Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[Pranav]

MJ Akbar: Muslim factor in Mamata Banerjee’s victory - http://arabnews.com/opinion/columns/article62028.ece

Balbir Punj: More things change...- http://www.dailypioneer.com/260815/More ... hange.html

Ms Banerjee isn’t critical of the Maoists; in fact in her political parlance the Marxists are “worse than the Maoists.” She has not been very supportive of the coordinated action of the Union Government (of which she is a part) to eliminate the Maoist menace and against all evidence has insisted that the train derailment on the eve of the election was not their handiwork but a result of a Marxist conspiracy to defame her at a crucial moment!
.......................

Apart from militant trade unionism, the other ploy of the Marxists to remain in power was to feed Islamic fundamentalism and even encourage Muslim infiltration from Bangladesh to add to their vote-bank. For the sake of competitive politics, Ms Banerjee overtook the Marxists even in this respect.

[brihaspati]

Pranav ji,
excerpts from my post on the previous page :

(5) MB, cannot afford right at the moment to be siding with saffron. All three aspirants think - or have been led to think - that they are kaput without Islamist vote. All three will compete with each other in promising more to Muslims in WB. This is the real danger in WB.

(6) Once the Left falls, and all three join pandering to Islamic votes, the international and internal move towards destabilization of the Gangetic plains will have a field day. When the Left falls, think again who will fill the vacuum. Islamist underground will strengthen together with the Maoists. They will also be joined by disillusioned radicals from within the current "Left".

(7) None of the three above has the vision, understanding or political postures to withstand the Islamist+Maoist threat in WB. This is both a tragedy as well as opportunity for the Right. But this will take another 10 to 15 years to manifest fully.

[Pranav]

Pranav ji,
excerpts from my post on the previous page :

(5) MB, cannot afford right at the moment to be siding with saffron. All three aspirants think - or have been led to think - that they are kaput without Islamist vote. All three will compete with each other in promising more to Muslims in WB. This is the real danger in WB.

(6) Once the Left falls, and all three join pandering to Islamic votes, the international and internal move towards destabilization of the Gangetic plains will have a field day. When the Left falls, think again who will fill the vacuum. Islamist underground will strengthen together with the Maoists. They will also be joined by disillusioned radicals from within the current "Left".

(7) None of the three above has the vision, understanding or political postures to withstand the Islamist+Maoist threat in WB. This is both a tragedy as well as opportunity for the Right. But this will take another 10 to 15 years to manifest fully.

The logical culmination of such trends is the take-over of Assam and West Bengal by Bangladesh, and of Arunachal by China.

Evangelized populations who are being used to increase chaos will not realize their blunder until it's too late - Islamic states and Chinese communists are eminently capable of putting their antics to a swift end.

[Atri]

I remember B'ji talking about the monopoly of the business houses in the grain market.

1.When speaking of the gangetic plains, we have to talk about the arc encircling it. Pun-Raj-Guj-MH-MP-AP-Ch-ORI.

2. Consolidation of Gangetic plains include following aspects of polity and governance.
a. identifying the local power satraps
b. overpowering them by the means of saam-daam-danda-bhed
c. entering into a bipartisan agreement with them which is highly customised and susceptible to changes in space and time.
d. Having a mechanism to continuously keep the power-satraps engaged with the principle conqueror (the power projector).

3. Consolidation of arc includes pandering to the demographic need of the regions to be the "production centres of India". If we imagine India as a "Microcosmic world", we see the interaction of the power-memes of various "centres" with each other. While the gangetic valley is self-sufficient in this aspect (so is Kaveri valley), the Indus, Narmada, Krishna-Godavari are not. the power-projection capabilities and ambitions of the power-centres in these basins are somehow dependent on Gangetic plains

4. Hence, there tends to be a monopoly in the arc region and extreme diversification in gangetic basin. This is seen in the number of "Grain-hoarders" and "locally monopolistic power-houses" seen in gangetic valley, as opposed to those in Punjab and Deccan. Thus, in terms of management, gangetic plain is a very saturated market, where person has to have some spectacular advantage to make stable consolidations.

The grain sahukars are but one example which intimately links of the polity of India. Cotton kings, Sugar-Kings and increasingly important "land-grabbers aka real estate developers" are few other "Vaishya" communities which fund the local power-centres of gangetic plains. Whereas the "Vaishya" community is extremely intimately linked with politicians in Deccan, the vaishyas and the politicians of Deccan somehow always achieve normalization of the market all over the deccan. The market and players in gangetic plains tend to remain fragmented. It is a mammoth political endeavour to defragment the gangetic plains and all the players therein and bring in harmonization similar to one so consistently seen in Deccan.

Now comes my favourite part ... lets check history..

In medieval times, Mughals and British consolidated the gangetic plains most efficiently. The structure in ROI is merely continuation of British structure in many ways. What were the "spectacular advantages" which mughals had ? Firstly, continuous anarchy of tribal pathans for 3 centuries coupled with religious intolerance and higher turn-over rate of kings making any policy impermanent and hence impotent. Mughals (Akbar, to be precise) changed it.

The anarchy after demise of Mughals in 1707, continued until 1857 (150 years) facilitated British implementation. Furthermore, the genocide which British indulged in as "revenge of the independence war" brutally normalized most of the anomalous tendencies which were prevalent or might take birth in minds of Ganga-Kinare wala Chhoras and Chhoris..

In many ways, the stability brought in by British after 1857 in Gangetic plains existed till mid-1980's, to be precise until the Shah-Bano verdict. Since that verdict, the valley is moving towards anarchy similar to the one between Mughal and British rules. The stable equilibrium of power-sharing between local satraps and Delhi was systematically unmade in the decade of 1990's. The Nitish, MB, Lalu, SP, BSP etc are all like the nawabs of the gangetic plains which carried forward the day in between mughal-british interregnum. This was further fuelled by Mandal commission.

Checking the condition of NWFP during the three periods of gangetic anarchy -

1. Pre-Akbar (Delhi Sultans of Pathan lobby, Rajputs of gangetic plains and invading central asian mughals bitterly fighting each other);

2. Mughal-British interregnum (Pathan lobby, Shias, British of Gangetic plains and invading central asian Persians-Durranis fighting against Marathas)

3. Post 1985 world till date.(Invading central asian Soviet forces leads to emergence of Taliban and Indus basin starts descending into perpetual downward spiral, along with Gangetic plains. Fragmentation of power in gangetic plains with rise of local satraps)

What we see is that on all these three occasions of gangetic instability, pathans and other central asians (inner and outer) were troubling Punjab towards ganga. Furthermore, we see powers and centres of Vindya and south of Vindhya were trying similarly to harmonize OR rather influence the ganga power equilibrium (Pathans and Rajputs; Durranis, Persians and Marathas; Taliban and INC-BJP). The government in Punjab has been perennially clueless in such situations, ever since the great war of Mahabharata..

One more pattern which history offers is that in all the previous episodes of gangetic anarchy, it is the foreign power which eventually manages to stabilize the gangetic plains. The frightening part is in modern context, that power is Taliban and Islamism, The west OR increasingly relevant, China. In first episode of gangetic anarchy in medieval times, the east was quite. In second episode, the foreign power from east managed to pose a threat to prospects of normalization by indigenous power. In third episode as well, the inflammable eastern frontier poses the serious threat to any consolidatory attempts made by Deccan.

Coming back to present.

The common feature of INC and BJP is their pan-Indian ambition. Since they are controlling rest of India, they understand the pulse of India and wish to bring in the global peace in India by "conquering" the gangetic plains. The major difference between the two is the ideology and the drive to aim what they are aiming for. INC wishes to re-establish older scheme of events in which everybody (the delhi and the local powers) were happy. BJP wishes to establish a new world-order (in comparison).

Now, the spectacular advantage which INC, the current bidder for consolidation, has is primarily huge funding (both internal and external) and confounded BJP. Since in the long run we all are dead, INC is looking towards consolidation of gangetic plains at all costs. Hence, they took the help of local power aspirant in WB, srimati Mamta Bannerjee and ignored all her pandering to maoists and islamists, in order to uproot the entrenched enemy. This may or may not be judged as tactical brilliance on the part of INC by history. In either case, it will be rather easy for MB to get rid of maoists after her conquest in complete. But it will be rather very difficult for her to get rid of islamists. So, evidently she and concurrently INC is playing a very dangerous game.

What is the end-result in the mind of INC while they are playing this "Dyoota-Kreeda" and gambling on the Maryada of Draupadi (india)? The end result is not farther than successful reign of Yuvaraj without need of any support for at least one term. However, while at it, the ramblings from the interior cannot be ignored. The forces which were disentrenched from the region are beginning to rally again to regain the position. This is where Yuvaraj's balls will be tested.

The entrenched communists and islamists in gangetic plains are resident anti-nationals in India. I am not using the term "anti-national" in negative sense, but in a sense that communism and islam does not believe in the idea of nation-state and aim for universal implementation of their proposed socio-polity. Thus, making the current attempts of consolidation half-hearted. and dangerous, since although penetrated by global players to various degrees, both INC and BJP's ambitions are territorially limited. Hence they are systemically nationalistic.

The emerging Vaishya-Kshatriya nexus in Deccan and gangetic basin.

The emerging pattern in the arc-region suggests aggressive expansion of vaishya-interests (which is also linked with the higher mercantile-mentality). The anomalies (like maoism and naxalism) will be normalized with not much duress. But even the powerful business interests of traditional and neo-vaishyas won't be able to undo the tendency of Deccan satraps and Central-Asian satraps to dabble in polity of Gangetic plains. The money which is being poured in the gangetic ashwamedha campaign of "yuvaraj" is slowly reducing the number of players to manageable size. How much lasting it will be, only time will tell simply because it is in interest of islamists to have anarchy throughout Indo-gangetic basin. The regions of INC in Deccan are funding this gangetic campaign to large extent, with probable investments and booty-sharing when conquest is complete.

However, something is happening which has not happened in ages. The system of total subservience of mango-abduls to local power-satrap is rapidly collapsing. The migrations of lower-strata of people out of gangetic plains, might help the population in getting rid of these slavish "sanskaras. Furthermore, caste might rapidly get irrelevant with time in electoral politics. This is giving rise to a huge class of "Neo-Vaishyas" from erstwhile "land-owning community" and "land-labourer community". This is typically the case with displaced people from their rural setting. The allegiance of this "Neo-Vaishyas" towards their land coupled with age and demographics might give a chance of saving the soul of India without much loss in the fullness of time. I have high hopes from this co-synthesis happening in Deccan and urban India.

The problems like discontent in already established people in Deccan and Urban India (RT-BT, for example) need to be addressed. But with people, the market too is expanding, hence, this opposition might not turn into people's movement, at least not in near future.

[svinayak]

Several things are wrong in the last post. Assumption that the political parties are similar to earlier power monarchies are wrong.

Govt programs can change the socio economic situation of vast population and a nationalistic agenda will bring common purpose

[Atri]

Several things are wrong in the last post. Assumption that the political parties are similar to earlier power monarchies are wrong.

Govt programs can change the socio economic situation of vast population and a nationalistic agenda will bring common purpose

Powers follow the Yuga-Dharma, acharya ji.

In current yuga-dharma, powers have to form political parties and fight election. In medieval times, the powers had to own land, raise army large enough to protect that land and if ambition present, expand the domain of owned land. When very few of them manage to become global players, the local powers interact with them in a manner which they think best suits their interests.

This tendency is the same, isn't it? I don't see how SP, mulayam, BSP, RJD, Lalu, Mayawati and others are different from Shuja, Najib, Alivardy, EIC and others of 18th century in same region. of course, it never is the copy-book repeat of events. and I have covered the changed factors in modern times in the previous post.

[Sanku]

This tendency is the same, isn't it? I don't see how SP, mulayam, BSP, RJD, Lalu, Mayawati and others are different from Shuja, Najib, Alivardy, EIC and others of 18th century in same region.

Actually I agree with Achayara, its not the same. There is a fundamental difference. The previous cases needed Military power and projection of hard power to ensure supremacy.

Now the it a bazzaar of ideas, seriously speaking. (Laloo had nothing, other than a reputation when he first won)

Personally I dont think you understand the Northern plains. Let me ask you instead first, what are the "wrongs" that you see being righted in NI plains? or what are your goals then perhaps we can discuss the above differences in a more specific manner.

[ramana]

I agree with Atri that the new kshatraps create political parties. In olden days you raise armies and seize power. Now you do it with political parties based on an idea.
The means are new but the goals are the same. When I saw the rise of DMK that was my first thought a few decades ago. Modern electoral process provides a less violent way of achieving kshtrapy.

[svinayak]

I agree with Atri that the new kshatraps create political parties. In olden days you raise armies and seize power. Now you do it with political parties based on an idea.
The means are new but the goals are the same. When I saw the rise of DMK that was my first thought a few decades ago. Modern electoral process provides a less violent way of achieving kshtrapy.

That is not the problem with the post and the framework.
socio economic change can negate the power base of any party and strong development can change the socio-political sitution of many areas. The last 200 years in the gangetic plains was the reality of the poverty with feudals controlling the economy. Last 20 years and in the next 20 years that area will see change in socio economic area that it will transform the political situation

[svinayak]

This tendency is the same, isn't it? I don't see how SP, mulayam, BSP, RJD, Lalu, Mayawati and others are different from Shuja, Najib, Alivardy, EIC and others of 18th century in same region. of course, it never is the copy-book repeat of events. and I have covered the changed factors in modern times in the previous post.

Fundamentally nationalism is come into the body politics inside India and it may be less in that region. But the purpose of the nation is to move forward and pool resources to take up challengers and spread " its way of life". All the region has to come to the same goals and value system one day or the other.

[Atri]

This tendency is the same, isn't it? I don't see how SP, mulayam, BSP, RJD, Lalu, Mayawati and others are different from Shuja, Najib, Alivardy, EIC and others of 18th century in same region.

Actually I agree with Achayara, its not the same. There is a fundamental difference. The previous cases needed Military power and projection of hard power to ensure supremacy.

Now the it a bazzaar of ideas, seriously speaking. (Laloo had nothing, other than a reputation when he first won)

Personally I dont think you understand the Northern plains. Let me ask you instead first, what are the "wrongs" that you see being righted in NI plains? or what are your goals then perhaps we can discuss the above differences in a more specific manner.

Sanku ji, of course, I don't claim that I understand NI plains completely.

The social factors which have led to downfall of Indian sanskriti and territorial limits OR has resisted any attempts to revive them (territory and sanskriti) can be called as "wrongs". There is nothing "wrong" in absolute sense, anyways, this is just for the sake of convenience.

The course of history changes when the power shifts from the hands of one beholder to next. After all, history is indeed a report of events from the point of view of survivor, who most of the times is also a victor in the conflict for power-inheritance. If the change in power-centre of a particular region is sudden and drastic, so is the change in Geo-Political and Socio-Economic outlook of individuals, societies, nations and civilizations. Thus, we see that the flow of power determines the course of history. Softer the transition of power, smoother is the change in the course

In India, usually it is just a sequence of small insignificant chain of events which brings about a change in the history, sociology of a civilization over the period of time, rather than big events which rarely influence the course of history as much. Moreover, a vast country like India in term of space, time, population and diversity, trait of accepting the changes rather slowly is typically observed when viewed from neutral perspective.

As stated earlier, the shift of power-centre is a result of complex web of forces which are acting in tandem. The net direction of the forces decides the inheritor of power. The method in which power transition occurs successively, largely depends upon the inherent power-structure of the region. The inherent power-structure of a region largely depends upon climate, geography, social and religious customs and world-view of the power-holders. It also depends upon the outlook and the world-view of the rival meme intending to shift the equilibrium in its favour.

Buffering of power transition by local power-centres.

The power structure of Indo-Gangetic plains is primarily feudal in nature. The Zamindari OR feudal lords of the region have vested power-interests of self-preservation in spite of all the global changes. Thus, it rarely mattered to a peasant who the king in Delhi was because his immediate ruler, the feudal lord and his system, remained unchanged in average life-span of an ordinary citizen. The feudal set-up is deeply entrenched within the social hierarchy and power-structure of Indo-Gangetic plains.

This deeply entrenched feudal system had a very favourable impact on preservation of Indic identity during 800 long Islamic onslaught on North Indian plains. Every conqueror OR invader from central asia who succeeded in displacing the incumbent ruler of Delhi Sultanate, had to enter into some sort of power-sharing agreement with these local power centres (who were primarily Indic) which possessed very high degree of mercantile and mercenary character. For example, Mughals had to initiate Mansabdari system (by Raja Mansingh under Emperor Akbar) to accommodate and share power with these very feudal lords. In fact, this system was encouraged and strengthened in order to enlist the help of feudal lords in imperial conquests of Mughals.

This tremendously dilutes the ability of the conqueror/invader to flawlessly project his power. The chain of local power-centres throughout Indo-Gangetic plains made the progress of invader (in terms of implementing drastic change in existing socio-economic and political system) rather slow.

Thus, India was saved from suffering the fate of Zoroastrian Persia and was able to retain the Indic identity in spite of all the onslaughts.

Emergence of North Indian local Satraps - A Historical Perspective

The region of Magadha (modern Bihar, eastern UP and West Bengal) has been the traditional powerhouse of India since the dawn of civilization. This region is blessed with all natural resources, fertile land, amicable climate and above all, its a very large reservoir of extremely talented human resource. This remained (and to certain extent, still remains) the core and the heartland of India. The zeal with with Bimbisara, Nanda, Maurya, Sunga, Gupta, Vardhan, Pratiharas consolidated the power over entire swathe from Khyber to Assam time and again, shows the character of Indian polity. The mercenary and Mercantile character which we see today in this region was by and large minimal in Indic rulers of ancient and early-medieval times.

Something happened over the course of history. After defeat of Harshavardhan of Kannauj at the hands of Chalukya king Pulikeshi in 640 AD, the tendency to consolidate the power for longer and farther started evaporating from Gangetic plains. Even though Gurjara-Pratiharas consolidated much of North and entered into tripartite struggle for control of India with Paal dynasty of Bengal and Rashtrakoot dynasty of Deccan, this evaporation did not stop. Pratihara dynasty had to invest lot of energy in consolidating the feudals of gangetic plains and could not strike back at Rashtrakutas when Dhruva Dharavarsh and later Govind-3rd, defeated Pratiharas and conquered Varanasi and Kannauj.

The decentralization that set in Indo-Gangetic plains since defeat of Harsha could not be undone. The local feudal lords started garnering more power than any central authority. Thus, power became dispersed and impermanent. The last effort of successful consolidation of power in Indo-Gangetic plains was during Battle of Bahraich (1033 AD) when confederacy of all the kings from Punjab and Ganga plains united to defeat Masood Gazni decisively. Since then there has not been a single instance of an Indic power from Indo-Gangetic plains which successfully tried to consolidate entire North Indian plains from Attock to Guwahati. All the subsequent consolidations of this region (until 1947) were achieved by foreign invaders.

The mercantile mentality of buying off temporary peace and power at all costs without complete consolidation power set in and became deeply ingrained in the psyche of people from Indo-Gangetic plains. What was it that led to the loss of consolidating tendency of North Indic polity? Perhaps it was the flight of intellectuals to the south during Islamic onslaught. But then, the decay was set in long before advent of Islam. Was it because of too much of prosperity for too long? The uprising of 1857 showed a momentary promise, but soon it died out as well.

- From here

This post combined with previous one, might give you my understanding of the "fundamental-wrong" in gangetic plains. That is Loss of the tendency to consolidate power longer and farther by all means. The focus has shifted from expansion to conservation at all costs, which has led to emergence of mercantile mentality.

This fundamental wrongs have given rise to few other secondary wrongs - feudalism, entrenched and relatively static casteism with relatively less social upward mobility, absence of any newly assimilated communities.

You are correct, it is Bazaar of ideas. It always is, everything is.. In the market of gangetic plains, the players have created their niche and not very much keen on targetting new segments. Of course, in modern times, mayawati has given a novel formula which has worked, but how far will it go remains to be seen. The players in market protect their domain by all the power available at their command. This also refers to hard-power. Poltical parties have their own set of tough-men who do act as a 'quasi-army' of the satrap. Of course, this limits the capability of power-projection as there already is a officially sanctioned force of tough-men (Police and army) to maintain order. Hence the degree of freedom has reduced in modern day satraps.

Furthermore, with increase in population and literacy, the market itself has grown tremendously, thus those segments which were never targeted till date became similar to untapped oil-reserves. This has led to disruption in the continuity of feudal-lords slowly. The emergence of "neo-vaishyas" will have positive effects in correcting the wrongs of gangetic plains if they are given a "program" by nationalistic organizations. If this new class, its needs are not understood by socio-political natioinalistic organizations, this class won't hesitate in selling off the nation and themselves. They need to be given a social program which is tailor-made for them so that their "National Character" remains alive and is nourished.

Another factor is migration. When landless labourer migrates to another province, the competition decreases. If that migration is successful, more people migrate, thus distributing the market size evenly. For example, there is a NI-lobby in MH which was not existent few decades ago and which is being pandered by a section of politicos. The money which is sent back by the migrants to their families increases the PPP of larger section of society and distributes it more uniformly than earlier strict feudal structure.

The global power which intends to achieve this harmonization over this region, needs to convince the local satraps to share the wealth and power with them without allowing them to grow too powerful. Akbar did that, British did that, and now yuvaraj is attempting to do that.

In the eastern sector of gangetic plains, weakening of left is one of the steps towards undoing teh wrongs of G-plains. The price paid for it, has certain pros and cons, which I was simply enlisting.

looking forward to read from you.

[brihaspati]

I guess Atri ji is on the right track. But he perhaps needs to expand on the ideas proposed. It is here that things can go seriously wrong.

The northern Plains society is in a state of flux. The traditional business establishment and entrenched commercial-mercantile networks there are facing unprecedented challenges. This is from the new small entrepreneurial class which do not necessarily come from the traditional "Vaishya" communities - and come from both ends of the spectrum of landed-aristos, feudal dependent tarditional administrative classes, as well as that of labour and peasantry. While the traditional mercantile classes have kept regional forces in power, the new entrants will soon land up in the same position of looking to have a handle on the rashtryia power segment to enhance their business interests.

Which way this amorphous class swings will determine the direction of northern politics in the short to mid term range. Are they inherently "nationalistic". I am not so sure - I think a portion definitely is, while the others will shed their inhibitions to be opportunistic at the drop of the kurta perhaps.

The task will be to use this big vs small mercantile contest to make them both serve the nationalistic purpose. Crisis is the screen which filters out the required arrangement of forces. The current policy of appeasement of Islamism will lead to at least one input into such a crisis. Sooner or later the north is going to fall to Jihad - and this time around the dynasty does not even have a JLN to paranoidly try to preserve a "homeland" in UP at the cost of "peripheral and troublesome" (in his vision perhaps) regions. Ironically, over the long run history seems to extract the required prices for stupidity and greed or smallness from politicians - on their descendants and successors or beneficiaries. So far, the UP-Delhi clique that oversaw the Partition has not paid for the blood and shame of Punjabi non-Muslims or Bengali non-Muslims.

The policies undertaken by JLN's political descendants will lead to a spread of Islamic power in the Gangetic plains. That will wipe away a lot of collaborators who will either join the Islamists or fight on their side. Without such a clarity of crisis which forces people to come out into the open with their affiliations, and the real horrors of Islamic subjugation on non-muslims is seen - not much will progress.

[ramana]

RayC would have been proud of your post regarding the non-payment for the sins of Partition.

[brihaspati]

^^ The left hand doesn't know it is related to the right. When they strike they strike similarly. Lets keep it that way!

[brihaspati]

Acharya wrote
Fundamentally nationalism is come into the body politics inside India and it may be less in that region. But the purpose of the nation is to move forward and pool resources to take up challengers and spread " its way of life". All the region has to come to the same goals and value system one day or the other.

This is the ultimate aim. But the way forward is complicated and twisted. Without clearing the pre-existing vested networks we cannot go forward. One way is a tactical encouragement of the new SME (small to medium enterprise) class so that the "big" get sufficiently scared to either join in or side with Jihadis, Maoists etc. (something which is already observable). At the same time represent how the "big" are in the way of the SME's and what they need to do to "clear the way". The SME sector will be of the right size if attended to from now. They will not be strong enough to take up the big+collaborator+Jihadis+maoists on their own, and here they have to be shown why they need to call on the non-Gangetics for an united front. The public acknowledgment of real economic interests can be more damaging then the formal face of a moral high ground and ideological impersonal motivation. This also the astute SME will understand. That is exactly the point where the new Bharatyia darshan comes in -for the next phase of expansion of our nation.

[Sanku]

Atriji;

Considering the good vibes we have had over many years on the forum, I am sure our discussions will not mean disagreements. I just say this to begin with to keep *my* side of things transparent.

First off --

0) You have outlined general *issues*, forgive me but I was looking at something *more* specific. Being under the rule of other powers is a wrong, agreed, but the NI plains were ever in revolt, nearly perpetual. And remember these were from people who actually had the onerous responsibility of not having a distinct power base, but to create one right under the noses of occupiers. And the resistance spanned from the Jats in the west to Rajputs and Brahmins in the east. The full spectrum. Around the clock. For later issues you have to be more exact. Please.

You seem to think of NI plains as a settled issue. They were not.


1) You have alluded to local Kshatraps -- please realize, all of you that there are NO local Kshtraps. Not Lalu, Not Mayawati not Nitish. Who are these? These are at best *upstarts* they *do not* tap into a older more established power structure. They are *also* backed up *all* segments of society. ALL. Mayawati won on the basis of *Sarvajan* which was essentially the platform Congress used to win on, followed by BJP when it had the hold and now by these. Please realize, that none of them were ever on the firmament till as recent as 10 years back. A blink of the eye if not less by the time lines we are used to as Indians. Compare this even with timelines of Maratha strongmen (Pawar et al, the real perpetrators, or Karunanidhi, or Patnaiks of Orrisa)

2) JLN policies have been overwritten about 20 years back. Remember again that the Ayodhya movement was in 93 (or as Bji correctly points out) actually after Shah Bano. The valley is in ferment, I think both even Bji underestimates the depth of fury.

3) The real issue in NI plains is that it is a tinder box. It will be slow to rise, because once it rises, the *least* will be something around 20 years back. Or actually something like 1857.

4) Bji thinks the North will be lost to Jihad. I think it will merely kick start the tandav.

[brihaspati]

Protest : "lost" only temporrarily! Didnt I shout from a long time ago -and even recently - that, that will be the real opportunity to start back. I do not want to highlight the "frustration" - so that cosmetic measures are not undertaken to neutralize that. I would be only too glad to see it increase further. To a certain degree the valley needs to learn its lessons and do its penance for repeatedly falling into the trap of "Delhi" - and look beyond the valley. Realize that it is crucial to honour and acknowledge the "vraatyas" and have them on the same side - just one side - in fact.

[brihaspati]

Sanku ji,
realistically speaking - analyze the actual balance of forces that can convert into real military strength when "needed". Look at the geographical distribution of that "force" and the locational disadvantages. The handicaps of little or no practical "organization" to harness that frustration into concrete military capability in effective terms. Initially you cannot win or even "hold on", you will have to retreat tactically.

[Sanku]

Accepted....

PS> the part about the loss being temporary.

For the second one, I will not share my views, for reasons you may understand.

[Prem]

Bsir ji,
Dont agree completly. Lost depend on the quality, tenacity and the willing spiritness. in my convoluted thinking our huge standing army guards the periphery while domestic initiative can neutralize any internal threat ..if it ever come to existence. Its unpredicatble,small initiative can gather its own momentum and spread unconrolably. It calls for caution on all the forces to think Hajar baar before centuries of build up anger take control of sanity.

[brihaspati]

Sanku ji,
I am not so sure which side the rashtryia forces are primarily going to be used on. In my reckoning, at best it will be hamstrung because of conflicting loyalties of ideology, culture and formal oath or professional commitment. So that will leave the "forces" on the field. Given the confusion and divisions I am not that hopeful for the initial round.

Prem ji,
the will is not there in those who hold the power and key to intervene. That is where the problem lies.

[Muppalla]

JLN policies have been overwritten about 20 years back. Remember again that the Ayodhya movement was in 93 (or as Bji correctly points out) actually after Shah Bano. The valley is in ferment, I think both even Bji underestimates the depth of fury.

I have a slightly different take on this and I am not good at analyzing the history beyond 25 years. Hope I am not changing the direction of the topic. I also admit that I am not following this thread for a long time.

For most of India (except states like WB), the sympathy for revivalism/nationalism exists but not a priority. What I mean is for different sections of Hindu society, revival of Ayodhya etc. is a good to have thing but not a requirement. The primary priority is always one-upmanship over the traditional social rivalry. The rivalry runs between sections/classes also called as castes (Brahmins, Jats, Forward classes, BC, OBCs, Middle BC, SCs ). It overlaps like in a venn diagram. Even in the rivalry the unity and disunity is who is my biggest rival. For example until a certain period of time all the middle India ( a.k.a BCs) fought against the Forward castes and when they achieved the victory then the fight moved to traditional fissures inside these complex groupings.

Now coming to the Ayodhya movement and the numerical support that evolved between 1987-1990. In my view this was/is not the priority for the populace before, during or after that period. It is just a platform that was built to break the nexus for another one-upmaship of new grouping. It was the middle India (so called Backward Classes) which was very-very-very Hindu when compared to even the Forward Castes was not in the lead role since India's independence. VP Singh tried his ways of breaking using all the Janata parivar of Laloo, Mulayam, Nithish etc on one platform. The BJP also tried for the same groupings using the low priortiy issue. VP Singh (lead roles Thakurs) and BJP (lead roles Bania ). Brahmins are in both sides (INC and BJP). When they defeated INC in 1989 now came the next priority of consolidation of another rivalry - Exclusive middle India's consolidation over the Forward castes. Mandal report is the platform that brought Mulayam+Maya together and Laloo+Nitish together. During the Mandal consolidation, the entire forward castes has seen the complete loss of power which they were holding under INC and hence they jumped onto the Ayodhya bandwagon to get one-upmanship. Using Ayodhya platform they were successful to divide sections of BCs. The importance is not Ayodhya ( a very good sellable issue) but one-upmanship.

I can go-on writing this theory until the current governments, but what I am trying is the fundamental in India is one-upmanship between grouping is a priority. If the leadership used Nationalistic and revivalistic issues as platforms we see sudden spirits of Indic forces. If the entire leadership on all sides just become ambivalant to nationalist issues and concentrate on something else then the same forces we see on supporting Islamism (like Mulayams) and all drifting type issue from the main course.

In WB, Kerala and few other pockets, the story is entirely different.

Ultimately it the strategy of the leadership of the day that brings issues to the frontend.

[Prem]

Sanku ji,
I am not so sure which side the rashtryia forces are primarily going to be used on. In my reckoning, at best it will be hamstrung because of conflicting loyalties of ideology, culture and formal oath or professional commitment. So that will leave the "forces" on the field. Given the confusion and divisions I am not that hopeful for the initial round.

Prem ji,
the will is not there in those who hold the power and key to intervene. That is where the problem lies.

But people power is there and it has been pretty energetic when unleashed . With the information age, Die and PSers are dying breed , mango manav is bound to take over the agenda setting process.

[Sanku]

JLN policies have been overwritten about 20 years back. Remember again that the Ayodhya movement was in 93 (or as Bji correctly points out) actually after Shah Bano. The valley is in ferment, I think both even Bji underestimates the depth of fury.

I have a slightly different take on this and I am not good at analyzing the history beyond 25 years. Hope I am not changing the direction of the topic. I also admit that I am not following this thread for a long time.

I dont disagree with this either, there is definitely the mechanics that you mention that are in play there, of local jostling for personal growth (as I have often said -- the main issue in Indian power play through out history everywhere)

The answer does not have to be either or but a synthesis of both.

Basically the political power needs a substantial grouping, past experiments have shown that issues which appeal only to a certain section are shortlived at best a booster rocket to get some place. Once the issue is played out, say OBCs get a bigger say compared to XYZ, and the quest for one upmanship is fulfilled, the resulting vaccum is again a free for all.

Only issues and approaches which can cut across boundaries and act as a "something for all" will act to bring power. Otherwise its at best a one stint flash in pan power.

Congress did it successfully with "soft nationalism and development" till it lost the balance with increasing amounts of appeasements on one side (which is also fully expected) -- the vaccum was used by others.

Note Lalu-Nitish-Sharad WERE NOT caste leaders -- they were LOIHAITES -- their primary victory is on the basis of 1977 (yes thats true ) they reinvented themselves after 77 when that experiment failed badly and congress also folded up.

Mayawati was a caste leader who found she could go no further unless she bound things under "Sarvjan" tag.

So I will claim again that the issue is to find the "platform" -- the congress platform is dead, congress killed it itself. Mayawati-Nitish platform of keeping balance seems to be at least a temporary success.

BJP is a outlier because it has the same platform since 1950s and it has not changed, yet it managed to get in for a long stint -- that platform is now primed and ready for use -- BJP is not able to because it stands discredited, accused of being a me too party.

[Atri]

Atriji;

Considering the good vibes we have had over many years on the forum, I am sure our discussions will not mean disagreements. I just say this to begin with to keep *my* side of things transparent.

I am still in learning phase, Sankuji.. No disagreements and no hard feelings even in case of disagreements.. Tension nai leneka..

1) You have alluded to local Kshatraps -- please realize, all of you that there are NO local Kshtraps. Not Lalu, Not Mayawati not Nitish. Who are these? These are at best *upstarts* they *do not* tap into a older more established power structure. They are *also* backed up *all* segments of society. ALL. Mayawati won on the basis of *Sarvajan* which was essentially the platform Congress used to win on, followed by BJP when it had the hold and now by these. Please realize, that none of them were ever on the firmament till as recent as 10 years back. A blink of the eye if not less by the time lines we are used to as Indians. Compare this even with timelines of Maratha strongmen (Pawar et al, the real perpetrators, or Karunanidhi, or Patnaiks of Orrisa)

I agree, and perhaps this is what I am trying to convey when I said "the fragmented power" in gangetic plains post 1985 era. The "wannabee" Satraps are not desirable for rise of Gangetic plains. The mentality of preserving the stronghold and not going for a kill outside is on the rise. The division of UP into UK and UP, is one of the steps in this process (whether it was essential OR whether it actually helped or not, is another issue). The proposals of further divisions into "Brajbhumi OR Harit-Pradesh", Awadh and Poorvanchal is driven by similar motives - an attempt by these "wannabe" Kshatraps to preserve their power by cutting the "periphery". This is what I meant when I say that the tendency to project power longer and farther is lost in Gangetic plains and I have discussed the probable historical reasons for the same.

I would really hope one power ruling entire swathe from Delhi to Bengal. This may or may not refer to one party, because it gets tricky in party-based parliamentary system of democracy. Different administrative divisions may be ruled by similar local Kshatraps who nominally owe their allegiance to one single party, but the party has no uniform policy to be implemented throughout the divisions under its rule.

3) The real issue in NI plains is that it is a tinder box. It will be slow to rise, because once it rises, the *least* will be something around 20 years back. Or actually something like 1857.

Aameen.... But even 1857 is not desirable, IMO. It too was a fragmented effort. Yes, the events similar to 1985-1995 are something which I wish to see, in terms of alignment of public and local wannabe kshatraps interests and the global power.

[Sanku]

Aameen.... But even 1857 is not desirable, IMO. It too was a fragmented effort. Yes, the events similar to 1985-1995 are something which I wish to see, in terms of alignment of public and local wannabe kshatraps interests and the global power.

Atriji; if I may paraphrase, what you are asking for is something quite simpler, you are asking for alignment of power in Gangetic plains and Delhi.

Same power and if it exists over this swath will have "Global" outlook. Congress had it till 75 and for all their faults and disagreements they were not "insular" or "status-quoist"

BJP came close, but it flickered out before it could hold for a long time.

The idea continues to be lack of a "single unifying message" -- I believe there is one below the surface, it needs to be capitalized on.

[ramana]

Atri and Sanku Please read between the lines of this article and dig deeper. I posted my take here.

The Week From Kerala

Slip of Tongue?

This is a significant article for it shows some change in INC strategy in Indo-Gangetic heartland.

Slip of the tongue? - Suman K. Jha


Politics
Congress sources say that Rahul Gandhi only meant Bangladesh's liberation

"India being a big country, it needs a massive push to start it rolling, but once it starts to roll, it takes a massive push to stop it. If you look 30 to 50 years ahead, which is where one should look, I am pretty certain India will be one of the top five powers. The issue is whether we will be among top three or not.... That will make a big difference to how we impact poverty. Equally important is how we'll behave in that position. Will we be a complete bully, or will we be a power that is more accepting...?"

Rahul Gandhi in an interview (late 2004)

Rahul Gandhi sought to tread a hitherto uncharted path during his fourth leg of Uttar Pradesh jan sampark abhiyan (public contact programme). The Congress heir had focused exclusively on development ("Has your lot improved one bit in the last 15 years, when several parties tried to divide you on the lines of caste and religion?"), the youth ("The youth, who comprise 70 per cent of the state's population, will take the state forward to its past glory"), and the state ("Elections or no elections, I'm here to stay") in the first three legs of his roadshows. Save for a response to a question by THE WEEK that triggered a political storm in Uttar Pradesh ("Had anyone from my family been active, the Babri demolition would not have taken place"), Rahul had consciously avoided raking up any contentious issue.

In the fourth leg of his Uttar Pradesh foray which began on April 13, he added the 'first family' to his three-point agenda, described as a "tactical shift" by a senior Congress leader. "My job doesn't end with the elections. I'm here till we have a Congress government in the state. Other parties should know that I come from a family that matches its actions with deeds," he said in almost all the 10 public meetings he addressed in three days. While the entire opposition cited this as yet another expression of how the Congress had become subservient to the Gandhi family, Congress strategists felt that the Nehru-Indira-Rajiv genealogy would strike a chord with the party's traditional support base.

It was his speech at Badayun and at Bareilly that, besides inviting Pakistan's wrath, had party honchos scurrying for cover. "I come from a family that doesn't shy away from its responsibilities, whether it is the freedom struggle, breaking up of Pakistan, or ushering in a new era of technology and IT," he said.

The after-tremors could be felt from far and wide. Pakistan foreign office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam said that Rahul's remarks proved allegations that India interfered in Pakistan's affairs and tried to destabilise it. "India took advantage of the circumstances to dismember Pakistan, and the scion of Nehru family has accepted the real Indian motives for the intervention," she said. Some peaceniks in Delhi even accused the Congress leader "of derailing the Indo-Pak peace talks".

While this sounded a little far-fetched, and the cacophony died down in a couple of days, as expected, the entire political class spent countless hours deciphering the text and context of Rahul's "breaking up Pakistan" intervention.

"Who is advising him on matters like these?" one of the tallest Muslim leaders in the Congress thundered. "Are we trying to be one up on the Bharatiya Janata Party?" asked another senior Muslim Congress leader, and said the reference was avoidable. A leader known for his proximity to Rahul tried to reason that he was probably trying to match the "BJP's nationalist rhetoric in one of their strongholds". While the Congress has been known for its old trick of playing community cards selectively, one is not sure if Rahul would find the analogy flattering. There were even voices against the "corporate types" advising Rahul on political matters.

Those who know Rahul said that while he was open to various viewpoints, he was known to speak his mind. Hence, the "breaking up of Pakistan" marked a clear and disturbing departure from what Rahul has sought to symbolise so far.

While an Akhand Bharat votary might tom-tom this as "an achievement", how is the "breaking up of Pakistan" relevant to Rahul's espousal of Gandhian nationalism? Congress spokesperson Devendra Dwivedi countered that he was speaking "at an election campaign and not at a seminar". Another top Congress leader argued that Rahul only meant "liberation of Bangladesh," as distinctly different from the "breaking up of Pakistan". A plausible explanation, but are the future prime ministers allowed the luxury of retakes in their public pronouncements? And, how does this idea fit into Rahul's idea of India "as one of the top three powers that is more accepting"?

In the earlier legs of his Uttar Pradesh foray, Rahul had talked about "opening the doors of the Congress for the state youth," something that many thought signalled a welcome democratisation of a dynasty-obsessed Congress. It was back to the dynasty in his fourth leg, so much so that Congress spokespersons were not unanimous on how to defend the move. While Satyavrat Chaturvedi wanted to put other parties under the scanner, Dwivedi argued that the Gandhis' political lives were coterminous with the life of the republic. BJP leader L.K. Advani blasted the Congress: "This shows a mindset that one family alone is fit to rule the country."

"While the BJP is the polar opposite of the Congress, is there any fundamental difference between the Samajwadi Party or the Bahujan Samaj Party and our party? Our failure to produce a Mayawati or a Mulayam Singh Yadav reflects how the party has become entirely dynasty-centred," said a senior Congress leader. In one of his works, political observer Pratap Bhanu Mehta describes the phenomenon as "the decline of the very institution of political party".

Even with a section of the Congress convinced that the dynasty alone keeps this disparate organisation together, many thought Rahul would be keen to make the party relevant by democratising it. If Rahul had a blueprint for the same, one didn't get to hear about it amid the talk of the dynasty and the party in UP.

My take is the inner core of the Indo-Gangetic plain's heart is set on the tremors of the Partition and undoing it will reap huge benefits to whoever does it. And the INC leadership which understands it is moving to the center nationalist stance.

[Sanku]

Thank you Ramana Sir, the fact that this news was not visible in local media but highlighted in a publication from Kerla is very interesting too.

INC seems to be testing waters...

[ramana]

Hey I always said that Kerala has the pulse of the nation and the foreign policy. Any chaiwalaa in Mallustan can make FP in national interests. Tts their heritage of being in contact with the foreign world from time immemorial.

[brihaspati]

I think it should be made clear to the UP-ites that what RG is trying to do is his great grandfather's hijacking of the "nationalist" undercurrent to ultimately betray it but use it to enhance personal and family power. Just as in the past India got truncated and divided because of the overuse of the rhetoric by the great grandfather without any real and concrete sincerity behind the effort - an even greater disaster will take place if RG is allowed to misappropriate this.

If he identifies so much with his family's legacy - then that legacy has always been a vacillation in the face of Islamism and hesitation at crucial points. In the end, it has always led to compromises that gave out more than they even pretended to achieve, and even at the best of attempts have landed up ultimately helping the Islamist cause against India.

People should remember what really happened in 47 - with an overtly staunch refusal to compromise before, overnight capitualtion in the face of violence and abandonment of "periphery", and overt appeasement afterwards.

If we need anyone, then that should be Sardar - a man who did not hang on his fathers's kurta tails to fly high and who did not generate a child needing to repeat that dynatsic performance. One who more or less proved a less bombastic but more reliable "do-er".

Beware again - if this man is allowed to hijack "nationalism" then another disaster looms large. For this time around it will damage the very cause of "nationalism" simply by association.

[kittoo]

Atri and Sanku Please read between the lines of this article and dig deeper. I posted my take here.

The Week From Kerala

Slip of Tongue?

This is a significant article for it shows some change in INC strategy in Indo-Gangetic heartland.

My take is the inner core of the Indo-Gangetic plain's heart is set on the tremors of the Partition and undoing it will reap huge benefits to whoever does it. And the INC leadership which understands it is moving to the center nationalist stance.

I am sorry I dont understand. Why were Congress Muslim leaders so angry at this? They did not like that Pakistan was cut or am I missing something here?
I really don't understand what the fuss is about that statement. That Congress should not behave like BJP? Should not divert from legacy? Should not anger Pakistan? Should not be nationalistic? Shouldn't have liberated Bangladesh? Or is it because of same old thought in Congress that Indian Muslims are sympathetic to Pak?

[Sanku]

This has to be seen in the context of "soft-nationalism" of INC, as being discussed above Congress was considered THE nationalistic platform, till the seeds sown by JLN (as described by Bji above) finally fructified in 84-87 and tore Congress apart.

My thesis is that Nationalism is a stream bubbling underneath, in their entire gangetic valley, right up to red heartlands, it needs to be tapped.

BJP came the closest to retapping it, and this time free of the burden of JLN which INC was suffering from, it came to fore in the way Sardar would have had it, but due to its own lack of belief, it sunk back and has discredited itself.

This is the "platform" that we have been talking about.

Ramana thinks INC wants to reclaim it -- and he means it positively.

Brihaspati thinks it INC wants to reclaim it -- in the negative way JLN hijacked it.

I think the forces will chose its own leader when the time comes. We will not be denied again.

------------------

Now specifically to your question

Congress has moved so far away from true nationalism under the guidance of JLN meme that they are uncomfortable with it, for now they are not 90% nationalism with 10% appeasement. They are now 90% appeasement with 10% opportunism.

Neither of which agrees very well with nationalism.

[ramana]

What I mean is INC has sensed the undercurrent and is grabbing it. Its the demographics. The youth are not willing to be tolerant and suffer for the TSP's slow decline to a haven of terrorism directed towards India. The old cornies don't like the trend that they see emerging where INC makes grab for the center in absence of any other viable grouping. RG's statement about having responsibility for Pak break up resonates with the people. That is why he is making it. And this is discomforting to the see near Congress leaders.

In 1996 the NDA got a bare majority and it was termed the 'fractured" verdict. I said at that time it was halting turn to the right which brought the NDA to power for 13 days and finally in 1998 and 1999. However in 2004 the NDA lost the way and now after 6 years INC is trying to ride the wave. They realise votebank will get you so far but not all the way. And that makes the votebanks nervous. hence the angst. BTW votebanks include pseudo-secular chatterati.

[Sanku]

Makes me wonder, is Chidu mentoring Yuvraj? Rajmata/MMS & Co are not known to be like this.

And is that the Quid pro quo keeping Chidu alive?

Why are Rajmata and Yuvraj on different notes? Good cop bad cop?

Or real differences in perception?

[Sanku]

On a different note please read the following article fully

http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/bhopal-t ... php?u=1409

While the article does a dutiful == between BJP and Congress, even the article can not help noticing how ALL the main decisions which helped UCC substantially and altered the case as well as the fortunes of UCC were taken with help of Congress Stalwarts.

Arjun Singh and Digvijaya Singh being most prominent. We also know their political views and history.

Is there a surprise that we see a particular behavior towards Indian Interest vis a vis US Interests since 2004.

[Muppalla]

Ramana, Sanku and others - Rahul G made that statement as early as 2004 and The Week is taking that 2004 interview and putting a huge article around it now. I do not know why now because since then a lot has flowed in Indian politics.

I will leave analysis to gurus here. However, I will give certain pointers:
(1) It is not just a Kerala magzine. Its name is "The Week" from malayalamanorama which is top of the chart in Kerala. Gandhi family's inner ring is always filled with Keralites like V.K.George etc. Most of the private albumn photos of Gandhi family are published with exclusive rights in this magazine at various times.
(2) When INC won the power in 2004, initial strategy for few months was to take over the "Nationalistic platform" from BJP and Rahul was part of the theme.
(3) Later cold calculations led them to revisit the platform and they concluded that they have to return to the glorious 1980 and early 90s to get the INC back to old days. In that pursuit they blindly-singly-focussed aproach was to get back Muslims into fold. The following are some of the many glimpses:
(a) To prove their loyalty to IMs they removed POTA and not only that they ignored to arrest several known terrorists
(b) Don't hang Afzal
(c) Create equal-equal Hindu terror
(d) etc. etc. etc ( there are 100s of such stuff)

The strategy paid off very well.

But that article now to me looks like Late Rajiv Gandhi approach of sailing on two boats. May be recent whrill wind tours of Varun Gandhi on BJP platform is giving some anxious moments.

The week will not publish anything that puts the family in a piquant situation. It is the magzine from the 10 janpath

[ramana]

Muppalla wrote;

Ramana, Sanku and others - Rahul G made that statement as early as 2004 and The Week is taking that 2004 interview and putting a huge article around it now. I do not know why now because since then a lot has flowed in Indian politics.

They are providing context by quoting the 2004 interview to say RG had three items : development, youth, and state . Now(April 13) he has added another item - first family.

Maybe precisely for the reasons you pointed out they (The Week) are trying to highlight the new turn.

[Atri]

Good article, Ramana ji.. Very informative..

@Sanku ji,

Coming close to consolidation is meaningless, IMHO. Power comes with permanence; Impermanence is Impotence and Rotation is castration. BJP came close has no meaning, since it could not hold the power for long in that region. The mistakes of BJP were not repeated by INC, while they are trying to regain the "Pre-1985" condition in Gangetic plains. I agree with demographical changes along with changes in the aspirations of youth in gangetic plains which will force INC to move slightly towards right. My worry is, BJP might shift to further right looking at INC succeeding with its move of "Dakshinaayana"... This will further make the consolidation of Ganga valley difficult for BJP.

Out of the given players in current times, INC is best poised and positioned for doing the job of "reconquista" of Gangetic plains. If nothing else, they might end up removing plenty of anomalous "upstarts" or "wannabe satraps" in that process before exhausting themselves. You are correct that once ganga starts moving towards right, it will be difficult to stop her due to sheer inertia. However, there is limit of "dakshinaayana" which INC is prepared to accept. The inner ramblings of muslim leaders is evident from that article.

In such case, elimination of the local power-centres will make it difficult for the rightward momentum to continue, if 10-janpath decides to call off dakshinayana and begin "Vaamaayana" again. Remember Chauri-Chaura and MKG's subsequent downhill skiing? This is exactly what happened post 2004 victory, which muppalla ji pointed out. The 10 Janpath stemmed this Dakshinaayana and did plenty of deplorable ==, which we know of.

Somehow, anglosaxons and the powers affiliated to them are afraid of repeat of 1857 and rightly so since they have a most to loose, if ganga rises... And even from India's perspective, without the "Surrounding arc" ready to jump in the Ganga plains when chips are down, repeat of 1857 will be worthless; just like original one. Too much of blood spilt, all for nothing.

If however, there is power-sharing understanding between BJP and INC with INC controlling the plains and BJP controlling the arc, there might be possibility for 1857 redux to reach its logical ends. But won't that be a self-goal for INC?

[Prem]

What I mean is INC has sensed the undercurrent and is grabbing it. Its the demographics. The youth are not willing to be tolerant and suffer for the TSP's slow decline to a haven of terrorism directed towards India. The old cornies don't like the trend that they see emerging where INC makes grab for the center in absence of any other viable grouping. RG's statement about having responsibility for Pak break up resonates with the people. That is why he is making it. And this is discomforting to the see near Congress leaders.

In 1996 the NDA got a bare majority and it was termed the 'fractured" verdict. I said at that time it was halting turn to the right which brought the NDA to power for 13 days and finally in 1998 and 1999. However in 2004 the NDA lost the way and now after 6 years INC is trying to ride the wave. They realise votebank will get you so far but not all the way. And that makes the votebanks nervous. hence the angst. BTW votebanks include pseudo-secular chatterati.

Cant stop and resist the inevitable, wise to join it. If Kangress turn true nationalistic , the sacrifices made by nationalistic forces worth the pain. You never know , deep down, threre might be minute portion of soul left in current Kmen but then Acharya knows best.

[svinayak]

What I mean is INC has sensed the undercurrent and is grabbing it. Its the demographics. The youth are not willing to be tolerant and suffer for the TSP's slow decline to a haven of terrorism directed towards India. The old cornies don't like the trend that they see emerging where INC makes grab for the center in absence of any other viable grouping. RG's statement about having responsibility for Pak break up resonates with the people. That is why he is making it. And this is discomforting to the see near Congress leaders.

In 1996 the NDA got a bare majority and it was termed the 'fractured" verdict. I said at that time it was halting turn to the right which brought the NDA to power for 13 days and finally in 1998 and 1999. However in 2004 the NDA lost the way and now after 6 years INC is trying to ride the wave. They realise votebank will get you so far but not all the way. And that makes the votebanks nervous. hence the angst. BTW votebanks include pseudo-secular chatterati.

nationalist elements are inside INC and rss is also inside INC and supports it. The direction of the country and its long term vision has to be corrected to create a force of history in favor of India