Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby shiv » 02 Feb 2012 07:10

SSridhar wrote:As for the TSPA, loss of US Aid may hurt the officers the most as you said. But, are the wahhabandi officers, who hate the Americans, interested in going to Westpoint or the other Staff and War colleges in the US ? The paranoid PA which feels that the Yahud-Hanud-Nazara combination is out to denuke it, may itself not want too many of its officers to get too close to the US at these places. After all, the American IMET was designed to extend its influence into other armies and the Pakistanis have been attending these in droves since the 50s. Not any more. Nowadays, they are flocking to China. IMO, it would be in the quality of training or weapons or weaponry that the officers would suffer the most but those would be more than compensated by the strong fervour of jihad.

It is only a matter of time (less than 5 years if Imran Khan comes to power shortly) that West Punjab would be completely jihadized. Already, I would say that West Punjab is a goner. We may have to concentrate only on the Sind to liberate it along with Balochistan.


Please allow me to meander a bit. If you look at the era before "nation states" - individual "provinces" in modern nation states could pose as countries.

In the 'New World Order" that came after WW2 "nation states" were recognised and awarded borders which they were allowed to call as sacrosanct. And these borders would be respected and recognised by the UN. Also - a "national government" would be recognised and this national government would be the recipient of material and monetary aid from wealthier nations to protect those borders if need be.

So far so good. But what has happened if members of the "security council" (==militarily powerful nations) did not want to recognise a national government of a set of borders? Simple. They just intervened to change it in exactly the same way as borders were changed before the "New World Order". This has occurred in Africa, Asia and in Europe ever since the UN was set up and the US and its "allies" have been quite busy changing borders that they did not want and preserving borders that they want.

Now what the US/UN are doing is to recognise a predominantly Pakjabi (Sunni Muslim West Punjabi) army and government as the rightful owner of a huge tract of land that covers West Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan and Pasthun lands. The borders of the Pakjabi empire==Pakistan. This Sunni Muslim West Punjabi dominated government and army has disputes with Sindh, and has civil wars in the NWFP and Baluchistan. But its survival as a powerful forces hinge on US support. The US is afraid of loss of influence in the Area if they stop supporting the Sunni Muslim West Punjabis.

If you consider Sunni Muslim West Punjab (Or should I say SWaMP for Sunni Wahhabi Muslim Punjab :mrgreen: ) as a nation state that is punching far above its weight, its ability to punch is being maintained by an alliance with the US. As I see it - it s fine to develop ties with the Baluchis and Sindhis, but it would be a grave error not to undermine the SWaMP. This means the twin tactic of opposing the US as well as provoking instability in SWaMP by covert means and overt threats. Opposing the US is particularly important. The US is not our enemy, but they still need to be shown their place. It is essential not to be overawed by the US and tamely and "philosophically" accept that we are powerless to do anything about their meddlesome support to the SWaMP.

One way forward is to parse the US's need to support the SWaMP. It is all an effort to keep India down"? Or is there an element of historic ignorance and the wearing of blinkers? Both and other explanations are possible. Each requires a separate response from India.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23789
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby SSridhar » 02 Feb 2012 08:41

shiv wrote:If you consider Sunni Muslim West Punjab (Or should I say SWaMP for Sunni Wahhabi Muslim Punjab :mrgreen: ) as a nation state that is punching far above its weight, its ability to punch is being maintained by an alliance with the US. As I see it - it s fine to develop ties with the Baluchis and Sindhis, but it would be a grave error not to undermine the SWaMP. This means the twin tactic of opposing the US as well as provoking instability in SWaMP by covert means and overt threats. Opposing the US is particularly important. The US is not our enemy, but they still need to be shown their place. It is essential not to be overawed by the US and tamely and "philosophically" accept that we are powerless to do anything about their meddlesome support to the SWaMP.

Shiv, excellent points again. The SWaMP ( 8) )needs to be drained and then cut into parcels like Bahawalpur, Seraiki, Potahor etc. As I keep saying, there is no one silver bullet for Pakistan. It is a hydra and each head needs a different strategy though there is an Islamist centrality. We cannot remain indifferent to Pakistan hoping that somehow the deadly concoction it is brewing would be eventually fatal to itself.and not touch us. We are already seeing our own people being wahhabised. We do not have the luxury of 15 or 20 years to let Pakjab become a 'dead star' with no nuclear fusion going on inside. That project is already overdue.

The US is *not* our enemy but we must protest strongly every time it makes a move vis-a-vis Pakistan that is not in our interests. We used to do that during the Cold War days but we seem to have abandoned that now, when we have a greater leverage with the Americans than during the period 50s through the 80s. India must have (if not already done) an intensive dialogue with the US regarding the future of Pakistan. We must retaliate in other ways against the US if it continues to peddle this fake theory of 'removing the fear paranoia of Pakistan by supplying it arms', even as we maintain very friendly relations with them. A strategic relationship does not mean frittering away tactical benefits always.

When I said West Punjab was already a 'goner', I did not mean it in the sense that we should not focus on SWaMP. I meant it was a goner in the sense of wahhabandis taking over the State. We must devise a strategy for each province of Pakistan because the internal politics and importance (to India) are different. Above all, GoI must come to a conclusion that Pakistan is beyond redemption and the only way is to break it apart.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54175
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby ramana » 02 Feb 2012 09:54

Shiv, over the last few weeks you have been posting some new ways of thinking about TSP. All would be lsot in this thread. I urge you start a new thread "TSP: New Ways of thinking"

Who knows what will emerge from it.

ramana

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby shiv » 02 Feb 2012 14:49

ramana wrote:Shiv, over the last few weeks you have been posting some new ways of thinking about TSP. All would be lsot in this thread. I urge you start a new thread "TSP: New Ways of thinking"

Who knows what will emerge from it.

ramana


Ramana I went through all my posts on this thread and copied them to a file. They are mostly disjointed replies to queries but on the theme that I have been thinking about. I think it may be better if I organize the 11,000 words I have written in this thread into a coherent piece rather than cross posting my posts.I will do that.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Rudradev » 07 Feb 2012 04:16

shiv wrote:Has anyone thought how a powerful king in the old days could ever survive and still keep nobles and vassals loyal to him although each of those nobles/vassals had armies available to them? Not easy - requires real leadership but the following is an approximate description.

First the king would have a very powerful loyal army led by good trained men and loyal generals. The best generals and men would be rewarded with land, wealth. wimmens, villages etc. This "kingdom" would then be able to attack a neighbouring kingdom. Either the neighbouring king would be killed and a loyal general given the throne there, or the neighbouring king might agree to become a vassal. In every case the vassal/general would require to have an army to help support the king, but the king himself would also require a separate "Kings guard" of his own in case any of the general/vassals got uppity - so that they could be defeated. The Nizam of Hyderabad had a Nizams army of Arabs who were his own private guardsmen to serve this role.

What has this got to do with Pakistan? Believe it or not this is the exact model used by the Pakistani army to retain control of Pakistan. It is also a model used by the USA in NATO and "Warsaw pact" to have vassal nations to fight proxy wars for USA/NATO. The USSR did it too, as did the British empire.

The Pakistani army treats the Army chief as "King/President". The army itself is the Presidential Presidents private guard. Loyal generals are awarded large tracts of land as gifts. Islamist groups are the vassals. They are armed and allowed to fight the Pakistan army's enemy (India mainly, but also Hindus, Sikhs, Shias and Ahmedis).
.



Shiv's thesis here gives me the opportunity to articulate something tangential thoughts I've been having about the nature of Islam and Indian nationhood in general.

What Shiv describes is essentially the feudal model which, having moved past in their own lands in the post-Enlightenment era, European colonialists reinforced as a tool for the imposition of their own will in colonized lands such as India. It is also very much akin to the "Kabila" model that Islamic empires have employed for expansion and governance throughout their history.

The essential similarities between Western feudalism (transplanted to colonized countries in the colonial era) and Islamic "Kabila" imply that it is not only the "West" which has been a colonial entity as far as societies like ours are concerned... Islam itself is equally a foreign colonialist entity in our subcontinent, as fundamentally alien and predatory to our land, our culture and our way of life as the British or Portuguese or Dutch ever were. The atavistic howls issuing from their minarets five times a day are, indeed, cries of triumph and domination in a foreign language... the language of the colonizer shouting down the colonized.

Ramana has written extensively on the "Kabila" model... it roughly translates to "government as armed camp." Essentially there is a sultan who, with his generals and their troops, constitutes the ultimate fount of power in the political hierarchy. This is unwaveringly typical of the manner in which various political groups and dynasties have consolidated power in West and Central Asia, and North Africa, since the very advent of Islam.

The "Kabila" worked very well in the lands where Islam originated, and where it spread in the early centuries of its expansion. Why? Because the lands themselves were amenable to being governed in this form. In the deserts of West Asia, the arid mountains of Persia and the steppes to the North, the circumstances of nature favour a form of political dominance which relies on armament, maneuverability and mobility. This is because resources are scarce and concentrated in a few areas... an oasis here, a valley there. With a strong group of highly mobile armed men on horseback, you can easily forge an empire in such places. All you have to do is seize control of the few well-defined supply centers, the market centers (city states) and the trade routes between them. Most of the land is junk anyway. Once you're able to do this, and especially to destroy any civilizational affinity to pre-Islamic forms in the market centers (hence the Islamic obsession with temple breaking and idol smashing) you have, effectively, an empire. It doesn't matter if the thousands of useless square miles in between are physically under your domination or not; as long as you have no challengers in these particular small foci of power, you're an unchallenged monarch.

"Kabila" differs from European feudalism because of the emphasis on mobility... horsemen and artillery could be moved to engage a challenger in very short order. A necessary corollary of the Kabila model is un-rootedness. If you have to move fast you cannot afford to be tied down. Therefore, you do not invest in the land or the people, you see them only as objects to be controlled and squeezed for every drop of utility against the hard anvil of history. You position mullahs in population centers to be your spies, propagandists and social monitors... weeding out unorthodoxy and rebellion at the stage of ideation before it becomes necessary to smack down an armed rebellion. But ultimately you, and your apparatus of mullahs, constitute an extraordinarily parasitic, locust-like and virulent form of colonialism. This is something that Western studies of post-colonialism (with their essentially Euro-centric historiography) entirely ignore... they see the Islamic virus as something that was indigenous somehow to the lands they conquered. They do not realize that it was merely a more rapacious and less invested form of colonial imperialism.

Indeed, the more invested Muslim rulers became in their territories, the less "Islamic" they became, of necessity taking on the administrative, social and traditional trappings of pre-Islamic statehood. This made them vulnerable to "purer", mobile and less-invested Islamic conquerors. Hence the Delhi sultanate was prime fodder for Timur and Babar... Baghdad for the Mongols... and Mughal Delhi, again, for Nadir Shah. In each case the less-civilized, more predatory and more essentially savage Kabila prevailed over the more "settled" and "urbanized" Muslim state. When you do not carry the baggage of civilization or of feeling responsibility for the people you rule, you have much more maneuverability and ruthlessness at your disposal. Taking advantage of the Kabila's inherent strengths, the West was able to lead roving bands of armed Arabs in a devastatingly effective rebellion against the settled Ottomans during the 1st World War.

Why do I bring all this up with relevance to Pakistan?

As I said before... the "Kabila" system worked very well to dominate places where resources were scarce and concentrated in well-defined locations. However, it never worked quite as well in India.

That is because our Bharatvarsha is quite unlike those lands where Islam originated and expanded in the early centuries of its being. In Bharatvarsha, the land is almost never inhospitable or forbidding. In Arabia, a band of people displaced from an oasis had two choices: submit to the peaceful orthodoxy of a triumphant Muslim conqueror, or go out into the desert and die. In India, not so. A displaced people had only to go fifty or a hundred or two hundred kilometres in any direction... and mother Bharat in her generous embrace would provide fertile lands, rich orchards, abundant and plentiful fields. How many generations and what huge extents of such flights were supported by the bounty of Bharatvarsha become apparent if you study the migration of the Saraswats, originally from Kashmir... one branch traveled from there south of the Vindhyas, to Goa, and then again uprooted themselves in the face of Portuguese onslaught and proceeded to what is Dakshin Kannada in Karnataka today.

This had two effects: first, it made Indians in general indifferent to the fact of an Islamic conquest. If they took away our old fields and seized our city... well, we would just move over a little bit and build a new city, cultivate new fields. Our Gods and families are safe, let the Turk or Afghan have the old land, because there is enough for everybody if we simply adjust our location a little bit: this was how our forefathers dealt with Islamic expansion.

The second effect, of course, is that Hindu society survived, largely unscathed, as an essentially Indian identity. In Mesopotamia or Egypt, the Muslim idol-smashers and temple-breakers could effectively carry out cultural genocide because their targets were all in one place and immobile... where could you build another Baghdad or Luxor? The inheritors of the old culture had no choice but to surrender before the savagery of Islam's harbingers, and participate willingly in the extinction of their pre-Islamic cultural identities, if they wished to survive at all. In India, we would take our Gods, our families and our few possessions and head out a few more miles into the vast green hinterland and endless bounty of Bharat-mata, who would provide lovingly for us to begin our lives over again as Hindus.

This is essentially why we were saved from being extinguished by the onslaught of Islamic colonialism... Bharatvarsha herself sheltered her children and empowered them to preserve their way of life.

Now what you have in Pakistan today is the continuance of the Kabila system. The West realized soon enough that without the depredations of Islamic colonialism that denuded the civilizational wealth of the East for nearly ten centuries, sapping the power of the old Asiatic states and erasing their very identities... without this, the West would have had a much harder time pursuing their own colonial expansions. In fact, Islamic colonialism prepares the ground for Western colonialism... a fact that remains as true today as it was before the Battle of Plassey. Hence, everyone from Olaf Caroe to Zbignew Brzezinski sees a utility for the West in maintaining Islamic Kabilas even when the armies and viceroys of the West have gone home. The Kabilas will never construct a state of sufficient power to threaten the West; but they will keep Asia weak for the day that the West might want to return, in one form or another.

THIS is why the West was so determined to see a Pakistan constructed out of a large portion of Bharatvarsha. It is also why the West has been careful to destroy any alternative sense of nationhood or state-based form of governance in the Muslim world, other than Kabila. It is why the Arab nationalists of Ba'ath Egypt (Nasser) and Iraq (Saddam) had to be deposed, and the last scion of Ba'athism, Syria's Assad, is being systematically marked for elimination today. This is the reason why Gaddaffi in Libya was ousted, and why Iran is now at the head of the list of Western targets. Meanwhile the Kabila-state of Saudi Arabia is raised to paramountcy; while in smaller GCC nations... which are essentially city-states or market-centers like the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain... the US itself has taken on the role of Kabila.

In Pakistan that role has been given to the Kabila known as the Pakistan Army. However, let's remember... the land which the Pakistan Army Kabila seeks to dominate is not an arid expanse with tightly localized resource concentrations, as in the territories where the Kabila model has a natural advantage. No, the land of Pakistan is the land of Bharatvarsha... all-embracing and hospitable. It is much harder for a Kabila to control and dominate this "Pakistan" than a Persia or an Iraq.

Meanwhile, to the northwest of Pakistan is Afghanistan... a prime Kabila land, where a mobile and savage army unencumbered by investment in the people can always prevail over the forces of a more settled kingdom.

What happened over the last ten years is instructive. The Kabila (Pakistan Army) deputed by the West to control and enervate Western Bharatvarsha for colonial exploitation, has failed in its task. It has succumbed to the temptations of the land it occupies... Bharatvarsha... and become more "settled" than a Kabila has any right to be. It has become invested in private enterprise, legitimate ones like textiles and agriculture as well as illegal ones such as heroin supply. The Pakistan Army remains a true Kabila in that it still does not give a damn for the people in its charge; but it has become "softer" in the style of the Lodhi who was overwhelmed by Babar, or the Abbasid Caliph who was smashed by Genghis Khan. To compensate for its softness, the Pakistan Army has overemphasized the role traditionally played by Mullahs in the Kabila system, and set up a huge, hypertrophied apparatus of highly empowered political agents to subdue the population in the name of Islam... including all our favourite Tanzeems.

The big mistake that the Soft Kabila of the Pakistan Army made was to create another Kabila... the Taliban... in an attempt to colonize and subdue the people of Afghanistan. Taliban Kabila, being a classic, mobile, hard Kabila, was able to gain control over the prime Kabila-land of Afghanistan in record time back in 1996. However, with the force of historic inevitability... they have utterly lost regard and affinity for the soft, settled Kabila of the TSPA. They see no reason why they should take orders from this decadent, less-pure Sultanate; they have enjoyed repeated military successes over the TSPA over the past ten years; and worst of all, they have seen the TSPA do the bidding of the Kaffir by comfortably abetting the slaughter of Momin perpetuated by the Americans since 2001.

As a result, not only the Taliban, but many sections of the Kabila-apparatchik mullahs (who would ordinarily remain loyal to a strong, hard-Kabila) have turned against the soft and decadent Kabila of the TSPA.

Perhaps the most curious thing is how the TSPA and the Paki elite have responded to this state of affairs. Being themselves of Bharatvarsha... they have begun to do the classic Hindoo thing! "Fine", they say, "let the fundoos have FATA/KP, after all we have much more productive land".... "fine, let them have a presence in Karachi/Quetta/Peshawar, not a blade of grass grows there"... "fine, let them expand into southern Punjab, after all we should keep them close so we can keep an eye on them." Rationalization after rationalization is articulated by these Pakis while their circle of influence shrinks; so far will our bounteous mother Bharat let them retreat into the welcoming folds of her sari that they blindfold themselves ever more tightly with her pallu and convince themselves that all is well.
Last edited by Rudradev on 07 Feb 2012 04:44, edited 7 times in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby shiv » 07 Feb 2012 10:33

Rudradev wrote:"Kabila" differs from European feudalism because of the emphasis on mobility... horsemen and artillery could be moved to engage a challenger in very short order. A necessary corollary of the Kabila model is un-rootedness. If you have to move fast you cannot afford to be tied down. Therefore, you do not invest in the land or the people, you see them only as objects to be controlled and squeezed for every drop of utility against the hard anvil of history. You position mullahs in population centers to be your spies, propagandists and social monitors... weeding out unorthodoxy and rebellion at the stage of ideation before it becomes necessary to smack down an armed rebellion. But ultimately you, and your apparatus of mullahs, constitute an extraordinarily parasitic, locust-like and virulent form of colonialism. This is something that Western studies of post-colonialism (with their essentially Euro-centric historiography) entirely ignore... they see the Islamic virus as something that was indigenous somehow to the lands they conquered. They do not realize that it was merely a more rapacious and less invested form of colonial imperialism.

Rudradev that was a masterful write up - and deserves a greater degree of saving for posterity than BRF offers

And it is because of the unrootedness and lack of investment in the local population that you see that the Pakistan army has no interest in involving itself in the sort of stuff Jhujar has posted above

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/02/pakis ... er-me.html
Three women killed for "loose morals": "They deserved death. I can’t let my wife talk to other men"When violence doesn't "work" to the satisfaction of the one throwing the punches, it tends to escalate. The final result was a triple homicide. "‘Honour’ crime: Three women killed ‘for loose morals’," by Owais Jaffery and Tariq Ismaeel for the Express Tribune, February 5:
Kot Chuttha police have arrested a man who has admitted to killing his wife, Samina, her sister (his brother’s wife) and their mother in collusion with his brother in a Dera Ghazi Khan village.
Talking to The Express Tribune at the police station, Ismaeel said he did not believe he had committed a crime. “My wife and her sister (his brother’s wife) had loose morals. They deserved death. I can’t let my wife talk to other men,” he said. He said he had caught Samina (his wife) talking to a man over cell phone.
The suspect said he and his brother, Imran, had shot and killed Samina and Zarmina, their wives, and their mother, Kulsoom, on Friday night. “Their mother was to blame for it. She had failed to raise her daughters in accordance with our traditions. I had warned her (mother-in-law) several times to control her daughters,” he said.


The reason I single out this aspect of Pakistaniyat is that if at all India is to take charge of the subcontinent and re integrate far flung parts of the subcontinent into a coherent whole the Pakistani army has to be replaced by a proper well rooted police force that is invested in keeping law and order in an area that is full of nut cases and loose weapons in private hands. India's border fence will have to stay strong for decades even if rationality comes to Pakistan and we are able to reach out to Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Iran through the current kabila.

But US neo-colonialism knows that the Pakistan army is its vassal and intends to keep it that way. The local human aspects are of little consequence to them.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby devesh » 07 Feb 2012 10:52

Rudradev ji,
an excellent post! there are accounts of how the initial Islamic penetration beyond the Sindh Valley was met with shock by the Indics b/c of the wanton display of rapacious behavior by the Islamics. the fighting part was done bravely without batting an eye. it is when the Indics saw that defeat meant complete annihilation and 'mana-bhanga' of their women, that is what most disgusted the Indics. this is an important point to remember. Islamic chronicles paint pictures of "trembling kafirs". this is nothing but a vainglorious attempt to cover up their own rapine roots. the Hindus didn't tremble. they fought valiantly and without cowardice. when they lost, they had to witness the behavior of the Ghazis and that is what disgusted us.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6948
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Anujan » 07 Feb 2012 10:54

Difah-e-Pakistan that motely organization of Paki Gul, Hafiz-e-Pig and other Jihadis of various colors is fast becoming "mainstream". They have slick videos, slick publications, pamphlets and meetings. Now they have a website and have a presence in Social media (managed by fellows with good english and polite manners).

This next step of evolution of Paki-terror organizations in many ways was predestined due to two factors.

1. A terror organization can be attacked, maybe eradicated, maybe pressure can be applied on the country sheltering them to crack down on them. But this cannot be done to an organization that runs schools, charities, hospitals, ambulances, mosques, has political clout and also trains people for terror. Somewhat like Hezbollah in Lebanon.

2. Fellows like LeT and JeM have millions of guns and ammo stashed up and cannot be eradicated by Paki army even if they wanted to. So the only way to deal with them is to "legitimize" them by incorporating them into some sort of para-military militia. Maybe even with government paid stipends, registration and ranks.

I feel that Paki-land is moving towards this direction. Army probably realizes that it needs a permanent constituency to support it in the political sphere and also paramilitary to achieve its aims in Afghanistan and India through terror. They probably also want the yahoos to fight for them and not against them and want the yahoos to acquire legitimacy and drop deep roots to ensure that they cannot be eradicated either through military action by foreign powers or by pressure from other countries.

Pakistan is truly in the cutting edge of innovation in terrorism.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby johneeG » 07 Feb 2012 11:17

Rudradev,
excellent post! Really good. I was actually thinking on similar lines a few days back. I saw the movie pianist. The one thing I wondered about was how in the european countries a persecuted person/community had no chance to survive independently given the vicious cold weather and scarce resources. In contrast, a persecuted person/community in India could escape to virtually any place and survive in the easy weather. Food and water are fairly easily available also.

Just two nitpicks though(IMHO):
a) Mother Bharat's bounty allowed Hindus to mount repeated attacks on invaders. The invaders were always threatened by one 'mutiny' or the other. Of course, many Hindus have been 'tolerant' of invaders also. But, many others have defied them and tried to defend also. In desert lands, an invader could raze a city and the whole population of the country would submit out of fear. In Bharatvarsha, the teeming populations could not be razed or subdued in this crude way. Islamic and even the British were always challenged by some group or the other. These groups could mount such challenges because of mother Bharat's bountiful resources(in manpower and natural resources). The only way the invaders could control the Hindus protected by Bharat Mata is by allowing them a semblance of 'freedom, justice, tolerance and equality'. Otherwise, they just wouldnt survive. And moreover, the hordes needed Hindus to control Hindus given the sheer size of population. So, the invaders had no way but to accomodate the Hindus(or at least a section of Hindus). Because they feared that they can never completely subjugate the Hindus given the population and resources(of Bharat Mata). The only way invaders(even most barbaric ones) could establish a long-term rule in Bharatvarsha is by gaining the acceptance of Hindus.
It seems to me that PA is unable to take on jihadis(whose ideology enjoys support among common pakis) precisely because of this reason. Because anyone can organise a group and mount a challenge on the PA anytime from anywhere. The availability of guns in pak is an important reason. The only way PA can rule pakis is by gaining their acceptance.

b) Afghanistan is part of Bharatvarsha.

Again, kudos to your excellent post. :)

chiragAS
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 16 Nov 2006 10:09
Location: INDIA
Contact:

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby chiragAS » 07 Feb 2012 16:44

Rudradev wrote:It is also very much akin to the "Kabila" model


Rudradev great post, I had similiar line of thought that environment played a role in creation of such savages.
but never really understood how they could spread so easily here. I had thought about this adjusting nature of hindus,
but that alone could not have been the reason. now Thanks to your and Shiv's explantion, i understand how they could
spread/sustain in India.

Your post should be preserved. may be added at the beginning in understanding TSP.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby harbans » 07 Feb 2012 18:42

This is because resources are scarce and concentrated in a few areas... an oasis here, a valley there. With a strong group of highly mobile armed men on horseback, you can easily forge an empire in such places. All you have to do is seize control of the few well-defined supply centers, the market centers (city states) and the trade routes between them. Most of the land is junk anyway. Once you're able to do this, and especially to destroy any civilizational affinity to pre-Islamic forms in the market centers (hence the Islamic obsession with temple breaking and idol smashing) you have, effectively, an empire.


This is correct to quite an extent. Egypt, Anatolia were taken over by quite small mobile teams on horse back. However it is also to be seen, that initial Islamic conquests were more based on material conquests that included women and slaves. Egypt, Iran, Syria took a few centuries for people to convert. Indonesia it happened 5-6 centuries. Conversion rate curves are on the net.

http://islamicexpansionanddecline.blogs ... rsion.html

India it had to be slow. The biggest hindrance was the vastness and geographical thresholds due to the Hindu Kush and other features in the North West. But once Islamic empires set in and had a foot hold in India, the conversion curve was not related to geography, it was many factors and that included tribute, status and economic well being. Verbal acceptance to Islam made it all the more easy for deprived communities, those that paid Jizya, were slaves, lived under dhimmi conditions to come under the Islamic fold. Once given Arabic names it hardly took a generation before imperialism overcame the original culture.

Pakistan is a clear example and so is Bangladesh to quite an extent. Last 60 years itself has witnessed a massive percentage decrease in minority populations. Under non Islamic rule conversions would be tough, though Islamic populations would be increasing at a far greater rate than non-islamic. But mass conversions to escape tribute, exploitation occur under a formal Islamic regime as we have seen in Modern Pakistan or Mughal India. Geography in such is a side affair, it slows things only a century or two as seen in the Indonesian example. So it would be a fallacy to think that geography is preventing India from being Islamized. Delaying it, yes, Stopping or curtailing it, no way. It's non Islamic rule in India that delays Islamic expansion..something that the Islamists in Pakistan and India are well aware.

That's why the best attempts to destabilize India, take a part here and there, Islamize those, spread ideologies hostile to the Indic are the goals that Pakistan employs today. In the next few decades resisting Islamization is going to be India's greatest challenge, if at all we resist. Many feel that geography will keep us safe from conquest and that is misleading, it can only delay it a bit, not reverse it.

Consider an example, if on a scale 1-10, the more pious show a level of 10 on ruthlessness scale on the less pious, the less pious against even less pious will show level 7 and so on. So if we don't resist and listen to the MSA's and Pappi jhappi's we'll be allowing in tens of millions less pious but 7 on the ruthless scale. That conquest is about to begin with the coming implosion/ explosion of Pakistan. We certainly are blessed with a geography that give us time to think and assimilate, that's about all. It doesn't give us an eternity to do so.

dada
BRFite
Posts: 135
Joined: 12 Jan 2006 16:43

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby dada » 07 Feb 2012 18:51

# Rudradev ji,

Many Many thanks for an enlightening post. BRF acquires tremendous power when it manages to attract & retain a member like you. A really great post (to understand TSP) that deserves to be saved for all years to come for reference purpose.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4351
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby sanjaykumar » 07 Feb 2012 20:59

Rudradev, you have made some brilliant posts but this is more a selective historical justification of Indian stereotypes about Islam. Cairo and Baghdad, if not Istanbul and isphan were hardly a Kabila. It may be of course that the adventurers who came to India and fathered pakis were brigands and scoundrels, in the same way Cortes was a Christian scoundrel.

Screeds only detract from legitimate Indian historical wrongs.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Agnimitra » 07 Feb 2012 21:43

Rudradev wrote:The "Kabila" worked very well in the lands where Islam originated, and where it spread in the early centuries of its expansion. Why? Because the lands themselves were amenable to being governed in this form. In the deserts of West Asia, the arid mountains of Persia and the steppes to the North, the circumstances of nature favour a form of political dominance which relies on armament, maneuverability and mobility. This is because resources are scarce and concentrated in a few areas... an oasis here, a valley there. With a strong group of highly mobile armed men on horseback, you can easily forge an empire in such places. All you have to do is seize control of the few well-defined supply centers, the market centers (city states) and the trade routes between them. Most of the land is junk anyway. Once you're able to do this, and especially to destroy any civilizational affinity to pre-Islamic forms in the market centers (hence the Islamic obsession with temple breaking and idol smashing) you have, effectively, an empire. It doesn't matter if the thousands of useless square miles in between are physically under your domination or not; as long as you have no challengers in these particular small foci of power, you're an unchallenged monarch.

Rudradev ji, loved your post! However, consider some changes in the "cosmological" scale of earthling civilization today...

The era of Islamism was the era in which the armed, mobile, rapacious and rootless semi-nomadic hordes prospered at the cost of the old settled civilizations. The Arab, Turk, Mongol, certain African tribes, etc. were the parasitic beneficiaries, whereas Persia, Egypt, India, Byzantium were the host. These older settled civilizations were the sacrificial lambs that allowed these barbarous races to be brought into the light of civilization. In many cases they admittedly made great cultural progress, e.g. Persianized and Hellenized Arabs, Mughal India, Ottoman Turkey. So that's a positive view of the last 1200 years of history, where the old order paid the price to bring the raw ones out of the darkness into the light. For that matter, the Western Roman state was the host on which the modern West European barbarian tribes fed and civilized themselves as feudal overlords.

Now that that's done, the aspirations and inclinations of the majority of Arabs, Turks, Mongols, etc are different from their ancestors. Only in some really screwed up corners like Afghanistan does one still find the old Qabila meme in full blossom.

One reason for that is that technology has shortened the vast geographical and cultural spaces and inhospitable distances that the Qabila relies on for its cultural and logistical seige. Today it takes an extraordinarily violent strain of prolonged war and destruction to sustain that meme -- even in a place like Afghanistan or Somalia. IOW, the historical dice are loaded against the Qabila meme in this age.

How much more war can the US engage in in the Mid East? Its beginning to affect their own economy, their own society. Unless one assumes that the Western elites aren't rooted or caring about their own populations and countries, its not a sustainable method of dominating Asia.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54175
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby ramana » 07 Feb 2012 22:45

Rudradev, Excellent write up building on the Kabila idea. My foray into Pakiology started in early 90s. I wrote an article Pak Military's Role In Society. After that I ruminated on the subject and read a lot of other books. I then came up with the Pak as a modernized Islamic state with the President/Army Commander as analog of the Sultan. However when I read a couple of books in Google on Afghans in India, where there is a painting of an Afghan on horseback in Cuddlaore, in 1760s, the Kabila model took shape.

I think your casting the Tali/Pakiban as a hyper Islamist Kabila on the borders of the TSP Kabila is brilliant for that explains their gains. LeT etc will not have same impact as they are fully within the Kabila.

Kaushal was the first one to point out that India suffered from double colonizations: Islamic Turco-Afghan-Persian and European.

Mughals are Chagtai Turks.

Sanjaykumar, Baghdad was founded by Abbasid Caliphs who were Arabo-Persians. Cairo was founded by Fatimid Caliphs. It was after the kabila settled down in those regions. However they both succumbed to stronger Kabilas.


Rudradev, Another thing. If you look at the grand sweep of history, small areas accumulate into large states/empires over time and the converse is also true. This happens due to ideas, economic and social forces.

One way of looking at TSP is the area broke off from greater India for whatever reasons and by the natural force of of history will agglomertate with great India.

Only due to modern age and globalization there is time compression.

Just as break up was sudden the merger will also be sudden.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Agnimitra » 07 Feb 2012 23:30

johneeG wrote:Infact, those who were lost to Hinduism in this manner were never re-assimilated(not even those who were forced by circumstances). A woman who was kidnapped and raped by the invader was effectively lost, as far as Hindu family was concerned(most of the times). The progeny of such rapes(or such connections) were not allowed into Hinduism. Such was Hindu orthodoxy.

It was not a perfect approach. But, perhaps, the Hindus of that time saw it as the only measure to keep their ideology safe from corruption.

It was an idiotic approach.

johneeG wrote:In short, historically Hindus were not keen to assimilate any foreigner or his ideology. Further, they shunned them and any new converts(without second thoughts).

In conclusion, assimilation was never the way. Defence using Bharat Mata's bounty is.

Rubbish. Bharatiya history is replete with examples and graded methods of assimilation, mentioned even in the RigVeda. Bharata Vedic culture contained an impetus for a civilizing mission - krNvantO vishvaM Aryam. How was this to be done without inculturation and assimilation?? Even these days I pointed out the Vratya meme in the Atharva Samhita on the Epics thread in GDF.

The Vedic method of assimilation was graded in order to maintain purity of thought and impulse, and to prevent hodge-podge. This sophisticated caution should not be turned into a dumb paranoia or reactive exclusion.

When Bharata civilization became sclerotic and rigid, that's when it ceased to spread its wings and actively civilize the barbarous tribes of Eurasia and other parts. Eventually another competing ideology (Islamism) decided to aggressively inculturate those races. Moreover, when we subsequently came under a civilizational assault from those newly harnessed tribes, this sclerotic Bharata came up with idiot solutions to insulate itself and go into a shell, like the nonsense you try to justify above.

Please do not justify these tendencies, much less project them historically as the basic disposition of Bharatiya culture.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby member_22539 » 07 Feb 2012 23:33

Rudradev wrote:First the king would have a very powerful loyal army led by good trained men and loyal generals. ...................Rationalization after rationalization is articulated by these Pakis while their circle of influence shrinks; so far will our bounteous mother Bharat let them retreat into the welcoming folds of her sari that they blindfold themselves ever more tightly with her pallu and convince themselves that all is well.



First of all BRAVO Mr. Rudradev, you have given us a truly beautiful theory expounding the nature and spread of islam and islamic power. Due to the reasons given by you or due to some weird coincidence islam has spread like a disease out of Arabia into the rest of Asia mostly in the prime Kabila lands that you describe, be it Arabia itself, Central Asia or Iran and Afghanistan.

But, I have some doubts/questions. There seem to be exceptions to your theory. Lets take Pakjab and Sindh. These aren't exactly the Kabila lands that you describe, how come they got taken over more or less completely by islam (i know there were some Hindus there before partition, but surely they were a small minority). Even if these two cases can be explained by their proximity to Afghanistan and Central Asia, how do you explain East Bengal. Surely, this land is the diametrical opposite of the Kabila lands that you described (wet, lush, and bountiful). Your model also does not apply to the other lands that are infected by islam, namely South East Asia. Here too we find lands that are nothing like that in Arabia, Afghanistan or Central Asia. How do you explain islam taking over these lands, which are in no way insignificant as they represent the majority of people outside the Subcontinent who are zombified by the islamic virus.

As I said before, the borders of islam in mainland Asia seem to comply with your theory, namely consisting of the lands of the Western civilization and the Indian civilization. In agreement with your theory, both these lands are opposites of the Kabila geography, consisting of fertile plains and more humid climates. But despite of these lands complying with the ideas in your theory, I can't help but feel that you are ignoring the essential strength and resilience of the people living in these lands. To the west we have the Europeans, who at the time they were facing the islamic hordes, were barely out of their barbaric past (Dark Ages) and were under the spell of an even more virulent and dangerous religion (if you can call it that), which is medieval Christianity. I can't bring myself to believe that no matter how barbaric and fanatical the Arabs were, they could have defeated these barbarians for long (something that even the Roman empire could not do for the long term). As four ourselves, I think you cut a sorry figure of SDRE natives, who only know to retreat from islamic power (which is true to "some" extent). You seem to discount the essential strength of our civilization and our culture, and our resistance (however passive) to the islamic disease. Had they come during the time of the ancient empires that ruled India (Mauryas, Guptas, etc.) they would have had their asses kicked all the way back to their little sand box. Unfortunately, they caught us when we were on the wane (which is perfectly natural considering the cyclic nature of civilizations). But, I believe this is the only reason we couldn't defeat them in battle.

Anyway, I would just like to hear your thoughts on how your theory applies to exceptions like Pakjab, Sindh, East Bengal, South East Asia, etc. Sorry for the peer review thing, just want make your theory flawless, it really is a beautiful theory :)

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Rangudu » 07 Feb 2012 23:51

There's a saying - "All models are wrong, but some are more useful than others".

We can all find exceptions and outliers to the REK model*, but it is still useful

* REK = Rudradev Enhanced Kabila model of the jihad time/space continuum

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby harbans » 08 Feb 2012 00:15

So, Bharat Mata's bounty was not used for assimilation but for mounting defence and mutinies. Again and again. Repeatedly. This process never stopped, even when the invader had already established his rule.


Actually, there are too many exceptions to the rule to this one, to really say they are exceptions. There's a tipping point. Firstly that there is something called Hinduism. I have no idea what Hinduism really is. It was a loosely used word for a peoples that belonged to a doctrinally diverse spectrum of philosphical backgrounds but mostly united under a banner of Dharmic ideology. That itself was the biggest unifier against ideologies emanating from the sands of Arabia that were essentially excluvist in nature.

Bharat remained fertile to debate, oblivious of blasphemy in questioning fundamentals about the universe and God etc..as it should be. Dharma always defined the proper Indic faith though everything Indic was and is not necessarily Dharmic. Any essence to understanding the complexity of India is incomplete without understanding that difference. Outsiders differentiated faith and the subsequent debates centered that were an ongoing process in this land. Assimilation was key, but it was not at the point of a sword or through Jizya or through blasphemy based punishments. That led to many strands of thinking within the Dharmic fold..Dvaita, Advaita, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, ritualistic tradition.

Even if these two cases can be explained by their proximity to Afghanistan and Central Asia, how do you explain East Bengal. Surely, this land is the diametrical opposite of the Kabila lands that you described (wet, lush, and bountiful).


Pakistan and Bangladesh are examples we have right in front that don't support the theory. Rudra Ji is right only so far it may slow the approach. But the danger in the exposition is that folks may take it that bountiful land is unlimited and there's enough space to escape and maintain our way of life. That part may be very dangerous to assume, as that bountifulness is limited. That may give us time to recoup, maintain..but a limited amount of time that is about it..and it's about the past. Why Arabia islamized in 100 years, Iran in 300, or Indonesia in 500..it slows down things a bit at the initial stage. Something we are well beyond. Bangladesh and Pakistan have registered rapid decreases in minority populations last 60 years. I mentioned this in my previous post..

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby harbans » 08 Feb 2012 00:24

I think it is significant that US is raising the Baluchistan issue. It gets a lot of traction. It's a start and a good thing. It may not have immediate benefits, but it's good news for India. While people in the know start realizing that the Kashmiri plebiscite issue was primarily muddied by Pakistani's themselves, they will realize now that Baluchistani wishes are being completely muddied again by Pakistani's. I think this is a great development. A newly independent portion of an Islamized state will be less conducive to be Islamized, and for it's preservation dependent on the Kufr.

A few similar hearings/ discussions on Tibet, Kailash and Mansorover in parliament would put a lot of pressure on the Chinese too..

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby devesh » 08 Feb 2012 00:32

regarding Pak and BDesh, go back and reread RD's post. he clearly says that precisely b/c Pak and BD are not the typical desert lands, both countries have (in the case of Pak) or might (in the case of BD) develop feudalistic tendencies that are mainly a consequence of Islam's quest to extract resources. basically the ideology is not suitable for fertile lands, which is what RD says. there are not really any exceptions.

and another aspect is that when you repeat something enough times, it becomes the truth. Islam has been proclaiming itself the "true path" so vigorously for so long that it has created many illusions and delusions. so there is an added layer of slavery.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby devesh » 08 Feb 2012 00:33

johneeg garu,

I think you are wrong about the assimilation part. I'll give one prime example: the founders of Vijayanagara. that mighty State and bulwark against Islam was founded by two men who were converted back from Islam to Hinduism.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21125
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Prem » 08 Feb 2012 00:50

The big question remains. When and How to collapse, Khassi them and recover the lost assests? As a good neighbour, we cant stand to watch them suffer and need to put them out of current misery so they suffer no more than nowu. Chini medicine have given them heart attack. The Indians need to come up with economic, cultural and military Pill to put whole Pawkiila to peaceful sleep on the train to the far place of Fame.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby harbans » 08 Feb 2012 00:51

It seems to be a game between the two. The border incident was followed by the closure of the NATO supply route and suddenly we start hearing a lot about Balochistan. It will probably last till the supply route is not re-opened. After that will the US will try not to displease the pakis.


Yes, it's a game. All of it. The Great Game it was called too. Let's do a small game and raise in parliament Tibet, Kailash and Mansarover. These things are very important first steps. Very significant because they are being raised at the highest levels. They get traction. It's the most significant first step before making Baluchistan disputed territory..which it should be. And we must encourage the US in this endeavour. It would take exactly what the US is doing on Baluchistan to make Tibet, Kailash and Mansarover disputed territories. Things then have there own energy..

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Agnimitra » 08 Feb 2012 00:53

Arun Menon wrote:how do you explain East Bengal. Surely, this land is the diametrical opposite of the Kabila lands that you described (wet, lush, and bountiful). Your model also does not apply to the other lands that are infected by islam, namely South East Asia. Here too we find lands that are nothing like that in Arabia, Afghanistan or Central Asia. How do you explain islam taking over these lands, which are in no way insignificant as they represent the majority of people outside the Subcontinent who are zombified by the islamic virus.

Its because the only alternative culture in those lands (Hinduism, Zoroastrianism) had become ossified, static, elitist and absolutist. Absolutism of the kind that JohneeG ji was justifying a few posts above is a fine road to stagnation. Stagnation will ultimately invite foreign conquest, just as the Islamized Middle East did from the Western colonialists. That's why Rudra ji was saying that Westerns see Islamism as a useful "slash and burn" tool to level out the old competing Asiatic civilizations in order to then move in once the Islamic stasis subsequently sets in.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Rudradev » 08 Feb 2012 01:08

All, thank you for the kind words.

harbans wrote:
So, Bharat Mata's bounty was not used for assimilation but for mounting defence and mutinies. Again and again. Repeatedly. This process never stopped, even when the invader had already established his rule.


Actually, there are too many exceptions to the rule to this one, to really say they are exceptions. There's a tipping point.


Harbans ji, to what theory are your so-called "exceptions" applicable? Certainly not to mine.

Where have I ever said that the fertile land of Bharat is a "Magic Bullet" that completely stops Islamist takeover? Of course it doesn't.

What I have said is: in lands like Afghanistan, Arabia and North Africa... the climate and geography are such that the Kabila is virtually *guaranteed* success in eliminating and extinguishing all pre-Islamic civilizational traits.

In Bharat, the hospitality and bounty of the land simply meant that *extinction* of a living pre-Islamic culture did not happen. These things did not stop Islamic takeover of vast swathes of territory... but it did slow them down, and it did mean that the Indic way of life wasn't extinguished. However, there was a pattern of steady retreat, migration and relocation on the part of the indigenous population. Read what I've written: our forefathers only had to move 50 or 100 km away from the site of Islamic takeover and the land is still fertile and forgiving... so they could continue unmolested with their traditional way of life, which continues to exist and evolve today. This was not possible in territories that were mostly desert, steppe or arid mountain.

That does not eliminate the fact that on a mass population level, retreats took place. With successive generations retreating 50 or 100 or 200km... of course, over the centuries, large parts of the subcontinent eventually came under total Islamic control. Hence the West Punjab, Sindh and Bengal of today. However, the people who lived there before the Muslims arrived could escape and maintain their way of life rather than be extinguished in an inhospitable clime.


Firstly that there is something called Hinduism. I have no idea what Hinduism really is. It was a loosely used word for a peoples that belonged to a doctrinally diverse spectrum of philosphical backgrounds but mostly united under a banner of Dharmic ideology. That itself was the biggest unifier against ideologies emanating from the sands of Arabia that were essentially excluvist in nature.


One doesn't have to ideate what Hinduism really is, and it doesn't need anyone's theoretical categorization to justify its existence; that is manifest, period. It is entirely misleading to say that "Dharmic Ideology" in and of itself served as a uniting banner against Islam, as if there was some intrinsic injunction against worshiping Allah or declaring Mohammed as his prophet. There isn't. Koenraad Elst comes much closer to the truth when he says that it was the Islamic rejection of the Hindu "other" that consolidated points of Hindu resistance... it was the bare fact of Islamic intolerance that was Adharmic. Otherwise it would have been peaceably assimilated like thousands of non-Islamic proto-Kabilas (Sakas, Hunas, Kushans) of yore.

Even if these two cases can be explained by their proximity to Afghanistan and Central Asia, how do you explain East Bengal. Surely, this land is the diametrical opposite of the Kabila lands that you described (wet, lush, and bountiful).


Pakistan and Bangladesh are examples we have right in front that don't support the theory...


That is simply because you haven't understood the theory, but have instead projected your own notional understanding of it into your critique.

In fact, that there is only a moth-eaten Pakistan and a moth-eaten Bangladesh as successor to the great "Muslim Empires of India" actually proves my point. What is your standard of comparison? Which other Asiatic country that fell to the onslaught of Islam, can you look at and discern even one tiny pocket of discontinuous Islamic domination? In Bharat alone it is only one part here, one part there... why?
Last edited by Rudradev on 08 Feb 2012 01:14, edited 1 time in total.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21125
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Prem » 08 Feb 2012 01:14

harbans wrote:
basically the ideology is not suitable for fertile lands,
That is wrong. The ideology is not suited for any human being, irrespective of the geography. It may be easier to inflict that ideology in a particular geography in contrast to another..that's about it.


IMHO,not fit for any thinking human society which longs to explore life freely. The ideology is mental vitality contracting and life sucking belonging to Poaqhrantinae group. It make adept use of human mimicary and camouflage to ambush the unsuspected victims.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Rudradev » 08 Feb 2012 01:40

sanjaykumar wrote:Rudradev, you have made some brilliant posts but this is more a selective historical justification of Indian stereotypes about Islam. Cairo and Baghdad, if not Istanbul and isphan were hardly a Kabila. It may be of course that the adventurers who came to India and fathered pakis were brigands and scoundrels, in the same way Cortes was a Christian scoundrel.

Screeds only detract from legitimate Indian historical wrongs.


Sorry you feel that way sir, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

I will only say that in articulating your reply you appear to have imbibed the fallacy of "Historical Objectivity".

In fact, ALL historioGRAPHY (historical narrative) is ENTIRELY subjective. It is ALWAYS selective of "facts", and always comes from the point of view of a narrating people who write of their own subjective experience. That is as much as is humanly possible. We Indians should understand this quite intuitively because it is couched in our word for collective narrative: Itihasa.

To call it Itihasa: a system of consciously applied hermeneutics, civilizational perspectives, mythic influences and anubhava (personal or collective experience) as a means of interpreting a sequence of past events, is a thousand times more honest than the phony "History" that the West uses to pretend as if it is an exact science where true objectivity is an achievable aim.

The West likes to pretend as if "History" is objective. This thin fiction bolsters their claim of being the arbiters of writing the "ultimately, really, truly, genuine History" of all peoples of the world. After all, they are so much ahead of everyone else in terms of "Objectivity", right? They have Englightenment, the Age of Reason, Modern Science and Technology on their side. They can take a piece of skull or a fragment of pottery and put it into a glittering machine that counts scintillations and come out with the definitive, "factual", critical edition of "History" to which all lesser peoples must suborn their intellect (and educate their children with, in the name of "civilization".) After all it's "peer-reviewed." :lol:

It is from this exquisitely privileged perspective as the guardians of "objective history" that the West is able to pass off its own (totally subjective) narrative as somehow superior. Once a person falls for this con-game, he finds himself talking in terms of "screeds" and "selective facts" and, Gods forbid, the "legitimacy of Historical wrongs." Be aware of the utterly phony pulpit from which such summary judgements are routinely issued.

I've addressed the point about Egypt, Persia, Byzantium, and Mespotamia and the usurpation of their pre Islamic cultural and ceremonial trappings by up-jumped Kabila goons in my original post, and Ramana has referred to it again in his post. In fact there is a more-or-less predictable progression of events in the process of Islamic conquest. The purest Islam is sheer brigandage with a built-in ideological justification: attack trade routes and collect hafta (this, by the way, is why the Pakis are so gung-ho about their "strategic location" as a prized asset.) The Kabila then progresses to taking over the oases, river valley towns and associated agricultural points of supply. In these places, the temple is smashed, the priests are killed, and a Mullah is positioned. It is only the last and final step of Kabila expansion that involves the takeover of market-centers, which happen to be in cities built by earlier civilizations.

Once those cities belong to Islam, then what? Either the expansion continues to further lands (as with the Umayyad Caliphate) or there is a settling down, an usurpation of the trappings of rulership that come from pre-Islamic tradition. The direct result of such settling down is that the Sultan/Caliph becomes "weaker", in the savage, atavistic and barbaric understanding of the world that is built into Islam. Becoming civilized, taking on responsibility for one's people and one's land, even if done in the name of Allah is not Islamic enough. It makes you weak. In the Islamic system another barbarian with screaming hordes will soon come along to trump you, sack your city and establish "purer" Islam in his wake. It is the entire cycle that is ultimately debilitating of civilization.
Last edited by Rudradev on 08 Feb 2012 01:47, edited 1 time in total.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby harbans » 08 Feb 2012 01:46

IMHO,not fit for any thinking human society which longs to explore life freely. The ideology is mental vitality contracting and life sucking belonging to PhymatinaePoaqhrantinae group. It make adept use of human mimicary and camouflage to ambush the unsuspected victims.


Precisely. That's what i suspected would be inferred when the geographic model was put forward. It would lead to notions like as Devesh ji put up..

basically the ideology is not suitable for fertile lands, which is what RD says.


In Bharat, the hospitality and bounty of the land simply meant that *extinction* of a living pre-Islamic culture did not happen.


It did happen. Pakistan and Bangladesh are clear examples. Unless you don't consider Pak/ BD as part of Bharat..

These things did not stop Islamic takeover of vast swathes of territory... but it did slow them down, and it did mean that the Indic way of life wasn't extinguished.


We are seeing today about 40% Islamic population in the lands that were originally Bharat..i agree geography slowed them down. I said that in my very first post. The Indic way of life has been extinguished in the fertile lands of Pakistan and Bangladesh..and with appeasement politics in vogue we are witnessing the Indic way of life, debate being extinguished slowly in India too.
Read what I've written: our forefathers only had to move 50 or 100 km away from the site of Islamic takeover and the land is still fertile and forgiving...


Yes you are factually correct and i acknowledged it..as we kept retreating and maintaining our culture and way of life, we also kept reducing our territory. Our forefathers could get away, can we today?

so they could continue unmolested with their traditional way of life, which continues to exist and evolve today.


Yes i agree..but this has limitations. We cannot go on in an unlimited way this manner. We can see..our forefathers had the liberty to move away and preserve..within the vast swathes of fertile Bharat..we don't have the liberty now. We don't have enough land. We have lost a lot of it.

Yes the deserts and other lands the conquest had been faster and i mentioned appropriately the conversion rates in context..we can only slow down the invasion. Not reverse/ arrest it due to geography.

That is simply because you haven't understood the theory, but have instead projected your own notional understanding of it into your critique.


The danger i see in what you wrote..is that of developing a sense or notion that geography and fertility of the land is unnatural for Islamic spread. That is incorrect. Devesh Ji too assumed incorrectly that Islamist ideology is unsuited to fertile lands like ours..wrong. It's unsuited in any geography. Linking geography with such doctrine development and spread is dangerous..a false sense of lull and calm..whereas there is none. The spread of this ideology has nothing to do with geography apart from some slowing down and breathing space that the Indic community has got to get it's act together compared with some arid/ desert lands.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54175
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby ramana » 08 Feb 2012 01:53

I wrote a ~120 slide presentation on "Understanding Pakistan" in 2007 which is at the India Research foundation site.

Take a look at it. BTW its a very big file. :(


http://www.indiaresearch.org/UnderstandingPakistan.pdf

Enjoy

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Agnimitra » 08 Feb 2012 01:54

harbans wrote:The danger i see in what you wrote..is that of developing a sense or notion that geography and fertility of the land is unnatural for Islamic spread. That is incorrect. Devesh Ji too assumed incorrectly that Islamist ideology is unsuited to fertile lands like ours..wrong.

This is a valid point.

Rudradev ji,

The physical alienation that characterizes the human econlogy of Arabia and CA can also be applied to the psycho-social landscape of a particular civilizational area. Where there is alienation and isolation, there a fundamentalist, rudimentary, usurpatory creed can flourish. In Indonesia and probably East Bengal, this alienation between the brahmana-raajanya elites and the masses may have been there. Certainly, in Indonesia that is the impression one gets.

Today in the urbanized West, even an ecologically abundant country like America, Islam spreads amongst the alienated sections of society. It started with afro-americans, but is now galloping amongst even hip educated whites suffering from anomie, who then re-enter the mainstream as American Moslems, fighting for the Qabila against the non-Qabila culture they grew up with.

So there are certain physio-cultural characteristics that make a civilization vulnerable to Qabila memes. What you described on the geographical landscape can be extended to the psycho-social landscape too. So this is the mythic aspect of the historical narrative you aptly painted for us.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4003
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby KLNMurthy » 08 Feb 2012 02:02

devesh wrote:johneeg garu,

I think you are wrong about the assimilation part. I'll give one prime example: the founders of Vijayanagara. that mighty State and bulwark against Islam was founded by two men who were converted back from Islam to Hinduism.

Also, too much is made of Hindus not accepting converts back into the fold. Key here is that Islam kills those who try to exit Islam.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby RajeshA » 08 Feb 2012 02:03

harbans wrote:It did happen. Pakistan and Bangladesh are clear examples. Unless you don't consider Pak/ BD as part of Bharat.

harbans ji,

I believe, Rudradev ji meant that the "Kabila" model does not remain efficient in the lands of Bharatvarsha, not that it does not work at all!

Moreover as I mentioned in "Managing Pakistan's failure" thread, Indians and West have recognized the "diplomatic immunity " aka "freedom of religion" of the Mullahs, thus allowing the intelligence, subversion and propaganda arm of the "Kabila" full freedom to undermine rashtriya control, thus to a large extent negating the advantage our terrain allowed us!

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Rudradev » 08 Feb 2012 02:33

harbans wrote:
Precisely. That's what i suspected would be inferred when the geographic model was put forward. It would lead to notions like as Devesh ji put up..

basically the ideology is not suitable for fertile lands, which is what RD says.


Harbans-ji, if you limit your argumentation to soundbites taken out of context, you will certainly miss the forest for the trees every time. Here is the *whole* quote from Devesh ji, and he is quite correct:

devesh wrote:he clearly says that precisely b/c Pak and BD are not the typical desert lands, both countries have (in the case of Pak) or might (in the case of BD) develop feudalistic tendencies that are mainly a consequence of Islam's quest to extract resources. basically the ideology is not suitable for fertile lands, which is what RD says.


Think about why this could be the case.

If your resources are concentrated around a few oases or valleys in a highly hospitable environment, then it is much easier for a Kabila to extract those resources to the point of dominating all challengers WHILE retaining its fundamental nature as a moving armed camp unencumbered by civilizational investment. Kabilas can remain pure Kabilas (hence, "strong" in the barbaric Islamic understanding of the world) much more easily in those circumstances.

But what happens if you, instead of 40 oases, have to dominate 40,000 sq. km of arable land? Is it then easier, or more difficult, to maintain a monopoly over resource extraction? Do you have to invest more, or less, in the civilization, land and existing social structures?

Is it easier for Ibn Saud to extend his sway over a gigantic peninsula in Arabia where nothing grows, and where even oil occurs in well-defined pockets? Relative to this, is it easy or difficult for the would-be Kabila of Pakistan Army to completely dominate the huge nexus of existing landlords, competing religio-social hierarchies, pools of agricultural labour and network of potential trade routes that exist in the territory known as "Pakistan" today? The main question is: CAN the Pakistan Army achieve a similar degree of control over all these things, as Ibn Saud's successors have over Saudi Arabia... WITHOUT losing the essential quality of being a mobile, strong, maneuverable Kabila? If not, then this is something which makes the Pakistan Army weak. They will perforce become a soft, settled, Kabila. And in observing that Devesh ji is 100% correct.


In Bharat, the hospitality and bounty of the land simply meant that *extinction* of a living pre-Islamic culture did not happen.


It did happen. Pakistan and Bangladesh are clear examples. Unless you don't consider Pak/ BD as part of Bharat..


Really?

Please try an exercise. Compare and contrast the fates of pre-Islamic cultures in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Turkey with the fates of pre-Islamic cultures in the lands that are BD and Pak today.

From all those prime-Kabila lands... there are about 100,000 Zoroastrians descended from those who somehow made it to India and survived with their culture intact. (And note that even these few survivors had to make their homes in Bharatvarsha in order to survive and flourish!!) There are a few scattered, tiny populations of Copts and Armenians besides, living wretched lives of Dhimmitude, but that's about all.

Now what about Bengali culture? Is it gone? How many millions still practice the Hindu way of life as they used to practice it in present-day Bangladesh for thousands of years? What about Punjabi language? Sindhi literature? Where is the Pre-Islamic civilizational wealth of all these lands? Has it been extinguished? Does it exist only in a museum?

By what conceivable yardstick can you say that the pre-Islamic *cultures* of present-day Bangladesh or Pakistan have become *extinct*? They are 100% alive, well and influential today, with millions of adherents. The LANDS of West Punjab, Sindh and Eastern Bengal are currently dominated by Muslims: but as I have explained, the geographic nature of these lands means that any Muslim domination of them swims AGAINST the tide of history. A Muslim power that takes hold of these lands will, of historical necessity, become a soft Kabila. And they will in turn be overwhelmed by a hard Kabila. That is precisely what's happening with the Pakistan Army and the Taliban.

These things did not stop Islamic takeover of vast swathes of territory... but it did slow them down, and it did mean that the Indic way of life wasn't extinguished.


We are seeing today about 40% Islamic population in the lands that were originally Bharat..i agree geography slowed them down. I said that in my very first post. The Indic way of life has been extinguished in the fertile lands of Pakistan and Bangladesh..and with appeasement politics in vogue we are witnessing the Indic way of life, debate being extinguished slowly in India too.


You are obviously operating with a very different understanding of the term "extinguished". Again I have to ask, by what yardstick? The natives of the Americas, Australia or the Pacific Islands? The pre-Islamic civilizations of Mesopotamia or Egypt? To say that Indic way of life has been "extinguished" in BD/Pak by contrast is to betray an absolute lack of perspective.


Read what I've written: our forefathers only had to move 50 or 100 km away from the site of Islamic takeover and the land is still fertile and forgiving...


Yes you are factually correct and i acknowledged it..as we kept retreating and maintaining our culture and way of life, we also kept reducing our territory. Our forefathers could get away, can we today?



I agree with you that there are certain things that besiege and colonize the Indic Identity, and bedevil our understanding of Dharma, even today. They have a lot to do with the imposition of Western Universalism, and neocolonialist domination of our intellectual discourse. Rajiv Malhotra is a scholar who has written far more eloquently, and extensively of this than I ever could. http://rajivmalhotra.com/


so they could continue unmolested with their traditional way of life, which continues to exist and evolve today.


Yes i agree..but this has limitations. We cannot go on in an unlimited way this manner. We can see..our forefathers had the liberty to move away and preserve..within the vast swathes of fertile Bharat..we don't have the liberty now. We don't have enough land. We have lost a lot of it.

Yes the deserts and other lands the conquest had been faster and i mentioned appropriately the conversion rates in context..we can only slow down the invasion. Not reverse/ arrest it due to geography.


Once again, sir jee, you are projecting your own derived conclusions back onto my theory (which does not assert those conclusions in the first place.) As I've said in my previous post, where did I characterize Geography as some sort of "Magic Bullet"? And where have I advocated retreat/migration as a solution for our times? This is what you have decided constitutes a solution based on my theory. The limitations that you describe are applicable to your solutions... not to my theory itself.

That is simply because you haven't understood the theory, but have instead projected your own notional understanding of it into your critique.


The danger i see in what you wrote..is that of developing a sense or notion that geography and fertility of the land is unnatural for Islamic spread. That is incorrect. Devesh Ji too assumed incorrectly that Islamist ideology is unsuited to fertile lands like ours..wrong. It's unsuited in any geography. Linking geography with such doctrine development and spread is dangerous..a false sense of lull and calm..whereas there is none. The spread of this ideology has nothing to do with geography apart from some slowing down and breathing space that the Indic community has got to get it's act together compared with some arid/ desert lands.


Devesh ji did not assume that, as I have explained earlier.

You are also obviously using the term "unsuited" in some completely different rhetorical sense than the way I've used it. What did Devesh ji mean by "unsuited"? He meant the same thing I did, viz. that Islamic Kabila feels pressure to settle down, and become "weaker" by Islamic definition, in more fertile geographies. In other words, "unsuited" = "unfit" in an evolutionary sense. You appear to be using "unsuited" to mean "morally unfit", or something similar. That is not even germane to this discussion.

As far as being "dangerous".... sir jee, I have only put "2" plus "2" on the table. If someone wants to put them together and make "5"... well that is not the fault of "2" plus "2"!

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby johneeG » 08 Feb 2012 02:51

Carl wrote:
johneeG wrote:Infact, those who were lost to Hinduism in this manner were never re-assimilated(not even those who were forced by circumstances). A woman who was kidnapped and raped by the invader was effectively lost, as far as Hindu family was concerned(most of the times). The progeny of such rapes(or such connections) were not allowed into Hinduism. Such was Hindu orthodoxy.

It was not a perfect approach. But, perhaps, the Hindus of that time saw it as the only measure to keep their ideology safe from corruption.

It was an idiotic approach.


Thats your view. I dont support it nor oppose it. I ambivalent about it. I think they did what they thought was necessary. I think I am not in a position to judge their actions without knowing their exact circumstances.

Carl wrote:
johneeG wrote:In short, historically Hindus were not keen to assimilate any foreigner or his ideology. Further, they shunned them and any new converts(without second thoughts).

In conclusion, assimilation was never the way. Defence using Bharat Mata's bounty is.


Rubbish. Bharatiya history is replete with examples and graded methods of assimilation, mentioned even in the RigVeda. Bharata Vedic culture contained an impetus for a civilizing mission - krNvantO vishvaM Aryam. How was this to be done without inculturation and assimilation?? Even these days I pointed out the Vratya meme in the Atharva Samhita on the Epics thread in GDF.

The Vedic method of assimilation was graded in order to maintain purity of thought and impulse, and to prevent hodge-podge. This sophisticated caution should not be turned into a dumb paranoia or reactive exclusion.


If one earnestly searches the Vedas and Puranas, one can find individual sentences or words which can be used to support or oppose almost any argument under the sun. There are people claiming that advent of Jesus Christ has been prophesied by Vedas. The point is a text has a context which needs to be taken into account.

Anyway, I think we were talking about recent history of invasions suffered by Hindus. I was talking about that period only. And surely at that time, Hindus were not on a missionary path. As I said, in most places and times(in this historical period), even re-convertions were not sought and even discouraged. Exceptions exist. Devesh has already pointed out Vidyaranya Swami converting Hukka and Bukka. I think Ramanujacharya(and other Vaishnava Saints of south India) can also be quoted as similar examples.

However, IMHO, they seem few and far between examples specific to a context.

Do I think its a right approach?
I dont know. I'll make it clear that people of my caste(I am a dalit) have been at the receiving end of this approach. I am clarifying it, just so that you dont assume I have some personal bias in favor of the approach.

Any approach has its advantages and drawbacks. The important point to understand is the context. That approach adopted by the people seems to be a reactionary one. I am not justifying the approach. But, I am not prepared to blindly bash it either. I'll take it as a historical truth and the way people behaved in that particular circumstance.

I did not mean to say that entire Hinduism consists of only that one aspect. My post was only about that specific historical period which had specific conditions.

Carl wrote:When Bharata civilization became sclerotic and rigid, that's when it ceased to spread its wings and actively civilize the barbarous tribes of Eurasia and other parts.


The point is that Bharata civilization and its rulers were not strong or united enough to take on them militarily. Because they were weak, they had to retreat into a shell to protect the ideology. Otherwise, the ideology would have been diluted or its adherents would have become 'liberal'(read agnostic). BTW, that is exactly what is happening in independent India. Once the ideology is diluted or its adherents are weened away from the ideology, then it paves the way for the foreign ideology to take over the people.

The pre-medieval 6th century Arab pagan tribes were a proud, chauvinistic, aggressive, unruly people living in harsh unpredictable conditions. They fought amongst themselves, raiding, robbing and pillaging each other, enjoying blood feuds lasting for generations, practising female infanticide and polygamy (because of the number of men killed in battle), and trading in slaves. It is to be noted that the most important factor for such lifestyle is the geography of the location. It is the geography with its scarce resources that shaped the lifestyle of the people. Islam, which is born at that place, is shaped by the same attitude of those people. Infact, allah is not even a new god. Allah is part of Arabian pantheon who was upgraded to fit the bill of yahweh. Islam was shaped by the situations of Arabian peninsular in the pre-medieval world. Of course, it needs to be remembered that even the Arabian pagans offered great resistance to Mohammad's model. And finally succumbed to military might and not ideological superiority. Ideological superiority was not acknowledged. People just succumbed to the military might. Again, the geography played a huge role. Once, certain routes and centers were taken over, the others had no chance. Even Mohammad had to seek asylum in Medina in a subservient manner. Once the centers are taken over, the others would surrender. When few cities are razed and looted. Everyone else is afraid. In India, the resistance can continued to be offered from many places. While the control of centers is desirable, it is not necessary. When offering resistance, it is important to clearly differentiate the enemy. And therefore, the enemy is shunned and there is rigidness. There is no point in being tolerant ideology when the ideology faces military extinction. If the enemy is not clearly marked, then the resistance cannot be offered.

Ideological 'purity' is needed to avoid confusion and fight the enemy. There needs a clear pointing out of the enemy, so that he can faced and beaten. Any confusion will affect the way resistance is mounted. This approach has its advantages.

This clear-cut understanding is lacking in the present day among Hindus, who are fed 'Sarva Dharma Samabhava'. And because of this lack of understanding, Hindus become open to the missionary objectives of others. This confusion was started in British rule by their macualite education which was continued in independent India.

Carl wrote:Eventually another competing ideology (Islamism) decided to aggressively inculturate those races.


It was not an ideological victory but a military victory. It is the military might that won. That means, Bharata needs military might. It was a military challenge and required a military reply.

Carl wrote:Moreover, when we subsequently came under a civilizational assault from those newly harnessed tribes, this sclerotic Bharata came up with idiot solutions to insulate itself and go into a shell, like the nonsense you try to justify above.


Then, what do you propose? Do remember that their ideology was backed by the strength of arms. The Hindus were comparatively weaker militarily. Moreover, Hindu royalty were not united, for most part. And once the invaders acquired power, the foreign ideology had all the tools of statecraft at their disposal to do their missionary job. What can the ordinary Hindu do at the time?

Defeating the invader through ideological discussion was not a game in town. Atleast, not at that time with those opponents. Moreover, any attempt to convert people of foreign ideology could have attracted brutal punishments. The invaders, through their military might, made it a one way traffic. So, the Hindus reacted by closing all loopholes from which they can be converted.

Faced with such odds, its natural for the people to retreat and defend(ideologically and militarily).

In short, it was not the strength/depth of Invaders' ideology which allowed it to spread but the strength of invaders' arms which did the job. The Hindus had to either reply in arms or fall prey to the foreign ideology.

Basically, it was not an ideological war. It was a military campaign in the garb of ideology and that is how it had to be replied in.

I dont agree with the theory that Hindus kept retreating only. If running away was the only thing being done by the Hindus, then what made Invaders slow down? I think, some groups continued to offer resistance through guerrilla warfare. Even the masses were ready to rise in rebellion given the chance. I am not saying Hindus did not retreat. But to say that Hindus offered no resistance seems illogical, especially given how slow the expansion of the invaders has been. In contrast, their expansion at other places has been much swifter.

Carl wrote:Please do not justify these tendencies, much less project them historically as the basic disposition of Bharatiya culture.


I think you read with your bias and concluded wrongly. I just stated what happened at that times. I did not say it was a basic disposition of any culture. It was a reaction to that specific time.

IMHO, invaders cannot be accommodated or assimilated without first defeating them. Assimilation can be done only after one defeats the invader militarily/economically. Otherwise, the victim will be assimilated by the invader through his superior military/economic might.

I understand what you are trying to say. And I agree with you that Hindus need to spread their culture around. My point is that the culture can be spread only when Hindus have freedom, military might, and economic might.

Anyway, the reason for my post is as follows:
Hinduism is always projected as a tolerant ideology(to the extent that Hindus are depicted as people who will show their other cheek when slapped on one). Hindus are depicted as people who never put up a fight and simply flee the aggressor. In short, Hindus are portrayed as cowards.

Then, Hinduism is shown as eager to assimilate anything and everything. Infact, Hinduism is projected as an ideology that is an amalgamation of several different beliefs.

I think this above depiction needs to be rectified. Because Hindus have offered resistance to invaders quite vigorously. Not just the royalty but the masses have done it as well. The invader kings had to put down one rebellion after other. It is no accident that they acquired alliance from some Hindu royalty, landlords or Gurus. They needed the local support(of atleast some sections) to continue their rule.

And Hinduism was not seeking any active assimilation. It was quite content with itself. Of course, assimilations do happen in course of time. But, to say that it is a strategy of Hindus seems absurd. Worse, it is depicted as the only strategy of Hindus when faced with threats.

Notice that when I use 'assimilation' word, it does not mean enculturalization of Hinduism to suit others. To me the word means accepting foreign ideological concepts into Hinduism.
---------
Harbans,
Islam's interaction with Hinduism did not produce Buddhism or Jaina or Advaita or Dvaita. They preceded the advent of Islam. I think sufism is the result of interaction with Hinduism.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Rudradev » 08 Feb 2012 03:16

Ramana garu, sorry, don't mean to ignore your request. I do think some of this is applicable to furthering our understanding of TSP in particular, though, because it is where the Kabila model runs aground on the frontiers of Bharatvarsha. If you like, I will create a new thread and re-post the discussion there (though that is typically a formula for discussions being forgotten in the head-on torrent of the 24/7 Breaking News Cycle.) After all, some have expressed the opinion that BRF discussions/analyses are "worthless" and the only value of BRF is as an "Information Clearinghouse" ... not sure this is what we want.

Rahul M, sorry I didn't see your post before: yes, please go ahead and crosspost in your blog if you like.

Carl wrote:Rudradev ji,

The physical alienation that characterizes the human econlogy of Arabia and CA can also be applied to the psycho-social landscape of a particular civilizational area. Where there is alienation and isolation, there a fundamentalist, rudimentary, usurpatory creed can flourish. In Indonesia and probably East Bengal, this alienation between the brahmana-raajanya elites and the masses may have been there. Certainly, in Indonesia that is the impression one gets.

Today in the urbanized West, even an ecologically abundant country like America, Islam spreads amongst the alienated sections of society. It started with afro-americans, but is now galloping amongst even hip educated whites suffering from anomie, who then re-enter the mainstream as American Moslems, fighting for the Qabila against the non-Qabila culture they grew up with.

So there are certain physio-cultural characteristics that make a civilization vulnerable to Qabila memes. What you described on the geographical landscape can be extended to the psycho-social landscape too. So this is the mythic aspect of the historical narrative you aptly painted for us


Carl ji, that's an interesting thesis. It may be that the "masquerading as left" and "assuming the mantle of social justice" is a new model of Islamic expansion that post-dates European colonial expansion, and to some extent has replaced the Kabila model in certain societies. It would be interesting to study the exigesis of such a model.

However, as far as Indonesia is concerned: I have always heard that the Islamization point came when the King was convinced by Arab merchants to convert to Islam. So it was a "top-down" conversion in situ, as opposed to the systematic Kabila erasure of pre-Islamic civilization: much more similar to the conversion of Constantine and the advent of Roman Imperial Christianity than to the Kabila expansion in lands to the west. That this had any ramifications on psychosocial alienation, I was not aware of.

I won't comment on Bengal because I know BRF has far greater experts on its Islamization than myself, and I would love them to have a go. Rahul M, Brihaspati, others?

RajeshA wrote:I believe, Rudradev ji meant that the "Kabila" model does not remain efficient in the lands of Bharatvarsha, not that it does not work at all!

Moreover as I mentioned in "Managing Pakistan's failure" thread, Indians and West have recognized the "diplomatic immunity " aka "freedom of religion" of the Mullahs, thus allowing the intelligence, subversion and propaganda arm of the "Kabila" full freedom to undermine rashtriya control, thus to a large extent negating the advantage our terrain allowed us!


Rajesh A-ji, spot on and you've hit on something very important with respect to Pakistan.

The power of the Kabila is in depradation of Dar Ul Harb. In Pakistan's context that means India.

The Kabila known as TSPA/ISI is WEAK inside Pakistan where it perforce must invest in the land in order to monopolize resource extraction and means of production. Hence Fauji cotton, Fauji wheat, Fauji tyres etc. Being tied down to any sort of investment, economic or social, even at the level of co-opting Zameendars is something that weakens the essence of the Kabila... strong, mobile, unencumbered. This is a function of geographical (and psycho-social, as Carl ji said) characteristics of land that is Bharatvarsha.

The Kabila known as TSPA/ISI is WEAKEST along its Afghanistan border where, as a soft, settled Kabila, it is confronting a classic hard-Kabila in the form of the Taliban. This is the greatest threat they face.

Meanwhile... the Kabila known as TSPA/ISI is STRONGEST when doing its best to undermine the Dar-ul-Harb next door. After all this kind of activity is pure Kabila-giri in the purest, classic sense, no? Stay mobile. Infiltrate. Attack. Cause death, destruction and economic pain. Every act of aggression is its own reward and strengthens the TSPA/ISI's Kabila image. No need to invest in any enduring social or economic structure beyond what is needed to facilitate the aggression itself.

India is a target pool which, for the TSPA/ISI Kabila, provides the best source of credibility for its existence as a hard Kabila! THIS is why all the Aman-ki-Ashas are bound to fail: TSPA/ISI NEEDS to keep up its aggression against India in order to retain the moral and spiritual authority to reign over Pakistan as a legitimate Kabila!

And that's why, the more the TSPA/ISI Kabila fails on other fronts... the more desperate it will become to retain its Kabila authority by aggression against India.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby harbans » 08 Feb 2012 03:19

The LANDS of West Punjab, Sindh and Eastern Bengal are currently dominated by Muslims: but as I have explained, the geographic nature of these lands means that any Muslim domination of them swims AGAINST the tide of history. A Muslim power that takes hold of these lands will, of historical necessity, become a soft Kabila.


Rudradev Ji, with due apologies, but you have not understood my critique. My main thrust was to null your equating geography with the spread of Islamic ideology. I only agree that it slows down things..that's all. IF that was the thrust of your long post, it really is meaningless to any understanding of Islam..possibly dangerous. Because what we have seen so far is that the spread of Islam has nothing to do with geography. For the hundreds of thousands massacred in Punjab at partition, the Kabila was not a soft one. Neither in Bangladesh. This is purely your imagination. Not mine.

It's pure rubbish to link the spread of Islam or the degree of the violence that it engenders to geography. I don't see what softness you perceive or see in Pakjab with respect to the infidel. Remind you the LeT, JuD all are based in Pakjab.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Agnimitra » 08 Feb 2012 03:21

johneeG ji,

Thank you for patiently clarifying your meaning, I appreciate your post better. Sorry for being slightly curt in my previous reply, but I do think that rejecting a woman who was raped (because the menfolk could not protect her) and rejecting her offspring are not correct. Similarly, in Kashmir, due to a Mongol invasion and occupation that lasted a few decades, a large number of the commons were converted to Islam. After the Mongols retreated, the commons reportedly asked to be accepted back into the Indic fold, but the Brahmins there refused. If this is true, then its even more idiotic, IMHO. The Sikh Gurus launched several small campaigns to rescue kidnapped women, or to prevent forced conversions or to reconvert converted people. I admire that.

I agree with you that purity and clarity of philosophy combined with economic and military muscle is required to rise. The twin evils of "accept everything" hodge-podge Hinduism on one hand, and reactionary conservatism on the other are both impediments. One reason I question Advaitism is precisely because of their hodge-podge ideology, without knowing what to do with the graded and exclusivist memes present in Vedic culture and philosophy.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby RamaY » 08 Feb 2012 03:22

Rudradev wrote:However, as far as Indonesia is concerned: I have always heard that the Islamization point came when the King was convinced by Arab merchants to convert to Islam. So it was a "top-down" conversion in situ, as opposed to the systematic Kabila erasure of pre-Islamic civilization: much more similar to the conversion of Constantine and the advent of Roman Imperial Christianity than to the Kabila expansion in lands to the west. That this had any ramifications on psychosocial alienation, I was not aware of.


Sorry for OT

My theory is that the Indonesian Hindu/Buddhist king converted to Islam to avoid genocide and cultural destruction that Bharat has endured between 700 and 1300. I think he did the right thing. Indonesia still holds on to its native culture despite being an Islamic nation. It will be one of the nations that will revert back to its roots as soon as the mothership asserts itself.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

Postby Agnimitra » 08 Feb 2012 03:28

Rudradev wrote:However, as far as Indonesia is concerned: I have always heard that the Islamization point came when the King was convinced by Arab merchants to convert to Islam. So it was a "top-down" conversion in situ, as opposed to the systematic Kabila erasure of pre-Islamic civilization: much more similar to the conversion of Constantine and the advent of Roman Imperial Christianity than to the Kabila expansion in lands to the west. That this had any ramifications on psychosocial alienation, I was not aware of.

Rudradev ji,

What I have read about Indonesia is that seafearing traders would mingle and convert the population, somewhat like Malabar. The commons were alienated from the priest-ruler elites. Slowly the creeping conversion reached a critical mass and more. Some of the aristocracy also converted. Then, lead by this converted aristocracy, there was a revolution that chased the ruling Hindu powers off the main islands -- off to Bali -- and the newly converted aristocracy took the center stage of power.

So it wasn't a top-down process. It was:
1. First, the formation of an idealogically tight-assed, controllable segment of human resources in the population.
2. This is followed by some members of the elites moving in to become leaders of this new dynamic segment of the commons.
3. this is then followed by this converted elite displacing the main rulers to snatch power.

We can see a similar thing happening in many modern countries, and it may start happening in some parts of the West too. some argue that it is happening in what is left of the Indian core state too. Recently I posted a similar report about the rapid re-Islamization (level 2 - Wahabization) of Kyrghizstan, which is following the same model.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BALAR025, DrRatnadip, Google [Bot], pgbhat, sooraj and 66 guests