Strategic leadership for the future of India

[brihaspati]

On thinking, I do partly agree with JS's remark on an interview on NDTV : The Congres is into a downward spiral, the BJP is into a downward spiral (don't remember whether he said RSS was also in the spiralling business), Indian politics into a downward spiral.

I agree only partially, because I think, the statement should more accurately be "*** leadership into a downward spiral". The forces they represent will merge and realign and split. The essential dichotomy and dynamic of Indian politics is determined by the two opposing forces - regional affiliations versus centralization. Indic society has sense of belonging to a cultural whole, a strategy developed over millenia to provide a safety network for the times when centralized empires dissolved. But at the same time lack of reliability on a stable long term central system forces regional societies to look into the immediate neighbourhood and invest in it also at the same time.

These two contradictiry pulls, both two ends of a hedging strategy, will continue to play for a long time. However, what we are seeing now is an extreme exploitation of diversity and decentralization in the societal sphere, and trying to counter this by posing loyalty to a person or dynasty as the centralized focus for stability and belonging. Both leaderships of BJP and Congress are now converging towards this person ased centralization strategy.

But the real strategy that will work is to wait and prepare for the extremes of diversity and then use the opposite reaction to it by consolidating an unified ideological framework that combines and interweaves a rashtra into it. People will need a convincing cultural and rashtryia framework which is stable, and which does not allow extremes of diversity that undermine the long term stability and basis of Indic civilization. I am not sure either of the parties realize this future trend of reversal of the current love for diversity.

[ramana]

Brihaspatiji, Isnt Jaswant Singh confirming your thesis that INC considers IM as the 'other" to be not assimilated?

[brihaspati]

In a way, looks like it! I am still waiting for the book to reach me. Will know better once I get it. Congress's attempts at reconstructing a separate Islamic identity by placing it in a high Arabic culture and then post-Indpendence protecting and thereby hardening a non-Indic origin theory - is something for me, always a sign of not thinking of the IM as really Indic origin - in spite of all protestations to the contrary.

But JS's way is not the correct one - it will be repeat of the mistake JLN made. Really important to know the current thinking of the two streams of Savarkarpanthis and Golwalkarpanthis. It is not at all clear which way they are headed. JS's criticism from these corners appear to be formally being given under all the wrong reasons.

If they are all into a downward spiral, (I like that expression, thanks to JSji, ) the spirals of the "right" need to be tracked first.

(edited -ites to -panthis)

[shaardula]

that is the reading i too got. i also stated it somewhere here.

[Sanku]

But JS's way is not the correct one - it will be repeat of the mistake JLN made.

Brih, perhaps you will change your mind after you read that book. It would be interesting to compare the two approaches once you are done with it.

[brihaspati]

I am all for assimilation - but the question is on what terms? How much of Islam has to be dropped to make it fit for assimilation? How much of "Bharatyia" has to be compromised? Can we at all assimilate by helping to raise all that in Islam makes it claim superior status? These are the fundamntal questions. And in this sense I feel that bot JLN and JS are making the same methodological mistake - if they contribute to raising the status or give justifications for the confirmation of those icons around which Islam reinvents itself to claim its original Jihadi agenda as the superior one. It appears that the smallest acknowledgement or favourable reconstruction of any aspect or individual in Islam from non-Muslims is taken by the Islamic as confirmation that "Allah" has moved in th heart of the non-believer towards "submission" to Islam. It simply whets their appetite for dominance and Jihadi conquest.

[RajeshA]

I am all for assimilation - but the question is on what terms? How much of Islam has to be dropped to make it fit for assimilation? How much of "Bharatyia" has to be compromised? Can we at all assimilate by helping to raise all that in Islam makes it claim superior status? These are the fundamntal questions. And in this sense I feel that bot JLN and JS are making the same methodological mistake - if they contribute to raising the status or give justifications for the confirmation of those icons around which Islam reinvents itself to claim its original Jihadi agenda as the superior one. It appears that the smallest acknowledgement or favourable reconstruction of any aspect or individual in Islam from non-Muslims is taken by the Islamic as confirmation that "Allah" has moved in th heart of the non-believer towards "submission" to Islam. It simply whets their appetite for dominance and Jihadi conquest.

Brihaspati ji,

I think we ought to follow a certain strategy for winning back lost ground:

1) Give open support and praise to the icons of the munafiqs, the personalities, the dargahs, the customs drawn from Indic sources, etc.

2) Allow the extremists to attack the munafiqs.

3) Take the extremists to town. Publicize their sins. Drag them over the coals of justice. Kill them publicly.

4) Show loads of sympathy to the munafiqs.

5) Continue to build a national consensus on a common minimum agenda for social harmony through reform of religion. This common minimum agenda needs to increase with time, leaving ever less space to the extremists, and pulling the munafiqs away from the Islamic core and towards the mainstream. This is on the lines of my earlier suggestions to include "Indian Ethos" into the Constitution. The current common minimum agenda of secularism as defined by the Indian State is more geared towards assuaging the angst of the minorities from majority domination, but it does no justice to the definition of a common set of values.

6) Set up a state-financed program to wean the munafiqs into a reformed Islam, an Indic Islam, an Islam fully in consonance with the above mentioned national consensus on religious values, separating this into an independent sect with its own Indic Ulema, pulling away 95% of Muslims into the new sect.

more in Future strategic scenarios for the Indian Subcontinent Thread.

[Sanku]

brihaspati, some of the points you raise go far beyond the scope of the book. It is a biography, reliving history. It does aim to answer the question you raised. It does touch upon some of the foundational events which will be used to answer the question though and I will attempt to answer that from what I read so far.

How much of "Bharatyia" has to be compromised?

Apparently India has a Vedic core which must be at least adhered to (my reading of JS) also a question of same status for people of same land.

Can we at all assimilate by helping to raise all that in Islam makes it claim superior status?

JS claims (and provides tons of references from history) that this (claim to superior status) is the real bane, the chosen path of being a other by Muslims. His castigation of Nehru comes from the fact that Nehru was so much of Brit that he gave in to that primarily because this role models did, without understanding that their giving in was to hurt India.

It appears that the smallest acknowledgement or favourable reconstruction of any aspect or individual in Islam from non-Muslims is taken by the Islamic as confirmation that "Allah" has moved in th heart of the non-believer towards "submission" to Islam. It simply whets their appetite for dominance and Jihadi conquest.

I don't see anything favorable frankly, this favor is a creation of naive minds or mischievous Media.

However if you refer to the fact if Jinnah is called a "monster but one who succeeded" as to be taken as +ve by Mohammedans, then yes I agree.

If your approach then is to turn the spot light of truth hard inexorable and searing on the community and then force it to burn away the "difference", I can only say that JS is not doing that, it is at most a lamp a lamp which is trying to light the dry woods of fossilized thinking.

We shall see if the the fire catchs on and burns and becomes the purifying fire.

Till then perhaps we can recite the Agni mitra verses from Rig veda.

[brihaspati]

^^^

Some questions for you based on your summaries in the "book" thread.

[brihaspati]

Before jumping into trying to flesh out solutions, it is perhaps necessary to analyze what we have on hand. I will try to put together a sequence on "what we have on hand" and the major possible questions.

One. Existing political groupings and the societal forces they represent.

Regional parties representing regional, ethnic (tied to region), linguistic interests.
Parties with no specific regional constituency and therefore dependent on ideological projections.

The regional parties have a well-defined constituency which represent concrete, identifiable, support groups and identities, which pre-exist almost entirely independent of the party. These parties represent a dynamic equilibrium of political and power bargaining between the constituency for benefits on the one hand, and ambitious local leadership for power and status on the other hand. They need not construct overtly ideological posturings or even if done it os part of a regional identity consolidation (where the community is aware of multiple local fractures even within itself, and needs to construct a larger homegeneous one - the "Dravida" construction for example. It also represents a partial example of the peculiar identity construction process more "ideological" parties go for in India).

Parties with no specific regional constituency. These are actually parties which are formed by groups who do not identify that strongly withe regions, or even if they do, they have managed to create a vision of power larger in scope than the region of their origins. They recognize the potential for a super-region in the field of power. These are parties who are therfore faced with the problem of regional and other fractures at larger social scales.

To overcome thsi problem, they typically resort to a construction of a new identity. The names or expressions given to such identities are dead giveaways - we will typically never find these identities explicitly ever in Indian history as representing concrete political state or group. The Leftists cosntruct "proletariat", the BSP constructs "Dalit". Do the groupings of BJP and INC represent something away form this trend. No, not really.

If we look carefully, both the Left and the BSP have an inherent narrower focus on Indian society - they still need to construct a subgroup and not the whole. These are larger identities than the regional or ethnic, but they are still consciously defined in terms of a smaller subgroup and not the whole of society. The INC and BJP on the other hand are simply higher in the scale and scope of identity projection - they have learnt to keep it very vague so that a much larger subgroup and hopefully the entire society can become the sole constituency.

But such a vagueness has severe problems in the long run. Most humans usually seek and find strength and assurance in a comfotable identity - especially if that identity gives a sense of empowerment. Vagueness for a long time in the defining of the identity represented by the party ultimately drifts the constitiuency apart. The INC has tried to solve this by a very clever ploy. It maintains the ideological vacuum while maintaining a serious hold over power, by creating a focus for the constituency - the pivot of a dynastic continuity. Gradually therefore adherence, and attachment to the dynasty becomes the defining identity. This is the main reason, the Congress also is keen on retaining the ideological vacuum. This frees it from accountability and non-performance if necessary - as the society or the constituency have no independent set of values or ideology to judge the dynasty.

The BJP on the other hand, in competition with the INC has been forced to face the advantages of constructing a vague identity where anything and everything can potentially be slotted in, and perhaps been bewildered by the apparent success over the short term of their exxperience. It has therefore tried to be vague itself and blur its edges, but could not provide a substitute for the dynastic ploy to hold a constituency identity.

What comes out of this brief exploration is that any "nationalist" party has to come out with a solid, credible, common identity for the overwhelming majority of populations living in India, that is as low in artificially constructed components as possible. The "right" had started in the right direction, but their definition of a "Bharatyia" identity remains incomplete and not entirely credible. To be credible it has to face the historical experiences unflinchingly and bring out the essence - rejecting everything that is not consistent with the essence and replacing the rejected portions with logical conclusions derived from the essence. But it still cannot be short-cuts of dynastic rule or selections from the Bharatyia scriptures without undertaking a ruthless analysis to search for the core.

A huge intellectual effort should have been promoted by the "right", without any ideological "Big brother" watching over the shoulders - where each and every aspect of Bharatyia experience and formulations should have been openly and freely thrashed out - so that the "heart" and "core" of what it means to be a Bharatyia, that core which overrules and determines all other derivations from this core, could have been arrived at. Identity formation is urgent and should be undertaken side by side with more mundane aspects of winning a constituency - the interim relief part of economic and social reforms. But the latter project is clearly linked to perceptions of identity and future goals of that identity.

[brihaspati]

Two. Ideological vacuum and the need for constructing a new identity.

The ideological vacuum was the result of Congress's adhoc solution to create a India-wide focus for national affiliation in lieu of identity, and the ready-made solution in using the personality cult around Nehru to devise a dynastic alternative to identity. Having taken this short cut route, they could not allow any development of an alternative ideology as then the population would have a scale to judge the accountability of the dynasty.

The BJP has tried to develop an alternative identity, but perhaps out of electoral considerations was tempted to take the Congress line partially in blurring the hard boundaries of this identity.

The dynamic of this has been the abandonment of facing up to the challenging but necessary task of facing upto history and retrieving the essensce of the national identity. This needs a full fledged and unflinching debate. Every corner of history, every corner of the philosophical strands of nationhood, every corner of identity from heritage should be explored without hesitation - revisited again and again, with brutal honesty, to conclude what defines us. Once the essential core is identified, that core should take precedence over all other interpretations that we may be carrying as historical baggage or a historical treasure trove.

This is the time, to start open explorations of every aspect of our history, the pre-Islamic experience, Islamic experience, the European colonial experience, the Freedom Movements, the Partition, the agents, personalities and groups in the transition to the Republic, the post Independence cenario - everything should be subject to hard analysis. The aim is to discover and distil what is the commonality, and basic principle of the Bharatyia civilization as we know it, and how and where we have deviated from it in the past.

This should then be able to provide us with the identity on which we will base the reconstruction of our civilization. Without such clarity of identity, we will go on groping in the dark.

Let us promote the debates in all possible fora. Fight the rights of immunity from discussion claimed by various groups. No group should remain immune from this intellectual probe and "invasion". We need to break the shells, and twist them and bend them, until the real core comes out - the life force , if any. It is a project of intense churning, to distil our future direction and guiding principles.

In the process, we will discover new sources of strength, and a new convergence towards a common goal and programme. Parties will morph, dissolve, and merge to give new alignment of forces. We can already see the signs in the media debates over JSji's book - nothing will remain sacrosanct in the coming times, and the ideological space is no longer the monopoply of any of the existing major parties. We need to force them crack and twist and open up - until we can get at the inner core of ideas and their recognition. Those who win this invasion and debate in the ideological debate and competition will provide our national leadership.

[brihaspati]

Three. Setting of national goals.

(1) Social and economic justice as part of an equitable and inherent aspect of Bharatyia civilization. However, this should not be a blind copying of everything that the West prescribes as remedial measures. We can consider their experiences, but we should also give more weightage to the cumulative experience of the Bharatyia civilization which is naturally more relevant becuase of geographical and societal first hand connection. We need to revisit those aspects of the Bharatyia civilization that aimed at establishing a lifestyle and social organization that was sustainable and in harmony with nature. We need to revive the society that "cares" and treats all its members uniformly and most if not all of its guiding principles can be found already in the collective Bharatyia civilizational experience.

(2) A clear recognition that the nation and its proposed lifestyle remains under long term threats from hostile interests. The primary hostile factors are Jihadi Islam supported by international Wahabi financial and military networks, the European and Anglo-Saxonic imperialism driven by neo-colonial aspirations, racial profiling and Evangelism, a weakening Chinese communist elite which needs a foreign devil to focus national aspirations away from greater political rights and freedoms as well as displace a potential competitor or obstructor in capturing Asian and world markets. All three factors will remain active behind and interact with TSP to further their aims on the subcontinent.

(3) A clear recognition that aggressive, proselytizing Abrahamic branches have to be tackled, neutralized and if necessary liquidated. The target has to be a disruption of their regenerative networks and especially their educational networks by which they recruit and brainwash converts. This requires a comprehensive ideological attack and undermining of the basic memes of the Abrahamic, forcing all children to go through a modern education system that also does not seek to protect historical image of the Abrahamic from open and unflinching exposure, debate and analysis.

(3) A national agenda to dissove Pakistan to remove the playground for the factors mentioned in (2). Most areas of TSP to be reconstituted as provinces under the Indian union, where social engineering has to be in place for multiple generations - supporting and nurturing each and every tendency that rebels against and destroys the hold of the Mullah. This should also be part of a programme to consolidate and expand the Bharatyia core as formulated in (1) all over the subcontinent.

(4) All round military capability development, not only to defend but also to prepare for war to reconstitute national boundaries. A free Republic of Tibet should be part of the national agenda.

[brihaspati]

Four. Finding Allies, and defining friends and enemies.

International:

Even if we identify all hostile forces, and all potential allies, we need to be practical and astute in how we use such informationa and realization. We should gather as many as possible as allies at a given time point to eliminate an "enemy".

From this context, we have to define the Anglo-Saxon as "friends" for now. We need to send out the message that the Anglo-Saxon will benefit if it does not obstruct the process of assimilation of TSP by India. The practical advantages should not be too difficult to see. An Indus Valley right from Karakorums to the sea, under stable Indian control, provides the greatest advantage to the Anglo-Saxon to access the CAR economically. We have to show the advantages to Russia too, of a safe and stable access to the IOR. Social engineering of the Indus Valley also removes a big area of support for global Jihad - and should be attractive to a lot of states at the receiving end. We need to isolate the CCP and PLA hawks, and draw it out to make military adventures. Whether CCP takes the bait or not, CCP support and tactic for Kashmiri Islamic separatism can and should be returned with interest on CCP itself. Uighurs shpuld be supported, and the Tibetans helped to launch mobile warfare.

National:

All producers without means of production should get access to capital. The slogan can be "grassroots capitalism". Raise the issue and make it a political hot-potato for the existing political suckers.

A comprehensive social welfare and security net has to be demanded, which will not be connected to this or that political leader's name. It has to be a personality-cult devoid, pure aspect of the rashtra that "cares".

Reduce bureaucracy and automate as much of governance as is feasible. Develop means of bypassing the middleman through IT.

All three above should win mobilization from the majority of the underprivileged. The first two and the "bypassing" can be attempted without existing government or political patronage. It needs a skillful handling of the media to neutralize potential political and governmental hostile interventions.

Wherever the masses gravitate to, there will crawl the ruling elite. They may try to get by with calling for help from their foreign handlers - but this is the reason I want that the "foreign handlers" are reassured and shown the "better business prospects" if they deal with the above proposal rather than their traditional compradors in India.

[sukhdeo]

Four. Finding Allies, and defining friends and enemies.

International:

Even if we identify all hostile forces, and all potential allies, we need to be practical and astute in how we use such informationa and realization. We should gather as many as possible as allies at a given time point to eliminate an "enemy".

From this context, we have to define the Anglo-Saxon as "friends" for now. We need to send out the message that the Anglo-Saxon will benefit if it does not obstruct the process of assimilation of TSP by India. The practical advantages should not be too difficult to see. An Indus Valley right from Karakorums to the sea, under stable Indian control, provides the greatest advantage to the Anglo-Saxon to access the CAR economically. We have to show the advantages to Russia too, of a safe and stable access to the IOR. Social engineering of the Indus Valley also removes a big area of support for global Jihad - and should be attractive to a lot of states at the receiving end. We need to isolate the CCP and PLA hawks, and draw it out to make military adventures. Whether CCP takes the bait or not, CCP support and tactic for Kashmiri Islamic separatism can and should be returned with interest on CCP itself. Uighurs shpuld be supported, and the Tibetans helped to launch mobile warfare.

National:

All producers without means of production should get access to capital. The slogan can be "grassroots capitalism". Raise the issue and make it a political hot-potato for the existing political suckers.

A comprehensive social welfare and security net has to be demanded, which will not be connected to this or that political leader's name. It has to be a personality-cult devoid, pure aspect of the rashtra that "cares".

Reduce bureaucracy and automate as much of governance as is feasible. Develop means of bypassing the middleman through IT.

All three above should win mobilization from the majority of the underprivileged. The first two and the "bypassing" can be attempted without existing government or political patronage. It needs a skillful handling of the media to neutralize potential political and governmental hostile interventions.

Wherever the masses gravitate to, there will crawl the ruling elite. They may try to get by with calling for help from their foreign handlers - but this is the reason I want that the "foreign handlers" are reassured and shown the "better business prospects" if they deal with the above proposal rather than their traditional compradors in India.

Assume for a moment that you are 100% correct in your prescription of what is needed. Now what ? Who will implement these precriptions and how ? What is the mechanism of getting these implemented ? Let us call it a road map. What is the roadmap of getting this implemented ? Let us assess realistically where we are on the ground right now and then try to do a step by step of how we will get to what you have described above ? Kinda from "AS-IS" to "To-Be". And please, just for a brief period, please dont invoke the stars or cycles in any way shape or form to answer this question.

When I try to think of implementation, I keep coming against this brick wall. The brick wall of vested interests that have a strong interest and desire to perpetuate status quo and the rest of the country too devoid of strategic thinking, long term thinking, too divided, has too much strife and cannot come together in any kind of numbers that may resemble a critical mass to crystalize the above changes. I actually think, that in the context of any other society, our vested interests are really very weak and require very little push to capitulate. The tragedy is that the rest of us cant even come up with that little bit of push required to tumble the vested interests over, like Humpty Dumpty. And trust me, if we are able to muster that critical mass of numbers, smarts, and the right agenda (akin somewhat to what you have mentioned above), all the kings horses and all the kings men will not be able to put humpty dumpty together again.

[RajeshA]

When I try to think of implementation, I keep coming against this brick wall. The brick wall of vested interests that have a strong interest and desire to perpetuate status quo and the rest of the country too devoid of strategic thinking, long term thinking, too divided, has too much strife and cannot come together in any kind of numbers that may resemble a critical mass to crystalize the above changes.

1. Infiltrate other political parties.

2. Make own parties, make post-electoral coalitions, get strategic ministries.

2. Buy the election.

[sukhdeo]

When I try to think of implementation, I keep coming against this brick wall. The brick wall of vested interests that have a strong interest and desire to perpetuate status quo and the rest of the country too devoid of strategic thinking, long term thinking, too divided, has too much strife and cannot come together in any kind of numbers that may resemble a critical mass to crystalize the above changes.

1. Infiltrate other political parties.

2. Make own parties, make post-electoral coalitions, get strategic ministries.

2. Buy the election.

All three require participating in elections. What would you tell people to vote for you ?

[RajeshA]

All three require participating in elections. What would you tell people to vote for you ?

whatever they want to hear.

You say whatever they want to hear.
You do what is right and just and Dharmic.
You give false motives for doing it.
You let leak other false motives why you did it.
You plead lack of information why you did it.

Why? - Because no good deed goes unpunished!

Hide your Dharma behind Corruption.
Hide your Corruption behind 'Dharma'.

Leave neither your Dharma footprints nor your Corruption footprints in the snow of history.

[shiv]

Folks on the subject of leadership in India I have started a purely political thread on the lingerie forum - a subject that really will not be tolerated in the regular open fora - but is important enough as it is

Please excuse me but I post a link here

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... =24&t=5139

[brihaspati]

Parties are and will be more and more in a state of flux. It is important that a core of individuals who think alike as regards where the Bharatyia nation should ulimately head for, forms at least as an association. They can act like a think-tank who can produce and try to implement ideas independent of political parties.

"Chintan Baithaks" for such a group can perhaps happen both in India as well as outside, as they will not have the tremendous load on their heads to decide whom and when to expel from where.

I have not undertaken a survey of a small selected populated area, with respect to their economic needs, etc., fro a long time. In my student activist days, I used to try and find some time to engage villagers in "chai-biskoot" sessions (had to be very careful - as local vested interests keep a hawk eye out for "outsiders") and take note of what they thought they needed to make their lives economically better. The discussion has to be guided away from govt-aid and rations and free electricity and free irrigation water etc., but what is the minimum amount they need to start something on their own. It was surprising how a relatively "small" (in our eyes) amount could be critical in their own plans.

The innovative capacity and productivity of the grassroots level producers, is not being used at all. The different relief measure of the GOI is making it more and more difficult. For a start, apart from chintan baithaks which do not yet have to consider mighty expulsions, can such discreet surveys happen? Its a good way to get a feel of the pulse, and concretize an issue that can have significant potential - the development and fostering of "grassroots capitalism"?

[satya]

Brihaspatijee chance of such a group with a rastravadi ideology exist at very senior levels only where there'e relatively big space to act than at grassroot levels. Consider grassroot levels as entrance exams & Higher one as cream of cream. At grassroot , its dog eating dog .

[JwalaMukhi]

Au contraire. Sad are the state of affairs in the geriatric leadership on the national level. The crisis exposes the shallowness of the leadership that has been not cultivated at the national scene. But by no means they will have larger impact on the path India is going to take in the next few decades. The reason for that is the present leadership across the specturm at national level, did not work, strategize to manage the coming paradigm shift. Hence any of the antics/circus conducted by these netas will have no significant bearing, as long as they keep the nation intact together. The leadership is firmly entrenched in a crumbling framework that provided access to gravy train for many netas and worked well in earlier paradigm. This is last ditch attempt by the netas, (who clearly neither have the skill nor have the capacity to learn the requisite skills for the coming era), to prolong the crumbling framework. The sunset for many of the netas is going to be desperate attempt to partly grab limelight; partly to get rid of guilt they bear because when they were supposed to have worked, were busy enjoying the gravy train.
Best hope is; some of them do not spoil the watering hole of the coming generations out of frustration.

The innovative capacity is necessarily not encouraged and exploited at the grassroots levels, because it would challenge the framework in which netas thrive. Netas basically want the grassroots to clutch onto the mammaries of the state, in various welfare schemes, and be dependent on them.
The best chance of changing the framework lies with the grassroots, who when encouraged to innovate will change the framework. The new framework will also impact the babudom, instead of being “collectors” looking down upon the populace, actually work for the populace being one of the populace. The “yes minister” paradigm will have to go, which indirectly is set to bow down to the “colonial power structure”.

[brihaspati]

How about "senior level" probing and exploring the "grassroots" a bit? The economic "angle" can be a good bridge for initial "chai-biskoots". But the aim is understanding and mutual trust. Confidence building measures come next - "capital to the lowest levels - especially those who can have no access to it" can be a most useful rallying cry.

[satya]

What i understood from discussion in this thread is that we are discussing the leadership in context of delegation but its not the case in Indian Political arena .Its for no reason that all transfer related files of Gazetted Officers at state level need clearance primarily from CM's Office .If ministers are groomed to be leaders of tomorrow , they will not wait for tomorrow , had happened & is happening . Leadership in each state knows in & out of its cadre/ministers but they are allowed to run to give them an illusion of being a leader apart from amassing wealth for next 7 generations where opposite is the case. But these same ministers are the ones who keep people pacified at least a section of the society ( party loyalists/ voters) leaving important policy decision in hand of a single person authority working with High Command .

[RajeshA]

In response to post in the Future strategic scenario in the Indian Subcontinent Thread, x-posted from there

3) The question is, core group. Core group has to have a commited bunch of people. But commited to what ? Just saying commited to a "great bharat" is not good enough. Even the two bit neta or the greediest businessman in India is commited to a "great bharat", only their idea of a great bharat is where they can continue to steal. As long as they can steal, they will keep sloganeering and chanting "mera bharat mahan". You have to get at least one step below in details to make sure that when you say, Brihispati, "great bharat", and I say, "great bharat", we both mean the same thing. So, we have to define the common set of values that we will all share and put into effect, if and when we have the power to do so.

Yes, the vision has to be aligned.

The core group has to agree to this common set of values. When Rajesh says, let us lie or cheat or do whatever it takes to get into power, he is talking tactics not shared values. And we all will find that once we articulate a common set of values, the tactics will also have to conform to those, they cant be the tactics of the thugs.

Idealism is when your values dictate your road.
Strategy is when your values dictate your aim.

Besides, lying and cheating can only be a losing tactic for the likes of us, as we are just "wannabe" liers and cheaters, we can never outcompete the originals in that. The originals are psychotic sociopaths, and I am being kind, and we can never better a neta or a babu or a businessman operating India at lying and cheating. We will lose all the time.

sukhdeo ji,
a word of caution here. You seem to be ascribing to me, that I favor 'lying' and 'cheating' as tactics. I may have mentioned these tactics in multiple contexts, but I am not quite so sure, which context/post you are referring to.

The context here is important. Let's assume, you mean the use of these tactics to get power.

One needs to understand, that whatever be your political mission, there will be many stake-holders with a stake in an alternate structure and direction, who will try to stop you in your tracks. They will be well-established, well-connected, and knowledgeable about the workings of the system. They will also have no qualms about using every tactic in the book of dirty-tricks. They control the media. They will form the resistance. You can try to take them on head long, in which case you will either fail miserably, or they will break up the cohesion of your 'core' group, or it will take you an eternity to reach the top of the mountain, by which time all that you may hold dear may not be there to save.

The only effective way is to decrease the resistance to the rise of 'core' group which favors the nationalist agenda. You can do it in three ways: -
a) You sabotage the effectiveness of the resistance
b) You do not to invite a reaction of resistance
c) You make yourself so strong that 'resistance is futile'

Sabotage of the effectiveness can only happen if some people having allegiance to the 'core' group infiltrate the current power holders, who may not have the national interest uppermost in their minds, or whose idea of national interest is less than informed. That means, the 'core' group would need adherents in all the current political parties, in the INC, BJP, the regional parties, and even amongst the Communists.

• The infiltrators would have to give inputs to their respective parties, which misrepresents the threat of the 'core group' to them,
• they will have to bring up issues, which makes their parties unable to act, unable to resist the 'core group' by diverting the attention of the parties;
• they will make other groups look far more dangerous, so that they even make common cause with the 'core group';
• they will pass on vital information regarding the inner decision making and tactics back to the 'core group';
• they will help in calming down feathers, should a situation arise of open hostility between their party and the 'core group';
• they will facilitate temporary or issue-based cooperation between their parties and the 'core group'.

Secondly you will also have to ensure, that not too many forces are inclined on stopping you, that not too many forces see you as a threat; that not too many forces think of you as a threat to the system. So to that effect, all in the 'core group' should act as the run-of-the-mill politicians, with no ideals, with no values, with no interest in national interest, at least not in the company of other politicians. You would also have to let it be known that you are corruptible. Your grudge with the other politicians would not be about their corruption, but about you not getting your share. It is in this context that I stated

Hide your Dharma behind Corruption.
Hide your Corruption behind 'Dharma'.

'Lying' is used to cover up some behavior, which one does not deem desirable to be understood in its intended context.

Thirdly one would have to build up a 'Core Group' around which other groupings can arise - political parties, religious institutions, charities, ngos, citizen interest groups, lobbies, associations, networks, businesses.

Our strength will be the common set of values. I propose those common set of values to be hard work, smart work, team work, institution building, honest work, reward in proportion to work, strong disincentive to be "clever", strong disincentive for taking short cuts, strong disincentives to lie and cheat. It is when the moral converges with strength, of convictions and resources and when they both converge with courage, and when the three of those converge with singularity of purpose (arjun style, keeping the eye on the fish) will we come up with great strategy and great tactics and then I would actually feel sorry for our enemies.

Well said, sukhdeo.

I am confronted with an age-old dilemma.

The end justifies the means!

The road to hell is paved with good intentions!

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!

In critique of my own words, I would say that there is a danger of the line separating the actor from character of fading or disappearing altogether.

As I see the world, I would say that this world is a very shrewd Devil, and no man can withstand the pressures of frustration, ego, pride, ambition, temptation, blackmail, threats all the time. There will always be those, who will try to exploit human weaknesses in you, as an individual or as a group. The more one acts as a Vishwamitra, the more Indra would be tempted to send a Menaka.

That is why I suggest, be Vishwamitra, but don't act like one. Even as you, as Arjun, have your eyes fixed on the eye of the fish, you should wear dark-glasses, so nobody knows where you are looking. It is far easier for you to fail if you expect 100% righteousness from yourself, but if you expect only 95% righteousness, you will mostly succeed in retaining it.

It is all about overcoming the resistance, and getting your way!

[RajeshA]

In response to post in the Future strategic scenario in the Indian Subcontinent Thread, x-posted from there

Yes, tactically, with the core we are hoping for - all such compromises better be with the non-core elements - inside, absolutely no compromises.

Because inside every organ has to work in sync, every organ ought to have full trust in the other, that the other would fulfill its function, would behave in an expected way. Only then can an organism, a party, a group function effectively.

As for the outsiders, the non-core elements ...

Ever wondered why in India, Gods have so many heads, so many faces, so many avatars, even as they have one Dharma?

[RajeshA]

In response to post in the Future strategic scenario in the Indian Subcontinent Thread, x-posted from there

sukhdeo ji,

I can't contradict you on your plea to live by one's values. How can only criticize anybody for doing that?

For the tactics that I have been espousing, a man does need an incorruptible core, clarity of mission, balance of demeanor, and moral flexibility of action. And basically I have no confidence, that one can find individuals with those qualities. I don't consider myself to be anywhere near this ideal. And yes, I do consider it an ideal. I think, it is far difficult for a straight man to play crooked, then for a straight man to play straight. What I ask of the 'core' is far more difficult to find, is far more challenging. That is why, I am myself unsure of the viability of such a 'core group'.

But I am also sure, that straightness is something, that has been dangerous for Bharat as a Civilization. The true spirit of Dharma demands a fortitude of soul, that only some achieve, and these are not able to carry the vast masses, who are found wanting. Such a spirit does not just demand obeisance but rather demands individual enlightenment. Goodness is a tactic whose success depends on the cooperation of a vast majority. Gandhi showed that it can be successful, but his experiment showed that his ideas could not cross the high walls of Islam's Otherness. Partial success can carry a big defeat on its shoulders.

There is little meeting ground, when this philosophical core of any 'core group' is not clarified - Are the tactics going to be based on absolute values or are they going to be based on contextual logic?

This conflict between the idealists and pragmatists is always the weak link for any group!

[RajeshA]

In response to post in the Future strategic scenario in the Indian Subcontinent Thread, x-posted from there

sukhdeo ji,

In my PoV, the conflict is not between good and evil. Such a conflict is for scriptures.

The conflict is about power, survival, values of the own collective, differences of assessment. Everything can be given a narrative. There is a narrative of the losers and there is a narrative of the victors. There is a narrative of the conquerors and there are the bones of the extinct. There is an endless debate on values based on assumptions, benefits and indoctrinations. There are always differences of assessment because each human sees only a tiny fraction of reality. So conflict will endure, and everybody will take a side because the mind and the world allows only so many choices.

I have to take a stand for my values. You have to take a stand for your values.

In my PoV, there are
- values for the expression of the own
- values for the expansion of the own
- values for the survival of the own

and they are by no means the same. Dharma is only useful for the Expression of the own, for the collective, for the self. Expansion and Survival requires a different set of values and tools.

[sukhdeo]

In response to post in the Future strategic scenario in the Indian Subcontinent Thread, x-posted from there

sukhdeo ji,

In my PoV, the conflict is not between good and evil. Such a conflict is for scriptures.

The conflict is about power, survival, values of the own collective, differences of assessment. Everything can be given a narrative. There is a narrative of the losers and there is a narrative of the victors. There is a narrative of the conquerors and there are the bones of the extinct. There is an endless debate on values based on assumptions, benefits and indoctrinations. There are always differences of assessment because each human sees only a tiny fraction of reality. So conflict will endure, and everybody will take a side because the mind and the world allows only so many choices.

I have to take a stand for my values. You have to take a stand for your values.

In my PoV, there are
- values for the expression of the own
- values for the expansion of the own
- values for the survival of the own

and they are by no means the same. Dharma is only useful for the Expression of the own, for the collective, for the self. Expansion and Survival requires a different set of values and tools.

But it always is a conflict between good and evil. Even inside of us, it is a conflict between good and evil. Why do we have the urge to preserve our society or our nation ? Why are we willing to die for it ? Because we believe it is good. No matter how complicated one thinks things are, it goes back to our childhood notions of good and evil. If we are not fighting for good, what are we fighting for ? That additional car, additional house, power to ruin other people's lives ? What ? And it all has to converge. Its not only for the scriptures. We have to practicalize what we read in the scriptures if we are believers, or practicalize our secular ethics into our day to day lives. Only then will we have the inner strength, each one of us, to take on the evil. After all, when you talk about forming a core group, you are forming it to counter evil, right ? or only Islamists or immediate threats of the Chinese or the pack of monkeys in the forest near my village ? We can only fight it by at core, having tremendous moral authority on our side, which the Pandavas and certainly Lord Krishna had during Mahabharata. Despite being outnumbered, outmanned and outarmed, thats why they won. If you look at history, greatest victories against odds have come when people believed they were fighting for good against evil.

I have been attacked in the other threads for espousing ethics and the good. I can be criticized like you do, Rajesh or even Brihispati, and legitimately so, on the grounds that my approach is impractical and may not work. I dont believe so. But it is a legitimate criticism, which can be discussed rationally, in terms of whether an exclusively ethics based resistance will work or not.

But the nature of criticism on the other threads by some is one by people who have made their accomodations with evil and my advocating a "good" based resistance is threatening to them at core. This approach is more threatening than even yours, which they perceive has providing enough cracks for them to slip through and continue their accomodationist ways. In my approach, there is no room whatsoever for falling through the cracks and continue along with business as usual. They are immediately threatened. I attribute that to the power of the ethical approach. Those who exhibited extreme hostility to my approach, you think, they did it because they didnt understand, as they claimed ? No, they did it because they understood too well. They understood too well that I am holding each person within us responsible for their own morality, their own conscience, their own accomodation, their own and my own part in rotting our system from within. In that sense my approach is different from Gandhi's, although both our approaches are ethics based. I, unlike, Gandhi, do not want any room or tolerance for accomodation and I dont want to leave evil alive, even after we have defeated it. I want to slay the dragon mercilessly, defeat evil ruthlessly, not have it stay around to keep raising its head (like the Paki serpent does or the British meddling does even now). But in order to do that I have to win first. We can only win against overwhelming odds, if we acquire overwhelming power and we can only acquire overwhelming power riding on the ethical horse, not on one that has compromise in its DNA.

[brihaspati]

I have already hinted at my own personal experience and results of inflexibility on certain issues. I was pushed away from grassroots and sent "up", where I would have lesser numbers of my own inclination. And therefore less effective. But at that age and experience level I could not solve the dilemma that to a certain extent if you work from within an already established organizational structure, you cannot go beyond certain limits imposed by the organization out of very real social and image considerations.

I took the opportunity of the loss of one parent to leave the situation, because in my own ethical considerations, my supreme commitment was to my "nation" and the people I felt were most representative of that "nation" - the vast majority of common Indians who struggle to survive. If I stayed on within the structure, even if I would not personally misuse funds, or support related activities, I would be virtually condoning the system. But even more important than that, I would be helping in my own small way, for an ideology and opragnizational structure professing that ideology - that will never bring the minimum happiness to my people. This was simply another of those flashing ideologies that are basically covers for personal power ambitions.

If I had to do it all over again, I would at least not accept anything to do with the funds "management". And at every step of doing a "Krishna" I would agonize deep inside if it went against my own ethical principles. I would only justify it to myself, that it serves a higher purpose - the basic justice and happiness of my people.

[Sanku]

Those who exhibited extreme hostility to my approach, you think, they did it because they didnt understand, as they claimed ? No, they did it because they understood too well. They understood too well that I am holding each person within us responsible for their own morality, their own conscience, their own accomodation, their own and my own part in rotting our system from within. .

No, no one exhibited hostlity to your approach of being good. What was expressed hostlity to is your sheer chutpaz in deciding what others think and telling them what they think (As evinced by this post) -- that followed by random verbiage.

The problem is that your statements are a bunch of "apple pie and motherhood" statements -- and every time you are asked for a concrete example of what you mean -- you either refuse to answer the question or run away.

It is sad that your pet thread was locked up letting your free on us in other threads. If it was one thread you could have retained all the meandering thoughts on that thread. Heck even RM has a thread.

In the other threads we could actually follow the topic. I don't read all the threads and I like it if the thread stays as per what it is meant to be.

[brihaspati]

sukhdeoji,
I have not stated my position against your "goodness" or "straightforward" attitude. But I would have a more nuanced approach. I would first look for what my target is to achieve for my nation and people. All else comes secondary. Logically speaking there has to be an ordering of preferences for ethical principles. What should you do, which one prevails, when two of your own ethical principles clash? Otherwise we cannot choose action.

For example, there would be very little of any ethical hesitation inside me in moving against with all possible methods against the "Mullah" - the theologian who is active in spreading the Jihadi aspect of Islam. For me such a person is no longer a human being, but a dangerous pest to not only my society but to entire human civilization.

I will flinch inside if in the process, innocents forced by circumstances related to the Mullah, suffers. For example, in our hypothetical situations, if we had really moved into TSP and taken over with removal or capture of the Islamist leadership, any rape committed by our men on Pakistani women should immediately be punished if proven not a false accusation. Even though I understand very well that similar behaviour will never be condmned by the Islamists themselves if their men did it on my people. In fact every instance where I have engaged in discussions with Islamists and their theologians, they never could say with firmness or clarity that such behaviour is not supported in the core theology. I also realize that they have institutionalized it realizing its powerful motivational role in getting soldiers for jihad, and a very effective instrument of coercion on a resisting community - let alone long term "breeding out" programmes.

But will my ethics allow me to use the Islamist technique, even if I realize its effectiveness in terms of conquests of societies? I will rather do a "Krishna" this way - do everything to provoke the Islamists into taking up arms and resisting violently - where I can liquidate them. And I would then "encourage" bachelors from our side to offer marriage to "orphaned" women. The end result is the same as what the Islamists target for, but consistent with my own ethic.

[sukhdeo]

sukhdeoji,
I have not stated my position against your "goodness" or "straightforward" attitude. But I would have a more nuanced approach. I would first look for what my target is to achieve for my nation and people. All else comes secondary. Logically speaking there has to be an ordering of preferences for ethical principles. What should you do, which one prevails, when two of your own ethical principles clash? Otherwise we cannot choose action.

For example, there would be very little of any ethical hesitation inside me in moving against with all possible methods against the "Mullah" - the theologian who is active in spreading the Jihadi aspect of Islam. For me such a person is no longer a human being, but a dangerous pest to not only my society but to entire human civilization.

I will flinch inside if in the process, innocents forced by circumstances related to the Mullah, suffers. For example, in our hypothetical situations, if we had really moved into TSP and taken over with removal or capture of the Islamist leadership, any rape committed by our men on Pakistani women should immediately be punished if proven not a false accusation. Even though I understand very well that similar behaviour will never be condmned by the Islamists themselves if their men did it on my people. In fact every instance where I have engaged in discussions with Islamists and their theologians, they never could say with firmness or clarity that such behaviour is not supported in the core theology. I also realize that they have institutionalized it realizing its powerful motivational role in getting soldiers for jihad, and a very effective instrument of coercion on a resisting community - let alone long term "breeding out" programmes.

But will my ethics allow me to use the Islamist technique, even if I realize its effectiveness in terms of conquests of societies? I will rather do a "Krishna" this way - do everything to provoke the Islamists into taking up arms and resisting violently - where I can liquidate them. And I would then "encourage" bachelors from our side to offer marriage to "orphaned" women. The end result is the same as what the Islamists target for, but consistent with my own ethic.

I dont disagree there.

But in my view, when you talk about a scenario such as what you have mentioned above, you are assuming that the "core group" is already in power and is running things. If that were the case, 90% of the battle is already won, everything else will almost automatically follow.

The real battle is how do you get the correct leadership, "the core group", as you call it, in power. This is not a battle that is a battle between us and the outsiders, although, the ultimate goal of this battle is to defeat the enemy outsider. The battle is really within us. It is between me and my brother, one hindu against another. And it is a battle within each hindu. How do we fight another hindu, a brother, to get the right leadership in place, after which it will be relatively easy.

So, in a sense, it is a civil war. It is a struggle within. At least in my mind, it is a struggle within. When it is a struggle within, would we want to use the tactics that Lord Krishna used, very sparingly, against his enemies to defeat our fellow people ? That is the question. It is bad enough that we have to have this internecine warfare, is it then legitimate to use unethical means against them ? That is why I keep raising this question and recommending a pure ethical approach. But dont get me wrong. In my approach, there is nothing wrong with prescribing severe punishments for even our brothers who are doing us harm, who are indulging in corruption, who are coming in the way of having a strong defense posture, who are indulging in blatant casteism, who are enriching themselves at the expense of others and who are coming in the way of building a more just society. Even death penalty would be ethical in some cases. But that is different from killing an innocent to achieve a "larger" goal.

But even before you talk about getting the "core group" in the leadership position, you have to form a core group and you have to define its guiding principles. How would you go about doing it and what would be the guiding principles ? Lets start there.

[RajeshA]

But it always is a conflict between good and evil. Even inside of us, it is a conflict between good and evil. Why do we have the urge to preserve our society or our nation ? Why are we willing to die for it ? Because we believe it is good. No matter how complicated one thinks things are, it goes back to our childhood notions of good and evil. If we are not fighting for good, what are we fighting for ? That additional car, additional house, power to ruin other people's lives ? What ? And it all has to converge. Its not only for the scriptures. We have to practicalize what we read in the scriptures if we are believers, or practicalize our secular ethics into our day to day lives. Only then will we have the inner strength, each one of us, to take on the evil. After all, when you talk about forming a core group, you are forming it to counter evil, right ? or only Islamists or immediate threats of the Chinese or the pack of monkeys in the forest near my village ? We can only fight it by at core, having tremendous moral authority on our side, which the Pandavas and certainly Lord Krishna had during Mahabharata. Despite being outnumbered, outmanned and outarmed, thats why they won. If you look at history, greatest victories against odds have come when people believed they were fighting for good against evil.

sukhdeo ji,
I am a science-fiction buff. So just a hypothetical situation.

Suppose aliens come and threaten the Islamists or the Chinese. Who is evil? The aliens, or are Islamists and Chinese still the evil party in your mind. 'Evil' is relative, and as such cannot be 'Evil'.

My grudge with others is not because they are 'evil', but rather because either they threaten my life, my way of life, the life of my own. Then they are my adversaries. Any 'wrath' from me, that would fall on them, would be for some reason, be it 'justice', 'retribution', 'defense', 'strategic calculation', but it would not be because they are evil.

The struggle going on within me, is I admit, between 'good' and 'evil' but for that there is a scale - my Value System, which could be Dharma. For somebody else it could be Islam, and for others the 'human rights convention'. This is a scale I use internally. I cannot make it a scale for everybody. That is why there are laws and social norms, agreed to by all concerned through consensus.

The Moral Authority one refers to is again a civilizational development through social churning across the values of a certain group, but at an higher level, which would be the implicit value system of the larger group. The Moral Authority one can derive from one's own value system, but it may not have any value in another value system.

For example, some value systems like the Vegans consider intake of anything of animal origin a sin, whereas other don't. Vegetarians do not wish to eat any meat, while others may have no problems with it. Practicing Hindus find it abhorring to eat beef, whereas others find it delicious and would be appalled at the thought of not being able to. Muslims are not allowed to eat meat or drink alcohol, while others have no problem with that. In Sikhism smoking is not allowed, while others think differently about it.

I have been attacked in the other threads for espousing ethics and the good. I can be criticized like you do, Rajesh or even Brihispati, and legitimately so, on the grounds that my approach is impractical and may not work. I dont believe so. But it is a legitimate criticism, which can be discussed rationally, in terms of whether an exclusively ethics based resistance will work or not.

But the nature of criticism on the other threads by some is one by people who have made their accomodations with evil and my advocating a "good" based resistance is threatening to them at core. This approach is more threatening than even yours, which they perceive has providing enough cracks for them to slip through and continue their accomodationist ways.

People criticize for a variety of reasons, misunderstanding also being one of them.

In my approach, there is no room whatsoever for falling through the cracks and continue along with business as usual. They are immediately threatened. I attribute that to the power of the ethical approach. Those who exhibited extreme hostility to my approach, you think, they did it because they didn't understand, as they claimed ? No, they did it because they understood too well. They understood too well that I am holding each person within us responsible for their own morality, their own conscience, their own accommodation, their own and my own part in rotting our system from within. In that sense my approach is different from Gandhi's, although both our approaches are ethics based. I, unlike, Gandhi, do not want any room or tolerance for accommodation and I don't want to leave evil alive, even after we have defeated it. I want to slay the dragon mercilessly, defeat evil ruthlessly, not have it stay around to keep raising its head (like the Paki serpent does or the British meddling does even now). But in order to do that I have to win first. We can only win against overwhelming odds, if we acquire overwhelming power and we can only acquire overwhelming power riding on the ethical horse, not on one that has compromise in its DNA.

I am not an ideological person. I have a value system, because I identify myself with it. It is my identification with self, with own, with a value system which defines who is a potential adversary and who is not. 'Evil' plays no part in it.

My actions and tactics will depend on logic and whether I can reconcile my actions with my conscience taking into consideration the severity of the threat to my interests, which includes protecting my own, my India. I will associate myself with a group, when I think the group and I have a commonality of interests, and I think that collectively we are in a position to agree on necessary actions to protect those interests.

For me, the Aim and Approach within the 'core group' should be in sync. A different philosophy of approach does make it difficult.

[sukhdeo]

Those who exhibited extreme hostility to my approach, you think, they did it because they didnt understand, as they claimed ? No, they did it because they understood too well. They understood too well that I am holding each person within us responsible for their own morality, their own conscience, their own accomodation, their own and my own part in rotting our system from within. .

No, no one exhibited hostlity to your approach of being good. What was expressed hostlity to is your sheer chutpaz in deciding what others think and telling them what they think (As evinced by this post) -- that followed by random verbiage.

The problem is that your statements are a bunch of "apple pie and motherhood" statements -- and every time you are asked for a concrete example of what you mean -- you either refuse to answer the question or run away.

It is sad that your pet thread was locked up letting your free on us in other threads. If it was one thread you could have retained all the meandering thoughts on that thread. Heck even RM has a thread.

In the other threads we could actually follow the topic. I don't read all the threads and I like it if the thread stays as per what it is meant to be.

You followed me into this thread too ? You have a penchant for punishing yourself, dont you ? For your own sake and your own sanity, please refrain from reading my posts.

Please please, my friend, stop stalking me, or else I will have to file for a restraining order against you in the court of Ramana

[Prem]

When do we start Dushatdaman Doctrinal Deconstruction?

[svinayak]

I am not an ideological person. I have a value system, because I identify myself with it. It is my identification with self, with own, with a value system which defines who is a potential adversary and who is not. 'Evil' plays no part in it.

My actions and tactics will depend on logic and whether I can reconcile my actions with my conscience taking into consideration the severity of the threat to my interests, which includes protecting my own, my India. I will associate myself with a group, when I think the group and I have a commonality of interests, and I think that collectively we are in a position to agree on necessary actions to protect those interests.

For me, the Aim and Approach within the 'core group' should be in sync. A different philosophy of approach does make it difficult.

This is the best I have seen here in terms of interest.
Can I use your quotes from here. Please give me permission.

[RajeshA]

Acharya ji,
you honor me. Feel free to use what you wish.

[sukhdeo]

But it always is a conflict between good and evil. Even inside of us, it is a conflict between good and evil. Why do we have the urge to preserve our society or our nation ? Why are we willing to die for it ? Because we believe it is good. No matter how complicated one thinks things are, it goes back to our childhood notions of good and evil. If we are not fighting for good, what are we fighting for ? That additional car, additional house, power to ruin other people's lives ? What ? And it all has to converge. Its not only for the scriptures. We have to practicalize what we read in the scriptures if we are believers, or practicalize our secular ethics into our day to day lives. Only then will we have the inner strength, each one of us, to take on the evil. After all, when you talk about forming a core group, you are forming it to counter evil, right ? or only Islamists or immediate threats of the Chinese or the pack of monkeys in the forest near my village ? We can only fight it by at core, having tremendous moral authority on our side, which the Pandavas and certainly Lord Krishna had during Mahabharata. Despite being outnumbered, outmanned and outarmed, thats why they won. If you look at history, greatest victories against odds have come when people believed they were fighting for good against evil.

sukhdeo ji,
I am a science-fiction buff. So just a hypothetical situation.

Suppose aliens come and threaten the Islamists or the Chinese. Who is evil? The aliens, or are Islamists and Chinese still the evil party in your mind. 'Evil' is relative, and as such cannot be 'Evil'.

My grudge with others is not because they are 'evil', but rather because either they threaten my life, my way of life, the life of my own. Then they are my adversaries. Any 'wrath' from me, that would fall on them, would be for some reason, be it 'justice', 'retribution', 'defense', 'strategic calculation', but it would not be because they are evil.

The struggle going on within me, is I admit, between 'good' and 'evil' but for that there is a scale - my Value System, which could be Dharma. For somebody else it could be Islam, and for others the 'human rights convention'. This is a scale I use internally. I cannot make it a scale for everybody. That is why there are laws and social norms, agreed to by all concerned through consensus.

The Moral Authority one refers to is again a civilizational development through social churning across the values of a certain group, but at an higher level, which would be the implicit value system of the larger group. The Moral Authority one can derive from one's own value system, but it may not have any value in another value system.

For example, some value systems like the Vegans consider intake of anything of animal origin a sin, whereas other don't. Vegetarians do not wish to eat any meat, while others may have no problems with it. Practicing Hindus find it abhorring to eat beef, whereas others find it delicious and would be appalled at the thought of not being able to. Muslims are not allowed to eat meat or drink alcohol, while others have no problem with that. In Sikhism smoking is not allowed, while others think differently about it.

I have been attacked in the other threads for espousing ethics and the good. I can be criticized like you do, Rajesh or even Brihispati, and legitimately so, on the grounds that my approach is impractical and may not work. I dont believe so. But it is a legitimate criticism, which can be discussed rationally, in terms of whether an exclusively ethics based resistance will work or not.

But the nature of criticism on the other threads by some is one by people who have made their accomodations with evil and my advocating a "good" based resistance is threatening to them at core. This approach is more threatening than even yours, which they perceive has providing enough cracks for them to slip through and continue their accomodationist ways.

People criticize for a variety of reasons, misunderstanding also being one of them.

In my approach, there is no room whatsoever for falling through the cracks and continue along with business as usual. They are immediately threatened. I attribute that to the power of the ethical approach. Those who exhibited extreme hostility to my approach, you think, they did it because they didn't understand, as they claimed ? No, they did it because they understood too well. They understood too well that I am holding each person within us responsible for their own morality, their own conscience, their own accommodation, their own and my own part in rotting our system from within. In that sense my approach is different from Gandhi's, although both our approaches are ethics based. I, unlike, Gandhi, do not want any room or tolerance for accommodation and I don't want to leave evil alive, even after we have defeated it. I want to slay the dragon mercilessly, defeat evil ruthlessly, not have it stay around to keep raising its head (like the Paki serpent does or the British meddling does even now). But in order to do that I have to win first. We can only win against overwhelming odds, if we acquire overwhelming power and we can only acquire overwhelming power riding on the ethical horse, not on one that has compromise in its DNA.

I am not an ideological person. I have a value system, because I identify myself with it. It is my identification with self, with own, with a value system which defines who is a potential adversary and who is not. 'Evil' plays no part in it.

My actions and tactics will depend on logic and whether I can reconcile my actions with my conscience taking into consideration the severity of the threat to my interests, which includes protecting my own, my India. I will associate myself with a group, when I think the group and I have a commonality of interests, and I think that collectively we are in a position to agree on necessary actions to protect those interests.

For me, the Aim and Approach within the 'core group' should be in sync. A different philosophy of approach does make it difficult.

Your approach is classical Hinduism. A relgion and the value system is a personal matter. I am free to have my value system and others can have another nuance of Hindu thought. We only come together in a group, not based on shared values, but based on shared threat perception and then go our own solitary way. In an ideal world this would work great. I would love to live in a world like that. But precisely because there was this temporary and loose coalition of coming together in view of immediate threat perception, based defense policy that Hindus followed in the past, Hinduism, not only did not succeed in expansion and winning wars, so that it could create the world in its own image, the kind of world where every person can have their own personal value system and it is a private matter, which would have been wonderful, but Hinduism consistently lost and lost ground. Because the defense strategy based on loose coalition and temporary interests and based on immediate threat perception, prevented a permanent and large standing army, a permanent defense establishement with innovation in weapons systems, a pro-active and permanent intelligence gathering organization, a continuous and cohesive foreign policy and an overarching economic policy. Not only that, this loose coalition gave an illusion of shared defense but in actuality only was an excuse for us to stay internally politically divided.

Maybe, that would be our ultimate goal. To create a world in the image of Hindusim, where religion and values can be a personal endeavor and everyone can be free to have their own take on it, but in order to do this, we have to first win and dominate. We cannot win and dominate by not having a core "center", where there is less room for each individual having nuanced values, but an absolute set of core values, which everyone believes in, around which a society can be built, institutions can be built, an armed forces establishment can be built, intelligence services, economy, foreign policy, industrial policy, etc. The "good" and "evil" will be defined relative to these shared values of the "core center".

This may sound more diabolical than it may sound, but it is not. For instance values such as honesty, hard work, straightforwardness, equal justice, smart work, courage, tolerance, etc, are pretty universal core values, that are not religion based necessarily, but something all Hindus can very easily agree upon. They can still have their own nuanced set of values for personal salvation. So in the name of each person having his own values, lets not give up the tremendous organizational principle for a nation and a society, which the concept of "shared values" is and use its advantages to reign supreme.

[Sanku]

.....

Sukhdeo, firstly please dont quote entire posts to make your point, please edit suitably.

Secondly I see that you base your basic discussion on a set of assumptions, assumptions which do not stand the test of time.

(Note using Hinduism below is the same sense you used to ascribe RajeshA's views, that of a philosophy)

For example -- you made a statement that Hinduism did not expand, that is funny because around 7th Century ACE, Most of the world from Persia (Zoroasternism) to Tibet to Indonesia and Malaysia were SOLIDY HINDU/INDIC.

They were propagating creeds with minor doctrinaire differences of basic Hindi philosophy. Also note that most of this spread had nothing do with spread of arms etc. It was natural diffusion of knowledge, much like Science diffused to west through Arabs from India, however the Islamic filter kept out the other knowledge transfer.

With evolution we have west going towards Hinduism as seen by articles on How America is Hindu today.

So clearly your understanding of Hinduism is flawed -- Hinduism did spread and does make the world in its frame. It does so by purposes of intellectual evolution much as species evolve.

Unless you understand this central thesis -- your understanding of Hinduism WILL be flawed.

Eventually if humans survive all world will be Hindu

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

The use of arms and power to spread or hold Hinduism is simply nothing more than any civilization holding on to civilization memes.

It is an orthogonal concept -- unlike in absolutist creeds where the two are necessarily married and cant survive without one another.

What we want is both -- the physical survival of Indian and the land with its particular culture, as well as a overall civilizing influence on the world.
--------------------------------------

Having understood those two basic points -- you will also understand that Hinduism is not a religion in the sense that other out of India religions are. Its only a defect of English language which combines them in one category.

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

Lastly -- For instance values such as honesty, hard work, straightforwardness, equal justice, smart work, courage, tolerance, etc, are pretty universal core values, -- are NOT universal core values.

We have seen that there are philosophies which actively encourage lying, inequality, etc.

In fact there is NO human core values -- there is however a core value at each stage of human evolution, and Hinduism by and large is one of the more evolved one. Perhaps the most evolved one.

[sukhdeo]

Harbans,

For some inexplicable reason the Gods of BRF have directed me to continue the discussion on the " 99%" issue in the General Discussion Section under "Why some societies do better than others" thread. Please refer to my response to your post regarding our two issues on that thread from now on.