Strategic leadership for the future of India

[brihaspati]

For me, there appears some obvious possible clues as to the effectiveness of this particular IAS. The very fact that he was at the "centre" implies that he had shown sufficient flexibility in bowing to the system early on, and managed to develop or had because of non-professional reasons (membership by birth of elite netowrks) that made him immune to the whims of vested political interests. If he was really "against" the system, he would have been weeded out much earlier.

Reproducing this individual phenomenon at a massive scale, all over the country, requires two contradictory things to work in harmony. An executive who does not depend on popular representatives in carrying out their duties and hence automatically disconnected from apparently popular bases of power. And such independence to be granted or allowed by politicians who can only come to power by allying with vocal, and determined minority (not in religious or social sense) interest groups - whose very interests may be jeopardized by the "independent" executive.

[Sanku]

Only if the commons are able to shake off the false impression that "wealth" means "power" and therefore the potential for "coercion" can we get out of this. But this brings us to the question of "values". A "thorny" one, as evident many times on this thread.

Two excellent sets of posts Bji, actually such events give hope, this means that India as a land and as a people still have a huge substratum of a particular consciousness which does not allow its current "elites" too much of leeway.

Right from Pramod Mahajan to Congress I

All "WE" need to do is tap into it and revive it. Hind Swaraj part II.

[Sanku]

For me, there appears some obvious possible clues as to the effectiveness of this particular IAS. The very fact that he was at the "centre" implies that he had shown sufficient flexibility in bowing to the system early on, and managed to develop or had because of non-professional reasons (membership by birth of elite netowrks) that made him immune to the whims of vested political interests. If he was really "against" the system, he would have been weeded out much earlier..

Bji, hanging out at the "center" in administrative roles which have no lucre attached to their functionings directly but are key is a way of "weeding out" those IAS types, who can not be hurt because of non-professional reasons, membership by birth of elite networks, but have not really bowed to the system.

Strictly speaking that is also compromise, but then as of today there is no one person who is in the System and also does not compromise to an extent.

It would be interesting to see how many of real patriots lurk in the corners in GoI pretending to be corrupt. (It happens only in India)

[brihaspati]

Sanku-ji,
I have seen the phenomenon in my own family. Both from the politician's side as well as the admin's side. But in our existing "non-revolutionary" setup, established interest networks dominate the exchange between these two. When it is a revolutionary situation, like that in the early days of the freedom movement - when outcomes are uncertain, these interest networks stay away. But they become active once the dust settles, and a clear winner emerges and court the winner.

Some politicians and some administrators manage to find each other from time to time and excellent things happen for a time. But then the interest networks jump in with all their might. The Bihar CM will increasingly find himself isolated if he encourages and patronizes administrators like the one mentioned above. If he does this on an increasing scale, he will lose electorally.

[Karna_A]

For me, there appears some obvious possible clues as to the effectiveness of this particular IAS. The very fact that he was at the "centre" implies that he had shown sufficient flexibility in bowing to the system early on, and managed to develop or had because of non-professional reasons (membership by birth of elite netowrks) that made him immune to the whims of vested political interests. If he was really "against" the system, he would have been weeded out much earlier.

Reproducing this individual phenomenon at a massive scale, all over the country, requires two contradictory things to work in harmony. An executive who does not depend on popular representatives in carrying out their duties and hence automatically disconnected from apparently popular bases of power. And such independence to be granted or allowed by politicians who can only come to power by allying with vocal, and determined minority (not in religious or social sense) interest groups - whose very interests may be jeopardized by the "independent" executive.

This IAS was not an exception and I have known a number of IAS/IPS officers who have done miracles like that. Ribeiro, Seshan, S R Rao(Surat Commisioner), Rajendra Ratnoo(http://www.upiu.com/articles/rajendra-r ... -cuddalore) are just a few. It can be replicated all over India, just needs resolute, visionary and determined leaders. It may be time for a new party in India and I have been thinking on that lines.

The basic problem is with politics and the stranglehold of visionless leaders on the politics, and equally problematic is indifference of the Aam Junta, as each state has the system they deserve.

[Sanku]

Some politicians and some administrators manage to find each other from time to time and excellent things happen for a time. But then the interest networks jump in with all their might. The Bihar CM will increasingly find himself isolated if he encourages and patronizes administrators like the one mentioned above. If he does this on an increasing scale, he will lose electorally.

I understand that part well, the Bihar CM will also need to accommodate existing interest groups.

However Bihar may prove an exception (a bit like Modi's Gujarat) since a mini-revolution in both cases had presented them with relatively blank slates. All the known interests group were inalienably with the opposition anyway (internal or external) and these made their marks as "outsiders"

So in this case the special interests group which can also pressurize the CMs will have to grow internally, which takes just a little bit longer and gives room for maneuver/hope.

At least thats my reading, let us see what transpires in reality.

[brihaspati]

After writing my previous post, I came across the news that Laloo has performed very well in the bye-elections and Nitish has fared poorly. I am out of ground touch now in the particular zone where most bye-elections took place. Can more knowledgeable gurus provide an analysis? Hopefully, things like we were discussing above is not becoming a factor in uniting the interest groups?

[RamaY]

B-ji

It is the result of denying one's own roots and not being assertive enough. The commoners dislike double talk even when the intensions were right.

Another point is that Indian commons accept corruption as part of life. What they want from a political leader, IMO, is that the leader understands their problems and gives them immediate relief, however brief that is. A successful politician must be able to offer immediate relief (popular schemes) and quietly build his long term vision. It is a 10-15 year (2-3 terms) project.

JMT.

[brihaspati]

RamaY-ji,
Thats true! This is why I thought that it is necessary to have this dual strategy - of basic short term relief on the one hand, and use that to buy support for longer term plans on the next generations. The generation that has become entirely cynical and relief-oriented only, cannot and will not do much in terms of the necessary sacrifices and inputs of labour or effort. But they do have immense nuisance value in obstructing the path of crucial reforms and reformulations. So we have to basically buy them off and bargain for our building plans about the coming generations.

[JwalaMukhi]

How would direct representation affect the leadership? The indirect representation throws up its own challenges, where non-leaders are foisted to don the leadership position. Lalooji for all the flaws is a force to reckon with, if the contest actually boils down to direct elections. "Man/Woman of the people" is quite crucial in accountability to the state/region/nation. Indirect representation allows the elected to obfuscation and group blame for non-performance. It also allows the people foisted (or otherwise) to work and be accountable for small domain or coterie that can make or break the career. However, in direct representation the accountability is spread across the spectrum.
Although, Machurian candidates can also easily be foisted due to direct representations. Media, money and other factors would play their dubious role in promoting vested leadership even in direct representation. However, the accountability still is across a large cross section instead of just a cabal.

[Sanku]

After writing my previous post, I came across the news that Laloo has performed very well in the bye-elections and Nitish has fared poorly. I am out of ground touch now in the particular zone where most bye-elections took place. Can more knowledgeable gurus provide an analysis? Hopefully, things like we were discussing above is not becoming a factor in uniting the interest groups?

These by elections happened because the sitting MLAs moved to Center as MPs after the recent central elections. So JD (U) BJP combine in one shot moved a lot of its local leaders to center. That I think left a void for Laloo to captilize on.

This is good though, Nitish et al will be careful with the soon coming full fledged state elections.

In any case too soon to write of Laloo. The center elections were a wipe out but the state one are a different kettle of fish in any case.

[brihaspati]

JwalaMukhi wrote
How would direct representation affect the leadership?

We keep visiting this question. On previous attempts, seemed to get botched or ignored. I see distinct advantages in minimizing the number of intermediaries who can extract profits from the political process in the same way that business internediaries do their markups. Also by forcing candidates to gain "national" acceptance, we do promote wide ranging "national" integration elements.

But the dangers of figures put forward by media and amenable to external interests needs to be explored.

[brihaspati]

^^^ One experiment that could be started was to have a directly elected President while still retaining the current "shikhandi" nature of the post within the Constitution. Elections could be held at the time of the General elections. Problem or objections will be raised of course when govs fall before term and the Presidents term is not yet finished.

A president who has to win direct elections will really have to try to be acceptable to all Indians, as simple majority in certain large states may not be sufficient. Such a person has to overcome language barriers, regional barriers, etc. In trying to be what all Indians expect him or her to be, the person will eventually become an Indian who becomes a focus for the nation.

The danger is of course, that the media will probably put up RG as such a first President.

[Rahul Mehta]

JwalaMukhi: How would direct representation affect the leadership?

What is direct?

============

^^^ One experiment that could be started was to have a directly elected President while still retaining the current "shikhandi" nature of the post within the Constitution. Elections could be held at the time of the General elections. Problem or objections will be raised of course when govs fall before term and the Presidents term is not yet finished.

A president who has to win direct elections will really have to try to be acceptable to all Indians, as simple majority in certain large states may not be sufficient. Such a person has to overcome language barriers, regional barriers, etc. In trying to be what all Indians expect him or her to be, the person will eventually become an Indian who becomes a focus for the nation.

The danger is of course, that the media will probably put up RG as such a first President.

brihaspati,

Commons in Mexico elect Prez directly. But most of the Mexican Prez have been corrupt and spineless, and have acted like US puppets. eg No Mexican Prez has shown spine and developed its own nuclear weapons. Ditto with many third world countries where in citizens elect president directly and yet almost all presidents have been corrupt.

Also, in US Senators are elected directly and yet all of them are corrupt. And US Presidents have been non-corrupt i.e. they rob the world and enrich US elitemen, but Senators do make laws that would enable US elitemen to rob US commons.

The one pattern which is always seen and never an exception is : an official behaves well only iff citizens have procedures to expel/imprison him. If commons have no procedure to expel/imprison him, no matter how is chosen --- direct election, indirect election, written exam etc --- he is always corrupt.

One example is ancient Greece , where many officials were appointed by lottery !! And yet corrupt was low, because a complaint of corruption was decided up on a Jury of 200, 400 or 600 citizens depending on level of the accused (wealthier and powerfuler the accused, more the number of Jurors). This Jury had powers to expel him as well as execute him. So officers in Greece behaved well, and complaint of corruption was low. Whereas in India, we have 10s of checks and balances, and 10s of institutions , 10s of safe guards, 10s of audits and 10s of disclosures. But no procedure by which citizens can expel/punish officers. And so almost all officers we see are corrupt.

============

Regarding IAS of Bihar who made many good bridges

I have come across many IAS etc who did a good job in their respective fields - medicine, education, construction, roads, bridges etc. But ALL of the persons I met, were scared of fighting against corrupt Supreme Court judges, corrupt High Court judges, corrupt Ministers, fellow corrupt IAS/IPS officers and so forth. They shows zero intention in taking efforts to imprison 1000s of Ministers, IAS. IPS, judges etc who deserve to be in prison and not in power. So yes, they may all be good, but this is how far their goodness goes and no more. They are surely good assets, but not a solution to our pressing problems.

[brihaspati]

RM,
you will always hit the brick wall of fear of "arbitrariness of a mob" by raising the Grecian spectre. There were spectacular self-goals that the Athenians voted themselves, out of petty jealousy or collective shortsightedness.

You do need to get the vocal minority on your side. So some compromises?

[Prem]

[quote="Rahul Mehta
I have come across many IAS etc who did a good job in their respective fields - medicine, education, construction, roads, bridges etc. But ALL of the persons I met, were scared of fighting against corrupt Supreme Court judges, corrupt High Court judges, corrupt Ministers, fellow corrupt IAS/IPS officers and so forth. They shows zero intention in taking efforts to imprison 1000s of Ministers, IAS. IPS, judges etc who deserve to be in prison and not in power. So yes, they may all be good, but this is how far their goodness goes and no more. They are surely good assets, but not a solution to our pressing problems.[/quote]

One of the initial BR aims was to get to these good IAS folks and provide input for promoting and solidifuing Bharti Interests and convince them to change the ground relaities in regards to corrupt behaviour of Britindian elites. Guess its forgotton and thrown in the dust bin in the heat of defence, security issues dominating for the last few years.

[brihaspati]

One way of encouraging such characters is to give them spectacular recognition for their efforts. Do this publicly and independently of GOI, and make it such an event that the politicians cannot then penalize them out of jealousy and power-ego problems.

[JwalaMukhi]

What is direct?

You have already provided an example yourself below.

Commons in Mexico elect Prez directly.

Alrite, there surely is difference between a person getting elected/selected to be the Principal by 300 odd people, versus a person getting elected/selected to be the Principal by 300 million people. The idea is to dilute the disproportionate power ceded to the 300 odd people in the first place rather than worrying about how to recall them. Nip the tendency in the bud. Do not grant the boon to then repent in leisure to worry about recalling that boon. Horse trading and other tamasha happens only because the 300 odd people have extraordinary and disproportionate power, that is wrong in the first place.
The power of the principal is not any different if the principal gets s/elected by 300 odd people. In other words just because 300 million people selected the Principal; it will not bestow any more power to the principal than is currently bestowed.

But most of the Mexican Prez have been corrupt and spineless, and have acted like US puppets. eg No Mexican Prez has shown spine and developed its own nuclear weapons. Ditto with many third world countries where in citizens elect president directly and yet almost all presidents have been corrupt.

The one pattern which is always seen and never an exception is : an official behaves well only iff citizens have procedures to expel/imprison him. If commons have no procedure to expel/imprison him, no matter how is chosen --- direct election, indirect election, written exam etc --- he is always corrupt.

Well, let us push your analogy of how and who is corrupt; yes if Humans are elected, corruption is always a possibility. The question of corruption is a separate issue and deserves to be treated separately.

[JwalaMukhi]

Furthering this idea, the top five or at the least top three positions (say for example: Defence, Foreign, Home ministry) should be decided by direct elections. This will have a better chance to stop the rot right at the head, than the existing mechanism. Similarly at the state level; the scene will have better chance. Even people will have better chance to exercise their vote, instead of conceding to some set of “corrupt people” and again going through another rigarmole of passing another opinion by right to recall. Right to recall is meaningless, unless the people were directly (not indirectly) responsible for putting that person in that position in the first place. Let people put the people they like directly at the very top and the right to recall will be less useful. Right to reacall is putting onus on the people to comeback and say they made wrong choice, when in the first place they never did make that choice.

[Rahul Mehta]

RM, you will always hit the brick wall of fear of "arbitrariness of a mob" by raising the Grecian spectre. There were spectacular self-goals that the Athenians voted themselves, out of petty jealousy or collective shortsightedness. You do need to get the vocal minority on your side. So some compromises?

The population is not mob. The mob is small number of individuals led by "activists" who are funded by elitemen. The mob culture is seen ONLY in places where democracy is crushed by the "educated people" and not seen where democraticness is high. And when population is in crores, the individual jealousy will cancel each other out and net action will be free from individual conflicts. The population is less likely to score self goals compared oligarchy. The oligarchy's primary interest is in robbing the population and enriching itself rather than defeating the external enemies. In fact. Oligarchy will be always willing to bow down to external enemy, side with them and use their technology and power to further subdue the commons. The Indian elitemen from 600 AD to Sep-28-2009 are classic examples. We see more Mansingh then Rana Pratap in the elitemen. Where as population may be eager to exploit other countries (eg Greece enslaved many neighbors, US has enslaved many countries). So Oligarchy almost always scores a "self" goal i.e. sells out nation for its own petty existence where as population would rarely, almost never, opt for defeat causing policies.

As per compromises, the vocals insist that commons India should NOT be even allowed to post their RTI applications etc on PM's website !! (Pls see the Neta-Babu-judge thread, where some 90% of the vocals insist that commons MUST NOT have any procedure to put their complaints etc on PM's website). When counter-party opposes that first party should be not be given a small share in almost infinite space and bandwidth that exists on PM's website and portals, there is no room for compromise.

=============

One of the initial BR aims was to get to these good IAS folks and provide input for promoting and solidifuing Bharti Interests and convince them to change the ground relaities in regards to corrupt behaviour of Britindian elites. Guess its forgotton and thrown in the dust bin in the heat of defence, security issues dominating for the last few years.

If one's goal is to "change" existing IAS/IPS and existing leaders by preaching, then preaching before buffaloes will be more productive. What preaching should we do before IAS/IPS and Ministers? They know more about dirt then we do. They dont know of solutions that West used for 1000s of years (recall, Jury, referendum) because they have NO interest in solving the problems. If a person who wants to reduce miseries of Indians, he will be always eager to know how West reduced the miseries of their commons. But if a person is only interested in bribe collection, spending time with him in giving him information on the Western ways to solve problems will be total waste. Instead, it will be better to spend time with commons, who though powerless as of now, are at least interested in solving the problems. And thats what I do, btw. I prefer to spend time with commons explaining administrative systems of India/West and how differences it makes rather than chase IAS/IPS and Ministers and seek their attention.

============

Alrite, there surely is difference between a person getting elected/selected to be the Principal by 300 odd people, versus a person getting elected/selected to be the Principal by 300 million people. The idea is to dilute the disproportionate power ceded to the 300 odd people in the first place rather than worrying about how to recall them. Nip the tendency in the bud. Do not grant the boon to then repent in leisure to worry about recalling that boon. Horse trading and other tamasha happens only because the 300 odd people have extraordinary and disproportionate power, that is wrong in the first place.
The power of the principal is not any different if the principal gets s/elected by 300 odd people. In other words just because 300 million people selected the Principal; it will not bestow any more power to the principal than is currently bestowed.

I support direct elections of PM. But that alone will not bring even 0.1% of change, because after election, he doesn't need votes for next 4-5 years. A gujju proverb is : "Garaj sari ke veri" i.e. "now I dont need you and so now I am your enemy".

yes if Humans are elected, corruption is always a possibility. ......

If so, then US police should have been as corrupt as Indian police. But why is US police (except in drug cases) has near zero corruption , while corruption in Indian police goes from constable to DIG to HomeMin to CM? Corruption is not human or cultural problem at all --- it is only because the bribe taker knows that victims i.e. citizens at large, have no way to get even. There is NO other reason.

[JwalaMukhi]

I support direct elections of PM. But that alone will not bring even 0.1% of change, because after election, he doesn't need votes for next 4-5 years. A gujju proverb is : "Garaj sari ke veri" i.e. "now I dont need you and so now I am your enemy".

I'm unsure of your argument. You state: A directly elected PM can change colors immediately after election; because he does not need votes till next elections. I think what in effect you are saying is that 'commons' lack capability to judge a person and make wrong choice. Granted let's accept that for a second. But it does not stop there, you turn around and go back again to the 'same stupid commons' to opinionate that they made wrong choice and hence right to recall. Do you see the circular argument here. 1. Either commons are smart - they make correct choice and let it play for full term without frivolous charges. 2. Commons are stupid that they need more than one try to get it right. In this second process, it looks more donkeys work is generated for lawyers and judges, to conduct right to recall.
Sorry commons made their bed, they better lie in it for 5 years, especially when commons directly excercised their right.
Also, the PM still does not need the commons after elected till the next litigation, instead of next election. So time factor is the only change.

[Rahul Mehta]

Rahul Mehta: I support direct elections of PM. But that alone will not bring even 0.1% of change, because after election, he doesn't need votes for next 4-5 years. A gujju proverb is : "Garaj sari ke veri" i.e. "now I dont need you and so now I am your enemy".

JwalaMukhi: ... You state: A directly elected PM can change colors immediately after election; because he does not need votes till next elections. I think what in effect you are saying is that 'commons' lack capability to judge a person and make wrong choice.

Commons can easily post-facto judge a person.
But even God does not have capability to pre-facto judge a human.

No one has any means to decide how a person not-in-power will behave when he comes into power. Truth serum test is close, but still not fool proof. When not-in-power, every leader is pro-common and talks of empowerment, liberty, freedom etc. But he may do just the opposite when he comes into power unless he there is a threat on his head. In West, the elected leaders do not become despotic only because

1)at district-state level they have recall

2)some 50% of adults in US are armed and most of the rest 50% know how to use arms and are capable of buying one within a week.

3)It is not because citizens in West have better ways to judge the candidates

So even citizens in West have no way to know if the person will not be corrupt after he is elected. Which is why almost all Senators they elect are corporate agents and sell out big time. In fact, citizens of assume that leaders is likely to become corrupt and which is why they have enacted recall procedures at District/State levels.

.... But it does not stop there, you turn around and go back again to the 'same stupid commons' to opinionate that they made wrong choice and hence right to recall. Do you see the circular argument here. 1. Either commons are smart - they make correct choice and let it play for full term without frivolous charges. 2. Commons are stupid that they need more than one try to get it right. In this second process, it looks more donkeys work is generated for lawyers and judges, to conduct right to recall.

The threat of recall is bringing a change in the elected/appointed person. IOW, say you hire a servant with contract that you wont expel him for 5 years, wont replace him for 5 years, will not give his work to others, will deposit his salary every month without question etc. In such, over 99 out of 100 servants you will hire will become your boss. But if you have procedure to fire him, they will behave well. Which is why I support total hire-fire. The right to recall is nothing but hire-fire at higher level.

The recall procedure I have proposed for PM is listed on http://rahulmehta.com/lm_04.htm . It generated zero work for lawyers, it is fast, cheap and cost on GoI is zero. Those who want change bear the cost. And the recall procedures I have proposed for non-elected persons like SC-Cj, HC-Cj, District Police Chief, RBI Chief are also listed on my website. They are 100% Constitutional. Our Magnum Opus Constitution does not insist that only elected can be recallable. The Magnum Opus Constitution which is the longest in world and the best document humans ever made allows recall of anyone using a procedure that is 100% Constitutional.

The anti-recall people have opposed recall because recall would reduce the benefits Nbjpri can give to elitemen. (Eg if recall procedures are there,it would not be possible for GoI to give tax exemptions to elitemen who own SEZs.) Given that most NGOS are funded by elitemen, the NGOs and people with NGO manasikta have opposed right to recall. Otherwise, right to recall is cheap, fast, causes zero instability, increases re-election rate, decreases corruption, decreases atrocities, decreases hold of foreigners on Nbjpri, decreases freebies that go to elitemen etc. And it is only known way to accomplish these tasks.

[JwalaMukhi]

Commons can easily post-facto judge a person.
But even God does not have capability to pre-facto judge a human.

The threat of recall is bringing a change in the elected/appointed person. IOW, say you hire a servant with contract that you wont expel him for 5 years, wont replace him for 5 years, will not give his work to others, will deposit his salary every month without question etc. In such, over 99 out of 100 servants you will hire will become your boss. But if you have procedure to fire him, they will behave well. Which is why I support total hire-fire. The right to recall is nothing but hire-fire at higher level.

The recall procedure I have proposed for PM is listed on http://rahulmehta.com/lm_04.htm . .

Theoretically, the Right to Recall would work great under a lot of assumptions and ideal conditions. But it has fundamental flaws in its implementation or practicability.

The idea should be preventative measure. Judging a person post-facto is onlee a remedial measure.
Under the present circumstance the PM cannot be subject to “right to recall” because the “commons” did not install the 'PM'. In other words, commons did not “hire” the PM. Hence, “fire” the PM by “commons” will not work because only people who did the hiring can do that.
Even, let's say PM is subject to “right to recall”, PM can always legally challenge that the result of right to recall has no locus standi as he is answerable only to the parliament.
In other words, “Right to Recall” has no enforcable executive backing, unless it can become enforceable; it just will remain on paper.

Let's look at the polling conducted across India. There were roughly 13.5 lakh polling stations, which worked for complete 10 hrs to elect the representatives in Lokasabha elections.
Right to recall has to ideally replace this process by proxy. How can Talathi's handle this exercise, and what is the time frame sought on a particular issue to arrive at result of right to recall? Also, let us say, if one is PM, 3000 or 300000 single point issue can be put to trial at the Talathi's offices. So basically, frivolous issues can be registered at 'Talathi's” office? Most people in rural areas and other places would be more than happy, if they can get their simple tasks in one try at Talathi's office.

Any process/procedure that requires commons to go and deal with “Sarkari Katcheris” which are cess pit of corruption and indolence, is not looking for a real solution, but an apparent solution.

Basically, it is shifting the onus onto the commons, because the 300 odd elected representatives screwed up. And go through lot of procedural wrangles without any certain outcome. This looks like diluting the power of MP s while in actuality it is only an apparent reduction in the power. But it would look like MP s are on the side of commons, when the intention is the commons to take the blame/burden for the goof up of the Mps.

The best bet would be to conduct direct elections for the top positions and if needed reduce the term to 4 years. Unless the top positions are directly elected by people, discussing “right to recall” is trying to close the stable after the horses have bolted.

[Rahul Mehta]

Rahul Mehta: Commons can easily post-facto judge a person. But even God does not have capability to pre-facto judge a human. The threat of recall is bringing a change in the elected/appointed person.[/b] IOW, say you hire a servant with contract that you wont expel him for 5 years, wont replace him for 5 years, will not give his work to others, will deposit his salary every month without question etc. In such, over 99 out of 100 servants you will hire will become your boss. But if you have procedure to fire him, they will behave well. Which is why I support total hire-fire. The right to recall is nothing but hire-fire at higher level. The recall procedure I have proposed for PM is listed on http://rahulmehta.com/lm_04.htm .

JwalaMukhi:

1. Theoretically, the Right to Recall would work great under a lot of assumptions and ideal conditions. But it has fundamental flaws in its implementation or practicability.

2. The idea should be preventative measure. Judging a person post-facto is onlee a remedial measure.
Under the present circumstance the PM cannot be subject to “right to recall” because the “commons” did not install the 'PM'. In other words, commons did not “hire” the PM. Hence, “fire” the PM by “commons” will not work because only people who did the hiring can do that.

1. RR needs NO assumptions and no "ideal conditions". RR has worked for past 3000 years in different procedural forms and has always delivered. Even in US in 1800s, corruption in police was low despite lower education etc in the population. Why? Thanks to RR and nothing else.

2. We have no way to "find" a honest person from a group of 10 honest and 90 dishonest persons. So we have only two ways - deterrence and remedial. RR is both, and if PM is corrupt, then recall would later lead to his imprisonment, confiscation of his wealth and will act as deterrence on next PMs.

1. Even, let's say PM is subject to “right to recall”, PM can always legally challenge that the result of right to recall has no locus standi as he is answerable only to the parliament. In other words, “Right to Recall” has no enforcable executive backing, unless it can become enforceable; it just will remain on paper.

2. Let's look at the polling conducted across India. There were roughly 13.5 lakh polling stations, which worked for complete 10 hrs to elect the representatives in Lokasabha elections. Right to recall has to ideally replace this process by proxy. How can Talathi's handle this exercise, and what is the time frame sought on a particular issue to arrive at result of right to recall? Also, let us say, if one is PM, 3000 or 300000 single point issue can be put to trial at the Talathi's offices. So basically, frivolous issues can be registered at 'Talathi's” office? Most people in rural areas and other places would be more than happy, if they can get their simple tasks in one try at Talathi's office.

3. Any process/procedure that requires commons to go and deal with “Sarkari Katcheris” which are cess pit of corruption and indolence, is not looking for a real solution, but an apparent solution.

4. Basically, it is shifting the onus onto the commons, because the 300 odd elected representatives screwed up. And go through lot of procedural wrangles without any certain outcome. This looks like diluting the power of MP s while in actuality it is only an apparent reduction in the power. But it would look like MP s are on the side of commons, when the intention is the commons to take the blame/burden for the goof up of the Mps.

5. The best bet would be to conduct direct elections for the top positions and if needed reduce the term to 4 years. Unless the top positions are directly elected by people, discussing “right to recall” is trying to close the stable after the horses have bolted.

1. The draft of the Executive Notification I have proposed would allow citizens to replace PM, and that draft is 100% Constitutional and in agreement with all existing laws. So question posted in (1) will not arise/matter.

2-3. The procedural issues wrt proposed draft have been answered many times in neta-babu thread, and I dont mind answering them again. Pls post them in neta-babu thread or any thread. Or if you want me to answer them here, pls get NoC from brihaspati.

4-5. I have nothing against direct election. But experience of Mexico, and even US, shows that "direct election only, no recall" buys nothing. In US, every Senator is corrupt to core and helps Corporates fleece commons. The whole banking crisis was because bank owners bribed Senators to look aside while banks were fleecing everyone. And look at Obama, how he started a debate on health to take the focus away from the mess bank-owners created. Essentially, every Senator, every Representative and every Prez sells out. But in same US, you dont see Governor so much corrupt and dont see any Police Chief cutting deals with criminals. Why? Because they are recallable. So empirical observations shows that "direct election only, no recall" fetches nothing.

[JwalaMukhi]

1. The draft of the Executive Notification I have proposed would allow citizens to replace PM, and that draft is 100% Constitutional and in agreement with all existing laws. So question posted in (1) will not arise/matter.

The draft Executive Notification that is proposed would allow citizens to replace PM only through MPs. Again, commons are unnecessary in such excercise, because MPs already have the power to replace PM. If the proposal talks about replacement of PM by commons bypassing the MPs then it is lot more interesting. In order for that to happen, an excercise similar to polling has to be conducted. If the contention is that there is alternate method that can achieve this, commons would like to sack the existing polling mechanism (aka Election commission) and get the job of primary polls themselves done cheaply and efficiently which the claim is.

2-3. The procedural issues wrt proposed draft have been answered many times in neta-babu thread, and I dont mind answering them again. Pls post them in neta-babu thread or any thread. Or if you want me to answer them here, pls get NoC from brihaspati.

Let's keep it to Neta Babu thread, if need arises. I will try and go through that before asking you to repeat the same. But if you answer to 1, it will probably address 2 and 3.

4-5. I have nothing against direct election. Why? Because they are recallable. So empirical observations shows that "direct election only, no recall" fetches nothing.

Recall can only happen and meaningful; if party (commons) was responsible primarily, else it is not REcall, it is only dismissal and new s/election. For REcall to happen, it had to have been direct elections; then one could REdo something.

[Rahul Mehta]

Rahul Meyhta : 1. The draft of the Executive Notification I have proposed would allow citizens to replace PM, and that draft is 100% Constitutional and in agreement with all existing laws. So question posted in (1) will not arise/matter.

JwalaMukhi: The draft Executive Notification that is proposed would allow citizens to replace PM only through MPs. Again, commons are unnecessary in such excercise, because MPs already have the power to replace PM. If the proposal talks about replacement of PM by commons bypassing the MPs then it is lot more interesting. ....

I will answer ONLY this question here, and answer the rest in neta-babu thread

In the EN I proposed, http://rahulmehta.com/mrcm_demand_04.htm#draft

a. clause-6 says : if X gets over 37 cr approvals ... existing PM may resign
b. clause-7 says : MPs may appoint the most approved person as new PM ...

(an explanation will be added to assert that "may" is not legal/moral binding, and word "may" means "may or need not" )

Now if 37 cr people have approved someone else, Mr. X, will the PM dare not to resign? Will party leaders who issue whips dare not issue whip favoring X? Will MPs dare not to appoint X as PM? Or better : will existing PM MMS dare to stay in India or flee to IMF where he came from?

As an analogy, if I have a gun, I need not curse you to get your wallet. If I have gun, I will politely ask you to give me your wallet, will also give you a warm friendly smile and also say "thank you very much, sir" after I return you the emptied wallet back . And yes, if I have gun, I will also give you option not to give me your wallet. . Will you use that option?

The word "may" is ensure that the clauses are constitutionally valid !! It is to ensure that Constitution-bhagats, who might claim that proposed law is unconstitutional, can be easily asked to shut up. Otherwise, the words "37 cr " carry a force more potent than nukes.

Basically, I have figured out a way of establishing increasing democractic-ness in India without any change in any law and any change in Constitution. And that way is to draft the phrase as "if over 37 cr voters approve then officer may or need not ....". Hell, if 37 cr voters approve, the officer in clause will obey , or else the next officer who will take the place of the deceased one will obey. I wont worry about possibility of officer such as PM not obeying 37 cr citizens. I would let him worry about it. All in all, possibility that MPs will use "may" against wish of 37 cr commons is academic=useless in nature.

I will answer other questions in neta-babu thread.

[JwalaMukhi]

Now if 37 cr people have approved someone else, I would let him worry about it. All in all, possibility that MPs will use "may" against wish of 37 cr commons is academic=useless in nature.

Getting opinion of 37 crore commons is called as elections, if one man one vote is considered!

Let us look at the discussions that is heading with regards to intent of this thread. The idea of direct representation was being explored. At that stage, it is clear the current system does not foster in development of strategic leadership which has pan-Indian national outlook. Direct elections to the top positions would create a race, where the contestants would have to build larger base across the nation before donning the top positions. This would also germinate aspirants who would look at the national level and not be constrained to party level.

All the more reason because when party is controlled by a handful of people it will be even more dubious, because the top position is only answerable to 300 odd people in the parliament, most of whom can be whipped to toe the line of the coterie that controls the party. If the coterie can be controlled by anyone with loads of money, then the leadership is susceptible to be kupa mundaka flavor. Being answerable only to a handful of powerful people.

The contention was, Direct elections will make zero to very little difference in the quality of leadership. But Right to Recall was promoted as the differentiator to make the quality of leadership substantially better.

This will be my last post on the Right to Recall (RR) in this thread. Unfortunately, on closer inspection the Right to Recall in the present form is going to actually make very little difference. At 37 crore plus representation, it should be conducted at national level elections.
RR as it is presented, allows MP s lot of leverage in representing substantial numbers (%age). Instead of 100% representation, it changes by delta, because some commons would like to go to exercise the disapproval. Overall, as the delta approaches more than say 30% the process would require the apparatus of election machinery to conduct the exercise. In effect, it is a process where the work load to conduct such an exercise is comparable to actual polls- definitely at 37 crore individual representations.
But the intent for this looks more like to accommodate “some rabble rousers” who empower the MP s to indulge even more in horse trading and deal making than the original by providing opportunity to indulge in trivial pursuits. The common man is leveraged to maximize the flux amongst MP s, so MP s instead of working on issues can keep countering frivolous charges which can be effected by small number of RR enthusiasts. When RR enthusiasts exceed certain number, then work load is equivalent (or more) to conducting poll.
If commons are to do RR. MP s should have only one vote with a unit weightage as any other common, then it will be meaningful. Else, it is same old wine in a new bottle, but vigorously shaken to give a semblance of lot of activity in providing power to the commons, but in actuality providing MP s to cut more deals in troubled waters.

This brings back to explore direct election to top positions, and their potential possibility in generating more scope in development of strategic leadership.

[Rahul Mehta]

Rahul Mehta: Now if 37 cr people have approved someone else, I would let him worry about it. All in all, possibility that MPs will use "may" against wish of 37 cr commons is academic=useless in nature.

JwalaMukhi: Getting opinion of 37 crore commons is called as elections, if one man one vote is considered!

Conceptually, the procedure I proposed resembles elections, but it is quite different. The person can approve upto five persons, and he can cancel his approval any day. Fee is Rs 3/- and so burden on GoI is zero. Also, in the procedure I proposed, there is no confidentiality - the names of candidates a citizen approves comes on web along with name of citizen.

Will answer more in neta-babu thread.

[brihaspati]

A long time ago I had proposed that we should not expect the Trinamool Congress understanding in WB to be a long term stable one. My argument was that the Congress will retain its back door connections with the Left to keep a leverage point on the Trinamool. I also proposed keeping the possibility open that MB could twist and turn with more surprises in the future and could land up in the opposite caqmp to that of Congress.

It appears that glimpses of the future are perhaps already peeping in the recent Siligury municipality/corporation elections. The Congress shook Left hands to gain the seat of the Mayor dumping the Trinamool. MB will probably downplay this, for she needs the image of the "centre" behind her and the illusion of the overall Congress backing to reassure the WB voter about their own viability. But this will only be to get hold of the WB assembly. Once this is done we will see the merry dance of Congress doing the tight rope walk of using the Trinamool and Left to balance each other out.

[RayC]

Mamata B will eat humble pie even if the Congress shakes hand with the Left to upset her apple cart.

Last time, she made a great mistake of walking out in a huff when she was the Railway Minister. She has seen the power and influence the Railway Ministers wield in their home states having seen the three Biharis at the job.

That is why she has made a great show of her 'powers' as the Railway Minister in Bengal. Every day there is some ad or the other which show her flagging this or that train in WB or inaugurating this or that.

Railways is a storehouse for employment and I wonder if the recruitment standards are really met. There are Bihari ticketing personnel on the suburban line in WB who are to sell computerised tickets and they are painful since they type with one finger and keep looking at the screen with every tap and then scratch their heads and so on. Or maybe the standards are so low all India, that one has to employ the best of the worst. Who knows? And so I should not be unfair or biased.

Therefore, MB has to prove that she is efficient, cares for Bengal and all for Bengal!

That is how Indian politics works.

The dredging of Haldia (an important port) was suspended and silting in Haldia became dangerous wherein ship could not approach. Why? Because the Minister at the Centre shifted the dredgers to Tamilnadu for Palk Strait dredging as it was his State and his votes were more important than the country!!

Alarmed by the latest findings, the Haldia Dock Officers’ Forum today wrote to the Prime Minister, the chief minister, foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee and the chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on shipping, Sitaram Yechury.

The secretary of the forum, R.K. Burman, blamed shipping minister T.R. Baalu for the situation. “Dredgers aren’t coming to Haldia because the minister wants them for the Sethusamudram project in his state, Tamil Nadu,” he said.
Baalu

And we talk of the Core and India was a Nation in 1857 and all those involved had a common cause!!

[ramana]

X-posted...

The real issue, IMHO, is not whether Indian scientists can design a good TN warhead. More tests can be conducted to validate improved designs.

The real issue is: How did we end up with such pathetic political leadership? How can these "leaders" make so many bad and suicidal decisions on so many fronts at once, and with such consistency.

Whether it is screwing up infrastructure development (ongoing), discouraging business (till the 1990s), inadequate funding of our armed forces, not funding useful rural development (like FDR did in USA-1930s) and making every strategic mistake in the book (going to UN- Kashmir 1947, returning TSP territory 1965) and more (supporting PRC for the security council)- how do they do that? Even a drunk monkey could have made more right decisions (by pure chance).

Care to comment on this?

They are not leaders of the country but faction leaders who promote their group interests masqurading them as the country's interests.

This factionalism has driven them to take the wrong step on every important matter. Its by vidhata's grace that we are still together and giving nithmares to the former colonials and their successors.

[Prem]

X-posted...

The real issue, IMHO, is not whether Indian scientists can design a good TN warhead. More tests can be conducted to validate improved designs.

The real issue is: How did we end up with such pathetic political leadership? How can these "leaders" make so many bad and suicidal decisions on so many fronts at once, and with such consistency.

Whether it is screwing up infrastructure development (ongoing), discouraging business (till the 1990s), inadequate funding of our armed forces, not funding useful rural development (like FDR did in USA-1930s) and making every strategic mistake in the book (going to UN- Kashmir 1947, returning TSP territory 1965) and more (supporting PRC for the security council)- how do they do that? Even a drunk monkey could have made more right decisions (by pure chance).

Care to comment on this?

They are not leaders of the country but faction leaders who promote their group interests masqurading them as the country's interests.

This factionalism has driven them to take the wrong step on every important matter. Its by vidhata's grace that we are still together and giving nithmares to the former colonials and their successors.

Wow < Shri Roy has captured the essential agony of Bharti people. Its not onlee the grace of upparwala but alos the hard and honest work of few rela sons of soil who has been doing the yeoman work to keep the hope alive and paving way for forward march . Jai ho to their sacrifces that sins of leaders are repeatidly paid in the blood of these soul keepers .

[brihaspati]

raman wrote
Care to comment on this?
They are not leaders of the country but faction leaders who promote their group interests masqurading them as the country's interests.
This factionalism has driven them to take the wrong step on every important matter. Its by vidhata's grace that we are still together and giving nithmares to the former colonials and their successors.

Apt observation, ramanaji.
They do not identify with the whole of the country and they do not have confidence in any basic core principle or ideology rooted within our collective historical and social experience.

But they thrive on factionalism and fractures. This is the key opportunity. It means that any alternative structure that submerges the outer factionalism and strengthens commonality will weaken them. Their strength lies in not in any leadership quality of their own. They are as much a product of this ideological fracture as they help in maintaining the fractures. They utilize it and enhance it.

We see their strength, when we see how strongly the memes of "diversity" have penetarted our thinking. Even on BRF we see a school of opinions that is tremendously worried about not being able to protect diversity and afraid even of discussing the desirability of commonality. Its the fear of the "other" drilled and drummed into us, so that we are not even conscious of it anymore.

It is this shield of "diversity" behind which this sort of leadership hides. Take the shield away, starting with the ideology, and these leadership groups will begin to disintegarte. But initially they will attack viciously. No bother really!

[brihaspati]

The Gangetic heartland of UP seems to be getting interesting for a significant experiment in political social engineering. This is the fight over control of the so-called Dalit masses. RG and Mayavatiji appear to be the show-pieces around whom the gamesmanship is going on. But by doing this, what they are doing is prolonging the artifical construct of "Dalit" and converting it into another permanent "caste".

The process is interesting also because it provides a model about how the mythical older "castes" of textual claims were probably created and constructed. Creation of artificial subidentities appears to be a very old game in India, and are done by opportunist politicians bent on divding up society as much as possible so that their individual power can be assured as mediators.

[ramana]

X-posted....

My weekend work.....

While reading the numerous threads after K. Santhanam’s revelations, I came to some conclusions on the process by which Indian elite makes its policy decisions.

---------------------------
Indian Strategic Elite and the Nuclear Question

Despite George Tanaham’s RAND report there is an Indian strategic elite consisting of: scientist-strategists, military- strategists, and civilian strategists. These three groups are responsible for charting the Indian nuclear strategy.

Scientist-strategists were the early pioneers, Scientists like Drs. H Bhabha, V. Sarabhai, H.N. Sethna, Raja Ramanna, M.R. Srinivasan, PK Iyengar were the well known proponents of this group of startegists. Being aware of the power of the atom they helped formulate the initial strategy. The main aims of the group are: acquire, demonstrate and retain the nuke capability.
Military-strategists- Some well known members are: K.K. Nayyar, Raja Menon, Brajesh Jyal, Gurmeet Kanwal. However the doyen of this group is Gen Sundarji. His principle contribution to the nuclear strategy was : Minimum credible deterrent based on Realist school of International Relations. It is based on proven warheads on proven delivery vehicles. When his strategy was formulated, only fission weapons were envisaged without further tests. His doctrine is contrary to the prevailing political view that nukes are symbolic weapons of power. A key component to the strategy is that the deterrent requires reliable delivery vehicles which are solely in DRDO’s purvey. The 1998 tests before the proofing of the required delivery vehicles was factor for later events. The main aims of this group are: acquire, proven weapons deployed in the forces.

Civilian-strategists – All members not belonging to above two types are included in this group. The civilian-strategists include four broad sub-divisions: maximalists-seek what ever the front ranking powers have (B. Karnad, B. Chellaney et al), minimalists- seek the bare minimum to maintain a nuclear deterrent based on a borderline pacifist world view (Dr. C. Rajamohan et al), disarmament strategists: some former Ministry of External Affairs officials, peace activists(Praful Bidwai et al) and chatterati (Achin Vanaik)- seek disarmament of India as first step of global disarmament ideally and together with others as a maximum position, and lastly political-strategists- seek to support the government stand and build support or consensus behind it. The principal doyen of this grouping is Dr. K. Subramanyam. The main aims of this group are: acquire, demonstrated weapons with out jeopardizing the international status of India. The Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE) in 1974 was a break with the civilian-strategists dogma. The 1974 PNE broke the consensus this group had built up and they quickly reacted to prevent the follow-thru of the test. Again the 1998 tests, broke the consensus that these groups re-forged after the 1974 PNE and caused great dissension. However this time this group was not able to reverse the situation due to the atmospherics in the neighborhood and the constant wars after the tests: Kargil, Operation Parakram and unrestricted terrorism from Pakistan and the unsettled borders with China.

One common theme of all three groups(except the disarmament and chatterati groups) is that nuclear weapons are required only to deter China. The crafting of the No First Use (NFU) doctrine is a clear indication of that. This doctrine clearly states that nukes will not be used on Pakistan unless in retaliation. On all other issues( Force posture, Force composition, Nuclear doctrine, International treaty negotiations etc) these three groups dissent often vehemently. The interaction between these groups can be seen by the opinion-editorials and speeches in the Indian news media.

Consensus

Even before Independence the scientist- strategists embarked on a program to acquire nuclear capability which received official approval of PM Nehru after Independence and were at the forefront of developing the strategy. The consensus was to acquire all the technologies that are required to demonstrate nuclear capability in all aspects- electrical power and weapons without overt demonstration. Until 1960s the emphasis was on the symbolic and prestige value of the nuclear technology and the pursuit of power reactors were an indication of that thinking. Weapons research wasn’t pursued with any seriousness and people were content to give the impression that the acquisition was an easy task. The literature of the Fifties (Beaton, Maddox et al) seeks to address the question when will India test and it was a given that they would. After the twin blows from China of 1962 aggression and the first nuclear test in 1964, the consensus shifted to seeking a nuclear umbrella from the West and failing that to retain a capability to acquire the technology by staying out of the NPT. The 1971 victory and the creation of Bangladesh reduced the threat from Pakistan. However superpower interventions and inducements to PRC, forced the pace and resulted in 1974 PNE. However again the consensus was that the technology would not be weaponized.

Again the events in 1970s and 1980s overcame peaceful thinking- Pakistan acquisition of nuclear technology and weapons from Western Europe and China forced the Indian decision. Again the acquisition was not demonstrated and led to instability. In 1990s the CTBT, was forced and had India in its Entry-into-Force clause and there were repeated moves to break out: 1995 Rao, 1996 ABV and finally the political system decided to take the heat and sanctioned the 1998 tests during NDA government. The scientists chose the technologies to demonstrate and there was little input from other groups. The tests broke the national consensus on retaining weapon capability without demonstration. In addition the underperformance of the TN device did further damage to the consensus and re-arranged the strategic elite in all the three segments. Some of those who were scientist-strategists(officials) moved to the political-strategist spectrum and within the civilian-strategists spectrum the groups were further re-shuffled with the political-strategists managing to come to primacy. The important thing is the disarmament-strategists also coalesced into this latter group. In addition it put the rationale of Gen. Sunderji’s doctrine of Minimum Nuclear Deterrent (MND) which was based on fission weapons at risk.
------------------

Hope its all kosher and passes the tests.

[RamaY]

RayC ji

the problem with India is selective criticism. In your own posts whe mehabooba mufti subverts Indian interests it is personal disloyalty. When a laloo or Mamta benerjee abuses railways it is to create employment in under developed states. When a TN minister moves those dredgers to setu samudram project it is vote bank politics. When amethi stays under developed even after 30+ years of having Gandhi family MPs it is due to red-tapism.

But when a Bal Thakary demands preferential tratement for mumbaikars then it is fanaticism, fascism, and anti-national.

Do you see the problem?

[svinayak]

the problem with India is selective criticism. In your own posts whe mehabooba mufti subverts Indian interests it is personal disloyalty. When a laloo or Mamta benerjee abuses railways it is to create employment in under developed states. When a TN minister moves those dredgers to setu samudram project it is vote bank politics. When amethi stays under developed even after 30+ years of having Gandhi family MPs it is due to red-tapism.

But when a Bal Thakary demands preferential tratement for mumbaikars then it is fanaticism, fascism, and anti-national.

Do you see the problem?

This is known as manufactured consent. With a total monopoly of the media the leftist/commie can control the debate as well as the terms of the debate. Over several decades the population will lose the ability to recognize the problem

[RayC]

RayC ji

the problem with India is selective criticism. In your own posts whe mehabooba mufti subverts Indian interests it is personal disloyalty. When a laloo or Mamta benerjee abuses railways it is to create employment in under developed states. When a TN minister moves those dredgers to setu samudram project it is vote bank politics. When amethi stays under developed even after 30+ years of having Gandhi family MPs it is due to red-tapism.

But when a Bal Thakary demands preferential tratement for mumbaikars then it is fanaticism, fascism, and anti-national.

Do you see the problem?

It is you who is attempting in selectively turning my contention on its head!

When Laloo or Mamta Bannerjee abuses the railway, it may create jobs and ensure their political ascendancy, but in no way did I state it benefits the Nation as a whole. Read my post a wee bit carefully and flesh out the meaning!

As far as Mehbooba is concerned, if she attempts to disrupts the State's law and order and obliquely sides with the separatists and that is your idea of loyalty and sincerity to the country, then what can I say?

When Baalu moves dredgers and it silts the Hooghly and Hooghly dies, then there will be flooding all over the Indo Gangetic plain. If that is your idea of how the Nation should survive and those living along the banks of the Ganges made homeless and fertile land inundated forever, what can one say?

Heard of the Kosi tragedy?

Amethi under the Gandhi is underdeveloped, but does it mean that the Nation's resources should be solely for Amethi?

And of course, Bal and Raj Thakeray are the ideal Indian. Is that what you are suggesting?

I am reminded of Die Juden sind unser Ungluck!

It is not selective criticism that is the cause. The fact is that India is superficially one nation, notwithstanding, high flaunting ideals and statements that India was always one and in 1857 the nation rose as one against the British that was so piously pandered on this forum. We are good at charades and self delusion. That is our problem. We continue to be in our regional cocoons and preserving our own interests and identities at the expense of the Nation!

Check also the Link Language thread!

[RamaY]

RayC ji

I am not saying anything. I am just echoing the "tone" of your statements. I am trying to understand why an accomplished person like you thinks in a certain way.

IMHO, BT is a better Indian than laloos, MBs, Balus, Mehaboobaas, and even few Gandhis. At the same time, he is not my "hero" either.

[RayC]

RayC ji

I am not saying anything. I am just echoing the "tone" of your statements. I am trying to understand why an accomplished person like you thinks in a certain way.

IMHO, BT is a better Indian than laloos, MBs, Balus, Mehaboobaas, and even few Gandhis. At the same time, he is not my "hero" either.

Because I would rather be an Indian first and then whatever be the appendages.

I also would like to look at issues as pragmatically as humanly feasible and push aside the cobwebs of delusions and desires and then lull myself into believing that those cobwebs are the reality and the reality is cobwebs!

I am as proud of the Indian heritage as the next man Jack, but I would like to look at that heritage clinically and not with the dreams of a poet!

BT is no hero of mine. If as an Indian I cannot live without fear in a part of a country that is not my ancestral home, then what is India all about? It is as good as Australia!