Indian Core: Ideas and descriptions-I

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 14 Sep 2009 16:58

Sankuji,
I think a wide spectrum of Hindus from the upper and middle Gangetic plains moved off - those who decided to set up new base with their clans in areas of difficult and therefore less lucrative for Muslims. Some I happen to know have taken on local customs formally but retained internal older forms inside on certain aspects. I know for example of a rhyme that started from a wedding in a related branch of mine, that gives upper Indian Hindi as told by the newly wed "bahu" while distributing "bou-bhaat". In fact the exact words used by the bahu stuck on as a label for that branch. Then there are other possible indications. What is your full family patronymic? My experience suggests that for these migrating clans the full patronymic is not always used publicly. Shortened or a local language one is taken up. Then of course non-black irises etc can crop up from tine to time.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 14 Sep 2009 18:09

^^^No I did not mean to ask you to givve it out. I just wanted to say that the full one will actually reveal a lot of the "origins". Seems to be like a DNA strand, that keeps on adding sequences and mutations. The reason I mentioned this because I would have exactly the same hesistations in stating what I know of mine. But it is important to understand that migrations within India had taken place because of political and faith reasons that also carried sense of trauma or revenge. It is an important factor in understanding the persistent pockets of resistance to the Abrahamic and the whole course of psychological positions that led to the Partition.

Reconstructions of history officially plays a role to a certain extent. But, the long established feelings of mistrust and "alienation" do not need professional history to persist. This part of Bharatyia history needs closure - but closure cannot come without some sense of "compensation". Partition was a defensive withdrawal - a spychological reaction of amputation of what is seen as gangrene to save what is seen as the body. But amputation also carries sense of loss of a vital part. Unless that loss is restored closure cannot come. The confidence that the Islamic can never drag us back to that situation can only be established by walking the other way from Partition. But the fact that the then non-Muslim leadership thought of amputation actually stemmed from the cumulative experience carried by the internal migrants.

I have seen explicit policy statements from my ancestors that Muslims could stay on and be very much protected in their new found territories, but no "mullah" would be allowed to settle. If anyone from that faith in the local community actually went into "alim" training then he could not settle back in the area again. No mosques were also allowed. Once apparently a group had come to establish a maqtab and a mosque. All 12 members of the party vanished overnight and were never found again. During the "riots" people came from Calcutta to organize. They were given one day by the local Muslim villagers themselves to make themselves scarce - as they feared that they themsleves would be forced to migrate if the ML started its activities.

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 28 Sep 2009 02:57

A look back at some events preceding the partition once again. GoI act 1935 and separate electorates for Muslims seemed to have made a victory of the INC almost impossible in Bengal. That tilted the scales in favour of muslim league and eventually led to the partition. Following is an interesting blog post regarding the distribution of seats. Wonder why the INC refused to go for a coalition with Fazlul Haq like they did with the Khan brothers in NWFP.

http://dipanjanc.blogspot.com/

A letter from Gandhi to Bose.

My dear Subhas Babu,
"I must dictate this letter as I am willfully blind. Whilst I am dictating this, Maulana Sahib, Nalini Babu, and Ghanashyamdas are listening. We had an exhaustive discussion over the Bengal ministry. I am more than ever convinced that we should not aim at ousting the Ministry. We shall gain nothing by a reshuffle; and probably, we shall lose much by including Congressmen in the Ministry. I feel, therefore, that the best way of securing comparative purity of administration and a continuation of a settled programme and policy would be to aim at having all the reforms we desire, carried out by the present Ministry. Nalini Babu should come out, as he says he would, on a real issue being raised and the decision being taken by the Ministry against the interests of the country. His retirement from the Ministry would then be dignified and wholly justified. I understand that so far as the amendment of Municipal Law is concerned, separate electorate for the Scheduled Class is given up. There is still insistence on separate electorate for Mussalmans. I don't know whether opposition should be taken to the breaking point. If the Mussalman opinion is solid in favour of separation, I think it would be wisdom to satisfy them. I would not like them to carry the point in the teeth of the Congress opposition. It would then be a point against the Congress."

-- Mahatma Gandhi (21 December, 1938)

250 seats in Bengal Legislative Assembly were apportioned as follows -

1) 117 for Muslims of Bengal elected by only Muslim electorate.
2) 48 for any resident of Bengal elected by general franchise.
3) 30 for persons belonging to Hindu "Scheduled" castes - certain castes regarded as "depressed", elected by general franchise.
4) 19 seats for representatives of industries, commerce, elected by their electorate.
5) 11 seats for Europeans, persons of British origin temporarily residing in Bengal, elected by their electorate.
6) 8 for labor, chosen by a labor electorate
7) 5 for landowners, chosen by their special electorate
8: 3 for Anglo-Indians, chosen by their special electorate
9) 2 for Indian Christians, chosen by their special electorate
10) 2 for Universities
11) 2 for women
12) 2 for Muslim women
13) 1 for Anglo-Indian women

As a result of this act, Bengali Hindus were eligible to compete in 117 (250 - 117 - 11 - 2 - 2 - 1) {note the author has included "Anglo Indian" as INC, so the actual figure for Hindus is 114} seats at most, to be elected by general franchise. Even among these 117 seats, 30 were reserved for scheduled castes, quite arbitrarily picked. On the other hand, Bengali Muslims could contest 203 seats (117 + 48 + 19 + 8 + 5 + 2 + 2 + 2), 117 of which were to be elected by a Muslim electorate. Based on 1931 census numbers, Muslim population in Bengal was anywhere between 52-54%, which clearly did not justify the numerical distribution of 203-117, even if one were to accept the underlying premise of communal and casteist electorate. British community of Bengal was given 4% of seats in Assembly when their population was not above 0.0004%. In reality, the position of the Hindus was even worse than what this unfair statute implies. They did not win 117 seats they were eligible for. Beside, some of the winners, from both "high" as well as "scheduled" castes joined with Muslims against the general Hindu group, including Nalini Ranjan Sarkar, finance minister in Huq-League ministry formed in 1937, whose resignation, or lack thereof, was the subject of Gandhi's letter to Bose.

In the elections of 1937 based on the provisions of GOI act of 1935, Congress still emerged as the largest party in the legislative assembly, followed by Muslim League and Krishak-Praja-Party. Bengali Muslim votes were almost evenly split between all-India Muslim League, which in Bengal was the party of upper-class Muslims, and Fazlul Huq's Krishak-Praja-Party (KPP), which was the party of peasants and tenants. Because of the electoral system described above, a coalition system was inevitable. Huq first approached the Congress, but all-India Congress was unwilling to co-operate with any other party in provinces where they did not have absolute majority. That forced Huq to join forces with League to form a coalition ministry, and eventually the focus of KPP-Muslim League coalition shifted from socio-economic reforms to communal issues.

Congress refusal to make a special case for Bengal was a mistake. Because of the numerical distribution, it was impossible for Congress to win absolute majority in Bengal any time in near future. Huq's strong power base among Muslim peasants would have been the ideal platform for Congress to stay in touch with Bengali Muslim masses, which, as an opposition party, they failed to do over the next few years.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Sep 2009 04:01

This point came up before also! Congress behaviour appears to have been to concentrate absolute dominance over regional electorate. The fact that MKG or upper Indian leadership did not either understand or want to understand the nature of the political spectrum in Bengal, is the actual red herring that I have repeatedly tried to point out. The Congress leadership was mortally scared it seems of any political base or radicalism that was not under its personal control.

The whole behaviour can only be understood on the assumption of the following in the mindset of the Congress leadership:

(a) For them Indian core consisted of UP and Gujarat, and the peninsula was important to keep control in IOR.

(b) Muslims did not "belong" and their claims of "otherness" should not be challenged, so that even attempts at allying with factions within the "Muslim" were haram. Muslims should be treated as a homogeneous bloc - either they serve Congress or they should be rejected altogether.

(c) Punjabis, Afghans, Balochs, Sindhis and Bengalis were peripheral communities - expendable for the sake of the core. Kashmir however belonged to the core. So basically in order to save the honour of our independence bringers, we should assume that Gujarat the birth-origin of MKG and Ballavbhai, and UP the birth-origin of JLN, and Kashmir with whom JLN was familealy linked as per claims of descent - all "belonged" merely by coincidence.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 28 Sep 2009 06:44

And we see that same tendency to throw the periphery to the dogs, while comfortably retaining the core. The post-independence core is basically the Gangetic Hindi belt. It is interesting that the core, even if Hindu has shown not even a passing sense of loss for "Hindu" lands. I am amazed that they have shown no interest in (say) Lahore/Kasur being the cities established by son of Ram, or the Katasraj temples left in TSP, or Taxila, or Mohenjodaro, or for that matter the role of Amritsar & Punjab in Hindu history. It is hardly surprising that the core has even less sympathy or interest for the Sikh sense of loss in partition.

The core (especially UP) has been the crucible of Islameic separatism & fanaticism in Subcontinent. The Deoband & AMU are on its soil. UP has done precious little to punish the Ismalic separatists. Knowing that it is the core, it is protected by "buffers" on E, W, S, and the mighty himalayas in the north.

Unfortunately, this lack of solidarity with the periphery is not a cost-less approach. The periphery (especially Punjab & Bengal) have made peace with enemies of India. They have done an about-face. This will bring the music closer to the core. That is when all the love to Punjab & Bengal starts sprouting again.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 28 Sep 2009 08:34

surinder wrote:The core (especially UP) has been the crucible of Islameic separatism & fanaticism in Subcontinent. The Deoband & AMU are on its soil. UP has done precious little to punish the Ismalic separatists. Knowing that it is the core, it is protected by "buffers" on E, W, S, and the mighty himalayas in the north.

Unfortunately, this lack of solidarity with the periphery is not a cost-less approach. The periphery (especially Punjab & Bengal) have made peace with enemies of India. They have done an about-face. This will bring the music closer to the core. That is when all the love to Punjab & Bengal starts sprouting again.

Surinder Bhra Ji , be careful, last time i tried to bring the weakness of this "core" in letting the founder and supporter of partition movement go unscathched , i got the board warning. Wishing harm to the Paki forefathers is turning out to be haram. Funny thing is we rather keep covering this weakness to the detriment of Indian security than face the fact and try to remedy the mistakes. Seems now most of Maharathis here now have come to same conclusion about dhimmi/ colonized behaviour of GUBites in pre and past 47 Kangress party. No doubt these "tired Old men" could not guide the nation in right direction. Gujrat and Bihar are on mend but UPites are still dragging India's forward march.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 28 Sep 2009 08:59

RayC wrote:
Surinder Bhra Ji , be careful, last time i tried to bring the weakness of this "core" in letting the founder and supporter of partition movement go unscathched , i got the board warning.
I wonder if you were warned for the content per se. I am not privy to the warning, but I thought it essential to clear the air.

Joggle your memory, could it be the syntax that got you the warning?

All i said in very clear way was these men behind Paki movement caused millions of deaths and yet were able to get away unscathced to work futrther on their poisonous project across the border. Punjabis and Bengalis or border folks paid the price in life and material yet these folks from interior did not face the same anger or danger as well left many of their ideological insitituions behind which are not only intact but flourishing with local support.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 28 Sep 2009 19:45

Prem Bhaji, I don't mind articulating my feelings on the issue, except I do not have the time. If one gets a warning, so be it. But essentially, India's problems during & post-British time is due to a rather weak core, and a relatively more strong periphery. This core is willing to keep throwing the periphery to the dogs to keep its peace. Partitioned Punjab & Bengal was cast off with *NO* attempt for even a nominal fight 1947. You have the Frontier Gandhi Khan saying "you have thrown us to the dogs". Well he didn't realize that Frontier is not just periphery, but even more redundant. The ease with he was discarded is enough to send shivers down ones spine. Then Mansarovar & Aksai Chin were lost. Now the core wants to say bye bye to Arunachal Pradesh, even before the first bullet is fired.

What happens when the father of the house, supposed leader, sits idle & lets his sons/daughters to be abused? Those that remain in the house loose respect for the father & rebel. This sets of centrifugal forces in the family. This traumatized family will disentegrate because it will lack the necessary glue of respect for those in authority & leadership inside the family. It is ripe for plucking & exploitation for anyone outside. Same with nations.

So by donating the periphery for the sake of comfort & security of the core may seem like a perfect strategy, it means a very disunited nation. Moreover, if you are seen as someone who casts off allies so easily who would want to ally with you. No wonder the only ally we have in the world is Bhutan, and even they are realizing that while India was supposed to come to its security, they are left alone on the negotiating table with the panda. Serves Bhutan right for trusting someone so untrustworthy.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 29 Sep 2009 21:11

Surinder ji,

Why do you think the "Core" will remain in UP in coming days as well?

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 29 Sep 2009 21:27

The core is not only UP, but it is the Gangetic belt. Of course UP is the core of the core.

That is the core and will remain so many reasons: First it is the region of India that has the single largest block of population, which reflects in the number of MP's, hence who is the PM & which party is in control. Secondly, it is where the defining avtars of India came from or had their field of action. At least that is the view that the majority. The defining writers of Ram Charit Manas was from this area. The language of this area is the language of India.

Hence the problems of this area are also the problems of the whole country. (in contrast: Problems of Tripura are Tripura's problems, problems of Punjab are Punjab's probelm, problems of Kerela are Kerala's problem, but problems).

PS: "surinder" would do, no "ji" "shee" required.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 29 Sep 2009 22:39

Surinder Sir,

Mahabharta happend in Punjab , Lord Ram's war with Ravan in South and Luv and Kush estabilsihed cities in Punjab as well Sita's exile years spent near current Amristar? UP became core onlee because of population and Kangressi leadership's political base but ideologically it remain drawback on India's material progress. UP needs to be split into 3 separate states to diminsh their backward influence on Indian politics.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 29 Sep 2009 22:53

Dear Prem Canadian-Visa-Granter:
I totally aggree with you. That is why I said that the role of non-Gangetic planes to the Sanatan Dharma is ignored or minimized. Most gangetic plains Hindues do not feel an affiliation to the centers you mention. I am quite perplexed by that absence, but I suspect that since they have many historical sites, they can safely ignore the remaining. Gangetic belt has Banaras, Rishikesh, Ayoudhya. It has the writer of Ram Charit Manas hailing from those areas. I think there is a feeling that what they have is pretty good, there is hardly need to fulfill the call of destiny to bring back *ALL* hindu lands. "Kya zaroorat hai, jo hai utna kaafi hai" is the attitude i sense.

PS: It most likely Vedas were written in current Punjab on river banks. Draupadi hailed from the Punjab (well given that this Punjaban caused so much trouble, she has to be from this area

). Sita Ji, of course, spent her last days in the Ashram near Amritsar. Also, Pandavas built the Lakshagraha in Pinjore (Himachal/Haryana/Punjab border), used a tunnel to go the jungles on the other side of Chandigarh. Most of the Devi sites are in Himachal or Punjab. Lahore fort is a really ancient fort, predates the religion of the araabia. Most likely built by Luv himself. They say that in the center of fort is a temple, who soil has healing powers. I certainly wish I could go to that temple. That temple is locked up and is in ruins with spiders, snakes & termites.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Sep 2009 23:17

surinder wrote: I totally aggree with you. That is why I said that the role of non-Gangetic planes to the Sanatan Dharma is ignored or minimized. Most gangetic plains Hindues do not feel an affiliation to the centers you mention.

No Sir nothing like that, some time back I wanted to talk about why the Gangetic belt is the basket case, I shall do so shortly now.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Sep 2009 01:27

The Gangetic plains can no longer be seen as the sole claimant to core-hood. "Home is where the heart is". Even if in pre-Islamic times the area was a claimant to the core (I would say a joint claimant with east and south) things changed. The Sultanate and Mughal setup has displaced the heart of Bharatyia civilization from the area. Those who felt that they would lose their "heart" if they stayed on, left the area and took shelter into the Himalayas and into the peninsula and deep south. Those who did not mind compromising to the extent of comrpomising on their "heart", predominated in the middle Gangetic valley.

So to revive the core we have to look at those "peripheral" areas and among those communities which fought on to preserve their cultural roots or even reinvent and redefine them if necessary to survive.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 30 Sep 2009 01:36

But who sends more MP's: Gangetic core or periphery? From where do almost all our PM's hail from? Where does Rahul Baba contest elections from?

The Gangetic Valley is destined to determine the government, others can get a chance to determine the lesser things like security, defence, culture, economy, & technology.

munna · Post by **munna** » 30 Sep 2009 01:50

surinder wrote:The Gangetic Valley is destined to determine the government, others can get a chance to determine the lesser things like security, defence, culture, economy, & technology.

Agreed I and a lot of other Punjabis have a grievance of being neglected and basically having been left to fend for ourselves by the cow belt. Forget cow belt look at the neglect with which RSS/BJP treat their Haryana/BJP units, sheer contempt! The core sets agenda by refusing to become little more than lowest common denominator and drags the rest of us down too. All big MPs states loot the national treasure while peripheral states are remembered only when they need hot heads to go and beat the .... out of fundoos in J&K.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 30 Sep 2009 01:50

brihaspati wrote:The Gangetic plains can no longer be seen as the sole claimant to core-hood. "Home is where the heart is". Even if in pre-Islamic times the area was a claimant to the core (I would say a joint claimant with east and south) things changed. The Sultanate and Mughal setup has displaced the heart of Bharatyia civilization from the area. Those who felt that they would lose their "heart" if they stayed on, left the area and took shelter into the Himalayas and into the peninsula and deep south. Those who did not mind compromising to the extent of comrpomising on their "heart", predominated in the middle Gangetic valley.

So to revive the core we have to look at those "peripheral" areas and among those communities which fought on to preserve their cultural roots or even reinvent and redefine them if necessary to survive.

The problem is that the Gangetic "core" persists as a Trojan horse: it is the heartland geographically, and it was until recently a center of economic gravity, even if it is deeply compromised politically and in terms of cultural identity. At the dead centre of India has been a cavity, like the hollow centre of a rotten tooth; a passive, nourishing valley to be filled by ravaging infections. Hollowed out initially by the Turko Afghans, it was the center of Muslim rulership (its centrality alone exaggerating the orientalists' impression of "Muslim dominance over Indian subcontinent" to mythic proportions). The most ideologically steadfast nuclei of Indic survival and resurgence, paradoxically, arose and thrived furthest away from the Gangetic core: Vijayanagara, the Western Ghats, the Punjab.

The Gangetic core's later rulers, besieged by the resurgent Indic to the south and the west, threw in their lot with the British to secure their perceived civilizational interest. The leaders of 1857 made the cardinal error of rallying to this Gangetic core, again, as the flagship territory of their revolution, the "core" of their national idea. So depleted was it of any germ of national leadership that it failed them. They were shaking that old Banyan tree for a Samudragupta... but a dried, dessicated Zafar fell out instead!

Today this "core" cuts off the center of India from territories that, once within the Indic sphere of influence, are falling instead within the Sinic. From Nepal to Nagaland, their ties with our civilization are drying out for want of cultural irrigation.

Even in foreign perception (reflexively inherited by the DIE), this Gangetic "core" is at the center of such ideas as "there was never any single India". After all if the heartland has been the first to fall to foreign invaders, and has retarded rather than sustained the development of Indic identity on its periphery, it's easy to believe that we were never a country at all.

Before we think of integrating the periphery, we must think about supplying the periphery with a "core" it can believe in. The Gangetic core of today, despite its symbolic hold on the Indian psyche as the seat of our greatest empires, does not serve the purpose. Perhaps the first step in articulating a new idea of India must be to detach the idea of a "core" from any geographical entity. Our very strength has been the persistence of "core" ideology by virtue of its mobility and the hardiness of its adherents in geographically "peripheral" areas.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Sep 2009 01:51

Oh - it can all change. Isolate UP. Already parts of western UP behave differently. We can justifiably bash VG for being immature. But the fact that he could get away with his immaturity shows that the area itself is flowing in a different direction. If you think of the various parts of UP and the various fragments of communities, a process of engineering the divisions necessary to neutralize this opportunist fragment of Indian society should emerge. I am sure you realize what I am hinting at.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Sep 2009 01:59

The rub lies in GOI mirroring the compromising values of this supposed Gangetic core. When periphery is willling to fight and expand the influence , core is busy resting on past laurels, if ever there were. But has not Rajastahn next door scarificed enough and Gujrat is reviving, Bihar showing the sign of life , what ails UP that they cant shake up the inertia.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Sep 2009 02:11

rudradevji,
do you remember we had a heated debate going on between various forumites in the "strategic scenarios" thread about what we shoudl consider the core?

I had treid to insist in the face of formidable opposition, that while geographical identification for nationhood was important, we should never equate territory and region with the nation. This was why for me, hard and rigid borders do not completely define my nation. Nations in the ultimate end is an "idea" and and "idea of civilization". While the territory and region is important for sustenance and expression of life, it is secondary to "civilization" and "nation" itself. And the same framework for me gives the justification to understand current borders as a temporary compromise. In the past, Bharat retreated from undefendable territory to consolidate and save the more important core of the civilization. Here if the core was equal to territory then the "core" would have been "lost". In the future, when we regain strength, we can expand territorially, expanding the scope of our "core" to incorporate populations that we retreated from.

Thus I do still hold that core is not equal to territory. And just because electoral strength of a certain region appears to sway government formation dos not mean it is the core. Where the "idea" burns that is the core - even if it is in a desert. It is people who are completely convinced of their own identity and civilizational supremacy who form the core.

We can at best think of the "electoral" wind-blower as a cancerous infestation in a part of the body. It has become such a nuisance that it has taken over healthy cells and using them to absorb the nutrients of the body. It can be "irradiated", given a "chemotherapy", "surgically eradicated". Modern techniques aim at selective apoptosis (cell-death) by sending in different types of "killer" cells who work in the same manner as cancer cells to eat up or destroy the cancer cells.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 30 Sep 2009 02:20

I believe that the power of myth and symbol over a civilizational psyche as ancient as ours, cannot be overstated. There is now a schism between the mythic idea of the Gangetic core as national heartland, the cradle of Indic civilization, the seat of Mahajanapadas... and the physical, political, economic and social reality of what has predominated there over the last millenium. The confusion and sense of rootlessness that derives from this contradiction, greatly retards the development of our sense of national identity, even today.

However, should things turn around just enough, the very same power of myth and symbol could confer a tremendous advantage... not only consolidating our sense of national identity but generating a virtually unstoppable transformational momentum.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 30 Sep 2009 02:34

brihaspati wrote:rudradevji,
do you remember we had a heated debate going on between various forumites in the "strategic scenarios" thread about what we shoudl consider the core?

I had treid to insist in the face of formidable opposition, that while geographical identification for nationhood was important, we should never equate territory and region with the nation. This was why for me, hard and rigid borders do not completely define my nation. Nations in the ultimate end is an "idea" and and "idea of civilization". While the territory and region is important for sustenance and expression of life, it is secondary to "civilization" and "nation" itself. And the same framework for me gives the justification to understand current borders as a temporary compromise. In the past, Bharat retreated from undefendable territory to consolidate and save the more important core of the civilization. Here if the core was equal to territory then the "core" would have been "lost". In the future, when we regain strength, we can expand territorially, expanding the scope of our "core" to incorporate populations that we retreated from.

Thus I do still hold that core is not equal to territory. And just because electoral strength of a certain region appears to sway government formation dos not mean it is the core. Where the "idea" burns that is the core - even if it is in a desert. It is people who are completely convinced of their own identity and civilizational supremacy who form the core.

We can at best think of the "electoral" wind-blower as a cancerous infestation in a part of the body. It has become such a nuisance that it has taken over healthy cells and using them to absorb the nutrients of the body. It can be "irradiated", given a "chemotherapy", "surgically eradicated". Modern techniques aim at selective apoptosis (cell-death) by sending in different types of "killer" cells who work in the same manner as cancer cells to eat up or destroy the cancer cells.

Brihaspatiji, I do remember! I've always believed that the very reason Indic civilization has persisted long after its earliest contemporaries were rendered extinct, was because of its totipotency.

This is a quality of cells that retain their ability to specialize along any of a wide choice of developmental paths, rather than committing to a specific structure and function and permanently shutting down all but the relevant portion of their genome. Totipotent cells possess the flexibility to become what environmental signals influence them to become... and yet retain within them all the information necessary to develop into any type of cell in the entire organism.

Other non-Abrahamic civilizations suffered sclerosis, a destructive loss of flexibility that proved ultimately detrimental to their survival, because of overly literal identification of national identity with territorial and physical/iconic disposition... and also because of a doctrinaire inflexibility, so that an inability to bend before overwhelming force caused them to shatter instead.

Indic civilization, because of its very lack of insistence on dogmatic adherence, possesses an amorphousness that enables it to respond to changes in environment with complete flexibility. We could re-interpret our identity, re-define our role to maximize our chances of survival in any given historical situation without compromising the essence of our civilization.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Sep 2009 03:17

Rudradev wrote:
brihaspati wrote:The Gangetic plains can no longer be seen as the sole claimant to core-hood. "Home is where the heart is". Even if in pre-Islamic times the area was a claimant to the core (I would say a joint claimant with east and south) things changed. The Sultanate and Mughal setup has displaced the heart of Bharatyia civilization from the area. Those who felt that they would lose their "heart" if they stayed on, left the area and took shelter into the Himalayas and into the peninsula and deep south. Those who did not mind compromising to the extent of comrpomising on their "heart", predominated in the middle Gangetic valley.

So to revive the core we have to look at those "peripheral" areas and among those communities which fought on to preserve their cultural roots or even reinvent and redefine them if necessary to survive.
The problem is that the Gangetic "core" persists as a Trojan horse: it is the heartland geographically, and it was until recently a center of economic gravity, even if it is deeply compromised politically and in terms of cultural identity. At the dead centre of India has been a cavity, like the hollow centre of a rotten tooth; a passive, nourishing valley to be filled by ravaging infections. Hollowed out initially by the Turko Afghans, it was the center of Muslim rulership (its centrality alone exaggerating the orientalists' impression of "Muslim dominance over Indian subcontinent" to mythic proportions). The most ideologically steadfast nuclei of Indic survival and resurgence, paradoxically, arose and thrived furthest away from the Gangetic core: Vijayanagara, the Western Ghats, the Punjab.

The Gangetic core's later rulers, besieged by the resurgent Indic to the south and the west, threw in their lot with the British to secure their perceived civilizational interest. The leaders of 1857 made the cardinal error of rallying to this Gangetic core, again, as the flagship territory of their revolution, the "core" of their national idea. So depleted was it of any germ of national leadership that it failed them. They were shaking that old Banyan tree for a Samudragupta... but a dried, dessicated Zafar fell out instead!

Today this "core" cuts off the center of India from territories that, once within the Indic sphere of influence, are falling instead within the Sinic. From Nepal to Nagaland, their ties with our civilization are drying out for want of cultural irrigation.

Even in foreign perception (reflexively inherited by the DIE), this Gangetic "core" is at the center of such ideas as "there was never any single India". After all if the heartland has been the first to fall to foreign invaders, and has retarded rather than sustained the development of Indic identity on its periphery, it's easy to believe that we were never a country at all.

Before we think of integrating the periphery, we must think about supplying the periphery with a "core" it can believe in. The Gangetic core of today, despite its symbolic hold on the Indian psyche as the seat of our greatest empires, does not serve the purpose. Perhaps the first step in articulating a new idea of India must be to detach the idea of a "core" from any geographical entity. Our very strength has been the persistence of "core" ideology by virtue of its mobility and the hardiness of its adherents in geographically "peripheral" areas.

The core was hollow from before the Turko-Islamic invasions. In fact it was even from the time of Darius's incursion into Punjab. In epic times the rulers understood that the frontier of Bharatavarsha was beyond the Hindukush. yet they lost the periphery to non Indics. Even in Mahabharata, Bhisma shunned his responsibility to Jarasandha's adharmic conquest of the core from the East or Bihar.

In fact after the Buddhist epoch, the core was rejuvenated by the saints and scholars from the South and in islamic ages it was the Bhakti movement fed and nurtured by the saints from South and East that kept the faith alive.

RD, One fatal blow to the core's uniqueness was the defeat of Harsha by Pullekesin in ~ 630AD. After that you find the core was hollow politically and into the hollow the Turkic Islamics rushed in. Again it got hollowed at end of Mughal rule and the British filled it in. Time and again the core gets hollowed as it is now.

The core is hollow for they have no firm belief in what they stand for. And Macaulayism has taken firm root in the urban areas and even rural elites.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Sep 2009 03:25

The core is acting like "khaan peen nu Bandri, Dande khaaan nu Riish" i.e let periphery deal with dandas and toil hard but when time comes enjoy the fruits of periphery;s hardwork, take the first seat at the table.

The essence of the core have been moving south for more than millenium , its time to move seat of power from Delhi to
Deccan, get rejuvinated and then spred the blessings.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 30 Sep 2009 11:33

India's real core has always been South India. When Buddhism almost wiped out Hinduism, it was Adi Sankara, a Keralite who revived Hinduism by touring through out India and establishing peetams. When the Shakas penetrated deep as far as Gujarat, it was the Andhra Satavahana Empire who resisted the barbarians and protected the Indic core .When the Muslims occupied the North and tried to destroy the Indic culture by destroying North, it was the Andhra-Kannada Vijayanagar Empire specifically created by two Andhra brothers which stood as a bulkwark to protect the Indic core from the barbarians.It was the Andhra Satavahanas and the Tamil Cholas who were the first and most succesfull imperial promoters of Indic culture abroad. The Indic core which was based in the North initially re located to the South long time back itself.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Sep 2009 12:31

Ok Guys, give the core bashing a break

Although we are discussing the right thing in the wrong thread once again, the whole concept of the rotten core etc is very germane and as I said we need to discuss why the Gangetic belt is a basket case once more.

But before that I want to put forth some one line understanding of my thinking, also I would like to substantially differ from a lot of things that have been said here. Once again I agree that a lot of posters have

1) core -- the definition of core as Brihspati ji stated of Gujarat and UP + Kashmir is a fairly recent one and has nothing to do with the definition of OLD Indic core. So we are talking of two different things here when we talk of the core. One the old core of Bharat and two the new core of current political India. In my view the current political core of India is differnt from to the discussion of old core -- however a lot of folks are taking the current picture and needlessly extrapolating it in past, that too when interpolation is very possible.

2) If the Gangetic belt is considered to be an ancient core -- it must spread from Indus to Calcutta and further. The entire belt. Do note it is the core for solid geographical reasons. It is the best connected belt for communication purposes -- very fertile -- capable of supporting large populations -- usually and till recently also held economic primacy due to the nature of land and geography. Till early 70s any claim that core was weaker than the rest of the country would cause much mirth. So there is a good reason why the core is the "core".

3) Note the most radical and moving ideas of anti-British India came from Bengal and Lahore. This was actively picked up in the rest of core. (Kakori etc etc) therefore to say that there was no linkage across this core and Bengal and Punjab were somehow disconnected in public minds is somewhat misleading. (This is one example I can give many, I just want to challenge the notion of a UP core and not a Indus-Gangetic one) I do not keep either Gujarat or MP in that core however (once more please note this is not a knock on any region , esp as it stand today)

4) The core has unlike mentioned here, continuously been a source of ideas of paradigms of India. Infact the current "socialist" ideology of Indian state and its form are essentially a outcome of "core" concerns. I can give many examples but to say that core stops to be important ideologically is incorrect. Control of the core by others and the import of the core on India are different things.

Why the current state of affairs?
In one line because Chacha Nehru was successful in the core in doing what he wanted!!

In more detail --

1) It is clear that parts of the core were in state of dhimmitude from around 1300s to 1700s -- please note this was a period of collaboration, in some places there was total suppression but it does not mean that all of it had submitted, the spark was still alive.

2) This spark was what actually welcomed British into India and in fact the growth to the British empire is successfully linked to the use of the fire in the core which was lying dormant -- the entire British conquest has been done by Purbaiya soldiers, from the Opium wars to the expansion into India itself. Again this was till 1857 a largely upper caste Hindu army. Traces of this thinking can be seen even in the uber Partriotic Anand Math. India is in shambles -- lets accept and work with the Firangis to regain a lot of what was lost in India. It can be said that the core was relatively successful as such in its attempt.

3) However 1857 was another turning point -- few people realize what the failure of 1857 (correctly linked to lack of cohesive leadership and central figure due to a wrong choice) did to the Gangetic belt. The destruction of the remaining spirit which had bravely resisted dhimmitude for years and had stuck out was badly mauled. However the important thing to realize is the victories it brought about for India as a whole (end of Company and move to a British India)

4) This set up the core as the perfect place for the social engineering of the sort that Nehru wanted -- a badly mauled psyche where the elite was already a little shaken due to its constant forced compromises with one power or the other -- could easily be undermined by promises of utopia from a perceived savior from the old leadership -- however what Nehru did was to not understand the history and culture and the real pains of the core and wantonly injected half baked ideas which were more focused on the negation of the existing culture and hierarchy rather than leveraging and building on the same.

The (4) above was the final straw it completely broke the back of the Gangetic belt -- thankfully the saving grace was Nehru's own shortsightedness of the core, because his limited vision made him focus on the new core (the one I reject as not the full core) he cared about success there mostly and the other places escaped his glance. So has we saw in the case of IT, some times the policy of benign neglect by GoI is much better than TLC by the same.

So what are the conclusions

1) The control of core is the control of India, the home may be where the heart is, but if the core is occupied by a power other than Indic the heart gets to do a aryanavas all over the world but cant get home (Ramayana anyone?) So FOR ALL India, it is critical that the core stays in control of Indian hands.

2) Currently the core is not in control of Indian hands, its is not only under different nations in parts (Lahore etc) it is under a culture and population which is hostile to Indic in large parts.

3) The so called periphery must come to aid of the core -- this time it must not repeat the mistakes that Maratha's made when they failed to ally with the Jats and form a common front. The powers coming from periphery must realize the reality of the core, they must not fight parts of the core of power which are actually their ideological partners (Rajput Maratha wars) the expansion of periphery into core, must be driven by long term ideological considerations and not merely real politic and power alignments to gain superficial temporary alliances. Above all hubris must be avoided.

-------------

Hopefully some one read all of the above.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 30 Sep 2009 13:21

1857 was a rebellion of individual satraps and rulers, working in individual compartments or even loosely woven, wherein the British could suppress them.

The Gurkhas and Sikh came to the rescue of the British.
1857

In fact, the core of 1857 was centred around Lucknow, Cawnpore and Delhi. It may have started in the periphery at Barrackpore and it did not start because of any patriotic reason, but on religious reasons.

Spin has it that it was because of a search for Independence to be called the First War of Independence. What had Bahadur Shah Zaffar, Nawab of Oudh in common with Tantya Tope or Rani of Jhansi?

If it were a War of Independence, how come the Sikh were with the British?

Some reasons:

Factors responsible for unrest amongst Indian masses

The arrival of missionaries had also caused great unease among the Indians. Evangelical Christians had little understanding of, or respect for, India's ancient faiths.The attitude of scrupulous non-interference in religious affairs that had characterized British rule in the 18th century was forgotten. Native populace started to believe that the British wished to convert them. The passing of Act XXI of 1850, which enabled converts to inherit ancestral property, confirmed this belief; the new law was naturally interpreted as a concession to Christian converts. Hindus and Muslims were forced into Christianity. The British were rude and arrogant towards the Indians who they described as barbarians without any culture. The European judges hardly ever convicted British for their crimes.
*

Thousands of soldiers and nobles got unemployed when Lord Dalhousie annexed Avadh. Under his 'Doctrine of Lapse' the princes were denied the long-cherished right of adoption; in this way Dalhousie annexed the Maratha States of Satara, Nagpur and Jhansi and several minor principalities. On the death of the ex-Peshwa, Baji Rao II, the pension granted to him was abolished and the claims of his adopted son, Nana Sahib, were disregarded.
*

British administrative laws ruined both the peasants and landlords. Indian handicrafts completely collapsed and the craftsmen were impoverished. India became a market place for finished goods from England. Poverty increased and the discontent among the masses motivated the Indians to join the revolt in large numbers. Thus, the British drained India of her wealth and all her natural resources.

I am looking at it purely in military terms.

But then we love to give even the smallest of event a patriotic twist, like the Moon Mission finding water on the moon, when it was the NASA instrument which did it and piggy backed on India since it was going cheap!!

It is not that I am not patriotic or proud of India. I am. I am intense, in that I don't require others' glory to ride piggyback to fame! We will do it. We will get fame on our own steam! And we are capable.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 30 Sep 2009 13:38

The inspiration of Bankimchandra's Anand Math

An interesting account!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Sep 2009 13:43

RayC wrote:But then we love to give even the smallest of event a patriotic twist, like the Moon Mission finding water on the moon, when it was the NASA instrument which did it and piggy backed on India since it was going cheap!!.

RayC, I think Veer Damamodar Rao Sarvarkar has laid to rest the usual canards about 1857. In any case since you made that post after my post on 1857, I assume it is somehow related to what I posted. If so, please note that I formally state that what you are saying has no bearing on what I have said.

Meanwhile please understand your statement about Chandryan sounds like this statement I will make "The 1971 war was really won by British tanks and Soviets jets they just piggy backed on India and Pakistan since we were fighting anyway"

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 30 Sep 2009 14:10

You have proof that the US instrument was being controlled by Indians alone?

If so, OK, we at least knew how to use the instrument and do deserve credit.

1971 was with Soviet Tanks.

Yes indeed my comment on 1857 was sparked by your comment on 1857 and core.

There was no core. It was merely self interest of each individual ruler or satrap who was slighted. They operated independently and hence were a failure. No War of Independence or such grandiose stuff that we tend to conjure after the event!

It would be insulting for me to believe that all these powerful "Indian" rulers and satrap required a lowly Sepoy, Mangal Pandey to ignite their 'national identity' and fervour!

It is time to smell the coffee and not the spin.

But I am always ready to learn. What did Sarvarkar say of 1857?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Sep 2009 14:31

RayC wrote: It would be insulting for me to believe that all these powerful "Indian" rulers and satrap required a lowly Sepoy, Mangal Pandey to ignite their 'national identity' and fervour!

It is time to smell the coffee and not the spin.
?

RayC who says 1857 started with Mangal Pandey? Please sir, your statements on Indian history are so mind boggling that it is difficult to know what to say or where to start!!

Note the two points once more
1) Discussion on 1857 as you say has NOTHING to do with my statements. I wish you would not take the discussion on a tanget. Talking of events in the core hardly means the event decides the definition of the core.
2) Savarkar's views can be easily googled.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Sep 2009 15:10

RayC wrote:
If Pandey did not spark the Mutiny or War of Independence, then who did? Educate me.

The move was already planned for Monsoon by the rebels, however Pandey could not hold back his frustrations and exploded too early leading to break down of the planned effort.

http://theyear1857.wordpress.com/2007/0 ... -building/

I have no time for Sarvarkar, though I consider him as a patriot, since he is too radical!

He was a radical, he was asking for removal of British through force if necessary when people were content to beg them for scraps of self governance.

But that makes him wrong, how?

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 30 Sep 2009 20:47

Interesting that people mention 1857 events.

If you look at the theater of operation of the 1857 events, it is quite clear why it is named "First War of Independence". Would it have been have been called "First War of Independence" if the entire event had happened in far from the Core, say Tamil Nadu? Events that happen in the core assume higher importance, than those that happen elsewhere.

Well, as someone said, it was neither the 1st, nor was it a war, nor was it for independence. The interesting thing about the core is that anyone who goes against the core and its mythology is automatically not patriotic enough, because core=India. History books have books have made enough hints that Sikhs were not patriotic to have helped the British in 1857. While I have to aggree that the Sikh peasants should not have enrolled in the fight of 1857, what is not mentioned is that practically everyone else (J&K, South, Marathas, Scindias, most princely states) helped, or offered to help, the British. It is still never explained why the Core would expect the Sikhs & others to be on their side when just mere 7 years ago they were the cause of Sikh kingdom's liquidation.

But what is even more interesting is that there is not the slightest mention anywhere anyplace that Core was the major reason the Indian resurgence (reconqista) was brutally truncated. British could liquidate the Marathas & the Sikhs *ONLY* because the Core Gangetic Valley co-operated it. British could not have even begun the British-Maratha war or the British-Sikh wars if the Core had not cooperated with the British, let alone win it. These were the two empires that broke the Mughal rule which had brought untold atrocities & humiliations. These two empires brought back a sense of pride in India. These narrative is never stressed.

prahaar · Post by **prahaar** » 30 Sep 2009 21:07

surinder wrote:Interesting that people mention 1857 events.

But what is even more interesting is that there is not the slightest mention anywhere anyplace that Core was the major reason the Indian resurgence (reconqista) was brutally truncated. British could liquidate the Marathas & the Sikhs *ONLY* because the Core Gangetic Valley co-operated it. British could not have even begun the British-Maratha war or the British-Sikh wars if the Core had not cooperated with the British, let alone win it. These were the two empires that broke the Mughal rule which had brought untold atrocities & humiliations. These two empires brought back a sense of pride in India. These narrative is never stressed.

Surinder, let me first state that I am a novice. But my reading is somewhat different in the sense that THEN as is the situation NOW, the political power in the Core Gangetic Valley is held by the people not representing the majority view (may be because the views are so fractured). During the 1857 revolt, it was mainly the Mughals and Nawabs who were asking for assistance in fighting the British, today we have the likes of Mulayam, Laloo, Mayawati, Mamta et al doing the job of erstwhile Mughals/Nawabs. So attacking the narrative might be kosher but holding the populace there responsible will not be correct. I agree with you that the CORE has been hard-coded to certain regions of India. Bharat has core locations through out, making a beautiful mesh, which needs to be nurtured.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 30 Sep 2009 21:27

Prahar, I belong to the core areaas myself and love the people & the land. Given a chance to live there again, I woud gladly do it. My criticism, is brotherly. I think the greatest service to India at the present time, if anyone is interested, is awakening the core. That is where the disease is the highest, and that is where the medicine needs to go first. All other efforts will be crippled unless this is solved first, IMHO.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 30 Sep 2009 21:34

1857 is too emotive an issue.

That is why I stated my comment was purely on a military analysis.

I would surely love to believe that it was the 'First War of Independence' since that would make me feel good as an Indian, but do the facts (as I understand) quite indicate it was so?

I believe The Last Mughal, The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857 by William Dalrymple mentions that it was a Jihad by the Muslims. Another take!

I have to aggree that the Sikh peasants should not have enrolled in the fight of 1857, what is not mentioned is that practically everyone else (J&K, South, Marathas, Scindias, most princely states) helped, or offered to help, the British. It is still never explained why the Core would expect the Sikhs & others to be on their side when just mere 7 years ago they were the cause of Sikh kingdom's liquidation.

Can what has been written be refuted?

Therefore, was India, as we know it, involved? If not, could we say that it was the First War against the British confined to a part of what became India?

Another issue that perplexes me is that Indian history portrayed in this forum is basically based on the fate of the events in the Indo Gangetic plain alone? There will be many who will state that there was Bharat or in particular India well before the Muslim or the British came. I do not wish to contest that since it will start another debate that will never end till the cows come home (please make a new thread if someone wishes to debate it with any other who is interested, but not here). A country or entity is recognised as one, if it has a central authority. Can one say all Slav countries are one, just because they have a Slav linkage?

If is good to be patriotic about India, but we should also be courageous enough to realise the parameters that should ignite that patriotism. It should be based on provable facts and not on conjured thoughts to suit the perspective.

It is true that in the present context, anyone who wants to rule over India has to have the cowbelt with it. That is how the political fortunes were carved, as it appears, so that politics could be controlled by those who came from such areas. But then, as I see it, unless you control every part of India, you cannot rule India.

One of the reasons for the Indian intervention in SL was to isolate India from the effects of the LTTE. If the core ie Indo Gangetic plain alone decided the fate, then why was this worry?

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 30 Sep 2009 21:38

If I may say so, approaching this from a perspective of one-region-is-better-than-the-other is ultimately detrimental. What is at the Gangetic core today, what has been there the last 1000 years, does not change the fact that this is still where Mother Ganga flows, it is still our sacred land as much as anywhere else and its people are our people.

If we approach the problem as one of re-transplanting values from the steadfast "periphery" to the compromised "core" we are still investing in a model of India wherein certain territories (and their people) are inherently imbued with specific values more or less conducive to the fostering and development of a national idea. The persistence of that model is, in fact, used by our enemies to divide us and set region against region.

We should cut right through this Gordian knot by thoroughly separating the national idea from ANY specific regional geographical entity or people. Let geography and national identity be recognized as related but fundamentally independent (as indeed they are). JMHO.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Sep 2009 22:31

This topic is really a sub-set of the Indian interests thread but appears to warrant a thread of its own as ideas ar being posted in other threads.

Please continue here.

Thanks, ramana

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Sep 2009 22:59

Any one with idea how to change the behaviour of this core to consolidate Bharti power.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 30 Sep 2009 23:03

We should cut right through this Gordian knot by thoroughly separating the national idea from ANY specific regional geographical entity or people. Let geography and national identity be recognized as related but fundamentally independent (as indeed they are). JMHO.

Very correctly said. Here is another evidence from even ancient times of why we are still one people culturally as far as heritage goes.

Symbols akin to Indus valley culture discovered in Kerala

Of the identified 429 signs, "a man with jar cup, a symbol unique to the Indus civilisation and other compound letters testified to remnants of the Harappan culture, spanning from 2300 BC to 1700 BC, in South India," said Varier, who led the excavation at the caves.