Strategic leadership for the future of India

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby brihaspati » 18 Mar 2009 05:14

Ramanaji,
can we have a similar analysis for other classical sources? such a collection that seeks from BR viewpoint, Indic roots of the concept, could be very useful.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby RamaY » 18 Mar 2009 05:26

Brihaspati-ji,

If one reads the original Ramayana and MahaBharata, one can study the Dharmic/Cultural/Political/Security challenges faced by Rama and Krishna from historical perspective.

The subsequent Ramayana’s present only few aspects of the story based on the writer’s contemporary trends. Tulasi Ramayan, Molla Ramayan, Viswanatha Ramayan, Adhyatmika Ramayan, and most recently Ramayana Kalpavriksham and Ramayana Vishavriksham. They either make Rama as a mythological figure, or god, or an upper-caste villain at worst.

Recently I came across a Telugu commentary on Valmiki Ramayana and the speaker brought out the true message of it. I will try to summarize it from the context of this thread.

Same with MahaBharata as well. It is very interesting to note that the above post reflects India’s present socio/political/security context point by point. No wonder I was fighting with Shiv-ji to get us a new Krishna immediately :)

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby RamaY » 18 Mar 2009 06:11

brihaspati wrote:Krishna's main vision is that of the Indian nation, and he does everything possible to establish a single state framework that guarantees certain principles of interaction between the state and its components. It is possible that he faced the evils of the disparate regional conflicts, forced to migrate from one relative to another, and thus went out of the dominant clan in North India then - the Yadus, to find solution.


It is also very interesting to note that Krishna (during/after Maha Bharata war) did not try to enforce Sanatana Dharma outside Indian subcontinent even though his spiritual message (Bhagavad Gita) is universal.

This is what made me think that imposing a non-native culture on an occupied land will not help advancing the occupied civilization, unless the purpose of the occupation is enslavement.

That is why I think non-Indic cultures cannot add much value to India’s strategic future because they do not resonate with the masses.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby svinayak » 18 Mar 2009 07:18

RamaY wrote:

It is also very interesting to note that Krishna (during/after Maha Bharata war) did not try to enforce Sanatana Dharma outside Indian subcontinent even though his spiritual message (Bhagavad Gita) is universal.

This is what made me think that imposing a non-native culture on an occupied land will not help advancing the occupied civilization, unless the purpose of the occupation is enslavement.

That is why I think non-Indic cultures cannot add much value to India’s strategic future because they do not resonate with the masses.


If India cannot expand her culture outside then India cannot survive as it is.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby shiv » 18 Mar 2009 07:28

brihaspati wrote:These are probably examples of how we are made to believe that the Indic has components from the Abrahamic in all aspects of our culture, even in science, innovation and knowledge. And then again a crucial reason as to why we need to be careful about distinguishing the Indic from the non-Indic, for such "contributions" can be used as a front toe stablish the legitimacy of the "ideology" itself. The "followers" are descendants of "Indians", at least from "Indian mothers" therefore our "cousins", and they are part and parcel of "us", but not their ideology.


I think we as "Hindus" in search of satyameva jayate have to be very cautious because I predict another whammy coming at those of us who maintain an impression that our culture and civilization were among the oldest and formed the roots of civilization. This assertion is based on dates made up by Western scholars for other events in the world. Those same scholars and others are likely to come up with older dates for other things to take the wind out of a Hindu sail 0 unless we can be really objective and truthful and be the pioneers in telling the truth rather than the "mine" is bigger" scholarly trend that made up theories like the AIT.

Many of our assertions are likely to be attacked in the coming days - and you heard it here first. So prepare yourselves with counter theories and credible explanations. Abhrahamic was yesterday. Indic was the day before yesterday. But what existed before? Let me explain that.

The roots of "civilization" including writing art etc have hitherto been given dates just as conveniently and comfortably as the Aryan Invasion Theory was cooked up. It was the same bunch of people who have given dates to other facts like writing. It turns out that there is increasing evidence that the real origins of some of the most fundamental aspects of human civilization go back 30 or 40 thousand years. Earlier origins in any are difficult to get as geology has done destructive things to remains before that era.

It may well turn out that a lot of what we call Hindu may have pre-Hindu origins. It is my suspicion that the Ramayana itself is a narrative of a very ancient story and the "Monkey army" could possibly indicate a really hoary old human story that goes back tens of thousands of years to a time when now extinct near-relatives of humans lived side by side before extinction. This is a theory but in my own defence let me say that my theory is no less credible than the way out theories made by "scholars" so far to justify their beliefs. Besides (let me be blasphemous) - look at yet another ancient story of a woman who was kidnapped and taken across the water and led to a war in which Gods were involved? The Iliad of course.

It was interesting to me to find out some extremely ancient words that are widespread through the entire world suggesting hoary origins. One world is "mako" for child - which is similar to Tamil "ma(g)han" and Kannada "magu". Another interesting word is "puti" meaning hole or vagina - sounds like "phuddi" :) (and Latin pudendum)

The point I am getting at is that we need to be justifiably proud of our ancient culture - but the strength of our ancient culture is to see the truth even if it seems different from what we would like to believe (unlike the Aryan Invasion theory cooker-uppers). That means that if we find a 40 or 50,000 year past in our culture coming out of Africa, we need to accept that with grace - knowing that nobody can take away the fact that India kept a unique culture going despite thousands - or even tens of thousands of years of change.

vadivelu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 24
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 07:38

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby vadivelu » 18 Mar 2009 07:32

India does not need to spread her culture.

The intrinsic attraction of the tenets – or lack therof - of Indian culture assures its everlasting attraction to those outside of Indian confines.

Rabid Christian ideology and also Islamic fundamentalism is so alien to nature that it requires explanation.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby RamaY » 18 Mar 2009 08:01

Acharya wrote:If India cannot expand her culture outside then India cannot survive as it is.


Acharya-ji,
Could you please elaborate?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby svinayak » 18 Mar 2009 08:10

vadivelu wrote:India does not need to spread her culture.

The intrinsic attraction of the tenets – or lack therof - of Indian culture assures its everlasting attraction to those outside of Indian confines.

Rabid Christian ideology and also Islamic fundamentalism is so alien to nature that it requires explanation.


You are wrong but Could you please elaborate?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby shiv » 18 Mar 2009 08:41

What is Indian culture :?:

vadivelu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 24
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 07:38

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby vadivelu » 18 Mar 2009 10:28

What is Indian culture .

Like the learned US Supreme Court judge said of ***** – I know it when I see it.

It is a value system that combines precepts and practices that is tailored by the individual who designs it – but is NOT answerable to it.

vadivelu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 24
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 07:38

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby vadivelu » 18 Mar 2009 10:54

Acharya wrote:
vadivelu wrote:India does not need to spread her culture.

The intrinsic attraction of the tenets – or lack therof - of Indian culture assures its everlasting attraction to those outside of Indian confines.

Rabid Christian ideology and also Islamic fundamentalism is so alien to nature that it requires explanation.


You are wrong but Could you please elaborate?



I think you are baiting me into a brihaspathiesque response.

I lack the mental acuity.

Suffice to say that any system of values that requires conscription of advocates exists in a vacuum.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby shiv » 18 Mar 2009 15:36

vadivelu wrote: any system of values that requires conscription of advocates exists in a vacuum.



This is an excellent description. But I have reason to disagree on the need for conscription.

I suggest that Sanatana Dharma can exist and does exist without humans. It existed before humans and will exist after the death of the human race. The conscription of advocates for such a system becomes moot. However there is a specific question of whether its existence should be known to humans or not. That is a conscious choice that a human can make.

I put it to you that eternal systems that do not require the conscription of advocates have existed before or simultaneously with Sanatana Dharma in other parts of the world. But because there was no active conscription of advocates those systems have been wiped out by the religions Christianity and Islam whose entire basis revolves around the conscription of advocates.

I believe that it was timely and periodic active conscription into Sanatana Dhrama that caused it to survive in the first place.

Abhi_G
BRFite
Posts: 688
Joined: 13 Aug 2008 21:42

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby Abhi_G » 18 Mar 2009 20:01

The rationalization behind British hegemony on India was based on the assumption of a blonde Aryan race invading India and doing a "white man's burden" in India in ancient times. Since under colonial rule, the tools of public discourse remained in the hands of the alien rulers, it was natural for nationalists to secure evidence or use propaganda that show that the native civilization is older and therefore reached a state of refinement *before* the race of the alien rulers. The feeling of pride in our ancient roots is to a certain extent a *reaction* against the tools of discourse that routinely degraded the native system with an agenda and with determination. Such tools, sources, individuals and institutes still exist. It is natural that some nationalists will feel the urge to counter those manipulations - in my humble opinion there is a role for them to play.

There is a strong current in the anthropology field that shows that earliest human migrations started from the Africas. I do not think as Bharatiyas, we have anything to feel shame for that - we did not enslave Africa. Those who enslaved are trying to impose on us their sense of guilt by saying that "look they were earlier than you and so......". Bottomline is that the motivation is many times not a honest search for truth but to downgrade a geography that they occupied and from where they were eventually ousted. And giving Africa the source status also wipes out their collective guilt to some extent. Yes, Shiv does have a point but here is another point that Bharatiyas should be cautious of. We certainly would/should not entertain or carry any amount of their guilt.

Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby Rahul Mehta » 18 Mar 2009 20:48

Acharya wrote:If India cannot expand her culture outside then India cannot survive as it is.


It can. By destroying or deterring those are trying to destroy India namely US, UK, Saud, Pak, BD and China.

.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55241
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby ramana » 18 Mar 2009 21:08

brihaspati wrote:Ramanaji,
can we have a similar analysis for other classical sources? such a collection that seeks from BR viewpoint, Indic roots of the concept, could be very useful.



Brihaspatiji, Its already there but in Hindi. One of our members, parusuram's father wrote a couple of books on this subject. Essentially he worte that there were many kings/leaders who consolidated and created strong centers and there were others who broke the strong centers to consolidate their position.

One of these days we need to get the books translated/pdfed for mass distribution.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby brihaspati » 19 Mar 2009 03:04

It would be good to get something like that going. Meanwhile, what is your opinion of "Nation, Nationalism and Social Structure in Ancient India Sub-Title:A Survey through Vedic Literature, Author : Acharya, Shiva"? Just came across the ref, have not read it.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby svinayak » 19 Mar 2009 03:12

vadivelu wrote:

You are wrong but Could you please elaborate?


I think you are baiting me into a brihaspathiesque response.

I lack the mental acuity.

Suffice to say that any system of values that requires conscription of advocates exists in a vacuum.


Vadivelu ji
I am not baiting you. It was an honest question.
You can reply in few sentences - even one liner is fine.

Keshav
BRFite
Posts: 633
Joined: 20 Sep 2007 08:53
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby Keshav » 19 Mar 2009 04:15

I think we need to realize that whatever Krishna may or may not have done, it didn't stick. What Chanakya and Chandragupta did, didn't stick. What Ashoka and Akbar did didn't stick.

There is something more to the problem of constructing Indian nationhood that did not allow previous efforts to remain. Regardless of others did before us, it remains to those living in the present to construct an identity and an infrastructure that is useful for the betterment of posterity.

We need to realize where our ancestors failed and why not try and reconstruct a past that may or may not have happened.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby svinayak » 19 Mar 2009 04:17

In the modern world Indians have to understand GeoPolitics

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55241
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby ramana » 19 Mar 2009 04:55

Looks like JLN dindt have the insight that Ang San of Burma had

X-posted...
Stan_Savljevic wrote:A quote from Gen. Aung San of Burma from the 1940s, seems like said today.
Now what of Great Britain itself, after this war? Great Britain is no longer “great” and the sun over her empire has begun sinking though it has not sunk completely. At one time British imperialism was the biggest empire in the world not only in the political and military spheres but also though less visibly, in the economic and financial spheres pulling many strings in many countries even outside her visible empire. But today, this is no longer true. She is a debtor even to her colonies and dependencies like India and Egypt. By the ineluctable laws of historical Karma, she has been compelled to pay frequent pilgrimages to the Mecca of World Finance, to the United States of America. Though some years ago, there had been a fierce, yet silent warfare between the two, away on the high sea of Finance the once dogged and tenacious John Bull has now turned himself into Mohamed frequenting the Mountain on which the Statue of Liberty stands greeting every one who comes. Even though outwardly she retains her colonial empire her colonies in the very logic of things, have become more liabilities than assets, and she cannot afford to keep them for long to her own detriment. Whether British imperialism will see the writing on the wall in time and shed her imperialism not only in words but also in fact and thus seek the willing and energetic co-operation of the peoples in those countries which are now her colonies, in order to harness productive potentialities at home and abroad to the maximum and thereby regenerate her own country and the countries which are now her colonies; or whether she will choose to go the same old way of other empires and decay and perish ultimately – this is the question which Britain must decide now or never.


http://www.aungsan.com/Prob_Burma.htm


The British debt to colonies was a subject of negotiation between US and UK.

Wonder why JLN was so limited in his vision of Britain. He didnt assess the situation well for Indian interests. In fact the whole coterie failed in this.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21191
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby Prem » 19 Mar 2009 05:04

JLN did say he was an Englishman in charachter , natutrally he was the world from Englishman's POV. he was busy chasing Mountbatten's wife while India was burning. Right after independence he slaved India to PS doctrine. Sooner or latter there bound to be reassesment of his role in Indian affairs.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby RamaY » 19 Mar 2009 05:38

Keshav wrote:I think we need to realize that whatever Krishna may or may not have done, it didn't stick. What Chanakya and Chandragupta did, didn't stick. What Ashoka and Akbar did didn't stick.

There is something more to the problem of constructing Indian nationhood that did not allow previous efforts to remain. Regardless of others did before us, it remains to those living in the present to construct an identity and an infrastructure that is useful for the betterment of posterity.

We need to realize where our ancestors failed and why not try and reconstruct a past that may or may not have happened.


:)

Keshav-ji,

On one hand, you are questioning if previous reorientations (if that happened in the first place) did work and on the other hand, you want to reorient the existing system/ideology.

Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby Rahul Mehta » 19 Mar 2009 13:40

Question to all,

Are existing laws sufficient to create a strong leadership in India?

If no, what changes do you propose?

(Everyone here now knows what changes I have proposed, and so I wont repeat them. If anyone has question, he is welcome to post the questions in neta-babu thread. )

Or if no change in existing laws is needed, then are you implying that we ONLY need a change in ruling individual such as replace MMS by LKA or NaMo or Chiru or JJ?

Or we only need change in manasikta aka mindset? If so, what changes should we have in our manasikata aka mindset?

.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby brihaspati » 20 Mar 2009 03:46

Keshavji,
you have very valid points. In game theory there is something called "time inconsistency" problem. Basically it is the problem of how to ensure future compliance in policy. Now in typical game theoretic treatment of the problem, assuming that the game does not change, there is a solution - by the subgame perfect equilibrium. What you are raising here is the problem of "game change". Classical solutions for compliance no longer apply.

For example, Krishna's vision was thinking of the next generations and he hoped to remove the arbitrariness of the state by partial liquidation of contending political power centres, and reconstructing a more comprehensive centre and state based on "principles". So he was thinking of ensuring future compliance to his vision. But we see the famous scene where Arjuna realizes its time to go, when "bandits" loot the "Yadava" women and he fails to put an arrow on his Gandiva. So "dharma" was not working - or the state was unable to ensure compliance. But this is also significant in other direction - it indicates that "force" is necessary to ensure compliance, and mere establishment of principles or state is not guarantee.

Thus one escape route from this dilemma could be incorporating "application of force" as appropriate in the central doctrine for strategic leadership to ensure compliance. We have visions for "dharma" or dharmic principles as basis of leadership but we are less comfortable with the "force/violence" aspect of being at all able to protect or maintain "dharma". It is probably a deeper philosophical dilemma.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby brihaspati » 20 Mar 2009 04:05

Rahul Mehta wrote:Question to all,

Are existing laws sufficient to create a strong leadership in India?
If no, what changes do you propose?
(Everyone here now knows what changes I have proposed, and so I wont repeat them. If anyone has question, he is welcome to post the questions in neta-babu thread. )
Or if no change in existing laws is needed, then are you implying that we ONLY need a change in ruling individual such as replace MMS by LKA or NaMo or Chiru or JJ?
Or we only need change in manasikta aka mindset? If so, what changes should we have in our manasikata aka mindset?
.


I guess we need statesperson, and not just a leader. A leader is playing by the existing rules of an existing setup and establishment. In India, a continuation of the British colonial state has continued with replacement of the top officials by people of Indian origin, and an apparent foisting of the democratic process. But anyone who comes up following the rules of this establishment, even if we reform the rules, cannot perhaps be a strong candidate for a statesperson.

We need people who are not limited by the restrictions imposed by the current state in their thinking. For example MKG was apparently playing within the rules (as per his claims) of the colonial state. But was he really? He was isolating and alienating the people of India from the British state establishment and making it defunct or irrelevant in the end. If the counter-revolution led by JLN had not compromised with the British and MKG's mysterious "weakness" for JLN towards the end had not manifested - MKG's programme would have completely removed the remnant traces of the colonial state.

At the moment, we have all the state institutions working zealously in favour of a minority group of elite and religious interests, but this fact doesn't enter the consciousness of the majority. This state and its institutions are virtually an instrument of repression to keep down the legitimate interests and sentiments of the vast majority in more ways than one. The majority have to be made to realize that this state is not working in their interest. That is probably the first task of any strategic leadership. The vast majority of masses still hovering within their "Indicness" have to be deintegrated in their consciousness from the existing state apparatus before they can begin realizing their proper destiny.

MKG's programme to a certain extent remains incomplete. The state is a superstructure, and the Indian state is beginning to show its paralysis, and ineffectiveness. The Indic statesperson should realize this first before planning for the future and try and disjoin the masses psychologically from the existing system so that the anti-Indic state becomes irrelevant and without base.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby brihaspati » 21 Mar 2009 01:57

Shiv wrote
Many of our assertions are likely to be attacked in the coming days - and you heard it here first. So prepare yourselves with counter theories and credible explanations. Abhrahamic was yesterday. Indic was the day before yesterday. But what existed before? Let me explain that.

The roots of "civilization" including writing art etc have hitherto been given dates just as conveniently and comfortably as the Aryan Invasion Theory was cooked up. It was the same bunch of people who have given dates to other facts like writing. It turns out that there is increasing evidence that the real origins of some of the most fundamental aspects of human civilization go back 30 or 40 thousand years. Earlier origins in any are difficult to get as geology has done destructive things to remains before that era.

It may well turn out that a lot of what we call Hindu may have pre-Hindu origins. It is my suspicion that the Ramayana itself is a narrative of a very ancient story and the "Monkey army" could possibly indicate a really hoary old human story that goes back tens of thousands of years to a time when now extinct near-relatives of humans lived side by side before extinction. This is a theory but in my own defence let me say that my theory is no less credible than the way out theories made by "scholars" so far to justify their beliefs. Besides (let me be blasphemous) - look at yet another ancient story of a woman who was kidnapped and taken across the water and led to a war in which Gods were involved? The Iliad of course.



Shivji, some are speculating about the language and art being 30k or 50k years old. But this is not the main point of argument where I am requesting care. The Indic, for me, has no problem with accepting something after due proof and verification even if it goes against the pride or established "wisdom". The main difference with the Abrahamic from the Indic is that the Abrahamic denies that there was any past that deviates from its claims. Without is own peculiar and particular past, the Abrahamic is nothing. Without its particular version of history, it does not have any legitimacy at all. It is this attitude, the inherent appropriation and false reconstruction of the past of not only self but of others, to serve its own expansionist and destructive agenda - that I am asking to be careful about.

One of the largest languages in Africa calls a lion "simba" - but this is mainly spoken by a group who had re-entered Africa after the first exodus back through the middle east. Did proto-Sanskrit carry African into India or re-entrants carry it from the subcontinent to Africa? Many interesting angles there, and I am afraid, not many "western schools" will explore that. What if it strengthens the "Hindu" "Right"?

Keshav
BRFite
Posts: 633
Joined: 20 Sep 2007 08:53
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby Keshav » 21 Mar 2009 03:42

Abhi_G wrote:The rationalization behind British hegemony on India was based on the assumption of a blonde Aryan race invading India and doing a "white man's burden" in India in ancient times. Since under colonial rule, the tools of public discourse remained in the hands of the alien rulers, it was natural for nationalists to secure evidence or use propaganda that show that the native civilization is older and therefore reached a state of refinement *before* the race of the alien rulers.


The British came to India for the same reason they went everywhere else - because the Industrial Revolution created a vast supply of manufactured products but no demand in a continent where much of Europe began modernizing very rapidly.

A colony, therefore, is not just a business, but an enterprise geared towards making money. In order to make money, you need workers to create the products and buy the products. But the workers don't want to work for low pay and social disintegration - so you force them. How do you justify that violence? You say its good for the people. And what if that few devoted minority decides to fight back? Tell them they can't win and threaten them. And then just finally shoot them. The rest of them will be too scared and too ignorant to fight back. Once the essentials are garnered (money), then there is time to fiddle with the extra frills like racism and history. But making money comes first. You'll realize that social engineering only began in earnest after 1857 but not before.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55241
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby ramana » 21 Mar 2009 03:45

British were in India before the Industrial Revolution. In fact some people think they financed it with the loot form Indian province of Bengal which is current West bengal, Bihar, Oriisa and Bangladesh. They got the jagir to collect the revenue for that region from the Mughal Emperor.

Keshav
BRFite
Posts: 633
Joined: 20 Sep 2007 08:53
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby Keshav » 21 Mar 2009 03:48

ramana wrote:British were in India before the Industrial Revolution. In fact some people think they financed it with the loot form Indian province of Bengal which is current West bengal, Bihar, Oriisa and Bangladesh. They got the jagir to collect the revenue for that region from the Mughal Emperor.


The British were there during Shivaji's time. Aurangzeb allowed the British and the Dutch to trade but with a higher tax, according to Jadunath Sarkar's work "Shivaji and His Times".

But obviously, they were not a power until much later. It definitely sounds reasonable that the plunder may have been used that way.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby svinayak » 21 Mar 2009 04:04

Keshav wrote:
ramana wrote:British were in India before the Industrial Revolution. In fact some people think they financed it with the loot form Indian province of Bengal which is current West bengal, Bihar, Oriisa and Bangladesh. They got the jagir to collect the revenue for that region from the Mughal Emperor.


The British were there during Shivaji's time. Aurangzeb allowed the British and the Dutch to trade but with a higher tax, according to Jadunath Sarkar's work "Shivaji and His Times".

But obviously, they were not a power until much later. It definitely sounds reasonable that the plunder may have been used that way.


British got their trading rights first in 1610 at Machlipatam from the Vijayanagar empire.

The Portugese were in India from 1500.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby brihaspati » 21 Mar 2009 04:23

Were the British just money-minded? Are they still only money-minded? This has some important consequences for how the "leadership selection process" in India shaped up under colonialism and continues even now. I would be more cautious in ascribing purely financial interests in the first place for the early Company-wallahs. It was a tug-of-war dynamic between the mercantile interests of the Board of Directors and the warlike/imperialist ambitions of the top functionaries in India.

For example, here is distribution of revenue and expenditure in 1792-93: (in pounds sterling)
Land Rev. Gross. Rev. Gross Expend.
Bengal 3,091,616 5,512,761 3,873,859
Madras 742,760 2,476,312 2,222,878
Bombay 79,025 236,555 844,096

Note how expenditure outstrips income in the "frontiers" of Madras and Bombay - supporting military ambitions.
But there is still overall surplus.

Typically this pattern reverses in periods of expansion, when gross expenditure outstrips revenue. This was the source of the India Debt and a source of capital extraction from India long after the Company ceased to exist. (Yes the Company was in "Debt" when it dissolved - maybe a classical "bailout"!). It was more likely to be a marriage of convenience between imperialism and mercantile forces, where each helped the other to fulfill their goals. It was practically speaking a "state enterprise".

This fusion of mercantile and power ambitions in the leadership running the state, probably left a mould by which the state system only allows those from the financial side and those seeking personal power to come together to rule India. Here they serve each other's interests and extract their "personal" goals from the productivity and the people of India.

vadivelu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 24
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 07:38

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby vadivelu » 21 Mar 2009 06:27

Did what the British inflict on India more rapacious, egregious and disgraceful than what the Americans posts 1776 inflict on Africans?

Where is this direction of the erudite Brihaspati and others leading? I fail to perceive the relevance to original Rahul Mehta queries. But then I am low on the totem pole and perhaps lack the insight of a pedigree BRFite.

Given the Mumbai attacks, the perfidy of Pakistan and how it has had to pay no price for its brazen violation, Bush the soul brother of Indians being relegated to oblivion, a US mired in financial morass what should Indian leadership do?

With elections coming up Indians will decide if they want to have a Hindu tinge to their leadership.

The new Indian leadership should really settle the question of dealing with Pakistan. If Pakistan is a failed State as many in BRF claim then exacerbate its implosion. Do it in, face the nuclear or other consequences – do not let a miserable entity perennially needle India.

If a status quo is what is best to deal with an imploding Pakistan and its ignorant US ally, then settle the Kashmir issue. Accept LOC, pull a Tibet ( like the Chinese have) on Indian held Kashmir.

There will always be a level of dysfunctionality in India. But mitigating the damage and elevating the lifestyle metrics without compromising some core values should be the strategy. Velly simble onlee.

Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby Rahul Mehta » 21 Mar 2009 08:23

brihaspati wrote:For example, here is distribution of revenue and expenditure in 1792-93: (in pounds sterling)

Code: Select all

            Land Rev.         Gross. Rev.   Gross Expend.
Bengal    3,091,616        5,512,761          3,873,859
Madras     742,760         2,476,312          2,222,878
Bombay      79,025           236,555              844,096


Note how expenditure outstrips income in the "frontiers" of Madras and Bombay - supporting military ambitions. But there is still overall surplus.


The expenditure includes salaries to British officials and also includes imports from UK which is wealth going to UK. IOW, the company balance sheet may show losses, but a national level, UK was gaining materially.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby brihaspati » 21 Mar 2009 20:28

Vadivelu wrote
Where is this direction of the erudite Brihaspati and others leading? I fail to perceive the relevance to original Rahul Mehta queries. But then I am low on the totem pole and perhaps lack the insight of a pedigree BRFite.


The "British" connection probably came up from my counterposition that Rahul Mehta's (dropping -ji as perhis request :) ) queries represent "seeking reform", but maybe we have to look at a paradigm shift here. Rahul Mehta himself left a hint in asking the question of "need to change Manasikata". My take was that maybe we have to look at the current nature of the Indian state and see whether it is pro- or anti-majority. I hold that the possibility is there the state regime established under colonial regimes under the British probably have not changed their character. So that actual social classes in power might have been replaced but the system is such that only certain types of interests and characters get selected to leadership.

In the previous posts I had tried to draw attention to MKG's politics of forcing the majority to realize that the colonial state was acting against their interests could still be relevant. Can we reform a state so much that it allows us to change it character completely? It allows us to change the rules so much so that the very basis of the power and dominance that it affords those who have already formed a ruling elite is eroded? My point was that MKG's deintegration of the Indic from the colonial state remains incomplete, and the Indic majority has to be made to realize that this state practically still collaborates with western/ex-colonial interests, and acts zealously in favour of a minority elite and religious interests only.

Given the Mumbai attacks, the perfidy of Pakistan and how it has had to pay no price for its brazen violation, Bush the soul brother of Indians being relegated to oblivion, a US mired in financial morass what should Indian leadership do?

If India is in a mess as to what it regards to do about Pakistan depends entirely on who the president is in the US, then it also shows the paralysis and ineffectuality of the Indian state. Indian leadership needed to have worked out a long term plan for Pakistan. But I do not think it has had any plans, primarily because of its "psychological" dependence on the West.

With elections coming up Indians will decide if they want to have a Hindu tinge to their leadership.


I agree with you wholeheartedly. But it may actually need one or two more elections to really make that a central issue. (I am not giving certificates of approval, just straightforward agreeing, if you don't mind :D )

The new Indian leadership should really settle the question of dealing with Pakistan. If Pakistan is a failed State as many in BRF claim then exacerbate its implosion. Do it in, face the nuclear or other consequences – do not let a miserable entity perennially needle India.


Continued existence of Pakistan is advantageous for Congress type government or the suitably modernized colonial state machinery. Existence of IM inside India and Pakistan across the border is a boon for Cong. It can use the existence of "Hindu" majority in India to get the IM to fall in line. It can use Pakistan to get the Hindu to fall in line. By posing as the middle-man Cong gets to be second best and therefore the only option left for leadership. But to extract the greatest advantage here, Cong needs Pakistan to exist and be increasingly virulent.

If a status quo is what is best to deal with an imploding Pakistan and its ignorant US ally, then settle the Kashmir issue. Accept LOC, pull a Tibet ( like the Chinese have) on Indian held Kashmir.

Acceptance of LOC is counterproductive to Pakistani strategy. Pakistan wants entire Kashmir, and it doesnt want to stop there - they are dreaming of "uniting the subcontinent under Islam" and lamenting the "British perfidy" in not "restoring the Muslims to supreme overlordship of India when they left". As long as the Pakistani state exists, Kashmir problem will not be solved.

Lastly, may I request you not to honour me with adjectives? I would joyfully welcome your dissection of my comments or ideas, but just hope that it does not involve the person. I personally refrain from discussing the person. Regards. :)

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby brihaspati » 21 Mar 2009 20:44

Rahul Mehta wrote
The expenditure includes salaries to British officials and also includes imports from UK which is wealth going to UK. IOW, the company balance sheet may show losses, but a national level, UK was gaining materially.


I simply wanted to show that there was a basis for real conflict of interest, between mercantilism and imperialism (as reflected in political moves to impeach or censure returned company military bosses) and that the company's motivations of financial gain had to compromise with imperialist interests. In India many of the more ambitious military leaders embarked on campaigns to extend dominion, at cost of facing tiffs and counter-motions from the mercantilist portion of the Board of Directors.

Most mixed business with pleasure - they undertook military campaigns to increase revenue and extract personal fortunes, but then used increased revenue to undertake more military campaigns to extend dominion. Moreover one of their primary drive was also to exclude other European powers from the subcontinent and try and prevent Russian access to Indian Ocean. These are all combinations of imperialist motivations and finance (can they really be separated out?)

Abhi_G
BRFite
Posts: 688
Joined: 13 Aug 2008 21:42

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby Abhi_G » 21 Mar 2009 20:45

Keshav wrote:But making money comes first. You'll realize that social engineering only began in earnest after 1857 but not before.


Nobody is disputing that. Most of the colonial adventurism has revolved around economic, military and cultural domination of the native. Each faction of the imperialist power would justify their objective to be supreme but when it comes to subjugation of the native, the bigger picture (i.e., subjugation) dominates. All methods are fair, even though the methods may be simultaneous or chronologically staggered. Once the native is subjugated, internal bickering would start within the imperialist factions. The economic rational may be paramount but that does in no way makes the British (or for that matter any imperial power) benign. The usage of the word *rationalization* in the previous discussion was in reference to the *cultural* aspect which for many nationalists is of paramount importance. However, all the three angles are important for the nationalists as well.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby brihaspati » 23 Mar 2009 01:18

Since the question of JLN has come up, and his role or non-role appears to be so significant in the early stages of Republican India, one question that has bothered me for a long time is - why did MKG throw in his weight in favour of JLN over that of Sardar for the leadership of India? MKG had already taken some unusual postures (unusual or uncharacteristic of him as as far as we know of him) with regards to Subhas Ch. Bose. We can still perhaps attribute at least some possible political and ideological motivations as regrads SCB (possible "extremist" and "leftist" connections of SCB, his "militancy") in parallel with other possible motivations of "regionalism" (west+North vs East+South), contested claims for supremacy of Gandhians in Bengal, etc.

But with regards to JLN vs Sardar, the "regional" factor at least at that stage was much less significant. MKG actually favours someone not from his Uhrheimat. Did he choose a weak one with severe lack of Indic "roots" deliberately to prevent war or violence which someone stronger could have undertaken to unify India after the Partition? Or he knew/sensed that the British would not allow anyone "stronger" - so that his opposition to potential leadership contenders reflected the perceptions of the British indirectly?

Or there were stronger financial, mercantile, and corporate interests combined with British longe term ambitions for the subcontinent that pushed for JLN so much that MKG the realist was unable to deny this? Does a similar process still decide who comes to Indian leadership?

Keshav
BRFite
Posts: 633
Joined: 20 Sep 2007 08:53
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby Keshav » 23 Mar 2009 06:54

brihaspati wrote:Since the question of JLN has come up, and his role or non-role appears to be so significant in the early stages of Republican India, one question that has bothered me for a long time is - why did MKG throw in his weight in favour of JLN over that of Sardar for the leadership of India? MKG had already taken some unusual postures (unusual or uncharacteristic of him as as far as we know of him) with regards to Subhas Ch. Bose.


Gandhi rejected Bose for a very obvious reason but why Patel was rejected is impossible to understand. Congress had voted him to be the next Prime Minister and it wasn't until Gandhi interjected that Patel resigned. Perhaps he felt Nehru was more widely respected or perhaps had better leadership skills?

Perhaps by that time, Gandhi had drunk the spirituality/religious koolaid and thought he was talking to God or believed he was God... who knows?

Nehru's leadership skills, however, lend themselves more readily to an explanation of outright incompetance:

Wikipedia wrote:In 1949, a crisis arose when the number of Hindu refugees entering West Bengal, Assam and Tripura from East Pakistan climbed over 800,000. The refugees in many cases were being forcibly evicted by Pakistani authorities, and were victims of intimidation and violence.[54]

Nehru invited Liaquat Ali Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan to find a peaceful solution. Despite his aversion, Patel reluctantly met Khan and discussed the matters. Patel strongly criticised, however, Nehru's intention to sign a pact that would create minority commissions in both countries and pledge both India and Pakistan to a commitment to protect each other's minorities.[55]

Syama Prasad Mookerjee and K.C. Neogy, two Bengali ministers resigned and Nehru was intensely criticised in West Bengal for allegedly appeasing Pakistan. The pact was immediately in jeopardy. Patel however, publicly came out to Nehru's aid. He gave emotional speeches to members of Parliament, and the people of West Bengal, and spoke with scores of delegations of Congressmen, Hindus, Muslims and other public interest groups, persuading them to give peace a final effort. The pact was approved and within a year, most of the Hindu refugees had returned to East Pakistan.


"What the hell?" is about all you can say.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby brihaspati » 24 Mar 2009 03:47

Keshavji,
the reason behind my dipping into this question is to look at how the top leaders of India have been chosen from pre-Independence days. It was more about a small elite group selecting someone rather than a broad-based election. MKG definitely knew how to take initiative and mobilize large cross-sections of society. But he led by example and psychological manipulation and was at home in "issue-based" politics. When it came to sustained organizational intrigue, we do not see him at his sharpest. Even he was essentially selected by the then trio behind Congress, especially WCB.

Since then the initial coterie selecting and adopting the next coterie of leadership has followed in endless cycles. Why do people accept this process? They do get to influence to a certain extent the lesser leadership if they contest parliamentary elections. But there is absolutely no influence on the structure and composition of the cotereie that selects the top leadership. Thus even if popular vote weeds out some at the lower levels, the coteries ensures that only those reach close to the top, who are not going to jeopardize the existence of the coterie per se.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Strategic leadership for the future of India

Postby svinayak » 24 Mar 2009 04:26

brihaspati wrote:
the reason behind my dipping into this question is to look at how the top leaders of India have been chosen from pre-Independence days. It was more about a small elite group selecting someone rather than a broad-based election. MKG definitely knew how to take initiative and mobilize large cross-sections of society. But he led by example and psychological manipulation and was at home in "issue-based" politics. When it came to sustained organizational intrigue, we do not see him at his sharpest. Even he was essentially selected by the then trio behind Congress, especially WCB.

Since then the initial coterie selecting and adopting the next coterie of leadership has followed in endless cycles. Why do people accept this process? They do get to influence to a certain extent the lesser leadership if they contest parliamentary elections.
But there is absolutely no influence on the structure and composition of the cotereie that selects the top leadership. Thus even if popular vote weeds out some at the lower levels, the coteries ensures that only those reach close to the top, who are not going to jeopardize the existence of the coterie per se.


This is known as socially engineered group and INC from 1880 was one such group which was supported and led by the British colonial master and also even after independence.

These groups over time create their own social behavior and keep selecting lemmings just like them. They have certain characteristics and this Indian elite group appeared normal and Indian for most of the Indian masses. The media and education is used to make sure that large masses of people have trust with this group and look upon them as the elite governing class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Social_groups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_eng ... al_science)
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~chiszp/pub/soceng.pdf

http://www.independent.org/publications ... asp?id=242
Last edited by svinayak on 24 Mar 2009 05:30, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests