Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[member_19686]

It was at this critical juncture in the history of Islam in India that Sir Syed Ahmed stepped forward. “He was a pupil of the famous Mawlãnã a Mamlûk ‘Ali who was entirely a product of the Walî-u’llahî school and tradition. It was perhaps because of this relationship that he claimed to be a Wahhãbî…”14 But now on the word ‘Wahabi’ was to acquire a new meaning. He had been a protege of the British for a long time. He had sided with his masters during the jihãd of 1857. Soon after the jihãd failed, he came out with a book, The Loyal Mohammedans of India. He travelled to England in 1869 and wrote as follows from there to a friend in India: “Without flattering the English, I can truly say that the natives of India, high and low, merchants and petty shopkeepers, educated and illiterate, when contrasted with the English in education, manners and uprightness, are as like them as a dirty animal is to an able and handsome man. Do you look upon an animal as a thing to be honoured? Do you think it necessary to treat an animal courteously, or the reverse? We have no right to courteous treatment. The English have reason for believing us in India to be imbecile brutes.”15

Here was the man the British were looking for. The rest of his role is too well-known to be repeated here. He was undoubtedly the father of the two-nation theory which led later on to the demand for Pakistan. He became a bitter opponent of the Indian National Congress as soon as it was founded in 1885. He decried parliamentary democracy as a plot to put the ‘brute Hindu majority’ into power. He led a hate campaign against the Bengalis who were in the forefront of the fight for freedom. He was all for a fight against Hindi attaining an equal status with Urdu. And he tried his best to build bridges between Christianity on the one hand and Islam on the other. The nett result of his Aligarh Movement was to convert the Muslim community into a close preserve of toadyism (jee-huzûrî) towards the British. The British on their part responded positively, and made many concessions to the Muslims. This co-operation between British imperialism and the residues of Islamic imperialism continued till the creation of Pakistan, except for a brief period of bad blood during the Khilafat agitation.

Many scholars, both Hindu and Muslim, have persisted in painting Sir Syed as a nationalist in his early career. They feel puzzled at what they call his sudden volte face. The earliest of these scholars was Lala Lajpat Rai. Lalaji’s father had become a Muslim for all practical purposes, and was a great admirer of Sir Syed. The son had also come under the same influence before he went to Lahore and joined the Arya Samaj. He became an ardent nationalist. But the favourable impression which Sir Syed had made on his mind earlier had lingered on. He was, therefore, shocked when Sir Syed appeared in what Lalaji thought to be a new attire. He wrote a number of Open Letters to Sir Syed which were published in the English and the Varnacular press of his days. These letters made Lalaji famous in no time, and all over India.

Shri Seshadri has also observed that “these nationalist ideas appear to be but a fleeting phase in Sir Syed’s life”. The truth, however, is that there was never a nationalist phase in the life of Sir Syed. He started his life as a lick-spittle of the British, and a lick-spittle he remained to the end of his days. But like his namesake of earlier days, Syed Ahmad Barelvi, he tried to humour the Hindus whenever he needed material help. M.R.A. Baig hits the nail on the head when he writes: “As is well-known, he secured donations for Aligarh from Hindus of his own feudal class. When canvassing for their support he expressed such exemplary sentiments as that Hindus and Muslims were the ‘two eyes of the beautiful Indian bride.’ But when addressing exclusively Muslim audiences, especially political meetings, he was militant enough to threaten civil war.”16


Five years after Sir Syed’s death in 1898, his successor, Viqar-ul-Mulk, wrote a letter to The Pioneer of Lucknow. He said: “We start with the firm conviction and seek to implant it in the mind of every Indian Musalman that our destiny is now bound up with the presence and permanence of British rule in this country, and that in the government of the day we have got our best and surest friend.”17

This was the mentality which led to the formation of the Muslim League in December, 1906. The League pledged itself to an ever-lasting loyalty to the British Crown. Three months later, Viqar-ul-Mulk addressed a students’ gathering at Aligarh. He said: “God forbid, if the British rule disappears from India. Hindus will lord over it, and we will be in constant danger of our life, property and honour. The only way for the Muslims to escape this danger is to help in the continuance of the British rule. If the Muslims are heartily with the British, then that rule is bound to endure. Let the Muslims consider themselves as a British army ready to shed their blood and sacrifice their lives for the British Crown… Wherever you are, whether in the football field or in the tennis lawn, you have to consider yourselves as soldiers of a British regiment. You have to defend the British Empire, and to give the enemy [Hindus] a fight in doing so. If you bear it in mind and act accordingly, you will have done that and your name will be written in letters of gold in the British Indian history. The future generations will be grateful to you.”18

But the leaders of the Indian National Congress continued to hug the illusion that the residues of Islamic imperialism in India could also be mobilised in the fight for the freedom of the motherland. They had failed to notice and understand why the jihãd against the British had again and again led to atrocities on innocent Hindus, and how the mujãhids of yester years had ended by becoming stooges of the British at a later stage.

http://voiceofdharma.com/books/muslimsep/ch7.htm

In the 1946 elections the vast majority of Muslim votes would go to this same Muslim league particularly in the areas that today fall into India more so than the areas that went to Pakistan.

The only Muslim majority province where the League didn't win was in NWFP.

[joshvajohn]

Advani gives it back to Modi
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 085779.cms

I think Advani should focus on bringing the old NDA II formula back. He should engage bringing numbers together with BJP's number to get into power. For this Mamata, JJ (only after post election), Mayavathi and so on may think twice if NDAII with some minimum programme is agreed.

[RamaY]

I like one of the Sanskrit prayer in every upanisad- which I tuned for my students - Saha nava vathu Saha navpunaktu Saha viryam dejasvinavi damasthu ma vidvia vahai (wrote out of memory so mistakes) which goes to say let us mutually nourish,learn and grow in strength is what we today should be asking for irrespective of religion, caste and language identities.

Does it mean you want to nurture Maoism, jihadism, Evangelism too? After all they are amongst us.

[Abhi_G]

^^^
Actually using eloquent verses is the surest tactic to confuse a Hindu. Quote the verses that show tolerance totally out of context. Islamists like zakir naik regularly do that and so do the psecs. Some do it out of habit without realizing the peril they are putting future generations to.

Just like MMS goes into the following mode (of course with political agenda):

"Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high
Where knowledge is free
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
By narrow domestic walls"

Note the fourth line. A Hindu is demanded to follow that without default at the peril of loosing home, land, women, children and finally him/herself. Tagore wrote that in a moment of inspiration in 1900s chronologically much much earlier than the later politics. He also wrote songs about taking taking up "kharga". But psecs would not tell you about the "kharga" part.

[RamaY]

I am sure JJ doesn't know the context of that santi mantra.

[joshvajohn]

Neither Maoism nor jihadism nor evangelicalism!

If you do not know the meaning of this sloga ask me! It does not promote untouchability! it does not ask you to promote hatredness! It does not promote killing of others! It does not promote exploitation of people using power! It does not askr for people to take another person's money!.

the meaning is:
May He protect both of us. May He nourish both of us. May we both acquire the capacity (to study and understand the scriptures). May our study be brilliant. May we not argue with each other. Om peace, peace, peace.

This is what gives you peace! creating a better understanding between the religion and communities is tough than creating hatredness.

Read Gita Chapter 16 versus 2 which says about being a disciple of Krsna - which starts with ahimsa. In midst of those who have negative attitude towards Hindus and their religion, our task was to promote a good realtionship and understanding about them particularly in the West while we are also committed to our own faith.

If you do wish to know I can suggest a good guru in India who can teach you a true Hinduism who runs many schools in Bangalore and opart of group defending strong Hinduism.

[vishvak]

If you do not know the meaning of this sloga ask me! It does not promote untouchability! it does not ask you to promote hatredness! It does not promote killing of others! It does not promote exploitation of people using power! It does not askr for people to take another person's money!.

the meaning is:
May He protect both of us. May He nourish both of us. May we both acquire the capacity (to study and understand the scriptures). May our study be brilliant. May we not argue with each other. Om peace, peace, peace.

This is what gives you peace! creating a better understanding between the religion and communities is tough than creating hatredness.

Read Gita Chapter 16 versus 2 which says about being a disciple of Krsna - which starts with ahimsa. In midst of those who have negative attitude towards Hindus and their religion, our task was to promote a good realtionship and understanding about them particularly in the West while we are also committed to our own faith.

About the mantra above, it also does not mean Slavery, Colonialism, invasion, artificial famines, world wars, anti-semitism, subjugating natives, Monopoly of selling oil and technology, spreading risk in world economy, racism, assuming heathens/pagans as devil worshipers and going to hell, sole right to heaven, etc.

Sir, assuming that heathens and pagans will goto hell is also himsa, it is form of violence. Ahimsa does not mean not being on toes to defense. Ahimsa is for those who are also Ahimsak to others, not for those who are not.

[brihaspati]

Any "guru" who does an equal equal between all possible theological memes, and declares that both contradictory memes flourish - is acting as an agent of the destructive ones. If both peaceful and violent ones flourish together, both have to be equally nurtured, both equally protected as ideas - the violent ones necessarily wins. Because the peaceful one is prevented from becoming violent to defend itself from violence.

Obfuscation of the essentially violent underlying memes, and their justification as injunction from a supra-human authority, justifying land, wealth, women grabbing and enslavement [at least in one theology directly and in the other controversially and indirectly -"neither support" nor "opposition", and opposition also conditional on ethnicity - i.e., it is a crime to enslave the "chosen" people, not necessarily a crime to do so on the not-chosen] - is actually working in the interest of these imperialist ideologies.

It is an insidious line because it is also a psychological warfare to neutralize resistance in populations targeted for culturicide and subjugation, to emasculate them ideologically and keep them confused.

[joshvajohn]

Visvak
Gita does not qualify the person who receives one's ahimsa. It calls for ahimsa to all beings. Now the problem is with the modern mind which is androcentric. It means one always think self at the centre of everything. For me this modernity has created fools of faith who mixed up their selfish motives, with objective claims of faith over all other faiths. If you notice those who are infected by this idea often knew their ideology (often fixed) they also know who is going to hell and heaven (defining neighbours and so receipent of their love while outsiders should receive hatred and should go to hell. Many of them want to worship them selves and also want others to worship them thus replaced God by their own self.

Even in Christianity the word 'neighbour (love your neighbour)' is not defined but often many would try to interpret as their own members or Christians only. In Islam one of the five pillars has charity, but the charity is misinterpreted as if the receipients should be a muslim or those who intend to become muslims though it is not defined clearly in Islam.

Leader means one has to transcend the androcentric attitude and if one claims to follow a particular tradition of Hinduism follow it properly. It is not good to interpret the verses for one's own convenience.

I understand the need to defend one, one's own family and one's own community against violence and war. This is true but only to defend but then any violence can be interpreted as defence including jihadists. Those who follow violence as a means to achieve their ends are a threat not only for Hindus but also for Humanity. Countering them is not only Hindus' taask but it is a task together. Violence within Islam is actually is spread because of the fixed nature of interpretation of the text that they have. this was the same problem with Christianity before reformation. For governance certain forms of violence is used to protect people. But this violence to defend and protect people at large though I understand this is a very difficult issue to understand and interpret often in the context of conflict and war.

in a multicultural set up the religions have to look deeply in their own and find a way to relate to each other as normal human beings. In the context of conflicts it is always good for any leader not to take sides rather engage in a way commnuities grow together peacefully.

[brihaspati]

This is going borderline OT. It is turning more in discussing theological finer points. But, there are very clear textual indications that "humanitarian" injunctions accorded to in-group - are consciously and deliberately meant to hold the group together and consolidate mobilization - and that the same favours are not to be extended to the "out-group" at the same priority level. Because of the insistence on the "revealed-word" and the textual infallibility as the sole basis and source of authority [yes sometimes authority through miracles/grace are allowed, rarely, - not to be thought of as superstition which happens only in the out-group] - this does not leave any space for confusion.

[brihaspati]

May I suggest taking these theological issues - of charity, etc, to the GDF? Issue of violence is relevant for this thread, as we do need to deal with ideological sources and legitimization of violence, for the future.

[RamaY]

the meaning is:
May He protect both of us. May He nourish both of us. May we both acquire the capacity (to study and understand the scriptures). May our study be brilliant. May we not argue with each other. Om peace, peace, peace.

If you do wish to know I can suggest a good guru in India who can teach you a true Hinduism who runs many schools in Bangalore and opart of group defending strong Hinduism.

context my dear friend, context.

That Santi mantra is in the context of a learning process. That "we both" is about the guru and shishya.

You are bringing it to apply peace between various religions. That is deceptive at best. You want a real Santi mantra you want to read for world peace? Here you go.

Tatchamyoraa Vrinimahe
gatum yajnaya, gatum yajnapataye
Daivi: swastirastuna:
Swastirmaaanushebhyah:
Urthamjigaatu bheshajam
Samno astu dwipade, Sam chatushpade
Aim Santi, Santi, Santi:

The disucssion is not about Hinduism and how evil Brahmins exploit rest of the world, Dalits etc.,

The discussion is whether Islam and Christianity are ready to accept the universal brotherhood rendered in those Santi mantras. Are those religions ready to transform their scriptures to remove the virulent references.

You are not answering those questions instead asking Hindus to be more patient more accommodating and more Dhimmi in the name of world peace. Please tell me an instance where Hindu majority oppressed the religious minorities and show me a reason why Hindus need to show any more religious tolerance than they already are.

[shivajisisodia]

Couple of unrelated, but interesting developments.

1) Thant-Myint-U, the grandson of former UN Secretary General U-Thant, Havard and Cambridge educated and himself an ex-high ranking UN diplomat, has written a book called "Where China Meets India: Burma and the New Crossroads of Asia". Mr. Thant was on NPR this morning to discuss his book and what he said was startling. First of all, even though his book name implies that China and India kind of have equal weightage in his mind and in the minds of the Burmese in general, his 15 minute radio interview did not mention India by name even once, even in passing and even as a backdrop or for reference purposes. He kept talking about how Burma (Myanmar) and its strategic position has changed solely because the Chinese have finally in recent years, recognized the strategic importance of Burma as an alternate access to the Indian Ocean to their traditional oil carrying sea lanes of the Strait of Malacca. Therefore over the last decade or so, the Chinese have invested BILLIONS of dollars in upgrading the Burmese infrastructure, particularly roads that link their SouthWest provinces such as Yunan, which are relatively less affluent compared to the Chinese eastern provinces, to Burma and down to the Burmese sea ports. Even more startling was that he revealed that the Chinese are planning to build a trans-national high speed railway in Burma and invest billions more over the next few years. Mr. Thant did not mention, not even a word about what the Indian role and plans for investment in Burma are over the next few years and what role India has played in Burma in the recent past. Mr. Thant hinted that the Chinese are very interested and the Burmese are readily reciprocating in having massive Chinese investments in exploiting the rich mineral resources of Myanmar (meaning that the Chinese already have a stranglehold on mining operations in Myanmar). Mr. Thant who has been totally Western in education and his orientation and had built his reputation as a human rights activist and opponent of the Myanmar military Junta until recently, seemed to adopt a very "pro-junta" attitude in his book and his radio interview of this morning, where he praised the recent power transfer in Burma and touted the many improvements that the new junta leadership have embarked upon over the last six months since they have taken over. It was clear to me personally, that the economic gains and the visible transformation of the country's infra-structure resulting from Chinese investments and involvement and promise of even more spectacular gains in the future, have bought off Mr. Thant and have made him a believer in the "Chinese model" as opposed to the "Western democratic model" and he was echoing the Chinese preference for the authoritarian junta in Myanmar to the more democratic Ang San Yu Yi.

My questions in view of all this. Where has India been, in regards to Burma in the recent past? It seems that India has been missing in action. Why does the Indian government and the Indian free media not make a big deal of and give a true picture of the Chinese involvement and investments and gains and designs in Burma? What is India doing to counter the Chinese presence in Burma, if any ? If the anwer to all these questions is, "very little", then are not the Indian Netas and Babus, yet again, acting as "traitors by omission", when it comes to even minimally safeguarding Indian interests in Burma and our entire neighborhood, including safeguarding Indian territorial integrity. Even on a forum like "Bharat Rakshak", where the issue of Chinese involvement in Burma has been talked about more than any other place that I know of, the general thrust is towards a policy prescription, rather than what can be done to get the Indian government out of its slumber and pre-occupation with corruption, to start paying attention to such issues, of which Burma is only one of many.

2) Talking about Palestinian statehood and a vote in the UN General Assembly on this issue. Reportedly, India has agreed to vote for Palestinian statehood in the General Assembly. Again, my question is, IN RETURN FOR WHAT ? It would seem to me that a very simple policy should and can easily be adopted by India in all such cases but particularly in case of Palestine, that India will only extend recognition, support and positve votes in international fora, to those entities that clearly and unequivocally recognize India's territorial integrity and particularly recognize the entire North East including Tawang and Kashmir as an "integral part of India" AND "recognize and support" the rights of the Tibetan people for self determination and preservation of their culture. To implement and insist on this policy will not take much of our Netas and Babu's time, so as to take them away from their "money making" in any significant way. THIS POLICY ALSO, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, GIVES INDIA A BACKHANDED BUT LEGITIMAGE EXCUSE TO BE ON THE SIDE OF ISRAEL AND GIVE THE ISRAELIS MUCH NEEDED OXYGEN IN THE MIDST OF THEIR STIFFLING ISOLATION IN THE UN. This policy will also legitimately and correctly put the Palestinians in a spot, as how can they with a straight face ask for a right to self determination for themselves, without recognizing other's right to self determination such as the Tibetan people ? Perhaps, the answer to that is, "with a liberal dose of hypocracy", which the Palestinians are pastmasters at. In any event, the Indian politicians and babus still wont do it ? Why not ? Again, Bharat Rakshak has to think of ways to get the government to move, rather than discussing what everyone, even a child knows, our policy should be.

This entire forum is full of prescriptions of what the Indian government should do vis-a-vis almost all countries and all situations that India faces today. It is time the forum discusses even more and with even greater urgency, possible WAYS to get this government, politicians and Babus to move in the direction that the forum wants them to move. There is a huge disconnect between what the Indian government should do, as put out on Bharat Rakshak and what the Indian government is and/or not doing on the ground. Without coming up with concrete ideas of HOW to get the Indian regime(yes, I call it a regime and a highly corrupt one at that) to MOVE in the direction that the forum wants it to move, I am afraid, all the brilliant ideas and prescriptions will remain in cyber space "onlee".

My ideas on how to get the Netas and Babus to move ? First step is to get out of denial and our own insecurities and recognize the problem and say it openly and loudly. Kinda like, "My name is SS and I am an alcoholic". What is the problem ? "My name is SS and I am addicted to corruption and living under a corrupt regime". That my Netas and Babus are all TRAITORS to India for simply indulging in their money making orgy, to the exclusion of all else, and completely not only not minding the store but abandoning the store (country) entirely to the wolves. Think about it, it is like an entire government deserting its people in the middle of a war.

[vishvak]

Visvak
Gita does not qualify the person who receives one's ahimsa. It calls for ahimsa to all beings.
...
I understand the need to defend one, one's own family and one's own community against violence and war. This is true but only to defend but then any violence can be interpreted as defence including jihadists.
...
in a multicultural set up the religions have to look deeply in their own and find a way to relate to each other as normal human beings. In the context of conflicts it is always good for any leader not to take sides rather engage in a way commnuities grow together peacefully.

Where does it say Ahimsa to all? Gita is as per Krishna a treatise on Dharma, not Ahimsa. Ahimsa is but part of Dharma, not adharma.

That any violence can be interpreted is correct, but it is also important who interprets it. Those who believe that only true path is their own are doing himsa to others. It is a conflict. In a multireligious country, how is this going to help? Is this not taking sides? Why should this be ignored?

[joshvajohn]

vishvak
yes Ahimsa is part of Dharma! Dharma should be done without expecting returns! Dharma to all without identifying those who have done violence to you! You may argue this is impracticable because one has to protect one's own family and people and thus defend oneself against anyone who causes the violence! Krsna himself persuades Arjun to take up the war - one should notice interesting aspect of it!

Those who believe that only true path is their own are doing himsa to others.

It is not the problems with those who believe that their path is the only true path! It applies to Hindu concept as well. For me if Christians or Muslims or Hindus believe that their path is the only true path are not the problematic people. Otherwise you are asking people to change their own faith system.

The problem is with those who try to impose their true path on others! Even if you use persuasion as a method to approach others to follow your path is fine. But those who cause himsa to others in order to impose their true path on others are what I call first step to extremism or fundamentalist threat!

So how do we address this in a multicultural society is a good question? Interestingly there are varieties of solutions as well. For example in India Hindus have to promote their own faiths among their own children and even inviting others to read their texts without trying to impose on others! Even among Hindus some would encourage their children to read Gita and some would go for Thirumandhiram and some would go for Sri Ramakrisha's texts and some would go for Sri Narayanaguru's texts. Such differences may have to be recognised.

Conflicts are not necessarily religious but also political and social as well. Leaders (political and social and community) have to come up strongly against any form of violence in public. If you have seen my posts in other sections I have made it very clear that there should not be any compromise in protecting common people. Our political leaders should not show that our nation or our communities are weak against terrorism. But unless we handle it at its roots as well Such problems cannot be addressed completely only by our leaders. This is why I write here saying future leaders should understand the diversities that any religious communities have. So while trying to promote their own religious faith they should also recognise the fact that they cannot (rather should not) impose on others. Educate the public to appreciate and listen to each other so that a multicultural community without loosing their own roots may emerge. A true leader would certainly contribute towards such community - I suppose!

[Sanku]

vishvak
yes Ahimsa is part of Dharma!

You are confused about Ahimsa, Ahimsa does not mean non violence. Destruction of the evil doers and maleechas is as much ahmisa as fasting is.

Rest of your posts are roughly equally appropriate. Now would you please move the theological arguments out of here?

[joshvajohn]

Sanku Ahimsa means absence of himsa which means not to cause himsa to anyone! We are not having any theological discourse here. We are talking about leaders and the quality of leadership in a multicultural context like in India!

[brihaspati]

joshvajohn ji,
what about imposition being part and parcel of the "true path"? by merely following the "true path", then the follower has to "impose" it on others. Pre Nicean, post Nicean, pre-Khyber, post Khyber, none of the stalwart's outpourings and even more importantly - actions - have been condemning of "imposition" by force, by rashtryia coercion, and any reconsideration attempts of trapped flies - fit for "purification by pain".

Sorry, the records speak for themselves. If you say for all those 123 or 2034 or 56,767, or 1,000,293 individual cases were all isolated, and all political, or economic, and has no theological roots - then the question arises as to what makes these theologies never free of being used for political, or economic, or "isolated" motivations? Why do such violent, sadistic and greedy base/nontheological purposes always appear confounded with these theological actions on ground? Why do not we have overwhelming number of instances where the theology can separate itself from such violent actions?

We can try to delude ourselves, and others, but misrepresenting the ideological connections and roots of violence in the theologies themselves - as something separate from the theology - is a gross tactical error at the best, and fatal taqyia at its worst. We cannot plan properly if we start believing in reconstructed lies.

[Sanku]

Sanku Ahimsa means absence of himsa which means not to cause himsa to anyone! We are not having any theological discourse here. We are talking about leaders and the quality of leadership in a multicultural context like in India!

Well Ahimsa is one aspect of Dharma, then again, it does not mean what you think it does. It may be more suitable for you to understand what Ahimsa is before we start discussing whether this quality is needed in leaders and if so in what measure.

[joshvajohn]

brihaspati
We are moving in the next stage of question about the past. We cannot correct the past. It is historical fact that I was born into a Christian family which I do not have a power to change! The same with everyone. It is also true that some of the early history of religions is not good histories. In some contexts religions were imposed and people were converted at the tip of sword. But today the question is not whether such incidents exist here and there. The question is how to encourage people to stop such imposition of religions on others with force or money? By pointing to history we cannot solve our problems of today and by accusing some people with those selected histories as well! How to reduce the kind of conversion that are happening because people are given some development schemes and so on. This is one of the reasons I argued in my Rural development forum that if food subsidiary is given then such kind of conversion rate will radically go down. When BJP was in power this is the same argument that some people have made including me. They introduced food for work which ultimately gave a resource support for many people which made people not to look for such resources from other religious groups. This is why I am desperate for a leaders who would understand some of these issue and leaders who would transform India and put in the right path of growth.

Roots of violence in the theologies themselves? not necessarily, we may have to identify another discussion in general discussion forum to show you how there are arguments against this narrowing theologies within every religion including Islam! But not here, let us stick to asking questions about leadership qualities in a multicultural context.

[brihaspati]

brihaspati
We are moving in the next stage of question about the past. We cannot correct the past. It is historical fact that I was born into a Christian family which I do not have a power to change! The same with everyone. It is also true that some of the early history of religions is not good histories. In some contexts religions were imposed and people were converted at the tip of sword. But today the question is not whether such incidents exist here and there. The question is how to encourage people to stop such imposition of religions on others with force or money? By pointing to history we cannot solve our problems of today and by accusing some people with those selected histories as well! How to reduce the kind of conversion that are happening because people are given some development schemes and so on. This is one of the reasons I argued in my Rural development forum that if food subsidiary is given then such kind of conversion rate will radically go down. When BJP was in power this is the same argument that some people have made including me. They introduced food for work which ultimately gave a resource support for many people which made people not to look for such resources from other religious groups. This is why I am desperate for a leaders who would understand some of these issue and leaders who would transform India and put in the right path of growth.

Roots of violence in the theologies themselves? not necessarily, we may have to identify another discussion in general discussion forum to show you how there are arguments against this narrowing theologies within every religion including Islam! But not here, let us stick to asking questions about leadership qualities in a multicultural context.

We cannot move on, because the theologies have been set in stone and given modern rashtryia guarantees. Which means their legitimacy cannot be challenged. If the rashtryia protection bit was not there, there would be further evolution - and in competition with changing and widening discourse as to what being human really means - none of these theologies would have been a problem. but as they stand their claims of legitimacy based on textual authority stands unchallenged - any challenges would be seen as "threatening minority" and in its turn "narrowing" of "views", and would be given rashtryia recognition of such threats.

I have written before about what I think of theologies and their induced divisions and fragmentations. I believe that nothing, absolutely nothing should come as the third party between the citizen and the rashtra. Of course both must be mediated by values - and which will inevitably be based on continuity from the past. I want debates on that common set of values. But once decided, they cannot be hijacked by this or that theological authority.

I won't be a leader, but if I was, would actually carry out what I have proposed before -that there has to be a social safety net, with compulsory national health insurance and a national health service, compulsory education in a common national system, and most of the basics of life's opportunities - education, capital, health to be purely a matter of citizenship. Rashtra will recognize no other identity for discrimination - positive or negative - except necessarily biological subidentities - like children/women/seniors/disabilities.

Where theologies are concerned I have already stated - we will destroy their institutions and their theologians if they get one bit out of their designated zones in the private arena. If they even take one breath that sways a single hair of the nostrils of the rashtra - in public or private - they are kaput. We will do that through an integrated process - starting with education. We will expose all the raw naked glory of the actual records/statements/claims of the theologies - yes, even to the kiddies.

[devesh]

Brihaspati ji,

thank you for explaining why the "let's move on. it's a new day" is not a workable solution. we keep hearing that refrain constantly. but the thing is, all kinds of abuse and propaganda has been heaped on "Hinduism" while the other 2 have been allowed to mooch of the riches coming from this abuse. the argument about "moving on" is cloak-and-dagger strategy to keep the status quo and continue as is. "moving on" and "evolving" will only happen with "Hindus" while the other 2 remain perfectly happy with the rigid and extremist mindset that fuels their intolerance and fanaticism.

[brihaspati]

devesh ji,
I formally encourage JJ's sentiments. But he and others must consider the problem that lies in the persistent memes and their supposed textual infallibility - as virtually recognized by modern political systems. These ideologies hold us to a past, that really does not belong to the Indian experience - and transposes an alien contest for supremacy and biological resources, that is not really relevant for India. The inherent contradictions create a drag on our steps forward.

Moreover the persistence and the institutional nature of this - keeps the possibility of future violent revivalism open.

[RamaY]

Moreover the persistence and the institutional nature of this - keeps the possibility of future violent revivalism open.

Perhaps that was the goal.

The repeating theme of non-Indic religionists is that they do not have the necessary critical mass to change the source texts, yet they remain loyal to those texts. The logic given is that "we are born into this", which contradicts the logic that religion is personal. If it is personal how can someone not change the source the way it fits their space-time realities?

There is only one solution to such conundrum. Revert back to Indic dharma. Renounce foreign controlled ideology. Indic system has better examples of what you try to search in those foreign ideologies.

Until then their loyalty will be questioned.

[joshvajohn]

Some of you show your ignorance about other religions and also about my own argument.

Brihaspati too is not in a position to understand (because sometimes your own agenda of finding fault in others and making your position as the ultimate - which I already pointed as similar to Ej's earlier) is blinding!

There is no argument about textual infalliability here. I find Gita as the Holy Text for Hindus. Also Vedas as a true Holy. text for Hindus. If you guys question txthe text's contribution to a person's faith as the text to follow other Hindus will not accept it. If one believes in Gita as one's own ultimate text that is their faith.

But to come to make judgement on other's text which are often felt within the faith framework it is none of people's business. This is where one reveals one's own ignorance about the other. create this ignorance as an investment to create a social engineering of hatredness about the other.

Coming back to the text as contributing towards conflicts within and with other religious communities as faith motivating force is what I will try to answer. One of the important isssues that people have not realised in religious text is that those who are working towards hating other religious folks use the same text as those who wish to use it for peace. In every text people have used such universality and particularities in tension. For example some references (often tasken out of context) would seek to engage negatively with other faith communities while some references are used for integration with a peaceful coexistence.

this has brought out internal contradictions in possibly many religious texts and so the reasons for many sects within every religion. Earliest communities found many of the narratives as stories that are useful to increase the faith and develop a better human relationship within and outside their own. This is one of the reasons that they left different contradicting versions of stories together realising the limitations of the narratives. But later due to fear of heresies every word of these texts became important and so their faith has to trace back to the text. This is where our question should be how to emphasise those texts that enable people to find a way to live together from different religious background which is to counter directly those who use the texts for illtreating minorities and so on.

This is why i wrote earlier that how growth and coexistence determine the interpretation of the text rather how our past differences and stories of conflicts can be reminded to divide us.

I must also remind you that my position is not the position. Secondly I am not trying to convince anyone here! i am only hoping to write about qualities of leadership that would understand diversities within and outside their own spectrum of faith while respecting their own faith and religious text!

[devesh]

This is why i wrote earlier that how growth and coexistence determine the interpretation of the text rather how our past differences and stories of conflicts can be reminded to divide us.

what growth are you talking about? is it economic growth? if you are implying that economic growth makes "rigid" interpretation impossible, then why have the EJ's been harvesting so much intolerance in the last 20 years (when "growth" started picking up).

also, when you talk about conflicts being "reminded" are you advocating the "banning" or "removal" of information sources which "remind" Hindus of the atrocities committed by the Portuguese Christians or the treachery of certain sections in favor o foreign identity?

in the name of "coexistence" are you asking "hindus" to conveniently forget what was done? so as to perpetuate the status quo?

[brihaspati]

Some of you show your ignorance about other religions and also about my own argument.

Brihaspati too is not in a position to understand (because sometimes your own agenda of finding fault in others and making your position as the ultimate - which I already pointed as similar to Ej's earlier) is blinding!

Oh! I have no religious position actually! If you have come across my posts on my interpretation of SD on several threads - you will see that I emphasize "charaibeti", or non-stationarity. I urge revisiting old supposed wisdoms. Revisiting only strengthens "truth" and exposes lies or misconceptions. I have also discussed Christianity and Islam both from textual knowledge as well as interaction with communities in person - basis. Repeatedly I have tried to point out the sectarian and differential positions within both - but also tried to show certain commonalities where it matters to others. I have also been one of the firsts to forecast evolution "out of current" forms for both and not seen them as everlastingly rigidly fixed [Iran in particular].

There is no argument about textual infalliability here. I find Gita as the Holy Text for Hindus. Also Vedas as a true Holy. text for Hindus. If you guys question txthe text's contribution to a person's faith as the text to follow other Hindus will not accept it. If one believes in Gita as one's own ultimate text that is their faith.

Not yours. The textual infallibility comes out in the claims of direct revelations - often without any philosophical derivations, and merely as orders/injunctions. It comes out in the attempt to have single texts with denouncement of all contrary opinions or texts, historically indicated to have been present at the origins. This is fundamentally different from the Geeta, or the Vedas, or the entire Veda-Vedantic spectrum. There are multiple texts, sometimes contradicting each other outright - and no real attempt at conflating all of them into one single overarching text as the source of all authority. When you are accusing others of being ignorant of certain religions, I feel you should have shown better understanding yourself too.

If you search, you will also find a certain train of thought - which I share - that the text "Veda" is different from the "knowledge" "Veda". What has been handed down as text Veda is a particular snapshot of what people have interpreted "knowledge" in their particular experience. Assuming that such a profound knowledge exists, a text is only an approximation - limited by the human experience and human capacity to express through words. Same goes for "Geeta". Hence the Upanishads go for "quest", to repeatedly revisit and re-explore, and rediscover that profound knowledge as a method.

Yes some "Hindus' may take the texts as final "word". Two thinsg to note here. First, just because I dont think so, does not make me a heretic - by solid SD tradition. Second, you might explore the possibility that you are taking your understanding of the value/centrality of "texts" from a different religious conditioning, on to something that may not fit your model at all.

But to come to make judgement on other's text which are often felt within the faith framework it is none of people's business. This is where one reveals one's own ignorance about the other. create this ignorance as an investment to create a social engineering of hatredness about the other.

No, not judgment on everything. But we cannot avoid analyzing and exploring items that concern "others". Textual infallibility and unchallengeability prevents the community from removing items - that perhaps some genuinely feel as rejectable. Try removing particular Psalms, or Suras - which have been used time and again to justify violence [which shows that they are sufficiently vague not to rule out violent interpretation]. You cannot do so because it is claimed that you have to swallow the whole thing without alterations - lock, stock and barrel.

Coming back to the text as contributing towards conflicts within and with other religious communities as faith motivating force is what I will try to answer. One of the important isssues that people have not realised in religious text is that those who are working towards hating other religious folks use the same text as those who wish to use it for peace. In every text people have used such universality and particularities in tension. For example some references (often tasken out of context) would seek to engage negatively with other faith communities while some references are used for integration with a peaceful coexistence.

this has brought out internal contradictions in possibly many religious texts and so the reasons for many sects within every religion. Earliest communities found many of the narratives as stories that are useful to increase the faith and develop a better human relationship within and outside their own. This is one of the reasons that they left different contradicting versions of stories together realising the limitations of the narratives. But later due to fear of heresies every word of these texts became important and so their faith has to trace back to the text. This is where our question should be how to emphasise those texts that enable people to find a way to live together from different religious background which is to counter directly those who use the texts for illtreating minorities and so on.

The context argument is often thrown. But if every item in the text is contextual - which means, we are asked to look at them as being tied to particular historical events, and the implication being that they were told/created/referred in specific unique connection to such events - we land up in severe problems. The insinuation is that - such items therefore are not applicable for a repeat performance. But then if every item there is "contextual" - tied to specific historical place, time, event, and that they are not repeatable, then the text becomes irrelevant for any future relevance. If the text remains relevant for the future, the contextual argument cannot be pushed - because the text then carries no sense as a rule book for future behaviour.

Yes, contradictions exist - but not simply because people thought contradictorily according to context. If you say that these texts were revelations from a single source, or mere multiple copies/versions/narrations of the same source experience - then that single point source in its omniscience must have kept this contradiction deliberately, and hence they are not contradictions then. On the other hand, human confusion can be a reasonable hypothesis - but then you have to delegitimize the supra-human authority of the texts.

Problem is we know, or it is claimed that, these texts in their current form have been assembled/edited and then continuing for centuries before present. In their stable form if they exist for a thousand years, if no one in the intervening time span of multiple civilizations, and experiences - still saw it as unnecessary to keep both items, or did not drop one - we need to rationally see the thinking behind this.

Both were found to be useful - as tactical tools. When it is opportune to pretend non-violence, use the passage kept for this purpose. When it is opportune to be violent, use the passage retained for this purpose. That would give a rational reason to keep both - even if obviously contradictory - both are found to be useful.

This is why i wrote earlier that how growth and coexistence determine the interpretation of the text rather how our past differences and stories of conflicts can be reminded to divide us.

I must also remind you that my position is not the position. Secondly I am not trying to convince anyone here! i am only hoping to write about qualities of leadership that would understand diversities within and outside their own spectrum of faith while respecting their own faith and religious text!

Oh, I am trying to move on. I want to leave these contradictory and confusing texts behind - or at least in a safe box where they glitter in their glory of context. If they try to spring their hidden djinns, and human djinn-sadhaks bring them out contextually==opportunistically - all I am asking is that they be neutralized, and eliminated.

[RamaY]

JJ,

This is for you!

Fearing row, Bukhari detained

According to the Imam, his visit was meant to ensure that the said exhibition, which also featured copies of the Holy Quran containing modifications introduced by the sect as early as 1901, be cancelled on religious grounds.

“I had formally requested the state government to cancel the said exhibition because it is against the prevailing and true tenets of Islam – failing which I would go to the Club to ensure that it was called-off,” Maulana Bukhari told Hindustan Times.

[shivajisisodia]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 108923.cms

Look at the above article in the Times today.

Sardar Sab MM Singh is complaining about the "West violating nations' sovereignty". Does this guy have absolutely no sense of timing. What he is saying completely coincides with the Paki position at the moment, which is that the "West cannot violate its sovereignty". What Sardar Sab says also forecloses Indian options to embark on a punitive action across the border, if the situation ever demands it in the future. Besides, why would Sardar Sab go out of his way to antagonize the West(US) at this point ? Is there some strategy in this. I dont mind, if he abuses the West as part of a larger strategy that gives us some payback. For example, if he is staking out publicly a starting negotiating position, which he can then trade away for something significant. But I dont see any strategy, nor to I ever see a national debate on any of our foreign policy, ever. It seems like the Babus and the Netas are running our foreign policy based on whatever strikes their whim or fancy at the moment. One moment, they are extra cosy with the US, the next moment, needling them for no apparent reason. One moment, they are extra cold to Paki and the next moment, Paki cant seem to do no wrong. The stupidest thing about Sardar Sab's statement seems to be that at a time when the US is at least imparting some tongue lashing to the Paki, and there is practically no sympathy for PAki anywhere in the world except for the usual culprits like China and KSA, India seems to be stepping forward to bail the Paki out.

Can someone explain this Chankiyan strategy here ? Perhaps, Chanakya himself ?

[vishvak]

...
But to come to make judgement on other's text which are often felt within the faith framework it is none of people's business. This is where one reveals one's own ignorance about the other. create this ignorance as an investment to create a social engineering of hatredness about the other.

Coming back to the text as contributing towards conflicts within and with other religious communities as faith motivating force is what I will try to answer. One of the important isssues that people have not realised in religious text is that those who are working towards hating other religious folks use the same text as those who wish to use it for peace. In every text people have used such universality and particularities in tension. For example some references (often tasken out of context) would seek to engage negatively with other faith communities while some references are used for integration with a peaceful coexistence.

this has brought out internal contradictions in possibly many religious texts and so the reasons for many sects within every religion. Earliest communities found many of the narratives as stories that are useful to increase the faith and develop a better human relationship within and outside their own. This is one of the reasons that they left different contradicting versions of stories together realising the limitations of the narratives. But later due to fear of heresies every word of these texts became important and so their faith has to trace back to the text. This is where our question should be how to emphasise those texts that enable people to find a way to live together from different religious background which is to counter directly those who use the texts for illtreating minorities and so on.

If judging other's texts is not people's business, why are Christians judging Hindu texts either as not as good or judging these as Christian texts?

Which Hindu texts you are referring to here that says hate other religious peoples? Who are these others also matter. Those who invaded India from the land and the sea saying all religions/humans are equal just so that they could invade, enslave & loot India were barbarians.

I don't think Christian Reform movement had ever been accepted by all Christian branches as also the reform movement did not end Colonialism, Slavery, and so on and on.

In any case, it is imperative that just as if I am in Vatican, I should not disrespect Christian culture but understand so and not impose my own culture on everyone else; it is imperative that in India the Hindu culture should not be disrespected and in fact understood and appreciated. It is a very civilized behavior.

As I earlier mentioned, why would anyone not want to protect religions where religions have originated and important places for the religions? It is just a lie. In modern world, this should be easy. If it is not done well then it is a matter of concern. India is a country where many religions have evolved, and in global village it is essential that some protection is always affirmed to Hindu holy places all over the country. The entire barbaric Islamic invasions and then barbaric Colonialism do not justify absence of such protection.

[shivajisisodia]

Talking about the strategic scenario for the Indian subcontinent, consider the following.

1) I define the Indian strategic objectives broadly as a) Preservation of territorial integrity of India, b) Preservation and protection of the Hindu religion, culture, ethos and the Hindu way of life and c) Promotion of economic well being of Indians individually and as a whole

2) When we talk about the strategic scenario for India going forward, it can either be positive or negative. I define a positive strategic scenario for India as a) Expansion of the territory of India, at least to recapture some of the territory which has traditionally been Indian for centuries, b) Protection and expansion of the Hindu way of life and c) Continued economic growth. I define a negative strategic scenario for India as likelihood of a) Contraction of territory of India, b) Further decline and decay of Hinduism, Hindus, Hindu culture and the Hindu way of life and c) Economic stagnation of India.

3) Now that we have established the benchmarks for measuring whether Indian Strategic Scenario is positive or negative, I contend that the Indian Strategic Scenario is negative on all three counts or benchmarks, unless we drastically change the direction and trajectory of where we are going. If we dont change our direction and trajectory radically, India is on track to a) lose more territory, b) suffer loss, decay, degeneration and demoralization of Hinduism, Hindu way of life, Hindu ethos and the Hindus and c) A stagnant economy, compared to other major players such as China. Not only is the scenario negative for India at present, but it has been for the past 100 years, past 500 years, past 1000 years. Therefore, our current negative trend is not something recent but part of a continuous downward trend for the past 1000 years, admittedly, it is not a straight line downwards, there have been occasional ups too, but the trend is pretty close to a straight line down over the past 1000 years.

4) This downward trend cannot be attributed largely to misfortune or bad luck or circumstances, because as a student of Indian History, I believe that compared to most other people, Indians have been consistently dealt a rather good hand by Lady Luck, which Indians have consistently squandered by playing it badly. In fact, if it were not for Lady luck, India would have ceased to exist long ago, even in the diminished state that it is in currently. Many people have disappeared over the ages, such as the Native Americans and it was and is not a given that Indian culture and people will survive, no mater how badly we conduct ourselves or play our hand. Therefore, our scenario going forward depends not on others, not on luck, but on our actions and how strategic our thinking is.

5) It is important to introspect on why, despite many opportunities presenting themselves, we Indians have not taken advantage of those opportunities and extracted defeat from the jaws of victory. Examples are at least two if not all three battles of Panipat, the 1857 Gaddar, the opportunity for the Gurjar-Pariharas, Rashtrakuttas and Palas coming together to resist the first Islamic invaders rather than facilitating those invasions through internecine warfare amongst themselves, the consolidation of large parts of Indian subcontinent by the British and being handed most of it to us by the British mostly because external factors had weakened the British and many many more examples. So whether conditions, internal and external, were favorable or unfavorable to us, our Strategic Scenario always trended down, for almost a 1000 years. Why ?

6) After all the background above, here is the main point of this post. I have been posting in the past few days on this thread and other relevent threads, that there seems to be an unprecedented rift developing between the Americans and Pakis. It has now become quite apparent, with the statement today of American Senator Lindsey Graham, practically threatening the Paki with military action. Now, even if it is just an empty threat, or an attempt to bolster the American negotiating position vis-a-vis the Paki, it is quite obvious that the Americans have now finally caught on to the PAki game of deception, at least 60 - 70 percent. This presents a tremendous opportunity for India, diplomatically vis-a-vis the US, overt and covert military operations wise vis-a-vis the Paki, psychologically vis-a-vis the Kashmiris, diplomatically vis-a-vis Nepal, Sri Lanka and BanglaDesh and other openings vis-a-vis other countries. And in view of these openings, where is India ? Where are the Indian diplomats ? Where are the Indian politicians ? And what does Sardar Sab do in the midst of all this. Yesterday, he makes a speech on the floor of the UN, blasting the West for "violating sovereignty of nations by wrongful interventions", literally echoing the Paki position, albeit, in a different context, but he couldnt not be aware that he is providing succor and solace to the Pakis. Why ? Is it because in anticipation of this worsening relationships, the Pakis have privately been making the "right noises" to the Indian politicians, such as Hina's visit to India and some other statements by other Paki leaders through backdoor diplomacy, so that they can decieve India into not rushing to take advantage of the Pakis at this vulnerable moment for them, and Sardar Sab and the Indian establishment has bought this deception hook, line and slinker, as they are looking for any straw to cool it with the PAkis, so they can continue their "money making" acitivities un-interrupted by the Paki annoyance ? If that is so, what would we call it ? Would "Treachery and Treason" be too strong a words ? If this is how Indians have behaved in centuries past, no wonder our Strategic Scenario trend line has been a downward one for centuries and will continue to be so, unless direction is radically changed.

7) What is the correct course of action right now, to take advantage of this rift between Paki and US, before they kiss and make up again ? To first of all, increase, not decrease, direct pressure on the Paki, militarily and diplomatically. To take strong initiatives with other countries in the subcontinent to make our posture a little more aggressive. To deal strongly with the Kashmiri separatists by letting them know that with the Paki-US rift, their game is over and they are now orphans, as they cannot rely on real, heart to heart, Western support of their cause anymore and then a very thoughtful and aggressive diplomatic engagement with the US to strike a strategically advantageous alliance from an Indian perspective and ensuring that the Paki-US rupture is a permanent one, thereby turning the negative strategic scenario that India currently has for its future to a positive one.

Is any of the above in progress ? I dont think so. Will any of the above be ever undertaken ? Not by this government and by this democracy, I dont think so.

[brihaspati]

For most of the major players around the subcontinent, war seems to be an option - and a desirbale one, to solve or postpone some of their major internal issues.

First let us take the nouveau-riche PRC dandy and his aging mistress Pakistan. Dandy has a plethora of problems ranging from socio-economic to international.
(1) Its internal party factional fight is hotting up. Reformers are divided into two camps, and the conservatives into two. Neo-Maoists add to the flvaour of the soup, combined with old regional, crime-network, pseudo-dynastic feuds over control of resources. The new middle classes, overlapping with party base, and newly acquired territories with string tradition of dissenta nd alternative politics are combining and organizing. Student radicalization proceeding - with a split between right wing and left wing. PLA itself seems to be calmer on the surface but neo-Maoists increasingly dominate there.

China is heading for a gathering storm, from which the major internal factions may converge on to war - either on India or in the South seas - as a means of postponing the inevitable unravelling of the party power apparatus.

(2) Pakistan is of course already somewhat in chaos. But it does not mean that it will die as a state. Most observers think that Pakistan will be torn apart by its centrifugal forces and its subnational dissent. But we should remember that the Jihadis have learnt to use the modern framework of a state, as an interim tool through which they can gather strength and manipulate the world-system towards moving beyond that state - into their ummah-caliphate dreams. They have done it successfully in Bosnia, they did it in Afghanistan - and will do it again. They have done it in Sudan, and are playing for it in Somalia. Even Pakistan and BD to a great extent were forerunners of this Jihadi understanding of the utility of a modern state.

I feel there is a strong possibility that the Jihadis in Pak will actually work towards consolidation and continuation of the "state" but under their leadership - expelling partly and absorbing mostly the existing superstructure of Pakistan. The aam Pakistani will submit and to an extent welcome the Jihadis as consistent and a "solid" state. The educated middle class will be the casualty - some emigrating, and some qutl-d, and some joining the radicalization. Most of Pak army is likely already in coordination with the main Jihadi cores, including some of its commanders and the ISI.

For Pak too - existing as well as hoping, factions - a war with India will be a good option. A war with Afghanistan is like burning bridges to any fall-back option of retreating to a neighbouring ummah-land, so that will be avoided.

For the USA, a war that involves PRC, India and Pak, is heaven sent. It engages economic growth in a complicated dynamic - [not necessarily negative on all participants unlike as some pundits pontificate], allows opportunity to play from behind, and a market, as well as a new focus of Jihadi attention which may help in the ME game.

For Russia things are more dubious, as such a war may also trigger problems in its own southern balcony. This has the potential of becoming the mother of all conflicts if ME gamers take an interest and PRC thinks its could fix Vietnam and Taiwan on the sly under cover of all the noise that breaks out around the Himalayas.

It is India whose choices are most intriguing. A lot will depend on the alignment of the temporary truce that exists between the factions around the dynasty. A defensive war is not the benefit of either dandy+mistress, nor for the dynastic interest. However, an offensive war may actually destroy both the dynasty [replacement because a more ruthless leadership will be required] as well as Pakistan, and may even begin the unraveling of PRC.

[RajeshA]

brihaspati garu,

if we had a better military-industrial complex, a war would also have been in our interest!

[ramana]

Really, Do you think it (MIC the best in the world) has served the US interests?

"If you have a hammer, every problem appears as a nail!"

And used too often, leads to breaking the hammer due to fatigue.

[shivajisisodia]

Really, Do you think it (MIC the best in the world) has served the US interests?

"If you have a hammer, every problem appears as a nail!"

And used too often, leads to breaking the hammer due to fatigue.

Quite right, Sir. Every problem cannot be solved with the gun.

But there are a lot of problems that DO get solved by the gun and lots more that get solved by merely the problem solver owning the gun.

The problem with India is that it doesnt carry a big gun, hell, it doesnt even have the CAPABILITY of carrying a big gun.

A country such as India CAN, if it mobilizes correctly, develop and have the CAPABILITY of carrying a big gun, which it doesnt have right now.

There are many anti-national interests and interests inimical to India that have successfully prevented India from having the CAPABILITY to have a big gun. These anti-nationals are ably ASSISTED by the countless well meaning but clueless and countless ignoramus and countless corrupt among us.

While your intention may not be to encourage those interests that do NOT want India to possess the big gun capability, your assertion that "not all can be solved by the gun, and to someone who carries a hammer, every problem looks like a nail", can be easily coopted as a bumper sticker by the anti-India crowd, who dont want India to have CAPABILITIES.

Of course, it is a no brainer that not all problems can be solved by the gun. But a smart person knows that even if he carries a hammer, every problem is NOT necessarily a nail. So, just because not all problems can be solved by the gun, is no argument for NOT carrying a gun. It is only an argument for the wise use of the gun.

[Sanku]

(2) Pakistan is of course already somewhat in chaos. But it does not mean that it will die as a state. Most observers think that Pakistan will be torn apart by its centrifugal forces and its subnational dissent. But we should remember that the Jihadis have learnt to use the modern framework of a state, as an interim tool through which they can gather strength and manipulate the world-system towards moving beyond that state - into their ummah-caliphate dreams. They have done it successfully in Bosnia, they did it in Afghanistan - and will do it again. They have done it in Sudan, and are playing for it in Somalia. Even Pakistan and BD to a great extent were forerunners of this Jihadi understanding of the utility of a modern state.

B-ji; sorry to beat my own drum, but this is something that I said before you did. Especially on a failing state thread.

You said it in a much better way of course, and am glad that you have laid it out so well.

[brihaspati]

RajeshA ji,
MIC really has its own problems. In a sense, PRC has gone that route, USSR tried it, and USA of course has been on it for a long time - with transfer of "dominance" from the Brits. India can do better than that. The key is substitution of one global empire by another. MIC is just one way.

[Agnimitra]

^^^ Bji, in the current scenario what are some other ways?

[brihaspati]

Imperium - masked. MIC makes it too obvious.

[Agnimitra]

Bji, I agree. An apparent Goliath of a foe also plays into the current Islamist dynamic. If there is a more appropriate thread, I would like to hear your and others' thoughts about types of masking imperium.