Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

[Rudradev]

Rudradev Ji, with due apologies, but you have not understood my critique. My main thrust was to null your equating geography with the spread of Islamic ideology. I only agree that it slows down things..that's all. IF that was the thrust of your long post, it really is meaningless to any understanding of Islam..possibly dangerous. Because what we have seen so far is that the spread of Islam has nothing to do with geography. For the hundreds of thousands massacred in Punjab at partition, the Kabila was not a soft one. Neither in Bangladesh. This is purely your imagination. Not mine.

It's pure rubbish to link the spread of Islam or the degree of the violence that it engenders to geography. I don't see what softness you perceive or see in Pakjab with respect to the infidel. Remind you the LeT, JuD all are based in Pakjab.

Harbans-ji, we are talking past each other. You use "Soft" Kabila to mean something entirely different than the sense in which I meant it.

I mean "Soft" only in the sense of becoming settled, assuming the trappings of civilization, becoming invested in the land. This saps the essential strength of a Kabila which is mobility and ruthlessness. That definition of "soft" is clearly implicit in my initial post on this topic.

You seem to be using "Soft" to mean "tolerant towards the infidel." That is a completely different usage of the word, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my theory. In no way are the Kabila of TSPA/ISI, or their Tanzeem apparatus, "tolerant towards the infidel"... but one would assume that you knew this already.

I also don't see why you still think that I am "equating" geography with the spread of Islamic ideology. I have expressed what I believe are the very real geographical factors that have influenced the spread of Islam and why they are relevant in our region today. I am surprised that after all the explanations from many posters, you apparently cannot tell the difference between these two ideas.

Sorry that my post was "long", but I'm afraid that a certain complexity of thought doesn't lend itself to reductivist soundbites. Try answering some of the questions I have posed in that post and perhaps you will see what I mean.

[ramana]

I plan to create a new thread and move all the posts there as its is deserving of its own thread. I dont expect it to whither but become a repository for new thinking.
I will move shiv's posts too to that thread.
Will call the thread "Pakistan : A new way of thinking"

Some may think its old hat but they are welcome to not visit it!

Will suffer the consquences.

[Mahendra]

However, as far as Indonesia is concerned: I have always heard that the Islamization point came when the King was convinced by Arab merchants to convert to Islam. So it was a "top-down" conversion in situ, as opposed to the systematic Kabila erasure of pre-Islamic civilization: much more similar to the conversion of Constantine and the advent of Roman Imperial Christianity than to the Kabila expansion in lands to the west. That this had any ramifications on psychosocial alienation, I was not aware of.

Sorry for OT

My theory is that the Indonesian Hindu/Buddhist king converted to Islam to avoid genocide and cultural destruction that Bharat has endured between 700 and 1300. I think he did the right thing. Indonesia still holds on to its native culture despite being an Islamic nation. It will be one of the nations that will revert back to its roots as soon as the mothership asserts itself.

Sirji, any peroof for your theory that the King of Pakonesia converted to avoid genocide and what are the pointers towards your assertion that the nation will revert to its roots as soon as the mothership asserts itself. Whyphor do you believe that the actions of the Pakonesian army in East Timor were any less genocidal than the actions of True-Pak army in Dhaka? Is genocide part of the native culture?

sirji this is just a pooch out of interest and not sarc e azam

[Atri]

Harbans ji,

One input. Don't know how relevant it is.. Please go through this point.

Pakistan flood crisis blamed partly on deforestation

Years of illegal logging by the 'timber mafia' and the Taliban cleared forests, allowing raging floodwater to flow unimpeded, experts say.

This reminds me of the behaviour of "Uruk Hai" from Lord of the Rings saga. The treachery of Saruman causes destruction of Fanghorn Forest which in turn pisses off the ent causing flooding of Isengard and its destruction along with capture of Saruman himself.

The tendency of Uruk hai is similar to that of islamists. They will try to convert the "Sujalam Sufalam" region of Punjab and Sindh into something similar to desert "Punyabhumi". Because it is only in such geography that this ideology can perpetuate most efficiently. The primary focus of almost all islamists have been to change "geography" to less "fertile" configuration.

This might be an oversimplifying statement, but it seems true. the historical references are replete with destruction of lakes, wells, dharma-shalas, farms and masscre of productive civilian males wherever their armies moved. Even the benevolent Akbar, jahangir and Shahjahan were raining fire and hell on Rajputana and Deccan throughout their careers. yet they are examples of more "stable" kings who benefitted from inherent prosperity of Bhaarat mata. It is futile to compare it with Nadir Shah and Abdali.

Marathas were only hindu armies who emulated muslims in such behaviour. their infamous plunder of bengal was result of similar Mughal policies which they faced in their homeland from Aurangzeb.

We are digressing here. But the point is, The purest of the pure when armed with weapons and jihad, try their best to convert the sujalam sufalam land into desert or something similar. That is their dream, after all.

[harbans]

I also don't see why you still think that I am "equating" geography with the spread of Islamic ideology. I have expressed what I believe are the very real geographical factors that have influenced the spread of Islam and why they are relevant in our region today. I am surprised that after all the explanations from many posters, you apparently cannot tell the difference between these two ideas.

Rudradev Ji, on one note if at all you wanted to find fault with a reading of your post, you should have with Devesh's conclusion from your writing..and i quote again:

basically the ideology is not suitable for fertile lands, which is what RD says.

That should have raised your hackles if at all...but you choose to defend that assertion. No the ideology is unsuited at all times to any geography.

That ideology i repeat is unsuitable to any geographical location. So stop misleading folks. Geographical factors have only impeded the spread of Islam, not curtailed it. It may have had some impact in the past, but it is meaningless and plain rubbish to keep repeating that today that it helped in the past.. we see how ruthlessly our culture has been eradicated in Pak/ BD.

You seem to be using "Soft" to mean "tolerant towards the infidel." That is a completely different usage of the word, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my theory. In no way are the Kabila of TSPA/ISI, or their Tanzeem apparatus, "tolerant towards the infidel"

Rudradev Ji.. What exactly do you mean it had nothing to with what theory. You only mentioned this:

The LANDS of West Punjab, Sindh and Eastern Bengal are currently dominated by Muslims: but as I have explained, the geographic nature of these lands means that any Muslim domination of them swims AGAINST the tide of history. A Muslim power that takes hold of these lands will, of historical necessity, become a soft Kabila.

Lets be clear on this..

1. Doctrinal spread has little to do with geography.
2. Protection of some cultures escaping alien doctrine may have a little protection and time because of geography.
2. Adharmic doctrines have no basis anywhere, whatever the geography may be.

The basis of strength in our country, our Dharma lies in our belief on these 3 above. Your post weakens that fundamentally. We already have people quoting you, saying that some doctrines are valid in some geographic locales. Critique those that link that. I only quoted the danger in what you wrote..Pakjab is the last example of a soft Kabila one can give..

[ramana]

This thread is to capture new ways of looking at Pakistan for developing a better understanding. My plan is to transfer relevant posts from the TSP discussion thread.

Thanks,

ramana

[Rudradev]

However, as far as Indonesia is concerned: I have always heard that the Islamization point came when the King was convinced by Arab merchants to convert to Islam. So it was a "top-down" conversion in situ, as opposed to the systematic Kabila erasure of pre-Islamic civilization: much more similar to the conversion of Constantine and the advent of Roman Imperial Christianity than to the Kabila expansion in lands to the west. That this had any ramifications on psychosocial alienation, I was not aware of.

Rudradev ji,

What I have read about Indonesia is that seafearing traders would mingle and convert the population, somewhat like Malabar. The commons were alienated from the priest-ruler elites. Slowly the creeping conversion reached a critical mass and more. Some of the aristocracy also converted. Then, lead by this converted aristocracy, there was a revolution that chased the ruling Hindu powers off the main islands -- off to Bali -- and the newly converted aristocracy took the center stage of power.

So it wasn't a top-down process. It was:
1. First, the formation of an idealogically tight-assed, controllable segment of human resources in the population.
2. This is followed by some members of the elites moving in to become leaders of this new dynamic segment of the commons.
3. this is then followed by this converted elite displacing the main rulers to snatch power.

We can see a similar thing happening in many modern countries, and it may start happening in some parts of the West too. some argue that it is happening in what is left of the Indian core state too. Recently I posted a similar report about the rapid re-Islamization (level 2 - Wahabization) of Kyrghizstan, which is following the same model.

Carl ji, interesting observation again. I wonder if you've hit on the maritime equivalent of the Kabila model, which is primarily an overland ingress model. In contrast, coastal, littoral and archipelago states would be more vulnerable to the form of Islamization you have described. If this is how Islam gained currency in states like Zanzibar and Tanzania, where the civilizational center of gravity is primarily coastal... it would validate a model based on Indonesian and Malabari contexts. The seagoing Kabila, it appears, operates on the principle of infiltration and subversion rather than leading with a full scale military onslaught. The goal of such subversion is, of course, to engender a homegrown Kabila from the intrinsic state apparatus (the local feudal aristocracy who convert and are prevailed upon to militarily suppress non-Islamic elements.)

[johneeG]

Carl ji,
thanks for the reply. I agree with you mostly. I heard similar thing about Kashmir(or some other place) and I was quite aghast as well. All I am saying is that people had their reasons for doing what they did. We can learn from their mistakes and take heart from their great deeds. And try to do, what we can.

About Advaita, briefly: Brahma satyam, Jagat mitya. Once one realises Brahma as the only Truth, then world is illusory. Until such realisation, world is real and all the regular rules apply.

--------
harbans ji,
According to Rudradev ji, once a kabila(barbarian) softens up due to trappings of a civilization(such as settling down), the next wave of unwashed kabila will replace them. This cycle will keep repeating. I think its a correct assessment. Infact, this characteristic is very normally seen in animals. Young lion defeat the old lion and take over the pack of lionesses until he gets old and is replaced.

I want to add a point to this model. With the above model, there is no hope for Hindus/victims who are progressively battered by the kabilas.

So, I want to point out that geography greatly helped Hindus mount challenges to the invaders and thereby slowing them down. Geography will not slow down the invader automatically. Invader did not want to slow down. He was forced to slow down. Geography simply provides the opportunity and resources to defend or rebel against the invader. And Hindus used that opportunity provided by the nature to offer stiff resistance to the invaders.

In contrast, in other places, geography is not conducive to defence or rebellion by the victims against the well-armed invader. A persecuted person/community has to either die or surrender.

In India, easy weather and easy availability of food and water allow a persecuted person/community to survive, regroup and resist the invasion. The size of population(supported by geography) is another factor that slows down the invader.

In short, geography will not in itself stop the invasions. It will provide people resources to stop the invasions. Of course, ultimately, the people will have to do the thing. If they dont want to do it, then nothing can help(not even nature).

------
Atri ji,
good point. It is not only their dream but a natural outcome of their actions(which are guided by their attitudes shaped by the ideologies).

So, sujalam suphalam of Bharatvarsha may be directly co-related with the nature worshipping of Hindus.

[Agnimitra]

About Advaita, briefly: Brahma satyam, Jagat mitya. Once one realises Brahma as the only Truth, then world is illusory. Until such realisation, world is real and all the regular rules apply.

JohneeG ji, I don't want to go OT on this thread. I will respond to this post in GDF later.

[shiv]

This thread is to capture new ways of looking at Pakistan for developing a better understanding. My plan is to transfer relevant posts from the TSP discussion thread.

Thanks,

ramana

Heck thanks _ never saw this..

[shiv]

The US, I am reliably informed, works for its own interests. I am also told that Indians aspire to be like the US. If I put the two together and look at Pakistan, I see that Pakistanis do not like the US much, but the US insists on maintaining friendly relations with Pakistanis.

But i also see that the US is working against Indian interests by arming an funding the Pakistan army. The US is not directly killing Indians requiring an Udham Singh like response of an Indian in the US. But the US indirectly kills Indians via the Pakistan army and its proxies. This attitude of helping a Pakistan army that hates india, protecting that army, and continuing to mollycoddle Pakistan is called "US interests" which Indians should understand, and not complain about.

I think this same tactic can be applied by India if we overcome the distaste for Pakistan as the US has done. Pakis may not like the US, but the US still befriends them. Pakistanis may not like Indians, but Indians can befriend them. You see, if India can wean away a whole lot of Pakistanis to become pro India, the US can eventually be kicked out of the subcontinent, which is both in Indian interests and in Pakistani interests.

But India will have to play to its strengths while the US play to its own strengths.

The US is able to bribe an fund and arm the Paki army in a manner that India cannot compete. But the US does not want the argicultural produce of Pakistan like rice, onions and leather the way India can swallow those products. The US gains nothing from a pipeline via Pakistan from any nation, although both India and Pakistan could gain from that. The US is actually playing dog in the manger here and the US's main ally is the Pakistan army.

Getting the US disengaged from the subcontinent is the first step towards integrating the economies of central Asia, Iran and Pakistan with that of India and "South Asia" at large. China has something to gain here too. The US could gain as well - but the US appears to be in no mood to allow anyone else to gain even if the US can gain - hence "dog in the manger"

[sanjaykumar]

Lets be clear on this..

1. Doctrinal spread has little to do with geography.


Yes, and for the same reason why robbers have an affinity for the geography of banks-that is where the money is.

[ramana]

sanjay

[devesh]

Atri ji,

comparing Maratha behavior in Bengal to A'zeb's behavior is a exaggeration. the Maratha raids are accompanied by memories of loot and plunder. the A'zeb incursion are accompanied by memories of torture and mass murder. I don't think Marathas did anything similar to that anywhere in India. even on Muslim centers, their anger was mainly aimed at the political power centers and religio-cultural centers of Islam.

[ramana]

Devesh, When you are subjected loot it hardly matters who your looter is. Something to keep in mind.

Rajputs have bad memories of the Marathas.

[member_22539]

how do you explain East Bengal. Surely, this land is the diametrical opposite of the Kabila lands that you described (wet, lush, and bountiful). Your model also does not apply to the other lands that are infected by islam, namely South East Asia. Here too we find lands that are nothing like that in Arabia, Afghanistan or Central Asia. How do you explain islam taking over these lands, which are in no way insignificant as they represent the majority of people outside the Subcontinent who are zombified by the islamic virus.

Its because the only alternative culture in those lands (Hinduism, Zoroastrianism) had become ossified, static, elitist and absolutist. Absolutism of the kind that JohneeG ji was justifying a few posts above is a fine road to stagnation. Stagnation will ultimately invite foreign conquest, just as the Islamized Middle East did from the Western colonialists. That's why Rudra ji was saying that Westerns see Islamism as a useful "slash and burn" tool to level out the old competing Asiatic civilizations in order to then move in once the Islamic stasis subsequently sets in.

Can u give me any examples as to how Hinduism in these lands were significantly more ossified than in the rest of India.

[Agnimitra]

Its because the only alternative culture in those lands (Hinduism, Zoroastrianism) had become ossified, static, elitist and absolutist.

Can u give me any examples as to how Hinduism in these lands were significantly more ossified than in the rest of India.

Based on level of identification and contact with the core.

From what I glean, places like far east end of India as well as Indonesia were in the penumbra or "second world" of Hindu civilization for a period of time. That usually creates an elite mentality, where certain fascinated elites associate with their "first world" cultural peers while being aloof from the less educated commons. Its a fair guess that this common social dynamic was at play in the case of Indic civilization too. In India, for a time, records indicate that a Brahmin traveling into E. Bengal area had to purify himself when returning westward. Their accent is made fun of even today. I believe there was a similar case w.r.t. Kashmir for a while. Some Sanskrit plays make fun of the forced accents and mispronunciations of enthusiastic visitors from Kashmir area, etc. No doubt, the people of these penumbra regions were enthusiastic about Hinduism, but there was definitely a stratification and elitism based on levels of duplication and closeness to the core state. A section of the elites there would become very good and even exceptionally productive contributors to Indic civilizational culture. But on the other hand, competing elites in those very areas would also have encouraged a divide in order to find an opening in which they could create a loyal constituency, using regional chauvinism vis a vis the Indic core. So both forces would have been at play, which creates a dialectic equilibrium that stops the deeper empowerment and cross-cultural mobility of geographically diverse regions.

In Persia, after the Macedonian invasion and destruction, there was a Zoroastrian chauvinist movement and a "revival" that sought to "cleanse" their society of all "impure", "un-Aryan" Greek influences. Consequently, this "revival" was conservative, resentful, aggressive, irredentist, assinine and power-based - rather than based on an expansive love of certain cultural values and a self-discovery and renewal of all cultural iterations in present time. This sort of dynamic tends to create a priest-ruler cabal that uses fundamentalist positioning and elite institutions in order to influence and mobilize their own society as well as neighboring societies. While this can be effective in a limited way, they eventually paint themselves into a corner, since the fundamentalism is based on rejectionism and eliminationism of exterior forms rather than thoughtful assimilation and discrimination of subtle memes. Since it goes against human nature, a socio-political divide or a compulsive neurosis is created. This proves brittle in the face of a shock attack.

JMT.

[Rudradev]

I also don't see why you still think that I am "equating" geography with the spread of Islamic ideology. I have expressed what I believe are the very real geographical factors that have influenced the spread of Islam and why they are relevant in our region today. I am surprised that after all the explanations from many posters, you apparently cannot tell the difference between these two ideas.

Rudradev Ji, on one note if at all you wanted to find fault with a reading of your post, you should have with Devesh's conclusion from your writing..and i quote again:

basically the ideology is not suitable for fertile lands, which is what RD says.

That should have raised your hackles if at all...but you choose to defend that assertion. No the ideology is unsuited at all times to any geography.

Harbans ji, one simple question: what exactly do you mean by "unsuitable?"

I use it in the sense that an evolutionary biologist may use it to describe selection pressures. As for example, "tropical waters are unsuitable for the breeding habits of the Atlantic Salmon." Of course, this is from the point of view of the object being studied, i.e. the Salmon.

In this case the object being studied is the Islamic Kabila. And yes, as Devesh-ji says, it is less suited to fertile lands.

A fertile land has more resource centers, trade routes and market centers than a Kabila can monopolize, simply by acting as a mobile armed camp. If the Kabila wants to monopolize these things in a fertile land, it must invest to some extent in the factors of production there. The process of investment makes a Kabila settle down and become weak. Therefore, fertile lands are relatively unsuitable to an Islamic Kabila just as inhospitable lands are very suitable to an Islamic Kabila.

This is the sense in which Devesh ji (and Rajesh A-ji, Carl ji, Johnee G-ji, Ramana ji and everyone else who has responded to my post) understand my meaning of the word "unsuitable".

You alone, in this discussion, appear to be using the word "unsuitable" to mean something completely different. So what do you mean by "unsuitable"? Do you mean immoral, adharmic, inhumane etc.? If that is what you mean then you haven't understood what I am saying, and you are simply getting stuck on semantic hurdles. Repeating that

That ideology i repeat is unsuitable to any geographical location.

only underscores your fundamental confusion on this point.

So stop misleading folks.

I consider the membership of BRF my intellectual peers if not betters; they are not dimwits who can be "misled" by something I post on an internet forum. Certainly they have the capacity to understand and critique it for themselves.

Geographical factors have only impeded the spread of Islam, not curtailed it. It may have had some impact in the past, but it is meaningless and plain rubbish to keep repeating that today that it helped in the past.. we see how ruthlessly our culture has been eradicated in Pak/ BD.

It has not been eradicated. Bengali culture is alive and well. Punjabi and Sindhi culture are alive and well. They have been displaced from the lands of present-day BD/Pak for the time being. That is all. They survive and thrive, and the time will come when they can reoccupy those lands.

And there is no comparison between the present state of Bengali/Punjabi cultures vs. the plight of pre-Islamic Byzantine, Egyptian, Persian or Mesopotamian cultures... which amply proves the relevance of geography.

You seem to be using "Soft" to mean "tolerant towards the infidel." That is a completely different usage of the word, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my theory. In no way are the Kabila of TSPA/ISI, or their Tanzeem apparatus, "tolerant towards the infidel"

Rudradev Ji.. What exactly do you mean it had nothing to with what theory. You only mentioned this:

The LANDS of West Punjab, Sindh and Eastern Bengal are currently dominated by Muslims: but as I have explained, the geographic nature of these lands means that any Muslim domination of them swims AGAINST the tide of history. A Muslim power that takes hold of these lands will, of historical necessity, become a soft Kabila.

Once again Harbans-ji, you are asking "Who is Sita?"

Here is what is meant by a SOFT Kabila, in the sense that I use it.

SOFT Kabila equals a settled Kabila that is no longer mobile, ruthless and maneuverable because it has become too "settled". It is too heavily invested in the territory under its control. This makes it inefficient, corrupt, and vulnerable to attacks by other strong and mobile Kabilas.

SOFT Kabila does NOT equal a Kabila that is "tolerant" or "kind" towards kaffirs. In fact, many SOFT Kabilas become especially harsh in their persecution of infidels as an overcompensation for missing the traits of a strong Kabila. This is exactly what has happened in TSP.

That is as simple as I can make it.

Lets be clear on this..

1. Doctrinal spread has little to do with geography.

If doctrinal spread has "little to do with geography", why were there no Christians in America before 1492?

That is as ridiculous an assertion as I have ever heard. What is "Doctrine"? It is the codification of principles in an ideological belief system. An ideological belief system is an essential characteristic of a society. And EVERY society to ever exist on earth has been influenced, at the most profound level, by the geography and climate of the land it inhabits.

If you want to argue this point, you will have to debunk every system of social sciences in existence, because they all recognize (as a fundamental precept) the influence of geography and climate on the evolution of human behaviour and belief systems.

2. Protection of some cultures escaping alien doctrine may have a little protection and time because of geography.

What else would geography give them, except resources and time? Is it a Magic Bullet? Is the land itself going to open up and swallow the invader? Is the sea going to part for the refugees, and then drown the pursuers? Of course it is time and resources... everything else is fantasy from Hollywood blockbusters or the Bible. But the consequences of geography affording time and resources determine the life and death of civilizations.

2. Adharmic doctrines have no basis anywhere, whatever the geography may be.

It is utterly useless to argue that something has "no basis" when it has an existence. Islam exists. What are you going to do about it? Saying it has "no basis" is not going to get Pakistan or BD back for you. Studying the weaknesses of the Kabila system in those countries is at least a beginning.

Fact: Kabila system prospers, endures and successfully extinguishes pre-Islamic cultures in certain geographies. Fact: Kabila system becomes weakened by investment and "settling", and it is also less able to extinguish pre-Islamic cultures, in certain other geographies. Islamic ideology does not need to have a "basis" for either of these things to happen. They have already happened.

The basis of strength in our country, our Dharma lies in our belief on these 3 above.

This unique definition of Dharma as lying in these three beliefs must be specified in some shruti which I have never encountered.

Your post weakens that fundamentally.

Sir, maybe your Dharma can be "weakened fundamentally" by a discussion on an internet forum. My Dharma is stronger than that. The Dharma of hundreds of posters on BRF, and of 800 million Indians, is far stronger than that. It is not a paranoid doctrine that relies on stifling the spirit of inquiry and censoring the thoughts of its adherents, in order to be "strong."

We already have people quoting you, saying that some doctrines are valid in some geographic locales.

Please point out to me where I said anything about any doctrine being "valid". I have said that certain geographic locales are conducive to the prosperity of particular doctrines, being that their expansion is based on the Kabila model. I have further said that other types of geographic locales are less conducive for those doctrines.

Where does the question of "validity" arise? If anyone has quoted me as saying that Islam becomes morally "valid" in certain geographies then they are misquoting me. Devesh-ji has not said anything like that, and neither have I.

Pakjab is the last example of a soft Kabila one can give..

That is because you still don't understand what is meant by a "soft" Kabila.

[KLNMurthy]

How does the kabila theory explain the Ottoman empire which lasted for quite a long time, 1453-1918, presumably having to become "soft", but little troubled by hard kabilas as far as I know? At least one writer I have read claims that the Ottomans were mostly Muslim only in name and form but not in essence. I don't know if that amounts to defining the problem out of existence (as in TSP-speak of, Pakiban can't be Muslims because they kill Muslims).

[Atri]

Atri ji,
good point. It is not only their dream but a natural outcome of their actions(which are guided by their attitudes shaped by the ideologies). So, sujalam suphalam of Bharatvarsha may be directly co-related with the nature worshipping of Hindus.

It is the outcome of linear model of time in western system which has its origins since Roman times. Abrahmics too took this understanding in their narrative. - http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 16#p901616

The time taken for a tree to grow roots and form a self-sustaining ecology is immense. The time taken to cut down the tree is comparatively negligible. The land and various janapadas and deshas in Bhaarata were connected in similar fashion. This connection was permanently damaged with invasion of Islamic hordes. The destruction of this carefully laid down network of thousands of years was the greatest loss of India in past 1000 years. Several things got distorted, the proportion of various varnas in society was disturbed this resulted in many malignancies. For a society of linear model as "obedient" as Abrahamics or Romans, the only way to sustain is to "expand". In many ways, this model resembles that of a virus. I am not talking in negative OR positive sense and trying to remain morally neutral. But the tendency to form a symbiotic relationship with land we live in and people and ecology we live with is absent in linear model of time. Here the linear model has received divine blessings as well.

Let us look at the term "strategic depth" from this point of view. In this context, strategic depth implies what Rudradeva ji talked about. Shivaji retreating to hills of western ghats from plains of Pune is a strategic depth. Indics retreating to vedanta and further to strong dvaita-vedanta as result of onslaught of abrahamic exclusivist dualism is also a "strategic depth".

For good or evil, the tactic of "सर्व नाशात् समुत्पन्ने अर्धं त्यजति पण्डितः" (when prospects of complete destruction are near, wise men sacrifice the suffering half and salvage the healthy half) has been popular in reaction of Indians in post Ghori era. This is verily against the "Kshaatra Dharma" (King's and warrior's code of honour). But challenge like this one (Islamic invasion on all fronts) could have been answered by this strategy alone. The very creation of Pakistan (leave aside the great game and british interests) was result of above "Indic" tendency. Otherwise, why did many people support partition, in spite of emotional trauma?

The barelwi people of Pakjab (which form bulk of the population and army) are the last remaining "Hindus" in Pakistan. Notwithstanding their rabid hatred for India and Hindus, they still cherish the concept of "Nation". This very concept is Unislamic. Being a "nationalist" is a kufr simply because all lands belong to Allah alone. This is why few Deobandi people opposed partition. This is also why wahabis, ahle hadis, deobandis of TSP form bulk of militants.

Barelvi dominated army has become an "invested" tree in "land" which they consider as their own (pakjab). They did and will do anything to save this land and their hold over it. The fact that TSPA have guboed and compromised so many times in front of powerful counterpart to save their "land" from being taken away.

The only party which credibly threatened to take away this land from TSPA was India. Because what they fear most is prospects of "united India". They know that the land which they temporarily occupy is India, has been India and will be India again. the pull of history is too strong to ignore. however, they are hedging their bets to delay that as much as possible.

Ironically for them, the biggest challenger to this "idea" of Pakistan is not SDREs from east but TFTA from Wahabandi madrasaas.

In one of my article I had made a gradient scale of Indian philosophies. If 0 is charvaka (no allegiance to Vedas and no proof except direct perception) and 10 is Mimansa (fanatic adherence to rituals in Vedas to its last details), then everyone is a "Naastika" from PoV of Mimansa and everyone is "aastika" from PoV of Chaarvaka. Similarly, from PoV of Wahabi, everybody else is kufr onlee. Deobandis are less Kufr than sufis, that is the only difference.

When such an extreme ideology gets hold of social mind (Samaaja Maanasa) the strategic depth ends. It is a non-negotiable position from where the only outcome is victory or death. Such society is destined to become a talibani. India's geography plays important factor for Indics, not for "true" ghazis. The fact that what proportion of Muslims choose to become "true ghazi" and what proportion is "compromised" and gets invested in land and people they live in, is a variable which determines the future course of events.

Just like when we say the word "Indic" or "Dharma", we mean all the dharmik philosophies on the gradient scale. Similarly, the word "Islam" also represents an operating system with similar gradient scale (albeit very less flexible and diverse as compared to Dharma).

The fall of TSPA and rise of a khalifa will truly mark the end of last remaining sanskara of "Dharma" in Pakjabi people. India's actions, either knowingly or unknowingly, since 1996 (fall of Kabul), have been to save this sanskara from vanishing.

This can be interpreted as "Moha" of India that she is merely delaying the inevitable. Or this can be interpreted as her strategy because in her understanding, there still is hope and all is not lost. OR she was just buying time.

I can see two historical anecdotes for this situation. Again a repetitive phenomenon in Indian history.

1. Skandagupta solution - Pakistan will be allowed to go fully Islamic when Indian Army and society of India (that is hindus) will be raised to the standard of Gupta era. The army will break the back of these barbarians while upwardly mobile society will assimilate them in the Hindu social order. By barbarians, I mean not the TSPA , but the talibani hordes.

2. Jayachandra solution - India in her negligence will fall to internal squabbles and one party might invite these hordes to settle few internal scores. This need not happen in classical sense of invading horde, but can also be done by letting in huge number of jihadis, giving them electoral cards and carefully reorganizing the constituencies.

[harbans]

In short, geography will not in itself stop the invasions. It will provide people resources to stop the invasions. Of course, ultimately, the people will have to do the thing. If they dont want to do it, then nothing can help(not even nature).

Yes i have been saying that too. Rudra Ji too, and thus we must conclude that geography is not a factor apart from the slowing down/ recouping part for the invaded when considering Islamic expansion. IIRC the fertile lands of present day Pakistan were taken in around less than 5 years by Bin Qasim.

It was always the case actually anywhere, that once in power the group settles down to the luxury and trappings of power. There is no revelation about that. But those that settle down don't end up Kabila style raids. They encouraged expeditions, raids etc on infidels elsewhere. I don't see how geography impeded Kasabs and the ISI/ PA combo sending other raiding parties into forays within India. I thought talking to Pakistan about it's continuing terrorist activity was hot.

Rudra Ji, i am trying to understand your post in all sincerity so there is nothing personal. I do as i have stated, believe the linkage with geography and it's conversion to a model of sorts as a fundamentally incorrect way of looking at the spread of Islamic doctrine.

I also personally and i am sure most here believe that all human beings have a right to share resources in a fair manner irrespective of geography. That geography influences behavioral patterns is one thing (IIRC Phenotype), but it's another to say that a particular harsh doctrine is natural to people of a particular geography. Tibet by that measure should never have embraced and honored Dharma. Our seers meditated in forests and mountains away from hospitable areas and came out with the profound philosophies and doctrines that found resonance within peoples living in all kinds of geography within India. The deserts of Rajasthan hosted Dharmic Rajputs, the harsh climes of Tibet, Leh, Sikkim, Bhutan anchored Dharma in their own manner.

Even within Arabia developed schools of thought that taught turning the other cheek to an eye for an eye. It is in this context giving primacy to geography with regards to doctrinal spread that i mentioned 'misleading'.

The process of investment makes a Kabila settle down and become weak. Therefore, fertile lands are relatively unsuitable to an Islamic Kabila just as inhospitable lands are very suitable to an Islamic Kabila.

Just a question to try and understand this point better, where did Kabila's remain unsettled after attaining the trappings of power? As far as Islamic societies within lush India or the deserts of Arabia there was always intrigue..Mohammed himself became quite wealthy after numerous raids but continued to harden and encourage others to raid others towards the end. The same applies to Pakistani Generals of today. Ghazwa e Hind if i know is amongst the hottest threads in some unmentionable parts of the web and Pakistan itself. Green flag on the Red fort is an ongoing effort if i remember.

[member_20317]

on the Indonesian conversion:
So it wasn't a top-down process. It was:
1. First, the formation of an idealogically tight-assed, controllable segment of human resources in the population.
2. This is followed by some members of the elites moving in to become leaders of this new dynamic segment of the commons.
3. this is then followed by this converted elite displacing the main rulers to snatch power.

Lets be clear on this..

1. Doctrinal spread has little to do with geography.
2. Protection of some cultures escaping alien doctrine may have a little protection and time because of geography.
2. Adharmic doctrines have no basis anywhere, whatever the geography may be.

I can see two historical anecdotes for this situation. Again a repetitive phenomenon in Indian history.

1. Skandagupta solution - Pakistan will be allowed to go fully Islamic when Indian Army and society of India (that is hindus) will be raised to the standard of Gupta era. The army will break the back of these barbarians while upwardly mobile society will assimilate them in the Hindu social order. By barbarians, I mean not the TSPA , but the talibani hordes.

2. Jayachandra solution - India in her negligence will fall to internal squabbles and one party might invite these hordes to settle few internal scores. This need not happen in classical sense of invading horde, but can also be done by letting in huge number of jihadis, giving them electoral cards and carefully reorganizing the constituencies.

Quoting from 3 posts that encapsulate the reality, the reaction and the solution and the problem.

JMT though. But I guess I will persist in error if I am committing one here because to my mind the general Indic population is actually behaving based on these very drivers.

I was focused more on the mechanics of it all.

[member_20317]

thus we must conclude that geography is not a factor apart from the slowing down/ recouping part for the invaded when considering Islamic expansion.

As far as Islamic societies within lush India or the deserts of Arabia there was always intrigue..Mohammed himself became quite wealthy after numerous raids but continued to harden and encourage others to raid others towards the end. The same applies to Pakistani Generals of today.

Harbans ji, these two lines don’t stand well against each other. Admittedly I am also trying to gather the rather longish posts by Rudra ji. But so far as I can understand he is trying to say that Geography will have an impact on ones outlook. Though I do agree with it in general like say a Arab having less of an understanding about how Indics live with their environment, but when and IMO as you rightly pointed out the same logic gets extended to the ideology also, things get tricky. For a relationship with the environment is much more deep set then an ideology which can be taken care of within say 5 years in Pakjab and 20 years on Iran. These places changed their ideology but not the undercurrents of their relationship with their environments.
As you and others rightly pointed out that the settled ones can be just as vicious merely by supporting their bad apples in their ghazwapan, a case, the historicity of which your second line clearly establishes. But then your first line restricts the relevance of geography to only the Invaded in their search for recuperation.
I am more amenable to working under the assumption that people of either ideology/’way of life’ will try to get whatever milage they can extract from their respective environment and in trying to do so will have both an impact on their respective environment and get impacted by their respective environment.

[harbans]

Ravi Ji, there are 2 aspects of looking at this.

1. Time of Conquest
2. Time to almost total conversion of the population.

As far as the spread of Islam is concerned geography may have had these impacts.

1. Slowing down because of barriers like the Hindu Kush.
2. Allowing the invaded to retreat 200 kms away or more and thus maintaining some sort of strategic depth.

I gave graphs on the times taken for total conversion. A country like India always had a relatively large population in comparison to countries like Iran, Egypt and many other smaller entities in the ME. In addition it had a large land mass too. So naturally we all know it would take a fair bit of time for alien ideology to take complete root.

However if one looks at Qasims conquest of Pakistan, he took less than 5 years (Pt 1). Conversion in these areas took more time. (Pt 2).

Rudra Ji is right that geography gave us breathing space in the past..but to assume it will be so in the future and bank on that aspect IMO is flawed.

I am more amenable to working under the assumption that people of either ideology/’way of life’ will try to get whatever milage they can extract from their respective environment and in trying to do so will have both an impact on their respective environment and get impacted by their respective environment.

You are right there and i am trying to say that too. There are upwards of 500 million Muslims in the Indian subcontinent. I don't find geography having slowed Islams spread here too. Indonesia is fertile, plenty of Islands and almost completely Muslim. Pakistan and BD have major demographic reductions of minority populations in the last 60 years.

While environment and geography have great influence on cultural traits it's linkage with doctrine is suspect. Tibet with it's harsh climate embraced Dharma, Rajputs in the hostile deserts of Rajasthan embraced the same, and in the deserts of Arabia we have one doctrine preaching an Turning the other cheek to another preaching an eye for an eye.

[shiv]

I think this "Kabila" business is being misnterpreted. Ramana's idea and Rudradev's model are correct - and were probably correct for Arabia and Turkey as well as today's Pakistan.

So what has changed?

What has changed is industrialization and the need for a large, educated organised workforce to produce the goods needed for power.

Before industrialization, as long as Kabilas could suck the local population for men and produce all over the world, Kabilas got only as much as they could suck. It so happened that there was a lot to suck in fertile India. The Kabila idea was a strong and successful for centuries - as long a there was no need for organizing people and creating a middle class. The Kabila got stronger or retained strength by raiding. The education system of he Kabila had no need to go beyond the madrassa university.

Once there was a take off of science and tech in Europe leading to better ships, European Kabilas in the form of colonies a new paradigm was created where industries produced goods, and those industries needed manpower trained in science and math. The products of this new society was far more powerful than the armies of any silly ancient Kabila system.

Pakistan maintains its Kabila courtesy the moronic rapist army, but that kabila cannot be strong in the absence of a powerful and competitive industrial base. That industrial base requires widespread education and trade. Europe and its son America figured this out long ago and also understood that islamic Kabilas were stupid and greedy enough to not change and let their people fight and eat shit in the name of their religion. Pakistan actually went downhill because of this.

You need education, industry and a new middle class to make a society that is stronger than any Kabila can get. Then you can have a new Kabila - colonialism.

[member_20617]

Rudradevji

Your writing skills are excellent.

I have always enjoyed reading your posts.

Your perspective corroborates what I heard before: ‘Koran in one hand and sword in another hand’

My question to you is that what do we need to do NOW to stop the complete Islamisation of Bharat Varsh?

[ramana]

harbans you have a lot of ideas in your mind and are unable to articulate them. I suggest you put them down on paper as they come and re-organize them.
I think you have something to say but its not coming out in your responses.
So dont bother to quote. Write your own ideas and then post.

I want to hear those latent thoughts.


Shankaraa, You are rushing to conclusions. Not enough people understand the Kabila model yet.

[devesh]

Harbans ji,

Punjabi/Bengali/Sindhi culture is not dead. in India they are thriving. in Pak and BD, for all their chest thumping, they still have the language (of course, Pakjabi hates its but can't get rid of it). time will come when Bharat will once directly and overtly assert its right to preserve and encourage the Bharatiya roots of Pak and BD.


KLNMurthy garu,
Ottoman Turkey, even though settled, still ruled over a desert-like environment. Turkey is not an example of fertile rich lands. more than half of the country is barren and filled with dry hill geography. Turkey is insulated from Arabs by the hilly area that the Eastern portion of Turkey has.

also, I would suggest that RD's post not be analyzed with finer than fine filters. it is a very thoughtful post which gives a unique perspective based on a thought project. it has many important aspects that should be remembered and applied as necessary.

[Klaus]

A few thought trains, needing further development after the Kabila model breakthrough on this board.

1. The crusades preceded the industrial revolution and European colonialism. So were the crusades a match-up of Islamist vs proto-Islamist (pre-renaissance Europe) Kabila model. To prove who is more of a brute model?
2. The first arrival and subsequent domination of the Spanish on the Philippine islands, after genetic changes in the Iberian peninsula effected by the North African Moor kabila. The indirect contribution of the ME/Sahara Kabila in the radicalisation of the Indo-Pacific choke-points in the medieval and modern times.
3. By Rudradev's concept of "settling", the Jews will have to be the most ruthless Kabila model society. I need a clarification on whether I am on the right track here. Is a non-settling Kabila somehow being confused with the typical hunger of migrants (economic or otherwise).
4. The Kabila model almost completely inverts and invalidates the Maslow's heirarchy of needs or whatever pretension of it existed in our minds.

A lot of abstract subjectivity in this post, I apologize but there is very little room to manoeuvre.

[Pratyush]

Ramana Ji and Rudradev Ji,

If I understand you correctly when it comes to the Kabila Model. Then the way forward if you wish to protect the settled areas of the Indian hinterland will be to keep the Kabila unsettled and off balance.

In this respect the best course of action available to for India in the short term might be to let the Taliban win in Afghanistan.

[brihaspati]

I am curious about the geography bit. A long time ago I had thought too that widespread water-body connections lead to need for coordination, and hence one way of solving the coordination problem is dictatorship or totalitarianism. But it is indeed not so simple.

Thus whether its desert or long riparian or maritime networks - do not matter. What matters is whether those networks are actually composed of small productive centres who cannot grow much beyond the subsistence phase without coopting similar many other such centres.

(1) the centres cannot be big and produce enough surplus on their own
(2) the centres are strategically dependent on other centres for perceived "necessary" items.
(3) the centres are continually in the need a of an unifying, overtly difference erasing, ideology that can sustain a totalitarian control over disparate centres - towards concentration of resources.

If maritime connectivity was alone a determinant - then Indonesia fits, coastal east Africa fits, coastal western India fits - but then why was Sri Lanka spared, why was the TN/AP coast spared? Were they really that unattractive compared to the Islamist infected places nearby in Kerala or Bengal? Same goes for the Med: southern shores gone down, but northern shores remain uninfluenced.
If Indonesia fell under the spell, what stopped nearby Kambodia, Thailand or Vietnam? In fact the the first suspected Indonesian Buddhist prince who converted and brought Islam tangibly into power escaped for a time into coastal mainland - survived by piracy for a time and then made his move back with the help of "peaceful" Sufi "saints".

Why did the countless islands of the Aegean remain unconverted in spite of being under actual control of the Turks?

If rivers, then Sindhu and Ganga fits, but other long rivers of central and south India do not fit. Mekong or Iravati does not fit. Volga drains through Cossak land into a sea very much the domain of Islamists. Why was the Dnieper, or Rhine not similarly conducive to Islamist expansion even if they connected to Islamist zones at various time points?

(a) a defeated or endangered society will adopt the ideology of the invader, powerful in a way that still retains some distinctions from that of the invader. The sens eof this distinction will carry through the generations - and will be a constant source of friction and future attempts at sectarian separatism.

Thus the Germanics chose Arrian Christianity (even the great Charlemagne) as against Roman/Italian Christianity. The Greeks and the Egyptians chose the Coptics/Gnostic version against the Byzantian. If one faction chose iconoclasm the other chose icoinodule version. The Germanics remained ideologically separated, even if falling under total Roman christian spell and produced the Protestants. Persians retained their pre-Islamic Indo-Airanyian core by distinguishing themselves through Shia-ism.

In Sindh, the solarists of Multain chose Islamailism, and the Sindhi Buddhists chose various flavours of mysticism within a reconstruction of Arabian or Gulf Islam.

(b) for a society to rebel against an externally imposed ideology, the memes of similar rebellion againt previous entrenched ideologies - must be present as a tradition and as a meme.

Thus, the strongest danger to Islamism is likely to come from Turks and Iranians - who led a protracted struggle against Arabs and their allies against conversion. It is not entirely impossible that the relative success of Islam in the Buddhist dominated areas of the subcontinent because these areas had not gone through similar anti-establishment struggles before [religious conquest had been peaceful]

(c) a puritanical and imperialist ideology based on hard values - will always expose strak contrast in claimed and actual behaviour of the proponents, and thereby the more successful it is initially, the greater is the ultimate disillusionment. But long establishment of such ideologies also promote a hunger for alternatives that promise to restore that purity - and hence switches after disillusionment will go for exact theoretical/claimed replacements and not something moderate or of more flexible/contextual values.

[ramana]

Pratyush, Slowly in the late 20th century, people started reading the Koran as a political document and are understanding its meaning. The Bible is still not studied in similar manner except by obtuse scholars. the Bible is also a poltical document in addition to being religious docuemnt.

The kabila is the fusion of the nomads with messanic ideology. It energizes and reinforces the worst aspect of nomadic life.

So far by focussing on the kabila guards who keep the kabila in place we don't focus on the messanics (maniacs) who drive them.

The more green Taliban will replace the moderate messanics. The guards are mere monkleys with swords as in the Panchatantra story.

[KLNMurthy]

KLNMurthy garu,
Ottoman Turkey, even though settled, still ruled over a desert-like environment. Turkey is not an example of fertile rich lands. more than half of the country is barren and filled with dry hill geography. Turkey is insulated from Arabs by the hilly area that the Eastern portion of Turkey has.

also, I would suggest that RD's post not be analyzed with finer than fine filters. it is a very thoughtful post which gives a unique perspective based on a thought project. it has many important aspects that should be remembered and applied as necessary.

You may be right about Ottoman empire's geography though I wonder about the relatively unmolested longevity.

The model articulated by Rudradev is very good and deserves close scrutiny and refining.

[harbans]

Harbans ji,

Punjabi/Bengali/Sindhi culture is not dead. in India they are thriving. in Pak and BD, for all their chest thumping, they still have the language (of course, Pakjabi hates its but can't get rid of it). time will come when Bharat will once directly and overtly assert its right to preserve and encourage the Bharatiya roots of Pak and BD.

Sorry Devesh Ji..somehow missed that. Yes you are right. And Parsi's too found strategic depth in India. Do we consider that even Kashmiri Pandit culture is intact that the refugee camps in Delhi and Jammu host them? The Kalash culture in POK is almost finished i heard. They don't have more strategic depth left there.

Majority Islamic areas will emerge in India also, where Islamists will hold sway. Appeasement politics will redefine to granting self determination in such areas, possibly within loose autonomous federations that grant Sharia rights, leading to more non Islamic migrating to areas that provide strategic depth and so on till there is strategic depth only left in US/ Canada/ Fiji/ Australia etc.

We don't have enough geography to hold out forever. Our forefathers could have had that luxury, we don't. Our approach to creeping Islamization has to be looking beyond the geographical perspective.

[SandeepA]

Very interesting discussion! Thanks for this thread.
Just a nitpick..can we call it the Qabilah instead of the more Indic sounding Kabila?

I suspect the popular use of names like Kasab and Headley is a conspiracy to make it seem more non-Islamic. We must really be calling them for what they are Qasab and Dawood Sayyed Gilani. No need to fall into that trap

[Agnimitra]

We don't have enough geography to hold out forever. Our forefathers could have had that luxury, we don't. Our approach to creeping Islamization has to be looking beyond the geographical perspective.

Very well said.

1. That's why I suggested to Rudradev ji that there is a psychological/mythical equivalent of the geopolitical qabilah metaphor.

2. In today's urbanized landscape, even in Western countries, there are certain psycho-social contours in the demographics on which the qabilah game will be played.

3. In this view, geography is not a medium or a barrier, considering the phenomenon of leapfrogging in a technological, networked age.

4. The colonization and cornering of geographical and biological resources will be the end-effect of this long process that will begin from this psycho-social landscape.

5. Therefore, just as geography, military, economics and technology are considered in mapping this qabilah theory out, one must add the dimension of psychology and spirituality. Only then a consistent model can be developed. Otherwise, significant exceptions will always be found.

[devesh]

harbans ji,

if you read my post again you will see that I specifically said that time will come again Bharat will reassert her rights on the lost lands. I didn't mean that as an excuse for not doing anything. it is merely my observation that those cultures are still alive and we will go on offensive soon. I agree with you on that: there is no more room for defensive agenda. the Sindhu+Ganga polity needs a radical re-calibration. the Deccan can only do so much when most of the fertile land and massive population are with the S+G system...

[brihaspati]

Qabilah is a good way of understanding Islam. However, it does not explain some crucial features as they obtain over India. This is what I have always been worried about.

When we use Islam's experience in lands and cultures outside of India to model what happens in the subcontinent, we may miss the core drivers of Islamism. The Qabilah is a form of organization designed for a specific purpose - that of ghazwas on similar other cultures and societies. The ghazwa is designed solely to grab biological resources - women, land, animals, water. The theology is actually a mechanism to free the ghazi of any guilt from this greed or human empathy towards potential victim.

This is the core driver of Islamism - a mechanism to do away with all and any guilt about satisfying biological hunger at the cost of immense pain on other humans. This has consequences. This requires that no "higher" or sophisticated philosophy can be allowed to sow doubts in the ghazi's minds, no educational approach that teaches to question given wisdom can be allowed. Mechanism to ensure total control over women and reduction of women to mere biological pleasure bundles guarantees a captive source of reward to ghazis. All that remains is food and water - which can be guaranteed by control over agricultural means of production - land and irrigation. To a certain extent, agrarian lifestyles allow relatively lower investments into knowledge gathering and thereby reduces the risk perception of the mullahcracy about the qabilah getting "dangerous" ideas from modern education.

Thus the main purpose of the mullahcracy is to provide an amoebic cell, which will absorb the basic materials - land, women, water, wealth - from the host body, but which will only give out waste products and not release lucrative nutrients. The cell's border is a virtual border which is used to keep out the dangerous influences. This is why mullahcracy influence leads to ghettoization and territorial consolidation - because they crucially need homogenous contiguity inside.

The "armed camp" fights not just with metal swords or guns, but also with ideology in situations where the host is more numerous and more sophisticated. The ideology is of virtual camp walls reinforced by textual claims and traditions, garbed within clothes like "spirituality" simply to use terms of debate and discourse within the host.

The ideological protection, and demands of state protection of their cultural identities by Islamists - is the crucial weapon with which mullahcracy fights towards its long term biological goals.

[ramana]

Bji, I posted this a few post above yours.

Pratyush, Slowly in the late 20th century, people started reading the Koran as a political document and are understanding its meaning. The Bible is still not studied in similar manner except by obtuse scholars. the Bible is also a poltical document in addition to being religious docuemnt.

The kabila is the fusion of the nomads with messanic ideology. It energizes and reinforces the worst aspect of nomadic life.

So far by focussing on the kabila guards who keep the kabila in place we don't focus on the messanics (maniacs) who drive them.

The more green Taliban will replace the moderate messanics. The guards are mere monkleys with swords as in the Panchatantra story.

Have you read the earlier book. it also has similar injunctions to fortify the spirit of laggards.

[brihaspati]

ramana ji,
I agree fully with your post. Only thing I would like to add is that the representation of the messianic evolved towards "spirituality" within the "original" [diasporic Judaism] whereas it never went into that direction at all within Islam. Christianity represents a transition between the two. Messianism in the latter two are cover stories for imperialism.

Pakistan's line of progress through time -is the manifestation of what I outlined. The first stage was formation of the cells in British India - and sharpening or strengthening the virtual borders through ideology. The second stage was creating territorial consolidation of the cells. The correct realization in the mullahcracy that lack of territorial consolidation weakens the cell manifested in the independence of BD. However, in a way formation of BD was boon to Islamism. Only much later the upcoming generations of mullahcracy realized that splinter cells were actually a good tactical line to spread Islamism around when the cell faces a strong non-Muslim culture.

Different cells can create the impression that some of them are anti-cells and curry favour with the non-Muslims. In the long run, the advantages gained so by pretension from the non-Muslims will come in handy in a single call for a single cell to be merged again. In the future, BD will join in the overall Islamism that the mullahcracy hopes to unleash on the subcontinent. People should not also be shocked to see future hands of "friendship" extended from the sea of Rabindrasangeet and land of special visits from the supremely religion neutral one and only ruling family of India - towards Pakiland and its culture or ideology.

At the moment Pakiland cell is simply consolidating its identity resources. The so-called subnationalims so fondly mentioned as tearing Pakiland apart - are manifestation of the same process. Even if some of us claim that Indian aggression or aggressive response would unify the Pakis, and disunify them if India remains passive - the fact of the matter is, Islamic consolidation is an inherent organic process whenever the mullahcracy and their institutions are allowed to survive and are protected by state authority from competition.

Whetehr India does anything or not, Pakiland mullahfication will continue. I think the falsity in the official Indian line - that non-intervention will promote centrifugal forces, is revealed when the same line states that any intervention will immediately unify all centrifugal forces. Surely both cannot remain true for decades. If centrifugal forces are really working then over time it ha sto go beyond a point when unifying is impossible. If these decades of centrifugalism still can be wiped off in a single moment of Indian activity - obviously centrifugal forces are just a sham.