Indian Core Values

[ramana]

I would like us to identify the core values of the Indian people that distinguish them for the other people in this globalized new age. In other words what constitutes Indian identity?

Once the core values are identified which of them should be preserved and which can be altered. This set can form the basis for defining the national interests.
Please no polemics.

[Bhootnath]

Ramana >
Once the core values are identified which of them should be preserved and which can be altered.

What is your assessment Guru.

Now if you understand that this post of mine is not polemical.

Which India are we talking abt ?

Secular, Communal, Elitist, City , Gramin. Civil India or who live Defence Enclaves and have different world views. If caste is a reality , then so are these.

Pls do delete this post if you feel its polemical, and I shall abstain from posting further in your thread.


A simple example , Defence establishment has ordered its officers and soldiers to not tie "Rakhi" .. this news I believe is very suppressed one. For which India this decision was, is it so "unsecular" ?


Regards

[Guest]

Ramana,

This is good topic. In my experience (nothing scholarly about this) the main value (if you want call it that) is that Indians are in true sense social animals. Our identity, our aspirations, our perception of self-worth all depends on what others say about us. That is we evaluate ourselves based on others' perception of us.

More later..

[ramana]

B, Let the mind be free. Instead of asking what is allowed please feel free to express your own ideas. I want an open discussion.
BTW I am still a shishya. Still learning.

[Guest]

Bhootnath,

I think Ramana has asked for core-values of Indians. We can take 2 approaches. (1) Least common denominator approach which we find common to a LARGE population in India (2) Silo approach where we take each silo and give the core values for that silo.

Take either one (hopefully both). Go for it man.. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Bhootnath]

+ve
---

1. Hardworking in general ( except some parts of India )
2. Rural population is honest
3. Innovative in the sense that can put up to some extent with the apathy of powers that be.
4. Duality of situations in life is understood and accepted and hence can get on with life, so all or nothing approach is absent.

5. Respect and adhers to family values

6. Increasing level of focus on education.


-ve:
---

1. Lack of apathy for fellow Indian

2. Here or abroad , insecurity is very much there.

3. Naive / Gullible / Herd mentality

So it takes a Ramana to tell FBI --> Assam is wrong.
Had Mr Fowler said that, STFU from the most free/democratic nation wld have jumped on him.


4. Most *intellectual* ppl are the worst Rationaliser..
eveything is Earth-Shaster.

5. Worst is chalta hai attitude. which is mother of all problem, but if one wants to be progressive , we can blame it all on castism.

6. However advance we may be in social arena, we are still feudal, but hypocracy and itch to be intellectual restricts us to blame only hinduism rest all is kosher..

eg Dowry happens in nearly all religion and strata , but instead of attacking that attack hinduism and forget ...so

7. Not in my backyard sysndrome

8. Extremely f-d up Justice system , what to talk abt Political and Baboon-dum. All neo-castes like Defence/Judiciary/Engineer/Doctors/Teachers want to improve others. Lawyers it seems dont have tp pay income tax, soon Judiciary may not pay tax, Lawyers go on strike because ppl can fight their own case in Lok - Adalat , next day same lawyers will be talking abt Social Justice, Free Speech.

Journalism is reduced to prostitution, but lets not shoot Shekhar Gupta's messenger ..

[Guest]

Running accross all sections of society (all religions),

Indians in general has a unique belief system - belief in fate i.e karma. This is in my opinion completely different from rest of the world.

[Guest]

India is a heterogeneous society and it is diffciult to speak of a common set of core values for all sections of society. Certainly i dont believe the communists share a commonset of core values with the rest of the population and in fact they would be cheering the loudest if and when the republic fails. One can talk of a an Indic set of core values stemming from the Indic civilization. I regret to say that in my view very few of these are shared by the islamic universe. So what are these core values that make the Indic civilization so unique in the world and what is it about them that is worth preserving ? I will warn you this is controversial , but if you diagree pl. do so in a reasoned manner

1. First is a reverence for life and the belief in the presence of divinity in all living beings. All sections among the Indics believe in this. Long before the Greens discovered the environmental movement, the Indic learnt to live in harmony with the nature surrounding him and disciplined himself not to tax mother nature overly . people wll point out counterexamples (e.g. riots) asnd that the Hindu is violence prone, but i stick to my assertion. The reason the Mahabharata makes such a unique tale is in part due to the fact that war was considered a last resort to settle disputes and unlike Bush did not use it as a first option. Incidentally while this may be relatively unique in the modern world, shamanic religions among central asians and the north american indians share this reverence for nature.

2. The Hindu familial structure and the extended family relationships are a feature of the indian landscape, although this is not entirely unique to india. An individual may be corrupt financially, but it is far less likely he will break the social mores of his extended tribal family even though he may be part of the diaspora. Being under colonial and foreign domination for 8 centuries has devalued the notion of nationhood and has placed a hgher premium on tribal and community loyalty.

3. Live and let live - again this is unique to the Hindu world. None of the prophetic religions exhibit this kind of a laissez faire attitude to personal beliefs. It is rare that a Hindu exhibits vengeful feelings towards somebody simply because he comes from a different or an alien culture or subscribes to a different belief system.

4. The indic place a high value on Dharma or duties and responsibility to the community around him. Unfortunately such a concept of Dharma does not include probity in public life, presumably because they were ruled for so long by alien rulers. Cheating the authority is not considered a violation of the Dharmik way of life. A corollary is the belief in a bank account in the sky, and that sooner or later one is accountable for one's actions

5. Love of learning and curiosity about the universe around them. This is undeniably one of the strengths of the indic civilization.

6. An ethnocentric view of global problems. Again while this is not unique to the Indic it is a serious impediment to taking a strategic view of India's place in the world. There is a plaintive aspect to Indian foreign policy (we consider it right why dont you). In fact Nehru wrote Kennedy after the goan conquest 'why is it you criticize something that thrills our people so much' forgetting that the AngloSaxon West would never approve a defeat of a European nation (esp. a NATO nation) by a ex colony. Vajpayee committed a similar faux pas when he wrote a letter to Clinton placing the responsibility for POK II on China (which got China completely enraged). This could easily have been foreseen. Closer to home, i initiated a series of threads (which continue even today in BR) on US India relations from an american perspective, which got quite a few BRites riled up (why should we worry what the US perspective is ?)


Well these are good for starters

[Guest]

Ramana garu,

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->BTW I am still a shishya. Still learning.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Us kindergarteners no allow this, boss. Us wait for what u have to say too.. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<!--emo&:rocker--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rocker.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rocker.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:eager--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/lmaosmiley.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lmaosmiley.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

The core values proposed by NCERT are given in this document

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In particular the values espoused by Hinduism are stated as follows

As an ethical religion it enunciates four aims of life (a) ‘Dharma’
(observance of religious and ethical laws); (b) 'Arth' (living an honest life); © 'Kama' (satisfying legitimate desires); and (d) 'Moksha' (attaining salvation through emancipation from birth and death and unity with God. Hinduism believes that through moral life humans are elevated to greater spiritual heights. Towards this end, the practice of 'Yam' and 'Niyam' are prescribed. :

Indian core values of peace and harmony


'Yama' implies (moral code of conduct)

a) 'Ahimsa' (non-injury to others); (b) 'Satya' (truth); © 'Asteya' (non-stealing); d) 'Brahmacharya' celibacy during the first 25 years of life); and (e) 'Apar Graha' (non-acquisitiveness).

Niyama implies: (inner discipline)

(a) 'Shaucha' (cleanliness); (b) 'Tapas' (awakening of vital forces); ©'Santosh' (contentment); and (d) 'Swadhyaya' (self study/analysis). (e)' ishvarapranidhana (devotion to God) is the highest craving of all Hindus. This includes (shanti)peace within and peace without. After every ceremony or religious recitation, Hindus pronounce ‘Om Shanti! Shanti! Shanti!’ i.e., peace to men, peace to forces of nature, and peace to the entire universe.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This is of course the pro-forma view as expressed by Patanjali in his Yoga Sutras. One view is that patanjali lived during the time of the Saraswati Sindhu civilization. While one can debate how far these still govern the average indic's life, there is no question they are alive in the consciousness of the modern Indic. It is of course ironic that cleanliness is listed here as a cardinal virtue. One can only assume that the modern indic draws a distinction between personal bodily cleanliness - which he observesand public civic cleanliness which he does not. Moeover the reference to cleanliness is also interpreted as striving for purity, both physical and mental.
Patanjali prescribes these as part of the 8 steps Yama, Niyama, Asana, Pranayama, pratyahara,Dharana Dhyana, Samadhi

The unique aspect of the Indic world vew (darshana) is that it provides a means to get there, a process within reach of most ordinary mortals.

I mention the above since it is listed in NCERT as a desired core value.

[Guest]

I am not sure whether what follows is really a core value as such, but a traditional desi likes to experience things up, close and personal. The further the experience is from him the more confused and careless he gets. For example, a central government and system that is hub-centric and not distributed will somehow make desis negligent, careless and reckless. Today's govt apparatus is highly centralised with too much power invested in the dilli-sarkar - this confuses desis and results in desis letting uperwalaa to do everything for them. Localise govt and see desis immediately become aware of their roles and responsibilities.. <!--emo&:guitar--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/guitar.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='guitar.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

<b>Sparking a Hindu renaissance</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>But the Hindu fundamentalists would not agree to this conciliatory approach. And now that the mosque has been forcibly demolished, the problem has become intractable. The solution is obvious only a temple can be built there. But the question is how to make the Muslim community willingly and happily agree to that. Till we can find a way out of this bind, the status quo must be maintained. As eminent historian K M Pannikar has admirably expounded in his Survey of Indian History, the distinctiveness of India, whether it be music, art, architecture, science or philosophy, is in its Hindu character. Even where we consider India's Islamic art or music or architecture, its distinctiveness is in the Hindu influence on it. This is what all Indians of every religion must accept in modern Hindustan. [B]It is also an undeniable fact that Muslims and Christians in India are descendents of Hindus. In a conciliatory atmosphere, the minorities would accept this. It is also in their interest to accept this reality.</b>

How apt! But such thoughts of remembering their roots cannot be forced down their throats by Hindus. Enlightened Muslims must rise to the occasion and challenge the reactionary religious fundamentalists. India is not Dar-ul harab that it can be trifled with. But once this is accepted, India's identity crisis can be resolved.

<b>In other words, a Hindu renaissance has two components: one, that Hindus can accept (such as caste abolition, eradication of dowry, etc) without any other interests to consider; two, the embracing by minorities of the core secular Indian values which have Hindu roots. This would require, particularly of Muslims and Christians, the owning of the entire Hindu past as their own legacy and tailoring their outlook on that basis.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[ramana]

Jaswant Singh in 1997 at CASI , UPenn....
Abstract

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What Constitutes National Security in a Changing World Order?

Shri Jaswant Singh
Member of Parliament
Deputy Leader, Bharatiya Janata Party
(Paper presented by Ambassador S.K. Singh)

Strategic thought has its roots in national culture, and the two are closely allied. Indian society has not drawn inspiration from its national culture to the fullest possible extent, and history has dictated a deficient development of strategic thinking in India. Historically, a lack of territorial unity, which long subjected India to outside rule; the fact that Indian nationhood is essentially civilizational, and Indian civilization is non-proselytizing; as well as the maintenance of chivalric war practices were all costly to Indian strategic efficacy.

In today’s rapidly changing world, nationalism and the state remain important for the direction and cohesion of a society. Likewise, weakness in these institutions can be harmful to a people. Indian society has a long history of patriotic allegiance to the Indian nation, but statecraft and strategic thinking have been more episodic and only incidental. The failure to construct a strategic policy has arisen from a lack of definition of national strategic interests by successive governments. Also, when the individual perceives that the state is lacking in its commitment to him or her, a loss of allegiance follows. The contemporary separatist movements in India may be attributed to this.

Shortfalls in economic development have also hindered development of coherent strategic thought in India. The economy has a significant effect on military power and security. When a nation is economically weak, it may also be militarily weak. This leads the nation to devote more and more of its resources to the military, which then decreases its economic strength, in a cruel spiral. Economic strength is a pre-requisite for security in international relations.

Infrastructure, and particular energy security, is another factor necessary for strategic development. India’s energy policy, which should be efficient and environmentally conscious, is poorly defined. India has coal resources, but no significant deposits of oil and natural gas, and is dependent on energy imports.

With the 1974 underground explosion, India demonstrated a nuclear ability, but disclaimed the intent. In consequence, India has suffered the ill-effects of both, being suspected of being a nuclear weapons power, and not really being one. In the process, India’s options were severely curtailed.

India needs to be more assertive in balancing both strategic needs and international pressures. National security should be a top priority in this issue. Restrictive regimes are in violation of national security. Disarmament is a goal so worthy of attaining that we must strive unceasingly for it. But if the challenge is global, then an answer does not lie in the regional. India cannot tolerate a system in which some countries have more privileges than others.

The world order is in flux. Economics and politics must work in partnership for success in the global order. A major question is the role of the United States, as well as that of the United Nations, in this changing world order. Order can emerge either as an expression of the global community, or as an imposition of the will of one, or a few. It is in this context that India must define its strategic vision. Idealistic principles must be combined with concrete international political realities.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Link: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/casi/reports/nu...anel3.html

Follow the discussion!!!

I think the paper was recast as a book and another version became the book 'Defending India' which Strobe Talbott dissed recently.

[Guest]

Belief in the unity of all life forms, while acknowledging its diversity, is one of the unique Hindu values. In the Devi Mahatmyam 48-49, the Brahmin Medhas states:
"Humans are certainly endowed with cognizance. But they are not the only ones to be so endowed, mammals, birds, all animals, and all living organism have the ability of cognizance. This common to all living forms.

This is thought is compatible with modern scientific thinking.

However, I do not believe that all Indians possess common values. Most Indian Muslims who go by the Koran, Indians Christians with Biblical zeal and Indian communists brainwashed by the Red Book do not share any common values with Hindus. They are as alien to the Hindu Indians as it can get.

The only secular value all Indians share is gastronomic- that is the love for Dal (lentils).

[ramana]

A panegyric to Sonia Gandhi but has some relevance to this thread. From Pioneer, Op-Ed, 21 Oct., 2004...

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> 

Victory of the renunciant

Bulbul Roy Mishra

In my May 27 article in this column titled 'Sonia's sacrifice kills a dozen', I concluded with reasons why Ms Sonia Gandhi's sacrifice was more Machiavellian than spiritual. I also mentioned that the public image attained by her would help the Congress sweep the coming elections in Maharashtra and Bihar and later in UP and lastly West Bengal, the last frontier for the party.

If one takes into account the dismal record of the Congress-NCP in Maharashtra in the last five years, which left an empty coffer and a series of scams including Telgi haunting public memory, none could be in doubt that but for Ms Gandhi's much publicised renunciation, the anti-incumbency factor would have surely done both the ruling parties in.

It goes to the credit of Ms Gandhi that she, her foreign descent notwithstanding, has understood the psyche of Indians more incisively than the Marxists. It is the spirit of renunciation, and not the revolt of the proletariat, that still sways the mind of Indians in general in keeping with the country's spiritual tradition. Spiritual India has always shown greater respect to those who have renounced power than those who have enjoyed it. <b>Swami Vivekanand called renunciation "the theme of Indian life-work, the burden of her eternal songs, the backbone of her existence, the foundation of her being, the raison d'etre of her very existence." </b>It is in conformity with this spiritual tradition that saffron symbolising renunciation finds a place in our national flag.

Ms Gandhi's contradiction, however, lies in the fact that while her party, with her approval, has been proudly parading her renunciation, it has been consistently pejorative toward saffron, ignoring that the colour stands singularly for renunciation. The battle-cry for de-saffronisation unleashed by the Marxists as well as Ms Gandhi's men leads one logically to infer that her sacrifice of the premier's post was prompted more by Machiavellian realpolitik than her spiritual inner voice.

Be that as it may, Maharashtra election bears testimony to the fact that the people of India today believe Ms Gandhi is a renunciant, and, therefore - unlike people in any other country where such sacrifice would not have been worth a dime - they have unhesitatingly reposed their faith in the party led by her. The fact that Mr Pawar's NCP has secured two more seats would not change the above proposition, when one considers the anti-incumbency factor that affected the Congress more than its coalition partner, while both the partners derived equi-benefit from the Sonia factor.

It is significant that smaller parties with caste-based identity like the BSP have been decimated in the Maharashtra election. It is not difficult to foresee somewhat similar fate of RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav or his compatriot Ram Vilas Paswan in the coming Bihar Assembly elections once Ms Gandhi addresses rallies there. The simple commoner in India still appreciates the spirit of renunciation and rarely bothers about the intricacies of realpolitik. The tussle over seat adjustment with Mr Yadav appears to be an avoidable exercise for the Congress given the current popularity of Ms Gandhi.

Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav will certainly find it more difficult to contain the onslaught of the Gandhis in UP, traditionally beholden to the only ruling family of India. Ms Gandhi's sacrifice here is likely to produce a much bigger wave to enable the Congress sweep the election. In all likelihood, she will pull the rug only after seeing the end of the RJD in the Bihar polls.

Her "renunciation" is most likely to produce favourable waves in the southern states as well, including Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal where the Marxist are in power for nearly 30 years. Incidentally, it is the Marxists who have been aggressively campaigning for de-saffronisation of Indian history and culture, as in Marx's materialism the word "renunciation" is a misnomer and "saffron" anachronistic.

The reason why West Bengal still finds Marxism attractive is that Bengalis are yet to get over the allergy to the exploitative babu culture, a legacy of the British Raj, which continued even after Independence. Second, innately spiritual Bengalis find a similarity between the liberal Bhaktivad of Sri Chaitanya, same-sightedness of Ramakrishna, spiritual equanimity of Swami Vivekanand, humanism of Tagore and non-discriminatory patriotism of Netaji Subhas on one hand and the Marxist prescription for struggle against exploitation of the have-nots on the other.

<b>Traditional India </b>was socialist from the very outset, <b>subordinating individual interest to collective interest of society as a whole. Even in the heydays of monarchy, exploitation of people was a taboo for the royalty. </b>In this background, the alien materialistic philosophy of Marxism has precious little to offer to <b>India that possesses the treasure of spirituality, at the core of which lies renunciation - of the haves for the benefit of the have-nots. </b>It is queer that Ms Gandhi despite her foreign descent has fathomed the depth of the Indian mind which the Marxists have failed. Nevertheless, Marxist devotees of Goddess Durga and Kali in West Bengal today are more reformed than they reforming the society. Their exit from power when in conflict with Ms Gandhi-led Congress is only a question of time.

<b>"We have solved our problem ages ago," wrote Vivekanand in 'India's message to the world', "and held on to it through good or evil fortune, and means to hold on to it till the end of time. Our solution is unworldiness - renunciation." </b>It is this renunciation, the whisper of which is strong enough to make a non-performing government win election. It is this renunciation that the Congress is sure to capitalise, till its effect either wears off in public memory or gets diluted by the challenge posed by a rejuvenated BJP under its new president.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

I have put together a summary of the essential core values and goals of a sanatanic. Comments, as always ,welcome. it is a work in progress,

The ethical value system of the Hindu

This is of course the teaching and the practice as in any other part of the world falls short of the teaching depending upon the individual. But it does give a flavor of the thinking of the modern Indian. which i daresay is heavily influenced by this teaching however much he/she may not like to admit of the possibility.

[ramana]

Why India survives? Telegraph

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->WHY INDIA SURVIVES
- The true choice facing Indians 
Politics and Play Ramachandra Guha
ramguha@vsnl.com


Father and daughter 
Ever since India became independent, there have been sceptics who have predicted its imminent demise. Some have claimed that it would soon become a basket-case, marked by mass famines; others that it would break up into many competing nation-states; still others that general elections would give way to rule by unelected generals. India’s survival as a united and (largely) independent democracy is a standing rebuke to these prophets of doom. It is also a rebuff to orthodox theories of political science, which hold that countries which are poor and culturally heterogeneous cannot be democratic.

<b>Why hasn’t India, then, gone the way of sub-Saharan Africa? Or of Yugoslavia? Or of neighbouring Pakistan? Why does a united and (mostly) democratic India survive?</b>

<b>There are, I think, eight main reasons why there is still an India, eight factors or processes that serve to keep this motley crew somewhat together</b>. Of these, <b>four are the bequest of the British</b>: the game of cricket, the railways, the civil service and the English language. <b>Four others are of (so to say) “indigenous” origin. </b><b>The first of these is the Hindi film, which has provided a shared pantheon of heroes and a shared vocabulary in which to speak of them. A second are the epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, which have given us a shared moral (and sometimes immoral) universe. A third is the sense of territorial boundedness given us by the Himalaya and the oceans. A fourth, and to my mind the most significant of all, is the integrative idea of India embodied in the Constitution.</b>
As I have argued in previous columns, <b>this idea of India </b>was the work above all of four men. <b>Thus Gandhi and Tagore </b>gave us a non-destructive, open-minded nationalism, its windows open to the world. <b>Gandhi and Ambedkar</b>, working in parallel and sometimes in opposition, together fatally undermined the legitimacy of caste prejudice. <b>Gandhi and Nehru</b>, working together, insisted that neither state nor civil society should favour one religion over another.

I have seen these men as forming part of a single, complementary, even unified quartet. That, of course, is not how the partisans and party men see them — nor, admittedly, is it how it was in their own lifetimes. Tagore and Gandhi greatly respected one another; yet they had frequent and sometimes quite heated debates. Likewise Gandhi and Nehru. And Ambedkar certainly saw Gandhi (and sometimes Nehru too) as a political rival. However, from the detached perspective of the historian, it is more fruitful to see them not as rivals, but as allies in the building of a shared idea of India. There might be, indeed were, disagreements on the most suitable methods to achieve these ends, but no serious disagreement on the ends themselves: namely, representative democracy, religious harmony, gender and caste equality, and cultural ecumenism.

One of the finest tributes to the Tagore-Gandhi-Nehru-Ambedkar idea of India was offered by the scientist and polymath, J.B.S. Haldane. In 1956, Haldane moved to Calcutta to join the Indian Statistical Institute, at the same time putting in his papers for Indian nationality. A few years later, an American science writer described Haldane as a “citizen of the world”. The Englishman-turned-Indian replied: “No doubt I am in some sense a citizen of the world. But I believe with Thomas Jefferson that one of the chief duties of a citizen is to be a nuisance to the government of his state. As there is no world state, I cannot do this…On the other hand I can be, and am, a nuisance to the government of India, which has the merit of permitting a good deal of criticism, though it reacts to it rather slowly. <b>I also happen to be proud of being a citizen of India, which is a lot more diverse than Europe, let alone the USA, USSR, or China, and thus a better model for a possible world organization. It may of course break up, but it is a wonderful experiment. So I want to be labelled as a citizen of India.”</b>

Haldane once called India “the closest approximation to the Free World”. A scientist friend from New York protested, saying his impression was that “India has its fair share of scoundrels and a tremendous amount of poor unthinking and disgustingly subservient individuals who are not attractive”. To this Haldane responded: “Perhaps one is freer to be a scoundrel in India than elsewhere. So one was in the USA in the days of people like Jay Gould [i.e., the nineteen twenties], when (in my opinion) there was more internal freedom in the USA than there is today. The ‘disgusting subservience’ of the others has its limits. The people of Calcutta riot, upset trams, and refuse to obey police regulations, in a manner which would have delighted Jefferson. I don’t think their activities are very efficient, but that is not the question at issue.”

The people of Calcutta still riot and upset trams, and the government of India (as I know from experience) still responds to criticism, very slowly. And there still are fears that India might break up, these caused by the rising force of <b>threats to the idea of India </b>which has, for some sixty years, held this nation together. Of these threats I myself hold three to be most dangerous; those of Hindu chauvinism, of assorted caste chauvinisms, and of the corruption and degradation of public institutions.

The press and public opinion are quite alert to the dangers posed by these threats. Less attention, perhaps, has been paid to what lies behind them. I would like to suggest that behind the rise of religious and caste chauvinism, and of public immorality, lies an alternate quartet of ideological figures. Where the original idea of India rested on the work of Tagore, Gandhi, Nehru and Ambedkar, the degradation of the idea of India has been inspired by the work and example of, among others, M.S. Golwalkar, V.D. Savarkar, Indira Gandhi and Laloo Prasad Yadav.

It is tempting to consider these figures head-to-head, pair by contrasting pair. Thus, Tagore was a pluralist, deeply engaged with his own cultural traditions yet willing to celebrate any lamp lit anywhere in the world; Golwalkar a cultural xenophobe, fearful and suspicious of cricket, the English language, trousers, skirts and all other things “foreign”. Then again, Gandhi and Savarkar gave us alternate visions of the nation-state; the Mahatma’s based upon the idea that it must be respectful of the sentiments and beliefs of all its citizens; Savarkar’s on the notion that one religious group must aggressively direct and dictate public policy. Third, we have Nehru and Indira —the father nurturing a multi-party system, a free press, an autonomous bureaucracy and an independent judiciary; the daughter instead imposing single-party rule and favouring journalists, judges and civil servants who were subservient to her and her party. Finally, we have, in rivalry, two professed spokesmen for the underclass: one, Ambedkar, who used the law and public institutions to deepen the processes of democracy; the other, Laloo, for whom “social justice” in effect means the perversion of public institutions for the aggrandizement of one’s family and, at a pinch, one’s caste.

I must confess that to think of these figures as contrasting pairs is an idea that is not entirely original. Recall that when Savarkar’s portrait was hung in parliament, it was placed directly opposite a portrait of Mahatma Gandhi’s. Perhaps parliament should now take this further, by putting a portrait of Golwalkar opposite one of Tagore, a portrait of Indira Gandhi opposite one of Jawaharlal Nehru, a portrait of Laloo Prasad Yadav opposite one of B.R. Ambedkar. Then we shall openly have before us the real, true, ultimate choices facing India, and Indians.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Oct 19 2004, 01:57 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Oct 19 2004, 01:57 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Link: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/casi/reports/nu...anel3.html

Follow the discussion!!!
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ramana Garu,

Finally got a chance to go thru this. In context of this thread I like Raja Mohan's points the best although he talks about it in a "not this" sense..

Others,

Its a great read if you havent already read it.. Few quotes..

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The second slogan was "power and prosperity." I can’t recall a single Indian leader ever having said power and prosperity for the nation is a major national goal. Prosperity, for example: we talked about growth, we talked about development -- not as much about growth as about development. We talked about redistribution. We talked about all the classical economic things. But our leaders never brought themselves to talk about prosperity, because for the brahmanical leadership, of course, prosperity, making money, was a fairly dirty business that was left to a separate caste. And in any case they were kept out of broader, mainstream Indian decision-making because the bureaucrats would make the decisions, not the baniya who was making the money. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Even more relevant to our immediate purposes is the question of power. The discussion of power, power politics, balance of power -- I think most Indians are extremely uncomfortable with presenting the case in those terms. In any discourse -- and we’ve seen it in the discussion yesterday morning and yesterday afternoon -- Indians get angry most of the time when you try to discuss it in that kind of framework. There’s a sense of offense: how can you throw these dirty things at us? You see the Indians saying repeatedly, "We’re against power politics, we’re for the whole classical liberal internationalist thing -- the world is one, everybody should be together, brotherhood, motherhood." The dominance of these ideas is so strong.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I dont agree with the below but its interesting ..

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> The second point I’d like to make is about what I think Steve said regarding the Gujral doctrine. It’s not easy for us to stand up and say, look, we’re trying to recreate the Raj. Yet I think in a sense that’s what will be the outcome if the region becomes integrated economically. You’re not actually recreating the Raj; you’re going back to before what Partition did to the subcontinent, breaking up a single economic space into different political units and then severing relations between them. Integration is being restored, and it’s being restored not only for Indian interests, but for the interests of everyone. That’s a very important thing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

Raja Mohan:
Here we had a considerable discussion of India and China. I think it’s very interesting to compare the two countries in terms of their strategic thought and strategic culture. When the Chinese nationalist movement began, out of which grew both the Guomindang and the Chinese Communist party, it had basically two slogans. One was "science and democracy," meeting Mr. Science and Mr. Democracy. It animated the Chinese people at the turn of the century. It was very similar to what India did -- the fascination for Western enlightenment, the whole question of bringing democratic principles to run the society -- of course the Chinese never got there, whereas we did get there. <b>The second slogan of this national movement is where the difference lies between China and India. The second slogan was "power and prosperity." I can’t recall a single Indian leader ever having said power and prosperity for the nation is a major national goal. Prosperity, for example: we talked about growth, we talked about development -- not as much about growth as about development. We talked about redistribution. We talked about all the classical economic things. But our leaders never brought themselves to talk about prosperity, because for the brahmanical leadership, of course, prosperity, making money, was a fairly dirty business that was left to a separate caste. And in any case they were kept out of broader, mainstream Indian decision-making because the bureaucrats would make the decisions, not the baniya who was making the money. So Deng Xiaoping could say -- and get away with it -- that "to get rich is glorious." It sounded crazy, but, in fact, it is not very different from the original slogan; that is: prosperity is a major goal for the nation. But in India, even when we’re doing the reforms, we still present it as socialism, we still present it as something we’re just making practical because the political class even today cannot say -- Narasimha Rao could never stand up and say -- "Look, the country must get rich." This is one major, interesting contrast with the Chinese.</b>

[acharya]

Bob had a question on the military front: do we have a military strategy? If not, should we develop it, should we articulate it? We do talk a lot about what strategy we have and the way we have developed it, but people don’t pay any attention, and then they accuse us of being ambiguous. <b>As far as military strategy is concerned, the Indian armed forces are structured for a defensive role to ensure the territorial integrity.</b>

Now Mr. Narasimha Rao, in the portion which S.K. read, did no justice to himself. <span style='color:purple'>What he was trying to say was this: at this stage of our national development and in the role that we see for ourselves in the world, we are in a defensive mode. That we have been in a defensive mode for the last thousand years and that this has not been successful at times is a separate issue that one can debate. But if you are in a defensive mode, the resources that you put into military organization are infinitesimally less than if you are interested in power projection.</span>

I have talked to Mr. Narasimha Rao many times on this subject, and he said, "<span style='color:blue'>Admiral, there must be power to project, you must have social power, you must have economic power, you must have military power." So long as we don’t have that, talk of power projection is baloney.</span> So the military strategy has been quite clear to the military leaders, and I have been part of that organization for 39 years. I was never in any doubt as to what was expected of me.