Strategic leadership for the future of India

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 24 Jun 2009 02:46

Ramana: They say in tamil "yaanai irundhalum aayirum pon, saerthaloom aayirum pon" {An elephant is valuable dead or alive} So is the term 'Gandhi'. As the author points out not many Indians really follow Gandhi's footsteps. But shrewd politicians have hijacked his name for their own gains.

The author's views are from the Western framework. Irrespective of who defines Gandhi - Indians or non-Indians; the point is Gandhi is being polished & shaped and over a period of time can become a different personality than what he was. I still remember my late grand-mother counter-arguing with me; in a argument about our own gods/goddesses she posited that after few hundred/thousands of years 'Gandhi' would become a god.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jun 2009 03:07

In Berkely California, in 1986, I saw an image of Gandhi as an icon in the Russian Orthodox manner depicting him as a Jesus. I wish I had bought the print for when I went back to buy it was gone!

Since then I have studied quite few books on Gandhi but the best are by himself "My experiments with Truth" and "Hind Swaraj". I have read psychologists studying him and detractors.

The West is studying him to understand how can a figure be so close to the Jesus figure and be real.

The key in my limited mind is his tyaag or sacrifice or ihaloka rejection.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Jun 2009 03:21

I think Albert Einstein gave WEST's impression of Bappu a good boost which made Gandhi Jesus like figure .. and forced indian public to bear and carry the cross without cry or complaint .

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Jun 2009 03:36

ramanaji,
yes it is MKG. For me, as the brand, only MKG can claim the "Gandhi" lable - he alone (with perhaps inputs from sectiosn of the Anglo-Saxon press both sides of the Atlantic) made it into very nearly a brand. Others have merely hijacked it.

I am seeking discussion not on his historical role and contribution or image - but what his methodology represents in a modern Indian context.

As far as western images are concerned, they will of course try to capture his essence in the model they are best used to thinking in terms of. Gandhi's life captures uncannily the Christian reconstruction of the old Egyptian/Mediterranean sacrificing theme of "god/godlike" figures sacrificing themselves for the general "good/resurgence of creation" (the Osiris/Seth/Isis imagery).

Let us put that aside, and analyze his methodology as we Indians think they will implement as, or take the form of, in current Indian context. How will his method apply to problems of Maoist or Jihadi insurgency? Towards Pakistan? Does it have any relevance at all? If any what it is ?

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 24 Jun 2009 03:40

"Real Gandhi" brand should be national. Narrowing the scope to usurp Gandhi by individual parties doesn't cut it. Moreover, trying to build real Gandhi brand through (using) fake-Gandhi aka Nehru brands is an excercise in futility and goes a long way in building Nehru brand of Gandhi.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Jun 2009 04:03

No, we are not discussing recreating a "Gandhi" brand to be used by the "Nehru-Gandhi" brand as a corporate piracy act. How would a MKG react in modern setup in India to concrete problems? How far can we extrapolate MKG's methods to current situation, if at all! Or is there an alternative model we have to go for.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 24 Jun 2009 04:13

^^ Brihaspatiji, no I did not mean about that. My comments were regarding the copying of tactics of congress by the BJP, while sneering usage of dynasty. Basically, BJP acknowledged that strategy using dynasty is expedient one and BJP is willing to play by the similar rules and strives hard to be "Congress B team". It was suggested to cultivate Gandhi brand of hindutva one had to resort to use 'dynasty politics'. My comments were regarding that.
In the meantime, discussing MKG tactics is worthwhile.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Jun 2009 04:25

Jwalamukhiji,
I concur - I am also left with a bitter taste in my mouth about that. However VG is less of a dynastic figure. And his "famous" surname will actually always be a burden for him. Sections within the party are perhaps cynically using him and his mother, but I am pretty sure that he will not be taken to the forefront - because the very "brand" that makes his useful, also makes him a bit of a "hot potato". I can understand the psychological background from which his reactions are coming, but I do not think the party will allow him to come to the top. Which in a sense is a pity, but perhaps also tactically unavoidable.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 24 Jun 2009 04:26

Let us put that aside, and analyze his methodology as we Indians think they will implement as, or take the form of, in current Indian context. How will his method apply to problems of Maoist or Jihadi insurgency? Towards Pakistan? Does it have any relevance at all? If any what it is ?

Time and time again for me the answer, if it can be summarized by one word, is - ideologies. What are the goals - the end points; and what are the values - the means to the end points. So what is that the Leadership eschews?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Jun 2009 04:36

MKG's "ideology" evolved throughout his lifetime. But the main features of his methodology appears to have remained virtually unchanged. This was to raise issues which forced the differences or distance between the "ruled" and the "ruler" in sharp publicly visible contrast. His objective, as shown by his methodology, but denied by him from time time ideologically, was what I characterize as "de-integration" of the "ruled" from the "ruler". The awareness of differences and acknowledgement of such differences go a long way towards delelgitimizing any regime in the minds of those who are acknowledging such differences.

His non-violence was a product of a specific set of political conditions of post WWI British imperial admin policy where MKG was basically using what can be called a military tactical posture - of choosing his battleground and the time of battle. This may or may not work out in all regime situations.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 24 Jun 2009 05:02

If the author from the article is to be believed, then even MKG's methodology has changed.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2009 09:30

SwamyG wrote:If the author from the article is to be believed, then even MKG's methodology has changed.

And why not? Gandhi was intelligent enough to weigh his opponents, gauge the strength of his own side and calibrate his tactics to wear down what he saw as his opponents in a way that sullied them without sullying him. He was a genius and to that extent trying to emulate Gandhi's methodology might be like trying to emulate Einstein's "methodology".

Having said that it might still be possible to summarize the overall thrust of his tactics and their effect. Nirad Chaudhuri is (as is to be expected from him) scathing of Gandhi. He says that independence would have come with our without Gandhi - the signs were clear to him as early as 1921. That may be true - but that is like saying India would have been xyz had Babar not invaded. Well Babar did come and there is not a lot you can do to erase that. So Gandhi was there at that time and in place and did some things that have gone down in history as follows:

1) Gandhi stood for equality, dignity and self sufficiency for all Indians (He publicly opposed social inequality, loudly proclaimed equality of all Gods, and publicly shunned material of British origin as long as he could shun the. Khadi, refusal of Penicillin for his wife - etc fall into this category)

2) As an apostle of non violence and peace: I believe this is where Gandhi's "Chankianness" has been misinterpreted. Gandhi was hardly a peacenik until he really figured out the psyche of the Indian "aam junta" - the sheeple of India. A population living just of the poverty line were averse to picking up arms and fighting in a situation where injury/death from fighting was worse than surviving at poverty line. So he did not ask them to fight with arms. He asked them to fight by non cooperation - i.e not doing what the Brits had got accustomed to having done by Indians. This was one of his cleverest games, because the Indian sheeple would not normally get up and fight, but would be roused to anger if they were beaten for doing nothing. This is exactly what he provoked. Any coercive reaction from the British to non cooperation served as a trigger for a violent response even while Gandhi pretended to wear a halo and preach non violence and negotiated with a gun at his own head (fast unto death) to stop violence. Nobody could do anything about the fact that he provoked the violence in an indirect way. He was too clever by half than anyone else of his era and in the decades thereafter.

Each one of Gandhi's tactics had utility at that time and [place and are not necessarily timeless. Gandhi is timeless, but his tactics had a time and place where they were appropriate. In other words Gandhi had tactics, but the tactics are not Gandhi.

So you find that every one of his tactics has been misused and raped by the people who came after Gandhi, even as we put up pictures of Gandhi, bedeck them with flowers and pray to him as if he were God.

For example Gandhis "social equality" has morphed into the monster of reservation

Gandhi's "Khilafat" morphed into Pakistan, but his "Ishwar Allah tere naam" was a Chankian move that reduced Allah from his pedestal without attracting a death sentence on Gandhi as a blasphemer. Such was his influence.

Gandhis "non cooperation" led to the use of "bandh calls" by every two bit politician to paralyse the economy of independent India

Gandhis "non violence" is being used as a "brand" for India, allowing the Indian government to avoid fighting war even when war is necessary.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 24 Jun 2009 09:48

brihaspati wrote:No, we are not discussing recreating a "Gandhi" brand to be used by the "Nehru-Gandhi" brand as a corporate piracy act. How would a MKG react in modern setup in India to concrete problems? How far can we extrapolate MKG's methods to current situation, if at all! Or is there an alternative model we have to go for.

I dont see a problem with studying MKG's methods, reasons for his success etc. But asking whether his methods apply today sounds similar to the "What would Jesus do?" bumper stickers one sees in the U.S. Or the inane "Gandhi is still relevant" headlines that appear like clockwork in the national dailies on Oct 2nd. It reflects a paucity of independent thought, IMHO.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jun 2009 10:24

brihaspati wrote:Jwalamukhiji,
I concur - I am also left with a bitter taste in my mouth about that. However VG is less of a dynastic figure. And his "famous" surname will actually always be a burden for him. Sections within the party are perhaps cynically using him and his mother, but I am pretty sure that he will not be taken to the forefront - because the very "brand" that makes his useful, also makes him a bit of a "hot potato". I can understand the psychological background from which his reactions are coming, but I do not think the party will allow him to come to the top. Which in a sense is a pity, but perhaps also tactically unavoidable.

Starplus TV, a Murdoch channel in India, had an awards show on Sunday. Now that the elections are over, one of the items was spoof on VG and his mother Maneka with approving nods from the bollywood audience.

Swamyg, the author has many crosses he is carrying. he hates Hinduism, Gandhiji and India. He looks at everything from a judeo-christian pov. His biggest ire is when Westerners praised Gandhiji as a Christ like figure.

I shredded the printout.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Jun 2009 17:34

Prem Kumarji,
Exploring whether and how much of Gandhi's "methods" are still or at all applicable, is still relevant for two fundamental reasons : (a) it has been made into a standard both by Indian ruling elite and their western comrades, by which any or all of theor critics and political opponents can be judged and delegitimized in the public mind (never themselves) (b) its hold has become so strong that even political groups who otherwise have no obvious compatibility with the ideology or methodology of MKG have been forced to take on the "brand" in their bandwagon.

It is not about independent line of thinking - to become truly independent, you have to first learn to recognize what is it that binds you and why. This was the main line of the question - to explore how far MKG really binds us, how far is that binding relevant now, how far should we toy with or reject it if we realize it has outlived its utility? Or is there a fundamental lesson in his methods that we can still apply for our understanding.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Jun 2009 18:47

I I am requoting a passage of my own I posted earlier: MKG's tactics/methodlogy and relevance is perhaps best understood by studying his critics - and within the Indian framework the best candidate are the Marxists' reaction:

"I would start with an analysis of M.K. Gandhi, who serves us with a curious but important political phenomenon that throws up the real deintegration-integration currents working in Indian society, and provides an excellent clue to the dilemmas of the left.

In my analysis of Gandhi, I would restrict my attention to two books by "eminent" Marxists, Hiren Mukherjee's Gandhiji and E.M.S. Namboodiripad's The Mahatma and the Ism, to show that Gandhi comes very close to the personification and ideological undercurrent of deintegration-integration prevalent in India. They show in historical detail his reluctance to take up worker's and peasants demands, his opposition to strikes and non-payment of rent to the landlords, his restriction of mass movements which he himself had helped to ignite, his pressure tactics aimed at bargaining rather than fighting to the finish. Mukherjee holds these calling off of mass movements responsible for immediate growth in communal tension ( a remarkable coincidence indeed). E.M.S. points out Gandhi's differences with the bourgeoisie, and his differences therefore with both the moderates and extremists, and at the same time his acceptance as a leader by both sections which he attributes to Gandhi's ability to arouse the mass as also the ability to restrict them in favour of Indian bourgeoisie.
Both however see in Gandhi qualities that seem to go beyond the class character-of his politics. Mukherjee sees in him 'the soul of our land', his strength in a combination of mysticism with a vivid practical sense 'the most formidable of all combinations'. He sees the greatest contribution in his quality of fearlessness. While Mukherjee thus ceases on specific features (such as fearlessness, mysticism, practical sense ), E.M.S. takes a more political approach, until he focuses on the last years of Gandhi's life, where the Mahatma stood alone, adhering to his principles, neglected by the Congress which wanted power at any price.

This leads necessarily to the recognition that Gandhi cannot be understood entirely in terms of class interests. E.M.S. in his chapter on 'Meaning of Gandhism', characterizes him as an idealist not only in the philosophical sense, 'but also in the sense that he kept before him certain ideals to which he clung till the end of his life.' It was this idealism that 'played a big role in rousing the hitherto slumbering million of the rural poor'. E.M.S. here concedes that it was Gandhi's 'reactionary' views that 'enabled him to form a bridge between the mass of peasantry and the sophisticated representatives and leaders of the modern national democratic movement'. It was this idealism also which isolated him from the bourgeoisie. 'It is when we examine this growing gulf between him and his colleagues in the last days of his life that we come to a really objective all-sided assessment of Gandhiji, the man and his mission. For this growing gulf was the manifestation of the reality that Gandhij's insistence on certain moral values had once been helpful to the bourgeoisie, but became, in the last days of his life, a hindrance to it'.

Gandhi represented the political tactics of active promotion of deintegration and Subhas Bose represented the military path of deintegration. Both had realized, but not in the terminology used here, that active promotion of deintegration was possible. But their deintegration was deintegration from the imperialist powers. The British had ironically helped to create the conditions for deintegration by partially integrating the pre-colonial social forces in a political system not fully integrated with colonizing country - as also maintaining the non-integrating factors within the Indian society itself, i.e., the classical bureaucracy-producer divide or potential for deintegration within Indian society itself. Gandhi and Bose's deintegration meant deintegration from the British and thus both were faced with the problem of solving the deintegration existing within the colony itself - each tried to integrate the society in his own way - one culturally the other militarily.

The communists of the period seem to have missed the essential dynamics of this integration deintegration process and thus were isolated from the political undercurrent or main thrust of the historical trend. Thus their efforts and debates became virtually frustrating searches for parallels between the European experience and the Indian one - as the whole framework of analysis had been transferred almost unaltered from the European scene."

negi · Post by **negi** » 25 Jun 2009 22:41

Brihaspati ji your posts are too fundoo for me to grasp however I will take this oppertunity to highlight the most impressive and enlightening comment from one of your posts wrt MKG.

"I would have doubts about you as a patriot if you are not angry with MKG before the age of 30, and doubts about you as an Indic if you dont admire him after the age of 30".

I can personally vouch for the first part... time will tell if the second one applies in my case.

regards
negi

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Jun 2009 06:01

^^^because it really takes maturity to admire the qualities of a person we utterly dislike.

But no need to feel disheartened - for some in the current LOI, it does not seem to come even at 39.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 26 Jun 2009 09:51

.

His movement ran solely on money that came via Indian elitemen as directed by British officials. And this Indian elitemen and thus British officials were running Mohanbhai and his Congress from behind the curtain. The British officials ensured that the movement will only cause inaction. WW2 forced Britishers to give guns and trainning to 45 lakh Indian soldiers. In 1946, these soldiers got inspired by Subhashjee and hence came Navy Revolution, Jabalpur Revolution and many such Revolutions across India. And so British left India.

Contribution of Congress and Mohanbhai was .... ZERO.

----

Now I am 41yrs old, and I still believe that MKG's contribution towards freedom was zero. That makes me what? Brainless? non-indic? So be it.

.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 26 Jun 2009 10:03

negi wrote:"I would have doubts about you as a patriot if you are not angry with MKG before the age of 30, and doubts about you as an Indic if you dont admire him after the age of 30".

Sigh, I have always admired him and been angry with him at the same time (well I guess I have been angrier at the hijacking of congress by Nehru cabal) before and after 30? So what does that make me?

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 26 Jun 2009 12:05

some 13.8% posts in this threads were Mohanbhai-centric. And some 30.4% posts were past centric and not future oriented.

If it is within the thread scope, can someone give details on another stalwart leader of of India - JPN alias JP alias Jayprakash Narayan?

I am anti-JP.

---

brahaspati,

if you think that JP is outside the scope of the thread, pls let me know and I will delete this post.

.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Jun 2009 17:16

RM,
There were certain aspects of MKG that made him an attractive proposition to "invest" in, by those you mention as the real culprits. I think in my previous posts I have tried to make this clear, that the reason for studying his methods is not to enhance his prestige or hold on the public imagination, but to learn where we have to be careful in the future.

JP is very much within the scope. I was waiting for someone to bring him up. As a tiny tot I was taken along on one of his marches which my parents joined - in the last leg of the "emergency". I studied his collected works later. I am inclined towards your position w.r.t JP.

But for me studying characters like JP and MKG is to atry and analyze the reasons such characters find their utility in the indian framework, and whether we have any lessons for the future as to what we should look for and correct or change in a potential future leader.

I am uncomfortable with the general attitude, that leaders are somehow "accidental" creatures, and we have no real control over the process of formation of leadership - even leadership that breaks existing paradigms - even paradigms of leadership.

The role of leaders who appear to draw public opinion around them and their agenda is undeniable in history and any future trajectory. This is the reason the past and characters like MKG and if you will, JP comes up. The first spawned (yes with outside and inside help, but still spawned formally) the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty which continues to affect us, and the second spawned characters like the redoubtable Yadavs of the Gangetic belt, which continues to affect us. Do we want to learn from that, and try not to repeat - or reject it all as an exercise in raking up the past?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Jun 2009 22:01

So Rahul Mehtaji what do you find wrong with Jai Prakash Narayan? He is an very important post-Gandhi leader who should be better undertood for the forces he unleashed are those raging even now.

While at look at his education. Where was he educated and what formed his world view?

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 27 Jun 2009 09:03

ramana wrote:So Rahul Mehtaji what do you find wrong with Jai Prakash Narayan? He is an very important post-Gandhi leader who should be better undertood for the forces he unleashed are those raging even now.

While at look at his education. Where was he educated and what formed his world view?

brihaspati wrote:JP is very much within the scope. I was waiting for someone to bring him up. As a tiny tot I was taken along on one of his marches which my parents joined - in the last leg of the "emergency". I studied his collected works later. I am inclined towards your position w.r.t JP.

Neta do many things of which two are important

1. Create mass movements against another neta

2. Draft laws that would improve India. The passing or not passing of the DRAFT is something neta alone cannot do, but drafting is something he alone or his colleagues can indeed do.

Anti-neta movement are disruptive and society loses, but if it results into a law that improves administration, that net gain is significant. But if a neta confines to anti-neta movement alone and never spends a minute in providing drafts needed to improve the administration, his motives are malafide.

JP in his life never gave even one DRAFT to improve Govt. We all know that only way PM, MPs, CM, MLAs can improve Indian administration is by passing drafts in the Parliament, Assembly etc. Even after citizens gave crores of votes to JP's men in Janata Party, JP consistently refused to give DRAFTS of the law needed to improve India and insisted on confining theorizing. JP was doctor who would give 400 page report on illness to the patient, but would not cite medicine name in his report and would oppose every medicine known in the world. Which is why I am anti-JP.

JP asked armed forced and policemen to disobey Indira Amma TWICE. When he did first time, Indira Amma issued a warrant against him, but senior Congressmen convinced her to cancel the warrant. Indira Amma agreed, but had clearly mentioned that if JP were to make such demand again, second warrant will not be canceled. JP again re-iterated his appeal to policemen and armed forces to disobey Indira Amma, and this was BEFORE emergency was declared. Had he made such appeal AFTER emergency was invoked, I would not make it a point against JP. But asking armed forces and policemen to disobey PM twice is unpardonable action on part of a senior leader.

After 1972, CIA decided to teach Indira Amma a lesson for splitting Pakistan into two. And when Indira Amma detonated Nuke Test, even USSR was unhappy. So tons of money came into India to overthrow Indira Amma. I am NOT alleging that JP took the CIA money. But it is cold fact that CIA and JP had a common enemy and often common enemies become friends. Did JP assist his friends in getting CIA money? I dont know and now we will never know - the Kudal Commission formed in 1982 did prove that many NGOs run by JP's close friends received huge foreign funds between 1972-1978, and more after Nuke Test.

There were many problems in India after 1972 and more after 1974. JP channelized the public anger against India Amma. I was mere 8 years old in 1975, but I remember one neta making speech (before emergency) against some police high handedness in Gujarat. The guy was blaming Indira Amma for policemen beating commons. IOW, every time something went wrong, JP and his guys would blame Indira Amma, and demand her resignation. Such brain dead movement can pick ONLY if there is huge funding to back such movement And when JP's men came in power, JP did not take any initiative to keep the promised he had made in the Janata Party manifesto.

So my belief is that JP was not a constructive person to become with. May be he had good intentions when he started in his youth, but never had mental capability to go beyond theorizing. And he got royally used by CIA and others who did not want to see Indian Military become strong, and so decided to pull down Indira Amma who was strengthening Indian Military.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Jun 2009 03:30

RM,
what is the problem if certain types of leadership concentrate on their ability to get a grip on the broader picture, and certian other types of leaders to get a grip on practical implementation - in the process often changing elements of the original broad vision? The two abilities may not be coexistent in a single individual, and perhaps with good reason. Someone thinking right from the beginning on practical implementation will tend to get bogged down in existing conditions and details, and his suggestions or methods may not be able to make jumps that are needed to make complete breaks with the existing system if necessary.

On the other hand, a broad visionary, will always look too far into the future, or work based on imagined models which just may turn out to be fabulously prescient and useful but whose practical implementation he may be very bad at - because of his lcak of attention to details.

These could be two different mindsets and methods of thinking. And it just might be useful to have both type working together and helping each other to correct themselves.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 28 Jun 2009 03:58

actually that is a serious problem that RM mentions. There are major structural issues in adminstration and the CM types by and large dont address this.
it is not the job of CM for example to build and inaugurate roads, parks toilets etc etc. but that is what they constantly focus on and ignore adminstrative & framework type of issues. even when campaining of assembly posts, the candidates promise water, road in their constituency. that is not their job and not in their mandate. i forget now, but there is something called 74th amendment an arcane thingie that addresses these issues.

JP need not be a practical man, and remain a masterful theoretician. But he could have tasked somebody to "write drafts" that would have realized his theory, no?

what RM says is correct there are many politicians who are draft writers, every neta fancies himself as theoretician and that is a problem. perhaps a fall out of having to face elections. this maybe a surprise, but devegowda was one of the draft writer types. you can often see him carrying huge piles of documents and spouting a whole lot of sections and amendments and perhaps one of the few who can prolly give an impromptu speech on rules and regulations. but he used all that knowledge for personal gains mostly. our current cm is more of a road builder type. useless, once he is gone the roads will have potholes again and no system in place that proactively takes care of it.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Jun 2009 04:36

FWIW, a critique of the richard greiner article.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.cult ... fb61?pli=1

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 28 Jun 2009 06:06

rahul bhai, some unsolicited advice.

as we say you think too much like a gumastha(clerk), rules and regulations. perhaps the only character in entire brf who believes in the constitution of modern india and in the 'system'. see, all the rest of us will talk about leaders, but you talk about systemic things like drafts. you and ssridhar are perhaps the only two characters who believe in the western concept of law as opposed to the indic tendency to justice and justice is not systemic but personal and therefore case by case and adhoc. i am sure you know the difference between law and justice.

in SI, there are more characters per capita who swear by law than the rest of the country. with TN having more of these types. perhaps a fallout of being under the british for a long time. but all that is useless. the good news is that our current home minister, PC, is one of these types. lot of by the book thinking. he is your draft writing type of guy. he is not god but he is ok. if you can polish your message a bit(for example take out references to christianists, for the moment), then i think PC will be interested in your story. try him.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 28 Jun 2009 16:22

brihaspati wrote:RM,
what is the problem if certain types of leadership concentrate on their ability to get a grip on the broader picture, and certian other types of leaders to get a grip on practical implementation - in the process often changing elements of the original broad vision? The two abilities may not be coexistent in a single individual, and perhaps with good reason. Someone thinking right from the beginning on practical implementation will tend to get bogged down in existing conditions and details, and his suggestions or methods may not be able to make jumps that are needed to make complete breaks with the existing system if necessary.

On the other hand, a broad visionary, will always look too far into the future, or work based on imagined models which just may turn out to be fabulously prescient and useful but whose practical implementation he may be very bad at - because of his lcak of attention to details.

These could be two different mindsets and methods of thinking. And it just might be useful to have both type working together and helping each other to correct themselves.

DRAFTING is something that would be visionary, practical would organizing rallies, distributing leaflets etc. The visionary leaders would often ask Law Dept IAS to draft the laws and when laws give defunct outputs, they blame and say "Law Dept IAS did not do a good job in writing the details". This is not once or twice, but scores of time. And in this blamegame, we commons get royally screwed.

And I dont see any "visionary vs practical" people dichotomy (as long as word practical doesn't mean "you must give bribes"). I dont mind JP being more visionary and less practical. The issue is that JP talked about sampoorna kranti aka total revolution, lokniti aka people's polity, right to recall for over 25 years of his post independence career. He collected crores of votes from on these issues in 1977 election. So it becomes very much his moral responsibility to deliver the laws that mean sampoorna kranti , lokniti , right to recall etc, If MPs refuse to pass them, it would be another matter. But if he chose not to even provide the DRAFTS, then something was wrong his intent, not his being visionary.

I often run into JP's colleagues. And I openly accuse that I doubt JP's motives because he did not give DRAFTS of the law he wanted for 25 years, even after people voted his men in power. If MPs dont pass the drafts, I would not blame him much - but responsibility to ensure that those DRAFTS get presented in Parliament did lie on his shoulders. In addition, his men were in State Govt for ages, but he never gave drafts even at the State Govt level. One of the JP's bhagat said "writing drafts is clerical work" !! Well, then why didn't JP hired a few clerks and got it done?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Jun 2009 17:52

RM,
I was expecting you to counter my point with the only well known examples of visionary leaders in history who also drafted laws. These examples would have shown a common feature. In the western world and in Russia, these are Gaius Julius Caesar, (there are several other well known Romans, like Caesar's uncle Marius, the dictator and one-time lieutenant Sulla, all military commanders), Alfred of England, Peter I of Russia, Napoleon Bonaparte, and the more active in organizing military resistance against the British overlordship among the founding fathers of the USA. In ME, the most well-known example would be Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam.

Can you recognize the common features ? All dictatorial, military commanders mostly. All faced with the urgent need of creating new social structures and regimes for a society perceived to be in crisis and facing external or internal overwhelming threats, or in a state of internal/external siege.

To be fair, there are perhaps two different levels of law-making - one for the gradual, almost imperceptible adjustment of a society largely at peace with itself and outside, over time and changes in socio-economic realities. The other is the drastic and rapid changes required for a society to survive when its pre-existing legal and ideological framework manifesting in laws, have obviously failed to provide or guarantee survival.

Law-making is a two-way process, drafting on the one hand, but also guaranteeing that the laws are implementable and that it would not mean substantial departure of the majority of the society from what they can implement. This of course means that certain laws can be imposed by sheer military force against the wishes of the majority. But history shows, that outcomes over the long run for such impositions are quite dicey and not always having desired outcomes. Sometimes the forces that tried to implement unimplementable laws were destroyed themselves in the end.

I seriously appreciate the effort you have put in, in creating drafts of laws. But, they may have to wait a paradigm shift in the viewpoint of the majority to lend you sufficient force to get these laws accepted. I think you are the visionary who is spelling out the future too far before its time. Nothing wrong in that, from a personal viewpoint, as some of the stuff I have suggested here also look at the far and not immediate future. But I hope you realize, that it needs a change of political vision and desire in the people for that order of radical change.

I guess we differ in identifying the vehicles for that change in different sources of ideology and political support. I believe in ideological motivations and construction of driving factors that enlists and entwines the majority using modifications and reinterpretations of paradigms that they are already familiar with. I interpret your position as trying to convince them of the utility of laws directly. Hopefully, the two can complement each other.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Jun 2009 05:17

RM,
sorry for having insisted on 30 before - maybe standardization of age is a relative factor.

The key to MKG's method, now in its possible relevant form is the promotion of alienation from a system/regime that is seen not to be supportive of the basic interests of an identity. MKG saw this identity in a community primarily bound together in its religious-cultural network. His concern for example about the "harijans" came from this need to integrate and plug the loopholes in that unificatory framework. MKG's religious interpretation led him reconstruct the cultural heritage of the majority in India and show that it was fundamentally different from the alien ideology that was used by imperial colonial regime to justify its rule. It was because MKG's inspiration was faith based, but he tried to deny this basis by casting it in a form that would be unrecognizable as faith based, whatever "secular" - multi-faith garb he chose to give it, that his ultimate inability to integrate Muslims to his cause lies in.

MKG realized where the Indic differs from the British, and from the Abrahamic. But his attempt to redraw the Indic framework into something that will accommodate the Abrahamic, was his error. His assessment that the Indic needed political and rashtryia control over its own destiny, was correct. He saw the British imperial colonial regime as the primary obstacle and sought to remove it from power. His failure to realize that the Abrahamic cannot be integrated into the Indic, has cost the Indic dearly.

Any regime in India that accommodates the Abrahamic is repeating the error of MKG. By MKG's line, such a regime is against the interests of the Indic. What to do with such regimes is the question of leadership for the future.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Jun 2009 05:26

JP was calling for revolt by IA urging them to disobey the GOI. Janta Party government kicked IBM out and it was the same time China started the economic reform , the result are here now what JP and his Junta unleashed on Indian Public. He was cluless, visionless leader, just like many of his time.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 30 Jun 2009 06:33

brihaspati wrote:RM,
I was expecting you to counter my point with the only well known examples of visionary leaders in history who also drafted laws. These examples would have shown a common feature. In the western world and in Russia, these are Gaius Julius Caesar, (there are several other well known Romans, like Caesar's uncle Marius, the dictator and one-time lieutenant Sulla, all military commanders), Alfred of England, Peter I of Russia, Napoleon Bonaparte, and the more active in organizing military resistance against the British overlordship among the founding fathers of the USA. In ME, the most well-known example would be Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam.

Ahahhahahahah! What is this?! People who draft laws are automatically totalitarian dictators. Brihaspati - what has happened, man? I hope you're being sarcastic because this is a joke that I refuse to take seriously.

I seriously appreciate the effort you have put in, in creating drafts of laws. But, they may have to wait a paradigm shift in the viewpoint of the majority to lend you sufficient force to get these laws accepted. I think you are the visionary who is spelling out the future too far before its time. Nothing wrong in that, from a personal viewpoint, as some of the stuff I have suggested here also look at the far and not immediate future. But I hope you realize, that it needs a change of political vision and desire in the people for that order of radical change.

Why are we even talking about drafting? Is such a mundane bureucratic act really worth rallying against? Better to have it than not, no? Of course, belief in the political system is already there in droves - why do you think so many people vote? This idea that India should wait before implementing change is silly - change doesn't happen without people like Rahul having their "small revolutions". Better to cultivate such habits now than waiting, because it won't happen later.

People are the same way - habits that are inculcated in a child continue on in adulthood.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Jun 2009 18:51

Keshavji,
It was neither a joke nor an attack. Just plain dry observation. Look up the names, I mentioned. Their direct involvement in drafting laws is widely acknowledged, and their role in creating laws or legal frameworks that appear to survive till today or have a lasting impact till today - is also widely accepted by scholars. It also appears that their efforts at directing and drafting laws have had more impact than leaders who were not military dictators.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 30 Jun 2009 20:25

Alright Brihaspati, I'll play you're game.. to an extent.

If you look at clinical personality profiles (that psychologists use to group people into specific psychological mindsets), there are four categories:

Guardians
Rationals
Idealists
Artisans

In the rational category, there are four subcategories: Architect, Inventor, Field Marshal, and Mastermind.

Although Architects are considered "the systems builders", which you refer to, any given Rational will be a combination of all of them. That is, any given rational could possibly possess the traits of people mobilization and systems building.

But my science teacher drilled this into my head, "Correlation does not equal causation".

While it is possibly true (however unlikely) that lawmakers and code drafters may have some of these qualities, it is highly disingenuous to say that they have the makings of future dictators.

You're argument essentially boils down to the rednecks in America saying "Obama has lots of charisma! Hitler had lots of charisma! Obama is Hitler!"

Sure they have similar traits, but - are you f***** serious?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Jul 2009 01:14

Keshavji,
I did not use the expression "future dictators". I said dictatorial, military commanders. All the examples I mentioned had obtained their military successes and rose to dictatorial status before they could or did implement their drafts of laws. Obviously, for drastic legal changes, that need not be "organic", dictatorial military powers are needed. But if you read carefully their bios, they indeed used their military powers and a very dictatorial though process to almost singlehandedly draft laws and impose them. Caesar, Muhammad, Alfred, Peter I, and Napoleon all took a keen and personal interest in drafting laws and imposing them. Successful drafters who are alo forceful and having lasting impact or image as leaders, appear to be associated with a certain dictatorial and military mindset.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 01 Jul 2009 02:24

brihaspati wrote:Keshavji,
I did not use the expression "future dictators". I said dictatorial, military commanders. All the examples I mentioned had obtained their military successes and rose to dictatorial status before they could or did implement their drafts of laws. Obviously, for drastic legal changes, that need not be "organic", dictatorial military powers are needed. But if you read carefully their bios, they indeed used their military powers and a very dictatorial though process to almost singlehandedly draft laws and impose them. Caesar, Muhammad, Alfred, Peter I, and Napoleon all took a keen and personal interest in drafting laws and imposing them. Successful drafters who are alo forceful and having lasting impact or image as leaders, appear to be associated with a certain dictatorial and military mindset.

Brihaspatiji I agree with in the above cases.It might be because they were extremely influential because of their military leadership.You have to agree that society was highly militaristic in pre-modern period.The leadership of most societies used to come from military ranks.Even the kings were supposed to lead their armies in the battle.Infact even now we mostly rate these kings/monarchs/tsars based on their military conquests.

However there is one exception that I know of.In American revolution both military and non military leadership was involved for drafting the declaration of independence and afterwards the american constitution and the bill of rights.For example George Washington was a military leader.But Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were non military leadership.Even George Washington never sought monarchy or dictatorship for himself.As far as I remember he voluntarily stepped down from his presidentship after his second term.In eighteenth century it was a very unusual act.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 01 Jul 2009 05:33

actually, drafts are not a mundane thing or a clerical matter. they are the framework by which we contemporaries agree to share space. very important. i now think, theory comes only after drafting. drafting is primary. maybe because of colonial experience we hate all documents containing drafts . but it need is not necessarily a bad idea.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 01 Jul 2009 07:47

brihaspati wrote:RM,

I was expecting you to counter my point with the only well known examples of visionary leaders in history who also drafted laws. These examples would have shown a common feature. In the western world and in Russia, these are Gaius Julius Caesar, (there are several other well known Romans, like Caesar's uncle Marius, the dictator and one-time lieutenant Sulla, all military commanders), Alfred of England, Peter I of Russia, Napoleon Bonaparte, and the more active in organizing military resistance against the British overlordship among the founding fathers of the USA. In ME, the most well-known example would be Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam.

The US freedom fighters were the MOST democratic leaders modern world has seen. Thomas Jefferson was one of the most important draftsmen who himself co-drafted many laws in Virgina (where he was Governor) as well as at the Federal level. And Thomas Jefferson was the most democratic leader world has seen, far better than pseudo democratic leaders we had in India.

The MOST democratic leaders would be the first one to draft laws as well as proposed laws ASAP. Because a well drafted unambiguous procedural law is the only known way to empower us commons. In absence of well drafted unambiguous laws, the high-middle-low level neta-babu-judges can interpret the laws the way they like or worse take advantage of vacuum that absence of laws create. The written law will favor the commons, and when it does not, it exposes the law makers clearly. In latter case, it favors the pro-common activists as they can give a clear proof that elitemen are robbing the commons using such laws.

Be dictatorial or democratic, law drafting is a necessary condition of honesty. A leader is demanding votes and sometimes sacrifice from the followers. And the followers are sacrificing their time, money, efforts and sometimes blood for a better administration. The only known way to describe an administration is the DRAFTS of the laws you propose - as description of visions, ideologies etc are too vague and unambiguous. If a leader talks only in terms of vision, ideologies and refuses to give drafts, then it is that it is a proof that he wants to keep the power with him, and does not want to delegate even a shred to the commons.

And what if the leader refuses to give drafts even after coming into power? JP is a characteristic example of this category. He had promised Right to Recall laws, and had been promising since 1950. And the biggest supporter catcher for him between 1971-75 was Right to Recall. Because before emergency, many journalists asked him during 1971-75 that why was he asking resignation of Indira Amma before end of her term in 1976? And JP's reply used to be "citizens have right to expel leaders any day". The Right to Recall was also mentioned in the Charter of the Lokniti Party he had formed in 1960s and were part of manifesto. In 25 years of his career he never hired clerks to produce the drafts. Forget that, even after people voted his men into power in 1977, he did not bother hiring clerks to give DRAFTS of the right to recall laws he had been promising for 25 years. This is a sufficient proof for doubting his motives.

I guess we differ in identifying the vehicles for that change in different sources of ideology and political support.

The drafts of the laws one proposes is the ONLY know way to clearly describe his ideologies and visions. There is no other way known to the mankind.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Jul 2009 03:27

RM's arguments, combined with the recent debate going on about 377, makes me curious as to whether we should also be looking at drafts for changing or replacing or modifying or keeping intact, all the items of IPC?

Another thing, that we are perhaps neglecting, are planning for the leadership in areas not primarily seen to be connected to politics. Although, it is the overall political framework that has its effects on all other aspects of society. But in a reversal of perspective, there could be leadership issues in areas of society, like say finance and industry, or agriculture, or education, that can have counter-ramifications for future political leadership. Should we separate these areas and look at them separately or we combine them in a single strand of analysis.

Even changing paradigms of political leadership for the future could come from innovations in these apparently secondary areas.