Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[brihaspati]

In case Iran or Egypt has a regime change in the foreseeable future, and a more non-clerical influence arrangement, is it wise for India to stand up in support for democracy?

In case of the Islamist countries, I had tried to say in some threads that we assume that the Islamist societies will continue to be Islamist in the sense of Pakis forever into the future, and that assumption neednot hold. Just as China need not forever remain "communist" and CCP monopoly. In all these cases, collapse of ideologically authoritarian regimes into more liberal "democratic" or representative regimes will mean a much greater stress on nationalism - ultra nationalism if we may.

But yet, India should clearly state its position in favour of democracy that also "modernizes" and not simply democracy that tries to re-establish ideologies that have proved extremely sadistic. This should be Indian position in foreign policy even in case of Myanmar, or Nepal, or any of the Gulf countries. There has to be a qualification of democracy, but democracy as greater representativeness and transparency with a parallel selective rejection of unwanted ideologies - must be the international stance.

It is critical to come out in support of the coming generations - even from the cynical foreign-policy pure profits viewpoint.

[brihaspati]

BSir ji,
There never have been dearth of Bikau Maaal among Hanoods. Megryan Desai or Kasab Kasai , they all have the same purpose in thier life. They are doing their duty of filling the Paap Ka Gharra to the top before getting smashed to pieces. This is the way it always have been from time to time.

Prem ji,
I see being aware of how far can you mock your own origins - as a crucial test of lack of foresight and a clear vision of the future of one's own society. Self-mocking is a sign of extremely low self-esteem. Such a mocking for one's own birth culture and heritage is perhaps excusable only up to the point that the mocker has been brought up by educational processes to find such self-mocking normal and unremarkable, and no one has pointed it out to him/her.

But once the criticism of this self-mocking has been made, someone somewhere has pointed out what the person is actually doing by an unthinking, unreasoned, self-mocking comedy that viciously targets his/her own roots - after that there is no excuse to continue in his/her past error. Typically such people do not mock the cultures/roots of certain other cultures.

For example those Indians born into "Hindu" families who carry on viciously mocking every aspect of their birth culture, do not apply the same logics of mocking to say Islamic or Christianist "origins" or the brutal tragi-comedy of communist regimes. There is a thunderous silence on all such "other" cultures. From this selective mocking we can see the origins this culture of mocking - that they come from specific colonial constructs, be it Islamic colonialism or British colonialism, and that slavish urge to replace one colonial master with another - as with the attempt to replace the British master with the Soviet master and when that failed with the Chinese Chairman.

Even on this forum we see a consistent use of the "dhoti shivering" "Yindoo" which I have repeatedly pointed out as fallacious and inconsistent with the claims of a "secular" and "non-communal" identity of India. In the process people show a complete failure to understand the significance of what they are saying. First they are associating only the Hindu with cowardice in India as if all other communities are excluded from cowardice in India. But more importantly they are also mocking the cultural attire of the Hindu of India - a fact of which the self-conscious Islmism is highly aware, since it deliberately avoids and rejects this garment.

There was a reason for which most of the early leaders of the nationalist movement to free India from British overlordship, consciously and deliberately chose to publicly display their change of attire from European/British to the "dhoti". It was symbol of rejection of Britain and its rule on the one hand, and a reaffirmation of the pride in their origins and roots. We can see that even among these "nationalists" some people stand out as not having taken up the "dhoti" consistently and are exactly the people who appear to have also publicly stated doubts about the "Hindu". Gandhiji, Bose and Sardar had many differences disastrous for India, but they never appear to have sported the pajama, choost once they had fully joined up in the nationalist movement in India and mostly sported the dhoti (Bose did take up trousers abroad). The people standing out as exception to this pattern should be obvious.

People use terms like "Hindu rate of growth" for apparent poor perforamce of Indian economy under Nehru and Indira without showing any solid economic justification for the nomenclature - and find nothing wrong about it, and a "good laugh". People mock the "dhoti shivering" "dhoti twisting" "Hindu" all the time but never a "pajama/trouser/choost" twisting any other community. Most importantly they cannot see anything wrong in saying such things. This is what should be firmly and irrevocably rejected.

If you are not proud of your identity, you cannot be a nation or build a nation.

[svinayak]

I see being aware of how far can you mock your own origins - as a crucial test of lack of foresight and a clear vision of the future of one's own society. Self-mocking is a sign of extremely low self-esteem. Such a mocking for one's own birth culture and heritage is perhaps excusable only up to the point that the mocker has been brought up by educational processes to find such self-mocking normal and unremarkable, and no one has pointed it out to him/her.

But once the criticism of this self-mocking has been made, someone somewhere has pointed out what the person is actually doing by an unthinking, unreasoned, self-mocking comedy that viciously targets his/her own roots - after that there is no excuse to continue in his/her past error. Typically such people do not mock the cultures/roots of certain other cultures.

For example those Indians born into "Hindu" families who carry on viciously mocking every aspect of their birth culture, do not apply the same logics of mocking to say Islamic or Christianist "origins" or the brutal tragi-comedy of communist regimes. There is a thunderous silence on all such "other" cultures. From this selective mocking we can see the origins this culture of mocking - that they come from specific colonial constructs, be it Islamic colonialism or British colonialism, and that slavish urge to replace one colonial master with another - as with the attempt to replace the British master with the Soviet master and when that failed with the Chinese Chairman.


If you are not proud of your identity, you cannot be a nation or build a nation.

This self critical nature of the that generation in the 50-60s has been turned towards themselves by the sociologists. This has been brilliantly done by the western sociologists with their Indian informers that most of the Indian historians and social commentators did not even see it. The media control and education which derides its own culture was made normal with the leftist narrative dominating the academic.

[Prem]

[This self critical nature of the that generation in the 50-60s has been turned towards themselves by the sociologists. This has been brilliantly done by the western sociologists with their Indian informers that most of the Indian historians and social commentators did not even see it. The media control and education which derides its own culture was made normal with the leftist narrative dominating the academic.

Not onlee this , they have very willing audiences among Islamist, Ejs and RNis. IMHO, inside these people lack not awareness but confidence.Once India become strong economy and militry power , these folks will rush back home on very first oppertunity to claim their share on priority basis .

[brihaspati]

It strikes that one of the reasons people insist on shutting out history from current and future thoughts is because - the further back we go within the last 3000 years at least, there would be more elements of "commonality" among the various corners of current India.

Thus awareness of history, especially taking back control over the narrative - the internet affords a way - over even the construction and reconstruction of religion and identity, is going to be a starting point. There is coming a struggle for the founding of the nation properly on an identity that is not confused, and unique to the subcontinent. Which means it cannot be subservient to identities that claim common interests with external forces, interests and nations.

A crucial example is the issue of our language and expressions. We should consciously think of what we are saying, what words we are using. There is a need to be aware of the origins of the words we are using, whether they have been used to replace words that we originally had, or even corrupt the meaning of other words by making them all interchangeable. I try to consciously reject words of Arabic/Persian origin in the few GV languages/dialects I can speak. Try this, and you will realize how you become more and more acutely aware of how the nation-building process has been corrupted.

It is a cleansing process of getting rid of the layers that have accumulated on our selves. Just like the symbolic act of having a dip in the Ganges. We need to take back everything that was ours, and the first steps start with settling the identity of the nation.

From the J&K thread, it came to my mind, that we sometimes use external examples as a model to copy without realizing the essence of those examples. Israel's kibbutzim represents a consciousness of an ethno-cultural-faith based identity and foundation to which both the Left and the Right and also the Centre subscribed. It started with a loing process of introspection about what had been added on as layers over the core, and rejecting them, one by one - starting with corruption in language.

[abhishek_sharma]

Who am I to talk?

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/who-a ... lk/754125/

[Sanku]

Who am I to talk?

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/who-a ... lk/754125/

Goody, there is hope yet.

[brihaspati]

In the previous version of this thread there was a discussion about "identity ascription". It is a long standing claim of one influential section of social identity researchers - that simply categorizing a person as belonging to an abstractly defined group results in the development of an acknowledgment and internalization of that constructed/ascribed identity. [Social Identity Theory of Tadjfel and Turner].

My own younger days experiences confirmed these ideas long before I formally came across them in academic terms. Identities can be constructed in many other ways, including a person's structural placement [in currently fashionable terms - social networks, but it means more]. Which means just being born into or coopted into a certain situation in society by forces beyond your choice or control could also shape what you see yourself as. But ascribing an identity to someone with sufficient coercive authority to confirm such an ascription - almost always ends in the creation of recognition of such an identity by those it is given to.

This was my primary objection to recognizing these community differences by the government and the rashtra. I still think the new Bharat rashtra of the future shoiuld not recognize identities that (1) have affiliations with known imperialist past and nations outside the subcontinent in ideological terms (2) that have exclusivity claims of destroying all other cultures/knowledge bases/philosophies and essentially aims at blocking the constant quest for knowledge and udnerstanding characteristic of Indic civilization - because they claim to have had all the answers revealed to them once and for all.

At the minimum, the rashtra should only recognize the citizen as primary, and in its hierarchical list of rights - the religion must come the last in order. That is if any other right conflicts with the right to religion, that right to religion must be canceled.

An old example I have used before is Right to education >> Right to gender equality >> Right to religion. The first prefernce ordering means that in case there is unfulfilled quota for any gender, the unfulfilled cannot be left blank but other gender should be allowed to use it. If religious claim says that gievn lack of segregation opportunity, girls cannot be educated, then the religious claim will be dismissed.

[abhishek_sharma]

Quota is not the answer

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Quota ... er/754611/

Major challenges for Jamia Millia

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Major-cha ... 66438.aspx

[surinder]

There is humor and there is humor.

In some cases it is used to mock the self in ways that undermines the self and hurts itself. In some cases it is a back-handed way to express ideas which otherwise are not expressable. In some cases it is self-effacement. In other cases, it is the strengh masquarading as weakness for the sake of reassuring the other. In some cases it is (as Brihaspati wrote once) a reverse badge of honor to.

They are all different.

What is the motivation for humor that counts.

[brihaspati]

Surinder,
the standard criticism against taking a hard line against self-mocking is that it brings us "down to the level" of those who shout blasphemy at the drop of a hat - for imagined or real slight to any part or all o ftheir faith systems. But I do find it stsrange that those who distinguish between such "tolerant" and "intolerant" approaches, actually do not find anything wothwhile criticizing in the intolerant's overall philosophy or claims. Which in a perverse way - proves that - such a hard stand is effective and successful in its basic purpose. In fact it establishes the intolerant as credible and beyond criticism.

[abhishek_sharma]

Let some fresh air in (On Jamia Milia's minority status)

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Let-some- ... 67562.aspx

[brihaspati]

Educational institutions should not be allowed to be hijacked by minority argument. At one stroke, this debates is quashed, if the right to education is made a compulsory duty, obligatory both on the state and the citizen. There cannot be barriers and third parties claiming to negotiate on behalf of subgroups and standing in between the rashtra and its citizens.

A deeper argument here is that no school of thought or opinion can also be suppressed in the ducational sphere of inquiry, research and debate.

What we have is minority authoritarianism at lower levels and majority authoritarianism at higher levels of institutional education. In the lower levels, schools and secondary institutions, its the minority hijacking of education by claiming exclusivity. In the higher levels we have the majority academic opinion especially in the social sciences but affecting even more suposedly prosaic disciplines like say "finance" suppressing alternative views by any and all means possible.

In many senses both seem to represent a kind of Bolshevism - that is a numerical minority, who however agree on the "majority" of issues among themselves [that was exactly the turn of phrase used by Lenin to split the RSDLP to form the Bolshevik faction]. Such groups obviously need to achieve and hold on to power by coercion, or using the state machinery to crush opposition.

[Maram]

In case Iran or Egypt has a regime change in the foreseeable future, and a more non-clerical influence arrangement, is it wise for India to stand up in support for democracy?

In case of the Islamist countries, I had tried to say in some threads that we assume that the Islamist societies will continue to be Islamist in the sense of Pakis forever into the future, and that assumption neednot hold. Just as China need not forever remain "communist" and CCP monopoly. In all these cases, collapse of ideologically authoritarian regimes into more liberal "democratic" or representative regimes will mean a much greater stress on nationalism - ultra nationalism if we may.

But yet, India should clearly state its position in favour of democracy that also "modernizes" and not simply democracy that tries to re-establish ideologies that have proved extremely sadistic. This should be Indian position in foreign policy even in case of Myanmar, or Nepal, or any of the Gulf countries. There has to be a qualification of democracy, but democracy as greater representativeness and transparency with a parallel selective rejection of unwanted ideologies - must be the international stance.

It is critical to come out in support of the coming generations - even from the cynical foreign-policy pure profits viewpoint.

Brihaspathi Garu,

This post is for keeps. This should guide our G20,Climate change,WTO talks.We have to be a different kind of democracy, a more inclusive( with in the country and international too). The Developed Countries can't buy votes with favours/corruption etc.... Our MEA Babus should atleast use it a vector in their thinking, a strategic underpinning in every thing we intend to do.

Our ancient rishis and saints called it "vasudaiva kutumbam". I guess this what Thomas Friedman calls "Glocalisation/world is flat" stuff.

[somnath]

These so called literates are pathetically dim-witted to understand the whole point behind Maratha and Sikh movements..

This mischief (of passing Indian nationalism of Marathas as regional chauvinism) has been going on since fall of Pune in 1818. Same goes with Sikhs. With sikhs, they tried the approach of "martial race theory" after persecution in Punjab in decade of 1850s. Same goes with bengal (terming them effeminate after Bengal army revolted and gave them kick in arse in 1857).

Every movement (vijaynagar, rajput, ahoms, jats, bundelas, sikhs, marathas and others) in past, present and future, has/had nothing to do with regional chauvinism, OR religious inquisition. Its about establishment of Dharma.

Atri-ji, if the Sikh, or Maratha, or Jat nationalisms were truly "nationalist" (I reckon that is what you mean by "dharmic") and not regional, how do you explain Jat behaviour towards the Marathas during the third battle of Panipat? Or Sikh behaviour during 1857? Or the entire Maratha roaylty (Scindhias, Holkars) during 1857? Or Maratha behaviour towards Tipu Sultan? Or for that matter Rajput behaviour towards each other at various crucial stages?

[Bharath.Subramanyam]

An email discussion from a person who has been very active to bring about an renaissance

======================================================
Dear *********,
Namaskaar

Please see my comments below.

>
> I have heard from you this analysis earlier. Surely deepest thought should be given to it. But, if it is true what you said, what is >the remedy of it ? I think you have some idea. - ********


The 'remedy' necessitates a multi-pronged approach at various levels -
both strategic and tactical. I will list the most prominent ones.

I. STRATEGIC

(a) Spiritual

Our foremost failure as a society has been spiritual. Having accepted the semitic principle of "congregation" and internalized it, we Hindus have become crypto-christians - a christian inside with a Hindu packaging outside. We have become fascists in our spiritual practice. (I am talking about urban Hindus -- luckily the disease of crypto-christianity hasn't penetrated rural India).

Spiritual democracy requires rejection of semetization in every shape and form. This may include rejection of all guru-cult-based sects, so called sampradayas and/or outfits - Arya Samaj, R.K. Mission, Bramho Samaj, Art of Living, Sai Baba, Chinmaya Mission, Swaminarayan, Mahesh Yogi/TM, Gayatri Parivar, Ramdev, Dayanand Saraswati, Nithyananda, Vasudev Jaggi, Kripalu Maharaj, ISCKON, Bramha Kumaris, et al. Any baba or guru attempting to create a (Christian-like) congregation, and building a personal business empire need to be exposed as a crypto-christian and summarily rejected.

This would not be unprecedented in our history. We did the same in the last millennium and we can do it again. India was in a similar
situation when Kumarila Bhatta exposed the hollowness of Buddhist philosophy and subsequently Aadi Shankara took it to the next level. And the rest followed logically. Had we been all Buddhist in 800 CE, we would have become an Islamic country by 1200 CE itself (as was the case in Gaandhar, Punjab, Sindh and Bengal -- these remained Buddhist majority provinces).

(b) Cultural

Our culture has been thoroughly compromised by the British colonialism. By culture I definitely do not mean superficialities or
externalities. Those are not much of a factor. I am referring to the culture of social thinking (as reflected in our literature and poetry
and other forms of expression). We think semitic/christian, but may express that in our languages. We need to start thinking Hindu, and then that would automatically reflect in our cultural expression.

The historical precedent of such cultural nativity was during the Gupta period, that saw the flowering of a golden age. The superior
cultural thinking of those days was reflected in Kalidasa's Raghuvamsha. Such thinking established a high ideal and the bulk of
the population pursued those ideals. When the rest of the world was at the receiving end of the Hunas, we had unparalleled peace and prosperity for five centuries.

We need to accomplish that again.

(c) Mental

This is the third factor that afflicts our society. We are always in a "protection" and "retention" mode. We are more focused on protecting what we have, and not looking at 'strategic defense' which requires offense. The best defense is to take the battle into the enemy camp. The problem of Islam will have to be taken back to its source - i.e. Mecca and Kaaba, and that of Christianity to Jerusalem and Vatican. Until we get into a counter-attack mode, we shall always be defensive. This is not a case of day dreaming - the vision should always be grand, the action could be step by step in practical measure. Howsoever long that may take the Hindu society must have a collective vision to combat the forces of Religious Singularism and Fascism.

II. TACTICAL

But how would all of the above reflect in our tactical programs?

After all, a grassroots political activist would not find any direct relevance to the strategic determinants listed above (primarily
because perhaps politics is always a tactic to pursue a larger civilizational strategic objective).

(1) Politics

At present the politics is fixated on getting elected (BJP) by any means. Even though this may look very attractive proposition, but 6
year NDA rule has shown that there is a point of diminishing returns for a swan to trying walking like a crow -- the swan eventually
becomes the crow.

We have been given an alien political framework - public policy and administrative framework is too centralized and exploitative. That is the primary reason 80% of Hindus have become political slaves of the political interests of the 15% population. Every political party is pandering to gain the votes of 15% of the population that can swing any election. How far this could go on?

It is time now to deconstruct the basis of our political system, and think out of the box. Instead of fixated on contesting elections and winning (and then getting the necessary constitutional reforms accomplished), let us think of other ways this could be done. Changing the basic features of the current system by conventional methodology is made next to impossible because of 2/3rd majority in the Parliament, and then the Supreme Court judgement in the Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala case. Even if say the BJP gets a 2/3rd majority (currently that looks impossible), it may still not be able to repeal Articles 30 and 370. So, why do we, as activists, put a premium on getting the BJP elected? That seems to be a bad bet. From a Hindu civilizational point-of-view BJP is just another secular party - albiet a tad bit better secularist compared to pseudo-secularists of the Congress, NCP, SP and BSP.

There are other ways to achieve a new constitution. The society must be ready and be prepared to pay a cost, if it wants to live as a free society.


(2) Society

There is a fundamental and structural flaw in our current social system, origins of which are NOT in ancient times, but very recently
to the late 18th / early 19th century, when an internal colonization took place, wherein a set of Hindus (so called upper castes of today) socially colonized another set of Hindus (so called lower castes), quite by accident actually, facilitated by the British colonialists to suit their colonial purpose.

Once a healthy system of fraternal jaatis, and the Dharmic functional system of Varna classification (where jaati and varna were parallel and mutually exclusive of each other), was ossified and frozen into the current caste system - which has become a competitively exploited system of social fragmentation.

The question is what to do about it.

Actually Dr. Ambedkar has shown the way, but he was misunderstood by the so called upper castes and exploited by the lower castes (RPI, BSP and the so-called the Dalit Movement in general). Ambedkar's ideas need to be re-explored and refined to address the issue of caste.

(3) Economics

The internal colonization mentioned in the previous section, also happened in the economic arena. Through a process of internal
colonization a set of Hindus attained economic superiority over others by virtue of closeness to their British colonial masters through a
system of patronage and exploitation. Once they gained economic advantage, they created institutional mechanism to retain their wealth by various means.

Economic patronage, either doled by the state - MGNREGA etc., or by the NGO sector in the form of "seva" projects, only exacerbates the economic miseries of people in the long-run. Patronage in the garb of 'Seva' does not accrue in any economic decentralization or democratization, hence no long term benefit to the society. MGNREGA and Seva are like the new "opium of the masses" (poor people will always remain poor if poverty is beneficial to them).

It can also be stated that the rich (internal economic colonialists) in India have created the patronage system - both state and NGO
sectors - as a safety valve for self-perpetuation, so in the long-run they get to keep their ill-gotten wealth during British colonial
period, and grow it to further the process of internal economic colonization in independent India.

The 'remedy' for this problem, MUST NOT be of western origin viz. socialism and communism, but needs to be borne out of native Hindu thought. The hallmarks of a native Hindu socio-economic system are maximum possible decentralization and democratization, so that the poor themselves remove the poverty.

***

The above are the three main tactical areas. Other derivative areas are equally important - such as education, law, health, environment etc. but those merit specialized intuitive thought development.

The strategic areas, quite naturally, are of supreme importance. The tactical areas are derivative and will automatically follow from the strategic.

best regards,
Ra***

[abhishek_sharma]

Sachar sought a dedicated wakf cadre, govt said no

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sacha ... no/756986/

[Samudragupta]

Atri-ji, if the Sikh, or Maratha, or Jat nationalisms were truly "nationalist" (I reckon that is what you mean by "dharmic") and not regional, how do you explain Jat behaviour towards the Marathas during the third battle of Panipat? Or Sikh behaviour during 1857? Or the entire Maratha roaylty (Scindhias, Holkars) during 1857? Or Maratha behaviour towards Tipu Sultan? Or for that matter Rajput behaviour towards each other at various crucial stages?

Somnathji
Taking ur logic what will you postulate about the difference of opinion between the CP and the Samities like Jugantar and Anusilan....Following ur logic either one of them is definitely not nationalist right?

[Atri]

These so called literates are pathetically dim-witted to understand the whole point behind Maratha and Sikh movements..

This mischief (of passing Indian nationalism of Marathas as regional chauvinism) has been going on since fall of Pune in 1818. Same goes with Sikhs. With sikhs, they tried the approach of "martial race theory" after persecution in Punjab in decade of 1850s. Same goes with bengal (terming them effeminate after Bengal army revolted and gave them kick in arse in 1857).

Every movement (vijaynagar, rajput, ahoms, jats, bundelas, sikhs, marathas and others) in past, present and future, has/had nothing to do with regional chauvinism, OR religious inquisition. Its about establishment of Dharma.

Atri-ji, if the Sikh, or Maratha, or Jat nationalisms were truly "nationalist" (I reckon that is what you mean by "dharmic") and not regional, how do you explain Jat behaviour towards the Marathas during the third battle of Panipat? Or Sikh behaviour during 1857? Or the entire Maratha roaylty (Scindhias, Holkars) during 1857? Or Maratha behaviour towards Tipu Sultan? Or for that matter Rajput behaviour towards each other at various crucial stages?

What Jat behavior are you talking about? Which incident in north indian politics of Marathas (of which Panipat is just a small and rather insignificant part) are you referring to?
What Sikh behavior are you talking about in 1857?
What Maratha behavior (Holkar and Shinde) are you talking about in 1857?
What Maratha behavior towards tipu are you alluding to?

Refer to incidents, then I shall respond..

[brihaspati]

Taking ur logic what will you postulate about the difference of opinion between the CP and the Samities like Jugantar and Anusilan....Following ur logic either one of them is definitely not nationalist right?

Jugantar and Anushilon did not encourage Muslim membership. At least the membership of both were overwhelmingly Hindu - which must imply that it was these two samity's faults that the Muslims did not become attracted to them. So that should imply that these two were not nationalists - since any party that does not encourage Islamist exclusivism is non-nationalist perhaps even anti-nationalist.

The world is of course not black and white and there are an uncountable number of points in a compact interval which is the model of any real life political situation [convenient to choose an escape route or justify whatever suits the mood]. But the Communist Party was against the 42' movement [when the leadership was in jail they suddenly changed tack, since initially and outside they were still following the previous Comintern line of joining nationalist struggle - but then Moscow decided that all colony's communist movements must start collaborating with their Allied masters to save the Soviet homeland and quash nationlist movements], had at various points supported the idea of a Pakistan, - so should we take all these shades of gray [ in between the black of nationalism and white of secularism] as proof that the CP was not nationlist either? Or should we make them part of the supposed primary motivation in all movements as being driven by monetary profits only? No ideology business? How do we reconcile that with communism - no ideology and pure profit motivation onlee? But if the communists were not driven by pure monetary profits, then they were not politicians, and their opposition to nationalism was not driven by profits, but by ideology. If the CP were normal politicians, meaning driven by pure monetary profits onlee, then who paid them the money to turn against "nationalism"?

The Congress differed severely with Bhagat Singh over "nationlism", with Subhas ji and INA over "nationalism", with the naval ratings uprising over "nationalism" - which means both the Congress and those whom it severely differed from and even "fought" were potentially anti-nationalists. Problem is even Bhagat Singh was "secular", "SCB" and INA was "secular" - meaning they managed to recruit Muslims. So if Islamo-philia is the only qualification to "nationalism" then we cannot disqualify these supposed enemies of Congress.

So maybe the solution is to define once and for all - "nationalism" by group membership : Only those who formal swear an oath of undying loyalty to MKG, JLN as persons and their proteges or declared heirs, and are members of the Congress, or those who swear by some shade of Communism, and all those Muslims who accept one of these two groups as having the sole right to exist - are the only "nationalists".

No criteria discussed above can separate out any group as being excluded from being dubbed "non/anti-nationalists".

By the way, I think, discussing too much about Tipu or his opponents will go OT unless it is also shown that such factors or attitudes are appearing even now and may be relevant for the future.

[somnath]

Somnathji
Taking ur logic what will you postulate about the difference of opinion between the CP and the Samities like Jugantar and Anusilan....Following ur logic either one of them is definitely not nationalist right?

Sumudragupta-ji, difference of opinion didnt lead to Anushilon joining the British to turn Masterda over, did it?

What Jat behavior are you talking about? Which incident in north indian politics of Marathas (of which Panipat is just a small and rather insignificant part) are you referring to?
What Sikh behavior are you talking about in 1857?
What Maratha behavior (Holkar and Shinde) are you talking about in 1857?
What Maratha behavior towards tipu are you alluding to?

Is it a rhetorical question? Surely you are not unaware of the collaboration of the Holkars and Scindias with the British in 1857..Or the participation of the Sikhs in the British Army that drove out the sepoys...Or Raja Todar Mal's withdrawl, midway through the Maratha campaign... Or the Marathas siding with the British in the third Anglo-Mysore war....

[brihaspati]

It is said that there is no end to learning as long as one lives. I have to look up again how there can be alternate histories - in a quantum mechanical sense perhaps. Akbar living upto 1700's and fighting Marathas perhaps with his advisor and finance minister. Or not to think of the lesser known Diwan Todar Mal because he did something that does not show Mughals in a wonderful syncretic light who unknown to us also fought Marathas. There is no end to imagining possible histories!

I am still not sure if all this has relevance to current scenario or the future in the way the discussion is being carried out. Should I really point out what such relevance may actually mean? Starting with clarifying how it will reflect on statements made by illustrious leaders like MKG or JLN about the Brits? !!

[brihaspati]

Diwan Todar Mal in fact may provide some good research project for reconstruction of Mughal history as wonderfully syncretic and a good example of possible distortion by modern H**** fanatics. It will be interesting since his spending fabulous amounts on a ceratin issue could either be declared a forgery, or a myth, or a reconstruction by people with hidden political agenda. Moreover we may be able to find some financial or economic motiavtion and look upon his payment of gold as some kind of future investment? perhaps a hedge against change of regime? [At a time when the regime carrying out the syncretic gesture was at the height of its coercive power] It could also provide counter-examples to what I have modelled [and caused legitimate criticism] as the mercantile-mentality.

While I modelled this as a "mentality" and not necessarily specifically as restricted to "merchants", I guess most took offence by interpreting the latter. But Diwan Todar Mal is a good study of a merchant perhaps not with a mercantile mentality. Now what made him act so? Can a similar condition be created for the future? There is a catch in lambasting the Diwan, his act was not to uphold "saffrons" and the community or movement he was acting in favour of - cannot be criticized in the way saffrons can be!

[brihaspati]

The Manchester Guardian, 28th September, 1925. Calcutta : Gandhiji as reported by Manchester Guardian,

"I have come deliberately to the conclusions that love of one's country, nationalism, is perfectly consistent with love of those who rule and whose domination and methods we do not like."

"Mr. Gandhi said, he did not want freedom for India if it meant the disappearnce of the English". [My emphasis is because using "the" here prevents the excuse the MKG meant the language and not the "race"]
MKG is duly quoted by Manchester Guardian, "Dealing with evils in Hindu Society itself, Gandhi said 'Shall we hate those who consider untouchability part and parcel of the Hindu religion and quote scripture in favour of it!"

The obvious interpretation : he does not want such claimants to be punished.

[brihaspati]

Here raising again the question of whether siding with the British against another group fighting with the British - as nationalism or anti-nationalism. If it is claimed that a tactical move at certain stage of an overall struggle does not mean subversion of the overall cause then similar examples cannot be used historically too as case for anti-nationalism, or for the future. I am sure people will be struck with the detailed planning that has gone into this and the almost complete coverage all possible emotional, and other manipulations possible to encourage enlisting. Quoting in full.

http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL017.PDF

67. APPEAL FOR ENLISTMENT
NADIAD,
June 22, 1918
LEAFLET NO. 11
SISTERS AND BROTHERS OF KHEDA DISTRICT:
You have just emerged successful from a glorious satyagraha campaign. You have, in the course of this struggle, given such evidence of fearlessness, tact and other virtues that I venture to advise and urge you to undertake a still greater campaign. You have successfully demonstrated how you can resist Government with civility, and how you can retain your self-respect without hurting theirs. I now place before you an opportunity of proving that you bear no hostility to Government despite your having given it a strenuous fight.

You are all lovers of swaraj; some of you are members of the Home Rule League. One meaning of Home Rule is that we should become partners in the Empire. Today we are a subject people. We do not enjoy all the rights of Englishmen. We are not today partners in the Empire as are Canada, South Africa and Australia. We are a dependency. We want the rights of Englishmen, and we aspire to be as much partners in the Empire as the Dominions overseas. We look forward to a time when we may aspire to the Viceregal office. To bring about such a state of things we should have the ability to defend ourselves, that is, the ability to bear arms and to use them. As long as we have to look to Englishmen for our defence, as long as we are not free from the fear of the military, so long we cannot be regarded as equal partners with Englishmen. It behoves us, therefore, to learn the use of arms and to acquire the ability to defend ourselves. If we want to learn the use of arms with the greatest possible despatch, it is our duty to enlist ourselves in the army. There can be no friendship between the brave and the effeminate. We are regarded as a cowardly people. If we want to become free from that reproach, we should learn the use of arms.

Partnership in the Empire is our definite goal. We should suffer to the utmost of our ability and even lay down our lives to defend the Empire. If the Empire perishes, with it perish our cherished aspirations. Hence the easiest and the straightest way to win swaraj is to participate in the defence of the Empire. It is not within our power to give much money. Moreover, it is not money that will win the war. Only an army inexhaustible in number can do it. That army India can supply. If the Empire wins mainly with the help of our army, it is obvious that we would secure the rights we want.

Some will say that, if we do not secure those rights just now, we would be cheated of them afterwards. The strength we employ in defending the Empire now can secure those rights. Rights won by making an opportunity of the Empire’s weakness are likely to be lost when the Empire regains its strength. We shall not succeed in becoming partners in the Empire by trying to embarrass it. Embarrassing it in its hour of crisis will not help us to secure the rights which we must win by serving it. To distrust the statesmen of the Empire is to distrust our own strength; it is a sign of our own weakness. We should not depend for our rights on the goodness or the weakness of the statesmen, we should depend on our fitness and our strength.

The Native States are helping the Empire and they are getting their reward. The rich are rendering full financial assistance to the Government and they are likewise getting their reward. The assistance in neither case is rendered conditionally. The sepoys are rendering their services for their salt and for their livelihood. They get their livelihood, and prizes and honours in addition. All these classes are a part of us, but they cannot be regarded as lovers of swaraj, their goal is not swaraj. The help they render is not out of love for the country. If we seek to win swaraj in a spirit of hostility, it may well be that the Imperial statesmen will use these three forces against us and defeat us. If we want swaraj, it is our duty to help the Empire and we shall undoubtedly get the reward of that help. If our motive is honest, the Government will behave honestly with us. Assuming for a moment that it will not do so, our honesty should make us confident of our success. It is no mark of greatness to be good only with the good. Greatness lies in returning good for evil.

The Government does not give us commissions in the Army, it does not repeal the Arms Act; it does not open schools for military training. How can we then co-operate with it? These are valid objections. In not granting reforms in these matters, the Government is committing a serious blunder. The British have many acts of goodness to their credit. For these, God’s grace be with them. But the heinous sin perpetrated by the British administrators in the name of their people will, if they do not take care betimes, undo the effect of all these acts of goodness. If the worst happens to India, which God forbid, and she passes into the hands of some other nation, India’s piteous cry will make England hang her head in shame before the world, and a curse will descend upon her for having emasculated a nation of thirty crores. I believe the statesmen of England have realized this and have taken the warning, but they are unable to alter all of a sudden the situation created by themselves. Every Englishman upon entering India is trained to despise us, to regard himself as our superior and to keep himself aloof from us. They imbibe these ideas from the very atmosphere in which they move. Those at the higher levels of administration try to free themselves and their subordinates from this atmosphere but their effort does not bear immediate fruit. If there were no crisis for the Empire, we should be fighting against this domineering spirit. But to sit back at this crisis, waiting for commissions, etc., is like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. It may well be that, while we are waiting for commissions, the opportunity to help the Empire may slip away. It is my firm belief that even if the Government desires to prevent us from enlisting in the army and rendering other help by refusing us commissions or by delay in granting them, it is our duty to insist upon joining the army.

The Government at present wants half a million men for the army. They will certainly succeed in raising this number somehow. If we supply this number, the credit will be ours, we will be rendering a service and the reports that we often hear of improper methods adopted by recruiting agents will become things of the past. It is no small thing to have the whole work of recruiting in our hands. If the Government have no trust in us, if their intentions are not pure, they would not recruitment through us. The foregoing argument will show that by enlisting in the army we help the Empire, we qualify ourselves for swaraj, we learn to defend India and to a certain extent regain our lost manhood.

I admit it is because of my faith in the British people that I can advise as I am doing. I believe that, though this nation has done India much harm, it is to our advantage to retain connection with it. Their virtues seem to me to outweigh their vices. It is painful to remain in subjection to that nation. The British have the great vice of depriving a subject nation of its self-respect, but they have also the virtue of treating their equals with due respect and of loyalty towards them. We have seen that they have many times helped those groaning under the tyranny of others. As their partners, there is much we can receive and much that we can give and our connection with them based on that relationship is likely to benefit the world. If such was not my faith and if I thought it desirable to become absolutely independent of that nation, I would not only not advise co-operation but would on the contrary ask the people to beware, advising them to rebel, and paying the penalty for doing so. We are not in a position today to stand on our own feet unaided and alone. I believe that our good lies in becoming and remaining equal partners in the Empire and I have seen it throughout India that all those who demand swaraj are of the same view. I expect from Kheda and Gujarat not 500 or 700 recruits but thousands. If Gujarat wants to save herself from the reproach of effeminacy, she should be prepared to contribute thousands of sepoys. These must include the educated classes, the Patidars, the Dharalas, the Vagharis and I hope they all will fight side by side as comrades. Unless the educated classes or the elite of the community take the lead, it is idle to expect the other classes to come forward. I hope those among the educated classes who are above the prescribed age but who are able-bodied will be eligible to enlist themselves. Their services will be utilized, if not for actual fighting, for related purposes and for looking after the welfare of the sepoys. I hope also that those who have grown-up sons will not hesitate to send them as recruits. To sacrifice sons in the war ought to be a cause not of pain but ofpleasure to brave men. Sacrifice of sons at this hour will be a sacrifice for swaraj. To the women, my request is that they should not be alarmed by this appeal but should welcome it. It contains the key to their protection and their honour.

There are 600 villages in Kheda district. Every village has on an average a population of over 1,000. If every village gave at least twenty men, Kheda district would be able to raise an army of 12,000 men. The population of the whole district is seven lakhs and this number will then work out at 1.7 per cent, a rate which is lower than the death rate. If we are not prepared to make even this sacrifice for the Empire, for the sake of swaraj, no wonder that we should be regarded unworthy of it. If every village gives at least twenty men, on their return from the war they will be the living bulwarks of their village. If they fall on the battle-field, they will immortalize themselves, their village and their country, and twenty fresh men will follow their example and offer themselves for national defence. If we mean to do this, we have no time to lose. I desire that the fittest and the strongest in every village should be selected and their names forwarded. I ask this of you, brothers and sisters. To explain things to you and to answer the many questions that may be raised, meetings will be held in important villages. Volunteers will also go round.
[Volunteer names follow] Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

[Atri]

Somnathji
Taking ur logic what will you postulate about the difference of opinion between the CP and the Samities like Jugantar and Anusilan....Following ur logic either one of them is definitely not nationalist right?

Sumudragupta-ji, difference of opinion didnt lead to Anushilon joining the British to turn Masterda over, did it?

What Jat behavior are you talking about? Which incident in north indian politics of Marathas (of which Panipat is just a small and rather insignificant part) are you referring to?
What Sikh behavior are you talking about in 1857?
What Maratha behavior (Holkar and Shinde) are you talking about in 1857?
What Maratha behavior towards tipu are you alluding to?

Is it a rhetorical question? Surely you are not unaware of the collaboration of the Holkars and Scindias with the British in 1857..Or the participation of the Sikhs in the British Army that drove out the sepoys...Or Raja Todar Mal's withdrawl, midway through the Maratha campaign... Or the Marathas siding with the British in the third Anglo-Mysore war....

Read up Operation Red Lotus by Parag Tope for doubts regarding 1857 war of independence.. Your answers regarding Shinde-Holkar will be answered.

Read up Historical battle thread in military forum and distorted history thread on gdf. We have discussed north Indian campaign of Marathas in great detail. Please go through blog of Airavat ji. You may also want to go through this series.

and BTW, it is raja surajmal, not todarmal...

[Prem]

[and BTW, it is raja surajmal, not todarmal...

Jat Raja Suraj Mal whose advise was ignored by the Maratahs.
Todarmal was the good soul who did the last rites of martyred Shaibjadehs , the two tender age sons of Guru Gobind Singh ji . The Nawab of Sirhind demanded gold coins equal to the the length and breadth of land to be used for funeral.

I have question to Somnath ji,
Is Congress Nationalistic by any standard ?

[RamaY]

Bharat.S garu,

Thanks for sharing that gem. Wow!

I could see lot of similarities with my worldview.

[brihaspati]

Prem ji,
I have found people peculiarly much less aware of Diwan Todar Mal and his role in arranging for the funerals of the three (sons and grandmother), but so much more aware of Raja Todar Mal. Thats wy I kept silent on the actual incident - so that hopefully people looked up on the Diwan.

But from what I have come to realize now, this is the result of a deliberate suppression of the actual face of Mughal rule, and constructing and painting them as paragons of syncretism, "culture" and oh-so-contributing and enriching "Indian culture". This is why Todar Mal has to be much more propagandized. He can be a good psy-ops which serves several subliminal messages at the same time.

Raja Todar Mal is a "Hindu/Rajput" who "collaborates" and represents an ideal of "Hindu" response towards Islamism that all Hindus should follow.
Raja Todar Mal serves Akbar who allows the Raja to serve - showing the syncretism of Mughals - creating the impression that "all Hindus" were similarly treated.
Raja Todar Mal serves Akbar and the Mughal darbar - showing that after all Hindus are born to serve Muslims - and it should be a natural and expected role.
Raja Todar Mal offers up a "princess" to be taken by Akbar - showing another ideal to be followed as an exemplar.
Raja Todar Mal and his descendants use their identity and skill to suppress and repress fellow "Hindus" in favour of Mughals and Muslims - another exemplar to be followed.
Raja Todar Mal's role as "finance advisor" to be highlighted - to carry through the message that Hindus should better concentrate only on producing wealth and harvesting that wealth for consumption by the Mughals/Muslims or whoever claims their heritage.

Compared to this Diwan Todar Mal carries out the very humanitarian duty of securing a proper and honourable funeral for the executed children of a Sikh Guru, and uses his wealth to satisfy the sadistic rapacity of an Islamist ruler.
It shows possibility of different non-Muslim groups coming together against Islamic atrocity. (Since Diwan retains his surname and not mentioned as Singh, there are disputes about his being already a Sikh)
It shows definite imagery of Islamist sadism, cruelty on children, so cannot be highlighted.
It shows possibility of Islamist attitudes towards non-Muslim resistance to demands of conversion.
It shows Islamic sadistic greed in extracting money from even the basic humanitarian response towards a proper last rites towards the dead.
It provides an example of how Hindu wealthy could behave, or that only increasing and accumulating wealth for the pleasures of the rulers need not be the only target of Hindu life.

All of these are bad examples to highlight, and does not suit the underlying political agenda. Hence every child has heard of Raja Todar Mal, but rarely anyone knows of Diwan Todar Mal.

[Frederic]

Bravo Brihaspatiji!
As they say in Tamil "Nethi Adi" (a hammerfist between the brows!)
Best
Fred

[somnath]

Read up Operation Red Lotus by Parag Tope for doubts regarding 1857 war of independence.. Your answers regarding Shinde-Holkar will be answered.

Read up Historical battle thread in military forum and distorted history thread on gdf. We have discussed north Indian campaign of Marathas in great detail. Please go through blog of Airavat ji. You may also want to go through this series.

and BTW, it is raja surajmal, not todarmal...

Of course, mea culpa - got that mixed up...Age catching up

Went through the blog you referenced..If anything, it only shows how each of the principals - Marathas, Jats, Awadh, Sikhs - acted as per their own compulsions and motivations..For example..

however behaviour of earlier maratha campaign had left sour taste in mouths of Jats and Sikhs. Furthermore, Jats wanted to keep delhi to themselves. This is one generosity which Marathas should have shown.

It is quite difficult to be value judgemental about any of the principals - they all had their own reasons for doing what they did...But post facto attribution of "Indian nationalism" to a massively more complex story is simplistic...

1857 of course is chronicled more widely...From Chris Hibbert to William Dalrymple, the story of how the various principals played it differently, and cut deals as conveneitn with different sides is well articulated...Someone like VS Naipaul even feels that according it the status of a "war of independence" is going too far! Again, difficult to be very value judgemental of many of the principals - a lot of them were only trying to preserve their respective privileges and hence acting accoridngly - but to conclude that the behaviour was only about "dharma, or nationalism", and no parochial interests, is stretching it far...There was nationalism, in some respects no doubt, there was the common hostility towards the foreign invador..But there were enough parochial interests that played out - which meant Holkars and Scindias cut good deals with the company while the rebellion was on..

Same could be repeated for Tipu Sultan..The Marathas aligned with him (partially) when it suited them, and then broke away when it didnt...The animosity towards the "foreigner" was often over-ridden by parochial benefits...

Maybe the reality is a bit more complex than a simplistic "out to preserve dharma" views?

[ramana]

I too have read many version of 1857. Till I read Parag Tope's work where he shows that the movement had war aims, a plan of action and had issued proclamations I was also thinking its hype. The real history is yet to be written from Shivaji's revolt to 1857 thru 1947.

[Prem]

MycketTuck Bsir ji,
Now i know that one Raja Todar Mal was Tody of Mughal , a Congressi of that time and other was Diwan Todar mal , son of soil , gladly sacrificining his wealth for the honor of other son of soil.

[somnath]

I have question to Somnath ji,
Is Congress Nationalistic by any standard ?

Prem-ji, depends on how you define nationalism, no? And depends on the context as well - today, in 1971, in 1947, in 1942, 1921 or in 1885?

Personally, today I dont find the INC as being materially different from any other "national" political party..(that is a small group )..

[Atri]

Maybe the reality is a bit more complex than a simplistic "out to preserve dharma" views?

Having political interests is not against dharma.. In fact, artha is one of the necessary achievements which "has to be achieved" in order to be called successful.

What happened as a result of Maratha conquest in society is what tells us about their dhaarmik and adhaarmikness. What happened in their territory? were people persecuted on religious grounds? were lost temples rebuilt? how satisfied were subjects? what was their vision statement?

Surajmal remained a friend before and after Panipat incident. his not joining Marathas in the war was mostly due to pragmatism. He saved most of the Maratha womenfolk and sent them back to Pune with honour. Once in siege, the chances of marathas (according to jats) were less. Hence political pragmatism demands keeping strength. Marathas are known to flee the battleground whenever the situation was unfavourable. So, they did not complain Surajmal's (and to some extent Shuja's) non-cooperation.

The letters written by Bhaurao Peshwa to Abdali, Najib and Mughals say that "India is for Indians the foreign abdali must not be allowed to take root in Indian soil. Whatever differences we have amongst Indians, we will sort it out ourselves". Same are the words of Shivaji when he pledges to "liberate all the holy rivers and teertha-kshetra" from foreign domination and establish dharma". what are holy rivers in Sanatan Dharma?

So in the actions of above players, dharma and nationalism is synonymous concept. It will segregate when subcontinent is stablized under system of Dharma and we start talking of exporting it out. That is the point when dharma delineates with nationalism. not until then. You expect answers in absolutes, Indians say nothing is absolute.

[RajeshA]

somnath ji,

Just an observation!

I have observed that the crux of your arguments are always on the lines of - "All power, legitimacy and tradition for India flows from the Anglo-Americans". Considering that C. Raja Mohan also prescribes solutions based on these lines, perhaps one can call this school of thought the Singaporean School.

I recognize that it is important to allow all schools of thought a place at the discussion table, so I welcome your posts!

I just thought it appropriate to let others know, where you come from, as per my PoV.

[chaanakya]

somnath ji,

Just an observation!

I have observed that the crux of your arguments are always on the lines of - "All power, legitimacy and tradition for India flows from the Anglo-Americans". Considering that C. Raja Mohan also prescribes solutions based on these lines, perhaps one can call this school of thought the Singaporean School.

I recognize that it is important to allow all schools of thought a place at the discussion table, so I welcome your posts!

I just thought it appropriate to let others know, where you come from, as per my PoV.

Does it mean that Singaporean School refuses to recognize legitimacy of Indian Sovereignty over whole or even part of J&K??
If that is so I can perhaps understand his silence of my direct question.

[RajeshA]

somnath ji,

Just an observation!

I have observed that the crux of your arguments are always on the lines of - "All power, legitimacy and tradition for India flows from the Anglo-Americans". Considering that C. Raja Mohan also prescribes solutions based on these lines, perhaps one can call this school of thought the Singaporean School.

I recognize that it is important to allow all schools of thought a place at the discussion table, so I welcome your posts!

I just thought it appropriate to let others know, where you come from, as per my PoV.

Does it mean that Singaporean School refuses to recognize legitimacy of Indian Sovereignty over whole or even part of J&K??
If that is so I can perhaps understand his silence of my direct question.

The "Singaporean School" would readily realize that J&K belongs to India, but would constantly tell us that, that is so, not because of any principles that India followed, or the Instrument of Accession, but because we retain the military upper hand there, and then would go ahead and make the connection that even that is based on American acquiescence to Indian position, because we are allies, blah, blah!

We may have legitimacy and power and tradition, but it all depends on the fact that India is aligned with the Anglo-Americans.

[somnath]

somnath ji,
I have observed that the crux of your arguments are always on the lines of - "All power, legitimacy and tradition for India flows from the Anglo-Americans". Considering that C. Raja Mohan also prescribes solutions based on these lines, perhaps one can call this school of thought the Singaporean School.

I recognize that it is important to allow all schools of thought a place at the discussion table, so I welcome your posts!

I just thought it appropriate to let others know, where you come from, as per my PoV.

RajeshA-ji, Singapore school! Must say even Kishore Mahbubani and George Yeo would be flattered by that honorific! Not sure about C Raja Mohan though, he left NTU some time back...

But not sure where you found me tracing India's legitimacy to Anglo-Americans..Or for that matter C Raja Mohan (who IMO is the inheritor of K Subramnyam's mantle)....I am inherently deeply sceptical about construction of a world view based on a past "we would like to have", rather than one that we actually had...Especially because our present focal point is a function of our current capacities, not on our history, real or imagined...I am not a historian, neither a history student - but my (fairly limited) reading of India's history gives me a sense of a glorious past, with shades of heterogeneous gray, but glorious nevertheless...I am not particulary impressed by claims of homogeneity that is constructed in manner that can be described in my professional lingo can only be described as "fit-to-model"!

To that extent you are right about my views, India's "right" over J&K is a function of our politico-military capacities, not a piece of paper, disputed or otherwise...However, that right isnt dependent on Anglo-American blessings..Far from it...At the same time, we have a lot in common, and a lot more to gain from, a productive alliance with them - that too there is no doubt on...

[RajeshA]

somnath ji,
I have observed that the crux of your arguments are always on the lines of - "All power, legitimacy and tradition for India flows from the Anglo-Americans". Considering that C. Raja Mohan also prescribes solutions based on these lines, perhaps one can call this school of thought the Singaporean School.

I recognize that it is important to allow all schools of thought a place at the discussion table, so I welcome your posts!

I just thought it appropriate to let others know, where you come from, as per my PoV.

RajeshA-ji, Singapore school! Must say even Kishore Mahbubani and George Yeo would be flattered by that honorific! Not sure about C Raja Mohan though, he left NTU some time back...

But not sure where you found me tracing India's legitimacy to Anglo-Americans..Or for that matter C Raja Mohan (who IMO is the inheritor of K Subramnyam's mantle)....I am inherently deeply sceptical about construction of a world view based on a past "we would like to have", rather than one that we actually had...Especially because our present focal point is a function of our current capacities, not on our history, real or imagined...I am not a historian, neither a history student - but my (fairly limited) reading of India's history gives me a sense of a glorious past, with shades of heterogeneous gray, but glorious nevertheless...I am not particulary impressed by claims of homogeneity that is constructed in manner that can be described in my professional lingo can only be described as "fit-to-model"!

To that extent you are right about my views, India's "right" over J&K is a function of our politico-military capacities, not a piece of paper, disputed or otherwise...However, that right isnt dependent on Anglo-American blessings..Far from it...At the same time, we have a lot in common, and a lot more to gain from, a productive alliance with them - that too there is no doubt on...

somnath ji,
Most Indians, who feel attached to our past, and I would consider some of our leadership as well, act based on Dharma - the path of righteousness! Others who have deeper roots with the land than me, may be able to explain it to you better!

They certainly do not wish to act on the basis of "Might is Right", but rather "Right is Might"! I myself may consider it to be a quite high bar for strategic thinking and policy, but that is the measure they wish to use, to both temper their actions, as well as to preserve a healthy conscience for the population for the long term. I find both parameters laudable albeit constraining.

So for us to carry out policy, we need conviction that we are acting righteously! Though your formulations do cause a healthy debate, and at times I find myself, even agreeing with you, I'm afraid your views would cause still more doubt and inaction in a leadership which tends to be usually inactive, and not simply because of calculations of Dharma!

Your focus on economic parameters as the primary measure for policy-formulation, as well as your subtle attacks on the righteousness of our positions in areas of strategy and security, I'm afraid contributes to the harm done to the resolve of policy-makers, should they care to read your views. I'm sure that is not your desire.

I however leave you to your better judgment!