Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[Sanku]

RajeshA-ji and Carl-ji; one must stop and carefully consider whether a berson talking under the persona that he/she has adobted for the board is really what the berson is.

[Samudragupta]

I don't understand why bring caste into this?

[RajeshA]

I'm getting out of this discussion! It leads to useless divisions! It started off as a narrative of some frustrated supremacists trying to think, India's there for the taking, for carving it out, because they have already made too many "sacrifices"!

[Sanku]

I'm getting out of this discussion! It leads to useless divisions! It started off as a narrative of some frustrated supremacists trying to think, India's there for the taking, for carving it out, because they have already made too many "sacrifices"!

RajeshA-ji and Carl-ji; one must stop and carefully consider whether a berson talking under the persona that he/she has adobted for the board is really what the berson is.

[RajeshA]

I'm getting out of this discussion! It leads to useless divisions! It started off as a narrative of some frustrated supremacists trying to think, India's there for the taking, for carving it out, because they have already made too many "sacrifices"!

RajeshA-ji and Carl-ji; one must stop and carefully consider whether a berson talking under the persona that he/she has adobted for the board is really what the berson is.

Sanku ji,

you may be right!

[ManishH]

We would like to separate. There have been subterranian conversations going on for almost a decade now, in certain circles and these conversations have now become more intense in after dinner meetings etc.

The circle has an urge to separate ? Nothing that some Haldol can't fix

[member_19686]

Expand into "West Asia" for what?

Horses, women, slaves, land, converts, land bridges to still distant lands, forward defense, trade corridors!

Are Uzbek women not attractive? Why not take young Indian soldiers and settle them there with families?! Can Turkomen men not be good Dharmics? If the best horses could only be bred in Central Asia, then Central Asia was the place to be!

When the Chinese took over the Gobi Desert, East Turkestan, and Tibet, they did not seem to ask themselves that question!

We have to stop telling ourselves that not a blade of grass grows there! The story could have played out differently!

Seizing women as booty was not what motivated Hindus.

Second what you asked for wasn't done by the others either because the resources expended > resources gained.

The Chinese did that in modern times, we were talking about medieval times.

Study the Mughal campaign under Shah Jahan, 4 crores expended for 22.5 lakhs and no territory gained.

Let us assume the Hindu rulers didn't know "strategy" then what happened to the Ghazis of Islam?

Where was the response to the repeated Mongol incursions into India (in one of which they sacked Meerut) under the Delhi Sultanate?

How come they didn't chase the Mongols back into Central Asia?

In the first battle of Panipat Babur notes that the Delhi Sultanate army had no mounted archers. Later Mughals also relied on importing mounted archers from abroad constantly as the kids born to them in India couldn't master the skill.

Why didn't the Chinese, the Rus or the European knights who got smashed at Leignitz all get together to invade the Mongol steppe?

By the way the rulers did establish several Hindu kingdoms in Central Asia like Khotan under the Vijayans which were destroyed in Jihad after prolonged resistance.

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... of-khotan/

If the Hindus failed in anything, it was the failure to understand Islam and what it stands for. Understanding Islam is the first step towards mounting an appropriate response to it. The lack of ruthlessness was a result of this lack of understanding.

This sums it up:

<<<When you were faced with Muslim invasion, the word "ideological attack" makes
no sense because people's minds were not the targets of the enemy.>>>

It just shows how shallow your understanding of Hindu History is!!!

The fundamental, and the ONLY root cause of the invasion of ISLAM and
CHRISTIANISM against India is ideology, and nothing but ideology, and the target
was, and is, nothing but the PEOPLE's MINDS -- war and conquest being only the
means to reach there!

Repeat -- in the Islamic wordview, military conquest is only a means for the
spread of Islam, not an end in itself!

Do read Sir Syed Ahmed Khan as well as Mawlana Abul Kalam Azad -- many of their
writings are available freely over Internet -- just read to understand how a
moslem thinks, and behind the Islamic wars was and remains nothing but the need
to conquer the kAfir and converts. -- THE MINDS.

Let me just cite the example of Shambhaji, when he was captured and tortured to
death by awrangzib. The moghal tyrant made a simple proposal -- convert and I
shall return the entire deccan, along with not only marahaTTA domain, but the
whole of Ahmednagar and Bijapur and Golkonda! Just convert. My war is not with
you, but your religion. (Of course Shambhaji died after bravely suffering the
torchures for two weeks -- but gave birth to the even mightier hindu nation
after him!)

And you say "ideological attack" makes no sense!!

It does not make sense to you because your grasp on history is as shallow as you
show in the above statement!!

It does not make sense to you because you have not made an attempt to learn
about Islam, its history and its philosophy, like the ancestors of yours and
mine did not.

Please read some books, and leave aside for now all those purANa-s. Start with
Jadunath Sarkar and Sardesai.

"ideological attack" makes no sense to you? Consider this:

Al-Biruni, the companion of Mahmood Gaznavi in 11th century wrote one whole book
about the Hindus, and covered besides other things, a very detailed
understanding on Hindus religion, culture and philosophy.

Moraccan Moslem Ibn-batuta in the mid 1300s produced Rihla, in which too he gave
prominent coverage to the religion and ideology of the Hindus.

Amir Khusrow the sUfI, in the same period, produced several persian works in
which he produced detailed understanding on Hindus.

Abul Fazl in the 16th century, dedicates one whole A'in in in A'in-i-Akbari, one
of the Longest A'in too, in detailing out nine schools of philosophy of the
Hindus -- 6 for the ShaDdarshana, plus jaina, bauddha, and chArvAkan lokAyata
school. (He considers the last 3 nastikas as part of Hindus) -- a very detailed
study he made of the religion of Hindus.

Quasim Hindushah Ferishta, living in deccan in early 17th century, wrote
tArIkh-i-ferishtA wherein he too detailed out besides other things, a rather
good account on what he understood to be the religion of the Hindus, especially
the thought process of the brAhmaNa-s, and Veda-s etc.

Persian Chronicle Dabistan-i-Mazahab written at the same time detailes out every
single nuance about Hinduism.

Now you tell me how many Hindus tried to figure out what Islam was all about???

They did not!! Period.

And in it is their failure.

Indeed in the period when Al-Biruni was learning about Hindus, and post
push-back of Gaznavi by bhojadeva and the chandella-s, there was a peaceful
period of over a century for the Hindus, but did the brAhmaNa-s care to produce
ANY understanding on Islam (besides the 12th chapter in bhaviShya purANa where a
minister of bhojadeva the pramAra slays mohammed by means of tantra
deployment!!)

All those who defend this moronic attitude are also of the same class, living in
the imaginary world awaiting satayuga, ignoring the imminent danger. If you
want to immitate your forefathers, you will fare no better than they did.

Regards

Sarvesh Tiwari

[shivajisisodia]

We would like to separate. There have been subterranian conversations going on for almost a decade now, in certain circles and these conversations have now become more intense in after dinner meetings etc.

The circle has an urge to separate ? Nothing that some Haldol can't fix

I thought Prozac was better.

But what you should really try sometimes are some 'shrooms.

[devesh]

BRAdmins:

the esteemed member is talking about secession. at what point will he have crossed the line? I would think a warning was in order by now. his supremacist contempt and rantings are grating on the nerves. he is setting a precedent. if not managed, then in future somebody can say Kashmir secession, or Assam secession, etc etc.

[RajeshA]

Expand into "West Asia" for what?

Horses, women, slaves, land, converts, land bridges to still distant lands, forward defense, trade corridors!

Are Uzbek women not attractive? Why not take young Indian soldiers and settle them there with families?! Can Turkomen men not be good Dharmics? If the best horses could only be bred in Central Asia, then Central Asia was the place to be!

When the Chinese took over the Gobi Desert, East Turkestan, and Tibet, they did not seem to ask themselves that question!

We have to stop telling ourselves that not a blade of grass grows there! The story could have played out differently!

Seizing women as booty was not what motivated Hindus.

Surasena ji,

my point in the whole was that India did not create forward defenses when it emerged that Islam was rising in the West. After all we see how Islamic invaders continued to press down on the subcontinent one after another. We did not see it as prudent to go after them. When their armies were arraigned against those of us, and in cases when they were defeated, their homelands would have become more vulnerable, we could sent some troops over to take over those lands.

I wrote about women, to point out that something should motivate oneself - either your negative side or your positive side. If it is not the women, then we should have been motivated by Dharma, and should have made it an issue to bring Dharma to far off places, peacefully or otherwise.

Even when Afghanistan got Islamized, we let it happen and let the enemy get closer, let the enemy build another layer of siege.

Second what you asked for wasn't done by the others either because the resources expended > resources gained.

Study the Mughal campaign under Shah Jahan, 4 crores expended for 22.5 lakhs and no territory gained.

That is somewhat like counting on the quarterly results at the expense of long term prosperity. If India was rich, it meant we had the longer staying-power.

If the armies of Shah Jahan were feeling homesick, it was because there wasn't really much he had offered his soldiers in terms of staying there. His aim was simply to get the ruler to submit to the emperor, and not to stay in the land with his own armies. He was not motivated to lose fighting men, who would have stayed back, married into the folk and established themselves then and there. Perhaps many of his soldiers were Hindus also and he did not want to give Hindus that opportunity. I don't know! It is a ruler's job to find a good reason and motivation for the soldier to fight! In any case he could have expanded his trade routes, which would have ultimately brought in more wealth.

The Chinese did that in modern times, we were talking about medieval times.

Even in the old times, the Chinese emperors made it a point to have many small kings and feudals pay tribute to them in far off lands, on the other side of the Gobi desert. Hunza princely state now in Pakistan used to pay tribute to Chinese emperor sitting in Beijing! Now that is quite some way off.

Let us assume the Hindu rulers didn't know "strategy" then what happened to the Ghazis of Islam?

Surasena ji,

I am not saying it was really lack of strategy that was their downfall. They were splintered and their strategy reached only till the next kingdom or was based on political power in the subcontinent only. They did not look for strategy much beyond the subcontinent. Even if they did, they had to put together a campaign bringing multiple rajas together, something like the Crusades.

The Ghazis of Islam, the Mughals had only sentimental reasons to be in say Balkh. Their riches were in India. Sure they too were threatened by other rulers from the region, but it was not an ideological-cultural threat. For the Hindus, their civilization was at stake in allowing these regions to fall under the sword of Islam. For that of course, they of course should have tried to understand the threat.

Where was the response to the repeated Mongol incursions into India (in one of which they sacked Meerut) under the Delhi Sultanate?

How come they didn't chase the Mongols back into Central Asia?

Why didn't the Chinese, the Rus or the European knights who got smashed at Leignitz all get together to invade the Mongol steppe?

Mongols were brutal and strong but did not really constitute a civilizational challenge. They were not really riding on the wings of ideology. In their case, it would have been sufficient to have a strong defense and not to expend too much treasure to chase ghosts in the steppes.

It is difficult to subdue a people, you can't catch, a foe who does not need to protect his bases and cities, as they only reside in tents and can move on whenever they want.

The Americans are finding this out in Afghanistan, where the Taliban can melt into the surrounding and then adopt guerrilla tactics against you. A Mongol's capital was his horse, always on the move.

In the first battle of Panipat Babur notes that the Delhi Sultanate army had no mounted archers. Later Mughals also relied on importing mounted archers from abroad constantly as the kids born to them in India couldn't master the skill.

Perhaps that is the reason, why it was so important to keep those areas under Indian rule at that time, and keep the ideology aligned with that of the Subcontinent, for horses and mounted archers.

Perhaps we should have sent more of our kids for training there.

When Islam took over Central Asia, they too were facing the same horses and mounted archers. Of course, one can say that the power of Islam was such that the invaders were themselves Islamized.

When the Mongols invaded Delhi Sultanate, the Hindus should have seen an ally. The Hindus could have sent some petitions to Chengiz Khan as well to unseat the Sultans. The Hindus could have tried to convert him to Dharma. After all Chengiz Khan was a curious man.

By the way the rulers did establish several Hindu kingdoms in Central Asia like Khotan under the Vijayans which were destroyed in Jihad after prolonged resistance.

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... of-khotan/

Thanks for the link!

My focus was however to capture the region after Islam made its intentions clear. Also it is a pity that not all the Hindu kings came together to protect the outer reaches of their civilizational region.

Taking a wisdom out of fiction: Rohan must come to the protection of Gondor when needed!

If the Hindus failed in anything, it was the failure to understand Islam and what it stands for. Understanding Islam is the first step towards mounting an appropriate response to it. The lack of ruthlessness was a result of this lack of understanding.

This sums it up:

<<<When you were faced with Muslim invasion, the word "ideological attack" makes
no sense because people's minds were not the targets of the enemy.>>>

It just shows how shallow your understanding of Hindu History is!!!

The fundamental, and the ONLY root cause of the invasion of ISLAM and
CHRISTIANISM against India is ideology, and nothing but ideology, and the target
was, and is, nothing but the PEOPLE's MINDS -- war and conquest being only the
means to reach there!

Repeat -- in the Islamic wordview, military conquest is only a means for the
spread of Islam, not an end in itself!

Do read Sir Syed Ahmed Khan as well as Mawlana Abul Kalam Azad -- many of their
writings are available freely over Internet -- just read to understand how a
moslem thinks, and behind the Islamic wars was and remains nothing but the need
to conquer the kAfir and converts. -- THE MINDS.

Let me just cite the example of Shambhaji, when he was captured and tortured to
death by awrangzib. The moghal tyrant made a simple proposal -- convert and I
shall return the entire deccan, along with not only marahaTTA domain, but the
whole of Ahmednagar and Bijapur and Golkonda! Just convert. My war is not with
you, but your religion. (Of course Shambhaji died after bravely suffering the
torchures for two weeks -- but gave birth to the even mightier hindu nation
after him!)

And you say "ideological attack" makes no sense!!

It does not make sense to you because your grasp on history is as shallow as you
show in the above statement!!

It does not make sense to you because you have not made an attempt to learn
about Islam, its history and its philosophy, like the ancestors of yours and
mine did not.

Please read some books, and leave aside for now all those purANa-s. Start with
Jadunath Sarkar and Sardesai.

"ideological attack" makes no sense to you? Consider this:

Al-Biruni, the companion of Mahmood Gaznavi in 11th century wrote one whole book
about the Hindus, and covered besides other things, a very detailed
understanding on Hindus religion, culture and philosophy.

Moraccan Moslem Ibn-batuta in the mid 1300s produced Rihla, in which too he gave
prominent coverage to the religion and ideology of the Hindus.

Amir Khusrow the sUfI, in the same period, produced several persian works in
which he produced detailed understanding on Hindus.

Abul Fazl in the 16th century, dedicates one whole A'in in in A'in-i-Akbari, one
of the Longest A'in too, in detailing out nine schools of philosophy of the
Hindus -- 6 for the ShaDdarshana, plus jaina, bauddha, and chArvAkan lokAyata
school. (He considers the last 3 nastikas as part of Hindus) -- a very detailed
study he made of the religion of Hindus.

Quasim Hindushah Ferishta, living in deccan in early 17th century, wrote
tArIkh-i-ferishtA wherein he too detailed out besides other things, a rather
good account on what he understood to be the religion of the Hindus, especially
the thought process of the brAhmaNa-s, and Veda-s etc.

Persian Chronicle Dabistan-i-Mazahab written at the same time detailes out every
single nuance about Hinduism.

Now you tell me how many Hindus tried to figure out what Islam was all about???

They did not!! Period.

And in it is their failure.

Indeed in the period when Al-Biruni was learning about Hindus, and post
push-back of Gaznavi by bhojadeva and the chandella-s, there was a peaceful
period of over a century for the Hindus, but did the brAhmaNa-s care to produce
ANY understanding on Islam (besides the 12th chapter in bhaviShya purANa where a
minister of bhojadeva the pramAra slays mohammed by means of tantra
deployment!!)

All those who defend this moronic attitude are also of the same class, living in
the imaginary world awaiting satayuga, ignoring the imminent danger. If you
want to immitate your forefathers, you will fare no better than they did.

Regards

Sarvesh Tiwari

IMO,
just as big was the failure of the Hindu kings to pool their resources and to fight the menace together. Often the kings on the periphery were allowed to fend for themselves. The kings should have seen what was a political-military tug-of-war between themselves, within the Civilization, and what was an outsider threat. They should have pooled their resources and gone hunting and converting together to the den of the foe.

This in fact has been the primary line that I am trying to get through. There is strength in unity. For the strength of the civilization all must act as one, sidelining horizontal (between satraps) and vertical differences (between jAtis).

Surasena ji,

Venturing into the enemy territory to subdue him was just one point. My main gripe was that the defenses of our Civilization were allowed to fray because of shortsightedness and disunity.

[devesh]

surasena ji,

although I don't agree that Kshatriyas "let" Islam in, I generally have to agree that a much bigger alliance against Islam should have been formed. this is the real failure. think how pan-India armies were involved in the fight against previous invaders like Shakas, Hunas, Kushans, etc. think how the Satavahanas and all of Gangetic Valley together threw out these invaders. that didn't happen when Islam came in.

in 1192, the Southern polity was fragmented under 4 different banners. and each of them was always at war with at least one of the others. the Seunas, Kakatiyas, Hoysalas, and Chola/Pandyas were too busy fighting each other and some even helped the invaders against their enemies.

but the true failure was to not understand Islam.

[ramana]

ShivajiSisodia, Please stop your talk of secession etc. If you persist I will warn you and might even ban you. Thanks, ramana

BTW, All the posters involved with you are known to me. I see that you have managed to bring the level down very rapidly. Hence am addressing this to you.

[shivajisisodia]

ShivajiSisodia, Please stop your talk of secession etc. If you persist I will warn you and might even ban you. Thanks, ramana

BTW, All the posters involved with you are known to me. I see that you have managed to bring the level down very rapidly. Hence am addressing this to you.

Ramana,

Point taken. If the secession talk is against forum guidelines, I will immediately suspend any such posts.

However, while I have talked about secession, I think my posts have at the very least been misunderstood. My posts are highly nationalistic. As a moderator, I request you to read all my posts on this thread and try to get a deeper sense of what I am meaning to say. If you find any hint of anti-nationalism in them or even if you dont, but you still think that these are against forum guidelines, I will refrain from making them. In any case, I will not make any posts relating to the subject of secession, until I expressly hear from you that you have read my posts and it is OK for me to continue along those lines.

[Agnimitra]

When Islam took over Central Asia, they too were facing the same horses and mounted archers. Of course, one can say that the power of Islam was such that the invaders were themselves Islamized.

It was Arab/Mongol/Turkic aggressive mobility based on "zar zan zameen" exposively combined with Persian civilizational depth that made Islamism a great force. It wasn't just the lack of military strategizing and "tactical" thinking on the part of Indic administrators at the time that caused their failure. It was the collossal lack of fully appreciating the nature of the opposition they were dealing with. There is little evidence of translations of Arabic and Persian texts into Indic, little evidence of a deep research and intermingling with those people and engaging with them on a cultural/ideological basis. Rather, a totally arrogant, conservative, koopmandook mentality prevailed. If they had the perspicacity, they would have forcefully driven a wedge between the Persian and the Arab/Mongol/Turk. They would have appealed to the newly-converted Persian (who was still under foreign rule), they would have appealed based on shared ancient links, they would have provoked them by insult to rebel. But none of this happened. Indics were also cut off from the intellectual changes happening, while the new Islamic civilization was absorbing everything from Greece to India to China. They come at us not just with a highly mobile and hardy force, but also with bigger minds with worldwide exposure. Indics were so small-minded that they even pushed our buttons at will, manipulating cultural-religious sentiments to place the Indic where he was a sitting duck! So "strategic thinking" is not restricted to military measures, it is also sociological and even spiritual.

[ramana]

SS, As the proverbial curate's egg I dont need to eat all of it to determine if its bad. So no thanks. Stop, cease and desist.

[member_19686]

RajeshA wrote:

When Islam took over Central Asia, they too were facing the same horses and mounted archers. Of course, one can say that the power of Islam was such that the invaders were themselves Islamized.

And they were defeated militarily, repeatedly by these peoples!

What they managed to do was spread the memetic virus of Islam to some Turkic clans but they never conquered the Turko-Mongols militarily for any prolonged period.

In fact it was the other way around, the Mongols smashed the Muslims in battle after battle and conquered Baghdad itself. The Mongol state was then subverted from within by the Muslim population which ultimately pressurized the Mongol Khans to convert and reestablish a sharia state. That process is chronicled here:

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... his-times/

The Islamized Turkic clans would then carry Jihad everywhere (Timur is a good example) and would found the Ottoman Sultanate which conquered the Arabs themselves.

This period of 120 years can be considered the period of true success of the Arabic Army of Islam. The Jihad of the Arabs was wildly successful in this period regularly defeating armies of most of the major civilizations of the old world. This string of successes against very different adverseries is actually pretty surprising because after this the Arabs more or less underwent a stagnation and faded out as a military military power of note. After their intial string of spectacular successes their attempts their thrusts were blunted in most directions by several defeats. In Europe, the Franks stopped the Islamic advance in the famed battle of Tours. Byzantium withstood all further attacks despite the siege of the capital by Caliph Sulaiman. In India the Karkotakas, Chahamanas, Pratiharas and Chalukyas repeatedly repulsed many Arab attempts and prevented any further depredations on India. In Central Asia the last remnants of the Gok Turks and later the Uighur Khanate defeated the Arabs and prevented any further encroachment. These defeats are as striking as the initial expansions, especially given that after that the Arabs ceased to be a major military force.

We speculate that the initial Arab success was actually a remarkable combination of chance events that resulted in many of the great civilization of the Old World going through a simultaneous trough that allowed the Arabs to explode unhindered in all directions. But soon there after the Arabs had spread themselves thin and started facing counter-pressure from all sides. As a result they slowly faded away but the meme of Islam had infected a large number of native populations who later feed the new rounds of the Jihads. One of the most important of the people who were infected by the meme of Islam were the Altaic peoples, who were later to out do the Arabs in disemminating Islam. The other major set of people infected by the meme of Islam who have been dominant its rampages of recent time are the ex-Hindus of great India.

The lesson to be learnt from this for the modern situation is that the power centers of Islam may be destroyed but the Islamic meme can continue to infect and build up new armies for new Jihads, especially coupled with the rapid reproduction. The Jihad in greater India is run by locals infected by the meme. Europe will be an interesting situation to watch out for the spread of the meme.

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... -of-islam/

If we are to frame an appropriate response today then first we have to make a study of Islam and its history.

Instead what we see among Indians is total confusion.

I hope we don't repeat the mistakes of our ancestors again, nothing wakes up a kafir better than reading the Koran and the hadiths. So along with Gita's do gift people the Koran so that they can read it for themselves

[RajeshA]

Surasena ji,

Exactly! That is why I mentioned that when we saw that there was a new power on the horizon, we should have moved quickly to Dharmicize it. Imagine if the Mongols/Turks had become converts to Sanatan Dharma but retained their warrior ways!

That is why I urge the Dharmics to wake up and recognize the potential of the world to imbibe Dharmic memes.

As Christianity loses sway in the West and Buddhism loses sway in the East, Sanatan Dharma has to move quickly to gather the "unhinged souls". We should be moving aggressively, though with humility, to make our imprint on the vast majority of Americans and Europeans who are leaving Christianity and turning atheist or agnostic. Similarly as we China, with its culture ravaged by the Communist Party, we should again be moving aggressively to get converts in places like Yunnan and Sichuan and in fact all over China!

This is a time where the superpowers, the wealthy powers are the least religiously ideologized in their history. Some would look at this as a process of imminent secularization. Au contraire, this is just another pause before the new frontlines of ideology are drawn.

The dogma and value system of a religion in this case is of less importance than the identification of the people with the religion, a social culture which contributes to its regeneration, and the inclination of its adherents to feel transnational bonding with other adherents. Dharmic Proselytizers need to spread out and spread the "word"!

[Rudradev]

Indics were also cut off from the intellectual changes happening, while the new Islamic civilization was absorbing everything from Greece to India to China. They come at us not just with a highly mobile and hardy force, but also with bigger minds with worldwide exposure. Indics were so small-minded that they even pushed our buttons at will, manipulating cultural-religious sentiments to place the Indic where he was a sitting duck! So "strategic thinking" is not restricted to military measures, it is also sociological and even spiritual.

Very relevant point. When the ideological strengths of two civilizations are evenly matched, military technique alone doesn't provide an overwhelming advantage. Consider the Viet Cong vs. the US in Indo China... arguably the relative advantage of the US in firepower and mil-tech was greater than anything bestowed by mounted archers over subcontinental forces in medieval times. Had Indic civilization been healthy at the time of the Islamic onslaught, techniques would have been developed (and rigorously applied) to counter the Muslim cavalry after the initial advantage of surprise in the first few engagements. Indeed, it wasn't as if the Muslims, for all their vaunted advantage in cavalry, were able to sweep over the subcontinent as easily as they did from Persia to Morocco.

The war was lost long before the first battle was fought; and it was lost because sheer decadence among the Indic ruling classes had resulted in a complete abandonment of perspective. The Islamics, OTOH, had their eyes on the prize at all times.

[brihaspati]

It was Arab/Mongol/Turkic aggressive mobility based on "zar zan zameen" exposively combined with Persian civilizational depth that made Islamism a great force.

This is at best a speculation about the motivation in the Turkic, and subsumes a lot of factors into intrinsic "aggression". Were they not "aggressive" in the immediate previous centuries before the invention of Islam? Were they not already exposed to "Persian civilizational" depth before?

There are huge problems here if you condense the reality of the forces acting between 400-1000 in CAR. In that period, and in the lead up to "Arab/Muslim" conquest of the Turkic, we see that Islamic narrators repeatedly talk of Butkhanas being destroyed. The Turkics appear mostly nomadic, not "warlike" or organized into huge armies that will appear under the iconic Mongol leaders - later. Moreover, the entire picture turns out to be more under the influence of a Buddhism derivative civilizational influence and social/state organization.

Look at some of the most iconic "conquest" stories of urban centres in that region - they take place by manipulation/deception and coercion of "citizens" who appear to be parts of long distance trading networks and merchant clans. Sometimes towns are overrun, and women and family abducted and children released only after ransom as well as accepting Islam - exactly when most of the men are away on "trade". Which meant, that previously these communities felt no need to keep standing armies to protect their families left behind. This would be typical of a society at a more ethically advanced mentality that does not expect such aggression as normal.

Persian/Parthians had been interacting with these regions for a long time. Civilizational depth on both sides would have been already deepened, following on from late Mauryan proselytization especially of Indic - but unfortunately of the more ethereal Buddhist variety [shaped by imperialism that probably developed a version of Buddhism more to emasculate the populace than any genuine so-called commitment to ahimsa].

It wasn't just the lack of military strategizing and "tactical" thinking on the part of Indic administrators at the time that caused their failure. It was the collossal lack of fully appreciating the nature of the opposition they were dealing with. There is little evidence of translations of Arabic and Persian texts into Indic, little evidence of a deep research and intermingling with those people and engaging with them on a cultural/ideological basis.

Pray, what was the intellectual mega-output of the Arabs in the 7th century, or even in the 8th century? What would Indian intellects "deeply" research about? What great Arab tomes would be around for Indians to translate? Surely you know that almost nothing of Arab written works are available - especially from the band of faithful around the founder - within the first century of his life, and more likely to have been onlee committed to writing after more literate people were conquered and gang-pressed into service.

How would you intermingle with them? What makes you think they didnt intermingle? There are some references of Indian merchants dining with and hosting Arabs in the Gulf. Gujarat and Kerala Indic merchants and their supporters and their patron ruling princes appear to have closely intermingled in person - socially, happily, willingly, deeply, collaboratively, sympathetically, and in friendship.

Assuming that these were sincere people who were not pretending to overlook things because profits mattered most, obviously intermingling did not yield any deep insights even after centuries of close intermingling.

Rather, a totally arrogant, conservative, koopmandook mentality prevailed.

Ah, the Indic Buddhist merchants of Nirun - who secretly came to an understanding with the Caliphate even when formally under Sindhi rule, and supplied Qasims army with provisions, and even went with Qasims delegate to a certain city to convince the locals not to fight back or resist - because they were apparently desperate that their special theological [Buddhist] status defined attitude towards the invading army - would come under suspicion form Qasim. The local Buddhist merchants/theologians of that city also were very very uncomfortable and complained that the citizens attitudes of resisting Qasim would make these noble Buddhist merchants/monks suspect in Qasim's eyes.

The narrator notes down that however the majority of the city decided to still resist. So you see, there were Indics who were most eager to engage and interact and host and feed and protect and help the Islamic hordes - and not any of the koopamanduk variety you accuse them blanketly of. All of that non-koopamandukality led to where is obvious now, isnt it?

If they had the perspicacity, they would have forcefully driven a wedge between the Persian and the Arab/Mongol/Turk.

Where are you getting your history? I am really concerned. What difference was there between the two to drive a wedge in the frontier zone where thes etwo interacted? Look at the archeology of the period as carried out by the Soviets and the Central Asians.

You are forgetting that in that time it was otherwise a non-war non-confrontational zone, primarily based on trade networks. The conflict was coming more from Chinese expansionary designs in the east.

They would have appealed to the newly-converted Persian (who was still under foreign rule), they would have appealed based on shared ancient links, they would have provoked them by insult to rebel. But none of this happened.

The conquest of Persia was not complete until the late medieval. There were pockets of resistance throughout. This history is yet to fully emerge. Even in the 900's the picture was not very favourable for the Arabs or the caliphate. Don't believe all the tall claims.

Indics were also cut off from the intellectual changes happening, while the new Islamic civilization was absorbing everything from Greece to India to China.

In the period between 600-900, what great signs of what intellectual advancement and absorption do you see in the Islamic state? The specific stress on absorptions was more on military technology, and even here not everything was always straightforward. For example the Graeco-Byzantines did not let the Muslims have the secret of the Greek-fire which was used successfully to repel several advances by the Islamics. Apart from this, yes there are indications that after each fall of university townships, and conquest and reference to Indian scholars being packed off to Caliphate - we have after due time gap of several decades - claims of brilliant inventions and light - scientific or philosophical that suddenly flash through Arabs, all indigenously and sourced from the Quran. You wanted Indians to copy their own copy?

They come at us not just with a highly mobile and hardy force, but also with bigger minds with worldwide exposure. Indics were so small-minded that they even pushed our buttons at will, manipulating cultural-religious sentiments to place the Indic where he was a sitting duck! So "strategic thinking" is not restricted to military measures, it is also sociological and even spiritual.

Yes this above piece is where the Imperialists - of the two proselytizing branches of the Abrahamic - have been relatively successful. They have convinced some Indians of the smallness of the Indic mind, and the supposed "bigger minds" of the Islamics or the imperialists. Proof? Any proof of this infinitely expanded "mind" and lofty "intellect" in that period from these chosen people? Such lofty minds that small-minded people like Ibn Sina spent a lifetime staying away from the clutches of these bigger minds with worldwide exposures - and even celebrated the death of such intellects while in exile.

The problem of the period had nothing to do with lack of perception, or lack of information, or lack of intermingling, or lack of engagement. It was an extreme ideological corruption and self-delusion that took ideas about morality and tolerance of diversity to the ridiculous and fatal conclusion - that everything and anything goes under the doctrine of all theological ideological claims are equal equal onlee, and must be treated with greatest respect and tolerance and allowed to flourish right under our noses - so that one day they can destroy us.

This is the danger that still remains.

[Rahul M]

We would like to separate. There have been subterranian conversations going on for almost a decade now, in certain circles and these conversations have now become more intense in after dinner meetings etc.

excellent. I do not usually venture into this thread but I am glad I did to see your cute little posts and asinine histories. this bit above earns you a permanent ban. be sure to visit your ancestral lands in georgia !

@ others, the standard in this thread is atrocious, why hasn't it been reported ? it's not that the posters here are new to BR.

[Prem]

Yes this above piece is where the Imperialists - of the two proselytizing branches of the Abrahamic - have been relatively successful. They have convinced some Indians of the smallness of the Indic mind, and the supposed "bigger minds" of the Islamics or the imperialists. Proof? Any proof of this infinitely expanded "mind" and lofty "intellect" in that period from these chosen people? Such lofty minds that small-minded people like Ibn Sina spent a lifetime staying away from the clutches of these bigger minds with worldwide exposures - and even celebrated the death of such intellects while in exile.
The problem of the period had nothing to do with lack of perception, or lack of information, or lack of intermingling, or lack of engagement. It was an extreme ideological corruption and self-delusion that took ideas about morality and tolerance of diversity to the ridiculous and fatal conclusion - that everything and anything goes under the doctrine of all theological ideological claims are equal equal onlee, and must be treated with greatest respect and tolerance and allowed to flourish right under our noses - so that one day they can destroy us.
This is the danger that still remains.

[/quote]

Till kesri unfurl, danger will remain there. Total revamping of Indian education system will do wonder within 2 generations.

[brihaspati]

RM,
speaking for myself, I had hoped to draw out the source, and I have reported only once ever on the forum. Thought that ultimately he would retract. It is a dangerous thought but the Gurjara was a giveaway and I was tempted to wait for that to come out. Agreed, that we should not have sat idle. Will be more prompt next time. Apologies.

[Agnimitra]

The problem of the period had nothing to do with lack of perception, or lack of information, or lack of intermingling, or lack of engagement. It was an extreme ideological corruption and self-delusion that took ideas about morality and tolerance of diversity to the ridiculous and fatal conclusion - that everything and anything goes under the doctrine of all theological ideological claims are equal equal onlee, and must be treated with greatest respect and tolerance and allowed to flourish right under our noses - so that one day they can destroy us.

This is the danger that still remains.

Yes, this "reasonableness" was surely part of the reason. Nothing wrong with liberalism and freedom of religion in "normal" conditions under an overarching Dharmic system (where they are tolerated not because they are "equal equal", but because they are seen as necessary tools in a continuum of applications). But all that was missing, and in fact other parts were being destroyed; and India sat looking on, or worse, as you pointed out. However, a lack of social study and factoring that into strategy was certainly part of this misplaced attitude and lack of pro-active steps.

This is at best a speculation about the motivation in the Turkic, and subsumes a lot of factors into intrinsic "aggression". Were they not "aggressive" in the immediate previous centuries before the invention of Islam? Were they not already exposed to "Persian civilizational" depth before?

Yes, but other factors were missing, such as the emergence of new political possibilities and the introduction of religious-social memes and their placement at points of political power. Both these came together when the Arab invasion broke Persia. The defeat of Persia at the hands of semi-nomadic Arabs was a psychological shock to established aristocracies, and a bannner to previously semi-nomadic peoples who were hitherto subalterns driven by imperial patrols. In today's terms it would be like several ME nations putting aside their sectarian infighting, banding together, and invading Europe successfully, ending NATO supremacy. Secondly and more importantly, the special memes of Islamism are conducive to a certain mentality, perfect for semi-nomadic peoples or even the criminal mindset. Even today, prison preaching is a niche where Islam excels, even in the West. Similarly, Czarist Russia would facilitate the Islamization (not christianization!) of unruly Kazakh tribes in order to bring some order there, because they figured Islam would find greater penetration there.

The particular memes of Islam are peculiarly attractive to a low-tone inner individual mentality living in an externally harsh environment. It appeals to this mentality and administers to it, and infuses a connection with a higher sensibility into it, bestowing dignity and the possibility of rehabilitation and edification through its indoctrination and training routines. In many cases, dissipated criminals benefit spiritually and psychologically from the religion, and become good members of their group and society. But in many other cases, this initial "case gain" is then used to completely buy the trust of the individual and in combination with a deepset pack-mentality can forge a formidable force of adventure and personal sacrifice. It is cult dynamic.

This latter case is not an enlightened banding together of freed beings collectively approaching freedom and inducing spiritual gain in society at large. It is a pack-mentality of spiritual minors whose initial psychological gain is used as impetus for an aberrated material adventure. In fact, the Persians had understood this particular "fit" of Islam to the lower portion of the mental tone curve. Perhaps that is why some of the initial rebellions against Abbasid rule were under the banner of Babak "Khorramdin", "khorram din" indicating "joyful/liberal religion" as opposed to what they considered the Arab "Army of Darkness" (Ferdowsi's Shahnameh) to be.

Where was India's help when Persian rebellions were fighting hard? -- not just in Pars proper, but from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Sistan, Baluchistan (Makran), Khorasan, and Tabaristan?

In fact, some of these rebellions were actually successful - but in the absence of any other religious-political power alternatives, they chose to adopt some form of Islam and form a political sect. The old Zoroastrian nobility had abjectly converted, and the priesthood was dispersed and had already lost is credibility (something that had begun even before Islam came on the scene). In spite of that, the Persian resistance leaders did appeal to existing Zoroastrian constituencies for support, but in the end it was not feasible to set up shop on that platform. So in the absence of any alternative aristocratic system, they simply formed an alternative power center within Islam, while being "favorable" to the Zoroastrian countryside! Were India to throw an authoritative shadow on that scene, don't you think it would have changed things?

Pray, what was the intellectual mega-output of the Arabs in the 7th century, or even in the 8th century? What would Indian intellects "deeply" research about?

Indian intellects could have deeply researched about the changing political situation there, the cultural changes, the particular tone and tendencies of Islamism, the garrison-state divided nature of Islamist colonization of Persian and other lands, the vigorous doctrinal debates happening between different Islamic schisms since right after the death of Prophet Muhammad, and their violent infighting, etc, etc. Arabs were meanwhile absorbing a lot of Persian knowledge related to administration and arts and court culture. Its not just Arab "tomes" that Indian "intellects" are to study; it is actual reality, outside of ivory towers.

How would you intermingle with them? What makes you think they didnt intermingle?
...
Assuming that these were sincere people who were not pretending to overlook things because profits mattered most, obviously intermingling did not yield any deep insights even after centuries of close intermingling.

There was intermingling, but not with the specific intention of strategic observation and creation of a locus standii within that system. As you correctly pointed out, it was mainly mercantile. There is some rumor of Mohyal Brahmins participating in Kerbala too, though I don't know the bona fides of that. But clearly there was little strategic intervention by Indics there. Again, such study and observation is not just through reading "tomes", but by living with them, interjecting in their internal debates, taking wives or giving daughters in marriage to that region and establishing that relationship of kinship which carries great import there (perhaps even converting externally if required!), etc.

Strategic observation requires not just intellectual ability but also social skill, not just boldness but also subterfuge, not just as a "guest" but as a real stakeholder in the destiny of that region. It encompasses but is not limited to commerce and spywork. This is the kind of intention without reservation that strategic study requires. It is the kind of multi-disciplinary action that it requires. None of these were to be seen amongst Indics, who seemed to feel comfortable within the subcontinent as long as trade was OK. But to be a strategic stakeholder in a region one has to be involved with blood - either through blood-relations, religious brotherhood, or through war.

Like the problem of misplaced liberalism which preoccupies you, the problem of conservative isolationism was also an equal or bigger factor. And it also remains a factor today. IMHO Tejo Mahalaya eliminationism is also a particular meme in this band of strategic attitudes. Again, I admit that this attitude also has its place in special situations, but not as regular policy. IIRC many members here on BRF had responded to RajeshA ji's "proposal" of about bringing home Pakdoll immigrant brides, branding it as "aa bail mujhe maar"!

[devesh]

Rahul M ji,

I didn't use the "report" button. but I did post a "note" address to BRAdmins about talk of secession. next time, will take the "official" route.

[ramana]

The post was reported and I closed it and cautioned SSisodia.

[devesh]

x-posted from Telangana monitor thread:

ramana ji,
I said BJP may have a surprise opening in about 5-years time. It is not that BJP will sweep the state at one go. But it can become a surprise alternative. Don't ask me why and how I say this, but take it as something along the lines I had predicted about MB and subsequent events.

In fact the entire east coast will see unexpected changes over the next 12-15 years. There are forces that develop in a random but elastic system within a certain range of one co-variable. So that there is no fundamental changes observable as the variable keeps piling up. Then it crosses a crucial regime switching value and - boom - the whole plane in which the system vibrates abruptly shifts. Sometimes excess volatility can do the same [volatility induced regime switching].

Of course BJP will have a opening. I did not say that it will necessarily think of using it. AP coasts will change dramatically, and its a link in a long and crucial eastern flow that has effects from Odra to Kumari Kandyam.

[Arjun]

Like the problem of misplaced liberalism which preoccupies you, the problem of conservative isolationism was also an equal or bigger factor.

Which civilization would you point to that surpassed India in this regard? Pre-Islamic Persia obviously failed spectacularly to spot the danger that was developing in the form of Islam right next door to it....China since the 14th century was completely isolationist.

The only cultures that did not do so on a sustained basis, were the ones driven by missionary dogmatism - either of the Islamic or Christian variety. Most of the non-dogmatic, non-missionary cultures seem to have shared this trait of 'conservative isolationism' as you term it.

[Sanku]

@ others, the standard in this thread is atrocious, why hasn't it been reported ? it's not that the posters here are new to BR.

Rahul M; I had reported him very early, couple of times, when he was talking about using the sword on Indians to convince them.

[Agnimitra]

The only cultures that did not do so on a sustained basis, were the ones driven by missionary dogmatism - either of the Islamic or Christian variety. Most of the non-dogmatic, non-missionary cultures seem to have shared this trait of 'conservative isolationism' as you term it.

Arjun ji, AFAIU its not a question of possessing this or that trait, its a question of getting stuck in a rut and not responding to a situation in the most appropriate mode of thought and action. Isolationism is a valid phase, but it cannot become a general reflexive response mode to ANY situation if a civilization is to be successful. This is true of all other "traits" also, such as "missionary dogmatism", which can also become self-defeating in other ways, in time. Therefore, I had agreed with what Brihaspati ji said, but pointed out that it did not exclude the need for other approaches and attitudes also, as and when opportunities presented themselves in a given environment.

I am cross-referencing a relevant post I had made in the "Christian fundamentalism" thread below. Please note the 2 rightmost columns for religion and politics. Isolationalism is one of the phases.
------------------------------------

I like this matrix mapping of the development of aesthetic factors in psycho-social choices in various intersecting human fields, including religion and politics. They are calibrated against an ideal "balance" and map various modes of imbalance and corruption. Useful reference.



Source of table

[Arjun]

Isolationism is a valid phase, but it cannot become a general reflexive response mode to ANY situation if a civilization is to be successful.

I agree with you. I was merely pointing out that in order to understand the true roots of the phenomenon - it is necessary to link back to some fundamental traits of the underlying culture / religion. In my opinion, all non-dogmatic non-missionary cultures (including Hinduism, Confucianism, Zaraostrianism, Greek and Roman paganism) developed in a certain way which could be easily predicted, and the missionary religions of Islam and Christianity developed in another distinct way which again can be modeled fairly easily.

For non-dogmatic cultures - the extreme dogmatism of the Abrahamics was a completely new phenomenon which they could never really understand or comprehend, and still do not.

My own thinking is that missionary zeal and an attitude of exceptionalism ARE very important for a culture to survive and thrive - it does not necessary have to be solely focused on religion though - it could be missionary zeal around certain key ideas and concepts of the religion that are far more universally relevant. For example, the US has built its aura of exceptionalism around certain liberal ideas - such as championship of democracy, individual rights & extreme meritocracy. Indian exceptionalism and missionary zeal could come from either Dharma, or from universal values derived from Dharma.

[RajeshA]

Where was India's help when Persian rebellions were fighting hard? -- not just in Pars proper, but from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Sistan, Baluchistan (Makran), Khorasan, and Tabaristan?

In fact, some of these rebellions were actually successful - but in the absence of any other religious-political power alternatives, they chose to adopt some form of Islam and form a political sect. The old Zoroastrian nobility had abjectly converted, and the priesthood was dispersed and had already lost is credibility (something that had begun even before Islam came on the scene). In spite of that, the Persian resistance leaders did appeal to existing Zoroastrian constituencies for support, but in the end it was not feasible to set up shop on that platform. So in the absence of any alternative aristocratic system, they simply formed an alternative power center within Islam, while being "favorable" to the Zoroastrian countryside! Were India to throw an authoritative shadow on that scene, don't you think it would have changed things?

Pray, what was the intellectual mega-output of the Arabs in the 7th century, or even in the 8th century? What would Indian intellects "deeply" research about?

Indian intellects could have deeply researched about the changing political situation there, the cultural changes, the particular tone and tendencies of Islamism, the garrison-state divided nature of Islamist colonization of Persian and other lands, the vigorous doctrinal debates happening between different Islamic schisms since right after the death of Prophet Muhammad, and their violent infighting, etc, etc. Arabs were meanwhile absorbing a lot of Persian knowledge related to administration and arts and court culture. Its not just Arab "tomes" that Indian "intellects" are to study; it is actual reality, outside of ivory towers.

How would you intermingle with them? What makes you think they didnt intermingle?
...
Assuming that these were sincere people who were not pretending to overlook things because profits mattered most, obviously intermingling did not yield any deep insights even after centuries of close intermingling.

There was intermingling, but not with the specific intention of strategic observation and creation of a locus standii within that system. As you correctly pointed out, it was mainly mercantile. There is some rumor of Mohyal Brahmins participating in Kerbala too, though I don't know the bona fides of that. But clearly there was little strategic intervention by Indics there. Again, such study and observation is not just through reading "tomes", but by living with them, interjecting in their internal debates, taking wives or giving daughters in marriage to that region and establishing that relationship of kinship which carries great import there (perhaps even converting externally if required!), etc.

Strategic observation requires not just intellectual ability but also social skill, not just boldness but also subterfuge, not just as a "guest" but as a real stakeholder in the destiny of that region. It encompasses but is not limited to commerce and spywork. This is the kind of intention without reservation that strategic study requires. It is the kind of multi-disciplinary action that it requires. None of these were to be seen amongst Indics, who seemed to feel comfortable within the subcontinent as long as trade was OK. But to be a strategic stakeholder in a region one has to be involved with blood - either through blood-relations, religious brotherhood, or through war.

Carl ji,

very good post!

A civilization has to think in terms of forward defense.

Often neighborly conflicts trumps the inclination for a bird's eye view on strategy. If the region is on the fringe of a civilizational expanse, it becomes vulnerable to incursions and invasions by alien "civilizations". Then it is important for other satraps to lying much deeper to ring the bell of alarm and try to bring peace between neighbors at the periphery. At other times the periphery comes under siege from the alien "civilization", when the satraps are immersed in their own politicking oblivious of the oncoming danger. At that time the periphery has to ring the bell of alarm and to waken up the civilizational core. It is important for the periphery and the core to have good relations, so that when the danger comes, the core is willing to go to the help of the periphery.

Today where the battle has moved from the geographical to the ideological level, Dharmics are making the same mistake. The Dharmic Core is not reaching out to the periphery pro-actively enough to help it to hold up. The periphery in India is still the scheduled castes, which needs to be bound into the Dharmic fold much more strongly.

There is also the westernized periphery in the Indian society!

[brihaspati]

I was reluctant to take up historical issues in depth on this thread, but I have a feeling that the very wide-ranging "comprehensive" perspective being lamented here for its absence in the 7th century Indic - is showing up in the spanning of the ME and CAR history of the period.

Issue 1: The entire backdrop of the Islamic "rise" is being forgotten. There is a pre- and a post. In the pre- a monumental struggle between two empires locked in a death grip was going on for at least 300 years. The Romans and the Parthians had been at it for a long long time, and it is well documented how they exhausted their material rashtryia basis in that confrontation. The Muslims in fact had not been successful against the Byzantines at first - and not even during the lifetime of the founder. The last known attempt by the founder is acknowledged even by hagiographers to have been a disaster, and is also the context in which we first hear of "hypocrites" again raising their voices against the prophecy and the mission.

The battle at which the Byzantines ultimately retreated did not destroy Byzantium - because they obviosuly survived for at least 9 more centuries. They had crushingly defeated the Parthians in a campaign just before, and were at a temporary almost complete exhaustion of resources which is understandable. What is likely to have happened is a lesser security threat perception from the Byzantines and a strategic decision to abandon the "badlands" once the Parthian threat was seen to have been effectively eliminated.

Two important further factors played up here. The Christians had already become inseparable from the imperial project and were at each others throats in typical imperialist internal factional fight covered under polemical battles on abstract and abstruse finer points of doctrine. The two major conflicts that shaped up were between the "regional" competitions within the Church - like the Arrian [ironically North African origin] branch influencing parts of the Egyptian Coptic and the Germanic Gothic, versus the Graeco-Italian Church panorama, and the East vs west within that Graeco-Italian spectrum. The second was the iconodule vs iconoclastic within the Eastern.

There are reasons to believe, that the iconoclastic Paulicians who escaped from persecution and filtered into greater Levant and Syria [and perhaps even the border-badlands between the Arabs and the Levant] formed a substantial proportion of the neo-converts into Islamism, and might even have helped the Arabs into expanding into the region. Moreover the first two centuries of "Islam" need not have been entirely the Quranic Islam that is claimed now - and hence the almost complete lack of contemporary doctrinal documentary evidence. It could very well been a sectarian Paulician-Judaeo combine that masqueraded as Christian or Judaic according to convenience or the dominant leadership.

But the internal Christian politics could very well have forced the main Byzantine core to abandon hopes of maintaining meaningful control over the Egyptian-Levantine arc at least the time - especially after they thought that they had eliminated their most mortal threat - the Parthians.

On the other side, people do not discuss the role of the Chinese - whose impeialistic pushes involved imperial shenanigans to destroy or dominate the Tibetans and the Turkics. We know that they sought alliances with the then kingdom of Kashmir against the Tibetans while at the same time trying to negotiate with the Muslims agains the parthians and the Turkic. The eastern Parthians and the Turkic CAR were heavily influenced by the Indic - but specifically more by the mercantile-international-trade-aligned Buddhist networks rather than any imperialist strong state version of non-Buddhist streams of Indic.

The Parthians and the Turkic were basically sandwiched between two imperial ambitions, and almost drained nil in the struggle at that time. There is also some evidence of climatic disorders that seems to have affected the settlements in high-altitude deserts.

Issue 2: We can start blaming the Indic for not engaging the "Arab". But look at the reality of history as it was emerging from the imperialist-Buddhist interregnum. North - centre - east and west [and even parts of south] were effectively divided up between three forces - the Buddhists, the Jainas and the Shaivas. Of these, the Buddhists were the most well entrenched socially and politically - and closely allied with imperialist interests and long distance or international mercantile and financier networks. The Jainas occupied the space in between with the Shaivas barely making acome back. Again from Hiuen Tsang and Taranath we know that in the very century of Muslim expansion - in Sindh, it was intolerance that was developing in Buddhism and not others. Moreover the hold of the Buddhists were falling in the countryside where rural "nilakantha" temples [probably mud-brick and makeshift] were coming up while the viharas and chaityas lay in ruins. Significantly the scholar also laments the degradation of saddhamma in the region which he thought was in decline and would soon be gone - specifically hinting at the "deviation" of the practioners who were apparently living in a life style in their urban cocoons way too deviant for most Buddhist codes -as narrated in Chachnama.

The international trade and mercantile interests were in control more of the Buddhists and the Jainas - as is natural to expect from a longer imperial tradition of rulers+mercantile alliance. It was these people who were obviously in close contact and who did observe the Muslims - even in their home territories. It was their possibly mercantile confidence that everything - even peace and survival can be bought with monetary prices - and the possible further ruthless calculation that hedging with the Muslim might help them prolong their mercantile interests at a time when the counrtyside was increasingly getting alineated from the ahimsa vomiting rich merchants living it up in their urban centres.

The mercantile Buddhist Jaina interests of the time probably served as a conscious dual buffer that effectively controlled foreign access to the indigenous, as well as a hedging mercantile calculation to preserve long term trade interests as well as balance of power for internal struggles. Some of the narrations do seem to provide possible instances of this [the conflict describe din Prabandhachinatamani for example].

It was not failure to engage or to understand. The mercantiles understood correctly the nature of Islam, but they thought they could use it to their own advantage - the same folly some of us still maintain. But then again, maybe they did not think of it as a folly - maybe in their perspective they actually won. After all its accumulation of wealth that ultimately matters and should be the supreme priority - so by compromising and using Islamic forces, if they could maintain their "growth" why not ? if "prosperity" is the supreme target, "conversions" or slavery or abduction or rape or masscare are all lesser in importance!

In the other debate about proselytizing Abrahamics' "distinction" - the only distinction is the non-separation of theology from imperialism. In the others, this is separate - hence the theologies do not get the added punch power of the imeprialist military machine. Whereas both Nicean Chirstianity and post-Muhammad Walid/Umr Islamism combined the two seamlessly.

[Advait]

@shivajisisodia - Your thoughts on most issues match mine very closely.

I have been thinking along your lines for sometime. But instead of fighting here, maybe its time to start a new country - NavBharat (because frankly and realistically, present day India is hopeless on several levels).

Lawless Somalia seems like a good candidate. Look at U.S and the other New World countries today. They all started off as small outposts and are now continent sized countries. A few thousand Hindus can start by doing a Mayflower.

If admins and gurus allow it, can we start a thread on this topic or is it too un-PC. I would like to expand on this and the reasons for this.

Btw, read the tayiqa that A Kalam pulled here. All I can say is, I told you so

[devesh]

x-posted from India-Afg strat thread:

I was thinking about this scenario.

Earlier the strategy was to ask Hastinapura not to react to Paki terror attacks, for any Indian response would pull paki-mercenary force from the western theater.

Now that the west realized paki-perfidy they are stoking a ind-pak fight so pakis can divert their irregulars to eastern theater thus giving the west enough calm to declare victory and return home.

What could be Indian strategy in this scenario?
- Play dumb. Continue no-action if there are western-induced terror attacks? Pakis may move their forces to eastern border but there will be no action. As the west tries to leave, these forces will be moved to west to recapture their strategic depth.

- Play smart. Go along with western perfidy. Acquire key defense h/w on war-footing basis (those light-weight howitzers, MKIs, ac couple of squadrons of MMRCA, PINAKAs, hundreds/thousands of AKASHs, >1000 Brahmos, Arjuns etc.,). Be ready and take the Paki bait and deliver a nice thappad.

[RamaY]

@shivajisisodia - Your thoughts on most issues match mine very closely.

I have been thinking along your lines for sometime. But instead of fighting here, maybe its time to start a new country - NavBharat (because frankly and realistically, present day India is hopeless on several levels).

NavBharat formed in 1947 as the Islamic-majority regions seceded from it. Now it is up to us, Bharatiyas, to establish Dharmic rule here before extending it outwards.

You will face the same challenges wherever you establish NavBharat, be it in Gujrat, Kashmir or Varnasi, Somalia. What will do with the existing local population and local challenges there? Inta gelichi, Racha gelavaali - First we need to win at home before we venture out.

Now how to bring Dharmic Bharat back to forefront? I believe that can be done only thru atma-jnana/self-realization of Bharat. That means each Indian knows about his nation, his value-system and is proud of his/her nation and believes in its preeminence and works towards it. He/she doesn't mind some personal sacrifices to achieve that common dream. This can be done only one person/group at a time. It is not top-down approach, it is bottom-up approach.

Please present your ideas and demonstrate them in a small areas - perhaps in OT thread. Then others will be inspired to follow your examples.

[Advait]

RamaYji, saying that we need to win over all Indians and solve local problems first is like saying that we don't need space program/nuclear weapons cause we have X million Indians hungry and we need to give them roti kapda makaan.

Coming back to Somalia, it is a country the size of France with a population of 10 million. First a beachhead is established with say 50,000 armed settlers and they let out a call to all Hindus to come and settle there. These new Hindu settlers will be given homesteads and free hand in settling the land. I am sure that given the poverty in India, there will be a 100 million Hindus ready to come settle in this NavBharat. Of course, there will be a few conditions that they will have to agree with. Just to make sure that this new nation has a clear vision.

One of the major challenges in establishing this initial settlement is that our sickular elites will oppose it cause if the kommie Hindus go away, whose the boogeyman then. And once a substantial number of the poorest Hindus start going there, then the remaining Hindus will start demanding real substantial reforms when they see NavBharatis leading better lives than them in India.

[ramana]

No think of the chain store paradox. You acquire consent one store at a time.

[Agnimitra]

Brihaspati ji, thanks for the overview. No doubt the Parthians and Byzantines were exhausted from their imperial competition, and that was one of the factors that came together with others to allow for the Arab takeover of Persia.

It was not failure to engage or to understand. The mercantiles understood correctly the nature of Islam, but they thought they could use it to their own advantage - the same folly some of us still maintain. But then again, maybe they did not think of it as a folly - maybe in their perspective they actually won. After all its accumulation of wealth that ultimately matters and should be the supreme priority - so by compromising and using Islamic forces, if they could maintain their "growth" why not ? if "prosperity" is the supreme target, "conversions" or slavery or abduction or rape or masscare are all lesser in importance!

Yes. So then this is a failure of true and comprehensive understanding on the part of Indics, isn't it? In both, the civilizational core and periphery. And a failure of strategic engagement without reservations, because the very goals of strategic thinking and initiatives were unclear to them. As I said, strategic thought may include intelligence relevant to commerce and spywork, but it goes far beyond the limits of those considerations.

In the other debate about proselytizing Abrahamics' "distinction" - the only distinction is the non-separation of theology from imperialism. In the others, this is separate - hence the theologies do not get the added punch power of the imeprialist military machine. Whereas both Nicean Chirstianity and post-Muhammad Walid/Umr Islamism combined the two seamlessly.

As a general rule that is a fair comment. But there is space and precedent for interpretation of Veda to combine state power and religious missionary goals. Just saying. "Abrahamic" isms can be shown to be a special case of Veda that have breached their optimal application boundaries.

[ramana]

Bji, Brilliant summary of the world in which Islam gained power. Can you expand a little bit about the rise of the Tibetian kingdom in that period, whcih consolidated Central Asia nd made it easy for the next conqueror Islam to unify the new empire?
Ideally would like a monograph (40-50 pages) with quotes and refs to the first issue for it address some of the unexplained in rise of Islam -iconoclasm, brother religions of the book, the fact the Islam is more like OT and is termed ishamelite heresy for denying Christ.

Aslo I would like you to explore if Christians got the idea of working with an imperial power just as Buddhists did in India with Ashoka? Note Ashoka had already unified India under imperial rule of Magadha, starting from Bindusara of the japanapada times, before he converted. Similarly Constatine already was at his height of power, when he saw the light and converted. Besides his mother was a Christian? Ashoka's granfather became a Jain monk.

There are accounts of Buddhist monastries in North Africa, the very area of operations pre-Christian mind set.

[RamaY]

Coming back to Somalia, it is a country the size of France with a population of 10 million. First a beachhead is established with say 50,000 armed settlers and they let out a call to all Hindus to come and settle there. These new Hindu settlers will be given homesteads and free hand in settling the land. I am sure that given the poverty in India, there will be a 100 million Hindus ready to come settle in this NavBharat. Of course, there will be a few conditions that they will have to agree with. Just to make sure that this new nation has a clear vision.

I will tell you even a better approach. You need to expand your nation first. The state will follow it.

How about you setup some ding-dong-trust. And sponsor the construction of a small shrine for a native-spirit in Africa. That itself will set the ball rolling And repeat it as many times as you want across the world...