Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

[brihaspati]

Shivji,
the clarification I think we need to have is that, I do not deny the existence of borders, but I do not hold them as permanent or fixed for all times. I explicitly stated that for me it was a dynamic thing, and simply indicated a compromise solution for a certain historical-political time point to maintain and preserve identities. Just because our current borders ends somewhere on the Thar desert at a certain geopgrapical region on the subcontinent does not mean that we have to keep it that way forever into the future, if we feel that moving it to the Indus makes more sense given the geopolitical reality of that time!

[svinayak]

Democracy requires a nation state and hard borders that

Not true
Nation is about people who will protect their border and expand their border.

[shiv]

Democracy requires a nation state and hard borders that

Not true
Nation is about people who will protect their border and expand their border.

Sorry, You and I are talking about two different things. We are not going to agree, but given that your remarks are largely restricted to one-liner comments and critiques of other's posts I doubt if we can expect any explanations from you.

[A_Gupta]

I see plenty of references to show that ancient Bharatvasis were aware of and revered their geography, but not a single one asking them to unite to protect that geography against an invader, or how to do that.

Maybe because ancient bharatvasis were witnessing their culture being propagated, almost without effort it seems, into the rest of Asia?

[A_Gupta]

Reading this may also help.
http://colonial.consciousness.googlepages.com/%22...weshallnotceasefromexploration...%22

In bhaaratvaasi ethics, you generally don't find duties or obligations to humanity as a whole (contrast with modern language of human rights, for example). There would similarly be no obligations to nation (whatever that is) as a whole.

[svinayak]

I see plenty of references to show that ancient Bharatvasis were aware of and revered their geography, but not a single one asking them to unite to protect that geography against an invader, or how to do that.

Maybe because ancient bharatvasis were witnessing their culture being propagated, almost without effort it seems, into the rest of Asia?

Expansion of the border is a superior way of protecting the border.

[svinayak]

Democracy requires a nation state and hard borders that
Not true
Nation is about people who will protect their border and expand their border.

Sorry, You and I are talking about two different things. We are not going to agree, but given that your remarks are largely restricted to one-liner comments and critiques of other's posts I doubt if we can expect any explanations from you.

Please dont take it personally.
I was talking about the concept and definition

[ShauryaT]

A question:

India is a nation and probably always was, if one applies the generally understood concept of a nation to a given geography. But, the question is, did Indians every consider themselves as a nation or has this concept of nationhood been thrust upon her?

[shiv]

Democracy requires a nation state and hard borders that
Not true
Nation is about people who will protect their border and expand their border.

Sorry, You and I are talking about two different things. We are not going to agree, but given that your remarks are largely restricted to one-liner comments and critiques of other's posts I doubt if we can expect any explanations from you.

Please dont take it personally.
I was talking about the concept and definition

Acharyaji - your economy with words only adds to the mystery. I put up a definition. You dispute it with the two words "not true"

Are you saying that your concept and definition of nations and nation states is totally summed by the two words "not true" as a response to what I wrote?

What is true then, or are you talking deep philosophy by saying "that which is not" anything that can be defined is the truth?

I have a question related to this - not just to you, but to anyone who feels he has an answer. I will post that query later today i it requires some time to phrase that question so people can understand what I am asking

[harbans]

Maybe because ancient bharatvasis were witnessing their culture being propagated, almost without effort it seems, into the rest of Asia?

This is one really good reason India possibly suffered a security complacency. However it's noteworthy that even though the Mauryan Empire maintained large militaries, they were confined mostly to the North Western parts. One may not expand ones physical borders, but as long as ones cultural borders are expanded atleast into the immediate nieghbourhood if not beyond, there is security that will follow. No wonder India faced little problem in trading/ opening borders with our neighbours to the East as compared to the West. India's cultural influence on the West kept dipping and so the hard borders shrank..and will continue to do so till India starts extending our cultural or institutional experience westwards into the neighbourhood. Increase in hard boundaries may come later, but that should not be the immediate aim of polity.

[shiv]

Reading this may also help.
http://colonial.consciousness.googlepages.com/%22...weshallnotceasefromexploration...%22

In bhaaratvaasi ethics, you generally don't find duties or obligations to humanity as a whole (contrast with modern language of human rights, for example). There would similarly be no obligations to nation (whatever that is) as a whole.

Arun - Is this SN Balagangadhara? He is a man whom I deeply respect - I do not say that easily of everyone. Certain things that he has written (linked from this forum in the past) have profoundly affected my views - especially of secularism.

A quote:

Again, unlike Western theories, our ethical systems do not recognize that some organism could possibly have obligations to humankind as a whole. Each organism assumes some specific obligations toward other organisms within the community morally relevant to it. Outside of such a morally relevant community, one cannot formulate specific obligations. Where such is the case, there all these “others” are really not ‘selves’ from the point of view of the one who has no specific obligations towards them. They remain at the limit of one’s horizon as vaguely intuited presences, so to speak. This circumstance sheds light, I believe, on the peculiar indifference that people show towards poverty and suffering of fellow-human beings in Asia.

[Sanku]

Sadly - I write too much and I have written on this subject before on this forum. I suspect that humans have an innate tendency to be able to relate to and identify with a fairly small and narrow bunch of people. This may be an evolutuionary trait in needing to identify with a tribe. You have to work actively to sink differences and unite larger groups.

If the core thesis is that the unity must be actively maintained then I dont think any one will actually contradict you.

The questions is what are the REAL sources of frission, simply people growing apart ? Or external factors? And what is the best way to unify? A chosen border or something else?

[shaardula]

bhanu pratap mehta was one of the speaker's at balagangadhara's conference. looks like BHP had an aha moment. ever since BPM has been thinking of the secularism issue. In the last month or so itself he has written two columns.

aashis nandy was also there. (he represents the gandhian secularist that SNB and JDR refer to in their early papers). He comes out as a true academic.

There were others too there. Vanaik and Chandoke. They were mostly frothing. They are more involved in the politics of these issues than the issues themselves. Chandoke justifies this by saying issues dont exist by themselves. fine. but issues have an order right? chalti gaaDi involves a ox and a cart. fine. but issues have an order no? you cant put the cart before the ox right? you have to design the cart according to the ox you have. not the other way round.

The Secular State and Religious Conflict: Liberal Neutrality and the Indian Case of Pluralism
S. N. Balagangadhara and Jakob De Roover
http://heathenfaqs.googlepages.com/jopp1.pdf

The framers of the Indian constitution took over the theory of the liberal state as it emerged in the West and tried to transplant it into the Indian soil. In the process, they also endorsed the theological claim that religion is an issue of truth.

While such a stance makes sense in a culture where the problem of religious tolerance arises because of the competing truth claims of the Semitic religions, it does not in another cultural milieu where the pagan traditions are a living force.

Consequently, the Indian state is subject to contradictory demands. It must look at the Hindu traditions the way the Semitic religions do, as we have argued, while simultaneously playing the ‘agnostic’ with respect to the issue of whether religion itself is a matter of truth. The first impels it to legislate on the issue of conversion; the second compels it to remain ‘neutral’ and let the communities decide. The first stance results in violence generated and sustained by the state; the second stance forces the involved communities to solve this problem on their own. The first attitude results in forcing the interaction between the Semitic religions and the pagan traditions to take the form of religious rivalry; the second forces the state to withdraw.

Another very interesting thought.
Dr. Sufiya Pattan on passive tolerance of indian traditions vs. active tolerance of secularism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne0rYqP3W14

[svinayak]

Please dont take it personally.
I was talking about the concept and definition

Acharyaji - your economy with words only adds to the mystery. I put up a definition. You dispute it with the two words "not true"

Are you saying that your concept and definition of nations and nation states is totally summed by the two words "not true" as a response to what I wrote?

Most of this are already available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

[brihaspati]

In bhaaratvaasi ethics, you generally don't find duties or obligations to humanity as a whole (contrast with modern language of human rights, for example). There would similarly be no obligations to nation (whatever that is) as a whole.

This is interesting. What is actually meant by "bhaaratvaasi ethics"? Is it the currently practised ethics, or modern "professional historian claimed" past supposedly practised ethics, or textual claims of past ethics? The issue is not so straightforward - it will depend on what "corner" we look. There are many references to discard the smaller "group" for the sake of the larger group. For example, to forsake the family and take up the cause of the village if the interests of the two come into conflict, or discard the village for the sake of the janapada or the community at large. But the twist comes at the end, where for the "atman" you are urged to discard even the "community at large". This is a total inversion of the twentieth century attempts at defining "human rights". The Bharatvaasi concept appears to be claiming in the philosophical arena, the contradictory demands of submerging individual rights into that of the group - or "humanity as a whole", and the demand of "submerging" the rights of this "humanity as a whole" into that of the "individual rights".

This will appear the height of contradiction, unless the basic principle is understood - this is the supreme importance being given to the "idea" of "dharma", above that of individual or group rights. Simply stated, as long as the fundamental principles are not being challenged (whatever that principle be for that period and for that group) the "humanity as a whole" takes precedence over subgroups or individuals. However, when the fundamental principles are being challenged, it is being required that the individual or subgroup has the right to assert the supremacy of the "idea" over and above the calims by the "humanity as a whole".

The much reviled Samhitas/Smritis have plenty on generic obligations to "humanity as a whole", even the supposedly cynical Arthasastra has many indications for this. (I follow the Shayamasastri text and translations). Depends on interpretations though - there are many opportunities to deny such "pro-whole" interpretations, if one is determined enough to do so anyway.

Again, unlike Western theories, our ethical systems do not recognize that some organism could possibly have obligations to humankind as a whole. Each organism assumes some specific obligations toward other organisms within the community morally relevant to it. Outside of such a morally relevant community, one cannot formulate specific obligations. Where such is the case, there all these “others” are really not ‘selves’ from the point of view of the one who has no specific obligations towards them. They remain at the limit of one’s horizon as vaguely intuited presences, so to speak. This circumstance sheds light, I believe, on the peculiar indifference that people show towards poverty and suffering of fellow-human beings in Asia.

This is a very broad generalization, and can only be supported by very specific selective readings and conveniently interpreting them. It would have been good to see a list of explicit passages or texts quoted in support, and also the texts which are known to exist but where such views cannot be supported - and a honest reporting of the proportion of texts which support the "claims".

The last sentence is too much of a stretch. The phenomenon of "insensitivity" is shared by non-Asians too. Enough to read about the views expressed in very Christian Europe before the end of the early phase of "industrial revolution" on "poverty" and suffering of fellow-human beings. Should we connect that to emphasis on saving the soul over that of the body as propounded by the Church theologians (one of the direct fallouts being the dogma that torturing the body of the heretic/apostate/devil-besotten which could include and did include people whose aberrations could be directly traced to poverty - was required and desirable to purify the body with pain so that the soul could get out "untainted")?

[brihaspati]

harbansji,
the NW passage of Indian subcontinent was always the route through which immigrants - violent or peaceful - came in. The early foundational experience and expansions of the Mauryas would naturally place the Mauryas to place more of their military strength here in the NW. Cultural expansion without or before military expansion was easier to the east, becuase then naval technologies and strengths were not sufficient to make Indonesian kingdoms (also dependent on Indian trade for growth) and the Chinese a threat. Coupled with the natural barriers on land this meant interactions could be peaceful, and cultural.

The NW frontier has not lost its character, and is the result of a combination of both losing the cultural dominance and the military capacity to protect that cultural dominance. The east still has retained some of the older characteristics, but modern technologies have changed the naval scenario a bit making it possible for China to become a threat in the near future.

However the past process of retreating from the NW after the Mauryas is not a straight unilinear story of "cultural and military retreat". Invaders appear to "convert" to the Indic faiths even after establishing military dominance or as part of the strategy for such establishment. Examples are Kanishka and Rudradaman.

The military capacity to retaliate and expand beyond immediate political domain if necessary to project power appears to be crucial. There could be climatic conditions, especially drought, around the critical period of 700-900 that severely decimated the capacity for this power projection.

Controlling not only the NW, but the capacity to project power beyond this NW appears to be crucial to keep the northern plains and the western coast of India "trouble-free".

[brihaspati]

Sanku wrote
The questions is what are the REAL sources of frission, simply people growing apart ? Or external factors? And what is the best way to unify? A chosen border or something else?

Physical borders are practical entities at a given point in time which makes adminsitrative functions easier and straightforward. However, this is the reason I do find the "cultural nationalism" aspect so attractive and a much more fundamental concept than the physocal concept of western style "borders" and nation states.

The Jewish nation would not have existed if it was based on "fixed border" nation-state. Similarly many of us, do not recognize the artificial separation of the subcontinent into different "nation-states", and find it agonizing. The reason behind that agony is a recognition that the physical borders are temporary, impermanent, of an artificial nature that contradicts the cultural-national identity of Bharata.

Unification, a modern, "mahabharata" is the closest to retrieval of that "cultural nationhood". Where and when needed , militarily, or politically, or diplomatically, by straight means or indirect means, by honesty or deception - that closest approximation in modern terms to an unified whole on the subcontinent, is the way forward.

[Keshav]

Unification, a modern, "mahabharata" is the closest to retrieval of that "cultural nationhood". Where and when needed , militarily, or politically, or diplomatically, by straight means or indirect means, by honesty or deception - that closest approximation in modern terms to an unified whole on the subcontinent, is the way forward.

Why are we returning to the Akhand Bharat weirdness? I thought we established that given the mood of the people who wanted to leave, Partition was probably a good thing and unification, now, a nightmare.

[Atri]

Akhand Bhaarat is a distant aim and a destiny of our civilization. Unless Akhand Bhaarat comes into existence, there won't be peace in the region. Rather, if there is genuine peace between Bhaarat and Pakistan, there won't be a two nation theory. Everything will coalesce into one Akhand Bhaarat.

It is this "Maya" which is clouding the wisdom of believers in two-nation theory and making them see and fixate on the apparent duality instead of inherent unity and continuity (advaita) of Bhaaraitya civilization.

As long as Islam is not Indianized, this duality will remain, and so will the problems. As the Indianization of Islam begins, this duality will start vanishing and Akhand Bhaarat will become an obvious destination. Just have to throw away the arabic civilizational aspects from Islam.

We should make Muslims worship Allah in a way which is in synchronization of Bhaaratiya civilization. When this takes root in minds of IM, that day onwards, two-nation theory will start loosing its ground.

[brihaspati]

Regarding "leaving at Partition" we have very good evidence that most of those who actually moved were most reluctant to do so. They were forced by armed hoodlums and organized criminal gangs to do so - while the still British Indian Army practically watched and did not or could not intervene.

A forceful and determined action like that undertaken on the Nizam's antics and in Kashmir would have nipped it in the bud. This was how Calcutta was tamed (with initiative from the "local" Hindus and Sikhs) - for the then provincial gvernment was led by the great hero of future BD, Suhrawardy whose role was quite clear in starting off the whole process of violence, and whose sole administrative concern appears to be protecting Muslims once the tide turned against Muslim goons. Only then was the army called out.

A section of Muslim and Hindu elite wanted the physical Partition (I know voting figures of the Muslim League will be quoted - but remember that then it was not universal franchise - British India had lots of restrictions and qualifiers that effectively weeded out the commons, and only filtered in the "educated" and the "landed") - let us not shift the guilt on to the "commons".

[brihaspati]

With the declared and proposed "army action" by TSPA against the Talebs, one of two things is going to happen. Either the TSPA command arranges for an "eyewash" of temporary retreat by the Talebs so that international pressure can be staved off a bit. But a worse future scenario would be the formal switching over of sides by the TSPA troops once they are in the "contact zone". This would lead to a very rapid "collapse" of the entire north of TSP.

For the moment, it is not in the interests of the TSPA to reveal to the world that the entire north collapses before the Talebs or that the Talebs are simply the irregular wing of the theologian-Jihadi-military structure of TSPA. This will choke up the material resources supply that it needs to finance and support its longterm Jihadi ambitions for the subcontinent. With the recent phased supply promised by the "west" it needs to formally wait until this resource is delivered. Also, PRC would be under pressure to and there could be concerted effort by the US to remove the nukes from within TSP territory. Which would be a great loss of bargaining power for the TSPA.

So my guess will be a formal temporary retreat by the Talebs, and much fanfare about assembling troops for military action against the Talebs. This will never materialize fully on the ground. Any formal engagement taht TSPA is forced to go in with the Talebs now, is problematic. If they really have to take action, for the sake of the media and the western opinion, this would mean a war of attrition between irregulars and regulars of the same force. This is not good for the future projections and ambitions of the TSPA. So there is going to be no serious fight. At most those units will be sacrificed deliberately whose loyalty to the essential Jihadi cause of the TSPA leadership, is suspect. Or whose future preservation could preserve military expertise in "undesirable" ethnic communities.

The promised huge western help and the undercover help provided by PRC and the Islamic powers has to be built up sufficiently, as stocks have been depleted to provide for the success of the Taleb adventure in AFG, and maintaining terrorist activities against India. Once suffiicently built up the resources will be used to plan and support the next phase of Jihadi expansion - more into AFG and east and north into TSP, and finally on to India - the ultimate target.

The asinine policy of inventing a "moderate Taleban" to cover up the eventual retreat from the AFG theatre, is the latest in the superb series of contributions from the Anglo-US to human civilization. The help provided to TSPA (the state and the army is the same in Pakistan, at least from the army viewpoint - so resources provided formally to the civilian givernment will be surrpetitiously moved to TSPA disposal or manipulation) will simply be used against remaining "divergence" in AFG and the final push towards the Jihadi dream of an uninterrupted Islamic empire running from Arabia to Indonesia.

Whether that dream is realistic or feasible is an entirely different question, but the enormous pain and horror on the way even towards the eventual demise of that dream, is something that the west will forever be guilty of.

[Atri]

Brihaspatiji,

I heard of some legendary butcher Pnatha who played a vital role in protecting Hindus in Calcutta riots.

[surinder]

Regarding "leaving at Partition" we have very good evidence that most of those who actually moved were most reluctant to do so. They were forced by armed hoodlums and organized criminal gangs to do so - while the still British Indian Army practically watched and did not or could not intervene.

I have always wondered and have been confused by the fact that the British who ruled INdia with an iron fist for 200 years, and then raised an army of 2 million Indians (with a large Punjabi, Sikh portion) failed to control the partition violence. It is becoming increasingly obvious that if they had wanted a huge Indian army could have squelched the riots (assuming they were not instigated by the British, in the fiest place). What actually happened was that there was at some level a deliberate policy of inaction to let the things happen. Anecdotal readings of British during partion suggest that they let it happen. I have read/heard accounts where Hindus/Sikhs running to save their lives in Pakjab met British army/police/officials and begged them to save their lives---the Britishers just stolidly stood and looked the other way.

Consider the fact British had a very active and sucessful intelligence network. It is impossible for them to have not known about the plans of the ML goons in planning the riots to cleanse their lands.

Not also similar modus operendi in the past: In the Nankana Sahib massacre of the Sikhs, the mahant at the historical Gurudwara was able to accumulate weapons and killed numerous Sikhs with impunity, while the Police Chief of Lahore (a Britisher) sat quietly and stolidly silent. I have not read any account of the mahant being prosecuted.

I wish there to be a good solid book connecting all the dots with thorough research on the topic of how the British engineered the riots while sitting silently behind the curtains. Maybe you should write a Book yourself, Brihaspati.

A forceful and determined action like that undertaken on the Nizam's antics and in Kashmir would have nipped it in the bud. This was how Calcutta was tamed (with initiative from the "local" Hindus and Sikhs)

Could you tell me a little more how "Calcutta was tamed"? I would not mind learning a little history here. Was there a sizeable Sikh presence in Calcutta in the 40's?

[brihaspati]

Surinderji,

Estimates at the 1947 juncture of the Sikh population in Calcutta is not easy to get. But I think I have some notes somehwre in my files. Will try to fish it out.

Here are a few relevant pointers to the issues you raised :

The European painter Solvyn has produced the earliest European realist school of portraits of the "common" Sikh in Calcutta as early as 1796. His dividing up two types of "Sikhs" - probably the "Nihang"'s and "Nanauk-panthis" may be interesting for you. [Francois Baltazard Solvyns, he used his middle name, Baltazard, rather than Francois. On Solvyns, see Mildred Archer, "Baltazard Solvyns and the Indian Picturesque," The Connoisseur 170 (January 1969): 12-18, and Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr., "A Portrait of Black Town: Baltazard Solvyns in Calcutta, 1791-1804," in Pratapaditya Pal, ed., Changing Visions, Lasting Images: Calcutta Through 300 Years (Bombay: Marg, 1990): 31-46.
Balt. Solvyns, A Collection of Two Hundred and Fifty Coloured Etchings: Descriptive of the Manners, Customs, and Dresses of the Hindoos (Calcutta: 1796, 1799). ]

The British had tried to enlist Wahabi support against the Sikhs pretty early. Ismaill Dihlawi was one of the early Wahhabi missionaries (a possible disciple of and influenced by Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi who had declared a jihad against the Sikh rulers of the Punjab. Barelwi was defeated by Ranjit Singhji, and killed in 1831 in Balakot). The Tawarikh-e-'Ajibah (p. 182) states: 'In this biography and by his letters it is clearly evident that Mr. Sayyid [Ahmad] had no intention to wage a war against the British. He thought of their government as his government. Undoubtedly, if the [British] government was against him he would not have received any [financial] aid [from them]. But the government wished to break the strength of the Sikh [rebels].' The Hayaat-e-Tayyibah (p. 302) states that one day, as Ismail Dihlawi was lecturing on jihad against the Sikhs in Calcutta, a person asked: 'Why do you not give a fatwa to wage jihad against the English?' He replied: 'It is not wajib in any case to fight against the British. First, because we are their subjects; second, they do not interfere in our religious affairs and we have all kinds of freedom under their rule. In fact, if any one attacks the British, it is the religious duty of Muslims to fight against them and protect our (British) government."

The massacre of Hundus and Sikhs in Calcutta was well organized and directed personally by H.S.Suhrawardy the Prime Minister of Bengal". [Nice guys finish second, B.K.Nehru, 1997.] Also see letter written by the Bengal Governor to the Viceroy supporting this view - "Transfer of Power", Vol I, p 297.

Pravash Chandra Lahiry (from Rajshahi in East Bengal was a early Member of the Anushilan Samiti and spent 22 years in prison including "deepaantar"). He became a Member of the Bengal Legislative Assembly in 1946. and continued as a Member of the Provincial Legislative Assembly of East Pakistan. He also served for a while as Minister of Finance in the Government of Pakistan. In 1964, he published his Memoirs of the communal tension that rocked India before independence and India and Pakistan after independence: India Partitioned and Minorities in Pakistan.

Describing the Hindu Genocide in the City of Calcutta organized by Muslim League’s Mohamed Ali Jinnah and Provincial Bengal Government’s Suhrawardhy, on Direct Action Day on 16th August 1946, Pravash Chandra Lahiry wrote in his book: “There was huge killing of human beings of both the major communities. The well thought out plan of the Muslim League to frighten and terrorize the Congress and the Hindus to submit to the demand of the Muslim League for a separate sovereign State of Pakistan was frustrated in Calcutta, because the Hindus (And the Sikhs) did not lag behind the Muslims in aggressiveness and killings. A large number of Muslims also died.” Lahiry says that having been thwarted in Calcutta, the Muslim League carefully selected in a planned manner an alternative venue in the District of Nokhali in East Bengal, where the Hindus were only 18% of the total population, for carrying out their organized Hindu Genocide—arson, loot, abduction and rape of the Hindu women, mass conversion of Hindus into Islam through torture and death and planned killings. [ A.J. Kamra : The Prolonged Partition and its pogroms : Testimonies on violence against Hindus in East Bengal, 1946-1964]

As this will be going too OT, I would request you to search for and look at interactions between Veer Savarkar and Master Tara Singh, especially in 1939, about making common cause against possible Islamic violence. Both men are going to be controversial discussion material here.

According to Prof Himadri Banerjee, Guru Nanak Chair in Indian History at Jadavpur University’s Department of History, in his book "The Other Sikhs: A View from Eastern India", Sikhs are proud of their Gurus’ intimate contact with eastern India, but have only a rudimentary knowledge about how the Guru’s message was received and how their followers evolved in east India. From the information and records, published between the First Sikh War (1845) and the Partition available in local languages, shows how the regional influences have blended with the traditions of the Sikhs. The Sikhs here can broadly be classified as diasporic Sikhs on the one hand, and indigenous Sikhs on the other. There are significant pockets of Sikhs in Assam, Orissa and Bihar.

"In Nagaon district of Assam, there is a 250-year tradition of Sikhs who are indigenous people. They participate in gurpurabs, Baisakhi as well as Assamese festivals. They speak Assamese and generally follow the local code of conduct regarding marriage, food, social discipline, and dress. They, however, are aware of their Sikh identity and wear the five Ks. Gurdwaras follow Sikh rituals but are also influenced by local style of worship," he says. In Orissa, the Nanakpanthis and the Udasis have interactions with the devotees of Jagannath.

The civilizational blunders of "Bharat" that led to initially the need for the Sikh panth to crystallize and "arm itself", and the grave injustice they have been meted out, should not be repeated. The whole problem with separatism and other issues have started with the criminal neglect of the early Congress leadership, and the very real and legitimate demand for "land" (the being forced to abandon the much larger share of land in Pakjab) that went on festering through the states-reorganization and "extension" problem.

An unified Punjab, with its historical areas and holy sites restored to the Sikhs access, should be a part of our future target. Can't say more

[surinder]

Surinderji,


The civilizational blunders of "Bharat" that led to initially the need for the Sikh panth to crystallize and "arm itself", and the grave injustice they have been meted out, should not be repeated. The whole problem with separatism and other issues have started with the criminal neglect of the early Congress leadership, and the very real and legitimate demand for "land" (the being forced to abandon the much larger share of land in Pakjab) that went on festering through the states-reorganization and "extension" problem.

An unified Punjab, with its historical areas and holy sites restored to the Sikhs access, should be a part of our future target. Can't say more

Brihaspati,

thanks for an extensive and elaborate discussion. I really appreciate it. I will save some of the book citations for future study.

I think the "Sikh" problem was a very unfortunate event in our recent history. Such a breach should have been avoided at *ALL* costs, but instead the IG led INC went headlong into a minefield from which the nation is yet to recover. The 84 riots then just set a new low in Indian history.

PS: No "ji" shi stuff for me. Just call me by my handle w/o the Ji.

[ramana]

Surinder(ji) or garu is mark of respect that Indics mutually show. So long as its not saab or janab its par for the course!

[surinder]

Or, you can also call me "Your Highness". That'd work too

[ramana]

Only if you can prove lineage to Maharaja Ranjit Singhji!

[brihaspati]

Surinder,

Adding on to Ramanaji,

I can also call you as "bhai" or "Sardar" (or would you prefer "jathedar"? ). One of my closest "right hands" during my "organizational" days, was a "Sikh" named the same as the Guru who really "armed" the Sikhs. I sometimes called him "my jathedar" and if in the mood of teasing, "ragi" because he is a very bad singer. Through him and others I know of the "repression" you have mentioned in another thread. We owe a lot to the "Sikh" and we may yet need to ask for more sacrifices. This time around we will make sure that their past grievances are not added to and whatever is possible to rightfully restore, is restored.

[brihaspati]

Chironji,
probably talking of Gopal "pantha"? Yes he is the legendary real-life butcher who took on an active role in the "defence", along with many other named and unnamed heroes. There was also private understanding between prominent leaders from the non-Muslim side (including future tops of the state) and such individual initiative takers as an emergecny response to "Muslim" provincial governmental "apathy". This info is from personal sources, and cannot quote independent sources.

There was a section of the Congress in Bengal who took an active role in trying their best to thwart the seemingly "Nehruvian-British" plans of extending Pakistan borders as much as possible into current WB. I had this info straight from the horses mouth of someone involved. This saved Murshidabad, but their attempts failed for Khulna.

Someone who organized resistance as a 17 year old in a locality of Berhampore (Murshidabad) told me that for a couple of days the area appeared to be under "Pakistan", and even some of his Muslim acquaintances were seen around doing a "Kaalnemi's division of Lanka" - pointing out Hindu houses and declaring which "women" they were going to pick up. I remember his sarcastic couplet - "kaan me bidi/mooh me paan/laarke lenge Paksitan", and he told me that proper "actions" made these small time crooks and criminals run "raising their lungis". It is significant that Berhampore probably had a strong population of Muslims at this time, but the relative distance from administartive power at Calcutta (or the ML covetousness of Calcutta) probably prevented the goons from mobilizing the entire Muslim population.

Repeatedly, this pattern recurs - rashtryia power backs up the Mullah and the criminal to mobilize the community. Without such backing, and the suppression of the "Mullah" the worst negative sides of Jihadi Islam does not usually surface.

[Atri]

Yes brihaspati ji,.. Gopal Pantha.. Thank you..

There are some events in 19th century India which started the empowerment of oppressed classes. One of them is girl-child education and empowerment. If that is fervently employed along with some kind of social security system for Muslim women in particular and women in general, this problem will vanish within a generation. But Mullah used to ensure muslim votes in particular constituency in one block. This is slowly changing though, as education is slowly percolating in regions with comparatively less muslim populations and is governed by the leader of nationalistic tendencies. How to break this vicious cycle? Can making voting compulsory solve this problem. If voting becomes compulsory, the need for Muslim one block votes will decrease, so will mullah pampering, thus better decision making in favour of Bhaaratiya civilization in the constituency (most of them)

One serious poochh, Brihaspati ji !!

How can a particular ruling class (modern day pseudo-secular politicians) be so casual about impending disaster which will eventually consume them too? How could Aambhi/Jaichand not see what might happen to him and/or his immediate family if he did what he did? I understand that political parties work on the basis of popularity. Anything to sell their product and earn profits. And population votes for them, for immediate gratification. Thus, where is the fault? Population or the leaders? How can Rashtriya forces commit such mistakes time and again?

Why did Indic people never went for complete all-out rout of enemy on the occasions when political forces were on Indic side? Muslims went for all out dismemberment of all the civilizations they conquered except India. It is not that they did not try. Just that Indic resistance proved too difficult to be overcome as compared to Zoroastrian Persia which was weakened due to its wars with Byzantium empire. But, then time tilted on Indic side, the Bhaaratiya rashtriya forces never went for all out rout of the invading civilization.

कुतस्त्वा कश्मल इदं विषमे समुपस्थितम
अनार्यजुष्टम अस्वर्ग्यम अकीर्तिकर अर्जुन: BG 2.2

- From where have you acquired this impotence, at this moment of crisis, Arjun? This impotence of yours will not only make you infamous and deny you the glory of heavens, but also be hazardous to the very existence of civilized people (civilization)

In in post Independence India, the politics is moving in similar directions. Such moves of garnering popularity by all possible cheap means is like drug addiction. Both the leaders and the janata are addicted to this drug. And fun part is, out of 100% voters, approximately only 50% vote. The constituency where the fight is between two rivals, one who gets 26% of votes, rules. In multipolar contest, the winning share goes on decreasing. Thus one who gets 5-10% of the votes, wins and rules.

And very few understand the enormity of this problem. Quoting Om Prakash Aaditya...

इधर भी गधे हैं उधर भी गधे हैं
जिधर देखता हूँ गधे ही गधे हैं
गधे हंस रहे आदमी रो रहा हैं
हिन्दोस्तान में ये क्या हो रहा हैं

जवानी का आलम गधों के लिए हैं
ये रसिया ये बालम गधों के लिए हैं
ये दिल्ली ये पालम गधों के लिए हैं
ये संसार सालम गधों के लिए हैं

पिलाए जा साकी पिलाए जा डटके
तू व्हिस्की के मटके पे मटके पे मटके
मैं दुनिया तो अब भुलाना चाहता हूँ
गधों की तरह झूमना चाहता हूँ

घोडों को मिलती नहीं घास देखो
गधे खा रहे हैं च्यवनप्राश देखो
यहाँ आदमी की कहाँ कब बनी हैं
ये दुनिया गधों के लिए ही बनी हैं

जो गलियों में डोले वो कच्चा गधा हैं
जो कोठे पे बोले वो सच्चा गधा हैं
जो खेतों में दिखे वो तो फसली गधा हैं
और जो माइक पे चीखे वो असली गधा हैं

मैं क्या बक गया हूँ, ये क्या कह गया हूँ
नशे की पिनक में कहाँ बह गया हूँ
मुझे माफ़ करना मैं भटका हुआ था
वो ठर्रा था भीतर जो अटका हुआ था

I am sorry, if this post of mine qualifies as rant...

[Vriksh]

Chiron... I have been saying this for the last one year. Indian democracy is basically 10% of voters ruling over the rest 90% based on the current plurality/ first past the post wins rule. I had the following suggestion to alieviate the problem.

1. Pay the wining politician X% (2-3%) of the income tax of a particular district as base multiplied by the share of the votes as a percentage of the population.
Politician pay = IT*V*X

IT is = total income tax collected from the district, V is the percentage of votes by the victor, X = 2-3% or something that is decided upon by the state.

2. Make any politician contesting in the election eligible to vote in Lok sabha based on the votes he/she gained in election. For example any politician with a certain cutoff number of votes in the lok sabha election say >2lakh automatically gain that many votes in parliament (Instead of one MP one vote kind of deal). This is easy to do nowadays with the rise of fast telecommunication services. There is no need to have a large lok sabha where there is no discussion anyway. Laws can be posted to an electronic bulletin board and given 10 days time for discussion via blogs much like BR. Once people thrash out the pros and cons each politician votes (transparently) and his vote bank gets attached for or against the motion.

proposal 1 will ensure that the politician will try to increase their percentage of votes and the amount of Income tax collected in a district

proposal 2 will ensure that the will of the people is more easily implemented.

RM will you include my proposals in the right to recall party. These are much more easily implementable in the current system than many of R2R laws that require aam junta to regularly participate in democracy daily when today they don't have enough time to find food to eat.

[brihaspati]

Chironji,
My take on the "shortsightedness" of Indian elite is what I have written elsewhere on another thread. My reasoning is that there were always a small section of elite who were brought up so deep in the belief of exclusivity and superiority by birth, that they felt themselves detached and alienated from the majority.

This alienation and sense of disjunction led them to lack of confidence in the strength and ability of their society to stand up to or fight successfully against more determined aggressive invaders. The "priests" would be looking for a solid, reliable patron for the future, and the "warrior/small time king" would be looking to somehow continue in power by adjustment.

I suspect that such individuals suffer from a sense of inferiority in terms of power/ perception of inability to mobilize support for personal power, while at the same time suffering from the contradictory sense of superiority by birth. This perhaps leads to a deep seated hatred and contempt for the "inferior by birth" majority and a secret admiration for the methods of "determined minorities" like that of Islam, which appear to give a formula for successful dominance under such situations. They choose to throw in their lot with such "aggressors".

There could also be "darker" psychological aspects of Sado-masochism involved, that could make certain individuals attracted towards the practices and opportunities in ideologies like Jihadi Islam, to satisfy those urges. Such individuals, both men and women could be seeking to dominate/submit and thereby satisfy deeper hidden urges that usually do not surface in more integrated/socially connected humans.

The "superiority by birth" is a great bane of leadership. A small proportion of such individuals are enough to derail the long term curve of the nation significantly. My first suspicions rose when I looked at the "birth/caste origins" of the higher committees of leftist parties. You can do the same, and connect the dots for the current crop. It is everywhere the same picture.

It is important therefore to cultivate in those social groups, traditionally inclined to believing in their "birth superiority" that it is crucial to see the necessity of relying on, feeling connected to and dependent on the supposedly "inferior by birth" majority - as parts of the same whole.

[Sanku]

B is indeed perceptive, he is talking of "my" kind of folks when he talks of Indian elite and their confusion.

[Shirish]

The day is fast approaching where we will have to make peace with the army in Pakistan and help them stay in power.... to create a buffer-state between India and the taliban. That will be gut-wrenching and some hard decisions will have to be made.

[Abhi_G]

The day is fast approaching where we will have to make peace with the army in Pakistan and help them stay in power.... to create a buffer-state between India and the taliban. That will be gut-wrenching and some hard decisions will have to be made.

Isn't the taliban an extension of the pak army?

[brihaspati]

Yes making "peace" will be the line of PA and the demand by Unkil, or UK, and some even from within Indian elite. This will be the PA tactic to neutralize and tranquilize any efforts by India to plan destruction of the Talebs. It is like the Ribbentrop-Molotov treaty at best. At worst the nightmare of a repeat of the 48 Kashmir - irregulars-Talebs combining with regulars-PA on an unprepared, hesitant, reluctant Nehruvian GOI bending over backwards to please any foreign tie-ups interested in preserving TSP.

[Shirish]

The thing is, these choices will have to be made soon, probably by what history will term the weakest, most morally bankrupt government and Lok Sabha we will ever see. But after that things will get better and religious vote banks will be less effective.

[brihaspati]

Peopl get confused when they model the Talebs and the PA as completely separate entities. Do try and model them as two aspects of the same structure. This is the attempted approximation of the ideal Islamic state, where theology and the military are combined in the same authority. The Talebs represent the more theological aspect while the PA represents the mor military aspect. Since the Talebs were fostered by the PA under the excuse of fighting Soviets, the two aspects have been transmuting each other towards this ideal.

There is no real conflict between them. They coordiante their activities, and they will never come to mutually destructive confrontation. They can use each other's separate formal face to the world to extract mileage and resources from different kinds of support bases. PA can use this sham to extract vital resources from the "West" and breathing time to restock and replenish supplies for war, which eventually will be shared by both faces for their core Jihadi agenda.

The Talebs on the other hand can use the sham to pose as the true hope for Jihad in the subcontinent and gain recruits. The Jihadized personnel from the Talebs and the resources extracted from the world (as well as any hoodwinking of the Indian "opinion") by PA will be used for only one single purpose - make no mistake about this - this is to impose a Shariati Jihadi Islamic state on the entire subcontinent, at least that is the dream of PA leadership. A lot of people are impressed by the "whisky-swilling" of PA generals, and dream of the Talebs going after these generals for their "wet-dreams" and the generals giving up on the Talebs and fight them back - but they are living in asinine paradise. "Decadent" deviations and such sundry pleasures have never been the problem at the top of the Islamic state - and never with the theologians as long as this is done discreetly and the theologian's powers are enhanced.

In fact my experience shows that at the "elite" level, decadence is allowed under various convenient bypasses of the Sharia as provided by helpful theologians, if the theologians feel that so-and-so elite is important for their cause.

[ramana]

The thing is, these choices will have to be made soon, probably by what history will term the weakest, most morally bankrupt government and Lok Sabha we will ever see. But after that things will get better and religious vote banks will be less effective.

my reply from the Strat leadership thread....

Border defense is one of the 20 critical sub-systems of ALL living systems. A system that does not defend its boundaries dies, according to Dr. James Miller in Living Systems.

Its as 1k page tome - a deadly weapon when thrown at opponents.
Nevertheless, it is an interesting work. Much updating is required based on memes and meme-complexes.

Absorbing any territory from Af-Pak is an expensive transaction, with no apparent benefit.
Better to game a loose federation with peripheral states in an economic and fuzzy defense union
(not just west of Bharat).
In the west, I agree, that it is better to go till the Indus and draw the Laxman Rekha there.
PS: We still will need a buffer with Persia when Af-Pak is not longer a threat

I gradually understood the dilemma that Bharat varsha thinkers of yore had - border areas want to be outside of the umbra of the Indo Gangetic plains but are need to be there for the security and stability of the I-G plains since time immemorial. In the epic age we see of the many repeated conquests by the I-G rulers. One ruler manages to conquer a periphery region and it gets spunoff in two to three generations and a new conquest has to occur and the cycle repeats. In the historic age (pre-and post-Maurayan period) the slowness of Maghadan expansion westward led to the festering problem of weak states on the periphpery that could not withstand the Persian, Greek, Scythian, Parthian, Huns and Arabic and Islamic invasions.

So a weak federation on the periphery is not a desirable soultion from Indian poit of view. The Western periphery has to be tied firmly to the I-G plains in every form.

And with the Fak-ap in Af-Pak, the time is sooner than latter.
--------