06-24-2004, 10:22 AM
Well said amarnath. I said somethin similar in the thread on islamism, which i reproduce here
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The last 1000 years are witness that we did not loose as we survived but we did not win either as so many are still ready to elminate us, without any remorse or calm, with the same old 1000 years assumptions of us being not able to retaliate hard and fast. The pride that we did not attack any one in last 5000 years is stupid,<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Valid point. i agree that any pride in not attacking other countries is misplaced. There were definitely quite a few exceptions to this pattern, the most prominent being the expansion of the Chola empire into Indonesia, There are other counter examples of Indian rulers attacking Central Asia. HH had a note on the topic sometime ago and of course Asoka had suzerainty over vast areas of Central Asia.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>The point being there is no use being proud of something which was not true. Not true then and not true now (Goa, Bangladesh). </span>
But it can probably be said that Indians in the past did not have a global vision of conquest like Genghiz Khan. But, if that is such a lamentable failing, i ask you where are the descendants of Genghiz Khan today ?. Confined to a nondescript state far removed from the centers of power and one that has turned irrevocably Buddhist. Even the Islamic ummah is completely fractured with a large part living allegedly under Kufr domination. So are these the examples we wish to emulate.
As for not being ruthless or hard enough in victory, this is a tough one. Where do we draw the line ? Are we subliminally admiring the mutilation of live human beings that our neighbor practices and even encourages. Obviously this is done to strike terror into the minds of the enemy, just as Tamerlang and his descendant Babar erected pyramids of skulls to strike fear into the populace. Do we refuse to give decent burial to enemy soldiers as our enemy has done time and time again.
There is a larger question. In reality does it take any kind of balls to engage in destructive warfare for its own sake. I maintain that we are too analytical ( i hesitate to say intellectual, lest people get indignant at me) a people and as a civilization to give an unequivocal answer to questions such as these. Of course there are always counterexamples here too and the riots in India standout as examples of violent behavior. But I would argue again that these are not good examples for our propensity towards violent behavior, for if so we would not have amongst our midst, such a huge population of non-Hindus. So we are left with an ambiguous view of the matter and perhaps that is the best that can be said about it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The last 1000 years are witness that we did not loose as we survived but we did not win either as so many are still ready to elminate us, without any remorse or calm, with the same old 1000 years assumptions of us being not able to retaliate hard and fast. The pride that we did not attack any one in last 5000 years is stupid,<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Valid point. i agree that any pride in not attacking other countries is misplaced. There were definitely quite a few exceptions to this pattern, the most prominent being the expansion of the Chola empire into Indonesia, There are other counter examples of Indian rulers attacking Central Asia. HH had a note on the topic sometime ago and of course Asoka had suzerainty over vast areas of Central Asia.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>The point being there is no use being proud of something which was not true. Not true then and not true now (Goa, Bangladesh). </span>
But it can probably be said that Indians in the past did not have a global vision of conquest like Genghiz Khan. But, if that is such a lamentable failing, i ask you where are the descendants of Genghiz Khan today ?. Confined to a nondescript state far removed from the centers of power and one that has turned irrevocably Buddhist. Even the Islamic ummah is completely fractured with a large part living allegedly under Kufr domination. So are these the examples we wish to emulate.
As for not being ruthless or hard enough in victory, this is a tough one. Where do we draw the line ? Are we subliminally admiring the mutilation of live human beings that our neighbor practices and even encourages. Obviously this is done to strike terror into the minds of the enemy, just as Tamerlang and his descendant Babar erected pyramids of skulls to strike fear into the populace. Do we refuse to give decent burial to enemy soldiers as our enemy has done time and time again.
There is a larger question. In reality does it take any kind of balls to engage in destructive warfare for its own sake. I maintain that we are too analytical ( i hesitate to say intellectual, lest people get indignant at me) a people and as a civilization to give an unequivocal answer to questions such as these. Of course there are always counterexamples here too and the riots in India standout as examples of violent behavior. But I would argue again that these are not good examples for our propensity towards violent behavior, for if so we would not have amongst our midst, such a huge population of non-Hindus. So we are left with an ambiguous view of the matter and perhaps that is the best that can be said about it.