Sikkim Proved Very Wise, Sri Lanka Can Prove Equally Wise - Part 1
Hindus never invaded any society and made them slaves or exploited them in any way or even converted them to Hindu faith in any form.
Total Views | 127
-Dr. R.H.Tupkary
Historical Perspective:
The Muslim invaders from Arabia to Iran started invading India soon after the death of their Paigambar in seventh century. They were also defeated for few centuries in the beginning but their hoards continued their invasions on and off for next 4-5 centuries. Finally they were able to establish their kingdom in mainly the northern part of India and it lasted for few centuries in spite of resistance from local kings. It was never an all India Empire of Muslims. They vociferously converted Hindus into Muslims and the converted lot was alienated from the main stream Hindu society. The Maratha kings starting from Shivaji finally defeated the Mughal rule and the Peshvas established their rule right up to Kabul. But the converted Hindus into Muslims remained alienated from Hindu society. The Hindu society did not attempt to get them back to their original cultural faith and ethos. It was in spite of the initiative of Shivaji himself. It was a great mistake not to have taken up it further with vigour.
Then came the European powers like English, French, Dutch, Portuguese and so on, initially for trade but they became the kings because of their superior organized strength, weaponry, fire power, telecommunications and so on. That is why the first war of independence against these powers, in 1857, was lost and Hindu society became slave of mainly the British for nearly a hundred years.
In spite of great efforts on the part of Gandhiji and Congress leaders the Muslim society by and large remained aloof. The basic fact is that most of them believed that Islam was and is incompatible with any other faith and culture. Finally on the basis of the Muslim culture, religion, social perception, and above all large population that they finally demanded and got Pakistan as their own land out of Indian territory when India got independence in 1947 CE. A lot of Muslim population still remained back in India. India accommodated them by adopting legally secular constitution. But the incompatibility of Islam with any other faith/religion/culture kept them a separate entity till to date. Hindus however maintained their culture and civilization based on some basic principles like, vasudhaiva kutumbakam, live and let live, unity in diversity and the like as typical of Hindu ethos. This is exactly where Islam identifies itself as incompatible.
Hindus never invaded any society and made them slaves or exploited them in any way or even converted them to Hindu faith in any form. When Hindus went to South-East Asian region they did not convert them to Hindus but encultured the societies over there with these basic Hindu ethos. The examples of Malaya/Thailand to Indonesia are its typical examples. These societies have changed to Buddhist or Islam but they still are proud to be culturally Hindu. They were never exploited by Hindus. Hindus are unique in this respect in the entire world.
At the time of independence in 1947 India was culturally and peacefully unified by assimilating the princely states with the exception of Kashmir, Junagarh and Hyderabad. Had Nehru had his way he would have granted JandK, Hyderabad, Junagarh, etc. the same freedom jeopardizing country’s security as well as their individual economies. The Maharaja of Kashmir signed for the accession of J and K state with Indian union. The Navab of Junagarh ran away to Pakistan and his population being almost all Hindus acceded to India. Hyderabad, the region at the centre of India, was ruled by Muslim Navab. It was acceded using police force. A high proportion of Hindu population helped the integration. None of these states can castigate that they were exploited by the Indian Union Government, since independence, till to-date. They were fully supported, financially or otherwise in progress and have come equally well with other states, to make India, on the whole a prosperous country.
National Blunder:
It was made possible because of visionary Sardar Patel, then Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was not bothered about the safety and security of India, almost in any way. He was trying to establish world order based on Panch-sheel Principles – an entirely Utopean idea. He was too Utopean in his approach towards national security and safety and that finally proved fatal by India losing Laddakh in the war against expansionist China in 1962. But it was too late and that shock later proved fatal for him.
Nepal has all along been Hindu-dominated part of India without any significant population of other faiths. In reality it had been always as part of Hindu India with Hindu cultural ethos. It wanted to join India as one of its provinces. But Nehru’s excessive liberalism (in fact lack of any national vision) did not accept the offer. On and off it does create some problems under the influence of China. As an independent nation it has not progressed to the extent India as a whole has. Being land-pocked and when in difficulties it comes asking for help from India and the latter offers the due help.
Real World:
All strong national forces in the world, the western force led by USA, Marxist force led by Russia and now Peoples Republic of China have been trying to exploit the weaker societies all over the world using their economic superiority. The Chinese are trying to gain full control on small nations by giving them loans for their developments, on terms such that it becomes impossible to be paid back. Then China acquires lease rights to own part of their strategic corners. The only exception is the Hindu society because of its perception of humanity and its real aim of transforming every individual from mere human to God (nar se narayan).
Background:
USA was formed initially out of only fourteen states. Slowly others joined it one by one to make it a contiguous national spread. The last to join were Alaska and Honolulu, though cut off from the main land USA, as they found it better to be part of USA. All of them now share and enjoy not only the wealth created by them individually but by any other state and are equally secured in the form of a broader identity as USA. They all together got the benefits of the overall large size and diversity and above all it not only ensured freedom, liberty and equality but it provided full scope for blossoming to one and all as Americans. The predominant status of USA in world economics, politics, educational standards, equality of opportunities, aim of achieving excellence in every sphere of life and so on are all equally shared by every American to the extent of individual capacity, supported by the non-partisan governmental power. All are treated as Americans and hold American passport that has tremendous value and prestige all over the world out of its collective power and strength. Imagine had Alaska or Honolulu decided to remain aloof what would have been their status in the world. How would they have survived the onslaught of expansionist world powers like Russia or China? The example of Ukraine is an eye opener in this respect. Same is the problem with Taiwan.
National Wisdom:
The success of USA’s assimilation of different states later has everything to do with their true democratic set-up and therefore full scope for development for all individuals as well as their territories. Sardar Patel had the same vision in the case of India. The British left India in the form in which they had got it. That is how some five hundred and eighty six princely states in India were given choice to join either India, Pakistan or stay as independent. Sardar Patel had the vision of unified India based on its ethos and hence he immediately started assimilation of the princely states in Indian Union. Out of 586 such states only three created some problems. These were J and K, Hyderabad and Junagarh in Gujarat. The moment there was attempt to grab J and K state by Pakistan, Maharaja of J and K acceded his kingdom to the Indian Union to ensure its safety. The Navab of Junagarh ran away to Pakistan and the problem was solved. Hyderabad was acceded by Sardar Patel using police force. Are these acceded states in any inferior in their strature now or they are enjoying the economic prosperity of all together as India. Forget here the case of Kashmir because their Muslim leaders even now would like to live as a feudal Muslim state. Some still want to join Pakistan to the detriment of their progress, particularly when the Muslims of POK would like Prime Minister Modi to free them from the clutches of Kashmir and Pakistan. What would have been their fate as part of Pakistan?
Larger is good:
On the whole the bigger the nation the better it is. It has some overall national sense of progress and prosperity that finally helps all the constituents, through mutual help. The typical examples are China and USA. China has also its own cultural ethos of ages as the infra-structural bond to stay as China. Russia had its own cultural ethos but it grabbed so many small states around and formed USSR, consequent on Second War, as a composite nation based on Marxian ethos. It finally proved to be a very fragile bond to remain as a nation. The acceded states were not happy in that union because of oppression and lack of progress. Russia discriminated against all those states and they were exploited by the big brother Russia. Finally they ceded by breaking away from the USSR in 1990s. That is how so many such nations were formed. The present dispute and war going on between Ukraine and Russia is due to the feeling of insecurity of Russia against NATO nations.
Similar experiment was carried out in Yugoslavia without due assimilation into one entity through full freedom, liberty and so on. Finally it broke into three parts after some time, like the USSR, predominantly based on their different languages. They did not have the necessary bond of existence nor the required humanitarian value system in place to accommodate the diversities.
Dr. R.H.Tupkary is former Prof and Head, Met. Engg. and Founder Chairman VNIT, Nagpur
(Part two will be published next week. Stay tuned!)
Historical Perspective:
Entire history of India, more than proves the real character of Hindu society that is still dominant and because of which it has declared itself a secular republic, in spite of many religious challenges. India was invaded in its history by five major invasions. First Alexander of Greece invaded in 5th century BCE. He was defeated and made to return back. His invasions had hardly any impact on Hindu society. Then from 2nd century CE three main invaders from central Asia, north of Himalaya, invaded India. These were first Kushan, then Hun and Shak. They did establish their kingdoms here but soon they adopted the Hindu culture and got assimilated in the Hindu society to the extent that no trace of their origin is evident any more. No one in India now claim to be descendant of any of them. They became part of Hindu society and culture. This was the true assimilative capacity of Hindu society by virtue of its all encompassing ethos. Thereafter some stone-age level tribes from mid-Asian regions invaded India, for example Taimurlang. They established their kingdoms for sometime in some areas but they were also assimilated in Hindu society in due course.
The Muslim invaders from Arabia to Iran started invading India soon after the death of their Paigambar in seventh century. They were also defeated for few centuries in the beginning but their hoards continued their invasions on and off for next 4-5 centuries. Finally they were able to establish their kingdom in mainly the northern part of India and it lasted for few centuries in spite of resistance from local kings. It was never an all India Empire of Muslims. They vociferously converted Hindus into Muslims and the converted lot was alienated from the main stream Hindu society. The Maratha kings starting from Shivaji finally defeated the Mughal rule and the Peshvas established their rule right up to Kabul. But the converted Hindus into Muslims remained alienated from Hindu society. The Hindu society did not attempt to get them back to their original cultural faith and ethos. It was in spite of the initiative of Shivaji himself. It was a great mistake not to have taken up it further with vigour.
Then came the European powers like English, French, Dutch, Portuguese and so on, initially for trade but they became the kings because of their superior organized strength, weaponry, fire power, telecommunications and so on. That is why the first war of independence against these powers, in 1857, was lost and Hindu society became slave of mainly the British for nearly a hundred years.
In spite of great efforts on the part of Gandhiji and Congress leaders the Muslim society by and large remained aloof. The basic fact is that most of them believed that Islam was and is incompatible with any other faith and culture. Finally on the basis of the Muslim culture, religion, social perception, and above all large population that they finally demanded and got Pakistan as their own land out of Indian territory when India got independence in 1947 CE. A lot of Muslim population still remained back in India. India accommodated them by adopting legally secular constitution. But the incompatibility of Islam with any other faith/religion/culture kept them a separate entity till to date. Hindus however maintained their culture and civilization based on some basic principles like, vasudhaiva kutumbakam, live and let live, unity in diversity and the like as typical of Hindu ethos. This is exactly where Islam identifies itself as incompatible.
Hindus never invaded any society and made them slaves or exploited them in any way or even converted them to Hindu faith in any form. When Hindus went to South-East Asian region they did not convert them to Hindus but encultured the societies over there with these basic Hindu ethos. The examples of Malaya/Thailand to Indonesia are its typical examples. These societies have changed to Buddhist or Islam but they still are proud to be culturally Hindu. They were never exploited by Hindus. Hindus are unique in this respect in the entire world.
At the time of independence in 1947 India was culturally and peacefully unified by assimilating the princely states with the exception of Kashmir, Junagarh and Hyderabad. Had Nehru had his way he would have granted JandK, Hyderabad, Junagarh, etc. the same freedom jeopardizing country’s security as well as their individual economies. The Maharaja of Kashmir signed for the accession of J and K state with Indian union. The Navab of Junagarh ran away to Pakistan and his population being almost all Hindus acceded to India. Hyderabad, the region at the centre of India, was ruled by Muslim Navab. It was acceded using police force. A high proportion of Hindu population helped the integration. None of these states can castigate that they were exploited by the Indian Union Government, since independence, till to-date. They were fully supported, financially or otherwise in progress and have come equally well with other states, to make India, on the whole a prosperous country.
National Blunder:
It was made possible because of visionary Sardar Patel, then Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was not bothered about the safety and security of India, almost in any way. He was trying to establish world order based on Panch-sheel Principles – an entirely Utopean idea. He was too Utopean in his approach towards national security and safety and that finally proved fatal by India losing Laddakh in the war against expansionist China in 1962. But it was too late and that shock later proved fatal for him.
Nepal has all along been Hindu-dominated part of India without any significant population of other faiths. In reality it had been always as part of Hindu India with Hindu cultural ethos. It wanted to join India as one of its provinces. But Nehru’s excessive liberalism (in fact lack of any national vision) did not accept the offer. On and off it does create some problems under the influence of China. As an independent nation it has not progressed to the extent India as a whole has. Being land-pocked and when in difficulties it comes asking for help from India and the latter offers the due help.
Real World:
All strong national forces in the world, the western force led by USA, Marxist force led by Russia and now Peoples Republic of China have been trying to exploit the weaker societies all over the world using their economic superiority. The Chinese are trying to gain full control on small nations by giving them loans for their developments, on terms such that it becomes impossible to be paid back. Then China acquires lease rights to own part of their strategic corners. The only exception is the Hindu society because of its perception of humanity and its real aim of transforming every individual from mere human to God (nar se narayan).
Background:
USA was formed initially out of only fourteen states. Slowly others joined it one by one to make it a contiguous national spread. The last to join were Alaska and Honolulu, though cut off from the main land USA, as they found it better to be part of USA. All of them now share and enjoy not only the wealth created by them individually but by any other state and are equally secured in the form of a broader identity as USA. They all together got the benefits of the overall large size and diversity and above all it not only ensured freedom, liberty and equality but it provided full scope for blossoming to one and all as Americans. The predominant status of USA in world economics, politics, educational standards, equality of opportunities, aim of achieving excellence in every sphere of life and so on are all equally shared by every American to the extent of individual capacity, supported by the non-partisan governmental power. All are treated as Americans and hold American passport that has tremendous value and prestige all over the world out of its collective power and strength. Imagine had Alaska or Honolulu decided to remain aloof what would have been their status in the world. How would they have survived the onslaught of expansionist world powers like Russia or China? The example of Ukraine is an eye opener in this respect. Same is the problem with Taiwan.
National Wisdom:
The success of USA’s assimilation of different states later has everything to do with their true democratic set-up and therefore full scope for development for all individuals as well as their territories. Sardar Patel had the same vision in the case of India. The British left India in the form in which they had got it. That is how some five hundred and eighty six princely states in India were given choice to join either India, Pakistan or stay as independent. Sardar Patel had the vision of unified India based on its ethos and hence he immediately started assimilation of the princely states in Indian Union. Out of 586 such states only three created some problems. These were J and K, Hyderabad and Junagarh in Gujarat. The moment there was attempt to grab J and K state by Pakistan, Maharaja of J and K acceded his kingdom to the Indian Union to ensure its safety. The Navab of Junagarh ran away to Pakistan and the problem was solved. Hyderabad was acceded by Sardar Patel using police force. Are these acceded states in any inferior in their strature now or they are enjoying the economic prosperity of all together as India. Forget here the case of Kashmir because their Muslim leaders even now would like to live as a feudal Muslim state. Some still want to join Pakistan to the detriment of their progress, particularly when the Muslims of POK would like Prime Minister Modi to free them from the clutches of Kashmir and Pakistan. What would have been their fate as part of Pakistan?
Larger is good:
On the whole the bigger the nation the better it is. It has some overall national sense of progress and prosperity that finally helps all the constituents, through mutual help. The typical examples are China and USA. China has also its own cultural ethos of ages as the infra-structural bond to stay as China. Russia had its own cultural ethos but it grabbed so many small states around and formed USSR, consequent on Second War, as a composite nation based on Marxian ethos. It finally proved to be a very fragile bond to remain as a nation. The acceded states were not happy in that union because of oppression and lack of progress. Russia discriminated against all those states and they were exploited by the big brother Russia. Finally they ceded by breaking away from the USSR in 1990s. That is how so many such nations were formed. The present dispute and war going on between Ukraine and Russia is due to the feeling of insecurity of Russia against NATO nations.
Similar experiment was carried out in Yugoslavia without due assimilation into one entity through full freedom, liberty and so on. Finally it broke into three parts after some time, like the USSR, predominantly based on their different languages. They did not have the necessary bond of existence nor the required humanitarian value system in place to accommodate the diversities.
Dr. R.H.Tupkary is former Prof and Head, Met. Engg. and Founder Chairman VNIT, Nagpur
(Part two will be published next week. Stay tuned!)
Related News
