Indian Core: Ideas and descriptions-I

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 01 Oct 2009 02:37

Javee, that is a valid point. Apart from size, what is there in the Vellore events that is not there in the 1857 events. The elephant in the room is that 1857 happened in the gangetic plains.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Oct 2009 02:50

Abhi_G wrote Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent, 03 Jan 2009 05:18 am
A vast majority of people in India see through the immediate cultural moorings in which they are brought up. Nothing wrong in that per se but how to make people see beyond their own noses? In my opinion, a healthy balance between pride for ones own region/language and the need to reach out further to the people speaking a different language but sharing a cultural commonality that has come down from a hoary past is the single most important task for nation building. The gradual distancing between the various regions have occurred due to a severe corrosion of the nationalist discourse in the post 1947 period. Leftist apologists are solely responsible for eroding sense of the "cultural" bonding that the word "Hindu" invokes.

brihaspati wrote Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent, 04 Jan 2009 02:54 pm

We are now into the devils fork : (1) what is nationalism per se (2) what is "our" nationalism?
The second question assumes that the first has been resolved conclusively. This is the reason I wanted to bypass the question of nationalism per se, and started out from the concept of a core and periphery that retains a spatial sense of "centre", a set of common ascriptions broadly felt by members of the core, and a sense of the "other", the "other" that does not belong to the "core", and an awareness of an intermediate gray zone, the periphery - that separates the core and the "non-core". This does not limit us by geographical boundaries, makes the whole concept a fluid and dynamic concept that can accommodate expansion of both space and ideology. Limiting ourselves to the debate about nationalism itself limits us in what we really need to look at, and we bog ourselves down in specifics that change over time and context.

"truth" can be relative, and Dharmic should have linguistically meant the neutral "characteristic" or "that which binds/holds". We are always struggling with the "truth" - we hear of "truths" being handed out by historians - who suppress and misrepresent from their own beliefs and agendas, consciously or subconsciously. "that which binds" could actually contain elements that really "binds" and does not let us move forward. We have to be very careful when we discuss such historical elements in our "nationalism" - for we can make mistakes in both direction.

I notice that there are two opposing positions - (a) one which is suspicious of all "dharmic", or "Hindu" components of "nationalism", (b) one which thinks of "non-Hindu" or "non-Dharmic" elements as incompatible with "nationalism" (for example any language that historically did not belong in the "nation" before a certain period,e tc.)

I would like to suggest a majjhim pantha - decide on a core set of values, principles sourced from long standing strands of thoughts within the populations broadly making up the current "core" (those we include as the majority residing within the approximate teritorial expanse of the subcontinent). These are going to be our foundational principle at the moment.

We should not try to make these principles binding forever into the future - this is the mistake made by micromanaging religions like Christianity or Islam - they impose what appeared to (or claimed to) have worked for a certain group of people, at a particular time, in a particular place, as forever strictly enforced. In following such arguments we deviate, from what I feel is my personal reading of the Bharatyia philosophies - the Upanihsadic principle of "Charaibeti" - never become stationary, even in your beliefs and understandings - constantly upgrade and reexamine past realizations and understandings, for at any given moment we are always limited by current bounds of knowledge. I have tried to say before also that the Bharatyia philosophies never micromanage, they are simply at most "meta-religions" - a framework of thought, and analyis of methodologies to arrive at religions perhaps but not religions themselves.

However, if we do not source our principle for moving forward, from these existing strands within Bharatyia philosophies and practices, we cannot move the "people" - this is the language that they will understand most readily - the reason so many of us here feel the need to have a regional language version of BR - communication is not a one way process, we have to speak a language that the "other" understands.

So I think we should clearly place our starting principles of characterizing the core, from the long standing strands of thoughts sustained within the core "populations" - however being careful to try and avoid all that were specific to a certain period and people or social system no longer relevant.

brihaspati wrote Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent, 05 Jan 2009 07:01 pm
I request again that we focus on key issues for the future :

(1) for an effective core that can ensure certain basic rights, and corresponding duties for all members of the core - we have to empower the "core". This means individual differences and claims of religion, creed, sects, ethnicities have to take a subsidiary place in the hierarchy if they clash with the commonly agreed principles of the core. And the reasons, in spite of Narayananji's misgivings and utter frustration, are simply because some religions or certain aspects of some religions are yet to show the flexibility or any indication whatsoever that they will accept such a subsidiary role. Every now and then, we have incidents coming out that shows that certain religions are insisting on maintaining their supremacy where control over their followers lives are concerned. We cannot have multiple arbitrary centres of authority over a member of the core. We cannot also allow the core to be hijacked by any ideology that claims suprahuman, beyond human criticism or negotiation, immunity and authority. This sort of authority claim has to go.

(2) if religions continue to show their refusal to conform to the supremacy of whatever we finally agree as the core principles, then we have to deal with it - if the past insists on nosing its way and trying to dominate our lives adversely, then we have to discuss, expose, and destroy the authority of such religions. Yes this can be distasteful, and "yadayada", but needs to be done anyway. You have to clear the rubble of old buildings that are crumbling down and creating obstacles for the road or are in the way of new construction.

(3) the least disruption would of course result from starting out with a modernization and filtering of principles common among the majority of populations within the current broad geographical extent of the core - India.

(4) the same rule extends to claims of ethnic special treatment - once we all agree to the core principles, they should take precedence over subgroup claims of immunity.

I am trying to point out that the basic idea in empowering the core and putting it on a solid foundation is to get a core set of principles and rights which take precedence over subgroup claims. For example, you cannot justify selling of women and children (dont jump, humans in general) under any pretext, poverty, religion, culture, giving it a different colour or name under religious practice - whatever. You cannot practice polygamy - under any pretext, religious, cultural, etc. You cannot insist on particular religion as precondition for marriage. You cannot claim to kill someone because of his/her marital/sexual choice under the pretext that it is your culture, tradition, religion. You cannot prevent the girl child from getting educated up to the highest possible level because it is not supported by your culture or religion. If cultures and religions come in with such claims because it is written down in some historical text which cannot be questioned as it is a revelation of a suprahuman unchallengeable authority - that is no longer "yaddayadda" - it is a mtter of utmost significance for our project, for the future.

In arguing against such retrogressive demands we may use deconstructions of religious texts, we may destroy their authority in the ideological arena, but that is a detail not for this thread.

We are yet to take up "separatism"!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Oct 2009 03:15

The disperse nature of the 1857 confrontation does not necessarily make it a non-war. Any conflict needs planning which is proportionate to the scale of the conflict.

I guess, here we are discarding decentralized warfare as war at all. Decentralized warfare can arise out of various contexts. It can be started by a compact leadership that plans for it and sets broad objectives and targets for it, but may not have a well defined huge compact army that moves together in well planned and predetermined battle plans. It can also start spontaneously by the actions of independent or semi-independent armed groups which can over time consolidate or form a single common command. But in this case there must pre-exist the ideological framework which sets the agenda.

Most of the large scale armed movements of nationalism or ideology in the 20th century were of this type - especially the so-called guerrilla ones, like the CPC and Red Army under Mao and Chu Teh, or the North Vietnamese under Ho Chih Minh. Here the broad ideological targets were set, and no military core existed at the start of the fighting. At later stages in these two, and in the earlys tages of the Russian Revolution, armed units of the regular army also joined in - but this did not happen under the orders of any regular and pre-existing army command that was deliberately detaching units in line with a battle campaign plan.

If the conflict of 1857 was as widespread as is being represented, with participation of a wide spectrum of groups with no clearly defined pre-existing command centre and planning, then it does indicate that it was possibly a spontaneous decentralized warfare. Here there must have been a previously existing ideological motivation that set the agenda and helped align disconnected groups to join in. It seems to fit the pattern of the Spring 1917 Russian revolution (when the Bolshevik agitators still did not dominate the army) when a general pre-existing ideological framework of democracy/nationalism/anti-monarchism among large proportions of common soldiers and recruits prompted them to act under crisis.

In the case of India, this ideological framework perhaps has not been explored properly yet. But the decentralization could actually point to exactly such an ideological preparation.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Oct 2009 03:35

Javee wrote:
Sanku wrote:The scale, planning involved the motivations and factors such as these dear friend and its aftermaths. Its a simple case really.
Sankuji,
My beef is , they call 1857 first war of independence; it may be the biggest and best organized resistance, but its not the first. The conditions for 1806 mutiny are pretty much the same as 1857, so discounting one versus the other because of the size of resistance is not correct.

We are falling for the British description of the events as 'mutiny'. Both had that, but the latter event had much more.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 01 Oct 2009 04:17

The problem with describing 1857 as a war arise not because of the dispersed decentralized nature, but when considering the execution. The conflict has all the symptoms of a Mutiny++. The "++" coming from the fact that a generally dissatisfied population & also some dissatisfied petty rajahs joined in.

But what is sorely missing is this events leading to full-scale actual battle. There is a severe absence of most aspects of military engagement or pitched battles. Most descriptions from the Indain sides also include unsavory details of kiling women & children, indicative of the lawless nature of the uprising.

That said, I am not insensitive to the fact that India has psychological needs to think of this as a war.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 01 Oct 2009 05:02

Speech of Chandragupt Maurya - Understanding India

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Oct 2009 05:10

surinder,
the decentralized nature of the organization creates contrasts with set-piece battles (pitched or frontal) and centralized armies of nation states of the western European variety. But is still a form of warfare. But I guess we are going into the military fine points.

Javee · Post by **Javee** » 01 Oct 2009 05:47

ramana wrote: We are falling for the British description of the events as 'mutiny'. Both had that, but the latter event had much more.

Ramanaji,
I know psychologically we are tied to 1857 as the great big resistance. I'm still not convinced that this was a war where people wanted independence, its mostly self serving leaders who wanted to save their dominions, no?

As for being decentralized warfare, I think the fall of Delhi was the important turning point where by the native fighters for once thought that they can get rid of the EIC. Their main downfallis the lack of a common leader to rally both hindus and muslims. Bahadur Shah was a non starter, I dont think the Sikhs and Marathas wouldve joined hands with him, even if they could hold Delhi for some more time.

Its interesting because up until INC's successful emergence in 19th Century who could possibly rule all of India?

Anyway, these book describes the background and conditions for Vellore uprising
http://books.google.com/books?id=ks89uK ... q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr= ... re&f=false

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 01 Oct 2009 05:52

When Aurangzeb invaded deccan in 1680, Marathas fought under Sambhaji for 9 years, then under Rajaram for 2-3 years. Then for 17 years, there was a virtually leaderless ressistance. Yet people fought why? Will that be also called a Mutiny or Mutiny++???

Where people fight, armies are futile. 1857 was one such event. Hence it is justifiably a war and also a mass uprising, a social movement.

By then, there was no evolution of a world-view which could sustain the fight in spite of the leaders. The old way of Indian warfare relied much upon the rallying ability of the leader. Perhaps, this was seen in its classic sense in the uprising of the gangetic belt.

Regarding Vellore Uprising, here are my two cents.

How do we define our sense of Swatantrata? Can the fight put forth by Shivaji and subsequently by Marathas be called war of independence? Can the struggle of Sikhs be called war for Swatantrata?

Mughals and other ruling Muslim elite did not consider themselves as Indians at any time. Hence I have posted the link of Chandragupt Maurya's speech addressing this issue.

The word is Swatantra - Self system. What is that sense of self and non-self which motivated people of Vellore, gangetic belt, Maharashtra, Punjab? It was their faith on a set of indigenous values which they considered worth living for, worth dying for. Only that set of values created by our ancestors can be our Swa-Tantra (self rule/system).

The fight by Sikhs was for the restoration of same (self-system) The fight by Marathas, Rajputs, Vijaynagar, Vellore, 1857, subsequent independence struggle was for restoration of same Self-System.

With time, this definition became more and more crystal clear and people were finding more and more words to clearly state it in words. But it is this same urge which motivated all the struggles put forth by indics against those whom they perceived as non-self.

In 1806, the dominant power in India was Marathas. It was only after 1818, that English became the de-facto rulers of India. From 1707-1818, the dominant power and the central power of Bhaarat was Marathas which was indigenous and not foreign. Hence the war of 1806 was not registered in the minds of general population as first war of swa-tantrata (Self-system). In 1857, that central power was overthrown and so were Sikhs. Hence that struggle was registered in population's mind as struggle for self-rule. Because they had a visible dominant foreign power in India which was ruling.

History is not just about bare analysis of facts. It is also about how people choose to remember their own past. This is particularly true for diverse and emotional Rashtra and Sanskriti like Bhaarat.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Oct 2009 07:02

To wage a war, one has to select an aim and ensure its maintenance. And to wage a successful war, there has to be a unified command. Disjointed yet brave actions which are neither coordinated or complementary is not war but localised battles. The independent actions at Barrackpore, Meerut, Cawnpore, Lucknow, and Delhi et al were battles by individual leaders and since there was no coordinated and complementary action of the different forces against the British, it was not quite a War.

Compare the Indian actions which were independent of each other with the riposte of the East India Company that was executed with coordinated and complementary actions under a unified command with a set plan toward a single aim.

Simply put, one has to have an Aim. From the Aim flows the strategy i.e. the actions that will lead to the Aim. The actions that are to be taken becomes the tactics (these are the battles and not the war) and from the successful implementation of the sum total of all these, comes the Victory.

As SunTsu stated:

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory”.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”

It is Mutiny in so far as those who were in the pay of the East Indian Company and rebelled against the East India Company is concerned.

But since others were also involved like Rani of Jhansi, Nana Saheb etc, who were not in the East India Company rank and file, it would be incorrect to dub 1857 as a Mutiny.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Oct 2009 07:12

When Aurangzeb invaded deccan in 1680, Marathas fought under Sambhaji for 9 years, then under Rajaram for 2-3 years. Then for 17 years, there was a virtually leaderless ressistance. Yet people fought why? Will that be also called a Mutiny or Mutiny++???

Where people fight, armies are futile. 1857 was one such event. Hence it is justifiably a war and also a mass uprising, a social movement.

When soldiers in the pay of the Govt rebel against the Govt, it is called Mutiny (Collective Insubordination).

When own nationals rebel against the Nation, it is called insurrection.

When a Nation resist a foreign invasion with complementary, coordinated actions under an unified command to a set plan, these are called battles. And the actions collective are called War.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Oct 2009 07:24

First the use of the term "war" - by those from whom we borrow the term:

In his magnum opus "On War", Klauswitz, dubs war the "continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means." Moreover, "War" is an "interaction" in which two or more opposing forces have a “struggle of wills”. Also, "war is the collision of two living forces" and "total nonresistance would be no war at all".

Keegan writes in "History Of Warfare", that war is a universal phenomenon whose form and scope is defined by the society that wages it.

Klauswitz also notes that theories about war are often reformulated before, during, and after every major "war". ['Every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.'].

Thus the key minimal ingredient appears to be, at least by western POV, reciprocal use of violence between two or more distinct entities comprising humans in groups who organize themselves for the purpose. The 1857 conflict will pass all these characteristics. So we can call it "war". Technically speaking the EIC was still not soverign power on the subcontinent. Until the formal deposition of the Mughal emperor, EIC was still at best a Diwan of the pre-existing givernment. By rebelling against them, the soldiers were breaking contract with the company, but not committing mutiny against the "rashtra". They were also fighting a non-indigenous non-sovereign (on Indian soil) force.

The second point to note is that Gangetic plains as the sustainer of a large population and economy and hence the means for sustaining an organized rashtra of the largest possible scope within the subcontinent is not the sole basis of the core. It is an important piece of the core at certain time points and under certain contexts.

The regional peripheries of Punjab, Bengal and Peninsular India have a dynamical relationship with the region of Gangetic plains in sustaining the core. When the Gangetic plains society weakens, and is unable to sustain civilizational aspects, those interested in preserving the core values and principles filter out to the regional peripheries. This impoverishes the Gangetic plains of those human elements who do not compromise on civilizational values.

However this filtering process enriches the peripheral regions, where individual regions yet need not be capable of matching the full strength of the Gangetic plains. But the peripheral regions coincidentally or collectively can bring about an encirclement of the weakened an d possibly corrupted Gangetic plains. Under this threat of encirclement either the Gangetic plains discards its older corrupted or weakened leadership and rashtra to bring forward new dynamic leadership that revives or tries to restore the "core". Or, the Gangetic society gives it up and surrenders.

If the Gangetic plains revives as the base of expansion for a new "core", it tries to ensure that the peripheral regions come under its control and serve as buffers against external intrusions. When the fine balance of control versus weakening of the peripheral regions is disturbed by ambitious or unstatesmanlike leadership in the Gangetic plains, the peripheral regions can get sufficiently weakened to fall before invasions.

When the peripheral regions fall, they become potential sustainers of assault on the Gangetic plains, and the Gangetic plains reacts by trying to overthrow the regimes in the peripheral regions that have compromised with the intruders. And the cycle starts again.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Oct 2009 08:25

RayC wrote:
When Aurangzeb invaded deccan in 1680, Marathas fought under Sambhaji for 9 years, then under Rajaram for 2-3 years. Then for 17 years, there was a virtually leaderless ressistance. Yet people fought why? Will that be also called a Mutiny or Mutiny++???

Where people fight, armies are futile. 1857 was one such event. Hence it is justifiably a war and also a mass uprising, a social movement.
When soldiers in the pay of the Govt rebel against the Govt, it is called Mutiny (Collective Insubordination).

When own nationals rebel against the Nation, it is called insurrection.

When a Nation resist a foreign invasion with complementary, coordinated actions under an unified command to a set plan, these are called battles. And the actions collective are called War.

This is what Vinayak Damador Savarkar proved happened in 1857 and wrote his book which was proscribed the British.

Please do read it and promise it will be a page turner.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Oct 2009 09:13

Brihaspati, You need to read about the number of regiments that were demobilised after the 1857 war.

Maj Sarbans Singh in his book "Battle Honors of the Indian Army 1757-1971" has a tally of the regiments which were struck from the rolls. Its sickening.
- All ten light Cavalry
- Ten Irregular Cavalry- Surviving became 1st Horse , 2nd lancers, 3rd Cavalry and 18th Cavalry.

-Entire native artillery and the battle honors were disbanded
- ~61 Infantry battalions. Only 12 battalions retained with renaming.

Battle Honors from Afghanistan to Jellalabad to Plassey to Seringapatam were struck off from Indian Army list along with the regiments that earned them.

These were the cream units of BIA of the 19th century.

If there is a mard in the Ind Army history section, they would re-constitute these battalions and their history.

I shared the book with a retd Brig of IA and he cried when he came to know all this.

RayC, have you read this book? Its by Lancers, New Delhi.

I got it from Army Museum in Chelsea London.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Oct 2009 09:55

An interesting thing from my history studies. The Slave dynasty exhausted the wealth of the Indo-Gangetic plain from Punjab to Bengal in ~ 100 years after 1192. Allauddin Khilji raided Deccan for its wealth to pay for his forces to keep the Mongols at the Afghan frontier. First it was Deogir (modern Maharastra) and then the Kakatiyas. Later his slave, Mailk Kafur raided the Hoyasalas of Dwarasamudra and even Madurai.Mohd. Tughlak followed in the same stream and even annexed the kingdoms as tribute wasn't enough to keep his state going. In essence the Delhi Sultanate thought the periphery states were like a goose that laid golden eggs and extracted the wealth as tribute and attacked any state that appeared to have an independent mind.

Then we find the rise of the Vijayanagara Kingdom which in less than 30 year becomes the wealthiest kingdom of the age. The formula is to give stability and not be a predatory state that preys on its people and stifles their economic activity. Trade was flourishing in Vijayanagara.

We see the British turn the jagir of Bengal into their Treasury and fuel the Industrial Revolution in England in the same way. But they continued to extract the wealth and stifling the economic activity of the native people leading to the vast number of deaths in famines.

William Digby, 1901, Prosperous British India: a revelation from official records, London, T. Fisher Unwin
http://tinyurl.com/m2othh (Google book for full download 646 pages).

What it means is that the Islamic invaders were a settled colonial establishment. They did not take the wealth out of geographic India but did take it out of those areas where the wealth was accrued or produced. They were replaced by a British colonial establishment which was located outside and transferred wealth.

The lesson to be learned in this is what India needs is a stable govt that allows its citizens freedom to conduct economic activity and protects the from external threats. What they don't need is stifling environment that prevents them form economic activity. We find that it was only after the economic reforms of PVNR that post Independence India took off economically. Why was the previous govt not able to do this early on?

Was it a nativised colonial govt?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Oct 2009 10:18

Thank you Brihspati, Ramana.

RayC, Surinder both the above worthies have said what I wanted to, probably better than I would, so I would pass answering the question that were addressed to me. If you gentlemen think there are any assertions I made which have not been answered by the above please do let me know and I will attempt to answer it.

My issue with some posts has primarily been that POVs have been attributed to me which are not mine, further asking some one to refer to a scholarly book outside the forum which covers the same ground is being construed as arrogance or whatever, I dont know why.

I merely suggest that the book by Savarkar be looked up because its the best book on that period. Whats wrong with first reading and then discussing? We had this issue in Jaswant Singh thread too where people went of record passing judgement with information gleaned from press who themselves had read nothing more than the blurb?

A great many statements have been made on the forum which are simple ignorance period. I did point a easy to read link (not a full blown book) which highlighted the points, but I dont know how many have read those before making the statement.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Oct 2009 10:30

surinder wrote:But what is sorely missing is this events leading to full-scale actual battle. There is a severe absence of most aspects of military engagement or pitched battles. Most descriptions from the Indain sides also include unsavory details of kiling women & children, indicative of the lawless nature of the uprising.

No those details are there, its just that its not a part of the popular narrative, for example Savarkar mentions how 1857 was planned and started by Nana Saheb.

As far as killing of women and children is concerned, I dont see how that makes it not war. The western conduct of war always has those elements in every war, including Vietnam and WW II.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Oct 2009 11:04

ramana wrote:Brihaspati, You need to read about the number of regiments that were demobilised after the 1857 war.

If there is a mard in the Ind Army history section, they would re-constitute these battalions and their history.

That would be a fitting tribute to the First war of Independence.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Oct 2009 11:05

Ramana,

I will surely read it, if I can get my hands on it.

Right now, I am struggling through the tome of Jaswant Singh. Struggling, since I have reading it deliberately and highlighting issues that are of interest so that, at a later date, I don't have to wade through it to find what I want.

And to be frank, it is not that I feel that he is the sole authority nor do I think he claims so.

I have seen the Hinduvta sites on Savarkar's book. When one eulogises things too much, it makes one feel that there is an agenda.

Brihaspati,

I gave a simple definition of War and battle.

Clausewitz is just one of the military thinkers. While he is quoted as liberally as Sun Tsu, but then there are other military luminaries and equally notable, like Jomini, Liddle Hart, etc who have their own opinion which are at times 'divergent' to the theories of Clausewitz.

In fact, historian Creveld opines that Clausewitz does not address any form of intra/supra-state conflict, such as rebellion and is confined to the activity of the State.

Therefore, I would like to say that a mere quote from any of the great military thinkers does not quite sum up the issue since the thinker’s philosophy has to be taken in its totality.

To wit, in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars, there was a growing recognition of the increased complexity of strategy, summarised in Carl von Clausewitz’s warning that “there can be no question of a purely military evaluation of a great strategic issue, nor of a purely military scheme to solve it.” At the tactical level, the Prussian philosopher wrote, “the means are fighting forces trained for combat; the end is victory.” For the strategic, however, Clausewitz concluded that military victories were meaningless unless they were the means to obtain a political end, “those objects which lead directly to peace.” Thus, strategy was “the linking together (Verbindung) of separate battle engagements into a single whole, for the final object
of the war.” And only the political or policy level could determine that objective. “To bring a war, or any one of its campaigns to a successful close requires a thorough grasp of national policy,” he pointed out. “On that level strategy and policy coalesce.”

If one goes by what Clausewitz postulated as above, one will realise that;

1. There can be no question of a purely military evaluation of a great strategic issue, nor of a purely military scheme to solve it
2. Military victories were meaningless unless they were the means to obtain a political end,
3. Strategy was “the linking together (Verbindung) of separate battle engagements into a single whole, for the final object of the war.
4. “To bring a war, or any one of its campaigns to a successful close requires a thorough grasp of national policy,”

In other words,

1. Was there a ‘nation’ in this case?
2. What was the political aim? Could it achieve the political aim of the divergent players in 1857 when the motivation for each player was different and divergent? And would it lead to peace?
3. War is but the linking together (Verbindung) of separate battle engagements into a single whole, for the final object of the war as I had stated in my simplified version.
4. A war or a campaign to end successfully requires a thorough grasp of national policy.

There being no nation, no common motivation, only strings of battle that was not a single whole and no national policy, if one goes by Clauysewitz, then 1857 cannot be called a War.

On the issue Mutiny or breaking of a contract, one has to understand the ethos of the military that is a hand me down from the EIC days. The word of a gentleman and even though the Indians were not officers, most were from well to do and respectable families and zaban and izzat were sacrosanct. The Short Service officers of today are on contract. Therefore, by the logic that one could undertake collective insubordination because they are on contract is a bit too hard to accept, at least for those who understand military ethos, and the importance of such words and emotions as zaban and izzat. The import of these two words was even in civil society of those days. For example, even today, if a wager is made, only one officer of those who made the wager goes to check and his word is taken as the last word. That is the import that is given to a gentleman’s word! I concede that in contemporary times possibly in civil society such words carry no meaning!

One is entitled to believe that the Indo Gangetic plain alone is the core, yet to believe that Western and South India were merely riding piggyback would be unfair to them. Neither is it correct to believe that they were not major contributors to the economy. In fact, Surat, Madras, Pondicherry et al were large trading centres. In my opinion to feel that the Indo Gangetic plain carries the ‘brown man’s burden’ i.e. the Core values and if it collapses it is a case of Atlas shrugging, then it would be quite extraordinary. Just to explain – I get a wee bit upset when anyone is made an underdog. The South and the East beyond the Siliguri Corridor since Bengal has rebelled adequate to be taken off that category (Read a book titled – Agony of Bengal) has always been taken as a poor relative! I am afraid, they are neither poor not is their heritage, culture and contribution to Indian (call it Bharatiya, if you wish) history inferior; in fact, I think it was superior. Therefore, to hammer in that the Indo Gangetic plain is sole heartbeat of India perplexes and hurts! No one is less and no one is more!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Oct 2009 11:09

Sanku,

How is it that Savarkar's book is the best book in the world?

A trifle biased, what?

These type of plug in scares me that I should not waste my money!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Oct 2009 11:11

Acharya wrote:
ramana wrote:Brihaspati, You need to read about the number of regiments that were demobilised after the 1857 war.

If there is a mard in the Ind Army history section, they would re-constitute these battalions and their history.

That would be a fitting tribute to the First war of Independence.

Wars are fought with battalions and not with emotions!

IA history section does not decide how a war is fought. Cold facts and realities do!

It is not that I do not appreciate your patriotism. I do. I applaud all of you for it. You are our backbone and our motivation. But I also look at the practicalities of the issue!

I wish you all were equally concerned about those who fought the battle after Independence! And did something about it beyond the BRF.

There are good people who saved money and contributed for the Quickclot and it is being given to Jat RC. Was that the aim? Will it be distributed to all Regts in dire need!

I don't blame them. I tried to activate those involved and all fought shy to show the GOI in poor light, that the GOI failed and the NRIs were concerned!

That is India!!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Oct 2009 11:19

RayC wrote:Sanku,

How is it that Savarkar's book is the best book in the world?

A trifle biased, what?

These type of plug in scares me that I should not waste my money!

You can get it online from what the link Ramana posted. It is also available on Savarkar foundation online.

The view on Savarkar's work being the most authoritative work is not mine. It is actually by Indian leaders pre Independence -- I will look for quotations on the book.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Oct 2009 11:22

I missed Ramana's and your links because of the ''excitement''!

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 01 Oct 2009 11:43

ramana wrote:We find that it was only after the economic reforms of PVNR that post Independence India took off economically. Why was the previous govt not able to do this early on?

Was it a nativised colonial govt?

It may be due to reliance on colonial teaching. I noticed a while ago that PVNR was the first full term prime minister who studied at an Indian college; which suggests that he would have been untouched by the development economics orthodoxy taught at the UK colleges.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Oct 2009 11:51

RayC I will attempt to answer these based on my understanding from various works

RayC wrote: 1. Was there a ‘nation’ in this case?

Yes Hindustan was the nation, they officially coined the term, got an unwilling Bahadur Shah Jafar to accept it, release coins in his names and set this as their goal

(The sepoys ignored local princes and proclaimed in cities they took over: Khalq Khuda Ki, Mulk Badshah Ka, Hukm Subahdar Sipahi Bahadur Ka - i.e. the world belongs to God, the country to the Emperor and executive powers to the Sepoy Commandant in the city)

2. What was the political aim? Could it achieve the political aim of the divergent players in 1857 when the motivation for each player was different and divergent? And would it lead to peace?

From Savarkar --

In short, the broad features of the policy of Nana Sahib and Azimullah were that the Hindus and the Mahomedans should unite and fight shoulder to shoulder for the independence of their country and that, when freedom was gained, the United States of India should be formed under the Indian rulers and princes.

There being no nation, no common motivation, only strings of battle that was not a single whole and no national policy, if one goes by Clauysewitz, then 1857 cannot be called a War.

That is not correct, there indeed was common motivation, common planning and common agenda.

On the issue Mutiny or breaking of a contract, one has to understand the ethos of the military that is a hand me down from the EIC days. The word of a gentleman and even though the Indians were not officers, most were from well to do and respectable families and zaban and izzat were sacrosanct.

You have to realize that BIA post and pre 1857 were two different animals, the pre 1857 EIC army was completely dismembered and dissolved.

Therefore, to hammer in that the Indo Gangetic plain is sole heartbeat of India perplexes and hurts! No one is less and no one is more!

No one has said this, the importance of a region geographically does not mean that others are inferior. This issue is not to be looked at in terms of this place is better than others. We need to detach emotions and look at factors such as geography and history.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 01 Oct 2009 12:17

Sanku wrote:the entire British conquest has been done by Purbaiya soldiers, from the Opium wars to the expansion into India itself. Again this was till 1857 a largely upper caste Hindu army. However 1857 was another turning point -- few people realize what the failure of 1857 (correctly linked to lack of cohesive leadership and central figure due to a wrong choice) did to the Gangetic belt. The destruction of the remaining spirit which had bravely resisted dhimmitude for years and had stuck out was badly mauled.

True.

The British Empire was a creation of the Purbia and Ruhela soldiery. When people talk of the Maratha defeat at British hands, they forget that these same classes of soldiers also served in the Maratha armies!

At the time of the Anglo-Maratha wars, the Maratha armies were Maratha only in name, because with Europeanization under French officers, stress was laid on disciplined infantry and artillery in preference to traditional cavalry. And these Purbias and Ruhelas were heavily recruited into the armies of Scindia and Holkar. This is why during 1857, while the ruler of Gwalior was pro-British, his army, dominated by Purbias and Ruhelas, joined the rebellion.

And post-1857 the Gangetic regions of UP-Bihar suffered the most from the British vengeance. Entire villages, to which the Purbia soldiers belonged were sacked, homes burnt, men hanged or bayoneted, atrocities committed on women and children.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Oct 2009 12:35

vera_k wrote:
ramana wrote:We find that it was only after the economic reforms of PVNR that post Independence India took off economically. Why was the previous govt not able to do this early on?

Was it a nativised colonial govt?
It may be due to reliance on colonial teaching. I noticed a while ago that PVNR was the first full term prime minister who studied at an Indian college; which suggests that he would have been untouched by the development economics orthodoxy taught at the UK colleges.

Makes sense and further we can trace MMS behavior from his essential grooming in Oxford circles and working with Anglo-Saxon institutions.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Oct 2009 12:39

RayC wrote:
Wars are fought with battalions and not with emotions!

IA history section does not decide how a war is fought. Cold facts and realities do!

It is not that I do not appreciate your patriotism. I do. I applaud all of you for it. You are our backbone and our motivation. But I also look at the practicalities of the issue!

I wish you all were equally concerned about those who fought the battle after Independence! And did something about it beyond the BRF.

There are good people who saved money and contributed for the Quickclot and it is being given to Jat RC. Was that the aim? Will it be distributed to all Regts in dire need!

I don't blame them. I tried to activate those involved and all fought shy to show the GOI in poor light, that the GOI failed and the NRIs were concerned!

That is India!!

Agreed. True. Some family members are in the armed forces in the border

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Oct 2009 13:00

I downloaded Savarkar's work from Ramana's link as well as here

http://www.savarkar.org/en/download

The link given by Ramana is to a GoI site which has the actual scanned book.

The above site I posted has a PDF text only.

I think the Savarkar org link is easier to read and may be better try for those who dont want to necessarily looked at the scanned book pages.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Oct 2009 13:23

Thanks.

400 pages!!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Oct 2009 20:17

I have read it when it came. Try to read his new" lessons from Mahabharat".
SHQ thinks I buy too many books.

Savarkar did all that research at the India Office as student. He did not go to unearth the facts of the 1857 uprising. What he found astounded him and he wrote the book. It was proscribed and had to be smuggled into India. It inspired a whole lot of revolutionaries from Bhagat Singh onwards. BTW, Sikander Hayat Khan smuggled copies of the book into India. Atleast read the foreward to know its impact and first chapter.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Oct 2009 20:22

RayC, Another way of saying is the core is an idea and anyone who subscribes to the idea constitutes the core. And since its an idea, its dynamic and doesn't have fixity (to use Jaswant Singh's lingo

). Some times the geographic and ideological core coincide. Manytimes they dont. the nation state is at its strongest when the nation subscribes to the core. We can see that through out history in different periods.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Oct 2009 20:29

X-Posted....

Abhi_G wrote:Two characters need special attention with regard to the partition - Sikandar Hayat Khan of Punjab and Fazlul Haq of Bengal. Their political activities had quite on impact on the incidents pre-dating the partition, although Sikandar Hayat Khan died in 1942. Could these two have been possible allies for INC?

Read the foreward to know his role in smuggling the book in the early years...

Javee · Post by **Javee** » 01 Oct 2009 20:43

I know we stopped discussing "core" as a geographic area, but I just came across a book by Krishnaswami Aiyengar

Some Contributions of South India to Indian Culture By S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar

http://books.google.com/books?id=vRcql- ... q=&f=false

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Oct 2009 00:25

X-posted...

SwamyG wrote:The book I cited is available for less than $20 here : http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwo ... sed/Dharma. To entice you further into buying the book, I throw in quotes from the paper by Dad K Prithipaul. Moderators if this infringes any copyrights, please remove the post.
Some of the below points, or variations of them, have been articulated by BRF members in different threads.

To me, the whole thing boils down to what we have tried to define several times here at BRF - ie. India. What is that we stand for (values)? What is that we want (strategy) ? How are we going to achieve it (tactics)? The above three questions are my way of breaking down the complex topic.

He talks about the French revolution, the American freedom ithyadi and what the people in those countries consider important or continue to nurse. For example freedom, equality, fraternity, reformed jurisprudence, scholastic curriculum, American dream etc.

*****************************
1. India is the only example of a major civilization country, which, in its capital does not have a single monument which recalls its past prior to the fifteenth century. India is the only major country where the political leadership sinks into a sort of paralysis, driven by a morbid funk, when the social need arises to refer to her classical philosophers, her architects, her artists, her exemplars, her monuments, her heritage.

2. Either by consent or by constraint, India accommodates herself to Western demands and pressures. For instance, all international flights entering or leaving India are regulated according to Western timetables. Scientific and business standards are prescribed by the Western institutions. Higher education has to meet criteria set by the Western universities {Swamyg: recall Bade's lament in the nuke dhaaga about 'international scientists' comment}

3. While the classical literature describes Narada as a learned scholar, endowed with a perfect knowledge of the Vedas and the Upanishad, of the Dharmasastras, of the six darsnas, of grammar, of astrology, of music an dsong, he is nevertheless personified as an ever grinning young man with a mute vina hanging from his neck and all his knowledge is condensed into the insane repetition of "Narayana, Narayana". He is supposed to provide comic relief, he is the convenient vidusaka...

4........{on India}....to give herself a legal system which bears faint organic continuity with her own past history.

5.Nehru always flaunted what he believed to be a progressive outlook by making fun of brahmanas and ridicuing their attachment to orthodoxy and tradition. He wanted India to have no affinity with her past.

6. For in addition to its juridical sophistication the Indian Constitution ought to have had a Preamble which approved the elimination of inequality among nations, promoted the equality among the citizens of a single nation, and above all, unambiguously declared the need to remove all obstacles to the free striving for, and the practice of, the perfectibility of the individual man.

6. In short, the Preamble ought to have, in new, virile terms, adapted to the socio-political realities obtaining at the end of the century, proclaimed whatever was optimistic and just in the former dharma pronouncements and in harmony with an understanding of a comprehensive history of the World. That would have been a unique gift to the Indian nation and to the World.

7. In classical India the raja (king) never placed himself above dharma. Any violation of dharma on his part would be immediately known by the common citizens (praja). Dharma encompassed the sensitivities of the ruler and of the ruled. It was a multilayered social structure that made allowance for the needs for hierarchies and differences, and provided direction to the life of individuals and of communities.

8. The Hindu ideology advocated by the BJP or the VHP does not exhaust the totality of the dharma. When the crowd becomes a nuisance, one must climb to the mountain top.

9. Throughout the course of her history India has always been revitalized by the accomplishments of thinkers, cultural pioneers moving northward from the south.

10. ..., India still continues to define herself in terms and ways approved by the outsiders.

11. Despite its genuine merits the 1950 Constitution appears like a puny achievement when viewed against, and evaluated by, a consideration of the characteristic achievements that gave to India her unique greatness:..........{he lists architectural marvels, texts, epics and institutions}

12. That dharma became associated with obscurantism and backwardness was unfortunately due to the fact that, by 1950, the voices of Culture had been already stilled.

13. The alienation of India from her native tradition is the product of an endogenous will and of the style of her administration.

14. Sometimes Indian elites have difficulty in understanding that their use of English language does not serve as a bridge between them and the West. On the contrary, it seems to extend the psychological distance between the Indian and the Westerner.

15. One wonders why India is the only country which has a ministry of Information and Broadcasting. In the French government, for example, two of the most prestigious ministries are those of Culture and Education.

16.WIth philosophers, proponents of culture, sociologists, histories, intellectuals exerting at best minimal influence on the debates at the Constituent Assembly, the 1950 Constitution represents the vision of men trained in British jurisprudence. It is this narrow intellectual mould that lies at the base of the collective neurosis in India:..

17. These moral principles are the precondition of the effectiveness and relevance of the Law. The Indian Constitution is no exception. But what are the moral principles which it takes for granted as its historical antecedent? Was the popularity of the Leaders in 1950 the only absolute norm which gave sanction to its approval?

18. Dharma is universal; the 1950 Constitution is a specific contingent reality. Dharma is eternal; the Constitution is material, born at a particular moment; it has a beginning, it is consequently imperfect and will in time perish. India made a choice between the eternal and the transient, between the absolute and relative.

19. Dharma is antithetical to kleptocracy.

20. THe national bank of Indonesia is called Kubera bank; Indonesia's national airlines bears the name Garuda. The folklore of Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia is largely coloured by Indian themes borrowed from the classical epics. The Theravada Buddhism of Sri Lanka, Burma and the other South-East Asian countries ought to act as a bridge of friendship and understanding to link with India. Why is it then that this alienation from India does not seem to preoccupy the framers of the foreign policy of the country? What is lacking in the language of Indian diplomacy.

***********

ramana and brihaspati: You have to buy this book.

Will do so.

Looks like we are rehashing everything that was already discussed but in limited circles.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Oct 2009 00:36

ramana wrote: Will do so.

Looks like we are rehashing everything that was already discussed but in limited circles.

Rehashing is important, the Indian way is for self discovery with help of a Guru, but not a hand me down.

This is the only way to spread knowledge in India.

May all India rehash this a lot more.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Oct 2009 01:27

ramanaji,
I do think that the Turko Afghans and the Mughals did spend Indian economic resources outside of India with a net transfer of capital away from India.

One of the factors we usually do not treat openly is the reality of two things under the Islamic regimes

(a) their peculiar identity crisis leading to a need to get ME theological approval. This meant spending Indian money on promoting "acts" that would buy such approval from whoever happened to hold the Caliph like position at the time.

Part of this process is a persistent attempt at expanding ME and central Asian influence using Indian resources. Qasim started the process of looting - transfer of bullion and other capital out of India to please the Caliph in Iraq. Mahmud did the same. So much so that we rarely find Indian coinage of the period - these entities simply denuded India of all valuables and most of the capital, and used it to fund their own expansion designs outside of India.

The process continued under the Sultanate in their ever present struggle to maintain their hold on AFG and contiguous areas of Persia. In this they used the resources of the Gangetic Valley and took them away or wasted them. Mughals did the same, with huge losses throughout the dynasty.

(b) the as yet unassessed in financial and value terms, element of the slave trade and export of enslaved Indians out of India into ME and CA. This is potentially a huge drain of capital, from several different angles.

First all the Islamic regimes exported enslaved Indians in two categories out of India : skilled labour, and women in the reproductive agegroup. In an age where skilled labour would be tantamount to having capital, export of Indian slaves amounts to draining capital. Export of fertile women is also export of capital in the sense of producers of labour capacities. The Khaljis, Tughlaqs and the Mughals made enslavement and export of slaves a state enterprise.

The slave trade of the Mughals was part of the over-exploitation of the Indian productive classes that ultimately ruined the economy, with peasants abandoning their lands and taking up "criminal" activities on the fringe of the then society. Many of these groups were ultimately targeted by the British. But we never explore and highlight the possible origins.

I think the presence of the Sultanate and the Mughals should be taken as the ultimate defeat of the part of the core residing in the Gangetic plains, its eventual weakeninga nd corruption and deviation from the principles of the core.

The core escaped to the so-called periphery. And here the first seeds of fighting back against the corrupted Gangetic society were sown - first in Vijayanagar, then in isolated pockets of Rajasthan (Mewar), the revival of the Bengal chiefs like Pratapaditya of Jessore, and finally among the Marathas and the Sikhs. Note that these revivals were almost all preceded by intensive ideological campaigns through interpretations of the Bharatyia philosophies as appropriate for the time - various forms of Bhakti strands included.

In a way the welcome the British essentially got from certain sections of Bengalis should be seen as an attempt to overturn the Mughal regime from this peripheral region. We can see that most of the peripheral revivalists of the core thought at one time or another that they could use the British against the "non-core" elements. All came to various degrees of compromise and understanding with them.

It was under this threat that the Gangetic plain reacted. In this they tried to correct the previous political and military blunders and tried to create a new leadership. But they could not and were crushed. The Gangetic plain has been trying to reassert itself from that time and 1947 and its peculiarities can be explained by this process.

The fundamental problem behind the incomplete revival and failures are because the Gangetic plain has not understood that without the principles of the core being re-established they will never be able to achieve that strength. In their delusion they tried to substitute the core with ideas from the Abrahamic which was however designed for a much simpler society.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Oct 2009 02:01

brihaspati wrote: The fundamental problem behind the incomplete revival and failures are because the Gangetic plain has not understood that without the principles of the core being re-established they will never be able to achieve that strength. In their delusion they tried to substitute the core with ideas from the Abrahamic which was however designed for a much simpler society.

I am with you till this part, however here you lose me a bit, can you explain in some more detail what are the ideas that were sought to be substituted and what should have been the real ideas? Also the time frames? (we may actually have the same idea, I just want to be sure)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Oct 2009 02:17

Thanks Brihaspatiji. That expalins the constant need for more plunder faced by the Sultanates. I forgot the human capital portion.

Sanku, Think-Ganga Jamuna culture, WKK and syncretism dogma of the modern elite.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 02 Oct 2009 02:42

brihaspati wrote: In a way the welcome the British essentially got from certain sections of Bengalis should be seen as an attempt to overturn the Mughal regime from this peripheral region.

B, are you sure of this? The timing does not add up. British entry in Bengal coincides with Mughal decay. Moreover, Maratha's were on the rise and had mostly taken care of the Mughals and reduced them to a city state by late 1700's.