Can we defend our ignorance?

That Frontline is a Marxist rag is no new knowledge. Yet, many amongst us diligently follow its articles (alongwith those published on fellow travelers like Outlook, Kafila, Caravan, Scroll, etc.) to retain a window to working of those convoluted minds. As a rule, any note on Hinduism/Indian culture, published on any of the above has to be derogatory and an attack on the Hindu way of life. More charitably, at max, they could be called rants of paranoid, jaundiced eyes, which see nothing but evil in their own roots.

With the huge success the left-liberal intelligentsia has scored in its four decade long efforts towards a collective dumbing down of the masses, resulting in a situation where leftist truisms have become unchallenged conventional wisdom, it is no wonder that the old Indian tradition of critical enquiry has taken a backseat. Statements get made and they get accepted without question. Quite a change from the days when even the route to knowledge was through constant questioning, synthesis and analysis of facts!

Any person who studies the public and parliamentary debates from the pre-independence era would be excused if he/she is astounded at the depth of knowledge and thinking of the opinion-makers and sections of the general public. Rare would be situation where a statement/action on the Hindu way of life would go unchallenged. The result of these intense debates were a greater understanding and acceptance of the need for change in customs which governed the Indian people. Today, we have reached a stage where any Tom, Dick or Harry can make any unsubstantiated comment on Hinduism and even ‘practising’ Hindus either swallow it without questioning or find themselves hard-pressed to counter the insinuation/calumny effectively. True, there would be bunch of knowledgeable people active on the Internet trying to counter the leftists but let us be realistic. Just how effective are they? Who reads them? Do they manage to reach, preach and convert those who are not already converted? Do they manage to make a dent in the impregnable fortress of non-knowledge raised by Marxists over the last many decades? The answer is - sadly, no. Not only are such activists constrained in their outreach (just how many have internet access and how many of them actually read such ‘heavy’ discussions?), they are further constrained by the success of Marxists in moulding thought process and sensibilities of large sections of Indians; whereby any talk on religion is deemed regressive, where it has become an accepted fact that the salient features of Hinduism are caste system, horrid rituals and oppression of the backward classes and women.

If the above seems harsh or unduly pessimistic, let’s take a simple test. Almost all who know about Hinduism know about the caste system, where Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras form the caste hierarchy (in descending order). Now, many of us also ‘know’ that this caste system has been sanctioned by the Vedas, the biggest proof being the Purush Sukta of the Rig-Veda. Based on this common knowledge, Frontline, like numerous others, has no qualms in claiming such sanction, offering as proof ‘…the Rg Veda speaks of four major castes, tribes being outside the then localised caste scheme: “Brahmana was his (the Supreme Being’s) mouth, Kshatriya made of his arms; the Vaisya his thighs, and the Sudra generated from his feet (RV.X.90.12), says the particularly sacred Puru-sasukta hymn’

Now, Purusha-Sukta is one of the most used Vedic hymn, recited a large number of rituals and ceremonies. It is chanted during the worship of the Vishnu, during havan or simply as a part of the daily prayer. Its importance can be further judged from the fact that other than the Rig-Veda, it appears in numerous other Aranyaka, Samhita, Upanishad, in addition to the Bhagvat Purana and Mahabharata. Hence, very clearly, a hymn which most religiously inclined Hindus should be aware of.

Yet, the very fact that assertions such as those of Frontline go unchallenged, underlines the painful reality of my contentions above. As anyone who would have read the said Sukta would know, it is some 24 stanzas long. The entire Sukta talks about birth of the Purusha and his sacrifice in a yagna. It is from that sacrifice that the four castes were born from the said body parts of the Virat-purusha.

ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीद् बाहू राजन्यः कृतः ।
ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत ॥१२॥
Meaning:
12.1: The Brahmanas wereHis Mouth, the Kshatriyas became His Arms,
12.2: The Vaishyas were His Thighs, and from His pair of Feet were born the Shudras.

But that was not all, the hymns continue and state:

चन्द्रमा मनसो जातश्चक्षोः सूर्यो अजायत ।

मुखादिन्द्रश्चाग्निश्च प्राणाद्वायुरजायत ॥१३॥
Meaning:
13.1: The Moon was born from His Mind and the Sun was born from His Eyes,
13.2: Indra and Agni (Fire) were born from His Mouth, and Vayu (Wind) was born from His Breath.

नाभ्या आसीदन्तरिक्षं शीर्ष्णो द्यौः समवर्तत ।
पद्भ्यां भूमिर्दिशः श्रोत्रात्तथा लोकाँ अकल्पयन् ॥१४॥
Meaning:
14.1: His Navel became the Antariksha (the intermediate Space between Heaven and Earth), His Head created the Heaven,
14.2: From His Feet the Earth, and from His Ears the Directions were created; in this manner all the Worlds were regulated by Him.

Not only does the hymn does not contain any reference to the people outside the four varnas having sprung from soil (or night soil in the more rabid Marxist versions), a reading of the entire Sukta will conclusively prove to anyone that the supposed hierarchy of the four castes, as deriving it’s sanctity on the authority of the Purusha-sukta is highly contrived. In the yagna, many aspects of the world which we know were created. If legs (from which the Shudras were created) are to be taken as inferior to head (from which Brahmins were created), then the Moon should be our supreme deity as it was born from the mind. Sadly, at no time, either hoary or near past has the moon been worshipped thus.  Likewise, Vayu (wind) should have had a very inferior status as born it was out of Breath (exhaled air which is ritually impure). Earth will anyway be the most inferior, having been created out the His feet, like the oppressed Shudra!

Why did I pick the example of Purusha-sukta? Simply because this is one of the most abused suktas from the Vedas. Abused not only by those vested interests but also abused by us – people who are supposed to know what it is. Unfortunately, even for the relatively better informed sections of our society, Marxist utterances are taken as truth simply because they have been uttered by people who these Marxists have declared ‘eminent’. We may not realise it but hidden behind the mask of Romila Thapars bewailing ‘regression’, are a thousand smiles, smug in the knowledge that they, the Marxists, have won the battle of ideas. It is they, who control what we think! 

Note: For a good commentary on the Purusha-sukta, refer to the link here.

The chimeral moderate

A few weeks ago, the world with agog with parallel tales of terror and destruction; the ISIS led massacres of minorities across Iraq and of destruction wreaked by Israeli onslaught on Gaza. Some aspects of these two series of events were similar - families uprooted, children and women killed, destitution which follows war. The theatre was common and also common was the thread of Islamic thought as one of the factors driving the conflicts. The similarities stop here. Scale and impact-wise, there was little which was common between the toll at Gaza and casualties in Iraq. While the death toll at Gaza was an unfortunate but direct result of the Hamas using civilians as shields, the humanitarian tragedy of Iraq was a direct consequence of the rebirth of Islamic Caliphate.

One would have expected the world to react with horror and revulsion. It would not have been very far off the mark to visualize world over, rallies being organised, human chains formed, mass protests organised, community prayers conducted, and assembling of feet on street to fight the savages, all symbolizing an outright rejection of the theology ISIS stands for.

Sadly but perhaps expectedly, the only action on street was a series of organised protests, both by Muslims and left-liberal intelligentsia against Israeli actions in Gaza. The media was afire with sob stories of human casualties in the occupied land, how little children were deprived of milk and their childhood, how innocent civilians were being butchered by Israel. Yet, from this same bunch, nary a tear was shed for the victims of ISIS’s civilisational wars, neither from the eyes of the ‘oppressed’ Muslim world, nor from the eyes of their countess apologists and Islamophiles.

Some of the more brazen (read shameless) among the left-liberal groups might argue that many statements ‘condemning’ ISIS’s actions had been issued by the intelligentsia. Some will haughtily proclaim that even ISIS, like Taliban, is an outcome of American interventions and hence the world will have to suffer again. While there can be little to argue with people who can even think of offering such excuses, it must be noted that given the outrageously high scale of difference in between Gaza and Iraq, a mere condemnation of the latter as against frothing protests on the former, only shows the extent of lip service being offered to the cause of freedom. As regards the genesis of ISIS, even if it were an illegitimate child sired with the vilest of ill-intentions, the hands which killed, maimed, enslaved and raped were still of ISIS and not the USA.

For those who follow affairs of the world, the left-liberal hypocrisy won’t come as a surprise. Not only in India, in human theatres across the world, has this group displayed its duplicity and hypocrisy many a times over. Even otherwise, the left-liberal intelligentsia has vitiated the public discourse so much that any attempt to critique Islam, attempt to analyse the Black culture in US, attempt to question the aggressive caste politics of the erstwhile depressed classes in India, is certain to attract howls of accusations around racism, casteism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, blah, blah!

While even the minutest of efforts in trying to show reason to these label-loving intelligent beings is bound to go waste, the independent and the ideologically agnostic must pause and mull over the non-existence of a mythical being, the moderate Muslim.

Most of the population seems to believe that like the vast majority of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and other religion practitioners, the vast majority of Muslims too are liberals by heart, little concerned about anything other than their quality of life. And since these people are not fanatics, they must know what the true spirit of Islam is and so, would be repelled at the very thought that the religion of peace has been hijacked by some blood-thirsty loonies and stand shoulder to shoulder with rest of the world to protect human lives and dignity.

Yet, this supposed silent majority is so silent that even a ghost’s whisper would create more noise in comparison. Take a dipstick of Muslims you know. Rest assured, close to a unanimous majority of those Muslims, who are aware of the Gaza issue, will blame Israel completely. Without exception would their hearts beat for the innocent lives lost in Palestine and for those killed in drone attacks in Af-Pak. Yet, when prodded about Boko Haram, ISIS, Taliban or the Al Qaida, the more polished would offer an easy silence, at max, an uncertain but qualified condemnation –‘what they are doing is wrong but…’

Can these moderate Muslims stand up and say as to why the interpretation of Quranic verses and Hadith by these terrorist organisations are incorrect and how? Can they denounce the fact and organize a struggle to stop Muslims from all ranks of life, from across the world, pleading allegiance to ISIS, teaming up to join their group? Can they and the supposedly enlightened ulema stand with conviction and denounce the practice of forced conversions, genocide, sexual slavery as acts beyond the pale of humanity?

Unlikely; nay, Impossible!

The very simple reason is – ISIS and its sister organisations are doing simply what Quran and the Hadith command. Any Muslim, who is even remotely religious, cannot then condemn as their acts being contrary to Islam. As regards people who are more religious, well, they find those otherwise repulsive acts to be a mere replication of what happened in Arabia some 1400 years back.

Is it not presumptuous of the independent-minded and the moderates from other religions to assume that somehow they know more of what Islam says and stands for? They, who have no clue of what shuras and the hadith enjoin, as compared to those from the Taliban, the ISIS etc., people who have spent their entire lives in understanding and then living the Islamic theology?

The sad truth is – the ummah, irrespective of the social class or the economic background of the practitioner, stands as one on the question of kufr and the divine right of Muslims to rule the world. Any supposed attack of Islam, be it an ineffectual set of cartoons of the Prophet, or an even more insignificant event, the result is a sea of murderous mobs on streets across the world, thirsting for revenge.

If it sounds hyperbolic, consider this. A few days back, a few devout Muslim women, covered in hijab, held placards in front of a mosque in Bhopal, appealing fellow Muslims to forego animal sacrifice this Id. Point to be highlighted – mere placards held by Muslim women, appealing fellow Muslims for an Id without animal sacrifice. Granted, many, who believe sacrifice to be intrinsic to Id, would be offended. But, the result of these placards was an attack on the women, their molestation and subsequent justification by the supposedly moderate Muslims, that Muslims were provoked into reacting the way they did.

Now, if the supposed silent majority are so much with the vocal supposedly, minority on almost all issues of importance, is it too much of a stretch of imagination to conclude that these imagination of a group of moderate Muslims is precisely that – an imagination, a chimera!

Some might still argue that there are indeed moderate thoughts among the Muslims. Of course, there are. But, most of these moderate strains of Islam are in those regions which continue to be heavily influenced by their Hindu/pagan past. The more you Arabicise Islam, that is, bring Islam truer to its moorings, the more rigid it becomes. In the vast lands of India, Bangladesh, North Africa and South East Asia, there are numerous organisations like Ahl-e-Hadith, which are precisely doing that. Making ‘true’ Muslims of people who are currently, Muslim only in name but culturally, close to the land of their forefathers. Till the time they do not start believing and acting like their brethren of the Arabian deserts, they can never be true Muslims.

And indeed, of the 4 schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Hanbali and Maliki, Hanafi is seem as more liberal in treatment of non-believers as compared to the Shafi school. But, is it really liberal? When you consider that the for the Hanafi school, their liberalism (among many), lies in ‘granting’ the right of life to the Hindus (including Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs), in lieu of humiliating payment of jaziya, when the more puritan Shafi school would precise either of conversion or death?

If we consider Hanafi to be liberal, that would only mean that we have accepted that Islam would be more aggressive and more demanding; that non-Muslims can treat any concession as only some manna from heaven.

It is revolting that the Islamic apologists (read left-liberal brigade), defend atrocities in the name of Islam more doggedly than Muslims themselves (arguments on the lines of – they were provoked… they were oppressed.. it was not really religion…etc.). It is even more revolting that these apologists defend the silence of the supposedly moderate Muslims, claiming that they are under no obligation to protest against crimes committed in the name of Islam.

Very sorry to say, but they are. They are under this obligation firstly because they need to prove that they exist. They are even more of an obligation to prove that they are sincere. They need to stand up and say that irrespective of what the Quran and the Hadith say, Muslims should not, and will not, act in ways which are against basic human decencies. The way no amount of whitewashing will justify the ills of untouchability in Hinduism and the brutal medieval history of Christianity, no amount of beating around the bush will solve the problem of certain Islamic thoughts being against the civilisational virtues we stand for. There is lot of be proud of about Islam. There is a lot of positive which Islam has taught the world and continues to teach. Yet, these positives do not whitewash and stand independent of the goodness of Islamic thought. If the world can become a dangerous place because mobs across the world protest against any real or imagined slight to Islam, these protestors also owe to the world, their support of those who are being raped, killed, exiled, forcibly made to give up religion of their forefathers, simply because they happen to be non-Muslims or Muslims from the ‘wrong’ denomination. If the mythical moderate Muslim does exist, let him fight for the right causes, or simply, be true, to what he believes is the true meaning of his religion of peace.

As regards India, in words of Will Durant - ‘The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history of mankind’. In addition to being at the receiving end of invasions and the consequent proselytizing zeal of its invaders, India has, not long back, lived through the horrors of what a Caliphate would be like. The Mopallah revolt of 1921, which started off as an offshoot of the Khilafat movement, soon morphed into a jehad. A Caliphate was declared and consequently, Hindus, who are dhimmis par excellence under all the 4 schools of Islamic jurisprudence, had to revisit the fate which their ancestors in different parts of India had faced many a times over in the last 1200 years. In words of Dr Annie Besant – ‘Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India.’ It was nothing but ironical that it was finally the hated British, against who the freedom struggle was being led, who clamped down on the bloodthirsty, jehad-crazed mopallah with an iron hand.

Many apologists of Islam claim that had Islamic rule really been barbaric, it would not have succeeded in extending its rule over large swathes of the world in less than 100 years of Islam taking form. But, it was precisely this barbarism, which facilitated growth of the Islamic empire. In any clash between the civilized and the barbarians, it is the civilized who are held back by the rules of civilization. The barbarians, free of such encumbrances, emboldened by primitive blood lust and promise of loot (wealth and women), will invariably triumph. Kingdom after kingdom fell to the marauding armies of Islam, which offered the vanquished population little option but conversion, slavery or death. Today’s growth and consolidation of ISIS owes much to its adopting the means of those early Islamic armies. Savages lose only when they are confronted with people with greater savagery. E.g. Islamic rules falling to Mongol hordes. Or, alternately, when confronted with a determined adversary, who has no illusions on the nature or intent of such barbarians.

Sadly, with our National consciousness geared to beat breasts only for Gaza, difficult to foresee on why the land of Hind won’t be under Caliphate rule sooner or later. 

English. Indianised!

For a people blessed with over a thousand tongues, fascination with languages is nothing if not understandable. Even a couple of millennia ago, a man (or a woman) with a polished tongue was held in high esteem. Poets who could compose dreams in words were revered and among the graces which were sought from the Gods, was vak (power of speech). Few cultures other than India would have had instances were rules of grammar were codified and universally accepted. The Indian’s urge to ‘perfect’ the word was so strong that the language itself was called ‘polished’ (Sanskrit).  

Yet, like any other aspect of life, too much of a good thing may not really be good. Blessed with intellect, but made arrogant by belief in their achievement, for many - mastery over the word became the yardstick for knowledge. It mattered little if this mastery resulted in anything productive or worthwhile; if a snatak could utter perfectly formed words, in the perfect meter, woven together in a flowery tapestry, other mere mortals were supposed to shake their heads in amazement and utter - Ah. Me! 

History records that the East India Company offered to set up colleges offering Sanskrit and Arabic languages to the Hindus and Muslims respectively. However, the Bengali Hindus, petitioned that there were already numerous native institutions to take care of the Sanskrit language. What Hindus needed was a modern educational institution which would open them to modern sciences and the English language.  

200 years have passed since then. Today, India boasts of among the largest English speaking populations in the world. Not only is English an official language of governance; culturally, it is the prime language of India. If this seems outrageous, let’s just look around. Signages, hoardings, IT systems are all in English. Somehow it is a given that each Indian possesses or should possess knowledge of English to move around, if not ahead. 

Many nationalists are astounded that despite a robust freedom struggle, Indians have refused to reject English in favour of native languages. Yet, it is hardly surprising when one considers that for over 800 years, Indians have preferred foreign languages over their own. Not very long back, the test of a person’s education was his knowledge of Persian – Haath kangan ko aarsi kya, padhe likhe ko Farsi kya? Not only did Indians embrace Arabic and Persian, many till date consider these languages more sophisticated and polished than ‘crass’ Indian tongues. A case in point would be the contrived truism of Urdu being the most mellifluous of languages. Quite interestingly, while Indians (particularly of the secular variety) consider Hindi peppered with Turko-Arabic-Persian loanwords to be a better (and secular) language compared to Hindi proper, Greeks consider Turko-Arabic loanwords as uncouth and uncivilized. The reason is very simple – while Islamic rule managed to inflict a fatal blow to the Indian’s sense of accomplishment, the Greeks, despite being under the Ottoman rule for centuries, treated the Turks as barbarians and their civilization, worthy only of contempt. 

No wonder that the Indian’s historical predilection of foreign languages, coupled with a Macaulayed education system and supplemented by a British system of governance, has resulted in English being the de facto National Language of India. 

Nothing would prove the argument on primary of English better than the “Sanskritisation’ of English. By the virtue of its rules, each Sanskrit word has to be used and pronounced in a particular way(s).  While when compared to Sanskrit, English does not have much of rules, the Indian elites have ensured that only the Queen’s English, spoken with the oh-so-propah accent is seen as English. So, while other English speaking Nations manage beautifully well with their local variants of the language, Indians find ‘Indianisms’ a matter of ridicule. If English is indeed an Indian language, as many votaries of English claim, what is wrong in Indianising English? A language can enrich itself only through cultural interfaces. Even Sanskrit has been influenced by Dravidian and Austroasiatic languages, so why so much of resistance to letting Indians speak English the way they are comfortable with? Will not a working knowledge of the language suffice, like it does for vast sections of the world? Or does the Indian elite expect each English-speaking Indian to produce a literary tome worthy of a Nobel? Funny, when you consider that in the last 100 years, none of such Indians have managed to even come close to winning recognition for their language skills. 

The fact of the matter, as the Dalit activist, Chandrabhan Prasad said –English is the new caste system. Those who know English are the new dvija (twice-born); those ignorant are the Shudra and ati-shudra. And since all the twice-born cannot be equal, the institution of study, the accent, usage of words not commonly used in general conversations, become those filters which define the caste hierarchy further. It would be ironical to all others but these elites that while intermixing of native language loanwords in English communication would be considered a sign of ill-education, a person conversing in pristine Hindi would also be considered un-sophisticated, if not uneducated. When the forced controversy over Ved Pratap Vaidik’s meeting with Hafeez Saeed cropped up, a striking feature of the commentaries were the ridicule heaped on Vaidik being a vernacular journalist!  

The moot question is – are Indians falling in the trap of language worship yet again? Pray, what benefit would the Nation accrue if all the Indians start conversing only in the dialect preferred by the Queen of Buckingham palace? Will the Nation not be served better, if these energies are diverted towards achieving excellence in vocational skills or simply improving product/service quality?

China is Goliath but is India David?

Once the Indian leadership realised that the Chinese were indeed ‘teaching them a lesson’, Jawaharlal approached the Formosa (now Taiwan) leadership with an offer which he felt they could not refuse. A Indian recognition of Formasa as the ‘real China’ followed by an International campaign to back this recognition to the hilt. Formosa expressed thanks and regretted the ‘inconvenience’ which Indians had been put at by the Red Army. It added, however, that if Indian support was in expectation of Formosa’s support in the border fracas, it was bound to be disappointed. The Nationalist Government, which saw itself as the legitimate ruler of China, considered the core middle kingdom and adjoining provinces of Mongolia, Manchuria, Sinkiang, Formosa and Tibet as Chinese lands and hence there was no question of supporting any alien Nation which undermined, in their views, territorial integrity of the Chinese Nation.

Such is National consensus on territorial integrity among the Han that Taiwan has till date not relinquished Chinese claims over Mongolia. While the People’s Republic of China has recognised Mongolia as an independent Nation, it was under severe duress, when China was but a shadow of its powers. Nothing stops China from renewing its claim and annexing Mongolia once Taiwan reintegrates with the mainland. If single-minded obsession with territorial integrity were the benchmark for National pride, then the Han Chinese are definitely the most proud of all nationalities inhabiting the Earth. Just take the example of Tibet. A vast land of a pacifist couple of million trampled and contained by a bellicose bully which is 1200 million strong. Little chance that Tibetans can regain their autonomy or at least the way they would have wanted. Yet, China ensures that most Nations do not play host or their leaders do not grant any audience to the Dalai Lama. Any transgression of this code is met with demarches and diplomatic sanctions. One may wonder – what harm will the powerful middle kingdom suffer if some leader does meet the Dalai Lama? After all, there is neither any organised resistance movement against the Chinese rule nor does the Lama seek independence. And even if there were such a movement, what chance would it have to succeed against a mighty, determined Nation? Still, rather than taking any chance and ignore any activity which might fan separatist fires, China prefers to err on the side of caution and punishes the transgressors of its territorial integrity in the harshest possible ways.

What is the lesson for India?

For one – India is not China. It never was, and it never will be. For all those self-deluded individuals/organisations which hyphenate India with China or talk of inanities such as Chindia, if nothing else, the recent visit of the Chinese President should be enough to serve as a wake-up call. A salivating gentry was waiting with breathless expectations on what ‘gifts’ would China come bearing – a USD 100 Billion FDI, technology for high-speed trains, support for a permanent seat on UN security council, a border settlement! Is it a relationship of equals or even near-equals when one of them is so clearly the seeker?

Two – Indians do not value territorial integrity inspite of having suffered invasion after invasion in the last two millennium. We have had but one Chanakya who understood the need for securing our frontiers. After that, it was only the invaders – the Khiljis, the Mughals and later the British, who realised that a Nation vulnerable at its edges cannot ever be in peace. The British in particular, whatever their end objectives be, ensured that India was at its widest and most secure from foreign invasions in a long long time. But, after independence, the naïve Indian leadership, in constant affirmation of their ‘statesman’ image, goaded by the ‘peace-at-any-cost’ brigade, has somehow confused ceding of land with diplomacy. In each of its encounters with its neighbours, from Sri Lanka to Maldives, from Myanmar to Bangladesh, from China to Bhutan and of course Pakistan, we have ceded land, either voluntarily or under force. Today, we are a witness to China shrinking our frontiers through the very Chinese method of ‘creeping acquisition’ – slowly claim land pasture by pasture, prevent Indian activity in what was hitherto undisputed Indian land, deepen ingress into Indian territories so that more and more of the frontiers become ‘disputed’ and consequently, a non-go area for the India army.

In the last few decades, each time a Chinese dignitary visits, we have had border transgressions, each more serious than the other. But, so thick is the skin of Indian establishment that an ex-diplomat, who runs an influential blog on foreign policy, blamed the Indians for ‘provoking’ the Chinese. More seriously, a sort of consensus is developing that any border settlement with China should be maintenance of status quo, i.e., India retaining Arunachal Pradesh and ceding Askai Chin and the trans-Karakoram area to China. Such thoughts are fraught with immense dangers for our Nation on account of multiple reasons. One - unlike India, China takes a long term view of its territories and any piece of land, which was ever under the Chinese, is seen as being part of their Nation forever. Hence, an abdication of Chinese claims over Arunachal does in no way prevent future Chinese from staking claim. This becomes even more likely when one considers the stance of Taiwan over Mongolia. Two, Indian claim over Askai Chin is historically more valid and legally more tenable than compared to its claim on Arunachal, or at least large parts of it. The lands of Arunachal were ceded by Tibet to British under the Shimla agreement. This settlement was never accepted by the Chinese for they refused to recognise Tibet’s right to negotiate as a sovereign Nation. On the same lines, India has always recognised China’s sovereignty over  Tibet with Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in his characteristic search of validation, gratuitously recognised Tibet Autonomous Region as an integral part of China. Now, if Tibet was never a sovereign Nation, how can its act of ceding lands to India be considered valid ? On the other hand, the lands of Askai Chin were overrun by Dogra armies and administered by kings of Jammu & Kashmir and hence are more validly ours. Third, what will India gain other than tenuous peace at the cost of sacrifice of land? Is this lasting sacrifice for at best, a temporary reprieve, worth it?

The callousness of us Indians can be gauged from the mere fact that an official memorandum between Government of Gujarat and China contained a map which showed Askai Chin and Arunachal as disputed. Nothing highlights our selfishness better than the constant refrain of industrialists that increasing trade will force China to mellow down. The reality is that this trade is skewed heavily in favour of China and its imbalance has only magnified in the last few years. If anyone has to feel the pinch of an interruption in trade, it is the Chinese as they will lose a vast market for this finished goods. Yet, all the economic logic has not prevented China from strengthening its claim to what it feels are its core National interests. Indians on the contrary, ever so happy to save money, are aghast at the mere prospect of a stoppage of cheap Chinese goods from flooding our markets.

Given our vacuousness, the stance taken by Narendra Modi, while not substantial, is a welcome improvement from the vapid conduct of the previous NDA and UPA governments. Even as our home minister parroted the shameful UPA line that Chinese transgressions are but a result of different perceptions of border (wonder why India does not transgress, if this be the case), the Government allowed Tibetan refugees to demonstrate against the visiting dignitary and made pointed references to the border dispute. Yet, the same Government succumbed to Chinese pressure and withdrew from Chumar. In a case of callous oversight, India yet again recognised Chinese sovereignty over Tibet in the MoU signed on the new route to Kailash Manasarovar.

While the very nature of our people ensures that India can never be China, we need to be wary of this forceful Nation which has defeated us in both the armed encounters we have had with them (eighth and twentieth centuries). At the same time, Indians need to appreciate those qualities which have ensured that except for small intervals, China has stood like a colossus in the community of Nations. Developing a sense of territorial integrity and National pride would be a good beginning.