Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

[ramana]

One fights with what they have or create new weapons.

JLN inherited a bankrupt Treasury and a daunty task of nation building that needed enormous capital which wasnt simply there. The rising expectations after the Brits left and the extreme bankruptcy made the situation very fertile for Commies to thirve in. By chosing a Socialist path JLN cut off the Soviets support to the commies and made them irrelevant.
We need to keep this in mind by taking a comprehensive picture of the whole country and not just some small regions. After the Partition rebuilding East Punjab which was essentially banjar lands and making it a granary was the first task. About 105,000 hectares were added to irrigation in the first five year plan in East Punjab alone. The Nagarjuna Sagar Dam which was to have been built in first five year plan was delayed and put of to the next plans. The scond plan emphasis was changed to Science and technology after learning about Mao's plan communicated directly to JLN in Beijing.

Distances and time may dim the vison but they should not distort the vision.

Yes he made mistakes for which we are paying but it condemn him altogether is also myopic.

He was always Chacha and not Father of the nation.

[surinder]

I agree with Ramana. There is little to fault Nehru for his domestic developmental, educational & economic activity. He would have an excellent minister for that work. Our main complaints against JLN rests on his disastrous international dealings (i.e. those dealings that do not relate to economy, education & development).

Added later: The 2nd thing of JLN that has hurt India was his promulgation of dynasty rule, which still rules India even today.

[ramana]

I think you can thank the sychophants in INC who couldnt win as muncipal councillors for promting Mrs G as the PM after Lal Bahadur Shastri's untimely death in 1966. There was Gulzarilal Nanda the eternal interim PM. Morarji Desai was the most experienced having been groomed for that role but there was a coup of sorts by promoting Mrs G as the candidate. Once she won the Syndicate-Indicate wars it was sychophants all the way to date.

[brihaspati]

Friends,
my comments were in relation to Sardar's apparent silence and lack of protest to JLN's "socialist programme", in response to Abhi_Gji's post w.r.t. Sardar. All my refs were to show that Sardar had ample time to show his displeasure to this aspect of JLN's programme. This has nothing to do with the evaluation, mine or anyone else's, per se of JLN's apparent economic programme.

That is an entirely different matter. I would encourage reading up Arun Bose, Marxian and Post-Marxian political economy, Cambridge, 1975. His description of a "radical capitalist" strategy as characterizing the Nehruvian "5-year" plans are probably the best description I have ever found. His writing is "difficult" for the uninitiated, and those not that familiar with the twists of political economics, can skip the introductory part. The author's academic credentials are impeccable and his political background is most interesting.

[brihaspati]

Surinderji,
Bose indeed was a character, quite distinct from the MKG-JLN lot. MKG and Ballavbhai's political shortsightedness shows up in the way they tackled Bose. I would have expected the superb shrewdness of the political MKG, to recognize the potential advantages of keeping Bose within the flock. But here his personal and regional limitations perhaps showed up as one of his many fatal flaws.

Bose could have been harnessed as the tiger that kept the vultures and jackals at bay. Imagine the success and effectiveness of a team comprising the two manifestations of "Shankara" on this forum.

[Abhi_G]

Brihaspati ji, could you shed light on the dynamics within the INC during the crucial periods that seem to show that regionalism may have been a reason for the sidelining of Bose. It may have also been a point of inflection for the continuous tussle between the naram and charam panthis in the INC; the previous one was during the sidelining and liquidation of the Lal Bal Pal group. I am asking this because such a "regional" dynamic may always manifest in the current/future political horizon of India and cripple strategic initiatives of long term interest. If moderators think this is off-topic, I can take the discussion off board.

Also with regard to Patel, once again with the advantage of hindsight, he may have made some critical mistakes but with respect to his contribution to the Republic, he is the sole anchor during the critical 1947-1950 period and earned immense goodwill from the people.

[Rudradev]

Are there any clues (writings, conversations, correspondence) to indicate at all how Netaji might have responded to the Partition?

[Abhi_G]

Correspondence between Bose and Jinnah in 1938

http://www.geocities.com/sadna_gupta/Ex ... 93738.html

Muslim League demands

RESOLUTION No.1

The Executive Council of the All-India Muslim League... find that it is not possible for the All-India Muslim League to treat or negotiate with the Congress the question of the Hindu-Muslim settlement except the basis that the Muslim League is the authoritative and representative organization of the Mussalmans of India.

RESOLUTION No.2

The Council have also considered the letter of Mr. Gandhi dated the 22nd May 1938 and are of opinion that it is not desirable to include any Muslim in the personnel of the proposed Committee that may be appointed by the Congress.

RESOLUTION No. 3
The Executive Council wish to make it clear that it is the declared policy of the All-India Muslim League that all other Minorities should have their rights and interests safeguarded so as to create a sense of security amongst them and win their confidence and the All-India Muslim League will consult the representatives of such Minorities and any other interest as may be involved, when necessary.

Bose's response.

The first resolution of the League Council defines the status of the League. If it means that, before we proceed to set up a machinery for considering the terms of settlement of the communal question, the Congress should recognize the status as defined in that resolution, there is an obvious difficulty. Though the resolution does not use the adjective 'only', the language of the resolution means that the adjective is understood. Already the Working Committee has received warnings against recognizing the exclusive status of the League. There are Muslim organizations which have been functioning independently of the Muslim League. Some of them are staunch supporters of the Congress. Moreover, there are individual Muslims who are Congressmen, some of whom exercise no inconsiderable influence in the country. Then there is the Frontier Province which is overwhelmingly Muslim and which is solidly with the Congress. You will see that in the face of these known facts it is not only impossible, but improper for the Congress to make the admission which the first resolution of the League Council apparently desires the Congress to make. It is suggested that the status of organizations does not accrue to them by any defining of it. It comes through the service to which a particular organization has dedicated itself. The Working Committee therefore hopes that the League Council will not ask the Congress to do the impossible. Is it not enough that the Congress is not only willing but eager to establish the friendliest relations with the League and to come to an honourable understanding over the much vexed Hindu-Muslim question?

At this state it may perhaps be as well to state the Congress claim. Though it is admitted that the largest number of persons to be found on the numerous Congress registers are Hindus, Congress has a fairly large number of Muslims and members of other communities professing different faiths. It has been an unbroken tradition with the Congress to represent all communities, all races, and classes to whom India is their home. From its inception it has often had distinguished Muslims and Presidents and General Secretaries who enjoyed the confidence of the Congress and of the country. The Congress tradition is that through a Congressman does not cease to belong to the faith in which he is born and bred up, no one comes to the Congress by virtue of his faith; he is in and of the Congress by virtue of his endorsement of the political principles and policy of the Congress. The Congress therefore is in no sense a communal organization. In fact it has always fought the communal spirit because it is detrimental to the growth of pure and undefiled nationalism. But whilst the Congress makes this claim, and has sought, with more or less success, to live up to the claim, the Working Committee asks for no recognition from the League Council. The Committee would be glad if your Council would come to an understanding with the Congress in order that we might achieve national solidarity and whole-heartedly work for realizing our common destiny.

As to the second resolution of the Council, I am afraid that it is not possible for the Working Committee to conform to the desire expressed therein.

The third resolution, the Working Committee is unable to understand. So far as the Working Committee is aware, the Muslim League is purely a communal organization, in the sense that it seeks to serve Muslim interests and its membership too is open only to Muslims. The Working Committee also has all along understood that so far as the League is concerned, it desires, and rightly, a settlement with the Congress on the Hindu-Muslim question and not on questions affecting all Minorities. So far as the Congress is concerned, if the other Minorities have a grievance against the Congress, it is always ready to deal with them as it is its bounden duty to do, being by its very constitution and organization representative of all India without distinction of caste or creed.

In view of the foregoing I hope that it will be possible for us to take up the next stage in our negotiations for reaching settlement.

[surinder]

Surinderji,
Bose indeed was a character, quite distinct from the MKG-JLN lot. MKG and Ballavbhai's political shortsightedness shows up in the way they tackled Bose. I would have expected the superb shrewdness of the political MKG, to recognize the potential advantages of keeping Bose within the flock. But here his personal and regional limitations perhaps showed up as one of his many fatal flaws.

Bose could have been harnessed as the tiger that kept the vultures and jackals at bay. Imagine the success and effectiveness of a team comprising the two manifestations of "Shankara" on this forum.

Brihaspati,

When a set of assumptions don't lead to a comfortable acceptable conclusions, one must be willing to question the assumption itself. If MKG was as virulently fight the British as is portrayed, there was an excellent example shown by Bose. MKG could have easily distanced himself from Bose, while providing him cover and getting concessions from the British at Bose's expense. He could have (as an example) encouraged the Indians to en masse resign from the British Indian Army, since he was supposedly already opposed to violence. This would have crippled the British in a manner nothing would have. But he curiously did not. His opposition to Bose was virulent, but his opposition to British was chummy chummy and brotherly. (it should have been the other way round).

This unexplainable thing (along with many other bizzare things the Mahatma did) only leads me to suspect that MKG was a British project. He was more hand-in-glove with the British than is generally accepted. Either he was intellectually taken in by them (despite his loud claims) or was simple a puppet in their clever hands. Worst case, he was their agent or asset. Something just does not make sense.

[brihaspati]

Surinderji,
A large formative part of MKG's early life, including his maturing as a politican in SA, is typically rather out of the radar. We had started exploring this I think some time ago, and the connection to US media and British factional divergences in Westminster. My safest guess would be that MKG had long decided, subtle "friendly" manipulation and arm-twisting of the British with due concessions was the only way he could develop his nascent objectives fro India. He had probably taken his lessons well from those Indians who had decided to take the really "non-cooperative" route.

[brihaspati]

Abhi_Gji,
will try. But what you say is also very important for the future. Regionalism had specific reasons for coming up, and were primarily encouraged by business and commercial interests, with a large dose of helping from the admin.

We do hear of conflicts before, but they were more on cultural lines, and not based on simply point of origin. Bengalis could have served loyally in the west (Prithviraj III's general), Lal-Bal-Pal could collaborate, WCB, Tilak could collaborate, and Vivekananda had no problems out of his home province. What we see later as regionalism, probably had a lot to do with business interests, (the early capitalist development in Bengal vs the later capitalist development in the "west") as well as British manipulations.

The Congress never had a strong foundational philosophical core. This made it impossible for its top fishes to overcome their origin limitations. We can see that there is lesser such considerations in the "Hindutva" side - for a modern leader of the BJP from the "west" has no problems referring to the roots of the movement at the hands of among others, a "Bengali" from the "east".

Only a cultural superidentity that is recognized to be stronger than regional affiliations, can overcome the danger of "regionalist" challenge. Not that the tactic is not going to be tried by those who do not want such identities to develop.

[surinder]

My safest guess would be that MKG had long decided, subtle "friendly" manipulation and arm-twisting of the British with due concessions was the only way he could develop his nascent objectives fro India. He had probably taken his lessons well from those Indians who had decided to take the really "non-cooperative" route.

If the guiding reason why MKG was acting diffident with British and careful of not antogonizing their core interest was because he feared liquidation, then he could well have "opposed" Bose in a mild half-hearted manner. Not really hurting Bose's cause, but offering platitudes of generic peace talk for British ears; Gandhi certainly was capable of such things. But his opposition to Bose & Bhagat was real and substantial and sustained and strong. So much so it continued even after independence, and still does in the manner of not giving INA its due in our text books (not recognizing the INA freeing up Andamans before the so-called British granted freedom in 1947). If I am not mistaken, Nehru et. al after indpendence did not accomodate INA soldiers, and even supported their trial. Something doesn't add up.

[Keshav]

This unexplainable thing (along with many other bizzare things the Mahatma did) only leads me to suspect that MKG was a British project. He was more hand-in-glove with the British than is generally accepted. Either he was intellectually taken in by them (despite his loud claims) or was simple a puppet in their clever hands. Worst case, he was their agent or asset. Something just does not make sense.

Did Gandhi actively encourage Indians to become soldiers of the British during WWII?

Thinking that he was a British project seems conspiratorial but saying they didn't use him is naive. Part of it was luck, but if you think this was some secret, puppet master like scheme, I would say you're wrong.

The ways they influenced Gandhi's decision making would have been simple - they could have sent him a letter, sat down with him or had delegations make it clear that certain concessions wouldn't be made. The whole process seems a lot more mundane than what people are proposing here.

[brihaspati]

Surinderji,
MKG was simply reflecting a certain "elite" group interests and was not alone in this. In this forum itself, I came across the justification given even now from someone with services background that expressed standard negative attitudes towards "mutiny". To a lot of the those who served as the backbone of the Raj, people like Bose and his INA (actually the forces formed by another Bose, Rashbehari - connected to the movements of Bhagat Singh), or the uprisings by the "naval ratings" represent a threat to their bootlicking existence which is cloaked under high-sounding doctrines of duty and commitment etc.

There has been a lot of discussion on how artifical "military" classes were created - essentially those who sided with the British or looked after their interests, were created the "martial races". A similar process of reward and recognition had won over loyalty of a section of Indians who were as detached from their native land and culture as the British could be. These were people traditionally perhaps brought up without any core foundational ideology or values or principles. For them everything goes except their birth one. You will see a lot of them still existing in the rashtryia setup. These are the people who do not find anything worthwhile in their origins, and have to invent it in external structures. Most likely to have been brought up to believe in the exceptional superiority of their birth in a particular social subgroup or clan, and all else as inferior by birth. They can therefore find it most difficult to identify with those of "inferior birth", and think of them as only fit for subservience and "command". They will remain a dangerous enemy. However, they have simply to be identified and we have to be careful about them.

JLN initially had openly declared in his dramatic style, which I am sure many BRFites now would have found ludicrous, promised to resist "Bose" with an open sword. He rapidly switched his stance when public anger began to express itself over the trial of the detained INA officers. He again did his drama and put on his lawyer's gown ostensibly to defend the officers. But JLN must have been aware of Bose's potential as a rival claimant to the "throne", so he would have done everything possible to suppress Bose's memory, and he would have every reasons to fear Bose's "return". Such a return would have been the nightmare of the careful British plans to install a "favourabale" gov. Bose could have been an unpredictable factor in the armed forces equation - as only he among the "nationalists" had come any close to command experience, and did command loyalty of the majority of his forces. The pro-British portion of the Indian Army would also have reasons to fear Bose's return. Bose's nationalist leanings, his popularity among Muslims and Sikhs could again have caused trouble in the elaborate plans of the British for a communal partition.

MKG, JLN were not only pursuing their personal inclinations and ambitions, but also representing a coalition of class interests, that involved Indian elite of British benefit-origin, the British neo-imperialist interests, and those among the rashtryia machinery personnel who believed that everything that they had obtained was with British blessings.

Significantly the wide network of repressive policing carried on by Indian collaborators and personnel against the nationalists or freedom-fighters were never punished. I have not seen it in the "Leftist" regimes either (i.e. punishing gross human rights violations on alleged "Leftist" victims when the Leftists were not in power). Such personnel always come in handy for the new regime.

In India, INA could be tried of course, but never a trial - never even a public affixiing and identification of those guilty of unspeakable crimes in the communal riots of 47. Trials and punishments appear to be reserved for entities like the INA, the naval ratings for their uprisings, or in case of riots, if "Hindus" can be assigned the role of the sole guilty party. Don't we see a pattern here?

[brihaspati]

As for Netaji's late views on "communal question", we have this from an address to the students of Tokyo University in November, 1944.

On the question of National unity, I should like to give you a friendly warning that British propaganda tries to give the world the impression that the Muslims of India do not support the independence movement. This is wrong. Very often you read in the papers about certain organizations like the Muslim League or the Hindu Mahasabha. The British boost these organizations, because they are in their policy pro-British and are against the Indian National Congress, and they try to make out that the Muslim League represents the Muslims of India. But that is British propaganda. The fact is that the Muslim League and its leader , Mr. Jinnah, represent only a minority of the Indian Muslims. The majority of the Indian Muslims are nationalists and they support the independence movement, as much as anyone else. The President of the Indian National Congress is a Muslim, and so are many other members of the congress, many of whom are in prison today.

In the same speech, Bose gives an interesting twist to MKG's thought process - it is indeed surprising to find this in Bose even after Tripuri :

In dealing with this question of our reaction to these outside influences, I must first point out that there is a big gulf between our generation and the last generation. As typical exponents of the last generation, I would like to mention Tagore and Gandhi. They represent for us the last generation, and between their thoughts and ideas and the thoughts and ideas of our generation there is a big gulf.

If you study the works of Tagore and Gandhi, you will find that all along there is a conflict in their minds as to what their reaction to the Western influence should be. So far as Mahatma Gandhi is concerned, he has never given us any clear solution this problem. He has left people in doubt as to what his attitude is toward the acceptance of Western ideas. Generally speaking, his attitude is one of antagonism. But in actual practice he has not always acted in accordance with his own ideas, the reason being that the rest of the countrie do not share that hostility or antagonism which Mahatma Gandhi personally has toward Western ideas and concepts.

You all know about Mahatma Gandhi's attitude on the question of violence of physical force. He does not advocate the use of arms, or the shedding of blood of the enemy for gaining one's freedom. This attitude towards violence or physical force is closely related to his general attitude toward foreign influence, particularly Western influence.

Our generation has followed Mahatma Gandhi as the leader of a political struggle, but has not accepted his ideas on all these questions. Therefore, it would be a mistake to take Mahatma Gandhi as the exponent of the thoughts and ideas of the present generation in India.

In my view, both passages show Bose's fundamentally idealistic characterization of MKG, and therefore Bose's limitation in politics. In trying to characterize politicians from idealistic categories, we will always make mistakes. Bose's suspicion of "Marxism" and "communism" sits oddly with his preference for "western" methods in general. In reality he proves to be more antagonistic to the "west" than MKG. "Marxist" method of analysis would have been valuable to Bose to understand the class interests that connected MKG with rising western Indian capitalists, and British imperial interests, as a troika each of whose members was trying to use the other two for their respective objectives.

MKG and his then minions around the Tripuri congress period, showed the advantages of dropping ethics in the search for personal power.

This is a fundamental problem of apparatus of political power. MKG's goals were perhaps ethical, but to achieve this he needed to gain control over the apparatus of state (rashtra) power, and for him, it meant making the apparatus of state power dependent on his apparatus of personal power. If to achieve this, he needed to drop ethics, then he could justify it, as ultimately upholding the "higher" purpose. He saw Bose as a rival and an obstruction to this process of making the apparatus of state power dependent on his apparatus of personal power. Problem was, he did not realize that his minions would learn the technique too well, to outsmart him in the end.

A Chanakyan open admission of such strategies is perhaps much better for future scenarios.

[Pranav]

This is a fundamental problem of apparatus of political power. MKG's goals were perhaps ethical, but to achieve this he needed to gain control over the apparatus of state (rashtra) power, and for him, it meant making the apparatus of state power dependent on his apparatus of personal power.

Brihaspati ji, how did MKG make the apparatus of state power dependent on his apparatus of personal power? Care to elaborate?

[ramana]

This unexplainable thing (along with many other bizzare things the Mahatma did) only leads me to suspect that MKG was a British project. He was more hand-in-glove with the British than is generally accepted. Either he was intellectually taken in by them (despite his loud claims) or was simple a puppet in their clever hands. Worst case, he was their agent or asset. Something just does not make sense.

Did Gandhi actively encourage Indians to become soldiers of the British during WWII?

Thinking that he was a British project seems conspiratorial but saying they didn't use him is naive. Part of it was luck, but if you think this was some secret, puppet master like scheme, I would say you're wrong.

The ways they influenced Gandhi's decision making would have been simple - they could have sent him a letter, sat down with him or had delegations make it clear that certain concessions wouldn't be made. The whole process seems a lot more mundane than what people are proposing here.

I dont know about that. However when Lt. Gen PS. Bhagat met him in Poona he told him to stick around in the Army as Independent India needed capable officers.

Veer Savarkar exhorted Indian youth to join the military so that they can get military training.

BTW, Mahatma Gandhi led a non-combatant medical service group in WWI. I believe this is a significant insight into his mind.

[brihaspati]

Pranavji,
the period around the Tripuri Congress was when the Congress was spreading itself organizationally as well as legislative-executive governmentwise, through the provincial legislatures and ministries. MKG saw that if someone could become organizationally dominant over Congress, he would be in a position to dominate future state power as and when opportunities arose to "capture" rashtryia power in India. If this person could become organizationally dominant as proven through elections to the top post, without being seen to two MKG's lines or showing devotion to him, or without caring to take his "blessing" - was serious damage to MKG's apparatus of personal power. Bose's independent grip over the rank and file of Congress would mean impossibility of making the future apparatus of state power dependent on MKG's apparatus of personal power.

The details of MKG's "ethics" in the background of his "fast" at Rajkot, his private statements as recorded by his secretary, his multifaceted posturings on the "Pant" resolution, all exist as history. If the "guarding beasts" were barking and baring their fangs, the master was closeby, egging them on.

[brihaspati]

MKG's ethics was clearly demonstrated in his argument in favour of recruitment for war, in WWI, in favour of the British - he clearly stated that with this he hoped to have more leverage in negotiations with the British. (His personal statements, and Montagu's comments). So here he was prepared to provide for "increasing violence" (providing more soldiers to one side is obviously one method) to achieve a "higher" purpose.

[shiv]

Did Gandhi actively encourage Indians to become soldiers of the British during WWII?

It's been a while since I read Sarila's book but I do recall a comment that says that neither Gandhi nor Nehru actively opposed the recruitment that was going on, which they could have done. Gandhi certainly had enough clout.

I think that while Gandhi opposed British rule, he did not want Hitler to win.

India in the 1930s was a volatile place (as it remains now) - it would have required a great deal of influence and courage to hold that India in one piece and become leader. And India did produce a lot of good leaders.

It gives me hope.

[brihaspati]

Gandhi’s “open” letter to the British people (1940) (Collected works) where I believe we can hopefully read his intentions of Hitler not winning war :
“I want you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings… If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child to be slaughtered… I am telling His Excellency the Viceroy that my services are at the disposal of His Majesty’s government, should they consider them of any practical use in enhancing my appeal.”

[raji]

Hello Surinder,

India has already lost the battle.

India will be all Islamic in the near future.

The only question is whether it will be in 50 years or a 100.

[brihaspati]

Only one of the possibilities. There are many others. Complete Christianization, complete Naxalization, etc. But why remove the posibility of a "Hindu-ization" completely?

[svinayak]

Brihaspati,

When a set of assumptions don't lead to a comfortable acceptable conclusions, one must be willing to question the assumption itself. If MKG was as virulently fight the British as is portrayed, there was an excellent example shown by Bose. MKG could have easily distanced himself from Bose, while providing him cover and getting concessions from the British at Bose's expense. He could have (as an example) encouraged the Indians to en masse resign from the British Indian Army, since he was supposedly already opposed to violence. This would have crippled the British in a manner nothing would have. But he curiously did not. His opposition to Bose was virulent, but his opposition to British was chummy chummy and brotherly. (it should have been the other way round).

This unexplainable thing (along with many other bizzare things the Mahatma did) only leads me to suspect that MKG was a British project. He was more hand-in-glove with the British than is generally accepted. Either he was intellectually taken in by them (despite his loud claims) or was simple a puppet in their clever hands. Worst case, he was their agent or asset. Something just does not make sense.

Surinder, We know where you are leading to. I would look at both MKG and Bose as both sincere in their ideals and motives. You have to understand the scale of the population and centuries of oppressions and misery of the people. India was coming out of two types of imperialism both Islamic imperialism and European imperialism. This is a mighty challenge.

[svinayak]

In India, INA could be tried of course, but never a trial - never even a public affixiing and identification of those guilty of unspeakable crimes in the communal riots of 47. Trials and punishments appear to be reserved for entities like the INA, the naval ratings for their uprisings, or in case of riots, if "Hindus" can be assigned the role of the sole guilty party. Don't we see a pattern here?

This is significant. This legacy is still being carried out in modern India even after 60 years of independence.

[svinayak]

Hello Surinder,

India has already lost the battle.

India will be all Islamic in the near future.

The only question is whether it will be in 50 years or a 100.

On what basis will you say this

[raji]

[quote="AcharyaOn what basis will you say this[/quote]

Historical continuom.

Since the first Islamic invasion into Sindh by Caliph Umar's forces in 644 AD, the numbers, political strength, military strength (I include Pak and BD in India) and cohesiveness of Muslims have increased in India. If you graph it, it has increased almost in a straight line. Very few historical trends if graphed, have a straighter line and those that do relate to those peoples or tribes that have ultimately become extinct(culturally), such as the Native American tribes.

At the same time, the graph of the Hindus have declined in almost an converse straight line. I say almost because there have been some isolated victories by Hindus such as the BanglaDesh war, Maratha emergence during Shivaji and some of his successors, Ranjit Singh's victories etc.

With each advance made by muslims in India, of either numbers, political strength, military strength etc, their further advances have accelerated and the Hindu decline has been accelerated. Their internal political strength and the existence of Pak and BD with the strategic depth they have in the form of the entire Islamic world, and in turn the entire clout of the Islamic world, prevents the Hindus from asserting themselves within India, even those few Hindu groups and organizations who dare to even try.

While everyone seems to be rejoicing in the civil war going on in Pak, it is quite clear that what is happening there is another consolidation of the extreme extremism and the defeat of what in Islamic context passes for some mild moderation. This consolidation in favor of the extreme is just another staging event for another major onslaught on India by expansionist, extremist and imperialist Islam, which started in 644 AD and has continued unabated since. The onslaught this time will take the form, not of a conventional war, such as waged by Gauri or Gaznavi, but a guerilla war of attrition on several fronts (Nepal, Sri Lanka, BD, Assam, NE, JK), gradually bleeding the already suicidal Hindus whose actions will further exacerbate their death. This onslaught this time will make J&K for the last 2 decades as a picnic in the park.

Any effective counter to this onslaught will be severely curtailed by 1) Hindus own weakness and lack of foresight and historical perspective, 2) The clout of the domestic muslims, 3) Pak and BD, and 4) The pressure exerted by the entire muslim world directly on India and indirectly through the West, who will be pressured to pressure India in exchange for keeping Islamic attacks away from Western homelands.

[shiv]

Gandhi’s “open” letter to the British people (1940) (Collected works) where I believe we can hopefully read his intentions of Hitler not winning war :
“I want you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings… If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child to be slaughtered… I am telling His Excellency the Viceroy that my services are at the disposal of His Majesty’s government, should they consider them of any practical use in enhancing my appeal.”

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/arti ... itler.html

Gandhi's letters to Hitler by Koenrad Elst

However, while not giving up on the chance of converting Hitler to more peaceful ways, Gandhi was not that mild in judging the crimes Hitler had already committed. In particular, he criticized the already well-publicized Nazi conviction that the strong have a right to subdue the weak: "But your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave no room for doubt that many of your acts are monstrous and unbecoming of human dignity, especial�ly in the estimation of men like me who believe in human friendline�ss. Such are your humiliation of Czechoslovakia, the rape of Poland and the swallowing of Denmark. I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading humanity."

So, Gandhi felt forced to join the ranks of Hitler's opponents: "Hence we cannot possibly wish success to your arms." Yet this did not make him join the British war effort nor even some non-violent department of the British Empire's cause: "But ours is a unique position. We resist British imperialism no less than Nazism." To Gandhi, British imperialism is closely akin to Nazi imperialism: "If there is a difference, it is in degree. One-fifth of the human race has been brought under the British heel by means that will not bear scrutiny."

In outlining his position vis-�-vis British imperialism, Gandhi at once explained his attitude vis-�-vis Nazism: "Our resistance to it does not mean harm to the British people. We seek to convert them, not to defeat them on the battle-field." This was exactly what Gandhi was now trying out on Hitler: to convert him rather than defeat him, thus sparing him defeat if only he had listened.

[shiv]

Hello Surinder,

India has already lost the battle.

India will be all Islamic in the near future.

The only question is whether it will be in 50 years or a 100.

Raji - IMO the battle can still be won and all the elements are in place.

But everything needs to come out into the open. There is no way Hindutva can be both inclusive and exclusive. Any attempt to make Hindutva inclusive would, IMO be a mistake. This my current (and changed view). I used to believe that inclusivity is possible - but I now believe that this view of mine was a misguided thought process. Hindutva has to work as a unified and exclusivist force to establish and preserve the place of Hindus in India. Anything less is doomed to fail.

You cannot fight exclusivism by inclusion. At best this leads to dilution of both doctrines, and at worst the inclusive doctrine loses.

[ShauryaT]

Hello Surinder,

India has already lost the battle.

India will be all Islamic in the near future.

The only question is whether it will be in 50 years or a 100.

Raji - IMO the battle can still be won and all the elements are in place.

But everything needs to come out into the open. There is no way Hindutva can be both inclusive and exclusive. Any attempt to make Hindutva inclusive would, IMO be a mistake. This my current (and changed view). I used to believe that inclusivity is possible - but I now believe that this view of mine was a misguided thought process. Hindutva has to work as a unified and exclusivist force to establish and preserve the place of Hindus in India. Anything less is doomed to fail.

You cannot fight exclusivism by inclusion. At best this leads to dilution of both doctrines, and at worst the inclusive doctrine loses.

I hope, this view is limited only to the doctrines and not to the masses, who can be part of an inclusive polity of the Indian Nation. The understanding being that the exclusive doctrines shall have no place in this Nation.

Added: Also, please elaborate on the above.

[raji]

Hello Surinder,

India has already lost the battle.

India will be all Islamic in the near future.

The only question is whether it will be in 50 years or a 100.

Raji - IMO the battle can still be won and all the elements are in place.

But everything needs to come out into the open. There is no way Hindutva can be both inclusive and exclusive. Any attempt to make Hindutva inclusive would, IMO be a mistake. This my current (and changed view). I used to believe that inclusivity is possible - but I now believe that this view of mine was a misguided thought process. Hindutva has to work as a unified and exclusivist force to establish and preserve the place of Hindus in India. Anything less is doomed to fail.

You cannot fight exclusivism by inclusion. At best this leads to dilution of both doctrines, and at worst the inclusive doctrine loses.

The contest between the concept of Hindu exclusivism and Hindu inclusivism is just a red herring. It is irrelevent. In fact, this distinction and its discussion are just a distraction from the main issue. The main issue is Hindu weaknesses, which were there to begin with, but have gotten more and more stark with every battering, which have been continuous for centuries.

Hindu weaknesses are more fundamental than this high minded debate of exclusivity or inclusivity. Hindu weaknesses can be summed up in one word......CORRUPTION. Hindu corruption has the following children. 1) Propensity to devise ingenious ways to be internally devisive, whether it be caste, sub caste, varna, jati.......vaati, raati, kaati.....2) Propensity among Hindu individuals to viscerally dislike other Hindus, 3) Propensity of Hindu individuals to blind ourselves with envy to the exclusion of all else including the most basic common sense, 4) Complete lack of courage, 5) Propensity to be in denial, 6) Propensity to make excuses, 7) Propensity to cover our basically infantile behaviour with high minded, useless, irrelevent and endless debates on nonsensical issues, Propensity to cover our weaknesses and inexplicable behaviour by characterizing them as "Chanakyan" 9) racism as a result of a severe inferiority complex............. I think you get my drift........

Please note that these weaknesses are very down to earth human weaknesses.......and require a concerted effort to single mindedly address them as behavioural and sociological issues..........not by discussing nebulous concepts such as 1) What is Hinduism, 2) what were its origins, 3) Whether Hinduism is indeed one religion, 4) whether Hindus ever identified themselves as Hindus and its consequences, 5) nature and origin of jaits, 6) nature and origin of varnas..and so on and so on and so on.......

Every battle is winnable.........as long as your side consists of normal human being......not even super human.......although, the kinda hole we are in at the moment.......it may require a super human and focussed down to earch practical effort...and action...........In other words, it is enough to learn from Gita that one should fight adharma wherever we can without worrying about the outcome.....without having a discourse on the color of Draupadi's Sari while she was being disrobed and its spiritual significance (the color's) or the number of horses in Arjuna's chariot and its spiritual significance..as a substitute for and to avoid an actual practical battle and all the messiness that comes with it....

[shiv]

Hindutva has to work as a unified and exclusivist force to establish and preserve the place of Hindus in India. Anything less is doomed to fail.

I hope, this view is limited only to the doctrines and not to the masses, who can be part of an inclusive polity of the Indian Nation. The understanding being that the exclusive doctrines shall have no place in this Nation.

Added: Also, please elaborate on the above.

Shaurya - At a very fundamental level, religion (and I am referring to Christianity and Islam as religion) has established firm roots in the human psyche all over the world and concepts like democracy and secularism are an overlay over the religious dogma.

Democracy and secularism "bypassed" religion to unite people who were divided by religion. The "religious divisions" that were united were originally sects of Christianity in Europe, but the principles of secularism "bypassing" religion and allowing democracy to work ended up being applicable in India and the US as much as in Europe.

I have stated time and time again that Christianity and Islam got one thing right. They never "bypassed" any other religion. they replaced it outright. Hence all religions that pre-dated Christianity and Islam are dead over most of the world.

When secularism and democracy were established they sneaked in to outmaneuver Christianity in a population tired of war. But even then religion was never replaced. This is true for any secular democratic state - the religion only takes a back seat to secular democracy, but the religion does not vanish because secularism and democracy do not seek to make religion vanish.

Western civilization spread on the wings of imperialism after secularism became the norm in the West and bypassed church rule, and what Western civilization did was to suppress and defeat Islam and take Hinduism to be a defeated "religion". So secularism in the world sits on what are assumed to be "defeated religions".

To Indians the fact that religion was in no way "defeated" was clear with the formation of Pakistan. Only the west did not understand that Pakistan was religion reasserting itself in a secular world. But India has still tried to bypass religion and preserve secularism.

But the Islam that reasserted itself with the formation of Pakistan is now threateing the secualr west and for the first time in centuries the people of the west are coming face to face with an aggressive religion that hates them for being themselves. They cannot find answers to this in their secular law-books and are rediscovering their Christian past. The fight against Islam from the West is necessarily going to be Chritsianity versus Islam affair and not a secularism and democracy versus Islam affair.

So where does this leave India? India has at least 3 unique characteristics:
1) It is neither Christian nor Islamic
2) It has the philosophical basis for a coexistence of religions without the need for a "bypassing" trick like secularism - a trick that neither Islam or Christianity have discovered
3) It is predominantly "Hindu' - an entity that is widely considered to be archaic, weird and defeated long ago, which makes it a hunting ground for the spread of religions.

Because of "Hindus" India is the only country in the world in which there is a coinciding of interest of the Church and Islam to cooperate for their own survival. his needs to be seen in the backdrop of the fact that Islam and Christianity are about to go to war in the rest of the world.

Support of the "Hindu" could be crucial to both Islam and Christianity in their global war against each other. A unified Hindu voice that represents neither Islam nor Christianity (Hindutva?) would be an asset in the global balancing game that I see emerging.

The "Hindu" can play this game several ways.

He can alienate Islam and ally with Christianity on the basis of ancient grievances against Islam

Or he can ally with Islam and fight the so called "Global Chrisitian imperialism" of the West

A third route is to use the opportunity to tell Indian Muslims and Christians in no uncertain terms that in India there is no question of joining global religious wars and they must learn to heel and coexist as Indic people have done through history with a view to keep out of the debilitating Christianity -Islam war and emerge stronger at the end. For the latter course - a powerful unified entity called Hindutva is essential or esle nobody will be in the mood to listen. Whether India does this by enforcing a more fair "secualrism" or by some form of "pluralism I don't know. But India will have to enforce some things. In the absence of strong Hindutva India will become the religious playground of the warring religions.

Just some random thoughts

[shiv]

Hindu weaknesses are more fundamental than this high minded debate of exclusivity or inclusivity. Hindu weaknesses can be summed up in one word......CORRUPTION. Hindu corruption has the following children. 1) Propensity to devise ingenious ways to be internally devisive, whether it be caste, sub caste, varna, jati.......vaati, raati, kaati.....2) Propensity among Hindu individuals to viscerally dislike other Hindus, 3) Propensity of Hindu individuals to blind ourselves with envy to the exclusion of all else including the most basic common sense, 4) Complete lack of courage, 5) Propensity to be in denial, 6) Propensity to make excuses, 7) Propensity to cover our basically infantile behaviour with high minded, useless, irrelevent and endless debates on nonsensical issues, Propensity to cover our weaknesses and inexplicable behaviour by characterizing them as "Chanakyan" 9) racism as a result of a severe inferiority complex............. I think you get my drift.........

But raji - I see Hinduism's greatest weakness as its libertarianism which allows all these to exist freely without a rigid code clamping down on anyone or anything. This is where religions like Islam and Christianity scored - they offered a rigid code to score short term goals.

One method of "cleaning up" Hinduism of its libertarian problems is conversion - but even that does not work fully. Hinduism could borrow usable principles from Islam and Christianity and reapply them as Hindu. But while this would perhaps improve governance, it would still not protect "Hinduism" from the assault from other religions that it is seen as having suffered.

"Hindutva" itself seems to me to be a unique response to that. Its invention and its support seem to have the hallmarks of a natural and evolutionary response of a civilization to a type of stress. Hindutva too will need "cleaning up" if it perpetuates all the faults that developed in a libertarian Hindu society. If internal correction does not occur events and evolution will either modify or break Hindutva.

[surinder]

Did Gandhi actively encourage Indians to become soldiers of the British during WWII?

I think that while Gandhi opposed British rule, he did not want Hitler to win.

Keshav,

Yes, MKG encouraged Indians to join the army. He did, as Brihaspati pointed out, encourage violence in support of British. Why he would think that British interests met the criteria of violence, but Indian interests do not meet that bar is beyond me. Perhaps he held British security & independence above the Indian independence.

[surinder]

Raji,

Welcome back!!!

What you say is true.

[raji]

[quote="shiv]
But raji - I see Hinduism's greatest weakness as its libertarianism which allows all these to exist freely without a rigid code clamping down on anyone or anything. This is where religions like Islam and Christianity scored - they offered a rigid code to score short term goals.

One method of "cleaning up" Hinduism of its libertarian problems is conversion - but even that does not work fully. Hinduism could borrow usable principles from Islam and Christianity and reapply them as Hindu. But while this would perhaps improve governance, it would still not protect "Hinduism" from the assault from other religions that it is seen as having suffered.

"Hindutva" itself seems to me to be a unique response to that. Its invention and its support seem to have the hallmarks of a natural and evolutionary response of a civilization to a type of stress. Hindutva too will need "cleaning up" if it perpetuates all the faults that developed in a libertarian Hindu society. If internal correction does not occur events and evolution will either modify or break Hindutva.[/quote]

1. You do realize the difference between allowing different thought (plusralism, which is a good thing) and allowing corruption. So are you saying that the same impulses in Hinduism that accomodate pluralism also accomodates corruption in the same way ? In other words, Hinduism makes no distinction or value judgement between, say, a good value, which is tolerance for different thought and a bad value....allowing Hindus to dislike each other.....envy each other......be cowards....be argumentative.........be the most action averse people in the history of mankind (Info Murthy made a statement to exactly this effect, recently). If you are saying that, you have come around to my way of thinking.

2. You mean to say that Hinduism allows for corruption, more than other religions ? That it doesnt have a specific sanction mechanism against corruption ? If you are saying so, you are coming around to my way of thinking.

3. So, because Hinduism doesnt very explicitly prescribe governance in the same way as other religions, it is different in nature, maybe just a philosophy covering certain aspects of individual and social life, not all. Is that such a bad thing ? I think not. Is it a weakness of a religion ? I think not.

4. Where a religion does not address certain issues, the answer is not to jettison it, but to continue to take all the positive aspects of it and then fill in the blanks yourself, as individuals or in an organized way. This can be done in two ways......1) Reforming the religion itself, to insert in the religion, for example, the missing sanctions against corruption, that you allude to and/or 2) Just come up with civil, secular sanctions, but with the aim of protecting the Hindus from persecution.......you dont necessarily have to have religious sanction to protect a certain group of people and their culture (whether self identified or identified as such by others).......you just need to have the will and most importantly SURVIVAL INSTINCT...........which brings me to the last point in this post....

5. This is a classic chicken or the egg scenario. Which comes first.....sanctions against corruption or cleansing from corruption first......it seems, you cant begin to contemplate, leave aside, establish and enforce sanctions against corruption, unless you have started cleansing your self of it in the first place, at least to a point, where you dont deny its existence amongst us and realize the need to have sanctions......a unique form of denial among Hindus, for example, is to go completely off on a tangent and start a dissertation on how some of these sanctions actually existed in Hinduism as practised by Chanakya during Mauryas or an even earlier murky period when the Vedas were written.....in response to this specific and targetted discussion...........

[raji]

While we are on the subject of sanctions, before we prescribe sanctions, we have to define what exactly has to be sanctioned. Many things. But lets start with one.

All castes, classes, jaatis, varnas, groups, sub groups within Hinduism should be erased and any attempt to perpetuate any activity or discussion based on these divisions should be banned and sanctioned. These should be done, not beacuse that is the moral thing to do, which it is.........but because it is the only practical way of organizing a billion diverse individuals into one lean, mean, efficient and most importantly a FAIR society.......strong enough to protect itself, strong enough to generate sufficient resources on its own that it doesnt have to engage in conquest of others and strong enough to have vibrant and pluralistic thought and debate.......which will evolve great ideas for the betterment of all mankind and let those ideas be a gift and a contribution of Hindus to all mankind......

Even if all these castes etc may have had innocuous or natural origins, which I dont believe, they have long outlived their usefulness(if there ever was any, which I dont believe) and the need of the hour, where we are just a billion different individuals, not a unit......is to do away with this monstrosity, as a practical solution. This is our last hope.....if the battle for survival has to be won by the Hindus...Even if we are all actually different and have nothing else in common, no one can deny the one commonality........that whoever victimizes a Hindu......looks at all of us as being the same.....and persecutes all of us equally......and we are all equal losers......so even if victimhood is our only commonality(which I dont believe it is), it is very unnatural for all victims to not band together in a unified and organized group to protect themselves. In my opinion, the thing that prevents the victims from coming together is this nonsensical division based on caste etc.

The sanction ? Anyone violating the above commandment should be sentenced to cleaning toilets (other people's, as everyone should be cleaning their own toilets anyway) !

[shiv]

2. You mean to say that Hinduism allows for corruption, more than other religions ?

Well here is what you said

1) Propensity to devise ingenious ways to be internally devisive, whether it be caste, sub caste, varna, jati.......vaati, raati, kaati.....2) Propensity among Hindu individuals to viscerally dislike other Hindus, 3) Propensity of Hindu individuals to blind ourselves with envy to the exclusion of all else including the most basic common sense, 4) Complete lack of courage, 5) Propensity to be in denial, 6) Propensity to make excuses, 7) Propensity to cover our basically infantile behaviour with high minded, useless, irrelevent and endless debates on nonsensical issues, 8) Propensity to cover our weaknesses and inexplicable behaviour by characterizing them as "Chanakyan" 9) racism as a result of a severe inferiority complex.

The problem word is "corruption". There are certain things that are fine and dandy for Indians/Hindus which are described as corruption.

In his book "The Indians" by Sudhir Kakar he recounts the answer given by a minor political leader about handing over the reins of power to his son.

One person objects and asks him if this is not nepotism. The sarcastic reply he gets is "If I don't hand over power to my own son, whose son do you think I should hand over to - YOUR son?

In another example the clerk in the government office endures that applications from his village and his community are the only ones that pass through the system, because when he is in trouble it is those people who will help him and it is those very people who are caring for his elderly parents.

In a sense both these people are being "dharmic" - but they ar corrupt in another sense of the term.

Please tell me of other religions that allow some of the more socially distasteful Tantric practices to exist. The meaning of "socially distasteful" itself comes into question.

In India minor dishonesty like pilferage is deliberately overlooked in social transactions. A laborer gets paid a pittance for his work, but he is loyal and dependable, and he steals a few fruit and some grain regularly. That is overlooked "because he is poor"

India has its own standards for law and order and corruption. A chain snatcher grabs and snatches a necklace. He is caught and beaten black and blue by a crowd. Then the question of handing him over to the police comes he begs and the beat constable says that "He has received punishment", gives him a whack on his backside and lets him off - saving himself the trouble of lodging a complaint.

Islam has a clear penal code that punishes actions "as per the book". To my knowledge Hindus have no such generally accepted penal code. If it exists - it s certainly not followed in India. Sharia is better implemented in India which forces the Muslim to do good for his community more than he is required to do for others. A Muslim can charge another Muslim less and a non Muslim more for the same services. The Hindu businessman will rip everyone off. His dharma is to avoid tax (which will not benefit him) and make profits. The Muslim too wil avoid tax, but he will pay zakat for his community.

[svinayak]

In India minor dishonesty like pilferage is deliberately overlooked in social transactions. A laborer gets paid a pittance for his work, but he is loyal and dependable, and he steals a few fruit and some grain regularly. That is overlooked "because he is poor"

Even in US minor money transaction are used for favor.

[shiv]

In India minor dishonesty like pilferage is deliberately overlooked in social transactions. A laborer gets paid a pittance for his work, but he is loyal and dependable, and he steals a few fruit and some grain regularly. That is overlooked "because he is poor"

Even in US minor money transaction are used for favor.

Yes Acharyaji - but does the US have any minimum wage laws? Or is that too just like India, where we pay people too little and then say "Anyway he gets all those perks"