Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

[Frederic]

And Fred you need to give us more on new phenomenon so we can understand the churning of ideas thats going on.

Will do Ramana. Am at work. Boss peaking. Lemme write a summary when I get home.


Best Regards
Fred

[RamaY]

ii. Huge amount of our population have changed because of DIE education over these 60-80 years. Mostly Hindus have become what are called "faith" Hindus.
I would say that majority Hindus have become Semitic -

Is that a bad thing necessarily? May be that's the silver lining in the dark cloud (not expounding on reasoning behind that)

Well, it depends on how one looks at it...

For example, this is what I got from a friend thru e-mail

I don't know if the new generation will go back to sanatana dharma or whatever that is...with the new crop of leaders and technocrats and intellectuals...India is already rubbing shoulders with US...it will not go back to religion based system tho it may have worked perfectly before....the new generation thinks its regressive to talk about how kings paripaalana worked some b.c's back and things...no one is interested in history...

It is a good thing If you take it as evolution.That means the civilizational ethos (which i thought are like part of flora fauna) themselves are open for evolution and transformation. If majority of Indians think that the Japanese solution, relative prosperity under someone else's protection, is the best thing then the political leadership will evolve into that framework.

It is a vicious loop, if you take it as a negative influence. For example, hand-picked intellectual (with western awards/recognition) define the DIE education that breeds these so-called liberal values. These DIE dhimmis elect next-gen leadership who in turn set national policy and recognize intelligentia further solidifying this cycle. The interesting thing about these liberals is that they behave extremist in publishing, presenting and preserving those so-called values, which are foreign originated. Just look how extremist ARoys, MPatkars, RThoppers, Pkarats, BDutts get to rationalize their world-views. That is where the education & research comes into picture. One can observe this drift very clearly by taking a look at the (changes made to) high school curriculum for languages and social science subjects. The old text books used to have puranic stories, stories with ethical values etc, which are no more. Nowadays the leftist propaganda is included in the language curriculum in the guise of literary evolution.

[Prem]

[quote=". ? No, there is something indescribable in the Indic, that makes it swing back towards its civilizational heritage whenever it ventures too far away from it - the basic idea perhaps behind "yada yada hi dharmasya..". Don't you feel the stirrings deep within yourself? Don't you feel the beginnings of the murmur of history? Society changes when people begin to believe that change is possible. I have never been able to say things I am not convinced about and feel deep inside myself. I hope my conviction is contagious. [/quote]

Jai Ho, it is the same kind of conviction/s which has brought BRFundamentalist, terrorists( We do terrorise the DIE, Muffatkhors and Pinko Pinnochios) together .

[brihaspati]

Regarding prohibitions, there does not yet emerge a very clear picture. It could simply have been post-factum rationalization. Make virtue out of necessity. Not all that has been represented about the period holds up. I have already pointed out the case of the supposed conqueror of Sindh, Chach - the father of Dahir (the one who lost his third battle against the Caliphate in 711-713). Chach is claimed to have been a "Brahmin" who overthrows the reigning king with the help of his queen, (who fell in love with him at first sight after Chach was allowed to visit the king in the presence of the queen), and marries the "widow". Now lots of things in that story do not fit the "orthodox, regressive, Hindu" model. Here women seem to be allowed freely to appear and interact with "strange men", a "Brahmin" marries a "widow" of a "rajput" ruler (whose relatives further east mount a campaign against Chach), the widow of a rajput ruler does not commit "suttee", and married/widowed women are allowed to "fall in love" and remarry, a "brahmin" goes to war and plays the role of "kshatryia" - all at a period of late 7th - early 8th century!! curious indeed. We have other indications of the prohibitions not really working, if you mean mercantile adventurism.

No, there was a much more complex interplay behind the retreat.

If we look at the known major periods of physical incursions :

(1) the Persians under the descendants of Cyrus 6th century BCE
(2) Alexander in 4th century BCE
(3) Kushans in first century BCE-CE
(4) Huns in 4th century CE
(5) Arabs in 7th-8th century
(6) Turko-Afghans in 11-12th century
(7) Mongols in 14th-16th century
(8) British in 18th-19th century

Out of these, only the (5-8) were not assimilated to the extent that a completely distinct Indic variety evolved - they retained an affiliation to an identity all whose sources of iconic inspiration are situated outside the Indic, geographically as well as ideologically.

Significantly the incursions occur roughly at a cyclical gap of 300-400 years. Two things could be going on here. There could be climatic changes in the neighbourhood of the subcontinent, and with possible global or Asiatic ramifications that prompt search for resources in the peripheral communities who then look for it in the core of India. In fact almost all the major incursions mentioned here coincide with some kind of climatic calamity - typically droughts, but also somtimes periods of excessive rain. Droughts in particular seem to be quite significant. Droughts make the Indic core also weak, with centralization breaking down, and unified resistance difficult.

The second factor that could be going on, is a kind of national amnesia. The Indic society begins to think that it has reached a "global optimum" whereas it has really reached a local "optimum". The fundamental lesson in the Indic philosophical development is forgotten - that of "charaibeti" or non-stationarity. So it does not need to shake and perturb itself a bit to see that it has really reached a robust equilibrium or was it a temporary and local or unstable and nonoptimal equilibrium. External shakings then perturb the system so that it begins to search for a new optimum. Thus this temporray or local optimum makes the Indic believe that he has reached the "eternal" or the "perfect" and that therefore this particular experience should be mad into permanent and inimmutable laws. Such structures break down when external agents shake thinsg up.

In this sense each invasion has served the Indic to renew its search for that global optimum, the "moksha" of perfection. It is in this sense, that I welcomed the current US led virtual "incursion".

Here I am extracting a post of mine from the "leadership thread" to make my idea of necessity of perturbation clear :

The Bharatyia look that misses the demographics and geo-political analysis is a thing of the past. Or a thing of what appears to be the case in the past since I do not think we have been able to save all the intellectual works of the Bharatyia of the past.

The crucial lesson for me, in the Bharatyia for this context, is that of "charaibeti" - the "quest". The doctrine of "charaibeti" implies never becoming stationary or stagnate in thinking. But what do seek in our quest? "Perfection". Perfection is the one stationary point or objective which drives the quest. What does this imply for strategic leadership or geostrategy?

First it frees us from blindly commiting ourselves to one line of thinking, adapted to a particular situation, place, time and people. It allows us to be strategically flexible, and seek out the optimum for each situation. But to ensure that we do not get caught up in local optima which are not stable, it urges us to shake things a bit at each step. The best "mathematical" analogy is perhaps going to be the algorithmic formalization of "simulated annealing". At each step of optimizing our methods we shake up, diverge, deviate a little bit from what appears to be a optimum. If it is truly a global optimum, even after small perturbations, we still will find it to be the "optimum". If things change dramatically, and we find that there was after all a better optimum, we adopt the new optimum. At each stage we move closer towards the "global optimum" - our perfection.

"Charaibeti" allows us to continue our search for that perfection - the sole stationary point and reason for our existence. At the same time it shows us that civilizational knowledge and experience that has accummulated for perhaps the longest period in known or estimable human history has the greatest likelihood of having reached the closest towards the global optimum. This is the reason, that I have rooted for trying to start the search algorithm at the cultural and civilizational experience of the majority culture of the Bharatyia. But at the same time we need to "shake" things in small steps to see and check that we have indeed reached the optimum or we are yet to reach that optimum.

Just as there is a long literature and debate about choosing the "size" of the steps in "shaking" up in actual implementation of "simulated annealing", we can have fights about the size and nature of these perturbations. Big steps means we may miss some optima, but at the same time potentially reach the optimum faster. But the risks are that we may miss the crucial global optima altogether. This is the path and danger of "revolution". On the other hand if the steps are too small, we can definitely reach the global optima but it can take what seems to be an eternity.

An added complication is the fact that in real socio-political sense, even our searches can change the nature, and number and location of the optima.

So the Bharatyia "look" does not rule out looking at demographics and geo-strategics. It is all part of our inheritance. The algorithm is given. The task is to adapt it to each concrete situation.

I will continue to expand this in my subsequent posts.

[Atri]

Chiron, To make things clear for all of us can you explain what you are referring to? Please dont carry on a conversation at a higher plane.

And one more request. Can you maplify the adi Sankara part. my brother has a saying "First come the sages and then the invaders follow" meaning the advent of sages weakens the body polity and drops resistance to invaders.

I guess Brihaspati ji has started his clarifications.. But, I will comply and expand upon my stand, ramana ji... It started with

The reasons why such a mentality developed in India is perhaps OT

On land the rise of Near Eastern powers like Persia cutoff the land routes. The loss of central powers also reduced th support to the trading caravans.

On sea the gradual inward turning of the population and the conversion going on to participate in the sea borne trade was a negative factor in the Ratnakara....


We should start calling things by their ancient names.

The evolution of Mercantile mentality which Brihaspati ji mentioned initiated these chain of ideas. This particular mentality, in simplistic terms, tends to suck to up the factors which disrupt the local memetic equilibrium or "Local Optima", as put by brihaspatiji, so that this local equilibrium is maintained as long as it can. For this mentality, anything is expendable in order to preserve this equilibrium or local optima.

Ramanaji pondered upon the geo-strategic factors (rise of persia) and sociological factors (Inward turning population) as potential reasons of rise of such mentality.

In medieval India, we see the rise of some strange prohibitions, some of which were local whereas others were observed throughout the subcontinent. Some of them, which hurt India the most are

1. holy cow
2. Prohibition of crossing the sea (Sindhu-Bandi). Which also translated as prohibition of crossing the Indus. This particular reason was supposedly one of the few reasons given by Raghunathrao Peshwa when Maratha army stopped their conquest and occupation at Attock and did not went on to conquer and occupy Peshawar, although the Maratha cavalry chased Abdali until Khyber.
3. Prohibition of intercaste marriage. (Jaati-bandi)
4. Prohibition of reconversion (Shuddhi-Bandi)
5. Prohibition of sharing food with other castes

and two more, which I am not able to recollect at the moment. There are seven such prohibitions known as Sapta-Bandi (Seven prohibitions) which were self imposed by Indic community in medieval times. Most notably after Islamic occupation, the magnitude of these prohibitions went on becoming more and more harsh and strict. Lokmanya Tilak, had to purify himself at Varanasi after returning from Mandalay, as he travelled by sea and crossed the ocean.

There are numerous references in the scriptures (both smriti and Shruti) which allude towards consumption of beef. In Ramayana, Mahabharat, Rigveda, cow is holy animal but consumption of beef is not associated with any guilt and was not mentioned as a Mahapaatakam without any praayashchittam. However, with time, cow grew holier and holier and became bane for Indic community.

It was the most commonly used tactic by Muslims and Christians for converting Indics. If pieces of beef were put in some well of particular community, and if people of that community drink the water, they were promptly excommunicated by fellow caste-brothers.

Abrahamic philosophies are so naive that they cannot stand in front of Indic ideologies, when it comes to intellectual and philosophical quotient. Every ordinary abdul of India knows and understands that

1. Sarvam khalu Idam Brahmam (Everything that is, is Brahman.. Or God)
2. Eko Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanti (Truth (God) is one, different people refer to it by different names)

Here, the words like Brahman, Parabrahman, Satya etc are interpreted as God by ordinary Hindu, forget the philosophical connotations of the terms. This philosophy is so deeply ingrained in the minds of Indic people that it is virtually impossible for Islam and Christianity by forcing an Indic to accept that there is one true god and his name is Allah/Yahweh and Muhammad/Jesus is is true prophet/son.

Ordinary Indic abdul will have no problems (ideologically) in reading the Shahada. What he will argue is, what I call as vishnu, he calls as Allah, wtf is the difference. Since there was no concept of Religion in India, prior to Islam, it would have been virtually impossible to these sects to do what they achieved and what Scythians, Kushans, Greeks, Huns could not achieve.

By the time Islam successfully ventured into the heartland of Bhaarat, these prohibitions were beginning to get rigid. Since the victory of Yashodharman (of Malwa) over Mihirakula (the Hun), to invasion of Muhammad Ghori, Bhaartiya heartland was immune to any foreign invasion for almost 600 years at a stretch.

It was the height of India's sovereignty, independence, Dharma and prosperity. There were ideological revolutions happening in India, and Vedanta was emerging as the favourite philosophy over all the other Astika and Nastika philosophies available in the spectrum. Here Abhi ji said that

Competition with "baudhdha" parampara? Does "prachanna baudhdhik" allegation about Advaita ring a bell?

To this, I replied that competition between Astika and Nastika memes was as old as this ramification itself. Adi Sankara vehemently defeated not only Nastika philosophies but also all other Astika philosophies as well and established the supremacy of Vedanta philosophy of which Dvaita is closest to Abrahmic world-view. Interestingly, Adi Shankara happened when it was the peak-time of heartland's sovereignty. However, while he was on his parikrama, Battle of rajasthan was on and Arabs were being defeated by rajputs not only on battle fields but also in daily life where people were reconverted back to Indic paths by Bappa rawal and Bhashyakaar Medhatithi and Deval Rishi. This vehemence and ability to bounce back memetically is not seen in post Ghuri period. Instead Indics rolled back into the shell. Interestingly, the Rajasthan always remained predominantly Indic for most of the times in history. Lingering effects of these three great men, may be.

In words of Brihaspatiji, it was a prolong Local Optima or Local equilibrium of memetic forces (I prefer memetic approach, being a biologist ). And since it was for 600 years, it is not wrong of people of from 9th century or 10th century to think that this was the achievement of global memetic equilibrium or optima. So perhaps they moulded themselves to live perpetually in that apparent world where global optima was achieved. Cow became lot more holier than what she was perhaps in Gupta days. Since, there might have been very low incidence of Non-Dharmic behaviour (of which cow-slaughter is one), this would have posed a direct contrast with the display of barbarism by Ghurid forces which ravaged through the Ganga-doab.

With time, interestingly these prohibitions went on becoming stronger. It was the defensive response of Indian civilization towards invading Abrahamic memes which were apparently doing everything right and winning everywhere. In spite of military victories of Indic kings, this not always translated as ideological defeat of Islam because that stopped being the motive of Hindu kings altogether after Bappa Rawal. Muslim kings were enemies, Islam was not perceived as a threat and enemy. This was not the case vice-versa.

Anyways, coming back to my point, when ordinary indic is asked to Allah is one god and Muhammad is his prophet, this poses no ideological conflicts in his Dharmic mind. This alone cannot amount to the scale of conversions which were seen in medieval India. Abrahamic memes simply lack everything to defeat Indic memes philosophically. What betrayed us was these prohibitions and perception of apparent local optima. We started throwing our own men out of our system, just because they were forced to consume beef. Just because they travelled by sea. Just because they shared the food with the Mlenchha. And we closed the door of their return. Because, Indic system has no crystalline religion to which one can convert to. Everyone who stops being a Muslim or a Christian is a Hindu.

The social system of India (The caste) was the true identity of the person and also his social-security. Once excommunicated from caste, there was no identity of a person. It is such people which forms the bulk of forcible converts in Bhaarat. Why were not these prohibitions purged early enough? The most successful of all the Indic resurgent movement was the Maratha expansion. they were a major political force rallying the Indics for about 170 years (1645-1818). Also until 1857, most of the regions was controlled by separate Maratha princes and Zamindars in central and western India. Yet, they could not mount an ideological invasion on Abrahamic memes. they physically repelled the invasion of Abrahmics (which of course is very important service they did towards India). Yet, they were in position to do lot more, but somehow could not after Shivaji (he patronized reconversions). Even this resurgent movement did not do anything towards removal of these social prohibitions and make Indics come out fearlessly in open.

The development of Mercantile mentality, has its roots in preservation of the closely guarded Indic system from invaders by buying them off. Anything was supposedly expendable to preserve the system. With time of course there emerged a class which profited from this business as well, after all, Memes evolve.

Indics contracted in the shell and these prohibitions became the hard shell which did not allow the traffic either ways. Any breach of the shell's boundary, and you get thrown out and once out, there is no way in.

Brihaspatiji is alluding towards the last generation of the shell-dwellers which is ruling Bhaarat today. Once this generation dies out, and the generation born in 1980s and late 1970s come in the power, things will start changing radically in Indian politics.

My question was what makes a civilization impose such dire restrictions on self, when it is at its height of its independence. And what makes a civilization remain in such shell and not come out to fight and meet the enemy head-on when that the best thing to do.

I have written this point on many threads which were purged from Strat-phorum post election results.

Indics cannot defeat Exclusive memes by trying to become more exclusive than them. They are specialists and if Indics become like them, they will lose their originality. The strength of Indics lie in their fearless inclusiveness and assimilation. The Mercantile mentality cannot accomplish this as it is an act of bravery. But, unless the effects of these previously imposed prohibitions are nullified, the inclusiveness cannot be unleashed upon the exclusive minority of Bhaarat.

Once this Vishwa-roop is unleashed, no one can remain exclusive and untouched, be it Arjun or be it Abdul.

[brihaspati]

Why did the "mercantile mentality" develop at all? And crucially are those factors still there?

If we look at ancient world's trading structure, a peculiarity of the Indian subcontinent immediately comes up compared to other trade regions. And this is related to the question "what were the goods and products that India desperately needed from outisde, and which they could not produce themselves?".It will be extremely difficult to find positive answers to this question. As supported by numismatics and other evidence, until the rise of Islam in central Asia and the ME, there was a net inflow of bullion into India. Which indicates immediately that there was very little actual products or goods that the outside world could directly exchange with India for Indian products - therefore the payment in bullion, and not in products with value added by labour or skill. This implies that ancient India was basically a net exporter. Further, it had little need for imports.

Over time, this creates certain approaches towards trade. Because of sustained demand from outside, over time Indian merchants would have diminishing incentives to travel long distance on risky and unsafe routes. They could make equal or better profits by financial manipulations, while sitting at the source of the exports - back at "home". There is some evidence that this process accelerated in the period leading towards the Arabic and Turko-Afghan incursions.

The jump from commodity trade to fiscal "trade" is a crucial disjunction in civilizational terms. It is a classic example of "alienation" from "product of labour". Once the commodity becomes secondary, less visible, the whole presence of humanity as evidenced in a product of labour vanishes. Once the commodity and therefore the reminder of the human hands that shaped these commodities vanishes from consideration, there is no longer any bar on what can and what cannot be treated as "commodity".

Many other ancient trade regions could not evolve similarly to the Indian, simply because, they were more zones of "carrying" connecting the source of products with the end consumer, and were not so self-sufficient in demand supply terms. Such trading regions were forced into trade because they sat in between source and consumer regions, while not producing enough to gain in net export terms. This meant that their traders could not accumulate mercatile capital simply sitting at "home" and twiddling financial thumbs. Being forced to go out, they would have to develop techniques to penetrate, and dominate other economies. This would of course in due time lead to sponsorship of military development and colonial expansion.

The increasing extension of mercantile capital accummulation process in India, and a tendency therefore to gain in prosperity from purely fiscal manipulations, would lead to gradual blurring of the boundary between actual products of human labour on the one hand and more abstract entities like one's faith, family, nation on the other hand. Such a psychological framework will prompt a tendency to retreat towards the "home", as in the specific context - the additional risks of physically going out and dominating other regions, politically/militarily/economically - means loss of fiscal profit. On the other hand this very same framework will alienate the trader from the human component of the production process - making any object or entity that can be bargained for, haggled over and auctioned in monetary terms are worth trading. So for such a trader, his family, nation, fellow humans, ideological or faith commitments - all are saleable commodities, if there is a demand from a "buyer".

I know that comparisons with modern economies having similar trading attitudes can come up. The modern technological level of societies introduces some complications in the model stated above. However, are we sure that all of the "selling off" mentality is not really present in some of the modern economies?

[svinayak]

If we look at the known major periods of physical incursions :

(1) the Persians under the descendants of Cyrus 6th century BCE
(2) Alexander in 4th century BCE
(3) Kushans in first century BCE-CE
(4) Huns in 4th century CE
(5) Arabs in 7th-8th century
(6) Turko-Afghans in 11-12th century
(7) Mongols in 14th-16th century
(8) British in 18th-19th century

You have missed the Portuguese incursion in the 15th century in the coastal region. They paved the way for the Euroepans- Dutch, French and the British to enter and conquer.

[brihaspati]

Oh! I was just looking at "major" ones, in the sense of powers that stayed on and had a signficant presence for substantial periodof time in a large chunk of Indin territory. But you are right in that it was only because Vasco opened the route that the Euro gate was flooded.

[RamaY]

self deleted...

[Abhi_G]

Chiron ji, not sure about the dates of emergence of the Sindhu-bandi thing. Bengal's muslin trade to Southeast Asia was destroyed by Portuguese piracy. That was around the 1500s. Even today, people of Orissa celebrate the Bali Yatra festival to commemorate those sea faring times. So I would say, Sindhu Bandi became an all India phenomenon much later? But it definitely had the effect that you and Brihaspati ji are talking about.

[svinayak]

Oh! I was just looking at "major" ones, in the sense of powers that stayed on and had a signficant presence for substantial periodof time in a large chunk of Indin territory. But you are right in that it was only because Vasco opened the route that the Euro gate was flooded.

Kaushal is working on a book which documents the European quest for the knowledge from the east which they were seeking from the medieval times which culminated in the economic dominance using the old eastern trading system. Check out his books.

[bhavin]

OT - Brihaspatiji - I have left a message for you in the Urban and Public Policy thread in Tech & Eco Forum - Sorry for the OT post !

[Pranav]

Going from the abstract to the concrete - one reason why the medieval invasions were successful was the abandonment of the bow as a weapon of war.

The bow was very much a part of Indian culture, as our epics show. It was still in wide use at the time of the Greeks and Mauryas. The bow is a very potent weapon that can defeat armored cavalry charges, as stunningly demonstrated at the Battle of Crecy in France in 1346. However, as can be seen in stories of Shivaji's times, the bow was not very much in use in medieval India.

So what led to the abandonment of the bow? One reason is that becoming an expert archer requires many years of intense training. Somehow the people did not have the moral fiber or the mental rigour to retain their archery prowess.

Why such mental and moral degeneration occurs in a civilization is question that perhaps may have not any clear answers.

[Sanku]

Well, it depends on how one looks at it...

For example, this is what I got from a friend thru e-mail

I don't know if the new generation will go back to sanatana dharma or whatever that is...with the new crop of leaders and technocrats and intellectuals...India is already rubbing shoulders with US...it will not go back to religion based system tho it may have worked perfectly before....the new generation thinks its regressive to talk about how kings paripaalana worked some b.c's back and things...no one is interested in history...

RamaY, I understand what you mean by loss of the Indic meme and the process which makes it happen, and no I dont think thats a good thing.

However when Indian rediscover the sciences etc for themselves and in a Abrahamic context, while the Indic meme is also present in the background, two things can happen
1) Indians turn all Abhramic Indians -- a la Chinese
2) Indians turn more Indic -- but this time with the understanding and assimilation of Abhramic qualities (such as need to keep a simple philosophy and brutal behavior against opposition) which makes it resistant to attacks by them and perhaps in due time dominate

I think (2) above will happen, to illustrate -- already in India now, once again the television serials are back to future of 80s, a retelling of the epics as well as more Indic stories and stories talking about India as she is (stories of Padmini, Prithvi Raj Chauhan etc)compare and contrast this with the period when TV in India had just opened up and having a satellite TV was a big deal. It appeared that we are watching a hindified version of US TV.

Anyway, I do not say that the question of how it will be is settled yet, yes there is both a loss and resurgence of Indic memes. It remains to be seen where the simulated annealing algorithm will finally converge -- however note that in BOTH the above scenarios, India does come back as a strong nationalist state (more like China and less like Japan) I would however like more India and less anyone else.

[Airavat]

Going from the abstract to the concrete - one reason why the medieval invasions were successful was the abandonment of the bow as a weapon of war.

The bow was never abandoned as a weapon of war. The Turkic invaders were skilled in horse-archery, which was the main difference with Indian powers. The Turkish bow was adopted by Indians but horse-archery was a skill acquired in the special conditions of Central Asia. In the vast open spaces hunting was impossible without skill in horse archery, as was war. While in India wildlife was prolific even in the open spaces of Rajasthan, which is why hunting was best done by horsemen using lances or swords.

This is why the Delhi Sultanate, though founded by horse-archers, could not field any in the first Battle of Panipat. Babur notes that the Hindustanis were expert swordsmen but that the Delhi Sultanate army did not have mounted archers.

Even the Mughal empire depended on imported Central Asia horse-archers, and such soldiers were required practically every year, since the children of those who settled down in India could not master this skill.

So what led to the abandonment of the bow? One reason is that becoming an expert archer requires many years of intense training. Somehow the people did not have the moral fiber or the mental rigour to retain their archery prowess.

Mastering any kind of medieval military skill required years of intense rigourous training.

[svinayak]

Anyway, I do not say that the question of how it will be is settled yet, yes there is both a loss and resurgence of Indic memes. It remains to be seen where the simulated annealing algorithm will finally converge -- however note that in BOTH the above scenarios, India does come back as a strong nationalist state (more like China and less like Japan) I would however like more India and less anyone else.

This is part of the assimilation process. Indic process will have its own take on everything else.

[Pranav]

Going from the abstract to the concrete - one reason why the medieval invasions were successful was the abandonment of the bow as a weapon of war.

The bow was never abandoned as a weapon of war. The Turkic invaders were skilled in horse-archery, which was the main difference with Indian powers. The Turkish bow was adopted by Indians but horse-archery was a skill acquired in the special conditions of Central Asia. In the vast open spaces hunting was impossible without skill in horse archery, as was war. While in India wildlife was prolific even in the open spaces of Rajasthan, which is why hunting was best done by horsemen using lances or swords.

This is why the Delhi Sultanate, though founded by horse-archers, could not field any in the first Battle of Panipat. Babur notes that the Hindustanis were expert swordsmen but that the Delhi Sultanate army did not have mounted archers.

Even the Mughal empire depended on imported Central Asia horse-archers, and such soldiers were required practically every year, since the children of those who settled down in India could not master this skill.

So what led to the abandonment of the bow? One reason is that becoming an expert archer requires many years of intense training. Somehow the people did not have the moral fiber or the mental rigour to retain their archery prowess.

Mastering any kind of medieval military skill required years of intense rigourous training.

Airavat ji,

One wonders if it is possible to shoot arrows with any accuracy from a galloping horse, at range say 200 metres. Even if it is possible, such horsemen and their horses would still be vulnerable to being hit by arrows themselves. What saved the day for the English at Crecy in 1346 was their 6000 longbow-men, who were able to repel all French armoured cavalry charges. Apparently, these bowmen would collectively fire at the rate of 18,000 arrows per minute, and the arrows were capable of piercing armour.

Old Indian epics and texts describe hunting being done with bows and arrows. It would be pretty difficult, for example, to go after a deer on horseback with a sword or lance. Also, bows and arrows are the primary weapons of war depicted in the Mahabharata. As compared to this, archery seems to have been de-emphasized in medieval times.

Are there any instances, from medieval times, of invading armies being resisted by large numbers of archers? It would be interesting to hear about such encounters, if any.

I suppose that after say 1600AD archery started becoming irrelevant with the advent of muskets.

But anyway, this is getting off-topic. If you care to respond, perhaps you could do so in an appropriate military history thread. Regards.

[ramana]

Brihaspatiji et al

RC Majumdar and AS Altekar wrote A new History of the Indian People which describes the period till late Guptas.

[Airavat]

One wonders if it is possible to shoot arrows with any accuracy from a galloping horse, at range say 200 metres. Even if it is possible, such horsemen and their horses would still be vulnerable to being hit by arrows themselves. What saved the day for the English at Crecy in 1346 was their 6000 longbow-men, who were able to repel all French armoured cavalry charges.

European armoured cavalry was defeated more often by pikemen, infantry armed with pikes or long spears. At the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 Scottish pikemen defeated the English armoured cavalry. Swiss pikemen defeated the Hapsburg cavalry in the Battle of Morgarten in 1315, although here the mountainous terrain also worked against the heavy cavalry, making it even more immobile.

European cavalry subsequently gave up its old clumsy armour and worked with infantry and artillery formations, which is when they were effective, in combined arms actions.

In the Indian context, cavalry was extremely mobile and vigorous, and was not defeated by infantry formations until the latter were laced with firearms. This happened in a late period, like the Battle of Sagar (1680), the Battle of Ram Chatauni (1750), and the Battle of Merta (1790).

Old Indian epics and texts describe hunting being done with bows and arrows. It would be pretty difficult, for example, to go after a deer on horseback with a sword or lance. Also, bows and arrows are the primary weapons of war depicted in the Mahabharata. As compared to this, archery seems to have been de-emphasized in medieval times.

I cited the case of how horse-archery as a military skill was developed with the aid of hunting in Central Asia. Hunting, apart from other purposes, was used a training ground for the military class in India as well. Hence in ancient times the principal offensive vehicle of war was the chariot, and the military class hunted from chariots, using bows and arrows.

Chariots later became outmoded and useless the world over, being replaced by elephants and cavalry. Now in hunting, bows and arrows were used when on foot or while riding elephants, while lances and swords were used when on horseback. And no, hunting boar or deer from horseback, using lance or sword, was not difficult but quite common:



In this painting you can see one lone Rajput rider in the background using a Turkish style bow and arrow to hunt while riding, while all the rest use swords and lances. Thus archery was never de-emphasized, it was just that it was more effective to hunt big game with swords or lances, while on horseback.

In Central Asia, where game was spread far and wide, and lack of cover made it difficult for the hunter to approach his prey, they used arrows shot at long range repeatedly to wound, weaken, and eventually bring down big game. Such hunts could last for days. Hence the Central Asians grew up to be skilled as mounted-archers.

[surinder]

I suppose that after say 1600AD archery started becoming irrelevant with the advent of muskets.

The Sikh Guru, esp. Guru Gobind Singh, were fond of the bow-arrow. Guru Gobind Singh, who was very skilled in archery, used it extensively in battles with the Hill Rajas & Mughals in 1680's to the first decade of 1700's.

[munna]

I suppose that after say 1600AD archery started becoming irrelevant with the advent of muskets.

The Sikh Guru, esp. Guru Gobind Singh, were fond of the bow-arrow. Guru Gobind Singh, who was very skilled in archery, used it extensively in battles with the Hill Rajas & Mughals in 1680's to the first decade of 1700's.

Veerji he also used to carry one (teer) with him all the time too .

[brihaspati]

Let us be both abstract and concrete, and not become one at the cost of another. If we focus too much on a single weapon as being the cause of retreat, we will be oversimplifying it. This can be a good field to explore what I have suggested as a continuous small perturbation to what appears to have been settled, given and concluded. List all the causes put forward so far, and reexplore them. If "bow" was declared the common culprit, "shake" this hypothesis a bit, and see if you drop this "model", what else comes up. Think all previous "accepted" wisdom possibly false, possibly correct, and needs to be re-explored. We may land up with same set of hypothesis again, or a subset, maybe find even newer ones.

I for one, think, that a combination of factors led to the "retreat", and no single factor should be prioritized. At best we can list a minimal set of hypothesis, which we cannot reduce further to explain what happened. I will try to put forward in subsequent posts reasons expanding the two factors I mentioned as the basic driving factors for the retreat - (a) the development of the "mercantile mentality" out of specific economic and geographical causes in the period concerned (b) the periodic "national" amnesia of the Indic.

Prohibitions and restrictions were not there when we started out. They grew because we forgot the "shaking" and "perturbing". Sometimes, we have to break to renew.

[Prem]

[quote="munna"][quote="surinder"][quote="Pranav"]I suppose that after say 1600AD archery started becoming irrelevant with the advent of muskets
The Sikh Guru, esp. Guru Gobind Singh, were fond of the bow-arrow. Guru Gobind Singh, who was very skilled in archery, used it extensively in battles with the Hill Rajas & Mughals in 1680's to the first decade of 1700's.[/
Veerji he also used to carry one (teer) with him all the time too ./quote]

Sorry for OT, but Surinder was there a incident when He shot the arrow into Mughal Emperor" court from very far distance as announcement of His arrival in Delhi. I read some where that Mughal King marvelled at it and thought of it as a miracle and then another arrow follwed with note telling him that its not miracle but 'practice".

[surinder]

Prem,

We will surely be wrapped on the knuckles for taking the discussion off-topic. If you can post on another more-relevant thread, I shall answer. In short: the incident you mention is indeed true, but it was during the war with hill rajas+Mughals, not in Delhi.

[brihaspati]

One of the possible reasons behind the question of Balochistan being raised, is perhaps an internal dilemma within TSP. If the official government can no longer rely on the northern part, and Pakjab, it has to consider a fall-back option territorially where it can move its base of power. This will be the southern regions in Balochistan and Sindh.

Both are not obvious and straightforward choices. Both have substantial hostility to the Pakjabi regime. However, the Bhuttos are politically based in Sindh and they will have considerable feudal landowning networks as means of social control. The PA will have sufficient presence and bases in Baloch. Moreover, in any crisis of its own doing, the PA has traditionally looked for support and succour from the "sea" through American naval power. Securing Balochistan is therefore a crucial point for the "Bhuttoic" government now in power.

Thus Pakistan is not going to implode in the sense many here have hoped for. But it has the distinct possibility of developing a North-South virtual division of military and political control, with large areas in the north coming under warlord control. Realizing the possibility of such a "retreat", US+UK would be keen to secure Balochistan for themselves. Catching India into the net is an admirable Machiavellian move. Now, the PA there can ruthlessly clear the area in the name of fighting India inspired "foreign terrorists" and "India sponsored non-state actors". This is a good international cover for operations that would otherwise make it difficult for the US+UK troops to be associated with.

It is not really about balancing Kashmir as "equal-equal". It is primarily about ethnic cleansing and making the region more controllable as a base to sustain the political entity of TSP somehow even if the north slips away from control. And to do all that under the cover of neutralizing "foreign" sponsored "terror". The excuse is wonderfully suited to the needs of US+UK+TSP.

[Atri]

Brihaspati ji,

How about division along Sindhu river? East of Sindhu and West of Sindhu (to be more accurate - Pakjab and Sindh Vs. NWFP and Balochistan).

I have written on this line in stability of pakistan dhaaga. Would like to know ur view..

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 66#p707666

[RajeshA]

Brihaspati ji,

First of all, my condolences on your recent loss.

You have a unique way of looking at things, so I would like to hear your opinion on the feasibility, benefits and repercussions of a particular solution to J&K problem. If you find time, please do comment.

The post is followed by 3-4 other posts, as further commentary on the solution.

Thank you.

[brihaspati]

Chiron-ji,
I definitely agree with your views on Pakjab. Long ao on this thread I had outlined my hopes for a plan that looks at a future incorporation of territiries currently occupied the by the GOTSP and pushing Bharatyia boundaries to the mountains of AFG. This would have meant for me including Sindh, NWFP, Pakjab and POK/NA. I had also tried to explain strategic reasons for doing this. For me Balochs should not be directly tried to be incorporated. They already have a strong "independence" movement going on. But securing the western banks of the Sindhu would be important, and could be a concession negiotiated with the Balochis in return for "helping them" gaining free nationhood status. NWFP needs to bsecured to siolate the "Jihadi" core in Pakjab. Pakjab is needed for generational ideological cleansing and locking doors to POK and the Karakorum access route to the Chinese.

[brihaspati]

RajeshA-ji,
my heartfelt gratitude for your kindness in my grief. May you prosper and live long.

I find your proposals for J&K most interesting. My worries :

(1) the fleeing refugees will be massacred by irregulars under regular protection, before they will be allowed to cross over. PA has everything to gain from this. They can liquidate "non-Muslims" on the one hand labeling them as traitors or attackers or whatever. They can also hope for an Indian attempt at intervention out of humanitarian reasons (a pseudo-71) to escalate the situation into "hot war".

(2) to do this successfully, you need a GOI that is not merely a GOI, but a LOI. That means a leadership that has long term visions of firmly bringing all of the subcontinent under its control first to facilitate more lasting civilizational reassertion of control. Otherwise there will be no clarity of purpose, and a confused ideological lurching will be weak willed in antagonizing the obvious hue and cry raised from certain ethnic and religious quarters. This will be disastrous for the refugees and a repeat of the 47 situation.

(3) you understand, that what you are saying will need full cooperation and coordination with the Army to make it less painful and traumatic. This can only happen as part of a much larger strategic military expansion.

(4) all these lead to perhaps the necessity of an iron willed, and focused command at the top of LOI.

No, I am running out of options to not mentioning the unemntionable. We do need a strong centralized determined core leadership that will not look at obstacles as excuses for inaction, and that ultimately has only one objective in mind - the unification of all the peoples of the subcontinent under one political, social, ideological and economic system. For that brief civilizational and historical time of transition we need singularity of purpose and the submission of all else before it. After that we can merrily pursue our pet pastimes of diversity and fractious implementations of democracy. Obviously, saying more is dangerous.

[brihaspati]

Perhaps the principle that should be adopted is "restoration of pre-1947" political boundaries without the independent existence of native states. This should be the goal, if not entirely achievable in the near future. Any religion that wants to exist in this new unified territory cannot ask for a homogeneous territiry reserved for its followers exclusively. Not that I am particularly against this, but then that should be extended to all religions and the minority faiths can easily imagine the fall out and impact on themselves.

From that principle, exclusivity of the Kashmir Valley for Islam and refusal of rights to settle to non-Muslims is not acceptable. No exclusive territorial claims can be entertained - and any such claim has to be ruthlessly crushed. Enough of vacillations and concessions that have been given. It can be quite painful, but unless Bharat stands firm and bears the pain resulting from not giving in to continuously increasing and never ending demands for concessions to exclusivity - all the forces that are ranged against the further prosperity and growth of Bharat, will gain time to recover and reorganize.

[RamaY]

From that principle, exclusivity of the Kashmir Valley for Islam and refusal of rights to settle to non-Muslims is not acceptable. No exclusive territorial claims can be entertained - and any such claim has to be ruthlessly crushed. Enough of vacillations and concessions that have been given. It can be quite painful, but unless Bharat stands firm and bears the pain resulting from not giving in to continuously increasing and never ending demands for concessions to exclusivity - all the forces that are ranged against the further prosperity and growth of Bharat, will gain time to recover and reorganize.

Bji,

Unfortunately the current social, political, and military leadership is supporting the very exclusivity of the Kashmir Valley for Islam by its inaction for the past many years. Kashmir vally's exclusivity is already a partial reality.

Looks like Indian mind is good at tying its own hands, from plebiscite to A370 to S-e-S. The rot gotten too deep and the mind does not even want to deliberate its purpose and destiny.

XPosting from another discussion

I would like to present the scenario from a different angel.

Prior to partition of India, the United India is one of the top 3 nations in terms of its relative strength when certain key aspects of a nation state are taken into consideration (see graph below - All values as a percentage of world total). UK was successful in denying that rightful place to India for its own national/geo-political interests. Most of us know this for a fact. When converted into hard cash most of these natural resources dwarf the national GDPs in real terms. So, while the economic growth is very important to a nation, it can never substitute the value of these natural resources.

Just because Pakistan stands as a separate nation doesn’t mean it has to be that way in future. The artificial nation-state of Pakistan was created to disable United India from rising post-independence and to serve external interests by being a banana republic. This brings us to the point Anujan-ji eloquently put in the S-e-S thread. What should be India’s Pakistan policy?

Before going in to the solution, let us understand the problem. The rationale behind Pakistan was

1. To provide a (perceived) safe haven for sub-continental Muslims - Pakistan ceased to exist as the safe haven to sub-continental Muslims the day more than 30% of them preferred to stay back in new India. The second blow to this hollow logic came in the form of Bangladesh in 1972. The final blow came in the form of Taliban, who proved that they are more pious than Pakistani ideology thus taking out the Muslim-cause from Pakistan. So today, Pakistan lost its purpose as the last resort to sub-continental Muslims.

2. To offer mercenary services to UK and USA – Pakistan successfully did this for more than 50 years until it decided to play its own game in Afghanistan thus hurting the very same USA/UK interests in the form of 9/11. After 9/11 Pakistan again and again proved that it is anything but inimical to western interests in the form of Islamic terrorism. In addition to that, Pakistan’s eagerness to become the b*tch of PRC and KSA removed whatever sole-ownership USA/UK has had on this rentier nation.

Now that the Pakistan lost its USP on the world stage, it naturally opens up interesting alternative solutions. If Pakistan is not the only representative of sub-continental muslims, does it need to exist as a separate nation? What stops India from reclaiming Pakistan? After all, Indian in the past 60 years demonstrated that –

a => That it can safeguard its Muslim minority. Not only that, the secular India ensured that the Muslim population is allowed to keep whatever unique values it has.
b => That it can control Islamic fundamentalism without resorting to usage of heavy machinery causing massive internally displaced population.
c => That it can handle religious/racial pluralism.

IMO, this should India’s Pakistan policy.

Once we have such a policy in place, the implementation strategies flow from that.

[brihaspati]

India should reclaim Pakistan not only because Pakistan has failed in all its justifications for its existence. But because the entire idea of Pakistan was an imagination based on an alien and imported ideology that was imposed on the land at the point of military coercion, and that still holds its primary ideological identification and affiliation to a source and cultural centre outside of the subcontinent. Because the idea of Pakistan was a bluff pulled by dominant theologians and affiliated Islamic political leadership and implemented with the active encouragement and support of colonial regimes and powers external to the subcontinent.

Because the idea of Pakistan was accepted by the then prevailing regime and political leadership among the non-Muslims, and no leader or leadership at any point of time in a nation's history is greater than the nation itself. Therefore what the non-Muslim leadership accepted is not binding on the nation, and it can and should overturn any decisions taken in the past that is perceived to have been disastrous, unilaterally painful and costly on the common members of the nation (and not on the leadership who suffered little or nothing even in personal terms of the fallout of the creation of the artificial entity of Pakistan).

The Indian subcontinent must come under one single political authority and economic system that also gives primacy to the long standing indigenous Bharatyia culture of the majority of the populations as modified to suit current advances in knowledge and humanitarian concepts. For those countries in the "west" which have brought down on the peoples of the subcontinent untold hardship, trauma and pain, in their racist, colonial and theological paranoia by supporting and maintaining the terrorist rashtra of Pakistan - it is time for their leadership and their people to understand that an unified subcontinent, not under Islam, is in their long term interest. Such an unified entity will stop Jihadi terror exports to the west, help in erasing Jihad globally over the long term, provide a much larger, integrated market to "exploit", and stable strategic infrastructure to utilize to get access to IO and the central Asian energy sources.

Any Indian leader or leadership that fails to carry out this agenda will go down in history not only as blind, clueless, and poor caricatures as statespersons but also as traitors who helped prolong the alien and artificially constructed entity of Pakistan, thereby extending the suffering of subcontinental populations on both sides of the existing borders - Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

[RajeshA]

Brihaspati ji,
thank you very much for taking the time to look at my post.

I find your proposals for J&K most interesting. My worries :

(1) the fleeing refugees will be massacred by irregulars under regular protection, before they will be allowed to cross over. PA has everything to gain from this. They can liquidate "non-Muslims" on the one hand labeling them as traitors or attackers or whatever. They can also hope for an Indian attempt at intervention out of humanitarian reasons (a pseudo-71) to escalate the situation into "hot war".

This is a function of money. With money you can buy border guards, you can buy shelter, you can buy passage. Secondly one should be able to push the Pakistani forces on the back-foot with a concerted human-rights campaign through UN, Western Media, GOTUS. Thirdly one can buy a Taliban group.

(2) to do this successfully, you need a GOI that is not merely a GOI, but a LOI. That means a leadership that has long term visions of firmly bringing all of the subcontinent under its control first to facilitate more lasting civilizational reassertion of control. Otherwise there will be no clarity of purpose, and a confused ideological lurching will be weak willed in antagonizing the obvious hue and cry raised from certain ethnic and religious quarters. This will be disastrous for the refugees and a repeat of the 47 situation.

Much will have to be done discretely. Some key opinion makers in the strategic circles and bureaucracy would have to be won over. Some key influential politicians would have to be bought. Other antagonistic politicians would have to be blackmailed with some exposures or weakened politically.

(3) you understand, that what you are saying will need full cooperation and coordination with the Army to make it less painful and traumatic. This can only happen as part of a much larger strategic military expansion.

I'll be writing some on this later.

(4) all these lead to perhaps the necessity of an iron willed, and focused command at the top of LOI.

I am not sure, if that can be ensured. A very weak 'LOI' can be just as useful, if it can be influenced by a nationalistic core group, but a very focused LOI would be preferable, of course.

No, I am running out of options to not mentioning the unmentionable. We do need a strong centralized determined core leadership that will not look at obstacles as excuses for inaction, and that ultimately has only one objective in mind - the unification of all the peoples of the subcontinent under one political, social, ideological and economic system. For that brief civilizational and historical time of transition we need singularity of purpose and the submission of all else before it. After that we can merrily pursue our pet pastimes of diversity and fractious implementations of democracy. Obviously, saying more is dangerous.

Thatastu, Gurudev!

[svinayak]

The Indian subcontinent must come under one single political authority and economic system that also gives primacy to the long standing indigenous Bharatyia culture of the majority of the populations as modified to suit current advances in knowledge and humanitarian concepts.

This is what RSS has been talking about for the last 80 years. Entire generation of Indians have been discussing this for several decades to unify the subcontinent. Others have ignored them. Time to listen to them.

[ramana]

The idea of all Bharatavarsha under one political authority has been their from time immemorial or epic age. The very name Bharat is from the first unifier. We have examples of the shad chkaravartis.

In the historical age it starts with Bimbisara of Maghada and got implemented under Ashoka of the Mauryan dynasty. In post Independence era, the Princiely States accession under Vallabhai Patel was a result of that impulse. What is left unfinished is to unify the rest of the appurtnent parts. In modern age SAARC was promoted as a way to usher in this unification. So all people subscribe to this under various strains of thoughts. Mrs. G's main impulse to support the formation of Bangladesh was to break the 'force of history' dogma and the Shimla Pact giveaway was to help a non Pakjabi PM to stay at the top in TSP which would have its own dynamic.

[surinder]

RajeshA,
Regarding Your proposal to settle Hindu/Sikh refugees from TSP in the K Valley
First the compliment: There are usually few postings with original ideas & thoughts. Yours is surely that. With that out of the way, I am afriad I think it is both unworkable and defeatist, if I may say so. Hope you don't mind my saying so.

The Hindus in TSP are one of the most abject downtrodden part of the population. Most of them are Haris and are often in the private prisons of the Maliks of Sindh. Sikhs are very few in number and are not worth commenting upon. They are mostly Pathan Sikhs. Pathans, as you know, are not fond of leaving their native habitats. These dirt poor, hardscrable, utterly dhimmized population is unlikely to have the stamina to fight it out in Bierut that K Valley will become.

Secondly, the presence of Hindus/Sikhs in TSP are a good bet for us. It is our hedge and prospective pockets of support. Their presence, however miniscule, is our marker of that land being ours once. I would not look forward to their elimination.

Thirdly, there are about 800 million Hindus/Sikhs in India. If those cannot take care of the K valley, which is populated by a mere few millions of very docile M's, then we have far deeper problem. We are expecting the crushed Haris (Hindus) of TSP to lead us, when the fat rich and dominant ones in India are unable or unwilling to do the deed themselves. The golden time to settle anyone was immediately after partion when the refugees from TSP (Hindus & Sikhs) were eager for land, opportunity and a fight. That was missed, it is unlikely that a similar group of people of such energetic bend will be available for India anytime soon.

[brihaspati]

RajeshAji's suggestions are good, but I am afraid are only implementable post factum. This "refugee" migration can take place only if there are military "excuses" for such a migration. Which in turn means development of an appropriate conflict situation in Pakjab, Sindh and POK. Who and what helps to bring forward such a situation is of course a much deeper subject.

But I would not be so confident about a "weak leadership". Such a weak leadership is more a burden and dangerous for any consistent Bharatyia policy. The weak leadership is amenable to manipulations by outside powers at the same time as the "Bharatyia" is pressurizing it in the proper direction. More likely, such a leadership would run quickly to cry and confide on external shoulders about what it is being pressurized to do - boo hoo!

The medium term goalpost for Indian strategy on land, is just two : incorporation of all of TSP with the possible exception of Balochistan declared an independent nation, and secondly, creation of free and independent Tibet.

It appears that we are abandoning both goalposts. I am not entirely convinced by the so-called Chankyan argument - that all this is just a show, and GOI or regime in power has ultimate plans to set all this right. The GOI is virtually helping the GOTSP to survive and prolong the existence of TSP in return, by increasing GOTSP's prestige as an extractor of concessions from India.

ramanaji,
IG's impulsive paranoia is sorely missed, even by a non-lover of hereditary monarchy and hater of all dynastic thinking. But what can we do, need an even more ruthless will with less vacillations on "secular" commitments - which are a handicap for the task at hand.

[RajeshA]

RajeshA,
Regarding Your proposal to settle Hindu/Sikh refugees from TSP in the K Valley
First the compliment: There are usually few postings with original ideas & thoughts. Yours is surely that. With that out of the way, I am afriad I think it is both unworkable and defeatist, if I may say so. Hope you don't mind my saying so.

surinder ji,

thanks for your honesty.

Sikhs are very few in number and are not worth commenting upon. They are mostly Pathan Sikhs. Pathans, as you know, are not fond of leaving their native habitats.

Sikhs may be few, but their migration to India would have a symbolic value of shared pain and endeavor. The Pathan Sikhs are having a hard time right now to come up with jaziya demanded by the Taliban. They might have to reconsider their attachment to their homes.

These dirt poor, hardscrable, utterly dhimmized population is unlikely to have the stamina to fight it out in Bierut that K Valley will become.

There would need to be proper psychological preparation and training. Indian forces will also be there in Kashmir to support them just in case. Over time, the confidence will come.

Secondly, the presence of Hindus/Sikhs in TSP are a good bet for us. It is our hedge and prospective pockets of support. Their presence, however miniscule, is our marker of that land being ours once. I would not look forward to their elimination.

As you yourself pointed out, the Hindus who live there are a crushed lot. Most do menial work, and have no chance of improving their lives. Their women are kidnapped and 'wed' off to some jihadis after conversion. The State gives no succor.

These type of crushed Hindus there simply remind the Pakistanis that they are the lords over the Hindus and plays to their ego. The Hindus in Pakistan have become a reminder of Islamic victory over the Kufr of Hindustan. It would be much better if the Pakis only have to contend with the images of Hindus from Bollywood and other glossy media. The only Hindu, the Paki sees should be the Hindu he either envies or fears from across the border.

When the Final Solution to Pakistan comes about, there will be other Hindus going from India to bring the Pakjabis and Sindhis back into the Indic fold. The Hindu cleaning the toilets of Bahawalpur only reminds the Paki, he need not fear any Hindu, even those from across the border. With no Hindus in Pakistan, the Hindu would attain its own myth of the mystical demon. Those are psyops for the later days.

there are about 800 million Hindus/Sikhs in India. If those cannot take care of the K valley, which is populated by a mere few millions of very docile M's, then we have far deeper problem.

I think, that would be everyone's favorite solution here on BRF. But you are aware of our political dynamics, or should I say political stasis. These days Indian politicians like to take the route of least possible friction, when it comes to Muslim protests, and they often find some law or rule to hide their cowardice and appeasement behind. Article 370 is one such Article. There is no escaping it. It remains a burden around our necks. It will always be there.

Secondly even if we were to get rid of it, you saw what happened in the aftermath of the Amarnath Yatra Land issue. All the Kashmiri Muslims went on a rampage, and it had to be retracted. That was one little land deal. Article 370 is a big thing, and no politician wants to see that kind of reaction.

So 800 million Hindus/Sikhs are powerless to change anything, as the Constitution and Indian politicians will not allow them. We have to take that as a given.

We are expecting the crushed Haris (Hindus) of TSP to lead us, when the fat rich and dominant ones in India are unable or unwilling to do the deed themselves.

Perhaps if we look upon these Haris as our saviors, then there may be a concerted push to improve their status and courage level, while they are still in Pakistan. Some counseling through their community leaders, some arms-/fitness-training, some financial support could be helpful.

The golden time to settle anyone was immediately after partition when the refugees from TSP (Hindus & Sikhs) were eager for land, opportunity and a fight. That was missed, it is unlikely that a similar group of people of such energetic bend will be available for India anytime soon.

Can't do much about missed opportunities. Energetic bend is something that can be trained. If Abdul goes into Madrassa, and a rabid armed Jihadi comes out, then something similar is also possible with the Haris.

As you notice, I am making many assumptions here, which can help achieve success. It is an optimistic view of things. How realistic it is, is an open question.

With all due respect, I wouldn't call it 'defeatist'. Loss of Kashmir for an eternity, including its waters, would be a heavy shock for the Pakistan. Losing the Hindu marker in Pakistan could be considered a loss, but these 'assets' remain unused and forgotten. When Pakistan cracks, even the Sindhi feudals would have a hard time. In another generation, the Hari from Sindh can go back to a chaotic Pakistan or whatever is left of it on an Indian Passport and tell how much his son earns as a manager. I think we are behaving defeatist right now, when we pretend these Hindus do not exist, for any reminder of them would cause shame.

[surinder]

There is no psy ops value in getting the Hindus out of TSP, M TSP'ians are a very very deluded lot. The bravado of their izslaamic victories may ring hollow for us, but for them it is as true as sun which rises in the morning. We may be amazed that PBUH's followers had nothing but continuous decline for the 300+ years, but they wouldn't let evidence spoil their bloated egos. Heck, TSP army has yet to win a war, but it is still the most revered institution in TSP. These TSP'ians are not normal men & women.

Next thing is that if/when such refugees pour in, wouldn't article 370 prevent their settlement in K-valley?

Ultimately, the 800 million already in India would have to stop relying on the poor 3 million refugees for redemption. Those that were already well-settled in K-valley since the dawn of history have been driven. We couldn't stop it. Ultimately it is not the courage of the politicians that counts, it is the courage of the commoners. To take back the K-valley would require the type of stubborn brave fearlessness displayed by the Israeli Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Indians, unfortunately, have not displayed any personal characteristics which comes even remotely close.

[brihaspati]

surinderji,
the Israelis were all singlemindedly focused on establishing an independent state of their own. In this there were little or no divergence between the various Jewish factions that worked to establish the Jewish state. Moreover, within themselves, they had no established state power that would oppose their bid to "grab" land and have a "toehold" in Palestine. The case would be radically different here. For in India, it is the resources provided by the non-Kashmiri rest-of-India that is used by Indian rashtra to maintain the rashtryia machinery that in turn is aused to enforce 370.