In Europe, two countries have any major global ambitions - UK and France. (Spain warms up a bit in Latin American issues, Norway and Sweden warms up wherever there is opportunity to enhance the arms trade, and Germany has a pussyfooting paw dipped in all sorts of muck but never serious geoploitical initiatives on its own). France is known to have had connections with the ME and Iran. So the flamboyant Sarcozi's remarks come as slightly disconcerting. Does he really mean a seat for India at UNSC, or is rhetoric and message intended for some other power - say Obamaic USA? Suggesting to current US admin perhaps that entities like France could be better placed to forge alternative lineups for Asia?

Long thought about thinking of getting UNSC to become irrelevant if it does not look after Indian interests and always cowers down or give sthe excuse of having to accommodate the Chinese. A slow step by step progress would be forming an Indian Ocean Alliance, and expanding it to a "Southern Alliance" spanning South Africa and Brazil.

Somehow I am not convinced on the benefits of UNSC seat, considering the cost associated to please US/UK and PRC.

India has three key problems with it's neighbors. One of them is a UNSC member itself and the other will extract it's pound of flesh as part of this deal. Then what is India expecting to gain from this deal?

India will get UNSC seat in 10 yrs, if not now, but it will never gain the RE it will be losing in this deal.

Instead India should focus on regaining what it wants as part of current global predicament.

JMT

b, thought you might be interested in this.
http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/16/stories ... 950900.htm
the article is about A. Sen's ideas about justice.







this is what a justice giver or a theoretician of justice says. but justice is applied to common people. and the real test of justice is if the people on whom it is applied, feel the justice. it may be true in a normative sense that harking back is unjust, or that developing countries should not pollute. but those are who harkback and going through developmental pangs, what is the science of that and how to rationalize(in the sense of understanding, addressing and solving it, not wishing it away)?

RamaYji,
I share your scepticism about the UNSC seat. I would only conditionally go for it if it actually guarantees the neutralization of PRC and TSP blackmail. Only if it balances the regional and global alignments that allows India to reconsolidate the majority of the Indian subcontinent under one unified rashtryia and for the distant periphery a "brihad bharata" union.

This was my reason, that an alternative regional and global setup for power should be initiated by India, and starting from the very reasonable and legitimate aspirations to consolidate the IO region militarily and politically.

I was thinking about that scenario Bji. It is a long road, but will be a rewarding one. India can gather the low hanging fruits on the way as it pauses to consolidate what it gained thus far.

To do that we need is this thread’s purpose firmly set in place as part of Bharatiya rashtra offering the shared-vision, continual leadership to guide the nation throughout the journey.

shaardulaji,
Prof. Sen is "untouchable"

He was never very solid in maths. Which means he does not always recognize and distinguish between an "axiom" and "logical conclusion from a set of axioms". Over the years he has become increasingly axiomatic. His roots are in social choice theory. But anyone familiar with the maths behind that theory will know that the axiomatic assumptions are pretty severe and restrictive.

A very simple problem with his "forget the past" approach is that the past is ever present in the present and is also going to be present in the future. A simple denial of the past is ideologically claimable, but it is itself an "injustice". Past injustices can create conditions and advantages which currently existing societies, groups or entities may be enjoying. Such advantages themselves may be giving or causing continuing and further injustices. So what is "retribution" to Prof. Sen, could be "legitimate compensation" for me.

Yes, the issues have to be looked into. The past injustice of destruction of the environment at the hands of Europe, led to immense capital accummulation in European hands and destruction of capital in "colonies" or the rest of the world. If now we go on further adding to this destruction, from the non-European side, yes both Europe and non-Europe suffers. But non-Europeans gain too in capital formation and development. If non-Europeans do nothing, they continue to suffer from the consequences of European destruction, do not gain in developmental terms, but Europe only suffers from its own acts, and continues to enjoy superior capital concentrations.

A "left leaning" Prof like Sen, should have remembered all the talk about unequal trade and its role in the neo-colonial subjugation of the non-European world. How was this unequal trade sustained? Because of the initial capital formed and extracted from the rest of the world, and then using it to create the mechanisms to preserve that capital - military dominance of the world. It was only when the fundamental lack of economic dynamic within the European system - the natural resources, and the quality human resources, needed for long term sustained productivity were always lacking, (and hence the periodic need to "go out and conquer" - basically looting forays on a global or regional scale) - that Europe had to compromise and allow the sucked dry and repressed "rest of the world" to recover on productivity. Such recovery would be crucial to maintain Europe's consumption - so that it could go out again and extract more for another period of time into the future. (A very similar economic and human resources problem made Muhammad disposses the Jews cultivating the oases of their land-ownership rights but keep them on land as cultivators - the bedouin tribes simply did not have the skill to grow the stuff, and they had to be allowed to produce so the "Muslims" could extract their periodic surplus).

This was the beginning of the international financial flow touted as "modernization" and "opening up the world for free market" (Prof. is a supporter of strictly market based "development") in which "everybody gains".

So Europe continues to enjoy power, dominance, and the ability to extract further resources because of injustices they committed in the past. If they want others not add to the costs of the damages they themselves had started, they have to pay for it. They have to transfer the technology, capital, and surrender the military advantage - all resulting from that initial injustice - and all used to keep the rest of the world still at a disadvantage, so that a less-destructive path towards development can be charted for all.

Prof. Sen's logic does not stand up to any resonable analysis.

RamaYji, such a course of "alternative" is also going to be a good bargaining point with the "UNSC" intrigue.

X-posted from Ind Interest thread.....

What Shourie documents is the multi-step progression in the "Evolution of Civilizations" by Quigley. Its at step 3 or even 4.



Shourie specifically warns about thinking about a particular political dispensation in India while reading his articles. He is right it applies to the whole political spectrum.

In gist what has happened is the harbingers of new ideas and changes (pre- and post-Independence movement reformers) have now become vested interests and the new status quo. What ususally happens is they have three choices: resist change, adopt changes or usher in the new reformers. The first two will lead to automatic decline and decay as they are the status quo powers. So they have to make way for the new changes by copting the new reformers. It then leads fo the next step.

Please read the book:

Evolution of Civilizations

I have this on my pda!

Jupiterji, please read if you havent already done so.

Jupiter has to read it without fail.

Country like India with a growing population and young population will not tolerate stagnaters and status quoists.

Ramanaji and Acharyaji,
started reading at 6:00 - finished now, at 9:00 - whew, heck of a book! I was pleasantly surprised to see a lot of aspects that I have myself tried briefly to introduce here, stages and cycles of developments within "civilizations", effects of geography, the internal dynamic of organizations and ruling structures (Quigleys "instruments" and "institutions") that generates processes and forces that leads to auto-destruction, etc.

However, apart from some factual inaccuracies and perhaps inadvertent misrepresentations, I do not entirely agree with his fundamental line. It will perhaps go OT here in this thread so I will try to keep it brief, and if possible will write a more elaborate critique based on my own postulate of "deintegration".

(1) Any formal recognition of a "rise" and "fall" is inherently false. We can say that civilizations "morph", they do not rise or fall. What appears to be "rise" and "fall" are normative judgements, which in turn require a pre-existing set of values against which "high" or "low" is measured. Quigley, throughout, talks about this implicit scale of values but never makes it explicit and precise as to what values are being used to judge "rise" and "fall". Tentatively we can place this implicit scale as based on "rates of expansion" in Quigley. But the concrete observables mentioned as parameters of "expansion" are typically quantitative - territorial area of occupation, population growth, capital accummulated etc. I, for one have serious problems with this method. Should I then put the Turko-Afghan "expansion" into the plains of India, or the early Islamic armies of Arabia expanding into Persia and Central Asia as the expansion of a "civilization" or "rise and fall" of a civilization? Lots of questions are left by Quigley here! A lot of the apparent gaps of "darkness" between "civilizations" appeared because of a lack of direct evidence of continuity. In many case new archaeological finds are bridging the gaps and showing them to be quite rich. The so-called "rise" or "fall" then could simply be the accidental survival of propaganda by certain sections in historical period, which pushed out all other possibilities in the modern mind and equated absence of "propaganda" with "darkness".

(2) Even if we accept tentatively the theory of "rise" and "fall", can we or should we ask the question of whether a civilization "deserves" to rise or fall? Are all falls and rises "desirable"? This I see is a severe problem in Quigley's approach - the lack of a value system by which to judge civilizations. These are values created in and by a human mind, and their importance lies in the fact that it is humans who create history in interaction with the environment. Quigley, I feel commits the second crime from the human viewpoint - he dehumanizes history.

(3) Quigley's attempts at making it self-explanatory, removing the human observer from the observed, and trying to do away with the influence of the looking glass of the human observer, is okay in the exact experimental sciences. But it is not so in history, even less in studies of "civilizations". His study is indeed a "western European" normative study of "civilizations", where in typical European fashion, the psychological concerns are driven by material, existential and consumptional factors only.

(4) Since the origin of the viewpoint appears to be significant in judging "civilizations", I would rather have a Bharatyia "look" at it. In such a scheme, there is no "rise" and "fall" of civilizations, it is always a search for "perfection", rather than "expansion". Taking this further will go OT.

Few points:
1) Quigley taught at Georgetown Uty a Catholic uty. So normative ethics are par for the course.
2) He wrote the book from lectures started during WWII. So some outof date data is expected.
3) By interest he was chemist and brought a formal approach to social sciences.

hats off to you to have finished it so fast and critique it.

To me its one tool to bring mathematical ideas to examine various social movements.
And I do so by remarking that the poltical class that brought about India's freedom are at a watershed and have reached their limits in ideas. They need to change or change will make them irrelevant.

Shourie documents all the markers and Quigley provides the toolkit or measure-stick to assess were the situation is and possibly headed.

ramanaji,
I understand what you are trying to say. I agree to the conclusion too ("watershed"). What I feel, is that whatever "reform" is attempted, it cannot go forward by diverging too much from the centre of gravity of the Bharatyia civilization. It could be like a swinging pendulum, in non-streamlined air flow, under gravity. In fact my feeling is that we have already taken the pendulum to one end of a wild swing, any further and the momentum will be counteracted by the pull in the opposite direction. This was what happened in the 1920's India. With all the signs of a solid British regime at the helm, education and media firmly serving ruling interests, that alienation from the existing setup caught up like wildfire. The British tried to push the Bharata out of the Bharatyia. Result, a civilizational backlash and swing in the opposite direction. The Islamics had tried it too, wilt ultimately very similar reactions.

Any reform now should carefully consider this. On the other hand, because we are perhaps fast approaching one extreme, going back to the centre of gravity may itself appear to be "reforms". It is perhaps time to clearly identify individuals and forces who are trying to maintain or even enhance splits and fractures in the Bharatyia society. There can be no compromise with anyone or any ideology that recognizes non-biological divisions and corresponding exclusive treatments, among the Bharatyia. It is time to disengage from diversity and establish unification.

The youth of today, if extremely swayed by the media away from the Bharatyia, will be the strongest reaction against this very "youthful" position, once they become more mature. The civilization always gets its "pound of flesh", and the penalty for trying to sway the upcoming generations too much away from the civilizational centre of gravity will be heavy, and have an outcome exactly opposite of that intended.

The UP CM has always thrived on "attack is the best defence" policy in politics. She also perhaps learnt a lot from certain "military doctrines" of bringing to bear "overwhelming and unmatched force" on a single point (Napoleonic!). Now in terms of strategic leadership for the future, what should be the advantages, if any on the larger Indian scene, of such leadership tendencies?

The second things is, that she has adopted the "rashtra == leader" formulation, and by equating and identifying the leader with the rashtra, she has taken it that nothing exists beyond the leader. So any attack on the leader becomes the attack on the rashtra, but not vice versa. I had thought that actually the reverse would be desirable - that any attack on the rashtra, i.e., any Indian or any institution comprising Indians, is an attack on its leadership. But perhaps, as ramanaji has mentioned, there are wheels within the wheels. Is she being given a very long rope - as this style of leadership appears too crude for the more established subtle strategies perfected by the NG dynasty? Then again, what about continuity - for a leader who equates the rashtra with him/herself, cannot share the image with a successor - an advantage enjoyed by the dynastic approach naturally.

Bharatyia "look" usually ignores the demographics and geo-politics analysis. If these are added we can get a deep long term assessment of the future

The Bharatyia look that misses the demographics and geo-political analysis is a thing of the past. Or a thing of what appears to be the case in the past since I do not think we have been able to save all the intellectual works of the Bharatyia of the past.

The crucial lesson for me, in the Bharatyia for this context, is that of "charaibeti" - the "quest". The doctrine of "charaibeti" implies never becoming stationary or stagnate in thinking. But what do seek in our quest? "Perfection". Perfection is the one stationary point or objective which drives the quest. What does this imply for strategic leadership or geostrategy?

First it frees us from blindly commiting ourselves to one line of thinking, adapted to a particular situation, place, time and people. It allows us to be strategically flexible, and seek out the optimum for each situation. But to ensure that we do not get caught up in local optima which are not stable, it urges us to shake things a bit at each step. The best "mathematical" analogy is perhaps going to be the algorithmic formalization of "simulated annealing". At each step of optimizing our methods we shake up, diverge, deviate a little bit from what appears to be a optimum. If it is truly a global optimum, even after small perturbations, we still will find it to be the "optimum". If things change dramatically, and we find that there was after all a better optimum, we adopt the new optimum. At each stage we move closer towards the "global optimum" - our perfection.

"Charaibeti" allows us to continue our search for that perfection - the sole stationary point and reason for our existence. At the same time it shows us that civilizational knowledge and experience that has accummulated for perhaps the longest period in known or estimable human history has the greatest likelihood of having reached the closest towards the global optimum. This is the reason, that I have rooted for trying to start the search algorithm at the cultural and civilizational experience of the majority culture of the Bharatyia. But at the same time we need to "shake" things in small steps to see and check that we have indeed reached the optimum or we are yet to reach that optimum.

Just as there is a long literature and debate about choosing the "size" of the steps in "shaking" up in actual implementation of "simulated annealing", we can have fights about the size and nature of these perturbations. Big steps means we may miss some optima, but at the same time potentially reach the optimum faster. But the risks are that we may miss the crucial global optima altogether. This is the path and danger of "revolution". On the other hand if the steps are too small, we can definitely reach the global optima but it can take what seems to be an eternity.

An added complication is the fact that in real socio-political sense, even our searches can change the nature, and number and location of the optima.

So the Bharatyia "look" does not rule out looking at demographics and geo-strategics. It is all part of our inheritance. The algorithm is given. The task is to adapt it to each concrete situation.

Brihaspati-ji,

I have bolded these words from your post. They answer the question that many souls raise, "if flexibility is the key, then what is the need for ideology". The same souls in a debate scenario will tell me in the heat of the moment that if a situation demands conversion (for economic security for e.g., I leave physical security out of the picture now), then why should not the person convert and ironically in most cases to the most rigid ideological system prevailing. Typical confusion and cynicism of the mind. I think you have brilliantly provided an answer to the confusion but it will still be opaque to "city folks" possibly due to prevailing "merchantile" attitude. At the same time this attitude also kills the souls from the villages who by nature are more attached to the indigeneous moorings but not intellectually equipped to protect that. So it is a double whammy anyway.

My thinking is that the next step will be as to how one can remove the alienation towards ones own indigeneous culture, despite the distorted education, media etc. People, nowadays, are extremely fearful of any form of sacrifice. To remove this fear, we have to conquer the source of the fear. What is that?

AbhiGji,
How about starting with the simplest of questions : to be hurled at those who find the "indigenous" "bad" and "wrong" - "what exactly do you think is bad and wrong in the indigenous heritage, and why is it bad and wrong?"
Trying to answer such questions is not at all trivial. We can easily give our opinion as to whether something is "bad" and "wrong". But it can become infinitely more difficult to explain, justify and reason about why we think it "bad" or "wrong".

Typically those who criticize the "indigenous" do not always think through the reasons behind why they think the indigenous is wrong or bad. The first step in answering the question I have posed above is becoming aware of a value system according to which the "indigenous" if wrong or bad. The second step then becomes exploring the origin of this value system. And thereby starts the long walk to disillusionment with the given, the prevalent, the "oracles" of "modernity". Such a journey in facing up to the origins of one's own misconceptions, is a frightful journey for most. For it has the potential to rip apart the certainties of the world around the person.

How do we give up fear of sacrifice, and how does leadership manage such fear both in themselves as well as their followers? But this is a question of inspiration and inspired leadership. Inspiration comes primarily from either desperation or a vision of a "higher" and "greater" reward for "sacrifice" - this could be immortality through fame and recognition, or mere prospect of greater material benefits. Perhaps a judicious combination of both is the ideal. A purpose that makes the present fade in glory and meaning. Something that makes one greater than his life - that sort of "great" purpose can overcome fear of "sacrifice".

Just my humble thoughts here, as I feel unqualified. I am mourning myself the sudden loss of a dear pet of 13 years. And all my ideological explorations still are not allowing me to accept such a loss. What wouldn't I give not to be forced to accept such "sacrifices". I guess, I am no leadership material, in that sense.

Does future of India require strategic leadership? or is it strategic leadership reuired to ensure future of India.

We seem to be doing just fine by drifting into future. So why do we need to worry about either one?

Because in some minds there is still some hope that there is something unique and valuable in "Bharata Varsha" that needs to be protected even at the cost of certain sacrifices at personal/national level.

And then there is this new wisdom one gains lurking in those enlightenly-moderated threads, making all these sacrifices unnecessary because we are chanikyanly drifting into super-powerdom under current strategic leadership. Why worry about strategy when you are being safe-landed?

B-ji: My heartfelt condolences for your loss.

B ji I can totally relate to you, I have a bordercolie of 10 yrs old his unconditional love for me is better than my own kids love. (who are no less affectionate but still). I am spending lot more time with him. My condolences

RamaYji and John Snowji,
My heartfelt gratitude to both of you for sharing my sorrow.

Yes, drifting is a viable strategy. You land up somewhere - on some dry beach with nothing growing on it. If you are lucky, you land up in a green place with freash water and moderate climate. You could equally land up in the edge of a desert which you never cross. Worse, the waves and wind can simply topple you overboard. Drifting is a problem because you have no control over it and its outcome. In my "simulated annealing" framework, think of another optimizing algorithm that simply "drifts" in the hope of finding the "optimum" - not good even for regular surfaces, forget uneven or irregular surfaces with possibly hidden regions which you know about only when you reach there.

Much better to have control over the progress of the ship, have control over its rudder, sails, and side sails. We cannot allow this ancient ship to be cut drifting freely on the open ocean of ideas and ideologies - tossed by ideas, buffeted and battered to an unknown destination. This ship has been our refuge through global deluges, storms and strong currents. Its experiences and the way it has been repaired after each such battering, makes it a valuable repository for making even future copies for a new shape built on the accmmulated knowledge embodied in this one. We cannot allow it to drift and beach itself on some treacherous shallows or overturn and sink.

RajeshA,

I suggest you read 'Those Days' by Sunil Gangopadhyay (the translated version of his original 'Sei Samay' which deals with the period of nineteenth Century Bengal where the turmoil you are facing now was what Bengal was facing then!

It has been published by Penguin. Cost Rs 350. 588 pages.

RayC saar,

Next time I come to India, I'll look around for it.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Rajesh, You have posted very intelligently in the forum. The key is to have the same view of all Indians as Bharatiya citizens when we come out with plans for the future. Bharatiya view point has been ignored for so long that lot of people find it strange but that does not mean that it is not influential.

One has to interact with the civil administration to realise the level of corruption!



It speaks of the turmoil of the Hindu society with the influences the British society was doing to the Indian society.

It speaks of the huge churn and the contradiction that was wracking Hindu society with the modern and Christian influences!

I read the translation.

The book also mentions my maternal great grandfather!

I am trying to get the Indigo Mirror (Neel Darpan) to read about the atrocities of the British Indigo cultivators.

I am going back to my roots!

I will be frank, in English, since I read that faster inn English since my background was all India and we, as children, had a tough time learning a plethora of languages as our father kept getting transferred from State to State.

We understood India, but my regret is that I never got proficient in my Mother tongue. I have always regretted it since Bengali literature is so rich and I have lost out something that I would have enjoyed and learnt from!

I was made into a Micheal Madhusudhan, but I do not have the strength to emulate him to write Meghnadbad Kabya!

RayC,
if possible get hold of "Hutom Penchar Noksha", by Kaliprasanna Singha (if you already have not read it) - the character modeled as the central one in "Sei Somoi". "Noksha" actually gives explicit descriptions and conditions. Kaliprasanna is a most intriguing character of the period - but one of the earliest attempts by the "indigenous" Bengali to "search for his roots", manifested in both the "Noksha" (the commons and existing condition) as well as translations of the Mahabharata (seacrh for roots).

In July 1861 when Rev. James Long was fined Rs.1000/- for translating Nil Darpan, Kaliprasanna deposited the entire amount in the court. If you read the dedication to his translation of the Mahabharata, it is to the Empress Victoria in gratitude for the British rescuing Bharatavarsha from the mortal clutches of the Mughals. He compares his offering to the gods offering the "parijat" flower churned out of the ocean to Purandara. He trusts that "Hindusthan" will be lit up during her reign by hundreds of lamps of Sanskrit literature as during Vikramaditya's reign by Kalidas etc. and in Queen Elizabeth's reign by Shakespeare etc. to make her reign unforgettable.

Jupiterji, Thanks for the ref. Googlebhai has a lot of stuff on the above writer.

an excerpt



And

archives.org link on his Mahabharata for rest of us.

Mahabharata

Bio by Pradip Bhattacharya

Bio

Brihaspati,

I have read about it.

I am working hard to get the English translation of these excellent books.

I am on a quest to know my Roots that I missed out owing to my father's and my professional obligations.

Sadly, my Bengali is not upto the mark.

I thought Nabin Singha was the one who helped Rev Long.

Micheal Madhusan translated it (Neel Darpan) in English, right

Was Mr Dutt really a homosexual and his chum was Gourdas Basak?

Ramana,


Since you are such a history buff, read the book Those Days.

You would love it!

Read the book Neel Darpan ( I believe it was translanted in English).

we are probably doing all our best to derail this thread, so I will withdraw at this stage - but RayC, Navin I think is the name given to the character in the novel - a nom-de-novel if you will for Kaliprasanna. That it i sbased on the actual life of Kaliprasanna is not given out in the names within the novel apart from the side characters.

I have the book in hand. It says:

The Singhas of Jorasankho

Ram Kamal Singha - wealthy zamindar
Ganganarayan - his elder son
Nabin Kumar - his younger son

etc etc

RayC, Ganguly uses Navin as the novel name. The giveaway is the ref to Navin writing the "Naksha" and translating Mahabharata, Vikramorvashi etc., and paying the fine on behalf of Long. All those are historical facts with Kaliprasanna as the actor. End of my OT contributions! Apologies.

As discussions in the "sharm" thread continue to show, many of us are giving in to frustration and a hopelessness that is insidious. But I think here we are getting so because we have the wrong conception of leadership. We expect others to lead us and then get disappointed.

Why do we get disappointed? Because we do not recognize that there is already an ideal of leadership in our minds, against which the real life ones come up as poor caricatures. We subconsciously feel what the right thing should have been to do, and then we get frustrated that the real life "leader" deviates from it.

The first task is to shed this frustration. We punish ourselves for the crime and fault of others. Let us have confidence in our own analysis and conclusions. Let us have confidence in our ability to think through and think for ourselves. Recognize that leadership exists in each of us. From there we can and should think of looking forward, long term, concrete, on a wide front of efforts. In many respects it will be like the confused, sometimes comical and sometimes tragic early lumbering nationalist awakening moving towards a mass movement. That started from similar darkness and hopelessness, where the "evil" appeared overwhelmingly strong and dominant - controlling all machineries of rashtryia power, having liquidated all viable opposition, controlling all levers of ideological control including education and media.

That was the beginning. Let us look forward towards that brilliant destiny again. All sorts of efforts are needed - cultural, spiritual as well as political, and media or communication. It is important to do whatever we can in whatever way possible to disseminate our thoughts. Many will disagree, many will oppose. But we will see a gradual turnaround as the years go by. Do not give up on our people and the coming generations. Even those now within the Congress or other existing political parties or other organizations should realize the necessity of this eventual transition, and should not resent such efforts. In the end, it will benefit even them.

pgbhat wrote on the "sharm" thread



The first signs that an organization is nearing the end of its breathing term, is the pehnomenon of selecting ever more dependent and weak as individual, leaders at key positions. This means that at the core, there are people who are insecure about their power base. Such a core would be extremely shaky of putting forward individuals who can have independent capabilities, in key positions. Basically, one advantage such a core thinks of is that any mistake or blunder that was originally sourced from within the core - could be passed off on these weak individuals in front, who will not be able to protest and have to walk out taking full blame for the stupidity and criminality of the core. This is nothing new in India, as evidenced by JLN's blood sacrifice of another Menon - taking the blame for the Chinese hara-kiri policy of Nehru.

The Left voice on the media appears to have gone into discreet hibernation. However, in the CPI(M) top-think, nothing has really changed as manifested in the drubbing given to Achuyutanandan. My hunch will be that since the Politbureau dominated by the Karat-Yechury's have taken to ultra-conservatism to stave off disaster, Congress old hands like Pranab Mukherjee will push for opening back-channel diplomacy with the second rung of the CPI(M) for future collaboration. They will also do this to balance out regional forces Congress is now forced to deal with in the areas with significant Left political presence.

Can we have an analysis from those on ground regarding this? Especially trends and potential complications? And not only Kerala and WB, but also contiguous areas like TN or AP?

There is a lot of speculation about the inadequacy of babus as far as strategic vision is concerned. However, how are babus selected? Who selects them? And who uses them? These are babus again. A bureaucracy functions like a regimented political party - it uses reward and punishment, to bring about homogenization and group-speak or group-think. Just like any regimented political party in rashtryia power, this entity is interested in maintaining status quo at any cost. Thus their utmost and desperate obsession is not to do anything - for any action could change the status quo.

But then how policy changes come about - of the monumental nature like SeS (monumental because we assume certian things about elected/selected leadership irrespective of their background and get frustrated and shocked when they behave according to their background)? This is where just like a regimented political party in rashtryia power, it gets an external shock.

We should explore, as I have repeated ly warned in the earlier parts of this and the "scenario thread" that the modern babu system is a direct inheritance bequethed to the GOI by the British. It will not be surprising if such an apparatus has substantial potential to be "influenced" even now, by the originators of the system. It could simply be following "cues" and looking up to pronouncements by these external powers, at its simplest.

Who does the word "we" include and exclude?

Pls see detailed explanation on Neta-Babu thread

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2180&p=712324#p712324

The problem is LESS on how they are appointed. Have any appointment procedure, and the selected ones will degenerate to same level as far as ethics and commitment goes. The problem is lack of procedures to expel and imprison them for wrong things they do. And so IAS-Ministers sell out.

(eg MMS sold out because he knew that commons=citizens cant do a zilch against him. Whereas, if he had disobeyed Obama, Obama would have unleashed a smear campaign against MMS via US puppets such as ToI, IE etc. So MMS saw that Obama can do more damage than commons of India, and so he sided with Obama and said "get lost" to commons of India. Outcome was SeS)

Now matter how we change the recruitment procedures alone, no matter who comes will also do SeS.

RM,

I think I understand your question. The answer is not easy. I primarily had used "we" and "us" in the contextual sense of BRFites, as I was referring to existing discussions within the forum. But I have a more nuanced meaning for we. I think long ago I had discussed the origins of my thought that unification and mobilization of Bharat is best started from within the cultural framework of what exists among the "commons" - because it has certain elements of identification with the land and life on it that is quite deep rooted. Starting from the framework of the commons would mean the least disruption to our nationhood but a solid base to launch necessary changes. This was based on my personal encounters and experiences over a wide part of India and cross-section of the commons.

Problem is what I mentioned in the "sharm" thread as the disruption between the commons whose "heart is in the right place alright", but who may not always have the confidence to form themselves into a "compact fighting force" (in both physical and non-physical sense) and individuals or groups who have the confidence or vision to think beyond this lack of onfidence and act as catalysts for that necessary infusion of confidence in the "commons". Please understand that I am not saying that such individuals have to be "un-common". They can themselves come from the "commons". But the reality of the "lack of confidence" is also true - and also the result of my extensive "mixing" with the so-called fringes of society as well as the regular "commons". So in that sense my "we" will include the elements within both these categories - confident and non-confident, who are agonizing over the current apparent lack of direction.