Strategic leadership for the future of India

[surinder]

RM,
This is an interesting take. If we rank Gun ownership, or perhaps maybe proficiency, how does India stack up against other nations? I would be most interested in looking at real stats.

[shiv]

I wonder if one of the issues affecting leadership in India is a (manufactured) sense of shame in India and Indianness. If you exclude the "low class, aam aadmi Indian" most Indians who are exposed to the outside are able to put up a long list of faults about India and Indians of a type that are thought to be absent among others.

Outside is better. Others are better is a common theme that runs like a shadow across a huge segment of Indians. Apart from the fact that an Indian leader may personally feel that way, he is also answerable to a lot of Indians who echo that sense of shame and embarrassment of their own identity, background and habits and demand that the outsider be copied and emulated as the new ideal to follow.

The interesting thing about India is that it is difficult to tell if such negative feelings existed or not 300 or 400 years ago because at that time we are taught to believe that there was no India and that such a belief in India could not have existed.

In other words - India is manufactured and that manufactured India is faulty. This is not just a Paki or Western conspiracy, but a living thought process among Indians. The idea that India and Indians are faulty and/or deficient reflects in so many ways and in so many posts even on this forum where people inadvertently blurt out things that reinforce that attitude.

But yet, among Indians there is a sense of anger that it is wrong to feel this way. There is a way of sorting this problem out - even if it is only a thought experiment.

There are three ways of looking at India and the world:

1) India and Indian are always wrong - they must learn from those who are accustomed to being right. hose who are accustomed to being right are not Uganda/Somalia - they are US and China

2) India is sometimes right, sometimes wrong

3) India and Indians are always right.

The last one "India and Indians are always right." is not as easy as it looks. In order to start feeling that way one has to discard much of what one has been taught as being right and wrong and good or bad, and much of what is called "modern civilization" and "the world order".

Try it.

[RajeshA]

Demands of perfection are sometimes instilled into children very early on, especially amongst the school going and for those who are willing to overlook this, there is always the case of the nagging conscience. Shame derives from not being perfect, where every society defines what is perfect.

o If I was perfect, how come the others in my class got better marks. I was born imperfect, and there is nothing I can do about it. The others, they are perfect.

o If I was perfect, why would I be doing all these wrong things. I know the others also do wrong things, but my Dharma would never forgive me. I have made myself imperfect, and even Ganga will not wash away my sins. How can it? It too is dirty. The foreigners don't need to atone for their sins and wrongs. If they had done any wrongs, they too would have been ashamed of them, but they are not. The others, they are perfect.

o If we were perfect, how come we allowed ourselves to be colonized and be lorded over by the Muslims and then the British? It must mean that the others were more perfect. The others are perfect.

o If we were perfect, how come the other countries are technological further ahead? They make their mobiles, and plasma televisions, and great cars. The others are perfect.

o If we were perfect, how come the others are so rich, and we have filth amongst us? I hate these poor Indians. They make me imperfect. The others are perfect.

o If we were perfect, how come the others, the Goras, get to travel around the world, and I am imprisoned in this land. The others are Gods.

o If we were perfect, how come the others, the Goras, are so much fairer, so much more beautiful, so much taller, and I have to see this dark face in the mirror every day. I wished I was white. The others are Gods children.

o If we were perfect, how come the others are more confident than us. They are more confident because they know they are perfect. We have no reason to be confident because we am not perfect.

o We are doing great. We have Bollywood. We have cricket. We have all these cuddly ads on TV. We are great. But the others have Hollywood. The others have baseball and football. The others are better. We are not great. The others are perfect.

At some point in time, we fall victim to this inferiority complex. After this, it is downhill skiing. Then everything the other says becomes pure gold and everything we say needs to be confirmed for its intelligibility by the others.

Most of our leaders, either come from the rural areas where the foreigner comes from a land with perfect infrastructure and society, from a swarg on Earth, or our leaders come from the upper class, from the elite, but an elite that on one hand was misused and abused by the imperialists and on the other hand, this elite is ashamed of belonging to a third world country, sharing space with the wretched of this world. This elite feels better shopping in the streets of the developed world and being able to forget the 'misery' back home.

Out leadership suffers from the same complexes our whole population suffers from. Everybody would have to go into his or her mind, and strangle this inferiority complex to death. It has survived too long.

[Airavat]

The enemies such as British, Arabs etc thrive because those willing to fight till finish are very few, and they are few because some over 97% Indian population does not bear weapons

The irony is that in the medieval era, which is being described here as a "period of retreat", practically the whole population was armed. This was because swords, spears, arrows, knives were easy to obtain, being manufactured even in villages. The chronicles of the Delhi Sultanate record non-stop battles inside UP, against forts in Katehr (modern Rohilkhand) or Kanauj, and against even village strongholds.

Obtaining gunpowder and manufacturing firearms was a more complex task, which is why firearms were not so common in the countryside during the British takeover, the village population being armed with traditional weaponry.

[kshirin]

One cannot generalise, I don't think good Indians should or have any inferiroity complex. But a real problem is lack of real community feeling (no one is responsible for making our communities more livable, they leave it to Govt), and an absence of let's do it mentality. We talk and talk (I don't mean people on this froum, it is one of the few intelligent forums left in India where the exchange of views is useful) but no one EVER DOES ANYTHING to rectify matters. That is always someone else's responsibility. In leadership issues, each person should feel he is the leader and CAN do something, anything, make a differenc,e at whatever level, for the country and for society's good.

[RajeshA]

Most people we know may not be prone to inferiority complexes, but a society that has tolerated caste hierarchies for so long, has a long way to go before it cleanses itself of inferiority complexes. Why else would the shudras for eons allow themselves to be called lower castes?! It has always been inferiority complexes that allowed the society to survive in spite of such humiliation.

The lower castes simply accepted their lower status as a given, as justified by Creation. The Brahmins were drafted into the service of the British as civil servants and they accepted this status also. Now if the 'highest caste' was willing to serve the foreigners, wouldn't the foreigners be considered even higher than the 'highest caste', and such a perception would prevail through the whole society. The submission of the 'highest castes' in front of the foreigner, led to a submission by the whole society. Had the society not been divided into caste hierarchies, the fall of a single group would not have meant a complete collapse of the whole resistance. No wonder India was so easy to take.

Even today, the hierarchical divisions in society still persist. When the 'leadership' has already submitted to Western domination in exchange for money and visas, obviously the whole society would accept this status. If the whole middle class has been bowled over by the feel-good articles in TOI, which relishes in the confirmation from outsiders about our rise as a nation, of course the lower strata of society too would look upon the foreigner as the judge and the means of upliftment. If outsourcing becomes the solution for all problems of the middle class, of course the society would look upon the foreigner as its source of prosperity and redemption.

We have a long way to go in getting rid of our awe for the foreigner! The leadership of India too has to shed many psychological chains in dealing with the foreigner.

There is only one segment of society that can break out of these chains even if it is not completely immune, and that is the business community. The business man would sit across the foreigner and think of only his interest. He cannot afford to be subservient to the foreigner. More globalization and more entrepreneurship in Indians is the way to go. So the leadership could come from them, right? No. That too is pity. They can provide leadership only to their own businesses, but not to the nation. Even in this community, there is a lack of strategic thought.

Status is something very strongly and deeply ingrained into the Indian psyche. It cannot be removed that easily.

[Sanku]

But a real problem is lack of real community feeling (no one is responsible for making our communities more livable, they leave it to Govt), and an absence of let's do it mentality.

This essentially comes from the destruction of bonds between the ruler and the ruled, and between the land/state and the people.

This was chiefly achieved by British, where the people were dispossessed of their lands, the ruler had no concern for it either or for the people. It was considered a resource to be milked. There was a destruction of traditional perspectives and value system. There was some of it in the Islamic period but not so severe since after Akbar, most Muslims even if from outside were moving rapidly out of the nomad barbarian mode of the previous Turko-mongol tribes and picking up the Indian tahzeeb. (no I do not say Islamism had died, merely relationship between state-land and ruled)

Gandhiji for all his faults saw this and wanted it rectified -- however what we ended up getting was the Gungadin Nehru who was more British than the British and the rest is history.

[shiv]

Two great posts RajeshA. Both keepers

[rkirankr]

The shame factor in Indians may be because of loss of a education system.
I am not talking of the school education system but rather the daily life education which we were receiving from our elders at home.
In different times whatever might be the political situation , the family unit was able to pass on the knowledge of its profession/caste etc to its new generations. I think this was still visible till Independence.
The amount or depth of this knowledge which I would call Indic knowledge got considerably reduced post Independence generation. Today the school system is sole distributor of the knowledge which is controlled by few vested Interests.
Infact if I say the above, then people may just question me as " what is this Indic knowledge?". I do not mean only the ritual , religion part but a whole set of experiences, moral values, knowledge about trade, family profession, thought process of the elder generation has just disappeared.
Now the population who gets knowledge from only one source would always have the "west is superior " idea.
Real Indic leaders will rise only if they question the current popiular thought process boldly and are able to get their ideas and arguments through the society. The lotus part fails in this though it showed much promise earlier. I do not see that happening with the family education system going down.

[Atri]

The amount or depth of this knowledge which I would call Indic knowledge got considerably reduced post Independence generation. Today the school system is sole distributor of the knowledge which is controlled by few vested Interests. Infact if I say the above, then people may just question what is this Indic knowledge.

Knowing India

The problem with Indian history, IMHO, is faulty translation of words like Raashtra, Dharma, Sanskriti to Nation, Religion, Culture respectively.
...
...
...
The real meaning of terms like Dharma, Sanskriti, Sanskaar, Sabhyataa, Raashtra etc is very well understood by common Indian people while speaking in their language. Even while speaking in English, ordinary Indian man knows exactly what he means when he uses these words. However, their English counterparts become dicey because they mean somewhat differently in European and Abrahamic context.

Hence, when Dharma is translated to Religion, the conflict begins in Indian mind. Due to power of westernized educational institution, passage of time, he starts doubting his real understanding of these terms and begins to commit the same mistakes which the original "mis-translators" committed.

What is required is re-education of Indian mind to remind them that their original understanding of these terms was right and that these Indic terms and their popular English synonyms mean different things. If this happens, slowly, people who say that there was no India before arrival of british will slowly start decreasing.

They will understand that India is not merely a nation-state... India is an idea, a concept, a phenomenon which is continuous, coherent, single throughout its expanse in space and time. It is very easy to feel her, experience her, but very difficult to grasp and understand her if one relies on faulty understanding of these basic terms.

[RajeshA]

Two great posts RajeshA. Both keepers

Coming from you shiv ji, it must mean I may have hit a few nails.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The only way for the Indian to lose his inferiority complex viz-a-viz the foreigner is to lose his superiority-complex viz-a-viz the other Indian. The day an Indian learns to respect and treat a socially disadvantaged Indian with equal respect, on that day the Indian would both lose his shame and would become equal to any foreigner in his mind, for let us not forget that the inequality exists only in our mind.

[RajeshA]

True leadership comes to a person not because he feels he is superior than others, but rather because he feels he is responsible for others.

As long as the Indian leaders do not understand this thing, there can be no leadership.

• Any 'leader' who allows others to touch his/her feet, or to bow in front of him/her, or slaps others working for him/her does not deserve even to be considered as potential leaders.
• Any 'leader' who allows his/her statues to be put up, does not deserve to be considered for leadership.
• Any 'leader' who is less than polite to any member of the public does not deserve to be considered for leadership.
• Any 'leader' who is less than considerate for the convenience of the public or places his convenience or luxury above the convenience of the public does not deserve to be considered for leadership.

[ramana]

Looks like a Commie style set-up. Stalin this or that.

[surinder]

Shame is more a manifestation of a problem, rather than a core problem itself.

An unmistakable conclusion (read "I know, but cannot prove" ) is that in the medieval & ancient times, we had a lot of self pride. The period before & during early Musalim rule & also just before & during early British rule Indian looked down upon both of them. We Indians called them both Mlechhas. We thought of them as below our dignity to have social intercourse, or have any curiosity about them, least of all to ape them. They were shunned and disparaged. One may even call it hubris. But the Mussalim rule shook the Indian nation, and consequently shook the core of its confidence. Many Indians submitted to their religion and way of life (dress, language, customs). Some even gave daughters to them in marriage. There was a distinct sense of having been humbled by these patit Mlechhas. The sould searching for the cause then leads to a general sense of shame about *everything*.

This newly minted sense of inferiority might have continued for long, but was arrested by two factors: (a) Muslaim rulers started becoming barbaric and inhuman beyond imagination. This kindled an Indian backlash, instead of the usual awe. (b) Muslaims themselves went into decay & degeneration. Indians then had to go back to their core beleifs and pluck out a new sense of self. There began the Bhagti movement, and It resulted in the Maratha & the Sikh rise on the scene. Both of these political entities and the subjects were remarkably connected with Indian soil. This resurgence brought back pride in the self.

Then came the Britishers. Indian reaction to them was also that of derision. They too were derided as Mlechhas, intitially. Neither their dress nor their language nor their looks nor their women and nor their manners were considered even worthy of contempt. Indians, for example, did not like the way the Britishers dressed in tight pants and showed off their bottoms. (Indian dresses did not do it.) It was considered uncouth and laughable. But the British crushed India, they crushed the Marathas, and the Sikhs. The defeated people could no longer snigger at their victors. Nothing succeeds like victory. They soon adopted the British cultural moorings, at least to the extent they could.

Our shame is merely reflection of that defeat, and our inability to find out the real cause of it.

PS: A new shame is in the making. Most indians, even now, consider Chinease to be below dignity, their looks, their dress, their foods, and their language. If PRC becomes a power, defeats us and humiliates us, we would be forced to ask "they gotta have something which we don't". The anser to that would be an across-the-board criticism and shame at Indian, without finding out the real cause. By then US would have decayed away, and our shame w.r.t. to the West may have melted. We may well live to see that day.

[Sanku]

Hot of the press, Jaswant Singh speaks the BRF lingo

Nehru, Patel 'conceded' Pakistan to Jinnah: Jaswant
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/nehru ... t/502176/2

"It is ironical that among the great constitutionalists of those times, Jinnah and Nehru became the principal promoters of 'special status for Muslims'; Jinnah directly and Nehru indirectly.

"...The irony of it is galling when sadly, we observe that both of them, these two great5 Indians of their times were either actually or in effect competing to become the 'spokesman of Muslims' in India."

[svinayak]

PS: A new shame is in the making. Most indians, even now, consider Chinease to be below dignity, their looks, their dress, their foods, and their language. If PRC becomes a power, defeats us and humiliates us, we would be forced to ask "they gotta have something which we don't".

Indians do not want to understand the other country and other races. How many people in India do know what is changing inside China. There was an article by Sam Pitroda in the 90s who was surprised by the progress in China. Person who has access to such information is surprised then how can other lay people in India understand what is going on in the world.

[RajeshA]

The one thing some other cultures like Islam do is that they are inclusive, especially in terms of war. In reality it may not be all that crystal clear. But that is the intention. So everybody has the permission to become a warrior, a jihadi in the cause of their religion or 'civilization'. Hinduism appropriated that permission only for Kshatriyas. In fact in Islam, everybody has the obligation to do Jihad. In Hinduism, the non-Kshatriyas can sit back and see, who wins.

In India we are still not so far ahead, that we convert the privilege to fight into an obligation to fight, that we convert the passivity in war, to capacity to conduct war. This needs to change.

Till now whenever a sliver of society called Kshatriyas fell to the foreigner, whole India fell. Whenever a sliver of society called Brahmins accepted the dominion of the foreigner, whole India submitted. This has to change.

A foreigner should now, that if he wants to conquer India, he has to go over the dead body of every single Indian, man or woman, and not a few grown fat so called Rajahs, or in today's terms - the Indian Elite.

In many countries of the world there is a mandatory military training year. Something similar should be introduced in India as well. It will be costly program but would be more beneficial than the many corruption-ridden programs that are going on now. It would strengthen the Indian Backbone. A year of Indian History, BRF , Eggs, Martial Arts, Basic weapons training, first aid training, fitness, body-building, jogging, intermingling with Indians from all walks of life and regions of India, would be extremely beneficial.

After that Pakistan, China or America can forget for ever any conquest of Bharat Mata!

[samuel]

If I am reading correctly, we have a classic flip-flop: we are superior; we lost; we are nothing; they are not all that good; we are winning; we are superior...

This could be a bipolar or schizophrenic disorder or a result of being detached from the realities around us "on the earth." I don't think Indians are generically bipolar/schizophrenic, so I wonder if we must look more carefully at why we get detached from reality that easily.

S

[brihaspati]

A most interesting and stimulating set of posts!

The very important issue of shame-perfection-inferiority-superiority complex has been raised. If we think carefully of the questions and characteristics raised by RajeshAji for example, something should strike us immediately. In all these questions, where Indians feel ashamed because of certain characteristics that they themselves or outsiders or both, ascribe to them - are "bad" or "shameful". So what we are doing in reality is actually judging each such characteristic against an intrinsic scale of values, a scale in which the supposed Indian characteristic comes at the lower or lowest end compared to some other characteristic which has been defined to be at the top of that scale.

This is the key question we need to understand. For every such self-flagellation, we need to ask ourselves, why is "such and such" practice "bad"? Who says it is "bad"? Do they have any motive in ascribing this as "bad"? If they are making a false construction, are they doing it deliberately or blindly out of ignorance? I think once before also I have urged, people to aggressively ask back to those who are "ashamed" or those who think "Indians should be ashamed" - to explain first what exactly they are ashamed of, and then most importantly why do they think Indians should be asmed of.

This "why do you think it is shameful", is a devastating question. Ask even yourself, if you are ashamed of anything "Indian", as to why you think it is "shameful", you will start a process of discovery unparalleled in our never-ending search for identity. Most people will grope in the dark. It is easy to say "something is shameful". It is absolutely horrifying to try and justify the sense of "shame". If we have the strength, and honesty, we will land up with surprising answers.

The problem, here, is that all questions of self-esteem, pride, shame, all - are dependent on the construction of a value system, which for most people are created for them by their training, and social conditioning. Only for a few people, it is also modified and sometimes completely redefined from a personal quest. Most of the things that we have discussed just now as items that are often recognized by Indians as "shameful are shameful according to scales of values which have strong non-Indic origins. This non-Indic origin in itself does not mean that those values systems are to be outright rejected. No, on the contrary we should analyze them but keeping clearly in mind that these are values systems created by people who may or may not have their own interests in mind.

If we really go through history, we will see, that those very outsiders who may try to "shame" us according to certain scales, themselves had time and again broken that scale, and at periods would have been at the bottom of their own scale. The very word "caste" coming from the Spanish "Casta" is not of Indic origin. Dalit is a modern twentieth century term, you do not find it in classical literature. The very choice of the term indicates that it is not based on "varna" or "caste" - for it has to invent an entire class based on "victimhood". If it really went for "caste", it would be problematic - and an uniform category of "dalit" would not have been possible because multiple "castes" within victimhood would not have given political power and domination over "others" - the main aim.

If we go through the self-questioning process I urged, asking ourselves and others - aggressively, unflinchingly, unhesitatingly, "why is so and so charactersitic of the Indic/Indian/India bad and shameful", we will start the process of realizing that a lot of the things that appear shameful are becuase of values we have accepted without questioning or being aware of. Some of these values have been created for us by others, consciously or subconsciously, for their own needs - to feel superior, or psychologically weaken us. Some of these values we have created for ourselves, from a mixture of what others wanted us to accept, and what we thought we should accept. Some have their roots much further back.

In the process of forcing ourselves to face up to this roots and origins problem, we will come to a far better understanding of what it means to be an Indian.

For me, being a Bharatyia, (I am deliberately switching from "Ind"), means being a "yatri". The root Bharatyia philosophy poses never-ending quest, non-stationarity as the main stream of life. We are to search for perfection, and we should never be complacent that our search has ended. All for-ever fixed values claim that they have already reached "perfection". The Bharatyia does not claim that - it simply acknowledges or poses, that "perfection" exists, but we need to constantly search for it.

The Bharatyia society on the subcontinent, by all modern archaeological and genetic accounts has been one of the longest continuously occupied base for modern human civilization, for at least the last 50,000 years and perhaps even more. The Bharatyia darshan, value systems, philosophies are therefore more likely than others to have reached closest to that ultimate "perfection" in their long and multiple threads of immensely complex developments. This is why, I would take the Bharatyia philosphical experience as the most logical starting point to restart our quest. But that does not mean that we accept whatever the Bharatyia darshan tells us as that final "perfection". Even if we have strong suspicions that we have reached the optimum, just like simulated annealing, we need to give small "shakes", small perturbations regularly to see that we have not reached local "optimum" and got stuck in it.

But this cannot be a blanket excuse to lambast and reject each and every Bharatyia precept without properly analyzing and identifying the value system which says it is "shameful". It is our society, and our birthright to question it and reform it, if needed - but that need will be decided by us.

The question of "caste" or what I prefer to call "feelings/claims of superiority by birth" - they are different for me, repeatedly comes up. Will try to post on this specfically in the context of leadership subsequently.

[brihaspati]

Why do Indians go for "caste hierarchies"? Caste hierarchies have been invented and reinvented by people aiming for dominance and mobilization of the society to consolidate personal power. It is a simple process of constructing and attributing identities to social groups to delegitimize their claims on power.

Those who did it in the past did it it for this purpose, those who are doing it now are also doing it for the same purpose. Suppose we had now a movement and legislative initiative to de-recognize and ban the use of any concept of "caste" in politics or electoral campaigning - the greatest opposition will come from the leadership of the "Dalits" and those among the "Brahmins" who utilize the divisions created by "Dalit" for their own personal benefits. Moreover, as I mentioned in the previous post, the very fact that the category of "Dalit" was needed to be invented - means that caste in itself cannot be a mobilizing factor.

The motivation and political purpose behind the invention of "dalit" shows all the handiwork of non-dalit manipulation. "Dalit" means "repressed" - it is not the name of any recognized, or identifiable "caste". This indicates that those who coined and created this category were very much aware, that stressing the "caste" identity would lead to a highly fractured mozaic that would not help in obtaining political power. Left to itself, the concept of "dalit" or repression would be dangerous, for it could sensitize those among the supposed "dalits" who are considered lower in the hierarchy by others among the "dalit" against "repression". Hence, an external devil was needed - and this was created out of a hypothetical homogeneous category of "upper castes" whose aggression could be focused on as the external threat to unify and desensitize the fractures within the virtual and socially non-existent category of "dalit".

This entire process shows the basic handiwork of the traditional power-elite. The same process that made solidly bouergois origin characters like Marx, Engels, Lenin or Trotsky (even Mao was the son of a "middle peasant" who could afford to send him to "schools" to turn out "mandarins" - he joined of course a western oriented model/normal school) desperately search for a category under which tey could mobilize people to lead them to power. This is the same process, by which Marx created the category of the "proletariat" as the driving force of revolution. These categories do not exist in social reality -they are created in the minds of individuals with a driving need to overthrow the society they originated from - and possibly from need for personal power or neutralizing insecurity. It is almost surely a search for personal power, a getting back at the social system which is seen as somehow having wronged this individual's self-esteem.

Historical "caste" factors in determining the course of Indian history is most doubtful for me. I have travelled widelyand mixed in areas which are traditional hotspots of "caste" conflicts. It is not the straightforward story as is represented in the media and by our Thaparites. Most of these conflicts are of very recent and colonial period origins. In Bihar, the main source of conflict started with the strange redefinitions of dependency relations and loss of land rights in Bihari society by the British which turned traditional mutual obligatory relations into a monetary extractive and exploitative relation (I have firsthand observations on this - as most of the threads of my search for the origins ended in the British redefinition). There are some "Marxists" who acknowledge, that even in the Mughal period, there appeared to be no distinct strict divisions of caste in the producers at least - they formed a vast labour pool from which professions or skills were drawn up or trained as and when needed, without giving much respect to birth-origin "caste" (Irfan Habib).

My hypothesis will be that "dalit" like the "proletariat" was created to prevent the Marxists from utilizing these social sectors into a mobilization for their own bid to power as the "proletariat". The nature of this move cannot but come from the elite themselves, who have shown the same tactics repeatedly in history. They need to search for a section that can be used because of their grievances, and then used to overthrow the existing elite faction to have power for themselves.

It will be the elite of all colours, even the elite created by the "dalit" who would viciously oppose dissolution of "caste" distinctions.

The fundamental argument given in favour of "varna" is the "purusha" shukta. We have every right to reinterpret this imagery. As also done before by various "teekakars", we firstly interpret this image as the representation of "society" as "individual". But more importantly, we invert this image to take the "purusha" as the individual. Each individual represents also society - instead of "society as individual" we take it as "individual as society". Thus this would naturally mean, that within each individual there are the "four primary" characteristics. Each of these are needed to be cultivated in an individual to become a complete human being. The person needs to exercise and develop his intellect, study and be intellectually creative - as a student and teacher - brahmin, to take up arms to defend his/her family and society - as a warrior - kshatryia, to be economically proactive in trade and commerce or entreprenurship - a vaishya, to work physically when necessary and be productive economically - a shudra. All these qualities are expected, but of course depending on individual inclinations excellence may not be uniform.

This takes away distinctions and hatred - what we realize as ideals to be equally achieved withi the self, cannot be distinct and mutually conflicting. If the conflict is not there inside, it will not be there outside. If everyone has all the characteristics inside, no such distinctions can add to self-esteem outside.

A realitsic reason that started this drive for dominance could be the lack of opportunity for elite to seek power outside Indian society or the subcontinent. My hypothesis would be intensification of the "caste hatred" process when elite opportunities were reduced due to foreign invasions and loss of territory and society. A prgamatic and cynical solution is perhaps to pose a new national goal of expansion - in all senses, projection of power beyond current limits, that will help this particular energy to turn outside and be unleashed on other societies rather than bite inwards as it is doing now.

[ShyamSP]

The one thing some other cultures like Islam do is that they are inclusive, especially in terms of war. In reality it may not be all that crystal clear. But that is the intention. So everybody has the permission to become a warrior, a jihadi in the cause of their religion or 'civilization'. Hinduism appropriated that permission only for Kshatriyas. In fact in Islam, everybody has the obligation to do Jihad. In Hinduism, the non-Kshatriyas can sit back and see, who wins.

In India we are still not so far ahead, that we convert the privilege to fight into an obligation to fight, that we convert the passivity in war, to capacity to conduct war. This needs to change.

Till now whenever a sliver of society called Kshatriyas fell to the foreigner, whole India fell. Whenever a sliver of society called Brahmins accepted the dominion of the foreigner, whole India submitted. This has to change.

A foreigner should now, that if he wants to conquer India, he has to go over the dead body of every single Indian, man or woman, and not a few grown fat so called Rajahs, or in today's terms - the Indian Elite.

In many countries of the world there is a mandatory military training year. Something similar should be introduced in India as well. It will be costly program but would be more beneficial than the many corruption-ridden programs that are going on now. It would strengthen the Indian Backbone. A year of Indian History, BRF , Eggs, Martial Arts, Basic weapons training, first aid training, fitness, body-building, jogging, intermingling with Indians from all walks of life and regions of India, would be extremely beneficial.

After that Pakistan, China or America can forget for ever any conquest of Bharat Mata!

You're generalizing based on pre-islamic stratification and societal influence.

Entire South of Vindhyas, struggle against Islam was done by the non-Kshtriyas - Yadavas of Dev giri, Nayakas of Kakatiya, Kurubus of Vijayanagara, and at tail-end Shivaji (Yadava). Struggle against foreigners also carried by people from wide spectrum of castes.

[RajeshA]

In Hinduism, the non-Kshatriyas can sit back and see, who wins.

You're generalizing based on pre-islamic stratification and societal influence.

Entire South of Vindhyas, struggle against Islam was done by the non-Kshtriyas - Yadavas of Dev giri, Nayakas of Kakatiya, Kurubus of Vijayanagara, and at tail-end Shivaji (Yadava). Struggle against foreigners also carried by people from wide spectrum of castes.

ShyamSP ji,

I am glad that somewhere in India there were other 'castes' as well, who were willing to take up the good fight.

The generalization was simply to make the point, that if we do not eliminate the 'caste' hierarchies in India, it would lead to many 'castes' not participating in the good fight.

[svinayak]

The generalization was simply to make the point, that if we do not eliminate the 'caste' hierarchies in India, it would lead to many 'castes' not participating in the good fight.

These are modern indoctrination notions which can be removed with education and mass media.
The current notion of hierarchies are a legacy of the colonial rule and can be removed. The govt is using it for social engineering using western process. The entire social change must be done with a bharatiya process and bharatiya knowledge base.

[ramana]

ShyamSP says is correct. And even in North the first hisotrical empire was also of similar origins.

[JwalaMukhi]

If we go through the self-questioning process I urged, asking ourselves and others - aggressively, unflinchingly, unhesitatingly, "why is so and so charactersitic of the Indic/Indian/India bad and shameful", we will start the process of realizing that a lot of the things that appear shameful are becuase of values we have accepted without questioning or being aware of. Some of these values have been created for us by others, consciously or subconsciously, for their own needs - to feel superior, or psychologically weaken us. Some of these values we have created for ourselves, from a mixture of what others wanted us to accept, and what we thought we should accept. Some have their roots much further back.

In the process of forcing ourselves to face up to this roots and origins problem, we will come to a far better understanding of what it means to be an Indian.

For me, being a Bharatyia, (I am deliberately switching from "Ind"), means being a "yatri". The root Bharatyia philosophy poses never-ending quest, non-stationarity as the main stream of life. We are to search for perfection, and we should never be complacent that our search has ended.

Excellent post Brihaspatiji. The issue is akin to stopping to acknowledge brilliance of humanity preceding greek-roman civilization. The enquiry stops at that period and if any enquiry precedes that, it is grudgingly acknowledged as a an artifact not representing mainstream and is of curiosity worthy of museum confinement only. The phenomena is very well celebrated and promoted in western circles, that humanity developed any semblance of rational thought onlee after greek period onlee. Classic strategy to 'deny space' so humanity does not need to access its experience beyond that. It is primarily due to either the measurement tool that is used is limited in range or if honest enquiry is conducted then expanding the range will not glorify the desired range or it will not support the desired narrative.
It is basically to deny access to the experiential nature beyond acceptable range to the vested interests. This will be reflected even when Bharat, bharatiya is sneered while the term 'India' is grudgingly acknowledged because denial of even that would be ridiculous.

[Rahul Mehta]

RM,
This is an interesting take. If we rank Gun ownership, or perhaps maybe proficiency, how does India stack up against other nations? I would be most interested in looking at real stats.

Surinder,

I will soon put some stat in "Right to Bear Weapons" thread in GD forum

Weaponization of commons is the MOST important factor in how many Bhagat Singhs that population will create. It is no wonder that Sikhs and Marathas produced more Bhagat Singhs than Gujaraties because Sikhism supports wepaonization of commons, and Shivaji promoted the same without making it religious issue.

[shaardula]

If we go through the self-questioning process I urged, asking ourselves and others - aggressively, unflinchingly, unhesitatingly, "why is so and so charactersitic of the Indic/Indian/India bad and shameful", we will start the process of realizing that a lot of the things that appear shameful are becuase of values we have accepted without questioning or being aware of. Some of these values have been created for us by others, consciously or subconsciously, for their own needs - to feel superior, or psychologically weaken us. Some of these values we have created for ourselves, from a mixture of what others wanted us to accept, and what we thought we should accept. Some have their roots much further back.

In the process of forcing ourselves to face up to this roots and origins problem, we will come to a far better understanding of what it means to be an Indian.

For me, being a Bharatyia, (I am deliberately switching from "Ind"), means being a "yatri". The root Bharatyia philosophy poses never-ending quest, non-stationarity as the main stream of life. We are to search for perfection, and we should never be complacent that our search has ended.

Excellent post Brihaspatiji. The issue is akin to stopping to acknowledge brilliance of humanity preceding greek-roman civilization. The enquiry stops at that period and if any enquiry precedes that, it is grudgingly acknowledged as a an artifact not representing mainstream and is of curiosity worthy of museum confinement only. The phenomena is very well celebrated and promoted in western circles, that humanity developed any semblance of rational thought onlee after greek period onlee. Classic strategy to 'deny space' so humanity does not need to access its experience beyond that. It is primarily due to either the measurement tool that is used is limited in range or if honest enquiry is conducted then expanding the range will not glorify the desired range or it will not support the desired narrative.
It is basically to deny access to the experiential nature beyond acceptable range to the vested interests. This will be reflected even when Bharat, bharatiya is sneered while the term 'India' is grudgingly acknowledged because denial of even that would be ridiculous.

well put. both of you. this usurping of all rationality and patronizingly calling the east mystic is irrational. the west is not as rational as it pretends to be. what is worse they have convinced many amongst us that we are obscurantist.

[shiv]

The problem, here, is that all questions of self-esteem, pride, shame, all - are dependent on the construction of a value system, which for most people are created for them by their training, and social conditioning. Only for a few people, it is also modified and sometimes completely redefined from a personal quest. Most of the things that we have discussed just now as items that are often recognized by Indians as "shameful are shameful according to scales of values which have strong non-Indic origins. This non-Indic origin in itself does not mean that those values systems are to be outright rejected. No, on the contrary we should analyze them but keeping clearly in mind that these are values systems created by people who may or may not have their own interests in mind.

This is pretty much what I had in mind when I typed point #3 in the list that I made above - I cross post it below:

There are three ways of looking at India and the world:

1) India and Indians are always wrong - they must learn from those who are accustomed to being right. hose who are accustomed to being right are not Uganda/Somalia - they are US and China

2) India is sometimes right, sometimes wrong

3) India and Indians are always right.

The last one "India and Indians are always right." is not as easy as it looks. In order to start feeling that way one has to discard much of what one has been taught as being right and wrong and good or bad, and much of what is called "modern civilization" and "the world order".

[Airavat]

Weaponization of commons is the MOST important factor in how many Bhagat Singhs that population will create. It is no wonder that Sikhs and Marathas produced more Bhagat Singhs than Gujaraties because Sikhism supports wepaonization of commons, and Shivaji promoted the same without making it religious issue.

Gujarati hero who fought for the right to bear arms

[Rahul M]

Weaponization of commons is the MOST important factor in how many Bhagat Singhs that population will create. It is no wonder that Sikhs and Marathas produced more Bhagat Singhs than Gujaraties because Sikhism supports wepaonization of commons, and Shivaji promoted the same without making it religious issue.

err... why was that bengal produced as much armed revolutionaries as marathas and sikhs, I'm not aware of any 'weaponization of commons' in bengal.

as they say, EPIC FAIL !!

[brihaspati]

Airavatji,
it will still be said that after all the "thakur" was a Rajput - and "weaponization" was part of social culture among Rajput Kshatryias. But then even with weaponization, so many Rajput leaders seemed eager to fall in with the British! In fact what about most of the "princely states" with plenty of weaponization, including the "Maratha" Scindhias who turned quickly to submitting to the British?

Weaponization was a common fact throughout the northern plains including the east. It was primarily the British in their imperial stage who determined that the existing weaponization had to be completely reversed. The commons had to be de-weaponized so that the effectiveness of the colonial army of ocuupation and its native collaborators were increased. I am aware how almost 3 tonnes of steel stuff was hidden or used for other innocuous purposes in our family because of British orders. Most of the guns were also dismantled and stowed away for safe keeping. There were some keenly coveted by a "Laat", so they were destroyed. But many families maintained their own martial training, and at least in my circle the women were thoroughly trained in small arms. Many had effectively used such skills in times of crises - it is still told how so-and-so lady decapitated the leader of a raiding party when surprised in the inner temple. She simply pretended to bow down to the idol, and took out two broad-swords from a gap below the idol base, and in one swift turn cut both the leader's head and right arm. My mom was trained by her dad in small arms, and she was presented with various types of knives and short swords from an early age. I have seen one kept below her pillow when I had grown up.

[RamaY]

Shame is more a manifestation of a problem, rather than a core problem itself.

An unmistakable conclusion (read "I know, but cannot prove" ) is that in the medieval & ancient times, we had a lot of self pride. The period before & during early Musalim rule & also just before & during early British rule Indian looked down upon both of them. We Indians called them both Mlechhas. We thought of them as below our dignity to have social intercourse, or have any curiosity about them, least of all to ape them. They were shunned and disparaged. One may even call it hubris. But the Mussalim rule shook the Indian nation, and consequently shook the core of its confidence. Many Indians submitted to their religion and way of life (dress, language, customs). Some even gave daughters to them in marriage. There was a distinct sense of having been humbled by these patit Mlechhas. The sould searching for the cause then leads to a general sense of shame about *everything*.

Without going into religion the change in perspective came from Buddhist ideology IMO. My conclusion (again, read "I know, but cannot prove") is that prior to Buddhism the varna system was viewed as division of labor (within a society and individual) instead of social status, where as Buddhist philosophy manifested the division of labor into present day caste system. When one perceives life to be an unending cycle of sorrows, then they turn materialistic in the present life. That is what made a king to seek his own interests and offer their daughters to the invading mlechcha...

[brihaspati]

Giving daughters in marriage to the mlechha could have come from different motivations. First there was indeed tradition of exchanging "women" to seal and normalize a workable post-conflict relation. The right of the "victor" to claim the "princess" as "guerdon" was perhaps not an uncommon practice among the whole spectrum of Indo-Iranian-Europeans. In many northern families, there are ritualized procedures that commemorate a time when brides had to be won with the force of arms. So the initial interactions with the Mlechcha could have inclined the defeated locals to think of this as not that unusual. What they badly mistook was to understand the nature of this particular Mleccha.

Second, societies in conflict and survival situation would stress more on getting male births and adult healthy males. For a large proportion of males woyuld be lost in war. A single woman on the other hand can produce multiple male babies. So women would be important, but their strategic value would be less. Such a society could also in a dire state of facing complete erasure or genocide, accept the fall in status or pride by having to give up the woman in return for hope to survive and fight back some other day.

Third, not all could bring themselves to the moral and ethical point wherby they would first liquidate their women before allowing them to fall into the hands of the "Mleccha".

Having said that, there are indications from the earliest times, that some Indian women actively collaborated or switched over to the Mleccha side out of political, as well as perhaps sexual considerations. Equally, there are indications, from again the earliest times, that many Indian women themselves decided to commit suicide or encouraged other women to commit suicide rather than fall into Mleccha hands. Not all agreed, and allowed themselves to be enslaved - that is also there. And then there are strong historical evidence of fathers or brothers finishing off their daughters or sisters with or without agreement of the women when surrender became inevitable. It is a complex situation.

[RamaY]

Agreed! one can find all types of examples in the Islamic conquests. Thus it is not worthwhile to infer the philosophy from process, and process from a historical event.

So IMO, trying to understand the Indian leadership failure from caste angle is waste of time. The basic tenets of caste system fail again and again in India historical context if one reads the history carefully. Following are my perspectives.

In Mahabharata time itself (prior to 3000BC) we see Brahmin, Vysya, and Shudra kingdoms. My examples are – Dronacharya winning artha-rajya from Drupada. Yadava kingdom was a Shudra kingdom. In Ramayana we see Ravana (a Brahmin), and Vali (definitely not a Kshatriya) as kings ruling vast kingdoms.

Even in medieval times an able king didn’t need Brahmin approval to claim the throne. The rituals performed by Purohita’s was an after fact to gain divine blessings for the king and praja.

The concept of priests and kings colluding to rule a kingdom is NOT an Indian phenomenon. It is a medieval western process that was required to make kings out of unworthy or non-elites (read slaves).

Failure of Indian leadership pre and post independence is a phenomenon of all types of castes. We have a Gandhi, a Nehru, a Patel, a Bose, a Aurovindo and the list goes on. The failure stems more from the elite’s departure from Indic roots than a specific aspect of the society, be it caste system or education.

All the prejudices of Indian elite and by that Indian society will dissipate once they go back to their Indic roots. The solution is like a chicken-egg situation. The re-education initiative must start somewhere, however small it is, and that is what I was proposing in one of the deleted threads. Once the re-education/true-education achieves a critical mass, then we can see it reflect in the society and leadership.

[brihaspati]

Yes, even in Mahabharata times the "varnas" were hazy, and people had to remind their descendants not to forget their origins (advice to "Drona" for example) - which meant people did forget often, and did not care much for the divisions. In Mahabharata, it is still represented in the form it was originally meant to be - a "Guna". The hereditary part is not highlighted that much, and does not appear to be suppoirted by the principal characters' lives. The "hardline" only appears in the "preachings" put in the mouths of characters - and becuase they are inconsistent with actual events being described, I would be inclined to take such "preachings" as "prakshipto" - inserted later by vested interests.

This must have developed at a time when recording and mass distribution of reproducible knowledge base was not feasible. Combined with possibly a shorter life-span for most, people had to learn the skills availabel from an earlier age hands on, than is done now. So the best solution would be to keep the skills in hereditary framework. This would over time form vested interests in forming highly protective guilds (yes even in priesthood) that insists on hereditary claims, and therefore enforce strict endogamy.

This is what is needed to be clearly recognized and projected. When this first came up it was not rigid, and not of the current form, and was a natural outgrowth and optimal solution of the society concerned. It needed to have been subjected to internal "shaking up", but was not subjected to because of the overall success of the system. So it ossified further until external conditions proved its weakness.

We need not reject the wisdom and realization involved in the original concept. But we need to invert its current interpretations to its alternative interpretation of "individual as society".

[brihaspati]

Its 15th August. This is the day when we should remember two speeches - Here is the first one:
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/jul/12spec.htm

Here are the highlights we should never forget - especially all those whose families had ever had anything to do with the short end of the British stick. This is strategic leadership we have gifted ourselves and in honour of the misguided millions who fought the British and were destroyed - and on whose scarifice this exemplary leadership has grown up and managed the funding from taxes provided by Indians to give such speeches.

I must confess that when I returned home to India, I was struck by the deep distrust of the world displayed by many of my countrymen. We were influenced by the legacy of our immediate past. Not just by the perceived negative consequences of British imperial rule, but also by the sense that we were left out in the cold by the Cold War.

There is no doubt that our grievance against the British Empire had a sound basis.[....]

Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income. However, what is significant about the Indo-British relationship is the fact that despite the economic impact of colonial rule, the relationship between individual Indians and Britons, even at the time of our Independence, was relaxed and, I may even say, benign.

This was best exemplified by the exchange that Mahatma Gandhi had here at Oxford in 1931 when he met members of the Raleigh Club and the Indian Majlis.[...]

At this meeting, the Mahatma was asked: 'How far would you cut India off from the Empire?' His reply was precise 'From the Empire, entirely; from the British nation not at all, if I want India to gain and not to grieve.'

This remarkable statement by the Mahatma has defined the basis of our relationship with Britain.

Jawaharlal Nehru echoed this sentiment when he urged the Indian Constituent Assembly in 1949 to vote in favour of India's membership of the Commonwealth. Nehru set the tone for independent India's relations with its former master when he intervened in the Constituent Assembly's debate on India joining the Commonwealth and said: 'I wanted the world to see that India did not lack faith in herself, and that India was prepared to co-operate even with those with whom she had been fighting in the past provided the basis of the co-operation today was honourable, that it was a free basis, a basis which would lead to the good not only of ourselves, but of the world also. That is to say, we would not deny that co-operation simply because in the past we had fought and thus carry on the trail of our past karma along with us. We have to wash out the past with all its evil.'



India and Britain set an example to the rest of the world in the way they sought to relate to each other, thanks to the wisdom and foresight of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru.

What impelled the Mahatma to take such a positive view of Britain and the British people even as he challenged the Empire and colonial rule?

It was, undoubtedly, his recognition of the elements of fair play that characterised so much of the ways of the British in India. Consider the fact that an important slogan of India's struggle for freedom was that 'Self Government is more precious than Good Government'.

That, of course, is the essence of democracy. But the slogan suggests that even at the height of our campaign for freedom from colonial rule, we did not entirely reject the British claim to good governance. We merely asserted our natural right to self-governance.

Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian Prime Minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too.
[...]
These are all elements which we still value and cherish. Our judiciary, our legal system, our bureaucracy and our police are all great institutions, derived from British-Indian administration and they have served the country well.

The idea of India as enshrined in our Constitution, with its emphasis on the principles of secularism, democracy, the rule of law and, above all, the equality of all human beings irrespective of caste, community, language or ethnicity, has deep roots in India's ancient civilisation.

However, it is undeniable that the founding fathers of our republic were also greatly influenced by the ideas associated with the age of enlightenment in Europe.

Our Constitution remains a testimony to the enduring interplay between what is essentially Indian and what is very British in our intellectual heritage.


No Indian has paid a more poetic and generous tribute to Britain for this inheritance than Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore. In the opening lines of his Gitanjali, Gurudev says:

"The West has today opened its door.

There are treasures for us to take.

We will take and we will also give,

From the open shores of India's immense humanity."

[...]Jawaharlal Nehru said, "After every other Viceroy has been forgotten, Curzon will be remembered because he restored all that was beautiful in India."

Many of those who were to rule India set course form Oxford.[...]

I always come back to the city of dreaming spires and of lost causes as a student.

[ramana]

Lets rededicate oursleves to India's tryst with destiny.....

Today India's 62 indpendence Day. Let's wish India all the Best.

Nehru's famous Tryst with destiny speech can be heard on:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid ... 42&bbcws=2


In the link below Jinnah's speach, on the night before, can heard.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid ... 01&bbcws=1

It is nothing compared to Nehru's speach. Jinnah talks of Ramzan and religion which, probably, laid the seeds of the religious extemist Pakistan we have today.

[brihaspati]

Here is the second speech we should remember every 15th August - more important for the quotation of the quotation:
http://www.lkadvani.in/eng/content/view/559/281/

I feel it appropriate to read out the relevant portion from Jinnah’s speech.
“Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and specially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in cooperation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work in a spirit that every one of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make.
I cannot overemphasise it too much. We shall begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and Muslim community,… will vanish. Indeed, if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain its freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long ago.
Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free, you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed; that has nothing to do with the business of the State.…You will find that in course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”


Esteemed friends from Karachi, people often ask me: “Does this mean that you want to undo the Partition?”
My answer is: “The Partition cannot be undone, because, as I said in Lahore at the SAFMA function, the creation of India and Pakistan as two separate and sovereign nations is an unalterable reality of history. However, some of the follies of Partition can be undone, and they must be undone.”


How do we convert this tentative peace into permanent peace? How do we remove all the irrational abnormalities in our bilateral relations to place Indo-Pak ties on a completely normal footing based on the principle of mutual benefit?

As I have reiterated on several occasions during my visit, I would like to emphasise that we need to seize this historic moment, which is pregnant with hope. We must convert this hope into confidence and resolve that we shall certainly find solutions to all the issues that have estranged our two brother-nations.
There should also be no going back on the realization that dialogue is the only way to resolve every single issue, including the issue of Jammu & Kashmir, between India and Pakistan. Peace cannot be achieved through recourse to non-peaceful means. This must be clearly understood.


There is a phrase in English that has always intrigued me – Waging Peace. Normally, one comes across the phrase – Waging War. I have often wondered why the word ‘wage’ is used in the context of peace. It is probably because, if the resolve to win is the aim in any war, the same resolve to win has to be the aim of making peace.
However, there is a crucial difference. In war, strategists look for a quick victory. They have an impatience to achieve their goal. In waging peace, you cannot do that. We need patience. We need to realize that it takes time to minimize differences and to find a mutually acceptable solution, especially to longstanding problems.
[...]

I shall make one last point before concluding. For us to move towards peace and normalcy, it is necessary to move the dialogue process forward on all issues. This is the reason why we both have called it the Composite Dialogue process. I was happy to know that many people in Pakistan also believe that we should move in tandem on all issues. As I said in Lahore, it is not in the interest of the peace process to let slower progress on some issues become a hurdle in achieving faster progress on others.

All these are good signs. But much more can be done. And it should be our mutual resolve to do all the desirable things, and do them quickly.

[brihaspati]

Leaders wax eloquent - like a well-rounded userer who has managed to accumulate plenty of goodwill and support capital, given up by immense personal and societal sacrifices by the common member of society. Just like the userer, they use that capital to extract profits of more such capital - only to distribute it in largesse to inveterate pests whose teeth and bite they did not have to suffer in the same degree as his poor clients.

Adding JLN's speech to the two quoted here, we see that consistent pattern. They all have certain common themes - and they all work towards a common end. Whether they are conscious of it or not, whether they are playing it up to distant or nearby galleries or not, these are their individual pious wishes at best.

Do we share in their magnanimity? Do we continue to pay with our lives and our lifetime efforts to indulge their playing at a benevolent "God"?

[Rahul Mehta]

I proposed, direct trade between producer and consumer groups - a rehash of the cooperatives. The organized retail is now able to exploit also because there is little competition for them. I had once investigated the mark up process for several commodities. The small-retailers are at the end of a chain which actually has very few controllers. For example the pulse trade in India is basically controlled by about 11 people. The high prices paid at the end consumer point has little of it actually paid into the producer. This sort of marking up produces a huge amount of finance capital parts of which are available for the black market as well as for political and criminal financing. Greater corporatization or cooperativ-zation brings much greater exposure to actual records of transaction or mechanisms to track such transactions.

brihaspati,

I badly need names of these people. If possible, pls email it to [email protected]

Pls see the post in neta-babu thread.