Bharat Rakshak

Posted: **09 Oct 2011 07:57**

I'm discounting current IA, IAF, IN since they are not very capable, and will be weakened even further if such a thing comes to pass. But how's this new "state" supposed to survive when most of the infrastructure dedicated to producing new weapons technology is located in southern states?

IMO, it'll be more productive to think of ways to devolve power from Delhi, rather than seek a wholesale break.

Posted: **09 Oct 2011 09:46**

Klaus wrote:SS ji,

You do realize the fact that this forum platform is literally one of a handful that would give your posts and line of thinking a patient hearing. IMO you are doing yourself and your brethren of alike mindset a great disservice by mentally and verbally abusing people who make up this forum, all of whom come from the very same grassroots and commons. Even if your objective of navaGurjara-Pratihara is taken seriously, it will be a premature reaction and will indirectly strengthen the hands of Bharat's civilizational enemies.

Do think of the fact that this new state will effectively be a further truncation of Bharat, Indics will then not even be able to hold a candle in front of the Sino-Islam arc across Asia, all due to the selfish personal ambitions of a few. You would actually go down in history as Duryodhana re-incarnated, who brought war to entire jambudveepa just for the sake of one Hastinapura city.

Think about the greater good of Bharat sir.

Klaus Sab,

I dont think you have been following the posts on this thread. The way we have been using the word "commons", most people on BRF will not fall in that category. Most people on BRF, even those who oppose my way of thinking and even those who choose to sometimes lose their temper and call names, are most uncommon people. They all share a high level of intellect and love of country.

When I talk about commons, I absolutely positively dont mean the BRF'ites, but those people who through the use of their large numbers in India and unholy alliances with the politicians are perpetuating a mob rule, a rule marked with one of the most vicious and oppressive "collective punishment" on the best and the brightest in India, of which BRF'ites are an integral part. By commons I mean assorted caste based vote banks who vote as a block, who get bought off and vote for the worst possible criminals to power, which have over the past 65 years, weakened the very fabric of our culture, nation and people. BRF'ites certainly dont fall in that category.

In fact, whether others reciprocate or not, I feel a certain amount in common with the BRF'ites, precisely because of what you said, that "this is one of the few, if not the only forums in India that allows me to present my sometimes outrageous seeming views" and because most of the BRF'ites face the same dilemmas and issues that I talk about in my posts. I think, most of all, that the BRF'ites without exception carry their own weight and more, for India and other Indians, without as much as getting thanks from anyone.

Therefore, when I speak, I try to speak for all BRF'ites in addition to several million others who are in the same boat as us. I am sometimes perplexed why such "net givers" to the society and the nation then defend the so called "commons" who have done nothing but weakened everything, our nation, our culture, our religion and our governance and who are "net takers". I get annoyed when obvious and brazen anti-national behaviour of these "commons" is defended by BRF'ites. Perhaps, I shouldnt be. Perhaps, it is their nobler instincts of feeling one with all their countrymen that compels them to be defensive of even the worst behaviour by the grassroots. Perhaps, I am not that noble. I have seen enough unjustness and oppression in our country to snuff out all empathy I have for those people. I hope I can be forgiven that I am no saint or a Gandhi, but I do feel that every bad act condoned, every crime looked the other way, is a pile of pain for the really deserving, the really nationalistic, the really able, the really meritorious.

So, Mr. Klaus, you tell me. Isnt our country in a mess ? And if it is, who is responsible for it ? And if you say the voters, then thats who I mean by the commons, people who have the vast majority of the votes. These are not the middle class or even people who have pulled themselves up with their bootstraps from the bottom, people who constitute BRF.

If you do not sense the great desire on my part to, as a first alternative, preserve and conserve our people, our culture and our one nation, India, I think you have missed the main thrust of my posts. Yet, you will agree, that since what I have stated about a separate State has not come about yet, ShivajiSisodia is not responsible for the state of affairs in our country right now. But, and I keep saying this, if things continue in the same direction that they are heading, without ShivajiSisodia or his posts or his acts on the ground, our country is going down and going down hard, handing a jewel of a victory to the Islamists. If everyone is so fired up at me for suggesting something which has not come to fruitation yet, where is the anger and where is the fire, that should be directed at those responsible so far, for what exists in our country today?

Posted: **09 Oct 2011 12:18**

shivajisisodia ji,

I have just a little piece if input. You should consider to implement your project in Nepal. If you think about it, you will see that the conditions there are much more conducive to such an enterprise.

Of course, you may have to build a constituency there and bring the commoners along, but the chances of success are much higher there!

Posted: **09 Oct 2011 14:23**

shivajisisodia wrote: you tell me. Isnt our country in a mess ? And if it is, who is responsible for it ? And if you say the voters, then thats who I mean by the commons, people who have the vast majority of the votes. These are not the middle class or even people who have pulled themselves up with their bootstraps from the bottom, people who constitute BRF.

If you do not sense the great desire on my part to, as a first alternative, preserve and conserve our people, our culture and our one nation, India, I think you have missed the main thrust of my posts. Yet, you will agree, that since what I have stated about a separate State has not come about yet, ShivajiSisodia is not responsible for the state of affairs in our country right now. But, and I keep saying this, if things continue in the same direction that they are heading, without ShivajiSisodia or his posts or his acts on the ground, our country is going down and going down hard, handing a jewel of a victory to the Islamists. If everyone is so fired up at me for suggesting something which has not come to fruitation yet, where is the anger and where is the fire, that should be directed at those responsible so far, for what exists in our country today?

There is a good chance that there exists constructive movements which have civilizational revivalism as one of their objectives, any premature revolution would actually stymie these movements looking to channel the "fire and anger" into something productive for the rashtra. You might not even be aware of some of them. In all likelihood, they all started out as frustrated as yourself.

Another issue is that potential revolutionaries dont necessarily have the wide networks required. To give you a small example, Indics still face huge barriers in the so-called progressive western nations for simple and mundane temple construction activity, the good neighbours seem to have a problem everywhere with the proposed site even as the allocation process is on. I'll leave it to you to chart out possible scenarios of something as drastic and bold as a revolution.

I would urge you to involve yourself with local communities in corners of the country you may be least interested in, perhaps even detest the most. Absolving yourself of all responsibility at this stage will not absolve you of the guilt and blame of inaction or erroneous action.

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 04:10**

SivajiSisodia ji,

I will tell you what I understood so-far. See if this makes sense and extend the dots if you can...

Note: general disclaimers such as exceptions apply.

Every _ism in the world (past, present and future) has some set of indlugings that are allowed as part of that dharma. The interesting part is that the so-called commoners find their peace in the indulges allowed under their faith. For example the polygamy by the Muslims, Non-veg/Sura by Hindus, doing everything under the son and confessing by Christians etc.,

If we observe indian sub-continent closely, these commoners are very nimble at accepting whatever changes in the law-of-land that came with change in rulers (Hence Yatha Raja Tatha Praja). It is the so-called elite who stuck to their ancestral antiques in the name of aristocracy.

Siva is personification of everything that is there. Shiva (auspiciousness, mahadeva) is said to be in the burial ground to indicate the point there he will be there even where/when everything else stops (for people who think life is everything). If Such Siva exists in every part of this world, how can he not exist in a Muslim or Christian or their lands? Aren't you destroying that Sivam (auspiciousness) by declaring that his abode is limited to few regions of Hindu lands?

Our Dharma (Hindu/SD) to fight adharma wherever it exists. It can be within us, within our own society or outside our society/lands. That is why Rama went all the way from Ayodhya to Lanka to fight Ravana. He didnt stop with establishing his Rama Rajya in Ayodhya. For that matter Rama wouldn't even need a kingdom to fight for Dharma. He would do nevertheless.

Once we defeat the ten-headed Ravana, these very asuras will turn Dharmic under the rule of Vibhishana.

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 04:34**

shivajisisodia wrote:We are great defenders and friends, but equally ferocious adversaries, if forced to be in that position. At the bottom of it all, we dont calculate like others do. We dont worry about the odds of winning or losing, we simply fight, for a righteous cause. Victory or defeat is upto Lord Shiva.

Dear Shivajisisodia ji, I'm sure many BRFites share your sense of frustration. This kind of reactive ferocity can be an asset when it is harnessed by those who do possess the perspicacity and ability to make computations for the summum bonum. But you confess in your posts that your helpless rage is a product of confusion and inability to see any way to consolidate the good and drive out the bad from India. Yet don't you see that those shady and powerful networks and interests can equally well scuttle or take advantage of your "bubble nation" project? Its a nation that, even on the off chance it forms, will not be able to actually defeat the evils that you righteously rage against. Rather, its formation may be aided and abetted by those evil forces in order to push good forces into a bubble and keep them there, while they run riot over the rest. And you want to play into this and lend them your momentum? As a person no doubt interested in martial arts, I'm sure you know that a grounded balance is the secret, and it comes from knowing when to push and when to yield, and when to do nothing.

IMHO we should pool in whatever data each of us has, and then also brainstorm on ideas. Perhaps even find really sagacious people to steer a reform movement. Most of all is needed a comprehensive strategy to fight the inimical forces of chaos and control without trying to compartment India.

Still, there is plenty of space to release the kind of energy you are sitting on. Like RajeshA ji suggested, trying working it out on the periphery, such as Nepal. Its a place that is ripe for what you are saying, but in which the enemy cancer is taking hold.

The other parts of Bharat need patient and systematic cultivation in order to turn the aimless masses of the cheaters and the cheated into a purposeful force that can see the enemy. Invest in the school system and in spiritual training networks, as well as in media. Within a couple of decades if even 10% of children from these schools fructify and occupy key positions in government and private sector, that would be enough to decisively turn the tide. There are no genuine excuses to reject such ideas for change, not even parental resistance! Why, there are even 20 million orphans in India who could be cherished and channeled...

So there are many many better ideas. Pick a couple of good ones and run with it. But for sure, if you choose to become a knife in India's back and further partition her, then rest assured that your "Hinduism" and elite pride will be bitchslapped to hell and back by the powers that will control the subcontinent. We already have fond romanticized memories of how some of elites ancestors kowtowed or got into bed with British and Moghul overlords in the past, all in the name of honor, while the same lords raped the rest of the land and her spiritual heritage.

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 07:09**

RamaY wrote:SivajiSisodia ji,

I will tell you what I understood so-far. See if this makes sense and extend the dots if you can...

Note: general disclaimers such as exceptions apply.

Every _ism in the world (past, present and future) has some set of indlugings that are allowed as part of that dharma. The interesting part is that the so-called commoners find their peace in the indulges allowed under their faith. For example the polygamy by the Muslims, Non-veg/Sura by Hindus, doing everything under the son and confessing by Christians etc.,

If we observe indian sub-continent closely, these commoners are very nimble at accepting whatever changes in the law-of-land that came with change in rulers (Hence Yatha Raja Tatha Praja). It is the so-called elite who stuck to their ancestral antiques in the name of aristocracy.

Siva is personification of everything that is there. Shiva (auspiciousness, mahadeva) is said to be in the burial ground to indicate the point there he will be there even where/when everything else stops (for people who think life is everything). If Such Siva exists in every part of this world, how can he not exist in a Muslim or Christian or their lands? Aren't you destroying that Sivam (auspiciousness) by declaring that his abode is limited to few regions of Hindu lands?

Our Dharma (Hindu/SD) to fight adharma wherever it exists. It can be within us, within our own society or outside our society/lands. That is why Rama went all the way from Ayodhya to Lanka to fight Ravana. He didnt stop with establishing his Rama Rajya in Ayodhya. For that matter Rama wouldn't even need a kingdom to fight for Dharma. He would do nevertheless.

Once we defeat the ten-headed Ravana, these very asuras will turn Dharmic under the rule of Vibhishana.

1. No disagreement with your point that Lord Siva lives everywhere and ultimately, if is our responsibility to make the whole world the domain of the Trinity, for lack of a better term (not by force, but peacefully). I am simply saying that without consolidating our base, which is right here in India, we cant expect to "expand" elsewhere, can we ? Right now, the issue is not expanding, which will hopefully come later, the issue is our own survival in our own base and how best to accomplish it. And I hope by saying that "Lord Rama" did not even need a kingdom to fight Adharma you dont mean that we should be prepared mentally to somehow lose our base here in India and then "fight adharma" like stateless exiles ? My motivation to talk about a separate Hindu State on this forum to start a discussion of whether having such a state to begin with, imbubing it with the right values and then expanding out, first to the rest of India and then further, might be a better strategy given the existing constraints. The motivation was not to weaken ourselves or our natural homeland, but to make a strategic retreat in the short term for the sake of strengthening our homeland in the medium to long term.

2. The "so called" elites who stuck to their aristocracy, as you put it, are no longer "elites", if you define an elite who has wealth and power. If you define "elites" as the righteous, then some of them, not all, can be called the elites. Some of these aristocrats, and I grant you, not all, are the last defenders of all that is good in our culture and traditions and they do it with complete selflessness and without any calculation of what is in it for them. I will not make the same mistake that some on this forum make, which is defending everything that all "aristocrats" do. I will not. Some of them have demeaned themselves and sold out and are no better than the commons. But there are some, that still uphold the best of the best that Indian tradition and culture has to offer.

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 07:51**

Carl wrote:
Dear Shivajisisodia ji, I'm sure many BRFites share your sense of frustration. This kind of reactive ferocity can be an asset when it is harnessed by those who do possess the perspicacity and ability to make computations for the summum bonum. But you confess in your posts that your helpless rage is a product of confusion and inability to see any way to consolidate the good and drive out the bad from India. Yet don't you see that those shady and powerful networks and interests can equally well scuttle or take advantage of your "bubble nation" project? Its a nation that, even on the off chance it forms, will not be able to actually defeat the evils that you righteously rage against. Rather, its formation may be aided and abetted by those evil forces in order to push good forces into a bubble and keep them there, while they run riot over the rest. And you want to play into this and lend them your momentum? As a person no doubt interested in martial arts, I'm sure you know that a grounded balance is the secret, and it comes from knowing when to push and when to yield, and when to do nothing.

All of what you say may come true. That is indeed a risk. It is quite possible that this separate nation will never come about. Even if it comes about, it is possible, that it will be co-opted by forces that mirror what the current dispensation in India looks like. Even if that doesnt occur, it is quite possible that this separate state will not be able to consolidate itself. And even if it does manage to come as far as to consolidate itself, there is always a possibility that it may not be able to defeat the "sorroundings", but be destroyed by them. All of these are distinct possibilities, some may say even probabilities. I suggested it, knowing all the risks and possibilities and probabilities, because in my view, the situation is so dire and desperate that this "nuclear option" is the only option left and all the risks that go with it are worth taking, regardless of the costs.

While I dont get bogged down like a grocery store owner in complex calculations and their statistical variances and deviations, and I certainly dont let such calculations deter me from following a course of action that is righteous, it doesnt mean that I am not capable of making such calculations. For the sake of responding to your argument above, I will use those calculations to demonstrate that my idea of a strategic retreat into a smaller and more manageable core, consolidating it around the right values and sound strategy and then pounce on the sorroundings like a tiger, is not as improbable as you suggest.

New nations are being formed everyday. The latest, I believe was South Sudan. Every year many new nations are born, some of which have populations of less than five million. Why can a like minded 35 to 50 million, if they play their cards right, not form a nation ? Eminently doable. Once the nation is formed, the structure of the nation itself can keep the traitors and the treacherous at bay. When Eritria separated from Ethiopia, it managed to keep the Ethiopianophile out. When BanglaDesh separated from Pak, it managed to keep the Pakifile out (for the most part, down to this day), when South Sudan separated from Sudan, it managed to keep the Islamists out. So, if Eritria can do it, South Sudan can do it and even BD can do it, why is is so terribly unlikely that our new Hindu state will be able to keep the Soniawadis at bay ? Eminently doable. Now comes the consolidation part. If Singapore can survive amidst two big bad wolves, one being Islamists represented by Malaysia and the other being China that may have ethnic claims over it, why not our state ? If Israel can do it, why not our state ? If Paki can survive against our own nation, why not our new state ? Again, eminently doable, Sir.

Carl wrote:IMHO we should pool in whatever data each of us has, and then also brainstorm on ideas. Perhaps even find really sagacious people to steer a reform movement. Most of all is needed a comprehensive strategy to fight the inimical forces of chaos and control without trying to compartment India. .

It is precisely this sort of brainstorming I have been looking for this forum to indulge in and I thought that this thread would discuss exactly that, but unfortunately, as good as BRF is, the one thing it has been inadequate in discussing is, how we change the situation on the ground in India. Schools and all are great ideas, but all of these will have long term results, which is good. No problems with that at all. But, we also need some short term goals and we as human beings need to see some tangible results, some small positive movement or trend every day, to keep our spirits high and to be able to recruit more and more adherents to our cause. We need to start brain storming not only the long term action plan, which is very necessary, but also short term, almost a daily action plan which is equally necessary to keep the spirits up and to benchmark the daily results against the expected results.

Carl wrote:So there are many many better ideas. Pick a couple of good ones and run with it. But for sure, if you choose to become a knife in India's back and further partition her, then rest assured that your "Hinduism" and elite pride will be bitchslapped to hell and back by the powers that will control the subcontinent. We already have fond romanticized memories of how some of elites ancestors kowtowed or got into bed with British and Moghul overlords in the past, all in the name of honor, while the same lords raped the rest of the land and her spiritual heritage.

First of all, Sir, the way you put it, "become a knife in India's back", you are falling into the trap set by the anti-nationals who currently rule India. If you stop to think about it, these anti-nationals are likely to use the exact same words to demonize the nationalists. I contend that I dont recognize the current ruling dispensation as a legitimate ruling dispensation. Having done that, I will declare another government or dispensation, which will be nationalist in its hue, to be the legitimate government of India. In the name of all of India, this legitimate dispensation will slowly start acquiring territory, first in the Western parts of India and then cosolidate and then slowly expand into all of India and then then Paki and then on and on. The only knife here is in the backs of the anti-national, corrupt and evil dispensation that currently rules India, not on India or the idea of India itself. In fact, the knife will be used in defence of India and the idea of India for its long term preservation.

When you say that our "National pride will be bitch slapped", I have to smile.

Yeah, just like the Naxals are being bitchslapped.

Just like the Kashmiri separatists are being bitchslapped.

Just like that Bangla Deshi muslim migrants into India are bring bitchslapped

. Just like the proselythizing missionaries in our tribal areas are being bitchslapped.

. Just like the Maoists in Nepal are being bitchslapped:). If the current Indian dispensation finds itself incapable of bitchslapping these actual "BITCHES of movements", what makes you think that this same dispensation will be able to bitchslap a bunch of ferocious Hindu warriors who have the blessings of Lord Shiva and Mata Bhawani ? The whole idea is for us to bitchslap the unholy leader of the current dispensation, Sir, if you catch my drift. It would take a lot to bitchslap the inheritors of the legacy of Prithviraj and Shivaji Maharaj, and you actually think, the likes of the Italian, Lalu, Mulayam, Ama, Didi, Digvi, Pranab, PC, Mayawati, Karuna and Pawar have it in them to bitchslap us ?

Think again, sir. We are not an Ana Hazare, Sir (although I think he is a good man).

As for your fond memories of our elite ancestors who went to bed with the Moguls or the British, I would like to jog your selective memory, Sir. For every example of the elite that went to bed with the enemy, there are 1000 examples of the elites that fought for our nation. For every Mir Zafar, there were 1000 Tatya Topes. For every Jaichand, there were a 1000 Jhansi ki Ranis. Allow me to ask, Sir, where were the "commons" and their "leaders", the forefathers of Mayawati and Mulayam and Lalu or Karuna, while the Moguls and the British were plundering us, Sir ?

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 08:03**

if we are discussing "aristocrats" then there is a lot of ambiguity here. contrary to Western propaganda about caste system, there is a huge gradient in the lifestyles of the hereditary "aristocrats". it's also unclear if we simply mean Brahmins, or Brahmins and other land-owning castes?

if we start including the big land-owning castes, then, the glaring problem is that across India, the big "land owners" belong to various castes including the "oppressed". >> the Reddy super-caste in AP was once a "shudra" caste. but they seized power when the Islamic invasions began and initially mounted a huge response against the invaders. but now, they are no longer considered "shudras". and according to modern narratives, many BC's consider them "oppressors".

so, defining "aristocracy" in India is a huge challenge. once we start digging it up, we realize that the easy boundaries of hereditary Varna belong only to the textbooks, and the real situation is so complex that the "aristocracy" can't be defined by the Varna system...

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 11:07**

shivajisisodia wrote:New nations are being formed everyday. The latest, I believe was South Sudan. Every year many new nations are born, some of which have populations of less than five million. Why can a like minded 35 to 50 million, if they play their cards right, not form a nation ? Eminently doable. Once the nation is formed, the structure of the nation itself can keep the traitors and the treacherous at bay. When Eritria separated from Ethiopia, it managed to keep the Ethiopianophile out. When BanglaDesh separated from Pak, it managed to keep the Pakifile out (for the most part, down to this day), when South Sudan separated from Sudan, it managed to keep the Islamists out. So, if Eritria can do it, South Sudan can do it and even BD can do it, why is is so terribly unlikely that our new Hindu state will be able to keep the Soniawadis at bay ? Eminently doable. Now comes the consolidation part. If Singapore can survive amidst two big bad wolves, one being Islamists represented by Malaysia and the other being China that may have ethnic claims over it, why not our state ? If Israel can do it, why not our state ? If Paki can survive against our own nation, why not our new state ? Again, eminently doable, Sir.

Each and every one of the breakaway nations you cited above are economic or political dependencies or adjuvants of some major power-bloc in this world. In fact, their separation was engineered or facilitated by such power centers, and even we Indians have tried our hand at that game. Now you want us to become the dependency for a change?? Scrap the 60 years of 'independence' and go back to the good old days eh?

So why can't the "tiger" take shape without going through the arduous and self-defeating process of political separatism? Why can't the "tiger" come out of its lair and into full public view within the current system, and scare away the jackals? Why cant the "tiger" go right into the jackals lair(s) like Nepal, TSP, Bhutbangla-desh and finish him off there? Now that would be real tiger stuff.

Moreover, the conditions in India are different from all those breakaway countries you cited above, in one way or another. If you could - for a brief minute - put aside your contempt for the apathetic masses of this country (just for a brief minute), you will be shocked to find that the vast majority in this nation are fundamentally pro-national. Its just that the right heartstrings need to be pulled to create the harmony that you so desire. And of course, real justice and people-to-people understanding needs to be fostered over and above all the divisive ploys by anti-national forces.

shivajisisodia wrote:Schools and all are great ideas, but all of these will have long term results, which is good. No problems with that at all. But, we also need some short term goals and we as human beings need to see some tangible results, some small positive movement or trend every day, to keep our spirits high and to be able to recruit more and more adherents to our cause. We need to start brain storming not only the long term action plan, which is very necessary, but also short term, almost a daily action plan which is equally necessary to keep the spirits up and to benchmark the daily results against the expected results.

I agree, but like I said there are plenty of other options. Happier, less grim options. Or if you like the gnashing of teeth then that is also possible, breaking the corrupt and preserving what is good. But adrenalized action without full understanding and meditation will end poisonously. As you know:

यत् तदग्रे विषमिव परिणामे 'मृतोपमं तत् सुखं सात्त्विकं प्रोक्तं आत्मबुद्धिप्रसादजं |
... यत् तदग्रे 'मृतोपमं परिणामे विषमिव तत् सुखं राजसं स्मृतं |

shivajisisodia wrote:As for your fond memories of our elite ancestors who went to bed with the Moguls or the British, I would like to jog your selective memory, Sir. For every example of the elite that went to bed with the enemy, there are 1000 examples of the elites that fought for our nation. For every Mir Zafar, there were 1000 Tatya Topes. For every Jaichand, there were a 1000 Jhansi ki Ranis.

And we all love and celebrate those good people. The reason I had snuck that one in to bust a hole in your echandee; to show that all the "honor" games of the past were still disastrous for the rashtra. Some of the 'honorable' elites became compradores for the colonial Moghuls or Brits, some became junior partners. But even among those who fought against the colonizer, the results were not the best, there was no consolidation -- because of defective and incomplete ideas of rashtra, its philosophy, etc. We can take a leaf out of their historic sacrifices, and learn both the strong points AND the weak points. But many defective ideas and attitudes can be seen in your posts:

shivajisisodia wrote:Allow me to ask, Sir, where were the "commons" and their "leaders", the forefathers of Mayawati and Mulayam and Lalu or Karuna, while the Moguls and the British were plundering us, Sir ?

It is all too easy to proclaim that you believe in the 'equality' of all humans, but the immaturity of your temper tantrum, the hard-heartedness of your contempt for the commons, and the foolhardiness of the proposed action doesn't really reflect that. It may be easy for you to dismiss or verbally apologize for the systematic oppression several sections of these commons faced for centuries, when you lived in the castle and they lived on the farm. But in terms of action what are you doing to re-integrate hearts and minds?

When someone from those backgrounds becomes the first ever in his family to get a college education thanks to the outreach of "EJ's" and others, then that means a lot more to him than the hyper-nationalist sermons of the 'Tejo Mahalaya' types. When a person from those backgrounds is allowed to stand shoulder to shoulder with brothers from other backgrounds and worship the Lord, then that touch of dignity means a lot more to him than the sermon on "psychological violence of conversion" by elites who recently discovered human equality. In fact, the same hypocritical elite 'tigers' are now enraged because of the "reservation" and "quota" system, as they get less of a share in those same educational institutions run by EJ's and others? That becomes the catalyst for civil war and self-immolation? Same elites are enraged because many from these backgrounds may convert to EJism, Islamism and Buddhism?

Instead of such pathetic reactions, just DO something to reach out in a way that truly sweeps everyone into the light. I have said before -- if you are upset about conversions, go out and first convert two people to your dharma. But before trying even that, you want to hatch grand plots for neo-thakur-stan. If you're really a tiger AND you really believe in a common affinity between all humans, then it should be no problem to connect heart-to-heart with such a compatriot and bring him back home. Isn't it?

Similarly, if you're angry about the unfairness of divisive quota systems then work in capacity-building and expand the field of education, economic opportunity and security. That solves a lot of problems instead of breaking a developing nation because you want to corner some scraps (and that is exactly what your bubble-nation will do - calling it "righteous" any number of times doesn't change that)! I do understand your dim view about the future of your children, but things can improve. Besides, those "EJ's" make headway via frontlines who give up the worldly life to live with and convert the commons you so fear. Those Islamist jihadis praise god when their sons die in battle. Is it that extreme for your children? Just think clearly and honestly.

And if you want to just kick some a.ss then go into the jackals' den and do it there if you have the guts. Instead, you want to funk out, leave the sheep to the wolves and live safely in your high castle.

Meanwhile, sorry if there are hardships while this capacity builds, but as you no doubt understand, it takes sacrifice and penitance in the present to annull negative past patterns and create new patterns for the future. This has to include the spiritual, psychological and material aspects of growth. अग्निमीळे पुरोहितं यज्ञस्य देवमृत्विजं | होतारं रत्नाधातमं | Short on any one of these, it will be a sad ending.

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 12:06**

shivajisisodia wrote:When Eritria separated from Ethiopia, it managed to keep the Ethiopianophile out. When BanglaDesh separated from Pak, it managed to keep the Pakifile out (for the most part, down to this day), when South Sudan separated from Sudan, it managed to keep the Islamists out. So, if Eritria can do it, South Sudan can do it and even BD can do it, why is is so terribly unlikely that our new Hindu state will be able to keep the Soniawadis at bay ? Eminently doable. Now comes the consolidation part. If Singapore can survive amidst two big bad wolves, one being Islamists represented by Malaysia and the other being China that may have ethnic claims over it, why not our state ? If Israel can do it, why not our state ? If Paki can survive against our own nation, why not our new state ? Again, eminently doable, Sir.

1) Length of Wars, Foreign Support, Casualties, Displaced People, Costs

Eritrea: Eritrean War of Independence (1 September 1961 – 24 May 1991) leading to Eritrean–Ethiopian War (May 1998 - June 2000)
South Sudan: First Sudanese Civil War (1955 – 1972); Second Sudanese Civil War (1983 – 2005)
Bangladesh: ~~Bangladesh War of Independence~~ = Indo-Pak War of 1971

2) Singapore is stuck between Malaysia and China?!

3) Of course commoners who are the root of all evil are to be kept at arm's length! Who will fight? Aristocratic brats?

4) Show Proof of Concept -> Start with Nepal

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 12:09**

brihaspati wrote:Sanku ji,
its been around. Just the thing to destroy any real start. Its not real.

B-ji; this guy is so obvious, its not even funny, my initial gut feel has been completely borne true.

Perhaps :: A_Kalam trying a different experiment (in his mind!!)

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 17:32**

RajeshA,

I did not mean that Singapore is geographically stuck between China and Malaysia. I meant metaphorically stuck, as if you talk to Singaporeans, their biggest fear is Islamism as represented by Malaysia, which IS geographically next to it and the ethnic claims that some in the Chinese establishment harbor over it, while still being geographically away.

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 18:11**

Carl Sab,

You are right about the lure of the "other" for people who were dispossessed in India. But consider this. The simple story and theory that the upper castes dominated the lower castes and caused them untold misery by systematically exploiting them for centuries, is just that - "simple". The reality is actually more complex. While there is no doubt, that there was some economic exploitation and a great deal of social exclusivity based on caste, which are deplorable (and no excuses ever should be made for those), there were no widespread and systematic "taking away" of anyone's property or money in India by one caste from the other. There are many examples of certain sections of the lower castes rising up the economic and social scale through their efforts. There are examples after examples of the lower castes even become ruling dynasties ranging from the Nandas in ancient Magadha to the Holkars in very recent history.

But be that as it may. Even if people dont agree with me, and for the sake of argument, let us assume that the caste exploitation was as bad as the narrative created by the British and generally bought by most in India too. Sir, we have tried all the remedies you suggested in terms of reaching out to the downtrodden and attempting to win their hearts and minds. We have tried it for 65 years. People from the so called "upper castes", millions of them embraced Gandhian ideology of "equality and outreach". We all, I included, supported our experiment of outreach and even "compensation" for the disadvantaged section of our society. We even tacitly supported socialism and made great sacrifices that you talk about, living through that nightmare of an era. We did it all for 65 years. The result ? An oppressive society which has institutionalized corruption, perversion, lawlessness and religionlessness. This experiment has yielded nothing and if you think this system will result in sustained "independence" for us, I think you are seriously mistaken.

So, now, after giving up our lands, in some cases voluntarily but in most cases in the name of land reforms, after giving our full throated support to Gandhi and his successors in the past 65 years for all kinds of perverse reservation policies and transfer payments, you are lecturing me to make even more sacrifices. You are implying that people like me have not made sacrifices enough. Now, you want me to go out there to people who are ploughing the lands that for generations had belonged to me and who now enjoy more civil and political rights than me and "try to convert them" ? Sir, if you have spoken to these people, you will realize that they now have no use for people like me and even you. After having taken our property, most of the available jobs and goodies that the government has to offer and being empowered with all kinds of rights, they openly scoff at whoever from the middle or the educated classes goes to talk to them. If anyone of your ilk or mine goes to try and "convert" these people, we will be objects or derision and laughter and rightfully so. What is now left with you and me to offer to these people in concrete terms, that they will seriously talk with us. We have no leverage, Sir. Right now, in terms of rights, political power and national wealth, the so called previously exploited now control it all. People on BRF are living in a fools paradise, if they think that "they" are the elite and the "commons" still lagging behind. I have news for you, Sir. The OBCs and the Dalits are the new elites. Present day India is a constitutionally mandated unequal state, with the OBCs and Dalits enjoying special rights, legally by virtue of laws such as reservations and subsidies and also special political rights, by virtue of their numbers and vote banks. The only way for anyone other than the OBCs and Dalits to survive in India today is by making massive payoffs (in the form of corruption), which a small 1% of the merchant class does in abundance and thereby retains its wealth. The rest of us, Sir, also have to make payoffs in general, just to survive, from morning to evening. Why will these people who now enjoy disproportionate power be willing to "convert" to your and my vision of India, where they think they will lose their current privileges ? It is useless to try, Sir and that is the reason, it is better to separate from these people. Right now, they are full of themselves and on a power trip and a vengeance trip and they think it is their turn now to turn the tables, so to speak. We are people who are close to the ground, sons of soil, so to speak. We know the ground realities. Give me one example in India, where a middle class effort to "convert" even one or two people to the "nationalist cause", as espoused by the majority in BRF has succeeded ? Are you or anyone speaking from your own experiences of having made such conversions or are you simply expecting me to do it ? I would invite you to follow your own advice and lead on this "converting the masses" campaign, and I will happily follow, Sir. Show me an alternative model that has any chance of success before you criticize my model. The model you seem to have suggested is nothing different from what the Govt of India has been doing for the past 65 years. You seem to be asking for more of the same.

I have tried my best to respectfully disagree with you, Sir. I hope I have succeeded in the "respectful" part. Just the fact that I disagree should not by itself be construed as being disrespecful. I certainly disagree and meant to disagree with you, but I certainly mean no disrespect.

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 19:34**

Shivajisisodia ji,

shivajisisodia wrote:I have tried my best to respectfully disagree with you, Sir. I hope I have succeeded in the "respectful" part. Just the fact that I disagree should not by itself be construed as being disrespecful. I certainly disagree and meant to disagree with you, but I certainly mean no disrespect.

None taken at all. To make things clear, the disagreement is because you insist on reducing all socio-political changes to the greatest divisor, and collapsing all solution ideas to the lowest common denominator.

In your reply you have reasonably described the change of material equations and the problems arising from a purely socio-economic compute on historical and present day justice. But I was suggesting that such changes should have gone hand-in-hand with reframing the psychological discourse in the country. And then there is the need for spiritual 'processing' to run out any real abuse there may be on either side, carrying down from the past.

Of course some sections of people who are benefitting from mandated quotas and transfer of land and other resources may have been swept up in the highly skewed caste-exploitation narrative that divisive forces have planted in the national discourse for political gain. This is a phase of immaturity, and the antidote to this phase is not necessarily another wave of counter-immaturity.

To neutralize such a phase, best thing is to change the cultural framework of discourse. Shorter-term measures could be a forceful presentation of other points of view. But what you suggest far exceeds the limits of sanity.

shivajisisodia wrote:The result ? An oppressive society which has institutionalized corruption, perversion, lawlessness and religionlessness. This experiment has yielded nothing and if you think this system will result in sustained "independence" for us, I think you are seriously mistaken.
[...]
People on BRF are living in a fools paradise, if they think that "they" are the elite and the "commons" still lagging behind. I have news for you, Sir. The OBCs and the Dalits are the new elites.

"Nothing" is not quite accurate, it is only relative to the frame of reference you choose to use. I don't know what a cross section of BRF looks like, but I doubt they are all from 'elite' backgrounds. I for one am from a mixed background, though I don't fall into a 'quota category'. Besides, some of my family who are from 'elite' backgrounds were idealists who have spent their lives trying to improve the legal and economic rights of the downtrodden. I think even they would disagree with the completely one-sided picture you paint. It is a fact that many of the communities they helped were indeed living in a more-or-less "hostage" situation to their 'elite' "owners", before they were emancipated via efforts that appealed to the law of the land along with mobilizing communities, and not without suffering some criminal intimidation, too. OTOH, I also have family members from 'elite' backgrounds who have lost a lot. Similarly, I have family from backward backgrounds who were able to go through college due to charitable systems, and then on their own merit (not quotas) graduated from the best universities like IIM. Some of these people went on to become successful in the private sector, and some made a useful contribution to the nation by being part of defense projects like Prithvi, etc. They remain men and women of integrity who gave back a lot more to society than they gained from initial charity, and are not corrupt feeders off other people's wealth. So, "nothing" has certainly not been the result of the last 60 years my friend! You have to see both sides of the picture, on both sides of the equation.

shivajisisodia wrote:The only way for anyone other than the OBCs and Dalits to survive in India today is by making massive payoffs (in the form of corruption), which a small 1% of the merchant class does in abundance and thereby retains its wealth.

Only way? Are you serious?
Look, I'm not denying that there is systemic corruption, nobody is denying that. But you are exaggerating things and not looking for changes to the system via the same basic system (which is self-correcting). That can be dangerous.

shivajisisodia wrote:Right now, they are full of themselves and on a power trip and a vengeance trip and they think it is their turn now to turn the tables, so to speak.

So that phase of immaturity needs to be neutralized by forcefully but maturely altering the social discourse to remove false sense of vicitimization, guilt and pride. This can be done. If you want to mobilize, do it to that end. But when you want to be splittist, then that is an even worse phase of immaturity.

shivajisisodia wrote:Give me one example in India, where a middle class effort to "convert" even one or two people to the "nationalist cause", as espoused by the majority in BRF has succeeded ? Are you or anyone speaking from your own experiences of having made such conversions or are you simply expecting me to do it ?

I speak from personal experience, as well as the experience of members of my extended family, as I indicated above. I can't speak for BRF members here, but I gather that there are many others here who do have such 'grassroots' experience. But when they mentioned it, you just scoffed at them. Please note, it doesn't mean that you have to do exactly what they are doing, but you can acknowledge those efforts and the results, and factor that into your considerations. Lots of energy is needed for a new national integration to develop in all its ramifications, and there is a role for anyone who wants to contribute.

shivajisisodia wrote:Show me an alternative model that has any chance of success before you criticize my model. The model you seem to have suggested is nothing different from what the Govt of India has been doing for the past 65 years. You seem to be asking for more of the same.

Did it really look like I or anyone else here was asking for more of the same? Seriously?

So even going with your line of thought, could you respond to RajeshA ji's suggestion for starting out with Nepal, please?

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 19:35**

I don't see why bashing up has to go to extremes in an ideological sense. Don't see the need to bash up those who talk of "Tejo Mahalays" - since theirs is a hypothesis well worth considering - but again just as a hypothesis, since circumstantial history of Muslims in India is all about destroying or adapting and Islamizing pre-Muslim cultural icons. Even from a cold, uhrheimat claiming bandwagon, we need to to give the hypothesis some respect as a very cold calculation in laying stake to the "land". Any claims, however calculating they are - that advances the claims of the Indic on land/sites/territories that have been overrun or overlaid by foreign imperialist ideologies - should at best be allowed to chew on silently - without us adding to the bashing that they already get at the hands of bootlickers or foot-soldiers of these externally sourced imperialisms.

On the other hand, I don't see logic in characterizations of extremism. If one is constantly thinking of others opposed to their views as "extremes", then it implies one's own awareness is depedent on perceptions of others. There cannot be extremes unless there are "moderates" or "middle" roaders. They are all realtive to each other.

However, the same objectives can be seen to be apparently achievable by different routes. Some of which may appear extreme according to some other viewpoint. The debate that has been shaping up here is not about the objectives, which are pretty clear even if unstated to a large extent, and even if asizeable portion are opposed to it from a variety of reasons - thinking of sustainability, vulnerability, or sheer deeper personal issues with the Indic as they have grown up to see it.

I would suggest, that all parties to the debate consider the following:
(1) are you okay with the ultimate objective? If not, what are the reasons. This is crucial as the personal doubts, or ideological problems will all have a bearing.
(2) a lot of us may not be okay with one particular line being proposed - a "separatist" line. The reason this sorting out of "methods" i snecessary is because - the very trajectory of development envisioned can have an impact on the final form of achievement.

It may not be so apparent to most - but the fact is that not every eventuality can be foreseen and calculated for. But we still do have to try to calculate as much as possible. Someotimes what is done in haste and as apparently convenient may backfire in the long run - as many western, or Indic attempts have shown in the near past or far back. But at the same time we have to keep in mind that even if we have tried - as has already been put, like a grocery shop manager - , we may see unforeseen forces rise and counteract or interact to possibly completely change the eventual outcome.

So the method applied must be as robust as possible to envision now. A fundamentalist commitment to the method almost always proves incapable of preserving a fundamentalist commitment to the objective. It is better to have a flexible approach in tactics and not rely on one particular scheme. What has been suggested in the separatist vein should be kept hanging like a sword over the regime as something that is "out there" - even if it has been generated originally from very dubious sources with obvious signs of a different political skullduggery - but the myth is useful to an extent. How far people are actually allowed to go in that direction should be subject to a bigger strategic direction -though.

Over the course of years the main struggle that will shape up is over the control on and presence in land. You need deception to an extent to keep large chunks of people from turning hostile based on instigation by pre-existing coercive networks. Adventurism should be kept as a threat not an actuality, and even that threat needs to reassure the large groups as to the minimality and focus of the targets. Its a sequential elimination process, keeping as many on your side at a time as possible to eliminate the few. This works for foreign affairs as well as for internals. At the same time the danger is that some opportunists will see an advantage in not eliminating anyone - and this is where the long-term objective should correct the error. This error is not being corrected for the rashtra in its foreign affairs. For what is beingt talked about here in the internal sphere - it holds equally.

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 19:45**

In the long run the fundamentalist objective always wins, but the fundamentalist commitment to particular methods never does.

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 20:01**

Brihaspati ji,

brihaspati wrote:Don't see the need to bash up those who talk of "Tejo Mahalays" - since theirs is a hypothesis well worth considering - but again just as a hypothesis, since circumstantial history of Muslims in India is all about destroying or adapting and Islamizing pre-Muslim cultural icons.

Sure, but when someone goes off and talks about Tejo Mahalaya, he discredits genuine presentations of what you mention. It also reflects a troubling, reflexive, eliminationist attitude that can't be good or sane unless kept strictly under control and ultimately resolved.

brihaspati wrote:On the other hand, I don't see logic in characterizations of extremism.

'Extremism' is not merely a matter of where the goalposts are. Given any situation, it is possible to characterize a position as 'extremist' based on the sanity of its computations on all four dynamics basic to humans - self, sex and family, one's group(s) identity, and one's connection to humanity. Of course, demagogues can always use 'extremist' to label those who disagree, but I don't think we're doing that here.

brihaspati wrote:I would suggest, that all parties to the debate consider the following:
(1) are you okay with the ultimate objective? If not, what are the reasons. This is crucial as the personal doubts, or ideological problems will all have a bearing.
(2) a lot of us may not be okay with one particular line being proposed - a "separatist" line. The reason this sorting out of "methods" i snecessary is because - the very trajectory of development envisioned can have an impact on the final form of achievement.

I feel OK with the ultimate objective, though some more clarity can be brought to the issue. As for (2), I completely agree that "the very trajectory of development envisioned can have an impact on the final form of achievement." On examining the rudiments and morphologies of Indic civilization, a special consideration has been given to the geographical and demographic entity of a united Indian subcontinent in a state of harmony. AFAIU, this space has been called "mahaan/mahat" in the sense of "significance", i.e., certain cultural and philosophical developments require conditions that are an epiphenomenon of the human ecology of a space and time. India best provided that space, it appears, because of the concentration of such diversity in a certain space, thus evolving delicate and complex cultural structures to accommodate and evolve. When divided, there was churning at best or degeneration at worst, and when united (or in harmony) there was a flowering. Its necessary to preserve the polity because splittism will lead to a dwindling spiral.

brihaspati wrote:Adventurism should be kept as a threat not an actuality, and even that threat needs to reassure the large groups as to the minimality and focus of the targets.

That's what I was telling Shivajisisodia ji. It can even be allowed to give a live demonstration of its power on the "periphery", like in Nepal, Bangladesh, TSP, Afghanistan. But not within the core state of India, where it must only swagger and growl, but not maul.

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 21:13**

"Flexibility" in "methods" must include the sword option. In fact, a righteous cause should always keep its sword sharp, precisely so that it is never used. Only a sharp sword and an expert swordsman keeps peace. We have tried "wait", "educate" and "grassroots conversion attempts", all of which while well intentioned and by all means to be continued but without a sword backing these efforts, there is almost no historical record of any significant strategic success. Even though, in all of human history and human affairs, the surest way to strategic success is by a combination of military and political means, not even one or the other, I never pooh poohed the long term approach to winning over "converts" to the cause, via "education" and "grass roots" activism. I simply said that those can continue, but those alone have been tried for the past 65 years and have failed. Therefore, in addition to those options, other creative options have to be developed, even if it means greater sacrifice on our part and may involve the "sword". "Waiting for the opportune time" is not always a bad strategy, but in the Indian context it is highly suspect, because this line has been co-opted by the cowardly and the opportunistic to justify either not doing anything or continue to sit on the fence till someone else creates an opening. When "waiting for the opportune time" is used by the cowardly, then for the non-cowardly it becomes a huge problem, because the "waiting" results in gradually chipping away at the core strength of the collective to a point which inevitably in the end leaves very few options but a resort to arms and that too in the worst possible circumstance of a position of weakness. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I dont consider anyone on this forum falling in either the cowardly or opportunistic category, but we all know, that there is a very strong strain of that within the Indian society in general.

It isnt as if we have been trying nothing but the sword for the past 65 years and now it is time to use education and grassroots activism. In fact, it is the reverse. If all the evil causes such as Kashmir, Khalistan, other Separatists, Maoists and the like carry the sword, it is time, the one righteous cause that we represent also introduce the sword in the mix, to complement our education and grassroots activism.

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 23:05**

shivajisisodia wrote:All I hear in the name of strategies for the future here is "wait", "educate" and "grassroots conversion attempts", all of which while well intentioned and by all means to be continued but having almost no historical record of any significant strategic success. Even though, in all of human history and human affairs, the surest way to strategic success is by a combination of military and political means, not even one or the other,

But all we hear from you are the same old rants. This post of yours was a repetition of the same old rant, while also taking potshots at someone.

You aren't answering relevant questions either, are you? When factual inaccuracies are pointed out in your view of history or of the present, you ignore it. When you are asked to justify your action in the context of a comprehensive plan, you ignore it and keep harping on perceived material issues. You continue to persist in the view that "nothing" good has happened in the last 60 years. When you are asked to try your experiment first in Nepal, you don't bother to answer. You are completely ignoring repeated explanations, presenting a highly one-sided distorted view of recent history, and proposing a violent solution that could disrupt the grassroots cultural efforts you pay lip-service to.

Grassroots spadework has no historical record? Take modern Turkey, and Fethullah Gulen's movement. In the past also, grassroots movements are what saved the wholesale conversion of India. In Indonesia, the story did the opposite. Grassroots interlinking and conversion under an aloof Hindu 'elite's ignorant noses went on until the tipping point was reached. Just a couple of examples here of how a forceful political takeover was the culmination of assiduous grassroots cultivation! But your "solution" will disrupt the sacrifices of many due to its premature nature. Without comprehensive thinking and advices, your "righteous" circus act will be fruitless or even counter-productive.

श्रुति- स्मृति-पुराणादि
पञ्चरात्र-विधिं विना
ऐकान्तिकी हरेर्भक्तिर.
उत्पातायैव कल्पते |

"When devotional service is executed while ignoring Shruti, Smriti and Pancharatra (i.e., ontological principles, morphological systems and practical psycho-physical applications) then it is conceived as merely an unnecessary disturbance."

Posted: **10 Oct 2011 23:44**

^^^^^^^^^^ My previous post was not a response to your post. I will respond to your post. What factual errors are you talking about ? Please list them, so that in my response to your last post, I will also respond to the factual errors.

The reason I keep repeating the same thing is because others keep repeating the same thing without addressing what I am saying. I dont characterize anyone else's post or call names. I would appreciate it if you continue to point out logical inconsistencies and factual errors, rather than characterizing something as "rant". What you dont like is a rant and what you like is.....? This entire forum is replete with posts from people that dont like one thing or another. It is an age old technique to marginalize something or an argument you dont like by simply assigning it a drogatory name or term. I dont know if that was your intent, but let us grant each other the courtesy of not doing so.

I try to avoid taking any cheap shots or potshots at anybody. I am not sure what in my previous post would qualify as that. However, every sentence in my previous post has substance in it, which you obviously disagree with, but that doesnt make it a potshot. If you want to see what potshots really are, go back a few pages and start reading this thread. You will see some real potshots being taken at me and names I was being called. I didnt see you being consistent and condemning those. I didnt complain then, so please dont pick up cudgels on someone else's behalf.

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 00:13**

Carl wrote: Sure, but when someone goes off and talks about Tejo Mahalaya, he discredits genuine presentations of what you mention. It also reflects a troubling, reflexive, eliminationist attitude that can't be good or sane unless kept strictly under control and ultimately resolved.

As I said clearly, I am not against elimination. Their's is a brute force method perhaps, and I do not support all the logic given as it is. However, the archeology is "inconclusive", and to really do a proper job of it, we may have to really "dig under" and destroy the structure above. I have never visited it - for perceptions about representation of life and death - which I feel is not in tune with the Indic, and have also elaborated on many times - including within the GDF. I will not mourn its destruction due to natural catastrophes or collateral damage in war.

What I am saying is that we need not add to the voices that try to protect this structure and make it an iconic representation of Indian civilization - and through it, a rather twisted and possibly deceptive representation of "marital love" [a love expressed through the subjection of the wife to 13 end-to-end pregnancies, and archeological indications of the complex being founded or extended with monetary and pecuniary gains in mind from pilgrimage] - but more importantly - a symbolism for the Mughal imperial heritage over India. Through it - a symbolism of Islamic dominance, in a subtle and clever icon.

'Extremism' is not merely a matter of where the goalposts are. Given any situation, it is possible to characterize a position as 'extremist' based on the sanity of its computations on all four dynamics basic to humans - self, sex and family, one's group(s) identity, and one's connection to humanity. Of course, demagogues can always use 'extremist' to label those who disagree, but I don't think we're doing that here.

Underlying all that talk of "humanity", you are subconsciously resorting to a universalist position on so-called "humanism". Even all those "computations" are relative, and not absolute as you make them to be. If there was any permanent stable foundation for so-called humanism, it would not have been continuously evolving over time, and not so much subject to reconstructions by the powerful - and, always crushing down to the ground to tear away at all reconstructions, whenever opportunities arise - as in 7th century Arabia.

I feel OK with the ultimate objective, though some more clarity can be brought to the issue.

This is the major problem. We cannot clarify this, now, and here. This simple pragmatic caution is being dubbed arrogance. I think it will be taken care of in due time.

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 00:39**

Shivajisisodia ji,
I have avoided characterizing you personally for your apparent behaviour. I have not added abusive adjectives to your posting handle. If I have used words or expressions that you feel were "potshots" or abusive, and fit for retaliatory counter-abuse of the order you have deemed fit, then I do apologize again for the hurt I have caused. I don't see any concrete gains to be made out of attacking persons. So if you attack the ideas rather than the persons you see as uttering those ideas, we may have something useful. If not, a request to suggest that we do not respond to each others posts.

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 00:47**

brihaspati wrote:Underlying all that talk of "humanity", you are subconsciously resorting to a universalist position on so-called "humanism". Even all those "computations" are relative, and not absolute as you make them to be.

But I didn't say it was "absolute" I said "in a given situation" (in present time). That was just a functional definition of buddhi, and only in one particular working mode of nature.

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 01:37**

brihaspati wrote:Shivajisisodia ji,
I have avoided characterizing you personally for your apparent behaviour. I have not added abusive adjectives to your posting handle. If I have used words or expressions that you feel were "potshots" or abusive, and fit for retaliatory counter-abuse of the order you have deemed fit, then I do apologize again for the hurt I have caused. I don't see any concrete gains to be made out of attacking persons. So if you attack the ideas rather than the persons you see as uttering those ideas, we may have something useful. If not, a request to suggest that we do not respond to each others posts.

No apologies necessary. We were having a good conversation for the most part, but your last couple of posts addressed directly to me, kind of blindsided me. I will delete all content from my previous post that may be deemed offensive to you or anyone else.

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 03:04**

shivajisisodia ji,
I had tried to keep a straight face for a long time. But things began to go down from this post http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1173079 leading finally to invoking "la-la-landers". What was levity to you was poor taste to me. My deficiency, perhaps, and one of the several faults I may have inherited or been conditioned into in my upbringing because of my more-privileged-than-commons in certain aspects, childhood. I am well acquainted with several north Indian, including traditional "Rajput" clan networks through descent. Hence it was unexpected from you given what you indicated about your background. Here perhaps is the sign of my "elite" roots, but I am not ashamed to have such concerns about tastes expressed in language.

I have grown up being taught to be understanding and respectful of those with whom we plan to move around and whom we trust with our life and honour - even if they were not born into the same social "status". I hope you will recollect that across north India, and even among certain Rajput clans, this fraternity is ritually recognized - across vast gaps in apparent social "status", a recognition of crucial historical alliances and roles.

I have been trained in "reading" the land and living off the land by these sons of the dirt, and we have faced dangers and even life threats together. I take this personal identification with them very seriously. There is a certain bond that comes out of men or boys surviving threats together - that cuts across social hierarchies or distinctions. It hurt me deeply that indirectly, all such sons of the dirt were being implicated in a blanket derision, that really they do not deserve .

It hurt the antaryami and that by experience, has consequences. Just wanted to direct you away from that. I think you will feel it. Swasti.

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 06:38**

shivajisisodia wrote:But be that as it may. Even if people dont agree with me, and for the sake of argument, let us assume that the caste exploitation was as bad as the narrative created by the British and generally bought by most in India too. Sir, we have tried all the remedies you suggested in terms of reaching out to the downtrodden and attempting to win their hearts and minds. We have tried it for 65 years. People from the so called "upper castes", millions of them embraced Gandhian ideology of "equality and outreach". We all, I included, supported our experiment of outreach and even "compensation" for the disadvantaged section of our society. We even tacitly supported socialism and made great sacrifices that you talk about, living through that nightmare of an era. We did it all for 65 years. The result ? An oppressive society which has institutionalized corruption, perversion, lawlessness and religionlessness. This experiment has yielded nothing and if you think this system will result in sustained "independence" for us, I think you are seriously mistaken.

Don't put the blame for the incompetence and lack of imagination of the "higher castes" on the shoulders of the commoners. Whatever has been happening in India for the last thousand years has been solely due to the weakness of the higher castes. The Kshatriyas let Islam in into India and later made pacts with them, they could not organize themselves well, in fact completely lacked strategic vision and had lost the pulse of the "commoners"! The fault lies at the doors of the Brahmins who failed to reproduce and hide the tons of wisdom in books gathered over the millennia, with only little to show for it. They failed to instill Dharma into the hearts of the "commoners", so that they are not inducted into the common Dharmic identity and wisdom and thus do not feel alienated and convert. The fault lies with the Vaisyas who were so obsessed with wealth that they were willing to let the military might of the outsiders in in exchange for preserving their trade operations.

You talk about your sacrifices by providing the lower castes with reservations! That percentage of vacancies and seats, belong to them anyway and are protected from intrusion from the upper castes! Sure one can get the cream among the lower castes off the reservations now, but your ilk has given them nothing that was not their right. You talk of doing Gandhigiri and equality. Anywhere else in the world the "commoner" may take your hide and head for even suggesting you're in any way superior to them. Only in India is he tolerant. So you did no favor! You say you allowed yourself to be taken in by socialism. Well what socialism? In India all one had was licence raj. It was a raj of the elite, by the elite and for the elite. Now that the lower castes are coming up in terms of political power, it has been conveniently dismantled.

This talk is akin to the talk of global warming, where the developed countries pumped so much CO₂ and then started demanding countries like India to do something about it!

It was the upper castes who established India as a nation and monopolized its levers of power and wealth. So the 65 years you bemoan, you can bemoan your own ilk. How come the Koreans and Singaporeans were able to set up solid states from nothing. As far as I know, they didn't have to whip some "lower castes" to behave in order to build their nations. And they still managed. After Partition, you had one Ambedkar from the "commoners" and he was the one telling everybody that the Partition should be "complete"!

The empowerment of the lower castes has just begun, so the 65 years you talk about is really hyperbole. Even today almost all of the private sector in India as well as the true political power in India is wielded by others rather than the lower castes.

What the sane upper castes are trying to do today is to not fall for the idiotic narrow mindedness of the past which allowed this situation to arise. The narrow mindedness was because of the walls of jaati which often did not allow people to see beyond their walls and to consider the good of the nation as a whole. Ideological conviction, knowledge renaissance, military power, thriving economy, productivity and technology all have to work together in order to accomplish the consolidation.

Your frustration is only with yourself and your ilk - the biggest losers of history, who instead of making Bharat the greatest empire in the world, ended up making Bharat a slave to all sorts of barbarians, even though Bharat had a wonderful head-start over all the other regions of the world. Basically you proved to be pathetic rulers in the past, and your ilk (like-minded people) deserve all the frustration you can get - for there is zero strategic thinking in all you have been saying here. It is the same mentality - when frustrated beat your wife first!

In fact, by ignoring my suggestion about Nepal, you've proven that your only interest is to destroy India and not to strengthen the Hindu. You are simply just another pathetic constituency in India just like the Maoists and Islamists willing to destroy India, willing to dance according to the tunes of some foreign powers. On hearing such plans, the first kiss and jhappi you will get is from some Paki. The Chinese would consider himself too superior to you to even do that.

Your mistake is simply that you are thinking you've some interest separate from that of others in the Indic fold and that you can go your separate way leaving the "unclean" to fend for themselves! Well this India is not going to allow that! India does give the "foreign" some leeway and some rope to go hang themselves, but you would be mistaken if you think India would allow somebody from her own civilizational ranks to try to hurt her again!

Raise your head against Bharat Mata and it would be crushed! Bow it in her feet and you'll achieve salvation! It is not for nothing that one worships the feet in India, even though it is the feet that are the most unclean!

Disclaimer: sorry for hurting people's feelings with this post!

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 07:21**

^^^ RajeshA ji thanks for telling it like it is.

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 08:00**

Rajesh ji,

Kshatriyas did not "let" Islam into India. there was a 4 century long struggle during which several regions mounted a valiant struggle. the gradual decadence of the larger Indian polity and the consequent failure to gather a much larger offensive against Islam was the ultimate reason.

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 08:16**

^ Devesh ji,

That is not the key takeaway of RajeshAjis post. I am sure you know that. The society bestowed protection of the nation to Kshatriyas and they failed it even though the failure was limited to only sections of the nation and only intermittently. Yet tens if not hundreds of millions of commoners had to lose their lives, dharma and honor forever and are suffering to this day in the subcontinent as Muslims and Hindus alike.

The need of the hour is not splitting the hairs. The need of the hour is to instill the very Dharma that we expect from our Brahmin ancestors, instill the valor that our Kshatriya forefathers demonstrated support the society thru our own JagathSeths so our downtrodden brothers fell pride to be Bharatiyas.

We have to do this one person, one village, one district at a time by motivated groups.

Desabhimanamu naaku kaddani……………………. Making claims towards patriotism
Vatti goppalu cheppukokoy…………………………… Should not become a show
Pooni yedainanu oka mel………………………………. Work towards a single good thing
Koorchi janulaku choopavoy…………………………. And demonstrate it (complete) to your nation

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 08:17**

devesh wrote:Rajesh ji,

Kshatriyas did not "let" Islam into India. there was a 4 century long struggle during which several regions mounted a valiant struggle. the gradual decadence of the larger Indian polity and the consequent failure to gather a much larger offensive against Islam was the ultimate reason.

devesh ji,

in the end, there are two facts: the ruling castes had all the time in the world to prepare themselves militarily, technologically, and organizationally. They had all the time in the world to consolidate all jaatis in Bharat. They had all the time in the world to discuss military and political alliances. They had all the time in the world to do strategic thinking. They had all the time in the world to expand westwards into West Asia before Islam even took root, and once the danger became clear to consolidate and march on to Persia to stop the Islamics there.

One could say this is all hindsight now! But aren't rulers supposed to have some foresight as well?!

So the first fact is, that they had all the time in the world to prepare themselves, and the second fact is that they failed. And that is all that counts, when somebody is put to the test! And if there was failure, then it doesn't help to try to divert blame to others. The buck should stop there! People do fail. But they should take responsibility for their failures and try to correct their weaknesses, and the "lower castes" had nothing to do with their weakness.

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 08:26**

RamaY ji,

that is exactly what I mean! Thank you!

History is history! It has happened! All Indics however need to huddle together, speak out their failings, apologize for them, promise to make amends, discuss the way forward and then move so with a united determination.

Tu-tu main-main to cover up one's own failings is just so much useless frustration!

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 08:45**

Expand into "West Asia" for what?

For sand and desert?

How would the army have sustained itself?

All these questions have been asked and answered by member Airavat here who has posted about the Mughal attempts at campaign in Central Asia under Shah Jahan which ended in failure and a massive drain on the treasury.

Mughal campaign in Central Asia 1646-48: Jadunath Sarkar

...Thus ended Shah Jahan's fatuous war in Balkh, — a war in which the Indian treasury spent four krores of rupees in two years and realised from the conquered country a revenue of 22½ lakhs only. Not an inch of territor was annexed, no dynasty changed, and no enemy replaced by an ally on the throne of Balkh. The grain stored in Balkh fort, worth 5 lakhs, and the provisions in other forts as well, were all abandoned to the Bukharians, besides Rs. 50,000 in cash presented to Nazar Muhammad's grandsons and Rs. 22,500 to envoys. Five hundred soldiers fell in battle and ten times that number (including camp followers) was slain by cold and snow on the mountains.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... start=1480

It was in India that the Muslims encountered the most resistance where as they expanded all the way from Persia to Southern Spain in no time.

It took them 13 attempts before they could capture Sindh:

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... of-sindhu/

Setting aside the problem of resources to sustain the army, do people understand the role cavalry played in medieval warfare?

India is not good horse country at all and even if the kings wanted, they could not have bred war horses that matched Central Asian one's. It wasn't for nothing that even Vijayanagara had to rely on the Portuguese for good horses.

Again all this has been explored by Airavat and others.

Our neighbors to the North were also repeatedly invaded, defeated and conquered. Its just that they were lucky in facing Altaic peoples who remained pagans instead of Islamized Turkic tribes. Otherwise you would have seen a "Muhammad Mao Zedong".

It was this same Turkic war machine which under the Ottoman's carried devastating jihad into Europe repeatedly, the Greek and Byzantine presence has been virtually erased from Turkey. Greece was conquered along with most of the Balkans and Cyprus.

The Europeans haven't recovered either Turkey or Northern Cyprus even today!

And many so called "lower" jAti's played a role, so there is no question of jati's not being mobilized.

The Bhil-Maharana Pratap coalition, the Gonds under Rani Durgavati are some examples.

In Andhra the resistance to Jihad was led by kammas, kapus, reddys who organized themselves in a coalition along with other jatis like gollas to overturn Muslim occupation.

In 1325 the responsibility of organizing defense of the dharma was taken up by the valiant shudra warrior Prolaya Vema Reddy. Son of local warlord, he describes himself “as one of the 4th varNa that emerged from the feet of mahAviShNu” who decided to rid the land of the wicked Turks after kshatriyas had all been killed for the protection of the agrahAras and brAhmaNas...

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... ema-reddy/

So the performance of Hindu rulers was top notch when compared with other peoples of that time period.

People should study the response of the other civilizations of that time to Jihad, the role of cavalry and horse borne archers etc in medieval warfare before doing monday morning quarterbacking.

The real problem came in lack of ruthlessness on our part.

Had the Hindu rulers issued a proclamation post Maratha expansion that Muslims in India only had 3 choices 1) Death 2) Reconversion 3) Expulsion and implemented it like Spain did there would be no Pakistan, Bangladesh or "Indian Mujahadin" today.

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 09:13**

Surasena wrote:Expand into "West Asia" for what?

Horses, women, slaves, land, converts, land bridges to still distant lands, forward defense, trade corridors!

Are Uzbek women not attractive? Why not take young Indian soldiers and settle them there with families?! Can Turkomen men not be good Dharmics? If the best horses could only be bred in Central Asia, then Central Asia was the place to be!

When the Chinese took over the Gobi Desert, East Turkestan, and Tibet, they did not seem to ask themselves that question!

We have to stop telling ourselves that not a blade of grass grows there! The story could have played out differently!

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 09:22**

Past cant be changed, the most worrisome part is the softness of present dispension. The education sytem keep churnning up Dhimmis, Dummies Deracinated Fascinated erratically on the hypocretic , non existent Syncretic social influence. IMHO, all the effrots be to make the such scenarios limited and local and not let it develop into strategic level. Just like all politcis is local , same way all the solutions to such complicated issue are local, city by city and state by state. if no local integration then there cant be any intergration at national level. If some one is taking over river corridors , water ways for malicious purpose then use the rivers/ water ways for washing their sins. Internal consolidation must happen to enforce the change, but how?

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 09:47**

Carl Sab,

I appreciate the eagerness with which both you, Sir and more recently RajeshA have been waiting for my responses. In deference to both of your wishes, I will try my utmost to be as thorough as possible and not "ingore" any of the points you have raised. However, since this would require a fairly extensive response, this post could get very lengthy and I hope you will bear with the "largeness".

Carl wrote:Shivajisisodia ji,

In your reply you have reasonably described the change of material equations and the problems arising from a purely socio-economic compute on historical and present day justice. But I was suggesting that such changes should have gone hand-in-hand with reframing the psychological discourse in the country. And then there is the need for spiritual 'processing' to run out any real abuse there may be on either side, carrying down from the past.

And why, in your opinion, Sir, has this "reframing of the discourse" and the "spiritual processing" not occured ? Is it just an accident ? Or we Indians were so busy with so much else that we never got around to doing it, meaning it is a low priority item? Or has it been the fault of the so called "forwards" ? Have they not made enough effort in this direction ? Correct me if I am wrong, Sir, you seem to think that it is one or more of these things.

Well, Sir, I happen to believe that the reason such "change in discourse" and "spiritual processing" has not occured is for the simple reason that it was never negotiated. In other words, when the "Quota Recipients(QR)", for lack of a better term, were granted these privleges in addition to subsidies, wealth transfer privileges, political power, it was not negotiated with them at the time by anybody, that simultaneous to them receiving such benefits, there will have to be a "reframing of the discourse" and "spiritual processing" in the country. Because these benefits were granted or taken by the QRs, now they have all the political power by virtue of their numbers and also a bulk of the national resources, whether they be public sector jobs, public lands, etc. So, now there is no leverage left with the so called erstwhile "Forward Castes (FC)" to bring about such "change in discourse" and "spiritual processing". Everyday that passes, the relative power balance in India shifts more and more towards the QR. Why would they then even engage in a serious discussion with the FCs for anything. Infact, that is what is happening on the ground. The FCs continue to pretend that they are still the elites and the arbiters between the QR and all good things such as political power, economic power, etc, while the QRs laugh at them in full realization that here is a class living in a parallel universe, having no idea that they have nothing, and certainly nothing to offer to the QRs. The QRs are not stupid. They know that it makes no sense to engage with someone who has lost everything and has nothing to offer to them.

Therefore, Sir, you can beat up ShivajiSisodia all you like about him not making enough efforts to "engage" with the grassroots and making further sacrifices by tolerating this state of affairs for an indeterminate period of time, while the so called "education" will kick in eventually to make a difference, but you will merely be beating a dead horse.

There are fundamental differences between the priorities of the QRs and the FCs of today. The QRs of today want to use their new found power and grab, grab and grab everything to the exclusion of everything else. They have no interest in preserving India as a nation. They have no interest in perpetuating the Hindu religion and traditions, infact they have an interest in destroying it as they hold them responsible for their past oppression and they dont have any aversion to conversion to Judeo Christian religions including Islam, like the FCs do. So, the interests and priorities of the QRs and the FCs fundamentally differ and the FCs have no negotiating power left in India to be able to encourage a reasonable compromise or a meeting of the mind with the QRs. And everyday that passes, like I said, the power equation favors the FCs less and less.

There are only two scenarios that would logically follow. That somehow the FCs collectively work to create some leverage or they lay down and die. Those who believe like RajeshA that the FCs have been the root of all problems with India so far, would find the "lay down and die" option perfectly acceptable or even preferable, and then, even if the QRs have to convert to Islam, thats fine, they were not too invested in Hinduism anyway, or they have totally bought into the narrative already that Hinduism was responsible for keeping them down for centuries. I am trying to use my limited intellect and energy towards "creating the leverage" option.

If you dont believe me, try an experiment on your own. Try to meet with the most enlightened QR leader that you can find. Lemme not even put that condition. Find the most enlightened politician of any caste that you can find. Try to "educate him" and "grassroots engage" with him and present your more moderate views on QR privileges. Report the results to this forum. If you are honest in conducting this experiment, more likely than not, I will be proven right.

Carl wrote: Of course some sections of people who are benefitting from mandated quotas and transfer of land and other resources may have been swept up in the highly skewed caste-exploitation narrative that divisive forces have planted in the national discourse for political gain. This is a phase of immaturity, and the antidote to this phase is not necessarily another wave of counter-immaturity.

To neutralize such a phase, best thing is to change the cultural framework of discourse. Shorter-term measures could be a forceful presentation of other points of view. But what you suggest far exceeds the limits of sanity.

So, you think that a "forceful presentation of other points of view" would do the trick. Well, Sir, in Paki, since the day a baby is born, until he dies, he is brainwashed into hating the Hindu. In India since 1947, since the day a baby is born, till the day he dies, he is brainwashed into believing that the FCs are still the elite, they somehow still hold all the power and wealth, the QRs are downtrodden, the QRs are downtrodden because of the evil FCs in the past and even now and now we have an entire population of FCs and QRs who are basically Manchurian Candidates, trained to shoot down and kill anyone who presents this "other point of view" you are talking about. No media, no government, no institution and no people, even the FCs will want to hear or disseminate this "other views" you are talking about, just like in Paki, no one is prepared to hear a balanced view on the Hindus.

Name one person in India who has dared to articulate this "other point of view" since 1947 and has been heard widely or not shot down. You think it is because it hasnt occured to anyone else, until ShivajiSisodia "himself" had to think of articulating this point of view? On the contrary, Sir, it is because those who tried and there were many, were shot down and the for the rest the enviroment was too dangerous to take a risk. Just take a look at RajeshA's post as an example, which you whole heartedly cheer led. I rest my case, Sir.

Carl wrote: "Nothing" is not quite accurate, it is only relative to the frame of reference you choose to use. I don't know what a cross section of BRF looks like, but I doubt they are all from 'elite' backgrounds. I for one am from a mixed background, though I don't fall into a 'quota category'. Besides, some of my family who are from 'elite' backgrounds were idealists who have spent their lives trying to improve the legal and economic rights of the downtrodden. I think even they would disagree with the completely one-sided picture you paint. It is a fact that many of the communities they helped were indeed living in a more-or-less "hostage" situation to their 'elite' "owners", before they were emancipated via efforts that appealed to the law of the land along with mobilizing communities, and not without suffering some criminal intimidation, too. OTOH, I also have family members from 'elite' backgrounds who have lost a lot. Similarly, I have family from backward backgrounds who were able to go through college due to charitable systems, and then on their own merit (not quotas) graduated from the best universities like IIM. Some of these people went on to become successful in the private sector, and some made a useful contribution to the nation by being part of defense projects like Prithvi, etc. They remain men and women of integrity who gave back a lot more to society than they gained from initial charity, and are not corrupt feeders off other people's wealth. So, "nothing" has certainly not been the result of the last 60 years my friend! You have to see both sides of the picture, on both sides of the equation.

Sir, your kin, if it was truly capable, was fortunate to have succeeded in this current system and succeeded by a combination of disproportionate level of effort and good fortune. They succeeded despite this system, not because of it. You dont think in a better system, there would be more scholarships available and more opportunities in the public and private sector for the meritorious ? There are millions who despite their best efforts have not been as lucky. With 70+% reservations in some cases, this logically cannot be a system where the "meritorious" can succeed. Anamolies and exceptions are always there.

So, I stand corrected. It is not "nothing" that we have accomplished in the past 60 years in terms of social justice and building a meritocracy. It is less than nothing, negative.

Carl wrote: Only way? Are you serious?
Look, I'm not denying that there is systemic corruption, nobody is denying that. But you are exaggerating things and not looking for changes to the system via the same basic system (which is self-correcting). That can be dangerous.

Are YOU serious ? At the risk of raising your ire for me repeating myself, I will again state the following. As soon as a man wakes up in the morning he starts paying bribe and until he sleeps at night, he keeps paying bribes. You have to pay money in India for drivers licenses, gun licenses, birth certificates, death certificates, electric connections, water connections, registration of a car, registration of real property, hospitalization, ration cards, land records, paying taxes, getting government jobs, getting into schools and colleges and I can go on and on and on. Where do you see the exaggeration ? Forget exaggeration, a proud man like ShivajiSisodia feels humble and small in is inability to describe the gravity and magnitude of corruption in India. I am not worthy, Sir. In India, it is easier to capture Don than exaggerate about corruption. And we all know, that it is not only difficult to capture Don, it is impossible.

You say, the system is "self correcting" ? Where do you see the "correction", Sir, leave aside "self correction" ? Are you meaning those stage managed arrests that the newspaper reports of some honest individuals that the establishment has framed ? Or are you meaning these few and far between and totally ineffectual movements like Ana Sab's ? Or are you referring to our "indpendent" police force and the even more "independent judiciary", Sir ?

Or, Sir, are you talking about a small section of the middle class which lives in major metros, who have good private and public sector jobs and live in "middle class enclaves", where they are a little less exposed to corruption, but only a little. These people are very small in number and have to suffer through other forms of corruption that manifests itself in the form of traffic, pollution, alienation, sanitation, crime, etc.

Carl wrote: So that phase of immaturity needs to be neutralized by forcefully but maturely altering the social discourse to remove false sense of vicitimization, guilt and pride. This can be done. If you want to mobilize, do it to that end. But when you want to be splittist, then that is an even worse phase of immaturity.

"This can be done", you say, Sir. How ? Let me quess, through "education" and "grassroots engagement".

Carl wrote: I speak from personal experience, as well as the experience of members of my extended family, as I indicated above. I can't speak for BRF members here, but I gather that there are many others here who do have such 'grassroots' experience. But when they mentioned it, you just scoffed at them. Please note, it doesn't mean that you have to do exactly what they are doing, but you can acknowledge those efforts and the results, and factor that into your considerations. Lots of energy is needed for a new national integration to develop in all its ramifications, and there is a role for anyone who wants to contribute.

Sir, I did not scoff at people who have "grassroots experience". Only a fool will scoff at someone who makes a proactive effort, even if in my opinion that effort is not going to yield much results. However, these people are worthy of respect, not being scoffed at. I want to make this thing perfectly clear.

But when the same idea becomes a dogma, and the practitioners become religious about it and then refuse to open themselves up for a discussion on the matter and then vehemently attack others for suggesting alternatives, then I do succumb to the weakness of scoffing. I will refrain from doing so in the future.

Carl wrote: Did it really look like I or anyone else here was asking for more of the same? Seriously?

Sir, what exactly are you asking for? With all due respects, so far, I have only heard criticism from you, and dont get me wrong, I am grateful for that. But, Sir, please enlighten me on what you think our strategy going forward should be and how it will be different from what has gone on for the past 65 years. And I am dead serious about this request, Sir.

Carl wrote: So even going with your line of thought, could you respond to RajeshA ji's suggestion for starting out with Nepal, please?

Oh, yeah, the Nepal issue, which I have been "avoiding" so assiduously.

Well, Sir, again, here I would like to beg your indulgence and seek permission to speak in terms that may potentially upset you. With your permission, Sir, I will begin, with the proviso, that if you withhold your permission, I will go back and delete this portion of my post. Do let me know one way or another.

So here goes. Sir, I cant believe that this was a serious suggestion, until both you and RajeshA accused me of "ignoring" this suggestion. Here is why. This is so typically Indian in nature (no other national can ever conjure up such a suggestion), that I didnt think anyone would try it. But hey, we all, including me, cannot escape our Indianness, no matter what. Only an Indian can offer something to someone which doesnt belong to him. In case the fact is lost on you, Sir, let me remind you that we lost Nepal a few years ago. Nepal is no longer a Hindu nation. It is not ours, mine or yours to give for experimentation to anyone anymore. I am so grateful to you, Sir, that you suggested Nepal and not Paki, or BD, or Burma or SL or even Tibet where I should magically bring out a Hindu revival. After all, as RajeshA said, Lord Rama did it in Lanka, why cant ShivajiSisodia do it in Nepal ? Sir, I am not Lord Rama. I am again humbled into admitting that I cannot bring myself to even imagine doing anything in Nepal. Beyond my capacity.

Seriously though, we have to focus on preserving what we have now, consolidate and then expand outwards. That is as far as I am capable of strategising. So, that means that at least nominally, we still have India. Admittedly, large parts of India are lost to the Hindu ethos and the population there is Hindu only in name, willing at the drop of the coin to convert. That still leaves us with Gujarat, parts of Rajasthan, parts of Maharashtra, parts of MP and a few other areas, where the culture still is conducive for people like us and a Hindu revival is possible there. The rest of the country is doomed. Therefore, I would prefer to protect and consolidate our base which are those areas and then expand outward towards rest of India and yes, then Nepal and then Pak and Afgan and so on.

Dont get me wrong though, I would love to bring Nepal back in our fold, just that I for one, cannot imagine a working strategy to do it without consolidating our base first and using it as a launch pad to get into Nepal and elsewhere. I would, however, be a very happy foot soldier in your strategy for Nepal first, whatever it be.

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 10:15**

brihaspati wrote:shivajisisodia ji,
I had tried to keep a straight face for a long time. But things began to go down from this post http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1173079 leading finally to invoking "la-la-landers". What was levity to you was poor taste to me. My deficiency, perhaps, and one of the several faults I may have inherited or been conditioned into in my upbringing because of my more-privileged-than-commons in certain aspects, childhood. I am well acquainted with several north Indian, including traditional "Rajput" clan networks through descent. Hence it was unexpected from you given what you indicated about your background. Here perhaps is the sign of my "elite" roots, but I am not ashamed to have such concerns about tastes expressed in language.

I have grown up being taught to be understanding and respectful of those with whom we plan to move around and whom we trust with our life and honour - even if they were not born into the same social "status". I hope you will recollect that across north India, and even among certain Rajput clans, this fraternity is ritually recognized - across vast gaps in apparent social "status", a recognition of crucial historical alliances and roles.

I have been trained in "reading" the land and living off the land by these sons of the dirt, and we have faced dangers and even life threats together. I take this personal identification with them very seriously. There is a certain bond that comes out of men or boys surviving threats together - that cuts across social hierarchies or distinctions. It hurt me deeply that indirectly, all such sons of the dirt were being implicated in a blanket derision, that really they do not deserve .

It hurt the antaryami and that by experience, has consequences. Just wanted to direct you away from that. I think you will feel it. Swasti.

There is so much I can respond to you with, all respectfully and substantial, but I think the thread has just taken another turn altogether. A virtual parroting of the dominent narrative in India since 1947, which has become more and more entrenched with every passing year, by RajeshA, demonizing the Kshatriyas and Brahmins for all evils.

Anyway, suffice it to say in response to you that I was particularly upset with what I perceived as your willingness to defend all the maladies that we Indians suffer, including lack of indoor plumbing in majority of our homes. Sir, a cancer doesnt become sweet because it is in my body. A bacteria doesnt become kin, just because it has invaded our body. A virus doesnt become a dear, just because it is part of me. All these are undesirables and need to be driven away from my body. Any culture has its own bacteria, viruses and cancers. These are our negative habits, negative cultural traits and negative lifestyles. Ours does too. We have to recognize them and expunge them, not defend them, not even justify them, certainly not even rationalize them. We can acknowledge that our culture too has bacteria, viruses and other undesirable entities. But that does not make us less than any other culture, which also has all these, maybe in a different form and perhaps in greater quantities than us. I am comfortable with the fact that we are flawed and still proud of who I am, as long as I know in my heart that I am constantly seeking out my weaknesses and working to remove them from my body.

You can call me names or even personally attack me, I will be a little rattled by that momentarily, but move on and not think much about it after a while. But when I am expected to pretend that I am more than what I really am, and I am only worthy in my exaggerated form that means I am made to feel unworthy the way I really am. Same thing with our culture. That is a deep wound, which bothers me for a long time. Your posts seem to me to defend all our cultural viruses and bacteria, which really implies that we have to pretend to be more than what we really are, in order to be legit. That is deeply troubling to me.

Why do you have a problem with that ?

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 10:16**

What is this. Cut it out guys

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 10:28**

shivajisisodia wrote:A virtual parroting of the dominent narrative in India since 1947, which has become more and more entrenched with every passing year, by RajeshA, demonizing the Kshatriyas and Brahmins for all evils.

Perhaps you would like to point out where I demonized them of evil?

I accused them of napunsakta, of failure to save the nation, of failure to do their duty, of failure to understand both nation and strategy, of failure to take the whole nation along!

This I did only in response to your dedicated efforts to paint the "commoners" as responsible for the nation's predicament.

Basically your narrative just repeats that napunsakta! It is just another chapter of men trying to do things for which their brains are not mature enough to appreciate basic requisites of national power!

shivajisisodia wrote:I am comfortable with the fact that we are flawed and still proud of who I am, as long as I know in my heart that I am constantly seeking out my weaknesses and working to remove them from my body.

This does not seem the case. Because you think there are viruses and bacteria all around, you are willing to start cutting off pieces of you, instead of coming up with a realistic strategy to treat yourself.

Posted: **11 Oct 2011 10:59**

Prem ji,

Link

Bharat Rakshak

Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I

Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -I