Bharat Rakshak

Quite interesting, thanks for the informative post, will go through the references.

Shah said in his memoirs, that he did not know about Deputy Commander of U.S. Forces in Europe General Huyser's arrival in Tehran until a few days after its occurrence. For Shah this was unprecedented because the General "had come to Tehran a number of times, scheduling his visits well in advance to discuss military affairs with me and my generals." Shah stated that his generals did not know anything about his arrival: "As soon as Moscow learned of Huyser's arrival, Pravada reported, 'General Huyser is in Tehran to foment a military coup.' In Paris, the International Herald Tribune wrote that Huyser had not gone to Tehran to 'foment' a coup but to 'prevent' one."

For the Shah: "Did such a risk exist? I do not believe so. My officers were tied to the Crown and to the Constitution by an oath of loyalty, but the different American information services had perhaps solid reasons to think that the Constitution would be abused. It was therefore necessary to neutralize the Iranian army. It was clearly for this reason that General Huyser had come to Tehran. ...Huyser succeeded in winning over my last chief of staff, General Ghara-Baghi, whose later behavior leads me to believe that he was a traitor. He asked Ghara-Baghi to arrange a meeting for him with Mehdi Bazargan, the human rights lawyer who became Khomeini's First Prime Minister. The General informed me of Huyser's request before I left, but I have no idea of what ensued. I do know that Ghara-Baghi used his authority to prevent military action against Khomeini. He alone knows what decisions were made and the price paid. It is perhaps significant that although all my generals were executed, only General Ghara-Baghi was spared. His savior was Behdi Bazargan. By the time Huyser left Iran, the Army had been destroyed, and the Bakhtiar government he had supposedly come to save was in shambles."

According to Shah, he met Huyser only once during his visit to Tehran, accompanied by the US Ambassador. According to the Shah, the only thing they thought about was when he was going to leave Iran.Shah said that after the revolution, "At the travesty of a trial which preceded the execution of General Rabbii, the Commander of the Iranian Air Force, the General told his 'judges' that General Huyser threw the Shah out of the country like a dead mouse." He further noted that plans for his departure had been announced, "interestingly enough, on January 11 in Washington by U.S. Secretary of State Vance."[13]

Among those who supported Khomeini were the National Front, Sanjabi, Feda'iyan, and Majahedian Khalq. The reporter Houda Al-Hocine from Al- Hawadess concluded on the basis of interviews with leaders of these groups that

"These new revolutionaries rejected Khomeini's revolution because they said the revolution carried America's blessing and they consider America as the force behind the fall of the Shah and therefore, were backing Khomeini. They gave evidence by saying that America's president Carter was against Shah since the beginning for these reasons:

1. The Shah was having a feud with the Democratic Party, and most of the members of Congress were against the Shah because the Shah considered himself a leading hawk from the OPEC and led the campaign of raising the oil prices.
2. After the Ethiopian coup, the U.S. was planning to take the initiative in Iran to protect its interests after the loss of her largest base in Asmara, Ethiopia. Shah was also getting old and the Crown Prince was too young. Thus, U.S. looked for a solution that would protect American interests, either through the Pahlavi family or through someone else. Americans noticed Communist activity especially by the Iranian communist party and the Maoist faction that developed. The US saw USSR as the sole beneficiary from the situation over natural resources, especially natural gas. Afghan invasion took place, as well as the incidents in the Horn of Africa and South Yemen. This brought Iran under the threat of the Communism. Therefore, the situation had to be salvaged. A coup de'tat was not acceptable by the Iranian people. Therefore, the change had to be from the people who could be incited by a revolution that would depend on religion. Accordingly, the Americans looked for a religious personality that was Khomeini."

The Americans did not keep an eye on Yazdi, which implied that he was considered safe. Huyser came to Iran and spent all of January there after Shahpour Bakhtiar's government was assembled to persuade the Shah to temporarily go into exile and to persuade the army not to rebel but instead to support Bakhtiar. As soon as the revolution succeeded, the army commander Muhammed Waly Karny, said that the American advisors should come back and the oil would be pumped once again to the Western countries, including the United States. As soon as the American Embassy had been attacked, Ibrahim Yazdi went in person to try and prevent it. The American advisors paid their rent three months in advance for their houses when they left Iran. There was an attempt to crush Khomeini's movement on the night of February 11, but the army announced that it was standing neutral. The orders were given to the army and to the Embassy's guards to drop their weapons.

The Al-Watan reported that "the United States explicitly asked the army commanders and generals to take this attitude at the last moment, and the State Department urged Ambassador Sullivan to persuade the senior generals, as soon as possible, not to intervene in any offensive action and to announce their neutrality in the political feuds."

After the Air Force revolt, General Ghara-Baghi, whom the Shah spoke of in his memoirs, ordered his forces to return to their camps to avoid more riots and new bloodshed. At the same time, on February 14, the general met with the army commander. They issued a communiqué that stated:

"To prevent disorder and bloodshed, the superior body of the army decided to keep neutral in the recent political feud, and for this reason, an order was given to all the soldiers to return to their units and barracks. The Ambassador said that the reason for this was the possibility of a dangerous conflict between the army and the people, and the fear that the leftist world infiltrates and benefit from the conflict between Khomeini and the army. It was also to preserve the strength of the army to play a future role similar to the role which 'Suharto' played in Indonesia or to the role the generals played in a coup in Chile against Salvador Allende. The Ambassador added that the United States might have resorted to a military coup de'tat if the revolution got out of hand and they failed to contain it."[14]

[13] Muhammed Reza Pahlavi, Answer to History (New York: Stein & Day, 1980), pp. 172-173.
[14] Fashal Mohawlat Intelap Daid Al-Khomeini," Al-Watan, Kuwait, March 18, 1979, p. 1.

Brihaspati, you are aptly named.

I hope its not against forum rules.
Here a song titled 'Pagdi Sambhaal Jatta' by Rabbi Shergill that's about how invaders like Taimur, Ghazni attacked India and we should always be on guard. Its an excellent song (also created some anger in WKKs) but unfortunately I dont know Punjabi. I can understand it somewhat but would be very grateful if someone translated it completely in English or Hindi. Its an excellent song that we all should hear. Someone please translate it so that non-Punjabi speaking people can also understand the complete song.

http://www.radioreloaded.com/tracks/?21600

Lyrics are there on the site.

P.S.- I felt that this was the most appropriate thread to post it. Please move it if its not the right place for this post to be. If PMs were allowed I would've PMed Surinder Ji but unfortunately thats not the case and I had to interrupt a nice discussion. Pardon me for that.

The Pak land problem, and why that leads to failure -1

The ML had little support in the regions included in the award to Pak and the support of the landed elite, especially in elections in the decades leading to the Partition had clinched the British-Jinnah effort at separatism. [1] The landed elite of Punjab, Bengal, and Sind strongly supported the Pakistan movement, and therefore secured their position in the nascent Pak state.[2] Pakistan state structure's inherent weakness came from two factors : first, its provinces had little dyadic interactions between themselves, had little overlap culturally, and nothing was in common apart from Islam with relatively weak grassroots linkages to ML except through a feudal theological mobilization. Second, each of these subregions were connected to the Indian economic network which were all disrupted. The new Pak state had a very weak dysfunctional state machinery unlike that in Indian part of Brit admin, huge refugee influx, had military designs on India, almost complete financial crisis and severe food shortages. Therefore the state coopted the feudals who lent their authority to the gov, who extracted consolidation of their role as intermediaries in establishing political order in the rural areas.[2,3]. This implied that the state had excluded itself from the vast rural areas, entrenched a semi-independent sociopolitical entity, and made the state largely dependent on the feudals.

Throughout the 1950s the state failed to extract surplus from agriculture [territory of Pakistan in fact had little industrial capital investment in the pre-Partition phase] by taxation, control of price of agricultural goods[3,4] or ensure food sufficiency. The feudals restricted grain supply and reaped enormous profits none of which went into state coffers - leading to urban food riots in the 1952-54 period.[3] This was one of the main excuses for USA to move in through food aid. By the middle of the 1950s the feudals dominated ML, the national and provincial cabinets, as well as in the Constituent Assembly, and therefore used state resources to further weaken the state. Apparently, Zia provided members of the National Assembly, full of the feudals, with considerable sums of money to "invest in development projects in their districts as they saw fit."[4] In a way this is a continuation of the delegation of state role to the feudals.

The intermediary role of the feudals makes it inevitable that the landlord class unites and forms alliances with small farmers and rural bad gentry. This land-based interest creates a compulsive political force that changes parties and political processes or ideologies, much more than politics, ideology or parties affect this class interest. This has been the driving reality of Pak politics as dramatically revealed in the confrontations with Ayub and Bhutto, both of whom ended up compromising deeply their initial modernizing/reformist zeal and Ayub ultimately feudalizing the army command by granting lands to army officers and Bhutto sabotaging land reforms in effect.

Therefore, this has fatally weakened the Pak state, and none of its institutions are based on strong foundations, with the legitimacy of state practically non-existent. Whatever authority exists is therefore split into urban and rural sectors where the urban is the arena where the state pretends it has authority, while the overwhelming rural populations and domain is controlled by the feudal alliance which in turn is the real intermediary of power to the population.

I will show, towards the end, why that means that even the Talebs will be transformed partly and will be coopted into the feudal elite and the elite be coopted into the Talebs.
(To be continued)


[1] David Gilmartin, Empire and Islam: Punjab and the Making of Pakistan (Berkeley :University of California Press, 1988).
[2] Timothy Mitchell, The Limits of the State: Beyond Statist Approaches and their Critics," Aerican Political Science Review, 35:1 (1991) pp 77-96.
[3] Ayesha Jalal, The State of Martial Rule: The Origins of Pakistan's Political Economy of Defence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 144-51.
[4] "The State and Political Privilege in Pakistan," in Myron Weiner and Ali Banuazizi, eds., The Politics of Social Transformation in Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1994), p.180.

kittoo wrote:I hope its not against forum rules.
Here a song titled 'Pagdi Sambhaal Jatta' by Rabbi Shergill that's about how invaders like Taimur, Ghazni attacked India and we should always be on guard. Its an excellent song (also created some anger in WKKs) but unfortunately I dont know Punjabi. I can understand it somewhat but would be very grateful if someone translated it completely in English or Hindi. Its an excellent song that we all should hear. Someone please translate it so that non-Punjabi speaking people can also understand the complete song.

http://www.radioreloaded.com/tracks/?21600

Lyrics are there on the site.

P.S.- I felt that this was the most appropriate thread to post it. Please move it if its not the right place for this post to be. If PMs were allowed I would've PMed Surinder Ji but unfortunately thats not the case and I had to interrupt a nice discussion. Pardon me for that.

very difficult for me to translate but will still try.Hope somebody who understands it better will do that. give me a day. very moving.

Ghazni Tughlaq Aibaq Ghauri
Pehla Duja Khilji Lodhi
Taimur �te Babar
Jagannath Somnath Ajudhia
Banaras Kannauj �te Mathura
Bolia Si Fir Nanak
�aiti Mar Pai Karlaney
Taenki Darad(u) Na Aia� Rabba
Uthh Kharha Hun Tagrha Ho Ja
Bina Guru Ko Na Vali Jatta
Kasna Paina Tainu Lakk Aapna
Lanbhion Aa Ke Kisey Nahion Sambhnan
Pagrhi Sambhal Jatta
Pagrhi Sambhal Oye
Pagrhi Sambhal
Lehna Pothi Miri-piri
Nauven Guru Di Shahidi
Amrit Chali Muktey Auranga
Bala Mardana �te Baba Budhha
Bidhichand Matidas Satidas
(mai) Bhago �te Banda
�jau Tau Prem Khelan Ka Chau
Sir Dhar Tali Gali Meri Aau
It Marag Paer Dharijaey
Sir Deejai Kaan Na Keejay�
Asan Keeta Jo Aakhia Si Guru
Par Ajj Kittey Phassiay Jo Kadey Hoia Si Shuru
Sirhind Budhha Taruna Dal Mani Singh Bota Singh
Deep Singh Massa Rangarh Nadirshah Bhai Taru
Mir Mannu Barha Maaru
Shahbaz Singh Subeg Singh Haqiqat Rai Ahmed Shah
Hathhu Bagarh Singh Thomson Jassa Singh
Ghallugharey
Eh Mukde Nahi Ne Marey
Ranjit Singh Aala Singh Gorey
Hari Singh Phula Singh Dogrey
Attak Di Jit Gujarat Di Haar
Kehrha Zimmevar
Tere Hath Ki Aaya Jatta
Tavarikhan Da Ghatta
Be-ittefaqian De Turhi
Aa Vekh Uddadi Pai U

Got it

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source ... lkx4t0raig



Ghazni Tughlaq Aibaq Ghauri
The first & the second Khilji, Lodhi
Taimur and Babar

Jagannath Somnath Ayodhya
Benaras Kannauj & Mathura
And thus spake Nanak

“Badly mauled they cry
You still do not feel any mercy” O! God!
Stand up and be strong
No one but the Guru is your master peasant
You’ll have to buckle yourself up
No stranger is coming to your rescue

Respect the turban peasant
Respect the turban
Respect the turban

Lehna, the book, the two powers
Martyrdom of the ninth Guru
Baptism, the Liberated 40, Auranga

Bala Mardana & Baba Budhha
Bidhichand Matidas Satidas
(Mother) Bhago & Banda (Bahadur)

“If you wanna play the game of love
First put your head on your palm
If you set foot on this path
Don’t evade self sacrifice”
We did what the Guru asked
But it’s stuck what was once started

Sirhind, the old & new guard, Mani Singh, Bota

Deep Singh, Massa Rangarh, Nadirshah, Bhai Taru
Mir Mannu is ruthless

Shahbaz Singh Subeg Singh Haqiqat Rai Ahmed Shah
Hathu Bagarh Singh (George) Thomas Jassa Singh
The Holocausts
Killing alone doesn’t finish them

Ranjit Singh, Aala Singh, The British
Hari Singh (Nalva), (Akali) Phula Singh
The victory at Attock, the defeat in Gujarat (city)
Who’s responsible

What did you lay your hands on peasant
The dust of history
The chaff of disunity
See how it flies




P.S-If all common people fully understand this then there would be hell to pay for W.K.K's.

^Thanks Manishw ji. Now to listen it with lyrics known is a different feeling altogether.
And as expected, WKKs were unleashing their fury at this song too, even though it only says the truth and what happened. They are cancer of this country.

The Pak land problem, and why that leads to failure -2

General Ayub Khan (1958-69) and the PA assumed power, and were able to restore order partially, and secure international assistance which allowed them at least initially to try industrialization and bypass the feudal's appropriation of all agricultural surplus [1]. Hence forth economic growth would be supported primarily from external sources such as international aid, investments, and the expat worker remittances. This led to an apparent economic growth and corresponding socio-economic reforms but once again restricted to the urban areas. The feudal compromise by which the state restricted itself to urban areas, allowed the state to play around in the cities - but the urban-rural divide was most probably maintained by the feudals themselves as is typical in most Islamist societies as a means to shield off Islamic population from non-Muslim influences. The urban growth did not spill over into the rural sector however.

Even in 1990 the rural population was 75% of Pakistan's population and 51% of its labor force [2]. In 2008-2009 this proportion has come down from 75% to 64%, [3] roughly a 0.5% average decrease per year. But Labor force - by occupation, employs in agriculture: 43%, industry: 20.3% and services: 36.6% (2005 est.). The GDP - composition by sector, however gives agriculture: 20.8%, industry: 24.3%, services: 54.9% (2009 est.) completes the picture. Thus even after 50 years of Ayubs first attempts, the notoriously unreliable Pak statstics still shows that 64% of population live in rural areas, who form 43% of the labour force, but produce only 20.8% of the GDP. While, 36% of population lives in urban areas, shares 57% of labour force, but gives roughly 79% of the GDP. I have allocated services entirely to the urban because typically, the "services" sector is concentrated around urban systems.

From the very beginning of Ayubs rise to power, any reform attempted in rural areas were obstructed by the feudals and the bad gentry especially against meaningful land reform. [4] Under AK Pakistan's economy grew rapidly in the direction of industrialization but also generated by extension of the feudal control over the state, what was called the "functional utility of greed." [5] Inequity and inequality fostered by the internal, regional, and class power struggles within the feudals simply transported the feudal structure of corruption and bribery into the industrial sector. According to Mahbub ul-Haq, Ayub Khan's chief economist, "by 1968, 22 families controlled 2/3 of Pakistan's industrial assets; 80% of banking; 70% of insurance."[6] Since 1958 the state tried to dominate economic development through rapid industrialization but still compromising with feudal interests in granting favorable licensing practices, subsidies, and five-year plans. This may seem paradoxical as the corrupt feudal should have corrupted the industrial sector too. However note that the very weak rural market could not be the consumption pool to drive industrial production, and the neo-capitalists had to tie up and do business with foreign sources, which restricted the "graft" part to a certain extent. However, corruption could persist on the domestic end of the industrial sector.

The favour shown by the west in the cold war setting, meant that the state obtained some independence from the agricultural sector regarding capital accumulation and did not (or could not) tap into the feudal's agricultural surplus which remained outside the tax net. Therefore, as expected, little or no investment have gone into agriculture. [7] The share of agriculture in the GNP fell from 53.5% in 1950 to 23.8% in 1988 while the share of manufacturing rose from 7.8% to 19.4%. This made the "urban bias" from industrialization endemic, and increasing the problem of inequality over time. The Pak government did all this knowingly, with declared aim to achieve growth rather than social equality. Economic growth probably also contributed to land alienation as shown that while agricultural productivity was raised from 1.3% in the 50's to 4.5% in the 60's, landless labor remained at 45% of the farm population. [8]

Note that this was the period when the problem has to be taken in perspective over the entire unpartitioned Pak. Regional inequality and landless peasantry was a key component in the BD liberation war, where the initial militancy was led by Leftist students and a whole spectrum of leftist groups with their own ideas of revolutionary overthrow of the state. Apart from the partition of the country in 1971, this "urban bias" has been suggested to be also at the root of the conflict in Sindh which started in this backdrop of the 60's and continues till today.

Bhutto tried populist reform but ended in a compromise. However, the cold war setting and a spike in remittances between 75 and '91, international aid in the backdrop of the Afghan war, all this allowed the state to pretend that it has managed to stabilize the social instability. As indicated in the above, the declining productivity of agriculture from lack of reforms does not mean that the feudals lost their power. By controlling and penetrating into the state, the feudals also controlled the flow of funds into development efforts and diversified into industrial capitalist accumulation. However the feudal way of doing business still handicaps the capitalist process. In many other countries this would have generated a revolutionary "class" confrontation which would be used by the "middle sections" to come to power. However, where authoritarian or oligarchical regimes can use ideological control of society as in communist Russia or China, and in Islamist Pak, the revolution is stifled and takes other directions.

In states where the power of feudal elite has not been destroyed completely, the modern state loses its autonomy and weakens. The state institutions are always penetrated by the representatives of the feudals who may reinvent themselves as custodians of industrialization as well as socialist pretensions. However their basic thrust is to create and transform the state in a way that makes the apparatus of state power dependent on the apparatus of personal power.

Higher initial rates of industrialization and educational opportunities camouflaged this process in India to a greater extent than in Pak. So we see Pak suffering under this process much more transparently than in India, and Pak fortunes appear to get connected with the personal fortunes of individual "great" leaders. All this is a result of very similar processes all over the subcontinent. In India this process was a much contested one from within the feudals, and different starting points culturally - resulting in growth [however note the inflexion point only when the power of the "individual great leader" was shaken for ever into the future - in India]. Pak however suffers from this enormously.

[1] Ashutosh Varshney, "Urban Bias," p.10.
[2] Shahid Javed Burki, Pakistan: The Continuing Search for Nationhood (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1991), p.175.
[3] https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/pk.html
[4] Herald (Karachi) (May 1996), p. 30.
[5] Khalid B. Sayeed, Politics in Pakistan: The Nature and Direction of Change (New York: Praeger, 1980), pp. 54-83.
[6] Mahbub ul-Haq, The Poverty Curtain: Choices For the Third World (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), pp. 7-8.
[7] Shahid Javed Burki, "The State and the Political Economy of Redistribution in Pakistan," in Weiner and Banuazizi, The Politics of Social Transformation, pp. 274, 285, 297-98.
[8] Parvez Hasan, "Agricultural Growth and Planning in the 1960s," in Robert Stevens et al., ed., Rural Development in Bangladesh and Pakistan (Honolulu: The University of Hawaii Press, 1976), p. 240.

(to be continued)

^^^
B ji,

I think there might be some problem in the way the numbers are interpreted. Try comparing it with the numbers for India during the corresponding time period.

If Bangladesh was a developed country, with proper population control & high technology, and India lagging behind, the thought of becoming a south asian military bloc would never cross any BDeshi's mind. Just like the way Swiss doesn't join EU as they are world's bankers. It is natural tendency that when a country is facing with land loss, population bulge without much development..to lean and attach itself to a country which is actually doing better. But materialistically..what does India get out of such military cooperation?....such integration might even drain Indian wealth and resources for the sake of BD or Paki or Nepal who are anti India at times...it'd be like Hen followed by its chickens...EU/NATO are like pack of wolves...and SAARC is no way near to it.

kittoo wrote:^Thanks Manishw ji. Now to listen it with lyrics known is a different feeling altogether.
And as expected, WKKs were unleashing their fury at this song too, even though it only says the truth and what happened. They are cancer of this country.

100k Dhahdi,folks singers going from village to village singing Veer Ras ( not Beer ras) can do wonders in changing ,charging the conciousness of countrymen.
PSers, Wagha Kandle Kisser.
Dushman sarre, Hai nahi mittar,
Laah lo pairo khundee juutee
Maaro ehna de, vadde chhitter.
Pseudo Historian, Dhimmi, Jehadi
Danger to hard earned Azadi
Kudd ke Khanda ,maar eh Tittar
La la ke hutth eh sekan Chitttard.

naren ji,
the stats would be very similar in the general macro trends. This is what I have alluded to in the last paragraph of my post. However, the structural source of capital growth and the institutional framework in India would be far more independent of feudal control compared to Pak. The capital accumulation in India was also substantially sourced from internal taxation and the state autonomy was strong enough to erase the landlord/zamindari system in many parts and had much greater success in land reforms with ceilings in place etc. [uneven in implementation of course]. This is what I have been drawing attention to in the very end.

But given this essential structural dissimilarity between the two states - the stats I quoted above make a very important point that, with such an institutional and power structure, such stats reflect the entrenchment of feudal control over the state and economy, which can only keep on floating if external donations continue in ever increasing volumes.

If you think about it PVNR broke the feudal monopoly on Indian economic activity and unleashed India unbound. Before the reforms one had to have a couple of generations(Birla, Tatas etc) of access to perks and power. After the reforms some folks (ITVTy, new industries) were able to generate equal and in some cases more than the wealth of the traditional elite.
I wasn't able to make this connection till I read your posts.

^^^^
That was known as breaking the Bombay Biz club. There was a lot of resentment during the early days of reforms.

ramana ji,
he was the inflexion point I meant - although the foundations were shaken in '77. I did not want to go seriously into the Indian part as that is a whole different area. There would be the presence of a professional middle class who were able to take up the middle-position mediator slot between feudals and their victims. That was rooted in early educational initiative and readiness in "Hindus" to utilize and explore alternative knowledge, technology, and political experiences/experiments in other societies. In a sense this was historically predetermined. By removing the pre-Islamic Hindu intellectuals from power and feudal overlordship, the Islamics forced this section to come down into the professional "class" even in Islamic regimes.

While the Islamist leadership did not allow education to spread among their own underclass - the so-called ajlaaf-ashraaf divide, to maintain Islamic dominance and immunize against non-Muslim influence. But they needed similar abilities to run the state, and hence preserved the Hindu "educated middle class". Over time this meant gradual polarization of Islamic society into two strictly partitioned ruling elite and dependent, or peasant Islamic underclass in a tight feudal relationship.

The educated Hindu "middle" in the services of "states" were quick to adopt the new opportunities afforded by the Brits. But their presence also complicated the dominance of the feudal class among the Hindus. We can trace out the more complex Indian development directly to this tri-partite struggle for power which the middle was able to utilize for their own power designs, while the bi-partite nature of the struggle in Islamist portion indicated how Pak will evolve.

Sorry if I have made anyone upset with my naive idea about SAARC based regional integration. Obviously I was not well aware of the local situations.

From the responses to my posts, my conclusion is the following:

- subcontinental Muslims have essentially committed collective suicide by engineering the partition and curving out their homeland from an undivided India
- this should have been obvious to any logical thinking leadership, but apparently logic was in short supply with the Muslim leadership at the time
- it has divided the subcontinental Muslim community in 3 different nation states and weakened their political clout in a democratic India by reducing their percentage of voting population
- it has left the Muslims in two areas, cut off from Indian mainland, where both were disrupted as they were organically linked with Indian mainland, not just for social, trade, business ties, rail, road and river transport links etc., but also many rivers run accross these borders and enter these countries from India. So even if there are water sharing treaties, there is always opportunity for India to squeeze these countries, using water flow and usage at upstream
- it has allowed the emergence of a Hindu dominated India within the subcontinent, so essentially Hindu elite are finally calling the shots without interference from Muslim elite, which should have happened in any case if the British did not arrive at the scene as Maratha and Sikh empires had already eclipsed the Mughal empire in most places in greater India of the time, it just got delayed by 2 unfortunate centuries
- India is an aspiring great power, and it has no intention to jeopardize its rise by going for any EU type political integration in SAARC at this time, although economic integration and bilateral trade seems to be not unacceptable
- as the creation of Pakistan with its two wings were a bad idea to begin with, it never had much of a chance of long term success, essentially it was not just still born, it should not have been born in the first place - both areas drifted from less chaos to more chaos, under sub-standard leadership, most of which was dominated by the landed elite as Brihaspati ji pointed out
- the elite in Bangladesh and Pakistan know this well and are in the process of moving out of these places to greener pastures, mainly immigrating to the West, some choose to remain if there is sufficient financial incentive to take risk with one's life and limb
- as the elite moves out, the standard of leadership falls lower and even more chaos will reign in both places

So the hope for good management in both Bangladesh and Pakistan is slim for the short or medium term (Afghanistan and Somalia are good examples, maybe the situation will be slightly better that these two). India will have to keep both of these decomposing bodies under a good frozen morgue so their body politic does not contaminate or attack its own body politic, with terrorists crossing the border in case of Pakistan and poor economic refugees in case of Bangladesh.

Once India gains a sufficient upper hand with these two entities in a few decades, hopefully the depleted and degraded leadership in these two places will finally realize that they have never been any match for India and they have no real leverage over India, then they might become compliant with Indian requirements and demands on them. When things improve to that level, India might let these two entities have a little easier time, and no longer keep them under a death grip.

If and when religion becomes less important in people's lives, then India might think of some kind of integration, very far in the future, but that will entirely depend on the actions of the political leadership in these two entities (Pak and BD) and the body politic, who should realize that sooner or later their future is tied with India for better or for worse, China as an outsider will never be a replacement of India, which is more like an estranged family member to them.

AKalam wrote:
- subcontinental Muslims have essentially committed collective suicide by engineering the partition and curving out their homeland from an undivided India
- this should have been obvious to any logical thinking leadership, but apparently logic was in short supply with the Muslim leadership at the time
- it has divided the subcontinental Muslim community in 3 different nation states and weakened their political clout in a democratic India by reducing their percentage of voting population

Another logic says that this was an opportunity to create a exclusive strong muslim state which could start social engineering of the entire large population of the subcontinent towards Islam over 100-200 years. This Islamic state could have direct relationship with the British and its other patrons such as US and China and build its idenitity, image and an Islamic history which can last for a long time.

@Akalam Ji sorry for any angst caused to you.Your post is closer to reality than previous ones but not correct again since it goes to the other extreme.Will try to put my thoughts more coherently later today and of course welcome to BRF , hope we can have more meaningful debates in times to come.
thanks and please remember these are just my thoughts which might or might not be correct.

AKalam wrote:
If and when religion becomes less important in people's lives, then India might think of some kind of integration, very far in the future, but that will entirely depend on the actions of the political leadership in these two entities (Pak and BD) and the body politic, who should realize that sooner or later their future is tied with India for better or for worse, China as an outsider will never be a replacement of India, which is more like an estranged family member to them.

Destroy Pakistan as a religion based country so that sub continent never comes to competitive based existence

Integration if any, can only happen under the ambit of the Indian constitution.

@Akalamji , Please try to look at things from our viewpoint.The subcontinent was occupied with people 1000 yrs ago(approx) who had a indic way of life- a simplistic explanation would be those people knowing that god/non god/ void whatever was one and their way of worshiping were very very different.There were the atheists long before the word was coined.If the caste system got out of hand or misunderstood, religions like buddhism would crop up or an alternative to Ishwara was propounded partly in Bhagwadgita and greatly by Gautam Buddha called nirvana.The jains had/have their own philosophy of god as a system.Suffice it to say that with the normal checks and balances people were getting along much better with each other and had a better standard of living than contemporaries of that time and most agreed that god is one and worshiping him in numerous ways is possible. Some say there are 32 crores deities in hinduism alone.Many schools of thought were followed.There was also the concept of religion separate from matters of state which were later on copied by the Europeans(though not always followed in the sub continent itself). In short they were evolving by themselves and doing a good job compared to their contemporaries.

Now a new philosophy was inducted by certain foreigners who said that my god is the only god any anybody who doesn't follow it will be raped, maimed, killed, mauled etc. and this is not open for discussion at the pain of death. This philosophy was alien to people at that time and was made a political tool to rule people of the subcontinent.Many people converted to this either under duress, because it appealed to baser instincts or simply because they liked it and gave them more freedom of choice. However as with all closed systems remaining indics started revolting in their own way.Martial(saint/warrior) Religions like Sikhism come and various other sects and subsects in the subcontinent came to be to appose it and for a time , as you pointed out, it seemed the indics were again beginning to control their destiny.
Alas this was not to be and foreigners came into this and made a further mess of things.The subcontinent was partitioned and two states came into being the indics and non indics.This was deliberately done with the active connivance of many local people and even this was not clear since the indics were driven from non indic lands but the non indics continued to grow in indic land to eventually change demographics and various words were twisted and used like secular etc. and this continues to this day.Systematic propoganda campagains were launched to deracinate the indics and systematically convert them.
Well educated non indics used different psyops against indics like starting with a E.U template, if resistance is encountered then the yindoos are evil chankian filth.Your own writings illustrate that and I am not saying that it is something you are doing consciously.This is standard discourse all over the internet so please-2 don't take it personally.Open debating is very difficult.
Non educated non indics have jihad and philosophy drilled at a very young age with all sort of ideology regarding the afterlife rather than this life.
The indics who were never homogenized continue to be argumentative while things are slipping from their grasp.The demographics have been changed in india and the Govt is hiding it.Just look at Assam or most other states of India.People understand that u have to fight the 3.5 friends and pakistan(including bangladesh) but simply fail to see that ten years down the line India will be even more changed than it is now demographically.This battle is ours alone and nobody is going to help us out.Why would countries want a new superpower with all the attendant headaches.Leave that alone facing the Anglo-saxon alliance , the muslim world, china and various assorted forces including enemies within india are too big and formidable to be handled by us.Either we face them in the next 3-5 years or its finished for us.
The only balancer we have are nuclear weapons below the threshold of which we can carry out our indic agenda and it is not such a tall order if the Hindu elites instead of filling their own pockets develop a spine.We just have to make it china specific and china while dying would take care of everybody else.That is the Indian MAD.The common man, here I talk of 85 crore indics is ready in my opinion.They have had enough even from their own elites.

I would also request people to go through Arun shourie's book, who in my opinion is a very upright and honest person, and he also says that partition has got us some breathing space and nothing more.
Indic civilization though bloodied and mauled is still standing in my opinion and still the underdog but still an underdog with potential to change the course of history.

These are JMT and all other standard disclaimers apply.

AKalam ji,

a very perceptive summarization of the various PoVs.

AKalam wrote:- it has left the Muslims in two areas, cut off from Indian mainland, where both were disrupted as they were organically linked with Indian mainland, not just for social, trade, business ties, rail, road and river transport links etc., but also many rivers run accross these borders and enter these countries from India. So even if there are water sharing treaties, there is always opportunity for India to squeeze these countries, using water flow and usage at upstream

Even though it is true, that there were many organic links between pre-Bangladesh and India and pre-Pakistan and India, one does not need to overemphasize them. There are many countries in the world which happen to be self-sufficient and independent, and are much much smaller than Bangladesh or Pakistan. In fact Bangladesh and Pakistan are huge countries. So I would not go so far as to say, that these countries had no chance.

Also India has in the past not worked actively to ensure that Bangladesh is spared flooding or drought through a management of the Eastern rivers, but this has less to do with malicious intent, and far more to do, with the fact neither was the management there nor an active interest. Bangladesh probably expected too much, and that too without giving India any incentive. As far as Pakistan is concerned, India has been giving 80% of the waters of the Indus Basin to Pakistan despite all provocations, that have taken a huge toll on India.

So it is not so, that India has been squeezing its neighbors using Water. The point is that one day, India would say, we have been allowing water, etc. to Bangladesh and Pakistan like good neighbors and they have not appreciated it one bit. So if they have only negative things to say about us, lets give them justified reasons for their hate.

AKalam wrote:- as the creation of Pakistan with its two wings were a bad idea to begin with, it never had much of a chance of long term success, essentially it was not just still born, it should not have been born in the first place - both areas drifted from less chaos to more chaos, under sub-standard leadership, most of which was dominated by the landed elite as Brihaspati ji pointed out

This too is not true. Pakistan may have been a bad idea to begin with, but that is very subjective, and everybody has an opinion on that. What, at least, I cannot agree with that the two entities were destined to failure. It all depended on the quality of the people, their vision, their discipline, their creativity, their wisdom.

Singapore is a very high density state, but that didn't stop them from acquiring a very high quality of life. So population density is not a make or break issue.

AKalam wrote:So the hope for good management in both Bangladesh and Pakistan is slim for the short or medium term (Afghanistan and Somalia are good examples, maybe the situation will be slightly better that these two). India will have to keep both of these decomposing bodies under a good frozen morgue so their body politic does not contaminate or attack its own body politic, with terrorists crossing the border in case of Pakistan and poor economic refugees in case of Bangladesh.

Pakistan may be a decomposing body, simply because it is a slave of the self-destructive purification curse. Bangladesh also got to taste of the demon before Bangladesh got its independence. But no such curse really lies on Bangladesh, at least not to the extent it sticks to Pakistan. It is up to Bangladesh, what it wishes to do with its destiny.

India would have to stop the economic refugees, but it does not mean that only death awaits them in Bangladesh.

AKalam wrote:Once India gains a sufficient upper hand with these two entities in a few decades, hopefully the depleted and degraded leadership in these two places will finally realize that they have never been any match for India and they have no real leverage over India, then they might become compliant with Indian requirements and demands on them. When things improve to that level, India might let these two entities have a little easier time, and no longer keep them under a death grip.

Again India is not giving them a hard time. If at all, they themselves make their lives difficult. There is no death grip on them. One cannot say, that simply denying somebody immigration into India is equivalent to keeping somebody under a death grip. Nobody in India would want to take the credit for so much power.

AKalam wrote:If and when religion becomes less important in people's lives, then India might think of some kind of integration, very far in the future, but that will entirely depend on the actions of the political leadership in these two entities (Pak and BD) and the body politic, who should realize that sooner or later their future is tied with India for better or for worse, China as an outsider will never be a replacement of India, which is more like an estranged family member to them.

AKalam ji,
There is a reason, why India is pulling ahead on the Indian Subcontinent. The culture, the attitude to life has something to do with it. Dharmic faiths have something to do with it. The system is based on, is dependent on the fact, that it stays that way: the Dharmic faiths set the agenda. Integrating so many Muslims would be self-destructive.

Manishw wrote:
The only balancer we have are nuclear weapons below the threshold of which we can carry out our indic agenda and it is not such a tall order if the Hindu elites instead of filling their own pockets develop a spine.

Nuclear weapons and nuclear war is practical and it is possible. It can change the outcome of the future in favor of the Indics.

Acharya wrote:

Manishw wrote:
The only balancer we have are nuclear weapons below the threshold of which we can carry out our indic agenda and it is not such a tall order if the Hindu elites instead of filling their own pockets develop a spine.

Nuclear weapons and nuclear war is practical and it is possible. It can change the outcome of the future in favor of the Indics.

Double the Indic population along with 20T economy and matching military and Indics have the whole world by the balls to make them comprehend the dharmic principles with ease and awe. All the social, spiritual exclusives will figure out the virtues of being inclusive. Watch
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/640606/ru ... te_people/

RajeshA wrote:AKalam ji,
There is a reason, why India is pulling ahead on the Indian Subcontinent. The culture, the attitude to life has something to do with it. Dharmic faiths have something to do with it. The system is based on, is dependent on the fact, that it stays that way: the Dharmic faiths set the agenda. Integrating so many Muslims would be self-destructive.

I notice that in western countries like the UK and US, pakistanis & bangladeshis do not progress up the academic / career ladder the way Indians do. They do poorly in school and do not pursue higher education.

I suspect its because their parents neglect to mentor their kids through the education process or they are fooling around too much with islam, doing jehad, various 'causes' to fight for, saudi arabia ...etc. instead of concentrating on their studies. By the time they are 17 to 20 years old its too late.

Neshant wrote: They do poorly in school and do not pursue higher education.

I suspect its because their parents neglect to mentor their kids through the education process.

Western education is considered social changer imposed by the west and is to be given low importance. They considered western education to be faked and low caliber since it was based on roman text preserved by the Muslims of the ottoman empires. They consider the western countries of the present are the derivatives of the enlightenment era of the last 500 years and do not go back beyond that when the west and the people were the slaves of the Muslims empires.

^^ I do believe many muslims are living in a fantasy world of 'glory' long past. These days its no longer feasible to jump on a camel with sword in hand and go rob a country. So there is no quick fix to go from rags to riches other than education, innovation & hard work.

For some time in history, there might have been some arabian muslims who got into science and mathematics and made some advancements. But the vast majority of the converted hoard, most of whom were converted by the sword (the present day pakistani & bangladeshi muslims), probably converted out of a) fear or b) a desire to loot others as described above.

That mentality has stuck which is why most do not focus on self-improvement through academics/career but are instead dreaming of the day when some taliban type looting can be carried out to even the playing field.

Scientific progress is not unilinear and not always cumulative. There have been many times in history when science knowledge gained in one civilization was later lost and not always revived immediately.

"Advancement" is very difficult to define, and is a complex mixture of both increased material consumption as well as a "value-system" which usually follows consumption but sometimes also deviates from consumption for significant periods.

Many "world-views" and "organized religions" rose in the back drop of rapid changes in the mode of production and economic system towards higher productivity or capital accumulation. There is an obvious example in the rise of the solar cult of Akhenaten, Buddhism, Christianity etc.

We can model this as a reaction to tackle increasing social and economic complexity by producing a simplifying world-view and the security in a group. This is where, the attractions of Islamism lies. For it offers a way to reduce the complexity which modern sciences force young people to face up to. By reducing the social structure, interactions and knowledge base to the simpler desert culture of 7th century Arabia, it offers a way out for multitudes of young males who are promised guaranteed supply of women and wealth and land. By structuring the society on a simple dominance submission order based on theologian-male-female hierarchy and agrarian economy based on war - it places relatively little knowledge based stress and complexity on the most militant section of any society - young males.

So in fact, contact with modern science is likely to intensify Islamist sentiments and give rise to revivalist radicalism.

Bji,

If one is to accept that a change in science and technology results in the advent of a new world view and an organised religion. Even today if I am to take your views forward then I think we are also on the cusp of an advent of a new religion.

As Islam and Christianity as they stand today are Incapable of answering the questions that are being raised by todays world. To a large extent in Western Europe Roman Catholic has lost its hold on the Population.

A revival of radical Islamism will also open an opportunity for us to Compomise and weaken It as it will not have all the answers. Because in order to give an answer it will need to accept that the situation exists that did not have a parallel in 7th century Arabia.



JMT

There is one fundamental difference between Islamism and all the predecessor organized religions we know about : while the "others" all started out almost surely as political-philosophical rebellions of local nature against the prevailing state and ruling systems, and were only later found out to be useful by imperialist visionaries and given their state-linked organized shape - Islam started out itself as an imperialist doctrine with an imperialist visionary at the very foundations.

Because a lot of material about those who lost out in the religious civil wars in Egypt under the Pharaohs of the new kingdom is lost, we cannot be sure but the general understanding now is that teh solar cult did exist before Akhenaten as deviation/opposition to the theocracy and he for whatever reasons (OT here perhaps) took it up as an imperialist tool to assert his own authority.

Moses took monotheism up as a tool of rebellion against the prevailing Egyptian regime and later on the Jews used it as a doctrine to reclaim rights to Canaanite regions and lands which some of them perhaps left in search of employment in Egypt [the theory of slavery is hotly discounted by an influential group of academics].

Buddhism again started out from the grievances of sections of urban populations arising out of trade and urban life like professional entertainment by females [rich traders and nagara-badhus were the most prominent early recruits] against the prevailing regime of monarchies and oligarchies which were seen as corrupt and arbitrary. It was an imperialist visionary like Bimbisara who saw the potential as a then "new-age religion" to buttress his imperialist ambitions. Note that the great councils were all initiated by the "emperors" and Buddhism transformed into an organized state sponsored religion that perhaps imposed a lot of its memes on state authority.

The early Christians almost surely were one of the many politically radical Jewish groups fighting to reassert their independence from Rome, but their simplifying message was found attractive by influential section sof the roman state which led to at least one emperor seeing the potential in restructuring Christianity as an imperialist organized tool.

It is with Islam that we see a departure from this pattern in the sense that the religion was founded right from the beginning very clearly as an imperialist doctrine of expansion, subjugation and submission to authority. There was no meaningful state in the middle or even northern Arabic frontier against which the founders of Islam were rebelling.

Thus Islam cannot be understood in the way say Roman Catholicism has been understood. RC has been self-contradictory from the beginning because it had to hammered out of an essentially anarchist, anti-state ideology of individual self-assertive rebellion into one that submits and fuels imperialist expansion and consolidation. Thus the RC Church always had the potential of explosive fissures and deviations. Faced with the potential of scientific knowledge that finally filtered through the medieval contact with the East, it was almost a foregone conclusion that factions weak and chafing under RC papal authority before would lap it up as a tool of defying RC authority.

This is reflected in the fact that "science" was merely a tool as far as utility for war and independence from Papacy was concerned - it did not immediately transfer into the so-called humanitarian values of the modern period - slavery or oppression of the "other" was okay. Only when the net results of self-goals were seen in the world wars and those enslaved before showed the potential of applying these very same techniques back on the "previous masters" did Europe install checks and balances to prevent retribution on themselves for what they had done in colonial regimes.

Islam's reaction to modern science and complexity will therefore be completely different. There are no factions within Islam that seeks to upset the "centre" - for there are no centres, and there is no need for it. It is focused on power and subjugation of others, and unlike the other philosophies it does not suffer from contradictions of "peaceful intent and posturing" with the "need to subjugate". So for Islam science is only useful if it helps in war and subjugation of others, as well as satisfaction in use of power - say the little blue pills [dont know the real colour, have not seen them so far] and totally useless otherwise. You can have intricate knowledge of chemistry that will generate the blue pills which however does not need to ponder genetic mutation and its relation to natural selection and therefore face a crisis of faith.

If there are rebellions from within Islamism which at all counter Islamic theocracy - it has to be an equally self-assured and totalitarian world-view that also incorporates science as another religion [a kind of orthodoxy - no "scientific" belief can be challenged etc.]. I can see only one obvious candidate - the extreme Leftists. I guess, this is why all surviving communists of Iranian origin are basically Maoists. I guess panning this out for India is going to be a sensitive issue to discuss in details.

On a related note:

Modern_India - Swami Vivekananda

According to the prevalence, in greater or lesser degree, of the three qualities of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas in man, the four castes, the Brahmin, Kashatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra, are everywhere present at all times, in all civilised societies. By the mighty hand of time, their number and power also vary at different times in regard to different countries. In some countries the numerical strength or influence of one of these castes may preponderate over another; at some period, one of the classes may be more powerful than the rest. But from a careful study of the history of the world, it appears that in conformity to the law of nature the four castes, the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra do, in every society, one after another in succession, govern the world.
...
Among the Chinese, the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Chaldeans, the Areas, the Iranians, the Jews, the Arabs — among all these ancient nations, the supreme power of guiding society is, in the first period of their history, in the hands of the Brahmin or the priest. In the second period, the ruling power is the Kshatriya, that is, either absolute monarchy or oligarchical government by a chosen body of men. Among the modern Western nations, with England at their head, this power of controlling society has been, for the first time, in the hands of the Vaishyas or mercantile communities, made rich through the carrying on of commerce.
...
In the oldest countries like Egypt, the priestly power enjoyed unmolested supremacy only for a short period, after which it became subjugated to the royal power and lived as an auxiliary to it. In China, the royal power, centralised by the genius of Confucius, has been controlling and guiding the priestly power, in accordance with its absolute will, for more than twenty-five centuries; and during the last two centuries, the all-absorbing Lamas of Tibet, though they are the spiritual guides of the royal family, have been compelled to pass their days, being subject in every way to the Chinese Emperor.


In India, the royal power succeeded in conquering the priestly power and declaring its untrammelled authority long after the other ancient civilised nations had done so; and therefore the inauguration of the Indian Empire came about long after the Chinese, Egyptian, Babylonian, and other Empires had risen. It was only with the Jewish people that the royal power, though it tried hard to establish its supremacy over the priestly, had to meet a complete defeat in the attempt.
...

Whether the leadership of society be in the hands of those who monopolise learning or wield the power of riches or arms, the source of its power is always the subject masses. By so much as the class in power severs itself from this source, by so much is it sure to become weak. But such is the strange irony of fate, such is the queer working of Mâyâ, that they from whom this power is directly or indirectly drawn, by fair means or foul — by deceit, stratagem, force, or by voluntary gift — they soon cease to be taken into account by the leading class. When in course of time, the priestly power totally estranged itself from the subject masses, the real dynamo of its power, it was overthrown by the then kingly power taking its stand on the strength of the subject people; again, the kingly power, judging itself to be perfectly independent, created a gaping chasm between itself and the subject people, only to be itself destroyed or become a mere puppet in the hands of the Vaishyas, who now succeeded in securing a relatively greater co-operation of the mass of the people. The Vaishyas have now gained their end; so they no longer deign to count on help from the subject people and are trying their best to dissociate themselves from them; consequently, here is being sown the seed of the destruction of this power as well.

Divine_right_of_kings

The Divine Right of Kings is a political and religious doctrine of royal absolutism. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including the church. According to this doctrine, since only God can judge an unjust king, the king can do no wrong. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute heresy.

The unilinear schema of history in the priestly class coming before in "power" to the "warriors/kshatryias" derived from the early British way of representing the European linear thought on this. Most likely in early human groupings it was the same individual or group who performed both the ritualistic as well as administrative role. The early Indian narratives indicate a similar amalgamation. In fact they are quite good representations that ruling and "priesting" were often performed by the same individuals and there were not always strict divisions of labour. One significant story often missed is that the first Brahmin of non-deva origin in fact received his "brahma-gyan" at the hands of a king and kshatryia. This is passed off in apologetics as the need for some "guru" and that the role of the king/kshatryia was token only.

However the story indicates that in reality the strict division of "labour" between priesthood and kings did not exist in the earliest periods. It is not unlikely that because it is the text of the "priesthood" that has been handed down and the voice of the priesthood that rings so loud through the books, that we hear a kind of imagined reconstruction of a golden period when the priesthood had it all - going around turning people to ashes by their brahma-tejas for daring to challenge their power. In historical reality, the greater likelihood is that the prieshood was not much different from the intellectuals of all periods - most collaborating and joining the service of the ruling powers and getting the benefits of power. Others turning radical based on imagined or real griveances at the ruling powers not recognizing their talents.

Separation of any elite from the masses will always take place if we assign strict division of qualities to strict divisions of groups of individuals - group A has quality One, group B has quality Two etc. If such attribution of qualities also associate hierarchies of power and privileges over other groups, then the ones who are ascribed the greatest of power by simply belonging as an individual to that group - will always try and perpetuate their powers on an inherited basis. They will also try to maintain a separation from the rest of the groups through generations - because it guarantees their progeny automatic power and privileges.

brihaspati wrote:
It is with Islam that we see a departure from this pattern in the sense that the religion was founded right from the beginning very clearly as an imperialist doctrine of expansion, subjugation and submission to authority. There was no meaningful state in the middle or even northern Arabic frontier against which the founders of Islam were rebelling.

Thus Islam cannot be understood in the way say Roman Catholicism has been understood. RC has been self-contradictory from the beginning because it had to hammered out of an essentially anarchist, anti-state ideology of individual self-assertive rebellion into one that submits and fuels imperialist expansion and consolidation. Thus the RC Church always had the potential of explosive fissures and deviations. Faced with the potential of scientific knowledge that finally filtered through the medieval contact with the East, it was almost a foregone conclusion that factions weak and chafing under RC papal authority before would lap it up as a tool of defying RC authority.

This is reflected in the fact that "science" was merely a tool as far as utility for war and independence from Papacy was concerned - it did not immediately transfer into the so-called humanitarian values of the modern period - slavery or oppression of the "other" was okay. Only when the net results of self-goals were seen in the world wars and those enslaved before showed the potential of applying these very same techniques back on the "previous masters" did Europe install checks and balances to prevent retribution on themselves for what they had done in colonial regimes.

Islam's reaction to modern science and complexity will therefore be completely different. There are no factions within Islam that seeks to upset the "centre" - for there are no centres, and there is no need for it. It is focused on power and subjugation of others, and unlike the other philosophies it does not suffer from contradictions of "peaceful intent and posturing" with the "need to subjugate". So for Islam science is only useful if it helps in war and subjugation of others, as well as satisfaction in use of power - say the little blue pills [dont know the real colour, have not seen them so far] and totally useless otherwise. You can have intricate knowledge of chemistry that will generate the blue pills which however does not need to ponder genetic mutation and its relation to natural selection and therefore face a crisis of faith.

If there are rebellions from within Islamism which at all counter Islamic theocracy - it has to be an equally self-assured and totalitarian world-view that also incorporates science as another religion [a kind of orthodoxy - no "scientific" belief can be challenged etc.]. I can see only one obvious candidate - the extreme Leftists. I guess, this is why all surviving communists of Iranian origin are basically Maoists. I guess panning this out for India is going to be a sensitive issue to discuss in details.

Brihaspati ji

Regarding your above post fills me with despondency and am reminded of 'star trek' a favorite hit amongst my generation where we had 'The Borgs' and resistance was futile. Sorry to say but I visualize a violent ending to this sordid saga. Hope to God that I am wrong.

BJi I have been trying to post some thing as a responce to your post. But I find that I dont have the Answer. What answer I am comming up with is not some thing I can post in an open forum.

Manishw wrote: Brihaspati ji

Regarding your above post fills me with despondency and am reminded of 'star trek' a favorite hit amongst my generation where we had 'The Borgs' and resistance was futile. Sorry to say but I visualize a violent ending to this sordid saga. Hope to God that I am wrong.

ramana ji has posted a "hopeful" article from the French viewpoint. I do not think my post should generate despondency. The greatest obstacles only make us more determined and sure in our objectives.

Pratyush wrote:BJi I have been trying to post some thing as a responce to your post. But I find that I dont have the Answer. What answer I am comming up with is not some thing I can post in an open forum.

You can try it in GDF, on say "distorted history"!

Few of the earlier posts in this very dhaga..

Atri wrote:Philosophers come up with all sorts of philosophies they feel like. We have whole range of them. They are originators of memes.

The blame for misuse of ideologies and subsequent massacre of people lie on the head of kings and policy makers who utilize the suitable meme from available set of memes for gaining political mileage. Just like Constantine for life time was massacring Christians and on his death bed, accepted Christianity and started massacring Pagans. Constantine made Jesus as popular as he is today. Ashok made Buddha as popular. Without Constantine and Ashok, Jesus and Buddha were just another philosophers.

Muhammad was one of the very few originators of religious memes who patronized himself to become so successful. He did not depend upon some king. This shows that he was a successful human being. He became an authentic policy-maker of his kingdom and as I said, political policy-makers are the ones to blame primarily for misuse of the ideological memes. Muhammad being originator and implementor of Islam, gets both the accolades for being so immensely successful and criticisms for using his own philosophy for gaining political mileage.

The character of Adolf Hitler showed slightly similar trajectory. He came up with philosophy, he got power, he implemented his philosophy and became immensely popular. And later, infamous !!! The strategy for eradication of Nazism can be used for Islamism with appropriate modifications.

Atri wrote:there are three types of policy makers - Krishna family, Raama family and Muhammad family.

Krishna, Chanakya, Savarkar, Gandhi et al train and patronize a group of individuals who help them execute their policies. Krishna - Pandavas, Chanakya - Chandragupta, savarkar - Whole bunch of revolutionaries, Gandi - nehru and his coterie.. Their ability and strength lies in playing a complementary and secondary, yet vital role in the process of their policy implementations.. usually they are single-minded in their approach and sometimes tend to neglect other aspects of the game and their own life. However, this single-minded character is what helps them in achieving what they achieved.

Second is Raama family. Most of the rulers fall under this category. Including, Ashok, Kanishk, Samudra-Chandra2-Kumara-Skanda guptas, Harsha, later vijaynagar kings, Akbar, Aurangzeb, Ranjit singh, Constantine, Frederick et al. All of them are sort of "good Rajas" who followed their "raja-Dharma" appropriately. They do not have their own world-view. However they usually select the best available world-views from the available set in their space-time and use their acumen to implement it perfectly which leads to overall evolution of the king and the followers of that particular world-view. If the world-view which is selected is broad enough, then large spectrum of public is benefitted and king becomes "Raajarshi - a sage king". Otherwise he becomes aurangzeb and Muhammmad tughlaq. But both of them were good administrators and followed their "yuga-Dharma" rather well.

Third family is Muhammad family. Muhammad, Harihara-Bukka, Shivaji, Napoleon, Hitler fall in this category. These people cause a paradigm shift not only in the polity of their geographical vicinity but also in the entire world-view of the entire population along with it. They come up with an idea, and then actually live and attain power to propagate that idea as per their wishes. Thus, they ensure that only the approved "variants" of their original idea is propagated, thus giving the idea a headstart. I would place the character of "Don Vito Corleone" from Godfather novel in this league as well.

Very apt summary of the essence of early Islam as has been represented to us. Although reality was perhaps slightly different and it was initially a sectarian adaptation of iconoclastic threads within Byzantine Chrisitianity. However, the thing that concerns us for the future, is whether we should simply evaluate a system as successful and worth preserving if it is self-sustaining.

Comparison and evaluation of the relative merits of different systems for the future human society and Indian subcontinent in particular, requires the acceptance of a common value-system which we can use to choose between different self-sustaining systems.

brihaspati wrote:

Pratyush wrote:BJi I have been trying to post some thing as a responce to your post. But I find that I dont have the Answer. What answer I am comming up with is not some thing I can post in an open forum.

You can try it in GDF, on say "distorted history"!

Bji,

Thanks for the encouragement, but I think I can now post it in this thread.


I think the imperialistic ideology can be defeated by not allowing it any new territories for growth. I also believe that we will be able to defeat a resurgence of political Islam. I feel that todays world gives us an opportunity to defeat political Islam. If we are able to do the following;

1.Deny the Islamists the Intellectual space to operate. By making the arguments for islamism irrelevant.
2.Create a situation where the core beliefs are given up by a large section of the population. In order to prosper with the rest of humanity. You have mentioned that Islamists will only those advance which help then wage war. I say that represents the greatest opportunity for us. The modern battle field is not one where a man with a sword will prevail upon another with a sword. It requires a solder to have certain skills and attitude. Similarly the modern military has moved away from horse back to Industrial and post industrial way of war fighting. Yes a band of armed men can still do some damage. But they can also be killed by a UAV operated form 10000 kms away. Countering that will require a certain level of knowledge of strictly non military nature. That will have to be acquired by them. Opening the doors for subversive influences to infiltrate islamism. If the Islamists don't support a growth of secular education then they will be left behind in the military field as well. That alone gives us the opening that we need in order for us to move forward.


JMT. And am willing to learn more.