Strategic leadership for the future of India

[JwalaMukhi]

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...)

OT: Some define Sanaathana as [Chira Purathana - nithya nuthana] and is extremely neutral to time and space constraints. Basic tenets are applicable as universally as possible.
Brihaspatiji: Sorry for not pursuing the varna now, but would like to sometime later.

[Pulikeshi]

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".

Brihaspati,

Hope an informal address would suffice between us.

Thanks for the clarification. What you have here is the "Merlin-Arthur" problem in someways.
Some in China have argued that the Shanghai-Beijing competition/cooperation could be modeled on this relationship.
We see this in the Bharathiya context as well. You have CCG, but it could also be Vidyaranya-Hakka/Bukka or Poornayya-Tippu Sultan. Further, this is the reason why techie companies have a managerial as well as technical leadership tracks.
Even Obama has a CTO now

This is a complimentary "co-dependency" that aids both to become stronger in pursuit of a common goal.

In my humble opinion - no schools of leadership exist in India only schools of technical learning by wrote.
I mentioned this on the Education threads many moons ago and was politely ignored to discuss the masala topic of reservation

[Sanku]

In my humble opinion - no schools of leadership exist in India only schools of technical learning by wrote.

I strongly concur -- and thats why India produces far more lousy "managers" as opposed to "technical doers" in nearly all stream including biz. The ratio of doers to visionary leaders is staggering, esp given the exceptional quality and numbers of the doers.

[brihaspati]

Pulikeshi,
yes, if it is okay to be informal!
Yes, this guru-rajan model appears to be a long standing theme. I am inclined to believe that such a separation of the spiritual/policy devising role from that of the implementation/action role is more efficient. When the same person combines both roles, he can be led astray from the optimum by overemphasizing one aspect within his own reasoning. Somewhat like the problem of the referee/umpire also playing on both teams at the same time.

A lot of the problems and issues we have been agonizing over in this forum, is really perhaps not about the optimum trajectory - which seems to be more or less a matter of consensus. But the real problem that I see, is translating that collective wisdom and understanding into practical, on-ground political implementation. One BRFite has already tried out one particular line of practical implementation by joing the electoral process directly as a candidate.

Unlike the early anti-British movements, the difficulty now is the pre-existing political party structure.

Longer term, we can think of exploring setting up or trying to setup such a partnership that would look towards translating all the visions we have had for the nation into concrete implementations. Some have opined that a small group of "gurus" could be risky as they might be easily saleable. A larger group would reduce this risk of betrayal. My take is that increasing the size of this group can also make "policy" formulation difficult. This could be not only because more heads will mean more diversity of opinions and strong egos, but also because many aspects of future policy for the Bharatyia nation could demand a level of "mantragupti" and "painful ruthlessness" that cannot be sustained in all individuals in a large group.

A modern Indian could be under severe stress of "guilt/discomfort" in being forced to choose action strategies that may not appear "politically correct" or compatible with "modern" liberal values. A large group could crack under such pressures.

[RamaY]

Pulikeshi,
yes, if it is okay to be informal!
Yes, this guru-rajan model appears to be a long standing theme. I am inclined to believe that such a separation of the spiritual/policy devising role from that of the implementation/action role is more efficient. When the same person combines both roles, he can be led astray from the optimum by overemphasizing one aspect within his own reasoning. Somewhat like the problem of the referee/umpire also playing on both teams at the same time.

Just to bring historical/civilizational perspective

In the old days seers/munis used to carry Dharma-Danda and show the Dharmic path to Raja-Danda. During pattabisheka time the purohita makes the Raja say “Adandyosmi = I cannot be punished” three times. Then a seer (raja guru) would hit him with Dharma Danda and says “Dharma Dondyosi = You will be punished by Dharma Danda”.

Today only Raja Danda is there. Dharma Danda has gone.

[Prem]

May be Bajwa Sahib can explain better

Raj, Bina na Dharam challe hai ( Without Dharm Raj cannot be right or just)
Dharm bina sab dalle malle hai ( Without Dharma all is in vain)

[SwamyG]

brihaspati: Some time back I had mentioned something about vision and leadership, and you had asked me to elaborate. Here are few words on the subject, consider for what they are worth.

Apart from the CC Model, I like the 'Bhasya Model'. As you know usually in our tradition a concept or idea germinates in rather cryptic or terse language - Sutras perhaps. In the lifetime of the 'sutradara' he/she explains the 'sutras'. After a few years a commentator comes and explains the sutra by expounding on it. He takes it to the next level. After a few more years another commentator comes and elaborates the first commentary. Several commentaries are written on the first sutra and other commentaries. Eventually these commentaries are further explained or elaborate with twists and fun by different outlets - stories from grandmother for example. Essentially it reaches the masses.

In the modern business world, the first Sutra can be called the vision/mision statement. After a group buys into this, these are elaborated eventually materializing into goals of the organization. Departments and employees align their individual goals around the vision/mission.

We can merge the CC and Bhasya Model together. But instead of having one Chankya we can have multiple think-tanks working with similar or different agenda. They create the first Sutra (vision/mission). I will label them as Chankya-1. Next level of Chankyas {Chankya-2} will elaborate the Sutra to the next layer. And so on so forth until it reaches the intended audience. Instead of an hierarchical layer these layers are like concentric circles. Chankya-1 work in the core layer. They are surrounded by other think-tanks. Now each of these concentric layers can have as many Chandraguptas as necessary.

The fun part would is to take this model and incorporate it with some Network model. Where such think-tanks exist through out the countries and are connected to other think-tanks. There are different network topologies. These can be used right from linking rivers or linking ideas across the country. Again we can dip into our tradition. Adi Sankar established the 4 mathas across the country in four key locations. Instead of 4 we will have many.

enough rambling?

[ramana]

wrote= rote

[Pulikeshi]

Ramana,

rote indeed and not what I wrote!

this one is for you, I just finished the book:

Sartha: The Caravan

A_Gupta in the "Theocratic Pakistan... " thread would love this book as well.
The Novel has not only the "intellectual battle" between Buddhism, Karma-Kaanda and Advaita,
but also about the Islamic success in capturing caravans in Sindh, etc.
The irony is the Af-Pak region of the world has mooched its way into existence for a long time, they are professionals.

[Rahul Mehta]

All,

Thanks for accepting and using CCG acronym and word actionman :p . Pls also use my pet-est acronym Nbjprie.

=====

We can merge the CC and Bhasya Model together. But instead of having one Chankya we can have multiple think-tanks working with similar or different agenda. They create the first Sutra (vision/mission). I will label them as Chankya-1. Next level of Chankyas {Chankya-2} will elaborate the Sutra to the next layer. And so on so forth until it reaches the intended audience. Instead of an hierarchical layer these layers are like concentric circles. Chankya-1 work in the core layer. They are surrounded by other think-tanks. Now each of these concentric layers can have as many Chandraguptas as necessary.

The two core question of today is : How does a micro-CG establish that Chanakya has not sold out to desi elitemen or West or Sauds.

eg there are 10s of think tanks in India. Most of them, IMO, are agents of desi elitemen, MNCs, China or Sauds. I can name many, but then naming would only create too many individual specific posts and thus deviation from main issue I have stated.

In C-CG model, why does CG need C? Because CG aka actionman at junior level is supposed to be incapable of Chanakya-giri. In that case, it would also apply that junior CG is not capable of establishing that his Chanakya has sold out to elitemen, West, Sauds, China or whether his Chanakya is a true patriot. Back in 300 BC, Alex was not all that powerful, and so CG was lucky that his Chanakya was not on Alex's payroll. Plain luck need not favor anymore given that elitemen, MNCs and Sauds have hijacked almost all NGOs, parties, universities, publishing houses etc. Today, our enemies (namely US, UK, China, Sauds, Pak, BD) have penetrated deep. Too many intellectuals are on payrolls of our enemies. And these intellectuals are smart enough to put patriotic cloths or act as if they are pro-poor, pro-Indian etc.

So it is MUST that mini-CG decide not to put prima-facie faith in Chanakya. So only option he is left with now is that he himself will have to do at least some Chanakya-giri so that at least he can establish if his Chanakya is pro-Indian or pro-elitemen.

=====

Bhraspati,

The common-wisemen model is something I put as follow.

There are 4 types of players

1. Commons

2. Non-80G-activists : pro-poor, pro-common people who are willing to spend time, money to improve well beings of commons without expecting remuneration, salary, tax breaks, Govt grants or corporate grants.

3. Wisemen - aka intellectuals aka budhijeevies

4. Elitemen

===

The mess is because

1. most intellectuals are on payroll of elitemen - desi or Chinese or Saud or American.

2. The elitemen control mineral ores, govt lands, RBI and banks etc

3. Using money from these 4 sources, they own newspapers, TV channels, all large political parties, many small political parties, colleges etc .

4. Using the control over newspapers, TV channels, colleges etc, the wisemen have been successful in convincing the non-80G-activists that wisemen are pro-poor, pro-common.

5. The non-80G-activists are following these intellectuals like zombies, and so commons' miseries do not decrease.

The day non-80G-activists of India realize that wisemen are agents of elitemen, they will come out of the mental slavery, start thinking of laws to reduce miseries of commons and then miseries of commons will disappear as if they never existed. The internet is the ONLY tool as of now by which one can convince the non-80G-activists that assorted intellectuals are in reality the agents of elitemen. The other tools like newspapers etc are too expensive and so only elitemen can use them.

Internet has evolved from phone case soc.culture.indian to Bharat-Rakshak.com . soc.culture.indian had two levels - forum and posts. Bharat-Rakshak.com has 4 levels - website - section - threads - posts. Now the existing website-section-thread-post protocol has limitations : it collapses when number of active participants cross a few hundreds. Also forum-thread-post protocol has created too many isolated islands, each island having no more than 100-2000 participants. If one can devise a protocol where millions can participate without increasing noise and without forming islands (may be based on a network model rather than hierarchy) , the power of internet in Indian polity will grow several times. And we will be able to convince many non-80G-activists that their opinion-leaders are elitemen-agents. And India will improve.

[rkirankr]

In my humble opinion - no schools of leadership exist in India only schools of technical learning by wrote.

I strongly concur -- and thats why India produces far more lousy "managers" as opposed to "technical doers" in nearly all stream including biz. The ratio of doers to visionary leaders is staggering, esp given the exceptional quality and numbers of the doers.

Well.. I beg to differ. I feel technical doers are produced in lots , of course quality is sometimes suspect. But Manager==leaders no. No Indian school or university produces leaders. Of course some may say leaders are born not made. But no university has the expertise to develop the potential in a person. Each one has to find it on his own in a environment which may be fair or sometimes not very fair.
My personal experience - I have been a techie guy for a long time and now a manager role for some time. I have learnt some or rather found my potential (or lack of it sometimes) through tough conditions.
One thing I have noticed is people whether techies or other respect personal integrity a lot. Something the next leaders should really think about

[Sanku]

But Manager==leaders no. No Indian school or university produces leaders.

I dont think we differ; maybe I didnt express myself well. I am also saying the same thing, well nearly
1) We produce a large number of well trained capable doers in all fields
2) We produce very few manager/leaders/visionaries in any true sense (a few exist in GoI and some in the forces but very few and they are a dying breed)

2 is especially surprising given 1.

The western world OTOH is incredibly good for producing people who can take a bunch of even fairly mediocre doers and turning them into a useful collective and I am not talking of right now, this is true right since their first growth in post dark age.

[brihaspati]

SwamyG,
most interesting take. No, not rambling at all. What are your ideas about the cautionary tales of Rahulji?

RM,
I understand your caution. But won't relatively long term collaboration, and mutual "surveillance" overcome a lot of the "sale" factors you are raising? To form such an effective partnership, both have to cross a certain threshold of intelligence and cunning. Which means a basic caution and assessment on both individuals should be a inherent pre-condition.

[brihaspati]

Is the Manager == leader? That is a sort of what is taught at intro management courses, but is it a reality? Managers need not be leaders - they can be simple maintainers or expert oilers of a machine. This does not guarantee necessity to see beyond maintenance. Sometimes over development of the managerial capacity can lead to a vicious cycle of short-sightedness and obsession with immediacy, that goes for optimal instant solutions that can lead to the downward spiral over the long run.

The West's example has been cited here, and for me, they illustrate this royally. From CO2 emissions to, encouraging Islam to tackle any progressive or "leftist" tendencies anywhere in the world - and thereby helping Jihad take hold globally, to the global growth crisis in capitalism, and the financial meltdown - it shows what extreme development of mere managerial capacity means and implies for civilization.

I am now going to touch on "dangerous" grounds now. Whenever I cross the "Vindhyas", I see and feel a most subtle difference. To the North I see street-smartness, a combination of intense survival instinct and wisdom that borders on cynicism sometimes. To the South I see, a simplicity and spiritualness that sometimes border on innocence and credulity. For me this is a concrete result of the history of the subcontinent. The North faced so much of aggression and repression that only the survivor instinct predominated over time. The "facers" and "confrontationists" were either weeded out over time from actual conflicts or "changed sides".

Because of the larger populations supported by the northern plains, and their corresponding larger absolute size of "survivors" it is the "survival of self at any cost" that dominates Indian leadership. The South would have been the proper spiritual idealist counterweight to this, but that "obsessive/paranoid" search for dominance and power is consequently missing.

A practical managerial solution would look thereofore for a Chanakya from the South and a CG from the North - the actionman will be expected by conventional wisdom to be without scruples and wily. But my thought is about reversing this as a possibility. Why not use the cynicism, wilyness of the North as Chanakya and principled ethical CG from the South?

Not trying to promote regionalism, and not trying to establish "sweeping generalizations". I hope people who are rooted in the South will understand the underlying thrust in my thought.

[SwamyG]

Brihaspati ji: If you follow Rahul's logic/pattern, eventually it will lead to common man . It is not cautious note, but he is fitting in this model to his set of ideas. I think he has this common man platform. I might be wrong.

His question is akin to asking why do we have a CEO or board of directors in a public company? There are shareholders right, they have vested interested in the company why don't we allow shareholders (aam aadmi) to create strategies and operated? The answer is simple: They have other things to do. So it is not lack of shrewdness or vision, it is just that the priorities and focus are different. Chanakya was focused in what he needed and set to work up on it.

If one Chanakya gets sold out, there would be other Chanakya's who would step up. If they don't, then we are screwed. But it is highly unlikely that one aam admi will not rise upto be a Chandragupta or Chankya.

[SwamyG]

>>A practical managerial solution would look thereofore for a Chanakya from the South and a CG from the North
I read some where that Chanakya was from South - Kerala? Could be wrong.

[Keshav]

>>A practical managerial solution would look thereofore for a Chanakya from the South and a CG from the North
I read some where that Chanakya was from South - Kerala? Could be wrong.

Obviously archaeologists don't know for sure but they assume he was from the North due to his understanding of the political situation there. For example, the story of him being abused by the despotic Nanda was because an officer had found him living in the outskirts of the empire which then covered all of the North from current day Rajasthan to Bengal. Its capital was in Pataliputra, current day Patna in Bihar.

[brihaspati]

Jaina sources claim Chanakya to be from the Shakaldvipyia Maga-Brahmins. Legend apart of their being "brought over" to carry on/establish/help solar cults from ancient Persia by Samba, they are mostly found concentrated in the north and east.

[SwamyG]

Hey, he was from India and a remarkable man. That is all that matters for me. But ishtill....

Source: http://www.indiavideo.org/text/chaanakya-1074.php

He was known by several other names too, like Kautilya, Vishnugupta, Dramila, and Amgula. Arthashastra is also known as kautaliya, after the author’s name. The name Chanakya means one who was born in the place Chanaka, some experts conclude while some others are of the idea that Chanakya was the son of Chanaka, the exponent of the jurisprudence of the times. Another view is that this brilliant political planner and administrator was from South India, and that his other name ‘Dramila’ denotes both Tamil and Dravid. This view is expressed in the book ‘Abhidhana Chintamani’, authored by a jain monk named Hemachandra. In some other Jain texts too, Kerala is noted as the birthplace of Chanakya. In Arthashastra itself, there are mentions of chaurneyam, which is a precious stone available from the river Periyar, near Kodungalloor, the famous port-town of ancient Kerala. But in several Buddhist texts, Chanakya’s birthplace is given as Taxila (Takshashila of old). According to these sources, Chanakya had his education in astronomy, ayurveda and legal systems of the times from Taxila. And then he learned the languages of Persian and Greek. He adopted the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism, at his later stage of life, according to certain other sources.

Back to leadership... It does not matter where Chanakya or Chandragupta come from. As long as they are there....it is good.

[brihaspati]

Thanks SwamyG!
In fact all the stories connected together give a picture that is something to ponder over for those who never saw India-wide thinking of the ancients. Someone from Keral, or from Takshashila, or from Magadha could play a role in political consolidation and revival of most of the subcontinent indicates a fabric of unity and acceptability that would not be possible if some consciousness of commonality as a political-national unit was non-existent. Same goes with the story of CG ultimately travelling "South" away from the centre of his regime and power to spend the next phase of his spiritual life is part of this same consciousness. The character of this ancient flow of nationalism between the triangles of North West, East and South still holds in a twisted way. But we do not want the modern incarnations of this alliance and flow as represented by Laloo Prasad, Mayavati, Sharad Pawar and Karunanidhi. The character of this flow needs to change and reverse where the consciousness of source/origin and region has to submerge into the bigger framewok of immutability of a person as acceptable from one region to another. The origin should not be relevant, what he is standing for as the nation should override all other factors.

[shaardula]

P,
imho taking the message to the masses is a futile excercise. masses are not interested. imho rightly so.

the way it has been done is that, elite have been tutored. these tutored elite then establish a framework which would then reflect the message. hakka prolly knew mostly about sheep, before vidyaranya tutored him. as much hakka gathered, he gathered. but, as a consequence of all the tutoring and refinement, down the lane krishnadevaraya -uber elite happened. in any case, hakka or krishnadeva, these elite rayas did all the framework building. meanwhile, people this side of the vindyas, went about their samsaara in all their relf righteous dharmic glory. many prolly never even heard of vidyaranya.

the framework now is constitution. only need to ensure it reflects dharma. babus not netas. gopalaswamy not modi. only now babu cant be suo moto as vidyaranya was.

neta under the garb of taking the message to masses and neta only riles them up. babu lets the message trickle down and do its thing.

it all too cycnical perhaps, and again not as trivial as all that. but still prolly important to understand that dharma is always operant despite leaders.

flashy accomplished heros are fine when they materialize. they give us the joy of seeing a graph jump in a short period of time. but these heros are not constant. if they materialize fine. but what when they dont? they cant be produced with clockwork precision. in the interim we need a framework that sustains people who can chip away with clock like precision.

that reminds me, ramana, would sheshan be in the league of vyasatheerta et-al? he prolly saved india.

[svinayak]

that reminds me, ramana, would sheshan be in the league of vyasatheerta et-al? he prolly saved india.

Everybody has a role

[ramana]

You cant rely on babus for elite formation. Due to nature of civil services it depends on tradition and precedents. That is the past is projected as future. Nothing innovative will come out of them. Only evolutionary changes nothing revolutinary. And MMS govt has shown the dangers of empowering babucracy. They are seat warmers and dont rock the boat types.

One thing I noted is despite 60 years of protection/pelf the babucrats have not developed an establishment for they are on the periphery and their power is only while they are in service. Its gone after they retire. A truly Cinderlla's coach phenomenon.


I am not sure of TN Seshan. He made one big mistake in 1995. He delayed the J&K elections till after May 1996 on flimsy grounds and this changed the course of the nation. Had he conducted them on time GOI would have the credit of ensuring J&K peace in its time and benefited from that.

So its not yet clear as to his ideas.

[SwamyG]

imho taking the message to the masses is a futile excercise. masses are not interested. imho rightly so.

If the message is conveyed by the right people in right way, masses will be interested. How are psy-ops performed on masses? Or for that matter how did we learn our puranas?

In the neta-babu paradigm who sets the strategy? I don't think it is the Babu. Babus are the Chandraguptas, they facilitate the message from the netas (Chanakyas) in different ways. The Constitution of a country does not become the Strategy of the Country. If we consider a Corporation, the Corporation's company policies are like the constitution of the country. The vision/mission of the Corporation is the Strategy of the Country. And just like each employee has to understand the Vision/Mission and Company policies, citizens have to understand (and value) the Constitution and Strategy.

[Pulikeshi]

P,
imho taking the message to the masses is a futile excercise. masses are not interested. imho rightly so.

Masses are interested as long as it is in their interest
But someone has to show them why it is in their interest.

This is why innovators do not solve problems, rather they "create problems"

[Rahul Mehta]

Brihaspati ji: If you follow Rahul's logic/pattern, eventually it will lead to common man . It is not cautious note, but he is fitting in this model to his set of ideas. I think he has this common man platform. I might be wrong.

His question is akin to asking why do we have a CEO or board of directors in a public company? There are shareholders right, they have vested interested in the company why don't we allow shareholders (aam aadmi) to create strategies and operated? The answer is simple: They have other things to do. So it is not lack of shrewdness or vision, it is just that the priorities and focus are different. Chanakya was focused in what he needed and set to work up on it.

If one Chanakya gets sold out, there would be other Chanakya's who would step up. If they don't, then we are screwed. But it is highly unlikely that one aam admi will not rise upto be a Chandragupta or Chankya.

An analogy with "share", CEO may not be appropriate, as we do not and should not have one man one share in a company. In companies, we should allow men having more shares as different shareholder have different contribution towards intellectuals property of the company. But nations are best run on one man one vote on the biggest item that gives prosperity to a nation - its natural resources like mineral ores, waters, land etc. These items were not created by any men.

Now , I did not say that we dont need PM and strategists. Nor do I want to do reduce powers. But we also need prompt replacement procedures so that citizens can easily replace a PM when he starts selling citizens out. I dont believe in small Govt. I believe in LARGE and powerful Govt, where in citizens have procedure to replace if and when need be. I have written many posts on this issue on neta-babu thread.

====

I want to re-emphasize a fact : A big part of Indian neta, babu, judges, IPS, mediamen, academia is on US, UK, China, Saud payroll. Many Indian elitemen own setups which will go bust in a week if videshi elitemen stop giving tech support. So these desi elitemen too act like MNC puppets. Some intellectuals sound patriot, but when you analyze them, you see them that they support anti-poor anti-common laws and are agents of Indian elitemen. They are slightly better than those who are agents of China, Saud or US, but not much better. Back then in 300 BC, the education contents were not written by people on elitemen's payroll. And so there was more realism and reality in teachings those days. Today, the minds of most students etc are poisoned by intellectuals who are agents of desi-videshi elitemen. Back in those days, the enemy had armies but not such a deep penetration inside elite, media, academia etc. Today, enemy is much close and we dont even know where he is hiding.

This is where plain vanilla C-CG model runs into problems. C-CG model assumes that C and CG will not be on videshi payroll. Whereas we have to suspect everyone and trust none as of today. So we need a model where in round one, no one is trusted and then by intense verification and replacement, filtering is done repeatedly. C-CG model needs modification -- we need to add procedures by which C and CG can be tested and replaced if found to be on elitemen's payroll. I will take following line from SwamyG's post "If one Chanakya gets sold out, there would be other Chanakya's who would step up.". That would happen only if there is a procedure to replace Chanakya. If such procedure does not exist, we would, as you said in your procedure, get screwed.

[Rahul Mehta]

imho taking the message to the masses is a futile excercise. masses are not interested. imho rightly so. the way it has been done is that, elite have been tutored. these tutored elite then establish a framework which would then reflect the message. hakka prolly knew mostly about sheep, before vidyaranya tutored him. as much hakka gathered, he gathered. but, as a consequence of all the tutoring and refinement, down the lane krishnadevaraya -uber elite happened. in any case, hakka or krishnadeva, these elite rayas did all the framework building. meanwhile, people this side of the vindyas, went about their samsaara in all their relf righteous dharmic glory. many prolly never even heard of vidyaranya.

Take Indian population as 100cr

Super Elite = top 100,000 people of India
Elite = Next 1 cr
Sub-Elite = Next 2 cr
Commons = rest 97 cr

Consider super-elitemen. These individuals are so networked and dependent on the network of top 100,000, that none can act against the wish of network. Now hardly 100 of them want to reduce miseries of commons. And out of them, given their dependency on network, none will take a risk. So you can count all of them out.

Now be commons, elitemen or sub-elitemen, all over the world, only 2% to 4% will be willing to spend time to make a change. Rest are busy with problems or entertainment or ambitions. These 2% is what I call them as non-80G-activists and are key elements in my model. A non-80G-activist one who is willing to spend some time, willing to spend some of his own hard earned post-tax money and also willing to take some risk to improve the well being of commons. And in return, he expects no tax breaks, no Govt grants and no corporate grants. (I divide activists into two groups : 80G-activists and non-80G-activists. The label 80G-activists comes Income Tax Act Section 80G, which makes donations to NGOs tax exempt. And so the activists who run NGOs are what I call as 80G-activists, as they are working for tax exemption, grants etc. And the rest of the activists are non-80G-activists).

So some 2 cr people in India are non-80G-activists. And they are spread across population - caste, creed, religion, economic well being etc. I classify them as follows

1. Elite non-80G-activist : about 200,000 in number
2. Sub-Elite non-80G-activist : about 400,000 in number
3. Common non-80G-activist : about 1,94,00,000

The common non-80G-activists dont have internet, dont have money to print pamphlets and dont have English education. So they will not be able to take part in seeding the movement. But they will SURELY come forward after seed part is done. The 200,000 elite non-80G-activists and 400,000 sub-elite non-80G-activists can seed a movement. In next round, some 1.94 cr non-80G-activists in commons will join them. And later, ocean-load of commons will join the movement. Provided --- the movement stresses on some pro-common laws. If the movement consists of just shrills, it will not attract even 0.5% of commons.

The commons do care, as they are the worst victims. The problem is taking the information about pro-common laws to the commons. They are wise enough to realize that the law is pro-common or not. Not much eloberate effort is needed to convince them. But taking the information itself is a task. The TV, newspaper owners will never put this information on their TV, newspapers. So how do you take the information about pro-common laws to common non-80G-activists and commons?

Thats the KEY question. I will discuss the solution after my first hand experiences with election campaigns.

.

[shiv]

Rahul Mehta when is d day?

Wish you luck and votes.

[brihaspati]

RM,
best wishes to you from my side too for the day.

What you say about reaching to the commons, is very relevant. But I think it is not just about reaching them but being able to convince them of your strength to achieve this. Unless a critical mass is reached, the impression may not be there that there would be sufficient numerical voting strength in legislature to bring about the proposed changes.

Either you ride a mass movement that returns sufficient number of candidates to be able to force through required reforms in the legislature, or an electoral situation is created where the support of one or two MP's will be critical for formation of government.

Otherwise, it is a longer term patient slogging through political activism.

[ramana]

I think a familiarity with the gist of this theory will do good for BRF folks.

Border defense is one of the 20 critical sub-systems of ALL living systems. A system that does not defend its boundaries dies, according to Dr. James Miller in Living Systems.

Living Systems Theory

[brihaspati]

The "border" is a crucial issue. But after long arguments and debate, I remain convinced that expansion of the current borders are the only solution left. Expansion of the "living organism" or "cell" to digest the "alien" - phagocytosis.

From the leadership viewpoint, perhaps it is time to form the neucleus of a modern CCG. Here is the ad for it "Looking for the Guru".

[ramana]

Jupiterji, Earlier I was of the opinion that when TSP collapses its neutral for India to have the constituent parts as separate entities.

Of late I am thinking that Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan will have to be included first as Union territories for say 30 yars(five elections) and then given full statehood. The NWFP can be allowed to merge with Afghani Pashtu regions in similar manner to erase the Durand line. Pashtu nationalism will finally be satisfied.
This solves many of the festering problems on many fronts.

The Iran-> Baloch-> India energy pipeline will be plus.
No Kashmir 'flash point'
TSP nukes will be merged with Indian and offered first in a future arms reduction initiative
PA will revert to old IA regmt structure. Regmts will be kept but a through vetting of the ranks will be undertaken. Deployments will be all over sub-contienent. Officers will be pan-Indian.
Pak IB with Indian IB
ISI with RAW
New police forces like Assam Rifles to be raised
Taliban are our Deobandi boys. And will get proper Talim

[samuel]

Border at the Sindhu. Afghanistan on the other side, all the way to the sea. We tee where the indus curves and go straight to CAR. will be good going for the next 50 years.
S

[brihaspati]

ramanaji,
so glad to see you coming round at least partially to my initial views. Where I think my initial proposals differed was that I was a bit hesitant about taking in the Baloch because of the already strong "Baloch nationalist" sentiment, and would have crossed the Indus up to the AFG frontier, to ensure that Talebs cannot regrow in a potentially weak AFG state's "southern" borders. But your suggestions are perhaps pragmatic.

I strongly endorse the reasons you cite as advantages. Samuelji, this was our projection earlier - what you say. Any progress on the modelling? The problem is implementation of this policy. Need the appropriate LOI for that, not just a GOI. This is the real headache.

[ramana]

The Sikh holy places will be regained.
No more angst about Indian Muslims a la Chakh De.
Nusrat type of bande wont have any angst
Need to compile all the reasosn for a comprenhensive de-Partition.
I agree things wont be same as before but cant allow anymore fishing in troubled waters by outsiders.

[Pulikeshi]

Border defense is one of the 20 critical sub-systems of ALL living systems. A system that does not defend its boundaries dies, according to Dr. James Miller in Living Systems.

Its as 1k page tome - a deadly weapon when thrown at opponents.
Nevertheless, it is an interesting work. Much updating is required based on memes and meme-complexes.

Absorbing any territory from Af-Pak is an expensive transaction, with no apparent benefit.
Better to game a loose federation with peripheral states in an economic and fuzzy defense union
(not just west of Bharat).
In the west, I agree, that it is better to go till the Indus and draw the Laxman Rekha there.
PS: We still will need a buffer with Persia when Af-Pak is not longer a threat

[Rahul Mehta]

Rahul Mehta when is d day?

Wish you luck and votes.

Thanks . D-day is Apr-30. Will need too much of luck.

====

RM,
best wishes to you from my side too for the day.

Thanks

====

What you say about reaching to the commons, is very relevant. But I think it is not just about reaching them but being able to convince them of your strength to achieve this. Unless a critical mass is reached, the impression may not be there that there would be sufficient numerical voting strength in legislature to bring about the proposed changes.

Reaching commons is an issue - convincing is not. The commons are wise, and so a properly worded law/procedure is something they understand within minutes. eg I dont have any issue in convincing ANY "common" about how useful "right to recall PM, CM, judges, District Police Chief etc" laws can be. In fact, commons have much clear idea about ground realities and so half the task is already done.

But reaching 100 cr commons is certainly an issue. The approach I am taking is

1. The non-80G-activists communicate on drafts of pro-common laws amongst themselves using internet, phone etc.

2. The non-80G-activists communicate with commons using pamphlets and small time meetings. Offset printing these days 10 paise per page (and 7 paise on newsprint paper).

The cost of (1) is near zero. The cost of (2) is (100 cr * 20 pages * 5 attempts) = 10,000 cr pages = Rs 1000 cr. So if 200,000 non-80G-activists were to circulate a proposal, the pamphlet cost per activist would be Rs 50,000 per non-80G-activist. Not a small amount, but not an impossible amount either for anyone in top 1 cr population of India. Cost of sending pamphlets to 10 cr commons is only Rs 5000 per non-80G-activist.

The bigger issue is as always the time. The non-80G-activists would need to hold many small meetings. So to reach 100 cr commons, it would be necessary to organize lakhs of meetings. And so that needs 100s of hours per non-80G-activists. The youth in top 2 cr of population is too busy. The problem is not that 98% dont care - that is also the case in West. The problem is that the 2% which does care is also too busy with career etc in India. In West, one thing I could see that those who cared were less busy with career and were able to spend more time in fixing laws.

----

I am very much interested in any procedure one can propose, along with estimates of money needed and time needed by participants. But the campaign procedure MUST be preceded by DRAFTS of laws. And "no-donation" must be a key condition --- an organization which is based on donation becomes elitemen's lackey within days.

Either you ride a mass movement that returns sufficient number of candidates to be able to force through required reforms in the legislature, or an electoral situation is created where the support of one or two MP's will be critical for formation of government. Otherwise, it is a longer term patient slogging through political activism.

If a party or alliance gets mere 2% votes, and even if zero MPs, then with 2% votes, it can get one law passed.

[shiv]

I think a familiarity with the gist of this theory will do good for BRF folks.

Border defense is one of the 20 critical sub-systems of ALL living systems. A system that does not defend its boundaries dies, according to Dr. James Miller in Living Systems.

Living Systems Theory

All of life depends on the differentiation of "me" from "other" and "us" from "them". Unless you have a border, a red line, a Lakshman rekha that must not be crossed, survival intact is not possible.

On the other hand, one of the fundamental and deep truths of Hindu thought is the recognition that all of "reality" depends on the creation of a border. The absolute "oneness" or "Unity" - the atman has no sorrow or joy, darkness or light - no defining borders that create the world for us in our perception. Removal of the borders, that are essentially maya, is the first step towards realisation of the absolute.

I believe that a whole lot of Hindus have misinterpreted this. Absolute peace of mind can be achieved by the "realization" of the absolute. But in Hindu thought that is not an end in itself. You do not realize the absolute and just give up. You use your state of mind to live your life as per prescribed dharmic duties. Protection of your family and your gurus and your sacred icons is a necessary duty that does not conflict with the recognition of the absolute, or you quest to realise the absolute. Both must go side by side. You protect the borders that this life has burdened you with, while you break down the borders within your own mind.

As an aside I post a link to an astounding spiritual experience of a woman - a trained neuro-anatoist who had a stroke and recovered. during the stroke she discovers how one side of her brain is responsible for seeing her as "me" while the other half feels one with the universe with no diferentiation between her own body and the universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fz ... r_embedded

[Prem]

Did she experience the Upanishad example of the space in the jar and outside being one and same , the fundamental Unity of whole existence?

[brihaspati]

The key aspect sometimes overlooked is that no philosophy places the border as more important or higher in priority or an end in itself compared to what the border actually encoloses or preserves or protects. The border is a tool, an aspect of reality, a compromise to protect or preserve that which is inside - that more precious inside which takes priority.

The Jewish "nation" survived without fixed permanent well-defined geopgraphical borders over long historical periods. It would not have been able to do so if it equated its geographical physical borders with its "nation". Borders are not an end in themselves - they exist, but they can be changed to reflect reality as required by the necesiities of the enhancing or preserving the "nation".