Bharat Rakshak

Absolutely agree. Buddhism was a necessary reaction and reformational movement from within Sanatana Dharma. Especially it's movement against hierarchy and rigidity.

Ultimately Buddhism is a branch of the family of SD.

I endorse this wholly although I would word it differently. Expansionism without a solid backing at the core cannot even pretend to be strategic vision. A strategy is a plan and a plan must seek to achieve something and foster the best possible chance of achieving that aim.

Taking hypothetical examples - it you look at a ruler from the past sitting in cold mountainous Afghanistan - under pressure from other hordes to vacate his place there. If he goes West he has war, if he goes East he has war. Which way should he go?

Clearly - as a pure gamble going East to India is better. He may die or lose a war whether he goes east or west, but if he wins in the east he gets a lovely fertile paradise to live in. In the west he only meets people trying to go towards that eastern El Dorado. So for a ruler in anclent Afghanistan "expansionism" toward India made more sense that "expansion" towards western deserts.

Expansion is not about gaining weight. It;s about withstanding suffering and the possibility of defeat. It is possible to desire expansion like I might desire Katrina Kaif. But "desire" should not be confused with "strategic thought".

If I desire Katrina Kaif, it's just desire, not strategy. if I can hatch a plan where I have a safe haven - where no one can touch me and I think of a way of kidnapping her and taking here there it is strategy. It may turn out that such a strategy is unworkable and I may have to settle for someone else. I see wishful thinking, nostalgia and desire being confused for strategy too often. Strategy is about vision honed by hard nose reality.

Probably OT, but maybe the Buddhist orders were not so anti-hierarchical or anti-rigidity as they are made out to be now.

I would request just two areas out of many, to be explored :

(1) the controversy and final approval - of the "theris", the entry of women Bhikshunis. Please look up the final terms and conditions.
(2) Look at the Paati-Moksha "discipline" that guides monastic life. Especially look at the penalties for deviation and infringement.

While at it, please look at the very early connection of money/trade/minting/royalty with monasteries. Coin hoards/minting equipment appears to have been found in monasterial sites.

shiv ji,
I am concerned at "expansion" that has left vast weak spots in the rear, both in ideological terms as well as material terms. As you point out, expansion is going to be costly - in material and men, and the society needs to be convinced of the need for paying that costs. This is where prior ideological consolidation is crucial. Without that, we will have enemies operating in our rear to try and create pressures so that we withdraw from "expansion".

Moreover, mere expansion needs to also be supplemented with "changing" and "reforming" the newly expanded into territories. If we do not have a clear prior idea of the core changes that we want - it will be physical expansion outward from the core, and an ideological expansion of the periphery into the core in the reverse direction - because there will be a clamour to protect "way of life" of the "absorbed" people or people from our own will see no reason as to why there is any need for any change at all - after all, we are all coming from a vacuum ideology where anything goes!

I would say Buddhism is an extreme streak of SD society that is woven around Buddha's personality.

This is an absolute and timeless description of our current situation.

"badly mauled" is quite an assumption for a battle whose details are not available. Even when defeated by Hindu armies the Turks would invariably escape on their powerful horses, which is what happened in the first Battle of Tarain. Ghori was long gone when the message of the Solanki victory reached Prithviraj.......no question of trapping him.

Indian horse breeds with similar characteristics were developed in Rajasthan and Gujarat over the course of the 14th and 15th centuries. And even then the supply was barely enough for the local kingdoms, but at least it enabled them to preserve their independence.

He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day?

The impact of the horse on warfare is significant. India had no indigenous horse species comparable to Arabian ones. Horses, like MMRCA and DPSA and T-90 were imported. The ports of the Vijyanagar empire were important centers from where imported horses from Persia were delivered.

Yet one of the pandava brothers was famous for his skills in horse rearing. How was it that this know-how was not developed. India was cash rich from trading with outsiders in spices, textiles, steel and many other products. Why was this money not used to import horses and the know-how to rear them?
Gautam

Horses can, and were imported, but what gave those Iranian and Turki horses their special characteristics were the terrain and bracing climate of their native lands. When used in Indian warfare those horses did not last beyond a few years, so there was no possibility of setting up breeding centers (even the Mughals couldn't do it and had to spend cash on getting fresh imports every year).

But even hypothetically, foreign horses bred in the hot muggy climate of India would lose their special characteristics, which had developed over the centuries in the bracing climes of Central Asia, and by eating the native grasses. Apart from climate, the terrain in most parts of India, broken by thick forests, fields, not to mention densely populated villages and towns at every turn, was just not enough to properly exercise warhorses.

The only parts of India with open terrain where horses could be (and were) bred are Rajasthan, Gujarat, Sindh, and Punjab. Horses in the last two never acquired the same fame as the Marwari and Kathiawari of the Rajput Kingdoms.

Bangladesh was reached by sea, not by land. You must have heard of the likes of IBN BATUTA, a traveller from Saudi land, who spread islam wherever he travelled.........

Actually "absorption" should be renounced right away. When the primary need for land is to sustain our people and culture, there will be no space for "absorption". They can continue their "way of life" in the deserts of Arabia. Rivers or pastures have zero role in their identity anyway, so why should they be squatting on Sapta-Sindhava ?

Shiv-ji: There's an alternative answer to your east/west dilemma. I think the beleagured Gandhara king also had an option to stick around and turn to guerilla warfare, if he really understood the strategic importance of land as an essential for perpetrating his civilization. When retreat is justified like this, it often becomes a habit - eg Hindushahi Kingdom etc. The great Shivaji Maharaj and Sikh Leaders embraced guerilla warfare because they had that kind of strategic instinct.

Land isn't to be trivialized as mere desire. Land has at least two properties, borne by historic events :

1. Land is catalyst for culture - take a historically land deprived culture, like Jews. They always had the kind if cultural unity you advocate, but very little landmass which was their own. Enter the Nazis, and they almost get obliterated. What really saves them is determination to carve a land out for themselves - Zionism. BTW, Zionism isn't even a uniform ideology. Even more importantly, "absorption" is strictly excluded by it. This results in Jews re-gaining very important symbols of their culture - like Temple Mount.

2. Availability of land dissolves identity differences. Identity differences and threat perceptions are mere symptoms of a deeper malaise which is paucity of land for a culture. When the English set foot into America, a lot of their ideological differences disappear and they set about in a very united fashion to the task of devouring the continent. USA is a place where people of different beliefs live together - the same people were tearing at each other in the British homeland.

The pursuit of ideological cleansing also has good properties that B-ji mentions. But my point is that this method has already been tried before - during Adi Shankara's times. If anyone can point to me the direct benefits of that exercise, I have no objection accepting it the prime strategy today.

BTW, the present failure of Islamists is their relentless pursuit of ideological unison. They'll never find that kind of unison amongst themselves, and therefore will perpetually be squabbling.

So why didn't their descendants embrace guerrilla warfare against the British?

Manish another word for "beleaguered" is "shalwar soiling". At shalwar soiling time nobody is thinking of "civilization".

The relevance to territorial expansion is that assuming you have territory to hold - you have to be ready for threats that cause you to soil your shalwar and make you run. Provided you have all that sorted out and you manage to see off all threats and make all invaders do a downhill ski, then you can think of expansionism.

What would be the nature of "expansion" of current day India?

MansihH, the Hindu Shahi kings of Kabul and the ksahtriya kings of Zabul held back the Islamic hordes ( first Arab and then the Yamini turks) for nearly 250 years,which is a very long period of time by any standard. Your assumption that they ran and did not use/understand guerrilla warfare is erroneous.

Both Arab accounts and the available Indian ones speak of them using the mountain terrain to first cut off the supply lines of the invading armies and then finish them off.In fact it was in the time of Sabuktigin and his son Mahmud that the Shahis began to retreat from Gandhara.
I think in one of the crucial battles with the Turks they suffered a major defeat when they had to fight as per the conventional strategy set by their Kashmiri allies ( I believe Rajatarangini has the name of the reigning Kashmiri king).The Shahi commander wanted to retreat into the mountains and carry on guerilla warfare but his Kashmiri ally overruled him.

Regarding Adi Shankara period of existence,what timeline are we following?

As we are discussing the evolution of strategic thought the timelines which we use ( wether western or Indic) will completely change the prespctive.

You are also looking at the post-Mughal scenario. The Mughals opened up a lot of BD south-east to settlement under Muslim migrants/mullahs. This is also perhaps a matter discussed many time before, especially in the Bengal thread in GDF. More of Buddishm survived in Sindh and Bengal(+Bihar which was essentially part of Bengal at that time and no spearate Bihar term existed) at the time Muslims invaded while it had been fading [sometimes replaced by Jainism] in upper GV [or more accurately in the upper part of Indus-GV arc]. Muslims seems to have been singularly more successful wherever there had been Buddhist entrenchment earlier.

The real military-political expansion fo Islamism in Bengal cannot be separated from presence of Islamic military force on the soil. One of the more famous "peaceful expanders" - Shah Jalal of Sylhet, actually accompanied an army sent out from Gaur to chastize a local king who had apparently molested a neo-convert who was involved in desecration of temple/place of worship with beef. Sha Jalal is proudly decalred to have made war with the local king and whose duaghter immediately "fell in love" with him when he defeated her father, was immediately converted and married by this pious and peaceful expander of Islam.

I would rather not discuss the question of mode of "absorption" openly. It depends on circumstances and tactic employed. Has been discussed to agreater degree of discomfort before. Shankara's contribution should be obvious, in the various streams that took off in central India and provided the nucleus for later resistance. Vijayanagar can be almost directly traced back to this tradition.

One of the angles for the ideological consolidation line as a simultaneous tool of political and military expansion, is to note that shankara's unification strategy could not be immediately yielding political results. The northern India was a mosaic of competing and complementary sectarian forces divided almost equally between Shaivas, Jainas, and Buddhists. Moreover the latter two were strongly interconnected with merchant interests and foreign trade networks. These would naturally take on a collaborative, anti-conflict position - especially with respect to the growing Islamic threat from the west. The argument would be uncannily similar to what is pushed today.

As long as the existing regimes saw themselves as inseparable from such mercantile interests and mentality, they would not allow the growth of the alternative idea of expansion and securing the western frontier or even expansing in land terms to protect the inner space.

As long as Siddharaja Jayasimha was there enjoying the support of the Islamophile [out of a gradual dilution of ideological commitment caused by the smell of money] elite, or dependent on foreign trade profits, he had to play "secular" with a zeal, and would therefore constitute a serious obstacle because of his monoply over violence as a state prerogative. Until these regimes fell in north and western India - the real effects of Shankar's strategic unification theology would not come into politico-military usefulness.

We can see that almost immediatley after these "secular" regimes were tossed aside by the Muslims, new forces could rise - and the first would be the Sangama brothers to make it effective.

I didn't mean to convey that they retreated on first contact, but when they were beleagured ie. lost in open battle. As Gandhar/Swat is even today great territory for guerilla warfare, i'd have expected the Turkish horses to be even less effective if guerilla warfare was conducted in the narrow passes. But the gradual retreat from Kapisa to Kabul to Attock indicates it wasn't effective.



Take for instance the Ghaznavi invasions that occur 150-200 years after him. Adi Shankaracharya's travels did take him to areas around Somnath - at least Ujjain and Saurashtra. I'm interested in learning about the impact of his identity reclamation upon regions in Ghazni's route. How is Ghazni able to reduce the same Ujjain into a vassal state ?

One would have expected the cultural unison forged just 200 years back to have been consolidated and translated into strategic victories in those regions.

Yes, of course, Adi Shankaracharya's work carried forward by the Sringeri monastery inspired the founders of Vijayanagara empire 400-500 years later. That's a long time to wait if this strategy were to be adopted today when identities are even more fragmented!

A brief outline of the plan ...

1. Expansion should be preceded by reclamation - J&K will be an important first step. If we reclaim it, it'll boost our civilizational self-confidence. I don't mean just elimination of insurgency. It has to be demographic change.

2. To create right circumstances for expansion, TSP has to be split up. The fog of war in Af-Pak needs to be used to intensify proxy guerilla warfare using pushtoons and baloch. Also, fund Shia militias to play ball with Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Sipah-e-Sahaba or TTP. Iran should be given a big stake in a split TSP. Don't even mind promising the entire resource rich Baloch province over to Iran in return for help here.

3. Simultaneously, Australia should be peacefully co-opted using steady emigration.

In the humdrum of daily challenges - corruption, poverty etc, it's easy to lose sight of the above. But it's the responsibility of nationalist politics to bring these into popular conscience.

A noteworthy fact is that an average Indian villager has an instinctive understanding that Land is needed for survival. Farming communities have a spiritual connect with Land and know that as head of a family, acquiring land brings them prosperity. They are able to grasp instinctively, a Nation's need for Land.

But urban dwellers (I too being one) often under-value Land, as their source of prosperity is their intellect. They are also more exposed to cultural differences which get magnified in the constriction of a city.

This might explain some strategic viewpoints here.

ManishH ji,
beware - that there exist posters who severely look down upon "rural origins". I have mixed, stayed, worked, with rural societies even if I was born in a city and my education was in cities. I have farmed with farmers and even now I grow a lot of stuff as a "tiny-farmer" myself. I realize what you are saying about land from the viewpoint of the "grower".

Elsewhere I have proposed organizing new communities based on land, who produce their own, but who also organize themselves ideologically. [Not exactly a "commune", but more of a Kibbutz].

What you are suggesting is possible, but it will also mean "clearing" the land. On a massive scale, it may not be an easy thing to do given current world situations and international politics on "human rights" front. We need to be careful about how your target is to be achieved. Basically get the most likely centre of resistance to come out with weapons, where you can eliminate them. But you have to extend some degree of "absorption" to the survivors, and here some gender differential in the prior conflict may help! Beyond this perhaps not wise to suggest more! Just a request!

ManishH,what I meant about Adi Sankaracharya was that the dating which puts his existence in 7-8th centuries is controversial to say the least and based mostly on Western historians and their Indian minions.

More realistically he would probably have been sometime in BCE.This would put his time at least a thousand years earlier than what is proposed now.Which means that the connection we are making with events in 9-12th centuries needs to be rethought.

Could it have been possible there was a later pontiff of one of the mathas who took up the baton again? This is not unheard of ,you are of course aware of Vidyaranya giving the intellectual and societal backing to the Sangama brothers.

An intresting point:Prior to the foundation of Vijayanagar the last ruler of Karnata was Veera Ballala III,who carried on ceaseless warfare agaisnt the Islamics.He was treacherously murdered by one of the sultans of Madurai.After his death in 1344 CE the Hoysala kingdom simply dissapears from view.
Here is where things get intresting, for there seems to have been an almost seamless transition to Vijaynagara authority in the areas previosuly ruled by the Hoysalas.I believe there is a grant jointly issued by Hakka-Bukka in the presence of Veera Ballala III's queen (after his death).
A theory was floated that the Sangama brothers defeated the remanants of the Hoysalas and grabbed the collapsing kingdo mafter VB 's death.But that theory has been punctured.
In the South it was a major war of liberation with the Hoysalas, the Sangama brothers and the Chalukya prince Someshvara in present day Karnataka, Prolaya Vema Reddy and Kapaya Nayaka in Andhra etc fighting at the same time agiasnt the islamics ( or nearabouts).

Brihaspatiji : You have special affection for Siddharaja Jaisimha

^^^yes I do! I see a preimage of everything that has gone wrong in certain types of netas of the current age!

ManishH ji, it would be wise to shift any posts and discussion relating to reclamation, land acquisition and co-optation to the gdf. Better to speak in indirect modalities here!

descendents of Shivaji successfully used guerrilla warfare against Mughals and Adil Shah II. the British came in much later. and even then it was much harder to identify the British enemy. they operated in much more subtle ways until they could entrench themselves in Indian politics. trade, corporations, finance were the battle fields for British expansion in India. physical battles were important too. but the covert battles were the real ones where influence was slowly and steadily acquired.

and even in physical battles, Marathas employed classic guerrilla tactics against the British. look up the history of the first Anglo Maratha war. the main weakness was that local victories in Bombay couldn't be used to translate into a national strategy. had that been done, the British would have received terminal shocks before they could every get a stranglehold on India.....

Brihaspati,

Buddhism did formalise the lower position of women far more comprehensively than any religion before it, it is true. However, it was a reformatory religion as well, that cannot be denied either. Freedom, like power, is relative

>>While at it, please look at the very early connection of money/trade/minting/royalty with monasteries. Coin hoards/minting equipment appears to have been found in monasterial sites.

So vihars became centers of commerce, not spirituality. What is new about that? Sri Aurobindo made a similar remark on all religions saying that they all began with spirituality but ended up becoming commercial enterprises.

The study of buddhism is a vast subject, one that has not been followed with diligence. Secularists have seen to it that only positive things are said about buddhism because they want to use it to attack Hinduism. But we do not have to take the other end and say that everything about them was bad. It played its role and was thrown out when it started to poison Indian society.

^^^
abhischekcc ji,

for the most part, i agree with your view on Buddhism. but Brihaspati ji's indications that the Buddhist/Jain elite resented and quite possibly colluded with the invading Islamists is a very key pointer in which we need further digging. are there any letters or some notices or something like that which these business interests wrote to the foreigners, expressing their interest in inviting them to their home land? it is usually these private letters/notices which give important clues. most of the other primary sources have been destroyed either by Islamists in their frequent bouts of library burning activities like in Kashmir, or have simply vanished or remain hidden.

The first Anglo-Maratha War ended in British victories; capture of Ahmedabad, storming of Gwalior, defeat of Scindia at Sipri. But that was not the point I was making. Light cavalry raids (qazzaqi) as employed against the ponderous Mughal armies could not work against the British.

And in the same way, the Turk armies facing the ancient Indian kingdoms in Afghanistan and Punjab were extremely mobile, and not weighed down by artillery or camp followers like the latter-day Mughal armies. So the tactics employed against the latter could not work against the former.

Well, what is new about it is the representation of Buddhist institutions being fundamentally based on "renunciation" in its organized orders and monasticism. The strand that is bashed about by using "Buddhism", had no "maya" about the reality of the human experience, and kept renunciation as only one part of life not its fundamental basis. So institutions of such a profound "renunciatory" belief system associating with commerce in its precincts is rather curious isn't it?

But more fundamentally, what really is the proof that it broke "hierarchies" and "reformed" Indian society? There are stories about not observing all the practices supposedly observed in one or more sects. But the "forms" broken cannot conclusively be proven to be society wide. The society was different altogether then. For example look at the story of Visakha - her espousal by proxy at the hands of "Brahmins" on behalf of a setthi's son. The details of that story as narrated in traditional texts should be highly illustrative. Then again Visakha's decision to live at a separate place of her own away from her in-laws - which doesn't raise eyebrows.

What is the proof of existence of rigid "hierarchies" which were apparently broken? What exactly was the nature of the reform that was affected in society? For example "Amrapali/Ambapali" renounced nagarnati status and joined Buddha as a devotee. Do we have proof, that the practice itself of a "nagar nati" got discontinued as a result of this incident or subsequently? Buddha's reforms if any appear to have provided an escape route for the alienated into the monastic order. Most of the kings or aristocrats or merchants appear to have joined in. If so, it means that the elite swung over. If reform was so complete and so profound, then "Brahminism" could not have raised its head again, isn't it?

This reform and hierarchy-breaking at least does not appear to have overturned the ruling classes - the merchants carried on trading and the kings remained kings. In fact we have larger and bigger "kings" going up to empires and emperors under the banner of Buddhism - meaning a bigger role for the ruling classes. So where did the reform happen?

devesh ji,

from Chachnama : when one of the raiding expeditions sent by the Caliphate in Iraq under Bazil was defeated by the Sindhis, and the commander fell in battle, [this was before Qasim's successful expedition]


Note that astrology and more importantly "dice" which was roundly denounced as "gambling" - was apparently okay in the early years of Islam. A previous reference to Samani connects the term firmly with "Budhruk/Buddharakshita" -a monk, and hence in general refers to a ranking "Buddhist", with monastic connections or posts. [Samani - Sraman. Here Jaina connections can be ruled out from contextual refs]

Here is how they help out Qasim:


Note that residents of this town were not unanimous supporters of Qasim. Note that the speech ascribed to Samani's is timeless. Exactly same arguments are heard even now. Note also that Nirun is a walled, fortified city which is controlled by a "Samani" who goes to meet "Dahir". If he is already part of a tributary chiefdom owing allegiance to the Caliphate, he could not have gone to meet an enemy of his overlord at a time when his overlord's army had already attacked Deval and conquered and looted and massacred and enslaved its population.

Brishaspati ji, thank you for the response. informative and enlightening. so Buddhism was the prevailing religious force in this town. and once the invaders were let in without a fight by the "Samani," the perennial funding of mosques, imams, etc would have created a situation where Islam would have gained the upper hand within a few years. and after that, the majority basically influences the more stubborn ones to either cooperate or be punished in subtle or very overt forms. that would convert the rest within another few years. and the influence of thousands of years of Sanatana Dharma would have become wiped out with a few decades at best....

this is startlingly similar to what is happening with EJ in the present day. as you said, the same arguments and rationale are being used again. once again it's the commentary of peace, prosperity, trade, etc that are inducing the same behavior. and once again the EJs this time are having the same spectacular success as Islam before.

the question is: can we answer the challenge of Christianity without loosing another 20% of the population, like we did to Islam?

What should be interesting is to see that they supposedly describe themselves as "priestly class" and hence they separate themselves from the "commoners". Even in the town where they try to dissuade the authorities towards capitulation to the Islamist armies, they are not unanimously supported by the rest of the towns population. And the town still decided to fight it out.

This goes against the propaganda that a widespread "commoner" upsurge from "Buddhist" masses in favour of joining Qasim took place. There are other passages from Chachnama which will show more about the likely lifestyle and modus-operandi of the "samani" "priestly class".

The criticsm will be that such "speeches" need not be reliable, or observations could not be accurate enough from a foreign observer. But note that Islamics had been trading for a long time, they do not appear to need translators, and Qasim sends off spies to ascertain the "mood" of the townspeople. So Islamist obsrevers would be understanding "speeches" quite well, and would report things that went around as gossips or rumours or perhaps even be able to hear any discussions that went on in public places designated fro such meetings etc.

Moreover, if such details can used to show "popular" support for Qasim, then such details must be reliable!

As for EJ, you will notice that their methods are not exactly the same. They take care to formally separate the militancy from the theological structures. Their activities go towards supporting militancy under the cover of humanitarian gestures or material support for "needs" of those who are "destitute" and "oppressed". What type of "militancy" they selectively find "destitute" or "needing" the kindness of the Church can yield enough clues. Moreover, in a sense they are operating within rashtryia protection.

What needs to be hammered into the public discourse, is the political role of EJ missionaries throughout the world - both in the overt imperialist phase as well as the much more subtle current neo-imperialist phase. The funding cycle that feeds them needs to be illustrated - that of extraction of profits [well no avoiding the Marxian or post-Marxian language here!] from the country's poor, which gets circulated into western EJ supporting circles, who then donate a part of this back into the country to promote their ideological tool of imperialism.

Wherever, EJ theology came along, especially from the Anglo-Saxon world - they clearly and consciously helped in the consolidation of support for their home-country economic and political interests. The story of Birsa is highly modified and mis-reprsented nowadays. His story should be dusted off and propagated to the tribals - to show how if the EJ's become part of the ruling framework, their orgs do not take the side of the "exploited" when they are forced to choose sides.

Thus EJ's will take the sides of their controlling western country interests, as and when they manage to penetrate deeper into the Indian rashtryia framework. The experience of the Latin American countries should be made available to the "vulnerable" sections. The ultimate economic connections of the EJ prachaaraks, to the global capital and financial flows that exploit these very same target "convertees" - is not clearly and simply exposed to the "convertees". Some "Red" terminology and framework may help.

^^^
Chachnama is turning out to be an interesting read. in some kingdoms/provinces, the Samanis had enough power to be able to "persuade" said kings to fight protracted and futile wars which they knew they were loosing, to the bitter end. it is starkly contrasted to the behavior of other kings/leaders who were more pragmatic. and these Samanis very clearly state that they are only interested in worshiping Buddha and they are also described to be living in palaces and with a life style that is vastly better than the "commoners."

should be a treasure chest of info as I read more of it...

Brihaspatiji,
Can you please point to some authentic sources to read about Birsa Munda.

Jambudvipa, Regarding the origins of Vijayanagara and the Hoyasala continuum please refer to Vasundhara Filliozat's studies on the subject.


Essentially she says Harihara did not take regnal title till the Hoyasala dynasty ended. She also quotes the dowager queen was there at the coronation.

Will look up the book tomorrow.

Our Kaushal visited her in Paris where she lives.

Here is a post I made in the China thread which I believe is relevant here

All war is a gamble. The best military strategists are able to tweak the gamble to reach a conclusion that can be declared as favorable for them (even if historic analysis shows that it was not, strictly speaking, a victory).

Unfortunately these details are lost in the telling of the story in historic records which say that "X defeated Y in war and ascended the throne of Bingabang."

Supposing no further India-China war occurs for the next 200 years - what will history books say about 1962? Most likely it will be referred to as a short inconclusive was that left China in occupation of some territories claimed by India while leaving Indian in occupation of some territories claimed by China. This is the "current truth" never mind the gory details of how Aksai Chin was taken by China. But what about the East? Mao was a clever strategist. Why did he not solve the problem once for all and take Arunachal Pradesh (or NEFA) as it was then called.

Clearly Chinese strategy was not aimed at solving all problems. It was a quick territory grab followed by withdrawal from places that were probably judged to be difficult to hold. Why did China withdraw at all and not advance? Any Indian will be able to write an entire book on how India was so weak that the Chinese could have got away with it. Clearly the Chinese did not say it that way. The Chinese probably realised that the air force had not been used yet and that the US was sending air forces into India for intervention which would have made life difficult for the invaders in the east.

So they held on to what they got where they could and withdrew from other areas making it seem like this was a victorious withdrawal. All in all the Chinese plan was a good one that gave China some gains and a sense of victory - leaving India with some losses and a sense of defeat.

1947-48 too was a "quick grab of territory" in Kashmir with the war being ended by Nehru taking it to the UN. It is ironic that while the territories of the recalcitrant Nizam and those of Goa were retaken under Nehru's watch, large chunks were lost in the North - particularly in Kashmir. Nehru was the weak leader. Shastri was not weak. Indy Gandhi was not weak. PVNR was not known to be weak. Vaypayee was not known to be weak although he showed clear weaknesses (in retrospect)

MMS has the reputation of being weak. That begs the question of how much individual weakness matters when there is national strength. No matter how weak MMS may be - he has not given away as much territory as Nehru. Both Shastri and Indira Gandhi had to barter away some territorial gains. But both Shastri and Indira were left with a nation reeling from war. One war (1965) was not lost and was a marginal "success" while 1971 was an outright victory. Both left India in a weak state requiring it to give concessions from a position of post war weakness.

The lesson may well be summed up in a series of well known cliches (pardon me if I misquote some of them)
1. The more you sweat in peace the less you bleed in war
2. Speak softly and carry a big stick
3. Heroes die, cowards survive

War between India and China will leave both India and China weaker.

Let me draw a comparison with a boxing natch:

Two boxers spar for a while - and one is declared the winner. At the end both are tired and bleeding, but only one guy wins. Neither is in a position to fight another match at that moment. If, at that moment a third boxer (and maybe a fourth) enters the ring and starts to hit the winner or the loser - he stands to win easily. If China and India exhaust themselves in a war someone else will gain. Neither the Chinese or are we Indians stupid. For war to occur - some extraordinary circumstances must come into play that makes it advantageous for India or China to start a war. But we must prepare to defeat china in a war that China starts without waiting for those "extra ordinary circumstances" to occur. Regarding India starting a war against China to reclaim - say Aksai Chin - I see that as an interesting exercise for forum jingos.

Well the coin hoards in Buddhist viharas could have been banks. Eg. sultans would trust their harem to eunuchs, similarily society could have trusted these monasteries with wealth. Of course, human nature might have succumbed to temptation and fear as your excerpts from Chachnama clearly say. But it is unwise to lay the blame for corrupt priesthood on the faith.

In today's times, not taking Buddhism along in the struggle for national survival is a liability. It'll open up more fissures. Trying to be indirect here, but Ambedkarism is in it's stridency and those forces should be aligned to national goals, not to be needled about their past. I'm against similar needling by using words like "Brahminism" and the implication that blame for past social weaknesses lies on one group.

Applicability of Kibbutz solution is very apt in J&K today. Although, I confess, I hadn't realized before this discussion that without cultural unity, they'll be a non-starter.

Ramanaji,thanks for the tip.It would be great if you could dig up the name of the book she has authored.

Yup,this was the grant I was talking about.

OT: I did not relaise the fortress of Chandragiri was so near to Tirupati.Saw it from the car on way to Kanipakam.Tokk some photos.Massive fortifications.

Chandragiri

fantastic fortress.. the life-size statues of achyuta deva raya and also KDR in the court are marvellous..

Atriji,excellent write up on Chandragiri.Will defiantely visit it sometime.Could you add some photos if possible?