Bharat Rakshak

i think it's important that one avoid all mention of the "Pan" word. it will become easy prey for the assorted India haters. also, in the Atlanticist mind, which makes the foreign policy of US, "pan"-ism is very similar to Germany's Mitteleuropa.

having said that, the overall idea of creating a basic social contract for the South Asian peoples is not a bad idea. broadly speaking, the US model of absorbing immigrants has some valuable lessons for India. the basic US social contract is that immigrants will gradually adopt local cultures and systems. if not the first generation, then by the 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants will have become Americanized. the important aspect of this is that the US provides and expects immigrants to accept a social contract. in this sense, the presence of a social contract as a way to form a common culture among South Asians could be a very valuable thing for the Indic culture.

devesh wrote:i think it's important that one avoid all mention of the "Pan" word. it will become easy prey for the assorted India haters. also, in the Atlanticist mind, which makes the foreign policy of US, "pan"-ism is very similar to Germany's Mitteleuropa.

The prefix "Pan-" is very important! Whereas "Subcontinentalism" can mean anything, like "Third World", or "Balkanization" or "Hindu-Muslim conflict", the word "Pan-" clearly underlines, that it refers to a belief, an ideology, and that it involves looking at the Subcontinent as one entity.

Those who want to hate India, are free to do so!

devesh wrote:having said that, the overall idea of creating a basic social contract for the South Asian peoples is not a bad idea. broadly speaking, the US model of absorbing immigrants has some valuable lessons for India. the basic US social contract is that immigrants will gradually adopt local cultures and systems. if not the first generation, then by the 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants will have become Americanized. the important aspect of this is that the US provides and expects immigrants to accept a social contract. in this sense, the presence of a social contract as a way to form a common culture among South Asians could be a very valuable thing for the Indic culture.

Even as your focus is on "social contract" with which I agree, it needs to be underlined that we speak of natives, natives of the soil, and not immigrants.

Immigrants come in one by one into an established system, and they then brew in the melting pot. Natives of the Subcontinent, have for our purposes, always been there. So this is about giving them first an identity - Subcontinental and Pan-Subcontinentalist. It is then about letting him know, what such an identity entails - "the social contract".

Secondly "South Asia" is a term, most on BRF and if I may say so, I especially, find silly and colonial. It is colonial, because it stresses that the region is merely a geographic expression, and not a civilizational unit.

The region is called Indian Subcontinent, home of the Indian Civilization!

The term "Indian Ocean" would be more acceptable than India....so it could be Indian Ocean Countries, and guess who is going to be left out? China, America, Europe ityadi. The good name earned after our Independence and NAM days will make us appealing to the freedom loving African countries.

^^ That is the same name VS Naipaul used in "A Bend in the River"....for the countries you mentioned..

This is an interesting discussion.

Like any other Indian, I too would like a unified India, an 'Akhand Bharat' if you may. To think about Geographic expansion as a taboo, as something that is antithesis to Indic philosophy is one of the deficiencies in Indian strategic thought. Its only been 60 something years that India has been divided, on a scale of time of existence of Indian civilization, this period would appear like a speck. To me, reclaiming our lost lands should be one of the major objectives of the Indian nation in the next 100 years. Without their current occupants, obviously. All this talk of reforming their version of Islam, nudging them towards a more pluralistic, tolerant strand of Islam (which never existed & will not, ever), does not hold water. The current events as they unfold in West Asia, and as events will unfold in the near future in Europe & god forbid, India, adding more Mohammedans to India is the 'aa bail mujhe maar' act that other posters have spoken of in this discussion.

I am just a layman, I don't understand what Rajesh ji implies by this new Nationalism of Pan-Subcontinentalism..I think the only nationalism that can facilitate & sustain this unification is the Hindu nationalism.

From reading the discussion, I picked up four major points -

a. India should take back its lost lands
b. India should not accommodate the current occupants of these lands into its population
c. It is next to impossible to reform these people or made to lose their hatred towards Indics & their own non-Indic heritage
d. Genocide is not an option

To me, and with all standard disclaimers in place, it appears that the only assumptions that could be tweaked are the first and last. When most people agree that we should definitely take back the territory we lost; that adding the current occupants of these lands to Indian population is a terribly bad idea; that these people cannot be reformed & made to lose their hatred towards Indics & their non-Islamic heritage then stating the statement (d) appears contradictory.

We know how we lost these lands, a process that ran over a period of 500-600 years, and amongst its instruments being the G-term. Why should it be believed that process of taking back the land will not employ similar tools?

the America immigration example was just to show that it is possible for non American culture to become assimilated into American culture. in the Indian context, it refers to the possibility of re-assimilating Pakis and BDeshis into a more cohesive Indian way of thinking. i believe that should be the priority. the challenge is how can we convert these people into our way (Sanatana Dharmic way) of thinking? they can still be muslims, although reconversion should not be discouraged, but should be more amenable to the long term views of Indic Civilization.

Chandragupta wrote:This is an interesting discussion.

Like any other Indian, I too would like a unified India, an 'Akhand Bharat' if you may. To think about Geographic expansion as a taboo, as something that is antithesis to Indic philosophy is one of the deficiencies in Indian strategic thought. Its only been 60 something years that India has been divided, on a scale of time of existence of Indian civilization, this period would appear like a speck. To me, reclaiming our lost lands should be one of the major objectives of the Indian nation in the next 100 years. Without their current occupants, obviously. All this talk of reforming their version of Islam, nudging them towards a more pluralistic, tolerant strand of Islam (which never existed & will not, ever), does not hold water. The current events as they unfold in West Asia, and as events will unfold in the near future in Europe & god forbid, India, adding more Mohammedans to India is the 'aa bail mujhe maar' act that other posters have spoken of in this discussion.

I am just a layman, I don't understand what Rajesh ji implies by this new Nationalism of Pan-Subcontinentalism..I think the only nationalism that can facilitate & sustain this unification is the Hindu nationalism.

From reading the discussion, I picked up four major points -

a. India should take back its lost lands
b. India should not accommodate the current occupants of these lands into its population
c. It is next to impossible to reform these people or made to lose their hatred towards Indics & their own non-Indic heritage
d. Genocide is not an option

To me, and with all standard disclaimers in place, it appears that the only assumptions that could be tweaked are the first and last. When most people agree that we should definitely take back the territory we lost; that adding the current occupants of these lands to Indian population is a terribly bad idea; that these people cannot be reformed & made to lose their hatred towards Indics & their non-Islamic heritage then stating the statement (d) appears contradictory.

We know how we lost these lands, a process that ran over a period of 500-600 years, and amongst its instruments being the G-term. Why should it be believed that process of taking back the land will not employ similar tools?

I appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

I think, we diverge in our views based on an assumption - that the non-Indic people of the Indian Subcontinent cannot be brought into the Indic mainstream.

I can only offer a few theories, why this divergence could be taking place.

1. When we claim, that the non-Indic Subcontinental population cannot be made Indic-compatible, we are basically conceding that our own beliefs (Dharmic thought, Pride in the Hindu Civilization), our nationalism (be it Hindu Nationalism, Indian Nationalism), our social intelligence (Indian Constitution, Dharmic Path) are all incompetent, lack the force of persuasion and are inferior than the other - say Islam, or Christianity, Marxism, Macaulayism, etc. If such a perception of inferiority exists, than any nationalism based on this would be useless. If however we have faith in our philosophy, we should have faith in ourselves, that we will prevail.

2. The Hindus need to do some deep thinking as to why we lost ground and may still be losing ground. We need to think, why there has been attrition in our flock, and may still be taking place, even though the Dharmics have three very important factors going in their favor - demographic strength, military might (though perhaps not at the local level), and money! As such, the reason for the perception of failure in integrating non-Indics into the Indic mainstream may lie with the Hindus themselves, that despite the obvious successes of the Hindu leadership, the leadership has failed to assert Dharma over a large swathe of the population.

3. Generally speaking, I would say, anybody favoring something like "genocide" suffers from intellectual laziness, and the word is bandied around as if it was some magic wand to make things disappear. Have we reached such a level of intellectual paucity and desperation that we cannot think of strategies, on how to overcome the rifts in the Indian Subcontinent.

4. One mistake we often make is to make a model of just two states - the beginning and end states, and think that the only way to get there is the straight line, where we put a blindfold on our eyes and go on marching straight swinging our machetes, being led by the smell of our ideology sitting pretty in a bowl at the opposite end.

5. Ideology is for building one's army and reservoir of support amongst the people, but for an assault, the leadership needs to be guided by strategy, and strategy alone!

6. On this thread, one will not find much in the form of strategy!

devesh wrote:the America immigration example was just to show that it is possible for non American culture to become assimilated into American culture.

devesh ji, it was just a good example. I just added a few notes to it.

devesh wrote:in the Indian context, it refers to the possibility of re-assimilating Pakis and BDeshis into a more cohesive Indian way of thinking. i believe that should be the priority.

Quite correct. Pan-Subcontinentalism is modeled on Indian modern state mostly, but formally it needs to be considered as separate.

devesh wrote:the challenge is how can we convert these people into our way (Sanatana Dharmic way) of thinking?

• When the gulf is wide, one needs stepping stones.
• The child would more likely come to you, when you smile and not when you frown.

devesh wrote:they can still be muslims, although reconversion should not be discouraged, but should be more amenable to the long term views of Indic Civilization.

The focus should remain on giving pride to all the people in the Hindu/Indic Civilization, without putting up too many "religion" signboards.

RajeshAji, How about this mascot for the theme of this dhaga?

Narad ji,



herewith, I'd like to declare that you've won the unannounced competition for the official mascot of this dhaaga!

damn....is that a real pic??? Krishna prema is all pervading!!!

Narad wrote:RajeshAji, How about this mascot for the theme of this dhaga?

With Krishnaism being increasingly accepted as a socio-cultural movement in the Judeo-Christian societies, it wouldnt be surprising even if Islamic societies start doing the same, please note that this applies strictly only to Krishnaism as a subsect of Vaisnavism (wherein the diety Krishna is a monotheistic depiction and deviation away from the orthodox pantheon).

Orgs like HAF and ISKCON have to project the "real" image of Krishna as a legendary master of strategy and geopolitics, a patriotic nationalist desiring unity of the entire subcontinent under a single governance structure, this if done unconsciously will have a much intended beneficial effect for India, i.e. not being seen as simply a benign force which does not know how to use the tools at its disposal for its own purposes.

For people who have their ears close to the ground, the same trends could be applied and developed for the Ganesha diety as well.

Hussain Ahmad Madni, Presidential Address, Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Hind, Jaunpur, June 1940, and the answer to Jinnah-Iqbal-Muslim League:

"We, the inhabitants of India, in so far as we are Indians, have one thing in common and that is our Indianness which remains unchanged in spite of our religious and cultural differences. As the diversities in our appearances, individual qualities and personal traits and colour and status do no affect our common humanness, similarly our religious and cultural differences do interfere with our common associations with our homeland. Therefore, like other millats and non-Muslim religious and cultural groups, it is incumbent upon the Muslims to have concern with and struggle for the attainment of national interests and fight against the evils that hamper the country's progress and prosperity. Religious differences in no case serve as an impediment in the way of fulfilling this obligation. This is what I mean by the Muttahida Qaumiyat. The Congress having the same stand has made provisions in its fundamentals for the protection of all religions, cultures and languages. The European conception of nationalism or the outlook of certain individual Congressmen regarding the different interpretations of the Congress fundamentals is unacceptable to the Jamiat. It denounces it and is totally opposed to it."

Chandragupta wrote:I think the only nationalism that can facilitate & sustain this unification is the Hindu nationalism.

From reading the discussion, I picked up four major points -

a. India should take back its lost lands
b. India should not accommodate the current occupants of these lands into its population
c. It is next to impossible to reform these people or made to lose their hatred towards Indics & their own non-Indic heritage
d. Genocide is not an option

ChadraguptaJi, apologies for responding to a month old post - I just happened to see it.

I do agree on all of a.-d. and that our nation's need for resources has come to an end that we'll have to inevitably align our goals towards expanding territory. And I do believe that this expansion needs to be west-northwestwards exactly because Gandhaara-Kamboj was Indic and it offers us the best means of supporting our population.

However I don't agree that religion will be an effective motivation here. I think it's much more basic - land is needed to support our increasing population. I bear no prejudice against using religious motivation to achieve these aims, but I think using religion as a motivation or an ideology isn't going to be accepted very well given the current public opinion in India.

I think that public opinion is shaped by evidence of Indic culture having gradually subsumed what used to be non-Indic culture 2-3 centuries back in our republic. The mascot posted by NaradJi isn't a rarity but a trend of cohesivity that has built up post '47 in the republic. Extremism lives but is marginalized.

Of course, I agree with you that attempting to subsume non-Indic culture of present day Af-Pak is futile. Current occupants must simply be overrun and evicted.

PS: there was a bit of pow-wow on this topic (culture v/s material aims) in J&K thread last month too.

Changing the way we look at Pakistan

When I look back at my own childhood and what I was taught - I realise that from the early days I was taught about different countries - with Pakistan being one of those countries. India was a country. So were the US, Britain and Germany. Pakistan too was a country. Countries had certain characteristics. Encyclopaedias of my childhood taught me that countries had a unique geographical location and shape and their people apparently had unique characteristics. The English spoke English. Germans spoke German.

Countries were separate. Sacrosanct. Unique. They needed to be preserved. This was the stuff that was drilled into me from my English language textbooks. But over time I started suffering from cognitive dissonance. All the rules that I had been taught were true - were true only for some countries. They could be broken for others. This caused me takleef (discomfort) but my mind was not mature enough to grasp what the fug was actually going on in the world.

Of course the fact is that countries are neither unique nor permanent and borders have been changed time and again by powerful forces. Typically the colonial power (and later the USA) would find some local conflict in some part of the world and would use superior military power to overwhelm one side and find a puppet ally to put in the place of the existing government. That puppet would be given arms and money and the colonial powers would get access to natural resources or a base to operate from.

This in fact is what the British did in India. If you look at British India - there were small states where individual kings were British puppets, supported and feted by the Brits. That occurred until Indians got their act together and edged them out - but not before the British got in one last hurrah. That last hurrah was Pakistan - a puppet state carved out of a manufactured local conflict and blessed with the description of being a civilizational conflict.

If we look at a hypothetical situation in which a state like say Karnataka secedes from the union and becomes an independent state. It has natural resources and ports. All it needs is a foreign sponsor and conflicts to set them apart from other Indians. Fro example Tamilians are too thirsty. Maharashtra wants Belgaum. Andhras eat too much pickle and Keralaites speak too much Malayalam. So Karnataka needs independence from these pesky states - so we get the USA as an ally. The US gets a base in Karwar, Goa is annexed for its beaches (for GI R&R) . And Karnataka is "recognised" as an independent country by the UN and little idiot shivs in class II will be taught about countries: "India is a country. Karnataka is a country. Pakistan is a country. India has conflicts with Pakistan and Karnataka." etc

It takes a great deal of wisdom to see oneself "from the outside" and I must hand it out to this guy from Surinam:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/world ... ss&emc=rss

“Suriname is basically a village with a seat in the United Nations,” said Paul Tjon Sie Fat, a Surinamese scholar in the Netherlands

Pakistan too is basically an Indian state with a seat in the United Nations. It has been given the dignity of a seat in the "United Nations" which means that the entire goddam world has to recognise and admit that it is a separate state.

It is amazing how a couple of centuries of colonialism merging into today's monopolar post colonial world has set up a "world order" in which artificial nations are created and supported by societies like The UN created specifically to support such entities.

The world order has to change. Pakistan is a well armed pipsqueak state. Less than any Indian state in almost any parameter except Islam sponsored violence and an army supported by the US and China. Pakistan needs to be reduced to what it really is.

It is amazing how a couple of centuries of colonialism merging into today's monopolar post colonial world has set up a "world order" in which artificial nations are created and supported by societies like The UN created specifically to support such entities.

The world order has to change. Pakistan is a well armed pipsqueak state. Less than any Indian state in almost any parameter except Islam sponsored violence and an army supported by the US and China. Pakistan needs to be reduced to what it really is.

Anglo-saxon imperialism is the foundation of the modern world order. the home of the anglo-saxons already has lost power. the recent Anglo-Saxon colony is slowly becoming non-Anglo-Saxon (specifically non-Caucasian). but the Anglo-Saxon powers pulled a master stroke when they transferred their ideology to PRC. having already subdued by an artificial Western construct called Marxism, Chinese are fertile minds to be colonized into their way of thinking. more importantly, they can be manipulated into creating situations which will continue to make Anglo-Saxon imperialism relevant long after its sell by date.

the wonder is that PRC imperialism will be used to keep Anglo-Saxon imperialism alive. without the increasing dimensions of the former, the later will slowly crumble within a few decades. Nixon/Kissinger knew what they were doing.

devesh wrote: the wonder is that PRC imperialism will be used to keep Anglo-Saxon imperialism alive. without the increasing dimensions of the former, the later will slowly crumble within a few decades. Nixon/Kissinger knew what they were doing.

I predict that PRC will do a Pakistan on the US

you mean like what Paki-stain has become for India?