Indian Interests

[brihaspati]

Leave a route for honourable retreat for the target. If you corner without any such hopes for the target, the task will become much more difficult. If "target" really has all those connections - mafia+arms-dealers+western-services, do you want them to be forced to go into action to prevent exposure?

[Pranav]

What if Sonia is a scam that is a thousand times bigger than 2G?

Even if what you say is true, Sri Sudarshan ji would need to bring many like-minded people together before going public.

I agree that Sudarshan is problematic. Even if some of the issues he talks about are valid, he is too incoherent to be of much use. In fact, his incoherence may discredit even the valid concerns.

It is interesting that this Colonel Purohit, who was talking about setting up a Government-in-Exile in Israel, also wanted to assassinate the current RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat. IMHO, Purohit is a useful idiot who was being manipulated.

It is also interesting that Sudarshan seems to have uneasy relations with his successor (IIRC there were reports about this around the time Bhagwat was trying to make Gadkari the BJP president).

Further, before Mohan Bhagwat took over as RSS chief, there were news reports alleging that he was on ISI payroll! It suggests that there were forces which wanted to scuttle Bhagwat.

All of this does lend credence to Muppalla's skepticism about Sudarshan.

[shiv]

Leave a route for honourable retreat for the target. If you corner without any such hopes for the target, the task will become much more difficult.

This appears to be too complex a concept for people to actually follow.

The only other explanation is that some people desire that a particular story become known as the truth. After all, nobody will believe it unless a very large number of people actually hear the same story. Once the story becomes well known you find people who have heard the same story from different sources and then they start believing it because so many different sources have the same story. But for the story to spread it is necessary to ignore the condition that you have stated - that is:

Leave a route for honourable retreat for the target.

You cannot leave a route for honorable retreat for a target without creating and defining the target. And I find that a great deal of effort is spent in creating and smearing the target. The problem with this "target creation" or "target definition" is that this is a game that anyone can play, and everyone plays the game.

Sonia Gandhi was anti-national?
Nehru was anti-National
RAW was forced to be anti national
Gandhi was anti-national
Nitin Gadkari is anti-National
RSS is anti national

Relentlessly spreading stories to define targets results in an utter mess of everyone smearing everyone else. But in general people are not stupid. When they are given stories that are believable versus stories that are less believable, they will tend to go for the former. So the really clever ones cook up stories that are more credible. Stories that do not require you to have a pre-existing against Christians, or Muslims or Hindus.

It is the Pakistani way to say "You know Hindus are bad. Therefore this dead body lying there with ripped belly was murdered by a Hindu". If you believe the premise that Hindus are bad, you will believe the conclusion that the dead person was murdered by a Hindu.

Sonia Gandhi is a Christian, an alien faith and is connected with the pope. Therefore she is anti-national. If you believe the premise it is easy to believe the conclusion.

But what of those who might not believe the premise? What is anyone going to do to convince them? Typically those people are also called anti national. And gradually, by this means one's own support is eroded.

This too appears to be too complex a concept for people to actually understand.

[brihaspati]

^^^Well I don't even believe in making "individuals" targets like this. Individuals alone do not mean anything, they are parts of larger networks and forces. While there can be grounds to be really be wary of the larger "forces", and we should not stop being cautious or keeping up the vigil - just because some people are shouting things that seem borderline CT without basis, we cannot also waste energy in simply neutralizing "individuals". it is so much easy to deflect such individual attacks.

[Muppalla]

I don't know where to post and hence posting here. There is an important fact hidden inside the article.
STANDING TALL Even as the spotlight was on the more flamboyant Michelle Obama, the PM's wife Gursharan Kaur held her own

Those invited to the PM's residence on Sundays often found the couple engrossed in reading. Kaur is an avid reader, of books ranging from political biographies to religious texts. She likes music and used to sing for All India Radio.

Kaur once wanted to be a schoolteacher but ended up being the better half of the man Obama once called `Mr.
Guru.' Her dream was carried forward by her daughter Upinder, who teaches history at Delhi University. Neither of the Singhs' other two daughters, Damandeep or the US-based Amrit, stay with the PM either.

Kaur, who joined Singh's incredible journey in 1958 through an arranged match, is devoutly religious and visits Gurudwara Rakabganj opposite Parliament House every Sunday, usually in the company of good friend Isher Ahluwalia. “Humour, humility and emotional strength are her defining characteristics,“ says Sanjay Baru, who worked with the PM.

“She is a very humble, warm and a forgiving person. Her brother was killed in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots but she has no sense of anger in her,“ says Khushwant Singh. The one occasion when she lost her cool was in 1999 when Singh lost the parliamentary elections from South Delhi. She thought the people handling his campaign could have done better.

So Dr.Singh is direcly affected by the rampaging INC goons of Delhi. Hopefully he grants justice to all those as he is now the powerful person of the nation.

[Klaus]

Still fail to understand how all this makes Michelle Obama more flamboyant? Just contrasting personalities or wrong word usage by the paper?

Or are they trying to put down the SFRE first lady of desh by somehow ascribing a flamboyant virtue to the TDPE first lady of the yoo-ess?

[RajeshA]

RajeshAji,
that does not bring us to the crux of the question I tried to ask : do the "Muslim" as a subgroup really has concrete evidence of showing themselves as conscious and willing to use their "nuisance value" - if any? Answering this question either way is going to be tricky. If "yes", then it still leaves the question of inevitability of appeasement - open. Even if there is real nuisance value, appeasement is not the only answer possible! If the answer is "No", then the whole thing becomes a propaganda - a deliberate building up of the image of "so and so" has "nuisance" value, so that certain groups can be manipulated and used as an excuse for obtaining power over the rashtra.

I see some truth in all those scenarios.

The nuisance value is compounded by it being both internal in the context of a relatively soft state, as well as external, considering that India's longevity also depends/depended on an amicable Asian neighborhood.

One also should consider that even if there is a potential for nuisance in the community, that nuisance still needs to be cultivated in the length and breadth of the community. Muslim appeasement can also be considered as a mechanism to slow down this spread of nuisance value. So "Muslim Appeasement" may be a strategy to slow down "Islamism" in India, which breeds on victimhood complexes.

I don't think that this doctrine alone has the ability to fight off the deadly virus or to stop its spread through the organism. It can be useful if administered in combination with other prescriptions, but the patient is less eager to take those. Also under the garb of "Muslim Appeasement", often the politicians are administering a corrupted version of it - "Islamist Appeasement" which is in fact working exactly contrary to the intended function. "Islamist Appeasement" is in fact speeding up the spread of the disease.

Global Islamism movement is breaking down the carrots and sticks containment field around Indian Muslims set up by the Indian political system of pseudo-secularists and the BJP-scarecrow combine. Perhaps it was doomed to failure, and the intrinsic Islamist values were bound to emerge, but it definitely has speeded up the process.

I think the propensity of the Indian politician to overdo his rhetoric in a competitive field has nudged him to use "Islamist Appeasement" over "Muslim Appeasement", without giving much thought to the consequences. So the people manning the national doctrine of "Muslim Appeasement" have themselves failed. On the other hand the intrinsic "nuisance value" within the community has been compounded by global currents.

The propaganda value according to the doctrine should have been all about how well the Muslims are treated in India. Any propaganda which justifies the necessity and inevitability of this doctrine, based on the "nuisance value", as I am doing in this post , actually also goes contrary to the parameters of the doctrine, that is the pseudo-secular argument, that this doctrine is simply needed because the Muslims have special needs as a religious community as well as a poor community.

The Hindutva camp, IMHO, is a necessary part of this doctrine. The more carrots the pseudo-secularists give to the Muslims, the more the bad cop routine can be played on taking away those carrots, instead of using of sticks arena, which would invite a much more of a bad press for India externally and would be dangerous for social peace. Without the bad cop routine, the "Muslim Appeasement" doctrine loses its effectivity. There is sufficient disagreement within India regarding "Muslim Appeasement" and its more severe variants - "Islamist Appeasement", that the Hindutva camp can make a public case against it and get sufficient support to lay claim on forming a government. So both the good cop and the bad cop can benefit in equal measure from this national doctrine, as long as the inevitability argument is not made. The public sees this as a "political ideology", as an accompaniment to the pseudo-secularist manifesto, and not as a national doctrine.

As for distinction between the "community" and its "ism" - that is another tricky issue. Depending on the scale and focus of observation, any argument can be made in favour of both "has distinctions" and "has no distinction whatsoever". So the hypothesis has to be tested. The Partition showed that as a community, they may not mobilize against the "-ism" to such an extent that it checks/neutralizes/combats in concrete terms what the "-ism" demands. Subsequent reactions within the Indian rashtra shows that in parts where there they might have perceptions of complete immunity - they will still not challenge atrocities demanded and justified by the "-ism" as in '89 Kashmir Valley, or recently in God's own country or land of the Gangeridae.

So yes, in certain aspects the community may not appear to be common to the "-ism", for example they may not overtly share in the fetish of certain desert cultures about preferred zones of depilation, or that they may not insist on this or that aspect of the Hidaya as the more concentrated purity of more "-ismic" lands do, but on other aspects - there does seem to be a common sponsorship of "ism". For example we do not see as vehement and violent rioting and mob-action against Paki action in Kargil or Mumbai 2008, as we see against Tasleema, or against Israeli action in Gaza. Tasleema and '89 KV illustrate the point nicely. BD Islamists have some formal logical justification to rail against Tasleema - because their abuse of Hindus were being exposed, and because they thought of their country as Islam's land - so they felt outraged that someone was protesting what was after all solidly justifiable by the impeccable record and recommendations of the "ism" itself against non-muslims. But why did Indian Muslims have to also mobilize against Tasleema - if she was only criticizing a foreign nation, and that too protesting atrocities on a community in that country that was majority and neighbours and fellow citizens in India? Why was there no violent mobbing and rioting of the order undertaken against Tasleema - in '89, when - let us assume it was all Paki and foreign sponsored atrocities on Kashmiri non-muslims? The "trauma" of Ayodhya was still 3 years in the future - and there was no obvious rioting/abuse of Muslims as a build up to '89!

So at crucial points of history - where it means taking up positions - and showing the seriousness of intent - concerted and concrete actions by the community only seem to take place when there is a perception of "ism" being affected. It remains to be proved that any concept of nationhood/cross-community friendship and "co-habitation" of long order - will really take priority over "-ism" when choices or options are strictly restricted.

I agree on what you say, about the behavior of the "community" towards its "-ism". I have given some thought to containment of the "-ism". I know you favor the cleansing of the "-ism" instead. I just think, that some ideas below, can be seen either as a desirable final status by some or as a necessary intermediary step by you.

In another post, I mentioned

Whereas the Migrant Muslims in the West, even though they claim Allah's sanction to spread out everywhere, they feel they do not belong there socially, causing their alienation, which causes them not to fully embrace the national agenda of Western countries. India's Muslims feel they were left behind due to Partition, stranded in India, and also do not really belong here, causing their alienation, which causes them too not to fully embrace the national agenda.

<snip>

Jihadism would prosper in Muslim-majority countries, where either the radical Muslims want to overthrow a Muslim Govt., whom they consider munafiqeen or it would occur in Muslim-minority countries where the Muslims feel alienated and not empowered allowing Global Jihadist forces to subvert them.

I can't claim this to be an axiom, but it is my starting point for the argument.

The Muslim community's urge to see everything through the prism of their "-ism" can only be counteracted by creating a situation where their ethnicity and nationalism triumph over their "-ism". This involves following strategies:

1. Remove the reasons for their alienation and aloofness from the national cause/agenda.
2. Remove all reasons for any hope of triumph of their "-ism", of Khilafat, of Emirate, by hardening the barriers to demographic victory or intensification of "-ism".
3. Contain the "victimhood complex" propaganda, by containing inter-communal conflict, removing historical inaccuracies and returning more effective rhetoric.
4. Cut down those politicians down to size, who go beyond the brief of this "national doctrine" and wade in Islamist rhetoric and waters. We may differ here on where the line needs to be drawn.

My thinking is that along with many other things like economy, even with Islam(-ism) it is the case of grow or die - die in the sense that both atheism, liberalism and cultural integration expands. The growth depends on having a cause and a hope. The cause could be "survival", or "quiet expansion", or "contribution to subversion of the country by outside forces". Both cause and hope need to be removed from the equation. In absence of these, the Muslim community would look for a stable coexistence and integration with the mainstream.

So as long as the "Cause" and "Hope" for "-ism" is there, it would be futile to look for a different behavior from the community.

[sanjeevpunj]

India doesn't cease to amaze me. I came across this page http://www.amazingincredibleindia.com/doyou-india.html and wish to share.I am particularly impressed by the fact that India is the world's largest democracy.Definitely we are in a position to tell the world what to do, at least the part of the world that accepts democracy.I see the global conflicts ending only when democracy prevails all over the world, and no individuals are looked upon as heroes due to their elevated monetary status.it is still a long struggle.

Opposing democracy are the old feudal systems prevalent in the middle east ,stretching between Morocco and Pakistan, in more precise terms the Islamic world.The Islamic world doesn't accept democracy in principle, although pioneering islamic nations like Iran do exist, they are more or less still "ruled" by theocrats. Having lived over 10 years in an islamic country, I have seen how dependent the junta here is on the decision of the ruler, their thinking is limited to what the ruler decides.This does maintain a semblance of peace, but its something like the proverbial lid on a volcano, bound to explode, like Iran did once, then Iraq and Afghanistan closely followed by Pakistan. Turmoil seems to be an accepted state of affairs in the islamic world.

While the islamic world continues with its turmoil,India should rise as an iconic nation,displaying to the world what cooperation between its varied colors,religions and ethnic minorities can result in.We have to guard against corruption always, as it is corruption that weakens a nation and opens it up to opportunistic troublemakers.

India on the other hand promises the much sought after "secular" state though its still a far fetched dream.Practically, India's stability arises out of the cooperation between its people,whatever race or caste or color they are.At the end of the day they all do sit back and pray for a peaceful tomorrow.The borders between theocracy and democracy are very fragile, and many easily accept theocracy, to be ruled by diktats of powerful rulers, under fear of punishment, instead of accepting freedom and democracy,which implies constant change of government.
What Gandhi,Nehru and Patel left behind for us is still not understood by many politicians, leave alone the aam junta.For a few dollars more, press glitterati would gladly bash Gandhi's ideas, but even in a thousand years, those ideas will remain very potent and effective.Gandhi's dream of India, a conglomerate of villages, is my dream and vision too.Yet, I do not deny the need and necessity of technological growth, which must be properly balanced and dovetailed with the growth of the rural areas.Wealth must be shared more and more, at all levels.The divide is too huge, between rich and poor, and this divide should not stand in the way of uniting India as ONE force to reckon with.

[brihaspati]

Do we really actually read up and study and analyze the statements, "vaani"s, "vachans" and sermons provided by "great leaders" in the context of their actual actions on ground, and then come to conclusions before we project our own hopes and dreams retroactively on such "oh-so-great-leaders"?

Let us start with MKG's virtual last testament, which called for disbandment of the "Congress", as part of the draft party constitution he was working on even the night before he was assassinated. It was not followed up by Nehru. So these two great leaders had two completely contradictory visions on a crucial point for the future of India - and therefore two completely contradictory legacies. Nehru and Patel differed entirely on future plans for the region called "Kashmir" - which has an impact not just on Kashmir but about inter-community and inter-religion relations on the subcontinent. Nehru switched overnight his stand on Subhash Bose and the INA, after being hosted by the Mountbattens in Singapore. He had switched before on the same issue almost overnight after realizing the popular sentiment against Bose-INA bashers outside his apparent core-of-India : UP. These are not mere political events - they represent crucial questions of the long term foundational and ideological directions of Bharat.

Here we see the "tri-murthy" contradict each other, vacillate, showing lack of clarity of vision, and what makes us most uneasy - a propensity to pass off shortsightedness and mere political expediency including petty personal rivalries and jealousies - as great strategic and "nationalistic insights". Honestly, perhaps more than them it is the future self-appointed chamchas following in the old feudal tradition of deification of successful power elite - who have transformed them into something they themselves perhaps never consciously wanted to be.

[Prem]

Wonder if NOKO progress in Pu Bomb was shared with india as same will be passed on to Poakistan.

http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/201 ... rrest.html

Details of the arrests of Kim So-in and his family, including his father Kim Song-il, who is also a nuclear expert, came from a high-level North Korean source.The espionage charges may be linked to a United Nations report on the spread of Pyongyang's weapons technology, which was published last week.Kim and his family were taken to the notorious Yodok concentration camp, in a remote corner of the country. Former inmates have described a brutal regimen of hard labour, starvation, regular beatings and public executions. It is reserved for “traitors” to the regime.“Kim is accused of assisting his father, Kim Song-il, a researcher at the Yongbyon nuclear complex, in delivering top secret documents on nuclear development to a foreign agency,” the source was quoted as saying by the Chosun Ilbo, a South Korean newspaper with strong intelligence contacts....The arrest of the scientist by the State Security Department in May came just as experts were completing a UN report that ties the North Korean regime to sales of nuclear technology and ballistic missiles to Iran, Syria and Burma. There is speculation among diplomats that the scientist has been blamed for disclosures to the expert team, including specialists from Britain and America, who drew up the 75-page report.

[sanjeevpunj]

Let us start with MKG's virtual last testament, which called for disbandment of the "Congress", as part of the draft party constitution he was working on even the night before he was assassinated. It was not followed up by Nehru.

I think you hit the nail on the head, here.Indeed Nehru is squarely responsible for a lot of messups soon after Gandhi left the world.His fear of opposing Gandhi was put to rest, and he began to do as he pleased.Some of the things he did wrong were the Himalayan Blunder,and the hob nobbing with UK. He became exactly what Gandhi tried to avoid, a authoritarian on any issue related to India's future.He failed to grasp the Chinese drift,leading to the Great Himalayan Blunder, and then went on to promote P-Secs. He gradually lost focus on crucial matters.Inevitably,Ms Indira Gandhi came to the forefront,to try and undo his mistakes, but the rot had set in.Corrupt leaders of the "Congress" were hell bent on usurping whatever powers they could.Had Nehru explicitly disbanded Congress as per Gandhi's suggestion,and worked on a less chaotic political system than what we have today,we would perhaps have been more united.

Now we have Mayavati building statues of herself and Kanshi Ram. We have factions within Congress.We have seen the birth of forces of subversion too, eg: Maoists,Jeelani and their supporters. India is ripe for a crucial revolution in political circles, if we take an utopian-optimistic view of things.However if we look at what hasn't been fully corrected (rampant corruption,sycophancy,creating political icons that is almost akin to idolatry,etc) then we factually face the edge India is walking on........gingerly balanced between a past that was so messed up, and a future that can get totally messed up if India makes wrong decisions at this juncture.

[Arjun]

Not sure where to put this.....http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/India-no-longer-a-rising-power-but-has-already-risen/articleshow/6922196.cms

What I find interesting about this article is not the contents per se, but the consistent usage of the term India for the well-off portion of the country and Bharat for the 'poverty-stricken' part. Would be interesting to start a movement to reverse this association, since Bharat in its time was a predominant power, and India was the power that was made to become a slave of the British.

[sanjeevpunj]

Not sure where to put this.....http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/India-no-longer-a-rising-power-but-has-already-risen/articleshow/6922196.cms

What I find interesting about this article is not the contents per se, but the consistent usage of the term India for the well-off portion of the country and Bharat for the 'poverty-stricken' part. Would be interesting to start a movement to reverse this association, since Bharat in its time was a predominant power, and India was the power that was made to become a slave of the British.

India was a title given to us, by these outsiders who plundered us.Functionally we accepted it at that time, there was no reason more important than freedom and gaining Independence, and whether they called us India or Bharat, it didn't really matter.Zealots like Advani at that time should have raised the issue of re-christening India as "Bharat" if they were so deeply concerned about our lost glory.This change should have begun as soon as we got Independence, but once a word gains popularity it sticks.Any attempt to change it now would be peurile.See the other side of the fence,they didn't let it continue as "West India" or "West Punjab" but changed it promptly to "Pakistan", I am sure if someone at that time had raised the issue, we would be called Bharat now.Factually to all of us, it is still Bharat anyway, irrespective of what the world knows us by.

[Arjun]

Not suggesting anything as drastic as renaming the country....All I am saying is debunk this association of Bharat with the negative aspects - 'poverty stricken' 'superstitous', etc and of the term 'India' with the elite. Would be happy to see some articles that turn this proposition on its head - associate Bharat with the forward-thinking part, and India with the backward, un-innovative part.

[sanjeevpunj]

That is a very positive idea, and should be explored.Its the press which created the "poor India" "superstitious India" image and incidently some channels still continue to spew out such images.

[svinayak]

Not suggesting anything as drastic as renaming the country....All I am saying is debunk this association of Bharat with the negative aspects - 'poverty stricken' 'superstitous', etc and of the term 'India' with the elite. Would be happy to see some articles that turn this proposition on its head - associate Bharat with the forward-thinking part, and India with the backward, un-innovative part.

This image of two India/Bharat should be discouraged and cleanedup
Both the communities are together in India and there is no seperation between them to create this kind of fake image.

[Philip]

My apologies of posted earlier,but at this moment with so many scandals wounding the nation's interests,it is worth listening to that great soldier FM Sam Manekshaw again.

Subject: Gen Sam Manekshaw on leadership

An excellent talk, worth reading, understanding and putting it in practice...

Leadership in the 21st Century
By Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw MC

Issue: Excerpts from the book "Field Marshal KM Cariappa: Memorial Lectures 1995-2000"
Vice President, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am fully conscious of the honour and privilege which is mine to be invited here to address you this evening. The honour is even greater that you should have invited a soldier when you could have invited any number of VVIPs. General Choudhury, I thank you for the very kind words you spoke about me. You have told us all the good things that Field Marshal Cariappa has done. But one big thing that he did, you haven’t mentioned. He taught the Indian Army to be completely apolitical. Ours is one country, where soldiers have kept out of politics. I think that was the biggest achievement of Field Marshal Cariappa, the greatest service to this country.

Some years ago, I was invited to a Rotary club function at Madras . It was stated that the youth of this country had not contributed much to the society and they asked me to speak on the subject. I disagreed violently. I said then, and I say now that the youth of this country is confused. It doesn’t know why this country is facing all these problems. Wherever they look, they find there are shortages. There is shortage of power and power-cuts, they can’t study and they want to know whose fault it is. They want to join colleges and universities and they are told there is a shortage of seats and they want to know whose fault it is. They look around and they see the dissension amongst politicians and they want to know whose fault it is, not theirs. They want to go abroad for studies and they are told that there is no foreign exchange and they want to know whose fault it is. Wherever they look, they find shortages, corruption, bribery, smuggling and they want to know whose fault it is. Here was a country, which was considered the brightest jewel in the British crown and they want to know what’d happened to that bright jewel. And nobody gave them any answer. They are no longer fooled with the glib answer that we were under British rule for 200 years and that’s why we are in this state. They turn around and say that the British left us four decades ago, what have you done, except making excuses. They say, look at Singapore , look at Malaysia , which too were ruled by the British and look at the progress they have made. They turn around and say look at Japan and look at Germany . They fought a war for four years. Their youth was decimated, they lost, their countries were occupied, their industry was destroyed, portions of the country were taken away, and look what they have achieved. So please stop making excuses and give us an answer. Why? Ladies and gentlemen, I have decided to open my big mouth and say that the answer and the real problem for all our difficulties, all our shortages, etc. is lack of leadership. Mr Vice President don’t misunderstand me and gentlemen of the Press don’t misquote me. When I turn round and say lack of leadership I do not mean just political leadership.

Books on military leadership What are Generals Made of?, Follow Me-1, Follow Me-II

I mean lack of leadership in every sphere of this country. Whether it is political, administrative, in industry, in trade unions, in educational institutions, in the law and order, personnel, in our sports organisations and even in the Press, it is lack of leadership. And it is on this subject that I wanted to address you this evening. The Director General of Infantry wanted me to talk about leadership in the 21st century. Ladies and gentlemen, leadership does not change. The attributes of leadership have come down the years. All that happens is that greater emphasis is placed on certain attributes of leadership as countries advance and technological developments take place. I do not know whether leaders are born or leaders are made. There is a school of thought, which, says leaders are born. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a population of nine hundred and thirty million people but there is a dearth of leadership. If leaders are not born, can we make leaders? And my answer is yes. Give me a man or a woman with common sense and who is not an idiot and I assure you, you can make a leader out of him or her.

What are the attributes of leadership?

The primary, the cardinal attribute of leadership is professional knowledge and professional competence. And you will agree with me, ladies and gentlemen, that you cannot be born with professional knowledge or professional competence. Not even if you are the son of the prime minister, an industrialist or a Field Marshal! Professional knowledge has to be acquired the hard way. It’s a continuous study and you never acquire enough in today’s fast moving, competitive, technological world that we are living in. You’ve got to keep up with your profession, whatever you are in. Doctors, engineers, scientists, all contribute to journals of their profession. They all have contact with their counterparts in other worlds. The problem in India is that as soon as one of us is put in a position of power, he feels that he has the monopoly of the entire knowledge. Those who are responsible for the defence and security of this country, can they cross their hearts and swear that they have ever read a book on strategy, on tactics? On military campaigns, or weapons? Can they even distinguish between a mortar and a motor, a guerrilla from a gorilla? Professional knowledge and professional competence are the main attributes of leadership. Unless you know, and the men you command know that you know your job, you will never be a leader. Take industry for example. The automobile industry has gone through tremendous technological changes. It’s only recently that our industrialists have started thinking and producing a modern car. I want to tell you that unless you have professional knowledge and professional competence, you will never become a leader.

And that takes me to the next attribute of leadership, the ability to think; to make up your mind, to take a decision and accept full responsibility for that decision. Have you ever wondered, why a man doesn’t take a decision? Very simple, because he lacks professional knowledge and professional competence or he is afraid that if he takes a decision and goes wrong, he will have to carry the can. Ladies and gentlemen, as a law of average, if you take ten decisions, five should be right. And if you have professional competence and professional knowledge, nine should be right. And the one that is wrong will always be put right by a bright colleague, by an intelligent staff officer or by the gallantry of some soldier. I don’t want to give you too many examples of why and when people haven’t taken decisions and what has happened. I will give you just one. If the decision had been taken to ensure that the Sabri Masjid would not be destroyed, a whole community would not have been antagonised. An act of omission can be corrected but an act of commission cannot be corrected. To do nothing is to do something, which is definitely wrong. When I was the Army Chief, I visited my formation commanders and I asked one of them what he had been doing about some matter. He turned around and said “Sir, I have been thinking, I haven’t made up my mind”. It is absolutely necessary that a leader must be decisive.

The next attribute of the leadership is absolute honesty and impartiality. We all have our likes and dislikes, but, we must never allow our likes or our dislikes to influence our professional judgment. Those of us, who had the good fortune of commanding hundreds and thousands of men, know this. The leader must be absolutely impartial and honest in dealing with personnel. No man likes to be punished and yet a man will take his punishment if he knows that the punishment awarded to him is similar to the one for a similar crime committed by somebody who has influence, who has the ear of an industrialist, of a minister, of a member of parliament, or the Field Marshal. No man likes to be superseded. And yet, they will accept supersession, if they know they have been superseded by someone better, better qualified under the regulations but not by somebody who is a relative of the minister or by somebody for whom a ‘Godman’ intervenes. It is vitally important when you are dealing with men that you should be absolutely impartial. We must possess the courage to withstand these pressures.

Moral and physical courage are the next vital attributes and I do not know which one is more important. While addressing young officers or young policemen, I will put emphasis on physical courage but since I am addressing this gathering, I will lay stress on moral courage. What is moral courage? Moral courage is the ability to distinguish right from wrong and having done so, to say so, irrespective of the consequences to you. A ‘Yes man’ is a dangerous man. He is a menace. He will go very far. He can become a minister, a secretary or a Field Marshal but he can never become a leader nor, ever be respected. He will be used by his superiors, disliked by his colleagues and despised by his subordinates. So discard the ‘Yes man’.

I am going to give you a personal example of moral courage. There is a very thin line between being dismissed and becoming a Field Marshal. In 1971, when Pakistan cracked down in East Pakistan, hundreds and thousands of refugees started pouring into India , into West Bengal, Assam and Tripura. The Prime Minister held a cabinet meeting in her office. The External Affairs Minister, Sardar Swaran Singh, the Agriculture Minister, Mr Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, the Defence Minister, Babu Jagjivan Ram, and the Finance Minister, Yashwant Rao Chauhan were present. I was then summoned. A very angry, grim-faced Prime Minister read out the telegrams from the Chief Ministers of West Bengal, Assam and Tripura. She then turned around to me and said, “What are you doing about it?” And I said, “Nothing, it’s got nothing to do with me. You didn’t consult me when you allowed the BSF, the CRP and RAW to encourage the Pakistanis to revolt. Now that you are in trouble, you come to me. I have a long nose. I know what’s happening.” I then asked her what she wanted me to do. She said, “I want you to enter East Pakistan .” And I responded, “That means war!” She said, “I do not mind if it is war. Have you read the Bible?” I queried. The Foreign Minister, Sardar Swaran Singh asked, “What has the Bible got to do with this?” I explained, that the first book, the first chapter, the first words, the first sentence God said was, “Let there be light” and there was light. Now you say, “Let there be war” and there will be war, but are you prepared? I am certainly not. This is the end of April. The Himalayan passes are opening and there can be an attack from China if China gives us an ultimatum. The Foreign Minister asked, “Will China give an ultimatum?” And I said, “You are the Foreign Minister, you tell me”. I told them that my armoured division and two of my infantry divisions were away. One in the Jhansi/Babina area, the other in Samba and the third one in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. I mentioned that I would require all the road space, all the railway wagons, the entire railway system to move these formations to the operational areas and that harvesting was in progress in the Punjab and UP and they would not be able to move the harvest which would rot; and I pointed out to the Agriculture Minister that it wouldn’t be my responsibility if there were a famine. Then I said, “My armoured division, which is my big striking force is supposed to have one hundred eighty nine tanks operational. I have got only eleven tanks that are fit to fight.” The Finance Minister, who is a friend of mine asked, “Sam why only eleven?” So I told him, “Because you are the Finance Minister. I have been asking you for money for over a year and you say you haven’t got it!” And finally I turned around to the Prime Minister and said that the rains were about to start in East Pakistan and when it rains there, it pours and when it pours, the whole countryside is flooded. The snows are melting, the rivers would become like oceans. If you stand on one bank, you cannot see the other. All my movement would be confined to roads. The Air Force, because of climatic conditions would not be able to support me. Now Prime Minister, give me your orders. The grim Prime Minister with her teeth clenched said, “The Cabinet will meet again at four o-clock”. The members of the Cabinet started walking out. I being the junior most was the last to go and as I was leaving, she said, “Chief, will you stay back?” I turned around and said, “Prime Minister, before you open your mouth, may I send you my resignation on grounds of health, mental or physical?” She said, “Every thing you told me is true”. “Yes! It is my job to tell you the truth” I responded, “and it is my job to fight, it is my job to fight to win and I have told you the truth,” She smiled at me and said, “All right Sam, you know what I want?” I said, “Yes, I know what you want!”

I had the moral courage to tell her the truth. A leader must have moral courage otherwise he will not be respected.

I now come to physical courage. Fear, like hunger and sex, is a natural phenomenon and the man who says he is not frightened is a liar. But to be frightened is one thing and to show fear is something quite different. It is when your knees are knocking and your teeth are chattering – that is when the real leader comes out. If you once show fear to your men, you will never have their respect. I could quote you many examples of my own life. I am not a brave man! Please believe me. You have to have physical courage. Never show your fear. How often has a course of a battle, when everything was going wrong, changed because some young officer has picked up a handful of men and changed the situation by his physical courage? How often a poor old Inspector of Police with nothing but a little swagger stick in his hand quelled a riot by showing physical courage?

The other attribute of leadership is loyalty. We all except loyalty but do we give loyalty? Look at things happening around you. The sons of kings, chief ministers and heads of governments have shown disloyalty. Loyalty you must get from your subordinates and also give loyalty to your superiors, colleagues and subordinates. Men may give you trouble and create problems but a leader must deal with them immediately and sternly. A leader must remember that human beings have human problems, so the leader must have a human touch. Leaders must have the gift of the gab and a sense of humour. And finally, men and women all over the world like their leader to be a man, to have manly qualities. It is not that only a person who has no vices is a good leader. Look at Caesar or Napoleon, they had vices but they were outstanding leaders.

Since I joined the Army, many changes have taken place; the .303 rifle has been replaced by a new weapon. Horses and mules have been replaced by vehicles and tanks. Signal communications have advanced a great deal. Satellites now give the entire information to the Commanders. But for infantry soldiers, one thing has not changed, and that is their job. Their job is to fight and win. If you lose, you would disgrace your country, your village, your home and your wife. Let your motto be, ‘No one provokes me with impunity’. In other words, or in a soldier’s language, if your enemy hits you on the chin, black both his eyes and push his teeth down his throat! If you can instil this quality in your men, you will be a great leader. The leader that this country lacks at all levels, in all walks of life.

I did not wish to iterate leadership traits and qualities from books to this august gathering, but share my perceptions with you in our context. I hope I have been able to do that.

Thank you.

Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, MC

Excerpts from the book “Field Marshal KM Cariappa: Memorial Lectures 1995-2000”

[RamaY]

X-Posting from Managing Chinese Threat Thread

I still remember Paswan standing at jama masjid shouting that it will be acceptable for India to loses 70 crore people fighting the Yanks in Iraq. In the late 90s.

If a leader can make such a preposterous suggestion, he is saying with a wink-wink, don't take me seriously. If he had said, it would be acceptable for India to lose 1 crore people to fight the Yanks in Iraq, then I will be concerned about the guy, but 70 crore is a simply a good joke! But other than that he conveyed the feelings of India (in his view) towards the issue, and if somebody had heard those views in Iraq or in other Muslim countries, they would have been appreciated.

Can't help but notice the reference to 70 crores. India doesn't have that many muslims (perhaps 20 crores).

I say this because Mulayam is not an oridnary fool. He was India's Ex-defense minister and was CM of India's largest state.

[RajeshA]

Can't help but notice the reference to 70 crores. India doesn't have that many muslims (perhaps 20 crores).

I say this because Mulayam is not an oridnary fool. He was India's Ex-defense minister and was CM of India's largest state.

I think Paswan was saying that not just Indian Muslims but also Hindus would sacrifice their lives to help the Iraqis. It was his way of saying that whole of India stands with the people of Iraq.

[RamaY]

Don't want to waste forum bandwidth on this, but for that he would have said 100 crore people not 70. The key of this statement is in audience analysis. I am not saying it is their mistake for Paswan to say what he said, but it shows the underlying trend. Appear muslim appeasing and you get muslim votes. It is IM responsibility to correct that perception.

[Philip]

Tharoor takes on the dangerous unpopular loony of the extreme "Left".He's found a great "whipping girl" in order to try and get himself politically "rehabilitated"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/book ... -Left.html

Arundhati Roy under fire for going 'too far Left’
Arundhati Roy, the Booker prize winner and activist, has come under a withering attack by Shashi Tharoor, an Indian member of parliament and writer.
15 Nov 2010

Mr Tharoor, said she had “gone too far to the Left”. Ms Roy, author of the God Of Small Things, has been attacked for describing Maoists as Gandhians in her articles. Mr Tharoor was talking in a session with Peter Florence, founder-director of Hay Festival, which is now sponsored by the Daily Telegraph. He said: “Arundhati Roy has gone too far to the left like Christopher Hitchens, who has gone far too Right. [She] unfortunately chooses to write about those who carry ... guns; it is sad for those at the receiving end of the guns ... A large number of innocent Indians have been killed by the Gandhians with guns.”

Arundhati Roy has come under fire for her political views Mr Tharoor, a member of the Indian parliament from the Thiruvananthapuram constituency in Kerala, previously served as the United Nations Under-Secretary General for Communications and Public Information and as the Indian minister of state for external affairs.

[sanjeevpunj]

All said and done, in the end the one who can hold the gun and fire it properly will always be feared, and thus respected, until someone else can do the same and fire back.Maoists are doing their maximum, but are on a losing wicket, as they cannot garner enough support even amongst the sections they fight for.Just as it is in Pakistan, collateral damage theory rules in Maoist infested regions as well. Workers of CPI-M and TNC are part of the collateral damage.Unsung policemen and CISF soldiers are also becoming part of this expensive experiment. Indian interests here are being ignored by the press.Sections of the indian press that go all out in support of anti-india lobbies should be legally encountered and defeated.

[brihaspati]

FM Sam Manekshaw's lecture/excerpt has some very interesting observations.

When talking about decisiveness he says:

I will give you just one. If the decision had been taken to ensure that the Sabri Masjid would not be destroyed, a whole community would not have been antagonised. An act of omission can be corrected but an act of commission cannot be corrected. To do nothing is to do something, which is definitely wrong.

That sets me thinking. So the delay in sending out the soldiers of the then BIA during the Partition riots was an act of "omission" or an "act of commission"? On the other hand, since he singles out the important example of "lack of decisiveness", perhaps even an example of an "act of commission" - in the destruction of the disputed structure at Ayodhya - it is curious that he does include in his criteria for judging leadership - the immeasurable quantity of a "whole community to be antagonized".

Taken together with his initial strong pointer to the "fact" of the IA having been cleansed of all "political commitments" or "affiliations", and been made "apolitical" - the recognition of "entire community's" sentiments seem contradictory. Suppose in a situation his military commitment to a "one India" had to march over the sentiments of an entire community - would he or would he not do it? Or would it depend on the perceptions of the legitimacy of the sentiments of that community or not? In case of the Ayodhya incident, how do we confirm that the entire community was antagonized? That would have a dangerous parallel to assumptions made about the Sikhs after the Golden Temple raid. Actually his question about omission/commission could be taken towards the Golden Temple issue too- allowing the Bhindranwale buildup to proceed in the first place was an act of omission or commission? Moreover, is it possible to be completely "apolitical"? Somehow that makes me a bit shaky but not surprised.

Whenever people claim that they or a body or an entity or an organization is entirely "apolitical", that raises a deep unease. We know that in a fundamental sense this is similar to those within the political spectrum who claim to be at the "centre" - not biased to the "left" or to the "right". In real life such people turn out to be sheer opportunists, and often hiding a deep ideological leaning to some particular position, but see more advantage in maintaining outward neutrality. I am not here speculating about the FM, in case someone thinks of using such an angle to stop this line of analysis. It is more about his claim about the institution and why he felt it necessary to make such a pointer.

Finally, in all his excerpts quoted above, I only see commitments to methodological "values" ("decisiveness", "moral courage", "professional expertise", "not being Yes-men") but never a discussion of "values" to evaluate actions and decisions. He gives a hint of this only in the case of discussing the disputed structure at Ayodhya - where he seems to be leaning towards it being a case of "commission" and not "omission" based on the "antagonization of an entire community".

How do we ensure that when people are being decisive, that they are not being guided by hidden motivations and affiliations that because of the quickness of their implementation - escape scrutiny as to future consequences? Whether decisiveness could bring in brilliant tactical successes instantaneously but prove immensely damaging in the long run? Where perhaps procrastination itself would have been the better strategy?

I do not see why the point about the "apolitical" nature of the army has to be highlighted. Was it ever "political"? If it had been political it could not have survived as the BIA in its pre-Independence form. Because even the basics of political feeling together with any love for the land should have led to an all out rebellion against the British. But that did not happen, and by and large the army proved its apolitical nature - and did participate in crushing the popular movements of '42 in places like Midnapore and Ballia. Post-Independence, too it has always maintained that tradition of strict deference to the political decisionmakers except perhaps in operational details.

The question for the future will be, if the country needs action on specific political lines and objectives, and a majority of the people perceives the definition of their nation as different from what the army as referred to by FM Sam Mankeshaw thinks of as "one country" - what will be the legitimacy of the army's ideological position? Whose definition and perception of the "nation" and "country" takes priority - the army's or the civilian population's? It could differ as the BIA serving a foreign king or a queen from "subject populations", but as the army of a sovereign nation and the people of that sovereign nation can it do so? Will it then take up a position to protect certain perceptions of nationhood against the wishes of the majority? By the same line of unsubstantiated assessment that entire communities are antagonized or pleased together - it is possible some people may think that what happened at Ayodhya pleased an entire community, and stopping their intent "decisively" would have antagonized a much larger community. Maybe the political leadership built this into their calculation because their perception of the "country" was more representative than that of others?

[RamaY]

Bji

There is always a difference in how GOI treats sentiments of Indic religions and how it treats non-indic religionists. IA being an extension of GOI, can't be much different.

The day GOI and by extension IA handle JK terrorism the same way they did Khalistani terrorism, I would believe in their "indic" credentials

[ramana]

I think Modern India thought that it had to chose between spiritualism and materialism. Having read history wrong they decided to chose materialism and confined spiritualism to the homes. What use is all the wealth when the soul is lost?

You need both.

[RamaY]

Progress, personal or social, is illdefined as moving away from Indic culture and apeing western lifestyle.

Current generation discredits everything Indic without even learning and experimenting with that. Seeking personal experience and making informed choice is too time consuming.

Unfortunately cycle of karma doesn't stop for anyone. The ultimate losers of this cultural loss would be Indians and humanity.

[svinayak]

I think Modern India thought that it had to chose between spiritualism and materialism. Having read history wrong they decided to chose materialism and confined spiritualism to the homes. What use is all the wealth when the soul is lost?

You need both.

Marxist education is the root cause. They are the biggest obstacle to spiritual progress

They have attacked the root of Indian mind by manipulating the education system. that needs to be restored

[Pratyush]

RamaY,

The Indian education system is to blame for that. In NCERT or state text books that young mind is never exposed to the Indic Ideals. Nor are the parents aware of the Indic roots. Then how do you expect the child to learn about Indic culture and roots. The first idea planted in the head of the young child is that he must speak in English that going to Amrika is good. At least in my social circle.

In that situation how do you expect the young one to have any respect for the Indic roots.

Speaking of a personal example. My self was a hater of Indic roots and always saw it as backwards and weak(In my younger days). To an extent, if, I have been reclaimed. It is mostly due to the efforts of BRF in the last 10 years and my own travels in the country. That opened my eyes. WRT what India and Indic is.

Either we can hope that a lot of other young urban Indians make the same transition that I have made. Or as time goes by we will have ageneration of Indians totaly alianted form the land and its culture.

JMT

[Pratyush]

Marxist education is the root cause. They are the biggest obstacle to spiritual progress

They have attacked the root of Indian mind by manipulating the education system. that needs to be restored

I hope that the ayodhya judgemet goes some distance towards reclaiming the Indian social sincenses. As the enemy is well entrenched and will not go without a fight.

[svinayak]

Speaking of a personal example. My self was a hater of Indic roots and always saw it as backwards and weak(In my younger days). To an extent, if, I have been reclaimed. It is mostly due to the efforts of BRF in the last 10 years and my own travels in the country. That opened my eyes. WRT what India and Indic is.

Either we can hope that a lot of other young urban Indians make the same transition that I have made. Or as time goes by we will have ageneration of Indians totaly alianted form the land and its culture.

JMT

You are the product of the system put in place several decades ago

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42886464/If-Edited-2006

Check the chapter education in India

Long Term Plans on INDIA:

The current assault and challenge on India is multi dimensional and has been executed for more than 50 years as part of the cold war policies or even 150 years. The threat to India is external, internal and civilization in nature and long term in nature. Short-term external threats to the territory and human life are not discussed in detail in this document. Some of the most deep rooted plans are still being executed inside India and outside India to negate the idea of India in the long run. The long term plan is part of the cold war plan where Pakistan( and other Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia) is one of the partners and has helped the major powers to win the cold war. This plan is to bring about sufficient change inside India, which would help them to in their common goals.

1.One of the most deep long term plan is to change the interpretation of Indian history and society in the eyes of Indians in the long run. Influence of historians and social research projects by US and other western government from 70s is very deep. Research funding for sub-altern studies in US universities spurned the growth of Indian experts in social anthropology and Indian leftist were cooped who were influenced to negate the Hindu society and Hindu history and a Indian/Indic civilization. By this process for a long time the aim was to create a civilization vacuum inside the minds of Indian people. How long is this going on. It is hard to find out but can be traced to the time when the Aryan invasion theory was postulated which was around 1863. This reduces the ‘idea of India’ and never builds a civilization identity among the new generation of Indians.
The British during colonial rule, attempted stamping out the Indian mind of Indian heritage, but not through sheer brute force. As we know, besides their primary object of plunder, they viewed—or perhaps justified—their presence in India as a “divinely ordained” civilizing mission. They spoke of Britain as “the most enlightened and philanthropic nation in the world” and of “the justifiable pride which the cultivated members of a civilized community feel in the beneficent exercise of dominion and in the performance by their nation of the noble task of spreading the highest kind of civilization.” Such rhetoric was constantly poured out to the Britons at home so as to give them a good conscience, while the constant atrocities perpetrated on the Indian people were discreetly hidden from sight.
The major change in Indian history teaching in current times came after the 1971 war and separation of Bangladesh. The Indian Council of Historical Research [ICHR], a major academic body was constituted on 27 March 1972 that comprises reputed historians and archaeologists. This 27-member council was constituted as an *autonomous* body with the mandate of setting high standards of research for the writing of Indian history. It currently operates under the Department of Education of the Human Resource Development Ministry, administers several historical projects (such as the "Towards Freedom" research and publication ventures), awards various fellowships and scholarships, and provides leadership for research in the disciplines of history, archaeology and so forth. Indian historiography and Indian historians have built a globally high reputation over the last few decades. But the hidden agenda was to reinterpret Indian History with a bias towards Mughal history and revive the Pakistan ideology even after separation of Bangladesh. This is discussed in more detail later.

2.It is important to note that in the case of most "civilization" the states are in control over how their history is taught, which influences their societies self image and thus prepare for the future. The Chinese, Europeans, Americans all have their own grand narratives about who they are. In the case of India however, its history has been consistently in the hands of outsiders’ upto this day. These outside interests have found it very useful to manipulate Indian History to suit their own agendas. This is a fundamental cause for a contested history and the debate between different civilizations and cultures inside India. Negation of Indian history outside India is a long-term plan by other powers to stamp out all the Indic symbols which are outside and inside India so that India will neither reclaim the history and nor the external land. Indian population growing to be the largest in the world in the next 40 years has created worry among many big powers apart from Pakistan.
The plan to negate the Indian history was rejuvenated around 1971 after India rolled back one part of history with the creation of Bangladesh. To stop this rollback and reclaiming of Muslim Indian history by Indians in the future there is a slow negation of Hindu Indian history across all academic and political area around the world. One of the things that Rajiv Amphora has pointed out is the danger of U-turns wherein Christian missionaries penetrate Hindu organizations, and hijack them and steal Hindu ideas like Yoga etc This mosaic of Hinduism which is not monolith is advantageous to outsiders who have ulterior motives. Since there is no central repository and a central authority to lay claim to the Indic traditions and practices there is free for all attitude to the interpretations of the Indic practices.
Only books written by the western authors are acknowledged by the western academic. No book written by Indian authors about Indian history is fully praised including the favourite authors of the western academics. Quote about a book written by Romila Thapar [preferred author for the west] EARLY INDIA:

“Written in dense academese, it opens with a long theoretical introduction containing the usual cap-doffing to Edward Said and Orientalism. It is more than 70 pages before we meet our first hunter-gatherers. There is little sense of narrative progression and the writing is far from colorful. This is all the sadder as there are precious few well-written accessible histories of India, John Keay's excellent India: A History being an notable exception. This as much as anything else has allowed myths to replace history among India's voraciously literate middle class. Unless Indian historians learn to make their work elegant and intelligible, attractive to a wider audience, unhistorical myths will continue to flourish”.

In the context of Indology, the upshot of the above view and understanding of history is the argument that only a historian trained in historiography can write a "true" and accurate history of Hinduism, Hindu culture and society. The disciplines of history and anthropology, accordingly, were implicated from the beginning in the construction of totalizing master discourses to control the Indian as the "Other" and to deny the Indian's view of what happened and what the significance of historical 'facts' may be to the colonized. "If history is written by the victor," argues Janet Abu-Lughod, "then it must, almost by definition, 'deform' the history of the others".
Research using western paradigms describes an approach, which assumes that western ideas about the most fundamental things are the only ideas possible to hold, certainly the only rational ideas, and the only ideas that can make sense of the world, of reality, of social life, and of human beings. This line of thinking has been carried over into Hindu studies and conveys a sense of innate superiority and a desire to overwhelm research in Hinduism spiritually, intellectually, socially and politically.
It is such research imbued with an `attitude' and a 'spirit', which assumes ownership of the Hindu and Indic world. It has established systems and forms of governance, which embed that attitude in institutional practices. These practices determine what counts as legitimate research and who count as legitimate researchers. In this enterprise, the objects of research do not have a voice and do not contribute to research, science or knowledge. An object (in this instance, Hinduism or Hindus) has no life force or spirit of its own, no humanity, 'it' cannot, therefore, make any active contribution. For all practical purposes, the "benevolent" impulse of modern Indology to represent Hindus and Hinduism effectively appropriates their voice, reducing them to the category of the subaltern.
It nevertheless reaffirmed the West's view of itself as the centre of legitimate knowledge, the arbiter of what counts as knowledge and the source of all 'civilized' knowledge. It is generally praised as 'universal' knowledge, available to all and not really 'owned' by anyone: until non-western scholars make claims to it.
History is suitably revised whenever claims like the above are contested, so that the story of civilization continues to remain the story of the West. For this purpose, the Mediterranean world, the ancient near east and ancient Greek culture are conveniently appropriated as part of the story of the western civilization, western philosophy and western knowledge. More recently, this practice has also been extended to such elements as yoga from Indic civilization and culture. The nexus between cultural ways of knowing, scientific discoveries, economic impulses and imperial power enabled the West to make ideological claims having a superior civilization. The idea of the 'West' became a reality when it was re-presented to the people of Africa, Asia and the Oceania through colonialism. Colonial education was used to create new indigenous elites to colonize indigenous disciplines of knowledge.
Ronald Inden, a professor at the University of Chicago, asks the basic question of the West's representation of India in his highly praised book [Imagining India.] He suggests that stereotypes in these narratives are based on the West's own desires for world hegemony, and fantasies about its rationality. He argues that the West's major depictions of India as the civilization of caste, villages, spiritualism and divine kings - and as a land ruled by imagination rather than reason - have had the effect of depriving Indians of the capacity to order their world. As a consequence, India, even after independence, is being dominated by the West or its surrogates.
Inden says that the West has created [essences] of India and Indian society. In doing so, it has denied the reality of what India was and is, and created a manageable but grossly distorted view. Ideas found in Indian culture are taken out of their context and used inappropriately elsewhere. In creating these essences the West denies Indians agency in their own history. Shackled by these ideas, the Indian is unable to shape his own destiny.

Likes of Max Muller had a Profound affect on How British Think Today.
Under colonialism, Indians had to reconcile with the western inspired studies and history of India. While a few struggled against the received version of India and Hinduism, most Indians complied with the dominant western view of Hinduism and its history. Hindus allowed the history of their religion to be told to them and, in the process, became alienated from it. They became outsiders as they heard and read a contrived version of their religion and its history. The system of education that the British introduced into India was directly implicated in this process of alienation from Hinduism.
Max Muller was a German Born missionary. He went to Oxford very early in life and studied Sanskrit to translate Vedas into English. To a poor German student at Oxford this was a way to make money and get a scholarship from East Indian Company. This scholarship was his stepping-stone to fame. He side stepped the available evidence and authored the thesis that “Aryans” came from outside. He has dated Aryan culture much later than what Indian scholars believe, because he could not predate the Indian culture before the commonly held Christian belief of creation of world around 4000BC.

The Indian myth of Aryanhood was utilized to bring about the mobilization of powerful sentiments of affinity and solidarity. Through a transformation of consciousness, segments of the Indian population( Brown Sahibs) could consider themselves on par with their conquerors( British) rather than their subjects. With this myth, privileged segments of Indian society were able to frame an embattled Aryan 'We," which purportedly existed before the arrival of the British and could be rallied in the rearticulated tradition. This construct allowed specific groups of Indians to assert a cohesive social identity and declare their cultural superiority in response to colonial domination. The social identity activated by the Aryan myth fostered estrangement from British colonial authorities and thus functioned as an effective instrument of resistance. It was instrumental in the eventual expulsion of the colonial authorities. But it also created a deracinated social class which imagined itself superior to the rest of the Indian population. This class of elite became the ruling establishment after independence.
India has, ever since the classical Greeks make contact with the Persians to the East, been an object of curiosity for Europeans, although until recently their knowledge of India was largely second-hand and imprecise. As Europeans gained greater access to India, it was under the context of the British conquest and colonialization, and this significantly affected the resulting portrayal. India has been represented as lacking historical agency, and serving a role in history that is subservient to the agenda of Europeans. Despite the many recent critiques of colonial orientalist historiography, elements of this tradition linger on in contemporary studies of India. India so characterized makes the Western colonial aggression and resultant theft of resources appear as an essential an inevitable stage of history; this indeed is the ulterior motive, conscious or unconscious, in constructing an essentalized version of Indian history. The conclusion of this passage, which portrays the colonization of India as something practically every "great nation" has done, is also clearly an attempt at the legitimization of the colonial enterprise. It is now widely recognized that such theories of history are basically ethnocentric justifications of European colonialism. While they are rooted in the very real hegemony achieved by the Europeans of most of the world during the nineteenth century, they err in assuming this achievement was due to an intrinsic superiority of the Europeans. European colonial writers saw India as the theater where their European history was playing out, rather than viewing it from the Indians’ perspective.
Dating back to the earliest occupation of India by the British, academic scholarship has often studied and depicted India and its religious and cultural traditions as consisting of the exotic cultures of distant and primitive peoples. For generations, these views went unchallenged. Although more recently, a number of educated Indians, as well as contemporary American scholars, have sought to stimulate a rethinking of this approach and bring into the scholarly dialogue an expanding knowledge and awareness of the traditions, a significant portion of the scholarly community continues to adhere to and promote myopic and outdated views.
A serious Hindu (and in fact, Indian) intellectual failure for the past several centuries has been in not studying and developing theories of “others.” When others attacked us, often we were confused about whether they really were others, whether we were to blame for our predicament, whether these others were really helping us, and miscellaneous excuses to justify not doing anything. This is a very common reaction from many Indians even today, when such discomforting matters are brought to their attention. The problem could be that Indians neglected the teaching of life in the mundane world where others exist and are to be engaged.
Eurocentric historians have presented Indian history in a manner that privileged Europe as the motivating force. India has been presented as lacking historical agency, and serving a role in history that is subservient to the agenda of Europeans. India has been considered as a passive, unchanging entity ("nothing of consequence happened in India" argument) that underwent historical changes only when motivated by outside forces (read invaders – the Turks, the Mongols, the Afghans, the Persians, the Arabs, and the British). Although the overt Eurocentric bias has become somewhat diminished, it nevertheless persists in attenuated and subtle manner even in contemporary history writing (and that includes the writings in last 40-50 years).
Features of classical Indian civilization (500 B.C.- A.D. 500) are defined as political disunity, short-lived, dynasties, regional cultural diversity, only stability provided by: social, political, religious authority of Brahmans, and rigidity of cast system. The colonial perspective lingers on today in what might be termed the "invasion theory" of Indian history. This narrative assumes (usually implicitly) Hegel's idea that India is an intrinsically static, passive civilization, incapable on its own of having a history. Indian history then is taken as the result of a long series of invasions, beginning with the mythical "Aryans" and culminating in the invasion by the British. While there was at times warfare between India and her neighbors, sometimes culminating in invasion, India here is no exception to the general trends of ancient and medieval history. To assume that invasions are THE motivating force in Indian history is to fall into the self-justifying theory of Indian history developed by the British to legitimate their exploitive colonization of India. Following the Greeks, the invasion theory timeline moves on to the Mauryan dynasty, and then to the invasions of the Kushans and Sythians. The Gupta dynasty is then covered, only to move on to the devastation caused by the invasion of the Huns. Following the Huns, India is usually portrayed as undergoing a political decline characterized by fragmentation and decentralization, as well as a cultural decline, resulting in the rise of "unorthodox" religious traditions such as the Tantric schools of Buddhism and Hinduism. India was then purified by the violence of the Islamic invasions, resulting in the re-establishment of centralized rule under the Moghuls.
This narrative framework is found in many histories of India, including some quite modern ones. The classic version of this history is Vincent Smith's The Oxford History of India (1919), which has been duly deconstructed by Inden, who makes quite clear the ideology underpinning the "invasion" narrative. Inden wrote that
“To have represented the kingdoms of India as relatively autonomous agents, as complex, inter-related polities that could unite through pacts as well as 'force' within a single imperial formation and create new centers not determined by a fixed military topography, would have undermined this whole orientalist project. So Smith dispatched cruel Huns to prepare the way for the still worse advent of Islam, which would in turn, clear the way for the miraculous arrival by sea of the better Aryan, the Western or European. He could clip the Dravidian jungle and prevent the Russians setting fire to the whole green expanse. The history of medieval decline did not stop, however, by preparing for the modern. If Smith's history of ancient India was, in effect, a history of its present, his narrative of medieval India was really a parable of the future, of what would happen in India if the British withdrew.”

The first comprehensive history of India entitled History of British India (1818), was attempted by James Mill. He believed in the superiority of the British people over the Indians. But there were other scholars thinking on different lines. The work of Sir William Jones and other European scholars unearthed a volume of evidence on India’s glorious past. However, despite the European discovery of India’s past greatness and well-developed civilization, the British, having become the paramount power in India, remained generally convinced of their own superiority over Indians, and continued to feed themselves on Mill and Macaulay. They held Indians and their literature in low esteem, insisting on accepting the degenerate conditions of the eighteenth century Muslim India as its normal condition. Seeley declared that nothing as great was ever done by Englishmen as the conquest of India, which was “not in the ordinary sense a conquest at all”, and which he put on par “with the Greek conquest of the East”, pointing out that the British who had a “higher and more vigorous civilization than the native races” founded the Indian Empire “partly out of a philanthropic desire to put an end to enormous evils” of the “robber-states of India”.
European philologists "discovered" the rich literary Sanskrit tradition at the end of the eighteenth century; and during the nineteenth century constructed the theory of the Aryan Invasion based on their study of the etymology of common roots of words, which they claim came from a Proto-Indo-European parent language. Indologists mined Vedic literature looking for clues that could prove the Aryans originally came from outside of the Subcontinent. It was reasoned that such a sophisticated language, related to but more refined than Latin, must have come into India from a common proto-Indo-European source. According to this line of thinking, from its pristine Vedic form, Sanskritic culture gradually degenerated into Hindu idolatry and ritual. Conveniently, the Aryan Invasion provided a pattern of conquests by outsiders, which helped to justify colonial rule over a land that had always been subjugated by foreigners – first the Central Asian Aryans, followed by the Turks and Afghans, and finally the Europeans. In this way, India was seen as a derivative civilization, always in need of stimulation from outsiders to progress.

About a hundred and fifty years back, Karl Marx had proclaimed that the British have a "dual mission" in India:
“They were there to destroy and rebuild Indian society. First, they must dismantle those archaic institutions that had produced centuries of barbarism and stagnation in India, blocking her progress to higher forms of economic organization. Once this historical debris had been removed, the British would lay the foundations of a civilized society, duly equipped with property rights, labor markets and an indigenous bourgeoisie. India would then be ready to join the civilized world as a near equal of European nations.”
India proved to be more refractory than Marx had anticipated. As a result, when the British left India, some two hundred years after they began their dual mission, it was hard to tell if they had completed or were still completing the first phase of their mission. Hindostan is an Italy of Asiatic dimensions, the Himalayas for the Alps, the Plains of Bengal for the Plains of Lombardy, the Deccan for the Apennines, and the Isle of Ceylon for the Island of Sicily. The same rich variety in the products of the soil, and the same dismemberment in the political configuration. Just as Italy has, from time to time, been compressed by the conqueror’s sword into different national masses, so do we find Hindostan, when not under the pressure of the Mohammedan, or the Mogul, or the Briton, dissolved into as many independent and conflicting States as it numbered towns, or even villages. Yet, in a social point of view, Hindostan is not the Italy, but the Ireland of the East. And this strange combination of Italy and of Ireland, of a world of voluptuousness and of a world of woes, is anticipated in the ancient traditions of the religion of Hindostan. That religion is at once a religion of sensualist exuberance, and a religion of self-torturing asceticism; a religion of the Lingam and of the juggernaut; the religion of the Monk, and of the Bayadere.
But when they left they created enough leverage within the people of India so that they could get what they wanted. The split of the sub-continent for the geo-political needs put the seeds of change inside India knowing that Islamic jihad will revive inside India and Indian sub-continent in the future. Anglo-Indian protagonist of Paul Scott's Raj Quartet sees it all coming when he writes to an English friend in 1940,

“I think that there's no doubt that in the last twenty years—whether intentionally or not—the English have succeeded in dividing and ruling, and the kind of conversation I hear ... makes me realize the extent to which the English now seem to depend upon the divisions in Indian political opinion perpetuating their own rule at least until after the war, if not for some time beyond it. They are saying openly that it is "no good leaving the bloody country because there's no Indian party representative to hand it over to." They prefer Muslims to Hindus (because of the closer affinity that exists between God and Allah than exists between God and the Brahma), are constitutionally predisposed to Indian princes, emotionally affected by the thought of untouchables, and mad keen about the peasants who look upon any Raj as God...”

[ShyamSP]

Progress, personal or social, is illdefined as moving away from Indic culture and apeing western lifestyle.

Current generation discredits everything Indic without even learning and experimenting with that. Seeking personal experience and making informed choice is too time consuming.

Unfortunately cycle of karma doesn't stop for anyone. The ultimate losers of this cultural loss would be Indians and humanity.

Unfortunately due to population and lack of resources, they can never achieve western life style unless they move to the West other than Europe. West's own economies are reaching saturation point where they can no longer outsource goods and services without next level of yet-unknown technological progress. Rajesh alias Steve would have to stop servicing Joe smith and start servicing Kankipadu Yelliah when something hits the fan.

Those that get disconnected from their mother culture become soulless minds and mindless bodies. Once they reach critical mass, death cycle starts for them as their life becomes meaningless. Probably, that is Karmic cycle.

[brihaspati]

I promised on Nietzsche and "Hinduism"- Brahmanism- Manu-India and critique of "Christianity": here is a modern assessment. The author makes the right noises about how N was partially deluded about "Hinduism" and Manu and rather used a "fanciful" reinterpretation by another "fascinated with India European" - Jacolliot, to reconstruct an imagery of "Aryansim/Brahmanism/Hinduism" as a weapon to deconstruct European Christianity and its claims. Ignore the comments needed to be "acceptable" for "Manu-Hindu-Aryan-Brahmanism" bashing requirements in academics, but look at what he is conceding beneath :

Both Hinduism and Buddhism are of interest to Nietzsche not in themselves but as alternative positions from which to continue his attack on Christianity. Nietzsche declares that "the critic of Christianity is profoundly grateful to the students of India" for making Buddhism available as a religion to compare with Christianity.6 It may fairly be assumed that Nietzsche felt a similar gratitude in respect of the availability of Hinduism. Buddhism, as a pessimistic and decadent religion for Nietzsche, resembles Christianity "but is a hundred times[...] more truthful, more objective" (A23). Hinduism is an affirmative religion rather than a negative one like buddhism and Christianity, but like Buddhism, it is a product of the ruling orders (KSA 13:14[195]/WP 154).7

Nietzsche seldom referred to Hinduism; nor did he use the word Hinduism, speaking rather of Brahmanism, the Vedanta, or Indian philosophy. However the only extensive Indian text that he chose unprompted to read for himself was a central text of Hinduism not relating to philosophy, namely Louis Jacolliot's version of the Laws of Manu. A valuable account of the defects of Jacolliot's book has been given by Anne-Marie Etter.

Nietzsche's Hinduism, Nietzsche's India: Another Look, David Smith, Journal of Nietzsche Studies, (28) (Autumn 2004), pp 37-56. Penn State University Press.

Those who have access to MUSE or the journal can look up more, as I think I should not quote more extensively because of copyright. I think he also has a book.


Nietzsche writes to Heinrich Koselitz (Peter Gast) (31 May 1888):

"I owe to these last weeks a very important lesson: I found Manu's book of laws in a French translation done in India....This absolutely Aryan work, a priestly codex of morality based on the Vedas, on the idea of caste and very ancient (uralten) - not pessimistic, albeit very sacerdotal - supplements my views on religion in the most remarkable way. I confess to having the impression that everything else that we have by way of moral lawgiving seems to me an imitation and even a caricature of it - preeminently, Egypticism does; but even Plato seems to me in all the main points simply to have been well instructed by a Brahmin. It makes the Jews look like a Chandala race which learns form its masters the principles of making a priestly caste the master which organizes a people. The Chinese also seem to have produced their Confucius and Lao-Tse under the influence of this ancient classic of laws. The medieval organization looks like a wondrous groping for a restoration of all the ideas which which formed the basis of primordial (uralte) Indian-Aryan society - but with pessimistic values which have their origin in the soil of racial decadence. Here too, the Jews seem to be merely transmitters - they invent nothing.

[Christopher Middleton, eds and trans, Selected Letters of Friedrich Nietzsche, Indianapolis: hackett, 1996), pp 297-98.]



There can be pages written about his use and fascination with the "Vedic", and more can be written about his rapture about the Ramayana and Mahabharata. Perhaps later!

[harbans]

Something i found very disturbing when regarding about the advantages of an ABM defense system articulated by some in the GOI. That it will neutralize also possibly non state actor nukes delvered by missiles in case Pakistan falls to such without having to bother about retribution. Implies that the soft state that India is will perpetuate status quo and dossiers, even if """non state actors fire nukes"""". This is simply too dangerous to state. Anyone or any group that has a tag and fires a nuke at India, neutralized or not, deserves complete elimination from the face of this planet. Stand by that group or tag..and we seek to eliminate. Leadership in India will have to consider implementing complete elimination of that thinking within hours of a nuclear attempt on this nation. Else there is no deterrence.

[Prem]

Aparna Pande
Research fellow, Hudson Institute
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aparna-pa ... 84821.html

This desire of Pakistan for parity with a much larger neighbor, India, is not new. As I argue in my forthcoming book, Pakistan's desire for parity has its roots in pre-Partition history. The All India Muslim League sought parity with the Indian National Congress, on the grounds that Muslims, even if numerically only one-fourth of the population, had an equal right, as Hindus, to determine India's future. This legacy continued after 1947, and Pakistan has consistently sought economic and military parity with India. Even after the break up of Pakistan in 1971, the desire on the part of the Pakistani policymakers -- civilian and military -- to maintain parity continued.
From Pakistan's perspective the relationship with U.S. is vital because American economic and military assistance is supposed to help Pakistan achieve its goal of being treated as India's equal. What is ignored is that during the Cold War, the Americans were often disenchanted with India they never saw India as an enemy, and hence were reluctant to bracket India with communist countries. The various American Cold War alliances that Pakistan entered into only referred to communist aggression as "aggression" frustrating the Pakistani policy makers to no end.
This desire for parity also meant that Pakistan looked askance at any American attempt to build ties with India or offer India economic or military assistance. Pakistani leaders have portrayed every such American attempt as a betrayal of Pakistan and stated that Americans do not realize the "untrustworthiness" of the Indians. Former Pakistani military dictator General Ayub Khan even asserted that the only true American friends in Asia are the Pakistanis. For the last sixty-three years, Pakistan has tried to achieve parity -- especially economic and military -- with India, but has not succeeded. India's population is over 1 billion and Pakistan's close to 180 million. India's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is six times Pakistan's and India's economy is growing at 8.5% currently, whereas Pakistan's economy will grow at the rate of its population growth -- in effect canceling out growth.
The desire to seek parity with India has led Pakistan down a path that is not sustainable, which has had negative impacts on its economy and led to increased defense expenditure and negligible social spending. Both Kashmir and Afghanistan have formed aspects of this desire for parity with India. Interference in Afghanistan has only led to a blowback with a massive terrorist infrastructure which is now a strategic threat to Pakistan. Some analysts believe that if Pakistan is able to get Kashmir from India, this will help Pakistan achieve parity.
Demographically-speaking, India's Jammu and Kashmir with a population of approximately 10 million will not help Pakistan achieve parity with India. In the economic arena while tourism is Kashmir's biggest industry and the rivers flowing through Kashmir provide water to Pakistan these alone would not boost Pakistan's economy to the level of India's. What United States, India and other friends of Pakistan can do is to help Pakistan achieve this objective. India, especially, is in a role to do the most to help Pakistan. While economic, demographic and military parity is not possible, a feeling of psychological parity where Indian leaders are more accommodating of Pakistan's sensitivities and unilaterally offer Pakistan concessions on a number of issues.

[darshhan]

India Loses $16 Billion a Year to Illicit Outflows, Report Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-1 ... -says.html

India is losing about $16 billion a year to outflows related to tax avoidance by wealthy individuals and companies, plus corruption and bribery, a new study showed.

Illicit financial outflows from 1948 to 2008 totaled $462 billion at current prices, according to Global Financial Integrity, part of a Washington-based research group.

“If India would have avoided the flight of capital over such a long period, it would have enabled the country to either contract less debt or pay off the existing debt at the time,” said the report’s author, Dev Kar, formerly a senior economist at the International Monetary Fund. The outflow “represents a staggering loss of capital.”

India’s $1.3 trillion economy is aiming to narrow its budget shortfall to 5.5 percent of gross domestic product in the year ending March 31 from 6.9 percent the previous year by collecting more tax and selling assets. The report says that its estimate implies that almost three-quarters of money in the country’s underground economy ends up abroad.

Another news article on the same issue

http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-current ... 1948-2008/

India lost $462 billion in illicit assets from 1948 to 2008 as a result of tax evasion, corruption, bribery and other financial crime based on current prices of U.S. Treasurys, according to a new report.The report, from Washington D.C.-based research group Global Financial Integrity, found that in the last five years of the study, India lost illicit assets at a rate of $19 billion a year, far more than it was losing at the beginning of the research period. About 68% of the lost assets occurred since trade liberalization and deregulation began in 1991, and Global Financial Integrity said the reform contributed to and accelerated the transfer of illicit money abroad. Wealthy individuals and private companies were the primary culprits in sending money out of the country, the report said.

“This report puts into stark terms the financial cost of tax evasion, corruption, and other illicit financial practices in India,” said Raymond Baker, director of Global Financial Integrity, in a statement. “It also shows that these illicit outflows contribute to stagnating levels of poverty and an ever widening gap between India’s rich and poor.”

The report comes as corruption concerns in India have made national headlines just in the past few weeks. On Tuesday, India’s telecommunications minister resigned after allegations that he favored certain firms with the country’s wireless spectrum, which the opposition said cost the government nearly $40 billion in revenue. He denied wrongdoing but resigned anyway “in order to avoid an embarrassing situation to the government.”

The country’s Congress Party replaced the chief minister of a key state after he allowed housing intended to go to war heroes and widows to land in the hands of his political allies. And the organizers of the Commonwealth Games are under investigation for corrupt deal-making.

India ranked 87th out of 178 countries on the 2010 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, scoring a 3.3 out of 10 on its survey of surveys. The country, which is growing at a fast clip, seems unable to get out of its own way: It lost an equivalent value of 36% of 2008 GDP, which “represents a staggering loss of capital,” the report says.

India’s 2009 gross domestic product was about $1.3 trillion, according to the World Bank, giving it a per-capita gross national income of $1,180. It ranks 119th in U.N. Human Development, and scored a 36.8 gini coefficient, a measure of economic inequality.

To calculate the figures, Global Integrity used the World Bank Residual Model, which calculates illicit flows by measuring differences in a country’s recorded source of revenue relative to its use of that revenue, along with data from the International Monetary Fund’s Direction of Trade statistics.

[ramana]

^^ Must be psy-ops to control money flows (aka Hawala). Looks like a new campaign to paint India as a leaky financial sieve.

[svinayak]

^^ Must be psy-ops to control money flows (aka Hawala). Looks like a new campaign to paint India as a leaky financial sieve.

What is their source. This is mostly based on few information unless GOI has done deep research on money outflow for the last 60 years.

[ramana]

^^^

Above post says its an NGO written by Indian origin person formerly with IMF.

The report, from Washington D.C.-based research group Global Financial Integrity...

[svinayak]

^^^

Above post says its an NGO written by Indian origin person formerly with IMF.

The report, from Washington D.C.-based research group Global Financial Integrity...

This will be funded by some Uncle aadmi and they will use it for propaganda. All reports about India coming from Uncle land is tainted.

[harbans]

Is Burkha manipulating Cabinet positions here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqnAYhNa ... re=related