Strategic leadership for the future of India

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 10 Apr 2009 21:12

ramana wrote:Acharya, During the Indicate-Syndicate wars of the late 1960s, the Indira Congress and the press vilified the SYndicate leaders as being antediluvian and out of touch. In retrospect the Sybdicate leaders were all strong regional leaders who had national stature and connections. With their fall/decimation in the Presidential election which VV Giri won, INC became a dynastic monopoly of the Nehru-Gandhi family. And the rot started as there was no credible alternative and psycophancy took over. The post-Emergency elections in 1977 threw up the Janata Party, but the leadership pulled in all directions and fought like Killkenny cats.

Please try to find also the biographies of other leaders I mentioned in my post.

Thanks, ramana

I notice this detailed Indian politics being reported in Times international magazine which looks odd. But they at that time they know that few individuals make the shot/decision in Indian policy making and they have to target these groups.

International politics during this period was NPT and other major treaties which affect major nations deeply. Indian leadership was firefighting at home instead of looking at the interest of the country.

Ashok Sarraff · Post by **Ashok Sarraff** » 11 Apr 2009 00:54

Reg. INC future and Yuvraaj,

There might be a grand strategy at work and a somewhat unexpected player might emerge in addition to or as a replacement of Rahul. I am talking about Priyanka. It seems her in-laws are being eliminated/eliminating themselves for a purpose – to let her have a clean record with no future constraints that might bring bad press. I guess someone realized several years ago that Rahul is not that charismatic and the day he announces marriage with his Columbian girlfriend, his marketability will reduce further, and hence is working on preparing the launch pad for Prianka

JMT…

- A

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Apr 2009 01:09

ramana wrote:It might be useful for collective memory to link the bios of post-Independence forgotten leaders like GB Pant, HN Kunzru, Kamraj Nadar, T Prakasam, Lala Lajapt Rai. Also important is to link bios of the vilified Syndicate leaders for they also had served the nation but were vilified by the Mrs G., circle of sychophants.

Govind Ballabh Pant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GB_Pant
Bharat Ratna Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant (September 10, 1887 - March 7, 1961) was a statesman of India, an Indian independence activist and one of the foremost political leaders from Uttarakhand (then in United Provinces) and of the movement to establish Hindi as the national language of India.

Lala Lajpat Rai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lala_Lajpat_Rai

Lala Lajpat Rai (Punjabi: ਲਾਲਾ ਲਜਪਤ ਰਾਯ, لالا لجپت راے; Hindi: लाला लाजपत राय) was an Indian author and politician who is chiefly remembered as a leader in the Indian fight for freedom from the British Raj. The freedom fighter was popularly known as Punjab Kesari (The Lion of Punjab). He was also the founder of Punjab National Bank and Lakshmi Insurance Company.
Rai was born on January 28, 1865 in village Dhudi Ke, in present day Moga district of Punjab, India. He was the eldest son of Munshi Radha Kishan Azad and Gulab Devi, Aggarwal Banias or some also consider them as Jains. His father had a chequered relationship with Hinduism and Jainism - having converted to Islam and then reverted back to Hinduism. This had a lasting effect on Rai's attitude towards religions other than Hinduism. He spent much of his youth in [[Jagraon], district Ludhiana, Punjab. His house still stands tall in Jagraon and houses a Library and museum..

K. Kamaraj
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Kamaraj
Kamaraj Kumarasami, (Tamil: காமராஜ்) better known as K. Kamaraj (15 July 1903 – 2 October 1975) was an Indian politician widely known to be the kingmaker in Indian politics, and known for his honesty, integrity and simplicity.

He was involved in the Indian independence movement and was a close ally of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India. He was instrumental in bringing to power two Prime Ministers, Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1964 and Indira Gandhi in 1966. He was affectionately known as the Gandhi of the South. He is also known as Padikatha Medhai or Uneducated Intellect . In Tamil Nadu, his home state, he is still hailed for facilitating the spread of education to millions of the rural poor by introducing free education and free mid-day meals scheme in schools for the first time in the whole world during his chiefministership in 1957. He was awarded India's highest civilian honour, the Bharat Ratna, posthumously in 1976. The main airport in Chennai is today named Kamaraj airport in his honour. He was hailed as one of the greatest of leaders of all the free world by the then US vice-president Hubert Humphrey.[1][2]

Tanguturi Prakasam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanguturi_Prakasam
Tanguturi Prakasam Pantulu (Telugu: టంగుటూరి ప్రకాశం పంతులు b. 23 August 1872 – d. 20 May 1957) was an Indian politician and independence activist and the first Chief Minister of the Indian province that was to become Andhra Pradesh. He was also known as Andhra Kesari (literally, the Lion of Andhra).
In 1946, after the Congress' victory in elections in Madras Presidency Prakasam became the chief minister on 30th April 1946, as he and Kamaraj, a Tamil leader, were against Rajaji — the choice of leaders such as Gandhi and Nehru — becoming the chief minister. However, the government lasted for only 11 months, as it was felt that Prakasam was not accommodating enough to various varying interests.

During his tenure as Premier, Prakasam publicly declared his intention to scrap all textile industries in the province and replace them with khadi manufacturing and weaving units.[1] In February 1947, Communists broke into a full-scale revolt.[1] On Vallabhbhai Patel's advice, Prakasam responded with widespread arrests and tough crackdown on arsonists.[1]
He visited Hyderabad state in 1948, while the Nizam was still in power, although Prime Minister Nehru warned against doing so because of concern for his personal safety. He met Qasim Rizvi, the leader of the Razakars and warned him about pushing his luck too far. The Razakars were impressed by his courage and accorded him a march of honour[citation needed].

In 1952, he formed the Praja Party (People’s party) and ensured that all the sitting ministers of the Congress Party were defeated[citation needed]. However, Praja party could not come into power by its own and the coalition that he cobbled up collapsed even before a show of strength could be contemplated.

Meanwhile, in December 1952, Potti Sriramulu died fasting for the cause of a separate state for the Telugu-speaking people. On 1 October 1953, the state of Andhra was created and Prakasam, due to his reputation, was made the first chief minister. However, due to opposition from the communists and halting support from the socialists, the government fell after a year. Mid-term elections were held in 1955 by which time Prakasam had more or less retired from active politics. On 1 November 1956, the erstwhile Hyderabad state was merged in the Andhra state to form Andhra Pradesh. Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, a future President of India and a staunch follower of Prakasam became the chief minister. Though retired from politics, Prakasam was active in touring the state. On one such visit to Ongole, he suffered from severe sunstroke. He was admitted in a Hyderabad hospital and died on 20 May 1957.

[edit]

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 11 Apr 2009 01:42

Acharya wrote:
Lala Lajpat Rai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lala_Lajpat_Rai

Lala Lajpat Rai (Punjabi: ਲਾਲਾ ਲਜਪਤ ਰਾਯ, لالا لجپت راے; Hindi: लाला लाजपत राय) was an Indian author and politician who is chiefly remembered as a leader in the Indian fight for freedom from the British Raj. The freedom fighter was popularly known as Punjab Kesari (The Lion of Punjab). He was also the founder of Punjab National Bank and Lakshmi Insurance Company.
Rai was born on January 28, 1865 in village Dhudi Ke, in present day Moga district of Punjab, India. He was the eldest son of Munshi Radha Kishan Azad and Gulab Devi, Aggarwal Banias or some also consider them as Jains. His father had a chequered relationship with Hinduism and Jainism - having converted to Islam and then reverted back to Hinduism. This had a lasting effect on Rai's attitude towards religions other than Hinduism. He spent much of his youth in [[Jagraon], district Ludhiana, Punjab. His house still stands tall in Jagraon and houses a Library and museum..

Lala Lajpat Rai is still mentioned in my school books of history as part of the lal, bal, pal triotika(lala lajapat Rai, Balgangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandrapal). Of course they mention that they were part of "extremist" timeperiod (1905-1920) of congress.

Wasnt he also the guy who died during simon go back movement and which Bhagat Singh sufficiently angry to do things.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 11 Apr 2009 01:47

ravi_ku wrote:Wasnt he also the guy who died during simon go back movement and which Bhagat Singh sufficiently angry to do things.

After Lala Rai died, Bhagat Singh killed a British officer in retaliation for which he was hanged.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Apr 2009 01:50

Ravi, Is it too much to ask you not call Lajpat Raiji 'guy'?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Apr 2009 23:34

Here is an empirical cycle of significant dates in Indian history I would like to analyze. Note that each date in the list is obtained by going back 30 years from the previous one.

1977 1947 1917 1887 1857 1827 1797 1767 1737 1707 1677 1647 1617 1587 1557 1527 1497 1467 1437 1407 1377 1347 1317 1287 1257 1227 1197 1167 1137

This could be a generational maturity and replacemnet thing or simply no pattern at all. A longer cycle of 90 years could also be possible starting with 1947. Here I am trying to place significant national figures within this generational cycle. Please check if the following birthdates are accurate. Also feel free to add to the list. It seems, proximity to the cycle starting point, and the 10th and the 20th year have greater concentrations of significant figures. There are some notable exceptions too. Maybe more data will disprove any cyclic tendencies. Please treat the "leadership list" of the current crop as simply with reference to current media representation. This does not anyway reflect my personal leanings to any of them.

Basavanna 30-4-1134
Chaitanya February 18th 1486
Maharana Pratap Singh of Mewar May 9, 1540
Shivaji February 19, 1630
Durgadas Rathore 13 August 1638
Guru Gobind Singh December 22, 1666
Shrimant Baji Rao Balaji Bhat August 18, 1699
Sultan Fateh Ali Tippu November, 1750
Ranjit Singh November 13, 1780
Allan Octavian Hume June 6, 1829
Sir William Wedderburn, 25 March 1838
Womesh Chandra Bonnerjee December 29, 1844
Monomohun Ghose March 13, 1844
Sir Surendranath Banerjee November 10, 1848
Vivekananda January 12, 1863
Lala Lajpat Rai January 28, 1865
Dadabhai Naoroji September 6, 1825
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 2 October 1869
Tanguturi Prakasam Pantulu 23 August 1872
Muhammad Ali Jinnah December 25, 1876
Govind Ballabh Pant August 30,1887
Jawaharlal Nehru 14 November 1889
Subhas Chandra Bose January 23, 1897
Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, July 6, 1901
Atukya Ghosh 28 August 1904
Kamaraj Kumarasami, 15 July 1903
Indira Gandhi 19 November 1917
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman March 17, 1920
Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao 28 May 1923
Atal Bihari Vajpayee December 25, 1924
M.K. Karunanidhi, June 3, 1924
Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq August 12, 1924
Lalchand Kishenchand Advani 8 November 1927
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto January 5, 1928
Mulayam Singh Yadav November 22, 1939
Sharadchandra Govindrao Pawar December 12, 1940
Pervez Musharraf 11 August 1943
Rajiv Gandhi 20 August 1944
Sonia Gandhi 9 December 1946
Lalu Prasad Yadav June 11, 1947
Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, December 25, 1949
Narendra Damodardas Modi 17 September 1950
Benazir Bhutto 21 June 1953
Mayawati January 15, 1956
Rahul Gandhi 19 June 1970
Priyanka Vadra January 12, 1972
Varun Gandhi March 13, 1980

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Apr 2009 00:44

Some missed before:
Sri Aurobindo August 15, 1872
Sardar Ballavbhai Patel 31 October 1875
Vināyak Dāmodar Sāvarkar May 28, 1883
Morarji Ranchhodji Desai 29 February 1896

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Apr 2009 23:59

Ashok Sarraff wrote
There might be a grand strategy at work and a somewhat unexpected player might emerge in addition to or as a replacement of Rahul. I am talking about Priyanka.

She appears to show some material inside. Properly built up by the media, she can be a fallback option for the Congress. My bet is that she will actually do better than her brother. But I am not sure that the dynastic thing will work that strongly from now on. I would watch out for Mayavati and Laloo.

But we have also not analyzed so far that much, about how external factors and foreign power's political interests can shape up the choice of leadership through the electoral process. The regional satraps are put up partly by theor own capacity to stay in power delivering the "goods" for the local/regional electorate . In this the national media can play a role. But the internal media's connections with the external needs to be explored if at all possible. The national level could be affected by a combination of internal and external media.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 13 Apr 2009 08:37

Is it possible for any power Benovalent or menovalent, to prepare so much in advance future leaders of a country of the size and type like India. There are so many factors, so many combinations, so many seasons,so many unforseen events that I guess it is almost immpossible to find a future leader and then groom him/her. Somebody like Priyanka or Rahul or Maybe Varun Gandhi can be invested in, because they carry such a huge and obvious brand name as their surname but other than them, there is hardly anyone who can be thought of as worth investing at the national level. Rest almost all of them are leaders from grassroots. Note I am talking about leaders and not kids of current leaders who can be para dropped into electoral battlefield.
So what am I am asking is if it is possible to groom a leader in a country where leaders are not made by media but by their actual work and in most of the cases identification with caste(s) or state.
IMO as far politics is concerend, we still are a parochial country.

LokeshP · Post by **LokeshP** » 13 Apr 2009 11:32

foreign influence might play a role in who becomes the leader but any such influence would have to be carefully analysed keeping in view and the long term strategy/plan of that particular foreign country, which will be formulated based on that country's long term problems and headaches.

in the short-term, it could be said that US interests lie in a weak India, but in the longer term (the next century), a reasonably strong India will be in US's interests. and this might have nothing to do with "India as a counterweight to China." the present US strategy clearly shows that US is preparing to brush off the lead role, that it currently has in fighting Islamists. the grand strategy would be to take a back-seat in actively fighting them, all the while dictating the grand plan to somebody else and have them do it. the only country with the scope of doing so is India. a few decades from now the "US war on Terror" could very well be seen as a distant thing in the past. US would undoubtedly keep tabs on Islamists, but it won't actively fight them. by appointing another regional power (India) to do so, US can shield itself from blood-shed and also keep a potential great power, India, occupied in its own immediate neighborhood, thereby preventing India from looking beyond the IOR (Indian Ocean Region). for India to be successful in this, she will have to have a powerful Navy in IOR (Uncle Sam will block any and all efforts by India to look beyond this region, especially in Naval 'reach').

IMVHO, the greater interest of the US lies in a strong India and that is only possible if nationalism is still active in the country. that is not to say that US would allow Indian power to go beyond the Asian region (IOR, Middle-East, Central Asia). and as such, US will maintain its own posture in this region, but will allow Indian influence along with her's own to make sure India does its allotted work well.....

just my two cents...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 14 Apr 2009 17:52

LokeshP-ji,
But if US is being forced to take this back seat because of the unsustainability of its previous ranges of direct conflicts on its own, don't you think, it is similar to a situation of the British empire between the wars? Or that of the USSR between 70-90? Isn't it possible, that in the time frame you are looking at, US may have no means to prevent expansion out of IOR by India, if the latter chooses to?

On the other hand a strong nationalistic India could go out of US control and not necessarily do US bidding in the IOR or in TSP. What if such an India chooses to tie-up with Russia and Iran?

LokeshP · Post by **LokeshP** » 14 Apr 2009 18:33

the US is not averse to conflict. it is averse to direct conflict now b/c of the recession and the bad strategy in Iraq and Af-Pak.

but one thing the US has enormous experience in is Cold-War type power posturing. if India insists on building up strong influence/capability beyond IOR, the US would love nothing more than to go back to Cold-War type posturing except with a different country this time. they will make it a point to come as close as possible to all our major coastal cities/areas and show us they do have it in them to fight us. ofcourse they will do their best to avoid direct conflict, but when we're talking about armed force vs. armed force confrontation, where realistically and practically the US Navy can easily best Indian Navy, i don't think the Americans will really be intimidated by India.

and let's not forget, if we get into cold-war type posturing with US, we will also have other countries like PRC who will come into play. of course this is all a futuristic scenario where Indian Navy is powerful enough to exert influence over entire IOR (but even in such a scenario, one must remember that we won't be dominating IOR; the US still dominates it).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Apr 2009 01:34

Brishaspatiji, Was the Indian acceptance of the AIT an appeal or attempt to connect with the pagan roots of the EIC officers before the Crown takeover in the aftermath of 1857? I find it interesting that the whole alpha and omega of the Indian elite took to it like ducks to water in the 19th Century including B.G. Tilak. What did the wiseman say on this?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Apr 2009 02:42

His personal opinion was that of a sceptic about AIT. Was a great admirer of the first Maurya, and Shivaji. "Long hands, like Shivaji, good!" was the first ever greeting. Wanted me to be an academic historian and reinvestigate AIT. I got quite a dressing down in referring to the "Mehrauli iron pillar" - why couldnt I refer to it as the "louhastambha"! No, a lot of people never entirely believed in the AIT. But it was an ideological bridge by which the colonizing regime and the "Hindu" could both gain politically. The former for legitimacy, and the latter by acknowledging this "legitimacy" gaining political rehabilitation as reward. It would be a reward/punishment mechanism - the same that has entrenched the Thaparites.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 15 Apr 2009 03:03

brihaspati wrote:His personal opinion was that of a sceptic about AIT. Was a great admirer of the first Maurya, and Shivaji. "Long hands, like Shivaji, good!" was the first ever greeting. Wanted me to be an academic historian and reinvestigate AIT. I got quite a dressing down in referring to the "Mehrauli iron pillar" - why couldnt I refer to it as the "louhastambha"! No, a lot of people never entirely believed in the AIT. But it was an ideological bridge by which the colonizing regime and the "Hindu" could both gain politically. The former for legitimacy, and the latter by acknowledging this "legitimacy" gaining political rehabilitation as reward. It would be a reward/punishment mechanism - the same that has entrenched the Thaparites.

This is mostly correct. Tilak in his book Orion says that Indians and British were long lost brothers who met again in India. He was refering to Aryans from Europe who again ended up in India.

The EIC created a grading system for the natives. Those who took up the British education system and became WOGs (Western Oriental Gentlemen) were given access to the British circle inside India and trips to UK and other colonies. The British education included AIT and other moral teaching so that they virtually became westernized Victorian gentlemen and had outlook of a Anglican Protestant.

The behavior of the Indians under the British were similar to Tilak. It was an "ideological bridge by which the colonizing regime and the natives cooperated" with the Indians thinking that it will give them political benefits. But the British used it to gain support of the Indian elite and the Indian masses to continue their rule. With only 150K British officers they were able to rule the 400 million Indians because of this naive attitude of the Indian elite.

The acceptance of this British history of AIT was part of the package to become the chosen one in the ruling hierarchy. This still persists even today in IAS UPSC selection. History was politicised right from late 1800 inside the Indian elite mind. It will not go away that easily. This is how the post independence Indian elite has kept a hold on the new generation of ruling class and politicsed the history of India by keeping the British History.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Civil_Service
Colonial Civil Service

Under the East India Company administrators of their controlled territories were engaged. These became the Honourable East India Company Civil Servants (HEICS)

There were two exclusive groups of civil servants during this formative stage of British rule in India. The higher employees who entered into covenants with the Company came to be known as covenanted" servants, whereas those not signing such agreements came to be known as "uncovenanted. The latter group generally filled the lower positions. This distinction between the covenanted and the uncovenanted virtually came to an end with the constitution of the Imperial Civil Service of India based on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, 1886–87, though the phrase covenanted continued to be used of anyone in a salaried position with a long term contract — including boxwallah peddlers. The name Imperial Civil Service was changed to Civil Service of India. However, the term Indian Civil Service (ICS) persisted. The acronym ICS continued to be used to denote the covenanted civil servants.

A third group, the Statutory Civil Service which functioned in the second half of the nineteenth century, was disbanded by the beginning of the 1890s. To this group were recruited young men from respectable and affluent Indian families. This service was replaced by the provincial civil services, which was constituted on the basis of the recommendations of the Aitchison Commission. It consisted of two cadres, Provincial Civil Service and Subordinate Civil Service. Further developments took place as a result of the application of the scheme of cadre organization to the administrative departments. Thus, for example, the departments of Forest and Public Works had both the imperial, and provincial branches. The basic pattern of the cadre system in the civil service was thus established following the recommendations of the Aitchison Commission.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 15 Apr 2009 07:24

LokeshP wrote:IMVHO, the greater interest of the US lies in a strong India and that is only possible if nationalism is still active in the country.

In that case, CIA would not have helped ISI in sending terrorists into India, and CIA would not have been helping naxals via US Missionaries. US knows where its interest lies and working to put forward its interest. Their interest lies in taking over all mines of India and also large scale conversions --- and thats what they are doing.

===

The thread title is "Strategic leadership for the future of India". But most of the posts (including mine) have been about past leaders. I suggest we now talk of FUTURE only. What do we expect future Ministers/IAS to do, and how do we make sure that they do that and not something else?

.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Apr 2009 17:36

The explorations of the past were an attempt to find patterns that may recur in the future. However, it is correct that ay such exploration should actually serve the purpose of gleaning indications for the future - lessons from past mistakes, and new suggestions or departures from the rules of others's games imposed on us.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 15 Apr 2009 20:26

brihaspati wrote:The explorations of the past were an attempt to find patterns that may recur in the future. However, it is correct that ay such exploration should actually serve the purpose of gleaning indications for the future - lessons from past mistakes, and new suggestions or departures from the rules of others's games imposed on us.

The old patterns and education is still being followed even now. Hence it is imperative to understand what happened in the past.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Apr 2009 00:45

Acharyaji,
does a Chandragupta-Chanakya model still has relevance for the future scenario? If inappropriate for this forum please feel free to answer in the other.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Apr 2009 00:54

Lets Forget Chankaya,
The new equation /scenario ought to be BRF and Dili Billies and Babus ( important to change the babus than aya ram gya ram politicians)

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 Apr 2009 04:07

brihaspati wrote:Acharyaji,
does a Chandragupta-Chanakya model still has relevance for the future scenario? If inappropriate for this forum please feel free to answer in the other.

Yes, I will elaborate later and in other forum

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 16 Apr 2009 05:21

brihaspati wrote:Acharyaji,
does a Chandragupta-Chanakya model still has relevance for the future scenario? If inappropriate for this forum please feel free to answer in the other.

The problem with this model is we don't know enough actual history about these two. Not only there are doubts regarding the time-line of Chandragupta, but also on his origins, his emergence to power and active role of Chanakya in his emergence apart from his education.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Apr 2009 05:45

Chiron-ji,
I am aware of the historical difficulties. I was referring to the "model". The model that has been reconstructed repeatedly over many retelling of the narrative as a metaphor. In this case, a collaborative partnership between "man of action" and "man of words - guru", both sharing a political dream, or helping shape each other's political dream. It is not unique to Bharat, there are many examples in the "west". But in Bharat, it appears to be associated with all successful attempts at revival. A personal quest too for answers. Thats all.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 Apr 2009 06:00

brihaspati wrote:Chiron-ji,
I am aware of the historical difficulties. I was referring to the "model". The model that has been reconstructed repeatedly over many retelling of the narrative as a metaphor. In this case, a collaborative partnership between "man of action" and "man of words - guru", both sharing a political dream, or helping shape each other's political dream. It is not unique to Bharat, there are many examples in the "west". But in Bharat, it appears to be associated with all successful attempts at revival. A personal quest too for answers. Thats all.

Check this
http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Statec ... 728&sr=1-1

Essentials of Indian statecraft : Kautilya's 'Arthasastra' for contemporary readers.
by Tumkur Narasimhiah Ramaswamy

Publisher: MRML, New Delhi

Date Published: 1994

ISBN-13: 9788121506557

ISBN: 8121506557

Description: pp. 163p. The present work attempts to place before modern readers, a streamlined version of the greatest book on statecraft written in India, before the Christian Era, by Kautilya, the most noted and feared minister of Chandragupta Maurya, the grandfather of Asoka and acknowledged as a consummate statesman of Hindu India. The book Arthasastra, discovered by Dr. Shama Sastry in 1904 in Mysore, can be said to represent the pinnacle of Indian intellectual achievement in the field of politics and public administration. The author has selected portions of this great work in the present work.

Languages: English

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 16 Apr 2009 08:14

brihaspati: does a Chandragupta-Chanakya model still has relevance for the future scenario? If inappropriate for this forum please feel free to answer in the other.

Chiron: The problem with this model is we don't know enough actual history about these two.

And above applies for all "histories" more or less. To the problem of incompleteness, there is one more problem : the history books are manufactured by so called historians. And the historians have one known flaw which exist in all humans : They manufacture history to suit the interests of those who sponsor them in Govt or elitemen. So they conveniently cut out the pages that doesnt suit the financial interests of their sponsors.

This flaw exists in mediamen and we see this flaw. We see this flaw, as we see that what they are reporting is a deliberately well crafted incomplete truth. And this flaws exists in historians, but we see that only sometimes, as we cant see the history anymore.

So how much can we learn from an incomplete source, coupled with historians who themselves are hell bent on giving an "unbiased" and "objective" version that suits their sponsors? Will it be more productive that experiences we had in past 25-50 years of out lives or our parents lives? NO. NO

================

I am aware of the historical difficulties. I was referring to the "model". The model that has been reconstructed repeatedly over many retelling of the narrative as a metaphor. In this case, a collaborative partnership between "man of action" and "man of words - guru", both sharing a political dream, or helping shape each other's political dream. It is not unique to Bharat, there are many examples in the "west". But in Bharat, it appears to be associated with all successful attempts at revival. A personal quest too for answers. Thats all.

I will use following terms
man of action = man-o-action = actionman
men of action = men-o-action = actionmen
man of words = man-o-words = guru

With internet, words are only a click away. Any 12th class pass can become man-o-words aka guru in 2 years by spending 2 hrs a day on internet on forums like BR. Or let me put it other way --- the internet is now the BEST man-o-word aka guru on politics, statecraft etc. So actionmen no longer need specialized individual guru anymore to guide them.

AFAIK, West in past 250 years had actionman and guru wielded into one. eg all founding fathers of US (eg Jefferson, Paine, Washington etc) were men-o-words as well as men-o-action. And IMO, thats the best way out today. The actionmen should use internet as guru, and not use one person or a small group of persons as guru. The reason is --- internet is something elitemen cant bribe out, but desi-videsi elitemen can bribe out a small number of guru and ask them to churn out doctrines that only help the elitemen. So if actionmen decides to follow one or a small group of gurus, the elitemen will be able to misguide him easily. But if an actionman decides to takes internet as guru, then he cant be misguided by anyone.

=========

Prem wrote:Lets Forget Chankaya. The new equation /scenario ought to be BRF and Dili Billies and Babus ( important to change the babus than aya ram gya ram politicians)

And what do you do if most babus do not want to change, which is a the reality?

.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Apr 2009 19:28

Rahulji,
worried about the lack of direct physical face to face interaction angle - which plays a significant role in group and political entrepreneurship - missing in current net tech. It is also about sharing a common political statesmanship vision. Can the impersonal anonymity of the internet be a substitute for that working bond?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 17 Apr 2009 03:21

Posting it here for lack of better thread ...

All the prime minister’s men

For Jawaharlal Nehru the road to the first general elections, on which he was very keen, was not clear even after the ouster of the “obstreperous” Congress president, Purushottamdas Tandon. The prime minister had yet to overcome strong opposition to some of his fundamental policies from a more powerful source, the Republic’s first president, Rajendra Prasad, who had served earlier as president of the Constituent Assembly.

...
Prasad was not a revivalist like Tandon. He was also opposed to theocracy. But as an “orthodox Hindu” he wanted the Indian state to be “symbolic of the Hindu majority”. Nehru would have none of this, and began to believe that Prasad was “less secular than even Patel”. No wonder then that he did not want Prasad to be the president when India became a Republic.

...

Consequently, Nehru resorted to what he usually did under such circumstances. He wrote to Prasad suggesting that he should decline the office of head of state. Prasad refused to oblige and cleverly added that he left it to Nehru and Patel “to edge me out”. Only then did it dawn on Nehru that Patel, with his enormous influence in the party, was backing Prasad. Yet, curious are the ways of Indian politics. At a later stage Prasad started having second thoughts. Patel taunted him: “This marriage is settled. But if the bridegroom wishes to run away, what can I do?”
...
When Prasad’s tenure was due to end, Nehru was confident that he would be able to get Vice-President Radhakrishnan elected president. He liked Radhakrishnan and intellectually the two were on the same wavelength. Patel had been dead for seven years, and Nehru expected no hindrance. He was stunned therefore when strong opposition came from his close friend and colleague, Maulana Azad. The Maulana said that Prasad was a leader of the freedom movement, but when “I turn the pages of the movement’s history I find no mention of Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan”. Nehru then argued that one term for the president was enough, and that Prasad was getting on in years, in any case, Azad retorted: “You and I are no spring chickens, Jawaharlal. If Rajen Babu has to go, then we must also go.”
...

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 17 Apr 2009 08:49

Let us think of practical ways to create circumstances favourable to the emergence of a strong leadership, rooted in Bharatiya Sanskriti.

I think one of the major problems that we are facing is the fact that the vast majority of the population have no coherent world-view or historical narrative. This is because the media, the history departments of universities, the text-books are all in the grip of anti-national forces, supported by foreign agencies. These anti-national forces thus have powerful tools for brainwashing the masses.

The great importance of Narendra Modi lies in the fact that Gujarat puts before the Indian people an example of what they can achieve in terms of national strength and good governance. It is precisely because of this that Modi arouses such fear and loathing in the anti-national forces, who want the masses to accept enslavement and Dhimmitude.

How can we create circumstances favourable to the triumph of Moditva through out the land? The need of the day is to create a powerful narrative that can seep into the consciousness of the masses. Forums like BRF may reach maybe a couple of thousand people. Movements like the RSS reach maybe a few lakhs. But we need much, much more. We need to reach at least tens of crores of people with powerful new ideas. How can this be done?

People will recall how the Ramayana and Mahabharata tele-serials really succeeded in reaching huge numbers of people. In fact, they were so popular that the streets all accross India would become deserted when they were broadcast. So what I am proposing is a new "Discovery of India" tele-serial (with maybe one episode a week - perhaps 52 or 104 episodes in all).

Each episode should have a well-defined theme. Some of the ideas that could be explored are:

- Indian spirituality, the Upanishads, the Yoga Sutras.
- Scientific achievements of Ancient India.
- Islamic invasions, massacres and temple destructions.
- The perfidy of the Communists
- The Goan inquisition
- The Maoist-Missionary nexus
- The atrocities of Tipu Sultan, the slaughter by the Moplahs
- Indian Saints such as Guru Gobind, Vivekananda, Ramkrishna Paramhansa.
- Indian warriors such as Chandragupta, Shivaji and Maharana Pratap
- Cynical exploitation of caste divisions by Mandalites like VP Singh
- Modern threats to India: Sonia Gandhi and the credible reports of her links to the KGB links, her subversion of India by appointing thugs to sensitive constitutional positions such as the Presidency and Election Commission, the Quattrochi affair, the extreme danger of rigging elections through EVMs, etc

We will need to think of themes for each episode of say 30 minutes, figure how how to get such a tele-serial made, how to get it broadcast, how to publicize it.

If people like this idea, perhaps we could start a new thread to explore it further.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 17 Apr 2009 12:30

RaviBg wrote:Posting it here for lack of better thread ...

All the prime minister’s men

Great post, shows that as always the real danger in India is from HFL variety and those who have valued their power and of their blood over the nation -- always.

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 17 Apr 2009 13:43

RaviBg wrote:Posting it here for lack of better thread ...

All the prime minister’s men

The greatest disaster for India has been the right kind of leaders left us or were forced to withdraw during crucial times.
Hemu (stray arrow hitting him and turning sure victory to defeat)
Sardar patel after 1947

Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1965

Atal Bihari Vajpayee (could not get PM gaddi in 2004).

Others can contribute to this list.

LokeshP · Post by **LokeshP** » 17 Apr 2009 16:33

ABV was already pretty old and had many health problems by 2004. his pinacle was already behind him, sadly.

it is not so much about right people leaving as it is the right people being forced out by Nehru in the early years after 1947 and then the trend continuing with Nehru family's control of INC and Indian politics.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Apr 2009 21:13

brihaspati wrote:Acharyaji,
does a Chandragupta-Chanakya model still has relevance for the future scenario? If inappropriate for this forum please feel free to answer in the other.

If I may answer:

One of the hallmarks of Hindu/Indian psyche is renunciation/tyaag or self -sacrifice of this material world and the walkover to the other world in this life. Chanakya was able to do that and he commanded the respect and support of Chandragupta. This is the Rajaguru pathfinder role that has shown the way for the rajya or state.

Similarly, if you take the Purana accounts to modern times you see a strand:

- Parasurama Avatar (who cleaved Kerala out of the ocean) and Agastya Muni leading the "tribes" to Dakshina patha.
- Kumarila Bhatta and his debates with Buddhist savants
- Ramanuja saving Sanathan Dharma by enabling the 'ahistorical accession' of the various jatis to Kshatriya and Brahmana status
- Vidyaranya guiding Hakka and Bukka raya to establish Vijayanagar kingdom/state
- Vyasatirtha lending credibility to Krishna Deva Raya' claims to upholding Sanathan Dharma and thus unifying South India under him.
- Samarth Ramdas doing the same for Shivaji
- Peshwa Baji Rao I & II. Though here they took up power for themselves instead of being mere guides or marga darshaks.
- Tirumalacharya saving Mysore by ensuring Wodeyar accession after the defeat of Tippu Sultan by the English
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi who lived like an ascetic and ensured the overthrow of the British

However this role got diluted under the colonial times - both Islamic and British. Some of these people got co-opted and served the 'alien' interests: Birbal under Akbar and a slew of people under the British.

Due to the removal/negation of local Rajayanga interests by 'alien' interests, the Brahmanas got deluded into seeking wealth and power for themselves under 'melccha' rule. They became just like anybody else and lost the aura of renunciation or self- sacrifice.

Right after the freedom struggle the Brahmanas forgot their historic role of being the marg darshaks and guides to assume the leadership mantle under the spell of modernity and elections.
Once the sheen was lost the attacks on Sanathan Dharma and India civilization began. Now this is where some of them turned their backs and started shameful attacks on Sanathan Dharma to ensure their primacy in the intellectual debate in the post colonial world. That explains the Brahmin leadership of Commie and DIEs viz. Nehru-Gandhis, EMS Nambodripads, Mani Shankar Iyers etc.

In fact the reservations policy in govt service failed to re-create the formation of pan society elite. Right after their retirement the elite in power reverted to non elite status.

So where does this lead us? Well Ramanuja showed that we need a new elite that has national interests driving it for there can be no state without a nation. And this elite should include all those who have Indian interests at heart regardless of which varna they are born into. For instance I think the BR Chopra's Mahabharat script writer Reza is more Brahmin than any of the MSA or Namboodripads.

This is a result of many talks and e-mail exchanges off line.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 17 Apr 2009 21:20

^^ Good post Ramanaji. One more to the list: Vidyaranya to Hakka Bukka (Vijayanagar kingdom).

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 17 Apr 2009 21:21

Ramana: A great post.

I think Chandragupta-Chanakya model is relevant and more important these days. But it might not be necessarily a 1:1 model. The role of Chanakya can be played by a think-tank group or a single person. The responsibility is split between the administrator/implementer and strategist. People with different skill sets/personality can fit into an implementer or strategist.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Apr 2009 21:32

Pranav wrote: Each episode should have a well-defined theme. Some of the ideas that could be explored are:

- Indian spirituality, the Upanishads, the Yoga Sutras.
- Scientific achievements of Ancient India.
- Islamic invasions, massacres and temple destructions.
- The perfidy of the Communists
- The Goan inquisition
- The Maoist-Missionary nexus
- The atrocities of Tipu Sultan, the slaughter by the Moplahs
- Indian Saints such as Guru Gobind, Vivekananda, Ramkrishna Paramhansa.
- Indian warriors such as Chandragupta, Shivaji and Maharana Pratap
- Cynical exploitation of caste divisions by Mandalites like VP Singh
- Modern threats to India: Sonia Gandhi and the credible reports of her links to the KGB links, her subversion of India by appointing thugs to sensitive constitutional positions such as the Presidency and Election Commission, the Quattrochi affair, the extreme danger of rigging elections through EVMs, etc

We will need to think of themes for each episode of say 30 minutes, figure how how to get such a tele-serial made, how to get it broadcast, how to publicize it.

If people like this idea, perhaps we could start a new thread to explore it further.

Shorten it to 10 minutes and you can do this yourself (or in collaboration with others) using YouTube.

The internet has opened a vast new vista, and I predict that 10% of India's half billlion plus cellphone users in future (there are some 300 million now) will be able to receive video on their phones.

Think twitter in the info age. short bursts of easily digestible info.

I am myself a video creator to counter Paki propagandu and do not consider myself knowledgeable enough to do what you suggest. But I do know how to make videos.

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 17 Apr 2009 21:47

Ramana, please add the Sikh gurus for their sacrifices and Sri Ramakrishna for Swami Vivekananda.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Apr 2009 23:11

Ramanaji,
a great and insightful post. Very similar to what I have recently been forced to think along. But still the question of "caste" and "varna" (not using them as equivalent) comes up repeatedly as obstacles in my projections. We can neither deny them, nor accept them. Since these are times of making things explicit - I will make it so.

In accepting the model, we accept the leadership role of the created categores of "kshatryia+brahmin". In spite of using these categores simply as "action+spiritual/strategic" descriptors, the associated imagery and connotations bring forward the thorny "varna" question, especially alarming for those brought up to assign "Brahamnism/Brahminical" as root of all modern Indian "evil". On the other hand, the success of the "model" is undeniable in Indian history, and ranges across time periods which by no means can be ascribed to "Brahminical dominance" only. In fact the narratives themselves are aware of the dichotomies - for almost all narratives of ChandraGupta/Chanakya also do not hide the supposed influence of "Jaina" tradition on ChandraGupta, which is reported to have been increasing in influence as his life progressed. If Brahminism was such an important factor, it definitely then failed on ChandraGupta (those who create the category of "Brahminism" also inevitably separate "Jainism" from it).

As far as "varna" is concerned, my personal strategy is to promote the concept of "simultaneous" existence of all "varnas" inside a person - treat them as "gunas" that need to be cultivated to face specific situations/roles in life. When a student, or engaged in intellectual pursuits - a brahmin, when required to do physical or productive labour- a shudra, when engaged in trading and finance - a vaishya, and when fighting a war - a kshatryia. This is one possible interpretation of the notorious "purusha shukta". We can point out that, all the "varnas" are in the "purusha" - and the "body" does not function if you literally take the "limbs/parts" away from it (I think some of the early commentators do take this line). I have repeatedly suggested giving recognition to the importance of symbols and "social acknowledgement" of higher "status", and at least give "children" going for their first education- the "upaveetam" - irrespective of their "birth" origins - and call all of them "Brahmin" as long as they are being educated.
Far fetched, and "dreamer" produced perhaps! But then again, why not?

The word "marga-darshak" reminds me that some organizations already perhaps have this model built-in into their structure. But they have been successfully marginalized in the political arena, from a variety of factors and strategies.

Can we have an alternative, formally unconnected or associated with the pre-existing organizations, "core" that works on the same "Chanakya-ChandraGupta" model? The "disconnection" is necessary to not invite unwanted "attention". Such a group cannot have any personal secrets between themselves hidden from the others - for this is a vulnerability that is typically exploited by anti-nationalist or foreign regimes. Complete trust and reliability will be a key factor. Its policies, aims and objectives, has to be open as far as possible and feasible - to prevent excessive attempts at or pressure on its members from "agencies" desperately wanting to "penetrate" it. The question of whether a "large" group or a smaller "group" or even "individual pair" needs to be explored though.

Jayram · Post by **Jayram** » 17 Apr 2009 23:14

ramana wrote: If I may answer:

One of the hallmarks of Hindu/Indian psyche is renunciation/tyaag or self -sacrifice of this material world and the walkover to the other world in this life. Chanakya was able to do that and he commanded the respect and support of Chandragupta. This is the Rajaguru pathfinder role that has shown the way for the rajya or state.

One more mordern example of this person to the list is Abdul Kalam sir .
-Jayram

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 17 Apr 2009 23:28

brihaspati wrote:
As far as "varna" is concerned, my personal strategy is to promote the concept of "simultaneous" existence of all "varnas" inside a person - treat them as "gunas" that need to be cultivated to face specific situations/roles in life. When a student, or engaged in intellectual pursuits - a brahmin, when required to do physical or productive labour- a shudra, when engaged in trading and finance - a vaishya, and when fighting a war - a kshatryia. This is one possible interpretation of the notorious "purusha shukta". We can point out that, all the "varnas" are in the "purusha" - and the "body" does not function if you literally take the "limbs/parts" away from it (I think some of the early commentators do take this line). I have repeatedly suggested giving recognition to the importance of symbols and "social acknowledgement" of higher "status", and at least give "children" going for their first education- the "upaveetam" - irrespective of their "birth" origins - and call all of them "Brahmin" as long as they are being educated.
Far fetched, and "dreamer" produced perhaps! But then again, why not?
.

Brihaspatiji, this idea is good. Didn't mean to sidetrack the main thought process. Here is a link to an earlier post I made, that is in trashcan along similar lines.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 34#p532234

For example one creates following four categories the actions conducted based on the nature of the tasks.

z)Thinking
y)Protecting
m)Trading
a)Serving

So, having created those categories, one can look at the nature of task that is being performed and say this action belongs to "thinking category". Similarly other actions can also be assigned to other "categories". Now having assigned the actions to belong to a certain category does not make a person conducting that action to be that category. i.e, a person conducting the act of protecting (category y) is not ruled out from performing actions belonging to categories z,m and a. In fact, to arrive at conducting a task belonging to category y, one also has perform other actions belonging to different category simultaneously.

It is simplistic to say that the person performing this action is called protector, as if thinker, trader and server in him/her
is not recognised. By simplistically calling this person as "protector" it just becomes easy to understand the situation, that is all.

Where does this simplification serve the purpose? It would serve for some generalist in an organizational setup, so her/his understanding can be gross.
Having said this what is the purpose of stating that a person belonging to such and such jati also were called "protectors" or "thinkers" etc?
Note only the actions are categorized, whence from the people categorization?