Strategic leadership for the future of India

[SwamyG]

ramana gaaru: I will see if I can get hold of the book again. I don't have much material and don't think a sustainable thread can be created. But I can get some material and write few pages and mail it to the interested folks. It might take a week or two, interested folks ping me at jeeryes at gmail dot com.

[Rahul Mehta]

Since at least two posters here have expressed doubts about the applicability of "Left-Right" characterizations, can we have a clarification of what different BRFItes understand by the two terms? More in terms of differences and contrasts, please?

The so called Rightists and Leftists neta, intellectuals cant think past bribes, grants and space in newspaper. This includes all labels - secular, Hinduvaadi, Nationalist, Gandhian etc. And so the followers who follow these neta are acting like zombies as they do not know where else to go. They follow their leaders and intellectuals who at the end of the day want nothing but bribes, grants and space in newspaper.

Consider Samajvadi Party leaders. Do you see any socialism in Amar Singh or Mulayam or anyone? And likewise, consider Congress MPs who started Quit India movement. Now they are endorsing Missionaries, Sonia Gandhi and MNCs. And CPM MPs supported SEZ law , law granting product patent on medicine and also supported law that legalizes womb renting !! And CPM MPs also oppose wealth/inheritance tax, giving mineral royalties to commons and so forth. And every leader and intellectual claims that he supports democracy and then opposes Jury, opposes recall and opposes election in IAS, IPS and judiciary. The labels like right, left, nationalists, hinduvaad, secularism etc are ONLY to cover their corruption and give topic to activists to debate and divert their attention.

So all these labels are useless. There may be x% neta, IAS, IPS who have commitment for the well being of commons. And they seldom use these labels. They support pro-poor pro-common causes and oppose every way which gives unfair advantage to elitemen. And they work without throwing and showing labels

[ShyamSP]

Since at least two posters here have expressed doubts about the applicability of "Left-Right" characterizations, can we have a clarification of what different BRFItes understand by the two terms? More in terms of differences and contrasts, please?

Here is my objective way to look at it. Western left-right (LR) model != Indian LR model. However we can appropriate LR model by looking at what parameters constitute Indian LR.

[Rahul Mehta]

So the Brits were giving commie literature to wean away Savarkar inspired revolutionaries !

The Brits were giving ALL sorts books, which were legal in India at that time, to prisoners. I have heard this from people who ACTUALLY spent time in British prison. Every charity was allowed to donate books. Any prisoner was allowed make request to get a book, and in most cases it was met. Essentially, British prison authorities saw books as a way by which prisoners can be kept busy and thus reduce troubles.

-----

Lets say that terms Rightists and Leftists have an iota of meaning. Then can those who understand these terms tell me the following :

1a. Would a rightist support or oppose wealth/inheritance tax over VAT?
1b. Would a leftist support or oppose wealth/inheritance tax over VAT?

2a. Would a rightist support or oppose selection in Govt using interviews over written exams?
2b. Would a leftist support or oppose selection in Govt using interviews over written exams?

3a. Would a rightist support or oppose selection in Govt using interviews over written exams?
3b. Would a leftist support or oppose selection in Govt using interviews over written exams?

IOW, take ANY problem that matters to a common man. Do rightists and leftist differ at all? And please give examples from EXISTING MPs and Ministers in India. Pls dont resort to citing intellectuals and their theories. My answer to the question in bold is : To almost all problems that we commons of India care about, the rightists and leftists act in the SAME way and hence there is no difference between their actions. If there a difference, pls show cite it.

[brihaspati]

RM,
before we get into answering what you have asked, both interviews and written exams can be subject to corruption and biases. Written exams, if properly maintained, provides evidence of what was the actual output by a candidate, and hence a means of check and balance in case of dispute and controversy. Interviews however, can also be taped and videod, and records kept for verification. Both are however amenable to doctoring while "being stored". Then there is also the question of cases where written exams show a particular communication ability by the examinee, and not the other ones which might be crucial for the job in mind.

Can you please explain from what point you are differentiating these two and why you expect differences from political position to show up?

[Rahul Mehta]

RM,
before we get into answering what you have asked, both interviews and written exams can be subject to corruption and biases. Written exams, if properly maintained, provides evidence of what was the actual output by a candidate, and hence a means of check and balance in case of dispute and controversy. Interviews however, can also be taped and videod, and records kept for verification. Both are however amenable to doctoring while "being stored". Then there is also the question of cases where written exams show a particular communication ability by the examinee, and not the other ones which might be crucial for the job in mind.

Can you please explain from what point you are differentiating these two and why you expect differences from political position to show up?

Interviews are subjective and inherently prone to open nepotism and corruption. It will ensure that 100% candidates are selected by contacts, nepotism etc. It is very much possible to design a written exam which is foolproof and even if compromised, hardly by 1% or 2%. IOW, interview system gives 100% control to elitemen, while written exams reduces control of elitemen to mere 2% or even less. So , interview system gives maximum leverage to elitemen while written exam only increases the chances to commons getting into power circles. So pro-elitemen would support interview systems while hard core pro-common would support "written exams only"

IOW, political views do decide what kind of administrative system one wants.

[brihaspati]

RM,
I am personally in favour of the written exams over interviews. In fact the "amrita" will be a system that can assess and quantify candidates without any human intervention at all in the actual assessment process itself. Having said that, current technologies are still limited. I will concede that even an automated system can still be programmed to search for certain cues to be given out by "preferred candidates". However, supervision of such automated systems can still be attempted to be perfected to prvent such abuse.

With written exams, one problem I still find is that, human bias still works. And, theoretically it is still possible for candidate examiner nexus to bypass the system. But I agree, that interviews are prone to far greater arbitrariness, and such immeasurable human interaction patterns as "rapport" etc., "impressions".

A rightist position is "equality of opportunity", and hence should go for written exams. A leftist position is that of "equality of outcome", which can only be ensured by total and to the last control over the selection process, and therefore "interview".

[Rahul Mehta]

RM,
I am personally in favour of the written exams over interviews. In fact the "amrita" will be a system that can assess and quantify candidates without any human intervention at all in the actual assessment process itself. Having said that, current technologies are still limited. I will concede that even an automated system can still be programmed to search for certain cues to be given out by "preferred candidates". However, supervision of such automated systems can still be attempted to be perfected to prvent such abuse.

Consider written exams in Maths, Logic and any objective paper in any subject. Paper leaking can happen, but it is not easy with modern means. Worst come worst, in the last round, you call selected candidates in one place and take a test where in paper is printed at last minute by jumbo printers in the examination center. And the questions are selected by random selection from a large number of questions, and options a-e are also jumbled up. Now setting questions that would favor my nephew and not the rest is mathematically impossible task.

One system I have proposed is system where there is question of millions of questions and they are all in public domain. And paper is made by selecting the questions at random from this public domain list.

---

With written exams, one problem I still find is that, human bias still works.

How? Even when questions are objective type?

---

And, theoretically it is still possible for candidate examiner nexus to bypass the system. But I agree, that interviews are prone to far greater arbitrariness, and such immeasurable human interaction patterns as "rapport" etc., "impressions".

Fewer than interview. Interviews are 100% frauds, fake and phony. In written exam, only issue is paper leak but that is less than 1% of the case.

---

A rightist position is "equality of opportunity", and hence should go for written exams. A leftist position is that of "equality of outcome", which can only be ensured by total and to the last control over the selection process, and therefore "interview".

Well, then how come hard core rightists like BJP MPs never opposed interview system in IIMA, judiciary etc? If rightists are supposed to be pro-"equality of opportunity", and if BJP MPs are rightists then they should have abolished interviews in judiciary. But they did not do a thing in 6 years of their regime.

And only a brain dead leftists would give control to elitemen in interview system with hope that elitemen would favor poor and downtrodden and have "equality in outcome". Even if elitemen get chance to favor poor and downtrodden, they are always their relatives. eg I know a school where they used to give admission to poor kids. Guess who the poor kids were ? Kids of relatives and employees of the trustees !! A common is better off written exam alone.

My point is : a True-Rightist and a True-Leftist would BOTH support written exams only over interview. But all MPs, be CPM or BJP, support interview system. This shows that they are a bunch of pseudos and nothing more.

[brihaspati]

RM,
Leftists are not brain dead. They target to capture selection committees and filtering processes completely, totally and absolutely, when they can. They are not against interviews. They want to ensure the outcome that suits the representative and "vanguard" of the "poor" and the "proletariat" - since the time of Lenin, isn't "vanguard==poor==proletariat"?

[Rahul Mehta]

RM, Leftists are not brain dead. They target to capture selection committees and filtering processes completely, totally and absolutely, when they can. They are not against interviews. They want to ensure the outcome that suits the representative and "vanguard" of the "poor" and the "proletariat" - since the time of Lenin, isn't "vanguard==poor==proletariat"?

They are not brain-dead, they are corrupt, just like their rightist counter-part.

Every rightist leader I spoke to supports interview system in selecting judges by citing an argument that "we need interview to decide the moral character, aptitude etc" and leftist support interview system by citing "we want to ensure that outcome benefits poor". In reality, BOTH want interviews ONLY to collect bribes and promote their relatives and no other reason. Which I why say that rightists and leftists viewpoints are 100% useless viewpoints to begin with, as it attracts only bribe seeking people. The true pro-common, pro-poor and pro-India will merely use common sense to draft laws that would help poor, commons and India and reduce unfair advantage elitemen have. They neither use label of rightist or leftists.

[ramana]

Rahul Mehta, this constant refrain judges are corrupt is not useful. You have repeated this chant in almost every thread or post you make. And from new reports it applies to 20% of judges. However you insist all are. frankly this is getting tiring. Moreover it might even be not striclty legal. There is the small matter of contmept of court stuff. So please reduce your posts on this matter.

Please move on to something new.

Thanks, ramana

[brihaspati]

"Contempt of Court" is defined in Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The term contempt of court refers to civil contempt or criminal contempt under the Act. But judges do not have any general immunity from criticism of their judicial conduct, provided that it is made in good faith and is genuine criticism, and not any attempt to impair the administration of justice. In case re Arundhati Roy ((2002) 3 SCC 343), the Supreme Court of India followed the view of the US Supreme Court (Frankfurter, J.) in Pennekamp v. Florida (328 US 331 : 90 L Ed 1295 (1946)) in which the United States Supreme Court observed: “If men, including judges and journalists, were angels, there would be no problem of contempt of court. Angelic judges would be undisturbed by extraneous influences and angelic journalists would not seek to influence them. The power to punish for contempt, as a means of safeguarding judges in deciding on behalf of the community as impartially as is given to the lot of men to decide, is not a privilege accorded to judges. The power to punish for contempt of court is a safeguard not for judges as persons but for the function which they exercise”.

[brihaspati]

RM,
JMTP, I would not go for a blanket assessment of all judiciary for gems like the following , which I am cross-posting from the "scenarios" thread : (you may find the Gujarat connection interesting!)

In the case of Manubhai Tribhovandas Patel And Ors. vs State Of Guiarat And Anr. on 28/9/1971, over the use of 124A, regarding the supposed seditiousness of ideas quoted in a compilation of Mao's speeches, I cannot help but quote this passage from the verdict given by Gujarat HC: ( http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1557467/ )

"These passages are intended to acquiant the reader with the principles and practice of Communism as understood and explained by Mao-Tse-Tuns in various speeches delivered by him to the Chinese people over a period of about thirty years. They are not exhortations to our public to resort to violence or create public disorder with a view to subverting Government by law established in India. There is not a word in these passages which even remotely suggests that people should overthrow lawfully established Government in India by force or violence. These passages expound the philosophy of Mao-Tse-Tung with a view to its academic study and they cannot possibly by any stretch of language be regarded as seditious. To condemn them as seditious would be to close the doors of knowledge to ostracise a philosphy because it challenges values cherishable and held dear by our present day society and holds up for acceptance a new way of life vastly different from that to which pur people are presently accustomed. It is not for the Government of the day nor for the Judges presiding over our Courts to decide what doctrine of philosophy is good for our people.

It is for the people to choose what is best for them and in order that they may be able to make a wise and intelligent choice, free propagation of ideas is an essential requisite.

The ideas propagated may be unorthodox and unconventional : they may disturb the complacency of a handful minority or they may challenge deep seated, sacred beliefs and question the most fundamental postulates of our social, political or economic thinking. That should be no ground for anxiety or apprehension, particularly in a country like ours which has always believed in the pursuit of truth and in its unending search for truth, never hesitated to receive new ideas and absorb them, if found acceptable. There can indeed be no real freedom unless thought is free and unchecked, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate. It is only from clash of ideas that truth can emerge, for the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.

If, therefore, the publisher of this forfeited books wants to propagate the philosophy of Communism as expounded by Mao-Tse-Tung amongst the people, there is no reason why he should not be free to do so. Let the people decide what doctrine or philosophy they wish to adopt. We have great faith in the commonsense of our people and we have no doubt that with the sound unerring instinct which has guided them over the years, our people will choose a doctrine or philosophy true to their genius and reject the rest. If the people want to adopt the philosophy of Communism as expounded by Mao-Tse-Tung. confiscation of a book like this is not going to stop them from doing so. The reasons for their choice would be much deeper and if the Government wants to repel the onslaught of Communist ideology, it is to an elimination of these reasons that the Government may well address itself rather than proscribe a book like this which propagates the principles and practice of Communism as expounded by one of its chief exponents, with a view to their academic study by the people."

[Rahul Mehta]

RM,
JMTP, I would not go for a blanket assessment of all judiciary for gems like the following , which I am cross-posting from the "scenarios" thread : (you may find the Gujarat connection interesting!)

In the case of Manubhai Tribhovandas Patel And Ors. vs State Of Guiarat And Anr. on 28/9/1971, over the use of 124A, regarding the supposed seditiousness of ideas quoted in a compilation of Mao's speeches, I cannot help but quote this passage from the verdict given by Gujarat HC: ( http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1557467/ )

"These passages are intended to acquiant the reader with the principles and practice of Communism as understood and explained by Mao-Tse-Tuns in various speeches delivered by him to the Chinese people over a period of about thirty years. They are not exhortations to our public to resort to violence or create public disorder with a view to subverting Government by law established in India. There is not a word in these passages which even remotely suggests that people should overthrow lawfully established Government in India by force or violence. These passages expound the philosophy of Mao-Tse-Tung with a view to its academic study and they cannot possibly by any stretch of language be regarded as seditious. To condemn them as seditious would be to close the doors of knowledge to ostracise a philosphy because it challenges values cherishable and held dear by our present day society and holds up for acceptance a new way of life vastly different from that to which pur people are presently accustomed. It is not for the Government of the day nor for the Judges presiding over our Courts to decide what doctrine of philosophy is good for our people.

It is for the people to choose what is best for them and in order that they may be able to make a wise and intelligent choice, free propagation of ideas is an essential requisite.

The ideas propagated may be unorthodox and unconventional : they may disturb the complacency of a handful minority or they may challenge deep seated, sacred beliefs and question the most fundamental postulates of our social, political or economic thinking. That should be no ground for anxiety or apprehension, particularly in a country like ours which has always believed in the pursuit of truth and in its unending search for truth, never hesitated to receive new ideas and absorb them, if found acceptable. There can indeed be no real freedom unless thought is free and unchecked, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate. It is only from clash of ideas that truth can emerge, for the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.

If, therefore, the publisher of this forfeited books wants to propagate the philosophy of Communism as expounded by Mao-Tse-Tung amongst the people, there is no reason why he should not be free to do so. Let the people decide what doctrine or philosophy they wish to adopt. We have great faith in the commonsense of our people and we have no doubt that with the sound unerring instinct which has guided them over the years, our people will choose a doctrine or philosophy true to their genius and reject the rest. If the people want to adopt the philosophy of Communism as expounded by Mao-Tse-Tung. confiscation of a book like this is not going to stop them from doing so. The reasons for their choice would be much deeper and if the Government wants to repel the onslaught of Communist ideology, it is to an elimination of these reasons that the Government may well address itself rather than proscribe a book like this which propagates the principles and practice of Communism as expounded by one of its chief exponents, with a view to their academic study by the people."

brihaspati,

Lets stop discussion on courts and judges. After all, as per a reliable statistics, only 19.58% of them are corrupt. .

-----

Ramana,

The point I am making is - NO MPs in India is rightist or leftist - they are just "bribeists", and there goes one more contribution to English Dictionary. . I was using judiciary only as example to show that take any problem in judiciary and ALL MPs talk alike. They ALL supports the bad laws in court system and oppose improvements.

----

Back to Topic,

Let me give another example that ALL self certified rightists MPs and self-certified leftists MPs. Take the example of wealth tax over land (above say X = 25 sqm per person). And take example of inheritance tax of say 45% above say Rs 2 cr of inherited wealth per inheritor. Is this leftist move? Well, the high heaven of rightist ideologies, US has been having wealth tax and inheritance tax since 1900. And in 1950s, inheritance tax was as high as 70% . So inheritance tax is very consistent with "rightist" view point. And it is also consistent with leftist viewpoints, But come to India, and ALL BJP MPs oppose this law and all CPM MPs are very much willing to ignore this proposal. Why? Because too many of them themselves own 100s of cr of wealth and they are on payrolls of those who have Rs 100s of cr of wealth.

Next, take example of Pramod. In general, you would expect a rightist to be conservative and in-tolerant on issue philandering. But we saw that BJP MPs, against all odds, supported Pramod to the extent of making him one of the top 5 leaders in BJP. And this was despite the fact that his philandering was known all over India.

And look at CPM MPs. Avowed leftists, but passed laws legalizing womb renting, SEZs and product patents on medicine?

IOW, once a person becomes 100% bribeist, he is neither rightist nor leftist. And so Indian MPs are no longer rightist or leftist. So they never had a tilt, and new set of MPs will not have any tilt to speak of.

.

[Atri]

X-posting from TSP Dhaaga..
.....

India just does not have the will power to pour money into becoming a superpower military state challenging the US given that it has x00 million people without clean water supply, a similar huge number without homes, basic healthcare and sanitation.

India is "weak" by a lot of standards. the toss up is between spending India's wealth on building up the military to 5 times its current strength to stare everyone down while ignoring all those hundreds of millions - who may then revolt. or doing what India is doing now. That is, admitting its weaknesses and playing the few cards it has.

We need to look at this as a possible explanation of what we are seeing.

Yes, however, the facts and deductions from them need to be accurate. If one cares to look into the budget and see what India spends on subsidies and amounts wasted. The amounts that can be saved through fiscal reforms. The number of inefficient and unprofitable business units that the central and state governments run and/or fund. The loss to the nation due to the few monopolies, who do turn a profit. The volume of economic reforms that can be undertaken to stimulate growth. Only a blind and/or corrupt person will make the arguments, that we have heard made so many times by many of our leaders.

Mao type of militarization at the cost of the nation, is not the automatic answer to "better" security. There are better ways.

Even after the massacre of 70+ million by Mao (by some estimates) and Deng Xiaoping's Tiananmen, at least a section of the chinese people, seem to have accepted the diktats of the CPC - in exchange for being materially better off. How many Chinese will trade this material well being in exchange for the freedom's we enjoy, is some food for thought.

Historically it is seen that Indics tends to prosper if left alone.. And they prosper harmoniously with respect to surrounding. In spite of all the 8-9% growth, Bhaarat still is the greenest country in the world.

I guess, Bhaarat has no option but to grow strong economically. We do not need Mao who overthrows the existing system. We need Shankaracharya who reinstates the already standardised system which has evolved according to needs and conditions of our country.

There are some countries, who can afford to have either only militaristic (like NoKo, TSP) or only economic (Scandinavian countries) outlook. Countries like China, India, Iran cannot afford to have single minded outlook. Indeed, it is a knife-walk.

And given the diversity of our civilization, the subsidies are essential for public appeasement. We have to either appease them all or discipline them all, in current socio-political set-up.

The American dream has penetrated the minds of many Indians and most importantly Indian policy makers who wish to achieve western styled development in India at all costs. Rather only having a lifestyle comparable to the one in West is considered as developed lifestyle. The fact of the matter is that the traditional Bhaaratiya lifestyle is much more eco-friendly and natural and beneficial for people living in Bhaarat and is nothing short of "developed" life-style.

I guess, this is the price we pay for heterogeneity and diversity. Perhaps our own structural factors does not allow us to develop rapidly in Western style. We can develop very rapidly if we rediscover our way of life and can do so in extremely sustainable manner. Village empowerment is single biggest thing that can not only place India ahead of all nations, but also the decentralized way of life and thought has protected us from extinction in past thousand years of Abrahamic dominance. This is what MKG understood and this is what NaMo achieved in Gujarat.

Decentralization coupled with Dhaarmic sustainability in terms of agriculture, lifestyle and values towards self, family, and Bhaarat can make us strong in our own terms.

Bhaarat and Bhaaratiya civilization is being forced to play on the strengths of Abrahamic (or Western) memes and to follow and obey Abrahamic (or Western) standards of strength, development and lifestyle.

I wish Nitish Kumar does to Bihar what NaMo did with Gujarat. If Nitish facilitates the beginning of the rise of Indic and Dhaarmic Magadha through the means of village empowerment, only then I guess India will start gathering the clout to challenge the influence of the West and assert it self.

[brihaspati]

There is a lot of productivity in the people. Problem is giving them access to requisite capital. Subsidizing too much is bad for overall economy and habits. Rather use that subsidy capital as productive capital and decentralize that capital. We can only make the compromise that we will subsidize that age group which can no longer be "trained", but in return we want their "kids" to be given over for a "rashtryia" makeover - of education, capacity building, and productivity and competitiveness for the future.

[brihaspati]

One of the advantages of having a dynastic succession to leadership in a political party is being seen in India now, with little or no controversy around supreme leadership in the Congress (not only post election victory, but also prior, when prospects were not always so sure - as during the tussle with the Left) and vocal "outrages" by dissatisfied "senior" BJP leaders post electiions about top leadership in a non-dynastic setup. Indian society in general is likely to interpret this in favour of the Congress model. Instead of the dynastic focal point and stability factor, can there be the essential lesson or advantage taken from the dynastic model, and introduced into a democratic setup without being dynastic?

[svinayak]

One of the advantages of having a dynastic succession to leadership in a political party is being seen in India now, with little or no controversy around supreme leadership in the Congress (not only post election victory, but also prior, when prospects were not always so sure - as during the tussle with the Left) and vocal "outrages" by dissatisfied "senior" BJP leaders post electiions about top leadership in a non-dynastic setup. Indian society in general is likely to interpret this in favour of the Congress model. Instead of the dynastic focal point and stability factor, can there be the essential lesson or advantage taken from the dynastic model, and introduced into a democratic setup without being dynastic?

Just had a brief talk with somebody who was praising Congress, MMS and SRP group. He says they have good advisers and they will run the govt for full 5 years and implement policies. He said interference from the left parties will not be much this time and they have better chance to do the job. I felt He was mostly trying to sell the SRP group and whole story anticipating a future deep opposition to SRP group.

There is a slight sign of a deep resentment building up which may grow into a strong force. Time will tell.
The intellectual elite in the establishment has been fractured with the left group beaking away from the congress group.

[brihaspati]

The Left intellectuals are divided into two camps - the majority are veering towards the Naxalites. The remainder are keen to patch up with the Congress. The CPI(M) no longer controls the loyalty of the academic Marxians. If what he is saying is true, I guess the Maoists are the ones to gain from this.

[brihaspati]

M.P and MoS, Sashi Tharoor has spoken on the Australian "attacks on Indians". He thinks, it is an internal matter for Australians to sort out and it is not a bilateral issue. This is what happens when we confuse diplomacy with leadership and statesmanship. Tharoor is not at fault here in saying so. He has succeeded in life, or where he has come to, based on such talk. This is classical diplomat talk - it apparently hurts no one. The constituency that could feel outrage at such remarks is definitely small - those whose immediate relatives have gone to Oz and are at the receiving end, and those Indians who feel any attack on any Indian anywhere is an attack on India. So Tharoor is perfectly within reason to dismiss the potential negative fallout of "hurting" such a small and insignificant constituency. A diplomats success is measured by the capacity to choose the right master and the right methods to lick that master's boots. Is Tharoor such a dipolmat? We don't know yet. Moreover he could also very well within reason, to think that the number of Indians who feel secret gloating happiness that "rich kids" are being taught a lesson for being rich and being able to afford paying student positions in Oz, are far larger in number than the supposedly aggrieved.

In that case he has shown remarkable leadership skills, and kudos to those who have elected him. Should this be the model of leadership and statemanship we should expect from now on from the young "Turks"?

[RamaY]

One of the advantages of having a dynastic succession to leadership in a political party is being seen in India now, with little or no controversy around supreme leadership in the Congress (not only post election victory, but also prior, when prospects were not always so sure - as during the tussle with the Left) and vocal "outrages" by dissatisfied "senior" BJP leaders post electiions about top leadership in a non-dynastic setup. Indian society in general is likely to interpret this in favour of the Congress model. Instead of the dynastic focal point and stability factor, can there be the essential lesson or advantage taken from the dynastic model, and introduced into a democratic setup without being dynastic?

Brihaspati-ji,
I think we are already in such a pseudo-setup as far as present INC govt is concerned. In our case Rajmata and the dynasty are the Supreme Leaders.

[Rahul Mehta]

One of the advantages of having a dynastic succession to leadership in a political party is being seen in India now, with little or no controversy around supreme leadership in the Congress (not only post election victory, but also prior, when prospects were not always so sure - as during the tussle with the Left) and vocal "outrages" by dissatisfied "senior" BJP leaders post electiions about top leadership in a non-dynastic setup. Indian society in general is likely to interpret this in favour of the Congress model. Instead of the dynastic focal point and stability factor, can there be the essential lesson or advantage taken from the dynastic model, and introduced into a democratic setup without being dynastic?

Dynastic Dictatorship or Oligarchy is better than Non-Dynastic Dictatorship or Oligarchy

And "Dynastic Democracy" is worse than Non-Dynastic Democracy

The reason why BJP is now volcanic is that BJP never ever had inner Party democracy. I have spoken to BJP members - in party meetings the leaders talk and workers only listen. The workers are crushed if they object against leaders' corruption and anti-people policies. So BJP since ages if not beginning was oligarchic. And now oligarchs are having infighting. The democracies resolve these fights with votes and so division does not happen as most members have common goals.

But dynastic leadership is fatal as it makes it clear to those born in wrong families that they have no chance. So they become restless and stability decreases.

---

Also, Dynasties are no longer Supreme in Congress anymore. Congress is now property of MNCs and Christianists. The owners of Congress, the MNCs - want dynasty to go on as Sonia Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi are weak puppets and willing to do everything that MNCs want. eg MNCs want privatization so that through privatization, the MNCs will take over PSUs. Congress is agreeing with this. And Missionaries want economic policies which will increase poverty so that poor Hindus come to Missionaries. Sonia-Priyanka-Rahul are agreeing with this. In addition, all other dynasties like Schindhia, Sangama, Deoara etc are also agreeing with MNC, Christianist demands. And so MNCs are supporting all of them. All in all, Britishers supported Indian Kings as Indian Kings were supporting British. Same way, MNCs are supporting dynasties in Congress as dynasties in Congress support MNCs.

[Sanku]

In that case he has shown remarkable leadership skills, and kudos to those who have elected him. Should this be the model of leadership and statemanship we should expect from now on from the young "Turks"?

Being diplomatic & babu like -- which is more often than not a euphemism for being a of not taking stand is already considered a virtue in India.

The archetype is a person who never stands up to the boss (the person in power) but does his bidding, but at the same time waits for the boss to be in good mood to get "his" agenda pushed through. If the conditions are really good he may even make a play for the bosses position (but usually only after its clear that the boss is going to vacate it -- through tenure or other factors and if possible with the backing of boss) This is also seen in the "yes minister" kind of picture, however we have the Babu behavior without the vision and confidence of the Brits (whose starting point for this behavior was to preserve gains of war, compared to ours which was to consolidate for military losses)

We have over many years (Islamic + British) been systematically groomed (in the sense of Darwinian selection) to chose cowards and schemers. This is our quality -- We love and adore Survivors -- that is what the culture has come to.

So if the young Turks continue the old model this is hardly a big deal -- the big deal is that 1998-2003 gave some of us a hope that India can be re imagined, and take her rightful position in the world -- I remember the BRF behavior in those days -- whiners were not looked kindly on -- where as we have gone back to the situation where all we do is whine -- which was the pre 98 situation (oldies would remember).

So the lament is not that the Young turks will go back to unctuous boot liker model (in any case as you said Sashi Tharoor is the archetype since eternity) but we lost the chance for growing up.

[RamaY]

Also, Dynasties are no longer Supreme in Congress anymore. Congress is now property of MNCs and Christianists. The owners of Congress, the MNCs - want dynasty to go on as Sonia Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi are weak puppets and willing to do everything that MNCs want. eg MNCs want privatization so that through privatization, the MNCs will take over PSUs. Congress is agreeing with this. And Missionaries want economic policies which will increase poverty so that poor Hindus come to Missionaries. Sonia-Priyanka-Rahul are agreeing with this. In addition, all other dynasties like Schindhia, Sangama, Deoara etc are also agreeing with MNC, Christianist demands. And so MNCs are supporting all of them. All in all, Britishers supported Indian Kings as Indian Kings were supporting British. Same way, MNCs are supporting dynasties in Congress as dynasties in Congress support MNCs.

Well said RM-ji

[brihaspati]

RM,
an interesting take for leadership! If privatization is for and by MNCs would you prefer a future leader of India to Putinize the whole Indian scenario? Is renationalization going to be a method to fight MNC's and therefore reversing international intervention inside India?

[Rahul Mehta]

RM,
an interesting take for leadership! If privatization is for and by MNCs would you prefer a future leader of India to Putinize the whole Indian scenario? Is renationalization going to be a method to fight MNC's and therefore reversing international intervention inside India?

The law I have suggested to combat MNCs is as follows

1. Create a new type of company called as WOIC ( Wholly Owned by Indians Company)

2. If a company is WOIC, then only following can purchase its shares
a. GoI (including states, districts and cities) can own share
b. Resident Indian Citizens (no PIO, no GC holder, not even H1 holders)
c. another WOIC

3. Only WOIC can enter into areas such as telecom, mineral mining, oil drilling refineries and other strategic areas. Only WOIC can own land Non-WOIC can lease land/building for at most 15 years and no more.

4. WOIC cannot take debt in dollars

5. Plus, impose 300% custom duty to encourage local industries. Remove almost all licence requirement, no PF requirement, simple hire fire etc. Make large areas mixed zones (i.e commercial, industry , residential everything) to promote industries. IOW, say yes to liberalization and no to globalization. Of course, these terms are useless and lets not take this terms any further.

Nationalization should be used but not extensively. Because Nationalization curbs competition and individual freedom to innovate. And it also creates moral hazard and sense of irresponsibility in rank and file of staff.

---

MNCs are ahead because they are productive. And so to combat them, eventually we have to be as productive as them. To be productive, we have to remove 10s of restrictions that exist such as labor laws, licence etc. If you see BJP, Congress, they are assisting MNCs by removing these restrictions for MNCs in SEZs. But locals are made to suffer with these restriction. This clearly shows that BJP, CPM, Congress are giving better deal to MNCs than locals. And as per Occam's Razor, the only reason can be bribes that MNCs are putting in the Mauritius account of BJP, Congress and CPM leaders. We must stop all this by creating a better alternative to BJP, Congress, CPM etc.

[brihaspati]

RM,
Don't you think that an attempt for an alternative as you are suggesting, will invite the kind attention of the MNC's and their possible "friends" and "beneficiaries" within India? Is it possible to strategically think of a way by which MNC's can be taken on board initially? Putin's methods appeared interesting for exactly hints of such a line of thought.

[Rahul Mehta]

RM,
1. Don't you think that an attempt for an alternative as you are suggesting, will invite the kind attention of the MNC's and their possible "friends" and "beneficiaries" within India?

2. Is it possible to strategically think of a way by which MNC's can be taken on board initially? Putin's methods appeared interesting for exactly hints of such a line of thought.

1. Once MTMT law passed, I dont need to worry about attentions of MNCs and their puppies in Ministries, IAS, Supreme Court, High Courts, Parliament, Defectee Elitemen, Resident Indian elitemen. When 60 cr to 65 cr register YES on the law I proposed, their puppies will start meowing and so will MNCs.

2. Strategies work on stupid people only. MNCs are not stupid. No "strategy" will work on them. The only strategy that will work on them is realistic fear.

.

[sunnyP]

Also, Dynasties are no longer Supreme in Congress anymore. Congress is now property of MNCs and Christianists. The owners of Congress, the MNCs - want dynasty to go on as Sonia Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi are weak puppets and willing to do everything that MNCs want. eg MNCs want privatization so that through privatization, the MNCs will take over PSUs. Congress is agreeing with this. And Missionaries want economic policies which will increase poverty so that poor Hindus come to Missionaries. Sonia-Priyanka-Rahul are agreeing with this. In addition, all other dynasties like Schindhia, Sangama, Deoara etc are also agreeing with MNC, Christianist demands. And so MNCs are supporting all of them. All in all, Britishers supported Indian Kings as Indian Kings were supporting British. Same way, MNCs are supporting dynasties in Congress as dynasties in Congress support MNCs.

More so than MNCS etc, Congress is in the hands of 'big business' just like the BJP would have been had they been in power.

I mean how many nations allow such easy access to top ministers the way India does to personalities like the Ambanies, Tatas etc?

[Rahul Mehta]

Rahul Mehta: Also, Dynasties are no longer Supreme in Congress anymore. Congress is now property of MNCs and Christianists. The owners of Congress, the MNCs - want dynasty to go on as Sonia Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi are weak puppets and willing to do everything that MNCs want. eg MNCs want privatization so that through privatization, the MNCs will take over PSUs. Congress is agreeing with this. And Missionaries want economic policies which will increase poverty so that poor Hindus come to Missionaries. Sonia-Priyanka-Rahul are agreeing with this. In addition, all other dynasties like Schindhia, Sangama, Deoara etc are also agreeing with MNC, Christianist demands. And so MNCs are supporting all of them. All in all, Britishers supported Indian Kings as Indian Kings were supporting British. Same way, MNCs are supporting dynasties in Congress as dynasties in Congress support MNCs.

sunnyP: More so than MNCS etc, Congress is in the hands of 'big business' just like the BJP would have been had they been in power. I mean how many nations allow such easy access to top ministers the way India does to personalities like the Ambanies, Tatas etc?

Indian Neta in ALL Parties like CPM, Congress, BJP have been puppets of elitemen since ages. But penetration of MNCs and West was confined to top levels - it was not at rank and file. Due to poor administrative and court systems, the Indian technology did not improve between 1950-1990 and India was so backward that Indian elite had no option but to increase its dependence on MNCs. You take a look at any industrialist's factory in India - except perhaps Tata, all have imported machineries from MNCs. Because of this dependence, India faced severe forex crunch in early 1990s and that enabled IMF to install its two puppets PVNR and MMS at the apex and many other puppets like PC etc at rank and file. In addition, many IAS changes sides, gave up liason with Indian elitemen and became MNC agents. And MNCs gradually created a new set of elitemen who were so much dependent on MNCs, that they will obey every word of MNCs, West. eg When Pakistan attacked our Parliament House, most elitemen asked GoI to forget the attack and restart talks with Pakistan. Why? Because these elitemen were asked by West, MNCs to do so. And these Indian elitemen had to obey as their entire business depends on MNCs.

So yes, Congress, BJP and CPM are owned by Indian elitemen. But given that Indian elitemen themselves are now becoming puppets of MNCs, Indian elitemen will NOT create any pro-India tilt in the policies.

[JwalaMukhi]

^^ The ailment in the Indian scene including specifically BJP is lack of critical thinking and genuine desire for equal opportunity and adherence to basic tenets. For all the bemoaning about the dynasties of Nehru family by Parivar, BJP (including parivar) also bascially brought in a member of Nehru family as a mascot. It was back handed pat and endoresement of the policy followed by Congress, insulting the intelligence of the people. Well, why does one need to support a pale imitation of the dynastic rule, when first rate promoters of Nehru dynasty is available with Congress.
Not only was madhav come lately, but also insists on bringing his ugly sibling and demented aunt to the “Party”. Sure enough, madhav is not invited to the party anymore.
As general rule there is just replacement of actors without change in the system. BJP has not built the capacity to bring in that paradigm shift.
It is as Shiv says there are “new Brahmins” now exemplified by Mayawati. Brahmins are dead, long live Brahmins. Still it is again different actors filling in the same system. Anti-thesis of what one intends to overcome (if the earlier paradigm of brahmins was flawed, doesn't it require replacement of the paradigm instead of just creating new brahmins).
Replacement of Gora Sahibs by the pucca Brown Sahibs. Where is the much needed Paradigm shift?

[svinayak]

For all the bemoaning about the dynasties of Nehru family by Parivar, BJP (including parivar) also bascially brought in a member of Nehru family as a mascot.

That is the one of the ways to reduce the uniqueness of Gandhi brand in one party alone.

Gandhi brand has been propogated in the western media for so many decades that they have started to own the image instead of Indians.

[JwalaMukhi]

^^That precisely is going to prolong the brand which in all its true form should have been “Nehru brand” but a spectacular “fake Gandhi” brand. All the more reason to eliminate that and provide other alternatives. Instead by choosing to coopt to reduce its uniqueness; it has provided free publicity, advertisement, endorsement and extended the life of “fake Gandhi” brand. Just as adverse publicity is also publicity for the fakes, and fakes will strengthen on it.

[svinayak]

^^That precisely is going to prolong the brand which in all its true form should have been “Nehru brand” but a spectacular “fake Gandhi” brand. All the more reason to eliminate that and provide other alternatives. Instead by choosing to coopt to reduce its uniqueness; it has provided free publicity, advertisement, endorsement and extended the life of “fake Gandhi” brand. Just as adverse publicity is also publicity for the fakes, and fakes will strengthen on it.

But a "Gandhi" brand associated with Hindutva

[brihaspati]

^^^ Can the two be ever really compatible?

[brihaspati]

The above tantalizing suggestions leads me to the question : can Gandhi-ism have a place in modern political arena of India? To be most clear about the context, let us take Gandhi-ism in its political methodology only, as a theory of action and not its philosophical basis - which is a much murkier ocean we need not sail into right now. How would a modern Gandhi react and respond to the perceived "threat" of militancy by Maoists? Or by the EJ or by Pakistan and Jihadi Islamic movements? Eevn if such reactions and actions are followed or taken, what would be the consequences? And then again in the sphere of social organization and economics, what would be the practical implementation and effect of "Gandhian socialism"?

[ramana]

To make it clear clarify which Gandhi you are talking about? I presume you mean Mahatma Gandhiji.

Acahrya is also talking of him and not the Nehru-Gandhis. We should hyphentate the latter ones to clarify.

[shiv]

The above tantalizing suggestions leads me to the question : can Gandhi-ism have a place in modern political arena of India? To be most clear about the context, let us take Gandhi-ism in its political methodology only, as a theory of action and not its philosophical basis - which is a much murkier ocean we need not sail into right now. How would a modern Gandhi react and respond to the perceived "threat" of militancy by Maoists? Or by the EJ or by Pakistan and Jihadi Islamic movements? Eevn if such reactions and actions are followed or taken, what would be the consequences? And then again in the sphere of social organization and economics, what would be the practical implementation and effect of "Gandhian socialism"?

I think history has recorded a sanitized romantic view of MK Gandhi - like a fairy tale:

"Once upon a time there were bad rulers and good poor people. Saint Gandhi lived and worked for the poor and was loved by everyone. Slowly the rich bad people realized they were bad and mended their ways. Everyone lived happily ever after"

From this fairy tale comes the myth of "Gandhi-ism", and the Gandhi-ism that is sought to be applied are like "Gandigiri", "non violence", "Ishwar allah tere naam", "frugality" are all taken as "eternal truths" in the manner of Mohammad's hadiths. Indians worshipping Gandhi-ism are displaying no more independent thought and analysis than the blind application of those hadiths without insight.

Gandhi was a shrewd tactician who played one group off against another extremely well, but he did that after developing a personal equation with the "common man". Gandhi was shrewd enough to figure out three things
1) who was his largest constituency - i.e - "the poor, rural, common man"
2) The common concerns that linked all of them all over the subcontinent
2) How to convert them from "all accepting" peaceful people into mobs willing to drown anyone else.

Gandhi was a great man, but people trying to implement his individual actions piecemeal ( "Gandigiri", "non violence", "Ishwar allah tere naam", "frugality") are all at best ignorant, or else frauds. Both Naipaul and Nirad Chaudhuri have recorded what Gandhi really was versus what he is made out to be and the intellectual emptiness of his imitators and chamchas

[SwamyG]

Shiv: Your words "sanitized romantic view" would probably resonate with this article's author. Article: The Gandhi Nobody Knows

Added: The above article might hurt the sentiments of some, but also shows the biases and prejudices of the author himself. But if we can pick a point or two, a fact here or there, then it is worth it. The author has provocatively worded.

[ramana]

Shiv: Your words "sanitized romantic view" would probably resonate with this article's author. Article: The Gandhi Nobody Knows

Added: The above article might hurt the sentiments of some, but also shows the biases and prejudices of the author himself. But if we can pick a point or two, a fact here or there, then it is worth it. The author has provocatively worded.

This is an example of how "others" want to define Gandhi. Its no ones case that MKG was defined by the movie Gandhi which this author disputes. What matters is how Indians define Gandhi.

Many Westerners have studied Gandhi and have their own understanding even psycho profiling. Its important for Indians to study Gandhi and come to their own conclusions.