Ideas needed for India

 

India greatness does not require media certificate

"Get out of your own way… stop the paralysis by analysis… decide what you want, create a simple plan, and get moving!” – Steve Maraboli.

Meaning is injected when we emphasis:-

Substance over superficiality;

Performance over mere planning and projections;

Actions over tall talk;

Properly prioritizing things even if they are not politically correct [may not get brownie points in terms of vote garnering gimmicks- an obsession of next election minding politicians].

India, as a country, has immense variety in everything, which is a very interesting and big topic by itself and therefore cannot be confined to fit into our scope of vision which changes according to our own prejudices , especially more so in case of , some media personalities who use different scopes to see and hear different things sometimes they use telescope, sometimes microscope, sometimes stethoscope, sometimes a binocular, sometimes an ordinary magnifying glass, sometimes dark glasses, sometimes just a mirror etc

Sheer strength and magnitude of whatever performance has taken place has been because at last we have a leader who as Barbara Marciniak said, “Everything changes when you start to emit your own frequency rather than absorbing the frequencies around you, when you start imprinting your intent on the universe rather than receiving an imprint from existence.”

There is no need to hanker after media certificates and it is not government’s business nor priority to waste energy, time and money on media management which it is high time that media houses did it themselves otherwise they will be totally swept away by social media.

Magnanimity and honesty requires helping, appreciating or at least acknowledging many positives and progressive measures and activities that have happened in all spheres of economy. Actually the list is much more than all the past 60 years put together in terms of its positive long term impact on economy. 

Every player cannot be in the playing eleven.

Will Durant on India

“Nearly every kind of manufacture or product known to the civilised world—nearly every kind of creation of man’s brain and hand, existing anywhere, and prized either for its utility or beauty—had long, long been produced in India. India was a far greater industrial and manufacturing nation than any in Europe or than any other in Asia. Her textile goods—the fine products of her looms, in cotton, wool, linen and silk—were famous over the civilised world; so were her exquisite jewellery and her precious stones cut in every lovely form; so were her pottery, porcelains, ceramics of every kind, quality, colour and beautiful shape; so were her fine works in metal—iron, steel, silver and gold. She had great architecture, equal in beauty to any in the world. She had great engineering works. She had great merchants, great businessmen, great bankers and financiers. Not only was she the greatest ship-building nation, but she had great commerce and trade by land and sea which extended to all known civilised countries. Such was the India which the British found when they came.”

That’s a quotation from a little-known but ought-to-be-widely-known book written 84 years ago: ' The Case for India '  by Will Durant (of the 11-volume The Story of Civilisation fame). 

“Made in India” was the natural slogan of the past. 

Today we have to plead to “make in India”. 

What explains the wholesale collapse? 

Will Durant put the blame squarely on British exploitation of India? 

Separating the English from the British, he says, 

“The English are the best gentlemen on earth, the British are the worst of all imperialists.” 

His book marshals evidence to show how extensive was the destruction wrought by the imperialist Britain.

Durant has a way of digging out nuggets of information from extensive research and presenting them with a suddenness that surprises the reader. 

Casually as it were, he tells us that there were 7,000 opium shops in India operated by the British government, that two to four hundred thousand acres of India’s soil were given away to the growing of opium. 

On Gandhi: 

“In his first year in England, he read 80 books on Christianity.”

His account of the levels of poverty that prevailed in India is perhaps the most disturbing. 

While Britain stole enough wealth from India to make the Industrial Revolution possible, the percentage of taxes as related to the gross produce was more in India than in any other country. 

Famine became a feature of Indian life. 

As many as 15 million people died in the famines of 1877, 1889, 1897 and 1900. 

(A bigger one was to come after Durant’s visit when the British took away all the foodgrains they could get from India as supplies to World War II.)

There is a doomsday echo to Durant’s words: 

“The British ownership of India has been a calamity and a crime. This is quite unlike the Mohammedan domination: those invaders came to stay; what they took in taxes and tribute they spent in India, developing its industries and resources, adorning its literature and art... (Under British rule) I saw a people—one-fifth of the human race—suffering poverty and oppression bitterer than any to be found elsewhere on the earth. I was horrified. I had not thought it possible that any government could allow its subjects to sink to such misery”. 

That last point seems applicable to successive governments after Independence as well. 

The misery of vast sections of people in the slums, on the banks of polluted water bodies, in unplanned urban beehives ever waiting for catastrophes would horrify Durant if he were to visit us again.

An oddity in the narrative provides an ironic link to today’s ultra-nationalists who say that all Indians are Hindus. 

They are, of course, in a geographic sense—as inheritors of the Sindhu (Indus) valley civilisation. 

The word has since become wholly religious, as distinct from geographical, so much so that Durant sounds outdated or eccentric when he talks of Hindu industries vs British industries, there being not one Hindu on the Railway Board of those days, third-class passengers in trains being Hindus and Gandhi being the leader of 320 million Hindus. 

Narendra Modi would never claim to be, or want to be, the leader of 1.2 billion Hindus. 

He wants to be the leader of 1.2 billion Indians. 

Which underlines why the two words are not interchangeable.

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

AN EXCERPT FROM THE BOOK :

" The Case for India "

Will Durant

" As early as 1783 Edmund Burke predicted that the annual drain of Indian resources to England without equivalent return would eventually destroy India. 

From Plassey to Waterloo, fifty-seven years, the drain of India's wealth to England is computed by Brooke Adams at 2.5 to 5 Billion Dollars. 

He adds, what Macaulay suggested long ago, that it was the stolen wealth from India which supplied England with the free capital for the development of mechanical inventions, and so made possible the Industrial Revolution.

In 1901 Dutt estimated that one half of the net revenues of India flowed annually out of the country, never to return.

In 1906 Mr. Hyndman reckoned the drain at

$ 40,000,00 a year.

A.J. Walson valued it at one-tenth of the total annual production of India.

Montgomery Martin, estimating the drain at

$15,000,00 a year in 1838, calculated that that these annual sums, retained and gathering interest in India, would amount in half century to $40,000,000,000.

Though it may seem merely spectacular to juggle such figures, it is highly probable that the total wealth drained from India since 1757, if it all had been left and invested in India, would now amount, at a low interest, to$400,000,000,000.

Allow for money reinvested in India, and a sum remains easily equivalent to the difference between the poorest and the richest Nations of the world.

The same high rate of taxation which had bled India to perhaps a mortal weakness, might have done her no permanent injury if the wealth so taken had all been returned into the economy and circulation of the country; but bodily withdrawn from her as so much of it was, it has acted like a long continued transfusion of vital blood.

" So great an economic drain out of the resources of the land ", says Dutt, " would impoverish the most prosperous countries on earth; it has reduced India to a land of famines more frequent, more widespread and more fatal, than any known before in the history of India, or of the world ".   (pp- 29,30)

Indian elections

Why can't we think of categorizing the nation geographically into 8 or 10 zones?

EC may be a team like a supreme court bench [such special teams can be created just three or six months prior to assembly election with special budget allocated for their remuneration] made up of eminent bureaucrats with integrity [though a rare commodity], top officials from RAW, retired judges, police commissioners of specific areas with known good track record, college principals etc.

Each zone can have such a team with also representatives from major political parties.

Sir your observations are very correct and true.

Having said that this exercise of conducting elections in India is indeed too big a task, too unwieldy and too complicated in a country with such huge geographical area with multiple regional differences, location based disadvantages, linguistic complications, growing number of trouble creators

[unfortunately  sponsored/supported by political parties themselves in some cases] too much of violence, pathetic illiteracy, general anarchy, lack of adherence to any systematic approaches to any aspect of social life , indifference to rules and discipline [evident even in our temples] and many other issues.

In this scenario no single individual however great, efficient and good he or she may be, cannot be expected to exercise total control, nor supervision nor can be expected to be an impartial judge/umpire for all sorts of legitimate, silly and pathetically puerile and petty complaints from each and everyone all these coupled with multiple and irresponsible media publicity.

Probably the following aspects can be worked out and in fact EC may be a team like a supreme court bench [such special teams can be created just three or six months prior to assembly election with special budget allocated for their remuneration and training] made up of eminent bureaucrats with integrity [though a rare commodity], top officials from RAW, retired judges, police commissioners of specific areas with known good track record, college principals etc. This team could also include governors [who could be moved from the otherwise the meaningless titular gubernatorial hibernation] 

Anyway when we can accept for whatever reason an election which extends much longer than IPL season, why can't we think of categorizing the nation geographically into 8 or 10 zones? Each zone can have such a team with also representatives from major political parties [for this some criteria must be fixed, not like the present trend of considering even the Left parties as a national party when its total seats or percentage of votes is less than many regional parties] from those zones.

With this team, we can even revert to safer old ballot paper voting and conduct elections within a span of maximum 5 days all over the nation.

There are many more such possible reforms [if it sounds too big or a controversial term] or reorganization or different models of management as aspects of social inventions.

Unfortunately, we as a nation do not promote serious creativity and ideas to float in the arena of social inventions which is a sign of healthy civilization and growth strategy for governance oriented government model. Since we fail to do it this space is filled by meaningless know all self sponsored debaters, multiple NGOs with hidden agendas and opinions churning factories of journalists and TV anchors all working with  different or various ideological  prejudices.

We all must come out of our national weakness/trait of being uncritical lovers or unloving critics and involve and/or invite ideas to improve systems and put them in place then they will take care of the functioning which is what MODI has done in Gujarat and since this creates a win-win situation for all, expect certain vested interest groups, mafias, lobbies, arm chair critics, it has delivered results.

Hope I have not transgressed my limits and expect serious replies and follow up of these suggestions in appropriate forums through your contacts.

WILL DURANT AND INDIA

THE SAINT WHO DOCUMENTED FACTS AND IDEAS
Documenting facts as they are without any parochial, personal, social, cultural, religious or ideological prejudice for posterity is one of the greatest services 
Facts are god’s way of telling the truth and make it understandable for everyone
In that WILL DURANT is a great saint who documented history, philosophical ideas and biographies of great minds and god blessed him with a great and cooperative wife in ARIEL DURANT. He spent more than 50 years to write his books after serious documentation and compiling in an age when the computers were not there.
Book Review: The Case For India - Will Durant - 1930

source: http://reflectionsvvk.blogspot.com/2012/02/book-revew-case-for-india-will-durant.html

The Case For India written by a famed American Historian, Will Durant scores


"This was not the destruction of a minor civilization produced by an inferior people. It ranks with the highest civilizations of history, and some would place it at the head and summit of all - like Keyserling.... when the British cannons attacked.... the Hindus surrendered at once lest one of the most beautiful creations of mankind be destroyed. Who, then, were the civilized people? (The Hindus or The English?) The British conquest of India was the destruction of a high civilization by a trading company utterly without scruple or principal, overrunning with fire, sword, bribery, murder a country temporarily disordered and helpless"

"India was a far greater industrial and manufacturing nation than any in Europe or Asia, producing textile, Metal works, Jewelry, Precious Stones, Pottery, Architecture. She had great merchants, businessmen, ship building - nearly every kind of manufacture known to the civilized world was already in India"

The book describes in graphic detail the atrocities of the so-called "civilized" Britishers (refer definition below!!!!!) in the chapter "The rape of a continent". The difference is that he has quoted numbers and figures; unassailable facts and laws that graphically illustrate the systematic destruction of all kinds of local enterprise. For example, produce was taxed at 50%; the documented fact that tax rates were the highest in India across the world; Sample this:

"The fundamental principle of the British has been to make the whole Indian nation subservient... they have been taxed to the utmost limit; the Indians have been denied every honor, dignity or office".... F J Shore testifying to the house of commons in 1857

"Under their dependence on the British - Oudh and Karnatic, 2 of the noblest provinces in India, were plunged into a state of wretchedness with which no part of the Earth has anything to compare" - Lt Col Brigs, 1830

"The Governments' assessment does not even leave enough food for the cultivator to feed his family" - Sir William Hunter, 1875

"The Rajahs had taxed the people much less severely than the British.... "

"The national debt of India rose from $35,000,000 in 1792 to $3,500,000,000 in 1929. These figures tell the tale"

The book is littered with such graphic details - all taken from western and primarily British sources. It examines how the economic fabric of the country was destroyed, how for example its textile trade was wrecked; its impact on the prosperity of the nation. It also examines the specious claims of education improvement - there were more schools in India before the advent of the civilized British; how the number of schools diminished and were discouraged; It looks at the now-famous example of the British gift of railways - in the USA, railways were used largely for goods transport, whereas in India their function was for the imperial class travels; It examines how every activity of the British - right down to the bullets used to suppress revolts were exacted from Indians; It looks at the wages paid to Indians; It details tariffs of 80% on Indian products as opposed to zero tariffs on British imports; "The result was that Manchester and Paisley flourished and Indian industries declined. India was transformed into a purely agricultural country, and her mineral wealth was not explored; artisans etc were forced to live off the land; no competition was to be allowed to English industries- Kohn". The book looks at the balance of trade, which was heavily against India and gives numbers - hard core numbers of the draining of wealth from what was one of the richest and most civilized regions of Earth. It looks at how local schools were destroyed by the British; it looks at British salaries and how the wealth from India went to England through salaries and pensions - quoting hard core numbers

So far, the book has dealt with what is largely unknown to us. From here, the book moves into familiar territory, and examines the powers of the so-called democratic institutions - the limited vote-bank; the powers of the British viceroy / governors etc to overrule the local bodies; how the local "elected" bodies had no powers; It looks at the divide and rule policy of the British, with separate voting for each community -issues which have been beautifully examined by Jaswant Singh, Bipin Chandra in their books, so I shall not dwell much on that point.

Then there is the chapter of Mahatma Gandhi, which first gives a biography of his life till 1930; But even here you find priceless tit-bits: "the British connection has made India more helpless... politically and economically... no jugglery of figures can explain away the evidence of the skeletons in many villages... I have no doubt that England and the towns of India will have to answer ... if there is a God above, for this crime against humanity which is perhaps unparalleled in history - Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi"

Then it goes on to detail in horrific stomach-turning detail the atrocities: "Hindus to crawl on their bellies in the street"; school-boys flogged in public; prisoners bound with ropes and kept in open trucks for 15 hours; poured lime on naked bodies; cut off electric supplies to Hindu houses; airplanes to drop bombs on laborers; The perpetrator of this very civilized, decent, morally consistent, gentle behavior was retired on a pension; exonerated; public supporters- all civilized, no doubt - raised $150000 as support... "There was not one bullet wound in the back - each bullet had struck home in the chest; not one Indian ran; there was passive submission in the highest forms of non-violence"... The brutal, inhuman retaliation of the British, for which they would very likely have been hanged in their own country, made the passive resistance movement one of the bravest, most active forms of struggle - a struggle unlike any other anywhere on Earth.

"I felt my skin creep and my hair stand on end as I saw those brave men... testicles crushed... body battered and broken... chest battered... every one whom I talked to gave the same stories of fiendish beating, torturing, thrusting lathi in anus, dragging.... what has become of the English Honour... English Justice - Miss Madeline Slade"

A book that is a must read for all Indians...

(Just to remind ourselves as to what being civilized means:)
civ•i•lized (sv-lzd)
Having a highly developed society and culture.; Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable; Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.


civilization
Pronunciation: /ˌsɪvɪlʌɪˈzeɪʃ(ə)n/
(also civilisation)
the stage of human social development and organization which is considered most advanced;
the process by which a society or place reaches an advanced stage of social development and organization.;

This book systematically de-constructs all arguments in favor of colonial rule and its advantages. First, India was formed by the British: let us qualify that statement - India was formed as a response to the brutality of the British (in fact, a cursory glance at Indian history - and world history - will reveal that India has been under one rule at least 4-6 times for long periods, and has flourished); Education: there was better educational set-up before the British - and modern education would have come anyway (it should be remembered that India was a massive power with trade links to the entire world - hence simple logic dictates that eventually, modern techniques and methods would have come to our borders!) just as smelting, musket making, and various other techniques found their way to our nation. It similarly destroys all supposed advantages and exposes the morally corrupt nature of the Raj, which in its nature was the very antithesis of the claims to civilization that were professed by its practitioners.

And lastly, this book brings home the fact that among all the ancient civilizations, the Indian civilization stands as the only civilization to have survived all through history - virtually unchanged. We were there during Babylon, we were there during the time of the Greeks, we were there when Rome was at its height, we were there when Europe was rising... and today, we are still present... with the same culture, same ethos, worshipping the same Gods as we used to 3500 - 5000 years ago, eating virtually the same kind of food... virtually unchanged. We are indebted to the pain of our forefathers, the tortures they bore, the indignities they went through - just so we, their children, could breathe free and with pride, justifiable pride in order that a new, modern India can be built. We owe it to them to make India truly modern, forward looking and progressive, strong - economically, socially and militarily. It is a book that will shake you to the core, brings tears to your eyes and leave you speechless. No wonder, then, that this book had been banned in the UK!

11th February
An internet interaction with a gentleman of opposite views has just made me realize how bad our history education has been... people- Indians - just do not realize what British rule meant; and actually regard it as a boon! I wonder what they will say to the sacrifices of Gandhiji, Bhagat Singh, Subhash Chandra Bose, Bal Gangadhar Tilak etc! Not only that, they are laying all the blame on Indian shoulders - and pointing to the current rampant corruption as evidence, totally ignoring the advances we have made since Independence in every sphere of life - take the example of Famines - all they have to do is compare famines before and after Independence! I am heartened by one fact, though - I have met a large number of Indians with views similar to mine, and with knowledge of our past that is much better than mine. Sometimes I wish we could make the British return the Koh-i-noor, ask them to apologize for their deeds (which they have never done - and some nations have done for their misdeeds) and so on and so forth. Then I remember my teachings - forgive and move on. But forgive does not mean forget!

INDIA BREATHES THROUGH HER MULTIPLICITY, NOT HER FRAGMENTING VOICES

INDIA BREATHES THROUGH HER MULTIPLICITY, NOT HER FRAGMENTING VOICES   

By Rajiv Malhotra
Tehelka Magazine
Vol 6, Issue 2
January 17, 2009 

Illustrations: Uzma Mohsin 
There is a buzz about India becoming a superpower. But, are
superpowers confused about national identity or inviting others to
solve their civilisation's "backwardness"? Does a superpower allow
foreign nexuses to co-opt its citizens as agents? India graciously
hosts foreign nexuses that treat it as a collection of disparate
parts. Is super-powerdom delusionary? 
The Mumbai massacre painfully exposes flaws in our national
character, the central one being the absence of a definitive,
purpose-filled identity. Who is that "we" whose interests are
represented, internally and internationally? How should Indianness be
defined? Where is the Indianness that transcends narrow identities
and vested interests, one that is worth sacrificing for? Is it in the
popular culture of Bollywood and cricket? Or is it deeper? The
national identity project is at once urgent and compelling. 
The need for national identity 
In their pursuit of personal goals, Indians are intensely
competitive. But we lack consensus on a shared national essence and
hence there is no deep psychological bond between citizen and nation.
National identity is to a nation's well-being what the immune system
is to the body's health. The over-stressed body succumbs to external
and internal threats, and eventually death, as its immunity weakens.
Similarly, a nation stressed by a vacuum of identity, or multiple
conflicting identities, or outright confusion, can break up. Just as
the body's immune system needs constant rejuvenation, so too a nation
needs a positive collective psyche for its political cohesion. 
Major nations deliberately pursue nation building through such
devices as shared myths, history, heroes, religion, ideology,
language and symbolism. Despite internal dissent, Americans have deep
pride of heritage, and have constructed awe-inspiring monuments to
their founding fathers and heroic wars. Where are Delhi's monuments
honouring the wars of 1857 or 1971, Shivaji, the Vijayanagar Empire,
Ashoka, or the peaceful spread of Indian civilisation across Asia for
a millennium? Where are the museums that showcase India's special
place in the world? 
Forces that fragment 
Voices of fragmentation drive India's internal politics -- from Raj
Thackeray to M Karunanidhi to Mamata Banerjee to the Quota Raj to the
agents of foreign proselytising. 
While social injustice, in India and elsewhere, demands effective
cures, proper treatments do not follow faulty diagnoses. Since
colonial times, influential scholars have propagated that there is no
such thing as Indian civilisation. India was "civilised" by
successive waves of invaders. The quest for Indianness is futile
since India was never a nation. The noted historian Romila Thapar
concludes that India's pluralism has no essence. Like a doughnut, the
center is void; only the peripheries have identity. 
Such thinking infects Indian elite. Supreme Court Justice Markandey
Katju, citing western historians, asserts that the Munda tribes are
the only true natives and that 95 percent of Indians are immigrants;
that all so-called Aryan and Dravidian classical languages are
foreign, ruling out anything as pan-Indian in our antiquity; and that
worthwhile Indian civilisation begins with Akbar, "the greatest ruler
the world has ever seen." 
This accelerating crescendo, portraying India as an inherently
artificial, oppressive nation, is directed by western academics
advocating western intervention to bring human rights. It is
supported by private foundations, churches and the US government and
promotes fragmentation by bolstering regional identities, "backward"
castes, and religious minorities. Sadly, our own people, such as many
activists and the westernised upper class, have internalised India's
"oppression of minorities." The human catastrophe that would envelope
diverse groups -- especially the weakest -- in the aftermath of
India's break up is blithely ignored. 
Beyond tolerance and assimilation 
Critics worry that national identity promotes fascism. But while many
civilisations have used identity for conquest, my vision of
Indianness is driven by mutual respect. We respect the other who is
different provided the other reciprocates with respect towards us, in
rhetoric and in action. The religious "tolerance" of Judaism, Islam
and Christianity is a patronising accommodation; it puts up with
others' differences without respecting their right to be different.
In contradistinction, Indian civilisation embraces differences
reciprocally. 
Movements that eradicate differences span the ideological spectrum.
Some religions claim mandates from God to convert the religiously
different. Although the European Enlightenment project dispensed with
God, it enabled erasing ethnic diversity through genocide of Native
Americans and slavery of African-Americans. Asians were luckier,
because they could become "less different" via colonisation. 
Today, many Indians erase their distinctiveness by glamorising white
identity as the gold standard. Skin lighteners are literal whiteners.
Media and pop culture incorporate white aesthetics, body language and
attire for social status, careers and marriage. The venerable
"namaste" is becoming a marker of the older generations and the
servants. Pop Hindu gurus peddle the "everything is the same"
mumbojumbo, ignoring even the distinctions between the dharmic and
the un-dharmic. Intellectuals adopt white categories of discourse as
"universal". 
Difference eradicating ideologies are hegemonic. Either you (i)
assimilate, (ii) oppose and suffer, or (iii) get contained and
marginalised. 
But Indian philosophy is built on celebrating diversity -- in trees,
flowers, matter, human bodies, minds, languages and cultures,
spiritualities and traditions -- and does not see it as a problem to
be dealt with. 
All social groups manifest an affinity for in-group relations but in
the ideal Indian ethos, in-group affinity is without external
aggression. Before colonial social engineering, traditional Indian
castes were fluid, informal containers of identities, interwoven with
one another, and not frozen hierarchically. This applied to Muslims,
Christians and Hindus. Each caste had its distinct norms and was
respected by others. My India is a web of thousands of castes
encapsulating diverse genes and memes. This ideal is the exact
opposite of fascist ethnocentrism. 
Diversity yes, fragmentation no 
The socially mobile castes that had preserved India's diversity were
frozen into castes to serve the British divide-andrule. Independent
India adopted caste identities to allocate quotas instead of
safeguarding individual rights. When the Congress party failed to
integrate a vast mishmash of subidentities, regional vote-banking
entrepreneurs captured India's political fragments. Now, national
interests are casually disregarded for fear of offending these
fragments. 
Globalisation has opened the floodgates for minority leaders to tie-
up with western churches and NGOs, Saudis, Chinese and just about
anyone wanting to carve out a slice of the Indian elephant. Such
minorities include the Nagas, now serving as a foreign subsidiary of
the Texas Southern Baptist Church; Tamils who first got Dravidianised
and are now being Christianised through identity engineering; Maoists
in over 30 percent of India's districts; and Saudifunded Pan-
Islamists expanding across India. These fragmented identities weaken
Indianness due to their loyalty to foreign alliances. The leaders
depend on foreign headquarters for ideological and financial support. 
Such groups are no longer minorities, but are agents of dominant
world majorities. They are franchisees of the global nexuses they
serve. They are adversaries of the Indian identity formation. Do they
truly help India's under classes? These global nexuses have a
disappointing track record of solving problems in countries where
they have operated for generations, including Latin America,
Philippines and Africa where most natives have become converted. The
imported religion has failed to bring human rights and has often
exacerbated problems. Yet, Indian middlemen have mastered the art of
begging foreign patronage in exchange for selling the souls of fellow
Indians. 
Towards an Indian identity 
Hindutva is a modern political response lacking the elasticity to be
the pan-Indian identity. Other popular ideas are equally shallow,
such as the Indianness defined by Bollywood and cricket. Ideals like
"secular democracy" and "development" do not a distinct national
identity make. It is fashionable to blend pop culture with European
ideologies and pass it off as Indianness. Such blends cannot bind a
complex India together against fissiparous casteism and regionalism
coming in the orbits of Islamist jihad and evangelical Christianity. 
Indianness must override fragmented identities, no matter how large
the vote bank or how powerful the foreign sponsor. Gandhi articulated
a grand narrative for India. Tagore and Aurobindo saw continuity in
Indian civilisation. Nehru had a national vision, which Indira Gandhi
modified and defended fiercely. The Ashokan, Chola, and Maratha
empires had welldefined narratives, each with an idea of India. 
Debating Indianness fearlessly and fairly 
A robust Indianness must become the context in which serious issues
get debated. Everyone should be able to participate -- be it Advani
or Sonia, the Imam of Jama Masjid or Hindu gurus, Thackeray or the
underworld -- in a free and fair debate on Indianness, and no one
should be exempt from criticism. 
But the Indian intellectual mafia, which built careers by importing
and franchising foreign doctrines, suppresses debate outside its
framework, and brands honest attempts at opposing them as fascism. I
offer a few examples. 
A few years before 9/11, the Princeton-based Infinity Foundation
proposed to a prestigious Delhi-based centre to research the Taliban
and their impact on India. The centre's intellectuals pronounced the
hypothesis an unrealistic conspiracy theory and unworthy of study.
Even after 9/11, the American Academy of Religion refused to study
the Taliban as a religious phenomenon while persisting with Hindu
caste, cows, dowry, mothers-in-law, social oppression, violence and
sundry intellectual staples. 
Some analysts hyphenate Islamist terror with Kashmir, imputing that
terrorism is a legitimate dispute resolution technique. "The plight
of Muslims" is a rationalisation; and Martha Nussbaum, a University
of Chicago professor, blames "Hindu fascism" as the leading cause of
terrorism and justifies the Mumbai massacre by hyphenating it with
Hindu "pogroms," Hindu "ethnic cleansing against Muslims," and the
Hindu project to "Kill Christians and destroy their institutions."
Her insensitivity to the victims, just two days after 26/11, was
given a free pass by the LA Times. Double standards are evident when
cartoons lampooning Islam are condemned, whereas serious attacks
against Hindu deities, symbols and texts are defended in the name of
intellectual freedom. 
Be positive and "live happily ever after" 
The Bollywood grand finale, where the couple lives happily ever
after, is de rigueur. Friends insist that my analysis must end with
something positive by way of solving the problems I uncover. Hard
evidence of dangerous cleavages in India, spinning out of control, is
too "negative." The need to work backwards from a happy ending and
only admit evidence that fits such endings is an Indian psychological
disorder. But we don't expect doctors to reject negative diagnoses,
analysts to ignore market crashes, or teachers to praise our unruly
children. What if there is no "good" alternative? 
It is disturbing that strategic options against Pakistan must
subserve the sensitivities of Indian Muslims. This gratuitously
assumes that Indian Muslims are less Indian than Muslim. Some fear
that strong Indian action will precipitate increased jihad, or even
nuclear war. Such fears recapitulate the early campaigns to appease
Hitler. Once a violent cancer spreads outside the tumour's skin, it
demands a direct attack. Vitamins, singing, and lamp-lighting are
pointless. In sports or warfare, medicine or marketing, you cannot
win by only using defence. The offensive option that cannot be
exercised is merely a showpiece. If national interests are dominated
by minority sentiments, our enemies will exploit our weakness. A
paralysed India emboldens predators. 
Games nations play 
After Indians return to psychological normalcy, apathy will be
confused as resilience. When each episode is seen in isolation there
is short-term thinking, a tolerance of terrorism, and an acceptance
that mere survival is adequate. Strategic planning requires
connecting the trends clearly. 
Indians must understand the reality of multiple geopolitical board
games. Moves on one gameboard trigger consequences on others, making
the tradeoffs complex. The South Asia gameboard involves USA-India-
Pakistan as well as China-Pakistan stakes. Besides external games
with its neighbours, India plays internal games to appease fragments,
which are influenced by foreign stakeholders. Religion is used as
soft power in the game of Islam versus the West, and India's
fragmentation hastens the harvesting of souls in the world's largest
open market. The multinational business gameboard spotlights India as
a market, a supplier, a competitor, and an investment destination. 
In another gameboard, scholars of South Asia construct a discourse
with Indian intellectuals as their sepoys and affiliated NGOs as paid
agents. Following the academic and human rights experts who profited
from the Iraq invasion, the players in this game hope that US
president designate Barack Obama will budget billions to "engage
South Asia." 
The identity challenges are offset by forces that hold India
together. Private enterprises that span the entire country bring
cohesion that depends on high economic growth and its trickle down to
the lowest strata to outpace population growth and social unrest.
Economic prosperity is also required for military spending. More than
any other institution, the armed forces unify the nation because they
realise that soldiers must identify themselves with the nation they
are prepared to die for. 
Recent US policy supports India's sovereignty, but this should be
seen in the context of using India as a counterweight against Pan-
Islam and China. In the long run, the US would like India not to
become another unified superpower like China or to disintegrate into
a Pakistan-like menace. It will "manage" India between these two
extremes. An elephant cannot put itself up for adoption as someone's
pet. It must learn to fend for itself. 
Lessons for India Although the US is a land of immigrants, pride of
place goes to the majority religion. Political candidates for high
office are seriously disadvantaged if they are not seen as good
Christians. The church-state separation is not a mandate to denounce
Christianity or privilege minority religions. America was built on
white identity that involved the ethnic cleansing of others. To its
credit, India has avoided this.Obama sought a better, unified nation
and transcended the minorityism of previous Black leaders. Unlike the
Dravidianists, Mayawati, and those Muslim and Christian leaders who
undermine India's identity, Obama is unabashedly patriotic and a
devout follower of its majority religion. America celebrates its
tapestry of hyphenated identities (Indian-American, Irish-American,
etc.) but "American" supersedes every sub-identity. Being un-American
is a death knell for American leaders. 
In sharp contrast, Mayawati, Indian Muslim leaders, Indian Christian
leaders, Dravidianists and other "minority" vote bankers have
consolidated power at the expense of India's unified identity. Unlike
the promoters of fragmented Indian identities, Obama is closer to
Mahatma Gandhi and Ambedkar, champions of the downtrodden within a
unified Indian civilisation. 
India can learn from American mechanisms. Indian billionaires must
become major stakeholders in constructing positive discourse on the
nation. They must make strategic commitments like those made by the
Carnegies, Rockefellers and Fords in building American identity, its
sense of history, and in projecting American ideals. American
meritocracy in politics, implemented through internal primaries, is
vastly superior to the cronyism in Indian politics. 
The area studies programmes in American universities have close links
to the government, think tanks and churches, and they examine nations
and civilisations from the American perspective. India should
establish a network of area studies to study neighboring countries
and other regions from India's viewpoint. India should study China's
establishment of 100 Confucian Studies Chairs worldwide and the
civilisational grand narrative of other nations. 
Ideological "camps" with pre-packaged solutions are obsolete. The
Indian genius must improvise, innovate, and create a national
identity worthy of its name. 
Rajiv Malhotra is the President, Infinity Foundation, who also writes
on issues concerning the place of Indian civilisation in the world 
More at:
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main41.asp?filename=Ne170109we_the.asp 

Source: Mail of Balayogi

INDIA, CHINA AND USA

WHAT I WROTE FOR AN ARTICLE IN 2011 STANDS GOOD EVEN TODAY 

Capitalism is floundering 

By Balbir K Punj
Editorial
The Pioneer
Monday, August 15, 2011 

Despite reposing its faith in unbridled capitalism, the US is now
facing major financial turmoil. Across the Atlantic, the situation is
no better in Eurozone. 

The global stock markets are in a tizzy and the world seems to be
heading for another depression. Standard & Poor's has downgraded its
long-term credit outlook on sovereign US debt to ‘AA+' from ‘AAA' and
the flames of anarchy, fuelled by economic discontent and disparity,
have ravaged London and several other cities in England. In short,
capitalism, touted as the ultimate answer to all economic problems,
is under siege. 

In the early-1990s communism collapsed in the land of its most
significant and powerful flowering, the then Soviet Union. It went
without even a whimper. Capitalism or free enterprise and a certain
form of democracy was back in Russia with a vengeance, spawning
billionaires within a few years. It also bred corruption on a massive
scale -- one such billionaire is in jail. Communist economy remains
only in peripheral countries like North Korea and Cuba. China has a
capitalist economy under a Communist dictatorship. That's a
contradiction in terms, but it is working for now. 

My comments : Do not bother about western labels of capitalism or communism .Do what is good for you and what works for your economic growth both in the short term and in the long run. 

Twenty years after the fall of communism, it seems to be the turn of
capitalism to flounder. The USA, an icon of capitalism so far, has a
national debt that is 101 per cent of its enormous GDP of $ 14
trillion. Even before the American system began floundering, the
Eurozone, heralded with great fanfare in the 1990s, began slipping
deeper into debt with Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and even Italy
virtually running out of money. 

Greece and Ireland have debts amounting to 157 and 129 per cent of
their respective GDP. Japan has the highest debt at 213 per cent of
its GDP. But despite its economic stagnation, Japan has an economy
with inherent strength. The core factor is that Greece, Ireland and
other Eurozone countries have a currency that allows their people a
living standard far higher than they can afford. Hence the huge debt
of these countries. When it's time for the Governments of these
countries to pay the bills, they try to squeeze the people and impose 

[My comments : Inherent strength is a must that is there in India,China ,Japan, Germany and Brazil]

spending cuts. People resent these measures, which in turn leads to
economic and political crises that feed on each other. 

China is the only country in the world with a huge credit running
into $2 trillion, most of it invested in US treasury bonds. China is
a communist dictatorship and can impose low wages on its workers and
flood the market with cheap goods. The US opted for low priced
Chinese goods and ignored the damage to its domestic industry and the
consequent loss of jobs. China went on supplying the US with low
priced goods and the latter went on buying them, running up a huge
trade deficit of as much as $400 billion at one time. As the US's
debt grew, so did China's surplus. [

My comments :  While you were busy meddling in other countries militarily and entertaining the citizens with war games China cleverly waged a economic game where by they have deservedly usurped the super power status, India too could have done much earlier if only its rulers had economic development and national interest at heart but they were busy with party politics and irrelevant issues that has been the difference, but this very difference itself can be a blessing in disguise as well because  in China the whole economic development is because of the government ,if anything happens to the strongly controlled structure of communist government then the economy will go haywire whereas in India the whole  economic development is despite the government it is people driven economy ,so it may not get affected by any political change  

The US, with its $14 trillion dollar economy and a national debt of
one per cent more than its GDP, was able to hold on despite its
Government running up huge Budget deficits for 30 years. In fiscal
2010, the Budget deficit climbed further skywards. But the Americans
could afford to ignore their creditors, knowing well that they would
not bother the US as it had huge technological, manufacturing and
services sectors that churned out goods and services of high order. 

However, the US's economic crisis, building up over the years,
reached a point of no return recently. A Democratic President
committed to an expanded medicare and creation of 20 million jobs
over 10 years was up against a Republican-controlled Congress which
was none too pleased with the Administration for jobs not growing,
the economy crawling and Budget deficits yawning. The President was
forced to strike a compromise deal. Under pressure from the Congress,
Mr Barack Obama has agreed to cut deficit by $2.2 trillion over 10
years, reduce taxes and cut public expenditure. 

The compromise has shattered the global trust in the American
economy. The world now realises that the US spends more than it
earns; worse, the world also realises that the US Administration is
becoming increasingly dysfunctional 

with a strong-willed Democratic
President and a confused Congress insisting that taxes should be
reduced and people allowed to spend more in order to create new jobs.
However, higher spending by consumers has not resulted in the
creation of new jobs since manufacturers have opted for non-labour
intensive technologies. 

[My comments : How can you change all of a sudden a society where the majority of people are  used to only bullying , buying and only consuming without contributing either through brain or sweat 

Nobel Prize winning economist Andrew Michael Spence has neatly summed
up the situation: "Growth and employment are set to diverge." And
there are bound to be logical consequences of such an economic
paradigm. The Adam Smith school of economics has reduced human beings
to just economic units -- families have become irrelevant and society
has been replaced by market. 

It is now just a two-tier society. Social structures which had
evolved over centuries have been relegated to the background by
market. The concept of what's right and wrong has been replaced by
what's legal and illegal. The consumerist culture, an integral part
of the profit-driven market, whets the appetite for consumer products
made alluring by advertising. This sets in a chain reaction, some
times with ugly results, as we have seen in recent days in England. 

[My comments both Britain and USA have inherited not only poor culture promoted by bossy insolence but also the wrath of others across the world because of their exporting bad culture, military messing around and sponsoring missionary mania..

The failure of communism should not be construed as the success of
the West's capitalist model as we know it. 

http://dailypioneer.com/360834/Capitalism-is-floundering.html