Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 04 Dec 2010 20:07

Brihaspatiji,

Excellent analysis of the 90 year period. What do you think will replace the current establishment after this 30 year phase?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Dec 2010 20:24

brihaspati garu,

Sent!

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 04 Dec 2010 20:44

RajeshAji,
If it is possible to send the doc to a trainee kindly send it to this addres

dbbs504@gmail.com

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Dec 2010 21:40

RoyG wrote:Brihaspatiji,

Excellent analysis of the 90 year period. What do you think will replace the current establishment after this 30 year phase?

Not so fast. We need to study the earlier periods to determine the factors and see if they apply to current period. So please have patience.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Dec 2010 21:50

Samudragupta wrote:Brihaspati ji,

Do this time cycle have any scientific basis....because it seems to have a statistical basis...Can genetics be one of the reason because the ruling dynasty does not produce enough strategic leaders to continue and expand the dynasty and hence it falls?

Secondly generally it takes seven generations (210 years) for any stable class to move to the next higher class, provided the future requirements has been thought about when new members are added to the dynasty.

A straightforward question but difficult to answer. I tend to lean towards the generational replacement theory : that roughly 30 years is needed for a generation to become politically significant. a cohort that reaches 60 years will roughly reach the peak of political clout, and be able to overturn previous system. This has an obvious logical flaw - which I will try to answer if you catch it!

I am less a believer in individual "great leaders" and even less so in any such ability being genetic or genetically transferred to next gen. Each start appears to be made from situation where older elite and dynasties have vanished, leaving the space open for real talent to rise regardless of origin or so-called blue-blood. Also the venture is risky - so opportunists do not throng. That allows a fresh regime to start off with dedicated, hardy and down-to-earth leadership - inc connection with the rank and file and populations. They will make real choices based on ability - as they need able people, and rely less on family connections, bloodlines, courtiership and flattery. It is like a "clean reboot" (maybe not with a low level reformat

).

The second generation comes up at a time when the older dedicated group is still around - so even if the bloodline gets selected for inheritance of the main hot-seat, the old-guard still is around, and they sort of balance out the rising opportunists and courtiers. but then once they start to die off, and the opportunists and courtier generation becomes stronger - it is no longer possible to recruit real talent, or strengthen connections to the people.

By the way there are approximate 90 years (not exact) and 210 year solar cycles. I have checked, and they do not coincide with the Indian cycles.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 04 Dec 2010 21:57

deleted

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Dec 2010 22:10

RoyG ji,
I will try to speculate on this. But as ramana ji pointed out, we may just need to go over the regimes left out, especially for the south.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 04 Dec 2010 22:20

deleted.. thanks rajesh ji..

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 04 Dec 2010 23:19

While B has proposed his theory of 90 years and having his prognosis of validating such theory our forefathers had already gone in this route and put their own numbers.

It is not based on no. of years but based upon no. of generations.

Two numbers are often found mention. They are 3 and 7. Sometimes 9 also figures but mostly in holy scriptures.

No. 3 represents the cycle of reversing fortunes and reverses in both direction and No. 7 represents starting of dynasty end. 9 too represents such end and beginning or in different context it represents the completeness.

Often one can find reversing of fortunes after 3 generations.

A. 1. Chandragupta maurya, 2. Bindusara 3. Ashoka after this fortune of this dynasty reverses and the dynasty ends after, 4. Dasaratha Maurya 5. Samprati 6. Salisuka 7. Devavarman 8.Satadhanvan and 9.Brihadratha, 9th generation.

B. In Mughal dynasty, the cycle started reversing after 3rd generation, Akbar and ends after 7th generation BhadurShah.

C. In the present India, Nehru dynasty reverses after 3rd generation, 1. Nehru 2. Indra Gandhi 3. Rajiv Gandhi. Though their dynasty exits in the form of Sonia Gandhi/Rahul Gandhi but they are not in the prominent position directly ruling the country.

JMT.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Dec 2010 23:33

I am posting first the tentative sequence back in time, which I will use as placeholder : (circa 600 BCE -1947 CE)

1947 1857 1767 1677 1587 1497 1407 1317 1227 1137 1047 957 867 777 687 597 507 417 327 237 147 57 -33 -123 -213 -303 -393 -483 -573

Starting with Satavahanas : Simuka-Kanha-Satakarni rule lasts roughly from 230 - 124 BCE. We do have the date 123 turning up in our sequence as a major transition. Simukas exact date of westward expansion is under dispute. We are also not exactly sure at what point his brother Kanha took over and carried on the westward expansion - although a tentative date is that of 207. This is close to the previous 90 year point of 213. Is it possible that Simuka's independence was defacto but not yet confirmed formally immediately after Ashoka's death in 232, and that the real establishment of the regime in sovereign power took place around 213?

But significantly we do see an immediate weakening after Satakarni, and the dynasty goes under to the Kanvas. But then Pulomavi restores independence around 35, which is close to the next 90-cycle date of 33. The peak revival happens under Gautamiputra Satakarni - around 78-106 CE. This is roughly 20 years into the cycle, lasts roughly 30 years, leaves the last approximate 40 years to renewed fight with the saka kshatraps who advance again. They intermarry with their enemies to the west (Rudradaman) but still Rudradaman attacks and defeats the Satavahanas extensively around 150 - close to the next cycle date of 147. After this Satavahana power declines and feudatories take over. (Some status quo perhaps under Sri Yajna until another 60 years).

We see no recovery really until the Pallavas which is about 300 years later. The Kadambas of Banavasi are earlier to have filled western part of the vacuum and that is also about 90 years roughly from the last known significant satavahana.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Dec 2010 23:55

Ashoka Maurya dies in 232 CE. 213 CE the next cycle point falls squarely in the middle of Salisuka. The 30 year period following this ending at 183 BCE gives the erasure of the Mauryas and rise of Sungas.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Dec 2010 23:58

thanks

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 05 Dec 2010 01:42

Brihaspathiji, The Rashtrakutas are a peculiar case. Their rule lasted for over 200 years and over this entire period they did retain their kingdom in some form (small or big). Their empire peaked at the time of Amoghavarsha, whose rule started around 80 years after Dantidurga found the dynasty. Amoghavarsha ruled for 50+ years. During his rule, their empire stretched all the way to Ganga. After him, his successors began to lose their territory bit by bit, even becoming subordinates to other kingdoms at the later stage, but they existed in some form. It took nearly 100 years after Amoghavarsha for the dynasty to end (ended by the Western Chalukyas).

So the question is, why did some empires/kingdoms end abruptly from their peak within a very short span of time while others survived in some form or the other for a longer period ?

dipak · Post by **dipak** » 05 Dec 2010 02:30

RajeshA ji, if you don't mind - me too. Thanks!

[edited - removed email]

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Dec 2010 02:42

RamaY ji, Samudragupta ji, Atri ji, Pratyush ji,

Sent!

Regards

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Dec 2010 02:45

dipak ji,

Sent!

Regards

dipak · Post by **dipak** » 05 Dec 2010 03:25

RajeshA wrote:dipak ji,

Sent!

Regards

Got it. Thanks!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Dec 2010 03:40

rajesh ji, a copy to rahulm.brf ATT jeemail DAT kom please.
TIA.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Dec 2010 03:41

KrishG garu,
Rashtrakutas are indeed interesting. The second half of the first millenium CE appears to give rise to long period dynasties. But almost all show a kind of "restart" after losing it for a while, and they almost always leave the region somehow strangely vulnerable to external invasions. In the mature phases they all show some kind of a weakness for Buddhist sects and an emphasis on art and "culture".

It is possible that the "losing it" and reversal after a first cycle resets the dynastic process. It could be doing this by a fresh infusion from marital alliances (if genetic theory holds) or a simple choice of the ablest in times of crisis without a great regards for hierarchical bloodline succession.

I can see that 777 cycle point appears in the middle of Govinda II's reign, and leads to Dhruva's taking over around 780. I would see then the founding of Dantidurga's kingdom - if dated to 735 in the middle of the previous 90 year cycle. He won a local battle with the Badami Chalukyas but who were not entirely crushed, and probably earned the right to establish independence by this battle and were able to carve out a territiorial base. We know that Badami power was still intact more or less around Krishna I. We can perhaps compare this to the later pre 1680 phase of the Shivaji dominated portion of Maratha expansion. Shivaji's rise started in the middle of that 90 year cycle.

We may see this odd connection in that the rise of the individual starts before the rise of the regime - and becomes a bit confusing in the earlier records of the early dynasties. However the real regime change happens with Dhruva. Thats when Rashtrakutas really become an empire.

From Dhruva's 777 to the next cycle point, 867 falls 11 years short of Amoghavarsha's reign end. But Amoghavarsha was already in the mature phase of the empire - with spectacular records in religion and culture, but also lots of compromises with neighbouring powers. Shall we see a precursor of the modern doctrinal phase "of peaceful coexistence", "tolerance", "anti-war-mongering" and "friendly relations with neighbours" and "trade and economic development"?

The second cycle starts with the retreat under Amoghavarsha's successor and it takes the second 30 year phase within this under Indra III, to briefly revive. By the end of this cycle, in 957, the power is all but gone. I think Manyakheta was sacked in the reign of Khottiga around 967?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Dec 2010 05:30

Bji and Kanson, I think the decline is due to the absolute powers of the king and their marrying whoever. The favorite's son gets to be the successor. Some are good most are bad. The succession because its based on king's family leads to minors with regents and other debilitating issues. The Cholas had the system of Emperor and Crown Prince clearly designated to ensure on the job training.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Dec 2010 06:34

The kings need not have been as absolute as they are made out to be by their eulogizers. Realistically speaking they had to rely on a battery of advisers, spies, and feudatory chiefs. Too much arbitrariness and they would have lost their power base - since the chiefs would over time get rid of him before he strikes them out of arbitrariness.

We give more credit to individuals than the reality of the complex network of power relations and mutual dependence on which the power of the king rested. What you say is a very important factor. In addition, I think the restriction of choice of successor to bloodlines reduces the chances of getting able leadership.

If we touch upon the "marrying anywhere" bit, I think most of them were pretty restricted in the choice of their brides, which had to be carefully balanced out between "equivalent" status families and perhaps even results of war or military and political calculations. No doubt part of the choice would be guided by "beauty" but were there any tests of "brains" involved? Not sure about this! Rashtrakutas allowed their women sometimes to hold independent administrative charge. That would have been a good way to check out the "brains angle" for future "generations" that would come out of such unions - if genetics really determine such talents.

Training in administering and training in leadership are two different things. Leaders cannot be trained, they are usually born with the ability to sway opinions and mobilize people. It is thsi reliance on automatic absorption of administrative abilities if the kid is being brought up among "royalty" - that still governs our thinking. As long as India relies on the dynastic succession, it will run around in circles. The sacrifice and talents of a whole founding generation is ultimately the fodder of criminally insane arbitrary minds pampered beyond all rationality by flattering courtiers.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 05 Dec 2010 08:33

‘Islam a bystander dragged into conflicts, given to finger-pointing’

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/-Isla ... ng-/720541

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Dec 2010 12:19

Rahul M ji,

Sent!

Regards

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 06 Dec 2010 00:52

RajeshA ji,

Congratulations on finishing the ebook. Please send a copy to:

[email deleted]

Thanks

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 06 Dec 2010 01:41

AKalam ji,

Sent!

Merry Reading!

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 06 Dec 2010 04:21

RajeshA wrote:AKalam ji,

Sent!

Merry Reading!

Thanks RajeshA ji, can't wait to go through it.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 06 Dec 2010 18:20

brihaspati garu,

Whenever I've tried to send you something on dikgaj on gugulwa, it sends me a non-delivery notification. Can you pls confirm!

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 06 Dec 2010 18:25

Rajeshji,
Please send a copy to
rkirankrATgmaildotcom

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 06 Dec 2010 19:01

rkirankr ji,

Sent!

Regards

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 06 Dec 2010 19:51

apologies RajeshA ji,
it was my error please use xxxxxxxx at geekhat! Sincerely sorry for the trouble! [edited according to wikipee style]

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 06 Dec 2010 20:12

ramana ji,
there is another angle to the dynastic setup as a problem in the modern period. The USA appears to like authoritarian or "charismatic" individual rule with formal democratic legitimization (however obtained) in other countries too.

Ensuring that a single individual calls the shots, and that his/her bloodline gets succession, is actually convenient for foreign powers. For example, if they have the reach they can get one in the line assassinated or into trouble otherwise (lets say get them involved or forced to be involved in activities or financial scams which are likely to erode their political image) and thus under control strings. It is easier for the foreign power to have lesser number of top decion makers in the "to be influenced" country, and have them under some kind of a sure-fire control mechanism.

Assassinations can teach a lesson that if the lineage goes too far away from control, that will be the fate. On the other hand everything else can be done to make that individual secure and without rivals in the domestic scene if he/she follows the "line". If there has been an assassination, I would strongly suggest not throwing away the possibility that the victims had shown signs of "independence", knowingly or unknowingly. Some of them might not have been seen as important enough for succession so that foreign agencies and their domestic eyes and ears had not kept them under radar early enough. So that by the time they burst on to the scene, their more "dangerous" traits had emerged without warning. Or these victims themselves had not been forewarned of their future role so that they had no time to build up the "darker" understandings necessary to gain the faith of foreign handlers.

There will be a certain obvious pattern to all significant assassinations on the subcontinent since WWII - inevitably they were all showing signs of "independence" one way or the other.

The basic way to counter this is to create a pool of alternates, and to broaden the decisionmaking base from individual fancy to a sustained national policy which are shaped at the minimum by an oligarchy and a collective. So that by controlling individuals foreign powers cannot control the moves of the nation. Also keeping the decisionmaking collective, there is no way for forces to start cultivating individual kid successors for their own ends - for there will be no guarantee that the kid will succeed.

Wherever we see the clamour virtually for a dynasty I think it is time to undermine it and discredit it by attaching to it the possibility of foreign interests or at the least its benefits to foreign interests.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 06 Dec 2010 20:37

ramana wrote:Bji and Kanson, I think the decline is due to the absolute powers of the king and their marrying whoever. The favorite's son gets to be the successor. Some are good most are bad. The succession because its based on king's family leads to minors with regents and other debilitating issues. The Cholas had the system of Emperor and Crown Prince clearly designated to ensure on the job training.

I dont have any idea about the reason behind this fall and rise But i find this rule 3/7 even applicable to Cholas. Yes as you have mentioned, Cholas have their own system of co-regents along with the King/emperor and the succession is not usually from Father to the eldest son and there are many back and forth movements in their succession line from Uncle to son to grand father and back to one of their son. If it can be compared to any present system, i think it is comparable to Al-Saud dynasty in Saudi Arabia. I think many will agree who have read about the Chola's system of governance that the we have not given the due importance in seeking its lineage in our current system of governance when compared to our adoptation of Ashoka/Maurya dynasty symbols and values.

3/7 rule in Cholas....

From the available history, Cholas came back to prominence from the time of Vijayalaya Chola, followed by Aditya and Parantaka. After this 3 generations there is a reversal. In between Parantaka and Rajaraja Chola's father, the situation is more like the period between PVN Rao Government and ABV Government in 1998. So many kings in that short duration.

Next if you see, direct lineage of continuous accession to Chola throne ends with his great great grand son of Rajaraja Chola's father. There are 7 rulers in that from the available history.

Or if we seek to apply No. 3 rule, Chola's fortune started rising after Rajaraja Chola. It contined with his son Rajendra Chola and his sons(three sons shared the kingdom one after another in short span of time). After that there is a fall. So the cycle started reversing after the 3rd generation, as it was told by the scholars.

Again starting from Kulotunga(?) Chola( different lineage), they regained their prosperity and it started reversing after their 3rd Generation from K. Chola. It came to an end after their 7th generation.

Similary there is a story of prophecy about a deccan sultanate(I coudnt recollect the story properly) dynasty that it will last only for 7 generations.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 06 Dec 2010 20:58

brihaspati garu,

Sent!

I've a request. Can I suggest to BRFites that they could use Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent (GDF) Thread for any remarks and discussion on the ebook? Or would you suggest something else?

Regards

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 06 Dec 2010 23:51

All those BRFites who requested the ebook, have been sent invitations to join a Google Group. Membership to the group is by invitation only.

If you choose to join, all emails you receive would be having a particular prefix in the subject field and can be filtered by that or by google group email address and directed to some folder, so the discussion should not impair your use of your email address.

Thanks for the interest in the ebook!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 Dec 2010 00:38

RajeshA ji,
many thanks. Got it. As for discussion, here should be fine! If we see it getting into too wide a stream of its own, we can request admin to move those posts into a new thread.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 Dec 2010 03:26

I smell great opportunities at Somalia for India. The recent and latest ship piracy affair should provide ND the right ideas. Time to test how sincere UAE and KSA are about militarily collaborating with India. Just one bold move would change all equations. A future base, a mutual dependency that can use RajeshA ji's aspirations about the IOR rim Islamic countries , and a handle on the Red Sea and Yemen and the troublesome peninsula.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Dec 2010 04:16

Somalia is complex. There is book called "Pirate Nation" that describes the situation.

My take is having Aidid killed in faction fight in Somalia was the worng thing that happened.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Dec 2010 15:52

Originally posted by Mupalla
X-Posting from Turkey News, discussions, India Turkey Relations Thread

WHY THE CHANGE?
---------------

Â¶9. (C) Various factors explain the shifts we see in Turkish foreign policy beyond the personal views of the AKP leadership:

-- Islamization: As reported REF B, religiosity has been increasing in Turkey in past years, just as has been seen in many other Muslim societies. The AKP is both a beneficiary of, and a stimulus for, this phenomenon. However, bitter opposition within Turkey against domestic "pro-Islamic" reforms (e.g., head scarves) has frustrated the AKP, and a more "Islamic" or "Middle Eastern" foreign policy offers an alternative sop for the AKP's devout base.

A key point also relevant in Indian context. Something that forms the basis for my argumentation in the ebook. If one can't contain the steam, one must at least control the direction of the outlet.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 Dec 2010 06:34

ramana wrote:Somalia is complex. There is book called "Pirate Nation" that describes the situation.

My take is having Aidid killed in faction fight in Somalia was the worng thing that happened.

ramana ji,
Daddy Aidid used the Islamist cry to rally people behind himself too when required. Both UAE and KSA are known to have encouraged various factions of Islamists at various times. Hence my pointer to keep them on board to insulate them from being able to escape consequences. It will attract a lot of initial attention from the African Islamists, but a rather bloody fist should work. It draws away a lot of jihadis away from CAR and west of India into a new front against the Kufr trying to displace the pure. But we gain a strategic head at the mouth of Red Sea. We just want a permanent naval base, and not the entire country. After all we are just securing the area from pirates.

PRc is handicapped to make base here. Whoever tries to make base here will be treated as enemy of Islam. China cannot risk it now.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Dec 2010 16:01

brihaspati garu, ramana garu,

I have suggested a "detailed plan" as far as Somalia and Yemen are concerned in the Google Group Discussion. I would request you to have a look at it. In fact, if you have accepted the invitation, then you probably would receive it per email.