Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[chaanakya]

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...

India's right over J&K is just the same as it is for all other states belonging to this Land called Bharatvarsha. It is a natural and democratic right flowing from thousands of years of history imagined or otherwise, homogeneous or heterogeneous, black and white or simple shades of grey .Politico-military function flows from that natural and democratic right rather than right flowing from the barrel of the gun ( as a marxist/maoist would pretend).

That politico military right as well as religion has not been able to keep pakistan intact nor will it remain intact in future , proves the point amply. One can foment such imagined religious or politico military right to form a state which would remain in constant peril of dissolution. Existence of J&K as state of India reminds Pakistan the futility of its search for identity.

BTW that piece of paper is an accident of history with legal right in terms of anglo-saxon laws which west understands and not something which confers moral and natural right which is inherent and axiomatic needing no further proof.

[brihaspati]

Two observations:

(1) MKG specifically claims [as per my above posts] that even collaborating with a hated opressor or ruler or opponent whose rule is detested on tactical issues is perfectly compatible with being a "nationalist". If contextual collaboration with enemies disqualifies "nationalist" credentials, and shows subversion of "dharma" - then we should recognize MKG as not being a nationalist and not dharmik.

(2) There is often an attitude to history in the modern educated - that whatever has been claimed as historical interpretation by so-called professionals is the "end", final, irreversible, a kind of "truth". This is the same attitude essentially of the total and unquestioning submission to revelation by an authority who cannot be challenged - and submission to whom gives material benefits in exchange.

It seems that the Indian mind which traditionally did not dwell on a permanent truth but on a permanent quest which entailed continuous revisiting of old conclusions, to update - is lost. Especially in those who somehow have lost the inquiry/doubt faculty and therefore more easily convinced about the necessity of rejecting their birth culture claims - because the colonial/foreign masters and their Indian lackeys reward such rejection well. These minds therefore once divorced from their tradition fall into the trap of the revelation brigade - and become ultra-conservative thinkers on history - that all that has supposedly been claimed by western/colonial historians and their repackagers (who claim to be anti-colonial to gain legitimacy for such repackaging) are the final revelation and cannot be challenged.

In the west historians have begun to question even their own past historiography, finding more and more evidence of tampering at a profound level in the questions, the method of posing questions, and even what is selected for study and for what is focused on.

No such examples for the Indian mind which has been divorced from India. Living in an imaginary India constructed by western imperialists, fanatically supporting the imperialist and comprador cause in creating such an imaginary India. But even such whole-sale and desperate attempt at currying favour with the west or the school of Indian thought that currys such favour, they are still marked out as "Indian" by their hoped for approvers. This is an Indian mind in a limbo, ashamed of being identified with anything in India that is not approved by essentially Christian or Islamist imperialist academics, while still not accepted as one of the "true" and superior race.

In the GDF there has been some discussions on "expulsions" - I believe such "minds in limbo" should be encouraged to remain "outside" where they are. They are intellectually dead fish, will never be a source of a new school of thought so no chance of becoming a huge anti-India force as longa s they stay far away. Once inside though they will stride both sides, take advantages from their birth identity and use it for serving the caus ethey identify with - that of their imperialist intellectual identity.

[svinayak]

Two observations:

(1) MKG specifically claims [as per my above posts] that even collaborating with a hated opressor or ruler or opponent whose rule is detested on tactical issues is perfectly compatible with being a "nationalist". If contextual collaboration with enemies disqualifies "nationalist" credentials, and shows subversion of "dharma" - then we should recognize MKG as not being a nationalist and not dharmik.

(2) There is often an attitude to history in the modern educated - that whatever has been claimed as historical interpretation by so-called professionals is the "end", final, irreversible, a kind of "truth". This is the same attitude essentially of the total and unquestioning submission to revelation by an authority who cannot be challenged - and submission to whom gives material benefits in exchange.

It seems that the Indian mind which traditionally did not dwell on a permanent truth but on a permanent quest which entailed continuous revisiting of old conclusions, to update - is lost. Especially in those who somehow have lost the inquiry/doubt faculty and therefore more easily convinced about the necessity of rejecting their birth culture claims - because the colonial/foreign masters and their Indian lackeys reward such rejection well. These minds therefore once divorced from their tradition fall into the trap of the revelation brigade - and become ultra-conservative thinkers on history - that all that has supposedly been claimed by western/colonial historians and their repackagers (who claim to be anti-colonial to gain legitimacy for such repackaging) are the final revelation and cannot be challenged.

This is mainly due to modern day social engineering which is very effective due to centralized schooling system and the modern media which can reach the living room at a cheap cost.

This needs to be controlled effectively inside India.

[somnath]

This is mainly due to modern day social engineering which is very effective due to centralized schooling system and the modern media which can reach the living room at a cheap cost.

This needs to be controlled effectively inside India.

Ahh...So "dharma et al" can be achieved by controlling media and education! Sounds suspiciously close to the "dharma" of such worthies as Stalin, Mao, House of Saud

BTW, when did you go to school to have found a "centralised" schooling system in India? When I went to different schools in various cities, the schooling was substantially different across places........And it wasnt even THAT long ago...still in the '80s and '90s!

[svinayak]

Hope you are not making fun here. Do not consider others here in this forum as stupid.
Once the textbooks are standardized across all the states the same Marxist versions of the history got pushed inside India from 1975. Anybody can read the education board meetings for the last 40 years and see what changes were made in the education.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/42886464/If-Edited-2006

The Central Advisory Board of Education, the oldest and the most important advisory body of the Government of India in education was first established in 1920 and dissolved in 1923 as a measure of economy. The real reason being that they could not control the education policy according to their larger design. It was revived in 1935 and has been in existence ever since even after independence. The idea that there should be a central Advisory Board of Education was first put forward by the Calcutta University Commission (1917-19) which felt "that the Government of India could perform an invaluable function by defining the general aims of educational policy, by giving advice and assistance to local governments and to the development of educational ideas in the various provinces, and also elsewhere than in India." This is the start of the control of education in India by foreign policy makers which continues even after the independence. Almost simultaneously the Government of India Act, 1919 decided to make education mainly a provincial and a transferred subject and to limit the `control' of the Central Government over it to the minimum. This fundamental decision changed the character of the Government of India from that of an executive to an advisory authority; and consequently, the Secretariat Procedure Committee set up to implement the Government of India Act, 1919, observed that, in future, the executive authority of the Government of India should be mainly exercised through moral persuasion and recommended that, "in place of giving executive orders it should tend more and more to become a centre of the best information, research and advice." This recommendation made the adoption of the recommendation of the Calcutta University Commission all the more imperative and accordingly, a Central Advisory Board of Education was set up in 1920 under the chairmanship of Education Commissioner to the Government of India. It is a good deal of useful work but, owing to a financial crisis calling for drastic retrenchments, was abolished in 1923. The first seeds of thought control were setup in 1935 and the first set of Indians educated in India with western thought started in the 1930s and 1940s. They were the most influence in communism and socialism and the people born during that time were in the position off power in 1990s and 2000s.
For the next twelve years, there was no Central body to advise the Government of India in educational matters. This period was the critical period of British trying to find a path for the Muslim nationalism in India for a separate homeland? However, a feeling of regret at the discontinuance of the Board began to grow, especially after the Report of Hartog Committee (1928) which observed that the divorce between the Government of India and education had been unfortunate. Consequently, the present Central Advisory Board of Education was revived in 1935. The first constitution of the Board was given in the Government of India (Education, Health and Lands Department) Resolution No.F.122-3/35-E dated 8th of August, 1935. This period was the revival of the Muslim leagues demand and eventual creation of Pakistan in the eastern wing and the western wing. The Board has been reconstituted vide Government of India Resolution No.1-2/90- PN(D.II) dated 19th October, 1990, as per. The practice adopted by the Board has been to hold one meeting every year, although the record of the last fifty- five years shows that there were no meetings in 1937, 1939, 1966, 1969, 1973, 1976( emergency), 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985 and 1990, and two meetings were held each in 1938, 1943, 1950 and 1986. Prof. S. Nurul Hasan was the chair for the year 1972, 1974, 1975 which was the crucial years after the breakup of Bangladesh, unrest among Indian intellectual and academic bodies and Pokharan test in 1974.

Literacy rate every decade in India:
1901 5.3
1911 5.9
1921 7.2
1931 9.5
1941 16.1
1951 18.33
1961 28.31
1971 34.45
1981 43.56
1991 52.21
2001 65.38

We see that the literacy accelerated in the 60s, 70s and the major powers started to influence the education system inside India. Both Russia and UK/USA setup grants and university contact with new Indian Universities such as JNU and influenced the content and worldview of the future elite. The socialist and left leaning institutes were encouraged for a long term goal of revolution and upheaval inside India. Since Indians/Hindus do not have their own narration of other races except the Muslims and Anglo Saxons the major powers had a vested interest in influencing the worldview of a new generation of Indians. The British were most successful in changing the image of its colonial rule into rule of stability and progress for Indians and the country.
The National Policy of 1968 marked a significant step forward in the history of education in post-independence India. It dealt with several important aspects of education which had been examined in depth by Commissions and Committees over a long period both before and after independence, culminating in the Education Commission (1964-66). The Policy of 1968 aimed at promoting national progress, creating a sense of common citizenship and culture and strengthening national integration. It laid stress on the need for a radical reconstruction of education to improve its quality at all stages, much greater attention to science and technology, cultivation of moral values and a closer relation between education and the life of the people. But the policy left others to take control of history and narration in the process making changes which suited the vested interest such as the Marxists. Romila Thapar first edition of Early India was introduced in 1968 which later for 30 years became a standard reading material for many institutions( 2nd edition was in 2003).
The years since the adoption of the 1968 Policy have been considerable expansion in education all over the country, at all levels. More than 90% of the rural habitations now have schooling facilities within a radius of one kilometer. At the upper end of the pyramid also, there has been a sizeable augmentation of education facilities. The most notable development following the policy of 1968 has been the acceptance of a common structure of education throughout the country and the introduction of the 10+2+3 system by most of the States. In relation to school curricula, in addition to laying down a common system of studies for boys and girls, science and mathematics were incorporated as compulsory subjects and- work experience was assigned a place of importance.
The problem of school textbooks came up for discussion at the meeting of the National Integration Council held at Srinagar in June 1968. The Council attached great significance to the proper use of textbooks for purposes of national integration. It was of the view that education from the primary to the post-graduate stage should be re-oriented (a) to serve the purpose of creating a sense of Indianness, unity and solidarity ; (b) to inculcate faith in the basic postulates of Indian democracy ; and (c) to help the nation to create a modern society out of the present traditional one, and that the textbooks used in the schools should be specially designed to serve these purposes. It also recommended that the State Governments should create an appropriate machinery at the State level for the improvement of school text-books in general and for using them effectively for purposes of national integration in particular and that, in consultation with them a National Board of School Textbooks which will co-ordinate the efforts of the State Governments should be set up by the Government of India. But these recommendation was not taken into policy when the next change in textbook was done in 1978. The year 1978 can be considered as a crucial year in the history of education in India since the Marxists were in full control of the educational institutions and other intellectual institutions such as media. Most of the changes in history to suit the Marxists were done in this year and these reflected even upto the year 2002.
Government of India announced in January, 1985, that a new Education Policy would be formulated for the country. A full appraisal of the existing educational scene was undertaken and a document, entitled, "Challenge of Education" was brought out in August 1985. There has been a countrywide debate on the document, marked by keen interest, and enthusiasm. The views and suggestions received from different quarters were carefully studied and are reflected in this Presentation. The new Policy takes off from the National Education Policy adopted by the Government of India and approved by Parliament in 1968 and seeks to build on it, to respond to the changes which have taken place since.


In 1982, the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) issued a directive for the rewriting of school texts. Among other things, it stipulated: "Characterization of the medieval period as a time of conflict between Hindus and Muslims is forbidden." Thus, denial of history, or negationism, has become India's official "educational" policy. To the new historians the Aryan invasion theory was the lifeline which connected them to their masters in the West. This subservience provided them lecture tours, fellowships and presence in international conferences. To them India had nothing worthwhile to boast of except the unsocial practices perpetuated by the caste system and sati and the exploitation of the majority of the population by the Brahmins. To them India was never a nation, it became so only through the grace of the British. But for them, there would have been no India. The history which presented that India was modernized by the British and by the earlier invaders, was the only worthwhile history. After all, can anybody match the gift given to India in terms of say, railways and the English language! The great Indian Marxist academics who have followed the 1853 dictum of their Master.

"India, then, could not escape being conquered, and the whole of her past history, if it be anything, is the history of the successive conquests she has undergone. Indian society has no history at all... What we call its history is but the history of the successive intruders who founded their empires on passive basis of that unresisting and unchanging society."

To some this was the essence of the Vedas, the Puranas and the Smritis. Total commitment and unadulterated subservience.
Effacing the harshness of Islamic rule in India has been the primary objective of Indian Marxist historians. Even rulers of the notoriety such as Mohamed of Ghazni and Aurangzeb have been recipients of their kind benevolence. R. C. Majumdar has drawn attention to a typical, though not so well-known, case of Marxist intellectual jugglery. Double speak forms the leitmotif of Marxist literature on medieval India. The Turkish invasions are glorified for effecting the political unification of India, and ending her alleged isolation, while Mughal rule is presented as the country’s second classical age. Notwithstanding lofty declarations about free debate, Indian Marxists have, in classic Soviet style, relied heavily on state patronage and control of state-sponsored institutions to disseminate their version of history. Satish Chandra’s Medieval India (NCERT 2000) was part of the Marxist offensive at the school level. It has been said that history is essentially the story of civilization memory. That has certainly been the case in India. Both communities which constitute Hindus and Muslims today, have varying memories of their historical journey. A Marxist dictate on inter-community amity in medieval India has abjectly failed to alter civilization memories. The gulf between the two communities even at the village level has been poignantly brought out by a Bengali writer who notes:


Indian Marxists take immense pride in presenting what they claim is a scientific analysis of the past. Some examples of this ‘methodology’ are given below. It may be seen that Marxist narrative is bedeviled by a non-Indian perspective, which casts a shadow over its very veracity and motivations.
Though purported to be a text on ‘Medieval India,’ Satish Chandra’s book begins with a discussion on Europe in the aftermath of the breakup of the Roman empire, followed by a description of European feudalism, the Arab world from the 8th to the 10th centuries, and last but not least, East and South-East Asia! That India does not merit even a subsection in the opening chapter perhaps best illustrates the Marxist alienation from the Indic perspective and their utter reliance upon foreign categories and periodization for understanding events in India. Even though the very first paragraph of the book admits that developments in Europe and Asia only “had an indirect effect an India….”(Page 1), Marxists are unable to break away from imported categories of thought, howsoever ill they fit the Indian reality. They seem incapable of viewing India in terms of itself. For them, it must always move in tandem with Europe, the Arab world, even East and South-East Asia.
Shaping the minds of the future generation is the third center of gravity which the major powers want to target in any nation. The eminent authors of history books amongst them, in the true tradition of Macaulay, wanted to create a generation totally delinked from its past. They knew that the most successful approach to demoralize a nation would be to demoralize the young generation. That could bring about a red revolution. The best strategy would be to make them ashamed of their past. After all, they belonged to the generations of weak, "unresisting and unchanging people." The negationist kind of history was thrust down the throats of young Indian children for decades together. A select group of leftists came to control academic institutions of national importance and invented a course of Indian history of their choice. Those who opposed them were just ignored and relegated to oblivion. They were not found suitable for any of the fellowships or recruitments in the institutions and universities. In the process many careers were destroyed. Eminent historians were thrown to the periphery and never even referred to in the intellectual outputs. The one perverse objective of this group of intellectuals in authority was to destroy Indian institutions and whatever was sacred to multitudes of Indians. This is one of the centers of gravity to be destroyed in India which the great powers had in mind. It was considered vital to destroy all edifices of which India could be proud of. They ridiculed Indian samskaras, spirituality, the culture of tolerance and acceptance and the unique balance in Indian society.

[somnath]

Once the textbooks are standardized across all the states the same Marxist versions of the history got pushed inside India from 1975. Anybody can read the education board meetings for the last 40 years and see what changes were made in the education.

The only "standardised" textbooks are from NCERT..they are used only by CBSE..All other boards have their own textbooks...BTW, the BJP tried it own hand at history book writing

[svinayak]

Once the textbooks are standardized across all the states the same Marxist versions of the history got pushed inside India from 1975. Anybody can read the education board meetings for the last 40 years and see what changes were made in the education.

The only "standardised" textbooks are from NCERT..they are used only by CBSE..All other boards have their own textbooks...BTW, the BJP tried it own hand at history book writing

Just leave this topic since it is not serious. It is not about partisan politics or any particular party. It is about foreign ideology (communism, socialism, marxism, Islamism) and foreign euro world view getting inside Indian text book as mainstream subject. It is about India and the west - UK in particular.

[Saral]

I haven't seen this book being discussed here. I don't as yet have a copy but the outline and associated materials can be found here:

http://www.breakingindia.com/

[Samudragupta]

I haven't seen this book being discussed here. I don't as yet have a copy but the outline and associated materials can be found here:

http://www.breakingindia.com/

Wet dreams...

[Samudragupta]

What is the significance of the rise of Bihar? Can Magadh be reactivated with the consequent rise of Assam and WB?

[brihaspati]

Not wet dreams. Given the fractional thinking of the elite in control of the rashtra, it is not entirely infeasible.

[devesh]

couldn't find anything about Bihar/Magadha on the website...confused where that came from?

[Samudragupta]

couldn't find anything about Bihar/Magadha on the website...confused where that came from?

Devesh ji,
Its not related to "breaking India"

[brihaspati]

Now which side should the Kashmiri separatists dance on? In September, 2009, Gaddafi praised the Kashmiri separatists and the separatists like Geelani dance in joy and supported Gaddafi.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=34544

Kashmiri separatists hail Gathafi's UN marathon
Separatist leaders in Kashmir united in praise for Gathafi's ringing endorsement of their struggle.
Middle East Online

'Kashmir should be an independent state, not Indian, not Pakistani'
SRINAGAR - A marathon UN diatribe by Libya's Moamer Gathafi won him an enthusiastic fan base in Kashmir. Gathafi berated US and some EU powers for an hour and 35 minutes from the General Assembly podium on Wednesday in a speech covering issues as diverse as John F. Kennedy's assassination, swine flu and his support for Kashmiri independence.

Separatist leaders in Kashmir were united in praise for his ringing endorsement of their struggle. "Kashmir should be an independent state, not Indian, not Pakistani. We should end this conflict," Gathafi told the assembly.

His remarks were splashed over the front pages of Kashmir's leading dailies on Friday, as separatist leaders applauded.
"We hail this brave and valiant leader for his bold advocacy of Kashmiris’ wishes and aspirations," said Yasin Malik, head of pro-independence political party the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front. "Such statements from international leaders provide solace and satisfaction to the oppressed people of Kashmir," said Malik.
[...]
Syed Ali Geelani, a hardline separatist, said the Libyan leader had set an example for others to follow. "Not only Gathafi, but the world leaders, especially those from Muslim nations, should play an active role in the resolution of the Kashmir issue," Geelani said.

Now the same Gaddafi says he is doing a "Kashmir" a la India in Libya. Where is the Indian press raising the issue with Geelani and Malik?

[svinayak]

Now which side should the Kashmiri separatists dance on? In September, 2009, Gaddafi praised the Kashmiri separatists and the separatists like Geelani dance in joy and supported Gaddafi.

Separatist leaders in Kashmir united in praise for Gathafi's ringing endorsement of their struggle.
Middle East Online

'Kashmir should be an independent state, not Indian, not Pakistani'
Now the same Gaddafi says he is doing a "Kashmir" a la India in Libya. Where is the Indian press raising the issue with Geelani and Malik?

We need to connect these separatist with foreign dictators and their misdeeds. We need to ask what did Gaddafi do to help India during India-Pakistan war.

[SaiK]

Even gadda country or iranian banana public gets more free dom, paki con-dom would still find kashmir skids less on free-dom. I am asking why waste our intelligence on countering gaddas. Wait till they all break up, and get a capital brew for K, where they would still feel safer by not crossing the yellow sea.

[brihaspati]

Here is something to remind that international financial moves affecting a country need not purely depend on "stability" of that country - and could depend on apparently unconnected or semi-rational connections to instability elsewhere. Unrest in the Arab world apparently contributes to "lack of confidence" in countries like India, or Brazil or China.

Libya unrest: Investors pull out billions from India, China
Associated Press, March 02, 2011
http://profit.ndtv.com/news/show/libya- ... ina-143268

According to fund tracker EPFR Global, fund managers and other investors yanked $5.45 billion from emerging markets funds in China, India, Brazil and elsewhere in the second week of February and placed it in equity funds of advanced economies — their biggest weekly inflow in more than 30 months.

Developed market funds recorded their seventh straight week of inflows in mid-February — with European equity fund flows hitting 41-week highs. So far this year, investors have committed $47 billion to U.S., European, Japanese and global equity funds — $29 billion of it into the U.S alone.

Meanwhile, investors have pulled out over 20 percent of the $95 billion they parked in emerging markets during 2010 since mid-January, EPFR said. Since the beginning of the year, outflows totaled $1 billion from mainland Chinese equity markets alone.

"Investors are, for the first time since 2007, seeing more opportunity in developed market equities than in emerging markets," said EPFR managing director Brad Durham. "The underperformance of developed markets last year, which has made valuations more appealing, and expectations of a return to faster paced growth in the US, Europe and Japan are the main drivers of this shift."

The shift from emerging markets and into developed ones has been keenly felt in some key stock markets since the beginning of the year. The Dow Jones industrial average is up 4.1 percent, Japan's Nikkei 225 is up 5.1 percent, and Germany's DAX rose about 4.5 percent. France's CAC-40 is up a whopping 6.9 percent, while Britain's FTSE 100, a relative laggard, was up slightly under 1 percent.

Meanwhile, India's Sensex has slid 10 percent, and Brazil's Bovespa is down 4.4 percent. Indonesia's SE Composite Index has dropped 5.1 percent. Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh index is down 3.8 percent — wiping out some small investors hoping to strike it rich.

[brihaspati]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC10Ak03.html

New Delhi hosted a foreign minister-level meeting with Brazil and South Africa on Tuesday, which was to have been an innocuous occasion for some rhetorical "South-South" cooperation. On the contrary, the event soared into the realm of the troubled world order and shaky contemporary international system. The meeting took a clear-cut position of nyet vis-a-vis the growing Western design to impose a "no-fly" zone over Libya.
[...]
Obama's tryst with history is indeed bugging him in his decision-making over Libya. Robert Fisk, the well-known chronicler of Middle Eastern affairs for the Independent newspaper of London, wrote a sensational dispatch on Monday that the Obama administration had sought help from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia for secretly ferrying American weapons to the Libyan rebels in Benghazi, for which Riyadh would pick up the tab so that the White House would need no accountability to the US Congress and leave no traceable trail to Washington.

The moral depravity of the move - chartering the services of an autocrat to further the frontiers of democracy - underscores Obama's obsessive desire to camouflage any US unilateral intervention in Libya with "deniability" at all costs.

Now comes the body blow from the Delhi meeting. The three foreign ministers belonging to the forum that is known by the cute acronym IBSA (India-Brazil-South Africa) thwarted Obama's best-laid plans by issuing a joint communique on Tuesday in which they "underscored that a 'no-fly' zone on the Libyan air space or any coercive measures additional to those foreseen in Resolution 1970 can only be legitimately contemplated in full compliance with the UN Charter and within the Security Council of the United Nations".

Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio de Aguiar Patriota told the media in Delhi that the IBSA statement was an "important measure" of what the non-Western world was thinking". He said, "The resort to a 'no-fly' zone is seen as expedient when adopted by a country but it weakens the system of collective security and provokes indirect consequences prejudicial to the objective we have been trying to achieve." Patriota added:

It is very problematic to intervene militarily in a situation of internal turmoil, Any decision to adopt military intervention needs to be considered within the UN framework and in close coordination with the African Union and the Arab League. It is very important to keep in touch with them and identify with their perception of the situation.

He explained that measures like a no-fly zone might make a bad situation worse by giving fillip to anti-US and anti-Western sentiments "that have not been present so far".

Equally significant was the fact that the trio of foreign ministers also penned a joint statement on the overall situation in the Middle East. Dubbed as the "IBSA Declaration", it reiterated the three countries' expectation that the changes sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa should "follow a peaceful course" and expressed their confidence in a "positive outcome in harmony with the aspirations of the people".

A highly significant part of the statement was its recognition right at the outset that the Palestinian problem lay at the very core of the great Middle Eastern alienation and the "recent developments in the Region may offer a chance for a comprehensive peace ... This process should include the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ... that will lead to a two-state solution, with the creation of a sovereign, independent, united and viable Palestinian State, coexisting peacefully alongside Israel, with secure, pre-1967 borders, and with East Jerusalem as its capital."

MK Bhadrakumar has written a curious piece. He could have been a career diplomat, but I find it intriguing that he ignores the broader implications of what he is highlighting - if those implications do not fit into a certain straight-jacket about "China" and "Palestine".

I find it dangerous that at one stroke, India is actually lending cover and protection to the Libyan "Islamists" sentiments against any "western role", obviously with the calculation that the "Islamist" section in the opposition to Gaddafi to be the strongest. The resistance against the "non-fly" move may also be tied in with an urge to reassure existing Arab regimes - who may be in a very sharp edged dilemma about preserving their authoritarian rule while allowing Gaddafi to be damaged.

But an even greater self-goal should have been apparent in conjoining the Palestine claims with this declaration. This removes any lingering doubt whatso-ever that the declaration is clearly aimed at appeasing the Islamist sentiments masquerading under "Palestinian statehood" which curiously enough are also supported by an influential section among the European societies. What makes people like him fail to notice that any concession on Palestine would be used against Indian "kashmir" - given the persistence and survival of Pak? Only the intense height of stupidity and a suicidal tendency [or SD-hatred perhaps!] could have allowed the "Palestine" statement in the IBSA statement about Libyan no-fly zone.

[brihaspati]

Would have ignored this otherwise - but appears to be peddled by the European Journal of Social Sciences.
http://www.eurojournals.com/EJSS_18_3_01.pdf

Haque (1992: 106) has argued that "The original or Quranic concept of Islam is essentially
revolutionary". The thrust of this paper is to present a socio-historical analysis of how this
original revolutionary spirit of Islam was being demonstrated by the Islamic religious reformers and the Ulama, the traditional Islamic religious leaders in India. It examines how their changing religious ideologies reflected and supported the political policy of the conservative Islamic dynasties up to the seventeenth century A.D as well as how they influenced and invigorated the famous revolutionary political movements from the eighteenth to the twentieth century, especially, the Khalifat, in their political ideals and operations. The paper argues that, among other factors, the reformers’ and ulama's religious
inspiration, motivation and legitimization of the revolutionary activities of these political
movements were mostly responsible for their effectiveness. It therefore concludes that the role of Islam in India demonstrates the validity and complimentarity of the polarized
Marxian and Weberian paradigms of interpreting the social functions of religion, which
should rather be seen as the two sides of the same coin.
[...]
Presently, in the contemporary India, the influence of Islam in the socio-political structure follows the same pattern. This clearly shows how Islam by discovering the dynamics of the historical process, offers raw materials for developing an ideology of socio-political revolution. This further illustrates, as Uchegbue (2001: 15) has argued, that the religious systems of the world can provide positive ideological support for largely secular political systems committed to rapid socio-political change. Like other major religions of the world, therefore, Islam in India uniquely demonstrates what Uchegbue (1997: 216) describes as "the radical potency, prowess and capacity of religion" for confronting and transforming the existing social orders of given contexts. Viewed side by side with the earlier role of the Ulama, we notice the paradoxical roles of religion in society. In providing a supportive ideology for the conservative Islamic dynasties up to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Ulama represented a theology of the status quo which reflected the existing social order. But it also functioned as a transforming power later by seeking to change the existing colonial sociopolitical system. Both views are relevant depending on the given context of operation and analysis. This calls, therefore, for a reconciliation of the Marxian and Weberian paradigms of interpreting the social functions of religion as the two inseparable sides of the coin. From these two perspectives, it is indubitable that Islam remains a formidable force in Indian socio-political and economic experience and destiny. Specifically applicable to Islam in India is the following concluding remark:

The new vitality of Muslims has also led to a religious awakening among them. Under the spur of internal decay and external pressure, they have sought to restore and purify some aspects of their religious heritage and to reform others. Perhaps the most remarkable thing is the sheer devotion to Islam which 20th century Muslim exhibits at a time when religion generally has declined. Islam has acquired renewed dynamism and is a major force stimulating Muslims to achieve a better place for themselves in the world
(Encyclopedia Americana 1977: 502).

Note the affiliation of the author - in all its aspects.

When Marx and Weber are seen to be complementary, that is a definite sign of neo-imperialist reformulation of hitherto touted "hard-values". However in redeeming the "revolutionary" role of one particular religion, the author is also providing ammunition for other "religions" or faith-ideological systems to be dubbed "revolutionary". So once "radicalism" in a religion is welcomed and its theologians are seen as "revolutionary", with Marx-Weber now two faces of the "same coin", it is an interesting pointer to how the European imperialist mind is thinking or at least encouraging such thoughts!

[Klaus]

^^^ The author (and his affiliations) seem to indicate that it is coming from a location with a history of slave-trading, missionary conversion, barbaric imperialist (particularly British) practices.

I somehow seem to think that Islam might have grasped some strains of the 'soft missionary' approach and consolidated that into what we now know as Sufism. IOW, all varieties of Islam, however benign they may seem have the same end goal.

Another one of my lingering thoughts is that Islam might have learnt from its 'civilisational mistakes' made during the Reconquista in Spain and might have adopted a softer approach in other of its existing captured lands (of which the main target was desh), perhaps this softer approach crystallised into 'Sufism'?

Also wondering, why hasnt there been a Reconquista in the Phillipenes? From what I know, 7th century Arab barbarism is not particularly conducive to insular geography. Or are we going to see one in the future?

[brihaspati]

Klaus ji,
there are several outright lies or rather deliberate silence over aspects of the Indian "experience" as detailed by the author. The first is the so-called dramatic transition of the ulema from "conservative" to "revolutionary" in the British colonial period [Islamic rule itself was another colonial period - because the main identification of the ruling Islamist class was always, always, always firmly with centres of cultural and political identities outside the subcontinent - taking pride and insisting on their non-Indian "origins", as being Arab, Persian, or worlds centre being where teh Caliph resides, etc].

We really have no evidence for any "revolutionary" role of the ulema in the said period. Revolutionary in what sense? What social order did the ulema overturn under the Brits? Their own society - b*******! They "rediscovered" the glory of sharia and all their ulemaic leaders [with the exception of a few non-clerical leadership of the Aligarh school] tried their best to reconstruct a "pure" Islam that looked to the barbarism of 7th century Arabia [perhaps inspired by the iconoclastic savagery of the Byzantine school of Christianity] - as exemplified by Maududi. What "revolutionary" examples have they set before "non-Muslims" of India? If of course the "Direct Action" of 1947 is the type of revolution that the author has in mind.

Islam has sustained a certain fascination among extremist communism and leftists of all hues in India. Many a times I have come across such sentiments and admiration in the more youthful activists. [However it is also perhaps deceptive - for example at one national level conference one delegate told me that she could always identify a Muslim woman even if she "dressed" "normally"! A sign of the deep sense of otherness that is perhaps persistent in the non-Muslim Indian. Similarly, a particular "Muslim" "higher-ranked" leader was gossiped about among the other delegates as keeping "roja" during the conference as he was reported to have said to feel unwell and therefore not eat at lunch, consecutively for 4 days of the conference. People went about singing a parody of a particular couplet from Mani-Ratnam film around his room.]

The second problem is that the author ignores the role of the ulema in sustaining the drive that led to Pakistan. The more radical they were - the more supportive of retrogression - like Maududi.

[abhishek_sharma]

How many historians (in India and abroad) agree with K. S. Lal's book titled "Legacy of Muslim Rule in India"? And how many agree with Romila Thapar's history?

[kittoo]

Not wet dreams. Given the fractional thinking of the elite in control of the rashtra, it is not entirely infeasible.

Indeed. We should not take these lightly. As the author in his launch videos (this one?- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omcs53cI ... 0C3A116B00 ), there are vast resources and manpower thrown behind these tasks. The changes, especially in south and Jharkhand etc, are for everyone to see.

[devesh]

what we need is a reconversion campaign by RSS/VHP. other contemporaries like Baba Ramdev can help too. a combination of bhakti based conversion, appeal to logic, history, inner Indic-ness, are all useful tools.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4693

^^^ don't know what to make of it. wanted to post the article but it is too long and i'm not quite sure what the author is getting at. the experts can visit and share their thoughts.

[Atri]

what we need is a reconversion campaign by RSS/VHP. other contemporaries like Baba Ramdev can help too. a combination of bhakti based conversion, appeal to logic, history, inner Indic-ness, are all useful tools.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4693

^^^ don't know what to make of it. wanted to post the article but it is too long and i'm not quite sure what the author is getting at. the experts can visit and share their thoughts.

there are outside factors which dissuade this thing from happening. You are right about the prescription of combination of everything, but the influencing factor of foreign money shaping the minds of the movers and shakers of India (current and future) has to be neutralized.

This is what I discussed in deracination thread when I spoke of disturbed ratios of various segments of society giving rise to birth-based caste system. West in general and western europe in particular is walking down the path which India walked 1000 years ago.

The reasons for India was foreign invasions disturbing the ratio of the societal segments.. in case of europe, its immigration.

this perceived threat will have following effect on EU.

1. The social security system will go and tribal security OR ethnic security will slowly start taking shape. Once that happens, the road to ghettos and hence civil war opens up. In India, the guna-karma (profession-interest) based varna system got converted to comparatively rigid caste system. Yet, this accommodated the influx of new ethnicities and their staged assimilation in Indic society.EU will have to find similar model. OR else owing to their declining birthrate, they will suffer the similar fate that of Jews. the caste system, although much more rigid than varna system, was fluid enough to allow rise of castes up the social ladder. many leaders brought their entire castes to the limelight owing to this mobility of caste system. this limited the "class based civil war" in India. The caste based mutinies started in 70s on large scale only after India was independent, thus the chances of foreign power hijacking those divisions were less and more indirect. Until independence, these fissures either contributed to the cause of Indic or kept quite (most of them).

2. The inability of western europe to find such solutions will have a dire consequences on their future prospects. While most of the people will increasingly start having interracial marriages, the socio-political elite which held the power since Roman republic will start dwindling, not only in numbers but also in "character".. Now when I say dwindling, I need not hinting at the "racial superiority" of the whites. But it is the "Charitra" of anglo-saxon and Western White elite (Western Roman and holy roman empire regions) which is necessary (in their view) to progress. This anguish can manifest itself as racial purity arguments (tried out by Hitler), Superior Christianity argument (possible, but there are many non-white christians which blunt this argument), nationalism (which is what is being tried out today). The argument of Nationalism is made further effective by modifying the "citizenship" rules. These rules ensure that only racially pure people get the citizenship (statistically). The networking of these Pure races amongst each other is supported by widely existent student exchange programs for "european citizens".

3. The factor which is severely antithetical to this mentality is economic realities on the ground level. The rise of India and China forces the west to smell the truth and gives the necessary "Jhaapads" to awaken them from this day-dream which they see frequently. While muslims usually move into these countries for low-end jobs, Indians and Chinese move in for high-end jobs. However there is a slight difference. Indians are proficient in english, India is the "urheimat", Indians (to relatively larger extent) tend to return back home and are peaceful. While I am not much confident about Chinese, what I do understand is that many of them are nationalists but they find it difficult to readjust to Chinese police state after having tasted the personal freedoms while their stay in west. But I make the statement about chinese with caution simply due to lack of enough data points.

4. This difference makes India a lesser evil for the west. I have a feeling that if India and Indians reassures the westerners about their hold on EU at least from their side, in coming times, it might so happen that the EU (at least the continental lobby) might help the cause of "Indic" just for the sake of quid pro quo. That strain of west which moves away from Christianity into something higher and more meaningful and more complex, comes inevitably to mother India. If my hunch is not wrong, that strain is growing in number, but is getting into ghetto mentality stirred up by the white elite. I do not know how Indians should reassure the mango white abdul. perhaps, India is reassuaring by their peaceful behaviour. The behaviour of Hindus vis-a-vis muslims will start making more sense to mango white as they themselves start experiencing the Muslim problem.

[brihaspati]

devesh ji,
that sentiment expressed in the article comes from a particular segment of European Christianity - which was always ethnocentric, and imperialist by opportunity. The author of the post obviously ignores a lot of the dynamic of the fromation of European Christianity - since if he really looked into it he would be unable to base his thesis on anything concrete.

(1) Norde/Northern Europeans beyond the Alps always fought Christianity when it spread by Roman imperialism. I have pointed out earlier that sometimes in compromising with a new ideology that is backed up by force of arms, a target community often adopts the ideology of the conqueror with a twist - choosing a version or faction that is distinct/opposed/ not identified with the dominant section of the conqueror. Thus the Goths chose Arrianism over the Roman version when they saw advantages/survival/political opportunities in becoming "Christian". Thus there is perhaps a much older cultural/ethnic separation between the north of Alps/south of Alps which always keeps a certain tension between these two. [This in turn may have geographical and historical continuity - the Mediterranean serving as a civilizational highway in the same way big tropical rivers do like Ganga, and therefore greater overlap and continuity with North Africa, ME - therefore more trade/urban compared to atavic culture of the Norde]. This conflict and tension of identity always remained, and at the earliest opportunity the Norde chose their own way out by creating Protestantism.

(2) The author completely suppresses the imeprialist aspect of European Christian "evolution". It was shaped not just by pagan values - which was a tactical compromise to win more followers with less bloodshed, but also because the leaders of this evolution - the ambitious emperors and bishops themselves took Christianity as a tool for greater power and did not themselves feel that detached from older pagan values. For example, Constantine carried on merrily in his older pagan ways as far as marriage or mistresses were concerned, or bloodlust. Same goes for the "healthy" appetites of Charlemagne. No one really should forget the role of "overly healthy" physical appetites and bloodlust in the creation of Anglicanism - in the dazzling career and divine grace of Henry VIII.

The crisis that he assigns to anti-western Christianity comes from this imperialist past of Christianity. When imperialism is no longer working for Europe, it was natural to expect that the older institutional form of imperialist Christianity would fail and stand discredited. There would be attempts to rediscover a different version of Christianity, or the need to distance from the older version - because identifying with the failure is not a good launch vehicle.

(3) The imperialist religions' standard technique of trying to erase as much as possible the older or pre-existing cultural/philosophical roots is ultimately the bane of imeprialism. Note that Christians or Islmists would shout a lot about how "syncretic" they have been - or as Islamists do - claim that older cultural elements that have been retained within Islam were actually divinely ordained and is a further illustration of their God's supreme omniscience by pacing such elements vene in the non-Muslim lore.

What is never pointed out is that the "syncretic" elements are typically "folk" elements and not really the finer or more fundamental points of the pre-existing philosophy. The pre-existing core philosophy, its more refined ideological manifestations, more importantly its pre-existing institutions and intellectual leadership are invariably targeted for elimination by Christian or Islamic imperialism.

Wherever the imperialist ideologies have been more successful, they therefore leave no anchor for the "natives" to hold them back to their roots and their country or ethnicity. Instead they are taught to see Europe as the cultural centre of their global existence. The elite or opportunists among the "native" realize that the essence of European Christianity is after all about imperialist exploitation of non-European resources. They find this an effective tool for a reverse imperialism and use it back on Europe or domains in the world where Europe once colonially roamed about.

(4) India at this moment is a divided house. Where remnants of the post-colonial boot-lickers of imperialism [the compromise line to stake claim on power ahead of non-compromist anti-colonials] still maintain their hold on rashtryia power while the population is struggling economically and ideologically to come out of the various fallouts of such compromises. Thus it is not entirely impossible for the Europeans to be scared of India - since it can appear to them that the Indian rashtra seems to be protecting the evangelist efforts.

But this is a battle for European Christians to fight within themselves. If they can neutralize their proselytizers well and good. If they realize that actually encouraging the Indian to become and stay more "Hindu" is advantageous for them - well and good.

[brihaspati]

Raising the "Leftists" is a false issue. Reading Engels (honestly, more than Marx) one can see how much the early Marxists were affected by Christian memes [the rejoinder by Engels on "Parliamentary road to socialism" to Kautsky]. Post Marx leftists have been singularly driven by what essentially is an early Christian value-system over "wealth" suitably twisted to take advantage of the industrial revolution.

The institutional form of "leftism" was one of the early reactions to failing imperilist Christianity of the medieval period. It is more natural that in many senses the post-Marxian leftists in Europe [or those who have learnt to think like Europeans] would be more "right wing" where money is concerned [British Marxist historians consistenta ttempt to prove that English industrial revolution had no input from the profits of the triangular Atlantic slave trade] and more "left wing" where reformulation of the "Christian dogma" is concerned.

[abhishek_sharma]

On Indian Muslims: The more they remain the same

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/The-m ... me/761881/

[somnath]

On Indian Muslims: The more they remain the same

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/The-m ... me/761881/

It is substantially right...And the Indian "secular" politician has always pandered to the obscurantist sections of the muslim society...Everytime they wanted to make a choice, they looked at the length of the beard before making the same...

It is instructive in many ways how there has not been a single muslim politician of significance in post independence India...Absolutely no one...

[Sanku]

On Indian Muslims: The more they remain the same

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/The-m ... me/761881/

To blame poor individuals for being "good" by following the rules that they are told by their "aalims" to follow, and the rules which are part of of being a good person of that faith group, is extremely disingenuous.

A honest person would look at the underlying reasons why the thought pattern exists in the first place.

It seems the most part of this chap's takleef is actually with

do not bother what Modi did with Muslims

than with other reasons.

How come his "Muslims are closed minded and led astray by Mullah's" theory does not extend to unfortunate situation in Gujarat where it is "Modi's fault"


Forked tongued perfidious speaker.

[Atri]

the moment of choice is slowly nearing to the west.. I think this might be the point of friction between continental EU and USA. I leave UK out of the equation for time being..

this is just a small example which caught my attention - New immigration minister: become like us or stay away

the antics of this current minister show the exasperation of european politicians to appear "liberal" yet to do the needful (control muslim immigration). This rope-walk is strangely similar to our sekoolar netas.. When one of them breaks ranks and speaks what needs to be done, he has to speak in general terms and not specific.. It will be fun, when people will speak of ROP in particular without the barriers of necessity of appearing politically correct. these guys "understand" that they need INdia and China.. many production houses are shifting to India and China, also gradually premier research institutions are shifting too.. but, when they give finger to immigrants, the reality deems it necessary to differentiate between immigrants.. But doing that marks you as "xenophobic" and "racist" by the liberal media and "sekoolar" section of society.. same thing happened with namo, advani et al and many others..

The newly strengthening european identity will either take a hit from here OR it will further consolidate segregated from ROP identity.. Eitherway, the moment of choice is appearing..

This is one thing I like about ROP.. they are always so clear about what they want, it is usually the rest of the world which thinks twice.. It was India then, it is west now... the people who really made ROP think twice were Mongols (both under temujin and under CCP )

[devesh]

what is ROP?

[RajeshA]

what is ROP?

ROP=Religion of Peace
ROL=Religion of Love

[devesh]

Atriji and Brihaspatiji,
very informative posts which provide needed insight into western thinking. thank you.

i would also add that US too will face the same kind of situation as in Europe. the American Southwest of today is rapidly becoming the greatest nightmare of the western world: a biracial and bilingual BORDERLAND with people who have different value systems and most importantly different loyalties. the WASP elite will have to give up power. they have no choice, as the Mexican population booms, more politicians will come from that segment of the population and eventually if the elites in power don't accept the new comers, there is potential for real conflict. we must keep this in mind over the next century. US is undergoing a fundamental demographic transformation. Atlanticist establishment is already waking up to this reality. George Friedman is already worrying about it. the power balance in North America and consequently the rest of the world can change dramatically in the coming generations.

[brihaspati]

Bahrain- crackdown started. Its the beginning of the end for Sunni-authoritarianism-Western-opportunism alliance. At the moment use of force will win the day for the king, but long term the people both Shia and Sunni will alienate from the the ruling regime.

Libya, as I suggested will see the European and American hesitation over supporting any one side [Sarcozy is the enfant terrible of European politics - but who has a method in his madness. He has played a card that will pay France benefits in the future]. For Americans, bleeding both Gaddafi and his opponents in a mutual attrition for some time is the best possible way - which leaves both parties too weak to resist a concerted European move to control the region in the future. Europeans pass the buck on to Arab regimes, who pass the buck back on to the West. It means both have essentially lost legitimacy to act for the people of the region.

But what all this means is an eventual paralysis of action by the west over Islamic North Africa, and a terrible dilemma over supporting western allies in the Gulf. The West is finally losing the ME, but neither Iran, nor Russia, nor China is in a position to fill up the blanks. There is a good chance that the West will not be able to prevent a general descent into chaotic military conflicts in which the Islamists will emerge the backbone and a future Caliphate the most tangible option to the tired people.

On the East Japan will not rise for some time to come, and the at the least will be forced to play a much lesser role in the region. This means a short to medium term realignment towards China of the smaller nations with a chance for increased polarization also against China. The economic and political consequences of the Japanese disaster will take some time to be clarified.

But we should note that two sides of India is now descending into increased instability. The combined effect of these two can yield conclusion not possible to imagine with any single one of them.

[Prem]

what is ROP?

ROP=Religion of Peace
ROL=Religion of Love

DOPE= Doctrine of PEeace

[brihaspati]

Whatever is happening around the Gulf - means all the more that India rapidly accelerates its naval capacity. It should be in a position to enforce a perimeter of military dominance centred around the mouth of the Gulf. This one area can checkmate Iran, KSA, and AFPak. It is crucial that the western Indian Ocean comes under Indian naval control. It can unhinge even Paki designs in the north up the land.

There will come a time at mid-range time horizon when USA/UK may not be able to hold on and maintain an effective presence in the western IOR island bases. India should plan and think ahead to see to it that these bases do not come under undesired influences.

[ManishH]

I think change in Indian tactics against piracy in red sea is indirectly aimed at establishing just that. I'd expect china to launch stronger operations and patrols just to prove that they are the real protectors of the shipping lanes. It may even do it with a token Pak naval team.

However, I don't expect US to give way to another bully in Hormuz strait.

[brihaspati]

No, not just piracy. India needs to move into the "Gulf". Offer to maintain and share bases. because of the north African crisis the Somalia issue has been put in the backburner - although UN has taken some formal position recently both with Somalia and AFG. With AFG the moves are to assure that US moving-out will not necessarily create a vacuum - but UN knows very well, I hope, its limitations where Islamism has already devoured a region.

The Somali piracy issue is a great strategic opportunity for fixing a toehold on this side of Africa. Even if it means a declaration of Jihad by the islamists against so-called anti-islamic foreign aggression. Finally of course the question of a share of the island bases maintained in IOR by USUK.

These strategic spots cannot be allowed to fall into Chinese hands.

[negi]

--email id deleted--