Natural State of Things – China, India and the World

Though I have written about this many times, it was more of an incoherent set of comments in response to something else.

Every country has got it’s own philosophy of governance. An older civilization which has stood the test of time and which has been ruled always in the same way for ages is not going to change that easily. Even if there is a blip, it is but natural, with passage of time, these countries will tend to move towards their natural state. The question is, is there any such natural state in the modern world?

Let’s take the two main points of focus in Asia – China and India. China traditionally follows something called a Mandala System. Mandala in Sanskrit means a circle. The system works like this. China is the big circle. There are some neighbouring entities for China like Korea, Tibet, Mongolia, Vietnam, Manchuria and others. Then, there is another level of smaller circles for these second level circles – Ladakh, Bhutan, Sikkim etc. Anything lesser than that, though possible(like Zanskar), is not that practical enough.

The second level circles are such placed geographically that they can’t interact with any other country. Same goes for the third. Now, how does this model work? China, by being the bigger circle, linking all the smaller circle offers it free access to all the second level circles. A Tibetian can go and work/trade in Korea, a Korean can serve as a part of Chinese imperial Army in Vietnam. But, China will never interfere in the internal policies of any of these smaller circles. In case, say, Tibet is facing an invasion, China doesn’t send an army. It’s Tibet which will fight the war. Only if Tibet says I need help, China will pitch in. For a war in Tibet, China doesn’t order Korea or Mongolia to send troops. Tibet can ask, but China doesn’t. Once the war is won, China will simply go back – it won’t stay and dictate policies. In return, China asks paper vassalage. So, what benefit China has got? Markets for it’s produce and extra military depth. What has the vassals got? A free market and a master who doesn’t bother about the internal independence. The vassals are more advantaged than the master and they will be in eternal gratitude for that – they voluntarily accept the position of a vassal. Take, for example, Japanese invasion of Korea in 1500s. Korea tried to beat back the invasion. It failed and China had to come to correct the situation. And, China simply went back. The story changed after 1750 where Qing  China decided to directly annex these vassals. This went on and off – when the centre was weak, the vassal got independent. The situation is this. Qing doesn’t know the way of life of Tibet. It doesn’t know how to rule the people and what endears them to the Tibetians. This bondage, in return, resulted in rebellion against China. For something which China is voluntarily getting, it is expending tremendous energy to enforce it through the use of force – there are popular rebellions, there is army highhandedness, there are policies which people didn’t like. But, when China withdrew from Tibet, the status quo was reestablished.

This is the situation China is in today. It is forcibly attempting to control entities which voluntarily follow China. And to maintain this façade, China needs a strong centre. It needs to project itself as a street bully whom everyone prefers not to approach. It is the same reason why China is acting such belligerent. It needs to project that it is strong and can never afford a war which can impact this status quo.

What is Indian model, then? India is not a single country – there are always small kingdoms which are out of reach of a strong centre which theoretically represented India. This centre, as time progresses, will absorb some independent kingdoms which flexed it’s muscles after the last round of chaos which gave this new centre to form(to make more sense, take it something like, Lodhis came strong, they wilted and were taken down by the Mughals. There were rebellions, which the Mughals gradually suppressed) – some of these were absorbed into the royal lands and the rest, allowed to govern on their own, but all of them are governors, not vassals. He may be a governor appointed by the ruler in the centre or a hereditary king, but he is just a governor. He has to maintain an army according to his stature and will be summoned to fight a war anywhere. Note that it’s not his army, but the central army garrisoned at a location. There is no Jaipur Army, there is no Orchcha army, it’s always Mughal Army. It’s that Mughal army which fights for everyone.

It is interesting to note that India is still following this model of governance – only that, there are no hereditary governors.

The most important point of this model is, both the countries ruled the world as economic superpowers when they were in their traditional model of governance. China is not following it’s model while India is, to some extent. What is the problem with China? It’s wasting it’s energy trying to control entities which it need not to. And going by the fact that China is a sea oriented economy and with wealth concentration solely on the coast and the gap increasing by the day, if spending too much money on military posturing, which will increase with India’s belligerence is going to widen the gap, eventually ripping the country apart. What’s the problem with India? By frequent change in policy decisions, there is no stability in approach. I don’t say democracy is wrong. But, decoupling economic policy making and populism will reduce the fickleness in finalizing the minutiae of the long term policy decision.

What is the natural state of things?

1.   The realization that there is no need of any market outside India-China-Iran historic belt – they themselves hold two thirds of the world population.

2.   The acceptance of the fact that the independence of entities like Tibet or Chinese Turkestan is inconsequential

3.   Open borders and an East Asian Free Trade Zone.

One of the greatest challenges for this to happen, which will happen for sure, is the nuisance of Pakistan. Where does Pakistan stand in this? Pakistan cannot survive on it’s own and needs life support. First it was America, now, it’s China. But, is it such a serious problem is what we need to look into.

The Kashmir Drama - Much Ado About Nothing?

First, look at the below data.

The area where this stone pelting drama is happening is just five districts of Kashmir Valley. That area is 8.9% of Jammu and Kashmir excluding Aksai Chin and Illegal Kashmir and 25.54% of population. Compare with India, it's .29% of area and .26% of population. So, what exactly are we seeing here? The protests are confined to a minuscule area  of India, an area obscenely overpopulated and with a rising population. Article 370 ensures that this area is mostly inbred with no non-local blood being infused into it.
For the ruckus created by .25% of India's population, is it even worth our time to talk about it? It's something for all the Indians, mainly the press and the political class to introspect over - why are we giving that much importance to something that trivial?
And to the army. What exactly is it proposing to do, in wake of such stiff opposition from local polity and opportunistic people? Can an army with hands tied behind it's backs crush an open rebellion, albeit mercenary in nature? What exactly is the army, without support of the local governance and even press, supposed to do?
Take some things.
1. The protest is happening solely for money. Every stone-pelter is paid money. If the rat lines run across the border, choke them. If they originate on our side of the border, catch the culprits and indict them immediately. Ensure that the ratlines are not established again.
2. Create a split between the leadership and the foot soldiers. It is important to note that no one from the families of Geelani, Mirwaiz, Bandarbi and the rest are involved in the protests. They are using their influence and money power to destroy the families of others. If need be, bring in the family members forcibly by force to lead the masses. The hypocrisy will be out in no time.
3. Use of technology. When it is clearly known that the protests are organized through whatsapp, what's the problem in using technology to counter that? What you need is one phone from a stone pelter. Communication, end-to-end, can't be decrypted, but the member list in a group isn't? Get the list of all the groups in his phone, take the list of all the users, drill down four or five levels for those users and make a list of all the users. Put a tab on them for a week or so, and in one fell swoop, capture them. They are not going to be more than 1000 or 2000. Give an option of a peaceful life elsewhere in India or a jail term in Kashmir Valley, they will automatically wilt. Note that a battle is fought with foot soldiers, not Generals. Take their armies away, Subutai or Rommel or Hannibal are but jokes. Do the same for Facebook and Twitter - a detailed profiling of their character can be made using these two public forums along with proofs.
What is lacking with us is the resilience - resilience in adapting and changing according to situation. If it needs looking at what others are doing - China, Israel, Russia and others, so be it.

Kulbhushan Yadav Issue - Deciphering the Pakistani Brain

A Swarajya Magazine article over India’s Cold Start Doctrine used a very important statement.
In three wars with Pakistan, India’s defence forces experienced the frustration of seeing the political leadership surrender on the negotiating table what the soldiers had won on the battlefield.
And another, Dr Subhash Kapila writes,
The long mobilisation time gives the political leadership time to waver under pressure, and in the process deny the Indian Army its due military victories…The new war doctrine would compel the political leadership to give political approval ‘ab-initio’ and thereby free the armed forces to generate their full combat potential from the outset.
If India’s official military policy itself considers the preference for backing out as a deciding factor, it is no wonder Pakistan sees it no different and it already has plans ready in place to exploit this.
Take the example of 1971 itself. India broke Pakistan and after that, returned all the prisoners of war and the land captured in the Western theatre. And magnanimously, India declared PoK as the real border. What did Pakistan do in return? It executed the signatory. What did India do in return?
Knowing that India will not take a decisive action and that there are sufficient people in India to parrot it’s views, whenever there is a change in government, Pakistan tests the new government. But, Modi turned a very hard nut to crack and Pakistan was absolutely isolated on the international playing field. Forget international playing field, Pakistan is not visible even in Indian news. Now, whatever we are seeing, China is responding to India in a knee-jerk fashion. Pakistan needs to do something to capture the lost space.
What and all happened? India responded to Pakistani cross-border fire in kind. Our peaceniks demanded India to stop firing and initiate talks.
India shamed Nawaz Sharif in the UN. There was no press coverage in India.
A Brigade Headquarters was attacked. When India retaliated by sending troops across the border, our politicians demanded proof of the attack.
India was ready to let Kashmir Valley burn but didn’t bend towards Pakistan, even after decisively proving, through the exercise of demonetization, that the movement in Kashmir is a mercenary movement operating for the money thrown on their faces and not for any ideology.
So, it plans another duel. It kidnaps an Indian citizen from Iran and pronounces a death sentence on him in a Kangaroo Court suddenly set up by the military. The government has already declared the proof is inconclusive and is caught napping when it got to know of the sentence only after it is pronounced. It is stuck in such a position where it is forced to support the military. Neither does the courts know of the trial in advance. And what is the conclusive proof? A confession under duress.
As expected, India is up in arms, in outrage. As if to add fuel to fire and to prove the adage Indian Crab, a tea party set up with Pakistani Ambassador and some other politicians is conducted, with people attending it. One of them asked, if Modi went to Lahore, what’s the problem in me meeting Pakistanis? Can things be any absurd than this, where an insignificant individual equates his personal decision to the official policy of the government of India? And by requesting Pakistan to consider India’s case, they have singlehandedly elevated Pakistan to the level of India.
So, why did Pakistan do this? What exactly is it planning to achieve out of this? There are a few things one can think of -
1. The falling prestige of the military. Qamar Bajwa is not seen as strong as Raheel Sharif. To avoid cutting a sorry figure, he will have to do something. And that something should prove that he holds the civil government in contempt. Else, he will be staring at a military coup.
2. One should not forget that this act is timed with the visit of the Dalai Lama to Arunachal Pradesh, and which China is not happy about. This can be something done by Pakistan to please it’s new masters.
3. If not pleasing the masters, it can be an attempt to preempt a stand off between India and China, which none are interested in?
4. The usual thing, forcing India onto the talks table?
And seeing that all of them are failing, with India giving a strong response, Pakistan has blocked the appeal by declaring to debar any lawyer who fights Kulbhushan Yadav’s case. It’s interesting to watch what is going to happen.
But, Pakistan has proven yet again that it is quixotic and attention mongering and it is ready to chop it’s hand off if it gives it some attention.
So, what should India do in response to this?
1. Play the Pakistani game - barter, barter someone whom India captured in retaliation for this.
2. Absolute silence from India, mainly from media. Let background channels work, but there should be absolute silence in Indian press. It will be interesting to watch when Pakistan’s attempt to gain attention falls flat on it’s face.
3. Downgrading of diplomatic mission. A minor embassy is more than enough for Pakistan, not a High Commission.
4. The most aggressive solution is Subramanian Swamy’s Baki-stan - the only thing left is Punjab, Baki will be separate states/merged with others.
The point here, which India should assert here is, Pakistan is a nothing before India and should act accrodingly - it should be placed on the same pedestal India deals with some Central African nation about which no one heard about.

Hindi as National Language - Bulveristic Impositon or Voluntary Acceptance?

There was an image from somewhere in Karnataka where Hindi was struck on a distance marker, with only Hindi visible. A snide comment by a South Indian(lets call him SI) to a comment criticizing it, made by a Hindi Mother Tongue(lets call him HM) led to the usual acerbic cultural divide which is starkly visible when these two groups clash with each other over Hindi as a national language.

Well, there are a few important things to learn from this –

1.     The concept of Amit propagated on internet - a certain specific kind of North Indian cluelessness, a form of ignorant arrogance wrapped in exuberant overconfidence and dipped liberally in the ketchup of intolerance. This is clearly visible in the discussion. The HM is outraged at the fact that someone exists in India without learning his mother tongue. After all, it’s his mother tongue, the most populous in the country and that itself is an indication for it’s universal acceptance. He doesn’t want to understand the other side’s case.

2.     The confusion between lingua franca and national language. Hindi, to some extent, is serving the purpose of lingua franca for India – a pidgin of Hindi, the local language and English, but it works. It is grammatically horrendous with non-existent vocabulary, but it works. Now, come to a native language. It requires native proficiency in reading and writing. I seriously doubt any one of those with a South Indian language as mother tongue can write Hindi correctly. For example, in Telugu, feminine gender is always used for the inanimate. But, in Hindi, it depends. In Telugu, the vehicle goes(bandi veltondi) in feminine, but is clueless whether the vehicle is masculine or feminine in Hindi(is it gaadi jaa raha hai or gaadi jaa rahi hai?).

3.     70 long years is given to make Hindi acceptable to the country. What was done? Instead, we have seen the Hindi belt being derided as BIMARU and it has got the worst HDI indicators in India. Tamil Nadu’s Per Capita is 3 times that of Bihar and UP’s number of children per family is double that of South India. Is this the sort of language, and by default, culture, which is going to be imposed with no preparation, whatsoever? The argument clearly follows the standard line – Hindi is the main language, so, it should be the national language. Even though I respect others, they should co-exist with Hindi. I don’t care about preparation, I don’t care about resources, but I want it to be the national language NOW.

4.     In the Hindi Belt’s eyes, South presents it’s case as that of extreme paranoia and an irrational fear of their language and their opportunities being sidelined but South views Hindi Belt’s arguments as Hegemonistic Chauvinism with a bulveristic streak.

The verdict is clear. Hindi is yet to mature to become a national language – there is no native proficiency for those who have a different mother tongue. 70 long years were given to Hindi to prove itself but the state we are in today is exactly the state we were in 1950. The roughness with which this is projected, this has rubbed potential allies very badly and it’s going to be a next-to-impossible exercise to make the country switch over to Hindi. Rather than that, probably, promoting Sanskrit even at this later date is going to yield better dividends.

HM: National Highways are used by all Indians. Hindu is the most widely spoken and understood langauge of India. Deal with it

SI: It’s just another local language, spoken by a bit more people. Pray tell me, how many outside the Hindi belt know Hindi? It doesn’t have widespread acceptance like Sanskrit, English and to some extent, Urdu. You can survive with Sanskrit everywhere, not Hindi.


HM: bit more people? haha! More than half of Indian speak Hindi. More than 3/4th understand Hindi.


SI: Nope. Hindi has 40% as native speakers. Even after these many years, I am yet to see someone comfortable with Hindi outside the belt.
 And a minority is a minority - be it Hindi with 40% or Sentinelese with 0.0001%. Well, if you add Urdu and Bhojpuri, than more than 50%. None in Telangana understand Hindi - it’s Urdu.
But, the point of a national language is, you can run the show anywhere in India. With Hindi, you can’t, with English, you can.


HM: Less than 5% of Indian understand English. Hindi in its modern Hindustani form is the most widely understand langauge. Even you know it.

I love and accept all Indian languages. The important role of Hindi in India is self evident.



SI: The tree presented another problem. By splitting Bhojpuri and Hindi, you have already laid a path for further fragmentation of Hindi.


HM: True. But many more Indians understand Hindi. How do you expect the PM to communicate with the nation? Talk in 28 languages?


SI: Well, the many more we are seeing are a skewed number who leave the comfort of their states. People just don’t need Hindi in their states. The biggest thing is, no one assuaged the Tamil fears. Native proficiency in Hindi for some will make us B-grade citizens in India.


HM: That can be your view. The only Indian language @RashtrapatiBhvn address the nation is Hindi for a reason.
 The purpose of language is to communicate. I do not care anymore. We need a langauge to communicate & Hindi with English fulfil it.


SI: Well, that’s because the official notification still says encourage Hindi but in South, it’s a nuisance doubling the size of manuals. That is the concept of a national language, right? The issue is, even after being given 70 years, Hindi didn’t mature enough.


HM: Hindi has matured, developed and expanded by including words from other language forms. All our languages are national languages.
 We must speak & promote our native languages. Even learn English. Its just that Hindi remain the strongest medium of communication.


SI: Examples, please? Any commonly used words not from Urdu or Sanskrit or English? How many research papers? How many books of note?
Another major reason is, English or Sanskrit can’t kill other languages. If you call Thethi or Maithili languages, it Hindi killed them.


HM: No one is required to make Hindi as native. I love tamil, telugu, Kannada just as much as I adore Hindi. Our languages are our beauty.


SI: That’s not the fear. If a paper is set in English, everyone can write. If it is set in Hindi, will South pass the test?
 Something like what happened in Hyderabad - when Urdu was replaced with English and Telangana lost out in jobs to Andhra.


HM: Because Hindi is the language of communication for central govt. It must include more. But as of now Hindi reaches most people. Fact.


SI: Language of commn because full term CMs only from UP. And PV is a Hindi Jnanpeeth & at least half of the Hindi Belt MPs don’t know Eng.
 Every govt will have a battery of ministers from UP. If a minister can’t speak anything except Hindi, what will the world do?
 Promoting Hindi looks more like a matter of convenience, not something in national interest. Anyways, leave it. This is an eternal debate.
 And if you are free, you can check the causticity in the Constitutional Assembly Debates over National Language.
 The point my friend, is Hindi is just another local language promoting the interests of a few Indians over the others. It skews opportunity
 Stay on the other side of the line, you will understand what exactly is the problem. A Hindi signboard in AP, what % reading can understand?


HM: I have read constitutional debates in detail and refers to Gopalaswamy Iyengar

SI: Refers to Pt Lakshmikanta Maitry. 
I can dig out many such - Kala Venkat Rao, Naziruddin Ahmed and any such. They haven’t found an answer for 70 years and they won’t for 70


HM: I am not talking about the Hindi literature but Hindi as the dominant medium of communication. Looking at Hindi as foreign is disappointing.
 Hindi in its modern Hindustani form is a creation of convenience. English is useful but so are many more languages.
 That is why all SC, major universities etc use English. National exam papers must be in Hindi and all major regional languages too.
 Urdu is a form of Hindi but its script is understood by very few.


HM: I do not get your point. Whatever be the reason, Hindi is the most widely understood langauge in India. What's wrong on accepting that?


SI: Nope. In all these years, I am yet to get a valid reason why Hindi shd replace English. If there is no answer from proponents, why blame me?


HM: World will use a teleprompter. What else? Lol. PM of India is a Gujarati, President is Bengali. They both address nation in Hindi. Hindi is not a provincial language. 10 states of India have hindi as official language. Resisting Hindi just for the sake of it, that is self defeating.


SI: That’s exactly I am saying - all 10 are contiguous and there is no substantial population outside them or neighbours. That makes it local.


HM: Crazy! Haryana and Chhattisgarh share border?

SI: Don’t forget PM is a UP MP, not Gujarat. And Prez. Only once, he was an MP. And Prez, can I have his Rajya Sabha states?


HM: How it matters where they are MP from? My only point is the fact that Hindi is widely spoken. Modi's mother tongue is Gujarati He is not promoting Hindi. He is speaks langauge most Indian can speak. He can't make an address 20 times!


SI: It matters. Modi is an MP from UP and he can’t become an MP easily unless you speak in native - note the word native.
 The point is, PMs come only from UP and it is politically correct for the MP becoming PM to promote the mother tongue of his voters to be...
 What efforts were made to encourage other states to use Hindi? Answer is a big zero.
 Another thing we are mixing up here - lingua franca and national language. National language needs native proficiency, not lingua franca.

HM: Again, that is your ignorance. All languages are promoted. Govt celebrate the day too. From which langauge does your name come?


SI: I am saying encouraging Hindi,not other languages.Mine is Telugu, god only knows where the word came from. All origins are wishful thinkings


HM: That is not a fact. The 1st speech by KCR was in Telugu, English and Hindi. Urdu itself is persianized standard register of the Hindustani


SI: There was no Hindi. It’s the Deccani variant of Urdu, again, much different from the North Indian Urdu.


HM: Do you think MMS spoke Assame? Do you think Sonia spoke Kannada when she represented Bellary? Seriously! Bias > Facts. Sad..

SI: I used the word "MP easily”. Sonia gave speeches in Kannada, they were written for her, but she gave. MMS was never won an election.
 Sushma Swaraj learnt Kannada but both of them spoke in Kannada.



HM: Facts can argue with ignorance not bias. good luck


SI: Same here. I need a sane and valid engagement, not hegemonistic bludgeoning. And nothing is going to change either of our’s positions. Adieu. TMy position is ignorance for you, your position is hegemonistic chauvinism for me. Cultural divide. Can’t do much.
 By mixing up lingua franca with national language, you have declared that just because people can SPEAK in Hindi, they she also read & write.

HM: Next time, check facts before typing(Presenting a Times of Indian screenshot which states KCR spoke in Hindi, Urdu and Telugu). I disengage.

SI: Again from North Indian media? Ever heard the word Amit Media? Beside, TV channel of the same newspaper showed snowmobile in Chennai floods.
 By the way, I haven’t got my answer yet. What words in Hindi, which are sourced from languages other than Sanskrit/Urdu/Eng? Still waiting.