Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[Samudragupta]

The chorus for Modi as PM of India solving the centuries of entrenched problems is growing louder.....in as much Modi even if he wins this battle wont be able to solve the problem of Ganga...the need of the hour is more instability and chaos in the Gangetic basin....only a person who understands the stability/instability paradox will be able to destroy the century old problem of the Gangetic valley....India has to be ruled by a rebel not an existing power center...unfortunately Modi has to join the transnational capital flow to succeed in his venture of taking Delhi....not sure if he has already joined or not......thats why it has to be someone completely outside the system....MB probably comes close to it....

[Atri]

The chorus for Modi as PM of India solving the centuries of entrenched problems is growing louder.....in as much Modi even if he wins this battle wont be able to solve the problem of Ganga...the need of the hour is more instability and chaos in the Gangetic basin....only a person who understands the stability/instability paradox will be able to destroy the century old problem of the Gangetic valley....India has to be ruled by a rebel not an existing power center...unfortunately Modi has to join the transnational capital flow to succeed in his venture of taking Delhi....not sure if he has already joined or not......thats why it has to be someone completely outside the system....MB probably comes close to it....

+786....

I have been saying this on slower and less popular dhagas, for years now.. Power center has to shift out of GV.. for that one requires a high intensity point. that high intensity is not coming in next few years..

I have soft corner for bengalis.. real emotional person like MB or even Pranab (he is out of question) would have done some karo ya maro.. but the point is, whether India is ready for karo ya maro type ka neta? our industrial preparedness is lacking. In such environment, MB type leader will only maro and not karo..

the rebel is yet to rise on the radar.. NM has already done his job, IMO.. everything else from him is bonus... If he manages to steer BJP at least away from D4 and GV in next 10 years, it will be awesome. there are few things that I wish (I am a powerless dreamer onlee), which I think NM will fulfill when he comes no matter how much he is in the transnational capital flow. But I really doubt that he will go after Gandhis for final kill..

[vishvak]

How will it look for people like NaMo to not be in power center Delhi? Considering NaMo is from a border state with good track record it is definitely much more needed than what may appear otherwise. It is indeed weird that howling shouting media doesn't even notice that. In fact NaMo as PM is the perfect choice for PM or such important post, such as Defence Minister or Home minister and similar.

[RajeshA]

Atri garu, Samudragupta ji, vishvak ji,

I think as long as Hindi remains the defacto national Indic language, the power center would remain in the "cow belt". When we get a true national language, e.g. Sanskrit 2.0, the center too would shift with time.

[brihaspati]

The entire GV and the east coastal sector is opening up for grabs. The regional satraps are weakening - and the polity is fractured. This is the time for "centre-right" (?!) to expand organizationally. Be there, be seen as different, stable - purposive - there for the long term. And if necessary prepared to give up apparent electoral advantages for principled stand on core national issues. There is too much effort - over-effort to appear "minority"-friendly. It will neither win over the "minorities" nor will it help the long and shaky process of self-confidence building in the majority.

Folks here are getting too excited on NaMo becoming PM. Ideally, he should be playing the king-maker role - a person almost groomed for the "presidential" role with a female PM in front. He should be groomed for the time when a more "presidential" form is achieved. But is he that arjuna or the krishna? I think that pair is still not in the limelight at all. They are yet to arrive.

But it will not turn out as being hoped for with the current arrow of destiny from Dvaravati. let's see.

[Manish_Sharma]

But it will not turn out as being hoped for with the current arrow of destiny from Dvaravati. let's see.

Brihaspati ji, I didn't understand this part.

[Samudragupta]

Return of the British in the East of Suez

Is Britain quietly re-establishing a permanent, strategic military presence in the Middle East, reversing a 1960s decision to withdraw UK forces from "east of Suez"?

It is a question posed and addressed in a detailed report published on Monday by Whitehall think tank the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi).

"It may not yet be declared government policy," says Rusi director Prof Michael Clarke, in the foreword. "But the UK appears to be approaching a decision point where a significant strategic reorientation of its defence and security towards the Gulf is both plausible and logical."

In practice this has already begun.

Rights record
Beneath the cloudless desert skies of the United Arab Emirates, a squadron of RAF Tornado jets is currently based at Al-Minhad, a discreet and well-guarded airbase south of Dubai.

Last November, I watched UK Prime Minister David Cameron fly in here to inspect a squadron of RAF Typhoons on exercise, accompanied by his Emirati hosts.

Since then, millions of pounds have been spent by the UAE on upgrading the base which will soon serve as a vital staging post for the withdrawal of British combat forces and their equipment from Afghanistan.

In Bahrain, at another military base well out of the public eye and set apart from that country's simmering unrest, Royal Navy personnel man the naval HQ known as the UK Maritime Component Command (UKMCC), directing Britain's minesweepers and frigates around the Gulf, in co-ordination with the far larger US Navy 5th Fleet headquarters.

In Saudi Arabia, where western military forces are no longer based, pilots on secondment from the RAF are providing continuity training on Typhoon jets for the Saudi Royal Air Force, part of a massive UK-Saudi defence deal.

In Oman, which in 2001 hosted the largest British overseas military exercise in recent history, the defence relationship is so close that a British two-star Major General is stationed permanently in the capital Muscat, to oversee the relationship.

In Qatar, the first course of a British-run staff college is due to begin this September and Kuwait has just chosen the UK to help run its own equivalent of the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst.

Much of this is the work of Lt Gen Simon Mayall, Britain's defence senior adviser to the Middle East, appointed in 2011.

For Britain, the strategic rationale behind all this goes way beyond defence sales, itself a controversial issue given the highly questionable human rights records of some of the countries concerned. It comes as three Britons have been found guilty of drug offences in the UAE. A human rights group says they were tortured.
For David Cameron, increased defence ties are a logical extension of a historic partnership
In December, the UK's Chief of Defence Staff Gen Sir David Richards said: "After Afghanistan, the Gulf will become our main military effort."

The idea is to pre-position forces and equipment in the Gulf before they are needed, while simultaneously showing support for countries considered allies.

For Arab Gulf governments, unnerved both by the Arab Spring upheavals of 2011 and by Iran's growing regional ambitions, Britain's renewed military commitment, however small, offers some reassurance at a time when the Pentagon is focusing increasingly on the Pacific.

For David Cameron and his ministers - who Arab leaders believe have paid a lot more attention to the Gulf than the previous UK government - increased defence ties are a logical extension of a historic partnership the prime minister is keen to build on.

The way some see it, Britain is deep in debt while certain Gulf states have astronomical amounts of excess funds.

To them it makes sense to tap into this relationship by providing bases, training and even, as in the case of the UAE, joint development projects in defence and aerospace.
"We are already committed to the Gulf," said a senior British officer who asked not to be named. "But we are just not doing it very well.

"There are 160,000 British citizens living there so if there is a crisis we will be involved, so we need to be better positioned to mitigate the threat."

But how much of a departure is this Gulf defence policy really?

Not so much, says the Rusi study published this week, arguing it is really more of a stepping up in gear of something that was already there.

"With regard to Arabia and the Gulf, the formal withdrawal from major bases east of Suez did not signal the end of British military involvement there - far from it," the report says.

Their paper argues that "it is of considerable economic benefit to the UK to be the leading European - and indeed, Western - player in the Gulf".

But it also warns of unintended consequences, of the risks of getting drawn into conflicts not of our making in a volatile part of the world, including becoming embroiled in the sectarian Sunni-Shia friction that is troubling Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province.

There is also the risk that, somewhere down the line, there will come a sharp difference in policy and, in a worst-case scenario, that the UK may even be prevented by host governments from using the very bases and agreements in which it is currently investing so much.

Why Now? The gradual withdrawal of the American Naval assets to Pacific is bound to create a vaccuam in the Indian Ocean....Its no doubt that the waters will turn dangerous.....

[Klaus]

Do the Brits sense a neo-Ottoman collapse redux occurring in the future (with an Asian player playing Britain's role) and working overtime to preempt just such an eventuality?

OTOH, there are issues of mind-share and posturing involved with the concept of Eurabia coming around in a few decades. Britain wishes to see itself in a "comfortable niche" before then.

[brihaspati]

Return of the British in the East of Suez
Why Now? The gradual withdrawal of the American Naval assets to Pacific is bound to create a vaccuam in the Indian Ocean....Its no doubt that the waters will turn dangerous.....

No, this was part of the long term intention. The loss of competitive edge to US capitalism, forced the UK to withdraw. It tried to save itself through two pan-European wars that would extend the conflict globally in a way that it thought it could use to both extract resources from as well as keep holding on - to its extensive colonial empire.

The reason for its retreat was its reluctance to give up on the racist and religious obstinacy that underlay all its undertakings under thin veneer of "liberal democratism" (not democracy per se) - and therefore reluctance to acknowledge/reward talent or effort from "unacceptable" groups of humans. In comparison - US showed that it would be prepared to fight even its own prejudices for the sake of capitalist efficiency and expansion - as in the civil war, and acceptance of European groups that the home-island "English" would still place half-way down the racial ladder to apes - even if the initial prejudices were shared between the English colonizers of USA and insular UK.

This feudal, primitive, racist, class-supremacist, and essentially retrogressive mindset led to a contest between two sides of the English mind - the genuinely liberal and humanist [the more expansive and explorative side of the Germanic], and its insanely sadistic racist side - which overall, the anti-humanist side typically has consistently won. This in turn meant that the underlying imperialist, supremacist, racist and cynically sadist mindset is the one that runs the state machinery - and is a brake on its own full capitalist potential.

A full capitalist growth is only possible if all the previous restrictions of ideology and identity - is lost - for it gives the greatest competitive entrance of human elements into the market.

UK on the other hand never lost its feudal, and imperial, and racial foundations in the core of its state apparatus. Thus it saw the loss of its empire in WWII as a temporary compromise, and something not reversible at that stage with its remnant resources. It did not see it as the inevitable consequence of its own ideological foundations as a state. Its tactics wa sto ride the American juggernaut, in its own colonial empire derived capacity to do mischief, its pre-existing colonial network of subversives, agents, and dependent interests with whom they shared mutual blackmail items to ensure loyalty in perpetuity.

It would enhance and involve the US tendency to "do good" and "feel good", combined with the shared interests of the trans-atlantic financial/industrial network - to push for interventions in parts of the world that would protect its own long-term "assets", in society and politics of the region carefully nurtured from colonial times.

But this "protection" is two fold : one is to protect its loyalists, or groups that would alays look up to and somehow culturally semi-identify with UK as the "centre of the world", but the other was also to get USA to "bleed" slowly, in a subtle and unobtrusive way. US experience of the European machiavellianism places US in a cultural dilemma - it does not understand, and distrusts "Europe", while to rest of non-European world - USA remains identified with Europe. In that sense USA has not been able to discover its unique identity and is therefore incapable of really befriending cultures that are not entirely "European". Maybe many in the US upper echelons - understand the UK's long term policy of using USA for its own feudal revival of world dominance, but they see no alternative because of their identity construction as fundamentally a British one.

This suits UK's short term vision perfectly. Looking at how its has gone since the 65 years since end of WWII, UK has consistently preserved its key geo-strategic allies, often on the shoulders of USA, and managed to weaken USA in the process - while USA thought UK was indispensable because maybe of the UK capacity to cause mischief from its pre-existing networks.

UK's target is to regain control over the sea-lanes to the IOR, and IOR itself. Whoever controls IOR is going to control the global economy of the next 200 years.

[ramana]

^^^^^

[RamaY]

Folks here are getting too excited on NaMo becoming PM. Ideally, he should be playing the king-maker role - a person almost groomed for the "presidential" role with a female PM in front. He should be groomed for the time when a more "presidential" form is achieved. But is he that arjuna or the krishna? I think that pair is still not in the limelight at all. They are yet to arrive.

Long time ago I posted that question. Is NM Krishna or Arjuna or Yudhistira? My gut feeling is Yudhistira will get the crown in 2014 if BJP comes to power and not Arjuna or Krishna.

And it also works well for the nation, BJP, NM and his friends in BJP if NM is given ownership, control and authority of a national development counsel with say Rs 300,000 crores per year and allow him to take the required human resources from existing bureaucracy. This is how they can get a "presidential" type of organization within current constitution and use it's success to go for more formal and permanent changes to the constitution. This is very much doable project in focused areas such as Education, Primary Health, Food security, law & justice and infrastructure development. If railways can have separate budget, these areas too can have separate budget with focussed roadmap.

[prahaar]

Folks here are getting too excited on NaMo becoming PM. Ideally, he should be playing the king-maker role - a person almost groomed for the "presidential" role with a female PM in front. He should be groomed for the time when a more "presidential" form is achieved. But is he that arjuna or the krishna? I think that pair is still not in the limelight at all. They are yet to arrive.

Long time ago I posted that question. Is NM Krishna or Arjuna or Yudhistira? My gut feeling is Yudhistira will get the crown in 2014 if BJP comes to power and not Arjuna or Krishna.

And it also works well for the nation, BJP, NM and his friends in BJP if NM is given ownership, control and authority of a national development counsel with say Rs 300,000 crores per year and allow him to take the required human resources from existing bureaucracy. This is how they can get a "presidential" type of organization within current constitution and use it's success to go for more formal and permanent changes to the constitution. This is very much doable project in focused areas such as Education, Primary Health, Food security, law & justice and infrastructure development. If railways can have separate budget, these areas too can have separate budget with focussed roadmap.

RamaYji, I sincerely feel that extra constitutional bodies filled with RNI and Hate-India elements should be disbanded as soon as BJP gains power. There are enough executive powers in each individual Ministry (Agriculture, Education, Health, Infrastructure, etc.) to speed up the development.

[ramana]

The chorus for Modi as PM of India solving the centuries of entrenched problems is growing louder.....in as much Modi even if he wins this battle wont be able to solve the problem of Ganga...the need of the hour is more instability and chaos in the Gangetic basin....only a person who understands the stability/instability paradox will be able to destroy the century old problem of the Gangetic valley....India has to be ruled by a rebel not an existing power center...unfortunately Modi has to join the transnational capital flow to succeed in his venture of taking Delhi....not sure if he has already joined or not......thats why it has to be someone completely outside the system....MB probably comes close to it....

+786....

I have been saying this on slower and less popular dhagas, for years now.. Power center has to shift out of GV.. for that one requires a high intensity point. that high intensity is not coming in next few years..

I have soft corner for bengalis.. real emotional person like MB or even Pranab (he is out of question) would have done some karo ya maro.. but the point is, whether India is ready for karo ya maro type ka neta? our industrial preparedness is lacking. In such environment, MB type leader will only maro and not karo..

the rebel is yet to rise on the radar.. NM has already done his job, IMO.. everything else from him is bonus...

If he manages to steer BJP at least away from D4 and GV in next 10 years, it will be awesome. there are few things that I wish (I am a powerless dreamer onlee), which I think NM will fulfill when he comes no matter how much he is in the transnational capital flow. But I really doubt that he will go after Gandhis for final kill..

It took me a long time to realise this. JLN was very clever when he pitched for universal adult franchise based on liberal ideas of freedom etc.

With one stroke he empowered and entrenched his cohort from Ganga plains who hadn't done much for the freedom struggle which was led and fought from the periphery: Bengal, Punjab, Maharastra-Gujarat, Bihar and South India.

Mahatma understood that and did not push for Vallabhai Patel for he would not have the numbers.


One Telugu writer said before Independence"Bharat desham oka bandikhana"
Only after Independence the jailer has changedd.

[Prem]

quote="Atri"="Samudragupta"]The chorus for Modi as PM of India solving the centuries of entrenched problems is growing louder.....in as much Modi even if he wins this battle wont be able to solve the problem of Ganga...the need of the hour is more instability and chaos in the Gangetic basin....only a person who understands the stability/instability paradox will be able to destroy the century old problem of the Gangetic valley.

/quote
have been saying this on slower and less popular dhagas, for years now.. Power center has to shift out of GV.. for that one requires a high intensity point. that high intensity is not coming in next few years..

It took me a long time to realise this. JLN was very clever when he pitched for universal adult franchise based on liberal ideas of freedom etc.With one stroke he empowered and entrenched his cohort from Ganga plains who hadn't done much for the freedom struggle which was led and fought from the periphery: Bengal, Punjab, Maharastra-Gujarat, Bihar and South India.Mahatma understood that and did not push for Vallabhai Patel for he would not have the numbers..

One old man mentioned that JLN threatend Gandhi with the numbers of lumpens he would put on the road show which will keep Brit in India. This was the threat which made Gandhi to ask Sardar to stand down from PMship. GV Dhiimis also protected the achitechts of Paki movement while Bengal and Punjab burned. Lets hope one day they do come back to Mother civilization and country in true sense. These folks have lost confidence as well roots and their positive attitude ,strength etc.

[brihaspati]

As I had speculated a long time ago - its the inevitable slide towards more appeasement of foreign imperialist religions and allied imperialist or neo-colonial moves against India. Things will have to get a lot worse before things can be turned around. In the process, it will be good if the old rashtryia functionaries and their institutional continuity with the British past of the subcontinent - get removed from activity.

Current centre-right leadership that many pin their hopes on - will be forced to compromise, both externally as well as internally with the Hindu-Islamic collaborative networks of finance, crime and politics that have held sway in central GV.

What India should prepare for - is war. India must expand territorially, and must reclaim its cultural hinterland. This extends right upto Iran in the NW, to the Gulf in the west - and includes both Pak and AFG; goes up to the southern edges of Russia in the north and Sinkiang and end of the Tibetan plateau in the NE, and up to Thailand in the SW. This has to be done in stages with proper excuses and justifications built up carefully but ruthlessly.

India must develop its own MIC, and it must plan for an initial campaign that destroys Pak completely and rolls back China from Tibet. The aim should be to provoke as much of the male populations of both countries to take up arms so that we have the maximum number of armed combatants on the field from them. We have to destroy the very base of their societal sources of militancy, so that the word Pak is never again used, and the Han see the eastern ridge mountains of Tibet as the forbidden gateway to hell. The very backbone of those two societies have to be broken in such a manner that no nation by that identity ever stands again with their sadistic imperialism.

We need 12-20 years to build up for this. Neither of the existing centre-left and centre-right will be allowed to develop along these lines. This is the task of the next generation. Keeping in mind that they will be constantly penetrated by external and internal subversives, agents provocateurs, as well as attempts to get implicated in blackmailable situations.

A clear cut militarization programme is needed, and the army resourced and mobilized towards the eventual expansion plan. The younger lot, have the opportunity to do this - economically, organizationally, politically. We have danced to others tunes for a pretty long time. We decide now what our agenda about our neighbourhood should be. We will destroy the very basis of the nations that have consistently remained our relentless sadistic enemies, and we will target their manhood, their industry, their economic spheres. Every action of war should be targeted at destroying the future capacity to rebuild their armies and therefore a skewed depopulation of the male portion is necessary, and as much destruction of their economic infrastructure as feasible.

Once these nations no longer exist as viable threats - those who are interested in painting India as peacefully swept away in love onlee without any retaliation whatsoever - can start propagandizing about their fantasy again.

The alternative towards the future - lies in the heart, mind, and cold ruthless planning of the youth who will be entering crucial activity sectors of the nation over the next 15 years. Each of you can keep that eventual target in mind, and do your bit wherever you are. When the time comes, there will be 100's or thousands of your fellow walkers to come together and decide what form of organization you need to give overt shape to that objective.

It should be legal, popular, massive, organized. It should be so that if the superstructure of the rashtra fails to keep up with that momentum, it will be the rashtra's fault - and not yours.

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting from the "The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition" Thread

What India should prepare for - is war. India must expand territorially, and must reclaim its cultural hinterland. This extends right upto Iran in the NW, to the Gulf in the west - and includes both Pak and AFG; goes up to the southern edges of Russia in the north and Sinkiang and end of the Tibetan plateau in the NE, and up to Thailand in the SW. This has to be done in stages with proper excuses and justifications built up carefully but ruthlessly.

India must develop its own MIC, and it must plan for an initial campaign that destroys Pak completely and rolls back China from Tibet.

brihaspati garu,

I think there is a need for a tectonic shift, so that the water in the river starts flowing in a different direction. Now the tectonic shift can be sudden and violent, or it can be gradual but consistent with repeated tremors occurring, all which over time causes more and more water to shift direction.

With sudden and violent tectonic shifts, it may or may not be possible to determine the ultimate direction in which the water flows. With gradual but consistent tectonic shift, it may be possible to calibrate the direction of flow more precisely.

I think what we need is more control over the mechanism for tectonic shifts. We need to put a process in place which slowly but surely ensures the tilt in the direction we wish.

Just like the Nehru-Gandhi sociological engineering has steered Indians over the precipice using erosion technology like Macaulayism, Dhimmitude, Cultural Marxism, Yuppieism, etc. hoping that at some point it becomes a landslide after a critical mass has been achieved, the Bharatiyas too need to start our own Geoforming.

Of course we can stop the Macaulayism, Dhimmitude, Cultural Marxism, Yuppieism-related decay. We could also strengthen the Bharatiyas psychologically and militarily, however we need to also think that be it the West, Islam or China, they are all acting with cohesion and purpose to undermine India and often collaborating to do so both globally as well as internally in India through our political, social and education systems.

I think to take on this level of challenge we would need a bigger weapon, not as a substitute for the buildup of our own muscles, but as a force-multiplier.

I think for this we may need to harness all of the Dharmic soul that is left in all of Asia, coalesce it, and bring it to bear.

We need to stabilize the Bharatiya foundation using multiple tethers. In fact by tethering ourselves to each other, the Dharmics in Asia can hope to stabilize all of us individually and collectively. As Bharat tilts towards Islam and lose our lands to China, and lets itself be hollowed by the Western termites, we need an external tether, or multiple external tethers.

It is in this regard, that I advocate the Āryāvarta Union!

[RamaY]

I have some doubt about buddhism weakening indian societal resolve to fight. In every other major place where buddhism is a known force today like sri lanka, thailand, myanmar, cambodia, laos, vietnam, china, japan , korea, tibet it has not acted as a impediment to high levels of warfare and violence.

Barbarian societies like the mongols and arabs who were mobile, equipped with good stock of horses and fired by zeal for loot and plunder have always held an advantage against settler societies like the greeks, persians, indians, phoenicians...a continguous patch of desert land sahara, arabia , grasslands from hungary to northern edge of china has given birth to these fast moving locust hordes in history. Add to that the special lootera mentality of early islamic expansion and you have a potent mix.

At crucial periods in indian history we were deprived of strong centralized rule that permitted these inroads to happen. Lack of conscription of able bodied males and sparing farmers from war duty also led to a aloofness that only kshatriyas were supposed to shoulder burden and rest got a free ride...instead of converting into a peoples war.

Buddhism NEVER weakened indian societal resolve to fight.

a) India was never predominantly buddhist to begin with. the countries in SE asia were predominantly HIndu at some point in history and converted to Buddhisim. and some converted to islam from hinduism ( indonesia, malaysia...)

b) i think Hindus were never a homogenous society , badly divided on many lines mainly caste, clan and region. we never could put a united fight and maybe too generous to our opponents ( a disease which we still carry till date) !!

I think there is a need to discuss and learn the role of Buddhism in shaping Bharatiya Geo-Political-Social situation that we see today.

Buddhism and Jainism fall under Charvaka thought process and are defined as aVedic paths for they do not accept the supremacy of Vedas.

What is that Supremacy of Vedas?
If one were to understand all Vedic paths (Shat-Darshanas) the underlying theme is - The universal consciousness (Param) is one. The true being of an individual is Atman. And the Atman has no different consciousness than the universal consciousness. And the whole universe is the celebration of that consciousness in different forms and shapes, which will have to go thru unending creation and destruction until they "realize" their Atma-tatva. Any/All Indic paths that did not accept this basic theme are considered Avedic. Buddhism is Avedic because it didn't accept the existence of Param.

Please see first 10 mins of this video to understand what Buddhism did to women's rights.
Watch video: http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/the-bi ... pes/272671

P.S: It may not be a bad idea to have a separate thread on Buddhism if the erudite decide so.

[ramana]

RamaY, There is also this problem of misreading and misperception of teachings that leads to analysis praralysis.

Rigveda also says

"Ahimsa parmah dharmah!"

It doesn't mean you patronize snakes.

[RamaY]

^ I doubt that is a Rigvedic Hymn Ramanaji. That is a phrase coined by MKG. There are many such phrases people mis-understand as Vedic phrases because every Sanskrit phrase is misunderstood to be a SD/Vedic saying. One such example is "Work is worship" and so on..

Anyways, here is a good explanation of that phrase...

http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Ahimsa_Paramo_Dharma

"Ahimsa Paramo Dharma" is a Sanskrit phrase that was popularized by Mahatma Gandhi and is often repeated by many leaders today to demonstrate the universality of Ahimsa.
...

Sanatana Dharma does not impose total non-violence on its followers except in the case of ascetics. Ahimsa is a general dharma that is superseded with himsa (violence) in order to protect dharma.[1].
Ahimsa is only loosely translated as non-violence. Unlike the English word 'non-violence' (which is absolute in its meaning), ahimsa means non-violence in a relative sense. There are times when violence can also be considered ahimsa if that violence is used to stop greater violence. For example, a king should always raise his rod of chastisement to keep peace and order in his country. He will fail in the discharge of his duty if he does not punish the wicked, and his country will be in a state of utter chaos. To hang a murderer is Ahimsa for a king. To kill a man who is taking away the lives of many is Ahimsa. A real Sannyasin, however, should not defend himself even when his life is in danger. A Sannyasin is one who doesn't associate with his body, instead identifying himself with the Atman. [2].
The statement, taken in full context and meaning within Sanatana Dharma as is applicable to most people is

अहिंसा परमो धर्मः
धर्म हिंसा तथीव च
Ahimsa Paramo Dharma
Dharma himsa tathaiva cha[3]

Non-violence is the ultimate dharma. So too is violence in service of Dharma.

That is why Sri Krishna in BG said (BG is nothing but summary of all Vedas)

परित्राणाय साधूनां विनाशाय च दुष्कृताम्
धर्मसंस्थापनार्थाय सम्भवामि युगे युगे[25] paritrāṇāya sādhūnāḿ
vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām
dharma-saḿsthāpanārthāya
sambhavāmi yuge yuge[26]

To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium.[27]

IMHO, Ahimsa is nothing but destruction of Asuricness, within individual and the society. If it is required to kill the individual in order to kill the Asuricness in that person then that too is ahimsa. Generally majority of individuals suppress and control their Asuricness for fear of punishment, which is done by law of land. But some doesn't, who are legitimate to be killed. When the government is effective in implementing rule of law, the social ahimsa quotient is high.

[ramana]

Bji, If we apply the Quigley model of seven stages of civilization to the idea of India we see that we are in the Age of Conflict of the model having passed through 1) Mixture: the idea of modern India was formed from the ashes of the Mughal paramountcy (advent of Turks to fall of Mughals ~450 years) 2) Gestation: the period that it took from fall of Mughals to Independence (rm 1750-1947 ie 200 years) 3) Expansion: Absorption of the princely states etc and unfortunate loss of periphery on West and East and South. Due to Vallabh bhai Patel this was very short.

We are in Age of Conflict. It started immediately with J&K invasion in 1947 and continues to date due to indecisiveness of the ruling dispensation.

It is marked by four
chief characteristics: (a) it is a period of declining rate of
expansion; (b) it is a period of growing tension of evolu-
tion and increasing class conflicts, especially in the core
area; (c) it is a period of increasingly frequent and in-
creasingly violent imperialist wars; and (d) it is a period of
growing irrationality, pessimism, superstitions, and other-
worldliness.

Invariably the periphery conquers the core in this stage and leads to Universal Empire(Stage 5). Followed by Age of Decay(6) and age of Invasion (7).

Our hope should be to increase the duration of the Stage Five and keep the others at bay.

[RajeshA]

Continuing from the "Understanding Islamic Society" Thread

One way is to have the KSA, de-Wahabize themselves and declare the Wahabis and Deobandis as Kharjites and make them irrelevant. Or need an external force like the Mongols who killed and destroyed the Assasins and ended the scourge.

ramana garu,

the problem is that during the Arab Sunni resurgence, especially regarding its imprint on Islam, in the background of a high degree of globalization in political consciousness during the last two centuries, Arabic Islam has penetrated into all Sunni areas including among Turks, but also Subcontinental Muslims, Malay Muslims, African Muslims, and Muslim diaspora in the West. So even if these ethnic groups see a resurgence, the Islamic core imprinted into the Ulema in these societies would see a parallel resurgence, which again would be Arabic in nature.

The only exception is the Shia Islam. However I don't see Iran as the channel for Shi'ite resurgence in the world. Iran's pretensions of Pan-Islamic leadership are coming to an end, and the Sunnis are being brutal in their treatment of Shi'ites among their midst, especially in Pakistan. The problem is really that the leadership of Shi'ism is in the hands of Iranians, and being forced converts, they would always lack the moral right to leadership in the eyes of the Arabs. The Turks were different. They accepted Islam of their own free will and before and after that, they kept the Arabs under their foot. Such do deserve respect in the eyes of Arabs. But Iranians do not get such respect.

So Shi'a Islam has a chance to assert itself only if its leadership goes into the hands of the Arab Shias - Shias in Southern Iraq, Khuzestan in Iran, and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.

Iran needs to become either subordinate to Najaf and Karbala, or Iranians need to wash off their hands completely from Islam.

Only when Shi'a Arabs take charge and become powerful, is there a chance of some change you speak of. I had written on this two years ago.

What the Arab Shias should get is control over the Oil in South Iraq, Khuzestan and Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. That would starve Sunnis of much of their current funding.

If one takes away Hejaz from the control of the Saudis, that too would help the de-Wahhabization of Islam. Saudis themselves would never de-Wahhabize, but it is possible to take away control over the two holy cities of Islam.

[RamaY]

Bji and others

I am looking India's problem differently.

Historically Bharat was a federal structure. This was done using Rajasuya. Even before Dharamaraja we have Jarasamdha as emperor and before him all the Shodasa-Kinds and Shar-Chakravartis etc,.

For example the article I posted a long ago explains how Jarasamdha tried to give way to Narakasura, which was preempted by Sri Krishna.

Post MB, Sri Kota Venkatachalam's book gives the emperor families of Bharat.

In one way Mughals too did their own Rajasuya, followed by British and MKG (of course in his own way instead of war).

If you observe this pattern every time a given lineage lost its inner-strength, it ended up colluding with a foreign power (almost all of the time) instead of accepting a dharmic Indic alternative.

My examples in modern history are
- Ambhi supporting Alexander
- Post Ashoka Buddhist powers giving into Muslim invaders
- Mir jafar giving way to EIC
- EIC giving in to JLN and MAJ
- SG/MMS giving into ...

[brihaspati]

Why is this shyness in us about researching the possible role of Buddhist society in India - and not necessarily "Buddhism", in weakening India on the particular aspect of foreign collaborative invasions.

I have mentioned in many places - one sourced from the same text used by Thaparites selectively - to claim that "common masses of Sindhi Buddhists" "welcomed" the Islamists becuase of rising "Brahminical" repression.

The actual text gives special clues to who these common "Buddhists" were :

(1) sramans running huge Buddhist establishments
(2) "sramans" who live lavishly in urban centres, with "slaves", richly furnished and laid out houses
(3) sramans who are engaged in foreign trade with the Gulf
(4) sramans who went and secretly talked with teh Islamists at Kufa and Baghdad after ther three earlier invasions were repulsed with great slaughter
(5) these aspects were all shown by onlee one city's Buddhists - Nirun, an outpost to the "west", and settled primarily by "merchants".

As for "commons" - these Buddhist leaders went around to convince other cities and there are at least two cities cited - which resisted and refused.

The Buddhist leaders pleaded with the population not to make the leaders appear hostile to the Islamists by going against the Islamists. This plea was mounted after the massacre and rape and enslavement at Deval. So the Buddhist legendary siding with ahimsa did not apply here.

But the cities still decided to resist and fight.

Combined with this I also cited the Hieuen Tsang's travleogue - written possibly between 70 and 90 years before the Qasim invasion, which suggested that most Buddhist monasteries and residencies lay in ruins, with common people turning away from them. He also made some enigmatic comments difficult to clearly interpret - which runs like - "saddharma is in decline in these parts, the monks have deviated from the true path, and nilakantha temples have increased in the rural side".

The Buddhists had factions of iconoclasts - at least one case mentioned by Taranath - of incendiarism and vandalims against Buddhist "idols" in Bihar, by a section of radicalized Sindhi Buddhists. The story of Buddhist violence against other religions, against icons and idols, is never ever mentioned in the standard Thaparaite literature. This violence and iconoclasm is seen everywhere else too - in China, in SE Asia - where it is also acknowledged by historians and passed off as "radical fringe". But they are never mentioned in India - because it would problematize the convenient propaganda about all Hindu ruins being a product of mere neglect by Hindus, and all Buddhist ruins as by Hindus and not by Buddhist factions themselves.


More factoids - on a quick note - minting facilities have been discovered within Buddhist premises archeologically.

We need to understand how Buddhism in India might have evolved - right from the beginning - in close collaboration with imperialist needs, as an ideology of and for urban mercantile class, especially those engaged in foreign and long distance trade, and finance capital.

Their ME connections might have made them eager to join or perhaps even produce the basic memes that developed into the Byzantine Chrisitian iconoclastic Paulician strand which in turn went into Islamism - and which the mercantile sectionf o urban Indian buddhists sympathized with.

This could be out of both commercial interests [the same way we have voices of "peace" now who advocate concessions and allowance of ME theologians into India out of the need to have gazillions of investments], as well as the deracination that takes cover under "globalization" or internationalist outlook "rising far above" "narrow parochialism", and often is ashamed of its own roots or distinction from the foreign cultures it hobnobs with out of purely monetary motives. This would loosen their commitment to their own people and land and culture, as well as a mercantile attitude - which monetizes all values and basically reduces high-flown value-systems into conditional and opportunistic contextual application - as the Nirun rich merchant Buddhists did, even after the massacre and rape by Muslims at Deval.

The Hiuen Tsang narrative indicates that the common mass of Indians who resided more in the rural hinterland - were getting disillusioned withe the city cats, who were perhaps onlee looking after their own profits and therefore allowing or patronizing the foreign invaders in their "peaceful pre-jihad" deception phase, and were turning increasingly to indigenous older hitherto marginalized by kings/imperial powers - shaiva and Hindu trends.

Another aspect to be looked into - as in christian monastic reorganization of Europe - Buddhist organized structure too might have specifically sought to reduce warfare knowledge or any knowledge deemed to lead to violence, among the commons. One of these were to either destroy publicly held books/manuscripts/skills or collect them and remove from the public sphere. There are numerous pointers to how the church used this to at one stroke defang the commons capability to resist the state, and selectively allow this knowledge to benefit the aristos. The Buddhist establishment in India might have done this too - given records of how difficult it was to get into the universities, and how closely guarded were the texts that dealt with militancy or weapons-tech.

Either deliberately, or through invasions which could destroy these libraries at one go - the commons were left without the traditional inter-generational passing on of independent militancy and war-readiness.

The other aspect that should be researched is the possibility of Buddhist insistence on and development of the concept of "uttama" and "adhama" karma, associated with violence or non-violence, that might have specifically started the process of profession-based "casteism". The clue lies in the over-connection of medieval or reconstructed late casteism with rebirth and future penalties/rewards in next-life.

[Klaus]

unfortunate loss of periphery on West and East and South. Due to Vallabh bhai Patel this was very short.

We are in Age of Conflict. It started immediately with J&K invasion in 1947 and continues to date due to indecisiveness of the ruling dispensation.

I'm beginning to wonder if there is a fundamental flaw in the traditional thinking that the mountains can serve as a border/buffer/outer limit of the periphery. In the age of rapid tech turn-over, this axiom and its continued validity needs to be scrutinized and replaced if seen as ineffective. The plains and plateaus beyond the mountains need to be the iterative buffers, not the mountains themselves.

Particularly enlightening in this direction is Rohitvats' posts on Indian military planning and the roadblocks it frequently faces regarding logistics supplies in the mountains (whether on the North-West, re-taking PoK, Aksai Chin or in the NE).

The eventual Indian expansion invariably has to be in the NW and NE directions, rather than a pure northward push which is not rooted in ground realities. Also British benevolence has made sure that any highland plateau adjoining mountain area has been systematically kept out of modern India's borders.

[shaardula]

b-ji limited reading & understanding i too thought buddhism was way too "catholic" in its organization to really work in a naturally "protestant" india. that early organization into abbotries and seminaries essentially ensured that it would never hold in india. not to mention being way too masochist & nihilist for indian tastes.

imo, in india you cant be too "brahminical". you have to make space for local memories. within the jaina and bauddha traditions, as top down "brahminical" as they are there is no scope for this. the real brahminism itself has been able to adopt & absorb local memories.

[RajeshA]

Klaus ji,

I think before we take on NW or NE, we need to bring the entire Indo-Pacific under a united alliance, which could form around a India-Japan axis, inner layer without USA or Australia.

[Atri]

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1416081

Maqbul is very close to Abdul Rauf of MIM (This is the network YSR encouraged during his tenure. This is the level of support they got from YSR. People should remember how Rashid Ali, minister in YSR govt, demanded termination of jail term to another terrorist from the famous suicide attack on police control room. That is why MIM went out of congress to make a covert alliance with YSRCP now.). Abdul Rauf and Nasiruddin were culprits in Hiren Pandya murder case. Abdul Rauf was made the MIM district head of Dharmabad dist, Maharashtra(Atriji - What is the significance of this district? What are the associated networks?).

Dharmabad is a town in Nanded District.

This is on MH-AP border and has been a Nizam territory until 1948. Nanded is important city for Sikhs with huzur Sahib gurudwara. This region (Hyd included) was Maratha territory until 1725 when Marathas had to give up their control over Hyd to Nizam *deleted* khan, if I am not mistaken). From 1704-1723/24, this entire region was handled by Marathas. It is interesting that this was the region where the capitals of all great Hindu empires of KG basin were based. Rashtrakutas, Satavahanas, CHalukyas, Vakatakas, Yadavas, Kakatiyas, Vijaynagara etc (I am talking about the region where borders of MH-AP-KN meet. Draw a circle of 150 km from that point and one gets all the power-centers of these empire. This prominence lost after fall of Vijaynagar.

The districts of Marathwada (Aurangabad-Parbhani-Osmanabad-Nanded) are heavily muslim dominated since 1725. Even today, Parbhani-nanded area is almost 50% muslim dominated. Abul Ala Maududi was from Aurangabad and the network of Madrasas which he came from and established are still entrenched in this region.

The armed wing of Islamists in KG basin was Razakars. It is this network of Madrasas mentioned in paragraphs above which trained and mobilized Razakars. Razakars were banned and SIMI took over the mantle of doing what Razakars intended to do. SIMI's "direct action group" which we now know as IM too flourished in these regions. It is in continuity. Nizam - Razakars - SIMI - IM. Post 1795 (the final Maratha-Nizam battle of Kharda where Marathas broke back of Nizam again for last time) the military capability of Nizam vanished and like it is happening in TSP, militia took over from professional military. EIC and later British allowed this happen. This gave rise to what we come to know as "Razakars".

The atrocities and actions of Razakars are too well known to everyone in lower KG basin and need not be elaborated. The ideological centers (akin to Deoband) have been set up in Marathwada since fall of Marathas in 1802 and 1818). Marathwada has been in constant flux between Marathas and Nizam (it remained with Marathas for most part of 18th century, yet, never under stable rule like rest of western and central India.

Talking about Dharmiks here, post 1992, Shivsena-BJP made inroads in Marathwada region, however this hold is faltering. The Maratha lobby voted for INC until recently (Shivraj Patil, Vilasrao Deshmukh). With death of Vilasrao, I think this will pass on to NCP. Marathwada is also dominated by those castes which are classified as nomadic tribes (shepherds). Malharrao Holkar was a shepherd from Marathwada and so is Gopinath Munde. The nexus of Pramod Mahajan (also from same region) and Munde held some forts of BJP-SS in marathwada. Post death of PM and alienation of Munde from MH-BJP, there is virtually nothing much left in Marathwada for SS-BJP. Recently Uddhav organized a massive rally in same region and criticized Ovaisi (he practically said same things which later Togadia said) and got good support there. But, I do not expect that to translate into votes and seats.

Hence, people by nature are compromisers. I do not intend to generalize here, but what I mean by the word "compromisers" is historically they have never done much on their own, which would shift the equilibrium and the status quo towards dharmik advantage. This is very similar to Telangana people, although now Telangana has this additional identity which when coupled with their shitty economy, is motivation enough to bring people together. Agro-Based economy of Marathwada and strong base of Manufacturing and Tourism industries in Aurangabad and region around, Marathwada Hindu people did not feel the pinch. The memories of Razakars are evaporated from public psyche.

The vacuum after death of Vilasrao, is now showing itself. NCP and MIM have filled this void. With Muslim population as high as 30%-50% in most of districts, MIM has clear advantage. NCP has always been darlings of Islamists. You might recall this election pamphlet from Aurangabad NCP candidate for Vidhan-Sabha elections.



This was few years ago. Things have gone downhill since. Aurangabad was always a hotbed for Jihadis (by A'bad, I mean Marathwada). 1992 showed a glimmer of hope but its gone now. Nanded district is already MIM stronghold (or fast becoming one). I will not be surprised if NCP allies with MIM (this may not happen in this election, but after 2019, I am not sure - SP is the sane voice holding NCP on course. After him, things will be unpredictable).

I view NCP (and SP) like I view China in global affairs. I respect them for their role in challenging and curbing (to an extent) the rule of western Imperium. But, like China, they will eventually make a deal with devil (Islamists) to stay alive, in profit and relevant. Thus they will, by their choice and actions, inevitably hurt hindu interests.

One more gem by NCP in Marathwada region of MH..



further buttresses my point above.

[Agnimitra]

Another emerging faultline:

Weighted per capita income of Southern states more than double that of North:

Bangalore: The quality of governance and better leadership has led to southern states surging ahead of their northern counterparts, widening the gap in terms of per capita income and poverty between the south and north, says a study. Per capita incomes in the south (Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala) have risen fast and poverty has declined in recent years and the reason is quality of governance, better leadership and political stability, according to study conducted by the Public Affairs Centre.

As of 2009-10, on an average, the weighted per capita income in the southern states (in constant 1993-94 prices) was Rs 19,531 whereas it was only Rs 8,951 in the northern states (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh).

In 2009-10, the average (weighted) poverty rate (combined for rural and urban areas) in the southern states was 19 per cent against 38 per cent in the northern states. The picture was very different fifty years ago. The rural poverty rates in the southern states in 1960 was 66 per cent compared to 55 per cent in the Hindi heartland states, the study said.

Young people from the south were migrating to the northern towns in search of employment. Currently, the migration of southerners to the north has declined while northerners are moving in large numbers to the south in search of work, it said. Various factors have led to this turnaround over the last half century, the PAC study said.

From the time of Independence, the south has been ahead of the north in literacy, infant mortality, life expectancy, fertility rate and other factors that contribute to greater productivity. Public Affairs Centre (PAC) is a not-for-profit organisation, established in 1994 with a mandate to improve the quality of governance in India.

According to the PAC study, quality of governance and leadership was somewhat better in south as is clear from the longer tenure of chief ministers (political stability) and better law and order (lesser number of police firings, proportion of civil police, ratio of pending cases in court).

The south was also ahead in terms of technical education, tele-density, power and urbanisation. More than half of all engineering colleges in the country are in the south. Better governance facilitated these factors and enabled the state to more efficiently utilise its scarce resources.

But what happened in the south was not just a "supply side miracle" says Samuel Paul of the PAC. Social movements in the south made people more aware of the need to demand better and more equitable governance from the authorities.

Strong movements in Kerala and Tamil Nadu (the former Madras Presidency) a century ago, began to mobilise vast segments of population especially the lower castes, to push for education and job reservation in government. Governments there responded and the result was the increased spread of education, awareness, networking and entrepreneurship in the southern states, the study said.

"This in turn laid the foundation for a more inclusive growth pattern. Such social movements were absent in the north where the demand for better governance and entitlements from lower castes was absent or merely used for identity politics. When the demand was missing, the pressure on the supply side was weak too," Paul said.

[ramana]

Who is PAC and what is funding it? Seems to be a class warfare promotion outfit.

[Agnimitra]

Who is PAC and what is funding it? Seems to be a class warfare promotion outfit.

Public Affairs Center - http://www.pacindia.org/

Affiliated with The International Budget Partnership

[brihaspati]

Disha (Gujarat)->ICBP. But that means a solid Democrat connection. Their founder and PAC adviser - was a Clinton advisor. Curiously he also received the Mac Arthur fellowship. That in itself would be curious. From the subcontinental origin Ayesha Jalal was a recipient. That makes it even more curious.

ICBP is judged a liberal - left-leaning "US think tank". Draw your own conclusions.

[svinayak]

We dont want western progressive outfits to start their analysis of India. Their model has no bearing on India and third world countries

[Agnimitra]

^^ Looking at the flip side of the "faultline" logic: One advantage of the rise of southern reputation and economic migration southward is that northerners could come into greater contact with non-GV Indic memes in the southern repository.

[brihaspati]

That the impact of that meme reduces in effect has been ensured by enhancing the linguistic hatred. That ensures that there will be little or no integration. In fact social identity theory-observations would point to increasing risk of rejection of the whole meme, increased radicalization, because of pseudo-racism and language fascism.

[Agnimitra]

^^^ B ji I thought about this. IMHO that divisive propaganda will be effective only so long as those outside powers cast a long shadow on the Indian psyche, via economic or cultural domination. It is the outside powers that nee to constantly work to keep those "faultlines" bleeding. Given some respite from their influence, things will heal back to natural state. I hope that with the current downturn in Western economies, their NGO agents in India will be less well-funded. Along with that, the rise of cultural and economic self-assertion via an integrative Asmita politics is essential, and already major signs of that emanating from the desert state in the west. So I'm hopeful rather than depressed.

[brihaspati]

How long before Nawaz shows up his colours : the UK connection, the Saudi connection, the Talib connection, and the Afghan connection?

[RamaY]

I give few months (<6 months). He has to do something to prove his loyalty to other stake holders. And him NOT winning much of Baluchi and FATA votes gives him sufficient escape. Indian elections are also nearing (<12 months). Need time to create enough saffron-terror boogey men.

[kittoo]

I read a couple of years back that there was rampant Christian conversion in Punjab. I have also seen in South how Churches use Hindu manners and rituals (like temple for Mary etc.). Read this news today-

http://www.bhaskar.com/article/PUN-JAL- ... .html?RLT=

दिल दहला देने वाली तस्वीरें: आस्था के दहकते शोलों पर 600 भक्तों की 'अग्नि परीक्षा'

जालंधर. मंदिर की घंटी और ढोल की थाप पर नाचते भक्त। मां मरियम्मा के जयकारे। पीतांबर वस्त्र पहने व्रती। हाथ में नीम के पत्तों के बीच पकड़ी अगरबत्ती। मां मरियम्मन मंदिर के सामने अग्नि कुंड में दहकते अंगारे। कतारबद्ध तरीके से व्रती मां का ध्यान कर अग्नि कुंड पर परीक्षा को उतर रहे थे। एक के बाद एक करीब 600 भक्तों ने अग्नि परीक्षा दी। हर कोई परिवार की सेहत व खुशहाली के लिए श्रद्धा व्यक्त कर रहा था।

Same techniques in north too! Hindu rituals, dhol, bells, temples and everything!

[brihaspati]

Coming across a lot of fanatical proponents of the almost divine infallibility and therefore legitimacy of whoever comes to power through a formal democratic election. Hence will take up a sequence on other people's thoughts on the issue. My own thoughts on this later.

Totalitarian democracies or totalitarianism through democratic means.

Here is a cogent, although with a subconscious religious support base inside the mind - look at the problem, from Alexander Boot.

Born in Russia and educated at Moscow University, Alexander Boot lectured on English literature, wrote art and film criticism, and made a nuisance of himself with the authorities. Pursued by the KGB, he emigrated in 1973, first to the USA and then, in 1988, to the UK. For a long time he combined writing for various publications with a successful business career. When this became difficult, he retired as company director in 2005 and began to write full-time. Alexander Boot is the author of How the West Was Lost (2006), God and Man According to Tolstoy (2009), The Crisis Behind Our Crisis (2011) and co-author of A Nation That Forgot God (2010).

http://alexanderboot.com/content/our-to ... -democracy

In most people’s minds, totalitarianism and democracy are antonyms. Yet the two can happily coexist not only on the same planet but also in the same country. To understand this, we should focus on the essence of totalitarianism, not its incidental manifestations, such as violence.

For elected leaders are also capable of violent oppression. Just look at the democratically elected Hitler, Perón, Mugabe, Putin, Lukashenko, Ahmadinejad and Macîas Nguema (who gratefully murdered a third of the population of Equatorial Guinea that had voted him in).

Conversely, if we define the term rigorously, even a non-violent democracy can be totalitarian. The term should properly apply to any political system that a) concentrates all power within a small elite, b) removes all checks and balances on this power, c) leaves people no viable choice, d) relies on populist brainwashing to change people’s views and personalities, f) reliably elevates to government those unfit to govern.

Each one of these telltale signs is amply observable in today’s Britain and most other so-called democratic states. They all show the dangers resident in a democracy whose power is unchecked by other estates.

The benefits of unchecked democracy are held to be self-evident, which is just as well for they would be impossible to prove either theoretically or empirically. Yet in traditional Western thought even God was regarded as a hypothesis awaiting philosophical and evidential proof. As democracy is not divine, one feels so much more justified in holding it to scrutiny.

First it is important to strip unlimited democracy of its non-partisan mask. Unlike the limited democracies of Hellenic antiquity and Western polity, universal suffrage is a radical idea that came to the fore after man was pronounced to be good to begin with and, what is more, infinitely perfectible.

It followed ineluctably that all good and further improvable people were equally qualified to choose their leaders and govern themselves. Once Americans elevated universal suffrage to secular sainthood, and spread this fideistic notion high and wide, opposition to it became impossible in the West.

But in reality the promise of democracy becomes larcenous when democracy is unchecked by the power of other estates. By atomising the vote into millions of particles, democracy renders each individual vote meaningless. What has any weight at all is an aggregate of votes, a faceless bloc. Consequently, political success in democracies depends not on any talent for statesmanship, but on the ability to put such blocs together.

This has little to do with statesmanship. Coming to the fore instead are a knack for demagoguery, photogenic appearance, absence of principles, ability to lie convincingly, selfishness and an unquenchable thirst for power at any cost.

Tocqueville warned against this with his usual prescience: ‘I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.’ He formed this ideas of American democracy at the time of Jefferson, Adams and Madison, to name but a few. One wonders what Tocqueville would say today, observing our politicians in action. He would certainly feel that what has been realised is not his prophesies but his nightmares.

The ostensibly democratic, but in fact neo-totalitarian, state acquires more power over the individual than any monarch who ruled by divine right ever had. French subjects, for example, were shielded from Louis XIV by many layers of local government, and the Sun King wielded more power over his loftiest courtiers than over the lowliest peasants. It would not have occurred to him to tax his subjects at 75 percent, something that comes naturally to France’s democratic leaders.

Modern democracy, on the other hand, transfers power from the periphery to the centre, where the small elite reigns supreme. This ever-increasing centralisation reflects a deep trend, that of reversing two thousand years of Christendom and reverting to paganism. [here is a line towards a religious anxiety - and reveals a lack of insight into the very nature of Christendom. But later.]

People have been hollowed out, their metaphysical certitudes removed, and the resulting vacuum filled with idols, such as unchecked democracy. Fallen by the wayside is trust in the traditional localism of Christendom. Unceasing and uncontested brainwashing has replaced it with knee-jerk adulation of central government, to which people are taught to ascribe redemptive powers. In this sense all modern states are totalitarian, for they seek control over areas hitherto seen as being off-limits.

Socialism and communism, modernity’s other redemptive creeds, are unchecked democracy’s first cousins. Socialism is democracy with logic; communism is socialism with nerve. All such systems originally spring from a characteristic liberal ignorance of, and contempt for, human nature – a condition disguised by incessant encomiums on the goodness of man. Behind this smokescreen it is easy to tell lies about democracy, such as that it makes the world more secure. In fact, in the last 100 years, when unchecked democracy achieved the PR status of the only possible alternative to tyranny, hundreds of millions have died violent deaths.

Universal suffrage implies universal military service, a fact that is at least as responsible as technological advances for the amount of blood spilled in modern wars. If medieval kings had to beg their vassals to spare a few men for the army, today’s democracies can conscript the entire population if they so wish, and prosecute anyone who refuses to join up. [Here he is basing on more entrenched totalitarian regimes within formal democracies - and there can be a different process when that entrenchment has not yet happened. My note]

Nor does unchecked democracy provide stability. Quite the opposite, one can argue that the democratic body politic carries the gene of instability, even as it is forever plagued by the demons of ad infinitum centralisation. Here too, this most factional of political systems suffers from the heredity of its liberal mother and radical father.

That is why democracy infinitely gravitates towards social democracy (a euphemism for socialism which in itself is a euphemism for the dictatorship of the big state), leaving little room for conservatism, which is a popular but imprecise word for traditional Western politics.

Looking at the three major European democracies of today, Britain, France and Germany, it would be hard to argue that democracy is a factor of political stability. In a mere century, Britain has gone from being a constitutional monarchy to being a crypto-republican province of the EU; France, from being an international power to being first a part of Germany and then her junior partner; and Germany – well, we all know about her.

Britain should not find herself in this company for she was the first country to activate an effective system of checks and balances – something that was often preached but never practised on the continent. The intellectual line of descent here leads from Plato and Aristotle to Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Burke and Tocqueville. They all knew that only checks and balances could prevent a democracy from turning into what Tocqueville called ‘tyranny of the majority’.

Burke said something similar earlier: ‘The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny.’ Another aphorist, Lord Acton, admittedly armed with the benefit of Burke’s and Tocqueville’s earlier insights, put his finger on the problem: the main conflict during the French Revolution, he wrote, was ‘a great struggle between democracy and liberty,’ thus implying that the two terms so often uttered in the same breath just might be mutually exclusive.

If they came back, they would see their worst fears coming to fruition in today’s West. And though the word ‘totalitarian’ was a later coinage, they would probably find it useful to describe our democracy run riot.

[brihaspati]

Talmon (1952) and Engdahl could also be good reads.