Strategic leadership for the future of India

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 12 Mar 2009 23:14

Outstanding post, Shiv.

Note that post-Aurangzeb, Iszlaamic power in India (or subcontinent) has been in a state of a permanent decline. It has never challenged us in any meaningful way since then. I don't see that changing.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Mar 2009 23:45

A person without a gun is always afraid of mangy dogs. The dog may die in a weeks time anyway but before that it may bite the person and give him rabies. What does that leave the person.

Once you have a gun and freedom to shoot mangy dogs you will not be afraid of them.

The fear has nothing to do with dogs strengths -- au contrarie it has everything to do with its weakness.

And as the old saying goes -- once bitten twice shy

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Mar 2009 23:53

surinder wrote:Outstanding post, Shiv.

Note that post-Aurangzeb, Iszlaamic power in India (or subcontinent) has been in a state of a permanent decline. It has never challenged us in any meaningful way since then. I don't see that changing.

During the British Viceroyalty period they tinkered with Indian islam promoting a hardline re-Arabsied Indian Islam. Same time they supported the creation of KSA to re-Arabise the rest of Islam. Then came American discovery of Oil in KSA.

How much was delibrate and how much was happenstance can be argued. But the end result is the ascendency of the re-Arabised Islam.

IOW what we see is a revisonist version of Islam which rolls its march of progress.

To ignore this is to get blindfolded and not just blinkered.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 13 Mar 2009 00:03

shiv wrote: ...

I see the Hindu and Hindutvadis fearing everything in the world and barking (or perhaps bleating) with fear and suspicion at everyone like a formerly caged animal that has found itself out in the open. It sees its former captors around and imagines walls and defeat, not realising its own strength and freedom and the weakness of the other

A case of collective post-traumatic stress disorder (once upon a time known as shell shock) on the part of Hindus?

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 13 Mar 2009 00:06

Sanku wrote:A person without a gun is always afraid of mangy dogs. The dog may die in a weeks time anyway but before that it may bite the person and give him rabies. What does that leave the person.

Once you have a gun and freedom to shoot mangy dogs you will not be afraid of them.

The fear has nothing to do with dogs strengths -- au contrarie it has everything to do with its weakness.

And as the old saying goes -- once bitten twice shy

The weak, rabid dog analogy is a very viable one. Such an animal might inspire pity and compassion in addition to fear. The human should protect himself, but could also use his intellect to deal with the animal humanely keeping in mind his own moral values.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 Mar 2009 00:27

Problem is what you guy think is a dog is actally a skunk . Dog has intelligence and friend of human being. Islam do need to be defeated , Arabs have all the rigthts to practice their religion and it should be respected . Its just Islam has no right to stake social, cultural,spiritual and political influence in Non Islamic territories. In past it was done on the strength of Sword and current era demands its roll back as all cost . In case of India, we have already paid the price and parted with land and resources for the followers of Islam, no more. Islam dont grant equal rights to Kaffirs and deserve same in return.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Mar 2009 02:07

self deleted...

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 13 Mar 2009 02:11

ramana wrote:IOW what we see is a revisonist version of Islam which rolls its march of progress.

To ignore this is to get blindfolded and not just blinkered.

Post-Aurangzeb iszlaamic rule has not managed to be anything other than be in a state of decay. Post-Aurangzeb it has not successfully confronted the "Hindu" in India in any meaningful way. The only thing is the creation of Pakistaan, which I regard a resounding British success, not an islameic one. All that islaameists have achieved is a nuisance value, they may see it as victory enough, but sane people don't.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 Mar 2009 02:32

Surinder,
Our Pseudos are feeding the ideological baby monster . Please read the views of majority of current Indian ulema . They clearly do not want to identify with Indics , in fact they want to keep "separate" identity identical; to our mortal civilizational enemies. There is no Indic Islam and it cant be as IM dont want it , It exists onlee in the imagination, hopefullness of well meaning Indians. When they can reject Indo-centric person like Dr Kalam being diluted Muslim , then it is not wise to hope for best but prepare for worst. The question is do we have to wait another 1000 years to see change in bahaviour? Even if we progress economically, social tensions will keep us weak and one day bound to spill over .India has to go through the defining moment of nationhood and sooner the better. We cant have one leg in 21st Century and other in 6Th.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 13 Mar 2009 02:50

Prem,
We should really not care if the IM's want to be Indic or Turkic or Arabic. That is their choice, including the choice to be whichever *-ic they want to be in. It is our job to enhance and project ourselves, our culture, and our nation. As long as we do this with vigor, strength and self-confidence, I don't see any problem even touching us.

As an aside, I don't see how the IM's could give up Indian music, classical music, Hindi film songs, fims, Indian food, Indian dress, Sanskrit based words/grammar. Their separate identity thing is a big bogus sham. Quite frankly, if an IM wants to listen to tinny araabic music, I don't care. In fact, i would love it if they can. (heck, even after leaving India, the Pakis cannot give up *anything* in Indian culture. They have repeatedly shown the really don't want to arabeic.)

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Mar 2009 03:27

Everyone is right. But then someone must be wrong! Islam had been in decline right from the time it entered India. So it periodically reinvented itself, and became a compromised paranoid ideology typical of a "siege mentality". The more it got scared, the more atrocious it became. But its main cause of decline was its failure to understand the complexity of socio-economics of India, and in its paranoid fear it destroyed this very basis of the strength of India - its socio-economics. This in turn left it vulnerable to both internal as well as external enemies. However the internal enemies, mostly non-Muslims of India, shared in the same vulnerabilities after 1000 years of destruction of the backbone of India. They did not have sufficient time to recover or gain sufficient strength, before the Europeans entered.

The British reconstructed through "legal" "upgrades", and either deliberately or stupidly (seems so unlikely, for they knew very well that their own law was not based essentially on the ten commandments!) adjoined the "Ulema" and "Pundit" - who probably simply dusted off their old copy of the Hidaya, or the Sharia or the Manu Samhita and claimed these as the strict/original/pure basis of respective laws (I mean this in a figurative sense, the historians of the forum please interpret this as reference to possible transmission of such "purity/exclusivity" claims when the British employed Indian Ulema or Pundits to learn language and law). It is possible that they realized and observed the process by which the "Indic" would overcome and absorb the "non-Indic" which would mean disaster for the British.

Here we are becoming extremists - on one side of the scale, we tend to have absolute confidence in the "process" of attrition and absorption for Indian Islam to become defunct or lose its teeth. On the other end we have no belief at all in such unassisted degeneration and we believe that it might never be possible at all as long as a single Muslim remains alive. The processes of absorption which might have scared the British included both ideological syncretic tendencies as well as military coercion to back up or encourage such syncretic tendencies.

The problem is that the post-independent GOI was put in place to ensure that the essential strategic objectives of the British continued. The new GOI used the full power of the state machinery to prevent "syncretism" that would have absorbed the IM into the Indic, and definitely ruled out any question of military coercion to enhance the processes of absorption. This consisted of a wide array of measures including ideological, educational, and legal, apart from taking away any military coercive power in the hands of the non-Muslim cultural centres of resistance. The ferocity of state violence on ideologically motivated "uprisings" all appear to have been specifically unleashed if they were sourced from non-Muslim communities - the Indian state was super-soft however when such movements came out of the Indian Muslim as in Kashmir. (Even when moving on the Nizam, not much did happen as retribution or trial for atrocities by the Islam motivated Rajakars of Hyderabad, let alone the genocide of the Partition).

This is then the core of the problem. All leadership in India has acted under the burden of a state framework that has continued to pursue the British policy of preventing ideologically and physically any process of absorption of the IM into the Indic. This process needs both the the ideological as well as the coercive element simultaneously to complement each other. The ideological part is the undermining of the authority of the Ulema, disruption of the Shariati and non-Indic identification and educational process, and exposing the Ulema for what they really are - a bunch of sadistic, biologically greedy, and deeply insecure and therefore power hungry individuals whose existence depends on holding the IM back from progress and modernization in the non-Muslim sense. This however cannot be done becuase of legal and other state machinery protection. The second is the fact that violence can be easily sourced by the Ulema using the super-softness of the Indian state towards Islam compared to all other non-Muslim Indic religions, to prevent the loss of their hold on their community, which will not be put down by the Indian state or coercive forces under its control. But these same state machinery will act with determination and full force if non-Muslims counter such Islamic violence.

Unfortunately it is the current ideological basis, framework and strategic policy mindset of the Indian state which makes it impossible to absorb the Islamic into the Indic. But the task is not impossible on its own.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 Mar 2009 04:06

Surinder ,
its now we should care about their Indic ness but its the impact of their affinity for all that is Non Indian and ideological obligations to anti-Indic forces. Jupiter has already figured out that IndianState do not represent Indic people, their values and civilization. In fact state is repressive toward its own people and work to thwart rejuvination of civilization.

Brahaspati Sir, Post 47 GOI behaviour has something to with Kangress's secret understanding with Britsh and "others". No wonder few years of Non Kangreesi rule did good for India .

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 13 Mar 2009 04:28

surinder wrote:As an aside, I don't see how the IM's could give up Indian music, classical music, Hindi film songs, fims, Indian food, Indian dress, Sanskrit based words/grammar. Their separate identity thing is a big bogus sham.

Post-Aurangzeb Islam is the realm of Bahadur Shah Zafar and Waji Ali Shah as well as Tipu Sultan. Popular culture needs to differentiate between the two and make the former more popular than the latter (as well as notable pre-Aurangzeb kings with a few exceptions).

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Mar 2009 07:48

Keshavji,
The first two might also remind IM about the fate of these two. This could actually reinforce the Wahabi or Moududi propaganda, that IM lost out politically and militarily, in fact lost leadership and dominance over the subcontinent because IM deviated from the "pure/true" path of Islam, and adopted Indic elements or compromised with the "Hindus" in their practices and culture.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2009 08:35

KV Rao wrote:
shiv wrote: ...

I see the Hindu and Hindutvadis fearing everything in the world and barking (or perhaps bleating) with fear and suspicion at everyone like a formerly caged animal that has found itself out in the open. It sees its former captors around and imagines walls and defeat, not realising its own strength and freedom and the weakness of the other
A case of collective post-traumatic stress disorder (once upon a time known as shell shock) on the part of Hindus?

Absolutely.

Every aspect of our response to others is weighed down by memories of defeat and an irrational belief, nay, conviction and faith in the hidden strength of the other and our own weakness and "effete-ness."

The West, embodies by America is given a halo and we lament that our every move will be thwarted by the West, even as the west has already put in motion internal mechanism - Trojan horses that are bound to bring us down.

We turn away from this disastrous thought and we see islam as a monster waiting to devour us with all Indian Muslims doing taqiya till they can swallow us up.

We look in yet another direction and are overwhelmed with fear of China who we see as having defeated us in every sphere. There is no hope for us anywhere - and we marvel at our own survival and blusteringly wax eloquent about our past.

Indians, especially Hindus, have the mentality of a paranoid, defeated, helpless people. I suspect that the majority in India are unable to see the world in a more balanced manner - uncolored by memories of their defeat and fears of further subjugation. This is a special Indian mental disease.

Whatever it is it is not reality because it is paranoia (seeing and fearing threats even where threats don't exist) that attributes special powers to all adversaries and counters any opposition by saying that one must not be blind to the perceived adversaries strengths - therefore our adversaries are invincible. And even allies and potential allies become adversaries - such is the paranoia of our defeated mentality. We have no victories to talk about and our minds dwell agonizingly on the entire world that has defeated us at some time or other and is set to do that again.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Mar 2009 09:15

Shiv-ji,

Call me paranoid but I am not convinced...

Sometimes it is worth looking at what Muslims are saying. A whole lot of Muslims lament the state that Islam has got into. That is dismissed on here as taqiya.

What state of Islam are they worried about? Are they sincerely worried about rabid-fundamentalism in Islam or the bad name it has got due to such behavior?

Did you ever discuss the life and character of Prophet Muhammed with them? Can you discuss his character and life in the same casual/sarcastic manner they talk about Rama/Krishna?

What do these liberal Muslims do if they are given the control of governance in India for say 10 years? Will India stay a secular state? (I suspect if Hindus resist such a move in violent manner and this is the crux of the problem, I guess)

My personal experience has been not that optimistic.

....

As I mentioned long time back, even a Hindu fascist (if such thing exists) will not harm a IM if given a choice.

I do not think the so-called Hindutvavadis are scared of Islam or IMs. You are correct in that if Hindu-majority stands united Hinduism can defeat Islamic bigotry in India and in its neighborhood.

IMO, the hindutvavadis are shit-scared of the Hindu mentality in independent India. That is why we see them fighting the Hindu liberals instead of Islamic right.

For example, how many Hindus in India do you think would agree for a constitution based on Vedas? I am not talking about non-hindu opinion here. We all know 99.99% Hindus have no idea what Vedas are saying and what they mean. Majority Hindus would discard such an option outright, even before looking at Vedas or proposed constitution. We cannot blame IMs or others for that apathy.

The concern of the Hindutvavadis is what happens if few Indian states get Muslim majority governments due to the current religion/caste based alliances. The opposition will walkout whenever a non-secular motion is tabled in the house and the bill will pass.

I do not think we can blame IMs for such an outcome. The blame squarely falls on Hindu majority.

[/rant]

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Mar 2009 09:33

may be wrong thread...

I think it has something to do with the long-long memories of the native cultures that Islam occupied/spread.

If the native culture/psyche is build with a deep/long memory, as a strength to protect it from outside influence, the same trait becomes its weakness if that memory is re-written. There is no mechanism for reverting to the old culture (because there was no such past-experience in that culture)

Could this be the reason why the Arabic, Persian and Sub-continent cultures could not revert back compared to say Judaism and Christian territories? These guys fought and reconverted the locals once Islam is weakened in their lands?

Is there any such possibility?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 Mar 2009 09:37

RamaY is is right as no one is afraid. It is a issue of leaving upcoming generation aware of the threat as well duty of current generation to remove any civilizational threat to the people of land. When someone is brought on the diet of alien glory earned with the butchery of sons of soil then this poison can onlee be harmful the the health of country , society and people. How much credibility and sympathy one will get in Jewish or any humane society if the person identify with Hitler and his Nazi ideological values? Here we have Aurangjeb road and Babri Masjid like we dont owe to Guru Teg Bahadur's martyrdom or the jauhar of Rajput women and children .

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 13 Mar 2009 09:49

shiv wrote:Every aspect of our response to others is weighed down by memories of defeat and an irrational belief, nay, conviction and faith in the hidden strength of the other and our own weakness and "effete-ness."

Indians, especially Hindus, have the mentality of a paranoid, defeated, helpless people. I suspect that the majority in India are unable to see the world in a more balanced manner - uncolored by memories of their defeat and fears of further subjugation. This is a special Indian mental disease.

This disease may be prevalent among Macaulayites, leftists, and the elite, but not among the masses. More than anything it's the distorted history taught in the last two centuries that may have created this feeling.

The masses, soldiers in the Indian Army etc, are not burdened by any such memory of subjugation. For them the past is more nuanced, victories balance defeats, and even the latter are more about heroic resistance and less about subjugation.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 13 Mar 2009 09:57

RamaY wrote:Shiv-ji,

Call me paranoid but I am not convinced...

Sometimes it is worth looking at what Muslims are saying. A whole lot of Muslims lament the state that Islam has got into. That is dismissed on here as taqiya.
What state of Islam are they worried about? Are they sincerely worried about rabid-fundamentalism in Islam or the bad name it has got due to such behavior?

Did you ever discuss the life and character of Prophet Muhammed with them? Can you discuss his character and life in the same casual/sarcastic manner they talk about Rama/Krishna?

What do these liberal Muslims do if they are given the control of governance in India for say 10 years? Will India stay a secular state? (I suspect if Hindus resist such a move in violent manner and this is the crux of the problem, I guess)

My personal experience has been not that optimistic.

....

As I mentioned long time back, even a Hindu fascist (if such thing exists) will not harm a IM if given a choice.

I do not think the so-called Hindutvavadis are scared of Islam or IMs. You are correct in that if Hindu-majority stands united Hinduism can defeat Islamic bigotry in India and in its neighborhood.

IMO, the hindutvavadis are shit-scared of the Hindu mentality in independent India. That is why we see them fighting the Hindu liberals instead of Islamic right.

For example, how many Hindus in India do you think would agree for a constitution based on Vedas? I am not talking about non-hindu opinion here. We all know 99.99% Hindus have no idea what Vedas are saying and what they mean. Majority Hindus would discard such an option outright, even before looking at Vedas or proposed constitution. We cannot blame IMs or others for that apathy.

The concern of the Hindutvavadis is what happens if few Indian states get Muslim majority governments due to the current religion/caste based alliances. The opposition will walkout whenever a non-secular motion is tabled in the house and the bill will pass.

I do not think we can blame IMs for such an outcome. The blame squarely falls on Hindu majority.

[/rant]

Rama Y ji,

There is no political doctrine in Vedas, for that matter Shrutis. So there can't be any Vedic constitution since there is no Vedic Law.. 4 Vedas, Upanishads, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and associated Karma-kandas is shruti and infallible.

The Shrutis do not give a damn about political frameworks or social frame-works. The Dharma, Artha and Kaama aspects of life are not dictated by Shrutis. Shruti is highest and infallible only in Moksha/Nirvana aspect of life.

The first three aspects of life are governed by Smritis which are subject to change with space and time. They are not absolute.

The blame is on Hindu majority because we are looking at problem wrongly.. There is nothing like Hinduism. Hinduism is an artificial construct. All the Indic ideologies, except Sikhism, have evolved in Pre-Islamic India where there was no concept of religion and the term Hindu was meaningless.

The term that should be used is Indian religions and Non-Indian religions. Hinduism is conglomerate of thousands of Astika religions which are as different from each other as Judaism is from Christianity.

My Solution -

1. Stop using the term Hinduism. Identify Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, Tantra and all the other sub groups which are clubbed together as Hinduism by british as separate religions. That is what they are..

2. So there will be Shaivas, Vaishnavas, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Shaaktas, Samkhyas, Tantrics etc etc... all of them separate individual religions.

3. Club them together as "Religions of Indian Origin". No body will object to this term. Since it will be pain in the ass for counting people of thousands of individual religions separately, count them together as Religions originated in India.

4. This means Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism are Religions not originated in India.

5. This will bring together all people of following Indian religion under one denomination.

6. Parsees, Jews won't be any trouble.. Most of Christians, except the evangelical ones will be fine as well..

7. Christians can further be encouraged to start a movement to establish a Church of India like Greek orthodox church, Russian orthodox church, Church of England.

8. Build similar pressure on Muslims to start something similar. Ahmediya sect was established in India and can be clubbed along with Indian religions. So can be the Bahai faith.

9. Those who follow Indian religions, including Ahmediya and Bohra people, can be referred to as Indian because it will be a chaos to refer to each religious group by its name. Jews and Zoroastrians can be declared as minorities. Muslims are not by any means a minority and they follow a religion which is not Indian in origin. There can be some indirect subsidies on minorities and Indic people.

We are not succeeding as yet because we are not unleashing this diversity. It is perfectly safe now because there is very little probability of India being ruled by Muslim rulers in next 150 years. We can afford to take this step. The dire need we had from 1100 - 1800 for uniting under one religious denomination to fight is over now.

Our strength is unity in diversity... This will be the Vishwa-Roop Darshan of all Indian religions... Thousands of them manifesting simultaneously.. The Jihadis will have to either identify the Kafirs individually, Or as Indians. If they identify individually, it is BIG pain in their a$$.. If they identify Indian religions as kafirs, they will have to be referred as Indians. This will create the identity crisis.. The patriotic moderate Muslims will break apart from the Jihadi core...

Anybody who witnesses a Vishwa-Roop Darshan, be it Arjun or be it Abdul, is bound to be overwhelmed and give up the ideological resistance...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 13 Mar 2009 11:51

After almost 15 years of not reading any Hindi and Bengali (translated to Hindi) literature I switched back to reading the same. The elapsed time helped me look at some of the works with a new perspective

The "vernacular" (how I hate the word) or Indic books have not forgotten anything at all. I am amazed how some of these texts have open description of reality and get away with it. In mainstream english media any such book or work of art would be immediately destroyed by ban etc.

There are strong undercurrents, which the "urban" tends to ignore I think.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Mar 2009 17:53

Shivji,
whenever I have tried to raise the spectre of Jihadi or Communist "advance", I have side by side also given the conditionalities by which the process can be reversed. I do not subscribe to the unfounded confidence that defeat of various types of Jihad - whether Muslim, EJ or Com, is automatic and inevitable in the Indic context. Neither do I subscribe to the other extreme that nothing can be done to reverse the "advance" of generic Jihadis. But the crucial thing is realizing that the reversal is not impossible, but it can only be reversed under certain circumstances one of which definitely rests on the character of the Indian state and its leadership.

We have to give it to the Jihadis that they understand one aspect of historical and modern state machinery - state as an instrument of repression in favour of a certain section of society. In India, it is the currents tate machinery that prevents assimilation and formation of all disparate and diverse group within the Indic. In the past this assimilation was usually not interfered with by the state, until the advent of Islamic regimes (most pre-Islamic regimes patronized a wide variety of dispensations, over and above the personal favourite of the ruler). The British in the post 1857 stage deliberately reversed their earlier stance and went over to hardening the "divides" (probably because they saw the dangers to their agenda in the possible collaborations between the "diverse" groups). The GOI installed post 1947 was deliberately manipulated and carefully selected to continue this policy. In the Islamic period, because of failure of Islam to completely replace all pre-Islamic state authorities, there were local neucleis of Indic state regimes that could carry on the process of "reversal". The complete collapase before the British, removed any such chance.

Thus it is important to see that having a state apparatus, that clearly and uncompromisingly takes as its agenda the restoration of the primacy of the Indic, is the key to allow the generic tendency of the Indic to absorb diversity to resurface and succeed. My only cautionary note is not to abandon what I feel is the essential thrust and dynamic of the Indic way - the capacity and freedom to re-examine older "wisdoms" and "conclusions" in the light of changed circumstances and new knowledge. This is also crucial, since I feel that we might have taken on board certain features in reaction to historical interactions with the non-Indic (not necessarily a simple copy), and which we might naively now believe to be a part of the Indic.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Mar 2009 20:45

Sanku wrote:After almost 15 years of not reading any Hindi and Bengali (translated to Hindi) literature I switched back to reading the same. The elapsed time helped me look at some of the works with a new perspective

The "vernacular" (how I hate the word) or Indic books have not forgotten anything at all. I am amazed how some of these texts have open description of reality and get away with it. In mainstream english media any such book or work of art would be immediately destroyed by ban etc.

There are strong undercurrents, which the "urban" tends to ignore I think.

If there is one good thing you can do is setup a reseller website of Sahitya Akademi translated books so that they are widely available in India and abroad.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Mar 2009 20:54

Chiron wrote:
For example, how many Hindus in India do you think would agree for a constitution based on Vedas? I am not talking about non-hindu opinion here. We all know 99.99% Hindus have no idea what Vedas are saying and what they mean. Majority Hindus would discard such an option outright, even before looking at Vedas or proposed constitution. We cannot blame IMs or others for that apathy.
There is no political doctrine in Vedas, for that matter Shrutis. So there can't be any Vedic constitution since there is no Vedic Law.. 4 Vedas, Upanishads, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and associated Karma-kandas is shruti and infallible.

Chiron-ji

You confirmed my point. I just used Vedas to drive the point home. It can be Kamasutra or some Madhubabu's detective novel.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 13 Mar 2009 20:55

Thats actually something I may be able to do. Let me see how I work it out.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Mar 2009 22:46

In response to Chironji's interesting list:

Faiths or religions do not become crucial while thinking of the future leadership of a nation, until fiaths come in the way or promise to enhance the strength of the nation. We are coming back again and again to thsi question of faith while tackling the question of leadership is because we can see that certain faiths have become barriers towards strengthening of the nation. Now which ar ethe faiths that have become obstacles. It is here that we see there are surprising "answers". Some think it is most strongly represented in certain branches of the Abrahamic, while others, without perhaps being aware of it - are actually turning up the majority collection of faiths in the Indic itself as an obstacle. I subscribe partly to both!

To a high degree Islam is an obstruction, to a secondary extent, EJ. But on the other hand, Hindus themselves are to a certain extent obstacles also - as Shivji infers, by being fatally scared of the "other", or as RamaYji infers, by not being able to identify with their "roots", and what I infer as by being paralyzed as a result of being seduced by the brilliant endproduct of Indic thought process, and forgetting to think on their own along this very Indic thought process. Hindus have been partially paralyzed by believeing in the result of the Indian analysis, the complex spectrum of identities and possibilities, as "Hinduism" itself. Thus Hindus remain fatally indecisive - for they cannot decide whether Indic acceptance of complexity in theory extends to accepting each and every thought process as valid, tolerance of myriad theoretical possibiliities extends to tolerance of their practice in real life. The Indian method combined intuition (intelligent, reasonable, too quick a mental process to be conscious of, and therefore apparently mysterious) about most possible or likely - forming them into hypotheses, and observing to verify these hypotheses. Do this repeatedly to make sure, and always re-examine. This is the fundamental method of modern science too. What Indian Hindus have done is simply accept and ossify the conclusions arrived at in past times based on then current knowledge by the "Indic" method, as "Indic" itself. A lot of these conclusion will perhaps remain valid for a long time into the future, but again a significant portion may simply no longer be valid. Blind acceptance or tolerance may be one such item.

One of the clearer criteria to identify Indic origin of faiths is to ask two very simple questions : (a) which place on earth do you consider to be the most sacred for your faith and where you think your faith was first realized by humankind (b) if your faith and whatever you understand to be "the nation of India" ever came into conflict, and you were forced to choose between the two - which one will you choose?

There is no question of asking such questions unless we allow faiths to interfere with the Indian state. The laws of the Indian state and nation should be equally applicable to all Indians, and in this the primacy of the Indic origin faiths have to be recognized. Those who choose to remain more loyal to the non-Indic ideologically will also be subject to the same laws, and will have to give primacy to the Indic in all aspects of their practical life, and cannot claim immunity to carry out their faith based practices if it goes against the "Indic". People might sneer that "where does the Indic exist - it is a shattered, fatally contested, imaginary construct". We can simply reply along the lines of MKG (along the lines onlee, not in "spirit"!) that once the "non-Indics" move out of our way - we will ideologically fight it out among ourselves if necessary, but it will still be a discord within the "family" and sooner or later we will settle it to our collective satisfaction.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 13 Mar 2009 23:28

brihaspati wrote:There is no question of asking such questions unless we allow faiths to interfere with the Indian state. The laws of the Indian state and nation should be equally applicable to all Indians, and in this the primacy of the Indic origin faiths have to be recognized. Those who choose to remain more loyal to the non-Indic ideologically will also be subject to the same laws, and will have to give primacy to the Indic in all aspects of their practical life, and cannot claim immunity to carry out their faith based practices if it goes against the "Indic". People might sneer that "where does the Indic exist - it is a shattered, fatally contested, imaginary construct". We can simply reply along the lines of MKG (along the lines onlee, not in "spirit"!) that once the "non-Indics" move out of our way - we will ideologically fight it out among ourselves if necessary, but it will still be a discord within the "family" and sooner or later we will settle it to our collective satisfaction.

Indian religions and Judaism are woven around their origin. The allegiance towards the land is much more seen in Indian religions and Judaism. Amongst Indian religions, the orthodox Astika schools and Sikhism are the ones which are most attached to the land of their origin. Buddhism is least.

Many of the Indics are not ready to come together, primarily because they object to the term Hindu. Now, Hindu and Indian are exactly the same. But, both are foreign words. and the term "Hindu" has acquired religious connotations.

The term "Bhaartiya Sampradaay" is the one which will be indigenous and all-inclusive. Furthermore, it will create solidarity and sense of nationalism along with other Bhaaratiya followers.

If we look closely at all of the Indian religions, there no major differences within them, when it comes to achievement of Dharma, Artha and Kaama. All of them differ only in Moksha part. Materialistically, they are in perfect synchronisation with each other. That is all we need. Furthermore, the ration of Indian to Non-Indian religions will increase in favour of Indians.

Instead of Hindu Civil code, it should be renamed as Indian civil code and applied to all. The word Hindu has become repulsive because it is a foreign term and also I don't think it was an honorific term when outsiders, particularly medieval muslim rulers used it when describing Indians. The term Bhaarat and Bhaaratiya and Bhaarati are honorific terms which every Indian has accepted since dawn of history.

When all the individual traditions are recognized as separate paths and are not forcibly clubbed under one term which is alien, the friction will reduce.. and Indics will come close..

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Mar 2009 23:51

Chironji - I also started using the "Bharatyia" in ny first posts on the forum, as I categorically stated many times that I am rather uncomfortable with the word "Hindu", for several historical and ethical reasons. I have now started using "Indic" as a kind of "placeholder" for "Bharatyia".

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Mar 2009 04:17

RamaY wrote
The concern of the Hindutvavadis is what happens if few Indian states get Muslim majority governments due to the current religion/caste based alliances. The opposition will walkout whenever a non-secular motion is tabled in the house and the bill will pass.

One of the reasons behind this phenomenon, is the structure by which supreme state power is built up in India. Because of lack of direct elections to a central leadership and government based on a few individuals, regional powerbases develop that can be used by small local elites to stay on in power. This way they exert an influence enormously disproportionate to their actual strength in the overall makeup of the state. The "Majority" culture or community in India cannot show its impact because the electoral process does not allow this "majority" to reflect in the formation of the supreme/central/federal authority. In a direct election to a small, lean and mean central authority - the majority will manifest its actual strength. I can be quite sure that the strongest opposition to any such electoral reform will actually come from those who know very well that that is exactly the death sentence for petty ambitions. In a direct election as individuals, leaders will have to emerge who earn the confidence of the Indian people irrespective of language, region or social origins, and is a great catalyst for nationalist thought to seep into the public psyche and discourse. Diversity is to be cherished but not where it weakens the nation - the question of the character and strength of the Indian state. It is urgent and essential that we realize the importance of having a single power centre under the control of the majority.

I realized the value of what my "right wing" "granddad" told me as a child, that you give power and authority to someone and solidly back it up so that the person/persons can carry out your objectives, and change them only if they fail - but while they are at it do not question them or undermine them. We face increasing fractures, and the need for unification and a lean-mean authority is important.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Mar 2009 18:31

shiv wrote:
Every aspect of our response to others is weighed down by memories of defeat and an irrational belief, nay, conviction and faith in the hidden strength of the other and our own weakness and "effete-ness."
Indians, especially Hindus, have the mentality of a paranoid, defeated, helpless people. I suspect that the majority in India are unable to see the world in a more balanced manner - uncolored by memories of their defeat and fears of further subjugation. This is a special Indian mental disease.

Airavat wrote
This disease may be prevalent among Macaulayites, leftists, and the elite, but not among the masses. More than anything it's the distorted history taught in the last two centuries that may have created this feeling.
The masses, soldiers in the Indian Army etc, are not burdened by any such memory of subjugation. For them the past is more nuanced, victories balance defeats, and even the latter are more about heroic resistance and less about subjugation.

Both these positions represent aspects of reality, but focus on extremes. The crucial point to see is that not only is the public discourse on politics dominated by the category identified by Shivji, but also the fact that the vast majority comprising Airavtaji's category have virtually no effect on how the Indian state runs, how its educational or public policy towards such issues are determined. The common masses, soldiers cannot prevent unequal treatment of "faiths" - I can simply think up how these very same components of the state have reacted or been forced to react towards "violence" or militancy sourced by different "faiths" and ideologies. Anything sourced from EJ or Islamic are likely to be treated far more leniently than other ideologies, and the masses or the "soldiers" conform or allow this to happen.

Shivji's category runs the Indian state and carries political, ideological and social hegemony, their influence and power completely disproportionate to their actual number or significance. The fact that they can get away with this, tells something very important and revealing for the Indian nation. Just as such an elite category determines how the state apparatus is to be used to which the majority of the "masses" or "soldiers" conform, a transformation of the "hegemonistic elite" or their replacement by another "elite" in resonance with the "commons" is crucial for changing the caharacter of the Indian state. At the moment, then, the state and the nation are disjoint but the state is able to impose its hegemony on the nation.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Mar 2009 02:58

shiv wrote:I see the Hindu and Hindutvadis fearing everything in the world and barking (or perhaps bleating) with fear and suspicion at everyone like a formerly caged animal that has found itself out in the open. It sees its former captors around and imagines walls and defeat, not realising its own strength and freedom and the weakness of the other

On second thought, I think the scared-mad-animal syndrome applies to sub-continental Muslims than the Bharatiya society.

The Bharatiya society not only withstood thousand years of Islamic and colonial occupation, but also preserved and reestablished its cultural/intellectual superiority within 20-30 years of its independence (I mean 1971 and 1974).

On the other hand, IMs still suffer from the horrible memories of their forefathers’ surrender to the sword of Islam and they lack the will and courage to come out of this ideological slavery even in a democratic and secular setup.

Perhaps they seek and need Hindu India’s help to offer the much needed psychological support, ideological strength to come out of the shackles of Islam.

I think the Hindu society must extend its protection to the helpless IM society even if that means a separate social status is given to the reverted IMs in the Hindu fold and a constitutional guarantee that the converted are not prosecuted by the bigoted Islamic apostasy laws.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 16 Mar 2009 08:21

brihaspati wrote:Quote:
This suggests that the optimal solution to the Islamist menace may not, as seems intuitively obvious, lie in devastation of the state structure with Islamist ideological moorings. If we break Pakistan into five pieces we may be fighting five Pakistans ten years later... each as capable of terrorism, drug dealing, nuclear proliferation and all these herrowic things as the parent, and each as incapable of developing into a responsible and productive modern nation as the parent. Yes there may be some advantages in terms of playing off the successors against each other but that is marginal... remember Talikota if you think we can do that indefinitely.

Yes the key is the destruction of the regenerative ideological apparatus, and not merely the state apparatus. The destruction of the state apparatus is important only so far as to remove the protection afforded to the ideological regeneration apparatus.

I don't see how the destruction of a regenerative ideological apparatus is even remotely possible in practical terms. The mighty Americans have invaded Iraq, but they couldn't even weed out the adherents of pan-Arab Ba'ath socialism... an ideology that is relatively in its infancy... from the political classes in that country. In fact they've had to fall back on recruiting the very Ba'athists they spent so much effort trying to purge, because nobody else seems able to run the country. If they could not root out Ba'athism how could they in a million years destroy the regenerative ideological apparatus of Islam? How could anybody? This is fantasy. The ideological regenerative apparatus is designed to survive adverse conditions of an order that would bring about the demise of nation states.

brihaspati wrote:Quote:
rudradev wrote:The optimal solution may, in fact, be NOT to destroy the state structure... but to make sure its authority is constantly undermined and challenged on ideological grounds by those very same nuclei of Islamist regeneration. Maintain an equilibrium whereby the state of Pakistan, for example, is always being challenged by various Tanzeems, Madrassahs and so on for its inability to confirm to their ideological standards. Keep the nuclei of regeneration, constantly on the brink of uncontrolled proliferation, so that they become not calluses but cancers. Let the state structure and the nuclei exhaust themselves by continuously struggling with each other on the basis of who is more properly Islamist and more credible to lead the Ummah.
No, here I disagree. Similar struggles erupted soon after the demise of Muhammad. The early Caliphates and the successor regimes all led a merry dance of exactly what you describe. But you can see a slow steady expansion of the Islamic influence, and no infighting or contest for the "purest label" of the Ummah, stopped its inexorable crush on the non-Muslim. For, evenwhile infighting they always collaborated when it came to the enslavement or conversion. Their growth engine stopped because of the incompatibility of their world-view with complexity, and their paranoia and limited cultural intelligence destroyed the non-Muslim economies which they practically used as parasites. This in turn led to stagnation and weakening that made it vulnerable to determined European colonialism. We cannot afford to get our economies destroyed in order to weaken Islam now.

What happened after the demise of Muhammed is completely irrelevant to the present situation. At that time there was hardly any state structure to speak of, just a set of territories that had been freshly subjugated by violent conquest. So no matter how Muhammed's successors may have vied with one another on the basis of ideological credibility, there was no temporal power structure to suffer a cost from such infighting.

That is entirely different from the situation in Pakistan today... where we see a state authority with a different set of priorities from those fostered by the nuclei of ideological regeneration. Under normal circumstances the nuclei protect the state structure from ideological erosion, and under conditions where the state structure is in danger of collapse as a result of overwhelming temporal assault (from any military, economic or any other non-ideological source) the nuclei provide insurance against the concurrent extermination of the ideology.

Secondly, no matter what might have happened during the succession struggles, nobody challenged Muhammed himself on ideological grounds during his lifetime. This is again very dissimilar from Pakistan, where direct challenges by the various Tanzeems and Madrassahs against the authority of the TSPA result in struggles that inflict huge costs to the power of the Pakistani state as a whole.

Thirdly, the world today is not the same as it was in Muhammed's time. It is not as easy for Islam to impose costs on others even while its leaders fight amongst themselves for the mantle of "purest". Islam had its chance to achieve global civilizational success and, as you say, squandered its enormity of ill-gotten plunder instead. Today Muslims everywhere (with the possible exception of some Dhimmi European societies) are finding it impossible to exist as raving, ideologically-unhinged parasites on the wealth generated by others. That history has very little scope of repeating itself, and I do not see any likelihood of non-Muslim economies getting substantially "weakened" as a result... how much has Pakistan's Kashmir strategy of a thousand cuts actually "weakened" India's economic progress since its inception in 1990?

This is why I say that it is better not to destroy the state structure of a nation like Pakistan, but let it remain hostage to a perpetual, debilitating struggle between the various centers of power within that state. Destroying the state structure from outside means that the legates have nothing to lose, and nothing to stand in the way of their regenerative capacity. A complete defeat of the TSPA/RAPE establishment equals complete victory for the ideological regenerative nuclei... and is simply not worth the expense of achieving it, because we will end up fighting new TSPA/RAPE establishments within a decade's time.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Mar 2009 08:28

RamaY wrote:
I think the Hindu society must extend its protection to the helpless IM society even if that means a separate social status is given to the converted IMs in the Hindu fold and a constitutional guarantee that the converted are not prosecuted by the bigoted Islamic apostasy laws.

KVRao has reached a similar conclusion

KV Rao wrote: The weak, rabid dog analogy is a very viable one. Such an animal might inspire pity and compassion in addition to fear. The human should protect himself, but could also use his intellect to deal with the animal humanely keeping in mind his own moral values.

I would tend to agree with both viewpoints.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 16 Mar 2009 08:53

shiv wrote:People tend not to see what I am saying now - but we don't need to weaken Islam at all.

"Weakening Islam" is, with respect, the argument of a person who thinks Islam is strong. Strong implies unity and oneness of purpose. Islam is neither. The mindset of a people weakened by Islam continue to see Islam as strong.
...

I see the Hindu and Hindutvadis fearing everything in the world and barking (or perhaps bleating) with fear and suspicion at everyone like a formerly caged animal that has found itself out in the open. It sees its former captors around and imagines walls and defeat, not realising its own strength and freedom and the weakness of the other

I'm afraid the point of discoursing in absolute terms like "weak", "strong", "victory", "defeat" and so on is entirely lost on me."Weak/Strong", by what yardstick (economic? military? political? cultural?) and against what benchmarks of comparison? And under what conditions are "victory" or "defeat" to be credibly declared? Do the adversaries in each conflict agree on those conditions?

Today, does any Indian (Hindu, Hindutvavadi or even Muslim) genuinely consider the forces of subcontinental Islamism (as represented by the Taliban or Pakistan or the ISI or SIMI or LeT) to be "strong"? What does the word even mean? In terms of economic "strength", which can be measured in terms of relatively rational and objective indicators, they are no match for India. In terms of military strength, measured in numbers and quality of troops/aircraft/armored vehicles etc. it is very difficult to make a case that the forces of Islamism are "strong" compared to India. Ditto for the fields of science, technology, education, literacy, health, infrastructure, so on and so forth.

I suspect the mindset of the Hindu/Hindutvavadi is not characterized so much by fear resulting from an ancestral memory of defeat. I'd say it was characterized mainly by a frustration at the apparent inability of those ruling India to leverage her apparent relative strengths in an effective manner. To wit, we are obviously so much stronger than Pakistan or Bangladesh or LeT or SIMI... we have so much more money, so much more muscle. So then, why must Indian citizens die from repeated terrorist attacks at the hands of those parties, and why is there even any Kashmir dispute (let alone a rush to resolve it by offering peace-talks and concessions?)

When that kind of thing goes on longer than a few decades the temptation to subscribe to conspiracy theorizing becomes overwhelming. We are strong, yet we are losing... means something must be very much black in the lentils no? Means, the enemies of Hinduism, the closet supporters of Islamism, the secret vanguard of Evanjehadism, the undercover agents of Chinese Communism, the hidden hand of America... etc. etc. etc. are somehow surreptitiously thwarting us from achieving our goals as a nation and a civilization.

You cannot simply tell new generations of Indians "no, don't be silly, the government is fine, our system is fine, our country is fine, and yes we are strong".... and then turn around and explain to them that the shape of India they see in their school maps is actually not quite accurate, because the Pakistanis are sitting on this chunk and the Chinese are sitting on that chunk and we can't do anything. Or teach young Indians that we are a society where the rule of law prevails, and then explain that 180 Mumbaiites got killed by some Pakis but will receive no justice for the foreseeable future because the Americans won't let us do anything about it. That screws with their heads far more than any number of tales about Somnath, Ghazni, Aurangzeb or ancestral defeat.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Mar 2009 09:08

Rudradev wrote
I don't see how the destruction of a regenerative ideological apparatus is even remotely possible in practical terms. The mighty Americans have invaded Iraq, but they couldn't even weed out the adherents of pan-Arab Ba'ath socialism... an ideology that is relatively in its infancy... from the political classes in that country. In fact they've had to fall back on recruiting the very Ba'athists they spent so much effort trying to purge, because nobody else seems able to run the country. If they could not root out Ba'athism how could they in a million years destroy the regenerative ideological apparatus of Islam? How could anybody? This is fantasy. The ideological regenerative apparatus is designed to survive even the most horrifically adverse conditions, of the sort that would flatten nations or states.

This is on the assumption that Americans at all tried to destroy the regenerative ideological apparatus. To do so would have meant systematically going after the theologians - not the Baathists. Baathists have several differences from Islamic theologians, even if they both converge on bloddthirst. America models others by itself, where it thinks there is some degree of separation between the political and the theological, and it went after the political. Rooting out another ideology's regenerative apparatus is possible - Islam itself has proved that in Arabia, Iraq and Iran. Th difficulty is simply because the campaign is being fought under modern times and from a side which has constantly to think of watching its steps in case its crossing the lines of "war crimes" are recorded by media and broadcast. But this is not fantasy.

What happened after the demise of Muhammed is completely irrelevant to the present situation. At that time there was hardly any state structure to speak of, just a set of territories that had been freshly subjugated by violent conquest. So no matter how Muhammed's successors may have vied with one another on the basis of ideological credibility, there was no temporal power structure to suffer a cost from such infighting.

The Islamic state of the the Ummayids, and the Hispanic branch of Ummayids, and the Abbasids or Fatimids having "hardly any state structure to speak of"? No temporal power structure to suffer the costs of? Maybe we have to go through Caliphate history once again!

That is entirely different from the situation in Pakistan today... where we see a state authority with a different set of priorities from those fostered by the nuclei of ideological regeneration. Under normal circumstances the nuclei protect the state structure from ideological erosion, and under conditions where the state structure is in danger of collapse as a result of overwhelming temporal assault (from any military, economic or any other non-ideological source) the nuclei provide insurance against the concurrent extermination of the ideology.

This is perhaps an oversimplification of the TSP state structure. The forms of the state apparatus appear to have a different set of agenda from the neuclei of regeneration because the "forms" are that of "modern/democatic/Anglo-Saxonic" that has been foisted upon a base which has never been modern/democratic/Anglo-Saxonic. The actual state is better represented by the PA+theologian networks, which comes closer to the Islamic ideal of the state. This real state was always there from the inception of Pakistan and this real state is nowhere near collapse.

Secondly, no matter what might have happened during the succession struggles, nobody challenged Muhammed himself on ideological grounds during his lifetime. This is again very dissimilar from Pakistan, where direct challenges by the various Tanzeems and Madrassahs against the authority of the TSPA result in struggles that inflict huge costs to the power of the Pakistani state as a whole.

There were some challenges to Muhammad's authority even during his lifetime on ideological grounds. However, once again the situations are not comparable, because the challenges are not to the real state structure which is the consolidation and fusion of theologian, military power into a single state structure. The challenges are to the political forms which are alien to Islam.

Thirdly, the world today is not the same as it was in Muhammed's time. It is not as easy for Islam to impose costs on others even while its leaders fight amongst themselves for the mantle of "purest". Islam had its chance to achieve global civilizational success and, as you say, squandered its enormity of ill-gotten plunder instead. Today Muslims everywhere (with the possible exception of some Dhimmi European societies) are finding it impossible to exist as raving, ideologically-unhinged parasites on the wealth generated by others. That history has very little scope of repeating itself, and I do not see any likelihood of non-Muslim economies getting substantially "weakened" as a result... how much has Pakistan's Kashmir strategy of a thousand cuts actually "weakened" India's economic progress since its inception in 1990?

Islam was never ideologicaly unhinged parasite - its ideology was calculated shrewdly to optimize extraction of biological resources from others. Today Muslims can move even an UN resolution to ban all and any criticism or critical analysis of its ideology, and they can hold an entire Indian state to ransom even though they are only 14% of the population and force the remaining 86% to sponsor its holy trips to Mecca. It will be a big mistake to dub historical Islamic behaviour as "ideologically unhinged" - it is shrewdly calculated to continue the extraction process. A good question is that there are hardly any economic calculations as to the cost of existence of TSP to India since its formation. I would love to start the financial calculations of the cost to India of "Islamic Jihad" in Kashmir but I would rather not since it will nicely play into the hands of those who try to say - its so much more beneficial for India to "give Kashmir up".

This is why I say that it is better not to destroy the state structure of a nation like Pakistan, but let it remain hostage to a perpetual, debilitating struggle between the various centers of power within that state. Destroying the state structure from outside means that the legates have nothing to lose, and nothing to stand in the way of their regenerative capacity. A complete defeat of the TSPA/RAPE establishment equals complete victory for the ideological regenerative nuclei... and is simply not worth the expense of achieving it, because we will end up fighting new TSPA/RAPE establishments within a decade's time.

I have always, categorically stated that the main purpose of overthrowing the underlying Islamic state structure and occupy the territory under Indian authority, is to systematically root out and destroy the theologians and their networks. The underlying state protects the theologians - and this is why the state has to be destroyed first, but the task will not be complete unless it i sfollowed up by the liquidation of theologians and their networks. I think we differ on what we consider to be the TSP state and its base.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Mar 2009 20:41

Rudradev wrote: Today, does any Indian (Hindu, Hindutvavadi or even Muslim) genuinely consider the forces of subcontinental Islamism (as represented by the Taliban or Pakistan or the ISI or SIMI or LeT) to be "strong"? What does the word even mean? In terms of economic "strength", which can be measured in terms of relatively rational and objective indicators, they are no match for India. In terms of military strength, measured in numbers and quality of troops/aircraft/armored vehicles etc. it is very difficult to make a case that the forces of Islamism are "strong" compared to India. Ditto for the fields of science, technology, education, literacy, health, infrastructure, so on and so forth.

Sadly Rudradev - the "rise of political Hindutva" I am seeing in India (as opposed to the economic and other clout of Hindus in India) is the rise of the paranoid weaklings. Political Hindutva in India thrives on paranoia and lamentation of what has been lost. What has been lost can only be gained by taking it back from Islam. And Christianity. Save for a few national leaders, Hindutva in India is the rise of the blinkered weaklings who resent the history of Hindu defeat and are only looking to avenge those defeats rather than rising up and seeing the real threats of the world. So busy are our Hindutvadis trying to reverse the defeats in India that they make Indian Muslims stand out as a global force of jihad - Trojan horses waiting to let a Ghauri or Ghaznavi in from the Northwest. They are unable to see the Indian Muslims as the totally fi(ked up and defeated force that they are. Some of our Hindutvadis are such small and blinkered people that this mangy starving dog Islam in India is THE major force to be defeated. They cannot see that Mullahs need to be controlled and put in their place but screwed up ordinary Muslims only need help to get out of the sh1t pot of history in which the only thing that could have gone worse for the Indian Muslim would have been to end up in Pakistan. Instead of being in Pakistan they are under the control of some ch**tya backward mullahs which is only slightly better. But no. To the small political Hindutavdi all Muslims are Trojan horses - doing taqiya as they wait. The enemy within. The mangy defeated dog is the biggest threat.

The world has big boys in it. Prowling tigers - not mangy dogs. The US, Germany, Japan, Russia and China which is learning how to be a big boy. These big boys look at India with some awe - but after a short while they realise that this huge populous India consists of a bunch of small people who feel their national duty is to keep on punching below their weight while they howl and lament their own history - trying to wipe out the indelible ink of history from India and hating the idea that history after a particular date in India must be accepted and we must move on.

A few people on this forum speak for the more broad minded and intelligent Hindutvadis who can see on a global scale. But the average political Hindutvadi worker on the ground is too busy fighting the already screwed up and effete Muslims of India - giving those Muslims and their religion a reputation of fearsomeness and unity that it no longer has. The Hindu is a comatose animal. He is not yet arrived in the modern day. He is fighting some battles which will keep him in the low place that he chooses to put himself in the name of Hindutva and patriotism. He will fear and respect islam and he will watch in awe as the US and China play global games - believing that those to nations are neck deep in supporting the big enemy of Hindutva - Islam. They support Pakistan. Pakistan supports Indian Muslims.So the paranoid and fearful Hindutvadi sees himself as the bottom of a dungpile in which Indian Muslims are about to remove what little of his culture he has left, And they have the support of Pakistan. And Pakistan is suported by youknowwho. And when the fearful Hindutvadi tries to fight the Indian Muslim and cow the already screwed Muslim down, he worries about a side attack from Christianity - which can never be fought because it has the support of a power whose level the ordinary Hindutavdi can never hope to reach - the US. The Hindutvadi believes that he can never hope to reach US level because he feels he has to fight Islam and Pakistan first - which are both keeping him down.

This type of Hindutva is for losers only.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 Mar 2009 21:52

Rudradev wrote:

I'm afraid the point of discoursing in absolute terms like "weak", "strong", "victory", "defeat" and so on is entirely lost on me."Weak/Strong", by what yardstick (economic? military? political? cultural?) and against what benchmarks of comparison? And under what conditions are "victory" or "defeat" to be credibly declared? Do the adversaries in each conflict agree on those conditions?

Today, does any Indian (Hindu, Hindutvavadi or even Muslim) genuinely consider the forces of subcontinental Islamism (as represented by the Taliban or Pakistan or the ISI or SIMI or LeT) to be "strong"? What does the word even mean? In terms of economic "strength", which can be measured in terms of relatively rational and objective indicators, they are no match for India. In terms of military strength, measured in numbers and quality of troops/aircraft/armored vehicles etc. it is very difficult to make a case that the forces of Islamism are "strong" compared to India. Ditto for the fields of science, technology, education, literacy, health, infrastructure, so on and so forth.

I suspect the mindset of the Hindu/Hindutvavadi is not characterized so much by fear resulting from an ancestral memory of defeat. I'd say it was characterized mainly by a frustration at the apparent inability of those ruling India to leverage her apparent relative strengths in an effective manner. To wit, we are obviously so much stronger than Pakistan or Bangladesh or LeT or SIMI... we have so much more money, so much more muscle. So then, why must Indian citizens die from repeated terrorist attacks at the hands of those parties, and why is there even any Kashmir dispute (let alone a rush to resolve it by offering peace-talks and concessions?)

When that kind of thing goes on longer than a few decades the temptation to subscribe to conspiracy theorizing becomes overwhelming. We are strong, yet we are losing... means something must be very much black in the lentils no? Means, the enemies of Hinduism, the closet supporters of Islamism, the secret vanguard of Evanjehadism, the undercover agents of Chinese Communism, the hidden hand of America... etc. etc. etc. are somehow surreptitiously thwarting us from achieving our goals as a nation and a civilization.

This is a very perceptive post.
This concept of strong and weak in terms of different communities in India is still media and image creation.
During the 2001 and after 911 Pak people were trying to plead that do not show Pak and Islam weak and low. They did not want to show Hindus and India dominant and stronger in the subcontinent. This image buildup is very keenly followed by the Pak islamists since it has some purpose.

You cannot simply tell new generations of Indians "no, don't be silly, the government is fine, our system is fine, our country is fine, and yes we are strong".... and then turn around and explain to them that the shape of India they see in their school maps is actually not quite accurate, because the Pakistanis are sitting on this chunk and the Chinese are sitting on that chunk and we can't do anything. Or teach young Indians that we are a society where the rule of law prevails, and then explain that 180 Mumbaiites got killed by some Pakis but will receive no justice for the foreseeable future because the Americans won't let us do anything about it. That screws with their heads far more than any number of tales about Somnath, Ghazni, Aurangzeb or ancestral defeat.

This current reality and cognitive dissonance is strong for over 30 years now.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Mar 2009 00:47

shiv wrote: Save for a few national leaders, Hindutva in India is the rise of the blinkered weaklings who resent the history of Hindu defeat and are only looking to avenge those defeats rather than rising up and seeing the real threats of the world. So busy are our Hindutvadis trying to reverse the defeats in India that they make Indian Muslims stand out as a global force of jihad - Trojan horses waiting to let a Ghauri or Ghaznavi in from the Northwest. They are unable to see the Indian Muslims as the totally fi(ked up and defeated force that they are.
...
The world has big boys in it. Prowling tigers - not mangy dogs. The US, Germany, Japan, Russia and China which is learning how to be a big boy.
...
And when the fearful Hindutvadi tries to fight the Indian Muslim and cow the already screwed Muslim down, he worries about a side attack from Christianity - which can never be fought because it has the support of a power whose level the ordinary Hindutavdi can never hope to reach - the US. The Hindutvadi believes that he can never hope to reach US level because he feels he has to fight Islam and Pakistan first - which are both keeping him down.

Well said shiv-ji!

This brings us the five strategic worldviews (could be more but this grouping represents 99% of Indian population and leadership):
1. The Nationalistic Bharatiya – The matured leadership sees Hindutva as the cultural glue that can unite India under one leadership and take this nation to its rightful place on world stage. This group believes in India’s capability to be a big-boy in treading its own path.
2. The Hindutva weaklings – Your post sums up this group better. They do not have any other purpose than seeking revenge for past (perceived or real) atrocities.
3. The indifferent Indian – Do not know where he is or what he wants or what he can be. This group is dhimmified beyond a point and are happy with status-quo {No bad feelings. I am just stating the facts and I empathize with their worldview}
4. Confused IMs – Looking for a respectful way out of their ideological slavery. At the same time few minority rabid-types are trying to slowdown this gravitational pull of Bharatiya-culture and take this mass into the orbit of Ummah. Neither of these groups have the ideological or political motivation or capability to view or take India to big-boy league.
5. Pseudo-secular forces – The groups that bought into other foreign ideologies such as socialism, secularism, Maoism, EJ-ism etc. These groups do not think India can be a big-boy on its own unless it disconnects itself from its cultural roots and associate with another (external) big-boy. Their objective is to hold India hostage to few dogmas so the Indian public will never realize its potential.

Given this background,

What should be the strategic vision for Independent India for next 50-100 years? Should India strive to be a big-boy at all?
What should be the composition of Strategic leadership for the future of India?
What strategies it can follow to take each of the above ‘interest’ groups with it?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Mar 2009 00:56

Rudradev wrote:
I suspect the mindset of the Hindu/Hindutvavadi is not characterized so much by fear resulting from an ancestral memory of defeat. I'd say it was characterized mainly by a frustration at the apparent inability of those ruling India to leverage her apparent relative strengths in an effective manner. To wit, we are obviously so much stronger than Pakistan or Bangladesh or LeT or SIMI... we have so much more money, so much more muscle. So then, why must Indian citizens die from repeated terrorist attacks at the hands of those parties, and why is there even any Kashmir dispute (let alone a rush to resolve it by offering peace-talks and concessions?)

You have missed the important point regarding narrative.
Hindu narrative has been suppressed and dismissed after independence. Continuity of the Hindu narrative is stopped and regarded as inconsequential.

This has changed the discourse in the learning universities, civil society and in political space.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Mar 2009 01:08

Thats true. One view on this: West suppressed the narrative through the minions/DIE in JNU.

My take is that its the elite that have become Modernised and are discarding traditional values without understanding why. The massive killings during the Partition served as a Modernising event in Indian elites' worldview.

So you cant reverse the thought process but have to divert it in a way favorable to Indian society.

DIE is not the problem but an agent of the change.

A fermentation or churning is going on and its for Indians to own the process and not let it be controlled by outsiders. Its important to study societal changes from macro point of view and not appear as blocking change. This is what will lend stability to Indian society.

All the debates of Fake Seculars and Secular Fakes is all because of this Modernist stage of Indian soceity after the mass killings of the Partition. They are a confused lot but are in majority and can influence the outcome of this churning.

A similar churning occured in the Mahajanapada time period that led to the Jaina and Buddhist movements and the monarchial period. And again during Adi Sankara's time.

So lets recognize whats happening.