Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 May 2009 09:54

Let us agree to follow the US model.

To achieve that,we must ensure that we EDUCATE all indians on our true history, including the genocides that happened in the name of religion, the shame-less exploitation by our elite leadership and PROUDLY present our national symbols such as Nalanda, Takshila universities.

We will also be PROUD of our national model/civilization, making claims on everything that has even a symbolic relationship with our civilization and culture. Such an India would extend from Cambodia to Afghanistan.

More than anything, we will take the fight to the enemy even if ONE OF OUR CITIZENS are killed in a terrorist incident. We do not hesitate to destroy entire nations when they threaten OUR national interests and OUR way of life.

I want that TRUE PATRIOTISM displayed by my fellow Indians.

Now, being an US citizen of Indian origin, I do not see any US Citizen criticizing their government for establishing uniform civil and criminal code, no-reservations system, no-nonsense law-and-order infrastructure.

Just a piece of history: Even before US became a super power, it did not submit to the whims of then super powers. It stood by its values and dreams. It established the education, law and order, national defense strategy that is suitable to it's vision.

That is exactly what I am asking for, from the Indian leadership and citizenery.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 May 2009 10:09

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 May 2009 12:21

Rudradev wrote:
brihaspati wrote:The fundamental problem of strategy in any potential conflict situation is - What to do with the enemy?...
Brihaspatiji,

A tour de force of a post. You have summed up the problem as well as it can possibly be summed up.

Coming from a perspective where we have internalized the defeated belief that nothing is possible, what do we have to work with?

Brihaspati, Rudradev -- excellent posts. Amazing clarity of expression.

If I may say so -- if we accept that what to do is caused partially by how to do -- the confusion continues to an extent because of not looking at the obvious answers.

Indians have been bred to to be queasy about the simple solution for simple problems in space of power play. Application of power. Clear simple brutal and direct and in abundance.

The great US of A, despite its many flaws gets away with everything: including continuing genocide here and now, and is praised as a role model by folks here, the same ones who don't tire of naval gazing and finding why cant we do anything since we are xyz etc, for one reason and one reason alone -- application of power in a brutal manner.

Till we get around to understanding this there is no end to the quandary.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 28 May 2009 13:08

Someone mentioned that 'howcome India does'nt have allies in the neighbourhood'. Well there is one ally. It is India's best friend till date in the neighbourhood. And IMHO it's citizens must be honored in India. Bhutan.

They've flushed out terrorists for themselves and for us, democratized themselves and have the best of relations with us. And yes they are prospering quietly. They are a peaceful, simple people and for a long long time if not now, they indeed were the worlds safest nation. (1 homicide in some 20 years IIRC).

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 28 May 2009 17:22

harbans wrote:Someone mentioned that 'howcome India does'nt have allies in the neighbourhood'. Well there is one ally. It is India's best friend till date in the neighbourhood. And IMHO it's citizens must be honored in India. Bhutan.

They've flushed out terrorists for themselves and for us, democratized themselves and have the best of relations with us. And yes they are prospering quietly. They are a peaceful, simple people and for a long long time if not now, they indeed were the worlds safest nation. (1 homicide in some 20 years IIRC).

Allies are made when something is offered in baksheesh,say services,technology,weapons,support etc, but these things didn't come for free,a favour in return after sometime or immediatekly is required.
what does India offers to nepal,its blocking it everywhere .
what does India offers to porks,they are always threatened,
we could not spare russians as well in our optimism,we left them alone
and of course bhutan lives on our baksheesh,so is the favour

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 May 2009 17:40

Samay wrote: what does India offers to nepal,its blocking it everywhere .

If India blocked Nepal one bit and stopped doing what it is doing now to help Nepal, Nepal would be.....

India does not have ally in the region because it does not involve itself enough in other buisness but lets them be. We should actually play big brother for a change.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 May 2009 18:47

Shivji,
just have time to write two brief pointers in between lectures:

(1) USA's strategy to deal with internal dissension was decided in favour of the legitimacy (in public view) of the federal centre to intervene into regional, after Grant and Sherman steamrolled the Confederacy. Talk of political -will - that was Lincoln at his obsessive paranoid best, but equally, a general ideologcal devotion of people like Grant and Sherman. Once this iron hand precedence was established, even the "segregationist" last stand in the 60's had little chance. They had their own share of linguistic, religious, and other differences - in fact the 13 "English/protestant/puritan" colonies occupied a small strip. It was the Spanish with their Catholicism and Spanish language that dominated far larger territories in the south.

(2) Mao's tactic of dealing with "elite" was not that much of direct liquidation. His hands are far less bloodied than Stalin in this area. His close associates came from "elite" stock. His closest and oldest ally, Chu Teh cam from elite, landlord background and was a graduate of the Whampoa academy. Mao's first two wives were also from "elite", his first FIL being an elite intellectual who first translated Marxian literature into Chinese. A lot of middle and top level cadre of the CCP in the early days came from elite background. And, direct western on-field evidence, points to a surprisingly sophisticated and moderate treatment of the elite. The Maoists needed the "nationalist" support for their "cause". In fact the final capitulation of Chiang to agree to collaborate with Mao against Japan came about througha dramatic abduction and arrest of Chiang by the "nationalist" and pro-CCP son of a close KMT associate warlord, who forced Chiang to come to the neogotiating table with Mao. Such help would not be obtainable if a blanket and massive "elite liquidation" programme was undertaken.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 May 2009 18:52

Sanku wrote:The great US of A, despite its many flaws gets away with everything: including continuing genocide here and now, and is praised as a role model by folks here, the same ones who don't tire of naval gazing and finding why cant we do anything since we are xyz etc, for one reason and one reason alone -- application of power in a brutal manner.

Admins:

I record my protest to the use of "Genocide" word liberally, out-of-context, and inaccurately by certain posters. This is not only a false claim but also a cleaver attempt to divert the discussion.

Perhaps these posters do some research on the word 'genocide' and get their facts right before using it against every idea/group/nation they are not comfortable with.

Thanks.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 May 2009 19:01

brihaspati thanks for the info. An off topic note - I have a sneaking suspicion that if nothing else Mao certainly killed off a lot of the old culture making the Chinese today boorish and a-cultural. These are my views - and they are open to correction/dispute.

If true it has a bearing on much of what we discuss here about India relative to China.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 28 May 2009 19:20

Mao's tactic of dealing with "elite" was not that much of direct liquidation. His hands are far less bloodied than Stalin in this area.

Apologies..but Mao is the BIGGEST killer in the 20th Century if not all of mankind.

Mao's is responsible for the murder of around 45 million Chinese. Stalin did around 25-30 million in comparison. From what is on record the killing Kings have been in the following order in the 20th century:

1. Mao : 45 million murdered
2. Stalin: 25 million
3. Hitler: 6-10 million.
4. Yahya Khan: 3 million
5. Rwanda: 2.5 million
6: Cambodia pol pot: 1.5 million.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 28 May 2009 20:05

Jung Chang and Jon Halliday claim to be 70 million, for Mao.

But there is one genocide that tops it all, right here at home. The 1000 year genocide. But there are more brutal ones than even that, where entire civilizations were virtually wiped out as in the Americas and Australia. Not attributed to a single authority but by one set of people over the other.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 28 May 2009 20:43

harbans wrote:Mao's tactic of dealing with "elite" was not that much of direct liquidation. His hands are far less bloodied than Stalin in this area.

Apologies..but Mao is the BIGGEST killer in the 20th Century if not all of mankind.

Brihaspati was talking about Mao's treatment of the elite (bourgeois) not the commoners (proletariat). Those are two very different things, especially when viewed through the lens of Marxian ideology.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 28 May 2009 21:01

Brihaspati was talking about Mao's treatment of the elite (bourgeois) not the commoners (proletariat). Those are two very different things, especially when viewed through the lens of Marxian ideology.

Even then i am not sure this is true. Firstly there are no records of murders committed that distinguish 'Elite' and 'commoners'. But it's obvious either case commoners died in much larger numbers. Maoist inspired movements have ALWAYS targetted the elite whether in Cambodia, vietnam or in India. Pol Pot went to a different extreme in which he started killing Professors, scientists, academics till they were searching for people who wore glasses..a sigh of 'erudition' in their opinion. I don't think it's proper to view Mao from a 'Marxian' ideology totally. They had their own version of 'elite' and were no less remorseless. Exceptions to the rule as mentioned by Brihaspati ji granted.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 28 May 2009 22:23

Internal cohesion and external competition are logical barometers; it's the 10 sticks stronger than one stick story. To be successful, the core must be defined, hard boundaries need to be placed, and things must be smoothed within. Once this is achieved, we move the boundary out and repeat. Smoothing can be achieved by maximizing differences between the system (INDIA) and environment (ASIA), or minimizing differences within the environment. The latter is preferable because it is more "universal" and "absolute", but the former can be a good way to get started and realize the benefits of cohesion!

So, questions...
1. which countries must India compete with harder? China.
2. Which countries must India cooperate less? USA.
3. How do we reduce competition among ourselves? increase prosperity at the bottom. One people, one law.
4. How do we increase cooperation among ourselves? mix.

We can also use
a. threats of external competition to enhance internal cooperation.
E.g. Chinese are encircling us, we must not let another 62 happen. Taliban are coming to our door step, we need to increase our buffer.
b. cooperation ("we are a nation") as a figure of merit to compete better externally.
E.g. China and pakistan are interested in dismembering india by either calling them disputes or terrorizing. They are enemies (duh).

All we have to do is propose one small sure shot thing, so that (Internal Cooperation - External Cooperation) + (External Competition - Internal competition) stays positive.

Your incremental proposals will be cool.

S

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 May 2009 22:32

RamaY wrote:
Sanku wrote:The great US of A, despite its many flaws gets away with everything: including continuing genocide here and now, and is praised as a role model by folks here, the same ones who don't tire of naval gazing and finding why cant we do anything since we are xyz etc, for one reason and one reason alone -- application of power in a brutal manner.
:

I record my protest to the use of "Genocide" word liberally, out-of-context, and inaccurately by certain posters. This is not only a false claim but also a cleaver attempt to divert the discussion.
.

Since you have claimed that something I have said is inaccurate can you please let me know why it is so?

Meanwhile genocide
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

What do you think the anti Baath actions of US of A in Iraq constitutes? What do you think the anti Communist McCarthyism was? What do you think the actions in Yugoslavia were? What is the situation in Iraq? What was it trying in Vietnam?

What were the body counts of natives in each of the above?

Meanwhile,

against every idea/group/nation they are not comfortable with.

I am personally very comfortable with US, I have lived there for a long time. Also I have seen your views and am very comfortable with them as well, yet I protest against both.

You have to realize that a POV is not based on the issue of emotional comfort, but on what is real hard headed real politic.

We Indians unnecessarily get very emotional and dopey and all very correct and dharmic about the world. All the world is not Hindu. No harm in realizing the obvious truth that different folks have different value systems.

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

Finally whether I use the word genocide correctly or not is by and large totally irrelevant to the point I made -- which is US actions are very hard brutal and end up destroying the target country utterly but US does not give a damn.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 28 May 2009 23:27

What do you think the anti Baath actions of US of A in Iraq constitutes? What do you think the anti Communist McCarthyism was? What do you think the actions in Yugoslavia were? What is the situation in Iraq? What was it trying in Vietnam?

By your logic fighting a war means commiting genocide.Can you tell something about these examples that we don't know?Going by your logic India commited genocide in 1971 while liberating bangladesh and also when it intervened in Sri Lanka.

Please don't trivialise genocide.

Also by the way Mccarthysm involved harrasment of americans(including celebrities)who had communist leanings mostly through legal means.But I don't know of anyone who was killed or executed.And you are talking of a genocide.

Please be objective in your discussions.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 May 2009 23:45

Sanku wrote:Finally whether I use the word genocide correctly or not is by and large totally irrelevant to the point I made -- which is US actions are very hard brutal and end up destroying the target country utterly but US does not give a damn.

Sanku-ji

We all are on the same side. My protest is against the use of the word 'genocide' where it is not needed and out of context. Let us not use it as part of a sentense without thinking it thoroughly. Words like 'genocide', 'human rights' etc must be used very carefully as they have contextual meaning.

Declaring war against an enemy state doesn't constitute 'genocide'. More civilians are killed in Iraq in suiside bombings and terror attacks than by any military force in the past eight years.

Peace!

raji · Post by **raji** » 29 May 2009 00:26

samuel wrote:
3. How do we reduce competition among ourselves? increase prosperity at the bottom. One people, one law.
4. How do we increase cooperation among ourselves? mix.

S

Samuel, my man........

If I didnt know any better....I would think that you are putting forward the concept of "casteless", "classless" society. As if this wasnt bad enough, if I didnt know any better, I would think that you are also throwing in marriages across social groups (when you say "mix")..........

What heresy.......out and out blasphemous..........you might as well propose mating with cockroaches.......

But of course.....

........I know better.......I know better..........

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 May 2009 02:58

The US society is based on Puritan work ethics: hard work, self-discipline, frugal life and Calvinism.

raji · Post by **raji** » 29 May 2009 03:06

ramana wrote:The US society is based on Puritan work ethics: hard work, self-discipline, frugal life and Calvinism.

And clearly, these are all western notions.........and only a Macaulyte will see any merit in them.....

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 May 2009 03:07

Although discussing Mao will go OT, I will briefly outline my comments. First, Chang and Haliiday's book is a serious piece of unprofessional "historian" product - almost comparable to the Thaparites in technique. There are serious omissions and "interpretative license" that reminded me very much of the Thaparite style of historians with an underlying political agenda. Mao had many faults, and obvious ones too, with plenty of errors of judgement and strategy that caused untold degrees of pain and suffering to the Chinese. But, deaths resulting from a civil war, in which both sides had been extremely brutal, (not to forget the Shanghai massacre, and the support of "liberal" humanitarian West to the regime that carried this out), deaths in famines resulting from a combination of natural disasters and grave mistakes in policy (such as the Great Leap Forward) , deaths from enforced migrations and exiles of urbanites as part of "cultural re-education" (Cutural Revolution), cannot be all thrown together into a common bag of "murder" and "genocide".

Anyway, my point was about "elite" - this in the pre-1949 days, meant "landlords", "big merchants" and "civil servants". Mao himself did not come from "poor peasant" background, and his father was rich enough as a farmer/landowner to try and send him for "education aimed at civil service". The early CCP was founded almost entirely by products of the "Normal schools" (western style schools established as part of Sun-yat-sen's reforms), and academics, chiefly at Beijing University. As I mentioned earlier, some of the closest associates of Mao were from elite, "landlord" background - such as Chu-teh, an opium smoker sone of a "landlord" who however joined the Whampoa military academy, and turned "left". He was instrumental in bringing formally trained military skill to Mao's initial rag-tag, peasant, Shanghai-railroad worker, miners, "bandits" of Ching-kang-shan and some poor peasants - army. This bond of association saw through extreme tribulations for both during the civil war.

Mao's own works show a shrewd construction of elaborate levels of social "class" hierarchy, which he also openly and frankly, changes from time to time, as he says according to the needs of the "struggle". In the civil war, Mao was a "centrist" among the communists (in this he resembles Stalin). He was acutely aware of the need to mobilize the maximum against the "smallest". So you can see him trying to gain support even among the "elite" and try to minimize the portion against whom he must move.

It was only after 49, when "land-reform" could be taken up unchallenged, that things went rough. But even here, the pragmatic and centrist Mao quickly retraced his steps when he saw the fallout of his extreme communistic experiments. The key differences with Stalinist practice should have been immediately caught in the fact that Mao never tried to eliminate the "market", and had right from the beginning tried to solicit "American support" during the civil war to which at least some officers of the US military responded favourably.

For the early, and by no means prejudiced in favour of the Communists, account from western analysts who also experienced conditions directly with the PLA/CCP, see Edgar Snow, Agnes Smedley, and "Fanshen: A Documentary of Revolution in a Chinese Village" by William Hinton, and the extremely well researched and objective "The Long March to Power. A History of the Chinese Communist Party, 1921-72." by J.P. Harrison. The first three write on actual experience. Hinton has written other books too. Hinton's method is that of a modern sociologist - he does case studies. New Zealander Hinton's case studies will show why the Maoist method succeeded - read the case of a couple who had only one cloth between them, and sometimes that also didn't exist, and they simply used trees and bushes as natural cover. The 8th route army people left them some uniforms which were their first clothes in years. When I first read this, had a swelling in my throat - for this is a story I recognize here in India from first hand experience, and know that Hinton is writing the truth. My dad recounted stories of how he in his student activist days had stayed with a couple with exactly the same situation and how they went begging neighbours to get some food/veg for their "atith". And I have seen this again in my own wanderings.

To answer Shivji's question proper: the effect of Maoist thinking on the Chinese society is very hard to gauge. Whether he has made them uncouth and arrogant is something civilizationally very difficult to gauge. What has happened of course is the fact that Mao basically used nationalism to mobilize and complete a peasant uprising overthrowing the existing regime. Mao's successors have maintained this extreme nationalism as a means of keeping the CCP in power, and this then spills over as civilizational arrogance.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 May 2009 03:12

raji wrote:
ramana wrote:The US society is based on Puritan work ethics: hard work, self-discipline, frugal life and Calvinism.

And clearly, these are all western notions.........and only a Macaulyte will see any merit in them.....

I thought you wanted India to follow the US path. Dont want to do the hard work. Waiting for the banana to drop in your lap while meditating?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 May 2009 03:22

The problem of application of Maoist experience of civil war, when applied by the goats of India, like say Com. "Charu", wipes off all the experinces that Hinton is recounting, and literally applies "class enemy liquidation" as "throat-slitting" and a "Long March" is attempted from Midnapore to Midnapore. This is the danger of "total loss in translation" that happens when Macaulayite lenses are used to see an esoteric and alien doctrine. We should not blame Mao for what a Charu shouts about. At the same time, we have to be aware of the danger of such doctrines, all the more because we know, what it will be interepreted as in the hands of those educated to be completely disconnected from the basis of their own civilizational heritage.

This is the reason, Maoism should be properly and unbiasedly studied in its proper context - as an ideological framework constructed out of "Sinification of Marxism" - something that uniquely suited to give a name to nationalist and social justice aspirations in Chinese peasantry, but its non-applicability to India made all the more transparent for exactly this reason.

raji · Post by **raji** » 29 May 2009 03:24

ramana wrote:
I thought you wanted India to follow the US path. Dont want to do the hard work.

I want India to be a fair society and a meritocracy. I want us to embody all the right values.....of truth, beauty, dignity, humanity, tolerance, art, music, science, industry, respect for sorroundings and environment.........most of all respect for the individual. I disagree with Brihispati, that everyone should follow one single need heirarchy. If we have all the above, then each individual can choose what part of the needs hierarchy or no part or all of it, he wants to follow, as long as he works within the parameters of honesty, integrity, only taking what he deserves......so, he can be a non believer too......

I am more concerned about this end result, no matter how we get there. The only reason US comes up all the time in my thinking is because currently in relative terms it is the closest humans have come to in terms of creating a meritocracy and a fair society. Does it still have a long way to go towards absolute goodness, of course........did it get to this point, doing only all good things without making terrible mistakes and indulging in terrible brutality..........no.........but if someone is to argue that you cannot reach the US stage of today, without perpetrating the same brutalities that they did........I would profoundly disagree........thats just an excuse for perpetuating status quos in our own societies.....

There is no mystery or fascination with the US.........at least for me.......except that everywhere else in the world situation is much worse.........in fact, since I have already mentioned US is not perfect, ideally, I would like for India to surpass US, not just economically or militarily, but in goodness and morality too....in fairness and merit too......but lets get to US stage first as it is a live model, and then venture into where no man has gone before.........to even greater hieghts....

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 May 2009 03:28

To "do a US" is not equivalent to "copying US". Copying does not work, just as Maoism could not be "copied". The essence of "doing an US" is to learn to construct a set of consolidatory and expansive goals for India, where internal dissensions are fixed with both the carrot as well as the stick, and expansion is undertaken as driving motivation for the engine of the nation.
Anything more as a "similarity" will create versions of "Com. Charu".

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 May 2009 03:40

brihaspati wrote:To "do a US" is not equivalent to "copying US". Copying does not work, just as Maoism could not be "copied". The essence of "doing an US" is to learn to construct a set of consolidatory and expansive goals for India, where internal dissensions are fixed with both the carrot as well as the stick, and expansion is undertaken as driving motivation for the engine of the nation.
Anything more as a "similarity" will create versions of "Com. Charu".

You will find that the core US ideal is nationalism. The eternal tug of war is between the nationalists or "America Firsters" and the internationalists. And its after the gains of the America Firsters that the internationalists get to spend it abroad. However both try to aim for American first abroad.

In the 19th century it was manifest destiny that drove the expansion from Atlantic to Pacific.In the 20th century it was the same that drove them form a small industrial power to a super-power by mid century. The space exploration drive is also based on this MD.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 May 2009 03:53

Fully agree! Its the "spirit" which is worthwhile to take lessons from, but not an imitation.

raji · Post by **raji** » 29 May 2009 03:54

brihaspati wrote:To "do a US" is not equivalent to "copying US". Copying does not work, just as Maoism could not be "copied". The essence of "doing an US" is to learn to construct a set of consolidatory and expansive goals for India, where internal dissensions are fixed with both the carrot as well as the stick, and expansion is undertaken as driving motivation for the engine of the nation.
Anything more as a "similarity" will create versions of "Com. Charu".

I was not advocating copying US. If there is a model which takes us even beyond US, it would be even more desirable. So.......no..........no copying for the sake of copying or because one is awed by the white man.......but.......lacking other models.......whats the harm in following the US model ? I havent seen a viable alternative model here on this forum or elsewhere in public discourse anywhere in the world......

Whenever I attempted to develop an alternate model on this forum......and mine was based on "eliminating corruption" (of course I dont mean in absolute sense......but that should be the goal).......I was chastised........

What that means is that the only alternatives to consider are the models that have existed in the past or exist currently, and compared to the US model.......they have all failed.......communism has failed.....Islamism ? the less said the better.....Budhist models have failed...........and yes........all the native Hindu models have failed too.....

I dont mind revisiting the existing or past models......such as the needs hierarchy you talk about.....but I dont like limitations on thinking where you dont explore alternative models......

You cant have it both ways.......gag and censor people from developing new original models.....and at the same time cursing the most successful model you have so far in relative terms (US).....

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 May 2009 04:03

Islamism failed when it left Arabia and started conversions. If it had no conversions it would be small but very powerful. By conversions it became civilized, diluted and developed the malaise of what it sought to supplant. Hence the repeated emergence of Al Ghazali, Sirhindi, Walliullah, Wahab, Syed Ahmed Barelvi, Maududdi and Syed Qutb and others unborn.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 May 2009 04:05

Oh no, I am not deriding the "US model", but just asking that it be taken as inspiration only and lessons learnt from it and not try to literally apply it. Any successful model will be a combination of preexisting features shaped and modified by new and "foreign" experiences.

Society does not change overnight, and older forces still retain their presence in the subtle ways they influence intergenerational thinking. This almost always necessitates adaptation of newer forms as clothes of the same old body. Look at details of all "revolutions", you can see how imported ideas always land up morphed by the pre-existing ones.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 29 May 2009 04:13

Samuel ji you are absolutely right.

"Unless we meddle in our neighbors affairs, we will not be at peace in our home".

JLN tried to contain PRC by forming the NAM but unfortunately mis underestimated Mao.

{Non-Aligned Movement (NAM, in Indonesia known as Gerakan Non-Blok, GNB) with Egypt's President Gamal Abdel Nasser, India's Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Yugoslavia's President Josip Broz Tito, and Ghana's President Kwame Nkrumah, in an action called The Initiative of Five (Sukarno, Nkrumah, Nasser, Tito, and Nehru). This action was a movement to not give any favour to the two superpower blocs, who were involved in the Cold War."}

We are to recieve second jhapad from PRC then we will again wake late as usual.

raji · Post by **raji** » 29 May 2009 04:14

brihaspati wrote:Oh no, I am not deriding the "US model", but just asking that it be taken as inspiration only and lessons learnt from it and not try to literally apply it. Any successful model will be a combination of preexisting features shaped and modified by new and "foreign" experiences.

Society does not change overnight, and older forces still retain their presence in the subtle ways they influence intergenerational thinking. This almost always necessitates adaptation of newer forms as clothes of the same old body. Look at details of all "revolutions", you can see how imported ideas always land up morphed by the pre-existing ones.

Fair enough. It is reasonable.

I do tend to think with slight variance, though, and am definitely the minority opinion, maybe even an opinion of one.

I think in this day and age, we are at a unique place in time, where there is so much intermingling of people and the world has become so much smaller with airplanes etc, that a flight from Bombay to NY (which is just about the longest flight you can take) still takes a fraction of what it took to travel 200 miles in most places in India just 50 years ago. So, I think the concept of "foreign" ideas doesnt hold. Nothing today is a foreign idea. Everyone in their heart of hearts realizes this. The lines of religionism, nationalism, culturalism still only exist out of vested interests protecting their own turf..........not out of any genuine belief in differences among people..........the Islamists may be an exception......where they may genuinely believe in this "foreign" or "other" of "kafir" thing.........

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 29 May 2009 05:25

On the horizon, I see many problems emerging in America. It has the advantage of being a relatively young society, where entropy is yet to catch up. All the symptoms of class and stratification are forming and the forces against it are weakening.

It is not useful it idolize USA.

It is blind to disregard the manner in which USA came into being.

What is useful to see, however, is that where there is a chance to "reboot", start a new nation state, the idealism that we all cherish as the best of humanity is one that takes first preference. We begin then with "all citizens created equal..."

Ironically, over time, in so upholding it through diversity, of opinion and thought, the polarization inherent in stratification emerges. You may or may not like it, but you couldn't name one society or civilization that survived long without the effects of entropy catching up. This one can see in so many things in nature, it is also a fundamental physical law.

What is needed is is for us to rejuvenate ourselves with an idealism, become a little more sincere, a little less depraved I dare say, as a society. When that happens, we will be able to reboot. What is needed is to reassert the fight for survival for one more day, just like man does living where his natural journey is to die.

How will we rejuvenate ourselves?

S

raji · Post by **raji** » 29 May 2009 06:15

samuel wrote:On the horizon, I see many problems emerging in America. It has the advantage of being a relatively young society, where entropy is yet to catch up. All the symptoms of class and stratification are forming and the forces against it are weakening.

It is not useful it idolize USA.

It is blind to disregard the manner in which USA came into being.

What is useful to see, however, is that where there is a chance to "reboot", start a new nation state, the idealism that we all cherish as the best of humanity is one that takes first preference. We begin then with "all citizens created equal..."

Ironically, over time, in so upholding it through diversity, of opinion and thought, the polarization inherent in stratification emerges. You may or may not like it, but you couldn't name one society or civilization that survived long without the effects of entropy catching up. This one can see in so many things in nature, it is also a fundamental physical law.

What is needed is is for us to rejuvenate ourselves with an idealism, become a little more sincere, a little less depraved I dare say, as a society. When that happens, we will be able to reboot. What is needed is to reassert the fight for survival for one more day, just like man does living where his natural journey is to die.

How will we rejuvenate ourselves?

S

Fine. Lets not idolize America. You keep trying to find something which isnt. There is no idolizing anywhere. Its not about America, its about us.

Find me a better place overall, or even a better model in history or at present ? Please describe to me one place in history that you consider "better" ?

Alternatively, or additionally.....define a plausible new model....which may not have existed so far, but can be viable for the future.....

What do you mean "being less depraved " ??............

If I didnt know any better, I would think you are looking at us through Macaulyte lenses ? But I know better...........

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 29 May 2009 06:30

Samuel,

The benefit of rejuvenation, as well as the trouble with rejuvenation, is that (in practical terms) it involves a complete scrubbing clean and so risks an annulment of context.

This helps to relieve the burden of ossified prejudice and systemic rot... but it also results in what one may call naivete, as the wisdom and perspective of the ages are discarded for the taint they carry. (If they weren't discarded you wouldn't have rejuvenation... merely reform).

M.K. Gandhi was the agent of perhaps the greatest "rejuvenation" the world had seen... imbuing an entire subcontinent with a will, a vision and a sense of itself such as it had not possessed for a millennium. And yet, even as he was so careful to maintain his proximity to cultural grass roots throughout the process, even his carefully crafted rejuvenation resulted in a naivete which arguably made us vulnerable to the sorts of control exercised over us today.

The USA had such a tremendous land-to-population ratio that labour actually had to be imported (indentured, enslaved or whatever) in order to optimally exploit its great wealth of resources. It was also protected by the width of an ocean from the environment that spawned the political traditions and behaviours of its people; the actors who defined that environment, Europe, could neither efficiently manipulate the political development of the US as a nation nor sustain their interference long enough to be effective. A rejuvenation under such circumstances has more of a chance to succeed, because immense natural wealth and isolation from outside interference will compensate for the civilizational naivete of a new nation.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 May 2009 06:42

Rudradev wrote:Samuel,

The benefit of rejuvenation, as well as the trouble with rejuvenation, is that (in practical terms) it involves a complete scrubbing clean and so risks an annulment of context.

This helps to relieve the burden of ossified prejudice and systemic rot... but it also results in what one may call naivete, as the wisdom and perspective of the ages are discarded for the taint they carry. (If they weren't discarded you wouldn't have rejuvenation... merely reform).

M.K. Gandhi was the agent of perhaps the greatest "rejuvenation" the world had seen... imbuing an entire subcontinent with a will, a vision and a sense of itself such as it had not possessed for a millennium. And yet, even as he was so careful to maintain his proximity to cultural grass roots throughout the process, even his carefully crafted rejuvenation resulted in a naivete which arguably made us vulnerable to the sorts of control exercised over us today.

India was and is in the path of rejuvenation but has been interrupted by external revolutions and external ideology etc.
MKG was one of the path of this rejuvenation of India and Indians from within. The next part of this rejuvenation is awareness of the 'Hindu' view of the rest of the world. This part is still on going and has been interrupted by outside powers with media control and education control.

India has been the subject of external scrutiny for many centuries. But Indians have to now create the 'Hindu' view of the outside world, outside cultures, race and outside religion.

http://medhajournal.com/index.php?optio ... &showall=1
Why was India such a subject of intense study for over a period of 2 millennia?

That India has been a subject of exhaustive study and ubiquitous interest to a wide variety of peoples from all corners of the ancient and the modern world throughout the millennia is certainly not indispute. To begin with we like to understand the various motives behind this intense interest. Was it merely intellectual curiosity?

There are many reasons for this intense and sustained interest, not least among them being the considerable prowess of the ancient Indic in matters of scholarship, relating to the exact sciences.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 May 2009 07:09

If you look at geopolitical actions without any insight you can reach some strange conclusions.

One can, for example, draw parallels between George Bush and Saddam Hussein - (probably to the glee of some people in the world)

I will explain.

Saddam attempted to expand his country and take over what he felt should be his/his country. First it was an 8 year war with Iran. Later it was overrunning Kuwait. In each case Saddam appeared like a resolute leader who was unafraid to use force when needed.

But Dubya too appears like a resolute leader who was unafraid to use force when needed.

The difference as I see it is that Saddam was using the same tactics to hold on to power in Iraq. Iraqi citizens were held in a "state of internal unity and cohesion" based on compulsions forced on them by Saddam. Saddam had to worry about internal enemies as much as external enemies, but he chose to deal with both in a particular manner that made him and his nation very strong temporarily - but that strength collapsed in the face of an alliance of foes who all wanted to see him go. When he went, the strength of his nation collapsed into a mes because it was not national strength. It was merely a regime frittering away national resources without consensus.

Dubya acquired more power than Saddam through a system that voluntarily gave him that power. He was given that power after "testing him" in a unique manner that the American political system tests Presidential candidates. And he got that power for a limited period of time. One can say that Dubya was personally "weaker" than Saddam because of his lack of ability to hold power permanently over even his own people let alone others. But Dubya did not have to worry about being overthrown. And Dubya did not have to go to great lengths to protect himself against internal opposition. He knew he had internal opposition - but that internal opposition would not kill him, and it would only remove him after 4 years provided he was reasonable. And once the American system elects a President - the American is so proud of his nation, system and President that they throw all their weight behind him and trust him to lead. And when he leads - they follow. Even if it is only for 4 years or 8 years, this is what makes American Presidents very powerful.

Note that there are two aspects to power here. One is the collective power of the nation, and the second is the handing over of that power of the nation to one man (or a small group)

So what about India?

Indian leaders are "elected" from among politicians. Like the American system (and unlike Saddam) they are given power only for a limited period of time

But unlike America, (and more like Saddam) Indian leaders get temporary power that is not based on capability, but on peripheral issues like personal clout and charm that have no bearing on the actual needs of the country.

India IMO sits between Saddam's Iraq and Duibya's USA in its ability to implement geopolitical actions. India leaders constantly have to watch their asses because they do get punished if they make mistakes. they constantly have to "woo the electorate" and award sops to some group or the other because their temporary licence to lead is awarded by people who have been "wooed" by promises of sops.

India is not really a poor country. It is a wealthy and inefficient country where maldistribution of wealth and power is worshipped and protected. India's global clout can be increased in a Saddam like fashion, or a Dubya like fashion. Both may be poor examples, but the Dubya model is more attractive to me than the Saddam model.

The Dubya version of global power is basically a more powerful and resilient nation consciously giving temporary power to a moron. The Saddam version is that of a moron cornering all available power in a basically weak nation and playing geopolitical games. The games are played by an ignorant leader thinking he can take the world for a ride. imagining that his personal power somehow reflects a powerful nation that stands united behind him. This was true for Dubya. Not for Saddam

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 May 2009 07:28

Rudradev wrote: The benefit of rejuvenation, as well as the trouble with rejuvenation, is that (in practical terms) it involves a complete scrubbing clean and so risks an annulment of context.

This helps to relieve the burden of ossified prejudice and systemic rot... but it also results in what one may call naivete, as the wisdom and perspective of the ages are discarded for the taint they carry. (If they weren't discarded you wouldn't have rejuvenation... merely reform)..

Rudradev - I believe that, on balance, most people see China as a "success" and as a global force to be feared or respected. So I ask regarding China and India

1) Was the cultural revolution not just such a rejuvenation?
2) Did the Chinese cultural revolution not "relieve the burden of ossified prejudice and systemic rot" while " the wisdom and perspective of the ages were discarded for the taint they carry. "
3) What would be the nature of an Indian rejuvenation without discarding at least some of the culture revered by some sections of the population?

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 29 May 2009 07:35

Rudradev,

I hear you and appreciate what you write. Not in the least because the cultural roots that you allude to are ones I certainly see as central to our being.

I used rejuvenation in the sense of rejuvenating culture by making it young and vibrant for all within the subcontinent again, and not just in the sense of a better framework for law and governance.

Restoring "youthfulness" may not need a purge of "old and sage wisdom," especially if affection for our heritage and history can be restored. But it may need a purge of "prejudice and dejection" that any number of factors may have brought upon us.

S

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 29 May 2009 07:45

Raji--

We are hopefully working on a new model. It does not need America. Especially if you consider that what we value about America is not something intrinsic and inherent to Americans, but of all societies young in the space of civilizations. If we start there, realizing that it is the spirit that is essential to capture, then we will be able to develop our own solutions.

As far as anything being as good in history, I dare say the citizens of most civilizations at its height would have elicited the same adoring fawning that the Americans do today. We received that too in our history, if written and oral accounts are to be believed.

The actions of a nation can only properly be judged in hindsight when the consequences are known (and then too with some ambiguity if things are covered up). We have many years before we can look back at America. We can discuss then how good it was for the world or its own people. Would it be possible that we will find that America was all about greed in the name of freedom and prosperity and, that, I am going to say it, corrupted it. You certainly know better than to turn a love for the ideal of equality into a love for America.

We seriously don't need to spend pages discussing the good of America. If you are going to do that be ready to hear what is bad about it because I certainly think we can do it ourselves.