Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[brihaspati]

This is a slightly dated article, but provides important points for us to think again about what is happening in WB.

=35326&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7&cHash=0690e739a4]Islam-o-Muslim and the Resilience of Terrorism in Bangladesh

The revival was especially strong in the southwestern districts of Kushtia, Meherpur, Jhenidah, Magura, Chuadanga, Jessore, and Satkhira. Intelligence sources revealed that all these groups have maintained close operational ties and carried out terrorist operations on Bangladeshi soil. One estimate suggested there were about 12,000 cadres actively operating in the country, mostly madrassa (Islamic seminary) teachers, students and clerics of mosques (Daily Star [Dhaka], June 12, 2008). In April of this year, Bangladesh intelligence agencies declared that the Islamist terrorist groups are reorganizing with the aim of making a deadly comeback (Daily Star, April 29).

Those areas are closely connected to Muslim populations in the border districts of 24parganas of WB.

A mid-June report based on the confessional statement of a JMB terrorist shed some light on this resilient outfit. According to the report, JMB operatives are still using different border routes in Chapai Nawabganj and Jessore to smuggle in bomb-making materials and small arms from neighboring India despite being weakened by the government crackdown (Daily Star, June 22).

Both areas adjoin important WB conduits.

The Emergence of Islam-o-Muslim
In the midst of this evolving terrorist scenario in Bangladesh, a new jihadi outfit has emerged under the name of Islam-o-Muslim (IoM).

The interrogations of Abdur Rahim and other suspects revealed that IoM was formed in April 2009 to dominate the northwestern part of Bangladesh. With around 10 to 15 Ehsar (full-time) members and many Gayeri Ehsar (part-time) activists, IoM reportedly tried to expand in Rajshai division (bordering India’s West Bengal State) to establish a free zone consisting of the Gomastapur, Shibganj and Bholahat portions of the Chapai Nawabganj frontier district, Bagmara of the Rajshahi district and Raninagar and Atrai of the Naogaon district.

This northwards expansion is crucial. The northern tract is necessary for linking up with Nepal and Bihar.

Abdur Rahim, an alumnus of Islami Chhatra Shibir (the student wing of Jamaat-i-Islami Bangladesh), joined JMB in 2002. He was appointed chief of the Bagmara sub-district initially and was actively involved in JMB’s violent activities targeting left-wing Sarbahara activists in Rajshahi district.

This initial involvement against BD maoists proves that they are likely to have had state sponsorship at some level. The same story as encouraging the Owaisis in Hyderabad to tackle CPI.

Rahim reportedly worked for JMB’s cause in India by raising funds and new recruits in and around the Murshidabad, Nadia and Malda districts of India’s West Bengal state. After his return to Bangladesh early this year, Rahim formed IoM due to the internal feud growing within the ranks of the JMB, primarily over financial and ideological matters.

A while ago I had an intense debate with someone on forum about this Malda corridor. This is however a strong Congress base.

Three years ago, hundreds of JMB cadres took part in the Kansat Movement, a peasant revolt sparked by alleged irregularities in the Rural Electricity Board and irregular power supplies. [1] JMB members decided to take part in the movement primarily because of its anti-Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) agenda, which gave them the opportunity to target government infrastructure and property (Daily Star, June 22).

This has also been a feature of the Nandigram movement.

The Jama'at ul-Mujahedeen Bangladesh (JMB)
When JMB’s top leadership was put on trial in March 2007, a new six-member central committee took shape with Maulana Sayedur Rahman Jaffar as the acting chief of the group. The other five members were identified by intelligence agencies as Assaduallah Arif, Tasleem, Faruq, Syed and Mahfuz (Jaijaidin [Dhaka], March 3, 2007; see also Terrorism Focus, March 27, 2007). Since that time Maulana Sayedur Rahman is believed to be heading the JMB in Bangladesh while operating from his home in the Mirpur locality of Dhaka.

Interestingly, it shows a great deal of penetration into state appararus by jihadis.

Transnational Terror Ties
Most of the Bangladesh-based terrorist outfits have well-nourished transnational linkages that reach as far as Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Myanmar. Bangladesh police recently arrested a Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operative, Mufti Obaidullah (a.k.a Abu Zafa), who has been working under LeT leader Amir Reza and LeT operative Khurram Khoiyam in Pakistan and Daowd Ibrahim in Dubai. Obaidullah, originally from India’s West Bengal, reportedly told his interrogators that his task was to organize jihad in Bangladesh in cooperation with HuJi and JMB operatives.

Within the last couple of months, counterterrorist forces have managed to arrest JMB’s IT chief Emranul Haque Rajib and top explosives expert Jahedul Islam Sumon (a.k.a Bomb Mizan), both from the Dhaka area. The explosives expert reportedly revealed during interrogation that JMB has close operational ties with the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO), a militant movement drawn from Muslim Rohingya refugees from Myanmar’s Rakhine state. Islam Sumon told his interrogators that the RSO had been giving terrorist training to various Islamic militants in Bangladesh since the 1980s and that he and other JMB operatives had been trained by RSO weapons experts at a camp near the Myanmar border. JMB reciprocated by teaching the Rohingyas how to make and detonate improvised explosive devices (IEDs) (Bangladesh2Day.com, May 19). Islam Sumon also revealed that many JMB members had fled to Pakistan either to undertake military training there or to fight for one of the militant groups operating in Pakistan (Daily Star June 23).

Any ethnic aspirations left to simmer will be used by jihadis. This also points to the importance that India should have given to the cases like Rohingyas from Myanmar.

[naren]

Adi Shankara as the harmonizer and not the homogenizer can be wonderfully explained in the "distorted" thread if you choose to.

No, I'm not keen to explain things unless asked for/challenged. I dont understand why you would bring up a line of argument in this thread, which is in public view and when refuted, you would not defend it here, but rather want to move that discussion to a thread not in public view. If you think your reasons for proposing a particular view point is OT, so is the very view point OT.

Moreover it is obvious to me the type of interpretations you will give to try to show Madhva and Shankara were "diverse" and deny their common framework and acknowledgement of the Vedic as root.

Again a straw man argument. What I'd expect is a direct debate, by refuting what I said & not assuming what I would say and giving the illusion of having refuted it.

I think I have already summarized the differences in our positions on the topic. I have also suggested that we wait until such attempts are made and let subsequent history be the judge.
...
We can go on arguing, but it will be fruitless. I think it is better to keep to our positions which are basically irreconciliable and not waste time in debating this.

Since you are very keen to wrap up the debate, let me conclude it for our members and lurkers.

1. You cannot provide a single precedent for homogenization in India, be it religious or political.
2. You would attempt homogenization, which has been attempted elsewhere, but not take any lessons from it (because you believe that "Such a subversion does not have to be in the dramatic scenario" - your quote).
3. You would not do an impact analysis of your proposal. Your preferred mode is "wait and watch". ("wait until such attempts are made and let subsequent history be the judge" - your quote)
4. You have not explained how far you are willing to go in your homogenization attempt. You have not provided any strategic vision of action, taking into account possible reaction and counter action (which I believe is what this thread is all about).
5. You have not quantifiably shown how diversity is the biggest threat facing India in contrast to others problems (such as Naxalism etc.)

[brihaspati]

naren ji,
the reason to wrap up the the extension of the debate where you are desperate to show that Adi Shankar was simply harmonizing with Buddhism ( you have also not clarified what you think are the differences between harmonization and homogenization) is that it is more appropriate for two threads that have greater freedom to discuss religious lines explicitly. If I join you in your tirade it will simply close off the thread.

Why the need to take such a political party-declaration line to address "lurkers" and posters - they can draw their own conclusions? No - or you cannot leave it to them or "harmonize" with opinions that do not subscribe to your branding of everything as "harmonization".

For this thread history is relevant - it is true , but then going into specific debates on what to you is harmonization and what is homogenization is something that will be judged to be OT.

It was you who characterized that all previous explorations in India in the relevant direction were harmonizations and not homogenization attempts without explcitly defining the differences.

I understand your need to paint strands like Shankara and Madhva as "diverse", and your refusal to see that both acknowledge and derive their interpretations from the same roots as "commonality". You have unilaterally declared Shankara" as a harmonizer with Buddhism. All this points to a particular school of thought in certain sections of modern India which fixate attention on differences in methods/approaches as fundemental differences between various schools of interpretations of the Vedas - and call for "sarva dharma samanyae" by insisting on keeping divisions intact but demanding that all of those divisions be simultaneously acceptable. This failure to see the essence then creates loose definitions to suit the agenda and dharma becomes religion. This argument is then extended to argue that any and every religious claims have to be tolerated because this was Indic tradition.

"Quantification of impact" - goodness! Have you ever done a "quantification of imapct" of "religious" or "philosophical" thoughts yourself? Just try. Many have tried and all the loud claims of "impact assessment" ultimately reduce to self-assured proclamations completely devoid of any numbers.

Others on this thread have tried to indicate that the homogenization experience in other cultures or nations should not be compared with the Indian experience. But for you, by your own sweet interpretations and definitions - those "others" were homogenizations and all their negative experiences will be repeated - and homogenizations can only happen by those other-nation routes.

One who blatantly ignores the attitude towards Buddhist doctrine in surviving texts of Shankara and calls it a "harmonization" will see a man with two hands and because those two hands act differently in doing something will refuse to see the man behind - the man will be a "diversity" for you -because the hands will overshadow your thinking. Advaita and dvaita are like the two arms of the man, but one with your attitude will see it as diverse.

Acceptance of others approaches towards a common goal will be seen by you as "harmonization" ( even that does not apply to Shankara's treatment of Buddhism).

Obviously you personally do not believe in "harmonization" with opposing viewpoints and let other opinions continue even if you do not agree with them. You have to try and demolish them in the public eye as Shankara did so that only your supremacy of debate was established - but then of course according to you Shankara was the harmonizer. Typically in modern India such attitudes and methods of establishing Indic==diversity==tolerance of each and every ideological claims such as Islamism or Communism or regionalism and separatism but not anything that appears to deny the so- called "sectarian" nature of Hindusim a la Thaparites stem from definite political and party theoretical positions ( could also be part of certain missionary representations - not sure).

You have made you appeal to readers opinions not to go for "homogenization" because tolerance of all sorts of divisions is Indian tradition according to your representation. Fine. No problems with me. As I said, it will be time which will determine what is necessary or appropriate.

Actually - almost every problem that you acknowledge as India's problems - stem from this all pervading theory of accetance of diversity. Naxalism comes from tolerance of Marxist ideology and communist interpretations of Marx, Jihadism comes from tolerance of Islamism, ethnic separatism because each and every claims of group identity has to be tolerated, and even Marathi-language-only movement in Mumbai has to be tolerated, Kashmir Valley separatism and expulsion of Pundits have to be tolerated, - because tolerance of every possible different strands of thought, however incomaptible they are to each other - is supposed to be the Indic tradition. In fact formation of Pakistan is also logical, because it also has aright to exist and do what it does to one day take all of India in the name of Islam as perfectly valid - under this overwhelming tolerance of diversity.

When I see history, I see tolerance of diversity has given us umpteen negative consequences - the riots, the ethnic cleansing by ideologies and groups who had a right to exist and practice their exclusive beliefs because we Indians - must always, always tolerate "diversity".

If Marxism and Communism has to be tolerated as ideologies, how can you claim that their implementation in Leninist-Maoist form is unacceptable - because Maoist or Leninist interpretations are quite logical conclusions from Marx! If Islamism has to be tolerated as an ideology, how can you protest violent jihad? It is part and parcel of the core ideology!

It is diversifiers who have had more negative impact, at least on Indian soil than any non-accepters of diversity.

[A_Gupta]

One can only tolerate the tolerant. One can only move beyond tolerance - the live-and-let-live - with those who live-and-let-live. Tolerating the intolerant or pretending the live-and-let-live can continue with the One-True-Way-Types is to destroy everything.

Put it another way, anyone who has grown a garden or kept an aquarium knows that only certain sets of species can be put together.

[Atri]

Naren ji,

Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya

Brahma satyam, jagat mithya is one of the hallmarks of Adi shankara's philosophy. The usage of jagat being Mithya is later, an addition by Adi Shankara. There is reference of the world being referred to as a MithyA entity by any of his predecessors.

The meaning of this popular phrase is beautifully enfolded when we look at the acutual meanings of the term involved. The terms involved in the phrase are-

Brahman - ब्रह्मन - literally, it means one which expands.

Brahman is the most fundamental physical entity which makes up universe.Using modern physical terms as an analogy, it can be said that quantum fields which is hypothesized to make up everything in universe is Brahman. Now quantum fields may or may not be brahman.If it is proven that quatum fields do make up everything in this world including space-time and dimensions then it will be proven that quantum field is Brahman.If not, then perhaps there something even more fundamental in this universe than quantum fields.

It was just that they expected, just like modern physicists, universe is madeup of some fundamental entity. Indian philosophers did not inquire into the physical nature of that fundamental entity. Practically, it was impossible as they were bronze age people with bronze age technology. Hence they simply named this expected fundamental physical entity as Brahman, without inquiring much about its nature.

Satyam - one which is eternal, changeless and existent

Jagat (Universe/World)- This is an interesting term to think upon.

Jagat - Ja + Ga
Ja - jaayate (to arise, originate, born)
ga - gamana: - ga - (one which goes/moves or changes)

It means, one which is born (janana) out of gati (speed/change) is Jagata: That is Universe is said to have come into existent due out of constant change.

Mithya - has word root as 'Mith'. This is the most interesting and illuding term on this phrase.

As given by Apte Sanskrit Online dictionary, Mith - to associate with; to unite; to hurt; to understand; to wrangle; to grasp

Thus, when we apply these meanings to the phrase Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya, following meanings are deduced.

1) Brahman is existent, jagat is associated (with Brahman)
2) Brahman is Existent, jagat is united (with Brahman)
3) Brahman is existent, jagat is hurt (does not make sense)
4) Brahman is existent, jagat is understood by (brahman)
5) Brahman is existent, jagat is wrangled/tended/herded (by brahman) (wrangle = to herd, to tend)
6) Brahman is existent, jagat is grasped by brahman

The popular translation of Brahman is truth and world is false is in fact a disbelief.I guess the word root Mith which makes up the word MithyA, is also the word root for Mithuna and Maithuna (sexual intercourse), which again is related to union or being associated with.

When translated all the words, the phrase becomes-

"That one which originates/exists due to constant change (jagat) is associated with/United with/being tended by (mithyA) Brahman which is changeless existence (satya) - Brahma Satyam, jagat MithyA..."

There is one more meaning of word MithyA - to be made up/ to fall in place.

Perhaps the word Mith is originated from same Proto-Indo-European ancestor which also makes up the greek word (mythos). Mythos also means to be made up. From Mythos comes Mythology.

When applied this meaning, the phrase translates as

"That which arises out of change (jagat) is a phenomenon of things falling in place/made up, where as Brahman is changeless existence."

There is a catch though. This meaning is not corroborated from any online sanskrit dictionary, but I distinctly remember reading it in some authentic source.

Furthermore, the interpretation of word Mithya determines whether a person is advaitin OR dvaitin OR vishishtadvaitin.

If Mithya is taken as United, then a person is advaitin (brahman and jagat are united and satya). This is in sync with Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma (everything that exists is Brahman)

If mithya is takes as association, then the person is vishishtadvaitin. (brahman is satya and jagat is associated with satya, but not completely satya).

If mithya is taken as wrangled (to tend), then, he becomes a dvaitin (brahman is satya, jagat is being wrangled/tended/herded (by brahman)). Here, World is being herded by the separate herder that is God.

Thus we can see, differential interpretation of this phrase by Shankara eventually ends up in conjuring vastly different world views towards life and universe. I pay my homage to great genious, Adi Shankaracharya...

This is merely one example of the harmonization and homogenisation which was brought about by Adi Shankaracharya in between different world-views.

[Prem]

Basically various philospophical branches of Indic thought are either in harmony or complementary to each others and can be compared to various rooms in one beautiful villa. There is no dichotomy in indic mind if one is Bhakta or Gyani or follow Dwaita or Advaita. They are all one of US living in one same Villa . In my mind, the issue is onlee of alien dogmatic germs inejected in Indian material and spiritual body have/ are causing many unhealthy tedencies in our society and removal or elimination of them is must for renourishment of India. It is this kind internal strategic shift which we ought to long or struggle for. Marxist, Islamist and PSists must not be tolerated and be thrown out to save Indian civilizational ethos.

[brihaspati]

Thanks to naren ji,
Actually he has set me thinking on the importance2 of these fundamental issues and confusions imported due to terminology that was not developed originally to describe the concepts involved. Extending these debates here will lead soon to lines not explorable within the broad understandings of this thread.

I will try to explore some of the issues raised in a sequence of posts, but I will try to keep it in context of "future stratgeic scenario". So I may be limited in my responses to any detractions.

The claim that Adi Shankara was a crypto-Buddhist or he was copying Buddha, or that he was "harmonizing" with Buddhism is an old debate. There are mores upporters of this claim from the western academic circles than theologians from within India unless they also happen to be unhappy with Shankaras treatment of their own non-Shankara branches of the Vedanta. If anyone wants to explore the arguments with me can do so in the "Epics/Kathas" thread but I would prefer to have it in the distorted history thread. I will list out the arguments advanced by the pro-crypto-Buddhist line which as will be seen tries to identify apparent similarities in certain passages of arguments and the basic methodology of practice of Shankara - as proof. This is fallacious, as many circumstances and context can force us to use similar arguments or apllied methods which need not imply common roots/borrowings/copying or identical-ity. Mathematicians forced to use logic will perhaps testify that certain theorems can have only one proof. Anyone trying to prove the theorem will essentially have to follow an unique set of logical connections. On the other hand there are specific denunciations of Buddhism in the works attributed to Shankara. But only this far here in this thread.

The issue of "harmonization" -"diversity" and "homogenization" should be clarified first, as this crops up a lot of times in our political and strategic discourse.

Originally "Harmony" as derived from the Greek harmonía, meant "joint, agreement, concord", from the verb form meaning "to fit together, to join". Commonly used to denote the entire field of music. Apparently the term defined the combination of contrasted elements: a higher and lower note. From this beginning the concept has gradually evolved into meaning either "those chords which are pleasant" or successive notes as set by established principles of arrangements. In the music world, a crucial thingto observe is that "harmony" is typical of the western school and is usually ensured only by pre-set notations and control by a conductor. Based on this framework, individual composers write out the entire piece and set it up for diverse players to play according to the role set for them in the assemblage. There is a lot of ingenuity and freedom for the composer but no improvisation for the individual player.

Harmony is not found in the Indian classical tradition, which gives specific rules of movement between subsequences of notes, and fixes them within ragas, but allows individual players to improvise. There is no conductor. But neither is there harmony.

When the harmonization term is placed in contrast to homogenization as done in certain discussions in socio-economic terms, it is a carryover of the western sense and carries within it the well-recognized ambiguity of the term. Some use it for example in the sense that different social groups mutually accept each others differences but still come to agreements to cooperate on certain issues for mutual benefits. While homogenization is taken in contrast to be a dissolution of differences and absorption of one group into another. In cost terms, and in the economic sphere it is often seen to be more efficient to homogenize where a common competitive item is concerned than harmonize - for example simultaneous sustenance of both socialist sector and capitalist sector in a single economy, or two production processes or producers of the same product with one costly and one cheaper process. In social scenarios, this debate has come up more and more about globalization. Here using this term is even more problematic, since harmonization in cultural terms can mean different things to different people while any such attempt may go against economic effciency needing homogenization.

The ambiguity in the term "harmonization" creates confusion in sociological terms, for harmonization reduces to some degree of suppression of aspects of each conflicting or distinctive group that are found to be unacceptable to the other. Now such compromises are problematic both in the theoretical as well as practical phase.

First such suppressions can lead to questioing of whether the identity itself is changed by such suppressions or not. Thus harmonization itself may bring disharmony because the suppressing identity then has to resolve the internal tension arising out of such suppressions. (In India we see manye xamples of this tension - for we have to theoretically accept the right of EJists or Islamists to convert Hindus by any means they can think of because it is an essential part of their identity to proselytize and help such proselytizations by "charity" and "ardent persuasions" if they are "called" to do so - and in order to harmonize or do a sarva-dharama-samanaye we have to accept their belief systems in their essentiality. )

Second such suppressions could be merely temporary, and in reality no harmonization takes place. The one who feels has had to compromise will wait with resentment and undercurrents to one day get back even with those with whom they had had to compromise. This sort of harmonizatioin simply postpones the violence or conflict and may ultimately cause more damage than would have happened at the beginning.

Finally, even harmonizations may need acceptance of a common framework of negotiations and the setting up of an authority who will ensure the harmonization. This in itself is a step towards homogenization in the sense that both conflicting identities are giving up parts of their power to a third entity. This can lead to the eventual absorption of one group into another or homogenization if the overseer power structure decides to act in favour of one group.

I will apply the above features of harmonization/homogenization to possible cases both from within India and outside first to see whether there has really ever been any example of a true "harmonization". And we will see the inherent problems in trying to force examples into the harmonization jacket.

[brihaspati]

Before proceeding further we need to recognize that the distinction between "harmonization" and "homegenization" is also problematic because we need to identify the qualifiers or dimensions along which to differentiate between the two. Two groups could be identified as distinct based on a certain set of qualifiers, but based on some other set of qualifiers they could have overlaps and be judged non-distinct.

When people start analyzing they would typically first decide on the set of qualifiers they need to show what they want to show. So those who want to show distinctions will select only those qualifiers on which two groups can be separated out. Those who would want to show homogeneity would decide on the qualifiers that are common.

I am restricting my analysis here on ideology and theology and philosophy. For example two groups forced to share the same geographical space will be forced to adopt certain common practices - in food, clothing, housing, agriculture etc, and even in the secondary factors like language and technology because of interactional pressures and their impact on the primary resource use (more efficient technology will be adopted over less efficient etc). One can pick on such elements to try and show that they were homogenized. I tis ideology/theology where distinctions show up most intensely even among people sharing same geo-political space.

Let us start with potential examples outside India first. From the more well documented or reconstructed cases we can home in on the Romans first. Typically, the Romans did not interfere much in the internal or pre-existing religious life of the conquered except to extract political or wealth mileage until the days of the emperors. It was then that worship of the emperor began to be insisted on as superior to all others, in some cases temples were built within or altars prepared for offering worship to the emperor within precincts of native sacred sites. But even at this stage, until the advent of Constantine, no large scale absoprtion of one group by another did take place in ideological terms. Various cults arose in the Roman empire from time to time, but there does not appear to be any centralized and systematic attempt to impose one to the exclusion of others or any conflation of all cults.

Constantine was the first one to try and impose one single ideological framework and large scale absorption of conflicting groups into one - that of the Christianity he helped define by personally supervising the editing and selection of the core elements of the new Church. He also used the resources and power of the empire to impose this new religion on as many of his subjects as feasible.

But did he really homogenize ideologically? He attempted but was this process complete before he died? This is a crucial factor often neglected by those involved in the debate on homogenization. Homogenization is usually the initiative of an individual visionary or a very small group trying to bring in pre-existing conflicting groups who had been dominating the society for a much longer time. Most homogenization attempts remain incomplete because of this factor unless the attempters create a ideology that itself has homogenization as the primary and only focus - like that in Islam - and therefore not dependent on one generation or individual.

Moreover, a crucial factor is the scope of homogenization. If the homogenization does not reach all possible conflicting or hostile groups then such groups can come back to destroy the remaining and impose their own homogeneity.

Constantine could not complete the process. Crucially he did not extend it to the Germanic tribes beyond his borders - the ones that ultimately destroyed the western Roman empire. Constantine's incompleteness of the process was also theoretical, since the process by which he arrived at the core doctrine was a kind of "harmonization" where a subset of rival schools of Christian theological strands in the form of different gospels were conflated together but each ahd to undergo editing which in my schema means suppression of aspects to make them compatible. This has been the source of several different socurces of conflict within the later Church.

If we analyze the immediate impact of Christian homogenization under Constantine, we see that it definitely helped extend a tottering empire by at least a century, it provided for a gradual reduction of the bloodier aspects of Roman culture like that of the gladiatorial games, animal sacrifices, and a greater ordering of marital and sexual mores. Constantine and other elite themselves personally did not follow such restrictions but we have clear evidence of their impact on the population. None of the previously existing diverse cults and ideologies fought or contradicted any of these practices.

I will next take up the case of Charles of the Franks.

[R Vaidya]

http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/main-ar ... rs_1381566
Abrahamic civil wars
R Vaidyanathan
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 3:06 IST
The three children of Abraham, namely followers of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths, have been fighting and waging war for the last two centuries.
Many terms like crusade, jehad, radical Islam, paganism, and kafir have become a part of contemporary discussion, thanks to the Abrahamic hold on contemporary debate. Of the three, the two younger children are in the news, both in
Europe as well as in the US.
There is a ban on the construction of minarets on mosques in Switzerland, thanks to an overwhelming vote by the people. There is a move in Belgium, France, Holland and Denmark to ban the burkha in public places along with hefty fine. In Europe, local municipalities and cantons are fining veiled women, as indicated by a recent case in northern Italy. Geert Wilders — who could be the prime minister in the next poll in Holland — is an atheist and has called for a ban on the Koran. He and many other European intellectuals are arguing that the issue is that of the religion itself and not the people professing it.
Earlier, Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, Oriana Fallaci, the late Italian journalist and author, and Andrew Bostom, an author on Islam, have talked about Eurabia developing in the heart of Europe and the UK becoming Londonistan.
It is interesting that godless and secular Europe is suddenly turning antagonistic to Islam. Most of the major churches in Europe are tourist attractions with small attendance, even on Sundays.
Radical Islam is as much upset about modern godless Europe as it is by the evangelical part of the US. The fastest growing Christian evangelical groups like the Pentecostals and Mormons are in conflict with various strands of Islam in many countries in Africa like Nigeria and Kenya.
The evangelicals are also spreading fast in many Latin American countries and impacting the traditional Catholic church. The traditional church is facing a crisis due to lack of interest by youngsters in joining seminaries and nunneries. Actually they are outsourcing the priestly functions to youngsters from India in many places in the US as well as in Europe.Radical Islam is flush with funds due to oil money and global aspirations. A combination of Saudi funds, Pakistani foot soldiers and London as asylum facilitates the radicals. Radical Islam is totally against the covenants of westernism (which is passed off as modernism), namely living together, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, women’s liberation, et al. Radical Islam finds all these obnoxious and hence its fight is with the church as well as the secular modernisers.
Europe is a tinder-box which could flare up in a couple of years, or even earlier, if the economic crisis accelerates. The near-collapse of Greece is a symptom of Europe’s growing crisis. In a downturn, the blame is always on the “other” — in this case the Muslims of Europe, of Moroccan, Algerian, Somalian, Turkish or Kurdish origin. Also, Europe which had over 20% of the world population during World War I, is down to 10% now. It could fall to just 3% in another three decades.
Demography is destiny and the Muslim population in Europe will reach 20% in another two decades. US president Barack Obama is trying to bring a rapprochement with his tele-prompter speeches by speaking half-truths.
He claimed in Cairo (June, 2009) that algebra, the decimal system and printing technology were the inventions of the land of sands when these accomplishments owe as much to India and China.
Obama does not have a good rating in his own country and, in the larger Islamic world, his credibility is low due to the continuing war in Iraq and Afghanistan and a threatened one in Iran. The recent Times Square bombing attempt is not helping him win his own people over.
But the 21st century belongs to India and China, both belonging to the non-Abrahamic traditions. For a change, the non-conflicting, non-proselytising Asian civilisations are becoming the economic axis of the world and power is shifting. This is an inflexion point in world history.
What should India do in the context of the wars between the children of Abraham? The best thing is to keep quiet and observe. We have groups within India which will try to push India to one side or the other. The radical Islamists will try to localise global issues like the Danish cartoons. Similarly, the politically active church groups will try to globalise local issues like the Orissa riots or the feeble attempts to prevent conversions. But India should stand firm and maintain that we will take care of the problems of Indians internally. Period.
Our attempt should be to become a $5 trillion economy from the current $1.5 trillion over the coming decade. We should be part of the top four or five global economies. A $5 trillion gorilla will be muscular and no one will try to mess around with it, including that failed terror-sponsoring state on our west.

R Vaidya

[naren]

Atri ji,

Thanks for that wonderful article. Really inspiring. Shows the greatness of the Master in His ability to communicate to diverse people.

B ji,

Thanks. I was looking forward for this discussion. Pls continue.

I dont want to divert, but I thought I'd give a quick overview before we lose track:

Simple explanation for Buddhism-Advaita harmony can be derived from the fact that Swami Vivekananda, representing Advaita school, spoke on "Buddhism, the Fulfilment of Hinduism" at the Parliament of world religions.

Buddhism had a negative approach and Advaita made it positive.

Ultimate reality of Buddhism is "emptiness" and life is considered as "suffering". People started to misinterpret it & went all doom and gloom (I think this was the inspiration for Christians to go all doom and gloom over suffering in eternal hell).

In Advaita the ultimate reality is "fullness" and life is considered as "divine play". To the Hindus, Brahman refers to the soul. To the Buddhists, Brahman refers to the state of nirvana. So He simultaneously appealed to both parties. (lets hold off the harmony vs homogeneity debate for now)

Simple example to compare Buddhism and Advaita:

Buddhism: Look at a section of the river. Its ever changing. There is no idea of eternal individuality. Hence the individuality is empty. This is the ultimate reality.

Advaita: Look at the whole river. Eventhough its ever changing, its always the river. Hence the individuality is "fullness". This is the ultimate reality.

Dwaitists consider Advaita to be a form of Atheism, hence the reference to Him as crypto Buddhist.


Chk the section by Swami Vivekananda. http://www.kamakoti.org/souv/2-8.html

Originally from here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Compl ... s_of_India

[brihaspati]

There were two Charles of the Franks important for European history. Both belong to the same line of leaders sources originally from a kind of "prime minister" (Major Domus) to the previous Merovingingian dynasty. The first Charles, - Martel- lured the Moorish Muslim army in its adventure from Spain into southern Franconia (roughly modern France) and ambushed it in a way that forced the Moor army to face a humiliating defeat and supposedly even leave behind their loot to esacpe with the bleeding rump of their army back into their Sapnish territory. Whatever be the reality of this campaign (Islamic chroniclers, as in the case of India typically avoid describing their humiliation at the hands of non-Muslims), the fact remains that this defeat must have been so decisive and penalizing that no Muslim army tried to get into France again.

The more famous Charles the Great (Carolus Magnus - Charlemagne) is actually a descendant of this same line. Between Charles Martel and Charlemagne, Europe had already known what Islam was in reality. The context of the homogenization attempt by Charlemagne cannot be understood unless we explore the intervening patch of interaction of Christianity and Islam in the Byzantine arena.

In the eastern Mewditerranean, the drama revolved around the expansion of the Arab armies under the first Caliphs which ate into the Byzantine territory that stretched across the Levant and included Egypt. If we explore the history of conquest of Egypt under the Arabs, we see that Egypt at this time was a curious mixture of sects within Christianity which were essentially split along the hyperfine fractures on polemical differences that had nothing to do with practical application of the philosophies. The root of teh dispute starts from the rival factions within the early Church formed by Constantine - essentially on points in Christology. The intense factional fights came formally to a head in the Nestorian schism, which essentially split the Church right along the middle. However the fallout of this led to further factional divisions within the Church that led to rival councils and schools of thought - based again on hyperfine divsions of doctrine. As an aside, i t will be illuminating for anyone to make a comparative study of not only the type of debate but also the accompanying rivalry between groups of intellectuals - in the Nestrorian debates and the Indian debates at around the same period -between 400-800 CE.

It would have been alright if intellectual debates on abstract theological issues kept away from affecting politics and military alignments. But this is where "diversity" of doctrinal fine points has the most corrosive effects. In Egypt, the Egyptian Coptic Church (deriving legitimacy from the Chalcedonian school) maintained its rivalry with the Byzantine Church which was an adjunct of the Byzantine empire which in turn was in formal occupation of Egypt. The fall of Egypt to the Arab expeditionary army was far more rapid than expected. There has always been speculations that a section of the local establishment collaborated with the Islamists. But it is an uncanny coincidence that the rate of Islamist conquest of a non-Islamic territory at this early stage was positively correlated with the general intensity of ideological and theological schisms and sectarianism within the prevailing regime, or the degree to which the prevailing regime tolerated multiple rival, competing religions simultaneously.

This is where an important weakness of the approach of Constantine to ideological diversity shows up. Constantine "harmonized" the different threads of doctrine within the early Christian church but did not homogenize them. For him, Christianity was going to be the ideological tool by which he would simultaneously weaken his enemies and increase his personal authority and consolidate the empire. So he only suppressed those elements of different doctrines that would challenge this imperial project. But he did not think it through as to the seeds that would remain to ultimately split the political military integrity of the Roman project. He did not homegenize ideology, and tried to use this non-homogenized doctrine to homogenize the political structure of the empire.

In time, in the tradition of "pure" intellectuals without commitments or involvement in the practical running, protecting of a society - who are basically out to win debates as a feedback loop to gain a sense of power, the "intellectuals" gathering within the Church would split among themselves in rivalry essentially over a question of dominance and power. In alls uch movements, including the communist, these polemical battles are a cover for personal rivalry and mutual hatred or jealousy. That such polemical rivalry does not remain purely within intellectual domain and substantially affects betrayal or collaboration with the "enemy" is evident in any detailed and authentic study of these movements.

The effect of this oversight - in failing to homogenize doctrine/ideology in parallel to attempts to homogenize political superstructure - created conditions where personal rivalries could survive under ideological cover and raise their heads in times of crisis. The entire North African coastal reach of the Romanized sphere of influence was also subject to the weakening effect of this and we see the result in the Arabs reaching Spain within decades, from Egypt. Thus Constantine represents both an incomplete homogenization (since it did not extend into ideology) as well as an incomplete harmonization (since it did not extend into politics).

(to be continued)

[brihaspati]

The lead up to the scenario that put Charlemagne in the role he finally played, is usually not always told from the viewpoint of role of doctrinal conflicts in political and military outcomes. This also suppresses a crucial explanation in the rapidity with which Roman Spain under Visigoth rule fell to the Arab (strictly speaking more Berber than Arab) armies.

Without going into the main theological points of difference between Arianism (essentially rising in Egypt/Alexandria) and the Roman Church which wasincreasingly becoming a "Byzantine Church" at this time - again nitpicking on hyperfine divisions in Christology - we simply need to note for our purposes, that for specific historical circumstances Ariansim spread more among the Germanic tribes of Visigoths, Franks and Lombards (also Vandals). By the time, they had come down to rule as officials - then vassals - then kings "under Romans" in the various parts of the western Roman empire, they had made some compromise with the Byzantine Roman church in official doctrine but retained their Arian core. This was also the case for the Visgothic Frankish kingdoms of Francia/Frankonia and Spain.

Not unexpectedly, we can see that ethnic/regional identities will try to hold on to different interpretations of the same ideology and form doctrinal slightly separate streams even within a major ideology as a means of maintaining distinction. Moreover such distinctions are important as mobilizers for future rebellions against the major doctrine with hwich they have had to compromise. Thus the Visigothic kings had essentially been subjected to a "harmonization" process under the Byzantine Roman Church authority by which parts of their original doctrine had been suppressed (the Filoque for example) but they retained awareness of their doctrinal distinction and would use it in the future to hit back at the Roman. Here doctrinal/ideological diversity and regional/ethnic identity play a mutually reinforcing role and produces justifications for future conflict.

The doctrinal conflict extended to a fight for supremacy between pro-Byzantine and anti-Byzantine schools in which the dominant faction of the Franks were opposed to Byzantine-Roman Church control. The Byzantine navy came twice to Spain at the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth century to tilt the balance of power - at a time when they should have been fighting the spread of Islamists in northe Africa. At the Seventeenth Council of Toledo in 694, the Jews were condemned to slavery because they had confessed to a plot to overthrow the 'Christians' (meaning Goths) in Spain, with the help of "those who dwelt in lands beyond the sea,". This could mean both Islamics as well as Byzantines. Some scholars hoild that it was definitely meant as indication of the Byzantine since the Muslims were yet to officially conquer Carthage, the capital of this Roman province ( or exarchate). The Gothic king Egica (687-701), repulsed a second attempt by the Byzantine navy. So one of the possible motivations for the naval expeditions could be inciting revolts by Roman-Byzantine Christians against Gothic Christians! Witiza (701-708), the son of Egica, also defeated a Byzantine attempt to gain a foothold in southern Spain. These Byzantine attempts failed, and the Roman Berber governor of Ceuta, Julian (711), followed by the Gallo Romans, like Eudo the Roman Duke of Aquitaine, established alliances with the Islamists against Visigoths and Franks. These Roman-Byzantine Christian-Arab-Berber-Muslim alliances overthrew Visigothic rule in Spain (711-719), but were stopped by Charles Martel, first at Poitiers in 732, and then in Provence in 739.

Those interested can explore the early riads and conquests of the Islamics who were thus introduced through an ideological-regional-ethnic diversity which Islam could exploit in Spain. Islamists claim a golden period and Christian narrators claim the opposite. I tend to agree with the Christian narrators more since Islamic narrators use almost similar expressions they used to describe the "golden rule" in India and what we know they did. The widow of the defeated Gothic king was promptly converted, given a Muslim name and "married" by the commander of the "faithful".

So we can understand why Charlemagne would be as ruthless in ironing out "diversity" when he came to power, and why he would tend to "harmonize" less. For he had seen through the example of what his granddad had to face because of "tolerance" of ideological "schisms" and non-homogenization of ethnic/regional/linguistic (yes that too!) distinctions.

A point to note is that we know from St. John of Damascus (675-749) that the Byzantines considered Islam to be a "Christian" heresy during this period. So they could somehow still work with the Islamists without a guilty conscience against what they would dub - another Christian heresy!

[brihaspati]

The Islamist Byzantine conflict is most interesting from two viewpoints - first the "harmonization-homogenization" debate and military-political impact of ideological schisms and second, the uncanny parallels that it has with the Indian scenario at the same period. This may not fit in a single post so I will do it in perhaps two.
How did the Arabs win over the Byzantine and Persian forces?

First the rather ancient European-Iranian conflict of Rome versus the Parthians (which again was because of the frontier conflict in Syria and Levant where both are perhaps trying to secure the Asian trade flow) which had led to a mutually exhausting war which the Byzantines partly won. But by 632-634 both had militarily demobilized and in fact were forced to come to an understanding to face the common Arab-Islamic threat coming from then Caliphal power centre of Iraq.

Second, both had stopped supporting those client and buffer states between them and the Arabs that had kept the Arabs in check.

Third, in Byzantium, religious sectarian fights weakened the devotion of Syrians and Egyptians to Constantinople.

The first reaction of the Byzantines was to "harmonize" the religious sects. Heraclius (638) tried to conflate and harmonize the Monophysite-Chalcedonian sectarianism in Syria and Egypt through proposing Monothelitism, [Christ, although of two natures, had but one will]. The attempt failed even though officially the warring bishops made a show of falling in line. As I have indicated in my earlier post, the Islamists rapidly overran Egypt because of rather quick switching over of local Christians to the Islamist side in retaliation against Byzantine Christian authority. In a typically shrewd understanding of utility of religious schisms in non-Muslims, the Islamists temporarily granted religious freedom to the Alexandrian Christians who quickly recalled their exiled Monophysite patriarch to rule over them, and subject only to the ultimate political authority of the Islamists. This policy is of course later reversed with extreme jihadic zeal for conversion to minimize the proportions of coptics in the general population later once the Islamists feel secure in their power.

Peculiarly, in this period of increasing Islamist success from 641-717, we see
(1) Collaboration of ex-Christian and still-Christian maritime trade and naval communities with the Islamists to increase the naval power of the Islamists, which they use to secure their North African advance towards Spain. The naval power increases the separation of the northern Mediterranean Roman power from the southern shores, and the Muslims can also use the sectarian conflicts within the North African churches.
(2) In spite of southern coastal advance by the Muslims, Byzantine Christianity is more interested in winning power over non-Byzantine Christians in Italy and the west.

The Islamists use their naval power in the eastern Mediterranean to isolate Byzantium, attack Armenia, Asia Minor and Constantinople itself with a four-year siege (674-678) terminated only by the use of a secret "military innovation" - the "Greek fire". This innovation was apparently so effective that the Islamist signed a 30 year truce. Thus preserving their base and gaining time to regroup the Islamists were back at it by 717. This is also a consistent feature of Islamic armies that they never fight to extinction, pretend a change-of-heart to preserve a core from which the genocidic revival would come again. Monothelitism was severely opposed by churches of North Africa and Italy, and the resulting disaffection had encouraged the exarchs of both Carthage (646) and Ravenna (652) to revolt - leading to the loss of the last outpost of Septem in 711 (the explicit change over of alliances I mentioned in the previous post). The last harmonization attempt tried to denounce the previous "harmonization" attempt at the sixth general council (680-681) which condemned Monothelitism and anathematized its adherents. But doctrinal disputes took new intensity in the period of Iconoclasm (717-867).


From Leo III (717-741), emperors sought to eliminate the veneration of icons by Christians (iconodules as opposed to iconoclasts) who had mostly come from conversions from non-Christians who placed a great importance on visual focus in spiritual quest. The Quinisext Council (Trullo) of 692 had decreed that Christ should be represented in human form rather than, symbolically, as the lamb (also reflected in the coinage of Justinian II). Reaction against iconodule doctrines started from the end of the 7th century, and full-blown Iconoclasm became imperial policy with the decrees of Leo III in 730. The iconoclastic movement intensified with violent persecution of the mostly iconodule monastic clergy. The Council of Nicaea in 787 restored iconodule doctrine under empress Irene, but military defeated led Leo V to restore the iconoclastic policies associated with military genius of Constantine V.

Iconodules were restored to power in 843 and proclaimed as Orthodox belief. This is also the period when feudal - regional/family/clan identity begins to overshadow national identity - as revealed in the title used by Michael I Rhangabe (811-813), with regional and feudal authority dividing the immediate loyalty of the commons and tax-payers.
Interestingly the religious sectarianism on hyperfine divisions in theology continued to provide help for the muslims. Thomas the Slavonian, Michael II's former friend and fellow soldier, became the pretender Constantine VI crowned by the Patriarch of Antioch as patronized by the Caliph. The doctrinal war led to Muslims defeating Theophilus (838) before the fall of the Amorium in Asia Minor, decline of Byzantine strength in the Mediterranean as shown in the fall of Crete (826/827) and the start of attacks upon Sicily that finally saw fall to Muslims.

The attempt in Michael III's reign to re-harmonize by restoring iconodule pre-eminence did not solve the factionalism problem entirely, but at least partially homogenized the much truncated heartland now in the Grecian hinterland and gave a new lease of monastic, religious aggression that spread the Orthodox religion among the Slavs and Russians, and appeared to also restore the military fortunes of the empire to a certain extent. However this iconodule restoration created an important conversion pool for Islamists - the Paulicians who were then in large numbers and basically adherents to the iconoclastic school. One of the sons of those persecuted for their iconoclasm turned an influential Paulician leader who actively collaborated and went over to the Muslim side and helped in further decrease of Byzantine territory. A lot of Syrian converts into Islam were won from this iconoclastic Christians.

The main controversy of iconoclasm is actually very significant in the context of the Indian experience, which I will take up next, and I feel both these historical arenas provide us with important insights into the effect of "tolerance" of diversity, and the ineffectiveness of harmonizations and why harmonization is never successful unless it also involves homogenization.

[ramana]

So the so called amazing victory sweep of political Islam in the fist one hundred years was quite bogus and can be attributed mostly due to schisms in Christian lands due to petty dogma fights.

[brihaspati]

Quickly and briefly coming over to the Indian scenario with the advent of first Islamo-Arabic forays and where tolerating ideological/regional/etc "diversity" leads us to. We shall also see that at least in the lead up to the 711-713 Qasim piratical expedition into Sindh, no "harmonization" is evident.

The main surviving resources for the events around this period come from the Islamists themselves (practically speaking just two). So Thaparites and fellow-travelers use this conveniently to deny what they need to deny and assert what they need to assert. So these texts become unreliable/boasts/propaganda for glorification when Islamist "atrocities" are described, and become reliable/non-boasting/realistic when claims of "Buddhist" and "oppressed castes" collaboration with Muslims come up, or the "moderation/just" policies of Qasim are mentioned.

I think we have to look at all aspects of a text to be potentially suspect and worth reinvestigations if substantial portions are found to be "unreliable" in one aspect.

First question that should be asked is who really are the "people" mentioned to be "Samanis", from which a linguistic derivation has been used to identify them as "Buddhists" (as well as "BudRuk==BuddhaRakshita"). But there are really serious problems with this simplistic equation. The Sindhi "Buddhists" of this period do not easily fit into any of the known major Buddhist sects of this period. Many researchers have collected evidence that indicate that by this time, Buddhism was mostly a dying or declining faith in India.

Here are my points about the clues that indicate a possible heterodox/diverse/ideologically non-committed and mercantile mentality "religious order" and perhaps more dangerously indicating traits that blurred loyalties and weakness or lack of resistance to "foreign" ideologies.

(1) Budruk and the abbotts of the Samanis are mentioned to be having wives/concubines/female partners, slaves, lands, agricultural and business interests.

(2) Samani is a generic term used by the Arab chroniclers at this stage for all monastic orders that they came to know of - this includes, Christian-Nestroian-( and at least a dozen factional derivatives), radical Judaic, Zoroastrian-derivatives, and Manichaen orders. They distinguish between "barhamyia[Hindu/Brahmanic]-sumanyia[sraman/monastic]" only. In fact the bewildering varieties of hyperfine doctrinal divisions that distinguished the different Christian Churches of the East were so complicated for them, and so different from what their founders had experienced in the peninsula, that they do not mention those distinctions at all. The Greeks had started using the term (samanaoi) for monastic orders in general, which probably found its way into Arabian terminology through its foundational incorporation of the various strands of the schismatic Christian movement in the Arabian peninsula.

(3) there has been questions raised already as to the possibility of the "samanis" of Sindh being a derivative of Jainas. Like Buddhist sanghas in general, Jaina communities were strongly involved in international trade and traded with the Mesopotamian world. They also had strong monastic focus in the organization of both lay and monk communities. [Extensive pointers exist, but OT here].

The western sea-board of India at this stage was a hot bed of contest [not necessarily violent as represented by Thaparites] and presence between Saivas, Jainas, and Vaidiks. So Hieun Tsang's narrative which observes substantial number of sangharams in the general area does not necessarily contradict the alternate possibility - since heterodoxity could have developed in the intervening period between his travels and the islamic invasion, and since he himself observes that the Buddhism was fast vanishing in the area (almost at the order of a lifetime in his own words) , with practices encroaching on the sangha that were way different from that of the saddhamma.

(4) During the rule of Dharmapala, monks who are identified as Sindhi Buddhists, went to the Vajrasana temple at Bodh Gaya, burnt tantric scriptures and destroyed the silver idol. They declared in their trial that, people should not believe in these "Mahayana" teachinsg since all these were simply a means of livelihood for the "monks". Hieuen Tsang had already observed (a long time ago) that the Sindhi Buddhists were subscribers to the Sammityia strand and were "narrow" in their views.

If we look at the political-military scenario - the possibility of heterodoxity become even more clear.

From the conquest narratives we see that Jats cannot be uniformly blamed to be collaborators, since it si clearly mentioned that Jats west of Indus collaborated while eastern Jats fought against the Arabs. The key division appears to be Indus. This can only be correlated clearly if we track the heterodox influences that the western bank of Indus appears to be subjected to as a province of the Persian empire. With each wave of religious/ideological/wave moving through the Mesopotamian/Semitic world and the Persian empire starting from Persian presence of the descendants of Cyrus - the roughly thousand years of occupation - destroyed the ideological integrity of this strip. In the lead up to 711, that entire area ranging in a wide circuit leading from Iran, through Balkh (Bahlik pradesh), western Baluchistan, down to the western coastal strip into the gulf back through the rivers then across to the Caspian - had periodically seen not-always-pleasant expansions of Magian-Zoroastrian-Buddhist-Christian-Nestorian-Manichaean development.

There are claims that the Samanis were in touch with the Iraq based rashiduns and later Caliphs even before the formal hostilities broke out. They officially took the line of siding with the Caliphate when trade-safety disputes broke out between the caliphate and the Sindhi dynasty over alleged piracy claims. This cannot be cast into the "Buddhist" Samani vs brahmanical Chachian dynasty format, because the first conflicts between Islamist expansion and Sindhis were at least 60 years before when the "Rais" - supposed to be Buddhist dynasty - were ruling Sind. If the Samanis were really loyal to their Buddhist ideology then they should have remembered this conflict.

The supposed exchange between Dahir and the Caliph over the piracy dispute is signficant as to underlying scenario - if not reality. The Sri-Lankan king was apparently sending gifts and slaves for the pleasures of the Caliph by ship which was waylaid by pirates operating out of Debal - the holy port city. Caliph demanded compensation from Dahir which Dahir is supposed to have dismissed as impossible since the pirates would belong to a very powerful state and not apparently his subjects. Apart from the small issue of Chinese sources mentioning at this time that Indian ships were slower compared to both Arabian and Ceylonese ships which were larger, manned by soldiers (so a slower ship/boat emptied larger and well protected ship), that piracy from the Arabian peninsula increases at this stage so Indian ships stopped going into western Arabian sea, there could any of the three possibilities :

(a) pirates were from Saurashtra, definitely more powerful at this time
(b) pirates were from the Caliphate, but Dahir was politely trying to avoid a diplomatic row and pretext for war
(c) there was no piracy at all, and Dahir realized that the Islamists were looking for an excuse to launch another campaign - they had already tried 15 or times

But what happens from the Samani side is most interesting - they apparently quickly get in touch with the Caliphate and come to an understanding. Apparently the fortified city of Nerun under Samani influence, which played a vital and active role in supplying Qasim (with active participation by the Samani network) came to this agreement. Parts of the Gulf east coast leading to Indus had been conquered under Islam during the early course of the Caliphate-Sindh conflict. So it is not impossible that the Samani network was already working with the Caliphate, as it is difficult to see how otherwise they could come to agreements with a foreign potentate. There are some curious references to Deybul/Debal once having been given as wedding gift in one of the Sassanid emperors marriage, and of Dahir having sent soldiers to fight on the side of Yezdgerd III (the last Sassanid emperor) against the Islamists.

So the whole scenario most plausibly reduces to the southernmost sea-board of Sindh at this time either only partially under the control of Dahir (he is seen mostly spending time in the north), or formally with various feudal-semi-feudal mutual dependence relations with the Sassanids, and with less or no control over the western bank of Indus estuary.

The influence of Zoroastrianism, Nestorian Christianity, Manichaeism - all mixing up with a very narrow interpretation of Hinayana Buddhism only in doctrinal sense (but not obviously where material enjoyment is concerned!!!) created a heterodox ideology which used monastic organization as cover and tool for monetary, mercantile, and material comfort extraction from trade. It was this lack of any firm commitment to the land - Samanis are clearly shown to be urban, mercantile class living it up with all physical and material enjoyment, in well protected urban centres - while the agrarian interior supported "Hinduism/Brahmanism" more (shown in the much higher number of Shaiva-Neelkantha strand of temples compared to abandoned/ruined/declining sanghas) - that led to Samanis not resisting the Islamists, or finding nothing wrong in dealing with them, or allowing them to settle. [Repeatedly we find statements from Samanis in the narratives that indicate how prepared they were to give in and submit to Islamists to save their wealth, and the hope that their trading privileges will continue with Islamic lands]

The key to understanding the sources of confusion in the Sindhi "heterodox" buddhists lies in their "iconoclasm" as shown in Bodh Gaya. Living it up with women/wives/slaves/property/wealth while supporting "iconoclasm" is only seen consistently within the early Christian and Islamic sects. The Samanis probably did find Islamists closer to their own stand than the bulk of their countrymen.

Lessons :
(1) doctrinal heterodoxity - allows thinking of the type that "everything goes" as long as my material benefits are ensured
(2) the "prosperity/accumulation-first doctrine" : no resistance or military or political actions should be taken against forces that can jeopardize trade and accumulation of wealth.
(3) try to pick and highlight those parts of my existing ideology that can be made to be seen to be identical/"harmonic" with those foreigners with whom I want to go into mutually beneficial relations [iconoclasm in the case of Sindhi Buddhists/ absolute tolerance of everything from hostile religions in the modern period]
(4) my land/people/ are expendable under the comfort of saving my skin/my wealth/ future accumulation/

[naren]

B ji,

Great series, thank you ! Let me add some points.

It must be noted that Buddhism was the first movement in Bharat which broke the strict caste-occupation tradition at that time. Buddhism had genuine Masters & genuinely motivated followers, as we find from the Tibetan texts. There must have also been many adherents who crossed over just for climbing up the social ladder.

My theory for Pakistani's doing "equal equal only": They must have been from the so-called "oppressed castes" in their previous lives during the Buddhism era. Buddhism was the escape route for them. So they happily took it up & said "equal equal only" to their neighbour from oppressing caste. (i.e) Its a way of expressing that they are not inferior by birth in anyway to their neighbour. Even if you (not literally you) dont believe in Janma/Karma/Samskara, we can explain it in terms of collective psyche handed down from one generation to the next.

During Adi Shankara's time, Buddhism became very corrupt (ref to SV link I posted earlier). When AS presented His renewed religion, those who genuinely crossed over for spiritual reasons came back. Those went for material reasons stayed and continued to do their "equal equal only".

Another organizational weakness of Buddhism is its centralized, state-dependent structure. (This also shows Hinduism's solid stability of caste model, I'll explain that in detail some other time/thread.) When Islam came, they completely knocked out the head. The body of Buddhists, who were mostly in for == was presented with the same attractive options: social climbing, "equality". They happily took it up and did "== only" to their Hindu neighbour. They still continue to do it today !


Btw, who/what is Thaparites ?

[svinayak]

Btw, who/what is Thaparites ?

Looks like you are very late in this game

[JwalaMukhi]

Btw, who/what is Thaparites ?

The high priestess of marxist propaganda machinery, who was utterly responsible for lies, dam lies and white wash of Indian history for a very long period. Please refer to "eminent historians" by Shri.Arun Shourie, regarding these characters lead by romilla thapar. The chelas who stick and fervently propagate that ideologue are fondly referred to as Thaparites with respect.

[Sanku]

B ji,

Great series, thank you ! Let me add some points.

It must be noted that Buddhism was the first movement in Bharat which broke the strict caste-occupation tradition at that time. Buddhism had genuine Masters & genuinely motivated followers, as we find from the Tibetan texts.

There is no data to support that caste-occupation tradition existed any more or any less before and after Buddhism becoming prevalent.

There is also no data to support that this led to change in "caste hierarchy" if any.

Are there any texts which talk of such things in 1700 BCE (which is the time of Ashoka and Budhha?) or during later spread of Buddhism to countries outside India (The spread of Buddhism into Tibet is 6th Century ACE)

We can discuss this in distorted history thread.

@Brishpati -- what are the two main texts?
Chachanama and Al-Beruni's book?

[naren]

Btw, who/what is Thaparites ?

The high priestess of marxist propaganda machinery, who was utterly responsible for lies, dam lies and white wash of Indian history for a very long period. Please refer to "eminent historians" by Shri.Arun Shourie, regarding these characters lead by romilla thapar. The chelas who stick and fervently propagate that ideologue are fondly referred to as Thaparites with respect.

Thank you. I was thinking may be a word play from Tamil. Thappu = wrong, Thappaa = is it wrong ?, Thappa = that which is wrong. "Rite" could have been BENISed from "right". So, "Thaparites" can mean "that which is wrong, made right". Probably I wasn't off the mark

[naren]

Sanku ji, bliss to chk distorted thread.

[brihaspati]

The Maoists are activating the central-eastern sector in most likely a buildup to development of a low-intensity conflict between India and China that will be made to look like a civil war. The inputs into this civil war probably come from a wide ranging group of interests, from Jihadists, EJ'ists, parts of western covert establishments, China. The time for air-power was earlier, and that too covertly if possible. But now it is too late.

There is more likely to be significant penetration into the rashtryia establishment from the Maoist side or from Jihadi/EJ/western/Chinese side acting temporarily in favour of the Maoists as an effective "war-of-attrition" tool. Greater penetration is possible through local tie-ups and mutually beneficial relationships within political parties.

I would sense that the Maoists actually want greater involvement of the IA so that they can project themselves as contenders for rashtryia power and an independent rashtra itself. This is more likely a plan by which the Gangetic plains are being targeted to be squeezed from the west and the east. Air-power is likely to face surprising technological challenges from the Maoists. Is MI sure that the Maoists have not already been provided with hardware by PRC or its fronts through drugs/arms smugglers to test out on IAF?

[brihaspati]

Sanku ji,
Primarily the Chachnama (Persian version and Kalichbegs's translation differs a bit). Second, Tarikh Maasumi (and to a certain extent Tufatulkiram). I have taken the "caste" issue to the "distorted" thread. My views on this can be seen to be subversive on both sides of the divide, which I have tried to indicate there.

Caste, if any, was of little importance either in the victory or persistence of Bharat. But it did have some negative effects - where interaction with hostile foreign forces were concerned. Caste divisions in their negative form rose more out of tolerance of diversity from a mistaken (and perhaps malicious) interpretation of the Vaidika rather than any active pursuance of hierarchical dominance. It was a failure of incomplete homogenization and rise of a theory of harmonization (which also remained incomplete) that created these divisions.

To be fair, they arose more where people were in touch with foreign societies having hierarchical divisions themselves, and where trading relations developed both mercantilism as well as tolerance of diversity of foreign religions and their adherents to settle and continue practicing their religion.

[brihaspati]

Starting off from the Sindh-Samani-Islamist issue, we can actually grapple with some of the core strategic concerns of Bharatyia society living and developing their world-view in intimate contact with the land.

I will assume the generally academically accepted dating for the Magadhan ascendancy around Bimbisara in the 6th century BCE and him being contemporaneous with the Buddha we are concerned with. Alternatives can be explored but that perhaps belongs more to the "distorted" thread.

The first issue is that the whole process of rise of the Buddhist "deviation" from the Vaidika was an attempt to return to the Vaidika abstraction in the backdrop of a very real negative political/military experience - that of the loss of the western reaches of northern India to the Persians. The monasticism with obsessions about celibacy does not find a normal mention in the literature deriving from sources prior to the Buddhists - for all possible biological age-groups, in an organized order of monasticism.

It need not be a coincidence that such a monasticism developed exactly at this period. We note that both the Buddhists as well as Jainas show organized, monastic, celibacy character in the sixth century BCE, and are adopted by ambitious imperialist powers in the Gangetic Valley - with the philosophy being spread around by the most traveled section of society - the merchant-princes and traders. The traders were part of a network that went right across the north-west over Persian and Mesopotamian kingdoms and empires, where we know monastic orders to have risen before this period with the peculiar sexual and organized, semi-political, associate of empires - character. The traders could have brought these ideas all along the Gangetic valley. Moreover, as is pointed out, trading and merchant communities are eager to appear "harmonic" with foreign ideologies in the hope of uninterrupted prosperity. We should note that the four-fold division of society was formally adopted in the Persian empires and the Buddhists would perhaps find it convenient to revive the older philosophical Vedic categories and reshape it in analogous Persian manner, thereby starting the process that would lead to the later redefinition of "caste".

Thus the Buddhist revolution could be an exact reaction like that of the Samanis, or later Indonesian Buddhists, to the spread of Persian power in the west - by copying and remolding themselves or dusting out aspects of their pre-existing ideology that they think will help them to appear "compatible/harmomic" with the ME establishment. (This phenomenon could be hidden in the hints of "many" Buddhas before, and other issues OT here).

This trading/merchant prince leadership/character of Buddhism of this period can indicate the continued predominance of mercantilist interest in the sangha and its networks. The ideology was really a cover then to preserve trade interests and with time, it would then attract opportunists willing to use the cover for material ambitions. This shows up in the increasing reference to urban artisans and merchants and "entertainers" - all city based and all basically dependent on trade networks - as dominating Buddhism. This would point to the countryside, the real producers, those tied to the land growing gradually disillusioned and detached from the Buddhist ideology and establishment - which will be seen as exploitative and repressive.

The Buddhist networks would also develop mutually overlapping interests with foreign forces in the same way the Samanis do, and in the process deviate even from their earlier "puritanical" position. This will lead to disillusionment from idealist elite under Buddhist dominance to seek alternatives and will most likely find this in the now disempowered remnants of the Vaidik system held on to by pockets of Brahmin(scholar-ideologue)+Kshatryia(warrior-administrator-defence) resistance or orthodoxy. Further, the establishment Buddhists will be seen and suspected to be collaborators of foreign interests with perhaps a good degree of basis - as the Samani case shows. This could have led to the cases of warrior kings lashing out at the Sanghas - reported in buddhist literature.

With both the ideology, as well as the merchant class discredited, and suspected or accused of contributing to the defeat of indigenous society at the hands of foreign powers, we will see a revival of the older Brahmin+Kshatryia model where now, the vaishyas will be sought to be confined and isolated as a caste. Same would be the utility of "antajas", mlechchas and "shudras" as categories for those seen to be too much deviated in contact with the "foreign" or potentially rebellious. This would also explain the attraction for "idols/images/icons" as a challenger for Buddhist "iconoclasm".

We have extant "shuddhi" doctrines in the period immediately after contact with the Arabs, such as Devala-Smriti, give specific and detailed procedures to be followed for those "contaminated" in connection with Arabs and Islamics - participating in obvious Islamic practices like killing cows and eating beef, or cohabiting with Muslim women, even undertaking destruction of Vedic sites etc under duress - for less than a month by rites of "prajapatya". The list goes on to even describe how women abducted, or enslaved or forced to become pregnant by Muslims could reenter society after appropriate rites were performed. However, significantly, beyond 20 years - cohabiting with Muslims was seen as irredeemable. At a time of low life expectancy - probably varying from 35-60 years, such a period would be seen as too long portion of life -where the person is likely to have come to substantial compromises with the Islamics to be reliable as a re-entrant.

I would see that the ancient philosophical categories would now come in handy and adaptable as categories to slot people in. The derogatory and suspicious, "under surveillance" categories of "vaishyas" and "shudras" and "antajas" will develop from the experience of the Samani like Buddhist and similar orders, and the Muslims themselves. The mistrust of Islamics would be natural, given that even Islamics granted asylum and protection from their own regimes turned in favour of invading Muslim armies. This was the case of Alafi, who was a fugitive from the Ummayad Caliphate, and fought alongside Dahir's forces against neighbouring Indian kings but refused to fight against Qasim - and was actually forgiven later because of this treachery - by the Caliph. So people who had been in long contact with the Islamics, even if they were not fanatical Islamists - would not be trusted and would be kept under pressure.

This would be the final transformation of the reinvention of varna as "caste" where intermingling will be seen suspicious and dangerous, especially from those sections suspected to have been (and like the merchants still trading with the Islamics - continuing to) in touch with and ideologically contaminated by the foreigners.

This should be characterized as an attempted homogenization that remained incomplete as long as the Islamics themselves could not be divested of their identification with cultural centres and societies outside of India. It was an attempted homogenization, because the "Indian" component gone into the foreign sphere was sought to be reabsorbed entirely shedding their Islamist aspects, but had to be necessarily left incomplete, because the military erasure of the continued sources of contamination could not be carried out. What resulted was an incomplete homogenization as well as an incomplete harmonization of the "foreign/suspected/untrusted" with that of "indigenous/core" - and has been gifted to us as modern caste.

The homogenization was incomplete and the resulting harmonization simply pasted over fractures that would remain weaknesses for subsequent and progressive expansion of "foreigners", and hence the periodic attempts to correct that, [like the Bhakti movements from both Shaivas and Vaishnavas] which however had to take into account pre-existing ideological burden and wandered around not always with success, and sometimes creating more problems. The problems started with employing practical tools of mobilization which were however themselves subject to errors and overshadowing the real Vedic understanding and leading to further errors.

Lessons :
Ideological shortcuts and compromises out of practical political and military considerations should be firmly recorded and understood as compromises and should not be made part of the ideology itself. Their temporary and transient nature should be highlighted, and at least the core should maintain a careful, rigorous and detached understanding of the very process of compromise and clearly recognize the dangers it implies of being used in the future as core ideology itself.

If we see such practical compromises as compromises, and temporary ones, there will be less psychological difficulty later on to mobilize the "leaders" themselves - which itself needs more effort than to "mobilize" the masses. A lot of time and effort is wasted in bringing consensus on subjects which would not have confused the "leaders" themselves - if the authors of "compromises" clearly indicated them as such in their statements for posterity - even if for secret, "your eyes only" and "classified" texts.

[ramana]

Also wasn't the centuries old Janapada system (16 janapadas) breaking down with Bimbisara's consolidation of the janapadas around Magadha? What was the impact of this on the rise of Buddhism? Was it a reaction to Bimbisara's imperial quest? Maybe to temper it? We see that three centuries later we have the Mauryan empire merging all the janapadas.

[brihaspati]

The traders would find a single empire protecting their interests along the Gangetic Plains to the Persian inteface in western India, beneficial. In turn, Bimbisara would find it helpful to appear a "Buddhist" and sponsor them because of this west-Indian taxation source. So Buddhists would quickly become part of the imperial establishment. The reaction and resistance to Buddhism following Bimbisara has been represented negatively by the Buddhists, but in my model they would appear as an indigenous reaction which however lost out.

We see the effects in obviously greater information of military significance possibly leaking out through this international traders (just as scholars like Al Beruni, and traders before him provided details of North India useful to Ghori) - in the Persian expansion in the Indus Valley, and Alexanders adventure that apparently produced a plethora of Indo-Greek, Indo-Bactrian potentates in the west. Even the Mauryan empire is suspected of having a strong Persian influence or component [the archaeological level corresponding to this period of Patraliputra] and possibly the reason that there are severe criticisms of the Mauryas from certain quarters in India as "foreigners". The continued influence of monastic orders on this dynasty is significant, and may explain why the succeeding regime will be violent against the "Buddhists". Buddhism was naturally seen as "foreign" and its influence could be seen as "foreign" influence which acted against indigenous interests and culture.

[ramana]

Can you comment on the Indo-Greeks/Buddhists supporting Ashoka, the governor of Takshshila, in the war of succession in Pataliputra after Bindusara?

[naren]

Let me share my view on the harmonization/homogenization debate.

It may run into many posts. So I will give an overview of the points I'm going to cover and then progressively work towards it.

0. Intro
1. The generic idea of Diversity in the Universe
2. Caste behaviour in the animal kingdom (ants, carnivore-herbivore, alpha behaviour in pack animals)
3. Evolution of human society
4. Understanding "power" as it applies to the human society
5. Evolution of classes
6. Class recognition vs class destruction
7. Jati system & parallels with #2
8. Individualism vs Collectivism
9. Speculations, theories, whatnot (happy ending )

[naren]

0. Intro

There are two ways of reasoning. I'd like to call them "logical" & "inspirational".

Logical is bottom up, algebraic, mathematical, detail-to-generalization, you get the picture. When you start from known facts and try to arrive at a conclusion, that is Logical reasoning.

Inspirational is top down, creativity-driven, somewhat "religious". You start from the conclusion and refine it by constantly validating against facts.

Often times, Logical reasoning tends to go in circles without any clear end. Inspirational reasoning gives a good insight. Inspiration fills the gap which often gets missed in the mainstream logical discussion. Many of the greatest thinkers were inspiration driven, rather than logic driven.

The problem with History analysis is always separating fact from an opinion. People who record the history often bring their personal character (samskara) and colorize the discussion. (As in Adi Shankara's analogy, the ignorant man sees the snake when its just a rope). And there are also victorious politicians who insert their propaganda & the defeated who insert their exaggerated victimizations. In such cases, we need to look at the events in a broader context, from philosophical, metaphysical, psychological, sociological etc. and arrive at deeper understanding.

That is the style I'm trying to adopt for this discussion. So my whole series of posts is going to be a big "assumption". We can then validate it against facts and refine it.

[Sanku]

There is a reason why this post is not in distorted history but here --

Even the Mauryan empire is suspected of having a strong Persian influence or component [the archaeological level corresponding to this period of Patraliputra] and possibly the reason that there are severe criticisms of the Mauryas from certain quarters in India as "foreigners".

Can you comment on the Indo-Greeks/Buddhists supporting Ashoka, the governor of Takshshila, in the war of succession in Pataliputra after Bindusara?

Although I am (as you already know) in large agreement with your views, some of the above hypothesis, while correct in "general" description of possible evolution of system(s) has a few points of contention which are critical to its correctness.

The above being one -- how can Mayuran and the archeological layer of Patliputra be considered till we have *fixed* the date of the Mauyra's.

If the astronomical + Puranic + Buddhist understanding of chronology is considered (in place of highly dubious current scholarship) Mauyra's existed around 1600-1800 BCE. What were the then Persian architecture and influences? How important was trade then to effect the prominence of local merchant classes.

Considering that merchants appear to be a strong element of society even in the late Swaraswati civilization which also corresponds to later Puranic period(?) -- a strong bastion of "traditional" Vadik society, why do the Merchants become *subversive* in a period by Buddha's time?

Did the Greek-Yavans see Buddhism and record it as a major influence, hardly as I understand.

This above is therefore unlikely --- the subversiveness of trade appears to have started after some amount of Military success by the Malecchas (which may or may not have needed a very deep information source from the trade route, mere reputation could have sufficed as we see many times including the 16th Century)

Prior to that trade takes the essential meme of the stronger civilization and spreads it around, some times in a tempered form with some sub-branches or partial knowledge catching fancy in distant land where the information was incompletely transferred (as opposed to formally correct transfer through real custodians of knowledge in core civilization)

A OSMOTIC model so to say, played out a cultural levels.

[brihaspati]

Sanku ji,
I started out in the Indian portion by clearly stating that I am assuming the current academic "chronology" for Bimbisara+Rajagriha phase+Buddha. I also keep an open mind for alternative chronology, and mentioned that those other dates can also be explored. Because it will go into history per-se - I did not want to go into it here.

naren ji,

all I am trying to point out is that we should isolate the timeless component of the Vaidika realization - that hwich is not specifically tied to any social form but concerned more with the human civilizational quest - and keep it as the fundamnetal ideological core.

All theorizing and doctrinal dogma about particular social forms, their origins and their utilities etc belong to the practical side of "living" and the human social experience of thinkers and administrators. Here people could have compromised with "reality" as they saw it, and come to adjustments or inventions that justified the amount of effort and costs they were willing to pay or had the capacity to pay.

These compromises, should be explored for their practical nature and separated from the core principle - so that what appeared to or is claimed to have worked for a certain group at a certain time and in a particular area need not be enforced to all peoples at all times and at all places blindly. They could be useful, they need not be useful for current or future situations. We should not make it into the ten commandments or the Shariat. When you make it a rigid association that can be tactically as well as strategically disadvantageous.

So I would prefer to take prescription for the so-called "Hindu" social reality of "modern castes", or other claims of diversity as relics of historical compromises with pre-existing interests/groups/alliances/power structures. Thy may have merit, they need not have merit. They should be seen as the superstructure and not the core driving the superstructure.

To enhance and carry on the core objective, we should be able to modify the superstructure as and when needed. If we fuse the two then inappropriateness in a given situation, redounds on the core itself - and the core gets discredited or jeopardized.

The core of open-minded seeking of knowledge and a never-ending quest for understanding - should take precedence over all other aspects. The other aspects could be good, wonderful, superb for given situations - but they should come lower in the priority.

Diversity has mostly been the excuse to preserve multiple rigidities that are products of specific historical experiences, and the human tendencey to rely on simplifying models of complex phenomena. Problem comes when people fail to remember that they are after all holding on to a model which was an attempt at understanding or description. I am guessing, that you would be familiar with a certain poets lines which goes on the form of

"[when the ceremonial chariot is brought out and pulled by devotees]/
the chariot thinks it is the "deva/
the rope used to pull the chariot thinks it is the deva/
the idol on the chariot thinks it is the deva/
only the "Real One/Insider" smiles/"

Here the chariot, the rope, the idol - all have symbolic meanings and wonderful, deep - relevant meanings, even deep practical utility. But the danger lies in that people may forget that these are just conveninet tools and creations of the human mind to solve problems of perception/education/grasping of concepts and of course models. If the chariot or the idol is taken to be more than they really are, then in a real war situation say - people can be disheartened if the idol gets a cannon shot and crumbles into dust, or the chariot catches fire. Or you spend vital resources on protecting them when you needed to save your army and people and put them to better use.

Just a gentle reminder that I have tried to confine my discussion on harmonization/homogenization" with respect to impact on the military-political strategic scenario of the subcontinent with the ME/Mediterranean connection used for both connections as well as illustration.

If you feel that your posts may go out more into the theoretical foundations and philosphical aspects then perhaps it should be taken to the "distorted" thread. This is just a request.

[naren]

B ji,

Let me have my say before we debate on each other views please. I believe I am as practical as anyone and not pushing "Ten Commandments" in the name of reason.

I will continue on the distorted thread, though I feel that the foundational-understanding is very much relevant for this thread.

[ramana]

Naren please take the posts to the distorted history thread and build the case there.

Thanks, ramana

[brihaspati]

A very long time ago, we discussed Maldives and its role in Jihad in the IOR. I had discussed the gradual transition over the years in its more or less passive Islamism towards a more active form facilitated by returnees from the madrassah system in Pakistan.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/ ... 49229.html

Maldives hosts Afghan peace talks

Rival Afghan figures have held a final day of unofficial talks in the Maldives islands, aimed at resolving the continuing crisis in Afghanistan. The meeting at the Paradise tourist resort island took place on Thursday and Friday and involved around 25 opposition representatives, an official Maldivian source told AFP news agency. Representives from the Taliban and the Afghan government attended the talks.

There was no immediate statement on the outcome of the meeting, which was organised by Jarir Hekmatyar, the son-in-law of Gulbadin Hakmatyar, an Afghan warlord and leader of the Hezb-e-Islami party. Gulbadin is considered to be one of Afghanistan's most wanted men and has sent his son, Feroz, to represent him at the meeting. "What we understand is that they are trying to forge unity among themselves," the source said.

Mohammed Nasheed, the Maldivian president, said in a statement it had helped with the gathering in the interest of peace in the region. "Afghanistan's stability affects the peace and security of our region. The government of Maldives supports efforts to bring a resolution to the conflict in Afghanistan," Nasheed's press secretary said.

Al Jazeera's Dan Nolan, reporting from the island, said that Western officials had been deliberately excluded from the process. "There are no international observers here. The people organising these talks say these are Afghan problems that need Afghan solutions".

Karzai's plan

The meeting is the second such gathering held in the Maldives and it comes ahead of a grand assembly, or "jirga", of Afghan tribal and community leaders, called by Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, scheduled for the end of May.
[...]
His plan calls for the removal of names of certain Taliban leaders from a UN blacklist and possibly giving them asylum in another Islamic country from where they can engage in talks with the Afghan government.
[...]
The Maldives may seem an unlikely location for a meeting of this type, but the popular tourist destination is used to host the talks because it is one of few countries that issues visas to Afghans on arrival. Many of the participants would risk arrest if they attended such a meeting in Afghanistan.

What is crucial to note is that, Afghanis and Talebs actually have to cross the open ocean to reach Maldives. If catching a flight is difficult from AFG, then they have to either go through Balochistan - Gulf and then take flights from any of the sympathetic carriers from the Islamic countries of ME. Or they need Iranian safe-passage. Even on international flights they will need official cooperation of the departure country to provide aliases and cover ids.

The other way is straightforward, and involves travel by ocean going vessels. Even then they have to cross the expanse of the eastern Arabian sea somehow.

Is it entirely impossible that they are actually using some route through western India?

[brihaspati]

Three items to ponder about Maldives as a good transit point for "Jihad" against India. It is likely that the growing power of Islamists in Maldives is showing in posturing through a deceptive stance of seeking India's "cooperation". In a way this is a way of shifting the blame and pretending helplessness.

Note that this self proclaimed "tolerant" and "moderate" "Islamic" country bans any "proselytization" from non-Muslims sources. Even non-Muslim symbols/icons/texts can lead to prosecution if they are suspected of not being for personal use only. Even translating a non-Muslim religious text can lead to conviction at a Maldivean court of law.

The proximity of Maldives to India, its isolated and scattered islands, make it extremely attractive to provide a base for Islamic Jihad.

Maldivean "educated" youth going into jihad against India

NEW DELHI: Maldives on Sunday said some youths from the country are being recruited by militant outfits based in Pakistan and Afghanistan to wage 'jihad' and sought India's cooperation in preventing "any passage" for these people through the country.

Maldivian vice president Mohammaed Waheed Hassan, who is on a visit here, said an increasing number of youths from his country have started "embracing a version of Islam which is more strict than the traditional Islamic values". "Some of these people are going to Pakistan and Afghanistan and are waging jihad. We want these people back... We need them for our development," Hassan said.

He said Maldives wants India's cooperation in preventing "any passage for these youngsters" through it.
"These are students and it is very easy for them to say they are going to puruse education and then...," he said, in an obvious reference to such youths.

Dr Baari says President is not trying to establish a church in the Maldives thumbnail

By Minivan News | April 22nd, 2010 |


Minister of Islamic Affairs Abdul Majeed Abdul Baari said accusations made by the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) that President Mohamed Nasheed is seeking advice from the Islamic Ministry to establish a church in the Maldives are false, reports Miadhu.

Dr Baari said “missionary work has been in the Maldives for quite some time. But this government is working with the Islamic Ministry to eradicate that work.” He pointed out several instances in which the previous government was linked to ’spreading Christianity’ such as the opening of Salaam School, which was opened by former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom himself.

Minister Baari claimed Christian missionaries had been using the word ’salaam’ to spread their religion in Muslim countries and said Gayoom was then forced to close the school. He mentioned a teacher in Mauhadh school who was trying to spread Christianity in the school and was sent to another island, but not removed from the country.

Dr Baari also mentioned the former president’s personal photographer, Najmi, was convicted for translating the Bible into Dhivehi language, and said several members of the previous administration were distributing Christian books in the country.

Maldives asked Germany for help in implementing Sharia law

Posted : Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:30:10 GMT

Berlin - Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed said on Thursday that his country was looking at German scholars' expertise in Islamic law to help consolidate its young democracy, after meeting German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin. "I have done my homework and I am quite aware of the amount of German discourse in Islamic jurisprudence," Nasheed said, adding that German universities had dominated in this area during the early 20th Century.

Nasheed said adding that he would welcome German assistance in building up their own version of Sharia law in the Maldives.

While Maldivian law was based on Sharia, Nasheed warned against jumping to the wrong conclusions. "We are a more tolerant and free country, and we want to keep it that way," the president said.

[ramana]

Bji X-post. An interpretation of modern science under the shadow of J-C ethos.....



Link:
http://www.simplyvedic.org/html/literat ... nce-3.html

The practically employed time concept of the modern historical scientist, including the archaeologist, strikingly resembles the traditional Judaeo-Christian time concept. And it strikingly differs from that of the ancient Greeks and Indians.

This observation is, of course, an extreme generalisation. In any culture, the common people may make use of various time concepts, linear and cyclical. And among the great thinkers of any given period, there may be many competing views of both cyclical and linear time. This was certainly true of the ancient Greeks. It can nevertheless be safely said that the cosmological concepts of several of the most prominent Greek thinkers involved a cyclic or episodic time similar to that found in the Puranic literature of India. For example, we find in Hesiod's Works and Days (129-23406-201) a series of ages (gold, silver, bronze, heroic, and iron) similar to the Indian yugas. In both systems, the quality of human life gets progressively worse with each passing age. In On Nature (Fragment 17) Empedocles speaks of cosmic time cycles. In Plato's dialogues there are descriptions of revolving time (Timaeus 38 a) and recurring catastrophes that destroy or nearly destroy human civilisation (Po liticus 268 d ff). Aristotle said in many places in his works that the arts and sciences had been discovered many times in the past (Metaphysics 1074 b 10, Politics 1329 b 25) In the teachings of Pythagoras, Plato, and Empedocles regarding transmigration of souls, this cyclical pattern is extended to individual psychophysical existence.

When Judaeo-Christian civilisation arose in Europe, another kind of time became prominent. This time has been characterised as linear and vectorial. Broadly speaking, this time concept involves a unique act of cosmic creation, a unique appearance of the human kind, and a unique history of salvation, culminating in a unique denouement in the form of a last judgement. The drama occurs only once. Individually, human life mirrored this process; with some exceptions, orthodox Christian theologians did not accept transmigration of the soul.

Modern historical sciences share the basic Judaeo-Christian assumptions about time. The universe we inhabit is a unique occurrence. Humans have arisen once on this planet. The history of our ancestors is regarded as a unique though un-predestined evolutionary pathway. The future pathway of our species is also unique. Although this pathway is officially unpredictable, the myths of science project a possible overcoming of death by biomedical science and mastery over the entire universe by evolving, space-travelling humans. One group, the Santa Fe Institute, sponsor of several conferences on "artificial life," predicts the transferral of human intelligence into machines and computers displaying the complex symptoms of living things (Langton 1991, p.xv) "Artificial life" thus becomes the ultimate transfiguring salvation of our species.

One is tempted to propose that the modern human evolutionary account is a Judaeo-Christian heterodoxy, which covertly retains fundamental structures of Judaeo-Christian cosmology, salvation history, and eschatology while overtly dispensing with the scriptural account of divine intervention in the origin of species, including our own.

This is similar to the case of Buddhism as Hindu heterodoxy. Dispensing with the Hindu scriptures and God concepts, Buddhism nevertheless retained basic Hindu cosmological assumptions such as cyclical time, transmigration, and karma.

Another thing the modern human evolutionary account has in common with the earlier Christian account is that humans appear after the other life forms. In Genesis, God creates the plants, animals, and birds before human beings. For strict literalists, the time interval is short - humans are created on the last of six of our present solar days. Others have taken the Genesis days as ages. For example, around the time of Darwin, European scientists with strong Christian leanings proposed that God had gradually brought into existence various species throughout the ages of geological time until the perfected earth was ready to receive human beings (Grayson 1983). In modern evolutionary accounts, anatomically modern humans retain their position as the most recent major species to occur on this planet, having evolved from preceding hominids within the past 100,000 or so years. And despite the attempts of prominent evolutionary theorists and spokespersons to counteract the tendency, even among evolution scientists, to express this appearance in teleological fashion (Gould 1977, p. 14), the idea that humans are the crowning glory of the evolutionary process still has a strong hold on the public and scientific minds. Although anatomically modern humans are given an age of about 100,000 years, modern archaeologists and anthropologists, in common with Judaeo-Christian accounts, give civilisation an age of a few thousand years, and, again in common with Judaeo-Christian accounts, place its earliest occurrence in the Middle East.

I do not here categorically assert a direct causal link between earlier Judeao-Christian ideas and those of the modern historical sciences. Demonstrating that, as Edward B. Davis (1994) points out in his review of recent works on this subject, needs much more careful documentation than has yet been provided. But the many common features of the time concepts of the two knowledge systems suggest these causal links do exist, and that it would be fruitful to trace connections in sufficient detail to satisfactorily demonstrate this.

[Brad Goodman]

I am a novice to history. I was wondering if some one could shed life on Jainism and its impact to hinduism of that era. The reason I am interested is most jains we find today come from paki border are of Rajasthan & Gujarat. So is it possible that people in Sindh Lower Punjab might have been jains rather than Buddhists or was it that jainism was already dead by the time qasim came

[Airavat]

Just prior to the Arab invasions, the Chinese pilgrim Hieun Tsang traveled across India, and gave an account of the monasteries, temples, and followers of various faiths in the different parts of the country. With regard to Sindh he says that there were 10,000 Buddhist monks there and many monasteries. He does not mention any Nirgranthas (Jains) in these outlying regions.

After the Arab invasion of Sindh, many of these Buddhists found refuge in neighboring Gujarat, at the Mahavihara (great monastery) of Kampilya near Surat, while others fled further east.

Rajasthan and parts of Gujarat remained under Hindu rule and that is why Jainism continued to flourish here. It's followers largely belonged to the mercantile communities, many of whose members served as ministers in the Rajput states. Apart from the temples in Dilwara and Ranakpur, every Rajput fort has a large number of Jain temples. And Jain literature is extremely important in reconstructing the history of the Rajput states.

For a time Jainism also flourished in Maharashtra and Karnataka, under the Kadambas, Gangas, Hoysalas, and Chalukyas and a huge number of Jain shrines and pilgrimage centers are located here. But with the Turk invasion and establishment of the Bahmani Sultanate, Jainism lost its royal patronage and today only marginal communities follow this ancient faith here.

[brihaspati]

Brad Goodman wrote
I am a novice to history. I was wondering if some one could shed life on Jainism and its impact to hinduism of that era. The reason I am interested is most jains we find today come from paki border are of Rajasthan & Gujarat. So is it possible that people in Sindh Lower Punjab might have been jains rather than Buddhists or was it that jainism was already dead by the time qasim came

I have indicated in my previous posts, that Hiuen Tsang's narrative already described the Sindhi Buddhists as following the Sammitya thread of Hinayana Buddhism - which by his own words was a very narrow interpretations of "saddharma", that he saw many sangharams in ruins, and that the saddharma was fast disappearing from that region, with alien and non-Buddhist (as he understood Buddhism should be) forms fast entering the local practices. Between him and Qasim there is a considerable gap in time.

Moreover, our refs for the Qasim period come from non-Indian sources heavily influenced by the interpretations of Indic philosophies in the ME cultures. [I mentioned the problematic Romano-Greek "samanoi", and the obvious deviations from claimed Buddhist practice in the "samanis" described by the Islamists].

There is now new research that indicates, mainly through but not restricted to - the study of Manichaeist literature (there are some archaeological arguments too) that certain branches of Jainism could have been influential in Sindh regions prior to arrival of Qasim. At the very least, the monastic order+mercantile class of "samanis" of Islamist narratives could have been a rather heterodox group with components of belief and practice not strictly adhering to classical or formal Buddhist sects, and could actually have very strong components of Jain belief and practice.

I will try to write more elaborately in the "distorted" thread.

The painting of overwhelming role of Buddhism to the rather downgraded and denigrated role of non-Buddhist philosophies of Indian past - is more a western need and western construct and definitely part of a political strategy for modern India. For the future ideological control of India, it is important for interested groups to marginalize the historical impact and role of Jainism and Vedantic threads. Sometimes attributes of these "others" are usurped into the representations of "Buddhism" to deny derivation of "historical Buddhism" from the more sustained religious communities of modern India.

Buddhism is the ideal tool for both Indian "vacuum" ideologists as well as western interests for teh ideological manipulation of India's future. Because of its virtual non-existence, it can be painted as a historically glorious past of India destroyed by the still continuing "other"s. At one stroke current distinctly "Indic" claims of cultural identity can be denigrated and a renewal of Indic nationalism based on what it still holds on to can be kept under a cloud of "suspicion" of "violence" and "intolerance".

[Brad Goodman]

Thanks Airavat ji & Brihaspati ji for taking time to share your wisdom with us. I think it will be interesting if some one researched why people in wholesale accpeted jainism and buddhism's pacifism in light of invading hoardes who were hell bent on destroying their freedom and their life as well as properties. Look at other buddhist countries in SE Asia I dont think they really gave up violence for self defence. I read Veer Savarkar's work but dont remember much detals been long time. He had really put in a detailed account of that time.