Bharat Rakshak

Posted: **14 Jul 2010 22:26**

Within the context of the thread, one of the fundamental weakness for any proposal for coerced secularism, that I see, is that to resolve conflicts over a salient point from different faith view points - you need to provide a fall back option of an alternative value system. In a sense this is equivalent to creation of a new religious/faith system, by which others will be measured. We do not realize it but most of our laws, legal attitudes are based on a curious selective modification of preexisting value-systems and a superstructure of 19th century British laws and world views again based on a modification of Anglican Christianity and pre-Christian European values.

We have not escaped faiths, really, and in constructing "secularism" we may not be able to escape from the shadows of such faiths.

Posted: **14 Jul 2010 22:33**

brihaspati garu,

in a post directed to you, I tried to give some context to those terms.

RajeshA wrote:Of course Dharma allows everybody to choose his own way - To Live and To Let Live. The problem with this philosophy is that it also allows those to live who do not believe in this commandment. If India wants to take a forceful determined stand, then it has to put this commandment on its head -
To Live and To Let Live .. Only those who also believe in this commandment.
Human rights are universal. Only those who believe in this, belong in this universe.
Tolerance only for the Tolerant.

Those who do not follow the commandment, who are from another universe, who are not tolerant, ARE NOT US.

India needs to build further on its political philosophy. The above stance has to be ingrained deep into the Indian psyche, into the Indian Constitution itself. Indian State has to become an active agent - an enforcer of the above doctrine.

RajeshA wrote:

Coercive Secularism,

Coercive Tolerance,

Coercive Respect for all Faiths (who are respectful of others)

Coercive Depoliticization of Religion

Coercive DeJihadization of Religion

Coercive Gender Equality

Full State Protection for Scientific Commentary and Debate on Religion

1) Coercive secularism: Strict Division between State and Religion. Extended to a division between Politics and Religion, meaning that politicians would not be allowed to make their cases, pleas on religious grounds! Either you are in religion or you are in politics, but not both. Of course one can not and should not ban cultural trappings originating in religion.

2) Coercive Tolerance: Any organization, especially religious, which does propaganda against another religious communities and extols its followers to be intolerant of others might be shut down. No Ahmediya bashing!

Mind you, tolerance is only for those who show tolerance to others (sounds a bit recursive, ehn)

3) Coercive Respect for all Faiths: No demeaning remarks about the symbols and cultural practices of others from a religious podium. Otherwise Danda!

4) Coercive Depoliticization of Religion: Religion would not be allowed to propagate alternate forms of political systems, thereby indulging in subversion of the State. Otherwise Danda!

5) Coercive DeJihadization of Religion: No Religious institution or a religious functionary shall be allowed to call upon the followers to wage war in the name of religion, or to use violence for any of its goals. Otherwise Danda!

6) Coercive Gender Equality: No religion-sanctioned abuse of women will be tolerated. Anybody who commits crimes against women, claiming a sanction from his religion, would beaten black and blue. The Mullah who taught him that would have his beard shaved! The Mullah or Priest can teach the follower what is in the holy books, sure, but if it leads to any gender crime, then they will have to take the heat.

7) Full State Protection for Scientific Commentary and Debate on Religion: Blasphemy would be legislated, and only a court can pronounce a decision on it, whether it was blasphemy or not! Anybody who takes the matters into his own hands, gets his head hammered in.

Hope it helps!

Disclaimer: Still needs a lot of tuning!

Posted: **14 Jul 2010 22:35**

While all this is very enlightening, I dont see how its is related to managing TSP failure? I am dismayed that every thread that starts out talking about others(TSP, PRC, US,and Martians) ends up talking about Hindus and Indians.

Please have some focus. And add the log khya kahenge?

Posted: **14 Jul 2010 23:00**

Coercive secularism? Coercion part is clear but what is meant by that secularism that is going to be coerced upon all? Same goes for coercive tolerance, and "coercive respect for all faiths (who are respectful of all others)", coercive depoliticization of Religion, coercive dejihadization of Religion and coercive Gender equality and "full state protection of scientific commentary etc." - this is a perfect example of totally and mutually contradictory set of requirements.

Ditto, wanted to express that sentiment. However the moment we have a constitution based on pluralism, secularism implication by law validates legal procedures against those who violate these terms. And there are laws to that effect. SO in a way we do have till a certain extent some sort of 'coecion' even today, however badly it is implemented. The problem i see is firstly people by and large must be of that nature to find acceptable plurality and many paths of worship to God. So it's Ok between Buddhists, Hindu's Jains, Shaiviites, Ganesh bhakts etc. A let live mindset creeps in. Thats why Gandhi and millions amongst us could sing Ishwar Allah tera naam, sabko sanmati de bhagwan.

Can one expect that in Paki society? Many sections of Indian society frown on this beautiful sentiment, try making it popular in Azamgarh. It's alien and against the very first few lines in the Koran. So no coercion will work until doctrine itself is tackled. One kink i notice amongst us is we think all people are like us. Possibly humans are programmed to think that way. Paki's think the Hindu's think in the same kinky way that they think. Go to any Paki forum and they 'think' we too are foment terror in our neighbourhood as they are doing. Talk to a drawing room lib in India and they too think Paki's want peace just like us but a few elements are spoiling the show. Unfortunately this does'nt account for doctrinal differences.

Societiers that have been bred up on a monotheistic diet think other societies are mono___eistic (fill in appropriate blanks). So Westerners thought atleast till recently Indians used elephants to get home and were snake charmers and Tibetans were a nation of safron monks doing Meditation. It is within the chaos of tolerant pluralism that new ideas and genius flourishes. Thats why India was the source of so much intellectual wealth in the past. Wealth that transformed Math, Medicine , Philosophy in the West. Yet the Macaulay, the average Monotheistic bred Ghazni or Timur found the chaos abhorrent and even committed mass murder to try and homogenize society. It was only for the last few decades that the US tried pluralist tolerance without coercion and succeeded like no nation on earth has succeeded. Genius flocked to the US. The American dream was nothing but the aspiration not to gain just material wealth but prosper in a society that offered intellectual freedom in fair and tolerant ambience.

China in a way is coercively tolerant, coercively secular, coercively pluralist..so is the Islamic Republic of Porkistan. Dhimmitude is all about 'coercive' existence. Neighbourhood bullies and dada's do the same. The principal of plurality cannot be put to coercive measures that become draconia. That becomes self destructive. The clamor for tolerance, plurality must come from within society itself. It cannot come from appeasement.

Posted: **14 Jul 2010 23:02**

What constitutes Pakistan’s failure?

Scenario 1 – Pakistan as South-Asian Somalia: An official failed state. But remains as a single entity. Ethnic cleansing within its borders. Warlordism. Extreme poverty.

Risk 1: Nukes – Falling into private hands. IMHO this is better than having all of them in the hands of one entity – TSPA. In this scenario, India can be assured of only one JDAM exploding within its borders – as there won’t be any Pakistan left after that. Another advantage of this scenario is that some of these nukes may travel North, West and North East. That will make it “Other’s” problem. Risk Mitigation: Let others worry about it.

Risk 2: Refugees – Limited refugee scenario, if WKKs are kept under tight control. Risk Mitigation: Make this scenario evolve slowly (like that frog in that pot).

Risk 3: Talibanization of Indian Borders a.k.a terrorism – This risk is limited to portions of Cashmere valley. Risk Mitigation: Excessive Force combined with covert soosi-experiments. (Example: Iraqi society; show them the true power of jeehard).

Scenario 2 – Pakistan disintegrates into many pieces. Pakjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Pakthunkwa etc.,

Risk 1: Nukes – Most probably will remain in Pakjab area, so no change in the risk profile. A few may fall into Taliban control (like in Ukraine scenario). Risk Mitigation: Taliban nukes are of limited concern to India. Leave them there. Let others worry about it (same as above).

Risk 2: Refugees – Limited refugee scenario, if WKKs are kept under tight control. Risk Mitigation: Support individual entities, on their own. Contain the problem.

Risk 3: Talibanization of Indian Borders a.k.a terrorism – Risk profile may increase as Pakjab has no other job except hurting India. Risk Mitigation: Strong internal security infrastructure combined with precision strikes into Pakjab.

Opportunity 1: Indian can absorb certain regions into India Proper.

Scenario 3 – Pakistan disintegrates and few parts are too weak to be independent and want to join India.

Risk 1: Nukes – Same as scenario 2.

Risk 2: Refugees – Limited refugee scenario, if WKKs are kept under tight control. Risk Mitigation: Recommend individual entities to remain so and offer generous reconstruction packages – contain the problem outside India.

Risk 3: Talibanization of Indian Borders a.k.a terrorism – Same as scenario2. Risk Mitigation: Use more friendly regions to compete for natural resources of Pakjab (observe its location in relation to other entities).

Opportunity 1: Indian can absorb certain regions into India Proper.

To be cntd…

Posted: **14 Jul 2010 23:04**

RajeshA ji,
again (3) and (7) will contradict, and it bcomes a matter of interpretation. However as I have already mentioned, I think most ithis here is going OT, and Ramanaji has picked on this.

What we need to establish, even in the region now occupied by the Paki occupation government, and what you are essentially talking about is the re-establishment of a rashtra that becomes the final arbiter of conflicts between its citizens, and does not allow each and every ideology to come between itself and its citizens. However, the question still remains complicated. A rashtra that has no-one else in between itself and its citizen can still be arbitrary and still be acting on behalf of a particular faith interest. This is why a whole batch of recent socio-political studies warn of democracy introduced in societies infested by Islamism as potentially giving legitimacy to more intensive forms of Islamism. So to a certain extent a value-system independent of the rashtra is a kind of buffer that prevents a government becoming too arbitrary.

What it means for Pak, is that we may need a transitory system which ironically may look more like Mushy/Yahya regime because democracy may turn up more of the mullahs in power. But such a top-down rashtra and its ruling regime will have to be under external support and dominance to carry out the reforms necessary. If that force is legislatively accountable to the "people" it will not be able to carry out the reforms.

In essence, Pak will need a transitory period under a form of dictatorship, but one whose tenure will be controlled externally away from the region itself. The best control perhaps is therefore military occupation by India, in the ultimate end. However, it is this end in mind that should also guide interim steps. Any interim steps that does not think of a total control over the geographics extent of the subcontinent as an ultimate end, is bound to fail in the long run, because remnant pockets of "freedom" will be used by other powers to slow down growth, endanger security and safety of the subcontinental population as a whole.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 03:38**

There is a good reason why I introduced a Coercive Virtues Doctrine for India. It is supposed to mirror the Coercive Virtues Doctrine of the Taliban.

This Thread is de-facto:

Indian Options in the face of Pakistani Terror (initial mandate)
Ushering in the Collapse of Pakistani State
Managing the Aftermath of that Collapse, i.e. Pervading Islamism, Statelets, HDI, Growth of Gangs, Loose Nukes, etc..

I wanted to tackle the question of Pervading Islamism in the aftermath. Brihaspati garu talks about Rashtriya Control over the territories and then forcing change.

The question is what kind of change. Rudradev ji has already commented on this issue, see. his post.

My suggestion is to show the Pakistanis the two ends of the rainbow, and they can go look for their pot of gold there. Both Indian and Talibani offers entails coercion. In fact, it would be stupid to enter the cricket maidan without the willow. Both parties would be selling their wares under the label "Virtues". In fact, which salesman would sell their package under the label "Vice".

The difference between the two wares is: The Taliban package requires the customer to put restraint on one's own freedoms, while the Indian package requires the customer to not put restraints on somebody else's freedoms. Which pill would the average Abdul swallow.

I mean, are the Indians going to venture into Pakistan, and when the Abduls ask, what are you selling, the Indians tell them, we have got a 100,000 deities to choose from, and then start giving them a lecture on the Vedas.

That would not be a bad idea, were it not for the fact, that we would be having 250 million souls to push reason into, and only a limited amount of time, and trying to do all that under Taliban AK-47 fire and IED celebrations.

If the Abduls feel that they can find some Islamic sect, which abides by these virtues - FINE. If not they should be open for other faiths as well, or may be just become atheist.

harbans wrote:Can one expect that in Paki society? Many sections of Indian society frown on this beautiful sentiment, try making it popular in Azamgarh. It's alien and against the very first few lines in the Koran. So no coercion will work until doctrine itself is tackled.

harbans ji,
A very appropriate question. Can one expect that in Paki society?

NO. Their Islam and India's Virtue Doctrine would be very much in conflict. But at least they will be having advantage of 20-20 Hindsight, on the question of where India has reached, and in which $hit-hole Pakistan has sunk. So if they want some respite for themselves and their families, they may choose the Set of Virtues, India starts peddling.

In any case, like all missionaries love to do, India too would be moving in with both food & medicines and guns - some very persuasive arguments for them to make the right choice.

There is the theory that it is easier to introduce a new system which is similar to the old one. I don't have any empiric data, that I can produce here, but it is my subjective opinion, that it is easier if the change is radical. Why do secular Europeans all of a sudden convert to Islam, or to Hare Krishna, or start going to church. The bigger the step one needs to make, the bigger is the curiosity, the excitement, the permanency, the adherence.

It is my humble opinion, that far more important factors in the conversion of a mango into an orange are factors like, whether the person requires a new promising start or not; whether the guard dogs of the old faith all hang on the skewers or not; and whether the messenger comes from a superior race or not!

Should there be any truth in the above statement, then there is some groundwork to do.

Islamist groups in ex-Pakistan would have to be taken down. It will help if we had good prior intelligence on the groups, their networks and their dens before going in.

Bollywood will makes us superior. The stories about the new rivers of honey and milk in India, the new streets paved with Gold, will make us superior. The stories about the new Minarets that kiss the sky, will make us superior.

The Dharmics would have to read some Conquistadores for Dummies.

Just some thoughts!

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 04:06**

brihaspati wrote:RajeshA ji,
again (3) and (7) will contradict, and it bcomes a matter of interpretation.

I know! But there would be some dissonance on that in any modern society. A few questions help:

Is the statement based on research, on empirical data?
Is the party trying to make a theological or historical claim?
Is the primary target of statement the sentiments of a community?
....

A bit on OT here, so I will leave it at that.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 04:30**

In any case, like all missionaries love to do, India too would be moving in with both food & medicines and guns - some very persuasive arguments for them to make the right choice.

Won't happen. India is not moving anywhere inside Pukistan even if it collapses. Pukes are more likely to move within India after Porkistans collapse than the other way around. Collapse is not going to be some invitation for Indians to come over and manage mango abduls and ilk. Neither is it that falling standards of living will affect porkistan. They will become like Somalia and find doctrinal and prophetic inspiration in piracy, looting, kidnapping and such. There will be enclaves where pirate lords live in affluence and women after the days loot and kill. It will be an anarchaic society where even the devil will step in with caution let alone Indians or Americans. If that were so, US, India, China may have stepped into Somalia and tamed the seas of piracy that it exports. Only difference is that Pukes will be doing that with nukes and Somali's have none.

I mentioned again a a few weeks back on this thread, that Porki RAPES who want to avoid that Somali or Sudanese type chaos will venture into partnership with the WKK types and work towards the "irrelevent borders" concept, not just in JK but across Punjab and Rajasthan. The 'moderate' lobby from Porkistan will enter and again outbreed and the lib lobby in India will convince everyone this time the moderate version of Islam is gonna win. This will continue for 4 decades or less till again the moderate lobby of Islam loses to hardliners who shove doctrine at the face of the hypocrites with no option left in truth, hypocrites turn to liberal lobbies for appeasing hardliners more and so on..

You cannot implement the 'coercive' version in India alone. The fundamentals of liberal democratic principles cannot allow that to happen. The 'coercive' doctrine works only if one negates liberal democracy as in China. Even to reach a consensus to what is 'coercive' enough in a liberal democracy is nigh impossible.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 04:46**

Transition from being Faithfool to Gyanfull can be made easily by using ,adopting the Parbrahm Paradigm or following the Khalsa Panth or Budha Marg. Once the freedom of sprititual pursuit set in , man and mind wont like going back in deep dark doctrinal dig. One thing is guranateed I.e Poostan and 3.5 Auliyas cannot sustain half a Bil mental Nil Poaks for long thus collapse is inevitable. Every adversity is an oppertunity and Poakland collapse wont be different.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 05:07**

harbans wrote:In any case, like all missionaries love to do, India too would be moving in with both food & medicines and guns - some very persuasive arguments for them to make the right choice.

Won't happen. India is not moving anywhere inside Pukistan even if it collapses. Pukes are more likely to move within India after Porkistans collapse than the other way around. Collapse is not going to be some invitation for Indians to come over and manage mango abduls and ilk. Neither is it that falling standards of living will affect porkistan. They will become like Somalia and find doctrinal and prophetic inspiration in piracy, looting, kidnapping and such. There will be enclaves where pirate lords live in affluence and women after the days loot and kill. It will be an anarchaic society where even the devil will step in with caution let alone Indians or Americans. If that were so, US, India, China may have stepped into Somalia and tamed the seas of piracy that it exports. Only difference is that Pukes will be doing that with nukes and Somali's have none.

I agree, that the scenario you mention, comes very close to the scenario 2) I mentioned earlier. There are good chances that Pakistan becomes a huge Somalia.

Nobody wants to step into Somalia, but that has more to do with the fact, that Somalia is not really the neighbor of any great power, and pose no direct threat to any developed country. The problem with piracy is considered manageable.

I don't think, a nuclear armed Somalia with 250 million people will be allowed by the powers. Without the nukes, America could have just said, well India, you're most welcome to try if you want. With the nukes amidst chaos, USA would have to intervene, either alone or with India or with some other allies.

Let's say, the nukes have been removed from Pakistan, but it still remains a huge Somalia right next door to India. I am fairly certain, the problems emanating from this area, would force India's hand to intervene. We are talking about some time 30 years hence. How many decades can India put up with it. Sooner or later, something would have to give way.

In the end, we are all doing crystal-gazing. Who knows really what the future has in store for us!

harbans wrote:I mentioned again a a few weeks back on this thread, that Porki RAPES who want to avoid that Somali or Sudanese type chaos will venture into partnership with the WKK types and work towards the "irrelevent borders" concept, not just in JK but across Punjab and Rajasthan. The 'moderate' lobby from Porkistan will enter and again outbreed and the lib lobby in India will convince everyone this time the moderate version of Islam is gonna win. This will continue for 4 decades or less till again the moderate lobby of Islam loses to hardliners who shove doctrine at the face of the hypocrites with no option left in truth, hypocrites turn to liberal lobbies for appeasing hardliners more and so on..

Again I cannot say how high is the probability of this, but India has put fences on the border to Pakistan, for the explicit purposes of keeping Pakistanis out. Wrt Pakistan, India would always remain on a high alert.

It is just my view, that WKKs have a high visibility, a visibility not really in proportion to their influence in the corridors of power. GoI does often take up some of the rhetoric used by this group, which gives the impression that GoI is all WKK, but GoIs reasons for this rhetoric are often different than the WKK.

Indeed when Pakistan really becomes unstable, Islamized and chaotic, more barriers would come up.

harbans wrote:You cannot implement the 'coercive' version in India alone. The fundamentals of liberal democratic principles cannot allow that to happen. The 'coercive' doctrine works only if one negates liberal democracy as in China. Even to reach a consensus to what is 'coercive' enough in a liberal democracy is nigh impossible.

Well actually USA, UK and others have quite liberal democracies at home, but when it comes to Iraq or Afghanistan, policy is made in Pentagon. Initially at least, the Coercive Values Doctrine is actually meant for abroad, not for implementation in India. In India, it will at the most be a declared value and life can go on as usual.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 06:04**

Another inconsistency i wanted to point out was:

The bigger the step one needs to make, the bigger is the curiosity, the excitement, the permanency, the adherence.

Yes i agree with the first 2. But the latter? How do you be so axiomatic about that? Did'nt we all grow up hearing 'one small step at a time...' However, truth is too many people convert out of spite for their community, feeling of being left out, to be different..i can name plenty reasons why folks do something radical. Happens also pretty much more often at a younger age. But i cannot relate any permanence in such conversions. Permanance involves debate..scratching at one point of doctrine and measuring it against one's conscience till it's digestible or indigestible. It's the scratching at doctrine that has to start. It's the scratch that turns to itch and then the permanance of a rash..(real poor analogy really).

I've had the non privilege of seeing potential awardees for patent rewards in India coming up with sketches of pipes running from ocean floors to the surface to produce perpetual energy, or trucks driving innocuously up ramps with springs that convert energy or cars moving moving with a turbine that drives a motor that delivers ""more"" energy..never happens. Nature is'nt built that way. Not even for pukes with Djinn enerjee at their disposal.

When the problem to tackling pluralism lies in doctrine in the first opening chapter of the K itself, there is no simpler/ more complex solution that lies anywhere than in tackling the doctrine itself. Nothing else will ever work. It cannot because Nature does not ordain it. So when we are talking of..

This Thread is de-facto:

* Indian Options in the face of Pakistani Terror (initial mandate)
* Ushering in the Collapse of Pakistani State
* Managing the Aftermath of that Collapse, i.e. Pervading Islamism, Statelets, HDI, Growth of Gangs, Loose Nukes, etc..

...managing the above: we must at some point of time to prevent/ curtail influence/ prevent outbreeding/ prevent out takeover/ prevent WKK, libs being influenced, prevent disaffected sections of our society. prevent people from making the 'big' jump by what means: Coercion of tackling doctrine? I'd prefer the latter. It's the only solution to Pakistan and India's pluralist, secular, humanist, liberal, compassionate future.

A political cult with demanding rituals cannot rationally be treated as a religion, and certainly nopt when it openly preaches violence, slaughter and condones slavery..Doing so has been amongst mankinds most stupid and idiotic failures and the Karma of that is the terror which we face and will continue to until we rectify the way we address that. It's an axiom that not only has to be internalized it has to be externalized in debate and discussion. There is no other way to manage Pukistans inevitable failure.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 06:25**

Well actually USA, UK and others have quite liberal democracies at home, but when it comes to Iraq or Afghanistan, policy is made in Pentagon. Initially at least, the Coercive Values Doctrine is actually meant for abroad, not for implementation in India. In India, it will at the most be a declared value and life can go on as usual.

And one can see that the "coercive" doctrine neither working in Iraq or Afghanistan. So bad example. US is trying to say on one hand..you've got some moderate people within your great doctrine..and we ""think"" most of you will rationally gravitate to the moderate and correct version as opposed to the "radical" and "incorrect" version of doctrine propagated by Talibs and AQ. But i have a problem with that and so do most people in those regions, because that is not the truth. So folks scratch their heads confused, yet when it comes to debate they loose hands down to the erudite Dr Al Zawahari or rustic Mullah Omar.

Why do moderates lose to them each time and always? Where is the doctrinal inspiration in Islam/ Koran/ Hadith for 'moderates' to pick swords and slaughter the 'radical' causing so much pain and 'terror'? Check out the Doggie section in deff and dumb for example. Shabana Azmi, Javed Akhtar, MJ Akbar can never win a doctrinal debate on Islam with Zaid Hamid, Mullah Omar or Shahi Imam Bukhari. As long as they call themselves Muslims they can never win a debate with them. The power these individuals exert is not drawn from the sword. It's drawn from doctrine. Ironically the power India derives too is from doctrine, that tolerance and pluralism will win..so we try and search for putting up that elusive pipe from ocean floor to 5 meters above the ocean surface to pump water to drive a turbine that will provide us perpetual energy..won't happen.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 06:31**

brihaspati wrote:
First, you have to get consensus on all elements on whom you are going to coerce this about what those terms actually mean. Each of them mean different things, and in different contexts different things to different faiths. For example for Islmaism, Jihad is an integral part of the faith, whether downplayed or laughed at as a non-issue, it is however never ever accepted as anti-Islamic and un-Islamic. Try to force this debate on any Islamic and see the twists turns and spatterings in anger. If it is a part of their "faith" by proposing its destruction you are attacking the faith and therefore breaking your own conditions about tolerance and respect for the "other faith". Moreover, all of the terms used above is going to be contextual, and they have well defined minimal set of attributes/characteristics within all the four major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, which are different from the perspective of essentially Hindu "values" that I am assuming this list has been made upon. In fact the "Hinduness" of the list shows up as distinct from an Islamist one, because in Islamic view, those items are not separate but an integral and consistent whole - subjugation and submission of the "weaker" to the "stronger" in capability to inflict physical violence and trauma, man to god because god hold the ultimate punishment and is the stronger of the two, woman to man because man is the stronger of the two, secularism of any sort is "evil" because goes against the natural ordering of the strength of faiths, and if Islam succeeds in defeating another faith then those other faiths have no place and must submit or be in inferior order. Tolerance is not permanent and only transitory because it means islam at the moment is not strong enough to wipe off the other faiths, and is against the principle of submission - because other faiths are not submitting and islamics are being forced to tolerate. Open commentary and debate if questioning the basis of this submission philosophy is challenging the natural order of power and therefore against the faith. For an Islamic therefore a list of those items separated out is completely unIslamic and unacceptable - try this out with any theologian!

If I forced the list upon you what would you do about it?

Ultimately any state system is coercion. We pay taxes out of coercion, not because of goodwill. But the aim of all such coercion is create a larger body of cooperating humans for what is purported to be "common good". This in fact was why coercion was used by the religions Christianty and Islam - i.e.: to "create a larger body of cooperating humans for what is purported to be "common good"".

Secularism started life as a form of coercion of the Church to keep its bloody fingers off governance, and secularism incorporated into systems of governance like democracy and communism have managed to govern far larger numbers of people coercively than any of the religions.

Only a complete libertarian society (such as what I believe "Indic society" was) will lack coercion. But such a libertarian society will get blown away by the first coercive element who appears. Evolution demands that a libertarian society that lacks coercive power will be coerced out of libertarianism. Even libertarianism will require a coercive force to preserve it. But what is "coercive libertarianism"?

I believe we are delving into issues for what is best and what is perfect. I do not want to go down that path because there is a clear dichotomy in my mind about what I think is "right and perfect" and what I think is necessary for Pakistan

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 06:52**

harbans wrote:The principal of plurality cannot be put to coercive measures that become draconia. That becomes self destructive. The clamor for tolerance, plurality must come from within society itself. It cannot come from appeasement.

We are going way OT

Harbans, plurality cannot survive coercion. The minute one coercive element arises plurality gets knocked out.

If you look at evolution from long before humans came up with concepts like plurality and coexistence, grabbing and survival of the most violent came earlier. Not plurality and coexistence.

Does this mean plurality is a failure as a doctrine?

No. I see it this way, the doctrine is good - but is completely hopeless without an element of coercion to protect it and preserve it. Dharma is exactly that. The concept of dharma lays down a set of guidelines which need to be protected, by coercion if necessary. One of the problems I see today is loosely linked to brihaspatis observation

we live mostly in self-reinforcing closed information loops socially. Most "higher educated" are WKK's, most WKK's going to certain schools and colleges come from similar wealth and status backgrounds and share even greater WKK'ism, etc.

Based on this there is an idiotization of dharma where we sing praises to dharma because we are taught to do that but have forgotten what it was all about. Naipaul has a very apt analogy for this behavior where he describes the way Indians have failed to read into Gandhis cunning techniques and have later tried to blindly mimic his outward actions minus the context (eg fasting, bandhs) and with no insight into how he made them effective. And even this has finally degenerated into a blind worship of the deity Gandhi where we put up a bust, garland that bust and claim some kind of superiority by association. We are doing the same with dharma and pluralism IMO. Sorry to go OT

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 07:16**

plurality cannot survive coercion. The minute one coercive element arises plurality gets knocked out.

If you look at evolution from long before humans came up with concepts like plurality and coexistence, grabbing and survival of the most violent came earlier. Not plurality and coexistence.

Does this mean plurality is a failure as a doctrine?

Precisely what i am saying and stressing vehemently. Plurality is not a failure. It is a must in a civilized society.

but is completely hopeless without an element of coercion to protect it and preserve it.

Plurality works just fine amongst a people who believe in such. Or reject their own monotheistic interpretations and put a constitution by law that puts religion below par the constitution of the land. That's the essence of Western civilization.

Dealing with Pakistan and BD a total of 500 million people without food, water and land, steeped in ideology and terror within the next 25 years is going to be a nightmare for India. Our back breaking 10% growth is going to come to a screeching halt if we don't reform the mindsets across our borders. To do that we have to fundamentally tackle doctrine. Thats the underbelly of the Zakir Nailks, Mullah Omars and Bin Ladens..

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 07:32**

harbans wrote:
Dealing with Pakistan and BD a total of 500 million people without food, water and land, steeped in ideology and terror within the next 25 years is going to be a nightmare for India. Our back breaking 10% growth is going to come to a screeching halt if we don't reform the mindsets across our borders. To do that we have to fundamentally tackle doctrine. Thats the underbelly of the Zakir Nailks, Mullah Omars and Bin Ladens..

I have no objection whatsoever to plans of tackling doctrine. I prefer to stick to one subset and that is to support the killing of anyone who is violent and supports violence. Debate about doctrines can only occur in the absence of violence.

Religion is one sided coercion.
War is two sided coercion
Religious debate is talk in the shadow of suspended war. It helps if the violence you can use is far greater than the violence that can be used against you. It adds meaning to debate.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 08:09**

It helps if the violence you can use is far greater than the violence that can be used against you. It adds meaning to debate.

Indeed, thats why i said Brihaspati's model of reformation 2 decades is too long. Or the WKK logic of giving moderates another chance and this time Paki RAPE ones under onslaught from Talibani forces. "Violence" when one retaliates against 'doctrine' and it's symbols is much greater than when one retaliates against it's effects.

If the Jihadi's in ISI think that nuking India through 3rd party terror acts will get a leg up in the Ghazwa or break India up..they should ideally know India will retaliate to finish the doctrine responsible for it. What most people don't realize, India is being put into taking a hard choice. Retaliating against an intolerant doctrine vs pretending the intolerant doctrine does not matter and it's a misguided effort of a few misguided souls.

A nuke attack on India by terror elements should be made clear beforehand will result in elimination of the doctrine itself. Moderates of the doctrine will by force have to disown it. That is coercion. Coercion is not bringing your own pluralist principles into question. It is finishing all symbols, elements that espouse and swear by the doctrine responsible for the massacre within our lands. Even without the massacre, we are finished in 150 years. India will become an Islamic State circa 2150-2200. It is simply inevitable.

With Paki's getting Nukes..the Islamic world should'nt be happy...they should feel sad. That is if India lets them know what it intends in case those nukes are used against us. That is coercion.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 08:17**

shiv wrote: Religious debate is talk in the shadow of suspended war.

Gita occurs before the war!

GOI cannot expound Gita - that has to come from citizens and NGOs.
GOI can go to war to protect the interests of the citizens of India.

The said citizens could be Islamic, Buddhist, Christian, Mormon or even Hindu.
There is no appendage of the state that has either the intent or the capability to instrument said coercion.

Dharmics have not only outsourced the protection and evolution of Dharmic codes to GOI,
They also want GOI to act as the ancient RaJaN who protected Dharma itself.
Ain't going to happen! Cheers!

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 08:30**

harbans wrote:Dealing with Pakistan and BD a total of 500 million people without food, water and land, steeped in ideology and terror within the next 25 years is going to be a nightmare for India. Our back breaking 10% growth is going to come to a screeching halt if we don't reform the mindsets across our borders. To do that we have to fundamentally tackle doctrine. Thats the underbelly of the Zakir Nailks, Mullah Omars and Bin Ladens..

Harbans garu,

This is a recurring thought. I don't know any other way to raise these questions, so kindly do not take it that they are pointed at you. My questions are addressed to all participants.

My first question is - Is it India's problem to safe keep ~500m population across its borders? These are the populations that were separated by their respective leaders on one and only one pretext - that they cannot live amidst Hindu Indians (I am generalizing here). It took India ~30-40 years and at least 3 wars with these very groups to start its journey towards sustained growth.

If and when these entities collapse or initiate another war with India, they must be seen as enemy populations only. There is no nation/population in the world that is devoid of a single poor/uneducated/under-privileged citizen for India to fight against. So it is all escapism to worry about all these under-privileged populations.

That doesn't mean if and when these triggering-events happen India will be free of refugee-issue. A practical approach would be to

- Keep these populations in their home locations. One way to enforce this is to create secure locations within the occupied nation.
- Ration their food to the extent that there is no starvation. In fact the UNO should pay for majority of costs.
- Brutally suppress any opposing voice/force
- Re-educate the entire population to Indian standards. I reiterate again my preferred approach
-- Separate all males above a certain age (un-impressionable minds) > Send them to labor camps; ensure safe working and health conditions.
-- Remarry the female population to Indian males (There will be enough male:female ration gap in India by then to accommodate 100+ million females of marriageable ages)
-- Send all children below the marking age to public school system. Brainwash them with democratic, pluralistic, dharmic values.

If India wants to deal with these populations, it should deal Indian way. Unfortunately there is little choice here given the 60+ years of brainwash happened in these populations.

This is what I gathered from CIA Factbook

Code: Select all

Country --- Arable Land Sq.KM --- Irrigated Land Sq. KM --- Population	Population/ Sq.KM Arable Land --- Variance
India --- 	1451810.14	 --- 558080 --- 	1173108028 --- 	808.03 --- 	269.31
Pakistan --- 	188401.85 --- 	182300 --- 	177276594 --- 	940.95 --- 	136.4
Bangladesh --- 	72100.06 --- 	47250 --- 	158065841 --- 	2192.31 --- 	-1114.97
Afghanistan	 --- 79115.5 --- 	27200 --- 	29121286 --- 	368.09 --- 	709.26
					
TOTAL --- 	1791427.55 --- 	814830 --- 	1537571749 --- 	1077.34

As you can see the average population per Sq.KM arable land is not much different from India when compared with united Paki+Afghanistan+BD populations.

I included Afghanistan because Blackwill want to donate it to Pakistan. So whenever Pakistan is ready for integration, it would include Afghanistan.

At the most India has to do would be to move majority of Bangladeshis to Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is not against Indian/International ethos given that:

- All three nations are predominantly Islamic populations. So no issue w.r.t religion
- BD is part of original Pakistan and Afghanistan is Pakistan's strategic depth. Basically we are leveling out Pakistani old debts with its strategic depth.
- India has prior experience of moving large number of populations across vast distances, be it ME-evacuation, Kashmiri Pundit displacement.

Salient points of this strategy -
- India IS helping these failing populations
- India is not hurting its internal economic/social/political equations
- This strategy is 100% secular and democratic
- India has the financial wherewithal to conduct this exercise and reconstruct these war-torn regions (their combined budgets minus military expenditure is less than India's agri-subsidies). India can set aside $10-20B per year and reconstruct this entire region with literally unlimited "man" power.
- India's population dividend is extended by 20 more years (HS Dent predicts it to be 2075. So we are looking at 2100).

Those are my thoughts. No pull out the brickbats!

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 08:40**

Pulikeshi wrote: Dharmics have not only outsourced the protection and evolution of Dharmic codes

That makes them adharmic by definition. They are not dharmic unless being dharmic is a hereditary title that passes from father to son.

Unfortunately people describing themselves as dharmic are often merely anointing themselves with the title "dharmic" with no serious introspection about what it is about themselves that they think constitutes being dharmic, other than being of Indian birth and origin. This is the idiotization of dharma. Or I could call it the islamization of dharma. Is it any wonder that your prediction is what it is?

All off topic. Dharma is not about fighting Islam any more than the Gita is an exhortation to fight your half-brothers and cousins. But nothing prevents a fight with Islam if it is necessary to do that for dharma. It is not religious war any more than preventing a murder for gain is religion. But if someone purports to fight for dharma it would help if he had a clue about what dharma he is fighting for.

A wealthy group of intimidating men (gold chain, white shoes - some will know what I am talking about) came home last week asking for donations for an area wide grand celebration of Ganesh chaturthi that is 2 months away. Presumably they felt that by being the first of ten thousand Ganesh chaturthi donation seekers yet to come they could get this skinflint to part with cash. I refused. Some took it well. Some got angry. One guy stopped to argue with me telling me that there is a connection between Indian independence and Ganesh chaturthi. He failed to tell me why I should pay him money for that. India is heading in directions that nobody can predict. I am not basing that opinion on this one example.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 08:41**

Shabana Azmi, Javed Akhtar, MJ Akbar can never win a doctrinal debate on Islam with Zaid Hamid, Mullah Omar or Shahi Imam Bukhari. As long as they call themselves Muslims they can never win a debate with them. The power these individuals exert is not drawn from the sword. It's drawn from doctrine.

They don't have to win a doctrinal debate. Assume a secular state protects Azmi, Akhtar, Akbar sufficiently well from violence. Assume that the constituency that Azmi, et. al. are addressing is inclined to move in their direction. All there needs to be is sufficient Islamic cover.

a. The Iranian youth of the attempted Green Revolution were not in a doctrinal debate with their Ayatollahs.
b. Perhaps, Azmi, Akhtar, Akbar all have in their personal lives survived a doctrinal debate with a local mullah?
c. Have you ever debated a flat-earther? Or a crank who insists Einstein was wrong? You can never win such a debate. Winning the debate, as in making the other side concede defeat and shut up, is not always possible, nor is it necessary.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 08:55**

Shiv,

You may be missing my point. Religion is an agent of change irrespective of flavor and fervor.

A secular government cannot "officially" choose it as an instrument.
In the case of India, rampant multiculturalism and plurality makes it even more verboten.

All I am pointing out is well meaning folks keep hoping for GOI to do something.... Will not happen

If any leverage of Dharma as an instrument has to occur it can only happen by private actions!

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 13:01**

Pulikeshi wrote:Shiv,

You may be missing my point. Religion is an agent of change irrespective of flavor and fervor.

A secular government cannot "officially" choose it as an instrument.
In the case of India, rampant multiculturalism and plurality makes it even more verboten.

Pullikeshi ji,
It is possible to square the circle!

In USA there is/was some official support for faith-based programs, at least during the Bush Era. Obama has not really taken back those provisions. However that still lacks a secular sanction. In India it would be inadvisable to pursue such a strategy.

But even in India it is possible. We want to make our country a stable pluralistic and tolerant society. We want to encourage religious groups in India to be tolerant of other faiths and contribute positively to communal harmony. So what stops the Indian State from actively encouraging those groups who abide by certain criteria using financial and logistical support?

The condition is that the State must decide which values it wishes to uphold, and all those groups which pledge themselves to abide by this value system, and are seen under monitoring to abide by it, qualify for support. Any religious group, sect can apply.

It should not be the State that chooses its favorite groups, but rather the groups that make the choice!

Again a bit OT here! I'll leave it here!

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 18:31**

RajeshA wrote: My suggestion is to show the Pakistanis the two ends of the rainbow, and they can go look for their pot of gold there. Both Indian and Talibani offers entails coercion. In fact, it would be stupid to enter the cricket maidan without the willow. Both parties would be selling their wares under the label "Virtues". In fact, which salesman would sell their package under the label "Vice".

The difference between the two wares is: The Taliban package requires the customer to put restraint on one's own freedoms, while the Indian package requires the customer to not put restraints on somebody else's freedoms. Which pill would the average Abdul swallow.

I mean, are the Indians going to venture into Pakistan, and when the Abduls ask, what are you selling, the Indians tell them, we have got a 100,000 deities to choose from, and then start giving them a lecture on the Vedas.

Just some thoughts!

Sir some questions that come to my mind as I read through your post's

1) How do you explain behaviour of pakis and other faith fools in Europe who have experienced your Option #2 for least 50 years now? This includes Faisal Sehzad types ( his 7/7 cousins included) as well as those burkha defending chicks who claim they feel safe in london wearing a shuttle cock

2) Since past few years (rather last decade) I see more and more IM's sporting a wild unkempt beard with ofcourse no moushtache. Also during eid I see more and more loonies dressed in OBL type fancy dress. So they are living in secular conunty still holding on to their own personal law code and now idolizing OBL. They have been enjoying your option #2 for almost 60 years

3) Kashmiri valley folks can easily see the difference between India and Pakistan and still there is a considerable chunk that want to go the telibunny way and even bigger chunk that is fence sitting silent majority that can go either way.

4) Malaysia / Nigeria inspite of a large minority population does want to regress themselves and follow the paki / somalia example.

I think we neeed to pull back that old posting of muslim population as percentage of country and their demands. That is a good starting point to start analysis on which way islamic societies want to go.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 19:34**

Brad Goodman wrote:1) How do you explain behaviour of pakis and other faith fools in Europe who have experienced your Option #2 for least 50 years now? This includes Faisal Sehzad types ( his 7/7 cousins included) as well as those burkha defending chicks who claim they feel safe in london wearing a shuttle cock.

If the Pakis had experienced the Option #2, then either there would have been no Pakis in Europe, or they would not have been identifiable as Pakis in Europe.

The suggested Indian Coercive Virtues Doctrine (ICVD), would put up a security screener like at airports, and see to it, that the person going through carries none of Pakistaniyat with him, and if he insists he is sent back to his watan. The Pakistanis were allowed in without any criteria fulfillment requirements, without any screening, without constant monitoring. The Pakistanis were allowed to graft their Pakistaniyat onto the social-benefits based system in European countries and that is a graft with a full 400% success rate. The ICVD is not about picking and choosing for the individual. It is about a full cleansing of Pakistaniyat, and if need be, at gunpoint. It is about forcing the Janwar to become Insaan again.

Actually the choice between a Talibani Coercive Virtues Doctrine (TCVD) and an Indian Coercive Virtues Doctrine (ICVD) is a non-choice. If you choose ICVD, then you get the benefits. If you choose TCVD you are an enemy combatant and you get the raisins. If you choose the ICVD, you get introduced to the teachers at the Paki Reeducation Academy, and your behavior is monitored.

Brad Goodman wrote:2) Since past few years (rather last decade) I see more and more IM's sporting a wild unkempt beard with ofcourse no moushtache. Also during eid I see more and more loonies dressed in OBL type fancy dress. So they are living in secular conunty still holding on to their own personal law code and now idolizing OBL. They have been enjoying your option #2 for almost 60 years

The Option #2 has not been brought to them as yet, and in my view it should be brought to them after we finish off with the neighborhood. I see no pressure on them, direct or indirect, to conform to the demands of ICVD {pardon my use of the non-standard abbreviations here}.

Brad Goodman wrote:3) Kashmiri valley folks can easily see the difference between India and Pakistan and still there is a considerable chunk that want to go the telibunny way and even bigger chunk that is fence sitting silent majority that can go either way.

I think domestic reform should come about differently, through education, through incentives, for the majority of the Indian population. I also think it should be tried in earnest only after we are finished with the neighborhood. Of course those agencies, who take upon themselves to sabotage these moves, should be removed from the scene, with whatever means necessary.

Brad Goodman wrote:4) Malaysia / Nigeria inspite of a large minority population does want to regress themselves and follow the paki / somalia example.

Yes that is their prerogative. Not being in the neighborhood, their enlightenment and future wellbeing is not one of my concerns. Maybe Malaysia ...

Brad Goodman wrote:I think we neeed to pull back that old posting of muslim population as percentage of country and their demands. That is a good starting point to start analysis on which way islamic societies want to go.

Islamic societies want to go only in one direction. What we Indians need to do, is to pick up the book "Conquistadores for Dummies"!

The point is, that it is not as if Pakistani society would be there even in 20 years. The point is that if left to its own devices, it will be there in 120 years as well. No other country can or will do the clean up except India. Somebody has to do it. Sooner or later it has to be done. Bharat has allowed some of its children to degenerate and become animals. And if the animals are not tamed, and again given human minds, the animals would always be a pain in the ass.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 19:46**

How we manage Paki-society after its failure will have a bearing on Indian society. So it is highly important to calibrate pakistan's failure to suit Indian majority view; before allowing any type of integration; be it political, social, economic, military etc.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 21:06**

Brad Goodman wrote:
1) How do you explain behaviour of pakis and other faith fools in Europe who have experienced your Option #2 for least 50 years now? This includes Faisal Sehzad types ( his 7/7 cousins included) as well as those burkha defending chicks who claim they feel safe in london wearing a shuttle cock

2) Since past few years (rather last decade) I see more and more IM's sporting a wild unkempt beard with ofcourse no moushtache. Also during eid I see more and more loonies dressed in OBL type fancy dress. So they are living in secular conunty still holding on to their own personal law code and now idolizing OBL. They have been enjoying your option #2 for almost 60 years

3) Kashmiri valley folks can easily see the difference between India and Pakistan and still there is a considerable chunk that want to go the telibunny way and even bigger chunk that is fence sitting silent majority that can go either way.

4) Malaysia / Nigeria inspite of a large minority population does want to regress themselves and follow the paki / somalia example.

Brad Goodman - would any of the above things seem offensive to you if there was no violence initiated in the name of Islam and conducted by Muslims?

Would a freaked out dress code or an oddball facial hairdo hurt if Muslims were also not so goddam violent and destructive?

Never mind whether it is possible or impossible, but would Islam minus violence and coercion be acceptable? If not on what grounds would islam/Muslims minus violence be unacceptable.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 21:25**

RajeshA wrote:So what stops the Indian State from actively encouraging those groups who abide by certain criteria using financial and logistical support?

The Indian state can barely manage its own internal wranglings. I suspect managing regional failure is far away...
See for example how pusillanimously the Indian representative says, it is Pakistan's responsib
The strategy GOI (irrespective of political dispensation that ruled) has pursued is to appease minorities. Not because it is secular as some suspect at best or that is is prejudiced against the majority as others suspect at worst, but because GOI and the founder perhaps had a premonition of a time to come. This time would bring the majority community to extract penalty from existing minorities for sins of perceived sins of their past. I suspect this to be the real reason, at least subconsciously, that drives certain behavior among the more "liberal" majority.

Now what the state may not understand is it is better to channel this majority problem, in a constructive way, externally, so that internally the peace and prosperity that has been achieved can be preserved.

As always my two paisa ramblings...

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 21:31**

Pulikeshi wrote:
RajeshA wrote:So what stops the Indian State from actively encouraging those groups who abide by certain criteria using financial and logistical support?
The Indian state can barely manage its own internal wranglings. I suspect managing regional failure is far away...

True. That is the correct assessment for today. tomorrow, maybe ...

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 22:08**

shiv wrote
If I forced the list upon you what would you do about it?

Ultimately any state system is coercion. We pay taxes out of coercion, not because of goodwill. But the aim of all such coercion is create a larger body of cooperating humans for what is purported to be "common good". This in fact was why coercion was used by the religions Christianty and Islam - i.e.: to "create a larger body of cooperating humans for what is purported to be "common good"".

Secularism started life as a form of coercion of the Church to keep its bloody fingers off governance, and secularism incorporated into systems of governance like democracy and communism have managed to govern far larger numbers of people coercively than any of the religions.

Only a complete libertarian society (such as what I believe "Indic society" was) will lack coercion. But such a libertarian society will get blown away by the first coercive element who appears. Evolution demands that a libertarian society that lacks coercive power will be coerced out of libertarianism. Even libertarianism will require a coercive force to preserve it. But what is "coercive libertarianism"?

I believe we are delving into issues for what is best and what is perfect. I do not want to go down that path because there is a clear dichotomy in my mind about what I think is "right and perfect" and what I think is necessary for Pakistan

This is the problem I have proposed and asked people to grapple with. What Harbans-ji, RajeshA-ji, and even Pulikeshi-ji in his unique way, are facing up to. I think I have long tried to point out the role of the state as an instrument of coercion to enforce the world-view of one subgroup over all the other subgroups. The key is the legitimacy that is accorded to the state by ALL subgroups contained within it to give the state a monopoly over coercion and violence. This legitimacy is either voluntarily or reluctantly extended - but it always means that those against it have come to a temporary compromise between submission-resistance, and those for it obviously again have come to a temporary compromise as to how much power they can exercise safely [so that exercising such power in the future is not jeopardized].

So Harbans+RajeshA ji have correctly recognized the issue of doctrinal conflict as an issue to be dealt with. The doctrinal conflict has to be resolved by the state before it can stablize its power and the basis of its legitimacy. What has been happening in India is a postponement of this task in the typical opportunistic way we have become used to in national endeavours. But it becomes crucial when we talk of managing Pakfail. Because of this avoidance of the concrete problem of creating a commonly acceptable and imposable value-system - we took the easy way out of allowing every claims of every distinct value-systems to be legitimate.

This necessitated a framework for "secularism" that translated into tolerance of all possible values-systems. The inherent cowardice [or hidden bias and admiration for certain ideologies] on the ideological front of those in whom transitional power was placed basically adopted the path of least resistance. The "majority" at the time had sufficiently diluted their orthodoxy, so it was easiest to squeeze the non-orthodox as much as possible and pay the more painful prices of consensus - but allow those who proved themselves capable of violence the maximum concessions on "value-grounds".

The very formation of India and Pak is this principle of rewarding violence with concessions. It continues even today, when the amateur violence from the "majority" is instantly and ruthlessly suppressed, but come the rampaging mobs demanding decapitation for supposed insults by supposed criticisms of inviolable exclusivist claims, are practically mollycoddled. So the current rashtryia attitude thrives on a vacuum ideology which however decided on reactions based on an inverse ratio as to capacity for potential violence.

To resolve doctrinal and value conflicts, you need a third system to measure both. This is what Shiv ji is talking about for a "value system" meant for the "common good". Now, wherever such things have happened, and as I have pointed out in a post before, the "third" system typically derives subconsciously from a pre-existing value system. Much of so-called modern European "value-system" derived from a reworking of perceived classical notions laid over a Christian, and therefore ME value system.

So there are two concrete things to consider : (a) instead of spending time on constructing and perfecting a new nebulous or diffuse system for common good, adopt the pre-existing "majority" one, which appears to work well in creating a "code bill" that functions and which also is quite consistent with trends in other concurrent civilizations. (b) reverse the rashtryia opportunist philosophy of rewarding violence with concessions if it comes from certain faiths. Rashtryia reaction should match violence with even more violence and targeted destruction of resistance to the "common value system".

Perhaps something shiv-ji wants but for which a change in the fundamentals of the rashtra is required. It is not just a matter of change in the "party in power", but also the various checks and balances in the system designed to continue the basic framework irrespective of the party in power, and which have been carefully placed outside of legislative and electoral accountability - the Supreme Court for example, but which is still the arbiter behind which any regime can hide where Constitutional reform is concerned.

However, it should be noted, that almost all transitions in orthodox systems [not yet fully the Islamic, but a plenty of the earlier Christian ones - in the modern period in Islamic domains attempts have been partially successful, like Atatturk or the current attempts in BD], and therefore in Pak, have and will only take place through violent overthrow of the older regime plus additional conditions.

I will post whatever I remember from a study I undertook sometime ago about the realtions between attempted land-reforms under Ayub and Bhutto and their direct contribution to growth of islamist violence and consolidation and further Islamization of the Pak state. Which should make it clear that land redistribution is a key pivot in the Pak questions and why it cannot be undertaken unless imposed from "outside" with a collateral crushing of the Islamist property management - shrine management-and dawa networks. All that requires military occupation, and a simultaneous imposition of "values".

However these things do not have to be sequentially ordered, as some of you have interpreted my proposals to be. They can be concurrent and started off at various phases with overlaps.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 22:50**

The suggested Indian Coercive Virtues Doctrine (ICVD)

Rajeshji, i get your point. But implementation of this doctrine IMHO requires many smaller steps before hand to make it happen. Abrogation of Article 370 remains a pipe dream. A common civil code remains another. We all know the difficulties we face in trying to get these through. The point in a liberal democracy is that when the communities themselves are evolved these happen naturally. If there is resistance then how does one get these issues through? So the point is evolving the communities to themselves clamour for equality. What we see so far not only in India but in Europe and elsewhere, Islamists demand not equality but a special status. Check up this article in Rediff today for example..

http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/ ... contentTop

So is Europe being intolerant? Yes and no. Is it 'coercive'? Yes and no again. For a Muslim religious obligation entails living a life as closely similar to the way their Prophet lived and in accordance to what the Koran teaches. Your ICVD doctrine was most closely followed in Turkey during Ataturks time and it was partly a success. Though no one is sure whether Turkey will turn up a Trojan within Europe as the experiment is still on. Turkey is also massively influenced by Liberal democratic tradition in the EU to a large extent, even though radicalism in Turkey is not a decreasing phenomena.

b. Perhaps, Azmi, Akhtar, Akbar all have in their personal lives survived a doctrinal debate with a local mullah?
c. Have you ever debated a flat-earther? Or a crank who insists Einstein was wrong?

Gupta ji, as a neutral observer between the spat between Ms Azmi and Imam Bukhari where he calls her " Nachne gaali walee tawayif" or something to that effect. He won hands down. However abhorent it may seem, but thats exactly what the learned in Islam call such women. Thats why i referred to going through the 'dog lover' thread in deff. See how doctrine shuts up a normal conversation some dog lover wanted to initiate. So while Musharaff might photograph himself with his family dog for Western consumption..the pious know there's much work still to be done in the pure state.

So when a moderate tells me Islam means peace and that killing an innocent is like killing humanity in Islam (quite a lie frankly) and i've heard that plenty, i know it's either Taqiya or ignorance. When an Islamist tells me how Christians and Jews despite being people of the book can never be friends..i believe and trust him much more. He speaks the truth.

Thats something that WKK and Liberals will fall for..the untruth and go for the irrelevent border thing. There will be no coercion. Just another decades long protracted experiment where we delay tackling doctrine and value systems till another loss.

Anyways i think Brihaspati ji has posted something on this..

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 23:05**

harbans wrote:The suggested Indian Coercive Virtues Doctrine (ICVD)

Rajeshji, i get your point. But implementation of this doctrine IMHO requires many smaller steps before hand to make it happen.

Actually I think stealth is the way to go! Let 'Hindu Chauvinists' make life hard for aam janta, and stop young innocent guys from buying Valentine Cards, ityadi, and then legislate tough legislation to put a stop to this bakwas.

Let a few tough Bajrang Dal guys go and beat up some poor paid fella for being blasphemous to Hanuman ji, and then pass some tough legislation on Blasphemy!

I think one gets my drift!

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 23:23**

B,

Just one quick point -

I see the role of state coercion as different from
the role of private enterprise that causes coercion.

Notice for example Indian Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. can all
play a role in coercion of others into a Indian point of view.

However, the state (in purist form) should stay out of this business...
unless it is covert activity to pursue realistic geo-political goals.

The confusion arise when citizens expect the state to do everything for them!
<Sarc> That can only happen after we become a developed economy

Again, JMT

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 23:41**

Pulikeshi wrote:However, the state (in purist form) should stay out of this business...
unless it is covert activity to pursue realistic geo-political goals.

Let's consider a scenario, where Pakistan has broken up and broken down, there is no Govt. worth its name, Islamism and Gangs run amok.

In this situation, if India chooses to intervene militarily, the Indian Army would be needing many other supportive organizations to help the Army in maintaining control and distributing food, water and medicines. These supportive organizations would have to be given explicit permission by the Indian authorities to become active, so it is to be expected that the Indian authorities can find the agenda of these 'supportive organizations' as compatible and advancing the goals of the intervention.

Basically these 'supportive organizations' would be given a carte blanche to do as they please, and use whatever means they deem necessary.

Posted: **15 Jul 2010 23:53**

Pulikeshi ji,
the state may be inactive, but that does not mean it will not see "private enterprise" as a competitor to its monopoly over authority and coercion. The biggest power that the state has is its armed forces, which it never hesitates to use when it sees or imagines a challenge. The greatest threat to the current state is from any consolidation of the "majority" identity, against which it needs a desperate protection of the "minority" violence so that it can use both to threaten the other and pose as the ultimate arbiter independent of both.

When the economy is growing sufficiently, armed forces will not be weak. There can be "hesitations" about using a national army against seemingly "own-people" - but that is an excuse which is only applied to ideologies seen as not similar to or motivated from principles similar to the "majority". Never doubt that such excuses will be brushed aside in case private enterprises from the wrong "ideology" group turns up.

No, any change in the direction of rashtryia attitude towards this and therefore Pak can only come out of three conditions acting independently or concurrently :
(a) rapid economic decline which has impact on defense spending and capacity of the forces to be unleashed selectively on domestic opposition (b) a consolidation of the "majority" identity that is also prepared to incorporate political manifestation of that identity together with a sense of destiny to capture power (c) aggression by forces affiliated to ideologies protected by the current rashtryia setup.

Part (a) is unlikely, part (b) is not automatic but still dependent on inner will/choice and solves the doctrine problem, and the mobilization problem. Part (c) is highly likely, and the process has already started, which also weakens the legitimacy aspect of the current opportunistic rashtra and clears the national vision and confusion over national character.

In a way, managing Pakfail, is also about managing the confusion at the base of formation of the modern Indian rashtra. So that managing Pak will force India to manage the postponed task of defining the nation, and following up on it. Perhaps, the reason, why a substantial portion does not want engage in the managing of Pakfail!

Posted: **16 Jul 2010 00:02**

RajeshA ji,
Bajrang Dal's rampage against blasphemy will be supported widely by Islamist groups [they already have jumped on the bandwagon over Shivaji] and the gov will simply use that as an excuse to actually push through an anti-blasphemy law. Here both EJ and Islamist demands will coincide, and GOI can be toeing the the standard disclaimer of "in the interest of law and order and community sentiments" [which in India is almost always invoked to protect behaviour from certain faiths only which would otherwise be treated as blatant aggression on modern concepts of right to freedom of speech].

Posted: **16 Jul 2010 00:50**

brihaspati wrote:Bajrang Dal's rampage against blasphemy will be supported widely by Islamist groups.

Bajrang Dal, need not really go on the rampage. That's supposed to be just acting.

Posted: **16 Jul 2010 00:54**

shiv wrote:Brad Goodman - would any of the above things seem offensive to you if there was no violence initiated in the name of Islam and conducted by Muslims?

Would a freaked out dress code or an oddball facial hairdo hurt if Muslims were also not so goddam violent and destructive?

Never mind whether it is possible or impossible, but would Islam minus violence and coercion be acceptable? If not on what grounds would islam/Muslims minus violence be unacceptable.

Shiv ji, My opposition is to violence and not really to personal behavior. So example as you mentioned if all these activities were peacefully conducted then even though they were under the islamic flag I would not have opposed them perhaps I might have supported some initiative that I could sympathize with (if they could come up with one which I doubt personally right now).

I am a big supporter of freedom of speech. So I oppose Bagranj Dal, Shiv Sena agitation against Valentines day with the same fervour as I oppose these jihadis. Now There is a subtle difference in level of violence these two use to comparison is my bad but the point I am trying to put across is freedom of speech (alternate for tolerance ) needs to be protected. So I am not really opposed to pakis protesting say their so called war's against islam in streets of london or washington but when these pakis become faisal sehzad then there is the problem now they are killing people or injuring them for not conforming to their school of thought.

Now The OBL type fancy getup is pretty harmless right now and needs to be tolerated the same way as we accept tilak or pagdi or other religious symbols but as we have seen over past few centuries this is a warning sign for fanaticism from ROPers and we need to brace ourselves for a new Bhatkal type rising from those ranks.

Posted: **16 Jul 2010 06:08**

Bajrang Dal, need not really go on the rampage. That's supposed to be just acting.

Rajesh ji, on one hand you're talking coercion on the other hand you're talking about a GOI passing a law in a cowardly fashion firing on someones shoulders. A contradiction?

Why not confront the problem head on. Have a debate one year on freedom of speech. Buy press and educate people how freedom of speech rights were gained. Why criticism of religion and public figures and notables in the past is a right of this civilized country. Examples of glorified people for ages who kept their nations in the dark for eons. Why progress depends on criticism of political, religious figures and doctrines. Bring the debate onto schools, colleges and mainstream. There are tons of evidence how blocking free speech kept societies retarded. DO this for a year or so..without passing any law. Then have surveys of how people view criticism, and measures regarding it's protection. Survey Muslim communities and moderate well minded Muslims too. Publish the results. They will be positive. The survey results will convince politicians where the vote bank lies. However the campaign of debate must be well concieved, executed to allow the forces of reason, logic to succeed.

Bharat Rakshak

Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure