Strategic leadership for the future of India

[Airavat]

I dont see how the Mughals financed their wars, after all the entire North India and parts of Deccan were already despoiled and looted of their wealth in a short period of two hundred and fifty years. We see the traders again in the post Mughal period financing the Maratha- Rajput wars.

Bankers and traders only provide loans when the military power's revenue collection has failed. Revenue collection fails with political fragmentation, treasury exhaustion, and uprisings. Because of the mansabdari system, the older ruling families were accommodated into the Mughal power structure, and no Muslim noble was permitted to pass on his lands and wealth to his children. This took care of the dangers of political fragmentation.

Revenue collection was mostly stable and the treasury kept growing under Akbar. The conquest of new areas, like the Deccan Sultanates, was initially devastating for the local revenue collection but after pacification it resumed again. But Shah Jahan's foolish campaign into Central Asia cost the treasury several crores, without any compensation accruing later. Similarly many crores were spent in the three big campaigns to recover the important fort of Kandahar.

With Aurangzeb treasury exhaustion reached it's peak, compounded by India-wide uprisings, and the beginnings of political fragmentation. And it is in the post-Mughal period that bankers and traders are noticed again and again as providers of loans.

Not all Mughal conquests produced devastation. For example Bengal and Orissa were suffering more under the previous Afghan chieftains, one of them heavily taxing pilgrims visiting the famous shrine of Jagannath Puri. With Man Singh's conquest the shrine was freed of the pilgrimage tax, and he ensured further stability by marrying into the local Hindu dynasty of Khurda.

In other areas of India, Mughal wars caused much devastation, but the resistance was equally fierce.

In the 16th century Mughal-Mewar conflict, the Mughals had a stable revenue source but Mewar's fertile eastern half was under enemy control, and Maharana Pratap had issued an order forbidding his subjects, on the pain of death, from raising crops or tending to their herds. So while he defeated the Mughal attempts to conquer Mewar by fighting a guerrilla war, after that success he needed financial assistance of his minister, the trader Bhama Shah, to rebuild his army and a new capital for his state.

[svinayak]

Yes, the traders from Awadh and Agra and Delhi were benefitted the most. The economy of Bengal suffered the most during Aurangzeb's Deccan conquest.. It is wonderful to know Aurangzeb could fund such massive for for 27 years at a stretch.. imagine the strength of Indian economy...

At the Aurangezeb rule peak revenue was around $450m the largest in the world for any govt. He squeezed and over stretched his rule

[brihaspati]

Ramana-ji,
the Mughal emperors and close kin themselves monopolized many items of trade, and thus profited. ShahJehan was a keen exporter and had a huge tiff with the English breaking his demand for personal monopoly on certain items of trade from India through the Red Sea.

The drain on the economy was not only through disastrous military adventures, but also through excessive consumption and hoarding in the hands of a small group of Mughal "aristocrats" and the ever-increasing men-at-arms needed to maintain this excessive drainage of surplus.

The whole narrative of increasing prosperity under Akbar but gradual decline under his successors needs to be looked into again. There were no great changes on economic administrative policies from the reign of Akbar to Jehangor and ShahJehan. The last 100 years of Sultane rule and the first decades of Mughal rule coincided with one of the worst dry periods globally as well as in India as revealed in paleo-rainfall records. The country's economy even then being primarily agrarian could not have yielded a great deal of surplus. So that the apparent recovery under Akbar could also have partly been a result of a natural process of returning rainfall.

The policy of keeping the producers at the bare minimum of surplus to reproduce labour, started from Alauddin Khalji, does not appear to have changed much under the Mughals. The added factor was the increasing attempts by the Mughals badshahs to monopolize trade and finance, as well as seek punitive measures to keep control over the country. Right from Jehangir's time, through to Sha Jehan and Alamgir, we find an increasing tendency to raise money by enslavement and export of non-Muslim populations into the Central Asian slave trade. This also appear to e an important element of raising funds for wars.

This was undertaken with at least one legal, one religious, formal justification. The legal justification was that those who could not pay the demanded taxes were liale to be sold together with their family to raise the revenue due. The religious justification given was that it was the religious duty of an Islamic ruler to enslave kafirs or enslave them - and moreover that they should be sold to Muslim owners who would raise children orn to women slaves as a result as muslims and convert the males as well.



The economic and political reason was the inability of the land and the peasantry to produce the ever-increasing consumption of the Mughal higher-ups and their abandonment of their land. This needed more taxation on those who remained, and led to a vicious cycle. The theory is supported in the detailed economic work of the "early" thesis of Irfan Habib, before he jumped on to the bandwagon of the Thaparites to deride the description of this very same phenomenon in lambasting K.S.Lal (apparently a favourite student of his own father Muhammad Haib who endorsed by writing introductory note and foreward for some of the base material of Lal!).

The banking was strictly controlled and monopolized by the badshahs themselves. The connection between "banias" and Mughal badshahs can perhaps be started to be explored with the case of Veerji Vohra of Surat (along with such prominents as Malaya of Coromandel coast, and Chetty of Malabar). Veerji could only do business if the Mughals permitted it. The English dealt with him from 1619. He was the EIC's largest creditor in Surat. We should rememer that the really "big" loans were only given by the Badshahs with the exception of Alamgir. They left the "small loans" sector to financiers like Veerji. The emperors formally permitted lending usiness only on three conditions (1) there would be no competition with the emperor (2) the emperor will be consulted whenever any new usiness is being introduced by the lender (3) the emperor would define the rates and not the market for different lending houses.

Ref: (1) Imperial Gazeteer of India, vol IV, p 532 (2) Pant, Commerical policy of the Mughals, p 73. (3) William Foster, The English Factories in India (1622-33). (4) Moreland :Reign of Akbar (5) Irfan Habib : The Agrarian system of Mughal India.

[Prem]

After reading Airavat and B Sir;s posts , i find it amazing that Indic have so much patience and compassion to not take revenge and still bear the forces trying to bring these old days back. Or is it just lack of vigor or plain ignorance and classic misjudgement about the nature of mortal inimical forces ? Wonder how many Jai Chandani Khandans still exist , waiting for right oppertunity , How many Vohras dealing with outsiders.

[svinayak]

The connection between "banias" and Mughal badshahs can perhaps be started to be explored with the case of Veerji Vohra of Surat (along with such prominents as Malaya of Coromandel coast, and Chetty of Malabar). Veerji could only do business if the Mughals permitted it. The English dealt with him from 1619. He was the EIC's largest creditor in Surat.

EIC found that the terms of loan and the interest rates were better in Surat than the loan given by Bank of England.
They borrowed in India to fund their expanding business out of India.

[Bharath.Subramanyam]

Since British & Habibs are being discussed here, I have a request. I was talking to a very solid history researcher some time back. He said the following.

East India Company had a policy of creating Anglo-Indians to create a perimeter of defence around the British cantonments & settlements. He said many East India Company governors even before 1857 like Hastings, Cornwallis have written on how to create a Anglo-Indian group. They tell the British army to go to various towns & villages and catch young children (age of 4 to 7) and hang the children publicaly in the market place. Seeing this all the young mothers will come crying to save their children. The British army will capture these young mothers and take them to the barracks. In the Barracks they are raped and moved to British Cantonments. The children thus born are brought up as Anglo-Indians. It seems Governor generals wrote that British are numerically very few in India and they won't be able to face huge amount of natives in case of revolts & wars. So in the British settlements, the inner ring will be Britishers and the outer ring will be the Anglo-Indians. It seems there were many layers of defence in British Cantonments. It seems the rapes used to very regular from Calcutta to Kanpur.

The history researcher said the writings of British Governor generals are well documented. He told me to refer the books of Mohammed Habib & Irfan Habib for the references & material on this. Can some expert here please tell me which books I should refer for this?

Also I am trying to get references from a Tamil novel called "Ratham Ore Niram" (Blood is one colour) written by a Tamil novelist called Sujatha (His pen name is Sujatha & his original name is Rangarajan). It seems this Tamil novel is set up in the background of 1857 and has some references on the original materials which talk about the rapes by British army.

[brihaspati]

Bharath-ji,
thank you for bringing up this rather hush-hush neglected and never really allowed to be exposed side of the British imperialists. But this perhaps may not coincide with the basic thrust of this thread. Can you please take this to the Distorted history thread or Indian interests ?

The issue was not just about creating Anglo-Indians - this was a partial spin on a general tendency of the Brits to avail of "sex" and other types of "deviations" that they could not so easily indulge in their home country.

There was a sharp change of policy about "creating mixed race" from the EIC to the Empire proper. So the issue is more complex. But before, 1857, in spite of the so-called "abolition of slavery" there is some evidence that officials indulged in the women-trade and bought women from the auctions to stock "army brothels". The whole thing started with the policy of Brits to provide "sexual release" to their men, using local opportunities wherever possible. The EIC and the Empire had no compunction in using and managing "sex" wherever possible to advance their interests - but not ncecessarily always to create "mixed races".

I will try to look up the volume references for Indian origin authors about this. A portion of this work is more modern from the "neo-feminist" historians - but that means they bring up aspects that we men may actually overlook. I will try to put this in one of the two threads I mentioned. Meanwhile, if you have net access try to get the first ref. If not let me know.

Levine, Philippa. "A Multitude of Unchaste Women:" Prostitution in the British Empire
Journal of Women's History - Volume 15, Number 4, Winter 2004, pp. 159-163

Richard Phillips, Sex, Politics and Empire: A Postcolonial Geography : Studies in Imperialism, Manchester University Press, April 2006.

[brihaspati]

For continuity - just posting one modern ref from books that I have looked up in my collection :

Durba Ghosh: Sex and the Family in Colonial India: The Making of Empire (Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society).

I do think, especially for men here, that it is vitally important not to dismiss the viewpoints and frameworks of analysis put forward by writers like Dr. Ghosh - as that from the "feminist viewpoint".

I remember one incident from my early schooldays - when our history teacher who happened to be a lady, once remarked while describing from text that "Mumtaz" died giving birth to her 13th child. She said, "imagine what she had to go through to give birth to 13 children - what was her husband thinking!". We were a all-male class and no one else noticed this remark. It struck me so much that I indeed raised my hand said "we could not imagine becuase we were males. You noticed and thought so because you identified as a woman. You have really taught me another side to history." Being a "top" student I was "protected" and not punished for this. But since then I have learnt to seriously consider different viewpoints because so many things come out that we overlook.

[Abhi_G]

I remember one incident from my early schooldays - when our history teacher who happened to be a lady, once remarked while describing from text that "Mumtaz" died giving birth to her 13th child. She said, "imagine what she had to go through to give birth to 13 children - what was her husband thinking!". We were a all-male class and no one else noticed this remark. It struck me so much that I indeed raised my hand said "we could not imagine becuase we were males. You noticed and thought so because you identified as a woman. You have really taught me another side to history." Being a "top" student I was "protected" and not punished for this. But since then I have learnt to seriously consider different viewpoints because so many things come out that we overlook.

Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay in his novel "Shesh Prashna" (Last Question) has the lead female character Kamal questioning the "love" of Shah Jahan for Mumtaz in context of the Taj Mahal.

[RayC]

It would not be fair to the Anglo Indians to be classified as being caused by rapes (even though there could be such cases as would be the situation wherever invaders went).

It would be interesting to note that many senior British officers had Indian wives, also mistresses as did the soldiers! Many of them went 'native'. General Sir Hugh Wheeler is an example who had an Indian wife. Such Indian wives were not allowed into British messes or clubs. That is how there was this quaint expression - lady wives - in the Army, meaning European wives.

In Old Delhi, near the Red Fort is the Anglican church of St James, consecrated in 1836. It was built by Colonel James Skinner, the founder of the Skinner's Horse. He was also known as Sikander Sahib. He built it ‘in fulfilment of a vow made while lying wounded on the field of battle’. (Skinner’s equally remarkable contemporary Begum Samru – a Kashmiri dancing-girl turned army commander – built a Catholic church in similar style at Sardhana, with two Wren-like spires flanking the dome.) Skinner was half-Scot and half-Rajput and he never visited Europe. He began his career in the service of the Marathas, and is said to have 16 wives and mistresses.


Job Charnock's wife was a Hindu who was consigned to the funeral pyre, but Charnock snatched her from the funeral pyre and married her and named her Maria. They had four children!

In contrast to Anglo-Indians (then known as 'Eurasians') born in British India who usually acquired their British ancestry paternally and Indian ancestry maternally, Anglo-Indians born in Britain usually acquired their Indian ancestry paternally and British ancestry maternally. Interracial marriage was fairly common in Britain since the 17th century, when the British East India Company began bringing over thousands of Indian scholars, lascars and workers (mostly Bengali and/or Muslim) to Britain, most of whom married and cohabited with local white British women and girls, due to the lack of Indian women in Britain at the time. This later became an issue, as a magistrate of the London Tower Hamlets area in 1817 expressed disgust at how the local English women and girls in the area were marrying and cohabiting almost exclusively with foreign South Asian lascar seamen. Nevertheless, there were no legal restrictions against 'mixed' marriages in Britain, unlike the restrictions in India.[30][31][32] Families with South Asian lascar fathers and white mothers established interracial communities in Britain's dock areas.[33] This led to a growing number of “mixed race” children being born in the country, which challenged the British elite efforts to "define them using simple dichotomies of British versus Indian, ruler versus ruled."[34] The number of women of colour in Britain were also often outnumbered by "half-caste Indian" daughters born from white mothers and Indian fathers.[35]
By the mid-19th century, there were more than 40,000 Indian seamen, diplomats, scholars, soldiers, officials, tourists, businessmen and students arriving to Britain.[18] By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were around 70,000 Indians in Britain,[36] 51,616 of whom were lascar seamen (when World War I began).[37] In addition, a number of British officers and soldiers who had Indian wives and Anglo-Indian children in India often brought them over to Britain in the 19th century.[38] Anglo-Indians in Britain usually assimilated into British society through marriage with the local white population, thus Anglo-Indians in Britain never formed their own distinct community like those in India, where Anglo-Indians usually married among one another instead.
In 1902, Sir William Hutt Curzon Wyllie and Lord George Hamilton expressed concerns over Indian students, rajas (royalty), sepoys (soldiers) and lascars (seamen) in Britain having relationships with local white females.[39] In 1909, the journalist C. Hamilton McGuiness noted that it was common to see Indian males with white females "on the tops of buses, in the streets, at the theatres and almost everywhere one goes". He advocated police intervention against such interracial liaisons in order to protect the "honour" of white females, but without much success.[40]
During World War I, there were 135,000 Indian soldiers serving in Britain and France, where many intermarried and cohabited with white females.[41] While French authorities were not concerned with interracial relationships, British authorities attempted to limit such activity by implementing curfews for wounded Indian troops in British hospitals and preventing female nurses from taking care of them.[42] Following World War I, there was a large surplus of females in Britain,[43] and there were increasing numbers of seamen arriving from abroad, mainly the Indian subcontinent. This led to increased intermarriage and cohabitation with local white females, which raised concerns over miscegenation and led to several race riots at the time.[44] Concerns were repeatedly voiced over white adolescent girls forming relationships with South Asian seamen in the 1920s.[45] In the 1920s to 1940s, several writers raised concerns over an increasing 'mixed-breed' population, born mainly from foreign Asian (mostly Indian) fathers and local white mothers, occasionally out of wedlock. They denounced white girls who mixed with Asian men as 'shameless' and called for a ban on the breeding of 'half-caste' children, though these attempts at imposing anti-miscegenation laws were unsuccessful.[46]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Indian

[RayC]

Some Anglo Indians:

* Cliff Richard - pop singer (real name, Harry Webb)
* Edward Chatterley - Anglo-Indian reformist
* Vivien Leigh, Hollywood actress.
* Pete Best - original drummer for the Beatles.
* Admiral O. S. Dawson - chief of the Indian Navy (1982-1984).
* Melanie Sykes - Model & TV presenter.
* Kendel Turner - internal Miss World.
* Tony Brent - singer.
* Henry Gidney - prominent educationist (1873-1942).
* Francis Fanthome - member of Parliament (head of the CISCE board).
* Betty Nuthall - tennis player (first non-American to win the U.S. Nationals, in 1930).
* Lyndam Gregory - actor.
* Anna Leonowens (1834-1915), British governess to the Siamese court
* Louis T. Leonowens (1856-1919), Siamese cavalry officer and trader; son of Anna Leonowens
* Joanna Lumley - actress
* Alistair McGowan - impressionist, comedian and actor
* Frederick Akbar Mahomed - physician; grandson of Sake Dean Mahomed
* Rhona Mitra - actress.
* Nicollette Sheridan - actress.
* Engelbert Humperdinck - singer.
* Timo Räisänen - Indie artist from Sweden.
* Frank Anthony, lawyer, Anglo-Indian activist, prominent politician, educationist, Indian representative at the United Nations, author of Britain's Betrayal in India: The Story of the Anglo-Indian Community, Simon Wallenberg Press London
* Anand Satyanand - Governor General of New Zealand.
* Gabrielle Anwar - actress
* Roger Binny, former Indian cricketer
* Ruskin Bond, author and journalist
* Leslie Claudius, field hockey player, won 4 Olympic Medals from 1948-1960 (3 gold, 1 silver).
* Shelley Conn, actress
* Patience Cooper, Indian film actress.
* Henry Derozio, 1809-1831, much noted Calcutta poet, author of Harp of India.
* Noel Jones, British ambassador.
* Boris Karloff, actor; grandnephew of Anna Leonowens
* Sara Karloff, writer; daughter of Boris Karloff
* John Mayer, violinist, composer and teacher. Put together the Indo-Jazz Fusions double quartet in 1967.
* Anthony de Mello, founder of the Board of Control for Cricket in India.
* Merle Oberon, actress, born in India and famous in Hollywood.
* Diana Quick, actress
* Jasmine Sabu, film-maker and animal trainer.
* Paul Sabu, musician.
* Peter Sarstedt, Pop singer-songwriter.
* Stephen Hector Taylor-Smith, pioneer of "Rocket Mail" in India, and immortalised by a postage stamp.
* Allan Sealy, Novelist
* Denzil Keelor, IAF hero in 1971 War with Pakistan
* Tara Sharma, actress
* Ayesha Takia, actress
* Trevor Keelor, IAF hero in 1971 War with Pakistan
* Glen Duncan, author
* Jules Faife, world music guitarist
* Helen Richardson Khan, Bollywood actress
* S.L.J Gallyot, former assistant director for FERA.
* Roger MaGee, Indian hockey player. Represented India in the Asian Games
* Ben Kingsley, British actor
* Kevin Keelan, Norwich City goalkeeper
* Michael Chopra, Newcastle United and Sunderland AFC striker
* Amrit Maghera TV personality
* Marc Elliott actor
* Russell Peters, Canadian comedian

[KLNMurthy]

Make that 1965 war

Correct. The Keelor brothers were in the 1965 War.

My mistake!



KV,

Sorry.

I pressed the wrong button!

[sanjaykumar]

Joanna Lumley is Anglo-Indian


When I was a wee lad, she provided many happy hours of entertainment-horrible, feels incestuous.

[brihaspati]

A lot of intellectuals and media personalities and at least one prominent GOI representative, are now involved in the merry tug-o-war of "sympathy-hatred" debate around Maoism and Maoists.

I think the issue is quite straightforward.

The first important question : Do Maoists offer an alternative that is economically, socially and politically viable and achieves targets that appear to be set by the existing rashtryia framework? If we take economic development and prosperity for all citizens - then what are the methods that Maoists offer? They can only work with two models - one is the capitalist road to growth and the other a pre-capitalist form (which by classical Marxist theory as well as the experience of the Mao proper - was to accumulate capital to provide the basis for futrure capitalist development). But eitherway, they are theoretically commited (and so far have not provide any alternative) to the capitalist road.

This is a key question which all Maoist sympathisers or Maoists themselves must be asked. Do they or do they not subscribe to eventual capitalist mode of the economic growth? They can claim that such capital will not be private - but it will then mean either state capitalism, or oligarchical trusteeship of such capital. How do Maoists ensure that such control does not inevitaly lead to growth of virtual private capital? If capitalism is the end target, why go through the regressive semi-feudal-to-fedual-capitalist primitive capital accumulation method - and not go for more direct grassroots capitalism? Where small amounts of capital appropriate for the skills level of the small producer are forwarded by the state?

Second, do the Maoists offer an alternative form of governance and rashtryia structure that helps all citizens achieve objectives of economic prosperity and pursuit of "fulfillment through creativity" (the key hope in Marx that future development of social productive forces will free up the time of an individual so that he can get over the alienation that capitalism produces - the disjunction between the man and his creation)?

The known models put forward from the Marxist repertoire, are that in USSR, PRC, Cuba, East European ex-communist COMECON block, Angola, Benin, parts of Yemen for a time, assorted countries in some regions of Africa, Chile and Nicaragua for a short while, Spain and Portugal briefly, Iraq and Iran very briefly, North Korea, Vietnam, Kamupchea and Laos briefly.

Out of the surviving regimes with still some claims of communism/Marxism - the ones in some degree of control over their respective rashtryia apparatus - China, Cuba, Vietnam, NK - with the exception of NK, all appear to have made various degrees of compromise with overtly private-capitalist forms. Is the answer to such an eventuality going to be a crucial dependence on the establishment of "communism" and its success all over the world? (The ultimate anathema to the Stalinist derivatives including Maoism - the theory put forward by the Trotskytes)

What are the measures that teh Maoists can propose that guarantees the success of "communism" within India without the "global revolution" and without taking the "state capitalist" road?

Third, all transitions to accelerated capital growth have taken place under some form of dictatorship. Marxism - is a theory of capitalist growth. Where it tries to distinguish itself is over the issue of control and ownership of such capital in the hands of "producers of value". The first experiment within the Marxist version was under Lenin and the early Bolsheviks with its distillation under Stalin. The second experiment was in PRC. Just as capital growth was mostly observed first under strong autocracies in Europe whic also took an interest promotion of capital growth, the same primitive and vicious accumulation was observed in the communist regimes. Once in power, communists do not differ in the viciousness of their eagerness to grow capital - from those whom they lambast. The huge human costs of early European industrialization, colonialism and capital accumulation should be compared with the famines, slave laour, and starvation deaths under the communists.

What mechanism do Maoists propose to bypass this problem?

Fourth : the question of leadership. What is the exact proportion of those they claim to represent in the higher echelons of decisionmaking? How many of the "Politbureau" belong to tribal, "marginal", "dalit" ethnicities? How many were born Muslims or Christians? What were their own class origins, professional and educational background, and caste or clan origins if they were born into "Hindu" families (well apparently according to some scholars, caste appears to be retained even by the "converted")?

As far as I can make a hypothesis (it has to be a hypo given current high temepratures) - the absolute majority of the higher echelons, committees are filled by what are typically termed in official intellectual circles in India - as "Hindu upper/forward castes" with a good deal of utilization of rashtryia setup and opportunities for education and other benefits. Most should be seen as guided by the same degree of fantical faith seen only in the deeply religious. But in them, an exposure to the modern educational representation of historical developments in India and Europe has led to an inability to grasp a core belief - a belief that otherwise would have been readily available traditionally.

Thus for them, communism is a substitute for the traditional belief system that would have given a sense of self-importance and power, as well as identity and a life-mission. They are after power and belong to the same class of fanatics as Jihadis or EJ's - with the same inherent motivations to gain recognition and a sense of control and power over their destiny and people.

The question to sympathisers - if its a question of choosing between fanatics and authoritarians, what disqualifies the "Hindu right" then? At least they claim to "nationalism" and cannot be confused like the "others" who will have problems in finding the enemy if they share beliefs with the enemies of India!

[Umrao Das]

I am very disappointed Ray saar,
How could you forget Melville de Mellow, a legendary broadcaster for AIR?

The Anglo engine drivers were very nice and many a time I got into WP engines while vactioning in Bezwada (vijayawada) and Vizag (Visakhapatnam) to get a feel of the locomotive and also collect some greese for my fountain pens (President and Ashoka) leaking ink.

A very nice community where every one tried to be like Elvis or Cliff Richard dancing and singing
Put on your dancing shoes, "Lipstick on your collar tella a tale on you" Summer Holiday songs like Bahelor boy thas the way to be... going little nostalgic in my memory lane of Indian Railway Institutes (clubs) and Army clubs sunday morning Jam sessions...

read on here

http://angloindian.wordpress.com/catego ... s-defined/

[RayC]

Around 13 of India’s 29 states are affected by Maoist violence. The Maoists claim that they are fighting on behalf of the rural poor and landless adopting a holier than thou attitude when actually their aim is to overhaul the State and seize power.

By destroying state infrastructure and attacking development projects and PSU, their aims are obvious – to keep development out and keep the poor as poor and deprived. Communism, be they of any shade or label flourishes in poverty. And the aim is basically to seize power and then enslave the people. The world over Communism has failed since having captured their own country through violence and war, they attempted to overhaul the world. Russia failed since along with race with the capitalist world, they had to maintain their socialist façade. China has realised the danger and in their devious ways have switched to the capitalist ways, keeping the façade of socialism in a loose manner so that it does not impinge on their march towards capitalism.

The difference between the Hindu right and the Maoists is that the former openly espouses a religious path and does not wear the badge of poverty on the sleeve while the latter maintains an egalitarian façade with terminology that soothes the ‘deprived’ lot (in various forms) of which there is no dearth of amongst the Indian population. It also appeals since deprivation, sacrifice and poverty is like a cult path philosophy in India and possibly borders on masochism since at the same time, there is the desire to rise from the poverty around! That is possibly one of the reasons why it is fashionable to project one as the champion of the poor, Maoist sympathiser or Human Rights activists. It is amusing to listen to the arguments of Gautam Navalakha or Dr Raj.

[RayC]

I am very disappointed Ray saar,
How could you forget Melville de Mellow, a legendary broadcaster for AIR?

The Anglo engine drivers were very nice and many a time I got into WP engines while vactioning in Bezwada (vijayawada) and Vizag (Visakhapatnam) to get a feel of the locomotive and also collect some greese for my fountain pens (President and Ashoka) leaking ink.

A very nice community where every one tried to be like Elvis or Cliff Richard dancing and singing
Put on your dancing shoes, "Lipstick on your collar tella a tale on you" Summer Holiday songs like Bahelor boy thas the way to be... going little nostalgic in my memory lane of Indian Railway Institutes (clubs) and Army clubs sunday morning Jam sessions...

read on here

http://angloindian.wordpress.com/catego ... s-defined/

There are too many of them, who have done well, to remember.

I also forgot Pearson Surita, amongst others. The O'Brien brothers.

Well, they had their way of a lifestyle while others have their own. Each to his own ways. Even different sections of the Indian population have their own signature! Marwaris can take risks in business and Bengali will not. Today, I presume most Indians are the disco crowd aping Cliff Richard or MJ! Many appreciate this change and many don't! Remember the ruckus in Karnataka where scantily clad Indian girls were thrashed?

Technically, Anglo Indians are those with British paternal links and Indian maternal links and Indo Anglicans are those with Indian paternal links and British maternal links.

Though those of Portuguese descent also claim to Anglo Indians, they are technically not Anglo Indian.

I wonder if anyone in the world can claim to have a pure genetic lineage. Wars, pillage, plunder, migrations etc etc has occurred throughout the world along the labyrinthine corridors of history and hence raiders have had their share in various form to ensure that those raided, conquered, invaded or through mass migration made a minority in their own lands were subjugated in all ways including genetically.

John Masters, some say, was also an Anglo Indian.

Earlier, they would align themselves to the British, but of late they are trying to find their roots.

Here is an excerpt from The Old Martinian Association magazine (I could not find the link) of an article by Lionel Lumb, an Anglo Indian in Canada:

Our roots do matter. We may have taken ourselves out of India, but it is far tougher to take India out of us

I just penned the posts since I wanted to correct certain perception, which to my mind, were not quite appropriate.

[Rahul Mehta]

1. This is a key question which all Maoist sympathisers or Maoists themselves must be asked. ....

....

2. Second, do the Maoists offer an alternative form of governance and rashtryia structure that helps all citizens achieve objectives of economic prosperity and pursuit of "fulfillment through creativity" ...

brihaspati,

1. X should asked questions only if X is given freedom to post answers and also ask counter-questions. I am an anti-Naxal and not a pro-Naxal and so I wont make even make an attempt to answer these questions you have asked to pro-Naxals or ask counter-questions. But the way BR operates, I bet that if a pro-Naxal like ARoy comes to answer these questions or ask counter-questions against resident anti-Naxals, the anti-Naxals will demand that his/her posts should be deleted and he/she should be banned !! And once his posts are deleted and he is kicked out, resident anti-Naxals will claim victory by stating "see, there is no pro-Naxal in India who can answer our questions or can throw questions we dont have right answers for" !! IOW, a forum where throwing counter-questions has no place to ask questions to adversaries.

2. And it would be a good idea to ask the SAME question to all anti-Naxals. What laws (with drafts) do they offer to problems of India like police atrocities, judutocratic atrocities, increasing poverty in bottom 60% of population since 1991 and 10s of such problems. One answer they offer "delete this post, ban this postor etc". But other than that, when did they ever post the drafts?

----

If one is serious about bashing Naxal-sympathizers like ARoy, then one should first COMPARE Naxal-sympathizers with Naxal-haters. Most Naxal-haters go on and on about citing crimes of Naxals and in next moment they support IPS, judges, IAS, Congress MPs, CPM MPs, BJP MPs etc many of whom would put Naxals to shame when it comes to robbing, beating, killing etc. So yes, Naxal-sympathizers are criminal-lovers. But most (not all) anti-Naxals arent far behind.

Besides, we are giving undue focus to Naxal-lovers. The problems are Naxals, not Naxal-lovers who only bark but never bite. eg AR only speaks nonsense, but never killed or even slapped anyone. IMO, we should focus ONLY on violent ones and ignore the verbals as far as possible.

=====

Around 13 of India’s 29 states are affected by Maoist violence. The Maoists claim that they are fighting on behalf of the rural poor and landless adopting a holier than thou attitude when actually their aim is to overhaul the State and seize power.

The claim given by GoI that "13 out of 29 states" or "about 180 districts out of some 700 districts" is exaggerated. eg GoI has classified one district of Gujarat (Daang?) "mildly effected by Naxals" and I can tell that this isn't true --- there is no Naxalism in any sqmt of Gujarat. Essentially, I would call a district as Naxal-effected if in that District Collector and SP do not let their family members enter that district and constables refuse to wear uniforms. From what I hear, there are "only" 70 such districts. These districts are ONLY districts where Naxals are strong. Rest are districts with usual law-order problems. So lets not give Naxals more credit than they deserve.

.

[ramana]

Merle Oberon the actress

Boris Karloff the actor.

There was an English Lord who was aPM ~1840s. Mother was Anglo-Indian.

[RayC]

There is no doubt that social and economic deficiencies in the country has encouraged anti Govt forces to operate with impunity and even with support of those deprived.

The issue is what is better, an organised govt run on democratic principles (faulty that it might be) or a dictatorship of Maoist forces leading the country? That is the choice that has to be taken.

The very pro Maoist lobby of so called ‘intellectuals’ will be robbed of their freedom to air their views since the ‘voice of the proletariat’ will be supreme and this so called voice of the proletariat will be none other than of Kishenji and his band of merry men! One could go on, but if one re-visits the Bolshevik Revolution one can understand what ‘freedom’ one will obtain under the Maoists and how the society and the infrastructure will be dismantled leading to the similar environment obtaining in those days.

When power is seized by a set of people beyond the democratic process, they become a law unto themselves. There are power struggles and initially chaos. Once they settle down, they concentrate on the cosmetic instruments of power display like large military displays since there is nothing more powerful a binder of nationalism than sheer display of military might through parades and their like. Communist govts the world over have resorted to it and North Korea and China are past masters at it; China has just recently conducted a spectacular parade, where they rehearsed that the foot movement and hand movement will be precise! The USSR did it in the past and was impressive, but the food shelves were bare!! NK faces such a situation and China having gone the capitalist way is little better, but the rural areas are not in the pinkest of health! China is also riddled with her problems notwithstanding the blanket she maintains over news and the disinformation she spreads to lull her people!

It is true that India has hardly much to write home about. However, we have one gift that the Chinese or the Maoist cannot give – the freedom to think and act in our best interest and not become robots! Some may like to be robots, but the vast majority in India would possibly not enjoy the idea!

Police atrocities, govt atrocities, judicial atrocities will be there in any democratic system. And yet, the very fact that we can state that there are such faultlines is a great boon. Under the Maoist, you will just be shot! One prefers a system where we can bellyache instead of getting shot just because we want to fill our bellies with food. There is increasing poverty and that is not because the govt is not applying itself. They have good plans, but it is those who are implementing who are people like you and me, who are at fault because we are looking at these issues from our personal point of view and benefits. If Arun Jaitly is to be believed, imagine the horrifying state of the G2 spectrum! Why was the Rural Employment Scheme, a good plan, a failure?

True, the problem is the Naxals. However, when Naxal lovers or sympathisers want to buck the system and wish to stay in the limelight and put obstacles in the way and attempt to subvert the mind of the Nation, then they are as big a problem as the Naxals. How can these so called ‘intellectual’ living in their ivory towers in total affluence and comfort shed crocodile tears? Why don’t they donate their money, time and effort to uplift the poor tribal? It is easier to talk, shed crocodile tears, than to part with one’s own money and property.

During the Independence struggle, real nationalists gave away their money and property for the Cause. I would rather say that they had their heart in the right place and put the Nation, the Cause first before their own comfort. And such nationalists were not only the rich!

One does not have to slap or hit anyone. At least such people can be identified. Those who subvert the mind by acting coy and smug are most dangerous. Psy Ops and Psy War is more dangerous than real war since one cannot perceive it.

But then these are my views.

[Sachin]

Skinner was half-Scot and half-Rajput and he never visited Europe.

The book "The Last Mogul" by William Darlymple also explains about this in good detail. Before 1847 there as a large number of British officers who had mistresses/concubines/wives who were Indian women. And they lived in perfect communal harmony.

Gen. Reginald Dyer although not an anglo-Indian, was again a person who spent most of his young days in India. His parents owned a brewery in Murree (in TSP), but later they moved to Shimla. If I read his biography correctly, the first time he set foot in UK was to join the Military Academy.

John Masters, some say, was also an Anglo Indian.

Most likely yes. I did read his book "Night Runners of Bengal" with ernest interest. Again it was about the life of Europeans and Eurasians during the 1857 freedom struggle/mutiny. His book "Bhowani Junction" was again about a UK officer and an Anglo Indian girl.

[RayC]

Merle Oberon the actress

Boris Karloff the actor.

There was an English Lord who was aPM ~1840s. Mother was Anglo-Indian.

As per Geoffrey Moorehouse's 'Calcutta', he mentions her as 'Begum Johnson' having grandmothered a British PM (Second Lord Liverpool). While her husband retired to England, she remained behind in Calcutta and died in 1812.

[surinder]

Anglo-Indians & Indian Railways: In the film Julie, anglo-Indian Julie's father (Om Prakash) was a railway driver.


Not just Gen. Dyer, there was a huge slew of Englishmen in India who were born & brought up in India. They studied in the schools & colleges in India, joined military or some other British/Indian institution in India. When this contingent returned to UK in 1947, they could see that they home they had been told about for their entire lives was no UK. They were a saddened & homesick lot, who struggled to live there lives in UK.

[brihaspati]

Sachin wrote
Gen. Reginald Dyer although not an anglo-Indian, was again a person who spent most of his young days in India. His parents owned a brewery in Murree (in TSP), but later they moved to Shimla. If I read his biography correctly, the first time he set foot in UK was to join the Military Academy.

If this is the Rex Dyer of Jallianwallahbag fame, then he did his schooling at Midleton College, County Cork, Ireland - then part of British Empire. Passage to Cork had to be from UK. There was no direct connection.

Moreover, the pattern of overwhelming number of British males and Indian female partnerships will always remain under the shadows of being a uni-directional flow of race-gender dynamics. The circumstances under which this happened in the earlier period probably needs to be explored without romanticism. I thought we were opening up all established wisdom about how and what happened in the past in our country - Dalrymple not withstanding.

[ramana]

RayC: This link gives a lot of details. Even Lord Roberts is of this lineage. Begum Johnson was the widow of William Watts. Lord Liverpool was the Watts grandson by first wife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Watts

[brihaspati]

RM,

I do not give overt importance to Naxal sympathisers. You will rarely see me yapping at AR type heels. But where the issue matters is that such talk may have some influence on public opinion. I am rather concerned about how propaganda shapes up and creates problems for the elimination of the naxals. It is only on that count I think the sympathisers have to be challenged. I do not subscribe to "banning" indiscriminately. It is better to face up to "damaging" ideas and take them apart in full public view. Propaganda is best tackled openly and idea-wise. Suppressing or repressing ideas is always counterproductive - unless you follow the Islamist and Naxal (Charu Majumadar - is it - who is credited with the "beheading is going on/will go on" ?) strategy of removing the head altogether.

Regarding the spate of "Naxalite violence" - I would rather that we look closely at the pattern with which Naxals become violent. They become "over active" it seems more when Congress retreats politically/electorally from a province, or has uncertainty over the perceived challenge from a regional group. This is the pattern in Andhra from the early days of communist "agrarian violence" in the 1940's, all the way through split of CPI, and subsequent major violence in WB following the retreat of Congress and the first United Front in the late 60's. The same is the pattern in the spread of Naxalism into Bihar, eastern MP and Maharashtra, as well as Orissa.

One of the main problems with the Congress brand of politics from the pre-eminence of JLN, is that they refuse to deconstruct violent ideologies - ideologically. They concentrate all possible ideological efforts at negating what they dub the "Hindu" - but never ever any fundamental effort at negating and discrediting the Abrahamic or Communism - all centred around violent imposition of totalitarian ideologies.

The fundeamental strength of these essentially violent and totalitarian ideologies come from their ideological memes. The power of these ideas lies in their ability to mobilize using basic biological factors and the search for personal power and dominance. Their destruction has never been allowed in India.

We are paying the price of the Congress's refusal to destroy these ideologies - decisively in the the domain of ideas. We can never defeat groups professing an ideology by being sympathetic to their ideology, and finding no fault with that ideology - and trying to separate the actions of that group from their professed ideology.

[RayC]

RayC: This link gives a lot of details. Even Lord Roberts is of this lineage. Begum Johnson was the widow of William Watts. Lord Liverpool was the Watts grandson by first wife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Watts

Begum Johnson married four times and Tally Ho Johnson was the last husband.

Page 41 Moorecroft Calcutta.

[ramana]

X-posted....

arnab,

Systems do not evolve because people suddenly achieve enlightenment. They evolve because the only other option is death.

Every country, including India, requires such crisis to evolve. They will destroy nations that either chose not to evolve, or are too dysfunctional. Let me be blunt about it- such systems deserve to die.

The neta-babu-jati system in India (even after the 1990s) is not functional. Neither is the level of apathy or mercantile mindset. I cannot say that the white-worshipping, dysfunctional BS that goes for 'intellegensia' in India is a good thing either. The current government+ administrative system (national, state, local) is the biggest obstacle to progress In India.

Progress never comes from 20 year timelines, as no plan of a duration over 4 years can satisfy its original objective or even work. Whether it is military projects, infrastructure, reform etc.. no project (in recent human history- last 200 yrs) that took more than 4 years to execute has ever lived up to it's original expectations. Blaming poverty and the system for long timelines is a surefire method to fail. Either you give it enough resources and hire competent people or it won't work.

The problems with India always come down to:

1. Indians believe they cannot do it, are not worthy or seek permission. (much more so with geriatric leaderships- public or private).
2. Indians are averse to calculated risk taking (especially the older ones) and want everything to just work.
3. Indians are averse to spending money. They believe money is some finite zero sum thing, but in a world of fiat currency and high productivity- it is not. (again the older ones are more affected by this mindset)
4. Mercantile behavior, not unique to Indians, is a big problem. If you believe the world is zero sum, your best option is to screw over someone else rather than cooperate.

I have no illusions about people changing their ways other than through partial, or almost complete, system failure.

The real question then is, who can actually get up after that hit? Countries with an adverse demographic profile may not be ever able to reach anything close to their old positions in the future.

[Umrao Das]

Our strategic leadership is not in jeopardy we have back ups.

It's 'BJP-isation' of Congress. They stole our discipline,
austerity and unity by giving us dissidence.




The Minister's favourite son... All his life he's been behind bars.

[ss_roy]

Ramana,

Thanks for Xposting..

anyway, here are a few concrete examples of what I am talking about.

1. Why did slavery become taboo in the west after the industrial revolution? Did it occur because people suddenly became more humane OR it was no longer possible to use slave labor to operate complex machinery? You can force people to dig ditches, till fields, carry bricks or pick cotton- but operating machinery requires partially willing people.

2. Why did so many clever and educated western generals make so many mistakes in WW1? Why did they underestimate the effect of mechanization on war so badly? Why did Churchill screw up at Gallipoli so badly? Why did WW2 start the decline of europe as the center of the world? Was it because of some cosmic inevitability OR because people understood the utter stupidity of their glorious leaders (and stopped playing along with nationalistic BS)?

3. Why did FDR promote the new deal in the 1930s? was it because he was a humanitarian OR he wanted to stop open revolution in the USA? Why did the french aristocracy refuse to pay income taxes even after france was insolvent? Did they not consider the possibility of what happened next?

4. Would enlightenment in Europe have occurred if the black death had not killed a large percentage of the population and exposed the impotence of the church?

5. Could the western roman empire or byzantine empire be reformed without their destruction? What about the mughal empire, maratha empire? The sad reality is that every complex system has to be (at least partially) destroyed before it can be rebuilt.

It is the same with the west, china and india. The status quo cannot hold.. It is not worth caring about current systems as they will not hold for any significant length of time (and change occurs much faster than it used to).

It is more worthwhile to focus on setting up the foundations of the next system/order.

[arnab]

Ramana,


It is the same with the west, china and india. The status quo cannot hold.. It is not worth caring about current systems as they will not hold for any significant length of time (and change occurs much faster than it used to).

It is more worthwhile to focus on setting up the foundations of the next system/order.

Would you care to put a number to the time frame? How long do you think? 6 months, 1year, 2 , 5, 10? Slavery as a system existed for about 6000-7000 years. Slavery was abolished in poland around the 15th century, it died in the US in the 19th century. So can just one theory capture the complexity of slavery as an institution?

[Rahul Mehta]

1. Why did slavery become taboo in the west after the industrial revolution? Did it occur because people suddenly became more humane OR it was no longer possible to use slave labor to operate complex machinery? You can force people to dig ditches, till fields, carry bricks or pick cotton- but operating machinery requires partially willing people.

3. Why did FDR promote the new deal in the 1930s? was it because he was a humanitarian OR he wanted to stop open revolution in the USA? Why did the french aristocracy refuse to pay income taxes even after france was insolvent? Did they not consider the possibility of what happened next?

Would enlightenment in Europe have occurred if the black death had not killed a large percentage of the population and exposed the impotence of the church?

Replied in "Right to bear weapons thread"

.

[ss_roy]

arnab,

The system cannot hold for the next decade, even in the most optimistic scenario.

Realistically, it will be less than 5 years. My guess- somewhere between 2-5 years, though serious civil unrest issues will start occurring within 2 years, likely less than 1 year.

Of course, there is always the possibility that aliens from other planets will start buying our goods to save the system.

[ramana]

arnab, Please approach your questions with an inquiring mind and not appear to go after a point of view or a poster.

Thanks, ramana

[brihaspati]

Are we talking "revolution"? A revolution means a radical change of power relations within the society. It is not possible within parliamentary democracy - only coups by portions of the armed forces or some other armed group. The Parliamentary form of democracy is a double edged sword. On the one hand it creates the illusion of hope that those who are now not in power can change the situation in their own favour using the system itself. So that system need not be destroyed to achieve power.

On the other hand it provides a powerful illusion of legitimacy for those who have managed to win elections, and at one stroke delegitimizes the political authority of those who have lost. This is more effective for convincing the electorate rather than competing groups. Larger apparent votes will attract more votes the next time because of herding instincts and keeping with the flow and majority.

This is why groups which recognize the power of the parliamentary democracy to perpetuate a system try to attack and bypass the electoral process itself within a pre-existing setup. From, MKG and NSCB, or Bhagat Singh - they all recognized the need to get the people alienated from the pre-existing system and political process before they could marshall support for a new system.

Ground conditions of loss of authority or capability or prestige of the system itself, does not automatically guarantee a revolutionary change of system. Catalysts are needed who can make people aware that they should no longer identify with the existing system. Every known revolution, had a precursor group spreading the "contagion" of ideas that force people to recognize where their interests and existence is in contradiction to the ruling system. MKG appears to be the master of this in his early years - picking off exactly those apparently insignificant issues that forces the British system to reveal itself to be inherently anti-Indian.

Without such catalysts - there is no revolution. Civil unrests come and go - without changes of systems.

[ss_roy]

brihaspati,

I do not believe that the current setup in India can maintain legitimacy for long.

These issues that will force it:

1. The youth population- the numbers of kids entering their working age is already exploding and will skyrocket within a few years. Historically, a high percentages of unemployed youths correlates with social unrest.

2. They are also exposed to a good lifestyle, much more so than previous generations. Media, communication and travel have accelerated that process.

3. The current socio-legal-political setup is behaving as if this problem will never occur or go away. The people who are supposed to lead were born in a different age, and they are desperately trying to hold on to their power.

Think of it as a tinderbox, ready to catch on fire- but without the spark.

Short of some fast and massive economic-legal reforms that benefit average people or give them hope, it cannot hold. The older ways were not designed to handle this situation.

That does not mean it is all bad, infact I believe that a lot of good can come from it. However, a lot of old behavior patterns will have to be discarded.

There, I said it..

[brihaspati]

ss_roy wrote
I do not believe that the current setup in India can maintain legitimacy for long.
These issues that will force it:

I understand the processes you are hinting at. Frustration of aspirations do indeed set younger aspirants on a collision course with the "state". But given the existing ideological wind - which way will that anger flow? It is going to be partly channeled into Maoist type angst - with a possible ruination of the Maoists just as such a "youthful adventure" led to the demise of a whole generation. Part chewed off by the sadists in the counter-insurgency units, the others sent abroad by their well connected parents.

The other part is going to go towards a "hippie" type move. Because that is what is best suited to the years of pacifist, consumerist, "everything not stemming from the Abrahamic or Marx is evil and the root of all our problems" social engineering. The more educated perhaps more prone to such thoughts. This will be a challenge to the society - but I somehow have a feeling that if it happoens now - within your timeframe - it will go towards a symbolic anarchism, but not what is required for a system change.

Don't you think it needs a much longer and better prepared organized direction?

I do feel strongly against adventurism - for it discredits the real need for change. What the Naxals of the 70's have brought us to - or the extreme "selflessness" of the armed insurrectionists against the British or those who made Quit India feasible. It is not enough to rebel, it is important to hold on to that momentum while at the same time fighting the "opportunists" - so that characters like JLN cannot hijack the sacrifice of millions and casually barter it for more pain.

[ss_roy]

Brihaspati,

The real risk of the emerging situation is that Indians may, increasingly, want and get a 'Caesar'. It is not a conicidence that the worldwide depression in the 1930s created a wave of populist dictators. And it can happen in India..

I do not think we have enough time to create a well designed response to this situation. The patience of younger indians will break, whether through a poor response to a WMD terrorist attack, border incursion or poor handling of a natural disaster. Ultimately one or a few small events will tip the balance, and I do not know what those event will be. We have certainly been advancing to the tipping point for a few years now.

There is a need to have multiple plans for that eventuality.

[brihaspati]

ss_roy ji,
I have always cautiously stated that I feel major transitions of society are almost always intricately linked with "dictatorial" regimes. They serve to break the impasse over equally balanced forces of the old/status quo versus change. Once again this should not be interpreted as my personal support for "dictatorships". But what if social forces mature in the direction? Should we wait for such an entity to be used "wrongly" in the hands of others - forces we can estimate to be inimical to the long term interests of our nation ? Or try to harness that potential in the "right" direction?

I feel there is still time. Or that we will be forced to wait. The major change of circumstances will come from collaboration of internal and external aggression and loss of territory if any. Here I agree with you as this is what I have been descriing as a likely scenario. Many here have of course expressed grave doubts and probaly rightly felt outraged in my proposition of the possible "loss" of the northern arc.

But if I read you right - like me you also feel that such an outcome of "trauma" or "loss" need not be an everlasting bad thing. We can prepare - yes, but do you think that much more than preparing the field ideologically is possible at this stage? People are not yet ripe enough or have crossed that threshold - where the risks of adventure are more than compensated for by their alienation and frustration. Until that time comes, they will be particularly hostile and inert to any prodding for action.

I could be wrong in my reading and you could be feeling the pulse more accurately. Do elaborate! My estimate was at least another decade for the explosive force to gather momentum. My org experience says that you need roughly 2/3 to bring in overwhelming force for "radical changes". Assuming that the 15-45 group provides the "muscle" and who retain their radicalism for another 10 years after 45, another 10 years will add 16% to the existing 50%. (proportions of the total population assuming rough effective life of 60)

Given that lots of things will act as counter trends and counterforces - this will mean that another 5-10 year will be needed to gather the final momentum. Please do place wht your own estimates are based on. I would be keen to explore them.

[Rahul Mehta]

I understand the processes you are hinting at. Frustration of aspirations do indeed set younger aspirants on a collision course with the "state". But given the existing ideological wind - which way will that anger flow? It is going to be partly channeled into Maoist type angst - with a possible ruination of the Maoists just as such a "youthful adventure" led to the demise of a whole generation. Part chewed off by the sadists in the counter-insurgency units, the others sent abroad by their well connected parents.

In things dont start improving,

1. Frustrated poor will go towards Maoists type elements
2. Frustrated middle class men, rich will say "lets us make some Modi-like a dictator"

Who will win? The group who gets more weapons from West. So West will win.

.