Recognition,

The answer to one of the oldest question known to mankind in its history: “Who are we?”

Why do human-beings keep pursuing these thorny ideas, especially so, in the case of nations – if we’re in so-called, “post-ideological” and “End-of-History” era?

More importantly, why does it still matter, to get accepted – and accord acceptance to other nations – in international community, as “Who we are?”

I’ve touched on these issues before, briefly, but given the recent international… ‘events’, I think its time to take a deep-dive in it.

When a nation recognizes the other one, it’s considered a profound moment in not just their bilateral relationship but it impacts the whole world. A small-tremor, a ripple, a gentle wave… all the way up to a monstrous earth-quake, a tidal wave, or a tsunami – depending on who’re the parties to the agreement.

Or disagreement.

Because as the wise old Newton once said: “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.”

So if the answer to “Who we are? As a nation?” is molded into soft, warm, pleasant and mellow ideas – by design or circumstances doesn’t matter – and indeed, shaped by pragmatic considerations devoid of all passions and emotions, the exact opposite to it will also be soft, pragmatic, calculative and devoid of all passions. (that might seem paradoxical but I’ll come to it in a moment.)

However, if the answer to “Who we are? As a Nation?” is forged in the fires of raging passions, violence, war, unimaginable death, destruction, genocide, ethnic cleansing, patent unfairness, profound loss – of entire generations at times, not to mention lands and landmarks, then, not only is this crucial answer extremely ideological, fanatic and passionate, but its distaste for the “exact opposite” is also going to be extreme.

What does it mean – and how does this simple concept translate into international geo-politics?

Taking cue from yet another, age old wisdom, it’s really rather simple: “What we’re inside, is how we see the outside world.”

So “Who we are? As a nation?” defines how we “recognize” the outside world.

Generally, nations recognize (or not recognize) each other based on their own national-interests, pragmatic calculations and the idea of their own nation.

Their own values and core-politics.

And hence, as far as the issue of “recognition” is concerned, the conflict between a nation defined by soft, easy, pragmatic ideas – devoid of all passions – and that of another nation it “views” as exact-opposite, is easily resolvable.  Because that’s how they see themselves. So either the conflict about recognition doesn’t exist in the 1^st place, or if it does, they believe that the 2 sides can easily sit down around a comfy table and work their differences out by way of negotiations and talking out their differences.

Equally, the conflict of recognition between the two extremes – in the latter case of a nation forged in the fires of extreme passions – remains, far from “easily-resolvable.”

That ideological conflict can also be shaped by very real ones.

Generally speaking, most countries aren’t in conflict with most of the other countries.

We have no conflict with, say, Argentina or Luxembourg or Tanzania or Laos or Costa-Rica or Bulgaria.

It doesn’t matter to us – and equally, it doesn’t matter to them – how they and us, define themselves. And so, there isn’t much hullabaloo when we recognized each other.

So, with all that heavy jargon out of the way, let’s get into the meat of the matter.

A short history-lesson of alleged birth of “Secular India” on 15^th august 1947

A few days ago, PM Modi said ‘Congress manifesto [for 2024 election] bears the imprint of Muslim League – and the rest is dominated by leftists.’

Since then, many people have tried to ‘decode’ his remarks. Some life-long congress-experts have even interpreted it purely on economic points.

But, when its election season in world’s biggest democracy and someone invokes Muslim League’s name, that too, the PM… inevitably, the issues are going to center around grand-narratives, back then.

Especially the Muslim-League’s anti-Hindu “Two-Nation theory.”

And in the alleged-response, the so-called “Secular Idea of India” peddled by congressis.

Because…it’s not about what the manifestos around the world say or doesn’t say.

Not really.

It’s about ultimately what it boils down to.

What’s the effective bottom-line?

Because “in theory”, Jinnah’s Muslim League and its P****stan resolution and subsequent “Muslim” discussions had nearly always talked about “protecting minority rights.”

But what happened, in reality?

Especially to Hindus in P****stan?

And so… that’s exactly why, it is imperative that we start scrutinizing what happened to Hindus – what was done to Hindus, and Bharat…in “Secular Idea of India.”

Yes, you read that right.

It’s well past time and damned important.

To question whether it was a sneaky little body-double; a substitute, for Muslim-League’s ultimate agenda itself?

A genius stratagem by Abrahmo-Leftists, to rule over Hindus by proxy. Denying the “kaffir” and the “infidel”… the “Hindoo savages”, their own homeland.

If you ask dishonest Tharoors, raging Jihadis, violent commies, sneaky conversion-mafia of missionaries, and all brown-sahebs who had really elevated the skill of committing repeated treason into an art-form, their lofty – if transparently deceitful – narrative about “Idea of India as envisaged by our founding fathers” is as follows: “See, when partition happened on religious lines, our great, Secular [of course seculars believe themselves as Gods, hence the caps, Secular] tolerant, magnanimous, visionary founding fathers had a choice: either follow in the footsteps of Pakistan, and define the ‘Idea of India’ in terms of religion too, and following that, declare India a majority religion based nation – OR, they could have it aspire to become something different, something better, something greater! They chose the latter path and made sure every ‘Indian’ would be Indian regardless of religion. Religion would not only not come to define citizenship of India but it’ll be the sole responsibility of religious-majority, to make religious-minorities feel ‘safer’ in India. Never mind the price they’ll have to pay. So that, what’s happening in Pakistan and its minorities, cannot be replicated in India.”

Barring aside the utterly heinous and disgusting, not to mention disingenuous, total equivalence drawn between Hindu Dharma and Islam – which neither religion themselves claim to do, it is, nevertheless, their consistent position whenever they scream about their ‘Idea of India’ and stomp their feet about ‘Constitution.’ A position that papers over a monstrous number of equally monstrous, inconvenient facts and runs roughshod over practical considerations, hard-lessons of history whose price of learning was paid by Hindus in massive blood, and indeed, the complete trampling of simplest possible common-sense.

Today, whenever anyone talks about “Hindu-Rashtra,” these bigoted monsters’ standard line of attack, immediately, is this: “So you want Hindu P****tan?”

It is true that partition-horrors are a singular tragedy in global history unparalleled anywhere in the world.

So, having gone through such humongous pains ourselves, whatever came out of it as ‘Idea of India’, would – or at least should – define how we “recognize” the world around us, right?

The 1^st obvious (and quite glaring) inconsistency – as far as our “glorious founding fathers’ alleged ironclad commitment to their own core ideology; their own, hallowed ‘Secular Idea of India’ is concerned… well, it can be found in this simple fact, when our so-called ‘newly born nation’ – united as “India”, thanks to British colonizers (according to Seculars) – was taking its 1^st baby steps:

If ‘Secular Idea of India’ was opposed to having a nation founded in the name of religion, or indeed having any State-Religion irrespective of its founding, then why did we “recognize” so many official

1.) Islamic nations and

2.) Christian nations

all around the world that were already existing?

Right from the beginning?

‘But it’s regarding our own country! We cannot decide how others view themselves!’

Is that the rising, indignant chorus I hear from Abrahmo-Leftist cabal coming our way?

Again, if we ourselves were a normal nation, having more or less common-trajectory of all other nations, even then, if we had adopted this ‘Secular Idea of India’ for ourselves, then it was extremely disingenuous jettisoning of that idea in favour of cruel, heartless, shrewd convenience and cynical opportunism.

But given that we actually had gone through a partition based on “religious lines”, where an unprecedented number of population suffered its horrors, meant, this alleged commitment should – and must – become a defining position in our nation’s core-psyche. Being forged in fires of war and ‘religion-based-partition’, it must play an extremely important role in how we deal with international geo-politics – starting with recognizing various countries.

Doubly so, if we started our journey – as fans of “Nehruvian consensus” never tire of reminding us – as “a paragon of moral superiority and well-respected international leader of righteousness and hope.”

Why didn’t we try to spread it around then?

Because…

Look no further than how other countries considered their own respective core-ideologies, their founding values – and how they tried to advance it in the world.

1. The western colonizers believed in capitalism and liberalism (not to mention all their screaming about “democracy!”) and did everything possible, overt and covert, to spread it around the world.
2. The godless commie monsters believed in totalitarian model of total subjugation of individual to the collective whole, and did everything possible, covert and overt, to spread it around the world.
3. The Islamist believed in Jihadi subjugation of the whole world for their one, true religion, and did everything possible, overt and covert, to spread it around the world.
4. The christian missionaries more or less believed the same thing, but, having suffered a setback in the form of “Secularism” (the original model) in 17th-18th century and then again, at the end of their collective “Colonization of savages from global south” after 1945, meant they did everything possible, overt and covert, but mostly covert, to spread it around the world.
5. The Jews had gone through holocaust, and they believed in “Never Again”, and did everything possible, overt and covert, to spread it around the world. In fact, its the jewish political activism that contributed significantly and shaped the post WW-II  “Rules-based-international-order” rooted in ‘minority-rights’ and its ‘universalism’. A fundamentally flawed approach whose bloody price the Jews themselves are paying right now! Not just in Israel but all over the world.

Anyway…

Everyone believed in their core-ideological commitment, as a nation, as an upholder of a set of values –  right or wrong doesn’t matter – enough to do everything possible to get it adopted by the rest of the world.

By both overt and covert methods.

What did we do?

Why didn’t our glorious founding fathers have similar faith in their own hallowed, super-duper morally-superior, ‘Idea of India’?

Or their descendants?

If – as ‘Nehruvian consensus’ diehards would have us believe – that ‘India under his glorious, secular leadership was a global beacon of heightened political and moral wisdom’, why didn’t they try to make other nations adopt it?

After all, we did invent a wholly new form of “Secularism” that was probably unprecedented in the whole world’s political thought. Where not only the Nation wouldn’t have a State-religion but indeed, the majority religion and its beliefs are pushed to the margins, with State leading the charge against it, doing massive interference in its religious affairs, but then, at the same time, State would not only leave minorities alone, but indeed believe that “minorities have the 1^st right on national resources.”

Why didn’t we try to advance this “revolutionary Secular idea” all over the world?

If it was so good for us, why not others?

Hmm?

Or even if others wouldn’t buy into this hokum, why didn’t we ourselves, have ‘enough moral courage’, to not formally recognize all Nation-States having a State-Religion – until they stopped having a… well, State-Religion? Or indeed, started adopting this “Indian Secularism model”?

But – and here comes the really tricky, sneaky part.

If alleged Seculars would scream, again, ‘It’s called ‘Idea of India!’ you dim-witted, nasty, bigoted, Hinditva-vadi fool of a fascist! It’s NOT called ‘Idea of Saudi-Arabia’, nor ‘Idea of United Kingdom’ nor ‘Idea of Israel’! It’s the ‘IDEA OF INDIA!’ Get it? Or do you want us to drill it in your thick-skull?’

Then…

Apart from a request to leave my head alone from a secular beheading…I’d like to draw all these Nehruvian consensus diehards’ attention to how ‘Idea of India’ responded to ‘Idea of Israel’.

In 1947.

Around the same time, when all our 4 countries ‘came into existence’ : Bharat, P****stan, Israel and Palestine.

(To be continued…)