Re: RSS and its antics

[Padmanabha Rao <kvprao@igidr.ac.in>]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Krishna C Tripathi wrote:
     I am yet to get a reply from you about my question about Iran. Can
 you please elaborate why Parasis were kicked out out of Persia despite
 following "Ignore and silence" for centuries? Why Tibetians are not
 getting their Tibet back despite following "Ignore and silence"?

Because the aggressor wanted to continue being aggressive. Or possibly
the
Parsis and Tibetans and etc., didn't have the necessary courage and
commitment to their pastures. I think the reasoning will be flawed
without
seeing what 'ignore and silence' means. It's active and not reactive, or

atleast that's the way I refer to it here. To be able to regain and
remain
in my original calm, in the face of an uninvited aggression, there's
only
ONE known method: to accept it, under-stand it, and finally either
ignore
it or be indifferent to it or subsume it. Any other reaction is bound to

disturb my original calm to a different state, which I presume is not
desirable. I don't know much of the Parsi history, but of the Tibetans I

would note that they seek to regain and remain through aggressive means.

They probably don't hold the sword but their insistence on chinese
removal
is equivalent to an aggressive reaction. The chinese are rank aggressors

here, no doubt, for their own reasons. But if I were a Tibetan I
wouldn't
call myself non-aggressive when working for the removal of the chinese.
This non-violent action, as you rightly point out has been the tradition

in our land.

 Tell me any example from the history of world where this has worked.

What does "worked" mean ? To me it would have worked if, after the
aggression has occurred, I continue to remain in my original state. As I

said, this is possible with understanding. I also believe it would never

work if I take to violence too, because it would alter it. My original
state can however, contain an effective deterrent for potential
aggressors. This has it own costs, but a me or a Tibet or a Persia does
not exist in isolation, so its a choice left to me, the Tibet as to what

to include the original state. If preparedness be included, that's one
philosophy and is fine. If preparedness not be had, that's another
philosophy and is fine. BUT these are the only two cases possible, and
if
they are lived as such there would be no word as 'aggression' justly
useable by either of them. If the word is still used, by either, then
that
thought needs more input. I hope I have been able to convey properly.

 Isn't this the approach we have ever since our written history? And
this
 has resulted in shrinkage of our culture by more than 50%.

Quantification misguides. Culture is a living thing. It is alive, or
dead.
Nothing as 30% alive or 70% dead. Such quantification seems rootless.

 2000 Years back the whole area of present day Afganistan , Pakistan,
 India , Bangaldesh, Burma , Indonasia, Vietnam, Western China , Tibet
 etc used to follow "Karmik" system of beleive. How many do today? Now
 don't conclude that I am an imperialist and capturing all this parts
are
 part of my "hidden agenda", I have no such intention. If I would have
 been writing this mail 100 years back , then Pakistan and Bangadesh
have
 not been part of these "lost" areas but today they are. 50 Yrs back we
 lost them. Today we talk about converting LOC in Internation Border,
 more shrinking. There is no reason for me not to beleive that if the
 same trend continues 100 yrs down the line Kashmir and North east won't

 be part of the "lost" areas. What after 200 yrs ? should we loose
 Jharkhand and Tamilnadu and Keral as well? and may after 300 yrs no
 Padmanabha Rao and Krishna Tripathi would be writing mails but Padmanur

 Rahim and Kristine Tripat would be figting each other near the hills of

 Santosh Nagar for something that has just happend in Yerushalem.

All this could happen and more. If I care about my culture I would try
to
live it and keep it alive and expect to transmit to the next generation.

If my brother doesn't want to do that, and that reduces the cultural
land
by '10%' today, that is not at all my care. It's his life and his land
and
his mind. If my culture is sufficiently of a high order that subsumes
all
diversity then one can expect me to love my brother just the same for
all
time to come. I love my culture, for *my own sake*. Not for the sake of
the culture itself. How can that be ? Culture is a no-word, without
reference to *people*. People constitute culture.

Thanks.

Padmanabha Rao



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------