family to get each child to go to school.

The problem is that schools are unequally good. The teachers in all schools are not required to show excellence in their profession. In some government schools, the discipline amongst teachers even is abysmal, and they don’t feel the need to show interest in their work, as they know their government job is secure.

The State should not be in the business of teaching at all. They should leave that all to private schools. The private schools do it professionally. They compete with each other and are very aware of their reputation. The State should however be intensely involved in ensuring that these private schools fulfill all the basic requirements of curriculum, hygienic facilities, and other standards.

Each child in the Subcontinent, be he poor or rich, should be supported by the State in his school education. One model would be for each child to get a schooling account – similar to a bank account. Distinguishing on the basis of economic need of an individual child would be administratively prohibitive. Besides one wants to give each child the feeling that the State is there for each one of them. Every month a particular amount of credits is deposited in the account of the child, and a registered private school can avail of these credits as school fees. For some schools this may be sufficient, for others, who offer a lot more facilities and are generally considered better, these credits may not suffice, and the child’s family may have to pay more, if the family can afford it.

Moreover all school fees above a certain amount need to be taxed by the State. This would allow the State to plough money from the rich to the poor, and thus partially finance the program.

Such a model would give the child the flexibility to choose a day care center, a primary school, a secondary school, or a senior secondary school of his own wish. Children who show promise in school through various evaluations, or through state-wide school-level competitions, can be given, an extra stipend. More important is that the quality of education and commitment of the teachers would rapidly increase.

Moreover schemes like Mid-day Meals can still be continued, where every school, in this case there will be private only, would need to offer their own Mid-day Meal program, and the State pays for the Mid-day Meals of the needy children. Of course, any non-needy child also can have the option to register for this school scheme, only they would have to pay from their own pocket. Best would be when external contractors are used for cooking the meals, and then delivering to schools. Depending on attendance, a needy child should also be able to get some dry rations for the family. This would increase the acceptability amongst the poor families to send their children to school.

Only if children are given an “equal” opportunity, can a society with a social conscience truly embrace meritocracy. Meritocracy is not an option. For a society to move forward it is a must. But if merit becomes a function of the affluence of one’s family, and their ability to send the child to school, then it loses its claim as being the only factor for consideration in the choice of someone for some college seat or job position.

Also in a society based on Meritocracy, there should be no scope for favoritism, nepotism. One should always take the candidate, who is most deserving.

The Pan-Subcontinentalists have a social conscience and are fully committed to see, that all children in the Subcontinent receive the opportunity to learn in school and that too on a full tummy. Also the Pan-Subcontinentalists want to see that in institutions of higher learning, politics, government departments, public sector, and even private companies, the most deserving candidates, the candidates showing the most merit are taken.

Only this can ensure that the Subcontinent nurtures a society, which is educated, and ensures that the Subcontinentals get the best service in the world, that the Subcontinent progresses more rapidly, for it is the mission of the Pan-Subcontinentalist to ensure that the Subcontinent is the best place to be!

[RajeshA]

The Laws of Pan-Subcontinentalism

IX Law of Pan-Subcontinentalism
Women’s Empowerment - All too often one sees that the Subcontinent has failed to protect the rights and status of women. Nothing could be more disastrous for a healthy society.

A man who misbehaves with women, with his wife, with the other women in the family, women employees, is basically a hollow man rotten to the core. He has failed to understand the healthy dynamic that should exist between a man and a woman. Only a confident man can ‘manage’ a confident woman. Once one starts treating women contemptuously, it is a sure sign that one has no confidence to speak of. Only the cowards bully the weak and the meak.

God has endowed women with the miraculous gift of birthing a child, and the procreation of mankind is a responsibility they bear to a large extent. But the question whether the woman wants to fulfill that responsibility provided circumstances allow her, is an issue between her and the One who charged her with the responsibility - God. Nobody else gets to veto this personal decision making. The woman’s body is her own. It is for the woman to decide with whom she wants to bear her children, when she wants to bear children and how many children she wants to bear. Others can express their desires but she takes those decisions.

It is also important, that man does not impose his will on a woman’s body against her will. Women and their bodies endowed with the gift of procreation, of pregnancy, deserve to be treated with respect. Any violation of the bounds and limits set by a woman on her body and modesty is a violation of the highest order.

It is one thing for a man to bind, to tie his honor to the women around him, in his mother, aunts, cousin sisters, sisters, daughters, wife or even girlfriend. It is his decision to make his honor captive to the behavior and decisions of the women, but the women are not captive to his honor. Should a man feel hurt in his honor, purportedly due the behavior of the women, he is free to make decisions on what his stance to the women shall be, but he has no authority to intimidate, threaten, bully or physically hurt the women, nor is he allowed to retract from legal obligations he may have towards these women.

Another social evil one often comes across is when men consider women to be their property. Nothing can be more sickening to see a society so degenerate where a human being can be considered the property of someone else be it through slavery or through marriage, which instead of capturing the spirit of a union between a man and a woman, ends up being akin to slavery.

All crimes against women need to be always investigated and if found guilty, the culprits need to be given severe punishments. Moreover the education imparting proper respectful treatment of women, should start in the family and school.

Women gift mankind with progeny, however treating a woman as simply a baby producing facility would do grave injustice to her potential as a human being. Women need to be given just as much space in the society to realize their dreams as any man. It should be considered inappropriate to ever want to tie down a woman, only as a housekeeper, as a baby factory & caretaker, or as a sex toy. Just as men, women too have the impulse to contribute to society through productivity, services, creativity, through their ideas and industriousness. They too want to explore and experience the workplace outside her home. This impulse cannot be chained. In fact society should encourage such contribution and benefit from it.

Jugglling children and career is a challenge every working mother knows and career women contemplate. Considering the fact, that society needs both new children being born and women tending to their careers, it is imperative that state supports such women with laws which protect their rights in the workplace, which enables them to take parental leave, etc. Here there is a need to support both women and employers, so that employers do not discriminate against women when giving jobs.

The healthy respect of the woman is essential for the development of a healthy society. If boys learn “repression” of others while still young by exercising it on their sisters and mothers, then they will look upon bullying as a legitimate tool of life, and those who go for bullying are often unwilling to invest time and energy in learning and working. Furthermore in a marriage market where the women are educated and sometimes highly qualified, the men would have to also excel in order to show themselves as desirable and as prospective candidates for friendship or marriage. Much more would be expected of men also, which will enable the society to excel as well. Besides the emotional aspects of marriage, one would be bringing in meritocracy as well into the equation instead of mediocrity as was the case till now.

The education of the girl child should as such be made an opportunity in the society. In conservative areas, one can entice parents to send their daughters to school by offering them girls only schools. In poorer areas, one can additionally offer free rations to the parents for sending their daughters to school. However the general preference should be for co-education schools, because then boys and girls get used to the presence of the other gender at a very early age and do not develop psychological complexes when dealing with the other gender. They also learn at an early age how to treat the other gender respectfully.

Pan-Subcontinentalists see a marriage as a partnership of equals, where each comes to the help of the other, where decisions are taken together and where one treats the other with respect. A Pan-Subcontinentalist would also never show favoritism to his son(s) over his daughter(s) on the basis of gender. A Pan-Subcontinentalist, if a man, would treat all women with respect and dignity. If and when, a Pan-Subcontinentalist sees some crime being committed against women, he will show moral courage and try to stop the crime. The Pan-Subcontinentalist would try to educate society to treat its women with dignity. At the workplace, a Pan-Subcontinentalist will not discriminate others based on their gender.

So educated and empowered women are essential for a thriving society in the Subcontinent.

[RajeshA]

The Laws of Pan-Subcontinentalism

X Law of Pan-Subcontinentalism
Development & Environmental Responsibility - The Subcontinentals have been indeed blessed with fertile lands, water and a conducive climate. It is no wonder that one finds the Subcontinent teeming with people.

But the population pressure on the land and resources is immense. In 1947, the population of the Subcontinent was around 473 million. In 2010, the population is already around 1645 million. In 2050, the population would be over 2405 million.
How do we propose to provide housing, transportation, food, water, clean air, schools, recreational facilities and ensure an ecological balance on the Subcontinent? That is the main challenge for us! On the other hand we hear of global warming, the melting of Himalayan glaciers and the rising sea water levels.

Global warming could have serious repurcussions on the monsoon season on the subcontinent, putting at risk something on which we have depended all these years and taken for granted. If the glaciers melt away, our storage of fresh water would be gone, fresh water that has flown through our rivers through the millenia. As the sea water levels increase, low lying areas in Maldives and Bangladesh would be inundated by the sea water, and there would be even less land available to the people.

So what can be done? On the subject of environment, there is a passionate difference of opinions on the issues of dam construction, but at a more general level the difference is between those who want to solve problems for millions and those who want to contain the damage done to the environment and existing habitats while doing so. All approaches have their upsides and their downsides. One can only point out that the solutions we propose have to deal with the needs of a population of around 2.5 billion people, has to preserve the wild life, forests and ecological systems in the region and has to cope with the changing climate and depletion of our resources.

Whichever water management solution one decides on, it has to fulfill certain requirements. It should put a stop to floods in one part of the Subcontinent and drought in the other. Floods and drought should become a phenomenon of the past. One should be able to move water from one end of the country to the other, should need be acute in one end or the amount too much to handle. This means one needs to support a Subcontinental River Linking Project (SRLP), linking all rivers for water transfer as well as for navigation. It is however important to hear the message of the critics as well, and to build the SRLP accordingly, so that a minimum of damage is done to the environment and human habitats, and also does not increase seismic activity due to dam building. We need to utilize our fresh water resources optimally. Nothing that the rivers bring down need to be allowed into the seas, neither fresh water nor silt. The salinity of the seas would stay in balance as the polar ice caps continue melting.

The second project that we should start in the Subcontinent is to increase the Water Catchment Area, which includes both water reservoirs for collecting rain water, but also increase in forest and vegetation cover, so that rain water does not simply cause flooding but rather replenishes our ground water levels. The ground water levels need to be replenished across the Subcontinent, so that the land can sustain agriculture and human habitation.

The third project that needs our attention is that of water cleansing, of sewage water processing and recycling. For a population of around 2.5 billion people one would have to create a very resilient water management system.

Another water management project that deserves our attention is land reclamation from sea. As the sea water levels increase, much of Bangladesh would be under water. The Subcontinent cannot allow this to happen. We should look into solutions which have already been successfully tried in countries like Netherlands and UAE.

One has to face the biggest challenge head on and that is the human itself and his needs. 2.5 billion people cannot live the way people lived earlier – in villages, in single story buildings living off the land, each family with its own farm. Village life in individual houses is a luxury only a few can really afford. The Subcontinent would have to become urbanizied to accommodate so many people. One should consider compact metropoles, each with sometimes around 35-40 million inhabitants. If one has to ensure that the cities are living organisms with business areas, industrial areas, shopping streets, recreational facilities, schools, sports facilities, etc. catering to such a big population, one would have to make everything much more compact taking up less land area. This means the cities have to grow vertically, rather than horizontally. These cities need to be energy efficient, clean, green and well-planned. We need to learn our lessons from the various advanced countries with high population densities and learn from their experiences with mega-cities, countries like Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Netherlands, etc.

All in all, we are talking about a massive transformation of the Subcontinent, and it is to be feared that there will be much uprooting of people. We need to have a system in place, which compensates displaced people systemetically and always fairly providing for them alternate residential opportunities, while providing them comprehensive support throughout the process.

Perhaps the biggest facility that caters to the people and takes the biggest amount of space is agriculture. Even though biodiversity is good, to support such a big population, we would be forced to move to crops which require less water resources and less fertilizers, etc. which increase the toxicity of the soil. One should also consider trapping all the silt that comes down the rivers, and using it for soil and land reclamation.

We should also start exploring the possibility of managing farming as huge cooperatives and more business-like. Small farms and agricultural plots may not provide the efficiency the Subcontinent needs to feed everybody. One way would be for many farmers to put their lands together and create a cooperative, each farmer having shares in the cooperative commensurate with the land he brings into the cooperative with factors such as quality of soil, connection to irrigation, etc. weighed in. The cooperative can then hire farm labor to work on the land, labor which can of course be sourced from the farmers or share holders themselves. Such huge cooperatives could sell some of the produce back to the farmers at a discounted rate, while the rest is sold in to the market. This would allow the cooperative to get professional management people, more technical help, and most importantly cheaper seeds and cost-effective machinery.

Last but not least, we have to turn our passion to saving the biodiversity of the Subcontinent. We need to increase and improve our conservation programs with better management, more scientific research, better surveillance, more staff, more security. The humans have become the coronation of all beings on the planet. This gives us the responsibility to consider all other species to be under our protection. It is important that we protect the various ecological systems and wild life, so that our children also get to see the wonders of the world.

Summarizing, the Subcontinentals would have to find a good water management solution, to prevent floods and drought, we would have to replenish our ground water table, and our water quality needs to improve. We would have to concentrate human habitations into mega-cities, so that a lot more land can be freed up for forests and agriculture. And we need to make agriculture a lot more efficient.

A Pan-Subcontinentalist would take active interest in recycling, in energy-conservation, and would make the effort to take an active interest in the conservation of at least one ecological system in the Subcontinent or at least one species. Pan-Subcontinentalists see that many of the environmental challenges can only be solved we the whole Subcontinent puts their minds to solving them together.

[A_Gupta]

1. MJ Akbar's
http://mjakbarblog.blogspot.com/2009/08 ... -save.html

is a defensible point of view:

...On April 21, 1947 Nehru said openly that those “who demanded Pakistan could have it”. He entered a caveat: provided they did not coerce others to join such a Pakistan, or indeed to set up separate Stans. Jinnah did his best to partition India further. Nehru and Patel saved India from anarchy by isolating a wound that would have infected the whole of India if it had not been cauterized and sutured. For this they deserve our deepest gratitude. By early May, Nehru was able, in private conversations with Mountbatten in Shimla, to defuse what he saw as nothing short of Balkanization of the subcontinent, the details of which are in my biography of Nehru.

The anarchy that is Pakistan today would have visited India six decades ago....

2. The following is a bit of a brain-fart.

If India was truly a great power, then it would be saying that outside interference in Afghanistan and Pakistan is unacceptable. It would be chasing the 3.5 friends out of Pakistan (and out of Sri Lanka, and so on), via diplomatic, economic means and with military ties. It would be persuading the neighbors that their economies will be the most viable if they do what is natural and link in with India. India would be promulgating and seeking to create an effective "Hands off South Asia" doctrine.

It seems a great pity that the route to getting there seems to require a high risk (i.e., highly uncertain outcome) dismantling and reconstitution of the area that is Pakistan today. Even in the best scenario, I think it will cost decades of development.

Why is it important to have a "Monroe doctrine" for South Asia? IMO, it is because peace within the region and political stability both depend on it; and all the other values of life are dependent on having this peace and political stability. Without such a doctrine, we see already, that India and its surrounds becomes the battleground of various ideologies and pushes for power, at great cost in the lives and prosperity of the people.

If only Pakistan would wake up! There can be a tripartite agreement, between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India not to seek territorial adjustments through any kind of use of force - military or jihadi; a tripartite fight to eliminate the Taliban; minimize the US (and Iran, Russia, China) influence in Afghanistan; the stabilization of Afghanistan; the creation of a truly functioning economic zone; the free passage of people between the three countries, as has historically been the case; and so on. With secure frontiers the region can concentrate on what is job #1 - which is to industrialize and do what now seems feasible compared to 60 years ago, namely to eliminate poverty. What wonders will flow from a fully nourished, fully educated, prosperous next generation, with the fire to achieve and without the decadence induced by a long history of wealth, will be something to be seen!

[Prem]

India of 47 was not a great power and still not have become one becuase the core of India is kept in confusion and deprived of national purpose . This is the failure of Moth/Ps eaten national leadership made up with tired old men with unrealistic worldview. Its not too late and there is hope in new generation achieving exactly the same as you have mentioned and come up with their own Monroe Doctrine with the strength to impose it with impunity.

[RajeshA]

A_Gupta ji,

Pakistan is not the key. Bangladesh is the key. If India and Bangladesh were to find the brotherhood, Pakistan can be chewed up in no time.

India has given Pakistan the veto over our Monroe Doctrine. Instead we should close the door to Pakistan for the moment, and try to collect our other pearls in the region.

[Brad Goodman]

Though Pan - Subcontinentalism seems to be a lofty idea. There are lots of practical hurdles in getting there. How do you plan to de-toxify 50 crore people.

40-yr old man beds 14-yr old girl, clerics crack whip to kill

Feel free to delete the thread if I have crossed lines but I am just reporting what I read in papers. Shooting messenger is not really going to stop the reality of what we can expect.

[A_Gupta]

Irfan Ahmad, in “Islamism and Democracy in India”, narrates:

In Pakistan he [Maududi] opposed the League leaders because they were also trying to establish an “infidelic system [kafirana nizam]“, the only difference being that it would be presided over “by an Abdullah [meaning a Muslim] rather than a Ram Prasad [meaning a Hindu]“. In India the Jamaat interpreted Maududi’s words to mean that even Hindus could run an Islamic state if it were based on the principles of submission to God, humanism and the sovereignty of God.

In the 1960s, Syed Hamid Husain (1920-1985), a prominent Jamaat[-i-Islami] leader, visited AMU. A scion of a feudal family, Husain, before converting to the Jamaat, was a Communist, was Westernized, and was an avid filmgoer. Under the Jamaat’s influence, he resigned from his job with the British Army, considering it haram. Because he had a Western education, the Jamaat regarded him as its star preacher for AMU. In his lectures to students, Husain attacked secularism, nationalism, and democracy, presenting Islam as an alternative system based on submission to God, humanism and the sovereignity of God. Describing Husain’s alternative as “foolish” and “reactionary”, an agitated student asked Husain how an Islamic system was possible in India. Intizar, a retired AMU professor who was a student at the time and attending the lecture, told me that Husain replied, “Yes, it is [possible]. If Hindus accepted the three Islamic principles, India could become an Islamic system.” When asked if he meant that Hindus had to convert to Islam, he answered no. At that, Intizar and his friends laughed at Husain’s “foolishness” [be-vaqufi] and “irrationality” [pagalpan].

[SwamyG]

Read the following review/comment on the series "The Story of India" A PBS video narrated by Micgael Wood.

As a Bangladeshi, I was impressed with the documentary at large but Woods basically made no mention of my country except for a few instances so I was dissapointed by that. Also, he didnt really show the modern day India which has some very impressive features instead he focused alot on the rural parts but the stories were great and Woods did a great job overall. Its nice to see a British archaelogist who clearly sides with the Indians over the British over the British raj and its refreshing to see people telling the truth.

http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/The_Sto ... height1547

There is hope after all...

[SwamyG]

More hope from Maldives: http://www.sify.com/news/not-enough-roo ... bjehc.html

New Delhi, Feb 25 (IANS) Clearly alluding to the expanding ambitions of China in the region, Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed Friday underlined the atoll nation's special ties with India and said there was not enough room for too many players in the Indian Ocean.

'Maintaining balance in the Indian Ocean is very important. There is not enough room in the Indian Ocean for other non-traditional friends,' Nasheed, who wrapped up his three-day visit to India, told reporters here.

'We are not receptive to any installation, military or otherwise in the Indian Ocean, specially from un-traditional friends. The Indian Ocean is the Indian Ocean,' the Maldives president replied when asked about China's increasing foray in the region.

Nasheed, who dislodged Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Maldives' ruler for three decades, in the landmark 2008 elections, underlined the archipelago nation's special ties with India.

'We have very good friendly relations with India. We believe in being honest with our friends,' he replied when asked about Beijing's attempts to cultivate Male at the expense of New Delhi.

'India is a better investment destination. Language, culture, music, food. It's far easier to deal with India than with China,' he replied when asked to compare the experience of doing business with India and China.

In the morning, Nasheed met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and discussed a host of issues, including piracy, maritime security and expanding trade and investment between the two countries.

'We had discussions on the Indian Ocean, piracy, climate change and trade and investment,' said Nasheed, the youngest leader to head the Indian Ocean atoll island that faces an existential threat from global warming.

'Piracy (control) is a very important issue for us. We are sitting right in the middle of the Indian Ocean,' he said.

He also discussed the ongoing preparations in his country to host the eight-nation South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit in November.

He lauded Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh's constructive role at global climate change negotiations at the Mexican city of Cancun last year.

With Ramesh, Nasheed discussed the post-Cancun roadmap for negotiations to curb global warming, an issue of existential importance for the Maldives, one of the world's lowest lying islands that faces the prospect of extinction in case of a perceptible surge in sea levels triggered by global warming.

In 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that a rise in sea levels of 18 to 59 centimetres by 2100 would be enough to make the country practically uninhabitable.

Ruling UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi had met Nasheed Thursday.