Strategic leadership for the future of India

[a_bharat]

I wonder if one of the issues affecting leadership in India is a (manufactured) sense of shame in India and Indianness. If you exclude the "low class, aam aadmi Indian" most Indians who are exposed to the outside are able to put up a long list of faults about India and Indians of a type that are thought to be absent among others.

Outside is better. Others are better is a common theme that runs like a shadow across a huge segment of Indians. Apart from the fact that an Indian leader may personally feel that way, he is also answerable to a lot of Indians who echo that sense of shame and embarrassment of their own identity, background and habits and demand that the outsider be copied and emulated as the new ideal to follow.

I don't subscribe to this theory of shame. Sure, there are some wannabe goras who might be ashamed of their origins -- they deserve to be ashamed of themselves for being themselves, not for being Indians.

It is true that Indians find outside is better. One can list a number of reasons, but IMHO the core reason is economy -- most others flow from it. The two biggest negatives for India is the poverty and corruption. While corruption is universal, it is not as universal elsewhere as it is in India. When India gets richer Indians will have less reasons to look outside for opportunities.

One can find any number of faults with any society. Even people enjoying the wealth and land obtained by their earlier generations by means of looting, murdering and enslaving others are proud of their identities. I don't see any reason why Indians need to be ashamed of or be embarrassed about their identities. Economic development is the key for India to claim her rightful place in the world and I am optimistic about it.

[a_bharat]

Most people we know may not be prone to inferiority complexes, but a society that has tolerated caste hierarchies for so long, has a long way to go before it cleanses itself of inferiority complexes. Why else would the shudras for eons allow themselves to be called lower castes?! It has always been inferiority complexes that allowed the society to survive in spite of such humiliation.

The lower castes simply accepted their lower status as a given, as justified by Creation.

The caste-system is a big problem -- it leads to divisions in the society and people (even well educated ones) have been voting on the basis of castes to a great extent. That said, I don't think people feel inferior because of their castes. As an example, in AP, the communities like Reddys and Kammas would be classified as Sudras, but I don't think they feel inferior to anybody. They do well in all sectors -- education, business, politics, agriculture, etc (no reservations either).

In today's India, I don't think people who are well-off feel inferior because they belong to a caste.
I don't think the day is far off when a rich dalit may employ a poor Brahmin as a cook.

[brihaspati]

RM, back down. We don't have the mechanism as yet to protect you. One is based in Satara, 2 in Allahabad, 2 in Patna, 3 in Kolkata, 1 in Hubli, 1 in Delhi, 1 in Chandigarh. You could be giving names to people who themselvs are part of the network. So closing this topic here.

[sukhdeo]

The problem, here, is that all questions of self-esteem, pride, shame, all - are dependent on the construction of a value system, which for most people are created for them by their training, and social conditioning. Only for a few people, it is also modified and sometimes completely redefined from a personal quest. Most of the things that we have discussed just now as items that are often recognized by Indians as "shameful are shameful according to scales of values which have strong non-Indic origins. This non-Indic origin in itself does not mean that those values systems are to be outright rejected. No, on the contrary we should analyze them but keeping clearly in mind that these are values systems created by people who may or may not have their own interests in mind.

This is pretty much what I had in mind when I typed point #3 in the list that I made above - I cross post it below:

There are three ways of looking at India and the world:

1) India and Indians are always wrong - they must learn from those who are accustomed to being right. hose who are accustomed to being right are not Uganda/Somalia - they are US and China

2) India is sometimes right, sometimes wrong

3) India and Indians are always right.

The last one "India and Indians are always right." is not as easy as it looks. In order to start feeling that way one has to discard much of what one has been taught as being right and wrong and good or bad, and much of what is called "modern civilization" and "the world order".

Let us say that right and wrong are not absolutes but are dependent upon baggage that one has accumulated through "what is called, ' modern civilization' and 'world order'". Even so the rightness and wrongness must have an objective test or benchmark, other than just different teachings imparted to different people. I would offer the following three benchmarks which a society has to meet in order to be judged right or wrong. 1) how a society fares economically in relation to other major powers, 2) to what extent a society treats its least individuals with dignity and respect and allows them to live with self respect and 3) maintain its territorial integrity. It would be fair to say that if the society doesnt meet the above three benchmarks, it would be hard to imagine a scenario where it would be judged to make the "right" decisions. If it does by and large meet the above benchmarks, it would be hard to imagine a scenario where it would be judged to make "wrong" decisions. By putting forward the above three tests, you take all the cultural baggage and different philosophies and brain washing and psychological trauma out of what can be termed "right" and "wrong".

Using the above benchmarks, everyone is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. There are no absolutes. But just because there are no absolutes, doesnt mean that degree doesnt matter. In human affairs, its always the degree that matters. Just like some individuals exercise better judgement than others most of the time, and some individuals exercise better judgement than others some of the time, societies also differ in that some societies exercise better judgements most of the time and some societies exercise bad judgement most of the time. Its in the nature of things for some to be superior and some to be inferior in degree at any given time.

The reasons why some individuals or societies make bad decisions a lot can be complex. They can be historic, anthropological, sociological, psychological, circumstancial, environmental or behavioural. More likely it is a combination of these factors.

Whatever the reasons, unless one wants to be totally chauvanistic of the ilk that says "my country can do no wrong", looking at things objectively and if one hasnt divorced oneself of the principles of logic and hard facts, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that Indian society has made more than its share of mistakes, has often snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and hardly ever snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, in any field, whether it be economic, political or military. Therefore, not in the absolute, but in degree we have trailed far behind the major powers of their time in the past 1000 to 1500 years. One need only use some very simple benchmarks such as economic health of the country and its citizens collectively, quality of life of our people in terms of dignity and self respect and maintaining the territorial integrity of our country, all of which have not been adequetely met by our society in the past millenium and a half.

No amount of self indulgence, inspeak, self congratulations, self delusion is going to change this fact. The only thing that will, is actual reversal of this trend, by the people of the country starting to make better collective decisions on the ground and working hard to execute them time after time, day after day, year after year, decade after decade, till everyone is convinced that our collective psychosis and penchant for suicidal behaviour is a thing of the past.

There is nothing self hating or dhimmi or Macaulyte about accepting this fact and nothing Chanakyan about mindlessly parroting that all countries have problems, India has problems, some countries with problems are great powers, therefore, India can be or is a great power, regardless of how its people conduct themselves collectively or regardless of the quality of collective decisions they make. People who make such a logical argument fall into a classic trap of an elementary fallacious argument that violate the fundamental laws of logic.

[brihaspati]

One of the problems of accepting criticism by others, without looking at their motivations and backgrounds, is that we run into the danger of others setting our agenda.

For exammple, when others shout about India's "caste problem", or its "slums", or its "poverty" etc., we allow external forces to set the terms of India's agenda. First many of the problems used to create such agenda, were created by these very forces in the first place. By shifting the responsibility on India and its civilization, they escape their own responsibility. This at the same time serves to weaken the confidence and national pride of Bharat, and is aimed at weakening its majority faith and civilizational roots - so that various Abrahamic memes can gain a toe-hold and expand. The Abrahamic was devised to justify imperial expansion and always served as the advance infiltrator for colinal exploitation.

Second, the demand is that India should only focus on its "caste problem", resistance to allow "conversions" into the Abrahamic, "poverty", "lack of drinking water", "lack of sanitation" and "economic growth". The problem is that all these factors developed primarily because India only concentrated on economic growth without caring to think about how to get rid of pests in human form who targeted India's that very economic growth. The very fact that India has always been the target of famished and non-productive looters is sought to be erased out of Indian consciousness. The fact that that current conditions will continue or any economic growth ultimately will come back to zero and poverty if India does not project its military dominance and power in a ring around itself - is sought to be erased.

I would clearly say to such external voices, that they want to set India's agenda only to "economism" so that India grows back what they have looted and removed as capital - human and material - but not grow any ruthless viciousness to defend it so that they can once again return and loot it back.

We will reform whatever is needed, but we refuse our agenda to be set by external voices who had themselves looted or helped in the looting of our country.

We can change perceptions about "caste" etc on our own, but we cannot allow externals who have all the potential for pushing forward Abrahamic proselytization in India (which again by historical experience has always been the promoter and right hand of imeprialism and racism) to hijack this and put it on their terms.

[sukhdeo]

One of the problems of accepting criticism by others, without looking at their motivations and backgrounds, is that we run into the danger of others setting our agenda.

That is precisely why we should use a tried and tested tool, no matter how difficult it is to use that tool, which allows us to set our own agenda, define ourselves and our goals as a society clearly and not allow others to define us or our agenda. This tool is called honest self criticism, non censorship and openness within. Using this tool generously will also allow us to change internally to meet all challenges, external and internal.

Given that we have insufficiently used the above tool and have been a dogmatic society, by and large, moving from one orthodoxy to another (casteism to reverse casteism, emphasis on pure individual salvation to the rule of the mob, internecine warfare internally based on narrow theological differences, such as those between hinduism and buddhism, to mindless communism), it would not be wise for us to dismiss any and all criticism from any quarter, internal or external, as ill-intentioned. We would do well to pick and choose which external criticism may be valid while we develop tolerance within our societies to generate our own self critique, while resisting the temptation to brand any internal critic as a "foreign agent", if his criticism even remotely resembles that of the outsiders.

Keep in mind, that no matter how mal-intentioned the outsiders may be, in order for their critisicm to stick and their mal-intent against us to work, there always has to be some grain of truth in their criticisms, and not just mere fantasy of the type that Islamic societies propogate against their enemies. This partial truth or even full truth based criticism and attack is called "psyops". If it were pure fiction, it would be called "fantasy". The only difference is, that outsiders by and large use psyops and unpleasant truths about us to weaken us, while we can use these to exorcise our demons and strengthen us. If we dismiss those criticisms outright, we isolate ourselves, box ourselves into inspeak and start living in a fantasy la-la land that we correctly accuse the Pakis and Islamists of doing.

[shiv]

Using the above benchmarks, everyone is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. There are no absolutes. But just because there are no absolutes, doesnt mean that degree doesnt matter. In human affairs, its always the degree that matters. Just like some individuals exercise better judgement than others most of the time, and some individuals exercise better judgement than others some of the time, societies also differ in that some societies exercise better judgements most of the time and some societies exercise bad judgement most of the time. Its in the nature of things for some to be superior and some to be inferior in degree at any given time.

No Indian would ever say you are wrong. And that may be India's biggest problem. We are always searching for what is right. No great power, and no society of a great power ever accepts its fault. If you look at the behavior of big powers and the attitudes of their society - they almost never accept that they are wrong. They are always right. There is an attitude thing here and India's history and ethos is loaded against that attitude of saying 'I am always right".

But yet, that is exactly what is needed.

What colonial era faults does Britain admit?
Of the numerous faults and crimes that you can accuse the US which one's does the US accept as true?
Ditto China?

[svinayak]

They are always right. There is an attitude thing here and India's history and ethos is loaded against that attitude of saying 'I am always right".
What colonial era faults does Britain admit?
Of the numerous faults and crimes that you can accuse the US which one's does the US accept as true?
Ditto China?

That is known as hubris and most of the ruling class show this hubris in most of the races and nation.
In a homogeneous society this hubris can turn into fascism against weaker section of societies and other countries.

Indian ruling class is a Macaulayite cross breed with a dhimmitude nature due to colonized intellectual brain. Re-education is the only way to change this mind.

[ramana]

Indian ruling class is a Macaulayite cross breed with a dhimmitude nature due to colonized intellectual brain. Re-education is the only way to change this mind.

You should say elite. That is why Gandhiji involved the masses and bypassed this stumbling block. He also re-eduacted those who wanted to learn with his writings. People forget his "Hind Swaraj" came out in 1908 way before he came to the helm of the INC and the freedom movement.

[sukhdeo]

Using the above benchmarks, everyone is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. There are no absolutes. But just because there are no absolutes, doesnt mean that degree doesnt matter. In human affairs, its always the degree that matters. Just like some individuals exercise better judgement than others most of the time, and some individuals exercise better judgement than others some of the time, societies also differ in that some societies exercise better judgements most of the time and some societies exercise bad judgement most of the time. Its in the nature of things for some to be superior and some to be inferior in degree at any given time.

No Indian would ever say you are wrong. And that may be India's biggest problem. We are always searching for what is right. No great power, and no society of a great power ever accepts its fault. If you look at the behavior of big powers and the attitudes of their society - they almost never accept that they are wrong. They are always right. There is an attitude thing here and India's history and ethos is loaded against that attitude of saying 'I am always right".

But yet, that is exactly what is needed.

What colonial era faults does Britain admit?
Of the numerous faults and crimes that you can accuse the US which one's does the US accept as true?
Ditto China?

Again, there cannot be a moral equivalence between US and China or China and Britain or India and US, simply because it is true that US and Britain and China and India have at times not admitted their mistakes. They all have tried to sweep their mistakes under the rug or even denied their faults, but not equally.

There are innumerable examples of where US and to a lesser extent Britain have admitted their mistakes. The British culture as a whole has expressed innumerable times regret over their colonial past and although they have not offered any reparations, they have demonstrated a lesser level of sincerity by promoting liberal causes around the world. The US congress has officially apologised for slavery and genocide against the American Indians and passed innumerable laws to promote equality in the society and have gone a long way in actually implementing them. There is a lot of introspection within the US about their mistakes and electing Obama has been one of the gestures, though not necessarily sufficient yet, of making amends for their mistakes of the past. There has not been much equivalent by way of such introspection elsewhere in the world and therefore, it is our immaturity and false pride that results out of such immaturity that causes us to equate everything, regardless of the difference in degree. I say again, the difference in degree is important and in fact the difference in degree is the only thing of importance. An open society by definition is one where mistakes can be admitted and openly discussed, ie., where self criticism is a part of the culture. There can be no doubt that in relative terms, US and Britain are far more open than China or even us in self criticism. Are they perfect ? No, not by any means. But they are on the right track as far as openness goes. One can even argue like the Chinese do, that what good is openness when majority of your people are deprived of their economic rights. Therefore, they argue, economics first and human rights second. But that is a different argument. Thats not the same as saying that US is the same as China and Britain is the same as India as far as openness and self criticism is concerned.

Lastly, I will address the criticism I anticipate of my current post. There will be many groans and protestations by "nationalistic" BRFites that India is very open, too open and so open that we do nothing but criticize ourselves to a point of developing an inferiority complex (no doubt assisted fully by the West) where we see no good in ourselves but only in others, particularly the West. But when I talk about self criticism, I dont mean mindless idolization of the West. I mean self criticism of our behavior, our conduct, our interactions with each other and mainly criticism of how we have organized our society to meet the challenges of maintaining our territorial integrity, our economic security and our ability to live in dignity and self respect. Whenever anyone starts to discuss the fundamental weakness of how we have structured our society to meet the above challenges, we just withdraw and put our head in the sand and refuse to engage. There is no national debate in the media or elsehwere, certainly not within the government, or within the civil society or even inside private drawing rooms, which discusses the fundamental issue of whether our society as structured and organized today is capable of meeting our most basic territorial, economic and quality of life goals and objectives.

Even on BRF, we dont directly discuss how in concrete terms should we change the organization of our society to do better. The general consensus here seems to be very status quo oriented. Everything is going well. To not do anything is Chanakyan. Let us just continue along the same path that we have been travelling, and it is inevitable that in due course we will be an economic super power which will lead us then to be a military super power. After all, who can ignore a billion people.

[svinayak]

You should say elite.

When i said ruling class it is also by default an elite class.
heck this out
http://www.antihubris.com/sitemap.php
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Choir/4792/pride.html

Once pride is accepted as the main Greek human psychological motivation causing downfall in tragedy it can also be applied to explain modern human actions and phenomena (and even actions of masses and not just individuals).

For example the extreme Islamic movement to destroy the west can be understood as an attempt on their part to regain their pride as a cultural religious group which in the past was equivalent to Christian world and today is in an inferior position to it (economically and technologically).

Similarly, the new "leftist" antisemitism analyzed by the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut can be explained as the young Europeans way to hold their image proudly by blaming the modern Jews as being Nazi-like. [3] In this manner they need not apologize before the modern Jew for their cultural past crimes and sins against his culture, and so they can stand high and proud. [4]

[brihaspati]

Sukhdeoji,
nether the US nor the British, admit those fundamental aspects of their society - which they know are the pillars of their success and power, as morally and ethically inadmissible by their own standards.

Ask any of the righteous liberal British whether they accept that all their prosperity, and thereafter culture and other appendages like liberalism which depend on the luxury of prosperity and power, comes from three sources

(a) intense and "inhuman" exploitation of their own "lower classes", especially of children and women

(b) profits from the triangular Atlantic trade involving carrying guns and other products to Africa, exchanging fro slaves, and crossing the Atlantic to use this slave labour for cotton and sugar there, and carrying it back to Europe to sell at a profit. Also if they accept in this context whether the intial drive for mechanization and industrialization was partly driven by the need for ironworks catering to the slavery trade - such as chains, anklets, collars etc.

(c) outright looting and transfer of capital from the colonies.

Do the Americans or the British accept that, their religious faith was specifically used against the weaker sections of their society - such as the never highlighted, never really discussed, and hush hush "insignificant" cases of burning of women accused of witchcraft or heresy?

There are numerous such issues - where British and US liberalism completely fails to acknowledge. US will accept that the "Africans" were wronged. It will never accept that US was built on the profits extracted from "Africans". It will never accept that its capital was formed out of "looting" and "enslavement". They will never accept these things, because they know that it destroys their own projected civilizational code. The code they use to impose on others. It is tactically beneficial to deny others the opportunities after that opportunity has been used to empower the self.

[Rahul M]

brihaspati ji, I've a simple question, how to ensure credible leadership emerges from the democratic process ? that IMHO, is the most important function of a political structure.

[RajeshA]

brihaspati ji, I've a simple question, how to ensure credible leadership emerges from the democratic process ? that IMHO, is the most important function of a political structure.

Nationalist and intelligent Media setting the terms of discussion and making the politicians accountable for their activities.

[brihaspati]

Rahul M wrote
brihaspati ji, I've a simple question, how to ensure credible leadership emerges from the democratic process ? that IMHO, is the most important function of a political structure.

Kudos for the greedy elephant - where did you get those lines!

I have always skirted the leadership formation issue. Thrice I have come dangerously close to the edge. As I have repeatedly tried to say before, historical experience suggests that fundamental transitions of most societies at significant economic-technological scales, always appears to happen under dictatorial regimes. This is inevitable perhaps if the socital forces are in a limbo. Where the old order is not weak enough to fall on its own, the new order is not yet strong enough to destroy the old order outright. However, the economic basis of the old order is slipping so that the old order is hanging on using rashtryia repression and control. Because they do not want to replace themselves, or they are scared that any reformation of the order necessary will strengthen their opponents, they refuse to change the basics of the power structure as well as the foundations of the rashtra.

This is a state of agonizing equilibrium. But this also creates the conditions for dictatorial regimes to arise to complete the necessary transitions. Democracy cannot make transitions - it can develop slowly. Democracy can only make transitions when a dictatorial regime has already started the process. Moreover the dilemma of a society in a dead-end equilibrium will be reflected in an equally tied and status-quo power structure.

The problem is that democracy in itself does not necessarily generate collective action, and may not allow necessary changes to proceed because a simple majority is not quite sure of the necessity of such changes or even a determined minority uses the democratic process to obstruct necessary changes.

Now as for emergence of leadership by the democratic process who are credible at the same time - is a very rare phenomenon. They are credible to a determined minority among those who have established dominance over the political process. This does not mean they will be credible for all.

Democracy's greatest problem in bringing up proper leadership, through the party system, consists primarily of the following process.

Because power is determined by the strength of numbers within the party, an aspiring leader will try to bring in members who will be dependent on him. People who are depedent on someone else, are dependent because of certain weaknesses or shortcomings - they cannot earn "much", or they dont have suficient qualifications to strike out on their own, or they are already under the cloud becuase of activities formally deemed to be against the society (unless the person belongs to certain privileged elite etc). Such leaders will also prevent people more qualified or able than himself to rise in the party - and his supporters would help him do so because a more able leader than their own may feel more confident to bring in followers also at a higher level of capability and thereby reducing the current followers' share of influence within the party.

This process therefore continues right up the hierarchy, increasingly bringing the quality of leadership down over political generations and levels. The end comes when with a much weaker leader, and matching even weaker bulk following - the party goes down the drain.

Most of our eminent examples, whom we think have contributed to Bharatyia transitions of various shapes and directions - have not arisen through democratic procedures. They imposed their ideological hegemony first and then their hegemony was confirmed sometimes (not always) by a democratic procedure. Did MKG contest elections to rise to his position of stanglehold on the Congress? Even JLN could only manage to ward off competition on "dictatorial" intervention and a little help from the British in eliminating potential rivals. Sometimes the "dictatorial" battles are won within small groups using "democratic" procedure and then projected onto the rashtryia scene using the overall egemony of this small group at the rashtryia level (IG though the Syndicate-Indicate confrontations).

Without thinking of democracy or dictatorships, ignoring what the current parties are doing or not doing, it is important to at least come to a consensus about major issues in a determined minority (like the kernel that exists on BR) and propagate the central concepts in as many different directions and implementations as possible. Each real social transition is induced by a long hard ideological struggle to obtain ideological hegemony, carried forward by political mobilization and completed by rashtra wide political and other necessary implementation. Leaders will emerge during the process of struggle for ideological hegemony - and it is not important whether they are being dictatorial or democratic - what is important is how relevant and mobilizing they are for the task at hand. When there is no real power, and no benefits to derive, at this ideological struggle level - we are more likely to get the type of leadership we are looking for.

[surinder]

Brihaspati,

You have wriiten too many touching posts in the last few pages for me to individually point out each of them. Reading all of them and reading them with your view point in mind, only saddens and me and produces anguish at situation. Your personal hurt at these running theme may not be intentional, but at least I feel it is there.

Rephrasing you, in none of the speeches there is any consideration for those suffered and payed the price for the "benign" British rule. Whether those who saw their bodies and minds demented in Kala Pani, or those who rotted in Jails, or those who were brutally beaten and killed just so that the White Britishers could talk in sophisticated Queen's english and hone their intellects with the classics of Shakespear & Jane Austen. No mention for the Naamdharis who were blown up with cannons, nor the Bengalis who perished in millions in two famines.

The irony is that JLN speech "Tryst with Destiny" was a favority poem of the Thomas Babbington McCauly, the man who hated India and destroyed its sanskrit based education to numb the Indians. It would be like Golda Meir opening her speech in German, from a favority poet of Hitler. This is a speech that is designed to be heard and appreciated in England, not India. This is bane of India. It is without doubt that JLN has been practicing that speech for decades, like an aspiring actor who is practicing his block buster role in the sun in his bathroom mirror for years. The irony is that while he was deliverin the speech, Hindus/Sikh were becoming foreigners in Pakistan and were bing cut in the millions and walking in long processions with barely a shirt in their backs. Millions raped & killed. All thanks to the carefully crafted drama of Great Britain. I am pretty sure he got lot of warm appreciation from his girl-friend, EM.

Going on to MKG, he cannot bring himself to simply state in England that "He wants UK to just leave India, it was never her business to administer India." All he needed to say was, "Britis rule in inhuman, barbaric, unjustified violation of our fundamental rights. ... Whether we hitch our horses with UK, or Sweden, or Mozambique is none of business of questioner, nor is relevant to the my mission." MKG could not bring himself to say that simple truthful thing.

Going to MMS, less said the better. Even after the advantage of hindsight, he finds it British rule benign. If it was why does he need a visa to go to his native village in Goh. Could he have asked this question.

[brihaspati]

Surinder,
We perhaps belong to a small few, who identify naturally and instinctively with the generations that suffered as a result of the British depredations. I was born long after JLN had passed away, Subhasji possibly had passed away (my personal belief - in October, 1963/64, somewhere near the Sea of Okhotsk, near Mokdan/Kolyma and a local name sounding like Ayla - don't ask me why/how!). But I feel that I feel the same way the anti-British portion of their generation that suffered, felt.

Identification with those who distinctly identified with Bharat, those who suffered mentally when their Bharatyia people suffered - not vicariously or intellectually, but in their heart, in their emotions - that is what we ask for in a Bharatyia. The beginning of becoming a Bharatyia lies there - in that acknowledgement of shared feeling.

Leaders who do not do this, in spite of the promise of their youth, have to be rejected - quietly and with honour if necessary for their past contributions. We want a singleminded feeling of nationhood, of belonging and commitment - of acknowledging the pain of every other Bharatyia as our own - even the historical ones who are no loneger with us. Anyone who compromises on this basic identification is not a Bharatyia, does not belong to us.

No leader has the right to barter the accummulated suffering of millions to appear the "God" who made "peace" without avenging past wrongs and ensuring that future wrongs will never again be committed - ensure this by liquidation of the last roots of motivation for the wrongs that have been and are being perpetrated, if necessary.

[sukhdeo]

Sukhdeoji,
nether the US nor the British, admit those fundamental aspects of their society - which they know are the pillars of their success and power, as morally and ethically inadmissible by their own standards.

Ask any of the righteous liberal British whether they accept that all their prosperity, and thereafter culture and other appendages like liberalism which depend on the luxury of prosperity and power, comes from three sources

(a) intense and "inhuman" exploitation of their own "lower classes", especially of children and women

(b) profits from the triangular Atlantic trade involving carrying guns and other products to Africa, exchanging fro slaves, and crossing the Atlantic to use this slave labour for cotton and sugar there, and carrying it back to Europe to sell at a profit. Also if they accept in this context whether the intial drive for mechanization and industrialization was partly driven by the need for ironworks catering to the slavery trade - such as chains, anklets, collars etc.

(c) outright looting and transfer of capital from the colonies.

Do the Americans or the British accept that, their religious faith was specifically used against the weaker sections of their society - such as the never highlighted, never really discussed, and hush hush "insignificant" cases of burning of women accused of witchcraft or heresy?

There are numerous such issues - where British and US liberalism completely fails to acknowledge. US will accept that the "Africans" were wronged. It will never accept that US was built on the profits extracted from "Africans". It will never accept that its capital was formed out of "looting" and "enslavement". They will never accept these things, because they know that it destroys their own projected civilizational code. The code they use to impose on others. It is tactically beneficial to deny others the opportunities after that opportunity has been used to empower the self.

The Americans and the British do discuss this and acknowledge that they had done a lot wrong. Do they do it adequatly or entirely to our satisfaction, no, but do they do it more than others, yes. I will prove it to you in the next paragraph.

How do you know about these acts committed by the British and the Americans, brihaspati ? Did you read them in some Chinese or Indian text written by an Indian author ? Why is it that the victims of these horrendous acts, such as the Africans and the former colonists havent written much about these acts ? Why is it that there isnt more Indian literature or native Indian generated research material describing the horrors of the British rule ? Why is it that there is almost no Indian scholarship on the horrors perpetuated on Hindus by invading and ruling Islamists for centuries ? You only know about the Western atrocities because you MAINLY read about them in Western texts and Western research. If you did not have the Macaulyte education that everybody is so critical of, including myself, you wouldnt know about these atrocities. A man on the street in India without the Macaulyte education has no idea about these Western atrocities, why ? Because, very little genuine and indeginous research material is available in Indian languages and even in our folklore to inform the non-Macaulyte Indian of these diabolical acts. Let us criticize Macaulyte system to our hearts content, but the sad fact is that the alternative right now to Macaulyte education is absolute and total ignorance. We havent been able to define for ourselves as Indians a better education system or even a partially inferior but plausible education alternative to the Western education. Not only that, Indians dont even indulge in a national or even a regional debate about coming up with a non Western oriented education system which would still allow us to compete internationally in this age of globalism. And we dream of becoming a super power ?

Let us by all means criticize others such as Macaulay (who by the way died more than a century ago) for our continuing troubles today. But lets us at least also look at ourselves and contemplate if somehow we are also not responsible to a large extent for not wiping out any Macaulyte influences within our society a hundred years after he died or 70 years after independence.

[brihaspati]

Sukhdeoji,

How do you know about these acts committed by the British and the Americans, brihaspati ? Did you read them in some Chinese or Indian text written by an Indian author ? Why is it that the victims of these horrendous acts, such as the Africans and the former colonists havent written much about these acts ?

About the Atlantic triangular trade and its crucial role in British economy, I came to read about it not from a British or an American. The person who first wrote about this angle, and not plain and simple slavery that was somehow not responsible for actual British growth and which the British in their overwhelming generosity "eradicated" in due course, was actually a Caribbean Islander of African origin. British and American authors of "white" background actually try to downplay or even dispute the economic angle. Please note that I had distinguished between the emphasis on the "economic" foundational role, and simple acknowledgement of slavery and some primitive economic contribution which was not a predominant driver of power as typically represented by the acknowledgers you hint at.

Why is it that there isnt more Indian literature or native Indian generated research material describing the horrors of the British rule ? Why is it that there is almost no Indian scholarship on the horrors perpetuated on Hindus by invading and ruling Islamists for centuries ?

Why isn't there more British literature or native British generated research material describing the horrors of the Roman rule? Or of the Saxons? Or of the Vikings? Why are they usually shown to have contributed positively much more than they had destroyed? Why isn't there more Iranian literature or native Iranian generated research material describing the horrors of the Arab Islamic armies? Or native Central Asian literature? Or even of the horrors unleashed by Genghis or Kublai on China by the Chinese? Or more of Latin American research on the horrors of European, specially Portuguese and Spanish variety?

It is a complex psychological issue - the Abrahamic targeting of the intellectuals of societies they crush, removal of potential recorders of events, killing off all adult males who are likely to pass on resentful memories to the next generations, and of course the shame and psychological avoidance of devastating and humiliating defeats. Indians alone should not be singled out for this.

You only know about the Western atrocities because you MAINLY read about them in Western texts and Western research. If you did not have the Macaulyte education that everybody is so critical of, including myself, you wouldnt know about these atrocities. A man on the street in India without the Macaulyte education has no idea about these Western atrocities, why ? Because, very little genuine and indeginous research material is available in Indian languages and even in our folklore to inform the non-Macaulyte Indian of these diabolical acts. Let us criticize Macaulyte system to our hearts content, but the sad fact is that the alternative right now to Macaulyte education is absolute and total ignorance. We havent been able to define for ourselves as Indians a better education system or even a partially inferior but plausible education alternative to the Western education. Not only that, Indians dont even indulge in a national or even a regional debate about coming up with a non Western oriented education system which would still allow us to compete internationally in this age of globalism. And we dream of becoming a super power ?

We all make the blunder of confusing the form with the content. The Macaulayite form was about the mode of delivery - based on printing press, and easy industrial scale availability of recording and copying technologies for knowledge base. This form can be named after Macaulay but Macaulay himself had nothing to do with it. The Macaulayite content is what we have issues with. It is time we separate the two aspects, and not praise the content for the form - a form which in any case was a product of the particular technological-economic setup but not a credit of Macaulay the person.

[sukhdeo]

Sukhdeoji,

How do you know about these acts committed by the British and the Americans, brihaspati ? Did you read them in some Chinese or Indian text written by an Indian author ? Why is it that the victims of these horrendous acts, such as the Africans and the former colonists havent written much about these acts ?

About the Atlantic triangular trade and its crucial role in British economy, I came to read about it not from a British or an American. The person who first wrote about this angle, and not plain and simple slavery that was somehow not responsible for actual British growth and which the British in their overwhelming generosity "eradicated" in due course, was actually a Caribbean Islander of African origin. British and American authors of "white" background actually try to downplay or even dispute the economic angle. Please note that I had distinguished between the emphasis on the "economic" foundational role, and simple acknowledgement of slavery and some primitive economic contribution which was not a predominant driver of power as typically represented by the acknowledgers you hint at.

Why is it that there isnt more Indian literature or native Indian generated research material describing the horrors of the British rule ? Why is it that there is almost no Indian scholarship on the horrors perpetuated on Hindus by invading and ruling Islamists for centuries ?

Why isn't there more British literature or native British generated research material describing the horrors of the Roman rule? Or of the Saxons? Or of the Vikings? Why are they usually shown to have contributed positively much more than they had destroyed? Why isn't there more Iranian literature or native Iranian generated research material describing the horrors of the Arab Islamic armies? Or native Central Asian literature? Or even of the horrors unleashed by Genghis or Kublai on China by the Chinese? Or more of Latin American research on the horrors of European, specially Portuguese and Spanish variety?

It is a complex psychological issue - the Abrahamic targeting of the intellectuals of societies they crush, removal of potential recorders of events, killing off all adult males who are likely to pass on resentful memories to the next generations, and of course the shame and psychological avoidance of devastating and humiliating defeats. Indians alone should not be singled out for this.

You only know about the Western atrocities because you MAINLY read about them in Western texts and Western research. If you did not have the Macaulyte education that everybody is so critical of, including myself, you wouldnt know about these atrocities. A man on the street in India without the Macaulyte education has no idea about these Western atrocities, why ? Because, very little genuine and indeginous research material is available in Indian languages and even in our folklore to inform the non-Macaulyte Indian of these diabolical acts. Let us criticize Macaulyte system to our hearts content, but the sad fact is that the alternative right now to Macaulyte education is absolute and total ignorance. We havent been able to define for ourselves as Indians a better education system or even a partially inferior but plausible education alternative to the Western education. Not only that, Indians dont even indulge in a national or even a regional debate about coming up with a non Western oriented education system which would still allow us to compete internationally in this age of globalism. And we dream of becoming a super power ?

We all make the blunder of confusing the form with the content. The Macaulayite form was about the mode of delivery - based on printing press, and easy industrial scale availability of recording and copying technologies for knowledge base. This form can be named after Macaulay but Macaulay himself had nothing to do with it. The Macaulayite content is what we have issues with. It is time we separate the two aspects, and not praise the content for the form - a form which in any case was a product of the particular technological-economic setup but not a credit of Macaulay the person.

You may have come to know about that particular aspect of slavery from a non white author. But that is just an exception that proves the rule. There is volumonous research in the West and in the US that covers all aspects of slavery in great detail. Thats where I came to know about it.

I guess the question always is, how much do you blame the perpetrator and how much do you blame the victim. Clearly, one can blame the perpetrator all one likes, but ultimately that leads to nothing constructive, unless you can make the perpetrator pay. Ironically, the only way you can make the perpetrator pay and more importantly, prevent further victimization is to empower and empowerment doesnt come with constantly harping on the blame, but by taking responsibility and ownership to empower oneself. Playing the victim serves no productive purpose, although you can justify it by the fact that the perpetrator is indeed wrong and is primarily responsible for the misery. But again, and unfortunately, the responsibility to come out of the misery is the victim's alone.

[brihaspati]

The blame can never be forgotten, should never be forgotten - until and unless the blood-money is paid, in cash or kind. That in itself has to be burnt into civilizational memory so that no future generation forgets that there will be and can be always forces that will try to repeat this trauma on it again. That memory, so that, the degree and magnitude of the horrors are vividly in sight to remind them what could be done to them by these people - who also have their civilizational memories of victory. That memory itself can become the drive, that never lets the civilization relax.

As for the economic aspect of slavery, more work has been done to negate and dilute the fundamental contribution of slavery in the transition to capaitalistic development and modernization than actually support the aspect I mentioned, among the "white" British and Americans. The strongest disputers are in fact from the so-called Marxist school - they contian the larest number of academics from Britain and America who try to deny this.

[sukhdeo]

The blame can never be forgotten, should never be forgotten - until and unless the blood-money is paid, in cash or kind. That in itself has to be burnt into civilizational memory so that no future generation forgets that there will be and can be always forces that will try to repeat this trauma on it again. That memory, so that, the degree and magnitude of the horrors are vividly in sight to remind them what could be done to them by these people - who also have their civilizational memories of victory. That memory itself can become the drive, that never lets the civilization relax.

As for the economic aspect of slavery, more work has been done to negate and dilute the fundamental contribution of slavery in the transition to capaitalistic development and modernization than actually support the aspect I mentioned, among the "white" British and Americans. The strongest disputers are in fact from the so-called Marxist school - they contian the larest number of academics from Britain and America who try to deny this.

Of course it should not be forgotten. But merely talking about it only cheapens the sacrifice and misery of the victims. The best way to get back is to actually get back by empowering oneself, not just indulging in talk.

The focus should be to make the perpetrator pay, not just bark, while the elephant passes by in triumph. The only way to make the perpetrator actually pay is by going through the difficult steps with no shortcuts of empowering oneself as a society.

Talk is cheap, in more ways than one.

[sukhdeo]

Talking about "strategic leadership", here is a gem from our great leader from the "nationalist" party, whose last claim to fame was a trip to kandahar to take the hijacker's d**k up his rear without vaseline

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage ... want-Singh

How would you characterize this pearl of wisdom ? Stockholm syndrome or worse yet ? I would characterize this as too much fondness for and an inability to wean oneself away from the ingrained habit of taking in a Khan's D**k.

On an indirectly related story, there seems to be a far far greater outcry in India over Sharuk Khan's mistreatment by Americans than over the same mistreatment meated out to a great patriot, Abdul Kalam.

[svinayak]

On an indirectly related story, there seems to be a far far greater outcry in India over Sharuk Khan's mistreatment by Americans than over the same mistreatment meated out to a great patriot, Abdul Kalam.

This should tell you how media is manipulated inside India.
The image of bollywood the liberal showcase vs the political and establishment is clearly manipulated

[brihaspati]

sukhdeoji,

First, my request to look into choice of words.
Second, I have already pointed out on my part, that not every criticism that comes from outside has to be rejected outright because they come from outside. But at the same time before considering such criticisms, we cannot forget the posible motivations in the critics either. That was all that I said.

I know very well that talk is thought to be cheap. But talk is not always cheap. We cannot plunge into things without talking and thrashing it out among ourselves, and only later on realize that what we jumped into by giving too much importance to outsiders barking, is actually a dead-end if not our doom.

Proponents of "straight jump into action" and "enough of talking" can do more damage than the mere talkers. Talkers to a certain extent, can only talk. But un-thinking action can force us to walk into channels which the initiators later on will claim would have happened anyway - like fate or destiny. Those who helped the East India Company to settle down in India, did not talk - they saw immediate personal benefits and economic upliftment for themselves or their families or clans, and they jumped into action. Such people continued to refuse to see the long term fall out of helping the EIC, and even after decades and century or generations of experiencing the real character of the majority British adventurers or colonizers - they refused to talk and consider the impact of their own collaboration.

Later on of course, when things turned out to be bad - it could all be blamed on an inevitable process of history. Just as the Americans or the British do now, by pretending to be apostles of liberalism thereby quietly shifting the responsibility for debacle on the shoulder of others.

I will repeat - if we deliberately hype up economic growth only, and so called "casteism" as the only social "evil", or resistance to "conversion" into the Abrahamic, as the only fault, then we are giving in to the long term strategy of the Angloi-Saxon world. They have done it before - by looting and sucking the life blood out of India, reducing it to utter poverty. When they wasted it all on defending that right to suck blood of others in WWII, and there was no more blood to suck off, just like the sated leech it fell off. But now that looted capital is at an end - there is no internal engine of growth, and they have to look back on the real producers again. So now, India should only concentrate on economic growth, and those social problems that are of interest to the Anglo Saxon world which they know by experience are good weapons to try and fracture Indic society.

They need India's economic growth, but not India's capacity to defend the products of that growth. So they will attack each and every aspect of Bharatyia civilization which alone they know, can jeopardize satisfaction of this need. Such a consolidation based around the civilizational core hardens resistance to Anglo-Saxon penetration and cannot be allowed.

As far as my opinion concerns leaders who deviate from the allegiance and acknowledgment of the memory of the life and sacrifice and pain of those Bharatyias who are no longer with us physically, I have already stated it clearly. I do not consider themselves to belong to Bharat, civilizationally. We thank them for their contributions in the past - but a deviation is a deviation, and such a deviation is unpardonable - and they must cease to be our leaders.

[brihaspati]

For both SRK and Kalamji, any GOI with spine should have insisted that when an Indian goes abroad he represents India and nothing else. US customs or for that matter customs of any d*** country in the world should see only an Indian there and nothing else. Any mistreatment of any Indian anywhere in the world is a personal affront to all leadesr and postholders of the Bharatyia rashtra, and an mistreatment of Indian rashtra itself.

Depending on feedback from Indians abroad, GOI will consider treatment meted out to Indians by that country to be the behavioral standard that that country expects and will be reciprocated with sincereity on members of that country in their interactions with any Indian authority.

Maybe in the distant future, even that reciprocality will become unnecessary as the consequence of mistreatment can be made to be immensely painful for that country. But until that time comes, reciprocality will do. I had expressed the same opinion regarding strong intervention with Oz when the doctor was victimized.

For me, an Indian abroad is an Indian abroad - I don't even care what faith he or she comes from. Brothers can quarrel inside the home, outside they represent the family name.

[shiv]

On an indirectly related story, there seems to be a far far greater outcry in India over Sharuk Khan's mistreatment by Americans than over the same mistreatment meated out to a great patriot, Abdul Kalam.

Well there are some differences.

Kalam did not talk about it and played it down. Khan was in the US for publicity and spoke to the media as soon as he got out - and he got out sooner because of the Indian embassy's intervention. Personalities in the media love each other and talk about each other. TV and Bollywood survive because of people like Khan and vice versa, so the extra attention was "natural" so to speak.

But there is a deeper issue here. Those who holler loudest get heard the most. and this "truth" s germane to the discussion.

When a nation, or a civilization does the most inhumane and egregious things and yet leaves behind a body of literature claiming that all that was done was only good and positive and that overall, evils have been reduced - then you get the story of the Islamic civilization, Britain and present day America. It is also true to some extent regarding the way Pakistan and China are perceived.

You have said it yourself - India is an open book. That is a liability. India has been IMO converted into an open book by manipulation in which the elite - especially the English speaking elite are constantly indulging in the simultaneously executed (and interconnected) twin acts of
a) Self examination and criticism
b) The excuse that this unrelenting self criticism is a good sign of a healthy honest people.

This is a "closed loop" attitude. When you consider derision of your own culture and people as "positive self examination" you are setting yourself up to prove that what is NOT your culture and those who are NOT your people are correct.

I am collecting up a body of posts on this forum that I will quote someday (minus the identities of people who said them) to show how many elite English speaking Indians constantly criticise and deride their own people and culture because they have convinced themselves that "honesty and righteousness" means self criticism.

This attitude could just as well be a "personality problem" - a mass psychiatric issue involving poor self image and nothing more. Not a great and positive method of holding the moral high ground and finding the truth as is pompously claimed.

There is a sad corollary to this "attitudinal illness" among elite English speaking Indians, and that is their pompous posturing as people who are neutral and unbiased. As people who are always able to look at the good and the bad in any issue. This attitude is great for hedging one's bets and remaining non-committal, but it is actually a pathetic cop out in the way people refuse to take a stand and say "I support this, and I don't care if you don't like it".

I have clear examples of statements such as this being made time and time again even on this forum - but it is a national disease. People cannot blindly support India because they are too busy hedging bets and lack the spine to take a clear "for or against" stand. This disease is less prevalent among the non elite non English speakers.

[suryag]

Shiv Garu i am totally with your statements but if someone says that a brutally honest analysis of one's own fault is the way forward to becoming a great nation how do you negate that statement ??

I have had difficulties a number of times trying to defend India's caste system. Until i picked up the ammo from here that it was all the British policy of isolating some castes which aided the 1857 rebellion and that was the reason behind the rustication of some castes, I had no clue how to defend our system. Similarly, how do you defend the needs for analysis as means of self improvement ?

[shiv]

Shiv Garu i am totally with your statements but if someone says that a brutally honest analysis of one's own fault is the way forward to becoming a great nation how do you negate that statement ??

You know suryag we are dealing in semantics here and the same semantics cuts in two different ways.

1) For example you can have one person who has the "courage of his convictions" and "sticks to his guns" knowing fully well that anything and everything can be criticised and that when something needs to be done "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Many great leaders have been described in such terms.

2) On the other hand you can have a person who is afraid to commit himself, is always vacillating, continuously weighing pro and cons and is weighed down by his own self doubts, constantly seeking perfection that can never come.

The former group creates more leaders than the latter. That latter are philosophers. The Arjuna-Krishna debate in the Gita is all about 1 versus 2. "Brutally honest assessment" about oneself is an excuse for inaction and vacillation, because "brutal honesty" is bound to reveal faults. The presence of faults is normal. Being weighed down by them in an effort to get rid of them all is what Indians do about other Indians.

[sukhdeo]

sukhdeoji,

First, my request to look into choice of words.
We cannot plunge into things without talking and thrashing it out among ourselves, and only later on realize that what we jumped into by giving too much importance to outsiders barking, is actually a dead-end if not our doom.

Proponents of "straight jump into action" and "enough of talking" can do more damage than the mere talkers. Talkers to a certain extent, can only talk. But un-thinking action can force us to walk into channels which the initiators later on will claim would have happened anyway - like fate or destiny.

1) What specific choice of words are you objecting to ? Is it the reference to Jaswant Ali Muhommed ? In any case, point well taken. Will be more cordial with words.

2) When will we take action ? Can you outline a timetable ? Let me be more specific in asking.

a. When will we take concrete action to teach Pakistan(or the entire muslim world which acts as a backbone for Pak) a lesson ? I mean this may just be a small tactical goal, but everyone will agree an important one, on our way to frying much bigger fish. So, how many more decades or centuries do we need to discuss among ourselves before we take action on this count to avenge our subjugation by the muslims for centuries ?

b. If you so strongly believe that Britain has perpetrated atrocities on us, how many decades more should we wait to take action against them and teach them a lesson ?

In both examples above, if we dont take action fast, we would then not be retaliating against the grand children of the great grand children who subjugated us, we would have to be content with teaching a lesson to the grand children of the great grand children of the great grand children of the great grand children of the people who oppressed us.

Sounds absurd, doesnt it. People who advocate waiting, dont consider the above mentioned absurdities when they propose "waiting to take action".

Consider my solution as an alternative which avoids the absurd situation of the above. Not harp so much on injustices of a distant past, focus more in learning from others and yes, developing ourselves and empowering ourselves through self criticism (I will never shy away from that phrase or its meaning) and ensure that our next generations dont face what we and our forefathers faced. Thats the healthiest and the best lesson learnt. No matter how much you harp on injustices of the past, you can never go back and punish the perpetrators, as they are all dead.

If you want to punish those who threaten us in the present, then "waiting" doesnt help, as they will all be dead by the time you decide to take action.

And if you dont mean retaliation for past and present injustices, what exactly do you mean when you say "the past must not be forgotten". No one is advocating forgetting the past. I am just saying let us remember the past but learn the right lessons, not cower down and give up the biggest learning and testing tool available to us, ie., self criticism.

[RamaY]

Sukhdeo-ji

Yes, talk is cheap. What I understand from B-ji's post is that Indian leadership must stop giving the "god and destiny" type speeches and instead focus on extracting the blood money, prefarably in kind and in cash in the worse case. The rest of the meeasge is for mere mortals like us to pass the knoweledge about the sufferings our forefathers bore to ensure whatever luxaries we are enjoying and who were responsible for those sufferings so our future generations and leadership will ensure that these mistakes were never repeated.

I will leave the rest to B-ji.

[a_bharat]

When a nation, or a civilization does the most inhumane and egregious things and yet leaves behind a body of literature claiming that all that was done was only good and positive and that overall, evils have been reduced - then you get the story of the Islamic civilization, Britain and present day America. It is also true to some extent regarding the way Pakistan and China are perceived.

You have said it yourself - India is an open book. That is a liability. India has been IMO converted into an open book by manipulation in which the elite - especially the English speaking elite are constantly indulging in the simultaneously executed (and interconnected) twin acts of
a) Self examination and criticism
b) The excuse that this unrelenting self criticism is a good sign of a healthy honest people.

...

This attitude could just as well be a "personality problem" - a mass psychiatric issue involving poor self image and nothing more. Not a great and positive method of holding the moral high ground and finding the truth as is pompously claimed.

There is a sad corollary to this "attitudinal illness" among elite English speaking Indians, and that is their pompous posturing as people who are neutral and unbiased. As people who are always able to look at the good and the bad in any issue. This attitude is great for hedging one's bets and remaining non-committal, but it is actually a pathetic cop out in the way people refuse to take a stand and say "I support this, and I don't care if you don't like it".

I have clear examples of statements such as this being made time and time again even on this forum - but it is a national disease. People cannot blindly support India because they are too busy hedging bets and lack the spine to take a clear "for or against" stand. This disease is less prevalent among the non elite non English speakers.

Precisely my thoughts, but articulated much better. Sorry, I mistook you to be one of those elites. While we don't need to be like ostritches, nothing positive will come out of excessive self-flagellation that has become hip -- even on forums like BR.

[Sanku]

Sukhdeo Ji the fact that you have used Hindustan times to form a judgement on Jaswant Singh's book is very telling.

Hindustan times today, beats the ToIlet in its bid to be more loyal than the king, unfortunately they will not succeed.

I however love the fact that Jawant's book is being debtated, I heard Jaswant's interview with Karan Thapar on the book, and I am now in the process of reading it.

As I read the full book, let me just say, what Jaswant Singh has said so far is nearly verbatim compilation of what Ramana, Achayra and Brihspati have already said about Nehru-Jinaah-Gandhi dynamics on the topic.

Jaswant Singh is force full, logical and the truth of his statements and research come out clearly.

You could do yourself a favor by actually reading the book and then judging it rather than react instinctively based on the biased report of third rate rag of a newspaper running a US agenda.

[a_bharat]

This is probably OT, but since there has been some discussion on castes and inferiority complexes, I am posting the following letter published in NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/world ... =4&emc=tnt

...
Das is a dalit, a member of the caste formerly known as untouchables. He grew up in Molasur, living with 12 family members in a single-room hut, sleeping on a mud floor. His father, an agricultural laborer, drank and gambled.

As a boy, Das was restricted to certain parts of the village. Dalits lived in what was known as the colony; they weren’t allowed into the ur, where the upper castes lived. On the rare occasions when he had to go to the ur, Das remembers being afraid. He had to get off his bicycle and push it. He kept his eyes on the ground.

Das was born into poverty, but he got one break in life. His father insisted that he get an education. Das went to school in the nearby town of Tindivanam. He studied at home by candlelight. After school, he moved to Chennai, 130 kilometers, or 80 miles, away, where he went to college and got a B.A. in history.

He moved back to Molasur. He dabbled in village politics and then, with a partner, another dalit, he developed some land. They plotted the land and sold it to middle-class people from the cities.

Das made a lot of money. Today he lives in a two-story house that he built next to the hut where he grew up. The house has an air conditioner, a washing machine, two televisions, a DVD player and a treadmill. Das wears gold chains around his neck and right wrist, and two gold rings.

He doesn’t hesitate to enter the ur anymore. He goes where he pleases. His children, two sons and a daughter, were educated at the same private school as the upper castes from the village.

A few decades ago, Das’s story would have been almost inconceivable. India was a country where you lived the life you were born into. Dalits, in particular, were stuck in place, weighed down by centuries of discrimination.

The new India, however, is a more meritocratic country. Das was lucky to come of age in the 1980s and ’90s, when the nation was waking up, shedding its feudal past and building a society where ambition, education and hard work were rewarded.
...

[sukhdeo]

Sukhdeo Ji the fact that you have used Hindustan times to form a judgement on Jaswant Singh's book is very telling.

Hindustan times today, beats the ToIlet in its bid to be more loyal than the king, unfortunately they will not succeed.

I however love the fact that Jawant's book is being debtated, I heard Jaswant's interview with Karan Thapar on the book, and I am now in the process of reading it.

As I read the full book, let me just say, what Jaswant Singh has said so far is nearly verbatim compilation of what Ramana, Achayra and Brihspati have already said about Nehru-Jinaah-Gandhi dynamics on the topic.

Jaswant Singh is force full, logical and the truth of his statements and research come out clearly.

You could do yourself a favor by actually reading the book and then judging it rather than react instinctively based on the biased report of third rate rag of a newspaper running a US agenda.

All that may be true about HT. Let me quote another source. IBN Live.

Karan Thapar: As you look back on Jinnah's life, would you say that he was a great man?


Jaswant Singh: Oh yes, because he created something out of nothing and single-handedly he stood up against the might of the Congress party and against the British who didn't really like him.


Karan Thapar: So you are saying to me he was a great man?


Jaswant Singh: But I am saying so.


Karan Thapar:Let me put it like this. Do you admire Jinnah?


Jaswant Singh: I admire certain aspects of his personality: his determination and the will to rise. He was a self-made man--Mahatma Gandhi was a son of a Dewan.

If it were only this, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. But this followed by Kandahar, for which he has never apologises or even expressed regrets ?

I am sorry, no matter how brilliant the rest of his book is or the rest of his life has been, I for one would have a hard time, calling someone "great", if he has only commited two blunders of the magnitude, Jaswant committed in his life, ie., Kandahar and calling Jinnah great. I am not saying great men dont make mistakes, but they dont make them in so unabashed a way, without any remorse or without agonizing over their decisions, like Jaswant did over Kandahar. He seems to be perfectly at ease with his decision. Then he follows it up with this gem. I repeat, with mistakes like that, I wouldnt call Jaswant great, no matter what else right he did. And, Jinnah made far greater blunders than Jaswant is even capable of.

[rkirankr]

Sukhdeo Ji the fact that you have used Hindustan times to form a judgement on Jaswant Singh's book is very telling.

Hindustan times today, beats the ToIlet in its bid to be more loyal than the king, unfortunately they will not succeed.

I however love the fact that Jawant's book is being debtated, I heard Jaswant's interview with Karan Thapar on the book, and I am now in the process of reading it.

As I read the full book, let me just say, what Jaswant Singh has said so far is nearly verbatim compilation of what Ramana, Achayra and Brihspati have already said about Nehru-Jinaah-Gandhi dynamics on the topic.

Jaswant Singh is force full, logical and the truth of his statements and research come out clearly.

You could do yourself a favor by actually reading the book and then judging it rather than react instinctively based on the biased report of third rate rag of a newspaper running a US agenda.

All that may be true about HT. Let me quote another source. IBN Live.

Karan Thapar: As you look back on Jinnah's life, would you say that he was a great man?


Jaswant Singh: Oh yes, because he created something out of nothing and single-handedly he stood up against the might of the Congress party and against the British who didn't really like him.


Karan Thapar: So you are saying to me he was a great man?


Jaswant Singh: But I am saying so.


Karan Thapar:Let me put it like this. Do you admire Jinnah?


Jaswant Singh: I admire certain aspects of his personality: his determination and the will to rise. He was a self-made man--Mahatma Gandhi was a son of a Dewan.

If it were only this, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. But this followed by Kandahar, for which he has never apologises or even expressed regrets ?

I am sorry, no matter how brilliant the rest of his book is or the rest of his life has been, I for one would have a hard time, calling someone "great", if he has only commited two blunders of the magnitude, Jaswant committed in his life, ie., Kandahar and calling Jinnah great. I am not saying great men dont make mistakes, but they dont make them in so unabashed a way, without any remorse or without agonizing over their decisions, like Jaswant did over Kandahar. He seems to be perfectly at ease with his decision. Then he follows it up with this gem. I repeat, with mistakes like that, I wouldnt call Jaswant great, no matter what else right he did. And, Jinnah made far greater blunders than Jaswant is even capable of.

Some time during PVN's time Advaniji had described congress party like that of Lemmings based on the myth that the lemmings commit mass suicidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming#My ... onceptions. It seems it is now it is BJP's turn to do the lemming act.

[RamaY]

^^^

Only a few would know why JS has decided, and approved by GOI, to go on that plane to Kandahar. So it would be naive to think JS went there to offer his gratitude to terrorists or Taliban.

On Acharya-ji's focus on media - If one remembers the early days of Rediff (circa 2000) and the type of commentary and editorials they use to publish (Remember Aravind L, Varsha Bhonsle, I forgot the German gentleman's name), and compare it today's Rediff and its editorial board, one will understand how a given media entity is acquired, manipulated and made into a propaganda machine. All this happened in front of our eyes, in the past 10 years.

[brihaspati]

Sukhdeo wrote

1) What specific choice of words are you objecting to ? Is it the reference to Jaswant Ali Muhommed ? In any case, point well taken. Will be more cordial with words.

I try to avoid street level abuse against anyone - unless I am really forced to do so on the streets (I enjoyed street fights a lot as a teenager).

2) When will we take action ? Can you outline a timetable ? Let me be more specific in asking.

a. When will we take concrete action to teach Pakistan(or the entire muslim world which acts as a backbone for Pak) a lesson ? I mean this may just be a small tactical goal, but everyone will agree an important one, on our way to frying much bigger fish. So, how many more decades or centuries do we need to discuss among ourselves before we take action on this count to avenge our subjugation by the muslims for centuries ?

b. If you so strongly believe that Britain has perpetrated atrocities on us, how many decades more should we wait to take action against them and teach them a lesson ?

I use the memory of both atrocities to keep my thinking steady. I have mixed and moved extensively from childhood with Muslims, and with the British from teenage - so it was natural for me to judge the community by individuals, and gain a non-realistic viewpoint. This may sound contradictory, but most of the times when people say that people-to-people contact reduces bigotry and xenophobia, it is not a well-thought out hypothesis. Divides can actually be sharpened by contact.
But more importantly, the small group of individuals you meet and interact with can actually give you a much more favourable and mistaken impression of the community or society as a whole - especially as reagards to expectations of future behaviour on critical questions as a nation or community.

If you ask me for a timeline, I cannot give you an exact sequence of dates. I can say what I expect, but not all stages will I be able to justify rationally. I am trained to search for patterns in repetitive phenomena, so I have certain projections from historical cycles and other repetitive factors. But sometimes convictions also come from unknown or un-pinnable sources.

I would expect a major transition by 2035-2037. A new system and regime that comes through this transition will finally see India to a muche increased level of self-sufficieny and dominance over global affairs. The period starting from 2005-2007 is very similar in intrinsic tendencies as to the period between 1915-17 to 1945-1947. I would think the main ideological drives have already started moving - although things are not clear or very visible. There will be increased public participation in public political activities starting from 2011-2012 although initial responses may not seem much, and which may not also take forms that the existing rashtryia setup expects. In 1921-22 a new form of political struggle started in India, that bypassed the ruling regime even if not being violent and quite within the law. But this was a period, when a larger section of public opinion began to veer round to the realization that the regime they had ruling over them was not really working in their interest. We should also keep in mind, that substantial portion of Indian elite, landed and business or industrial interests were even at the 1920's stage quite firmly aligned with the ruling British regime.

The driving forces of Indian politics will change over the next 10 years. But the real maniestation of this process will perhaps only be visible around 2020. The following 15-17 years to 2035-37 will be the most critical.

Consider my solution as an alternative which avoids the absurd situation of the above. Not harp so much on injustices of a distant past, focus more in learning from others and yes, developing ourselves and empowering ourselves through self criticism (I will never shy away from that phrase or its meaning) and ensure that our next generations dont face what we and our forefathers faced. Thats the healthiest and the best lesson learnt. No matter how much you harp on injustices of the past, you can never go back and punish the perpetrators, as they are all dead.

Keeping the past firmly in our front helps us in not doing everything in reaction to what our past pests demand that we pay attention to now. Economy is important, so are the means to defend the products of that economy. So are not heeding or allowing the Anglo-Saxon agenda to succeed in becoming confused, unsure, and self-recriminating over apparent Bharatyia civilizational failings. We have to seek back our Bharatyia roots, clean it of accummulated dirt (which had accummulated with quite a bit of contribution from the Abrahamic itself) , but defend and adopt it as our foundations. That will be the shield that helps us unify againt the Anglo-Saxonic or Abrahamic agenda. We cannot let it be weakened in thoughtless repeatationas and acceptance of Abrahamic or Anglo-Saxonic claims.

If you want to punish those who threaten us in the present, then "waiting" doesnt help, as they will all be dead by the time you decide to take action.

And if you dont mean retaliation for past and present injustices, what exactly do you mean when you say "the past must not be forgotten". No one is advocating forgetting the past. I am just saying let us remember the past but learn the right lessons, not cower down and give up the biggest learning and testing tool available to us, ie., self criticism.

I have still not been able to settle the inner debate about punishing future generations for crimes of the present. But from the practical ruthlessness that I may be showing from time to time in my thoughts, I would suppose it would be a great tactical step to ensure that no current society thinks of committing atrocities because their futire generations could be punished - a powerful concept similar in logic to that used by the controllers of earlier society in the form of claiming punishment in the "after-life" for crimes committed in "this" life. Yes, I know all the debate about the need for breaking out of the "blood -vendettas". Usually those who shout maximum about it are also the inheritors of maximum advantage for what their ancestors had done in causing an atrocity.

[Sanku]

If it were only this, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. But this followed by Kandahar,.

NO it was NOT followed by Kandahar, Kandahar was much before the book, the particular order you chose clearly tells me somethings about the judgment process on book (read prior bias)

Meanwhile
1) It would be naive to assume that some one gets on a plane and goes to Kandahar because he feels like it. It was a CCS decision. Even Farukh Abdullah is on record saying that Yet Jawant never ever said a word in his own defence when pilloried. That tells you something. About a spine. (compare and contrast with current crop)
2) If you want to know what the man Jaswant was read Talbott. The way he chronicles his frustration of dealing with the ever courteous ever smiling ever polite Indians who had chai-biskoot with him for 3 years at the end of which they had what they wanted and he some smiles is enough to make you a fan of the man (Jaswant) Compare and contrast him with current crop

You really should read, in service of an emergent nation (havent read it all though I confess)

Also do not read selectively -- he calls Pakistan gifted to Jinaah by his partner Nehru. Secondly he says Jinaah's great based on his accomplishment of creating something out of nothing -- you know what, what he says will do more to gall every Pakistani and Bangladeshi that any of the vitrolic outburst against muslims you may come up with.

Its a intellectual book, challenging the very foundations of Pakistan and Partition, and we have a problem with that?

[brihaspati]

Actually I have posed this question long ago - "what exactly is there in the rashtra of Pakistan that is worth protecting and saving?" This is the question that should be asked to all - Indic and non-Indic who eagerly or reluctantly agree that Pakistan should continue to exist as an independent rashtra on the subcontinent. Especially the leaders of all hues and shapes - who agree.