Strategic leadership for the future of India

[brihaspati]

JwalaMukhi-ji,
this is very interesting. Maybe we can explore further in other discussion group on culture/economy?

Jayramji,
My humble assessment of Kalamji, is that he is too benevolent and "saintly" to perform some of the ruthless advisory tasks expected of a modern "Chanakya". But I could be mistaken.

[Prem]

Brahspati sir ,
Sikhism was especially started to blend all the Varnas in one . There are many references to these Char Varans becoming one in Sikh literature.So, We already has the spiritual and temporal blessing to apply this on society , even by danda.

[svinayak]

As far as "varna" is concerned, my personal strategy is to promote the concept of "simultaneous" existence of all "varnas" inside a person - treat them as "gunas" that need to be cultivated to face specific situations/roles in life. When a student, or engaged in intellectual pursuits - a brahmin, when required to do physical or productive labour- a shudra, when engaged in trading and finance - a vaishya, and when fighting a war - a kshatryia. This is one possible interpretation of the notorious "purusha shukta". We can point out that, all the "varnas" are in the "purusha" - and the "body" does not function if you literally take the "limbs/parts" away from it (I think some of the early commentators do take this line). I have repeatedly suggested giving recognition to the importance of symbols and "social acknowledgement" of higher "status", and at least give "children" going for their first education- the "upaveetam" - irrespective of their "birth" origins - and call all of them "Brahmin" as long as they are being educated.
Far fetched, and "dreamer" produced perhaps! But then again, why not?
.

You seem to be held back by the Varna question.
Leave that and move forward in your solution and this thing will create a solution for your question.
You are being blinded by the "modernism" and "modern thought process".
Lot of your questions are from the indoctrination process.

[brihaspati]

Acharyaji,
The dilemma is not internal. I am very nearly convinced of the essential "requirements". The explorations with "varna" is external and strategic, a search to bypass the "problem" as intensified in modern Indian politics. From practical political organizational experience I am concerned about how "it will be made to appear" to the public by "media" and others behind them. It cannot be allowed to be represented the "wrong way".

[joshvajohn]

We may have to change the constitution regarding hte life of the parlimanet after the next election. If parties support once and given the letter of support, they should give it for five years in writing so that they cannot withdraw in between as it is very expensive to conduct another election after two or three years. This will also weaken our leadership and country in many ways. There must be a kind of strategic agreement among the parties to hold together for the next term otherwise they should not form an opportunistic alliance and then withdraw. this would also lead to horsetrading which involves a lot of money to buy an MP or for cross voting. Even if they loose majority voting on some issues the ruling party whoever it is should be allowed to continue for five years otherwise they should not support from the beginning or give it in writing that we will support only for two years.

We need strong leaders and leadership in India at present!

[Keshav]

In response to the idea of creating historical videos, I think its time to drop the victimization attitude approach to history. Stop using words like Dhimmitude and HFL and don't call anyone who disagrees with you a Communist. Not you specifically but just in general. This mature approach to the work is vital since opponents will use anything they can to discredit the movement for whatever reasons.

Airavat has a great post on his blog about how Indian history should be written and why the Hindutva forces, instead of objectively looking at the information can't make up their mind whether it should be written as a history of failure or a history of perseverance.

It should be both. Instead of harping the death of every Hindu at the hand of every petty Muslim warlord, focus on the achievements of all India. Don't make the mistake the current crop of historians make of cutting out every notable Hindu in history by cutting out every notable Muslim in Indian history. Talk about the important Sikhs, Muslims, and tribal people as well.

But we need to talk about their failures. India is in the shape it is today because of the failure of previous leadership to deal with the threats to its sovereignty, to creatively solve problems like ensuring that their people were educated, and materially taken care of. Why didn't previous Indian rulers use electricity or attempt to understand the high level of British and European technological innovation.

Focusing too much on the past is what people do here on BRF.

Talking frankly about the issues is important as well. Talking frankly about the problems of the caste system, the treatment of women, the good and bad deeds that everyone committed (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, everyone) will go along way to creating an inclusive Indian history that cannot be repudiated by those with vested interests.

[SwamyG]

I agree with Acharya. I am not convinced that Varna is an issue. If a think-tank group plays the role of Chanakya. Why would it be associated with any Varna?

[Rahul Mehta]

Did West follow Chanakya-Chandraguta (CCG) model in past 300 years?

Most Western successful agents I know of were CCG wielded into one person. eg Jefferson. Also, many Indian heroes did not follow CCG model. eg Bhagat Singhji had no Chanakya. Neither did Subhashji. Yet they could make huge positive contribution to India. Whereas, many Congress activists took Mohanbhai as thei Chanakya and only ended up wasting time in singing bhajans and spinning charkha.

As knowledge becomes more and more universal and access becomes easy, actionmen can themselves become Chanakya aka strategist by spending 2 hrs a day in communicating with 1000s of people over net and/or reading article written in past or present.

And any case, an actionman is free to appoint anyone as his Chanakya, if he thinks he needs one. But he will first need to devise a procedure to ensure that his Chanakya has not sold out. Because if his Chanakya sells out, it may well be too late before he discovers that he was on wrong path.

I see that too often. Too many activists are following intellectuals who own NGOs. Many of these NGO owning intellectuals have sold out and only misguide their activists so that activists would keep themselves busy, waste their time and staus-quo continues.

========

Added later

1. Stop using words like Dhimmitude and HFL and don't call anyone who disagrees with you a Communist. ...

2. Focusing too much on the past is what people do here on BRF.

3. Talking frankly about the problems of the caste system, the treatment of women, the good and bad deeds that everyone committed (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, everyone) will go along way to creating an inclusive Indian history that cannot be repudiated by those with vested interests.

Keshav,

1. The labels are necessary and useful ONLY to shut the other person. Labels dont serve any purpose. If a person is using these labels, you can safely assume that he is only interested in shutting down the adversary and not really interested in any improvement. If a person is interested in improvements, he would only point out scenarios where adversaries' suggestions may fail. He would never resort to labels and classification. So IMO, it is best we ignore all sentences that use labels. One may appeal to avoid labels, but label-users are unlikely to listen. For them, label throwing is an addiction. It also gives them immense joy and divine pleasure.

2. Thats because thats easy part.

3. Try doing that, you communist, FHL, dhimmi

[SRoy]

Did West follow Chanakya-Chandraguta (CCG) model in past 300 years?

Most Western successful agents I know of were CCG wielded into one person. eg Jefferson. Also, many Indian heroes did not follow CCG model. eg Bhagat Singhji had no Chanakya. Neither did Subhashji. Yet they could make huge positive contribution to India. Whereas, many Congress activists took Mohanbhai as thei Chanakya and only ended up wasting time in singing bhajans and spinning charkha.

As knowledge becomes more and more universal and access becomes easy, actionmen can themselves become Chanakya aka strategist by spending 2 hrs a day in communicating with 1000s of people over net and/or reading article written in past or present.

And any case, an actionman is free to appoint anyone as his Chanakya, if he thinks he needs one. But he will first need to devise a procedure to ensure that his Chanakya has not sold out. Because if his Chanakya sells out, it may well be too late before he discovers that he was on wrong path.

I see that too often. Too many activists are following intellectuals who own NGOs. Many of these NGO owning intellectuals have sold out and only misguide their activists so that activists would keep themselves busy, waste their time and staus-quo continues.

Restricting our focus to Indian scene only.

It is sheer non-sense to suggest that MKG was C. JLN was in fact no CG is well demonstrated.

Other way round it can be seen that Bhagat Singh and Netaji (he was a well read himself...but still) didn't have the benefit of political advisers.

[Pranav]

In response to the idea of creating historical videos, I think its time to drop the victimization attitude approach to history.

Yes - as will be noted from the brief list of example topics, there are both successes and failures - so Chandragupta and Shivaji are there as successes, and the massacres and temple destructions are there as failures.

Stop using words like Dhimmitude and HFL and don't call anyone who disagrees with you a Communist. Not you specifically but just in general. This mature approach to the work is vital since opponents will use anything they can to discredit the movement for whatever reasons.

The point about opponents trying to discredit the effort is valid. Yes, words like Dhimmi are loaded and should be used only to connote their actual, technical meaning. But still, one needs to take a frank look at events and belief systems, without self-censorship. For example, if there is endorsement of abduction, rape and enslavement in the Hadiths, and if abduction, rape and enslavement did actually happen, then one should not shy away from frankly discussing what happened and what belief systems legitimized it. Similarly, if the Communists did act against the National interest, no need to mince one's words about it.

Airavat has a great post on his blog about how Indian history should be written and why the Hindutva forces, instead of objectively looking at the information can't make up their mind whether it should be written as a history of failure or a history of perseverance.

A link would be appreciated. And yes, the idea is to talk about both successes and failures, and learn from both.

Talk about the important Sikhs, Muslims, and tribal people as well.

Yes, absolutely. For example, one should talk about Akbar's barbaric slaughters, and how he became more tolerant later, and how he finally left Islam behind in an attempt to create his own religion.

Focusing too much on the past is what people do here on BRF.

The whole point of this project is to give people a coherent historical narrative from the Indic point of view, which is something that is missing in India. Once we are clear about the past, it also becomes clear what we need to do, how we want our society to evolve in the future.

Talking frankly about the issues is important as well. Talking frankly about the problems of the caste system, the treatment of women, the good and bad deeds that everyone committed (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, everyone) will go along way to creating an inclusive Indian history that cannot be repudiated by those with vested interests.

Yes, I agree. For example, the caste problem needs to be discussed. We also need to to discuss how caste problems have been exploited and exacerbated by anti-national forces, both external and internal.

[Pranav]

Each episode should have a well-defined theme. Some of the ideas that could be explored are:

- Indian spirituality, the Upanishads, the Yoga Sutras.
- Scientific achievements of Ancient India.
- Islamic invasions, massacres and temple destructions.
- The perfidy of the Communists
- The Goan inquisition
- The Maoist-Missionary nexus
- The atrocities of Tipu Sultan, the slaughter by the Moplahs
- Indian Saints such as Guru Gobind, Vivekananda, Ramkrishna Paramhansa.
- Indian warriors such as Chandragupta, Shivaji and Maharana Pratap
- Cynical exploitation of caste divisions by Mandalites like VP Singh
- Modern threats to India: Sonia Gandhi and the credible reports of her links to the KGB links, her subversion of India by appointing thugs to sensitive constitutional positions such as the Presidency and Election Commission, the Quattrochi affair, the extreme danger of rigging elections through EVMs, etc

We will need to think of themes for each episode of say 30 minutes, figure how how to get such a tele-serial made, how to get it broadcast, how to publicize it.

Shorten it to 10 minutes and you can do this yourself (or in collaboration with others) using YouTube.

The internet has opened a vast new vista, and I predict that 10% of India's half billlion plus cellphone users in future (there are some 300 million now) will be able to receive video on their phones.

Think twitter in the info age. short bursts of easily digestible info.

I am myself a video creator to counter Paki propagandu and do not consider myself knowledgeable enough to do what you suggest. But I do know how to make videos.

Well, I think it would be desirable to explore issues at a deeper level, and that can't be done in 10 minute bursts.

For example, consider a historical controversy such as the destruction of the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple at Mathura. One would want to show the mosque that now stands in its place, and also show the newer temple that was later built next to the mosque. One would want to discuss how Dara Shikoh was a patron of the temple, how and why Aurangazeb destroyed it. One might want to do an interview with the Mullah who runs that mosque - how he feels knowing that there was a temple at that spot originally. One might want to interview Islamic extremists and moderates, and explore their point of view. One might want to interview Yadavs in UP - how do they feel about it, knowing that Krishna was a Yadav. One might even want to explore views of people like Romila Thapar and contrast that with views of people like Shourie.

So, I was thinking that it would be nice to take a nuanced and dispassionate view, but the important thing is that it would be from an Indic viewpoint. The problem is that our historical narratives are dominated by the leftist/Eurocentric/Islamist viewpoint, and the idea is to try and correct this.

[Rahul Mehta]

.... Similarly, if the Communists did act against the National interest,

Thats exactly why I disapprove labeling, and also insist using proper labels. Instead of using word "communist", you could have said "CPM leaders", and the statement would have been far far less inaccurate. Saying that "communists are anti-India" is ridiculous, given that hardcore nationalists like Bhagat Singhji and many of his colleagues were communists. To that, add the many communists party members who served kaalaa-paani. And many CPI members had defied party line joined Quit India movement and also went into prison. And a Bhagat Singji's close colleague (I forgot his name) had joined CPI after he was released from prison in 1946. By saying "communist are anti-India", you are accusing all communists from Bhagat Singhji to Yechuri. And many were not anti-India.

Thats why I hate labeling.

.

[Pranav]

.... Similarly, if the Communists did act against the National interest,

Thats exactly why I disapprove labeling, and also insist using proper labels. Instead of using word "communist", you could have said "CPM leaders", and the statement would have been far far less inaccurate. Saying that "communists are anti-India" is ridiculous, given that hardcore nationalists like Bhagat Singhji and many of his colleagues were communists. To that, add the many communists party members who served kaalaa-paani. And many CPI members had defied party line joined Quit India movement and also went into prison. And a Bhagat Singji's close colleague (I forgot his name) had joined CPI after he was released from prison in 1946. By saying "communist are anti-India", you are accusing all communists from Bhagat Singhji to Yechuri. And many were not anti-India.

Thats why I hate labeling.

.

At this stage we're using broad brush-strokes. Just giving examples, without trying to be totally precise. But yes, at a later stage, one will have be meticulous about what one says.

[JwalaMukhi]

this is very interesting. Maybe we can explore further in other discussion group on culture/economy?

Brihaspatiji, for sure would like to explore further and hear your pov. But can take this in other thread and not disrupt the main theme of this thread.

[brihaspati]

Prem wrote
Brahspati sir ,
Sikhism was especially started to blend all the Varnas in one . There are many references to these Char Varans becoming one in Sikh literature.So, We already has the spiritual and temporal blessing to apply this on society , even by danda.

One of the intriguing aspects of Indian cultural-political history for me has always been the relatively small numerical impact of "new philosophies" that arose partly as a strategic response to supposed fractures within the Bharatyia. The fact remains that, in spite of lots of complaints the majority did not choose to voluntarily move away from the "Sanatana Dharma". We do not see a lasting dominant numerical presence of Buddhists, or Jains - although archaeological evidence points to their widespread presence all over the subcontinent.

If the Islamic invasion and its destructive impact on the Buddhist university and scholarly establishments and population centres around them is considered, we still cannot explain satisfactorily how if they had predominated prior to the invasions, they fared so poorly compared to the "Sanatana dharmiks". Here I would also place doubts on the possible Thaparite claim of "Brahminical" destruction of "Buddhism" - simply because of too many references to flourishing "Buddhist universities" and cultural centres when the Muslims attacked them.

The conflict that led to attrition in the Sikhs, came from their principled and persistent struggle against the Mughals. But, they probably were not allowed sufficient time to expand.

But comparing all these attempts, I find that such attempts have not been able to dominate numerically the greater majority of Indians. I know large sections of "Dalits" in north-India, who want to reclaim the "Hindu" pantheon, especially "Ram" as the pantheon of "Dalits" - there main anger is against what they have been made to understand as "Brahminism", but they still do not even dream of "leaving" the "Dharma". In a way, they are looking for self-assertion within the "Dharma", and seek acknowledgement, recognition and status within the framework.

It is not impossible, that it was originally their "civilizational" heritage which had been reconstructed into an "exclusive" "religion" and they were dispossessed of their cultural identity and power.

This is a complex issue, but worth noting. We need to wash the accumulated dirt, and restore power where it properly belongs. Here we cannot proceed if we cannot give "each" his "due". This includes "all" sections, and not just only those who have been ascribed "dalit".

[brihaspati]

Jwalamukhiji,
yes I meant other thread. Indian interests?

[brihaspati]

Rahulji,
Subhasji or Bhagatji's example is curious. One could also read that these are also exceptional individuals who were not "allowed" to reach their full potential as regards what they could achieve for India. Whreas Mohan-bhai's Chankyan strategy succeeded in establishing his "favourite" and a consequent dynasty that managed to displace "all the good men" and have a "lasting impact" - albeit a damaging one. What if Subhasji and Bhgatji had the help of a real "Chanakya"?

[NRao]

Is there a viable alternative to the next Gandhi - to LEAD India?

This question becomes even more important now that Pakistan is morphing. India - hate to put it this way, but cannot find a better way to put it on the internet - cannot afford to have someone who is scared of being picked off (being very serious here).

[shaardula]

bruhaspati...
one thing prolly is that the spread of buddhism and jainism was more amongst the elites than commoners. the elites tend to leave more of a footprint than sdre commoners, and, later on, we tend to see more of the material that belonged to people who had more. i doubt if there exist any records that claim vast populations of exclusive buddha/mahaveera following people. patronage prolly, but exclusive followers, i doubt. you should remember yindoos, especially sdre types tend be polytheistic and take to propitiaing multiple things at the same time, simultaneously. they can hardly be bothered by nuanced differences in idealogies or exclusivities. bottomline types most of us are. and most native idealogies donot tend to demand exclusivity anyways and as a consequence neither did most of the ideological elite.

#1.
for your average rama shyama in india, samsaara, artha,kama and pursuit of these is important. even sajjad lone was talking about his kids recently.

buddha was way too nihilistic for indian tastes. in terms of higher theories and even epistemology he didn't add any new idea that was not already there in the upanishadic corpus. but he reduced the world(ly) view to, perhaps a more realistic, but ultimately more nihilistic package. tad too out of flavour for indian tastes. imho. i realize there is scope for debate here, but IMHo it is indisputable that M&B were far more nihilistic than your average gauDapaada or even a bharadwaja.

in any case, ordinary people, are hardly likely to be ever concerned about nuances and theories of human existence. i am willing to bet that the conception that hordes of people moved enmasse to buddha based purely on esoterics of egalitarian message is a myth. he is more likely to have been a novelty - a new act. a lot of people perhaps tried him out, perhaps. but i doubt if they moved shop. if you notice, where buddha found traction was in lands where idea of samsaara had not. we share several similar ideas with our neighbours, but the idea that samsaara is ok and it is not a sin to seek fulfillment within it, is prolly quite unique or atleast more prevalently common knowledge on this side of the himalayas. everybody has a shot at moksha, even when going about their daily social lives. that was enough for those concerned about these types of issues.

to be moved by purely by nuances and theories, on an average, you have to be assured of certain existential certainties. all the sophistry of buddha and mahavira and shankara, is for people at a certain level of existential comfort.

lets check jains for example. amongst the jains you will find only people doing certain type of things today. i doubt if you see residues of them in fields like carpentry, smithy, agri, shepards, etc... atleast i dont. i bet only a specific sort of people became jains, mostly the elite types. perhaps they got impressed by the intellectual side or perhaps they had economic incentives, i dont know. but if you look at their residues, you dont see anything that leads you to believe that in the days of glory, entire masses joined the party.

it ofcourse possible, that on an average jainas/bauddhas have progressed. but if you you closely see how marvadis et al, operate they are very organic, they are group with people of many tastes and affinities.
ordinary people are likely to be very matter of factly about life. i have this problem, you say you can solve it? cut the crap and tell me the algorithm - this more likely the norm. exclusive saffron wearing, only buddha following types are likely to be very few. because all that leads to no samsaari purushartha.

[shaardula]

exclusive saffron wearing, only buddha following types are likely to be very few. because all that leads to no samsaari purushartha.

universities and monsateries may not necessarily output stuff that actually matters to ordinary people. plus, life in them, may not have been necessariliy more lucrative than life as a commoner. for example, i am not sure brilliant mathematicians of yore necessarily enjoyed any priviliges or had great fulfilling family lives. whoever did math, did math only because he was born with it - ala ramanujan. math was not a feasible vocation.

another important point is, most of the indic elite tended to be not hard on imposition. it possible that the king was J or B and built huge structures, just because he could build it, but didnot necessarily require his citizens to patronize*. there are yindoo examples of this. sundry kings converted to shaivism or vaishnavism depending upon who the biggest theorist of the day was. they left grand structures in proclaimation of the faith. but today they stand as ASI structures. the real people mover temples of all strands are an entirely different set altogether. ugra narasimha at hampi enjoys different patronage from tirupathi or even nearby smaller temples. badami caves i wax eloquent about, but our own family diety is the much patronized banashankari on the outskirts of badami. and so on... in my own native village off tungabhadra, there is an exotic jaina basadi and an exotic chalukya temple. some daily upkeep goes on in both of these places, even to this day and there are even some ASI types visiting every so often. but the most patronized place of worship is neither what the jaina or the hindu king built, its a local diety that everybody believes is worth propitiating more. my kakus side they have been doing this for generations.

* this is perhaps one explaination to shiv. ordinary people didnot care about who ruled them, bcoz ordinary people were hardly bothered. their local patterns were hardly ever disturbed. ramana has written about this already, but whenever there was perceptible danger of upsetting local norms, people like vidyaranya did find some traction.

the current day indian state also survives because it doesnot agressively seek to destroy local structures. it has no interest in it. in some wierd way it realizes there is india only becaus of the different kinds of indians. not the other way round.

basically, it is very likely yindoo-ism with all its defects was essentially the only true system open,accessible and relevant to sdres of all hues.

[shaardula]

we tend to make a lot of noise about buddha and mahaveera because modern academia is foccussed on the differences. commonalities dont matter. the differences are critical. intense focus on differences, accentuates the differences. this is related to why they harp about sanskritization and brahminization, while they have no qualms about englisation or urduization. some other day on this.

added later: dissing buddha, mostly on spiritual stuff, i really open myself up. i am quite sure i am not off the mark. but i would really appreciate if learned forumers guide/correct me.

[brihaspati]

NRaoji,
anyone seen by the enemies of India as likely to be a focus of "revival" is likely to be actually "picked off" - we need not worry about that person being "scared". The risk is lessened if there is strong small core group dedicated to a common puspose and completely loyal to each other and the objective. Finishing off one will then be no guarantee of derailing the process.

[brihaspati]

shaardula-ji,
a very good analysis. I will try to give my response later.

[Rahul Mehta]

ordinary people are likely to be very matter of factly about life. i have this problem, you say you can solve it? cut the crap and tell me the algorithm - this more likely the norm.

IOW, the problem you stated is :

1. commons just want procedure code i.e. what to do i.e. algorithm
2. wise men spend hours in discussing history, sociological constructs, ideologies etc.

So what algorithm do you propose to solve this problem [:D] .

=====

I propose following algorithm, which comes from my -ism : administrationism or adminism.

1. The players can propose
a. procedure code or
b. show flaws in existing or proposed procedure code
c. compare two procedure codes
d. speak NOTHING else.

2. The internal flaws in a procedure can be of only following types
a. The procedure code does not make any estimate of staff, money, material needed
b. If it does, the procedure cannot be fulfilled in estimates given
c. There are scenarios where code will not terminate (eg infinite loop)

3. comparison of two procedure codes should be confined to relative execution cost and scenarios in which one outperforms others.

IOW, the solution to the problem -- that commons want algorithm and where as wise men give knowledge but no algorithm --- lies in confining discussion to algorithm. This can be voluntary at best.

======

Brahaspati,

By internet, I meant masses. Internet is a tool to know opinions of lakhs and crores. For face to face interaction, video conference with a few of them is best option --- travel is too expensive and time wasting.

Lets say that there are 1000 Micro-Chandragputa around, one of whom can become CG later on. Should he depend on a small group of Chanakya or should he take mass majority as his Chanakya? In the former, there is a possibility that that small group can already be on payroll of West or defunct Indian elitemen, or when it becomes more powerful, may sell out to West or Indian elitemen. This has happened too many times in past 200-400 years, and also in past 40 years. So mini-CGs must take something that is too large for West to buy out. The mass majority fits the bill --- there is no way West can purchase 110 cr Indians or 71 crore voters. So they are ideal Chanakya for mini-CGs today. Internet is a tool to communicate with a randomly chosen sample.

.

[shaardula]

ordinary people are likely to be very matter of factly about life. i have this problem, you say you can solve it? cut the crap and tell me the algorithm - this more likely the norm.

IOW, the problem you stated is :

1. commons just want procedure code i.e. what to do i.e. algorithm
2. wise men spend hours in discussing history, sociological constructs, ideologies etc.

So what algorithm do you propose to solve this problem [:D] .

=====

I propose following algorithm, which comes from my -ism : administrationism or adminism.

1. The players can propose
a. procedure code or
b. show flaws in existing or proposed procedure code
c. compare two procedure codes
d. speak NOTHING else.

2. The internal flaws in a procedure can be of only following types
a. The procedure code does not make any estimate of staff, money, material needed
b. If it does, the procedure cannot be fulfilled in estimates given
c. There are scenarios where code will not terminate (eg infinite loop)

3. comparison of two procedure codes should be confined to relative execution cost and scenarios in which one outperforms others.

IOW, the solution to the problem -- that commons want algorithm and where as wise men give knowledge but no algorithm --- lies in confining discussion to algorithm. This can be voluntary at best.

======
.

i didn't think that is a problem. that is how it is. personally, i think it would be stupid of me to try and act out, in real life, all the theories that i read in virtual life(including books or listening to learned others).

commons dont even care about this problem. this is problem only for wisemen, who are frustrated that commons dont act according to their theories.

if wisemen keep to themselves, then commoners can sort out things for themselves. but it is not possible now. wisemen like taliban and other theory-walas of all hues wont let commoners be. they will tell them what to do and how to behave. bottomline, all these are not commoners problems or because of them. this is problem and struggle between theory-walas.

[Keshav]

Shaardula -

to be moved by purely by nuances and theories, on an average, you have to be assured of certain existential certainties. all the sophistry of buddha and mahavira and shankara, is for people at a certain level of existential comfort.

The whole post was a mastery of philosophical induction and nuance. Keep up the good work.

[ramana]

Romance of Decline: Study of British appeasement policy

Please take a look and see if there are parallels to the Indian elite!

[brihaspati]

shaardula wrote
commons dont even care about this problem. this is problem only for wisemen, who are frustrated that commons dont act according to their theories.

if wisemen keep to themselves, then commoners can sort out things for themselves. but it is not possible now. wisemen like taliban and other theory-walas of all hues wont let commoners be. they will tell them what to do and how to behave. bottomline, all these are not commoners problems or because of them. this is problem and struggle between theory-walas.

shaardulaji,

isnt this also a kind of "theorizing"? reality is probably more complex than the simple "wisemen/commoner" paradigm. If the commoners could really sort it out on their own, then the Partitions would not have happened. The very fact that a few "wisemen" can have such inordinately disproportionate influence on the "commoner" undermines this theory.

[shaardula]

sure b. its not trivial like that. infact you cannot escape it. but theories are just that. and have their own merit/level of significance.

will get back later. in any case my original point was, that people tend to solve problems, wisemen focus on contexts in which the problem is. the only problem is, putting problems in their context is not a science. because of this, most of the times, you end up problematizing the people instead of solving the original problem. debate in india about secularism is a very good example of this.
buddha didnt problematize his people. but the secularists do. for them a good chunk of people are problematic.

[svinayak]

to be moved by purely by nuances and theories, on an average, you have to be assured of certain existential certainties. all the sophistry of buddha and mahavira and shankara, is for people at a certain level of existential comfort.

There is whole practical side of the entire vedic knowledge which is only materialism and to improve existential comfort. That is not at all ignored. Arthashastra comes from that philosophy and lokayutha is on the same plane of existence.

So there is no need to keep oneself on the sophistry

Dvaitha philosophy addresses some of the issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvaita
Dvaita school belongs to the Realist school of Indian philosophy, in the same category as Samkhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika and Purva mimamsa schools.
Sarvadarśanasaṅ̇graha is one of the few available sources of information about Lokayata, the materialist system of philosophy in ancient India.

[Pulikeshi]

Shaardula,

As you correctly point out -
Modern Hindus (like many western scholars) confuse Moksha as the central tenet of Hinduism.
If fact, Hinduism is less of a religion and more of a social framework as it does not tell you the path to Moksha.

Most do not understand Karma-Kaanda or Purushartha. This is the core - blindly followed.
Even Buddhism in the Mahayana form had to be diluted for the wheel of Samsaara.

There is a reason why Artha and Kama precede Moksha. Advaita is only for advaithins
Always a pleasure to read your posts.

The "commons" perform their Karma despite the best theories of the "wisemen"

[rajpa]

in the real world, solving any kind of problem involves cost - labour, money, relationships, principles, compromises... yada yada... whether it is the wisemen or the common man, the cost of the solution has to be borne by someone... who solves a problem such as recession? the consumer? the government? the entrepreneur? who is the common man? who is the wise man? who created a problem such as recession?

i dont know if a religion such as hinduism or any other can effectively be a guide in the modern world unless it is completely reinterpreted to use modern phrases and idioms.

a future leader may be a simple man who can put together complex concepts in a simple manner for all to understand... it is surely too complex for me to understand all this...

[rkirankr]

in the real world, solving any kind of problem involves cost - labour, money, relationships, principles, compromises... yada yada... whether it is the wisemen or the common man, the cost of the solution has to be borne by someone... who solves a problem such as recession? the consumer? the government? the entrepreneur? who is the common man? who is the wise man? who created a problem such as recession?

i dont know if a religion such as hinduism or any other can effectively be a guide in the modern world unless it is completely reinterpreted to use modern phrases and idioms.

a future leader may be a simple man who can put together complex concepts in a simple manner for all to understand... it is surely too complex for me to understand all this...

I beg to differ. What you suggest may be dangerous. Reinterpreted by whom and how. The sanaathana dharma has been different things to different people over time.
I do not see what you mean by "Reinterpreted to use modern phrases and idioms".
Should it be "Reinterpreted to use modern thoughts and ideas" - In this case it is dangerous because these ideas may not be for all times and they may be flawed. People thought communism was great in 50s but now... People thought unhindered free enterprise was great in 2007 but the
icon of free enterprise is now nationalizing banks..

I have some more things to add. Will come back after a while

[brihaspati]

Sanathana dharma clearly recognized the distinction between philosophy and practical social implementation. Most of the Upanishads are concerned with what we can best call methodology of creating and analyzing philosophies rather than philosophies themselves. A cosnsistent theme in the Upanishads is "Charaibeti" - which implies non-stationarity and impermanence. Upanishads clearly leave the path open for requestioning and re-examinations.

It is the law-texts which fix things in time, place and people, out of sheer necessity as based on the contemporary expeirnec of problems and decisions of that particular level of socio-economic-technological organization. Many times, the law-texts themselves acknowledge this dichotomy - as characterizing certain practices recognized by contemporary law as people-king enforced but not supported by the "sashtras" - philosophy.

The problem in modern analysis starts when people clump these two facets of "sanathana dharma" together in one homogenoeus mass, and draw their conevenient or desired conclusions - usually by seizing on the law-texts to try and show the irrelevance of the whole for the modern period.

[Pulikeshi]

The Upanishads lived in the minds of hoary teachers and their selected students.
The masses of Bharatakanda lived/live only by rule of what is good Karma.

The problem in modern analysis starts when people clump these two facets of "sanathana dharma" together in one homogenoeus mass, and draw their conevenient or desired conclusions - usually by seizing on the law-texts to try and show the irrelevance of the whole for the modern period.

While I do not understand your law-texts negating the whole argument -
Does your argument above not contradict what you said below?

A cosnsistent theme in the Upanishads is "Charaibeti" - which implies non-stationarity and impermanence. Upanishads clearly leave the path open for requestioning and re-examinations.

Change is the only constant - people are free to seek reinterpretation within the framework in every day and age.
Modern Indians have been arguing Moksha and ways to it with Western and Indian audiences - but it is a waste of time!
Karma (Action) is the only thing that determines the future -
it needs guidance, but it is entirely in the hands of the individual.
We may be saying the same thing with different focus - not sure.

[Pulikeshi]

I beg to differ. What you suggest may be dangerous. Reinterpreted by whom and how. The sanaathana dharma has been different things to different people over time.
I do not see what you mean by "Reinterpreted to use modern phrases and idioms".
Should it be "Reinterpreted to use modern thoughts and ideas" - In this case it is dangerous because these ideas may not be for all times and they may be flawed. People thought communism was great in 50s but now... People thought unhindered free enterprise was great in 2007 but the icon of free enterprise is now nationalizing banks..

Good words of caution! That is why it is Sanaathana Dharma and not just Dharma or some such, but it is that which is Sanaathana (Eternal). Reform and reinterpretation within the framework is inbuilt into Sanaathana Dharma (Brishaspati and others including me have pointed that out...). The key is the sub-framework of argument and reform has been lost with invasions and apathy. I have been the first among many to propound reforming the Smrithis - but that is for some other eon, we are not ready.

Perhaps some people thought communism was great in the 50s, but others long before and after (from Smith to Hayek) have shown why it will fail. SD allows for a synthesis of ideas over geological time and prevents society from schizophrenia of one fad or the next.
My own humble opinion - now is the time to find common threads, coalesce and simplify, not a time to argue the subtlety of Advaita vs. Dvaita or Vishista-Dvaita and paint bare the distinctions - it has been done and has not helped our society beyond intellectual dissatisfaction.

Pardon me, but on this thread - I have not seen one definition of who a leader is, how to cultivate them or what the end goal is... If so, what are we discussing... feel free to fix my lack of understanding.

A leader is one who smooths the way for the masses to keep the wheel of Karma (Action) moving.

[brihaspati]

Pulikeshi-ji,

While I do not understand your law-texts negating the whole argument -
Does your argument above not contradict what you said below?

No it is not contradictory. I wrote explicitly, that out of necessity - law-texts are forced to deal with contemporary problems and experiences and therefore become snapshots in time relevant fro that time. When modern analysts with an agenda of trying to delegitimize the whole of "Sanathana dharma" come to it, they focus on what the law texts said and claim - look this particular statement in so-and-so law-text is no longer relevant/ridiculous and since this is part of "Sanatana dharma" - that in itself is irrelevant for the modern time.

Law texts are not negating the philosophy, they are simply interpreting the philosophy as applicable (with perhaps considerable bias depending on the background and incentives for the author) to the society the author is writing about.

[Keshav]

Let me try and sum up this discussion so we can get back to the original topic.

Hinduism is many things to many people with many self-contained lines of thought sprouting from a common origin but coming to different conclusions peacefully disagreeing or agreeing on many points. It will always be something different to every person and that's perfectly okay.

End OT.

[brihaspati]

For the latest within-topic discussion about future strategies for leadership, the question we were analyzing was about the Chanakya-ChandraGupta "model" - as a metaphor for modern time alliance between spiritual/intellectual individuals or groups and "action men".

In Indian history, most successful examples belong to this model, whereas the failures/incomplete missions appear to crowd more in the cases where both qualities/roles were required in the same individual. (Seevral examples of both cases have already been mentioned on this thread.)

But an important factor here is that both must share the same "grand vision" and have unflinching dedication to that "vision". To a certain extent what we see at the helm of affairs within India now for decades is the same phenomenon, but sadly the "vision" is lacking. So that a whole think-tank of intellegentsia and political dynasties or coteries of "action-men/women" have failed to safeguard India from external and internal threats.

The CCG(Chanakya-ChandraGupta) model can be explored further. Whether size of groups matter, advantages/disadvantages of individual vesus group models, etc.

[Abhi_G]

Let me try and sum up this discussion so we can get back to the original topic.

Hinduism is many things to many people with many self-contained lines of thought sprouting from a common origin but coming to different conclusions peacefully disagreeing or agreeing on many points. It will always be something different to every person and that's perfectly okay.

End OT.

Keshav, this is off-topic but I think the conclusions are not different. The issue of attaining moksha is quite clear and it is the objective of every astik school of thought in Hinduism. However, the means/marga of attaining that goal may be different or may actually agree on many points if not all.