Strategic leadership for the future of India

[brihaspati]

What are the factors that prevent formation of a tightly knit core around which future nationlist leadership may form?

Confusion and almost complete lack of clarity over the ideological foundations of the nation. For one side, it is of utmost importance to impose a complete ideological vacuum. The vacuum allows personaility cults to become the centre of national focus and identity and no alternative independent scale to hold dynastic or coterie based regimes to accountability. Both the Congress and the Left belong to this category. The vacuum creates long term confusion over direction of the nation.

For the other side, their ideological basis is still not rigorous. It is a partially successful attempt in coming out of the British colonial education project, but also a compromise with the ideological aggression of the other side. This is the BJP and RSS side. This side has allowed its own ideological position to be diluted because its vision about the future is clouded now. There is a danger, that the huge campaign mounted by the media and the Congress or the Marxist intellectuals, will actually be successful in convincing a large portion of this leadership to dilute their ideological positions further - for it actually helps the other side. The recent acrobatics actually represents this ideological confusion within this camp.

The tactic should have been to show how in each and every issue ideology does matter. The second camp has failed to keep the ideological connections in public discourse in concrete issues in political confrontations - and therefore allowed the other "vacuum" side to dictate the terms of political discourse. Before the public vision, therefore there is nothing to dsitinguish bewteen the two sides. And it is all about day-to-day issues of consumption - which has been successfully and falsely represented as independent of ideological targets.

The "vacuum" politics will rage successful all the while it drags the nation down to eventual subjugation by external forces that need to replenish their capital which they once looted from Bharat and now used up.

Ideology and practical steps to ensure consumption and remedial measures are not disjoint. But the ideological aspect of a political confrontation should be highlighted in all political campaigns. For that clarifies and makes people aware of the underlying bigger picture.

[sukhdeo]

What are the factors that prevent formation of a tightly knit core around which future nationlist leadership may form?

Confusion and almost complete lack of clarity over the ideological foundations of the nation. For one side, it is of utmost importance to impose a complete ideological vacuum. The vacuum allows personaility cults to become the centre of national focus and identity and no alternative independent scale to hold dynastic or coterie based regimes to accountability. Both the Congress and the Left belong to this category. The vacuum creates long term confusion over direction of the nation.

For the other side, their ideological basis is still not rigorous. It is a partially successful attempt in coming out of the British colonial education project, but also a compromise with the ideological aggression of the other side. This is the BJP and RSS side. This side has allowed its own ideological position to be diluted because its vision about the future is clouded now. There is a danger, that the huge campaign mounted by the media and the Congress or the Marxist intellectuals, will actually be successful in convincing a large portion of this leadership to dilute their ideological positions further - for it actually helps the other side. The recent acrobatics actually represents this ideological confusion within this camp.

The tactic should have been to show how in each and every issue ideology does matter. The second camp has failed to keep the ideological connections in public discourse in concrete issues in political confrontations - and therefore allowed the other "vacuum" side to dictate the terms of political discourse. Before the public vision, therefore there is nothing to dsitinguish bewteen the two sides. And it is all about day-to-day issues of consumption - which has been successfully and falsely represented as independent of ideological targets.

The "vacuum" politics will rage successful all the while it drags the nation down to eventual subjugation by external forces that need to replenish their capital which they once looted from Bharat and now used up.

Ideology and practical steps to ensure consumption and remedial measures are not disjoint. But the ideological aspect of a political confrontation should be highlighted in all political campaigns. For that clarifies and makes people aware of the underlying bigger picture.

Correct me if I am wrong, you seem to favor an ideological approach. If so, what is the difference between an ideology and a set of values ?

[brihaspati]

Ideology is the practical implementation of values in concrete issues concerning society. Values are a small set of starting axioms, and a preference scale to evaluate values. Ideology is a much larger body of conclusions based on this small starting set and preference scale, as supported by or based on practical experience.

[sukhdeo]

Ideology is the practical implementation of values in concrete issues concerning society. Values are a small set of starting axioms, and a preference scale to evaluate values. Ideology is a much larger body of conclusions based on this small starting set and preference scale, as supported by or based on practical experience.

Can you have an ideology with defining core values first ?

In any event, did I read you correctly ? Are you saying ideology is a more "practical implementation" than values ? So, ideology is what ? Values + Strategy + Tactics + Action ? or Values + Strategy + tactics ? or Values + strategy ? You see where I am going with this ?

Normally ideology is not a word commonly associated with the word "practical". To the contrary. The word "ideologue" is almost a synonym of "impractical" in everyday use, not only in India but around the world.


You may wanna rethink this a little bit.

[brihaspati]

I wouldn't think of ideology as impractical. Those who say so, have their own ideological reasons and needs to say so. Ideology is thec oncrete application of values and principles to a given context of experience and deriving conclusions about that experience, or maybe even derive choice of actions.

For example, if say the value is "preservation of cumulative knowledge over many generations" then this intself simply does not create an ideology. The ideology comes when we apply this value to concrete situations : what is the best means of retaining or implementing this value? You can write it all down in some language and hope that future generations will be able to read them. This then gives other requirements that becomes part of the ideology - the needto maintain and codify a language, the need to establish training in that language for new generations, and a copying or continuing mechanism for maitianing the records of knowledge. All this becomes ideology of that society - the "need" part is the ideology and when actually carried out becomes the "practice".

However the importance of "value" over ideology becomes apparent when, suppose this society faces severe extinction problems. If the extinction problem is simply natural catastrophy, then it may not be feasible to carry or preserve all the written records, and many of which will be destroyed. If the "value" is more important than the ideology, then one soultion to this problem will be a system that also insists on "sruti" and "smriti", try to remember knowledge and carry it as a living record. Over time this may lead to improvisation of a division of labour in "remembering" - where different groups are given the task of memorizing and passing on different parts of the knowledge. All this - the "need" part then becomes part of ideology.

On the other hand, if the society faces extinction and destruction of records by an invading genocidic regime, then it faces extinction of a different nature. Then just mere memorizing will not be sufficient. The society has to think of biological viability so that the memorizing method can continue. If the original value was not taken as supreme and the "ideology" itself the end, then the search for biological preservation as serving the core value would not be undertaken.

[Sanku]

Brilliant Brihspati -- as Shiv had said before, on a fora the real genius like you get separated from lay public like me, when faced in conversation with a entity which is either really hell bent on breaking things up or is in general a opinionated rude ignoramus

While the lay people get irritated and start blustering, the true genius turn that into a opportunity for further expounding on the core issues.

Kudos.

[sukhdeo]

Moderators/Administrators,

Please take note of the post just preceding mine. There is a pattern of this kind of nonsense from this particular poster. Is this adding to any discussion ? Please read my previous posts to see if this tone is justified ?

If you dont intervene, clearly it means that this poster is acting as a proxy on your behalf.

[sukhdeo]

I wouldn't think of ideology as impractical. Those who say so, have their own ideological reasons and needs to say so. Ideology is thec oncrete application of values and principles to a given context of experience and deriving conclusions about that experience, or maybe even derive choice of actions.

For example, if say the value is "preservation of cumulative knowledge over many generations" then this intself simply does not create an ideology. The ideology comes when we apply this value to concrete situations : what is the best means of retaining or implementing this value? You can write it all down in some language and hope that future generations will be able to read them. This then gives other requirements that becomes part of the ideology - the needto maintain and codify a language, the need to establish training in that language for new generations, and a copying or continuing mechanism for maitianing the records of knowledge. All this becomes ideology of that society - the "need" part is the ideology and when actually carried out becomes the "practice".

However the importance of "value" over ideology becomes apparent when, suppose this society faces severe extinction problems. If the extinction problem is simply natural catastrophy, then it may not be feasible to carry or preserve all the written records, and many of which will be destroyed. If the "value" is more important than the ideology, then one soultion to this problem will be a system that also insists on "sruti" and "smriti", try to remember knowledge and carry it as a living record. Over time this may lead to improvisation of a division of labour in "remembering" - where different groups are given the task of memorizing and passing on different parts of the knowledge. All this - the "need" part then becomes part of ideology.

On the other hand, if the society faces extinction and destruction of records by an invading genocidic regime, then it faces extinction of a different nature. Then just mere memorizing will not be sufficient. The society has to think of biological viability so that the memorizing method can continue. If the original value was not taken as supreme and the "ideology" itself the end, then the search for biological preservation as serving the core value would not be undertaken.

Still, Brihispati, you didnt answer this crucial question.

Can you have an ideology without defining core values first ?


You say ideology is not just values but values plus. It follows then that ideology has to sit on top of a value system, which has to be defined first.

The long and short of it is, that future scenario and future leadership in the Indian subcontinent will continue to be dismal almost disastrous, if we dont coalesce around a common set of values such as honesty, integrity, hard work, respect for each other as individuals, courage, truth etc. Does not mean everyone has to become perfect in order for us to make progress, but what is required is that these values be held dear in a society and rewarded and then everyone gradually contributes more and more. Short of this, I dont see any salvation for us. I always tell my muslim friends, that human values first, koran second. They always argue against it. I say the same thing to us within. Human values first and then Hindu norms. Fortunately, unlike Islam, Hinduism is totally compatible with the values I enunciated, ie, honesty, integrity, hard work etc, and in fact promotes it. Our scriptures are a living proof. So, these values are indeed Hindu values. We would do well to bring them back into fashion in our society, and then almost all of our problems will be magically solved over time.

[Sanku]

Sukhdeo do you really find it difficult to not quote a whole post to make a small point?

Can you have an ideology without defining core values first ?

No its obvious that you cant. In fact when you first made your "this is the approach" I asked you what is the vision. To which is obviously stands what is your values.

if we dont coalesce around a common set of values such as honesty, integrity, hard work, respect for each other as individuals, courage, truth etc.

Well the constitution already puts down some values, such as Satyamev Jayate.

However you again make an assumption that there is a certain set of values which only can constitute a value system.

The problem as you define is exactly that "we can dont group" around a set of values defined by you we break, as such you have already defined what are the values you stand for but dont allow that others may have another value system which may not match and hence since you are already decided on what is your value system, there can never be a compact.

Your approach in the way you put it appears to be -- my way or highway -- you know and you dont want to learn.

Perhaps if you chose another approach -- we will together walk to see what of our common value system can we put together as core and pull in values from each other we will be better off by learning from one another, that would be actually better towards forming a system which works.

I dare say the affects of your approach have already visible in any given set. Including this fora.

-----------

Meanwhile, please let me know what exactly do you find in my posts against the fora rules, I will delete.

Also please note that Moderators here do not run a re-education center of brainwashing thoughts. I have seen mods having different opinions on a topic. I have seen mods having a common POV yet different from the posters and the poster allowed to continue.


I think you DID NOT read the forum rules -- the views of the participants are their only, it does not reflect on the forum organizers.

I find it rather amusing that you want to use me as cats paw to settle scores as I see it, no the moderators can speak for themselves and they do not need me to speak for them In fact I can off hand think of 3-4 moderators who would be mortified at the mere thought.

I suspect you are not exposed to the culture of argumentation and ability of conflicting thoughts to stay together without an issue -- but BRF is the right place to fix that.

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

And I must also add you have this strange habit of continuing to ascribe statements and POVs to me even when I have clarified that I have said 180 to the contrary, and when I point it out you describe.

Please stop this behavior AT ONCE.

[sukhdeo]

You are on my ignore list. Please refrain from addressing me or my posts. Thanks.

[archan]

^^ Sukhdeo, quoting a whole long post to just respond with a 1 liner is not space efficient. You could quote and delete the contene, leaving the person's name, so it is obvious who you are quoting. Your cooperation is appreciated.

[sukhdeo]

^^ Sukhdeo, quoting a whole long post to just respond with a 1 liner is not space efficient. You could quote and delete the contene, leaving the person's name, so it is obvious who you are quoting. Your cooperation is appreciated.

Point well taken. I was wondering about that myself. I will do as you suggest, going forward.

[brihaspati]

sukhdeoji,
I have no fundamental differences with you as to the desirability having the "values" you refer to, in the whole of our society. It is a never-ending project too - for there are real reasons coming out of biological and other factors that will regenerate the temptations in every society not to strictly adhere to the values all the time. So the attempt must be continuously maintained.

However, speaking personally, my values are essentially derived from my own principle of holding what I consider the most important birthrights as a human - the right to think and speak freely and be free to quest - which I believe also lies at the core of Bharatyia Vedanta. I consider the proselytizing version of the Abrahamic to be inherently active aggressively against exactly that birthright of mine. Any population, nation, territory that can be used to enhance this Abrahamic agenda against my birthright is something that I should try to clean up of the roots of these ideologies.

In doing so I have to keep in mind that the only true homeland left for the Bharatyia is still within the current political boundaries of India, and cultural heritage and philosophical frameworks relevant for my attitude towards "cleanup" lies in it. As such, this Bharat is my nation and preserving it with a view towards preserving its Bharatyia civilization (and not necessarily the Abrahamic civilizational memes who claim their centres of affiliation to be outside of Bharatyia in any case) comes first and everything else comes second.

Yes, "speaking the truth" and all other values which can be part of a Bharatyia civilizational code, all of it comes secondary to achieving my target with respect to destruction of the sources of continuous attacks on my nation and who, until they are destroyed will always target my nation.

Here is a quote from a lady I very much hold as a genuine leader :
"To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be or you don’t be". (Golda Meir when questioned on Israel's future, in The New York Times, 12/12/1974).

[sukhdeo]

sukhdeoji,
I have no fundamental differences with you as to the desirability having the "values" you refer to, in the whole of our society. It is a never-ending project too - for there are real reasons coming out of biological and other factors that will regenerate the temptations in every society not to strictly adhere to the values all the time. So the attempt must be continuously maintained.

I couldnt agree more

However, speaking personally, my values are essentially derived from my own principle of holding what I consider the most important birthrights as a human - the right to think and speak freely and be free to quest - which I believe also lies at the core of Bharatyia Vedanta. I consider the proselytizing version of the Abrahamic to be inherently active aggressively against exactly that birthright of mine. Any population, nation, territory that can be used to enhance this Abrahamic agenda against my birthright is something that I should try to clean up of the roots of these ideologies.

Partially agree, to the extent that they try to harm us, yes. And they have tried to harm us every which way. Only, we must differentiate between the better instincts among our enemies and appreciate and ally with them, to wage a multi front war, including taking the war inside the enemy's camp. But that requires open mindedness to be able to appreciate the fact that the enemy is not a monolith, that there are various strains within, and some of them can be genuine friends, some merely allies and the rest we have to confront. But by and large no disagreements.

In doing so I have to keep in mind that the only true homeland left for the Bharatyia is still within the current political boundaries of India, and cultural heritage and philosophical frameworks relevant for my attitude towards "cleanup" lies in it. As such, this Bharat is my nation and preserving it with a view towards preserving its Bharatyia civilization (and not necessarily the Abrahamic civilizational memes who claim their centres of affiliation to be outside of Bharatyia in any case) comes first and everything else comes second.

Only disagreement with the above is that the world is the true homeland for the Bhartiya, and yes, we have to preserve the current political boundries of India in order to use it as a base to expand bhartiyat elsewhere

Yes, "speaking the truth" and all other values which can be part of a Bharatyia civilizational code, all of it comes secondary to achieving my target with respect to destruction of the sources of continuous attacks on my nation and who, until they are destroyed will always target my nation.

Totally disagree. You seem to think that I am advocating all the values that I keep advocating, such as honesty, hard work, courage etc being influenced by the West and Judeo Christian traditions. I want to assure you that I am advocating them because I find these values in addition to many others, well represented in our own scriptures and traditions. No one has a monopoly on these values and they are certainly not foreign to us. They have always been a part of us and have been our strengths. Whenever India truimphed, there was a greater dominance of these values than times when it went down in defeat. But even this argument for these values is not the prime argument for it. The prime argument is this. You keep talking about protecting Bhartiyat and our traditions to the exclusion of everything else. But you cannot do any of this until you gain power. Power can be gained in many ways, some moral and some immoral. I would go along with your thinking that we should use all means to gain power, in order to do good. Kinda the end justifying the means theory. I am no Gandhian in that sense. But the reason I disagree with this is that in the current scenario, you cannot gain power by having a large dose of the "unethical" in your strategic and tactical mix. I have given reasons for my thinking in my other posts more fully, but I will say this here. The lot that is the elite in India today, is even far worse than the one that ruled 20 years ago and that leadership was no saint. This lot has perfected all the unethical tactics like they have never been perfected before and they are only effective and super effective against internal dissent. Just practically speaking, you cannot do battle with this scum using "unethical" tactics. They will always come out ahead. You have to lift the moral and ethical standard of the masses so that this scum loses its base of power and then you can strike. I am not advocating high morals because they are the righteous thing to do, which it is, I am advocating them because they are the only practical way for good people to acquire power. If you think about this a little bit, it should be obvious. Good people will elect good people, scum will elect scum or allow the scum to dominate. The more good people, the better your chances of coming to power. Then you can do what you always intended, it becomes a lot simpler, when you are in power.

[Sanku]

However, speaking personally, my values are essentially derived from my own principle of holding what I consider the most important birthrights as a human -

In doing so I have to keep in mind that the only true homeland left for the Bharatyia is still within the current political boundaries of India, and cultural heritage and philosophical frameworks relevant for my attitude towards "cleanup" lies in it.

Exceptional elucidation of the minimum common program Brihsapati.

As always the core to Bharat is what the wise man one said -- Janmbhoomi and Punyabhoomi and as been added on by many others Karmabhoomi.

[brihaspati]

I feel that in my brief comments I left out clarifications.

When I said "only homeland left", I specifically meant that, what "homeland" is undisputedly allowed to the Bharatyia at the current point in history. As true Bharatyia's we should acknowledge ourselves - all humans - all to be "amritasya putraa", and in time we should be able to claim a much larger area as our homeland. But at the moment, this is not acknowledged, as in most cases the Abrahamic have claims on lands based on apparent promises by some supreme and supra-human authority. American citizens of Bharatyia origin will typically be referred to casually in the media as American of Indian origin, but we do not see references to "American of British origin" or "of German origin", or of "French origin" - even prior-to-colonization Americans as "native Americans" - so anything outside the Germanic-Nordic roots are assigned as the "other" and "not belonging". This is repeated on similar lines in many places of the world. A homeland has to be "established" and others forced to acknowledge. So in that sense I used the expression "left".

As for "values", I have already agreed before once, that I think within a core smaller group that sets out to achieve consolidation of the Bharatyia with specific aims of expansion to ensure survival and safety of the core populations and their lands - we need complete "trust" on each other in the leadership. This means complete honesty and reliability with each other. However, for strategic and tactical reasons the core leadership as whole, as a single unit, should not be restrained in its movements with respect to the "enemy" or "obstructors".

There are indications at all periods of retreat of the Bharatyia that the "Bharatyia" leadership or portions of that leadership did play by the "values" only to be wiped off. Similarly, in periods of expansion or fighting back, that the Bharatyia or Bharatyia leadership did not play by the "values". Examples come to the mind of the Shahyias and their interactions with the Islamist Turks - the Shahyias and some others in the North West played by the Bharatyia codes and were wiped off. Maharana Pratap or Shivaji did not always play by the "Bharatyia codes" or "values" and succeeded against the enemies of Bharat. MKG played by the "rules" leading to retreat of the Bharatyia from large portions of the subcontinent, and creation of an entity forever at the jugular of the remnant.

[sukhdeo]

I think we are coming much closer in our positions, Brihispati. I am not advocating the same approach towards our enemy that we apply to each other. With the enemy it is not "unethical" to use tit for tat tactics. In fact, allowing the enemy to win by not deploying similar tactics that the enemy uses would be considered "unethical". It would make the powers that be feel good and honorable (such as our kings in the past, who confronted the Islamists), but is detrimental to the masses who are raped, pillaged and murdered. Where is the ethics in allowing mass murder of your own people.

When it comes to each other within the society, we have to have the highest ideals and highest ethics. That is the only way to GAIN POWER. You will NOT get to positions of power within your own society without practising the highest virtues. Thats a given.

I will ask Acharya as well in the other forum, who keeps on telling me that a lot of work has been done on this front and that I am being redundent by not doing my homework. Clearly since this has at least been a two way conversation between you and me with Rajesh sometimes joining in, perhaps you guys are being redundent too. But seriously, I will ask him too and I am asking you as well. Are there efforts underway in India which primarily focus on raising the moral standards of our people. I call this our own "counter culture". Since the dominant culture today in India, particularly the younger generations, are entirely focussed on making money at any cost, and acquiring power at any cost, talking about ethics and morality is kinda subversive of the culture and is "counter" culture. Are there any counter culture efforts, movements, beginging of movements within India which are genuine and not serving someone's narrow interests ? I dont know of ANY. If I am wrong, please correct me. Perhaps, there is a vaccum which can be filled by a core group from BRF and outside that you keep talking about.

I just think that it is tragic, that in a place like India with thousands of NGOs and trusts, and organizations of all kinds, including religious ashrams, temples etc, there isnt a single place which is actively and honestly promoting higher ethical and moral values amongst us. I had mistakenly assumed, before I actually started posting on BRF, that perhaps BRF is at least a think tank on ethics, correct action and empowerment of our society and culture. But it is not, it cannot be, it is just a forum.

An organization promoting ethics will be the positive future strategic leadership for India. And promoting ethics is also the future strategy for India.

I have come back to edit this post to add this last part, lest I be misunderstood. I dont think there is anything wrong in making money, and in fact, it is now India's and Indian's time to make money, our moment in the sun, so to speak and we should take full advantage of it. I am merely talking about not cannibalizing each other and maintaining a healthy balance between ethics and making money. I think the balance has tilted too far on the side of making money at any cost.

[brihaspati]

sukhdeoji,
I would be rather cautious about attempting to promote morality on a society wide scale immediately. We cannot infact "promote" morality. What is more important is to establish "moral authority". Which means a core leadership's whose "morality" with respect to the interests of the nation becomes beyond question in the eyes of the common people of the nation. Only then can such a leadership call for "moral" upliftment of the general public. Moreover, in my experience, morality is more quickly followed by example rather than enticements. Of course the proverbial "stick" also helps to bring confidence to those wavering.

I do not think that a moral aggressive campaign on a wide front is useful or effective. The younger generation will simply turn away from you if you do not do it cleverly. In fact there are some aspects that the younger generation now indulges in, I would say, which I would support or not oppose. Morality on a blanket scale can be problematic - as many of the repressive practices on social interaction between the genders, as well as between social groups and identities have become part of the morality scale for certain viewpoints - but if I go back to ancient periods in the pre-Abrahamic history of Bharat- such restrictions were unknown and therefore a "different" morality existed.

We have to be careful that reinforcing any "moral code" does not actually reinforce a "pseudo moral code" that is actually possibly a late entrant and reaction to the Abrahamic actions on Indian society - and helps more in fracturing and weakening our society. Or a "good" moral code does not become an excsue to add a "bad" moral code - any element that detracts from our basic purpose of homogenization, mobiliization towards nation rebuilding is unacceptable.

[Sanku]

The obsession with a predefined Morality is not indic.

[sukhdeo]

sukhdeoji,
I would be rather cautious about attempting to promote morality on a society wide scale immediately. We cannot infact "promote" morality.

We not only can, but we must promote morality. We promote all sorts of things. We promote industrialization, we promote exports, we promote imports in certain cases, we promote minorities, we promote religion, we even promote education, why cant we promote values ? Promoting values is simply imparting the right education. But right education is not imparted only in classrooms, we have to come up with creative ways to impart it. Those who say that it is not Indic to promote pre-defined values stop at nothing to criticize Western values and Macaulytism creeping into Indian society. Where is the tolerance there ? Everyone promotes their own values, the question is how you educate in a manner which is not just palatable to people, but also interesting for them.

What is more important is to establish "moral authority". Which means a core leadership's whose "morality" with respect to the interests of the nation becomes beyond question in the eyes of the common people of the nation. Only then can such a leadership call for "moral" upliftment of the general public. Moreover, in my experience, morality is more quickly followed by example rather than enticements. Of course the proverbial "stick" also helps to bring confidence to those wavering.

Absolutely 100% in agreement. And I was not meaning to go on a campaign to do anything other than what you suggest above, at least initially. I was only talking about creating a "non corruptable" and like minded core group to start.

I do not think that a moral aggressive campaign on a wide front is useful or effective. The younger generation will simply turn away from you if you do not do it cleverly. In fact there are some aspects that the younger generation now indulges in, I would say, which I would support or not oppose. Morality on a blanket scale can be problematic - as many of the repressive practices on social interaction between the genders, as well as between social groups and identities have become part of the morality scale for certain viewpoints - but if I go back to ancient periods in the pre-Abrahamic history of Bharat- such restrictions were unknown and therefore a "different" morality existed.

Again, agree 100%. Although I dont want to put the cart in front of the horse, as a core group is required before you do anything, but here are some of my thoughts on how you could proceed. One of the many things that may be required to be done in parallel is using what traditionally and even today to a certain extent is India's biggest strength. "Soft Power". Software as opposed to hardware. If you use soft power, you immediately alleviate a lot of the concerns you alluded to in the quote above, such as putting off young people etc. What exactly do I mean by soft power. It can mean a lot of things, but let me just give you some examples.

I have been thinking for a long time to start a campus newspaper or a campus FM radio channel or even a public interest local TV channel (leased from one of the cable operators, if possible) in and around an Indian University as a pilot. Using this media, I would like to recruit active boys and girls who I think may have potential for right thinking and form a group around campus, just a social group. This media, particularly if it is radio or tv, can play popular music, do talk shows, have a mix of entertainment and information. Clearly, the web has to become a part of the mix, regardless of whether it is print media, or tv or radio. In terms of music, the media can play popular music but importantly, also promote experimentation in music by students and/or other artists alike. The media will also promote experimentation in fine arts, dance and then slowly philosophy and thought. Students can organize their own programs, shows, talk shows, lectures, plays, even make movies. They can do all of this while having parties and having fun and breaking down barriers between sexes which you correctly pointed out were not original Indian barriers anyway.

All this while, you need not encode any messages in any of the art forms. You simply have to ensure that there are no messages which are terribly negative to our cause. This approach will have the following advantage:

1. This goes back to a separate discussion we had on liberal arts education. Without liberal arts education, you will not be able to develop a language to communicate with young kids and even old people. Through arts and music and dance and plays, now you have developed a potent language to communicate with everyone, particularly kids. Now you have their attention. You need not rush to capitalize on this attention by pushing your message. It wont be necessary. If the attempt is pure, and the experimentation into art forms is pure and unadulterated and truly free and the interactions between students themselves are truly free, they will come around to the right thinking or our message automatically. But the important thing is that you have now developed a powerful language to talk to your target audience.

2. This is the way to counter the marxist, leftist, non ideological influence on liberal arts education that you correctly criticize. Now you can compete with the "bureaucracies of destruction", using your own fresh, focussed and razor sharp approach.

3. Even if you fail in inculcating your message via this means, you have still succeeded, because students who are exposed to music and that kind of interaction, which includes other than music, lectures, symposiums, trips and travel around issues of interest such as current affairs, international affairs, arts, philosophy, science etc, will have better sensibilities and will be more sensitive and emotionally stable kids who in due course will by themselves come to the right conclusions on issues at hand.

4. I have no illusions that even this will be a difficult pilot project, even on one campus, but if it succeeds, you are well on your way. I do sense a window of opportunity around campuses though, because there isnt a whole lot of semi-organized social activities around most campuses in India and there is a sort of a vacuum, which is where we can step in.

This is the Indic way, soft power. There was a lot of India and soft power in the counter culture in the US in the 60s and we can have again this soft power, this time in India, for Indians, although modernized and even more potent now to begin our long journey.

Your thoughts ??

We have to be careful that reinforcing any "moral code" does not actually reinforce a "pseudo moral code" that is actually possibly a late entrant and reaction to the Abrahamic actions on Indian society - and helps more in fracturing and weakening our society. Or a "good" moral code does not become an excsue to add a "bad" moral code - any element that detracts from our basic purpose of homogenization, mobiliization towards nation rebuilding is unacceptable.

I think my response to your previous quote oughta put to rest your anxieties in this regard.

[shaardula]

The obsession with a predefined Morality is not indic.

what do you mean? travails of yayati, sharmishta and puru?

reading the comments is really depressing. a 9 year old girl she is.

[Sanku]

The obsession with a predefined Morality is not indic.

what do you mean? travails of yayati, sharmishta and puru?

reading the comments is really depressing. a 9 year old girl she is.

I did not understand the second line? But If you are going to talk of morality -- may as well throw in Shibi and Harishchandra as well.

Nope I am aware of the morality tales in India and the importance thereof.

The question is that of a predefined morality -- a morality laid down by percepts of law to be the same for every one. In India everything, including Morality is a journey, a discussion between atma and paramatma with help of a guru.

Many alternative Moralities are possible and exist.

Most importantly -- morality is never bracketed into a simple set of A B C qualities and no more.

Perhaps the only Indian morality which can be verbalized in truth -- the rest is dharma arth Kaam Moksh, none of which map to the moral concepts in the words in English and none of the English words for moral values map to these.

[RajeshA]

- How would have an Indic Society looked like in the 21st century, if there had been no Muslim Invasions and no British Colonization of India?

- Let us further assume that in such an alternate historical scenario, we allow for all those things we got from the above, which do not impinge on the Indic - the language and cultural inputs.

- Let us further assume that the Indics were able to overcome most of the social evils, as seen from the ethics of today's world.

- Let's further assume that Bharat had remained on a trajectory of cultural expansion and consolidation of the Indic sub-nations into one nation.

- Let's further assume, that in the mean time Bharat had excelled in science and technology, only 10,000 times better, as it would have been without the phase where Bharat's portion of Global GDP had got tanked.

- Let's further assume, that we had retained the Chandragupta Maurya spirit.

- Let's further assume, that we had continued to hold our Indic traditions in high regard even today.

What would have been the mentality of the Indics, our national borders, our fortitude, our influence, our level of development, our scientific knowledge, our military capabilities?

That is the Bharat, I would want. That would be my aim. I am not looking for a Ram Rajya. I am looking for a Maurya-Kautalya Rajya, but a 21st Century Maurya-Kautalya Rajya. When I speak of a core-group, I speak of a group willing to adopt the spirit of Kautalya to enable the above vision.

When I speak of a core-group, I speak of a group willing to agree on the parameters which describe the health of a society and the freedom of the individual to undertake his material and spiritual quest, and proceed from that to explain which values can be useful for the above state. The focus of any 'core-group' should lay more on manipulating/molding/influencing the global environment to pursue a mission of strengthening the nation in all its attributes, the nation being the environment which provides the society and every individual in it maximum security, maximum health and maximum freedom to pursue its goals.

Some thoughts on values -

When I think of social values, I do not think of them as having any sort of religious blessing. I do not mind others thinking of them that way thought. My main demand of any 'values' is that they should pay dividends, of improving the health of the society as well as allowing the individual to reach the utmost of his potential, without jeopardizing the health of the society. It is the health that decides the morals and NOT the other way round, where the morals dictate the health.

It is to be noted, that multiple 'values' can often be required in a certain situation, and these would often point to a contradictory course of action, a paradox an individual has to solve on his own. Such conflicts exist, and it is not the job of any group to provide guidelines, if-then-else programming instructions on how to go about weighing these 'values'. Individuals are entitled to 'Free Will'. Societies will weigh in the actions of the individual and to reward him or punish him accordingly.

[shaardula]

Brihaspati wrote.

Ashis Nandy has many points worth discussing. I would perhaps be harsher than him on the theory of "secularism" as practised in India - I would characterize this "secularism" as the most intense, paranoid, cover and excuse for a minority to reinvent its extremely non-secular exclusivism. This is a minority completely lost in the world of multiple identities, desperately in need of one, but so insecure and vulnerable that it does not have the courage to identify with any and therefore creates a vacuum in space where it can survive. I have long ago and consistently suggested that this type of "secularism" is the product of that small portion in the elite which were brought up to believe in their superiority by birth from fellow "ordinary" Indians. Thus they could not really identify with the vast majority of their society. This produces insecurity. More so in someone who is at the same time seeking power and authority over that very society. He does not identify with and therefore is not able to mobilize this majority to ensure personal power. Moreover his training to believe the majority "below" him in ability, (as well as rights) makes him unsure about the potential power that such "weak" people can give him. Failing to understand but realizing the brute strength of inaction and introverted strength of the majority and its "non-secular" culture, he therefore becomes paranoid of the "majority" (non- in his sense) culture. He needs to repress it just to that right degree that allows him to use the "majority" for his personal ambitions, but not allow the majority to assert itself independent of him.

I would try to take this discussion in one of the strategic threads as this may get OT. However as for syncretic adjustments made by communities forced to work together without the state intervention (state intervention inevitably halst syncretism and protects religious divides or even sharpens them) there is good work done by Gyanendra Pandey - if anyone is interested. Look for his case studies on Nort Indian cities.

shaardulaji,
I would still not see the existing Indian rashtra from the Partition helping this sense of revival that you speak of. Most of the revival has taken place in consciousness only when the "Indian" has moved away from the societal and educational influence of the post-Partition rashtra - in the diaspora, or as educational migrants who return to their homeland after a period of time. The rashtra has produced stauncher versions of the "pseudo-secualrists". So much so that "revivalists" have become confused, and there is a whole lot of shouting going on that they become a "copy" of the "pseudo-secularists" to win elections. I do not underestimate the strength of entrenchment in the post-Partition rashtra of the "pseudo-secularists" and I do not think "revival" has taken off yet. It will, but that lies in the future for some very different and surprising reasons rather than the rashtra creating conditions actively for it.

Reference: Ashis Nandy: Unclaimed Faith. http://www.littlemag.com/faith/ashis.html

preserving it here. will get back later.

thanks B. thanks for GP.
syncretic adjustments made by communities forced to work together without the state intervention
very true. i have seen this work in my town(s).

[Sanku]

Reference: Ashis Nandy: Unclaimed Faith. http://www.littlemag.com/faith/ashis.html

preserving it here. will get back later..

Shaardula -- thanks for the post. I believe Ashis Nandy will be considered a leftist intellectual, is that correct? If so such honesty is refreshing. Not for the content alone, but from the quarter it comes from.

[RajeshA]

Continuing from previous post of mine

... the nation being the environment which provides the society and every individual in it maximum security, maximum health and maximum freedom to pursue its goals.

How a nation is supposed to provide maximum security, maximum health and maximum freedom to pursue material and spiritual quest to the society and the individual is the big quest of the ages, and a very tricky equation to balance.

There are metrics for measuring the health of a society, usually a superset of metrics used by both European schools and Eastern schools, would be the desirable. There are entire philosophies which deal with the question of freedom of an individual to pursue his material and spiritual quest. There can of course be some work done in enhancing 'Maximum Health' and 'Maximum Freedom' within the 'core group', but any group has limits of resources and focus, and should not be distracted from its main mission, even as it is aware of these considerations.

Maximum security is the target of strategic thinking and dedicated work, and that should be the mission of the 'core' group first and foremost.

[brihaspati]

Ashis Nandy's article reminds me of the reasons I once started a thread about secularism which got canned in the aftermath of the UPA sweep at hustings.

Nandy reveals all the confusions that stem from the failure to define secularism. What is secularism after all? There appears to be two distinct interpretations.

First interpretation, secularism is equal treatment and code of behaviour towards all ideologies and faiths without denying any or all claims of each ideology/faith. I will call this "theosecularism"
Second interpretation, secularism is a complete code of behaviour that does not base its authority on any pre-existing faith or belief system and does not accept any or all claims of pre-existing faiths. I will call this "atheosecularism".

Theosecularism is the version that worked for Europe. There were specific reasons for this. All religious frictions and conflicts or sectarian violence in Europe was basically over fine print interpretations of a single core body of dogma of a particular theism - Christianity as imposed by the Roman Empire. But through centuries scale bloody and violent warfare, they had already hammered out a consensus on the basic theology. Economic necessities of social changes and orders of beliefs into the "scientific" forced the necessary adjustments to this theology which would allow the economic engine to maintain its colonial and global imperialistic thrusts. Theosecularism of Europe was not impossible to implement as "science" did not have to fill in blanks where "values" would be needed to be reinvented. There were no distinct competitive, and mutually exclusive branches of theology that were competing for the same constituency.

Theosecularism also has its problems. Over the long term, the fundamental inadequacy of "science" always comes down to haunt secularism of any form. Science is a method of quest which out of necessity does not or cannot prescribe "values". For this man has to create his own values. As an excuse he can call upon a "suprahuman" authority or he can source it from within, or can even give his current knowledge of science to base new values.

Theosecularism comes into severe problems where multiple, competitive claims of superiority and absolute ownership of all value space exists from mutually exclusive theologies. Here, since no theology will yield space except perhaps by violence, even commonality of values will not be recognized. Thologies will tend to create values in opposition to distingush and insulate themsleves from the competitors. Since theosecularism has no framework to evaluate and compare the different contradictory claims of competing theologies, it always allows increasing sharpening of divides. This growth of all forms of exclusivism then becomes associated with theosecularism itself and the competing theologies see thsi form of secularism as the real "evil" in the way of their absolute domination - because it does not suppress competitors.

Atheosecularism, is on the other hand more difficult and challenging to install, but if installed, has a greater chance of success - because it is not handicapped in having to accept the rival claims by rival theologies. But the real difficulty of this form is in the need to provide a complete replacement of values normally provided by pre-existing theologies. The greatest advantage in this form is that it does not recognize any inherent superiority of any claims by any theology. Problem is of course in practical implementations it typically becomes a compromise and hybrid structure that is largely built upon at least one theology's remnants and typically the most nmerous or numerically dominant one. The differences arise only where the new "theologians" feel that by changing a certain value they will be able to mobilize a section of the society that can help them in their bid for power. This is what happened with the Marxists - as most of whose values were based on a Christian core with those values modified, such as on gender roles, or "obedience" to older ruling classes, or "family values" - that would free up a lot of peple to get involved in the bid for power.

I think Savarkar arrived at atheosecularism - which was one appropriate method of looking forward. But this could not be popular with a regime in complete rashtryia power that was bent on sharpening multiple mutually exclusive theologies. The fundamental problem in recognizing the dilemmas of RSS and BJP lies in our inability to be aware of the difficulies of implementing atheosecularism.

[shaardula]

B. one thing X-secularism is a ruler's burden. ordinary people are not burdened by definition. they define their own working rules. these rules and the way they manifest neither uniform nor universal. highly contextual. but in experience they typically arrive fairly reasonable rules.

now the thing is, this constant focus on fault lines is something that derives from academic voyeurism. i can understand that as far academia is concerned, these boundaries are where interesting stuff stuff happens and hence highly interesting in studying. my basic problem is when this results in problematizing people as they are.

from this view theo/ atheo secularism is the same thing. in real terms "bjp" and "congress" are the same thing.

having said this i understand the issues that you are taking about. these are issues we discuss only bcoz we are all informed by an indic worldview. one book systems dont approach this problem the way we do. i think one of the stable solutions is for the indic ideas to dominate the overall narrative.

it is not a rashtriya agenda to reform islam. the only rashtriya agenda is issues concerning indic systems, whatever they are.

[sukhdeo]

B. one thing X-secularism is a ruler's burden. ordinary people are not burdened by definition. they define their own working rules. these rules and the way they manifest neither uniform nor universal. highly contextual. but in experience they typically arrive fairly reasonable rules.

Shaardula,

What you say above is totally true, but only true for healthy societies and a people with a healthy state of mind. What I find extremely painful is to see our people, the Hindus, not evolving "fairly reasonable rules" as you call them of interacting with each other. We have evolved a system at ground level, where there is no smoothness in any aspect of our lives, even the well off individuals life. There is no stablilty or certainty about anything. Everything is fluid. You dont know if you will get water supply the next day, whether you will have electricity the next hour, whether you can lend money to your brother or your friend, whether you can conduct commerce with any degree of certainty. The only people who can conduct commerce in India are people who are capable of enforcing the contracts in a myriad of "extra" legal way or who can "buy" state protection.

Successful societies lacking strong leadership structures and institutions in similar circumstances would be able to evolve "reasonable working rules" as you call them or "values" or "code of conduct" or a "protocol for internal interaction", as I term it, but we have not been able to. Why ? to say that we have been able to do a better job than Nigeria or Rwanda is, well, I dunno. Do you agree that the rules that we have defined for ourselves at ground level are unworkable and if so, why have we not been able to do a better job and most importantly, what process do we use to get to a better set of rules in practice.

The classic response I get here in BRF is that it is always the outsiders fault, not our own. Its the Islamists, the Western colonialists, even the Chinese. While clearly they are all vultures circling overhead and periodically preying on us, isnt it us that wound ourselves in the first place that attracts the vultures ? I think its high time we take responsibility and ownership for our own well being, because one thing is true as sure as death, the vultures arent going to stop circling. The only way to get them off our back or off our skies is by not wounding ourselves. It is equally true, as sure as death, that the current manner in which we have organized our Hindu society within India, with the kind of government we have, the institutions we have built and so on are totally incapabale of protecting our interests.

So, where do we go from here ? How do we, the people, you and I, start the process of building a healthier society ?

[brihaspati]

vyaghradev,
I had long ago offered my own two options - which in the reformulated terminology above is either choose strict atheosecularism, or go for a "Hindu" rashtra. In many senses, my personal preferences would go with atheosecularism, but as my subsequent thinking on this has developed, I also realize that in a practical implementation it has to and will be based on a large subset of what we usually characterize here as the Bharatyia. Even though I now realize that Savarkar was probably the first conscious atheosecularist in India, (and I realize how close I am in many aspects to Savarkar's line of thinking) I would actually differ from him in many aspects when it comes to concrete conlusions and methods starting from the very same positions. I would actually arrive against two-nation theory, I would actually arrive at mass movements and mobilizations to achieve political targets, and I would be pragamtic enough to base mobilization on the pre-existing core of beliefs. I would also arrive at expansion and absorption of the "other" rather than put up defensive walls around ourselves.

We have stalled, and held back long enough. It is time to think of expansion as a means of defense, absorption as a means of tackling hostile cultures, and be unashamed in the pursuit of power by the nation.

[svinayak]

We have stalled, and held back long enough. It is time to think of expansion as a means of defense, absorption as a means of tackling hostile cultures, and be unashamed in the pursuit of power by the nation.

Can you explain a little bit on this being shamed or being unashamed in the pursuit of power by the nation.

[brihaspati]

Unashamed - no hesitation in preparing to expand. A doctrine of getting back territories occupied by hostile powers. Get share of bases in the IO now exclusively held by non IO states. Prepare for fallouts of possible WMD attack by TSP and PRC and also to use such occasions to take back what rightfully belongs to us.

[svinayak]

Unashamed - no hesitation in preparing to expand. A doctrine of getting back territories occupied by hostile powers. Get share of bases in the IO now exclusively held by non IO states. Prepare for fallouts of possible WMD attack by TSP and PRC and also to use such occasions to take back what rightfully belongs to us.

What is shameful about it. It is about defence of the nation and the people. Grabbing what is others is also acceptable.

[brihaspati]

I did not say it is shameful for me - but there appears to be a perception in the political circles that such a thing cannot become part of a national doctrine, even for internal consumption.

[Rahul Mehta]

one thing X-secularism is a ruler's burden. ordinary people are not burdened by definition. they define their own working rules.

Amen. This is true for over 99% of debate we see in on BR and (India - BR). Only 10,00,000 Indians give a damn about "definitions, characteristics, advantages and disadvantages". The rest, commons, care only about basic things like food, safety, imprisoning criminals, expelling corruption etc. They couldn't care less about bloody definitions.

my basic problem is when this results in problematizing people as they are.

If you dont consider us commons as "problems", you aren't a true intellectual. The basic characteristic of an intellectual is that he considers people aka commons as "The Problem". And of course, their brains with 4 digit IQ are the only solutions.

Pls note the difference. There are rustics like myself who consider corrupt judges as problems, corrupt MPs as problem, corrupt IPS as problem. We rustics also consider many pro-nepotism anti-democracy laws as problems. But we rustics dont consider commons as problems, we see them as only solution. In contrast, the intellectuals, who have 5 brains each and each brain has 4 digit IQ, consider MPs, judges, IPS, IAS as "okie", they say that laws are just fine and these intellectuals consider only us commons as problems, and their brains as solution.

---

How do we, the people, you and I, start the process of building a healthier society ?

Trivial. We blindly copy those who made their society healthier

We should copy the British activitists of 1000 AD due to whom UK became so healthy a society that some 200 gora British soldiers with about 4000 Indian hired soldiers could defeat the then Bengal army of over 100,000 (1757 AD, Placie), where British lost only 50 Indian soldiers and some 20 gora soldiers, while there is no count of how many Bengal soldiers died. We should copy the activists of US of 1700 AD, due to whom US is so powerful as our MPs of ALL Parties such as Congress, BJP and CPM, run to polish shoes of US president. So we can COPY these activists or we can waste time in thinking "original" ways out and wait till US succeeds in dividing India into 30 parts and then making an Iraq out of each of them.

I have decided to blindly copy UK activists of 1000 AD and American activists of 1700 AD. I think spending time in discovering or inventing something original will only lead to further "donothingism" . Ground level steps may differ depending on availability of better technology and better laws then UK of 1000 AD and US of 1700 AD. But my core goal is same - press for laws which reduce strength of judges, IPS, IAS, Ministers and increase the powers of us commons.

====

brihaspati: Unashamed - no hesitation in preparing to expand. A doctrine of getting back territories occupied by hostile powers. Get share of bases in the IO now exclusively held by non IO states. Prepare for fallouts of possible WMD attack by TSP and PRC and also to use such occasions to take back what rightfully belongs to us.

Acharya: What is shameful about it. It is about defence of the nation and the people. Grabbing what is others is also acceptable.

brihaspati : I did not say it is shameful for me - but there appears to be a perception in the political circles that such a thing cannot become part of a national doctrine, even for internal consumption.

brihaspati,

My group is small, but some 50 people do come at least once a month. They are all students or professionals etc below 40. They ALL support my proposal that Indian should increase Military strength and "liberate" Saud, and we never discuss what word liberate means but means same as "liberate Iraq". So as far as commons Indians go, there is complete agreement on increasing land area of India and adding mineral mines into Indian kitty. And you are right --- most leaders from BJP, Congress and CPM oppose this. But they oppose it not because of any ethical reason but because they are on Saud/MNC payroll. If the opposition was on ethical reason, these MPs would have been anti-corruption and not pro-corruption. Their pro-corruption stand proves that ethics is an alien concept to them. These MPs are problems, and lets not worry that they dont support expansion.

[sukhdeo]

My group is small, but some 50 people do come at least once a month. They are all students or professionals etc below 40. They ALL support my proposal that Indian should increase Military strength and "liberate" Saud, and we never discuss what word liberate means but means same as "liberate Iraq". So as far as commons Indians go, there is complete agreement on increasing land area of India and adding mineral mines into Indian kitty. And you are right --- most leaders from BJP, Congress and CPM oppose this. But they oppose it not because of any ethical reason but because they are on Saud/MNC payroll. If the opposition was on ethical reason, these MPs would have been anti-corruption and not pro-corruption. Their pro-corruption stand proves that ethics is an alien concept to them. These MPs are problems, and lets not worry that they dont support expansion.

Mehta,

I am getting more and more impressed by you, my friend. You have a live group of 50 ? Like minded, right thinking ? I wonder if anyone else on BRF can claim that. A .5 sidekick perhaps, but a group of 50 ? You serious ? If yes, you are God, Mehta.

[svinayak]

brihaspati,

My group is small, but some 50 people do come at least once a month. They are all students or professionals etc below 40. They ALL support my proposal that Indian should increase Military strength and "liberate" Saud, and we never discuss what word liberate means but means same as "liberate Iraq". So as far as commons Indians go, there is complete agreement on increasing land area of India and adding mineral mines into Indian kitty. And you are right --- most leaders from BJP, Congress and CPM oppose this. But they oppose it not because of any ethical reason but because they are on Saud/MNC payroll. If the opposition was on ethical reason, these MPs would have been anti-corruption and not pro-corruption. Their pro-corruption stand proves that ethics is an alien concept to them. These MPs are problems, and lets not worry that they dont support expansion.

When Kissinger came to India to discuss with the strategic community (probably in the 90s)such as B Karnad HK asked them about middle east and solutions. BK and others have indicated that why not India take over with troops to bring order and rule.

[Rahul Mehta]

When Kissinger came to India to discuss with the strategic community (probably in the 90s)such as B Karnad HK asked them about middle east and solutions. BK and others have indicated that why not India take over with troops to bring order and rule.

We can and we should, but AFTER we have full weapon manufacturing capabilities, including WMD manufacturing capabilities. Without weapon manufacturing capabilities, we will be dependent on US to provide weapons and and US will put a price that would leave us pauper. So we loose men, do the dirty work and US will keep all the cream.

Making weapon manufacturing capabilities need large scale demotion of education of subjects like history, humanities, arts, sociology, archeology and promotion of education of subjects like Science, Tech, Military History, Administrative Histories, Law etc. In addition, whole population needs to be Militarized and has to be hardened. All this needs money, and so we need wealth tax and inheritance tax. The UK started this model in 1500 AD and US mastered it further. US elite collects huge taxes via wealth tax and inheritance tax, and uses this to build Military (directly or indirectly) and using Military, it robs the wealth of other countries. So paying wealth/inheritance tax and using it behind Military, US elitemen has become wealthier than all elites in the world. The Indian elitemen are narrow minded and short sighted. They have refused to pay taxes, starved Military. If this trend of "no tax, starve the Military" goes on in India, US will take over all the wealth of India within next 10-20 years.

[ramana]

I have been looking for this for quite sometime:

George Tanaham's essay on Indian Strategic Thought

http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R4207/

[Rahul Mehta]

Mehta,

I am getting more and more impressed by you, my friend. You have a live group of 50 ? Like minded, right thinking ? I wonder if anyone else on BRF can claim that. A .5 sidekick perhaps, but a group of 50 ? You serious ? If yes, you are God, Mehta.

Thanks

Pls see neta-babu thread ...

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 68#p731168