Managing Pakistan's failure

[RajeshA]

we are talking about effecting Paki land ownership patterns!!! how are we going to do that *before* actually being the supreme armed force in Pakistan?! without sovereignty on Paki land, how can we redistribute the land?

devesh ji,

an analogy: the characters in a book are all completely controlled by the author, both the good guys and the villains and in but a handful of stories they are not even aware of this control. The author controls their environment, the events, their perception, their compulsions, everything. Even if one were to presume the characters having independent minds, that level of control would subdue all free will. The fact that characters are ideological prone, means it is an additional control system on that free will as well. The rest is good story telling how people with behavior patterns X changed into people with behavior patterns Y. If the story structure is logical, it will be credible, and it will be possible.

Sometimes the author keeps himself anonymous, and then not even the rest of the world knows who has been the puppet-master!

I don't think India needs to occupy Pakjab in order to turn it into Dharmic land. On the contrary, I think that would fail. But many other scenarios can be gamed!

The key is absolute control over the environment, events, perception, resources and compulsions of the players!

[harbans]

2. Can someone cover any natural dislike/disgust he may feel and make a list of dharmic acts which are in consonance with Quranic teachings?

Shiv Ji, good question..was wanting someone to put that question. I have mentioned a few times that India should declare itself constitutionally a Dharmic nation. Not HIndu, Sikh, Secular, Xtian, Jain, Buddhist, Muslim. Just like the present preamble of Values represented "Secular, Socialist"..we replace it with a Democratic Republic based on the principles of Truth, Compassion, Equanimity..

" Verily, that which is Dharma is truth.
Therefore they say of a man who speaks truth, 'He speaks the Dharma,'

or of a man who speaks the Dharma, 'He speaks the Truth.'
Verily, both these things are the same."
(Brh. Upanishad, 1.4.14)

I give the Upanishadic example, because no Sikh, No Jain, No Buddhist, No Muslim, No Chrisitan for example would say oopose this Dharmic pronouncement. Then further Dharma also expounds the concept of Truth= God.

The very basic qualities that one can enunciate under a broader principle of Dharma are simple, universal and don't need to belong to any sectarian religion. As a first step, people in India on the basis of these very simple principles can be cultivated to say yes i am a Dharmic. No Muslim in know as yet objected to Satyameva Jayate, or the Dharma Chakra in the flag. So we do have a precedent. I doubt any Muslim or Christian will say i am Adharmic..means implying I don't believe God=Truth, Compassion is bad etc. I may not be able to explain the psychological effect on people well in the case, but i can see that it would be significant. It would unite within, it would unite us with our neighbours. Develop empathy within Indians for the Tibetans, SE Asians etc. Specially against predatory Western, Maoist, other ideological influences in our neighborhood. That will inculcate a sense of outrage when an outside power tries to play off one against another.

I admit we cannot make Pakistan Dharmic, but if Pakistan fails and we do have people coming in, we do make sure when one becomes an Indian citizen he does accept the path enunciated in the simple Dharmic principles.

It's also not for the Constitution to enact acts on behalf of the individual citizen of what is Dharmic or not, but it does state clearly the values on which the Statehood rests. So while drinking alcohol may not be considered by some to be adharmic, moderate drinking may not constitute Adharma. Immoderate drinking that disturbs, creates ruckus will be. So in a Dharmic state Alcohol need not be banned. Is prostitution illegal under a Dharmic state? No, it should not be. The Truth is everyone sells their body one way or the other. Some their mind, atheletes their physical training prowess, Models their visual beauty etc..so do prostitutes. So while it has a potential similar law, order and health issue say as alcohol, it must be moderated. The State itself does not say act this or not. It promotes values. An evolutionary path, that is acceptable to all citizens.

1. Dharma per se is non religious and need not necessarily step on any religious toes

Absolutely right Shiv Sir, that is why i talked about it. Dharma retains the Indic spirit, does not step on religious toes while maintaining values of pluralism, tolerance for others, compassion and Truth memes as fundamental to any judicial or legislative actions. It unites within India, it unites India with most of Asia, atleast on our Northern periphery and Eastern fronts.

In the absence of "common ground" I can see little hope of progress.

You are right, that is why Dharma only will unite us. Hinduism alone does not unite us. Sikhism does not. Islam does not. Jainism does not. Any principle on which we base the country has to be a uniting one. Dharma is not some religious strictures and practises, it is the state promoting a value chain system on the basis of which we interact with each other, others, and the necessary freedoms to connect with Godhead for it's peoples. As someone said..Dharma is subtle.

Added later: (Qualities Dharma)

1. Dhrti (patience)
2. Ks’ama (forgiveness)
3. Dhama (self-control)
4. Asteya (non-stealing)
5. Shaoca (cleanliness)
6. Indriyanigraha (control over organs)
7. Dhii (benevolent intellect)
8. Vidya’ (spiritual knowledge)
9. Satyam (benevolent truthfulness)
10. Akrodha (non-anger)

Now all these encompass what people consider their religion to be all about. If these qualities constitute Dharma, would a Muslim/ Xtian say he does not believe in these above and claim to be Adharmic?

[RajeshA]

If one wants to beat Pakistani Islamism and turn Western India into Dharmic land again, then the strategy cannot be based on Dharma as a value system. The strategy has to be based with Dharmic identity as the goal. Dharmic identity is not possible from within the current Pakistani ideology. It would require mass conversions.

To realize this transformation, Dharma plays only the part of restraining our tactical options, and that is okay! Dharma only tells us what we can't do! It does not tell us what we should!

[Agnimitra]

If one wants to beat Pakistani Islamism and turn Western India into Dharmic land again, then the strategy cannot be based on Dharma as a value system. The strategy has to be based with Dharmic identity as the goal. Dharmic identity is not possible from within the current Pakistani ideology. It would require mass conversions.

Very true. This "children's" story from the Hitopadesha is the relevant tactic here. One cannot use high brahminical ethics to tackle mean-minded rat people. Rather, one has to spawn a lower life form to tackle the menace. Here's a translation of the story. Enjoy.

Once upon a time, in a mountain cave, there lived a mighty lion. Whenever he went to sleep, a mouse used to come out of his hole and nibble at the lion’s mane. When the lion discovered this, he was furious.

But he couldn’t do anything about it, for the mouse would run away, the minute the lion got up to catch him and would slip off into his hole. Over time the lion's mane was becoming thinner and thinner. The lion thought the matter over and finally hit upon an idea. He went to the village nearby and brought a cat back with him.

He fed her on choicest tidbits and let her loose in the cave. When the mouse saw the cat, he was very frightened and would not come out. So the lion was able to sleep in peace. Whenever he heard the mouse moving around, he gave some food to the cat and then went back to sleep, while the cat stood guard over him. This went on for some time.

Then one day, the mouse was so hungry…. So hungry that he risked his life coming out to look for food. The cat instantly pounced on him and killed him.

When the lion realized that the mouse was killed, he relaxed and stopped feeding the cat. He left her on her own. The poor cat, in due course, grew weaker and finally starved to death.

[shiv]

Added later: (Qualities Dharma)

1. Dhrti (patience)
2. Ks’ama (forgiveness)
3. Dhama (self-control)
4. Asteya (non-stealing)
5. Shaoca (cleanliness)
6. Indriyanigraha (control over organs)
7. Dhii (benevolent intellect)
8. Vidya’ (spiritual knowledge)
9. Satyam (benevolent truthfulness)
10. Akrodha (non-anger)

Now all these encompass what people consider their religion to be all about. If these qualities constitute Dharma, would a Muslim/ Xtian say he does not believe in these above and claim to be Adharmic?

Harbans the biggest conflict between Hindu and the Monotheistic Abrahamic faiths was that Dharma exists independent of God. That is why Indian Dharma could be followed independent of the identity or existence of God. The same Dharma came as dictation from God in Christianity and Islam.

The conflict has less to do with Dharma and more to do with a requirement to deny the existence of alternate Gods. Both Islam and Christianity demand that the "Intellectual property" of Dharmic rules belongs to their God. By denying that their God came up with those rules you are trespassing on the perceived IPR of those religions.

If you read "Maximum City" where the author has interviewed real murderers, Muslim hit men of the Chhota Rajan gang (I think) , they speak of their own Dharma. Pakistan might be less about Islam than we imagine. Pakistan may merely be a complex consequence of racist White European Christian attitudes about which races were superior and which were inferior (and why that was so) imposed on a mixed population of gullible Hindus and Muslims who were both defeated and dominated and "re-educated" by the superior organization and military of those same racist White European Christians.

[Hiten]

@Shiv Sir,

I've just sent you an e-mail. Subject line has the numbers 20120220 - in them

your e-mail id: bennedose at hotmale

Thank you

[Pranav]

Now all these encompass what people consider their religion to be all about. If these qualities constitute Dharma, would a Muslim/ Xtian say he does not believe in these above and claim to be Adharmic?

You cannot avoid a process of Manthan. Is Sharia law, with its penalties for blasphemy etc, compatible with Dharma? Some things will have to be explicitly rejected.

[AKalam]

I was having an email conversation with RajeshA ji, and the following is an excerpt from that conversation from one of my emails. At his suggestion, I am putting it out there FWIW, please take it as my 2 paisa:

Large states like China and India are going to become more influential players as time passes. Smaller states whether they are Muslim or otherwise, they will try to balance the increasing roles of these two emerging giants with their relationships with competing powers. At this moment, since the US led West is still at the top, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan or any other country, whenever they are faced with a threat from any of these two emerging powers, they look to US led West or the remaining power from the above two to balance off, so this part is obvious. And this role of being the global balancer is why US led West will continue to occupy the moral high ground. The meme of white supremacy and "white man's burden" idea is symbiotic with this status quo, meaning the status quo situation of economic/scientific/military supremacy and the idea of racial white supremacy reinforce each other.

According to the rule of divide and conquer, if a global super power want to concentrate all power in its own hand, then every body else must be made as divided and scattered as possible. So for the US and EU, large states like China and India are long term strategic threats, in my opinion, mainly because they are at least 4 times the size of US and 3 times the size of EU in population. Even if all white people in the world united, from Russia, Oceania to EU and North America, it would still be less than a billion. I believe a white fortress Europa with EU+North America+Russia+Oceania will happen when the US led West will finally come to realize that they are loosing their edge with the Chinese, lets say around 2025-2030 time frame.

So there are two things:
- one is that both China and India are growing economically and gaining in science and technology knowledge base and the gap with the West is reducing every year
- the West still has a substantial lead, but they are not united in large states like China or India and it is questionable if the geographically distant North America, EU, Russia and Oceania can really unite, just based on their common ethnic white European origin and historical homeland, which gives them a common somewhat similar cultural background.

The smaller countries, which is the rest of the world must wonder then who should they bet on in the long term. Is it going to be a possible united West/white nation, China or India? A reference to a very well known model may be relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-systems_theory

Here we need to consider other issues like relationships between people of the countries. The US led West actually has been using their colonial connection as well as the meme of white supremacy and their current scientific, economic and social advancement to the fullest to enhance relationship between the rest of the world and themselves and thus establish themselves as the moral leader of the world that everyone should follow and emulate, although the story is a bit mixed considering and taking into account the past and present predatory behaviors, including the past decade of over reaction since 9/11. But nevertheless they have a conscious effort in this direction, to attract the elite of other countries, host them in educational institutions and eventually accommodate them in their civil society with a reasonable good income and life style. My living in the US and your living in EU are good examples, so are millions of others. Providing market access is another important economic incentive. So these factors of good will and cultivated relationship also count for a lot when people consider how much they will be able to trust the future of their people and their country if they depend on a certain super power and become a part of their sphere of influence.

China and India still have a long way to go to cultivate such relationships, I think and it will become only more important in future years. Chinese Han chauvinism and ultra nationalism will be a good glue to keep their majority "Han" population united, but relationship with neighbors can become collateral damage of this unifying nationalism, unless more virulent strains of this meme is controlled. Similarly a unifying nationalism may have positives for Indian "majority" population, but its relations with minorities, neighbors as well as others may become collateral damage, if this nationalism uses the other as a useful scapegoat. And when small nations feel threatened and ill-treated, they will find themselves with no choice but to find balancers from near or far. Whether it is Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka w.r.t India or it is Japan, Korea, Vietnam or Indonesia w.r.t. China, the story is pretty much the same.

So what are smaller less powerful nations going to do in the future to protect their interest. I think the trend will be to form more EU type regional unions of nation states, so we will see more of African Union, ASEAN (possibly Japan and Korea joining and may be Bangladesh joining in at a much later stage), Central Asian Union (7 stan's+Mongolia+Turkey+Azerbaijan and possibly Iran in the future), Arab League, Latin American Union etc. This trend, in my opinion, will be an attempt to reduce harmful influence from large superpower states or group of states of the world.

With our thought experiment, we have seen how people feel about a SAARC union. It is quite natural, because people in large states like India and China already know they are one of the largest states in the world, they just need to manage their affairs well to do well, they do not need to get into any future possible unions, while they have their plate full keeping what they have together, united and well managed. In a way, both China and India are unions, but have the unique and unusual privilege to be existing nation states.

While I see this future possible road map for the world, I wish the people of India well. We used to be one country and people, twist of fate has made us separate. I think hatred, past historical baggage and not having an open mind about future possibilities will not help people of India, in their effort to become a future global super power. It will hamper in their economic relationship with not just neighbors like Pakistan or Bangladesh, but also their relationship with a quarter of the world's population, who happen to be Muslim. Granted Muslims have their myriad problems, but despite these problems, the West deals with Muslims in many different ways. They make many mistakes, they started a crusade since 9/11 and killed close to a million in Iraq and Afghanistan and have started killing in Pakistan and elsewhere with their drones in the name of GWOT, yet they go into Libya and help these same Muslims and provide at least moral support in Syria, while China cannot get past their limited vision and ideas. India did poorly with Libya initially but learnt its lessons and did well with Syria. In summary, Muslims know that the stupid white man is ignorant, head strong and kinda clue less, but they mean well and they do not have a blanket hatred of Muslims and the religion of Islam. So after all these misdeeds, the "white man" gets away with murder and still maintains the moral high ground compared with competing emerging powers like China or India.

This is where shiv' ji's point comes in. White supremacy is a peculiar meme that is believed and upheld by non-whites much more so than more knowledgeable, educated, exposed and politically correct whites. So for example, I personally experienced more racism from Bangladeshi's or Korean's or Arabs or Turkic Central Asians than from educated white's (Russians or Americans). I have seen that educated white people treat me better and show more respect than an educated Bangladeshi man or an educated Korean man or any of the others I mentioned above. How is it possible? I think it has to do with level of self respect people usually have for themselves and this in large part determines how they treat others. Of course it depends on individuals and there are exceptions to the rule, but I am speaking in general and what I have seen in most cases. This is not to say that white people have given up on white supremacy, my proof for that is their arrogance and stupidity in not seeing the threat from China and India and helping to empower these two mega economies, which of course works out well to create a more multi-polar world. So let them be proud, arrogant and stupid, why not. I think it will be good for the world only.

Like VS Naipaul's concept of wounded civilization, I believe both China and India will find their mettle in due time, which shiv ji is lamenting about. I think it's only a matter of time, as nutrition, education and socio economic condition improves gradually. And if we can find a neighbor as someone who we can depend on and who we have so much in common with, why should we go to the West or the Chinese? It is a possible future I would hope and wish to see, while in the interim we keep trying to create union of smaller nation states, using existing balancers to balance and depend on the existing core. I think this general state of affairs can be applied to a lot of situations in the world, whether it is in subcontinent or in other parts of the world.

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from TIRP Thread

Here are my views and why I currently support the intact Pakistan model.

<snip>

If the Pakjabi army and the US retain their current relationship they can pretty much guide the shape of those areas even if some areas are split away. A United Pakjab (90 million plus) controlling Karachi and allied with the USA would be a very dangerous thing for anyone else in the area. A Pakjabi army that "cedes" Gilgit to China could "cede" parts of Baluchistan near the Iran border to the USA and then earn the US's eternal gratitude and support against India.

1) Why would Pakjabi Army ever think of reducing its own area of operational freedom (whole of Pakistan) by allowing some regions to split from Pakistan?

2) And if they would not allow it, why would the Pakjabi Army be "co-operating" with USA in guiding the shape of those areas?

So the scenario doesn't make sense!

3) The question arises whether those regions can become independent without US approval! My answer is no!

Nations have two aspects - control and outside-recognition. Unlike Bangladesh which was on the other side of the Subcontinent, and Pakjabis had no hope of reversing their loss of control, in Baluchistan this is not the case. Pakjabi Army even if it loses de-facto control on the ground, can walk in anytime again in the future. So loss of control is temporary, and in areas of Pakistan, Pakjabi Army is often willing to cede control on the ground - simply because they know they can retake control anytime they need it.

As regaining control in Bangladesh was impossible, USA agreed to recognition of Bangladesh even if it was against its will and terms of its alliance with Pakistanis. That scenario cannot be repeated in Baluchistan.

If USA does not agree to independence of Baluchistan, then any declaration of Independence would go unrecognized in Europe, North America, Oceania, China and possibly the whole Ummah also (except say for Oman). And at anytime in the future Pakjabi Army can move in again.

So USA will have to be on board with this.

And if USA is on board and helps in realizing Baluchistan's Independence, and Pakjabi Army is dead set against loss of control over its areas, how can one speak of cooperation between the two countries in shaping the split?!!!!!

An intact Pakistan where we attempt to pacify Pakjab and protect the concept of Pakistan for the sake of historic unity of the subcontinent can be pulled off if the cards are played well. Baluchis and Pashtuns can get their due as Pakistan is pacified. I want india to have a reduced threat from the Pakjabi army which is the main ally of the USA. I want India to have land access to Baluchistan, Iran and Afghanistan via Pakjab. US meddling and ability to meddle needs to be reduced, not increased. Indians do not need to plan for something that benefits the US more and India less in the name of Baluchi freedom.

That is not simply status-quo GoI policy, but it is jumbled thinking in the GoI and takes one back to the starting line in analyzing India's options with Pakistan.

The Truth is: Pakjabis would come to detente, and eventually to an entente with India, when all other avenues have been closed! We are their last choice!

There is per se nothing wrong with dealing with Pakjabis. But one would get only trickery, play for time and taqiyyah from them if they see some remote chance of going it alone!

The only way to get Pakjabis eating out of our hands, is if all other avenues of power are taken away from them. That means they lose access to Central Asia except through hostile Pushtunistan and Baluchistan. That means access to the sea only through a hostile India-friendly Sindh. That means access to China only through Gilgit-Baltistan which is under Indian control. De-facto Pakjab becomes a land-locked island dependent on sympathy from hostile neighbors and less-than-hostile India.

[Atri]

Good one, Kalam Ji.. welcome back..

Will critique your post shortly.. But it is nice to hear from you after a while..

[harbans]

Very nice post Kalam Ji.

This is where shiv' ji's point comes in. White supremacy is a peculiar meme that is believed and upheld by non-whites much more so than more knowledgeable, educated, exposed and politically correct whites. So for example, I personally experienced more racism from Bangladeshi's or Korean's or Arabs or Turkic Central Asians than from educated white's (Russians or Americans). I have seen that educated white people treat me better and show more respect than an educated Bangladeshi man or an educated Korean man or any of the others I mentioned above. How is it possible?

That sort of proves and disproves both what Shiv Ji is trying to say. Race supremacy theories were very prevalent in the beginning of the 20th century and the world did pay a heavy price. White Chrisitandom specifically. These were the theories propagated by the White Christian colonizers and taken up in earnest by the Fascists including in Asia. However in an evolving world, specially in Modern times one see's it's also an economic thing. Before (70s-80s) in India it was common drawing room talk in many circles for example that Goans treated foreigners better than Indians themselves. It reversed sometime last 2 decades as the local economy found that Indian tourists were spending larger sums of money than tourists, they behaved better and it made sense to cater to that segment. That has been replicated in many areas around.

Shiv wrote:

The conflict has less to do with Dharma and more to do with a requirement to deny the existence of alternate Gods. Both Islam and Christianity demand that the "Intellectual property" of Dharmic rules belongs to their God. By denying that their God came up with those rules you are trespassing on the perceived IPR of those religions.

Pranav wrote:

Is Sharia law, with its penalties for blasphemy etc, compatible with Dharma? Some things will have to be explicitly rejected.

India as such is not denying alternate Gods and their link to Dharma however tenuous that may be. Obviously as Pranav Ji says blasphemy laws with Islamic and Christian doctrine are unpalatable with Dharma and so are many other practices sanctioned within the doctrines of both. Dharma being central to human beings is also invoked by every that is on the brink of war. Saddam, Gaddaffi, Bush, Hitler, any Ghazi always claimed we are making war so that Truth may prevail, Justice may be done, people see the light of XYZ etc..

Why i mentioned Dharma in India's context is mass accepting any other meme is not going to unite India under a banner that will not succumb to the excluvist onslaught of divide and rule perpetuated by White Christian banners, an Islamic one or a CPC imperialist one. Whether it is dividing people on ethnicity, region, religion etc. If the Dharmics unite under that banner, it is only possible to start reclaiming those who have really strayed to the path of excluvist ideology within the Indian subcontinent. Once we do that, all what we do can be justified morally under the Dharmic banner. It's a counter to the 20th century White chritisandom, Islamism, Chinese claims over Buddhist heritage that we develop.

If we fail to do so, we won't defend Bhutan, Nepal, Arunachal ultimately. We will honor voices and opinions like MKB that should be trashed. We will make the weak statements on Tibet that have become so routine from our leaders. they don't have a value system template within themselves and the nation under a secular banner is not providing that much needed defence too. Bringing Dharma as a template the nation gives the leadership and people to follow clearly enunciated principles as means and an ultimate goal. Both are linked. There is subtelity in Dharma, and it's not Chanakyan. It's the power that Truth and moral perspective unleashes which we should harness and as i mentioned which is hollowly invoked by warring rulers to motivate people to war. If we don't stand for something we must remember we will fall for anything. Rama and the Pandava's fought wars on Dharma.

[AKalam]

With due respect, Harbans ji, this reinforces shiv ji's recent new idea. I congratulate shiv ji for bringing it up. It is not a peripheral or past issue. It is actually a central issue as present today as it was 100-200 years ago, in my opinion. Perhaps its more subtle and more refined, but its there and I would even argue that its reaches have only increased with globalization and increasing global travel. I guess we don't notice it much, because we were born in it, grew up in it and we breathe in it everyday and we have not known a different world, just like a fish that grew up in a toxic poisoned sea never will know what a different world could feel like, unless it jumps out of the water momentarily and see a bright new different world. I would just give a simple pointer, since it seems like you are a well traveled person. Whenever you are in a non-white country (including India), while waiting for flights near any ticket counters, please watch non-verbal behavior of personnel when they are dealing with people of different races, specially with whites, blacks, yellow and other brown races.

Why are we talking about this in a Pakistan thread? Like shiv ji said, it indeed relates to the traditional contempt white people felt toward darker races for their irrationality, their tendencies to fight for no apparent good reason. So "little dark monkeys" fighting for Islam/Hinduism or Shia/Sunni or Buddhism/Hinduism (Sri Lanka) fits well in this picture, while the "yellow monkeys" do not seem to fight over such nonsense, just sayin. And maybe this is why Kissinger and the white establishment chose to bring the Chinese in the team and still do not know exactly what to do with or make of India. And maybe people are probably correct when they say that there is a preference for Pakistan over India or Bangladesh, because of these same reasons from a subconscious level.

So while people in the white world are thinking about "Occupy movement" to unite the world (most probably the mostly white world) and create a sustainable planet free from greed and pollution, we the darker people are stuck in the past and fighting over nothing. These tid bits reinforces the picture and the model.

I can tell much from my personal experience and my close interactions with some other races also gives me additional windows.

There are many different angles to this issue. I will probably go into them more in the GDF threads. But I should say just this, that us, darker races need to actually prove with our material and social achievements that we are as good or better than non-dark races, before these others will believe that these racial hierarchy theories/memes are false and without any basis.

And every chance we get, we should remind the non-dark races that it is them who have polluted the world, filled the atmosphere with green house gases and destroyed civilizations invading and colonizing different places. If we, the darker races could adopt and fine tune the sustainable development model better, it could also reinforce our claim that the "whiter" races are responsible for messing up the planet with not just chemicals and radio active waste but their toxic ideas as well.

[devesh]

^^^
does Islam also fit with the "destroyed civilizations invading and colonizing different places" or is it excluded?

and what "past" do you think we "darker races" are fighting over? that's a vague term. I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by that, so I'll wait to hear it from your before I comment on it.

for me, the above two issues just jumped out from your post.

[A_Gupta]

What failure? Goldman Sachs says it is an important emerging market.

http://www.globaldashboard.org/2012/02/ ... ng-market/

{Pakistan} also is a much less violent country than commonly believed. The homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants is one-third of Brazil’s, on par with Estonia, and lower than Costa Rica, Kazakhstan, and Indonesia, none of which are known as especially violent places

[Prem]

I am confused, who is the biggest clear and present evilish devilsh danger, Islamist or White man's dying burden syndrome?
To simple me, Poqlish ideological forces are much more dangeorus and immediate danger to us. Bacon in Machiavelli said, a serpant can become stronger only by eating the Toad. Why not take this route and become balancer in present global circus . India needs to gather back what it had puked out along with undigested rotton eggs, clean it up and make it usabale again.

[brihaspati]

Are we really sure that this thingie about "white man" and colour based racism, was really started by the European, and it is onlee from the European that the Pakistani elite learned to look down upon the "dark faced" Indian, presumably "Hindoo" Indian?

The Islamic chronicles abound with the association of "dark" "blackness" with India and Indians, and yes, in very negative senses - way before the Europeans ever set foot here in the modern period.

For example, the verses on supposed encounter of Sikander in the Sikandar Nama,e bahr, with a supposed king of Kanauj, Kaid submits and who quickly gets properly frightened and sends his daughter for Sikander's pleasures:

A moon of soldier-cheek, of Hind-nature;
From (black) Hindústán, Paradise given to the king. (What a wonder!)

Not a Hindú; but in name a soldier of Khatay;
For heart-ravishing, perfect, like the Hindú (the notorious thief):

With her Rúmish (ruddy) face and the Hindú ball (the black mole),
[.....]
He wrote those words whose purport was:
Of the conquest of the land of musky blackness (Hindú-stán),

There are many such - citations in most of the Persian texts by Islamic writers.

The racist looking down upon - is found in many ways, based on appearance, in the older Islamist texts - for example the claim that Kashmiri's became "good looking" only after they began to "mix" with "Turks".

[shiv]

Cross post - more appropriate in this thread
Folks let me just put some dates on here for perspective, all courtesy Wiki. The post is somewhat OT here but I will not be able to make myself understood unless I go back a few thousand years. I believe it is important that "Indians" understand this and I will cross post in the Indian Interests thread.

Maurya empire 322 BC–185 BC
Chola Empire 300 BC–1279
Gupta Empire 320 CE -600 CE
Vijayanagar empire 1336–1646
Mughal Empire 1526–1764
Maratha empire 1674 - 1820
Sikh Empire 1799–1849
British Empire 1858–1947

First: What was "India" 2000 plus years ago?

1. Alexander came to the Indus and found India
2. Roman ships were trading off the coast of Pondicherry with "India" 2500 km from what Alexander called "India"
3. Buddha was born 2000 km away from Alexanders "India" and the Roman sourthern trading coast of India and the Bodhidharma that went East also came from "India"

India was, and is a huge place. The only way to protect such a huge territory is to define its borders in "nation-state" format

If you look at the dates above, South India was relatively free from foreign influence because of the Chola and Vijayanagar empires (highlighted in bold). Particularly. Muslim influence on the South was not as long and severe as the North. However Christianity via the Portuguese and later Evangelists (even today) started exerting a more insidious influence in South India especially with the Hinduization of Christianity which was deliberately done to reconcile Hindu concepts with Biblical concepts.

Islamic invaders were definitely not the worst thing to happen to whole of India. Islam's worst excesses were mainly in the North. The worst raped areas were Sindh and Punjab, and later Rajasthan, Gujarat and all the way down the Ganga river. But Muslim influence South of the Vindhyas was later and smaller. The Portuguese and British came via the sea. South India is more exposed via the sea route. The British came as traders and set up in Madras and Calcutta. Cochin/Goa/Mangalore had Portuguese influence. Note that early British exposure to India (1700s) was via the East India comany onlee to the relatively darker skinned Indians of the Southern and Eastern coasts

The British "took over" India at a time of flux when the Mughal empre was being defeated by the Marathas and Sikhs. By the tome the british crown took over India the Industrial revolution had started and the racial theories of White European Christian superiority had been invented. With the spurt in exploration European scholars like Max Muller "discovered" Sanskrit knowledge even as the British "understood" Indian history as "Fair Skinned North Western races overran dark skinned Dravidians. Later the Hindus were defeated by the Mughals. Again fair skin Gunga Din Martial won over contaminated cross breeding Hindus. And we the supreme British defeated the Mughals and now lord over the world."

This was the history that you and I inherited. So the Islamic loot and rape was more limited that we like to imagine. It was there but it persisted far longer and was more severe in North India. In fact what is completely missing from this history is the fact that the Portuguese destroyed 500 temples in Sri Lanka. And the Portuguese had an Inquisition killing Hindus in India. Of course these atrocities were for a shorter period of time than Islamic atrocities and so fewer people were murdered, but that is a lousy excuse.

The British gave Indian the impression that they were benevolent superior races. Their "Christianity" was hidden by their overall white supremacy. White and Protestant was for them the greatest race of man. Not just plain Protestant. Not Catholic. Not Jew. White and Protestant. Hindu Indians admire White Protestant nations for their greatness while we hate Islam for its murder. That allows "benign" conversion by superior white races - but the converts are never equal to the original white.

This is a skewed worldview that we need to reconsider if we take the history of all of India into consideration rather than only North West and the Ganga plains.

[shiv]

Are we really sure that this thingie about "white man" and colour based racism, was really started by the European, and it is onlee from the European that the Pakistani elite learned to look down upon the "dark faced" Indian, presumably "Hindoo" Indian?

The Islamic chronicles abound with the association of "dark" "blackness" with India and Indians, and yes, in very negative senses - way before the Europeans ever set foot here in the modern period.

Brihaspati do you have any information from these European translations of Persian texts that the Persian/Muslims believed that White was superior to black. It was a very European white supremacist thing supported by Biblical theories about Ham to believe that fair was superior o black. It was the same racist Europeans who translated those Persian texts unless you have access to other translators. It would have suited color racists to highlight the "ancient" knowledge of white supremacy as noted by "other races"

[brihaspati]

shiv ji,
the "white European" no doubt used the concept of colour-based discrimination and racism, to the most intense statecraft possible. But it is one-sided history if it is said, that it was they who invented it for suppressing Indians. It was already in use before them by the Islamist adventurers - which is understandable - because they too were faced with the problem of maintaining simple visual distinctions between the ruler and the ruled.

The Europeans - to start with - in their most classical imperialist forms - did not have the concept of colour based racism. No evidence in the Roman or Greek empires and systems. Even though they did face up to "blackness" and dark-skin on ethnicity basis [not as if they did not need it because they did not come to SDRE Indians].

Oh and yes, the use of "black" does occur in negative connotation - I can read some Persian. It was most delightful perhaps for the European translator to find this - butthe negative connotation is already there in the Persian.

[shiv]

shiv ji,
the "white European" no doubt used the concept of colour-based discrimination and racism, to the most intense statecraft possible. But it is one-sided history if it is said, that it was they who invented it for suppressing Indians. It was already in use before them by the Islamist adventurers - which is understandable - because they too were faced with the problem of maintaining simple visual distinctions between the ruler and the ruled.

The Europeans - to start with - in their most classical imperialist forms - did not have the concept of colour based racism. No evidence in the Roman or Greek empires and systems. Even though they did face up to "blackness" and dark-skin on ethnicity basis [not as if they did not need it because they did not come to SDRE Indians].

Oh and yes, the use of "black" does occur in negative connotation - I can read some Persian. It was most delightful perhaps for the European translator to find this - butthe negative connotation is already there in the Persian.

Brihaspati forget Greeks and Romans. The racist white supremacist theories came up in the 1700s to 1800s. I am strongly against blaming Islam alone if we are going to ignore the elephant in the room. With respect may I point out that is remains one-sided history if you absolve the white Europeans on the basis that Muslims did it earlier.

I believe that you are quoting a slightly "European coloured" history by crediting Europeans with their "Classic" colour innocent Greek and Roman background without the crucial addition of later history that led to the reformation, the industrial and social revolution in Europe and the need to explain why Christianity and Europe were supreme after the 1700s. White Christian supremacy was the obvious explanation that suited Church, nation and "scientist". "Sciences" like ethnology were based on these fundamental premises, and colonialsim and "White man's burden" and the need to control inferior races sprang from that . And these are the countries we admire most today, while we hate islam with all our might.

[Kamboja]

Just to add a data point to the racism in Islam discussion --

The Ottoman Empire had within its borders almost every ethnicity possible - Russian, Balkan, Caucasian (Armenian etc.), Persian, Arab, North African, and via trade and slaving, Western Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans.

By corollary, the Sultans had access to women collected from all these places and placed in the imperial harem. There's no reason to doubt that beautiful girls from every corner of the Ottoman world would be brought for the Sultan's collection. So we can reasonably assume that there were blacks, whites, semitic browns, east asians, perhaps even south asians in the harem.

Yet practically all the Ottoman sultans chose white women to be their favorite concubines and wives. The children would then be half Turkish (back when Turkish was actually closer to Mongol than the mix that it is today) and half-white, but the preference for white wives and therefore children is remarkably consistent, to the point where the Sultans were 'Turks' in name only, but were 90% white by blood.

The Turks also demonstrated a preference for their white European subjects in other areas, for e.g. choosing who to enslave and convert to Islam (the janissaries), and eventually these same folks became the pashas and beys who ruled territories and served in high official positions.

Yet we hear little about Arab, and nothing about Black, subjects or wives or concubines raised to such heights with such consistency, despite the empire having plenty of such subjects in its territories. And all of this in an empire that started out in the 1300s and 1400s, well before the 'scientific racism' of W. Europe and in fact in centuries when Ottoman power overshadowed white European power -- to the point where all of Europe was afraid of a future where they were ruled by the Turk.

[brihaspati]

shiv ji,
the "white European" no doubt used the concept of colour-based discrimination and racism, to the most intense statecraft possible. But it is one-sided history if it is said, that it was they who invented it for suppressing Indians. It was already in use before them by the Islamist adventurers - which is understandable - because they too were faced with the problem of maintaining simple visual distinctions between the ruler and the ruled.

The Europeans - to start with - in their most classical imperialist forms - did not have the concept of colour based racism. No evidence in the Roman or Greek empires and systems. Even though they did face up to "blackness" and dark-skin on ethnicity basis [not as if they did not need it because they did not come to SDRE Indians].

Oh and yes, the use of "black" does occur in negative connotation - I can read some Persian. It was most delightful perhaps for the European translator to find this - butthe negative connotation is already there in the Persian.

Brihaspati forget Greeks and Romans. The racist white supremacist theories came up in the 1700s to 1800s. I am strongly against blaming Islam alone if we are going to ignore the elephant in the room. With respect may I point out that is remains one-sided history if you absolve the white Europeans on the basis that Muslims did it earlier.

I believe that you are quoting a slightly "European coloured" history by crediting Europeans with their "Classic" colour innocent Greek and Roman background without the crucial addition of later history that led to the reformation, the industrial and social revolution in Europe and the need to explain why Christianity and Europe were supreme after the 1700s. White Christian supremacy was the obvious explanation that suited Church, nation and "scientist". "Sciences" like ethnology were based on these fundamental premises, and colonialsim and "White man's burden" and the need to control inferior races sprang from that . And these are the countries we admire most today, while we hate islam with all our might.

shiv ji,
you should not attribute to me things I have not said, and then accuse me on the basis of thata ttribution. Nowhere in my posts have I absolved the Europeans of their burden of colour based supremacy concepts.

My pointers were specifically because historically, that the region relevant for this thread, and what you are describing also - the Paki colour based chauvinism and racism - could have been part of Pakiness from within Islamism, and before the advent of Europeanism in the zone.

What you are representing is then one-sided because unlike me, who really mentioned specifically the Euroean part in colour-racism while drawing attention to the earlier contribution of Islam - you failed to mention anything about the role of Islam in the same.

It may suit your current projection to draw in the Pakis into a construction that hopefully constructs an identity jointly with India and the non-Muslim that is more dense and solid than the Paki jointness with the European and Anglo-Saxon. In this you come across as trying to absolve the Islamic from its role in colour-based racism and shifting the entire burden only on the European. Merely pointing this out is not about whitewashing the role of the European.

My pointer was to point out the very real danger - that Paki colour based racism could be independent of any identification with the European or "white Christian", and that it could have older roots, which simply flourished under British patronage, but need not vanish simply because you remove the European from the scene.

The Paki elite could have become rootless - from a very long time ago, and could have had adopted visual/ethnic/anthropomorphic exculsivity to legitimize their minority rule over the majority.

By the way, OT - but even the 17th century origin of colour-racism will be hard to prove from records. There is a theory [based again on the very close, "intimate" presence of "blacks" in "white European" society] that the older origins were constructed in the late 19th century to show that Europeans had already arrived at the colour-racism long before the Victorian innovation - and it was an integral part of European identity and ethos- and hence the imperialists were drawing from solid, natural European traditions. Documents do talk otherwise.

[shiv]

Yet we hear little about Arab, and nothing about Black, subjects or wives or concubines raised to such heights with such consistency, despite the empire having plenty of such subjects in its territories. And all of this in an empire that started out in the 1300s and 1400s, well before the 'scientific racism' of W. Europe and in fact in centuries when Ottoman power overshadowed white European power -- to the point where all of Europe was afraid of a future where they were ruled by the Turk.

If we get back to colour theory as propounded by the scientists of Europe, colours were "Pure white", "Black" and "Yellow"

Here is a scan of a page from an early 20 century book illustrating this theory
http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k56 ... i-part.jpg

What confounded the scientists was the observation that while Europe was white and Africa was black there were mixed colors, which they attributed to "interbreeding" of what might have been separate species.


The very same book in a later edition. linked by ArmenT in the Inferiority thread shows a photo of an Arab woman - a sexy wench who is pretty dark skinned. Arabs were dark skinned for Europeans. Africans and Indians were dark skinned for Arabs, Persians and Europeans. What this meant in essence was that the European was the purest breed and treated teh Arab like the Arab treated the black who was "beneath" him. It turns out that indians, like black Africans are at the bottom of the pile and "recognised" as such by the Europans and Arabs/Persians. But the Arabs/Persians were themselves inferior races to the Europeans - so the former got a taste of their own medicine from the colonial Europeans.

A modern day example of this is visible in the way Pakis are treated by Arabs.

It is important to realise that Islamic racism was not the only thing that affected Indians. European racism also did that. But it is equally important to understand the "sandwich" situation of Muslims who happily imagined they were superior to blacks - but got defeated and dhimmified by the European white and many Arabs and Muslims have the same dhimmitude towards the west as Indians have, and many others feel the same anger at the west as Indians feel towards Muslims. While we feel great anger towards invading Muslims for their racial contempt and murder, the same courtesies were extended to the same invading Muslims by the Europeans. This history in fact added to the "White supremacy" narrative of Europe.

The British who dominated India came acted as if they were "saviors" to some Hindus who were already under a yoke of racist discrimination by murderous Muslims. But to the ruling Ashraf in India the British were depriving them of what they thought was theirs. In fact the fake history that "Mughals ruled India for 1000 years" has not come from Mughal or Arab or Persian sources. It is the white European narrative that the White Christians of Europe dominated and defeated this great Islamic empire that itself was a victorious empire that had defeated the great Hindu empire of India even earlier.

This fake history of 1000 year rule suited the British to show their supremacy. The same fake 100 year domination history suits Pakistanis as a chip on their shoulder to be angry with the West and try to "reclaim" an India they never owned.

In the middle of these two sets of delusions, what do Indian do?

Should we hate Muslims for their racist murder? Hate white Europeans? Or should we love Europeans for defeating the racist Muslims? Or should we feel sorry for the darker skinned Muslims who, like Hindus have been racially discriminated by the Europeans while being rejected by fairer Muslims as impure? Or try and play off the racist Europeans with the racist Arabs? Or take the attitude that Muslims have killed more of us for longer so they need more and longer hate than the Europeans whose benign liberalism gave us science and freedom as part of their superior benevolence and gradually split India up into white Aryan and black Dravidian who is now being converted because the white Aryans of Indai suppressed them?

If you look at Indians as a whole - all these streams of thought exist. Indians have reacted to foreign influences the way they have felt in their corner of India. There is no stream of though that is more right than the others. If no stream of thought is more right than others, why should Muslims be hated more that anything else? They may not be the bigest threat any more. Just fellow SDREs lungi dancing as they whelp and reproduce more morons in a world led by someone else.

[shiv]

you should not attribute to me things I have not said, and then accuse me on the basis of thata ttribution. Nowhere in my posts have I absolved the Europeans of their burden of colour based supremacy concepts.

Then please extend the same courtesy to me. Nowhere did I say that Europeans invented racism to suppress Indians

You said earlier:

But it is one-sided history if it is said, that it was they who invented it for suppressing Indians.

The Europeans and specifically teh Britih in India played a double game of cleaving fair skinned Hindus from dark skined ones and then later theorizing (after 1857) that the fair skinned Gunga Dins of teh North West were better people than other Indians who required special sympathy.

Indian Muslims who were sore with the british and actually considered fighting for freedom alongside Hindus were weaned away as a different nation - the Muslim nation that would suffer if India was handed over to Hindus. Naturally this suited the existing racist tendency of Paki/Asrfa Muslims. Pakis still eat out of white man's hands in the same way that some Indians do.

[brihaspati]

shiv ji,
I mentioned both in my posts. You only went on discussing the role of white christian ideology. There is no utility in fighting between us, if we want to really understand all possible factors behind Paki elite colour based racism. Excluding one because we want alliance between the other two - may not be successful, if there are possible factors that lie within the ethno-theology of the region independent of this one excluded factor.

A more effective line is perhaps to point out that the "whitey" is concentrated more in the elite, land-owning classes of Pakistan. The commons are as SDRE as the overwhelming rest of India. Those other SDRE Pakis should be faced up to the mirror and shown for what they really are - SDRE children of SDRE mothers and SDRE fathers, and SDRE ancestors.

[Agnimitra]

Shiv ji,

Colour-based racism definitely existed in the Middle East among Islamics, and I have read Persian texts that freely indulge in the most horrendous racist abuse. In fact, it actually forms a genre of Persian literature - where the author freely uses racist and religious abuse in a sort of heroic humour. One example of such a text is the Abu Moslem Namah. It has profuse abuse not just about Sunnis, but also about darker skinned peoples. It makes fun of dark features, how their women are attracted and used by fairer men, and how its totally alright to manipulate them, loot their wealth, and massacre them by the tens of thousands.

[shiv]

A more effective line is perhaps to point out that the "whitey" is concentrated more in the elite, land-owning classes of Pakistan. The commons are as SDRE as the overwhelming rest of India. Those other SDRE Pakis should be faced up to the mirror and shown for what they really are - SDRE children of SDRE mothers and SDRE fathers, and SDRE ancestors.

Brihaspati, let me ask a fundamental question. Not because you don't know the answer, but because I suspect hundreds of readers and lurkers don't know the answer. But that is what makes it germane to this thread

What use is your statement above to anyone in India? What use is it to point out to SDRE pakis that they too are SDRE?

The only utility is to point out that they too are victims of color racist supremacy.

Why would we want to do that to Pakis? The only uitility would be to wean them away to the "dark side" of the racist border.

But Pakis are all despicable racist murderous Muslims aren't they? if so why all this appealing to their better senses?

The point I am making is that the only reason to "reason" with Pakis is to tell them their real history and make them choose which side they are on. Right now their army is performing the job needed from them by the inheritors of the White christian supremacists, and are working against india and their own heritage.

[shiv]

Shiv ji,

Colour-based racism definitely existed in the Middle East among Islamics, and I have read Persian texts that freely indulge in the most horrendous racist abuse. In fact, it actually forms a genre of Persian literature - where the author freely uses racist and religious abuse in a sort of heroic humour. One example of such a text is the Abu Moslem Namah. It has profuse abuse not just about Sunnis, but also about darker skinned peoples. It makes fun of dark features, how their women are attracted and used by fairer men, and how its totally alright to manipulate them, loot their wealth, and massacre them by the tens of thousands.

Carl. it was brihaspati who made it look like i was saying that such racism did not exist. Sorry but I did nothing of the sort. Unfortunately Brihaspati assumed that my pointing out white racist Christian supremacy meant I was somehow covering up the Islamic version. That is a needless digression. No degree of Persian racism is going to negate or reduce the fact of European racism and the effect it has had on Indians and Pakistanis. positive or negative

But what i find astounding is the manner in which we on BRF are such deep scholars when it comes to Islamic racism but have never ever mentioned European racism in India as a driving factor that aided colonialism and the "Aryan/Dravidian divide" enabling conversion of Dravidians. And now when I bring up the latter subject i find people getting upset that i am not sticking to the usual pet subject of BRF - islamic racist bigotry. What gives? This may not be denial, but it is odd that i am being accused of denial of Isalmic racism for merely bringing up a subject that has never been discussed on here?

It is most certainly one sided history to concentrate on the islamic side and ignore other factors. So how do I get accused of being one sided?

[Prem]

Aristotle was in awe of indic thought and Jews in Masada were echorted to be like Hindus in facing the enemy without the fear of death. But, it was Greek Herodotus who created the rumor that indians not only enjoy dark complexion but even their semen was dark. Arabs also were proud of the white complexion of Prophet Muhamad's thighs. As far as Indians are concerend , both were/are wrong in wronging us badly. OTOH, this now provide us perfect excuse to administer the appropriate punishment at the appropriate time using the appropriate methods. To do it or not to do it shall depend on our will,wish and the mood.
Doc ,
Then borrowing Bajwa's advice in indian army thread , let North take the duty of punishing the islamist and south sort out the Ejs. Not that they have to do it separately but lets assign the task first.

[brihaspati]

A more effective line is perhaps to point out that the "whitey" is concentrated more in the elite, land-owning classes of Pakistan. The commons are as SDRE as the overwhelming rest of India. Those other SDRE Pakis should be faced up to the mirror and shown for what they really are - SDRE children of SDRE mothers and SDRE fathers, and SDRE ancestors.

Brihaspati, let me ask a fundamental question. Not because you don't know the answer, but because I suspect hundreds of readers and lurkers don't know the answer. But that is what makes it germane to this thread

What use is your statement above to anyone in India? What use is it to point out to SDRE pakis that they too are SDRE?

The only utility is to point out that they too are victims of color racist supremacy.

Why would we want to do that to Pakis? The only uitility would be to wean them away to the "dark side" of the racist border.

But Pakis are all despicable racist murderous Muslims aren't they? if so why all this appealing to their better senses?

The point I am making is that the only reason to "reason" with Pakis is to tell them their real history and make them choose which side they are on. Right now their army is performing the job needed from them by the inheritors of the White christian supremacists, and are working against india and their own heritage.

Shiv ji,
I bolded the question part of your post. You know I have many times, many many times, tried to say that the target are the Paki elite - the feudals, the dawaists, the army top. The common Paki should not be targeted. You were very much present in the early days of previous versions of the strat-scenarios and strat-leadership threads. You know that we had long arguments about this, but I have never deviated from my earlier line - that the common Paki are our blood-kin. From ethnicity viewpoint we should look at them as products of a process on which they have had no hand. But the blame lies solidly with the institutions and the institutional leadership.

I have often even protested the dehumanization we often indulge in - on the ordinary Paki. My main complaint about the congrez/psecism was that it had this virulent anti-Muslimism [but pro Islamism] which bursts out whenever there is any suggestion of ever bringing Paki aam back into Indian fold - then it becomes absolutely abhorrent. We love them so much, and we are so secular, we are absolutely free of any religious bias, and we are so grateful that they shaped Indian civilization, gifted Indo-Saracenic illuminations - that we have nightmares even at the prospect of them coming back to live among us. We admire their theology for its effective power on its followers - but we hate them as followers of that very same theology.

You also know that I have been saying the above for as long as I have been on the forum. We need to reject the ideology but accept the people. Human minds can always be turned around - but that needs removal of the harmful institutions and their replacement by useful and appropriate ones.

[shiv]

Then borrowing Bajwa's advice in indian army thread , let North take the duty of punishing the islamist and south sort out the Ejs. Not that they have to do it separately but lets assign the task first.

Why not get White Christians and islamic herrows to fight in Pakistan by pointing out exactly how the game was set up? The fight inside India is completely unrelated and should not be connected to this. In one stroke the white supremacists made Islam the sole villain (for Hindus), and Hindus sole villain for Pakis and placed themselves as benevolent and egalitarian and just "balancers" and we SDREs seem to believe this.

It was white European Christian supremacist science that set off the Aryan-Dravidian "divide". It was the same bunch that "recognised" the difference between the monotheist Muslims and polytheist Hindus and understood that they needed to be in separate nations.

So the white Christian supremacists have essentially set off both fights and you are saying that we fight the fight inside India and do not involve them. No. They must be pulled in. They are already in Pakistan. Pakistanis are our SDRE brothers and should be encouraged to take them on. In fact if you look at harbans list of "dharma" we have more in common with social practices in Pakistan than the liberal gay loving individualistic family killing west.

[shiv]

May post a thought experiment?

Let us start with the idea that Indians, particularly Hindus are completely correct and completely innocent of all wrongdoing with regard to Pakistan. Let us assume that the West has no role here. Pakistan's attacks on us and hatred of us is entirely from their side.

Now let us look at what Pakistanis are saying. I am merely stating what they are saying. I am not stating that they are right. Pakistanis are saying "Hindus are wrong. Hindus have the caste system. Brahmins suppress the lower castes They pray to many Gods. They have idol worship. They are out to kill and subjugate Muslims and they want to destroy Pakistan. "

Now this thought process that Pakistanis have about Hindus, is it totally de novo, arising from Islamic teachings? Or is it possible that there have been some inputs from the "Science" that the British recorded and taught as part of education in India? When the "Mughals" (whom the Pakistanis think were their fathers) were ruling, where were all these fears of Hindus. Hindus at best were dhimmis or collaborators. To be killed or ruled. But the Hindu as threat? Waiting to swallow up Islam? Where did that come from?

I find it difficult to believe that there was no cross pollination between pre-existing Islamic biases against Hindus and British racist bias. In fact it is likely that British machinations to keep Indians divided and under control would have demanded the exploitation of such biases. The way Jinnah and the Muslim league were mollycoddled indicates at least some British involvement in encouraging and egging on anti-Hindu attitudes among Muslims in a way that led to the partition of India (or it might have led to an unpartitioned India that was full of Hindu Muslim strife)

Now if British racist biases against Hindus have played a role in shaping Pakistani hatred of Hindus, what basis can we have to dismiss a White Christian supremacist role in Pakistan's current hatred of Hindus? How would the problem be a pure Muslim, Pakistani issue? At the very least the historic role of that European racist bias about Hindus should be acknowledged as a player in the current India Pakistan stand off.

Now, If Indian Hindus are right, and Pakistani biases are wrong, why is it that the US has continued to support Pakistan in what is basically a bigoted racist bias against "Hindu India"? What makes the US innocent here?

Now move one step forward from here. if Hindu/Indians are right, and Pakistani hatred of Hindus has been aggravated and supported by a basic White racist Christian bias against India, surely Pakistani hatred might possibly have not been so intense or so murderously effective without that material support and encouragement from the West. The Pakistanis have been "had" and made to break their heads against the brick wall of India while both Indians and Pakistanis believed that the White Christian nations are innocent, and only Hindus and Muslims "hate each other"

Hindu India and Islamic Pakistan hate each other? They keep on fighting? They have fought 4 wars? Hey? Where have I heard that before? Guess who is saying it in their media?

You guys must have seen this no? It is funny, but guess who are the real jokers here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR2MQ8VGgd0

[RajeshA]

Pakistanis are saying "Hindus are wrong. Hindus have the caste system. Brahmins suppress the lower castes They pray to many Gods. They have idol worship. They are out to kill and subjugate Muslims and they want to destroy Pakistan. "

That is virtually the same excuse the Muslims give as to why Muhammad attacked Mecca to capture it - 1) polytheism, 2) mistreatment of Muslims!

[RajeshA]

Considering that this thread wants to do some deep level psychological mining of the convergence of Islamic and White European thought on Indics, here is something I wrote earlier inspired by AKalam ji's first post earlier.

This is an effort to understand why the Pakis love the protection of Uncle Sam!

Why do Muslim countries look for protection from Western countries even after the thrashing they have received? There can be several explanations. So I will dabble in some wild theories of mine! I hope you look at them as simply of interest academically.

a) I would put this down bluntly to Ishmael ignoring what Isaac does to him, in order to move forward and regain some self-esteem, saying that "Well, it was just my brother who did it? So what? He is short-tempered, egoistic, but he is my brother!" That does not change however the fact that Ishmael wants to establish his dominion over everything ultimately. It has been the hope of Muslims, that Christians would one day accept Muhammad's lineage to Abraham through Ishmael and accept that the Covenant God gave to Abraham regarding the Prophets appearing in his lineage, also extended to Ishmael and his descendants. They see Christians as the third brother who should make a decision between Isaac and Ishmael, between Judaism and Islam. They see Christians as those who would one day accept Muhammad as the heir to Prophethood, as an heir to Jesus' work! They want Christians to accept Islam one day! That is why they look respectfully and expectantly at Christians and "do not wish to harm them", except the ones in their own midst, who are simply reminders that Christians are not going to accept Muhammad any time soon!

b) Muslims respect strength and bullies. Even though Chengez Khan destroyed Khwarezmian Empire, killing so many Muslims, and his grandsom Hulegu Khan destroyed Baghdad, still I hear Muslims showing much respect to Chengez Khan. The Muslims have seen how Whites have laid waste to many civilizations and taken what they wanted - be it in the New World or in the Old World. They have seen Chinese came down heavily against outlying areas like East Turkestan and Tibet. I think Muslims feel hidden admiration for this attitude, even when it hits themselves, as has been the case in Iraq and Afghanistan lately.

c) As long as any war against Muslims is not described as such or as against Islam, it is more palatable for them. The excuses can be anything from geopolitical interests or greed for Oil or even naive Western propensity to do good! This the West has been able to deliver.

d) Then there is the savior mentality, where one is always looking for some higher power to come and save the people and knowing this, the Western countries know exactly how to play this role.

e) The Muslims are totally sold on the superiority of the white race. Should a European Convert to Islam, say a Brit or a German, turn into a rabid Islamist and start preaching Islam, there will be a lot more rapture in the public. The Turkish Sultans, the Turkish upward mobile people have often sought after more blond Turkish women in Turkey with Slavic origins, or even from outside. If one were to watch Turkish television, one would see how they dye their hair to look more European. Indian Nawabs and so, they used to look for the more fairer Turkish and Persian women. One just needs to see what kind of women Kings of Jordan used to marry! So the fab for white sits very very deep among the Muslims, including those from the Subcontinent, and it can only be so much hate one can come up with for the other (the White), when in one's heart one desires to be of that skin! Some of that racism was also to see in what happened in Darfur!

f) Then there is the traditional soft-power of the West of which all are awed. West has been able to build an Empire based on superiority of stable political structures, global capitalism, cultural omnipresence, and technological advances. No doubt about it!

BTW, it is not just Muslims, Hindus too are awed by the Whites!

[RajeshA]

In the middle of these two sets of delusions, what do Indian do?

Should we hate Muslims for their racist murder? Hate white Europeans? Or should we love Europeans for defeating the racist Muslims? Or should we feel sorry for the darker skinned Muslims who, like Hindus have been racially discriminated by the Europeans while being rejected by fairer Muslims as impure? Or try and play off the racist Europeans with the racist Arabs? Or take the attitude that Muslims have killed more of us for longer so they need more and longer hate than the Europeans whose benign liberalism gave us science and freedom as part of their superior benevolence and gradually split India up into white Aryan and black Dravidian who is now being converted because the white Aryans of Indai suppressed them?

We are getting confused because we are trying to find a maze made up of categories developed by others - RACE! Even a plea for racial equality sounds like Indian moralizing on disarmament before we showed our Shakti!

The solution is to forget those categories and claim our SUPREMACY over all others based on our Indian Civilization. Our races are SUPERIOR not because they are dark or wheatish or white or whatever, but because our races belong to the Indian Civilization. That and that alone should be the criteria of RACIAL SUPERIORITY for us - "which race belonged to how superior civilization".

That would include both things - 1) reasserting our political, economic, technological and cultural superiority, and 2) showing that all other civilizations were inferior - both the White and as well as the Arab Civilization, and if acceptable then only because of the blessings they received from us in knowledge and interest. Now that looks like using the same template like the others used, but that is the only one out there. It is a world of competition and not one of benign co-existence.

The Whites have established their 'racial superiority' to such a degree in the minds of the world, that today they can just sit back and enjoy the fruits. They don't need to actively make any more assertions of racial superiority. All they need is to act normally and friendly to all, and still their 'racial superiority' would be recognized by others. In fact, their humble ways of today makes their claims of racial superiority, aka enlightenment, all the more valid in the eyes of the others. All the Whites need to do is to keep their edge in Technology and Political Stability and that would more than suffice. Their economic problems of late have of course thrown a certain kind of fly into the ointment.

So even though we are behind in technology, political and social stability even, economy, HDI, we should continue our efforts to improve ourselves, and with time our assertion of Civilizational Superiority would look more tenable to others, but in our minds, we need full confidence that we are superior because of our civilization, and all others were, are and will remain inferior. How we convince ourselves of that would also require vast education of our past.

If you look at Indians as a whole - all these streams of thought exist. Indians have reacted to foreign influences the way they have felt in their corner of India. There is no stream of though that is more right than the others. If no stream of thought is more right than others, why should Muslims be hated more that anything else? They may not be the bigest threat any more. Just fellow SDREs lungi dancing as they whelp and reproduce more morons in a world led by someone else.

I think, I should put up some pdf or something on how to abuse Pakis! Lately I have been to the depths of mud and wrestled all sorts of Porkis there (PTH), that I am confident now how to make the pigs squirm. I know that is a big claim that Pakis can feel racial abuse at the hands of Indians, but it can be done. Anyway ...

It is true that if we claim RACIAL SUPERIORITY based on CIVILIZATIONAL SUPERIORITY, then we would have to extend that privilege to Pakistanis also. However the Pakistanis would neither know how to appreciate it, because they want to belong to a different Civilization - the Islamic (Arab) Civilization, nor does it help to put the Pakis at the same level as us, because otherwise they have no reason to try to copy us, nor are they going to believe us, because they themselves suffer from inferiority complex.

So the only way is to put some distance between us Indians and Pakistanis and call them inferior. Our claim of their inferiority has to be based 1) their betrayal of the Civilization, 2) on their standing in the Ummah itself and 3) some actual racial characteristic. Our rhetoric can be adjusted to their own abusive vocabulary so they feel the true meaning of the abuse.

1. their betrayal of the Civilization, - Cowards, Fallen Ones
2. on their standing in the Ummah itself, and - Ajlaf Islamic Shoodras
3. some actual racial characteristic. - Genetic Degenerates, Rat People, Cousin-Screwers, Inbreeders, Half-Pricks

So even as it is okay to consider them co-SDREs and so, we should continue to lambaste them as often as we can, and that too on racial basis!

I understand that some Indian Muslims and Bangladeshis too may not appreciate us making such abuse, but it should be solely directed at Pakistanis, and its main reason is to counter all anti-Hindu racial hate.

[Lalmohan]

rajesh - i think your proposed model was effectively how the chinese of the ming period viewed the outside world. their self belief in their own superiority and the inherent barbarianess of all outsiders - including the newly emerging white powers was fundamental. the only problem was that they turned inwards rather than maintain a strong outward posture, which led to their own demise and the colonialisation of china

[Agnimitra]

Shiv ji,

You've got to understand that many Westerners and most Moslems believe that those races which, over the last few centuries, have laid waste to older civilizations and usurped their lands or resources have been able to do so because it was according to God's plan. There is no guilt or reflection about it, and in fact there is some pride. The "chosen race" concept (in conjunction with end-of-time psychology) is what lies at the very root of the piskoanalysis you are trying to do.

[shiv]

Shiv ji,

You've got to understand that many Westerners and most Moslems believe that those races which, over the last few centuries, have laid waste to older civilizations and usurped their lands or resources have been able to do so because it was according to God's plan. There is no guilt or reflection about it, and in fact there is some pride

Yes. Well put.

Now everyone on BRF understands this about Pakistan and Islam.

How many understand that the same holds true for the USA/West?

The implication for India is significant. Any fight between the USA and Pakistan is not aimed at supporting us so any "automatic support" we give to the US by virtue of the US being considered "such a nice and just guy" is misplaced. We could do well by supporting and egging on the black races of Pakistan who need to throw off the yoke of servtiude to the USA.

It matters little if we actually believe it. Both the USA and Pakistan are criminals who are hand in hand and we should support whatever action suits us the most. I believe it is highly recommended for the US and Pakistan to be at loggerheads and anything that makes that happen is fair game. Cheering the USA against Pakistan as we do on here is silly. Pakistan needs support to throw off enslavement. Why is India so scared of "islamic extremism"? What is it going to do without the US support it has had all these decades?

india can be stated to have much in common with Pakistan. having "democracy" in common with USA has given us nothing. The US does not give two hoots for Indian freedom or democracy.

[Agnimitra]

Shiv ji,

Yes it is equally true for Western whites. I hang out with, both, the white collared types as well as bona fide gun loving rednecks. BOTH types have the same worldview, though articulated in different ways. They see things through Biblical eyes - Abraham's two lineages, one through his wedded (supposedly white) wife, the other son of mongrel race through Abe's slave girl, etc. They consider us Indians to be a mixed race. They expect us to have an atavistic affinity to themselves, which put more directly means a servile status. They see Islam itself in that role, as a second rung to white Christianity, though it is potentially rebellious (see books like the "revolt of islam"). So if Islam controls its rebellious nature, then it is perfectly suitable as an inferior cousin ideology to control the coloured races and subdue them to the useful and the good. This is the synergy as seen by white Christiandom. We need to ensure that the revolt wins over the synergy.

[shiv]

Shiv ji,

Yes it is equally true for Western whites. I hang out with, both, the white collared types as well as bona fide gun loving rednecks. BOTH types have the same worldview, though articulated in different ways. They see things through Biblical eyes - Abraham's two lineages, one through his wedded (supposedly white) wife, the other son of mongrel race through Abe's slave girl, etc. They consider us Indians to be a mixed race. They expect us to have an atavistic affinity to themselves, which put more directly means a servile status. They see Islam itself in that role, as a second rung to white Christianity, though it is potentially rebellious (see books like the "revolt of islam"). So if Islam controls its rebellious nature, then it is perfectly suitable as an inferior cousin ideology to control the coloured races and subdue them to the useful and the good. This is the synergy as seen by white Christiandom. We need to ensure that the revolt wins over the synergy.

Carl you have an uncanny ability to express these concepts in a way that I wish I could emulate. It would take me 25 posts to say the same thing and still not say it with that much clarity.

But it is part of the indoctrination of Indian education that most Indians are unable to see this clearly although many have vague suspicions and misgivings.

Our dealings with Pakistan should encourage that revolt. We need not fear Islam. India as a nation does not fear Islam.