National Agenda for India, 2010-2050

[Jarita]

"Spit and scoot" as mentioned appropriately by Abhi ji has been applied to India a lot specially by a 'Super Secular' NGO brigade. Places where they applied it, specifically:

1. HIV Aids: Proved false. Many of us those times knew it was being made up to derive funds.

2. Female infanticide in North India: Rubbish again. My family comes from villages in North India, Haryana, Punjab, Western UP. I know the village talk too. I have never heard of one single female foetus happen abortion due to gender. What has to be investigated is why the male to female ratio is high in certain parts. Similar reasons may apply as to why in certain countries, the female to male ratio is extremely high too. There's no one out there talking male infanticide/ foeticide. But then NGO's have to make money.

3. Bride burning. Paki's and Chinese on forums love quoting 5000 cases in Delhi. But hey, every case of burns on a female in a hospital in NCR is registed as a case. Even if it's an innocent stove. The ones that are not innocuos make it to national headlines. But these are exceptions to the rule. Not the rule.


These are used as mentioned before.."Spit and Scoot' strategies. Little truth though.

The pendulum has swung too much to the other side and is causing far too many problems. We now have draconion anti dowry laws which persecute innocents. And I say, forbidding female foeticide is like endorsing male foeticide - why is one murder and the other not. Can't interfere. Either all abortion is legal or it is not.

Ridiculous

[Vinod Ji]

2. Female infanticide in North India: Rubbish again. My family comes from villages in North India, Haryana, Punjab, Western UP. I know the village talk too. I have never heard of one single female foetus happen abortion due to gender. What has to be investigated is why the male to female ratio is high in certain parts. Similar reasons may apply as to why in certain countries, the female to male ratio is extremely high too. There's no one out there talking male infanticide/ foeticide. But then NGO's have to make money.

I come from the same area & I don't agree with this.

It is now less. This I will agree

[Jarita]

2. Female infanticide in North India: Rubbish again. My family comes from villages in North India, Haryana, Punjab, Western UP. I know the village talk too. I have never heard of one single female foetus happen abortion due to gender. What has to be investigated is why the male to female ratio is high in certain parts. Similar reasons may apply as to why in certain countries, the female to male ratio is extremely high too. There's no one out there talking male infanticide/ foeticide. But then NGO's have to make money.

Errrr.... While I agree that if a family can abort for other reasons they should have a choice to abort a female child, a distorted male female ratio is being driven by female foeticide. In nature human female pop is always slightly higher because of higher female life expectancy (this ratio spikes in situations of war and conflict in which a higher number of males are killed).
Nature compensates for this phenomena with a higher proportion of males conceived than females (some say 125:100). Male foetus is fragile and roughly 105 males are born for 100 females. This ratio goes down as males are more involved with violence etc and also due to earlier onset of heart disease et al. After age 60 number of females starts rising and thereby the slightly higher percentage of females.
Chemicals in the food supply can also affect this ratio potentially leading to a higher percentage of Hermaphrodites.
Sorry about the primer but in essence the distorted male female ratio is a result of foeticide. This may no longer be occuring as a result of which the ratio gap will soon close. The reala ratio to look at is the male female ratio below age of 5 to see if the trend has changed.

[harbans]

Firstly i am curious since i know villages inside out in the areas where my family comes from. There is no female infanticide, i've not heard a case. And word carries through. Secondly the female to male is higher due to the fact that females have longer longetivity than males in general. However this female infanticide propaganda i hold mostly due to NGO's propagating a version thats more exaggerated. Anyways back to the topic.

[Jarita]

1. The fact that female foeticide in India is highest in Punjab and Haryana is because of lack of UCC and allowance of religion. Excuse me while I
2. Difference in literacy levels across females in India (as highliighted here _ http://tiny.cc/mQdkD ) is because of not local prosperity and governance issues but due to - wow, lack of UCC
3. The two-thirds of women who suffer domestic violence (http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullst ... wsid=56501) are because of religion..... well, only one religion covers two-thirds of India........ care to name which one?

Adrija,
All good points but gender issues are indeed exacerbated due to UCC. For all the examples you have mentioned above there is legal recourse that can be taken (some draconian) for select communities. However, when a significant number of abuses fall within the ambit of Sharia, that cannot happen. Take for example the case of all these young girls getting married to Arab sheikhs for a day or two (basically child prostitution). It is a highly muddled area and NGO's have a hard time sep. what can be done given legal parameters.
Similarly with 4 marriages, the triple talaq etc. The quotient of domestic violence and coercion is extremely high but with little recourse.
While heterogeniety is beautiful, some forms of heterogeniety need to go. Some people may extrapolate this and claim that their right to keep a lower caste person out of a temple is based upon the heterogenous character of their community. Surely, that cannot be endorsed.

Harbans,
Infanticide and Foeticide are different

[Atri]

Agenda for 2050

1. Region from Southern Afghanistan (The pashtoon regions) to Myanmar either as a part of Republic of India OR as a part of Bhaaratiya Confederation (United states of India) but not without a very strong centre and with right to secede. Otherwise, it is pointless. Their should be one flag, one currency, One constitution and one military for USI.. The individual states will have same freedoms which are enjoyed by states of ROI in current setup.

2. It would be nice if Tibet joins this confederation. If not, it should be an independent and neutral state.So does Baluchistan and Northern Afghanistan.

3. Total energy independence.. That is, development of sustainable energy sources (solar, wind, bio, tidal, fuel-cell, thorium-nuke and if possible controlled Nuclear fusion). Not a single erg of energy should imported from region outside the territorial domains of India OR India's sphere of influence..

4. Military strong enough to have a total control of this region.. And Navy strong enough to control entire Indian ocean right up to Antarctica. There should be no other blue-water navy in Indian Ocean except IN.

5. 15%-20% share of total world's GDP. Rupee should be one of most powerful-global currency in use.

6. Social sense amongst citizens of India that Dharma-Artha-Kaama-Moksha are mutually segregated from each other and that Moksha-Maargas which deal with supernatural entities should not influence the Dharma-Artha-Kaama aspects of Individual, Social and National life. This is true secularism in Indic sense.

7. At least 80% of Indic citizens and at least 25% of Abrahamic citizens, should be aware what Dharma actually means and what is expects from them. By the year 2050, the trend of the graph people understanding the Dharma-Artha-Kaama-Moksha system of India and actually following it should be upwardly. By 2100, 100% of Indian citizens should know and practice this segregation without exception.

8. At least 50 universities in India which either belong to same calibre as that of today's MIT in USA. In other words, at least 50 MITs fully functional for education and research in applied and pure sciences. They should have no shortage of funding and no shortage of creativity for conducting competitive research.

9. A medical college of the calibre of AIIMS ( Until graduate-level education) - one per 3 districts. At least 50 Elite Medical colleges in India for Specialization, Super-Specialization and research in Medicine. All Medical students should be taught Ayurveda and holistic medicine of India along with Allopathic pharmacology and Herbal/Ayurvedic Pharmacology. However, the basic approach of looking towards body, health and disease should be Ayurvedic.

9. Re-Institution of Takshashila University, Nalanda University, Vaishali University, Kapisa University, Suvastu (Swat) university and many others of this league (at least one in every 2 districts) for education and research on social sciences, arts and commerces. The graduate and post-graduate level education sector should be privatized considerably.

10. Free and compulsory education for everybody till class 12th. Free and compulsory physical fitness trainings and facilities for everybody. Compulsory service in armed forces at least for 20 months.

10. Common National Script project should be running in full-throttle with bulk of inputs from private individuals, Organizations, Universities. All national and possibly international languages must be represented in Common Indic script which should be designed to take care of all the sounds and pronunciation patterns of all the Indian languages.

11. Rural Empowerment of India - from my blog. This should be very important priority. All villages must be connected with roads and dense network of high-speed fibre-optic cables. Electricity (free), Water, should be available. A person should have just the same opportunities to grow until 12th standard as a person from metropolis has. He should be able to make a decent living without having to migrate to cities. This will solve lot of social and economic and demographic problems of India, which I have discussed in cited blog article.

12. India should be THE KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION HUB of the world. It should be one of the few economic and military poles of the world. Linking every village by high speed cable-optics fibre network is essential for this to happen.

12. All the rivers in the USI must be linked with each other. Efficient and Sustainable utilization of available freshwater to its maximum. Even if it means dis-allowing most of the fresh-waters from reaching seas. The Water-management, building of check-dams to increase the ground-water table.

13. Innovative projects like Project Kalpataru which is proposed by Gujarat government to create a fresh-water sea in gulf of Khambaat from waters of Narmada, Taapti and Sabarmati by building a huge dam.

[Stan_Savljevic]

Take out the US' presence from Diego Garcia as soon as possible. Never forget the USS Enterprise saga.

[Adrija]

Brihaspati, apologies for the delayed reply, have been traveling

I would go one step ahead, and recommend compulsory one year military service for all between school and university. This should be for both men and women. Some of my German students described how they spent most of the time changing huge tyres of trucks in the mountain passes in running blizzard like conditions.

Agree. We already have NCC, the reason it is not more common is because states have to pay..... would be good if that fiscal burden is passed to GoI and NCC is made compulsory in every school

Won't quote your other posts individually, but will attempt answering as much as possible in as succinct a fashion as I can:

I have read about Indian history, and while you can go back and try to find root causes as to why these things are happening and how they started (incidentally, agree about the caste thing being of European construct), the basic point is simple- irrespective of the reason why it came about, these things are a reality in India today and they have to be addressed. Caste discrimination exists today, and that is reality..... female discrimination exists today- irrespective of religion- and that is reality.

India's unity is predicated- and dependent-on us having a Hindu core. That reality is something which I had elucidated myself quite some time back in the Indian Interests thread under a different avatar, and I also believe that if that ever gets diluted, India's physical unity will flounder. Let me take it further- an essential component of Indian identity, and hence which has to part of the Indian agenda- is preservation and nurturing of that uniqueness (which is also what i had articulated on that thread previously). However- and this is where the difference is- we are also the world's second largest Muslim nation- that is reality. We cannot have homogenity....... the dreams of the "pure Saraswati" flowing again are just that- dreams.

What we can have is to diverge between the agenda of India as a nation, and India as a civilization.

As a nation, we cannot seek homogentiy and standardization- that will only result in a second partition. As a society, the Indian government should leave us alone to strengthen our culture and civilization instead of actively trying to alienate us from it- which is what it currently does and why at least I call it pseudo-secular.

As a nation, we should seek to dismember/ castrate Pakistan, as it actively seeks to dismember us- and, IMVVHO, that trait is so integral to its self-identity that I think that it will never cease and desist as long as it exists.... hence we will have peace only when it stops existing.

As a nation, we have to pursue economic growth so that our civilization can flourish. As a civilization, we ourselves do not have the tools to ensure it- that is a function of the state- so we have to enable the state to continue doing so

As a nation, we have to foster an Indian identity, incorporating the differences which exist, not ignoring them or hoping they will disappear. Whatever be the reasons and their root causes, the things which are a drag are our differences- caste, religion, Codes, etc etc- have to be acknowledged and addressed, and the ONLY enduring way that has been proven to happen is through consensus and co-option, not by forcing through a state-sponsored homogenization...not only are we incapable of doing so, this is a false dawn- inspite of Han uniformity the Chinese state has always been prone to disintegration, as even a cursory reading of its history will tell you...

The interests of the two- our nation and our civilization- coincide to a large extent, but are not the same. To the extent that the nation is our karmabhoomi and our devbhoomi (whee our religion arose and developed) it is in the civilization's interests that it be strong and capable of defending itself, and that is a long long agenda which from my part I am happy to share in a separate post. But let us clearly keep in mind where the two diverge as well.

IMVHO/ JMTs of course

[Adrija]

My 2 pennies on the long term Indian Agenda:

Defence
1. 25 year perspective plan, Navy as prominent- 5 carrier navy, nuclear submarine arm with at least 5 indigenous submarines
2. Airforce to be recast: air superiority over Pakistan and China (long distance penetration bomber/ fighter aircraft, air control over Indian Ocean (through Navy?)
3. Carrier fleets- Western (Mumbai/ Karwar), Southern (Cochin), Eastern (Vizag)/ FORTRAN, and one reserve. Ability to control all shipping in Indian Ocean,- all entry and exit points. To be backed by global nuclear submarine sea control capability
4. Army to be recast into substantially a RAPIDs/RAMIDs capability to penetrate deep into Pakistan and China if need be
5. Air Force recast for total air superiority over China/ Pakistan, massive bombing capability i.e., capable of conventional bombing over Pak and 100% destruction within 6 hours (missiles, aircraft). Massive second-strike capability vs all China
6. Low standing forces, depend largely in compulsory military training as manpower backup (National Service for all males for 2 years? Alternately NCC)
7. Defense outreach in IOR and Central Asia, including bases- SA, Maldives, Ethiopia/ Eritrea, Vietnam, Singapore, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Western Australia
8. Defense setup geared towards defending against Gulf War 1991/ Afghan war -type attack from North and South.
9. Indigenous control over critical technologies- no foreign software to be utilized
10. Indigenous capabilities in ICBMs, SLBMs, ultra-stealth nuclear subs, nuclear carriers
11. Major missile defence including ICBM MIRV capability. SLBM/ MIRV ICBM capability with ABM system
12. Long term intention to control Golan and Khyber passes- Army to be based there and control of territory to be with India

Social and physical infrastructure
1. Universal primary and secondary education
2. System of school vouchers to be implemented, reimbursement to school to be linked to attendance (how to devise a verifiable system?)
3. School voucher to be linked to National ID of each child
4. Mid-day meals program for each school, outsourced to 3rd party providers at the option of the local school body (composed of PTAs); local women outsourcers to be preferred
5. All schools to be trilingual- local language, link language (English) and any one Indian classical language (Sanskrit/ Tamil). No purely English- medium schools to be allowed
6. Choice of local language left to each school, not the provincial government
7. School curriculum to include yoga, Indian music and dance?
8. Private sector to be allowed free entry into both primary (via voucher system) and secondary education; however, education curricula to be subject to strict standardization at primary level
9. Same primary (Classes 1-12) curriculum to be taught nationwide, formulation and implementation to be responsibility of independent Education Commission, charged to “inculcate patriotism, national pride, cultural awareness, secularism and scientific temper” through the education curriculum
10. Indigenous literature to be taught as part of school curriculum
11. Multiple institutes of higher education
12. Medical and engineering colleges in each district, entry through a nationwide test.
13. Higher education to be in the hands of Indians, foreign funding/ influence to be limited and monitored strictly to ensure that do not become centres of proselytization or anti-national agendas- social sciences to be especially watched.
14. University for each district/ every two districts. Each university to focus on capturing history, literature, practices, social structure and composition etc of its district
15. Universities to be autonomous, self-governing institutes of genuine learning and research, state to work with Financial institutions to subsidize (interest only) educational expenses for domestic and overseas learning
16. ITIs in each district, curriculum to be regularly upgraded to ensure that Indian industrial labour is the best educated of latest manufacturing techniques and practices
17. New constitutional aspects: complete decentralization in government and local affairs; complete unitary in economy and taxation. Local govt responsible for implementation of all local education, health, sanitation, law & order issues.
18. National road expressway network, with all state capitals linked by expressway network (including NE)
19. National high-speed rail network, including rail links linking the entire north-east, and Srinagar-Leh-Jammu
20. Universal sanitation and drinking water access
21. City regulations for transport infrastructure
22. Free real estate- transparent rent laws, user pricing, low stamp duty
23. MRT systems in all major cities (pop above 2 mn)
24. 25 year perspective plans for each city, built around “self-sufficient towns within city” concept to minimize long travel times
25. Each neighborhood in cities to have parks and playgrounds for every second/ third street, which the local government should maintain in coordination with local neighbourhood residents committee
26. Universal house tax to accrue to each city local body, based on built-up area
27. Levy on local petrol sales, to accrue to local government body (municipality, panchayat)
28. Universal irrigation access
29. Telecom and electricity to carry 1% USO charges in addition to VAT
30. Car purchase and petrol/ diesel to carry surcharge to fund capex and opex of MRT systems
31. Universal power supply
32. National integrated power transmission grid (statutory), free competition on distribution, USO for each distribution company in home area. GridCo to have mandate to lower real cost of electricity
33. Hydro-electric/renewable (e.g., nuclear, solar, geothermal, etc) to account for at least 50% of national power generating capacity (subject to immediately below), biodiesel for auto fuels
34. Comprehensive hydro-electricity plan for Uttaranchal, Himachal and Sikkim incorporating eco-friendly and economically viable dams, with local participation, to be formulated and published before implementation. NGOs to be utilized to ensure local ownership and awareness. Local displaced people to be given ownership stakes in generating company. All dams to specifically incorporate problem of siltage- normal flow of river should not be stopped as this will reduce soil fertility downstream. If no solution possible, no big dams to be built, only run of the river ones
35. Focused research on solar and nuclear energy to make it more viable
36. National security and energy policy to reduce dependence on petroleum fuels
37. Deep water ports with draught of 12-15 metres, at least one in each coastal state, interlinked to the Expressway transport network (rail and road)
38. Computerization of land records, major drive to unearth the informal economy
39. Land reforms? Evaluate and re-consider
40. Local water harvesting (check dams, rainwater harvesting in cities)
41. Each local government mandated to promote bio-energy (organic garbage in cities, bagasse/ honge/ biogass in villages)
42. Each land parcel to be tagged in unique reference
43. All financial transactions require cross-indexing (national IDs of all transacting parties to be referenced in transaction)

Sorry for the long post- have similar lists for legislation (some of which I have to do namastabhyam to RMji), industry, and miscellaneous, but think will post those later

[Sanku]

Excellent lists gentlemen but if I may add one thing -- none of the actions will happen without the intent -- which is not going to happen without a vision -- which is not going to happen without realization of self and creation of a social compact.

A unity of purpose.

To me that is the basic part.

[Adrija]

I think I have pushed long the idea in "future strat" thread, for dissolution of the TSP, and incorporation of its current territory and people as provinces of Bharat.

Yup, we all agree- GIVE PEACE A CHANCE, DESTROY PAKISTAN

The state is not independent of civilization. The current state does not reflect the civilization because the civilization has not chosen to assert itself. The task of the civilization is to see to it that the rashtra reflects the civilization.

It is not independent, but the two are not the same. I would have let it go and agree to disagree, but this is way too fundamental an assumption, so let me ask you a blunt question- how do you propose homogenization can happen so that the two coincide- make all the non- Hindus run away from India? Let me not even mention other alternates.......

An identity is always by definition an acknowledgement of commonality. You can have subgroups each characterized by shared ascriptions. But for the overall group to belong to an identity, you need the intersection of the sets of all such ascriptions to be nonempty - the nonempty intersection forming the superidentity. Nowhere in history have larger identities formed by acknowledging and highlighting differences to the extent that they can rival the commonality.

Continuation of above point. This is the tricky part, so let me phrase carefully what I am trying to say- multiple subidentities are not a problem PROVIDED they do not clash with the larger Indian one. Yes, a large component of that Indian identity- as I have said multiple times before- is predicated on a Hindu majority in the nation, but ipso facto it is not 100%. So a balancing, but not absolute, and the real point of divergence between India as a nation and India as a civilization

These are the identities which are most resistant to belong to a common Bharatyia identity - the Christian, the Islamic, and the Communist. They are based on exclusivism and are essentially about power and dominance. Therefore they are always nervous about their hold on power and are vicious in separating and preserving their constructed identity.

Sorry, but this is not a fact but more a perception, one which is sadly held widely even within BRF. Let me repeat- other than the Kashmir Islamiyat identity, which of these has been subversive to the Indian identity? Which group- Christian or Islamic- has demonstrated an ideological subversion? Foreign funded- jehadis and Evanjehadis are attempting to make it happen, but let us not confuse that between indigenous and foreign interests (which in my view are driven by secular interests and use this as a tool... not completely but to a large extent.

Civilization is the more fundamental entity on which the superstructure of the nation stands

Not sure I completely agree........ the two overlap but I believe it is in everyone's interest that the two are separate, including that of the civilization

Look forward to your responses

[Jarita]

Adrija
I thought we had responded to exactly these points earlier in the thread

[brihaspati]

Adrija wrote
It is not independent, but the two are not the same. I would have let it go and agree to disagree, but this is way too fundamental an assumption, so let me ask you a blunt question- how do you propose homogenization can happen so that the two coincide- make all the non- Hindus run away from India? Let me not even mention other alternates.......

My personal line is that either a new version of the Islamic or Christianity is adopted which is consistent with the majority faith or belief system. Or they leave their ME or Western based faiths completely and join the majority faith - like Prubhupada's group, or the historical Yavan Haridas. In all my posts here on the forum, where the topic has come up, I have always consistently maintained that, either the rashtra derecognizes the rights of immunity claimed by religions and removes religious leaders of communities as sole mediators between the rashtra and the community, or religious homogenization takes place under the majority system. In the latter case let conversion activity be completely free and without intervention from the rashtra - it will be the task of the "majority" to do a "religious/belief system" reconquista. And I have always maintained that those now in exclusivist ME origin religions, are descended mostly from Indian mothers, if not always (as they claim) from Indian fathers - and as such are our kin. They are part of our family as persons - and it is our duty to see to it that they come out of the self delusion of the "revealed traditions", and become integrated members of our family.

I have also consistently rooted for delegitimization/emasculation of the Ulema and I will ad now the EJ missionary engaged in conversion to this target group. Communications between the communities should be at the people level and not controlled by the Ulema or the EJ missionary. The religious leaders of the exclusivist systems are the target, not their flock.

Continuation of above point. This is the tricky part, so let me phrase carefully what I am trying to say- multiple subidentities are not a problem PROVIDED they do not clash with the larger Indian one. Yes, a large component of that Indian identity- as I have said multiple times before- is predicated on a Hindu majority in the nation, but ipso facto it is not 100%. So a balancing, but not absolute, and the real point of divergence between India as a nation and India as a civilization

I think you and I have different concepts of what exactly "nation" and "civilization" stand for. For me a nation is a geopolitical construct that is based on a civilization. A civilization is a society that is conscious of its own uniqueness as a culture. A rashtra/state is the institutional ensemble that is both created and (once created) helps to maintain a nation. My impression is that when you are speaking of the nation, you actually mean the "rashtra".

The Indian rashtra at present was not created on the basis of any real "nation". It was an artificial construct of the colonial power, at the top, with colonial administrative machinery moved over intact, that set out to create a new nation from scratch. The creation process was guided by the necessity of the realization that nations to be stable and based on solid foundations need a civilization to provide the foundation. But any such allowance to the existing civilizational foundation would have meant national superstructure, and the rashtryia setup based on the nation, would make individuals at the top, dependent on the "nation" and "civilization" for their personal power.

This was why the civilizational aspect was carefully disjoined from the nation, and an artificial definition of the nation that considered all claims of all groups as equal and comparable was sought to be used. The recognition and support to multiplicity of group claims creates a situation where no civilization can become strong enough to determine the character of the nation. So that the apparatus of rashtryia power can be made to become dependent on the apparatus of personal power - that personal power which stands as the mdeiator/resolver of disputes between "equal" myriad civilizational claims.

By accepting the divergence of the "nation" and its "dominant civilization", you are actually accepting this clamour for the apparatus of rashtryia power to be kept dependent on the apparatus of personal power.

Sorry, but this is not a fact but more a perception, one which is sadly held widely even within BRF. Let me repeat- other than the Kashmir Islamiyat identity, which of these has been subversive to the Indian identity? Which group- Christian or Islamic- has demonstrated an ideological subversion? Foreign funded- jehadis and Evanjehadis are attempting to make it happen, but let us not confuse that between indigenous and foreign interests (which in my view are driven by secular interests and use this as a tool... not completely but to a large extent.

This is coming from your acceptance of an "Indian identity" foisted by a conglomeration of interests that are inherently hostile to that of the majority. An Indian idenity that gives equal equal acceptance to ME-origin claims of exclusivity has all the opportunity to carry out their targets of eventual conversion of the whole and erasure of the older civilizational memes. Further all their cultural centres and focus of interest lies in the Middle East or power centres in the "West". This is why anything that goes wrong against "Muslim" perceptions in the middle east brings out the strongest and most intense outpouring of reactions in the IM community - but no protests when the Bamian Buddha is destroyed. The Buddha was not a casteist Kafir Hindu who oppressed Muslims in Kashmir - was he? And Buddhism can be safely assumed to be part of the civilizational heritage of India? But the IM did not show a millionth of the reaction it showed in the case of the Danish cartoon, or Salman Rushdie or Tasleema Nasreen. Forget the destruction of Hindu cultural sites in TSP and BD.

So where the Islamic core claims of murderous, genocidal, culture-erasing memes and instructions are concerned - they come superior in the mindset of the Islamic leadership in India compared to "all" civilizational components of India. You should not try to overlook the fundamental fact that the ideologues of all the three movements I mentioned, are firmly based on a derecognition and trashing of all contributions and role of the civilizations in India that preceded their advent in India. For the Muslim leadership, India's civilization and history only starts from the advent of Islam in India. For the Christian, all civilizational light comes only after spread of Christianity in India. Moreover, there is a clear attempt at establishing a rupture with the past that came before Islam or Christianity or Communism. What came before was at best various degrees of "darkness" and nothing good or worth retrieving from or retaining in the future civilization/nation/rashtra - to be replaced with all possible efforts by the "only true path and light". You are claiming that we have to recognize memes as civilizations that deny any civilizational role to the majority for the future, and openly declare their right to seek to replace the majority "civilization" with their own?

I do not agree at all with you here.

Quote:
Civilization is the more fundamental entity on which the superstructure of the nation stands


Not sure I completely agree........ the two overlap but I believe it is in everyone's interest that the two are separate, including that of the civilization

It is not in anyone's interest that the nation is founded on a weak base that is constantly being shaken by rival claims of being the sole civilizational guide.

[Adrija]

Abhi_G, with all due respect, you are preaching to the choir, boss......... I completely agree that the current Indian state is psuedo-sec

Brihaspati, agree that I am using the rashtra/ nation interchangeably, while the two are strictly separate. Will be more careful using those two terms in their correct meaning.

For me a nation is a geopolitical construct that is based on a civilization

Not sure if I agree completely........ by that definition, there are only two nations on this planet + one more supra-national entity (India, China and the Judeo-Christian West). In my mind, FWIW, nations are exactly societies which have come together under a common state, and agree to forge a common identity based on a set of shared principles. So whatever be the past construct- colonial or not- the Indian nation is now a nation legitimately, and is on its way of building a functioning state (hopefully! we do need RMji to start winning elections for that to reach its logical conclusion) based on the principles as enunciated in the Constitution (alluding to your other comments as well)

An Indian idenity that gives equal equal acceptance to ME-origin claims of exclusivity has all the opportunity to carry out their targets of eventual conversion of the whole and erasure of the older civilizational memes. Further all their cultural centres and focus of interest lies in the Middle East or power centres in the "West". This is why anything that goes wrong against "Muslim" perceptions in the middle east brings out the strongest and most intense outpouring of reactions in the IM community - but no protests when the Bamian Buddha is destroyed. The Buddha was not a casteist Kafir Hindu who oppressed Muslims in Kashmir - was he? And Buddhism can be safely assumed to be part of the civilizational heritage of India? But the IM did not show a millionth of the reaction it showed in the case of the Danish cartoon, or Salman Rushdie or Tasleema Nasreen. Forget the destruction of Hindu cultural sites in TSP and BD.

Yes, and your perspective is coming from equating the national identituy with a civilizational one.

[negi]

I have only one main point to add

1. Try to impart at least 10/12 class level education to as many children as possible; heck I am even for reservations for a particular class if that is what it takes to educate children.

Address the above for this should address most of the issues plaguing India in next couple of decades.

[SwamyG]

Please read the following links; though geared towards ITvity people, Joel, the author actual takes management lessons from real world to apply to IT arena.

Mangagement approaches

If you want to lead a team, a company, an army, or a country, the primary problem you face is getting everyone moving in the same direction, which is really just a polite way of saying “getting people to do what you want.”

Think of it this way. As soon as your team consists of more than one person, you’re going to have different people with different agendas. They want different things than you want. If you’re a startup founder, you might want to make a lot of money quickly so you can retire early and spend the next couple of decades going to conferences for women bloggers. So you might spend most of your time driving around Sand Hill Road talking to VCs who might buy the company and flip it to Yahoo!. But Janice the Programmer, one of your employees, doesn’t care about selling out to Yahoo!, because she’s not going to make any money that way. What she cares about is writing code in the latest coolest new programming language, because it’s fun to learn a new thing. Meanwhile your CFO is entirely driven by the need to get out of the same cubicle he has been sharing with the system administrator, Trekkie Monster, and so he’s working up a new budget proposal that shows just how much money you would save by moving to larger office space that’s two minutes from his house, what a coincidence!

The problem of getting people to move in your direction (or, at least, the same direction) is not unique to startups, of course. It’s the same fundamental problem that a political leader faces when they get elected after promising to eliminate waste, corruption, and fraud in government. The mayor wants to make sure that it’s easy to get city approval of a new building project. The city building inspectors want to keep getting the bribes they have grown accustomed to.

And it’s the same problem that a military leader faces. They might want a team of soldiers to charge at the enemy, even when every individual soldier would really just rather cower behind a rock and let the others do the charging.

Here are three common approaches you might take:

* The Command and Control Method
* The Econ 101 Method
* The Identity Method

You will certainly find other methods of management in the wild (there’s the exotic “Devil Wears Prada” Method, the Jihad Method, the Charismatic Cult Method, and the Lurch From One Method To Another Method) but over the next three days, I’m going to examine these three popular methods and explore their pros and cons.

Approaches
*The Command and Control Method
*The Econ 101 Method
*The Identity Method

[samuel]

The only thing that makes sense on the national agenda is to consolidate our narrative of nationalism for the nation. For just as our past prosperity was no defense against being conquered, neither will our future one be. And surely as this nation has been exploited as a marketplace in the past, it will be again if we continue to find excuses for disgusting personal prosperity in the name of food shelter and clothing, and ignore the strong nation that the intended recipients of such prosperity seek.

[brihaspati]

It is important to get the majority of people on board the national aspirations. For this, it is also important to show that national expansion project benefits the people. This means the basic material aspirations for a large section of people who have been subjected to the media representation of "ideal conditions of living" will have to be linked to the national expansion project.

A 20-year timeline to take care of the material aspirations aspect can be and should be part of the national agenda. But this should be firmly integrated with the overall national expansion project. Otherwise, it will degenerate into pure economic opportunism - as inevitably pure accummulation of wealth and consumption makes people risk averse. They will then think more in terms of "buying off" hostile forces rather than fight and destroy them - for fear that any reversal may jeopardize their levels of consumption.

The economic growth should be firmly connected to setting aside a portion of the national surplus to military enhancement and power projection beyiond current borders. People should be made to realize that such an expansive attitude and programme actually helps to enhance and secure the consumption levels of the people. These connections are typically never highlighted or projected.

A 25 year timeline to bring up the capacity of the military to levels that can neutralize PRC+USA combinations to prevent them from intervening in India's own plans. The remaining 25 years to cover the first stage of expansion to secure the entire subcontinent, immediate Asian and IOR region.

Social homogenization should remain a theme throughout - facing the economic, military, and international political struggle together. Here we cannot compromise with forces that seek to erase our past, our civilizational heritage which they consider "darkness" if it came before they came to India with their messianic revelations. We should seek to isolate them one at a time, finish them off in our neighbourhood, and then proceed to tackle the next one. All alliances are temporary compared to the long term national agenda. Todays friends can become enemies, today's enemies can become friends, and change again.

We seek to incorporate people into our cultural setup, but not their exclusivist leadership who seek to rally them against us. The leadership is the target for neutralization, not their flock.

[ramana]

Have a wholistic look at all policeis, laws, customs and traditions that take away from the idea of India and get rid of them. In fifty years the politicians have managed to keep the state together while dividing the nation.

[KLNMurthy]

...
My personal line is that either a new version of the Islamic or Christianity is adopted which is consistent with the majority faith or belief system. Or they leave their ME or Western based faiths completely and join the majority faith - like Prubhupada's group, or the historical Yavan Haridas. In all my posts here on the forum, where the topic has come up, I have always consistently maintained that, either the rashtra derecognizes the rights of immunity claimed by religions and removes religious leaders of communities as sole mediators between the rashtra and the community, or religious homogenization takes place under the majority system. In the latter case let conversion activity be completely free and without intervention from the rashtra - it will be the task of the "majority" to do a "religious/belief system" reconquista. And I have always maintained that those now in exclusivist ME origin religions, are descended mostly from Indian mothers, if not always (as they claim) from Indian fathers - and as such are our kin. They are part of our family as persons - and it is our duty to see to it that they come out of the self delusion of the "revealed traditions", and become integrated members of our family.

...

The above implies some kind of forceful persuasion or coercive or fiat mechanisms like laws etc. Laws don't work unless there is some kind of consensus on their acceptability, and a totalitarian dictatorship that imposes ideologies or values that are unacceptable to a significant segment of the population are not stable. Plus the latter has a high risk of elevating the stupid and unimaginative to power without the ability to remove them.

So, do you have any thoughts on how your vision is supposed to be accomplished, keeping in mind that we went through more or less the same debate pre-independence and came up with the present secular democratic system, which has performed reasonably well for over 60 years and kept us reasonably stable and free?

[KLNMurthy]

Have a wholistic look at all policeis, laws, customs and traditions that take away from the idea of India and get rid of them. In fifty years the politicians have managed to keep the state together while dividing the nation.

Is that true? Are we more divided or less divided than 50 years ago? How can we determine that?

[brihaspati]

I will try to outline my thoughts on a structured national agenda in a sequence of posts.I will try to divide this into internal, external, and concurrent (involving both internal and external).

The internal vision is : Equal opportunity for all, together with a social safety net. Equal treatment of all by the rashtra, subject to biological restrictions. That is people's opportunities should not be affected by biological factors to the extent relevant, and affirmative action should only consider disadvantages sourced from biological factors. For example senior citizens, or infants, or pregnant women, physically incapacitated, have to be given certain privileges that others will not be given.

The internal mission therefore comes to : develop social-legal structure to be aligned with the vision, develop economic and infrastructural facilities to support the vision.

Steps involved in the internal mission comes to:

(a) Reforming the social-legal structure - to simplify, update and homogenize all laws, both civil as well as criminal. Many of the IPC items are dated, and need to be checked for relevance. The civil law should become a single one applicable to all communities and citizens without exception. The programme for this will be subject to mischievous criticisms like, of being driven by jealousy of Muslims being able to have four legal wives. However such criticims are a cover to hide the real agenda of preserving and extending multiple subdidvisions of identity that can be potentially used to introduce dilemma/inaction in other arenas of national life.

Remove legal support for reservations not based on biological factors. Any provision of special treatment based on non-biological subidentiies will tend to strengthen those subidentities and make them permanent. If belonging and clamouring on behalf of a subidentity gives an opportunity to do less and get more, that subidentity will never give up the characteristics that gives it such advantages. This results in extension of those very "disadvantage" factors that were used to give initial special treatment on a permanent basis. A permanent special treatment goes against the principle of equal opportunity. Moreover, it produces incentives to artifically create new subidentities to gain special treatment.

Legal recognition of the right to free speech, and derecognition of the right of religious communities and their leaders to claim immunity from discussion and criticism. In any question where the religion/faith/ideology is in conflict with the rashtra, the rashtra will prevail legally.

Comprehensive social safety net, which must have a functional National Health Service, comprehensive and compulsory social insurance covering health, accidents, retirement and unemployment. This will need other elements of rashtryia management like a national identity database.

Promotion of e-governance and gradual decrease of size and dependency on bureaucracy.

(b) Economic and infrastructural developments:

(1) Settlement of the land use and land ownership problem. Land reclamation programmes. Irrigation networks.
(2) Roads and transport networks.
(3) Communication. Especially putting every citizen on an information highway that connects and spans all corners of India. An internal backbone of an independent "Indian information web" that can isolate itself from the www if necessary or if www is interrupted by terrorism or otherwise.
(4) Energy : renewable and nonrenewable. Think of solar, bio-fuels, tidal and wind. Complete self-sufficiency and surplus. Complete coverage of all households.
(5) Health care : all comes under the National Health Service. The rashtra should also promote multiple regional publicly owned (and mutually competing) pharmaceutical ventures to back up its NHS. Training of healthcare professionals and providing for medical facilities.
(6) Education : A National education service. All educational facilities compulsorily required to teach a core list of subjects including modern basic and exact sciences, and quantitaive/foundational aspects of history - such as archaeology, linguistics, and open access to all source narratives of history. A compulsory learning of one language in common in addition to others. Any faith based claims that are sought to be taught must be placed in the proper historical context and as part of historical narratives - and subject to analysis and open criticism. If such claims contradict the fundamental aspects of rashtryia stability, and exact sciences, then they have to be dropped.
(7) An exploration of a more sustainable livelihood and settlement pattern, in new forms of economically, energy, housing, waste management-wise selfsufficient ecocities/ecotowns/ecovillages. Community Land Trust Models.

[RamaY]

Per my calculations, assuming a 6% annual growth in economy

India will have ~$10B-$15B additional tax revenues between 2010 and 2050.

This is in addition to ~$150B tax revenues India is getting as of today. The current tax revenues must be spent on running a deficit free budget and paying of India’s external debts.

I propose India sets up an escrow account of $350B for the next 15 years and prepare sound plans to achieve the following –

1. 100% literacy - ~$10B
2. Self-sustaining Village development program - $50B (develop 1 lakh villages with <5000 population to developed nation level (Rs 1 Cr per village) with ~$25B kept for maintenance expenses) population coverage = ~20-40 billion.
3. Renewable food security program - $50B (Pls see my proposals in Indian Interests thread, which envisions to add at least 10 million acres of farm land + 40 million acres of commercial and forest lands)
4. Renewable Energy security program - $50B
5. Renewable Water security program - $20B (10 large dams = $10B, 1000 water reservoirs with 1 TMC capacity = $5B, Water lifting and pipeline construction = $5B)
6. Renewable Forestry and fisheries program - $10B
7. Infrastructure Development - $25B (10000 KM of 4lane highways, Development of 10 Ports to international standards, and establishing 5000KM of railway freight corridors)
8. Military Security - $35B (3 ACs, 5 SSBNs, 1 multi-layer BMD system, 1 5th Gen fighter development program, 2 UAV/UCAV programs, 1 long range (1000KM to 2000KM) supersonic cruise missile program, a DARPA like R&D collaboration organization).
9. Comprehensive urban development program - $80B (identify top 100 cities and towns in india and develop them to international standards) – population coverage ~40-60 billions.
10. India Aid program - $20B design a India-Aid program for small underdeveloped nations where India would establish premium educational, medical and industrial institutions. India exports indigeneous military such as Arjun Tanks, LCA, Pinaka, Akash etc to these nations.

This could be India’s economic recovery package for the period between 2010-2025.

[RoyG]

^^ Diggin the escrow. The only part I'm kinda iffy about is the 10,000 km of 4 lane highway. I just don't want India going down the same wasteful path as the U.S. The highway system here is excellent but its harmful to the environment, costs a lot to maintain, and it's def not easy on the wallet. I think there is growing support now for an expansion and upgradation of rail between major cities/towns and industrial hubs as well as buses and metros for city wide transit.

[Pranav]

The cost- and fuel-efficient way to go is to have moderately high speed rail networks - top speed 160 kmph, average speed 100 kmph. Should also have refrigerated cargo cars for fruits, vegetables and milk. Build Fedex type computerized system to guarantee deliveries from Point A to Point B within 48 hours.

There is no need to have so many trucks on the highways.

^^ Diggin the escrow. The only part I'm kinda iffy about is the 10,000 km of 4 lane highway. I just don't want India going down the same wasteful path as the U.S. The highway system here is excellent but its harmful to the environment, costs a lot to maintain, and it's def not easy on the wallet. I think there is growing support now for an expansion and upgradation of rail between major cities/towns and industrial hubs as well as buses and metros for city wide transit.

[AnimeshP]

The cost- and fuel-efficient way to go is to have moderately high speed rail networks - top speed 160 kmph, average speed 100 kmph. Should also have refrigerated cargo cars for fruits, vegetables and milk. Build Fedex type computerized system to guarantee deliveries from Point A to Point B within 48 hours.

There is no need to have so many trucks on the highways.

Actually ... we already have some kind of infrastructure which can reach every nook and corner in India. The Indian Postal Service ...
I think the govt. should seriously look into expanding the role of the Postal Service and try to bring in some logistics and SCM capabilities into that organization.

[shiv]

Actually ... we already have some kind of infrastructure which can reach every nook and corner in India. The Indian Postal Service ...
I think the govt. should seriously look into expanding the role of the Postal Service and try to bring in some logistics and SCM capabilities into that organization.

The good old Postal service still works well. But most people have shifted to private courier services for that 24 to 48 hour guarantee.

[RamaY]

The cost- and fuel-efficient way to go is to have moderately high speed rail networks - top speed 160 kmph, average speed 100 kmph. Should also have refrigerated cargo cars for fruits, vegetables and milk. Build Fedex type computerized system to guarantee deliveries from Point A to Point B within 48 hours.

There is no need to have so many trucks on the highways.

^^ Diggin the escrow. The only part I'm kinda iffy about is the 10,000 km of 4 lane highway. I just don't want India going down the same wasteful path as the U.S. The highway system here is excellent but its harmful to the environment, costs a lot to maintain, and it's def not easy on the wallet. I think there is growing support now for an expansion and upgradation of rail between major cities/towns and industrial hubs as well as buses and metros for city wide transit.

Could be so. But I thought we cannot build railway network in some areas and a all-weather road network is more practical. For example NE and J&K areas.

[KLNMurthy]

KV Rao wrote
The above implies some kind of forceful persuasion or coercive or fiat mechanisms like laws etc. Laws don't work unless there is some kind of consensus on their acceptability, and a totalitarian dictatorship that imposes ideologies or values that are unacceptable to a significant segment of the population are not stable. Plus the latter has a high risk of elevating the stupid and unimaginative to power without the ability to remove them.

So, do you have any thoughts on how your vision is supposed to be accomplished, keeping in mind that we went through more or less the same debate pre-independence and came up with the present secular democratic system, which has performed reasonably well for over 60 years and kept us reasonably stable and free?

Did the debate in pre-Independence India, which tried to map out the future of India, and especially those participants in that debate who apparently came up with the "present secular democratic system", - recommend a "Partition" of the country along communal lines when they were giving out their plans? Was it really a plan for a "democratic secular India" or more a continuation of the British colonial state with greater electoral representation to the people? It was more a patchwork of borrowed clothes to make a grand uniform - where if someone modeled a Constitution based on existing ones in the "west", others tried to imitate the Westminster format into it, and when someone imitated the Soviet model in forming a Planning Commission, yet others had to outshine the initiator by specifically calling for 5-year Plans a la USSR Plans.

You have a very varied of mix of things in the above list, lot of specific details that to me, belong in different categories of economic choice, constitutional mecchanisms, clash of sociopolitical vision, failure of character, etc. It is hard to address them if they are all thrown in the same basket.

The reason I think the process pre-1947 was important is that, in effect, the debate was about how to move towards a free, viable and stable India. There were two opposing visions of this--Jinnah's aristocratic/fedual vision in which everyone lived in their own separate homogeneous cave and the elite manage the relationships between the caves, versus the more expansive, democratic egalitarian vision, which still had to contend with the challenge of making compromises for managing the continuing desire of many segments of the population to live in frequently-conflicting caves. The two visions were ultimately irreconcilable albeit with some overlap--you can't have an open democracy if you are obsessed with Hindu vs Musalmaan and see everything through that prism, and hence there was partition.

The grand "secular democracy" appears to be more a lurching, groping moving forward by aping or imitating others. Does the apparent growth of the economy and relative stability of the the borders, with the "minor" losses of POK, Aksai, parts of Arunachal Pradesh - really represent the success of the model, or success in spite of the model?

I have only said that the transition to either Indianization of Christianity/Islam with specific ruptures from their ME roots and erasure of their "past culture wiping out programme" as a core part of "revelation" or their adoption of one of the pre-Islamic/Christian belief systems in the subcontinent has to take place. Whether it happens through democracy or authrotarian rule will be determined by the perception of the people in the context of the time it takes place.

Many of the criticisms you levy are valid and are widely shared. There is plenty of room to conceptualize better and execute better. However, we cannot know how much worse or better things would have been if we took a different approach; we can only speculate. But India, even as it stands today, is not a hopelessly negative and useless place for which the only solution is to tear it all down and build an entirely new entity on a blank slate.

In my view, what would be fatal is to take a tabula rasa aesthetic approach to nation-building and development; I see that as the deadly logic of Pakistan and Khmer Rouge Cambodia, or alternately the futile aimless flounderings that we see today in many ideological parties in India. The acid test for me is, there should be some indication of acknowledgment of present reality, and a broad approach of how we aim to get "there" from "here"--not endless details which are impossible to have at this point.

Over time, people in the large tend to walk away from ideologies that lead to poverty, starvation, subjugation, etc., and towards those that are seen as leading to positive things. There is plenty to do, without getting involved with coercing people at cultural and ideological levels, to create a credible system that offers wealth, freedom, pride, etc. Plus we do a poor job of communicating the positive benefits of our system, that overall, works reasonably well. If we didn't have Pakistan as a living counterexample, I imagine we would find even less appreciation of India by Indians.

Eventually the transitions you speak of will take place, as an effect, not as a cause--we are seeing the failure of a closed, cave-dwelling model, and the relative success of an open and tolerant model. People will gravitate towards, and adopt ideas that are seen to work well. But people also react badly to being "told" or commanded from on high to change, especially if they are accustomed to seeing to seeing the "teller" as an outsider with questionable intent, that doesn't particularly respect their ways or their selfhood.

[brihaspati]

KV Rao wrote
You have a very varied of mix of things in the above list, lot of specific details that to me, belong in different categories of economic choice, constitutional mecchanisms, clash of sociopolitical vision, failure of character, etc. It is hard to address them if they are all thrown in the same basket.

The reason I think the process pre-1947 was important is that, in effect, the debate was about how to move towards a free, viable and stable India. There were two opposing visions of this--Jinnah's aristocratic/fedual vision in which everyone lived in their own separate homogeneous cave and the elite manage the relationships between the caves, versus the more expansive, democratic egalitarian vision, which still had to contend with the challenge of making compromises for managing the continuing desire of many segments of the population to live in frequently-conflicting caves. The two visions were ultimately irreconcilable albeit with some overlap--you can't have an open democracy if you are obsessed with Hindu vs Musalmaan and see everything through that prism, and hence there was partition.

The question was about the debate that is supposed to have generated the modern "democratic+secular" India. Such a debate until the very last moment could not envisage the trauma of Partition. The debaters in the rarefied heights of CWC or ephemeral friendships and alliances between British and Indian power sharers - could look decades into the future of a "democratic+secular" India but failed to see "Partition". Not only that, when they represented it as the necessary birth-pangs of a feminized nation - were they doing post or pre-calculations? Such wonderful visionaries should have had the capacity to see the immediate? Or is that a crime to expect? Or we should also expect it as a result of the "debate"? Or the necessary price to pay to ensure "democracy+secularism" which however ensures continuance of religious rigidity and something like the Ulema Council or the Muslim Personal Law Board. What mockery is this? Even that Partition has not solved the problem of religious fundamentalism and the late 80's Kashmir expulsion of the Pundits happened because of which Hindu revivalist atrocity on which Islamic community?

In my view, what would be fatal is to take a tabula rasa aesthetic approach to nation-building and development; I see that as the deadly logic of Pakistan and Khmer Rouge Cambodia, or alternately the futile aimless flounderings that we see today in many ideological parties in India. The acid test for me is, there should be some indication of acknowledgment of present reality, and a broad approach of how we aim to get "there" from "here"--not endless details which are impossible to have at this point.

Over time, people in the large tend to walk away from ideologies that lead to poverty, starvation, subjugation, etc., and towards those that are seen as leading to positive things. There is plenty to do, without getting involved with coercing people at cultural and ideological levels, to create a credible system that offers wealth, freedom, pride, etc. Plus we do a poor job of communicating the positive benefits of our system, that overall, works reasonably well. If we didn't have Pakistan as a living counterexample, I imagine we would find even less appreciation of India by Indians.

We tend to see Pakistan as a "failure" because Pakistan apparently has more of violent processes to arrive at political decisions. But is it a failure from the Pakistani viewpoint? I don't think so. From the Pakistani worldview, which is a desperate struggle to become non-Indian/non-Hindu and seek an Islamic identity to replace every aspect of Indianness - is firmly based on puritanical and literal Islam. In such a worldview, violence is an accceptable means of political negotiations for power and dominance - and seeking to impose a religious totalitarian society the highest task of the religion itself. Such a society, once formed does not fall on its own. Totalitarianism that has to compromise even outwardly with "humanitarian" or "liberal" views is weak and falls. Islam does not have to make any such compromises and it stays. In no country where once Islam has gained majority, the essential authoritarian and totalitarian character of the society and its reflection on the rashtra has ever changed. Yes even in Turkey the orthodoxy has and is slowly crept back.

I think I was the only one on this forum who did not share in the generally popular vision of the imminent "implosion" of Pakistan. My non-agreement was firmly based on the fundamentals of Islamic processes.

One of the fundamental problems I have with the so-called development theory of de-radicalization is that, it works for societies with a historical strand and acknowledged cultural memory of liberal values. That means the society essentially has liberal, open value system - so that radicalism is essentially a departure from societal thread. "Bribing" with "development/entitlement" can restore the societal balance. It is blunder to extend such a theory to non-liberal societies or social groups. The same holds for societies form whom earlier social memories and memes of liberalism has been systematically removed. In every Islam dominated society where some "economic" development has taken place - has always led to increased Islamic radicalism. The generally well invested (socially) Gulf Islamic societies all show increased radicalization and support for Jihad. Same goes for Malaysia, Turkey and Indonesia. In Islamic societies - more economic development == more support for Jihad.

Empowerment of Islam materially simply strengthens the Ulemaic ambitions to extend Islam onto non-Islamics. This is consistent with the basic tenets of the theology.

Eventually the transitions you speak of will take place, as an effect, not as a cause--we are seeing the failure of a closed, cave-dwelling model, and the relative success of an open and tolerant model. People will gravitate towards, and adopt ideas that are seen to work well. But people also react badly to being "told" or commanded from on high to change, especially if they are accustomed to seeing to seeing the "teller" as an outsider with questionable intent, that doesn't particularly respect their ways or their selfhood.

Problem is that for many men growing up into adulthood and for centuries to come, Islamic way of life will remain an attractive option. It promises basic material and biological satisfaction with relatively little skills development except that needed in Ghazwas - the ability to fight physically. The increasing complexities of urban, knowledge societies will alienate those in whom liberal values (which in reality means ability to handle complexity) are not ingrained as a societal and philosophical base.

I sought exactly those elements in these faiths to be removed - that prevent the Islamic mind to accept complexity and alternatives. The derecognition of "revelations" as permanent and enjoying full immunity from questioning. The placing of revelations and Sharia firmly in the context of history and not as an integral aim of the faith forever into the future.

[SwamyG]

The cost- and fuel-efficient way to go is to have moderately high speed rail networks - top speed 160 kmph, average speed 100 kmph.

Any reason you want it restricted to 160Kmph?

[Pranav]

The cost- and fuel-efficient way to go is to have moderately high speed rail networks - top speed 160 kmph, average speed 100 kmph.

Any reason you want it restricted to 160Kmph?

The existing railway tracks are capable of handling 160 kmph. At that speed (if you can sustain it) you could do Mumbai-Delhi in about 10 hours. There is no need to spend billions on Maglev, bullet trains etc.

[SwamyG]

Pranav:
I agree with your point. I also think we can adapt things that have worked elsewhere and implement them on a case to case basis in India. From a long term perspective having a train faster than 160kmph might be useful, at least in the heavy corridors. Let us not restrict ourselves.

[Sanku]

TSP exists because of India's confusion on what it wants at its western border,
not because of some intrinsic strength or weakness.

But the entire existence and hence success and failure of TSP is defined not by their actions, but because of omissions and commissions of Bharata. As such you what you say and what I mean by TSP being a success are not contradictory.

They wanted to distinguish themselves from India, and with that as a goal you cant but agree that they have succeeded spectacularly.

The problem is they also want to color more of India with their new colors.

[Pulikeshi]

“This is indeed India; the land of dreams and romance, of fabulous wealth and fabulous poverty, of splendor and rags, of palaces and hovels, of famine and pestilence, of genii and giants and Aladdin lamps, of tigers and elephants, the cobra and the jungle, the country of a thousand nations and a hundred tongues, of a thousand religions and two million gods, cradle of the human race, birthplace of human speech, mother of history, grandmother of legend, great-grandmother of tradition, whose yesterdays bear date with the mouldering antiquities of the rest of the nations—the one sole country under the sun that is endowed with an imperishable interest for alien prince and alien peasant, for lettered and ignorant, wise and fool, rich and poor, bond and free, the one land that all men desire to see, and having seen once, by even a glimpse, would not give that glimpse for the shows of all the rest of the globe combined.”

—Mark Twain, Following the Equator, 1897

The more things change, they remain the same.
Something to think about as we go about creating agendas...

[Pulikeshi]

B,

India is at the mercy of change as the next country -
in as much as she is an agent of change on others - not my area of argument.

Most arguments here are falling into two buckets

1) Objective improvements - The immediate infrastructure and facilities, anti-corruption, life & standards of living improvements, etc.

2) Moralistic, normative improvements - Common Civil code - especially Sharia, Article 370, Religion, etc.

This is business as usual, no need for vision or agenda here, what is needed is work.
In these two areas the more things change they remain the same in India.

The Indian civilization has always tolerated the stone age adivasis, the broze age temples,
the modern metro trains and space age rockets and satellites all coexisting.
Anyone with agendas need to understand the subtlety of the underlying ethos was my point.
One may compromise this nurturing plurality in a blind quest to optimize the nation-state.

The Bharatiya civilization rarely rejects anything, especially ideas. The Indian nation-state,
by nature, is exclusionary. It has maintained an uncomfortable peace with the underlying civilization. Ironically, the civilization itself has not allowed any nation-state to reign it in for
more than a period of time. This point cannot be ignored when one is trying to optimize the
nation-state.

Couple of other points:

Vision is that near impossible goal that one inspires to attain.
Agenda is for politicians, tenured Academics and moderators on BRF

1. You can optimize the agenda for the nation-state or the civilization. They are not
mutually exclusive, but it is almost impossible to do both in one go. However, optimizing
the agenda for the nation-state while ignoring the civilization is like building skyscrapers
on loose soil foundation. In the case of India, the civilization is active loose soil

2. The current Indian nation-state stands agnostic to its civilization and ethos.
This has to change. However, the antipathy shown by the voters to the Hindutva way
should be noted. The key is such change can only occur with economic development.
Indeed it may occur because of economic development.

3. Change has traditionally occurred due to normative arguments - especially religious.
This is more so in the case of India. Anyone ignoring this IMVHO is ignorant of India.
Gandhi was one of the modern geniuses who understood this subtle but important fact.
Secular change occurred briefly at the end of the British empire in India, but it has already
fizzled into rank obsequiousness towards one global power or another in the last 60 years.

4. There have also been some arguments here that Dharma is what keeps India backward.
Other arguments have relied on Dharma in its "Religious" meaning as the answer.
Neither is productive!
The social or societal meaning of Dharma - "DArayati iva Dharma" is what the current
(yes secular) Indian constitution is based upon. Please read the "Legal and Constitutional
History of India" By Justice Rama Jois (its required reading for law schools in India)
This same Dharma was used by Krishna to end Karna, to end Dronacharya, Duryodhana, etc.
Only a fool takes a weapon that can be either a surgical knife or a broadsword and
believes it to be a blunt object.

Here is my one line vision for Bharat aka India:

A nation-state that rests on Dharma and protects the inalienable rights of its citizens to -
Praana (Life), Prakamya (Liberty of will) & Pragna (Knowledge of Atman or self).

[RamaY]

I started reading this thread in its entirety before participating in the discussion. It is taking a while, but I noticed the ritualistic diversions that we see in every thread on this Forum within the first 20 posts by none other than RayC-ji. I thought of repeating some of them here for the readers’ contemplation, while I continue with my reading.

In his first OT Post (17th post in Page 1), RayC-ji brings up the question “National Agenda for the foreseeable future can only be visualised if there is a National Strategy evolved for the foreseeable future. One wonder if there is any such strategy given that it is today Coalition politics, with each party having a different agenda and Govts cannot even implement the Common Minimum Programme.”. And without meaning any disrespect to Indian scenarios, he compares any hint of Indic-centric strategy with "Hitler, Mao, Stalin or Monroe (Monroe Doctrine)". If I remember correctly, this topic is being discussed in “Future strategic scenarios” and “Strategic leadership” threads for many moons.

AFAIK, we have three alternative foundations for our strategic future
1. Define our civilizational purpose to create a secular, democratic, materialistically progressive nation. This vision assumes that India as a nation came to existence in 1947 and the history and the associated issues must not be revisited.
2. Define our civilizational purpose to protect and energize the soul of this civilization and provide thought leadership to entire world by establishing a dharmic, happy, and democratic world-view.
3. Underlined by the belief that Indian civilization does not possess the will, capacity, and vigor to offer any type of leadership to humanity, establish necessary social, political, and administrative systems that allow continual mortgaging of Indian resources to contemporary powers with the sole purpose of surviving another day.

Shiv-ji, in page 5, points out the “social factor in the sense that a large number of Indians will deliberately not clean garbage or feces because their social status is too high for that”. By that logic the secluded colonies where so-called “untouchables/Dalits/scavengers” live should not have the garbage-on-streets and/or sanitation issues. But the facts point out a different India.

Perhaps it is time the discussion focuses on the agenda/strategy to achieve a developed India irrespective of the underlying belief systems, class structures, and even the poverty. The citizen’s faith/class/income should not deter him/her from having a healthy and safe social, living and working conditions.

Such a vision demands a certain level of “social” cohesion between various sections of society.

But KVRao-ji argues, in the same page, that “Idea of India” is supposed to be something that honor’s individual freedom to such an extent that one should be allowed to not honor national symbols as long as they do not dis-honor them and even sights Supreme Court’s ruling. It is interesting to see how he envisions to create “a positive sense of shared national purpose & goals, developing critical thinking among people, learning to do things in a professional way with an eye to safety, having consideration for others and the environment, a sense of inclusivity, not treating as invisible those that we are not forced to recognize (such as poor, tribals etc etc.)”.

What would be KVRao-ji’s preference if someone argues that living in certain way (that goes along with KVRao-ji’s vision) would be against his personal beliefs/faith?. I tried to surface this question in some other thread, resulting a warning, where I asked a question how a new ideology/faith should be addressed if it demands a complete deviation from the current socially-acceptable behavior.

Should we define a socially acceptable behavior for all Indian Citizens irrespective of their faith, language, region etc? Which parts of the current Constitution try to achieve that cohesion and which parts conflict with such vision? Why don’t we abolish all personal/penal/social laws that go against the ethos of Constitution of India? How can the legislative branches, at federal and state levels, pass laws that are in conflict with Constitution of India? Who ensures this compliance and enforces the laws?

Chandragupta-ji, in the same page, summarizes the real issue behind the diversionary tactics used in this, and IMO every other, thread in his question to RayC-ji’s post that says “Bible, Koran or Bhagavad Gita is no big deal. Take the beauty of each and use it. That is the big deal”. Chandragupta-ji asks the question “Ray ji, that's the problem. The guys with the Bhagwat Geeta can be coaxed to take the 'beauty of each & use it', but can the guys with Koran & Bible?”

[KLNMurthy]

...

Such a vision demands a certain level of “social” cohesion between various sections of society.

But KVRao-ji argues, in the same page, that “Idea of India” is supposed to be something that honor’s individual freedom to such an extent that one should be allowed to not honor national symbols as long as they do not dis-honor them and even sights Supreme Court’s ruling. It is interesting to see how he envisions to create “a positive sense of shared national purpose & goals, developing critical thinking among people, learning to do things in a professional way with an eye to safety, having consideration for others and the environment, a sense of inclusivity, not treating as invisible those that we are not forced to recognize (such as poor, tribals etc etc.)”.

What would be KVRao-ji’s preference if someone argues that living in certain way (that goes along with KVRao-ji’s vision) would be against his personal beliefs/faith?. I tried to surface this question in some other thread, resulting a warning, where I asked a question how a new ideology/faith should be addressed if it demands a complete deviation from the current socially-acceptable behavior.

Should we define a socially acceptable behavior for all Indian Citizens irrespective of their faith, language, region etc? Which parts of the current Constitution try to achieve that cohesion and which parts conflict with such vision? Why don’t we abolish all personal/penal/social laws that go against the ethos of Constitution of India? How can the legislative branches, at federal and state levels, pass laws that are in conflict with Constitution of India? Who ensures this compliance and enforces the laws?
...

The key is in a "certain" amount of social cohesion. What kind of social cohesion, how much, and how to trade that off against individual and sub-cultural rights is a question of ongoing debate, and the answer also drifts over time.

When modern India was formed, one key distinction from Pakistan (which is often missed) was the universal adult franchise, as opposed to communal franchise. This was an important way of creating social cohesion--it ensures that neighbors from different religions / castes etc. have to politick together in order to get the govt to do their bidding--the wisdom here is in recognizing that when a pothole is not fixed, everyone is affected, regardless of religion etc.

On the other hand, the tendency towards communalism (what I called cave-dwelling in another post) was, and is very much a reality of India, and the system has had to take that into account in a pragmatic way, to assure stability. Therefore the compromises such as personal laws etc.

Regarding constitutional conformity, I like the idea of reiterating fundamental rights, and establishing a credible authority dedicated to protecting those rights for everyone, and punishing those that would violate the fundamental rights of others. However, I am against the language of "abolishing" someone's religious system, or delegitimizing their religious leaders etc. This (being "for" fundamental rights and not "against" someone's religious system) is what I mean, in part, by having a shared positive vision. And there should be a practical sense of "is this the hill to die on?" when choosing one's battles. Things like Vande Mataram, saluting the flag etc. should not be made into primitive shibboleths, wasting collective energy to coerce someone into singing a song against their will (would it be better if they murdered the song, or worse, murdered people out of revenge?). Anyway, the courts settled the question some decades ago, in case of Jehovah's witnesses, saying that as long as there is no active disrespect, you don't have to sing a national song or salute the flag if that is against your religion.

I really think this pervasive notion that Brihaspati garu and others have articulated that religions or subcultures have to made to change to conform to constitutional spirit etc. is very problematic. Can we really stand up and say, hey you, you, and you: we (meaning the first-class citizens and real owners of the country, otherwise whence comes our right?) decided that your personal law is against the spirit of the constitution, therefore we are abolishing it? What will be the consequences of doing that? Either crazed rebellion or the words will be made meaningless. It is a political dead-end either way.

Fundamental rights include the right to constitutional remedies for all citizens. Constitution is the protector of minorities, and they know it. (this discussion is about minorities, no?). So, creating a constitutional office and special court system that handles cognizable violations of citizens' constitutional rights, and has broad reach and powers would be a better way of evolving towards a more functional and just system than campaigning (futilely in my view) to abolish this or that minority system.

I imagine that there will be some "anticipatory objection" that "they" will only say that their religious system should be allowed to trump the constitution. That may be so, but that would be the time to have a clear-eyed debate that demands to know what objection "they" could have to the very constitution that protects them, and to draw a line and say, sorry, there can be no compromise on fundamental rights (much more concrete than a vague "spirit of the constitution" or the Directive Principles wishlist). But without a credible mechanism that actively and cognizably protects the fundamental rights of all citizens, even that debate would fall flat.

And RamaY garu, demanding XYZ adhere to one's notion of social norms is a non-starter; everyone is required to follow the laws of the land, however. Breaking the law, failing to follow court rulings etc. carry built-in penalties. If a weak or confused state fails to enforce the penalties, it is the duty of the citizen to campaign to change that. But such campaigns generally fail in India because the campaigners are seen as having ulterior political agendas. For it to work in real life, there should be an effort to distance oneself from such a perception.

Currently, we rarely enforce laws if someone (anyone) is politically connected, we run to censorship and social controls for the slightest pretext, and our law courts are completely dysfunctional, inefficient, often incompetent, and grossly understaffed. If we don't fix these problems and develop a dyed-in-the-wool respect for fundamental rights and democratic norms, none of our pie-in-the-sky fantasies about India will matter.

[KLNMurthy]

...

The question was about the debate that is supposed to have generated the modern "democratic+secular" India. Such a debate until the very last moment could not envisage the trauma of Partition. The debaters in the rarefied heights of CWC or ephemeral friendships and alliances between British and Indian power sharers - could look decades into the future of a "democratic+secular" India but failed to see "Partition". Not only that, when they represented it as the necessary birth-pangs of a feminized nation - were they doing post or pre-calculations? Such wonderful visionaries should have had the capacity to see the immediate? Or is that a crime to expect? Or we should also expect it as a result of the "debate"? Or the necessary price to pay to ensure "democracy+secularism" which however ensures continuance of religious rigidity and something like the Ulema Council or the Muslim Personal Law Board. What mockery is this? Even that Partition has not solved the problem of religious fundamentalism and the late 80's Kashmir expulsion of the Pundits happened because of which Hindu revivalist atrocity on which Islamic community?

Brihaspati garu, generally, we cannot discredit an idea--especially one that has stood the test of time--because those having the idea can be shown by history as not having had full foresight and vision and wisdom, and solved all problems in that domain. If we applied this standard, then everything in human life has to be discredited. There are no perfect 4.0 GPAs in real life.

We certainly agree that Pakistan, and the Kashmir rebellion, all embody an idea of supremacism (I prefer that to "religious fundamentalism" which suggests that a person with a beard or a tilak is also a nazi) , which is a positive evil, and in effect, doesn't require provocation. Our being on BRF is proof enough of that I should think.

We both know that there is a recalcitrant, supremacist strain of Islam. The Indian state as designed / evolved with the premise (among others) that it is possible to hold this strain in check while having a free, egalitarian system that is based on a non-communal franchise. The Pakistani state was the exact negation of this particular premise. In the conditions of 1946-47, this vision of India was a huge gamble, from my readings only Congress and Ambedkar believed in it while the forerunners of today's BJP et al were completely skeptical, up until the conclusion of the 1952 elections. The communists of course, didn't believe in democracy at all. Today we can see that, on the whole the Indian thesis is relatively much more successful with nearly all players (including BJP & communists) accepting the model and living by it, whereas the Pakistani one is in disarrayed failure.

We tend to see Pakistan as a "failure" because Pakistan apparently has more of violent processes to arrive at political decisions. But is it a failure from the Pakistani viewpoint? I don't think so. From the Pakistani worldview, which is a desperate struggle to become non-Indian/non-Hindu and seek an Islamic identity to replace every aspect of Indianness - is firmly based on puritanical and literal Islam. In such a worldview, violence is an accceptable means of political negotiations for power and dominance - and seeking to impose a religious totalitarian society the highest task of the religion itself. Such a society, once formed does not fall on its own. Totalitarianism that has to compromise even outwardly with "humanitarian" or "liberal" views is weak and falls. Islam does not have to make any such compromises and it stays. In no country where once Islam has gained majority, the essential authoritarian and totalitarian character of the society and its reflection on the rashtra has ever changed. Yes even in Turkey the orthodoxy has and is slowly crept back.

I think I was the only one on this forum who did not share in the generally popular vision of the imminent "implosion" of Pakistan. My non-agreement was firmly based on the fundamentals of Islamic processes.

WRT Pakista's failure, what you said is highly debatable. There is massive evidence that in 1947, Pakistan's leaders envisioned their country as a normal, prosperous state; even through the 1960s, they were celebrating their relative prosperity, normalcy, and general TFTA-ness when compared to India. We know that their true nature is what you said above, but, except for the Taliban-types, the Pakis are delusional and don't really know this; that's why they keep lamenting each time they are treated as the malignant tumor that they are in reality instead of a normal country.

We don't have to buy into silly generic platitudes about Islam's peacefulness etc., to see that India is living proof that, on the whole, it is possible to achieve stability and a good measure of prosperity and freedom while having a huge muslim minority. This case--of the superiority of the Indian way to the Pakistani way--needs to be made, but I would really recommend staying away from making it based on general statements that reflect distaste for a particular religion's foundations or its holy book etc. That only guarantees an endless debate of tedious semantic hairsplitting, and only fuels the paranoia that drives the other side's warfare. Far better, I think, to focus on the adversary's specific actions and choices, and evaluating them on moral standards that would be hard to reject. E.g., stay away from a critique of religion or preaching that xyz in the religion has to be changed, but do talk about supremacism, cruelty, absurdity.

If someone marries off an 8-year old girl to a 60 year old Arab grandpa, by all means say, "sir, how could you do such an absurd and cruel thing to your own child?" Even if he replies that it is ok in his religion, just reiterate your revulsion at the act, and bring to bear laws that prohibit such absurdity and cruelty (pragmatism as well as principle here requires that you don't single out this individual or followers of his religion but apply your concern equally across the board) but avoid saying, "how could you follow such a stupid and cruel religion?" if your goal is to eventually reduce and eliminate the cases of 8 year olds being married to grandpas.

Of course, this requires that you have to be critical of bad behavior regardless of the religion of the actors. It is necessary to be scrupulously fair and even-handed, and to be seen as being fair. Otherwise there will be no credibility.

One of the fundamental problems I have with the so-called development theory of de-radicalization is that, it works for societies with a historical strand and acknowledged cultural memory of liberal values. That means the society essentially has liberal, open value system - so that radicalism is essentially a departure from societal thread. "Bribing" with "development/entitlement" can restore the societal balance. It is blunder to extend such a theory to non-liberal societies or social groups. The same holds for societies form whom earlier social memories and memes of liberalism has been systematically removed. In every Islam dominated society where some "economic" development has taken place - has always led to increased Islamic radicalism. The generally well invested (socially) Gulf Islamic societies all show increased radicalization and support for Jihad. Same goes for Malaysia, Turkey and Indonesia. In Islamic societies - more economic development == more support for Jihad.

Empowerment of Islam materially simply strengthens the Ulemaic ambitions to extend Islam onto non-Islamics. This is consistent with the basic tenets of the theology.

Along with development, you need a stringent adherence to the law, including a willingness to enforce it when minorities are the culprits, demonstrable impartiality, effective systems, and a commitment to protect the lives, property and honor of minorities. (the last applies to everyone, but you have to be more overt about being seen to protect the minorities if you want to keep them devoted to the law and the system). There is no question of empowering any particular religion. Darker ambitions of religious players need to be checked and contained with law and statecraft.

Problem is that for many men growing up into adulthood and for centuries to come, Islamic way of life will remain an attractive option. It promises basic material and biological satisfaction with relatively little skills development except that needed in Ghazwas - the ability to fight physically. The increasing complexities of urban, knowledge societies will alienate those in whom liberal values (which in reality means ability to handle complexity) are not ingrained as a societal and philosophical base.

I sought exactly those elements in these faiths to be removed - that prevent the Islamic mind to accept complexity and alternatives. The derecognition of "revelations" as permanent and enjoying full immunity from questioning. The placing of revelations and Sharia firmly in the context of history and not as an integral aim of the faith forever into the future.

The elements you speak of will always be there as pathological aspects of any society; they have to be managed and contained. It is an ongoing process. There is no doctrine or philosophy or ideology that offers exemption from having to exercise competent statecraft.

[RamaY]

KV Rao garu,

There is no argument on having universal application of “fundamental rights”. Post-independence Indian constitution already addressed this basic need.

Your equal-equal comparison between Indic and non-Indic faith requires discussion but it is OT for BR forums. What we fail to understand is that Hinduism was never the obstacle in post-1947 India. It accepted every change demanded by the constitution and law-of-land with open heart. None of India’s problems are perpetuated by Hinduism. People bring Hinduism into every discussion to avoid honest discussion on the divisive nature of other ideologies. Show me one law or national-symbol that Hindus protested against.

However, a religion-agnostic constitution leaves the playing field open to so-called secularism/liberalism. One perspective is that unlimited and unhindered application of secularism makes it another religion with its own fundamental dimension. Some of your views such as “the individual’s right to honor the national symbols” represent borderline liberal fundamentalism. Our beloved Suzanne Roy is just few feet away with her “right for self-governance” type logic w.r.t JK, NE, and Maoist-corridor. Hope you get the drift.

What I do not understand is what is paramount in Post-1947 India? My religious beliefs or Constitution of India. One cannot be selective in their adherence to constitution and law of land. By making statements like “you don't have to sing a national song or salute the flag if that is against your religion”. What should I do if my religion says that women should not have same rights as men. If you are right why people are tearing their shirts if some religious belief says that one’s karma decides where one is born? (Kindly note that I personally do not support the present interpretation of “caste” system by HFL types).

If you have problems with the POV that says “we (meaning the first-class citizens and real owners of the country, otherwise whence comes our right?) decided that your personal law is against the spirit of the constitution, therefore we are abolishing it?” then wouldn’t someone is right to have a problem in upholding the “fundamental human rights” that you define? Aren’t you directing the nation towards anarchy by selective application of the constitution? If you have issues with the constitution, how can you present comments of Supreme Court, whose primary objective is to interpret the constitution and uphold it against legislative abuse?

Few self-appointed first-class citizens and self-styled owners of the nation defined independent India’s constitution. AFAIK, there was no referendum on our constitution. Yet, the constitution defined the social norms at certain level. The nation demands unambiguous adherence to it, irrespective of the individual religious beliefs. Majority of Indians feel that IM’s non-recital of national song as an insult to the nation. The minority better understand that and adhere to majority opinion. After all, democracy is all about that. Tomorrow some religious body issues a fartwa that having a non-believer as their representative at some Ward-member/MLA/MP level is not acceptable sighting some religious interpretation.

That brings us to the current discussion of building a national agenda between 2010-2050.

The system is doing its best. Let us protect the present democratic values and justice system. Try to remove unnecessary interpretations on rule of law, and instead implement the law to the word. The society will learn to adhere to the law of land. One need not give unnecessary value and tolerance to any religion/ideology including secularism and liberalism.

The vision of our national agenda should be religion/ideology agnostic. Make sure that the nation is rid of external influences be it in the field of media, education, social service, and social organization. India has enough intellectual, leadership, material, human, and natural resources to rebuild 1000 Indias.

So I request we take up each issue that is holding up India’s march towards prosperity and let us remove them first. Let us leave the issue of ideology to future generations. The immediate need is to address:

1. Universal education – That teaches the future generations the “FACTUAL” history of this land, instills pride in their culture, nation, and entity, makes them strong in body and spirit, develops self-confidence and leadership, creates a scientific and logical thought process.
2. Universal healthcare – Every citizen has free access to primary healthcare, and can afford intermediate and specialist health care
3. Strong Military – That can protect this nation and its interests, enable the leadership to extend the Indian Value system beyond our borders, irrespective of the prevailing geographic and climatic conditions.
4. Economic Prosperity – that ensures comprehensive well being of the individual, his/her environment, and nation.
5. Environmental values – that ensures the well being of flora-fauna that is native to this nation in a way that can support the above four objectives.