Clash Of Civilizations: A Hindu Response - Printable Version

+- Forums (
+-- Forum: General Topics (
+--- Forum: Member Articles (
+--- Thread: Clash Of Civilizations: A Hindu Response (/showthread.php?tid=793)

Clash Of Civilizations: A Hindu Response - Guest - 07-27-2004

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><b>Clash of Civilizations: A Hindu Response</b></span>
By Prof Ramesh Rao

In his controversial 1993 essay in <i>Foreign Affairs</i>, Samuel Huntington wrote that the fundamental source of conflict in the modern world would not be driven by economic factors but by ideological factors, and that the “dominating source of conflict will be cultural”. He asserted that nation states would remain “the most powerful actors in world affairs”, but that “the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations”.

He argued that civilization identity would be shaped by the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations – Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and African. The causes for the conflict, he said would be because, “differences among civilizations” are both real and basic, and that “civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and, most important, religion”. He argued that the differences will not disappear soon and that while all differences don’t necessarily lead to violent conflict, “over the centuries, however, differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts”. The most violent conflicts in the present, he said would be between the West/Christian and Chinese, and the West/Christian and Islamic nations.
This is the gist of his thesis which was elaborated later in a book titled “The Clash of Civilizations: Remaking of World Order”, published in 1996.

The response to this thesis has been wide, varied, and furious. Most of it has come from Muslim scholars, humanists, Marxists, and internationalists of various hues. Very little has been said by scholars representing the Hindu viewpoints. We know that part of the clash of civilizations has to do with the emergence of nation states after de-colonization, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the resulting “imbalance” in the political dynamics of the world. Democracy and free market capitalism seemingly won the battle over Communism and state-controlled markets, but we now know that the challenges to democratic governance are many.

After the events of September 11, 2001 and America’s invasion of Afghanistan to rid it of its Taliban regime, and then of Iraq to dethrone Saddam Hussein, debate now rages in many policy circles about the nature of our modern world. Huntington has added more fuel to the controversy recently with an op-ed piece in the <i>Wall Street Journal </i>(June 16, 2004) in which he argues that the United States is primarily a Christian nation, that its liberalism is grounded in Christianity, and that non-Christians will remain “strangers” in the U.S.

Appropriating liberalism in the cause of Christianity, Huntington concludes his essay by saying, “Americans tend to have a certain catholicity toward religion: All deserve respect. Given this general tolerance of religious diversity, non-Christian faiths have little alternative but to recognize and accept America as a Christian society”.

The clash of civilizations that Huntington predicts was foreseen by Bipin Chandra Pal more than a hundred years ago in the book “Nationality and Empire”. Pal predicted that Hindu civilization will side with the Judeo-Christian West in its war against Islamic and Chinese civilizations. Pal proposed his theories despite the fact that he considered the West as the greatest danger to humanity. He was a great admirer of Islam’s spiritual values. Pal thought that Islam was going to be influential through its power of propaganda and not through war, but he was scared of Islam’s political manipulation. He foresaw the dangers of political Islam, which he considered an aberration. Pal is not on Huntington’s reading list, or if he has read him, he is not telling us.

<b>Hindu Responses</b>
The survival of pluralism is linked to a complete understanding of the subversive influence of religious traditions and political ideologies exclusively appropriating claims to God or to a good life. Certain sections of the Muslim society at present win easy acceptance among gullible believers around the world for their monopolistic claims to represent God. Christians are more sophisticated, and have a more powerful colonial tradition to carry on their proselytization businesses, without the shrill cries of jihad that accompany many Muslim initiatives to make the world Muslim. Next, the monopolistic claim to usher in “equality” as dreamed by Marx has come unhinged everywhere in the world except, it seems, in parcels of the academic landscape.

In India, religious conflict has become more and more fierce, more so after the partition of the country. Despite India’s openness there is also native to the Indian tradition a powerful culture of inquiry and resistance to the marketing of spurious ideas and claims. That Jesus is the only son of God and Mohammed the last prophet are claims that Hindus look at skeptically. Islam and Christianity dismiss if not abhor the idea of incarnation of Gods and of imagery and image worship. Without image, there is no worship. Hindus worship their Gods – they bathe them, dress them, kiss them, adorn them, and adore them. For Christians and Muslims, God is a distant being/idea. However, they demand that the rest of the world accept their God or be doomed as “sinners” or as “kafirs”.

The practitioners of many pluralist religions are not driven by religious intolerance as the practitioners of the two “great” monotheistic faiths. So, how should one deal with these aggressive and intolerant religions? Confronted with the paradox of religious freedom and the intolerance espoused by certain religions, the “objection to conversion from any indigenous religious leadership is an urgently necessary and long-overdue assertion, not a violation, of human rights,” argues Swami Dayananda Saraswati.

David Frawley argues (“Hinduism and the Clash of Civilizations”, 2001) that India is a sacred land whose kings and people did not seek to conquer others’ lands. He proposes the idea of India as the “world’s mother” – the source of evolutionary transformations. While bemoaning the fact that over time many customs calcified and became dominated by authority and rituals, he believes that India is ready to re-emerge as the world’s spiritual guide to help people transcend time and space to a universal consciousness.

Rajiv Malhotra has argued that the West, China and Islam all represent top-down monocultures. These civilizations adopt a “chauvinistic grand meta-narrative of history”, and their trajectory is “global dominance”. He sees threats to Indic civilization from all three global competitors – the West, Islam, and China. The West seeks to undermine India through its control over Indian churches, through the activities of non-governmental organizations, through propaganda in English language media, and with the help of “academic mercenaries”. The threat that Islam poses is the propagation of Arabism through <i>madrassa </i>education. And China seeks to subvert India through the activities of Maoists and Naxalites, and by flooding India with cheap goods.

Huntington’s thesis is a neo-Christian/Western program which should be seen for what it is: a continuation of the colonial program which sought to lift the rest of the world out of misery because it was the “White man’s burden”. Collaborations that he proposes between the West and some specific others, including India, to fight global Islamism and the Chinese putsch, are based on the old supremacist ideology of Western/Christian domination.

Within the framework of the nation-state system, India will have to collaborate selectively with neighbors and distant partners. The great civilizational divide is between the aggressive monotheistic (and mono-atheistic) traditions and the world’s pluralistic traditions. As such, the fight between the West and Islam is a fight between ideological partners for the world’s collective soul, whereas the fight between the West and China is for territorial and economic gain. Marxism is on the wane in most parts of the world but not in India, where Marxists collaborate with Islamists and Christian fundamentalists to subvert Hindu pluralist traditions.

Indian governments and leaders have been naïve, short-sighted, over eager, or plainly idealistic in many of their attempts to build relationships with individual nations, regional associations, and civilizational groups. Thus, we had Nehru accept the “Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence” (<i>panchsheel</i>) proposed by Zhou Enlai in 1954, and end up a disappointed if not a defeated man when the Chinese invaded India in 1962. Fifty years after the <i>panchsheel </i>was accepted, we have former President K. R. Narayanan proposing (<i>India Abroad</i>, June 25, 2004) a new Indo-Chinese cooperation phase, and explicitly ignoring Chinese expansionist plans, its occupation of Tibet, its aggressive nationalism, and its brazen militarism. Naïveté, inexperience, eagerness, and other weaknesses displayed by Indian policy makers and leaders sap India of material strength and moral sagacity. Similarly, the BJP leaders’ eager attempts to offer support to the Americans immediately after the events of September 11, 2001 fell almost flat on their face because they overlooked the fundamental relationships that shape the modern world dynamic.

So, in conclusion, it is important to be aware of the designs of the world’s two most aggressive religions – Christianity and Islam – and the world’s most aggressive mono-atheism – Marxism. They are still the important markers in the civilizational divides, and the aggressive nationalism of the Chinese is a close second. However, what might, hopefully, come to the aid of pluralists all over the world as well as to Indic traditions is science, which one hopes will reaffirm and support the findings of Indian sages about beginningless time, of cyclical time, of individual liberation, of perennial access to the transcendent, of progress not yoked to history, of multiple ways to attain transcendence, of reincarnation, and so on. If that happens, then the individual and collective quest for temporal power may recede, and the opportunistic and specious speculations of historians and political scientists will cease. Science as a handmaiden of Western imperialism, though, could still be used to undermine pluralist traditions. In the short run though, while all the criticisms of the Hungtington thesis is valid, there is also quite a lot of “reality” embedded in his thesis.

Ramesh Rao
July 2, 2004

<i><span style='color:blue'><b>This article first appeared in India Abroad, the oldest and largest circulated Indian-American newspaper, which is owned by </b></i></span>

<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>Views expressed by the author are his own.</span>

Clash Of Civilizations: A Hindu Response - Guest - 07-27-2004

This is an important essay, but needs further elaboration. There are many levels at which the clash between civilizations is executed.

For example there is a distinction between the clash the Indic civlization has with the islamic Ummah and the clash that India, the Nation republic has with other political nation states such as the US. A proper understanding is needed to arrive at correct policiies geared towards each of the P5 and other important nation states. Broad generalizations such as Hindi Chini bhai bhai or Panchseel or Non alignment are incredibly naive. They indicate the naivete of the Indiic populace in general and sometimes the leadership, which is a far more grave danger for india.

Naive simplifications that we ought not to anger most of the world by using the paradigm of 'clash of civilizations' overlooks one simple fact, that the clash of civilizaitons is already under way. India simply needs to learn the rules under which this clash or clashes are being conducted and not pretend there is no such clash evident

But the bottom line is that each of the P5 ( i include the Euro union in this ensemble )should be treated warily by India and with the individuality that they demand.

Clash Of Civilizations: A Hindu Response - muddur - 07-28-2004

I had posted this article which talks more about Bipin Chandra Pal, some time back..... I think Bipin wrote most of his thoughts in short articles and articles. It will be nice to have the collections of Bipin's writing in one place.

Here is the link ..

India gains new respect in Muslim world
By Sultan Shahin

NEW DELHI - Muslim diplomatic circles in Delhi are abuzz with new excitement. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's recent trip to Syria at a time when it is the target of attack from India's two closest allies, the United States and Israel, has convinced them that New Delhi is once again determined to pursue a foreign policy independent of the American worldview. Throughout his trip to Russia, Tajikistan and Syria, Vajpayee left no one in doubt that India has serious reservations about Washington's new foreign policy orientation of unilateral and illogical preemptive strikes in the Middle East.

While breaking their day-long fast at numerous Iftar parties in the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Muslim, and particularly Arab diplomats, are privately musing with some surprise that contrary to apprehensions from a Hindu fundamentalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government, India's relationship with the Muslim world has not only not worsened, it has actually improved. Indeed, it is thanks largely to consistent efforts made by this government that India can today count as friends and allies almost all the countries in the Muslim crescent that constitute the membership of the Organization of Islamic Conference.

If Arab diplomats are enthused at India's new-found non-alignment, following nearly three years of almost blindly following the US's lead in foreign affairs, they have a reason to be so. Coming as it did after the US-led war in Iraq and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visiting India a few months ago, the visit acquired particular significance as it triggered a lot of apprehension about Indian foreign policy orientation in the Arab mind.

Traveling as he was during Ramadan, a sacred month of fasting during which the Arab world comes to a virtual standstill, Vajpayee was something of a rare guest in Damascus, the Syrian capital. Naturally, the high point of his visit was a lavish Iftar banquet hosted by the young Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Vajpayee's mere presence in a Muslim country that the US has designated a sponsor of terror and Israel had attacked with missiles not long ago had its own significance. This courageous vote of confidence by traditional ally India in an Arab world that considers itself under siege was of tremendous significance for them.

Vajpayee's Syria visit affirmed that India and Syria want the United Nations to play a major role in Iraq, where the priority must be to restore security. A joint statement issued on Sunday said it was "vital that the Iraqi people take charge of their own destiny", and for the UN to "play a large role in the economic and political reconstruction of Iraq". India and Syria also called for the "implementation of a just, global and lasting peace in the Middle East", with Vajpayee stressing "India's support for the Palestinian and Syrian causes". The two countries also urged "effective cooperation in the struggle against international terrorism", adding that terror must not be linked to one religion in particular, apparently meaning Islam.

India and Syria also signed bilateral accords on technology, industry, culture and education, emphasizing that they are both keen to facilitate cooperation in information technology and biotechnology. The state-run Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC-Videsh) is expected to collaborate with Syrian companies to prospect for oil.

Before visiting Syria, Vajpayee went to Tajikistan on his present trip, stressing the high significance India attaches to Central Asia now. His visit has further strengthened India's strategic ties with Tajikistan. New Delhi's equation with President Emomali Rakhmanov's Tajik government is important in dealing with developments in Afghanistan and countering Muslim extremism in the whole of Central Asia. The visit follows Defense Minister George Fernandes' earlier Central Asian visit to build bridges with Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha, too, was in Tashkent earlier this month. His brief in Uzbekistan - spearheading the discourse on Central Asia organized by government-funded think tank Institute of Defense Studies and Analysis.

India's strategic foothold at the Aini air base near Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan, is now confirmed. Fernandes had clinched the formal agreement on upgrading and use of the air base on an earlier visit to Tajikistan in April 2002. After Sri Lanka in the late 1980s, the Tajik facility at Aini is India's first air base outside its frontiers. It has now secured contracts in the Trincomalee harbor and Palaly airfield in Sri Lanka. Vajpayee recently proposed the extension of the link road from Chabahar Port in Iran to Kabul and thence via Kunduz in Badakshan (Afghanistan) to Tajikistan. This would give India additional access to Central Asia and Afghanistan.

One of the surprises that the Vajpayee administration has thrown at the diplomatic corps in Delhi is its ability to deal with Muslims of all hues and establish strategic ties with them. Be it secular Turkey or fundamentalist Iran, secular Malaysia or moderately Islamic Indonesia, India has not had difficulty in establishing and strengthening close strategic ties. Vajpayee and even Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishan Advani have traveled to a number of Muslim countries promoting India's traditional ties with them. And so have Sinha and Fernandes, among other senior ministers.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The ease with which the BJP leaders have dealt with Muslim leaders in various countries is astonishing to those who are aware of their background as alumni of the Rashtriya Swayamewak Sangh (RSS), the ideological mentor and progenitor of all Hindu fundamentalist organizations in India. RSS ideologues have long believed in and have been waiting for the clash of civilizations. Almost 90 years before Samuel Huntington wrote his famous essay on the impending clash of civilizations and later developed it into a book with the same title, and decades before even the RSS was formally organized in 1925, Bipin Chandra Pal, a Hindu nationalist leader of India's freedom movement, had foreseen this clash among various civilizations and predicted that Hindu civilization will side with the Judeo-Christian West in its war against Islamic and Chinese civilizations.

Pal's essays and articles written almost a century ago make fascinating reading. A genuine thinker and visionary, Pal propounded his theories despite the fact that he considered the West as the greatest danger to humanity and was a great admirer of Islam's spiritual values. He thought that Islam was going to conquer large parts of the world, through its power of propaganda and not through war. He considered this inevitable. He was, however, scared of Islam's political manipulation. He foresaw the dangers of political Islam, which he considered an aberration. For, in his view, Islam is not only "extra-territorial" in its ideology, but also "extra-political".

In order to appreciate better the mindset and intellectual training the BJP leaders have received, we can do nothing better than read brief excerpts from some of Pal's original writings. Despite the archaic early 20th century prose style, these passages are quite exciting. In a collection of his essays entitled "Nationality and Empire", Pal writes under the sub-head Pan-Islamism and Pan-Mongolianism:

"This Pan-European combination [that we now call the West] will be a very serious menace to the non-European world. It will be bound to come into serious conflict with both Pan-Islamism and Pan-Mongolianism. If Europe can settle her internal jealousies betimes, she will be able to dominate easily both the Islamic and the Mongolian world. Nothing will prevent in that case the parceling out of the Muslim lands on the one side, and of China on the other. But that is not very likely. It will take, at least, as long a time for the European chancelleries to forget their past jealousies and present rivalries, as it will take for China, now that she has awakened from the sleep of ages, to put her own house in order and organize her leviathan strength to hold her own against all the world.

"The same thing is likely to happen in the Islamic world also; and the fall of Turkey in Europe will hasten this combination. It will not be an organized confederacy like that of China and Japan, but a far more dangerous, because more subtle, combination of the hearts of countless hordes who hold nothing so dear, neither land nor life, as their religion. And the real strength of this Pan-Islamic outburst will come from Egypt and India [which then included present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh], where it will be safe from the crushing weight of the Pan-European confederacy. England will not allow her European confederates to interfere with her own domestic affairs; such interference would break up the confederation at once. She will have to settle this Pan-Islamic problem, so far as it may affect her own dominions, herself."

Then describing where the danger for India will come from, he writes under the title "Our Real Danger". "And it is just here that our safety from this possible Pan-European combination also lies. Because of the British connection, India will have nothing to fear from any possible combination of the European powers. The same is also true of Egypt, though perhaps in a lesser degree. Our real menace will come not from Europe but from Asia, not from Pan-Europeanism but from Pan-Islamism and Pan-Mongolianism. These dangers are, however, common, both to India and Egypt and Great Britain. To provide against it, Great Britain will have to find and work out a satisfactory and permanent settlement of the Indian and the Egyptian problem, and we, on our part, will have also to come to some rational compromise with her. British statesmanship must recognize the urgent and absolute need of fully satisfying the demands of Indian and Egyptian nationalism, and India and Egypt will have to frankly accept the British connection - which is different from British subjection - as a necessary condition of their national life and freedom. To wantonly seek to break up this connection, while it will only hurt Great Britain, may positively kill every chance and possibility of either Indian or Egyptian nationalism ever realizing itself."

<b>Predicting and pleading the need for the alliance of the West and India, he writes under the sub-head "Our True Safety". "Indian nationalism in any case, has, I think, really no fear of being permanently opposed or crippled by Great Britain. On the contrary, the British connection can alone offer its effective protection against both the Pan-Islamic and the Pan-Mongolianism menace. As long as we had to consider Great Britain alone or any other European Power for the matter of that, while thinking of the future of Indian nationalism, the problem was comparatively simple and easy. But now we have to think if China on the one hand, and of the new Pan-Islamic danger on the other. The 60 millions of Mahomedans in India, if inspired with Pan-Islamic aspirations, joined to the Islamic principalities and powers that stand both to our West and our northwest, may easily put an end to all our nationalist aspirations, almost at any moment, if the present British connection be severed.

"The four-hundred millions of the Chinese empire can, not only gain an easy footing in India, but once that footing is gained, they are the only people under the sun who can hold us down by sheer superior physical force. There is no other people who can do this. This awakening of China is, therefore, a very serious menace - in the present condition of our country, without an organized and trained army and a powerful navy of our own - to the maintenance of any isolated, though sovereign, independence of the Indian people. Even if we are able to gain it, we shall never be able to keep it, in the face of this Pan-Islamic and Pan-Mongolian menace. And when one considers these terrible possibilities of the world situation as it is slowly evolving before one's eyes, one is forced to recognize the absolute need of keeping up the British connection in the interest of Indian nationalism itself, for the very simple and sufficient reason that there is absolutely much greater chance of this nationalism fully realizing itself with rather than without this connection." </b>

That politicians trained in this paranoid school of thought are finding it possible to come to terms with not only the Muslim world, but also China, is a tribute to their flexibility and adaptability. What has happened in the last year to bring about this metamorphosis in BJP leaders' mindset? Until last year they were pursuing a policy dictated by their political philosophy - wary of China and the Muslim world, they were simply kowtowing the West.

I do not presume to know the answer. But I can hazard a guess. What may have apprised them of the reality of the situation and expunged the influence of ideology is the world's reactions to the events in Gujarat. About 2,000 Muslims were killed and a 100,000 rendered homeless, the whole of central Gujarat cleansed of their presence, following the killing of 59 Hindus in a train compartment that was burned down, presumably by Muslims. From all accounts these anti-Muslim massacres were either organized, or at least encouraged by the BJP government of Gujarat.

This was the first large-scale mass murder in India in the age of electronic media and human rights activists. Word and images wend around and the world came to know of it. A strange thing happened. From the RSS point of view, neither China nor a single Muslim country protested. BJP politicians had to face a lot of flak. But all of it came from the West, either European governments or Western and Third World liberals trained in the West.

This may have shattered in the Hindutva mind the myth of a Muslim ummah, a world Muslim community. This myth had persisted in their mind against all evidence to the contrary presented to them by scholars from around the world. This may have also removed from their minds the fear of a clash between an alliance of Islamic and Chinese civilizations on the one hand ranged against the Hindu and Judeo-Christian civilizations on the other. If this is indeed what has happened, Gujarat may well have served a good purpose. Good can indeed come out of evil too.

Clash Of Civilizations: A Hindu Response - acharya - 07-28-2004

I agree with Kaushal regarding the essay

<i>This is an important essay, but needs further elaboration. There are many levels at which the clash between civilizations is executed.


Shri Ramesh needs to explain in more details the different levels of clashes which are going on right now.

<b>Naïveté, inexperience, eagerness, and other weaknesses displayed by Indian policy makers and leaders sap India of material strength and moral sagacity. </b>

This has to be explained why the indian polity is unable to get the right bearing and understand the world and the different forces which are shaping the world.

The first leaders of nationlism during the early part of 20 century were already had a wrong view of a increasing liberal world thinking that it was the way of the future. THis simple and similar world view created a false vision of the world such as the Nehruvian world view.

The Indian polity is also lacking in its own narration of the world and its races and civilization. They are dependent on a colonized version of the world view which puts them in a blind spot. THis increases their fault in their strategic thinking and their ability to make alliances.

THis has to be discussed in depth to understand the clash of civilizations.

Clash Of Civilizations: A Hindu Response - acharya - 07-30-2004

Every Indian must read -- Simplistic 'civilizational clash'
By Hindu Sitah 30/03/2003 At 15:22

Simplistic 'civilizational clash'--- Every Indian must read

Simplistic 'civilizational clash'
-- By N S Rajaram

It is a cause for concern that some organizations are publicly supporting the US attack on Iraq guided by Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' thesis. The underlying assumption is that it is part of the 'Christian' US war against Islam. This is a serious misreading-- an oversimplification that can cost India dear when the real war against Islam begins. Here are some thoughts on the subject.

The US war is for economic dominance that is threatened by two forces-- the European challenge and the rising assertiveness in the oil rich Islamic world. The US became aggressive only when Iran and Iraq -- both former client states -- slipped out of the US hold. It is the same with France and Germany. This will be the fate of Pakistan also if it tries to throw off the US yoke. There is a rider though-- the US may not want to risk a ground war in Pakistan, especially since unlike in the Middle East, no economic interests are at stake.

<b>This holds the key: the US sees itself as a political and economic powerhouse and not as the leader of a civilization</b>. Having lived in the US for nearly a quarter century, I can say without hesitation that the American elite freely accepts that it is a cultural satellite of Europe. Favourite American composers are Europeans. Touring European musicians, even Russians are accorded a disproportionate regard that is denied to Americans, even if they are superior. Just see how many American orchestra conductors are European born though there are better ones in the US.

Yet, America is prepared to see the decline of Europe in order to maintain its economic strength. For the US, economy comes first, not civilization or religion. The same is true though perhaps to a lesser degree with the Europeans. The great mistake that Indian leaders, especially those who come from religious roots, is to think that the US and the West in general is Christian and it is Islam for the sake of Christianity. Nothing could be further removed from reality. While many Hindus (and Muslims) are prepared to die for their religion, <b>I don't know a single European who would lay down his life to protect the Pope or the Vatican.</b> The Pope surely knows this, which partly explains his conciliatory attitude towards Islam.

The situation is fraught with uncertainty. It would be extremely unwise for India to take a position of unequivocal support to the US in the belief that it is on 'our side' in the non-existent clash of civilizations. After all, we heard similar arguments soon after the September 11 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. What happened? The US 'war on terrorism' turned the world's worst sponsor of terror into its prime ally. And despite sympathetic noises, the US and the UK have done nothing to stop the terrorism against India.

The lesson from all this is that there are no intellectual shortcuts. We must do independent thinking and evolve our own strategic vision and not borrow simplistic academic theories like the clash of civilizations.

Clash Of Civilizations: A Hindu Response - Guest - 08-15-2004

I have elaborated to a greater extent to this extremely important essay in my latest response in my blog.

'Clash of Civilization redux' at

Clash Of Civilizations: A Hindu Response - Guest - 09-01-2004

Another point to be made with regard to the thesis of the clash of civilizations is that a clash does not connote or is accompanied by physical violence. In the past clashes between civilizations (if they can be so termed) involved much violence. henceforth, while we cannot discount violence to some degree, the major clash will take place in the realm of ideas and culture. This is a clash that Indics should welcome or at the least not shy away from, and one in which we give as well as we get. This needs further elaboration which I hope to do inn a future essay

Clash Of Civilizations: A Hindu Response - Guest - 09-01-2004

From Prof Rao's article:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As such, the fight between the West and Islam is a fight between ideological partners for the world’s collective soul, whereas the fight between the West and China is for territorial and economic gain.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Read this statement against the backdrop of West's appeasment of Lottastan.
Do those Brookings type think-tanks see Pakistan as the key to this fight?

Clash Of Civilizations: A Hindu Response - Guest - 12-28-2004

Please post your thoughts or some original content here ....

Clash Of Civilizations: A Hindu Response - Guest - 02-04-2005

Online book
Hinduism and the Clash of Civilizations
By David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri)