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.
One could also argue that if those lands were within India, then maybe the rabid versions would not have developed in such a prolific manner. The separate distinct identity that majority in both east and west partitioned lands enjoy now has led or been a catalyst for this cancerous growth.
It can perhaps be argued that thus cancerous growth always existed - if you see what happened in Bangladesh in 1950 OR the rapidity with which the non-Muslim population disappeared after partition from Pakistan or even the aggressiveness with which the Pakistani army (supported by the average growth west pakistanis) killed off 3 Million of their own people...you realize that perhaps this cancer is inherent and not a product of political separation.
Evidence from riots going back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries also demonstrate the same trends.
We have had a population within the current borders which have remained largely in harmony, notwithstanding the occasional riots. Lives lost in riots probably however valuable, would be smaller than an all out war scenario. So the proof exists that keeping them under the current umbrella has curbed some of the tendencies seen in the lost lands, even with a population segment which did not have the means to prosperity to begin with. The rich and educated among the group having migrated to the west or east during partition.
Prem, 2025 is an ok time-frame, but nothing gained by keeping it for much later, like 2125 or later. It may be too late by then. It has to be completed by 2047-2050 time frame. It is better for the periphery to be under our direct control, rather than having external power set up base on one pretext or another.
We have had a population within the current borders which have remained largely in harmony, notwithstanding the occasional riots. Lives lost in riots probably however valuable, would be smaller than an all out war scenario.
Does this proof exist for Indian territories with 25%+ demographics or say 50%+ demographics - today's West Bengal's districts are perfect counter-evidence to your claim.
Note that even 20 years ago, evidence such as what happened in DeGanga would never have come out in public. Today, dissemination of data is different and hence we know more.
SwamyG wrote:My point, sooner or later India will have to think about "redistribution" of its population.
The best two places to go for this are Canada and Oz.
Oz is definitely in my radar. It is close to desh as well, and is not as cold as Canada. But it is just hotter; with bulk of the population living on the coastal and southern regions. Similarly bulk of the Canadian population borders USA border. Both case is because of the terrain and climate.
We have had a population within the current borders which have remained largely in harmony, notwithstanding the occasional riots. Lives lost in riots probably however valuable, would be smaller than an all out war scenario.
Does this proof exist for Indian territories with 25%+ demographics or say 50%+ demographics - today's West Bengal's districts are perfect counter-evidence to your claim.
Note that even 20 years ago, evidence such as what happened in DeGanga would never have come out in public. Today, dissemination of data is different and hence we know more.
One needs to ask if having a rabid neighbor helping the cause of sympathizers even within our current borders. What happens when the neighbors multiply and overwhelm us, what kind of fencing and economic policy will keep them from trying to cross over.
If as SwamyG has pointed out even we Indians need to migrate out, so must the non-rabid for now neighbours feel as the population goes unchecked there.
Coming to WB's case can it not be explained by the internal politics alone. If the situation is no better with borders as you claim and already a losing proposition, then why not exert at least some more control by having more presence in the "enemy" camp.
Once i watched an old Nippon movie about Shogun Tokunaga. It contained lot of wisdom to handle friends and enemies in the "Shubcontinental" situation like ours. Wonder if anyone else has watched that movie.
Keeping the enemy fragmented and engaged in constant infighting is perhaps the only model that can work. A fragmented enemy that can spill over on to us represents a tactical problem, as opposed to a strategic problem of a unified enemy or pulling the enemy within our borders.
Cultural changes that have not happened within our neighborhood over the last few hundred years, will not happen. Pulling the enemy into our union does not make sense - although spending money to make sure that they stay outside our borders and remain "engaged" with each other is a good cause to spend our resources.
Incidentally, we can always pass off the happenings in WB to internal politics, but anytime you have 30%+, 40%+, 50%+ demographics - we seem to see this behavior with amazing predictability.
SwamyG wrote:Oz is definitely in my radar. It is close to desh as well, and is not as cold as Canada. But it is just hotter; with bulk of the population living on the coastal and southern regions. Similarly bulk of the Canadian population borders USA border. Both case is because of the terrain and climate.
Migration will not help the cause of India, though I do actively encourage migration. Oz was looking good with large migration from punjab with semi-skilled types. We need to encourage more people at the bottom of the pyramid to vote with their feet. The new number from UP overtaking Kerala is encouraging from that pov.
But the 2nd or 3rd generation able to help India when in need is questionable. The emigrated numbers are too low to make life easy for remaining sub-continentals in the next century at least, unless they multiply rapidly in adopted lands.
Bade wrote:But the 2nd or 3rd generation able to help India when in need is questionable.
This can be offset by some proactive steps by the government. Such an example can be found in Israel where jewish parents in US, UK etc can send their kids to israel for few months of military service regardless of citizenship. Iv talked to some such kids. They r very protective about their country of origin.
Prem wrote:The Subcontinentalism remind me of "Aa Baail , mughe maar" i.e Invite/Come Ox and kick me hard in the Musharraf. Strengthening Indian core can achieve all the desired results asked by Rajesh ji. Indians are building one of the most powerful nations on the Earth and need no divertion to exhaust their energy on wasteful people in the neighborhood. I think the best way to go is build the enoromous economy , become one of the top 3, translate that power into military strength and then go on fixing the periphery by first demolishing the centuries old false edifices and then reconstructing them into our own civilizational image . Indian interest calls for the recovery of the area and not of the people gone to the Non Indic way. The appropriate time to publicly discuss this subject is 2025plus.
Prem ji,
The basic compass that I am using for Asian geopolitics is as explained in this post.
As you mentioned before,
Prem wrote:Pan Subcontinentalism means lack of confidence in India, its people and the capabiity to achieve new economic and military height without compromising its civilizational foundations.
You are 400% correct. . I do lack the confidence, that India will pull it off, if we follow the current trajectory of growth economics, moderate military build-up and little in the way of a strategy for the Indian Subcontinent, all this compounded by Islamic appeasement within India. I am fine with Muslim Appeasement, it is Islamic Appeasement that bothers me.
India's enemies gain more and more toehold, foothold, leghold, in the Indian Subcontinent, shrinking our strategic space. They also have enormous amounts of money, but more importantly the will to cause us harm. Frankly, I don't see an Indian counteracting strategy. We are making our money, but we are also letting our musharrafs be kicked at the pleasure of our enemies.
China protecting LeT in the UNSC, or China implying J&K to be a Pakistani territory, even as they do business with us, says it all! There are some uncomfortable scenarios written about in the Future Scenarios for the Indian Subcontinent - II Thread, as well as in the ebook.
I think, India would have to do a lot more than sit tight and hope for the best!
Rajesh ji,
I agree in regard to the political wekness of India caused by its ruling DIE elites. India got Transfer of Power in 47 but power have not been transfered to Indians in real sense. Thanks to Congressi sabotage in 47, For most part GOI policies have never been representative of Indian public.
If Indic remain the the weakest party before and after then we gain nothing. Entering in any kind of negotiation with the assumed/perceived weakness can only spell doom. When situation is in flux then its better to wait and watch , accumulate and hide the strength and make the move from the position of strength. Hardning Indian core is the way to break the current jam. if India can point couple of hundred Nukes at china and go after cleaning the mess , doubt very much China will dare to bet its future for LET or Paki sake. Even though it is done at the behest of Uncle, GOI hardening attitude toward PRC is good sign. sooner or latter China will react and its response can be used to gauge its real strength and not Son Zu bluff.
Reconquista will be the way to go in mid term and elimination of antagonistic intrusive forces in long term.
Kamboja wrote:You perhaps intentionally left these things unsaid, but there are a few parameters that you (or other esteemed members) will need to define to have a meaningful discussion about a pan-subcontinental project.
Time Frame
Details of the Union
Cultural/ Religious sphere
Global factors
Forgive the long-winded post, but I am clearly inspired! I also believe that for the long-term (hundreds of years) thriving of India we must secure the space around us, from Afghanistan and Eastern Iran to Burma to Madagascar to Somalia to Western Indonesia... not that we must necessarily rule these areas, but we must have a tolerable level of control over them. Otherwise India will remain hemmed in and with too many instruments on its borders just waiting to be used by hostile powers.
Kamboja ji,
Your enthusiasm is most welcome!
I started this thread mainly to discuss, form and formulate an/the ideology behind Subcontinental integration and reunification. It is to give the people in our neighboring countries an ideological anchor which is supposed to pull them to the Indian core and its interests, the acceptability facilitated by expressing the ideology in a less Indic-heavy terminology.
Of course, the ideology is supposed to assist in the actual realization of of Subcontinental unification too, and that too on conditions acceptable to the Indic majority. The 'Subcontinental Unification Project' however is something I would not be discussing much here. That I have discussed in some detail in my ebook. There is also a private Google Group set up to discuss Subcontinental Unification.
If you are interested, you may wish to read the ebook and discuss the details in the Google Group. I would also appreciate your ideas on the nationalist ideology of Pan-Subcontinentalism on this thread.
If you wish to the read the ebook, just let me know of your email (in coded form ) in the Off-Topic Thread in GDF!
A year of tentative beginnings, a year of rediscovery and a year of hope that promises to pave the way for a sustained environment of collaborative success - the Aman ki Asha initiative has had a successful year-long journey and made many of us look forward to a better future as the next milestones in this journey become visible.It has been my privilege to lead the Aman ki Asha IT Committee from India. There is enough hope in our industry that as in so many other spheres of global activity, the IT sector can lead the way.
Indian product companies can find worthy localisation partners in Pakistan and the burgeoning gaming and niche firms out of Pakistan could well find collaborative options to refine and strengthen their global value propositions by reaching across the border.
Indian services firms that have successfully spread their wings across the world could use well-trained resources from Pakistan in global projects initially in the Middle East countries and eventually in other parts of the world, and help Pakistani companies operating in the Western world with more development and customisation options.All this and more will be the subject of consideration for the IT Committee in the near term. We hope to see some green shoots of partnership blossom into sturdy trees of collaboration that will bear fruit, sweet indeed for all the participants of the Aman ki Asha journey.
It is said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. We have taken that step and look forward to a rewarding journey towards a better, shared destiny. It gives me pleasure to wish the Aman ki Asha teams and all wellwishers of the two countries a very happy 2011
Prem wrote:If Indic remain the the weakest party before and after then we gain nothing. Entering in any kind of negotiation with the assumed/perceived weakness can only spell doom. When situation is in flux then its better to wait and watch, accumulate and hide the strength and make the move from the position of strength. Hardening Indian core is the way to break the current jam. if India can point couple of hundred Nukes at china and go after cleaning the mess, doubt very much China will dare to bet its future for LET or Paki sake. Even though it is done at the behest of Uncle, GOI hardening attitude toward PRC is good sign. sooner or latter China will react and its response can be used to gauge its real strength and not Son Zu bluff.
Reconquista will be the way to go in mid term and elimination of antagonistic intrusive forces in long term.
brihaspati garu has often said, that we are not putting on muscle through our economic progress, we are in fact putting on a lot more fat, making us an even better feast.
Nukes pointing at China are not going to help us any more than they have helped us in making Pakistan stop its terrorism directed at us. China is using many levels of proxies, and many different proxies bringing India under pressure from many different directions. The danger from China has less to do with China waging conventional or nuclear war on India but rather China using proxies within India to sap our strength.
It is difficult to build up our strength, when it is constantly being drained away by China and Pakistan. Our strength bucket has got a big leak, and the Chinese and Pakistanis are merrily nibbling away at our bucket the whole time. So yes, the situation is indeed in flux, but waiting and watching is not the need of the hour, but rather some active intervention in changing the framework of the problem dynamics.
We cannot sit and watch baby alligators growing up all around us, and the mama alligator pumping out still more eggs. We need to find new sources of meat for the alligators. Someday we may even be able to feed the alligator babys with some meat, and if the meat is from the mama alligator, all the better.
There was a king reigned in the East:
There, when kings will sit to feast,
They get their fill before they think
With poisoned meat and poisoned drink. He gathered all the springs to birth
From the many-venomed earth;
First a little, thence to more,
He sampled all her killing store;
And easy, smiling, seasoned sound,
Sate the king when healths went round.
They put arsenic in his meat
And stared aghast to watch him eat;
They poured strychnine in his cup
And shook to see him drink it up:
They shook, they stared as white’s their shirt:
Them it was their poison hurt.
—I tell the tale that I heard told.
Mithridates, he died old.
India needs Pakistan and China for its own evolution.
The concept of hormeosis is a useful one when applied to civilizations or nations.
India needs Pakistan and China for its own evolution.
The concept of hormeosis is a useful one when applied to civilizations or nations.
Even Bhima in the Mahabharatha gets stronger and gains more immunity after being given poisoned drink and drowned in the river. It is from here that he gets his legendary strength.
However, even on that note, isnt it about time that Indian society has ingested just about enough toxins injected through syringes by our neighbours?
Bade wrote:Migration will not help the cause of India
It is not just for the cause of India, it is for the benefit of people in India - that being the primary objective. All strategic benefits are secondary. On second thoughts, helping and taking care of one's citizenry is strategic. It is the dharma of the ruler.
Well, but the ruler is the praja itself nowadays or a majority of the praja. So the argument will become circular. Bringing in dharma here will muddy it further. So the citizens will have to take care of itself and the downtrodden will have to vote with their feet when opportunities arise. Just as it was the case during European colonization of the world with some state support. But the state is quite weak so even less help can be expected.
We are detracting from the premise of this thread in any case, as it wants to address only contiguous states for political expansion. And if land is a concern, then northwards march is the only way out. So Nepal should be the target state and Tibetans should accommodate plainsmen for their sovereignty and long term protection within the Indic fold. HHDL for president comes to mind !
I Law of Pan-Subcontinentalism Love the Subcontinent - There is no love above this love of land! Even if there is any other love that competes with it - the love of Family, the love of God, the love of Freedom; that love can never be in opposition to this love. Even if your heart is pulled by your other affections, the love of land stays the anchor in your life.
The land is holy because it has sustained and nurtured thousands of generations of our families. It is on this land, that they have been born, they have been nurtured, they have grown up, they have been loved, they have loved, they have toiled, they have laughed, they have cried, and they have again become one with its soil. It is this land, where we have grown from beasts to men, where our ancestors gained their wisdom.
Its mountains, its plains, its rivers, its trees and forests, its very air say that they are your home, the home of your lineage, and may be the home of your progeny also.
Love the land enough, and God will get his share. The mandirs and masjids, gurudwaras and girjaghars, stupas and pagodas, muths and deras, all stand on this land. It is through bowing and meditating on this land, that we touch God. Love this land which holds God's houses.
Those who forbid you to love the land, the land of the Subcontinent, tell them they have lost your eyes and ears.
ramana wrote:One option is already working in PRC. The one China two systems example of Hong Kong integration.
We can have one India with many local forms of governments for the constituents.
From the private Google Group
RajeshA wrote:The problem is not free movement of people, but rather of movement of the lower social strata of Bangladeshi society into India on a large scale skewing both the politics of the state/city as well as the ability of the region to cope with such a large influx all of a sudden. The far bigger problem is the skewing of the Indic-Muslim ratios in many areas, creation of ghettos, opening up to exploitation by the Mullahs, and becoming part of the much-feared Islamic demographic invasion with all its aggressive memes.
The key to solving that is to adopt a similar strategy as mainland China has with Hong Kong, as poor mainland Chinese are not allowed to move into Hong Kong, overwhelming the system. So I propose the following:
India and Bangladesh can have an erected fence-cum-wall border, as it is being created right now.
It can be manned by an Indo-Bangladeshi Border Security Force.
Increased awareness is spread amongst the people living along the borders, so that nobody comes to harm or is hurt.
Businessmen, traders, truck-drivers, journalists, academicians, scientists, political leaders (of a certain level), be given a 'Free-Movement Permit' (Not a visa) to move across the border through the check-points.
Eventually all Bangladeshis who are professionals, or have a verified college degree or a college admission be given the 'Free- Movement Permit'.
Such a provision be kept for the next 30-40 years until the standards of living in both countries have increased and some social stability has been achieved.
The college degree provision could also act a motivational basis for more Bangladeshis to opt for higher education or to go to schools even. In the schools and colleges one can then provide them with a balanced civil education, which allows them to resist the Extremist Islamic message.
AKalam wrote:Hong Kong type limited movement of people sounds excellent, even after a full political union, for some decades. As you mentioned people to people contact and free movement should be enhanced for the more educated upper strata of the society, that way the mutual impression will be more positive, while investments ...
This way we will be able create situations to reduce and hopefully eliminate motivations for large scale migrations that are disruptive for any host society.
I hope, AKalam ji does not mind me quoting him here!
Bade wrote:We are detracting from the premise of this thread in any case, as it wants to address only contiguous states for political expansion. And if land is a concern, then northwards march is the only way out. So Nepal should be the target state and Tibetans should accommodate plainsmen for their sovereignty and long term protection within the Indic fold. HHDL for president comes to mind !
I did think couple of times before voicing my thoughts. The point is adding more population by "annexing" neighboring territories should be handled with care. Adding upwards of 320+ million (just Pakistan and Bangladesh alone) increases India's responsibilities tremendously. All the other smaller states, will give us strategic foothold and/or advantages. So when thinking about a new nationalism with regards to merge & acquisition of territories, I think it is prudent to consider current population, future population & resources. For example, getting Bhutan, Nepal and SriLanka is one thing, but getting Tibet (or say even Mongolia) is another. But then one then has to think about harsh geography and climate of any territory. Otherwise it will become like Prem ji says "aa bail mujhe maar".
SwamyG wrote:The point is adding more population by "annexing" neighboring territories should be handled with care. Adding upwards of 320+ million (just Pakistan and Bangladesh alone) increases India's responsibilities tremendously.
Three territories that are unsafe for consideration even are Pakjab, Pushtunistan and Karachi.
IMHO, when we start talking about merging of our neighborhood, we jump to thinking we should include Pakjabis, Pushtun, and Mohajirs, who are either too fanatic, or have rejected India, or have committed heinous crimes on the Indics and are proud of it. These people are for starters, unqualified for our attention and generosity. These regions one should leave for a much later time.
Bade:
And, dharma does not muddy the waters it actually helps us. For example, the very words I use like "export" and "redistribute" connote I treat humans as inanimate objects like goods or merchandise. In every-day-life, I would not use such words and nor think of such things. But then normally, I do not, indulge in such strategic or "state-craft" discussions. But in order to discuss these subjects one has to wear different hats, Indic people long ago realized it had the dharma for different people. Some people call it real-politics or wearing different thinking hates, some have called it different dharma. Let us call whatever it is, but such discussions are specialized thinking, and under such conditions we will have to appear inhumane. That is if we wanted the State or King (rulers - as you described in democracy the people) to survive.
In the past such thinking were restricted to some people, because such thinking along with warfare hardens, toughens and insensitive (to an extent) people. One could become more cynical, suspicious, vigilant and/or survival mode. Kautilya or Sun Tzu are two popular examples.
But I will drop it if you still think it unnecessarily ventures into other topics. The only reason I used the dharma is to highlight the fact that rulers (and State) have the onus to look after the citizens, else the citizens displeasure could be used by others to disintegrate the very pan-nationalism that is sought to be created.
Any free-movement of "elite" citizens will still run the risk of covert agents gaining the freedom to travel and move. Given the possible influence of other types of ideologies within the Indian administartaion, as well as BD for example, there could be a "clearance" from both sides of elements which are inimical to certain among Indian core interests.
Even developing a common identification, and security network can have its own problems because of the same ideological infiltration problem. It is doable, but will necessitate a degree of integration of administrations prior to such "freedom". It deos become for me a chicken and egg situation. In most cases, when there are deep seated ideological differences over the very nature of purpose/foundation/objective of the "nation", [a thing that is non-existent for most parts of the northern-western belt of Europe], a single source of sovereignty is the only guarantee of esnuring such "freedoms". Are we not thinking the reverse - that somehow the "freedoms" without "sovereignty" first will pave towards single soverignty or develop the common nationalism.
I have watched the BD-India dynamic over genuinely integrative interests from both sides closely. An ex-president from BD was a close friend of my dad's from student politics days. I have seen him before his president days as a young child. When the two of them interacted or talked, you would forget that there was a border and that there were two separate countries. The same person had to take up an anti-India position publicly on certain issues.
There are similar intellectual networks spanning the border. But their influence on teh actual politics and balance of social forces are still minuscule. BD has not been able to combat the Salafist push and expansion into the countryside. We must take into account the social/ideological balance of "class" forces. In this the major share is between two factions of essentially Muslim League derivatives - who have always found it a precarious balance to maintain between Islamism and modernism within their respective factions. All other forces are socially marginal and are recognized to be so by the majority of the people - hence who do not invest politically in them.
Unless you make Islamism costly for the general population, it will continue to dictate to a very large extent the politics of both factions. This fundamental ideological trend sees India as Hindu and as a threat, at best a goliath to tolerate and pretend to tolerate to extract benefits until a hoped for David comes up. Without weakening of Islamism, no amount of propaganda that India is going to take up Islamism itself of the grand Mughal brand name as its nishaan - will convince this core sentiment to cooperate.
brihaspati wrote:Even developing a common identification, and security network can have its own problems because of the same ideological infiltration problem. It is doable, but will necessitate a degree of integration of administrations prior to such "freedom". It deos become for me a chicken and egg situation. In most cases, when there are deep seated ideological differences over the very nature of purpose/foundation/objective of the "nation", [a thing that is non-existent for most parts of the northern-western belt of Europe], a single source of sovereignty is the only guarantee of esnuring such "freedoms". Are we not thinking the reverse - that somehow the "freedoms" without "sovereignty" first will pave towards single soverignty or develop the common nationalism.
brihaspati garu,
Those ideas about Indo-Bangladesh borders were in the context of a full Indo-Bangladesh political union into a single Indian Subcontinental Union, with a merger of armies, and a dissolution of the Bangladesh Federal Govt., as each current administrative division of Bangladesh joins the union as a new state.
II Law of Pan-Subcontinentalism Brotherhood of the Subcontinentals - The basis of any nationhood is the bonding between the people. If this bond is healthy, the nation will be healthy. The nation has to be seen as the big family.
In the Subcontinent we have many apparent differences – racial, ethnic, religious persuasion, caste, subcaste, class, political leaning, etc., still we are all children of the same Subcontinent. That what divides us also binds us, weaving a tapestry of unimaginable richness and plurality. Our ancestors were born from the womb of this land, and their ashes and bones are mixed with the very soil and water of this land. Our geneology has strong and deep roots in this land. In the Subcontinent, the history would always be alive and give us comfort and warmth and tell us of our identity.
That makes us Brothers. That makes us equal in birth and belief. That makes us bound with the bonds of Subcontinental Brotherhood. And Brothers should respect and love each other.
Our strength is in unity. Together we are unbreakable. Together we are strong. Together we earn the laurels, together we mourn our losses, and together we lick our wounds, and together we rebound.
The world will respect us only as much as we respect ourselves. There is still residual shame within the hearts of the Subcontinentals. It is shame of colonization, it is shame of religious conversion, it is shame of thousands of years of untouchability, and this shame has twisted our thinking. In order to escape this shame, we try to identify ourselves with the colonizer, with the missionary and the ghazi, with the higher caste, and as a means to underline our distancing from this shame, we adopt the same methods as those of the colonizer, the converter, the casteist. We wear the clothes of the colonizer and worship his skin color, we try to be more pious than ghazi, we treat the castes considered below one’s own (rather low) caste with contempt.
We have to let go of this deep-seated shame, let go of the feeling of inferiority and to see that our roots are strong and deep. We have to open our eyes and see, that we are the most beautiful people on earth. We have to realize, that we need not prove ourselves to God and to please God by doing his work; if we keep our hearts clean, he will come and live there on his own. We should realize that caste is a label and not a hierarchy.
It may be the case that one feels a stronger affection towards one’s ethnicity or sub-nationality, to those of the same religious persuasion, etc. That is natural. However one cannot allow that to color one’s views to an extent, that one shows favoritism towards those of the same ethnicity or discrimination towards those of other subcontinental ethnicities. The bond of Brothership of the Subcontinentals demands a more enlightened perspective.
The Brotherhood of the Subcontinentals also demands a more tribal perspective, where the tribal lines are drawn at the Subcontinent. At the same time as we feel closer to each other, we need to also be aware of who are not our brothers. To our Brothers, we owe affection, respect, courtesy, consideration, tolerance, non-discrimination and warmth. To others, we owe the same, but not necessarily of the same degree. The degree of social dues we owe to others can be shown by the following hierarchy:
1. Pan-Subcontinentalists
2. Subcontinentals
3. People from neighborly countries, who are considered as extended family to the Subcontinentals
4. People from neighborly countries, whose nations are friends of the Subcontinent
5. People from further away, whose nations are friends of the Subcontinent
6. People from further away, whose nations are neutral towards the Subcontinent
7. People who are unfriendly towards the Subcontinentals
8. People who are hostile towards the Subcontinentals
9. People who have Subcontinental blood on their hands
10. Ideological enemies of Pan-Subcontinentalism
The ideological enemies of Pan-Subcontinentalism are the segregationists, the traitors and the deniers of the Brotherhood of the Subcontinentals.
One also has to look at the ideological resistance to accept Pan-Subcontinentalism historically. Just because one does not believe in Pan-Subcontinentalism, does not make him an enemy. It just means, that we are still living in an era of ignorance, an era of narrow-mindedness, an era in which the spirit of Brotherhood has not been liberated in his heart. One needs to give each soul the time to receive and embibe the message of Brotherhood.
The ideological enemies of Pan-Subcontinentalism would be the elites of various ethnicities, who have acquired vested interests in seeing the Subcontinent fragmented, elites who use the false ethnicity-based nationalism to cordon off their own enclave in the Subcontinent and consider it their feudal property, elites who profit from closed societies and markets, elites who quarante their own people in order to lord over them. These elites need to embrace the enlightenment of the Subcontinental Brotherhood, and to look for new ways to consolidate their preexisting influence; or these elites need to be overthrown.
The elites will tell you, that their ethnicities cannot live together with other ethnicities of the Subcontinent for some reason or another, they will manufacture lies of past conflicts or present them to you selectively or distort the historical truths, or they will tell you that reconciliation is impossible. These are segregationists with vested interests.
There will be others, who will be working for outside powers, and not let the unification and consolidation of the Subcontinent proceed at their behest, as the outside powers feel threatened by the emergence of a powerful Subcontinent. These are traitors.
There will still be others who will directly attack the foundations of Pan-Subcontinentalism, because of their prejudices or their misplaced ideological loyalties. These are deniers.
If the segregationists, traitors and deniers do not relent and make way for Pan-Subcontinentalism to realize itself, then they are to be considered enemies and should be crushed without remorse.
Rajesh: One has to be ruthless to implement the above. It is said that Genghiz was once driven out by another tribe (I forget the name). He, his brother along with 17 others camped at one site. And they took an oath of becoming brothers. Genghiz and his brother were shamans, the rest of the 17 had Chrisitians, Muslims and a Buddhist. He not only united these people here but was able to unite the people from these 4 faiths through out his Empire.
You need to find a visionary, cold and ruthless person or group to spearhead such efforts.
SwamyG ji,
It is basically an idea to inspire, invigorate, and mobilize the peoples or groups in India's neighborhood and those who have been talked into living in ghettos in India, to rise up against their elite, and to demand the unification of the Indian Subcontinent under mutually-acceptable and mutually-tolerable values.
Its hard to negotiate, inspire or attain by logic when onlee remedy is in the nature of Danda to be carried by Indic core . We take back what is legitimately ours instead of addding the onus of millions of dead beats.
Rajesh Ji, the economic, social cost of this intergration will squarely fall on Indians and it wont enhance the security.
Prem wrote:Its hard to negotiate, inspire or attain by logic when onlee remedy is in the nature of Danda to be carried by Indic core . We take back what is legitimately ours instead of addding the onus of millions of dead beats.
Rajesh Ji, the economic, social cost of this intergration will squarely fall on Indians and it wont enhance the security.
Prem ji,
I am not yet convinced, that certain ideologies are unconquerable fortresses.
Rajesh:
Some people will definitely be invigorated and motivated as you say. But it is not going to be all. Because of the very fact that the Indian Civilization has been a continuous one, we still carry certain traits from way way out in the past - one could even say tribal characteristics. From a philosophical level we could say India is 80+% Hindus, but these Hindus still think in terms of jati or clans. Same is the case with Indian Muslims and Christians.
Some people will need danda too, that is all I am saying. The devil is in the details. How many will gravitate because of a vision and personal/external motivation and how many will move because of danda is unknown.
As for unification from an economic viewpoint. Isn't Nepal part of the Indian economic fold. So extending that to political arena and defence should be less of an issue with time.
As for the next candidate which is BD, how does one go about estimating the economic gains from a unification. People are concentrating their views to political friction and ideology, which will not be smooth ride of course. If the economic incentive for both sides are enticing enough then unification will happen, no ?
Bade wrote:As for unification from an economic viewpoint. Isn't Nepal part of the Indian economic fold. So extending that to political arena and defence should be less of an issue with time.
It might not be "relatively" bad. Too many years have passed now and they like their independence. There will be more Nepalese who would object to political integration than what one would expect.
Economics alone cannot be used for mergers. Because, when tough times come, which will for sure, then these mergers will fall out. Unification of East and West Germany was possible, and SoKo and NoKo would become possible irrespective of the ideology because they are the same people. One ideology was replaced by another. "Unification" based on economy is just a lubricant, it alone is never enough. We humans are an emotional and irrational lot.
I said Nepal as toehold for expansion for mass migration to the tibetan plateau. If hans can live there so can we. What is the rough estimate of our population living at 4000ft above msl ? If we have adapted to the lower Himalayas and the ghats, not to mention most of NE is hill country we can push further north for land. When we talk of terra forming Mars tibet should be an easier settlement to make. And from there all the trade and land routes to the west. Oil and more oil !
^^^
Absolutely no disagreement More than oil, I value water. Civilizations have developed near water bodies and dense forests. If India gets Tibet, India will have to do something to what China is doing there now - populating the land by people from elsewhere. If one looks at the 12th or 13th century maps, Chinese kingdoms were smaller than the BIG China we have now.
III Law of Pan-Subcontinentalism Unity of the Subcontinent - The Subcontinent is India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Maldives, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Tibet.
The Subcontinent can however unleash its full energies and magic only if it is united and consolidated again. Subcontinental Unity is not simply a slogan, it is our destiny. The Subcontinent is one living organism. When cut, the whole Subcontinent will bleed, and that is what it is doing today.
It is one thing to have multiple administrative areas on the Subcontinent. That in itself does not violate the Subcontinent's Unity. But segregative ideologies and inviolable borders do violate the unity.
Some day the Subcontinent has to be united and it is the vow of each Pan-Subcontinentalist to see to it that it does, and once it does, the Pan-Subcontinentalist will fight to keep it united. The Pan-Subcontinentalist will not rest till the borders come down and the fences are uprooted.
Borders, fences and walls can at most be used as a temporary mechanism, to keep away Subcontinentals who have devolved into barbarity from harming the more stable parts of the Subcontinent, or they can be used to regulate people overly desperate to migrate due to economic hardships or disasters from overwhelming the capacities of other regions. Otherwise there are no reasons for borders or fences.
The Subcontinent should either bring civilization to barbarized Subcontinentals or should try to otherwise neutralize their capacity to harm others. The hands of those, who are victims of barbarity and on the front-line of war against barbarity, ought to be strengthened. The Subcontinent should also not shirk from its responsibility to help those, who are desperate or lack hope of economic upliftment. All should be done to hasten the speed of bring down borders and fences.
Any Subcontinental should be able to travel from Tibet to Sri Lanka, from Baluchistan to Myanmar without the need of any visa, any document, any restriction or any checks. Where ever he goes, he will be made to feel at home and welcome, he will be made to feel amongst his own. The mountains of Afghanistan would be Subcontinentals to climb and so too would be the beaches of Unawatuna of Sri Lanka to dive.
Any Subcontinental should be able to travel anywhere in the Subcontinent, he should be able to live anywhere in the Subcontinent, should be able to study anywhere in the Subcontinent, should be able to work and do business anywhere in the Subcontinent, for the Subcontinent is his Home.
. I do lack the confidence, that India will pull it off, if we follow the current trajectory of growth economics, moderate military build-up and little in the way of a strategy for the Indian Subcontinent, all this compounded by Islamic appeasement within India. I am fine with Muslim Appeasement, it is Islamic Appeasement that bothers me.
I also believe that for the long-term (hundreds of years) thriving of India we must secure the space around us, from Afghanistan and Eastern Iran to Burma to Madagascar to Somalia to Western Indonesia... not that we must necessarily rule these areas, but we must have a tolerable level of control over them. Otherwise India will remain hemmed in and with too many instruments on its borders just waiting to be used by hostile powers.
) in the Off-Topic Thread in GDF!