Bharat Rakshak

Carl wrote:Bji, I agree. An apparent Goliath of a foe also plays into the current Islamist dynamic. If there is a more appropriate thread, I would like to hear your and others' thoughts about types of masking imperium.

The main fight is over the control and possession of the trans-Asian flow of resources. They all pretend otherwise, but essentially they are circling like vultures around the central point around the Himalayas. All the empires - existing and hopefuls - are going down. The Anglo-Saxon, the Russian, the Chinese. Empires typically arise out of small "identities" who perceive an existential threat and also discovering the appropriate economic/military organizations to first protect themselves, and which later on transforms itself into a need for larger dominance for security. The crucial tie-up with economic transitions and modes of technologies mean that empires that started off with specific organizational techniques and resources, will go down as those become obsolete - perhaps even as a result of their own actions. But not all empires will have the ideological flexibility to transform themselves according to the changes brought by their own actions. A rigid historical authenticity based ideology could be helpful in the specific times that created the empires around the Med.

USA may yet prove adaptable [the progressive more "volatile" distillate of migration - gradually showing greater flexibility and associated extremism in both directions as the Germanic moves from the ice northern shores to UK and then to America], but its very success is a burden. Serious defeats in wars, or a victorious war that depletes all resources, and no new great idea to fire the imagination and endeavour of a new but jaded generation - may mean the twilight of USA. A new migration may help it - but where is the space?


The Chinese opted for an Anglo-Saxon version of the older Chinese imperial dreams, and the tensions of that imperial ambition are already showing. Russians are simply out of manpower.

There are essentially two future contenders - the Islamic and the Indic. Islamic imperialism is by no means down and out. It has become more capable in manipulations of the global trends in politics and experts in utilizing the very tools of the non-islamic against the non-Islamic.

The traditional Indic approach is hard to pin down, offering less tangible bulls eyes - whether by conscious design or by lack of attention, or incapability or sheer boredom - I cannot specify. It could be all of them together.

But a point is indeed emerging. This appears in trying to identify, what exactly in the Indic, are the other existing imperialisms most scared of, most hateful about. What exactly are the social forces, identities, or even historical ideas of politics/rashtra/empire that these external imperialisms are most concerned about? Or the Indian rashtryia and societal components that are most "friendly" to these external imperialist ideologies - also join in condemning or reconstructing within the Indic?

There is a desperate struggle to find the source and identity of Indian empires - outside of India. Mauryan, Sultanate and Mughal, or Brit. The Mauryan empire sits uneasy - so the emphasis on the supposed "Jaina" peaceful/renouncing end of ChandraGupta, an uneasy glossing over of Chanakya who appears to be an archetypical "evil" Brahmin - yet inseparable from the foundation of the oh-so-non-Brahminical-Jaina-Buddhist-dominated Mauryan empire. Huge beating of the drum about Asoka who supposedly renounced imperium. Also beat a lot about the supposed non-Indic-origin-aspersion claims of later critiques. Sultanate, and Mughal origins outside Indic/"Brahminism" to be highlighted - and as a great gifter and profound shaper of "Indic" civilization.

Gupta, Satavahana, Chola, Pala... yes, well, they are good if they are Buddhists onlee. Did they really go out with navy and army...come on, they onlee went out on dharmavijays - peacefully.

There is this persistent need to edit out military/political expansion precedences in the Indic, and virulently attack the SD/"Brahminic"/Hindu component of any such narrative.

The competing imperiums, if they all are converging on certain key issues - are actually unknowingly offering us clues to as to what they fear most. To a certain extent they are unmasking the Indian "imperium" of the future.

brihaspati garu,

do these other empires have to tell us what our strengths were? Can't we deduce ourselves?

Perhaps they just want us as foot soldiers and hence seek to remove all perceived "leadership" so they can assume leadership and treat us as slaves.

RajeshA wrote:brihaspati garu,

do these other empires have to tell us what our strengths were? Can't we deduce ourselves?

Aren't we dreaming in terms of taking up these foreign ideological identities ourselves - as a tactical tool to neutralize their brethren, and hoping to take leadership of their collective? That would be consistent with what they want - isnt it?

brihaspati wrote:The Chinese opted for an Anglo-Saxon version of the older Chinese imperial dreams, and the tensions of that imperial ambition are already showing. Russians are simply out of manpower.

There are essentially two future contenders - the Islamic and the Indic. Islamic imperialism is by no means down and out. It has become more capable in manipulations of the global trends in politics and experts in utilizing the very tools of the non-islamic against the non-Islamic.

brihaspati garu,

I haven't given this aspect much attention or thought. So I ask you the questions not-privy to the above insight.

The Chinese have opted for resource-intensive industrialization and captured foreign-markets model. They have opted for a military-intensive territorial expansion and forward defense dismantling the various buffer zones they had with other competitive civilizations. They have tried to homogenize their population linguistically and in their historicity. They have opted for a centralized political system, giving Han regional satraps a voice at the center. They are investing heavily in education, technology, military-industrial complex, and science. They have also adopted a policy of one-child families, thus trying to bring their population under control, though they may change this policy eventually.

Islam is basically a Kufr-eating Civilization - depleting Kufr of their wealth, their land (and their women). It uses various methods of expansion - invasions, immigration, procreation, ink-spot expansion, intimidation, subversion of political systems, tactical alliances, etc. It tries to bring its own populations under ideological submissiveness.

At the moment, as it seems the Islamic termites are busy hollowing out the Europe and India and keeping USA and Israel under constant security pressure. China is almost not perturbed by Islam. Xinjiang is a long way from Beijing.

Indic Civilization is under pressure from Islam, China and to a large extent weakened by the West. If Islam is beaten back from Europe and India and fails to dislodge Israel, then basically Islam has no feeding ground and would burn itself out!

Why do you then say that Chinese are not in the reckoning?

Sure one can say that they have to demographic challenges, natural resource crunch, possibly protectionist tendencies in other countries, democratic pressures, etc. coming up, but can't they take care of that?!

IMHO, China aligned with Islam can very well squeeze the Indic Civilization.

China has one civilizational problem. No empire can sustain itself unless it can provide an ideological framework that goes beyond regional identity and "nationalism". In this Islam and "Hindu" has already transcended. Buddhism has potential too - but it has restricted itself on the practical political/military front. You cannot project Han-nism on to the globe. Han-nism is the only unifier and unique selling point of China.

brihaspati wrote:China has one civilizational problem. No empire can sustain itself unless it can provide an ideological framework that goes beyond regional identity and "nationalism". In this Islam and "Hindu" has already transcended. Buddhism has potential too - but it has restricted itself on the practical political/military front. You cannot project Han-nism on to the globe. Han-nism is the only unifier and unique selling point of China.

brihaspati garu,

there are two models -
1) Ultimately humanity would have only one culture, one faith-system, one set of values, one political leadership, one unified economy, etc. The competition would end with one ultimate winner.

2) There will always be several poles and competing cultures, ideologies, value-systems, political centers, protectionism. Competition would go on. There will be no winner.

In the first model, true, China does not have anything to offer the wider world as either a vision, a philosophy, or a respectable political system. However in the second model, China is set up to dominate much of the world. It does not need to dominate the beliefs of the global population. All it needs to ensure is that their policies are always favorable to the strength and prosperity of the Chinese Homeland.

So whereas the rest of humanity has become very 'ideologized' and locked horns West vs Islam, Islam vs Indic, West vs. Indic, China has decided to de-ideologize itself, leaving even the fig-leaf of Communism by the way-side (defacto), so that it can interface with the other ideologies in a non-partisan way, extracting the maximum out of each one.

RajeshA ji,
yes they can try and interface - but with Islam, its interface has not been smooth. It was saved only because the Islamic wave reached it last, by a time in which the main arabic/persian west-to-east thrust of Islam had already spent itself. The Mongols and the Turkic became Islamized on their east-to-west journey. Even there, China's north-west became infested once the Islamic meme spread back.

China will not be able to withstand Islamism this time around simply with Hannism. Its protection lies with the preservation of a viable Indic, but which its Maoists and Hannists are desperate to destroy.

Simple extraction of benefits from other forces in interactions - is not possible, just being non-partisan. You have to be sequentially partisan.

brihaspati garu,

If Islam is the crocodile, China has got enough meat to throw at it to keep it busy and fed - West, India, etc, so that Islam does not take on China itself. China will keep on giving Islamists weapons, etc. to keep them appeased.

With India, Islam is both in a territorial as well as in an ideological war! With China it is in a somewhat "diminished" territorial war only. China is not using Hannism to save itself from Islam. China is using Islam's other wars and Islam's lack of military technology to distract and to buy itself reprieve.

China would want neither India to fall nor India to defeat the Islamists. More importantly China would keep this feud centered on India so that it has a free run! China will neither allow the Islamic crocodile to let go of our leg, nor would it allow India to shoot the crocodile in the head.

Under these circumstances, we have following options:
a) We can all turn Islamic and go at China
b) We can manipulate Islam to go at China and leave us alone
c) We can turn China Dharmic and together we go at Islam
d) The world quarantines Islam, and then we compete with each other, but this is a different form of b) only.

RajeshA ji,
(a) is unacceptable to me, and many others - for a variety of reasons. For me the primary reason being it is intellectually, ideologically, and hence technologically a low-surplus even stagnant equilibrium as a civilization. Not only that, it destroys all other routes to better equilibria or adaptation to changing circumstances.

(b)+(c) in combination would be preferable. Remember in the previous version, we had talked early of coming to an understanding with the jihadis - that we will help them move into Eastern Turkmenistan, but if they stay on in Pakjab - we will liquidate them, and any institution or population that comes to support them. Initial unleashing of jihad against the PLA should be indirectly supported, while the later stage comes into your (c) once the PRC regime cracks.

brihaspati garu,

Yes it would be difficult to enter China right away, due to the regime!

Actually the first country I would wish re-Dharmicized would be Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand in that order. From this end, we should try to do so in India's Northeast, Myanmar moving east. Till then PRC regime may also have weakened and one can move Northwards.

That is important for one major reason - to bring about the understanding as in d)

But to be frank, I don't think it would be possible to Dharmicize China until we establish Dharma in the West, until Dharma's superiority is acknowledged in the West first!

On the other hand, if we want to contain Islam, we would also have to start Dharmicization of Sub-Sahara!

RajeshA wrote:there are two models -
1) Ultimately humanity would have only one culture, one faith-system, one set of values, one political leadership, one unified economy, etc. The competition would end with one ultimate winner.

2) There will always be several poles and competing cultures, ideologies, value-systems, political centers, protectionism. Competition would go on. There will be no winner.

Increasing pressure of natural resource scarcity, including water, should logically force model 1, or an abstract version of it that allows multicultural bandwidth and complementary transnational competition bsaed on comparative cultural advantages. IMHO, the understanding of "success" would be determined by a mutually held value system, and cannot necessarily be marked in terms of administrative control of resources or logistical routes. Hopefully a looming econological crisis may force humans to think this way and become open to such a civilizational system, rather than start thinking in terms of doomsday scenarios.

The dharmicization of China is not possible without the consolidation of dharmic understanding in India along with increasing military economic might. It must also first find large-scale acceptance and respect in the West. As of now, even Buddhism in the West tends to be popularly associated with East Asia, whom they have more respect for. India has to set itself up as dharma central. Right now China is not being dharmicized, it is being EJ-ized along with a lot of East Asia. This is in spite of appeals by Buddhists in South Korea for a greater and more aggressive cultural role by India, which has fallen on deaf ears. Similar efforts need to be undertaken in South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, which have shamanistic subcultures.

India has to consolidate and project hard and soft power in an ability to facilitate the creation of cultural identities, along with a lively discussion around its derivatives. OTOH, well-funded Islamist institutions and lobbies are offering ideologically crystallized "solutions" to global problems, including "Islamic finance and economics", "Islamic civil and criminal law", etc, though the viability or desirability of their solutions leaves a lot to be questioned.

Carl wrote:
The dharmicization of China is not possible without the consolidation of dharmic understanding in India along with increasing military economic might. It must also first find large-scale acceptance and respect in the West. As of now, even Buddhism in the West tends to be popularly associated with East Asia, whom they have more respect for. India has to set itself up as dharma central. Right now China is not being dharmicized, it is being EJ-ized along with a lot of East Asia. This is in spite of appeals by Buddhists in South Korea for a greater and more aggressive cultural role by India, which has fallen on deaf ears. Similar efforts need to be undertaken in South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, which have shamanistic subcultures.

Indian elite has been hijacked. They have no clue on the India role in the world

paramu wrote:
Indian elite has been hijacked. They have no clue on the India role in the world

Very succinctly and beautifully put, Sir. Couldnt agree more !

paramu wrote:Indian elite has been hijacked. They have no clue on the India role in the world

It doesn't help to keep repeating that. Perhaps if Indic ideas are presented in a more liberal, abstract or creative way, a lot of people will come on board. I have seen even deep dyed red Marxists and Islamist scholars appreciating the Upanishads. We need to reduce domestic polarization and revive certain aspects of Indic heritage in a liberal, inclusive and "fun" way, with a focus on an optimistic future. The same revivalism carried by a divisive agenda could backfire.

There are times when it is better not to proceed at all and wait, since otherwise we may have to compromise on uncompromisable basics that influecne and determine the future course - just for the sake of pleasing cry-babies from various interest groups that have grown shallow roots on actual ground in desh, that we are being "divisive".

I think we have tried the pleasing everybody route - most of the time landing up with pleasing microscopic minority opinions with sky-high drums with a huge loose bowel of an infantile disorder for attention grabbing- claiming that they represent and speak for multitudes.

Bpati Sab,

On a different track altogehter, but related to the revival of our nation track, contemplate the following.

Short of a revolution, India will not be a Hindu Nation anytime soon, in law or in spirit. But we all know that a Hindu Nation is a prerequisite for revival of our great civilization and restoration of our territory.

How about, if, instead of a revolution, we spring an "Israel" or a "Taiwan". A bunch of Hindu nationalists, large enough in numbers but small enough to maintain cohesion and connection, find a suitable Island in the South PAcific or in the Indian Ocean somewhere or somewhere else, and form a tiny Hind Nation where we can establish a mini model for how India can revive ?

Let us go for the basics - a rashtra that has a uniform policy, and implementation of basic social safety net, encourages entrepreneurship and provides start offs of health, education and capital and access to productive land, covers security, in the internal arena. No compromises on special positive/negative discrimination claims based on abstract identities or historical injustice [biological necessary conditions should be acknowledged].

Nothing else, absolutely nothing else must stand between the rashtra and its citizen. In return the citizens must join the rashtryia project of securing and expanding this internal "happiness" by subjecting neighbourhood and even global forces to Indian intervention - covert/overt/subtle/soft/hard wherever and however and whenever necessary.

India's old slogan of Arya-fication of the world - Arya as "civilized", spreading the Indian vision of civilization as both its national destiny, as well as a means of securing its internal "happiness" - should be the flame for the next two centuries. If you want to call it an empire - call it so. Does not matter. You can mock this, or ignore this, but that is the destiny.

shivajisisodia wrote:Bpati Sab,

On a different track altogehter, but related to the revival of our nation track, contemplate the following.

Short of a revolution, India will not be a Hindu Nation anytime soon, in law or in spirit. But we all know that a Hindu Nation is a prerequisite for revival of our great civilization and restoration of our territory.

How about, if, instead of a revolution, we spring an "Israel" or a "Taiwan". A bunch of Hindu nationalists, large enough in numbers but small enough to maintain cohesion and connection, find a suitable Island in the South PAcific or in the Indian Ocean somewhere or somewhere else, and form a tiny Hind Nation where we can establish a mini model for how India can revive ?

You will be way out in the middle of nowhere - and dependent on a navy for everything. Do you have an England in mind in the Pacific - with plenty of hydrocarbons in some form, and iron and some rare earths? Why leave base?

brihaspati wrote: India's old slogan of Arya-fication of the world - Arya as "civilized", spreading the Indian vision of civilization as both its national destiny, as well as a means of securing its internal "happiness" - should be the flame for the next two centuries. If you want to call it an empire - call it so. Does not matter. You can mock this, or ignore this, but that is the destiny.

Hear hear...

Shivaji sisodia, Things must have been glum for the Hindus when Ashoka and his Buddhist state religion was spread over all of uttara and dakshinapath. Yet a few centuries later the land became Hindu again.

brihaspati wrote:India's old slogan of Arya-fication of the world - Arya as "civilized", spreading the Indian vision of civilization as both its national destiny, as well as a means of securing its internal "happiness" - should be the flame for the next two centuries. If you want to call it an empire - call it so. Does not matter. You can mock this, or ignore this, but that is the destiny.

Vishwadharma-prakashena vishwa-shanti pravartake.

brihaspati wrote:I think we have tried the pleasing everybody route - most of the time landing up with pleasing microscopic minority opinions with sky-high drums with a huge loose bowel of an infantile disorder for attention grabbing- claiming that they represent and speak for multitudes.

B ji I agree. Reminds me even of Nehru who seemed to think that India's "destiny" was channelled through his personality and out his musharraf. I remember reading his "Discovery of India" when I was in school. Unbelievable egotism and romanticism. Starting with first chapter "Descent from Kashmir"; that's right folks, his holiness "descended" to the SDRE's from fair Kashmir like God's gift. He even mentions how one of his relatives was once mistaken for an english girl being kidnapped by Indians. Less amusingly for most of us, he writes about one "fateful" excursion when, trekking in the Himalayas, it was always one of his fondest dreams to make the trek to Manasarovar, but as his fate would have it, there was an avalanche and his way was blocked. See how India's fate is tied to his?

Back to the topic, how does "waiting" guarantee the disappearance of such types? Demagogues and narcissistic egotists will always be there. A humble movement to make life more interesting, meaningful and profitable to the masses is always doable IMHO.

prahaar wrote:

brihaspati wrote:India's old slogan of Arya-fication of the world - Arya as "civilized", spreading the Indian vision of civilization as both its national destiny, as well as a means of securing its internal "happiness" - should be the flame for the next two centuries. If you want to call it an empire - call it so. Does not matter. You can mock this, or ignore this, but that is the destiny.

Vishwadharma-prakashena vishwa-shanti pravartake.

Shaanti will have to be the consequence and not the objective of the process. The only surefire guarantee of peace is a dead society. We want to live. We should not be deterred by the prospect of a transient peace, or a peace that has to be constantly watched over with readiness for violence, or a peace that only lies in the future as a prospect.

I understand your quotation and why you quoted it - just wanted to make my own clarification. To make sure that the message has no ambiguity at large since "peace" as the main objective can be self-defeating.

Carl wrote:

brihaspati wrote:I think we have tried the pleasing everybody route - most of the time landing up with pleasing microscopic minority opinions with sky-high drums with a huge loose bowel of an infantile disorder for attention grabbing- claiming that they represent and speak for multitudes.

B ji I agree. Reminds me even of Nehru who seemed to think that India's "destiny" was channelled through his personality and out his musharraf. I remember reading his "Discovery of India" when I was in school. Unbelievable egotism and romanticism. Starting with first chapter "Descent from Kashmir"; that's right folks, his holiness "descended" to the SDRE's from fair Kashmir like God's gift. The guy even mentions how one of his ancestors was mistaken for an englishwoman once. Less amusingly for most of us, he writes about one "fateful" excursion when, trekking in the Himalayas, it was always one of his fondest dreams to make the trek to Manasarovar, but as his fate would have it, there was an avalanche and his way was blocked. See how India's fate is tied to his?

Back to the topic, how does "waiting" guarantee the disappearance of such types? Demagogues and narcissistic egotists will always be there. A humble movement to make life more interesting, meaningful and profitable to the masses is always doable IMHO.

Waiting does not guarantee. It was an oblique response to your important and reasonable reference to the issue of "divisiveness". I simply said that - if moving meant some would cry "wolf" ast supposed "divisiveness" - and that cry would be so important that we have to give it importance, then it is better to wait but not compromise.

brihaspati wrote:Waiting does not guarantee. It was an oblique response to your important and reasonable reference to the issue of "divisiveness". I simply said that - if moving meant some would cry "wolf" ast supposed "divisiveness" - and that cry would be so important that we have to give it importance, then it is better to wait but not compromise.

But that's still in terms of shaping the rashtra from the commanding heights of political power. Work and ideas can be propogated at other levels too, such as through the education system, cultural milieu, language rejuvenation (Sanskrit), religious marketplace, etc.

No Cough Cough Smilieeee.
We are Shantiputras now. Prem se din gujaro orr Shanti ke saath sau jao.

ramana wrote:Shivaji sisodia, Things must have been glum for the Hindus when Ashoka and his Buddhist state religion was spread over all of uttara and dakshinapath. Yet a few centuries later the land became Hindu again.

True.

But Buddhism and Islam are two different animals and two different foes. Buddhism was Indic in origin embracing all Indic ideas with a lot of twists. Plus, its theology had non-violence as its main pillar, even though in practice some Buddhist rulers were quite violent. But it never had violence, exclusivity, idea of demonizing the other, spreading the religion by sword as key components of its religion, as Islam does.

Bottom line, the battle between Hinduism and Buddhism was a battle between two brothers who have common origin, heritage and common mother(land). Battle between Islam and Hinduism is like a battle between alien monsters and humans.

Conversion out of Buddhism and conversion out of Islam cannot be compared.

Its still instructive to see how it all turned out.

^^^ Ramana ji, but did Adi Shankara's revival of Hinduism not absorb and mimic most Jain/Buddhist memes? Was it a lossless revival?

ramana wrote:Its still instructive to see how it all turned out.

Well, it is instructive.

The lesson I take away from it all is that one can win, but one has to fight like hell over the long haul. Hinduism was very fortunate to have the 400 year Gupta rule which provided the sword in defense and sometimes in offense of Hinduism. Secondly, the Gupta Empire was purely a Hindu State, which provided plenty, more than plenty of room for Hindu resurgence thought processes to emerge and thrive which during the Gupta period itself but also for centuries after, provided the intellectual basis for Hindu revival.

The point is that Hindu revival did not occur from within a "secular" or any other alien theological state and it certainly didnt happen without a massive multi-century fight. The war against Islam is far more dangerous and difficult and we Indians are far worse off today in terms of conditions in our favor, than when we started the Hindu revival movements in the 3rd or 4th Century AD.

The lesson is that we need to be far more disciplined today, far more focussed, far more sacrifice oriented, far more united, far more strategic in our thinking and far more "no excuses" and far more realistic in our assessments on the ground of where we are now, than we were then, if we have to have any chance at all.

Hindu revival even then did not occur by not doing anything or embracing a passive posture justified, quite unjustifiably, under the name of poor Chanakya.

Carl wrote:Increasing pressure of natural resource scarcity, including water, should logically force model 1, or an abstract version of it that allows multicultural bandwidth and complementary transnational competition bsaed on comparative cultural advantages. IMHO, the understanding of "success" would be determined by a mutually held value system, and cannot necessarily be marked in terms of administrative control of resources or logistical routes. Hopefully a looming econological crisis may force humans to think this way and become open to such a civilizational system, rather than start thinking in terms of doomsday scenarios.

You're probably referring to Pakistan here! But just in case you are referring to Indian Muslims, here is one method, I see as possible. Two subsequent posts may also be relevant. It too would have to be used in combination with some other methods.

shivajisisodia wrote:The point is that Hindu revival did not occur from within a "secular" or any other alien theological state and it certainly didnt happen without a massive multi-century fight. The war against Islam is far more dangerous and difficult and we Indians are far worse off today in terms of conditions in our favor, than when we started the Hindu revival movements in the 3rd or 4th Century AD.

It is also necessary to clarify that just as invasion from the land was barbaric, the invasion from the sea was also barbaric.

There are many reasons, one of the reason is this:
Till the time that Colonialism is not called barbarism, all the rules and practices of Colonialism will be carried over to by the state under the logic that 'since invasion from the sea was not barbaric and actually for the benefit of the natives, therefore, post-independence there is not much to change.'

There is hardly any view post-independence that would judge entire colonialism as barbarism.

Effectively, it means that the society at large is to be blamed for these barbaric policies of warmongering invaders, so the society is blamed for the wrongs of invaders while the barbarians take credit.

It also means that everytime the congress party does something & takes credit to correct such policies as policies should be, the rashtra gets no credit, and effectively the congress family/party and vested interests get credit at the detriment of the nation. These are just so that the nation-state looks worse off and the vested interests look better, at the cost of nation state and society, while the barbaric invaders from the sea go scot free. Therefore it is essential that misdeeds of European barbarians from the sea are pointed out for their native hating policies.

These things are connected.

An example of it is this:
From http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011 ... orruption/

A British law passed in 1870 handed over the rights of all forests in India to a central authority in Delhi. The primary intention of the law was to ensure enough wood to build British warships. This law remained untouched for about 130 years. Early in the 21st century, it was finally superseded by the Forest Rights Act.

These colonial constructs did not keep up with society’s growing needs. There was a major disconnect. Corruption crept in and filled the unfulfilled needs. There were lots of conflicts of interest between institutions and the people who worked in them which in turn exacerbated corruption to the point where it threatened the viability of these very institutions.

The British barbarians have gone scot free though the vested interests are now taking credit for any correction, but it is the nation that gets no credit for logically correcting misdeeds of barbarians.

more:
From http://lifestyle.in.msn.com/health/arti ... 994&page=4

The British had sounded the death knell for the legendary fort after the final battle for its control in April 1818.

The British artillery continued to pound the fort for days together and the magnificent building burned for 11 days.

Why so much emphasis on Hindu? Why not on "Dharma"? Wasn't Ashoka's empire dharmik? As Dharmik as Vikramaditya's empire? The Aryanization of World comes by "destroying" the non-liberal aka "Adharmiks". The word Hindu itself is a foreign connotation. Although I understand its broader meaning, why waste most of energy convincing people about one's definition of Hindu? That foreign word is kaput, it has nearly served its purpose. Time to rally under the banner of "dharma" and not Hindu. Everything that Hindu and hindutva stands for is said in word "dharma". And it stands for and is accepted by all Sikhs, buddhists, jains, aajivikas. Furthermore, fighting for dharma has its attestation in scriptures, both shruti and smriti.

There was no fight between hinduism and buddhism. The fight was only between Aastika opinions and Bauddha opinions and then amongst aastika opinion themselves (Adi Shankara) where vedanta defeated all the other five schools to emerge as winner. But the story does not stop here. Adi Shankara's advaita lost out to madhvacharya's dvaita in the struggle to emerge as popular meme amongst masses. So the scoops are Indian ideas amongst others (persian, greek, central asian). Aastika ideas amongst indian ideas. Vedaanta amongst Aastika ideas. Dvaita amongst vedantic ideas. Shaiva, Shakta and Vaishnava amongst Dvaita emerging as joint winners.

Now, look at what is lost (or forgotten) in this process?

1. meme Losses in dvaita: The huge cult of surya worshippers lost. The cult of Ganapati worshippers lost (leader ganesh becomes elephant headed Gajavaktra). cult of Pure vishnu worshippers is vanished (very few temples of vaamana, matsya, even pure vishnu left. hardly any new ones dedicated to vishnu in his weapon bearing form). Cult of Indra, Varuna, Agni, Rudra (or shiva in his rudra form) vanished. Cult of Agnihotri saadhakas diminished.

2. Meme Losses in aastika due to this filtration process: schools of mimansa, saamkhya, vaisheshika, nyaya hugely diminished. Yoga is severely distorted and deracinated owing to its separation from Saankhya theory. The cult of Yaajniks lost and diminished. So many yagna-karmas forgotten (the very process of rudimentary Vedic Rajya abhishekam was lost for 900 years before Gaga Bhat of kashi compiled it from after hard work to coronate Shivaji in 1674. That means the process was lost in 700 AD, at the peak of India's sovereignty, prosperity and "hinduness". School of Tantra which a fringe anyways, becomes even more sidelined.

3. Meme Losses in Indic schools: Bauddha mat and Jaina mat (opinions of Buddha and Jina) primary losers of this filtration. Although many aspects of these schools are absorbed in aastika dvaita philosophical world view. Other casualty is Chaarvaka and Ajivikas, staunchly atheistic and materialistic group which kept philosophical opponents in ground by their hard hitting criticism. in absence of these other Indic philosophies tend to indulge in navel gazing.

On all these levels, India has lost huge amounts of her wealth. While the final deathblow was given by Islam when they actually decimated the populations and broke the system which could have ensured the progressive rise of Adi shankara like reformers from other extreme of philosophical spectrum, this is fact to remember while relishing on "Shankara Vijaya". In my opinion, "Shankara Vijaya" was a pyrrhic victory, because the very system which threw up beings like adi shankara was destroyed shortly thereafter.

The idea of Dharmais all encompassing and is acceptable not only the survivors (vaishnava-shaiva-shakta triumvirate of dvaita vedanta) but also to those schools who linger on only in spirit and idea, not practice. When we think of establishing Dharma, bringing the golden age back to India, one has to understand and visualize how rich and diverse she was. Establishing Dharma does not mean declaring India as Hindu-nation. It means establishing a sustainable and robust system which ensures aryanization of world, destruction of non-liberals (people and ideologies), and acute and thorough self-correction at each step of civilizational march. One has to also understand that when India was at height of her civilizational power, it had diverse institutions, for a very very broad spectrum of questions and problems posed diverse set of questioners (native and foreign). The question of Buddha was answered due to presence of institutions which threw up thinkers, poets, artists, warriors to answer the multidimensional and multi generational question-mark of Buddha on Vedic lifestyle.

Abrahmic monotheism has posed similar question and do we have institutions to answer them? Lastly, it was Islam which facilitated final embrace of Bauddha mat with aastika. Was it a calculated risk taken by then aastika kings to facilitate this embrace? if yes, then have to say "bad decision, mate"...

^^^^^

I personally have equal respect for Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism AND Buddhism, so no problems with calling it "Dharma" rather than Hinduism. When I talk about Hinduism, I really mean "Hind" originated religions.

RSS-Gadkari-Advani 'concoction' troubling Modi: Bal Thackeray
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 195993.cms

joshvajohn wrote:RSS-Gadkari-Advani 'concoction' troubling Modi: Bal Thackeray
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 195993.cms

Isnt it interesting how "cultural" shadows always create problems for onlee those dubbed "saffron", while the likes of explicitly religious identity political parties outside of saffron never is in trouble over such overt religious affiliations?

What happened to the Indian Christian People's Party launched formally in March this year in TN by a sitting archbishop, which is reported as follows in the website of Vatican Radio : http://www.radiovaticana.org/in2/articolo.asp?c=472079 ? Note that even if it is declared to be the "voice", it still has no condemnation of the move.

Or the All India Ulema Council, for example? Explicit political parties/movements okay - and no shadows cast, if they are from these two ideologies onlee?

It only shows how Indians have adopted the immense guilt of not being Muslims or Christians, to feel that any political movement not connected with these religions explicitly - are somehow fallen/evil simply by association. No such questions can be raised however with an identity connection to these two.

If historical alleged acts are the sole basis of evil-ness - then why should one particular org of the saffron be singled out for what it allegedly did? Why should not the Goan Inquisition similarly cast a long historical shadow based on "alleged" atrocities on the ICPP - or Sultanate and mughal or partition-time ML-atrocities not cast a shadow on those who now populate the All India Ulema Council?

joshvajohn ji,
do you really want to pursue this line of exploration? Is it not a bit unfair, as a full exploration cannot be done because of forum practices?

brihaspati ji,

you should ask that question to the Admins. you never know, eventually one of them will come along and declare that "JJ didn't start it". that's what happened to the other "debate" which was started by CJ.

if an initial inquiry is made in a certain line of thought, can it be fully explored, or at a convenient time will it be rapped up and the initial questioners get a laugh out of provoking pages of posts which ultimately are stopped from going anywhere???

RajeshA wrote:

Carl wrote:Increasing pressure of natural resource scarcity, including water, should logically force model 1, or an abstract version of it that allows multicultural bandwidth and complementary transnational competition bsaed on comparative cultural advantages. IMHO, the understanding of "success" would be determined by a mutually held value system, and cannot necessarily be marked in terms of administrative control of resources or logistical routes. Hopefully a looming econological crisis may force humans to think this way and become open to such a civilizational system, rather than start thinking in terms of doomsday scenarios.

You're probably referring to Pakistan here! But just in case you are referring to Indian Muslims, here is one method, I see as possible. Two subsequent posts may also be relevant. It too would have to be used in combination with some other methods.

RajeshA ji, actually my comment was general in the global situation, but thanks for the link to the other thread anyway.

Atri ji, thanks for another great post.

Atri wrote:1. meme Losses in dvaita: The huge cult of surya worshippers lost. The cult of Ganapati worshippers lost (leader ganesh becomes elephant headed Gajavaktra). cult of Pure vishnu worshippers is vanished (very few temples of vaamana, matsya, even pure vishnu left. hardly any new ones dedicated to vishnu in his weapon bearing form). Cult of Indra, Varuna, Agni, Rudra (or shiva in his rudra form) vanished. Cult of Agnihotri saadhakas diminished.

This is true of Shri Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita school, but is this really true of Madhva's Tattvavaad school? As far as I know, both in ontological study as well as practical processes, Shri Madhva's school include all deity forms based on substance and category -- all permutations of Vishnu as well as other devatas. In fact, Shri Madhva even goes on to clarify that the Vedic word 'asura' is not always with negative connotation, something that most "Hindus" don't know! With respect to Vishnu manifestations, they maintain a clear doctrine of "neha naanaasti kinchana" (no difference whatsoever) based on corresponding Vedanta sutra. With respect to non-Vishnu deities, they follow ontological taaratamya (hierarchy) based on the philosophical logic of learning Selection of Relative Importances. However, this idea seems to be maintained only in the "Vyaasakoota" (brahminical scholarly) section among Madhvas, and even there improperly emphasized. Among the Daasakoota (popular mass movements) sections derived from Madhva Vedanta, including the Gaudiya Vaishnava sect, these points are utterly lost and they fall into the same category as Shri Vaishnavas (Ramanuja sampradaya). Nevertheless, even these philosophically nebulous mass religious movements that came as offshoots of the Madhva wave were still instrumental in putting the brakes on Islamization of India. JMT...

Atri wrote:In my opinion, "Shankara Vijaya" was a pyrrhic victory, because the very system which threw up beings like adi shankara was destroyed shortly thereafter.

I completely agree with you. Shripada Adi Shankara's movement was good, but it soon deteriorated because of the philosophical compromises or intentional vagueness and relativism he made (thus breaking the Relative Importances significance) just to facilitate political accommodation or absorption of different factions that had longstanding petty disputes. It was by no means a lossless revival.

It seems like many of those mutually prejudiced factions came together due to their even greater prejudice against the shramanic religions which were the 'other'. Further, the petty power politics that took over the matha-mandira networks system under the Shankaracharya system after that is reflected in their political repression of future acharyas, causing an equal and opposite reaction and contraction into illiberal conservatism among those also. The sociological trace of this long-standing pettiness is visible in the relative goodwill and intermingling amongst Shaivas and Vaishnavas in the north versus the inveterate prejudice in the deep south.

Thus, while these historical attempts at Dharmicization may be useful to study, we still missed the point. So this time round we shouldn't. In that sense, the effort will hopefully be lead by philosophical clarity and intention towards the ultimate good that Dharma is meant for, and not just for political consolidation due to fear/resentment of some 'other'.