Strategic leadership for the future of India

[suryag]

A nice thread to crystallise all my agony over our leadership. What kind of leaders do we need for India today, we need leaders who understand the root cause of the problems of the desperate lot in a region. Once understood a plan(strategy) that solves the current set of problems and also insulates the system from variants of the current set of problem needs to be formulated and implemented in earnest. This plan should also put a system in place that provides a framework to solve similar problems so that in the future less competent but incorruptible leaders need not reinvent the wheel.

[AKalam]

I will only stop here very briefly with three major countries in Asia where "Marxism" was seriously tried out - Russia, China and India.

Workers never controlled the means of production in the aforementioned countries. Hence, they weren't Marxist. They were state capitalist.

There is a specific structural-organizational form of the communist movement that leads to concentration of power in a hierarchical elite and reproduction of the very power-elite structures that the communists start out officially to break down.

Reason why Trotsky's vanguard idea has to be implemented.

Moreover, in trying to disassociate from the "native cultural roots" - the farther the better the Marxist - on top of the very traditional attitudes to power and dominance, creates a peculiar sense of alienation and vulnerability.

What's wrong with such disassociation? It's in the nature of things to change, hence tradition has to be abandoned, or, we'd still be stuck in the past, and no progress can be made. This clearly explains why India has never been able to succeed at anything, it's due to the baggage of the past, of tradition.

I would encourage you, Dear Sir, to travel to former Soviet republics and engage them on a discourse as to why they are bringing back their traditional cultures, such as mild form of ethnic Nationalism (although it tends to get out of hand sometimes) and religion (Russian/Slavic Orthodox, Islam, Roman Catholicism in some cases etc.) and are no longer willing to go back to Soviet days. Many non-Russian ethnic groups within former Soviet republics consider the Soviet rule as an extension of Tzarist expansion of the Empire of the Rus ethnic group over others, where Marxism/Leninism was used as a tool, at the same time, an attempt by Jewish intellectuals to reduce the role of religions on society so there could be less Jewish persecution and pogroms at the hand of gentiles. Of course things were much more complex, but I am just pointing out some interesting aspects and dimensions.

China is going through a transition period now and it remains to be seen what will be the final form of the one party system. Today the communist party apparatchiks and their relatives and friends seem to be the richest capitalist groups there.

With that said, the current form of capitalism has serious issues about a healthy distribution of wealth, social justice, waste, over consumption, worldwide hunger and poverty, too much reliance on economic growth and turning a blind eye towards the environmental and climate impact on the planet, just to name a few. A just order where minimum nutrition, a healthy environment (clean air, water and food free of pollution) is ensured as well as freedom to maintain indigenous cultural traditions among small or large groups, seem to be the challenge that future leaders and forms of governments will have to deliver on.

[asprinzl]

BJP should get rid of the ancients and bring in new blood. Make Arun Shourie the new head of BJP. This guy has the foresight, charisma without the baggage many others have. I think this man is good for India.
Avram

[asprinzl]

Akalam, few people are aware that the reason the Tzars undertook to expand the Russian holding especially into the Turkic Asiatic domains was because these nomads were constantly raiding Slavic settlements and taking away Slavic especially females for own use or to be sold as slaves in Arabian slave markets. Actions invite re-actions
Avram

[AKalam]

Akalam, few people are aware that the reason the Tzars undertook to expand the Russian holding especially into the Turkic Asiatic domains was because these nomads were constantly raiding Slavic settlements and taking away Slavic especially females for own use or to be sold as slaves in Arabian slave markets. Actions invite re-actions
Avram

Asprinzl, yes I was vaguely aware, Turkic nomads, specially the Turkmen or Turkomans were notorious for this practice, with the help of their very special Akhal Teke horses. Here is a brief description from wiki:

Russian conquest of the Caucasus led to the abolition of slavery by the 1860s[301][302] and the conquest of the Central Asian Islamic khanates of Bukhara, Samarkand, and Khiva by the 1870s.[303] The Russian administration liberated the slaves of the Kazakhs in 1859.[304] A notorious slave market for captured Russian and Persian slaves was centred in the Khanate of Khiva from the 17th to the 19th century.[305] During the first half of the 19th century alone, some one million Persians, as well as an unknown number of Russians, were enslaved and transported to Central Asian khanates.[306][307] When the Russian troops took Khiva in 1873 there were 29,300 Persian slaves, captured by Turkoman raiders. According of Josef Wolff (Report of 1843-1845) the population of the Khanate of Bukhara was one million two hundred thousand, of whom 200,000 were Persian slaves.[308] At the beginning of the 21st century Chechens and Ingush kept Russian captives as slaves or in slave-like conditions in the mountains of the northern Caucasus.[309]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... e_Caucasus

While this is true for Central Asia, the eastward expansion in Siberia happened with the help of Cossacks to expand fur trade with Asiatic reindeer herders and other locals in these areas.

A reverse trend is happening today:

http://www.rferl.org/content/Central_As ... 82191.html

None of this related to Strategic leadership and is probably OT, I am just answering to a question by asprinzl.

[BSR Murthy]

BJP should get rid of the ancients and bring in new blood. Make Arun Shourie the new head of BJP. This guy has the foresight, charisma without the baggage many others have. I think this man is good for India.
Avram

Avram, excellent idea. Thanks.

Arun Shourie for Prime Minister of India

[Rahul M]

shourie will be acceptable only to the higher educated class, he can't be a mass leader.

[brihaspati]

Just a cautious note : suppose you put forward Mr. A as PM, who may not have the organizational tie-ups with the major party that is supposed to be producing the MP's required to make Mr. A PM. If there exists Mr. or Mrs. B, who has the required organizational tie-ups, then it will be the UPA case (or the Congress case basically for all of its exitence) all over again. It is the old dictatorial model of the Roman Republic changing into empire - apparatus of state power dependent on the apparatus of personal power. Look at the dynamics of MMS's dance at the behest of the real power centre around SG.

What is being suggested would have worked in a Presidential form of government, or equivalently a PM - but elected directly by the people through a direct ballot. This would bring individuals forward, in competition with other individuals and the role of MP's and therefore party structures and caucuses would be diminished (not necessarily completely eliminated).

[Karna_A]

asprinzl, that's exactly right. He is not afraid to call a Sword a Sword, in all it's senses. I have read his numerous books and he just gets it.

However, since most of the time, power is with Kangress Pizzarios, it would be better to do as follows:

(a) Suppose you are a Shourie mold and therefore have less chance to become PM/HM/DM due to Indian political realities. You should then join Kangress, act as a MMS/Patil type all your life and bid time. Once you get to PM position, come out of closet and be your real self. If sufficient people do it now, in one generation most of Kangress 2nd rung leadership will be closet Shourie and PM/HM/DM will come from them.
Of course, on the way up it may help to learn to cook Pasta, Antipasti and Pastiera!
P.V.Narasimha Rao was almost in that mold.

BJP should get rid of the ancients and bring in new blood. Make Arun Shourie the new head of BJP. This guy has the foresight, charisma without the baggage many others have. I think this man is good for India.
Avram

[brihaspati]

asprinzl, that's exactly right. He is not afraid to call a Sword a Sword, in all it's senses. I have read his numerous books and he just gets it.

However, since most of the time, power is with Kangress Pizzarios, it would be better to do as follows:

(a) Suppose you are a Shourie mold and therefore have less chance to become PM/HM/DM due to Indian political realities. You should then join Kangress, act as a MMS/Patil type all your life and bid time. Once you get to PM position, come out of closet and be your real self. If sufficient people do it now, in one generation most of Kangress 2nd rung leadership will be closet Shourie and PM/HM/DM will come from them.
Of course, on the way up it may help to learn to cook Pasta, Antipasti and Pastiera!
P.V.Narasimha Rao was almost in that mold.

Don't you think that going the Modi route would appear to be a much shorter one for most people? In a way, the BJP is perhaps already trying out the younger model in Gujarat and MP. Both the recently elected CM's show that the basic thing expected of any strategic leadership for the future will be based on capacity to "deliver" on "promises" at the very basic level. I would think, that the political aim of nationalist consolidation have to be combined in a basic programme that promises to deliver on a set of basic goals for all Indians irrespective of region, or social origin. Power generation with priority for rural electrification, a national health service, educational service, and social insurance -in sufficient capacity to cater to all without needing "rationing" through "reservations" are achievable and should appeal to wide sections of the population. In return the programme should demand productivity from the people for it should be made clear that these initiated services can only be maintained if the people "produce" sufficiently. Such a national programme is feasible strategically.

[Karna_A]

How about trying both ways: Who ever wins its still a win!

asprinzl, that's exactly right. He is not afraid to call a Sword a Sword, in all it's senses. I have read his numerous books and he just gets it.

However, since most of the time, power is with Kangress Pizzarios, it would be better to do as follows:

(a) Suppose you are a Shourie mold and therefore have less chance to become PM/HM/DM due to Indian political realities. You should then join Kangress, act as a MMS/Patil type all your life and bid time. Once you get to PM position, come out of closet and be your real self. If sufficient people do it now, in one generation most of Kangress 2nd rung leadership will be closet Shourie and PM/HM/DM will come from them.
Of course, on the way up it may help to learn to cook Pasta, Antipasti and Pastiera!
P.V.Narasimha Rao was almost in that mold.

Don't you think that going the Modi route would appear to be a much shorter one for most people? In a way, the BJP is perhaps already trying out the younger model in Gujarat and MP. Both the recently elected CM's show that the basic thing expected of any strategic leadership for the future will be based on capacity to "deliver" on "promises" at the very basic level. I would think, that the political aim of nationalist consolidation have to be combined in a basic programme that promises to deliver on a set of basic goals for all Indians irrespective of region, or social origin. Power generation with priority for rural electrification, a national health service, educational service, and social insurance -in sufficient capacity to cater to all without needing "rationing" through "reservations" are achievable and should appeal to wide sections of the population. In return the programme should demand productivity from the people for it should be made clear that these initiated services can only be maintained if the people "produce" sufficiently. Such a national programme is feasible strategically.

[shiv]

With regards to India, whether it is useful to make a complete break with the past or traditions belongs perhaps to a different thread - maybe the "dialectic and rhetoric" or "future strategic scenario thread". .

brihaspati, you have touched (in two separate posts) a subject that fascinates me and I suppose it does belong in several separate threads - i.e the question of how much of the past Indians need to discard in order to "move on"

But let me first quote you from an earlier post

Right or wrong, they managed to mobilize large groups of Indians on visions of nationalism, and they did not derive the source of their leadership capabilities from public elections. Is there an underlying factor here? maybe people were not yet that absorbed into the electoral process? Maybe they valued individual qualities more - like integrity, sincerity, honesty (none of the three have any allegations of "vanishing funds" for example), all sufficiently qualified to earn their own keep, and their monetary and personal life quite transparent? Did Indian society have different sets of ideals and expectations?

It is interesting to me that you should mention the words integrity, sincerity and honesty. These concepts have an important bearing on leadership and nationalism.

These are fundamental human values that are
1) Desirable
2) They are part and parcel of "dharma"
3) Not restricted to Indic culture

I would add selflessness and humility to the three you have mentioned. These two are dharmic (but also well known outside Indic cultures).

A lot of nations and cultures have produced great people bearing the qualities
1) Integrity
2) sincerity
3) honesty
4) selflessness
5) humility

We on BRF have continuously struggled to define "dharma" without specifically listing these 5 qualities that are essential for dharma. But I must insist that such qualities are recognized as good an positive outside of the Indian definition of "dharma". Anyone who bears these qualities is dharmic. India had certain groups of people who were fine tuned to behavior keeping these five qualities in mind all the time.I say this and point out that my late father and father in law and both my grandfathers (all dead now) had these qualities ingrained into them as part of their family upbringing. In essence they were incorruptible. They could not be bribed. They would not lie. They did not become fabulously wealthy but all had the opportunity to do so by dishonest means - given their jobs and responsibility.

India is full of such people. I can name many friends of mine and many Indian and non Indian figures from the past who behave r have behaved this way.

However leadership is not all about these 5 qualities. There is an extra layer of behavioral traits that sometimes involves the rejection of honesty and sincerity. Such leadership qualities have been described by Chanakya and AFAIK by Sun Tzu too. These qualities are also taught actively as "management" or "diplomacy"

How is it that Ramalinga Raju (of a-Satyam computers) was a respected leader? i will not bother answering this rhetorical question but he was certainly not selfless. Nor honest.

The point I am trying to make is that these fundamental human traits are vital for leadership and must be inculcated, encouraged and imposed with an iron hand. These are Indian traits that need not be discarded. However there are other deep seated Indian traits that probably do need to be discarded or modified - but that is a difficult subject - maybe for another thread/another time.

[Dhiman]

A lot of nations and cultures have produced great people bearing the qualities
1) Integrity
2) sincerity
3) honesty
4) selflessness
5) humility

We on BRF have continuously struggled to define "dharma" without specifically listing these 5 qualities that are essential for dharma. But I must insist that such qualities are recognized as good an positive outside of the Indian definition of "dharma". Anyone who bears these qualities is dharmic.

With respect to dharmic qualities, I think

6) duty

should also be included and this description here should certainly clarify some earlier discussions which questioned whether MMS and gang were willing/capable of carrying out their "dharmic duty" in the aftermath of Mumbai incident. Given that most of us have learned about "dharmic duty" in the context of Arjun going to war in Mahabharat, this aquires some serious jingoistic overtones

The point I am trying to make is that these fundamental human traits are vital for leadership and must be inculcated, encouraged and imposed with an iron hand.

Somehow this doesn't sound too "dharmic" to me

[brihaspati]

Shivji,
Thank you for your observations. I have always thought that all 5 you mention are a very old concern in Indic tradition. I have always seen the Mahabharatam as an exploration of ideas of state and its relation to state members, as of concern for Indic thinkers. If you think of it, these are a matter of central concern about leadership in Mahabharatam. The author/authors are almost obsessively concerned about departures from these 5 points, in the various "leaders" and are most uncomfortable if such departures do not have negative consequences. No one is spared, Yudhisthira for having uttered a "misrepresented truth" to Krishna's almost "Chanakyan" strategies for elimination of obstacles to unification under Pandavas and destruction of the Kurus as cursed by Gandhari.
Even the Geeta portion of the Mahabharatam I would think is an attempt at rationalizing the contradiction you describe. In the Geeta, it is the need felt for departure from the 5 points -which contradicts this overwhelming concern with "Dharmic behaviour" on the part of leaders - that is being tried to be resolved. Geeta's philosophy hints at a framework to reconcile such departures within the framework of "Dharmic" by including "justice" as the supreme objective.

Essentially the "survey of the battlefield" portion is saying, that in general the "Dharmic" guides a leader's actions. However, if the Dharmic has to be departed from, it can only be done if such departure is absolutely necessary to establish "justice". I know that the question of "justice" is a relative one. But within the context of leadership in a given society, it may not be that difficult to establish a generally accepted principle or ideal of "justice", even though the elite may simply pay lip-service to it.

My take would be that the Chanakyan or Tsun Zu principle (Chanakya does mention the first 3 as desirable in kings) suggests making the first 3 non-binding for strategic flexibility. In the light of Geeta's exposition, this departure from the "Dharmic" should only be applied if it becomes necessary to do so to tackle forces who also depart from the "Dharmic" - a reciprocality clause. Realizing the extremely difficult task of maintaining both attitudes in the same person of the leader, the Geeta invokes the "dispassionate action" line. Maybe now this is going outside the main thrust of the thread.

[shiv]

A lot of nations and cultures have produced great people bearing the qualities
1) Integrity
2) sincerity
3) honesty
4) selflessness
5) humility

We on BRF have continuously struggled to define "dharma" without specifically listing these 5 qualities that are essential for dharma. But I must insist that such qualities are recognized as good an positive outside of the Indian definition of "dharma". Anyone who bears these qualities is dharmic.

With respect to dharmic qualities, I think

6) duty

Absolutely. Thanks

The point I am trying to make is that these fundamental human traits are vital for leadership and must be inculcated, encouraged and imposed with an iron hand.

Somehow this doesn't sound too "dharmic" to me

I will kill you unless you declare me a non violent man

[samuel]

I am probably not a leader. Irrespectively, I don't find myself attached to the five. The only thing I find myself attached to is
a) duty must be done and b) what goes around eventually comes around. Without figuring out the appropriate duty and doing it, one usually has no standing, in any post, in any profession, in any act in any civilization on any planet in any universe. Without realizing that actions have consequences, there can be no action. All the rest, is an act.

S

[brihaspati]

Shivji,

These are Indian traits that need not be discarded. However there are other deep seated Indian traits that probably do need to be discarded or modified - but that is a difficult subject - maybe for another thread/another time.

How about "Indian interests" thread? I can already think of a couple of them that needs to bite the dust! But I think those that need to go are not really "deep seated" or "essential" parts - and have been openly declared to be so by many from within the Indic traditions.

[brihaspati]

I am probably not a leader. Irrespectively, I don't find myself attached to the five. The only thing I find myself attached to is
a) duty must be done and b) what goes around eventually comes around. Without figuring out the appropriate duty and doing it, one usually has no standing, in any post, in any profession, in any act in any civilization on any planet in any universe. Without realizing that actions have consequences, there can be no action. All the rest, is an act.

Samuelji, I would tend to agree with you. Problem is, my experience of the "poor" or the "marginalized" shows that the vast majority of them (and they do form the vast majority of the entire populace) does indeed take the "5 points" quite seriously. They simply are too brutalized to apply this sense when choosing their leaders by vote. Anyway, in most places the "poor" do face "consequences" - economic or otherwise, if they do not vote "properly".

I have seen such dedication to honesty, integrity, and sincerity - to the last "paise", and even selflessness and humility, among this vast multitude, that I cannot dismiss the "5 points" lightly. And I have also seen first hand how easily you gain their trust if they can see that you too follow at least the first 3. I once managed to make a local self-help group work in an impoverished neighbourhood whose committee had 4 left, 4 Cong, 2 -offshoot Cong, 2 BJP activist. I saw that the "5 points" was crucial on all sides, to make it work. I was quickly "ordered out" by the "bosses", and I obeyed out of discipline (those were different days - ). But such experinences have remained with me - the vast majority of the repressed do indeed take the "5 points" seriously as qualities to search for in leaders, but they do not get it and no longer expect it by default.

[samuel]

It isn't that these 5 tools are bad. They are quite useful of course and become the most preferred tools for a person who understands causality and duty as important. I don't want this discussion to trip into dharma, which it runs the danger of very soon. So, I'll just say that are there not examples in history, of which you are the expert, where lasting gains (to present day) were made in a way that these qualities were suspect in the transaction, if not out rightly violated. I understand their value "to the people," but here on this thread, where we seek a deeper truth, is it not more true that these qualities aren't absolute but mere tools to accomplish something. So what would make a leader then, some one who can find the right object of attention and pursue the associated duty gingerly whilst minding the minefield of consequences, or a dumb jock who is honest sincere and all that.

Every honest, sincere....person I have met has been a dumb dork who is unable to deal with the world, let alone swing it around for the common good. Or all that's an act. The class of such twisted, for eg. my purohit or respected panchayat member, on the other hand, never seem to lie (you can't catch em doing that), but you can't escape the sense that they know all too well what insincerity or dishonsety (say) is. They are clever enough to avoid using it until dire straits, is the perception I get. When that realization dawns, however it does for anyone, many if not all of these 5 qualities become suspect as "things to aim for to be a leader," at least in my mind. For sincerity in particular, I am sure people here have read it, frankfurt says it nicely: http://rapidshare.com/files/181968220/onbs.pdf.html

Aim for something higher, I'll plead.
S

[Yusuf]

Strategic Leadership, I presume, is not National Strategic Policy organised by dynamic cabinet leaders or am I wrong?

I ask this, since I do not understand what is Strategic Leadership. I only understand leadership at various levels and organisations and at the highest level, I think it is just National Leadership since they are entrusted to formulate both internal and external leadership keeping geostrategic and geopolitical perspectives in view!

I am tired of gobbledygooks and fancy words that mean simple things: In the Army, we had ''time and space" till some cute chap did a course in the US and then he started using "spatiotemporal environment" making chaps run for their dictionary and then forgetting what was the main issue being discussed!!

Having seen this world for 62 years, I am convinced that if someone knows what he is talking, he can say it in plain words!

Since we are so keen to quote the US as the last word, this is what they say of Strategic Leadership:

Strategic Leadership: Framework for a 21st Century National Security Strategy is the product of over three years of discussions and debate on everything from fundamental assumptions about the nature of the international order in the 21st century to U.S. policy toward the Middle East. At a time when the United States truly must rise from the ashes of a failed foreign policy, this report breaks away from such traditional concepts as containment, engagement, and enlargement and rejects standard dichotomies of realist
power politics versus liberal idealism. It starts from a set of U.S. national interests as old as the nation itself and asks how we can safeguard and pursue those interests in this 21st century world. Without pretense of answering all questions and addressing all issues, the report offers bold and genuinely new thinking about America’s role in such a world.
http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22204/S ... ership.pdf

So, what is Strategic Leadership?

If explained, we can start.

Let us not delve in woolly woolly thoughts and so esoteric that one does not understand where were are to go!

I concede that intellectuals understand what they write in very high fautin' academic terms, but then this is a forum that has all types!

Help!

Nice to see you Brigadier. Been missing you elsewhere.
I think the last time we had a "strategic" leader was IG.
Right now the only strategy of the current leadership, the majority of it is power at all cost and money.
We require leadership that understands the aspirations of the country and where it wants to head. Its one thing to make all the noises about it and another to get working in that direction. Shortsightedness is a major bane of our leadership. Its also reactive rather than pro active. Thats where a country like China has a lead over us. They are obsessed single mindedly on being the top nation in the world and challenging the US, but there is no such thing on the part of India.
Look at how China has been using its influence to String its Pearls around India, or go after every oil well in which ever part of the world using the carrot of Aid.

Similarly on the military front too their is lack of any foresight from the leadership. Thats why our modernization has been struggling. We have to have the meanest machines for our forces to defend our country as well as project power. Projection of Power is a major thing these days for countries aspiring to be sitting on the high table. But all our modernization efforts has been buried in political one upmanship and the prism of the Bofors scandal.

[asprinzl]

Folks, don't be carried away with the word "duty".
A communist Naxal terrorist might think the whole Indian masses have been brain washed and that it is his duty to turn India into a communist country. A CPI functionary might think that it would serve India well to be a vassal of China just like Pakistan is now thus he/she might think that it is their duty to their Bharat Mata to do their best to help make this happen. So "duty" can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Just like the word "patriot" which can be misused and abused.
Avram

[ramana]

Before strategy, you need to know where you want to go or position India. Mrs G was clear about what she wanted to do and thus the strategy to achieve it was clear.

MrsG wanted to roll back the "Force of hisotry" as she understood the meaning of the term. Unfortunately the modern elite doesnt.

The current crop are all seat warmers.

In the Guru Gobind Thread I quoted Shapespeare in Julius Caeser, when the crowd kills Cinna the poet after mistaking him for Cinna the conspirator because of his bad poetry! ie they dont care.

There Shapkespeare remarks that with out Caeser ie Rule or Law there is nothing of value.

MMS is no Caeser or Rule. He warms the seat as a bureaucrat for his term. Hence there is no Rule and hence no value.

I quote Shakespeare to show of my Macauleyite education but, Guru Gobindji's actual quote was provided by Sbajwa where he says without Righteous Rule there is nothing.
--------------------

One more quote by Sri Guru Gobind Singh. When asked about Separation of Religion and State. He replied this, which is more than appropriate at this juncture

"Bina Dharam, nahi Raj Chale Hai"
i.e. without Dharama you cannot rule

"Bina Raj sab Dalle Malle hai"
"Without Rule everything is in flux"

I don't know what "Dalle Malle" in this context., flux is just my understanding.

First of all thanks for the education and reminding us the unity of India and the sacrifices of the gurus for our dharam.

I was reading my Shakespeare today and in his play Julius Caesar, he makes the very same point that without Caeser (that is the leader or Rule) there is nothing of value.

So true.

I would like to know more of the five peaceful gurus. Also need to spread teh info about the five first Sikhs and where they came from.

Thanks, ramana

[archan]

Yusuf, welcome to BRF.
Just to add to your points:

We require leadership that understands the aspirations of the country and where it wants to head.

However, we also require the common folk to understand somewhat the international dynamics, and national interests and make the right noises to the so called leaders. When it comes to kursi, our leaders can really work overtime!

Shortsightedness is a major bane of our leadership.

Unfortunately the same is true for a good majority of the populace. In the 21st century, people are voting based on caste, religion, regional biases (e.g. Marathi manus crap). Until the common Indian realizes what his/her place in the nation is and has a clearer vision for their own future as Bhartiyas, this democracy will be deeply flawed. I have come to think that the best way to to serve the nation is this. A group of nationalistic people have to fervently run "wake up" campaigns tirelessly for many years. However changing the old setup is dangerous and the old establishment will fight back, and some honest workers might have to sacrifice it all for the purpose.

[samuel]

Of course, what ramana and avram sprinzl say (to a certain degree) begs the question, how is righteousness measured?

If we find some one attached to communism and doing their duty as a result, then we can as a matter of fact try to convince them of their misplaced attachment. Their skill at doing their job (the method) can be quite useful in a changed context, too. If they can't be convinced by reason, example or any number of fair tools available, eliminating or marginalizing them is not irresponsible and they thus bear the natural consequences of their action. Duty without an understanding of causality and an appreciation of consequence, makes no sense.

S

[shiv]

I am probably not a leader. Irrespectively, I don't find myself attached to the five. The only thing I find myself attached to is
a) duty must be done and b) what goes around eventually comes around. Without figuring out the appropriate duty and doing it, one usually has no standing, in any post, in any profession, in any act in any civilization on any planet in any universe. Without realizing that actions have consequences, there can be no action. All the rest, is an act.

S

When we are on the subject of leadership - I believe that in India (as in any other place) leadership has to start at grassroots level.

For India "grassroots" is the minor government functionary - the clerk who mans the desk at innumerable government offices starting, for example, from the Bangalore Municipal Corporation clerk

This man needs does not have the power to foresee or forestall Pakistani perfidy, but he has t power to make life miserable for others.

For this man, and hundreds of thousands of others like him the following list is essential for them to lead the way in setting the nation right:

1) Integrity
2) sincerity
3) honesty
4) selflessness
5) humility
6) A knowledge of and sense of duty

We simply MUST get implement this in our nation, which is full of errant people - Ramalinga Raju of a-Satyam Computers being only an extreme corporate example of the tendency of the Bangalore corporation clerk to cheat.

As one goes higher in the hierarchy - these qualities should be taken as a "given" when it comes to national interest, but the higher leader should be more discriminating about what qualities can be set aside temporarily of permanently for a higher national goal - or as a duty to bring some good fro others.

[samuel]

Alright, let's go with that. Let us say we do that. Two humble people in a disagreement will lose their humility rather quickly. At least one of two honest people in an impasse will likely blink. Things flow through paths available to them, not through paths you prefer them to follow, necessarily. And like your comment, "tell me I am nonviolent or I'll kill you", just like it in fact, differences which may arise for any reason through any context will see the growth of selfishness from selflessness, dishonesty from honesty, and so on, until an equiblirium is reached for, for what you ask. For accomplishing those objectives that an individual in free society deems important to him or her. Survival, prosperity, H&D, whatever...The qualities we see today, fortunately or unfortunately, are the qualities that survived, are the qualities of the survivors.

If you wipe all that out and start from a 5-point character slate and give freedom, you will ensure that some clerk is going to figure out that they can get ahead by flipping one of the the 5 bits (and no one notices). Things equilibrate from there. I think, in my opinion, this building 5/6-point from ground up for fostering leaders needs a bit of thought, but I am not sure what the answer is.

in our culture, and I think I can say that though miles away, if you tell someone they need to be honest, they'll agree with you and wonder what happened to you. If you tell them it is their duty to love their country, you'll get a far more honest agreement. If you can prod them to building more loving neighborhoods, you'll find people become more honest and sincere with one another. The converse is not true. So, find effective duties for one to follow and our cultural moorings will bring about the 5 or 6 steps of character you seek, in my opinion. In other words, the properties you articulate are emergent properties of a species and not control variables to directly adjust.
S

[Dhiman]

So, find effective duties for one to follow and our cultural moorings will bring about the 5 or 6 steps of character you seek, in my opinion. In other words, the properties you articulate are emergent properties of a species and not control variables to directly adjust.
S

Yes that seems to make sense. As far as the general population is concerned, if everyone developed a sense of duty and carried it out judiciously that itself would be enough and allow for emergence of other more abstract and subjective qualities. A sense and desire for carrying out duties in the general population would be reflected at the top in India and any other country where leadership flows from bottom to the top.

However, as far as Indian politicians are concerned, the problem is even more compounded given the fact that it is such an unethical, twisted line of work that those who already have a sense, willingness, and desire to carry out their duties get repulsed by politics and hence any future country-level leadership roles and I really don't know what is the fix for this.

The concept of "duty" does have some major cultural underpinnings in India which people can relate to as opposed to this concept of "our interests" or "my interests" - which, in the Indian cultural context, sounds like an open invitation to corrupt practices.

As far as west is concerned, one of the reasons why there is less so-called "corruption" in western countries is because the system of corruption has been inherently institutionalized in the form of capitalism - everything has a price - either you can afford it or you can't. But it can still be a good mechanism for enabling people to carry out their duties up to a limit. The exception comes in at the top where greed and corruption rules and indeed this is well reflected in the recent financial disaster of western financial institutions brought about purely as a result of greed and "our self interest" of people in charge of these financial institutions. I don't think the cultural underpinnings of India would support a "our self interest" based mechanism as opposed to a "duty" based mechanism.

Username changed to Dhiman.
Rahul.

[brihaspati]

We don't have to get down to fleshing out "Dharma". But Dharma makes sense, from a practical sociological viewpoint - for it establishes predictable non-hostile behaviour on the part of "all", on which everyone can plan.

On the other hand, as I have tried to indicate, Indians were quite aware of the fact that Dharma does not always get things done, or that sometimes following Dharma could mean destruction and injustice. Thus pure "Dharma" needs to be qualified with the acceptance of reciprocality - you are only "Dharmic" with "Dharmic" people, not otherwise.

I agree to the important point raised here, that the common people are "Dharmic" but that has not prevented them from participating in and maintaining or not changing an unjust system. This is the difference between leadership and following. Thus Dharma or principle alone does not guarantee change for the better. Leadership is about changing paradigms, strategic leadership is about the ability to think of changing paradigms. Where departures from natural principles of "Dharmic" is necessary to bring in fundamental changes that improves overall long term prospects of "Dharma", then such departures have to be accepted. A strategic leader will not retreat from such tough choices, whereas an ordinary leader may get confused.

Proper objectives are perhaps not that difficult to settle down to. I think almost everyone here will accept social and economic justice as the primary objective. To guarantee this we need to ensure defence, and probably some degree of "expansion" that needs some military involvement outside current borders to safeguard and consolidate the inner territory. To achieve all this, we need to gear the political/economic/social system properly. Tactically an ideological basis that is least disruptive of the popular belief systems suitably modified and modernized can be a starting point.

Now here is the controversial bit : most transitions of societies have taken place under dictatorial regimes. All the western transitions that have been referred to here, did take place under dictatorships of one form or another. This is because societal transitions take place when the older form is defunct and sterile, and the newer form is not yet overhelmingly strong, there is a vacuum. At some stage, India will probably have to undergo such a process. It is possible, that a lot of the problems currently faced are inheritances from the past that were not weeded out through a dictatorial transition. Dictatorships are usually not very long lasting - at most two political generations in very backward economies and even less than one in more advanced ones.

[Dhiman]

Username changed to Dhiman.
Rahul.

Whoze Dhmian. Dhiman is crap. What was wrong with my earlier name. I want to pick my own name.

Rahul M sir, how about discopinto?

[Dhiman]

Now here is the controversial bit : most transitions of societies have taken place under dictatorial regimes. All the western transitions that have been referred to here, did take place under dictatorships of one form or another. This is because societal transitions take place when the older form is defunct and sterile, and the newer form is not yet overhelmingly strong, there is a vacuum. At some stage, India will probably have to undergo such a process. It is possible, that a lot of the problems currently faced are inheritances from the past that were not weeded out through a dictatorial transition. Dictatorships are usually not very long lasting - at most two political generations in very backward economies and even less than one in more advanced ones.

What crap. Brahaspatiji, when are you planning to climb down from the "loony" cloud.

Learn to participate civilly or you are out of here. And whitewashing other people's opinion as crap and loony without so much as an explanation reeks of pakiness of the highest order.
You are on thin ice, for this is not PDF where you can get away with smart namecalling.
As to your username, seeing that your highness couldn't be bothered to read the forum guidelines (printed in RED, placed at the TOP of forum pages AND flanked by 6 asterisks so that mentally-challenged people with attention spans of microseconds can see it) I'll leave it for you to figure out why akl isn't acceptable.
Rahul.

[Dhiman]

Now here is the controversial bit : most transitions of societies have taken place under dictatorial regimes. All the western transitions that have been referred to here, did take place under dictatorships of one form or another. This is because societal transitions take place when the older form is defunct and sterile, and the newer form is not yet overhelmingly strong, there is a vacuum. At some stage, India will probably have to undergo such a process. It is possible, that a lot of the problems currently faced are inheritances from the past that were not weeded out through a dictatorial transition. Dictatorships are usually not very long lasting - at most two political generations in very backward economies and even less than one in more advanced ones.

At the lack of a better word, anyone suggesting that there should be a "dictatorship" in India is being a bit "fanciful" as opposed to "realistic".

Rahul M,

Soree sir, I just got a little carried away seeing my name changed and then people suggesting dictatorship. BRF is truly a great service.

-- the poster formerly known as akl

[Rahul M]

you can ask for a human sounding name of your choice.
It will be changed accordingly if it is not already taken.

[Dhiman]

you can ask for a human sounding name of your choice.
It will be changed accordingly if it is not already taken.

How about Gabbar Singh - that's human sounding and not taken. Thank you.

[archan]

Do you like this forum? if yes, do you want to start a practice that will make it look laughable with user names like -

Gabbar Singh
Gajhini
Shahrukh Khan
< insert another bollywood identity here >
Navjot Singh Siddhu

They are all real names. Do you really want to make this forum look like a congregation of 13 yr olds?
Now if someone really has a name like, say, Manmohan Singh, then we can consider it no doubt.

[Dhiman]

Do you like this forum? if yes, do you want to start a practice that will make it look laughable with user names like -

Gabbar Singh
Gajhini
Shahrukh Khan
< insert another bollywood identity here >
Navjot Singh Siddhu

They are all real names. Do you really want to make this forum look like a congregation of 13 yr olds?
Now if someone really has a name like, say, Manmohan Singh, then we can consider it no doubt.

I tried registering AlbertPinto when I first signed up, but that was already taken, plus I also saw a few posts with AlbertPinto username, so I am not sure what is the problem with Gabbar Singh. In any case its the content of the post that counts the most, right? and as you can see 90% of my posts have been very sincere and straightforward. If someone can relate to bollywood name, i don't see anything wrong with it - bollywood names make good online screen names - just like some of the god names that are being used here (no offense to my fellow posters who choose to use them).

[brihaspati]

What crap. Brahaspatiji, when are you planning to climb down from the "loony" cloud.

Assuming you are "Dheeman", I simply stated that at some stage India may have to go through such a process, and not that it must go through such a process neither that I want India to go through such a process. The idea of dictatorship is not new in India, you will see that in all the "programes" or "constitutions" of the Communist parties "revolutionary transformation" of Indian society and "dectatorship of the proletariat" is included as an eventual/ultimate objective.

My context was from a comparison of European or even some Asian transitions, in the modern period. There are studies of the role of active "monarchs", or individuals like Henry VIII/Cromwell/Charles Stuart II, or the German Kaisers, Russian Tsars, and Napoleon Bonaparte, etc in the forced transitions of the societies under their influence. The role of more modern pivots like the early Bolsheviks (Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin) and Mao are also pertinent. The dictators do not always completely shun popular legitimacy - and continue to maintain "democratic/popular" forms - Napoleon was indeed formally elected consul, and then consul for life, Lenin was elected in the Congress of the Soviets, Hitler was elected to his supreme post, etc.

The crucial characteristic of a dicatorship is the dependence of the apparatus of state power on the apparatus of personal power. Don't you think that steps towards that have already been made in the formative period of the Indian republic? And we are moving towards such an eventuality when it is a single family which makes the state apparatus dependent on itself?

Please, try to read up if possible along the lines I have suggested - Eric Hoffer in The Triue Believer, the Psychology of Mass Movements, Hannah Arendt on Totalitarianism, and Antonio Gramsci. You are "dheeman", we can expect a lot from you.

[Dhiman]

What crap. Brahaspatiji, when are you planning to climb down from the "loony" cloud.

Assuming you are "Dheeman", I simply stated that at some stage India may have to go through such a process, and not that it must go through such a process neither that I want India to go through such a process. The idea of dictatorship is not new in India, you will see that in all the "programes" or "constitutions" of the Communist parties "revolutionary transformation" of Indian society and "dectatorship of the proletariat" is included as an eventual/ultimate objective.

Nice spin. Anyway, I am planning to go on "self-imposed moratorium" unless the Admin-ullahs here change my name to something acceptable. So until then, you would be glad to know that I won't be contesting your "creative writing" (to say the least).

Whatever, your borderline trolling and non-sequiturs have drawn enough complaints by now to clock your first official warning. Congrats.
Rahul.

[samuel.chandra]

Rudradev, could not agree with you more. Both your posts above are spot on. We have to get out of this accomodation mode. I have a feeling that even if a dirty bomb goes off in one of the population centers, we will still be in the accomodating mode... and I think the next escalation would be a improvised-WMD of some sort... we have a max of 4-5 years until that happens. We need to stop waiting for someone else to do our job and take this head on. We will need to get somone like Modi at the top.

I posted in the War clouds thread...

Holding together right now is the best strategy.

Yes, but in our context, this is likely to become another rationalization for accomodation.

Namely, if we "hold together" and play a 100% defensive game while Pakistan attacks us, we are in effect accomodating Pakistan's prerogative to attack and kill Indian citizens (it doesn't matter in what terms we justify this to ourselves or have international interlocutors justify it to us... "it was done by non-state actors", "TSPA is trying to provoke a war so don't give them one", "Address the root causes of Muslim discontent", etc. etc.) The end result is the same, so the essential strategic objective we have chosen is the same. We're fighting for a stalemate despite having the capacity to win overwhelmingly.

To us, we're "holding together" for long-term survival by making short term sacrifices and compromises... the age-old accomodation strategy. To the Pakis, our willingness to accomodate shows that we are weak, we are ready to buckle, we are afraid to fight, and that their strategy of jihad is paying off.

[archan]

so I am not sure what is the problem with Gabbar Singh.

Unfortunately, you do not make that decision here.

In any case its the content of the post that counts the most, right?

Again, we decide what matters, what not.

and as you can see 90% of my posts have been very sincere and straightforward.

That is your opinion. Others may have different opinions on your posts.

If someone can relate to bollywood name, i don't see anything wrong with it

See ans. #1.

[brihaspati]

Nice spin. Anyway, I am planning to go on "self-imposed moratorium" unless the Admin-ullahs here change my name to something acceptable. So until then, you would be glad to know that I won't be contesting your "creative writing" (to say the least).

"will probably" can be shortened to "may" - both indicate "chance". This is not spin, I choose my language quite carefully. Moreover, the detailed explanation is not spin either - for example, many of the changes you refer to in the social/polity of the west - carry the stamp of "dictators". To start with trivial examples, the calendar system you use in the west was "dictated" by Julius Caesar - to all the legal modernizations, in European societies stem largely from the Code of Napoleon - dictatorially imposed by Napoleon. Henry VIII' imposed disruption from Papacy and continental control dictatorially sowing seeds of colonial expansion in finding new markets, Cromwell brought in the army and state machinery into public hands dictatorially, Cromwell established parliament's supremacy over the king dictatorially (even though a t some point he himself chsed out the "rogues" as he called parliamentarians), Charles II established education and health service along modern lines dictatorially, the British and Prussian kings were instrumental in dictatorially pushing for scientific innovations in the face of remnant societal/religious opposition, - the list could go on. This is not a history thread, so I did not want to go into pages on this.

You have to come to an understanding of changes that have taken place through processes not to your idealistic preferences. And it would be so much preferable actually if you give me counterexamples, logics etc - from which I can learn too. I see the forum as a foil on which to sharpen my thoughts - I am most eager to correct any errors you spot. If you make it worth learning from, through facts/detailed arguments/logic it would be most delightful for me.