Indian Core: Ideas and descriptions-I

[Muppalla]

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

Let us first define the behaviour deligently so that we all can know what is the problem with the core. Is it a good idea or will it end up hurting some folks?

[Sanku]

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..

No as I had argued in the above post, the core is not because of ideas alone, but ideas and control flow from the core -- it is primarily a geographic construct.

The rest follows from there, it is a geography that is critical to be won for Indic resurgence. Just like defending the Khyber is critical for India's safety, if Khyber is breached, the rest of the geography is not conducive to mount a defensive position around for India.

So all enemies must be stopped west of Indus and before their control on Afghanistan solidifies.

Our mother, has some traits, this makes her and gives us its children identity, it is the particular geography, this was recognized and celebrated in the Veda's and every Indic text ever since.

[Sanku]

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.

But the term "first war of independence" was coined by Savarkar, a Maharashtraian writing in Marathi and from Maharashtra?

No Sir, it is indeed a topic of its own, but as much as we would like to have a pan Indian phenomena of occurrence, even in the limited geographical region the fire burned it had a pan Indian effect and thereof.

I will list some of them
1) It stopped the company raj -- also it stopped the British expansion into India. No princely state was effected post 1857 (not many anyway)
2) It changed the entire character of British colonialism from expansion to consolidation and then decay, not merely in India but worldwide.
3) Sikhs did not take part in the war from the Indian side, but the war was fought even in Punjab by Indians, as much as up to Ambala and wars were fought in Bengal too.
4) Even Madras presidency was effected -- the troops sent from Madras presidency refused to fight.
5) Its planning and execution by Nana Saheb Peshwa (a Marartha) lay the first foundations of the principle of independent India.

There are many others, but yes this truly was the first combined action by Indians on this large scale -- no previous attempt against British had the pan Indian character.

Granted it should have been more widespread but it does not remove its pan Indian import nevertheless.

[Sanku]

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

Let us first define the behaviour deligently so that we all can know what is the problem with the core. Is it a good idea or will it end up hurting some folks?

It would be severe mistake to link the core with the current behavior of the current set of its inhabitants, and note core also includes Bengal and Punjab.

This will completely gloss over the fact of large scale migrations from the core during 1400-1600 periods (check the annals of Rajputana) the fact of large scale migration into core (with Maratha's) and general flux.

This trap we must not fall into.

[ramana]

X-Posted from E-Books links thread:

Paydirt from Delhi Uty

Indian War of Independence 1857- V.D. Savarkar

This book recast 1857 as a war for independence instead of the British view as a mutiny.

[ramana]

Prem said
----
Any one with idea how to change the behaviour of this core to consolidate Bharti power

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

Let us first define the behaviour deligently so that we all can know what is the problem with the core. Is it a good idea or will it end up hurting some folks?

It would be severe mistake to link the core with the current behavior of the current set of its inhabitants, and note core also includes Bengal and Punjab.

This will completely gloss over the fact of large scale migrations from the core during 1400-1600 periods (check the annals of Rajputana) the fact of large scale migration into core (with Maratha's) and general flux.

This trap we must not fall into.

Issac Asimov in his "Foundation" Trilogy explores the core ideas migrating and implanting itself on different people. I think its an allegory for Western/Christian-Roman Civilization and how the ideas migrated from one group to the other and are now with the Anglo-Saxon establishment. That is why I started the Indian interests thread for people can change but not core interests.

[Sanku]

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!

1857 is an emotive issue, but a perfect one for discussion in a forum like BRF where good moderation keeps the discussion decent but ideas boiling.

Meanwhile the **** Darylmple is on record saying deriding Indian worship of the rivers -- he is a typical besotted with Mugals half baked British twit (not english though, he is a scot) -- I personally elevate him in the company of those like Purefool.

Meanwhile please do look at two posts above where I have made the briefest of outlines on how the first war of Independence was indeed a fairly Pan Indian event even if not a pan Indian effort (but then was even any attempt for Independence or any Indian war in antiquity? India IS a large country)

As I said, this debate is best had AFTER reading Savarkar since he does the best possible job of it. I did post one link above.

[Sanku]

Issac Asimov in his "Foundation" Trilogy explores the core ideas migrating and implanting itself on different people. I think its an allegory for Western/Christian-Roman Civilization and how the ideas migrated from one group to the other and are now with the Anglo-Saxon establishment. That is why I started the Indian interests thread for people can change but not core interests.

True Sir, but then we in India dont have a core in the Judeo Xian sense, then all India is the core. The core I talk about is primarily from a geographical/historical perspective of India as the place which homes the largest chunk of Indian population since time immemorial.

Idea wise, I would say India has been one core for a very long time (at least Agatysa?)

[Sanku]

regarding the discussion of the Indian "Core": on a purely geopolitical standpoint, the Ganges is the heartland of present day India. any power which has effective control over this region, has the potential to control and exert influence over all of India.

pay special attention to the boldened part. controlling the ganges doesn't automatically result in control of India, but on land, if anyone wants to have control over India and the entire Indian subcontinent (for which controlling India is necessary), then having effective control over the Ganges gives them a pretty good shot at it.

I think this is a very nice way of stating what I have been trying to say.

[ramana]

I am saying the same thing. The core is the idea and not just the people or the geography. If seen in this light we see the core retreated and re-emerged as it developed strength. Even the idea of princely States Accession was implementing the core idea to ensure no pockets of fissiparous tendencies.

[Prem]

I am saying the same thing. The core is the idea and not just the people or the geography. If seen in this light we see the core retreated and re-emerged as it developed strength. Even the idea of princely States Accession was implementing the core idea to ensure no pockets of fissiparous tendencies.

Where is is this ideological or geographical core now ? If it has not emerged , drawback factors must be removed and fertile enviorenment to be provided for its growth. Ganagetic plain seems lack the energy or intellectual deapth (since 47) ,so called periphery must take over and infuse fresh life into it.

[surinder]

Sanku, I am quite aware that the it was Savarkar who gave the name "1st War of Independence" to the events of 1857. He was a Marathi, but note the alacrity with which his description of it as a war was lapped up arouses the question. Savarkar gave this war a new name 100 years after the fact, why does it take a Savarkar and lapse of 100 years to even know that it was "War"? Why isn't it immediately obvious that it is a war. This all points to the fact that it probably was not.

For something to be a war, you have all the symptoms of a war: orbat, supply chain, strategy, tactic, arms, ammo, commanders, generals, plans, post-victory plans etc.. 1857 lacks all of these. It was a classic mutiny. Of course we don't like that description because it emphasizes the fact that those who "fought" were all soldiers of the same army they were rebelling against, often killing their officers in traitorous manner. I know a lot of people will not like this description of it. I mean, why would those "fighting" join this army then turn back & fight the same people who recruited you?

How was it a war? Nowadays it is fashionable to call everything war. Microsoft's war on google. War on drugs. War against poverty. These are all "poetic" classifications, and but that cannot be the accurate description of the 1857 events.

If you want to know a true wars, what should really be called a war is what Bose's INA fought with the British. Even if they lost, it was a war in the classical sense. Why is INA war with British not called a war by the the official India? At the very least it could be called the 2nd war of Independence?

[ramana]

Err, He termed it a war on the 50th Anniversary of the great uprising. And he was just a young man less thant 30 years old at that time. He did more then many of us have done in a lifetime to bring out the awareness. 1857 was a war at many levels as it was a mass movement in the Indo-Gangetic core area. Such being the case the non-core areas did not particpate or did so feebly.

By taking the British description as a Great Mutiny we confine our vision to the events in the Bengal Army of the East India company when its clear there were other factors. If we look at Dalrymple's accountof what happened at Delhi we will be tunnel visioned into thinking its jihad. It was all that and more. It was to create new modern united state in the Indian Sub-Continent. It was no less than the efforts of Cardinal Mazzani or Gussippe Garibaldi to create a new Italy from the feudal setup there. Read the book if any one wants to comment on it.

[Sanku]

Sanku, I am quite aware that the it was Savarkar who gave the name "1st War of Independence" to the events of 1857. He was a Marathi, but note the alacrity with which his description of it as a war was lapped up arouses the question. Savarkar gave this war a new name 100 years after the fact, why does it take a Savarkar and lapse of 100 years to even know that it was "War"? Why isn't it immediately obvious that it is a war. This all points to the fact that it probably was not.

Not correct, 1857-58 and the book was written in 1900 and published in 1909, barely 50 years after the war.

Given that India was a mess during those 50 years and completely under heavy British jackboot, it is only fair to accept that a scholarly thesis would take at least 40-50 years to come, even then remember it had to be hidden and smuggled and what not to be printed and read. It was not the free India where Savarkar was writing on Kargil in peer reviewed IDSA journals

Whether or not it was a war or not is best answered by debating the points that Savarkar makes for it -- clearly it was a planned insurrection, not only by the members of BIA but by the princely states et al.

Tantya Tope (a Maratha from Kanpur) and Babu Kunwar Singh from Bihar were not members of BIA.

And ascribing Army like behavior to John company is a bit rich actually, this is the same "army" which stripped and whipped its soldiers for not accepting orders which were horrid in the extreme (You talked about how IA folks could have done Jaliawalan Bagh, well all that some of these folks did was to say no to such persecution). the same army which had different scales of pays and rules for native and white personnel. An army which was did not even belong to a nation but were the sword arm of a systematic looting campgain by a purely mercantile body -- in other words "daku's" The same Army which hung its soldiers on slightest whims.

No the Indians in the armies of the British were merely mercenaries at best, even if well drilled one. Not fighting for a flag or for a cause or for their officers but for pay.

Yes purbaiya's defeated the Maratha's and the Sikhs while working for the British, but that has to be seen in the context of the whole picture.

Heck the Sikh and the Maratha victories could happen for BIA ONLY because the Maratha's themselves broke up into factions and one side invited the Brits for help.

In this context, no group of Indians had shown solidarity of the concept of a nation and looking at British as a national enemies before 1857.

Indeed the military formation of the war was flawed badly, and that is the reason it was a failure, but a war is not characterized merely by orbat or lines of control or whatever, those are tactics on the ground.

[RayC]

Surinder,

Rather well said as to what constitutes a war.

While it is correct to say the 'core' relates to the idea and not just the people or the geography, yet were the ideas the same across the expanse what is called India of today.

Did the Nawab of Oudh, Bahadur Shah Zafar, Rani of Jhansi, Nana Saheb or even Mangal Pandey subscribe to a common core? Each one had their own motivation to chip in to fulfil one's own agenda once the ball was set rolling in Barrackpore and I daresay the core was common!

Nana Saheb did not coordinate anything beyond his own war. He was the adopted son of Peshwa Bajirao II who was robbed of his Kingdom by the infamous Dalhousie and his Doctrine of Lapse.

If there was indeed a common core (say Independence), then how come the Scindias or the Holkars were not in the fray or other princelings?

If the core was there, then why when in 1818, the Maratha Confederacy ceased to exist, after their dismal defeat in the second Anglo-Maratha war, Shivaram's , grandson Ramachandra Rao (ancestor of the husband of the Rani of Jhansi), displayed servility towards the British by begging Lord Wellesley to allow him to hoist the Union Jack over the fort of Jhansi?

History is the perception of the narrator.

That is why there is this controversy of Thaparite history and that of the detractor.

Those who are not historians, can only bank upon what is taught in schools.

Who is right?

[RayC]

Heck the Sikh and the Maratha victories could happen for BIA ONLY because the Maratha's themselves broke up into factions and one side invited the Brits for help.

Just my point.

There was no core. It was self interest.

We can spin a web to satiate our patriotism!

One must look at events without emotions and draw lessons where the mistakes are never again repeated. But self delusion can ruin the future, even if it whips up patriotism.

Lessons learnt in war that are written after each war also airbrushes the errors!

It is only those who seek the truth, however unpalatable it might be, is better equipped for the next war.

[Sanku]

Heck the Sikh and the Maratha victories could happen for BIA ONLY because the Maratha's themselves broke up into factions and one side invited the Brits for help.

Just my point.

There was no core. It was self interest.

We can spin a web to satiate our patriotism!

Uh, again you have lost me. I have not said that war of 1857 was the justification for the core.

I am merely said that the core (as defined previously before as the connected Indian river plane system from Sindhu to Ganga) had the event of 1857 which shaped it strongly.

And frankly I do not like the gratuitous comment on the same.

[Sanku]

Did the Nawab of Oudh, Bahadur Shah Zafar, Rani of Jhansi, Nana Saheb or even Mangal Pandey subscribe to a common core? Each one had their own motivation to chip in to fulfil one's own agenda once the ball was set rolling in Barrackpore and I daresay the core was common!

Nana Saheb did not coordinate anything beyond his own war. He was the adopted son of Peshwa Bajirao II who was robbed of his Kingdom by the infamous Dalhousie and his Doctrine of Lapse.

RayC that is why I would really request you to look at the book by Veer Savarkar, at least read the link I posted, it is an excerpt from his book. You will also find other article there, including that by Karl Marx written when the war was happening.

Nana did plan and get people together on an agenda much before the Mangal Pandey forestalled the planned move by acting too soon.

The manner of his bringing different elements together itself provides a blue print for Modern India.

As to whether there are different self interests in the fray, when there is not, even today? Even in highest GoI echelons. Even in IA?

Does that mean that we are not a nation today? Does having self interests under a broader common framework necessarily demean a patriotic act?

1857 was being planned for over 2 years. Only that the cartridge incident precipitated the move.

-------

Meanwhile the lack of good military coordination on the Indian side is well documented, and that was the real reason why the Indian side lost and not because of anything else. I am not airbrushing that away at all.

[RayC]

Uh, again you have lost me. I have not said that war of 1857 was the justification for the core.

I am merely said that the core (as defined previously before as the connected Indian river plane system from Sindhu to Ganga) had the event of 1857 which shaped it strongly.

And frankly I do not like the gratuitous comment on the same.

Sorry if you lost me. My apologies.

My point is simple - there was no core or common cause in simple English throughout history till of late, even if there was a religion that was common. Even cultures were not common nor the language. What was common which made the core?

Each area was independent in thought, views and culture and was for self preservation.

Even today, we are one because of a central authority that controls India. Are we really one with a common cause, except when it comes to an external threat?

Why did Nana Saheb join the issue in 1857. Why did the Nawab of Oudh join as also Bahadur Shah Zaffar. Self interest.

They all took advantage of the fire kindled by Mangal Pandey and made into an inferno by troops of 3rd Bengal Light Cavalry at Meerut. The taluqdars, who had lost their property in Oudh because of the British, fanned the fire, while the Sunni Muslims of Oudh did not join as they did not want a Shia rule back!

[Sanku]

If you want to know a true wars, what should really be called a war is what Bose's INA fought with the British. Even if they lost, it was a war in the classical sense. Why is INA war with British not called a war by the the official India? At the very least it could be called the 2nd war of Independence?

By the way, I have no problems with calling it so, in fact I would welcome it.

But please dont lump together all the mistakes that Nehru did on the entire "core", it is not our fault that he was born in the core.

I know from first hand account on how Nehru ditched the chance of uniting with Nepal after King Tribhuvan appealed for help and was ready to merge with India, a close senior relative of mine from the core areas being the go between between Nehru and Tribhuvan. God knows he tried his best.

So all the comments about the "core" people holding Nepal away from us is well "funny"

[RayC]

1857 was being planned for over 2 years. Only that the cartridge incident precipitated the move.

so, it was planned over two years and it took a lowly Sepoy's action to kindle it, when great Princes and Satrap did not have the gumption to put the action into motion?

Sarwarkar and you maybe right, but the logic that one plans for two years with all the power vested in them in the world and they wait for a lowly Sepoy's action to spur them on does not appeal to logic.

Nathu Ram Godse can also be projected as a great patriot while history books say otherwise!

It depends on which side of the story one wants to believe.

That is history!

BTW, if all India spanned the core, why did the South, Scindias, Holkar et al not join in?

[Sanku]

My point is simple - there was no core or common cause in simple English throughout history till of late, even if there was a religion that was common. Even cultures were not common nor the language. What was common which made the core?

Uh I am still lost because when have said common cause or common core defined by ideas and proven by 1857.

The way I have been talking of the core in context of 1857 was purely geographical and I have said so many times.

And this above is a completely different topic from what is below.

They all took advantage of the fire kindled by Mangal Pandey and made into an inferno by troops of 3rd Bengal Light Cavalry at Meerut. !

No RayC no, that is not a correct assertion. The war was already planned for monsoon in 1857 and moved forward because Mangal Pandey acted hastily.

Please please please read the book by Savarkar (or any other good book) on the chronology. It will give you a good idea about the motivations etc.

And there are always self interests -- I repeat that has nothing to do with framework

Anyway -- good night for now. Please do look up the references I quoted.

[RayC]

No RayC no, that is not a correct assertion. The war was already planned for monsoon in 1857 and moved forward because Mangal Pandey acted hastily.

Oh so Mangal Pandey was also in the know of this two year show and acted hastily?

And can you explain the Meerut episode?

I find it difficult to comfortably accept to the idea that the core is only that of the Indo Gangetic plain!

[Sanku]

1857 was being planned for over 2 years. Only that the cartridge incident precipitated the move.

so, it was planned over two years and it took a lowly Sepoy's action to kindle it, when great Princes and Satrap did not have the gumption to put the action into motion?

Because it was due for Monsoons that year, when the British strength in communication would be rendered null through heavy rains cutting of routes etc -- the idea was to isolate British pockets and destroy them before the link up could happen.

The Indian side clearly knew their weakness and strengths and were preparing to exploit the situation.

Mangal Pandey actually did a disservice by acting too soon.

This is not to say that the pre war situation if the Indian side would not be messy, but they had a plan, and it is only speculation now whether it would have gone according to it.

But they had a plan and that is important.

[Sanku]

No RayC no, that is not a correct assertion. The war was already planned for monsoon in 1857 and moved forward because Mangal Pandey acted hastily.

Oh so Mangal Pandey was also in the know of this two year show and acted hastily?

And can you explain the Meerut episode?

I dont understand, why does Mangal Pandey have to be in the know? The leaders were creating conditions were the BIA would change sides when the word came, and this was done through the Indian heads there.

The discontent was spread and the ground made ready -- the discontent amongst the soliders was not the work only of the British.

The roti and kamal runners did their job too.

[RayC]

Ah well, so be it!

[Sanku]

Ah well, so be it!

What is, is, Brig RayC, I did not make it up.

Neither am I whitewashing the failures of 1857, they are only too evident -- however its success are magnificent if even it did not succeed 100%.

Do read Savarkar.

[Javee]

I doubt that there is only one core per se for the sub continent and specifically to India. The days are over where the polity of India was decided in the Gangetic belt, even if UP has a simple majority in the number of MP's, they never vote in blocks like in South. Take a look at last 2 elections, south parties saved UPI. UP with 80 seats gave 21 to INC, while AP gave 33 MP's and TN gave 8+13 (DMK).

As for spirituality, for every holy place in the Gangetic valley there is one in the South. The revival of hinduism (Saivaites and Vaisnavites) started from the South, if not Buddhism would be the major dominant religion today.

[Javee]

Also I disagree that 1857 was the first war of independence. The 1806 Vellore Mutiny would be considered the first, but for unknown reasons, the 1857 is still touted as the first war of independence.

[Sanku]

Also I disagree that 1857 was the first war of independence. The 1806 Vellore Mutiny would be considered the first, but for unknown reasons, the 1857 is still touted as the first war of independence.

The scale, planning involved the motivations and factors such as these dear friend and its aftermaths. Its a simple case really.

To all.
Meanwhile the use of core as a heartland and as an ideological entity is not the same and we all agree. Can we think of using two different terms to discuss them?

What would be good names?

[RayC]

The Vellore Mutiny (July 10, 1806) was the first instance of a mutiny by Indian sepoys against the British East India Company. It predates even the Indian Rebellion of 1857 by half a century. The revolt, which took place in the South Indian town of Vellore, was rather brief, lasting only one full day but brutal, as mutineers broke into the Vellore fort and killed or injured 200 British troops, before they were subdued by reinforcements from nearby Arcot.

The reasons for the mutiny revolved mainly around resentment against changes in sepoy dress code in November 1805. Hindus were prohibited from wearing religious marks on their foreheads and Muslims were required to shave their beard and trim their moustache. This created a strong resentment among the soldiers. In May 1806, some revolting soldiers were sent to Fort St. George. Two soldiers — a Hindu and a Muslim — were given 900 lashes each and their services terminated. Nineteen soldiers were punished with 500 lashes each and forced to seek pardon from the East India Company.

The rebellion was also instigated by the sons of the defeated Tippu Sultan, imprisoned at the Vellore fort since 1799. One of Tipu Sultan's daughters was to be married on July 9 1806, and the plotters of the uprising gathered at the fort under the pretext of attending the wedding. Two hours after midnight, on July 10, the sepoys surrounded the fort and killed most of the Europeans. The rebels seized control by dawn, and raised the flag of the Mysore Sultanate over the fort. Tipu's second son Fateh Hyder was declared King.

However, a British Officer escaped, and alerted the garrison in Arcot. Nine hours later, the British 19th Light Dragoons, led by Sir Rollo Gillespie, and the Madras Cavalry entered the fort through gates that had not been fully secured by the sepoys. Nearly 350 of the rebels were killed, and another 350 injured before the fighting had stopped. Some accounts have it that 800 rebels died.

After the incident the incarcerated royals were transferred to Calcutta. The Governor of Madras, William Bentinck, was recalled, and the controversial interference with social and religious customs of the sepoys was abolished, as was flogging.

The British East India Company had paid little heed to the grievances of the sepoys. However they learnt little from this incident, general resentment culminating in the Mutiny of 1857, when similar circumstances of ignoring native sentiments nearly cost them the whole of India.

It is also interesting to note that the mutineers in Vellore planned to bring back the sons of Tippu Sultan to power, just as the mutiny in 1857 attempted to restore Mughal rule by re-instating Bahadur Shah as Emperor of India.
Wikipedia

Why reject this?

It is equally an important event, where the first time British rule was challenged and restoration of Indian dignity was attempted!!

It is obvious that it does not appeal to the popular concept of where the core of Bharat lies!!

[Sanku]

Why reject this?

It is equally an important event, where the first time British rule was challenged and restoration of Indian dignity was attempted!!

It is obvious that it does not appeal to the popular concept of where the core of Bharat lies!!

Reject? In what sense?

The revolt, which took place in the South Indian town of Vellore, was rather brief, lasting only one full day but brutal, as mutineers broke into the Vellore fort and killed or injured 200 British troops, before they were subdued by reinforcements from nearby Arcot.

This is being compared with 1857 uprising? An equally important event? How? What comparisons of scale of involvement of planning, of numbers involved of anything. Surely this was not even the first time the British Indian soldiers revolted.

Gentlemen can you please read the basics of history before making such comparisons?

[RayC]

Gentlemen can you please read the basics of history before making such comparisons?

If by not accepting your view means we have no clue of history, I think that is presumptuous!

And if you are the sole historian in India, do be good enough to educate us.

Sarvarkar is not the last word nor is Jaswant Singh.

I am not too sure if he had a degree in History, but I believe he went to England to be a Barrister.

If we can debunk Jaswant Singh, who is no historian, how does Sarvarkar fare better, wherein we accept him as the sole authority of Indian history?

The time of the Vellore rebellion or the numbers are not of import, what is of import, is that it was the FIRST act of rebellion against the British! The FIRST War if you will!

[Abhi_G]

RayC,
You may disagree with Savarkar. But at least type his name correctly. You have been consistently writing "Sarvarkar".

[RayC]

RayC,
You may disagree with Savarkar. But at least type his name correctly. You have been consistently writing "Sarvarkar".

Fine that is an error.

But is it a cardinal crime?

I neither agree with him nor disagree. It is just that his writing is another input! Nothing more and nothing less. But to take it as the sole Gospel would also be incorrect and biased!

As if be accepting his views would mean I have reached Nirvana!

One must keep an open mind and not feel that those who do not agree with one's views have no clue of history.

Such an attitude smacks of bigotry, if I maybe permitted to state.

[Sanku]

Gentlemen can you please read the basics of history before making such comparisons?

If by not accepting your view means we have no clue of history, I think that is presumptuous!

This is a pointless argument, I am not even saying we should accept Savarkar's word.

If you have a specific point of disagreement please say how.

But when your data points are totally and hopelessly incorrect, by any standards -- I of course see no reason to dump what is already written before on this outside, on this board for the sake of correcting you. I can and will refer to sources outside what I write on the forum, much more efficient that way.

However I will repeat comparing a war which lasted two years, involved half of India geographically, involved numbers in excess of 100,000 people in fighting forces alone, had huge impact on British imperialism and its growth, is being compared with a mutiny in a fort lasting less than one day?

I am sorry I have no idea on how to respond to this comparison, only the word bizarre comes to mind.

[brihaspati]

Some worthwhile recollections from the parent thread of "strategic scenarios" :

shiv wrote ( 03 Jan 2009 01:34 am )
[...]The discussion of "India as core" is good, but becomes weak and pointless if th people of the core do not see themselves as part of the core "India" but end up seeing themselves as "Hindus", "Muslims" "Yadavs", Schecduled castes", "poor", "Mumbaikars" and not "Biharis", Seeing such splits and engineering such splits is what Pakistan is all about.

Quite apart from that people on BRF have spent thousands of hours debating how the US is bad or Evanjihdis are bad, but until brihaspati started this thread nobody has been able to pin down the need for recognizing Indian nationalism as core. But while Brihaspati is taking the core for granted and looking outside, I would agree with you that a reiteration and consolidation of what is core is essential.

samuel wrote (03 Jan 2009 02:59 am )
Yeah, we don't unfortunately reiterate Indian Nationalism any more.
When I heard my grandfather talk of nationalism, I recognized what it meant. How do we do it today?

We've marginalized Indian nationalism to a Hindu nationalism and empty space, thereby leaving non-Hindus in the lurch for anti-national forces to pick up, shoving Hindus in the dock for being liberal, and leaving India without a nationalist core, thus making it all too easy for even those in the periphery to divide and conquer.

To be sure, we know very well that the forces that are weakening this core are internal and external. I hope part of this thread can look at booting a nationalist core in the face of both. Whilst I appreciate very much an imagination of what such a core can do, I would appreciate even more insights for raising the core.

To do so, as a first guess, a restorative force that retakes the center is essential. Such a force will promote Indian nationalism and effectively place the boundary as being for or against India, again, and make this the test that all within our periphery will recognize to be tested by, with natural, primitive and direct consequences for falling afoul.

Although I feel that there is a strong Hindu foundation to a centered Indian nationalism, I am equally happy or happier if there were a constitutional foundation to it. But Is there, where?

In reality, with many a separatrix readily available for more immediate gains to any and all, we hope that nationalism is somehow an emergent policy. But it doesn't emerge as a natural expression of our constitution and I can't come up with ways to counter that tendency without falling back on a Hindu core, but counter we must I feel.

brihaspati wrote (03 Jan 2009 04:36 am)
Samuelji, Shivji, Naraynanji,
I think all of you are saying certain things in common : I will try to summarize and think out loudly

(1) Does the core exist at all? My answer is that the core exists but we are not conscious of it. One way to realize this is by asking ourselves or another "Indian", (by law/birth/residence/whatever) about a concrete feature/characteristic and ask - is this Indian or non-Indian or anti-Indian? I think we will see a pattern emerge. Even affiliations to religions/cultures which claim to have their centres outside the subcontinent, still have some idea of "India" even if they do not share it. Apart from a small confused section, most - even the "uneducated/illiterate" have a deep sense of attachment to their "land" (not necessarily in the Nandigram sense), to natural features to which they feel an almost mystical reverence, an inarticulate and ill-understood but deeply felt spirituality, oral traditions and epics, rites and rituals - and a strange separation of the daily, mundane life from the "other" life - of non-mundane meanings and ambitions, ranging from seeking eternity to being a "good parent" or "charitable" or "writing a book". Ask specific questions, and there will be no confusions about whether "this is our way" or "this is not our way". It is this core that all the spiritual innovators of the past found in their travels and activated according to their personal visions and agendas - from Adi Shankara, to Vasavanna, Nanak, Chaitanya, and to a certain extent Gandhiji. We need to activate this sense of identification with the land, reinterpret in modern terms the essence of the epics and sagas, and reclarify features which have been misinterpreted to create divisions. And there is no way we can escape tackling religion in doing this - but we can use religion itself "against" itself. Further discussions are prohibited on BR - as it will go into religion!

(2) Indian nationalism does not have to be a "Hindu" nationalism - it can simply be Bharatyia nationalism. There is a spiritual if not entirely religio-cultural continuity that spans almost all of India. But this needs clarification in modern terms. It can be compared to looking at yourself in a mirror - until you do that you are not that conscious of how you appear. The mirror is the brutally honest facing up and open discussion of every bit of our cultural/ritual/belief/practice existence - and filter out the bits that need to go - like we decide to get a haircut when we see it has grown too long, or that the shirt does not fit and needs to be replaced, or the trouser is dirty and needs a wash. My own extensive travels, especially at so called "lower levels" had convinced me quite early - that we do not need fundamental or drastic cosmetic surgery, merely grooming and a change of clothes.

(3) I have never really claimed that the core exists in a fully consolidated form - in fact I have asked these very question several times in the beginning. This is why, we need to simplify and reclarify the belief systems - as they were originally meant to be, so that we have less and less distinguishing points to construct distinct identities. But given the rapid growth of hostility in the periphery we cannot wait until the core is fully "formed" - and we have to think of both aspects of the problem simultaneously.

(4) However, in facing up to the peripheral hostility, we ironically strengthen our core and move towards "completing" it. The best devil is the foreign "devil" against whom it is so much easier to unite and learn to overcome differences. It is so tempting perhaps to be sarcastic about it - but we have to change this way of thinking. Our sarcasm simply expresses our helplessness - and a recognition of our weakness, but the task is to overcome it, and we can start by denying it. We are what we think ourselves to be.

We really have to start "dreaming" - I can already imagine the "barbs" coming my way! I will only humbly say, a journey of a thousand li (substitute krosha) starts with one small step, and ideas change, create and shape nations. I will try to find ways and means of conveying more concrete "answers" within the censorship rules of BR!

[RayC]

"Sanku"]

Gentlemen can you please read the basics of history before making such comparisons?

If by not accepting your view means we have no clue of history, I think that is presumptuous!

This is a pointless argument, I am not even saying we should accpet Savarkar's word.

What the Dickens does this mean which you wrote?

Gentlemen can you please read the basics of history before making such comparisons?

What is the basics of history that we should bone up on? I am straight and I do get exasperated with deftly delivered tongue in cheeks.

As I read it, it means we have no idea of history and you alone possess this knowledge. You may not agree with us, but you cannot feel that we are totally clueless.

If you have a specific point of disagreement please say how.

I have said what I had to say, but if you choose to ignore it and go off on your own, you are welcomed.

When your data points are totally and hopelessly incorrect, by any standards -- I of course see no reason to dump what is already written before on this on this board for the sake of correcting you. I can and will refer to sources outside what I write on the forum, much more efficient that way.

Sure you alone are your datas picture perfect and we are merely poodlefaking! You quote what you want. It matters not. What I have written is not from a figment of imagination. You feel comfortable that I should quote the books?

However I will repeat comparing a war which lasted two years, involved half of India geographically, involved numbers in excess of 100,000 people in fighting forces alone, had huge impact on British imperalism and its growth, is being compared with a mutiny in a fort lasting less than one day?

OK to use your own word - CORE.

The Vellore Mutiny reverberates the core of Indian indignation and the desire for a breath of freedom. CORE!

I am sorry I have no idea on how to respond to this comparison, only the word bizarre comes to mind.

Bizarre indeed! Mutual, if you wish!

[surinder]

Sanku, Please note that RayC is a military man (that is my understanding), a professional soldier. He is trying to understand how 1857 was a war. Apart from asking him to read history, you haven't pointed out how it is a war. His points are valid: he asks how a huge war lasting 100k people lasting 2 years got mismanaged and got triggered by a lowly Sepoy a little too early. How this big war was leaderless, that the soldiers had to go to Delhi to beg the infirm & unwilling emporer to lead it *WHILE* the war is going on, not before. If the planning is on for 2 years, what arrangements were made for supply routes. Who were the central leaders who had been planning for 2 years. What effort was made to make allies in this war. I am speaking for him, but I guess as a soldier he is tring to figure out how to slot this thingie into a definition of a war. If you don't have a valid response, you can say so, that is OK.

[Javee]

The scale, planning involved the motivations and factors such as these dear friend and its aftermaths. Its a simple case really.

Sankuji,
My beef is , they call 1857 first war of independence; it may be the biggest and best organized resistance, but its not the first. The conditions for 1806 mutiny are pretty much the same as 1857, so discounting one versus the other because of the size of resistance is not correct.