JE Menon wrote:What exactly are you suggesting rsangram? I don't see much clarity. Are you suggesting
1. A partition (ceding) of the existing territory of India (i.e. the territory that we currently control without Aksai Chin and Pak-Occupied Kashmir) as a solution to the Ghazwa-e-Hind problem?
2. That all the Muslims living in this area must "somehow" be motivated to move to the territory to be given away?
3. This approach will solve the Ghazwa-e-Hind problem?
Will be happy to. Now, you got to realize this is out of the box thinking and has to be looked at objectively, using logic, rather than from prism of existing orthodoxies and status quo. Try to look at it somewhat dispassionately when you consider this, although I must admit, that this whole proposition arises from abundance of passion on my part.
Premise 1. Hindus cannot defend themselves, their territory, particularly J&K, their culture and their civilization adequately without a political entity all their own, like Israel or any number of Islamic countries do. I admit that it is true that this is not a sufficient condition, but certainly a necessary condition and a first necessary condition.
Premise 2. As long as there are any substantial number of muslims living in any territory where Hindus live, they backed by their 1.5 billion brethren around the world along with the stupid Western countries, not to mention China and even Russia, will never allow Hindus to have a political entity, all their own. Look what they did to Nepal, which was relatively benign and largely a symbolic Hindu entity. By the way, an interesting tit bit. Nepal is the only country after World War 2, which went from having a state religion in its constitution to so called, "secular".
Premise 3. Hindus cannot push Muslims out of India, by creating an atmosphere where they will "self deport". Hindus just dont have it in them to create such an atmosphere.
Premise 4- Muslim population of the subcontinent is already 40%, and rising everyday in relation to the Hindus. Not merely rising, rising massively, in relation to the Hindus.
Premise 5 - Once Muslims become a majority or even come close to it, majority meaning 51%, but even if they come close to it, they will start a traditional Islamic genocide, which they have been doing since the inception of Islam in all their conquered territories. They have perfected the art of genocide and are the most genocidal power in the history of mankind. They are pastmasters at it, and once they come close to becoming a majority, they will very quickly convert the rest of us, or force the rest of us to leave as refugees, like they did to Paki Hindus and what even the "friendly" Bangladesh is doing to Bengali Hindus. OR, what the Islamic Kashmiris in India did to Kashmiri Pandits.
Premise 6 - the way it has developed since 1947, India of today has, in fact, in practice, become an anti-Hindu entity, where the Hindus have become suicidal due to suffering mass trauma for 1000 years, and anti-India forces although in minority, collude with foreigners to destroy the Hindus. The Hindus because of their suicidal tendencies and ill health, help these anti-Hindu forces to expedite the destruction of Hindus. To emerge out of our mass trauma which will restore Hindu survival instincts back requires time and space of our own, where Hindus are protected and nurtured back to health, which is only possible in a Hindu state
Conclusion 1 - Given the above premises, a) India as it stands today, cannot be a political entity for Hindus alone, constitutionally, b) In practice, it is even less Hindu, in fact, it is more anti-Hindu, c) India cannot change its demographics by force, d) IT WILL BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT EVEN TO DO THIS, BUT THE ONLY CHANCE iNDIA HAS TO BE MUSLIM FREE, IS THROUGH A NEGOTIATED PARTITION WITH POPULATION TRANSFER. Am I happy to come to this conclusion.....NO.
Which territory will we give away, depends on what comes out of negotiations.
Our starting position should be population transfer without any parting of territory, as we can go back to 1947 partition and say that this is the unfinished business of that partition. After all, in 1947, we created on country for subcontinental Muslims and one for Hindus, as per the two nation theory, which said that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together. Hindus, unanimously rejected the two nation theory, asserting that Hindus and Muslims can live together. The Muslims won the argument because the rest of the world, led by England bought into that theory. Hindus made a mistake in 1947 by not forcing a population transfer from our territory, while the Muslims enforced a population transfer from their territory. We made a mistake, to take a chance to creating a unique example in the history of mankind of brotherhood and secularism. We took that chance and failed to create such a panacea. 60 years is a short time in history and since our good faith attempt failed, we would like to invoke and agree with the two nation theory now and bring about an orderly and humane population transfer, Hindu style, with tears and all, to Pakistan, without any further territorial partition.
But we can in the end settle for some 5 to 10% of our territory to be parted, in exchange for total population transfer, once and for all. Which 10%, will have to be negotiated. It cannot be non-contiguous to Pakistan, it will have to be bordering Pakistan, I would think, but I am open.
Once we have a Hindu nation, then we can try to make it highly regimented, highly militarized, very orderly, nuclear protected HARD STATE and we can go to ancient Magadha, pre and post Chanakya to look for models of such a society.