Strategic leadership for the future of India

[brihaspati]

R Jaganathan writes
http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/column_ ... ce_1279995

It is tempting to believe that Manmohan Singh's Sharm el-Sheikh goof-up was all his own. He certainly must take a large share of the blame. But, in a fundamental sense, he hasn't done anything that other Indian prime ministers haven't.

The real issue is this: by talking about an open book, we are taking a moral position instead of being driven purely by the country's long-term interests. And this has been true for us since the time of Gandhi and Nehru. Manmohan Singh is only the latest leader in a long line of people to believe that somewhere, sometime, Pakistanis will want peace as much as we do.

They won't. There are several reasons why there won't be real peace in our time[...]

The civilisational issue [...] The Indian approach is influenced by the largely Hindu ethos of letting things be. The Abrahamic civilisations, including the Islamic one, have a binary approach. It's either 0 or 1, black or white. One is either wrong or right. There is little scope for grey, where we can retain our separate opinions and get on with life.

[...]We could not reconcile the Islamic way of looking at reality with ours. This is why, even today, we can't understand how the Pakistanis think about Kashmir and why they are not interested in peace with status quo.

Even before Partition, a major issue on which the Congress and the Muslim League fell out was the right of the League to represent all Muslims. They couldn't comprehend the greyness of secularism. Pakistan, the inheritor of the Muslim League mantle, remains in that mould.

This brings us to ideology [...] Pakistan was created on the basis of religion and it has defined itself as anti-India, anti-Hindu -- which for them is one and the same thing. Unlike conflicts relating to economic interests, ideological tussles cannot be settled through give and take. The US-Soviet cold war was an ideological conflict that was resolved only when one party collapsed.
[....]The same goes for the India-Pakistan conflict. The battle is ideological, between a state that believes that religion is the basis for national identity and another (that's us) which says that the state has to be neutral on identities. This essential ideological tug-of-war can only be resolved by victory or defeat: either we accept that secularism is the only way to go, or we accept the Sangh Parivar's views on Hindu Rashtra.


The third issue is geopolitics.[...]The US-India alliance is intended to contain China. But this equally means that a China-Pakistan axis is inevitable. Even if, ideologically, Pakistan becomes a secular republic, its ties with China will force it to be anti-India.

If we take these three realities into account, Indian policymakers should prepare for long-term antagonism from Pakistan. Pakistan wants peace only when it wants some rest between high-cost conflicts or war.

From the leadership viewpoint Jaganathan is saying something very similar to what I have tried to say before that - Sharm should not be surprising for it is consistent with the background of the "leaders" and their attitudes towards TSP.

But where Jaganathan raises a serious issue, and I differ from his interpretation is that he thinks such behavious in our leadership comes from "Hindu" viewpoint of "letting be". There are two serious problems with this statement - first is philosophical and ideological. As a guide to practical action in politics and "rashtraniti", two texts that cannot be deleted from the list of what can be considered "Hindu" viewpoint on this matter, are the Mahabharata, especially the "survey of the battlefield" chapter and Arthasastra. But neither says anything about "letting be". Where does the author gets support for this claim about the "Hindu" attitude?

The second problem I have with him is that, there are both "Hindus" and also some Indian "Muslims" who have taken a position against the sentiments manifested by the GOI at "Sharm". BJP as a political party has taken a stand against the GOI position on this. Are they not Hindu? Many BRFites have been lambasting the GOI position. Are they going out of "Hindu"-think? Then the reference to Sangha-Parivar etc - are they taking up a non-Hindu position in opposing the Sharm fiasco?

Is all this a result of confusing the modern version of "secularism" with ancient "Hindu"? Is Jaganathan unwittingly revealing all the theoretical pitfalls of not being able to separate the two - or see where the differences lie? Does he realize the irony of saying that those who take pride in declaring themselves "secular" are actually thinkers along "Hindu"-lines?

A greater question - are the problems of GOI really in a utter misinterpretation, perhaps subconscious, of the "Hindu" way of thinking as it has been reconstructed in colonial times?

[surinder]

I felt the same, as shocking as Sharm was, MMS's actions are quite in synch with actions of past Indian PM's and "leaders". There is nothing he has done that is out of the ordinary. If it is harakiri, then India has been doing just that for the last 60-80 years. As a matter of fact, MMS's action was milder, if anything.

[shiv]

I cross post here something I wrote for a private forum in a discussion about the elite in which I read the following comment.

"Change comes from practicing what we preach."

This "packaged pontification" is one of the most laughable and worthless pieces of fiction that is drummed into us as children. I am sure you will, by now, know dozens of well meaning Indians who have lived abroad, made good lives and have returned to India with the mistaken belief that they will help change things because "Change comes from practicing what we preach."

No. Change does not come from 200,000 out of 50 million elite "practising what they preach". They will live their lives honestly, do some good, earn a good name and then kick the bucket and become a black and white photo in an Indian newspaper obituary column. That's all. Nothing will change.

Indian society is however, changing all right. It is changing and evolving. But currently I do no see it changing and evolving into something better and more enlightened. I will try an explain briefly.

For centuries Indian society has had a hierarchical structure with a "cream" or "elite" at the top with disproportionate power. The language, behavior and cultural trappings of this elite have always been idealised and admired as the "way to go" and as "ideals that one must aspire to achieve" . For example a leader is "to be respected". That means he must be greeted by people touching his feet. This is a two way phenomenon. On the one hand the "follower" of the leader shows his respect by touching his leader's feet. In turn the leader himself accepts and demands that people acknowledge his leadership by touching his feet. Another characteristic of a great leader in India is that he is allowed freedoms that others are not allowed. His followers allow him freedoms, and the leader himself expects them.

With just this limited set of examples, I will try and show how Indian society is moulding itself along these ideals. In India leaders are now elected. They are now the "new elite". They may be criminals of various types who have used intimidation and goondagiri to eliminate/intimidate a local rival. This goonda/leader imagines that "leadership" means that he should behave like the elite leaders of ancient Indian tradition. That means:
1) People must touch his feet and submit to his will
2) He must get extra freedoms (Extra freedom means taking a cut on all deals. Getting land for family members on an out of turn basis, or regularizing and illegal deal (mining/quarry or illegal construction"

As always, it takes two hands to clap. The new elite leader expects all this and his followers expect this from him. And, in an ancient system of patronage they in turn get favors from their "right hon'ble" leader - favors like college seats for kids and jobs for relatives and help in settling criminal cases.

The problem is NOT that such a corrupt system occurs in every country. the problem is that this corrupt system is respected and treasured as an "ancient Indian tradition" of "respecting the leader". In other words it is not merely the eating of shit that occurs in all nations, but the eating of shit and relishing it as a great Indian tradition that is the problem.

If you look at a whole lot of post-independence politicians starting from Karunanidhi. Laloo Prasad Yadav, Mayawati or anyone else - this is the behavior they and their followers have displayed.

In Indian tradition "leadership" has a particular traditionally recognised meaning. That is what new Indian leaders aspire to reach. The net effect is that when you take a previously poor and disempowered Indian and give him power - he becomes the "new upper caste", the new elite - who demands, and gets favors and privileges far beyond that which can be obtained by any other citizen. The trappings of power are so attractive that the injustice of this kind of power on the average Indian is forgotten.

People like us, the "old elite" are relatively unaffected by all this. because our ancestors were elite anyway we started off with a privilege anyway an we have all either maintained that or increased our privileges. We all live our lives in different sets of delusions. Some of us live like automatons, not understanding the system we are born into and in which we will die. Others understand the system and milk it. A third set imagine that if they are honest and good everything will change - echoing the sentiment "Change comes from practicing what we preach."

What is required from us the "old elite" is not merely living model lives and imagining that this will create change. It will not. We have to use our privileges and power to actively compel the system to become just. It requires a degree of boldness to use the few tools that the system provide in India to compel others - people other than yourself to lead model lives too. But we the elite are generally a greedy, self satisfied bunch who do not have the guts or motivation to do the work required to change others and like to live behind excuses in which we like to delude ourselves that by changing ourselves the world will change.

What we need is action from the Indian elite who consider themselves honest and well meaning. Not philosophical justification. Fortunately - such action is occurring (albeit in small islands) and a large part of the action really is inspired by the honest lives that the Indian elite are forced to live when they live in the West. Lives of honesty, integrity and hard work that they would never have lived had they lived in India.

[svenkat]

Deleted

[ramana]

James Dean.

[svinayak]

I see this recurring theme about the Indian elite.There has been no single uniform unchanging Indian elite through the centuries.People have been going up and down the ladder over the centuries.

This is correct. Most of the monarchical rulers were Kshatriya over many centuries and the social order was flexible to bring non Brahmin as the monarchy head. That flexibility was lost only in the last few centuries.

[brihaspati]

cross posting from sharm thread :

I think I have been quite explicit about the reasons I think were behind primarily about the advance of Islam in India. The development of a mercantile mentality that treats everything as a commodity for sale anad trade, one's family, wife, daughter, son, parents, dependents, land, one's birth society and its populations, loyalty, nationhood - everything is a commodity of trade. Only the survival and continued consumptions of the self is the objective. I have discussed at least one possible hypothesis about the reasons behind the appearance of this mentality in the middle of the first millenium CE, in India, in the future scenarios thread.

The practical side conditions that helped the Islamics is also something I have mentioned before - climatic conditions. The period of success of Islamics coincide with severe centuries wide droughts in South and East Asia. By the time the final major colonization drive was underway, in the 13th century, India was only beginning to come out of almost 500 years of climatic turbulence.

The other thing that helped Islamics was a feature that is common in all "high-civilization" versus "barbarian" conflicts. China, Roman Empire, Egypt, India - all fell periodically to barbarians in spite of their so-called high civilization. The reason is not that difficult to see. Elaborate discussions will go OT. However, two things happen. First, is the over-confidence sometimes evident in our threads about our capability to defend ourselves - which is a natural product of civilizational arrogance stemming from aspects of civilizational achievement that has nothing to do with military capability and attitude towards enemies. The second, is the growth of a philosophical and ideological weakness that allows increasing fractures in the society in the name of accommodating diversity - the more sophisticated and more complex the society grows the more is the clamour for diversity. Over time, this divides the society into uncountable distinct and non-overlapping identities - where individuals no longer identify themselves with the whole of society. Thus the more important aspects of protecting a societal identity through preservation of demographic patterns and military defence or power projection beyond immediate boundaries to gain strategic depth are neglected. Such a society fails to be ruthless in crushing and erasing the "barbarian". There would be large and influential sections among the society who would feel their hearts overflowing with compassion towards the barbarians. Women in particular would be inclined favourably towards the barbarian, because the barbarian would represent the virility and ruthlessness that their own society has lost.

The tactical retreat happens because of the reflection of this sophistication even in treatment of the enemy. There will be a severe self-restriction in ruthlessness - a hesitation to use the methods used by the barbarians back on the barbarians.

The best way to treat Islamic Jihadists, back in the 800's or in the 1200's or now, is to treat them exactly as pests and harmful animals. People who do not recognize human rights of others to start with, cannot be given human rights. Talebs or Pakistani Jihadis have to be treated as animals without any human rights whatsoever. They have to be treated by the only language they understand - by switching off conscience temporarily, and bringing down on them everything they themselves apply on others as means of coercion.

Do we have such an attitude in Indian society. No. Without such an attitude we will never be able to tackle Jihad, however militarily spectacular we become. Barbarians do not win by superior military hardware, they win by a "superior" mindset towards the enemy. If every captured Arab or Turk was flayed alive and salted, or slowly burned, or impaled - if their territories and ports were destroyed, their women captured and enslaved, all adult males killed or tortured to death, then and only then Islamic Jihad would have been stopped.

I have only allowed the possibility of an invasion with the calculation that this will also take out the the very holders and preservers of this mindset of tolerance on the Indian side - the greatest obstacle to the safety of the Bharatyia nation. Unless you harden your minds to Jihadis and recognize them for what they are - cunning, human looking animals out for your flesh, to be ruthlessly destroyed using same coercive tactics they use on you - loss of large portions of the North is inevitable. But on the other hand such a progress by the Jihadis also clears our self-imposed handicaps in the form of removing those very people who shout their love out for the Islamic and prevent the right mindset from developing in India.

[brihaspati]

shivji,
transitions of such monumental nature as you want cannot be decentralized and organic in nature. All such transitions, in history, have taken place through near dictatorial regimes for a short period of time. If, necessary changes are not coming forward organically, or spontaneously, it means the society is stuck in an equilibrium, even though the equilibrium is far from being optimal. On its own it will not generate enough momentum to break out of this stasis. A dictatorial regime denies the balance of forces existing, and breaks it to release the forces of change. This is how, Napoleon changed Europe - even though forces of modernization had been trying for the previous 300 years. We cannot deny the role of the early Bolshevik dictators in changing the face of Russia, or that of the Maoist regime for China. Such a regime does not have to be based on a single individual - but it has to be dictatorial in its nature to break the impasse. Even a sudy of how Singapore turned around could be quite illuminating - efore the "family", there practices were quite comparable to the things we lambast in India today.

[RayC]

It may appear obtuse, but that is not the intention.

Let us not wail and weep over Islam sweeping across India historically. It was welcomed by the very Hindus that inhabited India – case of cutting the nose to spite the face! Petty minded Princes and feudal satraps masquerading as Kings. I wonder if it was a case of mercantile interest in trading their wives and daughters!

One wonders if the Islamist hordes were ‘advanced’ vis a vis the civilisation of Hindus of those times. I would concede that the Islamic arrogance was paramount. They were barbarians compared to the pacifist Hindu civilisation that was present at that time which capitulated under such barbarism!

There is no doubt, that in the modern context, we can defend ourselves and it has nothing to do with civilisational arrogance. It is merely pragmatic analysis that some without background knowledge feel that is misplaced. History, after Independence, does indicate that India is not a push over!

Indeed it is a fallacy to look at India in demographic and communal compartments. I would fail in my duty if I did not mention, that while some in India may feel that demographic and communal issue decide the fate of India, but those who are actually assigned to safeguard the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India are beyond all that. It could be the motivation an training at play. Whatever it be, ot apparently works.

The philosophical and ideological weakness, if it be there, is with the India citizenry and the Govt they elect and not with those who ensure the sovereignty of India. We are fortunate that they identify as one homogeneous whole!

Jihadis, can be taken on, irrespective of religious affiliation, if only those in government shed their leopard spots.

[John Snow]

Repel Without Cause?

[RayC]

Rebel with a Cause!

[brihaspati]

RayC,
let us be realistic. You and your men under uniform will only be able to do what the civilian government allows you to do. You will be held back before you crush the sources outside the current political "boundaries". I did not mean that the army was weak at any period of Indian history that was defeated supposdly in war. What I meant was the societal attitude that ultimately was the support and command structure of that army.

So far the army has not been used to go towards a lasting solution of the Pakistan problem - the reasons that the army had to stop and return was more to do with political leadership than shortfalls in hardware. We still have a TSP sponsoring terror against us for oer 60 years now, in spite of our apparent military superiority. And in spite of all our "capabilities", you yourself acknowledge that there is the possibility of a "sell-out". This is a question of attitude and will, and not of capabilities.

[Atri]

Brihaspatiji,

What, in your opinion, is the minimum acceptable level of loss in order to release "Hindus" from their mental shackles? Entire North and Ganga plains?? Kashmir? Assam?? What if the loss comes at the hand of PRC and not Jihadis? Won't this confuse the gullible "Hindus" even more?

Whilst I am understanding your point that the Jihadi take-over of something close to Bhaaratiya heart will release Indics from their shackles, I do not see Jihadis having the power to make it real. Without China's support, this will never happen. And China will present itself as a identifiable foreign "Mlenccha" enemy which needs to be uprooted from Bhaarat, with or without support of Jihadis. Jihadi help or initiative to overthrow "godless" communists might be offered. "Hindus", in all probability, might not require their help, but this gesture will be widely appreciated by Dharmic populace and 1857 will repeat all over again.. This will confuse the "Hindus" for 2 centuries more..

Bhaarat and Bhaaratiya army is inherently secular. Without a identifiable foreign invading entity, whom they can refer to as Mlenchha, the disgust which you are advocating should be present in Indic response, won't arise in time. I have written about this a while ago on my blog.

Pattern of interaction between Indic and Abrahamic memes

Indic memes cannot defeat such arrogant abrahmic memes with their trade-mark scepticism. Yes, this ensured the survival of Indic memes in turbulent times. This scepticism and multiplicity coupled with decentralized varna system ensured that Indian civilization did not suffer the fate of Zoroastrian Persia. But, Indic memes could not pay back the Abrahmic memes in their currency except during Battle of Rajasthan. And unless Indic memes do not pay Abrahmic memes back in their own currency, the problems will persist in Bhaarat.

This is because, Indic memes cannot suffer the presence of foreign cultural and civilizational influence in Indian subcontinent. Again this is the trait of our civilization, which has its roots in Varna system. Foreign memes are considered impure at the best and barbaric at the worst by Indic memes in general and Orthodox Astika memes in particular.

The sense of superiority is required to remove the doubts in minds of an Indic while dealing with defeated enemy. Instead of behaving like Sri Raam, Indic victors have behaved like Arjun in self doubt, while dealing with defeated Muslim enemies (example Prithviraj Chauhan, Marathas). Sri Raam on defeating raakshas people was benovalent with them after overwhelming them completely. He kept Vibhishan under his check, awe and influence to such an extent that Vibhishan became the devotee of Raam and adopted Raam's style of life. Arjun OTOH was in complete doubts on the eve of battle regarding his behaviour with his enemies.

This doubt at wrong places encourages the feeling of "enmity" within the enemies. Indic victors encouraged the enmity by not crushing it completely and thoroughly. This arose out of lack of sense of overwhelming superiority over vanquished Islamic foes in minds of Indics and Abrahmics. Even the vanquished should feel that the victor is superior to them in all aspects of life and that becoming like him is the best thing in the world. Enmity cannot be defeated by defeating the enemy. Enmity is only eradicated by making the propagation of enmical ideas non-sustainable for propagation and survival. Enmity should not provide any selective advantage to the group of people harboring it in their minds.

The enemy of Bhaarat is not defined clearly and unambiguously in the minds of ordinary Bharatiya. As long as that is not done, the resurgence is impossible.

[Abhi_G]

Chiron, OT, but what you wrote in your blog is very correct. The ambiguity in the minds of the Indic is indeed a weak spot. I have read somewhere that an islamist theologian from India commented something that actually takes advantage of this ambiguity in the mind of the Indic. His comments went something on these lines, that, non-muslim countries "correctly" allow islam in their midst because of the "inherent" absolute truth of Islam, whereas, islamic countries do not allow other rleigions to flourish because the non-islamic systems are false !

[shiv]

Mulling over the question of "leadership" set me thinking about what "leadership" might mean to various people.

Let me quote one link that I liked for starters

http://www.madhavmohan.com/articles.php?id=16

So What is Leadership? - Let me take you back 2300 years and give you Kautilya's definition of an ideal King who, in fact, is an ideal leader. Kautilya says that, "In the happiness of his subjects lies the king's happiness; in their welfare lies his welfare. He shall not consider as good only that which pleases him but treat as beneficial to him whatever pleases his subjects".
Implicit in this definition of an ideal king resides the concept of leadership: the overriding concern for the welfare of the followers. Kautilya goes further and specifies that a king or ruler's basic duties are three-fold:
1. Raksha or protection of the state from external aggression
2. Palana or maintenance of law and order within the state and
3. Yogakshema or safeguarding the welfare of the people
Considering the Kautilyan definition, it is quite remarkable that Herb Kelleher, the legendary Chairman of Southwest Airlines (USA) affirms that employees come first and customers come second. The logic being that highly motivated employees are the key to highly satisfied customers. It is really wondrous that this formulation is today as accurate and relevant as it was in Kautilya's time over two millennia ago and is equally relevant and invaluable in the 3rd Millennium!

<snip>

Leadership Is Not -

Yelling and screaming to get your way

Exercising power through rank

Ordering people to do your bidding

Reveling in the privileges associated with the office

Setting one standard for yourself and another for others

Being selfish or self centered! Being critical always talking all the time

Expecting others to be at your beck and call

Monopolizing all decision making

Shifting the blame to others when things go wrong

Unfortunately in India "Leadership" is associated with all the things that it is not supposed to be. Patronage, nepotism and sycophancy ensure that "leadership" has lost meaning. Check how many of the points above fit in perfectly well with our political class and their chamchas.

Leadership in the Indian context had been misinterpreted and raped and we get good leaders only by accident as a result of this.

[Hari Seldon]

Interesting quote Moi happened to come across aaj elsewhere on the web. Pertinent to the discussion at hand, obliquely perhaps.....Arz hai toh Pesh hai....

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loss of fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."

- Alexander Tytler during the Revolutionary War, Circa 1775.

[Rahul M]

^^^
this is precisely why I think the recurrent disturbances in India are a good thing, as long as it is still manageable, it keeps us on our toes and prevents us from being complacent.

the various groupings mean that voters can't decide on one definition of 'goodies', what works for one place won't work for another. the very diversity of India acts as a check.

[brihaspati]

Chiron wrote

Brihaspatiji,

What, in your opinion, is the minimum acceptable level of loss in order to release "Hindus" from their mental shackles? Entire North and Ganga plains?? Kashmir? Assam?? What if the loss comes at the hand of PRC and not Jihadis? Won't this confuse the gullible "Hindus" even more?

Whilst I am understanding your point that the Jihadi take-over of something close to Bhaaratiya heart will release Indics from their shackles, I do not see Jihadis having the power to make it real. Without China's support, this will never happen. And China will present itself as a identifiable foreign "Mlenccha" enemy which needs to be uprooted from Bhaarat, with or without support of Jihadis. Jihadi help or initiative to overthrow "godless" communists might be offered. "Hindus", in all probability, might not require their help, but this gesture will be widely appreciated by Dharmic populace and 1857 will repeat all over again.. This will confuse the "Hindus" for 2 centuries more..

It is not worthwhile for China to directly invade the main northern plains of India. This will isolate it globally, completely. There is the danger that Russia will stay neutral, and the entire west joins in with India - for this will be their chance to cut pandragon to size for their own benefit. And if Jihadis or Islamic countries join in, thats the WWIII - PRC cannot take the risk, for whatever its shouts China is a cautious military adventurer, it learnt its lessons well in the Korean war. With its propaganda about increasing military muscle, it has started a virtual arms race in SE Asia, whose ultimate outcome may not go in their favour. PRC can try to invade India by land, its pacific coast will then be open. If it also defends that, its oil supplies will be cut off in the IO. A naval and land blockade can start which will make it dependent on Russian oil alone as both Saudis as well as Iran will not risk antagonizing India because of IO situation.

So PRC will continuously heighten the threat perception on India, and psychologically pressurize. But all it will do will increasingly help and goad Pakistan and the Jihadis.

[brihaspati]

The minimal acceptable level of shock is the destruction of the northern Indian dynastic and familial network based power elite. These are exactly the same type of networks based in and around UP that helped the Islamic to enter and win in the 1200's. We can see that once these Jayachand types were liquidated, the Sangams could rise in central-south, or later Shivaji could fight back, again from centre south.

[brihaspati]

So What is Leadership? - Let me take you back 2300 years and give you Kautilya's definition of an ideal King who, in fact, is an ideal leader. Kautilya says that, "In the happiness of his subjects lies the king's happiness; in their welfare lies his welfare. He shall not consider as good only that which pleases him but treat as beneficial to him whatever pleases his subjects".
Implicit in this definition of an ideal king resides the concept of leadership: the overriding concern for the welfare of the followers. Kautilya goes further and specifies that a king or ruler's basic duties are three-fold:
1. Raksha or protection of the state from external aggression
2. Palana or maintenance of law and order within the state and
3. Yogakshema or safeguarding the welfare of the people
Considering the Kautilyan definition, it is quite remarkable that Herb Kelleher, the legendary Chairman of Southwest Airlines (USA) affirms that employees come first and customers come second. The logic being that highly motivated employees are the key to highly satisfied customers. It is really wondrous that this formulation is today as accurate and relevant as it was in Kautilya's time over two millennia ago and is equally relevant and invaluable in the 3rd Millennium!

There is a subtle jump here, that I am not sure the author noted : while Kautilya mentions "subjects", the author mentions "followers". With original Sanskrit rendition in mind, I know, that Kautilya used the various synonyms for "praja" and not "anuchor". Not all "subjects" will be "followers" - but Kautilya's king is expected to consider non-follower "subjects" too for "welfare".

Welfare of the "follower" is being done all the time - that is the basis of patronage. Kautilya points out a totally different concept - it demands that the "king" identifies with his "subjects" - their "happiness" is his happiness, their welfar is his welfare. This is what I have tried put forward in criticism of the current sceheme of accepted Indian leadership - that for our crop of leaders, an attack on an Indian is not an attack on India - unless that single Indian is himself. Also an attack on India, is not an attack on himself. These people simply do not identify with the mass of the nation.

The leaders that we see indulging in patronage are as much a product of their own ambitions as they are a product of the "lesser" individuals who support him. Who are the followers who would put up an individual as a leader who does not identify with the whole population of Indians - only those followers who know very well how limited their own capacities are to satisfy their own greed. They need someone, whose limilitations in indentity vision, will make the leader amenable to using the resources of the nation as much as possible for their own benefits. These are the classic cases of "desire without potency" - who gatheraround an perpetuate the false and damagaing to the nation - leadership.

How could such groups at all sustain themselves. Here lies our mistaken theories of superiority by birth. The poor "superior births" who by social custom and culture are taught to expect the best offered on platters realize that they themselves do not have the qualifications to earn such platters, but cannot help expecting. Therefore, the sycophancy and search for a manipulable "leader" who can pretend at national identity but appropriate benefits for his coteri on the sly.

[svinayak]

The enemy of Bhaarat is not defined clearly and unambiguously in the minds of ordinary Bharatiya. As long as that is not done, the resurgence is impossible.

Mentally colonized country will still have confusion with who is an enemy. Indians have been fed manufactured view of the world, false view of other races, other religions and other nations for a few centuries.
Bharatiaya view of other nations, bharatiya view of other religions, bharatiya view of other races (and their history) have never been allowed to be explored, expressed and discussed. Hence until then enemy of Bhaarat will not be defined clearly and unambiguously in the minds of ordinary Bharatiya.

This also explains the problem of leadership posted by other poster earlier.

So What is Leadership? - Let me take you back 2300 years and give you Kautilya's definition of an ideal King who, in fact, is an ideal leader. Kautilya says that,

Unfortunately in India "Leadership" is associated with all the things that it is not supposed to be. Patronage, nepotism and sycophancy ensure that "leadership" has lost meaning. Check how many of the points above fit in perfectly well with our political class and their chamchas.

Manufactured image of the leadership has replaced the real social leadership which was prevalent for centuries.
Indians are being fed false image of parties, leadership and political people. Hence this corruption , Patronage, nepotism and sycophancy passes through undetected.

[Prem]

After 47, we have not hand any real leader even though we produced many politcians.There is something fundamentaly wrong with the system which inhibit the growth of leadership qualities. Unless education system change or improve , there is no possibility of bringing any change to move away from self deceptive ,destructive path.

[John Snow]

Who is a leader, what kind of magic spell can he cast on follower is all very well described in this song from the Leader itself.




tere husn kee kyaa taareef karu,
kuchh kahate huye bhee darataa hoo
kahee bhool se too naa samaz baithhe,
ke main tuz se mohabbat karataa hoo

mere dil mein kasak see hotee hai,
teree raah se jab main gujaratee hoo
is baat se ye naa samaz lenaa,
ke main tuz se mohabbat karatee hoo

teree baat mein geeton kee saragam
teree chaal mein paayal kee chhamachham
koee dekh le tuz ko yek najar,
mar jaaye teree aankhon kee kasam

{this is the key leadership attribute that the followers simply go crazy like the followers of Pied Piper}

mai bhee hoo ajab yek diwaanaa,
marataa hoo naa aahe bharataa hoo
kahee bhool se too naa samaz baithhe,
ke main tuz se mohabbat karataa hoo

mere saamane jab too aataa hai,
jee dhak se meraa ho jaataa hai
letee hain tamannaa angadaee,
dil jaane kahaa kho jaataa hai
mahasoos ye hotaa hain muz ko,
jaise main teraa dam bharatee hoo
is baat se ye naa samaz lenaa,
ke main tuz se mohabbat karatee hoo

[brihaspati]

One of the factors, that may support John Snow Garu's quotation is a very old process of "value" formation in human. For a large number of people, value of an "object" is determined to a great extent by how many other humans also "value" this object. This is a basic survival and social instinct - for if you possess somthing which a lot many others desire, you can use that desire to extract advantages and security for yourself.

In the case of India, what we are seeing, is also an instinctive perception in large sections of the population, that if a an apparently strong and influential group is supporting an individual as leader, then it is better to support such an individual and more importantly, be seen as the "supporter" of such a leader.

There is no doubt, that the majority are swayed by "visual" appeals - more accentuated by a consistent film and media hype about "star quality", with a certain idealized body type, youth, "charm" etc. The leadership sometimes are clever enough to utilize this, as shown in the sudden switchover dress-styles by a certain lady from the dynasty-pretenders of India on the eve of the election day at her local voting centre. The camera from the Delhi-based hagiographer channel, somehow lingered fondly for a long time on her "fitting" casuals. This was aimed at strking a subtle note in the hearts of the "younger" generation. This has been learnt from Bollywood.

In fact the mdeia focus against "old-age" in leadership was started only when the dynsaty-pretenders needed to build-up the image of their rather youthful scions. If the dynastic leader still had many years to adorn the throne, the campaign against "old-age" and for "youth" would vanish. In fact once, and if, the succession becomes assured, as has been the case with all the leaders from this clan, they will make dramatic switch around on many issues. So all the youth who feel fired up in ambition, will see their dreams crashing down soon.

One thing we neglect or avoid, is how almost half the population thinks. I mean the ladies. From childhood, when a pre-teen female cousin described a 40-year old BigB as "there is something in his eyes that turns her into jello" to teenage students and a matured female colleague both describe Sean Connery as getting "s*****" with each year and then again "there is something in his eyes" - to Indian female visiting stidents telling me that "there is something in" RG's "eyes" that "melts" - is a curious feature for me.

Since we will not have such surveys on real voters, with any degree of reliability, a practical approach could perhaps be really conducting such surveys and gathering real data on what exactly voters get influenced by as far as their instinctive choice of "leader" is concerned.

[manju]

One of the factors, that may support John Snow Garu's quotation is a very old process of "value" formation in human. For a large number of people, value of an "object" is determined to a great extent by how many other humans also "value" this object. This is a basic survival and social instinct - for if you possess somthing which a lot many others desire, you can use that desire to extract advantages and security for yourself.

In the case of India, what we are seeing, is also an instinctive perception in large sections of the population, that if a an apparently strong and influential group is supporting an individual as leader, then it is better to support such an individual and more importantly, be seen as the "supporter" of such a leader.

There is no doubt, that the majority are swayed by "visual" appeals - more accentuated by a consistent film and media hype about "star quality", with a certain idealized body type, youth, "charm" etc. The leadership sometimes are clever enough to utilize this, as shown in the sudden switchover dress-styles by a certain lady from the dynasty-pretenders of India on the eve of the election day at her local voting centre. The camera from the Delhi-based hagiographer channel, somehow lingered fondly for a long time on her "fitting" casuals. This was aimed at strking a subtle note in the hearts of the "younger" generation. This has been learnt from Bollywood.

In fact the mdeia focus against "old-age" in leadership was started only when the dynsaty-pretenders needed to build-up the image of their rather youthful scions. If the dynastic leader still had many years to adorn the throne, the campaign against "old-age" and for "youth" would vanish. In fact once, and if, the succession becomes assured, as has been the case with all the leaders from this clan, they will make dramatic switch around on many issues. So all the youth who feel fired up in ambition, will see their dreams crashing down soon.

One thing we neglect or avoid, is how almost half the population thinks. I mean the ladies. From childhood, when a pre-teen female cousin described a 40-year old BigB as "there is something in his eyes that turns her into jello" to teenage students and a matured female colleague both describe Sean Connery as getting "s*****" with each year and then again "there is something in his eyes" - to Indian female visiting stidents telling me that "there is something in" RG's "eyes" that "melts" - is a curious feature for me.

Since we will not have such surveys on real voters, with any degree of reliability, a practical approach could perhaps be really conducting such surveys and gathering real data on what exactly voters get influenced by as far as their instinctive choice of "leader" is concerned.

On the same line as above post by Brishpatiji.

I feel that in India women/girls more than men/boys are influenced by the movie and media as the ratio of media (movie) exporues / real life experience is higher among the former and hence more gullible and a propensity to take decisions less rationally.

In fact I have seen this among my family members and friends. The "Ideal life" as pictured by women/girls particularly of the younger generations is less realistic. Even among women/girls there is a difference based on how much they were exposed to real day-to-day life like going out of home to do their own work (to post office, submitting applications, bugying grocieries, rail tickets, etc) and not being pampered by brother/s and the father.... which ensure that the girls dont get to interact with outside world as much as the boys. This gap in real life experiences creates vaccum and they are unable to have realistic expectations of life... this gap is filled in by the messages/values espoused by movies/media.

My 2 cents..

[shiv]

One of the factors, that may support John Snow Garu's quotation is a very old process of "value" formation in human. For a large number of people, value of an "object" is determined to a great extent by how many other humans also "value" this object. This is a basic survival and social instinct - for if you possess somthing which a lot many others desire, you can use that desire to extract advantages and security for yourself.

A good friend of mine, and an occasional lurker here speaks of two systems that work among humans:
1) A "value based" system
2) A "transaction based" system"

When you value an object based on how much others value it, it is a transaction based system.

A value based system deliberately ignores comparative value and tries to assign absolute values. Humans have struggled with absolute values for millennia. What we speak of as "dharma" on here is typically an effort to assign absolute values for a value based system. The Ten Commandments for example are also a definition of absolute values .

Rotary International (of which I am not a member) has a "Four Way test" and notwithstanding the wrangling that goes on (In India) for influence in the Rotary system, the "Four way test" is again an interesting exposition of absolute values for a value based system.

Is it the Truth?
Is it fair to all concerned?
Will it build goodwill and better friendships/
Will it be beneficial to all concerned?

In my view, it does not matter how humans "normally" behave or how many humans fall within the bell curve or whatever curve that includes most humans. When you appoint, select or elect a leader he needs to stop doing what most humans many or may not do and has to start applying absolute values. Naturally, if he is already that way, he is likely to know what it takes to be that way. (The "Jo Lahore mein Gandu.." principle)

Those absolute values are not difficult to list or comprehend, but they must be applied to any leaders we have. In fact I wonder if it might be a good idea to list out Indian leaders by name and see how many of them pass the "absolute values" test - by checking if they are honest, have not cheated or told lies, have not used their power of unfair favors and have not murdered or abetted murder. (among other things). It is easy to see how lying cheating, special favors etc are transaction based - i.e the "value" is relative to other humans.

As you rightly point out "superiority by birth" is trash, but I believe that India has allowed faulty leadership based on transactional based values to exist for so long that the system is now inbuilt and this is what I find myself ranting about in the elite versus non elite discussion. But there is a caveat here..a transactional leadership may not necessarily be bad for a country or society (It may merely be bad for the world)

I believe India has another, deeper complication that explains Indian behavior.

Let me start with the example of Islamic laws. If you ignore the absolute faults in Islamic laws (eg attitudes to women) you find that Islam gives all rights to Muslims to do pretty much what they like. in a mixed society in which Islamic law is dominant - it is definitely best to be Muslim and to hell with absolute values - which are openly discarded by Islamic law when it comes to non Muslims.

But surprise surprise! It's not just sharia that is unfair. The peculiar capitalist democratic system that the US works on has exactly the same effect as sharia in an Islam dominated society. Americans are given more rights than others and as long as the US is dominant it is best to be an American and to hell with absolute values (equality, democracy, truth) which are openly discarded by the US when it comes to non Americans.

The problem with Indian behavior is that among all the confused and corrupt leaders there is a streak of dharma that sees both sharia type action and the American winner takes all attitudes as wrong. This leaves Indian leaders in the never-never land that is neither here nor there. The leaders are cheating and screwing Indians in transactions and suddenly dharma kicks in when it comes to dealing with foreigners, war or export of arms or terrorism.

India, and Indians are too confused about leadership and have no firm idea of what leadership should be doing. In fact - in a world that is populated by countries like the US, China and Pakistan Indian leadership should have two sets of values:

1) Dharmic, absolute values for Indians
2) Grabbing and cheating transaction based values for dealing with other nations.

What Indian leaders do is just the opposite and are reminiscent of a Kannada adage "Manege maari, pararige upakaari" - referring to a woman who is a she-devil at home with her family but acts like a selfless saint with anyone else. Laloo Yadav or Deve Gowda scoring a moral point in the international arena are classic examples of this.

[Rudradev]

One thing we neglect or avoid, is how almost half the population thinks. I mean the ladies. From childhood, when a pre-teen female cousin described a 40-year old BigB as "there is something in his eyes that turns her into jello" to teenage students and a matured female colleague both describe Sean Connery as getting "s*****" with each year and then again "there is something in his eyes" - to Indian female visiting stidents telling me that "there is something in" RG's "eyes" that "melts" - is a curious feature for me.

Brihaspatiji,

My 0.02: "Star quality" and the power of personality, charisma and so on have more to do with the projection of personal fantasies onto the perceived (and carefully crafted) image of a public figure than anything else. It is a sad comment on the Indian polity that such projection of fantasy... in itself an exercise in escapism brought on by the despair-inducing reality of daily life... becomes more of a factor in the exercise of adult franchise than any rational thought process. RG's faithful retainer could have sold out Kashmir and be working on selling out Noida but the memsahibs of Gurgaon would cite "melting eyes" as the most compelling factor in their choice of candidate.

After all, that is the reason why our founding fathers determined a voting age of 21. Which, of course, was hacked down to 18 by Rajiv Gandhi's stooges in the late '80s... to take full advantage of that worthy's own "melting eyes" in an increasingly uncertain clime of terrorism, separatism and imminent bankruptcy.

[brihaspati]

rudradevji - long time no see! glad to see you back! Will just raising the minimal age for franchise reduce the problem? I have seen the same reaction in 16 and 36. Or should we adopt the basic principle behind the "raising" of women in Sparta - the only Greek city state that invested a lot and made women actively participate in economic, martial, and political activities. It is perhaps not enough just to feed/clothe/protect. It is perhaps important to train to take up independent responsibilities in economic production and defence - that is when the reality of actual necessary qualities for leadership will kick in, and not mere apperance. Well that is the hope anyway!

[brihaspati]

shiv wrote

The leaders are cheating and screwing Indians in transactions and suddenly dharma kicks in when it comes to dealing with foreigners, war or export of arms or terrorism.

India, and Indians are too confused about leadership and have no firm idea of what leadership should be doing. In fact - in a world that is populated by countries like the US, China and Pakistan Indian leadership should have two sets of values:

1) Dharmic, absolute values for Indians
2) Grabbing and cheating transaction based values for dealing with other nations.

Shivji,
you correctly observe this. But I think it stems from the same transactional creation system. It is not dharma that kicks in when interacting with vicious external powers. It is the same instinct for personal survival and holding onto or increasing personal power that makes Indian leadership lick such foreign powers' boots. There are two things that work here - first the fear that here is a stronger and more vicious "cheater" from outside with whom it is better to submit because many othesr do so.

Second is their self-realization that they cannot rely on those they cheat and exploit on a daily basis, when an actual crisis comes from outside that threatens their own position. They are also aware that their coterie and follower network who are so capable of cheating and exploiting their fellow countrymen, are the weakest cowards when it comes to defending the country itself. Further there is always the risk that the bulk of fellow countrymen who are cheated and exploited could also rebel. Hence alliance with an external vicious power is a kind of hedging for safety - so that if necessary this external power can be used to checkmate any internal rebellious tendency.

This is the primary reason the Indian elite leadership needs Pakistan to exist. This is the primary reason it needs to preserve political Islam and empower it. Protection of internal political Islam is actually to utilize the external Islamic threat towards India. This is a message to the majoirty non-Muslim that just as northern leaders before during the advent of Islam, they will use allaince with Islamic aggression if necessary to balance out majority seeking economic and social justice. On the other hand they can also hang the sword of the non-Muslim majority on Islamic heads to indicate that if the Islamics do not support them, then they can always allow the non-majority to wipe the Islamic out.

This is why I feel it is crucial to try and dissolve TSP - to take out this prop used by a corrupt and cheating leadership, to take out alternatives to single Bharatyia identification irrespective of faith, and provide a single mass against transactional escapades.

[SwamyG]

India at 62: War on corrupt top priority

One can only continue to hope that without much delay a leader would emerge in the country who will place the fight against corruption on the top of the agenda and who will have the ability and credibility to organise a nationwide movement against corruption on the lines of the nation’s struggle for freedom.

[brihaspati]

Fight against corruption has to be indirect. The basic tactic is to take away as much as possible of governance and basic rashtra-nagarik interactions out of human decision making as possible. There should be lots of stuff that a citizen should be able to get or get done automatically. There are certain pre-requisites for this, like a solid identity recognition system. But once thats ystem is in place, every citizens hould have certain basic things automatically available through the system. And no individual bureaucrat or official or interim person can manipulate or use this for personal or clan or network benefit.

The other direction that can be immediately tackled without a straight fight, is the bypassing of the pure trader mark-up process of commodities that are used by a whole network of profiteers, who do not add any value to the product but simply marks-up to extract profits, based on stranglehold on movement of goods from producer to the consumer. More of e-market and trading, with certain legal procedures and financial incentives to encourage direct trading between producers and end-consumers.

Longer term strategies are to change the entire nature of consumer economy by developing more self-sufficient and self-sustaining communities - not a very difficult thing to do in India because of its traditional self-sufficiency concepts. More local consumption of the necessities of life is not only more sustainable from the ecological point, but also leads to lesser avenues for marking-up and corruption on economic lines.

[svinayak]

This is the primary reason the Indian elite leadership needs Pakistan to exist. This is the primary reason it needs to preserve political Islam and empower it. Protection of internal political Islam is actually to utilize the external Islamic threat towards India. This is a message to the majoirty non-Muslim that just as northern leaders before during the advent of Islam, they will use allaince with Islamic aggression if necessary to balance out majority seeking economic and social justice. On the other hand they can also hang the sword of the non-Muslim majority on Islamic heads to indicate that if the Islamics do not support them, then they can always allow the non-majority to wipe the Islamic out.

This is why I feel it is crucial to try and dissolve TSP - to take out this prop used by a corrupt and cheating leadership, to take out alternatives to single Bharatyia identification irrespective of faith, and provide a single mass against transactional escapades.

Very good observation

[John Snow]

ha back to
"Unless there is social evil how can there be role for social reform"
Girisam quote ( a character)
from Kanyasulkam Gurujada Appa Rao play.

With out Pakistan there is no Indian Unity, by this time UP with so many MPS and Bihar with so many great leaders would declare independence, its all Mayawati no?
Lallo chamatchar
Karunanidhi blind spot ( with is goggles a sure shot) for eelam

phir bhi dil hai hindustani

[SwamyG]

is the bypassing of the pure trader mark-up process of commodities that are used by a whole network of profiteers, who do not add any value to the product but simply marks-up to extract profits, based on stranglehold on movement of goods from producer to the consumer. More of e-market and trading, with certain legal procedures and financial incentives to encourage direct trading between producers and end-consumers.

Sorree for the OT. Talking about profiteers, mark-ups ithyadi. My dad tells me the 'organized' retail (he used Reliance) have become a cause for rising prices - because they hoard the products directly from the source; thereby driving small shops out of business and then increasing the prices of their products.

[brihaspati]

I proposed, direct trade between producer and consumer groups - a rehash of the cooperatives. The organized retail is now able to exploit also because there is little competition for them. I had once investigated the mark up process for several commodities. The small-retailers are at the end of a chain which actually has very few controllers. For example the pulse trade in India is basically controlled by about 11 people. The high prices paid at the end consumer point has little of it actually paid into the producer. This sort of marking up produces a huge amount of finance capital parts of which are available for the black market as well as for political and criminal financing. Greater corporatization or cooperativ-zation brings much greater exposure to actual records of transaction or mechanisms to track such transactions.

[surinder]

It is not dharma that kicks in when interacting with vicious external powers. It is the same instinct for personal survival and holding onto or increasing personal power that makes Indian leadership lick such foreign powers' boots. There are two things that work here - first the fear that here is a stronger and more vicious "cheater" from outside with whom it is better to submit because many othesr do so.

Second is their self-realization that they cannot rely on those they cheat and exploit on a daily basis, when an actual crisis comes from outside that threatens their own position. They are also aware that their coterie and follower network who are so capable of cheating and exploiting their fellow countrymen, are the weakest cowards when it comes to defending the country itself.

Some comments on the topic:

Indians, esp. leaders, have discovered an interesting thing: it does not pay to defend the motherland against all odds. Those who are traitorous are more rewarded. But the interesting thing is that the graph is not monotonous (reward do not keep increasing with more traitorness). One this end of the spectrum are those who fight till the last drop & go down, if need be, with the nation. Those are the real heroes, those are the ones that make any nation great. The other end of the spectrum has those that are openly traitorous, making alliances with hostile foriegn power & cheating their fellow Indians brazenly. In normal countries, such individuals would find themselves ruined: their cost-benifit analysis would point them to not do this act. But in India, there are surprisingly few, if any, repercussions against them. They & their offsprings can thrive quite well. But the *real* glory comes to those who are somewhat in the middle of the spectrum---they make some noises about patriotism & defiance, but do very little in reality. Those who profess valor & defiance & love for India, but capitulate in private. Those gain the most out of this system.

Recent history of India shows the above: Gandhi, Nehru etc. gained tremendously by claiming their undying love for India, but little in reality of risking their life & limb. ON key issues that affected India they capitulated with ease. Whether it was over creation of Pakistan, or participation in World War 1 & 2. Gandhi got the honor being the kingmaker of India; the king (Nehru) had his Five generations earning & living the best life & still ruling India. All for the show. Those that sacrificed their life like Bose, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev, Lajpat Rai, CS Azaad, INA soldiers are non entities in India. Their off springs are living in poverty & there are more public organization named after kamal Nehru than all these combined.

On the other end of the spectrum are those rulers who openly sided with the British, offering utmost loyalty to them. They betrayed their nation shamelessly but were not really punished in any real sense, they even were accomodated as long as they were willing to ride on the coat tails of the rulers (like Nehru dynasty). E.g. the off springs of the traitorous dogra ruler of Kashmir, Karan Singh, is a respectable member of India's ruling establishment. So is also the case with the Scindias, Amarinder Singh, & the Christian queen Rajkumari Amrit Kaur.

The cycle continues even now, I don't see it remitting: Those who have big stakes want to preserve their wealth etc. They are better off being fully tratorous. Those who want to rise in the system (have a lot to gain, but little to loose), should profess love for India, but very little in reallity. Of course, it is no surprise that those who want to fight out for their motherland are usually considered fools in India.

[brihaspati]

S,
completely agree. One of the reasons, I have dilemma over the question of direct "revolutionary" confrontations, as used by Bhagat Singh, Bose, and others like them. Such revolutionary confrontations usually take away the best elements of the society - those who would be eager to sacrifice themselves, and when their efforts succeed, the surviving society therefore has a much lower proportion of "sacrificers". Such a society would be richer in opportunists, who will utilize the success of the "sacrificers" for their personal benefit.

[Rahul Mehta]

I proposed, direct trade between producer and consumer groups - a rehash of the cooperatives. The organized retail is now able to exploit also because there is little competition for them. I had once investigated the mark up process for several commodities. The small-retailers are at the end of a chain which actually has very few controllers. For example the pulse trade in India is basically controlled by about 11 people. The high prices paid at the end consumer point has little of it actually paid into the producer. This sort of marking up produces a huge amount of finance capital parts of which are available for the black market as well as for political and criminal financing. Greater corporatization or cooperativ-zation brings much greater exposure to actual records of transaction or mechanisms to track such transactions.

It would be a good idea to discuss grain trade (in some other thread of course).

I am stuck with some work, otherwise I would started a thread myself. I would request some concerned soul to start thread on retail business.

[surinder]

B,
I aggree, but the question still arises why India produces fewer of these direct hawks, whose liquidation leaves the society poorer. Why do other soieties not have the same problem? There has to be a reason.

[Rahul Mehta]

Indians, esp. leaders, have discovered an interesting thing: it does not pay to defend the motherland against all odds. Those who are traitorous are more rewarded. But the interesting thing is that the graph is not monotonous (reward do not keep increasing with more traitorness). One this end of the spectrum are those who fight till the last drop & go down, if need be, with the nation. Those are the real heroes, those are the ones that make any nation great. The other end of the spectrum has those that are openly traitorous, making alliances with hostile foriegn power & cheating their fellow Indians brazenly. In normal countries, such individuals would find themselves ruined: their cost-benifit analysis would point them to not do this act. But in India, there are surprisingly few, if any, repercussions against them. They & their offsprings can thrive quite well. But the *real* glory comes to those who are somewhat in the middle of the spectrum---they make some noises about patriotism & defiance, but do very little in reality. Those who profess valor & defiance & love for India, but capitulate in private. Those gain the most out of this system.

The enemies such as British, Arabs etc thrive because those willing to fight till finish are very few, and they are few because some over 97% Indian population does not bear weapons and does not even know how to hold a gun forget shoot. No country in world has such weaponless-ness. Out of the 3% who can perhaps bear a gun, the wealthy ones are more interested in protecting their lands and so they queue up to out first, exceptions exist. So that makes weaponed people who will fight back less than 0.1% of population and so enemy wins.

The solution is to train WHOLE population in weapon use and also force them to bear weapons. So even if elitemen sell out, they will be crores and crores or people with weapons to fight against enemies. The enemy cant purchase them all, nor can fight against all and so will flee.

I have discussed all this in Right to Bear Gins thread.