The Untruth of an Indian Majority

Re: # 223

Tahmed,
I realised my mistake after he posted his response on #221. I mentioned it in my last paragraph in my post #222. But since he hadn`t done so earlier I was a bit stumped because I spent a bit of my childhood growing up in the cantonment areas in India during my school vacations and I think most of our JCO`s would hardly read the Mahabharata from a tactical viewpoint. No, Von Manstein was more their cup of tea (no Katerina in those teacups, what an alluring woman a regular hurricane of emotions).
To continue in the same vein with respect to our misinterpretations I`d say there was many a slip between cup and lip .

swarrier: i think you and jang are making too much of ijaz gul`s use of the phrase ``indian military mind``. The fact is that indian military strategy and tactics are, like its counterpart in pakistan, rooted not in any religious books but in the British Indian Army of WWII of conventinal warfare with armored brigades/divisions with air/infantry support being used in case of offense. Not in religious books which were written during times when the chariot was the state of the art wrt warfare - and are thus of no guide any military strategy or tactics today. Religion has of course been used as a motivational tool for soldiers in the Pakistan army (although not in the Indian army as far as I know), but ultimately it has little practical value. As Napoleon said, God is on the side of the largest battalions.

What has changed of course is the introduction of nuclear weapons which have rendered WWII conventional warfare as obsolete as the WWI era trench warfare was rendered obsolete by introduction of tanks.

So, let us not have a Hurricane Katrina in a teacup.

Re: # 221
Mr. Ijaz_gul

Well, that got something didn`t it?-) I must adopt this tone of moral indignation more often, if it gets responses.-)

I cannot speak for the RSS or the VHP. Their ideologies are different. However since quite a few members of my family are RSS supporters (my father was a member of the Hindu Mahasabha when he was a student) I must discuss this with them. Academic assumptions may be far removed from reality. People may look only at those portions of the Mahabharata that they want to see.

Now on the Shiv Sena I would differ completely from your view. This was a party that was aided and abetted by the Congress in Maharashtra to break the power of the trade unions. It did not come to fore as a Hindutva party. It moved later on into popular consciousness with the poorer sections of Maharashtrian society with it`s call to provide jobs only to Maharashtrians, in Bombay. It at that time was nothing more than a party with urban roots. It had not spread to the countryside. The whole Hindutva leaning came much later when Mr.Thackeray wanted a greater reach. Here again Congress idiocy led to a large number of middle class Maharashtrians (not just Maratha speaking but people settled in Maharashtra) plighting their troth with the Shiv Sena. Mr. Thackeray became the Hindu Hriday Samrat and the Shiv Sena`s support demographics changed. However it is still a regional party, with some internal troubles now. I do not think any deep study of the Mahabharata is being done there even though the Thackerays are CKP`s. It is purely political opportunism.

I mistook your statement to mean the Indian Military itself, the armed forces. Since I have some relations in armed forces and I like to discuss things if and when we meet I found your statement a little difficult to understand. I had not realised that you meant the Indian Military Mind from the point of political parties.

swarrier,
Every state policy can be persued with single or multiple instruments of policy. So the political objectives of war may be pursued through economics, diplomacy, insurrections and war itself simaltaeously. As I qouted earlier from G.N. Pant.

`Just as the Arthashastra has for many years been scanned for what it has to say about the development of Indian state-craft, the Mahabarata is now being explored for what it has to say about the `essence of Indian military mind`.

Just to explain, the Mahabharata school follows the strict Hindu precepts with high ethics, and political idealism based on morality. It differs from Kautilyan thought in that it is not secular and academically not pragmatic. This school follows the traditional Hindu Shastras and the codes of Manu, Shukra and Kamandaka. In contemporary terms, this school is also called the Hindu right or the fundamentalists. The first political party that represented this school was Rashtriya Swayamasevak Sang (RSS). This is a party at the grass root level, is fundamental, militant radical and committed to the concept of Bharat Varsha. Other parties are Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Virat Hindu Sammelan and Shiv Sena. Ayodha mosque, Gujerat and forcible reconversions are recent examples of Hindu militancy that oppose both Gandhian and Nehruvian concepts.

Let me reassure you that I am not party to any sinister conspiracy theory against you. Also believe me that this is no brownie contest, but just an academic exercise on my part.

Yes on Bharat Versha, I have a theory too.

Cheerios

I really that there is a sinister conspiracy theory going on against me.
Mr. Ijaz_gul has steadfastly ignored my repeated questions on why the rise of the saffron brigade is a reflection of the Indian Military Mind.

I want to know what this Indian Military Mind is....
Does it exist?

And how does the increase in the popularity of a political party, that uses the pandering to various minorities of another party, as the plank on which to base its own agenda, have anything to with a military mindset?

Tahmed32,
Are you now going to accuse Ashoka and Chandragupta Maurya of being Biharis? :) Have you done any research about their criminal tendencies or does that occur only after Biharis become Muslims and migrate to Pakistan?

so tahmed, many pople named ashok, puru (poros), kautiya and chandragupta in your pind..typically folks proud of their history do adopt historical hero names.

how abot sikander?

#206 sunlight. Many thanks for this feeback. While Asoka`s pacifism is blamed by some historians i notice for the quick end of the Mauryan dynasty, I think this is untrue. A more basic reason was probably the impossibility of maintaining an empire of such vastness with 4th century BC technology. This is the same reason that Alexander (whom no one would consider a pacifist) created an empire that dissolved almost the day he died. Didnt even last one generation. If anything, Asoka`s pacifism is what kept the empire together as long as it did - with his writings being found in places as far flung as eastern india, gujerat, afghanistan. And in a variety of languages, including one in Aramaic (on a stone pillar in north west pakistan, Aramaic being the language that jesus spoke).

I have also taken a quick look at the link to Kautliya you provided, and look forward to reading through it over this weekend.

#215 I think that is a bit simplistic - in fact, ``caste`` often seems to have changed with economic and/or political success rather than vice versa. Thus, the Nandas were in all likelihood sudras, as was the ruler of sindh who preceded raja Dahar.

I have a theory-only a theory off course - that Kshatriyas and Vaishyas were the only ones who had the strength to challenge the supremacy of Brahmins who had been given the pride of the place in Vedic Hinduism. They asserted by this by choosing alternate faiths. Kshatriyas by and large defected to Buddhism and Vaishyas to Jainism- as seen by the fact that most Jains are to day Banias.

Regards

Jang,
The book is under publication. I dont want the cat out of the bag.
Thankx anyhow.
Cheerios

ijaz

you are being coy. why dont you post a full-fledged article on the FP on the topic of indian mind? dont be afraid..we are all cool here...we would absolutely apreciate any interestinng insights.

DM
Chandra Gupta`s Ahimsa ( a fasting concept) and concept of Dharma Vijaya ( a war of atonement) weighed heavy on the loose Mauryan Empire. This War of Atonement was in reality geared by inward power and prestige but on the face sanctioned by high priests. However it was not enough to maintain the unity. As Gupta moved away from activism, he did not have a lineage worthy enough as suggested by some chowkies to keep the banner afloat. As I asserted earlier, Arthashastra School rose in reaction to the rigorism of Buddhism and emphasised materialism rather than morality. But this was not sudden. Infact Kautilys benefitted from at least four such schools and at least thierteen such teachings. The most DharmaShastra. Therefore some critics see a paradox

Another friend had posed a question about Mahabharata. I will just qoute G.N. Pant.

`Just as the Arthashastra has for many years been scanned for what it has to say about the development of Indian state-craft, the Mahabarata is now being explored for what it has to say about the `essence of Indian military mind`.

Cheerios

swarrier:

You are right about Buddha being not strictly vegetarian. His dictum was that a bhikku should eat whatever he got in his begging bowl; this meant that if he got meat in his begging bowl, he would eat it.

On your second question, I did read somewhere that Kshatriyas indeed embraced Buddhism as well as Jainism in large numbers. I do not know if this happened before or during the Mauryan empire.

Re: # 209
DM
I don`t think Buddhists were vegetarians. Jains okay. But Buddhists, I do not think so. The Buddha himself was not vegetarian and it is discussed that his last meal was some form of pork(this is discussed in the Budhagosa) .
I think the later Mahayana Buddhist schools emphasised vegetarianism to be on the same plane as the Jains.

For the rest , I cannot comment. But do you think that all the Kshatriyas in the Maurya empire would convert to Buddhism?

sunlight, ijaz_gul, tahmed32:

This is not a direct answer to tahmed`s question but I have in the past suggested a reason for why India became an easy prey to outside invasions after the Mauryan empire. One recalls that Alexander, after conquering the rest of the world, encountered stiff resistance in Punjab and was probably defeated by Porus.

I think that one of the reasons had to be the ascendancy of Buddhism during Ashoka`s time, especially since both Buddha and Mahavira were from the warrior Kshatriya castes and had attracted a large number of adherents of their own caste, just as Guru Nanak and the Sikh gurus initially attracted Khatri following. One can imagine the defensive capabilities of a society which had depended upon a single caste for its defence when that caste embraced pacifism and non-violence. Later on, of course, Buddhism transformed itself into a more practical faith in North Asia and China and even gave up on vegetarianism.