Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[brihaspati]

I have been thinking that one of the greatest obstacles to the internal consolidation of India has been definitely distinction in regional identities encouraged actively by various regimes or imperialists and passively due to breakdown of centralizing empires.

But regionalism is just one form of division, and we have many others - that have been constructed based on inter-religion and intra-religions "divisions". In the past Religions or belief systems seem to have appeared as a fighting tool to preserve regional societies when the unifying rashtra fell apart. So people in different parts adopted different variants of a root philosophy as a binder. We have therefore Jainism/Buddhism appearing at different parts of the Gangetic Plains, and then their subsequent variations in other parts.

Now when religions or even within-religion divisions are creating problems, is it a tactical possibility to first go for regionalism to drown within-religion problems (I have so-called "caste" in mind). Once that target is achieved, then go for liquidation of the "regionalism" by showing its limitations and destroying it through a reconstruction of the unifying beleif system? This is a kind of application of nationalism-to-drown-subnationalism/religious divide, into the federal national framework. But it has to be subtly based on geographical regions and subverted from linguistic affiliations.

The regions I identify are South-western, south Eastern, north-western, north eastern Deccan, lower Gangetic, middle Gangetic, upper Gangetic, Punya-kendra (the Chambal, Narmada-Tapti valley), Paschim Saikat (Coastal Maha+Gujarat), Purva Saikat (upper coastal Andhra+Orissa), Suryadaya (Assam Valley+NE), Saraswat (Rajasthan), Panchanad (greater Punjab), Uttara (J&K).

The other way is of course to divide coastal from interior, mountain from plains, river plains from desert. Do a critique and propose alternative geographical characterizations that can be used!

[brihaspati]

almost one year ago Tunku Varadarajan wrote about 5 reasons he thought that prevented India from doing an Israel : many are or already have been discussed threadbare on brf, butit should be possible to think exactly on why some these arealso theexact reasons why India can do more than an Israel.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/04/israel ... rajan.html

Five Reasons Why India Can't 'Do A Gaza' On Pakistan
Tunku Varadarajan, 01.05.09, 12:00 AM EST
Israel has far fewer restrictions.

1. India is not a military goliath in relation to Pakistan in the way Israel is to the Palestinian territories. India does not have the immunity, the confidence and the military free hand that result from an overwhelming military superiority over an opponent. Israel's foe is a non-sovereign entity that enjoys the most precarious form of self-governance. Pakistan, for all its dysfunction, is a proper country with a proper army, superior by far to the tin-pot Arab forces that Israel has had to combat over time. Pakistan has nukes, to boot. Any assault on Pakistani territory carries with it an apocalyptic risk for India. This is, in fact, Pakistan's trump card. (This explains, also, why Israel is determined to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran.)

so this is very much a psychological advantage only for POWI. If India can get over the fear of apocalypse and prepares its populations for the consequence of nuke attacks by POWI and PRC, this advantage meansnothing for POWI.

2. Even if India could attack Pakistan without fear of nuclear retaliation, the rationale for "doing a Gaza" is, arguably, not fully present: Israel had been attacked consistently by the very force--Hamas--that was in political control of the territory from which the attacks occurred. By contrast, terrorist attacks on India, while originating in Pakistan, are not authored by the Pakistani government. India can-- and does--contend that Pakistan's government should shut down the terrorist training camps on Pakistani soil. (In this insistence, India has unequivocal support from Washington.) Yet only a consistent and demonstrable pattern of dereliction by Pakistani authorities-- which would need to be dereliction verging on complicity with the terrorists--would furnish India with sufficient grounds to hold the Pakistani state culpable.

Obviously, TV being from Forbes, manages to clear POGWI's name unilaterally. He assumes that India must provide full justifications to everything it does in relation to POWIand that India must satisfy outsiders before it can move. What prevents India from simply saying that it is acting in its "national interest"!

3. As our columnist, Karlyn Bowman, writes, Israel enjoys impressive support from the American people, in contrast to the Palestinians. No other state--apart, perhaps, from Britain--evokes as much favor in American public opinion as does Israel. This is not merely the result of the much-vaunted "Israel lobby" (to use a label deployed by its detractors), but also because of the very real depth of cultural interpenetration between American and Israeli society. This fraternal feeling buys Israel an enviable immunity in the conduct of its strategic defense. India, by contrast--while considerably more admired and favored in American public opinion than Pakistan--enjoys scarcely a fraction of Israel's "pull" in Washington when it comes to questions of the use of force beyond its borders.

this is still not a strong and permanent reason. What TV is doing is comparing in terms of absolute pulling power. Over time the relative margin of pull compared to POWI can be changed,and that is what matters. One of thetactical reasons that India's role in serving as a divider of muslim attention in Asia and therefore an important security role for Israel should be highlighted.

4. Pakistan is strategically significant to the United States; the Palestinians are not. This gives Washington scant incentive to rein in the Israelis, but a major incentive to rein in any Indian impulse to strike at Pakistan. However justified the Indian anger against Pakistan over the recent invasion of Mumbai by Pakistani terrorists, the last thing that the U.S. wants right now is an attack--no matter how surgical--by India against Pakistan-based terror camps. This would almost certainly result in a wholesale shift of Pakistani troops away from their western, Afghan front toward the eastern boundary with India--and would leave the American Afghan campaign in some considerable disarray, at least in the short term. So Washington has asked for, and received, the gift of Indian patience. And although India recognizes that it is not wholly without options to mobilize quickly for punitive, surgical strikes in a "strategic space," it would--right now--settle for a trial of the accused terrorist leaders in U.S. courts. (Seven U.S. citizens were killed in Mumbai: Under U.S. law, those responsible--and this should include Pakistani intelligence masterminds--have to be brought to justice.)

wellit does so not ony because it has all this tactical consideration but also because it really wants to keep POWI populations as far as possible - the real untouchables.

5. My last, and meta-, point: Israel has the privilege of an international pariah to ignore international public opinion in its use of force against the Palestinians. A state with which few others have diplomatic relations can turn the tables on those that would anathematize it by saying, Hang diplomacy. India, by contrast, has no such luxury. It is a prisoner of its own global aspirations--and pretensions.

Oh really! Actually the USA can do a lot more with many diplomatic relations intact! In case of India,diplomacy is just an excuse.

[naren]

^^^

I have been thinking that one of the greatest obstacles to the internal consolidation of India has been definitely distinction in regional identities encouraged actively by various regimes or imperialists and passively due to breakdown of centralizing empires....

B ji,

Wonderful !!! Let me visualize your vision.

We have so much "regionalism" because of the linguistic divisions. We need to have a singular language. So we can choose Hindi since it is the most spoken. We will flood the central, south and east/NE India with Hindi speakers. We will declare all the "regional" languages as illegal. We can burn all the "regional" literatures. Hindi must become the sole medium of teaching. If anybody resists, then we will execute them. We should also gradually interbreed Hindi speakers with regional speakers. In few decades, the subnational identity will dissolve. All for motherland unification onlee.

We have so much fractions in hinduism because of lack of centralized belief system. So we will pick one belief system - vaishnavism. Then we will destroy all the Shaivite, Shaktha and whatever religious denominations we have. If we recognize multiple Vishnu avatars, that will also be dangerous to unified rashtra. So we will recognize Krishna avatar only. People might fragment with multiple interpretations of BG. So we will have only one state sanctioned interpretation. The rest we can declare it as blasphemy. If anybody attempts to give a different interpretation, then we can execute him on the charges of "thought crime". If we are not able to eliminate the sects, then we can make them pay heavy taxes.

We will abandon our "unity in diversity" and make "e pluribus unum" as the national principle, if not motto. All for motherland unification onlee.

Having tricolour flag might give people ideas. So will we make it fully saffron. Unification onlee.

We should also fully cut off ourselves from the rest of the world. Because the new influx of ideas might threaten the unified rashtra. All the unsanctioned ideas must be declared blasphemy and promptly eliminated, through force (read killing) if necessary.

This vision is perfectly possible because we have so many precedents in our 5000 year old history & fits well with our civilizational character.

Right B ji ?

[brihaspati]

naren wrote
Wonderful !!! Let me visualize your vision.

Thanks for stating that this is your visualization. Sometimes visualizing others visions reveal more about the demons in the visualizer than in the vision.

We have so much "regionalism" because of the linguistic divisions. We need to have a singular language. So we can choose Hindi since it is the most spoken. We will flood the central, south and east/NE India with Hindi speakers. We will declare all the "regional" languages as illegal. We can burn all the "regional" literatures. Hindi must become the sole medium of teaching. If anybody resists, then we will execute them. We should also gradually interbreed Hindi speakers with regional speakers. In few decades, the subnational identity will dissolve. All for motherland unification onlee.

Interesting visualization. All the usual suspects. None of these have been indicated in any part of my post. In fact,if you read carefully, I have indicated clearly quite the opposite. The subversion of linguistic affiliations I mentioned comes only in the second phase, when the limitations of a regional based politics for national level policy agenda becomes obvious for the people to see. Such a subversion does not have to be in the dramatic scenario you paint. If you have a point to make about language "imperialism" do make it in the appropriate thread on "language" in GDF.

We have so much fractions in hinduism because of lack of centralized belief system. So we will pick one belief system - vaishnavism. Then we will destroy all the Shaivite, Shaktha and whatever religious denominations we have. If we recognize multiple Vishnu avatars, that will also be dangerous to unified rashtra. So we will recognize Krishna avatar only. People might fragment with multiple interpretations of BG. So we will have only one state sanctioned interpretation. The rest we can declare it as blasphemy. If anybody attempts to give a different interpretation, then we can execute him on the charges of "thought crime". If we are not able to eliminate the sects, then we can make them pay heavy taxes.

We will abandon our "unity in diversity" and make "e pluribus unum" as the national principle, if not motto. All for motherland unification onlee.

Having tricolour flag might give people ideas. So will we make it fully saffron. Unification onlee.

We should also fully cut off ourselves from the rest of the world. Because the new influx of ideas might threaten the unified rashtra. All the unsanctioned ideas must be declared blasphemy and promptly eliminated, through force (read killing) if necessary

.
In your hurry you have missed the term I have used - "unifying belief system". That belief system itself can have many strands within itslf - we just can do happily with the system developed in India without or before the ME/NE systems.

This vision is perfectly possible because we have so many precedents in our 5000 year old history & fits well with our civilizational character.

Right B ji ?

The national tricolour contains the Ashoka Chakra, the symbol supposed to represent the legendary emperor's unification of his realms under one belief system. Shall we chase him out of our civilizational heritage?

[brihaspati]

Carnegie Foundations latest assessment about Lashkar:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/ ... ective.pdf

Threat Assessment
India remains Lashkar’s main enemy, but the group has been waging a peripheral jihad against the United States and its allies since shortly after 9/11. Although the prospect of Lashkar dispatching operatives to lead a major attack against a Western country should not be ruled out, the most likely Lashkar threats to Western interests lie elsewhere.
First, as mentioned above, Lashkar’s increased presence in the NWFP/FATA is largely a result of its decision to take part in the fight against coalition forces in Afghanistan.

According to U.S. military and International Security Assistance Force officials, coalition forces have not seen a great amount of impact from Lashkar. However, they consider those Lashkar militants who are operating to be among the most effective fighters in the region.23
Second, though unrelated to its collaboration in the NWFP/FATA, Lashkar is prepared to fold Western targets into its terrorist attacks in South Asia. This was illustrated by the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which included hotels catering to foreigners. To mark the one-year anniversary of those attacks, Lashkar is alleged to have plotted attacks against the U.S. embassy and Indian high commission in Bangladesh. This does not mean every attack in India or the wider South Asian region will target Western interests, but the threat of such attacks now must be included within its wider targeting objectives.

Third, history suggests that Lashkar is capable and willing to provide support to other actors that are based primarily in the NWFP/FATA and intent on launching terrorist attacks in the West. Support takes two main forms: as a training provider or gateway to other organizations such as al-Qaeda, and as a facilitator for attacks in Western countries.

Lashkar’s training infrastructure is receiving more scrutiny than in the past, but the group still operates more freely than other militant outfits in Pakistan. This makes it an appealing destination for Western militants. While Lashkar might have trained some Westerners in urban terrorism, the greater worry may be that it is a gateway to al-Qaeda or others in the NWFP/FATA that are actively seeking wannabe Western jihadis to train for terrorist attacks back home.24
The group’s transnational networks make it an ideal global jihadist facilitator. Evidence suggests Lashkar has support cells in the Persian Gulf, Britain, North America, mainland Europe, and possibly Australia. These cells could be used either by the group or by individual nodes within its networks to aid attacks against the West.25 Because Lashkar is financially robust, it is able to provide financial as well as logistical assistance.26

The Headley case and attempted attacks in Bangladesh suggest several important lessons. First, Lashkar continues to prioritize attacking India. Second, the group appears to have been prepared to launch a blended attack in Bangladesh, striking its longtime nemesis India along with a U.S. government target. Attacking the U.S. government signifies a significant evolution in Lashkar’s peripheral jihad against the West, suggesting Lashkar has grown bolder in the year since the Mumbai attacks. Third, even if it were possible to deter Lashkar completely from undertaking or supporting attacks against the West – an unlikely proposition – the group would continue to pose a threat because of its connections to and collaboration with other militant outfits. The more entrenched Lashkar becomes in the NWFP/FATA, the more robust these connections and collaboration are likely to become.

[brihaspati]

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/CLM31MS.pdf

This analysis of Chinese interests, policies, and apparent debates with regard to the AfPak problem and the Obama strategy suggests a strong basis for the continuation of China’s existing cautious, limited stance toward this issue. As we have seen, the Chinese leadership’s basic caution—and many of its concerns—are heavily influenced by China’s longstanding strategic interests vis-à-vis Pakistan, along with its deeply rooted suspicion toward and overall nascent rivalry with the United States. On the other hand, Beijing’s limited yet arguably growing support for many U.S. and ISAF goals is also rooted in a sometimes cross-cutting set of Chinese interests in economic development, counterterrorism, the maintenance of amicable relations with Washington, and long-term stability in not only Afghanistan and Pakistan but also Central and South Asia as a whole.

Thus, the good news is that China’s involvement in the AfPak issue is, and will likely remain for some time, generally convergent with U.S. interests, given a basic continuity in China’s strategic outlook toward Washington. In addition, China’s current and likely future refusal to provide substantial military assistance is almost certainly not consequential to the success of the Obama strategy. Indeed, many argue that direct Chinese military involvement in Afghanistan or Pakistan would undermine U.S. objectives by provoking India and thereby worsening the Indo-Pakistani rivalry. In any event, although some observers continue to urge China to deploy forces to Afghanistan, the Chinese debate over this issue does not suggest that Chinese policies are able to change.

On a decidedly more negative note, the above assessment of China’s interests suggests that, given existing larger conditions, and absent a basic change in Islamabad’s calculus toward both India and Afghanistan, Beijing in all probability will not attempt to compel Islamabad to devote more resources and energies to the destruction of Afghanistan-oriented terrorist groups operating out of Pakistan and deny sanctuaries within Pakistan to such groups. Moreover, even if Pakistan were to shift its stance in this regard (e.g., in response to a major escalation in terrorist attacks on the Pakistani regime), it is by no means clear that Beijing would subsequently encourage the Pakistani leadership to exert more efforts against the Afghan Taliban, given its larger desire to keep Pakistan focused on India, both militarily and politically. It is more likely that the Chinese leadership would attempt to bolster a faltering Pakistani regime by providing more support to its military and intelligence services, while increasing economic and diplomatic assistance to Islamabad and strengthening the Sino-Pakistani border. In any event, it is also by no means clear that China enjoys sufficient influence within Pakistan to persuade Islamabad to do its bidding vis-à-vis Afghanistan, regardless of the larger circumstances. Moreover, the Chinese rarely resort to such high-pressure tactics. As a veteran former diplomat with extensive China experience told the author, the Chinese leadership usually doesn’t make demands for action; they more commonly demand that
actions not be taken.

Finally, some analysts have argued—based in part on some of the Chinese commentary cited in this essay—that Beijing might deploy forces to Afghanistan (assuming the United States desires such a move) or perhaps even apply pressure on Islamabad in support of the Obama strategy, in return for some very significant trade-offs in U.S. policy involving, for example, a cessation of arms sales to Taiwan, support for Chinese behavior toward terrorists and separatists in Xinjiang, and other “core” issues. However, given both the hugely negative consequences for Washington (both domestically and internationally) and the uncertainty that the Chinese leadership would actually perform as promised, it is highly unlikely that the Obama administration would seriously contemplate making such trade-offs (even if Beijing were to offer them).
Equally important, the same concerns over consequences and compliance would probably exist on the Chinese side as well, making it unlikely that Beijing would offer such a trade-off in the first place. In the final analysis, deep-rooted strategic interests, longstanding historical dispositions, and strong uncertainties will predominate in the Chinese calculus.

now why is a secret tradeoff that unlikely over Taiwan? Hasn't US done similar possible trade with PRC before? the vietnam withdrawal came after the Mao-Nixon meet.

[brihaspati]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... istan-exit
India and Pakistan's proxy war puts Afghanistan exit at risk

Machinations of two old foes grow in intensity as they seek to fill power vacuum after Nato pullout
Simon Tisdall, The Guardian, Friday 7 May 2010

Intent on filling a vacuum after the US withdraws from Afghanistan, India and Pakistan are engaged in what analysts warn is a dangerously escalating "proxy war". That's bad news for Britain and Nato – because, paradoxically, the two old foes' intensifying machinations could delay or fatally undermine the western pull-out on which all current calculations are based.
[...]
India's worries that Pakistan, by inserting itself in the centre of the peace process, will either fix it or wreck it, depending on its self-interest at the time, may be shared in Washington. But the US is now determined to keep both Pakistan's military and Karzai sweet, after the recriminations of the last 12 months over battlefield setbacks.

With an offensive looming in Kandahar, the immediate US focus is on beating back the Taliban in the south, keeping Pakistan's tribal belt under pressure, strengthening the Afghan government's future negotiating position, and ensuring that "Afghanisation" will work sufficiently well to allow the troops to leave.

Tisdall is brilliant in his sarcasm. But he gives out where exactly British sympathies and interests lie -firmly with Paki occupied western India.

The Indians will lobby Obama when he visits later this year. But right now, Delhi's insecurities and resentments are not a top priority. There is also some sympathy for Pakistan's long-standing complaints that by involving itself in Afghanistan, India is surreptitiously trying to encircle Pakistan and is training and funding Baluch separatists.

Now exactly who among the British and tge Americans have these sympathies and pious wishes? It would be most useful to know when the future British and US govs will face more Paki love-fests directed at their interests.

Amid rising region-wide tensions, in which China, Russia and Iran also hold cards, the risk is increasing that the jockeying for position over Afghanistan could fatally complicate US and British hopes of finally extricating themselves from the quagmire into which they strayed in 2001. Yet the closer their withdrawal gets, the less leverage they can apply.

"Neighbouring states are already considering the Americans as good as gone and are preparing for an endgame scenario with old rivalries renewed," Rashid said. "If no solution is found to reconcile Pakistani and Indian interests [in Afghanistan], the coming months might see stepped-up terrorist attacks against Indians in Kabul and the return of militants infiltrating Indian Kashmir." Rather than the end of the Afghan war, this sounds uncomfortably like the resumption of a regional one.

There goes a British media voice relaying an indirect Pak threat to India in the hope that others in the Euro-zone and those divided across the pond go against India more and preserve the grand British experiment of Pakistan.

Apart from those who feel pride in sharing the Alma Mater in Britain with those that "went on to rule India", how many of us will feel the urge to reassure voices like that of Tisdall and fail to see the continuingimperialist agenda behind such veiled threats?

[jambudvipa]

Bji,you have riased some very intresting points.few weeks back I got into a "lively" arguement with a very intelligent tam bram regarding a link launguage for India.he preferred English as the link language.my position is sanskrit is an ideal link language.his rationale was that sanskrit came with a baggage ie of Hinduism!!
his line was that minorities would become insecure and english was the best choice in the possible circumstances.a perfectly rational person he used stock in trade secular agruements to defend his thesis.it brought home to me the extenet to which our peoples minds have been poisoned by propoganda.
i guess this is OT here,but in language thread in GDF could you expand on what exactly you mean when you say subverting linguistic divisions?
TIA

[Manish_Sharma]

It brought home to me the extenet to which our peoples minds have been poisoned by propoganda.
TIA

Just appalling to look at the course books of kids, the chapters after chapter they are taught about Christmas, Julias Caesar and other western stuff, just amazes me how totally the content of the course has changed from my time!

[naren]

Sometimes visualizing others visions reveal more about the demons in the visualizer than in the vision.

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind.

The subversion of linguistic affiliations I mentioned comes only in the second phase, when the limitations of a regional based politics for national level policy agenda becomes obvious for the people to see.

I dont understand what you mean by that. Can you pls elaborate ? Can you also point to me a precedent in Indian history ?

Such a subversion does not have to be in the dramatic scenario you paint.

My last post was an == between Indian culture and other cultures which we stand against for - Christianity, Islam and Communism. This "dramatic scenario" is exactly what is happening in Tibet.

If you have a point to make about language "imperialism" do make it in the appropriate thread on "language" in GDF.

My reference to Hindi was derived logically as I mentioned in the post. Its just a place holder like Krishna-ism example I mentioned later. Its meant to show an == with Han in Tibet or European colonizers in the Americas. What has "language imperialism" got to do with it ? May be "demons in the visualizer" ?

In your hurry you have missed the term I have used - "unifying belief system". That belief system itself can have many strands within itslf - we just can do happily with the system developed in India without or before the ME/NE systems.

.

I dont get it. Whats wrong with present Hinduism ? Doesnt it do what you are envisioning ? What am I missing ?

The national tricolour contains the Ashoka Chakra, the symbol supposed to represent the legendary emperor's unification of his realms under one belief system. Shall we chase him out of our civilizational heritage?

Ashoka's "one belief system" totally disappeared in India. On the contrary, the other belief system which existed during his period - hinduism exists even today. So why to go for failed model ? Besides, the people who really perfected Ashoka's model were Constantine and Muhammad. The belief system installed by them is still in place. So in a sense, Ashoka is a failure compared to Constantine or Muhammad. Are you suggesting that we must walk in the footsteps of those greats ? Pagan purge ?

Ashoka's "unification" was only territorial. He attempted state religion and failed at that too. We already have territorial unification & the Indian spirituality pretty much unified under the banner of Hinduism. What are you trying to achieve ?

[Carl_T]

Asoka didn't attempt a "belief system", his dhamma was more of a philosophy so generalized so as to include different strains without any "superstructure", or perhaps more of a "moral code" if you will.

[brihaspati]

naren ji,
the range of my post was quite narrow. You extended it towards issues that were a very large stretch from the scope of my post as relevant for this thread.

When you speak of one particular language of India and hypothetically give it genocidic colours - all under the so-called illustration device, and later on say that it was just a hypothetical example then that will raise the question as to why not any other language of India! There has been a long standing debate about this well debated by more competent and dedicated posters within GDF. So I suggested that thread for the particular illustration you chose.

The reason I wanted to explore "unifying belief system" and I specifically mentioned the type of "intra-religion" divisions I had in mind - that of so-called "caste"- is because the existing "hinduism" does not appear to be able to stop the process by which the subdivisions are becoming more important and overshadowing the mother-system and identity. Surely you have heard that Pranav Mukherjee has promised caste census in then next round.

The regionalism I wanted to explore as clearly indicated in my post was not based purely on linguistic lines. You must also be aware that the linguistic based state identities were a relatively recent phenomenon in Indian history. I would have preferred to use regional identity to subtly and gently displace both "caste" type as well as language enmities. A process by which "nationalism" can downplay regional and other divisions within nation-states. Once these targets are achieved I suggested exploring overcoming these regionalisms for the ultimate goal of a more unified national polity that can feel more popular support for steps that are now very nearly impossible to take. Because, groups opposing say taking POWI out can utilize these other internal divisions to divert attention and create mutual distrust within.

I think we can do without the dramatic == stuff.

[brihaspati]

S.Radhakrishnan on the "chakra" in the Constituent Assembly "The Ashoka Wheel in the center of the white is the wheel of the law of dharma.". Ashoka's major edicts show that he is trying to establish certain minimal behavioural, and spiritual values in common for all his subjects - what he terms "dhamma". The word has to be interpreted in terms of his intended audience - and not our current connotation. Given his known patronization of Buddhism this dhamma meant certain specific codes of conduct associated with and justified on the basis of the Buddhist "belief system".

[Masaru]

Census moves Backwards to 1931

For the first time after 1931, caste will make a reappearance in the form drafted by the Registrar General of Census. The enumerators will, among other things, be tasked to collect information about the caste background of the respondents.

But there was admission that there would be infirmities in the data collected in the process. This assessment is not off the mark as caste based census was abandoned after 1931 when it was found that the exercise was being manipulated for attaining vertical mobility.

In the pre-Independence period, there was a clamour among the underprivileged to leapfrog the social hierarchy by concealing their caste identity and seeking upper caste status by adopting surnames, life style, culture and traditions of those who were traditionally upper castes. This was described as Sanskritisation by eminent sociologist M N Srinivas.



If the mood among politicians is any indication, there will be a reverse Sanskritisation taking place soon. There is realisation that to seek the benefits of reservation, there will be a rush to enter the OBC bracket. As enumerators would have no means to verify their claims, there are fears that OBC figures would be grossly inflated. The home ministry in its note prepared for the Cabinet had articulated these concerns when it said that such a Census could result in “motivated returns through organised and surreptitious means to project higher numbers of a particular caste.”


He also pointed to the other observation of the Registrar General about open-ended categories in the list. “Names of some castes are found in both the list of SCs and list of OBCs. Scheduled Castes converted to Christianity or Islam are also treated differently in different states. The status of migrants from one state to another and the status of children of inter-caste marriage, in terms of caste classification, are also vexed questions,” the minister told the Lok Sabha.


But these rational arguments had no appeal for the powerful backward leaders in the Lok Sabha. They used their political clout to force the government accept their demand.


Sources in the government said the it would take a couple of years to tabulate the caste data, to be collected over three weeks. Then ministry of social justice will have to verify the data for authenticity, which may take another three years.

During the 2001 census, this procedure of tabulation and verification for SC/ST took two-and-a-half years. In Maharashtra, many SC had converted to Buddhism and quoted themselves as Buddhists during the enumeration. But later, when they discovered that conversion would exclude them from the SC list, they switched back to describing themselves as SC during the verification exercise.

Lots of interesting points in this article. So the 'caste census' was stopped back in 1931 because people wanted to move up in the social class (which IMHO is a good thing) but is now brought back because every body wants to get classified as a backward. Interesting progress indeed in 80 odd years.

Further, it is pointed out that the so called representatives of the people have little time, patience and may be even understanding to care about real governance issues and more interested in symbolism. The system which promotes this kind of behavior and puts such people in positions of power needs to be looked at afresh before the future of the country can be secured. At present it is closer to mobocracy than democracy and the people who have come through such a system want to preserve this by making social engineering the cornerstone of governance. It is quite disheartening that the few who oppose this are shouted out and the so called leaders are merely interested in cementing their future by appeasing the mobocratic cabal.

Any ideas on reforming this? A 2 tier voting system based on a run-off between the top 2 candidates would be a start I guess which will at least reduce the pervasive special interest based politics.

[naren]

naren ji,
the range of my post was quite narrow. You extended it towards issues that were a very large stretch from the scope of my post as relevant for this thread.

Ok. Lets make baby steps. What you are proposing is homogenization. I strongly disagree with it. Because

1. It never existed in the Indian culture. Show me a precedent and prove me wrong.
2. It could cause tremendous damage. Obviously we are not the first to try homogenization. Others have tried it. Its only rational to look at what has happened there.

When you speak of one particular language[1] of India and hypothetically give it genocidic colours[2] - all under the so-called illustration device, and later on say that it was just a hypothetical example then that will raise the question as to why not any other language of India[3]! There has been a long standing debate about this well debated by more competent and dedicated posters within GDF. So I suggested that thread for the particular illustration you chose.

1. What makes you think that I'm doing an "us vs them" on one of the language of my own country ? By saying this, arent you doing a pre-emptive "us vs them" on me ? Have you heard me out fully ? The problem is samskara. People percieve new experiences based on old experiences/mind conditioning. I certainly never had any ill intentions when I wrote that. I'm not even aware of the conflicts discussed in this forum you mentioned about.

2. You are bringing emotion in an objective debate.

3. Fair enough. In my first post, I said "We need to have a singular language. So we can choose Hindi since it is the most spoken. ". What part of it is not clear to you ? Hindi is the best candidate simply because ~41% of the citizens speak it. The next best is Bengali with ~8%. Since we are talking about the subversion of languages, the majority spoken language is the best candidate to replace with. Or are you suggesting we should homogenize with one of those African click languages.

The reason I wanted to explore "unifying belief system" and I specifically mentioned the type of "intra-religion" divisions I had in mind - that of so-called "caste"- is because the existing "hinduism" does not appear to be able to stop the process by which the subdivisions are becoming more important and overshadowing the mother-system and identity. Surely you have heard that Pranav Mukherjee has promised caste census in then next round.

What makes you think that caste is counter productive to India ? May be, the caste divisions are wanting separate territory ? May be, collaborating with foreign powers ? Engaging in insurgency ? In what way is it threatening India ? This all stems from the lack of understanding of caste. The importance of caste is often under appreciated. Two simple facts:

1. We are the most diverse country in the world. That too a democracy.
2. Hinduism has faced invasions & oppressions for the past 1000 years. Hinduism never invaded any country, yet stood its ground. The religion and culture is pretty much intact. (Same cannot be said about Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia etc.)

You can use these facts and ask yourself how caste plays a role.

The regionalism I wanted to explore as clearly indicated in my post was not based purely on linguistic lines. You must also be aware that the linguistic based state identities were a relatively recent phenomenon in Indian history.

How many separatist movements exist based on linguistic divisions ji ? Dravidianism ? It primarily came from Aryan Invasion nonsense preached by the British. And a big flop too.

I would have preferred to use regional identity to subtly and gently displace both "caste" type as well as language enmities. A process by which "nationalism" can downplay regional and other divisions within nation-states. Once these targets are achieved I suggested exploring overcoming these regionalisms for the ultimate goal of a more unified national polity that can feel more popular support for steps that are now very nearly impossible to take. Because, groups opposing say taking POWI out can utilize these other internal divisions to divert attention and create mutual distrust within.

Again, you are attempting homogenization. Something never been done before in India. When you cannot dissolve the caste/linguistic identities, how far are you willing to go ? What makes you think that situation will not get out of control ?

I think we can do without the dramatic == stuff.

Every society which attempted homogenization pretty much went this route. Unless we descended from golden butt monkeys, which we clearly are not, I dont believe we are going to be any different.

[brihaspati]

naren wrote
1. It never existed in the Indian culture. Show me a precedent and prove me wrong.

Perhaps homogenization attempts are not so evident because they were not as diverse as they are now made out to be. But in many ways, what Adi Shankara, or Nimai Pandit, or Madhva did were attempts at homogenization which became necessary for a society that was facing external aggression.

2. It could cause tremendous damage. Obviously we are not the first to try homogenization. Others have tried it. Its only rational to look at what has happened there.

Since you are so fond of going by precedents, what is the precedence in India for the tremendous damages that were caused by these homogenization attempts?

2. You are bringing emotion in an objective debate.
3. Fair enough. In my first post, I said "We need to have a singular language. So we can choose Hindi since it is the most spoken. ". What part of it is not clear to you ? Hindi is the best candidate simply because ~41% of the citizens speak it. The next best is Bengali with ~8%. Since we are talking about the subversion of languages, the majority spoken language is the best candidate to replace with. Or are you suggesting we should homogenize with one of those African click languages.

No, the emotion was brought into this by you by specifically ascribing and describing genocidic tendencies albeit hypothetically, to Hindi. It would have been alright if you simply left it at say "impose Hindi by all possible means" - that would have been non-emotional.

What makes you think that caste is counter productive to India ? May be, the caste divisions are wanting separate territory ? May be, collaborating with foreign powers ? Engaging in insurgency ? In what way is it threatening India ? This all stems from the lack of understanding of caste.

Trawl through systematic studies of extremism, conversion to non-Indic origin religions and then maintaining caste based exclusive sub societies, territorial claims, insurgency and foreign collaboration after conversion - you will find page after page of pointers as to how so-called caste-divisions are used by our enemies. A good starting sampler can be the "dalit Muslim" movement. If you are that unemotional as you appear to imply, this exploration may open your eyes.

The importance of caste is often under appreciated. Two simple facts:

1. We are the most diverse country in the world. That too a democracy.
2. Hinduism has faced invasions & oppressions for the past 1000 years. Hinduism never invaded any country, yet stood its ground. The religion and culture is pretty much intact. (Same cannot be said about Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia etc.)

You can use these facts and ask yourself how caste plays a role.

There has been a myriad debates and reams of academic papers on both sides of thedebating divide on the necessity of caste divisions. But I have rarely seen claims that caste is necessary for democracy to function and that Hinduism could stand its ground against invasions because of caste divisions. Hinduism stood its ground because it could militarily fight back using territorial retreat and fighting back from more remote bases. People tend to forget thatmost of the epics and texts were retrieved from the south in the early modern period. That the religion and culture was not mutated in contact with Islam in the places where there was long term contact is not so easy to prove - as certain features of sharia have rubbed on in long contact regions. This however is OT and further discussion should go to "distorted history" thread.

How many separatist movements exist based on linguistic divisions ji ? Dravidianism ? It primarily came from Aryan Invasion nonsense preached by the British. And a big flop too.

Linguistic divisions have taken on political identities because of linguistic states and coincide or reinforce constructed regional identities based on language. Even if direct separatism is not always resorted to, the exclusivity and hostility it generates contributes to internal disunity and has undeniable impact on national policy.

Again, you are attempting homogenization. Something never been done before in India. When you cannot dissolve the caste/linguistic identities, how far are you willing to go ? What makes you think that situation will not get out of control ?

brihaspati wrote:
I think we can do without the dramatic == stuff.


Every society which attempted homogenization pretty much went this route. Unless we descended from golden butt monkeys, which we clearly are not, I dont believe we are going to be any different.

Such arguments are really not necessary and they illustrate nothing, apart from adding colour to sarcasm. In a biological sense we are all descended from monkeys as far as current knowledge goes or more correctly we have common genetic ancestors with monkeys. That genetic descent or not has no connection to modern human social behaviour.

You believe homogenization I aim for is going to be identical to all other recent attempts elsewhere, and going to create tremendous damages. You are a stickler for precedents and think there is no such precedence for homogenization attempts in India and yet you are convinced that it would bring uncontrollable damages - for which also there is no precedence by your own logic.

I think then we should wait until the time arrives for such attempts and let subsequent history decide.

[Nair]

3. Fair enough. In my first post, I said "We need to have a singular language. So we can choose Hindi since it is the most spoken. ". What part of it is not clear to you ? Hindi is the best candidate simply because ~41% of the citizens speak it. The next best is Bengali with ~8%. Since we are talking about the subversion of languages, the majority spoken language is the best candidate to replace with. Or are you suggesting we should homogenize with one of those African click languages.

Hindi will never be accepted as the primary languauge in the south...the south has her own languages the roots of which go back as far as Sanskrit and Hindi can never replace them.

Any attempt to even go down this route will be trying to replicate the mistake the Pakis tried to do with Urdu in East Paksitan.

[JwalaMukhi]

Homogeneous, homogeneity etc., are inadequate and inappropriate descriptions here. Unless what exactly is meant by homogeneity is spelled out, it will lead to tautology.
If broadly homogeneous implies harmony while heterogeneous implies disharmony, then the thesis derived on these descriptions will miss what is being sought.
Best to describe what one aims in "samskritam" words and then the debate would have meaningful outcome. For example, trying to capture shankara's thought process solely using Anglias, will be a poor substitute. Surely, there must be samskritam words that can describe situation better of what is implied for clarification?

Added later: for example using "caste" description instead of "Jati" or "varna" or "what is being sought". conducting census using "caste" descriptions are intended to cause mischief.

[brihaspati]

The subversion of languages in the context of my post was all about gradually subverting their use to create exclusive subidentities within India that create unnecessary bitterness and lasting divisions. Any division that somehow generates mutual exclusivity ultimately provides opportunities to our enemies. Subverting language based identities does not mean destroying them or replacing them - but push them down the ranking as to what determines our primary identities. Languages or linguistic rules are not comparable to religious rules that can micromanage all aspects of our lives. Hence,please do notmake an == case in extending my argument to universal tolerance of al forms of all religions in the name of removing "religious divisions".

All other discussions raised here about Hindi are defintely OT. Please continue that discussion in the "link language " thread.

JwalaMukhi ji, you want to set the match to the already primed explosive? Just a tease! I know what you mean. But the time for understanding is not yet come.

[brihaspati]

Recognizing claimed subidentities reinforces their exclusiveness. While not recognizing divisions and treating them equally with respect to the basic aspects of life and survival forces divisions to vanish. Typically that creates anunified sense of belonging and commonality. What the caste census is doing is just one aspect of the ongoing process of lnventing and reinforcing fractures in our society.

At one end it shows that our political manipulators are becoming less and less assured about their captive support bases. The end of the line is claiming exclusive and guaranteed share of the national product based on individual identity with no commitment or guarantee of contributing in return. But the smaller the size of this exclusive rights group the lessuts political power. So a time comes when both disadvantages comes to haunt the nation.

When the nation comes to such a pass, the climb back up from the edge of the precipice isnot pleasant either and damages do happen. A close example would be the fall of the USSR.

[Carl_T]

Quite seriously, why is caste something not worth preserving? Why must there be no strong subnational identities? Or are we internalizing the colonial critique - caste is root of all evil onlee!

[svinayak]

Census moves Backwards to 1931

India has fallen into the trap of the British social engineering. It will take another generation to get out of it

[brihaspati]

Carl_T wrote
Quite seriously, why is caste something not worth preserving? Why must there be no strong subnational identities? Or are we internalizing the colonial critique - caste is root of all evil onlee!

No, caste is just one aspect that provides opportunities to our enemies. A simple example of impact on national policy is the case of the womens' reservation bill hanging in a limbo. Caste/jaati is not only a colonial critique - there are well known pre-colonial critiques too.

[Carl_T]

I think any conception of Indian nationalism and identity has to recognize strong regional identities who are all recognized as representatives of the "core" (your term, I don't believe there is a "core"), there needs to be a public distinction between "national identity" and "ethnic identities".

[brihaspati]

ethnic identities are as much constructed abstractions as national identities. Take a fine comb, and you will be able to take apart every claimed ethnic identity. Each of these ethnicities have been changing over time in genetic/cultural/linguistic/dialect composition.

[JwalaMukhi]

India has fallen into the trap of the British social engineering. It will take another generation to get out of it

India is being driven into the trap of the British social engineering. Unfortunately, when the time for netas to rise up to the occasion and be representative of 2010 and beyond. (All we get is netas who wear a lousy tee-shirt claiming 'we are heading fast to 1931 era", in interests of walking two steps to reach the levels of our neighbour. Yep, even at this rate it will be a while to get to their level.)
The mischief of "caste" identity is solely based to perpetrate and ensure the original "vote bank" remains and continues to be intact. What is questionable in this juncture in 2010 is why should basis of religion be sanctimonious? Hence, when basis of caste is propped up, then the most pertinent question of "basis of religion/s" being sanctimonious will not be scrutinized. It is a "red herring".
Earlier shoulders of women was used. Hence coupling with women and minority nonsense. Now that has become bankrupt, the idea is to couple it with castes and minorities. All in all, a grand plan to reduce the average level of the populace to be less than the future netas (unfortunately, whose levels are many times below the populace).

[Carl_T]

ethnic identities are as much constructed abstractions as national identities. Take a fine comb, and you will be able to take apart every claimed ethnic identity. Each of these ethnicities have been changing over time in genetic/cultural/linguistic/dialect composition.

All identities are a matter of self-identification. Nationalism involves prioritizing a larger national identity over a particular regional one. It doesn't imply disappearance of the latter. Construction of the larger national identity is problematic and that is why you (and many others) have been attempting to construct a "core" identity for the past 100 years or so.

The reality is that nations with "core" identities have been established by either sheer weight of demographics, or by systematic violence on the large scale and converting those of other identities into your own. Some people of other identities are not absorbed, they stay as fringe, "minority" elements. For example Russia and Iran are multiethnic states who still have a particular ethnic identity as an imagined "core" national identity, but that only comes from suppression of other fringe elements that form the "periphery".

In India no such process has existed in recent memory.

[brihaspati]

Well first part of that 100 was approximately under colonial occupation, and the second part was mostly under regimes that maintained divisive recognition of recently constructed subidentities. The fact that such an attempt has been going on for 100 years against the rashtryia reinforcement of divisions, by as diverse people as "me" and "many others" must itself be an indication of a parallel thought process within the civilizational awareness that has civilizational affiliations rather than political power base considerations.

[Masaru]

But in many ways, what Adi Shankara, or Nimai Pandit, or Madhva did were attempts at homogenization which became necessary for a society that was facing external aggression.

Excellent point. I would just like to add that Shankara and other luminaries did propound their philosophies in some language which people (may be only the learned ones) understood and conversed in. The reform and hence the homogenization that they brought in was by and large accepted, and not fought tooth and nail as attempts of 'cultural genocide' like the way it is colored in modern times. Perhaps the effort should be along the same lines to develop a strong national identity.

As an aside the 'caste' based sub identities and related politics based on correcting 'historical injustices' are purely imported concepts from civil rights movement from different places in the world which developed in a completely different social context. 'Caste' in Indian context evolved from division of labor and was codified to certain extent in social traditions and has no similarity with slavery and or skin color (ethnicity) based segregationist tendencies in societies which has been sought to be rectified by the civil rights movement. The 'Jati'/'Varna' system of socioeconomic classification based on model of a rural agrarian economy of 500 AD society is irrelevant or fast becoming so as India industrializes and urbanizes at a rapid pace with a fast growing economy. People increasingly choose what ever profession that is most economically rewarding and adapt their lifestyle around work which increasingly takes precedence over other social aspects of life. In light of this under current the strenuous effort of the ruling class to keep the issue of 'caste' alive by raking it up every 2-3 years is quite disconcerting.

The Indian version of 'Caste' was prevalent in all Asian civilizations (roughly Samurai system in Japan, Yangban classification in Korea, and similar hierarchy based on ranking Imperial civil servants in China). In fact in many ways the 'Jati', 'Varna' system was more flexible as it allowed upward mobility by adopting social mores while the other systems based on codified family trees were far more rigid. Yet none of these countries democratic or otherwise follow or seek to preserve the socioeconomic stratification of a bygone era by classifying the population and distributing public benefits according to such classifications.

Jati/Varna in its original form was never a rigid hereditary construct nor it had any ethnic connotation. It may have devolved to that state during the prolonged period of invasion and the concomitant destruction of village economy that resulted out of destruction of intra-country trade and punitive taxation based on religious discrimination. While it is agreed that the temple centric village economy was constantly under onslaught by invaders since 1000 AD, it is also accepted as gospel truth that such a system continued to systematically persecute the vastly numerous lower class population without any backing political/military/economic power across the length and breadth of the country. Why/How exactly such a system persisted and how did it reconcile with the numerical power of the majority lower class and the military/economic might of an oppressive foreign ruling class which took particular pleasure in destroying the temples (and the so called warrior/priestly upper class associated with them) is never explained.

Even more curious is that the oppressive 'caste' system seems to have survived in its most pernicious form in the heartland areas of foreign rule while it seems to be less successful in the areas less influenced by the healing/enlightening touches of the rulers from abroad. All this points to the fact that how a native system has been mis-represented and been cynically manipulated by a majority in the name of democracy and 'social-justice' to achieve its narrow political goals. If correcting historic social injustices is such an overriding concern for the current Indian political class why does it want to overlook/whitewash depredations during the period 1100AD - 1800AD and want to go straight back to day and age of Manu and Vedic civilization? Rather curiously the oppressors and rulers from 1100-1800 AD are now sought to be classified as victims by the same social justice brigade using the template leftover by their benevolent British masters!

[Abhi_G]

The travels of Adi Shankaracharya, Ramunajacharya should be pointers enough for the existence of a core. Much later Guru Govind Singh did the same. Many well known saints even in modern periods undertook long travels throughout the country. What was the conclusion in their minds? The question is not whether regional identities have to erased in order to have a national identity. That is an entirely wrong and possibly disruptive way of seeing or identifying with a core.

The question is why the recent reluctance to look back at the lives of our Gurus and extreme touch touchy takleef about regional identity? Seriously, why did our heroes and freedom fighters at all feel the need to achieve martyrdom for a national cause? After all identity is all in the mind no?? Did they do it just for the heck of it? Or it is a continuous process repeated in every yuga? Of course, the Indic approach is quite unique. It is in an abstract intellectual plane if I am not wrong. But every Indian exprience has to be compared and scaled w.r.t the west. Unless, there is some correlation with things happenning in the west (e.g., genocide to achieve national unity), the Indian experience does not stand a chance of any worthwhile credibility.

[Prem]

Dharma is the core, the single thread from Satyug to present age . India looses her soul sans Dharam and this is why all we all Indics relate to Rishis, Munis, Gurus and warrior Avataras as well warrior kings estabslishing , nurturing this core. Satmaymev Jayte is as ancient as Om tat Sat and as current as Sat Shri Akal :Rest elements , imho, are just sundries or temporary . Restore this Sat spirit supremacy and all social and security segaments settle in righ space. Secure the core, settle the score and spread the spirit in all prepherial spheres of soil and soul. Secure, Serve, Spread and Sustain Snatani Spirit .

[brihaspati]

http://www.countercurrents.org/sikand290410.htm
Yogindar Sikand gives a frank and ingenuous list of all the elements, "caste" (within the cover of an abstract category that does not exist in any "Brahmanical" text - as the valid name of any "caste"), Islam as opposed to "Brahmanism", Hindu castes-abstraction used by political Islam, combined with "regionalism". This is a recent interview.

Before I got involved in the Dalit-Muslim unity movement, I was in government service and I was deeply influenced by Marxism and was involved in the trade union movement. Then, I happened to read V.T.Rajshekar’s fascinating book called ‘How Marx Failed in Hindu India’. V.T.Rajshekar is the editor of the Bangalore-based magazine ‘Dalit Voice’. That book changed my whole perception of Marxism in India.

Unity between all oppressed groups in India, particularly Dalits and Muslims, is the need of the hour, and the only way in which India can be saved. Dalits and Muslims are both victims of Brahminical oppression. Most Muslims in India are of Dalit origin, whose ancestors converted to Islam to escape from the fetters of the Brahminical religion. In order to do free themselves from oppression there is no other course than for the Dalits and Muslims to unite, although this has been stridently opposed by the ‘upper’ castes, both the so-called ‘progressives’ and ‘secularists’ as well by the Hindutva fanatics. Despite this opposition, Dalits and Muslims have moved towards some sort of political unity, as is apparent in the growth of regional political parties under non-Brahmin leadership in various states. Although this may not have helped Muslims or Dalits in real terms, it has definitely led to a decline of Brahminical power.

Yes, I also agree with you when you say that the Dalit-Muslim unity movement has not gone as far as it should have. One reason for this is that the Muslim elites of the Urdu-Hindi-speaking Gangetic belt, what we in Dalit circles call Aryavarta or the ‘land of the Aryans’, are opposed to such unity efforts. They suffer from an enormous sense of superiority, owing to their supposedly foreign extraction and because they claim descent from Muslim elites who ruled almost the whole of India for over a thousand years. Because of this, they feel they have the right to control all Muslims throughout India. On the other hand, now that they are bereft of political power, these Aryavarta Muslim elites feel a strong sense of inferiority vis-à-vis the ‘upper’ caste Hindus, who now have a virtual monopoly of power. This has given rise to tremendous fear and frustration, which the Aryavarta Muslim elites seek to impose on the Muslims of the rest of the country.

If you take even a cursory look at the history of inter-communal relations in India in the last one hundred years or so, you will see that all communal controversies that have assumed an all-India dimension have invariably started in Aryavarta, such as the Hindi-Urdu dispute, the issue of the Common Civil Code and Muslim Personal Law, cow slaughter and cow protection, the Babri Masjid controversy and so on. Intra-Muslim rivalries, between various groups like the Jama’at-i-Islami, the Tablighi Jama’at, the Deobandis and the Barelwis, have all originated in Aryavarta. There seems to be a conspiracy between the ‘upper’ caste elites of Aryavarta and the Muslim elites of that region to deliberately rake up these controversies so that each of them can claim the leadership of their own communities in the entire country.

I feel this quest for an All-India level Muslim leadership is not only futile, it is also counter-productive. Muslims in India are regionally divided, and are organizing at the regional level. I think this is a good thing, because the social conditions in different regions are different. Thus, for instance, in Tamil Nadu Muslims might seek to establish ties with the Dravidian movement, while in Bihar they have united with the Yadavs and the Dalits. On the whole, Muslims living outside Aryavarta are better organized than Aryavarta Muslims.

As we in the Dalit movement see it, ‘Hindu’ is a political term, not a religious one, and it represents the ‘upper’ caste Brahminical elites who have consigned the non-Brahmins to centuries-old slavery. In not one of the ‘Hindu’ scriptures is the word ‘Hindu’ ever mentioned. We are not opposed to individual ‘upper’ caste people, but only to the ideology of Brahminical chauvinism and is upholders, who are vehemently opposed to the Dalits, the Muslims, and other such marginalized group, who want to establish a Hindu Rashtra.

Quoted here for the political geo-strategic thinking shown. I have omitted the religious discussion.

[Carl_T]

Well first part of that 100 was approximately under colonial occupation, and the second part was mostly under regimes that maintained divisive recognition of recently constructed subidentities. The fact that such an attempt has been going on for 100 years against the rashtryia reinforcement of divisions, by as diverse people as "me" and "many others" must itself be an indication of a parallel thought process within the civilizational awareness that has civilizational affiliations rather than political power base considerations.

Whether it be due to colonial regimes or Islamic regimes in either case no consolidation through military or demographic means has ever taken place, hence no national "core" built around an ethnic identity exists. (If it does, do provide some examples ) Is that not why you have to "attempt" to create it? This discussion would be moot otherwise.


This ethnic "core" or "civilizational awareness" has to be imagined and constructed (or reconstructed if you like) and forcefully imposed all over India. Of course people do not give up their ethnic identities without a fight!

[svinayak]

Before I got involved in the Dalit-Muslim unity movement, I was in government service and I was deeply influenced by Marxism and was involved in the trade union movement.
]Unity between all oppressed groups in India, particularly Dalits and Muslims, is the need of the hour, and the only way in which India can be saved. Dalits and Muslims are both victims of Brahminical oppression.

He says he got over marxism but then talks about oppressed class unity which is another class warfare.
These kind of guys are basically opportunistic people who use social problems for their own use.

[Prem]

First Yoginder Sikand is the second Muasalman who has kept his Indian name to assist him in his efforts to fool the Indians. His definitionn of Aryavarat is strange as whole India is Aryavarat and all Indics are Arya by vitue of their sanskars. Most of all , what we can learn from him is that snakes in India's Astteen live in this belt mentioned by him and Paki movement also started there. Strange phenomenon is their polluting presence being tolerated by the aryavaratis and This is the same belt which is keeping Indian economic progress slow> Redeem this belt from Tamasic influence and let them do the their duty to Mother india by serving , liberating her by prunning this weed from the frontyard. India cannot be sold to his foreign masters .

[naren]

Perhaps homogenization attempts are not so evident because they were not as diverse as they are now made out to be. But in many ways, what Adi Shankara, or Nimai Pandit, or Madhva did were attempts at homogenization which became necessary for a society that was facing external aggression.

I was more expecting a political precedent, since your primary focus on homogenization is related to politics.

Unfortunately I didnt get an opportunity yet to study Nimai Pandit. But I can talk about Adi Shankara and Madhva.

Adi Shankara was a harmonist, not a homogenist. He harmonized Buddhism and Vedic-ism. I can elaborate if you want, but will be OT. Btw, where was the "external aggresion" during Adi Shankara's time ?

Madhva's dualism evolved because of "market necessity" (can elaborate, but OT). The very fact that Adi Shankara's Advaita monism and Madhva's Dwaita dualism existing side by side in the same society for a millennia is a pointer to "unity in diversity". So, both your examples only point to "unity in diversity", not "unity in uniformity".

Since you are so fond of going by precedents, what is the precedence in India for the tremendous damages that were caused by these homogenization attempts?

This is a straw man argument. My position is homeginization never existed in India.

Trawl through systematic studies of extremism, conversion to non-Indic origin religions and then maintaining caste based exclusive sub societies, territorial claims, insurgency and foreign collaboration after conversion - you will find page after page of pointers as to how so-called caste-divisions are used by our enemies. A good starting sampler can be the "dalit Muslim" movement. If you are that unemotional as you appear to imply, this exploration may open your eyes.

There has been a myriad debates and reams of academic papers on both sides of thedebating divide on the necessity of caste divisions. But I have rarely seen claims that caste is necessary for democracy to function and that Hinduism could stand its ground against invasions because of caste divisions. Hinduism stood its ground because it could militarily fight back using territorial retreat and fighting back from more remote bases. People tend to forget thatmost of the epics and texts were retrieved from the south in the early modern period. That the religion and culture was not mutated in contact with Islam in the places where there was long term contact is not so easy to prove - as certain features of sharia have rubbed on in long contact regions. This however is OT and further discussion should go to "distorted history" thread.

Religious conversion & the associated problems is a separate topic. Other countries also have this rampant missionary problem. Do you think they have caste too ? Destruction of caste is not the solution. May be we can continue caste discussion on "distorted history".

Linguistic divisions have taken on political identities because of linguistic states and coincide or reinforce constructed regional identities based on language.

People always have had their linguistic affiliation. Various states have been ruled by various kings not belonging to the native language. Yet linguistic identity has been maintained. Apart from Sanskrit, the languages in daily usage - Tamil, Telugu and Kannada are recognized "classical" languages. If they had given up on their linguistic identity because of political affiliation, we wouldn't have considered them "classical" today, would we ?

Even if direct separatism is not always resorted to, the exclusivity and hostility it generates contributes to internal disunity and has undeniable impact on national policy.

Its very abstract to me. Why not quantify it and compare & contrast with other "threats" to national unity ? So that we can get a picture of how serious linguistic identity is to national unity.

[brihaspati]

I think I have already summarized the differences in our positions on the topic. I have also suggested that we wait until such attempts are made and let subsequent history be the judge. Adi Shankara as the harmonizer and not the homogenizer can be wonderfully explained in the "distorted" thread if you choose to. Moreover it is obvious to me the type of interpretations you will give to try to show Madhva and Shankara were "diverse" and deny their common framework and acknowledgement of the Vedic as root.

We can go on arguing, but it will be fruitless. I think it is better to keep to our positions which are basically irreconciliable and not waste time in debating this.

[brihaspati]

Yoginder Sikand's interview is an interesting summary of how regionalism, language, religion, and alleged social hierarchy can all be used together to highlight differences to gain political power and carve out niches of power.

Note that Sikander appeals to Aryavarta-outside Aryavarta, Gangetic plains - non-Gangetic plains etc for the regional angle. He appeals to hatred of Hindi-Urdu in the linguistic arena. He flatters the "Dravidian" aspect saying that his brand of political mobilization finds better success in the south. He applauds regionalism because it helps his target mobilization. Finally he appeals to religious divides. What is most interesting is that he finds the existence of the concept of "dalit" as a repressed caste useful for his fundamentally religious agenda.

Now where do we find the strongest voices in favour of regional, linguistic, social hierarchical or sectarian distinctions? The voices typically come from people either of elite or middle-elite background in regional societies. They are not coming from totally non-privileged background. Is it possible that they are simply subconsciously using regional/sectarian/linguistic distinctions against supposed centralizing tendencies or demonic pan-identities to carve out a base for personal power? If their distinguishing claims are indeed so powerful, they should not feel vulnerable. But their paranoid outpourings as in Sikand shows that they are really not confident of their own distinctions.

The route that Bengali self-assertion took, went through a linguistic and regional distinction phase that came in handy for Islamist activists to start the long road to BD. Today's BD programmes and intellectuals in the media on occasion of Rabindranath Thakur's birth anniversary, were eloquent in using quotations from the last phase of the poet's writings (Crisis of Civilization - my translation of orginal heading) to try to claim that he had anticipated and welcomed the formation of a separate "Bengali" nation!

[Manish_Sharma]

Friends I am in process of reading this book "Immortals of Meluha". Please have a look at the website, I personally think its a good thing that a person from corporate world has entered in writing a fiction novel based on Mythology, here is the link for the site:
http://www.shivatrilogy.com/shiva.html

Already sent one sample chapter to Ramana for reading, will check with him if he liked. Please see if it has relevance in todays times.

[vilayat]

Take an hour out of your life and please listen to this lecture by Mohan Bhagwat...

Part one -


Part two -


Part three -


Part four -


Part five -


Part six -