India’s Foreign Policy: An Analysis

d_m #163
The biggest Tamil epic from early A.D was written by a Jain prince, btw.

aww..Islamabad Bob doesn`t like the fact the people outside jihadis`r`us associate India with the Indian civilization and think Pakistan is just another stan....

Re: # 162

The only thing you have in common with the Indus valley civilisation is geography. You don`t speak the same language, you don`t dress similarly, you don`t eat the same food, you don`t profess the same religion, you can`t decipher their writings, there is nothing that you have inherited from them. You don`t know which rivers coursed through those lands when they existed. You didn`t even know they existed till the 1800`s. You don`t probably have any fables which speak of these lands.

So you are as far away from them as, forget South Indians, let us say the Chinese.

Brahui is a Dravidian language and Balochistan has Sutkagen Dor so I dare say there is a South Indian link


Dholavira and Lothal in Gujarat are as old and they are in India.

So quit all this rubbish and go back to foreign relations. -)

Re: # 161
``So, having been caught lying, you tried wiggling away by claiming I was ridiculing hindu rituals only and not muslim. When I got you by the neck there, you try to wiggle out by claiming that I am ridiculing the entire religion of hinduism. And now I have you by the neck again: Where in my cut and paste do I ridicule the entire religion?? Lets see how you attempt to wiggle away again! :-)``

Hindu rituals are part and parcel of Hinduism. To your simplistic mind, rituals may look
like mindless things. Simple minds like yours just need one book to understand this
world after all, that too written by illeterate person in 7th century. But others may have
more complex understanding of this world and themselves and a ritual may reinforce
some inner strength they may have or it may bring peace of mind to them- it does
not matter what their faith is and what they do, you have no right to ridicule them even
if under the guise of equally criticising muslim rituals. How do you know the rituals
in other faiths are less important than the faith itself? Maybe they are the most important things central to their faith. Thats why I said if you want to ridicule other faiths be open to criticise your own with no holds barred. But cowards like you will rather kill and be killed than your religious symbols ridiculed. Only other peoples faiths are fair game for your ridicule!

bylleya#
``but one can get a feel for it......kind of like pornography....i.e. it is hard to define, but one knows is when one sees it...... ``

In that case, Indians have seen the Indian civilization; what is more important, prominent historians, such as Durant, Basham, Thapar (see some of the million plus google entries or the Encylpaedia link given by swarrier).

``...you are confusing a civilization, with an empire...much like D-M is doing......``

I did not and do not. I mentioned the accomplishments of a people, not of any empire or religion or a linguistic group. You have mentioned the non-commonality of Punjabis and Tamils. Even Tamils take pride in and identify with the Mohenjodaro, Harappa, Buddhist and Jain accomplishments. You may say that they have no right to feel commonality with these people, but they do and, as you said, feelings are subjective.

The only civilization which is being claimed by these south Indians was Indus civilization of what is now Pakistan.

Only Sindhi are the true inheritors of that civilization and we have the most ancient artifacts of that civilization. No south Indian can claim any part of the of the so called Indus civilization. They are different in every respect.....We don`t speak the same language, we dress differently and we behave differently. We do share this civilization with some parts of northern India but the Indus civilization has nothing to do with Bengali or Madrassis or keralavassis.

Indians are trying to claim the ownership of the Indus civilization..Chor uchakay....

#159 Genius-from-India Dharma writes `` Should we redicule the whole religion based on those people? ``.

So, having been caught lying, you tried wiggling away by claiming I was ridiculing hindu rituals only and not muslim. When I got you by the neck there, you try to wiggle out by claiming that I am ridiculing the entire religion of hinduism. And now I have you by the neck again: Where in my cut and paste do I ridicule the entire religion?? Lets see how you attempt to wiggle away again! :-)

From Will Durant :

Civilization is social order promoting cultural creation. Four elements constitute it: economic provision, political organization, moral traditions and the pursuit of knowledge and the arts. It begins where chaos and insecurity end. For when fear is overcome, curiosity and constructiveness are free, and man passes by natural impulse towards the understanding and embellishment of life.

Physical and biological conditions are only prerequisites to civilization; they do not constitute or generate it. Subtle psychological factors must enter into play. There must be political order, even if it be so near to chaos as in Renaissance Florence or Rome; men must feel, by and large, that they need not look for death or taxes at every turn. There must be some unity of language to serve as medium of mental exchange. Through church, or family, or school, or otherwise, there must be a unifying moral code, some rules of the game of life acknowledged even by those who violate them, and giving to conduct some order and regularity, some direction and stimulus. Perhaps there must also be some unity of basic belief, some faith -- supernatural or utopian -- that lifts morality from calculation to devotion, and gives life nobility and significance despite our mortal brevity. And finally there must be education -- some technique, however primitive, for the transmission of culture. Whether through imitation, initiation or instruction, whether through father or mother, teacher or priest, the lore and heritage of the tribe -- its language and knowledge, its morals and manners, its technology and arts -- must be handed down to the young, as the very instrument through which they are turned from animals into men.``

For some of us Ancient India had a common skein of thought running through it. A common philosophy , a common belief system (you can call it Hinduism if you want), a common philosophy, even a common lingua franca of sorts , places of hermitage and worship, arts etc. It is good enough to bind it together to form a civilisation if not for anything but the fact that these things were more common amongst this region than with places outside.

This vein of thought stems from ideas in circulation well before the 7th century. Those who choose to ascribe to this belief see an Indian civilisation. Those who don`t can choose to build their own.

After all civilisation as a word they say is easier to describe than define.

Re: # 127
``dharma, Genius Number 765, 875, 987.001 from India #123 Read this that I wrote in #64: but these religious rituals (hindu/muslim) seem a bit too convenient substitute for the more important things I think (i.e. cheat the customer, burn the bride, attack the minority, then go dip in the ganga, or toss pebbles at the devil and promise ``never again`` and God will wash away your sins.. Then repeat the process again the following year and become a ``double haji`` or a ``double guru`` or something.

Now repeat what you wrote in #123 below. And add ``cant read either`` to your other qualifications (lying etc.). Now, you can go to hell. :-)``

Ahmed Moron, Islam has become a bit too convinient excuse for rapists, multigamists, jihadis, sucide bombers etc.. Should we redicule the whole religion based on those people?

following is the definition of, ``civilization`` provided by a guide on archeology:

``Archaeologists recognize that in some cases, in some places, at some times, simple societies for one reason and another morph into more and more complex societies, and some become civilizations. The reasons for this are quite controversial, but the characteristics of complexity recognized in ancient civilizations are pretty much agreed upon:

social stratification and ranking,
increasing sedentism,
trade or exchange networks, leading to the presence of
luxury and exotic goods (such as the baltic amber trade),
metallurgy,
craft specialization,
control of food as in agriculture or pastoralism,
high population density,
monumental architecture,
writing system,
calendar,
centralized rule, and
armed military force.

Not all of these characteristics necessarily have to be present for a particular cultural group to be considered a civilization, but all of them are considered evidence of relatively complex societies``

stuka #151: ``All of these are subjective and Civilization means having some aspect of commonaliy rather than none.
``

yes, they are subjective.....just like most things defining life are subjective....but they do define some sort of a boundary and criteria.......they are a, ``best possible`` definition, though not a perfect one......if you have a better one, i am all ears......

``Based on Romair`s hypothesis, it is as wrong to say Roman and Greek and Chinese civilization as it is to say Indian Civilization``

...you are confusing a civilization, with an empire...much like D-M is doing......rome and greece were certainly civilizations......(actually i haven`t studied the greek side much, but do know something about the roman side)........

.......however the roman empire and greek empire were not civilizations.....they were empires conquered by civilizations that made other civilizations part of the geographical boundaries of the empire..... much like alexander was a product of a civilization....however, his empire was not one civilization.......ashoka was a product of a civilization.......however, he conquered more of south asia than anyone since or prior to his birth (including the british)..........and thus created an empire of differing civilzations......had ashoka`s descendants been able to keep their empire till today, then i think, ``india`` would have morphed into one civilization by now......

.......much like india and pakistan will morph into singular civilizations, if they remain intact for the coming centuries.......

Re: #155 bulleya,

How about if a large group of people see themselves as one civilization then they are one.

dost-mittar #147: ``If homogeneity, esp. linguistic, is a pre-requisite for a civilization, India is of course not one. But most people do not define it tha way...``

...linguistic homogenuity is not the defining pre-requisite, but an important factor....i would say factor no. 1......however there are other factors.....

...i am not sure how you or anyone can state how, ``most people`` define a civilization.......has a survey been taken....what exactly does, ``most people`` mean.....there is a dictionary defintion of civilization.......and then based on that one defines certain pre-requisites......obviously, like nearly all items in life, this is a subjective defintion.......however, it is better than no definition, at all......

........so far, i have not seen anyone on this site, provide a counter-list of pre-requisites...i would be more than happy to discuss that, as well.......the only thing i have seen so far, is that a civilization is defined by what ends up in a museum.......that is far too brittle a definition for you......

......i think a civilization is a meeting of the various factors i defined.......it is no doubt subjective......but one can get a feel for it......kind of like pornography....i.e. it is hard to define, but one knows is when one sees it......

........what one can define quite clearly is, what is, ``not`` a civilization......and i can say with a lot of certainity that punjabis and tamils were, historically, not part of one civilization (not that i have anything against tamils).......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1991890,00.html

`Why does everyone hate me?`


Thousands of viewers have complained about the racist bullying of Shilpa Shetty on Big Brother. But we should not be surprised by the housemates` behaviour - it reflects the widespread bigotry of British society, says Germaine Greer

Endemol must be over the moon because racism has raised its ugly head. Every time someone sends in a complaint to Ofcom about racism in the Big Brother house, the profile of the show is raised and Shilpa earns a bit more of her huge fee. But it`s a funny old world, to be sure. You can call her a ``dog``. Sexism is fine. What you mustn`t do is call her a ``Paki``. As if to be Pakistani was to be worse than being a dog. Our very tenderness on this issue is the flip side of racism, and still part of the same coin. If you call me an Aussie you don`t insult me because Aussieness is OK. Pakiness is evidently not OK.

Re: # 152

Not true.

Encyclopaedia Britannica

stuka: you conclude Romair / Bulleya is taking a clerical checklist approach to defining a civilization; whereas recognising and delineating the traits of a civilization is a subjective and acadamic excercise.

I agree when you say that defining a ``civilization`` is a subjective exercise. However, like DrDrs stopped clock, Romair gets it right one time in 43,700 tries. ( 43,700 = 60*60*12).

And this was it!! Thus, scholars talk of the Gandhara Civilization and of the Harappa Civilization. Scholars dont talk of an Indian Civilization. They talk of Indian History. No one other than Indians trying the ``same same culture, same same language....`` that you refer to talks of an Indian Civilization as if it was some monolithic entity with Brahmins in the temples and Untouchables in the latrines and all well with the world.