Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

[Rahul M]

this post is a keeper !!

[svinayak]

If there were no need for a nation-state, I don't see why the Indian nation will need to create it to exist. If there were no Indian nation, I don't see how a nation-state can sustain by magic marker. There are a few examples of this kind, but they have mostly risen by invaders managing to wipe out what existed.

S
thanks for presenting my thoughts in a nut-shell !

re: bolded part, also internal disturbances, UK, for example or pre 1971 pakistan.

IOW, a nation is a much more durable idea than a state and only a state based upon a nation can hope to survive and prosper. without a nation at its core, the dismantling of a nation state is a matter of time.

The invaders wiping out what existed is the key to take control and change the nation.
Wiping out history and identity is part of the conversion process. Education and media are the key to control nations in the modern period.

[svinayak]

India is a civilization and one of the oldest.

Civilization is probably the best word to use, but then we dragged into what Indian civilization is.

Is it Hindu civilization at its core with Muslim civilization, tribal civilization, Buddhist civilization added to it or is like an amoeba that just combines with the other. This is ultimately a circular argument. We've been here many times before and we haven't come to a consensus.

You need to resolve it within yourself.

[svinayak]

Read the sathyanarayana puja katha

But this does not prove anything about what people identified themselves as across India. Can you quote the relevant passages? I have had that read to me on and off several times but seem to have missed this - so kindly enlighten

I dont have the actual text here but shows the continuum.

[svinayak]

This modernism and nation state are really fake and not real in the course of history.
People will form their nation based on shared common values(Dharma) and history(Puranas)

Could you explain further?

Many people argue that the nation itself is fake because it does not exist naturally. That recognition and pride in something (language, heroes, common values) is created artificially by elites and higher ups, not something the common person comes to realize on their own.

As such, a nation is not said to technically exist until the people say they belong to a nation. For example, we can trace the history of a given group of people with a specific set of common values, cultural mores, etc. but we cannot technically call them a nation unless the people rally behind it and act as a unit, act in favor it, or in general recognize through laws, celebrations, literature, or even political parties, otherwise it is not considered to exist.

I should have used the term State only.
Nation is people who share the same values.(Race, Ethnicity, culture, religion etc.)

State is the physical boundaries of the nation.
People by voting and choosing the leaders who will rule them periodically are creating a nation based on common values.

[shiv]

Every Purana text contains a section called Bhuvan Kosh, in which the boundaries of the land called Bharatavarsha are clearly defined and its progeny is given a common name Bharati. A list of all the Janapadas scattered all over the country is given alongwith the lists of rivers and mountains. A smaller list of seven holy rivers, mountains and cities symbolizing the unity of the land are given there. These slokas were meant for daily recital. List of "punyasthan" or tirthas are explicitly given in the Puranas as well as Mahabharata. These pilgrim centers cover the whole land.

This devotion to the land is not confined to its physical or material aspect only. Vishnu Purana states that the gods in heaven also feel envious of those who are born in the land of Bharatavarsha because the gods after the expiry of their merits will have to take rebirth on the earth while those born in Bharata will be able to transcend the cycle of rebirth. Chapter 9 of the Bhishmaparva in Mahabharata describes Bharatavarsha. While singing the greatness of Bharatavarsha the narrator gives a long list of ancient kings who loved this land - combining the very modern elements of "patriotism, love of the land".

Thus, we find that all the ingredients of the group consciousness called nationalism are present here. This consciousness of the geographical unity exists in the Samkalpa mantra meant to be part of daily prayers and was recited at the beginning of every sacred act or ritual. Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerji goes to the extent “India was preaching the gospel of nationalism when Europe was passing through what has been aptly called the Dark Age of her history, and was labouring under the travails of a new birth". (Nationalism in Hindu Culture, London 1921, 2nd Edition 1957, p. 47)

brihaspati those are useful references - but really do not show anything new and still do not reveal how the sense that everybody recognized and revered the land translated into a collective effort to protect and hold that land secure from invaders. I am not disputing that there was a sense of one common nation.

This is an elephant in the room that too many people are choosing to ignore.

Why and under which leaders did the people of India (or Prithvi, or Bharatvarsha, or Jambudwipa) develop a sufficient mass of common consciousness to unite and rise up to

1) remove an invader
2) Stamp a border on the land of Bharat that was considered inviolable.

I will answer my take on the question below and would be happy to hear why anyone feels I might be wrong

Asokan inscriptions use a common dialect and script with minor regional variations addressed to the "commons". They use the term Jambudvipa. Samkalpa mantra treats Bharat Khande or Varsh as a part of Jambudvipa. Kautilya Arthashastra of 4th Century B.C. while defining the territory to be conquered by a Chakravarti King defines it as the land between the Himalayas and the ocean from north to south and eight thousand miles from east to west. (Book 9, Chapter 1, Prakarana 135-136 -R.D.Shyamasastry). Dr. R.K. Mookerji believes that the conception of a single power dominating the whole country had not originated with Chandragupta Maurya or Kautilya rather it must have been much older then Chandragupta, Aitreya Brahmana (VIII 15) also presents the same ideal, i.e. there should be one ruler of this Prithvi upto the seas.

In both the above references the word Prithvi has been used as the name of the country. In Mahagovindsutta of Digha Nikaya (considered the oldest portion of Tripitakakas) "Maha Prithvi" name has been given to the land whose shape has been compared with that of a bullock cart which happens to be rectangular in the north and conical in the south. (Rahul Sankrityayana in Hindi had identified this with Bharat). Obviously, the word Prithvi could not have been used for the whole earth beyond Bharatavarsha..
<snip>

Again - while there is deep emotion and love expressed for the land - that has never translated into the need to protect the land against invaders. In fact the above passage is exactly the opposite - it bears advice for an invader on the area of lands he must conquer. The ideas are completely innocent of the possibility that really alien people from really far away may come and conquer these same lands. The Arthasastra quoted in red actually advises a Chakravarti to gain control of these lands. Conquering these lands seems necessary for a King and no consciousness appears to exist about how bad outside conquerors may be.

The word India and Hindu occur nowhere in these texts. Why do we use them and why are they so important today?

I put it to you that despite protestations at the role of the foreigner in defining the Indian, a whole lot of Indians have (by fractal recursivity) accepted these definitions and words over and above the textual references.

Now to my question and my take on it

Why and under which leaders did the people of India (or Prithvi, or Bharatvarsha, or Jambudwipa) develop a sufficient mass of common consciousness to unite and rise up to

1) remove an invader
2) Stamp a border on the land of Bharat that was considered inviolable.

The consciousness that active unity to protect well defined borders arose among Indians only after they acquired the concept of "nation state" which defines all the requirements for protection of nationalism. It sets in stone the bedrock on which geography can be protected. Protecting the geography is a fundamental step in protecting the culture or a people.

I see plenty of references to show that ancient Bharatvasis were aware of and revered their geography, but not a single one asking them to unite to protect that geography against an invader, or how to do that. In fact the Arthasatra actually advises the invader on what he should do in a naive belief perhaps that he will be a dharmic Chakravarti. It is obvious that Kautilya did not anticipate Mohammad.

It was modernism that added a new layer of consciousness to the Indian. Why do you think Modern India included the Muslims as its own but excluded the British? Why did the movement to protect geography not appear during the first Muslim invasions?

[shiv]

If there were no need for a nation-state, I don't see why the Indian nation will need to create it to exist. If there were no Indian nation, I don't see how a nation-state can sustain by magic marker. There are a few examples of this kind, but they have mostly risen by invaders managing to wipe out what existed.

S

In theory a nation state can be created out of nothing. Pakistan IMO was an effort to create a nation state out of nothing.

If Indians and Pakistanis are "the same people" why does India show the appearance of surviving while Pakistan appears to be shakier than India.

That is because there definitely is a sense of one culture and one nation within India. It was that sense that was sought to be destroyed by the idea of Pakistan, and replaced by a cooked up sense of Nation of Islam.

The existence of a geographic area where the people have cultural/religious links makes it easier to set up a nation state.

As I have pointed out earlier - the relatively recent concept of "nation state" introduced inviolability of borders. I repeat that there is plenty of evidence to show that Indians felt like one nation for millennia and even knew the geographic boundaries. But only the establishment of an "Indian nation state" laid the frame work of a structure to protect the boundaries by all possible means.

American Indians are an example of a people with common culture but no basis for uniting into a force that would be able to defend the huge North American landmass. They were defeated militarily and demographically and the nation state of the "USA" was conjured up with no definite pre-existing feeling of nation. India is completely different from the US in that sense.

If anyone thinks India is les stable than the US I would like to hear why.

[samuel]

The idea of protecting the nation-state boundaries as a necessary and sufficient condition for preserving a nation seems, somehow, untenable to me. It seems to me that the first thing to do to preserve a nation is to concentrate on preserving the nation. To me this means protecting the cultural core of our people, which creates the means for them to come together in different ways; a nation-state is the modern way. But a protected core seems to be much harder to break than our historical nation-state's boundaries. I would love to find ways to rejuvenate our cultural core. It has not been destroyed.

But of course it makes sense to protect the nation-state without any further rationale, because we deem it to be an element of our identity. But it is not obvious to me that energy expended protecting boundaries is energy saved protecting the nation's culture or ethos. A common core on the other hand can be a powerful tool to building a robust nation-state or confederation or ...
Just look at the gutter core of pakistan and what that eventually will do to its nation state.
JMT
S

[Keshav]

Brihaspati -
Extremely well written post. There's a lot to reply to but I'll keep this post to one topic.

The devotion to the land shown by a few old philosophers is like Voltaire and John Locke during the European Enlightenment. They were smarter than the rest because they believed in things the common person did not.

Unlike Rome, India did not have a "Rubicon" to cross.

However, saying that a nation can only exist with geographical boundaries is naive and is why I disagree with Shiv as well. When we talk of a nation, what are we talking about exactly - external affects such as language, clothing, and music or ideas?

I would argue that ideas are part of the culture that makes a nation. Ideas, such as individual rights and freedom began during the European Enlightenment but have become part of our discussion as well.

Consciousness of defined political boundaries is not necessary for the existence of a nation because a nation is not always formed from the top-down, that is, an artificial consciousness brought about by education initiated by the elites. In some cases, it simply is natural. Geography is based on political boundaries which are inherently fake. Even the Great Wall did not run the breadth of the Chinese emperor's physical influence.

Conclusion:
A nation only exists through mass consciousness of the existence of the nation which is loosely defined as the unique culture shared by a particular group of people (this does not consider geographical/political boundaries to be the sole marker of the nation).

The consciousness that active unity to protect well defined borders arose among Indians only after they acquired the concept of "nation state" which defines all the requirements for protection of nationalism. It sets in stone the bedrock on which geography can be protected. Protecting the geography is a fundamental step in protecting the culture or a people.

I see plenty of references to show that ancient Bharatvasis were aware of and revered their geography, but not a single one asking them to unite to protect that geography against an invader, or how to do that. In fact the Arthasatra actually advises the invader on what he should do in a naive belief perhaps that he will be a dharmic Chakravarti. It is obvious that Kautilya did not anticipate Mohammad.

It was modernism that added a new layer of consciousness to the Indian. Why do you think Modern India included the Muslims as its own but excluded the British? Why did the movement to protect geography not appear during the first Muslim invasions?

[Sanku]

Why and under which leaders did the people of India (or Prithvi, or Bharatvarsha, or Jambudwipa) develop a sufficient mass of common consciousness to unite and rise up to
1) remove an invader
2) Stamp a border on the land of Bharat that was considered inviolable.

Shiv you are showing a marked confusion (I think deliberate -- you just have fun stoking debates when the forum is quite) between the concept of political unity and strength and a nation.

For all the "nation" that exists today -- say we have a rainbow colition at the center, and Taliban attacks, I say it would be worse than the period you are quoting. The entire army will stay at standstill due to lack of clear mandate and will not be able to move proactively as the leaders squabble. Before at least a local king would and did offer resistance.

For all the nation that we are today -- our borders are still not "stamped" -- we have parts nibbled out and parts porous and we are okay with it by and large (despite protestations to the contrary)

---

Now for a moment assuming a strong center case -- In comparing the possibility of a unified action of a strong center today with prior times, you are really comparing apples to oranges, the rate of information dissemination, rate of troop movement, ability to sustain large baggage chains were all very different.

An attack could happen on the borders of the Punyabhoomi by a fast moving horde and before the sendanty defensive society could react a lot of land would already been ravaged.

Its actually all very simple and logical -- all the confusions come in when one takes the "modern western" view and tries to retrofit on the infinitely old existing India.

[shiv]

keshav - you have either misinterpreted my words or misquoted me.

I never said that nations cannot exist without boundaries. I said that protecting the boundary is an essential part of protecting the nation. The much bandied about Indian nation never even considered protection of all its revered boundaries and was raped bysundry invaders whose descendants are now loathed.

The effort to protect the ancient boundaries froM Himalayasto rivers started only after the Indian nation state was set up.

will write in detail later - am typing from cellphone

[Sanku]

The much bandied about Indian nation never even considered protection of all its revered boundaries and was raped bysundry invaders whose descendants are now loathed.

The effort to protect the ancient boundaries froM Himalayasto rivers started only after the Indian nation state was set up.

Not correct; the effort to protect and the success thereof are two different things. Then again the Indian nation has been THE most successful nation in history so far.

Of course there have been many loses too but that does neither negate the effort or the success of the past.

----------

Bottom line -- we are still in the same situation where we suffer defeats from very self same lack of political unity even in one nation, even when we are a much ballyhooed "state" as well now. Indeed I would argue that we are constantly losing at a small rate with minor check victories thrown in. The angst is not so much for the old losses but the continuing losses today. Indians are pragmatic people are rarely cry over past.

[shiv]

One more brief reply to Samuel on the need for protecting boundaries and borders.

Nations need humans and humans need territory to develop the culture that creates the nation. The ancient Indian nation was deeply steeped in its reverence for geography, mountains, rivers, forests and seas. An irreversible loss of territory is a blow to the nation. It may not be a fatal blow but a blow nevertheless and some cultures die with the loss of geography .

Indian culture can live on without the geography but it will never be the same. Can you be a Hindu abroad? Of course you can. But does that render the geography of India with mountain ranges and rivers redundant? Can India or Bharat lose links with its geography and survive as a nation?

If the geography of India was so vital as described in brihaspatis post, it should have been defended. I see no clear evidence that the defence of a geographic Indian nation was ever laid out in practical military terms.

People seem to think, perhaps as the ancient Indians did, that the Indian nation will somehow protect itself. The fact that it survived may be sheer luck and in any case hardly anyone is happy with what has survived.

I put it to you that the poaching of geographical borders needs to be stopped as much as any ideological and spiritual preservation of the ancient Indian nation. That means linking the nation to geography and physically protecting boders and not falling for the trap that Indianculture represents a magical mythical Hindu ummah that needs no physical boundaries for survival. All ancient stories are about the protection of kingdoms within Bharat, rather than the entire revered geography.

[Sanku]

All ancient stories are about the protection of kingdoms within Bharat, rather than the entire revered geography.

I agree, but in a different way, the statements of "vishwe aryo bhav" are not of a people who are sulking in the their fortress, defending it from within. It is of a people who revere a land and culture and are then spread it -- a lot of folks think that Aryans did spread out from India (note the cultural use of Arya)

When you are out spreading, you worry less about defending. For example, US never has had to protect its borders since its wars are all fought outside the borders and the core lands are automatically defended (other than 911) types.

Hardly means that the geography is not revered and defended -- it only means that all wars are fought in the buffer zone -- which they were by the look of it untill the Islamic Turks broke through.

[Airavat]

The effort to protect the ancient boundaries froM Himalayasto rivers started only after the Indian nation state was set up.

As Sanku pointed out the effort has always been there. When an empire exists it has the resources to command protection of frontier regions from the center (as the Mauryas did by posting their sons as viceroys to the frontier). But when multiple kingdoms hold sway then, naturally, each kingdom protects it own borders with what resources it has.

The much bandied about Indian nation never even considered protection of all its revered boundaries and was raped bysundry invaders whose descendants are now loathed.

Invaders were successful in conquests when they had superior military organization or technology. It hardly mattered whether the country they attacked was an empire or multiple kingdoms. The Chin Empire was conquered by the Mongols, the Sassanid Empire of Persia was conquered by the Arabs. And the irony is that divided, disunited India was able to give a much tougher response to the invaders than these empires!

In this period the world experienced the sway of the "Horse Empires" beginning with the Sakas and Huns, and down to the Arab, Turks, and Mongols. In the next phase of world history the domination is of the "Gunpowder Empires". The entire world, and not India alone, had to face these challenges.

What challenge does modern India face today? Are the artificially drawn borders really being protected....against the demographic invasion from Bangladesh and the multi-faceted one from Pakistan?

[samuel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

Unlike India after independence in 1947, Pakistan maintained a narrow landed upper class that kept its vast holdings while its workers remained subservient, the officials and analysts said. Successive Pakistani governments have since failed to provide land reform and even the most basic forms of education and health care. Avenues to advancement for the vast majority of rural poor do not exist.

and

Sunni militancy is taking advantage of deep class divisions that have long festered in Pakistan, he said. “The militants, for their part, are promising more than just proscriptions on music and schooling,” he said. “They are also promising Islamic justice, effective government and economic redistribution.”

i.e. develop a robust core to keep a nation together.

[shiv]

The effort to protect the ancient boundaries froM Himalayasto rivers started only after the Indian nation state was set up.

As Sanku pointed out the effort has always been there. When an empire exists it has the resources to command protection of frontier regions from the center (as the Mauryas did by posting their sons as viceroys to the frontier). But when multiple kingdoms hold sway then, naturally, each kingdom protects it own borders with what resources it has.

The much bandied about Indian nation never even considered protection of all its revered boundaries and was raped bysundry invaders whose descendants are now loathed.

Invaders were successful in conquests when they had superior military organization or technology. It hardly mattered whether the country they attacked was an empire or multiple kingdoms. The Chin Empire was conquered by the Mongols, the Sassanid Empire of Persia was conquered by the Arabs. And the irony is that divided, disunited India was able to give a much tougher response to the invaders than these empires!

In this period the world experienced the sway of the "Horse Empires" beginning with the Sakas and Huns, and down to the Arab, Turks, and Mongols. In the next phase of world history the domination is of the "Gunpowder Empires". The entire world, and not India alone, had to face these challenges.

What challenge does modern India face today? Are the artificially drawn borders really being protected....against the demographic invasion from Bangladesh and the multi-faceted one from Pakistan?

Valid points about what is happening today. But if what is happening today is what happened in the past, then nothing has changed, and that needs to change.

Personally I am yet to be convinced that ay particular continuing effort was there in ancient India to secure its frontiers. I am not describing this as desertion or responsibility of ancient Indians or negligence.

I believe that India has been unique in many ways - not just in terms of people and philosophy.

Geographically too vast areas of India are not easy to reach from outside - or at least were not that easy to reach centuries ago. But once people got in, the climate and environment was just great for life to thrive. The Northwest was the easiest region for mounting military offensives merely because a logistics supply chain was possible only from that direction. And even an "invader" from there had a huge subcontinent that was not going to be easy to cover.

That meant that whatever happened in the Northwest hardly affected people and kings who were in other parts of the country and the much revered geographical destinations like Kashi, Mathura, Ganga, Kaveri, Hardwar, Somnath, Badrinath and Kedarnath remained accessible to most people within the hinterland. The fate of kingdoms in the Northwest may well have been a case of "No skin off my balls" for other kingdoms who were in no position or mood to mount expeditions to protect the frontier.

The only point I am trying to make is that while I have no doubt that the "Indian nation" was conscious of its own borders, there was no deliberately developed structure of alliances or a federation to actively defend any particular region. This may have been aggravated by the fact that only the Northwest was probably vulnerable and several generations could live in peace elsewhere and not be touched by the trouble in the North west.

Honestly, from a historical viewpoint, when did Indians gain the consciousness that a military defence of boundaries is necessary using forces and people from every part of the land with all Indians having a stake in that?

When we complain today that defence today is weak and porous, that is itself an indicator that we are conscious of a need for such defence. When and how has that consciousness arisent? I would like an intellectually and historically honest answer within limits of what is known of course.

[Sanku]

Honestly, from a historical viewpoint, when did Indians gain the consciousness that a military defence of boundaries is necessary using forces and people from every part of the land with all Indians having a stake in that?

At least Chandragupta? At least thats the most shared thinking.

[Abhi_G]

shiv wrote:
Honestly, from a historical viewpoint, when did Indians gain the consciousness that a military defence of boundaries is necessary using forces and people from every part of the land with all Indians having a stake in that?

Skandagupta, the last great emperor among the Guptas. He did have forces in the northwest and defeated the Huns. Before him was his ancestor and son of Samudragupta.....Vikramaditya agianst the Sakas. So consciousness and efforts were already there and I think from the Maurya experience, it should predate the Guptas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandagupta

Skandagupta (died 467) was a ruler of northern India under the Gupta dynasty. He is generally considered the last of the great Gupta Emperors. He faced some of the greatest challenges in the annals of the empire having to contend with the Pushyamitras and the Hunas. He defeated the Pushyamitras, a tribe who were settled in central india but then rebelled. He was also faced with invading Indo-Hephthalites or "White Huns", known in India as Hunas, from the northwest. Skandagupta had warred against the Huns during the reign of his father, and was celebrated throughout the empire as a great warrior. He crushed the Huna invasion in 455, and managed to keep them at bay; however, the expense of the wars drained the empire's resources and contributed to its decline. Skandagupta died in 467 and was succeeded by his son Narasimhagupta Baladitya, who along with Yasovarman, is credited with ultimately driving the Huns from the plains of Northern India. Skandagupta's name appear in Javanese text `Tantrikamandaka', and Chinese writer, Wang-hiuen-tse refers that an ambassador was sent to his court by King Meghvarma of Sri Lanka, who had asked his permission to build a Buddhist monastery at Bodh Gaya for the monks traveling from Sri Lanka. But the most detailed and authentic record of his reign is preserved in the rock pillar of the Allahabad, composed by Harisena.

[ramana]

Kautilya's advice to the Chakravarti to conquer aka consolidate the land of Jambudwipa is an advice to create a strong political center in the region. A strong center will have the resources to protect the borders and provide stability for the prosperity and well being of the people/nation for whom the state exists. All the invasions of Bharatvarsha/Hindusthan/India from land and sea were a result of not following the dictum to create a strong center in India.
Another way of saying is "Nature abhors a vaccum"
Current Indian leadership since Independence except for a short interlude under Mrs G and NDA think that wars are a thing of the past after the horrors of WWI & II and the invention of nukes. And the way of the future is economic progress. While this is nice it is far removed from reality. For there are others means to undermine the state especially one, like modern India, that is not yet clear about what constitutes its nation.
I see shades of Amartya Sen's complaint about Indians in this thread..

[ShauryaT]

I believe that India has been unique in many ways - not just in terms of people and philosophy.

Quick take. I agree with this view. Many other good points by others too. What we have to understand is this very uniqueness gave us strengths and weaknesses, in context of how others, view these attributes. The issue is not so much about the validity of the idea of the Indian nation but the lack of firm political structures to protect this nation. Protection, which was not needed for many a millenia, but this very "advantage" became a disadvantage, when others violated some fundamental rules. The Indian nation was unable to develop reliable enduring political structures, in reaction to a change in the environment, for long leading to its political failures.

[brihaspati]

I think in looking for "historical awareness of the need to defend borders as sign of awareness of nationhood" we are looking for something that will be hard to find not only in India but even across the world.

Start with UK. Apparently one tribal king invited the Romans in, and even left his inheritance to them, while his queen led other tribes against the Romans. Lots of English Breton tribal chiefs joined in with the Romans, and "aristocracy's" habits were "Romanized". But then, Hadrian built a wall cutting off Scots and Picts. When Saxons came in, they had been invited in as mercenaries by English kings who had risen up after the departure of the Romans. When they took land for themselves and tried to expand, the Welsh - predominantly perhaps Romano-Breton tried to fight them at their border - which was where Wales ended. And the distinction of Welsh, Scottish and Irish identities continued with bloody fanfare well into the early modern. So parts of UK were not conscious of their modern "borders" well into the early modern. But do we find strands of commonality - yes, starting from Bede's narrative - monks and Christianity crossed "borders", and were accepted as part of a "national" awareness distinguishing the "islanders" from that of the mainland or from the "Irish".

Think of the Germans. At least six different tribes are mentioned by Tacitus, and we know mostly of their early history from their "enemies". We have explicit references to sections of German tribes collaborating with the Romans against other German tribes, and not always defending their modern "borders". Until modern German unification, the constituents of "German nation" existed in "elusive" msitiness of literature, myth and legends.

All through Europe, even in the Russia under the Golden Horde and then under the early Tsars, we do not alwas see a consciousness of "borders to be defended" in the modern sense. Whole groups, fought to defend themselves and survive, or migrated en-masse to preserve themselves. What was more important was survival of their "way of life", their culture, and their "civilization" - whatever that "civilization" could be.

We dont even see that "defending the border" as part of "national/civilizational" awareness even in the Islamic regimes of Arabia, Iraq and Iran.

One of the first lines of argument in this thread was the searching for, and consolidation of the "core" of India, and how the "periphery" could be gradually made into a part of the "core". I had deliberately, promoted the border idea as "dynamic". What is today our official "border" need not be our border in the future. If in the past that "border" had shrunk inwards, in the future it can expand. The crucial point was preservation of the core in times of adversity and expansion in favourable times - or when situation could be made "favourable".

When hard-pressed in the north, it became a choice of "fight/flight", and at some point they had to decide painfully what took priority - pride and annihilation, or "slinking away" to preserve your texts and the best continuing mechanism of "culture" - living, practising humans. No wonder, so many of the Sanskrit texts were recovered from the "South".

Borders should be taken as temporray compromises in space-time, to keep identities in equilibrium. When needed "borders" should be changed, even expanded - not "identities".

[ramana]

Good insight and comparison. Hope it removes the fog

[Prem]

Frankly, The whole discussion,argument is aggravating as we repeatedly get stuck on pedantic sematic terms. To me , it look like the core issue of saving core is still haunted by the asuric influence of PSwalas, EJs,Islamist ( watch the video of owassi beating opponents) Commie and other sundries inimical to this Core people and Core dea . How long are suppose to keep drinking the Khatti lassi to get over the hangover. With all the insight, intelligence and wisdom where is the solution ? I think its time to evolve and find and apply the remedy to the causes causing the confusion and conflict in core of civilization India .

[ramana]

Prem asks

How long are suppose to keep drinking the Khatti lassi to get over the hangover.

Till we realize why we have the hangover. Its like a railway train. Some individuals are near the engine while others are near the guard's compartment(Caboose). Atleast they are all on the track. While someothers are not even at the station. However once ciritcal mass is attained (enough followers) or the time is up the train leaves.

[svinayak]

Till we realize why we have the hangover. Its like a railway train. Some individuals are near the engine while others are near the guard's compartment(Caboose).Atleast they are all on the track. While someothers are not even at the station. However once critcal mass is attained (enough followers) or the time is up the train leaves.

I wanted to post this earlier. The train analogy is apt for several posters here in these threads.

[ramana]

This discussion about what was there before the Brits and Islam is due to the failure of syncretism formulated by Nehruvian world view. Syncretism failed because it was premised on false constructs.

By saying that there was no nation or state before the colonial period the premise is there is no continuity and one can begin nation building anew without the past. This was done and has led the PSL crowd who have done more damage to the Indian Muslims than anyone else. The damage is due to the hardening of Hindu positions all over India thanks to the onesided attacks by the PSl crowd. Before this the Hindu mind ws by and large very tolerant and accomodating of the alien influx. The PSL crowd are the ones who led to the closing of the Hindu mind.

[svinayak]

The PSL crowd are the ones who led to the closing of the Hindu mind.

Is the Hindu Mind closed completely.

[Prem]

It will close when they they open their eyes and see the reality . PSs/ HFLS cannot stop the flow of informantion in this age . Truth will always come out, it cant remain hidden.

[Keshav]

It will close when they they open their eyes and see the reality . PSs/ HFLS cannot stop the flow of informantion in this age . Truth will always come out, it cant remain hidden.

What truths are we talking about?

[ShauryaT]

The PSL crowd are the ones who led to the closing of the Hindu mind.

Is the Hindu Mind closed completely.

The answer is, that is the attempt of the PSL crowd, for that is the trajectory, they have (unrealized, IMO) put it in.

Secularism will only continue to divide this nation, for it seeks a divorce from the practices of the people of the land. A land, which did not know, what religion is.

Now, Acharya, if you put the question, why is the PSL crowd doing it so? Then the answer is, they have been blinded and are essentially RNI, who have been blinded by the influences of the west and have lost their own mores. Now, if you put further questions and lenses on that aspect, we get to your perspective of why it is so important to focus outward also and maybe answer the folks, who think you are paranoid!

[shiv]

I think in looking for "historical awareness of the need to defend borders as sign of awareness of nationhood" we are looking for something that will be hard to find not only in India but even across the world.

Start with UK. Apparently one tribal king invited the Romans in, and even left his inheritance to them, while his queen led other tribes against the Romans. Lots of English Breton tribal chiefs joined in with the Romans, and "aristocracy's" habits were "Romanized". But then, Hadrian built a wall cutting off Scots and Picts. When Saxons came in, they had been invited in as mercenaries by English kings who had risen up after the departure of the Romans. When they took land for themselves and tried to expand, the Welsh - predominantly perhaps Romano-Breton tried to fight them at their border - which was where Wales ended. And the distinction of Welsh, Scottish and Irish identities continued with bloody fanfare well into the early modern. So parts of UK were not conscious of their modern "borders" well into the early modern. But do we find strands of commonality - yes, starting from Bede's narrative - monks and Christianity crossed "borders", and were accepted as part of a "national" awareness distinguishing the "islanders" from that of the mainland or from the "Irish".

Think of the Germans. At least six different tribes are mentioned by Tacitus, and we know mostly of their early history from their "enemies". We have explicit references to sections of German tribes collaborating with the Romans against other German tribes, and not always defending their modern "borders". Until modern German unification, the constituents of "German nation" existed in "elusive" msitiness of literature, myth and legends.

All through Europe, even in the Russia under the Golden Horde and then under the early Tsars, we do not alwas see a consciousness of "borders to be defended" in the modern sense. Whole groups, fought to defend themselves and survive, or migrated en-masse to preserve themselves. What was more important was survival of their "way of life", their culture, and their "civilization" - whatever that "civilization" could be.

Agreed. You don't see it in the past.

Why do you think it is present now in all those nations?

I have posted my take on this several times and will do so again.

The advent of political systems that could "control" huge masses of people on the basis of a common cause and a sense of involvement in their own destiny is a recent phenomenon. These political systems are democracy and communism. Democracy and communism as political forces have replaced monarchies and religion based nations over most of the world.

If you look at human political systems as human responses to challenges in governance and organization you can detect a continuum in the way political systems have evolved. Human political organization moved from the tribe/village organization to monarchies first. Monarchies needed nation states with borders that defined the king's area of control, but the "nation state" of the monarch differs from the communist and democratic nation states. While the monarch defended his borders, most monarchies were dependent on dynasties and the personality of the monarch not on popular support.

These political systems were replaced by the religions Christianity and Islam that were both fascist political systems that have acquired for themselves "diplomatic immunity" by claiming leadership that is higher than any human.This unique concept allowed religions to spread across borders defended by monarchs and led to either defeat of the monarch by rebellion, or the monarch himself took up the religion as he instantly recognized how convenient "religion" was to gain political power. Both these religions were "borderless" in that they both claimed the right to cross other people's boundaries, but refused to allow other to cross their boundaries because they claimed a mythical higher creature "God" as their real leader.

The failure of religions to unify and the wars that religion led to in Europe laid the foundation stones for secular democracies. The inequities of democracy laid the foundation for communism. Both democracy and communism are secular because both systems are designed to bypass the fragmentation caused by religion, in an attempt to unite a larger group of people.

Both democracy and communism are claimed to be "bottom to top" political systems where the mass of people are involved in their own governance. The theory is that the collective average will of the people will guide the government. This is in contrast with monarchies which are "top-down" and a monarchs will is imposed, and if the monarch has the brains to understand his people he can make his rule appear good. Religious kingdoms too are monarchies that depend on fascist like mental indoctrination of people to believe in a god.

But democracy and communism have both been able to survive only by the creation of "nation states" with defined borders. Monarchies needed nation states too, but the "nation state" of the monarch differs from the communist and democratic nation states. While the monarch defended his borders, most monarchies were dependent on dynasties and the personality of the monarch not on popular support.

But communism and democracy have needed to create nationalism where nationalism does not exist. Monarchies rarely created "nationalism" actively, and that nationalism often died with the monarch or the dynasty. For religions "nationalism" was belief in god.

So communism and democracy have taken pains to create artificial nationalism by the creation of a border and the creation of icons that people need to identify with within that border. These icons are concepts like "National flag", "National anthem", "national emblem", "national flower/animal/sport"

The creation of such icons is an insufficient condition for survival of a nation state. Certain other conditions are useful. Two such conditions are

1) The prior existence of a reason for unity in a nation state such as a common culture or history
2) Success of the nation in keeping its people happy.

The US for example lacks condition 1, but has achieved condition 2 in abundance.

So the nation state has become the stable paradigm on which the world operates. And the world, led by the powerful democratic nation states of the West works to keep nation states stable. Stability of the artificial nation state of Pakistan has been ensured by this tendency. Destabilizing nation states that conform to current definitions is not taken lightly in the modern world,

Any talk of change in India has to work within the restrictions of history. Breaks are possible, but history has shown the directions that monarchies, religious states, democracies and communist states take. Unless a completely new political paradigm is invented it is possible to predict with some accuracy the fate of any given political system from the past.

We dont even see that "defending the border" as part of "national/civilizational" awareness even in the Islamic regimes of Arabia, Iraq and Iran. .

Defending the border is an integral part of islam by a quirk of fate as noted by Bernard Lewis. The development of Islam was centrifugal - with expansion from the center. Islam has alway been an island representing a central area surrounded by concentric circles of alienness.

For Arabs - they form the core, with Islam as their faith. The next concentric ring is of non-Arab Islamic nations. Dar ul Harb is outside that. So defending Islam s defending the borders of Arabia. Fortuitously for Arabs - most of the defending is done by people faraway from the center - like Pakistanis.

[brihaspati]

Shivji,
in characterizing the Islamic/Arabic concept of border, you are reverting back to the "cultural nationalism" concept. For "Islam" is not a "nation-state" as per modern deifinition, and as you have outlined.

In describing religion's failure to "unify", we will be going into a cycle. For the known attempts with "religion" points to "invention" or "construction" of religion in Europe as an essentially imperialistic tool. The two known consolidations are that of Constantine and Charlemagne. Their reconstructions of "Christianity" was far different from the "Jewish" sectarian movement of that name in early-and post Roman empire. Someone can argue that the failure of "imperialist reconstruction of Christianity" was the beginning of the end of Christianity as a religion. From there it is also possible to argue that, the "failure" of "religion" as an unifier, was not the failure of "religion" per se but that of "imperialism".

If we compare the European scenario with that of India, there are several crucial differences.

First, the reconstructed religion that was imposed as the unifier, was consciously identifiable, (and retained such identifications) as an "import". Christianity as reconstructed by the two "emperors", never hesitates, and does not edit out - explicit consciouness that it was "revealed", it originated, its source - was outside the then extent of Europe and its known civilizational culture. We do not see this consciousness of an "import" in any of the Bharatyia philosophies, if we try to force a comparison by identifying them as "attempted unifiers". This consciousness of an import, indicates an underlying civilizational discord.

Those who were imposing it, knew that the "locals" were "resistant", and they would cling to their pre-existing beliefs. Therefore the explicit need for "coercion", as well as the distrust of the native "religions" and the need to "import" something that would be a "fresh start", something that would hopefully completely replace the "older". It is possible that the ultimate rejection of Christianity took place as a part of this struggle between imposition by imperialism and the "alien" ethos/associations of this reconstructed faith.

All the European rebellions that "went against religion" in various forms, were essentially "anti-imperialist" struggles. From, the peasant revolts in Germany, so carefully and shrewdly exploited by Luther, to the French Revolution - established religion was not the first target. It took the hit, simply because it was perceived as associated and indistinuishable from imperilaist state machinery.

Second, we do not see "imperialistic reconstruction" and "imperialistic imposition" in pre-Islam India, to the extent it is seen in Europe. Only three cases will perhaps be brought up - the council held during Ashoka's reign and his "missionary" programmes, Kanishka's council and "missionary" activities, and Harshavardhana's council and "missionary activities". But Buddhism appears to have been generally rejected by the majority of the populations almost immediately after each such "possible attempts", and has not lasted or enjoyed a success that the Christian Church enjoyed in medieval Europe.

The modern concept of the European style nation-state is the result of justifying or "reinventing imperialism" against the demands of the "productive classes" of European society. Religion was not replaced by democracy or communism, and none of the latter are "secular". Democracy, by itself does not give rise to "anti-religious" consciousness or "secularism". For when the majority of a scoiety believes in a certain "religion", democracy will reflect that electorally, and if the people do not see the need for change or reform in their religion, their electoral assertions will simply maintain the status -quo.

The Germanic tribes, especially the Saxonic chiefs had to be decapitated by Charlemagne, because the Germanic tribes were quite "democratic". On their own they would not have changed their "religion", and hence the need for "change" from above by state authority and military coercion.

Communism has nowhere been established by a popular expression of "democratic" will, and almost always been an imposition from above whenever successfully ins tate power, by a determined minority. As such Communism will show the same reactiosn and tactics as shown by imperialism. It will try to replace the old "religion" by a "new" one. This is why, many of the rituals and symbols in Communism take on pseudo-religious forms. We have a "supreme being" whose wisdom and authority can never be challenged or questioned, we have "priests and intermediaries" who interpret for the "common/uninitiated" the profound mysteries of the "revelations" of the "supreme being", all answers to any question imaginable has been given by the "supreme being", thos who deny or questions the "supreme being" and his intermediaries - are "hated enemies/evil" who need to be crushed under foot.

The paradigm of nations-state as formulated by European imperialism is not something that we should feel obliged to toe. Cultural nationalism, and a dynamic periphery with unwavering "core" that expands when necessary, is a possible alternative to explore.

[brihaspati]

Further to my previous post, even Europe is having difficulties with its conception of a "nation-state". That the nation-state was a construct, and arose out of conflict with imperialism is made more and more obvious with the uos and downs of the European Union. The need for such a super-identity, submerging nation-states to a great extent or to certain crucial extents already pointed to the fact of "nation-state" not being a natural inevitable outcome of all civilizational processes all over the world.

The fact that "nation-state" sentiments came into conflict during the still ongoing process of the formation and consolidation of the EU, points to the whole process being a dynamic process. Nation-states were coined as a structure that maintained equilibrium between population distrust of pan-European imperialism and the socio-economic pressures to "break down barriers" brought by industrialization and colonization.

Where, the distrust of such imperialism is not an important factor, European constructs and definitions of the "nation-state" may not be necessary or important. If India already had a super-identity that did not need an imperial authority to uphold it, we also would not find the conflicts and contraditcion so obvious in European style "nation-states" in India.

The pre-existent, super-identity can be both the basis for sustenance as well as characterization of the "core". Theborders that we have now, were temporary compromises, to be discarded as and when necessary. Especially preserving the core is the civilizational task. In the past, the tactic had been retreat and consolidation. If preserving the core in the future needs "expansion" then that should be taken up and considered boldly.

Europeans can try and define us. We have no obligation to accept such definitions and be limited by them.

[Tilak]

Europeans can try and define us. We have no obligation to accept such definitions and be limited by them.

Which btw. leads me to post the following :

Caste bias can't be equated with racism: India
18 Apr 2009, 0428 hrs IST, Indrani Bagchi, TNN

NEW DELHI: India is fighting back a renewed onslaught from European countries who want to nail India on the charge that the caste system is a form of racism.

In the run-up to the review of the Durban racism conference to be held in Geneva from Monday, South Block was surprised when Scandinavian countries resurrected their stand on the caste system. India has contended that while the caste system is certainly a form of discrimination, it could not be equated with racism. The Indian delegation will be led by Vivek Katju, special secretary in the MEA.

The review of the World Conference on Racism (WCAR), which addressed the issues of "racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance" in 2001, came out with a resolution that did not mention caste, though India had to fight back a similar charge even then.

The review process in Geneva is intended to follow-up on the implementation. But Europpean countries, taking advantage of a line in the Durban text that "recognise(d) the importance of the problem of racism and xenophobia based on descent" restarted the debate. India fought back, and thus far, has been successful. The draft text of the document, as approved by UN human rights chief Navi Pillay {Navanethem (Navi) Pillay, who lectured India last month on implementation of Sachar Commitee recommendations, Kashmiris..}, is far bereft of any reference to caste, but sources said the pressure would be renewed during the actual conference itself.

India is also fighting a related battle, of giving tribals the status of "indigenous people". For India, this is unacceptable, because this could open a can of worms that would be uncontrollable.

Given the huge presence and profile of NGOs in global human rights discourse, India can expect a battering from organisations like Human Rights Watch, international dalit organisations etc. Analysts of the UN process said these little inclusions in official documents make a big difference in the field -- in terms of funding to social activist organisations. This could be channeled to organisations with a strong caste bias.

The danger this poses can be seen from the fact that this weekend, the US government is hosting a conference of South Asian countries (including India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh) to help counter terrorist financing among charities. India is deeply sceptical of organisations that attempt to meddle in the Indian social fabric.

Officials said India was fighting the caste problem, particularly in the fight against poverty and inclusion. But this could not be equated with racism which has a physical component. By that token, every caste in India would be a different race.

[shiv]

Where, the distrust of such imperialism is not an important factor, European constructs and definitions of the "nation-state" may not be necessary or important. If India already had a super-identity that did not need an imperial authority to uphold it, we also would not find the conflicts and contraditcion so obvious in European style "nation-states" in India.

The pre-existent, super-identity can be both the basis for sustenance as well as characterization of the "core". The borders that we have now, were temporary compromises, to be discarded as and when necessary. Especially preserving the core is the civilizational task. In the past, the tactic had been retreat and consolidation. If preserving the core in the future needs "expansion" then that should be taken up and considered boldly.

Europeans can try and define us. We have no obligation to accept such definitions and be limited by them.

There are several massive flaws in this construct unless you can flesh this concept out further. To use an analogy, You may not have a dispute with me but if I have a dispute with you, we both have a dispute, whether you like it or not.

If you have a nebulous state with fuzzy borders all it takes is for a neighboring state (perhaps a monarchy or dictatorship) to define its own borders as including a big chunk of your territory with soft borders. A militarily capable state will expand into your territory and set up a border at a militarily defensible line say a river or a mountain range.

He can then go about either coercing the people in the newly occupied area, or worse he may decide just to kill the men and use the women.

Even if you suggest the precondition that your mythical state with fuzzy borders has a huge armed forces, you are still putting any armed force at a disadvantage by not providing them with geographic features that they can use for defence and they are forever going to be relegated to a reactive role depending on the initiative taken by someone else because they have no specific border to defend.

The people inside your fuzzy borders would be required to have very strong allegiance to whatever it is your core offers. "Strong allegiance" for most humans have come not from long term philosophical goals, but from short term material goals. The could well switch sides. And what incentive would people in settled areas that were somehow naturally protected by geographical boundaries have to go and rescue their brethren from that belligerent neighbor?

I put it to you that the best historical classic example of strong core and fuzzy borders is Islam. You appear to be trying to take Islam out of its context and are dreaming up a benign form of the same thing. That will not work. islam's powerful core was powerful by violence and a requirement for militant zeal. Are you or are you not demanding militant zeal and constant expansion as props to support your strong core. I see no chance of the concept working in the absence of that.

Any new software that is planned requires that we work with the existing hardware - that is human beings. Humans have a 5000 year recorded history that shows the emergence of new working political systems approximately once in a millennium on average. There is no firm proof that any system is the "best", but by far the most successful system in terms of number of people who have been brought under a particular political system's fold is democracy. The system has flaws I have no doubt, but it is currently the best software we have to work with.

Democracy requires a nation state and hard borders that are protected by common consent and changed by common consent. Only in democracy can we build up the structure to ensure that Sikhs are not left alone to fight the Taliban, and recruit Mizos, Bengalis and people from Karnataka to do that while we protect Sikh women and children in a safe interior place.. Oh yes a monarchy could do that too but monarchies are very short lived and greatly dependent on the personality of the Chandragupta and the Chanakya of the day.

[Pranav]

Land revenue and taxation was a well established concept even in ancient times. So the status of all significant agricultural and urban centres was probably well defined.

However, the status of vast and sparsely populated forested and desert areas was probably not as well-defined.

As per the Puranas, ancient India was made up of "Janapada-s", from Kashmir, Gandhara, to Karnatak, Kerala. I suppose the best way to think about Janapadas is city-states.

Athens, Sparta and Troy were independent city-states that were a part of the Hellenic civilization. Similarly, ancient India can be thought of as a civilization that included many kingdoms and city-states.

[brihaspati]

Shiv wrote
There are several massive flaws in this construct unless you can flesh this concept out further[...]
If you have a nebulous state with fuzzy borders all it takes is for a neighboring state (perhaps a monarchy or dictatorship) to define its own borders as including a big chunk of your territory with soft borders. A militarily capable state will expand into your territory and set up a border at a militarily defensible line say a river or a mountain range.

Even if you have such a "well-defined" border, such claims occur everyday. India at least is no exception to such claims from Pakistan, or China or even BD.

I am not sure you are doing this deliberately or its an oversight - but you seem to ascribe "nebulous" to what I have consistently written as "flexiible" or "dynamic". The latter does not imply that a strictly demarcated and identified physical border does not exist at any given time point, but that it can change with time and necessity. This is different from "nebulous" - or "fuzzy", where the strict demarcation does not exist at any given time point.

Even if you suggest the precondition that your mythical state with fuzzy borders has a huge armed forces, you are still putting any armed force at a disadvantage by not providing them with geographic features that they can use for defence and they are forever going to be relegated to a reactive role depending on the initiative taken by someone else because they have no specific border to defend.

This again folows from your characterization and assumption of "nebulousness" or "fuzzyness". I had said also clearly that borders are temporary compromises in space-time to maintain equilibrium in identities. But borders exist in my framework. If you do not have the strength to defend your populations over a certain geographical area, you have to retreat anyway. Since you must be much more knowledgeable than me in military matters, you must be aware that although specific identifiable geographic points are given as tactical objectives, military strategists do sacrifice territory temporarily sometimes to preserve their military capabilities.

It is a dangerous idea to propose that the existence of a nation is strictly and primarily dependent on fixed geographical borders. India has lost large parts of Arunachal Pradesh, Kashmir. Does it mean India has ceased to exist? Or the nation of India has ceased to exist?

The people inside your fuzzy borders would be required to have very strong allegiance to whatever it is your core offers. "Strong allegiance" for most humans have come not from long term philosophical goals, but from short term material goals. The could well switch sides. And what incentive would people in settled areas that were somehow naturally protected by geographical boundaries have to go and rescue their brethren from that belligerent neighbor?

Now this is pehaps going in circles. Once again, I did not mention "fuzziness" of borders. But if as you say, strong allegiance of humans is only to short term goals and not long term philosophical ones, then any concept of "nation" falls flat. Do you accept then that "nation-states" are artifficial constructs not based on inherent attitudes and characteristics of large sections of humans? Are these then artificial constructs maintained by "military" might only?

Yes some switch sides. Do all switch sides? History abounds in showing up three distinct groups in any society faced with such choices. Some switch sides, some stand and fight even if they know that they are going to be annihilated, some retreat/migrate/escape to carry on their "idea" of their "nation". It is here that things can get a bit "fuzzy". Some may initially stand and fught, but later retreat or switch sides. Some switch sides initially, but then turn around and fight, or retreat and escape. Some may initially retreat, but later stand around and fight.

What carries on and sustains is a strong unflinching "idea" of an "identity".

I put it to you that the best historical classic example of strong core and fuzzy borders is Islam. You appear to be trying to take Islam out of its context and are dreaming up a benign form of the same thing. That will not work. islam's powerful core was powerful by violence and a requirement for militant zeal. Are you or are you not demanding militant zeal and constant expansion as props to support your strong core. I see no chance of the concept working in the absence of that.

This is again always trying to look out of "ourselves" for models. The whole narrative of India, as it has come down to us from the past, is the narrative of an "idea" sustaining itself over and above as well as through - physical borders, defeats, retreats, changing sides, fighting to annihilation, "reconquista". One end of the extreme interpretations of this as found subconsciously in many posters here is that, nothing "exceptional/brutal/militant" needs to be done to preserve the "Bharatyia" - no need to get too worked up over the antics of the EJ or the Mullah. The other extreme is the complete annihilation of even the support base of the EJ-proselytizer or the Mullah, their "converts".

Yes, if needed in the future, expansion can take place and should be rsorted to. Why does it always have to be military? Military expansions do not seem to give lasting loyalties in the conquered. If so, the empires, from that of Sargon to the Ottomans or the Tsars or the British or even your much touted example of the Islamic would have lasted for ever. Islam succeeded only where it could annihilate all traces of the "older idea", by military or other means. The key is not just the military, which alone is not sufficient - but a sustained campaign to remove "pre-existing ideas of identity". If a future India undertakes that, do you have any objection?

Any new software that is planned requires that we work with the existing hardware - that is human beings. Humans have a 5000 year recorded history that shows the emergence of new working political systems approximately once in a millennium on average. There is no firm proof that any system is the "best", but by far the most successful system in terms of number of people who have been brought under a particular political system's fold is democracy. The system has flaws I have no doubt, but it is currently the best software we have to work with.

Democracy requires a nation state and hard borders that are protected by common consent and changed by common consent. Only in democracy can we build up the structure to ensure that Sikhs are not left alone to fight the Taliban, and recruit Mizos, Bengalis and people from Karnataka to do that while we protect Sikh women and children in a safe interior place.. Oh yes a monarchy could do that too but monarchies are very short lived and greatly dependent on the personality of the Chandragupta and the Chanakya of the day.

I have not decried or discredited democracy. Neither have I said that democracy does not have its faults. My statement was simply in context to your relevant posts, that democracy was not in itself anti-religious or secular, and explained my reasons explicitly and clearly. I have not discussed democracy/dictatorship or forms of the rashtra-organization. The idea of "cultural nationalism" has encompassed and existed over many different experiments with "rashtra"-organization.

When you say that "Only in democracy can we build up the structure to ensure that Sikhs are not left alone to fight the Taliban, and recruit Mizos, Bengalis and people from Karnataka to do that" is rather "fuzzy". Do you mean, a "voluntary" spontaneous move from the "non-Sikhs" is guaranteed becuase of democracy? Or is it that the "rashtryia" system which has the power to levy resources and men from areas not in the immediate zone of conflict? Or is that the "rashtra" can appeal to the concept of "hard borders" to mobilize resources?

Do you really believe that attacks on Sikhs will not be fought by non-Sikhs because of "cultural affiliations" and identification of the Sikhs as part of the idea of the Bharatyia nation - but because of "democracy" alone? Also by implication and omission do you imply that without "democracy" only the Mizos, Bengalis and Karnatis would not "budge" to help the Sikhs - are you sure that the rest of India will move without democracy anyway?

Democracy is a formal process of representation of apparent popular will - but for it to be effective towards a certain objective, that popular will has to be sourced and mobilized from within the psyche, consciousness, of a national identification. If we do not acknowledge the original source of such motivations, and ascribe mythic power to formal processes, we can make the blunder of relying entirely on the "sword" rather than the "hand that weilds that sword".

[brihaspati]

Shivji,
another interesting angle that your highlighting of democracy raises is the question of the fuzziness of the boundaroes between dictatorship and democracy. And its relevance for the question of national identity.

At various time points in the history of the Republic of India, if democratic principles were allowed to hold sway and respected, certain states or provinces of India would have gone out of the Indian "nation". If we are so reliant on democracy, why do we not accede to the demand of a "referendum" on Kashmir? Or for the various separatist movements in NE?

The logic given will be that a small determined "minority" can blackmail/impose their will on the "majority" of these areas to separate. In that case we ill be agreeing to the concept that democracy in itself as a process need not reflect popular will. Such apparent manifestations of popular will can be concocted in democracy.

By not accepting separatist demands to be tested through "democracy", are we not using a "dictatorial" logic? That it is the will of the numerical majority not residing in these geographically peripheral regions that forces itself on the will of the numerical minority residing there.

The basic reason we do not allow this, is not because we hold democracy and the democratic process to be the supreme entity, but a concept of "nationhood" or an idea of a "nation" that exists over and above claims of distinction and non-membership by subgroups. Strict adherence to democratic process would have contradicted this "national" claim.

[shiv]

Brihaspati, if you accept fixed borders then you are talking about a nation state.

I will merely refer by to my earlier post about that

But communism and democracy have needed to create nationalism where nationalism does not exist. Monarchies rarely created "nationalism" actively, and that nationalism often died with the monarch or the dynasty. For religions "nationalism" was belief in god.

So communism and democracy have taken pains to create artificial nationalism by the creation of a border and the creation of icons that people need to identify with within that border. These icons are concepts like "National flag", "National anthem", "national emblem", "national flower/animal/sport"

The creation of such icons is an insufficient condition for survival of a nation state. Certain other conditions are useful. Two such conditions are

1) The prior existence of a reason for unity in a nation state such as a common culture or history
2) Success of the nation in keeping its people happy.

The US for example lacks condition 1, but has achieved condition 2 in abundance.

May I add that India has a lot of 1 but little of 2?

Is the US army fighting in Iraq out of conviction? Or is it fighting because the US has bought the loyalty of its citizens.

That should give you a clue about the connection between a nation state and its ability to employ influence in an area well outside the bounds of any feeling of kinship or that of one nation.

In fact Punjabis had no love lost for Madrasis in India and vice versa till just 40 odd years ago. Apart from my personal anecdotes - it has been documented by Naipaul in his "Area or darkness" book

The feeling of oneness has been painstakingly built up.

The Hindutva of today rests on the work of countless people of the nation state in seeking to sink differences and create unity. The suggestion that there is some magical feeling of oneness ignores the reality that oneness must be created and not taken for granted. It gets taken for granted after it is created.

^^^ added later -every time I make a statement such as this last paragraph above people rush at me upset that I am denying the presence of an ancient oneness among dharmic bhratavasis. Unfortunately a lot of people don't seem to get the point that a feeling of oneness is insufficient to sink other differences that seem to take precedence. Sadly - I write too much and I have written on this subject before on this forum. I suspect that humans have an innate tendency to be able to relate to and identify with a fairly small and narrow bunch of people. This may be an evolutuionary trait in needing to identify with a tribe. You have to work actively to sink differences and unite larger groups.