Strategic leadership for the future of India

[brihaspati]

RM,
I am quite positive that at least one voice in those who meet you regularly, will be passing on info to Interested Busybodies. May I humbly suggest not to mention particular bodies or people in your anti-corruption drive even in casual chatter? Keep it abstract! They will watch you closely, and if they see any signs of you increasing your reach, you could be in for some nasty surprises. What you are doing is valuable. I do not know, how serious or how far you are prepared to go with this "party" business. If possible, try not to frighten the vested interests too much - a la Gorbachov. I do wish you success - or at least that your efforts are not nipped in the bud. Even if your party does not go very far, you would be a valuable element for future efforts. I have seen too many "destroyed" by the rashtra, one way or the other. Hope, did not offend you with my unsolicited "suggestions". Regards. B.

[gandharva]

Three Major Conflicts and India's Strategy --Eternal India --Sept-2009
by R.
Vaidyanathan

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19383801/Thre ... a-Sept2009

[rkirankr]

sukhdeo wrote:

How do we, the people, you and I, start the process of building a healthier society ?

I do not know and cannot talk of changing entire Bharat or anything even though I truly believe in those theories of Brihaspati. The first fault which I perceived as people just fail regularly to do the duty assigned to them as part of their professional role, responsibility in society and position honestly and sincerely.
A small example. When just fresh out of PG, I joined a college to teach and I was told by the principal that 2nd year degree class was bad and they need extra coaching in during Navaratri holidays and even during sundays. He had almost given up on the final year guys as he considered them beyond redemption. I and another teacher who was just a year or two senior to me went about our duties. In course of time we found that the syllabes was never completed and the practical classes were never conducted for these classes in previous academic years. Many in final year had not touched a screw gauge. We did not do anything special, we just completed all the syllabes assigned to us within the alloted time.Both theory and practical. We expected the worst , but we found to our pleasant surprise , that the pass percentage increased dramatically for both the second year and final year students.
Please note we were not great teachers at all, we in our idealism felt (i still feel the same otherwise I would not be posting this) that we had to do our assigned duty honestly. No heroics, no special classes etc. I find that lacking in many fields. People do not do or do wrong duties for various reasons like money, nepotism etc
In teaching itself many neglect their regular classes for tuitions. I do accept teachers need that extra money but not by neglecting your primary duty. I have seen teachers who are brilliant in tutions but just pass time in college. However they take all the perks given by the govt.

[shiv]

Please note we were not great teachers at all, we in our idealism felt (i still feel the same otherwise I would not be posting this) that we had to do our assigned duty honestly. No heroics, no special classes etc. I find that lacking in many fields. People do not do or do wrong duties for various reasons like money, nepotism etc
In teaching itself many neglect their regular classes for tuitions. I do accept teachers need that extra money but not by neglecting your primary duty. I have seen teachers who are brilliant in tutions but just pass time in college. However they take all the perks given by the govt.

My compliments. All you have done is that you have been dharmic.

Now go back to your own background

Did your upbringing make you "dharmic"? Your parents? Your grandparents?
Was it you teachers who inculcated dharma?

As far as I am concerned it was my parents who gave me the initial push, and that made me recognize dharma and adharma, and made me attracted to teachers who were dharmic whose example I then followed.

To me there is a sad truth that emerges from this. Dharma has been eliminated from many homes in India. It has been eliminated from among many government servants. If it gets eliminated from among teachers - we do not have much hope other than to teach our children and keep a faint spark alive.

[sukhdeo]

Please note we were not great teachers at all, we in our idealism felt (i still feel the same otherwise I would not be posting this) that we had to do our assigned duty honestly. No heroics, no special classes etc. I find that lacking in many fields. People do not do or do wrong duties for various reasons like money, nepotism etc
In teaching itself many neglect their regular classes for tuitions. I do accept teachers need that extra money but not by neglecting your primary duty. I have seen teachers who are brilliant in tutions but just pass time in college. However they take all the perks given by the govt.

My compliments. All you have done is that you have been dharmic.

Now go back to your own background

Did your upbringing make you "dharmic"? Your parents? Your grandparents?
Was it you teachers who inculcated dharma?

As far as I am concerned it was my parents who gave me the initial push, and that made me recognize dharma and adharma, and made me attracted to teachers who were dharmic whose example I then followed.

To me there is a sad truth that emerges from this. Dharma has been eliminated from many homes in India. It has been eliminated from among many government servants. If it gets eliminated from among teachers - we do not have much hope other than to teach our children and keep a faint spark alive.

By dharma do you only mean duty in a narrow sense ? Or Duty in a larger sense includes:

1. Hard work
2. Honesty
3. Straight forwardness
4. Courage
5. Compassion
6. Loyalty
7. ability to work in a leadership role, but also as a lowly member of a team
8. sacrifice
9. ability to make a living through honest means
10. contributing to building a society, not destroying it

Which of the above, in your opinion DOESNT come under "Dharma" ?

And it doesnt matter where all these values or Dharma comes from. I know of orphans being raised in orphanages practicing these values and I know of people from best of families not being Dharmic. Every person is responsible for his own journey and playing the cards he/she has been dealt with. Some get dealt a good hand, in that their families impart these values, some dont, but still overcome odds to acquire them. There is no set formula, of how you acquire values, but there are set values that you do have to acquire.

[Rahul Mehta]

RM,
I am quite positive that at least one voice in those who meet you regularly, will be passing on info to Interested Busybodies. May I humbly suggest not to mention particular bodies or people in your anti-corruption drive even in casual chatter? Keep it abstract! They will watch you closely, and if they see any signs of you increasing your reach, you could be in for some nasty surprises. What you are doing is valuable. I do not know, how serious or how far you are prepared to go with this "party" business. If possible, try not to frighten the vested interests too much - a la Gorbachov. I do wish you success - or at least that your efforts are not nipped in the bud. Even if your party does not go very far, you would be a valuable element for future efforts. I have seen too many "destroyed" by the rashtra, one way or the other. Hope, did not offend you with my unsolicited "suggestions". Regards. B.

I sincerely respect your suggestions, and I am not offended at all. And pls dont refer them as "unsolicited " , they are very much asked and welcome.

The issue is : if I dont give explicit examples, then theories etc wont make any sense to them. The newspapers, textbooks etc give zero information to citizens on real-politics and real-economics. You will be amazed, but even the students in LLM dont know how much money HCjs and SCjs make, and third year economics BA students have no clue on how rupee manufacturing works in India, and how bribes are thrown in finance Ministries. Many believe that "checks and balances are in place" and so nothing can go wrong in RBI, Supreme Court, High Courts and other high places. If I dont give exact examples, they will get no clue on what big mess exists in Supreme Court, High Courts, RBI, CMOs, PMO etc. And yes, you are right --- this can create mess in my life. But looks like, I have no option but to take chances.

----

(will post more later)

[brihaspati]

shivji,
parents have given up on the home component. They rely on the the super-educators and the "professionals" to give that extra edge to the kids to compete economically. A parallel component of material that the parents themselves should imbibe and impart to their children - including alternative real non-Thaparite "history", values and their sources and contexts (without adding to the dogma form - which will be then dismissed as superstition), needs to be collected and made available or "silently" campaigned for among "parents.

[shiv]

And it doesnt matter where all these values or Dharma comes from. I know of orphans being raised in orphanages practicing these values and I know of people from best of families not being Dharmic. Every person is responsible for his own journey and playing the cards he/she has been dealt with. Some get dealt a good hand, in that their families impart these values, some dont, but still overcome odds to acquire them. There is no set formula, of how you acquire values, but there are set values that you do have to acquire.

What I have said is not incompatible with what you write. Dharma is best inculcated at home within a core family rather than leaving it to random orphanages. And the so called "best of families" cannot be the best of families if they have not inculcated dharma.

In India there is a general abrogation of dharma in the family that has spanned many generations so that the parents of today often have not themselves been brought up in an environment that encourages dharma. What angers me is the superficial hallmarks of Hinduness that these people carry - wearing a tilak on their heads even as they conduct their rotten practices.

[brihaspati]

X-posting from YSR thread in GDF: (would get to these posts from the leadership pov)

ramana wrote

brihaspati wrote:
ramanaji,
would you see the result of "bhakti -rupena" "sanskritization" in AP? The mindset looks towards a "avatar", and is desperately in need of one. Did YSR fulfill that role at least in re-imagining himself? The "messianic" line will also fit in nicely into this. But if this interpretation is true, then the basic argument behind "replacement of BJP" has completely different meaning. It simply means that "Hindu"-YSR could be equally successful as focal point.

The Andhras, mind you I am not saying Telugus, are a troubled folk who have suffered at the hands of Islamic invaders from Tughlaq times. Half their land in Deccan was occupied by Tughlaq, Bahmani,, QutbShahi and Asf jahi sultanates for centuries. Earlier their ancestral lands were divided after the decline of Satavahanas. It was only the Andhra agitation that led to the linguistic re-organization of India but only after losing the crown jewel. They havent had time to build their narrative when they were thrust into modernity. So we see all sort so clutching at leader figures.

SwamyG wrote

Shaardula et al {brihaspati ji you might be interested too from the leadership perspective}
Your question is best answered by the author Vaasanthi in her book "Cut-outs, Caste and Cine Stars". This is a book by her on the TN politics, and some of what she writes can easily be applied to politicians and people across the border. As usual I will allow the author to state the thoughts.... Here is she talking about TN leaders of DMK and AIDMK but read it in the context of AP as well.

quote
The feud is of epic dimensions. In combat of the nature of a mythical war, it becomes imperative that the leader is glorified to abnormal levels to sustain the cadres' motivation, which explains the intrinsic connection between political mobilization and the rise of authoritarian leadership. Periyar foresaw this and opposed electoral politics.

The leader must be projected as an exalted being with rare or superhuman qualities and the followers necessarily are mere mortals, upon whom he showers his grace. Mass mobilization is possible only by the projection of this schism in class and intellect. It is a well-tested strategy all over the world that has helped leaders and their followers. But the most notable feature in Tamil Nadu, reminiscent of medieval times, is the subservience shown by the followers to the leaders.

The expressions of subservience are not necessarily signs of actual subservience.

Analysts may call it 'non-egalitarian traits of the subservience type' or argue that it 'legitimized a conception of plitical relations as inherently unequal' but I call it a clever strategy in the competitive politics of survivial

Nowhere else in India can you find followers immolating themselves for their leaders as they did in Tamil Nadu when MGR and Annadurai died or when Jayalalitha and Karunanidhi were arrested. I have observed that the leaders are grieved but not horrified by such deaths. The number of deaths was a measure of the leader's popularity.
Both Dravidian parties run along clearly drawn lines. There can only be one leader and his or her command shall be obeyed.

Periyar, for all his revolutionary ideas and tenacity of purpose, never failed to remind the audience, "Do not blindly believe what I say. Think for yourself and make your own decisions.' The followers of Periyar know that if you run a political party, there can be no such allowances. There has to be a leader who supremacy cannot be challenged. It has to be blown out of proportion.

They are the gods of today since the old gods have been banished.

Cardboard or real, the leaders are fully aware that all this and more are only party of a democratic system in which they will be held accountable. <snip><snip><snip><snip><snip> But this cult is fostered mainly within the party while the majority of the voters, unbound by party affiliations, use the vote to speak their minds.

[brihaspati]

A most interesting take on "leadership". My first questions:

If the personality cult is important for the "party" as an unification point, why are the non-party masses also involved in this psyche of submission? If leaders are a substitute for "god" then it becomes problematic. First, leaders by definition can never be gods - they remind the followers every day how far they are from "gods". They are mortal, and they are defeated at the hands of mere humans.

What if the leaders are actually substitutes of "messengers" or "avatarans" of "God" and not a substitute of "God"? A direct binary realtionship of the "messenger/avatar" and the "bhakta" bypasses social reality of mutiple fractures and hierarchies, and as the Vaishnav "reformers" made it - also a tool to bypass interim authorities that impose themselves between the common and the representative of "highest". In a way, therefore such a submission by the bhakta is a strategy of direct claim on the "supreme" bypassing "priesthood".

Bhaktas probably suffer from a fatal illusion. In the spiritual domain, a direct personal relation with God is pefectly feasible in the mental world. In reality of social organization, sheer limitation of time and capacity of an individual human leader, necessarily produces a priesthood around the "leader". It is not a problem of democracy, it is a problem of not allowing the questioning spirit to be fostered in the commons.

[SwamyG]

Brihaspati ji: In TN the non-party masses are not subservient. They are like "raman aandan yena, ravanan aandan yena" {what goes to me, if Rama or Ravana ruled the Kingdom}. You can see these as they routinely cycle DMK and AIADMK in the elections.

[brihaspati]

^^^originally in that thread - we were trying to grapple with Andhra. How would you extend your arguments to Andhra?

[ramana]

In modern times it does matter whether you are ruled by Ram or Ravan. The latter can loot you dry and send you to stone ages. Look at Bihar under Lallu.

Off course there are those who want to paint all opposition leaders as Ravans. Case in point Modi.

[shaardula]

sorry to be using using thread like this.

Churches in Karnataka form forum
http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/10/stories ... 290400.htm

BANGALORE: Churches across Karnataka have come together to form the Karnataka United Christian Forum for Human Rights with the objective of promoting unity among churches, protecting human rights and promoting peace in the community.

This formation gains significance in the light of a series of attacks on churches in Karnataka in 2008, allegedly abetted by the Sangh Parivar.

The forum has put forward a common minimum faith understanding, ethics and action programme for the churches that have come forward to be part of the forum, which will be headed by the Archbishop of Bangalore Bernard Moras.

Code of conduct
“We felt the need to come together as we needed to know ourselves. A code of conduct is being put in place for all churches. In this way, we are trying to help ourselves and prevent attacks and accusations against churches,” Rev. Moras told presspersons here on Wednesday.

The forum brings together The Roman Catholic Church, The CSI Church, The Methodist Church, The Mar Thoma Church, The Jacobite Church, The Believers Church, The Karnataka Baptist Church, The Assemblies of God, The Federation of Christian Churches Organisation, and small historical churches like Lutheran, Seventh Day Adventist, Salvation Army and others. All these churches will be entering into a memorandum of association, and adhere to the code of conduct, Rev. Moras pointed out.

“So far, nobody (churches) has openly said that they would not join the forum. We are trying to educate all of them. Though resistance may come from individuals, churches have not resisted the move,” he said.

Rev. Moras, later, addressing a gathering of leaders representing various churches, said: “There have been accusations of forced conversion and enticement. Most of them are not true at all. None has been able to prove the forced conversion charges at any time.”

CME
The forum has put forward a common minimum ethic (CME) to be followed while preaching and propagating the religion.

It has suggested that churches should avoid aggressiveness in the matter of sharing the faith and follow only those methods that are appropriate to the present time.

In particular, churches should refrain from offering material or other allurements to draw away members from other Christian or other religious communities are faith, the CME said.

Besides, the CME resolves not to condemn or denigrate gods and deities of other religions, or elements of tradition held sacred by other communities, both in preaching and publications. “The beauty of our faith is tarnished and not enhanced when we denigrate someone else’s faith,” it said, and added that churches should respect their beliefs and practices, and work together for the common cause of salvation and integrity of human community.

The forum has also proposed a common mini mum action to build harmonious relationship with people of all religions and cultures.

[SwamyG]

^^^originally in that thread - we were trying to grapple with Andhra. How would you extend your arguments to Andhra?

I think we can extend that logic just not to AP but elsewhere in India too. But unlike TN, elsewhere the caste-factor enters into the picture and clouds the water. The party cadres hoist the leaders based on caste or ideology expecting return of investments. It is not to say that caste does not play a role in TN politics - just a tad bit less than AP.

[brihaspati]

Churches in Karnataka form forum

The value of "aggression" on the Abrahamic exposing the politics of conversions and proselytization. Such toning down of tones only happen in the proselytizing Abrahamic when they realize they are fighting for survival. That is the only time when the "oh-we-are-peaceful-changers of heart-onlee" comes out and messages of tolerance of other "faiths" come across.

This is a simple survival measure, and a propaganda representation to tackle the adverse effects of exposure of methods of conversion and attitudes towards non-Abrahamic cultures. The passage also indicates that there are shark like feeding frenzy going on with sects trying to feed on other sects.

[ramana]

Brihaspatiji, Can you use simple sentence structure to convey the thoughts? Most of us are engineers and would like direct sentences. However this is not an admonishment or a suggestion to dumb down.

Consider it feedback.

ramana

[brihaspati]

sorry! just habit for compressing a lot for publications. I will try to be conscious of this!

[brihaspati]

Another version:

Churches in Karnataka form forum

We can see the effectiveness of maintaining ideological "aggression" on the Abrahamic. Such tactics exposes the politics of conversions and proselytization. If the Church leaders are toning down their expansionist messages, then it means they are scared. The proselytizing Abrahamic only do this when they realize they are fighting for survival. That is the only time when the "oh-we-are-peaceful-changers of heart-onlee" comes out and messages of tolerance of other "faiths" come across.

This is a simple survival measure. It is a propaganda representation to tackle the adverse effects of exposure of methods of conversion and attitudes towards non-Abrahamic cultures.

The appeal to other Christian sects indicates that just as sharks feed in frenzy other wonded or weakened sharks, the sects are trying to gain in numbers from other sects.

However, the attempt at forming some kind of "unified" Church has already been made.

THE Pope was recognised as the overall authority in the Christian world by an Anglican and Roman Catholic commission yesterday which described him as a "gift to be received by all the Churches". ...if a new united Christian Church was created it would be the 'Bishop of Rome who would exercise a universal primacy. The 43-page document, The Gift of Authority, has been produced by the 18-member Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, after five years of debate. The commission concluded that the Bishop of Rome had a "specific ministry concerning the discernment of truth" and accepted that only the Pope had the moral authority to unite the various Christian denominations. Mark Birchall, a member of the Church of England Evangelical council, said: "It speaks as if the Bishop of Rome has always been on the side of the angels while it is well known that for several centuries past the Bishop of Rome was certainly not." The Rt Rev Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Bishop of Arundel and Brighton and the other co-chairman, added: "The primacy of the Pope is a gift to be shared." - Electronic Telegraph-UK News May 13, 1999 Oliver Poole http://www.freerepublic.com/

I have come across a lot of material and patterns in the way the miles-Christi (meaning all the "militants" and not just that official Catholic order of that name) are moving towards what they perceive as a required global move. This is particularly evident in the way the "prophetic" literature and ramblings are increasing. They are working according to their expectations of the future. And this expectation is sourced from within the Judaic narratives.

On BRF the analysis is unfortunately not possible, for reasons we all know. But to understand both the Islamists and the extended-EJ and their essentially political-military behaviour - we do need to understand their theology. Those interested, do research on the word "antichrist" - especially what debates rage on between the various Christian "mouthpieces" around this.

There is a reason they are panicked - entirely out of their own imaginations. It is important to realize that they are not consciously "Chankyan". They have severe limitations due to their preconceptions and beliefs. But because by historical accidents they have the power to cause immense damage, we should be able to undestand the causes of their fanaticism and blindness. It will come in handy!

[ramana]

An easy explaination is Ummahization is a KSA funded political project. EJihadization is a US funded political project. You will see direct evidence of KSA and US respectively in thse two projects.

So when one hears or comes across EJ activity there is direct line to uncle.

[brihaspati]

The US is partly self-delusional and partly blinded by its underlying theological shortsightedness. Part of the whole game is of course sheer biological survival - therefore economic. But they always try to marry economic objectives with their theological expectations. Not all of their actions are purely calculable on economic dominance only.

Or lets say they use theology to justify economic moves, and economic moves to justify theological expectations.

[JwalaMukhi]

Theology is the harbinger and exploratory attack to pry open the targets. (Solid backing of the army militaristic (either regular or mercenary) as well as economic hitmen will surely follow). Although, even if every single one in the targetted area embraces the snake oil peddled by EJ s, the sponsors' primary interests lies in getting the first/second rung of the leadership firmly in its fold. The rest of the masses are just buffers. The aim is to: sustain the environment to nurture leadership firmly cast in the mould of EJs or relies on benvolence of EJ s to stay in power. In other words leadership or power cannot be wielded by anyone without the oversight of EJ sponsor. Colonization by proxy in short.

The buffers buy the ponzi scheme, hoping one day they will ride the gravy train only to realize the perfidy when it is too late, just as Prachanda of Nepal will, when his time comes. Will the buffers share the same high table once they buy the snake oil, not in a gazillion eons. After all, buffer will always be the Mohajir and cannot be purelander.

[JwalaMukhi]

Just continuation of the thought process. This is not about comparative theology. This is just used to put the point across of how EJ is setup to win no matter what and hence why the leadership that is in place willing becomes underlings of EJ.
The sponsor of EJ is least bothered if the targetted population becomes proficient or reads “Bible”, but is most interested in ensuring the target doesn't have space and time to read say for example “Gita”. The debate will squarely shift from being about loss of space and time to read “Gita” to; should reading “Bible” be allowed either it is due to coercion or free volition nonsense.
The EJ has already scored victory when the debate shifts and it is popcorn time for sponsors when targets go on debating whether to allow reading or not of 'Bible'. Once in a while, the debate with the most gratituitous ones will be about why “Gita” is not strong as “Bible” because people choose to read what they like. The parameter of debate shifts to comparison of two disparate entities with no end in sight. The debate will never occur just purely about loss of “Gita” and what needs to be done to preserve that. Any patronage to Gita alone is impossible, because by QED; already Gita and Bible are on par and hence patronage needs to be extended to any sundry thing that any EJ has power to muzzle it in targetted population. Once the targets exhausts debating this diversion, the target has already lost touch with 'Gita' and spent precious time.

Ergo best compromise - no patronage to either 'Gita' or 'Bible'. One more loss to Target. EJ posture is rigged to win always. Target is rigged to lose always in this game. The only way target can win in this situation is to either:
1)Does not take part in this nonsense game. Not feasible.
2)Becomes mirror image of EJ sponsor.
No. no. not as in aggressive tendencies, but to treat the snake oil pushed by EJ as a mere curosity fit to be studied as in a museum piece. Just as in sponsors arena the debate about 'Gita' will be a mere curosity studied by fringes of society and not the mainstream. The patronage is extended only to the desired phenomena.

Alternately, the Targets can get Pyrrhic victory when target imitates to become underlings of the EJ sponsor. By being underlings, the ponzi scheme is propagated to stay in power. The leadership that is seen in the current crop is racing towards Pyrrhic victory.

[ramana]

Brishapatiji, I was reading J.L. Mehta's book Advanced History of Medieval India vol III where in he describes the iqtadari system that the Slave dynasty implemented after their win at Delhi. This system was over the underlying thakur, zamindari system and allowed the systematic conquest of the Indo-Gangetic plains in one century (13th century).

My question to you was the INC regional satraps method a throwback to those early times of Islamic conquest to create a new class of supporters? It was a new social order being setup. If so it must have become entrenched by the mid-sixties and this was the Syndicate? All iqtadari systems wll lead to revolt of the satraps or iqtadars against central authority. And more dangerous allows foreing linkages to the iqtadars.


Ref:

Advanced History of Medieval India by J.L. Mehta vol 3.

[brihaspati]

ramanaji,
there are important similarities but a significant difference. J.L.Mehta notes that the then medieval society was divided horizontally into tow primary divisions based on "religion". For the iqtadars, their continuing isolation and marginal existence as pockets of "Muslims" in a sea of "Hindus", created a dynamic which made them open to foreign collaboration. But in the case of Syndicate in 60's, there is no such inherent isolation from the regional populace, and no extra incentive to have foreign collaboration. In fact they would be subject to the same temptation or penetration by foreign interests as the "centre".

The similarities, as you note astutely, are actually the effectiveness of the regional free-wheeling satraps in enforcing loyalty of the local populace to the central authority. But in case of Syndicate, it was more an alliance of mutual tactical benefits with indigenous second tier leaders, rather than appointment of central retainers as in the case of Mamluks.

For reasons I hinted before, I know that the "eastern" Syndicate gave JLN quite a bit of trouble around the Partition. They practically used the then ongoing efforts between Fajlul Haque and Sarat Bose (possible support to them or switching to supporting them) as a threat to wrangle certain territories. But I also had a feeling that they shared the inherent mistrust of the "Muslim" with the "centre". This was what made it a very complex dynamic relationship. JLN used this mistrust to get the "pre-Syndicate" to concede certain areas - which to my mind can only be explained if JLN was bargaining with the British to save territories that he considered more important. But at least from what my own family network (some of whom were involved) and from "cross-examining" the surviving syndicate member myself, repeatedly, I have the impression that very hard bargaining went on between the "centre" and the "pre-syndicate".

What the syndicate "told" me was that, they realized that power would be handed by the British to the faction around "JLN". They were mistrustful of Jinnah, and more so because the most reactionary core of Muslim leadership was concentrated in the "east" - and they were aware of the degree of "militant" preparation undertaken by ML, especially the substantial number of demobbed Muslim offciers and soldiers released by the BIA (which I also know directly from descendants of such people - this is why I have to bitterly laugh every time I read on this forum about the deafeningly loud claims of legendary non-communality and oh-so-much-above-religious-pettiness of armies in general by default).

The Congress policy of not allowing its activists to enlist, while the ML did so - meant that the provincial Congress did not have similar demobbed armymen to mount effective counteraction to ML. (Not a very strong argument - but the debate I had with him would be OT here). This combined perception of weakness and threat from the ML, also made them lean over to JLN at the same time they were bargaining with him.

From the JLN side, enlisting their support by allowing them to rise in the hierarchy and future satrapy meant buying off their thrust for more territory in the "east". You can find a hint of the basic motivations of territorial consolidation in the subsequent efforts of B.C.Roy.

Yes, some of them could be vulnerable to "foreign" influences - but if you look carefully, such persons were not "organization" people - they did not have popular org base. There was a class of Congress "illuminaries" who were created so, simply because of their flying around like fire-attracted flies around the triumvirate. They had utility of glittering the name of the "leaders" and establish personality cults. These "leaders" would be ambitious without base, and therefore much more open to external manipulations.

However, most of the org-syndicate actually left "power" before the non-org syndicate took the plunge of overturning the "dynasty/centre". (In the late 60's compared to the non-orgs moves in late 70's). I think a better model is the transition period from Sultanate to the Mughal. The base-less iqtadars correspond to the non-org-syndicate, and the Rajput collaborators correspond to the org-syndicate.

[ramana]

Thanks. Let me decode it.

[brihaspati]

Ninety years ago - the year 1919 was in many senses a turning point for Bharat.

Afghan Amir Habibulla was murdered in February 1919 and was succeeded by his son Amanullah. Egged by agitators from India, he rallied his forces and attacked the British. His Afghan troops crossed the Khyber Pass in early May, calling on the tribes to rise and were joined by Wazirs and Mahsuds, but defeated by General Dyer’s army. The British occupied the frontier town of Dakka and planes bombed Kabul and Jalalabad. Amanullah agreed to a truce in August and signed a treaty with the British in 1921. During this period Waziristan was out of control, and Indian troops replaced the tribal militias on which the British had relied since Curzon.

The Sedition Committee (Rowlatt) submitted its report in April 1918, and it led to the harshly repressive Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act in March 1919. A special court with three judges and no appeal was set up to meet in secret, and the Indian Evidence Act did not apply. Provincial governments could order any suspected person to furnish security, to reside in a particular area, or to abstain from any specified act. They could search and arrest without a warrant, and the confined person had no right to a lawyer.

After the Government introduced the two bills to implement the recommendations of the Rowlatt Committee in February 1919, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Madan Mohan Malaviya resigned from the committee. Gandhiji called a conference and was chosen president of the Satyagraha Sabha to organize a campaign. They planned a hartal (general strike) for March 30, and on that day police fired on a crowd in Delhi, killing eight people, but the main hartal was changed to April 6. Gandhiji called for self-purification by prayer and fasting. He was not allowed to enter the Punjab and escorted to Bombay. A crowd, angry over his arrest, was thrilled to see him in Bombay. Mounted police charged the crowd and trampled some people. The report of Gandhi’s arrest caused disturbances in Ahmadabad. A mob led by mill-hands became violent. Two officials and at least 28 Indians were killed as 123 were wounded. Gandhiji said he did not want to be saved from prison by such acts. Four days later he siad that he had made a “Himalayan miscalculation.” He suspended the campaign and went on a penitential fast for three days.

In the Punjab Lt.-Governor Michael O’Dwyer and Reginal Dyer killed 379 and wounded 1,137 people.
Martial law was declared in Amritsar on April 15, and it was not lifted until June 11. Airplanes with machine guns killed at least nine and wounded sixteen people. The Martial Law Commissions charged 298 people, convicted 218, of whom 51 were sentenced to death, 46 to transportation for life, and 104 to imprisonment for three years or more. The official Hunter Report quoted Dyer’s own report that he was less concerned with dispersing the crowd and more intent on “producing a sufficient moral effect from a military point of view.” General Drake-Brockman of Delhi also made the statement, “Force is the only thing that an Asiatic has any respect for.”

Gandhiji took over the weekly Young India and began editing Navajivan in Hindi. Malaviya investigated the atrocities and presented them to the Central Legislative Council, but the Government passed a Bill of Indemnity to protect the civil and military officials in the Punjab from responsibility for their actions.

The Government of India Act was implemented in December 1919. The Moderates welcomed the reforms, but the Congress called them “inadequate, unsatisfactory, and disappointing.” Yet Gandhi and others suggested working to make the reforms a success. Tilak had already offered “responsive cooperation.”

The All-India Khilafat Conference was held at Delhi in November 1919. Gandhiji supported the Khilafat movement without requiring Muslims to stop slaughtering cows, and he was elected its president. He proposed a nation-wide campaign of nonviolent non-cooperation with the British government.

Ninety years later, we are still in a sense at the same spot. The Afghans are threatening again to come to the plains. The Anglo-Saxon has apparently pushed them back for now. Greater powers have devolved to the "provinces" but centralized control have increased in other directions. The government of course has not yet carried out Jallianwallahbag style massacres (the quota for slaughter of Indian lives was probably used up in the Mumbai massacres the previous year) - but the effect of the Mumbai massacres on the style and functioning of the central government has been significant (not necessarily in the direction the majority of BRFites hope). The tendency of Islamic sentiments being whipped up inside India by what happens outside of India in other Islamist domains have not entirely died out either.

We do not yet have a MKG though. Does BJP fill the shoes of the 1919's Congress? Or is it closer to the eyes, in the proverbial shadow beneath the lamp?

[ramana]

So all those laws that US passed after 911 were based on the British laws for India. And these genii(Bush League) were passing them on their own people!

[surinder]

Something peculiar about the 1919 period strikes me when I read history of British occupation. Jallianwala Bagh happened. Ms. Sherwood was assaulted in Amritsar & the subsequent mindless repression was unleashed in Amritsar by Dyer. Most interestingly, the "Europeaans" (which for intent & purpose means white Britishers) were emphatic in their support of Dyer. After Jallianwala bagh masacre, Dyer's defence funds were saw most contributions from the "Europeans" in India, especially in North-West India. The Delhi, General Drake-Brockman of said, “Force is the only thing that an Asiatic has any respect for.” (from B's post above). Dyer also said the reason for Jallianwala bagh was to restore terror in Indian minds (not exact words, but essentially what he said).

This basically means that there was a huge unprecendented unrest in the common people. Such paraonia in the "Europeans" could not have arisen if they felt secure. Why the need to assert force & restablish the countours of terror on the Indians.

What was really going on?

[ramana]

There are hints that Indian troops returning form European fronts saw the Caucasians fighting and winning and losing and that made them aware of their own quality. This removed the aura of invincibility from British troops.


Churchill never allowed Indian troops in Europe except in Italian theater in WWII from this lesson.

[ramana]

Lest we forget:

Centenary of Madanlal Dhingra's martyrdom

[RayC]

What the syndicate "told" me was that, they realized that power would be handed by the British to the faction around "JLN". They were mistrustful of Jinnah, and more so because the most reactionary core of Muslim leadership was concentrated in the "east" - and they were aware of the degree of "militant" preparation undertaken by ML, especially the substantial number of demobbed Muslim offciers and soldiers released by the BIA (which I also know directly from descendants of such people - this is why I have to bitterly laugh every time I read on this forum about the deafeningly loud claims of legendary non-communality and oh-so-much-above-religious-pettiness of armies in general by default).

A very interesting commentary.

It is important to understand the ethos before opining with a general statement that is not backed with proof, except who told whom! The issue may have credence to some extent (I don't know) but to give it as an across the board broad brush may not be fair to many. It is like the loose statement - Bengalis are all trouble creators! Or Calcutta is a dying city! None other than Rajiv Gandhi said so! Yet Calcutta lives! Perceptions are not the Gospel Truth.

Let's analyse this statement:
I have to bitterly laugh every time I read on this forum about the deafeningly loud claims of legendary non-communality and oh-so-much-above-religious-pettiness of armies in general by default.

A rather unfortunate statement delivered off the cuff. If it were so, and had there been communality and religious divides, how did the Indian Army in WWII have no infighting/ rebellion when there were many units that had companies, squadrons and batteries composed on religious and community basis? Given the atmospherics that India was undergoing, should it not have effected the IA also. It did so in Op Bluestar! That too because this overdoing of 'secularism', 'minority', 'reservations' has actually given rise to each realising their distinctiveness, and not that they are Indians first. So, compare!

Therefore, statements of this nature do deceive to pass off as an ''educated'' view.

The IA continues to have some of the legacies of the British times. That is why, even after Independence, Muslims have done rather well in the wars against Pakistan and thus co-religionists. Does that not debunk some of the 'venom' exhibited against them, albeit very diplomatically, on this very forum?! Now, why do they do so i.e. have no qualms to fight co-religionists so valiantly and going against the Islamic ethos that Muslim don't fight Muslims? It is the ethos inherited - no communality and no religious divides! Does this idea upset anyone? Should we have communal and religious strife in the Army? I cannot opine on the non Army population and what I see on this forum and elsewhere, it indeed saddens! Of course, if something is wrong, one must speak out, but not as a general across the board opinion!

It appears that one does not understand what are the implications of being demobilised. It means you lose a job, you are not bound by earlier rules and ethos, it means you are angry to have been deprived of a steady life! In such a mindset, anyone can be influenced. Take the case of the Jet pilots. They must have had some grievances and they were upset and so they went on strike. They are educated etc. If they can put the air travellers in dire straits.

Now, given the situation in India at that time (pre Independence), we are trying to portray some misguided (if the hand me down is true!) illiterates as a communal virus? One must be fair. If what is stated is true, indeed it is disgraceful, but one should also analyse the reasons without portraying oneself as the sole custodian of Indian nationalism.

That there is no communality and religious divide in the Army even now is well displayed by Gen Afsar Karim who was on a TV show on headscarf and the beard ban. He was the only Muslim amongst the civilians co religionist and secular and liberal guests, who said that if it is the code of the college, then it has to be adhered to. Likewise, was his comment on the Air Force person who demanded that he be allowed a beard. Gen Afsar Karim indicates the ethos that we inherited from pre Independence days! I take pride that we are not ashamed of being so, notwithstanding all the Indic, Hinduvta etc interpretations that is history and of which a large majority of Indians are not aware and not interested. All they are interested in is lets us live as Indians and forget the divides. Let us thrive and get strong so that we are not intimidated or blackmailed by our adversaries. If we fight amongst ourselves, as we have done in history, it is we who will suffer!

Therefore, a little bit of study of the ethos of the IA would be better than tar and feathering the IA just to prove a point that has no basis in facts.

[brihaspati]

The question was a very simple one - the main statement being made is that even after supposed complete erasure of all communal feeling while within the BIA, the erasure appears to be only temporary - and only while in active service. The guarantee of non-communality is no longer there after coming out of service. It also appears that "communalism" was not unknown while on active service - as exemplified in the behaviour of a certain group of officers from a certain "faith" who helped a British to start the Pakistani adventure on Kashmir - as narrated on this forum.

In any case, "living as Indians" is also dependent on what "Indianness" means to that "Indian". The "Hindutva" etc, can be mocked as terms which can be decalred to have no meaning for "Indians" - but they are of the same degree of abstraction created in the mind of an individual who claims that "Indian" carries an universal meaning to all "Indians". Perhaps a degree of self-analysis is also necessary to realize that such a blanket declaration of "all Indians" want only to live "as Indians" where "Indian" means exactly the same thing to all Indian - is as much an imagination as the terms being mocked at.

Certain institutions may create an illusion of homogeneity that may not exist at the societal level. This is a natural phenomenon in many institutional organizations that create affiliational identities. It is typically observed also that once detached from the identity creating organization, for some, it can actually lead to sense of abandonment and the need to replace with a stronger or more aggressive identity.

[brihaspati]

Some refs to start with:

"In October Muslim peasants led by demobilized soldiers attacked Hindu landlords and traders in Noakhali and Tippera districts of east Bengal." p 150, Modern South Asia: history, culture, political economy by Sugata Bose, Ayesha Jalal.

"The demobilized soldiers, pensioners (civil and military), Lumberdars or Patels, Zaildars and Jagirdars and Inamkhors, all fell prey to the vicious communal virus insdiscriminately spread by the Muslim League Feudal Lords, and armed with spears, axes, tommy guns, hand grenades and incendiary bombs[they] pounced upon the peaceful populations" p 83, Remembering partition: violence, nationalism, and history in India, by Gyanendra Pandey

"At Partition in 1947, the garrisonprovince, by now militarized through its long association with the military, fell apart, and anarchy was unleashed upon the Punjab. It has been shown that nature of violence that accompanied the partition of the Punjab had a distinct "military quality", and active as well as demobilized soldiers, skilled in the planning and execution of military operations, "were a conspicuous presence in the violence"" p 308, The garrison state: the military, government and society in colonial Punjab 1849-1947. by Tai Yong Tan

[surinder]

"At Partition in 1947, the garrisonprovince, by now militarized through its long association with the military, fell apart, and anarchy was unleashed upon the Punjab. It has been shown that nature of violence that accompanied the partition of the Punjab had a distinct "military quality", and active as well as demobilized soldiers, skilled in the planning and execution of military operations, "were a conspicuous presence in the violence"" p 308, The garrison state: the military, government and society in colonial Punjab 1849-1947. by Tai Yong Tan

B, does the author elaborate and illustrate what observations suggest or support the conclusion that the partition riots had a military quality to them?

[svinayak]

B, does the author elaborate and illustrate what observations suggest or support the conclusion that the partition riots had a military quality to them?

Mirpuris from the BIA were the first to take arms against Hindus and Sikhs and they have continued to instigate the Kashmir problem with violence from Uk and Pakistan.
I heard one Kashmiri talking about how the Mirpuri soldier after discharge from BIA started the Kashmir violence against the maharaja

[RayC]

The issue is 'demobbed' and active service soldier.

One has to understand the subtle difference between demobilised soldiers and pensioners.

If a man is de-mobbed and without any way to sustain himself i.e. not even a pension, and some horror supports him and his family, would he stand on morality and more so, when there is so much of communal tensions going on in the country during the pre Partition days? Religion is a powerful elixir and a compass for lost souls!

That is the issue!

[RayC]

B, does the author elaborate and illustrate what observations suggest or support the conclusion that the partition riots had a military quality to them?

Mirpuris from the BIA were the first to take arms against Hindus and Sikhs and they have continued to instigate the Kashmir problem with violence from Uk and Pakistan.
I heard one Kashmiri talking about how the Mirpuri soldier after discharge from BIA started the Kashmir violence against the maharaja

How many Mirpuris were in the BIA?

And in which Regt, may I ask?

The Maharaja's State Forces were not BIA.

[RayC]

The question was a very simple one - the main statement being made is that even after supposed complete erasure of all communal feeling while within the BIA, the erasure appears to be only temporary - and only while in active service. The guarantee of non-communality is no longer there after coming out of service. It also appears that "communalism" was not unknown while on active service - as exemplified in the behaviour of a certain group of officers from a certain "faith" who helped a British to start the Pakistani adventure on Kashmir - as narrated on this forum.

I find it extraordinary that it is expected that people once in the Army must never change their attitude to life! It is odd to believe that one must have the "God for Harry, England and St George' attitude for life, just because he served in the BIA! Indeed it is while in service, but why this attitude of ascribing a slur of disloyalty if they have a change in heart after hanging the uniform. It is also important to realise that during the pre Partition days, the situation was highly communally charged. They had the same fervour and intensity of feelings as the exponents of Indic, Hinduvta, Santan Dharma have on this forum, even though such feelings only divides India and helps our enemy instead of uniting us!!!!

All this statements that Hindu means Indianess and not a religion as such is as credible as Jesus Loves and Jesus Saves! It is facetious!

Again a rather weak arguments that 'certain' faiths helped the British to start the Pakistani adventure on Kashmir. Once there was the division of India and Pakistan, would one expect them to be sheep and bleat of 'oneness'? It was a free for all, the winner grabs them all! I fail to see the logic where one expects Pakistanis to toe a pro India line and not grab as much as they can when the situation is fluid! Odd logic, to say the least!

In any case, "living as Indians" is also dependent on what "Indianness" means to that "Indian". The "Hindutva" etc, can be mocked as terms which can be decalred to have no meaning for "Indians" - but they are of the same degree of abstraction created in the mind of an individual who claims that "Indian" carries an universal meaning to all "Indians". Perhaps a degree of self-analysis is also necessary to realize that such a blanket declaration of "all Indians" want only to live "as Indians" where "Indian" means exactly the same thing to all Indian - is as much an imagination as the terms being mocked at.

What is patently unsustainable and dividing India should be avoided.

Already India is badly fractured. It is not only the Hindu - Muslim divide, but the Hindus have been fractured further with SC, ST, OBC, creamy and not so creamy and all sorts of divides. All this is making us weak. And yet, we talk of India becoming a superpower and such dreams. Compare it with China. They make everyone a Han and not divide themselves into compartments! Time to heed RN Tagore esq's 'Let My Country Awake'. Powerful message!!

Certain institutions may create an illusion of homogeneity that may not exist at the societal level. This is a natural phenomenon in many institutional organizations that create affiliational identities. It is typically observed also that once detached from the identity creating organization, for some, it can actually lead to sense of abandonment and the need to replace with a stronger or more aggressive identity.

Let us learn from them.

If they have a conducive atmosphere that contribute to their efficiency, is that a bad thing to learn from?

[brihaspati]

Indeed it is while in service, but why this attitude of ascribing a slur of disloyalty if they have a change in heart after hanging the uniform.

No one has put any slur of disloyalty. It was originally simply stated as pointer to my observation that service in the army may appear to give an impression of non-communality in beliefs and motivations. But if service does not guarantee continuation of such behaviour post-service, then the prior non-communality becomes open to suspicion. Was it really sincere or simply an overt behaviour as a result of special circumstances? Since there are few changes of faith officially recorded (or available officially) "out" of the birth-Abrahamic in servicemen, if there is a reversal to more communal behaviour post-service - it may simply mean that the whole communal thing was there all the time underlying - all the while the overt non-communal behaviour was going on.

It is also important to realise that during the pre Partition days, the situation was highly communally charged. They had the same fervour and intensity of feelings as the exponents of Indic, Hinduvta, Santan Dharma have on this forum, even though such feelings only divides India and helps our enemy instead of uniting us!!!!

the "communal" during pre-Partition and those who supposedly are current exponents of Indic/Hindutva/"Santan Dharma" on this forum are almost separated by 50 years. We were not comparing two generations separated by almost 50 years.

All this statements that Hindu means Indianess and not a religion as such is as credible as Jesus Loves and Jesus Saves! It is facetious!

Credibility depends on perception. Moreover, the statement whether "Hindu means Indianness" was not the issue of debate this time.

Again a rather weak arguments that 'certain' faiths helped the British to start the Pakistani adventure on Kashmir. Once there was the division of India and Pakistan, would one expect them to be sheep and bleat of 'oneness'? It was a free for all, the winner grabs them all! I fail to see the logic where one expects Pakistanis to toe a pro India line and not grab as much as they can when the situation is fluid! Odd logic, to say the least!

Before formal accession, Poonchi Muslims were technically still not Pakistanis. I thought some people here did not automatically associate all Muslims on the subcontinent with Pakistan or as Pakistanis. The uprising by Poonchi Muslim demobbed soldiers started in the spring of 1947, at a time when J&K was still a princely state. Of a total of 71,667 men from J&K who served in the BIA during WWII, 60,402 were Poonchi Muslims.

Already India is badly fractured. It is not only the Hindu - Muslim divide, but the Hindus have been fractured further with SC, ST, OBC, creamy and not so creamy and all sorts of divides. All this is making us weak. And yet, we talk of India becoming a superpower and such dreams. Compare it with China. They make everyone a Han and not divide themselves into compartments! Time to heed RN Tagore esq's 'Let My Country Awake'. Powerful message!!

According to some historians, there never existed anything called a "Hindu" - it was always a motley collection of sects constantly fighting each other. In any case, if someone believes that the statements like "Hindu means Indianness" are facetious, then the category of "Hindu" should not be relevant for discussions of "Indian" identity, and any fracture in the "Hindu" should also be irrelevant for the "Indian" "unification" project. If "Hindu" is not a core part of the national identity - any fracture in that identity should not weaken the nation.

As far as I know, the Chinese do not make everyone a "Han". They maintain literal and strict definitions of ethnicities distinct from the "Han". It does grate a bit on the ear, to hear "RN Tagore esq". If it is the RN Tagore Snr - then he returned his "Sir" to the British. The son, who would have the same abbreviation was never offered the title.