The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

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.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11156
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby A_Gupta » 27 Jun 2014 21:16

The New York Times notes:
http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/ ... languages/
MUMBAI — A call center worker far from his native Hyderabad; a Chennai-based developer checking out e-books in Tamil; and a young, homesick cab driver in Mumbai who keeps track of comings and goings in his village in Uttar Pradesh — all are customers of a mobile news application trying to tap into a growing market of online Indian-language readers.

NewsHunt, which can be accessed on smartphones, delivers 100 newspapers and 10,000 books in 11 Indian languages and English. It was started in 2009 by its parent company, Verse Innovation, to serve the growing literate population — 74 percent of India, according to the latest census.

In December of 2013, NewsHunt began offering its readers a selection of 10,000 books, adapted for mobile reading, in nine Indian languages and English.

But Virendra Gupta, the chief executive officer of Verse, said that while 70 percent of its users are bilingual — accessing newspapers in both English and an Indian language — they tend to read Indian languages eight to nine times as frequently as English content.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11156
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby A_Gupta » 27 Jun 2014 21:23

RajeshA wrote:Soon the Secularists are going to launch a media initiative to present all changes by present govt. in history as taught in schools as "Saffronization".

Hindutvavadis should call it by its real name: "DeMacaulayization"!


To me DeMacaulayization is not removal of English as such, but removal of the wrong attitudes and ideas that go together with the learning of English. I have a collection of stories on my blog on DeMacaulayization, I will post them here one by one.

Here is the first in the series:

Indian billionaire Kumar Mangalam Birla, in an essay in a volume "Reimagining India" makes the following confession:
...Ironically, before we became more international, I used to be much more impressed by someone who could speak the Queen's English than, say, a chartered accountant from Jodhpur whose spoken English required some effort to understand. Now when I look across all our operations in places like Brazil or Egypt or Thailand, I see a whole host of people who aren't comfortable in English, who need interpreters, but who are very, very good at what they do. Sadly, it took that experience for me to respect an accountant from Rajasthan—my home state—as much as a graduate of St. Stephen's in Delhi. At one time we even wanted to run English classes for some of our employees! Now it's not an issue in my mind. If you can get your point across, if you are adding value, if you are competent, then bloody hell to your English.

Birla out-grew what is a common malady of Anglicized Indians.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11156
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby A_Gupta » 27 Jun 2014 21:30

De-Macaulayization - 2
I feel I may have posted this somewhere on BRF before. Like the previous one, this idea that English is universal is exploded in a Japanese context.

This is from Japan, so strictly speaking, this isn't de-Macaulayization. Masayoshi Son, chairman and CEO of SoftBank (SoftBank recently acquired the telco Sprint) wrote as follows:

For context, this excerpt:
After acquiring Sprint, I delivered a speech urging all employees and managers at the company to join forces with our Japanese unit and work as a single entity.

I made the speech because I did not want to repeat the mistakes I had made running previously acquired companies in the U.S. When I took over the company that runs Comdex (Computer Dealer's Exhibition) and U.S. publisher Ziff Davis, I allowed American executives to run them at their discretion. This decision was based on my belief that Japanese owners should not interfere too much with the U.S. executives' business management. That belief was wrong.

By leaving American executives to their own devices, I was acting as an investor and not as a business leader. This hands-off approach would never enable me to reform management of companies I acquire overseas. It doesn't matter how well a company is run, there is always room for improvement. A hands-on approach allows me to make profitable businesses more profitable.

For the de-Macaulayization, this:
A Japanese SoftBank executive recently made a presentation in English in Silicon Valley. His spoken English was terrible, but who cares? He was able to make himself understood. In the past, I would probably have told Japanese executives at SoftBank to focus on Japanese operations if their English was not at a high level. Not anymore.


PS: there is an old desi joke (that sounds better in Hindi), Banta Singh from an Indian village visits England and comes back very enthused - England is a really advanced country, even the children speak English! Crudely speaking, de-Macaulayization is the shedding of that attitude.

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

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 28 Jun 2014 05:50

A_Gupta ji, good data! Please post a link to your blog. Thanks.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11156
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby A_Gupta » 28 Jun 2014 06:02

De-Macaulayization (1 & 2 posted above)
1. http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... ation.html
(Birla)
2. http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... ion-2.html
(Masayoshi Son)
3. http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... ion-3.html
(Shekar Swamy's articles in the Hindu)
4. http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... ion-4.html
(Jinnah, Azad and Ghaffar Khan)
5. http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... ion-5.html
(Aatish Taseer)
6. http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... ion-6.html
(From Agnimitra, copied from BRF) :)

Looking for part 7 :)

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby chanakyaa » 30 Jun 2014 06:29

Great links Guptaji. I generally do not spend time on this dhaga. So I started reading from the beginning. You guys done some nice work. Hope it continues in the future.

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

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 30 Jun 2014 09:16

If anyone would like to make this presentation in their native language, please do so and it can be put up on the same website. Need to translate this into all the Prakrits. Please write to bhashaneeti@gmail.com

X-post from Link Language thread:

Some basic points here:

This presentation dispels the myths about English, and proposes a new approach to language policy in India.

Learn more and be a participant at bhashaneeti.org


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T54uHeZVBDk


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

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 10 Jul 2014 07:15

X-posting from Link Language thread:

Talk at IIT-Mumbai: The Open Data Indic challenge - Indian Languages in a multilingual world

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl7seTc4Amw



Will India join the multilingual world? Or will the 7% English-medium upper class keep bleating "globalization means English" and cause the death (or pidginization) of the Prakrits along with Sanskrit?

Clearly, the aam aadmi prefers to use his native language whenever he can:

42% of internet users in India use local language for accessing content

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5181
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RoyG » 10 Jul 2014 23:14

Agnimitraji,

Thank you so much for the video. Very clear and professional.

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

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 02 Aug 2014 11:28

X-post from Link Language thread in GDF:

Top-ranking tribal student at AIIMS hangs self due to frustration with English-medium higher education
NEW DELHI: A first-year MBBS student at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, who hailed from a village in Rajasthan and was the second topper in the Scheduled Tribe category at the all-India medical entrance test, allegedly committed suicide by hanging himself from the ceiling fan of his hostel room on Saturday.

Anil Kumar Meena, 22, was reportedly struggling to cope with the English-medium teaching at the institute. His friends and family members alleged that Anil, the son of a tribal farmer in Baran district, had been facing discrimination at the institute due to his rural background and Hindi-medium education.


Principal caned us for talking in Marathi: Kids
PUNE: Around 28 students from the eighth standard of an English medium school in Maharshtra's Pune district were allegedly caned by the school's chief executive officer (CEO) for speaking in Marathi on campus on Wednesday.

Police in Bhosari registered an FIR against the CEO late at night.

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

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 11 Aug 2014 04:15

X-post from Link Language thread:

US journalist in the Washington Post:

OTOH, Indian journalist (living in DC) writing for The Hindu:

This idiot analyzes outdated 2001 census numbers for Sanskrit as "mother tongue", even though he admits that's a tricky way of "analyzing".

Samskrita Bharati movement got off the ground in 1985, and has since created lakhs of Sanskrit speakers. The movement is also making use of the 'diaspora effect': Spoken Sanskrit camps are a regular annual feature in various parts of the US, Gulf, etc. The Hindu's "journalist" could have improved on his piss poor reportage if he had just picked up the phone and called his local chapter to meet up and hang out with a group of fluent speakers. That's what the American journalist above did, even though the number of Latin speakers is far less than Sanskrit speakers - even in the US!

Lastly, the anglophile Hindu journalist needs to understand that Sanskrit never did nor will it ever intend to replace anyone's mother-tongue. Nevertheless, many "samskrita kutumbani" (Sanskrit speaking families) are springing up among karyakartas, with Sanskrit-bilingual children.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Neshant » 12 Aug 2014 08:37


vinod
BRFite
Posts: 654
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby vinod » 13 Aug 2014 20:10

Call it nipping in the bud!!!

BBC's take on why Sanskrit is controversial!! indoctrination! what not!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-28755509

member_28638
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby member_28638 » 14 Aug 2014 02:00

vinod wrote:Call it nipping in the bud!!!

BBC's take on why Sanskrit is controversial!! indoctrination! what not!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-28755509


Can we seriously take what the pedophile infested BBC says seriously? This is the organization that protected Gary Glitter, Jimmy Saville and others for decades whilst moralizing, insulting and preaching to India since Independence?

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9895
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Vayutuvan » 14 Aug 2014 06:03

The lady who said "whether they get jobs or not is important". I would have added that "it is like Shakespear in England. Do people get jobs? No sirrre bob, but they diligently study the same old same old I came to bury Cesar not to praise him over and over again in 100 different ways which is 99 ways too many. What is the point of that? At least samskritam gives our kids a holistic view of almost all the Indian languages, our culture, history, heritage. It is a veritable kAmadhEnu". Her answer was good too - might have been precised by the elite leftist Beeb lords (literally as there are several lords and sirs on the BBC board of guvners).


A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11156
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby A_Gupta » 24 Sep 2014 17:41

My thought is that the ISRO MOM shows that a nation is more than a sum of its parts. That is, "Punjab, Sind, Gujarat, Maratha, Dravid, Utkal, Vanga" - simply adding them up does not produce a space mission to Mars. It is the spark of energy that comes from the unity of the parts that provides that motivation and means.

Abhi_G
BRFite
Posts: 686
Joined: 13 Aug 2008 21:42

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Abhi_G » 25 Sep 2014 22:57

A friend from academia wrote this to me....in response to the self flagellation from ususal quarters regarding the Mars Mission.

Comments like -
A mission to mars cannot be viewed under the narrow lens of being Indian
but how it expands the reach of human race.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Indians feel proud, I believe, we celebrate things as simple people.
I do not think we are hard wired like the quintessential US cowboy or
anything nearby - and if we ever do so, it would be a mockery of
ourselves. But too much and just too much insinuations of moral
superiority by being a "world" person showing concern for mankind over a
cup of coffee or a mug of beer in a plush restaurant in Harvard Square
(not that I did not enjoy that place!) is being peddled as THE Indian
"liberal" point of view. So scratch the top and you will see how people
come out of woodwork and dominate the intellectual space with rhetoric
that are derived from a particular ideological spectrum.

My feeling was to let the media do what it wants - if it sounds jingo, let
that be. We know how our media or for that matter media in any part of the
world behaves; just like a political weather cock. If the media slams a
particular political ideology, it becomes the darling of the opposite
spectrum.

With regards to academia, you must have observed the degree of disbelief,
denial and maybe resentment which emanates, if something comes out of this
country - how papers get delayed from getting published and are rejected
based on specious comments like "not much advancement/novelty shown, not
particularly suitable for international journal publication". I am well
aware of such biases in the western world.

I had gone back to the history to show that we have given much to the
world scientific advancement but the degree of recognition is not that
forth-coming. Not that I am crazy for self-recognition. But a country with
a civilizational heritage is definitely unique - all the more since it has
given the world some very unique tools to go forward. A careful analysis
of history will show how and when we fell backwards - universities
destroyed, intellectuals physically annihilated.....not going to details.

In this context, if Indian scientists, given the tremendous amount of
difficulties they face in research and given that they have started late,
are able to show some degree of competence in a field like inter planetary
mission, my heart will be filled with pride and a sense of quiet optimism.
However, I knew what would come after a frank display of my feelings:
pontifications about not seeing the achievements remotely connected to
India (since others have done that before), botch the discussion with
questions about patriotism and chauvinism and claims of a vanguard
position of "moral", "rational" and "intellectual" authority and
propriety.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now my 2 paise. There is something called the "Great Indian Crab Mentality". Maybe this would explain it threadbare. The "oh so superior" world, human race first, India last is a typical example of a crab syndrome that has finished off many scientists in India in their prime.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2011/01/the-award-of-th.html

The award of the 2010 Nobel Prize for medicine to Robert G. Edwards honors an achievement that was world famous the minute it happened and remains so to this day. With Patrick Steptoe, his late collaborator, Edwards did the pioneering work that resulted in the birth, on July 25, 1978, at Oldham General Hospital in England, of Louise Brown, history's first "test tube" baby. Her Ceasarean delivery was both a scientific triumph and a worldwide, stop-the-presses, headline story.

Few Westerners -- including this reporter -- realized that less than 3 months after that epoch-making event, on October 3, 1978, the world's second test-tube birth took place in Calcutta, India. A team headed by physician Subhas Mukherjee (often also spelled Subhash Mukhopadhyay) conceived in vitro and delivered a baby girl they identified by the pseudonym "Durga," after a Hindu goddess who embodies the female creative force, but whose actual name is Kanupriya Agarwal. Mukherjee had devised a method different from -- and, in the opinion of some, superior to -- that used by the English team.

But unlike Steptoe and Edwards, Mukherjee's countrymen did not acclaim his achievement. [b]Instead, the Indian scientific establishment doubted his claims. He was investigated by an official scientific committee that included no one qualified to evaluate his work. Then he was vilified for fraud and prevented from presenting his work to the international scientific community. Humiliated and dispirited, he committed suicide in 1981. Not until a quarter century after "Durga's" birth did the Indian scientific world recognize his achievement, largely through the efforts of the man previously credited with India's first test-tube birth, T C Anand Kumar. The tragic tale was popularized in an Indian movie.



RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17254
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RamaY » 29 Sep 2014 06:26



Nope. India, if joins, will weaken Buddhism that is needed for now.

India should focus on protecting Hinduism.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11405
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby UlanBatori » 01 Oct 2014 17:16

Food Minister dares to eat in Food Ministry Canteen

He visited various sections, library, canteen and toilets. The minister expressed unhappiness over the status of cleanliness in some of the rooms, loose wires in corridors and upkeep of books in library," an official statement said.

He himself picked up waste papers lying here and there and threw them in dustbin. He also ordered renovation of library and speeding up of weeding of old records, it said.


If this keeps u, the Bharatiya Identity and Vision may become visible even through the windows of the AC coaches of Bharatiya Rel :eek: :shock:

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

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 08 Oct 2014 07:19

Understanding the past and the factors that got us where we are: an interesting article -

British left due to INA, not Quit India

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

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 19 Oct 2014 07:05

These outdated, encrusted gnomes 'preserving' bygone era traditionalism-turned-perversion need to be in the cross-hairs always.

Ban on Dalit entrance in temples is appropriate: Puri Shankaracharya
मंदिरों में दलित प्रवेश पर रोक उचित : शंकराचार्य

Image

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

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 20 Oct 2014 10:44

X-post from ambedkar thread:

Very good report - interesting to see Dupatta take on the Leftist establishment

Walk The Talk with Founders of Dalit Indian Chamber Of Commerce & Industry

Watch the video interview -
- Dalits breaking out of Leftist stereotypes,
- hoping their children are not seduced by Leftist negativism, victimhood narrative and Maoist violence,
- see a future in positive economic opportunity
- bash JNU :mrgreen:
- even go so far as to say that reservations may have outlived their utility

RamaY you will like this report.

Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Rahul Mehta » 20 Oct 2014 11:27

Agnimitra wrote:These outdated, encrusted gnomes 'preserving' bygone era traditionalism-turned-perversion need to be in the cross-hairs always.

Ban on Dalit entrance in temples is appropriate: Puri Shankaracharya
मंदिरों में दलित प्रवेश पर रोक उचित : शंकराचार्य

Image


officially warn him

If he says again, then arrest him, warn him and then release him

If he says again, then throw him in prison for 1 day

If he says again, then throw him in prison for 2 days

If he says again, then throw him in prison for 4 days

If he says again, then throw him in prison for 8 days
...
...
If he says again, then throw him in prison for 2^n days

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

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby harbans » 24 Oct 2014 02:07

Posted this special message for Diwali:

Diwali is the festival of lights and Bharat is a state of mind among people which spreads light, dispels darkness. An illumined mind is the abode of Maa Lakshmi. An illumined mind is the highest treasure for all humanity and I wish that we all attain higher states of illumination this Diwali. Bharat Varsha happens spontaneously when a people group with illuminated minds. May the light spread and may the Bharat-varsha state of mind spread globally. That is India’s unique destiny and it needs to make a start from its homeland first.

Spreading light also means actively dispelling darkness and protecting the source of illumination – your conscience and the path to your Atman. It is everyone’s Dharma to remove darkness from themselves and others. We need to battle demonic designs on humanity, on our planet & its innocent, fragile eco-system and on the re-establishment of Dharma.

Yet, Dharma followers are caught in a trap of inaction. They hesitate and restrict themselves even when they see acts of brazen outrage by the forces of adharma. Mahatma Gandhi and Buddha’s messages of non-violence and the middle path come in, creating a confused conflict within our minds. This conflict causes inaction in situations which the forces of adharma exploit relentlessly and ruthlessly. It is a weakness that has been patched on the Dharmic frame so that Dharma can be weakened. India has allowed it to happen to itself for nearly 1200 years. It needs to come out of it – that will be our real liberation and moment of getting illumined. In this context, it is worthwhile to quote what Osho says. I reproduce it below:

“We would not have been so impotent if our country had understood Krishna rightly. But we have covered our ugliness with beautiful words. Our cowardice is hiding behind our talk of non-violence; our fear of death is disguised by our opposition to war. But war is not going to end because we refuse to go to
war. Our refusal becomes an invitation to others to wage war on us. War will not disappear because we refuse to fight; our refusal will only result in our slavery. And this is what has actually happened.

It is so ironic that, despite our opposition to war, we have been dragged into war again and again. First we refused to fight, then some external power attacked and occupied our country and made us into slaves, and then we were made to join our masters’ armies and fight in our masters’ wars. Wars were
continuously waged, and we were continuously dragged into them. Sometimes we fought as soldiers of the Huns, then as soldiers to the Turks and Mughals and finally as soldiers for the British. Instead of fighting for for our own life and liberty we fought for the sake of our alien rulers and oppressors. We really fought for the sake of our slavery; we fought to prolong our enslavement. We spilled our blood and gave our lives only to defend our bondage, to continue to live in servitude.

This has been the painful consequence of all our opposition to violence and war.”


Spreading real Liberty and Light starts with us being illuminated by the right knowledge.

Once again, Happy Diwali – and make a change by understanding Krishna better to establish Ram Rajya and Bharat Varsha.

http://vicharprachar.wordpress.com/2014 ... arprachar/

Hope you all like it.

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

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Agnimitra » 27 Oct 2014 10:51


RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 30 Oct 2014 14:16

The following video gave me a little moment of PING!!!



Today I tend to think

➤ Āryatva ("Hinduism") is science, philosophy and history coated with faith.

➤ Islam is colonialism. power politics and entitlement coated with faith.

➤ Christianity is similar to Islam, but has started using different tools and tactics. Other Dharmic faiths (Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism) are basically same as Āryatva.

MN Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 393
Joined: 27 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby MN Kumar » 30 Oct 2014 15:12

Evengelical activities in Tirumala. This guy Sudhir Mondithoka shot this video to report his activities to his foreign masters. He has been arrested today.



His channel on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtZCkSo9_y0&list=UU2pi6eBKc5ll1i8LpbouVGQ

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 01 Nov 2014 05:49

Cross-posting a post from "Western Universalism - what's the big deal?" Thread

A_Gupta wrote:
shiv wrote:Secularism worked well in Europe because there was only one religion, Christianity, and the people were fundamentally only members of different sects of Christianity with no major religious differences.


Haha, the differences between the various sects of Christianity were more deadly than the Shia-Sunni divide in today's Middle East and Pakistan.

Secularism worked well in the West, because secularism is Christianity minus theology (and yes, to your point, the West was Christian). That is the fundamental framework within which Christianity remains intelligible was retained in secularism, and all the particular-to-Christianity features were discarded.


In Europe, in the Middle Ages, the Monarch and the Church were both institutions of political power. The inter-Christian wars, were fought at both levels - at religious level and at political level. Some monarchs wanted to increase their lands and used either the excuse of religion or its influence to march into other regions, and some monarchs thought of getting more autonomy and used religious divide as an excuse to separate. The same way, various Christian Churches also participated in these wars, in order to extend their sphere of influence or to protect their sphere of influence.

Secularism came about when the interests of the Monarch and the Church diverged. If a Monarch has attained control over a piece of land with two Christian denominations, then further warring between the two would only destabilize his kingdom, especially as neighboring kingdoms would make use of the instability to pounce on him. Secondly it provided the Monarch the ability to cut down the Church's power, which often rivaled his own in any place.

Secularism was an effort at cease-fire and strengthening the Monarchy vs the Church.

Secularism could work in Christian countries because every Church is a centralized system with a hierarchy. Centralized systems are more vulnerable to pressure. If the head of the Church can be neutralized and forced to abide by the Monarch's interests, basically the whole Christian populace would abide by the Monarch indirectly, or in today's terminology the Christian populace would not revolt against the State.

In Poland, in the 1980s, the people were Roman Catholic and the Church was based in Rome. The Communist Polish State did not have control over the Church and no way to neutralize the Pope sitting outside the Warsaw Pact countries. So if they tried to control at the local level, it always looked like religious suppression. In Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, people belonged to the Orthodox Church and its head was indeed within their region, so the State could control the people much better, including the devout. The Church never really formed a center of opposition in those countries as it became in Poland.

For this reason, earlier on in 16th century and later, the Germans, Dutch and so on opted for Protestantism. The English wanted to have their own Church, the Anglican Church.

We often think that the British influenced our per-Independence politics and later the Constitution and thus we became Secular and so we should be thankful to the British for giving us Secularism. By a quirk of fate, Secularism in Europe is actually to a large extent a gift from India. The philosopher who most attacked the Church was Spinoza and his work on Ethics led to even a Philosopher Cult of Spinozists, and as it so happens, that his ideas have been considered almost a copy of Vedanta principles.

A_Gupta wrote:As a simple example - freedom of religion in the secular world means you are free to belong to one religion. Why not to two or five? Because religion means belief, and it is not considered rational to have contradictory beliefs. Different religions embody different beliefs.

But suppose religion means practice? So you can go to a Sikh gurudwara to listen to Gurubani, recite the Vedas, do Yoga, observe the Ramzaan fast, attend the Catholic Mass (if they would let you), do pilgrimage to Hardwar - there is no inherent contradiction in these practices. This is closer to the Indian model, so freedom of religion would mean that you are free to practice any and all religions. The best the secular world can offer is that you are free to do these in a sequence, converting out of an old religion and into a new one, and only then is your right to do these things protected by secular law and constitution.


Here I have a very different opinion on nature of religion. Religion is politics and control coated with faith. Islam and Christianity are religions as they fit this model. What we call Eastern Religions are not religions at all. They are Dharma Panths, which have a totally different function, which is to make ethics, scientific knowledge (which includes spiritual "sciences"), philosophy and ancient history palatable to common man and thus is coated in faith. These Panths do not have any political drive. Nor were these Panths a primary giver of political identity to the people. In India, one saw various kings supporting all these panths because they all had a common virtuous goal. Calling these Dharma Panths as Religion distorts their nature and makes them equivalent to Christianity and Islam. We are talking about two very different beasts here. It is in the nature of West to muddy the issue and put all on the same shelf. So we need to reassess both "religion" and the differences.

Faith is used as a means to mobilize the masses. The question is to what end? Only if wee know that, do we find out the core mission hiding behind the faith and its accompanying practices.

A_Gupta wrote:The Indian framework does not fit well into the Western mold. So, even if we want the same results (i.e., religious peace, freedom, etc.) the framework has to be Indian or else, India must Westernize.


Western model is simply a completely unsustainable model and thus a not-yet-but-about-to-be failed model. "Secularism" made them blind to the entry and expansion of Islam within Europe.

India really suffered a military defeat at the hands of Islam and as such Islam broke open the front gates of Bharat and colonized the minds of Indians turning them into Muslim. India did not have a choice. But Europe allowed Islam in voluntarily due to their utter stupidity and now the European governments are pumping money to Islam's adherents giving them housing, social benefits, employment opportunities, etc. and most of all complete freedom to spread through the length and breadth of Europe.

Europe's Secularism is a successful model as long as their populace are themselves ambivalent about faith, or their devout belong to Churches within their geographical domains or friendly domains, or its immigrant population belongs to Eastern faiths, which do not happen to be "religion" anyway but follow non-political missions. Europe's Secularism would fail simply because it lacks an intellectual framework which can stop Islam from aggressively spreading within its area. The ideological centers of Islam lie outside Europe and West in general. Secondly Islam is a highly decentralized religion, and thus immune to acupuncture.

The last thing India needs is Western Secularism. We most certainly do not want the same results as in the West.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 01 Nov 2014 15:00

Continuing from "Western Universalism - what's the big deal?" Thread

RajeshA wrote:Here I have a very different opinion on nature of religion. Religion is politics and control coated with faith. Islam and Christianity are religions as they fit this model. What we call Eastern Religions are not religions at all. They are Dharma Panths, which have a totally different function, which is to make ethics, scientific knowledge (which includes spiritual "sciences"), philosophy and ancient history palatable to common man and thus is coated in faith. These Panths do not have any political drive. Nor were these Panths a primary giver of political identity to the people. In India, one saw various kings supporting all these panths because they all had a common virtuous goal. Calling these Dharma Panths as Religion distorts their nature and makes them equivalent to Christianity and Islam. We are talking about two very different beasts here. It is in the nature of West to muddy the issue and put all on the same shelf. So we need to reassess both "religion" and the differences.


Arjun wrote:Very good delineation of the distinction between Western vs Eastern 'religions'. Continuing further down on the same line of thinking should lead to more insights. Looking forward to this on either this thread or the Bharatiyata one.


johneeG wrote:According to this definition, Buddhism would be the first religion. Infact, most of the modern religions seem to have been inherited from Buddhism directly or indirectly.

Maybe Ajivika was the first religion by this definition. Ajivikas seem to be a sort of proto-Buddhism. It seems that After the Mahabhaaratha war, there was a period when people were attracted to ideologies which speak of futility of wars(and other worldly pursuits) and emphasize on renunciations.

Gradually, this seems to have spread to all over the world(in its various mutations). At some point, this proto-Buddhism seems to have been adopted by the royalties of Magadha kingdom and transformed into Buddhism. Buddhism continued to mutate based on its patronization and clients.

This is my working hypothesis:
Versions of Buddhism(or Non-Vaidhik Religion):
- Proto-Buddhism (born in 3000 BCE) – Ajivika – organized as Nikayas. Concept of Nirvana.
- Buddhism 1.0 (born in 2000 BCE)– Hinayana (Shravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayāna). Sangam Literature. Organized as Sangas. Viharas built in cities patronized by moneybags and royalty.
- Buddhism 2.0 (born in 500 BCE) – Mahayana(Bodhisattvayāna) & Theravada. Viharas built in cities patronized by royalty and moneybags.
- Buddhism 3.0 (born in 200 CE and crystallized in 500 CE) - Vaajrayana
- Buddhism 4.0 (born in 200 CE and crystallized in 500 CE) - X-ism


Even though names and date are mentioned by me. It seems to me that the reality was much more complicated because Buddhism seems to be an artificial grouping of various schools. The one common thing seems to have been anti-Hindhuism(or anti-Vedhas and other Puraanas and Ithihaasas). So, various schools of Buddhism had tussles with each other for supremacy. And these schools mutated. Those schools which got the patronization of moneybags or royalty were able to neutralize the other schools.

Their philosophies, histories and customs seem to be continuous mutation to stay relevant.


Arjun wrote:
johneeG wrote:According to this definition, Buddhism would be the first religion. Infact, most of the modern religions seem to have been inherited from Buddhism directly or indirectly.

Buddhism seems to have spread due to its close association with ruling clans, and was a highly organized and centralized Panth - but is that sufficient basis for viewing it as distinct from the Eastern way and more akin to the Western ? I would not be so hasty.

Buddhism was, at the same time, heavily suffused with Indic philosophy, ethics & was in synch with scientific thought - the dominance of which would clearly place Buddhism in the Eastern Panthic camp.

My sense is the degree of political orientation of a 'religion' can be objectively linked to the degree to which it is 'exclusivist'. Western 'religions' have a very clear sense of 'us' and 'them' which is not present in the Eastern Panths. I don't think Buddhism has the same degree of exclusvism built in as any of the Abrahamic religions.

It is possible that Buddhism mutated, like you suggest, at some stage into Christianity - but the original belongs to the Eastern Panthic camp. And where does Judaism fit in here in your scheme of evolution of Christianity ? Also - there are massive points of departure between Buddhism and Christianity - eg entire philosophy (the lack of it in Christianity as compared to Buddhism), ethics (stress on non-violence being one), theology etc which are difficult to explain.


shiv wrote:Ashoka was a Buddhist but his edicts hardly show discrimination against other paths.


There are reasons to believe that Buddhism was a religion and reasons to believe it wasn't, as far as I can tell from my limited knowledge of Buddhism.

In some ways, I consider Buddhism to be a rebellion against the established Vedas-based order of which monarchies were also a part or participant. This itself gives Buddhism a political streak, as it wanted to make space for itself, show its presence in an established order, and thus organized itself with a political motive and used political tactics.

This however does not mean that necessarily that based on its message and content, it is necessary a political doctrine.

A political doctrine often tries to have exclusive control over the belief system of the individual, so that the individual can be manipulated to advance political interests of an organization or a network of empowered people. This exclusive control is often exerted by proclaiming its way as the only way to salvation or justice, often shown as underwritten by divine sanction by God himself, stuff like "I am The Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me", or Khatam an-Nabiyyin, Seal of the Prophets, or People of the Book, etc.

I haven't heard of such a message in Buddhism, or an effort to exert such a level of control over its adherents.

Basically Buddhism makes its mission to be to impart spiritual training to people without promising Nirvana. There is also less of a group identity or loyalty pledge in Buddhism. In Islam, one has the Shahada. In Christianity one has the Vow of Nicene Creed. One can be a Buddhist without making any pledges of fidelity. Nor is one forced to abstain from reading or otherwise indulging in any form of spiritual training. Nor is there a firm social prescription of dos and donts. Nor did the Buddhist clergy necessarily work as a medium to sway its followers to heed the Monarch. Though Buddhist clergy have had a nationalist streak in them and have attached to a nationalist movement, say in Sri Lanka or Tibet.

As such I would say, there is no exertion of control over the individual, though the Buddhist clergy have often tried to look for influence with the State for sponsorship of its various monasteries, etc, but that would be the case with any Sampradaya (Aastik, Bauddh, Jain, or Sikh) as well, since all need funds for the building, maintenance, operations of their temples, monasteries, schools, festivals, organization, travel, etc.

Any philosophical differences with Vedas or just the Brahmin clergy can be understood as acceptable freedom of opinion and thought, as far as I am concerned, as long as one accepts the supremacy of the principle of Dharma.

In case of Religion, souls are harvested to feed the engines of political power. I think Christianity and Islam remain as the primary representatives of Religion.

Just my humble opinion on this subject.

johneeG garu,

On Buddhism, I have, I believe, mentioned earlier to you as well, that I find the theory intriguing that there were two Buddhas - Sri Sugata Buddha (1887 BCE), the first Buddha, considered Vishnu Avatar, and Sakya Simha Gautama Buddha (~5th century BCE). I have a feeling the first Buddha was still within the Aastika stream.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 02 Nov 2014 01:17

Tackling Sexual Harrassment, Rape, Deceit, Love-Jihad

Wanted to repost this link shared by johneeG

johneeG wrote:Link

दृष्ट्वा सुर पतिः त्रस्तो विषण्ण वदनो अभवत् || १-४८-२५
अथ दृष्ट्वा सहस्राक्षम् मुनि वेष धरम् मुनिः |
दुर्वृत्तम् वृत्त संपन्नो रोषात् वचनम् अब्रवीत् || १-४८-२६

"On seeing the sage the lord of gods Indra is scared and became dreary-faced. Then the well-behaved Gautama furiously spoke these words on seeing the ill-behaved Thousand-eyed Indra who is donning the guise of a saint. [1-48-25b, 26]

मम रूपम् समास्थाय कृतवान् असि दुर्मते |
अकर्तव्यम् इदम् यस्मात् विफलः त्वम् भविष्यति || १-४८-२७

" 'Oh, dirty-minded Indra, taking hold of my form you have effectuated this unacceptable deed, whereby you shall become infecund.' Thus, Gautama cursed Indra. [1-48-27]

गौतमेन एवम् उक्तस्य स रोषेण महात्मना |
पेततुः वृषणौ भूमौ सहस्राक्षस्य तत् क्षणात् || १-४८-२८

"When that great-souled sage Gautama spoke that way with rancour, the testicles of the cursed Thousand-eyed Indra fell down onto ground at that very moment. [1-48-28]


The punishment for use of Deceit to get close to a Bharatiya Nari, emotionally and physically, is aptly prescribed in these verses. Off with the balls!

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21045
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby Prem » 02 Nov 2014 02:16

RajeshA wrote:Tackling Sexual Harrassment, Rape, Deceit, Love-Jihad
" 'Oh, dirty-minded Indra, taking hold of my form you have effectuated this unacceptable deed, whereby you shall become infecund.' Thus, Gautama cursed Indra. [1-48-27]
गौतमेन एवम् उक्तस्य स रोषेण महात्मना |
पेततुः वृषणौ भूमौ सहस्राक्षस्य तत् क्षणात् || १-४८-२८
"When that great-souled sage Gautama spoke that way with rancour, the testicles of the cursed Thousand-eyed Indra fell down onto ground at that very moment. [1-48-28]
The punishment for use of Deceit to get close to a Bharatiya Nari, emotionally and physically, is aptly prescribed in these verses. Off with the balls!

Indira have to go around with thousands of vaginas on his body, Inc face. Salwar kameej was enforced by Nalwa on inbreds in past. Now is the time to enforce Awrahs part. Modern surgery plants on industrial scale using Robots will do. Shastras do allow death sentence for any one who try, intend to violate daughters and daughter in laws of Dharmic household.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 02 Nov 2014 13:49

Tackling Sexual Harrassment, Rape, Deceit, Love-Jihad

RajeshA wrote:The punishment for use of Deceit to get close to a Bharatiya Nari, emotionally and physically, is aptly prescribed in these verses. Off with the balls!


An example being set.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 05 Nov 2014 15:02

Building a Narrative for Indian Muslims (Work in Progress)



Collecting some posts related to Shri Ajit Doval's thinking on dealing with Indian Islam

A_Gupta
A_Gupta wrote:Ajit Doval, this section should be listened to for about 10-12 minutes.
http://youtu.be/DuSNC7qZwi0?t=42m30s
His take on how the British perceived various Muslim strategic threats, and their strategic response is very interesting.
The British had the first jihadis fight against Ranjit Singh and get routed. The British answered the highly nationalist Deoband madrassa with Sir Sayyid Ahmed and the Aligarh Muslim University. (He says it is the product of the Aligarh Muslim University that created Pakistan.) He says strengthen nationalist political Islam that is under siege from the Wahhabs and such. "We have to counter the political Islam of the jihadis with the political Islam of the nationalists".


shiv
shiv wrote:Brilliant. Thank you once again for taking the trouble to listen and post a very relevant part.
Doval is
1. A very clear thinker
2. A well informed historian
3. A good speaker


partha
partha wrote:+1. It is also encouraging to see such talks in aam aadmi universities. I hope this becomes a trend.


Mihaylo
Mihaylo wrote:He mentions the concept of 'Defensive Offence' wrt to Pukistan. That is what we saw as a response to the border firing from Pukistan. Wisdom, clarity of thought, courage and determination...May we have more like him.


Raja Ram
Raja Ram wrote:That link to Ajit Doval Talk in the previous page is something that every BR forumite should listen and internalize very carefully. It is probably one of the most important enunciation of what options are currently being pursued with regard to Pakistan.

For sheer clarity and objectivity of analysis, Shri Doval should be complimented. There are some glimpses of what is in the realm of possibilities if you pay attention to what is being said and what is left unsaid.

It should be saved up somewhere so that it can be referenced. SASTRA University has done a good service by making this available.


williams
williams wrote:I listened to Doval Shahib's speech. Key strategy that every Indian should think about is quoted around 58.27 "You can do one Mumbai, you may loose Baluchistan. There is no nuclear war involved in that... If you know the tricks we know the tricks better.." India is in the safest hands now!


Ashok Sarraff
Ashok Sarraff wrote:A_Gupta ji, Thank you for posting this most interesting lecture. Goes without saying, Shri Ajit Doval deserves all the respect for his knowledge and his numerous services to the country.

But, in my opinion, bifurcating Islam into (1) political but anti-Indian and (2) fundamentalist but nationalist as suggested by Shri Doval-ji does not go far enough. This is similar to Pak's theoretical division of Taliban into "Good" Taliban and "Bad" Taliban. As seen in Pakistan, the two can easily merge into each other or transform from one to the other at a moment's notice. For what ostensible reason? For propagating Islam and Islamic rule. The ultimate objective for both "political" and "nationalist," Islam as Shri Doval-ji calls them, is the complete imposition of Islam in the Indian sub-continent and annihilation of any remnants of native Indian traditions. This of course is guided by Islamic teachings, that are the ultimate source of inspiration for all Muslims all over the world. Thus, irrespective of whether SIMI is a "Bad" Islamic organization or Deobandis (the name shows what they believe in) are "Good" Islamics according to Shri Doval-ji, both are ultimately antithetical to Indian culture and values. Thus, in my view, the fundamental question that no one is considering (at least in public) is how to eradicate the Malsi software from the subcontinental people's minds. Till the time the software exits in one form or the other, terrorism will remain entrenched and Indian subcontinental people will continue to suffer. All IMHO.



A_Gupta
A_Gupta wrote:
Ashok Sarraff wrote:But, in my opinion, bifurcating Islam into (1) political but anti-Indian and (2) fundamentalist but nationalist as suggested by Shri Doval-ji does not go far enough. This is similar to Pak's theoretical division of Taliban into "Good" Taliban and "Bad" Taliban....


Well,

a. not quite - Taliban are violent; nationalist Islam would not be (or rather, Islam that was violent would not be accepted as nationalist).

b. I do share your concerns - is this a deal with the devil? But I think that was the point of Doval bringing up Ibn Taymiyyah and his Mardin fatwa - it was not accepted in his time, etc., that political Islam does not morph readily, like everything else, it is as stable as the political interests involved.

c. I think one of Doval's unstated injunctions for a strategic thinker is "don't indulge in wishful thinking". Government of India cannot be overtly or covertly anti-Islam. It can only be against specific groups - LeT, Pakistan, Taliban, ....

d. Of course, what is the time range within which a strategy is supposed to operate is an open question; and secondly, how would one set up the organizations to operate a strategy that outlives people's careers and even their life-spans is another question. Suppose we on BRF accept that there needs to be a certain civilizational goal. How do we make this happen? No wishful thinking please. Might be a topic for one of the other threads.


RajeshA
RajeshA wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:a. not quite - Taliban are violent; nationalist Islam would not be (or rather, Islam that was violent would not be accepted as nationalist).


As Omar Abdullah said, he is proud to be a Muslim, Kashmiri and Indian. He left out to say "in that order".

Islam does not prohibit "nationalism" as long as that identity is subservient to the Muslim identity and thus Ummah interests.

Creation of Bangladesh, which is often cited, was not a case of triumph of nationalism over religion. As long as East Bengal had been secured for Ummah, it just did not matter to Islam, that East Pakistanis chose a separate nationalism than West Pakistanis.

What Ajit Doval is perhaps wishing for is "nationalist Muslims", those who are nationalist because they entertain nationalism outside of Islam. This can indeed be possible, but only as long as the Islamization of the Muslim is not complete, for then he belongs to Nation of Islam only.


Jhujar
Jhujar wrote:Mullah Azad was n(o)tionalistic Muslim and he stayed back to secure islamic weed seeds on Indian soil after MAJ gave India opportunity to clean the front yard . I think its right time now to ask Paki to take their Muslim brothers and sisters back as per partition plan. Every time Paki mention something Muslim or Islam, Indians interlocutors must raise this particular issue.


KLNMurthy
KLNMurthy wrote:I am sure Doval knows his Chankiya, who used the less-paki Parvataka as an ally, and when victory was won, sent him to his 72 by means of one virgin mohatarma custom-designed to be poisonous.


SBajwa
SBajwa wrote:Ajit Doval has all the qualities and capabilities to surpass Allen Dulles (longest serving CIA director)., I wish he can be in charge of National Security for a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Dulles


A_Gupta
A_Gupta wrote:Since it would be off-topic in the STFUP thread, just to point out what Ajit Doval says in his talk at the Sastra University is a different framing of the jihadi terrorism problem. (Don't indulge in wishful thinking, Islam is here to stay.) Fundamentalism is a minor side of jihadi terrorism; political Islam is the major component. Political Islam by itself is not the problem either, it can in some forms, be with you; and in others, be against you. There is a nationalist political Islam narrative that is under threat from the Salafis, from Pakistan -- strengthen that nationalist political Islam and make it our ally. It has both the ability and the desire to take on the task of taking on anti-national political Islam; it is just alienated from the mainstream.

You and I have our suspicions even about nationalist political Islam. Maybe we fear it legitimately, maybe we fear it out of our lack of self-confidence. But the cause doesn't matter. If Doval is correct, it is in India's national interest that we put aside those suspicions.

This is a very different framing than anyone in the West can give it - because their Muslim populations are relatively tiny, and they have no century-old tradition of nationalist political Islam that they can draw upon. A G.W. Bush or Obama, for example, cannot say, let us drawn upon national political Islam. India can remind itself of Abul Kalam Azad and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and constellations of lesser stars.

If Doval is correct, and assuming that PM Modi agrees with Doval's views, then a large number of supporters will have to change the way they behave and talk with respect to Muslims & Islam - that is, assuming that they not just support PM Modi by their votes, but are also committed to helping him achieve these goals by Doval's methods.

Also in his talk are the mentions of danda and bheda for dealing with the anti-national political Islam. (The URL of the youtube is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuSNC7qZwi0 ).

There is something he said there that is still ringing in my mind - it goes something like this: Strategy without tactics is the noise before the defeat. Tactics without strategy is the shortest way to suicide.


shiv
shiv wrote:Arun - Doval is very well informed and I can hardly pick holes in his views. he is correct, but his views in no way contradict my own views which I have had for a few years now.

The idea that Islam or Quran will somehow vanish is not mine, but I have heard that wish and IMO it needs to be dismissed as a waste of time. However the wish that islam might disappear or made to disappear is usually the first step in saying that Islam should be fought continuously in a mirror image counter jihad until it is defeated. Again, this has nothing to do with my views.

The fact that there is a political Islam recognized separately from " something else Islam" - Doval says nationalist Islam is interesting, but the fact of political Islam is well known. What is new is that there is/was an Indian nationalist Islam based in the Deoband school. This deserves recognition. Doval saying so adds weight to that fact because our knee jerk reaction is to curse Deoband. Doval points out that it was not Deoband, (a nationalist madrassa set up by the defeated Muslim soldiers of 1857), but the British sponsorship of Aligarh Muslim University as an opposite pole to Benaras Hindu University that eventually led to the formation of Pakistan

My own personal view is that I really don't care what Islam says or does as long as violence is stopped. If it is political Islam that promotes violence and not any other component of Islam, it is not possible to recognize it as long as violence continues. If stoppage of violence negatively affects political Islam more than any other part, so be it. The counter argument I have heard to this is that violence is part and parcel of the religion Islam and you calling for Islam to stop violence is the same as trying to make Islam disappear. I disagree with that and Doval's views have only reinforced my thoughts and clarified them that the main proponents of violence are political Islamists who need their asses kicked.

There will be peace if there is no violence, whether Islam (or any other faith) exists or not.


Pulikeshi
Pulikeshi wrote:Doval has his wits and ken about him - no arguments with his points. Any student of geo-politics would be at a loss if they choose not to learn from his talks.

That said, the example, to pick one, he uses of the British and how they got the Jihadis to meet their maker at the hands of the Sikhs, etc. needs to be understood for the strategic context in which the British were using terrorists as an opportunity. India, even Doval, are viewing terrorists, not terrorism, as a strategic problem with Paki-Satan as the epi-center. He may have some notion of a grander strategic opportunity, but it is unknown to us. So my humble question to him would be what is the end goal?

If the first and only step is the quiescence of Paki-Satan, then I would question the wisdom of such a myopic approach. If it is the first step, in a series of other steps coming down the road that enables regional power projection and economic and political alignment from the west to the east in Asia, etc. then there is reason to believe that some of the elements, even terrorists, could become tools to guarantee such a strategic opportunity.

Shiv speaks of the violence must end... if we listen to Doval, he says wars are a natural activity of man. I agree and add that the violence will not end and no peace will arrive at some date when Muslims (even Deobandis declare so in a fatwa, they even have one on banning beef in India if the law makes it illegal!). This business of war can occur even without religion, even when Islam becomes more tolerant. Yes, I know I am a cynic. There will be no ever lasting peace and due to scaling and current population, the impact of the legitimate human activity of war is going to only worsen.

The sane advise would be to not only pursue more offensive-defense, but also pursue a viable end goal by framing solutions as strategic opportunity.


johneeG
johneeG wrote:Ajit Doval says that Abul Kalam is a nationalist from Devbandi stream. Following is Abul Kalam's interveiw on why he is opposed to the partition of Bhaarath (some people in pakistan doubt the veracity of this interview):

November 28, 2009
Against Partition: April 1946 Interview with Abul Kalam Azad
From Covert Magazine

THE MAN WHO KNEW THE FUTURE

by Matbooat Chattan Lahore

Congress president Maulana Abul Kalam Azad gave the following interview to journalist Shorish Kashmiri for a Lahore based Urdu magazine, Chattan, in April 1946. It was a time when the Cabinet Mission was holding its proceedings in Delhi and Simla. Azad made some startling predictions during the course of the interview, saying that religious conflict would tear apart Pakistan and its eastern half would carve out its own future. He even said that Pakistan’s incompetent rulers might pave the way for military rule. According to Shorish Kashmiri, Azad had earmarked the early hours of the morning for him and the interview was conducted over a period of two weeks. This interview has not been published in any book so far — neither in the Azad centenary volumes nor in any other book comprising his writing or speeches — except for Kashmiri’s own book Abul Kalam Azad, which was printed only once by Matbooat Chattan Lahore, a now-defunct publishing house. Former Union Cabinet Minister Arif Mohammed Khan discovered the book after searching for many years and translated the interview for COVERT

Q: The Hindu Muslim dispute has become so acute that it has foreclosed any possibility of reconciliation. Don’t you think that in this situation the birth of Pakistan has become inevitable?

A: If Pakistan were the solution of Hindu Muslim problem, then I would have extended my support to it. A section of Hindu opinion is now turning in its favour. By conceding NWFP, Sind, Balochistan and half of Punjab on one side and half of Bengal on the other, they think they will get the rest of India — a huge country that would be free from any claims of communal nature. If we use the Muslim League terminology, this new India will be a Hindu state both practically and temperamentally. This will not happen as a result of any conscious decision, but will be a logical consequence of its social realities. How can you expect a society that consists 90% of Hindus, who have lived with their ethos and values since prehistoric times, to grow differently? The factors that laid the foundation of Islam in Indian society and created a powerful following have become victim of the politics of partition. The communal hatred it has generated has completely extinguished all possibilities of spreading and preaching Islam. This communal politics has hurt the religion beyond measure. Muslims have turned away from the Quran. If they had taken their lessons from the Quran and the life of the Holy Prophet and had not forged communal politics in the name of religion then Islam’s growth would not have halted. By the time of the decline of the Mughal rule, the Muslims in India were a little over 22.5 million, that is about 65% of the present numbers. Since then the numbers kept increasing. If the Muslim politicians had not used the offensive language that embittered communal relations, and the other section acting as agents of British interests had not worked to widen the Hindu-Muslim breach, the number of Muslims in India would have grown higher. The political disputes we created in the name of religion have projected Islam as an instrument of political power and not what it is — a value system meant for the transformation of human soul. Under British influence, we turned Islam into a confined system, and following in the footsteps of other communities like Jews, Parsis and Hindus we transformed ourselves into a hereditary community. The Indian Muslims have frozen Islam and its message and divided themselves into many sects. Some sects were clearly born at the instance of colonial power. Consequently, these sects became devoid of all movement and dynamism and lost faith in Islamic values. The hallmark of Muslim existence was striving and now the very term is strange to them. Surely they are Muslims, but they follow their own whims and desires. In fact now they easily submit to political power, not to Islamic values. They prefer the religion of politics not the religion of the Quran. Pakistan is a political standpoint. Regardless of the fact whether it is the right solution to the problems of Indian Muslims, it is being demanded in the name of Islam. The question is when and where Islam provided for division of territories to settle populations on the basis of belief and unbelief. Does this find any sanction in the Quran or the traditions of the Holy Prophet? Who among the scholars of Islam has divided the dominion of God on this basis? If we accept this division in principle, how shall we reconcile it with Islam as a universal system? How shall we explain the ever growing Muslim presence in non-Muslim lands including India? Do they realise that if Islam had approved this principle then it would not have permitted its followers to go to the non-Muslim lands and many ancestors of the supporters of Pakistan would not have had even entered the fold of Islam? Division of territories on the basis of religion is a contraption devised by Muslim League. They can pursue it as their political agenda, but it finds no sanction in Islam or Quran. What is the cherished goal of a devout Muslim? Spreading the light of Islam or dividing territories along religious lines to pursue political ambitions? The demand for Pakistan has not benefited Muslims in any manner. How Pakistan can benefit Islam is a moot question and will largely depend on the kind of leadership it gets. The impact of western thought and philosophy has made the crisis more serious. The way the leadership of Muslim League is conducting itself will ensure that Islam will become a rare commodity in Pakistan and Muslims in India. This is a surmise and God alone knows what is in the womb of future. Pakistan, when it comes into existence, will face conflicts of religious nature. As far as I can see, the people who will hold the reins of power will cause serious damage to Islam. Their behaviour may result in the total alienation of the Pakistani youth who may become a part of non-religious movements. Today, in Muslim minority states the Muslim youth are more attached to religion than in Muslim majority states. You will see that despite the increased role of Ulema, the religion will lose its sheen in Pakistan.

Q: But many Ulema are with Quaid-e-Azam [M.A. Jinnah].

A: Many Ulema were with Akbare Azam too; they invented a new religion for him. Do not discuss individuals. Our history is replete with the doings of the Ulema who have brought humiliation and disgrace to Islam in every age and period. The upholders of truth are exceptions. How many of the Ulema find an honourable mention in the Muslim history of the last 1,300 years? There was one Imam Hanbal, one Ibn Taimiyya. In India we remember no Ulema except Shah Waliullah and his family. The courage of Alf Sani is beyond doubt, but those who filled the royal office with complaints against him and got him imprisoned were also Ulema. Where are they now? Does anybody show any respect to them?

Q: Maulana, what is wrong if Pakistan becomes a reality? After all, “Islam” is being used to pursue and protect the unity of the community.

A: You are using the name of Islam for a cause that is not right by Islamic standards. Muslim history bears testimony to many such enormities. In the battle of Jamal [fought between Imam Ali and Hadrat Aisha, widow of the Holy Prophet] Qurans were displayed on lances. Was that right? In Karbala the family members of the Holy Prophet were martyred by those Muslims who claimed companionship of the Prophet. Was that right? Hajjaj was a Muslim general and he subjected the holy mosque at Makka to brutal attack. Was that right? No sacred words can justify or sanctify a false motive.

If Pakistan was right for Muslims then I would have supported it. But I see clearly the dangers inherent in the demand. I do not expect people to follow me, but it is not possible for me to go against the call of my conscience. People generally submit either to coercion or to the lessons of their experience. Muslims will not hear anything against Pakistan unless they experience it. Today they can call white black, but they will not give up Pakistan. The only way it can be stopped now is either for the government not to concede it or for Mr Jinnah himself — if he agrees to some new proposal.

Now as I gather from the attitude of my own colleagues in the working committee, the division of India appears to be certain. But I must warn that the evil consequences of partition will not affect India alone, Pakistan will be equally haunted by them. The partition will be based on the religion of the population and not based on any natural barrier like mountain, desert or river. A line will be drawn; it is difficult to say how durable it would be.

We must remember that an entity conceived in hatred will last only as long as that hatred lasts. This hatred will overwhelm the relations between India and Pakistan. In this situation it will not be possible for India and Pakistan to become friends and live amicably unless some catastrophic event takes place. The politics of partition itself will act as a barrier between the two countries. It will not be possible for Pakistan to accommodate all the Muslims of India, a task beyond her territorial capability. On the other hand, it will not be possible for the Hindus to stay especially in West Pakistan. They will be thrown out or leave on their own. This will have its repercussions in India and the Indian Muslims will have three options before them:

1. They become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to Pakistan; but how many Muslims can find shelter there?
2. They become subject to murder and other excesses. A substantial number of Muslims will pass through this ordeal until the bitter memories of partition are forgotten and the generation that had lived through it completes its natural term.
3. A good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and regional depredation decide to renounce Islam.

The prominent Muslims who are supporters of Muslim League will leave for Pakistan. The wealthy Muslims will take over the industry and business and monopolise the economy of Pakistan. But more than 30 million Muslims will be left behind in India. What promise Pakistan holds for them? The situation that will arise after the expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan will be still more dangerous for them. Pakistan itself will be afflicted by many serious problems. The greatest danger will come from international powers who will seek to control the new country, and with the passage of time this control will become tight. India will have no problem with this outside interference as it will sense danger and hostility from Pakistan.

The other important point that has escaped Mr Jinnah’s attention is Bengal. He does not know that Bengal disdains outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later. During World War II, Mr Fazlul Haq revolted against Jinnah and was thrown out of the Muslim League. Mr H.S. Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in high esteem. Why only Muslim League, look at the history of Congress. The revolt of Subhas Chandra Bose is known to all. Gandhiji was not happy with the presidentship of Bose and turned the tide against him by going on a fast unto death at Rajkot. Subhas Bose rose against Gandhiji and disassociated himself from the Congress. The environment of Bengal is such that it disfavours leadership from outside and rises in revolt when it senses danger to its rights and interests.

The confidence of East Pakistan will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali are alive. But after them any small incident will create resentment and disaffection. I feel that it will not be possible for East Pakistan to stay with West Pakistan for any considerable period of time. There is nothing common between the two regions except that they call themselves Muslims. But the fact of being Muslim has never created durable political unity anywhere in the world. The Arab world is before us; they subscribe to a common religion, a common civilisation and culture and speak a common language. In fact they acknowledge even territorial unity. But there is no political unity among them. Their systems of government are different and they are often engaged in mutual recrimination and hostility. On the other hand, the language, customs and way of life of East Pakistan are totally different from West Pakistan. The moment the creative warmth of Pakistan cools down, the contradictions will emerge and will acquire assertive overtones. These will be fuelled by the clash of interests of international powers and consequently both wings will separate. After the separation of East Pakistan, whenever it happens, West Pakistan will become the battleground of regional contradictions and disputes. The assertion of sub-national identities of Punjab, Sind, Frontier and Balochistan will open the doors for outside interference. It will not be long before the international powers use the diverse elements of Pakistani political leadership to break the country on the lines of Balkan and Arab states. Maybe at that stage we will ask ourselves, what have we gained and what have we lost.

The real issue is economic development and progress, it certainly is not religion. Muslim business leaders have doubts about their own ability and competitive spirit. They are so used to official patronage and favours that they fear new freedom and liberty. They advocate the two-nation theory to conceal their fears and want to have a Muslim state where they have the monopoly to control the economy without any competition from competent rivals. It will be interesting to watch how long they can keep this deception alive.

I feel that right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious problems:
1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.
2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.
3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.
4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.
5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of Pakistan.
6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.
7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of Pakistan.
8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.
In this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and the Muslim countries will be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. The assistance from other sources will not come without strings and it will force both ideological and territorial compromises.

Q: But the question is how Muslims can keep their community identity intact and how they can inculcate the attributes of the citizens of a Muslim state.

A: Hollow words cannot falsify the basic realities nor slanted questions can make the answers deficient. It amounts to distortion of the discourse. What is meant by community identity? If this community identity has remained intact during the British slavery, how will it come under threat in a free India in whose affairs Muslims will be equal participants? What attributes of the Muslim state you wish to cultivate? The real issue is the freedom of faith and worship and who can put a cap on that freedom. Will independence reduce the 90 million Muslims into such a helpless state that they will feel constrained in enjoying their religious freedom? If the British, who as a world power could not snatch this liberty, what magic or power do the Hindus have to deny this freedom of religion? These questions have been raised by those, who, under the influence of western culture, have renounced their own heritage and are now raising dust through political gimmickry.

Muslim history is an important part of Indian history. Do you think the Muslim kings were serving the cause of Islam? They had a nominal relationship with Islam; they were not Islamic preachers. Muslims of India owe their gratitude to Sufis, and many of these divines were treated by the kings very cruelly. Most of the kings created a large band of Ulema who were an obstacle in the path of the propagation of Islamic ethos and values. Islam, in its pristine form, had a tremendous appeal and in the first century won the hearts and minds of a large number of people living in and around Hejaz. But the Islam that came to India was different, the carriers were non-Arabs and the real spirit was missing. Still, the imprint of the Muslim period is writ large on the culture, music, art, architecture and languages of India. What do the cultural centres of India, like Delhi and Lucknow, represent? The underlying Muslim spirit is all too obvious.

If the Muslims still feel under threat and believe that they will be reduced to slavery in free India then I can only pray for their faith and hearts. If a man becomes disenchanted with life he can be helped to revival, but if someone is timid and lacks courage, then it is not possible to help him become brave and gutsy. The Muslims as a community have become cowards. They have no fear of God, instead they fear men. This explains why they are so obsessed with threats to their existence — a figment of their imagination.

After British takeover, the government committed all possible excesses against the Muslims. But Muslims did not cease to exist. On the contrary, they registered a growth that was more than average. The Muslim cultural ethos and values have their own charm. Then India has large Muslim neighbours on three sides. Why on earth the majority in this country will be interested to wipe out the Muslims? How will it promote their self interests? Is it so easy to finish 90 million people? In fact, Muslim culture has such attraction that I shall not be surprised if it comes to have the largest following in free India.

The world needs both, a durable peace and a philosophy of life. If the Hindus can run after Marx and undertake scholarly studies of the philosophy and wisdom of the West, they do not disdain Islam and will be happy to benefit from its principles. In fact they are more familiar with Islam and acknowledge that Islam does not mean parochialism of a hereditary community or a despotic system of governance. Islam is a universal call to establish peace on the basis of human equality. They know that Islam is the proclamation of a Messenger who calls to the worship of God and not his own worship. Islam means freedom from all social and economic discriminations and reorganisation of society on three basic principles of God-consciousness, righteous action and knowledge. In fact, it is we Muslims and our extremist behaviour that has created an aversion among non-Muslims for Islam. If we had not allowed our selfish ambitions to soil the purity of Islam then many seekers of truth would have found comfort in the bosom of Islam. Pakistan has nothing to do with Islam; it is a political demand that is projected by Muslim League as the national goal of Indian Muslims. I feel it is not the solution to the problems Muslims are facing. In fact it is bound to create more problems.

The Holy Prophet has said, “God has made the whole earth a mosque for me.” Now do not ask me to support the idea of the partition of a mosque. If the nine-crore Muslims were thinly scattered all over India, and demand was made to reorganise the states in a manner to ensure their majority in one or two regions, that was understandable. Again such a demand would not have been right from an Islamic viewpoint, but justifiable on administrative grounds. But the situation, as it exists, is drastically different. All the border states of India have Muslim majorities sharing borders with Muslim countries. Tell me, who can eliminate these populations? By demanding Pakistan we are turning our eyes away from the history of the last 1,000 years and, if I may use the League terminology, throwing more than 30 million Muslims into the lap of “Hindu Raj”. The Hindu Muslim problem that has created political tension between Congress and League will become a source of dispute between the two states and with the aid of international powers this may erupt into full scale war anytime in future.

The question is often raised that if the idea of Pakistan is so fraught with dangers for the Muslims, why is it being opposed by the Hindus? I feel that the opposition to the demand is coming from two quarters. One is represented by those who genuinely feel concerned about imperial machinations and strongly believe that a free, united India will be in a better position to defend itself. On the other hand, there is a section who opposes Pakistan with the motive to provoke Muslims to become more determined in their demand and thus get rid of them. Muslims have every right to demand constitutional safeguards, but partition of India cannot promote their interests. The demand is the politically incorrect solution of a communal problem.

In future India will be faced with class problems, not communal disputes; the conflict will be between capital and labour. The communist and socialist movements are growing and it is not possible to ignore them. These movements will increasingly fight for the protection of the interest of the underclass. The Muslim capitalists and the feudal classes are apprehensive of this impending threat. Now they have given this whole issue a communal colour and have turned the economic issue into a religious dispute. But Muslims alone are not responsible for it. This strategy was first adopted by the British government and then endorsed by the political minds of Aligarh. Later, Hindu short-sightedness made matters worse and now freedom has become contingent on the partition of India.

Jinnah himself was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. In one Congress session Sarojini Naidu had commended him with this title. He was a disciple of Dadabhai Naoroji. He had refused to join the 1906 deputation of Muslims that initiated communal politics in India. In 1919 he stood firmly as a nationalist and opposed Muslim demands before the Joint Select Committee. On 3 October 1925, in a letter to the Times of India he rubbished the suggestion that Congress is a Hindu outfit. In the All Parties Conferences of 1925 and 1928, he strongly favoured a joint electorate. While speaking at the National Assembly in 1925, he said, “I am a nationalist first and a nationalist last” and exhorted his colleagues, be they Hindus or Muslims, “not to raise communal issues in the House and help make the Assembly a national institution in the truest sense of the term”.

In 1928, Jinnah supported the Congress call to boycott Simon Commission. Till 1937, he did not favour the demand to partition India. In his message to various student bodies he stressed the need to work for Hindu Muslim unity. But he felt aggrieved when the Congress formed governments in seven states and ignored the Muslim League. In 1940 he decided to pursue the partition demand to check Muslim political decline. In short, the demand for Pakistan is his response to his own political experiences. Mr Jinnah has every right to his opinion about me, but I have no doubts about his intelligence. As a politician he has worked overtime to fortify Muslim communalism and the demand for Pakistan. Now it has become a matter of prestige for him and he will not give it up at any cost.

Q: It is clear that Muslims are not going to turn away from their demand for Pakistan. Why have they become so impervious to all reason and logic of arguments?

A: It is difficult, rather impossible, to fight against the misplaced enthusiasm of a mob, but to suppress one’s conscience is worse than death. Today the Muslims are not walking, they are flowing. The problem is that Muslims have not learnt to walk steady; they either run or flow with the tide. When a group of people lose confidence and self-respect, they are surrounded by imaginary doubts and dangers and fail to make a distinction between the right and the wrong. The true meaning of life is realised not through numerical strength but through firm faith and righteous action. British politics has sown many seeds of fear and distrust in the mental field of Muslims. Now they are in a frightful state, bemoaning the departure of the British and demanding partition before the foreign masters leave. Do they believe that partition will avert all the dangers to their lives and bodies? If these dangers are real then they will still haunt their borders and any armed conflict will result in much greater loss of lives and possessions.

Q: But Hindus and Muslims are two different nations with different and disparate inclinations. How can the unity between the two be achieved?

A: This is an obsolete debate. I have seen the correspondence between Allama Iqbal and Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni on the subject. In the Quran the term qaum has been used not only for the community of believers but has also been used for distinct human groupings generally. What do we wish to achieve by raising this debate about the etymological scope of terms like millat [community], qaum [nation] and ummat [group]? In religious terms India is home to many people — the Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs etc. The differences between Hindu religion and Islam are vast in scope. But these differences cannot be allowed to become an obstacle in the path of India gaining her freedom nor do the two distinct and different systems of faith negate the idea of unity of India. The issue is of our national independence and how we can secure it. Freedom is a blessing and is the right of every human being. It cannot be divided on the basis of religion.

Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal message. They are not a racial or regional grouping in whose territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in India are not one community; they are divided among many well-entrenched sects. You can unite them by arousing their anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name of Islam. To them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own sect. Apart from Wahabi, Sunni and Shia there are innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints and divines. Small issues like raising hands during the prayer and saying Amen loudly have created disputes that defy solution. The Ulema have used the instrument of takfeer [fatwas declaring someone as infidel] liberally. Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through times of afflictions and trials. The fact is that when reason and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult.

But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have become firm in their communalism; they prefer politics to religion and follow their worldly ambitions as commands of religion. History bears testimony to the fact that in every age we ridiculed those who pursued the good with consistency, snuffed out the brilliant examples of sacrifice and tore the flags of selfless service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals; even high ranking Prophets were not spared by these custodians of traditions and customs.

Q: You closed down your journal Al-Hilal a long time back. Was it due to your disappointment with the Muslims who were wallowing in intellectual desolation, or did you feel like proclaiming azan [call to prayer] in a barren desert?

A: I abandoned Al-Hilal not because I had lost faith in its truth. This journal created great awareness among a large section of Muslims. They renewed their faith in Islam, in human freedom and in consistent pursuit of righteous goals. In fact my own life was greatly enriched by this experience and I felt like those who had the privilege of learning under the companionship of the Messenger of God. My own voice entranced me and under its impact I burnt out like a phoenix. Al-Hilal had served its purpose and a new age was dawning. Based on my experiences, I made a reappraisal of the situation and decided to devote all my time and energy for the attainment of our national freedom. I was firm in my belief that freedom of Asia and Africa largely depends on India’s freedom and Hindu Muslim unity is key to India’s freedom. Even before the First World War, I had realised that India was destined to attain freedom, and no power on earth would be able to deny it. I was also clear in my mind about the role of Muslims. I ardently wished that Muslims would learn to walk together with their countrymen and not give an opportunity to history to say that when Indians were fighting for their independence, Muslims were looking on as spectators. Let nobody say that instead of fighting the waves they were standing on the banks and showing mirth on the drowning of boats carrying the freedom fighters

link

Doval saar is right that there are two streams: Aligarh stream and Devbandi stream. But this should not be talked in terms of nationalist and anti-nationalist because both Aligarh and Devbandi are not nationalist and have nothing to do with the nation of Bhaarath.

But, Devbandi school seems to have been setup to re-establish the Mughal rule which was defeated by the brits. Were the Mughals nationalist? Was Aurangzeb nationalist?

The only Mughal who may have had some track-record of tolerance towards Hindhus was Akbar. And Akbar created a new religion called Dheen-e-Ilahi. And Akbar was declared as an apostate of Islam by the sufis and clerics.

In the rest of the Mughal rule, islamism continued to increase. During Jehangir's rule, Guru Arjan Singh was killed by the Mughals. During Shah Jehan's rule islamism was severe and Ahmad Sirhindi was flourishing. In Aurangzeb's period, the islamism had reached its fanatic heights. After that, the Mughal rule crumbled due to islamism and maladministration.

Maraatas and Sikhs were rising as independent powers. Jats and Raajpuths had revolted against the Mughals. Nizam had declared independence and EIC were in control of the southern coasts. During this time, it was Waliullah who flourished in the Mughal domains. Waliullah invited Abdali to attack Bhaarath to stop Maraatas and Sikhs.

Abdali did so. Maraatas were defeated. Maraatas remained confined to central Bhaarath after that. Maraatas had already weakened the Vangal by raids. This allowed the EIC to defeat Vangal easily. South-Bhaarath was left to Nizam, Hyder Ali and EIC. In north, Abdali also retreated and this gave space to the rise of Sikhs.

EIC gained rapidly through its naval force. It controlled entire coast except the west coast which was under Tipu and Maraatas. Maraatas recovered from the Panipath defeat and decided to consolidate in south. Tipu and Nizam were the natural targets. Tipu became priority because of his jihadh in Kerala region. Tipu became priority for the EIC also because of the possibility of Napoleon allying with the Tipu using western coast. So, Tipu was attacked by the 3 forces: Maraatas, EIC and Nizam. Tipu lost. And eventually, conquered.

That left, Maraatas, Nizam and EIC in south. Through Vangal, EIC was looking to expand into north. Oudh (Awadh) was the natural target. Luckily for the EIC, Maraatas disintegrated and the Maraata territories fell into EIC's lap. Using Maraata forces and territories, EIC was able to expand into the north. Awadh was the first casualty.

Then, eventually, the EIC tried to defeat the Sikhs who were rising as powerful kingdom. Sikhs lost the war and ceded lot of territories. Meanwhile, EIC was busy neutralizing the left over Maraata rulers who could revolt. So, it annexed the kingdoms which did not have a heir.

So, everyone realized that EIC was the biggest threat. So, everyone grouped together to fight the EIC in 1857. Was it nationalist of the muslims to fight against EIC? More than nationalism, it was just pure tactic/strategy. EIC had to be defeated because they were the biggest and immediate threat. For this purpose, the lesser threat were made into allies. This was the logic used by both Hindhus and Muslims.

Some Hindhus believed that its better to use EIC to finish off the muslim kingdoms.

Anyway, 1857 was a victory for the EIC. After that EIC imposed 20 yrs of famine on Bhaarath to crush the possibility of any future revolts.

According to Doval: After the defeat of 1857, Devbandi(who were fighting against the EIC to save the Mughals) established an institution to fight the EIC. EIC said,"hey, why fight us? we are just temporarily here. But, you have to defeat the kafirs who are your real enemies. We will help you do that by giving you weapons and other training."

So, Devband was supported by the brits and unleashed on the sikhs who defeated this devbandis.

Now, the EIC had weakened sikhs further.

EIC gained control on most of the Bhaarath directly or via puppet rulers. So, EIC now used Sikhs, Maraatas and Muslims forces to attack the Afghans. The badlands of Afghanisthan were too much for the EIC and they declared the Afghans as martial race and withdrew.

It was around this time that Aligarh was set up by Syed Ahmad Khan. Devband represented a stream which was fighting against the EIC to restore the Mughal rule(or Islamic rule). Aligarh represented a stream which accepted the brit rule and was loyal to the brits as long as brits gave favours to Muslims above the Hindhus.

This started an interesting trend. Devbandis and Aligarh started acting as bad cop and good cop to win favours from the brits compared to Hindhus. Division of Vangal was one such action. But, it backfired bigtime for the brits.

By 1900s, the Bhaarathiya independence movement was at its peak and it was becoming increasingly difficult for the brits to keep control. The rebellions were spreading all over and the brits were spread thin. The greatest fear of the brits was a revolution of british indian army.

Then, Gandhi landed in Bhaarath in 1915 and was hailed as the prophet of non-violence by the brit supported media.

In 1919 during the first world war(where control on middle-east oil was the prime motive), Turkey came under the attack of the brits. Devbandis saw the attack on Turkey as an attack on Islam and waged war against the brits. Gandhi launched Khilafath movement to take control of this by leading it peacefully instead of allowing it to go violent. Soon it merged with other rebellions and became a larger non-cooperation movement. The movement was phenomenal success and was hurting brits.

And the Turks were defeated. Brits used internal revolt to replace the Khalipha. Soon, Brits replaced the Turks with Arabs as the new topdog of islam. This was a big movement for the west. Now, the west had got control on islam.

Gandhi promptly rolled up non-cooperation movement because it had served its purpose of stopping the rebellions from becoming violent. And if the non-cooperation movement continued it would seriously threaten brits. There was great persecution of those who participated in non-cooperation movement. Many nationalist congressmen were persecuted by the brits.

Gandhi was allowed to get control on congress.

Aligarh was already loyal to the brits. Now, devbandi would also become loyal to brits because Arabs were the allies of the west.

The difference between Aligarh and Devbandi schools is their attitude towards westernization. Aligarh school welcomed westernization to a limited extent. Devbandi school opposed westernization.

Devbandi schools and like were opposed to partition because they believed that it would weaken the muslims by dividing them. And it would be setback to malsIc domination of Bhaarath(compared to Mughal rule).

Aligarh movement is what we call: moderate muslims.
Devbandi movement is what we call: fundamentalist muslims.

Both are political movements aimed at islamic domination. They differ on specific tactics. Even here, they seem to have come to reconciliations mostly.

Ajit Doval's talk also says that fundamentalism is not wrong in itself because fundamentalism merely means going to fundamentals.

So, what are the fundamentals of Islam?
Here is a picture that I found on twitter, I don't know how correct or wrong it is. But, its interesting:
Image

This image claims that there are no verses in Quran about reciting Shahada(Mohammad is the prophet and allah is the god). It also says that there are no verses in quran about praying 5 times a day. All these are found in Ahadiths.

So, fundamentally, jihad is the main concept. Other concepts are supporting characters which were created later(perhaps by the Turks or Kaliphas).

On the other hand, Jihad was part of the original Arabic concept. Will jihad end if all non-muslims are conquered? Definitely not. It will find some other excuse to continue to loot and enslave. One can say that the concept of jihad came out of looting and enslaving and not the other way around. Arabs were pirates who were doing piracy for many years before they established their kingdom. Their religion is just a pirate's religion which was sythesis of Buddhism, Hindhuism, X-ism and african religion. It justified loot and slavery.

This religion was taken over by the Turks and they added more concepts as their need recommended.

What is the fundamental concept? Loot and slavery.

Can Indian Muslims become nationalists?
This would pit them against India vs Islam debate. Indian Muslim as a group can become total nationalists if India becomes a muslim majority country.

Then, India would follow the path of Persia and might create a new version of Islam with elements of Hindhuism in it. Then, there would be 3 variations of islam: arabic/turkic, persian and Hindhu.

But, its Hindhus of Bhaarath who are to be blamed here because they just refuse to be defeated. They just refuse to roll-over and convert or die. This is the crux of the problem. Otherwise, the situation in Bhaarath would have been similar to situation in middle-east. Is that good thing or bad thing, is separate discussion.

The same can be said about X-ism. If Hindhus of Bhaarath convert to X-ism, initially,they would be loyal to Watikan. But, it eventually, they may revolt and develop a new variation of X-ism within Bhaarath. This new version may have elements of Hindhuism. All this process may take a long time. Say 50/100 yrs. But, thats the logical course.

The same would apply to communism also. If Bhaarath becomes a communist country then Bhaarath will develop a new variation of communism(rooted in Bhaarath's native traditions) just like china has developed its own version of communism.

But, all these exotic possibilities are not able to fructify because of adamant refusal of Hindhus to give up Hindhuism. And the Hindhuism's flexibility in continuing to survive the various assaults is truly remarkable. This is particularly remarkable because many other creeds are also flexible, yet they find it hard to survive. Most creeds are very flexible on all points except their survival and propagation. Yet, they are defeated.

There is something unique about Hindhuism which allows it to survive in various circumstances for such a long time with an intact core philosophy. The unique aspect is: Hindhuimsm is the super-set of all religions. There are natural auto-correction methods in Hindhuism. Whenever, one aspect is starting to overwhelm, it is balanced by the other side of the spectrum by Hindhuism. This allows Hindhuism to keep the balance in all circumstances and provide right mechanisms.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 05 Nov 2014 15:08

Building a Narrative for Indian Muslims (Work in Progress) (Cont.)


RajeshA
RajeshA wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:(Don't indulge in wishful thinking, Islam is here to stay.)


Shri Ajit Doval is free to craft his own narrative which enables him to tackle the problem at hand.

However he should not expect other nationalist Indians to follow suit and proceed from the premise, that Islam is here to stay, and thus compromises are justified. He can distance himself from narratives that do not suit his current agenda, but he should allow them space to prosper in India nevertheless, as there is no guarantee that his efforts would really bear fruit and the problem can be contained.


shiv
shiv wrote:
johneeG wrote:Can Indian Muslims become nationalists?
This would pit them against India vs Islam debate.

I like to stick to my one track requirement - which I have stated for a few years now and have repeated on this thread.

N.o. V.i.o.l.e.n.c.e.

Violent people like the ba$tards in Shreeman's post will have to be soosided/eliminated/jannatified until everyone gets the picture. And people DO get the picture, after a while, as Naipaul recorded when he visited Iran after the 8 year war with Iraq.

When violence ends, people can have whatever opinion they like about anything - nationalist, rationalist, sensationlist, nudist, poltergeist, fashionista whatever.


A_Gupta
A_Gupta wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:(Don't indulge in wishful thinking, Islam is here to stay.)
RajeshA wrote:Shri Ajit Doval is free to craft his own narrative which enables him to tackle the problem at hand.

However he should not expect other nationalist Indians to follow suit and proceed from the premise, that Islam is here to stay, and thus compromises are justified. He can distance himself from narratives that do not suit his current agenda, but he should allow them space to prosper in India nevertheless, as there is no guarantee that his efforts would really bear fruit and the problem can be contained.


Amit Shah wrote:"We are pro-India. Don’t get trapped in Western definitions. There is nothing inflexible about pro-reform or anti-reform. Irrespective of economic theories we will take decisions in the larger interest of the poor people. I can give you five more examples to prove the point."


Likewise, don't get trapped in Islamic definitions and self-description.....

The success of his strategy may depend on how muted/hidden these other narratives remain.


Pulikeshi
Pulikeshi wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:Likewise, don't get trapped in Islamic definitions and self-description.....


+1-4+5-2

If you guys agree that several of the religious denominations are closely linked and indeed controlled by various ethnicities atleast historically... (think Sunni Islam == Soothi Arabia, Shia Islam == Persia, Protestant == Anglo-Saxon, etc. etc.), then the question arises if allegiances are to the extra-national ethnicities and their front organizations or to the nation. However, this formulation itself is counter productive as it follows the classic 'are you still a wife beater (replace with subscribing to your <religion> before nationalism), answer yes or no?' It leads to a strategic dead end. On this there could be a 'religious debate.' :mrgreen:

Again, we are confusing geo-politics with religious debates... seems this runs deep in the Indian psyche.

That some Indians who are SD thinkers want to formulate strategies for survival, more so thriving of SD civilization is legitimate. That this has to be done by denying space for non-SD traditions and perhaps the state has to play a role in this effort is a altogether separate debate from...
What are the current geo-political challenges facing India and what tools including religious can be applied to find strategic opportunity.

Thank you to several posters on this thread for providing me with fodder to understand several areas I had questions in...


shiv
shiv wrote:
Pulikeshi wrote:Again, we are confusing geo-politics with religious debates... seems this runs deep in the Indian psyche.


I like to ask why is the Hindu psyche so sensitive to Islam? Perhaps there are multiple reasons - one being the assertion that Hindus are inferior - an idea that received some support from the British. So this insult has been compounded by the fact of partition where some traditional areas where Hindus could travel to became "no go" areas. The Hindu psyche has been deeply hurt by Islam and there is an undercurrent of the need to take revenge on Islam. The idea that the Islamic psyche itself may be in the hurt locker does not occur to or enthuse the hurt Hindu psyche in any way, which is still busy licking its own wounds. The Brits, and western universalism has been as hurtful and insulting to Islam as it was to Hindus. Muslims too are sitting in their own hurt locker licking their wounds and blaming someone else.

WU gains from Hindus and Muslims, each looking out from their respective hurt lockers and accusing each other of the worst and lowest possible human degradations. And both sides do not see themselves as being examples of such human degradation. In the meantime the west has weaseled for itself a halo and a storyline that claims for itself the apex of all civilization.

One thing I can say as an Indian. Suppose Hindus are as smart as we hope we are. What can we do to study and understand the situation and turn things around to our benefit (at worst) and to everyone's benefit (at best)?

The most obvious thing for us is to look at Indian Muslims whom we cannot eliminate or ignore and understand that they, like us have a deeply hurt psyche. They may have been taught that Hindus are the worst kind of animal, but their own experience of constant defeat, break up of their historic empire, utter lack of achievement and the sinking of what they were proud of to below everyone else on earth has hurt Muslim psyche as deeply as Hindu psyche. The formation of Pakistan was an attempt to restore Muslim pride at the expense of Hindus and that has failed. But that is about Pakistan, We are still left with Indian Muslims. We have to have double standards and treat our Muslims differently from others who may be against us . And in treating our Muslims differently, we have to demand, and get from them a completely different standard in the way they view India the nation - if at all nationalism is suspect.

I am personally impatient with arguments that say "No that is not possible". We have to make that possible by our actions. If the west was smart in the way they played one against the other (Hindu vs Muslim, shia vs sunni, Jew vs Islam) and both both sides off to face the other, why can't smartass Hindus do a bit of that rather than viewing all Muslims from our own sorrowful Hindu hurt locker. But I don't see many "Hindu nationalists" being able to come out of their own hurt lockers the way Modi, Doval and Amit Shah have done. Advani could not get himself out, but all credit to the RSS for getting out. Hindus who cannot climb out of the Hindu hurt locker and see the hurt lockers that Muslims are hiding in will be liabilities to effective leadership.


RajeshA
RajeshA wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:" We are pro-India. Don’t get trapped in Western definitions. There is nothing inflexible about pro-reform or anti-reform. Irrespective of economic theories we will take decisions in the larger interest of the poor people. I can give you five more examples to prove the point."
A_Gupta wrote:Likewise, don't get trapped in Islamic definitions and self-description.....


Amit Shah is a class of his own. I fully agree with him. But you seem to have mixed up two things.

Modi Sarkar is an active agent of economic policy and has full freedom to define and classify their actions as and how they choose. They chose their self-definition.

Ajit Doval on the other hand is looking for a strategy and a suitable narrative to receive cooperation from Indian Muslims. The initiative to back Ajit Doval's agenda remains with the Indian Muslims and does not reside with him. He is free to use his definitions for his purpose but since they don't describe his actions but rather those of others, it is merely an opinion, and not the "gospel" truth, and others don't need to accept them.

A_Gupta wrote:The success of his strategy may depend on how muted/hidden these other narratives remain.


If his strategy is based on what others say, then it stands on a very weak foundation. But if others become mute, then we return to UPA regime times, as only political correct language as defined by them was allowed.


A_Gupta
A_Gupta wrote:
RajeshA wrote:If his strategy is based on what others say, then it stands on a very weak foundation. But if others become mute, then we return to UPA regime times, as only political correct language as defined by them was allowed.


To create a nationalist Muslim narrative requires both Muslim and Hindu cooperation. That's all I'll say.


RajeshA
RajeshA wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:To create a nationalist Muslim narrative requires both Muslim and Hindu cooperation. That's all I'll say.


Yes, but just as not all Muslims would buy into that narrative, not all Hindus need to buy into it either.


A_Gupta
A_Gupta wrote:^^^ sometimes the quickest way over a wall is a detour to the gate.

Is Doval's end state the final goal or just the starting point for the next step?

These are things you will have to consider. You only have an end-state vision, not even a plan, and no roadmap of small achievable changes that cumulatively get you to your vision. Once you have laid out your roadmap, you will see it is a task for generations, so you need to figure out how to embody this in a long-lived institution. And your goal has to both be hidden as well as be visible (think about that).


RajeshA
RajeshA wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:These are things you will have to consider. You only have an end-state vision, not even a plan, and no roadmap of small achievable changes that cumulatively get you to your vision. Once you have laid out your roadmap, you will see it is a task for generations, so you need to figure out how to embody this in a long-lived institution. And your goal has to both be hidden as well as be visible (think about that).


And you know this for certain? And what makes you think others don't think about that?

I am not against Ajit Doval's plan. I have never said anything on those lines. I too consider it a step in a positive direction, for at least somebody is now looking at the problem and not doing a Mamata!

If I say, other narratives need to be kept alive, then because I too think that other steps would be needed, but more importantly because not all initiatives on this issue can be taken by GoI. GoI has its hands tied, and for tied hands, Ajit Doval will do a good job.


A_Gupta
A_Gupta wrote:I am less interested in picking the "right" narrative than in the mechanisms for actually making a change.

E.g., whatever your preferred narrative, do you agree with Modi and Doval?

You might think Modi, Doval get the nation in the right direction, but not the right end-state. Assuming that you agree with the direction, does it move your preferred narrative further along? If yes, what are you willing to do to make them successful? Will you insist on your end-state now?

As an example, I know BRF is a time-pass forum for most, but suppose a Doval said, "BRForum is not friendly to nationalist Muslims, please consider changing". Doval's is one small step along the path of "janani janmabhumisch swargadapi gariyasi", far from getting you there, but one small step, and much more than you can accomplish on your own. Just suppose. How much dedicated are you to the goal to make that happen? Or will you let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

Does support mean merely - I vote for someone? Or does it mean I also embrace that someone's programs and try to make them successful? Is there any truth and force in "I need to be the change I want to see"?

Just curious.


shiv
shiv wrote:One form of cognitive bias is to make one or both of the following assumptions:
1. My behavior is exactly right
and/or
2. The behavior of this group (say group X) is exactly right and I agree with them

Following on from this bias is the conclusion that all people must follow this particular form of behavior.

Another variety of cognitive bias is to see more variation and inhomogeneity among one's own group (too many Jaichands) and homogeneity and robot like conformity among the "other" group (All Muslims think like this)

Adding to the confusion is the lack of precise definition of where nationalism starts and ends and where Islamism starts and ends...In my view these discussions, conducted regularly on BRF for over a decade have only led to GIGO. Let me point out, as an example that in the 2009 elections BRF was no less pro BJP and pro "nationalist" than 2014. At that time BJP was led by Advani with his single point Ayodhya agenda as his main achievement. Five years later, same BJP, different leader - a man with the guts to say toilet over temple - and he won with a thumping majority.

I would recommend setting aside words like "nationalism" because it is easy to pick holes in the argument of anyone who uses that word and convert any argument into a self goal. When I am a nationalist - it is easy for me. Anything I say or do is nationalist. When you have to be nationalist - you can't be as good as me because you are saying too many things that are wrong - you are psec or Islam pasand. As long as you agree with me, you could possibly be a nationalist. But ultimately I am the judge of nationalism. If I say something or soemoen is nationalist, that defines nationalism


A_Gupta
A_Gupta wrote:^^^ OK, shed the specific question I asked. As I said, I'm not interested in picking the "right" narrative, whether it be about nationalism or Islam or whatever. I want to know what roadmap people see for their preferred narrative getting closer to reality. I want to know how much people are willing to take the lead from a leader with whom they mostly but not entirely support.

Incidentally Doval said or implied, I think, that most violent Islamists are mercenaries. He said or implied that if Pakistan pays them 1200 crores, as the larger economy, India can afford to buy them out with 1600 crores. This is in the section where he talks about smothering terrorism. This is quite counter to the majority of posts e.g., the understanding of Islam thread. Is Doval simply wrong? is he being deceptive (if so how)? Is there something to be read between the lines? Suppose Doval succeeds in buying them off, will that change any minds here? etc. What does it mean to support a Doval?


RajeshA
RajeshA wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:^^^The questions happen to be particular, but the question remains, that outside of words, philosophy, etc., is there a Indian way of doing things that differs from the Western way of doing things? Are beliefs and actions united or separate things? etc.


Yes there is an Indian way of doing things and solving problems!

Perhaps shiv saar can better explain using the analogy of how Ayurveda deals with illness and how Modern Medicine deals with illness.

My belief is that Dharma makes a far deeper surgical operation to remove a tumor of Adharma, where ever something is recognized as such, than say the West, which goes about banning a head-scarf here and a burqa there.


RajeshA
RajeshA wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:Incidentally Doval said or implied, I think, that most violent Islamists are mercenaries. He said or implied that if Pakistan pays them 1200 crores, as the larger economy, India can afford to buy them out with 1600 crores. This is in the section where he talks about smothering terrorism. This is quite counter to the majority of posts e.g., the understanding of Islam thread. Is Doval simply wrong? is he being deceptive (if so how)? Is there something to be read between the lines? Suppose Doval succeeds in buying them off, will that change any minds here? etc. What does it mean to support a Doval?


That is also a reason why Islam does not really do much to solve the problem of poverty among the Muslim masses. It makes recruitment of Jihadis and private armies from among the masses all the cheaper.


abhischekcc
abhischekcc wrote:With all due respect to Doval and his vast experience, he is completely wrong on this one. Paying jihadis more will not make them less violent towards India, it will only strengthen their resolve to step up the violence against India, as they will see that it brings more money.

Remember IC814 hijacking. Jaswant Singh went with Rs 400 crores for the jihadis to free the Indian passengers. All it did was that jihadis stepped up the violence against.


shiv
shiv wrote:But what did the US do with Islamists? It bought those that could be bought and is kicking those that can't be bought. The will and ability to punish is first. Buying is next. If buying fails, elimination is the choice they must be given.

For decades we have spoken of power. For the first time Doval speaks of power and money.


RajeshA
RajeshA wrote:
shiv wrote:But what did the US do with Islamists? It bought those that could be bought and is kicking those that can't be bought. The will and ability to punish is first. Buying is next. If buying fails, elimination is the choice they must be given.

For decades we have spoken of power. For the first time Doval speaks of power and money.


Buying is good, but it should be like buying some Pushtuns to blow up TSPA assets for ordering an attack on us, rather than buying off some Islamists not to attack us.

If Pakistan can pay Jihadis to attack us, than India with more money can also pay a lot more poor Afghans to give Pakistan a much more thorough drubbing.


abhischekcc
abhischekcc wrote:RajeshA,

Buying some jihadis to kill some other jihadis is fine, but it needs an intelligence network to be built over the border. Something which the previous govt spent a lot of effort in destroying.


JwalaMukhi
JwalaMukhi wrote:Just to complete the thought my last post on this topic in this thread.
On Shri.Doval's Nationalistic ____fill your favorite group/groupings.

No need to rehash the background. But to help understand where the following reasoning comes from.
Countless number of people in India were given a stark choice by arab-imperialists. Convert, pay Jizya or die.
Very large number of them choose to "die" with honour. It is imperative that the "first right to resources", honor and duty goes towards them, their wishes and survivors of them. It is clearly abundant that successive administrations have clearly failed to even take a complete and necessary care, support to administer and cater to the cause for which those brave souls accepted death.
Then next in line would be cater to the wishes and worry about those paid Jizya.
After all that, then it would be time to worry about those that converted and their progeny.
It is not just illogical to get into a twist and change the order in which the worry and resources are mobilized. When the minimum necessary and sufficiency is achieved in addressing the cause of the martyrs, then rest of them can be taken up. About the wishes of those who paid jizya, followed by converts. Once it is clear in one's mind the priorities, then the question of what about nationalist muslims/muslims? will resolve itself. Instead it seems like 'ass-backwards' and everyone starts with famous and eternal question "what about muslims?" yes what about them? really!
Last edited by RajeshA on 05 Nov 2014 18:38, edited 1 time in total.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 05 Nov 2014 15:19

Building a Narrative for Indian Muslims (Work in Progress) (Cont.)


In order to fashion solutions and roadmaps, one has to chose a narrative first. That is what Ajit Doval does with his use of "Nationalist Muslims".

I think there are some practical problems with Ajit Doval's narrative, i.e. assuming I have understood the gist of his proposal.

1) He is practically saying that there is a separate equivalently-sized group of Indian Muslims who are not of the "Nationalist" kind. That may be true, but by admitting that he is also saying that this other group of "Not-Nationalist" Muslims have just as much right to be in India and to enjoy all the privileges here, because they too are Indian citizens, and simply belonging to the "Not-Nationalist Muslim" group doesn't imply any crime as such.

2) "Nationallist Muslim" is more of an empirical claim than an ideological claim. Ajit Doval is asserting that a certain section of the Muslims in India feel "Nationalism", that they have a "Nationalistic" orientation. Thus he has put "Nationalism" as an external light-house, rather than something that derives from Islam itself. Now that too may be the truth, but Ajit Doval has failed to make the case that having a "Nationalistic" orientation is something incumbent on the Indian Muslim.

3) The idea of "Nationalist Muslim" is that such Indian Muslims would help GoI in curbing the intolerant, aggressive and separatist urges and actions of the "Not-Nationalist Muslim". Ajit Doval is pleading for cooperation. However at the same time he is pitting the might of Islamic ideology that the Anti-Nationalist Indian Muslim camp can bring to bear on the "Nationalist Indian Muslim" camp. Ajit Doval is banking on Nationalist trait of the Nationalist Muslim but he is leaving the Nationalist Muslim to himself to fight out the ideological struggle with the Not-Nationalist Muslim who would be using Islam in his support. GoI may help the "Nationalist Muslim" logistically and financially, but ideologically speaking the "Nationalist Muslim" is on his own.

4) The bigger problem is that Ajit Doval is offering no Ideological Firewall to shield the Indian Muslim ideologically from all that what is happening in Pakistan or West Asia or elsewhere, as the ideologically brainwashing is happening through Islamic channels of propaganda, and not just political. The "Nationalist Muslim" narrative may have been of use when the enemy was Jinnah's Muslim League, but not when the enemy is Gulf money and ISIS and Taliban propaganda.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 05 Nov 2014 15:29

Building a Narrative for Indian Muslims (Work in Progress) (Cont.)

we have to define in what way Indian Muslims are different than Pakistanis, that is other than the fact that they became Indian citizens. There has to be a thick differentiating ideological line between Pakistan or Islam in general on the one hand and Indian Islam on the other.

There are two narratives one can use:

- Deenist vs. Qaumist: Deenist means the Muslim treats Islam only as his Deen - prayers and rituals. Qaumist means the Muslim considers Islam as his identity giver, determines his political interests and segregates Muslims from Hindus. Qaumist Muslims chose Pakistan. Deenist Muslims chose India. Deenists determine their political interests in terms of India. Then Indians can go hammer and tongs against Qaumist Islam and leave Deenist Islam alone. Of course then India would have to devise a security mechanism which prevents Qaumist Islam to raise its ugly head again. This narrative is useful at the level of State, of GoI.

- Incomplete Islamization: Just because somebody is a Muslim, does not mean his embrace of Islam is complete. He could still retain his other identities - nation, ethnicity, jati, etc. Earlier my claim has been that a Muslim is anywhere on the spectrum between Humanity and Islam. So there is also no need to demonize the Muslim. Yes he is susceptible to full Islam, but he may not be there yet. This narrative is more useful at the level of people.

shiv wrote:I think that the story that deenists chose India and qaumist chose Pakistan is a simplistic story that we like to believe which has gone too far.

We know that many qaumists remained behind in India and parts of Pakistan had deenists as well.


This is a Nehruvian narrative, which the Indian State can now put to good use. In fact we should make this division (Deenists viz-a-viz Qaumists) into an Article of Faith for the country.

This narrative should reject that any Qaumists stayed behind. According to this narrative, if you were a Qaumist and believed in the Two-Nation-Theory, of course you would have migrated to Pakistan.

The corollary is that only Deenists stayed behind in India, and more importantly any Indian Muslim from that time and his descendants in perpetuity were REQUIRED to remain Deenists in order to remain in India. Any violation of that condition, means you are basically a Pakistani living in India illegally with Indian citizenship papers, and the government has the right to take necessary "reeducation" measures as its deems fit.

Propagating Islamic Qaumism in India, after the terrible Partition, should be made a statutory crime. That means anyone saying that Muslims are somehow separate from other communities in India or have separate interests is itself a crime. That means anybody propagating segregation let alone separation is committing a crime.

shiv wrote:We need to recognize and utilize the deenist Muslims of India and tell the qaumists in no uncertain terms as to what is required of them


All Indian Muslims should be squeezed into the good-Muslim Deenist Box. The narrative can accept that due to Pakistani propaganda, some Indian Muslims have gone astray, and they are being shown the right way.

It gives a lever to the government to beat all those who misbehave and at the same time nobody can say that India or GoI is against Islam.

Just for clarity for readers, summarizing the above

There are different perspectives and narratives about Indian Muslims

  1. Bigoted Internet Hindus (like me) Perspective: Islam is basically a political doctrine wrapped in faith, and adherents of Islam always see themselves as a separate Nation from Kufr. Pakistan was created for Subcontinental Muslims. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, Hindu populations were oppressed and have decreased to miniscule numbers, so similarly India should be a Hindu state and Muslims should leave country or behave and have no say in running the country. There may of course be Bigoted Internet Hindus, even more bigoted than me out there, and have still more bigoted ideas.

  2. Pseudosecular Nehruvian Narrative: We are Secular, so Muslims have first right to India's resources. More officially, even if Pakistan was created due to Muslims wanting their own country, we Indians are secular, and do not differentiate between Hindu or Muslim, all are free to live here, and practice, preach and propagate their religions here. Those Muslims who stayed back in India after Partition chose India because of Secularism and rejected Two-Nation Theory. However the Nehruvians never set up any system to ascertain or ensure that the Muslims really believed in Secularism.

  3. My Proposal for a Nationalist GoI: Retain the Pseudosecular Nehruvian Narrative especially the part: "Those Muslims who stayed back in India after Partition chose India because of Secularism and rejected Two-Nation Theory.", but build on that narrative. Call those Muslims who stayed back in India as Deenists, those who are interested only in devotion and do prayers, rituals, etc. according to Islam. Call those Muslims who left for Pakistan as Qaumists, who believe in segregation and separation of Muslim from Hindu. Then proceed to make Qaumism among Indian Muslims a statutory crime, considering that such thinking led to Partition and accompanying bloodshed. So basically even though I think that all Indian Muslims are Qaumists at some level, as Islam necessitates it, we should keep the pretense that all Indian Muslims are Deenists, and the Qaumists among them needed to be weeded out. This allows GoI to both be pro freedom of religion, sound friendly to Islam, but at the same time come down heavy on any Muslim who pushes the Qaumist angle. Since basically the narrative is same as Nehruvian, it would not cause too much distress.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11156
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby A_Gupta » 05 Nov 2014 17:07

^^^ Thank you, RajeshA!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition

Postby RajeshA » 05 Nov 2014 18:32

Dharma vs Adharma

A_Gupta wrote:RajeshA wrote in the WU thread:
My belief is that Dharma makes a far deeper surgical operation to remove a tumor of Adharma, where ever something is recognized as such, than say the West, which goes about banning a head-scarf here and a burqa there.


How this works - examples, theory, anything - would be most welcome on whichever is the appropriate thread.


Dharma is the most fundamental issue of discourse in Bharatiya Sabhyata or rather Āryatva Sabhyata, so me talking about it is really cchotte muhn barhi baat. Bhagavad Gita remains the gold standard to understand Dharma. So below is just a little humble effort at the issue.

I wouldn't say that fight for Dharma is restricted to Indian history only. In some ways even World War II looks like a Dharma Yuddha, a just war, at least as much as all the propaganda and maya around it allows us to see. After World War II, Germans were more or less freed of the Nazism, which had led Germany to declare expansionary wars all around, causing many dead, but more importantly put an end to the genocide of the innocent, the Jews and the Roma. After World War II, Germany was helped with Marshall Plan and the country became prosperous and peaceful again.

Dharma requires a person, a group or a population to be cleansed of such thinking which makes them do Adharmic deeds, and those who have personally participated in such deeds of free volition to accept the karmic punishment which can be death or something less.

Unlike Justice which is punishment only for crimes an individual has committed, Dharma is not just bothered about an individual's transgressions, but more about the upbringing, the mind-set, the thinking, the ideology which leads the individual to commit this transgression. The same mind-set, same ideology may be much more widespread, and as such that too would have to be fought off, so the fight is not necessarily limited to just the individual. That is what I meant by "far deeper surgical operation".

So there are two challenges -

  1. determining a systemic thinking as Adharma, and
  2. finishing off that systemic thinking causing as little pain or loss of life as possible, but as much as is required for the task.

To note is that Dharma makes no compromise with Adharma, nor is the fight finished until Adharma is rooted out. However strategy, tactics, tools, time-frame are all up for introspection, discussion and debate.

Western justice simply tries to deal with the consequences of an ideology or thinking, e.g. Western Justice can only punish a father/brother for committing "honor killing" of the daughter/sister, but cannot really do much about the ideology which perpetrates this thinking.

I used the analogy of Ayurveda and Modern Western Medicine. AFAIK, Ayurveda tries to cure the disease at its root, and thus there is sometimes a thorough search while modern medicine often tries to relieve the patient of the pain, of the symptom. I know, I am putting this rather simplistically, but I simply wish to relay the gist.

JMHO


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jash_p and 48 guests