Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

[Atri]

Now that INC will govern India for next 5 years, most probably, there won't be a coup in TSP for a while...

[brihaspati]

I guess a lot of BRFites now are in mourning. But I have tried to gently say from time to time that counting too much on BJP was not advisable. The BJP has come a long way, but there has been a tremedous amount of financial, social and political investment into the INC, both internally from within India as well as from outside. Those who have invested would not be pleased at the loss of such investments so easily. Moreover, the elite core within the INC have learnt their lessons well after getting penalized whenever their leader stepped out of line with nationalist initiatives that promised increasing military or economic might of India out and away from western interests. With two prominent leaders assassinated physically, and one assassinated politically. So they now work in tandem with external interests.

These are issues that have to be understood for the future, and I have tried to indicate through many of my posts that these issues had always been there from the days of the colonial occupation. I see the following major issues that should be considered for the future:

(1) The question of external interests and their agents or representatives within the rashtryia machinery, as well as political parties. The INC now primarily the playing field of western interests, with subplays between American and European interests. If the European component wins out, US will invest more in BJP.

(2) the question of possibility of fall of the northern parts of India to Islamic forces, and the south and NE to the EJ. Possibility of indirect long term steps undertaken to compromise on J&K with Pak and Western agenda. The general mood is being geared gradually to a similar state as that was used as an excuse for agreeing to the Partition - too much trouble and hassle - and the people will in general accept or made to be seen to accept this excuse.

(3) more sops given to PRC, probably under twin pressure of UK+EU and US, as part of global bargaining, and the Tibetan cause probably given up for good.

(4) the BJP either realizing the importance of the "foreign" connection behind successes in domestic politics, and skillfully use that, (Shia against Wahabism, Catholicism against EJ) or giving it up altogether

(5) the necessity of a longer term socio-cultural-political move of consolidation based on "Indic" values and objectives that keeps all of the above factors in mind. I am not sure that the supposed existing bodies claiming to do this have been able to project themselves sufficiently in this direction. If they have been "clouded" or stained too much with images that cannot be "positivized", it is time to think of new entities pehaps. In fact such multiple faces could be beneficial in the sense of between-themselves-splitting of different segments of intensity of opinions.

[raji]

Look at the threads and posts related to Indian elections. Almost 99% of the posts fall in one of the following categories:

1) Advice by BRF posters to Congress

2) Advice by BRF posters to the BJP

3) Advice by BRF posters to individual leaders

4) Dire warnings

5) Fraud via EVMs and other means

6) The West (uncle in particular) influencing the election

7) Seneseless rants


What purpose do any or all of the above serve ? Is this a rant forum or a joke of a forum ? Does anybody seriously believe that anyone to whom the advice is directed at is listening or reading ? Even so, advice of the nature "the congress should now shed its anti national policies and follow nationalistic policies" serve any purpose whatsoever ? It would seem like the job of any forum administrator or moderator is to moderate out these kinds of non sensical posts, rather than threatening people with a ban for posts that they may appear out of step with the variety of posts mentioned above. The moderators are promoting this kind of non-sense(such as above mntioned variety of posts) that doesnt say anything simply allows people to rant. This has turned off many thoughtful people who now dont post on this forum, as there is no discourse, simply rants.

It doesnt serve any purpose advising political parties or leaders. They know the facts and their options far better than us. The purpose of this forum should be, not to live in a parallel universe, but to develop new and fresh ideas through robust discourse. Even if there are no further means to propogate these ideas, good ideas have a life of their own and will get out in the universe and prevail and propogate just on the strength of the ideas themselves. If that doesnt happen, then the challenge for this forum is to further refine those ideas until they become irresistable to all.

[Keshav]

Raji -
What should we be talking about?

[brihaspati]

Raji-ji,
I thought my point (5) was sort of trying to think forward? And the previous four points were to keep the issues in context. Or do you think this also belongs to negativism?

[raji]

Raji -
What should we be talking about?

Many things that I will list below. But if we have nothing to talk about, lets keep silent, rather than talk non sense.

We can talk about:

1) Why is it that BRF seem to have one sense of reality of India (almost a parallel universe), where nationalism rules and it is very obvious, we should be hardline in foreign and defense policies and pursue a more or less free market economic policy, from most of the people in India who have voted to the tune of 80% (BJP only got 19% of all votes cast), against nationlism in foreign and defense policies and against free market policies. Where is the disconnect ? Would it not be wiser to discuss 1) the fact that we are disconnected with the rest of India, 2) Why we are disconnected and 3) how we can, if not sync ourselves with rest of India, at least acknowledge and understand what drives the 80% who dont think like us

2) How do you build institutions in India that are constructive and self perpetuating over a long period of time, without getting corrupted, so that institutions perform well and efficiently as intended. One of the major problems of India is that you cant point to a single institution (even the army is now getting terribly corrupted) that is robust and performs well and as intended. We Indians are the worst institution builders in the history of the universe and we must discuss how we become institution builders, without which you cannot accomplish any goals. Individual effort can only go so far

There are many other things, but lets start with the above two.

[raji]

Raji-ji,
I thought my point (5) was sort of trying to think forward? And the previous four points were to keep the issues in context. Or do you think this also belongs to negativism?

I was not refering to your posts at all, which I have found to be refreshingly constructive........

[Keshav]

1) Why is it that BRF seem to have one sense of reality of India (almost a parallel universe), where nationalism rules and it is very obvious, we should be hardline in foreign and defense policies and pursue a more or less free market economic policy, from most of the people in India who have voted to the tune of 80% (BJP only got 19% of all votes cast), against nationlism in foreign and defense policies and against free market policies. Where is the disconnect ? Would it not be wiser to discuss 1) the fact that we are disconnected with the rest of India, 2) Why we are disconnected and 3) how we can, if not sync ourselves with rest of India, at least acknowledge and understand what drives the 80% who dont think like us

BRF is a military forum so there is a reason by defense policies are a big issue here. I would agree with you that BRF does have a misplaced emphasis on national security which is something the average Indian doesn't care for. That should not impede discussion about that the subject (because it is obviously important) but it cannot be an campaign issue since most of the people don't live in the city and aren't affected by terrorism. BRF is inherently a national forum, but the Congress probably won because of local issues.

BRF and the BJP has lost sight of the trees for the forest. It is solving the problems of each individual constituency that will lead to national victory. I brought this up a while back but someone told me I was derailing the national conversation!

Normally, there aren't that many people who have pushed for an American-style free market policy. Modi, for example has done a good job of pushing for less restriction while using the government to enroll students (girls as well) into school, give the necessities, give training to poor workers, etc.

To be honest, no one really knows why people voted for Congress. In the later parts of the campaign, the BJP tried to push its image of "security and development". Barring the Hindutva stuff for which most people don't care as much, its image was that of "Congress-lite".

And ultimately, people wanted a strong government at the center and Congress was the one towing that line from day one.

Discussing what the disconnect is hard because people will automatically bring to the forum what there everday experiences teach them. You can't say that every individual on this forum is disconnected from his or her society, can you?

So what was the disconnect here that caused the BJP downfall?

(And thats another thing. The BJP needs to have more women candidates. There are surely many qualified ones out there)

2) How do you build institutions in India that are constructive and self perpetuating over a long period of time, without getting corrupted, so that institutions perform well and efficiently as intended. One of the major problems of India is that you cant point to a single institution (even the army is now getting terribly corrupted) that is robust and performs well and as intended. We Indians are the worst institution builders in the history of the universe and we must discuss how we become institution builders, without which you cannot accomplish any goals. Individual effort can only go so far

There are many other things, but lets start with the above two.

Corruption is not only an individual problem, but a societal problem. If people believe it is acceptable or have nothing to lose, they will be corrupt. A steady income could probably prevent a lot of police officer corruption but the other thing is conviction.

Does the BJP really believe in its own message? Do Congress workers believe in their own message? Are the true believers on each side just smarter? Probably.

Hindus are religious in different ways. While Muslims and Christians believe part of their faith is the application to society, Hindus still cling to the belief that planetary alignments and sudarshana chakras are going to do their bidding. Religion in India is a cultural issue as well as a faith issue - even if you aren't practicing, there are certain aspects of your worldview and culture that define someone as a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, etc.

This is probably one of the many differences between BJP and Congress voters.

Or maybe people just need to accept that Hindus just don't want to be political.

[brihaspati]

Maybe building everlasting institutions will not be a good idea. For over time such institutions will ossify. During my "leftist" days, I wrote down a thesis on why ultimately communist orgs of the centrist/parliamentary type in India will eventually decay and get detached from people. I think the same model applies to a lot of institutional structures we can think of in India.

The process very briefly is as follows:

Once the institution becomes more important than the people it connects to, and is seen as the source of power and benefits, leaders at each level will try to recruit members who will be reliable supporters in internal competition for power and resources. Now who make the best such "supporter"? Those who have some kind of "weakness" or vulnerability that can be manipulated by the leader to keep the "follower" dependent and in thrall. What are the best weaknesses - those that make the follower weak in terms of gaining independent political clout, including popular support.

As each level of leaders promote such followers, who in turn promote similar categories into the next lower level, gradually the entire structure alienates itself from the people.

Now why does Cong manage to survive? It does not rely on hierarchical competitive leadership. It has long ago adopted the classical Caesarian/Stalinist model of making the apparatus of institutional power dependent on the apparatus of personal power (Caesar tried but failed and Stalin succeeded). So that whatever be the competition at the lower levels, everyone aspiring for personal power knows that it is dependent on the apparatus of personal power held by the dynasty. Thus Cong can survive even without grassroots org. This of course needed careful implantation and support from the transitioning colonial powers in the first place.

Left's initial successes and its downs are an important lesson as to how this Cong paradigm can be tackled even without the external foundational support. Left took up popular issues, close to the interests of the majority - sometimes a mere practical demand for cheap food. There are many such issues which cannot be opposed by the Cong with any degree of credibility but still close to the hearts of millions.

There has to be a clear understanding with the industrialists that what they want cannot be done without political power first being obtained, and hence that they have to cooperate for a period, when "populist" or "social-subsidies" have to be given while a whole generation is being prepared through social investment for the next stage of industrialization. Temporarily, they can be encouraged and formally supported to expand outside of India.

There is little option other than, I guess, to reverse the paradigm of "caste", retrieve commonality between various hierarchies and fractures within the "Hindu", create conditions where these reversals are credible and convincing, and become "pro-poor". At the same time preserve the industrial engine by supporting it aggressively to expand outside as much as possible, while a massive investment in education and infrrastructure is undertaken to change the direction of mass psyche. A compulsory national education scheme and service, a national health scheme and service, and microcredit to make capital avaialable where it doesn't reach would have spoken volumes.

[raji]

Well, a lot of what you say makes sense, Keshav. But consider this.

I think we can kinda hone in on exactly what and why the disconnect. Many years ago, when I was a teenager and not as exposed to the world (and I dont mean international world.........just the world outside my family or my immediate comfort zone)...I used to think just like most BRF folks, that my world is IT. All my friends came from similar backgrounds and thought like me, so there was a lot of inspeak and bravado and we were secure in our own little world. As I experienced the world more, particularly different facets of life in India, ranging from rural agrarianism to urban poverty, from bureaucrats to politicians, from police to the army, from enterpreneurs to professionals, from landlords to farm labor and from industrialist to urban labor, note that I have not inserted the diversity in caste, regions etc in my statement yet, I began to be very uncomfortable, as they all saw reality and India as very different from what I had grown up with. I encountered hostility, extreme hostility, when I put forward my ideas, which were very similar to what are expounded by most people in BRF. I found, for instance, that the viceral dislike (I am avoiding calling it hatred), that the urban labor had towards the industrialist or the professional was direct and immediate and he wore in on his sleave. He was not much concerned about the national security situation vis-a-vis Pakistan. Most urban poor that I encountered, and I engaged in very long conversations in many slums, were either OBC or Dalits and they were extremely militant. It was almost as if, they had been suppressed for centuries and they have just been empowered over the last few years and there was a lot of anger, disrespect for people like me and total disregard for the law. They had understood that their numbers in the form of a vote bank and in the form of a mob, which could go on a rampage, or a demonstration or in a rally in response to a call by politicians, along with constant media and film world highlighting their real and not so real plight in the past and the present, gave them tremendous power. They could use this power to disregard the law with impunity, such as encroaching on all urban public lands, where no bureaucrat, politician or law enforcement would stop them. Not only that, the politicians encourged lawlessness among them and protected them from law enforcement by snapping at the police "why are you oppressing these poor people........let them make a living on this little piece of land", in order to cultivate the vote bank, but more importantly use the mob to intimidate others and set themselves up as feared mafioso type figures.

Therefore, in this environment, the dialogue among the urban poor, in the example above, was never about economic policy that may benefit them in the long run, but which piece of land or public resource they can lay their hands on today, this minute, not even tomorrow........which politician will help them and how they can thumb their noses at what they perceive to be upper classes, but who actually are the middle class and the educated. No one there discusses the threats from radicalization of muslims or what is happening in J&K.

Same hostility, anger, empowerment and greed is by and large prevelent in the rural poor.

The landless poor and the urban poor together account for at least 60% of the population of India if not more.

The rich and the middle class suffer from their own greed and hostility towards law. A businessman or a trader in todays India doesnt care much about J&K, he cares more about how he can avoid the excise tax tomorrow or how he can bribe local politicians and bureacrats to harass his competetion. An industrialist cares more about how he can get bank loans against overvalued assets and not pay it back. A doctor worries about how he can make more money by performing unnecessary surgeries. An engineer is happy building bridges on paper and sharing the loot with the politician rather than actually building a bridge or roads. A general is far more interested in commissions on procurements than providing a warm jacket for the jawan serving on the border.

Everyone is only consumed with his immediate self interest, most of it illegitimage or against the law. Who cares about long term policy, foreign, defence or domestic ? Each person then votes, as you said correctly, based on those immediate local considerations and which politician will help them in their immediate, narrow, personal concern, mostly in illegal ways.

That is the disconnect.

[SRoy]

^^

Raji

Good post. I've tried in past, but you have coherently put it together.

[raji]

^^

Raji

Good post. I've tried in past, but you have coherently put it together.

Thanks, from reading your posts across several threads, I can see that you share these sentiments. And dont sell yourself short, your posts are very direct, coherent and hard hitting as well.

So, what is the solution. I dont necessarily believe there is only one solution. But if you are a serious thinker, you cannot avoid thinking of the following as one of the serious solutions.

THE IDEA OF A CLASSLESS, CASTELESS SOCIETY, with heavy penalties on casteist practices, casteist policies, casteist calls for vote banks etc and yes, even casteist speech. Perhaps even reservations in jobs, only for those people who have married outside of their castes or whose parents did so.

Last time I brought up this idea on BRF, I was viciously beaten, bruised and I was indisposed for several months. Obviously, I was also almost banned.

[SRoy]

^^
Raji,

The current election results actually echoes the experiences you noted. Please keep posting in this thread.

[brihaspati]

^^ Aha..only now I came to understand the first initial remarks I obtained on the forum - as "reminding of a poster called raji".

[SRoy]

brihaspati,

can I have your email ID?

[brihaspati]

raji-ji,
I support your basic motivation regarding "caste". From the pragamatic viewpoint, I feel that we may not be able to do away with it at one go. Far greater motivators than us have tried it historically, but their efforts have remained marginal in effect. The primary reason perhaps not being so much an anger against any hierarchy at all, but at the perceived lower position within that hierarchy. Some who complain of "highers" repression find nothing amiss in repressing those they perceive as "lower". Thus, the "higher" could be a secretly coveted status recognition, which in turn once attained, could be used to bolster self-esteem and sense of power by behaving exactly as the previous "higher"s.

This was my reason to suggest not a denial of the entire concept, but reversing the concept to make it all coexistent inside the individual. So that between individuals there remains no hierarchical distinctions as regards caste. Could be tough to force down the throat.

[raji]

raji-ji,
I support your basic motivation regarding "caste". From the pragamatic viewpoint, I feel that we may not be able to do away with it at one go. Far greater motivators than us have tried it historically, but their efforts have remained marginal in effect. The primary reason perhaps not being so much an anger against any hierarchy at all, but at the perceived lower position within that hierarchy. Some who complain of "highers" repression find nothing amiss in repressing those they perceive as "lower". Thus, the "higher" could be a secretly coveted status recognition, which in turn once attained, could be used to bolster self-esteem and sense of power by behaving exactly as the previous "higher"s.

This was my reason to suggest not a denial of the entire concept, but reversing the concept to make it all coexistent inside the individual. So that between individuals there remains no hierarchical distinctions as regards caste. Could be tough to force down the throat.

1. You are absolutely right. It is extremely difficult. But I remember in 1991, it was considered equally or even more impossible, the idea of almost dollar convertability, free market reforms in India etc. I remember talking to high ranking IAS officers in Delhi and renowned Indian economists of the Reserve Bank, IMF and WB vintage in the 1980s and they used to make fun of and used to be very flippant about the idea of the free market. "I dont understand what a free market economy is", used to be a common refrain. But when the country was on the cusp of bankruptcy in 1992, out of necessity, Indians and the Congress Party, no less, embarked on an almost total reversal of its own policies of the past 50 years....so, necessity is the mother........and if we understand the necessity as a people, we can then do it.......I am critical of Indians, but I am also a great fan of their pragmatism, to do amazing things, provided they understand its necessary. There is no choice. The 15% so called forwards, are today in a pathetic state of being today's Dalits. They are totally un-empowered. Already they are suffering untold indignities every day, institutionally at the hand of government and other institutions and personally and systemically. It is almost like, the other 80% dont consider them Indians or relevent, they are almost treated by our system as outcasts. They have no choice but to pay their way for every little thing and politically bounce from BJP to Congress to even BSP of all places.....a sign of their total helplessness. In order to be relevent and have a voice, we, the so called ex forwards, have to get back into the mainstream again, not on their terms by becoming destructive and corrupt, but on our terms, and we can only have the higher moral ground to dictate our own terms if we go in with the idea of a classless, casteless society and are willing to socially integrate with others, through marriage etc. Whats the difference between that and the millions of marriages today that are taking place between people who were considered good families and the new rich ? If there is no indignity in marrying the new rich, why is there an indignity in marrying the newly empowered ?


2. You are also absolutely right in your psycho-analysis as to why it is extremely difficult. The need amongst us to feel superior. This is a psychological disturbance, you can also call it a psychosis or in layman's term damaged psyche resulting from extreme trauma (either childhood or as a result of living in an abnormal, unnatural society such as India of recent times). Secure and healthy people suffer from no such psychosis, as they emotionally are in synch with their intellect. I am sure, intellectually, all Indians are OK with the idea of a classless, casteless society, but emotionally they cannot come to terms with it, precisely because of the damaged psyche. So, once we are able to bring our emotions in line with our intellect, we will have a classless and casteless society. No one in their right minds actually intellectually thinks that the lower castes are inherently inferior (genetically or otherwise), so what is the obstacle ?

3. Where you lost me is when you say that you are trying to find a middle way through an individual, where there is no caste differences between individuals. I really didnt get it. Can you please explain in layman's term, so I understand, what the proposition is and then how this might work.

[brihaspati]

raji-ji,

as an explanation, this is part of my post on the "demise of secularism to..." thread :

I believe one of the primary obstructions in the way of "Hindu" unification is not the questioning mind of Hindu that makes him or her question everything. This is simply not true, as many of the features we see in the Hindu would have vanished then. Varna by birth, among many others, for example.

But I believe, there is much more fundamental error that lies in the general understanding of the "Hindu" about itself. It is the question of failing to correctly interpret the duality of metaphors used in older narrative texts that lay out our philosophy as regards organization of society.

The error starts in failing to understand the metaphor of the "purusha" as a dual model of "individual as society" and "society as individual". While we have generally taken the "society as individual" aspect only, and divided up and fractured society itself in terms of body parts, we have completely neglected the other dual aspect.

If we go by the "individual as society", we get a different practical interpretation, which says, that we look for all those different characteristics within the "body" - the existential, experiential conscious framework of the individual - of the the individual. Which means, we look for the Shudra, the Vaishya, the Kshatryia nd the Brahmin all in the same individual. These are "gunas" that are there in every individual, and all these gunas need to collaborate and cooperate, even dominate or come forward depending on the needs of the individual under a particular circumstance. An intellectual engaged primarily in intellectual pursuits cannot claim to be excused when faced with violence and the need to take up arms to keep his commitments - of defending other individuals, family or members of society - because that would be like behaving as a "kshatryia", or refuse to work the land to grow necessities to feed his dependants because that would be like behaving as a "shudra". Recognition and acceptance that these are gunas inherent and necessary to be cultivated simultaneously in all individuals is a key step towards dissolution of the false barriers we have put up between ourselves.

By birth we are all "amritasya putraa". Let us reclaim that birthright.

[raji]

raji-ji,

as an explanation, this is part of my post on the "demise of secularism to..." thread :

I believe one of the primary obstructions in the way of "Hindu" unification is not the questioning mind of Hindu that makes him or her question everything. This is simply not true, as many of the features we see in the Hindu would have vanished then. Varna by birth, among many others, for example.

But I believe, there is much more fundamental error that lies in the general understanding of the "Hindu" about itself. It is the question of failing to correctly interpret the duality of metaphors used in older narrative texts that lay out our philosophy as regards organization of society.

The error starts in failing to understand the metaphor of the "purusha" as a dual model of "individual as society" and "society as individual". While we have generally taken the "society as individual" aspect only, and divided up and fractured society itself in terms of body parts, we have completely neglected the other dual aspect.

If we go by the "individual as society", we get a different practical interpretation, which says, that we look for all those different characteristics within the "body" - the existential, experiential conscious framework of the individual - of the the individual. Which means, we look for the Shudra, the Vaishya, the Kshatryia nd the Brahmin all in the same individual. These are "gunas" that are there in every individual, and all these gunas need to collaborate and cooperate, even dominate or come forward depending on the needs of the individual under a particular circumstance. An intellectual engaged primarily in intellectual pursuits cannot claim to be excused when faced with violence and the need to take up arms to keep his commitments - of defending other individuals, family or members of society - because that would be like behaving as a "kshatryia", or refuse to work the land to grow necessities to feed his dependants because that would be like behaving as a "shudra". Recognition and acceptance that these are gunas inherent and necessary to be cultivated simultaneously in all individuals is a key step towards dissolution of the false barriers we have put up between ourselves.

By birth we are all "amritasya putraa". Let us reclaim that birthright.

Ok, I think I understand, although it is heady stuff.

So, you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that each individual should get enlightened to his true nature and act accordingly.

Fine.

Do you think the society, as we commonly define it, should have laws or rules outlawing unacceptable behaviour, for those that do not get enlightened and act in ways that are detrimental for everybody ? Ordinarly, I am a libertarian, accept in case of extreme emergencies, and I think this is a period of extreme emergency for Hindus and therefore, there have to be some laws or rules against casteist practices and articulation and even subtle and implicit cateism. Also, there should be some rewards by the society for desirable behaviour, such as preferences in jobs, not by caste or religion, but by the extent to which individuals have gone towards attaining this enlightenment as individuals, that you suggest.

Your opinion ??

[brihaspati]

raji-ji,
my demand is simple. I am just saying that Hindus accept this dual interpretation of the classical "purusha". That all the varnas are simply "gunas" which exist in each individual simultaneously. Each of these gunas must be cultivated, so that as and when necessary, these qualities and all their associated criteria are brought out depending on the context. When engaged in intellectual pursuit, getting or giving education, the brahmin guna predominates. This same person, when required, should take up arms to defend himself, his family, his nation and behave as the kshatryia. This same person, when required, will work the field as a farmer and produce food to feed his family and his nation, when required, as a shudra. The same person, when required will carry out trade and enterprise, for his family and for the nation, as a vaishya. When all the "distinct" categories exist within the same person, there cannot be hierarchies based on them outside between individuals. Neither can they be spearated out as by birth.

This can be started as individuals pledging it voluntarily, collectively, and acknowledging each other mutually as such. The first trasnitions have to come voluntarily, in a core group, who feel and treat each other as a "band of brothers and sisters". I do not see any state or legal machinery that will be interested in such initiatives, so I would see it as a voluntarily started mass movement. I would see such a group as having other features of interaction as well - ones that reconfirms the bond within the network.

[Pranav]

We Indians are the worst institution builders in the history of the universe and we must discuss how we become institution builders, without which you cannot accomplish any goals. Individual effort can only go so far

Raji, your experience may be limited. What institutions like ISRO, BARC have achieved is very creditable by any standards.

[Pranav]

The rich and the middle class suffer from their own greed and hostility towards law. A businessman or a trader in todays India doesnt care much about J&K, he cares more about how he can avoid the excise tax tomorrow or how he can bribe local politicians and bureacrats to harass his competetion. An industrialist cares more about how he can get bank loans against overvalued assets and not pay it back. A doctor worries about how he can make more money by performing unnecessary surgeries. An engineer is happy building bridges on paper and sharing the loot with the politician rather than actually building a bridge or roads. A general is far more interested in commissions on procurements than providing a warm jacket for the jawan serving on the border.

Everyone is only consumed with his immediate self interest, most of it illegitimage or against the law. Who cares about long term policy, foreign, defence or domestic ? Each person then votes, as you said correctly, based on those immediate local considerations and which politician will help them in their immediate, narrow, personal concern, mostly in illegal ways.

That is the disconnect.

Yes, there is the disconnect and there are two factors behind it:

One is an overall absence of civic spirit (after all India has not been independent for the last 1000 years, and I doubt that it can be called truly independent today). For example, Maoist terrorists are deliberately let off, and people get their family blown up by those Maoists. But there is not enough empathy with the relatives who are picking up the bloody body parts. At least, not enough empathy to hold the Government accountable for what they did. People are not educated by the media, and in any case are sunk in their own miseries to care.

Second is inability to see the big picture. The poor labourer who goes with his sick baby to the primary health center, and the baby dies because of the corruption and abject facilities there - that labourer cannot connect his plight with the billions in the Gandhi family's Swiss bank accounts. Yet these two phenomena are inextricably linked.

No political party, including the BJP, has been successful in showing people the big picture. IMHO, there is one good communicator in India today, and that is NaMo. The BJP should set-up its own TV channels and newspapers to make sure the message gets the exposure it deserves.

[shiv]

A businessman or a trader in todays India doesnt care much about J&K, he cares more about how he can avoid the excise tax tomorrow or how he can bribe local politicians and bureacrats to harass his competetion. An industrialist cares more about how he can get bank loans against overvalued assets and not pay it back. A doctor worries about how he can make more money by performing unnecessary surgeries. An engineer is happy building bridges on paper and sharing the loot with the politician rather than actually building a bridge or roads

A lot of the actions that raji has described above are justified by the people who perform these actions as being based on duty to their family/community. The bank manager does not give a loan to just anyone. The bank manager gives the loan to a person of the same caste - or a person from the same area of the state. He is helping his community "because everyone else is doing the same things" for his own community

The excise contractor has got himself appointed into the position on the basis of his community. The local politician and bureaucrat can be influenced on the basis of caste and community because they have been taught from childhood that they belong to an extended community/caste which is the only "eternal support" they can rely on. Supporting the extended family is part of one's dharma or duty. This attitude is quite far away from the idealized dharma that tends to get discussed on BRF.

The doctor gets an endless series of patients from his own community that support him and look after him. The unnecessary surgeries are "necessary surgeries" as long as he justifies them and other doctors will not take a stand against him because they they too stand on similar shaky ground.

As long as such activities go on unchecked, all is well. But when someone raises points such as the ones I have listed, everyone's comfort zone is breached. Everyone's activity is under threat, so nobody will do anything to bring about change. Accusing anyone of taking a caste based action is instantly decried as "being casteist".

An employee of my wife recently returned to her village to vote. She returned and remarked "I voted for HD Kumaraswamy. (Deve Gowda's son). We are all Gowdas. We vote only for Gowdas."

As we discussed long ago "caste" is a bad word - but "caste" merely denotes "extended family" and helping one's extended family is one's dharma.

Try and get India out of this? Hindutva will come down heavily on you like a thousand tons of bricks if you so much as squeak that certain practices that some "modernist" people like raji call as "corrupt or unfair" have a connection with the pure and un corruptible Hinduism.

So we spend most of our time opposing everything that is needed to change things for the better on the basis of some flimsy excuse or the other.

[Rudradev]

The local politician and bureaucrat can be influenced on the basis of caste and community because they have been taught from childhood that they belong to an extended community/caste which is the only "eternal support" they can rely on. Supporting the extended family is part of one's dharma or duty. This attitude is quite far away from the idealized dharma that tends to get discussed on BRF....

As we discussed long ago "caste" is a bad word - but "caste" merely denotes "extended family" and helping one's extended family is one's dharma.
.

Fair enough. But negating "caste" would be a horribly inefficient and probably futile corrective path to attempt. Better to use existing substructures as the foundation for a future scenario than waste time and energy trying to destroy them and rebuild from scratch.

The advantage that the predatory religions have is that destruction of existing institutions is a necessary part of their making inroads and establishing themselves... so they can say "reject caste, reject Hinduism also, and come into our fold instead... the baby has already drowned in the bathwater so throw them both out!"

For a Hindu revival, though, these substructures are the only advantage we have. We must turn them into strengths and build on them, rather than trying to compete with the predatory religions in "destroy and rebuild" strategies at which they are the experts.

The idea of "caste patronage" being the source of disunity (among Hindus, Indians or any larger identification set) arises from the fact that castes... extended families if you like... are in competition over scarce resources. That's why when one caste elects its corrupt neta and seeks preferential treatment from him later, it necessarily comes at the expense of other castes' interests, and competition between castes tends to a zero-sum game. Such a game is damaging not only to the unity of any larger identification set, but also to collective development because energies are being wasted on infighting.

Had resources been plentiful the very same idea of "it is dharmic to help your extended family" could have been not just beneficial but utopian. What is wrong with the idea that you can rely on a wider group of people for "eternal support", as long as that support doesn't have to harm the interest of some other group? Isn't it the basis, when extended to its logical conclusion, of "vasudhaiva kutumbakam"?

Our problem is that we've modeled our presuppositions for the development of nationalism on Western predicates. We want to first have a society that is NOT divided by caste lines, or where caste/religion/community/regional affiliation have become vestigial... IOW, an India in our own BRF-ite Macaulayputra image. Once this unrealistic aspiration is fulfilled, we think, the new breed of "Bharat-first" Indian will start thinking in terms of "what is best for the country" rather than what is most advantageous for his little "extended family"/caste/clan etc. and exercise his mandate at the polls accordingly.

This won't happen because of the chicken-and-egg conundrum inherent in such a model: does social change come first, or political change? After all, social change is necessary to provide an overarching attitude of "civic duty", "supreme patriotism", "national unity above caste affiliation" and all that. But to create social change it is necessary (or at least tremendously helpful) to have political power... which comes from bringing about political change (getting yourself into a position of national authority). But how does political change happen when there hasn't been social change, and everyone still prioritizes their "extended family" over the national interest? Political parties continue to fight elections on cobbled-together caste equations that depend on caste rivalries to succeed... so the political establishment has no incentive to induce social change.

The BJP (just as an example) decided that political change must take precedence over social change. True, they used the Ayodhya movement as a "tactically brilliant" tool of social change to help leapfrog them into the inner circles of national-level political power.

However, the Hindutva they tried to ride on lacked social definition even unto itself, let alone having any relevance to the "extended family dharma" that is today's REAL face of Hinduism.

It was based on pointless reactionarism (being against Muslim-pandering, missionary activity, birthday cakes and Valentine's Day cards) rather than any positive articulation of what a Hindu Rashtra must be.

It was based on channeling short-lived, futile bursts of issue-based social and economic frustration in response to accelerated, globalization-driven change, but provided no stable mechanisms or institutions that ensured prolonged social and economic security in the face of such change. Even the Binori Madrassa for all its barbarism provides some degree of "security", in its own way... but Hindutva of today doesn't even do that.

And it was based on presenting an endless succession of paranoiac scenarios (Muslims are coming, EJs are coming, Naxals are coming) but without presenting any credible solutions... and instead leaving it to rothudu Cassandras to fall-back on the old Brahminical fatalism (Hindoos are like this onlee, we will destroy ourselves onlee). In today's world, such an attitude equals defeatism, and nobody wants to hitch their wagon to a loser.

As a result of all this, BJP couldn't effect political change profound enough or enduring enough to carry out their social change agenda. The ones who most volubly invest hope in the BJP are the small privileged class of Hindus represented by our Macaulayputra crew on BR... because they represent what WE would have voted for as "supreme patriots" with "civic sense" who place the "country first". Ironically you can't be more out of touch with the real face of Hinduism than the most faithful political base of the "Hindutva" party. With the sole exception of Narendra Modi, whose exemplary governance in Gujarat is responsible for the reputation he enjoys, none of its other leaders have achieved enduring success on the strength of ideology alone.

For positive change of either the social or political variety to have any chance of successfully establishing itself, three things must be done.

The first thing is to remove, or at least take the edge off the desperate intensity of competition between "extended families"... which leads to compounding bitterness and mutual antipathy. This comes from economic development. If what we're reading about the Congress having provided unprecedented economic development in rural areas over the last five years is true, then I am glad they have returned to power and hope they will continue to do what they were doing in even more areas.

The second step is to further extend the notion of "caste as extended family" until it encompasses a nation, while keeping intact the idea that it is Dharmic to help one's extended family. That will give rise to what Pranav has described as "civic sense" in an earlier post. And it will save us the pointless effort of tilting at Westphalian windmills of "Secularism" and "Egalitarianism", of trying to tear down what exists in favour of a new order sketched on a clean slate... by invoking a solution that is embedded in the Hindu context instead.

The final step, to ensure that society can never again be riven by the sort of extended-family competition we see in operation today, is to bring about a fundamentally new paradigm of caste (and of Hindu identity itself) that Brihaspati has articulated here.... and which I've heard alluded to at several Vedanta discourses I've attended. The paradigm of the individual as society, encompassing all traits or gunas of the different castes within him or herself.

However, such a paradigm will ring hollow until economic opportunity has been extended to all castes... the yawning rift between rich and poor, as Raji has described, crystallizes disunity to the point of violent militancy and intensifies the conflict between our "extended families" to an extent that threatens the very being of our nation.

This of course, still doesn't answer the chicken-or-egg question: does the political change come first, to enable the social? Or must the social change come first to empower the political?

As I said, BJP bet on trying to effect political change first before social change, but they lost.

MK Gandhi on the other hand... the only success story we really have to go by... began with social change, or at any rate never lost sight of or never de-prioritized social change throughout the pursuit of his political agenda. He did succeed in effecting profound political change... maybe not ideal change in our opinions but certainly an improvement over genocidal British rule. However, the sort of efforts he had to undertake to acquire the credibility needed to begin the social change, itself a mammoth project... are staggering to contemplate.

Then again there is one family... a real family of blood relatives, who have been in public life for five generations and who have managed to push the concept of "the extended family's external support" to a trans-caste, trans-community, trans-regional, national scale. They are voted for by many many Hindus, even the "my-caste-first" ones who believe it is "dharma to support my extended family onlee" in most spheres of their lives. We may hate that family... we who wish that all Indians would rise beyond their caste identifications and hold national identity supreme. But for our own sakes we should study what they have done, because there's no question they're doing something right.

This "family" heads what is once again (after a hiatus) apparently becoming India's natural party of governance... an "extended family" that encompasses perhaps the largest democratic political organization in the world, with millions of devoted workers and loyal followers. Even with a Mlecchini, an outsider, in charge... this "family" commands such stature that millions of "caste groups" or "extended families" from across the nation repose in them the responsibility for governing the country.

Can we see in this a sign of hope that perhaps India still allows for the existence of social contracts which extend beyond a single caste or community or "extended family"... that millions of different "extended families" can engage in that relationship of support-and-patronage collectively with one specific "extended family" at a trans-caste, trans-class and nationwide level?

Maybe these "enemies of Hinduism" and "agents of the Vatican" understand Hindu society, and the social contract behind Hindu rashtra, better than we ourselves do.

[shiv]

The idea of "caste patronage" being the source of disunity (among Hindus, Indians or any larger identification set) arises from the fact that castes... extended families if you like... are in competition over scarce resources. That's why when one caste elects its corrupt neta and seeks preferential treatment from him later, it necessarily comes at the expense of other castes' interests, and competition between castes tends to a zero-sum game. Such a game is damaging not only to the unity of any larger identification set, but also to collective development because energies are being wasted on infighting.

Had resources been plentiful the very same idea of "it is dharmic to help your extended family" could have been not just beneficial but utopian. What is wrong with the idea that you can rely on a wider group of people for "eternal support", as long as that support doesn't have to harm the interest of some other group? Isn't it the basis, when extended to its logical conclusion, of "vasudhaiva kutumbakam"?

The confounding fact of course is that community and the family actually does perform things in India that the state can never do. Care of the elderly and sick and of nursing mothers and young children, and support for the unemployed are "communal" acts that form the basis of society in India. It is only the Macaulayputras who have tended to migrate out of the system.

But you have used a word that I would have used in my very next post - namely "patronage"

India operates on a "patronage" system that in my personal experience has come in the way of implementation of good governance. I need to explain this experience based on my role in the local residents welfare association in the area that I live.

We liaised with Ramesh Ramanathan (one of the RNRI "greats" India has produced) and his association "Janagraha" to improve local services. We fine tuned the system by meeting the government functionaries, exchanging information etc and found that in Bangalore at least the government functionaries were by and large ready to help. Oh yes the corrupt money makers were there too and are still there, but we found ourselves very effective in using citizen power to make the system run. the theory was that if every area in Bangalore had citizens activism of this sort - the entire city could be "cleaned up".

But this is where we hit a roadblock. Our next step was to liaise with other local residents associations to make the system work. But here we were completely knocked out of our path by the simple insistence of another association that they did not care think much of our methods. The senior leader of that association asked us "Why do you want t do all thins/ I know the local corporator. "All we do is phone him and he will do it as a personal favor for me"

We had been through all this. Patronage works only so far and no further and invariably pits one group against another. The system of patronage cannot coexist with good governance which should be neutral and fair to all. But India society believes in patronage without the insight that it is being unfair to someone else not far away.

If "patronage" could be extended to everyone equally, it would actually be exactly your view of "vasudaiva kutumbam" as well as my vieew of neutral governance, but patronage fails because the "patron" is doing it for personal glory. He wants the "respect" and to own the loyalty of a small group so that he can thumb his nose at another group and spite them Our patronage system has spawned a million small people with small minds and smaller aims.

[brihaspati]

Shivji and Rudradevji's posts gives me certain ideas. I may land up in Shivji's city in the not very distant future for professional reasons as an RNRI. It could be a great place to start experiments. As an "outsider" I can probably use my official disadvantages (lack of local multi-generational network connections - and therefore blood-line/extended family patronage obligations) towards "advantages". I think I have at least 35 years of activity left in me. Thats a long long time to do things. How many feel similarly?

[shiv]

Shivji and Rudradevji's posts gives me certain ideas. I may land up in Shivji's city in the not very distant future for professional reasons as an RNRI. It could be a great place to start experiments. As an "outsider" I can probably use my official disadvantages (lack of local multi-generational network connections - and therefore blood-line/extended family patronage obligations) towards "advantages". I think I have at least 35 years of activity left in me. Thats a long long time to do things. How many feel similarly?

brihaspati if you are coming to blore - please sound me off so we can meet.

[brihaspati]

Shivji, definitely!

[samuel]

From a nationalistic perspective a fundamental transformation that makes sense is for an Indian to have immense love of fellow Indian. Philosophically, at an international stage (or as nation expands and contracts), this becomes a kind of "nepotism" of course. To rid ourselves of this problem, the love for one and all appears to be the way out. We have various names for this principle. But love for all fails precisely when a competitive breed of humanity that loves its own kind over others is able to use that unity on an "adventure." One occupied our space and this has happened at other places too.

The fundamental problem is how cooperation and competition coexist at all scales; individuals, communities and nations. If members of welfare association cooperate, will they not endup competing against other welfare associations for finite resources? And if prosperity has reached everyone, neither cooperation nor competition will hinder in a way they do whilst struggling to be prosperous.

We need to understand that there is no universal cooperation or competition and these two factors must be layered across scales of organization. We cooperate as members of a nation to compete against other nations. We cooperate as members of welfare association to compete with other welfare associations.

What is needed is a new organizing principle for cooperation and competition in India from top to bottom. Neither cooperation nor competition are themselves useful a priori, but ew need to learn how to decide which one to commit to or in what combination, when faced with issues or problems. Developing that integrity will produce the ideal purusha and dharma, but how such an "integrity" is brought about in every person, is another question.



S

[raji]

From a nationalistic perspective a fundamental transformation that makes sense is for an Indian to have immense love of fellow Indian. Philosophically, at an international stage (or as nation expands and contracts), this becomes a kind of "nepotism" of course. To rid ourselves of this problem, the love for one and all appears to be the way out. We have various names for this principle. But love for all fails precisely when a competitive breed of humanity that loves its own kind over others is able to use that unity on an "adventure." One occupied our space and this has happened at other places too.

The fundamental problem is how cooperation and competition coexist at all scales; individuals, communities and nations. If members of welfare association cooperate, will they not endup competing against other welfare associations for finite resources? And if prosperity has reached everyone, neither cooperation nor competition will hinder in a way they do whilst struggling to be prosperous.

We need to understand that there is no universal cooperation or competition and these two factors must be layered across scales of organization. We cooperate as members of a nation to compete against other nations. We cooperate as members of welfare association to compete with other welfare associations.

What is needed is a new organizing principle for cooperation and competition in India from top to bottom. Neither cooperation nor competition are themselves useful a priori, but ew need to learn how to decide which one to commit to or in what combination, when faced with issues or problems. Developing that integrity will produce the ideal purusha and dharma, but how such an "integrity" is brought about in every person, is another question.



S

Sammy, Sammy, Sammy, Sammy.......


If I didnt know any better, I would have thought you are promoting globalism and citizen of the world concept......

Please start by preaching this in one of the following areas (take your pick, after all, choice would be a part of your new paradigm, right ?):

1. North Waziristan
2. South Waziristan
3. Swat Valley
4. Buner
5. Kandahar
6. Islamabad (preferably Red Mosque area)

For one world concept to work, all humanity (with no exceptions) have to reach a level of evoloution where everyone has to want to be a part of it or someone who is powerful enough to dominate the world takes the lead (which is not India at the moment and not even US dominates to that extent)............until then its competetion.....and so I am a reluctant nationalist.....

[samuel]

I am glad you know better!
Absolutely. We must have nationalism now, and it should be obvious that cooperation at the national level is what must be fixed first and the rest can be reorganize around it. But it is thinking about who we cooperate with and who we compete with and for what is what is essential. Just merely cooperating with your welfare society whilst competing with others doesn't make a prosperous city make!


S

[raji]

Rudradev's thesis goes like this.

1) As long as people band together voluntarily in the form of extended families, whats wrong with that ?

2) As long as there is enough for everybody, the patronage system within the family is not only benign but desirable

3) The operational phrase is, "as long as there is enough for everybody", therefore, the answer is economic development. As long as we are rich, we can continue with our patronage system, nothing wrong with it


Well........thats precisely whats wrong with it.

1) So, its OK to give my brother a leg up over someone else's brother, even if he is less qualified, just because he is my brother. Therefore, even if my brother's capabilities qualify him for a slightly inferior position in the society, I will use my wealth and influence to elevate him above his competence level in the society, taking away from your brother....and obviously there is nothing wrong with it........as that is our "Dharma" to attempt to look out for our family......
This is perverting the concept of "family dharma" on its head. Its one thing to say that it is our Dharma to ensure that our extended family has their basic needs met, like food, shelter etc.....and quite another to say, that it is our Dharma to elevate our extended family to levels that they may not be capable of........the later is clearly not our Dharma, as I understand Hinduism........and if I am wrong and Hinduism does say that, then it requires reform.......Also, our Dharma, as I understand it says, take care of your extended family at your own expense, not at someone else's expense......

2) As long as people think that they can have economic progress, in a system of patronage, where merit takes a back seat to family or caste connections (direct or reverse discrimination).....they are deluded.........you cannot have "enough for everybody", if you dont replace the system of patronage by system of merit......patronage doesnt create wealth, merit does......so, morality aside, practicality dictates a system of merit.........again, if I try to promote my brother over yours, even if yours is better at creating wealth..........there wont be wealth creation and "enough for everybody".....in a sense the recent economic boom in India creates an impression that we can retain our system of patronage and create wealth.......that is misleading.......recent economic boom is a just a result of decades of pent up demand and aspirations all of a sudden unleashed by a touch of merit based market reforms........but as long as the fundamentals of our patronage system stay in place, our economic growth will have severe limitations and we will not be a real player like China, ever.....current world economic depression not withstanding

3) It is not desirable to have a patronage system, as per any religion. No religion says, least of all Hinduism, that take away someone else's legitimate rights in the interest of one's own extended family. That sounds more like Islam, which calls the other "Kafir", and takes away their rights and imposes a tax on the "other" in the name of one's extended family......ie., Islam. Hinduism certainly doesnt say that.......and I repeat to emphasize........when we are asked to take care of our extended family as Dharma........its at our own expense.......not at someone else's.......

4) The tragedy of our country today is that when a person has no option but to take care of his extended family at his own expense, he dispenses with taking care of his extended family, even if he can personally afford to...........he only thinks of taking care of his extended family, when he can do it at someone else's expense or at the expense of the government or the society in general

[Rudradev]

Rudradev's thesis goes like this.

Since you clearly have not read my entire post, I'd prefer you didn't attempt any trite, superficial and oversimplistic summations of what my thesis "goes like". If you actually have points to make, try to make them on the basis of your own views (such as they are).

I've said that three different things need to be done, and economic development is only one of them. Not that economic development alone will magically make the patronage system permissible or beneficial. There is a difference if you pay attention.

I have also said that, given the existence of a millenia-old patronage system wherein a multitude of caste groups provide for their "extended families" and justify it as being "dharmic" to do so... anybody who attempts to topple this and "replace" it with Western notions of egalitarianism and meritocracy at the outset, is doomed to fail because they will expend all their energy and credibility in trying to uproot what is already entrenched. They are only demonstrating how disconnected they are with the reality of the Indian situation if they advocate "replacement".

Even worse (from a Hindu point of view): anyone who tries to forcibly destroy or erode dharmic institutions, even the ones that may be harmful at the present moment, will invariably end up contributing to the artificially-created ideological vacuum that Brihaspatiji has referred to on other threads; the situation that leaves India vulnerable to the depradations of Jihadis and EJ Missionaries. We will be repeating the mistakes of Nehru, if we try to forcibly and immediately impose Western notions of egalitarianism and meritocracy upon a society with an innately different cultural context. In effect we will be doing half the job of the EJs and Jihadis (destroying native cultural institutions) for them. India, and Hindu dharm, are far better served by attempting to alter the existing institutions of that society in a beneficial manner.

If the system right now says "I will favor my brother at the expense of someone else" the answer is not to say "no, reject your brother and treat everybody the same". Just try that... you will have no credibility at all. The answer is to build on institutions that already exist, expand the cultural understanding of "extended family = caste/class/regional/religious group" into a social contract that encompasses the entire nation. That is my thesis.

[raji]

Rudradev's thesis goes like this.

Since you clearly have not read my entire post, I'd prefer you didn't attempt any trite, superficial and oversimplistic summations of what my thesis "goes like". If you actually have points to make, try to make them on the basis of your own views (such as they are).

I've said that three different things need to be done, and economic development is only one of them. Not that economic development alone will magically make the patronage system permissible or beneficial. There is a difference if you pay attention.

I have also said that, given the existence of a millenia-old patronage system wherein a multitude of caste groups provide for their "extended families" and justify it as being "dharmic" to do so... anybody who attempts to topple this and "replace" it with Western notions of egalitarianism and meritocracy at the outset, is doomed to fail because they will expend all their energy and credibility in trying to uproot what is already entrenched. They are only demonstrating how disconnected they are with the reality of the Indian situation if they advocate "replacement".

Even worse (from a Hindu point of view): anyone who tries to forcibly destroy or erode dharmic institutions, even the ones that may be harmful at the present moment, will invariably end up contributing to the artificially-created ideological vacuum that Brihaspatiji has referred to on other threads; the situation that leaves India vulnerable to the depradations of Jihadis and EJ Missionaries. We will be repeating the mistakes of Nehru if we try to forcibly impose Western notions of egalitarianism and meritocracy overnight upon a society out of context, rather than attempting to alter the existing institutions of that society in a beneficial manner. In effect we will be doing half the job of the EJs and Jihadis (destroying native institutions) for them.

If the system right now says "I will favor my brother at the expense of someone else" the answer is not to say "no, reject your brother and treat everybody the same". Just try that... you will have no credibility at all. The answer is to build on institutions that already exist, expand the cultural understanding of "extended family = caste/class/regional/religious group" into a social contract that encompasses the entire nation. That is my thesis.

The more I read you, the more I think I interpreted your thoughts correctly.

1) Where do you find in any of my propositions the idea of "rejecting your brother" ? In fact, I am strenously arguing about not only enhancing my brother, but considering all Hindus as my brothers and enhancing them all....that is the end towards which all my thoughts and our discourse should lead to

2) You are simply wrong when you say that Meritocracy is a Western idea. I have never argued for egalitarianism in a communist sense, just pure, unadulterated equality for all

3) There is already an erosion of true Hinduism in India. There already is a vaccuum. The whole idea is for us to strengthen Hindu institutions around simple and universal ideas of Hinduism, not around the baggage that Hinduism has been loaded up with by vested interests over the centuries.......if we dont fill this vaccuum, we are ripe for cultural and physical invasion any way, and I contend that most of the invasions of all kinds that we have suffered over the centuries have been due to our failure to continue to strengthen Hindu institutions by constantly reviewing and discarding baggage

4) As long as we treat meritocracy as a Western idea and not a fundamental human and a Hindu idea, we will continue to decline

5) Indians and Hindus are very flexible and living and a breathing people and culture. Hinduism itself has originated a lot of very "modernistic" and progressive ideas and in addition provides us the framework, unlike other religions, to incorporate good ideas from other cultures, without diluting or weakening the fundamental tenets of Hinduism. We should leverage that strength to change ourselves, rather than thinking that we cannot change ourselves. In practice Hindus have demonstrated that they are the least dogmatic people, and to accuse our soceity of incapable of discarding entrenched baggage is not doing justice to our resilience and common sense and selling us short
("given the existence of a millenia-old patronage system wherein a multitude of caste groups provide for their "extended families" and justify it as being "dharmic" to do so... anybody who attempts to topple this and "replace" it with Western notions of egalitarianism and meritocracy at the outset, is doomed to fail because they will expend all their energy and credibility in trying to uproot what is already entrenched")

[Rudradev]

The more I read you, the more I think I interpreted your thoughts correctly.

That says more about your powers of comprehension than about my thoughts.

1) Where do you find in any of my propositions the idea of "rejecting your brother" ? In fact, I am strenously arguing about not only enhancing my brother, but considering all Hindus as my brothers and enhancing them all....that is the end towards which all my thoughts and our discourse should lead to

You need to realize a few elementary things. In the Indian cultural context of today, it is considered dharmic to work for the advancement of one's "extended family group", and it is understood that such advancement would necessarily come at the expense of other groups because of a general scarcity of resources and opportunities.

In such a context, to impose the idea that one should not use one's wealth and influence preferentially for the benefit of one's extended family will be perceived as saying metaphorically, "reject your brother". Individuals who abandon the idea of patronage will themselves be rejected by their own caste and extended family groups.

2) You are simply wrong when you say that Meritocracy is a Western idea. I have never argued for egalitarianism in a communist sense, just pure, unadulterated equality for all

Phew.

I have never said Meritocracy is a "Western idea".

I have said that you cannot simply replace a patronage system with western notions of egalitarianism and meritocracy.

There is a difference. "Western idea" implies a concept that originated in the West-- and meritocracy is definitely not one.

"Western notion" in this context means a "Western perception or version"... for example , "the Western notion of formal dress involves wearing a suit and tie". That does not preclude the fact that Indians or Japanese or Africans have their own notion of formal dress.

The Western notion of egalitarianism and meritocracy will never work if imposed in India because it derives from a socio-cultural context where extended family relationships have never carried the same weight as in India.

But meanwhile, I am intrigued to learn that there is a difference between "egalitarianism in a communist sense" and "pure, unadulterated equality for all". In communist theory egalitarianism is exactly pure, unadulterated equality for all. In practice, there is no such thing as egalitarianism in a communist society... and no such thing as pure, unadulterated equality for all. Argue for it all you want, but without any vision of how such a thing can be achieved you are peddling hot air.

3) There is already an erosion of true Hinduism in India. There already is a vaccuum. The whole idea is for us to strengthen Hindu institutions around simple and universal ideas of Hinduism, not around the baggage that Hinduism has been loaded up with by vested interests over the centuries.......if we dont fill this vaccuum, we are ripe for cultural and physical invasion any way, and I contend that most of the invasions of all kinds that we have suffered over the centuries have been due to our failure to continue to strengthen Hindu institutions by constantly reviewing and discarding baggage

"True Hinduism"? Has the bureau of standards issued a manual?

There is a vacuum because Hindu institutions have been deliberately assaulted and suppressed, by former colonial rulers and by the post-colonial Macaulayites who inherited power from them. Today, the vacuum continues to endure because any attempt by Hindus to re-assert or redefine their identity, is thwarted by confronting them with criticisms of their institutions and traditions. "Hinduism is casteist, Hinduism mistreats women" and so on.

If Hindus respond by saying "oh, these institutions and traditions themselves are bad, they are baggage, so let's get rid of them"... they are playing into the hands of the Macaulayites by further contributing to the ideological vacuum.

Introspection is fine, but all too often "baggage" is impossible to isolate and discard without damaging the institutions of which it forms an integral part. You cannot mandate that "baggage should be discarded" and expect that to fix things. That is what people like Periyar in TN attempted to do; they had no success whatsoever in eliminating casteism, but opened up the state and its people to unprecedented levels of EJ depradation as a consequence.

Better to change society in ways that make undesirable traditions or aspects of institutions socially and economically irrelevant... then people will let go of the "baggage" on their own, and the institutions themselves will have a chance to evolve without being eroded in the process.

4) As long as we treat meritocracy as a Western idea and not a fundamental human and a Hindu idea, we will continue to decline

This is quite irrelevant to anything I've talked about, but have fun shouting at your strawman.

5) Indians and Hindus are very flexible and living and a breathing people and culture. Hinduism itself has originated a lot of very "modernistic" and progressive ideas and in addition provides us the framework, unlike other religions, to incorporate good ideas from other cultures, without diluting or weakening the fundamental tenets of Hinduism. We should leverage that strength to change ourselves, rather than thinking that we cannot change ourselves. In practice Hindus have demonstrated that they are the least dogmatic people, and to accuse our soceity of incapable of discarding entrenched baggage is not doing justice to our resilience and common sense and selling us short
("given the existence of a millenia-old patronage system wherein a multitude of caste groups provide for their "extended families" and justify it as being "dharmic" to do so... anybody who attempts to topple this and "replace" it with Western notions of egalitarianism and meritocracy at the outset, is doomed to fail because they will expend all their energy and credibility in trying to uproot what is already entrenched")

Nice platitudes as usual, with not the slightest clue as to how they can be realized in practice.

I am not accusing our society of being "incapable" of anything; I am saying that those who try to reform it by amputating rather than reshaping its institutions are doomed to fail. Not only that, they are only going to weaken Hindu society even further by enlarging the ideological vacuum at its centre.

One of those institutions is responsible for the idea that Shiv has described: that it is dharmic to help one's extended family or caste group. Given this, it is plainly stupid to go and try to tell people, "no, don't help your extended family or caste group, it is baggage to think like that, so extend your support to the entire nation instead". People will say to you, "well, what if I take the high road but other people continue to help their caste groups, then my caste group will lose out while all the others gain at our expense". Who is going to bell such a cat?

To successfully tackle this problem, one must first alleviate the economic circumstances which dictate that patronage within one caste group deprives other caste groups of resources and opportunity. Then, once the general mentality of scarcity is alleviated, one needs to broaden the idea of "extended family" so that it encompasses not just one's caste group but the whole nation. And finally, one must introduce a re-interpretation of caste itself along the lines that Vedantic scholars postulate (and Brihaspati has articulated here)... as a system of gunas within the individual rather than fractious hereditary groups within society.

All this I've said in my initial post on the subject, but it seems to have eluded you completely.

Change is necessary, but it must come from redirecting existing institutional strengths rather than sapping or enervating those institutional strengths in an effort to root out "baggage". Otherwise one not only fails to effect change but one damages Hindu society itself.

[samuel]

How many examples in history have seen of prosperous nations sustaining their cooperation, their nationalism, their oneness and love for the fellow citizen in the absence of imminent competition?

Could there be a critical phase between things being so bad that people do whatever they have to to survive and things being so good that people do whatever they wish, where nationalism is at its leanest, meanest and most energetic?

S

[raji]

Ok. I think we can stop squabbling. I grant you that you may have thought I am trying to put words in your mouth. But I really wasnt. I was just attempting to understand, and perhaps I was trying to get you to express yourself in a way that I would understand. To be fair, I didnt give you any parameters of what is within my frame of reference to help you. But now I think I understand what you wanted to express and I will use your words to disagree with you, not pick up a squabble.

Rudradev - You need to realize a few elementary things. In the Indian cultural context of today, it is considered dharmic to work for the advancement of one's "extended family group", and it is understood that such advancement would necessarily come at the expense of other groups because of a general scarcity of resources and opportunities.

In such a context, to impose the idea that one should not use one's wealth and influence preferentially for the benefit of one's extended family will be perceived as saying metaphorically, "reject your brother". Individuals who abandon the idea of patronage will themselves be rejected by their own caste and extended family groups.

See this is the crux of the matter. I think people who think that its OK to advance at the expense of others are thugs and criminals and belong in jail, not run around freely. At the very least they and their thoughts cannot be the benchmark or the norm within the society, any society, eastern, western, topern, bottomern.....because this concept is suicidal. Even if you leave out the moral aspect of things, practically it is disastrous.

What you are saying by "advacement would necessarily come at the expense of other groups", is that you will be constantly in a state of war. Worse, in a state of civil war...........worse still, in a state of a million civil wars.....family against family to the order to millions........how such a society will function, is beyond me. The state of affairs in India today mirror exactly such a disastrous scenario, and the cause is exactly this one proposition which has become acceptable and fashionable and widely followed dogma ......"advancement would necessarily come at the expense of other groups"......so its ok to be a thief..........in fact, this has become an orthodoxy, where if someone tries to raise their voice against this zero sum game.......he is shunned in the society as a heretic.....so, let everyone commit suicide, no sane man need raise their voice......

Simply to say, well, work within this orthodoxy, lest Islam or the West will get an excuse to dominate us, is a classic example why societies that die dont change............as much as I abhor the thought of being dominated by Islam or the West and as much of a nationalist as I am, and as proud as I am........if the only choice between me is to accept the dogma that says "advancement can only come at the expense of others" and Islam or Christianity........I would pick the latter.......(in my individual case, I would take the third way.....die fighting the proponents of that nonsense, rather than having to pick one or the other)

Rudradev - The Western notion of egalitarianism and meritocracy will never work if imposed in India because it derives from a socio-cultural context where extended family relationships have never carried the same weight as in India.

Ok. I dont believe that the western notion of meritocracy is any different from Indian or any other regions. But it is not a logical contradiction, what you say. In other words, it is theoretically possible to have different notions, and for the sake of argument, let me agree with you that there are. I would be open to implementing our original Hindu notion of meritocracy, which you would agree, doesnt exist in our Indian society of today....as long as you dont pervert the meaning of the word "meritocracy" on its head.......

So please explain what the Hindu notion of meritocracy is and how it is different than Western notion of meritocracy. I think that there are many differences between east and west, but not all things are different and the notion of meritocracy is one of those universal human concepts that everyone has the same notion of........after a baby is born, if he does well in school, he gets an A, if he doesnt, he fails.....you dont say, he comes from family A, so pass him, even if he fails......he becomes a teenager, indulges in sports.......if he wins on the tennis court, he wins, if he loses, he loses, you dont say, declare the loser a winnner, because he is from family B..........college admissions..........if he passes entrance tests he gets in, if he doesnt, he doesnt get in.........you dont say make Rahul Gandhi a doctor, even if he was a duffer in school.....why then, when it comes to jobs and the professions or business, is it ok to not have meritocracy and bring families in........

Rudradev - But meanwhile, I am intrigued to learn that there is a difference between "egalitarianism in a communist sense" and "pure, unadulterated equality for all". In communist theory egalitarianism is exactly pure, unadulterated equality for all. In practice, there is no such thing as egalitarianism in a communist society... and no such thing as pure, unadulterated equality for all. Argue for it all you want, but without any vision of how such a thing can be achieved you are peddling hot air.

Now egalitarianism. In communist notion of egalitarian, for example, egalitarianism means, in theory (in practice I agree with you there isnt any).........that everyone ENDS at the same place.

My notion coincides with the non-communist notion universally (again across east and west).......everyone should START at the same place..........they will necessarily END in different places.....this is what I call undulterated equality for all

[samuel]

How does someone with a trust fund in the west "start at the same place?" Why would a hard working mother and father not want that work to accrue some advantage to their child, first? Obviously there has to be justice, fair play and absence of bias. But how do these things ensure "equality for all" when people are looking to "get ahead"?

S

[raji]

How does someone with a trust fund in the west "start at the same place?" Why would a hard working mother and father not want that work to accrue some advantage to their child, first? Obviously there has to be justice, fair play and absence of bias. But how do these things ensure "equality for all" when people are looking to "get ahead"?

S

Sammy, Sammy,

If I didnt know any better, I would think that you are saying that just because inheritance exists, its OK to benefit at the expense of others. In other words a trust fund baby enjoying his trust fund is on the same moral ground as a son of a politician getting government contracts even though he is not qualified. If I didnt know any better, I would think you are doing this "equal equal thing onlee"

The concept of inheritance is also a problem, something I have been grappling with for a long time and have not been able to find a solution to. What do you do ? Do you have a high estate tax ? Is that fair ? I havent been able to resolve the issue. So, on inheritance, I feel that we leave it the way it is, it is the least toxic of the alternatives.

But leaving inheritance intact, you can still have equality, if you have sufficiently effective laws against abuse of power and a dynamic economic system based on meritocracy, which allows even a non trust fund person to rise to the top in one generation. This meritocracy is the only effective counter against inheritance. Not allowing more inequality in the form of patronage.

And one more thing, Sammy.........I wont propose it but if it came to that, I could actually live with a 100% estate tax.....

[samuel]

OK, I am glad you know better. You have no answer for how to deal with inheritence and you've just let a bunch of inheritors run free. If these guys inherit land what are you going to do? What kind of equality are you on about mate?

What about experience vs. skill and what that means for meritocracy. A new talent walks in the office that requires you to fire a 25 year veteran. What do you do, tell the veteran sorry? Does your meritocracy have compassion?

You talk about equality here, you say every one starts at the same spot, but the gun went off many generations ago mate and people have been running for a very long time. So, what are you on about, do you have any answers other than reservations for marrying across caste/religion (which I will be a beneficiary of btw)?

And what is meritocracy by the way? Who decides these figures of merit?

Everyone here knows the issues with social injustice, caste issues and poor governance. What about some solutions?

S
PS: Can I request you to please stay with samuel?