Strategic leadership for the future of India

[ramana]

Border defense is one of the 20 critical sub-systems of ALL living systems. A system that does not defend its boundaries dies, according to Dr. James Miller in Living Systems.

Its as 1k page tome - a deadly weapon when thrown at opponents.
Nevertheless, it is an interesting work. Much updating is required based on memes and meme-complexes.

Absorbing any territory from Af-Pak is an expensive transaction, with no apparent benefit.
Better to game a loose federation with peripheral states in an economic and fuzzy defense union
(not just west of Bharat).
In the west, I agree, that it is better to go till the Indus and draw the Laxman Rekha there.
PS: We still will need a buffer with Persia when Af-Pak is not longer a threat

I gradually understood the dilemma that Bharat varsha thinkers of yore had - border areas want to be outside of the umbra of the Indo Gangetic plains but are need to be there for the security and stability of the I-G plains since time immemorial. In the epic age we see of the many repeated conquests by the I-G rulers. One ruler manages to conquer a periphery region and it gets spunoff in two to three generations and a new conquest has to occur and the cycle repeats. In the historic age (pre-and post-Maurayan period) the slowness of Maghadan expansion westward led to the festering problem of weak states on the periphpery that could not withstand the Persian, Greek, Scythian, Parthian, Huns and Arabic and Islamic invasions.

So a weak federation on the periphery is not a desirable soultion from Indian poit of view. The Western periphery has to be tied firmly to the I-G plains in every form.

And with the Fak-ap in Af-Pak, the time is sooner than latter.

[Pulikeshi]

So a weak federation on the periphery is not a desirable soultion from Indian poit of view. The Western periphery has to be tied firmly to the I-G plains in every form.

And with the Fak-ap in Af-Pak, the time is sooner than latter.

One clariphication - is the Lakshman Rekha along the Indus or beyond to west?

I am fine with what You/Samuel/Brihaspati suggest on the Indus,
but beyond that it seems like we set ourselves up for direct competition with the Persians & Afghans.

Two "frogs" we need to eat - inherent internal cost to manage increased complexity in the closed system and maintenance of buffer with other large civilizational states.
Borders are important, but even more important are cushions or buffers with other entities.

[ramana]

The big strategic picture that has been settled is the need for India to de-Partition Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan. The details are to be worked out. Hithertofore the consensus was that a loose federation of independent entities maybe with "Lichtenestein" status was the most acceptable outcome of TSP collapse. What we have realized now is thats not desirable from Indian presepective. This is a great step forward especially since the Pentagon, Ralph Peters, Bernard Lewis, the Pashtunistan bill boards all have one idea to retain Punjab and Sindh as contiguous regions in a truncated TSP.

Borders or frontiers are to be drawn next.

While doing this consider the fact that both Afghanistan and Pashtun areas are not viable eocnomically and need some subsidy. Historically it was always the Indo-Gangetic plains that provided it (from Mahabharata: Shakuni mama to Mughal times). However after de-colonization the subsidy was from the West through multi-national financial institutions or direct 'aid". So while they may have interests they dont have the moolah. This is where the financial/economic collapse comes into picture. It reduces the subsidy available to pay-off these folks.

So one of the frogs is tadpole.

[samuel]

As earlier, i will continue pushing the idea of the frontier-propagating smoother as the algorithm for core consolidation and expansion. The basic idea is place border one step out, smooth interior.

So place border at sindhu and smooth all differences within. Smoothing will imply unified Punjab, unified Kashmir. Balochistan will become an independent country and the buffer for the world from the south.

To sustain this boundary, there have to be secondary fronts. First front is a "shia front" running behind afghanistan to Iran and the caspian sea. The second is the "CAR front" running straight through to Tajikistan. Ayni is the pivot for both fronts and I see the wisdom of doing what was done there. The ends of these lines must be extremely stable pacts. India-IR, India-RU and India-Kazakh. If we can accomplish this Afghanistan will calm down for a long time to come, Baloch will be the early warning playing field of the future.

All eyes will turn north and east then.

Well, that's the hope anyway.

S

[Pranav]

I gradually understood the dilemma that Bharat varsha thinkers of yore had - border areas want to be outside of the umbra of the Indo Gangetic plains but are need to be there for the security and stability of the I-G plains since time immemorial. In the epic age we see of the many repeated conquests by the I-G rulers. One ruler manages to conquer a periphery region and it gets spunoff in two to three generations and a new conquest has to occur and the cycle repeats. In the historic age (pre-and post-Maurayan period) the slowness of Maghadan expansion westward led to the festering problem of weak states on the periphpery that could not withstand the Persian, Greek, Scythian, Parthian, Huns and Arabic and Islamic invasions.

So a weak federation on the periphery is not a desirable soultion from Indian poit of view. The Western periphery has to be tied firmly to the I-G plains in every form.

And with the Fak-ap in Af-Pak, the time is sooner than latter.

I don't think its correct to apply medieval paradigms to today's security problems. In the era of ICBMs and cruise missiles a medieval-style land invasion is an impossibility. For example, as the Brahmos CEO Pillai was saying, an opening salvo of 5000 Brahmos missiles can bring an adversary to his knees in minutes, even without going nuclear.

In today's age, although we do need modern force projection technologies, we really need to be more concerned about subtler political control - control of the news media, entertainment industry and social science textbooks, election rigging through EVMs, secret networks of people with foreign loyalties, control over monetary policies (i.e. control over the money supply), that sort of thing.

[Prem]

Pranav , you have put forth a new case /reason for not educating Jihadi society as it will contribute not toward upliftment but only in making jihadis more efficient and deadly. Providing scientific education to islamists equals to abetting terorrism at this historical moment.

[Pranav]

Pranav , you have put forth a new case /reason for not educating Jihadi society as it will contribute not toward upliftment but only in making jihadis more efficient and deadly. Providing scientific education to islamists equals to abetting terorrism at this historical moment.

It's not just the "Jihadis". There are also other forces interested in global dominance. It is not an unimaginable scenario that war is triggered between the Jihadis and India using false-flag terrorist attacks and / or "useful idiots".

Also, I mentioned monetary policy. How control over the money supply can be used to gradually take over the whole economy using inflation-deflation cycles - that is a science in itself. It is instructive to look at the plight of the Tatas - they took huge foreign currency loans during an inflationary period to acquire Corus and Jaguar-Land Rover. Now they have to repay those loans during a period of deflation. It is conceivable that they may have to sell chunks of their companies to avoid bankruptcy. The value of a rupee or a dollar is an ephemeral thing. Suzlon, Arcelor-Mittal have similar problems. That is how control over an economy is lost, piece by piece. Fortunately, Indian monetary policy still appears to be under sovereign control, as of now. Those who avoided foreign currency loans have been spared.

[brihaspati]

Pranavji,
War is an extension of politics - it remains true from the time Klauswitz says this, to the present day. That 5000 opening salvo will remain a fairy tale, unless the political will to take that step is lacking. Moreover a salvo is once - maintaining the hold over the populatrion is a much more complicated affair. What Ramanji is saying, is that the political control over these areas is crucial. This is not simply guaranteed by a salvo of 5000.

Moreover, missiles will be more effective against dense populations of the enemy. The territory of support of Taleb type movements in question has features where intense missile attacks may not be so effective. The support bases are "humans" and their capacity to "produce" more humans and resources to carry on the fight. These have to be captured or destroyed systematically - that needs politics and a rashtryia framework - occupation.

[Atri]

So a weak federation on the periphery is not a desirable soultion from Indian poit of view. The Western periphery has to be tied firmly to the I-G plains in every form.

And with the Fak-ap in Af-Pak, the time is sooner than latter.

One clariphication - is the Lakshman Rekha along the Indus or beyond to west?

I am fine with what You/Samuel/Brihaspati suggest on the Indus,
but beyond that it seems like we set ourselves up for direct competition with the Persians & Afghans.

Two "frogs" we need to eat - inherent internal cost to manage increased complexity in the closed system and maintenance of buffer with other large civilizational states.
Borders are important, but even more important are cushions or buffers with other entities.

Hindukush is the strategic and scientific border of Bhaarat, not Indus. The mountain ranges which encircle India from Baloochistan-Hindukush (Paariyatra Ranges)-Himalayas-eastern ranges in North-eastern states to Myanmar, thereby separating Bhaarat from Asia is the scientific border of Bhaarat. In fact, this whole region is referred to as India or Bhaarat by everybody.

Restoration of this border of Bhaarat which is its strategic and scientific border, should be the ultimate goal of Bhaaratiya polity.

[brihaspati]

Pulikeshi, and Chironji,
I am still inclined towards crossing the Indus right up to the mountains and upto AFG. Military experts can override me, but I think historical experience suggests holding on to bridgeheads across the river is more effective than maintining virtual borders through a river. I am also uncomfortable with leaving a space between the Indus and the AFG as free lunch for wolves.

[Atri]

Pulikeshi, and Chironji,
I am still inclined towards crossing the Indus right up to the mountains and upto AFG. Military experts can override me, but I think historical experience suggests holding on to bridgeheads across the river is more effective than maintining virtual borders through a river. I am also uncomfortable with leaving a space between the Indus and the AFG as free lunch for wolves.

true.. When Bhaaratiya armies have stopped chasing the invaders at Sindhu, they have returned much earlier than expected. Guptas (under Kumargupta and Skandagupta), Kharvela of Kalinga, Marathas and many others stopped at Sindhu. The invaders they were chasing returned back within a decade.

OTOH, Guptas (Under Samudragupta and Chandragupta -2 Vikramaditya), Sikhs, Mauryas, British, Mughals crossed Sindhu and kept the trans-Sindhu region subservient to Central power in Bhaarat, the stability was lasting. Mughals came from that region, but they kept it under tight control of Delhi, nonetheless. None of these empires stopped at Sindhu river considering it as the border. They in fact controlled the Hindu-Kush and the continuous mountain ranges overlooking the Khyber pass, the Bolan Pass and other major gateways of Bhaarat. This is when the Bhaarat enjoyed stability and prosperity.

Bhaaratiya expansion in future should not stop at Sindhu, but continue until these passes and the adjoining region is not under firm Bhaaratiya control.

Of course, in future, sea-routes will be more important than these traditional land-routes and for that we will have to control region from Suez and Hormuz to Malacca. This is the silk route of present and future which needs to be controlled by Bhaaratiya powers, as we did with actual silk-route in ancient and medieval times.

[Pranav]

Pranavji,
War is an extension of politics - it remains true from the time Klauswitz says this, to the present day. That 5000 opening salvo will remain a fairy tale, unless the political will to take that step is lacking. Moreover a salvo is once - maintaining the hold over the populatrion is a much more complicated affair. What Ramanji is saying, is that the political control over these areas is crucial. This is not simply guaranteed by a salvo of 5000.

Moreover, missiles will be more effective against dense populations of the enemy. The territory of support of Taleb type movements in question has features where intense missile attacks may not be so effective. The support bases are "humans" and their capacity to "produce" more humans and resources to carry on the fight. These have to be captured or destroyed systematically - that needs politics and a rashtryia framework - occupation.

Brihaspati ji, I am certainly not claiming that a salvo of missiles will ensure political control. But I am questioning the thesis that in this age, the security of the Indo-Gangetic plains can be assured by control over West Punjab and Sindh. If we maintain a modern defense capability, nobody can mount a medieval-style land invasion. That paradigm does not apply. The immediate threats to the Indo-Gangetic plains, and the rest of India, are of a far different nature to those in medieval times.

My own inclination is for a kind of protectorate status for the territories of Karachi, Multan / Seraikisthan, West Punjab, Balawaristhan etc. There should be defense treaties, economic frameworks, use of the same currency, maybe even some kind of "green card" status. But no national-level voting rights until the Islamist ideology is thoroughly tamed.

[svinayak]

Pulikeshi, and Chironji,
I am still inclined towards crossing the Indus right up to the mountains and upto AFG. Military experts can override me, but I think historical experience suggests holding on to bridgeheads across the river is more effective than maintining virtual borders through a river. I am also uncomfortable with leaving a space between the Indus and the AFG as free lunch for wolves.

Khyber pass was this strategic point. Control of khyber pass controls the security of the IG plains

[svinayak]

true.. When Bhaaratiya armies have stopped chasing the invaders at Sindhu, they have returned much earlier than expected. Guptas (under Kumargupta and Skandagupta), Kharvela of Kalinga, Marathas and many others stopped at Sindhu. The invaders they were chasing returned back within a decade.

OTOH, Guptas (Under Samudragupta and Chandragupta -2 Vikramaditya), Sikhs, Mauryas, British, Mughals crossed Sindhu and kept the trans-Sindhu region subservient to Central power in Bhaarat, the stability was lasting. Mughals came from that region, but they kept it under tight control of Delhi, nonetheless. None of these empires stopped at Sindhu river considering it as the border. They in fact controlled the Hindu-Kush and the continuous mountain ranges overlooking the Khyber pass, the Bolan Pass and other major gateways of Bhaarat. This is when the Bhaarat enjoyed stability and prosperity.

Bhaaratiya expansion in future should not stop at Sindhu, but continue until these passes and the adjoining region is not under firm Bhaaratiya control.

Of course, in future, sea-routes will be more important than these traditional land-routes and for that we will have to control region from Suez and Hormuz to Malacca. This is the silk route of present and future which needs to be controlled by Bhaaratiya powers, as we did with actual silk-route in ancient and medieval times.

Bhaaratiya expansion has to reach the source of the instability- Mecca/Medina.

[brihaspati]

Pranavji,
I had originally proposed incorporation of Sindh, and Pakjab and POK, offering but not isnsisting on the Balochs - and leading up to the AFG frontier. In these occupied areas, local self-government to a certain extent, but no full scale "state" assemblies until at least a generation passes by. Central rule/Union territory mechanism as modified by Acts of the Parliament to suit needs and ground conditions (may also need a new protocol for accession to India for future territories). Tight rashtryia control over education and other social processes, with continuing action to flush out the militants, liquidate the theologians (most of this latter should "happen" anyway as part of collateral damage during initial actions - we can even honour those "brave enemies" who laid down their lives for their "faiths". )

[Atri]

Bhaaratiya expansion has to reach the source of the instability- Mecca/Medina.

People from Mecca and Arabia, pre islamic or post islamic, were never concern for India. They invaded for only 100 years in history and were thoroughly defeated by Bhaarat. They are the concern of Persians. 8 invasions before Muhd bin Qasim were defeated by Sindh for 80 years continuously. After Qasim's conquest, they were repelled from Sindh within few decades by Sumer Rajputs after battle of Rajasthan.

India's concern has always been central Asia. Even before Islam, central asians have been invading India since the days of Rigveda. In fact, Rigveda gives first account of probable central asian invasion on Bhaaratas.

In fact, they are the only ones which were able to defeat Bhaarat partially or completely for some time. Persians and Chinese had no problems with us. The greeks which succeeded in venturing into India were again Bactrian greeks from Afghanistan, not the original Greeks. Shaka, Kushan, Hun, Mongol, Ghuri, Gaznavi, Mughal, Turks, Durranis, Taliban, all are central asian intruders. The Islam which ventured to Bhaarat successfully was central asian variant of original Islam which was accepted because of its user-friendly nature for tribal societies of medieval world. On very few occasions hardline Wahabi Arabic variant was exercised in Bhaarat. Once in later years of Aurangzeb and later in modern times after Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Barring these two times, the hard-line Wahabi Arabic version of Islam was not dominantly present Bhaaratiya socio-politics.

Gaaznavis and Ghuris invaded and looted Bhaarat and destroyed temples and converted people in the name of religion. But, it is matter of great speculation when it comes to how much Islamic were they, when seen from today's standards set by Taliban and Saudi Arabia about purity of Islam. So many of them were openly gay. Akbar dared to start his own religion and started calling himself Zill-e-Ilaahi (shadow/image of god) thereby associating himself with Allah, which is the most venereal sin of Islam. Only from 1970's that pakis started wanting to be closer to Arabs in terms of civilization. However, even today, they tend to venerate central asian invaders by giving their names to their missiles. Just because they invaded India. They conveniently forget that these guys (Ghori, Abdali, Gaznavi et al) raped Punjab and their Punjabi ancestors more than the ancestors of SDRE's in Ganges valley.

These central asians were problem for Persians and Chinese as well. Persia had two turbulent frontiers, one on the west with Greeks, Romans and Byzantium empire. The other on northeast with central Asians. They never treated Arabs as their concern, which led to their eventual downfall. Bhaarat, OTOH, had only one turbulent frontier, that is NWFP. Bhaarat did not fight any war with any of its neighbouring civilizations, except Central Asia, where there was no civilization. Just once with China in 1962 and very rarely with Persia, both Zoroastrian and Islamic.

There is really no need for Bhaarat to venture out of subcontinent through land. At the most, Tibet can be liberated, but no need to occupy it. Central Asia, since emergence of Russian Empire has been controlled. Russia is in good terms with Bhaarat, hence there is no reason this will change for few decades from now on. Russia needs access to warm waters. Bhaarat, being a trustworthy ally, can provide that access and everybody is happy.

P.S. the term Subcontinent includes southern Afghanistan and at least the Baloochistan coastline. If this area is secured, there is no reason for us to go anywhere else.

[svinayak]

Bhaaratiya expansion has to reach the source of the instability- Mecca/Medina.

People from Mecca and Arabia, pre islamic or post islamic, were never concern for India. They invaded for only 100 years in history and were thoroughly defeated by Bhaarat.

I used the term source of instability. The people of Mecca and Medina used other people such as Irani, Turkic and afgani to raid India during the medieval times. That is after conversion.

This war needs a powerful ideological component which can stop the heresy.

[Atri]

I used the term source of instability. The people of Mecca and Medina used other people such as Irani, Turkic and afgani to raid India during the medieval times. That is after conversion.

This war needs a powerful ideological component which can stop the heresy.

I would argue otherwise. Afghans, Turks and other central asians have always wanted to invade Bhaarat and get the riches of our country. Just that after conversion, they invaded as Muslims. Before conversion, they invaded as Huns, Kushans, Bactrian Greeks and Shakas. They showed the destructive tendency of iconoclasm even in their pre-islamic days, which is evident from the fact that university of Takshashila, the library and associated sacred structures was destroyed by Rudra-worshipping Shwet-Hun people led by Tormana and Mihirakula.

I agree with you that war needs to be ideological. But to ensure victory in ideological war, invasions from Khyber must be checked. Once that is done, there is no doubt that the ideological war will be won by Bhaaratiyas. We have assimilated thousands of such ideologies, Abrahamic ones are not a big deal with secure frontiers of Bhaarat firmly controlled by strong Indic Raaja (government) in centre.

With Ashok in centre, was spread of Buddhism far behind? With Vikramaditya in centre, was reinvention and resurgence of Astika schools far behind? With Strong Rajput confederacy in centre, was Adi Shankaracharya far behind? No.. Ideological components require Raaj-Aashraya (patronage by King) for them to turn into resurgence factors. Otherwise, ideological components cannot sweep a wave across Bhaarat solely on the basis of Lok-Aashraya (people's patronage). Buddhism was just another philosophical school prior to Ashok. Vaishnavaism was just another astika school prior to Samudragupta.

Powerful ideological component is present in our society. The only thing it is waiting for is some worthy governance in centre which secures the scientific and strategic frontiers of Bhaarat and which at the most provides Raaj-Ashraya to the revival of Bhaaratiya ideology; or at least provides a fair and neutral territory unbiased towards any Non-Indic ideology. Once this happens along with this political resurgence, ideological resurgence will take place too.

[svinayak]

I would argue otherwise. Afghans, Turks and other central asians have always wanted to invade Bhaarat and get the riches of our country. Just that after conversion, they invaded as Muslims. Before conversion, they invaded as Huns, Kushans, Bactrian Greeks and Shakas. They showed the destructive tendency of iconoclasm even in their pre-islamic days, which is evident from the fact that university of Takshashila, the library and associated sacred structures was destroyed by Rudra-worshipping Shwet-Hun people led by Tormana and Mihirakula.

They were raiding similar to Gengis Khan and for expansion. They were not imperialistic.
Islamic imperialism cannot be compared with the earlier ones.

I agree with you that war needs to be ideological. But to ensure victory in ideological war, invasions from Khyber must be checked. Once that is done, there is no doubt that the ideological war will be won by Bhaaratiyas. We have assimilated thousands of such ideologies, Abrahamic ones are not a big deal with secure frontiers of Bhaarat firmly controlled by strong Indic Raaja (government) in centre.

With Ashok in centre, was spread of Buddhism far behind? With Vikramaditya in centre, was reinvention and resurgence of Astika schools far behind? Powerful ideological component is present. The only thing it is waiting for is some worthy governance in centre which secures the scientific and strategic frontiers of Bhaarat. Once this happens along with this political resurgence, ideological resurgence will take place too.

Does India have any ideology now to spread to these region or to the rest of the world.

[Atri]

They were raiding similar to Gengis Khan and for expansion. They were not imperialistic.
Islamic imperialism cannot be compared with the earlier ones.

Does India have any ideology now to spread to these region or to the rest of the world.

Ghengiz Khan invaded with intent of establishing empire. Kushans, Shakas, Hunas, Bactrian Greeks and Confederacy of Ten Kings in Rigveda invaded Bhaarat with intent of establishing empire. And they were successful to various extent.

Mongols could not establish empire because of stiff resistance from Khiljis. Gaznavi, Khilji, Mughal, Ghuri, Kushan, Greeks, Hunas and Shakas, although originally came to loot, soon developed the desire to establish empire in Bhaarat and they did it to variable extent. It is human tendency to want more.

Regarding your second question, Bhaarat's primary task is to strengthen and ensure resurgence of its own civilizational influence on its territory first. When that is accomplished, rest of the world can be thought about by incumbent government. Of course, on its own, various ideologies of Bhaarat are spreading across the globe for thousands of years. They are mostly by people-to-people contact. Buddhist, Yog, Advaita, Vedanta, kamasutra etc have spread by these means throughout the world. Such spread does not require royal patronage. It happens purely by change of hearts.

[Keshav]

The only thing it is waiting for is some worthy governance in centre which secures the scientific and strategic frontiers of Bhaarat and which at the most provides Raaj-Ashraya to the revival of Bhaaratiya ideology; or at least provides a fair and neutral territory unbiased towards any Non-Indic ideology. Once this happens along with this political resurgence, ideological resurgence will take place too.

Your ideas about the spread of ideology are very antiquated and are at the root of the problem in India. The entire premise of your post was to establish the need for a government to do the work of securing and providing while you conveniently left out the average person.

What did people do during Independence when the government was not on their side?

In order to match the needs of the new millennium, grassroots movements are at the heart of the issue. Take the Mangalore incident, for example. Thousands of people through Facebook were able to send a message (albeit a stupid one) to the so-called SRS to show solidarity with the victims. No government would have a similar effect.

In all this, you have forgotten the place of the individual.

Individuals can:
1) Push art and culture into the mainstream to provide symbols for an ideology
2) Provide healthcare, volunteer work, water, agriculture, micro-loans to those in need
3) Influence government decisions through NGOs and think-tanks.

Voting is the only thing you as an individual can do to ensure something happens in the government but there are a hundred other things you can do to influence the minds of your peers (i.e. the other votes).

[Atri]

The only thing it is waiting for is some worthy governance in centre which secures the scientific and strategic frontiers of Bhaarat and which at the most provides Raaj-Ashraya to the revival of Bhaaratiya ideology; or at least provides a fair and neutral territory unbiased towards any Non-Indic ideology. Once this happens along with this political resurgence, ideological resurgence will take place too.

Your ideas about the spread of ideology are very antiquated and are at the root of the problem in India. The entire premise of your post was to establish the need for a government to do the work of securing and providing while you conveniently left out the average person.

What did people do during Independence when the government was not on their side?

In order to match the needs of the new millennium, grassroots movements are at the heart of the issue. Take the Mangalore incident, for example. Thousands of people through Facebook were able to send a message (albeit a stupid one) to the so-called SRS to show solidarity with the victims. No government would have a similar effect.

In all this, you have forgotten the place of the individual.

Individuals can:
1) Push art and culture into the mainstream to provide symbols for an ideology
2) Provide healthcare, volunteer work, water, agriculture, micro-loans to those in need
3) Influence government decisions through NGOs and think-tanks.

Voting is the only thing you as an individual can do to ensure something happens in the government but there are a hundred other things you can do to influence the minds of your peers (i.e. the other votes).

In subtle sense, your post is in coherence with mine.

I agree that in modern times, the change in modus operandi of dissemination of new ideologies has been revolutionary.

The point is, such non-governmental methods of spreading a particular meme should supplement the stance of government towards that particular meme. This happens when government is strong enough, which in turn happens when people vote to have a strong government.

In modern times, when some one speaks of government support, it automatically takes into consideration the support of average man because the government (Raaja) itself is elected by average man. This holds particularly true for a strong and stable government, unlike the incumbent GOI.

There exists a dynamic equilibrium between public and government (elected or imposed). The independence movement was something which gradually snowballed out of proportions leading to independence and partition. The snowball was initiated by British government itself. British chose INC and later ML as outlets of public anger and opinion. The revolutionary movements were ruthlessly suppressed by British, albeit they left their mark and contributed their lion's share in turning the gradually increasing the size snowball. Thus, equilibrium was shifting towards one pole and it was beneficial to other pole due to use of India in WW2 to save their own home. This is OT, though.

The point is, in democracy, when people give a decisive mandate to form a strong and stable Govt, the non-governmental efforts, both individual and organizational, are supplementary in spreading of particular idea. There exists a dynamic equilibrium in which govt can gradually shift it in its favour by continuing a policy which is initially not popular, but with time people understand its benefits. Similarly, if after stipulated time frame, the govt policies are not showing any benefits, pressure of impending elections forces the govt to rethink on the policy.

The point of ideological conflict which Acharya ji raised about, requires a strong government patronizing Bhaaratiya civilization or neutralising the opponents of Bhaaratiya civilization thus providing it a even ground to play. This amounts to Raajashraya. This may or may not be popular among the masses initially. But masses will realize its importance with time, if it is implemented in intelligent manner. In such times, when general population itself is confused, such determined steps are required to be taken by government to help the masses arrive to a conclusion and make an opinion, either for it or against it.

[brihaspati]

The government and the people - both shape and modify each other. The process now takes a much more complex form because of the proliferation modern communication and information representation technologies. But this complex two sided interaction also adds a complication. The two groups separate out because of rashtryia power structure, which identifies with and is identified with by those who come into governmental power. Institutions change, format and reformat individuals (Actor-Network-Theory). This rashtryia power structure and institutions separate out the population of the country into two groups who behave separately and comeptitively.

What happens as a peculiar problem out of this is the growth of an intermediary, a loose network of intermediate institutions, entities and structures that sit along the channels of information exchange between these two groups. This includes the media at one end to social networks primarily of and by elite subgroups like those on Facebook (elite micro-small subgroup, because sheer infratsructure excludes the majority of Indians from Facebook) to even the dedicated "cadre" of large or influential political parties.

This intermediary is a reincarnation of the classical problem of "bureaucracy" and the "pure transporter trader". The bureaucracy which as official that mediated between the praja and the rajan, which as priesthood stood between "God" and the "devotee", and now reinvented as the neo-priesthood. Those who manipulate the relations between the seat of power and rashtra and its basic components - the people, are those who like the "pure transporter trader intermediary" who are using both ends for their own benefit.

This is a persistent problem of leadership anywhere, but for us, a definite problem for Bharat.

[svinayak]

The point of ideological conflict which Acharya ji raised about, requires a strong government patronizing Bhaaratiya civilization or neutralising the opponents of Bhaaratiya civilization thus providing it a even ground to play. This amounts to Raajashraya. This may or may not be popular among the masses initially. But masses will realize its importance with time, if it is implemented in intelligent manner. In such times, when general population itself is confused, such determined steps are required to be taken by government to help the masses arrive to a conclusion and make an opinion, either for it or against it.

The point I am trying to make is that Internal and external ideology should be similar.

[svinayak]

This includes the media at one end to social networks primarily of and by elite subgroups like those on Facebook (elite micro-small subgroup, because sheer infratsructure excludes the majority of Indians from Facebook) to even the dedicated "cadre" of large or influential political parties.

Publicity of this elite sub group gave the impression of a larger middle class which is trying to move up the social/economic order surrounded by regressive forces. This image creation of this event is the distortion going on in the media and the unaware consuming public.

[brihaspati]

Acharyaji's point is most relevant. Only recently I have started reading up on someone who has been made into one of the most controversial figures of the ideological spectrum behind the independence struggle. I realized with quite a shock that what I have proposed here in scattered bits, coincide with many of his ideas. For those of my elders here who recognize this, please understand that this was simply unintended and pure coincidence. But going back to a reinterpretation of the "Bharatyia darshan" in its practical aspects as represented by the majority, with an additional component which is missing or hidden for quite some time now - the question and importance of projection of power, within current boundaries and beyond, should be taken up in earnest.

The concept when first released in early 20's, as I realize now, was too premature for Bharatyias at the time. It remained marginal, but its potential was recognized by the enemies of Bharat very well. The propounder of this line was singularly targeted by the British, and their chosen heirs pre and post Independence, except IG. I had always wondered about the death of a prominent intellectual and politician in Kashmir, and the nonchalance of the chosen heirs. I realize that the dots can be connected well, if this paranoia is recognized - someone who had formally resigned from this "ideological line" was still "dangerous". We still see the fear associated with this original line, even in recent incidents, which makes me curious as to how far does the realization of the essential power projection involved exists within both internal as well as external enemies of Bharat.

Bharat has to rediscover its confidence in itself, the strength of the majority who have survived without converting, without being recognized for their contribution to its civilization and marginalized for their birth, and empower itself. The question reduces to that of power and its projection.

[maberbach]

The big strategic picture that has been settled is the need for India to de-Partition Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan. The details are to be worked out. Hithertofore the consensus was that a loose federation of independent entities maybe with "Lichtenestein" status was the most acceptable outcome of TSP collapse. What we have realized now is thats not desirable from Indian presepective. This is a great step forward especially since the Pentagon, Ralph Peters, Bernard Lewis, the Pashtunistan bill boards all have one idea to retain Punjab and Sindh as contiguous regions in a truncated TSP.

Borders or frontiers are to be drawn next.

While doing this consider the fact that both Afghanistan and Pashtun areas are not viable eocnomically and need some subsidy. Historically it was always the Indo-Gangetic plains that provided it (from Mahabharata: Shakuni mama to Mughal times). However after de-colonization the subsidy was from the West through multi-national financial institutions or direct 'aid". So while they may have interests they dont have the moolah. This is where the financial/economic collapse comes into picture. It reduces the subsidy available to pay-off these folks.

So one of the frogs is tadpole.

What does TSP stand for again, Ideally I am not sure what the best solution would be, south Asia analysis group is a great forum but the problem with a lot of these analysis is that the "lump sump"

everything and generalize.

[Keshav]

Chiron -
One one level, I agree that a central government is very important to the way a country runs, especially given the brittle nature of a parliamentary democracy where governments can be dissolved and elections had midway through a term (unlike the American system). But on the other hand, you've fallen into the same trap yet again.

Why do you believe that government should be responsible for taking care of your culture? You should take care of your own culture. If Christian missionaries are converting Hindus, maybe you should start giving the poor better healthcare, removing caste discrimination in society, instead of asking the government to stop conversions.

Why shouldn't the government be responsible for protecting and promoting, lets say, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, and Sikh culture?

You have completely misunderstood the point of government, in my mind. Government is not there to enforce culture or religion but a serious of universal values for people to live with a certain amount of material wealth to enjoy - that is it. Government exists to provide security and social service in the form of infrastructure, documentation, healthcare, funding for schools.

If you want to preserve your culture, you do it yourself.

Once again, this is exactly the kind of flawed Hindu thinking that will lead not to Hinduism's demise but to its absolute irrelevance in the modern era. We consistently say that Hinduism has the ability to change but I don't see that change in any positive direction.

[Arjun]

Chiron -
One one level, I agree that a central government is very important to the way a country runs, especially given the brittle nature of a parliamentary democracy where governments can be dissolved and elections had midway through a term (unlike the American system). But on the other hand, you've fallen into the same trap yet again.

Why do you believe that government should be responsible for taking care of your culture? You should take care of your own culture. If Christian missionaries are converting Hindus, maybe you should start giving the poor better healthcare, removing caste discrimination in society, instead of asking the government to stop conversions.

Why shouldn't the government be responsible for protecting and promoting, lets say, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, and Sikh culture?

You have completely misunderstood the point of government, in my mind. Government is not there to enforce culture or religion but a serious of universal values for people to live with a certain amount of material wealth to enjoy - that is it. Government exists to provide security and social service in the form of infrastructure, documentation, healthcare, funding for schools.

If you want to preserve your culture, you do it yourself.

Once again, this is exactly the kind of flawed Hindu thinking that will lead not to Hinduism's demise but to its absolute irrelevance in the modern era. We consistently say that Hinduism has the ability to change but I don't see that change in any positive direction.

The government has as much right to promote the ideals of Indian or Bharatiya civilization, as the founding fathers of the US did when they based the US constitution on the ideals of Western civilization. The principle of non-exclusivism in faiths is a fundamental contribution of Indic thought - and is at the same level as the doctrine of human rights as a contribution to global ideals. In fact, it would be highly foolish and retarded of the Indian government and constitution to not define secularism based on this highest of Indic ideals. The principle of non-exclusvism in faiths logically leads to some ground rules as regards conversions, which I will be happy to walk you through if you have interest.

[Keshav]

The government has as much right to promote the ideals of Indian or Bharatiya civilization, as the founding fathers of the US did when they based the US constitution on the ideals of Western civilization. The principle of non-exclusivism in faiths is a fundamental contribution of Indic thought - and is at the same level as the doctrine of human rights as a contribution to global ideals.

What ideals of Western civilization are you talking about? Much of the Western world was ruled by monarchs in 1776 when America drafted the Declaration of Independence and subsequent Constitution. It is only now that those ideals have become apart of the Western world. The core ideals that AFF founded are indeed very universal. I don't feel everything that has been said is applicable to India but certain basic ideas are very much already part of India. Primarily, I'm trying to say that in spirit, America and India are not very different. If you read speeches and letters by Ambedkar you find that he references Americas constitution and the founding fathers many times.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In fact, it would be highly foolish and retarded of the Indian government and constitution to not define secularism based on this highest of Indic ideals. The principle of non-exclusvism in faiths logically leads to some ground rules as regards conversions, which I will be happy to walk you through if you have interest.

Hindu secularism is a joke. Indian government can no longer define secularism as "respect for all faiths", but instead, "separation of Church and State". I've said it before and I'll say it again.

It is your fault that Hindus are converting to Christianity and not the apathy of government. Government should be apathetic towards religion. If you want to prevent the spread of Christianity, do something for Hinduism instead of whining to the government. This is by far the greatest weakness of the Hindu mind. Go out and convert some people, remove caste discrimination from society, work to consolidate Hindus to provide social services and organize them.

The biggest problem for Hinduism is that it has no way to organize. If you want to organize a group of people, religious leaders are powerless and useless people. You have to do it yourself.

[Arjun]

The government has as much right to promote the ideals of Indian or Bharatiya civilization, as the founding fathers of the US did when they based the US constitution on the ideals of Western civilization. The principle of non-exclusivism in faiths is a fundamental contribution of Indic thought - and is at the same level as the doctrine of human rights as a contribution to global ideals.

What ideals of Western civilization are you talking about? Much of the Western world was ruled by monarchs in 1776 when America drafted the Declaration of Independence and subsequent Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution is essentially a product of eighteenth-century Enlightenment thought that elevates the protection of individual liberty as a core purpose of government. Just as the US constitution is based on the highest ideals of Western enlightenment, the Indian constitution has every right to (and one might argue an obligation to) incorporate the highest ideals of Indic thinking.

Hindu secularism is a joke. Indian government can no longer define secularism as "respect for all faiths", but instead, "separation of Church and State". I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I did not bring in Hinduism into this discussion. I am saying non-exclusivism in faiths at the level of the individual - is the fundamental differentiator and hallmark of Indian civilization - and that is the thinking that needs to be built into the constitution. The government itself needs to keep out of religion, and it needs to enforce a pluralism in attitude at the individual level.

[Keshav]

The U.S. Constitution is essentially a product of eighteenth-century Enlightenment thought that elevates the protection of individual liberty as a core purpose of government. Just as the US constitution is based on the highest ideals of Western enlightenment, the Indian constitution has every right to (and one might argue an obligation to) incorporate the highest ideals of Indic thinking.

You're absolutely right. I suppose I was trying to argue that it hadn't really taken root in Europe when it started in America, but you're right, such thinking was a product of people like Locke, Montague, and Voltaire.

What are the "highest ideals of Indic thinking" and how are they different from the highest ideals of Western thinking? This is not a rhetorical question, either. I myself don't know the answer to that question but because you believe that there is a difference, an answer would surely raise the quality of discussion going on here.

Did I bring in Hinduism out here? I am saying non-exclusivism in faiths at the level of the individual - is the fundamental differentiator and hallmark of Indian civilization - and that is the thinking that needs to be built into the constitution. The government itself needs to keep itself out of religion, but it needs to enforce a pluralism in attitude at the individual level.

You didn't bring in Hinduism, but I did, because it is the easiest way to talk about secularism as it is practiced today. The idea that government should be involved in running temples, giving madrassah education equal status with a secular education, as well giving money to mosques and churches to fuel missionary efforts is a product of Hindu thinking, that is, the Hindu understanding of secularism that has existed since time immemorial.

Why do you find Jain temples in Rajasthan? Because Rajput rulers built them for the Jain community. This is the same type of thinking that exists today and it isn't working.

At the same time, you cannot stop missionary efforts, especially homegrown Indian ones. I honestly don't have any problem with shorting foreign funds and what not but stopping Indian missionary activity is itself is a reduction of individual liberty, wouldn't you say?

People here are under the superstition that missionaries use underhanded methods to convert people through "rice conversions" and what not, but it never occurs to them that some people convert because they simply don't really care for Hinduism. It hasn't done anything for them. You cannot stop this. It is inherently against the idea of individual liberty.

[Arjun]

What are the "highest ideals of Indic thinking" and how are they different from the highest ideals of Western thinking? This is not a rhetorical question, either. I myself don't know the answer to that question but because you believe that there is a difference, an answer would surely raise the quality of discussion going on here.

I don't see this as a competition between Western and Indic thoughts. You take the best of Western thought, and to that you add any products of Indic 'enlightenment' that truly covers new ground (i.e. is not already covered under other accepted principles), would qualify as being truly representative and a unique contribution of Indian ethos, qualifies in its thinking to be a universal ideal and where implementation would result in a net benefit to humanity. So obviously the bar is set extremely high.

So what are the Indic thought elements that would qualify? Maybe there are others - but really I had only one in mind that would qualify - which I have made quite explicit in my answers - the principle of non-exclusivism in faiths at an individual level.

You didn't bring in Hinduism, but I did, because it is the easiest way to talk about secularism as it is practiced today. The idea that government should be involved in running temples, giving madrassah education equal status with a secular education, as well giving money to mosques and churches to fuel missionary efforts is a product of Hindu thinking, that is, the Hindu understanding of secularism that has existed since time immemorial.

That is a result of misunderstanding of Hindu thought in two ways. Hindu thought does imply equal respect for all faiths - but (a) that principle is to be followed at the individual level and does not translate to the government getting involved in religion in any way, and (b) the word 'faith' is not equivalent to 'religion' and refers to only one aspect of a few different factors that together constitute a 'religion'. The last point is probably not germane to the current discussion and I will not expand on it.

I honestly don't have any problem with shorting foreign funds and what not but stopping Indian missionary activity is itself is a reduction of individual liberty, wouldn't you say?

Every industry that has potential for abuse of consumers has seen regulatory activity that curtails the kind of sales and marketing activity that is legally allowed. As probably the most sensitive sales and marketing activity of all, why should religious missionary activity be any different? We are not talking of stopping missionary activity but only the activity that is done on the basis of exclusivist claims.

[Keshav]

As probably the most sensitive sales and marketing activity of all, why should religious missionary activity be any different? We are not talking of stopping missionary activity but only the activity that is done on the basis of exclusivist claims.

My original argument was much broader than yours but I see that this is the crutch of the discussion - missionary efforts. Missionary efforts are based on the idea of an exclusivist claim as well as benefits of joining the Church/Mosque, such as health care and education.

There is no way to delineate between the two without banning both. It is extremely idealistic to think that you could go out and ask each and every person - were you asked to convert by food or threat of Hell?

You simply cannot do that. And that is why you cannot ban missionary activity. The only way is to accept and counter but Hindus haven't jumped on that bandwagon yet because Hinduism itself is not ready for change, unfortunately. The only change we see is a dive towards extremism as a means to solve the problem.

Without a sufficiently large, moderate, unifying Hindu force, I fear this might be the way for modern Sanatana Dharma.

[svinayak]

Missionary efforts are based on the idea of an exclusivist claim as well as benefits of joining the Church/Mosque, such as health care and education.

There is a foriegn political force behind this missionary activity. India has a long memory of subjugation and colonization with those same people who propagate missionary movement. That memory has not been wiped out.

[Shirish]

If Bharat really gets the weakest government since 1947 that would be turned and twisted by the west, I wouldn't be surprised if the resulting events shocked us to the core...things like...

-1. India should rush to the assistance of the Pak Govt.
> 2. Give them support by reducing tensions on the LoC by
> backing off troop strengths and lowering levels of
> retribution on the fence.
> 3. This would help create a Kashmir like situation in
> western Pak
> 4. The longer we enable them to fight the Taliban, the more
> they bleed- which should actually be fun for us.
> 5. The Pak-Punjab state would then be our buffer from the
> 6. Taliban reaching the Indian Borders and they start spreading
> their tentacles into J&K.

What a story this would make..... maybe some should write this...
Dank You

[Arjun]

My original argument was much broader than yours but I see that this is the crutch of the discussion - missionary efforts.

I presume you meant 'crux of the discussion' as opposed to 'crutch of the discussion' - there's a big difference. It is obviously the crux of the discussion because I just defined for you what is the central aspect of Indian civilization. When you talk about government supporting the spread of Indic thought - the spread of its most central thought is what we should be most concerned about.

When the vast majority of the strife on this planet can be logically proven as a result of exclusivist ideologies that have expansionist goals - wouldn't you say that the goal of eliminating this should be the single most important agenda on the table? When a single idea can make this much of a difference, and India has all copyright claims to the principle - obviously India has an obligation to promote this thought.

Missionary efforts are based on the idea of an exclusivist claim as well as benefits of joining the Church/Mosque, such as health care and education. There is no way to delineate between the two without banning both.[/b] It is extremely idealistic to think that you could go out and ask each and every person - were you asked to convert by food or threat of Hell? You simply cannot do that.

I would be uncomfortable with the notion that combining religion with even desired activities such as healthcare and education as a package deal somehow makes it acceptable. But lets leave that aside for the moment and assume that is OK.

What you claim is not feasible - there are ways to address it. In fact I recollect Brihaspati spelling out the details of how this could be implemented on one of his posts which I can try digging out. Please look at examples in other more earthly 'industries' where the problem has been equally complex and how regulations have had tremendous success (eg mutual fund sales and marketing).

The only change we see is a dive towards extremism as a means to solve the problem.

You have not been able to contest any of my points logically - but this really takes the cake. What I am suggesting as promotion of non-exclusivism is the antidote for extremism - and yet you persist in seeing 'extremist' shadows in the very country that can provide the solution.

[shiv]

The only change we see is a dive towards extremism as a means to solve the problem.

Without a sufficiently large, moderate, unifying Hindu force, I fear this might be the way for modern Sanatana Dharma.

Both Christianity and Islam are not above a little intimidation in the name of God in a subtle way that Hindus never thought of doing.

Some time ago I had generated an image of exactly how "conversion" is made into a political force by selectively converting people on one side of an existing social division (such as poverty/unemployment). Once a certain percentage of conversions is achieved the old, pre existing social divide becomes a religious divide in which the people on one side are "discriminating against" the people on the other side because of their religion. Any violence that occurs then gets blamed by Christianity and Islam on the bigotry of the other side.

The picture generated is here:


In such cases Islam and Christianity set up a game that I mentioned in another thread (called "hate your neighbor") in which it is win win for Christianity and/or Islam no matter whether violence is used or not.

In this particular case - a degree of intimidation and threat from Hindus is probably necessary to convert the game into a tit for tat. Both christianity and Islam promote violence under some circumstances so a readiness for violence is a useful tactic. "Moderation" and shying away from violence may be a mistake. This is the exact opposite of the reply I gave to Bajwa in the "Hindu demise" thread by Richard Belkin. But the circumstances are different.

Just my views.

[KLNMurthy]

You're absolutely right. I suppose I was trying to argue that it hadn't really taken root in Europe when it started in America, but you're right, such thinking was a product of people like Locke, Montague, and Voltaire.

What are the "highest ideals of Indic thinking" and how are they different from the highest ideals of Western thinking? This is not a rhetorical question, either. I myself don't know the answer to that question but because you believe that there is a difference, an answer would surely raise the quality of discussion going on here.

...

You didn't bring in Hinduism, but I did, because it is the easiest way to talk about secularism as it is practiced today. The idea that government should be involved in running temples, giving madrassah education equal status with a secular education, as well giving money to mosques and churches to fuel missionary efforts is a product of Hindu thinking, that is, the Hindu understanding of secularism that has existed since time immemorial.

Why do you find Jain temples in Rajasthan? Because Rajput rulers built them for the Jain community. This is the same type of thinking that exists today and it isn't working.

At the same time, you cannot stop missionary efforts, especially homegrown Indian ones. I honestly don't have any problem with shorting foreign funds and what not but stopping Indian missionary activity is itself is a reduction of individual liberty, wouldn't you say?

People here are under the superstition that missionaries use underhanded methods to convert people through "rice conversions" and what not, but it never occurs to them that some people convert because they simply don't really care for Hinduism. It hasn't done anything for them. You cannot stop this. It is inherently against the idea of individual liberty.

Indic secular tradition springs from traditional monarchic thinking--you have to keep control of religions by funding them, and if you are smart, you won't exclude anyone. Otherwise, they could end up as independent power centers. Case in point: Chinese government's hysterically paranoid reaction to Falun Gong who won't accept government control. Yet all they do is get together and ... breathe! That's enough to frighten the monarchs of China.

[brihaspati]

The AFF were not looking at then contemporary European political thinking when they were converging towards their "constitution" in the lead up to the 1770's.

It is slightly a misconception that their core ideas did not exist before within European schools of thought before. We usually forget the significance of the ideological debates, ideas and polemics of the English Revolution, Parliament and regicide - about a 100 years before the AFF. After restoration, the divide that had sown its seeds in English political thinking, between absolutism and republicanism - continued primarily through religious-political sectarianism. This was sufficiently intense to force the two sides to come to compromises like that in Penn - specfically to move away with "non-anti-monarchist" principles from the main power centre and domains of the English monarch - and settle elsewhere. The seeds of the ideas we see in the American constitution are there in the first draft of Penn's "constitution" for his "colony".

We typically also do not keep in mind that throughout the medieval period, from 1200-1600, there had been continuous uprisings (one in particular although abortive, still led to the weakening of the Catholic Church then solidly identified with imperial/monarchical structures, as used by Luther) by various sections of European society, mainly by peasants (in UK too) and intermediate classes against monarchical or absolutist excesses and exploitation. These typically took strategic turns of religious polemics, but we can clearly see the economic and political factors that mobilized such dissent.

In AFF, we see the conscious revivalism that looked for structures and solutions into Europes past, and found it in the Roman Republic, and the Greek concepts of Republicanism. An entire spectrum of concepts and terminology has been borrowed from the Roman Republic by the AFF. This classicism was also a result of the Renaissance, that revived searching for answers different from whet the then monarchs and the church were offering, offering that had failed to prevent Ottoman expansion and loss of direct access to trade to the East.

It is therefore not approriate to claim lack of European background to AFF thinking. They looked at the Roman past of Europe to find formulae for survuval and expansion. Unfortunately, when Indians attempt to look for answers in their past, it is derided as retrogression, or worse, claimed that there was no solution in the past that could be relevant for the present.