Strategic leadership for the future of India

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Mar 2009 04:08

RM,

A follower who supports a leader with heavy duty sponsors will in the end get betrayed big time, when the sponsors decide to encash their investments. So it time, we the followers decide to show restraint, not get carried away by leaders who can put a show with sponsor's money and instead look for leaders who have chosen not to approach the sponsors.

Second that. The thing is the people more likely to do this are beyond the loud-mouthed vocal income-wise "upper" percentiles whose opinions dominate in the media, and in public discourse. Need to reach over and above the heads of the this "fat crust".

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Mar 2009 04:22

"Raingod" is facing the wrath of the Indian state. Although I still hold him rash and needing to cool his tongue, his experience of these incidents are valuable. I am less concerned about the legal drama around him. But of ingfinitely more signficance is the fact that the Indian state is now revealing in whose interests state power is weilded.

I have mentioned before about the Marxist understanding that all states are instruments of coercion that act in the interests of a particular "class". To a certain extent the entire ethical or "moral" basis of Marxist claims of superiority is based on this representation, and its pretension that Marxism actually seeks "justice" by bringing the real "producers" who are the overwhelming majority in almost any society into state power. Dictatorship of the the proletariat is sought to be justified as "using the state apparatus of repression against the enemies of the proletariat". In all this the coercive character of the state does not change.

By the entire drama, all the instruments of the Indian state has been forced to reveal in whose interests the repressive state machinery will be used. If it is prepared to act against any "call" to the "majority", which by simple arithmetic produces the majority of the very resources which the state apparatus uses to maintain its coercive instruments, then it proves itself to be acting in favour of the minority. This minority is a minority of opportunistic elite, and interests of religious leadership representing non-majority faiths.

The more such "encounters" happen, the more is the opportunity to expose the driving core behind the current Indian state.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Mar 2009 23:23

X-posted

samuel wrote:
http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/events/conf ... s/Fado.pdf

Brihaspatiji, This is pdf of a Great Game simulation and it shows the plaeyers before and after the Partition. Read the remarks of the author on Gandhiji. Its interesting what do you make of it? And are they modelling modern leaders like this in academia?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 Mar 2009 02:46

Yes, this type of modeling does take place. But not always put into the public domain. I think this paper is quite interesting. But obviously the transformations will depend on how the initial agents and their attributes are defined. The problem is here.

In the model for example what about British perceptions about MKG, and whether MKG post partition would be facilitating or retarding British interests? Also the conclusion is a bit weird in that the "single group" which apparently targeted MKG-node is targeting then the "unifier". This would imply that this particular group wanted "disunity". Reality for the so-called group would be different as far as we know.

One problem with the network models of this type is that they implicitly assume one superobserver who is able to independently resolve all the identities and attributes for all agents concerned. However in reality from the viewpoint of each agent, the networks could look different - reflecting differing perceptions and consequent different motivations or actions.

Moreover, it would be worthwhile to see if a model can indicate developmemt of a node like MKG, rather than having to assume arbitrarily attributes for a defined agent. In the previous posts, RM indicated a line of thought that considers agents like MKG to be a creation of certain groups for their own needs. This should be apparent as an output rather than input for such models.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 31 Mar 2009 04:34

brihaspati wrote:Yes, this type of modeling does take place.

One problem with the network models of this type is that they implicitly assume one superobserver who is able to independently resolve all the identities and attributes for all agents concerned. However in reality from the viewpoint of each agent, the networks could look different - reflecting differing perceptions and consequent different motivations or actions.

In this model why is afghanistan the center of stability for India, China and other areas.
Why everything converges on Afghanistan. Can you explain

China, Russia, US and Pakistan has direct connection to Afghanistan but India does not have any direct links to AFG in this model.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 Mar 2009 17:19

The above diagram is drawn from an Anglo-US perspective. This was what I was referring to as the assumption of one superobserver who can attribute authentically all the goals, attributes and values of all nodes. It also could be avoiding stating or modeling explicitly "hidden" motivations of the side fromw hose perspective the diagram is being drawn. I would have serious objections to some of the connections. Moreover what appears to be a goal to one agent could also be perceived nominally a sthe same but in reality defined as something else by another agent. The same action by one agent could be interpreted differently by different agents.

From the Indian perspective the network model would find a lot more connection to TSP as the centre for stability.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Mar 2009 22:53

Couple of X-Posts...
Shaardula wrote:

Sheldon Pollock, the most eminent professor of Sanskrit and Indian Studies at Columbia University, is consumed by one question these days: How does one revive interest and scholarship in pre-modern or classical texts in Indian languages?

"At the time of Independence, and for some two millennia before that, India was graced by the presence of scholars whose historical and philological expertise made them the peer of any in the world. They produced editions and literary and historical studies of texts in Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, and Telugu - and in Apabhramsha, Assamese, Bangla, Brajbhasha, Gujarati, Marathi, Oriya, Persian, Prakrit, Sanskrit, Urdu - that we still use today. In fact, in many cases their works have not been replaced. This is not because they are irreplaceable - it is in the nature of scholarship that later knowledge should supersede earlier. They have not been replaced because there is no one to replace them...

Two generations of Indian students have been lost to the study of classical Indian languages and literatures, in part due to powerful economic forces no doubt, but in part due to sheer neglect."

source: sugata srinivasaraju's column in outlook.

Also read sheldon pollock editorial in The Hindu.

The real classical languages debate
Sheldon Pollock
A Sanskrit proverb tells us that it is far easier to tear down a house than it is to build it. The great edifice of Indian classical language study and literary scholarship has been nearly torn down. Is it possible, at this late hour, to build it up again?

and

shaardula wrote:i dunno, but without indian languages creating more indian myths like the folks who wrote the mahabharatha is not possible.

despite what purists say, only saving grace is indian movies and the dialogues and songs in them. but just like the lyricist is celebrated, hopefully one day the script and dialogue writers are too. but hopefully more and more of these are made by people like cheran and less by people like murugadoss. more by kasarvalli's and nags and fewer by kavitha lankeshs.

the thing is, english is not simply taught as another language. it also comes as a part of a package... it is not taught as another language to express ourselves in, it is taught as a language that allows us to escape who we are. and this is reinforced by the package. in much sought after english schools, you cant wear jasmine, you cant wear marks of morning puja, you cant talk to your peers in local languages and so on.

i mean, none of these schools are geared to produce a rk narayan or even a naipaul, who was narayan's greatest critic. all these are geared at producing roys.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Mar 2009 23:26

My take is it represented a pre-Independence mindset of looking at the region. Afghanistan is valuable piece of real estate if there is a weak central ledership in India. And by extension in TSP. A strong presence in AfPak is valuable for sallying against a weak India, Iran and Central Asia.

As I said many times before India wins if she stays together : strong political Center which ensures little social dissentions, high economic growth and strong armed forces.

If you look athe timeline of the papers they are circa 2005 which menas they are result of studies initiated a few years earlier, perhaps 9/11. If so the current Afpak plan is a result of these type of studies.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 31 Mar 2009 23:27

Folks,

with regard to the figure you quote from the modeling thread, it arose in the context of
a) Creating a geostrategic model for BRF...an agent-based approach is best.
b) Looking for an existing approach to start with...the UML-2 flow diagram you see there was built. There are actually several scenarios, two of which you can see in the pdfs. One was well before independence, 1930s and another around 1950, which is what you see here. All they are are existing starting points of some external source.
c) I am getting the infrastructure (eclipse plugins etc).
d) We need volunteers to create actors, acts, interactions, and other elements that define the model.
e) I assure you that this will go far beyond the "linear algebraic", "deterministic" or "pde" type models we initially considered or even cellular automata type. We can define complex worflows, organizations, interactions, environments, decisions, values, goals, assets, skills and so on and let the system turn the crank to produce optimal stratetgies in response to a question we ask it. That's the goal any way.

In fact, I have been culling information from the strat and leadership threads and working on ways to incorporate that. I call this sytem BOBB (BRF's Own BENIS BUSTER)

Best
S
PS: This is tedious painstaking work, but I assure you that although the system has no human intelligence, it will have the capacity to crank through a phenomenally huge state space that no human really can. Even in the simple scenario above, the interactions possible are very difficult for a human to map and fathom.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Apr 2009 07:58

samuel wrote: In fact, I have been culling information from the strat and leadership threads and working on ways to incorporate that. I call this sytem BOBB (BRF's Own BENIS BUSTER)

Best

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Apr 2009 22:40

Samuelji,
any starting point in time? I would guess that for limitations of the model, we cannot go too far beyond, but WWI would perhaps be a good start. In typical actor-network theories, the passive connectors also play a role, (just as in the models above, Khyber pass). How far do we peopose to go down that lane?

Agents : (as nations)
Pre WWII British empire,
post WWII UK,
Imperial Russia before WWI,
USSR between WWI and II,
post Stalin -pre Cultural Revolution USSR,
post Cultural Revolution-preAfgha War USSR,
Russian Republic,
post WWII - pre Nixon-Mao meet USA,
post Nixon-Mao to fall of USSR, USA
post-fall of USSR, pre-9/11 USA
post 9/11 USA
post WWII to Khruschev Communist China
Khruschev to Nixon-Mao meeting PRC
Post Mao PRC
pre-revolution Iran
post revolution Iran
pre WWII India,
WWII India,
post WWII to partition India,
post Independence to 71 Indian Republic,
71-77 Indian Republic
post 77 -India (could be many subdivisions)
pre-71 BD,
post 71 BD
partition to 71 TSP,
71-Zia TSP,
Zia to Musharraf TSP,
post Musharraf TSP(too early to say post?)
post Independence to IPKF SL,
post IPKF SL

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 01 Apr 2009 22:47

I was just going to take the "current snapshot," as the initial condition, meaning post 9/11 and run the network forward in time from there into the future. To test performance, we can also hind-cast, starting from an earlier snapshot (say 1920) and going forward to some known time (1972) to test model and reality. Even that's not going to be easy, I am not sure we have it to start with an accurate 1920 snapshot, or sufficient observations to verify what the state is at 1972.

I'll start pouring more details in the other thread, kindly guide and direct as you see fit.

S

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Apr 2009 22:49

Run both and see is 1920 leads to post 9/11. I would like both modelled to see where things could have been different.

thanks, ramana

I was wondering if we can run sub-modules like

1) AfPak: Afghan society, TSP, US, UK, India, Iran, Russia, KSA
2) BD: AL, jihadi politicalparties, Mullahs, armed forces, Paramilitary, India, PRC, US
3)SL: Sri Lankan society, Tamils, LTTE, US, UK, India, Tamil Nadu, religious schisms
4) Connect these to the Indian situation

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Apr 2009 00:34

Jupiterji,
I took your list and sub-categorised as follows:

1)Pre-Independence India

Pre WWII British empire,

Imperial Russia before WWI,
USSR between WWI and II,

pre WWII India,
WWII India

2) Post Independent India
Till Fall of SU :
post WWII UK,

post Stalin -pre Perestroika USSR,
post Perestroika-preAfghan War USSR,
post WWII - pre Nixon-Mao meet USA,
post WWII to Khruschev Communist China
Khruschev to Nixon-Mao meeting PRC
pre-revolution Iran

post WWII to partition India,
post Independence to 71 Indian Republic,
71-77 Indian Republic
pre-71 BD,
partition to 71 TSP,
post Independence to IPKF SL,

3) Post Independence India Till 9/11

post Nixon-Mao to fall of USSR, USA
post-fall of USSR, pre-9/11 USA

post revolution Iran

post 77 -India (could be many subdivisions)

post 71 BD

71-Zia TSP,
Zia to Musharraf TSP,

4) Post Independence India : Post 9/11

Russian Republic,

post 9/11 USA

Post Mao PRC

post Musharraf TSP(too early to say post?)

post IPKF SL

People can add other agents in those categories.
You will see that fall of SU was an important event for India and so is 9/11. One can add the Oct 2008 financial collapse as it will lead to re-alignments of the world forces which Shyam Saran alludes to.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 02 Apr 2009 01:42

Folks,

everyone of these little line items are probably weeks of work. Please chip in if you wish to get in on it. Not so long ago, we were on BRF doing hawks and doves! I am thrilled to see grow...

Here is the just from a "pana-walla's" viewpoint.

1. Please reserve space to describe
a) what the current state is. Don't worry about format, just write it. The motivations, goals, skills, interactions, relationships, boundaries, places, armies, acts, etc. Whatever your mind tells you is a snapshot of the world at different points in time. This needs a thread, but I think there are existing threads, I just don't know which. Some posts here should probably move there. Who wants to start writing these snapshots?

b) What the future scenario is (post 2020). Please keep that thread going at full speed. Good information there.

2. We will continue to read up and start coding agents, environments, interactions etc. This will be reported in the modeling thread.

3. Let's walk before we run. Let's pick a very small example and a very simple problem so everyone understand's the views and aspects involved in the modeling. This will happen in the modeling thread.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 02 Apr 2009 01:44

Ramana and Brihaspati, (ji, ji)

In order to run "modules" and "agents," we may have to do a bit of training on how things are modeled. The diagrams in the pdfs are good examples of that, though we are not limited by it. I will suggest that you not worry of the language of the implementation, but merely on the story and the scenario and the snapshot. Things will fall in place.

S

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Apr 2009 01:48

OK. Take SL or BD as a very small real life example.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Apr 2009 02:04

Samuelji,
we can post our scenarios/snapshots in the "future strategic scenario" thread. You can pick what you need into the "geostrategic modelling" thread. We can keep the "word problem/description" in the "future strategic" thread, and the more UML version in the "modelling" thread. That way we will probably not dilute or distract each thread. But whatever suits you better.

Maybe you can start thinking and giving us the UML "object" definitions, we can try to ease your task by then providing inputs in that format. I would understand UML2.

Ramanaji,
I will try to post some diagrams which I think will better represent the composite and overlapping nature of many of these relationships. For example East and West Pak behaved as Pak in certain aspects, and behaved as separate or competing units in other aspects.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 02 Apr 2009 02:59

OK, this sounds like a good plan.
Pictures are good (networks and connections). They map easily to UML-2 diagrams.

S

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 02 Apr 2009 21:27

brihaspati wrote:I will never forget what he said once, "I would have doubts about you as a patriot if you are not angry with MKG before the age of 30, and doubts about you as an Indic if you dont admire him after the age of 30".

I have usually tried to stay away from debating about Gandhi (MKG) too much, but I will make one point and cease after that.

One of the things I have noticed about analyzing & debating MKG is that one needs enormously complicated arguments to support him. This to me a red-flag: a leader should be understood in simple terms. His/her actions should make sense at all levels. When there is a need to resort to complicated justifications, there is usually trouble. I beleive a leader should be simple and should pass tests of common-sense and clarity. There is something to be said for simplicity.

This not to say that leaders cannot be analized deeply, but deeper analysis should lead to more understanding, but not in inverting one's views. This to me is missing in MKG.

One can compare this with leaders like Bose, Bhagat Singh, George Washinton, Churchill, Napoleon, Ranjit Singh, Shivaji, Vivekananda whose actions and thoughts (though deep) do not require athletic mental gymnastics to make sense. They make sense at simple levels, as well as complicated levels. Their contradictions also make sense. It seems that the Bharatiya mind, since it is able to hold more complexity, is a sucker for it as well.

The second problem with MKG is that to make sense of his actions, one is bewildered to find justifications: his supporters give shifting arguments which tire the mind. The shift is usualy between his being a "Saint" and a "Political". If you question an act that makes no sense politically, the argument proffered is that MKG was a religious saint and a principled man. If we question behaviors/action for failing to meet spiritual level, we are told he was being practical and political and expedient. One is never quite sure what he is. Should we judge him with the yardstick of political leaders, or religious leaders? It seems there is always a way to explain all his bizzarre actions with either the Saint argument, or the Political argument. This tires most questioners & doubters and they give up (or are told that they cannot understand such complex things; or are themselves embarassed at not grasping such monumental complexity).

Bhool Chook Maaf.

PS: The statement you Brihaspati's friend is a re-statement of Churchill's famous justification on his switching political parties: he was a liberal when he was young, and a conservative when he was old.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Apr 2009 22:52

British injecting of Gandhi and his ideas to prominancy between 2 world wars is very suspicious . They have used Indian Army to save their skin and Indians became aware of real strength/ weakness of Imperialists in these 2 wars. Gandhi and to some extent Jinnah both got played by them very subtly or willingly . They used these 2 stones to kill the one Golden bird.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Apr 2009 22:56

Edittted

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Apr 2009 01:05

Surinderji,
that "friend" was more a "granddad" than a friend (from the Indic view, granddads are more than friends

) - the time I was referring to was when he was 78 and I was 12. An associate from the North, of the "King of Desire" from the South (deparse the name in Sanskrit/Hindi), and himself long the Kubera of the post-Independence "devas". However, I have mentioned several times in this forum that I have severe problems with MKG's political moves and philosophy. But I can understand why he could hold such mesmerizing effects on so many. And I admire his personal courage in taking decisions that I understand personally to be most difficult.

My life has been a long intense struggle with myself to overcome myself, (long way to go perhaps as evident in some of the intense outbursts in my posts

) and from this experience I admire his persistence and will, even if from my own criteria it was flawed and damaging for the Bharatyia to a certain extent.

I do not hold that his methods will work again or that his ideas for India should be implemented. India is going through a phase where it will either disintegrate civilizationally and only survive by severely compromising, or, it will unify behind a singleminded ruthless core that will adopt any and every means to expand in the subcontinent and consolidate. Here MKG's inflexibility can see some parallels. No compromises, no quarters given - is something thats one direction.

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 03 Apr 2009 01:11

brihaspati wrote: India is going through a phase where it will either disintegrate civilizationally and only survive by severely compromising, or, it will unify behind a singleminded ruthless core that will adopt any and every means to expand in the subcontinent and consolidate.

As evident from the "Civilizational Security" thread.

>>

It is going to be the later in any case. Because, if there happens to be a disintegration the surviving Indic fragment will be ruthless.

However, we one should be prepared for a controlled fragmentation in face of dangers like creeping Islamization. This is the mistake we made in 47, we were not prepared to face the reality. The partition was thrust upon us, we could not negotiate boundary lines and as a people MKG hoodwinked us to not to go for population exchange.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 03 Apr 2009 01:16

India is going through a phase where it will either disintegrate civilizationally and only survive by severely compromising, or, it will unify behind a singleminded ruthless core that will adopt any and every means to expand in the subcontinent and consolidate.

Brihaspatiji,but how will the singleminded ruthless core come into being.Through electoral process(I don't think so) or through some people's movement(how is this possible in our fragmented society where we care more about our caste or region or state) or some other way.

Any ideas?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Apr 2009 01:42

Jupiterji, Did your 'grandad' wear dark glassess?

Darshan, Please read HRC's book "Political History of India" linked in the Distorted History thread.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 03 Apr 2009 01:50

^^^^

Jupiter Ji,

I just wanted to clarify, I was using the quote to anchor my reply and give a context and continuity to our discussion. My response was not really at that comment. It has been an independent observation. My apologies if I hurt your sentiment in any way.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Apr 2009 04:31

Surinderji,
no no, I was not hurt. I just wanted to say that I deeply respect him and in my Bharatyia sense he is more like a Guru for me, and he is much more than a friend. I met him by chance on a visit to his region, and he immediately wanted my parents to leave me with him when they went out on their "political campaigns" or for professional "reasons". I was given lots of "organizational" responsibilities even as a teenager to "learn". The more the time has passed, I realize his profound insights and predictions were so accurate - both personally and future of the nation. I dabbled in left politics only after he passed away, mainly to understand the process by which such a "great movement" as that of the Bolsheviks ended so ignominiously. But basically I came back full circle and exactly as he predicted. So I wanted to clarify my attitude. But he was an exceptionallyy erudite person and open minded - he even discussed kamasutra with me, and things of "devaloka" history I better keep my mouth shut. I was privy to discussions with "national leaders" as his "secretary" (15 year old) to things about pre and post Independence India that opened my eyes a lot.

And I give "pranaam" now for his indication personally and collectively which I wanted to disprove and failed, after long leftist journeys through local, district, state and above committees - that we will swing to the "right", that has been the incomplete task of the Bharatyia "project".

Ramanaji, my slip. I should have been careful given your background.

Darshanji, I second Ramanaji's reco. Fracture is not an issue if we stand firm to ignore it. How I wish there was another Vasaveshwara or Chaitanya to prepare the way! So many times I have felt the urge to go out in the streets in our jeans or pyjamas and sing the joy in life and the oneness in all life we feel as Bharatyias, so that people join in Samkirtana to express that fundamental joy that I and most of us feel as a Bharatyia - where we forget and bury our castes, our varnas, and grip the core of our existential faith - we are all amritasya putraa. We need to overwhelm those artificial barriers, a mass emotion to sweep it all away. Yavana Haridasa joined in with Chaitanya - so this is not an exclusivity thing I imply. Reigning myself in.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Apr 2009 10:07

Brihaspatiji, Thanks for the gesture. Got it. I would like you to read this Tamil novel in English. Its called Ponniyn Selvan and was written by Kalki Krishnamurthy. Its really the novelization of the rise of Cholas in particular RajaRaja Chola. What you see is the historical process in India at work. To understand the Cholas you need to know the Pallavas. And how there is continuity in change.
Download the pdfs and read at leisure.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Apr 2009 10:44

Prem wrote:British injecting of Gandhi and his ideas to prominancy between 2 world wars is very suspicious . They have used Indian Army to save their skin and Indians became aware of real strength/ weakness of Imperialists in these 2 wars. Gandhi and to some extent Jinnah both got played by them very subtly or willingly . They used these 2 stones to kill the one Golden bird.

Since your brought this topic which I was waiting for somebody in BR; I will explain this thing.
This is also for Jupiter to understand and comment.
I had mentioned this in the India and the Asian stability thread.

Gandhi was promoted after 1920 in the news papers of the west suddenly when he took up the mantle of INC. Before that the demands of the INC was just one of the topics in the news reports for the common public. Very few Indian leaders were exposed to the western common public. This is the kind of control which the western countries had over the image of the colonized Third World countries.

But the most important part is that US newspapers in the 1920s were most prominent in the coverage of non violent resistance in India. This was a kind of barrier for the British authorities to impose severe punishment and arrests/harassment of the nationalist leaders in India since that would give negative publicity to GB. There was talk of killing Gandhi from 1925 to 1940s by the western leaders including Hitler.

Another reason is that after Jallianwala Bagh 1919 ; British authority lost all moral authority and had to show their soft side in a public way.
Jallianwala Bagh (Garden) in the northern Indian city of Amritsar where, on April 13, 1919, British Indian Army soldiers under the command of Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer opened fire on an unarmed gathering of men, women and children. The massacre ultimately became an important catalyst of the Indian independence movement.

After the WWI the relationship between US and Britain changed in favor of US and Britain relinquished their naval dominance to US Navy and many leadership position to US worldwide.
Wilson and Roosevelt were pressuring GB to give dominion status or self rule to its colonies as part of the global change with league of nations and support for "self determination".

US was putting pressure on GB by supporting Gandhi using the media by giving wide publicity and INC leadership actually used it in such an effective way especially the non-violence movement. GB and Churchill had to grind it and take the massive publicity to Gandhi and his movement which shook the British rule. British authorities could not be brutal against the innocence of the non violence lest it ends up in the front pages of the western newspapers.
See the movie again.

As soon as the WWII was over and the US attention went to the next threat of the Cold war ;we see the assassination of Gandhi. We see this tradition of western news media controlling and advancing the image of Indian national leaders even after independence.
Enormous clout of the western new media is used to prop up Indian political leaders even now.

--

Can this publicity to non violence movement and global publicity given to Gandhi even till late 1970s BE a part of the long term social engineering/indoctrination for an entire generation of Indians.

http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/library/satyagraha.pdf
http://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/ellen_horup.htm

--

There is one group which is prominent in US which was behind the support to Gandhi in the 1920s using publicity.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 03 Apr 2009 11:47

^^^^

This hypothesis assumes that there was only one option for the Brisish, i.e. to eliminate MKG directly themselves. But, UK could eliminate Gandhi in myriad of ways. As a matter of fact, British preference always has been to have Indians kill other Indians---they preferred to get as much of their killings to be done by Indians themselves.

UK controlled the whole of India, it had an enormous intelligence and police network and a hefty army presence. Accidents could have happened, mystierious illnesses come, feuds develop, Gandhi had many enemies amongst Indians, any of them could have been given the wink and nod to kill.

The assumption that shame would keep the British from eliminating MKG assumes too much: UK is holding 500 million Indians in bondage, that did not give it any shame; they mowed down hundreds in Jallianwal Bagh, that did not cause any shame; the millions dead in Bengal famines and the thousands hanged and exiled did not cause any shame either.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Apr 2009 12:05

surinder wrote:^^^^

This hypothesis assumes that there was only one option for the Brisish, i.e. to eliminate MKG directly themselves. But, UK could eliminate Gandhi in myriad of ways. As a matter of fact, British preference always has been to have Indians kill other Indians---they preferred to get as much of their killings to be done by Indians themselves.

UK controlled the whole of India, it had an enormous intelligence and police network and a hefty army presence. Accidents could have happened, mystierious illnesses come, feuds develop, Gandhi had many enemies amongst Indians, any of them could have been given the wink and nod to kill.

The assumption that shame would keep the British from eliminating MKG assumes too much: UK is holding 500 million Indians in bondage, that did not give it any shame; they mowed down hundreds in Jallianwal Bagh, that did not cause any shame; the millions dead in Bengal famines and the thousands hanged and exiled did not cause any shame either.

You should read the US British relationship in the 1920s regarding colonies. They tried to use MKG for their own use to get benign view of their rule to the future generations. MKG outwitted them in this area but also was outwitted by the partition.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Apr 2009 00:46

Acharyaji's pointer is an important one. My conclusion is the same. Post WWI US is joyfully shocked in suddenly realizing itself a significant player in global politics. It also comes into commercial competition with the British Empire. So it needed to open up colonial markets away from the tight control by the British. It is quite possible that they picked on MKG for this specific reason.

But there could also be another simultaneous basis for the interest in MKG. That of the widespread influence of Thoreau. It is possible that Thoreau himself got such wide publicity because he satsified a certain need in the mid 19th century USA where the industrial North was heading for a "civilizational" (practically capitalist versus pre-Capitalist) clash with the agrarian-feudal South. Thoreau was bridging the gap between modernism-capitalism and pre-modern-pre-capitalist world experiences. This I guess appealed to MKG, and his experiments along this line probably caught the eye of the circles in the USA who were influenced by Thoreau's works.

Thus what MKG was attempting in SA could be most interesting for them as, if successful, this would prove the "universal applicability" of Thoreau's ideas outside of the boundaries of USA. At that time, USA had nothing to compete with Europe in the realm of philosophy which in a subtle way shows the lack of preparation for a global role. So the "Thoreauean" circles would be doubly interested in MKG's activties which simultaneously embarassed the British, promised diminishing British power, and illustrated that American "thoughts" could grow into trees from seedlings in foreign "soils".

MKG I think was shrewd enough to realize the importance of media, and must have known about the inner factional fights within the British Parliament as well as subtle competition between the USA and the UK. The "opposition" at Westminster, the US media and ruling classes, and MKG - all used each other for their own agendas.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 04 Apr 2009 01:02

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webb_Miller_(journalist)

Mahatma Gandhi first read Walden in 1906 while working as a civil rights activist in Johannesburg, South Africa. He told American reporter Webb Miller, "[Thoreau's] ideas influenced me greatly. I adopted some of them and recommended the study of Thoreau to all of my friends who were helping me in the cause of Indian Independence. Why I actually took the name of my movement from Thoreau's essay 'On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,' written about 80 years ago."[35]

In 1930, Miller took a 12,000-mile airplane trip across the Middle East and India. While in India, he met and became friends with Mohandas Gandhi. Gandhi was launching the Salt Satyagraha, and Miller stayed to cover the event. Miller witnessed the raid on the Dharasana Salt Works on May 12, 1930, in which more than 1,300 unarmed Indians were severely beaten and several deaths occurred. Miller's report helped turn world opinion against the British occupation of India.[1][8][4] Gandhi himself later said that Miller "helped make" Indian independence through his eyewitness report.[1]

Another reason is that after Jallianwala Bagh 1919 ; British authority lost all moral authority and had to show their soft side in a public way.

Jallianwala Bagh (Garden) in the northern Indian city of Amritsar where, on April 13, 1919, British Indian Army soldiers under the command of Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer opened fire on an unarmed gathering of men, women and children. The firing lasted about 10 minutes and 1650 rounds were fired, or 33 rounds per soldier. Official British Raj sources placed the fatalities at 379. According to private sources there were over 1000 deaths, with more than 2000 wounded.[1] Civil Surgeon Dr. Smith indicated that there were 1,526 casualties.[2]

In India, the massacre evoked feelings of deep anguish and anger. It catalysed the freedom movement in the Punjab against British rule and paved the way for Mahatma Gandhi's Non-Cooperation Movement against the British in 1920. It was also motivation for a number of other revolutionaries, including Bhagat Singh. The Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore returned his knighthood to the King-Emperor in protest. S. Srinivasa Iyengar resigned as Advocate-General of Madras Presidency and returned his Order of the Indian Empire. The massacre ultimately became an important catalyst of the Indian independence movement.

[edit]

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 04 Apr 2009 01:13

The implication has been that since MKG became popular in the American press, he was unassissinatable. This however ignores the point that GB could have eliminated GB without publicly sullying its hands, if it really felt an overwhelming need to. In the tightly controlled prison of pre-47 India, that deniablity was quite easily achievable. That it did not do so says something to the overall game in which Gandhi fit.

Americans rise post World War is not unexpected. Ever since independence, US had been chipping away at edges of GB's power. It made continous sutained efforts to curtail UK's power, in sync with its abilty to do so. When its power was puny in 1800's, the efforts were too; when its power became more obvious, it did its efforts more obviously. During the 1800's, it forced GB to restrict its navy in the Pacific. Making UK (and other Europeans) quit the colonies was part of that strategy. US realized early on, that unless and untill the Colonial system ends, the European nations will contnue to be more powerful than the US. That is why it made de-colonization a cornerstone of its dealings with GB & Europe. It was not an altruistic motive. E.g. US threatened to withold Marshall from Netherlands when it demurred in quitting from Indonesia. This explains its sudden liking for MKG during the colonial period, but a cool reception to India post 47.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 04 Apr 2009 01:26

surinder wrote: It was not an altruistic motive. E.g. US threatened to withold Marshall from Netherlands when it demurred in quitting from Indonesia. This explains its sudden liking for MKG during the colonial period, but a cool reception to India post 47.

Nothing is for altruistic motive. Everything is for the national interest.
This creation of "free world" and "promotion of democracy" is not for altruistic motive.
It is a socially engineered world created by the former colonial powers for their benefit.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 04 Apr 2009 03:09

Nothing is for altruistic motive. Everything is for the national interest.
This creation of "free world" and "promotion of democracy" is not for altruistic motive.
It is a socially engineered world created by the former colonial powers for their benefit.

In my opinion US was not a colonial power.Every country works for its own benefit.Doesn't mean they are practising colonialism.

This is actually the language of communists and marxists.Putting every blame on imperialist America.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 04 Apr 2009 03:36

However I concede that US has been a occupying power in different parts of world at different times.But colonialism was much more than that.One of the defining attributes of colonialism was organised economic exploitation of the colonised people.For example economic ruin of india which was brought about by East India company and British govt.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Apr 2009 17:16

I guess, no one simply starts out to colonize and colonize only. It is always a search for more and better resources to survive and flourish or triumph over hostile competitors. The great Germanic expansion which resulted in the foisting of Germanic tribal chiefs as the aristocracy of modern Europe started out with a desperate struggle for survival against Asian Steppe nomadic aggression and Roman repression. For the US, it was initially about surviving against the "home country's" domination of the world sea-routes and sea-trade. To survive, the country had to outstrip the empire economically, and ultimately its vast productive forces could not realize their potential if they could not find overseas markets. This is where it came into conflict with British interests. In order to secure those interests, they had to "cut the empire" to size. Conspiracy theory or not, but I would not dismiss the possible linkages between US bankers who bankrolled the rise of Hitler and this strategic thinking. They tried to initiate this conflict in Europe knowing that such a war would finish the empire by exhausting its resources.

Actually a good strategy - could be applicable for PRC too I think.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 06 Apr 2009 02:03

brihaspati wrote:But there could also be another simultaneous basis for the interest in MKG. That of the widespread influence of Thoreau. It is possible that Thoreau himself got such wide publicity because he satsified a certain need in the mid 19th century USA where the industrial North was heading for a "civilizational" (practically capitalist versus pre-Capitalist) clash with the agrarian-feudal South. Thoreau was bridging the gap between modernism-capitalism and pre-modern-pre-capitalist world experiences. This I guess appealed to MKG, and his experiments along this line probably caught the eye of the circles in the USA who were influenced by Thoreau's works.

North vs. South divide aside, both Emerson and his disciple, Thoreau were great students of Vedanta and both of them were aware of the existence of and read the Bhagavad Gita (a feat for an American in the 19th century no doubt). Both of them describe it in glowing terms.

"In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavat Geeta, since whose composition years of the gods have elapsed, and in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial; and I doubt if that philosophy is not to be referred to a previous state of existence, so remote is its sublimity from our conceptions. I lay down the book and go to my well for water, and lo! there I meet the servant of the Brahmin, priest of Brahma, and Vishnu and Indra, who still sits in his temple on the River Ganga reading the Vedas, or dwells at the root of a tree with his crust and waterjug. I meet his servant come to draw water for his master, and our buckets as it were grate together in the same well. The pure Walden water is mingled with the sacred water of the Ganga."

Tying together Gandhi and Thoreau is not far fetched in the least. In fact, its possible Gandhi was aware of this connection and believed him on that account.