Lessons from Past ... INDIA

[Sudhaama]

Shall we discuss on the Historical facts.... imparting ..

.. the duly Valuable Lessons for guiding the FUTURE INDIA.?

[Sudhaama]

.. INAUGURAL DAYS of Independant India.

One of the main reasons why India was so easily VULNERABLE for repeated foreign Invasions was, because of the then existed Religious cultures .. over-emphasising Destiny.

Some Religions of India, even preach ... that Kings are not Gods and so are not authorised to punish the Culprit ... even after finding him guilty... but to leave it to HIS FATE.

... which also preached against maintaining a Military-force to combat the Possible-Enemy or for Self- Defence against Invasion by a Foreigner

So the Kings were DEFENCELESS... While the people were NON- RETALIATORY to enemy's Invasions... despite Human Valour available within.

... but accomodative enough by blaming on their ILL-FATES...

Even after India's Independance... We all know... how one of such a country was grabbed by a Big-power because of the Non- availability of even a small Defencive Force in the possession of the Non-Violent Ruler.

r_kk wrote:

Are these (except Tibet occupation by communist China) are based on any historical evidences? Do you know who invited foreign invaders to India? Please read Indian history. Do you know how much portion of India we lost to China in the last war? Even the powerful army of India couldn’t stop China, how do you expect poor small country like Tibet might have stopped China’s invasion?

Dear Mr. rkk,

I have to detail the True Historical events in this context... during the then Prime-Minister Nehru's Era.

In continuation of Gandhiji's Formula of Ahimsa to redeem Independance by wining over the Oppressor-foreigner... Jawaharlal Nehru the first Prime- Minister of India wanted to establish Non- Violence policy in his International conduct also. Indeed it is a LOFTY- IDEAL ... But to NURTURE the same spirit in other nations minds how soon and how far practiaable was the practical Question... UNTHOUGHT OF. by the Idian Strategy framers... mainly the then Prime-Ministyer.

So he founded the PANCH-SHEEL THEORY of Peaceful-Co-Existence of all the International countries

... resulting in the overall demands for the least of Military power in each country backed by mutual understanding all over the world.

Thus he propogated the Ideology of mutual trust and understanding to ensure Non-aggreesion on another country over any other Nation, irrespective of any sort of might of its own.

One of the World Prime-Ministers who appreciated Nehru on this Ideal and came forward to bring into action by means of mutual meets and discussions followed by lofty-worded agreement etc.... was Mr. Chow-en- Lai, the then Prime-Minister of China..

Nehru trusted him, since the other PM was so impressively exhibitive.

Prior to Independance days, British Government had set up and maintaining a Regional Defence- Military- force at Lhasa the capital of Tibet... which Battalion was at the command of the Indian-Viceroy at New-Delhi.. but at the cost of Tibet.

Chow-en-lai insisted Nehru saying.. " After all the Britishers were the Foreign oppressors who enslaved all of us and so thgey needed military forces all over the different Regiions... Why you and I need them... nor the country Tibet.?

Tibet and China are of similar culture of Budhism-concept. which Religion is the Dictum of Non-Violence. So I intend having a mutual Agreement with Tibet also... so that bth of or neighbours will live in peace and thrive together to advance.

So you must withdraw your military force immediately from Tibet."

Nehru believed Chow and accordingly sent a 30 day notice to Dalai- Lama the then Ruler of Tibet... that the Tibet's military protection no more rests with India,. and so will be withdrawn.

Immediately Lama rushed his Emissary to Nehru seeking the continuation of Defence-military, since he fears foreign aggression on his soil. and that he would bear the cost of India's military force deputed for the purpose based on a fresh agreement with Nehru. But this proposal was rejected by Nehru ... and the Batalion from Lhasa was withdsrawn... leaving Tibet unprotected.

Then Chow sent a Letter to Lama stating that Tibet is part of China and he must hand it over to them forthwith. Alarmed on it, Lama sent an emissary to China inviting Chow for negotiations at Tibet capital Lhasa..

But as per the International News of the days... that Lama's Emissary to China, was somehow made to sign in favour of China consenting for the accession.with it.

Lama's vociferous objection went unheaded and Tibet was captured by Chinese forces. .. within no time.

Consequently Lama the then Ruler of the Nation, had no other go than to stealthily escape... seeking Asylum in India.

Ah.! I see the God's miraculous Hands in helping Dalai Lama by causing a Dusty wind which functioned as a Curtain for the Budhist's Monk's Convoy to elope towards India,

... in the dark midnight from his palace on the Hills... thickly surrounded by the Chinese military forces.

as vividly narrated by Readers Digest then... even now brings tears in my Eyes.

Thus a National Ruler cum Religious Leader deemed as Demi-God by His Disciples, Tibetian people, became a pitiable victim of Betrayal ..

And the Innocent Non-Aggressive spirit of NON-VIOLENCE backed by the Emphatic Religious concept

... was OVER-POWERED AND SUBDUED BY AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE force from an alien Soil.

Then how it became the Spring-board for Chinas Invasion on India... is another miserable Episode.

.. To continue.

Dear Mr. r_kk,

I am waiting for your comments, before I proceed further....Have you any Comment on the above?

r_kk

Dear Mr. Sudhama,

I agree to the reasons (behind the defeat in war) that you had mentioned (Nehru's overconfidence, India's unpreparedness etc). But my main question is whether Buddhist's nonvoilence concept is the reason for Tibet's defeat. I feel they might not have done anything against China'a aggression, even if they had well developed Army.

Any way this is one of the good historical subject, Indians have to know. Please throw some lights on what happened before and during the war.

[Sudhaama]

Miserable days of Jawaharlal Nehru, First Prime Minister of India

No doubt, Mr Jawaharlal Nehru was a Model Statesman.. an impeccable Gentleman of high calibre with Good intentions towards Advancemet of India ... of Ideal democracy.. ..

But he was severely criticised during his rule as well as later too by the Political Experts...that.. he erred mostly . Rather.. Blundered... How?

"r_kk"

// I agree to the reasons (behind the defeat in war) that you had mentioned (Nehru's overconfidence, India's unpreparedness etc). //

Not only Over-Confidence of Nehru and India’s Unpreparedness for War ... but also ..

.. his personal lack of Positive- Farsightedness based on Ground- realities and Fore- warnings,

.. Utter Neglect of Lessons from Past History..

.. Total Disregard of admonitions from the Indian Political-Experts

.. and Uncare of Opposition parties’ repeated cautioning notes of worth.

In brief .. because of his Autocracy emboldened by Brutal Majority in the Parliament, who were the blind Hero-worshippers and yes- masters to whatever Nehru says or gestures.

.. and also due to his Fanatic- obstinacy on the Inernal policy of Gandhian- Formulae of Non-Violence, and Handicrafts .. ignoring the mosaic culture and Heavy Population demands of Modern India .. expeditiously.

.. OVER-HASTE in attempt for epanding the NON-VIOLENCE Policy to International arena too .. at the cost of Suicidal Self- Defence- slackness,

.. which sort of Innocence and Ignorance was exploited by the extraneous Wicked forces In and Out .. How?
.
//.. my main question is whether Buddhist's non-voilence concept is the reason for Tibet's defeat. I feel they might not have done anything against China's aggression, even if they had well developed
Army.//

Yes.. the Non-Violence concept of Budhist-Monk ruled Tibet in conjunction with India’s raw hand of Independence Far-lacking in self-defence, as well as Non-combatant Attitude of Indolence or Non-Retaliative spirit .. Contrary to its vital-demand for a Nation ..

.. if not for every citizen Individual.

These brittle-potentialities of Sluggishness of a rich Nation tempted and attracted the Opponent wicked forces to cunningly plan to advance step by step and finally capture.Thus Violence has Won over Non-Violence ..

Action has won over Inaction.

Farsightedness has won over Non-Far-sightedness..

irrespective of Benefic or Malefic intentions behind the two Opponents.

// Any way this is one of the good historical subject, Indians have to know.//

Yes... India’s present day Youth ... MUST REMEMBER... towards their SUCCESSFUL FUTURE.

//Please throw some lights on what happened before and during the war.//

Yes .. To be Continued

[NOV]

Please refrain from any kinds of bashing. The author is requested to edit his own post.

[Sudhaama]

Dear Mr.Nov,

//Please refrain from any kinds of bashing. The author is requested to edit his own post//

The way it was worded in the Public Newspapers and Magazines then and now too... in a DEMOCRATIC way...I have put forth the facts here.

However I have EDITED and made it a polished one now. Is it now OK?

Sincerely,
Sudhaama..

[r_kk]

I see the God's miraculous Hands in helping Dalai Lama by causing a Dusty wind which functioned as a Curtain for the Budhist's Monk's Convoy to elope towards India,
….
And the Innocent Non-Aggressive spirit of NON-VIOLENCE backed by the Emphatic Religious concept

As usual Mr. Sudhamma, you are bringing the concept of God and your belief system to all discussions. Here you had mentioned the protection of a Buddhist monk, who rejects the concept of God, was also by God!

Then what do you want to say? Do you consider that the concept of violence and war are better than non-violence? Do you know that few modern European countries have “just name sake” army without any fighting power?

I hope you know the fact that the major ruthless participant of Second World War was Japan, which is Buddhist country. Do you know the Suppression of Tamil rights in Sri lank was/is lead by Buddhist monks? These don’t mean the Buddhism as organized religion or Buddhist monks like violence or suppression. But it shows that just Buddhism doesn’t bring “buddhahood” (enlightened compassion) to its mere followers.

Non-violence is the universal concept for matured human beings. Some times it may not be an acceptable solution for the protection of nation since the concept of nation itself based on manmade political division, for the sake of protecting interests of particular group of people.

[gaddeswarup]

Sudhaama wrote:

Shall we discuss on the Historical facts.... imparting ..

.. the duly Valuable Lessons for guiding the FUTURE INDIA.?

Very interesting topic. I have been trying to understand these topics but without a good knowledge of history and economics, it seems quite difficult to find such solutions. Here are some tentative comments. Recently, I have come across three books which may have some relevance:
David S. Landes: The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Others So Poor?"
Jared Diamond:" Guns, Germs, and Steel",
John Kay: "Wealth and Prosperity, Why some nations are rich but most remain poor".
The last one was published in Europe under the title "The truth about markets". The first two, which I have not read, were reviewed by Brad DeLong inhis website http://econ161.berkeley.edu/ His reviews are follwed by comments of economists and historians. Apparently, the first book (by Landes) studies the theme why India and China which were quite competetive with the west started lagging behind after 18th century. Francis Bacon seems to have said that the three important tools for the modern developments were compass, printing and gun poder all of which came from China. From the discussion in DeLong's site, there does not seem to be any concensus even among the experts.
It seems that there are a number of factors and it is not clear which were the dominating factors and a crucial factor may be as inoccuous as the existence of suitable financial institutions at a suitable time. Most seem to give importance to the Industrial Revolution for the start of this dominance, first by England and then by other European countries. My friend Bimol Chatterjee says that this earlier start for England was made possible by Newton. According to Bimol, science before Newton was deductive and after Newton it became deductive. something like Steam Engine, one of the main stimulants of Industrial revolution, would not have been possible without deductive science according to Bimol. The above sort of ideas may have some truth in them. It is not clear to me why there are no tropical countries which are dominant.
It is also not clear to me whether religion, superstition etc have any role. All countries, through out history seemed to have a fair share of these. During the rise of Protestants, lot of discussions took place in Europe ( where as such took place in China and India much earlier) whether the consequent development of independent thinking among certain groups might have some influence. What role Euclid's Elements or Magnacarta had in this development must have been studied by some scholars.
There is another book which I read recently which seems more useful for studying the current problems. In "The Prize, the epic quest for Oil, Money and Power"", Daniel Yergin studies oil's role in shaping twentieth century history. Capitalism, mixed economies of various hues, communism etc seem to hold sway in partcular regions for a while but somehow nothing seems to work for a long time. Again as my friend bimol says capitalism seems to be natural but how to control it seems to be a problem. May be, we can just study how things worked in twentieth century for some guidelines. May be some of the participants like Aravindhan may have some insights. I too would like to know what would help India and the world get ahead without too much poverty and pain.
swarup

[Uthappam]

-deleted-

[Sudhaama]

Hi there,
First of all Sivamala, I think ‘your’ ‘Well said’ were for Sudhaama’s words. Never on Earth would I dream of saying anything irresponsible like that without strong evidence.
And secondly why ever should we not make references to unpalatable history. It is a part of our PAARAMPARIYAM and I cannot understand why we should look at only the positive sides. We should learn from our history. I don’t want to divert anything from the topic in discussion. But exemplary is a very strong word and strong points are required to prove that.
It’s that our culture has some good and some not so good elements in it. If we are prepared to look at only the positive sides, then who are we fooling (ourselves I guess)?
We had to accept that things like sati existed and we should also be proud of the fact that we were able to route that out. I just hope we could do the same with the caste system. I think we had made progress like no one (in my knowledge) practices untouchability as it was practiced ages ago. But we still have a long way to go before showing the caste system the final door.
I am not denying that we had some great elements in our culture. But look at the whole picture, u never know what you see.
‘Only the positive side’ – Hmm, if we want to sing praises of anything, we can go on and on……….
I think only when we acknowledge the not-so-good elements in our history and accept it and work towards making things better and still be proud to be part of the culture can we call ourselves good.

Again and again I would reiterate the point that before Independence we were never one culture, different cultures…………………..

DSath

I will reply analytically soon.

[dsath]

Over the centuries our civilization is classified broadly as Bronze Age, Iron Age……etc.
We are currently living in the Oil Age. May be Science and Technology as it has in the past may discover something else and we may proceed to an X- Age.

The geographical area which had a lead in S&T in that particular age triumphs over the rest. For example the Romans ruled the British and the British were fighting against Roman invasion. In that period the Roman S&T was much more advanced than the British. The Egyptians S&T almost came to a standstill when the Romans were in the height of power. If the Egyptians could have developed their technology to match the Romans then they wouldn’t have fallen so meekly. But the days of the Romans also came to an end (due to multiple reasons).

Did the British fighting against an invading power some 4000 years ago ever thought that their decedents would rule half the world one day. The truth is they did and their time also came to an end.

Personally I think it’s just a cycle………. The Next-Age could be dominated by anyone.