Strategic leadership for the future of India

[svinayak]

Shanti is Hindu concept that has been pushed too far by Indians, particularly Hindus. And Hindus look at Christians and Muslims and accuse them of being militant. Many of them are patriotically militant. Hindus need to acknowledge that and learn from that.

: isn't it more fit a comment for Buddhism? The Geeta or the Survey of the Battlefield in the Mahabharatam, has no reco for "Shanti" at all! Many of the Vedic hymns indicate battles and wars. Even ladies are incited to violence - as in the inauguration of Chandika. Maybe it g ot dusty a bit at the hands of the British reconstructions of Indic culture - thats all!

Shanti after 1948 was a indoctrinated subject on Hindu mind.

[shiv]

Shivji,
will second your opinion of the "older" Christian missionary school. About the

Shanti is Hindu concept that has been pushed too far by Indians, particularly Hindus. And Hindus look at Christians and Muslims and accuse them of being militant. Many of them are patriotically militant. Hindus need to acknowledge that and learn from that.

: isn't it more fit a comment for Buddhism? The Geeta or the Survey of the Battlefield in the Mahabharatam, has no reco for "Shanti" at all! Many of the Vedic hymns indicate battles and wars. Even ladies are incited to violence - as in the inauguration of Chandika. Maybe it got dusty a bit at the hands of the British reconstructions of Indic culture - thats all!

brihaspati - the Gita is invariably quoted as an example when I bring up this topic.

Unfortunately there are several steps involved in connecting the Gita with a need to fight and protect and Hindus are fond of citing the example of the Gita without fufilling all the requirements to connect th Gita example with action.

The Gita is taught as "Krishna told Arjuna blah blah blah"

There is one step to be completed after that and that step is either not completed or completed by Indians Gurus in a way that preaches shanti rather than action

What needs to be said is:

"In the Gita Krishna told Arjuna blah blah blah", therefore you to need to remember that when the time comes to fight those who have to be fought you must fight without hesitation or heed for the consequeces and know that I, Krishna am on your side". No effort is made to compae enemies with those who are wrong or adharmic.

This is never done. No school does it. Few parents do it. The only people who do it are people who have now got themselves a reputation for attacking women and minorities somewhere or the other.

Gurus/Swamis who quote the Gita have never been the best exponents of patriotic fervor. they are mere philosophers and messengers of peace and intergration. A Hindu who is honest with himself will realise that Hindu thought has provided samples and examples of everything - ranging from peace and integration to war and mayhem. These need to be applied as examples that people understand rather than leaving all the knowledge hanging in the air.

[Yogi_G]

Shanti after 1948 was a indoctrinated subject on Hindu mind.

We cannot also discount the contribution of poverty and helplessness, thought it is not a major contributor. Indian people in an overall sense tend to focus their energies on working their way out of poverty as against our next door neighbors who view all their problems as a direct result of improper following of their religion and Shariat thus leading to the recycling of the problem....For many decades the average Indian wanted roti kapda makaan more than the ideological triumph which pretty much explains the considerable success of Missionaries in this country...

[brihaspati]

Yogi_Gji,
extremism can be intrinsic to certain interpretatios of the revealed traditions, and just as you are worried about "too strong" identities leading to dictatorships, I am equally worried about these tendencies in the revealed traditions towards a retrogressive authoritarianism. As to what we can learn from them is a bigger issue! I think we cannot compare their experience with ours, and there are fundamental differences which also reflects even in the practice. Two things are significant - note the complete disjunction of the "supreme" from the human and over-humanization of the "supreme" and then again the explict construction of the "alien other" in the revealed traditions- none of these are found in the pre-Islamic Indic strands.

This is never done. No school does it. Few parents do it. The only people who do it are people who have now got themselves a reputation for attacking women and minorities somewhere or the other.
Gurus/Swamis who quote the Gita have never been the best exponents of patriotic fervor. they are mere philosophers and messengers of peace and intergration.

Shivji, this has been due to penetration of the "Guru" networks beginning in the British intelligence penetrations. A significant number of "gurus" in Bengal were involved in anti-British movements. That the Nehru government followed on the Raj policy is most likely and probably illustrated in the strange twists and turns in the pre and post Independence stance of the RKM. The influential "Gurus" who pull crowds are likely to be under surveillance and their networks penetrated - I say they dare not utter a single "connection". The level of penetration is partly indicated by the stream of "entanglement" of religious figures in "criminal cases" including the Malegaon case. At least one case from the south also shows that if you are a "guru" belonging to a particular faith, you will go scot free, but if you are a hapless "Hindu" guru - GOI will crush you.

[Yogi_G]

I think we cannot compare their experience with ours, and there are fundamental differences which also reflects even in the practice.

True Brihaspati Ji, I was not hinting on comparing both but given the over-whelming desire of Indian politicians to have our policies validated by western "thinkers" and thus seeking their legitimacy from them, in this case the latter would only be but not eager to reject the idea as it is a path they have already traveled upon.

But Westerners are a strange 2 yardstick moral standard species as in the first place they said there would be no negotiation with Taliban (aka terrorists) but today the idea is moot in the power circles of the West.

[brihaspati]

What can we learn from the revealed traditions, if any, which is relevant for the leadership question?

The first reason why the revealed traditions are difficult to apply directly to the Indic situation is because of their insistence on reproducing conditions that existed at the time of their formation. The micromanaging nature of these traditions are basically against complexity, and carry the stamp of their origins in arid regions and marginal subsistence economies, which were in constant military conflict over scarce reproductive resources. Such conditions explain a lot of the tendencies and show why they do not fit for leadership policy for India:

(1) a great need to look for fertile, irrigated lands - fresh water/gardens
(2) a hatred of "luckier", richer economies - and therefore of the "city" and its "cosmopolitanism" - interpreted as "loose morals/sin"
(3) a great emphasis on sex for reproduction - and penalization of deviations
(4) greater demand for male births, as males are lost in military conflicts, and simultaneously greater demand for women, if needed to be acquired from conquered populations - for reproduction of more fighting males (this is something that could perhaps be shared by populations in and around India that faced wars of attrition in the past)
(5) simpler economies but occasional exposure to the riches of the "city" leading to intolerance of complexity, fear of loss from the group by "seduction", and the need for strict rule based faith systems and protecting reproductive resources, - probably an important factor behind proposition of a single supreme authority - this defence against "corruption" gives rise to the "siege" mentality so peculiar even in the philosophical characteristics.
(6) an inherent hatred and desire to erase more sophisticated and complex urbanized/cosmopolitan cultures that sit on fertile/well irrigated lands.

Christianity significantly departs from or hides these tendencies, because of the modifications and reformulation under emperors. But all of these traditions create one difficulty for application to India for leadership purposes : their insistence on micromanaging societies in detail based on reproduction of their original experiences. India's main strength lies in its more open ended thought process, which allowed it to experiment intellectually, and which also caused it problem in extending this intellectual flexibility to tolerance of ideas which are retrogressive and destructive for Indian society.

What India can learn from the revealed traditions, as far as leadership is concerned, is by observing the nature of intolerance internalized in the revealed traditions. India cannot follow blindly the leadership style of unconditional intolerance of everything that does not lick a particular authority's boots (a very common human trait - usually the weaker the human being the more overt becomes his need to "put down" other humans so that he can feel relatively powerful) - this is something India has no need to learn from the revealed traditions. There will be demands for submission to such authority, but if allowed will lead to ossification of the national initiative. Rather there should be leadership who do not need to explicitly show their power or authority, but intellectually mobilize, to bring agreement to policies. On the other hand, India should learn from the revealed traditions the value of "intolerance" - which again should be modified from the form it exists in the revelaed tarditions. Indian leadership should learn to apply conditional "intolerance", a reciprocal behaviour which penalizes those ideologies or systems that seek to destroy Indic society, conquer India in the name of their particular faith, and erase traces of all traces of earlier Indic cultures.

[shiv]

Shivji, this has been due to penetration of the "Guru" networks beginning in the British intelligence penetrations. A significant number of "gurus" in Bengal were involved in anti-British movements. That the Nehru government followed on the Raj policy is most likely and probably illustrated in the strange twists and turns in the pre and post Independence stance of the RKM. The influential "Gurus" who pull crowds are likely to be under surveillance and their networks penetrated - I say they dare not utter a single "connection". The level of penetration is partly indicated by the stream of "entanglement" of religious figures in "criminal cases" including the Malegaon case. At least one case from the south also shows that if you are a "guru" belonging to a particular faith, you will go scot free, but if you are a hapless "Hindu" guru - GOI will crush you.

But Brihaspati - our Gurus too suffer from the disease of pseudosecularism in which an attack on Pakistan is considered and attack on Islam and therefore an attack on Indian Muslims and therefore a threat to national integrity.

We cannot depend on our Gurus to do this - I only quoted them as an example of use of Hindu thought for shanti across periods of time when shanti is decidedly not required.

Leadership of a nation should be able to say that if entity "P" hits you again and again, entity "P" does not have brotherly feelings towards you and needs a kick up its ass.

I find it odd, but heartening that you try to make a case for what "India" can learn from the "revealed traditions". Heartening because you feel there is something to learn in marked contrast to many others.

Odd because those "revealed traditions" have interacted with India for over a thousand years. Surely that is long enough for "India" to learn I would expect. And, in fact. a LOT of Indians have learned. Is it just possible that some Hindus have either not learned or have doggedly refused to acknowledge that practical and usable knowledge and skills could possibly exist in the revealed traditions because they are alien and foreign and we want to search for gnana in a restricted space by eliminating anything that might exist to learn from the revealed traditions about victory, defeat, power and domination?

How much lower can Hindus get than this in their arrogant claim that they have all he knowledge within their own sphere of experience? If Muslims and those trained in Christian tradition have some knowledge of the art of power - then "India" does not need to learn it. But some Indians need to learn it from other Indians. And those Indians who need to learn must first acknowledge that they do not have the required knowledge or experience and that those who do are 1. from the revealed traditions, and that 2. They are as Indian as anyone else.

I am reminded of my own family and my own personal experiences here. I was taught that we Hoysala Karnataka Brahmins were God's gift to mankind, with all knowledge that there can be. The keepers of buddhi for the Universe. But hey a short period spent haggling with a vysya shetty shopkeeper revealed to me that the man has a knowledge of business and profit making that all 1000 (or whatever) generations of my pure Hoysala Karnataka brahmins never ever discovered. So also the acumen displayed by a Sindhi entrepreneur i met at golf - a family kicked out of Sindh 60 years ago - to a refugee camp in Karnataka - now doing a multi-crore business. Knowledge is not restricted to any single group and cannot be held in any particualr area.

There is knowledge in the revealed traditions that Hindus in their resurgence want to reject or fail to acknowledge. They do so to their own detriment. They are closing the very doors of knowledge that Hindus so loudly claim to be the gatekeepers. And we have the fortune of having among us in India millions of followers of the revealed traditions who are proud of the achievements of their ancestors. In our anxiety to play down their achievements and revitalize "our" history as Indian history as opposed to "their" history it is important not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[ramana]

Dont know why this was in the nukkad thread!

I thought this was interesting. An old-ish article on Gandhiji by Arvind Lavakare. This perhaps is one of the reasons that Bharat today is a soft state, taking blows after blows and still going on with a mere war of words. Perhaps this is also a reason why pseudo secularists run amok in the nation and bashing Hindutva is considered secularism while not a word can be said in criticism of "the minority religions".
The myth of Mahatma Gandhi

Did the icon’s series of satyagrahas deliver freedom to India? Without going into the outstanding anti-British role of the Indian National Army raised by the self-exiled Subhash Chandra Bose, the post-war trial by the British of three of INA’s senior officers, its dramatic mutinous effects on the Indian Army sepoys and ratings of Royal Indian Navy, read what the famous historian, R C Muzumdar, wrote:

“The campaigns of Gandhi… came to an ignoble end about fourteen years before India achieved Independence… the revelations made by the INA trial, and the reaction it produced in India, made it quite plain to the British, already exhausted by the war, that they could no longer depend upon the loyalty of the sepoys for maintaining their authority in India. This had probably the greatest influence upon their final decision to quit India.” (Three Phases of India's Struggle for Freedom, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan).

Consider, next, the icon’s attitude to religion and his avowed creed of non-violence.

First, it is strange that while Gandhi confessed to worshipping the teachings of the Bhagvad Gita, he never realised that the sacred text preached war even against one’s kith and kin when circumstances warranted it. How then could he himself preach and advocate ahimsa, non-violence, to his Hindu followers and to the Indian nation? How could he when the British Empire was crushing his own people every which way?

Today’s “pseudo-secularists” have hailed Gandhi as a “secular” person. If “secular” means keeping religion away from politics, the icon certainly did not do that. He associated himself with the Khilafat Movement (1921), which was a political movement of Indian Muslims led by two brothers, Mohamed Ali and Shaukat Ali, for the restoration of the Caliphate abolished in Turkey after the First World War. The agitation was essentially religious, and Gandhi believed that by supporting it he would cement Hindu-Muslim unity. Gandhi’s own statement in Young India of October 20, 1921 said:

“I claim that with us both the Khilafat is the central fact — with Maulana Muhammad Ali because it is his religion, with me because, in laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure the safety of the cow, that is my religion, from the Mussalman knife.”

Ironically, Jinnah, who later in the forties advocated a separate Muslim nation, had earlier warned Gandhi not to encourage the fanaticism of Muslim religious leaders and their followers.

If “secular” means “equal respect to all religions”, then Gandhi was not that kind of “secular” person too. In April 1932, when the British Government’s “Communal Award” provided for separate electorates and reservation of seats for Muslims and the Depressed Classes, Gandhi announced that if the Award was not changed as to the Depressed Classes (who were Hindus) he would fast unto death. If that was not pro-Muslim bias, what else is?

Considering that he never ever fasted for a Hindu cause, never condemned Muslims for their violence in the Moplah revolution following the Khilafat or the mass killing of Hindus by the Muslims in the Direct Action undertaken in Muslim-ruled Bengal Province in 1946, Gandhi could well be dubbed the “father of minority appeasement” in India. Is that secularism?

Lastly, there’s that non-violence business. Relying on secret documents of the British Government released in 1967, the legendary constitutional authority, H M Seervai, concluded, “Gandhi used non-violence as a political weapon, and was prepared to support, or connive at, violence to secure political goals.” (Constitutional Law of India, Supplement to Third Edition, 1988, Pg 143 of Introduction). Seervai cites the following in support of his statement:

* In the middle of 1918, Gandhi supported the War Conference main resolution of recruiting Indians to fight on the side of Britain and her allies if it ensured the acceptance of Congress-Muslim League scheme for Home Rule.
* When Britain announced in 1939 that India was at war, Gandhi refused to support the Second World War on the ground that he would not support violence even to secure the independence of India.
* In July 1944, when the tide of victory was flowing towards the Allies, Gandhi stated in an interview to News Chronicle, London, that the Viceroy could remain in charge of military operations and India could be used as a base for such military operations provided that a National Government was immediately formed.
* In an interview with Lord Wavell on August 27, 1946, Gandhi told him that “If India wants a bloodbath, she shall have it.”

Was the icon then really “an apostle of peace”? Was he also all else that he was said to be?

Or is the icon a myth?

[brihaspati]

Shivji,

Your statements actually sent me down the memory lane. If I think of my own background, it is completely shocking perhaps to realize the general attitudes I have now come to bear. My ancestors were some of the ealiest "collaborators" of British admin, helping them "rule" large parts. All subsequently educated at residential English missionary schools - for the theory was "education" should be "the most up to date available" while at the same time they got training in Sanskrit, Urdu and Farsi as kids. This very same ancestors later on were active in both the militant as well as the Gandhian movements. Yes and most of them were radicalized while residents at missionary schools. There is a clue in certain sects of "educationists", especially of the Irish or Scottish background, who appeared to be instrumental in influencing them. At my grandparents, for a long time they kept a picture of the Kaaba, and for many generations (long before the advent of the British) they kept on enlisting Mulsim soldiers, some of whom had been brought from other parts (along with certain tribal groups) after 1857 and been settled to save them from the vengeance of the British. I remember even in my childhood, long after the "aristocracy" system had been evicted by law - that village after village of Muslims still remained loyal to the household - in fact I had been given a "bodyguard team" comprising both Muslims and tribals of traditional military groups, as a child, who jointly supervised my "skills training" My own experiences in an English medium missionary school followed a similar influence pattern of radicalization - which however led down to the parliamentarian leftist route. By this time my immediate ancestors had turned against the Cong and veered towards the left. But it was the "missionaries" with whom I felt a matching of wavelength - their overriding of social hierarchies, their genuine attempts at understanding teenage, their method of winning over pscyhologically, their subtle treatment of teenagers as adults with due "respect and regards" compared to the "Hindu" teacher's attitudes of arrogance and flaunting of "I know all, how dare you ask questions" (I apparently "tried to humiliate" and "challenge authority" if I opened my mouth). I really felt that for them, I was treated affectionately and supported (even with my substantial mischiefs as leaders of "gangs" - ) in my conflicts with the school authorities - because they looked at my capabilities and views and not because I came from a certain "upper caste".

When I began to really analyze all these early experiences I did realize, what had gone wrong with the "Bharatyia", and I was forced to reject the proselytizing versions of the revealed traditions as well as Marxism/communism as being the basis of any future leadership of India. They have to be intensively studied and learned from, not because of what they say about themselves, but because of what they reveal of "Bharatyia weakness". This is the reason, I try to invert the general tendency I see, even in these forums which target and fault individuals/people where we forget that it is the ideology which blinds and corrupts and that ideology should be targeted, not the people. For me, they are all Indians out there, most of whom can be reclaimed for Bharat - it is the anachronistic/retrogressive/insidious ideologies which must go, and only those few individuals who are beyond "redemption" and help to continue these ideologies - who have to be eliminated.

[brihaspati]

Ramanaji,

Lastly, there’s that non-violence business. Relying on secret documents of the British Government released in 1967, the legendary constitutional authority, H M Seervai, concluded, “Gandhi used non-violence as a political weapon, and was prepared to support, or connive at, violence to secure political goals.” (Constitutional Law of India, Supplement to Third Edition, 1988, Pg 143 of Introduction). Seervai cites the following in support of his statement:

* In the middle of 1918, Gandhi supported the War Conference main resolution of recruiting Indians to fight on the side of Britain and her allies if it ensured the acceptance of Congress-Muslim League scheme for Home Rule.
* When Britain announced in 1939 that India was at war, Gandhi refused to support the Second World War on the ground that he would not support violence even to secure the independence of India.
* In July 1944, when the tide of victory was flowing towards the Allies, Gandhi stated in an interview to News Chronicle, London, that the Viceroy could remain in charge of military operations and India could be used as a base for such military operations provided that a National Government was immediately formed.
* In an interview with Lord Wavell on August 27, 1946, Gandhi told him that “If India wants a bloodbath, she shall have it.”

Was the icon then really “an apostle of peace”? Was he also all else that he was said to be?

Or is the icon a myth?

I have also my grave doubts about the sincerity about Ahimsa. I have already indicated before about material existing in the 1943 white paper published by the British Govt. My personal chats with my "adopted granddad" who had been privy to some of the goings on also convinced me that there was probably a change in MKG's attitude towards the end. However, we will also have to take all this with a slight pinch of salt as the British have always been notorious for attempts at character assasinations of those they dislike - it is a quintessential British feature, and most often what they say typically reveals their own mindset and attitudes rather than those whom they try to blacken. But my own suspicion is that towards the end MKG was really getting frustrated, and probably veering towards the "conditional tolerance" path I have been suggesting recently

[ramana]

Jove, Some people think that elements sympathetic to the Brits or the Brits themselves looked the other way or turned a Nelson's eye and allowed the Godse conspiracy to move ahead now that Independence was achieved and the American hand was busy elsewhere. Iron Curtain was already lowered in the speech in 1946.

[Abhi_G]

Brihaspatiji,

Does Vivekananda saying a Hindu mind in a Muslim body resonate in this context? Do not know which Hindu gurus are being talked about here and it is very easy to blame Hindus depending on ones personal experiences. But pre-independence we see plenty of militant Hindu gurus. What about Rishi Aurobindo?

[brihaspati]

Ramanaji,

Jove, Some people think that elements sympathetic to the Brits or the Brits themselves looked the other way or turned a Nelson's eye and allowed the Godse conspiracy to move ahead now that Independence was achieved and the American hand was busy elsewhere. Iron Curtain was already lowered in the speech in 1946.

It is only the hand of the assassin (by the way, an Islamic term originally denoting a fanatical sect who cleared their way by removing "obstacles" - targeted even the great Salahuddin) which is seen with the knife, but the head and most of the body remains hidden.

I have been seriously snubbed about this before - but my net goes wider than the British, and includes Indian components. We just need to look at who possibly benefits from the removal of MKG. The org blamed for it does not gain anything, it loses public sympathy and image and even possibly international support. It gets isolated and cornered in national politics, it allows the regime to stamp all "Hindu" political consciousness "evil". If it is said that it did this to prevent possible unification/compromises between MKG and J (they were supposed to meet soon), then it becomes even more absurd for it would be in their own interest to get a chance to expand back again into their old haunts.

Who gains - the British do : any possibility of a rapproachment between J and MKG could be disastrous for their Cold War policies. Historically they are one of the worst powers to have record of any ethics in international dealings. And they have always been murderous in their vengeance for any entity that they feel have stood in the way of their satisfaction. Some of the "stalwarts" of British imperialism had expressed their hatred of MKG and desire to help MKG along the latter's journey towards oblivion through fasting.

Who in India gains - anyone whose position and power could fall victim to accommodation of J in some kind of power sharing (individual power was the ultimate reason for J's split - his use of Jihad was an excuse. His inexorable lurch towards "land of Islam" ideology a parallel to the modern mutual transformation of political ambition and theocratic ambition into a new radicalized, blinded entity aiming for expansion).

[brihaspati]

Abhi_Gji,
it does resonate. But I am just a bit careful about taking all of Vivekananda's comments which are in the public domain, literally. First, he was limited by his exposure to the prevalent colonial historiography - which had interests in both highlighting certain aspects of the record of Islam and suppressing others. His circumstances and agenda were also different in context. It is tantalizing to get glimpses of his political thought, but it was too early perhaps. There are reasons to believe that some of his more sensitive communications are still "classified" at RKM (please don't ask me for sources - but this is on the basis of a collaboration with some who have had partial access ). Having said that some of his observations are worth exploring in the modern context for ideas for leadership.

Aurobindo somewhat lends himself to Shivji's model of radicalization under missionary and British "touch" - he was a convent educated child finishing up in UK. Aurobindo was one of the earliest proponents of radical anti-British political thought in the modern phase. But crucially he gave up his militancy on his transition to "spiritualism". To a certain extent it could be his frustration and in his own way he realized the importance of mass mobilization for a national project - and his conclusion was "spiritual" "consolidation", "liberation" and supercesion of conventional religion. Aurobindo was vehemently opposed to the formation of Pakistan even in his confirmed "spiritual only" state - it is said that his words were dismissed sarcastically by MKG+JL.

[ramana]

my reply in another forum to someone who did not want Gandhiji and was lamenting on condition of political class in India.

Disowning Gandhiji is a self goal of Himalayan proportions. Depsite all things it was he who lhad the vision to forge the many different streams of freedom thinking into a river of Independence.

And to bring change you have to capture power. One can rail in the wilderness as most Indian thinkers do, but thats uselss as it satisfies individual ego that they were right, but it does nothing to correct the system. Its this lack of controlling the ego for common good that is the root of Indian malaise.

BTW the Westminister system is the right choice for India and the different groups for they get to have their say. In the US presdential system won't work in India as there is no homogenous group in large numbers. Yes there are faults in the Westminister system that the Indian founding fathers did not envisage. They never thought that there would be disparate groups that would get electted and then combine to keep others out from hatred.

The great thinkers in historical period- Chanakaya, Vidyaranya, Ramdas and Gandhiji channeled the different streams into a powerful deluge that swept all the old order and paradigms.

Have you ever wondered why Tripurantaka Shiva used all those disparate things(Himvat parvat for bow, Vasuki for bow string, Vishnu for the arrow, and the Devas for his Chariot to shoot the arrow at the three cities/forts of the rakshasas ? He could have burnt them all with his third eye, yet he sought the cooperation of the devas and nature to blow the paradigm away. Even the dasa avataras are similar in core message of how to change the paradigm. My favorite is Narasimha avatara.

[ShauryaT]

Ramana: Agree that Gandhi should not be disowned, yet his political failures should be understood and not hidden under the carpet.

The Presidential form can be as inclusive and suited to India and does not require a homogeneous group, is the view of most experts and observers of the constitution. The west minister model is an outgrowth of the society in the UK, completely alien to Indian conditions. Since, this is OT, I will take this off line.

[brihaspati]

In the US, most day to day state opertaions are carried out under locally elected bodies. This leaves really major things like defence, monetary policy, etc as federal headache. Under that scenario, the presidential form is an ideal one if it restricts itself to policy making and creating broad conditions for implementation. For India the advantage of a directly elected chief executive is enormous. First (a) such a candidate is relatively independent of regional or minority groups and blackmail (b) seomwhat free of party mandarins (c) has to win support from almost all regions and cannot get by with support from small factions confined to a small proportion of society, and if successful therefore is a focus for national unification (d) such authority cannot hide behind collective responsibility and diffuse accusations of negligence or incapability (e) and some form of such concentration of decision making authority will be absolutely necessary to take the hard steps of Indian strategic expansion.

Disadvantages are primarily (a) resistance by existing political factions for fear that their milking power will go (b) and therefore the difficulty to get the change passed through constitutional methods (2/3 majority in both houses and a referendum as well subject to the Supremem Court's intervention) (c) interergional and inter-language or cultural hostilities (Hindi vs non-Hindi, north vs south, east vs west, the list is a long long one) that may penalize a good candidate simply because that candidate belong to the "wrong" "ethicity/region/language".

With greater media exposure/connections/communications the possibility for something analogous to a presidential form can emerge. But I guess the first step will have to be getting a "coalition" into power that agrees to push forward such a change, and then the idea has to be properly marketed.

[brihaspati]

There are reports of the Raajkanya visting BD soon. Sometime ago Raajputra visited BD. Why is BD so important to SG? Or is BD a safe option to cut teeth on for foreign affairs projection? So is Raajkanya also being groomed in parallel with Raajaputra - and the latter is recognized to be not up to the mark?

[svinayak]

The Presidential form can be as inclusive and suited to India and does not require a homogeneous group, is the view of most experts and observers of the constitution. The west minister model is an outgrowth of the society in the UK, completely alien to Indian conditions. Since, this is OT, I will take this off line.

In a way you are right. This non homogenous nature has been tooted too much. Indian homogeniety is in its stability and continuity of the social system.

[brihaspati]

Ramanaji,

The great thinkers in historical period- Chanakaya, Vidyaranya, Ramdas and Gandhiji channeled the different streams into a powerful deluge that swept all the old order and paradigms.

All four ultimately changed regimes - they put up a new state authority replacing the old. Did they really change the paradigm? I was thinking more along the lines of distinguishing the paradigm changers as Adi Shamkara, Vasavanna, Guru Nanak and Chaitanya - these were people who changed the entire way of thinking and looking at the world. The following political-military neuclei used these changed paradigms to change state systems and regimes.

I am yest to be completely clear about whether if we leave the "method" and "tools" unchanged, given due time the method itself does not regenerate the monsters we initially set out to replace. Thus Chanakya replaced the Magadhan dynasty with perhaps a more centralized and advanced for its times (within India) state machinery - but a dynasty no doubt. He failed to build in a component that would check the rise of fallacies like allowing "pacifist" religions to gain undue influence over a state machinery surrounded by a hostile world and periphery. Same could be said about Madhavcharya Vidyaranya - as having relied on the regime itself to drive existence and resurgence. I will avoid discussing the other two - but I think their only handicap was their circumstantial restriction to have to rely on "dynasties". In that sense the other four I think has have had more persistent effects, because they were not constrained to put their hopes on a dynasty - and relied more on instituting enduring soical forms of consolidation and regeneration, which will not pin all its hopes of survival and resurgence on a small number of individuals.

I believe the former group is solidly in that particular stream within Indic thoughts of leadership where the "leader" "descends from heaven" - and the latter group, is within the other strand where "leader has already descended and is manifested in the entire community, and not just one single individual". The first group is spectacularly successful, for if successful they had happened to snare charismatic focal points for a population already prepared for generations by "priesthood" to look for "leadership from above". The second group sort of resides like "idols in wall niches" -more diffuse in public imagination becuase they did not leave focus "inheritances". But they were instrumental in having longer term effects that sustained large groups of Indic populations which otherwise might not have been availale at all to the "dynasties" for their agenda.

[ramana]

brishaspati, What does the literature say about why there was a need for raja? Is there any reference in any of the Puranic literature?

[brihaspati]

Ramanaji,

Have to think on this. Last I thought and looked on this, the very concept of "Rajan" is a facet of the concept of "rajya". The concept of the "state/rajya" appears to be more fundamental than a "raja". Authority is seen as necessary in the state so that state "survives" as a whole rather than "individuals". Thus there were instances of the "gana-rajyas". The explanation for the transitions are not very clear - but there could be indications in some of the narratives available. Consider the story of Bandhul Malla - who left his "ganarajya" after winning a militray-skill-contest (which had been rigged against him) for employment in his own rajya after completing his "education" from Takshashila - and took up service with a "king". Then there was the question of "amrapali" forced to be a public courtesan because of public demand. (Troubles of unbridled democracy ).

It is possible that excesses of democratic thinking, which could be detrimental to the health of the collective in fostering jealousy and mediocrety, led to the substitution of a representative body/individual in order to try and control "mob arbitrariness" - but it is not explicitly stated. Even then the "prajas" retained the right to depose and re-elect new "kings" (some of which might have survived in the so-called Bappaditya line where "Bhils" cut their finger to anoint the king on the eve of first ascencion to the throne -which has perhaps been taken falsely as a symbol of much later alliances between "foreign settlers"and "indigenous power brokers"). There are reports of frequent "dimbas" or "rebellions" by disgruntled "prajas" which were almost always fatal for the source of irritation.

[ramana]

I think the clues are in why did Raja Bharata try to unify the various pranthas of Bharat and become Chakravarti? The land and country is called Bharat varsha from him. I think it was to provide a solid unified core to ensure a civilizatonal anchor or pivot.
I want to know before that why was there a raja or head of a state? The transition from tribal society to a settled civilized society. What were teh early thinkers justification for that.

My inclusion of Chanakya and the others was they also understood the need for that head of state or raja and enabled its emergence.

What does Radha Kumud Mukherjee write about this transition? He delved into such subjects.

[brihaspati]

Radhakumud Mukherjee's work is along the current generally accepted transition from RikVedic to late-Vedic and post Vedic Dharmasastras. What I find is that the earlier concept is more about "Gods" directly ruling as "Kings" and human "kings" are "empowered" or put in "kingship". Which means that if "gods" ruled directly, then there was already a concept of how society should be organized and "ruled", and human kings were merely implementors of "godly injunctions". This idea persists throughout the Dharmasutras but begin to disappear in the Dharmasastras. The "Bharata" (the king) image is consistent within this "implementor" of "divine will" - for he not only unifies by conquering disparate groups and thereby "ends" conflict, but also crucially does not follow the hereditary route - he disinherits his own descendant, to give the throne to someone outside of royal birth (some wags will still claim that it was possibly a power struggle in which the "Brahmin/priesthood" won out as "ruler"). Thus here a "king" is one showing sufficient capabilities to continue the core tasks of "Dharma" - character/feature/ideals of society/community-preservation, and augmentation of society. Preservation and further development seems to be the main concern and not necessarily innovation. This makes the kingship much more of a role-playing task rather than a symbol and source of authority itself. This changes progressively into the Dharmasastras.

[darshhan]

Hi Brihaspati,

With greater media exposure/connections/communications the possibility for something analogous to a presidential form can emerge. But I guess the first step will have to be getting a "coalition" into power that agrees to push forward such a change, and then the idea has to be properly marketed.

I take it that you would also like to see a system where prime minister/president is elected directly by the people and ministers/secretaries don't have to be MPs.Rather the prime minister/president can choose them based on their own merit and specialization.I think this will be a much better system for India as well as any society.In fact come to think of it what credentials did Mr.Shivraj Patil had for leading home ministry.Had he done any research on homeland security or written any papers on any security matter Or was he a member of any national security thinktank.No.

His only qualification was that he was one of the top rung leaders of congress and close to Madam.Right now the system is like this.Top five senior leaders of ruling party will be allocated finance,home,defence and human resource development(hrd) without requiring any credentials.Railways will go to the main coalition partner.so will steel,fertilizers and other portfolios.They have truly made a mockery of the governance.And Congress is most responsible for it.

But honestly do you see any politician marketing this idea.Some time back L.k. Advani voiced support for a presidential kind of system but after that he went silent too.

So in this case what should the public do.I ask all of you guys a question.Do we require a violent resistance movement to bring a change ?(Please don't compare this with something like naxal movement.What I am espousing is a extremely selective form of violence)

[brihaspati]

Darshanji,
it is probably better to talk just of "campaign for change" rather than give specific methodology. It is also perhaps better to start out thinking of "constitutional" methods and see where it lands us - if we want changes. "Violent" resistance/campaigns of any form are most effective against "the foreign devil". There are opinions that human soldiers in general do not like shooting/maiming/killing enemy soldiers unless it is a matter of survival. If that can happen in war - think of a domestic situation, where you campaign against someone you usually identify with as belonging to the same "group" and "native". In the Balkans, the violence of the 90's was primarily successful because of constructions of "foreignness" of a particular faith and concerned ethnicity. In India, in the context of what we are discussing - bringing in a change in the form of the regime, we will be up against "fellow natives", and it will be very very difficult to mobilize opinion in favour if it turns even selectively "violent". Almost everywhere the communists succeeded in violent overthrow of pre-existing regimes - it was in the backdrop of the threat of a "foreign invasion" "foreign influence" etc. (Russia - Tsarina+mismanagement of war+foreign alliances, China - the Japanese occupation which was used as an excuse by the Red Army to march North and escape annihilation, Cuba - the freedom movement against Batista+USA connection, Vietnam - French occupation, Angola - Portuguese occupation, etc. - one reason why Naxalites perhaps are doomed to failure, they are not leading campaigns against foreign occupiers) .

I think a mores subtle approach could cwork - Indian elite has no dearth of ambition even if it has a serious deficit in abilities. There could be many tempted to become a "chakrabarti" and be used as the Shikhandi

[darshhan]

Brihaspatiji.Got your point.But making a constitutional change will require a majority vote in parliament(I think it will require about 75% vote).Which is very difficult in current scenario.Right now even 10% parliamentarians will not support such a measure even if masses are in favour of it.

I have a suggestion.Can't we promote referendums for such initiatives.It will be hard for politicians to ignore demands for referendums if a mass movement is built for it.The question is how to create a mass movement as quickly as possible. Any suggestions.The last time such a movement was launched in 1970's as part of anti emergency protests.Please let me know if you have any ideas.

[brihaspati]

mass mobilizations are needed - but will it be an issue of life-and death for the masses? I think only people like you and me are worried about it. To make it viable, we have to make it tag along with a host of other important issues - make it a package that has something for most, but show the soldi interconnections. Just saying that we need a single directly elected chief executive is less appealing to a Maharastra farmer than saying that a directly elected chief executive will actually not be dependent on the local landlords/financiers club supporting and ensuring electoral success for the MP's who elect the chief executive but be able to deliver on that promised electricity or loans which the power-brokers in between obstruct for their own vested interests.

[Karna_A]

One way is to start by comparing how much money will be saved if Presidential/Governor system comes. Look at all the dual expenditures on maintaining PM/President and CM/Governor mansions and administrative staff. It could easliy be a 1000s of crore.
Actually the value of just 1 Raj Bhavan(Mumbai) is Rs. 500+ crore.
http://rajbhavan.maharashtra.gov.in/
If you ever go there, its one of the loveliest houses in the world with its own private beach. Its better than most $50+ million dollar houses in Malibu.
And what a waste. When was the last time you heard anything constructive coming from that house.

mass mobilizations are needed - but will it be an issue of life-and death for the masses? I think only people like you and me are worried about it. To make it viable, we have to make it tag along with a host of other important issues - make it a package that has something for most, but show the soldi interconnections. Just saying that we need a single directly elected chief executive is less appealing to a Maharastra farmer than saying that a directly elected chief executive will actually not be dependent on the local landlords/financiers club supporting and ensuring electoral success for the MP's who elect the chief executive but be able to deliver on that promised electricity or loans which the power-brokers in between obstruct for their own vested interests.

[brihaspati]

There are several difficulties in the way of bringing in a directly elected chief executive who selects the ablest spectrum of aides in charge of various aspects of state machinery.

There is the ideological distrust and misgivings about this turning into autocracy and hence the preference for the British/Westminster type of democratic form in vast sections of the elite - which given the experience of Indian democracy in the modern period, is not entirely unreasonable. But the problem is that even in the so-called current Westminster form, a kind of virtual autocracy/authoritarianism has always ruled India, beginning with JLN. In India this even takes on dynastic connotations. Ironically exactly this "dynastic" tendency and the sycophancy that it promotes, reinforces fears against the "directly elected chief" form, from the section most likely to be thinking along such reforms. Ramanaji's suggestion about ensuring the EC bans post poll alliances that had not been declared before can be a way forward. But the "elected" politicians will do their utmost to prevent such a move. It can happen if a single party is elected with absolute majority, that is also willing to do the required reforms.

The vast hordes of politicians and the interest groups that support them, are not going to give away this plum opportunity without struggle. I think one way, as Karna_Aji has suggested, is to expose the inherent waste and inefficiency of this vast system of ministers and infratstructure to support them. There is no good public interest org or website that does a "watching" job and reports to the public. Without specifically targeting individual politicians, the economic waste and inefficiency of the "system" has to be brought up into the public discourse.

Demands should be raised about a national programme of digitization (yes e-governance is supposed to be taking off, but it has to come in a bigger way) that gradually tends to replace and automate more and more of the functions now carried out by the elected representatives. I know from personal observation, that many of the MP's functions actually reduce to lots of signing reco letters, or forms of applications, and simply pushing for facilities/grants/work orders - which is actually disposed of by "trusted" party functionaries/"political dependants". Many of the things should be automatic, and it is possible to make such things routine - starting with a national identity database. Once that system is in place, lots and lots of jobs that now need authentication/intervention by an MP/MLA will become independent of such personal intervention, and will also erode a lot of power to abuse power.

There will still be a question of communication between the local and the central - and representation and bargaining on behalf of the local interests. But this can be handled by a proper development of various forms/levels of local-self government, and local-self sufficiency.

[darshhan]

Brihaspatiji,

There is the ideological distrust and misgivings about this turning into autocracy

We can deal with the above scenario by ensuring that parliament has enough power to check the directly elected PM/president and if necessary even impeach him.

Also we can have term limits to ensure that the president/pm is not crowned for life.

One important thing that we have to keep in mind is that for any leader to turn autocrat he has to command absolute loyalty from the state organisations which safeguard the country such as Army,police,intelligence agencies etc.I can assure you it will be very tough for any wannabe autocrat to do so in India even if he is the army chief himself.Even Mrs Indira Gandhi tried it and failed.

So I think there is no valid basis of being scared of a presidential form of govt.

Infact when the president is directly elected and has the right to choose his team it will ensure more accountabilty.There will be less excuses for not performing.For example MMS can get away by saying that he had to abide by the wishes of senior leaders in his own party,coalition partners and ofcourse Her Majesty and hence the non performance.Guess what even future historians will give him the benefit of doubt.

[darshhan]

Karna_aji and Brihaspatiji, I totally agree with you on the need to expose the deficiencies and waste that is generated by the current system and the need to educate the public.

I was wondering whether we can jot down all the points that we come with in vernacular languages such as Hindi,tamil,assamese etc.That will surely make more of an impact on the populace because the majority in India is still not conversant in english.Also is it prudent just to stick with internet for spreading awareness as only 5-10% of the population has online access.(Internet will definitely be there.So I am not discounting it and no one can).

One of the ways to spread awareness is to enlist help from likeminded NGOs(I am sure there would be one).If funds are available one can even run TV spots on various channels to lay down the advantages of the proposed presidential style of governance and pointing out the deficiencies of the current system.Radio advertisements would be even cheaper.But these advertisements have to be in local languages as well to make an impact.

One can also use the print circulation(I don't mean traditional newspapers like toi,hindu etc.I don't think they will support us although we should not stop trying.)Using pamphlets and posters we can spread fair amount of awareness.These will be better measures than just candle light marches.Infact distributing pamphlets and flyers during such protests would be a good idea.

On the internet scene we can probably start by starting a blog which is named something like "Presidential system for India".

I know all this would take time to come to fruition but we have to start somewhere.One way we can immediately begin is by sending emails to newspapers and media channels exhorting them to discuss this point.A note of caution though.We should first send these emails to newspapers and channels which are not leftist.Some non leftist and nationalist examples are given below.

1.Pioneer
2.Organiser
3.Lokmanch(A new website launched in Hindi)
4.India today(atleast neutral.Depends on reporter though)
5.Indian Express(Because of Arun Shourie)
6.Vernacular newspapers(Most of them are not leftist).
7.Defense publications and websites such as Indian Defense Review.

There must be others.

Leftist examples
1.Frontline and Hindu group
2.Outlook india
3.ndtv
4.cnn-ibn

We should also send our opinions to nationalists and strategic experts such as Aun Shourie,Bharat Karnad,Brahma Chellaney,Gurmmet kanwal(I think he supports a seperation of executive and legislative branches of government which we also support),etc.Remember this they have a much bigger audience.If these people speak then lot of other people listen.

By the way Brihaspatiji have you ever thought of writing a book and puuting your thoughts in it.If not you should do it.

Also Brihaspatiji and Karna_aji can we devote a seperate thread in Bharatrakshak for presidential form of governance.We can also put a poll there.Atleast we will get to know how many people agree with us.


P.S. Everyone who is reading this post is invited to give his/her feedback

[Karna_A]

The best way to bring this is by tying Presidential system with nationalism and say that this parliamentary system is a foreign imposed system and must be changed just like foreign imposed names i.e. Bombay was changed to Mumbai or Madras to Chennai. Anyone who argues against is anti-national, complete with examples of how Indian historical governance was more like Presidential system and India has to go back to its roots.
That's the only way to bring it.

Even the Indian budget system is laughable. Its presented in Feb and the only reason this is there since British wanted to go to Hill stations in April, so they could present Budget in Feb and do the modalities/formalities in 1-2 months and go to Shimla etc.
Indian budget now should be presented after Rainy season in sept/oct as a lot still depends on rains and without accurate rain forecast in Feb, all numbers/price points are usually way off.

[brihaspati]

Darshanji,
There was a thread specifically on that topic. Maybe no longer in the first three active pages. I have not checked it, but if it is not locked we can continue there. I guess we can continue discussing it, if we want to do so, within other relevant threads. Because of leadership questions - in this thread, because of strategic consequences, in the "future strategic scenario" thread, or in the more general "Indian interests" thread.

I have my doubts about the TV spots - I think the media is far too scared of the political establishment to even allow airing such views. It could actually be more harmful, because their tactic will be to misrepresent the ad/view and then place it in context to much greater exposure to opposite viewpoints from stalwarts of "democracy" and "upholders of people's rights". This can be tried, but I am afraid could be of dubious outcome.

The internet based dissemination is a good starting point. It can act as a trickle-down source. From the practical viewpoint, some influential political establishment has to be taken on board, and I think such political groupings are there but they avoid projecting this as a public or electoral issue. Short to medium term political developments - 5-10 years, will lead the general situation towards a greater readiness in the middle class to face such ideas. A great deal of difference will be shown by the current younger generations from the attitudes of the current political establishment in the long range. And this is a generation more exposed to the net.

Karna_Aji, and Darshanji, you have both suggested important points. Some of these have come up in discussions before. Maybe the two of you can collaborate to put up a well-researched article which can be peer reviewed here on BR. (I don't know whether BR admin will accept this or not). On the web I think there would be several blogs devoted to this issue, so another new blog on this could be less effective. My suggestion would be to avoid discussing specific political parties/politicians in the article, so that it probably does not turn off a large portion of BR. Be prepared also for quite a bit of "opposition" But I think such opposition and peer criticism will help in strengthening any arguments put forward!

[darshhan]

Brihaspatiji and karna_aji,I will start writing the essay.Once I complete it you can also make your additions.Once it is done I can translate it in hindi as well(although I am quite out of touch with hindi).Maybe BR users can help to translate in other languages as well.

In the meantime if you have any other points please post them.I will include them in essay.

[ravar]

I do think India will fare much better than the west. Mainly for two reasons : (a) it has a theory of renunciation. When things get far too complex to handle, simply give up and leave and lead life of simplicity. This was the original concept of Banaprastha (well they do seem to have had all "modern" amenities there - cottages, fields and help ...

Brihaspathiji, I beg to differ with you on the explanation given to the concept of renunciation. Renunciation as in Vanaprastha is one of the four stages of Aashrama dharma). The word Aashrama {a-shrama} by the way means there is no strain in the effort. Vanaprastha is done as the third stage of ones life after going through Brahmacharya (as a student in early life, focus on studies is essential), then moving on to life in Grihasthaashrama (as a householder). After one's duties in household becomes over as in old age, Vaanaprastha comes and last comes Sanyasa. These are beautifully synchronised to attain the Purusharthas of Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. Nowhere is it mentioned in the scriptures, to the best of my knowledge, that one should renounce and leave in the thick of action just because the going gets tough. On the contrary, there are umpteen examples, the best being Bhagavad Gita, when Krishna asks Arjuna to mentally surrender the concept that you are the 'doer' and continue doing the necessary actions as deemed by dharma by totally surrendering in the Higher Self/Spirit (as against actions emanating from one's Ego).

Your earlier reference of Shivaji trying to renounce the battles against Mughals in search of spiritual pursuits has to be instead seen in this context. True, it was tough going for him and he approached his Guru since he found himself weighed down due to his 'doership' consciousness arising from his Ego. To this his Guru merely said- "Now onwards, you will fight the battles for me, not you." (Connotation- Until now you had been thinking, “MY kingdom, MY praja, MY prajas fate, MY fate etc. Instead fight with the relief that you are fighting for Me (the Guru tatva, the all pervading Spirit- Brihaspathi) Relieved from a huge strain, he fought with ease-'aashrama' and won! Those who can recollect the scene from ‘The Last Samurai’ where Nathan (Tom Cruise) is asked by the Samurai to fight with “No Mind” as against “Too many minds” would understand!

Perhaps, in the context of leadership, this marks the difference- A true leader is one who 'does' not for his Ego but by abiding in his Spirit, does the Dharma. “Dharmo rakshati rakshitah”- Dharma will protect those who protect Dharma (the Gurukul education of yore addressed this Spiritual awakening). Also, historically, in Bharat Varsha, our seers emphasized the role of Spirituality in all aspects of life including politics (as against 'secular' West where the word was brought in to delineate the excesses of the Church in politics! They had a need for the word due to these excesses but we never had! How this word is being abused by supplanting it in the Indian context is a story in itself which may be addressed later) The Raja Guru gave wise counsel in times of crises. Perhaps, it is time to bring these traditions back.

[brihaspati]

Ravarji,
That was written in a phase when I gave in to my acid tongue when angry. Promised to guruji's that I will not mix sarcasm with serious stuff - even my sracastic words appeared to have been taken too seriously! I am not for renunciation - I believe, renunciation as expounded has done us great harm. I believe, we have to preserve the best possible memory of culture and practice - the living memory of a living society. Which means we have to preserve that human source. Which means we cannot denounce the biological factors involved in the continuation of that society as dirty or untouchable. However that continuity has to be the main objective and not the personal. So the continuity of the spirit of that civilization is main - the materialistic is only and so far as to support the idealistic.

[Keshav]

Anybody know how much it costs to buy time on TV?

If its at all reasonable on a local level, there are much better things that should be being broadcasted instead of adverts about changing the entire structure of Indian government.

[ravar]

Anybody know how much it costs to buy time on TV?

If its at all reasonable on a local level, there are much better things that should be being broadcasted instead of adverts about changing the entire structure of Indian government.

Yes, the approach has to be multipronged. We should even think of producing great movies (not just documentaries) depicting the Indian contribution to science, politics et al. Somehow or the other, Indians have to get out of the straitjacket of the wrong understanding that our country and its governance is just 60 odd years old! Our students are ignorant about many facets of our heritage, thanks to the ‘secular’ education syllabi dished out by the ever so ‘respectful’ current HRD minister, Romila Thapars, Irfan Habibs and their ilk.

The Semetic religions have strategically addressed this issue- movies like "The Ten Commandments", "Ben Hur", "Mughlai Azam", "Jodha Akbar", their PR strategists know the value of the 'soft' power and the influence it has on the thinking of the masses. Why can't we think of producing great movies on the Golden eras of India- Vikramaditya for example? There will be no dearth of dramatis personae and plots with the ‘Navaratnas’ in his court varying from ‘Dhanwantari’ (medicine), Varahamihira (maths, astronomy) to the great ‘Kalidas’ who needs no introduction! JMT

[brihaspati]

Regarding soft approach : it can be a bit of a quicksand. Remember "Ashoka"? what was highlighted - give up the arms, and then the very subtle image cue of someone from the revealed tradition play the lead character of Ashoka, his consort of course played by someone from Indic faith origin who desperately fights but ultimately submits to him. We are not careful about the subtle ways in which propaganda works. How real life and image is carefully mixed up so that a certain line of thought and action is superimposed. I know there will perhaps be criticism of my observation as being parochial and narrow/bigoted. But this is not about one person, whose sincerity towards India I am not questioning at all. It is what he represents, and in a film like Ashoka, what he projects and superimposes through the script - to a viewing population who has little idea of the controversial and hotly debated real historical Ashoka and his activities, or even that of the role of one of his wives - Karubaki/Charubaki.