Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Jul 2009 23:57

Fantastic!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Jul 2009 04:46

darshhan wrote

Brihaspatiji , But if you look at the demographic statistics it is Russia which is at severe disadvantage.It's population is declining at an extremely fast pace.[...]Large parts of eastern russia will be depopulated and you can bet chinese immigrants will fill their place.

Now some will say that even china's birth rate is down because of one child policy but they already have such a huge population that they still wouldn't be short on manpower.

Also if you compare the economies of russia and china you will find that China's economy is much more diversified and advanced.By advanced I mean manufacturing,services and value addition.In contrast Russia's economy depends almost completely on energy and mineral exports.They also generate a little bit from their defense products.In all the other sectors Russia is far behind.In fact the instance oil prices go down Russia's economy starts feeling the pinch.

All of these are valid point. But to project power we do not always need highly skilled huge manpower. Think of UK when it built its empire. What is needed is an irrepressible hunger for power and dominance, and brains in the core leadership that drive such national ambitions. If we study the history of Russia's rise to power since Dmitri Donskoi's first overthrow of the Tatar rule at Kulikovo, they have actually gained strength and expansive thrust from each attempt at subduing them - including internal crises, and foreign invasions.

I have an odd theory based on observation of my students. The three ethnic groups that do best in an innate sense for pure and abstract maths, complexity in music, are Indians, Russians and the Germanic. Much more than perhaps in-born intelligence, what makes them so apt for those two areas, are perhaps a determined, obstinate obsession to get at the solution. It is this almost paranoid obsessive ability or rather inability to give up, that I think lies at the heart of these ethnicities rising back and retreive what they lose over historical epochs.

From a tactical viewpoint, Russians retreating a bit before the Chinese is good for India. Within three - two have to gang up against the third. Offer Russia a route to the IO through the western parts of Bharata, comprising the ancient kingdom of Sindh now temporarily under the occupation of an entity called Pakistan, and equations will change.

On a lighter note, Indians can definitely help the Russians in the population department. At least some Russian women appear to find Indian men, good husband material!
http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullst ... wsid=76031
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1895109/posts

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 12 Jul 2009 08:53

I have an odd theory based on observation of my students. The three ethnic groups that do best in an innate sense for pure and abstract maths, complexity in music, are Indians, Russians and the Germanic.

Abstraction, meticulous diligence, a deep appreciation of music....seems to spell japanese to me.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Jul 2009 19:43

^^ Yes, agreed! Problem, Japanese do not sit over a sizeable population and natural resources - to act as the weapons of power projection, at the scale the three above others mentioned. But see, that they revived too, at least.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 14 Jul 2009 18:45

All the right noises being made and parties being thrown by Sarcozy. Is it just the business deals or more reasons to worry about in connection with the UNSC?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Jul 2009 07:31

Some interesting clues to the European mindset now about India vis-a-vis UNSC is the following:

http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/bn_india_cg_26sept08.pdf

Perhaps, when India is – as it must be, one day – admitted to the UNSC and the body that replaces the G8, it will start to take on a greater sense of responsibility for global governance. In the long run, India would benefit from a stronger and more effective rules-based international system.

The author's stance is obviously his visualization of what he terms the "new world order". His other writeups worth fishing about to get a profile of the current EU thinking, is about Russia's "role", China's "role", and a curious giveaway article speculating about whether "EU+PRC" can provide a model of global "governance".

This is the gist of the envisioned "new world order" : a framework that ensures that the world runs according to the European model and preserves perceived European interests. In this India, China to be coopted as client/agents. This is basically an attempt at reviving the heyday of the "British colonial empire" and hence its most persistent proponents are likely to represent British interests. It is possible, that UK and EU no longer have full reliance on the USA to maintain their interests. So they are thinking of an arrangement that can replace the existing arrangement based on US, but still continue UK or EU interests - primarily abnornally high energy and other economic consumption levels.

Obviously the US has its own vision of a "new world order", but that still sees Europe as "culturally" reliable but "weak" and dependent agent. The USA is also aware that the Europeans can switch boats if necessary and hence in the US vision also India and China are important client agents.

For both "visionaries" Russia has to be kept on a tight leash. It is the Russia and the "Islamic" factor which are undetermined variables in both their equations. And the swings in policies and initiatives that we see stem from this nervousness. Both China and India are going to be pricked and cajoled and "loved" until they fall in line - at least that appears to be the plan. Once these two are on-board, the task is to use these two to tackle Russia and the Islamics.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Jul 2009 02:26

I had raised the following question on 6th July in the "strategic scenario thread" :

Is it possible that GOI is actually moving along a trajectory as "proposed" by UK, in implementing a model of the "Irish peace accord" in Kashmir?

There is a curious but dangerous for India, theory, ‘Mutually hurting stalemate’ (MHS), proposed by William Zartman. When and why conflicting parties are amenable to resolve conflict is a basic assumption underlying the “Ripeness theory”, advocated by Zartman. Zartman contends that “Parties resolve their conflict only when they are ready to do so — when alternative, usually unilateral means of achieving a satisfactory result are blocked and the parties feel that they are in an uncomfortable and costly predicament. At that ripe moment, they grab on to proposals that usually have been in the air for a long time and that only now appear attractive.”

The concept of a ‘ripe moment’ centres on the parties' perception of a ‘mutually hurting stalemate’ (MHS), optimally associated with an impending, past or recently avoided catastrophe. Zartman has formulated six propositions delineating important elements and components of MHS model. They are:

Proposition 1. Ripeness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the initiation of negotiations, bilateral or mediated.

Proposition 2. (Definitional): If the (two) parties to a conflict (a) perceive themselves to be in a hurting stalemate and (b) perceive the possibility of a negotiated solution (a way out), the conflict is ripe for resolution (i.e., for negotiations toward resolution to begin).

Proposition 3. An MHS contains objective and subjective elements, of which only the latter are necessary and sufficient to its existence.

Proposition 4. If the parties’ subjective expressions of pain, impasse, and inability to bear the costs of further escalation, related to objective evidence of stalemate, data on numbers and nature of casualties and material costs, and/or other such indicators of an MHS can be found, along with expressions of a sense of a way out, ripeness exists.

Proposition 5. (a) Once ripeness has been established, specific tactics by mediators can help seize the ripe moment and turn it into negotiations; (b) If only objective elements of ripeness exist, specific tactics by mediators can bring the conflicting parties to feel/understand the pain of their mutual stalemate and turn to negotiations.

Proposition 6. The perception of a mutually enticing opportunity is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the continuation of negotiations to the successful conclusion of a conflict.

MHS needs to address/contain resistant reaction, whether stemming from perseverance, agent escalation, true belief, or ideological cultures and back it up with Mutually Enticing Opportunities (MEOs). The negotiations pushed by MHS are likely to be unstable unless they are supported by the prospects for a more attractive future to pull the parties out of the conflict. This could be engineered by a “formula for settlement and prospects of reconciliation that negotiating (may) design during negotiations.”

The solution for the Irish "problem" was proposed along this way. There are intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic as well as in India, like Sumantra Bose, who could be the fronts for broaching such ideas about Kashmir.

Here I am quoting parts of that post. Please try comparing with the implications in the "joint statement" and the "clarification".

Irish model : Democratic Institutions in N Ireland

A 108-member Assembly elected by proportional representation and a 14-member executive body in Northern Ireland in which both Catholic and Protestant political representatives sit together in government. This is only the second time such power-sharing has occurred since 1920 (the first was the short-lived Sunningdale Agreement of 1973-74).

The Assembly is capable of exercising executive and legislative authority, in the areas of finance, education, environment, health, social services, economic development and agriculture and is subject to safeguards to protect the rights and interests of both communities. The Agreement also established a consultative Civic Forum to support the work of the Assembly. The power-sharing executive body of ten ministers drawn from four political parties plus the First and Deputy First Ministers, is the effective government.

Following a referendum, the Northern Ireland Assembly was constituted under the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998. On 25 June 1998, 108 members were elected to the new Assembly. None of the UUP candidates who opposed the Good Friday Agreement was elected. Moreover, the DUP and other anti-agreement parties failed to secure the 30 seats necessary to impede the work of the Assembly. However, the Northern Ireland government was not constituted until a year later, and brought to a standstill over the issue of IRA decommissioning.

Kashmir model: Institutionalising Intra-Kashmiri dialogue/Devising new structures in reconstituted Kashmir

Institutionalisation of intra-Kashmiri dialogue within IHK and AJK and between the Indian and Pakistani zones of Kashmir. Drawing up new structures and arrangements that would give way to the existing political, administrative and constitutional structures as a result of permanent solution of Kashmir.

I would guess that the UK would construct demographic homogeneity within POK, completely suppressing the Shia sectarian and other ethnic opposition to greater control by GOTSP, and highlight demographic fractures within Indian side of Kashmir.

Irish model: North-South Ministerial Council

The Belfast Agreement established a North-South Ministerial Council that deals with the totality of relationships within the island of Ireland. The Council was established to bring together those with executive responsibilities in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government, to develop consultation, co-operation and action within the island of Ireland. The Council meets in plenary format twice a year, in specific sectoral formats on a regular basis, and in an appropriate format to consider institutional or cross-sectoral matters and to resolve disagreement. All Council decisions to be by agreement between the two sides. Areas for North-South co-operation include agriculture, education, transport, environment, waterways, social security/social welfare, tourism, inland fisheries and health.

Kashmir model: Cross-border cooperation/Softening boundaries & Sovereignty in Kashmir

This means softening of boundaries across the reconstituted zones of Kashmir and gradually developing economic cooperation on transport, tourism, trade and commerce, environment, agriculture, cultural cooperation and management of water resources. This require a cross-border structure and as per the Irish model (North–South Ministerial Council) a Srinagar-Muzaffarabad Ministerial Council for Cooperation. The sop that can be held for GOI, or more correctly a sop for the Indian commons by the GOI and NC, the concoction that in return for gradual cooperation between the two parts of Kashmir giving Indian Kashmir an indirect, limited say in the affairs of POK.

There are other points and refernces mentioned in that post.

Anyone aware of the GFD agreement, would know that "secretarial" discussions, backdoor "diplomacy", and then "joint statements/moves" by the "legislative heads" were early signs of the process being initiated. Incidentally, it was another Clinton who was a key "go-between" - maybe this particular one has taken tips off the hubby.

It should be obvious why any such initiative is to the advantage of TSP and its backers. As they are perfectly aware that this is a completely different ball-game compared to the Irish situation. There are similarities but not the overt ones, and TSP+UK+USA do not see the game that way.

All those surprised, disheartened and depressed at the "Egyptgate" behaviour of the Indian side led by Honbl. MMSji should look back at their own words. You can be disappointed only if you have blind faith and expectation on someone or something. They are doing what they have all along planned to do, depending on what they perceive is the reality and the best deal for themselves, their organization and the constituency they represent. They are entirely consistent with their background, and we should not blame them for what is their natural tendency to do under given circumstances.

We should try to see the reality as seen by the TSP and its backers : they see or project India as UK w.r.t Northern Ireland, and TSP as the hapless Republic. We on the otherhand should recognize clearly that in this particular case it is TSP which is equivalent to the UK, for it has occupied parts of India's territory, carried out (but only partially successful) ethnic cleansing, managed to divide up political forces on the other side of the border so that the rashtra ctually goes after the jugular of those trying for a reunification.

It is this difference in the two perceptions that is the beginning of the failure for this attempt.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2009 22:12

We need a thread where we archive the maps and special graphics developed by our members. This will provide a ready reference for use and research. Can add special cartoons from public domain too.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Jul 2009 02:01

^^^ramanaji, you may be the approriate editor to select the maps and what textual posts are relevant for such maps. Can you please do the selections?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Jul 2009 02:38

What does the proposed defence and strategic partnership really bode for the future for India?

I think this is going to be positive in the very long run, but not for the straightforward and obvious reasons.

Let us look at this from the US viewpoint. For the US, it is important to stabilize and maintain a TSP, as well as strengthen India. They need the TSP to keep India in check, and amenable to manipulation. They need India to counteract China and Russia, and use as the scarecrow to beat TSP into submission. So, TSP is not falling apart as long as USA has the resources to stabilize it. A cheaper way of doing this is to make India bear the costs of stabilizing TSP. The current chess-moves of USA in this region, clearly shows the main concern of USA to be holding a line running from Iran, through AFG, TSP, India and SE Asia. The general direction of this axis indicates that this implies USA's main paranoia is the Russia+PRC axis.

Therefore, USA cannot afford any of the axis it wants to control, to gain sufficient strength to carve out strategies independent of the USA. This is a reincarnation of a potential and new "anti-communist league". Only this time it is not exclusively based on reliance on Islam in Asia. However driving this axis is like driving a chariot with five horses all of different character and ambitions as well as capabilities. The crucial piece here is the fifth horse, India. Historically this axis stabilized only when India led it and dominated it. In trying to control this fifth horse, USA has correctly identified the potential, but by trying to control it, it will necessarily have to clip this horses carrying capacity. This makes the whole axis weak, and the chariot is vulnerable and inefficient.

But, in the long run, USA's attempts are going to deliver two unavoidable factors. First, it will necessarily help India to neutralize the antagonism and racism of the Euro-centric networks and build up India's eventual image as the real charioteer that a futuer generation will be able to use. Second and more importantly, it will destroy the class of Indians that developed as a legacy of collaboration with British imperialism and colonialism. The obvious strategic weakening brought about by the USA in the long run will get associated to the last remnants of this class currently dominating the ruling elite of India. This in turn will help destroy its hold.

These two factors are going to be of immense benefit for us.

Keerthivasan · Post by **Keerthivasan** » 22 Jul 2009 02:42

"Second and more importantly, it will destroy the class of Indians that developed as a legacy of collaboration with British imperialism and colonialism. The obvious strategic weakening brought about by the USA in the long run will get associated to the last remnants of this class currently dominating the ruling elite of India. This in turn will help destroy its hold. "

- Can't understand this Brihaspati ji. Can you please explain with examples?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jul 2009 03:14

By Jove you got it!!!

What does the proposed defence and strategic partnership really bode for the future for India?

I think this is going to be positive in the very long run, but not for the straightforward and obvious reasons.

Let us look at this from the US viewpoint. For the US, it is important to stabilize and maintain a TSP, as well as strengthen India. They need the TSP to keep India in check, and amenable to manipulation. They need India to counteract China and Russia, and use as the scarecrow to beat TSP into submission. So, TSP is not falling apart as long as USA has the resources to stabilize it. A cheaper way of doing this is to make India bear the costs of stabilizing TSP. The current chess-moves of USA in this region, clearly shows the main concern of USA to be holding a line running from Iran, through AFG, TSP, India and SE Asia. The general direction of this axis indicates that this implies USA's main paranoia is the Russia+PRC axis.

Therefore, USA cannot afford any of the axisstates it wants to control, to gain sufficient strength to carve out strategies independent of the USA. This is a reincarnation of a potential and new "anti-communist league". Only this time it is not exclusively based on reliance on Islam in Asia. However driving this axis is like driving a chariot with five horses all of different character and ambitions as well as capabilities. The crucial piece here is the fifth horse, India. Historically this axis stabilized only when India led it and dominated it. In trying to control this fifth horse, USA has correctly identified the potential, but by trying to control it, it will necessarily have to clip this horses carrying capacity. This makes the whole axis weak, and the chariot is vulnerable and inefficient.

But, in the long run, USA's attempts are going to deliver two unavoidable factors. First, it will necessarily help India to neutralize the antagonism and racism of the Euro-centric networks and build up India's eventual image as the real charioteer that a futuer generation will be able to use. Second and more importantly, it will destroy the class of Indians that developed as a legacy of collaboration with British imperialism and colonialism. The obvious strategic weakening brought about by the USA in the long run will get associated to the last remnants of this class currently dominating the ruling elite of India. This in turn will help destroy its hold.

These two factors are going to be of immense benefit for us.

You have summarized a century of DIE studies in one para. Sounds like Jagat Seth's embracing the EIC.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 22 Jul 2009 03:55

India's character as a helmsman is legendary. The British, and before that the Mughals understood and used it to great benefit, in my opinion. The US understands it too and will grant the helmsman positive settlements of her "minor" grievances that nobody in the established white hierarchy will care too much for, bar jokers like the Australians, once in a while.

What I don't see, and this may be the generational change that is necessary, and certainly eagerly hoped for, is how the country goes from helmsman to master and commander. You don't suppose too many layers of mental programming need to be lifted for that to come about? 90% of getting there is sweat and grunt, 9% strategy and planning, 1% luck. And will this confidence of a new generation to "take the helm of world affairs" come from a lapse of memory of past, a new inexperience....or is this going to be the kind of shoulder rubbing and bruising on the world stage that will let us feel confident of what we've earned. May be it doesn't matter in the short run, but as long as it is the former, we'll never get there. We need to stand up and take some "panga" in defense of our story, to put it bluntly.

S

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Jul 2009 08:29

Keerthivasan wrote:"Second and more importantly, it will destroy the class of Indians that developed as a legacy of collaboration with British imperialism and colonialism. The obvious strategic weakening brought about by the USA in the long run will get associated to the last remnants of this class currently dominating the ruling elite of India. This in turn will help destroy its hold. "

- Can't understand this Brihaspati ji. Can you please explain with examples?

This is the most important piece of observation in BRF after a long time.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 22 Jul 2009 09:15

this will only be possible if they keep throwing such offers and MMS keeps up his smokescreen which signs on something and lies through media.

this humiliation of India will lead a new generation that is viciously antagonistic to US.

lies, spin, and obfuscation in media will skew the future even further.

in fact the current global power elite have no future.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jul 2009 09:21

I dont think there will be an anti US feeling in the new generation. It will be more self confident and assertive folks. BTW a new generation of Shikarpur traders is emerging in the second rung and who knows what business houses they will establish.

samuel, After reading a lot of books in the past five years, the picture, that is emerging from the mists, is that from the known times the world was built on Indian traders since antiquity and this is what the Brits seized and parleyed into a world empire. The US caught on to this in mid-sixties with its "bengin neglect' policy and captured it. However PVNR pulled fast one by launching his economic reforms whic got stalled and built the local traders to world beaters.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 22 Jul 2009 09:26

Indians just need to keep in mind that leadership or MMS-type agency leaderships should not be a constraint. We must hedge for a good position and then aim for global leadership as soon as the opportunity arises. Ofcourse our enemies are clever but we too shall get our chances.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Jul 2009 18:26

Keerthivasan wrote
"Second and more importantly, it will destroy the class of Indians that developed as a legacy of collaboration with British imperialism and colonialism. The obvious strategic weakening brought about by the USA in the long run will get associated to the last remnants of this class currently dominating the ruling elite of India. This in turn will help destroy its hold. "
- Can't understand this Brihaspati ji. Can you please explain with examples?

If we look at the way British imperialism consolidated its hold on the subcontinent, one crucial factor stands out - they were consistently helped by certain sections of Indians to undermine, bypass or overthrow pre-existing regimes and rashtryia systems. The process is complex, with many twists and turns, and describing it perhaps is an attempt at listing the incidents of collaboration over almost 400 years (starting with the first modern significant European enterprise of the type we are talking about in Vasco's expedition to the deep south - where the local "rajah" eagerly welcomed him to play essentially mercantile politics in breaking the Arab monopoly. As far as I know, this "royal house" still proudly displays "gifts" and "tokens of appreciation" from Vasco's side - forget what Vasco and his successor "governors" unleashed on Indians they fell upon, and no one even feels the shame in not condemning this "royal house" for its display of pride in the "association").

However, we do see a pattern. Perhaps the same pattern that allowed the vicious cycle of arguments that led to the presence of the Arab mercantile interests who in their turn introduced and provided the infrastructure for Islamic invasions. This was something like - we were not present in the Arabian sea trade, (or we could not or did not or chose not to or our priests forbade us - does anyone remember the cliche excuse of "I was late for the office because my wife ran away this morning with the milkman"?), but we needed Arabian (read western) products desperately, so we let them come and settle and intermingle, and breed with the locals and set up their religious institutions (although we proudly proclaim our immense and loud presence at the very same time in the eastern Indian Ocean maritime activity, but fall silent on why we retreated from the west) which in their turn served as informational and support networks for later invasions. But because they came and delivered all that we needed, we did not need to go out and enforce our own presence and dominance in their "homelands". And because we did not do that we were not present in the Arabian Sea trade.

Thus we find that a certain mercantile mentality facilitated invaders, and fostered collaborators. I am here distinguishing between "mercantile mentality" and "mercantilism". In the mercantile mentality, everything is a marketable, auctionable and tradeable quantity - your country, your society, your family, your wife, children, parents, siblings, ideology, your fellow men and women, the resources of your land and society - everything. Mercantilism on the other hand deals primarily with what we normally consider trade goods of pure consumption, and in spite of exceptions, typically and normally is not associated with human cargo, the rashtra, or ideological commitments.

The reasons why such a mentality developed in India is perhaps OT. But we can definitely see the effects in the Muslim invasions and the European invasions. Look at how the British progressed in India. Charnock, Clive, were all helped by locals. They did it from personal mercantile interests, which at least for some of them also definitely extended to the "mercantile mentality". The latter group, not only sold cotton or dyes or fine linen, but they also sold their loyalties, their local regimes, and their own people. Part of it was definitely local politics and jealousies. Many non-Muslims collaborated with the British in Muslim over-ruled areas perhaps as an obvious means of getteing even with perceived injustices. But by the same token we do not expect a "Nizam" in the South to collaborate with the British at the same time a "Hindu" Maratha force is also collaborating to finish off a fellow "Muslim" opposing the British. So in general we do find that there is a consistent pattern of sections of Indian society collaborating with an outside invading force to settle old internal scores, or gain pre-eminence over fellow Indians who are seen as rivals for the same status and positions.

It was such a class, including the ancestors of many a later "patriot", (like the famous one who sided with the British against Indians in the first war of Independence, and whose "shining sun" "royal scion" descendant now graces the party which claims to have brought about Indian Indpependence by its sole inititiative and primarily under the leadership of two individuals) who primarily made the British empire in India possible. This not only included elements from the then elite but also middle sections (the service sector and professionals) who latched on to the opportunities provided to bypass glass ceilings, by the British in their need to weaken and breakdown older regimes resistant to British charm.

It is the last remnants of this class (represented by the mentality of readiness to trade with one's own country, preople, society and ideology, if it benefits or protects self-interest), whose primary vision had become collaboration with "white Europe" as a means of survival and enhancing self-interest, that is still in power. They have been forced to collaborate now with the USA, and it is apparently not a big jump for them, because for most of them USA still represents the latest inheritor of the Anglo-Saxon legacy - therfore worth licking the boots. Their mistake is the fundamental error in realizing that the USA has moved beyond colour based identities, has shown therefore that it has found better means of dominating the world and extract consumption value from others - than the old European tribal paranoia transformed into colour based racism. USA realizes that racism itself can become a barrier to further consumption, but the remnant Anglophile class of India does not realize that yet. This represents a fundamental shift, if not a complete break with the old British Imperialist and Anglo-Saxonic mindset for USA.

As outlined in the previous post, USA's attempts to keep the Indian horse in check, will lead to an imbalance of alignment and inefficiency in the five horse team. Because the effects of this will be seen to have come under the mediation of this Brit-phile class, and both will be seen to be an obstacle to aspirations that will initially be generated as a result of "recognition" by the USA - future generations will feel it necessary to discard both.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Jul 2009 18:58

ramana wrote Sounds like Jagat Seth's embracing the EIC.

A very apt obs indeed! But we need to factor in the MirJaffars, (unadulterated DIE), Mir Qasim (adulterated and hesitant DIE), Mir Madan (Indic inspite of PBUH

) and Mohanlal (Indic inspite of being "Hindu"

). Incidentally it was even then fashionable to name great weapons, artillery especially by the "heroes" - Mohanlal was one example, but has modern India honoured both these men in some similar form? OT

The Seth's (of Murshidabad) still reside in the Jangipur area of Murshidabad. Some of them have become "Leftists". In fact both lines of first class collaborators, Kanta "Mudi" (the Nandis) and the diwans Gangagovinda Singha (and his bro) ultimately produced active Congressmen.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jul 2009 20:52

In line with your above posts to answer SwamyG's query to me in another thread....

SwamyG wrote:^^^^
My posts are like the pomegranate seeds - plenty; but your 166 posts are like the pearls in oysters - few but precious. You offer a pearl per thread In one thread when I mentioned "Bombay School" of thoughts; ramana gaaru had said it was time for Bombay School of thoughts to move and make way fro Madras School. Sridhar, you, Anujan (and probably Ramana - he has Madras connections) are all gurus of this school of thought. Now I need to piece out from ramana on what this school does ))))

Maybe few more OT posts will send this thread to History (a.k.a Trash)
SwamyG, The Madras school of thought which is metaphor for the South India as a whole, is focussed on total India and not just on rats and lizards or peddlers. it focusses on the big picture and a wholistic development.
Read Krishnaswamy Ayyangar's book on "Some contributions of South India to Indian history" to get historical prespective. Being far from the historical ghosts they develop a larger vision and a better prespective.

Bombay school is trader mentality and see munafa (to paraphrase Guru movie) in everything

But your explanation is more detailed and comprehensive. Its brilliant and distills sociology and history.

Are you sure you are not a social scientist surviving as a mathematician

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 22 Jul 2009 21:29

The reasons why such a mentality developed in India is perhaps OT.

B-ji, would it be possible for you to elaborate on this on some other thread in GDF or thru email to interested members?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 23:16

brihaspati wrote:
The reasons why such a mentality developed in India is perhaps OT. .

Oh boy such lucidity.

But while being in 400% agreement, one point onlee. The reasons why such a mentality developed in India is everything.

Everything.

Even if OT and perhaps even not halal for the forum

----

Yes, I know you have already alluded to it in your post in PC way.

-----

Want to answer why India fell to the first invaders, though? On this or any other thread?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jul 2009 23:23

Brihaspatiji,

Please post in this thread for continuity. Its important to know the reason for a lot of spin has been put on it by others.

Sankugaru, If you are in India there is 3 vol "Advanced History of medieval India" by JL Mehta. His third vol addresse some of the issues. While he maybe correct inhis facts , he has a JNUised outlook which colors his interpretation. So take it with a pinch of salt.

I am currently reading the "Formation of German Identity" in the 1100- 1300 centuries and find that similar factors where there however there were no Islamised Turks breathing down their neck. That was a century later.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 23:27

ramana wrote: SwamyG, The Madras school of thought which is metaphor for the South India as a whole, is focussed on total India and not just on rats and lizards or peddlers.

Sir if you dont mind my saying this, the real name for this school is "The Indic school now only surviving in South India school" (I make the point for a reason)

Meanwhile I am personally fine with the shorter name.

Meanwhile you do embarrass me with your address, politely request to be treated as just another unwashed Abdul.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jul 2009 23:34

No I honor your sobriquet.

Keerthivasan · Post by **Keerthivasan** » 23 Jul 2009 00:27

Thanks Brihaspati ji for the explanation. Two point of disagreement:

i. I believe the "Anglophile class" has two sub divisions in them. Group 1 is DIE which worships White Man, White worldview etc. Group 2 is the communist-marxist brigade which had no problem in switching over from USSR/Communist ideology to US/Christian ideology in 90s once USSR collapsed. That is why you find tons & tons of communist professors of Indian origin who were brought to US universities. Sunil Khilani, Vinay Lal, Romila Thapar etc would fall in to this category. Today you can see their blatant opportunism in JNU & other groups. The entire JNU "scholars” automatically side with Congress party once it is clear that CPM will loose power in West Bengal & Kerala. That is why many a professors like Smita Gupta & others are now after Congress party. Both these groups have immense chameleonic power to change. For example let’s take people like Ramachandra Guha or Yogendra Yadav. They will do the bidding of US/Christian lobby and at the same time they will not speak one word against Hinduism in general. Of course they will abuse Hindutva, Political leadership, Gujarat, any Nationalistic thought etc. But unlike olden times, these communists don't say anything against the religion "Hinduism", unlike 60s, 70s or "Dravidian" ideologues. My sense is that they can survive even if they are an obstacle to aspirations. Because through thee media they project themselves as the "in thing" or “the correct intellectuals"

ii. Huge amount of our population have changed because of DIE education over these 60-80 years. Mostly Hindus have become what are called "faith" Hindus. I would say that 90% of Hindus have only beliefs and go to temples, have Saibaba photos in their workplace etc. They don't have the education of Hinduism (what it stands for), nor there is any thinking capacity. I would say that majority Hindus have become Semitic - i.e. have become belief oriented like Christians & Muslims. Only a few RSS type people (may be 2% of the population) have the Nationalistic / Hindu knowledge or approach. Recently I was in Stanford University, witnessing their Political Union debate on Indian election. Every single kid in the auditorium was against Hindutva/BJP/etc. They all take their knowledge from Media and that’s it. They feel proud of the fact that they are "liberals" etc when in actuality they are not. I think Macaulay’s project has succeeded. Only place where I find some kind of new vitality for Indic civilization is Karnataka where the people have started writing novels (Bhyrappa- Avarana), articles in newspapers with Nationalistic viewpoint. But India in general has become a DIE majority country.

So future generations will not discard "Anglo/Christo" class. The population will not even know what is the obstacle. T

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 23 Jul 2009 00:45

In fact, the danger is in the complacency that follows an assumption of a natural overturning to svaraj, svabhiman, svadesh etc. That approach is seen typically in the "insiders route," and manifest as clerkigiri or helmsmanpanti; a trait easily discovered when struggling for survival (discovered by India long before "stockholm").

Bridging the gap to becoming "masters of our destiny" is anything but an organic process. For example, even if we assume that the value of India is apparent in US machinations against an RU/CN front, and that an assimilation of India is already underway, our role remains that of an untermenschen, a la Japan or any one of many, many examples already in the fold. On the other hand, we cannot avoid that by perpetually being neither-in-nor-out, that has the effect of draining our energy, earning us few lasting friends, and leads to little progress, even if we remain "non-aligned." And, we certainly don't have the single-minded focus and guile to use the untermenschen spot to work our way to the top. i.e. the tools to build community that rallies for us or, in other words, the expansion of the core. Heck we're stuck in our own neighborhoods. If such rise is supposed to happen organically due to such associations of providence as with the USA, I somehow think not. I don't see a path.

So, that is, at least in my mind, the depressing scenario. The next gen of leaders now occupying halls of power demonstrate that nothing's changed yet.

Need a reboot.
S

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2009 00:52

BTW, have you contacted RamaY? My e-mail to you came back.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 23 Jul 2009 00:56

ramana wrote:BTW, have you contacted RamaY? My e-mail to you came back.

Me? Yes, yes, I did. He was going to send me something this weekend.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2009 01:00

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Jul 2009 01:01

Keerthivasan wrote: ii. Huge amount of our population have changed because of DIE education over these 60-80 years. Mostly Hindus have become what are called "faith" Hindus.
I would say that majority Hindus have become Semitic -

Is that a bad thing necessarily? May be that's the silver lining in the dark cloud (not expounding on reasoning behind that)

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 23 Jul 2009 01:07

brihaspati wrote: Thus we find that a certain mercantile mentality facilitated invaders, and fostered collaborators. I am here distinguishing between "mercantile mentality" and "mercantilism". In the mercantile mentality, everything is a marketable, auctionable and tradeable quantity - your country, your society, your family, your wife, children, parents, siblings, ideology, your fellow men and women, the resources of your land and society - everything. Mercantilism on the other hand deals primarily with what we normally consider trade goods of pure consumption, and in spite of exceptions, typically and normally is not associated with human cargo, the rashtra, or ideological commitments.

The reasons why such a mentality developed in India is perhaps OT.

B,

As always interesting read, but...

Three questions:

1. Did the ancients understand "other" in the "us" and "them" formulation?
Are you saying ancient Indians were not mercantile and hence they did not make this distinction.

2. If invasion (and lessons from them) ought to be derived. Then is it not fair to consider the invasions prior to the Islamic as well?
My humble opinion, therein lies the key to understanding - WHY?

3. What led to the withdrawal of Ancient Indians from the west - that is towards Arabia and beyond?
On land we know the battle was lost along the caravans routes and trade centers inch by inch.
What happened to the ocean routes?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2009 01:28

Pulikeshi wrote:
....

B,

As always interesting read, but...

Three questions:

1. Did the ancients understand "other" in the "us" and "them" formulation?
Are you saying ancient Indians were not mercantile and hence they did not make this distinction.

2. If invasion (and lessons from them) ought to be derived. Then is it not fair to consider the invasions prior to the Islamic as well?
My humble opinion, therein lies the key to understanding - WHY?

3. What led to the withdrawal of Ancient Indians from the west - that is towards Arabia and beyond?
On land we know the battle was lost along the caravans routes and trade centers inch by inch.
What happened to the ocean routes?

On land the rise of Near Eastern powers like Persia cutoff the land routes. The loss of central powers also reduced th support to the trading caravans.

On sea the gradual inward turning of the population and the conversion going on to participate in the sea borne trade was a negative factor in the Ratnakara....

We should start calling things by their ancient names.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 23 Jul 2009 01:49

ramana wrote:On land the rise of Near Eastern powers like Persia cutoff the land routes. The loss of central powers also reduced th support to the trading caravans.

On sea the gradual inward turning of the population and the conversion going on to participate in the sea borne trade was a negative factor in the Ratnakara....

We should start calling things by their ancient names.

Rise of Persia can't be the answer. Persians have been strong and around since Bimbisara. In fact, few centuries before Bimbisara.Were the trading routes cut-off during Achaemenid Empire was incumbent?

The central powers of Bhaarat have lost power and consolidated again quite a few times.

One of the factor was introduction of 7 prohibitions which included banning travel by sea. These shackles hurt India much more than any other foreign civilization.

These shackles were not present and if present were not as strong during Pre-Islamic invasions of India. Even during Arabic invasions and Battle of rajasthan, the society had not shackled itself so thoroughly. Rajputs under Bappa Rawal and Deval Rishi and Bhashyakaar Medhatithi were able to repel the civilizational encroachment of Arabs in those 300 years.

It was during the Muslim variant of Central-Asian invaders which contributed significantly to Bhaarat's downfall. It was then, that the self-imposed shackles grew more stringent, for god knows what reasons.

Imagine, if cow were not made holy and slaughter of cow was not made the biggest sin without any Praayashchittam, Bhaarat would have been an overwhelmingly Hindu country today, despite of tyrannical rule.

Holy cow was one of the single biggest factors which led to downfall of India. Conversions were by many routes, but most important of them all was forcible consumption of beef. A Hindu who consumed beef was excommunicated and all his ways to re-enter Dharmic fold were shut.

The rise of eminence of cow to Holy cow is somehow related to downfall of Bhaarat. Similarly with prohibition to cross oceans, prohibition for intercaste marriage etc contributed to the cause.

I would like to find the answer to how and why did Hindus shackle themselves when they were at the height of sovereignty, prosperity and independence (500 AD to 1100 AD).

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Jul 2009 01:55

Friends, a lot of questions! Not sure I should go into some of the areas you are prompting me for.

ramanaji, I echo your suspicions about myself, sometimes.

I will try to answer your posts in a sequence.

Keerthivasan wrote

i. I believe the "Anglophile class" has two sub divisions in them. Group 1 is DIE which worships White Man, White worldview etc. Group 2 is the communist-marxist brigade which had no problem in switching over from USSR/Communist ideology to US/Christian ideology in 90s once USSR collapsed. That is why you find tons & tons of communist professors of Indian origin who were brought to US universities. Sunil Khilani, Vinay Lal, Romila Thapar etc would fall in to this category. Today you can see their blatant opportunism in JNU & other groups. The entire JNU "scholars” automatically side with Congress party once it is clear that CPM will loose power in West Bengal & Kerala. That is why many a professors like Smita Gupta & others are now after Congress party. Both these groups have immense chameleonic power to change. For example let’s take people like Ramachandra Guha or Yogendra Yadav. They will do the bidding of US/Christian lobby and at the same time they will not speak one word against Hinduism in general. Of course they will abuse Hindutva, Political leadership, Gujarat, any Nationalistic thought etc. But unlike olden times, these communists don't say anything against the religion "Hinduism", unlike 60s, 70s or "Dravidian" ideologues. My sense is that they can survive even if they are an obstacle to aspirations. Because through thee media they project themselves as the "in thing" or “the correct intellectuals"

Keerthivasanji, why is this behaviour of the "communists" so surprising in the context of Indian "intellectuals"? This is totally in keeping with a long tradition in India of intellectuals finding sufficient excuses to side up with the ruling power. In fact Marxists themselves realise and acknowledge this much more than others - the "practitioners" all have a certain deep-seated hatred of "intellectualism", look for example at the comments by Marx, Engels, Lenin on "intellectuals". (Incidentally they themselves of course all come from so-called "bourgeois" intellectual background). Look at one stage the priestly class did it for royal patronage, so I think singling out the "reds" for this is I think slightly unfair.

Intellectualism, without an attempt or a quest to construct "values", the so-called "pure objectivity" or "scientism", as if you are detached from everything - society, life, environment from which you draw sustenance and with which you are intimately existentially linked - that is the beginning of hiding the pure opportunism inside. An intellectual who is not engaged in the everlasting quest throughout his life towards "perfection", to find and construct and adopt sets of "values" with which to guide one's own life as well as others forward, is a prime candidate for "opportunism". Such a person consciously or subconsciously lives in a permanent ideological vacuum, floating with the wind and waves of a vast ocean of ideas, surviving somehow.

ii. Huge amount of our population have changed because of DIE education over these 60-80 years. Mostly Hindus have become what are called "faith" Hindus. I would say that 90% of Hindus have only beliefs and go to temples, have Saibaba photos in their workplace etc. They don't have the education of Hinduism (what it stands for), nor there is any thinking capacity. I would say that majority Hindus have become Semitic - i.e. have become belief oriented like Christians & Muslims. Only a few RSS type people (may be 2% of the population) have the Nationalistic / Hindu knowledge or approach. Recently I was in Stanford University, witnessing their Political Union debate on Indian election. Every single kid in the auditorium was against Hindutva/BJP/etc. They all take their knowledge from Media and that’s it. They feel proud of the fact that they are "liberals" etc when in actuality they are not. I think Macaulay’s project has succeeded. Only place where I find some kind of new vitality for Indic civilization is Karnataka where the people have started writing novels (Bhyrappa- Avarana), articles in newspapers with Nationalistic viewpoint. But India in general has become a DIE majority country.

There are historic reasons for the phenomenon you are describing in Karnataka. This region was the last continuously occupied centre of resistance to the Islamic, centred around a struggle starting with the first invasions stopped in Gujarat, and then gradually falling back further south into more rugged territory, and surviving even beyond the so-called "finito" in 1565. It allowed the populations to preserve memories of pride in their own heritage and culture. Many from less defendable areas in the north and east fled to the south with their knowledge, and commitment. Those who would choose to escape with their ideological commitments intact into an uncertain future of potential material hardships rather than compromise and collaborate for a better material life, are more likely to maintain a culture of steadfastness centred around their worldview. Regeberation is more likely from such centres. We should view the Karnataka phenomenon not as a purely regional one, it was a region far away and more impenetrable and less attractive for the predatory Islamic hordes. It can be compared to a base for the Indic, to which all that was deemed worthwhile to preserve, fled as sanctuary. It is the base for Bharatyia rather than a parochial interpretation of a regional peculiarity.

So future generations will not discard "Anglo/Christo" class. The population will not even know what is the obstacle. T

My humble opinion - look back to look forward. I have written this before. If you compare with the period of British imperial consolidation spanning the last quarter of 19th and the first quarter of the 20th in India, you can see everything - media, a professional class, and educational system all churning out seemngly loyal bootlickers. Would you have expected the rise of a "free" India in 1947 then? No, there is something indescribable in the Indic, that makes it swing back towards its civilizational heritage whenever it ventures too far away from it - the basic idea perhaps behind "yada yada hi dharmasya..". Don't you feel the stirrings deep within yourself? Don't you feel the beginnings of the murmur of history? Society changes when people begin to believe that change is possible. I have never been able to say things I am not convinced about and feel deep inside myself. I hope my conviction is contagious.

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 23 Jul 2009 01:57

Chiron wrote:
I would like to find the answer to how and why did Hindus shackle themselves when they were at the height of sovereignty, prosperity and independence (500 AD to 1100 AD).

Competition with "baudhdha" parampara? Does "prachanna baudhdhik" allegation about Advaita ring a bell?

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 23 Jul 2009 02:05

Would you have expected the rise of a "free" India in 1947 then?

I am not sure what we would've realized of the struggle had WWII not come along in the preceding years. Did it have to take 200 years? And that doesn't count the centuries of M-rule before...

Frederic · Post by **Frederic** » 23 Jul 2009 02:10

Keerthivasan wrote:Thanks Brihaspati ji for the explanation. Two point of disagreement:

Only place where I find some kind of new vitality for Indic civilization is Karnataka where the people have started writing novels (Bhyrappa- Avarana), articles in newspapers with Nationalistic viewpoint. But India in general has become a DIE majority country.

T

Keerthi, if you read Tamil you may want to check out a writer called JeyaMohan. His novel "VishnuPuram" is a milestone in contemporary Tamil literature.
JeyaMohan is not shy of treating the iconoclastic pastimes of some of the "invaders" in his novels in lurid detail.

Lo and behold! He has already been branded as a "Kaavi" (Saffron in Tamil) writer for this and some of his other literary "crimes". The leftie folks at Kaalachuvadu (a progressive literary magazine in Tamil) have a huge bone with him. Especially after he tore them a new collective one after their blind, Pavlovian support of Arundhadi Suzanne Roy after her infamous statement on J&K recently.

Regards
Fred

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 23 Jul 2009 02:12

Abhi_G wrote:
Chiron wrote:
I would like to find the answer to how and why did Hindus shackle themselves when they were at the height of sovereignty, prosperity and independence (500 AD to 1100 AD).
Competition with "baudhdha" parampara? Does "prachanna baudhdhik" allegation about Advaita ring a bell?

Firstly, let me make clear that when I say "Hindu" it means a person following any one of the Dharmic Non-Abrahmic ideologies which originated in Bhaarat. So Hindu == Bhaaratiya.

Yes, there was great competition for followers between Buddhist memes and Astika memes. This has been going on since days of Siddhartha Gautam himself. Buddhist memes changed a lot over the course of time under Ashok, Kanishk and Harsha. Similar is the case with Astika memes. There has been a dynamic equilibrium between Astika and Nastika philosophies ever since they were classified as Astika and Nastika. Furthermore, Adi Sankara not only defeated Nastika, he also overwhelmingly defeated the Astikas as well. In fact, most of his achievements mentioned in Sankara-Vijayam record his victories over Astika philosophies and philosophers.

The revolution brought about by Adi Shankara shifted the equilibrium in favour of Vedanta which is one of the Astika ideologies, the subsequent Islamic invasion made this change permanent by removing Buddhists from the picture (Bengal and NWFP Buddhist provinces converted en masse to Islam). This is again seen by the fact that Dvaita Vedanta is closest meme that has evolved in India to Abrahmic memes of one god. This again popularized Vedanta memes much more than all the other Indic ideologies, both Astika and Nastika.

Was Adi Shankara responsible for these prohibitions? how did the Prachhanna Bauddhik allegation snowball into emergence of prohibitions?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2009 02:24

Chiron, To make things clear for all of us can you explain what you are referring to? Please dont carry on a conversation at a higher plane.

And one more request. Can you maplify the adi Sankara part. my brother has a saying "First come the sages and then the invaders follow" meaning the advent of sages weakens the body polity and drops resistance to invaders.

brihasptiji, Clarify you must either here or on IF or your blog. Cant let ideas hanging.

And Fred you need to give us more on new phenomenon so we can understand the churning of ideas thats going on.