Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

[Rudradev]

The benefit of rejuvenation, as well as the trouble with rejuvenation, is that (in practical terms) it involves a complete scrubbing clean and so risks an annulment of context.

This helps to relieve the burden of ossified prejudice and systemic rot... but it also results in what one may call naivete, as the wisdom and perspective of the ages are discarded for the taint they carry. (If they weren't discarded you wouldn't have rejuvenation... merely reform)..

Rudradev - I believe that, on balance, most people see China as a "success" and as a global force to be feared or respected. So I ask regarding China and India

1) Was the cultural revolution not just such a rejuvenation?
2) Did the Chinese cultural revolution not "relieve the burden of ossified prejudice and systemic rot" while " the wisdom and perspective of the ages were discarded for the taint they carry. "
3) What would be the nature of an Indian rejuvenation without discarding at least some of the culture revered by some sections of the population?

1) The Chinese cultural revolution was certainly one form of rejuvenation, yes.

2) Yes, it did those things.

3) There have been so many, throughout history, especially if one is talking about cultural (which in India is inseparable from religious/spiritual) rejuvenations.

Siddhartha Gautama... Adi Shankara... Sant Ramdas... Guru Nanak... Ramakrishna Paramhans and all who came after. Every one of these represented a cultural rejuvenation, every one spearheaded a movement that involved discarding some of the culture revered by the people of their times, but a movement implemented in the Indian context... a dignified passing of the baton. We have a long tradition of rejuvenation in this aspect, and it is what keeps our culture healthy.

Not the slaughter of 50 million by some bloody-minded rat eater overseeing the only kind of "cultural revolution" he could imagine.

[raji]

Shiv,

Well said. Collective power of a nation will trump a solitary superman or a small oligarchy anytime.

Its a modern version of a weapon.

Weapons evolved from sticks to swords to bow and arrow to slingshot guns and cannons. Then they evolved into gun powder, cannons, explosives, nuclear etc.

Similarly, in the begining, solitary leader was good enough. Then there was an evoloution to better organizing and harnessing of power through more broad based leadership methods, such as oligarchy, republicanism, even the Greek notion of limited democracy, back to a more broad based republicanism and monarchy with a populist institution twist. Finally, the Americans modernized the governing principle to a new level of efficiency through their constitution and practices.

I dont hear any criticism of the idea of modernizing our weapon systems. No Rudradev is saying that we should adapt modern weapon systems in our traditional context........kinda like have guns in the body of an arched Indian sword ? or package our nuclear weapon inside a mace like body....why dont our airplanes look like garuda drawn chariots ?

Why then is there such stress on adapting western ideas while maintaining our traditional constructs. How is that possible ? We didnt have any concept of an industrial society, traditionally. The whole concept is borrowed from the West. We have adpated it into our culture with mixed success, but culturally we look today more like early post industrial revolution european society (at least british) than ancient Indian. An idea is an idea. A notion is a notion. There is no eastern notion and a western notion. There is no Indian idea or a Western idea. Each idea has to be taken on its merit and its applicability to our problems.

The basic problem is that when someone wants to block inflow of ideas in the name of "Western" influence, "Macaulytism", or any other label, they are merely trying to 1) maintain status quo, which they think is to their advantage, 2) are being afraid of change, as who knows if change will be better or worse, 3) buy into an absolutely absurd notion that somehow we will lose good things within our culture. Leave aside invasions and dominations, what good things have we lost so far from our culture that were worth preserving, just under the influence of foreign ideas ? Frankly, I cant think of any. Any dilution of our own culture has been done due to our own weaknesses as a people, not because we adopted the airplane or wore western clothes, of listened to Osibisa.

[raji]

Raji--

We are hopefully working on a new model. It does not need America. Especially if you consider that what we value about America is not something intrinsic and inherent to Americans, but of all societies young in the space of civilizations. If we start there, realizing that it is the spirit that is essential to capture, then we will be able to develop our own solutions.

As far as anything being as good in history, I dare say the citizens of most civilizations at its height would have elicited the same adoring fawning that the Americans do today. We received that too in our history, if written and oral accounts are to be believed.

The actions of a nation can only properly be judged in hindsight when the consequences are known (and then too with some ambiguity if things are covered up). We have many years before we can look back at America. We can discuss then how good it was for the world or its own people. Would it be possible that we will find that America was all about greed in the name of freedom and prosperity and, that, I am going to say it, corrupted it. You certainly know better than to turn a love for the ideal of equality into a love for America.

We seriously don't need to spend pages discussing the good of America. If you are going to do that be ready to hear what is bad about it because I certainly think we can do it ourselves.

Samuel,

Forget about in relation to America.

I see that you have not even been able to name one civilization in the history of the world, which you consider even basically good.......dont worry about other people fawning..........what do you think ?


We spend pages and pages and pages trashing America and Pak and China and everybody else. Each of these cultures deserve a lot of the criticism, though not all that we pile on them.

Why are you so parsimonious in according praise to another people or culture, particularly when they do some good sometimes. Oh.......just occured to me why you are so coy about lavishing praise...if I didnt know any better, Samuel my man, I would have thought....1) It is not Indian nature to be magnanimous........2) You are afraid to be called a Macaulyte or a "Dimi"........but I know better......

[Rudradev]

Shiv, now I have a question for you.

In the context of your parable of Dubya and Saddam: to whom is the present day PRC more similar?

[samuel]

There was a stage here in our discussion where some kinda coherence seemed to emerge with regard to actions that we could take towards a desired future strategic senario for our subcontinent. The premise there was that

a) China is encircling us geostrategically.
b) Our neighbors are not seen as allies with the exception of Bhutan.
c) The fierce control for dominating the subcontinent continues as it has through the ages.
d) There is an additional danger now with the lost of a natural buffer in Tibet.

One plausible solution was to try and develop a framework to marginalize our internal differences sufficiently to come together and deal with these external threats. What exactly is involved in that process?

S
PS: Raji, I love my civilization, that may not have been obvious, sorry.

[samuel]

-
Oh.......just occured to me why you are so coy about lavishing praise...if I didnt know any better, Samuel my man, I would have thought....1) It is not Indian nature to be magnanimous........2) You are afraid to be called a Macaulyte or a "Dimi"........but I know better......

Don't make this personal Raji. You are now on my ignore list.

S

[shiv]

Shiv, now I have a question for you.

In the context of your parable of Dubya and Saddam: to whom is the present day PRC more similar?

Rudradev - China appears Saddam-like to me.

[shiv]

3) There have been so many, throughout history, especially if one is talking about cultural (which in India is inseparable from religious/spiritual) rejuvenations.

Siddhartha Gautama... Adi Shankara... Sant Ramdas... Guru Nanak... Ramakrishna Paramhans and all who came after. Every one of these represented a cultural rejuvenation, every one spearheaded a movement that involved discarding some of the culture revered by the people of their times, but a movement implemented in the Indian context... a dignified passing of the baton. We have a long tradition of rejuvenation in this aspect, and it is what keeps our culture healthy.

Rudradev, by the same token, it might be argued that the expansion by brutal force has never been part of Indian culture. If you look at the earlier pages of this thread, the question of expansion is discussed at length.

There are a few opinions that suggest expansion by brutal force. Would Indian history and culture not suggest that such expansion goes against the Indian character as seen through history?

Also, would such a brutal expansion by force not indicate a change of Indian character and a discarding of historic traits?

[raji]

-
Oh.......just occured to me why you are so coy about lavishing praise...if I didnt know any better, Samuel my man, I would have thought....1) It is not Indian nature to be magnanimous........2) You are afraid to be called a Macaulyte or a "Dimi"........but I know better......

Don't make this personal Raji. You are now on my ignore list.

S

Samuel,

I am sorry if it hurt your feelings.

It wasnt about you. I was simply making a point in general about the posters here. And it was.......that we find it so easy and not think much about trashing others page after page........but when someone says something complimentary about another culture, they are branded necessarily "dimi" or Macaulyte.....

It is the oldest trick in the book to stifle conversation. Label someone......"dimi"....."Macaulyte"......"western stooge".....so you then dont have to debate the ideas person is espousing......

Truly it wasnt about you personally at all.....it was just a manner of speaking......I have never seen you resort to that sort of labeling......

Only disagreement I have with what you said, and I would disagree respectfully is.........that loving our culture doesnt preclude us from praising others, when they deserve it........infact, I like to think, my culture commands me to do that....

We have wondered on this thread, why we dont have allies ? Just occured to me........go through all the threads and pages after pages.......you will hardly find any example of posts that are genuinely appreciative of goodness in others.....whether in our neighborhood or elsewhere.......everyone is this super zombie like creature culture that ruthlessly pursues their own selfish interests.......with no softness at all.......only we are a soft culture.......

Until we attempt to find goodness in others and readily acknowledge it sometimes, we will not have any allies, and rightfully so.......

[samuel]

What is the dichotomy between fighting "brutally" for one's land and not engaging in a "brutal expansion"? As far as I can see, we are still fighting for it. If we weren't we might've easily folded many centuries ago.

We know the boundaries, up until Hindu Kush, north to Shiv's abode, east to arunachal, south to the ocean, west to indus. We lost may be 25% in a few hundred years. Time to take it back?

S

[shiv]

What is the dichotomy between fighting "brutally" for one's land and not engaging in a "brutal expansion"? As far as I can see, we are still fighting for it. If we weren't we might've easily folded many centuries ago.

We know the boundaries, up until Hindu Kush, north to Shiv's abode, east to arunachal, south to the ocean, west to indus. We lost may be 25% in a few hundred years. Time to take it back?

S

Samuel. allow me to split your post into two parts:

1)What is the dichotomy between fighting "brutally" for one's land and not engaging in a "brutal expansion"? As far as I can see, we are still fighting for it. If we weren't we might've easily folded many centuries ago.

We know the boundaries, up until Hindu Kush, north to Shiv's abode, east to arunachal, south to the ocean, west to indus. We lost may be 25% in a few hundred years.


2)Time to take it back?


Part 1: My response is unqualified agreement

Part 2: This can be done in the Saddam model or Dubya model. Or it can be done in some unlisted third model - perhaps an "ancient Indian" model.

For the Saddam model we need Saddam like leadership and an inability of the Indian population to question or bring down that leadership.

For the Dubya model we need leaders whom the entire nation supports. This might mean a happy, prosperous and successful nation.

We do not have either of these models in place. So my response to whether the time has come to take it back would be "The time to take all that back has not yet come as far as I can see. We can certainly talk about it"

Is there a third non-Dubya, non-Saddam model? If so what is it? Can it succeed in getting back what was lost?

[Rudradev]

3) There have been so many, throughout history, especially if one is talking about cultural (which in India is inseparable from religious/spiritual) rejuvenations.

Siddhartha Gautama... Adi Shankara... Sant Ramdas... Guru Nanak... Ramakrishna Paramhans and all who came after. Every one of these represented a cultural rejuvenation, every one spearheaded a movement that involved discarding some of the culture revered by the people of their times, but a movement implemented in the Indian context... a dignified passing of the baton. We have a long tradition of rejuvenation in this aspect, and it is what keeps our culture healthy.

Rudradev, by the same token, it might be argued that the expansion by brutal force has never been part of Indian culture. If you look at the earlier pages of this thread, the question of expansion is discussed at length.

There are a few opinions that suggest expansion by brutal force. Would Indian history and culture not suggest that such expansion goes against the Indian character as seen through history?

Also, would such a brutal expansion by force not indicate a change of Indian character and a discarding of historic traits?

Not by the same token at all. As a civilization we may have a preferred modus vivendi "X" of rejuvenation, which is innate to our culture. How does that imply that we should not implement a strategy "Y" for expansion? Nothing about "X" necessarily proscribes "Y" in principle; "X" just makes India itself a more likely candidate for peaceful and productive cultural rejuvenation.

To argue that "X" necessarily implies that we must forsake "Y", on the other hand, is the same bit of specious reasoning that's been put over us ever since Gandhi and Nehru were foisted as national leaders at the expense of Bose and others. It is the classic Western liberal chastisement of India... "oh land of Buddha/Gandhi/Mother Teresa, you are so poor, but instead of feeding your people you make nuclear bums, why o why."

Also, if you mean Brihaspati's arguments on previous pages, I don't think he is necessarily advocating expansion by "brutal force" alone. Brutal force when required should be unhesitatingly applied; however it should be eschewed when something more humane would suffice. That is in tune with the traditions of "X".

Personally, my ideas of expansion are best represented by the 8th Tier of the modified Maslow Hierarchy of Needs (I've been talking about that a little bit on the Indian Interests forum recently). The 8th Tier being "Transcendence"... going beyond self-actualization to help civilize the rest of the world on our terms. Because by that point, we've already proved by self-actualization that our terms are superior to anybody else's.

[John Snow]

yes Bollywood and with help of dawood bahi. I trust him to deliver. He is already a king pin in Pakistan.
Yes We can yes We must yes it will ( in low tone Inshaallah). I cant disclose in depth deatils as I might inadvertantly disclose clsoe co operation of CIA and RAW in this regard. No follow up. Only time will answer rest or put to rest "Doubt"

[Rudradev]

Is there a third non-Dubya, non-Saddam model? If so what is it? Can it succeed in getting back what was lost?

Ashoka model. United and empowered India. Free Sindh, Baluchistan, Pashtunistan, Chittagong/Sylhet as tribuitaries. Friendly Kabul, Dacca, Kathmandu and Rangoon.

Then on January 26th, call all the TV cameras, stand in front of a shiny new monument (lion pillar) in the center of the West Punjab glass parking lot. Do some honest soul searching. Proclaim an oath that, now that everything in the subcontinent can proceed on our terms, we will guarantee that there will never be such violence or suffering ever again. And mean every word of that promise.

[shiv]

To argue that "X" necessarily implies that we must forsake "Y", on the other hand, is the same bit of specious reasoning that's been put over us ever since Gandhi and Nehru were foisted as national leaders at the expense of Bose and others. It is the classic Western liberal chastisement of India... "oh land of Buddha/Gandhi/Mother Teresa, you are so poor, but instead of feeding your people you make nuclear bums, why o why."

Also, if you mean Brihaspati's arguments on previous pages, I don't think he is necessarily advocating expansion by "brutal force" alone. Brutal force when required should be unhesitatingly applied; however it should be eschewed when something more humane would suffice. That is in tune with the traditions of "X".

No I did not mean brihaspati who is too sophisticated to get bogged down by dogmatic commitment and even tempered even when assaulted in a vulgar way as I did.

All that I am saying is that looking at India's past

1) X is more likely than Y
2) The X or Y choice will depend on the leadership we have and the support they can garner from Indians.

For longterm success, the real strength IMO must come from the collective of Indian people - not merely an ambitious leader who fritters away national strength for unachievable goals.

[samuel]

Irrespective of which one it is

a) it would need the common man's full support.
b) it would need sanction of the "elites."
c) it would need support of those with deep pockets.
d) it would need a commitment to the outcome.


To succeed, the populace must support. To gain their support key people in positions of power must cooperate and become nationalists. To do that we need a group of dedicated people who can identify and convert key people in power. This was the tactic by which climate change was made popular, for example. Otherwise, people only react as long as the "trauma " lasts, and that is no good. This has to be simple and calculated. Once it is done, the healing can begin.

[Rudradev]

All that I am saying is that looking at India's past

1) X is more likely than Y
2) The X or Y choice will depend on the leadership we have and the support they can garner from Indians.

For longterm success, the real strength IMO must come from the collective of Indian people - not merely an ambitious leader who fritters away national strength for unachievable goals.

With the first part of your post:

X is innate, as I said. Leaders responsible for the kinds of cultural rejuvenations I mentioned, do not become superimposed on the people by some adjunct and artificial mechanism (like " parliamentary elections every n years"). Buddha, Guru Nanak, Vivekanand arose to prominence as leaders in the most organic manner possible: as embodiments of the people's voice. It was exactly because their views and prescriptions resonated with a popular need that they commanded such stature.

Y is an expensive undertaking and control over large resources, populations and means of production is required (as compared to X which simply involves setting up your stall in the marketplace of ideas). In ancient and medieval times, Y (expansion) was a project that only fell within the means of a hereditary ruler, one who came to power by the systemic action or subversion of an existing institution of monarchy. No ordinary man could raise armies and finance military expeditions in those times. Only in modern India is it conceivable that the people themselves have some say in whether or not the nation should undertake Y.

However, I still do not see why X negates Y or why it has to be X-or-Y.

But I certainly agree that Y must have the support of the people as much as X does, if Y is to succeed. The people must understand, and believe in the need for expansion; expansion cannot be the runaway whim of some demagogue... that would lead to disaster.

[samuel]

Suppose a group of 10 people from BRF choose to become "change agents." Suppose we could identify 5 key people in the Congress and Govt bureaucracy each, who can be "converted" into being nationalists.

Can we identify them? Can we then try to do that and talk to them about the "future scenario." Can we try to make our case in as cogent a way as possible.

We become the invisible catalysts, we care for no glory, no name, just do. From that group of four or five, we go to another group in another party in another institution, may be the judiciary. Then other places. Let them have the glory, let them have the fame. We simply connect the idea to the person and let them engineer the solution.

If we did that, I promise you that the cascade effect that that will have in a few years will be amazing. And, it will expose to us all the external influences that prevent our nation from being what we think its destiny is.

Added: There is really no need to become glorified think tanks with nice pdfs and serial numbers that people may or may not need. What is needed is access one-on-one to people with influence over the common man's destiny, and our ability, wit, diligence and steadfastness to influence them.
S

[shiv]

However, I still do not see why X negates Y or why it has to be X-or-Y.

No specific disagreement except for semantics of the above statement.

For a given nation X can exist without Y, and Y can happen without X.

X and Y can occur together.

But when only X is occurring, Y is definitely not occurring.

When Y is occurring, it is visible, blatant and destructive. Whether X goes along with it, or whether Y has replaced X is moot until the conclusion of a military campaign.

You can have X

or you can have X + Y

or Y alone.

The argument is that war is an extension of diplomacy or the end of diplomacy. War is not diplomacy.

[Rudradev]

Suppose a group of 10 people from BRF choose to become "change agents." Suppose we could identify 5 key people in the Congress and Govt bureaucracy each, who can be "converted" into being nationalists.

Can we identify them? Can we then try to do that and talk to them about the "future scenario."
Can we try to make our case in as cogent a way as possible.

We become the invisible catalysts, we care for no glory, no name, just do. From that core group of four or five, we go to another core group in another party. Then other places. Let them have the glory, let them have the fame. We simply connect the idea to the person.

If we did that, I promise you that the cascade effect that that will have in a few years will be amazing. And, it will expose to us all the external influences that prevent our nation from being what we think its destiny is.

S

Now that is a really good idea. It reminds me of a job I once had... where the best way to get your idea implemented was not to argue for it yourself. It was to convince the Boss that it was HIS idea. That way, as long as you weren't concerned about getting the credit for them... your ideas ended up seeing the light of day.

Partly it is a good idea because it takes maximum advantage of the way our political institutions naturally work. We on BRF haven't much chance of ourselves becoming Union Ministers of India in our lifetimes. Not most of us anyway.

The people who do end up becoming Union Ministers often end up resorting to cynical means, and I am sure some of them find themselves discontented with the ideological vaccuum that their "success" has led them to preside over. This might actually make themmore receptive to strongly compelling ideological perspectives if properly presented.

And at a piskological level: people who have the ambition and drive to become Union Ministers will almost invariably be the "Boss" types who love to be fed ideas while being easily convinced that those ideas are in fact their own.

If at some level the "Boss" types recognize that the ideas came from an external source which doesn't demand credit... they will be more receptive still to further ideas from that source.

Yes, this could work. It is how Christianity established itself in Rome.

[samuel]

Yes, this could work. It is how Christianity established itself in Rome.

Yes, it is how Chanakya worked, in part, though circumstances were different them.

So, how about it. 10 people from here, identify 1 person in the government and the means to access them. 1 presentation, 1 story, and "help them create change"

[raji]

Yes, this could work. It is how Christianity established itself in Rome.

Yes, it is how Chanakya worked, in part, though circumstances were different them.

So, how about it. 10 people from here, identify 1 person in the government and the means to access them. 1 presentation, 1 story, and "help them create change"

Ok. I propose Samuel........anyone to second ???

[shiv]

Suppose a group of 10 people from BRF choose to become "change agents." Suppose we could identify 5 key people in the Congress and Govt bureaucracy each, who can be "converted" into being nationalists.

Can we identify them? Can we then try to do that and talk to them about the "future scenario." Can we try to make our case in as cogent a way as possible.

We become the invisible catalysts, we care for no glory, no name, just do. From that group of four or five, we go to another group in another party in another institution, may be the judiciary. Then other places. Let them have the glory, let them have the fame. We simply connect the idea to the person and let them engineer the solution.

If we did that, I promise you that the cascade effect that that will have in a few years will be amazing. And, it will expose to us all the external influences that prevent our nation from being what we think its destiny is.
S

I agree with the idea, which is excellent, but add the qualification that it is likely to fail if the "invisible catalysts" have a visceral hatred of one side of the political spectrum and favor another side. The catalysts must be injected into every hue of political space. No matter which hue of politician is in power, the catalyst favors the same nationalist end goal.

[samuel]

I agree with you 1000% I cannot say this enough. We cannot afford to screw ourselves by deciding to go with one party and not the other. In fact, the less we "like" a party, the more important it is to lay a bridge to it and help them cross.

But first, we here, must debate as much as we can in the spirit of creating that strategic narrative and the national "imperatives" behind it.

As a teacher, I'll tell you, this is the best way to get a "student" to get ahead. Get them to think it is their idea, which it will be. All we did was show them where to look. Their influence and enthusiasm and security of belonging to a firm foundation will then do the work for us. We, on the other hand, must not stop discussing, arguing, searching, lest we start on and present an incomplete or false premise for others to accept.

S

[Prem]

Samuel San , if you get chance to meet one big guy who would you like to meet among the Raajnitivans ?
Or would rather forget them and meet bunch of Baarre Babbus who can actual do wodners on the ground.

[Sanku]

We all are on the same side. My protest is against the use of the word 'genocide' where it is not needed and out of context.

No offense taken friend, but I will stand by view that what US has done in Iraq, Afganistan (I & II), Vietnam etc etc is not war fighting in the traditional sense, but a power projection by all means. Including to an extent genocide of selected groups or create conditions for a genocide in a deliberate manner and then sit back and not do anything to stop themselves or let anyone else stop the same.

This is my POV and since discussing this will take the thread OT quickly -- I propose we do not discuss this. I am at this time only clarifying the POV.

[ramana]

The transition form the mahajanapadas to the Empire was quite brutal. It was started with Bimbisara of Magadha and ended with Ashoka. We are still seeing the impacts of that.

[Sanku]

. We are still seeing the impacts of that.

Can you explain this part please?

[harbans]

Looking at it this way:

Next 15 years plan competently and completely for extremely high economic growth. Above 10% types. Make sure that it happens and stays that way. Inform party cadres across party lines what the implications of 10% growth are for the youth. Like an 18 year old middle class youth with basic graduation can be expected to earn 50 k /month or more average by the time he/ she is 28 if we grow this rate. Thats 10 years from now.

Keep defense expenditure at between 4.5-5%. The amount available for defense will keep increasing every year. We will have 3 times the available funding 10 years hence.

Don't work hard to influence people. The people who want to be influenced will come to you. Did India work hard to influence Ecuador? But they swear by Dhruv and plan to equip all branches of their Armed forces with them. The moment you have money, technology, capability..friends and influence will develop in places where you least expect them. That is nature. Once they come to you, they are amenable to your kind of thinking.

Neighbours: Our neighbours are all small compared to India, Pakistan included. We have already witnessed that as economic development takes place, massive dehyphencation between Pakistan and India has happened. The dehyphenation is majorly because of economic differences and India's developing clout in multiple multilateral forums and dealings with assorted countries.

My take is that once we are 3 times our present economic size, 10 years hence all our arguments for on this topic then will be totally different from present..JM2PW/

[John Snow]

I am in phase lag here but

brihaspati wrote:
The fundamental problem of strategy in any potential conflict situation is - What to do with the enemy?...


Brihaspatiji,

A tour de force of a post. You have summed up the problem as well as it can possibly be summed up.

Said Rudradev ji


The answer to JJ i.e. Jupiter ji aka Bhrihaspathi dev guru ji

is

"You convert your enemy either before war or after vanquishing" Spinster

[brihaspati]

The idea of skillfully "converting" agents of change within pre-existing political parties is a truly hopeful one. But I am afraid, it will not work. The basic structure of current parties imply that for almost all who have tasted "rashtryia power" only the opportunists looking for personal power get selected and elected. Any leader who wants to rise up the hierarchy, must have weaknesses and vulnerabilities that can be used by the higher leader to control the "lower leader". This means there will be increasing biases against innovative ideas or where ideas especially appear to go against the basic source of power for the higher leadership.

If the objective of "conversion" is to convert individual leaders to "nationalism" - it runs against two distinct obstacles. First by creating an independent ideological framework which gets higher importance than "individual" leaders, it is a potential threat for the "higher leader"'s base of power. Second, it can run against difficulties with extra-national connections or influences that might have already developed at the level or at a higher level, of the indivdiual leader being considered for conversion.

In the latter case, the "converters" will be exposed and quietly "liquidated" using internal machinery onlee, and with no foreign hand visible.

Do not trust this "rashtryia" machinery. It allowed its top leaders to be executed, exactly those who had taken "force projection" outside the borders of India. Any attempt being propsoed here along "conversion" line will result in needless loss of some sincere and well-meaning patriotic souls.

I have seen this process of liquidation of "devoted" brains close at hand. It pains me immensely to think that there will be repeats of losses of excellent Indian hearts, to fatten and maintain some of the slimiest self-serving lizards ever imaginable in any nation's politics.

[Rahul Mehta]

No specific disagreement except for semantics of the above statement.

For a given nation X can exist without Y, and Y can happen without X. X and Y can occur together. But when only X is occurring, Y is definitely not occurring. When Y is occurring, it is visible, blatant and destructive. Whether X goes along with it, or whether Y has replaced X is moot until the conclusion of a military campaign. You can have X or you can have X + Y or Y alone.

How do you generalize on (X1 , ... , XN)?

---------

Suppose a group of 10 people from BRF choose to become "change agents." Suppose we could identify 5 key people in the Congress and Govt bureaucracy each, who can be "converted" into being nationalists. Can we identify them? Can we then try to do that and talk to them about the "future scenario." Can we try to make our case in as cogent a way as possible. We become the invisible catalysts, we care for no glory, no name, just do. From that group of four or five, we go to another group in another party in another institution, may be the judiciary. Then other places. Let them have the glory, let them have the fame. We simply connect the idea to the person and let them engineer the solution. If we did that, I promise you that the cascade effect that that will have in a few years will be amazing. And, it will expose to us all the external influences that prevent our nation from being what we think its destiny is. Added: There is really no need to become glorified think tanks with nice pdfs and serial numbers that people may or may not need. What is needed is access one-on-one to people with influence over the common man's destiny, and our ability, wit, diligence and steadfastness to influence them.

Samuel,

If at all they cared, they would have regularly visited BR and got all the information they wanted, and changed India as we BRites want. That did not happen in 13 ABR (ABR = After Bharat-Rakshak was formed, BBR = Before BR). IMO, every IAS, Ministry, judiciary KNOWS that nation is going down the drain. They have detailed idea about many possible scenarios. So I dont know what good our telling them would do -- but you may try. I have given up on them.

------------

Irrespective of which one it is

a) it would need the common man's full support.
b) it would need sanction of the "elites."
c) it would need support of those with deep pockets.
d) it would need a commitment to the outcome.


To succeed, the populace must support. To gain their support key people in positions of power must cooperate and become nationalists. To do that we need a group of dedicated people who can identify and convert key people in power. This was the tactic by which climate change was made popular, for example. Otherwise, people only react as long as the "trauma " lasts, and that is no good. This has to be simple and calculated. Once it is done, the healing can begin.

I saw a cartoon in which (a)a young lady was waiting on a bench (b)she grows old (c)she become skeleton. The title was "waiting for perfect man to arrive". Where will one find someone or someone that is supported by us commons as well us elitemen, and has all other requirements as well? And does such a person or agenda even exist? I cant say such an agenda which appeals over 80% of commons as well over 80,000 of top 100,000 people in India (elitemen) exists or not. All I can say is that I could not find such an agenda till date. If anyone has such agenda, with procedure code, in PDF or DOC format, I am positively interested. But during the time such agenda comes, what do we do?

.

[Rahul Mehta]

The idea of skillfully "converting" agents of change within pre-existing political parties is a truly hopeful one. But I am afraid, it will not work. {AWMTA } The basic structure of current parties imply that for almost all who have tasted "rashtryia power" only the opportunists looking for personal power get selected and elected. Any leader who wants to rise up the hierarchy, must have weaknesses and vulnerabilities that can be used by the higher leader to control the "lower leader". This means there will be increasing biases against innovative ideas or where ideas especially appear to go against the basic source of power for the higher leadership.

If the objective of "conversion" is to convert individual leaders to "nationalism" - it runs against two distinct obstacles. First by creating an independent ideological framework which gets higher importance than "individual" leaders, it is a potential threat for the "higher leader"'s base of power. Second, it can run against difficulties with extra-national connections or influences that might have already developed at the level or at a higher level, of the indivdiual leader being considered for conversion.

In the latter case, the "converters" will be exposed and quietly "liquidated" using internal machinery onlee, and with no foreign hand visible. Do not trust this "rashtryia" machinery. It allowed its top leaders to be executed, exactly those who had taken "force projection" outside the borders of India. Any attempt being propsoed here along "conversion" line will result in needless loss of some sincere and well-meaning patriotic souls.

I have seen this process of liquidation of "devoted" brains close at hand. It pains me immensely to think that there will be repeats of losses of excellent Indian hearts, to fatten and maintain some of the slimiest self-serving lizards ever imaginable in any nation's politics.

brihaspati,

What is this ""rashtryia machinery"? Pls give us some examples of those who got executed.

--------

Every leader, be India or West, will have tendency to promote only those who cannot be threat to him. Hence, all leaders have tendency to cut other leaders and ensure that only "weak" junior get promoted, lest they will become popular immediately and become a threat. The west reduced this problem by creating an administrative setup where leader is not all powerful to begin with. eg US President is not even 5% as powerful as Indian PM as far as internal matter go. And a US Governor is not even 1% as powerful as Indian CM inside administration. eg US Governor cant transfer a District Police Chief, which Indian CM can do by winking his eye. So US leaders are not in position to hijack the Party and stop talented juniors from rising. But in India, PM and CMs have so much powers in administration, that they manage to crush their opponents in Parties and also manage to ensure that only weak juniors rise, and strong juniors get no focus.

The elitemen's penetration in IAS, IPS, judocracy and parties ensured that an ethical person will never rise in IAS, IPS, judocracy and polity. Spare the freedom fighters, who had arose already by 1951, no ethical person got elitemen's sponsorship after 1951. And the MNC/Christianist penetration in Congress, BJP and all parties has further worsened this problem. Now a true nationalist talented person has no scope of rising in IAS, IPS, judocracy and Parties. The only nationalists that MNC/Christianist will promote will be Banjrangi type people, who will invariably resort to ham handed ways that will ruin nationalist goals. If a nationalist inside any Party, IAS, IPS is cool headed, visioned and smart, MNC/Christianists will ensure that he never ever rises. So his path are blocked. He will be better off working "outside the system".

[RamaY]

Find me a better place overall, or even a better model in history or at present ? Please describe to me one place in history that you consider "better" ?

Alternatively, or additionally.....define a plausible new model....which may not have existed so far, but can be viable for the future.....

What do you mean "being less depraved " ??............ If I didnt know any better, I would think you are looking at us through Macaulyte lenses ? But I know better...........

raji-ji,

There is no perpetual better place other than the birthplace (Janani Janma Bhoomischa, Swargadapi Gariyapi).

When societies are invaded and colonized they tend to become unhappy places. The unhappiness remains until they return back to an equilibrium state that is going back to their roots. Heritage and culture remain in social DNA longer than any invader or ruler can last.

That must be kept in mind while contemplating future strategies (BACK TO the future). The vision and leadership demonstrate whose roots and history a given nation is being directed towards.

[RamaY]

Suppose a group of 10 people from BRF choose to become "change agents." Suppose we could identify 5 key people in the Congress and Govt bureaucracy each, who can be "converted" into being nationalists.

Can we identify them? Can we then try to do that and talk to them about the "future scenario." Can we try to make our case in as cogent a way as possible.

We become the invisible catalysts, we care for no glory, no name, just do. From that group of four or five, we go to another group in another party in another institution, may be the judiciary. Then other places. Let them have the glory, let them have the fame. We simply connect the idea to the person and let them engineer the solution.

If we did that, I promise you that the cascade effect that that will have in a few years will be amazing. And, it will expose to us all the external influences that prevent our nation from being what we think its destiny is.

Added: There is really no need to become glorified think tanks with nice pdfs and serial numbers that people may or may not need. What is needed is access one-on-one to people with influence over the common man's destiny, and our ability, wit, diligence and steadfastness to influence them.
S

Great Idea S-ji,

This is what I thought I can take the discussion to while starting my new thread on "15th LokSabha - Promises and Performance". I wasn't articulate enough I guess and the thread is no more.

The idea was to remind the leadership on their promises again and again and relate their policy decisions and performance to their promises over 5 years. This includes opposition parties as well. For example, BJP need not be in power to bring swiss-bank money back. It can positively influence the UPA govt so the money comes back to India, stimulating Indian economy. That is true leadership in my opinion.

We need objective moderation of such a thread so that thread is limited to data tracking, news collection, and alternate scenario evaluation. No personal opinions and arguments. Just present alternative approach to a problem with cost benefit analysis.

[samuel]

There are two things that happen to an idealist on his or her path to power in my opinion. Some look back somewhat fondly at that youthful idealism and still use it as inspiration in day-to-day machinations and power plays. Many shun that youthful idealism as stupidity and just get on with the business of power. I know many people in industry and academia who start to seek truth at the top. They've not had time in their journey.

To the people of the first kind, the battles that they have fought along the way to get "rashtriya power" must not be held against them. We must celebrate their ability to succeed. Only when we do that, we are able to get past and reach out to the so-called idealism that usually got them initiated. Once they find a home for it, you just wait and watch.

These people become the movers and shakers of the country. All that soul selling will finally have some use. But we can't tell up front who they are and they may all "appear the same." We need to get a closer look before standing in judgment of them or the process.

We are mere hidden, unseen, unknown, unheard catalysts who locate and talk to them.
We are the core, the people who struggle every moment to discover a higher truth, so that the ideas that wrap around these truths will survive for very long and can form the philosophical and nationalistic foundation for those who listen to it. We are not gurus, we are not lecturers, we are not leaders, we don't go to the microphone or the book. We meet secretly, simply, quietly and work tirelessly without rest. We disturb nothing. This is what a core looks like.

I do not mean to suggest this task is easy. But this is not about hope really, for the moment we make it about hope, we lose.

Rahul Mehta asks us where we can find the perfect husband for our ideas. Well we don't have to. We do NOT need a knight in shining armor. Just someone who will listen. They may not even do much about it for years, and when all that was said leads to their own sense of wisdom change will happen. It won't be all that we want to happen and in fact, for us to write down an explicit list of things that must change will lead to failure. It is about a way of thinking, about building affinity to places things concepts, and increasing love for the country. It is not a bamboozlement, a bombardment, or hopeless hope.

Harbans says that much of this so-called change must be organic. There, if any was an indian idea, is one. I'll tell you as a physicist, the most efficient processes are ones that are reversible, meaning so slow and accepting that you barely perceive them locally. Anything more than that is less efficient. Sort of like a car that running at full power cannot be the most efficient, our screaming on top of the lungs or trying to force a mass movement will not be efficient. It requires too much power we, people here, do not have. Processes such as "change" always "settle down" to their most efficient state, not their most powerful state. It is here, in the most efficient state, where influence can be exerted with great impact to strengthen the core. The MO is to find receptive people and "convert them;" meaning strengthen them by attaching a firm core to them. They will find others that are recpetive to them, who may be just a little more removed than the "first" core, us. That's ok, but that's change and continuity. The greater the influence of the people in our core, the "faster" it organically spreads.

But we don't just want to be "random walkers." We are the catalysts; We find reactions ready to happen and help them happen. We find the people who are ready to listen and we must do that search ourselves.

Let us debate hard and maybe even harshly for India and the nation with just one goal in mind. How to strengthen the union. Truths will emerge. Let us then communicate these truths to people who will be able to receive them with a tad bit of work, and either have influence or who we know will become influential.

Thus, if we can't find any one at the top, which is possible, we can go one rung lower and try to identify people we think are stars. If that doesn't work, another rung lower. In the long run, we can't fail as long as the core is immovable, unshakable and maintains its integrity.

S

[brihaspati]

RM,
I had IG and RG(Senior) in mind.

I have nothing against Samuelji's proposals on principle. I do not want, the type of removal of brains and souls that were encouraged by the "freedom fighters" (yes, I squarely indict Aurobindo Ghosh for pushing a 16 year kid into the hangman's noose), or the Cong founders and those who took over "rashtryia power" with British blessings, or the "revolutionary communists" of Telengana or Naxalbari.

For example, Samuelji, himself would be valuable in my consideration, and his attempt to convert quietly and silently may actually jeopardize our benefitting from his ideas. I would not be surprised, if there are already not IB lurkers on the forum, looking out for their Cong or foreign masters. Yes I am excluding the non-Cong factor, because they simply have not been there long enough at the helm of "rashtryia" power to gain "investment potential" from outside or inside. I once ran a linear fit on the number of posts against views in threads - the ratio ran to a steady value of around 30. Most people concentrate on a few threads to which they contribute or follow. The number is also too high to be accounted for by the number of mods, and reasonable efficiency assumption means there will be attempts at minimizing overlaps in supervision. So why this steady ratio across threads, unless there are around 30 mods exactly active, or a certain steady number of lurkers scan and filter BRF for snooping.

Why not consider also a parallel entity, a "foundation" that keeps carefully clear of formal "party affiliations" and uses its members' academic or other specialist credentials to act as a decidedly nationalist think-tank. They will research and make their conclusions public on issues that anyone who cares can listen to. Somewhere down the line, if you really want to make the transition to "implementation", either penetrate a party or parties that have never really "tasted" rashtryia power for a significant period of time, or form a new party. All successful "revolutionary" transitions were made by either joining up insignificant political non-entities and change it, or forming a small group around which a new party formed.

[svinayak]

Why not consider also a parallel entity, a "foundation" that keeps carefully clear of formal "party affiliations" and uses its members' academic or other specialist credentials to act as a decidedly nationalist think-tank. They will research and make their conclusions public on issues that anyone who cares can listen to. Somewhere down the line, if you really want to make the transition to "implementation", either penetrate a party or parties that have never really "tasted" rashtryia power for a significant period of time, or form a new party. All successful "revolutionary" transitions were made by either joining up insignificant political non-entities and change it, or forming a small group around which a new party formed.

Nationalists are labeled and put inside a box. THey are sterotyped and sidelined as part of a larger ruling regime.

[ramana]

Maybe like the Commies call themselves internationalists or world citizens or super DIE?

[brihaspati]

Anyone wishing to bring in "revolutionary" changes in the attitudes, systems, regimes of a particular socio-political arrangement in any country, has to crucially look at what population segment he can mobilize to achieve his objectives for the country. We can endlessly analyze the situation, but if I read Samuelji correctly, he is looking for an action plan.

Typically the two extremes of any society, socio-economically, are ready for change. The "topmost" because of anomie, boredom, meaninglessness, because they have no more pleasures to taste, and nothing new to aim for, nothing attractive left in the "present". The "bottom-most" because they have no hope either in the present. The bottom provide the "numbers" and the "top" the confidence coming from generations of being comfortable with using and creating "power". The key is to create a seamless amalgamation between the two. Do not take this literally, not all generations of the "top" will come in, only those who have not yet tasted power (so forget, RG(jr), Pilot(jr), Scindhia(jr), Abdullah(jr) or Supriya Sule, or Agatha Sangma), and not all of the "bottom" will come in, only those who have not turned their hope to primises of a better "afterlife" and not given up on this life altogether.