National Agenda for India, 2010-2050

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 16 Nov 2009 12:39

RayC wrote:No answer as yet?

I think the armed forces provide a very useful case study for handling the issues of caste, religion etc. However, I find that the question, "we in the army did it (managed the issue), so why can't you (outside the army, in the larger society) do it?" a bit unfair.

Without getting too philosophical, the armed forces are a voluntary organization, and are a tightly-disciplined corporate body, and not at all a democracy, one might say it is totalitarian which is an appropriate way to organize it, so it's not a pejorative. One joins the army with the expectation that there are rules of conduct, standards of behavior, cultural norms etc. to be followed, and the organization makes sure that no one steps out of line.

Real life in larger society is not like that; one is born as an Indian, there is no choice, and one is born into a particular religion (normally no choice for most people), furthermore, one is supposed to be free to grow and aggrandize oneself in any way that one sees fit (subject to minimal constraints imposed by a democracy). That includes being obsessed with one's religion, promoting oneself as a member of a particular religion etc. In the army you can kick someone out if they act like a X first, and as a soldier second or third. In a democracy, it is a person's right (though we may not like it) to see himself as an X first, and as an Indian second, or third or not at all, and still have all the rights of an Indian. (as an aside, notice how the self-styled great patriot Bal Thackeray was angry with Sachin Tendulkar for saying he is an Indian first and a Maharashtrian second? They both have the right to say what they did and to propagate their beliefs, though we may value Tendulakar's belief higher).

The challenge for India is how to keep its people free in a maximal sense (not just in the sense of not being ruled by foreigners), while retaining the cohesion to act together in the collective interest. It's several orders of magnitude more complex than the related problem solved by the armed forces. I don't mean that the armed forces had a small problem, or that we shouldn't be appreciative of how well they solved it, it is just that their problem definition doesn't scale up to the civilian society's problem.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 16 Nov 2009 13:08

KV Rao wrote:
RayC wrote:No answer as yet?
I think the armed forces provide a very useful case study for handling the issues of caste, religion etc. However, I find that the question, "we in the army did it (managed the issue), so why can't you (outside the army, in the larger society) do it?" a bit unfair.

Without getting too philosophical, the armed forces are a voluntary organization, and are a tightly-disciplined corporate body, and not at all a democracy, one might say it is totalitarian which is an appropriate way to organize it, so it's not a pejorative. One joins the army with the expectation that there are rules of conduct, standards of behavior, cultural norms etc. to be followed, and the organization makes sure that no one steps out of line.

Real life in larger society is not like that; one is born as an Indian, there is no choice, and one is born into a particular religion (normally no choice for most people), furthermore, one is supposed to be free to grow and aggrandize oneself in any way that one sees fit (subject to minimal constraints imposed by a democracy). That includes being obsessed with one's religion, promoting oneself as a member of a particular religion etc. In the army you can kick someone out if they act like a X first, and as a soldier second or third. In a democracy, it is a person's right (though we may not like it) to see himself as an X first, and as an Indian second, or third or not at all, and still have all the rights of an Indian. (as an aside, notice how the self-styled great patriot Bal Thackeray was angry with Sachin Tendulkar for saying he is an Indian first and a Maharashtrian second? They both have the right to say what they did and to propagate their beliefs, though we may value Tendulakar's belief higher).

The challenge for India is how to keep its people free in a maximal sense (not just in the sense of not being ruled by foreigners), while retaining the cohesion to act together in the collective interest. It's several orders of magnitude more complex than the related problem solved by the armed forces. I don't mean that the armed forces had a small problem, or that we shouldn't be appreciative of how well they solved it, it is just that their problem definition doesn't scale up to the civilian society's problem.

I won’t deny that the Army is a totalitarian organisation. Yet, it has avenues to redress issues.

I would never suggest replicate it. I only suggest, slowly get the public to realise the importance of being an Indian, beyond our divides.

I appreciate that many find their sub-nationalism supreme like Bal and Raj and Karunanidhi. But if we wear our Indic and other values on our sleeve and flaunt it before ‘others’, then we have to think again. I heard an interview of Nassaruddin Shah who advised Muslims not to flaunt their difference. I know the family fairly well and I daresay they are any less of an Indian than I.

India is going through a churn. Let us help India and not divide it is all that I am trying to project

I am sorry I bring the Army example, but that is what I have seen and experienced. If I were a corporate head honcho, I would have given examples from my experience from that view. There are many who find it offensive that I give example from my life (not you)! I can’t give examples of Bill Clinton’s life can I? I am an open book and I have qualm sharing personal details and not be what is a Mukhawta (mask)! Again, it is the fault of upbringing! Lies and falsehood was frowned upon!

In a democracy you have the right to say and do what you want. Do you have the right from stopping me that liberty?

The Army, as far as I understand, is not a corporate body. It is loss making organisation exchequer wise, but it ensures that the exchequer and the country functions in safe environments.

Another thing that perplexes me is that if some community is doing something against the country's interest, why not say it straight and then take on the questions? Why cloak it in double talk?

I have openly called to question the Imam of Jama Mazjid's statement and Deoband's on TV over Bande Mataram.

If Muslims in Pakistan can sing Pakistan Paindabad, what is the big deal over Bande Mataram?

I find the last Pope's call to harvest souls in Asia as most reprehensible and antediluvian.

I say this openly and not cloak it in double talk or act coy like a teenage girl!

Just because I said I am not a Hindu has people like Manish Sharma and Pullikeshi and some others after my blood.

Even as I say so, Ma Kali is my prime deity! She and Shiv are our kul deities and I respect our families religious sentiments, even as I proclaim that I am not a Hindu! I attend the family Kali Puja every year without fail. Am I not an Indian believing in religious issues as a part of family heritage, even if not a true Hindu, having renounced religion?

I stay awake in the wee hours to hear Mahalaya, the start of Durga Puja! It is so powerful! Yet, I say I am not a Hindu. It is my Indic roots! Proud of it!

Must I be a Hindu to be able to survive.

I know this is OT, but have I no right to survive as an Indian even if I don't profess the majority religion?

It reminds me of this:

Shylock:
I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that.

With total humility may I ask, non Hindus have no right to exist and be heaped scorn?

I agree much has been done in history and even in the present to upset India, but why should the descendants or those who are not involved in the shenanigans currently suffer when they stand shoulder to shoulder with the majority community? And some have done more than some of the majority community for the country? Can we forget the contributions of the Tatas, Azim Premji, CQMH Abdul Hamid and others of the non majority community?

Noon, in the UK is proud to be an Indian as so is Keith Vaz.

Let us unite and not divide!

if things are going wrong, it must be said openly and not obliquely.

Any thread on the Sadhvi or that Colonel and Malegaon?

I agree it was a fitting answer, but not from an Army officer!

I feel violated!

I assure you my blood boils too at these indignities heaped on my Nation!

But I would do nothing to embarrass my Nation!

It is not that I don't know Hinduism. I corrected my unit's Panditji (Religious Teacher) when he was reciting the Chandipath!

I also said the sermon for Christmas!

I embrace the greatness of India!

I am proud of India and it is matter of great pride that I was born as an Indian!

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 16 Nov 2009 14:37

{OT & long quotes deleted}
I am more worried about creating a positive sense of shared national purpose & goals, developing critical thinking among people, learning to do things in a professional way with an eye to safety, having consideration for others and the environment, a sense of inclusivity, not treating as invisible those that we are not forced to recognize (such as poor, tribals etc etc.) We are low on these values at present no matter what our religion or caste. But these values can't be developed in a vacuum, there have to be the context of a set of shared national projects & goals in which everyone is a stakeholder, and by which everyone stands to benefit. If this is done right, then other things like religion etc. will be a sideshow and won't matter that much. If we don't have a shared stake in the nation, then we can shout ourselves hoarse about all being Indian etc., but it won't convince too many of the people that may need convincing.

On the positive side, re the churn you spoke of, it is possible that we are being more pessimistic than is warranted, and things are moving to a new realignment of Indian-ness in a modern sense, one more time in history. If we focused on positive projects, and on defending what is our shared stake in India--two things that are uncontroversial, then perhaps we can let the churn sort itself out, without unnecessarily adding more noise to the mix.

Adrija · Post by **Adrija** » 16 Nov 2009 16:21

I find this whole obsession with UCC a bit curious......... why would the lack of UCC jeopardize our national identity in any way? I must confess I have no ready or easy solution, but this belief that A particular set of ideas which should govern every citizen- derived from, by definition, one source- is an imposition of one belief system over others. I am probably being completely naive, but as long as there is no compulsion, what is the harm in a Muslim choosing to follow his set of beliefs and not being forced to choose another which may derive from some other religion, de facto if not de jure?

This does raise complex questions, but the most common argument for UCC- gender equality- is flawed.... there more more equitable laws for women in Islamic countries like Bangladesh so there is no reason why there cannot be one in India even while keeping Muslim personal laws. But saying that gender equality is the reason why we need UCC is throwing the baby out with the bathwater......... the focus should be- by the Muslim community- to modernize their laws rather than there being a cresendo of scrapping communty specific laws?

We have may more urgent issues to solve. As raised by many other posters, education is the primary of those... once we have universal education (primary, secondary and tertiary) a lot of the rest will take care of itself.... the other thing on the list is a strong defence set-up, so that we remain undisturbed while we go about building our nation.

Long term, I do not see an option but to expand our boundaries to incorporate what is current day Pakistan, and restrore Tibet to its buffer status, if we are ensure long term security

My 2 paise

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Nov 2009 16:28

I have never understood why posters, both new and old ask basic questions on "who is Sita" before doing the very minimum study of a few posts before theirs.

{Sanku: Correction. The proper question is "Who is Sitan" as in "Sitanukku Rama yaaru?" or "Seeth ko Rama kaun thi?" Cheers}

The other fascinating debate is "I am an Indian, therefore if GoI says it must be so, let GoI say it" however, the discussion on "should we, the Indian citizens, ask the GoI to do this" is immediately frowned on.

Is GoI an act of god and thus mandated? What happened to the basic corner stones of democracy etc?

And since GoI has been changing the constitution all the while whats the big deal about the next change either?

Adrija · Post by **Adrija** » 16 Nov 2009 16:47

I have never understood why posters, both new and old ask basic questions on "who is Sita" before doing the very minimum study of a few posts before theirs.

I presume that potshot was for me

.......... pray Lord, please do take the trouble of enlightening me and answering my query, I am obviously dense that the whole Ramayana uvacha escaped my comprehension....what is the threat to national identity by allowing peole to follow their own laws in their personal lives, provided these meet some basic "liberal/ enlightened" statndards?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Nov 2009 16:53

Adrija wrote:
I have never understood why posters, both new and old ask basic questions on "who is Sita" before doing the very minimum study of a few posts before theirs.
I presume that potshot was for me .......... pray Lord, please do take the trouble of enlightening me and answering my query, I am obviously dense that the whole Ramayana uvacha escaped my comprehension....what is the threat to national identity by allowing peole to follow their own laws in their personal lives, provided these meet some basic "liberal/ enlightened" statndards?

No it was not for you, but in general in response to what I saw on this thread and many others happening all the time.

To find the answer do please look at the Brihspati's post which cover that well, but to answer this very very briefly -- the questions is simple

People and their own laws is a strange concept? Does this mean I can form my own laws? Or if two people agree they can form their own laws independent of the constitution? And once formed should constitution accept that?

Ok if you can figure the first one out we get to the next issue.

Who decided what the liberal enlightened status is? Does asking for differential standards of men and women "enlightened and liberal"

Is asking for public display of affection to goats acceptable?

How about public display to affection to birathers and goats and ayeshas all in public?

My religion might ask for that?

Third issue

What about conflict between the basic premises of the Constitution and "laws" by people? How about that?

And this is only the beginning of course....

Adrija · Post by **Adrija** » 16 Nov 2009 17:36

Well, different codes already exist, and obviously the situation you have laid out does not occur. One can stretch any scenario for argument's sake... but could I please ask a simple question? We have a holiday on Sunday, do you know that this is because of the Christian construct "and the Lord rested on the seventh day". Muslims rest on Jumma (Friday), so why is Sunday any better than Friday for a rest? We have a practice of Sunday but which was adopted simply given the dominance of western mores in our lives....... similarly, for UCC- it will ipso facto be derived from one source at the cost of other beliefs

My simple hypothesis is this- the existence of multiple Personal Codes has NOT jeopardized the Indian experiment (unlike, say, Article 370- Kashmir clearly has not been integrated with the nation), so why make it a precondition? In fact, the ability to proceed at their own pace is a legitimate right and privilege which minorities derive great sustenance and comfort, rightly OR wrongly, and I am not sure why this should become a cause celebre. We have much bigger challenges to tackle

I am otherwise quite aligned to the concept of psuedo- secularism, but this is where I think it is going a bit overboard

Standard disclaimers/ IMVVHO apply of course

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Nov 2009 19:57

Before things tart shooting off at odd angles again : I think setting goals and deadlines are important and fundamental aspects of progress.

I proposed expansion of India politically, territorially and economically beyond the current political boundaries as an actiobale primary agenda that can drive both internal and external goals and efforts.

The first thing we need for external expansion is internal homogenization and strengthening. We have to come to a point where subidentities are no longer crucial with respect to the overall idea of India. This is where serious efforts are needed to bring everyone up to similar standards of social welfare and social investment. This in turn requires all out assaults on every bastion of separation - based on gender, language, claims of social hierarchy, immunity by religions, and regionalism. This assault needs to have legislative, economic and propaganda power to carry out its objectives. This is why UCC is important. This is why Article 370 and its variant for the NE has to be scrapped. What "special rights"? Special rights are only to be based on biological necessities - old age, womens' reproductive health, childrens nutrition, special provisions for physically disadvantged in all aspects of social life - these are the only special needs!

All other basic aspects of life comes under general social investments. If there has to be a school for every 300 children at the primary level - there has to be a school for every such 300 children all over the country no matter where they are situated, which area they come from, what language they speak, what gender they are, which religion they have! No specail needs to must teach a certain religious text! Or that girls must cover their heads and travel in shuttlecock burqas (as a certain college in J&K has apparently done under threat) to college! This is where UCC has to intervene - ruthlessly, relentlessly, without mercy or compassion. There can be no compromise with fruitless insistence on "special rights" that are not biological at all! In fact accepting such claims are costly on the state because we have to provide extra resources to satisfy subgroups egos.
If we want education then that is the main purpose - not insistence on dress codes, or gender segregation (again added costs) or supporting teachers to teach ideologies!

This can be and should be a co-current project all the while preparations to strengthen the nation for its expansion outside is going on. We do not have the time to wait for one while we do the other. The internal social agenda can span 20 years - the average time for a baby to grow to reasonable adulthood. Lets give this timeframe and see whether it is feasible. That is where the debate should go - I think!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Nov 2009 20:34

Adrija wrote: for UCC- it will ipso facto be derived from one source at the cost of other beliefs

So? As you pointed out with the case of Sunday, the majority of Indians who have no interests in Sunday are already following a more which has been adopted for reasons of "convenience" let us just extend the convenience of this type to all Indians right, why discriminate? Or are you in favor of Govt deciding which day to give off for which person based on their religious beliefs? Because thats precisely what the lack of common code can also mean.

Further you say that the examples I point out have not happened -- clearly gender discrimination is an issue? Are you fine with some citizens of the country having a different set of rules for their women, just because it exists?

Are you okay with that?

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 16 Nov 2009 21:12

RayC wrote: Bible, Koran or Baghwat Gita is no big deal

Take the beauty of each and use it.

That is the big deal!

Ray ji, that's the problem. The guys with the Bhagwat Geeta can be coaxed to take the 'beauty of each & use it', but can the guys with Koran & Bible?

That's the deal!

Adrija · Post by **Adrija** » 16 Nov 2009 21:15

I proposed expansion of India politically, territorially and economically beyond the current political boundaries as an actiobale primary agenda that can drive both internal and external goals and efforts.

Agree

The first thing we need for external expansion is internal homogenization and strengthening.

Why is that necessary- the idea of India has flourished for millenia while differences- in culture, language, dress, etc etc etc has also flourished. We are not Han- forcing a common homogenization

Special rights are only to be based on biological necessities - old age, womens' reproductive health, childrens nutrition, special provisions for physically disadvantged in all aspects of social life - these are the only special needs!

Isn't that a simplistic view? Ask the Dalit why his demand for preferential treatment- you may or may not agree with it- but you clearly cannot take away that perception. We are not a society which came into being recently, and have to carry our past baggage- that being the joy and punishment of that privilege

We have to come to a point where subidentities are no longer crucial with respect to the overall idea of India.

May not be for us, but for everyone's India to flourish, that is a decision everyone must take for him/herself- it cannot be imposed....... that goes against the very idea of India- PROVIDED- this subidentity does not clash with the Indian identity. And the only identies which have done so so far has been the Kashmir islamist one- barring that, any other identity, even that of a MI, have coexisted harmoniously with that of being an Indian. So why the takleef please?

clearly gender discrimination is an issue? Are you fine with some citizens of the country having a different set of rules for their women, just because it exists?

Yes, it is an issue. But we are a democracy, and a hallmark of a democracy is that every group/ individual has the right to integrate at their own pace........ and incidentally, the two - individual Personal Codes, and gender discrimination- conflate but are not causative

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Nov 2009 21:51

Adrija wrote: Yes, it is an issue. But we are a democracy, and a hallmark of a democracy is that every group/ individual has the right to integrate at their own pace........ and incidentally, the two - individual Personal Codes, and gender discrimination- conflate but are not causative

Totally wrong on both counts. The state has chosen to set the pace for most of its citizen barring a few issues like UCC

And gender issues are indeed caused by lack of UCC and allowance of religion into civil system.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 16 Nov 2009 22:11

Adrija wrote:
Yes, it is an issue. But we are a democracy, and a hallmark of a democracy is that every group/ individual has the right to integrate at their own pace........ and incidentally, the two - individual Personal Codes, and gender discrimination- conflate but are not causative

Precisely.

Well said!

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 16 Nov 2009 22:12

Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_ci ... Civil_Code
Via google

In India, most family law is determined by the religion of the parties concerned[citation needed]. Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists come under Hindu law, whereas Muslims and Christians have their own laws. Muslim law is based on the Shariat; in all other religious communities, laws are codified by an Act of the Indian parliament. Other sets of laws deal with criminal and civil cases, such as the CrPC and the Indian penal code.

Is this the same shariat as next door or is there an indian version? Boy, these parallel universes are bolted together at just a few places, and barely.
If we step out of family law, can we get agreement on others and use those to seed nationalism? But even there, the basic problem is that Shariat comes before CC of India, doesn't it, I mean the authority is Shariat. If it says no, then don't matter what CC says. Shouldn't this be changed?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 16 Nov 2009 22:15

samuel wrote:Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_ci ... Civil_Code
Via google
In India, most family law is determined by the religion of the parties concerned[citation needed]. Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists come under Hindu law, whereas Muslims and Christians have their own laws. Muslim law is based on the Shariat; in all other religious communities, laws are codified by an Act of the Indian parliament. Other sets of laws deal with criminal and civil cases, such as the CrPC and the Indian penal code.
Is this the same shariat as next door or is there an indian version? Boy, these parallel universes are bolted together at just a few places, and barely.
If we step out of family law, can we get agreement on others and use those to seed nationalism? But even there, the basic problem is that Shariat comes before CC of India, doesn't it, I mean the authority is Shariat. If it says no, then don't matter what CC says. Shouldn't this be changed?

Absolutely correct.

UCC.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 16 Nov 2009 22:17

Bji et al:
A thought struck me over the last few days; I am yet to chew, churn and think it out totally. But Shiv saar's post about conversion brought it back to my memory.

Recently, I was part of a group that helped a non-profit Christian charity pack food for distribution among other countries. This charity partners with Christian Missionaries through out the World. We were told that when a child goes hungry for several days because of natural calamities and they receive food from others; the child, parents and the society feel that there are people who care for them - they are lifted physically and emotionally (spiritually). Well it is not tough to put two and two together. But that is OT.

India has National Service Scheme: http://nss.nic.in/intro.asp {more thought and content need to go in that website}

In my school, we had SUPW classes (Socially Useful Productive Work); well we cleaned the school campus now and then; learned embroidery, making ketchup, some electrical wiring etc.

And our Indic tradition also points out our dharma to the society.

So why not kick this up several levels. Maybe as part of all professional graduation course a student has to spend 3 months, or a semester in this sort of work. Without which the student does not get the degree. Be it IIM, IIT, IISc, or the hundreds of other educational institutions that are in the country. As I said, these thoughts just came to me and needs polishing, review ithiyadi. So please take with a truck load of salt.

A nation is lifted by not institutions, but by its people. So we need people to get into the system and feel they are part of the solution and system.

So I propose National Social Scheme or whatever we call it to be part of our National Agenda.

ps: gently throw the brick-bats onlee.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Nov 2009 22:19

RayC wrote:
Adrija wrote:
Yes, it is an issue. But we are a democracy, and a hallmark of a democracy is that every group/ individual has the right to integrate at their own pace........ and incidentally, the two - individual Personal Codes, and gender discrimination- conflate but are not causative
Precisely.

Well said!

Thats a joke, frankly, about every individual group having the right to integrate at their own pace.

The sheer number of everyday counter examples that exist to demolish that argument is not even funny.

But hey democracy has freedom of speech and thought (even if lack of it is supposed to be a valid choice)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Nov 2009 22:20

SwamyG wrote:So why not kick this up several levels. Maybe as part of all professional graduation course a student has to spend 3 months, or a semester in this sort of work. Without which the student does not get the degree. Be it IIM, IIT, IISc, or the hundreds of other educational institutions that are in the country. As I said, these thoughts just came to me and needs polishing, review ithiyadi. So please take with a truck load of salt.

Absolutely, let the folks have a choice between a social service organization and the defence services.

Let the folks slog out for a bit before they get their degrees.

But the devil as always will be in implementation.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 16 Nov 2009 22:23

Updating the distribution of rights between the Centre and States may be needed going forward. The one case where I see this being beneficial is in allowing states to levy their own income taxes. Prima facie it seems well governed socialist states like West Bengal would benefit from the ability to raise resources for the additional services they provide. It would also act as a check on the tendency to Centralise everything that Central socialists can get away with.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 16 Nov 2009 22:33

Yes I remember these things vaguely now:

1. SUPW -- That was a joke for us, but this was so long ago that I am fuzzy about how big a joke that was.
2. NCC/NSS: These are always good choices and I did NCC both in school and college. It bonded us a lot where
nationalism replaced everything else. Suddenly, we had the same goals for India and we wanted the same thing.

So, I will say that such national systems of integration must be in place at various levels for various things.

** Medical Corps
** Technical Corps
** Service Corps
** Reserve Officer Corps
** Education and Teaching Corps

etc.

Have people from the services man them if that is possible.

But there is a way that even such national structures hide the things that precisely show up from time to time and tear it all apart.
It is those things we need to go to, so fundamentally, I think all the above is perhaps necessary but not sufficient.
Integration has to be deeper, a lot deeper.
S

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 16 Nov 2009 22:50

Samuel ji:
It was a joke for us too. We sometimes chided and called it as "Socially Useless Productive Work" and what not. But we had it in schools, and it is tough indeed to get certain things done with kids. In my 10th class or so, all I was interested were: Sports, Movies and Girls. Or may the way these were implemented was wrong (like Sanku alludes above). I remember painting a social cause - cutting of trees and soil erosion - in my 11th class and had pinned it on our walls. So maybe the mind was there and fertile - just that no seeds were sown and fields were not taken care of properly.

One might call social indoctrination or social engineering, but we can infuse national agenda in young minds. It should not be done willy nilly but with a great deal of care and attention to details. We can draw on the implementation of other organizations through out the World. For example Young Men's Christian Association (a.k.a YMCA) - it is an organization dedicated to building strong kids, families and communities. YMCA history

We could focus on just physical and emotional well being of the kids from 8-16. Then from 16-20, continue focusing on physical, emotional and then add social component based on each individual's aptitude and attitude. Like Sanku suggested we could have several streams - Social or Military.

ps: This almost reminds me of "The Republic". But it really is about understanding humans and common sense right?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Nov 2009 23:12

SUPW --> some useful period wasted !

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Nov 2009 23:14

SwamyG wrote:So why not kick this up several levels. Maybe as part of all professional graduation course a student has to spend 3 months, or a semester in this sort of work. Without which the student does not get the degree. Be it IIM, IIT, IISc, or the hundreds of other educational institutions that are in the country. As I said, these thoughts just came to me and needs polishing, review ithiyadi. So please take with a truck load of salt.

at least in IITKGP there used to be compulsory NCC in first year of BTech. and social work if you were not medically fit.

Adrija · Post by **Adrija** » 16 Nov 2009 23:24

And gender issues are indeed caused by lack of UCC and allowance of religion into civil system.

Ah, I see...... so

1. The fact that female foeticide in India is highest in Punjab and Haryana is because of lack of UCC and allowance of religion. Excuse me while I

2. Difference in literacy levels across females in India (as highliighted here _ http://tiny.cc/mQdkD ) is because of not local prosperity and governance issues but due to - wow, lack of UCC

3. The two-thirds of women who suffer domestic violence (http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullst ... wsid=56501) are because of religion..... well, only one religion covers two-thirds of India........ care to name which one?

Another gem

The state has chosen to set the pace for most of its citizen barring a few issues like UCC

Hmm......... inner line permits, tribal area restrictions, farmland, reservations of all kinds......... ahem, not just the Indian state but even other democracies offer all sorts of exemptions to underprivileged or special interest groups (ever heard of tax exemptions for lawyers and draftsmen in the UK?). Fact is, exemptions are normal practice, limited largely (but not only) by the "thou shall do no harm to others" maxim......

Finally, you are absolutely right in one area at least

But hey democracy has freedom of speech and thought (even if lack of it is supposed to be a valid choice)

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 17 Nov 2009 00:19

Bible, Koran or Baghwat Gita is no big deal

Take the beauty of each and use it.

That is the big deal!

Sorry Ray ji but this is pure rhetoric. I don't see why i should take in the beauty of a doctrine that calls me a Kafir, infidel, dhimmi and urges it's believers to wage jihad against. I don't see beauty in excluvist doctrines that preach if you don't worship me you go to hell forever or if you don't worship me through my prophet Y you will go to hell again.

Rao ji's link to Brihaspati's post on the other thread on how Western secularism came about delved into this. Pluralism comes to Indics precisely because Dharma is rooted in that.

Ironically i want more divisions to prevail in our society and come up. Divisions in the way Dharmic/ indic doctrines have been interpretted spawned multiple strands of Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Shino, maybe Taoism, Falun gong etc. Ironically each was at peace with each doctrinally and pursued it's path to fruition satisfactorily.

Divisions based on excuvist ideologies will always be a problem. India or the West and it has been proven by history to be so. No one can deny the Chrisitian inquisitions were not as cruel as Islamic expansions. Did the Dharmic traditions so many of which were spawned ever expand in that manner? No. Pluralism remained engrained in traditional dharmic societies.

Thats a lesson that India must not lose sight off as it goes into the future. That there are significant groups of people worshipping alien to Indian soil religious ideologies, the majority of which may be passive and participative, but nevertheless there is a significant percent whose loyalties don't lkie in anything to do with India's cultural ethos.

The unity which one craves for so much like the stance on the UCC can best be achieved by one means: Conversion to Islam. Everyone under Sharia. Hitler achieved great unity. The Chinese CCP display great unity in their nation. Every totalitarian dictatorship displayed tremendous unity in the country. Using every means mentioned including your reference to the IA. Using hard power.

The Indian ethos is different. It uses soft power and it's inherent ideology is based on compassion, humility, evolution of mind and spirit and pluralism. It is not for no reason that every persecuted community in the region and beyond found a haven in India and was protected. Bahai's, Jews, Zorastrians, Armenians, Tibetans all found a home and prospered in India. Thats again because India celebrated it's divisions, not morphed everything into one homogenous identity framework. Ironically thats what excluvist doctrines seek ultimately and have succeeded in Pakistan, BD, China, Phillipines etc. Ironically keepinig Indic values and spirit endures plurality and democracy.

It's not for us to be sensitive to a doctrine which preaches hatred against the unbeleiver and exhorts it's practioner to Jihad. It would be rank foolish of me to be promoting sensitivity to that. No pluralist society can ever emerge from following such doctrine correctly. Ultimately a united, homogenous entity under a powerful hammer of fear will emerge under such doctrines like in Saudi Barbaria or Iran. No divisions only unity.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 17 Nov 2009 00:37

Firstly I reject the premise that India should be homegeneized by force as it were. We will evolve, as we have always done, towards a national cultural synthesis; that's part of what it means to be Indian.

coming to UCC, not just Muslims, but a number of communities all have The background of the demand for ucc (afaik) is that Hindu marriage and inheritance laws were modified in the 50s, but the Muslim versions were left untouched due to minority provisions in the constitution. It meant among other things that Hindu men could no longer legally have multiple wives whereas Muslim men can. There was a lot of resentment about that, and this has provided the fuel for the UCC drive under various liberal and feminist guises. That's part of the reason why I don't set much store by the demand for UCC.

There is actually a legitimate argument to be made (relating to national integration) when calling for UCC: essentially, personal laws are there to support & encourage (but not compel--people always have the option of using the CC) the formation of social / familial / property relationships within a particular community. So, there is, in theory, a bias towards fostering intra-community relationships rather than inter-community relationships. But then, society as a whole is heavily biased against inter-community relationships, so personal law is only a recognition of this bias. If we eliminate personal laws while retaining social bias against inter-community relationships (e.g., Hindus in general have to be prepared to be comfortable with their sister marrying a Muslim, which is the archetypal litmus test), then it would be interpreted as a provocative measure to break up the minority communities, and force them into a homogeneous mold whose form is dictated by the majority. Needless to say, this move will be met with resistance.

Maybe that resistance has to be confronted and subdued, but it will come with a price and there will be lots of after-effects. We need to decide where something like UCC fits into the list of national priorities. It is very low on my personal list.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 17 Nov 2009 00:52

[quote="Chandragupta
Ray ji, that's the problem. The guys with the Bhagwat Geeta can be coaxed to take the 'beauty of each & use it', but can the guys with Koran & Bible?
That's the deal![/quote]

Noticed , your question is still unanswered. Where is the beauty in ME "exclusivive docrines" which tell me i am ugly,no good, hell bound Son of Indic unless i mutilate myself, shut down my thinking as well deny and trample upon my social, cultural, linguistic, spirtual and family roots to please an alien entity, myth and doctrine. I have hard time accepting Super Secularism ( SS brigade) which is chipping away part of Indics on daily basis and insist upon the right to feed and fatten foreign fanatic features in India.

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 17 Nov 2009 01:11

Adrija wrote: 3. The two-thirds of women who suffer domestic violence (http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullst ... wsid=56501) are because of religion..... well, only one religion covers two-thirds of India........ care to name which one?

Err....

Care to read the first comment at the bottom of the post?

http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullst ... wsid=56501

http://washingtontimes.com/corrections/ ... -2806r.htm

Using a chart published in a 2005 U.N. Population Fund report -- which the U.N. agency now says was misleading -- a London Daily Telegraph article published in Nov. 13 editions of The Washington Times incorrectly stated the frequency of wife abuse in India. The agency says that it does not have sufficient data to provide such a figure and that the chart was intended to show that 70 percent of Indian women who were abused by their husbands think such abuse is justified in at least some circumstances.

Such reports are not based on honest reporting. BBC Radio circa 2005 was reporting (screaming literally in NEWS HOUR) as if EVERY household in India having the AIDS virus. Those reports have been debunked. No guesses why these rumours are spread - SPIT AND SCOOT STRATEGY.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Nov 2009 01:15

Adrija wrote
Quote:
The first thing we need for external expansion is internal homogenization and strengthening.

Why is that necessary- the idea of India has flourished for millenia while differences- in culture, language, dress, etc etc etc has also flourished. We are not Han- forcing a common homogenization

Are you that sure of the millenia spanning flourishing of differences? The further you go back in time, do you get increasing or decreasing diversity? How much of narratives have been handed down that shows flourishing differences? Even archaelogically? The riparian civilizations of the northern plains - archaeologically - do they show differences in pottery/town layout/glyphs from one end of India to another? Even look at languages, the further you go back in time, the more homogeneous it gets. There are plenty of discussion on this on several threads in GDF.

This claim of "extreme diversity" is based on the apparent lack of ME type compulsory submission to only one interpretation and form. This apparent diversity, philosophically is based on the recognition of a common thread - almost like different roads to the same mountain peak. Those who see only the roads do not see that all the roads wind around the same mountain and leads to the same peak. Diversity is the clothing and is just a convenience. It is not more precious than the body it covers, so much so that even if the body is threatened with death, the clothes have to be saved regardless of whether the body survives or not.

Diversity has now become an excuse for pursuing all possible individual and narrow agenda. If diversity is so important, what and why belong to a single nation? What is it that binds you to a feeling of belonging to a nation that is composed of pure and "flourishing" diversity? You must be recognizing something in common? What is that commonality? Just happening to be born in a certain political territory under some official and internationally recognized rashtra? That can also be done in an empire spanning diverse cultures, religions and unique exclusivities - the only thing that binds them is that they are all ruled by a common emperor!

Quote:
Special rights are only to be based on biological necessities - old age, womens' reproductive health, childrens nutrition, special provisions for physically disadvantged in all aspects of social life - these are the only special needs!

Isn't that a simplistic view? Ask the Dalit why his demand for preferential treatment- you may or may not agree with it- but you clearly cannot take away that perception. We are not a society which came into being recently, and have to carry our past baggage- that being the joy and punishment of that privilege

Is the "Dalit" a historical category? Where in historical narratives do you find the mention of the word "dalit" and when? You will be unable to show me any historical mention of the term "dalit" in the context you are using, prior to the twentieth century. Does it make "historical baggage"? Even if we accept for arguments sake that there were "caste repressions" long before the Islamic invasions, whcih so-called "Brahminical codex" lists "dalit" as a caste to be repressed? The very term itself shows that it belongs to the solid tradition in India of inventing imaginary categories and place them in the past - for political mobilization purposes only. The word means "repressed" and does not refer to any particular caste. Now why is that if after all they are trying to talk of "cate repression"? That is because specifically mentioning a list of castes claimed to be historically repressed has three great dangers - (a) it excludes potential numbers who can be convinced to believe that they were repressed in the past (b) future histroical research may challenge current claims of repressions (c) there could even be internal claims of hierarchy and superiority within even that list.

Once this angle comes up, we need to explore whether all claims of "caste repression" are reconstructed form political motives or not! Even in the past. Thaparite professional historians claim that - claims of historical trauma can only be accepted if they are contemporary, they come from the "victim" side, and further if they can be shown beyond doubt to be free of political motivations for reconstruction and propaganda. Show me narrative evidence of caste repression from pre-Islamic times satisfying all three criteria. If they begin to appear only after Islamic invasions or intensify after European invasions, why exclude exploring any possible role these guys had in the construction of such narratives? After all "casta" is a Spanish word!

Quote:
We have to come to a point where subidentities are no longer crucial with respect to the overall idea of India.

May not be for us, but for everyone's India to flourish, that is a decision everyone must take for him/herself- it cannot be imposed....... that goes against the very idea of India- PROVIDED- this subidentity does not clash with the Indian identity. And the only identies which have done so so far has been the Kashmir islamist one- barring that, any other identity, even that of a MI, have coexisted harmoniously with that of being an Indian. So why the takleef please?

A fundamental problem - have these identities really existed "harmoniously" outside of J&K? I am sorry, I am not sure that you have really explored history of Indian subcontinent.

Quote:
clearly gender discrimination is an issue? Are you fine with some citizens of the country having a different set of rules for their women, just because it exists?

Yes, it is an issue. But we are a democracy, and a hallmark of a democracy is that every group/ individual has the right to integrate at their own pace........ and incidentally, the two - individual Personal Codes, and gender discrimination- conflate but are not causative

No democracy allows integration at everyone's own pace. Go to the "hallmarks" of the modern European models - where have they allowed Sharia law to govern personal law for Muslims amidst them? They have been having Muslims for almost the same time as Indians!

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 17 Nov 2009 01:51

Bhai Gurdas is one of the Sikh Dharmic leaders of the 16th Century who contributed to the Sri Guru Granth Sahib. In the quote below from SGGS., Bhai Gurdas ji describes the discourse that took between Qazi/Maulavis and Guru Nanak Dev (Guru Nanak Dev in Punjabi language is called as BABA meaning "Old Saintly person").

puchhan gal eemaan dhee kaazee mulaa(n) eikat(h)ae hoee||
vaddaa saa(n)g varathaaeiaa lakh n sakai kudharath koee||
pushhan fol kithaab no hi(n)dhoo vaddaa k musalamaanoee||
baabaa aakhae haajeeaaa(n) subh amalaa baajhahu dhono roee||
hi(n)dhoo musalamaan dhue dharageh a(n)dhar lehan n dtoee||
kachaa ra(n)g kusu(n)bh dhaa paanee dhhothai thhir n rehoee||
karan bakheelee aap vich raam reheem eik thhaae khaloee||
raahi saithaanee dhuneeaa goee ||33||

Qazi and maulvis got together and began discussing religion.
A great fantasy has been created and no one could understood its mystery.
They asked Baba Nanak to open and search in his book whether Hindu is great or the Muslim.
Baba replied to the pilgrim hajis, that, without good deeds both will have to weep and wail.
By being a Hindu or a Muslim one can not get accepted in the court of the Lord.
As the colour of safflower is impermanent and is washed away in water, likewise the colours of religiosity are also temporary.
(Followers of both the religions) In their expositions, denounce Ram and Rahim.
The whole of the world is following the ways of Satan.(33)

----------
Above is the essence of any Indian based religion., i.e. Karm and Dharm or Deeds matter... nothing else matters.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 17 Nov 2009 02:08

Question to folks on this board "Does secularism even make sense in the Indian concept" what construct should India evolve to?
There is a wonderful debate between Balgangadhara and the likes of Achin Vanaik that elucidates the issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTL8eUvQGFE

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 17 Nov 2009 02:18

Question to Gurus,
How many here have studied the Singapore model for fixing ,promoting ,achieving national agenda and how much relevance it can have in Indian context?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Nov 2009 02:20

Adrija wrote
Quote:
And gender issues are indeed caused by lack of UCC and allowance of religion into civil system.

Ah, I see...... so

1. The fact that female foeticide in India is highest in Punjab and Haryana is because of lack of UCC and allowance of religion. Excuse me while I

Really, is there so much to laugh and roll about it? Punjab and Haryana - now why does it bring up in my mind the fact that this was the first region to be really colonized and put under Islamic rule within the current boundaries of India. Also, should I consider the fact that the British disruption of pre-existing social norms abruptly stopped and changed direction after 1857 - which basically separates also the two significant Muslim presence regions in India - Bengal and Punjab. Thay they intervened and encouraged break with past more in Bengal under EIC, but ceased when it came to Punjab under the Crown?

Female foeticide is not very uncommon in societies under constant military threats of aggression and female-snatching by hostile groups. Such a society would value more male births because males would be expended more quickly in war. If added to that women are constantly a source of greedy attention (so that a whole society can be forced to face extinction simply because certain other community recognizes it as a religious right to abduct and enslave or forcibly marry women from "others" - for example the narrative about Padmini), that the society has to put in significant resources to protect its women from "abduction", it is not unnatural to expect "female foeticide" as an extreme and twisted, but still adopted measure under extreme stress.

Also can you please quote the earliest eye-witness records of systematic "female foeticide" among "Hindus" and "Sikhs" in India? Any narrative records from pre-Islamic times? In the "repressive" "Brahminical law texts"? In the literature?

Social practices carry on beyond the immediate factors that originally gave rise to them. Basically, the "great" Indian democrats however did not wait for such "regressive communities" to catch up in their own sweet time, to "integrate" - they banned and penalized the practice overnight. What makes similar hands tremble before banning or penalizing other such "regressive practice" only if it comes from one of two communities?

2. Difference in literacy levels across females in India (as highliighted here _ http://tiny.cc/mQdkD ) is because of not local prosperity and governance issues but due to - wow, lack of UCC

Yes, once again, compare such distributions with the history of the place. How long was the region under Islamic rule, and how close to Islamic military centres of power? When did the British penetrate the region? Before or after 1857? How much did the early British collaborate with local non-Muslim elite in disrupting/"reforming" local social norms as a means of political and military manipulation? Which communities the British began to value as militarily reliable after 1857, so that they could have had second thoughts on intervening too much into their "social practices"?

3. The two-thirds of women who suffer domestic violence (http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullst ... wsid=56501) are because of religion..... well, only one religion covers two-thirds of India........ care to name which one?

Really, to name which one, you need actual "crimes against women data" with divisions showing community, region, and other factors. Some of these data, cannot be placed in the public domain. Care to search out why? Because the data is "sensitive" and may hurt "sentiments". Now which are the communities in India, whose sensitivities are of utmost importance to the current rashtra? If you are entitled, please do try to access such studies.

Another gem

Quote:
The state has chosen to set the pace for most of its citizen barring a few issues like UCC

Hmm......... inner line permits, tribal area restrictions, farmland, reservations of all kinds......... ahem, not just the Indian state but even other democracies offer all sorts of exemptions to underprivileged or special interest groups (ever heard of tax exemptions for lawyers and draftsmen in the UK?). Fact is, exemptions are normal practice, limited largely (but not only) by the "thou shall do no harm to others" maxim......

Inner line permits are of defence and security concerns origins. Only much later it also took on protection of "land ownership" aspects.

Exemptions are a broad sweep you are taking. Exemptions on the basis of "income level" do not look at community memberships, even in UK. Exemptions to regions are given primarily not on the basis of community origin but on economic criteria. Exemptions are also not given based on supposed claims of "historical trauma" - UK gove would be bankrupt overnight if it did that.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Nov 2009 02:26

Prem ji,
the Singapore model will be anathema to most here. It was practically achieved under a dictatorial, virtual one-party, and "dynastic" rule. I have always said that fundamental transitions in society, somehow always takes place under authoritarian regimes and usually one-person centres of authority. This happens because at transition different forces in society are at loggerheads and equilibrium although socio-economic drives for change have built up.

This creates opportunity for individuals to be put up, perhaps as a hoped for "soft", manipulable and dependent "dictator". Almost the very same way, India, Pakistan and BD put up females at the "top" because there were too many powerful men vying for the top job, and their mutual jealousy was so strong that they agreed to put up someone they thought would be pliable by each of the "lions". (Perhaps also the process by which JLN was put up for the top-job).

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 17 Nov 2009 02:29

I found the two clips below quite interesting b/c it reveals the disconnect and frustration that secularists face when trying to comprehend communal disputes in the indian context. Funny how they didn't even have the courage to show up for the roundtable debates that followed shortly after.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne0rYqP3 ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS-p_xJ5 ... re=related

I also came across this 2 min clip which sums up the whole secular debate quite nicely.

http://www.youtube.com/user/cultuurwete ... HKi0BUx2-0

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Nov 2009 02:38

SwamyG ji,
I would go one step ahead, and recommend compulsory one year military service for all between school and university. This should be for both men and women. Some of my German students described how they spent most of the time changing huge tyres of trucks in the mountain passes in running blizzard like conditions.

Part of the year could be spent in building roads, building dams, learning to farm, run schools - apart from regular basic aspects of military training. But both genders - must! Take them and place them in camps far away from home - in different parts of the country and let them work with the locals. In fact the process coudl start even earlier - taking them off from school into summer or winter camps.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 17 Nov 2009 03:02

^^^
It reminds me of the gurukulam concept. Here under the tutelage of guru the youngsters learn and build the society that they will live in.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 17 Nov 2009 03:04

"Spit and scoot" as mentioned appropriately by Abhi ji has been applied to India a lot specially by a 'Super Secular' NGO brigade. Places where they applied it, specifically:

1. HIV Aids: Proved false. Many of us those times knew it was being made up to derive funds.

2. Female infanticide in North India: Rubbish again. My family comes from villages in North India, Haryana, Punjab, Western UP. I know the village talk too. I have never heard of one single female foetus happen abortion due to gender. What has to be investigated is why the male to female ratio is high in certain parts. Similar reasons may apply as to why in certain countries, the female to male ratio is extremely high too. There's no one out there talking male infanticide/ foeticide. But then NGO's have to make money.

3. Bride burning. Paki's and Chinese on forums love quoting 5000 cases in Delhi. But hey, every case of burns on a female in a hospital in NCR is registed as a case. Even if it's an innocent stove. The ones that are not innocuos make it to national headlines. But these are exceptions to the rule. Not the rule.

4. 70% of Indias population earns less than 2USD a day. Well Sirs, 70 % of US, Japanese, Australian, Western European populations also earn less than 2 USD a day. A family usually has 4 people, with 1 working member. So automatically 75% people really earn less than even 1 USd a day, which is below the old UN poverty line.

These are used as mentioned before.."Spit and Scoot' strategies. Little truth though.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 17 Nov 2009 03:18

brihaspati wrote:SwamyG ji,
I would go one step ahead, and recommend compulsory one year military service for all between school and university. This should be for both men and women. Some of my German students described how they spent most of the time changing huge tyres of trucks in the mountain passes in running blizzard like conditions.

Great idea. Israel has it too. Will help with building facets of character not addressed in the conventional school system. Team building and physical dexterity too. I hate to make broad sweeping judgements but the average town Indian while being cerebral certainly does not have a high team quotient or physical dext.