The article by Carlson is here: http://sepact.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-india-constitution-is-now-been-well.html Carlson: “Although one can certainly identify on the sub- continent commonalities of culture and heritage, we dont necessarily find the sharing of a common language – unless imposed by the Nation State - nor do we find a homogeneous religion among all people. In fact, the unified nation-state of India today was the result of the British drawing arbitrary boundaries to establish it.” S: Carlson is, as I always suspected, mostly innocent not only about India but about SA and Mother. SA has written extensively about what makes a nation and even addressed the language issue. Is Carlson saying that India would not have been a nation but for the British? Most of the other points are superficial as well but let me respond to two: Carlson: “Does the fact that the times have radically changed since 1950 make a difference in the original vision of Sri Aurobindo?”…..Well did his perceptions of geo-political events change after his transformation of consciousness regards Indian independence? Indeed they certainly did. In short over time his perspective on the conflict changed as well. As I understand it in 1965 Mother urged a full assault on Pakistan during the War, yet in 1973 her message on Pakistan was that without the need of military intervention the nation state of Pakistan would implode itself. Did Mother's perspective change between 1965 and 1973, well yes it appears to have changed measurably.” S: The idea that SA and Mother would have changed their views fundamentally is wishful thinking by Carlson. Just because his ideologies don’t permit him to accept what SA and Mother said then, and to justify his ‘association’ (slender it might be) with them he wants us all to imagine that their views WOULD necessarily be different at this point in time. What he doesn’t see is Mother’s clear implication that had India fought on in 1965 and then in 1971 the task would have been completed. It is because India did not do what was required whether out of pusillanimity or misplaced idealisms (and not because she “changed” her views) that Mother said it had to wait for another time. And that the next time Pak would implode. The rest of what she and SA said (for eg. about ‘...bring(ing) Pak under India’s military ambit’ or of the Indian Army having to be ready) is very striking and ominous but can’t be commented on right now. It’s clear to anyone who looks without ideological bias that Pak is fracturing and what Mother said decades ago is indeed happening. Thus, if anything, it is more likely that SA and Mother would not have changed their statements fundamentally and in many of their details. As to the kind of union India will form with ‘Pak’- both SA and Mother have spoken about it. In his independence day message SA clearly talks of a union that could have a “pragmatic if not fundamental importance”. And Mother has talked of a federation. Carlson: “Unfortunately this is the interrogation political Hindutva fails to make regarding Sri Aurobindo's social/political vision. …… although this glory should certainly be preserved to assert ones victimhood because the upheavals of history have unseated one's group dominance as a subculture within a larger south Asian cultural heritage, and then to seek to recover what was lost some millenium ago can only be called: reactionary” S: Again, the same lack of understanding of the subcontinent’s history and politics, the same paranoia, the same bogey and the same empty rhetoric! Perhaps Mr. Carlson can begin by advocating the return of California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona (all Mexican territories absorbed by the US). I can understand why he would sympathize with barbaric invaders, land-usurpers, and oppressors of other kinds that India faced time and again.