Why Do We Love Our Invaders So Much?
Colonial history produces in the minds of many English-speaking Indians, the belief that India has been a rather frequent military loser – even though facts are otherwise.
|
Colonial history, left largely untouched after Indian Independence, produces it own kinds of stunted minds. A 2ndlook reader responded with a revealing comment.
being a Hindu from east India (Bengal – Assam), believe me I would Any Day prefer the british or east India company, rather than live under nawab’s, muslim league, tikka khans (u know who was tikka khan, maybe you don’t know about the pakistan genocide of east bengali hindus in 70-71).
Ever head of the begali hindu renassiance in the 18-19 centuries (or for that matter the general Hindu reniasance all over india). I am sure u’ll be upset / angry / bitter to learn that it started once the british has booted out the nawbs / mughals
Koenraad Elst, recently wrote a blog-post calling Hindus cowards, questioning if they are all right in all the departments. All this because Hindus were not hounding out Muslims from India – or at least making them second-class citizens, if not putting them in concentration camps.
To make this point, Elst picked up on India’s partition (1947) into India and Pakistan (to later subdivide into Pakistan and Bangla Desh.).
Anglophiles apart, it is an accepted reading of events for the 1940-1947 period when the Partition was formalized, that the British did encourage Jinnah to make strident, aggressive claims for disproportionate authority and veto powers in the soon-to-be independent India – failing which, India must be partitioned.
Some 2ndlookers felt that Elst’s absolution given to the British, for the Partition of India was a trial balloon by vested interests. A logical doubt, as Koenraad Elst’s writing has been suspect – and his ‘scholarship’ distasteful.
It is Elst’s proposition in his post (linked above) – unsupported by any facts, links, citations, references that the British wanted a united India – but it was Muslims led by Jinnah who wanted otherwise.
Curiously, the most significant support for Elst came from some Indians. Some interesting ramifications and reactions to this debate.
Related Articles
India Lowers Guard
Huntington
Mercenary logic
Samuel P . Huntington’s 1993 book, Clash of Civilizations, has a historical ring to it – a hint of something grand. An influential book, it ostensibly examined ‘conflicts between Western and non-Western cultures’ – and brought the phrase, Clash of Civilizations into limelight.
In the post-Soviet World, the book marked the launch of a new Western campaign – Islamic demonization. This book, released some four years after Rushdie-fatwa, provided pseudo-intellectual justification for West’s anti-Islamic campaign.
The America+NATO sponsored ‘ethnic cleansing’ campaign in Bosnia was underway, since 1992. Saturation media coverage of Monica Lewinsky and cigars effectively drowned President Clinton’s role in the initiation of the anti-Islamic campaign – and the news coming out of the Balkans. Deliberate diversionary tactics?
With one of the largest Islamic populations in the world, India’s co-option into this persecution was essential for this campaign to succeed. India’s co-option was planned in significant detail – and successfully executed. 9/11 (September 11, 2001) was still 8 years in the future. The verbal trickery behind Huntington’s Clash of civilizations ‘package-deal’ has been swallowed whole – without challenge or de-construction in India.
This post will cover some Trojan moves that smuggled destructive concepts that Huntington made respectable, into the mainstream.
1990
A ‘orientalist’ writer from Belgium, Koenraad Elst, waded into India. His books on Hinduism, Aryan culture, Islamic history in India were avidly lapped up by a section which was eager for Western approval. Elst’s blatant anti-Islamic agenda warmed the cockles of many hearts.
LK Advani released Elst’s book in India. BJP’s proximity has given Elst’s ideas high visibility which imbalances the discussion.
Elst busied himself in attacking the decrepit and contrived colonial-era Aryan Invasion Theory, and its ‘modernized’ variant, the Aryan Migration Theory (AIT /AMT). These attacks by Elst endeared him to India’s right-wing.
With less fanfare and noise, the same Elst has been propping up a newer and more obnoxious Dravidian Invasion Theory.
1991
Rajiv Gandhi had come back from Sriperumbudur in a coffin. The common Indian had given up on Punjab. The 1984 anti Sikh riots only strengthened the negative outlook. Assam problem seemed beyond resolution. Kashmir was simmering. The Indian electorate had given a fractured mandate. A hung Parliament. Corruption was endemic and every politician was an Untouchable – nobody or anything could touch them. It seemed there were no laws.
Indian economy was going downhill – and nothing seemed to get the economy out of the “Hindu rate of growth”. India was on the verge of a debt default. Indian debt was downgraded by Western rating agencies.
The Asian Tigers had done wonders – under US tutelage. China was furiously reforming – and succeeding at it. USSR 2 years ago had decided to retreat from Afghanistan. India’s faithful ally, Russia was breaking up. Many across the world shook their head and could be heard saying, “I knew … I told you … It had to happen …”
All bets on India were off.
Larry Pressler with AB Vajpayee (Image source and courtesy - larrypressler.com.).
1992
In this siege mentality, one fine day, a US Senator, Larry Pressler, announced at a press conference in New Delhi, that India was encircled by an Islamic coalition of 9 countries. The proxy war against India by Pakistan was at its height. This ‘Islamic Crescent’ (as Larry Pressler called it) first stunned India – and then stampeded its foreign policy.
Larry Pressler was seen as a friend of India – by Indians. He got some well-paying corporate board room positions – and he has kept in the back ground after that. But his press conference still rings. And Pressler’s proximity to Indian liberal establishment (which is close to both the BJP and the Congress), flanks India’s movement towards Western paranoia from the opposite direction. (Strangely, Google search, Yahoo search, Indiatimes search, websites of newspapers like The Hindu, cannot find any newspaper coverage for that press conference.)
Soon thereafter, India upgraded its relationship with Israel, (practically) abandoned the Palestinians (not to ignore West Asia’s own desire to cosy with the West) – and started getting closer to the US. The Vajpayee Government (with a historic tendency) continued with this rush to embrace the US.
There is too much tradition and culture for India to go down the demonization path, but recent developments do call for consciousness on this account. Is India falling prey to Western case-building and logic for Islamic demonization?
India’s Record – And the Reversal
India and its Government was in the vanguard of opposition to Apartheid, neo-colonialism, (especially in the Middle East). However, in the last 15 years, under the garb of ‘geo-strategic interests /initiatives /imperatives’, changed ‘super power equations,’ ‘uni-polar world,’ India is losing its moral initiative – and equally importantly its long term interests. It is getting sucked into uni-directional relationships – which are going down.
Western Adventurism – The Imperative
Without slavery, the West does not enjoy the manpower edge that it had till 1900. The loss of colonies from 1900-1950 has taken away the resource base and captive markets for Western dominance.
Now with the collapse of Bretton Woods, the opacity in financial systems is diminished. The welfare state has put a significant burden on an aging Western population.
With fading prowess on one side, and a resurgent Asia on the other, the US and EU are now at the cross roads. Is the West prepared to quietly fade away in the sunset?
Unlikely.
Indian Perceptions – Preparedness and Paranoia
Will this loss of power encourage some adventurism by the West? Are the various ‘co-operation’ agreements a sign of India becoming a client state of the West – again? What is the threat magnitude of this ‘cowboy imperative’? Does India need to prepare itself against a misadventure of the ‘desert bloc’?
While the activities of these Western ‘friends’, sensitised India to the Islamic ‘threat’, it more importantly, has lowered the Indian guard against the resurgent Western encirclement.
American forces are based in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Diego Garcia – and of course Iraq. The wolf pack behaviour of pursuit of quarry does not allow co-operation between packs – but within the pack itself. So, while the Islamic crescent perception has some validity, the threat of The Star and The Cross is equal, if not greater.
Sometimes, ‘friends’ are more dangerous than a recognised opposition.
Moral Stature
Equally, India should not acquire the practices or memberships that have made recent history bloody and exploitative. While many civilisations have stumbled (Greeks, Romans, Egypt) and fallen by the wayside, India’s many comebacks, have been based on never losing moral stature – and it is late in the day to start down that path.
Concerns! Questions?
Is the ‘Islamic demonisation’ an attempt by the ‘wolf pack’ to separate a member of the herd and then go for the kill – like Iraq.
Is India getting co-opted in this ‘wolf pack hunt’?
What Followed
PS – A few days after this post I found his cartoon (linked on the right), which is possibly truer than one would have imagined.
And then this book review by Vivek Chibber – an assistant professor of sociology at New York University. In this article, he reviews a book by a neo-CON, Niall Ferguson (yes, yet another one). The drift of this book is that America should declare itself as an empire – and go about ruling countries just the way Britain did – is what Ferguson has written in Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire by Niall Ferguson.
But the best of all this was the post by Gurcharan Das, an ex-MNC CEO, who started writing in various newspapers. His latest post in The Times Of India, plumbs the depth of misdirected warmth towards Western democracies. He writes,
“thanks to the treaty, which paved the way for closer ties with the Western democracies. The West stood by India during its times of trouble and eventually India went on to balance power in Asia and the world”.
Gurcharan Das’ gullibility on matters of international relations is worth a bucketful of tears. Why would any country (let us keep Western powers aside for a minute) support India (or any other country) – except if it in their self interest? After 300 years of pillage, loot, murder, genocide, slavery are Western nations going to suddenly change become God Samaritans, Mr.Das?
Your naivete makes me squirm.
© with respective copyright holders. Copyright details embedded in the links.
Related articles
- India’s political prince battles criticism (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- India seeks report from France on Rashid (hindu.com)
- India in Africa: Catching up (economist.com)
- India, US pledge to boost intelligence cooperation (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- The curious case of Ramachandra Guha (vmohanty.com)
2ndlook 
10 comments