Can India take the challenge?

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

It is really the culmination of the achievements of a country to rise to the status of a superpower. We have seen two countries that emerged as superpowers. U.S.A and U.S.S.R both through their extraordinary accomplishments in many areas gained that status. There was bitter rivalry between the two for one to prevail over the other. Finally we saw the U.S.S.R collapse and ever since U.S.A has been the sole superpower of the world.

One would think it is a lot more difficult to maintain a high status than to acquire one. U.S.S.R did not last long and U.S.A has not been there for long either and has recently been struggling to exude the confidence of a superpower that it did in the past.

Coming to our own country, can India become the leader of the world? What does it take for India to become one given the status quo? I think it is very much possible if India shows the will. There is enough rare talent in the country to achieve leadership in a number of areas.

In fact the type of rare talent we have in India is totally different from the rest of the world. We produced a person who showed that to win a battle violence is not necessary when the whole world could not think of in any other way, we amply showed that there is substance beneath the external world and a real purpose to life, we showed that society should utilize people in a way that they complement one another and not fight with one another and so on.

So from the ancient period to the recent period we have produced the sort of people who could change the face of the world. But India after independence has been handicapped by a number of flawed approaches. We threw out our uniqueness and began to follow what the rest of the world did. No wonder India has never been seriously considered a superpower stuff.

If we want to make a serious bid to be a leader of the world we need to wear the Indian hat. There is a great potential for success and a great potential for lasting success too. This is because we have always taken a long term approach and our minds have always pored on the substantive aspects.

The world is at crossroads now and if India does the right things, we can show the world the right direction.

 

[C RAVI]

May be it's hardly a decade that is left for India to be identified and recognized as Superpower.

Among the BRIC countries, India would emerge on Top and would wear the crown.

And one fine day, India would be declared as a Superpower Nation of the World.



I strongly hope so...


MERA BHARATH MAHAAN

 

[amala]

I sincerely doubt it will. First off before taking anything else into consideration (economy etc) you need a very strong sense of unity. Not just sense. You need unity, which I feel India lacks big time. Few posts down some people are being burnt for their caste etc. The Unites States has that, even China. But of course I am more than happy to be wrong in this instance. Only time will tell...

 

[manoharkumar]

Every Indian if he thinks of the country first then his religion and caste..... the big IF!!

Do we have a single charismatic leader who raises above his party and says yes we will lead the country to glory?

Will he take responsibility and say yes i will rate country as first priority & then everything else?

IF such a leader comes yes India will be Super Power under his selfless rule!!

As Ms.Amalaji put it " Only time will tell".. Yes Only time can tell....

 

[prasad1]

India will be a top economic power. I do not think India needs to be a superpower. Actually no country should have that burden thrust on it. To aspire to be a superpower would require unnecessary sacrifice from the people of India. India should be like Germany, but being surrounded by hostile countries they have to spend a large part on defense.
The only Superpower should be United Nation, or some other similar organization.

India is a great country, and I hope Indians recognize it. A little bit of civic sense, less corruption, bit of unity, and luck, India will be a great country in a decade. That is my firm belief.

 

[Raghy]

Sri. Sravna, Greetings.

We produced a person who showed that to win a battle violence is not necessary when the whole world could not think of in any other way,

I beg to differ with you, sir. Indians did not produce a rare person in M.K.Gandhi. British produced a person out of Gandhi. They could have bumped him off so many times, but they did not. They actually allowed him a platform; even offered him audience in the British Parliment and with the Queen. Kindly give credit where it lies. to think seriously, if Gandhi was not deported from South Africa, he was not even going to be in India. He was going to fight for equal rights for Indians in South Africa and ge was going to settle only in South Africa. He just happened along to India due to deportation. Just imagine such a 'satya graha' non-violent fight against Mughals. Do you still think Gandhi would have won through non-violence? Although I hate 'Union Jack' as of today, I still would give credit to British in allowing the non-violence struggle in India. They could have crushed it if they wanted to.

Cheers!

 

[prasad1]

I think the original op should be respected, but I had to post this tangencial point.
Circumstances are thrust on the individual, and how they rise to the occasion makes them succeed or fail.
If the british had not colonized America, George Washington would have been another settler. If the confederate had not broken away from the union Abraham Lincoln would have been just a president.
Similarly if Mandela had not been imprisoned, he would have been another political leader.
If MK Gandhi had not won independence for India, may be we would still be a British colony, or some other leader would have saved India.
So to belittle a great person because he happened to be at the right place and right time is not understanding the greatness.

A fire fighter can be great in saving people from burning building only if there is a fire.
A doctor can be great only if there is a sickness.
I am sorry for digressing from the main topic. THIS will be my last posting of this kind in this thread.:focus:
Let us not hijack the thread.

 

[amala]

I totally agree with Raghy mamas post. It struck a chord in me. People who always diss the British, really should be sooo thankful they have never been under the Japanese Occupation say or Mughals. I agree, I doubt MK Gandhi would have lasted even a day under them. The British, like all colonisers are bad, yes I get it, but they were the best of the lot. Had at least some sense of fair play, justice, rule of law, discipline etc. People seriously need to read history a bit more. Many Indians in SE Asia those days including my grandparents have experienced first hand the Japanese Occupation. Subash Chandra Bose actually wanted the Japanese to come to India! Yikes.

 

[sravna]

Sri. Sravna, Greetings.



I beg to differ with you, sir. Indians did not produce a rare person in M.K.Gandhi. British produced a person out of Gandhi. They could have bumped him off so many times, but they did not. They actually allowed him a platform; even offered him audience in the British Parliment and with the Queen. Kindly give credit where it lies. to think seriously, if Gandhi was not deported from South Africa, he was not even going to be in India. He was going to fight for equal rights for Indians in South Africa and ge was going to settle only in South Africa. He just happened along to India due to deportation. Just imagine such a 'satya graha' non-violent fight against Mughals. Do you still think Gandhi would have won through non-violence? Although I hate 'Union Jack' as of today, I still would give credit to British in allowing the non-violence struggle in India. They could have crushed it if they wanted to.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

The beauty of the non violence struggle is that it is fought more mentally. Sure the british could have crushed Gandhi and his non violence movement if they had wanted to but in that it is not Gandhi who would have been belittled but the aggressor who responds with force for something which he needs to apply his mind. If the British did not crush Gandhi it was because they understood this predicament.

 

[vgane]

Sri. Sravna, Greetings.



I beg to differ with you, sir. Indians did not produce a rare person in M.K.Gandhi. British produced a person out of Gandhi. They could have bumped him off so many times, but they did not. They actually allowed him a platform; even offered him audience in the British Parliment and with the Queen. Kindly give credit where it lies. to think seriously, if Gandhi was not deported from South Africa, he was not even going to be in India. He was going to fight for equal rights for Indians in South Africa and ge was going to settle only in South Africa. He just happened along to India due to deportation. Just imagine such a 'satya graha' non-violent fight against Mughals. Do you still think Gandhi would have won through non-violence? Although I hate 'Union Jack' as of today, I still would give credit to British in allowing the non-violence struggle in India. They could have crushed it if they wanted to.

Cheers!

I don't think so...The Indian rebellion started with the First War of Independence in 1857 or the sepoy mutiny in Northern & Central India...There were radical movements under Tilak who was for direct action to overthrow the British...He was supported in Bengal, Punjab & Maharashtra...

The arrival of Gandhiji in 1915 from South Africa was like a whiff of fresh air...He focussed on non violent civil disobedience movement....The Britishers preferred this Satyagraha approach as it led to less loss of their soldiers...Otherwise the likes of Mangal Pandey (who was responsible for the sepoy mutiny), underground revolutionaries and Azad Hind movement (INA) of Netaji would have led to more loss of lives and more damage to the British...So it is not that Gandhiji was at the mercy of the British; rather the British were caught between the non violent movement and the revolutionaries...For obvious reasons they preferred the non violent movement.

 

[sangom]

This thread is of importance to all Indians. I tend to agree with Kum. amala. Some time back, I happened to give my astrological predictions based on the Indian independence horoscope which said, in a nutshell, that India is most likely to go the USSR way. Some member expressed his dislike for such pessimistic prophecies and then I removed those views of mine.

I personally believe in those astrological predictions. We as a people have miserably failed to bring in a sense of national unity and a feeling of Indianness in our people. Many reasons may now be listed because we have the wisdom of hindsight but the sad fact is that none of our leaders including those who were there at the time of Independence lacked the wisdom to think of the country long-term, though they probably had the stature, charisma and the following. (Otherwise how do we justify Nehru's succumbing to the demand for linguistic division of the country once Potti Sreeramulu died fasting and mass violence broke out in the then Madras Presidency.)

I think even those stalwarts like Nehru and Rajaji took for granted that there is an underlying sense of Indianness in our people. The fault was, imho, that those leaders had no idea of the millennias-old history of this sub-continent and the truth that despite any number of aggressions, conquests and battles, India continued to live in its myriad "villages" (and not in towns or the British-made cities) where the rules of caste, creed, religion and language mattered very very much. The Mughals, the Portuguese, the Dutch or the British were perhaps intelligent enough not to mess with this village-level system and its autonomy. But the freedom fighters sadly came under the grandiose notion that the whole country, or at least the major portion of this sub-continent had fully imbibed their own notions of patriotism and anti-imperialism. where they erred gravely was that the anti-imperialism part of this notion was right whereas the "Indianness" part was completely off the mark.

Dr. B.R.Ambedkar's words may be recalled here:—

"I insist that if I hate Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah—I dislike them, I do not hate them—it is because I love India more. That is the true faith of a nationalist. I have hopes that my countrymen will some day learn that the country is greater than the men, that the worship of Mr. Gandhi or Mr. Jinnah and service to India are two very different things and may even be contradictory of each other."

(Lest some very ardent nationalists find fault, here is the source for this quote: RANADE, GANDHI & JINNAH : ADDRESS DELIVERED ON THE 101ST BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION OF MAHADEV GOVIND RANADE
HELD ON THE 18TH JANUARY 1943 IN THE GOKHALE MEMORIAL HALL, POONA By The Hon'ble Dr. B. R. AMBEDKAR
(Ranade, Gandhi, and Jinnah, by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar))

I am forced to give below a bit more from that address and would urge all to go through the whole address:

Entrenched behind the plaudits of the Press, the spirit of domination exhibited by these two Great Men has transgressed all limits. By their domination they have demoralised their followers and demoralized politics. By their domination they have made half their followers fools and the other half hypocrites. In establishing their supremacy they have taken the aid of "big business" and money magnates. For the first time in our country, money is taking the field as an organised power. The questions which President Roosevelt propounded for [the] American Public to consider will arise here, if they have not already arisen: Who shall rule—wealth, or man? Which shall lead, money or intellect? Who shall fill public stations, educated and patriotic free men, or the feudal serfs of corporate Capital? For the present, Indian politics, at any rate the Hindu part of it, instead of being spiritualised has become grossly commercialised, so much so that it has become a byword for corruption. Many men of culture are refusing to concern themselves in this cesspool. Politics has become a kind of sewage system, intolerably unsavoury and unsanitary. To become a politician is like going to work in the drain.
Politics in the hands of these two Great Men have become a competition in extravaganza. If Mr. Gandhi is known as Mahatma, Mr. Jinnah must be known as Qaid-i-Azim. If Gandhi has the Congress, Mr. Jinnah must have the Muslim League. If the Congress has a Working Committee and the All-India Congress Committee, the Muslim League must have its Working Committee and its Council. The session of the Congress must be followed by a session of the League. If the Congress issues a statement, the League must also follow suit. If the Congress passes a Resolution of 17,000 words, the Muslim League's Resolution must exceed it by at least a thousand words. If the Congress President has a Press Conference, the Muslim League President must have his. If the Congress must address an: appeal to the United Nations, the Muslim League must not allow itself to be outbidden.
When is all this to end? When is there to be a settlement? There are no near prospects. They will not meet, except on preposterous conditions. Jinnah insists that Gandhi should admit that he is a Hindu. Gandhi insists that Jinnah should admit that he is one of the leaders of the Muslims. Never has there been such a deplorable state of bankruptcy of statesmanship as one sees in these two leaders of India. They are making long and interminable speeches, like lawyers whose trade it is to contest everything, concede nothing, and talk by the hour. Suggest anything by way of solution for the deadlock to either of them, and it is met by an everlasting "Nay." Neither will consider a solution of the problems which is not eternal. Between them Indian politics has become "frozen," to use a well-known Banking phrase, and no political action is possible.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom, Shri Manoharkumar and Amala,

The unity is indeed very much lacking among Indians. This is all the more reason we need to fall back on a value system that teaches you to regard others without any bias or prejudice. We need to emphasize the universally applicable and eternal aspects of a religion , be it Hinduism or Islam or Christianity. These aspects should be consolidated and constitute the Indian philosophy or Indianness. Of course people will be practicing their own religion in a number of aspects but the common and higher aspects should be the core of what one practices.

So the best way to avoid conflicts among diverse interests is to not let each one of them have totally their own way but systematically see commonality and let them define the spirit of all the groups. After all, human nature doesn't differ dramatically and all the customs and practices have as their base, common human instincts and goals. If we can focus our efforts to highlight them and enlighten people on them, I think many seeming conflicts may not blow up so badly as it does now. Unfortunately, our politicians are doing exactly the opposite of this.

Secondly we need to learn to complement our capabilities and skills. Not everyone is gifted in the same way but each skill can contribute to the upliftment of a society. We need to realize this truth and try to bring out the synergy.

With some thought and some selflessness, we can definitely elevate the place of India among the nations of the world especially given the background in spiritual thinking and practice.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Shri Raghy,

The beauty of the non violence struggle is that it is fought more mentally. Sure the british could have crushed Gandhi and his non violence movement if they had wanted to but in that it is not Gandhi who would have been belittled but the aggressor who responds with force for something which he needs to apply his mind. If the British did not crush Gandhi it was because they understood this predicament.

Dear Sri. Sravna,

In a war it is not important to follow the same principles like the opponent. British would have written the history later on to suit them. That's why I gave the Mughal example to show the difference between chalk and cheese. Even for non-violence to succeed, the opponent has to have certain degree of decency. I rest my case with this.

No doubt, I respect your OP. India has a long way to go in the unity area. Indians are not decent enough to share natural resources like rivers amoung themselves for the benefit of all Indians. Language based differences are pathetic. After migrating out of India, I attended just one Independence day function in this country... the events were language based segments and dripping with egoistic frictions. I never attended one more Independence day function after that in the past 20 years.

I sincerely wish all these things go away. Kindly mark my words.. these differences will not go away in any non-violence method. Often times much improvements through unity takes place after voilent revolutions. Keralas improvement was through revelution.. not exactly peaceful means either. I request Sri. Sangom to comment on that, please.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Raghy,

Yes I agree that the British were decent enough to not indiscriminately use force.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri. Sravna,

In a war it is not important to follow the same principles like the opponent. British would have written the history later on to suit them. That's why I gave the Mughal example to show the difference between chalk and cheese. Even for non-violence to succeed, the opponent has to have certain degree of decency. I rest my case with this.

No doubt, I respect your OP. India has a long way to go in the unity area. Indians are not decent enough to share natural resources like rivers amoung themselves for the benefit of all Indians. Language based differences are pathetic. After migrating out of India, I attended just one Independence day function in this country... the events were language based segments and dripping with egoistic frictions. I never attended one more Independence day function after that in the past 20 years.

I sincerely wish all these things go away. Kindly mark my words.. these differences will not go away in any non-violence method. Often times much improvements through unity takes place after voilent revolutions. Keralas improvement was through revelution.. not exactly peaceful means either. I request Sri. Sangom to comment on that, please.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

While I agree that Kerala has had more improvement than many other states and the communist movement did contribute significantly towards this, may I say that unity is still far away and the Kerala population is as divided as any other part of India - on religion, caste, income etc., etc. The only major difference is that caste is not as powerful an inhibiting/dividing factor as in, say, Haryana or Dharmapuri.

IMHO, we do not have a sense of Indianness because, in truth, there never was "one India" or one "Bharat" before the British conquest of the sub-continent. The successive governments of free India never bothered about this vital deficiency because all of them were impatiently waiting for satisfying their egos with power/money/popularity etc. Worse, the Governments have muddied the situation by the linguistic re-organization of the states (which has engendered the growth of linguistic or regional loyalties, imposition of Hindi as the official language which made a very deep and almost indelible North-South divide, and the reservations which give a never-ending fuel for caste-based divisions and resultant intolerance, and all political parties playing the caste-card very deftly.

The present Govt. lacks statesmen (of course, it has been so for most of the 65 years of Independence, after the demise of Nehru). The Government is interested in making those who govern, rich, in collusion with big business under the label of "Liberalization". In such circumstances, the euphoric OP and the further sentiments expressed by Shri Sravna appear to me as only pious wishes which are bound to remain so. All this talk about 'superpower' or 'great power/great country' as also the slogan 'Mera Bharat Mahan' are probably based on the ephemeral good times we had thanks to the e-coolie era in its zenith. It may also happen that our vast and still counting e-coolies bring in another short-lived 'boom' period, but I am sure that India just does not have the 'it' to become a great power just as the snail does not have the 'it' to travel fast like the horse, imho.

I will be happy if my prognosis is proved wrong during my life time.

 

[Raghy]

Sri. Sangom Sir, Greetings.

......I am sure that India just does not have the 'it' to become a great power just as the snail does not have the 'it' to travel fast like the horse, imho.

I strongly believe, India or Indians do have the 'it' to become a great power. Unfortunately the power is not focused. Indian power is working like light passing through a prism instead of a lens. It gets just dispersed in a beautiful spectrum of colours. But it is required to focus to a single point to burn through. The gap between haves and have not is becoming huge. This can not go on like this. For example, when I was in India in February, I could get a good quality food for Rs.60. It was unlimited, packed with so much vegetables from a decent hotel..... and I could buy a plate of decent B/Fast for Rs.25 from a 'கை ஏந்தி பவன்' ( take away shop) ... and we once treated ourselves with a buffet lunch which costed about Rs. 600 each. I was told about the availability of much more expensive lunch buffets .. This kind of vast differences can not go on.

The corruption... one day this corruption would come to a grinding halt. That event may involve violence. India is ripe for a revolution. I don't think communist party would do it though; they are corrupted too. Suddenly everything will become equal. One person from Tamil Nadu may buy property in Kashmir. There will be no special previleges to anyone. Everyone will become equal. But only after that revelution; not before.

Indians are not snails. Everyone of them has the stamina to race just like any other national. I am an example. Born in a village, very simpe minded, possibly low IQ ... I haven't done bad at all in my life... snail? don't think so. When, even I could do so much, I bet all the others can do much better than what I could do.

I will always back an Indian. Every Indian male/female has the 'it' to make any country a super power.... if they put their mind in it. So far they have not put their mind in it. When they unite, they will do it.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

The reason I say that India can become a great power, because as Shri. Raghy says India has the "it" to become one. The world is still in a state of flux because of the events of the last two centuries and any country can attain and establish leadership if it employs the right philosophy and strategies.

IMO India's own philosophy is perfect and it has only to start believing in it and find ways to put it into practice. In my view practical problems are a lot less challenging when your vision is right.

 

[sangom]

Sri. Sangom Sir, Greetings.

... India is ripe for a revolution. I don't think communist party would do it though; they are corrupted too. Suddenly everything will become equal. One person from Tamil Nadu may buy property in Kashmir. There will be no special previleges to anyone. Everyone will become equal. But only after that revelution; not before.

Dear Shri Raghy,

I also agree that India is quite ripe for a revolution and it can happen if a charismatic revolutionary like Mao Zedong in China come on the scene here. But, I believe the politicians who now have more vested interests in their positions than what the native rulers in the past had on their positions, will be able to quell any riot by suitably playing the caste, region, linguistic cards and stoking the flames of distrust which the myriad groups in India have in abundance about all the rest.

Indians are not snails. Everyone of them has the stamina to race just like any other national. I am an example. Born in a village, very simpe minded, possibly low IQ ... I haven't done bad at all in my life... snail? don't think so. When, even I could do so much, I bet all the others can do much better than what I could do.

I think here the rule which applies more is,"one swallow does not a summer make", and the Tamil proverb "oru pāṉaic coṟṟukku oru coṟu patam"(ஓரு பானைச் சோற்றுக்கு ஓரு சோறு பதம்) is not applicable. I agree, however, that Indians will form the best workforce under alien rulers and governments where they have to follow rules and have to obey discipline. Sometimes I think it may be a good idea for Moun Mohan Singh (a la Narendra Modi's idea) to enter into an agreement with US or UK or Australia, ceding this country to them for, say, 99 years, like what happened in Hong Kong. Such a step may immensely benefit us.

I will always back an Indian. Every Indian male/female has the 'it' to make any country a super power.... if they put their mind in it. So far they have not put their mind in it. When they unite, they will do it.

Cheers!

The catch is when will they unite and put whatever "IT" they have to the task of nation-building; they did not do it for the last more than 2300 years, since Ashoka conquered almost the whole of India. Pl. note again, that was not because of Indians putting their "ITs" on to making one country but one Ashoka having been able to subjugate most of the disparate native rulers; still most of these continued as tributaries and the flip side of the various Ashoka Pillars and rock edicts is, imo, evidence of his attempts to educate such a disparate and indisciplined throng of disparate populaces.

 

[sangom]

The reason I say that India can become a great power, because as Shri. Raghy says India has the "it" to become one. The world is still in a state of flux because of the events of the last two centuries and any country can attain and establish leadership if it employs the right philosophy and strategies.

IMO India's own philosophy is perfect and it has only to start believing in it and find ways to put it into practice. In my view practical problems are a lot less challenging when your vision is right.

Dear Shri Sravna,

First I would like to be sure about what you mean by "India's own philosophy". Are you referring to the traditional Darsanas, or the Panch Sheel & non-aligned policies of the Nehru era, or the secularism which was brought in in the year 1976 by an amendment to the pre-amble to our constitution?
I feel all except the last one, viz., secularism have proved themselves failures or at least as unworkable.

Nations or countries do not become great countries or super powers just because they have some so-called great or perfect philosophy because these ஏட்டுச்சுரைக்காய்s (gourds on paper) will not be useful for making a delicious curry, as the saying goes. Even Chanakya did not recommend any particular philosophy; but he emphasized the need for an army with adequate numerical strength and its war-readiness at all times.

What is required is not philosophy, imho, but patriotism, absolute honesty and dedication on the part of those who govern and equitable laws which are really used as deterrents against any violation thereof. A superior military is a sine qua non for any great country.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sravna,

First I would like to be sure about what you mean by "India's own philosophy". Are you referring to the traditional Darsanas, or the Panch Sheel & non-aligned policies of the Nehru era, or the secularism which was brought in in the year 1976 by an amendment to the pre-amble to our constitution?
I feel all except the last one, viz., secularism have proved themselves failures or at least as unworkable.

Nations or countries do not become great countries or super powers just because they have some so-called great or perfect philosophy because these ஏட்டுச்சுரைக்காய்s (gourds on paper) will not be useful for making a delicious curry, as the saying goes. Even Chanakya did not recommend any particular philosophy; but he emphasized the need for an army with adequate numerical strength and its war-readiness at all times.

What is required is not philosophy, imho, but patriotism, absolute honesty and dedication on the part of those who govern and equitable laws which are really used as deterrents against any violation thereof. A superior military is a sine qua non for any great country.

Dear Shri Sangom,

In my view there should be a guiding philosophy for a country for all its actions. That will make its actions consistent and free of contradictions. For example America's philosophy is materialism and they stick to it in all their actions. But India I am afraid tries to mix everything and lacks consistency in its actions.

I strongly advocate that we adopt our own native thinking as a basis of our actions. There may be a number of philosophies at work but those should be within the framework of the overall philosophy.

Patriotism, honesty, dedication etc are definitely needed but for that you need to perform some fundamental work which provides a strong foundation to support such qualities. The problem has taken deep roots quickly and only strong measures can provide a solution.

I disagree with your opinion that a superior military is a sine qua non for a great country. I disagree in the sense that the objective of the military is used as an offensive or for bullying but not just as a deterrent. In the former case it actually brings down the greatness.

 

[manoharkumar]

Dear Mr.Sravna,

I agree with Shri.Sangom sir 's thoughts. We do need lot of self discipline, and love for the country. My father used to say that every Indian should have compulsory military training...though he was MES-Civil he used to say that one can get discipline only thru that.
We understand everything loud & Clear only when anything is thrust down out throat. Hope you will remember the days of Emergency declared by srimathi.IG. It was widely reported that all the govt offices were working to the time, all rules in every aspect of the life was followed in toto. Why?
Because of fear for the Law was there. People who are spitting in the road or any place will not do that in Singapore, or the one who cares little for the local laws here in India, will go with every law when he is in Foreign country. Fear of arrest, or deportation makes him "potti pambhu" there. Superior Military power is needed here.
IMO once discipline is brought around people will certainly rise above petty partisan views and will help in nation building & not self/caste/religion growth.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri. Sangom, Greetings.

....But, I believe the politicians who now have more vested interests in their positions than what the native rulers in the past had on their positions, will be able to quell any riot by suitably playing the caste, region, linguistic cards and stoking the flames of distrust which the myriad groups in India have in abundance about all the rest.

It is true, politicians will squash any uprising from Indian population. While I was in India, I always thought Indians were living like slaves. In fact I thought it was much worst than that of British India. In the British India at least women were safe in their respective villages; women are not safe under the political goondas. The biggest worry is the possibility of an uprising under the name of a religion. That would be a disaster. That may not even assure an unified India. But if a revelution occurs against corruption, then things can turn around.

India would prosper under a dictator. Hopefully a dictator who strives for the development of the country. Indians can follow rules... Hindus can cease talking about Hinduism in Saudi Arabia... they can refrain from spitting in Singapore.... they can learn to talk politely in an overnight when in Australia... strictly follow time schedules in any western country... not follow any corrupted practice in any country other than India... Needs an iron fist to rule. Personally, I liked the Naxal idea ( of Ajitha period)... one never knows, that may be the answer for India. Let us hope for the best.

Cheers!

 

[HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA]

I dream of a country where the 4 pursuits of human aspirations could be achieved without much sacrifice of other.

just artha and kama is no good leh , pretty boring.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri. Sangom, Greetings.

...The biggest worry is the possibility of an uprising under the name of a religion. That would be a disaster. That may not even assure an unified India. But if a revelution occurs against corruption, then things can turn around.

Dear Shri Raghy,

The two major religions in India today, as you well know, are hinduism and Islam. The known Hindu Party viz., BJP does not have much support from the Sudra categories (it is known as the Brahmin-Baniya Party) and so I feel that even if it initiates any revolution that will be foiled at its start only, due to lack of support. The Muslims, on the contrary, may well resort to some violent methods to capture a higher share of power because—
1. The religion itself sanctions such violent methods to spread its tenets among Kafirs.
2. There is already a well-knit terrorist segment of the Muslim population in India and covert rapport of the politicians with this class cammot be ruled out entirely, imo.
3. Astrologically this is probable.

The third possibility for armed revolution is from the Naxalites. It is believed by many that the Naxals are getting Chinese funding and other help. The Naxal belt today is dotted like a slash (/) from the North East corner of Bihar right down to Wynad in Kerala. But the pity is that the movement is fuelled mainly by extreme hatred for the extant administrations and it lacks any nation-building motto, nor are there any leaders with such vision.

I therefore feel that the chances of a revolution as such is very negligible.

India would prosper under a dictator. Hopefully a dictator who strives for the development of the country. Indians can follow rules... Hindus can cease talking about Hinduism in Saudi Arabia... they can refrain from spitting in Singapore.... they can learn to talk politely in an overnight when in Australia... strictly follow time schedules in any western country... not follow any corrupted practice in any country other than India... Needs an iron fist to rule. Personally, I liked the Naxal idea ( of Ajitha period)... one never knows, that may be the answer for India. Let us hope for the best.

Cheers!

I will only add one adjective to the word "dictator"; it has to be a "benevolent dictatorship" but my grief is that there is no possibility of one such person today in India. Alas!!

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

... I disagree with your opinion that a superior military is a sine qua non for a great country. I disagree in the sense that the objective of the military is used as an offensive or for bullying but not just as a deterrent. In the former case it actually brings down the greatness.

Dear Shri Sravna,

I beg to completely disagree with you. Without a superior or at least completely well-equipped and well-trained army at all times, no country can aspire to make any improvement in the world stage. Even the palm-sized Singapore with its total population of 5million+ has an Armed Force consisting of more than 1.2 million and 6% of its GDP goes for defence.

Just like our physical body, unless there is a very strong military - just as our immunity - any country will be subject to attack of one sort or the other from all sides and the country will get infected with an AIDS-like syndrome and perish, unsung. Chanakya advised the same and the world does not seem to have changed, at least in this respect, ever since. Our ex-president Shri Abdul Kalaam also advocated similar ideas. But we cannot afford to have a defence infected by corruption, as we have today.