shivajisisodia wrote
I, unlike you, found very little in the grass roots, by way of a) having great pride in their heritage and background, b) intelligent thought about who we are as a people, where we came from and where we are going or should be going, least of all, how to go wherever it is we are going or need to go, d) much sense of community, outside of strong caste or narrow regional affiliations, e) desire to form a larger whole by reaching across narrow sectarian lines.
That is rather strange. But I have a feeling that you remained an outsider to them - in their perception. In such a case, people do not open up. You have to leave yourself - like a cloth or a dress, and be just a basic human being all whose senses are ready to listen, and see. You have to absorb people's existence, their lives as they are. When you shed that awareness of your special you, without thinking of them as not having pride in their heritage, not having intelligent thought about what you think they should think as people, etc., you can start opening up their hearts. People can sense that you think they are different from you, or "lacking" compared to you, or that you know much better than them as to what they should think.
I might stand guilty of the same, here in the forum, where I might have fought certain positions rather bitterly. But it was a battle between positions, and I did not model the posters themselves. If I did, I was unaware of it, and I am deeply sad that I might have allowed personal bitterness to creep in. I thought here I was among equals too, without any personal distinctions.
I have never had much difficulty in moving into "people" - especially the "grassroots". I have sustained myself among villages, abject poverty, among remote indigenous peoples, and yes both urban and semi-urban slums. Doors open through the heart, and only when you are accepted as one not much different - and not judging them. I am not speaking from any emotional pretension. This is from my life.
Therefore, for me, grass roots in India do not provide any inspiration or even solace or even a refuge, where I can retire to, to get away from it all and feel secure and safe in some kind of stable and traditional setting. In fact, I found in my most recent travels that the grass roots have become more ambivalent towards religion, customs and traditions. In a way, this could be looked upon as a good thing, but I felt that the baby was being thrown out with the bath water, as the grass roots had become more permissive in a bad way, not good, less God fearing, less open, hospitable and less law abiding. They were all very aware of the various subsidy schemes floated by the governments and had developed a keen sense of how to take full advantage of them, even extra advantage of them. I also found this time, preying by the powerful of the week in the form of land grabbing and a disassociation of political and economic power from caste hierarchy. In a way this breakdown in the upper caste monopoly over power and economics is a good thing, but it has also created a vaccum in order and a sense of community which has not been filled yet.
Important observations. But it is more a reaction in cynicism and anger from social sections who see no better example and no other way out. In contrast from "elite", however grassroots hanker for a more communitarian, simpler, and closer to land lifestyle deep inside. The cynicism is incurable and delusionally deceptive in the elite.
Frankly, my personal experience with the grass roots convinced me that grass roots are more a problem than a solution. It certainly is not a place which will have a grand vision of a larger India based on our grand history and religious traditions. The grass roots in the Indian context, unfortunately, need to be led. Rana Pratap led them, Shivaji led them, Gandhi and Nehru led them, and Ana Sab led them, not the other way around. What I am saying may sound politically incorrect and it sounds counter intuitive to criticize the grass roots like that, but here, I just did it. I cant not speak the truth as I see it. I am not a Gandhi fan or a Nehru fan, but let me say this, with all the vitriol that this forum including myself hurl at the "dhimmis" and the "maccaulytes", if it werent for these "maccaulytes", we would not have had a freedom movement. The grass roots were not about to rise up on their own.
I am sorry. I would not bracket Shivaji's mobilization with that of MKG or JLN [whom did JLN mobilize in fact? sections of UP based networks, primarily, OT perhaps]. Even Shivaji had some grounds prepared from his fathers politicking - a figure who is now kept in the long shadows of his son. There was a middle section of what was to be Maratha society - looking for ways to reassert their authority over their land, and sections of elite and the grassroots willing to provide the necessary muscle.
If the grassroot do not agree to "rise" - no one can lead them. Success of apparently classic power-changes in India, often are results of mercantile and transnational business interests coinciding with genuine grassroots grievances - and an intra-elite factional fight over personal power. Too many times the grassroots have been betrayed - for their grievances have been used for the personal power grabbing and politicking of people like JLN, and yes, to a lesser extent even MKG. I am not at all surprised that the grassroots appear cynical and opportunist.
2. I also am not a believer in any particular theology of governance. I am not convinced that Democracy, at its best (which India is not, India is democracy at its worst), is the only religion, which is applicable for all peoples, at all times, under all circumstances, regardless of the level of development that each people have reached. I just dont think it is that sacred and more importantly that effective. It is not always an answer to everything. At the same time, I am not a virulent opponent of any other form of government either. The less a people will do the right things voluntarily, the firmer the government they require, with all the negative side effects and risks for that firmer government. This entire forum makes a very powerful case that our people refuse to do the right things voluntarily. In fact, this forum eminently makes the case that Indians are self destructive. So, if we look at it from a technocratic perspective, rather than an emotional ideological perspective, we can only come to one conclusion that we need a firmer hand at the helm of our government, whether we like it or not. I think we have replaced Hinduism with Democracy as our new religion. At least Hinduism allowed for self criticism and discussion, while the adherents of the religion of Democracy are ready to shoot everyone down, at the slightest questioning.
Someone mentioned that in a Chinese type system, you wouldnt have Ana Sab. Well, why do we assume that we will necessarily have a Chinese model as an alternative. Whenever we criticize democracy, why does someone always bring in the Chinese model only ? Why not Lord Rama ? or Why not the Guptas (who from all accounts ushered in a golden age) or why not even the Mauryas ? I am not in all seriousness touting those as alternatives. I am simply asking why we instinctively bring up China as a model, whenever we talk of alternative models. I believe that we can and must evolve our own alternative model to democracy, based on our problems, our situation, our history, our traditions and most importantly, based on our vision for the future. If we always look to outsiders for an alternative model, we will just be yoyo-ing from one bad model to the next.
People do move voluntarily. They are simply cautious. You seem not to be aware of the myriad small uprisings that Indian grassroots mounted against the Islamics, the Brits, and entire villages, populations -social subgroups were wiped off in retribution. In most of these struggles they found sections of their own elite - who egg them on and then bargain with the ruthless criminal other power seekers - invaders or not, to use their sacrifice for personal power.
No one is looking exclusively for models from outside. At the same time, tactical understanding gained from studying other external models should not be shunned. I may consider a Mauryan model or a Gupta model as a person, but I have to present those models in an applicable form for the current society.
The reason I wanted you to point to the archived threads was that several times I had approached the necessity of dictatorial or authoritarian regimes in society wide transitions. I hoped that you would look at the way I presented that idea for consideration. Just a pointer if you may - if you want to push for something like that. You have to present your idea in a way that is not immediately rejectable - isnt it?
of Indian Nationalism.