A shift in position


Last week, eyebrows were raised over yet another media appearance by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief, Mohan Rao Bhagwat. This time, the fuss centred on his categorical public announcement that the next national president of the Bharatiya Janata Party would not be a Delhi-based leader, and that L.K. Advani would soon relinquish his post as leader of the Opposition. Fortuitously for the Indian foreign policy establishment, his prognosis that Pakistan and Afghanistan “are a part of us and will return one day” did not arouse corresponding attention. (via The Telegraph – Calcutta (Kolkata) | Opinion | A shift in position).

From Ashvakan to Afghans

The task of subduing the Afghan, (a possibly corrupt form of Ashvakan, meaning horse specialists in Sanskrit), from the time of Alexander  to the latest Russian and American misadventures in Afghanistan underscores, the nature of the Indo-Afghan relationship. From the time of Tomyris (Thamyris), when Indian elephant units helped the Afghans to massacre Persian invaders under Cyrus the Great, or when the Afghans hopelessly tied up Alexander.

Alexander’s Indo-Afghan campaign ‘gave him the runs’ (dysentery), his soldiers deserted him in droves, he had to make a marriage alliance, pay nearly 1000 talents (25,000 kg in gold) for an alliance, his dear horse Bucephalus died, he was himself injured twice, made to release prisoners (without a ransom).

End result – he massacred defenceless non-combatant populations and armies alike, when ‘opportunities’ presented themselves.Why did Genghis Khan 'spare' India ...

Islamic ‘conquest’ of India

While Islamic armies were marauding Europe, Central Asia, Africa, India held out. When Genghis Khan’s Mongol armies were running rampant, Islamic refugees found shelter in India, during the reign of Iltutmish. In 1221 Genghis Khan‘s Mongol armies pushed Khwarezm-Shah and other Persian refugees across the Indus into the Punjab, India.

During early Islamic rule, when India was still viewed as militarily difficult target, the Mongols did not think of attacking India.  Remember, that the Mongols attempted to invade Japan, a rather poor country then, without the Sado gold mines! The Japanese blessed their good fortune, when typhoons or (‘The Divine Wind” is what the grateful Japanese called) the Kamikaze, that scattered the Mongol invasion fleet in 1274 and 1281. The Kublai Khan himself barely escaped the fury of the typhoon during the second invasion.

India, the richest economy of the world at that time, with known and famous for its wealth, was spared by Genghis Khan! Just why would history’s foremost looter, invader, pillager spare India?

The Mongol fleet destroyed in a typhoon, ink and water on paper, by Kikuchi Y'sai, 1847

The Mongol fleet destroyed in a typhoon, ink and water on paper, by Kikuchi Y'sai, 1847

Encyclopedia Britannica says Fortunately, the Mongols were content to send raiding parties no further than the Salt Range (in the northern Punjab region), which Iltutmish wisely ignored …” (emphasis mine). As Indian military reputation waned under foreign Islamic rule, the Mongols mounted a military expedition. The Mongols could succeed in India only under the foreign rule of the much-derided Islamic Tughlaks.

End of foreign Islamic rule

The 200-year foreign-Islamic rule from 1206 AD to 1400 AD ended when Ibrahim Lodi, an Afghan horse trader, cobbled together an alliance and sent the incompetent foreign rulers packing. The Lodis, were in turn deposed by another Afghan family, the Mughals.

The Mughals realized, early on, that freedom to Indians was non-negotiable – and enlisted Indian generals, kings, allies to expand their boundaries. The depredations of the foreign ‘Islamic’ rulers were partly reversed by these rulers of Afghan extract – with land reforms, tax reforms, reduction in forceful conversions, et al. The Lodis and Mughals partially reformed the Indic political model – deformed beyond recognition, during the 200 years of foreign Islamic rule. Land holdings remained concentrated in a few hands. Taxes were imposed and increased on the trading classes. Licenses and firmaans were reduced – but remained.

In the last 200 years

The only people who could win against the Afghans were the Indians – last under Ranjit Singhji. The British, and more recently, the Russians and Americans have failed miserably. British possessions of Afghanistan and Balochistan, which were handed to Pakistan on a platter, were a part of the Sikh-Punjab Empire, which fell into the British lap.

Kabuliwala - The movie posterTill about 1960’s India-Afghanistan trade and relations were close and neighbourly. Rabindranath Tagore wrote the short story, ‘Kabuliwalla’. Subhash Chandra Bose escaped from Colonial Raj imprisonment during WW2, using the Afghan route to reach Germany finally.

In early 1970s, in Hyderabad,  कागजी बेदाना अनार (seedless pomegranates) from Kabul, were available at around Rs.4 a kg – at today’s value is about Rs.100 a kg (based on gold prices). Local varieties were sold at less than Rs.1 a kg.

Between 1950 to the post-1973, Nixon Chop world, saw increasing of walls, barriers, battening down of national boundaries. Marxism-Communism seemed relentless and inevitable. Closed economies were seen as the panacea of all problems. Trade was a dirty word. During this period, something momentous happened – a complete and total closure of the Indian mind. India’s international profile underwent a profound change. Indians, who earlier saw the world as a their stage, suddenly retreated into a shell.

Right and wrong

So, yes RSS view is right.

India and Pakistan are a part of the Indic family. What this means is to see Pakistan and Afghanistan not as troublesome neighbours, but as prospective future allies. The Indian political construct was always to surround the Indian heartland by buffer states – like Bangladesh, Nepal, Tibet, Pakistan and Afghanistan. It was not to take over these countries and expand into an unwieldy land mass.

Akhand Bharat ...?

So, when RSS, dreams of an Akhand Bharat, they are wrong. The idea of Bharat was value driven and not power-driven or ruler driven. What Bharat needs to focus on is not to create an Akhand Bharat, but a real Bharat, which will become a model for other countries, especially of the Greater India.

Back to the future

But the Indic model was never to have one king who ruled over others. The Indic model allowed for smaller kingdoms to compete for populations – based on opportunities, freedom, equity. Land holdings in the hands of the populations remained a unique Indian feature for thousands of years – and the West saw this feature only in the last 150-250 years. Religious restrictions in India were not even discussed – unlike the Desert Bloc where the ‘Cuius regio, eius religio’ principle (meaning whose land, his religion; CRER) was established.

In the Desert Bloc, the land, the religion and the very life of all subjects belonged to the king – unlike in India. And that is the Akhand Bharat that we all need to work for!

कागजी बेदाना अनार
About these ads
  1. Galeo Rhinus
    November 28, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    Factually – you are pointing out something important – that several of the later Muslim rulers were not actually “foreigners.” An important distinction.
    However, you seem to suggest that because Lodi was “originally” a Lodhi Rajput – his political rule was not “Islamic.”

    The problem with this argument is that there is an implicit assumption that Indians were free under the Lodi regime. Which essentially begs the question of what did freedom mean in the Indic context.

    Quite simply – it meant economic, personal and political freedom to the people – where neither the economy, nor political power or individual values were centralized. These were the restrictions that all Indic kings had to operate on.

    Islam came into India as two distinct and important constructs. The first as a faith – that offered an alternative option to religion. Indic tolerance accepted this notion of Islam and will always do. The second construct was more problematic. It was the polity that Islamic rulers brought along with them. Like all (in your words) desert bloc rulers – they centralized power. Economic power and political power began to integrate – weakening the Indic paradigm of freedom. Although the Mughal rulers were less oppressive than their predecessors – the centralization of power during the Mughal times – made it easier for the EEIC to create a monopoly on coinage in Bengal. This was new to India (Sher Shah Suri had briefly attempted this – but failed).

    So when you make a distinction between the plundering Islamic armies and the Lodis/Mughals – you are considering only the overt oppression. In fact – Indic polity faced far more damage under the Mughal rule – because it presented itself as milder than the previous foreign rulers. However, it made the idea of a centralized powerful ruler acceptable to the Indian population. This was an idea completely alien to Indic polity. This centralized power – again – made it easier for the English to consolidate their power – despite the strong resistance from the Marathas.

    Similarly – the English rule more far more overtly oppressive before 1857… and although the Anglo-Indian war of 1857 was successful in defending Indic ideas within the society – the post 1857 English rule sustained far more damage – because it was camouflaged under the progressive-liberal doctrine.

    Also – I am disappointed – though not surprised – at your ignorance of what “akhanda bharat” really means… Apparently – India’s English education and a sustained exposure to the Marxist misrepresentation of this idea – has indeed worked on you! Shed those red-tinged glasses and take a second look.

  2. November 29, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Like all (in your words) desert bloc rulers – they centralized power. Economic power and political power began to integrate – weakening the Indic paradigm of freedom.

    Yes. Completely agree. The post says the same thing.

    So when you make a distinction between the plundering Islamic armies and the Lodis/Mughals – you are considering only the overt oppression. In fact – Indic polity faced far more damage under the Mughal rule – because it presented itself as milder than the previous foreign rulers. However, it made the idea of a centralized powerful ruler acceptable to the Indian population. This was an idea completely alien to Indic polity. This centralized power – again – made it easier for the English to consolidate their power – despite the strong resistance from the Marathas.

    The Lodis and Mughals partially reformed the Indic political model – deformed beyond recognition, during the 200 years of foreign Islamic rule. Land holdings remained concentrated in a few hands. Taxes were imposed and increased on the trading classes. Licenses and firmaans were reduced – but remained.

    Very valid point. I thought the above part of the post addresses the very same point.

    India’s English education and a sustained exposure to the Marxist misrepresentation of this idea – has indeed worked on you! Shed those red-tinged glasses and take a second look.

    Are you saying that the Akhand Bharat idea does not mean ‘re-unification’ of India?

  3. Galeo Rhinus
    November 29, 2009 at 6:45 pm

    >>”Very valid point. I thought the above part of the post addresses the very same point.”

    Yes – it does. I am simply pointing out that the two variations of Islamic rule (pre Lodi and Post-Lodi) are akin to the rule of the EEIC before 1857 and the rule of the Queen after 1857. The Queen’s rule – like that of the Mughal’s portrayed a benign face – which caused more long term damage than the overly oppressive rule of the EEIC. You can call the pre-lodi period as phase 1 oppression and the post-Lodi as phase 2 oppression. The English, as well, had two phases of their rule – the initial was phase 1 plunder, which included the ocean piracy and the bengal plunder. The second phase oppression was via the progressive liberal doctrine post 1857 – akin to the Mughals.

    I see no reason to view either of the two phase 2 oppressions in mild light… in fact – I see them as more dangerous because the vitriol is disguised.

    >>Are you saying that the Akhand Bharat idea does not mean ‘re-unification’ of India?

    This question is a logical extension of the currently accepted progressivist notion that India was united for the first time under Gandhi.

    It is this lens of misrepresentation that creates the confusion when one talks of “re-unification.”

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,017 other followers

%d bloggers like this: