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.”

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?

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.

it might be intellectually empty – but it wasn’t a protest – it was simply a factual observation.

I am saying it may be mis-construed …

About my quoted comment – it might be intellectually empty – but it wasn’t a protest – it was simply a factual observation. The Indian Constitution is explicit in its adoption of a progressive liberal doctrine. I am simply labeling this doctrine as another big brother like idea.

1. Modern Indians (mostly) have no concept of the classical Indian political model – and can today be only surmised and inferred.

2. So, when you make a simplistic statement like

“modern” India has embraced the western paradigm of big brother

it maybe misconstrued as a intellectually empty protest against Westernization and globalization (Do I know better – ).

3. In various posts, I have defined the features of Indian political structure – and deconstructed Western political concepts in significant detail.

4. Obviously in short posts like this, more about political theory maybe difficult to accommodate.

5. Yes – the ‘modern’ Indian State has incorporated too many of the Platonic-Confucian authoritarian principles of the State as parens patriae.

6. Modern Indian political culture works on two tracks. The documented Indian Constitution which is apparent and conscious. And then we have instinctive unwritten Indic behavioural traits that are ‘received’ wisdom. That works within and outside the system.

7. The collusion between Big Business and not-so-Big Government is becomin deeper and more problematic on one side. On the other side, is the movement towards greater privatization – especially in healthcare and education.

8. The Indian State is reacting to this withdrawal of the citizenry, by throwing more money at people, who are walking away from the Generous State (NREGA, debt waiver scheme, etc.).

Nett, nett -

1. The direction seems undefined.
2. The situation is fluid.
3. There is complete lack of discussion and intellectual vacuum in this area.

The dichotomy you face is your unwillingness to see that the recent “perceptible progress” India has made is largely based on the big brother model. “Perceptible” is important – because the measures and the metrics for this “progress” are all imported.

If India continues on this path – it will need the systems and processes that the founding fathers of the “big brother” philosophy have successfully created – else it will continue to grow to be this frankenstinian monster who will abandon the quiet, yet empowering remnants of India’s past and embrace the restrictive ideas of “big brother.”

The solution is within India – but for that – you need to acknowledge that the problem – today – lies within India…