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
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).