National Agenda for India, 2010-2050

[RamaY]

Apologies KV Rao garu. I feel the same way when people do a equal-equal between Hinduism/Hindu-society with other –isms, so I do not want to do it to others. Your post appeared some-what liberalist and == from where I am standing, and that is it.

Defining national agenda for 40 years (2010-2050) requires lot of soul-searching. Because it covers at least the duration of 8 administration so it has to be political-ideology agnostic. 40 years in a nation’s history is a reasonable period so it must reflect the purpose and vision of the nation.

Assuming a 6% rate of growth and $1.2GDP, India will be a $12Tn economy at minimum by 2050. Assuming 15% tax revenues, India’s annual budget will be $1.8Tn. Indian vision must reflect that reality.

A 1% increase in the average annual growth will add nearly $700B tax revenues per year by 2050. Our administration system, industry, project/program experience are struggling to manage a $150B annual budget. Many ministries are not using the allocated funds. The projects do not get completed even when the funds are available.

The current leadership is failing us because they do not believe in themselves and the nation. We need leadership that believes in the fundamentals of this civilization so it can do what it takes to protect it by using the resources in hand. If leadership is not sure if the nation is Indic or invaded or independent, then what vision it can provide to the nation?

[brihaspati]

KV Rao garu,

you wrote
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.

How do you decide what is "bad behaviour"? You can say it is illegal if the law says so. But "bad behaviour" just because a 60 year old Arab grandpa marries an "Indian" (I presume) 8-year old girl? That is another arbitrary conclusion according to some value-system which need not be shared by all! Age of consent is a hotly debated area. Are you objecting to such a marriage because the grandpa is an Arab, or because he is a grandpa, or he is 60 years old? What right do you have to criticize such a marriage based on an arbitrary value system - since what you are implying is that no value-system can be held supreme in the Indian context. Also remember that you cannot criticize anyone if that criticism can be deemed by any Indian administration to be hurtful of religious sentiments of any community and if such a community can turn it into a law and order problem.

You are presuming the existence of an already universally accepted or established moral/ethical code and a value sytem in which "such behaviour" can be shown to be "cruel/absurd". The very fact that behaviour like what you describe can still happen with impugnity obviously means that the value-system by which you want to criticize - is not universally accepted or established. In fact you are against establishment of such a common value system overriding all others.

Surely you must know about the grumblings of protests when the age of consent was raised for "Hindus" post Independence legal reforms. There were other grumblings too about other aspects of marital laws for Hindus. The Parliament however did not hesitate to overrule such protests. And you can compare such behaviour with the case around Shah Bano? Whose voice was the loudest and how widespread or loud was it? Only a section of the Ulema. Did the entire Muslim Ummah of India come out and threaten to create a "law and order situation"?

My targeting of the ulema is also because of the very pragmatism that you are speaking of. I have found in my own conflicts with Islamism that it is the Ulema who use their Islamic educational networks to establish "Islamic" norms of behaviour and value-system. And who protects them in such an endeavour - only a certain portion of the political spectrum. Without this immense protection and rashtryia support, the hold of Islamism would have been weakened long ago. If we are not allowed to expose and weaken the Ulema, then the only other way is to expose their ideology. You cannot expose that without delegitimizing and deconstructing the fundamental source of Ulemaic claims to authority - the inviolability, and authenticity or reality of their revelation and claims of applicability forever.

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.

Really, as soon as you say we have to be more "overt" you are immediately contradicting your claim of impartiality. If all the while you are thinking that by the strict application of a law, "I may lose face with a certain community" - you will be quite shaky in the whole process. Show me a single instance where the "darker" ambitions of religious players have been checked and contained with law and statecraft if those players are not seen to be coming from "Hindu"? Any steps taken to muzzle calls for beheading/declaring rewards for beheading - of authors? When fatwas are sought to be given - the rashtra chooses to allow a senior cabinet minister at the centre to share the same platform and lend interpretation of tacit support or credibility? Are you telling me no one understands the significance of "fatwa" - a ruling in Islamic terms - a necessary adjunct of Sharia and Islamic legal system as part of an Islamic state? So no one, even such astute brains of the GOI fails to understand the significance of testing waters in first tentative steps towards ambitions for an Islamic state in allowing fatwas to go "unprotested"? This is a move towards eventual parallel legal system at the hands of a typical Islamic authority - concentrating executive+judiciary+military+theological powers. And I am sure you can also recall the specific cases when article 355 was applied.

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.

Problem is when statecraft recognizes the rights of an ideology which protects and supports exactly such "pathological" aspects.

Further you cannot protest 60-year or more marrying an 8 year old or even less, if you accept the right of every value-system to be inviolable. Here is the most authentic version relevant for India, of the Sharia for this:

Hedaya ( p.36)[The Hedaya Commentary on the Islamic Laws (reprint 1994) Trans. Charles Hamilton, Publ. Kitab Bhaban, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Darya Ganj, New Delhi 110002.]
Infant marriage permitted

Case in which the marriage of infants continues binding after puberty—If the marriage of infants be contracted by the father or grandfathers, no option after puberty remains to them; because the determination of parents in this matter cannot be suspected to originate in sinister motives as their affection for their offspring is undoubted; wherefore the marriage is binding upon the parties, the same as if they had themselves entered into it after maturity.

Case which admits an option of acquiescence after puberty—But if the authority of others than their parents should have executed the contract, each is respectively at liberty, after they become of age, to choose whether the marriage shall be confirmed or annulled.

[vera_k]

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.

But this is what the current Constitution sets out to do in areas like Hindi as official language. Perhaps the solution for present day conflicts is to have the States elect a new Constituent Assembly that builds a Constitution using the least common denominator.

[RayC]

Every faith has issues which can be perceived as flawed when seen in the backdrop of today’s moral values, which may not have been the values of those times when it was formulated. Child marriage possibly served the convenience of the times when they were formulated. In contemporary times, it is unacceptable because of the changing value system. Notwithstanding, it still continues in the two major faiths of this country. There are laws that prohibit such activity, but it is still flouted. It indicates the archaic mindset and sadly, the failure of those who are to apply the law.

In a modern world and in a democracy, while one is entitled to follow one's faith, yet the Constitution and law are supreme. It could be debated that the Constitution is flawed, but nonetheless, one has to accept them as supreme so long as they are not changed.

Islam is a structured faith. Hence, the ulemas dictate the terms. Technically, that too is not right since I am told that it is a faith that is based on an equation between the person and Allah and there is no intermediatory. However, since the illiterates could not fathom the high ideals, it was ‘scholars’ who explained the issues as in all faiths. It may have been so, as in all faiths, but I presume the spiritual gave way to the temporal and the heady wine of ‘power’ over the masses, gave rise to such 'authorities' on religious interpretation to be followed by the masses. This is so in all faith where the priestly class dominates.

The Shah Bano case was a failure of the political leadership since it gave way to the need of political survivability and not what the law and the Constitution dictated. It was a failure of the national will in the same way as child marriages continue to plague the country.

Having said that, on the issue of the National Agenda for India, one cannot visualise beyond a certain period of time since that would be crystal gazing. There are too many imponderables. Thus, one must confine oneself to a tangible period; possibly a decade and not beyond. These goals then could be structured with available and visualised statistics to suit the model one would like the country to achieve.

One wonders if there is indeed any National Agenda.

[RayC]

UK’s first official sharia courts

This is how politics plays a role.

[Sanku]

Cutting through the chase there are only two points in all this "debate"

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?

"Yes we can" -- India has done it time and again and continues doing it all the time.

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.

Essentially its the fear of consequences which allow for compromises.

So any way you look at it -- it is not the right thing to do -- but we do it since we do it in the name of pragmatism.

Some of us think it is dhimmitude.

That is the fundamental disconnect.

[Sanku]

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.

But this is what the current Constitution sets out to do in areas like Hindi as official language. Perhaps the solution for present day conflicts is to have the States elect a new Constituent Assembly that builds a Constitution using the least common denominator.

With all respects that is a non starter of a recipe -- In India we are a truly individualistic society -- the least common denominator is a individual who is different.

Forget Hindi, you will never have a agreement between North Kerala and South Kerala on issues.

We CAN NOT use minimum common denominator -- In India that will be a NULL set -- for India what we need is a maximum common subset. In set theory terms we are not looking for least intersection of available sets, but a set whose sum of intersections with all other existing sets is maximum.

I do understand what I propose is precisely what was attempted to be achieved, except one feature, instead of trying the maximum sum with one common set, they went for more than one set and then tried its intersections.

However the key is one set vs more.

[brihaspati]

Sanku ji,
there is a problem with the "maximal intersection with one set" theory. Consider the union of all sets. That will satisfy the maximal intersection with one set criteria. Partially this was actually the theory behind the multiple equal-equal identity sought to be recognized in the Constitution.

Thus the attempt needed is to try and fix the fundamental set without thinking of with how many and how much it will intersect. The fundamental set is based on both commonalities if any in the sets, as well as criteria suited to a modern, open and "humanitarian" world view. Any compromises allowing features simply because they exist in some set with which we "must intersect" is a non-starter.

[RamaY]

Every faith has issues which can be perceived as flawed when seen in the backdrop of today’s moral values, which may not have been the values of those times when it was formulated. Child marriage possibly served the convenience of the times when they were formulated. In contemporary times, it is unacceptable because of the changing value system. Notwithstanding, it still continues in the two major faiths of this country. There are laws that prohibit such activity, but it is still flouted. It indicates the archaic mindset and sadly, the failure of those who are to apply the law.

…

Having said that, on the issue of the National Agenda for India, one cannot visualise beyond a certain period of time since that would be crystal gazing. There are too many imponderables. Thus, one must confine oneself to a tangible period; possibly a decade and not beyond. These goals then could be structured with available and visualised statistics to suit the model one would like the country to achieve.

Excellent point RayC-ji. So it is the in the interest of the society and responsibility of its strategic leadership to define a new set of socially acceptable rules and structures. It has been done throughout humanity. In Bharat new seers and leaders have done that as discussed in the early days of “future strategic scenarios” thread. Perhaps it is time for India to define a new set of rules because the present system is not able to establish rule of law even after 60 years of independence because it is the “leadership” that is compromised and lost direction, not the nation. To achieve a sustainable evolution, the society must come up with necessary social and philosophical infrastructure to develop the “strategic leadership” that pushes Bharat from one plane to another (one iteration to another). This is what I said about this in this thread, and we have the “strategic leadership for the future of India”.

One Key ingredient that often misses in such systems is the ideological base that is supposed to act as the guru (teacher) for future generations of leaders. Since we all know the geography, approaches, and limitations of Abrahamic faiths, they cannot form the basis for our strategic future. Even communism and secularism failed our nation as they create new elites and power centers and encourage materialism instead of social evolution as we can see in 200+ years of American and 100+ years of Russian societies. The only known faith that propagates a balanced approach towards secularism, democracy, environmentalism, intellectual evolution, and the idea of Vasudhaika Kutumbam (not only for humanity, but for every living and non-living being) is Hinduism. More over it is native to our land and already resonates with 95+% (including majority of religious minorities) of the population. So if we can come up with a constitution (it used to be called Smriti in the past) that has Hindu basis, we have 50% of the work done. That leaves us with removing unacceptable behaviors of Hindu society (~20% of work), which can be achieved by making necessary laws, and the remaining 30% work will be building the necessary administrative, industrial, and military infrastructure to preserve and enforce the constitution of India. A ~$500B economic recovery package would achieve these objectives as presented in my posts in this thread.

{Added Later} The only shortcoming in your post is the extremely short-period you chose to define national agenda. A decade is a very short period and nothing substantial can be achieved in terms of national agenda in a decade. Perhaps that is the reason behind your posts which show some shortsightedness (with no disrespect for you). We need a national agenda that spans at least two generations because it takes time to build sustainable society for the long haul.

[Sanku]

Sanku ji,
there is a problem with the "maximal intersection with one set" theory. Consider the union of all sets. That will satisfy the maximal intersection with one set criteria. Partially this was actually the theory behind the multiple equal-equal identity sought to be recognized in the Constitution. .

Bji, slightly disagree, a set cant have both element A and not A present in it at the same time even the constitution makers found it clear that they could not have such disconnect, so my set theory problem was not sought to be solved by taking a union in my opinion. It was done by having a set of two elements, each element being a own set, independent of the other and placed in the parent set without any particular logic.

I understand that I am quibbling but I think this distinction is important, but broadly yes I do agree and have said that the makers of Indian rashtra were trying the maximum intersection stunt, whether you see it in the way you describe or whether you find my description more natural.

Further, I believe that what you propose

Thus the attempt needed is to try and fix the fundamental set without thinking of with how many and how much it will intersect...

and what I propose of finding a set whose sum of intersection with all sets in maximum etc.

Are two different ways of saying the same thing, if it didnt come across as that, probably the fault in how I put forth the formulation.

[vera_k]

On the subject of the personal laws, can we agree that what we really want is to get people to embrace modernity?

If we can agree on that, then one way to drive this would be to have two types of personal laws -

1) Modern (or Secular) personal law
2) Traditional (or Religious) personal law

The Traditional law can then accomodate all of the religious aspects that would be considered retrograde by the Modern law. It will support 4 wives, 8 year old brides and what not. In either case, both laws will be religion agnostic in that adherents of any religion can use whichever law they see fit.

The focus of the national effort would then be to educate people enough to use the Modern law. Success of this effort can be tracked by measuring the numbers and percentages of people opting for either law.

[RamaY]

^^^

Could you please spell out the aspects of the "Modern Personal Law" that are outside the ethos of a "Hindu Personal Law"?

While you are at it, kindly elaborate on how such a "Modern Personal Law" can remain "Modern" for say next 100+ years.

[vera_k]

^^^

There may be none if the Hindu Personal Law is modern enough. But there is no chance of pushing for a law that is seen to be based on any religious foundation without waving a red flag at religious conservatives. By framing the debate in such terms, the traditionalists can be put on the back foot in a secular manner.

No law can be static, and amendments and judicial interpretations will keep it up to date with changing times.

[RamaY]

^^^

There may be none if the Hindu Personal Law is modern enough. But there is no chance of pushing for a law that is seen to be based on any religious foundation without waving a red flag at religious conservatives. By framing the debate in such terms, the traditionalists can be put on the back foot in a secular manner.

No law can be static, and amendments and judicial interpretations will keep it up to date with changing times.

Vera-k ji,

Kindly answer my question. Please elaborate the aspects of "Modern Personal Law", in your opinion, are outside a Hindu world-view and would trigger a Hindu opposition. If you are not sure of the specifics, then is it fair NOT to equate Hinduism with other religions.

To my eyes, your preference for secularism is to avoid any conflict with those very narrow-minded religions/ideologies that you try to go away from. This is nothing but escapism or status quo-ism we see in current leadership. If your objective is to build a governance modal separate from the society it tries to govern and lead then your secular-democratic-model will work. If your objective is to take the society with you then you better fight those divisive and virulent ideologies face-to-face sooner than later.

I can understand your and others’ (good) intentions to takeout religion from national agenda. But in that process you are making two mistakes. Firstly, a truly secular constitution would irk all narrow-minded religions/ideologies but not Hindu religion and society, thus disproving the common religious equal-equal hypothesis that most of the secularists present. Secondly, with such a constitution the state will be in continual fight with the religious-centripetal forces, as we see it in current state of affairs (take the examples of western societies and Turkey).

If no law is static and requires amendments and interpretations, what is wrong in going with a suitable and local religious consciousness as long as that ideology allows such an evolution and interpretation?

[vera_k]

^^^

Secondly, with such a constitution the state will be in continual fight with the religious-centripetal forces, as we see it in current state of affairs (take the examples of western societies and Turkey)

To address both points, what I'd prefer is a fight between the Indian state and retrograde ideologies rather than a fight between two religions. Today, the Indian state gets off easy by letting what it blackballs as religious conservatives do what it should be doing, and as such is able to reap benefits by playing one side off the other.

If Hindu adherents are modern, then we'd see private surveys indicating that the percentage of Hindus preferring the Modern law is higher than that in other religions. I don't see why this would work against Hinduism. In any case, the State would be in the ring fighting to show that the Modern law is what is the aspirational ideal for the nation.

[RamaY]

Vera_K ji,

Sorry to persist, but you haven’t addressed my question. If religion A doesn’t agree to some “modern” aspects of the constitution why should it become a fight between religion A and religion H? And why should we denounce religion H for the narrow mindedness of religion A?

So your idea of the governence is something that stays outside the society (and its influence) and that enforces the law of the land. Is it his correct and practical?

The problem is not with the responses to the “private” surveys, but the “private” surveys themselves as Acharya-ji would say. Why should a “private survey” question Hindus to publish the % of citizens who support a citizen’s prerogative to sing the national, instead of asking the IMs to publish the % of IMs who do not see any conflict between the national song and the way they practice their religion? The national surveys, so far failed to ask the right questions and present the right outcomes. Everything is stage managed as you can read in psy-ops thread and see in Burkha-Dutt’s show in NDTV.

[vera_k]

One knock against the present day Opposition is that they have utterly failed on the UCC front. What has stopped them from even introducing a proposed UCC in Parliament? Wouldn't it be better to debate about specific items in a proposal than some vague pie-in-the-sky UCC?

[RamaY]

You tell me then why Hindu conservatives have been railing against what Muslims do. Why do they care and why can't they leave well enough alone?

They are doing their duty as good-citizens by pointing at the non-conformers and demanding the state to prevail the law of the land.

Aren't we doing a disservice to our nation by == between the Hindu consevatives with other ideological conservatives ( this includes secularists and liberals) who are non-conformers in the first place?

[vera_k]

They are doing their duty as good-citizens by pointing at the non-conformers and demanding the state to prevail the law of the land.

Are they being altruistic good citizens when they simultaneously press the Ram Janmabhoomi issue? Was VG being a good citizen when he made that speech earlier this year?

Aren't we doing a disservice to our nation by == between the Hindu consevatives with other ideological conservatives ( this includes secularists and liberals) who are non-conformers in the first place?

That is why there is a need to change the approach. If the Hindu conservatives are truly modern as is being claimed, then they'd fall under the modernist camp and would be able to criticise the traditionalists without a religious battle.

[RamaY]

Vera_K Ji,

RamaJanmabhoomi issue is OT to this discussion. If you do not know or understand the origins and evolution of the RamJanmabhoomi issue, I request you to do some reading and then come for a discussion on that subject.

I found a relevant post in the "Global Perspectives on Economic..." thread that puts things in perspective for you -

First, Texans on average believe in laissez-faire markets with an emphasis on individual responsibility. Since the ’80s, California’s policy-makers have favored central planning solutions and a reliance on a government social safety net. This unrelenting commitment to big government has led to a huge tax burden and triggered a mass exodus of jobs. The Trends Editors examined the resulting migration in “Voting with Our Feet,” in the April 2008 issue of Trends.

Second, Californians have largely treated environmentalism as a “religious sacrament” {In this thread it is secularism as a religious sacrament} rather than as one component among many in maximizing people’s quality of life. As we explained in “The Road Ahead for Housing,” in the June 2009 issue of Trends, environmentally-based land-use restriction centered in California played a huge role in inflating the recent housing bubble. Similarly, an unwillingness to manage ecology proactively for man’s benefit has been behind the recent epidemic of wildfires.

Third, California has placed “ethnic diversity” above “assimilation,” {This is what KVRao garu advises in his post} while Texas has done the opposite. “Identity politics” has created psychological ghettos that have prevented many of California’s diverse ethnic groups and subcultures from integrating fully into the mainstream. Texas, on the other hand, has proactively encouraged all the state’s residents to join the mainstream.

Fourth, beyond taxes, diversity, and the environment, Texas has focused on streamlining the regulatory and litigation burden on its residents. Meanwhile, California’s government has attempted to use regulation and litigation to transfer wealth from its creators to various special-interest constituencies. {This is your recommendation of a government model that is separated from the underlying society}

On below point, you are are blaming the Hindus for the faults of (other) religious minorties. You didn't get my point. Kindly read my posts again.

That is why there is a need to change the approach. If the Hindu conservatives are truly modern as is being claimed, then they'd fall under the modernist camp and would be able to criticise the traditionalists without a religious battle.

[brihaspati]

Is pressing the "RamJanambhoomi" a non-modernist issue and approach? Just because it seeks to revive demands for historical correctness or issues of "historical trauma" or because it is about a "temple"? Actually, a modernist approach should also demand the same non-chalance from the Muslim Personal Law Board about the same site, they should not care either! Neither should historians, media channels, and even the government.

Let us propose building a teaching hospital on the site - both education as well as medical care should be firmly within the ethics of "Rama" as the carer of the praja. Wasn't Babur a great "Mussalman" - so kind! Surely his Muslim ethics would not object either! In order to build such a complex we need to do deep excavations for foundations and basement - and a multinational team of archaeologists be invited to check out that we are not destroying some pre-existing archaeologically important remains buried in the foundations. What turns up as a result of such excavations is of course to be considered for furtherance of the planned buildings. If overwhelming evidence for some long preexisting structure is shown - we are duty bound to preserve them - aren't we? We cannot cover them back in soil and earth!

How will "modernists" react?

[vera_k]

How will "modernists" react?

Sounds like a plan.

[RamaY]

Dear Vera-k ji,

I request you to visit Here to get good insight into Ramjanmabhoomi issue. Please ping me in “Nukkad” thread once you are done with your reading and we will discuss it to the end.

When Secularism (or modernism) becomes a mantra without a clear definition and how it applies to the underlying society, it becomes a faith in itself and we are back to religious discussion.

On the economic policy analogy, that is what happens when you have a National Agenda and governance model that is disassociated with reality and that tries to force its ideas on the citizens.

[Ananya]

trust a deep archioligical survey/escavation was done and the basement is that of a temple , but the question weather Rama was born there is something which cannot be determined/answered,

[brihaspati]

Doesnt matter whether Rama can really be proved to have been born there. If it is an important cultural relic unearthed from the past - that goes under ASI maintenance. No building on top! It is within the ambit of the ASI to do a partial reconstruction - which it has done in many other sites.

[Ananya]

That would incorporate and unearth a fact which i trust no body would be willing to take the ride/action . BJP's indesiveness and Current congress's geo political realities and reluctance would never allow this to hppen.

Trust would be intrepreted in every possible way in this case

[RamaY]

^^^ Ananya ji

It was done. Below is a quote from the site I referenced above

Until then (1985), all parties concerned had agreed that the mosque had been built in forcible replacement of a temple. What is nowadays rubbished as "the VHP claim" was in fact the consensus view. Thus, in court proceedings in the 1880s, the Muslim claimants and the British rulers agreed with the Hindu claimants on the historical fact of the temple demolition, but since it had happened centuries earlier, they decided that time had sanctioned the Muslim usurpation and nullified the Hindus' legal claim. Further, numerous documents and several archaeological excavations confirmed the history of the temple demolition (with the court-ordered excavations of spring 2003 removing the last possible doubts). The sudden denial of this history by a circle of Marxist historians was not based on any new evidence but purely on political compulsions {This is one of the instances where even a modern ideology behaved like a religious faith}. It seems that their long enjoyment of a hegemonic power position in academe had gone to their heads, so they thought they could get away with crude history falsification.

...
Rajiv Gandhi didn't give up, though. In 1989, he allowed the Shilanyas ceremony, in which the first stone of the planned temple was put in place. In 1990, as opposition leader, he made Chandra Shekhar's minority government organize a scholars' debate on the history of the site, obviously on the assumption that this would confirm the Hindu claim. And so it did, for the anti-temple historians showed up empty-handed when they were asked to provide evidence for an alternative scenario to the temple demolition. In a normal course of events, i.e. without the interference of secularist shrieks and howls, this would have set the stage for the peaceful construction of a new temple in the 1990s, with some compensation for the Muslim community, and the conflict would have been forgotten by now. Instead, the sore has continued to fester. In 1991 Rajiv Gandhi was murdered, and his successors didn't have the good sense to continue his equitable and pragmatic Ayodhya policy.

[brihaspati]

This is the whole point of a strong and determined rashtra. No compromises on certain aspects. I would really be interested to see what modernists will say to my proposal. They will most likely shout about it being "pseudo-secular" and "Hindutva by backdoor"! I am simply suggesting that we think of such "devious" routes. We need to put innocent and innocuous choices and options before the clamouring parties. That is when real faces will be exposed!

MKG exposed the Brits by forcing both the Brits and the Indian commoner to face a conflict of interest at a basic level - salt. Let us put such stark choices before the interested parties to the disputes.

[Ananya]

yes i was following the news that time and after that things just dropped , just like fox and NBC would not cover the state visit and things went on a different note

[RayC]

As a serving army officer, I never stop marvelling at the gullibility of our countrymen to be provoked with alacrity into virulence in the name of religion. I have never heard the word 'secular' during all my service -- and yet, the simple things that are done simply in the army make it appear like an island of sanity in a sea of hatred.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=560

Note: It is the words of some other Army officer. But the sentiment is universal in the Armed Forces. Read the post and one will find the difference between what is being said here and what is practised in the Army!

Then evaluate the Nation and check where you stand as citizens upholding the Law and the Constitution!

Even those you feel are failing the Nation, do not do so, when they are in the Army.

Ask yourself. Why?

How is it we succeed to build the Nation and you fail so hopelessly?

[Sanku]

How is it we succeed to build the Nation and you fail so hopelessly?

Its about the demographic of the people joining the army.

[RayC]

I wouldn't know!

[brihaspati]

Is it fair to compare the Army with the nation?

Three major differences :
(a) The army does not function on democracy (yes yes we know about having to win trust of those you command etc., but command positions are not "elected")
(b) The army does not recognize religion as an identifying characteristic all whose claims are recognized, and which is allowed to form homogeneous units based on such identity.
(c) Religious leaders/theologians do not hold organizational power or are allowed to mobilize their flock towards such power.

Why bring the IA as a model for the nation? Can you turn the whole nation into an armed military camp? With non-elected functionaries? Where those non-elected functionaries decide not to allow theologians to have leadership roles?

The IA shows simply what happens when you do not allow the theologians to have leadership over their flock at any level of organizational structure. I also consistently argue for neutralization of the theologians. Destroy the theologians networks and their structures to reproduce themselves. Jihad will fall flat and similarly any other religions' madness driven by hunger for personal power and biological greed.

[RamaY]

The IA shows simply what happens when you do not allow the theologians to have leadership over their flock at any level of organizational structure. I also consistently argue for neutralization of the theologians. Destroy the theologians networks and their structures to reproduce themselves. Jihad will fall flat and similarly any other religions' madness driven by hunger for personal power and biological greed.

Wise words B-ji.

In independent India, this was done w.r.t Hindu society, but GOI failed to do with other religions in the name of minorities. The leadership failed on both counts, one w.r.t destroying the theologian network/hold on other religions, and secondly instilling the trust and confidence in minorities.

If one analyses it deeply, it has something to do with the geography. When a religion is external to a nation's geography, it is very difficult to control the theologian networks completely and we are creating external players who can create conflict within our borders. A nation needs to carry a big-stick to control such external players and it is not easy over long periods of time.

So the national agenda must focus on destroying those networks within borders and building up the long-sticks that it can use against the external trouble makers.

[Atri]

The Dharma-Artha-Kama-Moksha are essentially segregated in Indic system.. IA shows this in practice.. and politicians and theologians are not allowing this to happen in civilian society..

[brihaspati]

It is easy to bring in the example of the Army. But I find it strange that it probably comes from voices who would be horrified if an authoritarian, non-democratic, militarist, junta type regime is suggested for India.

Democracy in itself is a neutral structure. When the democracy is practised in a society that has selective biases on identities, certain identities will come to use the legitimacy afforded by democracy to push their own over and above all other identities.

If social minorities centred around individuals or families (even if originating from large groups) want to hold on to power, they need to divide up the major identities into as many subgroups as possible. So that they can pose as the sole mediator between conflicting identities. This in turn means that they will do everything in their power to perpetuate subidentities, and if possible create and nurture new ones. Each such subidentity will then try to dominate in disproportionate influence comapred to their size.

In order to survive in democracies with such myriad and multiplying subidentities, the ideological perpetrators of such subidentities - theologians in case of religions - are protected by central "dynasties" and the surplus-extracting coteries/networks dependent on that dynasty.

Before comparing how the Army manages, the implication of the suggestion should be thought out.

[brihaspati]

Since we are still discussing the internal agenda, and angle that emerged (at least to my mind) in a GDF thread (nukkad out of all places!) is the managment of differential growth rates and regional imbalances in socio-economic terms. There have been historical as well as recent political and economic or public policy changes involved, that have shaped the current scenario. Regional differentials and imbalances create a host of socio-economic problems including demographics. Since a unified stand and social homogenization was part of the vision I had personally projected, I hope we can have some important contributions (both critiques as well as positive directions) in this area.

In my own studies of modelling regional differences and spatio-temporal anomalies in the context of European data, I have come across movement of capital flows, and skills transfers as a key factor to be studied or "managed". The problems of regional imbalances I see in the context of India, are as follows :

(a) Non-uniform land reforms and lack of a consistent land-reforms policy for the entire country
(b) Historical emphasis for investments on the Punjab-Haryana belt with corresponding problems of capital concentration and income inequality as well as over exploitation of natural resources
(c) Not allowing or promoting regional competition in financial sectors which would facilitate flow of capital from multiple sources and into multiple sinks - practically all are concentrated in a very small portion of western India.
(d) An obvious bias and hierarchy of investments and capital flows in decreasing order as follows : North-upper India, Western India, South, and Lower Gangetic Valley+Eastern India. Even though from sheer productivity terms, and historical evidence for natural productivity performance or factors of production, the reverse should have been the expected trend (i.e., capital goes to where there is maximum potential profitability)
(e) Bottlenecks in both the production, as well as movement and use of "skilled labour".
(f) A tendency of political decentralization through creating myriad new states, without thinking of economic efficiency and optimality of production-consumption mechanisms. Remnant command economy mindsets in the union government and central fiscal management authorities which are most often a conscious or subconscious cover for regional affiliations and promotion of personal power bases by extracting resources virtually from other regions.

My line of thinking would be
(a) to replace linguistic or ethnic criteria for administrative units and statehood with an economic efficiency criteria and consolidation or optimal use of geographic and natural resources. For agricultural portion of the economy, for example, rivers and irrigation netowrks are crucial, and states should be reorganized so that administrative and management boundaries cannot be used by "identity" politicians to derail economic integration and efficiency.
(b) devise and get accepted an uniform land-use and land reforms policy for all of India. Think of reclaiming land from the sea, as well as possible buying up of land from other countries.
(c) setup multiple financial processing centres - including financial service industry spread out in different parts of the country.
(d) Allocate central resources to regions in a time bound framework where the first part concentrates on correcting imbalances in historical capital inputs to make it a level playing field, and in the second part move to strictly performance based flow of capital inputs.

One possible way of thinking is to consider "states" as public limited corporate bodies who can operate on the financial market on their "stock". This will lead to competition and efforts on the part of each state to increase their stock value.

[RayC]

It is not comparing the Nation with the Army.

One does not have to win the trust of those who one commands. It is a natural corollary of training and discipline!

The officer was merely indicating the approach towards religious discord and intolerance that plagues large majority of the Nation and yet, the same intolerance does not find expression in the Armed Forces.

It would be fair to note that before joining the Armed Forces, those joining have the same prejudices that general society has. Yet, owing to the ethos of the Armed Forces, the rough edges vanish and tolerance substitutes itself instead.

It might be added that the people in the Armed Forces continue to have belief in their religion and are also affected by the general societal environment, but without the rough edges of intolerance.

It maybe worthwhile to note that there is a Colonel who was an RSS man, who joined the Army and did well and today is a important functionary of the BJP. While he was in uniform he subscribed to the Army’s ethos and never did anything that was incorrect. Therefore, maybe the Army officer’s note I appended should indicate that what is sauce for the Goose can also be sauce for the Gander!

It is true that the Army is not a democracy. Yet, one should also appreciate that no fiat can be given that one will obey a diktat on religious beliefs and on religion per se! They are not robots, even if one misconceives such an opinion. It is the ethos that makes one realise the goodness of Nationhood beyond the narrow divides of religion and sub nationalism.

I have taken brickbats for this ethos. but I have no regret My country comes First!

It is true that the Army has no elected leader, but then the leadership holds the organisation together as one homogenous whole inspite of it having diverse elements composing it. It is not laws that holds it together, but leadership, which is inculcated and honed as one gets senior. One can compare ABV with LKA. One held a disparate group together as if it were one, while the other has set the cat amongst his own pigeons!! The RSS could never best ABV, much that they tried! It was a case of Leadership!

It would be incorrect to assume that religion does not hold any place in the Army. It does! And it is very important input. Yet, one is taught to embrace the religion of the majority of the troops, irrespective one’s own religion. I remember one Sikh jawan asking his JCO as to what is Christmas that was being celebrated in the Assam Regt unit. The JCO told him with rustic intelligence it was the Gurparb of the Christians!!

We always wonder if such a diverse organisation of the Armed Forces can forge harmony and unity in our own life, working environment and in defending the Nation, then where is the country going wrong? The ethnicity, genes and Indic values are the same as is with the Nation or is it different?

I would add that not all officers and least of all the jawans are from elite MacCaulayite schools. If they willingly embrace India with all its diversity and contradictions, one marvels as to why Indians, including here, cannot do the same!

It is time to smell the coffee and not show our 'intellectual' hoohah!

[RayC]

Once again do not sidetrack into snide comments about personal motivations of posters.

As you yourself mention at many places in your post,
(a) the army leadership is not amenable to electoral pressures from those it leads
(b) no religious authority or theologians have leadership roles where running of the organization or its fundamental decisionmaking processes are concerned
(c) the troops know from the very beginning that their religious identity will not be given consideration as far as resource/reward/penalties are concerned and that they will have no chance to use their religious identity to negotiate terms of interaction with

the organization

Replication of that model on the societal and national scale means putting up a military dictatorship which does not have to bow to electoral pressures, which delinks religious identities completely from state-interaction with individuals and has no recognition to claims of religious exclusivity (just as the underlying question in the Sikh soldiers question about Christmas was being tackled). All military dictatorships and juntas claim that they have come to provide "proper leadership" to a misguided and rudderless society which apparently has made a mess of itself without such "strong leadership".

If you are not suggesting such a regime model for India, then I think it is your turn to smell the coffee and not indulge in idle intellectual wishful thinking.

Let us not get into why you seem to have insecurity and consider anything written as a personal attack on you. Please desist from assuming yourself the mantle as the sole poster. There are many intellectuals, self assumed if you wish. You are not the sole self assumed 'intellectual'.

Please address the issues rather than deflect. I have clearly indicated what the army officer indicated. Address that!

What if the Army leadership is not amenable to electoral and religious pressures? Are they not part of the Indian polity? Or have they descended from Mars? Get to the brasstacks of discussion. It is time you learn to use plain English and straight ideas and not obfuscate with fanciful expressions.

Who the Dickens has told you that the religious identity will not be given consideration as far as resource/reward/penalties? Please desist from being a ‘sub janta’! I am afraid you know nothing and attempting to be knowledgeable. There are many very religious people in the Army!

No you are totally wrong when you state - Replication of that model on the societal and national scale means putting up a military dictatorship which does not have to bow to electoral pressures, which delinks religious identities completely from state-interaction with individuals and has no recognition to claims of religious exclusivity (just as the underlying question in the Sikh soldiers question about Christmas was being tackled). We embody Unity in Diversity!

Why have it as a motto if we, as a Nation, cannot accept it and people like you want to live in past, divide India?!

[D Roy]

There are times in a nation's history when Providence places before it one work, one aim, to which everything else, however high and noble in itself, has to be sacrificed. Such a time has now arrived for our Motherland when nothing is dearer than her service, when everything else is to be directed to that end. If you will study, study for her sake; train yourselves body and mind and soul for her sake. You will go abroad to foreign lands that you may bring back knowledge with which you may do service to her. Work that she may prosper. Suffer that she may rejoice. All is contained in that one single advice.

SRI AUROBINDO